Trav 2300 combat vs. 2300 AD combat

[kaladorn]

I have the older game. I'd sort of assumed that the newer variant didn't do too much to combat (specifically with small arms and body armour). I've heard suggestions that lethality/results are significantly different.

Anyone with both versions care to put together (please!) a brief precis of the differences as they pertain to small arms combat?

If their are large and significant differences, I may have to start looking on E-bay for a copy of 2300 AD. I remember doing a number of modifications because armours tended to make some weapons absolutely useless....

 

[ecalupig]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
I have the older game. I'd sort of assumed that the newer variant didn't do too much to combat (specifically with small arms and body armour). I've heard suggestions that lethality/results are significantly different.

Anyone with both versions care to put together (please!) a brief precis of the differences as they pertain to small arms combat?

If their are large and significant differences, I may have to start looking on E-bay for a copy of 2300 AD. I remember doing a number of modifications because armours tended to make some weapons absolutely useless....

That should be interesting to see. As far as I've seen in 2300 AD, the only weapons that didn't prove to be that much of a threat against armor seemed to be some of the pistols, an air rife, and maybe the shotguns (I don't recall exactly.) Any of the military slug throwers (and quite a number of the bigger bore civvie ones) are potentially deadly (especially with the optional lethality rules and even more so with explosive ammunition)even with layered armor. You do not want to get tagged by a high energy weapon of any sort as they will almost certainly ruin your day most armor types notwithstanding.

 

[BMonnery]

Originally posted by EVC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by kaladorn:
I have the older game. I'd sort of assumed that the newer variant didn't do too much to combat (specifically with small arms and body armour). I've heard suggestions that lethality/results are significantly different.

Anyone with both versions care to put together (please!) a brief precis of the differences as they pertain to small arms combat?

If their are large and significant differences, I may have to start looking on E-bay for a copy of 2300 AD. I remember doing a number of modifications because armours tended to make some weapons absolutely useless....

That should be interesting to see. As far as I've seen in 2300 AD, the only weapons that didn't prove to be that much of a threat against armor seemed to be some of the pistols, an air rife, and maybe the shotguns (I don't recall exactly.) Any of the military slug throwers (and quite a number of the bigger bore civvie ones) are potentially deadly (especially with the optional lethality rules and even more so with explosive ammunition)even with layered armor. You do not want to get tagged by a high energy weapon of any sort as they will almost certainly ruin your day most armor types notwithstanding. </font>[/QUOTE]The 2300ad revision rules are online: http://anch_stevec.crosswinds.net/armor.htm

Essentially, a rifle at close range will pierce heavy body armour, but pistols and rifles at 500m + won't.

Helmet: 1 (FAM-90 at close range has 40% chance of a kill)
High-Threat Combat Helmet: 2 (FAM-90 or Sk-19 won't penetrate)
Steel Helmet: 0.2 (100% kill with FAM-90)
Chainmail Vest: 0.1
Rigid Breastplate: 1
Nonrigid Vest: 0.6
Inertial Armor Vest: 0.8 (40% chance of kill with FAM-90 at close range)
Full-body Nonrigid Armor: 0.3
Full-body Inertial Armor: 0.4
Full-body Combat Armor: 1
BH-21 Combat Walker: 8
Kz-7 Combat Walker: 10

Combat walkers are immune to small arms fire, but vulnerable to fairly light AT weapons.

Bryn

 

[kaladorn]

Doubling the penetration at close range and the non-penetrating damage would make a bit of a difference. But layered armour seemed to make a lot of weapons have a very small chance of doing anythign meaningful (esp without the doubling or blunt trauma).

 

[ecalupig]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
Doubling the penetration at close range and the non-penetrating damage would make a bit of a difference. But layered armour seemed to make a lot of weapons have a very small chance of doing anythign meaningful (esp without the doubling or blunt trauma).

True, but then you'd end up drastically reducing your movement and initiative. I'd imagine that someone who's extremely heavily armored would draw a heckuva lot more attention and presumably more fire (and heavier firepower). Case in point would be the Los Angeles firefight in 1997.

 

[GJD]

2300ad added the option for a second roll on the location table to idicate wound severity, so that not every hit to the head would be a killing hit and not every hit to the leg would be a light wound. The location hit provided a DM to a second roll on the location table to find a wound severity, so a hit to the head would confer a -4 (IIRC) mod, meaning the second roll would be more likely to get a lower location, and therfore a more serious wound type.

It also added an optional 2d6 task resolution. Target numbers increased by 1, but everything else remained the same.

G