Combat is too easy.

[KLM]

In conclusion, I think that combat in RIFTS should be made a lot harder. That is, targets should be more difficult to hit. But when hits occur the risk of injury should be greater.

Yeah, I dislike the concept, that two SAMs slugging it out, are needing
to hit 10 times before the opponents armor fails. Also, if they dodge,
it will take about 20-25 bursts to take down a SAM with its own railgun.

Not just it is ridicuolusly long, but also uses up half of the ammo
for a PA.

At the same time, fastening 4 laser rifles (JA-9 for example)
together is around the same cost, doing approximately the
same damage, and with a backpack power pack (assuming
that the nuclear power plant of the SAM recharges it only in
a painfully slow pace) gives a good deal more ammo.

And when we done it, one can add some mini-missiles to the
PA, in case of one needs to gun down something from a range
or an energy resistant target.
-----

Put it in short: I you like that barbarian/monstar hordes waving
clubs overrun a modern military unit, the the current combat-engine
is for you. And I am not talking about the Ewok-like guerilla tactics,
and neither the Aliens scenario (of confined space+restricted firepower),
more likely it is like when the Light cavalry ovverruns the russian
artillery (instead being mowed down).

Adios
KLM

[Dead Boy]

The requisite numbers "to hit" should be a lot higher.

I propose that, for ranged weapons only, the base number to-hit is 10.

I know where you're coming from, dude. I had similar thoughts not too long ago when I read that the NYPD's hit ratio in actual shoot-out situations was only 12%, and the FBI's was way superior at a whopping 20%. The Ancorage PD claims a 98% hit accuracy, but I think someone there's playing with the statistics to make themselves look good.

As such, I came up with these number. Though still way better than real life figures, it's still much harsher than what's in effect now. Also I included room for improvment by level brackets.

At 1st level through 4th the character has the base rolls of 10 or better at 0-60'. If using a naked eye and old fasniled iron sights a 14 or better is needed at 61-120', and 16 or better at 120'+. Called Shots are made at a -4 to hit penalty. And of course ALL rolls can be modified with bonuses.

As you can see, we were of similar mind on this.

There also needs to be some way to penetrate armor.

*ugh*:ugh: This again? OK, there is a way to punch through armor. Go through the MDC on it's Main Body, and viola! Penetration.

Making penetration or bleed-through rules only makes the game more lethal for the players in the end run, and Rifts is potentially far too deadly of a game in the first place.

Cover needs to be brought back into play as something as something that's legitimately useful.

I couldn't agree more. Personally, I kind of liked the way it was handled in CB1re, where it effectively make the defender a smaller target, and there fore required the attacker to make a Called Shot at a given penalty. I think RUE does similar. However the problem is in RUE Called Shots are no longer any harder to make than any other... they just take twice as long to set up. Not that's not all that bad in and of it self becaue it makes the attacker have to A) stand still to make his shots, B) halves the damage the defender takes be cause the attacker is only getting off half as many attack, and ideally at that, and C) damage is reduced again because only single shots can be used in a Called Shot, (unless the guy is using a pulse rifle). So in all it's not bad as is. They just need to better define what constitutes "Cover" and what doesn't.

As part of all this, there needs to be some sort of effective "suppressive fire" function in the rules; a way I can shoot at something without really caring whether or not I hit it.

Dig up your copy of Rifter #11. There was an option a lot like that in there under the "Optional Ranged Combat Rules" section.

[Shiva7]

There is still a balancing act that is required...

It's both expensive and relatively hard to replace spend ammo/recharge e-clips. If you make it too hard to hit a target, then ammo becomes a serious problem.

How do you balance this? If you are going to increase the to hit number (which i would agree to a point), then the weapons must be more lethal to allow for finishing off the opponent with fewer hits. This is where AR/PV comes in...

How do you make weapons more lethal without being unfair? I use a simple rule of thumb.... Equally matched oponenta using appropriate weapons should he able to kill their opponent in 5 to 8 average hits. PB is already fairly close to this, but some weapons are a bit out of line. For example the C-40R does 1D4x10 MD, thus as mentioned, it take 10 average hits, but don't forget that the original SAMAS rail gun was supposed to do 1D6x10 MD, thus 7 to 8 hits was enough to kill another SAM, but the CS downgraded the weapon to conserve resources, or so I recall reading in a WB. Therefore, weapon damage needs to be scaled to match armour.

To go along wth the modification of weapon damage, the AR system needs to be changed to represent the ability of armour to stop an attack from affecting the wearer. As it stands, AR represents both armour coverage and armour uality, but coverage should not factor in at all because the rules are counter-logical...

A higher strike roll is supposed to represent shot placement with a higher roll being closer to the intended point of impact, but if the main body is fully armoured and you roll over the AR, then the explanation for armour penetration is that the shot hit an unarmoured area, which means the round was way off target despite the higher roll. Full body armour should be just that, full, thus no chance of penetration unless the rounds punches though the armour itself. If the opponent is in partial armour, then a called shot is how you penetate the armour without punching though the armour itself. AR's should be scaled to the PV system and then expanded upwards ito the MDC range.

Cover would provide both a penalty to strike do to obstruction of view and also a PV barrier that must be penetrated first before the target is even hit.

[Sentinel]

I have to agree on many points.
Armour SDC/MDC is too high in comparisson to weapons damage.
To Hit and Saving Throw numbers are too low, and it's too easy to "bonus whore" to make every save and hit every time. Until I imposed the house rule of 1-4 being an Automatic Miss/Failure, no one ever missed or failed a Svaing Throw: even on a "1", their bonuses brought the roll up to a success.

Having Save VS. Magic being tied to P.E. made little sense to me, and made it too easy for physical powerhouses (particularly in HU) to make their saving throws.
I switched it to M.E. as the source of bonus to Save Vs Magic, and it works a lot better. Raising the target number helped as well, and insuring that mages added their increase to Spell Strength made a difference too.

[Mech-Viper Prime]

personally i never heard anybody crying it to easy to hit, i heard many people say you think it would be easier to hit. critial hits tables are nice

[Blight]

Damages are too low if you can survive anti-tank/whatever fire in you armour the is no reason to take anything else into war but anti-tank weapon. Someone might say over kill Or ooh another Munchkin but in combat your trying to kill the other guy. And if small arms can't do that know army would use small arms! IMHO

[Kelorin]

On the topic of making combat more lethal:

How do guys handle blast radius? Full damage to primary target's main body and half damage to his buddies' main body also in the radius, or do you apply partial damage to other body locations on the same target?

eg. an old school SAM gets hit in the main torso on the left side with a medium range missile. It's one of the new higher yield HE missiles, with a base damage of 3D6x10. A 12 is rolled for a total of 120 MD damage to the main body. It's a serious hit, but not fatal.

Now, the blast radius of the missile is 30 ft. More than enough to envelop the entire outer surface of the SAMAS in the explosion. And while 120 MD isn't a kill on the main body, half damage to other sections in the blast radius would be more serious. 60 MD will do significant damage to the helmet/head and may affect sensors and optics, blow off the wing(s), and possibly an arm. We'll assume that the rear jets were largely shielded by the main body. His wingman flying in close formation takes 60 MD to the main body (for being in the blast radius, and possibly 30 MD to other sections facing the explosion as well, possibly also losing a wing.)

Blast radius if used this way can cripple or knock out small RPA's and folks in body armor without significantly having to increase weapon damages.

Any thoughts?

EDIT:

Even small HE grenades can give speedy or dexterous characters pause. That Juicer running around in non-EBA Juicer plate thinks he's invulnerable due to his high dodge bonuses allowing to avoid the brunt of most attacks coming his way. If he auto-dodges, then he avoids a direct hit but remains in blast radius. That 2D6 MD halved would normally amount to a minor scratch on his plate armor, but even 3 MD is more than enough to lose an arm or leg. Isn't this what the Field Surgery skill was intended for? His only option in partial armor then is to make a full dodge, and jump clear of the blast. Good way to get a Juicer off your CS Grunt's back while you make a run for the Mark V.

[Gabriel_V]

OK. A SAMAS is using it's railgun.

I think if you add up all the applicable bonuses, you'll get something like a +5 to hit.

It's firing at another SAMAS. Mecha combat skill gives that other SAMAS a minimum of +5 to dodge. Then +3 to dodge from Hand to Hand at second level, +1 more from athletics. So, being conservative, the target has a +9 to dodge.

Between the attack and defense rolls, there are 400 different possible results which boil down to our binary hit or miss question. For the purposes of this, I'm assuming:

8 or better is needed to hit.
A natural 1 rolled for attack always misses
A natural 1 rolled to defend against a possible hit always results in a failed defense.
A natural 20 to strike will always hit UNLESS
A natural 20 is rolled to defend, which beats any attack roll.
The -5/-10 to dodge rule is not in play.

This results in 127 out of 400 possibilities which end in a hit. That's about a 32% chance to hit.

On average, the SAMAS does 25 points of damage per attack with it's primary weapon. Critical hits will increase this a bit. When you account for hit probability, and criticals, the SAMAS does an average of about 9.1 MDC per attack with it's railgun.

After 20 bursts/20 attacks, that means you can expect to have inflicted an average of 182 points of damage. Of course, some of those attacks will miss, and others will hit, but over 20 attacks you'll do about 182 points of damage.

If memory serves, the SAMAS has 250 MDC and only has enough railgun ammo for 20 bursts. So the hit and damage rates will generally prevent it from successfully destroying another suit identical to it.

My view of this is that the hit rates are about right. It's easy to get out of the way of damage. When you simply look at the basic target numbers to hit, you aren't looking at the whole package. The defense roll is a very important consideration. And I'm not even factoring in PP bonuses, Boxing, or class bonuses.

If anything it's too HARD to hit and do damage in the Palladium system.

[demos606]

Something far far to many players and GMs forget - killing an enemy isn't the only way to defeat them, even in MD settings.

[demos606]

OK. A SAMAS is using it's railgun.

You can't eliminate the dodge penalty, it is an official rule, thus must factor in to your equations, thus making it harder to dodge.

Outside 60 ft (yds?) (or is it 100?) there is no dodge penalty.

[Gabriel_V]

Hmmm. For some reason it won't let me use the automatic quote feature.

In regards to the -5/-10 rule, remind me of what ranges they come into play. My personal attitude is that no one ever uses those rules.

Then again, I didn't account for the penalty to the attack roll due to a fast moving target. Let's assume dogfight speeds for a pair of dueling SAMs would be 130 MPH or thereabouts. So, someone with access to the books tell me what penalty that would apply to the attacker's roll.

[Shiva7]

OK. A SAMAS is using it's railgun....

Dodging gun fire is as follows, anything beyond 50ft has no penalty, but only the OCC bonus an attribute bonus apply, thus RPA combat and HTH combat bonuses do not factor in.

Thus the dodge bonus is significantly reduced since very few OCC's get any kind of dodge bonus save for the Crazies and Juicers auto-dodge bonus. The Cyber-knights would get their speciaized bonuses as well, but not from the regular HTH.

you typical CS SAM pilot is not likely to have any bonus to dodge.

[demos606]

-10 at point blank range, -5 out to I believe 60 ft but im too lazy to dig out the book and check.

[Sentinel]

If anything it's too HARD to hit and do damage in the Palladium system.

The Damage-to-Armour ratio is definitely to high in favor of armour.
Even in SDC settings, with the energy weapons found in HU and Aliens Unlimited, armour is too highly rated.

[Shiva7]

OK. A SAMAS is using it's railgun.

You can't eliminate the dodge penalty, it is an official rule, thus must factor in to your equations, thus making it harder to dodge.

Outside 60 ft (yds?) (or is it 100?) there is no dodge penalty.

I realized that my first post wasn't clear, so i expanded it, see the post above.

[Gabriel_V]

OK. A SAMAS is using it's railgun....

only the OCC bonus an attribute bonus apply, thus RPA combat and HTH combat bonuses do not factor in.

No. I certainly don't remember reading that anywhere. I don't think that's right. I'll look at the RUE book later and see.

Until then, I'm assuming that the -10/-5 rule will not come into play at all in this example and the defender gets full dodge bonuses. I'll also assume that +1 to strike under 100 ft in mecha combat is not applicable because these guys are trading fire at longer ranges (plus, I think that rule has been removed in RUE).

So, the remaining question is what is the penalty to the attack roll when the defender is moving at 130MPH?

Edit: I just remembered. The SAMAS has some kind of special bonus against all long ranged attacks. I think it's a +1 or +2 to dodge. If someone could look that up for me as well. Thanks.

[ghost2020]

I always thought the rules from the main books were fine. The to hit was fine, bonuses for dodging worked, and burst fire made getting hit awfully dangerous. A few bonuses to hit from optics, and W.P. and it was good to go.
The system worked until the -10 to dodge and the burst fire rules went out the door. Now, tell me how long does it take to take out a soldier or power armor doing 6d6 (6-36 with an average in the high teens to low twenties)?

I just stick with the original combat rules and and a slightly tweaked burst rules (fire by rounds used not a % of clip, makes using energy backpacks easier).

If played as written in the original books (we thought all the guns- laser and otherwise could burst- and why not?) it works like a charm and is plenty deadly.

[Nekira Sudacne]

The requisite numbers "to hit" should be a lot higher. Consider, a knucklehead like myself can pick up whatever gun I like and nail something 500 yards away better than half the time. I can even pick out an ultra-specific detail and hit it just a little worse than half the time.

What this generally leads to is a sort of combat where people stand at 50 paces and blow chunks out of each other's armor (seeing as even the largest boulder will be hard pressed to withstand a couple laser blasts).

At the same time, it makes no difference whatsoever for, say, my Juicer to run up and chop someone up with a 4d6 vibrosword or do it with a 4d6 laser rifle. Actually, because of the auto-parry that all characters get no matter what (guh) it's usually easier to just shoot them.

it's easy to hit a stationary target, but a hell of a lot easier to dodge in Rifts as well than it is in real life, modified -10 rule or not.

there's really no problem there.

Combat needs to be harder. This means several things.

why? it's fun as it is.

I propose that, for ranged weapons only, the base number to-hit is 10. Bonuses and penalties remain the same (for now). So you're still -4 to hit a small target, whatever. This makes hitting something with a rifle a little more difficult than hitting it with a sword. (Come on, even someone trained with a rifle could probably hit whatever it was with a sword more easily, if it were in arms reach).

not easier, just a fraction quicker.

There also needs to be some way to penetrate armor. There should be a basic system for judging when something's done enough to blow a hole through your armor, which is then modified by the weapon type. This would differentiate, say, a 3d6 Ion Blaster (low penetration) from a 3d6 Laser (medium penetration) from a 3d6 Railgun shot (high penetration).

the current system is the armor is first penetrated when MDC is gone. and that's how it SHOULD be. reducing MDC armor dosn't represent blowing the whole thing away, just that's the first shot that penetrates. makes perfect sense in game mechanics and that's how I always ran it.

Cover needs to be brought back into play as something as something that's legitimately useful. In my own experience, 9 times out of 10 in playing RIFTS, I never used cover for any reason whatsoever, especially not when facing people with puny little sidearms that only did enough damage to vaporize a barn. It's just not necessary. I don't know if it's possible to change this without seriously messing with how damage works in RIFTS, because if a boulder still gets melted by the first round of combat then its still not going to be very useful.

I don't get it...honestly. why do you want cover to be any good? MDC blows though cover. makes sense, I don't see why you want to make it useful, it shouldn't be, there's no reason to make it so.

As part of all this, there needs to be some sort of effective "suppressive fire" function in the rules; a way I can shoot at something without really caring whether or not I hit it. Sure, there's Burst or Spray or whatever, but they still work too well. I still end up doing damage to the target almost every time.

agreed

[Killer Cyborg]

1. More difficult to hit opponents

I haven't played under the new rules, but RUE seems to handle that pretty well. Aimed shots are tough to make in combat now, so no more good strike bonus, and the base "to hit" number is higher (8, IIRC), which is likely high enough. Add in penalties for hitting a moving target or whatever, and it's not that easy.
Furthermore, make more use of "Firing Wild".

2. Possibility of armor failure/penetration before running out

The simplest way to do this is to let some SDC damage bleed through the armor. Here are a few thoughts:
-Let the damage go through at a 1:1 ratio. If a guy's armor takes 10 MD, then he takes 10 SDC damage.
-Use a 2:1 ratio. If his armor takes 10, then he takes 5.
-Treat all damage as if it was explosive damage for the purposes of damaging a person in armor.

3. Making cover important

If they can't see you, then they're firing wild.
If you're behind mega-damage cover, then they have to make a called shot (3 attacks) in order to hit an exposed part.
What's the gripe?

4. Implementing an effective "cover fire"/"fire wild" system.

The term "cover fire" means different things to different people. How do you mean it
In any case, RUE starts to address this a bit in their rules on combat casting. A mage who is "under heavy fire" can't cast spells effectively. The same would logically apply to trying to make an Aimed or Called shot.
If you want, you could add in some sort of Horror Factor or something.

[Gabriel_V]

The term "cover fire" means different things to different people. How do you mean it
In any case, RUE starts to address this a bit in their rules on combat casting. A mage who is "under heavy fire" can't cast spells effectively. The same would logically apply to trying to make an Aimed or Called shot.
If you want, you could add in some sort of Horror Factor or something.

You know, if railgun individual round damage weren't so laughable to anyone with MDC, you could easily say railguns are capable of supressive fire.

To peek yourself into the possible hail of nails, you have to roll a horror factor save beating the strike roll with the rail gun for the supressive fire.

[Shiva7]

No. I certainly don't remember reading that anywhere. I don't think that's right. I'll look at the RUE book later and see.

RUE p. 361: "... applicable bonuses... are the character's P.P. attribute bonus and any O.C.C. bonus to dodge."

It doesn't say skill bonus, thus unless it is specific to that OCC, it doesn't apply.

Until then, I'm assuming that the -10/-5 rule will not come into play at all in this example and the defender gets full dodge bonuses. I'll also assume that +1 to strike under 100 ft in mecha combat is not applicable because these guys are trading fire at longer ranges (plus, I think that rule has been removed in RUE).

So, the remaining question is what is the penalty to the attack roll when the defender is moving at 130MPH?

moving target would only be -1 to strike because the relative speed between the two would be zero.

Strike would be -6 because the shooter is in motion, thus wild.

RPA elite gives +2 to strike with long ranged weapons and WP gives +1 to strike with C-40R at level 2. Burst get 1/2 total strike bonus, thus...

Attacker is -7 to strike from penalties and +2 to strike for bonuses, therefore final modifier likely to be -5 to strike and defender has no bonus to dodge. Of course, since you are considering this a dogfight, the defender cannot see the attacker, thus he doesn't even get the chance to dodge.

Edit: I just remembered. The SAMAS has some kind of special bonus against all long ranged attacks. I think it's a +1 or +2 to dodge. If someone could look that up for me as well. Thanks.

There are no modifiers at all for the SAM in RUE, only RPA Elite modifiers apply. dodge bonus for RPA elite does not indicate it applies to bullets and energy blasts, thus it is a HTH bonus, but since a missile isn't a bullet, it would apply to missiles and the likes.

[Shiva7]

The term "cover fire" means different things to different people. How do you mean it
In any case, RUE starts to address this a bit in their rules on combat casting. A mage who is "under heavy fire" can't cast spells effectively. The same would logically apply to trying to make an Aimed or Called shot.
If you want, you could add in some sort of Horror Factor or something.

Actualy, under the descriptin of Wild Shot, it states that even trained soldiers fire wild if under fire themselves, thus they are at -6 to strike if trying to return fire when the opposition is laying down suppressive fire.

[Killer Cyborg]

The term "cover fire" means different things to different people. How do you mean it
In any case, RUE starts to address this a bit in their rules on combat casting. A mage who is "under heavy fire" can't cast spells effectively. The same would logically apply to trying to make an Aimed or Called shot.
If you want, you could add in some sort of Horror Factor or something.

Actualy, under the descriptin of Wild Shot, it states that even trained soldiers fire wild if under fire themselves, thus they are at -6 to strike if trying to return fire when the opposition is laying down suppressive fire.

So there you go.

[Killer Cyborg]

The term "cover fire" means different things to different people. How do you mean it
In any case, RUE starts to address this a bit in their rules on combat casting. A mage who is "under heavy fire" can't cast spells effectively. The same would logically apply to trying to make an Aimed or Called shot.
If you want, you could add in some sort of Horror Factor or something.

You know, if railgun individual round damage weren't so laughable to anyone with MDC, you could easily say railguns are capable of supressive fire.

To peek yourself into the possible hail of nails, you have to roll a horror factor save beating the strike roll with the rail gun for the supressive fire.

Damage isn't the only issue.
A friend of mine brought up the example of guys in a tank who are under fire by a .50 cal machinegun. It can't hurt them, or damage their tank, but it sure is scary and distracting.

[dark brandon]

The term "cover fire" means different things to different people. How do you mean it
In any case, RUE starts to address this a bit in their rules on combat casting. A mage who is "under heavy fire" can't cast spells effectively. The same would logically apply to trying to make an Aimed or Called shot.
If you want, you could add in some sort of Horror Factor or something.

Actualy, under the descriptin of Wild Shot, it states that even trained soldiers fire wild if under fire themselves, thus they are at -6 to strike if trying to return fire when the opposition is laying down suppressive fire.

So there you go.

So, how would this translate into game terms?

[Gabriel_V]

Attacker is -7 to strike from penalties and +2 to strike for bonuses, therefore final modifier likely to be -5 to strike and defender has no bonus to dodge. Of course, since you are considering this a dogfight, the defender cannot see the attacker, thus he doesn't even get the chance to dodge.

With Shiva's figures: attacker -5 to strike and defender dodging with straight die roll. The hit percentage is 22%.

Average damage per attack would be 6.8. Over 20 attacks that would add up to about 136 points of damage.

I'd prefer to read the rule about no defenses as only being applicable when the defender is unaware of the attack. If it were used as Shiva indicates, the hit percentage would be 40% with an average damage of 11.3. Over 20 attacks that would result in an average damage output of 226.

[Shiva7]

So, how would this translate into game terms?

If a soldier say cover me, he is planing of exposing himself (no sexual references please) to enemy fire, thus his comrades lay down supressive fire making it harder for the enemy to hit (-6 to strike) the exposed soldier.

[Killer Cyborg]

The term "cover fire" means different things to different people. How do you mean it
In any case, RUE starts to address this a bit in their rules on combat casting. A mage who is "under heavy fire" can't cast spells effectively. The same would logically apply to trying to make an Aimed or Called shot.
If you want, you could add in some sort of Horror Factor or something.

Actualy, under the descriptin of Wild Shot, it states that even trained soldiers fire wild if under fire themselves, thus they are at -6 to strike if trying to return fire when the opposition is laying down suppressive fire.

So there you go.

So, how would this translate into game terms?

If nobody is shooting at you, then you can fire normally.
If people are shooting at you, or laying down supressive fire, then you can only fire wild.

[dark brandon]

If nobody is shooting at you, then you can fire normally.
If people are shooting at you, or laying down supressive fire, then you can only fire wild.

So, IG, my character would say "I'm laying down supressive fire" and that would be it? Any rolls to strike? How much ammo is used?

[Shiva7]

I'd prefer to read the rule about no defenses as only being applicable when the defender is unaware of the attack. If it were used as Shiva indicates, the hit percentage would be 40% with an average damage of 11.3. Over 20 attacks that would result in an average damage output of 226.

Feel freee to do so in your house rules, but KS made it very clear that the defender must be aware of the attack "and" see the attacker, thus the SAM in front can't see the attack comming, and since the round travel faster than mach 1, he is hit before he even hears them.

[Shiva7]

If nobody is shooting at you, then you can fire normally.
If people are shooting at you, or laying down supressive fire, then you can only fire wild.

So, IG, my character would say "I'm laying down supressive fire" and that would be it? Any rolls to strike? How much ammo is used?

continuation of my example...

Soldier leaves cover and is in the open, comrades all fire at opponets behind cover, opponetstake shot at exposed grunt at -6 to strike because of cover fire. Bursts aren't necessary, so long as the counter attack is occuring int he same actin as the cover fire it is at -6.

If exposed grunt continues to move in the open for another round, some thing, his comrades need to keep firing (even if they only have ss weapons) to keep the opponents at a strike penalty.

I would say that for each target there must be at least onee shot of supressive fire, thus 5 grunts covering 1 exposed grunt can keep 5 opponents "under fire" each action.

[Gabriel_V]

Damage isn't the only issue.
A friend of mine brought up the example of guys in a tank who are under fire by a .50 cal machinegun. It can't hurt them, or damage their tank, but it sure is scary and distracting.

I once read something in a gamebook which I have found to be extremely wise. To paraphrase, it said "You can add any rule to this game that you want to as long as at least ONE other person agrees with you." Of course, it wasn't actually worded that politely. To me, it points out two things: 1) don't dream up stupid rules, and 2) there has to be a consensus when rules are added or no one will play with them.

Now, I'm definitely not calling the suggestion stupid, so the first point doesn't apply. I'm talking about players and consensus, which is definitely point two. From a game standpoint players will definitely think it's stupid that their characters armored with 100 MDC are too scared to possibly take a random 1d4 of railgun damage from jumping into the line of suppressive fire.

In reality, that piddly damage would rip apart a SUV. In the game standpoint and the eyes of the players, it's negligible. You won't get consensus.

In short, I agree with you. On the other hand, I don't think many players would.

[Gabriel_V]

I'd prefer to read the rule about no defenses as only being applicable when the defender is unaware of the attack. If it were used as Shiva indicates, the hit percentage would be 40% with an average damage of 11.3. Over 20 attacks that would result in an average damage output of 226.

Feel freee to do so in your house rules, but KS made it very clear that the defender must be aware of the attack "and" see the attacker, thus the SAM in front can't see the attack comming, and since the round travel faster than mach 1, he is hit before he even hears them.

I'd hate to see you GM Robotech then.

Supposing that you're supporting the idea that combat is too easy of the initial poster, how do you reconcile the idea that the example in which you've gone out of your way to completely remove the defender from the equation still only results in 40% hit rate, and doesn't, on average, produce enough damage to remove the target after 20 attacks/ 4 rounds of constant fire?

[Mech-Viper Prime]

Damage isn't the only issue.
A friend of mine brought up the example of guys in a tank who are under fire by a .50 cal machinegun. It can't hurt them, or damage their tank, but it sure is scary and distracting.

I once read something in a gamebook which I have found to be extremely wise. To paraphrase, it said "You can add any rule to this game that you want to as long as at least ONE other person agrees with you." Of course, it wasn't actually worded that politely. To me, it points out two things: 1) don't dream up stupid rules, and 2) there has to be a consensus when rules are added or no one will play with them.

omg that is just to simple for some on this board

[Nekira Sudacne]

Damage isn't the only issue.
A friend of mine brought up the example of guys in a tank who are under fire by a .50 cal machinegun. It can't hurt them, or damage their tank, but it sure is scary and distracting.

which is why CWC institued a HF check for large-scale combat...

[dark brandon]

If nobody is shooting at you, then you can fire normally.
If people are shooting at you, or laying down supressive fire, then you can only fire wild.

So, IG, my character would say "I'm laying down supressive fire" and that would be it? Any rolls to strike? How much ammo is used?

continuation of my example...

Soldier leaves cover and is in the open, comrades all fire at opponets behind cover, opponetstake shot at exposed grunt at -6 to strike because of cover fire. Bursts aren't necessary, so long as the counter attack is occuring int he same actin as the cover fire it is at -6.

If exposed grunt continues to move in the open for another round, some thing, his comrades need to keep firing (even if they only have ss weapons) to keep the opponents at a strike penalty.

I would say that for each target there must be at least onee shot of supressive fire, thus 5 grunts covering 1 exposed grunt can keep 5 opponents "under fire" each action.

ok, so basically, if you are shot at, and have to dodge, then your next attack will be wild.

[Shiva7]

I'd hate to see you GM Robotech then.

I am just clarifying the rules for you. I personally have a significantly altered house rule system that address's the problems differently. BTW, as mentioned earlier today, the C-40R was originally supposed to do 1D6x10 MD, thus a 35 MD average, not the 25 MD average the CS has modified it for.

Supposing that you're supporting the idea that combat is too easy of the initial poster, how do you reconcile the idea that the example in which you've gone out of your way to completely remove the defender from the equation still only results in 40% hit rate, and doesn't, on average, produce enough damage to remove the target after 20 attacks/ 4 rounds of constant fire?

In all fairness,t he defender can also take evasive action during the dogfight,t hus giving and extra -1 to strike, thus the atatcker would only have a 35% hit ratio and do 35 MD on average per hit, thus the original SAM could only survive about 7 hits which still takes 20 attacks to achieve.

Also, the SAM used to get a better strike bonus for using the C-40R. Pre-RUE PA bonuses gave a +2 to strika and a +1 to dodge ranged attacks, thus we would be back to a 40% hit ratio. Why KS removed the sensor bonus in RUE is beyond me since he let the other PA's keep their laser targeting bonus.

I am of the school of thought that hitting should be harder while getting hit should be more serious.

If we go by the unrealistic but base combat example of two 1st level soldiers in an open field shooting at each other, this is what happens...

Soldier Al get initiative rolls to strike no modifiers, requires 8 to hit: 65% hit ratio.

Soldier Bob rolls to dodge, no dodge bonus or penalty, has equal chance of rolling same as Al, thus...

Al really has slightly less that 32.5% chance of hitting Bob, but the key is that Bob is now on the defensive and cannot counter attack without sacrificying his dodge.

[Shiva7]

ok, so basically, if you are shot at, and have to dodge, then your next attack will be wild.

Not exactly, if you are shot at period, you are -6 to strike, if you dodge, you cannot strike that action, but if you are not attacked on the next action, then you strike as normal.

Remember, everyone alternates when taking their actions, so here is an example...

CS 1 fires at opponents
CS 2 runs from cover
OP 1 fires at CS 2 w/-6 to strike
CS 3 fires at oppnents
OP 2 fires at CS cover w/-6 to strike
CS 4 fires at opponets w/-6 to strike
OP 3 fires at CS cover w/-6 to strike
OP 4 fires at CS 2, no penaty (not enough CS grunts to keep oppets under fire)

the example is forcing the opponents to attack, in reality, they would keep their heads down until there was a break in the fire coming from the grunts, then they would all break cover and fire back, and so on and so forth. Sitting behind cover and using suppresive fire is like a stale mate, somebody has to make a move to get the upper hand.

Mostlikely the situation would be as follows, CS grunts get initiative, they comence firing for entire melee, opponents do not expose themselves for fear of getting hit and lack of ability to fire back successfully. Next initiative, Opponets try to win, if so, then the tables are turned and the CS wil likely keep low until they get initiative. The grunt running from cover is likely to be safe from the known opposition force, but how to the grunts know that there isn't another group down the street watching fromt heir cover position.

etc....

[Nekira Sudacne]

If nobody is shooting at you, then you can fire normally.
If people are shooting at you, or laying down supressive fire, then you can only fire wild.

So, IG, my character would say "I'm laying down supressive fire" and that would be it? Any rolls to strike? How much ammo is used?

continuation of my example...

Soldier leaves cover and is in the open, comrades all fire at opponets behind cover, opponetstake shot at exposed grunt at -6 to strike because of cover fire. Bursts aren't necessary, so long as the counter attack is occuring int he same actin as the cover fire it is at -6.

If exposed grunt continues to move in the open for another round, some thing, his comrades need to keep firing (even if they only have ss weapons) to keep the opponents at a strike penalty.

I would say that for each target there must be at least onee shot of supressive fire, thus 5 grunts covering 1 exposed grunt can keep 5 opponents "under fire" each action.

ok, so basically, if you are shot at, and have to dodge, then your next attack will be wild.

unless you have sharpshooting with the "dodge, roll, and come up shooting" trick shot. and even then you just get a straight shot, no bonuses but no penalties.

[Sentinel]

Sitting behind cover and using suppresive fire is like a stale mate, somebody has to make a move to get the upper hand.

This is one reason I prefer Cinematic style conmbat action to realistic.
Gunfights are a lot more interesting when you apply John Woo Hong Kong Style action to them.

[Shiva7]

Sitting behind cover and using suppresive fire is like a stale mate, somebody has to make a move to get the upper hand.

This is one reason I prefer Cinematic style conmbat action to realistic.
Gunfights are a lot more interesting when you apply John Woo Hong Kong Style action to them.

That still exists, it is left to the uicers and Crazies who can run into combat with full autododge bonuses and avoid the incoming fire. But I don't like seeing a CS grunt do such a thing. Until the Juicer/crazy gets within 50 feet, be is going to be very difficult to hit (-1 as a moving target, -1 for possible evasive action, virtually unlimited auto-dodges with full PP and OCC bonuses. and if they return wild fire then the attackers might find themselves with an additinal -6 to strike).

[Nekira Sudacne]

Sitting behind cover and using suppresive fire is like a stale mate, somebody has to make a move to get the upper hand.

This is one reason I prefer Cinematic style conmbat action to realistic.
Gunfights are a lot more interesting when you apply John Woo Hong Kong Style action to them.

That still exists, it is left to the uicers and Crazies who can run into combat with full autododge bonuses and avoid the incoming fire. But I don't like seeing a CS grunt do such a thing. Until the Juicer/crazy gets within 50 feet, be is going to be very difficult to hit (-1 as a moving target, -1 for possible evasive action, virtually unlimited auto-dodges with full PP and OCC bonuses. and if they return wild fire then the attackers might find themselves with an additinal -6 to strike).

I kinda like CS Grunts doing that kinda stuff

[Killer Cyborg]

Damage isn't the only issue.
A friend of mine brought up the example of guys in a tank who are under fire by a .50 cal machinegun. It can't hurt them, or damage their tank, but it sure is scary and distracting.

which is why CWC institued a HF check for large-scale combat...

I object to that, actually. Horror Factor should be reserved for supernatural threats/creatures.

[Sentinel]

Sitting behind cover and using suppresive fire is like a stale mate, somebody has to make a move to get the upper hand.

This is one reason I prefer Cinematic style conmbat action to realistic.
Gunfights are a lot more interesting when you apply John Woo Hong Kong Style action to them.

That still exists, it is left to the uicers and Crazies who can run into combat with full autododge bonuses and avoid the incoming fire. But I don't like seeing a CS grunt do such a thing. Until the Juicer/crazy gets within 50 feet, be is going to be very difficult to hit (-1 as a moving target, -1 for possible evasive action, virtually unlimited auto-dodges with full PP and OCC bonuses. and if they return wild fire then the attackers might find themselves with an additinal -6 to strike).

The heroes of Hong Kong Gun-Fu films are just normal people: I like normal gun-toters to be able to do cinematic stuff too.
Imagine Jackie Chan as a CS Grunt: HtH: Martial Arts, Gymnastics as a Physical Skill, the usual Grunt OCC Skills, and a little imagination...

[Killer Cyborg]

Damage isn't the only issue.
A friend of mine brought up the example of guys in a tank who are under fire by a .50 cal machinegun. It can't hurt them, or damage their tank, but it sure is scary and distracting.

I once read something in a gamebook which I have found to be extremely wise. To paraphrase, it said "You can add any rule to this game that you want to as long as at least ONE other person agrees with you." Of course, it wasn't actually worded that politely. To me, it points out two things: 1) don't dream up stupid rules, and 2) there has to be a consensus when rules are added or no one will play with them.

Now, I'm definitely not calling the suggestion stupid, so the first point doesn't apply. I'm talking about players and consensus, which is definitely point two. From a game standpoint players will definitely think it's stupid that their characters armored with 100 MDC are too scared to possibly take a random 1d4 of railgun damage from jumping into the line of suppressive fire.

In reality, that piddly damage would rip apart a SUV. In the game standpoint and the eyes of the players, it's negligible. You won't get consensus.

In short, I agree with you. On the other hand, I don't think many players would.

1. When I run a game, I run by my rules.
2. 1d4 MD may not seem like much damage to players, but if so then they're missing a heck of a lot.
3. Damage aside, try to stand still and aim a gun while being pelted by paintballs. You may not take significant damage, but you won't be able to get that aimed shot off either.

[Mech-Viper Prime]

Damage isn't the only issue.
A friend of mine brought up the example of guys in a tank who are under fire by a .50 cal machinegun. It can't hurt them, or damage their tank, but it sure is scary and distracting.

which is why CWC institued a HF check for large-scale combat...

I object to that, actually. Horror Factor should be reserved for supernatural threats/creatures.

well its called shell-shock: the horrors of war

[Blight]

So how is converging fire supposed to be done?
You have 4 troops firing in a Pattern like this.


:<.. l

:<.. l

:<.. l

:<.. l
Now firing wild in a V shaped pattern at the broken line there fire converges. What negatives Or damage would some one take moving through or in to this fire zone?(Edit) : represents troops (edit edit) the< represents the angles of cover fire.

[Killer Cyborg]

Damage isn't the only issue.
A friend of mine brought up the example of guys in a tank who are under fire by a .50 cal machinegun. It can't hurt them, or damage their tank, but it sure is scary and distracting.

which is why CWC institued a HF check for large-scale combat...

I object to that, actually. Horror Factor should be reserved for supernatural threats/creatures.

well its called shell-shock: the horrors of war

Yes, but that's different from Horror Factor (at least, the original concept of Horror Factor).
Not everything scary should have a Horror Factor.

[Sentinel]

Damage isn't the only issue.
A friend of mine brought up the example of guys in a tank who are under fire by a .50 cal machinegun. It can't hurt them, or damage their tank, but it sure is scary and distracting.

which is why CWC institued a HF check for large-scale combat...

I object to that, actually. Horror Factor should be reserved for supernatural threats/creatures.

well its called shell-shock: the horrors of war

Yes, but that's different from Horror Factor (at least, the original concept of Horror Factor).
Not everything scary should have a Horror Factor.

Is there something similar that could be ported over from Recon?

[Mech-Viper Prime]

Damage isn't the only issue.
A friend of mine brought up the example of guys in a tank who are under fire by a .50 cal machinegun. It can't hurt them, or damage their tank, but it sure is scary and distracting.

which is why CWC institued a HF check for large-scale combat...

I object to that, actually. Horror Factor should be reserved for supernatural threats/creatures.

well its called shell-shock: the horrors of war

Yes, but that's different from Horror Factor (at least, the original concept of Horror Factor).
Not everything scary should have a Horror Factor.

yeah