Forums of the Megaverse®

Shiva7:

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.

Yeah, but originally the SAM had a bit more MDC from its glitter
armor, like 420 MDC - which means about 12 average hits needed
,to down a Silver Eagle.

Adios
KLM

KLM wrote:Shiva7:

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.

Yeah, but originally the SAM had a bit more MDC from its glitter
armor, like 420 MDC - which means about 12 average hits needed
,to down a Silver Eagle.

Adios
KLM

I am referring to the Native american SAM that is an exact replica of the pre-rifts SAM. The silver eagle has never made an appearance in Rifts, thus I am not using it as an example.

Actually, I find the combat to hits about right, the only problem are the ranges for regular style weapons. It's important to remember that most real infantry combat occurs at under a 100' of separation. It is much more typical for enemy soldiers to encounter each other with limited sight distance (in an urban or forest environment) then at a long range (open plains). Even supposedly flat ground usually has more than enough undulation to it that soldiers will utilize to move about. Only aerial units (like the SAMAS) will enjoy longer shooting ranges, however to enjoy these ranges, they often have to expose themselve to fire from everyone in the area. The average character is not zooming around at 130 mph so using that as your basic combat model is in itself flawed. It is also important to realize that dodge comes with a penalty (lose your next attack) and people are not always going to use it, or may not get to (dont see it coming). As to the police stats that were quoted, it is important to note three important facts 1. police are not soldiers, 2. These stats include every shot fired even those not intended to hit someone (warning shots). The actual % of attempts to hit vs hits would be somewhat higher. 3. These are predominantly shots from pistols, and contrary to the game rules, rifles are much more accurate always, and especially at anything over 50'. I can tell you from personal experience training soldiers, that you can teach almost anyone to fire a rifle fairly accurately (hit much more often than they miss), where as pistol fire is much more instinctual.
You either begin to shoot fairly accurately with very little practice, or you will probably never be able to become a marksman with a pistol. I myself
can shoot a rifle well, but am at best a marginal shot with a pistol. (despite efforts otherwise). My point being that comparing pistol fire stats to predominantly rifle fire situations is not appropriate. It is also important to judge rounds fired in military situations vs casualties, that in military situations, a large amount of weapons fire is done for suppression reasons (not really aiming at a particular enemy, just trying to keep thier heads down). When a trained soldier actually aims to hit the enemy, he hits much more often than not.
What does this all mean, well that the rifts system is really not all that bad. What is missing is that when anyone shoots at over 150 yards with an open sight, accuracy diminishes rapidly (limitations of the human eye to see, and apparent smallness of target). So even when a weapon has the technical ability to shoot 500 yards, without a scope it is impossible to hit that far away. (note that a shot with a scope would always be an aimed shot). I would assume that robots and power armor would come with enhanced targeting systems which would negate these penalties, however regular infantry would be at a distinct disadvantage at range.

Rigghawk

rigghawk wrote: What does this all mean, well that the rifts system is really not all that bad. What is missing is that when anyone shoots at over 150 yards with an open sight, accuracy diminishes rapidly (limitations of the human eye to see, and apparent smallness of target). So even when a weapon has the technical ability to shoot 500 yards, without a scope it is impossible to hit that far away. (note that a shot with a scope would always be an aimed shot). I would assume that robots and power armor would come with enhanced targeting systems which would negate these penalties, however regular infantry would be at a distinct disadvantage at range.

Rigghawk

True, however I always assumed Coalition and most military-issued EBA came with a heads up screen that included targeting.

Just thinking, maybe it's a good thing it's so easy.

Thinking back, even now with the way we play it, combat can still take a whole lot of time. We actually try to find ways to make it go quicker (and thus easier) as opposed to making it harder.

Sentinel wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Mech-Viper wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote: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?

Good question.
I don't remember anything like that, but maybe it's in there.

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


Good question.
I don't remember anything like that, but maybe it's in there.

I have to look through N&SS and see if there is anything there that might help.
I usually only use N&SS for Martial Arts.

Blight wrote: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.

did i not word this well?

rigghawk wrote:So even when a weapon has the technical ability to shoot 500 yards, without a scope it is impossible to hit that far away. (note that a shot with a scope would always be an aimed shot). I would assume that robots and power armor would come with enhanced targeting systems which would negate these penalties, however regular infantry would be at a distinct disadvantage at range.

Rigghawk

Guess someone forgot to tell our military personnel that. Standard range qualifying distances for *all* nonmedical/chaplain personnel are 50/100/500 yds. 500yds is shooting at a mansized silhouette with no more aiming aid than the standard M16 sights. At 500 yds a good military shooter can pick (and hit) any visible region on a mansized target with something approaching 80% accuracy.

That said, hanggun accuracy isn't worth the paper targets the cops and feds "qualify" on. A great shooter with a handgun can hit a moving target not much less than 50% of the time at 100yds. The average shooter can hit a moving target not much less than 50% of the time at 20 yards. Mostly, this is because the shooters aren't trained killers and don't have the instinct for it.

You're talking about hunters, I'm talking about law enforcement - very different kinds of shooters. Shooting a deer doesn't feel wrong and go against everything you've ever been taught; for most people, shooting another human does, even in self defense.

demos606 wrote:You're talking about hunters, I'm talking about law enforcement - very different kinds of shooters. Shooting a deer doesn't feel wrong and go against everything you've ever been taught; for most people, shooting another human does, even in self defense.

Agreed. As I recall it's pretty much standard policy for any Law Enforcement Officer involved in a shooting, especially a death, to take time off and see a shrink. At least the various departments here in Ohio do that.

demos606 wrote:You're talking about hunters, I'm talking about law enforcement - very different kinds of shooters. Shooting a deer doesn't feel wrong and go against everything you've ever been taught; for most people, shooting another human does, even in self defense.

Your talking police they are at the core of there jobs defenders, In game were talking soldiers, mercs, and highly desensitize people on what amounts to a hell world. To CS troops If he live long enough there isn't gonna be any guilt pangs. In combat accuracy drops, it's a given for many factors. But training and experience help compensate.

Yeah, accuracy does drop in combat, less for trained soldiers than civilian law enforcement. But you've just pointed out the single biggest factor in why soldiers are generally more effective in combat than law enforcement when the bullets start flying - they're deliberately desensitized. Police are defenders, soldiers are trained killers - thats the difference between them in a very over-simplified nutshell.

Blight wrote:

demos606 wrote:You're talking about hunters, I'm talking about law enforcement - very different kinds of shooters. Shooting a deer doesn't feel wrong and go against everything you've ever been taught; for most people, shooting another human does, even in self defense.

Your talking police they are at the core of there jobs defenders, In game were talking soldiers, mercs, and highly desensitize people on what amounts to a hell world. To CS troops If he live long enough there isn't gonna be any guilt pangs. In combat accuracy drops, it's a given for many factors. But training and experience help compensate.

Read the book On Killing : The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Read the book On Killing : The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman.

I'll look it up.

I remember reading up on this and the biggest battle field factor in terms of missed fire was down to soldiers not wanting to shoot another human and deliberately missing / aiming high or not firing at all.

One of the reasons paper targets / other target types were made to look human was to help with this, by desensitising (and it did).

I can't for the life of me remember where the article was, but I think it covered up to the first gulf war, or maybe only Vietnam.

I seem to recall it had a great story about an old long rifle which had been found on the battlefield stuffed with something like 7 shots, since the solider would only pretend to fire, and in the noise and smoke his mimed firing action would go unnoticed then he would reload and feign firing again.

I've often toyed with the idea of putting in a conscience stat which starts at 1% or so and in order to attack another human you have to roll under it (with modifiers for self defence, shooting to wound, provocation, distance, training etc.) obviously not good for a shoot 'em up game but for a more thoughtful, realistic approach it would be fun to try.

Tigermuppetcut wrote:I remember reading up on this and the biggest battle field factor in terms of missed fire was down to soldiers not wanting to shoot another human and deliberately missing / aiming high or not firing at all.

One of the reasons paper targets / other target types were made to look human was to help with this, by desensitising (and it did).

I can't for the life of me remember where the article was, but I think it covered up to the first gulf war, or maybe only Vietnam.

I seem to recall it had a great story about an old long rifle which had been found on the battlefield stuffed with something like 7 shots, since the solider would only pretend to fire, and in the noise and smoke his mimed firing action would go unnoticed then he would reload and feign firing again.

I've often toyed with the idea of putting in a conscience stat which starts at 1% or so and in order to attack another human you have to roll under it (with modifiers for self defence, shooting to wound, provocation, distance, training etc.) obviously not good for a shoot 'em up game but for a more thoughtful, realistic approach it would be fun to try.

All in On Killing.
The shot to kill ratio rose dramatically for Vietnam (IIRC), the first war where we trained our soldiers using human shaped targets.

It wasn't uncommon to find old muzzle-loaders on the battlefield that had been loaded 2-3 times. If you keep loading, then you look busy but you don't have to shoot anybody.
(Of course, it could also be that the enemy is more likely to shoot the guy aiming at him than the guy loading his weapon).

Actually, one quickly can be a recipient for a bionic arm or leg...

...but yeah, odds are, that there will be far more DEAD than wounded
humans, in any conflict.

Adios
KLM