Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-31-2018, 12:43 AM   #361
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Grenade Launcher Acc and Granularity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
That would seem to describe it, but most probably with larger containers.
Guess it's going to depend on what's meant by trash can I guess.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
I seem to have failed a roll against the relevant Current Affairs or Hobby skill.
Don't worry you're not missing much!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
I use the Job Training rules from Power Ups 3: Talents for active duty special operators and commandos, allowing them fairly economical access to very high skill levels for those trained tasks that fall under their primary MOS-relevant skills (including combat skills for most SOF personnel), as long as they have access to the lavish training facilities and the time and opportunity to devote essentially their full focus to maintaining their operational edge.

Former operators quickly lose the necessary edge, functionally reducing their skill levels by 1-4 as their narrowly focused and expensively maintained operational hypercompetence in the exact tasks trained lapses into 'mere' expertise in the broader fields of generic GURPS skills.
Cool I didn't know those rules, I like them!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
I'm adding +2 for extra two seconds of Aim and +1 for All-Out Attack (Determined). 150 meters is a 165 yards, for a -12 SSR penalty. With a +5 TDM, we get effective roll to hit of skill-3 if we go by Acc 1, skill-2 if we use Acc 2.

With a high skill shooter, we run up against the rule from Tactical Shooting that limits functional accuracy by mechanical accuracy. With Acc 1, the maximum effective skill before penalties is (22 + (2 x Acc) = 24) and with Acc 2 it is 26. Acc 1 would make the weapon so inaccurate that in this kind of training, user skill above 15 wasn't relevant, except to allow less time to Aim. Efective skill 12 would be a functional maximum. With Acc 2, the functional maximum effective skill would be 14 and skill levels of up to 16 would be relevant. Skill 18+ would be relevant to allow the same performance in combat as practice.
All True. I wonder if some kind of specific targeted attack for specialised shots (e.g putting a grenade through a window at 150 yards). Although that kind of specific training could be the kind of thing covered by those training rules you mentioned above. And even then you hit the hard 22 + (2x Acc) limit which interacts oddly with lots of non combat bonuses IMO.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
No more than with bows and crossbows, at least.
and if anything I'd have though an M79 grenade would travel even slower! (wiki listing rates tham at 76 m/s muzzle velocity, which modern bows will beat but not by huge amount actually, but then 150 yard shot even with a modern bow is a very long shot at an individual target!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
In any case, with interviews with former and current operators under JSOC indicating that even the cut-down M79 'Pirate Gun' is preferred over pistols, SMGs and the MP7A1 for engaging targets at longer ranges than 100 yards, I'm fine with a little 'grenade sniping'.
Yeah given that by RAW the only way to distinguish low Acc weapons here is the time to target rules, I'd use those rules here (even if I'm not massively keen on them as written). Ultimately I think grenades at this kind of range are more used on static targets rather than moving ones, and I'd adjust the time to target rules for that. And of course given the rounds being fired compared to SMG's and PDW's you do get a bit more leeway with missing and still effecting the target!

Last edited by Tomsdad; 01-31-2018 at 01:05 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 01:57 AM   #362
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: Grenade Launcher Acc and Granularity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
All True. I wonder if some kind of specific targeted attack for specialised shots (e.g putting a grenade through a window at 150 yards). Although that kind of specific training could be the kind of thing covered by those training rules you mentioned above. And even then you hit the hard 22 + (2x Acc) limit which interacts oddly with lots of non combat bonuses IMO.
The 22 + (2 x Acc) limit is meant to reflect the fact that no matter how favourable the situation or skilled the user, the mechanical accuracy of a weapon limits the size of target that can be successfully engaged at a given range.

Now, there are some weapons which are given Acc numbers that vary from what their mechanical accuracy expressed in Minutes Of Angle would indicate, usually to reflect a longer or shorter effective range in practice than precision alone would mean, and in such cases, the GM must either modify the specific number to accurately reflect the mechanical accuracy of individual weapons (or even rounds or chamberings)... or accept unrealistic but playable results in such edge cases.

I expect 99% of GMs are fully content with the latter option (or even to ignore mechanical accuracy altogether). I happen to be the outlier. :-)

Anyway, anecdotally, the mechanical accuracy of the M79 is enough to hit the center of the chest of a man-sized target reliably at 150 yards. This demands great skill of the user, mind you, with the ability to do this off-hand and on the first shot defining the sort of skill level that assaulters in DEVGRU squadrons refer to as 'great', but the actual mechanical accuracy is there.

So, it'd hazard a guess of about 12" to 24" MOA being the mechanical accuracy of the M79, based on a very conservative interpretation of what 'center of the chest' means.

That's probably Acc 2 in GURPS terms, by Doug Cole's unofficial (but baked into Tactical Shooting rules) GURPS Acc = MOA equivalency.

Incidentally, according to Defence Research and Development Canada, the Mk19 MOD 3 groups only slightly over 3 MOA at 300 meters. That's Acc 4, in GURPS terms, rather than the Acc 2 it is given in High-Tech (where the Acc must also be taking into account the time of flight and inconvenient trajectory).

As I suspected, for the purposes of the mechanical accuracy rule, at least, grenade launchers require special treatment, as their listed Acc reflects other factors than simply lack of precision. I suppose a case could be made that being mounted on a tripod adds to base Acc for the purposes of the rule, but that brings with it more pitfalls than it helps.

In any case, giving the Mk19 MOD 3 the same Acc 3 as the never adopted proto-type of the XM25 wouldn't seem out of line, as it's certainly effective against point targets, even at very long ranges. The primary game-mechanical distinction between the smaller, more high tech weapon and the larger, old reliable one would be in the modifiers for the smart devices used with the XM25 or other similar systems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
and if anything I'd have though an M79 grenade would travel even slower! (wiki listing rates tham at 76 m/s muzzle velocity, which modern bows will beat but not by huge amount actually, but then 150 yard shot even with a modern bow is a very long shot at an individual target!)
My example was chosen because 70-80 m/s is pretty representative for historical warbows and also appear to be the velocity for many historical crossbows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Yeah given that by RAW the only way to distinguish low Acc weapons here is the time to target rules, I'd use those rules here (even if I'm not massively keen on them as written). Ultimately I think grenades at this kind of range are more used on static targets rather than moving ones, and I'd adjust the time to target rules for that. And of course given the rounds being fired compared to SMG's and PDW's you do get a bit more leeway with missing and still effecting the target!
As they say, close only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades. 'Hand' being added for alliteration, more than actual intent to exclude other explosives.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!

Last edited by Icelander; 01-31-2018 at 02:23 AM.
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 02:44 AM   #363
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Grenade Launcher Acc and Granularity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
The 22 + (2 x Acc) limit is meant to reflect the fact that no matter how favourable the situation or skilled the user, the mechanical accuracy of a weapon limits the size of target that can be successfully engaged at a given range.

Now, there are some weapons which are given Acc numbers that vary from what their mechanical accuracy expressed in Minutes Of Angle would indicate, usually to reflect a longer or shorter effective range in practice than precision alone would mean, and in such cases, the GM must either modify the specific number to accurately reflect the mechanical accuracy of individual weapons (or even rounds or chamberings)... or accept unrealistic but playable results in such edge cases.

I expect 99% of GMs are fully content with the latter option (or even to ignore mechanical accuracy altogether). I happen to be the outlier. :-)

Anyway, anecdotally, the mechanical accuracy of the M79 is enough to hit the center of the chest of a man-sized target reliably at 150 yards. This demands great skill of the user, mind you, with the ability to do this off-hand and on the first shot defining the sort of skill level that assaulters in DEVGRU squadrons refer to as 'great', but the actual mechanical accuracy is there.

So, it'd hazard a guess of about 12" to 24" MOA being the mechanical accuracy of the M79, based on a very conservative interpretation of what 'center of the chest' means.

That's probably Acc 2 in GURPS terms, by Doug Cole's unofficial (but baked into Tactical Shooting rules) GURPS Acc = MOA equivalency.

Incidentally, according to Defence Research and Development Canada, the Mk19 MOD 3 groups only slightly over 3 MOA at 300 meters. That's Acc 4, in GURPS terms, rather than the Acc 2 it is given in High-Tech (where the Acc must also be taking into account the time of flight and inconvenient trajectory).

As I suspected, for the purposes of the mechanical accuracy rule, at least, grenade launchers require special treatment, as their listed Acc reflects other factors than simply lack of precision. I suppose a case could be made that being mounted on a tripod adds to base Acc for the purposes of the rule, but that brings with it more pitfalls than it helps.

In any case, giving the Mk19 MOD 3 the same Acc 3 as the never adopted proto-type of the XM25 wouldn't seem out of line, as it's certainly effective against point targets, even at very long ranges. The primary game-mechanical distinction between the smaller, more high tech weapon and the larger, old reliable one would be in the modifiers for the smart devices used with the XM25 or other similar systems..
I have to say with inclusion of time to target rules I have no issue upping the acc of such weapons, since in use they will be effected by them more than most weapons. (and TBF those weapon's stats in HT predate the rules*, and as you say may well have been written to reflect the effects that these weapons suffer under flight time)

The 22+ 2xAcc rule is ultimately a game system simplification and was never intended to be a definitive model for RL ballistics for all projectile weapons. So I don't really have much issue bending it to match RL results especially in specific and unusual cases like this. Also it should be said it doesn't remove luck from the equation, that "centre chest at 150 yards" anecdote could have involved luck as well as skill! (I'm assuming that was in combat). The MOA cone is just that a cone after all and not all shots end up on the outer edge of it!




*and actually looking at the Grenade launchers in Tactical shooting the SOG M79, cut down pistol grip version of the M79 which is expressly called out for it's reduced accuracy partly due to losing it's stock (which also appear to reference the "shortening a long arm" rules) has the same Acc as the full size HT M79.

But then the other 40mm underbarrel launcher the ISTEC ISL201, has Acc 1 the same as the one's in HT

The Russian 30mm TOZ GSN-19, has an Acc 2 through, so I guess 30mm are inherently more accurate than 40mm? (well unless the Russians have managed to make an inherently more accurate under barrel launcher at the same time as making a quieter one)


However all the above can't just be looked in isolation, there is the overall body of work and TS's place in it to consider. And maybe if TS had suddenly by de-facto upped the accuracy of grenade launchers and thus be extension nerfed the HT listings that may have over stepped it's remit (however this is just me pondering out loud, so don't put any weight to this)





Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
My example was chosen because 70-80 m/s is pretty representative for historical warbows and also appear to be the velocity for many historical crossbows.
Fair enough and yeah outside of Robin Hood or William Tell no one's sniping at moving targets in combat with much expectation of success at 150 yards with them


Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
As they say, close only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades. 'Hand' being added for alliteration, more than actual intent to exclude other explosives.
True enough!

Last edited by Tomsdad; 01-31-2018 at 03:28 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 02:51 AM   #364
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: Grenade Launcher Acc and Granularity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
I have to say with inclusion of time to target rules I have no issue upping the acc of such weapons, since in use they will be effected by them more than most weapons. (and TBF those weapon's stats predate the rules, and as you say may well have been written to reflect the effects that these weapons suffer under flight time)
Yes, I suspect that many weapon stats that deviate from the rough equivalency of MOA = Acc are accounting for other factors.

Like the Acc 6 of .50 BMG rifles, when they aren't any more mechanically accurate than the average hunting rifle. It's meant to reflect the longer effective range of the weapon, as the large projectiles lose energy much more slowly than most lighter bullets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
The 22+ 2xAcc rule is ultimately a game system simplification and was never intended to be a definitive model for RL ballistics for all projectile weapons. So I don't really have mush issue bending them to match RL results especially in specific and unusual cases like this.
Just so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Also it should be said it doesn't remove luck from the equation, that chest at 150 yards anecdote could have involved luck as well as skill! (I'm assuming that was in combat)
No, these are training standards. A good grenade man ought to be able to hit the center of a man-sized target's chest at 100 yards with his first shot, according to one interview, and keep hitting it with all his subsequent shots. A great one can do it by feel at 150 yards (probably would be represented with 1 second of Aiming rather than 3).

SEALs take their M79s seriously. Which I can understand, the Thumper having been a great force multiplier for small units for a very long time, with a lot of SEAL lore attached to it.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 03:18 AM   #365
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Grenade Launcher Acc and Granularity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
Yes, I suspect that many weapon stats that deviate from the rough equivalency of MOA = Acc are accounting for other factors.

Like the Acc 6 of .50 BMG rifles, when they aren't any more mechanically accurate than the average hunting rifle. It's meant to reflect the longer effective range of the weapon, as the large projectiles lose energy much more slowly than most lighter bullets.
I suspect you're right, the Acc stat being at the time the only way to distinguish between different weapon's ability to be on target


Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
Just so
It's an interesting topic (but maybe not in your campaign thread, sorry for the digression)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
No, these are training standards. A good grenade man ought to be able to hit the center of a man-sized target's chest at 100 yards with his first shot, according to one interview, and keep hitting it with all his subsequent shots. A great one can do it by feel at 150 yards (probably would be represented with 1 second of Aiming rather than 3).

SEALs take their M79s seriously. Which I can understand, the Thumper having been a great force multiplier for small units for a very long time, with a lot of SEAL lore attached to it.
Ah Ok didn't realise we're talking about practice. Which in GURPS terms brings back in noncombat bonuses which complicates matters here, especially with high skill users with low acc weapons. And yeah I can see the appeal of the M79, you can do things with it that you really can't with rifles, pistols & SMG's etc (and equally if it wasn't fit for purpose or added much you wouldn't lug it and it's ammunition around, especially if you are some spec ops team who's already pushing operational load weights more than most, and there's been plenty of time to assess it for this trade off)

Last edited by Tomsdad; 01-31-2018 at 03:48 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 05:47 AM   #366
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Moving on from grenade launchers to AK-type SBRs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
It's an interesting topic (but maybe not in your campaign thread, sorry for the digression)
Not a problem. I believe I have adequately settled in my mind the capabilities of the cut-down M79 'Pirate Gun', the M203 and other underbarrel grenade launchers, a full-size M79, and the Mk19 MOD 3, which sadly for our PCs, will not be available to them in any way, shape or form.*

*Unless things have gone so badly wrong that a convoy of one or more of: Hummvees, GMVs, Flyers, L-ATV, ALSVs or Strykers, is scrambled from Fort Bliss, TX, effectively invading Mexico to rescue federal agents and supporting JSOC personnel caught in a Gothic Serpent scale cluster-[fornication], except much more embarrassing and potentially international relationship-ruining, as the operation has most likely not been cleared with Mexican authorities (and may be unknown to Congress, senior administration figures who really should be informed and possibly the NCA). Note to us players, don't do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Ah Ok didn't realise we're talking about practice. Which in GURPS terms brings back in noncombat bonuses which complicates matters here, especially with high skill users with low acc weapons. And yeah I can see the appeal of the M79, you can do things with it that you really can't with rifles, pistols & SMG's etc (and equally if it wasn't fit for purpose or added much you wouldn't lug it and it's ammunition around, especially if you are some spec ops team who's already pushing operational load weights more than most, and there's been plenty of time to assess it for this trade off)
I shall rule that M79 'Pirate Guns' are effectively SOG M79 and that the finest examples have been subjected to the equivalent of 'Fitzing' (High-Tech: PG1, p. 9), being a couple of inches shorter than a field-expedient Vietnam model and having had all surfaces carefully smoothed to make it easy to conceal and draw quickly. Also, they can mount mini reflex sights.

Comparing modern versions of the M79 'Pirate Gun' (11" to 13" OAL, very thick 3" barrel) with some of the weapons that get Bulk -2; like the MP7A1 with stock retracted (16.5" OAL, fairly bulky), Ingram MAC-10 with stock folded (11.6" OAL, very bulky), Lancaster Howdah pistol (11" OAL, four barrels), S&W No. 3, Colt New Army, Colt New Service and various other large revolvers with 5.5-6.5" barrels (ca 11" to 12" OAL, bulky cylinder), I'm comfortable with allowing the sleeker varieties of the 'Pirate Gun' to reach Bulk -2, for an effective Cost increase (really gunsmithing time) of +$250 or so.

---

Compact AK carbines

Next, I'm wondering if JSOC, SOCOM or the United States military in general would have access to many AKS-74U, AKMSU or the spare parts to easily make traditional AK-type rifles into very small, 'Krinkov' type AKMS carbines, i.e. short-barrelled 7.62x39mm carbines with shorter gas system and retractable or folding stock.

The Mini Draco AK pistol, which was popular in the US for civilian SBR conversions of this sort, is fairly hard to obtain and prices have shot through the roof.* Most of the shorter pistol type AKs are also getting more expensive, even though SBRs made from them will usually turn out around 20" to 22" OAL, rather than the 16" to 16.5" OAL short-barrelled rifle (SBR) that the Draco pistol can be made into.

US import restrictions on foreign firearms are responsible for some of the shortage, I believe. This would not bind government purchasers, so if Romanian, Bulgarian or other suppliers are able to turn out quality AKMS type weapons, or short AK pistols that can be made into that by adding a stock, they ought to be able to buy some.

Even easier, if the AKS-74U was even marginally common on Afghani or Iraqi battlefields, JSOC could have stockpiled several dozen of them. Making an AKMSU can be done fairly easily by a qualified armourer by replacing the gas system and several other parts in an AKMS by parts from an AKS-74U, and then shortening the barrel.

In the absence of easily available, economically priced AKS-74U or Mini Draco gas systems, however, I believe that JSOC would not expend time and fancy new German or Belgian rifle money on acquiring slightly more concealable AK-type rifles for a theoretical clandestine mission at some point in the future. After all, there hasn't been time to obtain a completely new weapon or to extensively modify an existing one. They've known about this specific mission for a week or two, not months.

Which would restrict the JSOC operators, who are the PCs' back-up and security, to fairly standard AK rifles, possibly with shortened barrels and retractable or folding stock, but not any shorter than around 22" OAL with stock retracted or folded. More likely they'd have rifles with 24" to 29" OAL with stock folded or retracted.

So, does anyone have a guess as to whether JSOC would find it easy and economic to quickly obtain the comparatively rare short gas system for AKs or weapons that make use of it?

Or whether they were likely to have many captured AKS-74U in stocks, as opposed to a few used for training?

*x3 to x5 in a few years.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!

Last edited by Icelander; 01-31-2018 at 06:03 AM.
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 06:16 AM   #367
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Moving on from grenade launchers to AK-type SBRs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
Not a problem. I believe I have adequately settled in my mind the capabilities of the cut-down M79 'Pirate Gun', the M203 and other underbarrel grenade launchers, a full-size M79, and the Mk19 MOD 3, which sadly for our PCs, will not be available to them in any way, shape or form.*

*Unless things have gone so badly wrong that a convoy of one or more of: Hummvees, GMVs, Flyers, L-ATV, ALSVs or Strykers, is scrambled from Fort Bliss, TX, effectively invading Mexico to rescue federal agents and supporting JSOC personnel caught in a Gothic Serpent scale cluster-[fornication], except much more embarrassing and potentially international relationship-ruining, as the operation has most likely not been cleared with Mexican authorities (and may be unknown to Congress, senior administration figures who really should be informed and possibly the NCA). Note to us players, don't do that.

...
Nothing says "bad day" like an automatic grenade launcher!
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 06:53 AM   #368
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: Moving on from grenade launchers to AK-type SBRs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
Nothing says "bad day" like an automatic grenade launcher!
Well, Fort Bliss is home to some wide open ranges enthusiastically used for test-driving tanks and live-fire exercises of nearly every weapon fielded by the US Army. The 1st Armored Division is stationed there, complete with Aviation Brigade, including Apache attack helicopters.

There is a whole lot of artillery, several thousand military vehicles, up to and including main battle tanks, and a weight of ordnance nearly unimaginable.

Then there are the MQ-IC Grey Eagle UAVs, armed with smart bombs and Hellfire missiles. Their accuracy is good enough to strike moving vehicles with smart bombs.

So if the PCs [fornicate] up, they can take comfort in knowing that the special effects will be good, as it could ignite a war between a cult-like splinter faction of the Knights Templar cartel and/or a group of renegade supersoldiers and the United States of America.

Mexico would be in the war too, by default, but probably none too happy about it, as they've no wish to fight their northern neighbour, especially not on the behalf of an unusually loathsome DTOs, but neither can they ignore an invasion of their border. I suppose a possibility exists that they'd put a good face on it and call it a joint operation, especially if very senior Mexican figures were briefed on the clandestine mission beforehand.

It is, however, unclear whether the full might and fury of the United States Army would be bent toward rescuing all the PCs... or making sure that some of them were killed in the fighting.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 07:10 AM   #369
johndallman
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
Default Re: Moving on from grenade launchers to AK-type SBRs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icelander View Post
It is, however, unclear whether the full might and fury of the United States Army would be bent toward rescuing all the PCs... or making sure that some of them were killed in the fighting.
Indeed, the escorting force may have orders to ensure some people aren't captured alive.

It's still not as bad as a CoC scenario I ran where the SEALs realised after a while that their only likely use for small arms was preventing SEALs who'd failed their SAN rolls from attacking the Elder Things with heavy weapons.
johndallman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2018, 08:12 AM   #370
Icelander
 
Icelander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
Default Re: Moving on from grenade launchers to AK-type SBRs

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndallman View Post
Indeed, the escorting force may have orders to ensure some people aren't captured alive.
From the observations of Chase Taylor and Dr. Michael Anderson, each of whom has their own methods of reading people, it would be a mistake to give Lieutenant Commander Wendell Dao orders that he'd regard as illegal. He's honourable, strong-willed and independent, which means that even threats of prosecution wouldn't force him to act in a way that went contrary to his deeply held principles.

And ordering elite military personnel to murder friendlies in cold blood, citizens of their own country, moreover, ones who would count as 'comrades-in-arms' by most Codes of Honour, is a pretty iffy call. Especially if you didn't get to pick your personnel, but just got assigned a platoon from DEVGRU Black Squadron. Remember, the Department of Homeland Security faction of JTF Onyx Rain doesn't trust the Department of Defense faction, for reasons both historical and recent. One can assume that the mistrust is mutual.

Most soldiers aren't asssassins. Yes, the distinction between collateral damage and cold-blooded murder escapes some civilians and military critics, but to the codes of behaviour that many military personnel live by, there is a fundamental difference between calling in an air strike that kills foreign civilians as well as the primary targets and shooting citizens of your own country in the back of the head as they look to you for rescue.

Basically, neither Taylor nor Anderson can imagine a situation where LCDR Wendell Dao would murder allies merely on the orders of a suit-clad superior in a highly secretive joint task force. Nor would he kidnap children to use as leverage against their parents, kill innocent American civilians simply because they witnessed something they shouldn't or torture a wife to give up her fleeing husband because he was a test subject at Project Jade Serenity, before killing her in such a way to make it look like a random, if brutal, home invasion.

In light of the fact that Director Gujarat would order all of the above acts if she honestly believed it was the best way to safeguard her country, Onyx Rain really needs its own force of shooters, ideally one which the military members of Onxy Rain know little or nothing about.

They might not be as competent as the DEVGRU operators, but they must possess qualities of their own. First and foremost, the ability to commit acts that most people would never, ever contemplate. Second, unquestioning obedience, however this is enforced.*

I suggested that recruiting from BORTAC or Border Patrol in general might be practical, especially if they are willing to accept individuals with black marks on their records for shooting incidents. BORTAC is the federal special response unit most frequently involved in firefights and an unfortunate number of them have involved the questionable use of force against unarmed civilians. By going through psychological evaluations of BORTAC members and, perhaps even more so, those who have been forcibly retired from Border Patrol or found psychologically unsuitable for BORTAC, Onyx Rain might acquire some rough diamonds.**

Not to mention that the former BORTAC members would have the right skill set, being experts in small unit tactics in their own right, if perhaps not Tier One hostage rescue team quality shooters.

In my role as Assistant GM, I suggested that such a team already existed and was held in reserve if it proved necessary to sterilise the mission upon a sufficiently terrible failure. Dressed as rival cartel members, they'd kill everyone, PCs, Vargas and the USASF deserters. The SEALs wouldn't be told about that plan, they'd just be sent in too late to extract, being called back once it was clear that the shooting had stopped. Why shouldn't they accept that mask-wearing, AK-wielding gangsters in Mexico were rival cartel gunmen?

I suspect that the 'Activity'/'Army of Northern Virginia'/Task Force Orange/ISA/MSA intelligence support personnel would be briefed on such an alternative. And if not, one or more of them might represent the DoD-faction's fall-back alternative within Onxy Rain. One or two sharpshooters in the right place can make sure that at least certain people aren't captured alive, no matter what happens. The modern technology answer to the DeLisle Carbine might not have been statted exclusively to equip an ally acting as the angel on the shoulder of the PCs...

Not to mention that Onyx Rain might have the capability to guide a smart munition from a drone at the right place.

Or, you know, Zachary Holden spent most of his adult life in the Special Activities Division of the CIA. He might not be able to jump out of planes or run through an obstacle course, but he's probably still capable of suborning a kill team of Mexican gunmen to carry out a targeted assassination. Or planting the occasional car bomb himself.

*Good pay, good perks and the ability to blackmail the operator seem like a decent start. So is selecting fanatics and manipulating them, though that is obviously risky.
**This shouldn't be read as implying that federal police officers in general or BORTAC officers in specific are any more likely to be effective assassins than soldiers. Simply that through their access to Homeland Security records, Director Gujarat and her closest circle of advisors can select for certain psychological profiles in a way that they cannot do when JSOC simply assigns them a platoon of special operators.


Quote:
Originally Posted by johndallman View Post
It's still not as bad as a CoC scenario I ran where the SEALs realised after a while that their only likely use for small arms was preventing SEALs who'd failed their SAN rolls from attacking the Elder Things with heavy weapons.
I've never seen the appeal of vanilla Call of Cthulhu gaming, as opposed to the stories, which I enjoy. The protagonists have very little in the way of interesting or even viable choices in the typical CoC scenario, which functionally speaking means that there isn't much point in anything the player does. Your choices are basically between walking away before learning the Truth and becoming a reclusive and eccentric New England gentleman, dying horribly or losing your mind.

The closest a protagonist comes to an active role in a Lovecraft story is when he talks to government officials and convinces them to attempt genocide by dynamiting in the titular town of Innsmouth. Typically for Lovecraft, these interesting bits, the interactions with authorities, the planning and execution of the response; not to mention two-fisted jut-jawed G-Man pulp heroes fighting toe-to-toe with Deep Ones using Tommy Guns, flamethrowers and dynamite, all happen off-screen.

Bugger the neurotic investigators, whose discoveries always seem to leave them invalids at best, I want to play the rough men who confront the horrors while the 'hero' broods on the [ethnic slur] in his woodpile, or the Deep One equivalent.

And no matter how ancient, cosmic and incomprehensible the horrors, I want a fair shake at humanity giving as good as it gets. Inexorable doom might be astrophysically accurate, in the long run, but it's not very good fodder for gaming.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!

Last edited by Icelander; 01-31-2018 at 08:32 AM.
Icelander is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
federal agencies, hans-christian vortisch, high-tech, jade serenity, modern firepower, special ops

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.