It's all about the size and movement of the target. Whether it's a "light" or "heavy" weapon is irrelevant.

Hitting a person requires being able to hit a target around 6ft by 3ft. If you can hit a 6x3 area of a tank, you can hit a person. If you can put a round through the doorway of a bunker, you can hit a person.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;358413It's all about the size and movement of the target. Whether it's a "light" or "heavy" weapon is irrelevant.

Hitting a person requires being able to hit a target around 6ft by 3ft. If you can hit a 6x3 area of a tank, you can hit a person. If you can put a round through the doorway of a bunker, you can hit a person.

On a firing range, I think that's reasonably true.

But on a firing range, I can pretty much always put a rifle bullet on a human-sized target at 100m.

In simulated combat (the only kind I've got personal experience with) it's not nearly that pretty and things like how awkward the weapon is to bring to bear on a target matter or how long a missile or grenade takes to reach its target matter.

Again (since this can't be said often enough), time-in-flight or traversal time don't affect the actual accuracy of the weapon -- they won't make a 6x3 target any harder to hit -- but they might well modify a character's to-hit chance in a game.

Also, based on what people are telling me, it sounds like shoulder-launched anti-tank rounds have some accuracy issues that would make reliably hitting a 6x3 target under combat conditions (e.g. not-all-the-time-in-the-world to line up a shot) somewhat unreliable.

My best thinking right now would be to give slow weapons (slow-because-of-flight-time or slow-to-traverse) either some kind of negative to hit targets of any kind (which would be made up for by large-target-bonuses of vehicles) and maybe allow people targeted by them a chance to return fire or hit the deck or whatever (most games have some kind of rule for this).

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;358420Also, based on what people are telling me, it sounds like shoulder-launched anti-tank rounds have some accuracy issues that would make reliably hitting a 6x3 target under combat conditions (e.g. not-all-the-time-in-the-world to line up a shot) somewhat unreliable.

It's true. But they're not designed to hit a particular point, just a vehicle or bunker.

But in the end they do actually hit a particular point, so it comes to the same thing in game terms. I just say that when firing direct fire heavy weapons you can aim at a person, but not parts of a person; when firing indirect fire weapons you can aim at an area, but not a person.

Which makes not much difference because if you are struck by a Milan anti-tank missile it doesn't really matter if it hit your hand or your head, you're now pink mist. And if a mortar bomb lands in some 10ft by 10ft area, it doesn't matter if it hit you or a foot away from you, again you're pink mist.

Quote from: -E.;358377Are you sure about the Panzerfaust? I don't think rockets are quite as accurate as rifle rounds... but that's really at the heart of what I'm asking about.

For your last point: yeah--anything remotely human would be blown to pieces by one of these weapons.

Cheers,
-E.

Yes, i'd even say it's MORE accurate than a normal rifle bullet, because since 2005 the PF III is AFAIR mostly used with a warhead of recoilless design aka RGW.

To heavy weapons in general:
What Kyle Aaron says is true, a direct hit is unneeded to kill a human.
Like, say, the deadly radius for a normal German hand grenade is about 15m
according to a paratrooper i know who was in my gaming group for quite a long time.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;358435It's true. But they're not designed to hit a particular point, just a vehicle or bunker.

But in the end they do actually hit a particular point, so it comes to the same thing in game terms. I just say that when firing direct fire heavy weapons you can aim at a person, but not parts of a person; when firing indirect fire weapons you can aim at an area, but not a person.

Which makes not much difference because if you are struck by a Milan anti-tank missile it doesn't really matter if it hit your hand or your head, you're now pink mist. And if a mortar bomb lands in some 10ft by 10ft area, it doesn't matter if it hit you or a foot away from you, again you're pink mist.

Two things:
Firstly, in some cases it might make a difference -- a Milan anti-tank missile might turn a human being into a fine mist no matter where it hits him, but it might not mean the same thing to a Cyborg-Alien-Half-Daemon (C.A.H.D.)

Further more, since a Milan missile uses a shaped charge, there's a big difference between being /directly/, and subjected to a thin plasma jet that can incinerate several hundred cm of steel armor and having the round hit /nearby/ and being caught in a small fireball.

For a human... maybe not so much... but for a C.A.H.D. being near-missed by the missile could mean the difference between life and death.

The question /isn't/ whether or not you can hit people with direct fire heavy weapons -- clearly it happens. My question is whether direct-firing a heavy-weapon (one generally designed to be fired at a vehicle) should be modled by the game mechanics the same way small arms fire is.

I would say the firearm mechanics of most games assume that your basic to-hit roll assumes

• The weapon is reasonably accurate
• The travel time from the round to the target is negligible, limiting target reaction time
• The time required to bring the weapon in line with the target is negligible (assuming the weapon is drawn and readied)

Some of the following don't hold true for many heavy weapons, based on what I'm reading:

• Anti-tank rockets may not be all that accurate relative to bullets
• Anti-tank rockets fly a lot more slowly than bullets and regular human targets may have time to react significantly (e.g. get out of the way)
• Mounted weapons may take time to traverse to the target or have a limited range of motion

All of the above suggest to me that it would make sense to model those aspects (relative to small-arms guns carried by a person and shot at another person) as a net-negative to hit which would typically be made up for by the large size of vehicular targets.

This matches my limited personal experience with those kinds of weapons that they're generally more awkward to use against people than, say, an assault rifle is.

Cheers,
-E.

I have no knowledge to bring to this discussion, but reading the thread just made me get out my copy of The Blues Brothers to review the scene where Carrie Fisher is targeting the rocket launcher at Belushi's face from across the street.

The schooling I'm getting right here makes that scene even better.

Thanks.

Quote from: Phantom Black;358442Yes, i'd even say it's MORE accurate than a normal rifle bullet, because since 2005 the PF III is AFAIR mostly used with a warhead of recoilless design aka RGW.

To heavy weapons in general:
What Kyle Aaron says is true, a direct hit is unneeded to kill a human.
Like, say, the deadly radius for a normal German hand grenade is about 15m
according to a paratrooper i know who was in my gaming group for quite a long time.

The recoil from a rocket and the recoil from a rifle are entirely different things. When a rocket is recoilless, that means you can fire it from over-your-shoulder (as compared to something like a mortar, which must be fired from a fixed position due to recoil) so long as you have enough space behind you to account for the back-blast.

The recoil from a rifle means it jumps just a little... but not very much for a modern assault rifle (the instructors in Basic Training have a memorable way of demonstrating how little actual recoil there is...)

In terms of how a game might represent the basic accuracy of these weapons, I don't think the recoil characteristics would be primary influences.

The real question is how "straight" an anti-tank missile flies. I'm unable to find statistics, but a lot of people tell me they're nothing like a rifle bullet which goes pretty much directly where you aim it at ranges up to at least 300 meters (the maximum distance Army soldiers are expected to hit man-sized targets at)

As to lethality -- yeah, it may not matter if you're playing humans... but even if you're not playing superhumans, anti-tank rounds are a shaped charges that focus a lot of their energy in a narrow plasma lance. Anything hit by that lance is completely toast (it can vaporize tank armor) but near-misses from shaped charges might well be survivable.

Quote from: TAFMSV;358449I have no knowledge to bring to this discussion, but reading the thread just made me get out my copy of The Blues Brothers to review the scene where Carrie Fisher is targeting the rocket launcher at Belushi's face from across the street.

The schooling I'm getting right here makes that scene even better.

Thanks.

Awesome! See? That's what I'm /talking about!/


-E.

Personally from an ease of play that somehow mimics reality perspective I would just double the penalties applied for hitting a moving target with heavy machine guns and for RPGs and the like tripple them. Do the same with penalties for snap shots or shooting from the hip etc.
This should be sufficient to encourage players to use the correct tools for the job, in some way mirror what seems to be the case through other players real world observations and give the PCs a chance to make that mad zig zag dash up the hill to storm that Machine gun nest.

Quote from: -E.;358444Firstly, in some cases it might make a difference -- a Milan anti-tank missile might turn a human being into a fine mist no matter where it hits him, but it might not mean the same thing to a Cyborg-Alien-Half-Daemon (C.A.H.D.)

Sure. But when you're dealing with CAHDs your game is no longer realistic anyway, so no need to worry about such details, just do whatever makes the book-keeping easy. In other words, something like,

Quote from: jibbajabbaPersonally from an ease of play that somehow mimics reality perspective I would just double the penalties applied for hitting a moving target with heavy machine guns and for RPGs and the like tripple them. Do the same with penalties for snap shots or shooting from the hip etc.
This should be sufficient to encourage players to use the correct tools for the job, in some way mirror what seems to be the case through other players real world observations and give the PCs a chance to make that mad zig zag dash up the hill to storm that Machine gun nest.

Quote from: -E.Further more, since a Milan missile uses a shaped charge, there's a big difference between being /directly/, and subjected to a thin plasma jet that can incinerate several hundred cm of steel armor and having the round hit /nearby/ and being caught in a small fireball.

The only difference is whether it might still be possible to identify the remains.

Quote from: -E.;358470The recoil from a rocket and the recoil from a rifle are entirely different things. When a rocket is recoilless, that means you can fire it from over-your-shoulder (as compared to something like a mortar, which must be fired from a fixed position due to recoil) so long as you have enough space behind you to account for the back-blast.

The recoil from a rifle means it jumps just a little... but not very much for a modern assault rifle (the instructors in Basic Training have a memorable way of demonstrating how little actual recoil there is...)

In terms of how a game might represent the basic accuracy of these weapons, I don't think the recoil characteristics would be primary influences.

The real question is how "straight" an anti-tank missile flies. I'm unable to find statistics, but a lot of people tell me they're nothing like a rifle bullet which goes pretty much directly where you aim it at ranges up to at least 300 meters (the maximum distance Army soldiers are expected to hit man-sized targets at)

As to lethality -- yeah, it may not matter if you're playing humans... but even if you're not playing superhumans, anti-tank rounds are a shaped charges that focus a lot of their energy in a narrow plasma lance. Anything hit by that lance is completely toast (it can vaporize tank armor) but near-misses from shaped charges might well be survivable.



Awesome! See? That's what I'm /talking about!/


-E.

Uhm, not quite.
AFAIR this RGW IS in fact recoilless, because it uses a sort of counter-weight-pellets that are expelled from the rear end of the PF III.

So, did i miss something?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;358532Sure. But when you're dealing with CAHDs your game is no longer realistic anyway, so no need to worry about such details, just do whatever makes the book-keeping easy. In other words, something like,

The only difference is whether it might still be possible to identify the remains.

Not having realistic characters doesn't preclude having weapons that behave in a way that feels realistic.

I play a lot of games that have either limited elements of fantasy or move between different levels of fantasy (e.g. a fairly realistic military game that includes fighting aliens).

Sacrificing the sense of fidelity around the military stuff just because there are aliens in some parts wouldn't work for me.

Of course I also prefer movies that make an effort to get science, technology, and military gear stuff right even if they're science fiction. This is a personal-preference thing, I'd guess.

To be clear: I'm not claiming any of this is, in any way, really "realistic." It's a matter of getting things to feel reasonably correct. Having people be somewhat hard to engage with weapons like shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles "feels" right to me... and at least some people with experience with these things apparently agree.

Quote from: Phantom Black;358548Uhm, not quite.
AFAIR this RGW IS in fact recoilless, because it uses a sort of counter-weight-pellets that are expelled from the rear end of the PF III.

So, did i miss something?

Yeah it uses countermass -- that means less backblast -- but when you say it "IS" (in CAPS) in fact recoilless, are you saying that an RPG-7 somehow *isn't* recoilless?

They're both "recoilless" (using different approaches) -- but that's compared to something like a mortar which has *massive* recoil and can only be fired from a plate fixed against the ground.

Now, I've never fired any of these anti-tank rocket launchers -- so I don't have first-hand experience with what the recoil is like -- but from videos it looks like the destabilization from firing is at least on par with what you'd get from an assault rifle (which has, really, a very mild recoil).

Several people who seem to be knowledgeable have told me that the missiles themselves are a bit inaccurate for reasons other than recoil -- something I find easy to believe... I don't think anti-tank missiles are designed for the kind of accuracy rifles (of any sort) are.

It may be that the Panzerfaust III is a super-accurate weapon and the comments made by others don't apply to it -- but nothing I've been able to find about it suggests that it's known for for being significantly more accurate than competing products (it probably beats the RPG-7, which apparently has a fairly bad reputation in the accuracy department but remains hugely popular, probably because it gets the job done despite any accuracy issues and it's cheap).

It may well be that *I'm* missing something (which is why I started this thread), but it's not that there are a couple of different approaches to making a missile weapon recoilless.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: jibbajibba;358516Personally from an ease of play that somehow mimics reality perspective I would just double the penalties applied for hitting a moving target with heavy machine guns and for RPGs and the like tripple them. Do the same with penalties for snap shots or shooting from the hip etc.
This should be sufficient to encourage players to use the correct tools for the job, in some way mirror what seems to be the case through other players real world observations and give the PCs a chance to make that mad zig zag dash up the hill to storm that Machine gun nest.

Not a bad approach. That might be a good way to handel a variety of weapons. Also, I like the fact that it rewards dynamic combat.

Cheers,
-E.

I'm glad you started this conversation. It led me to include the initiative bonuses for using a smaller weapon.

Interestingly enough the house rules I am making for X Plorers on my blog has anti tank weapons have trouble hitting people sized targets, but when they do the people tend to die horribly.  Its harder to set up and hit with that missile launcher, but if it can pop armor, it will turn you to mush.

But my rules are for an OD&D take off game (a mighty GOOD one IMHO), and are generally trying to be quick and dirty.

I do allow small arms to hurt tanks, but generally with a to hit penalty and outside of a Nat 20 you only do 1 HP of damage.  (Its assuming you hit something vital somehow.)

Its simpler than Damage Reduction, Mega Damage, or giving tanks 100s of HPs compared to a person.

Quote from: Cranewings;358594I'm glad you started this conversation. It led me to include the initiative bonuses for using a smaller weapon.

Depending on what initiative reflects, that sounds reasonable.

Quote from: Captain Rufus;358737Interestingly enough the house rules I am making for X Plorers on my blog has anti tank weapons have trouble hitting people sized targets, but when they do the people tend to die horribly.  Its harder to set up and hit with that missile launcher, but if it can pop armor, it will turn you to mush.

But my rules are for an OD&D take off game (a mighty GOOD one IMHO), and are generally trying to be quick and dirty.

I do allow small arms to hurt tanks, but generally with a to hit penalty and outside of a Nat 20 you only do 1 HP of damage.  (Its assuming you hit something vital somehow.)

Its simpler than Damage Reduction, Mega Damage, or giving tanks 100s of HPs compared to a person.

How did you come to the conclusion AT weapons ought to be less accurate against human targets? Was that a balance issue or something from your experience?

The lucky-hit rule seems reasonable also--small arms fire (lucky small arms fire) seems to be able to degrade sensors, shoot out lights, etc.

Cheers,
-E.