Rapid Fire bonus and Rcl

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Some Soviet jet fighters also had 37mm cannon, I don't know what the RoF on those was like.

The highest seems to be about 11 for the fastest firing model of the N-37, and 6 for the base models on the MiG-9 through (early models of) the MiG-19. Interestingly, their biggest problem seemed to be not recoil, but a tendency to knock out the engine of the MiG-9 with their muzzle gases. Then the British sold them Rolls Royce engines, on the condition they not copy them or use them on military aircraft, so after they copied them and used them on military aircraft reliability wasn't as big a problem.

[apoc527]

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.

Very good point. I would think that the easiest way to handle this is note that some weapons are uncontrollable and apply a -1 or -2 (at most) penalty to attacks at RoF 5+. I wouldn't play around with Rcl or anything like that, and I wouldn't "cap" the RoF bonus. A straight penalty for uncontrollable and a bonus for "highly" controllable should be about it.

[Gigermann]

Originally Posted by apoc527

Very good point. I would think that the easiest way to handle this is note that some weapons are uncontrollable and apply a -1 or -2 (at most) penalty to attacks at RoF 5+. I wouldn't play around with Rcl or anything like that, and I wouldn't "cap" the RoF bonus. A straight penalty for uncontrollable and a bonus for "highly" controllable should be about it.

This is pretty reasonable, and playable

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Gigermann

This is pretty reasonable, and playable

There should probably be some sort of thing where if you fail by X your weapon becomes Unready, also, or if not that, devolves to Suppression Fire until you take a Ready maneuver. That's what I see on some of the videos. The skilled shooters (including that tiny 13yo girl!) just stop shooting when they get off target. The aforementioned young lady has enough trigger control to fire single and double-taps while the selector is on full-auto, too, so with discipline, you fire until you're off, then STOP. That's not really how GURPS works, and I'd have to noodle on if it could be made to work in a playable fashion.

[sir_pudding]

I tried to respond to this three times last night, but I was on dodgy municipal wifi downtown. :(

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

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?

Well as I said, I don't think the rules are an especially accurate model in this regard. I don't see how capping the bonus is any better, though. Why limit the effect of volume of fire at an arbitrary point, when that also isn't directly related to the problem, and in fact somewhat compensates for it (albeit inefficiently)?

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.

It shouldn't reduce the chance of the first shot hitting, and its effect on the chance of a subsequent shot hitting when the first shot is a near miss is complex, and certainly isn't just "tight groups are always better".

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.

I don't enjoy arguing with you. I'm honestly perplexed about this, because if the undesirable outcome isn't too many hits, I really don't know what else it could be.

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."

Okay so we have this statement of game mechanics, and this historical thesis. How do these two things actually relate? What outcome is produced by using the game mechanics that the thesis would say is inaccurate?

I'd also note that this thesis isn't necessarily correct. Notably soldiers don't enjoy the benefits of fully automatic fire with 5.56mm rifles either; most (all?) standard issue infantry rifles in that cartridge don't even have an automatic setting anymore, and US line infantry, at least, are trained to make single aimed shots and rely on the LMG for suppression. The switch to lighter cartridges also had the effect of increasing the amount of ammunition an infantryman could carry, as well as supposedly being more effective against Soviet body armor.

Originally Posted by apoc527

Very good point. I would think that the easiest way to handle this is note that some weapons are uncontrollable and apply a -1 or -2 (at most) penalty to attacks at RoF 5+. I wouldn't play around with Rcl or anything like that, and I wouldn't "cap" the RoF bonus. A straight penalty for uncontrollable and a bonus for "highly" controllable should be about it.

You could maybe say that the Burst-Fire technique ("Alternate Firearms Specialties and Techniques", Pyramid #3/65 Alternate GURPS III p. 19 is a penalty equal to Rcl instead and optionally further play around with the maximum.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

There should probably be some sort of thing where if you fail by X your weapon becomes Unready, also, or if not that, devolves to Suppression Fire until you take a Ready maneuver. That's what I see on some of the videos. The skilled shooters (including that tiny 13yo girl!) just stop shooting when they get off target. The aforementioned young lady has enough trigger control to fire single and double-taps while the selector is on full-auto, too, so with discipline, you fire until you're off, then STOP. That's not really how GURPS works, and I'd have to noodle on if it could be made to work in a playable fashion.

Yeah that makes a good deal of sense IME (although I don't really have any experience with any weapon that fits the criteria in GURPS).

Maybe on a failure by (6-Rcl) or more you cannot make any sighted shots until you take a ready maneuver (for any shots at RoF 4+)?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I tried to respond to this three times last night, but I was on dodgy municipal wifi downtown. :(

Good to see you back!

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Well as I said, I don't think the rules are an especially accurate model in this regard. I don't see how capping the bonus is any better, though. Why limit the effect of volume of fire at an arbitrary point, when that also isn't directly related to the problem, and in fact somewhat compensates for it (albeit inefficiently)?

Because the efficacy of volume of fire is the problem. Laid out down-thread...

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

It shouldn't reduce the chance of the first shot hitting, and its effect on the chance of a subsequent shot hitting when the first shot is a near miss is complex, and certainly isn't just "tight groups are always better".

I don't think Rcl > 2 does or can represent simply wider cones of fire, and if it did it would definitely need to modify chances to hit!

-------

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I don't enjoy arguing with you. I'm honestly perplexed about this, because if the undesirable outcome isn't too many hits, I really don't know what else it could be.

The metric with which my posts, and I think the OP's as well, are concerned is the probability of an attack resulting in any hits. How many hits is irrelevant.

--------

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Okay so we have this statement of game mechanics, and this historical thesis. How do these two things actually relate? What outcome is produced by using the game mechanics that the thesis would say is inaccurate?

Well, there's one other piece of the OP necessary, which is the very beginning:
"AFAIK, in reality main purpose of automatic/burst fire is not hitting the target multiple times, but rather aid for hitting it at least once."

"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.

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."

So, the problem is that in reality, purportedly, shooting the full-power automatic rifle on automatic didn't work, which is inferred to mean it didn't result in targets being hit, and this was one of the reasons for the shift to intermediate rounds. In GURPS, the difference between those rounds has no effect on the usefulness of full auto for hitting targets.

That is the OP's issue as I understand it, and basically the position I've been arguing.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I'd also note that this thesis isn't necessarily correct. Notably soldiers don't enjoy the benefits of fully automatic fire with 5.56mm rifles either; most (all?) standard issue infantry rifles in that cartridge don't even have an automatic setting anymore, and US line infantry, at least, are trained to make single aimed shots and rely on the LMG for suppression. The switch to lighter cartridges also had the effect of increasing the amount of ammunition an infantryman could carry, as well as supposedly being more effective against Soviet body armor.

As I've mentioned a couple of times upthread, yes, I have some doubts about the accuracy and significance of that historical thesis, though it's widely promulgated in my experience.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Yeah that makes a good deal of sense IME (although I don't really have any experience with any weapon that fits the criteria in GURPS).

I was thinking of the video with the young girl, and a few others I posted, where they make the (sensible) decision to stop shooting when the recoil goes out of whack and pushes the barrel farther away from target than they'd like. That, in GURPS terms, is an Unready. Fixed weapons like aircraft machineguns would not have this issue, nor would coax guns. But most weapons, even pintle-mounted ones or those on a bipod, would.

[apoc527]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I'd also note that this thesis isn't necessarily correct. Notably soldiers don't enjoy the benefits of fully automatic fire with 5.56mm rifles either; most (all?) standard issue infantry rifles in that cartridge don't even have an automatic setting anymore, and US line infantry, at least, are trained to make single aimed shots and rely on the LMG for suppression. The switch to lighter cartridges also had the effect of increasing the amount of ammunition an infantryman could carry, as well as supposedly being more effective against Soviet body armor.

Actually, I think the trend towards burst limiters has reversed. It seems like more military rifles are Safe-Semi-Full without any fancy 2- and 3-round burst options. Can someone confirm?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I was thinking of the video with the young girl, and a few others I posted, where they make the (sensible) decision to stop shooting when the recoil goes out of whack and pushes the barrel farther away from target than they'd like. That, in GURPS terms, is an Unready. Fixed weapons like aircraft machineguns would not have this issue, nor would coax guns. But most weapons, even pintle-mounted ones or those on a bipod, would.

I'm not sure I'd agree that that's an Unready. That implies that you must take a second to ready the weapon again before you can fire or start aiming.

If the shooter is able to fire or aim on their next turn, then it just means that they fired fewer shots than they might have, and (assuming they did it right) that those shots would have been wasted if they had been fired.

While unreadying in relation to runaway guns may make sense, this brings to mind some remarks I recall seeing in the past about real failed attacks often being aborted because the attacker recognized they wouldn't work, rather than actually taking the swing, jab or shot and missing. GURPS ranged attacks at least don't model that, of course.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I'm not sure I'd agree that that's an Unready. That implies that you must take a second to ready the weapon again before you can fire or start aiming.

The second, that you must take a moment to steady the weapon is absolutely true, I think. The "can't fire" is more legit, and instead of Unready, I'd noted earlier that a switch-over to Suppression Fire would also be appropriate.