Realistic Combat that's Simple(ish)

[innerdude]

If you're just talking about attack roll / to-hit only, I think SWADE's model is a really elegant balance.

For HTH, skill of the opponent sets the target number. For ranged, it's a static number +/- mods for range and cover.

Armor is DR.

The damage modeling is something else entirely (too many "gamist" ideas embedded to approximate "reality" in any meaningful sense), but the basic attack structure is IMHO a decent "casually realistic" component.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I'll see your QP and raise you the Supernatural

Using models, and designing a ttrpg that accurately simulates reality, are two very different things. Cyberpunk 2020's is a science-fiction game with characters shooting each other with beam weapons - how much data does the FBI have on that?

The FBI is not the reference I would use.

To be pedantic, beam weapons at CQB would be no different than projectile arms insofar as hitting; damage and defense would be speculative.

The failing of near all scifi settings, IMO, is that they focus on exotic weapons, but ignore sighting systems, which are the 21st Century's revolution for infantry combat. The world small arms market is still dominated by two weapon systems, one from the late 1940s, the other from the late 1950s. Even the bullpup dates from the early 1970s.

 

[Jd Smith1]

As I recall ( had access to that myself many years ago, though it may have been the predecessor to that one) 1 in 6 was close to typical.

Average, not typical.

But that's according to an FBI survey, and while I will skip the Famous But Incompetent's tendency to turn everything into politics, given that police agencies in the USA are autonomous, and have no obligation to report, or even report accurately, and there is no standard level of police training among roughly 5600 police agencies, it is hard to make a definitive claim.

But yeah, marksmanship under combat conditions is poor. Up through Korea and into Vietnam, the military standard for most nations was that it took a man's weight in small arm ammo to kill one enemy. Conscripts with iron sights make for low accuracy.

The reality that gets ignored, including by the Forever Bothering Italians, is the Human factor; out of ten average combatants, you have a couple who are never going to aim, because consciously or unconsciously, they don't want to shoot someone, around six who never honed their skills and are just trying to survive, and around two who are trained, knowledgeable, and trying hard to put metal on target. The US Army confirmed this in numerous studies during and after WW2 and every other conflict.

This is why you see such terrible accuracy levels in real life: shooter motivation.

Statistically, most police shootings occur at night, very fast, and against a mobile target. Yet the vast majority of police agencies still train in daylight, on known-distance shooting ranges, against static targets, using the audio-controlled group fire that was first designed by the PA state police in the 1920s. Most officers who do train at night, against mobile targets and chaotic conditions, do so on their own time and dime.

There is fierce debate over whether the rise of US Army accuracy in the conflicts of the 21st century is due to the optics issued, the fact that it is Regulars doing the fighting, or the influence of combat-oriented video games changing the bottom tier of shooter's perceptions.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The shooting last month was at 4-5m based upon the reporting. I forget how they grouped the ranges, but yeah, 1/6 at the 10m mark is ringing as familiar. Real life shooting is low hit rates.

Its why I say trying to be too realistic with rates of fire is almost pointless; most of that metal ends up not going in your target anyway, even with people who are skilled shooters. Shooting at the range and in a firefighter are just different beasts.

The one-shot stop and one-shot kill data by round size are also interesting. A .32 ACP being the highest one-hit kill rate, but not being nearly so effective at one-hit stops...
For those unfamiliar with the terms:
A one-shot or one-hit stop: the individual is incapable of effective violence following being hit by one shot.
A one-shot or one-hit kill: the individual eventually dies from only one round having hit them.

Interesting. I wonder if that's because the .32 did deeper body penetration? Because its not normally considered a particularly punchy round.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you're just talking about attack roll / to-hit only, I think SWADE's model is a really elegant balance.

For HTH, skill of the opponent sets the target number. For ranged, it's a static number +/- mods for range and cover.

Armor is DR.

The damage modeling is something else entirely (too many "gamist" ideas embedded to approximate "reality" in any meaningful sense), but the basic attack structure is IMHO a decent "casually realistic" component.

Though with some of the optional rules baked in, the actual results don't feel particularly unrealistic, even if the process as you say, isn't particularly so.