![]() |
![]() |
#331
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I'd be inclined to consider a max possible range also much like GURPS and their 1/2 Damage stat - anything beyond that has penalties to both accuracy and damage. Knowing the max possible range allows for using tripod mounted machineguns in the indirect roll, something which has been done for well over a hundred years for suppressive fire and in some circles known as the poor mans artillery (unless you're the one paying the ammo bill!).
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#332
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I like it too.
![]() My gaming group has always had a bit of a liking for the idea of adding items to gear to improve them e.g. putting better tyres on a vehicle, putting a better scope on a rifle and so on. Basically a way to let a Character improve their chances with a Skill check, especially if they are not particularly good in that Skill. If I can con my group into any game using the 2.2 rules, I'm very much inclined to use your idea Swaghauler ![]() |
#333
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#334
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
It's an interesting idea. I like the advantage/disadvantage idea for certain circumstances but I'm not sure I like it for equipment that gives you a mechanical advantage e.g. the tripod.
The ad/disad system generally gives you an equal chance of scoring good or bad so I figure this means that if you get two lousy results for the skill check the tripod hasn't really done anything extra for you when it should. However if it adds to your skill check in some way then the percentage chance of success is somewhat better all the time making it worthwhile to use whenever you can. Players want to stack the odds in their favour, it's natural, they want their characters to survive & thrive. The ad/disad system feels like it completely negates the ability to shift the odds a little more in your favour when using something like the tripod in this example. |
#335
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Skill Level 0 = No bonus as you are not knowledgable enough to gain a bonus. Skill Level 1 thru 6 = A bonus of 1 to the roll for tripods with T&E gear. Skill Level 7 thru 9 = A bonus of 2 to the roll for tripods with T&E gear. Skill Level 10 = A bonus of 3 to the roll for tripods with T&E gear. This will give more skilled gunners a better bonus (as befits their higher experience). * My Skill Level based bonus is designed to reward high Skill Levels (training) over high Characteristics (natural talent) and it works like this. You get an Outstanding Success if you roll under your RAW base Skill Level on an AVERAGE Task. To get an Exceptional Success, you must roll under HALF of your RAW Skill Level on 1D20. So, in practice, it looks like this: A PC with an Attribute score of 7 and a Skill Level of 3 would succeed at an AVERAGE task on a roll of 10 or less. They would score an Outstanding Success IF they rolled a 3 or less. They would score an Exceptional Success on a roll of 1. A PC with an Attribute score of 3 and a Skill Level of 7 would also succeed on a roll of 10. HOWEVER, they would achieve an Outstanding Success on a roll of 7 or less. They would achieve an Exceptional Success on a roll of 3 or less on an AVERAGE Task. On an Outstanding or Exceptional Success, you score a Special Manuever. My players have a great affinity for this new system and I have LOTS of positive feedback on Skill-based Success. |
#336
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Edit: Read it? I'd love to use them! Last edited by StainlessSteelCynic; 08-25-2020 at 12:16 AM. Reason: adding more thoughts |
#337
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I do love vehicles that, to put it bluntly, were no good.
If it was that they lost their raison d'être due to technological advances, if they were good ideas that were ahead of their time or in case of the vehicle coming up, they were simply a crap boondoggle, I do love my failures. The M247 Sergeant York SPAAG could have been awesome. It's one of those vehicles that simply "looks right". It was an utter failure, but the failure was mainly due to its design criteria as much as dodgy corporate swindling and corruption. What the US Army wanted: A ZSU-23-4 with bigger guns and a fast engine. What the US Army asked for: an SPAAG using two heavy guns and a heavy radar on an out of date chassis that still had to keep up with the M1 Abrams, one of the world's fastest tanks. They specified the M48A5 chassis because they had lots and they were very reliable. They also stated that it had to use off-the-shelf equipment so the radar was a repurposed air-to-air radar, not even a ground attack radar. Now, Ford Aerospace seemed to have been thinking if they got the contract the could simply deal with the issues later. Issues like making it work. Really, the whole sorry tale is too long to go into here. I do recommend you look it up now that 35 years have passed. What I want to do is suggest that the M247 didn't ignominiously end its days being blown to pieces on live-fire ranges but that the 50 that were made in our alternate universe languished in a boneyard simply because everyone was too embarrassed to talk about them. There they sat, essentially useless and incapable of even defending themselves until the final phase of resupply for the European campaign. By this time the Mil-24 Hinds were all gone and the USA is desperate to send its troops ground fighting vehicles. They looked at the M247s sitting there and gave them the ZSU-23-4M2 "Afghan" treatment. The hypothetical M247A2 is purely a ground support vehicle. It has had its radar stripped out and the AN/PPS-15A(V)1 ground search radar (1,500m for personnel, 3,000m for vehicles) placed in the forward radar nacelle. The ammunition is increased from 580 to 650 rounds. The turret armour is given applique panels that bring it up from STANAG 4569 level 3 to level 4 armour protection, capable of resisting the KPV 14.5mm. A sliding mantlet is provided to protect the crew from direct fire of the same level. The rear of the turret is kept the same and the hull is of course the basic robust M48A5. In the European theatre ERA blocks and wire/bar armour were occasionally used by some units. This extra armour drops the road speed to a slow 40kmh, a speed demon it is not. The turret had a large bustle rack at the rear and is still roomy after the removal of the large radar even when the extra ammunition is fitted. The commander's cupola from the LAV-25 was fitted and has a NATO heavy mount capable of accepting the M240E1 GPMG (spade grip version), the M2HB HMG or the Mk19 AGL. Many were equipped with gunshields at various times. The sights are upgraded. The optical sights are retained and light intensification added. The commander has no override for the gun. At least one of these vehicles was fitted with thermal sights during its war service. Note that the 40mm twin autocannon are belt-fed, a huge improvement over the crew-intensive five round clips normally used. Its crew remains three with commander, gunner and driver, making it something of a bear for maintenance and an endurance test when keeping watch. |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
The 16" pistol-carbine from today's video has the same stats as the carbine when the butt stock is attached. Detached, it's 1.80 kg loaded weight, Ammo 16i. Dam 1, Pen Nil, Bulk 1, Recoil 1, Lever-Action, Range 10.
__________________
The poster formerly known as The Dark The Vespers War - Ninety years before the Twilight War, there was the Vespers War. |
#339
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I need to organize my rules a little better. They are currently HANDWRITTEN in a 3-ring binder. If you're interested in the Skill-Based Outstanding and Exceptional Success rules, I've posted them in the thread: Optional New House Rule I'm Using.
|
#340
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier. |
#341
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Going to the range with the M202 gets you a qualification badge (Flamethrower, strangely enough) good for two years. When I went on active duty in 1987, everybody was like, "where do they still use flamethrowers?" But about the same time I got there, someone else augmented and he had a Flamethrower badge too, so we were able to let everyone know what it meant without repeated explanations. While my unit in the National Guard had M202s, I never saw one on active duty. And when I was in the National Guard, we never took them to the field, even during Annual Training. The Twilight 2000 Heavy Weapons Handbook says that there are HEAT clips for the M202. I've since discovered that in reality, while the Army experimented with using the same rockets as used in the LAW in the M202, the idea was never approved for issue or use. Though I never saw one on active duty, I saw a photo the other day of an SF soldier using an M202 in Afghanistan. So they are at least in SOCOM's inventory, or were at that point.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#342
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() A mate in the same platoon had been able to play with M2's a couple of years before and he wasn't even on a proper qualification course. I believe although instruction had ceased, the M2's themselves were put into storage for possible latter use "just in case". 27 years later I wonder if they're still there and even if they'd still be serviceable without a major overhaul.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#343
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
__________________
The poster formerly known as The Dark The Vespers War - Ninety years before the Twilight War, there was the Vespers War. |
#344
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#345
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Hmm, bulldozer or copious amounts of flame.....
The choice is clear!
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#346
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Both, the justification for the flame thrower was to clear the brush so we could see any obstacles that we might run into with the dozers before we leveled the bunkers and such.
|
#347
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
https://www.wired.com/2009/05/us-inc...stan-revealed/ If you look at the video and read this article you see a weapon that may or may exist. Mentioned in a lot of publications and plenty of info on its development but the weapon is never seen. So draw your own conclusions.
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier. |
#348
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
That article (from 11 years ago) reads like the author didn't know anything about the subject and just referred to Wikipedia and their pacifist friends for their info.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#349
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
ok this is info draw your own conclusions
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier. |
#350
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Yes it is. Credible, unbiased info though it is not.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#351
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
again draw your own conclusions
__________________
I will not hide. I will not be deterred nor will I be intimidated from my performing my duty, I am a Canadian Soldier. |
#352
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
One thing about the article -- it states that the M202 uses a napalm-like filler. The Flash uses a combination of aluminum-derived powder and a WP initiator for the aluminum.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com Last edited by pmulcahy11b; 09-15-2020 at 05:08 PM. Reason: Careless with my typing |
#353
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
As an interesting "what if", another round suggested for the M202 that did not get past the trials stage was the XM96 RCR (Riot Control Round) with a CS gas filling.
http://www.designation-systems.net/d...m74rocket.html |
#354
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#355
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Read into that what you will but I'll jump to the assumption that that implies use against rioters who are potential Viet Cong |
#356
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
For example there are flash bang grenades (not all types, but some) that when they go off can have some parts of them flay away with enough force to kill. Rubber and wood projectiles can kill if not used as designed (most need to be skipped into the target). So it could have still been labeled less lethal. |
#357
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
__________________
The poster formerly known as The Dark The Vespers War - Ninety years before the Twilight War, there was the Vespers War. |
#358
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#359
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#360
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
All of which makes me wonder about that article supposing that the M202 was used in Afghanistan.
Given the delicate nature of the rockets, I wonder if US forces were actually using 40mm thermobaric rounds (they started to be available from 2003) and the article writer not being familiar with military tech jumped on the M202 as the explanation? |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 15 (0 members and 15 guests) | |
|
|