Quote from: J Arcane;724290Morale rules are definitely an important start.

Suppression is next, but I think it's something most actual gamers would balk at putting up with in play.

Which goes back to the whole 'gamers don't actually want realism' thing.

There are simple panic fire in Book 4: Mercenary* and suppression rules in T5, which adapt easily to CT.

I don't know about "not wanting realism" more than just not being too slow or breaking the suspension of disbelief.

*

QuotePanic Fire: At medium range or less, players may voluntarily chose to use panic
fire, if firing small arms slug throwers. Panic fire uses all rounds in the weapon, and
hits are resolved as if the weapon were being fired at its highest setting (four round
bursts, etc). The player may take up to three normal fires (or less, depending on
how much ammunition is left in the weapon when panic fire is initiated), all of
which are made at a DM of -2. When firing rifles treat them as assault rifles on
automatic setting Players firing carbines treat them as submachine guns.

Hand Grenades are also a joy to behold, as well as support fire, ortillery (orbital artillery), with Forward Observer skill.

Marc Miller was awarded the Bronze Star in Vietnam, which he did draw experience from there in writing the rules.

Quote from: J Arcane;724290Suppression is next, but I think it's something most actual gamers would balk at putting up with in play.

Suppression can be very easy to set up depending on your game system. If you carry over penalties as far as the next round/action, it can be arranged like so:

• Staying under cover: -8 on enemy attacks
• Minor exposure (snapshot): -6 on enemy attacks
• Running between cover areas/suppressive fire: -5 to -1 on enemy attacks

I find a lot of games overthink things and create complex little minisystems for situations like suppressive fire, I drew up the above and realised I had suppressive fire covered. And I've never yet had a player complain as it makes perfect sense, the main effect has been to cause them to adjust their tactics accordingly. I guess it might be trickier in different game systems.

Almost everybody wants realism.

A surprising number of people dont realize that "realism" is not the same as "just like reality". Which is why we generally use terms like "verisimilitude" to make it easier on the people who refuse to pick up a dictionary.

And thats my snark quotient for the day filled I think.

Quote from: TristramEvans;724360Almost everybody wants realism.

A surprising number of people dont realize that "realism" is not the same as "just like reality". Which is why we generally use terms like "verisimilitude" to make it easier on the people who refuse to pick up a dictionary.

And thats my snark quotient for the day filled I think.

I still like "versi-whatchacallit" best.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;724154Nobody wants realism. They think they do, but they don't. Keep it abstract and unrealistic.

Have to agree with this when it comes to firearms.  My players would be having fits if they were missing 2/3 of the time at almost point blank range. Conversely they'd hate the almost insta-kill of a prepared hunter or sniper waiting for them with a rifle - an almost inevitable situation if they throw their weight around and piss off the bad guys (or the law for that matter).

Frustrated one way and screwed another. Bring in reality with guns and it'll end with a party TPK or premature retirement.

They'd also be unhappy about the months or years long recovery from gunshot and shrapnel wounds, which recovery is often incomplete leaving function inhibited.

And PTSD, not always from what you've had done to you, but sometimes from what you've done, things which intellectually you knew to be the right thing to do, but which still felt wrong. Or maybe it was just the unpleasantness of it all.

And stuff inflicted on you by the situation or your superiors, for example during a firefight in a village you accidentally kill an unarmed civilian, then afterwards have to take some money to the person's family as a "condolence payment." You look around the room and into the eyes of the father and sister of a young man you killed. Let's roleplay that.

Wouldn't this be oodles of fun?

Next to that stuff, 9mm vs .45 and all that really are just trivial.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;724417Wouldn't this be oodles of fun?

You do realise that one of the most popular RPGs in print or out, CoC, revolves around the gradual descent of the characters into underpants on head insanity, right?

Nooo, we all play D&D here, with our bulletproof HP and negative AC...

The CoC insanity spiral is a game mechanic designed to ensure players roleplay their characters as something other than staunchly indifferent to all dangers and horrors, and to balance the importance of the Mythos Knowledge skill.

It is not, believe it or not, an accurate representation of the mental illness sometimes suffered by people who've been through traumatic events.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;724429It is not, believe it or not, an accurate representation of the mental illness sometimes suffered by people who've been through traumatic events.

So... sorta realistic then eh...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;724274Sorry, totally debunked.

Sorry, not debunked at all.  That article discussed whether Vietnam vets fired on the enemy, and proffered no proof at all debunking SLA Marshall's commentary about WWII soldiers.  (This leaving quite aside the vast, vast difference between comparing a war fought by squads and platoons in small unit actions with a war fought by divisions and army corps in large set-piece battles.)

I'm definitely no fan of Marshall's, who was a lot more interested in Being The Man With The Facts than integrity, but.

Gun combat can't be done best if hit-points exist.

Quote from: Ravenswing;724448Sorry, not debunked at all.  That article discussed whether Vietnam vets fired on the enemy, and proffered no proof at all debunking SLA Marshall's commentary about WWII soldiers.  (This leaving quite aside the vast, vast difference between comparing a war fought by squads and platoons in small unit actions with a war fought by divisions and army corps in large set-piece battles.)

I'm definitely no fan of Marshall's, who was a lot more interested in Being The Man With The Facts than integrity, but.

um, WWII wasn't like wwi with large set piece battles.  There was plenty of squad level combat.  Like, all the time.  Also, Marshall's claims have been proven to be impossible, unless there are a half dozen clones of him

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;724449Gun combat can't be done best if hit-points exist.

Time to check the temperature in Hell boys and girls, Shawn Driscoll just said something I agree with.

I liked the combat in Fasa's Behind Enemy Lines WWII game.  Also, while I can't say I liked them that much, the firearms rules in The Morrow Project were kind of impressive.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;724449Gun combat can't be done best if hit-points exist.

Wrong.

Even being shot point blank in the head is not a guarantee of death, or even unconsciousness. Bullets, arrows, slings, bolts, whatever. The Romans had special "tweezers" to remove sling stones from inside people. Think about that one for a moment.

Hit points perfectly abstract the weirdness of combat.