Game ranges are laughable, but designers have to choose something that works to simulate whatever they are trying to achieve in their game. It comes down to this - do you want weapons to hit regularly at long ranges or not?

I remember reading about Ammo to Kill ratios being discussed for Vietnam and other wars and I was shocked to hear how many bullets were fired and bombs dropped to kill a target. Long range combat apparently sucks in real life, even with modern weapons.

But do you want long range attacks to be "roll a 20"

When you look at ammo:kill ratios, you need to remember suppression. Nobody fires dozens of rounds on full auto because they want to hit a dude dozens of times. You do it so the dude ducks behind cover and stops trying to shoot back (so it's safer for your friends to make a move).

You're right on the suppressive fire.

But the numbers from the Civil War, and even pre-Industrial wars, show that the battlefield saw more wounds than deaths even after flurries of ranged weapons. Most death came from disease and wound complications.

In RPGs, nobody wants to wait a week for the orc to die from sepsis.

Quote from: Spinachcat;853448Game ranges are laughable, but designers have to choose something that works to simulate whatever they are trying to achieve in their game.

The laughable range is the range of an Axe in AD&D - only 30 foot indoors. I don't think Gary thought long and hard about what he was trying to simulate here, he just went with the first rule that seemed OK and then everyone else has kept with it.

Quote from: Spinachcat;853448It comes down to this - do you want weapons to hit regularly at long ranges or not?

My party was attacked by a Roc last night - I liked the fact that it came in so fast they only had one shot at long range (which was never going to hit) and then one at point blank. In contrast someone charging at them they'd get several shots at lessening ranges going from impossible to almost certain.
So it works very well in play and adds to the fiction.

Quote from: Spinachcat;853448But do you want long range attacks to be "roll a 20"

That's one reason why I use an open dice system, it still makes the shot tricky, but is not roll 20 for every tricky shot.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;853498The laughable range is the range of an Axe in AD&D - only 30 foot indoors.

Is it though? Tomahawk throwing competitions seem to use ranges of 30' or less.
   IKTHOF uses 3m, 4m, 6m, 7m, and 9m.
AKTA uses 13, 15, 21, or 30 feet.

Looking for longer distances I watched this video of a long distance tomahawk competition. The throws were in the 60-65 foot range, so about twice as far as the maximum distance in the other competition. It's a little hard to tell from the video, but it looks to me like the top of the throwing arc is above 10' high. And at that range, the throwers seem to hit only about half the time.

Do you have some data on distances from other sources?

I played a LOT of Traveller back in the day, so abstract range bands make perfect sense to me. They are relative to the target not absolute spatial positioning.  Thus it is quite possible for two characters who are standing side by side attacking the same target to be at different range band locations.

My players don't usually care to turn things into a tactical game of measuring ranges and movement, so abstract range bands work for us.

I do play miniature war-games, and for those I measure ranges and expect shooting modifiers to have something to do with actual measured range.

In RPGs in theory weapons etc have distinctly measurable ranges, in practice we play with abstract range bands.

Quote from: Bren;853501Do you have some data on distances from other sources?

This international competition had the winning axe throw at 89.7ft. If you throw something in a parabolic arc at the speed that gives a range of 90ft but a max height of 10ft, you can throw it 75ft. If you want it thrown from a height of 6ft that reduces the range to 66ft. If you want it to hit at least 3 foot from the floor that'd reduce it to 60ft.
When the ceiling's 20 foot high there'd be no reduction.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;853546This international competition had the winning axe throw at 89.7ft. If you throw something in a parabolic arc at the speed that gives a range of 90ft but a max height of 10ft, you can throw it 75ft. If you want it thrown from a height of 6ft that reduces the range to 66ft. If you want it to hit at least 3 foot from the floor that'd reduce it to 60ft.
When the ceiling's 20 foot high there'd be no reduction.

How do you know that the thrower can throw hard enough to go 90 feet with only a max height of 10 feet?

That's the question. Watching the video it's not clear that the height is only 10ft. And if people are throwing for distance I would expect the angle of incidence to be close to 45-degrees which gives a height considerably more than 10'.

Quote from: Bren;853582How do you know that the thrower can throw hard enough to go 90 feet with only a max height of 10 feet?

Do you mean 60 feet as that's the range I was suggesting?

Quote from: Bren;853582Watching the video it's not clear that the height is only 10ft. And if people are throwing for distance I would expect the angle of incidence to be close to 45-degrees which gives a height considerably more than 10'.

You're correct that although it's hard to tell, they do appear to be throwing high into the air. So why is this?

If you threw at 45 degrees to get max range and threw it hard enough to get it 90 feet, it'd go 27 foot in the air (21 foot higher then when you threw it).

But if you can throw hard enough to throw it 90 feet, but you're aiming lower to only throw 60 feet, then it will be quite a lot below 45 degrees - in fact only 18 degrees, and it wouldn't go over 10 foot above the ground.

If you can only throw an axe 60 foot, then it would also go high into the air (21ft), but with a 10 foot ceiling restriction you could still throw it at 21 degrees and get it 50 foot.

So it's that last small bit of extra range that requires it to be lobbed high into the air.

Interestingly note that most of the times they miss they're actually throwing over the top of the target!

My combat almost always features detailed maps and counters, so abstract rules that don't take into account the detailed physical situation are incomplete to me.

I like the detailed ranges in GURPS. If anything, it demonstrates how high skill + good equipment counter the effects of ranges. IRL - you need training, a solid scope, and a good rifle to hit something 1000 yards away. GURPS does a good job of emulating that IMHO.

There are supplements in GURPS however (Action and Monster Hunters) that suggest using simplified range bands to facilitate faster, cinematic play. There are advantages like Gun Slinger that allow for more cinematic shots by shooters. So even within this one system, there are several ways you can pick and choose to customize how you want ranged attacks to work. Based on preferences of course.

With that, I think it depends more on what you are trying to emulate. It is the game you are writing. Often, designer/author preferences make their way into their games. It only makes sense. You're not creating "the blah blah blah game to end all games", you're creating the "game I would play and I think you'll like it too" game. You're looking for like-minded gamers.

GURPS tried to be a generic system that could be tailored to any play-style, genre, settings, etc. It hardly is thought of that way these days. Instead I believe people look at it like "damn, this is the way I would run an RPG" or "holy formulas Bat Man! This is NOT how I would run an RPG" and then gravitate towards whatever rule-set tickles their fancy. In the beginning I believed there was this unicorn game system that "did it right". I now realize that unicorns are best invoked in the world-of-make-believe and left out of any real-life pursuit of "perfection". :-)

How detailed vs. abstract are the rest of the game's mechanics?

I think you should model combat with that same approach. Make the game you want to play and those who appreciate your enthusiasm and approach will join you.

Quote from: trechriron;855080With that, I think it depends more on what you are trying to emulate. It is the game you are writing. Often, designer/author preferences make their way into their games. It only makes sense. You're not creating "the blah blah blah game to end all games", you're creating the "game I would play and I think you'll like it too" game. You're looking for like-minded gamers.

Make the game you want to play and those who appreciate your enthusiasm and approach will join you.

100% agree. Far too many games have been written with "other people" in mind.

Quote from: trechriron;855080I like the detailed ranges in GURPS. If anything, it demonstrates how high skill + good equipment counter the effects of ranges. IRL - you need training, a solid scope, and a good rifle to hit something 1000 yards away. GURPS does a good job of emulating that IMHO.

I've just been working on how elevation affects range, how does GURPS model that? (Or any other games for that matter, but I've not seen any games mention it).

My rule is to add the height difference onto the range, it also affects the damage (see link below for proper explanation).

Quote from: JoeNuttall;855356...

I've just been working on how elevation affects range, how does GURPS model that? (Or any other games for that matter, but I've not seen any games mention it).

My rule is to add the height difference onto the range, it also affects the damage (see link below for proper explanation).

In GURPS range is king. Movement is also factored in (you add range to speed or relative speed to determine range).

When firing downward you subtract one from the distance for every 2 yards of elevation. When firing upwards you add one yard for every yard of elevation of the target.

GURPS also has "1/2D" damage which shows the range that the weapon does 1/2 damage (loss of velocity, air resistance, gravity). It's not precise but is close enough to factor in without requiring formulas in combat. :-)

Most of the lighter games I have played don't take these things into account. It's a matter of how you want to handle these things. I find now that I'm playing GURPS that I'm memorizing this stuff pretty quickly, so it doesn't bog me down.

Quote from: trechriron;855358In GURPS range is king. Movement is also factored in (you add range to speed or relative speed to determine range)

Yes, in some genres speeds would be large enough that that would be relevant.
 

Quote from: trechriron;855358When firing downward you subtract one from the distance for every 2 yards of elevation. When firing upwards you add one yard for every yard of elevation of the target. .

Thanks Trechirion. That's a reasonable approximation. It works for zero elevation, and for something directly overhead, but is a little over restrictive for things in between.
It should be just one yard added/subtracted either way, but that's the range to the target, not the horizontal distance. For example if you have range 110 yards and are aiming at something 50 yards away, 40 yards up then you should have the range reduced by 40 yards to 70 yards, but the distance to the target is approx 70 yards (actually 64) so it is just in range. In GURPS you would have had your horizontal range reduced to 30 yards so it would be out of range.
 

Quote from: trechriron;855358Most of the lighter games I have played don't take these things into account. It's a matter of how you want to handle these things. I find now that I'm playing GURPS that I'm memorizing this stuff pretty quickly, so it doesn't bog me down.

I find that rules that ignore these things make your game a bit too vanilla. If I'm shooting off the battlements I want my range increased, and the reverse for the people shooting up at me, else the battlement becomes irrelevant.

If the game uses maps and minis, I want precise ranges. If the game doesn't use maps and minis, I prefer abstract measurements. In my homebrew modern game, I use "close" (for room to room urban fighting or close quarter ambushes in dense wood/jungle), "medium" (for standard engagements) and "far" (for long range sniping, tanks, heavy MGs and the like).