Shadowrun

Shadowrun General => Gear => Topic started by: Emil_Barr on <10-01-13/1911:59>

Title: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Emil_Barr on <10-01-13/1911:59>
I guess this is really a question of concealability. After all, if concealability wasnt an issue, the answer is AR :P

If you want a concealable weapon with some punch, it seems like MPs are better. The Crusader is better than every SMG other than the Praetor. The Praetor is the only SMG with the ammo count to really make good use of full auto. Its also the only one thats forbidden.

So is full auto really enough of an advantage to mitigate the generally lower accuracy and concealabilty of SMGs vs MPs?
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: JackVII on <10-01-13/1934:46>
Ranges are massively different, if that matters in games in which you play.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Emil_Barr on <10-01-13/2000:54>
Ranges are massively different, if that matters in games in which you play.

That is true, and I did not consider that. :)
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: martinchaen on <10-01-13/2042:59>
Full Auto to my mind doesn't really shine until you pack LMGs or better; squeezing off 20 rounds per action results in a lot of lead flying down range.

I would completely discount Full Auto from the equation when comparing SMGs and MP, as neither were designed to perform that task well and so will more likely than no do all that well at it... But, that is just my personal opinion.

To my mind, if you're worried about concealment you're unlikely to start laying down suppressive fire when the drek hits the rotary air propulsion device...
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: RHat on <10-01-13/2135:20>
Full Auto to my mind doesn't really shine until you pack LMGs or better; squeezing off 20 rounds per action results in a lot of lead flying down range.

I would completely discount Full Auto from the equation when comparing SMGs and MP, as neither were designed to perform that task well and so will more likely than no do all that well at it... But, that is just my personal opinion.

To my mind, if you're worried about concealment you're unlikely to start laying down suppressive fire when the drek hits the rotary air propulsion device...

Suppressing fire is not the sole benefit to FA weapons.  That -9 to dodge is pretty handy in a high defense environment, especially if you can handle a decent share of the recoil.  Given general damage values, that can be a one-shot kill pretty easily - especially if you're set up to handle the recoil (Gas Vent 3, Praetor, and a decent amount of Strength).  Put a Smartlink on that Praetor, and your potential damage goes up to 16.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: martinchaen on <10-01-13/2158:25>
That's assuming you're willing to carry a Praetor. At that point, you might as well carry an assault rifle, unless you're attacking a person or place where you actually need to conceal the weapon up until the last minute. The F of the Praetor makes it not worth it to my mind, unless we're talking Chicago CZ.

I absolutely agree on the FA, but 9 recoil is hard to compensate for on an SMG. With a Gyromounted L/HMG, at least you can soak most of that for a two rounds, and your damage potential is way higher.

I still say SMGs and MPs are close range, precision weapons, not defensive arms. For that, you want an assault rifle or better.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: RHat on <10-01-13/2209:36>
That's assuming you're willing to carry a Praetor. At that point, you might as well carry an assault rifle, unless you're attacking a person or place where you actually need to conceal the weapon up until the last minute. The F of the Praetor makes it not worth it to my mind, unless we're talking Chicago CZ.

I absolutely agree on the FA, but 9 recoil is hard to compensate for on an SMG. With a Gyromounted L/HMG, at least you can soak most of that for a two rounds, and your damage potential is way higher.

The SCX is pretty much just as good as the Praetor.

I will grant that using FA with an SMG is very much an alpha strike tactic, but it is an effective one for taking down high-priority targets.  Besides, the question here is about weapons in the general size range of an SMG/Machine Pistol, which directly excludes things like Assault Rifles or LMG's.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: martinchaen on <10-01-13/2224:09>
Good point. In my opinion, I would choose the high accuracy non-FA Restricted MP or SMG over the Forbidden FA MP or SMG any day of the week.

My choices would be the Ares Crusader II, or the SCK (HK-227 if silencer and Gas Vent is needed).
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: CanRay on <10-01-13/2337:46>
The right tool for the right job.

Some needs the subtlety of a MP, some need the punch of an SMG.  Sometimes only a Panther Assault Cannon will do.

And when things get worse than that, my old hometown taught me the cure for everything:  "P for Plenty!"  ;D
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Noble Drake on <10-01-13/2352:44>
The right tool for the right job.
Couldn't agree more.

My personal thought on the matter, however, is that the increased concealability of a machine pistol compared to an SMG can be the tipping point between which one to carry regularly.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Xenon on <10-02-13/0444:56>
Get both (and an assault rifle with a scope. and a LMG with a gyromount). They all use the same skill ;)

IMO there are 3 or 4 benefits of having access to FA mode.
1) AoE situation. Multiple (at least more than 2) hostile targets (suppressive fire have a good chance to hit them all and it does not generate any progressive recoil)
2) You have low-ish Initiative (suppressive fire last the entire combat turn).
3) One of your opponents have a very big defense pool, maybe a physical adept (-9 dice on the defense test will make a huge difference... but progressive recoil will be nasty)
4) You are accurate enough (or strong enough) so you can still land bursts when spending less than an entire Action Phase shooting (as this give your target a -5 defense pool). This might or might not be an advantage as it depend on how you handle progressive recoil at your table(*)

Burning huge amount of ammo is an issue, but if you have a smartgun you can fire a simple action, eject clip as a free action and insert a new clip - all in the same action phase and without smartgun you can still fire a simple action and eject clip... insert new clip and fire during the next action phase.

If you have a low initiative and intend to use FA mainly for suppressive fire you would generally want access to a lot of ammo (at least 40 bullets or more; ideally a belt-fed LMG)




SA and BF also offer a lot of advantages, but since all MP and SMGs have BF mode (and most of them have SA mode as well) this will not really matter so i will not list them here.




(*) There are currently still two interpretations on the matter. One school claim that Recoil penalties are cumulative over every Action Phase unless the character takes "an action other than shooting" for an entire action phase (not shooting in one simple action and not shooting in the other simple action) - While the other school claim that Recoil penalties are cumulative over every Action Phase unless the character takes an action other than "shooting for an entire action phase" (like shooting in just one simple action and not shooting in the other simple action).
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Emil_Barr on <10-02-13/0532:33>
Get both (and an assault rifle with a scope. and a LMG with a gyromount). They all use the same skill ;)

Did you mean SMG and not LMG? I believe machine guns use heavy weapon skill
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Xenon on <10-02-13/0840:03>
doh. my bad :)
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Mirikon on <10-02-13/0923:49>
I'll admit that when I play a character who focuses on Automatics, I typically grab a machine pistol (sometimes two), a SMG, and an Assault rifle. Multiple weapons gives you options. Options, IMO, are a Good Thingtm. Use the assault rifle for when you want to go loud and heavy, loaded up with as much RC as you can get. Use the SMG for times when you need power, but desire something that can more easily be hidden under your lined coat. Use the machine pistol (perhaps suppressed) when concealing it is your main concern, or as a backup for the others. A sling on the AR and SMG and a concealed holster on the MP make it so you can carry them all fairly easily.

Personally, I rarely used FA in 4th, and I don't expect I'll use it much in 5th, either. The main places I used FA were with drones (vehicle mounted weapons don't suffer recoil, so why not?) using an LMG. I've used suppressive fire maybe twice. And that's mainly because in my low-init characters, I typically take something like Longarms (for characters who used sniper rifles at a distance, and shotguns up close), and Pistols (for a Face).
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Emil_Barr on <10-02-13/0935:32>
doh. my bad :)

An SMG cant go on the accessory version of the gyromount. It only works with ARs or bigger.

Probably works with the cyberarm version though. Im not sure, since I never took it even in SR4A
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Crunch on <10-02-13/0943:30>
The right tool for the right job.
Couldn't agree more.

My personal thought on the matter, however, is that the increased concealability of a machine pistol compared to an SMG can be the tipping point between which one to carry regularly.

If concealability is a concern though Machine Pistols are a fairly marginal choice. There's a narrow (although relatively common for shadowrunners) set of circumstances where the concealability difference between a Machine Pistol and an SMG will be both meaningful and sufficient.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Mirikon on <10-02-13/1058:26>
However, Crunch, there are also times when carrying something openly is expected, but something like a SMG or AR would be too attention-getting.

I tend to split things into four basic situations, which also goes hand in hand with the kind of clothes/armor I wear in those situations.

Casual/Off-the-clock: This depends to some degree on lifestyle, but when you're not working, you don't want to call attention to yourself by being geared up for war. In most cases, a lined coat with a pistol/machine pistol/melee weapon would work here. The idea is look protected enough that you don't encourage random violence, but don't go around bringing attention to yourself. No R or F equipment if you can help it (or at least don't make it obvious).

Formal: Not all runners are going to have to blend in at a high society event, but your face (or anyone with a high or higher lifestyle, really) ought to give thought to it. Armored clothes, or (when 5th edition of Arsenal comes out) fancy armored clothes are a must. For weapons, a machine pistol is really the highest you can do here, but light pistols and holdouts would be more common. For those who do melee, a reinforced cane makes for a solid club, and swords (especially those that have been suitably decorated) and other blades can often be worn openly in some cultures, especially by magic types.

Working: When you're on the job (and you go to the meet ready for the job, if at all possible), this is where you go with your typical loadout and armor, whatever it is. Well, unless you consider your typical loadout an assault cannon or machine gun. Leave those in the car most of the time, since that tends to get corpsec and the Knights on your trail faster than G-Men chasing someone who tried to databomb Zurich-Orbital. SMGs and ARs are really the upper limit here, or perhaps a grenade launcher. Try to leave this at R or lower, unless you can conceal it well.

Heavy Drek: Like the name implies, this is when you're planning for all hell to break loose. Anything goes, just get back alive.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Elektrycerze3 on <10-09-13/0415:40>
I tend to split things into four basic situations, which also goes hand in hand with the kind of clothes/armor I wear in those situations.

Wow, that's a neat idea. I'll ask my players to do similar write-ups to avoid the "you didn't state you were taking it!" situations. Thanks =)
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <10-09-13/0446:45>
The main places I used FA were with drones (vehicle mounted weapons don't suffer recoil, so why not?) using an LMG.
Since Drones now simply have Recoil Compensation equal to their Body, suppressive fire has become real interesting for them. ^_^
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Mirikon on <10-09-13/1140:36>
Glad to help, Elek. Just remember, some people (especially those on lower resources/lifestyles) might not have all of those (or they might be the same thing). I tend to play people at middle or higher lifestyles, so keep that in mind.

And yeah, Michael, that makes it a bit of a problem for my Reaver drones for my rigger. Of course, a bigger problem for my rigger is that she was a technomancer, and now TMs need to submerge before they can act like riggers.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: RHat on <10-09-13/1210:28>
Glad to help, Elek. Just remember, some people (especially those on lower resources/lifestyles) might not have all of those (or they might be the same thing). I tend to play people at middle or higher lifestyles, so keep that in mind.

And yeah, Michael, that makes it a bit of a problem for my Reaver drones for my rigger. Of course, a bigger problem for my rigger is that she was a technomancer, and now TMs need to submerge before they can act like riggers.

Yeah...  I'm rolling around some TM houserules I'mplanning to write up and post, and a big part of it is letting them rig, but rig differently.  Needing an echo to get the other benefits of a Control Rig is one thing, but needing it to jump in is just...  Not good.  Part of it, too, is giving Machine Sprites the ability to jump in in their own way (and as far as control primacy goes, it would be considered jumping in) along with an expansion of sprites to add optional powers, sprite Edge (that the technomancer doesn't get access to, as with spirits - one of the main uses would be determining if a sprite becomes free with that Edge (4) test), using technomancer attribute equivalencies to give them proper mental attributes...  Part of the optional powers, and maybe part of the baked in skills would be non-Matrix skills, such as Knowledge/Language skills or Forgery for Data Sprites, Vehicle or most Technical skills for Machine sprites, expansion of non-Cybercombat utility for Fault Sprites (which don't need any help in Cybercombat, but who should be great for other sort of tech mischief), making Courier, Data, and Machine Sprites properly useful, balanced Fading, new Complex Forms to broaden utility (technomancers need to be either more powerful in the Matrix than Deckers or just as versatile outside of it, and I figured I'd give the latter a shot and see what it looks like) with things like Rigging CFs, initiative boosts based on "overclocking your brain", maybe even skill bonuses (providing something similar to, but distinct from, the function of Increase Attribute), widgets as a focus replacement that need some kind of hardware base to hold them together (the specifics varying by stream, and never making any sense in terms of electrical engineering, computer science, and so on), and some kind of attempt to deal with the looming inter-stream balance issue.

It'll be a damn big thing, and finding the right balance is gonna be tricky as all hell - and believe me, I do see precisely how all of that in combination can go too far.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Agonar on <10-20-13/0235:55>
The problem with the LMG's (or any MG) is the double penalty for uncompensated Recoil.  Even with a Gyromount with RC6, 1 for the first round, and Gas Vent III, and a Str of 6.. you have 1 free Phase of FA with no penalty, but then on the next Phase, when you fire again and your bullet total goes from 10 to 20, your penalty for Recoil goes from -0 to -16.  So it's something you do every other Action Phase*.

But other than that, I think FA is worth it, where it is appropriate.  Taking a sufficiently RC'd machine pistol, and losing 3-4 dice on your first FA burst, to give the defender -9 dice.. on average, you are sacrificing 1 Hit, but they are losing 3 Hits, for an overall result of +2 Net Hits (based on 1/3 chance for a hit.  Going strictly by buying Hits at 4:1, then you sacrifice 1 Hit, and they lose 2 Hits for a net result of +1 Net Hit).. in either case, the average result is more damage.

But again, FA is not appropriate everywhere.  Sometimes, BF is better for you, specially if your target has been shot at multiple times this Phase, at -1 Dice per each shot defended again, then -2 more for BF coming their way.

(*) There are currently still two interpretations on the matter. One school claim that Recoil penalties are cumulative over every Action Phase unless the character takes "an action other than shooting" for an entire action phase (not shooting in one simple action and not shooting in the other simple action) - While the other school claim that Recoil penalties are cumulative over every Action Phase unless the character takes an action other than "shooting for an entire action phase" (like shooting in just one simple action and not shooting in the other simple action).

(*) By the wording, I don't see how anyone can reasonably argue that you lose recoil penalties as long as you are not using an action that fires for the duration of a complete Action Phase, since only Suppressive Fire actually says it lasts the entire Phase (actually, end of the Combat Turn even).  And even so, since you can only make one attack per Action Phase, you can't typically fire for both of your simple actions...  unless you are wasting bullets by shooting into the ground or something for the second simple action..  The only logical way I see of reading that (unless you are trying to invent grammatical errors for a munchkin's benefit), is that you must take an Action Phase, either two simple, or one complex action, in which you do not fire that weapon.  Then recoil penalties drop.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Noble Drake on <10-20-13/0455:25>
The problem with the LMG's (or any MG) is the double penalty for uncompensated Recoil.
Perhaps the problem is really that people think Full Auto weapons are meant to be accurate for more than a few seconds.

You load up all the recoil comp you can, you pick a target in the first action phase and start the full auto spray... and then you switch to recoil-free suppressive fire for as long as you feel like continuing to hold down the trigger.

...and all of a sudden, full auto is actually the most efficient way of making sure that your enemies take some damage because it is always your full dice pool being rolled and counts as as many attack as idiots there are trying to run through the hail of bullets.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: BetaCAV on <10-20-13/1609:40>
The problem with the LMG's (or any MG) is the double penalty for uncompensated Recoil.
Perhaps the problem is really that people think Full Auto weapons are meant to be accurate for more than a few seconds.

You load up all the recoil comp you can, you pick a target in the first action phase and start the full auto spray... and then you switch to recoil-free suppressive fire for as long as you feel like continuing to hold down the trigger.

...and all of a sudden, full auto is actually the most efficient way of making sure that your enemies take some damage because it is always your full dice pool being rolled and counts as as many attack as idiots there are trying to run through the hail of bullets.

"It's like playing whack-a-mole, only with stupider targets." -- Absolute Zero, Sentinals of the Multiverse

Ahem. Sorry, couldn't resist.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Reaver on <10-24-13/0857:24>
SMG all the way!! Better range just in case you need it.


Sides, MP are for girls :D
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Noble Drake on <10-24-13/1454:01>
Sides, MP are for girls :D
Well... there's a new addition for the list of things that will get you shot if you say them in front of the wrong character.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: DWC on <10-28-13/2222:08>
Sides, MP are for girls :D
Well... there's a new addition for the list of things that will get you shot if you say them in front of the wrong character.

As long as you're only getting shot with a machine pistol, who cares? :)

Note:  I am in no way condoning sexism in the selection of firearms.  Some of the nicest women I know prefer a good bolt action rifle, or a big-bore revolver.  Others like chainsaws, or machine pistols.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: martinchaen on <10-28-13/2309:08>
Clearly, anyone who thinks a machine pistol is "just for girls" (implying that it's weak or something along those lines) has never seen one actually fire...

Look up footage of the Glock 18. Sure, they're wildly inaccurate at anything beyond 50 meters unless you're an expert marksman, but if you have a little skill (or stand close enough to your target) and use burst-limiters they are just as deadly as any other firearm.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: DWC on <10-28-13/2324:55>
I'll take an M4 or a 416 over any automatic pistol you can put in my hands.  Gender has nothing to do with it.  They're just a bad mix of rate of fire and weight that leads to a drastic reduction in accuracy.  Physics says they suck, not sexism.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Reaver on <10-28-13/2336:24>
honesty? the line between SMG and MP gets a little blurry....They both fire the same ammo (pistol cartridges), but the real defining difference is accuracy  muzzle velocity, and size.

MPs are smaller, less accurate at range and generally have a lower muzzle velocity due to a short barrel. They are idea at ranges under 15m and against unarmoured targets.

SMGs have better control, much higher range (50-100m) and more velocity, making them the better weapon for control, armoured targets, and accuracy.


Basically MPs are not the first choice of professionals as a main armament, but may be used as a sidearm.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Xenon on <10-31-13/0800:09>
...you can't typically fire for both of your simple actions... 
No, but you can fire for a full complex action (which would be shooting for an entire action phase) ;)
(With FA that would be 10 bullets. With BF that would be a Long Burst of 3+3=6 bullets. With SA that would be a SA-burst of 1+1+1=3 bullets).

In this case you would not reset recoil between action phases and you would get progressive recoil that carry over (no matter how you read the rules).



If you only spend a simple action (only shooting for half an action phase and with your other simple action taking an action other shooting  -- or "not shooting for an entire action phase") then you would reset recoil until the next action phase(*)
(With FA that would be 6 bullets. With BF that would be one 3 bullet burst. With SA that would be 1 bullet. With SS that would be 1 bullet)

(*)Depending on your interpretation of RAW. As I said, there are two ways to read the rule.


Personally I think it make a lot of sense that if you take time stabilize your weapon between your bursts (only spending a simple action to fire bullets) then you would not get progressive recoil the next action phase. If not then you run into the dilemma where you can have a marksman expert strength maxed out troll with a gasvent 3 light pistol in a gyromount (for sake of argument we bend the rules and let you use a gasvent III and gyromount on a lightpistol) shooting one single bullet every action phase (which is once every 3 seconds or in some rare cases once every 1.5 seconds for most non-wired trolls) eventually getting so much recoil that he can not hit a stationary unaware target 2 meters in front of him. That simply does not make sense.

At my table recoil reset to zero if you spend a simple action not shooting bullets. At this point I don't even think I have to call it a house rule (this is after all the interpretation that Aaron did as well. I read no indication from any other official freelancer or official developer that it would work in any other way).


If you want to use progressive recoil between action phases when you only fire one single bullet or one single 3-bullet burst (and more importantly if you think it make sense). Go ahead. It is your table. Your rules.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Crunch on <10-31-13/0845:08>
There are two ways to read the rule, and then there is Aaron's reading which is not a possible reading of the text.

You can read it as "an action other than [shooting][for the entire action phase]"
In which case you can't take a shooting action in the phase to reset initiative.

you can read it as "an action other than[shooting for the entire action phase]"
In which only complex actions can carry forward recoil.

Aaron's reading [an action other than shooting] makes no effort to explain the rest of the sentence and would be a straight up errata.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Kincaid on <10-31-13/0914:29>
There are two ways to read the rule, and then there is Aaron's reading which is not a possible reading of the text.

You can read it as "an action other than [shooting][for the entire action phase]"
In which case you can't take a shooting action in the phase to reset initiative.

you can read it as "an action other than[shooting for the entire action phase]"
In which only complex actions can carry forward recoil.

Aaron's reading [an action other than shooting] makes no effort to explain the rest of the sentence and would be a straight up errata.

I can't see how it's not the first reading.  If taking a simple action reset your progressive recoil, heavy pistols, when not used for a semi-auto burst, would never suffer from any recoil.  Given that recoil seems to be designed to be harsher in 5E, I can't believe that's design intent.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Crunch on <10-31-13/0919:24>
I can't see how it's not the first reading.  If taking a simple action reset your progressive recoil, heavy pistols, when not used for a semi-auto burst, would never suffer from any recoil.  Given that recoil seems to be designed to be harsher in 5E, I can't believe that's design intent.

That's how I've always read it.

Aaron has indicated that the entire rule hinges around the wording [an action] and initiative resets any time you take any action other than shooting even if the action other than shooting is a simple. So Aaron claims that Shoot Aim Shoot would never generate recoil of any kind.

Aaron has access to the rules comittee, but if that's the rules intent they need to errata the whole phrase because his reading is simply not a possible construction.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <10-31-13/0925:44>
The thing that confused me with Aaron's dumpshock statements was that he was talking about his own intent when designing the rule. But the printed rule doesn't match his intent, so even if it was his own intent, he may simply have been overruled. Now I can understand asking for intent with unclear phrasing, I've done that before, but when the phrasing doesn't match the intent, clearly intent is no longer what matters, except for the intent of Hardy.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Agonar on <11-05-13/0217:34>
Well, the example one p.177 seems to indicate that a simple action during a Phase does not reset the recoil counter, but rather a Phase where no shooting happens.

One Gun Recoil
Phase 1 - Complex Action for SA Burst, gains recoil
Phase 2 - Single Shot, gains recoil, Simple Action to take cover (no mention of this simple action removing recoil)
Phase 3 - No shooting at all, and a simple action to take aim - and specific mention now that his recoil resets.
Phase 4 - SA Burst again, gaining recoil again

Now, if it was meant to be that even a simple action in a Phase not spent firing reset recoil modifiers, than the example presumably would have specified that the recoil modifier was reset after Phase 2, but it didn't.  It waited until Phase 3, where there was no firing at all to specifically state that the recoil mod was reset.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Xenon on <11-06-13/1403:02>
Well, at my table we reset progressive recoil when you no longer fire bullets as fast as possible and instead spend time to stabilize your weapon between shots or short burts. Why? Because it make most sense.

Building progressive recoil when you spam bullets as fast as possible? Sure. I can buy that. Somewhat.

But in my world of SR5 it simply make no sense that you continue to build progressive recoil all the way to the point where it will be impossible to hit anything when using controlled fire where you have enough time between each and every shot to take a short pause (to aim down your sights or however you wish to spend the spare simple action).


I don't even think I have to call it a house rule at this point since RAW seem to be ambiguous (not the only place in the book where the text can be read in more than one way), since it make a lot more sense (at least compared to the alternative) and since Aaron at least seem to suggest that RAI also is that progressive recoil reset if you don't spam bullets as fast as possible...

But even if a future errata or FAQ declare that you need to spend a full IP not shooting bullets at all to reset progressive recoil I will probably house rule it away anyway. A slow non wired person would need up to 6 seconds(!) between single bullets to not suffer progressive recoil (and with "only" 3 seconds between shots his aim will eventually get so bad due to recoil that it will be impossible for him to hit anything - seriously?).
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Nico on <11-07-13/0553:02>
Technically, one shot per turn (every six seconds) would already amass tremendous recoil with the strict reading. If you wanted to fully overcome any recoil and had only one IP/turn, you could only shoot five bullets per minute.

One could argue for a cap on recoil, but I think that oversimplified as the system is, it's much more convenient to just call the cap on recoil the point where you realize that your best option right now if you want to keep holding onto the trigger is using suppressive fire.

It doesn't make any sense at all that having to operate a bolt or slide, or some other kind of single shot action, would help you deal with recoil better and faster than being able to completely focus on controlling your gun in the same time. This issue is easily fixed by the more sensible reading of the ambigous rules. On the other hand it is also ludicrous that a Krime Cannon is easier to control than a Fichetti Tiffany Needler, but I think a departure from that would make combat and recoil a lot more complicated and bookkeepery, unless you completely overhauled the recoil rules.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <11-07-13/0609:21>
Honestly, everyone has 2 recoil compensation by themselves and can easily score another point or two with the right weapon. If by the time you, as a 1-IP-per-CT person, are starting to suffer from recoil, the combat isn't over yet, you're not in the right league anyway.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Xenon on <11-08-13/0503:19>
The example is applicable on single BF and 6 bullet short FA burst as well. shrug.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <11-08-13/0635:36>
If someone wants to fire FA, then having to not fire due to recoil is the price he pays for being able to reliably hit his enemies. Everything comes at a price. If recoil resets so easily, then SS and SA weapons lose a lot of value, which means the Longarms skill becomes a bad thing to take rather than a different tactical option. So you end up in the SR4 situation, where Automatics was the optimal combat skill.

Still, if you want to play your games in movie-style, there's nothing wrong with that. But I don't think it's a flaw in the original rules.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Xenon on <11-08-13/0738:13>
fire One 3-bullet burst (which take ~0.2 sec) and then have to wait 6 seconds before you can fire again to avoid progressive recoil is not real life realistic.

Fire one 3-bullet burst and then wait 2.8 seconds until you fire one more 3-bullet burst to avoid progressive recoil is not Hollywood realism. It is real life realistic.

If I wanted Hollywood realism then I would not have progressive recoil at all, even when you fire bullets as fast as you can without pause.


The drawback of using a short 6 bullet FA burst is that you need a combined recoil compensation of 6 points or you get a negative dice pool modifier. You need to have a heavy investment in strength and/or a weapon with gasvent systems and a shoulder stock.

It is also often more socially accepted to pack a handgun rather than an assault rifle... And FA burn a lot of ammo without really dealing any more damage (well it does, indirectly, by reducing defenders dice pool -but not really if the attacker also get a smaller attack pool due to uncompensated recoil...)
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <11-08-13/0752:53>
Assuming 1 IP per professional shooter also isn't realistic even in real life, and let's not forget reality usually is Suppressive Fire. And if you go with 2 Simple Actions not shooting for recoil resetting, progressive recoil also isn't a problem.

As for costs: 100 nuyen per run won't make any impact.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Xenon on <11-08-13/0812:00>
Also note that the complex actions to fire bullets (semi automatic burst long burst and and 10th bullet full automatic) all of them state "Remember the effects of cumulative recoil when using these fire modes"

but that there is no mentioning about the effects of cumulative recoil when shooting bullets as a simple action (single shot, semi automatic, burst fire or even 6 bullet full automatic - that generate twice as much recoil than a semi automatic burst).
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <11-08-13/0815:30>
And? Yes, we know there's over a dozen cases where the rules clearly contradict each other. So yes, until we get errata we can't say what the official rules are exactly supposed to be. But the official rules aren't relevant here. After all, you were talking about houseruling it if the official clarification turns out to be different from what you hope them to be, and I disagreed with the need there. RAW quotes are only relevant when debating RAI, not when debating RAD.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Xenon on <11-08-13/0840:22>
I argue that RAW can be read both ways. The quote further support the interpretation of RAW that you only get progressive recoil of you spend a full complex action shooting bullets.

I argue that RAI is that you don't get progressive recoil if you don't spambullets as fast as you can.

Real Life experience also support the idea that you don't get progressive recoil to the point that you have zero chance of hitting anything if you take short breaks between your semi automatic shots, 3-bullet burst shots and short 6 bullet full automatic bursts.



Was not the cost I was thinking about when I said you burn more ammo. Ammo is more heavy than some of might think ;)

....But since since APDS is accessible at chargen most players tend to get that for their already illegal fully automatic Ares Alpha assault rifle (it also got a grenade launcher and in SR5 grenades are win). APDS and FA will together cost you a lot more than100 nuyen per run.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <11-08-13/0858:15>
Recoil partially is your arm tiring from keeping up the firing. That's where your natural recoil compensation kicks in. I doubt there's people who can fire an entire clip with 1.5s per shot without their aim suffering.

As for the RAI debate: That already happened quite enough, and wasn't why I replied here. I replied because you stated that if RAI isn't your RAD, you'd houserule it, and I argued against the use. So that you argue RAI even though RAI also is unclear is utterly irrelevant at this point.

I also think your houserule is screwing over Longarms users, which I consider unfair. They already pay the price by not having burst-fire easily available, making the choice for Longarms worthless due to a change in recoil mechanisms is hardly fair and ruins the balance between Longarms and Automatics.

As for costs: Gelrounds are 2.5 per round.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Nico on <11-08-13/0908:03>
Honestly, everyone has 2 recoil compensation by themselves and can easily score another point or two with the right weapon. If by the time you, as a 1-IP-per-CT person, are starting to suffer from recoil, the combat isn't over yet, you're not in the right league anyway.
The 1 IP/turn semi-auto marksman is obviously an exaggerated example. It doesn't change a thing about the fact that according to the stricter interpretation of the rules, if two equally fast people fire a Tiffany Needler and a Panther XXL side by side at the same rate of fire, only one of them will suffer from recoil penalties. And that completely flies in the face of all reasonable expectations.

Saying the problem can be discounted based on how long it takes for the problem to pop up in a fairly unlikely situation is missing the point, I fear. As it is now, recoil has plenty of counterintuitive, unrealistic and arbitrarily limiting aspects to it, and the strict reading of the "entire initiative pass" rule adds yet another.

I agree with Xenon that the cost of large bursts is twofold already: Firstly a prerequisite in RC to be able to make proper use of it in the first place, and secondly ammo expenditure. Sure, the system doesn't give weight for gear, but show me the GM that wouldn't raise an eyebrow upon hearing that your character has a dozen assault rifle magazines strapped to their body. Action economy is one of the steepest costs that can be imposed on anything in a tactical RPG, and the strict reading DOUBLES your action economy cost of simple action attacks. Sure you can do other stuff inbetween like take aim, reload your weapon and shop for more ammo on shad-e-bay, but all that would do is eliminate the action economy cost of those things.

Longarms users have either the advantage of range and surprise, thus completely negating the need for burst, or the advantage of non recoil penalized choke settings that also allow multiple target attacks without splitting your dicepool. On top of up to BF bursts.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: martinchaen on <11-08-13/0926:13>
To be fair, Michael, arguing that Longarms users get screwed by Progressive Recoil resetting is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Not only is it hyperbole, but it's patently untrue. Allow me to demonstrate.

First; Longarms include shotguns, which have vastly higher damage output potential at short range compared to MPs and SMGs. True story.
Second; Two of the three shotguns in the core rules come with SA (capable of semi-auto burst) and/or BF modes, both of which would benefit from this interpretation, thus making longarms MORE viable.
Third; The remaining type of longarms is sniper/sport rifles, which are intended for a completely different combat team role. A sniper rifle has 10 times the range of an SMG, and 30 times the effective range of an MP.

In my opinion, saying that a more lenient reading of the Progressive Recoil rules, which would make pistols, shotguns, and smaller automatics more viable compared to Assault Rifles, is utterly ridiculous. Does it massively unbalance the game? No. Don't believe me? Try it...

But hey, RAW is ambiguous (obviously, or this discussion wouldn't be happening) so go with what you feel is right. In my experience with firearms, I choose to go for what makes sense to me, and the biggest issue I have with the restrictive reading of Progressive Recoil is the following:

A character firing a Ruger Super Warhawk, the SR equivalent of a modern day S&W .500 which generates massive amounts of recoil, could squeeze of all 6 rounds (5 in the case of the S&W) one after the other without ANY penalty to his aim.

In contrast, a character firing a Streetline Special (something like a Glock 26) would face an increasing penalty to hit his target, despite firing at the same rate and using a weapon that is less powerful by several orders of magnitude. How is that in any way fair?

Look at it this way:

SS weapons have high damage output potential and are powerful (represented in SR by high AP values); most of them are also fairly accurate (judging by their accuracy rating, with the sole exception of shotguns).
SA and BF weapons, by contrast, have lower damage output potential and fire less powerful rounds (less AP); most of them can compensate for a lack of accuracy by firing hails of bullets down range.
FA weapons bridge the gap between the two, but are loud and difficult/impossible to conceal.

It makes sense to me that an SA weapon firing at the same speed as an SS weapon benefit from the same unrestricted recoil rules, because it deals less damage. However, SA and BF weapons have the potential of being more difficult to avoid (as it should be, when you've got bursts of metal coming your way). But that's just me...
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <11-08-13/0940:53>
The 1 IP/turn semi-auto marksman is obviously an exaggerated example. It doesn't change a thing about the fact that according to the stricter interpretation of the rules, if two equally fast people fire a Tiffany Needler and a Panther XXL side by side at the same rate of fire, only one of them will suffer from recoil penalties. And that completely flies in the face of all reasonable expectations.

Then why not apply Strength requirements to be able to fire an Assault Cannon? I mean, you're lifting it so Strengthx5 would apply to how much weight you can manage. Seems silly to change recoil rules for all weapons based on Heavy Weapons players being problematic. Also, if your GM gives you a hard time for having a dozen assault rifle magazines with you (honestly, 3 on your body and 9 in a bag would be perfectly fair, and it's not as if you ever need more than 4 clips in a single gunfight), why would they not give you a hard time for carrying an Assault Cannon with a lot of ammo for it with you?

"Saying the problem can be discounted" <--- I do not know what you are talking about. Can you explain exactly what you mean and where I said something that you consider to be saying the problem can be discounted?

Action Economy: A Sniper Rifle costs anywhere between 10k and 28k so their cost makes any ammunition costs irrelevant, especially once we start modding them with "Weapon Cost" modifications. A sport rifle is as expensive as an Ares Alpha and does a bit more damage, but cannot fire bursts of any kind and thus also cannot use Suppressive Fire, meaning it hits less against high-dodge enemies. Trust me, I missed burst-fire options when facing Shedim. So while yes, a gunhappy gunbunny will spend more on ammunition, they get to tag their enemies far more easily. The longarms user, on the other hand, eventually has to splurge on a sniper rifle which nullifies all ammunition costs the Automatics user might have.

As for your Longarms arguments, let me tackle those one by one.

- The advantage of range and surprise applies to both longarms and automatics. At 51~150 meters they both are in Medium Range. So that isn't a significant difference between the two.
- Choke settings come with a quite significant loss in damage and also are only useful when enemies bundle together.
- Furthermore, they're only available for shotguns with flechette ammo, which makes lethal shots impossible. So vs Drones and Spirits this has zero value.
- Shotguns have really lousy Accuracy and are worse in range than an Assault Rifle.
-> As a result of the above points, choke shots are only really useful in close quarters.
- The automatics expert can apply Suppressive Fire instead, this will do much more damage.
- BF is available, yes, on a shotgun with 4(5) Accuracy where you must decide between easy ammo switching or a decent clipsize. And that shotgun is useless at very large ranges, unlike an Assault Rifle, and has no FA options.

As such, I do not believe Longarms have enough advantages left over Automatics under a ruling where accumulative recoil does not ever apply to Simple Action firing. Defense penalties are far more powerful in SR5 than in SR4, so Accumulative Recoil helps balance out Automatics.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Xenon on <11-08-13/1039:41>
I think you misunderstood action economy Michael
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <11-08-13/1050:15>
Ah, sorry. He was talking about ammo costs and then action economy, I assumed that was about how expensive your actions are.

By the way, I do think a "two Simple Actions of nothing" reset of recoil might work out, though I'd have to check it out to be sure. It puts a limit on your action sequences and you can't just throw FA burst after FA burst that way, but it also means BF weapons would in essence never face recoil consequences when used and modded properly.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Dal Thrax on <11-09-13/0103:20>
Most SS weapons cannot take a silencer.   Have a silenced throw away pistol that you can ditch so that the ballistics can't be traced back to you and a AR on your back to use if things get real.

Then again, most GMs overlook forensics.  If they didn't the team would have to ditch there guns every time they use them and not bleeding on the run would be a bfd.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Reaver on <11-09-13/0149:38>
Most SS weapons cannot take a silencer.   Have a silenced throw away pistol that you can ditch so that the ballistics can't be traced back to you and a AR on your back to use if things get real.

Then again, most GMs overlook forensics.  If they didn't the team would have to ditch there guns every time they use them and not bleeding on the run would be a bfd.

I keep the forensics to a "corp" model... as in "just how much time is this crime worth?"
1) "random SINless guy" shot to death? Maybe 10hrs work.
2) rolling street battle in the business core? 3000 hrs.
3) homicidal rampage, killing several officers and civilians? 50000 hrs.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: The Wyrm Ouroboros on <11-09-13/0204:23>
I'm sorry, every time I go past the MP section I can't help but think of the comment (by Nightfire?) in the original Street Samurai Catalog, when the first MP was introduced.  "Great, now I can flatten light ammo against body armor faster than ever before."
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Reaver on <11-09-13/0209:45>
I'm sorry, every time I go past the MP section I can't help but think of the comment (by Nightfire?) in the original Street Samurai Catalog, when the first MP was introduced.  "Great, now I can flatten light ammo against body armor faster than ever before."

Lol, good quotes back then :)
It was like a 4L weapon as I recall too
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Crunch on <11-09-13/1512:27>
I'm sorry, every time I go past the MP section I can't help but think of the comment (by Nightfire?) in the original Street Samurai Catalog, when the first MP was introduced.  "Great, now I can flatten light ammo against body armor faster than ever before."

Lol, good quotes back then :)
It was like a 4L weapon as I recall too

I'm trying to remember t6he staging number, was it a 4L1 or a 4L2?
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Ghoulfodder on <11-09-13/1547:13>
Has anyone said that SR5 is a representation of 'real' life with quite a bit of abstraction, rather than an attempt of genuine simulation?

It absolutely isn't particularly realistic at the extremes of low IPs. But then it's surely just as mental at the other end if you go with a single simple action resets recoil, then someone manages four IPs and can fire off six-round bursts at four different targets nowhere near each other in 3 seconds, for negligible recoil penalties with a bit of care in gun selection.

Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Xenon on <11-09-13/1758:13>
to get 4 IP per combat turn you have an initiative of at least 31(!)
to get that reliably you need 6 reaction, 6 intuition and improved reflexes 3.

A "normal" rate of fire for a fully automatic weapon in 2013 would be around 800 RPM.
This give us a time-frame of 0.375 seconds to fire 6 bullets

3 seconds per combat turn divided into 4 IPs divided into 2 simple actions give us that
...each simple action is also 0.375 seconds. cool :)


0.000 start of first IP. fire 1st bullet at first target.
0.375 fire 6th bullet at first target and end of first simple action in first IP
spend the second simple action to recover recoil and aim at the second target.

0.750 start of second IP. fire 1st bullet at second target.
1.125 fire 6th bullet at second target and end of first simple action in second IP
spend the second simple action to recover recoil and aim at the third target.

1.500 start of third IP. fire 1st bullet at third target.
1.875 fire 6th bullet at third target and end of first simple action in third IP
spend the second simple action to recover recoil and aim at the fourth target.

2.250 start of fourth IP. fire 1st bullet at fourth target.
2.625 fire 6th bullet at third target and end of first simple action in third IP
spend the second simple action to recover recoil and wait for the second combat turn

3.00 second combat turn start.


Not sure I would agree it is "just mental" to have a chance to land just one bullet per burst when you spend [almost] 0.4 seconds to spray bullets per individual target and then spend [almost] 0.4 seconds between sprays to handle recoil and aim at the next target.

- certainly not when you consider that this is from someone that is as wired as you can get in the futuristic setting of 2072. A very fast but not wired person would get 2 IPs (and 1.125 seconds between each spray to eliminate progressive recoil).


To get at least 6 points of recoil compensation you need one free point that everyone get, weapon modded with shock pads on the shoulder stock that provide 1 point and an expansive barrel design even for 2072 standards that provide 2 points. The user is also not only an extremely quick  person he is very strong too; and that provide the last 2 points of recoil compensation.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <11-09-13/1937:08>
Here is my problem with Recoil never accumulating if you use a Simple Action: Constant Simple Full Bursts thrown around for a -5. Now that we only get 1 attack action and attacks are easily dodgeable, the dodge penalty has become far bigger a weapon. In SR4, against most opponents that dodge penalty merely translated to more damage and most people simply used narrow bursts. In SR5, with dual-statted dodge pools and less dice modifiers, it's harder to hit so that dodge penalty far more often makes the difference between yes and no. And since you can't fire 9 rounds per IP but only 6, you need less RC.

And yes, that 6 points of Recoil Compensation is easy. We're talking Automatics user, ergo Ares Alpha + Shockpad is already 5 recoil compensation (so a constant -4 defense basically), and you could just get a gas vent rating 2 rather than a shockpad, it's only 350 nuyen more.

Within the bigger picture of the full game rebalance, having recoil accumulate unless you stop firing for more than a single Simple Action makes a lot more sense to me than being able to spray at a -5 dodge every IP.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Xenon on <11-10-13/1315:11>
you still only hit the target with 11P with a base accuracy that limit him to 5 hits.

you can use an ares desert strike with a base accuracy that limit you to 7 hits that deal 13P (the 5 extra dodge dice compared to FA from alpha will still average [slightly] more than 11P, the higher base accuracy even more so).

a target being unaware that he is being attacked does not get to use his dodge pool at all anyway, you have twice as many IPs worth of ammo per clip compared to the alpha, the high base damage code will let you deal physical damage on high armored targets when they will deal stun if you used alpha the better range give you dice bonus advantage at 26-50m as well as anything beyond 151m.

alpha being better at killing high dodge targets (adepts) while desert strike is better at killing high armored targets (cyborgs).


...but not really a huge difference between the two if you ask me. shrug.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <11-10-13/1755:17>
The Accuracy of a Ares Alpha is 7 with smartlink. Chances you roll >7 hits are rather small even with higher dicepools so leaving that out for now. That puts the Alpha at 2.7 damage less, vs 5 dodge dice which at the least would take off 1.7 damage, so the Alpha is at 1 damage less in the scenario where both hit. We're talking firefights, which means we're not talking unaware enemies and if they were for some reason they'd likely go down from both weapons. The Alpha can fire 7 Full Auto Simple Action bursts in a single clip and it's only 1 Simple + 1 Free, or 2 Simple, Actions to reload. If we assume both weapons are loaded with APDS, we're talking Physical Damage on anyone at 18 armor or less with a single nethit, with regular rounds that's 14 which equals an Armor Jacket + Helmet. AJ+Helmet+OS4 still is only 18 armor.

So to summarize:
- The Desert Strike is much more expensive than the Ares Alpha.
- Ares Alpha is at 1 damage less when both hit, but that's not enough to properly calculate.
- Enemies awareness is mostly irrelevant so the dodge dice are a must in the comparison.
- 7 IPs of combat without any reloading issues generally would round up the fight.
- Even if a gunfight takes longer than 7 bursts, reloading a clip-weapon isn't a problem at all.
- Accuracy rarely matters, even when ignoring Taking Aim. But at high dicepools, it would, so we'll take a high dicepool into account below.

So what primarily stands is the 2 2/3 damage more vs the -5 defense dice. Let's assume an 18-dice attacker and a 12-dice + 15-dice defender.

18v12: 71.85% hitting chance, average 3.215 net hits on a hit.
18v7: 91.28% hitting chance, average 4.075 net hits on a hit.
So that's 16.215/-8 * 71.85% vs 15.075/-6 * 91.28%. Let's do a very rough estimate and convert the AP to damage while ignoring excess soak situations. Excess Soak situations would end up decreasing the average damage of the desert strike, so ignoring them here should be fine (we probably end up overestimating the damage from the desert strike a tiny bit like this). So we got 18.882 * 71.85% vs 17.075 * 91.28%, 13.567 vs 15.586 before soak. In other words, the Ares Alpha ends up 2 damage higher on average before soak. Note that we ignored Accuracy in these equations, a more detailed test would skew the results away from the desert strike a tiny tad for excess soak involvement, while skewing it a decent bit towards it due to Accuracy. The Desert Strike would gain approximately 1/3 hit on average from this, so clearly a more detailed test is required.

So let's try again, assuming both weapons use a Smartgun and the Attacker has 18 dice vs 12 dice for the defender. We're ignoring Soak for now, which means the damage difference leans towards the Alpha a tiny bit. This is because applying Soak requires more than AnyDice can easily handle, since it means we need to make sure only non-zero values end up getting boosted by base damage, then soaked. So this would require using a program to either calculate or approximate.

output [highest of 0 and [lowest of 9 and 18d{0,0,1}]-12d{0,0,1}]
output [highest of 0 and [lowest of 7 and 18d{0,0,1}]-7d{0,0,1}]

We now get 71.83% vs 91.27% as hitting chances, so those didn't change much, but average nethits did. 3.132 vs 3.638 net hits on a hit. So the Alpha ended up turning in more average damage on a hit. Let's approximate by adding AP and base damage again. The Desert Strike gets 15.667 added for a total of 18.799 on a hit, 13.503 average damage. The Alpha will face a bigger loss: +13 = 16.638 on a hit, 15.186 average damage. So despite the 2 2/3 damage advantage for the Desert Strike, versus a 12-dice defender the Ares Alpha does > 1 2/3 more damage.

As for 18 dice vs 15 dice: 57.15%*(15.667+2.765)=10.534, 80.34%*(13+3.037)=12.884, Alpha does > 2 1/3 more damage than the Desert Strike. So with a highly augmented + attributed enemy, the Alpha is even better.

So if Recoil never accumulates if you fire Simple Bursts, the Ares Alpha outdoes the more expensive Ares Desert Strike in damage. This also proves that on the first shot, the Automatic is by far superior. However, Accumulative Recoil plays a big part to balance this difference out. With Accumulative Recoil, the Longarms user has a fair chance at inflicting equal damage against skilled opponents in the long run, even if they lose out on the first shot(s).
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: martinchaen on <11-10-13/1847:00>
Automatics, in my opinion, should be the more attractive option. If you're using a sniper rifle in running gun fights, you're doing it wrong...

In other words, Full Auto is a more viable combat strategy in-game, because it simply is more suited to the conditions.

Of course, if you're regularly engaging your enemies at more than 1000m, disregard the above...
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: ZeConster on <11-10-13/1855:17>
Automatics, in my opinion, should be the more attractive option. If you're using a sniper rifle in running gun fights, you're doing it wrong...
The fact that 4 of the 5 sniper rifles don't suffer any penalties in running firefights seems to imply otherwise.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: martinchaen on <11-10-13/1901:17>
I wasn't talking stats...
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <11-10-13/1908:02>
Automatics, in my opinion, should be the more attractive option. If you're using a sniper rifle in running gun fights, you're doing it wrong...
I'm not the one who brought up using a Sniper Rifle, rather than a Sport Rifle or a Shotgun, in an ongoing firefight. So blame Xenon for that one. But he brought them up with good reason: Sniper Rifles are the biggest-damage Longarm there are, are the easiest to reload and carry the most ammo of all longarms with the Enfield drum as exception. Arguing from the best Longarm's perspective helps more with the number debate than arguing from the ones that have a comparable price to the Alpha.

If even Sniper Rifles are inferior when you use this recoil version, and the argument is that we shouldn't even look at them in the first place, then clearly with no-accumulative-simple-recoil Longarms are completely inferior to Automatics. If, on the other hand, recoil accumulates until you spend a significant time not firing, then the Longarms skill can still be useful in something other than a sniping situation, with the tradeoff of less certain damage initially vs longer firing at fair chances. At that point, it's a tactical choice rather than a metagaming one.

And yes, Automatics are still the more attractive option even with accumulative recoil. You can fire multiple bursts and hit more reliably, even if the Longarm packs a bigger punch you end up doing more DPS because you hit much more often against any competent enemy. Once we start getting into high-dodge opponents, even the Longarms user has to use an Enfield's bursts to have a fair hitting chance and the Alpha then lasts a short burst longer before recoil starts screwing you over. So Automatics are still the more attractive choice even if recoil isn't practically SR4.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: ZeConster on <11-10-13/1909:36>
I wasn't talking stats...
And I was fully aware of that. I simply disagree. You're only "doing something wrong" if you use a Forbidden sniper rifle in a running firefight in a public area, but even in a situation like that, I see no real issue with using a hunting rifle, rather than a shotgun or assault rifle. In fact, give your character a tweed jacket and a monocle, and using their Remington 950 to take out an uncivilized hoodlum harassing him will only make him look badass.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: RHat on <11-10-13/2043:05>
Automatics, in my opinion, should be the more attractive option. If you're using a sniper rifle in running gun fights, you're doing it wrong...

So, the EBR, which represents a designated marksman's rifle very effectively, isn't meant for running firefights?
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: martinchaen on <11-11-13/0858:20>
RHat, sure, if your characters are in a warzone...

How often do your runners get to play with assault cannons, grenades, fully automatic machine guns, and missile launchers. Sniper rifles, sports rifles, and yes, the EBR, are the weapons of soldiers. If your characters regularly get to carry this kind of firepower, then by all means have at it; otherwise, to my mind these are specialized weapons only used in very specific circumstances.

An AR carbine or a shotgun, on the other hand, is more concealable, packs an equal punch, and is more suited for the normally short range (i.e. less than 300 meters) that shadowrunners are forced to operate at most of the time.

I'm not arguing stats or rules, I'm arguing story. Make of that what you will.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <11-11-13/0946:00>
By the way, let's take a look at the EBR. I did some math from the top of my head and think that if the hitting differerence is below 7%, they're about equal.

Let's assume we have a Crockett EBR, which automatically has 3+ RC if we include natural RC. Under no-accumulative-from-simple-attacks this is enough. Let's assume the Alpha wielder has 2 natural RC and has equipped it with a shockpad, furthermore both weapons are silenced and the EBR has a Smart Gun. So we lose 1 die with a Full Auto Simple Burst with the Ares Alpha. This puts us at 12/-7 & 18vs10 on one hand, and 11/-6 & 17vs7 on the other. So let's repeat the math.

EBR: 80.70% hitting chance, 3,309 average nethits on a hit, 14.333 base damage so 0.8070*17,642=14,237 DPS.
Alpha: 89.19% hitting chance, 3.487 average nethits on a hit, 13 base damage so 0.8919*16.487=14,705 DPS.

So the Ares Alpha outbeats the EBR by near-half a point of damage on the first burst. Note that this assumes a silencer on the Alpha so no full recoil-compensation, and that the EBR has a higher damage per hit, from which part will be lost due to excess soak. So in truth the difference may very well be more significant, it'd require more detailed math (or random experimenting) to get a better difference. Of course a Raiden can be equipped with sound suppressor and gas vent for full compensation in this case. We haven't tried a 15-dice opponent yet, where the Alpha would get even further ahead.

I haven't checked MP vs P yet, would have to do that another time. But I still think Longarms is shafted too much under no-recoil-accumulation-from-simple-attacks.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: ZeConster on <11-11-13/0954:45>
An AR carbine or a shotgun, on the other hand, is more concealable, packs an equal punch, and is more suited for the normally short range (i.e. less than 300 meters) that shadowrunners are forced to operate at most of the time.
Sport rifles have the same Concealability as assault rifles and shotguns. Meanwhile, shotguns only go up to 150 meters, and 151-350 is Long range for assault rifles, while 51-350 is Medium range for sport&sniper rifles. So the 151-300 meters zone disqualifies shotguns and gives a -3 with assault rifles instead of the -1 a sport rifle gives you.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: martinchaen on <11-11-13/0954:52>
And why is that a bad thing? Longarms and Automatics have different capabilities, and Automatics SHOULD excel at close to medium range.

There's a reason the majority of soldiers don't carry sniper rifles, and snipers are similarly called force multipliers for a reason.

Not all things have to be equal. You're not comparing pistols to machine pistols to submachine guns to machine guns; they all have different purposes, and so stats are not everything.

ZeConster Fair enough. The other two arguments still apply, and you'll notice that no one of the above argued for sports rifles, but instead focused on sniper rifles...

As for range, that was exactly my point. Military snipers typically engage the enemy at 300 meters or more; shadowrunners will not generally operate at this range, and so the "less than 300 meters" statement was made from a merely contextual point of view, and once again, I'm not arguing based on stats or rules, but rather what is sensible for a runner to carry.

To my mind, this is pretty clear; an AR (or smaller) sized weapon should be the heaviest weapon a runner carries, unless he is operating in Z security zones. And in most cases, even an AR will stand out, making this whole argument moot.

The topic has obviously drifted from the original posters question, which dealt with Machine Pistols and SMGs, and that's cool too. I just think comparing apples to oranges (or sniper rifles and assault rifles, in this case) makes very little sense.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: ZeConster on <11-11-13/0957:43>
ZeConster Fair enough. The other two arguments still apply, and you'll notice that no one of the above argued for sports rifles, but instead focused on sniper rifles...
But you did.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <11-11-13/0959:01>
I argued Sport Rifles before people brought up Shotguns and Sniper Rifles. I also made clear why I focused on that debate.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: martinchaen on <11-11-13/1002:55>
ZeConster It was an offhand mention including the other two kinds of longarms. It was not meant to single out sports rifles.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Agonar on <11-11-13/2110:52>
Looks like this issue..  Recoil, has been on other minds as well..

http://shadowrungm.blogspot.com/2013/11/tactics-recoil-and-single-shot-guns.html
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Ghoulfodder on <11-12-13/1229:05>
I may be a bit late back to this, but FA in a firefight is the domain of untrained oiks from what I thought, rather than skilled professionals using short controlled bursts.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Kincaid on <11-12-13/1250:05>
I may be a bit late back to this, but FA in a firefight is the domain of untrained oiks from what I thought, rather than skilled professionals using short controlled bursts.

The 250,000:1 bullet-to-kill ratio in Afghanistan suggests otherwise  :)

Suppressive fire alone is a reason to have FA capability in the group and a Simple Action Long Burst is pretty damn useful too.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: CanRay on <11-12-13/1328:02>
"When it doubt, empty the magazine."

Also, recon by fire.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: martinchaen on <11-12-13/1350:59>
Kincaid; keep in mind that that statistic includes rounds used for training purposes, and that Afghanistan is a warzone more closely resembling the Redmond Barrens than anything else if you ask me...

I suspect Ghoulfodder was referring to smaller teams (such as special forces operatives), and he would indeed be correct; full auto is a last resort for "skilled operatives", who tend to rely on single shots and/or short, controlled bursts when engaging the enemy.

I'd say that shadowrunners more closely resemble the latter rather than soldiers, unless of course your game is set in a warzone (or the Barrens/Warrens). Copious amounts of full-auto fire, even if silenced, should definitely attract a lot of attention in downtown Seattle. A good reference for this is the movie Heat, where the cops go total apeshit (as you would expect) when a small team of operatives start firing fully automatic weapons at them...

I do agree with CanRay, though I've heard it as "When in doubt, full auto!", or "When in doubt, C4!" (the latter courtesy of Jamie Hynaman, or however you spell his name, off of Mythbusters).

:D
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Kincaid on <11-12-13/1429:26>
Yeah, I wasn't being entirely serious about that analogy (although my Marine friends assure me that ratio is mostly the Army's fault).

Shadowrunners are generally best served by being subtle and silent.  While a starting-level character won't approach a SOCOM operator, it's not a terrible thing to emulate for the gun-happy archetypes.  With that in mind, FA is useful for those moments when you want to display overwhelming force (like in Heat).  Not all the time and generally for a small window of time, but very handy to have when you need it.  It shouldn't be anyone's first option, but it should be on every team's list of options.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: martinchaen on <11-12-13/1436:22>
Kincaid; Agreed, 100%. Full auto to me is for those OH SHIT moments where all attempts at subterfuge has failed and your only option is to either kill them all or keep their heads down while you make your escape.

Also, speaking as an OEF:A veteran who has personally fired more than 20k rounds during practice alone, I'm fairly confident that all branches are guilty of this trend; after all, even Marines need training :)
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Ghoulfodder on <11-12-13/1737:46>
I may be a bit late back to this, but FA in a firefight is the domain of untrained oiks from what I thought, rather than skilled professionals using short controlled bursts.

The 250,000:1 bullet-to-kill ratio in Afghanistan suggests otherwise  :)

Suppressive fire alone is a reason to have FA capability in the group and a Simple Action Long Burst is pretty damn useful too.
Suppressive fire is an entirely different proposition though, and not really whats being talked about with FA in shadowrun terms. Suppressing is most of the shooting from what I understand of real world firefights.

But then I'm a Brit and have only touched a real gun once in my life. Although a pal of mine has served.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: RHat on <11-12-13/1824:46>
I may be a bit late back to this, but FA in a firefight is the domain of untrained oiks from what I thought, rather than skilled professionals using short controlled bursts.

The 250,000:1 bullet-to-kill ratio in Afghanistan suggests otherwise  :)

Suppressive fire alone is a reason to have FA capability in the group and a Simple Action Long Burst is pretty damn useful too.
Suppressive fire is an entirely different proposition though, and not really whats being talked about with FA in shadowrun terms. Suppressing is most of the shooting from what I understand of real world firefights.

But then I'm a Brit and have only touched a real gun once in my life. Although a pal of mine has served.

Well, suppressing fire IS one of the advantages, perhaps the chief advantage, of fully automatic weapons in Shadowrun.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Crunch on <11-12-13/1837:04>
Hitting really jumpy dudes is also a plus.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Xenon on <11-13-13/1304:06>
On phone do can't really write an essay.

Michael picked an illegal assault rifle you can start with. I picked an illegal long arm you can start with. Didn't really put much thought or effort in that selection. Same result if you pick FA SMG vs SA heavy pistol or a FA MP vs SA light pistol.

15 Dice to avoid is a high Dodge target. I already said FA mode have edge here. Thanks for numbers.

SA weapon will be slightly better against targets that does not have very high Dodge pool and/or you have a good attack pool (hitting is not an issue and lower accuracy limit on FA weapon might be an issue, several FA weapons have base accuracy as low as 4).

SA is a lot better when target is unaware (often the case when using long arm several hundred meters away) or if target have very high Armor (like cyborgs with armor on cyberlimbs - FA weapon might deal stun instead of physical)

Also - In SR5 you don't have any penalties for using a rifle highly mobile CQB. Not even when doing full auto while running our even using a sniper rifle. Normally (in real life) it would be a lot better with a pistol, MP or a SMG. Would like to see double running penalty for rifle and heavier. plus running speed movement penalty for heavy weapons and penalty if you do not take aim before using sniper rifles.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Agonar on <11-13-13/2347:24>
Also - In SR5 you don't have any penalties for using a rifle highly mobile CQB. Not even when doing full auto while running our even using a sniper rifle. Normally (in real life) it would be a lot better with a pistol, MP or a SMG. Would like to see double running penalty for rifle and heavier. plus running speed movement penalty for heavy weapons and penalty if you do not take aim before using sniper rifles.

I don't want to come down just on the sniper rifle user, but when you get down to it, the only real downsides to a sniper rifle is pretty much social acceptability, and the price.  Have to be careful out on the streets, or in public, being seen with a large weapon, or being seen by the police.  But once you are on a run, there is nothing mechanical to stop someone from using a sniper rifle with the same ease of clearing hallways and rooms, as one does with a handgun or SMG, and they do much more damage.
13P and -4 AP for the Desert Strike vs 11P and -2AP for one of the better ARs, 8P and no AP for the better SMGs, 9P and -2AP for a roomsweeper...

So I, too,  have been trying to come up with sniper rifle mods.  There is one PC in my game that uses a Sniper rifle on Runs, and some of the other players complain about basically the way there's no difference between a sniper rifle and a pistol in combat, except the damage.  Why use an assault rifle, or a pistol, when you can use a sniper rifle in close range gun fights just as effectively.

I've been thinking of doubling the -3 penalty for shooting while in melee if you have a longarm
or cutting "short" range in half, and giving it a -3 penalty because using a scope at short ranges is ineffective, and not using the scope to fire from the hip is ineffective.
or requiring a "take aim" action before firing to negate the -3 penalty imposed above.

Maybe a penalty every time you bring your weapon to bear on a new target, unless you take an action to ready each time, or take aim each time, or something...  Comes down to trying to be fair to everyone, while still having something in place so that there's a reason to use more mobile weapons in close combat.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Novocrane on <11-14-13/0005:15>
Quote
the only real downsides to a sniper rifle is pretty much social acceptability, and the price
With the release of the SVD, this becomes social acceptability.  :P
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Xenon on <11-14-13/0404:22>
Some weapons are (in real life) not really made for hip fire.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Elektrycerze3 on <11-14-13/0417:16>
Some weapons are (in real life) not really made for hip fire.

Although some hips are made for huge Recoil Compensation 8)

That was a bad joke, wasn't it?)
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <11-14-13/0432:29>
Maybe a penalty every time you bring your weapon to bear on a new target, unless you take an action to ready each time, or take aim each time, or something...  Comes down to trying to be fair to everyone, while still having something in place so that there's a reason to use more mobile weapons in close combat.
You mean like the fact an AR is way better at hitting people and as such still does more DPS, despite inferior base damage, against the enemies against who the difference between the two matters? Only the fact that Recoil Compensation is limited means Longarms have use in combat, after the first few shots where they are inferior.

Anyway, I argued mostly with 12 dice. Itīs a shame that was ignored. Still, the argument was made and deemed correct: In combat, Automatics are better even if you do not go for a controversial recoil rule that makes them by far superior. Only in rare situations, namely extremely-high-armor targets or sniping situations where you only get a single shot (AR is perfectly capable of sniping at up to 2 blocks distance, after all).

Given the evidence, I'd deem it unwise to go with the no-accumulative-recoil-on-Simple-Bursts rule, but people are free to do as they desire. As long as they realize they're basically eliminating the Longarms skill from the game, that's fine. And if they don't, well, they're only fooling their own table, and that's just fine.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: RHat on <11-14-13/0442:41>
Maybe a penalty every time you bring your weapon to bear on a new target, unless you take an action to ready each time, or take aim each time, or something...  Comes down to trying to be fair to everyone, while still having something in place so that there's a reason to use more mobile weapons in close combat.
You mean like the fact an AR is way better at hitting people and as such still does more DPS, despite inferior base damage, against the enemies against who the difference between the two matters? Only the fact that Recoil Compensation is limited means Longarms have use in combat, after the first few shots where they are inferior.

Anyway, I argued mostly with 12 dice. Itīs a shame that was ignored. Still, the argument was made and deemed correct: In combat, Automatics are better even if you do not go for a controversial recoil rule that makes them by far superior. Only in rare situations, namely extremely-high-armor targets or sniping situations where you only get a single shot (AR is perfectly capable of sniping at up to 2 blocks distance, after all).

Given the evidence, I'd deem it unwise to go with the no-accumulative-recoil-on-Simple-Bursts rule, but people are free to do as they desire. As long as they realize they're basically eliminating the Longarms skill from the game, that's fine. And if they don't, well, they're only fooling their own table, and that's just fine.

Longarms remains superior for high-ability characters, due to the Accuracy, base damage, and base AP differences - the extra defense penalty is not sufficient to overcome this when the weapon is used by a character capable of using it to its full potential.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <11-14-13/0446:25>
the extra defense penalty is not sufficient to overcome this when the weapon is used by a character capable of using it to its full potential.
Just to be sure: You did read my calculations, right? Because those took Accuracy, base damage AND base AP in mind. They used 18-dice attackers vs 12-dice defenders. And even then the Ares Alpha outbeat all Longarms. The only thing not included was the soak test, since adding that would require an awful lot of writing code to math it all out.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: martinchaen on <11-14-13/1015:12>
And I still think you're fooling yourself if you think more realistic recoil rules eliminate the longarms skill, Michael.

A shotgun is still brutally effective up close, and a sniper rifle is still deadly at range, as both were designed to be. The assault rifle is the king of run and gun firefights, as it should be. There's a reason the majority of military police, security companies, and military operators world wide carry SMGs and ARs 99% of the time...
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <11-14-13/1046:37>
The assault rifle is the king of run and gun firefights, as it should be.
Assault Rifles are the king of run and gun firefights, yes. But sooner or later, they must come up for air, and it is solely that reason that Longarms can be useful in combat. Eliminate the need for air and you eliminate Longarms from Combat. And at that point, people will simply snipe from 150m range with an Assault Rifle. Doing more damage against defenseless enemies is useless when in actual combat you perform worse in every single IP, rather than performing worse in 3 IPs and far better (aka being able to shoot) in the 4th.

So yeah, you think I'm fooling myself, I think you're fooling yourself. And honestly, go ahead and keep doing that. It's not as if you pay attention to the numbers, otherwise you'd not have made that silly claim about shotguns being more effective, despite previous arguments and numbers contradicting that. So if you're not paying attention to reality, I'm not going to waste time showing it to you. Go ahead and keep claiming you're not killing off Longarms by imbalancing recoil, and don't care that nobody will ever take Longarms at your tables. It's your games and your players you're ruining, not mine. As long as you don't harm other players, I'm fine with you being a fool.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Xenon on <11-14-13/1216:16>
I would rather use an assault rifle than a sniper rifle at such a short distance as 150m. In real life.

I would rather use a sniper rifle than an assault rifle at more than 350m. In real life.

Progressive recoil when you fire bullets as fast as possible but not when you fire at a slower and more controlled rate of fire does not magically make assault rifles better than sniper rifles at long range.

Unlike real life, SR5 rifles (both assault and sniper) are very viable in CQB where shotguns, pistols, machine pistols and sub machine guns should excel. When on a shadowrun (and being caught inside the secret research lab will not really be any worse if getting caught with an illegal firearm) it make little or no sense to use a shotgun or a SMG when the other options include assault rifles and sniper rifles... progressive recoil or not.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <11-14-13/1242:22>
Progressive recoil when you fire bullets as fast as possible but not when you fire at a slower and more controlled rate of fire does not magically make assault rifles better than sniper rifles at long range.
And I never claimed that. So here I draw the line.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: martinchaen on <11-14-13/1419:53>
Come on, Michael, there's no need for that kind of talk. So what if people don't take the Longarms skill at my table. So what if people don't take Longarms at all?

You seem convinced that just because you care about stats and efficiency, everybody else does too. One of my characters has both the longarms and heavy weapon skills, and uses an AS-7, a Remington 950, and the LMG. I've never felt the need to get an AR because it's statistically better, because it doesn't fit my character.

If you want to prove statwise that one weapon is better than the other, fine, congratulations, you've done so. Do I care? Not even remotely, because character flair is far more important to me than minute efficiency.

The reason I'm arguing revised recoil rules is because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that a less powerful semi-automatic pistol cannot fire at the exact same pace as a vastly more powerful hand-cannon (the Ruger) and it's the less powerful of the two that suffers from recoil...
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Mirikon on <11-14-13/1506:44>
Unlike real life, SR5 rifles (both assault and sniper) are very viable in CQB where shotguns, pistols, machine pistols and sub machine guns should excel. When on a shadowrun (and being caught inside the secret research lab will not really be any worse if getting caught with an illegal firearm) it make little or no sense to use a shotgun or a SMG when the other options include assault rifles and sniper rifles... progressive recoil or not.
Actually, there are plenty of reasons to use a shotgun or SMG in close quarters. Sure, if all you look at are damage codes, they seem inferior, but when you look beyond that, there's many apparent reasons.

Shotguns - While shot rounds might not do as much damage as your sniper rifle, they can be very good for dealing with grouped enemies, or in subduing enemies, since they're more likely to do stun damage. A shotgun with gel rounds is also damn good at subduing enemies. An Enfield AS-7 with SnS rounds is nasty, as well. A shotgun also works off the same skill as sniper rifles, so it makes for a nice close-in weapon.

SMGs - CONCEALABILITY. Can't stress this enough. An SMG can be easily hidden under even a normal coat, making it much easier to get around town without drawing the attention of the Knights wherever you go. In situations where you care less about "Kill everything dead", and more about "Keep their heads down so I can get away", an SMG is always a worthy choice.

But really, the biggest argument for using these in close combat goes back to the same thing discussed in another thread. Police see you with a pistol, they'll bring out the shotgun. You have an SMG, they bring an assault rifle. And so on. Assault rifles and sniper rifles gets HTR teams on your 20 ASAP. And that's when you get to be on the receiving end of sniper fire, or people mixing flash-bangs and automatic weapons, and the like.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Xenon on <11-14-13/1616:28>
Actually, there are plenty of reasons to use a shotgun or SMG in close quarters. Sure, if all you look at are damage codes, they seem inferior...
In real life there are plenty of good reasons to use a smaller and more agile weapon in CQB. In real life you get "penalties" for trying to use a long sniper rifle with a powerful magnification scope in CQB or trying to run and fire an assault rifle at the same time. In SR5, not so much.

Shotguns - .... A shotgun with gel rounds is also damn good at subduing enemies. An Enfield AS-7 with SnS rounds is nasty, as well.
Then again, a sniper rifle with gel rounds or SnS rounds is even better
- even if you run n gun with it at very close range (just doesn't feel... "right").

In "my world" pistols, MPs, SMGs and shotguns [should] have some sort of advantage at very close range, when using hip-fire and/or during running combat (or reverse - sniper rifles, LMGs and assault rifles [should] have some sort of drawback at very close range, when using hip-fire and/or during running combat).

But really, the biggest argument for using these in close combat goes back to the same thing discussed in another thread. Police see you with a pistol, they'll bring out the shotgun. You have an SMG, they...
Agreed. Forbidden sniper rifles and forbidden assault rifles are not something you use in your regular outfit.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: RHat on <11-14-13/1646:49>
the extra defense penalty is not sufficient to overcome this when the weapon is used by a character capable of using it to its full potential.
Just to be sure: You did read my calculations, right? Because those took Accuracy, base damage AND base AP in mind. They used 18-dice attackers vs 12-dice defenders. And even then the Ares Alpha outbeat all Longarms. The only thing not included was the soak test, since adding that would require an awful lot of writing code to math it all out.

It's more a question of WHERE that point is than anything else.  I'll have to graph it out later.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: DWC on <11-14-13/2302:56>
Some weapons are (in real life) not really made for hip fire.

To be fair, with the notable exception of flamethrowers and the BAR, no firearms are made for hip fire.
Title: Re: SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)
Post by: Nico on <11-15-13/0133:09>
Soak requires more than AnyDice can easily handle, since it means we need to make sure only non-zero values end up getting boosted by base damage, then soaked. So this would require using a program to either calculate or approximate.
http://forums.shadowruntabletop.com/index.php?topic=13241.0