[Ultra-Tech] Optional rule for EM guns, feedback wanted

[The_Ryujin]

Originally Posted by McAllister

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?

Ultra-Tech has a huge issue with magazines heh. The 40mm Railgun has ammo that weighs 6lbs a pop and a 200 round magazine... that only weighs 150lbs... Guess the 40mm Railgun comes with it's own TARDIS... Neat.

Technically the power cell should be included in the magazine.... but this would mean going over every EM guns magazine and making sure they all check out...( hmmm... perhaps I can do it as a future post on my blog).

Now for the gauss pistol, needing a C cell is a typo. Each shot is only about ~490joules of KE and would need just under a kilowatt to power so it would need 2 B cells to power its 40shots (or 20 shots with 1). Also note that the gauss machine pistol has the same output as the pistol but only uses 2 B as well.

Originally Posted by McAllister

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?

The lower recoil of EM guns is already taken into account with the fact few have a higher rcl then 2.

Originally Posted by McAllister

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.

Well in Ultra-Tech, there's not much difference between the gauss and rail outside of that fact rail guns are all low ROF weapons (well that I've noticed at lest... damn it... guess what I'm going to be doing after I'm done typing this post heh).

What I meant is that I'm not a fan of the fact that the personal scale gauss guns are all dart launchers. Flechettes have horrible after armor effects, I'd rather see them used as optional APDS style rounds for anti heavy armor work rather then GP rounds.

But yeah, I'll get to work in a bit on seeing if there is any stat difference between a rail gun and a gauss gun. If I'm going to guess, being a rail gun is going to be treated as a modifier that makes a EM gun cheaper but limits it ROF to semi-auto.

[McAllister]

Originally Posted by The_Ryujin

The lower recoil of EM guns is already taken into account with the fact few have a higher rcl then 2.

The rule, for conventional/ETC guns and EM guns alike, seems to be that rounds smaller than 10mm are Rcl 2, bigger rounds have higher recoil, and anything that uses the Gunner skill goes back down to Rcl 2 for some reason. EM guns shoot smaller projectiles as a rule, it's true, but they don't have any lower Rcl for those projectiles; and they already pay the price in lower wounding.

Well in Ultra-Tech, there's not much difference between the gauss and rail outside of that fact rail guns are all low ROF weapons (well that I've noticed at lest... damn it... guess what I'm going to be doing after I'm done typing this post heh).

They also all have damage multipliers, dealing 12, 15 and 125 dice of damage (or 16, 21 and 200 after the change). So I'd say they're not only low RoF, they deal tons of damage per shot.

Originally Posted by Anthony

...but this thread is about gauss rounds.

Distinctions between EM guns and other guns seem relevant. I agree that the distinctions should be played up as much as feasible.

[The_Ryujin]

Originally Posted by McAllister

The rule, for conventional/ETC guns and EM guns alike, seems to be that rounds smaller than 10mm are Rcl 2, bigger rounds have higher recoil, and anything that uses the Gunner skill goes back down to Rcl 2 for some reason. EM guns shoot smaller projectiles as a rule, it's true, but they don't have any lower Rcl for those projectiles; and they already pay the price in lower wounding.

While I have not seen the actual rules for figuring rcl, I have seen enough of its effects on other stats to get a general idea of some the factors behind it.

Basically, its the power relative to a weapons weight as well as its form factor that plays a part in determining rcl. Rifles are held with two hands and have decent weight so they tend to have low rcl, pistols are hard to steady and tend to be light for their power so have higher rcl while larger weapons tend to be really heavy relative to their power to bring rcl back down again.

EM weapons would have some modifier that reduce their power relative to a gunpowder round.

Originally Posted by McAllister

They also all have damage multipliers, dealing 12, 15 and 125 dice of damage (or 16, 21 and 200 after the change). So I'd say they're not only low RoF, they deal tons of damage per shot.

Yeah, running the numbers they seem to be ~half as heavy as a gauss weapon of the same output. Cost is still $1,000/lbs.

[scc]

But will I be able to load APFSDSDUAMB at the end of this?

[The_Ryujin]

Originally Posted by scc

But will I be able to load APFSDSDUAMB at the end of this?

Why not just use a shaped charge nuke at that point lol?

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by PK

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.

Shame I'm not running G-verse at the moment, but I can dig out my old notes and see what the model might look like.

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

The ideal for this is that some fundamental variable improves, rather than deriving the damage and applying a blanket x1.25 bonus

2. All 4mm rounds do piercing (pi) rather than small piercing (pi-). Yes, they're thin, but they're also long, which matters when tumbling through flesh.

Hmmm. I thought pi- made a lot of sense. It made them much more devastating against vital organs than a "flesh hit."

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. The (2) armor divisor from APHEX warheads is now an improvement, not a downgrade. (See Ultra-Tech, pp. 152).

This ultimately makes much more sense. Whatever the ultimate solution, I think ideally the ultimate solution should implement something like this.

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.

Given the low cost of gauss weapons, the fact that they can leverage greater power for lower cost would be a huge upgrade compared to other weapons.

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 don't take those into consideration here. David has since disavowed them for being too overpowered and unbalanced.)

G-verse used EM guns, so it'll be interesting to see how gameplay would have changed with the new rules. Does it still have the same feel?

But I'll try to make a point of taking some time and working out the details as best I can and post back.

[McAllister]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

The ideal for this is that some fundamental variable improves, rather than deriving the damage and applying a blanket x1.25 bonus

How do you mean? Are you saying there should be some sort of game lever justified with technobabble, along the lines field-jacketed lasers, and that should be how the damage upgrade is implemented? Or that you'd prefer something other than the across-the-board damage multiplier?

Hmmm. I thought pi- made a lot of sense. It made them much more devastating against vital organs than a "flesh hit."

Well, this is addressed somewhat in the other changes, isn't it? So an new-rules EM gun firing APEP ammo has the same armor divisor and wounding multiplier as an old-rules EM gun, but now it has longer range and 1.25x damage? With the only drawback being firing a more expensive round, and with the additional option of a different round that doesn't penetrate as well but performs better after armor, which can be a saboted ball, or a brittle dart, or what have you.

Given the low cost of gauss weapons, the fact that they can leverage greater power for lower cost would be a huge upgrade compared to other weapons.

For one thing, if all TL10 EM guns were slightly but strictly better than all TL9 conventional and ETC guns, that would make a bit of sense, right? Typical Weapons by TL doesn't include any conventional guns past TL9, so, to whatever degree GURPS is willing to predict how weapons tech shakes out, it thinks EM guns will win TL10.

But the degree to which they're an upgrade over conventional guns is still interesting, so I'll try to pick two to compare. The Medium Pistol, 7.5mmCLP weighs the same as the Gauss Pistol, 4mm, so I'll start there. I'll have them both firing APEP, and using the new rules.

Damage: 4d pi- (3) vs. 4d pi- (3). I didn't assume a liquid-propellant slugthrower, and maybe I should have, but as it is, the Gauss gun can boost its damage to 4d+4, and that's a win. It's the difference defeating DR 30 for 2 points of injury or 4, which sounds bad, but if you're shooting at someone wearing a light clamshell and you can kill them eventually, that's not too bad; and 4 injury at a time is faster. It's also a much bigger difference on a vitals hit, 12 vs 24.
Acc: 2 vs 3. Gauss wins again.
Range: 450/5,700 vs 1,000/4,200. The 1/2D is in Gauss's favor, but do you hit targets with -14 from range when your Acc is 3? I'm not inclined to think this is important.
Weight: the weapon weight, weight per magazine and Bulk are identical.
RoF, Rcl and ST: same.
Shots: 30+1 vs 40. It's nice to be able to shoot bullets 32 through 40, but I suspect pistol fights are over by then.
Cost: $900 vs $1,700. The low-tech solution wins by a wide margin, suggesting that even at TL 10 and beyond, street criminals and home defenders will often pick guns that go bang.
Cost per shot: $0.60 vs $0.30. How many shots would you have to fire to make up the weapon difference? Well, I could calculate it, but I won't: suffice to say, it's nice to be able to shoot at someone 100 times for $3, but paying $6 for the privilege isn't backbreaking. They both run off power cells, too, and the Gauss gun's is more expensive, so that brings them closer to even.

Honestly, I expected the Gauss gun to win by a landslide, but it's pretty close. +4 damage and +1 Acc is worth $800 to adventurers that can afford it, but police forces? Militias? Civilians? Hard to say.

[apoc527]

I think these changes are going in the right direction. Presently, EM guns feel less-than-useful compared to ETC firearms given the latter's flexibility with ammo choice.

It also bugs me that EM weapons are ALL these low-caliber, flechette-type weapons. I have a soft spot for the "bead guns" in David Weber's Empire of Man series.

I admit, I'm also curious as to why Mr. Pulver is looking at GURPS EM weapons at this time...could there be a new book coming out or in the works? Perhaps Vehicle Design? Or GURPS Space Opera??? (squee!)

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by McAllister

How do you mean? Are you saying there should be some sort of game lever justified with technobabble, along the lines field-jacketed lasers, and that should be how the damage upgrade is implemented? Or that you'd prefer something other than the across-the-board damage multiplier?

Alright, there's two possible things Pulver is proposing here, which isn't necessarily clear to me from the context of the OP. The first is "Here's a fix for Ultra-tech weapons." In which case I have no inherent objection to the change (without further research). The other possibility is that he's proposing a change for how EM guns are derived (given that this is in the context of GURPS Vehicles, right?) in which case I'd rather the fundamental values from which we derive EM guns were improved, rather than an arbitrary, flat bonus applied atop an existing formula. Does that make sense?

Well, this is addressed somewhat in the other changes, isn't it? So an new-rules EM gun firing APEP ammo has the same armor divisor and wounding multiplier as an old-rules EM gun, but now it has longer range and 1.25x damage? With the only drawback being firing a more expensive round, and with the additional option of a different round that doesn't penetrate as well but performs better after armor, which can be a saboted ball, or a brittle dart, or what have you.

I'll have to look at the net effects, but it's weird that a 4mm round does great damage unless it's APEP, then suddenly it's terrible (how thick can an APEP round be at that point?)

For one thing, if all TL10 EM guns were slightly but strictly better than all TL9 conventional and ETC guns, that would make a bit of sense, right? Typical Weapons by TL doesn't include any conventional guns past TL9, so, to whatever degree GURPS is willing to predict how weapons tech shakes out, it thinks EM guns will win TL10.

I think that was the case already. The problem is how they stack up to ETK. Now, if I remember correctly, ETK are TL 10, so technically they should be able to coexist in interesting ways, but in practice, right now, ETK is just better. I understand the intent here is to balance the two.

(This will, of course, create an imbalance with beam weapons... but if we're happy with projectile damage, that means beam weapons are too weak).

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by apoc527

It also bugs me that EM weapons are ALL these low-caliber, flechette-type weapons. I have a soft spot for the "bead guns" in David Weber's Empire of Man series.

To get decent range out of lightweight bullets, you need them to be long, thin, and streamlined. That's basic aerodynamics for you. To get accuracy, you need them to be spinning (hard to do with an EM gun) or fin stabilized. They work in Weber because Weber is blithely unconcerned with physics.

I could see an article on generic simplified cinematic guns -- in space opera, if there's supposed to be a legitimate choice of weapons, you want the weapons balanced against one another, but don't otherwise care if they would actually work -- but UT has always tried to be a little harder.