I guess the average guy in Shadowrun who fires a MMG on the move either sports dual cyberarms with heavily augmented strength and gyroscopic stabilization or is a drone. Then again, my standard for Street Samurai has always been: fire an M82 in this stance without falling over or losing accuracy.

Ahh, Japan. The country that popularized images of 90 pound girls in fetish wear wielding anti-tank weapons immune to physics.

~Umi

Yeah, except an AR in full auto functions the same way. I mean the SAW is basicaly an M16 designed for continuous fire. Hell the M16 has a conversion kit that makes it a better MG than the M249 SAW. What my post is about is that when compaired to the ARs in SR5 the MGs fall off hard. I just think their damage code needs to be upped by 2 to 3 points each to put them on par with the ARs as a viable combat option at anything short of extream ranges. I also think that .50 cal rounds should cost 10 Nuyen a pop, but thats probly just me

As far as vehicles go, i'm all for modular damage on them if you can come up with a not overly convoluted/complicated system. However that sounds like a discussion for another thread.

Indeed...

I cannot overstate how much I loved that weapon. We always said that if we ever had to dismount to fight for some reason, we'd crush our m4s under the fucking tracks if we were ordered to use them instead of our m240s. And yes, you can use it as a basically scaled-up assault rifle. Yes, that includes running around with the thing, sprinting from cover to cover, using short aimed bursts the same way you'd use an m16 in that situation. Aside from the weight, it's better for that shit in every conceivable way. And, unlike most assault rifles, you can still use it as a machine gun, too. The only situation I can envision where I'd rather have an assault rifle of any stripe than an m240 is if I had to carry the damned thing all over the place with no reasonable expectation of violence happening.

Yeah, I'm not a small guy by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm by no means an ork, troll, or cyborg, despite any rumors you may have heard to the contrary.

For those talking about different damage systems for people/vehicles, I'm guessing you either forgot SR did that in previous editions or else never played those versions. Hardened armour was an answer to make the combat less complex and dice heavy but now we get the LMG/MMG/HMG issue of the weapons not very closely resembling real weapons of that type. Like Slide says, such a system would be fine so long as it doesn't become overly complex or bog the game down. Really though, how often do these weapons come up in your games? How frequently are your players busting out heavy ordinance on a run? Is it frequent enough to justify a whole new system for vehicle damage and LMG/MMG/HMG? Are we supposed to playing a game of covert ops guys breaking into buildings or a game of military units operating against other military units?
OK. That's my piece. Back to the videos and stories about real world use of these guns.

I have to disagree with rystefn on one point. Idvrather have an at or any for that matter in cqc. Then again if I'm in a building with a mmg I would just shoot through the walls

Unfortunatlybthere are no real rules on using over sized weapons in confined areas

Right... You can tell I'm still a tanker at heart by the way fighting indoors never occurs to me. LoL

Yeah, if you're a tunnel rat, stuck fighting in a confined space, a smaller weapon would be better. However, in those cases, I'd say SMG or shotgun outclasses the AR.

Which brings us to the actual point of assault rifles: they're a generalist weapon. In almost every situation, there's a better weapon you could have. However, if you don't know what situation you're going to be in, or if you know you'll be in a lot of different situations, it's often a good call to take the one that's second or third best in all of them over the one that's a clear standout sometimes, but worse than useless in others. So, you know, at no point should an AR ever be a better MG than an actual MG.

This weirdness goes alllllll the way back to Shadowrun, First Edition.

SR1 LMG 5S3 (the assault rifles do 5M3)
SR1 MMG 8S4
SR1 HMG 12S4

SR1 Sniper Rifle (presumably c. same caliber as MMG) 6S2
SR1 Assault Cannon 10D4

Realizing there is a fairly small range of non-game-breaking Damage values I think the Machine Guns would be more internally consistent as:

Ingram Valiant: 11P
Stoner-Arms M202: 13P
RPK HMG: 15P

AP remains the same. When the SM-5 is directly competing with assault cannons for role, I don't think it messes up internal balance that bad.

Just for reference, this is an HMG. (Yes, I'm aware this variant is specifically designed for aircraft, but dammit, nothing wrong with More Dakka™!)

~Umi

More, More, I need MORE Dakka...

Umi I will let you take that as an HMG as long as you let me take this as an assault cannon.

Ahhhh... Come on Slide, Naval Artillery is much more bad ass (and Super Mighty, most excellent Dakka, at that) than an Assault Cannon will ever be.

this?

Main Gun, Not Assault Cannon. Sorry, Try again.

I could see this, maybe.

~Umi

You can have it, but the recoil would do more damage than getting shot by a Panther XXL if you tried to use it as a personal weapon.

Maybe this beast? The largest centerfire rifle ever made. Seems about right, especially for a Pink Mohawk troll.

(Full video entirely worth watching.)

~Umi

There we go... THAT is an Assault Cannon.

Looks like a 2-Bore to me. Not what I would call an Assault Cannon, personally.

Assault cannons use ammunition similar to what is used in light tanks not battle tanks.

Mmmmmmmmm, Tuesday.

Anyhow, why a LMG? Because happiness is a belt-fed weapon and a target-rich environment.

Canray... it doesn't matter.

Drone AR's are also essentially 'belt-fed' in SR5.


Quite frankly... I've stated this numerous times in the past. If anything AR's, 1-handed SMG's & Machine Pistols should all suffer double recoil penalties. (I think SMG's and MP's used two handed should be more controllable to reflect their use of pistol rounds instead of rifle rounds).


MG's should have the heavy weapon double recoil penalty removed. Quite simply AR's are not designed to put down full-auto fire... MG's are... either on the move or on a mount. SMG's are called 'sub'-'machine guns' for the same reason... they were designed to do the same thing as MG's only in far smaller more maneuverable packages using far more controllable pistol rounds as opposed to rifle rounds.

MG's get subjected to poor rules generally... they need to use their own weapon skill. Heavy weapons... then insult to injury get slammed with double-recoil when they do what they're supposed to... fire a lot of rounds in a very short time!

I was hoping to see machine guns generate recoil at half the rate of other firearms to reflect their mass mitigating recoil, rather than the double uncompensated recoil nonsense.

Falcon, I agree with what you are saying about recoil but would like to add, and i'll say this again, i've never fired a BAR. I don't know how an HMG should recoil. I think it would be signifigantly more than a M249 Saw.

but yeah, not sure why fireing an AR and a hunting rifle in SA are diffrent skills while MGs and gernade launchers are the same skill. I'm not gonna push that point too much though, but it still makes no sense to me.

Meh, old JAG myth. You have the right to self defense using any weapon at hand, up to eh point that it provides a discernible advantage. Self Defense applies to anybody who has taken a hostile action or demontrates hostile intent. Any uniformed soldier of another country has pre-determined hostile intent, so anything you do against them is in self defense so you can use any weapon at hand to kill them. Likewise the moment a "civlian" displays behavior that, to a reasonable panel of courts martial, would identify them as a combatant.

The only variation from that is Proportionality with regards to civilian loss IAW with the law of war. AKA if you nuke a city to kill a sniper (and then lose) it's probably a war crime.

However, .50 cal is not in any way barred from being used on people per the above.

As for MGs...

I would houserule that "double recoil" only applies to unbraced firing, and that braced firing (bipod in the prone or other similar situation) allows an RC "cooldown" of half the RC between APs. So, Hip firing would still be monstrous, but firing form an emplaced position would allow the MG to rain consistent automatic and suppressive fire.

I watch videos like that and all I can think is, "Damn, that guy just wasted more money than I make in a day (several days in fact) to make some splashes in the water."

It's explained in the video discription that the number of rounds they get allotted per year is determined regardless of however many they fire or don't fire, and that when rounds get old enough they get destroyed anyway, so firing off that belt of 300 doesn't actually change anything or increase costs in any way.

Military spending is kinda of horrible like that, even if you overlook the fact that the money is going towards trying to kill people. Personally, I'd rather have all the world's ammo make splashes in water than make holes in buildings and people.

~Umi

Its a bit worse than that actually. If they don't use all the rounds then the next year the military will cut back their budget on rounds. so they have to use them all.

Indeed... I can remember being on a Firing Line in Camp Pendleton, with 300+ SMAW rounds. Had to fire them all off in one day, to keep the same allotment for the next year. Was quite a brutal day, as the teams were pounded with brutal concussion, far more than was generally allowed (we were only generally allowed to fire 5 Rockets/Day in Training, due to the excessive concussion that the round generated on the fire team). Each time fired more than 5x that limit and the RSO walked off the line with his ears bleeding.

you worked on tactical shooting? you are a gentleman and a scholar in addition to a chaos god. it is a fabulous book. i would actually (have actually) run shadowrun in gurps, and i'd keep doing so if it weren't basically impossible to point-balance mages. just the points in ally for spirits are enough for the samurai to buy like three levels of enhanced time sense...

anyway, my (largely theoretically informed) two cents on the machine gun problem:

1) agree with the upgraded damage codes wholeheartedly. i have always thought assault cannons were around 25mm (since i think what they mean by "light tank" is LAV), so 15P seems right-ish for 12.7/14.5mm.

2) the strength minimums and doubled recoil are crap, except for heavy machine guns; i'm comfortable with M2s being large troll only devices that kick like angry mules. what i would do instead is double movement modifiers for machineguns; they're definitely not as point and shoot as assault rifles, and this captures that drawback nicely. also gives a good reason to put them up on gyro mounts.

3) everything except possibly hold-out and light pistols should get doubled recoil if you one-arm them, as should any rifle-class weapon without a stock.

Heh,

Ever get to play with the mortar and forget to move the baseplate every so often? Saw one guy actually bury it and had to dig it out.

Been working on some optional house rules for Machineguns for SR.

Take a gander and tell me what you think:

for the most part I like it, however I don't belive that bracing should 100% remove the recoil penalty from MGs.

Yeah, done that too... Back in my learning times.

Nice, however I'd add some nitpicks:
1. Why the drastic increase in RC for bigger guns? While a bigger gun is heavier, it's also shooting bigger bullets, so the two factors work against each other.
2. While firing an LMG from the hip is not that hard, doing the same with an HMG would give you some nasty bruises as well as ulcers from lifting smg. so heavy.... some sorta Strength related penalty on firing one without support is what I had in mind for my own house rules.
3. No Recoil while fired braced seems like an overkill. Even with an MMG, you're supposed to fire controlled bursts, not spray and pray, precisely because recoil is still an issue... maybe have RC bonuses from braces (bipod, tripod, gryomount, weapon mount) get a bonus based on the class of the MG? On second thought, you've already given out an RC bonus based on weight, why compound it?

Finally, for suppressive fire, recoil is not an issue in SR5... so RC bonuses won't make MGs a lot better in their intended role (although the bigger damage is nice). Some bonuses should be given for suppressive fire?

Some suggestions that were brought up earlier:
http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...p;#entry1246615

I agree with Slide: bracing shouldn't remove all recoil penalties. A machine gun on a tripod or vehicle mount still suffers recoil that the gunner has to account for. I could see a 50% reduction for tripods and pintle mounts, though. Maybe 25% for a bipod? Maybe another reduction if the bipod or tripod is supported by sandbags, but that's kinda assumed for tripods, and getting too far into the nitpicking zone anyways.

Whoops, double post.

Oh good, someone corrected this up thread. As you were.

I know that there are no legal issues about it. Just not what the weapons are really for

Ronin... I think it's a nice stab... but overcomplicated.

It's a problem which comes up with far too many houserules I feel. The point isn't to be simulationist, this isn't advanced squad leader. It's to correct an egregious problem in the rules with what is hopefully a simple and elegant fix.

That's why I suggested that all guns except MG's, and 2 handed SMG's/MachinePistols should have double recoil.


I also strongly disagree with your tidbits about mobile light MG's... the entire point of a LMG (even when they fired full rifle rounds) was that they were man portable and quick to deploy... even being able to be used on the move! Case in point the .30cal M1919 air cooled browning used in WW2, or the german MG42 or 38. (there was a leather cup you'd put the stock into on the belt... you'd hold the pistol grip... and use the folding bipod as a foregrip)... they were quite good as mobile suppressive weapons.

In an age of smartgun aiming aids, laser sights... etc. firing from the hip doesn't really suffer the lack of gunsights problem as much when the crosshairs or laser dot is right in your field of view.


In WW2 terms... a LMG was an air cooled... normally bipod mounted MG firing rifle rounds.
A MMG was a tripod mounted version of same with much better long range ability due to the stability of the base. These were also commonly water-cooled instead of air cooled to eliminate barrel cooling issues.
A HMG was the anti-materiel big boy like the .50cal. Generally far too heavy to man port.
An SMG also was designed for innaccurate area suppressive fire in a far more mobile package, the tradeoff of course being the use of pistol rounds.


Put simply... I do not feel that LMG's should suffer any penalties compared to their AR cousins. I feel that AR's should have a penalty added and the LMG's have their double recoil removed. (AR's are not designed for accurate full-auto fire! which is the entire point of the double recoil comp problem).


Though I also agree strongly with you on the damage code front. LMG's should have AR damage codes. MMG's should have the same damage code as battle rifles. HMG's should be up in the sniper rifle range. In each case

I'd go for the lower end of the damage curve for each due to game balance reasons. It's not fun when the enemy is hosing you constantly with drone mounted MG's with practically unlimited ammo supplies.... oh wait they already do since an AR in a drone mount gets access to the 250rd ammo bin instead of it's limited capacity! Plus that AR already has that nifty 6rd grenade launcher built in for many cases.

Interestingly, an M2 Browning IS Man Portable. Our Battalion Weapons boys did it all the time (3 Man Teams, each carrying a piece - Barrel, Receiver, Tripod), they are just not fired except from a Tripod or Vehicle mount. .



Also not quite true... Many, many Sniper Rifles use some variation of ~ .30 Caliber ammunition, which an HMG does not. Not all Sniper Rifles are a .50 BMG, after all.

I think he might of been referring to the M24 firing the 7.62 NATO the same as the M240

Since when is a 7.62 NATO considered a HMG round? AN HMG Should deal more damage than the typical Sniper Rifles, though. Yes.

ahh, i misread what was up their earlier. Then again I dislike the term "sniper rifle" anyways.

The weapon is designed to project relatively small masses of metal at vetry high speeds down range, generally to destroy the unfortunate thing at the other end of their target trajectory. What it's aimed at is entirely up to the person at the trigger's discretion subject to their ROI and the availablity of ammo. But please continue, next you can wax philosophic about the distinction between clip and magazine, I'm sure we will all be suitably impressed by your weapons knowledge.

I'm sorry man, I didn't realize that I walked into dick central here.

But actually since you asked, I'll go on and fill you in. Any gun is a tool. Designed for a purpose. You can use one tool to serve another purpose, but that doesn't make it the best one. I could get a fly off your forehead with a hammer, but you would probably rather me use fly swatter.

You're absolutely right, I was just trying to be lazy and get my point across. I was implying just that HMG should have at least a damage value similar to the SM-5 or Desert Strike. Even that is being conservative. SM-5 would probably be a .338 or .300 magnum round. I could be totally off base with that it's just what I think most military snipers are using now, those and 7.62. Only problem is if you push the HMG past the sniper rifle damage values then you would probably have to start bumping up the assault cannon damage values. I'm too lazy for all that.

Ok lets take your analogy a step further and set aside some anger. Lets say you have a set of shovels and a bobcat mounted backhoe. Both will dig a hole just one will do it a lot better and with less effort on your part. If you have access to both, outside of some very specific circumstances that require the use of the less powerful tool, you will probably use the better tool for the job.

Or to put it bluntly no one ever says.

"Hey guys the M16's will handle the enemy just fine, lets forgo the use of the squad support weapon."