Weapon Ranges

[AT AT ASsault]

One thing that didn't set well with me in SWSE, and currently the v0.2 rules of e20, is that Point Blank Range varies with the gun. On the more powerful guns, there is no way Point Blank Range should be 20 to 100 squares. At that range, the target is so small, its just nonsensical to call it point blank range. My proposed take is that the first range increment is called Very Short, and Point Blank range is out to 6 squares or the gun's Very Short range, whichever is shorter (that way, any bonuses you may get for point blank range are limited to realistic point blank ranges).

Another related note is that large guns are hard to use at super short ranges. What about if you're using a gun whose weapon size category is your size or larger, you take a -1, -2, or -5 penalty at adjacent or slightly longer distances (up to Point Blank) to attack (with the penalty increasing a step for each size category larger weapon you're using)?

[lucasjung]

...20 to 100 squares. At that range, the target is so small, its just nonsensical to call it point blank range.

Really? You don't even know what the target is but you know that at a range of 100 feet it's "so small, its just nonesensical?" Big, powerful weapons are generally intended for larger targets because you need a more powerful gun to take out a tank or bunker. Fortunately, such things are also easier to aim at from longer distances.

My proposed take is that the first range increment is called Very Short, and Point Blank range is out to 6 squares or the gun's Very Short range, whichever is shorter (that way, any bonuses you may get for point blank range are limited to realistic point blank ranges).

This is a pretty good way of accomplishing what you want, but I think it's unnecessary. It also ads an extra level of complexity. It's only a little bit of complexity, but it's complexity we don't need.

Another related note is that large guns are hard to use at super short ranges.

BS. It really depends on how the weapon is mounted. If you're trying to fire a .50 cal machine gun from the hip like a hollywood action hero you're going to have some problems. However, if it's properly mounted on a tripod or vehicle mount you can shoot things right up next to you with no problem (unless you consider "gooey mess" to be a problem). To be realistic, a gun that is meant to be mounted is going to be perfectly easy to use at point blank range if it is suitably mounted. If it is not suitably mounted, it is going to be extremely difficult (or outright impossible) to use at any range.

If you're talking about really big things like artillery or ship cannons, you're getting into the realm of crew-served weapons and that would require a whole separate set of rules from personal weapons.

[AT AT ASsault]

Really? You don't even know what the target is but you know that at a range of 100 feet it's "so small, its just nonesensical?" Big, powerful weapons are generally intended for larger targets because you need a more powerful gun to take out a tank or bunker. Fortunately, such things are also easier to aim at from longer distances.

Using the 20 range gun, which was a 5.56NATO Assault Rifle in v0.2, you'd be aiming at a person, which means you're definitely going to have to put some effort into aiming (not a Point Blank shot if you have to aim like that). An Armored Jeep, which is something you'd fire at with the .50 Rifle (it is NOT a Sniper Rifle, btw, anti armor/material is more accurate) is about as tall as a person, so its going to appear even small within the upper range of the .50's first range increment (yes, I realize you'd be using a scope for that, but scopes will in some way lower the range penalties, and you'd still have to aim).

BS. It really depends on how the weapon is mounted. If you're trying to fire a .50 cal machine gun from the hip like a hollywood action hero you're going to have some problems. However, if it's properly mounted on a tripod or vehicle mount you can shoot things right up next to you with no problem (unless you consider "gooey mess" to be a problem). To be realistic, a gun that is meant to be mounted is going to be perfectly easy to use at point blank range if it is suitably mounted. If it is not suitably mounted, it is going to be extremely difficult (or outright impossible) to use at any range.

The idea was to replicate why PDWs (personal defense weapon) exist. I wont contest its not easy to use properly mounted gun, But the guy standing next you with an SMG can line up his shot WAY easier and quicker than you can with your mounted gun. Even using an Assault Rifle or Carbine inside a building or house is less effective than an SMG. And if you're using a long rifle against somebody who's within 5 feet or less of you, good luck. I realize an upper limit of 6 squares for the ease of use difference (penalty to large guns, bonus to small guns, whichever way seems better) seems a little long, but adjacent seemed a little short.

[lucasjung]

...the 20 range gun...was a 5.56NATO Assault Rifle in v0.2

OK, that's a problem. But the problem isn't the overall rules structure, it's the particular range number assigned to that particular firearm--it should be much lower, probably 12 or so. If it's 20, that makes the long range 200 and the very long range 400 (333 yds and 666 yds, respectively), which aren't very realistic. If it's 12, the point-blank range is 20 yds, the long range is 200 yds, and the very long range is 400 yds--much more realistic for an M-16.

An Armored Jeep, which is something you'd fire at with the .50 Rifle...is about as tall as a person, so its going to appear even small within the upper range of the .50's first range increment

Here's some rough numbers:
Apparent area of a standing person: 6 ft x 3 ft. At 30 yds (18 squares), that's 0.67 x 0.33 radians
Apparent area of a crouching person: 3 ft x 3 ft. At 30 yds, that's
Apparent area of a jeep from the side: 12 ft x 6 ft. At 60 yds (36 squares), that's 0.33 x 0.67 radians
Apparent area of a jeep from the front: 6 ft x 6 ft. At 60 yds, that's 0.33 x 0.33 radians.
So, a person at 30 yds is about the same size target as a jeep at twice that distance. Of course, this doesn't factor in the ballistic advantages of a round that has higher mass and energy, so PB range for a .50 cal rifle should be more than twice the PB range of a 5.56 mm assault rifle.

...the 20 range gun...was a 5.56NATO Assault Rifle in v0.2

OK, that's a problem. But the problem isn't the overall rules structure, it's the particular range number assigned to that particular firearm--it should be much lower, probably 12 or so. If it's 20, that makes the long range 200 and the very long range 400 (333 yds and 666 yds, respectively), which aren't very realistic. If it's 12, the point-blank range is 20 yds, the long range is 200 yds, and the very long range is 400 yds--much more realistic for an M-16.

(it is NOT a Sniper Rifle, btw, anti armor/material is more accurate)

I know some guys who've been using it as a sniper rifle in Afghanistan. Guess I'd better tell them they're using it wrong.

But the guy standing next you with an SMG can line up his shot WAY easier and quicker than you can with your mounted gun.

If he's right next to me, that's adjacent, and it's already covered in the rules. If he's ten feet away or farther, I'll take the gun on a swivel mount any day over a gun I have to bring up to my shoulder and look down the sight. A well-designed (and well-maintained) swivel mount makes it extraordinarily easily to point your weapon exactly where you want to, quickly.

And if you're using a long rifle against somebody who's within 5 feet or less of you, good luck

That would be adjacent, which is already covered under the rules.

I realize an upper limit of 6 squares for the ease of use difference (penalty to large guns, bonus to small guns, whichever way seems better) seems a little long, but adjacent seemed a little short.

[/quote]
Adjacent is a little short. 6 squares is probably about right. That's not the point. The point is that the "adjacent" rule is good enough, while the "6 squares" rules adds an unnecessary layer of complexity. It would probably make things more realistic, but it's OK if it's a little bit unrealistic because it's simple.

[AT AT ASsault]

I know some guys who've been using it as a sniper rifle in Afghanistan. Guess I'd better tell them they're using it wrong.

Didn't say they're using it wrong, just that its not classified as A Sniper Rifle.

I'll take the gun on a swivel mount any day over a gun I have to bring up to my shoulder and look down the sight. A well-designed (and well-maintained) swivel mount makes it extraordinarily easily to point your weapon exactly where you want to, quickly.

You still have to aim the mounted gun, though. I don't have experience with mounted guns, but it is really quick and easy to sight something with an SMG at 30 feet or less. I'll give the aiming advantage to the SMG. Though the mounted gun could easily fire and be swept across the infantry man. So they pretty much cancel out.

That would be adjacent, which is already covered under the rules.

Would that be on the boards, after v0.2 was released? Because I don't see anything about adjacent conditions or attacks of opportunity in the v0.2 document.

[lucasjung]

Didn't say they're using it wrong, just that its not classified as A Sniper Rifle.

You mean that the M107 Long Range Sniper Rifle (LRSR) isn't classified as a sniper rifle? Or perhaps you were referring to the M95 Sniper Rifle?
Even the ones that are designated as "anti-materiel" (such as the M82) are anti-materiel sniper rifles. Lots of weapons are anti-materiel; few of them are employed using sniper tactics.

You still have to aim the mounted gun, though. I don't have experience with mounted guns, but it is really quick and easy to sight something with an SMG at 30 feet or less. I'll give the aiming advantage to the SMG.

What we have here is an old-fashioned difference of opinion. That's fine, but it's hardly justification for introduction of a whole new mechanic.

Would that be on the boards, after v0.2 was released? Because I don't see anything about adjacent conditions or attacks of opportunity in the v0.2 document.

I'll try to find the place where I read it and post a link for you here. However, digging through the boards for a post I read weeks ago is not a very high priority for me.