Gunplay lacks recoil!

+
An M60 is a GREAT "area fire" weapon fired from the hip, and you can even shoulder fire it (it's rate-of-fire is slow enough a good gunner can get single shots or two round bursts). But a precision weapon it isn't, unless tripod mounted with a T&E. The new M240 is something I've personally never handled but I suspect it's much the same. While never an official M60 gunner I've fired it, and the M2 .50 cal, enough to be more then familiar with both.

As many others have said, recoil is something you learn to manage with practice. But even that only goes so far. "Once upon a time" some friends and I were considering going to Alaska an hunting a Kodiak (a REALLY big bear) so I got a replica Sharps rolling breach block 45/70 to use. I took it to the range to sight it in and on my first shot the entire range went silent and three or four people ran over because the BOOM, compared to the M16's pop made people assume my weapon may have exploded. Funny as that was the recoil of that thing was like nothing I've ever fired before, or since. As a single shot weapon the recoil should be irrelevant to my shots, but I assure you it was more then a factor in the next four as I adjusted the sights. Not because the recoil itself threw off my aim but because my anticipation of the mule kick made it impossible not to tense up.
 
but I assure you it was more then a factor in the next four as I adjusted the sights. Not because the recoil itself threw off my aim but because my anticipation of the mule kick made it impossible not to tense up.

You see this in new shooters a lot too -- often their first shot or two, or maybe entire first mag is better than their next 10 or 100. Somewhere in that first mag they learned to twitch from the strong recoil and got worse than in their innocent first shot(s).

It can be demonstrative with new shooters to give them a revolver and only 2 or 3 chambers are loaded. Watch the twitch.

Coin trick also works too.
 
It can be demonstrative with new shooters to give them a revolver and only 2 or 3 chambers are loaded. Watch the twitch.
One of several things I like about my Security Six .357, great handgun trainer. Load up 38's and save money and your wrist, leave a chamber or two empty to demonstrate "anticipation twitch", since it's double action you can watch the hammer to see if they're jerking the trigger, or you can use it as a single action with a nice light trigger pull (which is how I normally fire it). It's also stainless steel, makes cleaning a breeze.
 
Last edited:
You see this in new shooters a lot too -- often their first shot or two, or maybe entire first mag is better than their next 10 or 100. Somewhere in that first mag they learned to twitch from the strong recoil and got worse than in their innocent first shot(s).

It can be demonstrative with new shooters to give them a revolver and only 2 or 3 chambers are loaded. Watch the twitch.

Coin trick also works too.

What's the "coin trick"?

I've only fired guns few times, but I got to try a whole bunch when with a friend of mine that had...quite a collection. (In real life, I hate guns. Sort of fun to hit targets, but I hate the smell of gunsmoke and the noise gets annoying to me very quickly.) What I can affirm is that my hand and sometimes arm up to the elbow start to get very fatigued in terms of fine-motor control after 10 minutes or so. That makes it hard to balance relaxing the right muscles while simply "holding" with others. (Can't find the right word to describe it.) I also blink a lot when I fire. Involuntary. Gotta sort of get used to it each time.

I'd say it's all a matter of embedding muscle memory over time. Same with bladework. A light grip at the right angle with your wrist locked is very awkward feeling at first.

________________


On the whole, I wouldn't get too accurate with the way recoil works in the game. Some level of exaggeration would be warranted. I simply think it's important to feel the weight. Halo 1 did this really, really well. Every gun felt unique, and every gun felt...good. Very satisfying to fire and hit something no matter what you were using.

None of this affects the way weapons will actually work in the role-playing sense. The mechanics can be whatever they need to be. These are aesthetic concerns.

Right now, things feel a little light to me. Similar to Roach in TW3. I once made a comparison that riding at a full gallop felt more like guiding a cardboard rocket than trying to hang on to 1,200 lbs of pure muscle.
 
Recoil should be more visible than distracting.
I mean, we should enjoy gunfire, and not constantly fighting with the mouse to keep well-aiming.
Not to mention, IRL, recoil isn't that much of a trouble. And V has cyber-muscles, reflex... basicly these upgrades could totaly minimalise recoil impacts. But we'll see. ^^
 
Not to mention, IRL, recoil isn't that much of a trouble.
Oh?
I "love" the game tropes of full-auto while bunny hoping and other such nonsense.

Anyone that's ever fired a full-auto weapon of any but the smallest caliber will tell you that without a solid mount (i.e. tripod or similar) you're not going to hit be broad side of a barn except by accident due to recoil.
 
I do question if recoil would be as much of an issue in that time than it is now, given the specific weapon and augmentations you have.


It would likely be more of a game play factor than actual world issue I reckon, depending on your "specs" and gun.
 
I do question if recoil would be as much of an issue in that time than it is now, given the specific weapon and augmentations you have.


It would likely be more of a game play factor than actual world issue I reckon, depending on your "specs" and gun.
Physics don't change.

That said, certain (and ONLY certain) augments can/will help, perhaps tremendously. But unless you have cyber arms AND probably neurological augments as well (after all recoil effects your entire center of balance not just your arms/shoulder) it's not going to be significant.

Weapons themselves may well have higher, i.e. worse, recoil as they're made of lightweight composite materials and may use more efficient propellants to achieve higher velocity. Without some sort of magical anti-grav you're not going to dampen the recoil of the weapon itself.
 
Then what makes Kriss Vector guns so desirable?

Well, style.

There are ways to reduce/disperse recoil in real life, both "felt", how you perceive the hit and actual recoil before it affects the user.

Muzzle breaks. Big thing on the end of the muzzle, disperses energy to the sides.

Weapon mass. Heavier weapon jumps less.

Flexible buttpad. Bit that goes against your shoulder. Some of them are pretty fancy, too.

Added together, these things can make a tremendous difference.

If you've ever fired a .50 calibre rifle and then, say an old .303 British from WW1 ( as my kids have!) they will testify the recoil for the .303 is MUCH more uncomfortable and much more likely to throw your follow-up way off. The .50 cal by comparison is surprisingly okay. Not nothing, but not too bad.

The same is true for firing a modern snazzy 5.56 AR platform vs the old rigid M-16 from the 60s and 70s. WAY different. The modern rifle felt recoil is much less.

What recoil dampening does is redistribute that Newtownian effect into places that aren't you. And that lets you be more accurate.

This tech and improved versions of it (modern muzzle breaks are much much better than their forebears as are the buttplates) will make recoil less of a problem.

Another is a stable/fixed platform. Bipod, tripod, sandbags, etc. This is why heavy calibre automatic weapons even have a chance of being accurate - they are stuck to something larger. Recoil still a thing, but less.
 
Then what makes Kriss Vector guns so desirable?
Personal opinion?
No real idea, not an SMG fan myself. Give me a full-sized rifle or a handgun. Yes, I'm one of those that used the M-14 and M-16 and preferred the M-14.

Are there situations where the M-16 is "better" then the M-14? Duh ... of course. In the jungles of Vietnam the M-16 was a much better choice. But over all I think the M-14 was a better weapon. Ever consider there may be a reason they brought the M-14 back for Iraq and Afghanistan?
 
Last edited:
Personal opinion?
No real idea, not an SMG fan myself. Give me a full-sized rifle or a handgun. Yes, I'm one of those that used the M-14 and M-16 and preferred the M-14.
In a city, I'd rather prefer an SMG with manageable recoil.
Ever consider there may be a reason they brought the M-14 back for Iraq and Afghanistan?
Because sales managers couldn't possibly "optimize" the old grandpa's M-14s production cost like the "optimized" the new M-16 and gave it such bad reputation?
 
I don't give a shit about "realism", I know how recoil works. I really don't. All that matters to the player is how it works hands on and how much the stats alter it gradually.
 
I don't give a shit about "realism", I know how recoil works. I really don't. All that matters to the player is how it works hands on and how much the stats alter it gradually.

All that matters to you, sure. But many people care a fair bit about realism, some of us because 2020 was based on realistic tech and physics.

The "feel" of that game, no matter that game, is important and in a game like Cyberpunk where you will be shooting things quite a bit, that feel of shooting something like a real gun, really matters.

And that feel is informed by how realistically, within a certain range of fun, guns are to fire. This is neither Doom nor Balduer's Gate. Guns should feel like they have punch when you fire them.
 
Top Bottom