FMA Range Thoughts

> St. Jon of the Tuffleyverse wrote:

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:48:54 +0100
From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzero.dungeon.com>
Subject: [OFFICIAL] FMA range thoughts....

The first one is to do with ranges of weapons; the draft version posted to the
list last week has each weapon given fixed ranges for close, medium and long,
which is both "traditional" in game terms and is simple to use and remember.
However, this means that an untrained figure has the same maximum range with a
given weapon as an elite (albeit with a reduced chance of actually hitting).
Now, an alternative method, and one closer to what we used in Stargunt II,
is to relate range bands of weapons to the firer's quality rating - so
each
figure has a "basic range band" equal to his/her quality die type -
eg: 6" for a green, 10" for veteran etc. Different types of weapon then use
MULTIPLIERS on this basic range band to represent differing inherent
accuracies - eg: pistols and machine-pistols might use 0.5 (pretty
inaccurate at anything over point-blank), assault rifles 1, heavier or
more accurate weapons 2 or even 3.
So, the range band for a given weapon/user combination is the weapon's
modifier x the firer's basic band - so for a veteran with a pistol it
would be 0.5 x 10 = 5", for an elite with an assault rifle 1 x 12 = 12", etc.
CLOSE RANGE is then up to 1 x the effective range band, MEDIUM is 2 x, and
LONG would be 3 x (or maybe 4 x - it might be sensible to say that
each band is twice the previous one?)

Pros of this concept: more realism due to better troops being able to hit at
greater ranges; it has a good "feel" to it, I think. Commonality of ideas with
SGII. Cons: a bit more complex than original method; may give some odd results
at the extremes of the variables range (eg: an untrained with a pistol gets
ranges of 2/4/6' if snapshooting, and still only 4/8/12" if he aims,
whereas an elite with same gun gets 6/12/18" for snap and 12/24/36" if
aimed - but is this REALLY unreasonable, in the light of  real-life
examples quoted on the list?)

** Probably makes sense. Snap shots are still close in, and troop quality is
the big factor (which I think most of us SG2 players will tell you was one of
the brilliant design features of that game). I like the 1:2:4 range band idea.
Los says 75m is reasonable for a snap. I'd agree. We called a snap (in CF
terms) when target was up for 3 seconds. Rifle came up, you breathe half a
breath out, and fire. From kneeling, sitting, or prone, shots to 100m weren't
too hard to make regularly. But not everyone seemed to be able to do it. But
in the deliberate (take your time and shoot), shots much further than this
were commonplace.

** In FMA, stance probably matters a bit. Suggestions on firing prone, from a
rest, etc? Let us work with your example:
Assault rifle: 8/16/32" bands for a snap, 16/32/64" bands for an aimed
shot (128m). Potential additional mods:
Prone or sitting/kneeling: modifier +0.5
Firing from rest: modifier +0.5

** So an AR fired by a regular soldier using a deliberate shot (aimed)
from prone, at rest (on the mag - just for Los!) would fire 32/64/128"
(up to 250m - basically to the edge of any reasonable board, though I
do play on a board 10' long sometimes). But that's not unreasonable.

** (As an aside, it opens up an interesting RPG/Campaign thought:
different weapon qualities - ie the NSL has great rifles, range mod
1.2, whereas the LLAR has poor ones with range mod 0.9 - this makes
for some math, but it introduces some interesting possible options for
representing different qualities - and if you don't want to, you can
stick with standard multipliers!).

** (OT) Los, the comment you made about resting on your mag - in the
CF when doing standing or kneeling shoots, we wear our LBE a little high so
you can actually rest the mag on one of the mag pouches giving
you an effective rest in any stance - increases average scores by
3-10% in standing and sitting matches it seems. Mind you, some refs
call it cheating - I call it good sense.

So, opinions anyone? This is the sort of rule where we are going to have to
go for an either/or decision, rather than allowing the option of
both - it
is too fundamental to the core system. Does this feel better than the
fixed-range version, and is the extra complication worth it?

Over to you guys......

** Yes sirree. A little more complex (though not much, just remember the basic
RB is troop type, and double thereafter). Works well with SG2 and makes troop
quality important.

** I like this one so much, I'll probably print this mail and use it in any
event:)