Rapid Fire bonus and Rcl

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I think you trying to tie conceptually separate effect together, and they wont tie up nicely because you're talking about two different effects.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

2). The Rcl rules reflect the individual effects on each bullet and it's place in burst sequence.

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.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I'm not sure that's the objection, I don't think anyone argued that?
It was my take that it was argued that higher Rcl should reduce the rapid fire bonus because subsequent hits are made harder with higher Rcl. My counter point was Rcl already does this.

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

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

The cone of fire assumption is the problem. There's only a singular cone of fire if the gun remains aimed at the same point throughout the firing.

If the shooter changes the aimpoint deliberately during the burst then this is Spraying Fire. If the shooter accidentally changes the aimpoint during the burst, that's a failure.

Real burst patterns for point targets are cones, because the shooter keeps trying to return the weapon to the same aimpoint, which the weapon then deviates from. Capping the RoF bonus doesn't make sense here, because it assumes that the shooter is only able to keep the burst centered enough for five rounds to be near the target, which isn't a sensible assumption at all

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.

As I've said, I agree that the current rules only loosely and indirectly address controllability. However, a rule which arbitrarily caps the RoF bonus doesn't work, because higher volumes of fire should result in more hits, and a rule which inconsistently applies to some weapons but not others doesn't work because this is an issue for how GURPS handles rapid fire at all (for example you can hit someone with a buckshot load at 300 yards in the eye, but not anywhere else). The model for burst patterns is extremely simplified.

Personally I'd rather see a solution that starts by addressing area targets, since the rules just plain ignore them, and then applies that to point targets. On the other hand I'm really unlikely to use any of this in actual play, because nobody actually cares enough in practice to make the extra rolls worth it.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

If the shooter changes the aimpoint deliberately during the burst then this is Spraying Fire. If the shooter accidentally changes the aimpoint during the burst, that's a failure.

A failure in the sense that it's less than perfect performance. Not necessarily a failure in the sense of a failed attack roll.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Real burst patterns for point targets are cones, because the shooter keeps trying to return the weapon to the same aimpoint, which the weapon then deviates from. Capping the RoF bonus doesn't make sense here, because it assumes that the shooter is only able to keep the burst centered enough for five rounds to be near the target, which isn't a sensible assumption at all

You have gotten to the center of it, yes. The premise of the capping proposal is that the shooter can't keep on target for more than a limited number of shots (not necessarily exactly 5 of course) with this sort of weapon. If you can show that to be unsound, then capping doesn't make sense.

Can you?

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

A failure in the sense that it's less than perfect performance. Not necessarily a failure in the sense of a failed attack roll.

You have gotten to the center of it, yes. The premise of the capping proposal is that the shooter can't keep on target for more than a limited number of shots (not necessarily exactly 5 of course) with this sort of weapon. If you can show that to be unsound, then capping doesn't make sense.

Can you?

Both the MP5 and the Kriss SMGs can be kept on target for full magazines at full auto (I've done the first but not the second). One of my previously linked posts has an AK47 being held on target for an entire mag as well.

My personal preference is that the burst be treated as "on target but larger area." For those that treat "larger area" as an ellipse, which is likely more accurate, note that a person in GURPS is also basically either an ellipse or at least a rectangle, six feet tall and three feet wide (or at least two feet wide).

EDIT: Here's a young lady going to town full-auto with a 75-round drum. The nice thing about the video is that (a) she's never done that many rounds full-auto before, and (b) you get a full view of the rounds striking the target.
https://youtu.be/qukk9sS4QYc

That being said, it's probably a .223 or 7.62x39mm, so it's Rcl 2. Let's see if I can find one with a .308 cartridge.

Found one: .308 full auto with a 50-round drum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H88gSjdzoCo
A 13-year old girl firing both .308 and .223 full auto: illustrative because I think it shows a few instances of the weapon being made Unready due to Recoil, but also shows remarkably good control of when to stop shooting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VqoKpUVgGA

A suppressed, subsonic .308 in full-auto as well. Might not be enough recoil here, plus extra weapon weight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYGrAsCRWTs

Last one: an FAL used for both burst, sustained, and walked-spray fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvlsrgL_Plg

At some point, I did a calculation for intersecting areas of fire and person, and reduced that to a "how many times do I hit?" on a 3d6 roll. I won't call it playable, and it was still two rolls - where's my cone, and how many times did I hit? - but it was doable, and answered the question Sir Pudding asked about applying to areas as well - you took the equivalent size modifier of an area target and did a differential from that.

It also had the nice effect that if the burst size was smaller than the target (the literal case of shooting at the broad side of a barn from close range) you got 100% hits, which is an edge case that vexes some terribly when it doesn't happen in GURPS as an emergent behavior.

[Erling]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

However, a rule which arbitrarily caps the RoF bonus doesn't work, because higher volumes of fire should result in more hits, and a rule which inconsistently applies to some weapons but not others doesn't work because this is an issue for how GURPS handles rapid fire at all (for example you can hit someone with a buckshot load at 300 yards in the eye, but not anywhere else). The model for burst patterns is extremely simplified.

It so happened that innate Rcl 3+ for full-auto -capable automatic weapon is an extremely rare case. Check High-Tech. Battle rifles, 10mm Auto version of MP5 and a 20x110mm tripod-mounted autocannon are examples, and the latter has only RoF 5 anyway. "No more than +1 for Rapid Fire for Rcl 3+ weapons" is a simple exemption. It is a complication (as any additional would-be rule), but it doesn't make rules inconsistent.

Also Rcl 3 can be caused by folding/collapsing a stock of Rcl 3 firearm, but it still seems pretty reasonable: reducing Bulk (which is a main purpose of utilizing a collapsible stock) is usually necessary in CQC where distances (and distance penalties) are close anyway.

If you dislike cap concept, I also had my initial suggestion to lower Rapid Fire bonus (rather than cap it). It still makes RoF 9+ useful for Rcl 3 weapons, but they're not as good in utilizing Rapid Fire as Rcl 2 weapons.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

A failure in the sense that it's less than perfect performance. Not necessarily a failure in the sense of a failed attack roll.

If the shooter fails to make effective skill it's a failed attack roll. If the shooter rolls within effective skill some of the burst intersects the target. If the shooter rolls well under effective skill then they keep the burst well centered on the target and this is where Rcl applies.

You have gotten to the center of it, yes. The premise of the capping proposal is that the shooter can't keep on target for more than a limited number of shots (not necessarily exactly 5 of course) with this sort of weapon. If you can show that to be unsound, then capping doesn't make sense.

Can you?

Firstly, the shooter can easily get more than eight shots in the burst that intersects with target. If you fire the weapon from a bench clamp then all of the bullets are going to be distributed in a perfect burst pattern for the weapon, and it hardly makes sense to cap the bonus there, right? Assuming that all shooters always lose control of the burst after five to eight shots, but never at four or less and only ever do so with Rcl 3+ weapons is just arbitrary.

Secondly, weapons with higher rates of fire are going to distribute more bullets in the burst, regardless of the level of control (which is why RoF effects the chance of Suppression hitting) so a weapon with arbitrarily high RoF isn't going to be the same as a weapon with lower RoF in terms of the chances of a bullet hitting something. This is just probability.

Thirdly this isn't just a problem with the M14, or with battle rifles, or with Rcl 3 weapons. Keeping bursts on target is a problem with fully automatic fire, pretty much in general (with the exception of weapons that use clever tricks and get the # in GURPS), so any solution needs to be a general one. Capping say M134 fire at +1 is rather defeating the purpose of putting that thing on a helicopter in the first place.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Erling

It so happened that innate Rcl 3+ for full-auto -capable automatic weapon is an extremely rare case. Check High-Tech. Battle rifles, 10mm Auto version of MP5 and a 20x110mm tripod-mounted autocannon are examples, and the latter has only RoF 5 anyway. "No more than +1 for Rapid Fire for Rcl 3+ weapons" is a simple exemption. It is a complication (as any additional would-be rule), but it doesn't make rules inconsistent.

Assuming that controlling bursts is only a problem for these specific weapons is totally groundless.

[Erling]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Assuming that controlling bursts is only a problem for these specific weapons is totally groundless.

It is a problem for any weapon, although some firearms are more controllable than other ones.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Erling

It is a problem for any weapon, although some firearms are more controllable than other ones.

Capping RoF at +1 for some weapons doesn't make any actual sense, because it assumes that the shooter invariably loses control of the weapon after firing between five and eight bullets. There isn't, as far as I can tell, any actual basis for this assumption. What happens when you attach a belt to that M14, put it in a bench clamp and fire it at its maximum possible cyclic rate?

Having a rule that only applies in a handful of edge cases does nothing to address the actual problem with burst patterns, which is far larger. Some of Doug's proposals do do this though.

The problem doesn't start with a skilled shooter with an M14 getting a large number of rounds on target; the problem is there with every weapon that uses Rapid Fire; at some range the burst pattern is going to be a larger than the target location, always. At 800 yards it is no more realistic to put a burst from an M16 into someone's eyeball than it is with an M14. Both of those are slightly less ridiculous than performing the same feat with buckshot.

[Ulzgoroth]

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

(I submit that if that is the case, I'll have a problem with them suffering the official effects of Rcl > 2...)

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Firstly, the shooter can easily get more than eight shots in the burst that intersects with target. If you fire the weapon from a bench clamp then all of the bullets are going to be distributed in a perfect burst pattern for the weapon, and it hardly makes sense to cap the bonus there, right? Assuming that all shooters always lose control of the burst after five to eight shots, but never at four or less and only ever do so with Rcl 3+ weapons is just arbitrary.

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.

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. 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.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Secondly, weapons with higher rates of fire are going to distribute more bullets in the burst, regardless of the level of control (which is why RoF effects the chance of Suppression hitting) so a weapon with arbitrarily high RoF isn't going to be the same as a weapon with lower RoF in terms of the chances of a bullet hitting something. This is just probability.

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.)

That proposition might not be true to reality, but it's not mathematically wrong.
Thirdly this isn't just a problem with the M14, or with battle rifles, or with Rcl 3 weapons. Keeping bursts on target is a problem with fully automatic fire, pretty much in general (with the exception of weapons that use clever tricks and get the # in GURPS), so any solution needs to be a general one. Capping say M134 fire at +1 is rather defeating the purpose of putting that thing on a helicopter in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Nobody proposed that, though, as you know. 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.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

The problem doesn't start with a skilled shooter with an M14 getting a large number of rounds on target; the problem is there with every weapon that uses Rapid Fire; at some range the burst pattern is going to be a larger than the target location, always. At 800 yards it is no more realistic to put a burst from an M16 into someone's eyeball than it is with an M14. Both of those are slightly less ridiculous than performing the same feat with buckshot.

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