Weapons to go!

I figured that to further the cause, a list of non-specific weaponry that the game systems should standardise early on. Means that we have a checkable bunch of stuff that we can give stats to.

Basic Stuff -

Bow
Rifle
Pistol
Crossbow
Sword
Greatsword/Claymore

Cannon
Trebuchet/Catapult
Mortar

More Advanced Stuff -

Shortbow
Longbow
Varying types of Rifle ancient to modern)
Man portable Missile launchers
Flame throwers
Grenades
Halberds
Spears
Lances
Flails/Morningstars
Breen Guns
Advanced future Weapons - Lasers, Railguns, Plasma Guns
Advanced Close Combat - Focussed Laser swords etc.
Anti-tank weaponry

That's the stuff i reckon we should get "standardised" - it let's you determine the stats for whatever other stuff you want to develop, and a good way to playtest rules without having to invent stats for every weapon you want to use.

That's my list anyway. Feel free to add stuff.

high speed close combat, ie, claws/daggers.
otherwise it looks fairly complete. just looking at the list I see 'this beats this, and that beats that' everywhere, but I'd have to make a chart or something to show it. and, it's probably reliant on the wielder as well. like greatsword beats sword, but fails against daggers (due to speed)

hmm...should heavier weapons bring down the wielder's agility?

It'd be good to have a mechanic in place for that - I'd originally thought of including weapons wielded being contained in the statline. It may become cumbersome if you have units with many options - like modern military units and such - so perhaps a Weapon specific stat is in order - like Greatsword - S +2, AA +1, G -1, Ag -1

If you have a unit of Greatsword wielder though, you would print the statline with that precalculated - or simply extend the statline to include the changes for varied equipment -

Model Profile - S - 3, AA - 1

with Greatsword - S - 5, AA - 2

etc.

SW, I would agree with that. Give stats for each weapon so that people can design their own unit, but just include it on the stat line of pre-written troops.

Hi all.
Are we going to standardise weapon profiles?

If we get the 'characteristics of weapons' to cover all weapons in a similar way it is easier to compare them.(For game ballance.)

Proposed weapon characterisitcs.
Effective Range.(NOT maxumum range, but ranges weapons actualy used at, including Base to base contact.)
Damage ,how much damage the weapon inflicts.
Damage type.(Eg ,kinetic, chemical ,thermal, etc.)
Area of effect.Point contact / Swathe/ Blast.
Special effects.

TTFN
lanrak.

I agree with Lanrak standardise weapon profiles would be a
good idea for game balancing.

Two characteristic that I think should be added to the list:

Ammo: Some weapons would have unlimited ammo or unlimited
number of activations (like a sword) but others could be used once (like a hand grenade).

Rate of Fire: How many times the weapon can be activated in a turn.

I think I just realized that you're right. For true 28mm scale, those ranges would take up my whole backyard...(which actually seems like it'd be quite fun)

but then again, battles are also fought with a lot more men than we can represent with models. also, for a 9mm handgun it's apparently 2400 yards before the bullet falls to the ground. which is still ridiculous range, but the bullet would hardly do anything. I'm curious to know the effective range of that bullet; how far can it go and still pierce skin?

And, even if an arrow can fly that far and still have enough energy to do damage, what are the chances it'd hit? the farther you are from the target the less accurate the shot becomes, which is why melee is effective in real battle.

you're forces are all archers. opposing army comes charging at you with swords. you can shoot some of them down with unaimed shots, but by the time the are in range to be hit accurately (while running) you'll only get so many shots in before you're being hacked apart with swords.

That's what I was thinking. The Longbow range is it's alleged "effective" range though - Roman Shortbows had an even longer range. I'll check out some military documentation.

Hi all.
Just to point out the effective range of a weapon in combat IS NOT its lethal range.
But the range at which the firer will use it!

I have stood hapily on the range at work firing small arms and auto cannons at a targets 500 yrd to a mile and a half away.

However if I was in a combat zone , defended by gunfire, blinded by smoke and shaking with adrenalin-fear, I dont think I would be able to hit anything more than 100 yrds away!

In a combat zone not only do you have to spot AND verify the identity of the target, but also wait until you are DAMN sure you can do enough damage to it to stop it retaliating....apparently...

So please dont use maxumum lethal ranges quoted , but think about real people facing life and death situations and the cautiuos approach this tends to instill in actual engagment ranges.

And as long as all the horisontal values are proportional to each other , they dont have to tally with the vertial scale.(Very few TTMG do .)

Just a thought ,
Lanrak.

I was thinking maybe too much in sniper/fortress defender mode - keep as far from trouble as possible! Unless I can hit it with an axe...

Maybe a bonus range for elevated/marksman shots but with other negatives.

Hi.
Some games I have played simply used the moral of the attacker as the primary modifier.
A unit that is well rested in contact with friendlies, taking advantage of hard cover (on optimum moral) engage the enemy at greater range than a unit that is exausted, mauled and simply trying to survive ...

Games that build game play on realistic human reactions, tend to be far more intuitive than those that build gameplay on 'theoretical tactical advantages'.

As the former 'feels right' , the latter often gets argued with/mis understood.