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 12-12-2020, 10:39 PM   #21
Say, it isn't that bad!
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Default Re: Base gun damage on calibre and gun size; armor divisor on kinetic energy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polydamas View Post
Well, you are proposing to replace a model where damage is proportional to the square root of energy times a factor based on the projectile diameter (see eg. Doug Cole's "Interior and Terminal Ballistics for GURPS," pyramid_2002/2002/0523.html) with one where its based on the projectile diameter. That is where the problem comes from.
There's your problem.

I never "intended" any such thing. I posted a very basic idea, and then asked for help improving it, asking if there were any experts available.

I have since been told:
1) It isn't very good.
2) It needs to account for bullet velocity.
3) I should give up on the idea altogether.

I agree with points #1 and #2, and am willing to listen to points #3.

Imagine having a flat tire, and asking for help. The next dozen passerby just say "Yep, your tire's flat. You should inflate it."

Yes, thank you, that tire sure is flat.
__________________
In which I post about a TL9-10 solar system

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=169674

If you don't know why I said something, please ask. Assumptions are the death of courtesy.

Disappointed in the behaviour I have too-often encountered here.
Say, it isn't that bad! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2020, 11:12 PM   #22
Eukie
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Default Re: Base gun damage on calibre and gun size; armor divisor on kinetic energy?

The problem you're attempting to solve is extremely difficult. To start, there's still not a consensus on how bullets kill or incapacitate targets, which makes trying to approximate reality or even what "feels right" extremely difficult.
Eukie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2020, 01:09 AM   #23
Say, it isn't that bad!
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Default Re: Base gun damage on calibre and gun size; armor divisor on kinetic energy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eukie View Post
The problem you're attempting to solve is extremely difficult. To start, there's still not a consensus on how bullets kill or incapacitate targets, which makes trying to approximate reality or even what "feels right" extremely difficult.
The problem has been greatly expanded by others, as well. I have no objections to applying kinetic energy as a factor; but I never actually said anything about calculating the damage to each individual organ.

But it doesn't seem like anyone is even reading my entire first post, let alone listening to me, so I'm dropping this thread.

Among other things, if people had actually read my entire first post, they would have read me mentioning that kinetic energy should be a factor, and a lot of time would have been saved.
__________________
In which I post about a TL9-10 solar system

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=169674

If you don't know why I said something, please ask. Assumptions are the death of courtesy.

Disappointed in the behaviour I have too-often encountered here.
Say, it isn't that bad! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2020, 12:29 PM   #24
Tinman
 
Tinman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New York City
Default Re: Base gun damage on calibre and gun size; armor divisor on kinetic energy?

Well one possible solution is base damage being on diameter but having a wounding modifier based on velocity. So instead of pi- or pi+, ect...

Have very low velocity for black-powder, low velocity for pistols, medium for SMGs shotguns & carbines and high velocity for rifles.

It's basically the previous system inverted.
Tinman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2020, 01:30 PM   #25
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: Base gun damage on calibre and gun size; armor divisor on kinetic energy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinman View Post
Well one possible solution is base damage being on diameter but having a wounding modifier based on velocity. So instead of pi- or pi+, ect...

Have very low velocity for black-powder, low velocity for pistols, medium for SMGs shotguns & carbines and high velocity for rifles.

It's basically the previous system inverted.
Problem: The wz. 35 anti-tank rifle now performs worse against armor than a .38 caliber revolver.
__________________
RyanW
- Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats.
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2020, 01:37 PM   #26
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: Base gun damage on calibre and gun size; armor divisor on kinetic energy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad! View Post
Among other things, if people had actually read my entire first post, they would have read me mentioning that kinetic energy should be a factor, and a lot of time would have been saved.
I read the post, and interpreted "a small adjustment" to mean that kinetic energy would be a minor factor, when it should be a very major factor. Basically, I read what you were proposing as a rule change that had major flaws that could be most easily fixed by using the original rule you were trying to replace (maybe with a tweak or two).

To use the tire metaphor, I saw you replacing a good tire with one that had a huge hole, and was trying to steer you toward putting the good tire back on instead of patching the hole.
__________________
RyanW
- Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats.
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2020, 01:46 PM   #27
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Base gun damage on calibre and gun size; armor divisor on kinetic energy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad! View Post
But it doesn't seem like anyone is even reading my entire first post, let alone listening to me, so I'm dropping this thread.
The basic problem with your original post is that you never actually said what problem you were trying to solve. For what it's worth, gun damage isn't based on 'kinetic energy' per se at all, it's based on empirical measures that happen to correlate somewhat with kinetic energy.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2020, 06:55 AM   #28
Tinman
 
Tinman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New York City
Default Re: Base gun damage on calibre and gun size; armor divisor on kinetic energy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanW View Post
Problem: The wz. 35 anti-tank rifle now performs worse against armor than a .38 caliber revolver.
To be clear I don't think the system the OP wants is a good idea. I think it's a solution looking for a problem & it's not a good solution. I think the firearms rules work well.

However, as the OP asked for a way to make it work better, that's one possible way to do so.

Also, to address the OP's original issue of guns being too lethal, I believe the optional bleeding rules work really well. I'm going to try them in my new Pulp-Action! campaign. Though for Action!, it may not be appropriate.
Tinman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2020, 09:46 AM   #29
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: Base gun damage on calibre and gun size; armor divisor on kinetic energy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinman View Post
T

Also, to address the OP's original issue of guns being too lethal, .
I find it's jsut as likely that guns aren't lethal enough.

Put a bullet from a .45 aCP into a target's Brain and that's 7 pts of damage -2 pts for his Skull (which is part of the problem) and then the remaining 5 pts get multiplied by 4. 50% of HT 10 NPCS will survive and it's actually worse than that because you won't always roll as high as 7 to begin with.
__________________
Fred Brackin
Fred Brackin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2020, 10:24 AM   #30
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Base gun damage on calibre and gun size; armor divisor on kinetic energy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
I find it's jsut as likely that guns aren't lethal enough.

Put a bullet from a .45 aCP into a target's Brain and that's 7 pts of damage -2 pts for his Skull (which is part of the problem) and then the remaining 5 pts get multiplied by 4. 50% of HT 10 NPCS will survive and it's actually worse than that because you won't always roll as high as 7 to begin with.
I agree rounds that usually get a bonus effect for Pi+& Pi++ injury mods can interact oddly with some locations (especially the skull as you point out).

But if you are using the bleeding rules in MA that 50% being alive would just delay the inevitable as you need a surgery roll at a significant negative mod to stop any bleeding.


(Also with 2d you just as likely to roll higher than 7 as lower, and even if you roll lower that will still leave nasty bleeding to deal with).


Plus of course the -10 HT knockdown roll on a major wound to the skull that occurs on any roll of 4+ will take them out the fight unless they get very lucky.
__________________
Grand High* Poobah of the Cult of Stat Normalisation.
*not too high of course

Last edited by Tomsdad; 12-15-2020 at 02:19 PM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
guns, rules modification, survivable guns

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 08:46 AM.


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