Re: [OFFICIAL] FMA range thoughts....

Ground Zero Games wrote:
> 
> [snipped proposed range rules]
> ...
>
> 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.

I like it!  

> 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,

Have you ever had the opportunity to fire a handgun?  It's a ratehr
interesting experience, especially for one who's grown up on wargames
and hollywood.	

After a few of lessons at the range, I consider myself lucky to hit a
dinner plate size target at 25 feet with any regularity!  And that's
with a .22 target pistol.  With my '10mm' Sig I can't hit squat.  So I'd
support those numbers wholeheartedly, being that untrained soldier
myself.  :-)

Perhaps someday I'll have enough time to get back to the range and move
my way all the way up to green.  :-)

> 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?)

This end of the spectrum I can't really comment on, but it doesn't sound
unreasonable.
 
> 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?

I'd go for this version myself.

Tom

--
Thomas Pope
Human Computer Interaction Institute
Carnegie Mellon University
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tpope