Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Help me research RL police firearms accuracy rates
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Wounded Ronin
So on and off and little by little I'm working on my personal project "80s Run", where I'd use the framework of the SR dice system to make a game for role playing in the 80s. Since there wouldn't necessarily be magic I figure that firearms would be more important and I can go about trying to make firearms as realistic as possible for the purposes of a tabletop RPG or tabletop strategy game.

I figure that a good point to start would be police firearms accuracy statistics. This would give me at least a vague idea of how often people with basic levels of training should be able to hit their targets in a real combat situation. By analzying statistics I could come with a certain range of ballpark probabilities that should be hit by the rules under what would be considered average conditions with average participants.

However, I was having a hard time finding official police hit/miss stats on the internet. The only thing I found was New York Times article that had a few stats, but they're all rounds fired rather than hit/miss stats. I'll post the article text FYI here but the question I wanted to ask the enlightened ranks of DSF is if anyone knows where I can find police hit/miss stats.

Anyway, here's the article. It's actually kind of amusing and quaint (it's from 1995) because apparently some people were suggesting that a 15 round magazine in 9x19mm was too much firepower for the cops. It makes me sad. Note also incorrect use of term "clip" instead of "magazine".

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...&pagewanted=all

QUOTE

After a two-month study of the Police Department's new rapid-firing 9-millimeter semiautomatic handguns, senior police officials have decided to increase training in the use of the weapon. But department figures show no dramatic upsurge in shooting, and the officials say there is no reason to stop issuing the guns.

The powerful handguns have become standard issue among police forces throughout the country, including in the low-crime national park system. But they have been the source of controversy in New York City since the Police Department first began allowing officers, who felt outgunned by criminals, to use the weapons three years ago.

Concerns that the police were firing too many rounds with the guns, which are equipped with 15-round clips, stemmed from an incident last December in which officers fired 247 times during a shootout in Queens in which a bystander was killed.

And after a robbery in a Bronx bodega in February, during which officers fired 125 bullets, Police Commissioner William J. Bratton assembled a committee of his chiefs to study whether the traditional six-bullet, .38-caliber revolver should be issued to recruits.

The panel, led by First Deputy Police Commissioner John F. Timoney, expects to reach its conclusions by the end of the month. But officials say that only minor modifications in training and equipment are expected.

"We're not retracting the 9-millimeter," Mr. Timoney said. "It's here to stay."

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Timoney said the department would produce a new series of training videos for distribution to all precincts and Police Academy classes. The videos would outline different scenarios in which officers should use or not use their weapons, as well as how they can minimize the times they fire to accomplish their mission while protecting themselves and bystanders from errant bullets. Mr. Timoney said the aim of the videos will be to make officers act defensively. He said the panel is also looking into whether the department should replace the bullets now used in the semiautomatics with bullets that expand on impact. That would lessen the chance that they would pass through targets and hit bystanders, but it would increase the chance that the bullets would do more harm to those they hit.

Other officials said the department was looking into other safety measures, like tightening the triggers of the Glock, Sig Sauer and Smith & Wesson 9-millimeters now used by about 24,000 officers.

In recent months, the Police Department has collected statistics on how often officers fire their 9-millimeter handguns, which were published yesterday in New York Newsday. The published statistics, which the Police Department did not dispute, show that the average number of rounds fired by officers who shoot 9-millimeters is higher than the number of rounds fired by those who shoot other guns. But the numbers also show that the average number of shots fired by all 9-millimeters on the force is actually lower now than three years ago, when the department began issuing the weapon.

The average number of bullets fired by officers equipped with 9-millimeters during shooting incidents was 3.69 in 1992, 3.71 in 1993 and 4.08 in 1994. Officers carrying all other guns fired an average of 2.68 bullets per shooting incident in 1992, 2.74 in 1993 and 2.77 in 1994.

That means officers with 9-millimeter handguns fired one more shot per incident than those equipped with other guns.

The total number of bullets fired by the Police Department, comparing 1992 with last year, increased at almost exactly the same rate as the increase in the number of officers on the force. In 1992, 25,000 officers fired 1,094 bullets; last year, 31,000 officers fired 1,383 times.

Although the numbers show officers who fire 9-millimeters discharge more rounds per shooting, they also show no increase, and actually a decrease, in the average number of shots fired among all those officers carrying 9-millimeter weapon.

The 512 officers equipped with 9-millimeters in 1992 fired 48 shots, or an average of .093 bullets. In 1993, the 888 officers equipped with the weapon fired 126 shots, or an average of .14 bullets. But last year, the 15,000 officers equipped with 9-millimeters fired 710 shots, or an average .047 bullets.

Through the 1980's and early 1990's, the police unions lobbied for the 9-millimeter because its weight, trigger and reloading cartridge permits officers to fire much faster.

Shortly after becoming Commissioner last year, Mr. Bratton allowed officers carrying the 9-millimeters to increase their firepower from 10-round clips to 15-round clips. It was a move that pleased beat officers, who often complain that drug dealers and organized crime members are carrying more powerful weapons every year
Wounded Ronin
OK, when I narrowed my queries and searched for NYPD stats I found some commentary/news but still no dry list of statistics which is really what I'm looking for.

http://www.gunatics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1988

QUOTE

May 23, 2007 6:48 am US/Eastern

CBS 2 Exclusive: Dept. That Can't Shoot Straight
Documents Show Officers Struggle To Hit Live Targets
NYPD 2005 Firearms Discharge Report

Lou Young
Reporting

(CBS) NEW YORK CBS 2 HD has uncovered some disturbing statistics out of police headquarters. A confidential firearms report indicates a problem with gunfire accuracy in the NYPD.

It’s a troubling question -- when police officers shoot can they hit what they're shooting at?

Many officers find success at the range, but experts and now the statistics indicate there's a big difference between hitting a paper target and firing on the job.

On the firing range, New York City police officers are required to put 80 percent of their shots on target. In the field, they are considerably less accurate even as they shoot more bullets per incident.

A confidential NYPD report indicates an increase in every category of shots fired on the job, accompanied by a disturbing drop in accuracy.

Of 276 police bullets fired in gunfights in 2005 only 23 found their target -- an 8 percent accuracy rate. Comparing the trend to the year before we see gunfight bullet volume up 200 percent, while the accuracy has deteriorated significantly.

"My god, that's pretty poor ... pretty sad," firearms instructor John Parmerton said.

CBS 2 HD brought the report to Parmerton, a retired state trooper who also teaches many city cops. He said they complain that their on-the-job training isn't good enough.

"Not good enough for the weapons that they're carrying and not good enough for the confrontations that are occurring on the street," Parmerton said.

"The weapon" is a 9-millimeter handgun, first designed as a military sidearm capable of pumping out tremendous firepower in short order.

Law enforcement experts say that giving all cops such devastating firepower was a political decision whose success or failure rests on the level of training.

CBS 2 HD asked Robert McCrie, a John Jay College professor of criminal justice, if he thinks it was a mistake to switch to semi-automatic weapons exclusively.

"I think it was a mistake, but it's very hard to say to law enforcement we don't think you should have firepower up to the level of the criminal element," McCrie said.

The stats, in fact, show that during gunfights criminals are more than twice as accurate as NYPD officers with these semi-automatic weapons. Seventeen suspects fired 72 bullets in 2004, hitting officers 14 times -- an accuracy rate of 19 percent compared to the NYPD's 8 percent.

Parmerton said the department's weapons instructors have been turned into paper pushers.

"Because of the sheer volume, because of the requirement to get as many bodies through the place as possible they've become target posters and line callers," Parmerton said. "It's so bad that specialty units like Emergency Services Unit, like Organized Crime Control Bureau, like Counter Terrorism Unit have all extended their firearms training over and above what the rank and file -- the uniformed squads -- get because they realize it's inadequate to put their officers on the street."

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne dismisses the 2005 figures CBS 2 HD reported as "an anomaly."

He said city cops shoot less than they used to, but doesn't address the issue of how well they shoot.

CBS 2 HD asked the NYPD to see 2006 statistics, but we're still waiting for an answer.

An outside review of NYPD's training program, ordered after the Sean Bell shooting, is expected at the end of next month.

The story can be found at; http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_1..._142170041.html
Emperor Tippy
Cop's are generally not that accurate. Spray and pray is their method of shooting. Why do you think a suspect gets 90+ bullets fired at them for 2 cops (it happened in California about a year back) and only gets hit 9 times. Each cop reloaded his gun twice. So out of 45 bullets fired 4.5 hit on average for each cop. That is 10% accuracy.

A 70+ year old women down in one of the Carolinas was served with a no knock warrant and when the cops busted down her door she grabbed a revolver and fired 6 shots, she hit 1 cop with 2 shots and the other with 3 with 1 miss. Both cops were doubled tapped in the heart. They only lived because of the trauma plates in their bullet proof vests. The 2 officers fired over 50 shots and hit her 3 times.

These were cops knocking down the door of a 70 year old grandma who had fallen asleep in front of the TV. It was a drug bust and the cops had the wrong house. The women grabbed the revolver from the table next to her (which she had gotten recently because of a large number of break ins) and hit both cops.


The vast majority of police officers in the US can't shoot. And all but the ones military trained empty the clip at the target. Which is a terminally stupid idea, what if the guy you just put 15 bullets in has a friend? Your stuck reloading while the friend shoots you.
Wounded Ronin
That's very interesting. Does this suggest that police training actually makes you LESS accurate than you would normally be with a firearm (i.e. double tapping granny)?



Also, I found a Post article that had the following stats:

Percent of hits by cops involved in gunfights
2004: 20%, 2005: 8%

Percent of hits by cops shooting in defense of themselves or others, where perpetrator doesn't return fire
2004: 34%, 2005: 30%

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05232007/news/...ed_robinson.htm
Critias
Saying "lol cops can't shoot" is something of an overgeneralization, just as much as it would be to say "every granny is a stone cold hitman."

There are cops that are into guns, and there are cops that only ever go to the range to requal once a year. Just like everyone else, there are those who practice and get very, very, good at shooting, and there are those who don't. Also just like everyone else, there are those who are heavily affected by the physiological side of a combat experience (tunnel vision, blood pressure shifts, shaking hands, etc) and those who are less affected or aren't affected until afterwards.

*shrugs*

That's just life for ya.

The hit ratio for soldiers isn't any better, but they've got the old "we were suppressing them, not actually shooting at them," fallback position. When in doubt, though, from various trainers I've always heard that about 10% is right for most combat shootings outside of touch-range, whether the shooter is LEO or military or other.
CyberKender
I don't have any actual statistics for you, but I can say a couple of things about police firearms training. I work for the local Sheriff's department, (No, not as an officer.), and we got to go down to the range with our Sargent and lieutenant for their quarterly recertification. They're not trained to empty the clip into a target, they are trained to put three shots into him. Two to the body and one to the head. They are also trained to use cover and angles to get the best shot quickly with the least amount of exposure.

Now, that said, I've been told the story of one of the lieutenants, who retired recently, who was going into a house on a drug bust. They knew the guy inside was armed and dangerous. The lieutenant in question went in, and confronted the guy in a small room in the back of the house. The guy was behind a file cabinet and waiting for the officer, about 5 feet from the door. Both men emptied their clips, and the lieutenant was not hit, and the guy was hit twice. From five feet apart. Surprise, fear, and adrenaline make for shaky hands and reactionary thinking, even when when trained. You have to be stone cold to pause and aim in a firefight. And if you want to say that the lieutenant wasn't all that good of a shot, he was a former marine who'd done three tours in Vienam, had been in the DEA doing work out of the country, and on the SWAT team. Which is why, afterwards, he said that it was exhilarating...
Wounded Ronin
So if I'm trying to stay within the general framework of SR3, and typical, say, Pistols skills are going to be from 1-6, it would seem like there not being a huge difference between 4, 5, and 6 in a firefight would be pretty correct.

And it looks like I should be going for a typical to-hit rate of around 10%.
kzt
Looking quickly: (I couldn't get access to "Police Quarterly")

http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnist...rticles/117909/

During a 13-year span, the Baltimore County PD, which Aveni regards as one of the best trained in the country, achieved an average hit ratio of 64 percent in daylight shootings - not ideal, but clearly much better than commonly believed. In shootings that occurred in low-light surroundings, however, average hits dropped to 45 percent, a 30 percent decline. The data from Los Angeles County (LAC) reveals a somewhat comparable 24 percent decline.

"Until this research," Aveni says, "performance has never been accurately matched to lighting conditions," even though as many as 77 percent of police shootings are believed to occur under some degree of diminished lighting. Some departments tally "outdoor" versus "indoor" shootings, but most appear not to precisely differentiate between low-light and ample-light events, despite the preponderance of shootings during nighttime duty tours.

A multiple-officer shooting, in which more than one officer fires during a deadly force engagement, has an even greater influence on hit probability, Aveni discovered.

According to the LAC data, when only one officer fired during an encounter, the average hit ratio was 51 percent. When an additional officer got involved in shooting, hits dropped dramatically, to 23 percent. With more than 2 officers shooting, the average hit ratio was only 9 percent - "a whopping 82 percent declination," Aveni points out.

Multiple-officer shootings, Aveni told Force Science News, are three times more likely to involve suspects with shoulder weapons than single-officer shootings. This tends to "increase the typical stand-off distance," he says. Many of these confrontations also embody fast-changing, chaotic and complex circumstances. These factors, Aveni believes, help explain the negative impact on accuracy.

Aveni also discovered a correlation between multiple-officer shootings and number of rounds fired.

With LAC shootings involving only one officer, an average of 3.59 police rounds were fired. When 2 officers got involved, the average jumped to 4.98 rounds and with 3 officers or more to 6.48. "The number of rounds fired per officer increases in multiple-officer shootings by as much as 45 percent over single-officer shootings," Aveni says.

Again, he judges distance to be a likely factor. "A higher volume of fire may be used to compensate for the lower hit ratio as distance increases," he speculates. He believes the highly violent nature these events often present may be influential, too. Anecdotally bunch shootings appear to encompass "many of the barricaded gunman scenarios, drawn-out foot and vehicular pursuits, subjects experiencing violent psychotic episodes, gang attacks and encounters involving heavily armed suspects," such as the infamous FBI Miami shootout and the North Hollywood bank robbery street battle.
Crusher Bob
Here's some stuff for the NYPD:

NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS OF POLICE COMBAT SITUATIONS (1981) (executive summary?)

NYPD SOP 9 2000 FIREARMS DISCHARGE REPORT

and:

NYPD GUNFIGHT STATISTICS
1990-2000

CODE

YEAR    HIT PROBABILITY    FIRED PER GUNFIGHT      SHOTS FIRED PER OFFICER
1990          19%                         8.2                         4.4
1991          15%                         5.9                         3.7
1992          17%                         7.7                         3.6
1993          15%                         Unavailable                 Unavailable
1994          12%                         9.3                         4.4
1995          18%                         12.5                        6.2
1996          14%                         11.1                        6.1
1997          10%                         10.6                        5.3
1998          25%                         10                          5.5
1999          13%                         10.6                        5.9
2000           9%                         16.8                        6.9
MEAN SCORES   15%                         10.3                        5.2

Critias
Honestly, Combat Pool notwithstanding, the core rules for Shadowrun would work pretty well for real-life firefights (not in terms of full auto, etc, but simply in terms of the sliding TN method) -- if your GM tallied up all the appropriate lighting, range, movement, and cover modifiers appropriately, and you kept it "real" by having at best a laser sight.

Without smartlink II's and Adept powers and Centering and cyberoptics (or Adept senses), and snipping Combat Pool (IE, "double your dice when it counts") out, you'd probably find yourself with a fairly realistic hit/miss ratio, with the basic system as written.

Take beat cop with a Pistols of 3, and have him shooting at someone outside of short range, in low light conditions, as the guy's running away (down an alley, let's say)? Odds are good it is going to take him a magazine dump to get the guy off his feet.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (kzt)
A multiple-officer shooting, in which more than one officer fires during a deadly force engagement, has an even greater influence on hit probability, Aveni discovered.

According to the LAC data, when only one officer fired during an encounter, the average hit ratio was 51 percent. When an additional officer got involved in shooting, hits dropped dramatically, to 23 percent. With more than 2 officers shooting, the average hit ratio was only 9 percent - "a whopping 82 percent declination," Aveni points out.

Law Enforcement is really made up of ninja!

~J
nezumi
Keep in mind, there are more factors to consider. A really good source showed me that right around the early 80's we saw the availability of actual bullet resistant kevlar vests. These would successfully stop .32 and 9mm bullets. Hence, some police departments upped the caliber of their guns. There was also a gradual move from revolvers (where you have to really pick your shots) to semi-automatics (where you can spray more). Both of these would decrease accuracy, comparing say 1980 to 1989 (depending on the office).

More recently, we've seen police officers having a lot more trouble hiring qualified officers. I seem to recollect reading something recently that something like 10% of all officers on the street in a part of Canada had actually failed the minimum shooting requirements. Presently we're grabbing as many people as we can for the military, risks of wearing a badge are going up, and the pay continues to be terrible. So they're under a real crunch for qualified people, and standards in some places are dropping.

So what am I getting at? Don't expect a cop in 2007 to necessarily measure up to one in 1980. Unfortunately, the 1980's cops also tend to be less likely to beat the tar out of someone, which is probably a knock for your game.

That said, I'd love to watch your work and help proofreading and so on. You're a great writer and maybe I'll learn some of your 80's secrets. Don't feel compelled to take me up on that, but definitely, if you need help, don't hesitate to give me a buzz.
kzt
Well, the 70's started with the CHP-Newhall Shootout. In which 4 CPH officers were killed by two ex-cons in a multi-minute shootout. IIRC, The ex-cons who only took effective return fire from a civilian who shoot back using one of the downed officers guns, the cops who shot back totally missed.

This caused come serious changes in how police were trained to shoot.

The 1986 FBI Miami Massacre caused more.

And if you think cops were less aggressive in the past you are simply wrong. Tennessee v. Garner was in 1985. Prior to that cops could simply shoot a fleeing felon. Use of force rules have become tighter over time, not more relaxed.
nezumi
The difference is in 1980 they'd shoot people running away. Now they beat the tar out of 'em.
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Critias)
Honestly, Combat Pool notwithstanding, the core rules for Shadowrun would work pretty well for real-life firefights (not in terms of full auto, etc, but simply in terms of the sliding TN method) -- if your GM tallied up all the appropriate lighting, range, movement, and cover modifiers appropriately, and you kept it "real" by having at best a laser sight.

Without smartlink II's and Adept powers and Centering and cyberoptics (or Adept senses), and snipping Combat Pool (IE, "double your dice when it counts") out, you'd probably find yourself with a fairly realistic hit/miss ratio, with the basic system as written.

Take beat cop with a Pistols of 3, and have him shooting at someone outside of short range, in low light conditions, as the guy's running away (down an alley, let's say)? Odds are good it is going to take him a magazine dump to get the guy off his feet.

It seems to me I need to figure out what TN would give me the 10-15% hit probability rolling 3 dice and work from that as a low average; set that as the baseline close range to-hit.

The system might require a little computer program to help roll all those dice with the lower to-hits.

I suppose that ammo expenditure, especially with automatic fire, could be more realistic in this way, since a person could dump a lot of round out each turn and have more chances to make that small hit probability.

Thanks to everyone for the info. I'm reviewing it and thinking right now.
Crusher Bob
The limits on accuracy in combat are largely physiological and psychological, not physical. People in combat miss their targets so much because of things like the stress (fight or flight) response making their hands shake, not because hitting the target is actually that difficult.

So note that the fight or flight response reduces accuracy from around 80-90% accurate on the range to around 10-20% accurate in combat. (Was it you who was asking about Grossman?)

The stuff from Grossman about violent videogames is that they reduce the stress response to combat like stimulus, not that they actually teach you to fire a weapon. But as we see, the stress response, not the quality of ‘range’ training is the main limiter on combat accuracy. This is why training for police and soldiers over the last ~50 years has striven to be as close to combat as possible, to reduce the effects of the stress response. (See work by S.L.A. Marshall and the responses to it.)

So, it’s not that stone cold granny had a firearms skill of 15, it’s just that her TNs were around 3 or 4 (just like the firing range) while the cops TNs were 6+ (suffering from fight or flight reflex). (And this is why the adrenal pump is a terrible idea from stone cold killas. Adrenalin makes your hand shake. Would anyone still want the pump if it gave you something like +4 str, +2 damage resistance, ignores stun, but also gave you something like +4 ranged combat TNs?)

Note also that the ‘amount’ of stress response is also important. That’s, in part, why retreats and ambushes tend to result in many more casualties, the guys doing the killing are under much less stress, so they shoot much better. (Note that a large part of this may be related to physiological factors, since people seem to really dislike killing other people.)

So, if you wanted to model combat, you could try having a ‘stress meter’ that went from 1-6. Every point on the stress meter you have increases your TN by 1. So, stone cold kill-bots don’t have really high level firearms skills, they just don’t have shaking hands. This also lets you implement supressing fire and the effect of close misses. Since they jack up your stress meter, they raise your TNs to shoot back.

I’m pretty sure I wrote all this before, since I remember pointing out how comparatively deadlier this would make drones, since they don’t suffer from stress; just another day on the firing range for them.

[edit]
Also note that this encourages kung-fu fighting. The fact that your hands are shaking does much less to your ability to grab the other guy and rip out his spine than is does your ability to shoot him right in the face.
[/edit]
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Crusher Bob)
The limits on accuracy in combat are largely physiological […] not physical.

question.gif

QUOTE
(And this is why the adrenal pump is a terrible idea from stone cold killas.  Adrenalin makes your hand shake.  Would anyone still want the pump if it gave you something like +4 str, +2 damage resistance, ignores stun, but also gave you something like +4 ranged combat TNs?)

Yeah, melee characters. Who are generally going to be the ones benefitting from strength and stun resistance, too smile.gif

~J
kzt
Before you get too worked up by SLA Marshals work that was built upon by Grossman, find a current version of "Men against Fire" and read the introduction. Where they admit that he basically made up all the stuff about firing rates.

http://www.theppsc.org/Grossman/SLA_Marshall/Main.htm
Crusher Bob
The point I was attempting to make here:

QUOTE

The limits on accuracy in combat are largely physiological […] not physical.

was that the limits are based on the failures 'poo flinging monkey', and not on the objective difficulty of butting a bullet into a moving target with bad lighting.

QUOTE
(Kagetenshi)
Yeah, melee characters. Who are generally going to be the ones benefitting from strength and stun resistance, too smile.gif


Of course, it's even harder to model the fact that adrenalin basically makes you 'stupid' as well.




Wounded Ronin
Crusher,

I've heard of what you mean by the adrenaline making you stupid. It's the tunnel vision people always talk about in conjunction with a combat situation, right?

Perhaps if I were to implement the "stress meter" in addition to the stress meter raising your ranged combat TNs it could also lower your Int score, which would affect combat pool, Reaction, and perception tests.


EDIT/addition:

I have been mulling over some thoughts on ways to base the firearms combat on SR but also make it more realistic/tactical. Here are some thoughts. Since I'm only an armchair warrior any and all comments are welcome. In fact, this is really just a draft, so comments and revision would be mightily appreciated.

Hit locations and cover:

If someone makes a ranged attack and misses but some of the dice rolled were only 1 less than the TN the attack counts as a "near miss" which would affect hand shakiness.

If someone scores a hit with only 1 success the hit is randomly determined to be an arm or leg. If someone is behind cover such that the arm or leg hit was actually impossible to hit the attack misses. The damage level of the weapon is reduced by 1 level.

If someone gets 2 successes the hit is to the torso or waist but not the lungs and heart. If the target was behind cover such that the torso or waist was covered up the attack misses. The damage level of the weapon is as written.

If someone gets 3 successes there's a nice center of mass hit over the heart or lungs. The damage level of the weapon is boosted by 1. If the heart and lungs are behind cover it's a hit to the cover instead.

If someone gets 4 successes or more the target was hit in the head. If the person was wearing a helmet it would be a hit to the helmet. The damage code of the weapon is boosted by 2.

If someone gets 5 successes the target is hit right between the eyes. Helmets that don't have ballistic visors (did those exist in the 80s?) don't do shit and the damage code of the weapon is boosted by 3. I suppose that if the shooter was behind the target (i.e. sniper) this puts a round right where the spine enters the skull or the spine right below the helmet line.

A character may choose to "downgrade" the hit he gets on an opponent to a hit which requires less successes. So someone with 5 successes could choose to hit as though he only had 1 success. This would eliminate the +4 TN called shot rule.


A thought on automatic fire:

For the purpose of suppression fire and other applications it would make sense to imitate Raygun and allow automatic weapons to fire at their real-world rate of fire. There are a few questions that arise:

1.) Each round that's fired should have a higher TN than the round before it since the weapon shakes a bit as you fire it. However, I think it's important that each round has a chance to hit to be more realistic. The question is if the per-round cumulative penalty should be more modest at close range (say +1 TN per round) than at longer ranges (for example +2 TN per round or +3 TN per round), since the weapon being perturbed would have a much bigger impact on where the rounds are going to hit at longer ranges.

2.) How could I model someone using a burst fire weapon such as a M16A2 for suppression fire? I couldn't just use the cyclic rate of fire since the number of rounds sprayed would also depend on how quickly the shooter can work his trigger finger. Perhaps allow 2 Burst Fire actions to merge into 1 Complex Action of Full Auto which produces 6 rounds? It seems like that might make the ROF for suppression with burst fire very very low.


Running and breath:

Perhaps if a character runs or uses the Athletics skill to perform a physical feat he gets a point on his stress meter to represent how his breathing is messed up and could affect his aim. The character then gets to roll his Athletics dice each turn to get his breathing relaxed again which would make Athletics more important. Would this work in the context of the SR system or is the SR system too...what's the word...granular?
nezumi
I don't know if I'd decrease Intelligence, since it requires a lot of record keeping and is open to abuse (on the one hand, you only see effects every other 'hit', but combat pool gets harder to constantly recalculate. On the flip side, low-int characters simply don't care.)

QUOTE
If someone makes a ranged attack and misses but some of the dice rolled were only 1 less than the TN the attack counts as a "near miss" which would affect hand shakiness.


This may be more work than it's worth, plus remember that I think most of us wouldn't be able to tell if a bullet zooming by is six inches away or six meters away. It's a loud bang and someone is shooting at us. I'm guessing you like LOTS of mechanics, but even so, just basing it off of how many shots aren't complete misses by some large margin (no successes over X) rather than how many are close hits, it could be a good deal quicker and more streamlined.

QUOTE

If someone scores a hit with only 1 success the hit is randomly determined to be an arm or leg.  If someone is behind cover such that the arm or leg hit was actually impossible to hit the attack misses.  The damage level of the weapon is reduced by 1 level.


Two points here.

Firstly, the TN currently already accounts for cover. If you're going to have shots that hit cover simply miss (or more realistically, have to deal with the armor value of the cover as well, since I don't think hitting a paper wall should have much impact), you can't include that modifier in the TN, or at least only count it as soft cover.

Secondly, rather than all these special rules for increasing or decreasing damage by levels, why not have attackers stage levels up every SINGLE success (and reduce all damage codes by 1), while defenders still stage for every TWO successes. Simpler to remember and more streamlined.

I like that you manage to drop the broken called shot rules. On the other hand, there's a disparity in regards to motivation. If I'm aiming for the guy between the eyes, don't quite make that, I shouldn't be able to say "I hit him in the hand instead". If I'm firing and trying to hit off the antenna but don't quite cut it, I shouldn't be able to suddenly say I'm aiming for the tires.

Also keep in mind, if you're going to do this, you're going to need to rewrite armor rules from scratch.

QUOTE
1.)  Each round that's fired should have a higher TN than the round before it since the weapon shakes a bit as you fire it.  However, I think it's important that each round has a chance to hit to be more realistic.  The question is if the per-round cumulative penalty should be more modest at close range (say +1 TN per round) than at longer ranges (for example +2 TN per round or +3 TN per round), since the weapon being perturbed would have a much bigger impact on where the rounds are going to hit at longer ranges.


The problem here is under current SR recoil rules, you're still going to find right around fire 10 the TNs go out the window anyways, so there's an effective cap on ROF anyway. On the flip side, if you decrease recoil, machine guns basically guarantee the guy dies, no question. The best suggestion I've seen is autofire doesn't increase damage, but adds dice. You balance the number of dice and recoil penalties to allow for a reasonable ROF, still only 1 roll, but it basically accounts for the fact that extra dice increases your chance of hitting with multiple bullets without penalizing the first bullet too much. Since more dice increases how much you're likely to stage damage up, it increases damage indirectly.

Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (nezumi)
I don't know if I'd decrease Intelligence, since it requires a lot of record keeping and is open to abuse (on the one hand, you only see effects every other 'hit', but combat pool gets harder to constantly recalculate. On the flip side, low-int characters simply don't care.)

QUOTE
If someone makes a ranged attack and misses but some of the dice rolled were only 1 less than the TN the attack counts as a "near miss" which would affect hand shakiness.


This may be more work than it's worth, plus remember that I think most of us wouldn't be able to tell if a bullet zooming by is six inches away or six meters away. It's a loud bang and someone is shooting at us. I'm guessing you like LOTS of mechanics, but even so, just basing it off of how many shots aren't complete misses by some large margin (no successes over X) rather than how many are close hits, it could be a good deal quicker and more streamlined.

QUOTE

If someone scores a hit with only 1 success the hit is randomly determined to be an arm or leg.  If someone is behind cover such that the arm or leg hit was actually impossible to hit the attack misses.  The damage level of the weapon is reduced by 1 level.


Two points here.

Firstly, the TN currently already accounts for cover. If you're going to have shots that hit cover simply miss (or more realistically, have to deal with the armor value of the cover as well, since I don't think hitting a paper wall should have much impact), you can't include that modifier in the TN, or at least only count it as soft cover.

Secondly, rather than all these special rules for increasing or decreasing damage by levels, why not have attackers stage levels up every SINGLE success (and reduce all damage codes by 1), while defenders still stage for every TWO successes. Simpler to remember and more streamlined.

I like that you manage to drop the broken called shot rules. On the other hand, there's a disparity in regards to motivation. If I'm aiming for the guy between the eyes, don't quite make that, I shouldn't be able to say "I hit him in the hand instead". If I'm firing and trying to hit off the antenna but don't quite cut it, I shouldn't be able to suddenly say I'm aiming for the tires.

Also keep in mind, if you're going to do this, you're going to need to rewrite armor rules from scratch.

QUOTE
1.)  Each round that's fired should have a higher TN than the round before it since the weapon shakes a bit as you fire it.  However, I think it's important that each round has a chance to hit to be more realistic.  The question is if the per-round cumulative penalty should be more modest at close range (say +1 TN per round) than at longer ranges (for example +2 TN per round or +3 TN per round), since the weapon being perturbed would have a much bigger impact on where the rounds are going to hit at longer ranges.


The problem here is under current SR recoil rules, you're still going to find right around fire 10 the TNs go out the window anyways, so there's an effective cap on ROF anyway. On the flip side, if you decrease recoil, machine guns basically guarantee the guy dies, no question. The best suggestion I've seen is autofire doesn't increase damage, but adds dice. You balance the number of dice and recoil penalties to allow for a reasonable ROF, still only 1 roll, but it basically accounts for the fact that extra dice increases your chance of hitting with multiple bullets without penalizing the first bullet too much. Since more dice increases how much you're likely to stage damage up, it increases damage indirectly.

Hmm, very good suggestions.

1.) Instead of INT being reduced perhaps the rule should be that if you have any level of stress you must make a perception test to notice new things entering the firefight, such as more combatants. Thus people with low INT can become tunnel visioned.

2.) Instead of calculating actual "near misses", any time someone is fired upon and the attacker's TN was less than, say, 10, the target may gain stress, perhaps influenced by how many rounds have passed by so that machine guns are better at suppressing than semi automatic pistols. The TN threshold is so that you don't make a snap shot at someone with your pistol who is a mile away and all of a sudden his hands are shaking.

3.) I guess I forgot to clarify with my above system that TN penalties for cover would be eliminated in favor of more successes being required to hit. Rather than hitting cover necessarily being a miss I'd treat the round as if it were trying to fire through the cover in question. Also, I'd consider 5 successes not to necessarily be a "called shot" to the eyes, but rather a slightly more abstract ability to go and make a called shot to the eyes or any "lesser" target. That's just to clarify my original brainstorming intent.

One thought on simplifying to the point of scaling up by 1 succes at a time...while that would be simpler, I guess it boils down to whether it would be better to keep things simple and abstract or if the tactical/gameplay experience would be greatly enhanced by having hit locations and armor coverage locations.

4.) Interesting about autofire adding more dice. That would be a very elegant way to handle things. However, that would also clash with the called-shot-less hit locations idea, since spraying 30 rounds at someone isn't necessarily going to mean that you hit him once in the eyes so much as you're probably actually going to hit him several times in the torso and limbs. I guess it all goes back to the decision of whether the more abstract system is better for tactical and challenging gameplay or if hit locations and cover being more explicitly spelled out with the rules would make more a more interesting game.


Finally, is there any website that has got an online calculator for D6 and TN probabilities? If I could play around with some numbers and see % chances of a success I feel like I could start to nail down some "ideal" or "realistic" TNs for people of various skill levels.
Kagetenshi
There's one out there that does decent spreads, but I don't have the link—search for "Shadowrun probability calculator" or something. I'm working on one that's good for in-depth comparisons of various TNs, thresholds, and die quantities, but I apparently forgot basic combinatorics when I wrote it and just haven't had the time to figure out where I went wrong.

~J
Wounded Ronin
OK, I found it.

http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~bcd/SR/dicerollcalc.html

It seems like if we're rolling 6 dice (let's say the NYPD cop has Pistols 3 and adds his 3 combat pool since he's totally focused on trying to shoot the perp) the TN we need in order to make the hit probability ~10% is 15.

Of course, according to the SR3 rules a TN of 15 would be something bordering on the impossible. It would seem that if I wanted to simulate reality a little better with the combat rules, though, that things would have to work out with TNs at close range coming to around TN 15 after visibility mods, stress, and those factors.
Link
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)
It seems like if we're rolling 6 dice (let's say the NYPD cop has Pistols 3 and adds his 3 combat pool since he's totally focused on trying to shoot the perp) the TN we need in order to make the hit probability ~10% is 15.

Of course, according to the SR3 rules a TN of 15 would be something bordering on the impossible. It would seem that if I wanted to simulate reality a little better with the combat rules, though, that things would have to work out with TNs at close range coming to around TN 15 after visibility mods, stress, and those factors.

Assume the perp is as desperate as the cop and puts their whole combat pool (5 dice) into dodging. This means the cop will need 2 successes to avoid a clean miss; a TN of 9 will result in about a 13% chance of a hit using the calculator.
Also, the range of light pistols is limited, so medium or long range is not an unreasonable assumption. This would mean only 3 or 4 points worth of TN mods need apply; +2 for target running comes to mind ;)

As for rules for adrenaline, nerves & psychology etc. combat and karma pool might account for this. Weapon skill too may include more than basic marksmanship, perhaps like IPSC type training.
Kagetenshi
"Suspect", please, unless they've been convicted.

~J
Cthulhudreams
To give an international perspective to the comments about 'gun culture' in the police force, let me offer up some commentary about australia.

In Australia the use of firearms by criminals is mostly confined to a few 'bad' suburbs, and other than that, it's not really an issue. Many cops would prefer not to carry their service pistol and instead move to a british model with no guns.

there has also been a demographics shift in the Australian population, which means for most cops (probably the majority especially at more junior levels), the only gun they have ever seen or shot with is their service pistol.

Completely different look at things for a police force that carries 9mm pistols like they do in new york!

unfortunately i don't have any information on accuracy, but I have every reason to believe its quite high from purely anecdotal evidence. Conversely because most cops are not shooting at people with guns, usually knives and other weapons, accuracy rates might be different in a real 'gunfight'
Link
or "person of interest", used hereabouts. "Suspect" may perhaps be seen as prejudicial.
POI = PC
Kagetenshi
Well, in the case of the man who at the time was suspected of having killed Deputy Vernon Matthew Williams in Florida, and who was shot at 110 times and hit 68 times (because "that's all the bullets we had", according to the Sheriff, always a man for respecting due process), we get something like the following:

Range: Short or Medium

Recoil: presumably fluctuating between 0 and 1

Other mods: Target Stationary for -1

We have a TN fluctuating between 3 and 4 or 4 and 5, with an overall hit rate of just under 62%. At Medium range it's not actually possible to get that close to 62% expected hit rate, but the closest I can get with the time I have is 54.17%, which means that the cops have Pistols 1 and spend one point of Combat Pool on their TN 4 shots.

Edit^2: further investigation suggests that they may actually have been using submachine guns, which changes the math drastically. I need to get back to work, though, so no modification here from me.

Edit: well, "suspect" does carry a negative connotation, but it's an implicit one that will only be transferred to any replacement term via the euphemism treadmill, so I'll stick with it. "Perp", however, is explicit: the perpetrator is the one who perpetrated, no question about it. I suppose there's a certain degree of vagueness as to whether criminality is implied, as in some cases it can be clear that someone performed an action despite it not being clear that they are criminally culpable, though I'd still prefer to leave that question to a judge in cases of police involvement.

~J
Cthulhudreams
Another interesting point about firearms accuracy. In WWII less than 1% of bullets fired actually hit anything. Lots less than 1% if I remember correctly i think it was less than 0.1% (It could very well have been 0.01% or 0.001%)

Which probably has more relevant to the shadowrun milleu, because lots of that would have been suppressive fire, which has been undermodelled in every RPG ever.

kzt
QUOTE (Link @ Oct 18 2007, 08:34 PM)
Assume the perp is as desperate as the cop and puts their whole combat pool (5 dice) into dodging. This means the cop will need 2 successes to avoid a clean miss; a TN of 9 will result in about a 13% chance of a hit using the calculator.

The whole idea of dodging and shooting is silly. It's quite difficult to shoot accurately when moving straight towards the target at a walk at anything over a few meters. To have any chance at all you have to use a rather unusual way of walking. Shooting on the move is really hard and you have to be able to shoot very accurately and quickly standing still before they try to teach it to you.

You are simply going to shoot up the neighborhood if you are trying to "dodge" and shoot back. You are never going to hit the target other then by total chance at more than arms length. If you don't have a stable weapon and an adequate sight picture of the guy you are shooting at you are not going to hit him. And if you are dodging you won't have either.

This is why the approach to gunfighting that is taught to students is to, when possible, get to cover and shoot from cover. You can't dodge bullets. NOBODY teaches people to be in the open and "dodge bullets" while shooting back. It's insane.

If you are a good shooter and you are caught in the open the suggestion is to keep moving, all the time, typically perpendicular or away from the bad guys. You'll hit the bad guys less than if you established a perfect weaver stance and aimed carefully, but they will hit you a lot less too.

If the real world, unlike SR, moving targets are harder to hit, particulary under pressure. Shooters who are moving at a slow walk hit their targets less than if they didn't move, and they hit them with much less precision. Nobody shoots a 1 inch 6 round string shooting on the move. Running or sprinting it's just about hopeless. Suppressive fire is the best most mortals can expect.
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Cthulhudreams)
Another interesting point about firearms accuracy. In WWII less than 1% of bullets fired actually hit anything. Lots less than 1% if I remember correctly i think it was less than 0.1% (It could very well have been 0.01% or 0.001%)

Which probably has more relevant to the shadowrun milleu, because lots of that would have been suppressive fire, which has been undermodelled in every RPG ever.

WWII fighting also often took place at longer range, too.

Agree about the suppressive fire. I really am looking to try and do a good implementation of suppressive fire. Hell, not even video games do it well. The only game that too suppressive fire seriously that I know of is Electronic Arts' SEAL Team, which is an old title. Delta Force: Black Hawk Down did it poorly but at least it sort of worked. Most FPS games for some reason don't want to have any suppressive fire effects.
Cthulhudreams
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Oct 19 2007, 12:11 AM)
QUOTE (Cthulhudreams @ Oct 18 2007, 11:53 PM)
Another interesting point about firearms accuracy. In WWII less than 1% of bullets fired actually hit anything. Lots less than 1% if I remember correctly i think it was less than 0.1% (It could very well have been 0.01% or 0.001%)

Which probably has more relevant to the shadowrun milleu, because lots of that would have been suppressive fire, which has been undermodelled in every RPG ever.

WWII fighting also often took place at longer range, too.

Agree about the suppressive fire. I really am looking to try and do a good implementation of suppressive fire. Hell, not even video games do it well. The only game that too suppressive fire seriously that I know of is Electronic Arts' SEAL Team, which is an old title. Delta Force: Black Hawk Down did it poorly but at least it sort of worked. Most FPS games for some reason don't want to have any suppressive fire effects.

I think suppressive fire is under modelled because it is (I think) that it's terrible game design to model it correctly. Taking control of someone's avatar away from them is inherently 'unfun.'

As for range, yeah, WWII engagements where typically (AFAIK) for individual weapons at the 40-100 meter range, with crew served machine guns typically engaging at the sort of 600 meter threshold, but potentially engaging at kilometer ranges or more if used as indirect fire (something they did in WWI with machineguns, not sure how widespread the practice was in WWII if at all).

But still if your barfing out 10k rounds to actually HIT someone, let alone KILL THEM, something is up even before the addition of modern body armour and other tricks people are running around with. I would doubt most shadow runners would fire 10k rounds in their career ever.
Kagetenshi
To put it in perspective, my longest-running character has acquired ~2,000 MMG rounds, 400 MMG tracer rounds, and 100 sporting rifle rounds over the course of the game, and has fired 363 of those rounds (and some grenades and ATGMs I'm not going to try to count). Granted, there's been some use of the bumper of the van as a weapon, and we've been in ammo-conservation mode for over a year out-of-character because of Bug City, but even with the occasional use of suppressive fire we're going through rounds far too slowly to hit 10k in any kind of reasonable timeframe.

I guess it makes up for ¥2-a-pop bullets.

Edit: for more perspective, consider that the ammo load of a Strato-9 is 500 rounds, or about 137 more than I've fired over the entire campaign.

~J
Cthulhudreams
And to cast THAT in perspective, a british operator of a Bren Gun in could expect to be carrying 700 rounds into battle between him and his fellow assistant, and another 300 rounds carried by everyone else in the squad, or in the APC.

But that is a different type of fighting than SR, I suppose the closest numbers would be vietnam. I dug around - small arms fire was a much bigger killer, and the US estimated it was spending several thousand rounds to actually hit someone - my source for that isn;t that great though.

Weapons are much more comparable to SR to boot.
kzt
IIRC, in Vietnam the amount of small arms ammo expended per kill weighted more than the average soldier. It's a huge number of rounds. Some of it was due to things like "Mad Minutes" and recon by fire, but a lot of it was due to the fact that people under great stress typically can't shoot worth a damn. Even at silly close range I've known people who got missed.

The main modifier that is missing from pretty much all RPG is some universal negative when your character would feel like he is in great danger of being killed or severely wounded right now. So it wouldn't apply when you ambush someone (because they are not shooting at you) or if you are a police sniper, but it sure would if you are shooting it out in an alley with some thug.

This would allow for the great shooting people do at the range, and the crappy shooting most people do on the two-way range.

Typically it seems the more times someone gets shot at the better they are at handling this, so there might possibly be some sort of mechanism to reduce it effects.
Critias
But that's because, in most games focused on combat, not many people feel like role playing the guy that pukes up his lunch at a near miss, or the guy with the sweaty palms and the shaking hands. Folks want to play the steely-eyed veteran, for whom a two-gun shootout is just another day at the office; Bobby De Niro from Heat, not Sean Bean.

Which is part of why it's so difficult to find "realism" in an RPG. So many of the things that make for wildly inaccurate fire IRL -- the physiological responses to danger, all the little quirks that go into good shooting, the weirdness of recoil, even the deeply ingrained idea that killing someone else is wrong (thought to be responsible for quite a few of those WWI and WWII misses) -- don't come up in most RPGs any more than they come up in most action flicks.

Even for folks that know that stuff exists and worry about it, it's not really fun stuff to deal with.
Fortune
QUOTE (Cthulhudreams)
In Australia the use of firearms by criminals is mostly confined to a few 'bad' suburbs, and other than that, it's not really an issue. Many cops would prefer not to carry their service pistol and instead move to a british model with no guns.

I don't know what cops you have been talking to, but I have never found this to be the case. As for minimal gun use in Oz ... don't believe the media. I have seen just as many guns on the streets and in non-legal hands here as I have in the States.
Cthulhudreams
QUOTE (Fortune @ Oct 19 2007, 03:51 AM)
QUOTE (Cthulhudreams @ Oct 19 2007, 02:12 PM)
In Australia the use of firearms by criminals is mostly confined to a few 'bad' suburbs, and other than that, it's not really an issue. Many cops would prefer not to carry their service pistol and instead move to a british model with no guns.

I don't know what cops you have been talking to, but I have never found this to be the case. As for minimal gun use in Oz ... don't believe the media. I have seen just as many guns on the streets and in non-legal hands here as I have in the States.


The handful of cops I know are young guys, natch, because I'm a young guy - but I've heard from 'reliable sources' accounts of police misidentified berrattas as glocks, and WWII era pistols presumably brought home from WWII as current defense service pistols when both weapons turned up in raids. A possible bias factor in my sample space is I'm from canberra and every sworn officer I have ever talked to is in the AFP but in the canberra local policing side. I'm not sure there has been a shooting death here for quite some time.

To be honest I've never seen the issue of police firearms discussed in the media beyond issues like replacing service revolvers with semi automatics and the associated complaining about how it wasn't happening fast enough.Infact I would have liked to see more discussion because our initally half assed implementation of gun controls resulted in you being able to buy all the parts to make a gun from different states and assemble it yourself due to different parts of the gun being controlled. We now have a national system but that stupid mistake resulting in unlicensed guns ending up in unsavoury hands was just moronic.

But beyond that declining rates of gun ownership in australia tell you all you need to know. The number of households owning a gun has gone down from 20% in 1989, to 17% in 1992 to 10% in 2000. I'd like some more recent numbers, but I have no reason to suspect the trend has abated?

With lower gun ownership, the younger generation of police coming up through the ranks is simply not going to have had the same exposure to firearms.

Also from a 2000 CSIRO paper (well, the abstract) http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file..._id=NB03014.pdf
The study is provided merely to provide some numbers to support my point of view about firearms crime rates.
QUOTE

Figure 1 shows changes in firearm deaths in Australia
between 1979 and 1999, the latest year for which data are
available. There are three main causes of firearm caused
deaths in Australia: unintentional deaths (accidents),
suicides, and homicides. In Australia, each of these firearm caused
deaths has declined markedly since 1977, but the
rate of decline has been most dramatic since 1996
(Figure 1).

Firearm suicides have fallen by an average of 12.81 per
year between 1979–1999, but by 20.33 per year in the
three years since 1996. In the same period firearm
homicides have fallen by 2.23 per year, but by 9.67 per
year in the years since the reforms.2

Critics of gun control argue that if access to guns is made
more difficult, then people intent on killing others
violently will simply substitute other means such as
knives or bludgeons. Similarly, they argue that someone
intent on committing suicide will chose another means to
do so. However, the data relating to homicide and suicide
tell another story.
Homicide data comparing the period before the
introduction of gun law reform in 1996 with two periods
after show that Australia’s homicide rate has declined from
1.94/100,000 in 1989–1996,3 to 1.77 per 100,000 in
1999–2000,4 to 1.65/100,000 in 2000–01.5
While there has been a dramatic decline in suicide using
guns, a decline that commenced in 1987 and accelerated
after 1996, Australia’s suicide rate has risen from 16.5/
100,000 in 1979 to 21.2/100,000 in 1999.6 However, there
is no evidence available that might address the question
as to whether those who took their lives by means other
than firearms since 1996 had easier access to guns prior to
that period and so might have otherwise used a gun.



Demographics of both violent crime and gunownership in australia are really changing, and I expect that it will take a while before it really becomes noticeable.

Remember the firearms are only a 'recent' invovation for the Australian police forces, only being universally deployed in 1980? if I remember correctly. Thats only 27 years of history smile.gif Prior to that all police forces except NSW followed the british model.


@critias
QUOTE

deeply ingrained idea that killing someone else is wrong (thought to be responsible for quite a few of those WWI and WWII misses)


This study has been discredited AFAIK, his methadology was .. err.. dicey.

However you do touch on a salient point. US forces operating in Somalia where so much more accurate than the local militas that it was a subject of significant comment. Training and iron discipline really does make a difference.
Critias
Just because some cops get their handguns mixed up, etc, doesn't really mean diddly squat about "Australian Police" taken as a body. Some people, even in law enforcement (or the military, for that matter!) just aren't gun guys! That doesn't mean most cops or soldiers are eager to turn theirs in, by a longshot.

And, please, let's move the conversation away from gun control laws and their supposed effect on violent crime. Else I'm liable to get myself banned again by replying.
Cthulhudreams
QUOTE (Critias @ Oct 19 2007, 09:08 AM)
Just because some cops get their handguns mixed up, etc, doesn't really mean diddly squat about "Australian Police" taken as a body.  Some people, even in law enforcement (or the military, for that matter!) just aren't gun guys!  That doesn't mean most cops or soldiers are eager to turn theirs in, by a longshot.

I am making my point badly then. The thrust of my remarks are thus

Gun ownership is declining and so is crime involving firearms in australia (A statement of fact, lets not look at the reasons)

Young cops are therefore much less likely to have ever been exposed to firearms in civilian life, and are also much less likely to be in a situation where a firearm is involved. As you put it, they are less likely to be 'gun guys'

Universal service firearms are also a compartively new factor in australian history.

I'm trying to dig up a support to support my cops are less than enthused about the entire having guns annecdotal evidence thing, but I'm not having much luck. I also wanted to tag Fortunes 'just as many guns' point because that is not supportable by any evidence.

nezumi
QUOTE
One thought on simplifying to the point of scaling up by 1 succes at a time...while that would be simpler, I guess it boils down to whether it would be better to keep things simple and abstract or if the tactical/gameplay experience would be greatly enhanced by having hit locations and armor coverage locations.


I should be more clear.

Base damage for an Ares Pred is L to the extremities. Every success stages it up one, M to the torso and abdomen, 3 is Serious, a hit to the lungs or heard, 4 is Deadly, a headshot, 5 is LN, between the eyes.

So damage staging is mirrored by the description of shot placement.

Cthulhudreams
QUOTE (kzt)
IIRC, in Vietnam the amount of small arms ammo expended per kill weighted more than the average soldier. It's a huge number of rounds. Some of it was due to things like "Mad Minutes" and recon by fire, but a lot of it was due to the fact that people under great stress typically can't shoot worth a damn. Even at silly close range I've known people who got missed.

The main modifier that is missing from pretty much all RPG is some universal negative when your character would feel like he is in great danger of being killed or severely wounded right now.

Typically it seems the more times someone gets shot at the better they are at handling this, so there might possibly be some sort of mechanism to reduce it effects.

Moving back to the point biggrin.gif

The numbers on Casulties vs Ammo fired that would be really intresting is somalia. That is the closest parallel to shadowrun in that the comparatively hard bitten US forces on one side vs the Militias.

CP2020 was also fond of quoting a study by the NYPD into gang gun fights and the astounding inability to hit anything. Maybe that is another touchstone?
Fortune
QUOTE (Cthulhudreams)
Remember the firearms are only a 'recent' invovation for the Australian police forces, only being universally deployed in 1980? if I remember correctly. Thats only 27 years of history smile.gif Prior to that all police forces except NSW followed the british model.

Dude. Australia contains a long history of armed law enforcement, especially with firearms, going back to well before the days of Ned Kelly and Captain Moonlight and the other bushrangers. Universal deployment of firearms is not really an indication of much, other than the world becoming an even more dangerous place (or the cops becoming smarter). In fact it argues against your assertion that guns are decreasing in Oz. If that were the case, then why the sudden need only 27 years ago to universally arm all police officers?

Maybe I just have more unsavory 'contacts' here in Sydney. biggrin.gif

Seriously though, I have been all over the country, and while the statistics might say that legal gun ownership is down, they don't take into account the plethora illegal guns out there.

As an example, when I first got to Sydney in '97, knowing nobody at all (and having very little money), it took me less than an hour to find a number of pistols for sale.
Fortune
QUOTE (Cthulhudreams)
I also wanted to tag Fortunes 'just as many guns' point because that is not supportable by any evidence.

How can I prove anything other than recount my personal experiences. Not much in the way of a paper trail when it comes to statistics about illegally owned firearms, especially taking into consideration all the weapons on the market (and in hordes) that are not known about ... yet. wink.gif
Snow_Fox
I don't think you can really worry about accuracy- it will vary from unit to unit. I think you have to be more aware of what the police are carrying. For example look at the first two terminator movies- in the first one, most police are carrying revolvers. By T-2 most had semi-auto's.

In the mid 80's the LAPD did not have long arms-the infamous case of bank robbers with body armorand AK's causing police to run into a gun shop to borrow weapons, by comparrison at the same time, when an NYPD officer standing guard at a witness' house was murdered, ther NYPD turned out in full body armor carrying Steyres.

You could also look for when leagally thingsl ike assault rifles dissapeared from the world where they could be legally bought.

The other big thing is communications- I mean I remember back then the fin antenna on the back of limos that had car phones (Remember the Crocadile Dundee bit?) now my cell phone can fit into a pocket so I don't even need a bag to carry it. when was the last time you saw a pay phone in the US? They were big then.

CD's and DVD's? Heck, is the VCR VHS or Beta?
Kagetenshi
Laserdisc.

~J
Snow_Fox
Atari and only real geeks, whom I would never even think of dating, knew what the hell to do with those big floppy discs. No PC's but you got time at the school lab.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012