Rapid Fire bonus and Rcl

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by apoc527

So the underlying assumption of this thread is that a weapon with lower controllability should receive a lesser bonus for volume of fire. I don't know if that follows. If all we're talking about is scoring a single hit and we don't care if it's the first shot, then doesn't a weapon that is a bit harder to control disperse the shots a little bit more, in fact assisting with your goal of hitting at least once? Or at the very least, nullifying whatever miniscule difference in controllability there would be between a 7.62mm NATO and 5.56mm automatic weapon?

I present my parenthetical remark from post #49 of the thread:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

(Whether a tighter fire pattern actually increases your chance to hit once depends, but a fire pattern shaped by, say, a gun bucking upwards under recoil is unlikely to be helpful.)

[apoc527]

Originally Posted by Erling

M14 is not a special case. I just wanted to bring into focus that in GURPS it's a good idea to shoot battle rifles at full RoF (since you're more likely to hit at least once), although in reality it was highly unrecommended.

If this is really what the thread is about, then this is already true by virtue of #Shots, ammunition WPS and Rcl. If you have a huge mass of ammo next to you and you just want to hit something, then yes, firing at max RoF is always best. The reason it's not recommended in reality is because you waste most of your ammo, which you can't carry a ton of because it's heavy.

[apoc527]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I present my parenthetical remark from post #49 of the thread:

(Whether a tighter fire pattern actually increases your chance to hit once depends, but a fire pattern shaped by, say, a gun bucking upwards under recoil is unlikely to be helpful.)

It's a predictable pattern--skilled shooters can compensate for that. I think it IS helpful.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

But the first round of the burst is not modeled in GURPS at all. The fact that that first round can't be affected by the subsequent rounds does seem to mean that the most an 'uncontrollable' weapon should suffer is loss or reduction of bonus for number of shots fired...which is, again, all that's been suggested.

That bonus is solely for volume of fire, which is the thing that makes high rates of fire more likely to hit, which is the thing that is supposedly missing, reducing it arbitrarily for some weapons doesn't make any sense to me. This bonus shouldn't have anything to do with the weapon, other than its cyclic rate, because this is solely a bonus based on the number rounds going downrange.

Outright removing RoF bonus from the initial calculation isn't a virtue. Increasing the chance to hit at all is most of the point of firing multiple shots.

Reducing it to +1 regardless of the rate of fire is nearly the same thing, and makes firing more that four rounds at a point target fairy pointless (and yes this is a bad idea in real life too, but not because higher volume of fire doesn't help, but rather because you only have 20 rounds in an M14 magazine!). It also seems totally arbitrary, because there's nothing about the mechanics of shooting or the weapon that explains this reduction in the bonus for volume of fire.

Things that actually deal with the objection are necessarily in the space which rejects both 'recoil has no effect on the roll to hit with automatic fire' and 'rapid fire cannot improve the roll to hit'.

"The objection isn't based on anything that actually exists" also deals with it.

Why do you think that there is something else?

Because GURPS already handles all the things that I can think of that make firing an M14 different from firing an M16, at least at the level of resolution in GURPS. So there either is something else, or there isn't, and if there isn't then the objection is groundless.

[sir_pudding]

Tight groups are a factor of shooter skill, weapon stability, weapon MOA, and recoil. GURPS models all of these things.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

That bonus is solely for volume of fire, which is the thing that makes high rates of fire more likely to hit, which is the thing that is supposedly missing, reducing it arbitrarily for some weapons doesn't make any sense to me. This bonus shouldn't have anything to do with the weapon, other than its cyclic rate, because this is solely a bonus based on the number rounds going downrange.

The question is where 'downrange' is, and whether it remains where you want it to be.

For a quite unrealistic example, one of the Quake games (Quake 3, I think) had a machine gun which irresistibly pushed your aimpoint up as you fired. If you just kept shooting you'd wind up unable to hit anything except the ceiling over your head. It was accurate, fast-firing, and totally unable to put a second of continuous fire anywhere close to a target beyond arm's reach. (That sort of FPS being what it is, a major use was unloading at point blank range, starting at a tough target's feet so they died before it tracked off them.)

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Reducing it to +1 regardless of the rate of fire is nearly the same thing, and makes firing more that four rounds at a point target fairy pointless (and yes this is a bad idea in real life too, but not because higher volume of fire doesn't help, but rather because you only have 20 rounds in an M14 magazine!). It also seems totally arbitrary, because there's nothing about the mechanics of shooting or the weapon that explains this reduction in the bonus for volume of fire.

The M14 has only got an RoF of 12. The most bonus it could be getting under RAW is +2, and that bonus is secured at 9 shots, the last 3 are wasted on a regular attack.

With cap at +1, firing 5 shots (the actual threshold for +1 bonus) would be useful, though not necessarily worth the ammo. Firing more than 5 would be pointless unless you were using some special autofire tricks like Spraying Fire or Suppression Fire over multiple zones

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

"The objection isn't based on anything that actually exists" also deals with it.

Certainly an option, though doesn't solve the problem of people who have the objection unless it comes with an argument that convinces them they were mistaken.

[DouglasCole]

I've touched on a few of these concepts before, though I won't pretend that the posts I'm about to link are directly addressing the question. But . . . some may be relevant.

Controllability to the point where you have to re-ready a weapon is covered here in Follow-up musing on Rcl and Unready Weapons

I muse on controlling and jumping in Autofire here in Ready . . . aim . . . BRAKKABRAKKABRAKKABRAKKA

Talking about ST, MinST, and Trained ST and Guns Skill


When you're shooting a lot, Where do all those extra bullets go?

Finally, here's on on inherent burst size and full-auto fire

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

For a quite unrealistic example, one of the Quake games (Quake 3, I think) had a machine gun which irresistibly pushed your aimpoint up as you fired. If you just kept shooting you'd wind up unable to hit anything except the ceiling over your head. It was accurate, fast-firing, and totally unable to put a second of continuous fire anywhere close to a target beyond arm's reach. (That sort of FPS being what it is, a major use was unloading at point blank range, starting at a tough target's feet so they died before it tracked off them.)

Isn't the problem there that you miss with some bullets, not that you don't hit with at least one? That is what Rcl does. Of course a real weapon isn't going to be as predictable and isn't totally out of your control as soon as you pull the trigger.

With cap at +1, firing 5 shots (the actual threshold for +1 bonus) would be useful, though not necessarily worth the ammo. Firing more than 5 would be pointless unless you were using some special autofire tricks like Spraying Fire or Suppression Fire over multiple zones

What is the evidence that this is realistic, or that firing at full auto doesn't improve your chances of hitting over firing five shots?

Certainly an option, though doesn't solve the problem of people who have the objection unless it comes with an argument that convinces them they were mistaken.

I still don't understand where the objection is coming from.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Isn't the problem there that you miss with some bullets, not that you don't hit with at least one? That is what Rcl does. Of course a real weapon isn't going to be as predictable and isn't totally out of your control as soon as you pull the trigger.

Yes, it's not a good example of the entire objection, because the first shot is perfectly accurate and arrives instantly at your on-screen crosshair, so the chance of not landing at least one hit is generally too low to usefully assess. Just an example of how firing more shots doesn't necessarily result in more shots heading downrange in a direction where they provide any benefit.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

What is the evidence that this is realistic, or that firing at full auto doesn't improve your chances of hitting over firing five shots?

I don't think there's anything I can add to what's already upthread on that.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Yes, it's not a good example of the entire objection, because the first shot is perfectly accurate and arrives instantly at your on-screen crosshair, so the chance of not landing at least one hit is generally too low to usefully assess.

That's going to be true of the first shot, regardless.

I don't think there's anything I can add to what's already upthread on that.

Statistics? Ballistics?

ETA: I think there probably is a problem here (though not enough of one that I would actually care in an actual game), in that GURPS is very generous with the Rapid Fire bonus, which isn't actually a problem with the M14 versus the M16, as firing accurate bursts with either weapon is pretty difficult (firing rapid single shots with the M16 especially from an unsupported position, like standing, isn't trivial either and GURPS does nothing about this other than only allowing you to retain half Acc). I am thoroughly convinced this is a general problem and not specific to battle rifles over assault rifles.