[savaze]

I was watching "Stan Lee's Superhumans" and it got me thinking that with the addition of tech, like Smartlinks, that the normal Weaver and Isosceles stance for pistol firing wouldn't even be the standard training methods anymore.  Or maybe it would in case the tech failed.  I wonder if there are specific techniques designed to give an edge, like the proverbial "gun fu" (without it being as absurd).

I learned a 5-point draw stroke (1-hand on gun, 2-lifting gun out of holster, 3-leveling gun towards target, 4-marriage of the hands, 5-arms extended and @ shoulder level).  Perhaps it's become standard to only go to step 3, that moves everything into the Quickdraw arena.  So is Quickdraw, and hip firing with everything else, the standard fighting style now or does tradition dictate older styles?!

Maybe I'm assuming too wide of an immersion rate with certain tech... Wouldn't you think there would be an advanced school of thought on this subject?

Food for thought...

[Critias]

I think stability -- both for accuracy of the initial shot, and for quicker follow up shots -- is still an issue.  Proper sight picture might not be an issue any more, and mental commands mean handling the trigger just right isn't as important, sure...but one of the primary benefits of a proper stance and two handed grip is to make the next shot go where you want, too.  Limp-wristing will still cause excessive recoil issues, stovepipes, and that sort of nonsense.

[The_Gun_Nut]

If you are trying to set your stance during a firefight, you are not seeking cover.

I recommend cover first, then worry about sight picture and follow up shots.

[Chaemera]

I'm with Gun Nut & Critias on this one. Get cover, but you'll still be using a two-handed, weapon-level with the shoulder pose whenever possible due to the need for accurate follow-shots. Recoil is your enemy, and Smartlink doesn't help there (from a fluff perspective, yes it effectively negates 2 points of uncompensated recoil).

[FastJack]

Heh... Let me talk to my brother-in-law (the cop--with SWAT training and is his force's handgun's trainer). See what he says.

[topcat]

I believe the rules cover this already.  The appropriate firearms skill accounts for ability to stabilize the firearm quickly for an accurate shot and adequate recovery.  Characters with smaller die pools will be less accurate and less consistent.  Plus, if you take more time (e.g. simple action) for better aim and stabilization you get a dice pool mod.  If you're running, you lose two dice, because you aren't able to get optimum stability.

Where accuracy matters above all else, the most stable stances will still be advantageous, so I don't believe stances would disappear.  The more skilled shooters will fall into a stable firing stance faster and more consistently than less-skilled shooters, which is one of the reasons they have more dice.  Newer, more stable stances may be discovered and implemented.  Training techniques are likely to be more personalized than generalized, too.

Smartlinks definitely help here, because they augment hand-eye coordination with targeting overlays, granting exceptional ability to those who could not normally develop it.  Only a few people have the natural ability to become a trick-shot artist and only a few of those actively develop that talent.  Smartlinks give anyone a piece of that talent instantly.  The base firearms die pool that a theoretically perfect unaugmented human can throw is somewhere around 13 (best of the best agility and skill).  Smartlinks allow you to take that to 11, which is a lot more accessible.  Add in some muscle toner and you're down to 9 or fewer, which is very accessible.  Tech or magic will allow people to reach heights only a rare few can without those augmentations.

Then it's about being accurate enough and the cost-benefit of firing vs. aiming.  If you've got a 14 die pool base, then you can afford to take more chances than someone with a 4 die pool base.

[joe15552]

OMG, Savase, I saw that episode with that freakin' old guy with a beer gut and a cowboy hat shoot two baloons with a six-shooter from the hip. With the naked eye (and ear) it looked and sounded like one shot. INCREDIBLE! When they did it in slow motion, it was clearly 2 shots, but damn, that was so fast...  I swear it only looked like one shot.

OMG! I found it on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thCl_mYIUBE&feature=related

The amazing part is at 11:09. Just rediculous!

[savaze]

I'm aware of the shooting mechanics involved in proper stances and how they change when you're in cover, etc.  I did my firearm training with the CHP, SWAT, and URO's in CA, but I think they invited me more so because of my cooking skills than my shooting expertise (I logged An extra 300 hours in advanced training with those groups and went through ~3000 rounds pistol/rifle/shotgun and fired another couple of thousand after hours).  I actually learned more about shooting with the police than I did with the Army (by bureaucratic mix up I did infantry training before they caught it and sent me to WOCS). 

I guess I'm wondering more how shooting technique has advanced in 60 something years over where it's at now (there's been great leaps and bounds in the last 60 years in shooting technique and it continues to change).  I don't know if it would directly effect game mechanics or not, but I imagine that some "style" has been developed that's considered elite...

EDIT: spelling...

[Kot]

Ares Gun-Fu would probably be your answer. It's in Arsenal, IIRC.

[savaze]

Curse you for making me read the martial arts section to find Firefight... not really, but I guess I should have expected it there.  The word "gun-fu makes" me cringe, maybe because I saw Equilibrium, but with tech and half a century later who knows.  As a side note special police units and the military train to use their firearms as melee weapons, so maybe gun-fu is more realistic than not.

[The_Gun_Nut]

To be honest, Firefight is more about using pistols in close combat and CQB than getting the perfect shot with Equilibrium style "gun fu."

[Mystic]

Savase, I think you are looking too much into tech.

No amount of tech can compensate for lack of skill or fundamentals. If one doesn't have the training, through which one gets the necessary muscle memory, all the imaging/sighting systems in the world won't do squat. When you get down to it, a smartlink is nothing more than a fancy sight. If you cant get your weapon lined up properly, or if your trigger squeeze keeps throwing your shots off, no amount of sighting will fix it.

The fundamentals of sight alignment and trigger squeeze havent changed much over the what, at least 100 plus years or so when the "modern" concepts of shooting came about. The weaver and isosceles may be a bit dated, but they do help teach and train shooters and more importantly gain that muscle memory necessary. Have to learn to craw before you can run a marathon.

But in regards to smartlink, I think that it has it's place in game, but if you were to apply it to "real life", in some situations it could be a benefit, or maybe even redundant.

For example, most police firefights happen within 20-30 feet of the combatants (sound familiar to any runners?). And in a "quick draw" situation, one is more likely to use the point shoot method. For those of you who don't know what I mean, point shooting in a nutshell is literally pointing your weapon at your target and shooting without lining up your sights. It has been my experience that when someone is drawing down on you, and you are responding, you dont HAVE time to line up sights or get in a stance for a nice neat shot. Not to mention you are moving and (hopefully) trying to get to some kind of cover. Movements tends to throw sight picutres anyway. You want to clear your weapon, get off the first shot, and hit before your opponent before they do the same to you. In the police academy and in subsiquent training, I was drilled to point shoot more often than "target" shoot. The Ohio Peace Officer Training Comission firearms qualification uses ten events for final qualification and only one event stressing target shooting; which is done from fifty feet and is meant to test accuracy through, you guessed it, sight allignment and trigger squeeze. When point shooting, one just wants to hit the target rather than get good groups. Body shots anywhere count folks. Point is, when one is point shooting, they aren't using sights, and like, that's all Smartlink is when you get right down to it. If one is shooting right, it should be done before you bother to consult the little icon in your Smartlink.

Now, one could argue that new shooters could be taught to use smartlink in lieu of point shooting, but not everyone will or could have access to smartlink. Not to mention that if it goes down, then what? Better to train on tried and true fundamentals rather than rely on tech that could fail in my opinion. 

[The_Gun_Nut]

The image of the smartlink, in my mind, would aid point shooting by flashing a crosshair onto the retina.  I keep thinking of the old movie "Robocop" and the crosshair view used by the titular character.  The way I see it, the image projected by the smartlink would aid in getting shots in the general area, the center of mass of the target.

I can also, however, see that depending on the smartlink too much could actually impede learning to shoot, as the novice would come to depend upon it too much.

[Mystic]

The image of the smartlink, in my mind, would aid point shooting by flashing a crosshair onto the retina.  I keep thinking of the old movie "Robocop" and the crosshair view used by the titular character.  The way I see it, the image projected by the smartlink would aid in getting shots in the general area, the center of mass of the target.

I can also, however, see that depending on the smartlink too much could actually impede learning to shoot, as the novice would come to depend upon it too much.

Exactly, we do in the field what we do in training. Better to train like you are at a disadvantage rather than with the advantage. That's why NO ONE in my department is allowed anything other than regular sights during bi-annual qualifications. Sure, even a laser sight today helps in shooting, but you wont always have it. Rain, smoke...dead battery (seen that last one, thankfully was only on a "fun" shoot). That's why I always press for skills over toys when push comes to shove.

Smartlink is best used when accuracy is vital. Sharpshooters, hostage situations, target behind cover, moving forward as a group, dynamic entry, etc all are perfect for smartlink and are likely going to be situations when one has the time to properly line things up; not when you are running, scrambling, or moving at anything other than a measured pace. Chances are when you are doing that, the targeting icon in smartlink is likely bouncing all over the place because its DAMN hard to heep your hand steady in that situation. In game gyro stabilization not withstanding.
 

[Critias]

No amount of tech can compensate for lack of skill or fundamentals. If one doesn't have the training, through which one gets the necessary muscle memory, all the imaging/sighting systems in the world won't do squat. When you get down to it, a smartlink is nothing more than a fancy sight. If you cant get your weapon lined up properly, or if your trigger squeeze keeps throwing your shots off, no amount of sighting will fix it.

While I agree with your fundamental point, I disagree with some of your specifics.

Plenty of tech can compensate for a lack of skill and fundamentals.  Muscle Toner, Muscle Replacement, Move By Wire, Skillwires, Reflex Recorders, Genetic Optimization, anyone?  And remember, "trigger squeeze" is, for many shooters, entirely a thing of the past.  Likewise, where point shooting is concerned, a Smartlink is a godsend. 

You've also got to remember the tech mentality of the 2070s, when making such arguments.  Sure, you could spend money on a rangemaster, lots of ammo, some targets, and paid training for every security schmuck -- or you could just have these fancy smartgoggles built into every uniform helmet, buy smartlink-equipped handguns in bulk through corporate channels, and call it good enough.  Why train to mediocrity every schmuck that comes through the door looking for a job, when you can just give 'em the equivalent of Pistols 1 and let their Smartlink do the hard part (when their main job is to sound the alarm and get your real shooters on-site, anyway)?  Your security dorks get mowed down like grass against a dedicated espionage team, no matter what you do, so why not put your money into the gear (that gets passed along to the next new-hire) instead of the people?

Of course, the most dangerous characters are those with both the skill and the tech, don't get me wrong!  But just as you're talking about the dangers of thinking about the tech too much, I'd warn you not to downplay the tech too much.  That +2 a Smartlink gives you is a pretty big deal in terms of raw effectiveness, when you compare it to the 1-6 ranking of a skill, after all.