11-23-2016, 05:39 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dobbstown Sane Asylum
|
[Ultra-Tech] Optional rule for EM guns, feedback wanted
David Pulver has been considering an optional rule for electromagnetic (EM) guns (GURPS Ultra-Tech, pp. 141-143). Ideally, this will make them more competitive with ETC slugthrowers. It's a significant change, though, so we'd like to see some people try it out and provide feedback.
1. Increase the basic damage of all EM guns by 25%, rounding up to the nearest whole die (or multiplier, for "6dxN" damage). Leave any "adds" as-is. For example, the Gauss CAW goes from 8d to 10d, while the Gauss Rifle goes from 6d+2 to 8d+2. 2. All 4mm rounds do piercing (pi) rather than small piercing (pi-). Yes, they're thin, but they're also long, and thus have considerable mass. 3. Drop the (3) armor divisor from all EM guns. Their standard ammo is fast but relatively fragile, which isn't great against armor. But keep reading . . . 4. Remove all restrictions on EM guns loading APHC, APDS, or APEP ammo -- so you can get that armor divisor back by loading one of these ammo types. The (2) armor divisor from APHEX warheads is now an improvement, not a downgrade. (See Ultra-Tech, pp. 152). Example: A Gauss PDW (4mm) used to do 4d(3) pi-. This optional rule changes that to 5d pi, but if you're facing armored foes you can use APEP for 5d(3) pi- (which also gives 2x range but 10x ammo cost). Example: A Portable Railgun (10mm) used to do 5dx3(3) pi+. This changes that to 5dx4 pi+, APEP makes it 5dx4(3) pi, APHEX makes it 5dx4(2) pi+ with a follow-up, and so on. The net effect will most likely be users of EM guns loading expensive custom ammo (like APEP) to obtain an armor divisor. The increased basic damage will then give them better overall penetration, while the reduced piercing class (from the AP ammo) will keep the effects balanced with regard to larger weapons (7mm and higher) . . . At least, that's the idea. Ideally, we'd love it if people could try using these "new and improved" Gauss weapons alongside ETC slugthrowers, and see how they stack up. Are there any balance issues? (Does it make them too good, for example?) Anywhere that the changes above seem to break or not make sense? David and I will keep an eye on this thread to answer your questions. (PS: If anyone is using the "ETK" weapons from the Ultra-Tech designer's notes, please do not take those into consideration here. In fact, you probably shouldn't even use them in your own games. David has since disavowed them for being too overpowered and unbalanced.)
__________________
Reverend Pee Kitty of the Order Malkavian-Dobbsian (Twitter) (LJ) MyGURPS: My house rules and GURPS resources.
#SJGamesLive: I answered questions about GURPS After the End and more! {Watch Video} - {Read Transcript} Last edited by PK; 11-26-2016 at 01:36 PM. |
11-23-2016, 08:45 PM | #2 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] Optional rule for EM guns, feedback wanted
Preliminary remarks:
1. This helps some of the small caliber guns. The 4mm Gauss Pistol is compared in the text to a 15mm conventional gun but actually had wounding power inferior to a TL8 .380. Along with 2 that's better now but the text statement is still obviously false. 2. As a nitpick this is unlikely to be true. Most projections of Gauss weapons have them being fin stabilized like arrows rather than spin-stabilized like bullets. That would mean no tumbling. It might be simpler to turn all the 4mms into 5mms. Calibers in UT are already said to be notional. 3. This takes away one of Gauss weapons few strengths i.e. that you got APEP penetration for free. On the other hand it does make the system more regular. 4. has relatively little effect. APHEX is still limited to 10mm and up. So that's only 3 Gauss weapons 2 of which could already use it (Gauss CAW and Gauss Shotgun Pistol). Overall it looks like a wash except for the people who were already using the 18.5 weapons. It's Christmas for them.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
11-23-2016, 09:10 PM | #3 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dobbstown Sane Asylum
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] Optional rule for EM guns, feedback wanted
Well, the idea is that most people will load APEP -- for the x2 range and to regain the (3) armor divisor -- not APHEX. The net effect if you assume APEP ammo as common is that Gauss ammo becomes 10x cost (not a huge problem, as it's pretty darn cheap), range doubles, basic damage goes up, and piercing class goes down.
__________________
Reverend Pee Kitty of the Order Malkavian-Dobbsian (Twitter) (LJ) MyGURPS: My house rules and GURPS resources.
#SJGamesLive: I answered questions about GURPS After the End and more! {Watch Video} - {Read Transcript} |
11-23-2016, 09:22 PM | #4 | ||||
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] Optional rule for EM guns, feedback wanted
Quote:
Quote:
Long, thin projectiles like this are almost always fin-stabilized, not spin-stabilized, which means that they will not tumble at all. In fact, this is one of the things that doomed the flechette project. To increase the damage from pi- to pi you'd need to say that these projectiles were designed with fragmentation in mind. Not impossible, but not inherent, either. Quote:
Quote:
The weakest assumption is 2, which needs a lot more hand-waving.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon |
||||
11-23-2016, 10:21 PM | #5 |
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Yukon, OK
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] Optional rule for EM guns, feedback wanted
Making a higher TL weapon more competitive or powerful than a lower TL one seems good.
As for the options.. 1. Sounds fine. 2. Small piercing can be attractive for law enforcement or even strategic military goals where low lethality is desired. 3. Lower damage but better armor divisors was a reason I liked gauss guns, though ETC and special ammos overcompensated towards the older tech. 4. Evens the field. The spin vs. fin stabilizing for the darts seems to be a common concern as regards tumbling. You could use larger and shorter bullets for when tumbling is desired. However wouldn't metal fins increase the size of the wound channel anyhow? Seems to me like using Broadheads vs. Target point arrows. So I could be way off but ti seems to me a flechette with, probably using spring tension to pop out the fins as it leaves the barrel would cause more damage than just a straight dart. To increase it though, why not add collapsing structure so as it hits it can flatten our our fragment. So you could add hollow point type ammo to the mix. Also what about ball ammo? And how about metal skinned plastic ammo for a less lethal round against unarmored targets? Maybe even make it biodegradable so you dont need surgery to remove the bullets. And something like the liquid chemical option so you can shoot low, normal or high powered. I think a high powered option may be too powerful and the size of the barrel probably limits you but a low power option (again for law enforcement or small game hunting) should be doable. Why do people like EM guns anyhow? We dont want to lose those features and just call them the same as ETC weapons. To me, more shots per magazine, quieter shooting, higher ACC and higher penetration vs. injury were key features, especially going back to 3E.
__________________
My GURPS publications GURPS Powers: Totem and Nature Spirits; GURPS Template Toolkit 4: Spirits; Pyramid articles. Buying them lets us know you want more! My GURPS fan contribution and blog: REFPLace GURPS Landing Page My List of GURPS You Tube videos (plus a few other useful items) My GURPS Wiki entries |
11-24-2016, 01:28 AM | #6 | ||||
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: A crappy state called Illinois
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] Optional rule for EM guns, feedback wanted
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'd also like to see some EM guns that weren't suck in the 1980's thinking of micro caliber flechettes, keep those for anti-tank work.
__________________
GURB: Ultra-Tech Reloaded Normies: Man! The government is filled with liars and thieves! Me: Well yeah, here's what they're lying about, what they're stealing from you, and who's doing it. Normies: Rolls eyes Shut up conspiracy theorist Me: >.> |
||||
11-24-2016, 07:03 AM | #7 | ||
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] Optional rule for EM guns, feedback wanted
Quote:
Although, on this note, is there any interest in standardizing the number of rounds an EM gun can fire from a given battery? It seems silly to me that the Gauss CAW can fire 30 18.5mm rounds on a C cell, but the Gauss Shotgun Pistol can only fire 10. The Shotgun Pistol would be considerably happier if one battery could fire three magazines, or two high-power ones. Which leads to wonder whether batteries are physically attached to magazines. It makes sense to do so, since emptying one empties the other, but clearly the Gauss Pistol's 0.5lb magazine can't include a 0.5lb C cell and, well, any actual bullets. What I'm asking is, does the number of actions listed in the table replace both the bullets and the energy cell (either because those are the same thing, or because the number of actions takes this issue into account)? Or does reloading a Gauss Pistol that needs both new bullets and a new cell take 6 actions? Quote:
Oh, and the recoil. I don't think Rcl values particularly reflect this, but the kick caused by acceleration applied to the projectile over time should be smoother than a small explosion, yes? Do you mean railguns? Because I'd like to see some more railguns. TL9's Sniper Railgun is awesome, it' more accurate than a TL8 .50 caliber rifle shooting APEP rounds, which, besides firing in Boosted Velocity mode and having a longer range, is its primary advantage as a weapon. TL10's railgun, on the other hand, has to complete with Gauss weapons, loses three points of Acc despite having the same Bulk, gains a point of Rcl... I want to see a TL10 version of the Sniper Railgun, a railgun in the Pistol, SMG and Shotgun categories, and otherwise to get a feel for what the technology could do at TL10 if it weren't paying the high price that the Portable Railgun seems to pay for firing 10mm rounds. |
||
11-24-2016, 09:18 AM | #8 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] Optional rule for EM guns, feedback wanted
Quote:
As to why I like EM weapons I don't particularly except for the !8.5 ones. Claiming "low lethality" as a feature rather than a bug is wacky.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
11-24-2016, 09:25 AM | #9 | |
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Yukon, OK
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] Optional rule for EM guns, feedback wanted
Quote:
Law Enforcement, hostage situations, fragile environments (like space stations), Bounty Hunting, etc. Even in a strategic military situation wounded foes hurt the armor more than dead ones. Unless healing is really easy of course.
__________________
My GURPS publications GURPS Powers: Totem and Nature Spirits; GURPS Template Toolkit 4: Spirits; Pyramid articles. Buying them lets us know you want more! My GURPS fan contribution and blog: REFPLace GURPS Landing Page My List of GURPS You Tube videos (plus a few other useful items) My GURPS Wiki entries |
|
11-24-2016, 01:31 PM | #10 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] Optional rule for EM guns, feedback wanted
I would rather see a distinction between gauss and conventional weapons, instead of a purely cosmetic effect. Also, the main weakness of gauss rifles is really 'cannot punch through same-TL armor'. I like something like:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|