 |
Great White Games/Pinnacle Entertainment Group
Discussion Forum for PEG/GWG
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
shinryu
Seasoned
Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 300
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:30 pm Post subject: Multibarrel/gatling weapons as linked weapons? |
 |
|
| Just curious: has anyone run gatling-type weapons as linked versions of normal weapons(depending on the specific rules in the book, typically +1 to hit and +1 or 1 extra die to damage per 1 or 2 linked weapons)? Considering this is more or less exactly what a gatling gun is, treating say an M134 as six linked M60s makes a lot of sense in my head. Rof 3 at +4 to hit and +4 to damage seems decent, though I'm not sure I'd be cool with +4 to hit and +4d8 to damage. It also solves the problem of these weapons needing a bump in the suppressive fire department, since the +5 to hit would help there. Related question: is there a most up-to-date rule on linking weapons? The ones I'm thinking of are SciFi toolkit and Modern ops. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ValhallaGH
Legendary
Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 4459
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:39 pm Post subject: Re: Multibarrel/gatling weapons as linked weapons? |
|
|
| shinryu wrote: | | Considering this is more or less exactly what a gatling gun is, |
No, it most certainly is not.
Six linked M60s would be firing simultaneously. That's six barrels putting out lead all at the same time.
A rotary machine gun rotates barrels multiple barrels in front of the firing mechanism, so that only one is firing at a given time. This allows the other barrels to cool down between shots, and reduces the chances of a misfire ceasing the firing. The result is that much higher rates of fire can be sustained from the single weapon, but otherwise it functions just like a single machine gun.
A rotary machine gun weighs more than a similar caliber single-barrel machine gun, but weighs significantly less than multiple linked machine guns. Similarly, supplying ammunition is much easier for a rotary gun than for multiple linked machine guns.
Modern rotary machine guns would have a ROF in the 4 to 6 range, probably around 5, and a ridiculous weight. Other than that, they'd function exactly like any other machine gun.
If that's not cool enough for you, then change it. But realize that you're changing it to reflect your tastes, not to reflect reality.
Re: Linked Weapons. They've yet to be part of the Core Rules. Instead, they are setting rules. I've seen versions in the Sci-Fi toolkit, Weird War 2 (mostly for aircraft), and Modern Ops. I'm sure there are others, but they are setting rules and differ from product to product.
_________________
"Got a problem? I've got the solution: Rocket Launcher."
"Not against a Servitor."
"... We're all gonna die." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shinryu
Seasoned
Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 300
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, you've pressed the "reality" button. Let us consult reality, then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minigun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun
Putting listed rates of fire from these sources at 4000 rpm for the M134 and about 650 rpm max for the m60 gives us 650 x 6 = 3900. So just for sheer amount of lead being put in the air I would have to say the minigun/6 m60 combinations are roughly equivalent. You can make an argument about spread, I suppose, but I do recall many Gatling-style weapons having muzzle attachments to explicitly alter trajectory for each barrel. Cannot source this at the moment.
With that in mind, though, I'm relatively comfortable thinking the linked weapon representation is probably more "realistic" than RoF 6. For that matter, if we're taking the rough "one-second burst"* estimation of Rof and square-rooting, I'd say the ROF on such a gun is more in the range of 8, but the linked weapon solution has the advantage of only requiring 3 dice rather than 8, of course, uses approximately (slightly less than) the correct amount of ammo, and solves the suppressive fire problem nicely.
It's not a matter of cooler; Savage just doesn't address high-cyclic weapons very well, but it seems like the tools are there to do it already in the rules.
*This is as best I can figure that the designers figured ROF out from; cyclic rates for most weapons don't precisely match up obviously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noshrok Grimskull
Legendary
Joined: 07 Nov 2004
Posts: 3820
Location: I'm out of my mind, but I'll be back later
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
But the minigun clocks in at 85 pounds while one M60 alone already weighs 23.15 pounds. So with 6 of them you are almost at 140 pounds and that doesn't include the frame and mechanism that you'd need to turn 6 of these into one fire-linked weapon.
_________________
"If you think I'm crazy, you should see the people I'm locked up with." - Steamdriven
"This is my timey-wimey detector. Goes 'ding' when there's stuff." - The Doctor (Doctor Who) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ValhallaGH
Legendary
Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 4459
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shinryu wrote: | | Savage just doesn't address high-cyclic weapons very well, |
What makes you say that? As a big fan of machine guns, I'm curious.
_________________
"Got a problem? I've got the solution: Rocket Launcher."
"Not against a Servitor."
"... We're all gonna die." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shinryu
Seasoned
Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 300
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ValhallaGH wrote: | | shinryu wrote: | | Savage just doesn't address high-cyclic weapons very well, |
What makes you say that? As a big fan of machine guns, I'm curious. |
Several things:
1) Mathematically, the rules for suppressive fire vs. normal burst fire fall apart past ROF 4 or 5. An ROF 6 weapon actually requires less ammunition to suppress with presumably random fire than it does to fire a concentrated burst on target. While I suppose you could make a case for ammo wastage between targets, it just doesn't sit well with me.
2) 4000 rpm is qualitatively a very different amount of lead on target vs 650 rpm. Even in a single burst we're talking 7-12 rounds in a second vs 50-66. This impacts three points:
a) I wish I had more data here, but unfortunately I'm having to fall back on arguments from other systems; weapons with this great a rate of fire typically receive fairly high bonuses to hit and probably hit multiple times, certainly more than would be expected from an RoF 6 weapon. Even in Savage, for game purposes shotguns are treated as single projectiles with a +2 to hit, for 9 simultaneous projectiles; why shouldn't a weapon firing damn close to 6-9 rounds simultaneously get a similar bonus? That said, even just from realism arguments a bonus to hit seems reasonable, insofar as one of the primary applications for these types of weapons is in an air-to-air or anti-air/missile role where a large amount of fire is explicitly used to counter the high speed and range of the target.
b)Part of the reason something like the GAU8 is so effective is that multiple round impacting very close together will tend to degrade and blow through armor. So a damage bonus seems reasonable as well. Yes, you could get all six hits from an RoF 6 weapon and have it blow through the armor just on a lucky roll, I concede. This is also something a lot of systems handle through just multiple damage rolls, and I am definitely less comfortable with the idea of a minigun doing 7d8 damage as it would if it were six linked weapons per SciFi toolki, though if that dropped off as for shotguns with range that might be fairly reasonable. (I actually think with that system +1 to hit/+1 die of damage per 2 barrels might be more reasonable, so 5d8/4d8/3d8, with dropoff, for the M134, say)
c) I find it difficult to believe a higher rate of fire doesn't improve the effectiveness of suppression, especially as the helicopter scale weapons were developed for this purpose. We're talking again about between 6-10 times as many rounds hitting the area, that's a lot more density of fire. Currently an RoF 6 weapon suppresses just as well as an Rof 2 one. I'm ok with this as a playability thing between Rof 3 and Rof 4, say, where's it's just five extra rounds between the weapons, but this is close to an order of magnitude difference between the two situations between the single machine gun and the minigun. Even handling them as RoF 6 guns it's still putting double the lead on the table.
I'm not unsympathetic to the Modern Ops solution of just making gatling-type weapons area effect weapons, but I have some problems as far as that gives them somewhat undesirable qualities vs enemies in cover. (Arguably a lot of cover might not survive, I guess). It just seems like the Modern Ops linked weapon solution (+1 to hit and damage per extra weapons) provides for the hit and damage bonuses such a weapon should have, allows it to engage multiple targets, and gives it a boost to suppressive fire (via the to-hit bonus), without being overpowering. As it's existing rules too, I do prefer to play by RAW as best as is possible. It's just this is a case like the Kevlar where the RAW seems desperately inadequate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shinryu
Seasoned
Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 300
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Noshrok Grimskull wrote: | | But the minigun clocks in at 85 pounds while one M60 alone already weighs 23.15 pounds. So with 6 of them you are almost at 140 pounds and that doesn't include the frame and mechanism that you'd need to turn 6 of these into one fire-linked weapon. |
Much of the weight of the M60 is stock, sights, barrel shroud, grip, feed mechanism, other attachments, etc; I'm pretty sure if you strip one down to the barrel and chamber assembly you're a lot closer to the weight of the individual barrels in the M134. Each "barrel" really is an independently fired and loaded weapon, they just only fire one at a time while being spun. The other barrels are ejecting and being reloaded during the cycle, however. Regardless, my argument is more about rate of fire of the two solutions being highly comparable rather than literally one being equivalent to the other. They clearly aren't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ValhallaGH
Legendary
Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 4459
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shinryu wrote: | | 1) ... it just doesn't sit well with me. |
Can't really argue with a person's impression, so I won't. I will note that your impressions are likely to change if you ever get the chance to play around with various machine guns. 
| shinryu wrote: | | 2) 4000 rpm is qualitatively a very different amount of lead on target vs 650 rpm. Even in a single burst we're talking 7-12 rounds in a second vs 50-66. |
First, I'll point out that the M249 (cyclic rate of fire 800) is a rate of fire 3 weapon. And the listed ROF 4 machine guns are the MG 42 (cyclic rate of fire ~1,200) and the MG 34 (cyclic rate of fire ~1,700). This indicates that the cut-off for ROF 3/4 is around 1,000 rounds per minute. Further, it indicates that the listed 20mm cannon is probably the M39, not the Vulcan.
| shinryu wrote: | | a) ... for game purposes shotguns are treated as single projectiles with a +2 to hit, for 9 simultaneous projectiles; why shouldn't a weapon firing damn close to 6-9 rounds simultaneously get a similar bonus? |
Interesting point.
| shinryu wrote: | | b)Part of the reason something like the GAU8 is so effective is that multiple round impacting very close together will tend to degrade and blow through armor. So a damage bonus seems reasonable as well. |
That's good reasoning for an AP bonus, not for a damage bonus.
Oh, and 5d8 averages 25 damage - about the same damage as the various tank guns. 7d8* averages 35 damage (39 with the d6 for hitting with a raise, as that +4 would guarantee). At that level of damage it's faster and easier to say "the minigun fires at you. Roll versus Incapacitation."
This one has lots of going back and forth between Real World numbers and Game World numbers, making it a specious argument at best.
| shinryu wrote: | | I'm not unsympathetic to the Modern Ops solution of just making gatling-type weapons area effect weapons, but I have some problems as far as that gives them somewhat undesirable qualities vs enemies in cover. |
Which qualities might those be? The ability to hit targets despite cover? The desirability of cover, as it might save the character's life? Or is it something else?
| shinryu wrote: | | It's just this is a case like the Kevlar where the RAW seems desperately inadequate. |
Not desperately, though a tweak might be a good thing. After all, a simple adjustment fixes Kevlar, from my perspective.
*The Sci-Fi toolkit limits linked guns to four units. Making the 5d8 figure the absolute maximum using that system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shinryu
Seasoned
Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 300
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Can't really argue with a person's impression, so I won't. I will note that your impressions are likely to change if you ever get the chance to play around with various machine guns. |
Quite possible. There's also a lot of abstraction in the very idea of the RoF as I interpret it in Savage, even more so when it comes to suppressive fire; is it say 15 rounds in a single trigger pull, or 3 rounds every second-ish for the combat round? Depending on circumstances, either interpretation is probably valid, and I am aware that "hold down the trigger till the barrel melts" is typically not SOP. However, even a 1/3 of a second trigger squeeze that gives you 3-4 rounds from the M60 is going to push out around 20 rounds from an M134, say. So even making the "burst,pause,burst" interpretation it's still much more volume of fire.
| Quote: | | First, I'll point out that the M249 (cyclic rate of fire 800) is a rate of fire 3 weapon. And the listed ROF 4 machine guns are the MG 42 (cyclic rate of fire ~1,200) and the MG 34 (cyclic rate of fire ~1,700). This indicates that the cut-off for ROF 3/4 is around 1,000 rounds per minute. Further, it indicates that the listed 20mm cannon is probably the M39, not the Vulcan. |
I see the SAW (presumably the 249) as an RoF 4 gun in my SWD printing. And if the 20mm cannon is intended to be that M39 then Savage is just flat wrong putting it on an F-15; unless I've been drastically misinformed essentially every Eagle ever mounts the M61. It would explain the discrepancy though. It also lines up pretty well the idea that RoF is calculated from something like floor(RpM/60)
| Quote: | That's good reasoning for an AP bonus, not for a damage bonus.
Oh, and 5d8 averages 25 damage - about the same damage as the various tank guns. 7d8* averages 35 damage (39 with the d6 for hitting with a raise, as that +4 would guarantee). At that level of damage it's faster and easier to say "the minigun fires at you. Roll versus Incapacitation." |
I do agree here; I'm uncomfortable with the idea of damage dice adding as per linked weapons in the SciFi toolkit, would really rather use the flat bonus to damage. I suppose you could interpret it as either of an AP or damage bonus; that's partially personal preference, partially trying to stick to the Modern Ops RAW for linked weapons. Would be comfortable with either.
| Quote: | | This one has lots of going back and forth between Real World numbers and Game World numbers, making it a specious argument at best. |
In the abstract, however, would you agree more rounds into same space = more effective suppression, all things being equal? If not, I think that would put you at odds with the developers of most of the high-cyclic rate weapons. Again, I wish I had good statistics here, but the anecdotal evidence seems to be that suppressive fire from helicopters drastically improved when the miniguns were introduced; while the military certainly does far more than its share of stupid things, I'd like to think if the things didn't work better somebody in the last 40 years might have said "hey, the M60s on the door guns were just peachy as it turns out and there's no need to be running through 10 times the ammo, guys." Possibly wishful thinking there, I know.
Here's one that'll hurt your brain: the Automatic Shotgun in HoER is pumping out 15 rounds in a suppressive fire action. that's 135 individual projectiles assuming a typical 00 buck load, easily 4 times as much as the theoretical Rof 6 weapon. And yet it rates but a +2 bonus. But this is a different (if related) discussion.
| Quote: | | Which qualities might those be? The ability to hit targets despite cover? The desirability of cover, as it might save the character's life? Or is it something else? |
Primarily ignoring cover entirely and/or converting it to armor. This makes sense for most area effect weapons that explode from a central point or have some other expanding effect, but ricochets aside bullets probably shouldn't turn corners. Less important is hitting the least armored location; while that's not totally unrealistic, I think that's more of a game balance concern. I'd like somebody in complete, adequate cover to have at least a small chance of being unscathed if the minigun chooseth them. If you're out in the open, well, pink mist happens.
| Quote: | | Not desperately, though a tweak might be a good thing. After all, a simple adjustment fixes Kevlar, from my perspective. |
Really, I think I'd be happy with Rof 5-8 weapons getting a +2/half Rof bonus to hit in general. It just seems like there's less dice getting thrown around for similar results if you're adding +4 or +5 on the 3. This is with the caveat I've not actually run simulation on this at this point.
| Quote: | | *The Sci-Fi toolkit limits linked guns to four units. Making the 5d8 figure the absolute maximum using that system. |
True. To my knowledge most guns haven't gone past seven barrels and this is more a volume of fire argument rather than a literal duct taping guns together thing, so I'd probably figure on something like RpM/1500-ish being a reasonable figure for "equivalent number of weapons." That would put the M134 at +3 and the M61 at +4, which seems appropriate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ValhallaGH
Legendary
Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 4459
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shinryu wrote: | | I see the SAW (presumably the 249) as an RoF 4 gun in my SWD printing. |
Yeah, I messed up my table lines on that one. Oddly, the much-faster-firing MG 34 is listed as ROF 3, so I don't think I'm the only one to mess up those table lines. 
| shinryu wrote: | | And if the 20mm cannon is intended to be that M39 then Savage is just flat wrong putting it on an F-15; unless I've been drastically misinformed essentially every Eagle ever mounts the M61. |
You're not wrong - the M61 is the standard for U.S. fighters and has been for several decades. But the stats for the "20mm cannon" are not at all in line with a 6000 rpm weapon.
I'd guess that it is a compromise between weapons like the M61 and older 20mm cannons, some of which would be ROF 2. I'll also note that, for gameplay purposes, the generic 20mm cannon is adequate for the aircraft.
| shinryu wrote: | | In the abstract, however, would you agree more rounds into same space = more effective suppression, all things being equal? |
All other things being equal, yes. They essentially never are, however.
| shinryu wrote: | | while the military certainly does far more than its share of stupid things, I'd like to think if the things didn't work better somebody in the last 40 years might have said "hey, the M60s on the door guns were just peachy as it turns out and there's no need to be running through 10 times the ammo, guys." Possibly wishful thinking there, I know. |
Well, not all complaints get recorded and make it to formal review. But yes, the evidence does suggest that the miniguns have been more effective than the 60's.
One of the big reasons that aircraft use much higher rates of fire than ground forces is that they are moving so much faster. Therefore they are covering a given area for a lot less time - slower rates of fire mean fewer bullets in the area, which means fewer chances to hit. The obscene rates of fire from aircraft weapons are there to allow them to actually hit most of the target area with a single pass.
It basically compensates for the "I'm moving too damn fast" feature. Savage Worlds has no equivalent mechanic, so it's not a feature I feel the need to worry about.
I will point out that there is a difference between suppressive fire (i.e. keep their heads down) and "suppressive fire" (i.e. shoot a lot of dudes in that direction).
| shinryu wrote: | | Here's one that'll hurt your brain: the Automatic Shotgun in HoER is pumping out 15 rounds in a suppressive fire action. |
Sorry, your damage was insufficient compared to the Toughness of my brain. So, yeah ....
On a related note, I'd be surprised if that ROF wasn't a typo.
| shinryu wrote: | | Quote: | | Which qualities might those be? The ability to hit targets despite cover? The desirability of cover, as it might save the character's life? Or is it something else? |
Primarily ignoring cover entirely and/or converting it to armor. |
1) Cover is still useful in that it provides some protection from the pain. And, if properly chosen, can be a severe penalty on the shooting roll to place the area of effect.
2) Cover is relative to your position. If you're hiding behind a wall and a helicopter above you opens fire then your cover is meaningless; however, a roof would be most useful (and might let you use the Firing Blind rules).
3) Your proposed bonuses would negate cover far more than an area of effect would. +4 shooting against a guy in a fox hole means the shooter is at a +0 to shoot the guy for full damage; AOE damage means that the target's toughness is +4 versus the bullets if the shooter hits the area (much more survivable).
There are other points for this section, but it is late and I am sleepy.
| shinryu wrote: | | Really, I think I'd be happy with Rof 5-8 weapons getting a +2/half Rof bonus to hit in general. ... This is with the caveat I've not actually run simulation on this at this point. |
You should, because that is obscenely powerful.
| shinryu wrote: | | To my knowledge most guns haven't gone past seven barrels |
Be enlightened. 
_________________
"Got a problem? I've got the solution: Rocket Launcher."
"Not against a Servitor."
"... We're all gonna die." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catalac
Seasoned
Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Posts: 247
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
...  once again you argue about how real life effects the game...
it does not in any way effect the game. the guns do what the book says they do. if the book doesn't say it it does not exist.
you argue about the rates of fire and intended purpose of guns which are more numerous then the stars of the heavens. by this sheer vastness it becomes complicated. by becoming complicated you defy the vary reason SW exists in the first place which is to provide FFF games.
the vary system is made so that you can ignore the logic of the real world when debating mechanics and get right down to the game. the game which is a collect story element that is devised to allow you to escape reality. there for with this thread and so many others you have made you defy the entire point of roleplaying which is the suspension of disbelief.
so go with what the book said. if its not in the book its obviously not important enough to be there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canology
Seasoned
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 136
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| catalac wrote: | ... once again you argue about how real life effects the game...
it does not in any way effect the game. the guns do what the book says they do. if the book doesn't say it it does not exist.
you argue about the rates of fire and intended purpose of guns which are more numerous then the stars of the heavens. by this sheer vastness it becomes complicated. by becoming complicated you defy the vary reason SW exists in the first place which is to provide FFF games.
the vary system is made so that you can ignore the logic of the real world when debating mechanics and get right down to the game. the game which is a collect story element that is devised to allow you to escape reality. there for with this thread and so many others you have made you defy the entire point of roleplaying which is the suspension of disbelief.
so go with what the book said. if its not in the book its obviously not important enough to be there. |
Ooops, sorry! We'll stop immediately.
Many people (obviously) enjoy this kind of tinkering. So for many people this is actually Fun, one of the big F's. Just accept that other people enjoy different things than you...
And I'm curious, how is the point of RPG's the suspension of disbelief? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catalac
Seasoned
Joined: 05 Jun 2012
Posts: 247
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
hmm. good point. and sorry your right suspension of disbelieve is a part of dramatic story telling not specifically rpgs although most rpgs follow along those guides... well unless their so complicated they can actually simulate real life perfectly. (because unless its perfect a person looking for a flaw could always find something to complain about. [probably something along the lines of how well one eats effect your allies loyalty or whatever])
edit: also i'd like to revise that tinkering is not a bad thing, but trying to make guns all act slightly differently like they do in real life would probably take at least a year to do and then would off set the balance of the system. in which case if you didn't want that year to go to waste you'd then have to rework the entire system to rebalnce it. essentially it would probably be easier to make your own system but then there are problems with that too.
so yeah tinkering is great but guns are complicated and that really takes the fast out of it. and the fun depends on how patient you are (which i am not, but for my differing view i apologize. i should not have formed that statement as a fact and just stated it as an opinionated suggestion. still unless the characters are use to hauling around linked machine guns and actively complaining about how the guns in the book suck its probably a good opinion.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canology
Seasoned
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 136
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry if I sounded too snarky. I know that everyone enjoys different elements of RPG's. It was seeming like you were saying that this was "wrong" fun, but that was probably my knee-jerk reaction and not your intent.
To keep this somewhat on topic, I have been thinking of undertaking the task of making a conversion for SW with BTRC's weapon design system, Guns! Guns! Guns! http://www.btrc.net/3g3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shinryu
Seasoned
Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 300
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| canology wrote: | Sorry if I sounded too snarky. I know that everyone enjoys different elements of RPG's. It was seeming like you were saying that this was "wrong" fun, but that was probably my knee-jerk reaction and not your intent.
To keep this somewhat on topic, I have been thinking of undertaking the task of making a conversion for SW with BTRC's weapon design system, Guns! Guns! Guns! http://www.btrc.net/3g3 |
Oh God, please, please do! I love 3g3 hardcore. I kind of think my copy is stuck on a very old machine somewhere but this would motivate me to pull it out.
As far as the realism vs. game behavior thing, I wouldn't argue that fixing most of the unrealistic things makes the game worse nor does it involve massively retooling the game's underpinnings. Gatling weapons are are very clearly an edge case, for example; for the majority of firearms I think most of the autofire rules work just fine, and I've come around on the submachine gun situation (insofar as I think I had misunderstood the ranged weapons in melee rules until Clint clarified the size of weapons issue for me); by and large Savage is a very good system in my opinion. This is not Shadowrun or Worlds of Darkness where the very basic mechanic of the game breaks down pretty quickly under pressure and is downright unplayable as designed in several scenarios (this is more Shadowrun 4A here, you try and netrun or have a vehicle combat and come back to me). Were we to try to fix the little probabilistic inconsistencies for Wild Cards for TNs at the trait die type, well, that's some pain-in-the-ass surgery, and I'm alright with letting a few percentage points slide for playability.
But fixing things like the damage of the G3 and the HoER hunting rifle (inconsistent with the damage of any other 7.62x51mm/.308 weapon in the game), the damage of .44 Magnum (I'm sorry, it's more powerful than .357, it just is), or the behavior of Kevlar, if anything, improve the game and fix some bad behavior that results from them (e.g. I'm better off being shot in a Kevlar vest than a futuristic infantry battlesuit, or using the relatively underpowered AK-47 than a full-bore battle rifle). These are things where it's not even open to interpretation, it's literally just bad fact checking, or typos or old rules being carried through, or sometimes just bad rules in my opinion, and there's no good reason not to fix them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shinryu
Seasoned
Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 300
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ValhallaGH wrote: | | Yeah, I messed up my table lines on that one. Oddly, the much-faster-firing MG 34 is listed as ROF 3, so I don't think I'm the only one to mess up those table lines. |
Well, wouldn't be the first time there was a typo in a table in a roleplaying product. I love you guys, Pinnacle, but some days... Oddly, the the MG3 (MG34's direct descendant) not only gets a saner RoF 4 in Modern Ops but gets a -2 penalty to avoid its suppressive fire and an inexplicable bump in AP. It's clearly the best standard machinegun in those rules and does suggest that somebody was thinking that fast-firing weapons should do better in suppressive fire. Why those weapon stats weren't carried over and corrected in the main SW rulebook I've no idea. Of course, for everything they get right (more range and damage on the G3, awesome!) they screw up something else (hi, MP7; good damage, proper AP 4, pistol sized, RoF 1? wtf? In fairness there's a semiautomatic version only the UK uses, but I don't think that's the one they mean)
On a related note, it's just these little internal inconsistencies that annoy me. Say what you will about GURPS, but those guys are meticulous about reality checking and internal consistency, and that's why I still buy the books even if the system can become sometimes unplayable in practice.
| Quote: | You're not wrong - the M61 is the standard for U.S. fighters and has been for several decades. But the stats for the "20mm cannon" are not at all in line with a 6000 rpm weapon.
I'd guess that it is a compromise between weapons like the M61 and older 20mm cannons, some of which would be ROF 2. I'll also note that, for gameplay purposes, the generic 20mm cannon is adequate for the aircraft. |
Depends on what you mean by adequate. Depending on your abstraction level you could be rolling "die on 3,4,5,6" to represent that weapon. To my mind, if it ain't behaving like the real article within the limits of the rules, it ain't behaving to my satisfaction. Savage is granular enough to cover how it should behave, in my opinion.
| Quote: | All other things being equal, yes. They essentially never are, however.
Well, not all complaints get recorded and make it to formal review. But yes, the evidence does suggest that the miniguns have been more effective than the 60's.
One of the big reasons that aircraft use much higher rates of fire than ground forces is that they are moving so much faster. Therefore they are covering a given area for a lot less time - slower rates of fire mean fewer bullets in the area, which means fewer chances to hit. The obscene rates of fire from aircraft weapons are there to allow them to actually hit most of the target area with a single pass.
It basically compensates for the "I'm moving too damn fast" feature. Savage Worlds has no equivalent mechanic, so it's not a feature I feel the need to worry about. |
What about recoil and unstable platform, though? I didn't think those were explicitly canceled unless you had the stabilizer upgrades, not listed for any of the air vehicles in SWD. So that's -4 off the top. Also, not sure why stationary targets wouldn't get the -1 per 10 inches moved penalty relative to the aircraft, though I concede that's not explicitly in the rules as such and wouldn't apply in the chase situation.
It seems like if you're getting a +3/+4 bonus to fire for volume of fire in this circumstance you're really at best compensating for the inherent penalties of vehicle fire. And if you're parked and firing such high-cyclic weapons you're probably firing at aircraft or some very unlucky infantry.
| Quote: | | I will point out that there is a difference between suppressive fire (i.e. keep their heads down) and "suppressive fire" (i.e. shoot a lot of dudes in that direction). |
True, we'll talk about that in a sec...
| Quote: |
Sorry, your damage was insufficient compared to the Toughness of my brain. So, yeah ....
On a related note, I'd be surprised if that ROF wasn't a typo. |
Wouldn't be surprised either. But let me rephrase the example: taken as written, the weapon is firing 135 rounds into the suppression zone. That's the equivalent of 9 Rof 3 weapons simultaneously suppressing the area at least in terms of the amount of fire. Even accounting for different angles from multiple weapons, etc., it does seem a little absurd that the +2 bonus is all that you get. At Rof 2 that's a little more reasonable but it's still 90 projectiles, coincidentally not too far from what a typical gatling would get you.
| Quote: |
1) Cover is still useful in that it provides some protection from the pain. And, if properly chosen, can be a severe penalty on the shooting roll to place the area of effect. |
Not really sure what you mean there; as far as I know suppressive fire and area effect weapons ignore cover penalties entirely. If you're trying to hit someone behind a wall you can always place the template approximately next to them.
| Quote: | | 2) Cover is relative to your position. If you're hiding behind a wall and a helicopter above you opens fire then your cover is meaningless; however, a roof would be most useful (and might let you use the Firing Blind rules). |
Also true. The problem is that in the case of someone with direct cover between me and my weapon (but still in a situation where I can lay down an AoE template that can cover him), I can still tag him. With a grenade or or other explosive, that's cool, that's what the whole point of smart grenade launchers is. With a minigun, the bullets would be doing a 90 degree turn in some cases to create that effect, and I don't like that. You can rule that there's some special effect for direct fire weapons to prevent this, I guess.
| Quote: | | 3) Your proposed bonuses would negate cover far more than an area of effect would. +4 shooting against a guy in a fox hole means the shooter is at a +0 to shoot the guy for full damage; AOE damage means that the target's toughness is +4 versus the bullets if the shooter hits the area (much more survivable). |
Under the Modern Ops rules, it's much, much worse already. The M134 is already getting a +4 to hit (+6 for dual linked ones!). So it ignores cover already outside of armor, ignores the cover's armor bonus effectively with +4 or +6 damage. My proposal is much, much more survivable. Also, in Modern Ops as written he gets to hit everybody in the area of effect with total ignorance of cover and cover armor bonuses, while to get the to-hit bonus in my idea also requires the gunner explicitly target the guy in cover; if he just uses suppressive fire, then nothing changes other than he's got a bonus to hit the area of effect. I've not proposed an increased suppression effect, though there's arguably realistic and in-game precedent for the same (see above). For the case of the M134, considering he's likely firing from a helicopter in most realistic applications, this is at best making him likely to hit the area of effect at all (vs. being at -4 before you even consider range and lighting). Again, coincidentally, almost exactly why the weapon was developed since suppressing fire from helicopters with the existing machineguns proved ineffective in Vietnam.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, here, but the template from suppressive fire is pretty explicitly cut off by cover, correct? I'm pretty sure in Modern Ops the area effect would still have the 90 degree seeking bullet problems I referenced above unless specially ruled otherwise (I don't see that anywhere). Not so good.
| Quote: | | You should, because that is obscenely powerful. |
Sure is. Realistically, so is any weapon that fires 66-100 rounds of almost anything per second. I mean, they're using these things to defend the plutonium supply:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=27858
I'm pretty sure maximum obscenity is desirable there.
Pretty cool, but not a Gatling if I understand correctly. Thought the GAU-8 was the record but it looks like the Chinese have outdone it:
http://defensetech.org/2011/05/20/the-ten-barreled-ciws-of-chinas-aircraft-carrier/
We must clearly turn our rotary cannon capability up to 11 (barrels), or democracy will be lost! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clint
Site Admin
Joined: 13 May 2003
Posts: 16163
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shinryu wrote: | | Were we to try to fix the little probabilistic inconsistencies for Wild Cards for TNs at the trait die type, well, that's some pain-in-the-ass surgery, and I'm alright with letting a few percentage points slide for playability. |
Less than a few points actually and already accounted for in the rules as a whole. No need to "fix" what already works as is.
| shinryu wrote: | | But fixing things like the damage of the G3 and the HoER hunting rifle (inconsistent with the damage of any other 7.62x51mm/.308 weapon in the game), the damage of .44 Magnum (I'm sorry, it's more powerful than .357, it just is), or the behavior of Kevlar, if anything, improve the game and fix some bad behavior that results from them (e.g. I'm better off being shot in a Kevlar vest than a futuristic infantry battlesuit, or using the relatively underpowered AK-47 than a full-bore battle rifle). These are things where it's not even open to interpretation, it's literally just bad fact checking, or typos or old rules being carried through, or sometimes just bad rules in my opinion, and there's no good reason not to fix them. |
Hmm, okay. Not really sure what to make of the idea that these aren't even open to interpretation or differing opinions, but ultimately, that seems to be exactly what it is.
First, as I've said before, damage is not solely based on cartridge. If a difference of 1 point is an issue (say between 2d8 and 2d8+1), then I'd guess situations where the actual die type changes could cause fits.
Damage is also about putting a foe out of the fight, not simply the "more powerful" round. Does the 44 magnum beat the 357 in that case? Not everyone thinks so...
| Quote: | | The most effective handgun round on the market - regardless of caliber - is the Federal .357 Magnum 125 grain jacketed hollowpoint (357B). This load has more stopping power than any other handgun bullet (and this includes more powerful rounds like the .41 and .44 Magnums). |
To give an example of SW gun design, if I were going to make the 44 more powerful, I still wouldn't change damage; I'd change range to 15/30/60. And if I wanted to reflect penetration, again, it wouldn't be damage directly but likely increasing AP to 2.
As far as Kevlar being better than a futuristic infantry battlesuit, well, that's only for shots in the torso with bullets, not shots from futuristic lasers. That's not a mistake; it's a chosen design paradigm of the system.
Savage Worlds is not a universal game system like GURPS where every weapon regardless of setting is balanced against every other weapon and every type of armor. It's a core game system where any "balance" of weapons or armor (or anything) only applies within the setting they are used. A futuristic setting doesn't have to balance out for Kevlar and bullets when Kevlar and bullets don't exist in the setting.
SW is simply never going to fit those kind of design principles since it was never designed with them to begin with.
But if anyone wants to try to redesign it to fit them, they certainly have the option to try. 
_________________
Clint Black
Savage Worlds Core Rules Brand Manager
www.peginc.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shinryu
Seasoned
Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 300
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Less than a few points actually and already accounted for in the rules as a whole. No need to "fix" what already works as is. |
Totally agreed. This bothered me for a long, long time, but it's probably less than the inconsistency of non-casino-grade dice if nothing else. Curious though, what's the in-rules fix? Didn't catch that. Raise probabilties are always better if I remember, so that's it if I had to guess.
| Quote: | Hmm, okay. Not really sure what to make of the idea that these aren't even open to interpretation or differing opinions, but ultimately, that seems to be exactly what it is.
First, as I've said before, damage is not solely based on cartridge. If a difference of 1 point is an issue (say between 2d8 and 2d8+1), then I'd guess situations where the actual die type changes could cause fits. |
I will concede the .44 mag/.357 mag situation could be a matter of opinion;
very important to note that he's referring explicitly to .357 hollowpoint, however. It's quite possible that the .357 Mag hollow hits the sweet spot between penetration and expansion for maximum tissue damage whereas the .44 Mag hollowpoint might just blow through before it expands enough to do damage.
That said, the SWD guns are firing solid slugs as far as I know and if we're basing the damage on the bullet diameter and the muzzle energy, out of comparable barrel length weapons, the .44 is going to do better on both accounts. I'd easily put the .44 at 2d8 AP 1. Die type changes aren't that big a deal; if you've got equivalent die types the bigger gun gets the more dice with an equivalent average to up the ace chance, seems straightforward. It's how the system handles 20mm/25mm already.
As far as the .308/7.62x51 situation goes, I'm not going to cut any slack on that one. If the Russian 7.62x39mm (2460J maximum quoted energy I've seen) out of an AK47 does 2d8+1 the 7.62x51mm (at least 3500J at the same bullet diameter) should be at least as powerful. Unless that G3 is some sort of 10" barrel carbine anyway.
| Quote: | | Savage Worlds is not a universal game system like GURPS where every weapon regardless of setting is balanced against every other weapon and every type of armor. It's a core game system where any "balance" of weapons or armor (or anything) only applies within the setting they are used. A futuristic setting doesn't have to balance out for Kevlar and bullets when Kevlar and bullets don't exist in the setting. |
Well, I have a couple of issues with this statement. One, I think you're trying to have it both ways. SWD clearly has equipment and rules intended to deal with a very large variety of time periods and settings. Indeed, the book starts off:
"In barbaric worlds of fantasy and far-flung galaxies, great
heroes battle for gold, glory, justice, or mere survival. Some
wear mithril armor and wield massive swords glowing with
magical energy. Others are commandos in the latest ballistic
vests spraying lead from their submachine guns. Some aren’t
even human."
So pretty wide setting options there for the core book to cover! I don't think interpreting this as intending to be a generic system is reading too much into the text here. So I would think that making sure things behave consistently/realistically from setting to setting (in the absence of specific setting alterations like "hey we're playing pulp so now Tommy Guns are extra awesome") would be a design goal, no? I mean, a sword in 1460 is more or less the same sword in 2012 (assuming we can set the metal decay aside), and if that same sword does Str+D8 and then suddenly does Str+D6 because the setting changes, it's jarring to me. But I concede that setting trumps core. Unfortunately, this leads to Problem 2:
Problem 2: This sort of setting is king rule isn't implemented consistently even when the setting would totally have it make sense to. As an example:
| Quote: | | As far as Kevlar being better than a futuristic infantry battlesuit, well, that's only for shots in the torso with bullets, not shots from futuristic lasers. That's not a mistake; it's a chosen design paradigm of the system. |
We run into this exact problem with the HoER book, wherein the advanced military battlesuit is far inferior to Kevlar vest vs. bullets. Granting that the suit is better against everything else, there's still the issue that the very setting indicates that these suits were designed for use on battlefields where there was quite a bit of conventional lead flying about in addition to the lasers, and additionally one would imagine that any such battlesuit in this setting would be designed using quite a bit of Kevlar or its successor compounds in its construction! HoER is not a space fantasy setting where Kevlar doesn't exist and armor is shiny fabric with laser-reflective properties. Alternatively, we must consider that the people who designed the battlesuit have made something much worse than existing technology to give to soldiers to deal with the most likely threat they're going to face (seeing as most lasers are vehicle weapons and will vape them anyway armor or no) and/or somehow failed to include an existing technology in the setting that would give them that established advantage vs. such weapons.
To my mind this is inconsistent and breaks the internal logic of the setting. As much as I don't like the Kevlar rules, if the battlesuit also benefited from them, at least that would be consistent. For that matter, the CEP armor seems like it's basically a Kevlar-like jump suit, so why woudn't it negate AP from bullets as well? (maybe it's just really tough fabric, does not behave like Kevlar, I concede this is possible but weird).
Please do not take this as crapping on Savage. I love Savage, it's by far the best playing system I've used in quite some time, and much of the design is brilliant. I love Deadlands very deeply. Many times I've brought up issues and it's been made clear why it has to work that way for the overarching system to work, and I see the light. But it's a lot of these little things, the inconsistencies for no obvious reason, that ultimately bug me. As a customer and as a player, I think you're better serving your players and your system by ironing some of these out, and that's why I bring them up. I can change whatever I like at my own table, but I'd like to make some contribution to improving the system for everyone who uses it too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ValhallaGH
Legendary
Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 4459
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shinryu wrote: | | ... the HoER book, wherein the advanced military battlesuit is far inferior to Kevlar vest vs. bullets. ... the very setting indicates that these suits were designed for use on battlefields where there was quite a bit of conventional lead flying about in addition to the lasers ... |
Having blown several battlefields all to Hell, I can say with authority that if you're neglecting explosives in your analysis then you're off your rocker.
Against cops? Kevlar. They'll be using bullets, Taser-weapons, and batons. Maybe tear gas, pepper spray, and flash-bangs.
Against soldiers? Infantry Battle Suit. They'll be using bullets, grenades, artillery, mortars, air strikes, knives, and your buddy's femur to kill you. In the HOE future, the list will include lasers, gyrojet mini-rockets, and potentially flame throwers.
As for the Math, a basic Kevlar vest is only superior to an IBS when the firearm is doing AP 3 or more. At AP 1 (most pistol rounds) the battle suit is superior; at AP 2 (rifle rounds) the chest protection is identical. So, in Hell On Earth Reloaded, the Infantry Battle Suit is always at least as good as the Kevlar vest.
The Vest with Inserts is a different story. 
_________________
"Got a problem? I've got the solution: Rocket Launcher."
"Not against a Servitor."
"... We're all gonna die." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shinryu
Seasoned
Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 300
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fortunately for the relationship between my rocker and i, i'm not neglecting explosives. i'm explicitly concerned in the kevlar case with the bullet problem only. also, it's worth noting under savage that you're only ever as good as your helmet against them, of course, but seeing as the kevlar vest leaves everything else exposed as well then the battlesuit wins that one by default. (is it irony that the flak jacket is pretty worthless against the thing the flak jacket was supposed to work against? all things considered i suppose flak jackets are generally kind of worthless though in real life...)
at the risk of arguing to be arguing off my own topic, my problems with the kevlar rules are:
1) it overpowers kevlar and leads to odd situations (like the AP 3 situation; does that not strike you as slightly counterintuitive that the better armor is actually worse against stronger weapons?)
2) it's unnecessary: kevlar is already better against bullets by dint of the +4 armor against bullets. if you ignore the AP negation it performs more or less as it should against most of the ammunition types in SWD (pretty well against pistols, kinda crap against rifles, totally ignored by .50 BMG). Kevlar with plates isn't terribly oversold then either (my understanding is trauma plates rate against 7.62 NATO as a rule). Even Clint's houserule seems to be that heavy weapons ignore personal armor and I can only imagine this is partially a kludge around kevlar.
3) The kevlar special effect is applied inconsistently. There are several cases where it seems logical that kevlar's rules should apply given that kevlar is part of the design of the armor. As real world examples, consider armored limousene design or spall liners in APCs. In the specific case of HoER, while I can't say for certain that CEP armor or the infantry battlesuit are kevlar-like or incorporate kevlar, it's not a huge imaginative leap to think maybe they would, and should have the same special effect. It's one thing to say that kevlar doesn't need to be balanced against space raygun armor in a setting where it never existed, but it's another thing to have it not applied in situations in a setting where it does exist.
Back on topic:
So judging from comments in the autoshotgun thread the SWD autofire rules really aren't designed to accommodate rates of fire past 4 or 5. This is fine but obviously falls apart for Gatling-type weapons. Modern Ops does handle these situations but it's a little odd. Basically, there are 4 weapons with multiple barrels (by either definition) in the rules, with a rough estimate of the per-second rate of fire:
Twin linked .50 BMG: Rof 3, +2 to hit and damage, 20 per second
Quad linked 12.7mm: Rof 1, +3 to hit and damage, area effect, 40 per second
Minigun: Rof 1, +4 to hit and damage, area effect, 66 per second
Twin-linked minigun: Rof 1, +6 to hit and damage, area effect, 132 per second.
So I see two viable options to adapt these rules:
1) Adapt as is. You can figure any weapon firing more than around 1000 rounds per minute/20 per second acts as per the twin linked .50s, at 40 rounds per second gains the +3 and area effect, at 60 gets +4. From there it's a bit nonlinear but 100 rounds per second (M61) seems fair for a +5
bonus and 140-ish for a +6. I don't know if we need to adapt past that for the time being. They can hit SBT or MBT, so ammo consumption would be something like half per sec for SBT and full per sec for an MBT. Would probably want to rule the template effect is only on parts of the map fully within line of sight to the firer to prevent the around-the_corner problem.
2) Drop the area effect ability. I'm more partial to this one. Essentially, same bonus to hit and damage steps, but keep RoF at 3 and use standard suppressive fire rules for area effects. Optionally have the to-hit/damage bonus as a penalty to the Spirit roll against suppressive fire. Figure ammo consumption at 1/3 the full per second rate, 2x that for suppressive fire. The case here is mainly for consistency of mechanics and an argument to the analogy with the shotgun rules (as a 1/3 sec burst of autofire from a minigun would be pretty close to a 3rb from a shotgun in terms of projectiles involved, so i think arguing a +4 bonus to hit and damage isn't insane) It also minimizes the dice rolling
Incidentally, this would imply that the autoshotgun in HoER using buckshot should be getting a +6 to hit and damage (not stacking with the shotgun +2 of course) as an area attack when using suppressive fire or as a bonus to suppressive fire depending on which rules you prefer. Which is pretty cool.
The other alternative is to adapt from the SciFi Toolkit thusly:
Since up to Rof 6 weapons are canon in SWD (viz F-15), we could treat weapons with per second rof up to about 40 as normal. This would imply we'd need to reclassify the twin/quad linked weapons as Rof 5 and Rof 6, respectively. We would probably also want to include penalties to avoid suppressive fire for rof 5/6 weapons (no such weapons are listed in Modern Ops, but the MG3 gets a -2 to avoid suppressive fire at a (high) rof 4 and it seems reasonable that -2 and -3 or even -3 or -4 are reasonable).
We'd then be able to model a minigun as two twin-linked Rof 6 weapons (rounding up 66 rounds per second to 72) for +1 to hit and +1 dice of damage, the Vulcan as a triple linked Rof 6 weapon (+2 to hit and +2 dice damage), and the twin miniguns as quad linked Rof 6 weapons (+3 to hit, +3 dice of damage). Would not modify these penalties by the extra linked weapons, considering the to-hit penalty is probably enough. This adaptation leads to some odd situations damage wise (the 20mm Vulcan is actually better than the 30mm GAU-8 in this case as the former does 4d12 per burst while the latter does 4d8, not ideal; i would consider downrating the 20mm round to 3d6 in this adaptation, which leads to a much more reasonable situation of 5d6 AP 4 for the Vulcan and 4d8 AP 6 for the GAU- . For giggles, the full auto shotgun on suppressive fire here could be treated as a quad-linked Rof 6 weapon given effective volume of fire (so +3 to hit on suppressive fire, -3 or -4 to the Spirit roll to resist the suppression effect, and 6d6 damage at close range if you roll a 1 on the Spirit roll.). Actually, that's probably not too off the mark given that it's 130-odd pellets in the air.
As a system comparison, both the first two options lead to roughly similar results to the third for most of the weapons via the damage bonus: damage of the vulcan is an average 18 assuming 2d12 + 4, vs. 20 for 5d6. Due to acing the SciFiTk option could be much deadlier however. I'm less of the fan of the SciFiTk option also in that it adds in a suppressive fire penalty that's not in the RAW precisely. It does probably model the true damage of the weapons better. All things considered I tend to think option 2 is the most consistent with SWD; it results in minimal dice rolling, it preserves the standard autofire and suppressive fire mechanic, and it's less overpowering than either granting some weapons area effect abilities or extra dice of damage. Really, burning through 22 rounds to get a +4 to hit (probably negated by vehicle penalties, though considering most such weapons use tracers I guess you'd actually only have to worry about the unstable platform penalty generally if you use HoER tracer rules) and +4 to damage is a pretty reasonable tradeoff in my mind.
Thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
