Expanded Guns Tables

[Zane]

I'm currently working on updating the CoC 5.6 gun tables to include the information found in the weapons tables in the new book. Once I'm done with that, I'll most likely expand upon them to include even more weapons.

Is there a formula for determining the STR/DEX requirements, or the SIZ/Enc and SR & RF? I still need to read up on Strike Ranks, as that portion looks like it might be fairly obvious.

Zane

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Zane

I'm currently working on updating the CoC 5.6 gun tables to include the information found in the weapons tables in the new book. Once I'm done with that, I'll most likely expand upon them to include even more weapons.

Is there a formula for determining the STR/DEX requirements, or the SIZ/Enc and SR & RF? I still need to read up on Strike Ranks, as that portion looks like it might be fairly obvious.

Zane

I'd love to see what you come up with. I've been working on some similar stuff but off of the CoC book, since I don't have BRP yet.

[Zane]

Do the Minimum STR & DEX requirements signify anything specific, other than the minimum requirements?

I'm asking as something like a MAC-11, especially if it is the .45 caliber instead of the 9mm model is going to be hard to control, not only do you need the STR to keep it under control, but I can see there being a DEX requirement needed to keep it under control. At the same time I can see the minimum DEX requirement signifying the dexterity needed just to operate it and fire a single shot.

It rather looks like the standard DEX requirement to operate a gun is 5, that jumps to 6 for an Uzi, and 7 for a .44 magnum or .45 revolver/automatic. Oddly enough, according to the book a .357 Magnum would have a DEX requirement of 5, but wouldn't it have a kick more on par with a .45 caliber weapon?

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Zane

Do the Minimum STR & DEX requirements signify anything specific, other than the minimum requirements?

I'm asking as something like a MAC-11, especially if it is the .45 caliber instead of the 9mm model is going to be hard to control, not only do you need the STR to keep it under control, but I can see there being a DEX requirement needed to keep it under control. At the same time I can see the minimum DEX requirement signifying the dexterity needed just to operate it and fire a single shot.

It rather looks like the standard DEX requirement to operate a gun is 5, that jumps to 6 for an Uzi, and 7 for a .44 magnum or .45 revolver/automatic. Oddly enough, according to the book a .357 Magnum would have a DEX requirement of 5, but wouldn't it have a kick more on par with a .45 caliber weapon?

Real world recol is a bit of a math exercise. Since many .357 weapons are heavier than a .45 and fire a lighter bullet, then the lower STR could apply.

Also with the MAC-10/11 thing. Generally thse are fired in short bursts. Control isn't so much a problem becuase of caliber than it is because of the rate of fire. Basically the weapon keeps kicking out spend cases through the ejection port and that tends to push the weapon to one side (opposite the ejection port).

THe stats in the book are for generic type, so altering STR or DEX by a point here and there for specfic designs would seem to fit. That's what I'm working on.

Oh, BTW, realsitcally if someone were to brace the weapon, use the shoulder sling, etc. they should be able to lower the recoil a little. I'd also suggest upping someone's STR x1.5 if they are using a one handed weapon with two hands. The Weave stance is used for a reason, and two hands on an Uzi is better than one.

[Klingsor]

I would have thought that ignoring any gaming stats and going back to real data is the only way to go. Most game stats I can recall seem to be messed up one way or another.

Decide that some weapon does X damage and scale it from there. Recoil is a nasty equation but that is what spreadsheets are for. Damage and range are the only two bugbears but they are big ones. All of the damage formulae I have seen have already been more or less discredited though might suffice for our needs.

Greg Porters Guns, Guns, Guns is interesting but scarily complicated I am not convinced his damage equation is that much better than the ones I know are bad. What I know of the work of the experts does rather lead me to suspect that they are not much better off, this is a horribly, horribly contentious subject.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Klingsor

I would have thought that ignoring any gaming stats and going back to real data is the only way to go. Most game stats I can recall seem to be messed up one way or another.

Decide that some weapon does X damage and scale it from there. Recoil is a nasty equation but that is what spreadsheets are for. Damage and range are the only two bugbears but they are big ones. All of the damage formulae I have seen have already been more or less discredited though might suffice for our needs.

Greg Porters Guns, Guns, Guns is interesting but scarily complicated I am not convinced his damage equation is that much better than the ones I know are bad. What I know of the work of the experts does rather lead me to suspect that they are not much better off, this is a horribly, horribly contentious subject.

I was thinking of using the 3G formula or the one from Stuff!. From what I've read about firearm damages including the FBI lab reports Stuff! is about as good as it gets. The FBI make Penetration the major characteristic (after location), and Stuff! has the stopping power rule that would balance out the .45ACP nicely.

But I didn't want to throw out everything from BRP, and wanted to keep some compatibility. But the Stuff! damages shifted down slightly, match up well with BRP and would allow Stuff armor formulas to work too, shifted down by the same amount.


The big question is getting everyone to agree on a acceptable damage for a 9mm/medium pistol. 1D8, 1D10, something else?

BTW, How upset would people be if the 7.62/Bolt Action Rifle did 3d6 instead of 2d6+4?

[Trifletraxor]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

The big question is getting everyone to agree on a acceptable damage for a 9mm/medium pistol. 1D8, 1D10, something else?

BTW, How upset would people be if the 7.62/Bolt Action Rifle did 3d6 instead of 2d6+4?

1D8 sounds good to me. A Bolt Action Rifle at 3d6 gives also a slighter higher chance of surviving one, which I think is good (or does it?). Anyway, more dices and less +X is good in my book.

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Trifletraxor

1D8 sounds good to me. A Bolt Action Rifle at 3d6 gives also a slighter higher chance of surviving one, which I think is good (or does it?). Anyway, more dices and less +X is good in my book.

SGL.

I'm messing around with a Armor and Damage formula that just might hold up.

Roughly each doubling of the armor is worth +4 AP.

Most of the damages are within a point or two of that formula now, and with a couple of tweaks pretty much everything would fit.

[Trifletraxor]

Doubling of armor? Are you referring to thickness, for vehicles?

SGL.

[Turloigh]

While my interest in guns isn't really great enough to appreciate a fully developed expanded list of firearms, I'd really be grateful for some quick-n-dirty guidelines.

Originally Posted by Trifletraxor

1D8 sounds good to me. A Bolt Action Rifle at 3d6 gives also a slighter higher chance of surviving one, which I think is good (or does it?).

So, suppose a 9mm ends up at 1D8, where does that put a .22, .32, .45, or a magnum? And, are there other opinions from the experts?

Also, how many shots should each be able to fire per round?

(That's why I don't mind guns doing less damage: If that "wimpy" .32 pistol can fire three times per round, that makes a world of a difference. Last time we played CoC, my character dispatched three cultists in the first two rounds of combat).