Topic: Learning how to use weapons...how long?

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Having been pondering over this for a while now, and it's to do with the time and ease of learning various weapons in comparision to other weapons types.

The RM system of purchasing skills differenciates between the ease of learning by profession but not necessarily the time required... and this to a degree bugs me, or at least with regard to weapons. Eg. The difficulty of learning to use a club and longbow should be

Remembering back to when I started running RM you were required to pre-specify what ranks you were developing for the next level... or was I imagining this? This I thought made sense, since, to a degree the time required to advance a level allowed for a certain amount of inclusion of training "in your spare time". It fell down a bit at higher levels when it took longer to advance levels.

However, the problem I now have is when trying to mesh the historic fact that firearms are faster to learn to an effective degree than longbows into a points buy system for developing units for a massed combat system.

ATM I'm treating the cost of the weapon as part of the component cost of the unit... meaning that early firearms units are extremely expensive in comparision to others. For no real advantage, at least gamewise, over bows that have greater ranges, rate of fire, affordability, ease of manfacture.

I have already choosen to treat the firearms skill an everyman skill if purchsed.. which means that firearms effectively develop at twice the rate but are still balanced by the far greater cost of the weapons themselves.

Thoughts please on the training times of relative weapons and how possibly I could cope with this ambiguity. 

[yammahoper]

Use the training table in RMSS.  That table has X amount of hours equals 1 rank.  You can easily alter it by 3 dev equals one day of training, or even 2 dev or 1 dev.  Lowering the dev will greatly increase the time needed to train one rank, as on the table a days training increases in hours required as the ranks increase.

So if a fighter wishes to buy a rank in a weapon at a 1/5 cost, one day traing provides 3 dev (how long that "day" is in hours is listed on the table).  Another days training would provide three more dev and the ability to purchase both ranks.

But if the skill cost 4/12 to train, then two days training will only allow purchase of the first rank.  Six days training is required to advance both ranks in one level.

The table is easily tweaked and should meet your needs.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

OK... I think I found the table you are referring to.. p293. Thanks.

However, I've heard the quote "if you want to teach a man to use a longbow, start with his grandfather", and my own experience with bows has taught me that a "good" archer not only has to train the basics of the weapon but also has to train his body to use it. That's the difference with bows compared to Crossbows/Firearms which would be more intellectually/mechancially challenging than physically demanding. Bows are cheap but hard to master whereas crossbows/firearms are the reverse.

How I am handling units, is that the Profession of the troops is one component and that the troop type (Infantry, Cavalry..etc) is another. This is not unlike War Law. The Profession (if any) is only used to form the basic building block..the average trooper within a unit. The Unit Type determines the cost of military skills that the individual gains due to thier training within the unit. Ranks in certain skills that the individual personally has when add directly to the ranks of an equivilent skill that is provided by thier association with the unit. This is used to provide the overall skill bonus.

E.g. a dwarf may have several ranks in Battle Axe, if the units Primary Weapon is the same then whilst the dwarf is with the unit, the skill ranks are combined to calculate the total skill bonus.

The table has got me thinking though, in that I could create mandatory "Basic Training Packages" that need to be purchased before the Unit can acquire inital ranks in certain weapons. That could include a training requirement and cost in DP to acquire, the DP cost could then be modified by the Tech level of the Era the game is based in and/or the race/culture that is purchasing it. This allows bias for racial stereo-typing and historical relevance.

Thus the DP cost of purchasing a "Longbowman" TP for a Unit would be greater than that of a "Musketeer" TP.

 

[markc]

 IMHO you also have to include the cost of upkeep and further training. The bowman frequently used their skills to hunt but less so musket-man as their weapons were so expensive at the time. It also depends on the age you are trying to model as upkeep IMHO is very dependent upon the age.


MDC


 Also does the civ have what it takes to make or support such a unit in the first place.

[Marc R]

But in game terms, it ends up coming down to "how fast can I rank in it?"

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Mark: I was going to figure the upkeep based on a fractional value of the unit, since the cost of thier units equipment and training is both figured into the "base cost" price of a unit. The higher the "Unit" level the higher the upkeep cost, assuming a higher level (and dependance upon) of continual training to maintain the standard.

Marc: Yes, exactly. The idea is to provide an inital hurdle in DP cost, to reflect the relative difficulties of raising (training) a unit of longbowman as opposed to Musketmen. Once this DP hurdle is overcome then the "ranks" cost for both weapons will be the same.

The material cost of the technological equipment reduces with the tech level set for the race or era. In addition, the advance in tech level opens up the opportunity for the purchase of the equipment initally.

My plan is to cover all historical eras up to and including just before the Great War... at about which time the nature of warfare shifted away from traditional battlefield.     

[rdanhenry]

The thing is, though, that they aren't equivalent in historical terms. England had a yeomanry that self-trained as a (legally mandated) cultural matter, providing a ready force when needed. The time investment was made long before battle and was not in a block that prevented other useful work. OTOH, when you need to quickly put together a force that can handle a weapon adequately, longbows aren't such a good option. Longbow units can be cheaper than crossbow/gunpowder units, but only if the culture supports it. Crossbow are less likely to be in common use thanks to cost, but it can happen. America has had much of its military historically come prepared as far knowing how to shoot because guns became common enough to have culture support of the skill.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Indeed English Yeoman within the same parish were required by law to practice together at least once a week until required. That's what made them so effective as a group. The Lord of the area could then call upon them as a group.

Yes, and I've considered the implications of the social ownership of firearms, though this really only came into it's own during the American War of Independance. Thus, specific, eras of history and cultures will be covered by meshing a unit TP with Tech Level/era and Culture/Race.

[markc]

   I thought all Wars were  Great Wars. By that I mean something you wanted to get over quickly and not experience again unless you had to or were forced to.


 Yes the cost of learning is one thing and IMHO I will guess that firearms are easier to learn than bow's of various types. But for the most part the cost of the weapon, ammo and upkeep is a big factor in learning the weapon or being able to learn the weapon. IMHO that can be tough to model.


 Just something I thought of but IYO do things that take longer to learn stay with you longer and things that take a shorter time to learn stay with you for a shorter time period?
MDC   

[Marc R]

A crossbow is fairly easy to learn compared to a bow, but can take time to master.

Being a master bowman has a lot more in common with being a master swordsman, in that your body IS the weapon, the tool is a lever and striking edge/point allowing you to accomplish something you couldn't do with your body alone. So a lot of the training is getting your body into better shape and condition, because your physical capabilities are the limits of the weapon's abilities.

With a crossbow, or gun, for the first shot at least, you're providing a steady firing point, aim, target selection, and choice of the moment to fire. . .but unless you're too feeble to aim steadily or have a twitch, your physical capabilities have a limited part in the result.

Learning how to shoot once is a task you must master for these weapons, but generally you end up spending more time learning to re-load quickly and cleanly, how to maintain the weapon, and how to carry it around without damaging it, then you do on the firing line. (Especially with smooth bore firearms where loads of aiming skill was far less important than getting your gun and powder to the field ready for use, and your skill at re-loading under non ideal conditions.)

[Grinnen Baeritt]

But for the most part the cost of the weapon, ammo and upkeep is a big factor in learning the weapon or being able to learn the weapon. IMHO that can be tough to model.

It's tough but I'm giving it a go. I'm using the relative cost of the equipment that the unit has as a modifier to how well it is maintained. I.e. There is an equipment maintenance skill.. and that is modified by the cost = relative difficulty of it's equipment

Just something I thought of but IYO do things that take longer to learn stay with you longer and things that take a shorter time to learn stay with you for a shorter time period?
MDC

I would say my answer would depend on exactly what it was that was being learnt. I can still ride a bicycle and swim though I haven't done either in over 5 years... neither took that long to learn. Admittedly, I doubt that initially I'd be as good as I was 20 years ago. But that's a age thing. A lot of it is confiedence. I know I still can.

As for academic stuff... and technical stuff. Once learnt, easily forgotten if not practiced... but easier to learn the second time round.

I guess it's the menatility of the person.. or the skill of the teacher in applying the methods that cover the most learning triggers.
 

[markc]

 Yes the maintenance issue's for the basic firearm IMHO would be, ease of cleaning, ease of making ammo, ease of finding metal for ammo (I know in a pinch they used rocks but generally you do not want to do so, especially in modern firearms with some type of propellant), ease of finding gun powder (or suitable replacement in a fantasy game or Sy Fi game), ease of making basic equipment for general use, ease of training person to clean weapon and in weapon basic upkeep, ease of getting materials to where they need to be.


MDC   

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Yep. Quite agree. Which is why I believe there is a need for a seperate skill for the maintenance of a units equipment away from the skill with the weapon itself. It may have no relevance in a battle other than perhaps in determining a pre-battle readiness.

Learning these maintenance tasks over and above that for normal equipment, which requires less complex care is another reason why I believe that mandatory Training Packages are the way to go with specific units.. over and above the uses they will have in rationalising specifc units. 

[Marc R]

GURPS, "Armory" skill. . .for minor repair and to maintain tools/weapons by tech level. You need weapon or gun smithing for major repairs, but armory is fine for cleaning, sharpening, etc.

[RandalThor]

Similar to what has been mentioned, I like to go with: Cost x Time. So, if it costs you 1/5, it will be faster to develop than a skill costing 4/10. (At least, rank vs. rank.) I also like to institute a used/practiced skill time reduction concept, where a skill that was used a lot during the adventure is faster to develop, whereas one that was not used at all would take longer. This encourages them to try the skills they want to get better at, particularly those they aren't already good at. (It can cause some funny in-game antics.) 

[Grinnen Baeritt]

GURPS, "Armory" skill. . .for minor repair and to maintain tools/weapons by tech level. You need weapon or gun smithing for major repairs, but armory is fine for cleaning, sharpening, etc.

Thanks for the reference... I have most of the Gurps books..(there are quite a lot out there!).

I wasn't intending to go into great detail over specifics and am using to use three generic unit based skills to cover maintenance... Armour Maintenance (Organic & Inorganic) and Weapon Maintenance (Organic & Inorganic) and finally General Maintenance (covering all other equipment..clothes, uniforms, additional carried equipment etc). The variance with Tech level would then determine the difficulty. Failure indicates a penalty of some sort in an aspect of the units performance.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I also like to institute a used/practiced skill time reduction concept, where a skill that was used a lot during the adventure is faster to develop, whereas one that was not used at all would take longer. This encourages them to try the skills they want to get better at, particularly those they aren't already good at. (It can cause some funny in-game antics.)

If you feel, like I do, that at higher levels the skills perhaps should be developed "as you go along", then you could try a system I used once which was to divide the required XP to advance a level by the number of DP, this gives the number of XP that needs to be earnt to gain a single point of DP. If the player wishes and has the xP to do so, then if a skill is attempted then I would let them spend DP immediately and deduct the amount when they finally advance the level. Any skills that they haven't tried can then be purchased as normal. This I found worked just as well.

[Marc R]

It's a good skill to use as cross indexed to a weapon skill.

So if you have a bunch of sword skills, you'd know how to sharpen and maintain swords, but might not know how to maintain a crossbow (which you have no skill in).

[RandalThor]

If you feel, like I do, that at higher levels the skills perhaps should be developed "as you go along", then you could try a system I used once which was to divide the required XP to advance a level by the number of DP, this gives the number of XP that needs to be earnt to gain a single point of DP. If the player wishes and has the xP to do so, then if a skill is attempted then I would let them spend DP immediately and deduct the amount when they finally advance the level. Any skills that they haven't tried can then be purchased as normal. This I found worked just as well.

I prefer the idea to award DPs directly, instead of using XP. (With this, I can also get rid of levels - which I kind of prefer to do, but they can be handled like in Earthdawn, where the amount & levels of skills determine the overall level (circle in ED) of the character. If I use levels, I think that is a better way to go.)

You can even award them like the XP are (sort of), by type. So you can have combat/weapon DP, magic DP, subterfuge DP, social DP, etc... If you spend them on skills within the category/type of the DP, then they are spent normally, otherwise there could be a penalty - though the skill costs sort of do that already, don't they? But, I would definitely grant a bonus if the character goes and finds an instructor, pays for that instructor and takes the proper time to train. I am also OK with granting DP to spend through just training, it just takes a bit longer that way. (Just to encourage adventuring, not for any realistic purposes, 'cause we all know that people can gain mad skills through nothing but education & training.)

[Grinnen Baeritt]

It's a good skill to use as cross indexed to a weapon skill.

So if you have a bunch of sword skills, you'd know how to sharpen and maintain swords, but might not know how to maintain a crossbow (which you have no skill in).

I'm sort of assumming that the "weapon maintenance skill" is keyed to the weapons that a unit has.. in this case;). I.e. any training they have with the Maintenance skill is learnt with the specific weapons that they have been outfitted with.

But for general useage in RM I'd say the the greater ranks that a character has with a weapon (or armour for that matter) would reduce any penalty that might be applied to a maintenance skill check when one is required.