[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Icelander

...

The highest PC score in an Attribute that isn't ST is DX 17, the roguish Murlak. Several PCs or their closest allies have 16s, with two of them (since last night) having IQ, Per and Will all at 16. ST 20 is still the highest ST among the PCs, but 'Brash' Mickey has a Girdle of Giant Strength (+10 to ST) and Gauntlets of Ogre Power (+6 Arm ST).

That's all pretty reasonable for mid high level FR characters IIRC, FR being pretty high fantasy.

ths items are interesting though, IIRC in AD&D they just replaced you STR stst with another vlaues (and I'm not sure you could combine them)? But here they instead combine and add to you initial ST. (I don't know what D&D 3e + did though).

Originally Posted by Icelander

Well, unless you are equipping specialists, you have to tailor the issue weapon to the lowest ST in a unit. And that's ST 10 for the land-based caliver corps or sailors and ST 11 for the Marines.

ST 12 and ST 13 weapons are still valuable additions, though, because there will usually be several big guys who can carry bigger weapons.

Very true, and of course you can mix you formation up, have the bigger chaps use the ST12 wall guns or what ever, and have their slightly smaller mates act as pike men or skirmishers to cover them, or even as loaders to maintain rate of fire

Originally Posted by Icelander

For most Low-Tech firearms, though, I don't have a very clear benchmark of how much MinST is a function of the Weight of the weapon and how much it's a function of the recoil. Usually, LT has lighter weapons have lower MinST, even if that would mean a pretty fearsome recoil. It is to be considered that MinST 10 apparently covers handling the recoil of anything up to a Charleville musket, i.e. the musket used by the French in the Napoleonic Wars and the emergent United States in the Revolutionary War, with a ca 500 grain ball at 800-900 fps.

Yes it's not hugely clear, there's also the question of different shapes adn balances. that 21lb musket in LT* is MinST12 but there are 7.62mm LMGs in HT that weight more but with lower MinST (and I know the latter are shorter with a considerable different balance and weight distribution)

I;m guessing this stat is calculated using structured rules but also with eye to anecdotal evidence. As such I'd try and be consistent with similar weapons. (and be free with big hand's perk)

The other problem with using Rcl to base stuff off is that Rcl itself is a derived stat that encompasses a lot of different things (some of which are directly related to MinST i.e weight, so it can get bit circular here).


*which is double the weight of TL5 muskets in HT

Originally Posted by Icelander

To be sure, this is a role.

On the other hand, with REF 0.8 smokepowder, which explodes more energetically than black powder, it ought to be possible to get somewhat smaller balls to a higher velocity than typical black powder velocities. Which gives you more penetration for a given recoil impulse.

There is some pretty advanced math involved in determining at what velocity you're efficiently using your propellant and when increasing velocity costs you a disproportionate amount of extra propellant.

I haven't done any actual math, meaning anything with arcane symbols in it, but I'm pretty sure that with a REF 0.8 propellant, you have a higher velocity as the baseline practical value than with black powder REF 0.4 to 0.5 propellant.

In general terms yes definitely, it's just you have to contain and harness that increased energy as well.

As you say this get's complicated, and it where we get into peak vs area and energy imparted with various knock on's (high peak means you have to contain a lot of pressure at specific point, low peak but large area means you need a longer barrel to harness all the energy).

The thing is you can have smoke powder have whatever internal ballistic characteristics here that you want, and if they are on the more extreme end of them it will effect what you guns will look like.

But generally speaking higher energy (REF in GURPS terms) will mean heavier guns (or stronger guns with better metallurgy).

Originally Posted by Icelander

Well, that's one role, but they have several different types of smokepowder troops. There are Marines that specialise in boarding actions, but can also fight as line infantry; caliver corps troopers that fight as line infantry; sailors and naval officers who have access to pistols and blunderbusses for boarding actions; a few naval marksmen who have a rifle; and a unit of slingers who shoot grenades. And the group of Giff mercenaries, now.

Future units will be elite riflemen who can both perform as scouts and fight as infantry; a military police unit for headquarter security; sharpshooters; scout/skirmishers; and the unit of female recruits, who will probably be sharpshooters as well. Selected Marines will be trained as sharpshooters as soon as they have rifles (in fact, some of them have already been using rifles owned by the ships and meant for use by naval ratings).

Very true and some of these are going to be very different and have different requirement that will effect the weapon that is best suited of them.

But really I as just making the point that if larger more powerful weapons will be usable in "pistol" role (which woudl benefit some of those roles above)

Originally Posted by Icelander

As an aside:

The Flintlock Carbine from LT is extremely attractive in terms of stats. I wonder why it gets so much better stats than everything else. It has a decent Dmg, but even though it is actually lighter than a heavy pistol once you subtract the stock, it doesn't have very high Rcl or MinST.

And it has Acc 3 as a smoothbore, higher than all the full-size muskets and equal to a Jaeger, Kentucky or a Baker rifle; which does suggest that all that rifling and longer barrel was a waste of effort.

Even when used as a pistol it is clearly better than all the other pistols, with Acc 2 and higher Dmg than all of them, but only MinST 10.

I would like to allow a weapon with the same design principle in my campaign, but I'd have to find some credible sources that the historical 1690s weapon really was that good before using the stats unchanged.

Yeah it does stack up rather well doesn't (there's nothing in the errata but that's not conclusive)

I suspect we have a condensed TL issue going on here, in that in RL this technology advanced quite quickly but also at different rates in different places and at different times within a relatively short period of time. I might be tempted to count it as fine accurate and increase the price (I think this ties in with it one relative deficit it's low 1/2dam range).

This wepoan was (AFAIK) not widely used or mass equipped for military use which suggests there was drawbacks to it for that kind of role even if it was this good.