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?
Full Version: Firearms Design Question
hmmmm...anybody?
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.
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?
\edit: Or paying the most expensive frame, and buying the design features seperate?
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?
How's that?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 
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 =)
It was made by bushmaster so the the parts aren't color coded, your actually pretty lucky if they were machined correctly =)
| QUOTE (FrostyNSO @ Aug 27 2004, 07:51 PM) |
| I wanted to use the CC rules |
well there's your first mistake, CC design rules are useless.
just look a few things up and guesstimate cost depending on how many parts you'll need for all the configurations you desire.
here's a tip, .45ACP and .308/7.62mm or .30-06 can be interchanged relatively easily, so can 9mm and .223/5.56mm (as in the Colt SMG, Steyr AUG 9mm) and possibly the 6.8x43mm SPC and 10mm or .40 or .357 SIG. because these cartridges have the same base diameter (or very close), requiring only a barrel change, magazine change and some modifications to the operating mechanism.
http://remtek.com/arms/steyr/aug/aug9/aug9mm.htm
other modifications are pretty minor, look at the XM8 thread, it's all just changes in magazine types, bipods, different interchangable lengths of barrel and other accessories (grenade launcher, optics).
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...
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.
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.
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.
I fail to see why you even bother to buy the books if you do not use the rules to begin with.
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.
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.
| QUOTE (otomik) |
| 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 |
Well, since you're talking about modular firearms, case head dimensions aren't really going to matter a whole lot, seeing as you'll have to swap out an entire upper to fix any action length (reliability, rate of fire, etc..) problems.
If you're making an entirely new modular long arm and you're planning on using it in both SMG and rifle roles, you might as well design it for .50 caliber and below, to the longest length (and highest pressure) cartridge you intend to use. You don't necessarily have to be nailed down to any particular case head/bolt face sizes if you're going to be swapping out bolts anyway when you're changing uppers.
| QUOTE (hobgoblin) |
| carefu dont mix sr and reallife ammo unless you know the person is useing raygun for reference. |
Game balance is very subjective thing. No one has to use my ideas as a reference in order for things to fit together for them. It might be a good idea, but...
| QUOTE (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. |
Seems like it should be automatic. A bullpup is going to be easier to conceal due to its shorter overall length. Not to say its going to be EASY, by any stretch of the imagination. Once you put a magazine with a capacity of over 5 rounds into it, thats going to make it harder to conceal. And if its got some sort of built-in optics, added-on optics, or a carry handle or forward pistol grip, thats going to be even harder to conceal. Without a magazine in, I'd be willing to bet that I could conceal an AK with a folding stock at least as well as the Bushmaster M-17 (their bullpup). BTW, I'm talking real life rifles, here. Add in any kind of optics, and both of them are going to suffer, concealability-wise.
This is another one of those times when I wish that the writers would have bothered to ask people who knew something about the topic before they made rules.
Perfect example:
A gas vent system reduces recoil.
Let's see, I've got a muzzle brake on an AR, and its just as non-concealable as a non-braked AR. I guess maybe its more non-concealable, since it's 2 inches longer than the naked barrel version, and that 2 inches is all barrel, if that matters.
Here's another one. (I had to dig up my copy of Cannon Companion to find it. I remembered it being in the 2nd Ed. Street Sam cat, but....well, nm).
The HK G38 and Stery AUG-CSL. Both have a SMG, rifle, carbine, and LMG configuration.
Damage for the assault rifle is 8M. Same for the LMG.
However, for the carbine, its 7S.
How? Its using the same ammo in each configuration.
What they're basically saying is that by putting on a barrel of about 20 inches, standard assault rifle barrel, you are getting THIS level of performance. By cutting off 9 inches or so of barrel, you are losing just a little bit. BUT, by only cutting off 3 or 4 inches of barrel, you are actually GAINING.
WTF? Who's been giving them their info? I want to know so that I NEVER listen to that person, or people, before I buy something IRL.
I can understand losing 2 dice in SMG configuration. Heck, to be realistic, there should also be an additional recoil penalty, since losing 9 inches or so of barrel, and the corresponging weight, while still firing assault rifle ammo out of it, is going to make it kick a little harder. We can get into the weight of the weapon and all that, but I've fired an SMG in .45 ACP (MAC 10, a big, weighty piece of steel), and after a few rounds, even with a suppressor on it and two hands holding it, it was real hard to control. With one hand, it was next to impossible. I wouldnt even want to imagine one in a rifle caliber, without some super efficient kind of muzzle brake.
But how does cutting 4 inches off the barrel make it go from a M damage weapon to an S damage weapon? It doesnt, unless you dont know what a carbine is. Here's what Merriam-Webster has to say about it:
Main Entry: car·bine
Pronunciation: 'kär-"bEn, -"bIn
Function: noun
Etymology: French carabine, from Middle French carabin carabineer
1 : a short-barreled lightweight firearm orig. used by cavalry
2 : a light short-barreled repeating rifle that is used as a supplementary military arm or for hunting in dense brush
Here's what to expect from a carbine:
increased noise
increased muzzle flash
increased mobility, esp. in dense brush, inside vehicles, and hallways/sewer tunnels
decreased range
decreased power (mostly at longer ranges...up close, it really doesnt matter)
To back this up with a real life example, the army seems really hot to trot over the M4 carbine, which is basically a chopped down M16A2 (its not quite that simple, but that explanation will do for now), while the Marine Corps uses the M16A3, some of which have a collapsible stock (I cant remember if they're calling this the A4 or not). The M4 has a 14.5 inch barrel, the M16 a 20 inch.
The bullet that is launched out of both weapons, the 5.56mm M855 projectile, has to be going over 2700 fps to fragment, which is where most of its wounding/killing capability comes from.
I'm gonna shamelessly steal the info off a table I found on another website to make my point.
Distance to 2700 fps 20" Barrel 16" Barrel 14.5" Barrel 11.5" Barrel
M193 190-200m 140-150m 95-100m 40-45m
M855 140-150m 90-95m 45-50m 12-15m
In case anyone wants to do more reading up on this, here's the website: http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm
Anywho, the M16A2 and A3 have 20 inch barrels, so the M855 bullet will fragment best at less than 150 meters. Chop that barrel to the M4's 14.5 inch, and you're looking at 1/3 of the range. Keep in mind this isnt efective range of the weapon, I'm talking directly about the power level that the target would be experiencing.
The result of this is what we've seen in Somalia and Afghanistan: unless the bad guy is right on top of you, hitting him with your carbine is just going to poke a little hole and make him mad. Even numerous hits sometimes didnt stop them.
However, hits from the rifles and the SAW put the bad guys down quicker, and they didnt get back up as often.
Now, to put that in game terms, the M16 and SAW (assault rifle and LMG configurations, respectively) should have the 7S, the M4 (carbine configuration) should have the 8M.
I also wish that they would have gone with calibers for the various weapons, instead of "All heavy pistols shoot the same ammo, all assault rifles shoot the same ammo, etc.". The way they did things, you would think that a compact Glock in .45, or the Sig P-245, would be like shooting someone with a .25 auto, since the compact Glock or Sig would probably be classified as a hold-out pistol. Yet one of their bigger brothers, the Glock 23 or Sig P-220, which fire the exact same cartridge, would properly be classified as heavy pistols. A Desert Eagle in .50 cal would classify as a heavy pistol, too, but I sure aint gonna stick a .50 AE round in my .45 cal 1911. And the AK and M16 families of rifles, while assault rifles, take very different ammo. The AK-47 uses a 7.62x39mm cartridge, the AK-74 a 5.45x39mm, and the M16/M4 a 5.56x45mm. No matter how desperate I get, I wouldnt stick a 5.56mm round in an AK-47.
I realize that they did this for simplicity's sake, but come on, there are so many other rules that muck up simplicity, it would have been just as easy to put actual calibers and have a little more realism.
At least they got it right with magazines not interchanging between say the Ares Predator and the Browning Max-Power or Colt Manhunter.
| QUOTE (Raygun) | ||
Game balance is very subjective thing. No one has to use my ideas as a reference in order for things to fit together for them. It might be a good idea, but... |
well,i was just trying to avoid this becomeing a very confused matter for the original poster as given that he is useing the CC rules either wants to stay firmly within the SR rules or dont know that mutch about real life guns. and if its the latter it does not help starting to talk about ammo sizes and types and what you get in return is just a confused "huh?". its like a friend of mine said about tire sizes, he dont know what the numbers stands for but he knows that higher numbers equals cooler looks (given the right crowd that is)...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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).
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).
| QUOTE |
| EW, and put in a little more realism to the gun fights. |
As long as it doesn't mean more dice rolling, I liked it in 2nd edition when goons had threat pool so you didn't have to keep track of all their various pools. In fact pools shouldn't exist, they complicate and slow down things and are a easy cheat for players, they don't seem to add anything either. Combat is dreadfully slow, CP2020 and D20 is much better in this respect.
Yes, it is slow. And yes, more realism would just make that worse. I dont know how to go about fixing that, without ending up with something like Palladium's combat system, which I think absolutely sucks.
Why would more realism inherently make things worse? There is a difference between adding realism and adding realism clumsily.
its not so mutch that it makes it worse as it makes it slower...
to me the existing range table is allready to mutch, personaly i just boil it down to a close range test (as most anything in sr is happening inside building or in urban enviroments where cover is abundant and therefor you can get closer to the enemy). if someone feels like being a sniper they get a nice scope anyways and then the targetnumber becomes close range again.
abstract rules speed up play. and in combat speed is king. and combat in sr can become slow allready...
to me the existing range table is allready to mutch, personaly i just boil it down to a close range test (as most anything in sr is happening inside building or in urban enviroments where cover is abundant and therefor you can get closer to the enemy). if someone feels like being a sniper they get a nice scope anyways and then the targetnumber becomes close range again.
abstract rules speed up play. and in combat speed is king. and combat in sr can become slow allready...
*edit* double post...
The thing is that it doesn't have to. I think most people here can attest that more times than not, SR's abstractions and divergences from reality have wasted more time than they ever really saved. I'm not saying that rules need to be perfectly realistic or that such rules would be at all playable, but it's not really true to assume that abstraction inherently makes things play better. Even in terms of pure practicality, while there is a strong correlation, there are definitely places where gains are marginal, if existent at all.
maybe so. but still, if the rules are changed make sure to not remove some of the feel of shadowrun while your at it. to me rules are part of the experience of a game. without setting then yes the rules are no good but without rules to reflect the setting then the setting is just a novel.
this is why i feel systems like gurps and d20, while fuctional, lack a kind of soul to grab you. sr have this soul for me and i belive this is what drags a lot of people to it. its realistic enough that you feel at home while at the same time you dont need a degree from mit to hit the matrix or a mechanic to deal with being a rigger.
sure there are some logical potholes but those can be ironed out. there is no need to change the whole system over some minor errors as most often the new system will allso have holes in them and will end up needing to be replaced...
this is why i feel systems like gurps and d20, while fuctional, lack a kind of soul to grab you. sr have this soul for me and i belive this is what drags a lot of people to it. its realistic enough that you feel at home while at the same time you dont need a degree from mit to hit the matrix or a mechanic to deal with being a rigger.
sure there are some logical potholes but those can be ironed out. there is no need to change the whole system over some minor errors as most often the new system will allso have holes in them and will end up needing to be replaced...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.