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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-08-2020, 10:20 AM   #11
AlexanderHowl
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default Re: [Ultra-Tech] ergonomic paradigms for sidearms, smallarms, and body armour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agemegos View Post
If you have a technology for which the smallest possible cartridge is the size of a small salami you can't use it in a pocket pistol. So you use that technology in a two-man crew-served weapon like a recoilless AT rifle, and use some other technology for your pocket pistols.

That may have a large bearing on what sort of performance you can get out of different form factors — pi- from a pocket pistol and (10) cr ex with linked cr ex from a crew-served AT weapon — but it does not have much bearing on what distinct ergonomic forms of weapons there are.
You do not need a crew served weapon though, a 15mm Anti-Material Rifle is a one-person operation. Give it ETC and infrared homing APEP rounds, and it is engaging targets 18,000 yards away (further than a TML). Of course, that costs $160 per round, but it is really effective with 22d+24 (3) pi damage (and you likely only need one shot per target). Compare that with the quarter million rounds that the USA has spent per enemy killed in recent wars, and it seems like a steal ($200 per kill versus $135,000 per kill).
AlexanderHowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 10:31 AM   #12
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: [Ultra-Tech] ergonomic paradigms for sidearms, smallarms, and body armour

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl View Post
You do not need a crew served weapon though, a 15mm Anti-Material Rifle is a one-person operation..
Salamis are thicker than 15mm.
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 01:21 PM   #13
Andrew Hackard
Munchkin Line Editor
 
Andrew Hackard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Default Re: [Ultra-Tech] ergonomic paradigms for sidearms, smallarms, and body armour

Mod note: I moved a bunch of posts about homing rounds into their own thread so that discussion could continue without derailing from the original post.
__________________
Andrew Hackard, Munchkin Line Editor
If you have a question that isn't getting answered, we have a thread for that.

Let people like what they like. Don't be a gamer hater.

#PlayMunchkin on social media: Twitter || Facebook || Instagram || YouTube
Follow us on Kickstarter: Steve Jackson Games and Warehouse 23
Andrew Hackard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 03:13 PM   #14
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: [Ultra-Tech] ergonomic paradigms for sidearms, smallarms, and body armour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard View Post
Mod note: I moved a bunch of posts about homing rounds into their own thread so that discussion could continue without derailing from the original post.
Thank you.
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 04:18 PM   #15
dcarson
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Default Re: [Ultra-Tech] ergonomic paradigms for sidearms, smallarms, and body armour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agemegos View Post
If you have a technology for which the smallest possible cartridge is the size of a small salami you can't use it in a pocket pistol. So you use that technology in a two-man crew-served weapon like a recoilless AT rifle, and use some other technology for your pocket pistols.
You might get one shot weapons so that say power armor that can only be stopped by that kind of weapon ends up right in front of you you have a chance of stopping it. Probably not everyone would carry it but scouts, sentries, etc. who might have to deal with it in a surprise situation.
dcarson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 04:56 PM   #16
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: [Ultra-Tech] ergonomic paradigms for sidearms, smallarms, and body armour

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcarson View Post
You might get one shot weapons so that say power armor that can only be stopped by that kind of weapon ends up right in front of you you have a chance of stopping it. Probably not everyone would carry it but scouts, sentries, etc. who might have to deal with it in a surprise situation.
Yeah. Like a VLAW rather than a Beretta 418 or Baby Browning. It's a use case that we haven't seen much in adventure and thrillers, and quite different from Joel Cairo's carrying a Colt .25 wrapped up in a scented silk handkerchief.
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 05:15 PM   #17
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: [Ultra-Tech] ergonomic paradigms for sidearms, smallarms, and body armour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agemegos View Post
If you have a technology for which the smallest possible cartridge is the size of a small salami you can't use it in a pocket pistol.
Well, a single shot 15mm gyroc fits in a pocket, and if a 25mm micro missile launcher existed, it would probably fit too.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 06:01 PM   #18
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: [Ultra-Tech] ergonomic paradigms for sidearms, smallarms, and body armour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Ergonomics are heavily influenced by the needs of the weapon system. For projectile weapons, you have two competing issues:
  1. At the same energy level, a small fast projectile has less recoil than a heavy slow projectile.
  2. At the same energy level, a small caliber barrel needs to be longer than a large caliber barrel.
The second factor is why pistols mostly use relatively slow and heavy bullets; typically less than half the velocity of rifle bullets.

Ultratech improvements tend to either allow higher chamber pressure, or higher energy at the same chamber pressure. Either one encourages lighter weight projectiles (to keep recoil constant), which in turn means smaller calibers.

This all assumes simple bullets. Sabot ammunition will generally allow a shorter barrel at the same projectile mass and velocity. Rocket ammunition may allow a minimal barrel, and recoil is not strongly correlated to energy at all. Payload ammunition is usually lighter at the same size, and also not dependent on kinetic energy, so fairly large calibers become plausible.
Yeah, the ergonomics of presenting, aiming, and firing a weapon present constraints even on big game rifles and silhouette pistols, but that is not what I'm trying to get at.

I presume that when and if it comes to the point of presenting the weapon to fire everyone wishes that they had something at least as big and capable as a standard infantry small-arm or at least a full-size service pistol (or whatever near equivalent they can handle). But there are a lot of circumstances in which people choose to carry or wear rather less gun than the heaviest iron they can handle. James Bond carried that ridiculous Beretta .25 under his dinner jacket despite the fact that he was perfectly capable of handling the mysterious “long-barrelled Colt Army Special .45” that he kept under the dashboard of his 1932 Bentley. When M and Major Boothroyd made him swap the mouse gun for a Walther PPK that was not because a 7.65 ACP out of an 83 mm barrel produced all the recoil Bond could handle.

It is very often the ergonomics of carrying a smallarm or of wearing a sidearm that determine people's choice of, say, a carbine, SMG, or PDW instead of a rifle, or their choice of a Walther PP or PPK over a P-38.

Sure, the issues of weight, bulk, handling, and concealment are in fact continuous. It's just that for gaming purposes I would prefer a granular system of discrete categories to a morass of continuous variables even if then algebra is simple.
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 06:02 PM   #19
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: [Ultra-Tech] ergonomic paradigms for sidearms, smallarms, and body armour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agemegos View Post
If you have a technology for which the smallest possible cartridge is the size of a small salami you can't use it in a pocket pistol.
Well, a single shot 15mm gyroc fits in a pocket, and if a 25mm micro missile launcher existed, it would probably fit too.
Salamis are thicker than 25 mm. I have one here that I would definitely describe as "small": it's 45 mm wide and 170mm long. Yes, I suppose that maybe you could build a sort of derringer to fire a cartridge that large. But though that might fit in a large pocket it would not suit the purpose of a pocket pistol such as a Baby Browning or a Colt Vest Pocket in .25 Auto.
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.

Last edited by Agemegos; 02-08-2020 at 06:25 PM.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2020, 07:07 PM   #20
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: [Ultra-Tech] ergonomic paradigms for sidearms, smallarms, and body armour

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agemegos View Post
And moving on to body armour, what are the ergonomic paradigms that ought to be represented at each technology. Concealable, flexible, heavy?
I would assume that 'concealable' would have reduced coverage (shown in either a lower than base DR, or by using the partial coverage rules from LT/HT). So there should be an opposing trait, of as complete coverage as the makers can manage, giving no armour chinks or something like that in exchange for increased bulk (reflected perhaps by a DX penalty). There should definitely be light, standard, and heavy versions, with varying DR and weight (and probably price and concealability).
Yes, I think that is probably the way it will work out. You make an interesting point about armour being so heavy that strong characters and slight characters may demand heavy and light grades even for the same case of wear.

Another point (which is coming up in the discussion of small-arms, too) is that the future prevalence exoskeletons to bear heavy armour and carry heavy small-arms may introduce a new ergonomic paradigm for battlefield infantry, assault police, and armed guards: armour for wearing on a combat exoskeleton.

Let's try to cobble together a list of user cases for body armour. We have
  1. protective workwear that is not really designed to protect against weapons but that incidentally provides a minimum of protection
  2. VIPs and discreet bodyguards whose armour must be disguised as or concealable under business wear
  3. police general duties armour, for people who don't mind being visibly armoured but don't face such a high level of threat that they are prepared to wear twenty kilos of armour all day every day
  4. military patrol armour, for extended light infantry operations involving days on foot
  5. heavy infantry battle rattle and SWAT armour
  6. exoskeleton infantry armour

Are there more? Are 3 and 4 the same?
__________________

Decay is inherent in all composite things.
Nod head. Get treat.
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
body armour, concealability, ergonomics, sidearms, ultra-tech

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 03:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.