Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Egan_BW]

"And that, kiddos, is why I use a SAW and not a tomahawk. Let's check on our companion, eh?"

Spectate our friend Achilles. It's a good thing this was a simulation!

[Nikitian]

((Since I've long promised this discussion to syvarris:

In regards to melee weapons vs. ranged: while ranged can inflict numerous wounds that are no less life-threatening in potential than a random melee attack, I do believe that melee weapons (especially dedicated ones) can very often produce far more damaging effects than even a number of bullets could. An axe or a sword can decapitate or cut off limbs. Classical spike bayonet, with all its historical disadvantages, can cause very dangerous (deep, difficult to staunch) bleeding (to the point of being criticized as inhumane weapon in some cases). And so on.

(Now, I am not arguing that melee weapons are better than ranged. Frankly, at this point I'd assume that there might also be cultural reasons why we both stick to our beliefs. But, from strictly rational point, I believe it is a)good to hit the enemy where they are weak (e.g stab to death greys, shoot raptors from distance); b)obscure or defend your own weaknesses (i.e. maybe keep a melee weapon and token melee training for cases when raptors attack (we had it nice, there was just one this time; what if there were a whole squad of them there?..) - or have a dedicated melee specialist on the team for those cases). So, sure, 'Transformation' is good, but should not be considered a gospel, and should possibly reversed at times, when it is appropriate and tactically sound.)

Finally, from the game mechanics point of view, as discussed lately, I think that melee weapons would be best represented as having a comparable (maybe bigger, but not greatly) amount of 'damage' to ranged weapons, but noticeably (significantly, maybe even!..) higher critical chance as 'structural body damage' (organ failure, etc. etc.) in this game is tied to critical hits, and that kind of damage is exactly what a big axe/sword/chainsaw - chopping off limbs, severing spine, cutting open arteries, etc. - would cause. Gory/splashy kinds of death aren't really necessary to kill a human (with some very rare exceptions), but some tougher beasts might require that.

Other stuff, next time.))

[Egan_BW]

((I think everyone should bring either tomahawk or bayonet. The sheer utility of having a blade cannot be overstated.))

[Twinwolf]

((Unless there's some kind of malus for having one, there's no reason not to have more options.))

[MidnightJaguar]

((Theres also some real world precedent for what Nikitian is saying, in the early days of body armor many police forces faced an issue: a policeman's brand new Kevlar vest could stop a bullet and save his life but was heavy and utterly useless against any stabbing weapon that a criminal would use.))

[syvarris]

((There's two maluses to carrying a melee weapon:  Firstly, it costs two negative levels.  I took -2 melee, and was attacked by a raptor with +5, and it didn't turn out badly for me.  Secondly, it costs money, which could be spent on grenades or ammo or guns and armor if you got an expensive melee weapon.

Nik raised the point that having a melee weapon allows you to fight greys, which have a melee penalty, at an advantage.  The problem is, getting close enough to melee a grey is the exception, not the rule, but you can virtually always shoot at it instead.  Even more importantly, a shotgun with a reflex sight only costs 200$ and gives a whopping +2 melee--far, far better than any melee weapon.  Even better, it uses your shooting skill rather than your melee skill, and your shooting skill should always be better for two reasons: it gets a free +1 level bonus, and is more frequently used too.  AND it's not reliant on your str stat, meaning you get another dump stat to improve valuable stuff like endurance.

The only advantage a melee weapon has is that you can use it when literally in melee and not CQB, like when a raptor tackles you.  This is mostly nullified by the fact a raptor has +5 melee, and will therefore easily kill virtually anyone who hasn't spent a very long time overspecializing specifically for melee.  Also, raptors are only a significant threat when you're alone, because otherwise allies can just shoot it off of you with their 200$ shotguns (which everyone should buy, BTW).

As for increased damage of melee weapons... I really disagree.  Yes, in reality they are capable of severing limbs, while guns aren't.  But have you been paying attention to ERRANT?  One guy shot an alien's arm off with an M4 from medium range using AP ammo.  An axe could do the same, yes, but it wouldn't be able to do it from medium range.  And it would be less likely to happen with an axe, because we get a free +1 to all rolls with guns.

As for improved AP capacity, yes, soft body armor is not very resistant to melee weapons.  However, it isn't terribly resistant to AP bullets, either.  Those police vests?  Can be penetrated with a mere 5.7 AP, which is a pistol caliber.  5.56, like an M4 fires?  Basically ignores police body armor.  As would shotgun flechettes, which Aigre said we can buy.  Plus, flechettes would be much better at reaching soft vitals than an axe...


ALL THAT BEING SAID, there is one advantage to melee skill, if not weapons.  You can nonlethally grapple an opponent.  Not for nonlethal combat--grappling's inferior to a cow prod, which is inferior to a taser--but for grappling a shielded opponent who's virtually immune to both bullets and melee weapons.  See the entry in the OP about the ayy's "light assault harness"?  You're basically screwed if you meet one of those at short range, unless you can grapple them and prevent them from shooting.  Which would also require Aigre being uncharacteristicly nice and not giving the users high melee skill, but I digress.

Also, such a grappler will be even more necessary when we meet the "medium assault harness", and later, the "heavy assault harness".  There's a pretty good chance those'll have power armor too, but I imagine ballistics will be little more than BB guns against those, so dogpiling them would likely be our only practical option.

Random, but related: Those shields are another reason why I'd refuse to fight a tank.  They can mount shields of that tier on infantry and qualify it as light armor--what would they mount on the heaviest ground vehicle they field?  Something which can resist nukes?))

[syvarris]

((DP for compact Aigre post))

1.Let's say after this mission I remove my M14's 3.5-10x scope, and mount both a reflex sight and 3x ACOG (So I'd be removing whatever bonus the sniper scope gives, and adding +1 to melee, close, and medium).  What would my M14's range bonuses look like?  Take into account that the M14 with the 3.5-10x scope has range bonuses of "Melee: -1 Short: 0 Medium: +1 Long: 0 Extreme: -1"

2.I am interested in buying a Barrett M107, which you priced at 9k previously.  What are the Barrett's range bonuses?

3.Due to the Barrett's excessive amounts of AP ability, would I be able to partially or fully ignore cover bonuses while using it?

4.After this mission, will we be able to keep our dead teammates equipment, like in ER?

5.Will we be able to sell old equipment?  If so, what's the resale price--100%?  80%?

Edit: I now have additional questions.

6.Would you be okay with me running short little wargames, essentially one round of combat between two NPCs, specifically to test how your system works in certain situations?

7.Would you be okay with being told what things are flaws in your game, and how to fix them?

8.If your answer to 7 was yes, should I restrict my own suggestions to balance suggestions only (Suggestions based on RL tend towards causing arguments)?

9.Do I ask too many questions?  Would you like me to restrict myself more?

[Nikitian]

((@syvarris Preface: Well, writing this escalated fast. I believe we both enjoy long-winded responses, right?..

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

First, I have a feeling that melee weapons work a little differently than ranged in regards to bonuses/penalties. That an axe does not have a listed bonus does not mean it is inferior in melee to a shotgun - I suppose that, had it really been the case that they use the same rolls, there were some kind of a bonus to differentiate the melee weapons. As they are, they probably don't take into account some in-built range penalties, and thus remain on par.

Second, I disagree that "it costs two negative levels". Where a person puts their negative levels is entirely up to them. I took -2 Med instead, and here I am, bleeding out just as certainly as if I had taken up +0 Med instead (with the same loadout, of course). In the end, it comes down to secondary proficiency of the choice (I am not covering dedicated melee experts here - they are a whole different world on their own), and, well, I believe that a case can be made for Melee in non-negatives just as well as for Science or Med or Engineering or Aux (they all have their own specializations, and niche usefulness, and one could argue that an actual ERRANT operative should dabble in all of that and be self-sufficient... but, well, in the end, they all are more or less viable).

Third, I wouldn't say that they cost that much money. As it is, that medium-tier axe costs 300$ - same as a single incendiary grenade, and just a fraction of a full ranged weapon's cost (be it a small arms gun, a rocket launcher, or a machine gun of some kind). In the end, that kind of money, while not completely insignificant, doesn't really matter when one is fitting out their character.

Fourth, about damage: This is probably to be expected with an RtD. Still, in these conditions, I'd expect melee weapons to have significantly improved potential as well. So... well, I'd wait for some more data on this, and again, I don't really stress "better damage" of melee weapons. I merely suppose that their criticicals could theoretically be far more expected. (Again, needs more data.)

Fifth, one thing that I forgot to mention earlier... We are yet to see it (we were promised in the beginning, but I'm not sure whether it'd make it to the final version of the game), but there is supposed to be a morale system in the game. Perhaps, hopefully, it might even apply to some aliens (greys?..) too. So here comes this one more effect of melee weapons: they are terrifying. There is something... psychological about the difference of killing something in melee vs. killing it from distance (which is why, in modern era, military executions have more often than not been conducted via firing squad rather than otherwise (even at times when ammo might have been scarce and important) - I heard that it doesn't really feels like you are killing that person, as opposed to if you had stabbed him to death with the bayonet. But I digressed). So, a melee charge, against an opponent aware and understanding what kind of damage they might cause up close (E.g.: Imagine a large pack of Raptors running down on ERRANT positions. Ain't that a bit terrifying?.. You shoot, you hit, you kill, but they are still running, ohgod theyarerunning... Etc.) can really test their morale. And against superior weapon training and superior firepower, forcing a morale victory like that (flushing the enemy out of their defensive positions, etc.) might really be worth it in some situations.
Of course, it all depends on a chunk of rules I just made up in an attempt to simulate that situation. But, in the case that might actually work... that is one more advantage melee weapons have.

Sixth, as mentioned earlier - melee weapons have great utility. Even if your skill is just situationally applicable (+0), it might just be worth it; e.g. carrying an axe have proved very useful in this mission as a tool for prying up things, even if melee uses are taken aside.

So, all in all, I am not arguing that melee weapons trump everything. Quite far from that. But, on the battlefield, I do believe that they have their place, just as Explosives, Medicine, Auxiliary systems have their own. It's niche - Conventional is still the king - but its niche and situational usefulness should not be overlooked.

P.S. Oh, right, I'm pretty sure that Str is not universally useful for melee (see: chainsaws), and is not a universally dump stat either (see: throwing grenades (sure, circumvented sometimes with GLs, but that isn't really economical, down to it), bearing a significant load (I understand that it isn't really calculated right now, and, personally, I like it this way, but I'd still expect that in some cases Str might suddenly be taken into account - when GM thinks that you have way too many guns on you, when you are dragging a wounded teammate out of the fray, etc. So yes, I'd recommend not dumping it into negatives for, ah, "combat operators" - and for many melee maneuvers (say, bayonet thrust) just average strength is enough.

tl;dr With all respect, I still think that melee weapons, even as they are now, are worth considering as a secondary proficiency.))

[Devastator]

((There's one reason for melee weapons.  Cover is no good against them.))

[syvarris]

((Of course!  Long-winded responses are awesome.  So much to tear apart! ))

Spoiler: Response (click to show/hide)

First, I think it should be noted we seem to be arguing with different goals.  I'm arguing as a munchkin (because that sums me up pretty well), and as such I'm arguing for an absolutely optimal strategy.  In contrast, you seem to be arguing as a... what's the word for someone who just wants to roleplay?  Roleplayer, I guess?  Yeah, that.  You have a preconceived idea of what you'd like to play, and want to find out a way to make that playstyle viable.

Plus, as you stated, we've probably got cultural preconceptions.  I tend to get irritated when people IRL get their modern combat knowledge from CoD and other video games, as a distressing number seem to do.  One of the common symptoms of that is thinking a knife is a practical weapon in urban combat, so I'm naturally prejudiced against the topic.

First, I have a feeling that melee weapons work a little differently than ranged in regards to bonuses/penalties. That an axe does not have a listed bonus does not mean it is inferior in melee to a shotgun - I suppose that, had it really been the case that they use the same rolls, there were some kind of a bonus to differentiate the melee weapons. As they are, they probably don't take into account some in-built range penalties, and thus remain on par.

Click on page three and scroll to the bottom.  Aigre shows the rolls for an axe hit, and the axe gets no bonus aside from a skill bonus, and an "aimed at body part" penalty.

Yes, it would be much more logical for melee weapons to have a bonus to melee, and for shotguns to have no bonus or even a penalty, but the way Aigre's running the game it doesn't seem to work that way.

Second, I disagree that "it costs two negative levels". Where a person puts their negative levels is entirely up to them. I took -2 Med instead, and here I am, bleeding out just as certainly as if I had taken up +0 Med instead (with the same loadout, of course). In the end, it comes down to secondary proficiency of the choice (I am not covering dedicated melee experts here - they are a whole different world on their own), and, well, I believe that a case can be made for Melee in non-negatives just as well as for Science or Med or Engineering or Aux (they all have their own specializations, and niche usefulness, and one could argue that an actual ERRANT operative should dabble in all of that and be self-sufficient... but, well, in the end, they all are more or less viable).

Well, to use your own example, would you really be any worse off if you'd taken +2 med rather than +2 melee?  Or, better, would you be better off if you'd taken +2 shooting, +1 med, -2 melee?  I think so, in both cases.

In the former, you'd be more likely to be capable of fixing yourself, rather than specifically state "don't do anything which would roll med".  That sectoid beta you killed with your tomahawk would have gone down just as well with a shotgun, so you wouldn't have lost anything.

In the latter, you would again not have lost anything, and you might not have blown yourself up with that grenade, so the med would be unnecessary.

Third, I wouldn't say that they cost that much money. As it is, that medium-tier axe costs 300$ - same as a single incendiary grenade, and just a fraction of a full ranged weapon's cost (be it a small arms gun, a rocket launcher, or a machine gun of some kind). In the end, that kind of money, while not completely insignificant, doesn't really matter when one is fitting out their character.

Put another way, that medium tier axe costs 300$ - same as two flashbangs, each of which could disable the entire barricade garrison.  Or three smoke grenades, which could blind the garrison and force them to leave cover or sit while we kill their allies.  Or six 40mm grenades, each of which could kill half the garrison.  Or an M26 shotgun, five mags for it, and 37 slugs for it (each of which could kill an ayy).

It's not much of a cost, but it is a cost.  And I don't think a tomahawk is the ideal way to spend that money--greater utilty can be found elsewhere.

Fourth, about damage: This is probably to be expected with an RtD. Still, in these conditions, I'd expect melee weapons to have significantly improved potential as well. So... well, I'd wait for some more data on this, and again, I don't really stress "better damage" of melee weapons. I merely suppose that their criticicals could theoretically be far more expected. (Again, needs more data.)

Well... okay.  I agree, we need more data.  Melee weapons certainly should impart more energy, and Aigre seems to be deciding damage based purely on joules while ignoring how those joules are imparted, so...  Yeah.  Melee weapons probably do more damage.

Though, aiming for a headshot grants -1 with both a shotgun and an axe, but the shotgun has a +2 melee and even more bonuses from shooting, so...

Fifth, one thing that I forgot to mention earlier... We are yet to see it (we were promised in the beginning, but I'm not sure whether it'd make it to the final version of the game), but there is supposed to be a morale system in the game. Perhaps, hopefully, it might even apply to some aliens (greys?..) too. So here comes this one more effect of melee weapons: they are terrifying. There is something... psychological about the difference of killing something in melee vs. killing it from distance (which is why, in modern era, military executions have more often than not been conducted via firing squad rather than otherwise (even at times when ammo might have been scarce and important) - I heard that it doesn't really feels like you are killing that person, as opposed to if you had stabbed him to death with the bayonet. But I digressed). So, a melee charge, against an opponent aware and understanding what kind of damage they might cause up close (E.g.: Imagine a large pack of Raptors running down on ERRANT positions. Ain't that a bit terrifying?.. You shoot, you hit, you kill, but they are still running, ohgod theyarerunning... Etc.) can really test their morale. And against superior weapon training and superior firepower, forcing a morale victory like that (flushing the enemy out of their defensive positions, etc.) might really be worth it in some situations.

Okay then.  I've seen nothing to indicate any system like that--suppression gives a straight reduction to shooting, with no mind roll--so I don't think it exists.  But if it did, that's a slight advantage of melee weapons.

Though, it does rely on you killing an enemy which is viewed by another enemy, and who can therefore shoot you immediately afterward, likely while you're flanked, if they pass their mind/bravery check.  Guns don't rely on any of those...

ALSO, I find the concept of a raptor charge scary, but it is no less scary than the concept of being faced with a numerically superior force of foes with high cover.  I suppose one's more immediate, though.

Sixth, as mentioned earlier - melee weapons have great utility. Even if your skill is just situationally applicable (+0), it might just be worth it; e.g. carrying an axe have proved very useful in this mission as a tool for prying up things, even if melee uses are taken aside.

I pried open my elevator with the entrenching tool we all get for free.

So, all in all, I am not arguing that melee weapons trump everything. Quite far from that. But, on the battlefield, I do believe that they have their place, just as Explosives, Medicine, Auxiliary systems have their own. It's niche - Conventional is still the king - but its niche and situational usefulness should not be overlooked.

I still disagree.  Explosives can be largely circumvented with shooting through 40mm, though a few specialists are necessary to use C4.  Medicine can't be circumvented with shooting at all, though admittedly I haven't tried to alleviate wounds with tactically placed bullet holes.  Aux is, as always, completely weird and different and alternatively OP or UP, so it just can't be outright replaced in all roles by shooting (though one could argue it is rendered unnecessary).

Melee is never necessary.  Every role it occupies can be replaced by shooting, and shooting will be more effective in that role.

Except for disabling shielded targets.  But that's about as niche as you get.  Is it worth it to invest a ton of points into something that will help you disable a specific type of very tough target only if you are capable of getting into melee range, while that target is alone, and is unskilled in melee?  Rather than improving shooting, which increases your effectiveness against every enemy you'll ever face, including aforementioned tough target, and doesn't have all the little conditionals?

P.S. Oh, right, I'm pretty sure that Str is not universally useful for melee (see: chainsaws), and is not a universally dump stat either (see: throwing grenades (sure, circumvented sometimes with GLs, but that isn't really economical, down to it), bearing a significant load (I understand that it isn't really calculated right now, and, personally, I like it this way, but I'd still expect that in some cases Str might suddenly be taken into account - when GM thinks that you have way too many guns on you, when you are dragging a wounded teammate out of the fray, etc. So yes, I'd recommend not dumping it into negatives for, ah, "combat operators" - and for many melee maneuvers (say, bayonet thrust) just average strength is enough.

I won't discount that strength has its uses, but it is still a very dumpable stat.  Adding another penalty to dumping it simply isn't a sound strategy for optimal play--you make your points less powerful.

If you've ever looked at munchkin D&D builds, this gets very apparent.  The most powerful D&D characters don't generally stack bonuses--they stack immunities, and abilities which lets them use their high bonuses for more things, like the things they'd normally roll their low bonuses for.  It's entirely possible to make a D&D char who never rolls any stat aside from Dex and Will, and gets to use those in place of most other stats.

((@Dev
That's not a certainty.  Firstly, Aigre makes decisions on how things work, and could very well allow cover bonuses to work against melee weapons.  After all, if a guy is hiding around the corner, isn't it slightly harder to hit him with an axe?

And even if melee weapons do ignore cover, we can't be sure you can't do the same with shotguns.  If you run right up to the person, slightly past their cover, far enough that you can hack at them with an axe without needing to worry about cover... why wouldn't you be able to do the same thing with a shotgun the size of an SMG?))

[Nikitian]

Spoiler: @syvarris (click to show/hide)

First, I think it should be noted we seem to be arguing with different goals.  I'm arguing as a munchkin (because that sums me up pretty well), and as such I'm arguing for an absolutely optimal strategy.  In contrast, you seem to be arguing as a... what's the word for someone who just wants to roleplay?  Roleplayer, I guess?  Yeah, that.  You have a preconceived idea of what you'd like to play, and want to find out a way to make that playstyle viable.

Guilty as charged. Actually, as I thought about it later, my main argument against dumping Str as a soldier would be that it'd go against 'realism'. So... yeah.
Still, I would avoid branding you as a munchkin, rather, as an efficiency analyst - and on that common ground, I guess, we could still make some discussion.

And yeah, I've seen that kind of DnD characters, and I'm not sure how fun it would be to play one (though I am by no means against a certain amount of optimisation); probably a matter of personal taste. Anyway, my main point is - beyond the specific rules there is usually a some kind of reality, and it is probably wise to include its logic in the efficiency analysis (especially in the times when the game mechanics are subject to update, change, etc. - when they look up to that 'reality' and adjust to fit it). As such, and as I suppose there is a certain use IRL/in projected ERRANT universe for melee weapons and training, I did my best to give the reasoning within the bounds of the current system (as I perceived them) to explain where and why non-insignificant usefulness remains to melee weapons employment on modern battlefield.

(I'm not sure if this distinction would make sense, but I'd think of it not as "roleplaying stuff" because "stuff is in fluff", but as "doing stuff" because "immersed analysis of fluff dictates stuff". Not "blindly roleplaying", but "roleplaying the analysis", if you wish. ...I've no idea why I wanted to stress this difference, but I guess somewhere in my mind it mattered. )

Plus, as you stated, we've probably got cultural preconceptions.  I tend to get irritated when people IRL get their modern combat knowledge from CoD and other video games, as a distressing number seem to do.  One of the common symptoms of that is thinking a knife is a practical weapon in urban combat, so I'm naturally prejudiced against the topic.

As for me, I got my (limited, I freely admit) modern combat knowledge from history books and assorted military manuals. I... do not know how much of a useful weapon is a knife in urban combat (on its own, in the arms of less-than-superbly-trained-specialist - probably not a whole lot; though its utility use is, of course, unquestionable), but I know that melee training (ranging from unarmed combat to bayonet drills) is part of the basic boot camp training for a very good reason. (At least around here; for example, it saddened me to learn that, supposedly, in US Armed Forces only marines still conduct bayonet combat training in boot camps.) ...As I said, might very well be a cultural/differing military doctrine thing.

[syvarris]

Spoiler: @Nikitian (click to show/hide)

Still, I would avoid branding you as a munchkin, rather, as an efficiency analyst - and on that common ground, I guess, we could still make some discussion.

Pssh, "efficiency analyst".  That's rich--like calling a politician a "interpretation facilitator".  There's no two ways about it, Nik: I'm a munchkin, through and through.

Anyway, my main point is - beyond the specific rules there is usually a some kind of reality, and it is probably wise to include its logic in the efficiency analysis (especially in the times when the game mechanics are subject to update, change, etc. - when they look up to that 'reality' and adjust to fit it). As such, and as I suppose there is a certain use IRL/in projected ERRANT universe for melee weapons and training, I did my best to give the reasoning within the bounds of the current system (as I perceived them) to explain where and why non-insignificant usefulness remains to melee weapons employment on modern battlefield.

Partially, I am accounting for reality in my opinion.  That's one reason why I think nobody should buy a specialty melee weapon, instead recommending a shotgun.  The US's military at least does not issue melee weapons for the purpose of melee.  Even that tomahawk we have in the armory is meant as a utility item, not as a weapon.

However, I will admit that my advocacy of deprecating melee skill is purely because of game mechanics.  I am sort of assuming that if Aigre changes the system to make melee more powerful, we'd be allowed to respec.

As for me, I got my (limited, I freely admit) modern combat knowledge from history books and assorted military manuals. I... do not know how much of a useful weapon is a knife in urban combat (on its own, in the arms of less-than-superbly-trained-specialist - probably not a whole lot; though its utility use is, of course, unquestionable), but I know that melee training (ranging from unarmed combat to bayonet drills) is part of the basic boot camp training for a very good reason. (At least around here; for example, it saddened me to learn that, supposedly, in US Armed Forces only marines still conduct bayonet combat training in boot camps.) ...As I said, might very well be a cultural/differing military doctrine thing.

Hey, better sources than mine.  The vast majority of my military knowledge comes from what I've been able to find on the internet--The military refuses to recruit me due to my health, and most vets who I've talked with have proven... remarkably unhelpful.

I do know the US's military trains basic grappling and an assortment of other basic martial arts.  To my understanding, it's simply meant as backup training, and basic martial arts are very simple to learn while being very, very effective.  Especially grappling.  It's logical to have gotten rid of bayonets, IMO--when your gun can fire on fully automatic, stabbing isn't terribly useful.  Yes, it's nice if you run out of ammo, but if you run out of ammo at a range where a bayonet is useful, you're probably screwed anyway.  Also, a bayonet makes the gun less effective in CQB (due to the increased length), so it's not even good for that.

[Nikitian]

Spoiler: @syvarris (click to show/hide)

Still, I would avoid branding you as a munchkin, rather, as an efficiency analyst - and on that common ground, I guess, we could still make some discussion.

Pssh, "efficiency analyst".  That's rich--like calling a politician a "interpretation facilitator".  There's no two ways about it, Nik: I'm a munchkin, through and through.

I am not trying to pretty things up. It's just, well... "Munchkin" is a person who games the system. They can do this 'blindly', upon other people's advice ("X is so OP, add in Y, and you have the most best character possible!.."), or 'having done their math' (or logic, or whatever means of reasoning) - i.e. create their own advice on the matter. I do believe that you fall in the latter category, and as such, that bears being mentioned. And since, well, I've already (hopefully rightly) reasoned that I do the same from the, uh, "roleplay" side, I called that 'common ground'.

Hey, better sources than mine.  The vast majority of my military knowledge comes from what I've been able to find on the internet--The military refuses to recruit me due to my health, and most vets who I've talked with have proven... remarkably unhelpful.

I do know the US's military trains basic grappling and an assortment of other basic martial arts.  To my understanding, it's simply meant as backup training, and basic martial arts are very simple to learn while being very, very effective.  Especially grappling.  It's logical to have gotten rid of bayonets, IMO--when your gun can fire on fully automatic, stabbing isn't terribly useful.  Yes, it's nice if you run out of ammo, but if you run out of ammo at a range where a bayonet is useful, you're probably screwed anyway.  Also, a bayonet makes the gun less effective in CQB (due to the increased length), so it's not even good for that.

Sorry to hear about your health. Really.

Well, yeah, that's about the main reason for such training, I think - extremely useful in a pinch, and not that hard to learn. Also, it made me chuckle to read "bayonet makes the gun less effective in close-quarters combat" (I know that's a misread, but still ). ...All in all, I agree that at really close range firefights extra length of the gun makes it unwieldy, but it's still nicer to have a bayonet when you need one that not have. Of course, if it comes down to that, a gun is still a big, heavy(ish), rigid piece of metal (and plastic), so it can still be used fairly reasonably as a club (=slightly better than just hitting the opponent with your fists), and such melee training also exists, but, frankly, having a nice sharpened piece of steel attached to its end makes it still more useful, should you ever have to engage in melee. "Stacking immunities", you said?..

Partially, I am accounting for reality in my opinion.  That's one reason why I think nobody should buy a specialty melee weapon, instead recommending a shotgun.  The US's military at least does not issue melee weapons for the purpose of melee.  Even that tomahawk we have in the armory is meant as a utility item, not as a weapon.

However, I will admit that my advocacy of deprecating melee skill is purely because of game mechanics.  I am sort of assuming that if Aigre changes the system to make melee more powerful, we'd be allowed to respec.

Well, then I guess we come to agreement here. I also would not recommend specialising in melee weaponry at this point in the game (yet), and any melee weapon I'd recommend buying would also be dual-purpose utility tool. (Too bad Aigre ruled out entrenching tools use as melee weapons  )

I don't know about the respec, since we're very much still in "groping for the complete rules system in the dark" stage (or have we left that?.. I might have misunderstood it.), so usefulness (and rules depth) of different areas of the game might fluctuate wildly between different points of a single mission, even. But I suppose that should the system really change, and then really be finalised, there might be a respec in the works. Hell, I never thought Intu would be rolled as often as it is.

1. Is there any basis in the rules for melee weapons being better in melee than, say, ranged weapons? Specifically, for example, it seems that shotguns have extra bonus at "melee range" which might or might not be included when fired at point blank, and thus theoretically would even be better (rolls wise) than a dedicated melee weapon at the job. Is that reading correct, or is there something in place to balance out the usefulness of actual melee weapons in melee?
((Let's finally ask the GM to shed some light on the matter?.. ))

2. How will the research and development go in this game? Specifically, how will the development of new equipment be handled?
_{((Please, no ERRANT Tinker. I beg you! Please... Have mercy upon everyone involved... ))}

3. It seems that, from time to time, you add up penalties to the action roll based on details of the action in question (e.g. extra "aimed attack" penalties), where the details might or might not have been 'for style' or 'for narrative' instead of specific purpose. How could such situation be avoided in the future?

((I.e., in some cases, it might just be boring to say "attack him in melee" instead of "kill his face", and "shoot them in the rear" might mean "I'm in their rear, so I'm attacking from behind, right?.." rather than "aim for the sweet spot behind them". Such interpretation is, of course, not universal, but just prominent enough to be a slight problem. Perhaps some kind of keyword could be used to indicate that the action does not imply piling up penalties upon penalties if possible to avoid, like "indiscriminately" or something? Or a tag could be used, if you'd prefer. - E.g. "[UNAIMED] Kill his face!"/ "Kill his face indiscriminately!"   Or something.

Just trying to figure out a way this kind of misunderstanding (which I imagine might exist) could be smoothed over. It's actually nice for once to have the detailed wording of your action to matter, but I suppose treating own actions in a vague way is a bad habit we could've picked in ER that deserves to be made at least a little bit of allowance. ))

[Aigre Excalibur]

A specific difference between melee and ranged, is that killing his face in melee takes no aiming penalties compared to shooting his face. And yes, melee negates cover. Melee *may* be inherent in maneuver when you maneuver through labyrinth-like killhouses.

The main situation when ranged would have an advantage in melee is when the shooter is expecting the charge, like being on over-watch.

If you are in the enemy's "rear" but the GM thinks the enemy is still covered, you could say, "move until I can get a clear shot". In which case you would move until you are in an ideal position... While taking the risks inherent in moving about.

In shooting, you can just say, shoot, center of mass.

I need to find a way to manage inventories and character sheets more efficiently. The general idea is that I want loot from characters and the environment to pile up, and maybe get the team into situations where they are cut off from the government teat.

Edit: also I do want to simulate aliens attacking by squads. I think a hitpoints system will greatly simplify things.

[syvarris]

Please answer the bullets.  Preferably, by specifically prefacing the response to each question with that question's number.  Most of the questions should have really simple replies, like "Yes" or "No", but if you find the large number of questions daunting, you can answer just three or something and leave the rest to be re-asked in the future.

1.Let's say after this mission I remove my M14's 3.5-10x scope, and mount both a reflex sight and 3x ACOG (So I'd be removing whatever bonus the sniper scope gives, and adding +1 to melee, close, and medium).  What would my M14's range bonuses look like?  Take into account that the M14 with the 3.5-10x scope has range bonuses of "Melee: -1 Short: 0 Medium: +1 Long: 0 Extreme: -1"

2.I am interested in buying a Barrett M107, which you priced at 9k previously.  What are the Barrett's range bonuses?

3.Due to the Barrett's excessive amounts of AP ability, would I be able to partially or fully ignore cover bonuses while using it?

4.After this mission, will we be able to keep our dead teammates equipment, like in ER?

5.Will we be able to sell old equipment?  If so, what's the resale price--100%?  80%?

Edit: I now have additional questions.

6.Would you be okay with me running short little wargames, essentially one round of combat between two NPCs, specifically to test how your system works in certain situations?

7.Would you be okay with us giving our opinions on what aspects of your game we believe to be flawed, and suggesting alternatives?

8.If your answer to 7 was yes, should I restrict my own suggestions to balance suggestions only (Suggestions based on RL tend towards causing arguments)?

9.Do I ask too many questions?  Would you like me to restrict myself more?