| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 1:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | For something like starfighter combat, it might be even easier to do away with range codes altogether and simply say that a target is either in range or out of it. The two fighters roll their skill + maneuverability to see who gets into firing position on who, then roll the shot... |
I don7t think so. You need ranges for chases. Are you gaining/getting away or not. And how far away can something be out of range before you lose it.
And probably another range for docking. So At leaast 4 range bands, plus some way to track movement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16232
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | I don7t think so. You need ranges for chases. Are you gaining/getting away or not. And how far away can something be out of range before you lose it. |
Chases are one thing, since range is obviously a factor, but for maneuvering dogfights, a lack of ranges would actually simplify things greatly. The GM could simply declare that the opponents are at dogfighting range, which stays constant until one opponent or the other breaks off and tries to run, at which point range becomes a factor again.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | atgxtg wrote: | | I don7t think so. You need ranges for chases. Are you gaining/getting away or not. And how far away can something be out of range before you lose it. |
Chases are one thing, since range is obviously a factor, but for maneuvering dogfights, a lack of ranges would actually simplify things greatly. The GM could simply declare that the opponents are at dogfighting range, which stays constant until one opponent or the other breaks off and tries to run, at which point range becomes a factor again. |
Yeah, although to be honest. I'd prefer a map and just have ships in a dogfight be in the same hex. But then, I am the guy who wanted to scale down movment and weapon ranges so that SPACE= All out movement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16232
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Yeah, although to be honest. I'd prefer a map and just have ships in a dogfight be in the same hex. But then, I am the guy who wanted to scale down movment and weapon ranges so that SPACE= All out movement. |
I've never been a map-game fan, apart from using estimated locations to keep track of who is where in group combat. But the idea of having a "dogfighting" range is perfectly in keeping with the idea behind this topic. Basically, when combat begins, the GM declares what the combat range is based on the setting, then everybody's weapons have modifiers applied to difficulty / accuracy based on that static range.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16232
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As an alternate possibility, what about replacing range numbers with range dice, with each range bracket applying a corresponding negative penalty?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14088
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But without knowing a weapon's ranges compared to others, how do you figure their 'range bracket'?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16232
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | But without knowing a weapon's ranges compared to others, how do you figure their 'range bracket'? |
By applying them to the static ranges suggested in this topic; combat ranges would be a constant, and various weapons would have dice values representing their ability to shoot at range.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So how do you handle the range differences between a hold out blaster, a blaster pistol, and a blaster rifle? Long range for each is vastly different distance wise.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16232
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | So how do you handle the range differences between a hold out blaster, a blaster pistol, and a blaster rifle? Long range for each is vastly different distance wise. |
My answer will rehash information that has already been covered in this topic, but OK.
The idea here is an optional rule that the ranges (point blank, short, medium, long, etc.) are the same for all ranged weapons, so that point blank is roughly within 5-7 meters (or about the range to be expected for Close-Quarters battle or building clearing). All subsequent ranges are a step up from that, and are fitted to the combat scenario, rather than the actual range number itself.
For in-game use, when combat begins, the GM would simply declare at what range the combat was occurring (short, medium, long, whatever), then every weapon has an additional modifier that is applied to the base difficulty for that range depending on how well that weapon functions at the declared combat range.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14088
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Which does not work as not all weapons have the same range. What is point blank for a pistol (2-3 meters) is outclassed by some SMG/rifles (4-10 meters).. And what is the extreme of range for some pistols (100 meters) is peanuts to most if not all rifles.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16232
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Which does not work as not all weapons have the same range. What is point blank for a pistol (2-3 meters) is outclassed by some SMG/rifles (4-10 meters).. And what is the extreme of range for some pistols (100 meters) is peanuts to most if not all rifles. |
I get the feeling no one is reading the original posts on this topic before responding. Some weapons will have an X rating for a given range, which means they can't be used for combat at those ranges. Hold-Out Blasters are an obvious example, but because of their small size, they would be deadly at Point Blank or Short.
Really, people, please go back and read the previous posts here. Don't make me have to explain it...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Hold-Out Blasters are an obvious example, but because of their small size, they would be deadly at Point Blank or Short. |
Well, as deadly as 3D damage can be...
After considering your whole thread for awhile, it seems like a workable system to me with just a couple small issues.
1) It might require more range bands. To use real world examples, a .30-30 can be used at 300 meters, which is long range. It's not much good at 500 meters, though, where a .30-06 is still useful. The .30-06 was designed to be effective out to 1000 yards, but probably won't be killing anything out any further than that. .50 BMG, .338 Lapua Magnum, .408 Cheytac and .416 Barrett are all useful at 2000+ meters, and 20 mm Solothurn is probably capable of even more.
That's 3 potential range bands beyond long just to represent ranges that some guns can deal damage at while others can't.
2) I'm not exactly sure that this system offers any benefit over the RAW. What's wrong with range bands as they are?
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16232
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | Hold-Out Blasters are an obvious example, but because of their small size, they would be deadly at Point Blank or Short. |
Well, as deadly as 3D damage can be... |
It has pay-offs because something that little would have a much lower difficulty baseline at point blank / short range than other weapons, so when combined with the optional rules of accuracy resulting in damage bonuses, that 3D rapidly becomes much larger.
| Quote: | | 1) It might require more range bands. To use real world examples, a .30-30 can be used at 300 meters, which is long range. It's not much good at 500 meters, though, where a .30-06 is still useful. The .30-06 was designed to be effective out to 1000 yards, but probably won't be killing anything out any further than that. .50 BMG, .338 Lapua Magnum, .408 Cheytac and .416 Barrett are all useful at 2000+ meters, and 20 mm Solothurn is probably capable of even more. |
Already taken care of. In a previous post.
| Quote: | | 2) I'm not exactly sure that this system offers any benefit over the RAW. What's wrong with range bands as they are? |
The benefit is that it simplifies things by eliminating the various calculations for range as to who moved where and by how much, so now are they still in Medium Range, or have they closed to Short Range. Rather than occurring at #meters, combat now occurs at "x" range, and all weapons adjust their difficulty accordingly (or can't fire at all because the target is out of range).
In other words, rather than having to crunch the math of "Well, the bounty hunters are 100 meters away, so that's Long Range for your blaster pistol, but just inside Medium for their Blaster Rifles", the GM simply says "This battle is occurring at Medium Range. Everyone adjust their base difficulties accordingly."
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But my point is that medium range isn't medium range for everyone. I have a rifle and I'm at the same range as a guy with a pistol? Huh?
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't range bands with different associated bonuses or penalties for different weapons the way Traveller handled combat?
And there are two reasons I ask that rhetorical question.
(1) to attempt to avoid arguing about whether or not it is possible to design a system that uses range bands and different bonuses/penalties. Traveller already did it. Ergo it is possible. Whether it is desirable is a totally separate question.
(2) to attempt to point folks that think it is desirable towards a source to look to or borrow from. And when I say "look to or borrow from" I mean steal.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
