Firearms Design Question, ...for making modular weapons. Options

[FrostyNSO]

I wanted to use the CC rules for designing a 'modular' firearm like the G-38 and AUG-CSL found in the book.

I figured you would just design 4 firearms with the same design features (including easy setup/breakdown), and just add all the points together? Does this sound about right or are there some rules I am missing?

[FrostyNSO]

hmmmm...anybody?

[mfb]

that'd be a pretty expensive weapon, dude. i dunno, i'd at least halve the costs of the weapons involved. that way, it's only twice as expensive as a normal CC-created firearm, instead of 4 times.

[FrostyNSO]

What about paying the design points on the base frames and then only paying once for the design options that are on multiple variants?

\edit: Or paying the most expensive frame, and buying the design features seperate?

[prettz]

Pick a weapon to act a the 'base weapon' the weapon with the most internal space and buy everything like normal for the base weapon. After that purcase the next weapon in the series with the space/cost being half the normal for that weapon but do not buy parts that the base weapon already has. For the thrid weapon in the series the space/cost is half as well but don't pay for any in weapon's 1 or 2. Continue the same process.

How's that?

[FrostyNSO]

I'm going to try and bang that out on paper right now.

What about damage codes? Same as for the base damage for the weapon it is acting as, or something in between the original base weapon, and what it is acting as? Confusing sentence...sorry.

[prettz]

Well the weapon in question should always start at its base damage code of whatever it is trying to act like. For example if the base weapon is a MMG and the second weapon is a LMG the MMG should do MMG damage and the LMG should do LMG damage as its base. Now if you buy the option that increases the damage it should apply to all weapons in the set, however it should able to only be bought on for the 'base weapon' as the diffuse would take care of that.

Remeber to apply the maximum Increase in power though. For example if your base weapon allows 4 damage increases and you buy them all apply all of them, but if the second weapon only allows 2 as the maximum then only two of the four should apply to that weapon.

[FrostyNSO]

Ok, here is what I have:

Bushmaster MD-17 Modular Weapon System (suggestions for better names are welcome =)

Assault Rifle - c: 3 a: 40/c m: SA/BF/FA d: 8M w: 4.5 rc: 2

Carbine - c: - a: 40/c m: SA d: 9S w: 5.25 rc: 2

LMG - c: - a: 40/c m: BF/FA d: 7S w: 7 rc: 3 (5)
- w/ drum a: 100/d w: 8

The MD-17 system is easily broken down, constructed of light weight materials, and ergonomically designed to provide a more controllable weapon. All variants feature an integral top-mounted magnification scope.

AR/Base Options : easy setup/breakdown, extended clip, recoil comp. 2, weight decrease 8, 1x magnification scope

The carbine configuration includes an extended barrel for longer range, and greater stopping power, intended for use in the sniper role.

Carbine-only Options : barrel extension, increased power 2, ammo loading (clip)

In the Light Machinegun configuration, the standard barrel is swapped out for a heavier barrel and an integral folding bipod to control recoil.

LMG-only Options : heavy barrel, bipod

The MD-17 system is not cheap, but a great weapons platform for the discerning buyer who needs flexibility rather than economy. The MD-17 system requires 15 combat turns and an Assault Rifles B/R (4) test to convert from one configuration to another, and all required parts fit easily into a standard briefcase.

avail : 12/1 wk cost : 5,905 index : 3 legal : 3-H


So how does that look? Aside from the astronomical price.

[prettz]

I think it is fine, now build some rules for it so the rest of us can make them. Also, are the parts color coded or are you going to buy my new shoulder when I put the weapon tgether wrong :grinbig:

[FrostyNSO]

I basically did what you outlined above, but paid for the power increase on the carbine seperately. Works alright. I also made the weights for each configuration start at what the AR (base weapon) had, and then adjusted them by the options applied to each config.

It was made by bushmaster so the the parts aren't color coded, your actually pretty lucky if they were machined correctly =)

[otomik]

[hobgoblin]

carefu dont mix sr and reallife ammo unless you know the person is useing raygun for reference. and given that he tryes to build a modular weapon useing CC rules im guessing he isnt and then the stuff about ammo that you just unloaded becomes near worthless...

[otomik]

true, it's just that by many people's judgement the CC design rules are a failure in that they don't help the average player create balanced reasonable weapons. so whatever seems reasonable is what works. if the price seems too high just change it.

these are just suggestions for cartridge conversions with minimal parts change (would allow for more compact weapons, possibly silenced and thus a more versatile package).
.223/5.56mm goes well with 9mm
.308/7.62mm goes well with .45ACP (perhaps a combo like the DeLisle and Enfield?)
6.8mm SPC goes well with .40, .357SIG and 10mm

if you're strickly following the CC design rules because you're GM has authorized anything you make with them then i'm sure your GM will regret it.

[Arethusa]

As long as the CC rules allow conceal 9 assault rifles, I fail to see why you'd even respond to one of these threads. Hell, I can't even understand why people use these rules to begin with.

[toturi]

I fail to see why you even bother to buy the books if you do not use the rules to begin with.

[mfb]

i'm pretty sure the max conceal on a CC assault rifle is 7. improved concealment isn't compatible with bullpup; you can only take one or the other. that, plus shortened barrel, plus the base conceal of 3 = 7.

there's more to Cannon Companion than the FCG, and following the published rules is always a viable option in any campaign. i fail to see what there is to get snippy about.

[Raygun]

[Hague]

[hobgoblin]

[Austere Emancipa...]

Ahhh, the good ole What The Fuck's Up With SR Carbines -rant, with a hint of What The Fuck's Up With SR Gas Vents and " Ammo Types. I must say that after a few years of playing (well, running) SR, I can see how the over-simplified ammo types can be a good idea -- some people don't know and don't care about what the difference is between 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm, let alone M193 and M855. And considering what they did with the ranges and Damage Codes even without separate calibers, I'm sort of glad they weren't included. The rest, well, I agree -- the designers obviously didn't know what carbines are, and gas vents are insanely effective and must look like huge ceiling fans glued on top of the gun.

But canon isn't going to change any time soon, and the designers don't seem too interested in realistic firearms (or realistic anything else related to combat, really), so just suck it up or do house rules. Not saying there's anything wrong with ranting, although I've never ranted about this stuff. Nuh-uh, not me.

[Hague]

Maybe if you didnt know squat about firearms, and were blissfully ignorant (i.e., absolutely no desire to increase your knowledge), then I could see your point.

The guys I gamed with, though, we knew more about firearms and ammo by age 12 than a lot of cops or military personnel. Once I actually got some hands-on with things like machineguns (not the crap that the media CALLS a machinegun, either) and explosives, almost every gaming system I've ever played seemed oversimplified and unrealistic.

[Austere Emancipa...]

You could say the same stuff about the Matrix rules and the vehicle combat rules, and the rules regarding the use of just about any skill in the game: they are oversimplified, and anyone with extensive knowledge of the relative area IRL would say us who use those rules as such and are happy (or content anyway) don't know squat and are blissfully ignorant.

And it's probably true. There are many things in the world that I don't care whether I know about. Guns don't belong to my list, but it sure does for a whole bunch of people.

[FrostyNSO]

I know a crapload about firearms and would love to talk shop anytime with any of you since I've been trained with and used most of them in the field at various points in my career, however, my group doesn't know jack from jill about guns, so we stick to the companion rules to keep it simple for them.

We've thrown out "maximum rate of fire" rules, so long as what you're trying to do is reasonable, and we use "rifle"-type ammunitions as armor-piercing in most cases. Other than that, we try to stay canon.

[hobgoblin]

this isnt about guns but its a followup on the oversimplification "meta-thread":

when it comes to matrix i have found that in a general sense i can transfer actions and concepts from the real world but only aslong as i dont go into detail. but when i pick up any sr book i enter a state of suspension of disbelife. yes its the real world in setting but its allso a game, most likely made for anyone to pick up and have fun with.

look at the firearms rules of cyberpunk, didnt they have to water then down as they became to lethal? and fromwhat i understand they based them on real life guns and ammo tests and so on. sometimes reality kills the fun in it.

so if your group play in this way or that way its fine but please try to think that its not the norm, it may well be very far from the norm...

[Hague]

Austere, I think that SR went pretty far into detail with the vehicle rules, putting in a lot of realism that helps muck up gameplay. Things like flux, for instance. I dont know very bloody much about electronic warfare, but I WOULD like to learn someday. Basically, I know enough to think that FASA might have been a little better off by cutting down a little bit of the vehicle rules, esp. EW, and put in a little more realism to the gun fights. Or better yet, NOT cutting down on the vehicle rules, AND adding the realism to gunfights.

FASA does a FAR better job than Palladium, though, I'll give them that much. In some respects, they do better than GDW with Twilight:2000, 2nd edition and beyond. Last one I saw was Version 2.2, which helped make up for some of the shortcomings of 2ed.

Hobgoblin, you're right, its all about fun. Sometimes people forget that its a GAME (we're all guilty of that to some degree or another).