Questions about switching from 3rd edition to 4th

[Rocket Man]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Easy to answer: No I wouldn't. I examined 3E thoroughly, about a decade ago, and came to the conclusion that it was completely unplayable.

To each their own. I found it not only playable, but addictive, for years. Still, at least we have common ground on 4e. :-)

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Offhand, I can't think of any change that I dislike, in terms of direction (e.g. I approve of the two attributes costing more, but I think they should have been made even more expensive than they were, and the precedent set for Talents is extremely unfortunate).

There is no good reason to stick with GURPS 3rd Edition. Either switch to 4th, switch to an entirely different system, or build your own system from scratch. 3E has no redeeming virtues.

I dislike the 4e autofire, which breaks down on mounted and/or truly recoilless weapons.

I also think that languages and CFs are 'different, not better'. IMHO, ofc.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I dislike the 4e autofire, which breaks down on mounted and/or truly recoilless weapons.

Really? 3e autofire usually produced unrealistic results for most ordinary weapons (and the laser rule was simply absurd), and it required far too many rolls per attack. I find the 4e version superior in nearly every way. I'm not sure how you think it breaks down for mounted weapons, it's performance seems consistent with every vehicle mounted MG, I've ever fired.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Really? 3e autofire usually produced unrealistic results for most ordinary weapons (and the laser rule was simply absurd), and it required far too many rolls per attack. I find the 4e version superior in nearly every way. I'm not sure how you think it breaks down for mounted weapons, it's performance seems consistent with every vehicle mounted MG, I've ever fired.

3e was good idea with bad execution. 4e is a bad idea with a pretty good execution. Just look at the threads. Or the Spaceships rant where changing turn length results in changing autofire hit percentage.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

3e was good idea with bad execution. 4e is a bad idea with a pretty good execution. Just look at the threads. Or the Spaceships rant where changing turn length results in changing autofire hit percentage.

Considering that changing turn length changes both the time you have to shoot, and the engagement range, I'm not sure that's a problem. To the extent it is, it's an issue with the level of abstraction in the Spaceships combat system. Nothing really to do with autofire rules in and of themselves.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Really? 3e autofire usually produced unrealistic results for most ordinary weapons (and the laser rule was simply absurd), and it required far too many rolls per attack. I find the 4e version superior in nearly every way. I'm not sure how you think it breaks down for mounted weapons, it's performance seems consistent with every vehicle mounted MG, I've ever fired.

If I understand him correctly, he's with the people who believe that real-world mounted weapons somehow put all their bullets on a dime, even though all such weapons in reality are expressly designed to disperse their shots around the line of fire. If you believe the "on a dime" theory, though, then going from RoF 10 to RoF 100 should result in 10 times the hits instead of 2-5 additional hits. This fits with intuition but doesn't jibe with actual weapon design, which I think is where people get confused.

—

"N times the shots means N times the hits" isn't correct, even if it seems intuitive, once movement gets involved. The <classified> I saw while working on <classified> suggested that doubling the RoF of area-defense weapons boosts actual kill rates by 3-20%, not by 100%. Since hits equal kills for most such weapons, this tells me that the GURPS model is pretty good.

There are doubtless a few cases where missing with any bullets would make no sense. That's why Rapid Fire vs. Close Stationary Targets (p. B408) exists.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Just look at the threads.

Large-scale complaining doesn't mean a rule is bad. It more often means a rule is misunderstood . . . often because people have misconceptions about how whatever it represents works in the real world. Automatic weapons, for instance, exist to engage formations of men and vehicles. They are not point-effect weaponry; they customarily have a semiauto mode where that use is expected. Ergo, they have very good first-hit or single-shot accuracy on a point target, but tend to disperse around that hit rather severely.

It's possible that in some sci-fi setting, somebody will want a weapon that delivers its damage to a point target as N hits instead of one hit with N^(1/2) times the damage. This might rely on some fictional zero-dispersion mechanism where 10 times the shots means 10 times the hits. At that stage, we can introduce special rules for that peculiar weapon, just as we have for close-range rapid fire and shotguns. But the lack of those rules doesn't make the system bad at modeling the majority of real-world hardware.

[Ulzgoroth]

Do real automatic weapons actually fluidly shift their firing pattern with burst length length? By the rules, a high-RoF weapon generates 1 more hit on any given target by firing a 1-second burst than in a quarter-second burst.

EDIT: On a related note, what rules should be used to effectively engage a formation with an automatic weapon?

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Considering that changing turn length changes both the time you have to shoot, and the engagement range, I'm not sure that's a problem. To the extent it is, it's an issue with the level of abstraction in the Spaceships combat system. Nothing really to do with autofire rules in and of themselves.

The length of the turn doesn't change either of those things. Within the turn, missiles and point defense are going at it continuously. But somehow over aggregated time this doesn't add up at all right.

The justification given for the RoF rules doesn't apply in that case. The problem may be that Spaceships shouldn't have shoehorned things into a non-compatible system for simplicity...

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Kromm

If I understand him correctly, he's with the people who believe that real-world mounted weapons somehow put all their bullets on a dime,

I have never heard anybody say "dime". I did once say that if you fired a tripod-mounted machinegun at the broad side of a barn from 30 feet away that all of the bullets would not only hit but make a pattern less than 1 foot in diameter if not smaller.

What Gurps says that even a skilled gunner (12-), braced and AOAing (+2), firing 8 rounds (+1) at a 30' wide barn (+4) from 30' away (-4) misses will all of his bullets 4.6% of the time and misses with half of them 9.8% of the time.

Note that this is not my 1' diameter circle. This is the whole barn with the special rule effecting these circumstances being used. He's not disco-dancing with the grips in his hands either. The Braced and AOA prevent that.

Now if the skilled gunner takes a second to carefully aim hitting becomes all or nothing with all bullets still missing on an auto-fail. I suppose this is a religious thing. There might well always be a chance of missing in the confusion of a typical fight but we appear to be extending that rule to non-confused, non-typical situations.

Now if he's an average guy defaulting from DX he still ought to be able to hit the broadside of a barn but even Aiming has him completely missing about 10% of the time.

IMO shows why this should be an example of When Not To Roll rather than a special case of the normal combat rules. That's how I'd handle it in my games.

I tend to think this is a systemic problem about dispersal of autofire and SM. Even if the rules produce arguably accurate results for man v. man or even airplane v. airplane they tend to break rapidly at man v. car or airplane v. ship.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

3e autofire usually produced unrealistic results for most ordinary weapons

Most facepalm-worthy example I had in one of my games was when one of the PCs in a post-apocalyptic game, with a M16A1, was able to put 10 of a 11 round burst into a person's eye, through a gunslit, on a moving HMMWV at a fair range, with only a single second of aim and modest skill.

Neither system is perfect, really. 4e has some issues with edge cases, while 3e had some issues with the more common cases you're more likely to run into in combat.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I have never heard anybody say "dime". I did once say that if you fired a tripod-mounted machinegun at the broad side of a barn from 30 feet away that all of the bullets would not only hit but make a pattern less than 1 foot in diameter if not smaller.

Why do people keep shooting barns? What did the poor agricultural architecture do to provoke that? And how are they are moving around like the targets the rules assume you'll be shooting?