Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-02-2016, 10:24 AM   #21
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Low-Tech] Chinese Guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Ryujin View Post
But now that we're pretty sure that we've figured out what's going on with the Crouching Tiger Gun, it's time to move on to why the scattershot range is different from what High Tech suggests.
Not to mention why a full-caliber lead ball has the same range as 100 smaller sub-caliber shot from the Long-Range-Awe-Inspiring Gun.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2016, 12:40 PM   #22
The_Ryujin
 
The_Ryujin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Default Re: [Low-Tech] Chinese Guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
Not to mention why a full-caliber lead ball has the same range as 100 smaller sub-caliber shot from the Long-Range-Awe-Inspiring Gun.
Ok with the Long Range Awe Inspiring Gun, if we assume that your assumption that it's got a caliber of 58mm and that the damage of 7d-1 is correct then that means each scatter shot round is about 12.7mm which, if we treat it as shotshell, gives me a half damage range of 63.5 and max range of 1,270 and 0.67 die of damage. So it looks like everything adds up... except for the half damage range. So either Bill either accidentally use NP×10 for the half damage range or the Gun Design System rules for scatter shot had changed since High-Tech.

Now to figure out what's going one with the Long Range Gun's range with a full sized shot, I ran the numbers through Doug's spread sheet (I have the 2013 version). This got me a half damage range of 884 and a max range of 3,222. Doug's sheet does give different values for range then the formula used in house, but it is within the same ball park so I think it's safe to say that the range listed in Low-Tech is a copy past error.
__________________
"Conspiracy theorist": Because people who show the evidence known lairs *GASP!* are lying must be crazy >.>

Guess I should hawk by blog here: http://gurb3d6.blogspot.com/
The_Ryujin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2016, 12:15 AM   #23
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: [Low-Tech] Chinese Guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Ryujin View Post
Yeah, but at lest we made some progress though it sucks that I didn't end up helping as much as I thought I was. Thought my model was getting really close but it seems that I made an error somewhere on my test sheet. Thank god I didn't use it for my GURPSday post!

This is one of the reason I don't like the "closed box" mind set that 4th editions has had. It's hard to have a generic system if I don't know how to play with it's numbers (though don't get me wrong, I do understand why they felt pressured to do so. I just don't like it heh).

Yeah, it would be nice to have both, as you an always use teh one you personally want. I knew at one point there was an armourer's book suggested (maybe as part of VDS) but I don't know of that still going ahead. It would have the similar commercial issues as VDS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Ryujin View Post
But now that we're pretty sure that we've figured out what's going on with the Crouching Tiger Gun, it's time to move on to why the scattershot range is different from what High Tech suggests.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
Not to mention why a full-caliber lead ball has the same range as 100 smaller sub-caliber shot from the Long-Range-Awe-Inspiring Gun.
I always assumed that was a typo on the page as you basically have three sets of range stats repeated (but that doesn't actually answer the question I realise)

I think part of thr problem i not actually knowing what these guns are. Which would help with working backwards from reality.

So for sample I can look up a brown bess musket etc, but what's a crouching Tiger gun and what's a Long-Range Awe-Inspiring Gun (and more importantly what's the difference). Of course as has been pointed out this is not the era of standardisation and not only is there overlap of terms but terms were also nebulous and variable etc.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2016, 12:48 AM   #24
The_Ryujin
 
The_Ryujin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Default Re: [Low-Tech] Chinese Guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Yeah, it would be nice to have both, as you an always use teh one you personally want. I knew at one point there was an armourer's book suggested (maybe as part of VDS) but I don't know of that still going ahead. It would have the similar commercial issues as VDS.
The Armorers's Handbook is going to be separate from the VDS, assuming it comes out at all.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
I think part of thr problem i not actually knowing what these guns are. Which would help with working backwards from reality.

So for sample I can look up a brown bess musket etc, but what's a crouching Tiger gun and what's a Long-Range Awe-Inspiring Gun (and more importantly what's the difference). Of course as has been pointed out this is not the era of standardisation and not only is there overlap of terms but terms were also nebulous and variable etc.
Yeah, knowing what data Bill used when he stated out these guns will help greatly. They both are real historical Chinese guns, the problem is most sources I can find on them is very vague on hard facts like caliber, muzzle velocity and weight of the shot.
__________________
"Conspiracy theorist": Because people who show the evidence known lairs *GASP!* are lying must be crazy >.>

Guess I should hawk by blog here: http://gurb3d6.blogspot.com/
The_Ryujin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2016, 03:17 AM   #25
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: [Low-Tech] Chinese Guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Ryujin View Post
The Armorers's Handbook is going to be separate from the VDS, assuming it comes out at all.
Cool. I haven't head about it for a while, so I assume it's a gleam in someone's eye /excel spreadsheet at the moment





Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Ryujin View Post
Yeah, knowing what data Bill used when he stated out these guns will help greatly. They both are real historical Chinese guns, the problem is most sources I can find on them is very vague on hard facts like caliber, muzzle velocity and weight of the shot.

True, or even a description. Although given the sheer amount of stuff in that book I'm guessing space was at an absolute premium and word count was a harsh mistress!

FWICT the Crouching Tiger gun is short angled gun pinned to the ground, much more like an older bombard,

The Awe inspiring cannon is vase shaped thing longer and heavier then the crouching tiger but seems earlier (I have to say I assumed it was later).


However that's 5 seconds and Wikipedia, I'm guessing Bill Stoddard did rather more than that when looking at this!


One other think I meant to mention earlier there doesn't seem to be stats for earlier gun powder weapons firing arrows, could probably mash something up from the Flechette rules in HT

Last edited by Tomsdad; 10-03-2016 at 11:38 PM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2016, 05:16 AM   #26
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: [Low-Tech] Chinese Guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Ryujin View Post
Ok with the Long Range Awe Inspiring Gun, if we assume that your assumption that it's got a caliber of 58mm and that the damage of 7d-1 is correct then that means each scatter shot round is about 12.7mm which, if we treat it as shotshell, gives me a half damage range of 63.5 and max range of 1,270 and 0.67 die of damage. So it looks like everything adds up... except for the half damage range. So either Bill either accidentally use NP×10 for the half damage range or the Gun Design System rules for scatter shot had changed since High-Tech.
Note that we do not treat low-tech multiple projectile loads as 'Shotshell', we treat them as 'Canister' (TL4), which means that Max Range is 50 x diameter of shot. That means that the Range should probably be 65/650.*

*Though I have no objections to slightly altering the results of applying the High-Tech generic rule to match specific historical performance. If another Range statistic can be shown to represent reality better, I'm all for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Ryujin View Post
Now to figure out what's going one with the Long Range Gun's range with a full sized shot, I ran the numbers through Doug's spread sheet (I have the 2013 version). This got me a half damage range of 884 and a max range of 3,222. Doug's sheet does give different values for range then the formula used in house, but it is within the same ball park so I think it's safe to say that the range listed in Low-Tech is a copy past error.
Doug Cole's spreadsheet measures how far a given ball will fly whereas GURPS Max Range is supposed to be a range at which the weapon is still effective, albeit difficult to use. GURPS produces much shorter Max Range scores than the spreadsheet, but that's okay, as otherwise weapons could do half damage out to ranges where they are no more than mild hazards that sting when they hit.

Meanwhile, 1/2D Range in GURPS is not exactly the same as the range at which a given projectile has either half the velocity or energy it had at the muzzle. It seems to be a number meant to reflect differences in 'effective range' between weapons and one might even suspect that there's a lingering taint from where it was the range at which weapon Acc no longer counted. In any case, correcting GURPS rules is all well and good, but it has to happen with consistency. As long as all other weapons use these assumptions for the Range stat, it would create perverse incentives to use a different set of assumptions for one or two weapons.

Note that TL5 Napoleon twelve-pounder cannon is listed at Range 400/2,000* in GURPS. No smoothbore cannon firing round ball has a better range than this. It would be strange indeed if a much ligthter, smaller gun, with a fairly light powder charge for the TL, achieved much better Range than any other smoothbore.

*Artifact the position of the gun, theoretical Max Range 3,300, according to HT.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2016, 11:52 AM   #27
The_Ryujin
 
The_Ryujin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Default Re: [Low-Tech] Chinese Guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
One other think I meant to mention earlier there doesn't seem to be stats for earlier gun powder weaposn firing arrows, could probably mash something up from teh Flechette rules in HT
I don't know if the flechette rules would be a good fit since the rules assume fairly high density projectiles... but for now it would be better then nothing, the ranges would probably reduced, maybe by around 65% or more based on the density of the wood used.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
Note that we do not treat low-tech multiple projectile loads as 'Shotshell', we treat them as 'Canister' (TL4), which means that Max Range is 50 x diameter of shot. That means that the Range should probably be 65/650.*

*Though I have no objections to slightly altering the results of applying the High-Tech generic rule to match specific historical performance. If another Range statistic can be shown to represent reality better, I'm all for it.
I did look at canister at first but something about the numbers seemed "buckshot" to me so I stated them up using those numbers. Maybe Bill thought the same way or just used the wrong formula.

As to if these numbers fit reality better, that I can't say yet but like you I do think stating them as canister shots does makes more sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
In any case, correcting GURPS rules is all well and good, but it has to happen with consistency. As long as all other weapons use these assumptions for the Range stat, it would create perverse incentives to use a different set of assumptions for one or two weapons.

Note that TL5 Napoleon twelve-pounder cannon is listed at Range 400/2,000* in GURPS. No smoothbore cannon firing round ball has a better range than this. It would be strange indeed if a much ligthter, smaller gun, with a fairly light powder charge for the TL, achieved much better Range than any other smoothbore.

*Artifact the position of the gun, theoretical Max Range 3,300, according to HT.
Yeah, Doug's sheet assumes modern guns so it doesn't take rifling into effect and is calibrated more towards rifles side of ballistics so the numbers it produces for smoothbore low velocity cannons is going to be off but it can at lest give us some rough ideas.

Actually I just re-read the rules for using lead shot and looks the the range for the Awe Inspiring Long Range Gun might be 123/1,124, assuming of course that the range for the Crouching Tiger Gun is correct. This is based on the fact the rules say that lead shot has twice the range and that the Long Range Gun does about 1.02× more damage. Under normal GURPS conventions, this should be rounded to two significance figures or a range of 120/1,100.

So this only muddles thing further for the lead shot figures... did Bill just round the range for the Long Range Gun up? Or did someone made copy paste error given that the ranges were so similar? Or was the range rounded up and it was also used for the lead shot ranges on accident?
__________________
"Conspiracy theorist": Because people who show the evidence known lairs *GASP!* are lying must be crazy >.>

Guess I should hawk by blog here: http://gurb3d6.blogspot.com/
The_Ryujin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2016, 02:49 AM   #28
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: [Low-Tech] Chinese Guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Ryujin View Post
I don't know if the flechette rules would be a good fit since the rules assume fairly high density projectiles... but for now it would be better then nothing, the ranges would probably reduced, maybe by around 65% or more based on the density of the wood used.

...
That's a good point (I'd forgotten how high the range would be with even the the smallest arrows)
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
cannon, low-tech, multiple projectiles

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.