From: kzin@terminus.gatech.edu (John Rudd)
Subject: Re: SRUNII: Laser sights and SG links
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:33:44 GMT

rcashman@cs.ulowell.edu (The Jester) writes:


>Jeff Wilder divulges:

>>|I am forced to disagree with your asessment.  I am an NRA Yoeman and
>>|my roommate is a qualified Expert with the M-16.  We both agreed that
>>|its pretty tough to miss with *ANY* gun at what SR2 terms short or even
>>|medium and long range.  That's whether you're skilled in firearms use or not.
>>|And that's nowadays.  I'd assume that, by 2053, weapons technology has 
>>|improved so that standard point-and-shoot is even simpler.
>>
>>|Now, while moving targets are MUCH more difficult to hit than stationary
>>|ones, the game DOES provide negative accuracy modifiers for just such
>>|circumstances.  Point being that its real easy to get waxed in a fight
>>|where firearms are used.
>>
>>So it's your contention that a novice shooter (say, Firearms 2) *should*
>>have a 56% chance of scoring a hit on a *moving* man-sized target?  At
>>20 meters?  With a *handgun*?  *Without* aiming?  Oh, and in combat con-
>>ditions, with every possibility that the target (or his buddies) are firing
>>back?  56%?  Oh, and that's only the first shot of the combat phase.  That
>>novice shooter gets another try.  Oh, and you wanna hear the best part?
>>That shooter gets to add more dice from the Combat pool.  At this point
>>of course, he'll almost never miss.   


>Contrary to what you might think, a man-sized target, moving or not (and,
>if you wanna be a rules lawyer, I consider "moving" to be anything short
>of actively running away or dodging), IS relatively easy to hit at a
>range of approximately 60 feet with ANY sort of firearm.

>Now, to refute your nonsensical claims, try this on for size:

>	You're novice shooter (Firearms 2) shoots at a man-sized target
>	at a range of 20 meters with his Ares Predator (Medium range
>	for the pistol, base target number of 4).  Our man-sized target IS 
>	moving, albeit NOT running or dodging out of the way (let's say he's 
>	moving at a brisk walk, no target number modifier).  We DO have
>	the opportunity to take minimal aim (any shot is considered to
>	have a minimal amount of aim...simply by pointing the gun at the
>	target, our hypothetical gunman is aiming).  So our hypothetical
>	gunman shoots.  Yes, I'd give him roughly a 50% chance of hitting
>	his target, and a slightly worse chance for his second shot (be-
>	cause of recoil).

>	Furthermore, I discount your argument about Combat Pool dice
>	being spent to bolster our hypothetical gunman's roll.  Anyone
>	with a Firearms 2 is NOT going to have a slew of Combat Pool
>	dice to play around with.  If he uses them in his action, he
>	runs the risk of getting waxed if his gunfire doesn't do the
>	job right away.  So let's say he's got three dice in his Combat
>	Pool.  He'd be a fool to spend more than one on ANY gunshot
>	unless he was in a do-or-die situation (i.e. one shot would
>	make the difference between his living or dying).

Excuse me, but have you ever BEEN IN COMBAT?  How do you know what
actions in combat are fool-hearty, and which ones are rational?  How
do you know what it takes to persevere in a situation that is barely
captured by the oxymoron "Organized Chaos".  From your own, previous
statements, you've never been there.  YOU certainly don't know if it's
reasonable to try to put all of your energy in to hitting 1 target, who
may be your only target.  If that works, the combat is over, adn you live.
Maybe in previous "combat rounds", being conservative didn't work.  Maybe
that's all you've got left.  Further, look at what a lot of soldiers
willingly do in combat.  Is it WISE to charge a beach in an opposed amphibious
assault?  is it WISE to jump out of a plane in to an area that is quite
possibly being defended by armed persons?

and in reference to your last line.. *ALL*COMBAT*IS*A*DO*OR*DIE*SITUATION*
If someone is shooting at you, are you going to take it as anything less
than that?  If you do, lets question YOUR level of fool-heartedness..

And, by making the statement of your last paragraph, you've shown that you
weren't even paying attention to Jeff.  He stated that his comments are that
a novice shooter COULD push his chances to 56%.  Not that a novice shooter
ALWAYS has a 56% chance to hit.  And remember that this is a 56% to hit
IN A LIVE FIRE COMBAT SITUATION.  The base target numbers are not for some
shmoe on a gunfire range.


>>I'll admit, your assessment of my direct experience with weapons is indeed
>>accurate.  However, in addition to reading widely on the subject, I've also
>>had the benefit of two uncles who served combat duty in Vietnam,
>>and another who's been involved in a firefight as a cop.  According to
>>their testimony, hits in combat, even relatively open combat, are *rare*.


>Ah, but let's talk about that.  Those GIs in Vietnam almost never saw
>what they were shooting at, and, when they did, they were firing on full
>auto to make Charlie keep his head down.  I think your uncles will agree
>to that, right?  In Vietnam, Jeff, 10000 rounds were fired for every one
>confirmed kill.

Yes.. but your own statements contradict your optimism of what chance a
shooter has in combat.  According to FBI statistics (which were used in
to help compile the combat system for Cyberpunk, and mostly preserved for
Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0.), most combats take place in very close quarters (less
than 20 meters), with little to no visibility of target, little to no time
to aim, and hits are rare.  This is true in urban, sub-urban and rural/
wilderness situations.  Saying that a novice marksman has a 50% chance
to hit a moving target in combat, and then reciting the bullet/kill ratio
for vietnam just goes to show that you aren't paying attention to your
own information.

(and by little to no time to aim, I mean that LITTERALLY.  You get to
poke your gun around a corner and hope its close to the target..or if
you're excessivly brave/stupid/desperate, you poke your head out to be
sure it's in the right general area..if you stick your head out long
enough to make anything a reasonable person would call "aiming", you're
mostly likely to get it shot off)

>>I'll tell ya what:  when you and your qualified Expert roommate (you figure
>>he beats Firearms 2?) have popped some rounds at targets that are firing
>>back, with *live* ammo, I'll begin to consider your opinion in the same light
>>as I do my relatives'.


>Since, Jeff, you do not know the depth of MY experience with weapons, you
>would do well to withold any sort of judgement on the value of my opinions.
>Not to disparage your relatives, but I seriously doubt that you can form
>an accurate guess of what combat is like from heresay and opinion without
>actually having picked up a gun and fired it at a range, at least.

I'd go even further to say that YOU don't get an accurate guess of what
combat is like from picking up and firing a gun at a range.  You get an
accurate idea of what it is like to fire a gun under *ideal*conditions*.

But extrapolating this to combat is like saying that because it's relatively
easy for you to pick up a football and throw it to your friend will give
you a good idea of what it is like to be a professional quarterback trying
to make a hail marry pass on the last play of the superbowl.  The concept
is just silly.

Saying that since you go to a gun-range to shoot, it gives you an idea
of what combat is REALLY like is to willfully associate yourself with
the group commonly known as "arm-chair quarterbacks".  Jeff is atleast
acknowleging that his opinion is based on *conjecture* of combat situations.
(and incase you're wondering what basis I have, I don't claim to have
live-fire combat experience.  I do have extensive research on the actual
statistics of combat experience.  I don't claim to be stupid enough to
guess that I know what combat is like.. I do however have a very detailed
model of what happens in combat.  Something that a gun-range doesn't come
close to reproducing).  If you want credibility, don't espouse your
experiences on the range.. Either do some real research, or join an infantry
related organization (Army/Marine Corps, etc) (btw: I do have military
experience).  But quit with the high and mighty bit.. just because you can
shoot a gun doesn't mean you know what it's like to shoot a gun in combat.
And you certainly haven't given any credentials that show you have a
better frame of reference than Jeff.


John Rudd  --  kzin@cc.gatech.edu         ex- kzin@ucscb.ucsc.edu
All opinions expressed here are my own, and no one elses.
--If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, leave the area immediately,
  seek shelter, and cover your head.  Do NOT Taunt Happy Fun Ball.