Semi-Skills

[ChalkLine]

Some skills aren't really skills at all.

These skills are just something you have to learn the concept of and then just do once you know how.

I think drone operation might be one of these 'semi-skills'.

Perhaps these things could be just done through statistic checks once the qualification is noted on the PC sheet?

[Raellus]

I respectfully disagree. I think any task that can be improved through practice can be considered a skill.

That includes drone operation.

How would that example (drone operation) be any different, fundamentally, than operating small arms, scuba diving, or riding a motorcycle? You learn the concept, do it, and improve through practice.

By your definition, couldn't one simply read about operating a firearm "and then just do once you know how?" I'd never fired a shotgun or a rifle before, but I read about how it was done, and then just did it. Your definition of "semi-skill" kind of breaks T2K char-gen, since pretty much any of the established Skills fall under it.

If it's a matter of adding new skills- like drone operation- to the T2K v1 or 2/2.2 lists, either include it in a skill that already exists (e.g. drone operation could fall under computers and/or piloting) or create a new one and place it under the appropriate Attribute/s (e.g. drone operation could fall undre Agility [dexterity], Education, or Intelligence) .

[swaghauler]

Some skills aren't really skills at all.

These skills are just something you have to learn the concept of and then just do once you know how.

I think drone operation might be one of these 'semi-skills'.

Perhaps these things could be just done through statistic checks once the qualification is noted on the PC sheet?

I would consider them subskills. TW2K13 handles this by having Qualifications which are subskills under another skill. For example, Drone Pilots may only need familiarization on the controls BUT put a non-pilot in front of a drone control station and watch their confusion as they simply try to interpret all the symbols on the screens meanings. Without that basic pilot training to teach the drone operator what the controls DO, and what all those symbols on the screen MEAN, they would be lost on how to operate the drone.

I love the idea of Qualifications because they are a "Skill Within A Skill" in essence. Some examples include things like...
1) EOD as a qualification of Demolitions.
2) Rebreather as a qualification of Scuba.
3) Hacking as a qualification of Computer Operation.
4) Heavy as a qualification of either Pilot or Wheeled Vehicle Driver.
5) Surgery as a qualification of Medical

These all have their own Skill Levels BUT cannot be larger than the parent skill.

[swaghauler]

I added some basic skills that I think everyone would have like Perception, Persuasion, Observation, and Stealth to my game. These basic skills start at 1/2 the Characteristics they are based on.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I stole "Awareness" from I think Cyberpunk 2020 and had it for all the other senses. Observation covers sight and I left it at that because most of what we perceive is through sight, it's a major sense so it should have its own "skill" - for everything else, sense of smell, hearing, balance, temperature, etc. etc. I had Awareness.
I think Perception is a good addition as well because in most games, it covers those areas that while your senses might indicate something is "out there", it's the mind's ability to make sense of it that informs you of the potential for threat.

However, it might make better sense to swap them around - Perception would be the various senses ability to detect something and Awareness would be the mind's ability to figure out what the senses are telling you?

[Targan]

I stole "Awareness" from I think Cyberpunk 2020 and had it for all the other senses.

Awareness is a primary automatic skill in Harnmaster/Gunmaster too. Its Skill Base is determined from the stats Eyesight, Hearing and Smell/Taste.

[CDAT]

I would consider them subskills. TW2K13 handles this by having Qualifications which are subskills under another skill. For example, Drone Pilots may only need familiarization on the controls BUT put a non-pilot in front of a drone control station and watch their confusion as they simply try to interpret all the symbols on the screens meanings. Without that basic pilot training to teach the drone operator what the controls DO, and what all those symbols on the screen MEAN, they would be lost on how to operate the drone.

I love the idea of Qualifications because they are a "Skill Within A Skill" in essence. Some examples include things like...
1) EOD as a qualification of Demolitions.
2) Rebreather as a qualification of Scuba.
3) Hacking as a qualification of Computer Operation.
4) Heavy as a qualification of either Pilot or Wheeled Vehicle Driver.
5) Surgery as a qualification of Medical

These all have their own Skill Levels BUT cannot be larger than the parent skill.

I just have to say as I see this alot, but EOD should not be a sub-skill/Qualification what not of Demolitions. US Military (I guess more or less the same for other nations but do not know) getting demolitions qualified is about two weeks, EOD is about a year. There is a lot more to EOD than just knowing how to deal with demolitions.

[swaghauler]

I just have to say as I see this alot, but EOD should not be a sub-skill/Qualification what not of Demolitions. US Military (I guess more or less the same for other nations but do not know) getting demolitions qualified is about two weeks, EOD is about a year. There is a lot more to EOD than just knowing how to deal with demolitions.

Which is why EOD makes a good Qualification. You cannot even buy a Qualification WITHOUT first buying the "parent skill." The Qualification CANNOT be higher than the parent skill either. A Qualification is, in essence, a specialization or concentration of a set of skills which cannot even be learned UNTIL the student has mastered the fundamentals of the parent skill to the Qualification.

This prevents someone from learning EOD without first learning DEMO. Keep in mind that someone with DEMO skill CANNOT effectively perform EOD without possessing the Qualification.

[CDAT]

Which is why EOD makes a good Qualification. You cannot even buy a Qualification WITHOUT first buying the "parent skill." The Qualification CANNOT be higher than the parent skill either. A Qualification is, in essence, a specialization or concentration of a set of skills which cannot even be learned UNTIL the student has mastered the fundamentals of the parent skill to the Qualification.

This prevents someone from learning EOD without first learning DEMO. Keep in mind that someone with DEMO skill CANNOT effectively perform EOD without possessing the Qualification.

Except that there is a lot more to it than just Demo, we also are trained on electronics, WMD's, Robots, ECM and more.

[Legbreaker]

Except that there is a lot more to it than just Demo, we also are trained on electronics, WMD's, Robots, ECM and more.

As an Assault Pioneer I was also trained and qualified in construction (bridges, bunkers, etc), boats & pontoons, mine warfare, booby traps and, if I'd done the course just a month or two earlier, flame warfare (the course before was the last one that covered flamethrowers, etc :().
Explosives (including precision charges used in construction and clearing mines and booby traps) was only about a quarter of the whole course.

In 2.2 game terms I probably picked up a couple of points in Small Watercraft, Combat Engineer, Scrounging (you're ALWAYS on the lookout for building materials), Construction and Excavation.

[CDAT]

As an Assault Pioneer I was also trained and qualified in construction (bridges, bunkers, etc), boats & pontoons, mine warfare, booby traps and, if I'd done the course just a month or two earlier, flame warfare (the course before was the last one that covered flamethrowers, etc :().
Explosives (including precision charges used in construction and clearing mines and booby traps) was only about a quarter of the whole course.

In 2.2 game terms I probably picked up a couple of points in Small Watercraft, Combat Engineer, Scrounging (you're ALWAYS on the lookout for building materials), Construction and Excavation.

If I had a real complaint with the game, it would be how they simplified down so many of the Military Occupations/skills. I understand on some level why they did, but some of the things just scream to me that they had no idea what they were talking about.

Some examples of things that they simplified down that I understand. Driving tracked, just because I can drive a tank does not mean that I can drive a Bull Dozer, but you either have to make it one skill or you end up with hundreds and that does not work. Same with the weapons, At Basic (OSUT to be 100% accurate) I was trained on the M240 (Mag MG), when I went to PLDC later I was put on the M60 for a time, this was the first time in my life I had ever seen one, and it was beat up had lots of issues. When I had to ask for a block of instruction on how to use it as I was not familiar with it, even though it was a US weapon and some units still had them. It was close to the M240 so I could fumble my way though if I had to, but some things were different enough that I would be hard pressed to do so under the stress of combat.

But then some of the things that they did that are head scratchers, US Army Support Arm Enlisted (V2.2). "This category is a combination of a number of noncombat arms (ordnance, quartermaster, etc.)" First term skills: Ground Vehicle (Wheeled)-2, Mechanic-2, What were they thinking this sounds like a mechanic at best not a support troop. When I was in for a lot of the support jobs you did not need to know how to drive, as that was not part of the job, then when you go on to the subsequent term skills they are Computer, Electronics, Ground Vehicle (Wheeled) [what about all the tracked cargo vehicles in use?], Gunsmith, Hovercraft [really], Instruction, language, machinist, mechanic, metallurgy, scrounging, small watercraft [one more really], Warhead. What about I don't know any of the ordnance [at least in the US this is where EOD falls] skills besides Warhead like Demo? What about the other unit skills? Things that they list as MOS [mostly infantry], but everyone in the unit is trained for, examples I know a cook who was part of Ranger Bat, guess what he was Ranger, and Airborne qualified but as a support troop in game can not happen.

[ChalkLine]

I think people may not have understood my original point, and I probably didn't put it well.

In many games, thankfully not Twilight 2000, different weapons need different skills - even though this is obviously counter-intuitive.

Here's a classic:
In various editions of Traveller you need different skills for different pistols. This is, of course, silly.
What is needed is something you could say is a 'qualification' before using a strange version of a pistol. The classic would be loading a cap-and-ball revolver. In a combat situation you simply may not be able to do it unless you'd been shown how. This is the 'semi skill' I'm referring to.

So what a semi skill would do is increase your ability to use a standard skill. So if you have SCUBA and you got 'multi gas diving' you could use those systems but still use your SCUBA skill.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I understand your point but to say that needing different skills for, (for example) different pistols is silly, is something I disagree with.
This is the place where you need to decide just how far you want to go with game versus reality. For example, the difference between revolvers and semi-auto pistols is like the difference between automatic and manual transmissions for vehicles.

That's the most obvious difference but there's also significant differences between hammer fired semi-autos to striker-fired semi-autos that require a different level of training and that's even before we get into the differences between traditional frame mounted safeties such as the Browning Hi-Power compared to the trigger safeties of say Glock pistols. They all require another level of training for effective handling.

But do you want to add that extra layer of complexity to a game? Generally I would say no but I do believe there is a good argument to say yes. For this reason I don't disagree with the idea of needing different skills for different firearms but I also see that at some point, you need to factor in how your players are going to deal with that level of granularity and make compensations for that. Having said that, I still maintain that needing different skills for different pistols (for example) is probably more than needed but it is not "silly" per se.

Personally, I would have liked to have made the Players have skills for each individual weapon because for example, (and I have used both), there is a big difference between the handling of the L1A1 compared to the M16A1. We are not talking simply about how they perform but the significant difference between strip/clean/assemble of the two rifles and other things such as the fact that the M16 family does not go to "Safe" unless it has been cocked first (unlike most other military rifles). I realize that my desire for realism does not mesh well with the playability of the game so I didn't try to enforce that onto the players but the fact remains, just because you know how to effectively use one rifle, does not mean you know how to effectively use a different rifle.

[ChalkLine]

From a game design point of view I'd just have the GM assign a minus until you'd got some experience through practice, training or experience. Otherwise it's way too complex

[Legbreaker]

That's the way several other systems work it. Until you've spent some time training or just plain using the weapon, you suffer a penalty of around 20% of your skill (sometimes more, sometimes less, that just seems to be the average).

Actually, come to think of it, 1st ed had something like that for pilots - Skill level dictated how many aircraft you started out being familiar with, and applied a penalty if you tried flying something else until you'd spent some time behind the controls.

[Raellus]

There are also some overlap issues regarding weapons skills, in v2, at least. For example, for a M249 (FN Minimi), which is usually belt-fed but can accept STANAG mags, do you use Small Arms Rifle or Autogun? I think most GMs use SAR (I do), but that's not really accurate.

For a LAW-type weapon, do you use Grenade Launcher or Tactical Missile? I think most GMs use GL (I do), but that's not really accurate. Most GLs are arc-fired using ladder sights, whilst LAWs are almost always direct fired.

Firing a LAW, firing an M240, and firing a TOW II are all different enough to require separate skills, but as others have already pointed out, if you sub-divide skills even more, the game becomes too complicated/convoluted/cumbersome for most players (let alone GMs).

I think the cascade skill system already in place in v2 is a simple and pretty effective solution. But, maybe, instead of receiving only half the main skill (rounded down) for some cascade skills, the player should receive 3/4 the main skill (or at least the half rounded up). For example, if one is trained to operate a TOW II, then he/she should be able to figure out how to fire an M72 LAW reasonably competently. Same with rifles and SAWs, or automatic pistols and revolvers. I think it would also work to implement the cascade skill system to non-combat skills as well.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I'd argue that the Minimi/M249 should still use Autogun - just because you changed the feed system doesn't change the basic operation or handling of the weapon and machineguns are not made to have the accuracy that rifles do. They're typically designed to be inaccurate so that they "spread the love around". There are exceptions of course (the Bren Gun and the Stoner M63 LMG for example) but generally, changing to a magazine does not make the Minimi perform like a rifle.

LAW rockets... they've always been a problem in the rules system because they don't neatly fit into Grenade Launcher skill or into Tactical Missile skill. For the reasons Rae mentioned, I'd personally argue in favour of having a separate skill for LAW-type weapons. But again, how far do you take it all.
While it's easy enough to figure out how to use say the M72 LAW (it conveniently has instructions printed on the weapon), the RPG-7 has enough differences to it to require separate training.

But again, while it may be realistic, it becomes a book-keeping/management issue in a game and more importanly I think, does it stop the game from being enjoyable to play?
Obviously I'm in favour of having more distinctions between various skills but I am basically playing Devil's Advocate here, I'm not saying we should have more complex skill systems but I do think it's worth examining the idea to help configure a more effective system than the system in the game at present.

[Legbreaker]

Re the Autogun issue, I've come to believe that if it's tripod or vehicle mounted, it's Autogun. Bipod or less support and it's Rifle, regardless of calibre, rate of fire, etc. So the M249/Minimi can be either skill, depending on how it's currently employed.
Some weapons such as a GPMG will always be Autogun, regardless of how it's currently employed, and an assault rifle will always be Rifle skill even if strapped to a bench. Common sense always applies.

In T2K at least (less so in Merc) most characters have been at war for a number of years and have certainly had opportunity to be exposed to enemy equipment. An Infantryman formally trained in the M72 has probably picked up and used an RPG-7 at some point in the past.
A tanker or artilleryman on the other hand is less likely to have had that same hands on exposure, but MAY have had the chance to familiarise themselves with some of the oppositions AFVs (tankers aren't likely to know much about even their own APCs, let alone the enemies, at least not more than how to kill them).

[Raellus]

Re the Autogun issue, I've come to believe that if it's tripod or vehicle mounted, it's Autogun. Bipod or less support and it's Rifle, regardless of calibre, rate of fire, etc. So the M249/Minimi can be either skill, depending on how it's currently employed.

That makes sense, but operating a weapon with belted ammo and a feed tray instead of a magazine is quite a switch. I've fired/stripped M16 type rifles a few times, so I am confident that I could pick up just about any assault or battle rifle and make it work without any additional training. If, however, I found an M60 or a PKM, I'm not so confident that I could operate it effectively without a modicum of instruction/training.

In T2K at least (less so in Merc) most characters have been at war for a number of years and have certainly had opportunity to be exposed to enemy equipment. An Infantryman formally trained in the M72 has probably picked up and used an RPG-7 at some point in the past.[QUOTE]

Agreed. Where the principles of operation are more or less the same, I don't see a need for employing a different skill.

[QUOTE=Legbreaker;81706]A tanker or artilleryman on the other hand is less likely to have had that same hands on exposure, but MAY have had the chance to familiarise themselves with some of the oppositions AFVs (tankers aren't likely to know much about even their own APCs, let alone the enemies, at least not more than how to kill them).

I respectfully disagree. In WW2, both the Germans and the Russians were pretty quick to use captured enemy tanks and artillery. From my reading, it didn't take long for a German tanker to figure out how to operate a T-34, or a Soviet tanker to master a Panzer IV. The same holds true for artillery systems, both tube and rocket (to say nothing of mortars).

More recently, in Afghanistan, it didn't take long for CIA contractors raised on Hueys and Blackhawks to figure out how to fly Mi-8s and 17s. Choppers are arguably more complex machines than AFVs, but again, where the the principles of operation are the same (such as flying a rotary wing aircraft), no separate skill is required.

[Raellus]

I'd argue that the Minimi/M249 should still use Autogun - just because you changed the feed system doesn't change the basic operation or handling of the weapon and machineguns are not made to have the accuracy that rifles do. They're typically designed to be inaccurate so that they "spread the love around". There are exceptions of course (the Bren Gun and the Stoner M63 LMG for example) but generally, changing to a magazine does not make the Minimi perform like a rifle.

I agree with your point re firing both rifles and LSWs, but loading and maintaining a mag-fed v. a belt-fed weapon are different enough that I think using a different skill- or a cascade skill- is justified.

LAW rockets... they've always been a problem in the rules system because they don't neatly fit into Grenade Launcher skill or into Tactical Missile skill. For the reasons Rae mentioned, I'd personally argue in favour of having a separate skill for LAW-type weapons. But again, how far do you take it all.
While it's easy enough to figure out how to use say the M72 LAW (it conveniently has instructions printed on the weapon), the RPG-7 has enough differences to it to require separate training.

But again, while it may be realistic, it becomes a book-keeping/management issue in a game and more importanly I think, does it stop the game from being enjoyable to play?
Obviously I'm in favour of having more distinctions between various skills but I am basically playing Devil's Advocate here, I'm not saying we should have more complex skill systems but I do think it's worth examining the idea to help configure a more effective system than the system in the game at present.

I agree that a separate skill for LAW-type weapons is justified, but I think when you combine your last two last points, you end up with a compelling argument for using cascade skills. It differentiates without over-complicating (and you don't need to spend additional skill points to receive the cascade skill- IIRC, it's automatic).

For example, specialize in LAWs (Unguided Rocket) but get cascade in GL (or Guided Missile). Specialize in GLs, but get cascade in UR.

[Legbreaker]

I respectfully disagree. In WW2, both the Germans and the Russians were pretty quick to use captured enemy tanks and artillery. From my reading, it didn't take long for a German tanker to figure out how to operate a T-34, or a Soviet tanker to master a Panzer IV. The same holds true for artillery systems, both tube and rocket (to say nothing of mortars).

That was WWII when things were simple.
Watch this and then tell me you can jump out of one vehicle and into another without great difficulty.
https://youtu.be/ffq7ZrIzKIc
Yes, just driving isn't a major problem, but operating the weapon systems effectively is another matter, ESPECIALLY when everything is labelled in a language you cannot read.

There's really not a lot of difference between belt and magazine fed. Provided you understand the theory and principles, and know whether it's an open or closed bolt system, you shouldn't run into too many issues.

[swaghauler]

If I had a real complaint with the game, it would be how they simplified down so many of the Military Occupations/skills. I understand on some level why they did, but some of the things just scream to me that they had no idea what they were talking about.

Some examples of things that they simplified down that I understand. Driving tracked, just because I can drive a tank does not mean that I can drive a Bull Dozer, but you either have to make it one skill or you end up with hundreds and that does not work. Same with the weapons, At Basic (OSUT to be 100% accurate) I was trained on the M240 (Mag MG), when I went to PLDC later I was put on the M60 for a time, this was the first time in my life I had ever seen one, and it was beat up had lots of issues. When I had to ask for a block of instruction on how to use it as I was not familiar with it, even though it was a US weapon and some units still had them. It was close to the M240 so I could fumble my way though if I had to, but some things were different enough that I would be hard pressed to do so under the stress of combat.

But then some of the things that they did that are head scratchers, US Army Support Arm Enlisted (V2.2). "This category is a combination of a number of noncombat arms (ordnance, quartermaster, etc.)" First term skills: Ground Vehicle (Wheeled)-2, Mechanic-2, What were they thinking this sounds like a mechanic at best not a support troop. When I was in for a lot of the support jobs you did not need to know how to drive, as that was not part of the job, then when you go on to the subsequent term skills they are Computer, Electronics, Ground Vehicle (Wheeled) [what about all the tracked cargo vehicles in use?], Gunsmith, Hovercraft [really], Instruction, language, machinist, mechanic, metallurgy, scrounging, small watercraft [one more really], Warhead. What about I don't know any of the ordnance [at least in the US this is where EOD falls] skills besides Warhead like Demo? What about the other unit skills? Things that they list as MOS [mostly infantry], but everyone in the unit is trained for, examples I know a cook who was part of Ranger Bat, guess what he was Ranger, and Airborne qualified but as a support troop in game can not happen.

This occurs quite often and I just correct it with the appropriate skills in the MOS Skill lists. Your example of Warhead is ironic since there really is NO "warhead" skill. In SPECIAL WEAPONS, we learned how to PROGRAM the warhead (Computer Ops?) as well as Demolitions to destroy it and some Electronics to repair any damaged "connectors" on the fuse. All of these skills would be combined into the Warhead skill in game but are different skills in real life. The protocols for Chemical warheads were entirely different and focused more on identifying damaged or defective rounds and assembling "binary" rounds to make them lethal (binary rounds have their payloads stored separately for safety). We also learned things like ALWAYS store White Phosphorous rounds vertically AND WITHOUT A FUSE (a wise idea with ALL rounds) to prevent spontaneous combustion of the round if it is jostled (because it is a base-ejection round).

[swaghauler]

That's the way several other systems work it. Until you've spent some time training or just plain using the weapon, you suffer a penalty of around 20% of your skill (sometimes more, sometimes less, that just seems to be the average).

Actually, come to think of it, 1st ed had something like that for pilots - Skill level dictated how many aircraft you started out being familiar with, and applied a penalty if you tried flying something else until you'd spent some time behind the controls.

I do a similar thing with my Skill Levels in V2.2. Each point of raw Skill Level (without the Characteristic added) is one aircraft, vehicle, or boat type you know.

Likewise, for firearms, you know 1 "action type" per skill level. examples would include;
1) Browning Short-Recoil Actions (examples include Beretta's M series, Sig's P series, H&K's USP and VP series, CZ's Model 75/85 series, Ruger's P series, and MANY more).
2) Walther's P Actions (including the Walther PP, PPK, the Bersa, the Makarov, and the SIG P230).
3) AK Actions (including all makes)
4) AR Actions (including all versions of the M16 and Daewoo assault rifles)

So you could have a very large number of action types IF your raw Skill Level is high enough.

[swaghauler]

There are also some overlap issues regarding weapons skills, in v2, at least. For example, for a M249 (FN Minimi), which is usually belt-fed but can accept STANAG mags, do you use Small Arms Rifle or Autogun? I think most GMs use SAR (I do), but that's not really accurate.

For a LAW-type weapon, do you use Grenade Launcher or Tactical Missile? I think most GMs use GL (I do), but that's not really accurate. Most GLs are arc-fired using ladder sights, whilst LAWs are almost always direct fired.

Firing a LAW, firing an M240, and firing a TOW II are all different enough to require separate skills, but as others have already pointed out, if you sub-divide skills even more, the game becomes too complicated/convoluted/cumbersome for most players (let alone GMs).

I think the cascade skill system already in place in v2 is a simple and pretty effective solution. But, maybe, instead of receiving only half the main skill (rounded down) for some cascade skills, the player should receive 3/4 the main skill (or at least the half rounded up). For example, if one is trained to operate a TOW II, then he/she should be able to figure out how to fire an M72 LAW reasonably competently. Same with rifles and SAWs, or automatic pistols and revolvers. I think it would also work to implement the cascade skill system to non-combat skills as well.

I break my SMALL ARMS Cascade into;

- Rifles and Shotguns.
- Pistols & Revolvers.
- Belt-Fed Machineguns.

With a Qualification of Black Powder for both Rifle and Pistol Skills (because reloading them can be complex).

I break my HEAVY WEAPONS Cascade into;

- Grenade Launchers (including belt-fed versions & rifle grenades).
- Rocket Launchers & Recoilless Rifles (because they are similar in function with the exception that rocket launchers are "under power" during their flight).
- AT Missile Launchers (this includes MCLOS, SACLOS, Laser-Guided, and Fire-and-Forget versions).
- AA Missile Launchers (this includes MCLOS, SACLOS, IR Homing, and Radar-guided all in one skill).

I break my CANNON Cascade (yes this is my Large Caliber Gun) into;

- Mortars
- Autocannon (includes smaller AA guns from 20mm to 57mm)
- Tank Guns & AT Guns (includes larger AA guns up to 120mm and howitzers).

I also have a Black Powder Qualification for Cannon.

I allow the knowledge of 1 weapon system for each point of raw SKILL LEVEL (the Skill without the Characteristic score added) the character has.

[Raellus]

@Swag: that makes a lot of sense.

That was WWII when things were simple.
Watch this and then tell me you can jump out of one vehicle and into another without great difficulty.
https://youtu.be/ffq7ZrIzKIc
Yes, just driving isn't a major problem, but operating the weapon systems effectively is another matter, ESPECIALLY when everything is labelled in a language you cannot read.

That's a valid point. I still think that "great difficulty" might be a bit of an overstatement, though. In more recent times, Israeli tankers were turning captured T-54/55/62s around fairly quickly, and I'm pretty sure the labels weren't in Hebrew. Back to my original illustration, German tank systems in WW2 were notoriously complex at that time, and illiterate Russian peasant conscripts could still figure them out and make them work.

If we're talking current AFVs with stuff like Blue Force Tracker and whatnot, then you're probably right, but the operating principles and hardware of an M1A1 and a T-80, c. 1996, aren't that radically different.

I'll concede the point to use as another argument for the application of the Cascade Skill concept. For example, if a PC is an M1A1 gunner, he/she would be able to operate other NATO tank main guns at 3/4 base skill level, and WTO tank guns at 1/2, or something like that.

There's really not a lot of difference between belt and magazine fed. Provided you understand the theory and principles, and know whether it's an open or closed bolt system, you shouldn't run into too many issues.

But you've operated both, IRL, correct? If so, you're speaking as someone who already has experience and competence/confidence. For someone who does not, I politely disagree. For a novice, loading a belt-fed weapon for the first time might be a bit tricky. I've seen it done (in movies and videos) and it looks a bit more complicated than slapping home a magazine. I could probably figure it out, but I'd hate to do so under fire.

[CDAT]

...

That's a valid point. I still think that "great difficulty" might be a bit of an overstatement, though. In more recent times, Israeli tankers were turning captured T-54/55/62s around fairly quickly, and I'm pretty sure the labels weren't in Hebrew. Back to my original illustration, German tank systems in WW2 were notoriously complex at that time, and illiterate Russian peasant conscripts could still figure them out and make them work.

If we're talking current AFVs with stuff like Blue Force Tracker and whatnot, then you're probably right, but the operating principles and hardware of an M1A1 and a T-80, c. 1996, aren't that radically different.

I'll concede the point to use as another argument for the application of the Cascade Skill concept. For example, if a PC is an M1A1 gunner, he/she would be able to operate other NATO tank main guns at 3/4 base skill level, and WTO tank guns at 1/2, or something like that.

I am not sure if "great difficulty" would apply or not, but as a former 19K (M1 Crewman) I think that I would have some difficulty with other AFV's tell had some time on them. When I was first introduced to the Bradley it was a very interesting time.

But you've operated both, IRL, correct? If so, you're speaking as someone who already has experience and competence/confidence. For someone who does not, I politely disagree. For a novice, loading a belt-fed weapon for the first time might be a bit tricky. I've seen it done (in movies and videos) and it looks a bit more complicated than slapping home a magazine. I could probably figure it out, but I'd hate to do so under fire.
I think you hit this on the head, I have been a life long shooter starting as a child training under my father, then during my time in the military I had lots of trigger time with pistols, SMG's, rifles, LMG's, HMG, and even vehicle mounted weapons. After the military I became a federal police officer serving on a couple different tactical teams and was a firearm instructor. The one weapon that I had the most difficulty with was the shotgun as it was something that I never really used tell I became a LEO, and even then it was at best a secondary. So even someone who had lots of trigger time, and more than a bit of training. I was still able to mess myself up, when I was at FLETC going through the firearms trainer course on of the drills was to speed load the shotgun from rounds in our pocket, I put one in the tube backwards and jammed up the entire system. Now when we were running the drill I just transited to my pistol and finished the drill with out much time lost (here was where training came in), and then fixed it after the drill (had to completely disassemble the weapon)
and could see how someone who either only had the one weapon, and/or less training could have had a very bad day.

[Legbreaker]

In more recent times, Israeli tankers were turning captured T-54/55/62s around fairly quickly, and I'm pretty sure the labels weren't in Hebrew.
Still basically a WWII tank, albeit designed right at the end.
https://youtu.be/RBqD7ZRwOtU

[Raellus]

OK, Leg, fair enough. But to get back to the main topic of discussion, what do we do about it rules-wise?

It would be a bookkeeping nightmare to differentiate skill usage between different tanks.

Heavy Gun (M1A1)
Heavy Gun (M2 Bradley)
Heavy Gun (T-72)
etc.

So, as a GM, I'll probably stick with applying Heavy Gun to any large-caliber, direct fire weapon. However, for GM's who'd prefer a little more crunch, may I suggest a Cascade Skill system.

Something like:

The PC gets Heavy Gun primacy for a chosen AFV- say, the M1A1. For any other NATO MBT main gun, they get half 3/4 skill rank, UNTIL, they log a certain number of hours on it. For a PACT tank, the PC initially applies 1/2 his aggregate skill rank. However, after gaining some practical experience- hitting an operational threshold, if you will- the PC can apply his full aggregate skill score again.

So, let's say a PC has an Attribute + Heavy Gun score of 12. Their chosen weapon system is the M1A1's 120mm gun. They apply their full aggregate score of 12 when operating said system.

Let's say the PC's M1 gets killed. He and his crew eventually acquire a T-72. After a bit of trial and error, and perhaps a little of instruction from a captured PACT tanker, the gunner figures out how to operate the T-72s main gun. When the PC does so, he applies half his aggregate score (i.e 6)

After successfully firing the T-72's main gun 6 times, they can start applying their full Main Gun aggregate score of 12.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I like Swaghauler's ideas, I'd probably break the various categories down further into their operation type e.g. lever-action, bolt-action, semi-auto and so on for rifles and then a separate category for SMGs because they are typically meant for short bursts of auto-fire.

But yes, I agree with Raellus, I think the Cascade skill idea is one of the better ways to handle it. I also think you could probably play around with it to extend the range out to say US AFVs, German AFVs, Czech AFVs, Soviet AFVs etc. etc. but again that's my desire for a little bit more sophistication in the rules. I know that level of book-keeping is tiresome for some and especially among the modern audience it's not particularly welcome.