Range penalties fix

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

The weapon in question actually has a x1.5 scope, I believe, even if the GURPS stats don't mention it. And a x1.5 scope is a +1; x2 is +2.

And that's exactly how Telescopic Vision works.

The standard M-16A3 is issued with iron sights (no scope) but recruits are expected to drop 22 out of 40 pop-up targets (unless the standard has been increased since my day) from 75 meters out to 300 meters out. You have a max of 2 seconds to aim before they pop back down.

By GURPS standards, then all US Army recuits have impressive gun skills then (NOT!)

-Polaris

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by Jim Bob

As to doubling bonuses in non-combat situations, that works, too. But I find it a bit over-generous.

To correct from 3E's stats -- which were in the ballpark for range performance -- to give reasonable combat performance, the Acc numbers were halved and the +1 to +2 most charcters got to Guns from IQ were nerfed.

Straight doubling all the aiming modifiers for range conditions gets you pretty much back to GURPS 3E numbers for range performance. A little better with the best weapons, a little worse with pistols.

[Ack]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Nowhere is a x1.5 power scope mentioned, and given the way Telescopic Vision works, IMO you'd need at least x2 power to get a +1. It's worse than you thought.

The carrying handle in a Steyr rifle includes a 1.5 power scope, adjustable to the individual user (so would that itself be another +1?)

Personally, I think scopes should be used to divide the effective range by the power of the scope. The way range increments go up, and the way scopes bring it down again, there's an imbalance.

Let's say you're shooting at a target 100 yards away. That's -10 due to range. You have a 10x scope on the rifle. By the rules, that drops to 8x, and thus reduces the penalty to -7, so you're effectively working at a range of 30 yards. If you instead divide the effective range by the power of the scope, you're shooting at something you're looking at like it's 10 yards away, which is -4 to range penalty. Sounds fairer to me (and means you don't have to fiddle to get to the next 2x benchmark with your scope to achieve a higher result).

Originally Posted by Rupert

However, you missed out All-out Attack (determined), for +1, so it balances out.

Nice one ... yes.

Cheers,
Ack

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by Polaris

The standard M-16A3 is issued with iron sights (no scope)

The weapon in the original post was the Steyr used by the Australian Army.

but recruits are expected to drop 22 out of 40 pop-up targets (unless the standard has been increased since my day) from 75 meters out to 300 meters out. You have a max of 2 seconds to aim before they pop back down.

By GURPS standards, then all US Army recuits have impressive gun skills then (NOT!)

Or, again, GURPS stats rather explicitly don't represent range performance, which was a deliberate change in focus from 3E.

[Polaris]

cmdicely,

I know that the original example involved a Steyr rifle, but I honestly thought the point was that the range modifiers are whacked. I thought I would bring in my own (US) experience with a rifle not issued with a scope and training that didn't use siluettes (rather human sized pop-ups instead).

It just reinforces the basic point. Ranged weapons (especially rifles) got nerfed BADLY.

-Polaris

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Rogue, I am a veteran myself and I have seen trainees. DX 10 for your typical recruit is about right. Military Physical Fitness standards merely insure that no one with a below average physical condition (I would say anything less than 9 in game terms) will make it through basic.

I have fired the M-16A2 (the US Standard Rifle at the time) and it is dead easy to hit anything under 200 meters with properly adjusted sights on pop-up targets (which is what the US Army does). In fact you have maybe two seconds to aim between targets and you qualify over iron sights (no scopes).

The range/speed table for GURPS is whacked at least for modern rifles.

-Polaris

Well, unlike some of the aliens here (Australia, didn't Plato write about that sinking into the ocean a long time ago?) I have spent numerous years as a range instructor for the US Army and many scared days in actual combat. I think the GURPS rules model reality fairly well. If you want to compare range live-fire to accuracy in combat you need to add the following mods for training ranges:

a. No one is trying to kill me +5.

b. I haven't been awake 47 hours straight +2.

c. I haven't pooped my drawers +1.

d. I'm actually aiming at the target rather than staying under cover and just poking the gun out to take random shots in the vague general direction of the enemy +5.

[Polaris]

Taliesin,

IIRC in 3E, GURPS High-Tech had modifers for the things you were talking about (Buck Fever is the one I remember off hand).

-Polaris

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by Ack

Personally, I think scopes should be used to divide the effective range by the power of the scope. The way range increments go up, and the way scopes bring it down again, there's an imbalance.

Scopes negate half the range penalty you suggest. Which make sense; while they compensate for the problem on the "looking" side, they don't compensate for the inherent uncertainty in shot placement produced by the firing action and the weapons inaccuracy, which is still fully affected by range. So it makes sense that it negates only half of the penalty associated with the range it corrects the visual penalty for.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

The weapon in the original post was the Steyr used by the Australian Army.

Austrian,Australia, Austria, New Zealand, Oman, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Ireland and some others. It also was widely purchased by various security and law enforcement agencies worldwide, including the US Coastal Guard.
[http://world.guns.ru/assault/as20-e.htm]

as to the Dx blunder I was shore on that anyway 8)


BUT my point Dx is consided the Minum reqirments and when the you r small number avial, and higher are avial your Arvage do got up.
Proble only to 11 any way. But is see the army drawin more the obver agre ST then dex anyway 8)

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by Polaris

cmdicely,

I know that the original example involved a Steyr rifle, but I honestly thought the point was that the range modifiers are whacked. I thought I would bring in my own (US) experience with a rifle not issued with a scope and training that didn't use siluettes (rather human sized pop-ups instead).

It just reinforces the basic point. Ranged weapons (especially rifles) got nerfed BADLY.

Ranged weapons got deliberately nerfed to more accurately represent combat rather than range performance. Really, the effect is pretty much the same as the various 3E optional rules that corrected the overgenerous range penalty, but with less complexity. Of course, whats missing is explicit compensating modifiers to represent unstressed performance -- for which I'd just, as noted above, double the various aim-related modifiers.