Quote:
Originally Posted by adimar
10x for your responses.
The problem I have with .50 cal and other semi heavy ammo is that it effectively ends the use of soft skinned vehicles.
I don't know a single player in my group who would not agree to pool his resources to get a .50 anti material rifle. Which has a negligible ammo consumption and use it without match ammo as a quick way to disable enemy positions/vehicles.
And while this is a game balance consideration it also needs to be looked on from the perspective of a resource management. A unit that has it's supplies of heavy weapons diminish would switch to using heavy ammo whenever it might have a chance to do some good. So this might increase the rate of .50 ammo to conserve anti tank missiles. I don't know what would be the net effect?
Adi
|
I don't see this as a problem.
For starters, you limit their access to such things as anti-material rifles and other high-end gear - it's the end of the Third World War, not a weapons trade show.
To be harsh and somewhat realistic, most soldiers would never see anti-material rifles during their military service let alone use one, they're typically the province of engineer EOD detachments or the special sniper teams and there really are not that many of them in service with any one army.
And besides all that, do the PCs actually have the skills or training to properly use one? If not, you make all tasks with the unfamiliar weapon one or two levels harder until they have spent enough time learning this weapon. That should require firing dozen (if not hundreds) of rounds at a range and that will use up some of their hoarded goodies.
Even if you do decide to let them have something like the anti-material rifle, just like Damocles said, you have the entire game world to throw at them. Let the PCs have some easy kills at the start. Let them use up their .50 cal ammo on softskins.
Then when they run low, they still have to find someone who is selling ammo before they can replenish their supply and then they have to be able to afford whatever the local market price is for .50 cal ammo - and if the local head of the badguys has lost a few vehicles to a .50 cal, they might have decided to buy up all remaining stock or forbid local sales to strangers.
Later, you start introducing heavier armoured vehicles. The anti-material rifle with 500 rounds of ammo doesn't do much to kill a tank even if it can damage important parts. The players might start to learn that all that skimping on heavy weapons so they could have 500 rounds for their "big gun" doesn't do much good when facing off against three tanks and supporting infantry or three APCs and an attack helicopter, all sporting weapons with as much or longer range than the PCs weapons.
Ultimately, it does not matter what goodies the PCs have, as the GM you can always take it away and as long as it makes sense in the gameworld and is fair in the gameplay, they have nothing to complain about. Whether it's making them use all their ammo up on weak targets or restricting the amount available for resupply or having that particular ammo as a requirement for trade at the next settlement, as long as you are not seen as blatantly trying to take it away from them, you can restrict the special items the PCs have.
The whole point is to challenge them and so if they have an iron dagger made by the local blacksmith, you only make them face kobolds and wild dogs. When they get their first real sword, they end up facing some local bandits or a few orcs. Once they get their magical sword +1, they encounter a few organized brigands or a ghost that requires magical weapons to hit - you get the picture.
And every now and then you let them catch a glimpse of the bigger threat so that they feel the urgency to keep good equipment or get more effective weapons and so on. Let them see a dragon in the distance burning a village, the PCs will decide they need dragonslaying weapons and eventually
you as GM will decide
if you let them get some but
you will also be the one who decides if they ever encounter a dragon.