Rapid Fire bonus and Rcl

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I will review Doug's videos later and see whether I'm convinced that controlling Rcl 3 guns is no problem...

That would not be a position I would hold, though. My contention would that controlling it is possible, though harder than Rcl 2. This is, of course, blindingly obvious. A heavier weapon, a stronger/heavier user (including the ultimate there, clamped in a vise attached to a heavy mount), a more skilled user, good weapon design, and lower power (momentum, energy, whatever) all mitigate to increase controllability. Going the other way . . . goes the other way

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I will review Doug's videos later and see whether I'm convinced that controlling Rcl 3 guns is no problem...

There's a big difference between "no problem" and "impossible". What I'm saying (and I think Doug is saying) is that you don't pull the trigger and then the weapon does whatever it does (like with your Doom example). Rather you try to keep the weapon trained on the same aimpoint, which a more skilled shooters are able to do better than less skilled shooters, and stronger shooters are better able to do than weaker shooters.

Firing from a bench clamp isn't really modeled by an attack roll with the underlying weapon. I'd certainly be happier with an attack system that extended to that straightforwardly, but that level of revision is beyond the scope of the exercise, in my view at least.

My point is that a perfect shooter is a bench clamp; it is possible to keep the weapon on target.

It should perhaps be noted that +2 is the RAW result of full automatic fire and implies that the controllability problem has no effect, and +0 would be making automatic fire outright useless. +1 is the only space between those values.

The Rapid Fire bonus doesn't include controlability because it simply is a bonus for the number of rounds.

EDIT: I didn't propose the cap with a RoF 25 Rcl 3 machinegun in mind because no such thing exists and it might not even be possible.

It certainly is possible to fire a RoF 23 Rcl 2 weapon in such a way that gets Rcl +1.

No, it's not. Probability doesn't preclude the proposition that the likelihood of hitting with the 6th or later shots is zero, at which point the difference in hitting between RoF 6 and RoF 6000, if any, is in that RoF 6000 implies firing those first 5 rounds in less than a millisecond. (Which might imply that the RoF 6000 weapon should really have Rcl 1 rather than 3+, but that's a different matter.)

If the burst area is a ellipse of finite size and the target is partially or totally contained within that ellipse, then the odds of a hit within that ellipse increase with the number of rounds (as each round striking the target is a discrete event). If your argument for capping the bonus at eight rounds is that the additional rounds don't increase the odds of a successful hit then you are assuming that either those rounds aren't in the ellipse for some reason, or that the ellipse is so attenuated that we can just discount the rounds. If so, there's no actual basis for assuming that all shooters lose control of the weapon after firing eight rounds.

Nobody proposed that, though, as you know.

I know. I'm saying that treating RoF 5+ Rcl 3 weapons as a special case isn't actually grounded in anything in reality. Rcl is largely an arbitrary game statistic, that more-or-less corresponds to dozens of variables in the real world, none of which are nearly this granular. All fully automatic fire has this problem in reality.

Changing a rule in a way you know is bad and then criticizing the result of that is a poor way to criticize the original rule.

That wasn't my intent. I wasn't proposing a strawman but rather pointing out that "cap bonuses at +1" doesn't actually address the general problem, even if it did successfully address the specific one.

A large number of rounds on target has never been the issue in this thread.

Then, I suppose I'm still at a loss to understand what the issue actually is. Can you maybe create an example of where the rules fail here?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

My point is that a perfect shooter is a bench clamp; it is possible to keep the weapon on target.

It's not clear that this is true. Human muscles and nerves have a response time (allowing correcting any drift) on the order of 200 milliseconds. A clamp, depending on its stiffness, will generally correct within a couple of milliseconds. Now, it should probably be possible for nonhumans with weapon mounts to do the same, but flesh and blood has limits.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Anthony

It's not clear that this is true. Human muscles and nerves have a response time (allowing correcting any drift) on the order of 200 milliseconds. A clamp, depending on its stiffness, will generally correct within a couple of milliseconds. Now, it should probably be possible for nonhumans with weapon mounts to do the same, but flesh and blood has limits.

Perhaps that was hyperbolic. My point is, for every fully-automatic weapon, there is a bench-test burst pattern, which is consistent, even though the precise distribution of rounds in that burst are random. Within that pattern each bullet hitting the target is a discrete event, and therefore increasing the volume of fire increases the chance of a single hit. So capping the bonus at eight rounds (and +1) doesn't make sense unless you make assumptions about the burst pattern that are rather arbitrary and don't seem based on how the weapons are actually fired at point targets, especially by skilled shooters.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

It certainly is possible to fire a RoF 23 Rcl 2 weapon in such a way that gets Rcl +1.

A definite point, though I'm not sure I'm bothered by the consequence there considering what you have to do to achieve that.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

If the burst area is a ellipse of finite size and the target is partially or totally contained within that ellipse, then the odds of a hit within that ellipse increase with the number of rounds (as each round striking the target is a discrete event). If your argument for capping the bonus at eight rounds is that the additional rounds don't increase the odds of a successful hit then you are assuming that either those rounds aren't in the ellipse for some reason, or that the ellipse is so attenuated that we can just discount the rounds. If so, there's no actual basis for assuming that all shooters lose control of the weapon after firing eight rounds.

Not all rounds in the burst follow the same distribution. You know this is true, the first shot of a burst has a very different distribution from the 10th.

You may think it is unreasonable to expect the distribution of later rounds of the burst to diverge radically from that of earlier shots (after the first which generally has a rather narrower pattern) such that they start to have no chance of hitting the target. But it isn't a mathematics problem.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Perhaps that was hyperbolic. My point is, for every fully-automatic weapon, there is a bench-test burst pattern, which is consistent, even though the precise distribution of rounds in that burst are random. Within that pattern each bullet hitting the target is a discrete event, and therefore increasing the volume of fire increases the chance of a single hit. So capping the bonus at eight rounds (and +1) doesn't make sense unless you make assumptions about the burst pattern that are rather arbitrary and don't seem based on how the weapons are actually fired at point targets, especially by skilled shooters.

The existence of a bench-test pattern really doesn't tell us anything about the distributions that actually are in question.

There's probably data that does, but it isn't that.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Then, I suppose I'm still at a loss to understand what the issue actually is. Can you maybe create an example of where the rules fail here?

Well, yes and no. I can tell you what the issue is, but I can't expect you to agree that it's an issue. Here, right out of the OP:

"Just to name a GURPS example, let's take M16 and FN FAL. Let's assume both models have RoF 9, which converts to +2 Rapid Fire bonus. M16 has Rcl 2, while FN FAL has Rcl 3. That is, rapid fire will provide equal bonus with both rifles. Only chance to hit multiple times is affected by Rcl."

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Not all rounds in the burst follow the same distribution. You know this is true, the first shot of a burst has a very different distribution from the 10th.

In practice the mechanical distribution of the burst can be considered uniform for most real weapons (and for weapons that isn't true for due to bad design it probably is a specific quirk of that weapon). So the only thing that changes is how successful the shooter is at keeping the burst on the target, which is the result of the skill roll, and why Rcl works based on margin of success.

"Just to name a GURPS example, let's take M16 and FN FAL. Let's assume both models have RoF 9, which converts to +2 Rapid Fire bonus. M16 has Rcl 2, while FN FAL has Rcl 3. That is, rapid fire will provide equal bonus with both rifles. Only chance to hit multiple times is affected by Rcl."

That's a statement of fact about the game mechanics. What is the problem with it?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

In practice the mechanical distribution of the burst can be considered uniform for most real weapons (and for weapons that isn't true for due to bad design it probably is a specific quirk of that weapon). So the only thing that changes is how successful the shooter is at keeping the burst on the target, which is the result of the skill roll, and why Rcl works based on margin of success.

So if the roll represents how successful the shooter is at keeping the burst on target, why should a factor that influences the difficulty of that task have no effect on the roll?

Coming in and influencing the way number of additional hits is extracted from the roll is not the same thing. As you've been persistently asserting, more shots in the burst while on target increase the chance of hitting. High recoil makes more of the burst not on target, that being the only reason it is relevant at all. So it results in fewer shots being in the on-target burst. Which should reduce the chance of hitting.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

That's a statement of fact about the game mechanics. What is the problem with it?

I'm having difficulty retaining a presumption of good faith with the chronic inability to recognize a position that's been under discussion for over 130 posts.

Here is the immediately preceding paragraph from the OP:
"Historically full-power rifle cartridges, like 7.62x51, where replaced by intermediate cartridges, like 5.56x45, due to many factors. Among them was the controllability issue, as soldiers couldn't enjoy full benefits of rapid fire using full-power cartidges - shots scattered and spreaded, making it harder to hit the target with burst of full-auto."

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Only if the additional bullets actually have a chance of hitting.

Seriously, I've been saying the same thing for about a page now. Is this point actually not getting across?

....

It's getting across its just chance of hitting is dependent on lots of factors and Rcl works within that context (see below)

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

The two things you refer to aren't actually separate. GURPS treats them as if they are, but obviously the distribution of the subsequent shots is an essential factor in the effects of firing the bullets.

Aside from the actual subject at hand, having shot distribution for chance of hitting be governed by shots fired alone and shot distribution for number of hits governed by an unconnected statistic...you'll see people (sir_pudding, at least) suggesting that higher Rcl means a looser distribution of shots (which I no longer exactly agree with, but it's not a position without merit), but by the rules somehow that looser distribution makes you neither more nor less likely to hit with the same number of bullets.

No it doesn't because a looser distribution is partly a factor of Rcl, and the higher the Rcl the less likely you are to hit with multiple bullets than with a lower Rcl. So higher Rcl does reduce you chances of hitting with multiple rounds. i.e Higher Rcl is a factor in a looser distribution
Which is why I quite like rules for reducing Rcl for factors that would directly reduce the looseness of distribution (keeping a gun steady), as opposed to compensate for it's effect (e.g being accurate enough to hit anyway)

You could also argue a looser distribution is factor of firing skill, and occasionally Min ST, and again deficits in these areas will give you less round on target.

Now at the same time firing more rounds also increases your chances of hitting because you have more chances of hitting, as I said two different effects working along side each other. However again the end result effect of that is also dependent on lots of things such as range, skill, Min St etc.

If I'm hip firing a sub machine at a target 500 yards away on default skill, firing 12 rounds won't appreciably increase my chances of hitting compared to 3 rounds or 1 round.

Compare that to doing the same with skill 15 at a target 5 yards away and the Rof Bonus becomes more significant in determining the overall effect.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

One might call this a playable approximation, especially if a strong universal model for automatic fire isn't a priority (and, well, we've had that discussion) but it's not a good model.

I think if you accept their separate but the rule combines them into one roll you have less conceptional issues.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

It really really does not do that. GURPS does not care about and does not address the place of bullets in the burst sequence. Which is in almost all respects a very good thing, that's the kind of detail that is immensely fiddly if not computerized.

Remember I said Rcl rules not the rapid fire rules (the conversation was specially about Rcl and it's effects within the whole, rather than the rapid fires rules over all)

The way Rcl works it does do that. Your argument about deteriorating cones also makes the same point.

The first round has no negative effect from Rcl (because there was no previous round), the second round suffers from one previous rounds Rcl penalty to hit, the 3 round suffers form two previous rounds Rcl penalty to hit. And so on.

This matches your point about cones of fire for individual round in a burst becoming further and further misaligned as Rcl kicks in.

Skill and direct bonus directly compensates for this (Someone with with an effective skill of 18 will likely be able to absorb a lot more cone misalignment than some one with an effective skill of 10.

Factors like range can exacerbate it, if I'm shooting at a target of 200 yards away the range penalty of -12 also dealing with Rcl (even when in combination with Rof bonus) is going to be hard but at 5 yards it's less of an issue.

But yes when you talking about the rapid fire rules you are right the 2nd hit in burst is not officially the 2nd round fired form the gun and so on. However again I suggest this is down to the way that the Rapid fire rules combine different effects.

The rapid fire bonus is really just away to remove having to roll as many times as you fire rounds. Instead taking an estimate on the chances of getting extra hits if you were to do so*. So it's only interested in modelling the chances of extra hits in general, it not interested in the increased chances of specific rounds hitting and so ignores burst order.

But the Rcl rules very much take into account the accumulating effects of individual rounds in a burst.

As I said two inherently different effects when it comes to either treating it as one overall burst or several individual rounds in a burst. The Rcl rules which do treat rounds individual are subsumed into the rapid fire rules which don't.

I think this inherently different of POV within the same rule will make looking at this as one big whole difficult. Which is fine the rule itself is designed as abstraction to give a net effect, which is why it only concerned about how many bullet hit the target, and as you say doesn't particularly care with ones did.

As it says in TS regarding firing different types of rounds and their order:

Rapid Fire (p. B373) has no mechanic to deal with this, but
can be easily amended. It’s irrelevant in which order the different
rounds are fired, partially for playability, but also because
GURPS does not assume any particular preference in which
rounds of a rapid-fire or multiple-projectile attack hit. In the
span of a one-second turn, it doesn’t matter.(TS: Pg31)

Of course when it then has to address effects of different rounds mixed together it then goes on to split those different rounds out and tackle them separately

i.e it has to go towards individual rolls the original rule is there to avoid, (or in fact calculates individual results of the same roll) for specific round types and then has to apply a ratio to get back to the result the rapid fire rules would normally give.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I'm quite sure that that's not and hasn't ever been the complaint.

Well as I said that seemed to be the point I was responding too, which wasn't yours so I was not saying you were making it ;-)




*I assume they crunched the numbers on this and it works out in terms of statistical likleyhood of extra hits

[Erling]

Random thought that can be partially related to the topic: compensator (muzzle brake) from Tactical Shooting does affect skill while shooting at RoF 3+, which is quite similar to raising the Rapid Fire bonus, though it's not same. That demonstrates that GURPS's scope can include controllability (lower muzzle rise and drop, that is, lower recoil) as a factor affecting burst-based skill bonus.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Erling

Random thought that can be partially related to the topic: compensator (muzzle brake) from Tactical Shooting does affect skill while shooting at RoF 3+, which is quite similar to raising the Rapid Fire bonus, though it's not same. That demonstrates that GURPS's scope can include controllability (lower muzzle rise and drop, that is, lower recoil) as a factor affecting burst-based skill bonus.

Good point