Hello friends, I am in a bit of a pickle. See, I know a ton

>>53528495
Ops & Tactics

>>53528495
The damage dice would also depend on how big the HP pools for characters and other creatures are. 1d8 or 2d4 might not be appropriate if the average character has around 100 HP. It also depends on how lethal you want guns to be. Do you want tanky characters to be able to take a dozen bullets and keep on fighting, or do you want guns to be so lethal that it's more like a game of rocket tag?

>>53528495
oWoD. They get that rifles are more deadly than pistol rounds and that shot placement is King.

Beyond that, Ops and Tactics, Recon and Cyberpunk 2020 are the gold standard

>>53528582
Rocket tag, for sure.
HP pools would be low, to the point where one bullet could kill someone if it hit the right spot.

The system is being created with one-shots in mind, or short, tense operations or adventures.

A long campaign could play out well, if the characters play it real fuckin' smart.

>>53528629
What separates the three gold standards in terms of how they portray firearm usage and damage?

>>53528495

Eh, what I've always wanted to do is the energy of the round, in either joules, divided by 100 and rounded to nearest whole number. Goes down predictably with range, or if using a shorter barrel, but that would vary for each firearm, you'd get a -1 penalty to damage each time the energy dropped by a hundred FP. Have similar penalties for hitting the target based on range, with larger penalties if the round goes from sonic to subsonic. Include multipliers for where someone was hit and what kind of round it is.

The vast majority of the randomness should be in the roll to successfully shoot someone, since there are so many uncontrollable factors in that, but internal ballistics can get pretty wonky based on locations of bones, blood vessels etc. so there should probably be some.

No, I'm not willing to put in all the work, but it would be GLORIOUS.

>>53528495
Not sure if its super helpful but in Flames of War they handle damage in a way that might work in that game its not about surviving when hit its about avoiding getting hit in the first place.

I dunno if I was doing it I would roll to see if PC hits their target (With modifiers based on how well they did) then the target rolls to avoid then let the target either soak damage or treat the targets armor as AC.

Sudden realization that I've just basically described SR5s combat but the idea of AC Damage reduction makes more sense then soak damage if you want super deadly.

>>53528495
What you need is Austin Texas http://www.opsandtactics.com/

>>53528796
I have been doing similar calculations when it comes to how many cartridges a firearm can let off in a given round of combat (stealing the 6 second round from D&D until I find something that works better for me).

I have been taking the RPM of a full-auto firearm, converting that to RPS (Rounds per second), and then multiplying the RPS by 6. This is the maximum amount that the firearm could discharge in six seconds without letting off the trigger.

So, in keeping with the highly lethal nature of the system I am working on, a character or NPC could mag-dump most firearms in the course of a single round of combat.

But then we get in to Cover, Penetration values which are individual to each firearm, not necessarily each caliber, aaaand things like Armor Values and Reaction (Reaction differs from Armor Class in D&D, for example, in that it is meant to represent reactions to things that happen in those crucial milliseconds before all hell breaks loose. The bad guy raises his pistol up, and your reaction gives you the opportunity to bolt to cover, or duck behind a car, or even fire back if you want. That sort of thing. No dodging bullets here; you get to cover or you shoot back. Or shoot back from behind cover if you are already behind it.
Same applies to melee combat, where the Reaction simulates moving out of the way of a sword, swinging to counter-attack, that kind of thing.)

>>53528495
look, for starters trying to scale dice damage based on caliber is retarded because of the numerous factors that lead to it doing less/more damage. You really want to track stuff like the metal its made of? What shotgun shells are loaded with beyond 'burny' or 'armor piercing'?

The best system for guns I've seen in terms of caliber revolves around 'low' and 'high.'

secondly the other issue with guns is magazines and keeping track of ammo. Shadowrun is so complicated it has its own digital assistant for that among other things.

but I am in an OSR game with firearms, nothing beyond wild west, so it varies.

TL;DR
stick to nonspecific calibers
seperate guns into 'slow loading' and 'fast loading'
maybe include 'Rate of Fire' for automatic weapons

>>53528495
If you go by the logic that Ops and Tactics uses, you want 3d6 - which is a d20 system but with the crits knocked away 3 - 18

File: moe funk.gif (2MB, 389x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 389x281px

>>53528742
>>53528769
Not that anon. But Cyberpunk 2020's guns are accompanied by a very power game-able SP(armor) system. But you can just use the damage dice for the guns and come up with some Armor system on your own.

I apparently lost my PDF of the Equipment Bible or I'd post that for you to look at it but it shouldn't be hard to find.

5.56x45 uses 5d6
9mm uses 2d6
.50 uses 6d10

etc

I like the gun system because it feels right, the big guns seem scary when they shred your armor and limbs. Little guns can be scary too if you get shot enough times or aren't wearing armor. But if you're wearing armor you're pretty much immune to the peashooters, which wouldn't be true.

>>53529489
Thanks for the reply.

There is something super attractive about a system that captures the visceral, permanent nature of combat.

If I want my character to live on and on and on, D&D and similar systems are good for things like that, because in addition to certain classes being a damage sponge, you have spells and stuff too which can heal others.

So I believe in having a system that can function well in terms of quick, truly dangerous combat.

>>53528495
At the level of abstraction most games operate at, you really don't need to make much distinction between different guns and cartridges.

Frankly, generic firearms and in-depth shooting mechanics would be more realistic imo

>>53528495
GURPS.
All weapons do "d6" of damages, but plenty have +/- modifiers, up to 2 generally. They also do different types of damage, from pi- to pi++. At pi- damage that passes armor is halved, at pi+ it's multiplied by 1.5 and at pi++ multiplied by 2. pi is just nothing special.
Swapping magazines typically takes 3 seconds, but you can train to make it faster. For guns that you reload bullet by bullet, it depends on the gun. Revolver takes 3 seconds per, but you can buy a speedloader. Muskets up to a minute, but again you can train to reduce the time it takes.

File: Compendium of Modern Firearms.png (501KB, 899x648px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 899x648px

>>53528495
>So my questions are: In your experience, which system stats firearms properly,
Disregard most replies, OP. There's really only two answers.
A. Phoenix Command. Designed by actual NASA scientists, this legacy game system is pure autism. Of course it's realistic but kinda slow to play, even in the streamlined form of the later cinematic versions a la Aliens RPG.
B. The Compendium of Modern Firearms (Edge of the Sword). Not a complete game system but completely autistic attempt at gamifying guns based on realworld statistics. Pic related.

Take those and dumb down as necessary.

>At what point is it better to use 2d4 instead of 1d8? That kind of thing.
sounds like you're reinventing the wheel, desu. for example, no matter what dice you choose here, phoenix command's table-based approach will probably be more realistic.

my advice: look into phoenix command and see if it doesn't already do what you want out of a game. you'll find though that realism is, as mentioned, slow and only provides LASTING fun to a small niche of gamers who are exactly into that. most people would rather forego realism for the sake of ease of play and more cinematic action.

>>53528495
Ops & Tactics, Ballad of the Laser Whales, and Phoenix Command are all top tier.

>>53530603
>GURPS
now here's something you're not going to hear every day: it's not realistic enough, buddy. phoenix command outdoes GURPS on that front, hands down.

but, yeah, GURPS is a good, more workable compromise between realism and accuracy

File: Aliens-Damage-1.png (144KB, 717x588px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 717x588px

Part 1/2
A brief look at how Phoenix Command works in form of the streamlined Aliens RPG. (Important to note here is that being unarmored gives no less than +12 to the damage roll in top of the table.)

File: Aliens-Damage-2.png (295KB, 545x581px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 545x581px

Part 2/2
Once you know how much damage points you have accumulated, you can look up when you need to roll for death and what you need to roll under for survival. You do that on this table.

Autistic? Yeah. But kinda plausible.

>>53530912
>>53531001
>>53531020
Yes.
I'll stick to GURPS. tyvm

>>53528495
>damage from caliber to caliber
that's a pretty big jar of pickles to open. Maybe just group calibers and apply penetration bonuses as we go up in sizes within the group

>>53530887
OP here.

I am familiar with Ballad, but more familiar with Song of Swords. I need to look in to Ballad more, as I know their attempts at making realistically functioning weapons are often top tier.
>>53530871
Probably am reinventing the wheel. I am trying to strike a balance between realism and that cinematic action.
I will totally check out Phoenix Command and the Compendium.

Not sure how autistic I want to go with this, but I will check it out nonetheless.

>>53528495
twilight 2000 already did what you're trying to do son

>>53531057
OP again, this is basically what I have been doing. I grouped calibers across the board, all the way from 1d2 and up. Lots of damages, lots of options. I feel like it barely matters anyway, because the way I'd like the system to turn out, a couple shots and humans or animals are downed.
Take .25 ACP for example, grouped in the 1d2 section. Lowest damage, in there with .22 Short, 8mm Nambu (notoriously shit round, despite its size), and so on.
1d2. Yeah. Sad. But take like six of those shots or more in a round and you'll be hurting.

I may be approaching a bunch of shit too specifically, and other things too generally at this stage in development.
I need to put character creation on paper, and do some playtesting with all this shit.

>>53531107
Nah, Twilight 2000 is a lot more crunchy than I intend to go. I think my initial post kind of misled some of you all, which is fine, but I'll state now that I don't plan to go megacrunch. I just want to figure out the best way, dicewise, to distinguish a Beretta 950 Jetfire in .25 ACP, to an FN FAL in 7.62x51 NATO, and everything in between and beyond, for use in a low-HP, high-damage environment.

Calibers will be group in to semi-specific sections, and assigned dice for damage. Just not sure how exactly to get it just right.

>>53528495
>All these damage charts
Why not go more modern and go with a wound and pain system?

Give calibers wounding aspects, based on the severity of being shot by one of them. I have no idea how guns work when used on people, but let's take an example here.

Some small pistol caliber deals a wound with the following traits
>Small wound (Pain 1)
>Bullet stuck (Pain 2)

Now give your characters a pain threshold based on some attribute, modified by past experience with pain and temporary things like adrenaline level and painkillers. Pain limits ability useage with its level as a negative modifier. If you want to get more detailed, you can have pain levels for each appendage.

While pain can be fought by guzzling down oxycodone or whatever, if the wound stays untreated, the pain will increase and the wound may worsen to include additional effects like "Infected".

Depending on the caliber, hit location and the weapon used you can add additional damage on the fly to that wound, like "Collapsed lung" or "Shattered bone" with their own pain values.

That way you don't have to fiddle around with clunky HP systems.

File: Ninjas&Superspies.png (173KB, 516x674px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 516x674px

>>53531158
Twilight 2E isn't more crunchy than GURPS though, so you should reconsider GURPS.

If you want it less crunchy than that, I honestly unironically suggest Palladium. You probably don't want to reuse the whole system, however, and you probably want to rejig some damage stats for weapons but it might be the easiest and best way to go. Spraying half (or full) a magazine at some enemy is quite fun.

Is Ops and Tactics any good? I'm the only resident /k/ommando at my table and am thinking of looking in to it, but is it friendly for new people or only really for people who already have /k/-boners like myself?

File: quickstart.pdf (126KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1x1px

>>53531317

Twilight 2013 is really quite good.

It's plays about as fast as GURPS (which is, very fast, but you might want an initiative tracker for this), is a bit more realistic on damage (GURPS gives guns too much damage by default, though there're several alt-rules that make it more reasonable), and has an interesting tick-based initiative system that does a better job of clearly encouraging tactical play than GURPS' one-second rounds do.

It's not nearly as flexible as GURPS mind you, so I only use it for fairly straightforward modern action/post-apoc/zombies. GURPS is better for applying the same principles to other genres.

>>53528495
Traveller has a good balance of realism and simplicity.

Often you can represent things realistically with simple rules. Doesn't take a ton of charts or different dice rolls. Traveller has a good mix, and covers firearms from ye olde muskets through to modern tech and sci fi.
The initiative and leadership system is very nice too - allowing players to give orders and use tactics skills to get the drop on enemies.
Traveller is also nicely lethal - a pistol can do enough damage to put someone down with one hit.

Once you get to assault rifles with armor piercing bullets, even body armor doesn't really do shit

>>53530912
>it's not realistic enough, buddy.
You got that Tactical Shooting, though.

>>53528495
Have a gander at the 3G3 weapon design system, and how its 'conversion to systems' section works (3G3 uses the TimeLords 2e system stats by default, but nobody plays that so they have an appendix with generic and specific conversion rules).

I genuinely like how Savage Worlds does gun combat and combat in general (with some fixes, having an AK deal more damage than a battle rifle is straight-up retarded).
Armour adds to the damage threshold a hit needs to reach before it affects you, but all rolls explode including damage so a single round can paste someone's vitals if they're unlucky or incautious. The system uses a wound level system for damage, but only PCs and named characters can take more than one wound before going down.

The bonuses for surprise attacks and called headshots are utterly brutal when combined; you have to be a retard not to hit and unless your target is in full power armour or something ridiculous they're going to fucking feel it. Or just plain die.
Use the option for each wound inflicting a temporary injury for a gritty and painful but still quick and heroic-feeling game.
Only downsides I can really see are the gun rules needing a bit of work (RAW shotguns are just plain superior and some statblocks need swapping) and the anaemic rules for suppressing fire.

>>53528495
A question that has strangely gone unasked.
What system are you basing your homebrew off?
before you decide how a .303 differs from a .34ACP you first need to decide how damage effects a character. is it just meat points that are worn away? is it a wound penalty? if you get shot do you start to bleed out? how does getting shot effect doing other thing?
is damage going to be constant across experience? will there be giant monsters or armor? how does recovering from a bullet wound work? how does one hit or not be hit by a bullet? how does bare steel compare to jacketed projectiles?
These are questions that need to be answered
and finally the most important question
What is the objective of designing the system?

>>53532637
edit: dont know why I typed .34ACP, .45ACP is what was meant to be written

>>53532604
Tactical Shooting is mostly about shooting stances and how to translate operators' operations into GURPS moves and rounds, doesn't make the game particularly more realistic.

>>53528495
As another mentioned, you might find 3G3 useful. Here.

u$er$cloud<dot>com/2cq3wg5x4hxg

Gue$$ what "$" repre$ent$, and make sure your Adblock is on.

File: gun rules.png (51KB, 942x293px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 942x293px

>>53528495

>>53533836
If he had said "there are no good and realistic gun mechanics in roleplaying" I would have agreed.

But since he made such a wide statement as what he actually did, I will have to disagree, and furthermore, accuse him of being a bit of an idiot.
The idea that getting shot with a bullet is somehow a much more complicated thing than getting shot with an arrow, sling stone or magical spell is retarded.
if you can abstract an arrow to the gut as "1d8" damage, or "causes a medium wound" or whatever you can do the same to a 9mm handgun bullet.

>>53532657

Eh, .32 ACP exists and is actually very close in bullet diameter (7.92mm) to .303 British (7.94mm). So they're a good example of 'same caliber, vastly different results'.

What matters is that .303 British has long, heavy bullets and a lot of powder propelling it, and you can't actually tell that just from it's name, you have to look it up or see them in action.

I think Traveller is underrated for modern combat rules. It covers everything from bows and maces to machineguns, laser cannons, etc.

I'm interested in real life guns too, but I think more stats and granularity does not make your game more realistic or fun. In fact, I'd argue that if choice of gear is too important, it detracts from the game--instead of thinking in terms of tactics players will just be gearfagging all the time to optimize their loadout.

In other words, I'd stat your weapons with broad categories, rather than trying to make meaningful differences between, say, an AK47 and an M4.

Ok I honestly don't think fiddly little caliber differences will matter in a table top environment. Sure you get a little more damage variation out of it, at the cost of slowing down the game and fuck tons of charts. Big caliber differences should be the focus, table top is for people not computers, computers like math, people tend to avoid it, the less fiddly you make things, and the less people have to remember (or constantly look up) the better.
Instead lets look at health for a moment. So the abstract rule of thumb is obviously you have X health gun does Y damage, which translates into % chance gun will kill you with a shot. You get luck on that damage and you can survive tons of bullets, you get unlucky and well you don't. Guns tend swing more the lower the caliber and be more consistent the higher the caliber. Represent this not necessarily with more damage, but with more consistent damage either through dice pools or static mods.
So how do you add an element of realism here that most systems don't handle with guns? Shock. When's the last time you saw a character in an rpg win a fight and then die of their wounds? Seriously. Some systems have bleeding out, but they aren't that common and tend to be too, well preventable a death.
Have a certain amount of damage activate some shock bonus hp. It keeps you alive all well and good, but once the adrenaline runs dry it disappears, potentially leaving you with negative hp, succumbing to wounds you didn't even realize you had.

File: futurama-i-dont-want-to-live-on-this-planet-anymore-futurarama-professor.jpg (452KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 1920x1080px

>>53536553
>computers like math, people tend to avoid it
>mfw this used to be considered a nerd hobby
damn, we need more rolemaster to flush out the casuals

>>53536855
go back to your dead game math-autist

>>53536553
the whole point of this thread is to get a system (or make one) where you can go full /k/ operators operating operationally. People enjoy having a billion different guns with minor differences between them. Maybe not you who "tends to avoid math" (lol), but abstracting the differences between guns misses the point of the thread entirely.

There's like a billion systems that abstract gun combat, there's no need to come up with a new one.

also your shock idea is dumb because players are aware of their health at all times so they'll never "succumb to wounds they didn't know they had"

>>53536935
>comes to a thread about people who want more details in firearms in their RPGs
>lol just abstract it bro, math is hard

maybe it is you who should go back

>>53536969
Not that guy, but if you believe that adding numbers and dice rolls to health and damage of any weapon is NOT abstracting you should reevaluate your perception of reality. No medic in the world checks for amount of burn and suffocation damage values in triage.

>>53537026
>Not that guy, but if you believe that adding numbers and dice rolls to health and damage of any weapon is NOT abstracting

nobody said that tho.

>>53537166
>>53536969
>lol just abstract it bro, math is hard
What did he mean by this?

>>53531158
8mm nambu had similar performance to 32ACP, though

>>53532372
I have a /k/-boner and I despise that system. It tries too hard and fails to achieve any meaningful result while being a cluttered mess.
But as with any system, read it, test it, it's the only way to be sure if it fits your tastes or not.

File: Untitled-1.png (615KB, 2480x3508px) Image search: [Google]

615KB, 2480x3508px

>>53531269
I made this based on this idea, just to toot my own horn.

Top is the general overview, bottom is an example of someone at the verge of dying.

He got shot
>in the chest with .45 (Pain +1), which stuck in the wound ( Pain +1).
>in the right leg (Pain +1) with 7.62 (Pain+1) which opened an artery (Pain +1)
And he also got
>scraped (Pain +1) on the left arm

Together this adds up to 6 pain.
His normal threshold for losing consciousnes is 4.
Right now, he is under the influence of increased adrenaline, which raises his pain threshold by 2 and oxycodone, which increases it by another 2.

As combat proceeds or dies down, one can add pain to the wounds at the Dms discretion. If he continues to bleed out through his leg, that value should rise quickly.
If the chest wound does not get treated, he may develop a minor infection for +1 pain, which slowly turns to moderate, severe and extreme with rising severity.

Any and all skill checks involving a certain body part get a disadvantage calculated by adding the total pain level with the body parts pain level to reflect the increased pain from that action.

If a character ever reaches 10 pain, he dies.

>>53537199
read the chain of replies and you will get it

>>53528495
>At what point is it better to use 2d4 instead of 1d8?
2d4 has lower variance. With 1d8, you have 12.5% chance of rolling any particular number from 1 to 8. With 2d4, you have 6.25% chance of rolling a 2, and 25% chance of rolling a 5. In general, low variance tends to favor players: PCs have to survive a lot of fights(unless you're playing Paranoia), so they tend to have favorable odds of winning(or at least surviving) any given combat encounter. High variance in damage means that it's more likely that some random mook gets lucky and downs one of the PCs.

This from metagame perspective(which is something you should pay careful attention to since you're planning to make your own system). From strictly mechanical perspective, you might want to have some weapons use 1d8 to represent highly random damage while others have 2d4 meaning they're more reliable damage dealers.

>>53536943
I can say from personal experience that games full of gear fagging and tons of mechanical options and niche bonuses rarely play like "operators operating operationally". Trying to simulate every factor in a gunfight becomes more like an accounting sim than an action game.

If that's what you desire, go ahead. But it strikes me as a bit like playing D&D and insisting that the choice between using a long sword and an arming sword should be a major factor in a character's success.

>>53540042
>I can say from personal experience
And I can say from personal experience that you're wrong.

Look m8, you don't want gun porn in your game, that's fine. There's like a billion different games that just go "pistol, big pistol, assault rifle, sniper rifle, shotgun" and call it a day. I would rather have more detail.

>>53537556
And due to having to very broadly generalize, .32 and .25 are in the same damage boat essentially.

>>53532637
I am not designing the system based on any existing system, really. Might seem like project suicide, but it's how I want to do it. I like taking a bit from different systems and making it all work for me by tweaking a system that I know inside and out (because I made it).
To answer some other questions:

>How does getting shot affect doing other things?
If you get shot and manage to survive, there will be a system shot table just to see if you suffer shock from blood loss or the initial shot. Same goes for losing a limb or getting deeply cut by a sword. Getting hit in general can fuck up your day if you are not careful. Body armor is great, but not getting hit in the first place is even better.

>Will damage be constant across experience?
Yes, but HP itself won't change all that much. Again, the system will definitely lend itself better to one-shots, gritty post apocalypse, or special operations type stuff.

>Will there be monsters or armor?
Yes and yes. Monsters will not be super buff, but will be able to soak up more damage than a person, typically. But again, that is dependent on the setting.

>how does recovering from a bullet wound work?
Setting dependent. In sci-fi, you might be looking at a wound paste or some shit. It will be easier to heal in sci-fi settings.
In modern settings, it would be a long recovery, bandages and modern medicine type stuff.

>how does one hit or not be hit by a bullet?
Reaction is a skill, might end up being a core attribute, which allows you to react to things happening around you. Instead of AC in D&D, you've got Reaction in this system. Reaction can be used to physically move you out of the way in the moments before the enemy pulls the trigger, or move out of the way of a sword swing.
In this way, nobody is "dodging bullets." You are getting to cover or firing back before the shots even start.

>>53536553
>When's the last time you saw a character in an rpg win a fight and then die of their wounds?
the last time i played harnmaster, which has shock rules and wound infection rules

File: 6.jpg (52KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 960x640px

>>53536943
OP here. Thanks. You are correct, the last thing I want to do is abstract the gun differences and gun combat.
It should also be noted, for everyone reading this, that my system is not intended to be published or shown to a broad audience. Hell, most of my players that I run games for wouldn't even like this, but my brother and my best friend would completely dig a system like this, and I want to make it something we can spend an afternoon playing.
Do they feel like playing as Force Recon Marines behind enemy lines? Cool.
Do they feel like playing futuristic science soldiers fighting in a space ship? Awesome.
Do they want to be rovers in post-apocalyptic America, just trying to find their way to a peaceful place? Sweet.

This is mainly a system I will use for my brother and a friend or two, and if it plays well and turns out to be very fun, I will post it up to /tg/ and such.
>>53537987
Thank you very much for this, I appreciate it. That answered a big question of mine.

>>53540042
The kind of players I would be running this game for would love the amount of detail in weapons and gear that I am obsessing over putting in to the system. Keep in mind I don't care about creating a game that might turn out to only serve a small niche; that is kind of the whole point here.

>>53540318
If you can balance both, good for you. To me, gun porn is only loosely related to making a game about military action. I think it's more likely that you've no idea how to communicate what you want to accomplish.

Lots of games do abstraction like you describe, very few do it well. I'd really enjoy a system with gunbattles that feel chaotic and frantic rather than military themed shopping simulator.

>>53540711
>To me, gun porn is only loosely related to making a game about military action
good thing we're looking for a game about gun porn, not specifically military action huh

It's like you can't process the idea that people might enjoy pointless firearm minutia

>>53540711

>>53541071
OP here, and this is a fact. I am designing the game with that pointless firearm minutia in mind, because my brother and I are so in to firearms that those differences represent some small slice of realism.

Like, the game system I am trying to create is meant for people who enjoy this type of shit. It will fill a niche, because that is what it's meant to do.

>>53529489
Cyberpunk 2020 can perfectly be adapted to simple modern combat. You could go with a damage chart like this:
.32: 1d6+1
.380, .38 Sp.: 2d6
9x19mm: 2d6+1
.40 S&W : 2d6+2
.45 ACP: 2d6+3
.357 SIG: 3d6
.357 Magnum, 10mm Auto: 3d6+1
.44 Magnum: 4d6+1

5.7x28mm, 4.6x30mm: 4d6+2
5.56x45mm: 5d6+1
7.62x51mm: 6d6+2
.300WM: 7d6+3
.338: 8d6+3
12.7x99mm: 6d10

Level 2A vest: SP 10
Level 2 vest: SP 12
Level 3A vest: SP 16
Level 3 plate: SP 20
Level 4 plate: SP 25

Now, I consider rifle damage to be a tad high. I'd maybe lower it by one die (5.56mm: 4d6, 7.62x51mm: 5d6, etc.), but would rule that soft armor only offers half SP value against it - only plates protect well.

>>53532372
No. It sucks.

>>53541215
To add realism you can add damage modifiers on certain hit locations (ex. Head: DMG x2, Vitals: DMG x1.5).

I also strongly recommend using a wound system, instead of a hit point based system. In the case of the list posted above, wounds would go like this:

DMG 1-4: light wound
DMG 5-8: serious wound
DMG 9-12: critical wound (character might die if hit in head or vitals and no medical help available)
DMG 13+: mortal wound (character is immediately KIA if hit in head or vitals, might survive if hit anywhere else and medical help is available)

Wounds are not cumulative.

>>53541464
OP here. Although I carry a Gen 4, I much prefer the grip of a Gen 2, so I am excited for Gen 5. I am not a fan of finger grooves. For this reason I considered a CZ-75, and still kind of consider it over my Glock 19, but... I have a good setup. Glock 19 w/ tritium sights, Talo Exo finish on the slide and barrel, packed in a Haley Strategic INCOG holster. I carry a spare magazine. Federal HST 147gr hollow points.

>>53541391
What significance does a light wound or serious wound carry in this example?

How many light or serious wounds until someone dies of them?

>>53542181
Light wound does nothing but requires a stun save if hit in the vitals or head. Serious wound requires a more difficult stun save, and it gives a penalty to all skill checks.

Like I said, wounds are not cumulative. You can be covered in light and serious wounds without kicking the bucket. That sad, getting killed is pretty easy, if you're hit in the head or vitals, especially if special ammo is used (hollow-point ammo multiplies DMG x1.5).

>>53542158
Nice setup. Considering a CZ P-09 as bedside gun.

>>53537592
What exactly don't you like about it?

>>53541255
Any particular reason why it sucks?

>>53545629
I am a fan of almost anything CZ. Can't really go wrong if it's what you like.

>>53547265
OP here, and not either of the people you are replying to.
Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the work that you and the people of /tg/ and /k/ went through to make Ops and Tactics.
I like what I see so far, downloaded all the books.

>>53547326
Awesome. Thanks for downloading.

Also, feel free to email me about literally any problem you see or have with the system.

I can't guarantee I'll "fix" it(Due to design tolerances), but I'll at least give a best explanation for /why/ it is the way it is.

Or It could just be me fucking it up completely and i'll be fixed next update.

You never know! Email me!

[email protected]

>Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the work that you and the people of /tg/ and /k/ went through to make Ops and Tactics.

I couldn't have done it without the constant criticism I got from /tg/, and the weird gun questions I got answered from /k/.

>>53547326
OH! Check out Modern Magika's magic system. That's probably what i'm most proud of.

Because magic, Psionics, and incantations are fucking awesome.

Also I think a lot of the complaints are people looking at WAY older versions and going "This is terrible! I'll never look at this again!"

Because, to be fair, it was terrible 8 years ago. It was terrible 2 years ago.

IMO, it's only recently stopped being terrible.

>>53547326
Also OP, I read through the entire thread.

The best way to do what you want to do, IF you still want to do it, is to set a baseline.

For OaTs, I used 9mm for handgun, .308 for rifle, and 12 gauge for shotgun.

I then did some calculations based on energy produced to velocity given and balanced calibers behind that.

DO NOT DO THIS. It is long and complicated. There's a book called GUNS GUNS GUNS that breaks this down to a much better science than I did in my crazy ramblings.

Or you could just steal Ops and Tactics's caliber list. That works too.

It's calibrated for a normal human with 10-15 HP, and a bleed rate of at least 1d3, per 6 seconds.

This is kind of out of place, but the newer XCOM games did reloading pretty well.
Make the player choose between reloading in place of making an attack, or reloading in place of moving.

Basically, if you want to reload and fire in one turn, you can't move.
If you want to reload and move in one turn, you can't fire.

>>53528524
>>53528629
>>53528931
>>53529063
>>53530887
Stop shilling Ops and Tactics, the guy is a complete douche, his game is shit, the autofire mechanics are retarded, the gun rules are fucking insanely retarded, GURPS does a better job and is more fun to boot.

>>53547721
>the guy is a complete douche

No i'm not.

>>53547721
>his game is shit

How so? Do you have any specific points you can point to so I can make the game not shit?

>the autofire mechanics are retarded

Please tell me what you don't like about the autofire rules. Seriously.

>the gun rules are fucking insanely retarded,

Again, please tell me what particular rules you find "Insanely retarded".

>>53547721
Also, I was heading to bed but I'll wait 20 minutes(12AM EST) for you to respond.

>>53547721

Purple, is that you?

>>53547721
Look at that. No response.

>>53547952
>replying to him 3 times
Not him but he worked you good and I'm starting to see it desu

>>53541215
I think the damage is fine to be honest.

When balancing an encounter in Cyberpunk 2020 I generally use average die rolls vs Party SP when determining what to throw at the party. 5.56mm at 5d6 has an average damage roll of 15 which is below the SP 20 of your metal plate. It can pierce or bypass the armor on a good roll (Max damage is 30) but it will more often than not plink off the armor. It allows suitable protection to be king but allowing one in a million shots to happen.

>>53541391
I don't know if it's a house rule, but it's just how I learned to play but if a location takes 8 or more damage from one shot(After SP and BTM) the location is destroyed(You don't really want your torso or head being destroyed). That usually works really well for making combat stressful and gives you the mentality of getting shot in the limbs as "Expensive" which wraps around to the theme of Cyberpunk really well.

As for just regular modern combat this rule might be a bit to heavy handed as limb loss is a lot more permanent and crippling than in a dystopian future. This anon has a good idea.

>>53547981
>Worked me

If it was his goal to get me to post to him 3 times, sure.

But I'm not going to let an accusation go unanswered, fampie.

>>53547981
SSB's a bit defensive, and disjointed judging by the split response, but he does seem open to specific criticisms even if he's easy to troll with vague ones.

>>53548070
If you weren't dumb or insecure you'd be able to spot weak bait and not reply, or not make 3 separate replies back-to-back (which is right in line for dumb tripfag behavior) including one that's a douchey "lmao no reply".

>>53548075
Don't care, didn't ask.

>>53548134
If he's homebrewing he's using the trip for an acceptable reason, though you are right about his multiposting.

File: 4.jpg (55KB, 960x638px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 960x638px

>>53547384
>>53547412
>>53547472
OP here, thanks for all the information. I still want to tinker with my system idea a little bit, and see what I can come up with.
One thing I like a lot is the Human HP being like 10-15. I like working with low numbers when it comes to stuff like this, makes everything feel a little more mortal, if that makes sense.

>>53547721
Yeaaahhh, you are the only person here who gives the impression of being a complete douche.

>>53547984
It's houserules. What I'm not fond of in CP2020, is that it's basically a hit point system. You have 40 hit points divided in 10 wound levels of which 7 are for dieing. It works well in a system where armor is widespread and damage is often small (thanks to efficient armor and BTM). Having x-levels of almost dead also makes sense in CP2020 to add pressure and cost, but in a modern setting you don't need it. Either you're ok, wounded but will be ok, wounded and might die, or KIA.

>>53548070
Well as much as I love the game, I still think you need to rework the feat trees for weapons, and maybe play with the CP costs. Because by RAW a sniper with a maxed out feat tree can make shots with a -5 CP cost while an AR user only gets a -2 CP cost, which is silly that the bolt action rifle has a way higher ROF than the AR. I also don't like things end up at higher levels. Because once players get to a certain point cover immediately becomes useless and battle just become slug fests, one of my current players is level 5 and is getting results of around 30 with spray fire attacks.

>>53547721
>Stop shilling Ops and Tactics, the guy is a complete douche,
Can confirm. The rest I have no idea.

>>53549911
Well, the game is by no means bad in my opinion, it plays similar to DnD being based off D20 modern and all, Autofire isn't bad but it isn't spectacular either and there's literally no reason not to use burst fire if you build a character right and the gun rules can get a bit silly sometimes.

>>53550108
>being based off D20 modern
That's pretty much enough info to say that OaT is crap. Of all systems available he had to choose the worst one as basis for his system.

>>53547984
8 Damage results in a limb being destroyed or crippled, but this cannot happen to torsos in CP2020. It's a rule in I think 2nd edition of 2020.

Then again 8 damage in CP2020 could usually force a save either way, it's a high damage system.

>>53550386
Well he did his damnedest to make it play reasonably well. The worst thing is how fucking bad it gets at high levels. cover ends up being useless past like level 4 because 100% of the cover you can actually fight from by RAW is equal to the enemies' BAB (assuming they bought BAB every level which there is literally no reason not to) and armor only gives you a max of +4 to defense, but is also the heaviest armor in the game so lol have fun with massive dex penalties and CP loss. Even then their random bonuses are going to well out pace your defense bonuses by this point. So it ends up being a game of "tank the most shots you can" at high levels which is the one thing I hate about the system.

>>53550108
>Autofire isn't bad but it isn't spectacular either and there's literally no reason not to use burst fire if you build a character right and the gun rules can get a bit silly sometimes.
Sounds like real life

>>53550495
In real life it's almost always better to use quick singular shots instead of short controlled bursts unless your weapon is specifically designed for automatic fire. Even in basic training when you're going through the basics of fire and maneuver they want the weapon on semi the whole time.

>>53531158
>1d2 damage to start
Nah senpai. Start at 6 health. .22 does 1d10 and go up from there adding either static mods (+n) or additional dice. Static mods should be used carefully, but can help delineate small differences. I wouldn't go higher than the average roll of die(dice) in question. They'll raise the minimum, maximum, and average damage by equal amounts. Additional dice add more consistency and scale better than static. Adding an extra d6 to damage raises minimum damage by 1 but the average by 3.5 and the maximum by 6. Take note of damage thresholds after you've charted the common calibers like most pistols and 7.62/7.51 NATO and see how much average damage those deal. Adjust body armor around those values. Just keep scaling damage up and match armor as needed. Also, give armor a minimum damage threshold where anything below is fully negated, unless you like the idea of a .22 plinking its way through everything.

>>53549911
He's consistently an asshole to anyone criticizing his game. The game itself is about as good as you can get by starting with a terrible, terrible game like D20 Modern and insisting on keeping all the baggage, like requiring mountains of feats for basic competency and BAB.

>>53550892
Well at least in this you get a fuck ton of feats, considering humans get 3 from level 1 and then 2 every level, not even including occupational feats.

>>53550479
>levels

>>53550944
Yeah characters level but there's no classes at least.

File: IMG_0046.jpg (229KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 700x700px

>>53550970
Levels are worse than classes.

>>53551445
I guess? I don't have a problem with it personally, it's just one method of showing improvement in a character over another.

File: IMG_0002.jpg (93KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 768x1024px

>>53551741
It's ok for a video game, but not for a realistic RPG. We're not in 1978 anymore, there are better ways to improve a character.

>>53549836
What version are you using?

Also, Sniper rifles have to take CP to actually sight in a target.

Also what do you mean by "Higher level?
>>53550386

Any particular specific criticism you have about the system being based on D20 Modern?>>53550892
I am?

When was I an asshole to someone criticizing the game?

If you have something specific and you want to actually give me reasons why this is bad, or why that is bad that's one thing, but just saying "IT SUCKS!" and not giving any reasoning behind it doesn't make me an asshole.
>>53551925
It's not a realistic RPG. IT's not supposed to be realistic. By and large the whole point was to make something fast and fun, not Realistic simulator.

>>53550892
Oh! I remember you!

Yeah, I don't agree with your assertions.

You can call me an asshole if you'd like, but I just don't agree with doing what you want me to do. I feel that in doing so, it would not be the game I wanted to make, and for me to take the things you sudgested would turn the game into some kind of low budget GURPS copy.

And that's not what I wanted to do. And yes, basic competency for feats is always going to be a thing. This game is not JUST an operator game, where you're assuming every charcter has all the basics of combat and firearms. If you want to make a character that DOES NOT have those, OR you wanted to run a game where firearms are rare/unusuall and use melee weapons instead, setting the baseline using feats is a far better idea than re tooling a system to remove all that.

>>53552013
I'm using the latest edition. I guess technically you have to use the CP to sight in a target, but that get alleviated by just not using an optic. An by higher levels I mean probably around level 3 mark or so, I know at level 5 things are already wacky when my players all have at minimum +8 ranged to hit before feats and attachments, thus making cover entirely irrelevant.

>>53552068
>I know at level 5 things are already wacky when my players all have at minimum +8 ranged to hit before feats and attachments, thus making cover entirely irrelevant.

I'll take a look at this.

>>53549911
Wasn't sure this anon was on the ball but the discussion in this thread has confirmed their statement. At least for me.
Tripfag also displays a startling amount of reddit in their posts.
reddit/10 will not be using.

>>53552068
Almost sounds like something like Eclipse Phase or the 40krpg systems or even CoC/DG might work better. At least for ripping out the guts and using as a basis.
At least for you, anon.

>>53552091
>40krpg
>for modern

Yea nah

>>53552090
The issue stems from BAB, there's no reason not to get it every level. So a level 5 player has a +5 BAB then you add marksmanship mod so like a +2 there minimum for a combat character. so that puts it in the +7-9 range for a combat character before you add feats or attachments.

The big problem is there's not much you can do to give yourself defense as you level up. From attempting to calculate max defense, you need to sink at minimum 5 feats to get the armor tree, buy the special response vest, get it custom fitted then you have a +8 defense bonus (if you have at least +3 agility which you probably need to sacrifice your marksmanship bonus to have) then maybe add in another feat to get dodge for a total of +12 bonus vs a single target. So like about 22 defense before cover. But then a level two character can essentially negate the bonus from your armor entirely with just a +2 dex mod, with all of two feats and +2 BAB. Then it's just a matter of you eating hits until either you kill him or your armor gives out.

>>53552192
>Bab

This is a real good point. I'll have to rework this.

>Defense

This was actually done on purpose. It makes you rely less on dodging hits, and more on your armors DR. That's why you can wear armor without the feats.

People are generally easy to shoot, and I wasn't really able to point to any believable way to say, at default, that you're "harder to hit". Especially with a firearm.

Its easier to make people better shooters than dodgers of bullets. But cover is low IMO. It shouldn't be that invalided that fast.

File: IMG_7865.jpg (34KB, 236x329px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 236x329px

>>53552013
>By and large the whole point was to make something fast and fun
Then you fucking failed by taking the clunkiest system in existence. And why going into so much detail if you want something that's fun and fast? It's completely contradictory.

>>53552314
Because I also wanted realistic guns as well.

One of the original reasons for this game was the issue with generic guns and my distaste for them.

By fast, I meant something that plays faster than PC or D20M.

Fun is subjective.

I also had to pretty much rewrite the combat system to get this, though.

I hate d20's combat system.

>>53552289
Cover certainly needs to get a huge boost, it's next to worthless in it's current state. Assuming a target has 10 def, putting him behind half cover (which by RAW is the cover level you fire from unless you're shooting from like a small slit in a wall or something), does almost nothing to help him against a level one character who bought weapon focus and favored caliber as those two together give him a +4 to hit bonus, then add in a +2 dex bonus and a +1 BAB he gets a total of +7, negating even a person crouching behind 3/4 cover. This is ignoring situational modifiers like stance or equipment.

>>53552363
>realistic

Real, not realistic.

I had to abstract a lot to keep down the clunkyness.

>>53552385
Agreed. I'll change it in the next update

>>53552363
As much as I love the game, like I said earlier I feel the CP costs are a bit silly at times, like my point in how a maxed out sniper tree is -5 CP, which can easily be gamed by not having an optic on a sniper rifle. Another thing being how pistols have a 7 CP cost to fire, while rifles have 8... but then a rifle's stock reduces it by 1 and makes the costs equal, or how it's always better to burst fire instead of single shots, because the CP cost is reduced massively for burst fire and recoil penalties are really easy to get around.

File: IMG_8684.jpg (43KB, 768x377px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 768x377px

>>53552363
If that's your thing. Anyway, even if I don't like your game and will never play it, I still have to give you credit for having finished and published it.

>>53552424
I'll take a look at the sniper thing.

As for single shots vs burst fire.

It sounds like to me that either the penalty is too low per attack. Burst fire is faster, and there needs to be a reason to use it.

I have suspected that the penalties are not high enough, though.

>>53552448
Thanks man.

Also I wish I was finished. I've got character sheets, and a space opera campaign setting I need to finish before I can call myself. "Done"

>>53552500
penalties are nowhere near high enough for a burst fire attack. it's just CRP-2 for 3/5 round bursts, but favored caliber plus 12 strength lets ignore the recoil from a caliber of up to a -9 penalty (because round down). leaving you with a whopping -2 penalty total, 1 more feat to play with, then you get to add in your dex and BAB.

>>53552526
What about autofires penalties?

>>53552571
>CRP-3
Two feats negate it entirely, one combination leaves you with a bonus to hit on autofire. Then you get to instantly hit everyone in a 10x10 area if you succeed a TN10 shot. Though they do get a reflex save to halve damage (which isn't modified by anything so just getting some reflex bonuses ontop of a BAB per level). The only real downside is you're spending a fuck ton of ammo on the attempt.

>>53552623
Hmn.

I'll do some math and calibrations for this.

The issue I have is finding the sweet spot.

Recoil shouldn't be ignorable, but it shouldn't be "why bother" either

>>53552721
Well, the real issue being is Favored Caliber drops recoil penalties to a third on it's own. Maybe have it so instead forward grips, bipods and different stances change the recoil instead of taking a single feat that makes it easy to ignore recoil entirely.

>>53552774
I kinda like favored caliber, but I can make it half instead of a third.

Also, grips do negate the recoil penalty, by granting bonuses to attacks.

That does make sense though. A grip doesn't make you more accurate.

>>53552825
Yeah though it does bring up book keeping issues with players depending on how you do it. Even though I like the idea of prone + bipod being one of the best way to reduce recoil.

>>53552863
Ill take a good look at this. The attachments system predates the recoil rules, so it probably needs a once over.

File: 1448100603461.jpg (57KB, 720x594px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 720x594px

>>53552946
Besides recoil being a non-issue, cover being worthless and some personal gripes that weapon CP costs are weird and doubts about the HP scaling. I'd say everything else is working just fine in the campaign I'm running.

Though I do wonder about EXP, is it tallied up then split between the party equally or does everyone get the party total at once? Because I may have fucked up and leveled my players a shitton all at once a while back.

>>53553098

Everyone gets the party total, and the. Their personal exp for the combat.

Are you using the battle value system?

Also I think I saw your mention about HP. I'm assuming you're not including bleed rules in this, or your people are using armor.

>>53553144
MY people are using armor, so I'm a little wary when my tankiest guy has like 53 XHP (it's not too bad across the party, the squishies only have like 30 XHP it's just him that worries me). And I was using the battle value system, I had a group of custom monsters (Chimeras about the size of a moose with breath that rots the flesh off their bone) and they fought 4 of them over the course of three encounters. They steam rolled the fuckers because they got the drop on the first two and killed them in the surprise round. And the last two came at once and gave them a bit of a fight. But then they went from level 1 to level 5.

>>53553213
What was the BV of this animal?!

That's 1600 Exp!

>>53553278
I think each one was 12, considering I based them off the lion, watered their attacks down a bit then gave them some powerful abilities.

>Want to run a campaign roughly analogous to a 1960's-70's Euro insurrection
Found this thread at the right time

>>53553314
That's 36 total bv. That's a dragon.


I think you set the bv way too high.

36d2 * 75exp

File: 1445302194488.png (480KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 800x800px

>>53553384
maybe, but even if they were normal lions they'd still have steam rolled them and gotten plenty of experience so fuck man I turned a bunch of scrubs into vets somehow.

>>53553441
Apparently.

Also, did you give them money and equipment beyond what they rolled?

>>53553479
They had 100 WP to spend on everything they'd need for an indeterminate amount of time on an island controlled by a dictator. They weren't rolling with with much else than a barebones AKM and a pump action shotgun.

>>53553503
Ah. Alright.

I'm working on cover now, and it now goes +4, +8, +12 and +18. That should make a big difference.>>53553503

>>53553547
That should definitely help out for everyone involved, I remeber the first fight was over so quick because even when the badguys got a huge advantage over them (flanking with their backs turned) once the player's turn came up they'd just pop him through cover without an issue.

>>53553376
Wanted to run a terrorwave campaign set in Egypt, Lebanon, Italy, Germany and France during the late 1970s to early 1980s. PLO, Red Brigades, Action Directe, Red Army Fraction, ETA, NATO stay behind secret organizations (Gladio, P27, etc.), and secret services (Mossad, MI5, CIA, KGB, SDECE/DGSE). Sadly, never finished writing it.

>>53532560
My one gripe with Traveller is that they roll hitting and wounding into one roll. Maybe it just annoys me because I'm using a PDF with the two relevant tables on two different pages, but I'd rather they use two dice rolls, one for hitting and one for armour penetration. I'm totally behind your suggestion though.

>>53553987
Christ, that's what makes Phoenix Command so painful to use, the rules themselves are simple as fuck, but then you need to dredge through a bunch of tables to resolve a firing action, my advice is to print out the relevant tables and put them aside when you play.

>>53536084
Using that approach also gives you great opportunities for in character banter. If everyone has autorifles, and one person fluffs it as an AR and the other as an AK, you can get the kind of rifle wars that are always going on on /k/ without one person having a weapon with some measurably superior trait.

>>53554051
My issue with this is the caliber differences. There are real measurable differences between an AR and an AK, because they're chambered in different calibers.

I can definitely see how some people would prefer generic guns though.

Maybe I'm just a gearfag.

>>53554139
Yeah that's what gets me about generic games too is when 5.56 is identical to 7.62x39 which is just wrong. Though it's not as bad as Phoenix Command where 7.62 barely has enough power to overpentrate the thicker bones of the body while 5.56 goes clean through everything with almost as much penetration as the weaker 7.62 NATO rifles.

>>53554139
I'd much rather have different guns=different stats too. Generic guns has been done a million times anyway. If one wants generic guns they can pick from the dozens of systems that do that.

>>53554139
Maybe I just haven't been looking at the right sources, but whenever I try to do any reading into the actual wounding differences of common military calibers it comes out as a wash. I know the ballistics are different, but it seems like most RPGs only model damage, and based on that it seems like common military calibers all perform roughly the same. If you have any links to decent reading in this area I'd love to see them. I've got a 12-ish hour plane ride next week and I need something to do.

File: 40052-MilitaryAssaultRifleWPcopy.jpg (104KB, 586x750px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 586x750px

>>53554331
As you can see here 5.56 when it penetrates likes to fragment and makes large brutal permanent cavities (the shaded in ones) while 7.62 makes smaller permanent cavities and tumbles more, making bigger temporary cavities. In terms of penetration capability 7.62x39 is superior in terms of barrier penetration thanks to it's high mass and slow velocity so it doesn't break up as much on impact.

>>53554381
I'm familiar with that chart. My issue with it is that it's not exactly easy to apply to a human torso, for example. How does bone factor into things? If you hit a rib, how will 5.56 behave compared to 7.62? It's lacking in background information. Of course, that's from a study in the 70's isnt it? Does anyone have a link to that paper or other like it?

>>53554331
The issue isnt bullets themselves, its the object they're hitting.

It all comes out a wash because bullets kill, and the minute differences between calibers dont mean much when hitting flesh, unless there's a gross difference or factors beyond control.

There are accounts of people taking 2-3 9mms to the chest and keep attacking , and accounts of someone taking a single .25 acp to the chest and dying.

>>53554430
Well generally, since 7.62 has a higher mass and slower velocity, like I said it's more often than not going to smash through and keep going. 5.56 on the other hand since it's going sanic fast is going to hit the bone, smash the bone to pieces then fragment inside of you.

In terms of penetration ability in the human body, they both hit the 12in standard that the FBI likes, which they claim is going to reliably hit vitals even if intervening things like arms get in the way.

>>53554430
oh and like >>53554464 said, the most important thing in a gunfight is shot placement. Shot placement is king, penetration is queen and everything else doesn't fucking matter. .22 LR can reliably kill if you get it into vital organs while people can take 7.62 NATO and keep going if you fail to hit the vitals.

>>53554464
To pull this back to where we started the conversation, it seems to me that as far as wounding capability is concerned, generally similar rounds are generally similar. So lumping all intermediate rounds into one damage value doesn't seem like such a compromise to me. Model flight ballistics all you want, but when you hit the target it all seems to be a wash.

>>53554479
I'm not trying to be difficult here, but unless you're playing a game focussed on being doctors, the difference in those two wounds seems minimal (from a tabletop perspective).

>>53554547
I agree.


The issue becomes how you group them.

5.45 and 5.56 are similar.

7.62x39 is not. Its somewhere between 223 and 308

.308 is not close to any of those.

>>53554587
Well that's because .308 is a full sized cartridge not an intermediate one. Even then shit gets weird when you take different loads into account. Terminal ballistics are a very, very fucky thing.

>>53554587
I guess I'd lump things based on general performance. I've read 7.62 has ballistics a lot like .30-06, so while it's considered an intermediate round (I think), I'd toss it in with the full power cartidges. Things would get weird with stuff like 9x39mm and .300 blk too, since the subsonic loads have kinetic energy more like a pistol round.

>>53554547
Well people argue all day about the difference between "muh permanent cavity" and "muh temporary cavity hydrostatic shock" and people aren't even 100% sure if hydrostatic shock is even real or not. Though from what I remember reading that large, damaging fragmentation like the 5.56 in that picture is generally better by virtue of massive tissue damage.

>>53554653
I wish someone would fund a massive study on pig carcasses or something to provide modern analysis of rifle performance. It seems like arguements always come back to anecdotes and 40 year old studies.

>>53554645
Nah, .30-06 is way bigger than 7.62x39, it's got way more energy on impact, by about 2,000 joules or so.

>>53554621

This is why i did things the way i did
>>53554645
Welcome to my hell.

>>53554682
All studies nowadays are all about ballistics gel, because it models human tissue better or something.

>>53554739
Ballistics gel doesn't have bones though. It models the average tissue density, but not the actual differentiation between chest muscle, rib bone, lung, heart, all the connective tissue. It's alright for a general idea, but it's not the sam as shooting an actual organism.

>>53554645
7.62x39mm, .300 Blackout and .30-30 are similar.

9x39mm is less powerful than a rifle round, but more powerful than a pistol/SMG round. Maximum effective range is around 200 to 300 meters.

>>53554690
I think he meant 7.62x51mm or 7.62x54mm.

>>53554776
Yeah, I remember doing research for a paper on this exact topic a few years ago, and all the stuff tested on pig carcasses and such were like from the 60's and 70's.

>>53554823
I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt, but I did mean 7.62x39. I have a vague recollection of reading something on /k/ to the tune of
>7.62x39 has roughly the same ballistics as muh 30.-06 that the fudds love so much.
I guess shame on me for relying on /k/

>>53554739

It absolutely doesn't, it lacks the complexity of the actual body and shouldn't be taken as a literal guide to what will happen if you get shot. All of your vital organs are protected by bone, which is even more effective if the bullet hits at an angle.

BUT, it provides repeatable data, it's widely available in standardized format, and you can clearly see the actual path and fragmentation. It's very difficult to be 100% sure you've properly identified the path taken by a bullet through actual tissue and the damage that resulted.

Hypothetically, the best source of data for actual bullet impacts on the body would be from autopsies, but those typically have a lot of unknown variables like the exact range, and often the brand of bullet is never accurately identified.

>>53554857
There's a bunch of retards on /k/ firearms are somehow the least properly understood devices in human history if you ask me. Everybody spouts the stupidest fucking memes about guns all the time in real life then other faggots get a completely different message and spout their own brand of it. It's fucking crazy.

>>53528495
>>>53554823
>I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt, but I did mean 7.62x39. I have a vague recollection of reading something on /k/ to the tune of
>>7.62x39 has roughly the same ballistics as muh 30.-06 that the fudds love so much


This is so wrong it hurts.

7.63x39 is about ballistically equivalent to .30 wcf/30-30

>>53554857

.30-30, not 30.06.

7.62x39 is a very, very close match for .30-30 Winchester, which was, and still is, a very common round for lever action rifles. It's a good round for small and medium sized deer or antelope. .30-06 is useful for elk and moose, but it's overkill for most hunters.

>>53554857
7.62x39mm has similar ballistic to .30-30, not .30-06. You must have mixed up both fudds calibers.

>>53554910
>>53554922
>>53554923
Today I learned a new thing. Thank you /tg/

>53528495
>
>.30-30, not 30.06.
>
>7.62x39 is a very, very close match for .30-30 Winchester, which was, and still is, a very common round for lever action rifles. It's a good round for small and medium sized deer or antelope.

And people.

So I've heard about this game called Recon, what can /tg/ tell me about it?

>>53555678
Recon is kind of a mess and it feels really dated. Roll your stats and skills on a d100. Military MOSs are classes (point man can detect ambush, grenadier can use M79, medic can heal wounds...).

What I do like about it however is how shootings are resolved - either you're laying an ambush, or you're at the receiving end of an ambush, or it's running and gunning.