Machine guns/ supressing fire/pinning

[Mahatatain]

Still, tying skills back to their controlling attribute was an improvement over 2.0, but it's still got some pretty big issues..

Wasn't the tie between Skill and Stat fixed in v2.0 as well I think that it was a core part of all GDW games.

It's also another thing that I've tweaked in my house rules - Skills aren't automatically tied to a particular stat, it can vary depending on what the skill check is for.

Returning to your core question though, I think that Twilight2000v3MM has the right idea - allow flexibility and let the player decide. That's what most GMs do with SAWs so why not expand it to belt fed machineguns as well. The result will be that most PCs won't take Autogun skill unless they want to fire something large.

[Legbreaker]

No, 2.0 paid little more than lip service towards the attribute - during character generation "purchase" of skill greater than the controlling atribute cost double. Once character generation was finished, the atribute played little role in skill usage except in individual cases, such as a mechanic needing to use a 6 foot long spanner (Difficult Strength) to undo the wheel nuts on one of those massive mining trucks as part of servicing the suspension (Easy Mechanic).

In all versions of the game, an attribute check can be combined with a skill check such as in the example above. 2.2 made it mandatory to involve the controlling attribute and an additional attribute check could also be involved. The idea first came in with the Referee Screen and Twilight Encounters box (2.1).

3MM's approach is the logical one for me too. It just doesn't seem right that a skill used for mounted and heavy weapons should apply to something like an RPK. By that logic, you should also apply Autogun to SMGs, right down to weapons such as the Stechin pistol - they are automatic weapons after all...

I can see somebody like an artilleryman having a decent autogun skill (AA guns), armour crewman (25mm bushmaster), even naval gunner (various deck guns), but can't see how those experiences and training can be directly translated to infantry weapons.
Likewise, an infantryman who's hauled around an MG-3 for the past ten years shouldn't automatically be able to operate a 40mm Bofors at the same level of skill.

[Tegyrius]

I can see somebody like an artilleryman having a decent autogun skill (AA guns), armour crewman (25mm bushmaster), even naval gunner (various deck guns), but can't see how those experiences and training can be directly translated to infantry weapons.
Likewise, an infantryman who's hauled around an MG-3 for the past ten years shouldn't automatically be able to operate a 40mm Bofors at the same level of skill.

I kinda like Auto Gun as a design simplicity thing. I don't want a Bradley crewman to have to invest heavily in three different skills (e.g. Heavy Gun, Tac Missile, and Machine Gun) to be proficient in all his ride's weapons.

- C.

[Mahatatain]

I can see somebody like an artilleryman having a decent autogun skill (AA guns), armour crewman (25mm bushmaster), even naval gunner (various deck guns), but can't see how those experiences and training can be directly translated to infantry weapons.
Likewise, an infantryman who's hauled around an MG-3 for the past ten years shouldn't automatically be able to operate a 40mm Bofors at the same level of skill.

Leg, have you ever played a system called Rolemaster or its Sci-Fi equivalent Spacemaster If you want to get into a detailed skill system where weapon categories like those you mentioned above each have their own skill then you need to look at something like RM, or rather SM with some adaptions for weapons relevant to the genre and with the cross skill familiarity rules from RM added (something similar to the cascade between Small Arms Rifle and Small Arms Pistol but on a much larger scale).

You'll still find holes in the system however and it's questionable whether more detail vs. simplicity (as Tegyrius highlighted) is actually worth it for enjoyment of the game. That's the key thing - it's a game and though the rules do their best to reflect reality they will never do a perfect job.

Lastly if you do ever play RM or SM make sure each player has a calculator of their own - it speeds up game play enormously unless everyone is a maths wiz! <G>

[Legbreaker]

I kinda like Auto Gun as a design simplicity thing. I don't want a Bradley crewman to have to invest heavily in three different skills (e.g. Heavy Gun, Tac Missile, and Machine Gun) to be proficient in all his ride's weapons.

Heavy Gun doesn't apply to the Bradley. All the gunner needs is Tac Missile and Autogun (the latter covering the bushmaster and coax).
Heavy Gun really only applies to weapons that aren't capable of bursts - tank guns, recoilless rifles, AT guns such as the Rapira 3, and possibly howitzers in the direct fire role. As a rule of thumb, single shot weapons that require a crew to operate and don't fire indirectly in their normal mode of use..

[B.T.]

It seems unlikely that Autogun, which is a skill that mainly applies (in my mind) to autocannons and other quick firing lighter weapons such as 14.5mm AA guns (basically anything short of 50mm) has a place with what are essentially belt fed heavy rifles.

Admittedly the game seems full of little issues like this, such as Grenade Launcher skill applying to firing of Mortars.

Thoughts Opinions

Yes, I'm with you.

I let the player chose:
If a character has both skills, AUTOGUN and SMALL ARMS (RIFLE), he may use the better skill, when firing a medium MG (M60, MG3, FN MAG, etc.)

I still let them choose, if they are going to use a MINIMI, although I'm not alltogether happy with this. In my mind, the light MGs, like SAW or the RPKs should be handled like the assault rifles: The difference in firing a AK or a RPK can't be a matter: It's basically the same weapon, just a little more weight and a longer (and thicker) barrel.
But looking at the MINIMI/SAW/M249 this is not correct: The firing of the SAW is the same procedure as firing a FN MAG. Hm ...

I use AUTOGUN for all kinds of automatic cannons like Rheinmetall 20mm, Bushmaster, or the like, and for the real heavy MGs like "Ma Deuce" and Soviet aequivalents.

During our last gaming sessions, the player of the captain of my group fell in love with the RPK. Being a math-guy IRL, he argumented, even an American soldier would use this rifle, because of the gaming stats. I think, it would be very unlikely, that the only person in a small military unit, using a Soviet weapon, would be the CO.
Therefore I made up the following, that could be applied in other situations as well:
If a character uses a weapon, that he had no intensive training with, he gets a -2 penalty to his skill level, until he has spent enough time with it (on the range or in actual fire fights). The GM should use his wits: A SF guy, Ranger or the like, would get no penalty, even if he was using a AK. On the other, hand a former aircraft mechanic would get a penalty, if he was using a G3, AK or any other wapon, he does not know.

This could be applied, if the PC firing a turret-mounted autocannon, had only fired weapons like M2 .50 cal, or MK19 from a Hummer. The penalty could be increased (if the unfamiliar weapon stems from another country) and, off course, decreased, if the firer gets to know his weapon as time goes by (Something like: after 4 weeks training, or after 2 to 3 fire fights, the penalty is lowered to -1).

Just an idea. Far from being really realistic, but it works.