Topic: Combat - Feedback

[Mungo]

Hi,

What I forgot above: when you put all crew support weapons in one group, then you also lose this cleanliness, as there are again heavy flamers, machine guns, ....

So after some thinking I really would not put them under 2-H, but define a new weapon class:

Weapon Class: Support Weapons
 - Weapon Group: Flamers : heavy flamer
 - Weapon Group: Lasers: heavy laser
 - Weapon Group: Stunners: heavy stunner
 - Weapon Group: Machineguns: heavy, light.
 - Weapon Group: grenade launchers: barrel mounted, small mortar
 - Weapon Group: Shoulder Missile Launcher: AT, AA

Rasyr and Nicholas: for some reason you seem to be very much against introducing such a category. Why?

BR
Juergen

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Nick -- If HARP mapped a specific critical to a specific group, it was by accident. I was mapping how the weapons were wielded/used to the groups. And the fumble ranges are based on how they were used, along with the type of weapon).


Mungo - I think you are wrong about 25 + OB + stats, or at least stating it wrong. In the core HARP rules, you get to use 1/4 of another group's (from the same cat) OB plus stats OR 25 + stats (NOT BOTH plus stats), whichever was LESS. For other groups in the same category (and then only in certain categories/classes, not all of them).

[Mungo]

Hi,

Yes, I was stating it wrong, I meant it correctly.

BR
Juergen

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

Hi,

What I forgot above: when you put all crew support weapons in one group, then you also lose this cleanliness, as there are again heavy flamers, machine guns, ....

So after some thinking I really would not put them under 2-H, but define a new weapon class:

Weapon Class: Support Weapons
 - Weapon Group: Flamers : heavy flamer
 - Weapon Group: Lasers: heavy laser
 - Weapon Group: Stunners: heavy stunner
 - Weapon Group: Machineguns: heavy, light.
 - Weapon Group: grenade launchers: barrel mounted, small mortar
 - Weapon Group: Shoulder Missile Launcher: AT, AA

Rasyr and Nicholas: for some reason you seem to be very much against introducing such a category. Why?

BR
Juergen

I don't like committing to significant additions until I've had time to think through all the implications.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[TheMAG]

In the few Spacemaster sessions I have managed to run I changed the Weapon Categories to more accurately reflect how a weapon was used and not what the effect was. I like the classes/groups that have been suggested here, they are simple and more realistic. I also think that the Support Weapons Class is a great idea. I haven't read the combat chapter in any detail yet, but in general I think that more emphasis should be put on small support weapons. There should definately be rules for grenade, rocket and missile launchers, mortars and anti-vehicle weapons in general. If you need inspiration I think the old version of Spacemaster had good rules for these.

I would also like to see vehicle mounted weapons for anti-personel use. Right now there is a huge gap between the largest handheld weapons and the smallest vehicle weapons. A good old turret-mounted heavy machinegun on top of your truck would be nice to have

And a third thing... what about sniper rifles? Rifles with longer RI's than the assault and hunting rifles.

Okay, so I realize that most of these things can be easily fixed be the SysOp, but it shouldn't take to much work (or space) to put them in the book. Let me know if I missed anything...

[Acid_Crash]

I'll third the notion of having a Support Weapon Class category for weapons and combat.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Don't everybody be too quick to jump on that bandwagon of a whole new class of weapon skills. This is HARP SF, not Spacemaster, we do not want to encourage or even begin down the path of skill creep and that seems to be where this discussion seems to be leading. (Not saying SM has skill creep, only that, like RM, it has a lot of skills, and if HARP SF has a lot of skills, then why not just use Spacemaster instead. Remember, the idea here is to have a lighter game overall.)

I would think that most of those "Support Weapons" could be handled as specific instances of the Gunnery Skill (i.e. Gunnery skill with AA missile batteries or machine gun nests does not equate to skill in ship-board weapons).

Instead of going hog wild to see how many skills can be added (cause, quite simply, I won't allow that to happen), trying looking at the existing skills first and see how they might be used in other ways.

[Mungo]

Hi,

I fully agree that HARP amd HARP SF should try to minimize the skills needed, especially considering the number of new skills required by the modern world.

Therefore my proposal to change the grouping of modern weapons to 5 categories instead of 6.

I.e. Thrown, 1-H, 2-H, Support, Gunnery instead of Thrown, 1-H Energy, 1-H Projectiles, 2-H Energy, 2-H Projectiles, Gunnery.

The reason behind combining the 1-H and 2-H categories I already explained (see start of thread). Concerning the difference between Support and Gunnery: Gunnery is for weapon systems, i.e. you have targeting systems and so on, Support weapons are directly handled by people. And they are so powerful and different to 1-H and 2-H weapons, that I would not put them in the same category to them.

Another thing: in the current manuscript there are no heavy weapons except machine guns. Therefore it looks as if I introduced more categories. But at the moment you introduce more heavy weapons, you notice in my opinion that they do not fit the current categories. And I would like to have them introduced, as I believe this adds a lot without demanding a lot of rewrite (the criticals are already there...).

What I also believe is that the number of categories is not so important, they are only there to show similiarities (i.e. to use the max. +25+Stats rule with an untrained weapon), the groups are the one that decide the number of DPs required to achieve a certain broadness in weapon skills. And the groups were not yet really discussed, as so far the discussion was more about the categories.

So to finalize: I think the Support Weapon idea is no skill creep and they should neither be added to 2-H weapons or Gunnery. But what we should do is take a careful look at the weapon groups and see what we can combine. A first idea would be also here to only distinguish between

 - recoil weapons (needlers, projectiles, shotguns,...)
 - energy weapons (flamers, blasters, lasers)
 - indirect fired weapons (grenade launchers)
 - self-propelled weapons (missiles)
 - thrown weapons (grenades)

Then you have in total (incl. gunnery) only 14 clearly defined groups compared to the undefined number in the current manuscript:

 - Thrown: Grenades
 - 1-H: Projectiles
 - 1-H: Energy
 - 2-H: Projectiles
 - 2-H: Energy
 - 2-H: indirect fire
 - Support: Projectiles
 - Support: Energy
 - Support: indirect
 - Support: self propelled
 - Gunnery: Projectiles
 - Gunnery: Energy
 - Gunnery: indirect
 - Gunnery: self propelled

What do you think?

BR
Juergen

[Defendi]

I think you can trim that even farther.  Off the top of my head, I think that projectile gunnery and Energy gunnery probably feel the same from the user's standpoint.  Sure you have to lead them more, but the computer does that anyway.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Gunnery is currently a Combat Skill, not a Weapon Class/Category.

The Weapon Skills are intended to be personal melee and missile/projectile weapons, not Support-type Weapons.

Everything in your Support and Gunnery weapon groups can most likely be handled under the single Gunnery skill, by learning a different weapons system each time the Gunnery skill is taken. It covers things like a 50 caliber, crew-served machine gun, to vehicle mounted weapons, to a spaceship's weapon's systems.

Why add more skills to break something out in a manner not required? Especially when doing so changes the focus of the skills?

Gunnery

Gunnery covers the use of weapon systems such as cannon (archaic and laser), mortars, rocket launchers, missiles, and all varieties of vehicle mounted weaponry. (Weapon Skills encompass personal melee and ranged combat.) Each weapon system type must be learned separately.
(Combat ? Qu/In ? Combat)

Now, this description can be expanded to make it clearer that any type of support and other weaponry is included in here.

But so far, you haven't convinced me that new weapon groups (for NON-personal weapons) is required. And Nick and I are the ones that MUST BOTH be convinced for something to be added. You need to give specific reasons, not just make proposals.

[TheMAG]

I am certainly not in favor of adding more skills. The reason I was in favor of the Support Weapon proposal was that first of all it makes more sense (to me anyway!). There are several weapons covered by the gunnery skill which could be classified as a portable, personal weapons (which can be carried around and used by a single guy). I am thinking grenade launchers (including barrel-mounted), rocket-propelled grenades, small missile launchers etc. Second of all it wouldn't really add any skills to the game, just move them from the Gunnery Class to a new Weapon Class.

It doesn't really make much of a difference whether a player purchases his skill in Grenade Launchers from the Gunnery Class or the Weapon Skills Class, but I think it would make Gunnery easier to understand and less of a catch-all skill if it was limited to weapons that require either some sort of positioning (tripod, setting up a mortar, etc.) or is part of a fixed defense (ships and vehicles). Then you could move the smaller portable weapons into either a new Support Group or just into the 2-H Firearm Class, maybe as a new group called Launchers (which would cover the above mentioned weapons).

Two things I do think are very important though are...

1. The weapon groups under the Gunnery skill should be clearly defined like the Weapon Skill groups are now. You could do that with only three groups (directly fired, indirectly fired and launched weapons... with better names obviously )
2. There should be rules for using these weapons in the book. They are mentioned in the Gunnery skill description but you can't buy them and you can't use them.

I just realized that moving the weapon groups around could interfere with the stat bonusses for the different Weapon Groups (because Gunnery is Qu/In). I will have to think about that.

[Mungo]

But so far, you haven't convinced me that new weapon groups (for NON-personal weapons) is required. And Nick and I are the ones that MUST BOTH be convinced for something to be added. You need to give specific reasons, not just make proposals.

Hi,

I will try to make my arguments a bit clearer.

a) I do NOT propose a new NON-personal weapon group. All non-personal weapons should use Gunnery.

b) But in my opinion Support weapons are personal weapons. A machine gun can be operated and - in most cases - even carried by 1 person, it is not a weapon system and it does not require some sophisticated targeting mechanism. But it is also definitely no 2-H weapon. You can not use it standing, you have to be prone and use a bipod or tripod. You use burst fire as normal mode of fire (even an assault rifle has single fire). You use normally different magazines (belts). You have a completely different range. And of course this does not mean that a 2nd or 3rd person to help carrying a 2nd barrel or more ammunition does not come handy. And I have personally carried around a .50 M2 - it is possible (although you have to take it apart).
The same applies to AT & AA missiles and RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) like the Carl-Gustav I used. You carry them around, you aim through an optic or - if its dirty - through a mechanical device (in German "Kieme" and "Korn"), you shoot. 

Fazit:
Gunnery is for non-personal weapons. 2-H is for weapons you can carry around and fire it by holding it in your hands "on he go". And there are still a lot of weapons in between. Weapons you carry around, but have so much firepower that you need some time to prepare them for shooting (by lying down or putting them on your shoulder). So this is the reason for wanting to add a Support Category.

BR
Juergen

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I could perhaps possibly see an argument for adding in a single weapon group (or a single skill, like Gunnery, that can be specialized)for man-portable support weapons, but not an entire weapon category.

[rad42]

It seems the Plasma Criticals table is missing a result for a final attack roll of 120...the table ends at 116-119.  Ran out of room on the page, I suspect. 

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

It seems the Plasma Criticals table is missing a result for a final attack roll of 120...the table ends at 116-119.  Ran out of room on the page, I suspect. 

It should read:
120   Shot takes foe directly in face. Foe?s face ceases to exist, followed by brain vaporizing. Foe dies instantly. Oh yeah, +70 Hits.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

most likely, I just didn't realize that that portion of the table was hiding... hehe

[rad42]

Perhaps, if your colleague wasn't so verbose on that table, describing in detail the gruesome extent of the poor victim's injuries, it would fit nicely on the page.   I suppose we should be glad that he didn't bring disruptors from SM2 into HARP-SF.  Imagine how he would describe those crits.

But, I'm sure you'll find a way to stuff it all on the page.