Re: Sources for factual combat statistics, was Re: Modern Close Assault

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:59:08 -0600, devans@uneb.edu wrote:

>I recall that the weapon effect and wounds allocation were based,
according
>to a con demo-player whom I respected greatly, on just such
excruciating
>number crunching. I remember playing a Vietnam game where he'd explain
in
>gruesome detail just how a wound had occurred, and the range of time
until
>I'd go unconscious and finally dead. But that I should go ahead and
finish
>my action. ;->=

The game system told you what area of the body was hit. Damage was
assessed
based on the weapon you were shot with and the area of the body hit. It
could
take into consideration glancing shots to the forehead as well as shots
penetrating into the brain.

The damage system, which was unique for RPGs (it was initially a complex
roleplaying game system that many used for miniatures), had you look up
a
chart for the amount of damage you had sustained. The more damage, the
less
time you had before making a roll to see if you lived or died outright.
There
were rules, of course, for disabling injuries and unconsciousness.
Medical
treatment increased the roll to survive, and gave you a longer time
before
having to make the roll. It was a neat system (though not as neat as the
Harnmaster system, where you could survive dark ages combat and die a
couple
weeks later from an infection). 

This is how the system originally looked. There WAS a slight chance of
surviving any damage. The worst roll was something like a 1 in 1000
chance of
surviving, but you had 2 seconds of "critical time" before making the
roll. We
figured you could survive it if you were shot in the head while being
lowered
into an "autodoc". Later versions had an "auto kill" section to the
table. 

>Having seen the table lookup and the die-rolling to get the results I
>described, I never really wanted to try and learn enough to RUN a game.

The basic game wasn't that bad at all. A couple of modifiers to your to
hit
number (based on you moving, your target moving, or cover) and a simple
roll
against a single chart. 

The full system DID break the game turn into tenths of seconds (I never
went
to this degree of accuracy; the game had various levels of accuracy).
You had
time of flight of projectiles. There was a lot of stuff that it took
into
consideration with a very high degree of accuracy. And I liked the
mechanics.
Once you got going, the mechanics were actually a fun part of the game.
There
was an interesting game within the game to see how many actions you
should
really spend aiming versus firing. This was not a clear cut answer (much
as it
wasn't in the Avalon Hill boardgame "Gunslinger"). 

However the stats for the characters were essentially made up out of
thin air.
An olympic class marksman was an 18. A pure novice was a 3. Where did
these
come from? Well, uh... 3D6 based roleplaying games, of course. It WAS a
system
designed to be fitted into RPGs. The result is a very accurate system
that
used as it's base stat a made up number.

However, GURPS is essentially the same, and I found the GURPS system to
be a
little less logical in execution. In Phoenix Command/Living Steel you
started
at one chart, added modifiers from up to 4 others in the same page,
found a
target number, rolled the dice. I ran RPG scenarios with it with pretty
quick
results. 

Would I do it today? I don't know. But I am converting the background
and
stats for SG2. And, funny enough, Jon's Japanese Corpoare Mercenary PA
doesn't
look all that unlike the PA in Living Steel!

Allan Goodall		       awg@sympatico.ca
Goodall's Grotto:  http://www.vex.net/~agoodall

"Surprisingly, when you throw two naked women with sex
toys into a living room full of drunken men, things 
always go bad." - Kyle Baker, "You Are Here"