OK, I think I've come up with some House Rules I like, anyone else want to
give them consideration?
First of all, I want to make it a little harder in general to ID hidden units.
Just establishing LOS seems too easy. After all, the observation drones have
LOS to them already. But I'm going with the assumption that
hidden units are in some sort of obscuring terrain, and that the best one can
do without removing the obscuring terrain is estsablish LOS to their
LOCATION, not the unit/element itself. But non-optical sensors SHOULD
give help in ID'ing. Thus, with the HR's, there are 4 ways to "unhide" a
hidden unit:
1. Voluntary unhiding - unit moves or fires or takes other action. Unit
is immediately revealed (Should FO's be somewhat exempt from this for calling
arty?)
2. unobscured contact - scouting unit comes close enough to the hidden
unit that the terrain no longer effectively obscures it (Enters the same
buildings, trees, gully, etc.). This is risky.
3. Sensor detection. Roll vs the following table based on distance from the
hidden placement marker: Basic Firecon: 1D6 Enhanced Firecon:1D8 Superior
Firecon:1D10 Shift up one die code for Veteran Troops, doqn 1 for green.
Target # they
must beat is range in inches/effective signature of the least stealthy
target element.
4. Recon By Fire. all elements in element must engage, to cover the area being
beaten. scouting unit fires at the hidden unit marker as if it were an element
with a signature of 1 (To reflect luck as much as accuracy). If a hit is
scored, draw damage chits as if hitting a target, but ignore
Immobilized and System Down/T chits. System Down/F count as normal.
Boom chits mean 1 hidden element, chosen randomly, has been luckily hit.
Re-draw
chits to resolve damage, and unit is revealed. If no special chit is drawn,
add up valid damage chits. This does not represent actual damage, but ferocity
of fire as perceived by the target unit. If the valid damage is enough that it
would normally destroy any element in the hidden unit. the unit must pass a
resolve check at a threat level of 1. Failure of any element means the unit is
revealed.
3B^2
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
[...]
Brian,
I am currently developing a DSII scenario in which this set of houserules
would fit perfectly. I doubt I'll have much of an opportunity this week to
test them out, but maybe next week I can give them a dry run for you.
> At 12:29 PM -0800 4/2/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
Absolutely. Presumably if they've had time to hide. They've had time to lay
fiber to remote transmitters that have LOS to repeaters or to satellites. Just
observing and transmitting with secure comms shouldn't reveal a scout unit or
an FO team if they've hidden first.
> 2. unobscured contact - scouting unit comes close enough to the
this should be a combination of the spotted unit's training level and
commander's grade or based on the spotting unit's grade.
Red or Orange should be harder to find. It should be harder for green troops
to find an Orange or similar unit than if they are looking for a regular unit.
Infantry should be harder to spot than vehicles (based on size).
> 4. Recon By Fire. all elements in element must engage, to cover
Hmm interesting.
> Indy wrote:
> I am currently developing a DSII scenario in which this set of
That would be quite cool. The only caveat is that under the LOS/Sensor
section, I haven't figured out how to resolve recon by infantry.
3B^2
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
I'll give you 'til next week. ;-)
But as the scenario I'm working on involves mostly units right now (infantry
holding positions, and mostly defensive), no big worries on that. I can work
with the rest. Or fake it if an infantry unit finds itself on recon.
I included some basic spotting on my DS play aid page. If it is not posted at
stargrunt.ca, I'll put it up on my page.
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
> Indy wrote:
> > That would be quite cool. The only caveat is that under the
You're a hard taskmaster, you are, Mr.Kochte.....
> But as the scenario I'm working on involves mostly units right
'Twixt the input of Mr.Gill and others, I'm sure we'll come up with something.
3B^2
> Michael Brown wrote:
> I included some basic spotting on my DS play aid page. If it is not
Thanks, I'll look at them.
3B^2
> At 1:43 PM -0800 4/2/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
I'm speaking up on this as the most recent game I ran had this as a major
facet of the game at warfair last year.
Basic scenario was this.
A red force rear area garrison and militia are looking for a detachment of SAS
hidden somewhere on the table. The SAS have been monitoring the base and have
reached the time to pull out. The militia have some trucks for transport, a
few patrols out and some small unit of combat troops. Security of the base has
to be kept up so not all can leave the base to hunt down the troops.
A platoon of NAC power armor are to move into contact with the SAS, provide
security and evac with the SAS on the flight of helos if there is room or
exfiltrate on foot if not. Airsupport and off table artillery are available to
the NAC.
This was played with 4 people: 1 Red team player who controlled the militia
and regulars who had setup first. 1 NAC player for the SAS unit who was hidden
and had the secret set up after the red team player. 1 NAC player who
controlled the Power armor and resolved the Airsupport and Artillery missions.
The last was the umpire.
The game was set up so that the militia could have some foot patrols out and
walking already but had to have a majority of the forces on base. The trucks
could be arranged as desired for transport duties. The SAS could hide where
ever they liked on some terrain features (lots of woods and hills as well as a
village).
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> I'm speaking up on this as the most recent game I ran had this as a
AAR please?
3B^2
> At 2:00 PM -0800 4/2/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
It was months ago but suffice to say, The Power armor was held up in a
firefight for a few turns then managed to get under way again. Artillery was a
pretty good deciding factor with the firefights. The SAS had a good period of
being hidden and then when they had some targets were unable to call in
fighters for most of the game. (I suspect there was some fault with the comms
gear.) Eventually the Milita got the better of the SAS units that of course in
spite of fire, mortars and other issues didn't loose confidence at all. The
militias and green rear area troops of course were far worse for wear. Had the
SAS been able to get the air strikes they wanted, they'd have gotten out ok.
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> It was months ago but suffice to say, The Power armor was held up in
Thanks. Was this in SG or DS? Wonder how well this specific scenario would
cross from 1 to the other (not being a SG player)....
3B^2
> At 2:38 PM -0800 4/2/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
This kind of scenario fits more with a DS scale.
DS. Though not explicitly in the rules the use of the Red and Yellow unit
rating seems to be an implicit extension into DS from SG.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
Suggestion. Make them eqqivalent to Basic Firecon (1d6), which would allow you
to flex them a little for having speclialized spotting equipment (equivalent
to "enhanced firecon"), and allow for "primitive" units to be equivalent to
1d4 (I want to lobby for a "primitive firecon" at some point which would be
one level lower than basic: 1d4 instead of
1d6).
Or give their sesnsor detection a flat 1d4 (Mk I Eyeball w/no
enhancements), enhanceable from there.
> Indy wrote:
Effectively taking DS one step closer to the full 5-level FMA system
(all you need is a d12 'advanced firecon' at the top end).
Which I'm all for, BTW - I'd like to see DS3 go the way of SG2 with five
levels of troop and equipment quality.
> Tony Francis wrote:
> Effectively taking DS one step closer to the full 5-level FMA system
The only problem I have with this is the way it restricts your ability to
slide die types up or down for circumstances (A normally D12 unit, which
finds itself in a situation where it gets a boost and should be 1 die type
better, can't be. You can always apply it by penalizing it's opponent,
unless he's already at D4. Auto fail/success at this point is not a
desireable option, there should always be some slim provision for luck,
however how small).
3B^2
> At 12:10 PM -0800 4/3/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
There is always D2 (flip a coin) and D20...If an elite unit gets super better
circumstances and you can't go down, a D20 seems rational to me.
You could also move to 2d6 or 3d6 - giving a better chance for a middle
number - and in the case of 3d6 that would be 9-13, much better than a
d12, with no chance for rolling a 1 or 2.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> There is always D2 (flip a coin) and D20...If an elite unit gets
D2 works, but D20 skips several levels of increase and is an imbalanced next
step.
3B^2
> At 1:48 PM -0800 4/3/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
One could say that Elites vs yellows is an imbalaced first step. If the Elites
need another bump up, it might as well be D20. Besides. Is there a D16?
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
One alternative is to use this sequence:
D10
D12
D12+1
D12+2
D12+3
D20
I've found it works quite well in my roleplaying game version.
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 12:10:22PM -0800, Brian Bilderback wrote:
Steal from one of the best FMA-like RPG systems out there, Jadeclaw
(http://www.jadeclaw.com). d12 with a bonus is d12,d4, roll both,
take the highest. This also, incidently, removes the top of the
5-tier system. Penalties could be done by dropping die levels, or
rolling one additional time for each Penalty, and taking the lowest.
And there you go.:)
> At 11:00 AM +1200 4/4/02, Andrew Martin wrote:
But you go from having zero chance for a 1, then 2 then 3 to having a
1-20 chance for a 1 a 2 or a 3.
> Andrew Martin wrote:
> One alternative is to use this sequence:
> I've found it works quite well in my roleplaying game version.
Damn. And all this time I was avoiding FMA as a RPG because it seemed so
closed-ended i ndie sequencing. I'll have to consider this.
3B^2
> Alexander Williams wrote:
> Steal from one of the best FMA-like RPG systems out there, Jadeclaw
DS II already does this (kinda), with a second die. But a second die does not
increase your highest possible result, which a die value increase DOES do. I
think I like Mr.Martin's suggestion better.
3B^2
It also seems to work better in play. I've tried out Iron Claw (the origin of
Jade Claw's dice mechanics) and my players and I like my version of FMA
mechanics more.
Andrew Martin
ICQ: 26227169 http://valley.150m.com/
-><-
[quoted original message omitted]
> >One alternative is to use this sequence:
I haven't found that to be much of a problem, because I don't have special
results occuring on 1, 2 or 3, and the wider range of values for the D20
certainly compensates.
Check out my site for S, a RPG system, which uses adapted FMA mechanics.
Andrew Martin
ICQ: 26227169 http://valley.150m.com/
-><-
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 03:39:18PM -0800, Brian Bilderback wrote:
No, it doesn't increase the highest possible result, but it does
decrease the chance of the /lowest/ possible result significantly, and
since the only question is whether or not you beat the opposing roll, the
stats actually work out much more smoothly. If you're rolling d12,d4 and your
opponant is d4, you are roughly twice as likely to succeed as you would have
been without the Bonus. If he is d6,
roughly 1+2/3 as likely, etc.
Since the actual value on the die is not significant, I don't actually see why
whether or not it increases is really much of an issue in this
situation. (In fact, in Ironclaw/Jadeclaw, there /is/ a meaning to
the actual value, at least in terms of difference; if the difference between
values is => 5, the roll is an Overwhelm, and thus gets some special
advantage; due to the nature of the rolling system, you can't Overwhelm if the
only die you're rolling is a d4... which, neatly enough, makes sense.)
G'day,
> There is always D2 (flip a coin) and D20...If an elite unit gets
Well D3's are on the marker and there's nothing stopping you from using
D12+D4 etc or 2D8 (I do think Tom mentioned a D16 once).
Cheers
[quoted original message omitted]
You could make a d14, d16 or some other value. Instead of a regular
polyhedron, you make it a facited tube with a number of sides equal to the
number of combinations you desire (and rounded ends, so that it cannot stand
on end).
But the basic point is valid all shifts in FMA add 2 additional results to
the top of the system (d4->d6->d8->d10->d12). A jump to d20 would add 8
additional results.
Other than making odd dice, you could add a 2nd die. Start at d4, so you
would roll d10 & d4. Then d10/d6 -> d10/d8 -> d10/d10 -> d20 -> d10/d12
->
d12/d12. You add the results of the 2 dice. I would suggest that if you
allow the shift down to d2, you shift the result of snakeeyes (1s on both
dice) equal to 1 (allows even a d2 to beat a d12/d12 if they are
_really_
lucky).
But open shifts are probably a better way to handle it.
> From: KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de (K.H.Ranitzsch)
> Actually, I would prefer a limited die sequence for an RPG. IMO, too
That's the point of an RPG - to be able to play wildly fantasic, heroic
characters, IF you want. I'd rather make it open-ended, and then allow
the GM to set the rate at which characters progress.
3B^2
> Alexander Williams wrote:
> >DS II already does this (kinda), with a second die. But a second die
Not really. If you use an "ideal" D14 (D16, D18 etc) as the norm your system
gives better results than AM's if the opposing die is small
(D4-D6),
they're about equally good against D8s, and AM's system is better if the
opposing die is a D10 or larger.
> If you're rolling
Err... either you have a different definition of "success" than I have, or
you have a different definition of "twice" and "1+2/3" than I have. I'm
not
quite sure which though :-/
In the above examples, I get the following probabilities (rounded to the
nearest whole%; "success" is always in terms of the attacker succeeding):
Vs D4 opponents:
Attacker D4 vs Defender D10: 15% chance of success Attacker D4 vs Defender
D12: 13% chance of success Going one die shift further: "Ideal": Attacker D4
vs Defender D14 has 11% chance of success
"Martin": Attacker D4 vs Defender D12+1 has 6% chance of success
"Williams": Attacker D4 vs Defender D12, D4 has 7% chance of success
Attacker D10 vs Defender D4: 75% chance of success Attacker D12 vs Defender
D4: 79% chance of success Going one die shift further: "Ideal": Attacker D14
vs Defender D4: 82% chance of success
"Martin": Attacker D12+1 vs Defender D4: 88% chance of success
"Williams": Attacker D12, D4 vs Defender D4: 84% chance of success
And for D6 opponents:
Attacker D6 vs Defender D10: 25% chance of success Attacker D6 vs Defender
D12: 21% chance of success Going one die shift further: "Ideal": Attacker D6
vs Defender D14 has 18% chance of success
"Martin": Attacker D6 vs Defender D12+1 has 14% chance of success
"Williams": Attacker D6 vs Defender D12, D4 has 17% chance of success
Attacker D10 vs Defender D6: 65% chance of success Attacker D12 vs Defender
D6: 71% chance of success Going one die shift further: "Ideal": Attacker D14
vs Defender D6: 75% chance of success
"Martin": Attacker D12+1 vs Defender D6: 79% chance of success
"Williams": Attacker D12, D4 vs Defender D6: 74% chance of success
Dunno about you, but I usually don't consider 82% to be "roughly twice" as
much as 79%, nor would I say that 74% is "roughly 1+2/3" as much as
71%...
***
One important thing to remember here is that just because one side has its
success probability halved it doesn't automatically follow that the other side
has *its* success probability doubled. Eg., when AD4 vs DD12 is compared to
AD4 vs DD12,DD4 the attacker's success probability drops from 13% to 7% (ie.,
it is cut roughly in half), but the defender's success rate
only increases from 87% to 93% - which is not *quite* a doubling :-/
Regards,
> Alexander Williams wrote:
> No, it doesn't increase the highest possible result, but it does
Unless he's also D12, and rolls a 12, in which case the D12/D4 system
does you no good....
3B^2