|
|
|
#61 | ||
|
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
It gets more confusing, I emailed Kromm.
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Doesn't seem all that confusing to me.
Even clarified and widened the role of Forward Observer a bit. Now, it might not be a 100% realistic, but that's another issue. And, as a matter of fact, I believe that as long as characters are constructed with realism in mind (i.e. taking all skills that they should have according to GURPS rules and using lack of familiarity and/or Optional Specialitation to make them inept at things they shouldn't be good at), this works well enough for anything except possibly a dedicated fire support campaign.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#64 | ||
|
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Polar Geomancy, and Summon Sine the Demon of Trig |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Optional Specialisations, right?
And familiarities, which can take a bloody long time to shed and few people try unless they have pressing reason.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Wielder of Smart Pants
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ventura CA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#67 | |
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Quote:
Can't we assume that he needs to succeed at his roll to remove that penalty?
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
If you want to avoid the "more rolls = more chance of failure" effect but give the FDC a reason to roll, how about the FDC only adds its equipment bonus (+1 to +TL/2, depending on quality) to the roll if the controller makes an FO (Fire Direction) roll, and such a roll also detects any critical failure on the real forward observers FO roll, such that the attempt is wasted (and, likely, called in again the next turn with hopefully better results) rather than resulting in a catastrophic fire mission targetting friendlies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
|
I can't help but wonder why there haven't been any responses to my post. If it were terrible, I'd expect someone to have commented on that by now (and likewise if it were good). Has it been overlooked? This seems to be about the right approach to artillery, and although it increases the possibility of a critical failure for groups with Skill 16+ (for others it lowers it), I think the progressively stacking nature makes it unlikely for a single failure to screw things up, and also makes it more likely that the initial shot will land on target (how realistic this is is beyond me). The process and skills involved might be off, but I think it's a decent start.
I've recently modified the post to address some of what has been mentioned since it was initially made.
__________________
Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat. Latin: Those whom a god wishes to destroy, he first drives mad. |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Zagreb,Croatia
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Tags |
| artillery, high-tech, skills |
|
|