Jump to content

Galahad de Corbenic

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Galahad de Corbenic

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 08/20/1969


  • RPG Biography
    My first exposure to RPGs was through Basic D&D circa 1979. By the mid 1980s I’d switched to GURPS, and by the mid-1990s I was playing computer RPGs instead of tabletop games. I found BRP a few years ago and have been happy ever since.
  • Current games
    RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, OpenQuest, Pendragon
  • Location
  • Blurb
  1. A historically accurate, and available firearm for your period that would be useful for room clearing is Winchester’s “Special Short Carbine” a.k.a. “Baby Carbine” or “Trapper’s Model.” Generally, these are Model 92 and 94 Winchesters that came from the factory with 12-15 inch barrels. Here is a model 92 with a 12 inch barrel in .44-40 (pistol cartridge). And here is a model 94 with a 15 inch barrel in .30-30 (rifle cartridge).
  2. I think you are on the right track here – the issue is speed. In theory, you could give a 1 DEX rank/SR bonus for using a pistol, no bonus for a SMG/Carbine, and a 1 DEX rank/SR penalty for a rifle. In reality though, I should note that it takes me about the same amount of time to get an M4 Carbine on target as an M9 pistol – although the pistol comes up quicker than the carbine, it takes longer (at least for me) to get the pistol on target. So, perhaps a better model would be to just assess a 1 DEX rank/SR penalty when using anything bigger than a SMG/ carbine. I don’t think this accurately models reality – I learned “short-range marksmanship” on an M16, and I was taught to aim every shot. As Canis notes, soldiers can and do clear rooms with M249s, and I have seen them do it with the long-barrel and full stock – again, aiming every shot, or burst, in this case. Another issue not mentioned is the possibility of an opponent either grabbing your barrel or moving in close to grapple. In these instances, shorter barrels have a definite advantage, with pistols being the most useful, since they are the only firearm that still be put on target when grappling.
  3. I agree wholeheartedly. Yes - I should mention that two excellent sources (in my opinion) for CoC firearms data are Hans-Christian Vortisch’s Investigator Weapons and John Crowe’s “Modern Weapons” chapter in Delta Green. In theory, you are correct: the most accurate rifles in the world are bolt actions. However, in this case I think the differences between bolt action and semiautomatic service rifles are too minute to matter in game terms. Consider: While semiautos cannot be made as tight as a bolt action, in practice bolt action service rifles are also relatively loose, in order to be reliable enough for military service. Also, while the gas system does bleed some gas out of the barrel, this is a very small amount, since the recoiling parts on an M1 do not even begin to move until the bullet is about 25 feet out of the barrel (source here). I think you are on to something here – The source of the effective range figure in the Wikipedia article is the old Army manual for the M1, and I think 440 yards was the longest range on the qualification table from that era.
  4. My apologies if I came across as over-the-top. As you may have guessed, I do enjoy discussing this sort of thing, but I realize it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the range of the Garand, since in my view “Effective Range” is a subjective measurement, more a function of the skill of the shooter than anything else. As you say, it is just a game, and the most important thing is to have fun!
  5. A few more minor issues: The CoC Rulebook gives the “Garand M1, M2 Rifle,” and the “.30-06 Bolt-Action Rifle” both a range of 110 yards, but then curiously gives the “.30-06 Semi-Automatic Rifle” a range of 130 yards. Isn’t the M1 Garand a .30-06 Semi-Automatic Rifle? Conversely, Investigator Weapons gives the Springfield ’03 a 130 yard range, and the Mauser K98 a 120 yard range, but I’m not sure I agree with those figures either. All three of these weapons fire similar rounds, and have similar barrel lengths (24 inches). The WWI-era Springfield and the K98 Mauser have similar sights, a v-notch rear sight mounted on the barrel, while the WWII-era Springfield (M1903A3) and the Garand have aperture sights mounted on the receiver, which are generally regarded as more accurate. If anything, the Garand and the M1903A3 Springfield should have a slightly better range because of their better sights, but for game purposes, I would go with the same number for all three. 130 yards seems consistent with other rifles in Investigator Weapons, so I would recommend that. Investigator Weapons gives the WWI-era Lee-Enfield Mk III a range of 130 yards, while the CoC Rulebook gives the “.303 Lee-Enfield” a range of only 110 yards. Since the .303 cartridge is in the same class as the .30-06 and 7.92x57mm (in that it launches a 150 grain bullet at roughly 2800 feet-per-second), and the Lee-Enfield has a barrel-length and sights similar to the equivalent American and German service rifles, the same range (I recommend 130 yards) seems reasonable. One could argue that the .303 bullet has a lower ballistic coefficient (i.e., is not as aerodynamic) as the either the.30-06 or the 7.92x57mm, but I don’t think the difference is significant enough to warrant a shorter range in game terms. I should note that Investigator Weapons gives the .303 cartridge only 2d6+3 damage instead of 2d6+4. However, it seems to me that similar performance should yield similar damage, so I’d stick with 2d6+4. This should be the same as the K98 Mauser, which in turn should be the same as the .30-06 service rifles. While the CoC Rulebook gives the M1918 BAR a 90 yard range, Investigator Weapons gives it a 130 yard range. To my mind, the latter seems more reasonable: it fires the same cartridge, has the same barrel length, and has slightly better sights than the WWI-era Springfield, so range should also be similar. The FG-42 is a bit more difficult: while it fires the same cartridge as the K98, it has a shorter barrel (about 20 inches versus 24 for the K98) but better sights (an aperture rear sight versus the v-notch rear sight on the K98). That might warrant a slight range disadvantage compared to the K98, but penalizing the range back to 90 yards seems excessive. I’d go with the K98 range with either a slight penalty or no penalty. While the CoC Rulebook also gives the MG-42 a 200 yard range, I’m not sure what the logic is behind this: it fires the same 7.92x57mm cartridge as the K98, has a slightly shorter barrel (21 inches versus 24 for the K98) and similar, v-notch sights. Therefore, I recommend applying the same range as the K98. If firing from a bipod or tripod, I suggest applying the rule from Investigator Weapons that calls for doubling the weapon’s range in those circumstances. For the M1919A4 (and M1917), the cartridge, barrel length and sights of both the M1917 and the M1919A4 are the same or similar to the M1903 Springfield, so I’d recommend using the same range. The firing from bipod/tripod rule from Investigator Weapons applies here as well. Investigator Weapons gives a 140 yard range for the Lewis, and this increase over the Lee-Enfield Service rifle may be justified since it has a slightly longer barrel (2.5 inches longer). The Bren should get a similar range.
  6. I see two minor issues: Both the CoC Rulebook and Investigator Weapons give .30-06 rifles 2D6+4 damage. Whatever numbers we give them, the .30-06 and 7.92x57mm Mauser should do similar damage, as they have similar performance: they both launch 150 grain bullets at about 2800 feet-per-second. The difference between this round and both the.30-06 and 7.92x57mm Mauser is significant: it launches a 150 grain bullet at about 2000 feet-per-second. This is similar to the 7.62x39mm AK-47 round, for which the CoC Rulebook gives 2d6+1 damage.
  7. Same here - I can't figure out how to join this group.
  8. I discovered something while leafing through my copy of Cult Compendium: It contains nearly every word from the “Rune Magic” chapter of the second edition RuneQuest rulebook, including the descriptions of how Rune Cults work, the basic 25 Rune magic spells, and the piece on elementals. I’m pretty sure those rules could be plugged into just about any d100 rule-set. Add one or more of the other Gloranthan Classics, and I think one could easily play an old-school Gloranthan game using a d100 rule-set, without paying a premium for out-of-print stuff. Just a thought for Glorantha newbies like myself.
  9. It appears the Kickstarter campaign is now live. The Guide to Glorantha by Rick Meints — Kickstarter
  10. I’ve been lurking here for awhile and figured it was time to finally come out of the cold. My first exposure to RPGs was through Basic D&D sometime around 1979 or 1980. By the mid 1980s I (along with my circle of friends) had switched to GURPS, and by the mid-1990s I was playing computer RPGs instead of tabletop games: Games like Baldur’s Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and Fallout. I probably would have never looked back, had it not been for someone who replicated The Keep on the Borderlands for Neverwinter Nights. I went back and looked at that old module, and I got the itch to do some table-top gaming again. I’m a newcomer to BRP. While some of my friends did own copies of Runequest and Stormbringer back in the early 1980s, for some reason, we never actually played those games. By the time my circle of friends was ready for a class-less, skill-based game, GURPS was coming out and filled that need. But when I looked at it again after a hiatus of more than a decade, GURPS didn’t seem like such a great game anymore. I went looking for a new game, stumbled across GORE, and found BRP and its derivatives, particularly Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, and OpenQuest – these are my favorites, now-a-days. Thanks to all who post here – I’ve found this site to be quite informative!
  • Create New...