War Hero

[Nuadaem]

Has anyone tried a Hero Game set in a recent war? And I mean recent in a pretty liberal sense. I tried a Vietnam Hero game with the guys from my last deployment and while it worked well while it lasted it became increasingly obvious that the distinction between an AK-47 and an M-16 were almost nonexistent. Battles occurred far too rapidly. There is no such thing as a fifteen minute engagement in Hero. By the time you've called for air or artillery support the enemy has overrun your position and the only option is to "pop smoke" on your location and hope for the best. Getting a Quick Reaction Force to your location to relieve pressure is hopeless as well, unless you're engaged within about 500 meters of the wire.

 

I appreciate any thoughts on the matter.

[Toadmaster]

I've done some but more of a spec ops type small unit stuff, I'm currently working on a WW2 campaign.

 

I think one of the problems you will find is not so much the system as the players, in most games pc's and npc's spend most of their time moving and shooting, in reality most people are more concerned with finding cover and then shooting and then maybe moving (the reason NCO's spend their time running around kicking their guys in the butt to move).

 

Some thoughts you might use:

 

presence attacks: automatic fire directed at the character particularly sustained fire such as from a MG is a pretty violent action and has a decent chance of making the character follow directions (get down you fool). This also allows you to use PRE as combat experience sort of like Twilight 2000's coolness under fire. You can give bonuses or penalties for being near freinds or being outnumbered etc.

 

speed: remember 2 is an average person, 4 is an extraordinaraly fast normal, for a "realistic" military campaign don't give most cannon fodder a speed more than 2, 3 should be saved for more detailed characters, the PC's should not be allowed to be faster than SPD 3 unless there is a good reason (the point man or a scout perhaps, maybe the guy who was a track star) but be strict on controlling SPD, it creaps up fast in heroic games if it isn't watched.

 

Body and Con: controlling these will greatly effect the lethality, the more deadly combat is the less likely the characters will take chances.

 

Points: for regular line soldiers 50+50 is probably about right, 75+75 for spec ops or more capable soldiers and 100+100 for top notch spec ops or more cinematic games.

 

use the optional rules on wounding and the optional maneuvers, rapid fire, snap shot, suppressive fire etc, the wounding rules encourage keeping DCV up and finding cover, the optional maneuvers also do this by allowing them to duck behind cover after shooting, deny an area etc. Also be sure to use endurance so the characters get tired, this should also slow things down since they will start to be forced to take recovery actions.

 

IMO the reason most game combat is so fast is because players don't react realistically, NPC's fight to the death and charge into hails of bullets (they can't get all of us), have the NPC's use cover, have them fall back to their next line of defence etc. Get on the players if they want to charge every MG nest they find (poor RPing penalties). Basically you need to encourage them to act like a real person who is not keen to die, not a paper sheet covered with numbers. Encourage the use of realistic tactics by setting up the NPC's with holes in their defences where the players good ideas fit in (fudge if the players idea is good, make the NPC's tougher if it is a really bad idea).

 

As far as the weapons go there isn't that much differance in the game but an M16 and AK47 are pretty similar anyway, you will find the heavier rifles like the FN-FAL does a little more damage and stun a pistol or SMG less which is probably pretty accurate even if a little dull. Feel free to bump the damage to fit your vision.

 

RPG Inc's Recon game has some very good material for running a small unit vietnam game, Paladium is reprinting it with some of their own modfications, I prefer the original but Paladium just released an updated version which could be useful for you (Deluxe Revised Recon I believe). I don't like the Paladium system much but this uses the old Recon system and has some ideas for campaigning.

 

Have fun storming the castle

[tkdguy]

I haven't tried GURPS Black Ops, but it may give you ideas. Also, Palladium is revising the RECON game to include today's military hardware.

[Nuadaem]

It's strange that RECON should be mentioned as my memories of playing that game were prime motivator in generating my VietNam Hero game.

The players in my group were new to the Hero system so I wanted them to get familiar with the basics before throwing in the optional combat rules. I agree that they would add to the sense of realism, but I was concerned with turning them off the system by making combat too confusing.

The characters were all members of a LRRP team built on 25+25. So I was using the SpecOps angle to reduce the unit size and increase the player's autonomy. Had the game continued, they would have been recruited by SF and eventually the Phoenix program. With the point totals BODY, CON, and SPD were all at reasonable levels.

As far as the weapons go, I ended up tweaking the published list a bit, making carbines with plusses to hit and rifles with greater plusses as Range Modifiers. Small changes to reflect the ease of wielding a carbine in built up and congested areas and the ability of a rifle to reach out and touch someone. I was considering adding a reliability roll to reflect the legendary hardiness of the AK series and the relative fragility of the M-16 series. It would have been a simple Jammed/ Burnout roll, but I went with the simplicity of ignoring the issue due to the player's inexperience with the system.

[Old Man]

Re: War Hero

 

Originally posted by Nuadaem

Has anyone tried a Hero Game set in a recent war? And I mean recent in a pretty liberal sense. I tried a Vietnam Hero game with the guys from my last deployment and while it worked well while it lasted it became increasingly obvious that the distinction between an AK-47 and an M-16 were almost nonexistent. Battles occurred far too rapidly. There is no such thing as a fifteen minute engagement in Hero. By the time you've called for air or artillery support the enemy has overrun your position and the only option is to "pop smoke" on your location and hope for the best. Getting a Quick Reaction Force to your location to relieve pressure is hopeless as well, unless you're engaged within about 500 meters of the wire.

 

I appreciate any thoughts on the matter.

 

Hero is pretty granular at the normal level, so I'm not surprised that there doesn't seem to be all that much difference between assault rifles. It would take a lot of effort to fix that.

 

Why would you want to play fifteen minute engagements in Hero? That's 75 turns! I'll pass. Of course make sure the opening range of the encounter is suitably great. If your squad stumbles on a VC patrol at an initial range of six hexes and everyone's weapon is set on auto, then, yeah, short fight.

[Toadmaster]

Interesting idea you had for the rifles and carbines, I was fooling around with a similar idea of OCV penalties for long guns but greater Rmod to offset the penalties at range (Ex, a pistol might be +0 OCV, +0 Rmod while an assault rifle has -2 OCV +6 RMod so at 0-4" (8m) the rifle is at a disadvantage (-2 OCV) but from 4-16" (8-32m) the rifle has no penalty (the first 2 Rmod cover the OCV penalty, and the next 4 the range) while at the same range the pistol would be -4 due to range. Of course I was looking at more variables for differant weapons but that was the idea, haven't had a chance to play test the idea though.

 

I've been slowly putting together a WW2 source book (kind of like GURPS WW2 but for HERO) I had not considered a tips for combat section, I'll have to put together some of the ideas I have used and include it (when ever I get around to it again).

[AaronD]

WW2 Hero

 

Originally posted by Toadmaster

I've been slowly putting together a WW2 source book (kind of like GURPS WW2 but for HERO) I had not considered a tips for combat section, I'll have to put together some of the ideas I have used and include it (when ever I get around to it again).

 

This is an interest of mine as well. Email me at akkala@cyberramp.net if there is anything I can do to help.

 

 

Aaron

[cyst13]

I've also heard many vets say that keeping M-16s combat ready was a real pain in rainforest terrain. Those guns have to be immaculate to work. You could build this as a limitation. Either as jammed/burnout, as somebody above suggested, or as "requires daily maintainence". Perhaps you could require Ego rolls to see whether the PCs maintain their guns on a regular basis or say they jam if they trip in a swamp. One suggestion I would have on lengthening your firefights is to make the combat in real time. At SPD 2, a PC gets one action/6 seconds. In a real 15 min. firefight, most of that time is spent behind cover attempting to ascertain the situation via enemy positions. In game combats, players spend a great deal of non-game time conferring about what to do. If you say "SPD 2!" and none of your players say what they do for six seconds, they just spent their phase. If you are playing on a battlemat, make sure the players can't see anything more than the PCs can see. If there are well hidden snipers, don't put them on the map until the PCs make a successful Per. roll.

 

Also, if you plan to play any further war campaigns in the future, I think you should give some serious thought to having the PCs be non-Americans. While I don't wish to belittle the experience and sacrifices of any U.S. GIs who served in Vietnam, the reality is that it was an exceptional time for them. Most only spent one year there and then returned (if they were able). For the Vietnamese, this was their life. Their tour of duty lasted the entire war, and even once it was over they had to deal with the enormous aftermath (2-4 million dead, dioxin poisoning, land mines & unexploded ordinance, extensive environmental degradation, U.S. economic boycott, etc.) I've never seen an American film of any political stripe that focussed on the experience of the Vietnamese themselves. They are always either enemies or local colour. To understand what it must have been like to fight as a Viet Cong soldier would take some real digging at the library, but it would definitely make for a mind bending game experience.

[Nuadaem]

cyst13 you've hit on an idea that I hadn't thought of. I hadn't considered having the players be on the VC/NVA side. I went with the U.S. side since I'm familiar with the organization (as were all the players). It's an interesting idea and the campaign would definitely be different. From the research I've done, the VC/NVA on average had a much lower incidence (about an order of magnitude) of combat than the U.S. forces did. This fits with the VC/NVA strategy of prolonging the conflict to erode support and the U.S. obsession with body counts and battalion days in the field. We were looking for a fight wherever we could find it and they were willing to attack (or defend) only when all indications pointed toward victory. The VC/NVA were willing to scrap military plans months in the making when they felt they had been compromised or the situation changed. Most of the large scale conflicts took place at the beginning of the war as we were "feeling each other out" and at the end.

[cyst13]

I'm not certain what the term "lower incidence of combat" means. How could the US have a lower number of combat incidents than the people they were fighting? Perhaps this is a number relative to the total number of soldiers in either army? The recent documentary "The Fog of War", in which Errol Morris interviewed Robert McNamara, quoted the statistic that the Vietnamese casualties were between two and four million. That's a number range that I've read in other sources as well. If the NVA was engaged in less combat than the US forces overall, that would seem to indicate that the vast majority of the above quoted Vietnamese casualties were civilians. I don't know how this relates to your game at all. What with Senator Kerry's testimony about war crimes being rehashed in the press, this is something I've been thinking about recently. It's truly horrific to contemplate just how many human beings lost their lives in a war with no legitimacy (on the US side).

 

Speaking of Kerry, an interesting take on your campaign might be to take your players out of the war after a while. Their tour is up and they get rotated home. How do they deal with the political situation at home? Do they become anti-war protestors? Do they work for the FBI trying to suppress domestic dissidents? Do they become so disillusioned with civilian life that they re-up for a second tour

(as many did)?

 

Even while in Vietnam your campaign can deal with many political aspects. Under Nixon, the CIA was helping to fund the war by selling heroin to GIs. Is there any drug abuse in the PC platoon? Is there any interpersonal rivalry that could lead to a fragging (ala Platoon)? Have any of the soldiers committed crimes against civilians? If so, how has this affected the dynamics within the platoon? R&R back in Saigon could also present some good character development opportunities. How do the PCs interact with the locals?

 

These are just some thing I had on the tip of my brain. Take them for what they're worth. Best of luck to you, and good gaming.

[AaronD]

Originally posted by cyst13

I'm not certain what the term "lower incidence of combat" means. How could the US have a lower number of combat incidents than the people they were fighting? Perhaps this is a number relative to the total number of soldiers in either army? The recent documentary "The Fog of War", in which Errol Morris interviewed Robert McNamara, quoted the statistic that the Vietnamese casualties were between two and four million. That's a number range that I've read in other sources as well. If the NVA was engaged in less combat than the US forces overall, that would seem to indicate that the vast majority of the above quoted Vietnamese casualties were civilians.

 

Not neccessarily. You only have to be in one fight to die. Its was a similar situation in Iraq, if an Iraqi unit fought a US unit, the Iraqi unit was wiped out, meanwhile the US unit continued fighting day after day. An Iraqi soldier may have only been in one battle during the entire war while US soldier (esp. those in the leading elements) were fighting day after day. This is generally the case when one side so outpowers the other such as Germany's invasion of France.

 

I'd have a hard time envisioning a campaign focusing on war crimes. Its such a unpleasant topic. Read Raymond Gantter's book Roll Me Over. He has an entire chapter detailing rapes, murders, theft and even female sex slave rings; all during the US occupation of Germany after WW2. To single out the soldiers who fought in Vietnam isn't quite fair.

 

 

Aaron

[cyst13]

Good point about the combat incidents. However, as you mentioned in an earlier post, the Viet Cong primarily fought hit and run battles, engaging full scale only when they felt confident of success. So I don't know whether your reasoning would apply to that situation. Again, this is something I'd actually have to research in order to proffer a real opinion.

 

As far as the Vietnam Vets go, I certainly wasn't trying to single them out for blame. I only referred specifically to them because that's what your campaign is about. No army in the history of warfare has had a monopoly on war attrocities. I can understand you not wanting to deal with that in your campaign. It is an unpleasant subject. But, then again, the entire war was unpleasant all around (gross understatement). This touches on the issue of whether war is a suitable subject for entertainment. Since you've read books like Roll Me Over, I'm not assuming you're one of those pumped-up jocks who think it would've been so cool to run around the jungle blowing away gooks. I've met a number of guys like that in my life, though. I wonder how much RPGs or movies or books that focus strictly on the combat aspect of war while ignoring the social costs contribute to the attitude that war is fun. Again, I'm not accusing you of contributing to this. I've played in a number of war games myself and I love combat oriented boardgames. It's just that after having lived through the recent build-up to the Iraq invasion and listening to my fellow Americans accuse the French of being surrender monkeys because they wanted to wait and see if Iraq really did have WMDs before invading, I can't help but feel that many people in this country simply are not capable of imagining what it must be like for the people who live in a war zone.

 

Whatever course you choose to take with your game, I wish you all the best.

[Toadmaster]

AaronD, thanks for the offer, at the moment the WW2 source book is an on again off again (whenever I'm in the mood) thing for my own amusement, whenever I finally finish it I plan to put it online but don't hold your breath. However when I do get something coherent I'd be happy to pass it your way for your angle and anything you could add to it before I put it online (assuming HERO doesn't beat me to it, hopefully it doesn't take me that long since I doubt Warhero is high on the publication schedule).

 

I've got a fairly good library of WW2 materials (history, equipment guides etc) along with several RPG's for ideas (Behind Enemy Lines (both versions), the GURPS WW2 stuff and the Weird War stuff from pinnacle (which is surprisingly useful even for a non supernatural game), and some other military non WW2 RPG's (Recon, Delta Force etc) so I've got more than I know what to do with at the moment, but it would be nice to get someone elses input at some point.

You wouldn't be in the SF Bay Area would you, it would be great to get a group to playtest some ideas for it (I've got some occasional Twilight 2000 players I could probably rope if I could a get a couple of militant HERO players).

 

 

Another alternate for a Vietnam game is having the players use indiginous persons, some of the recon supplements used this idea since it allowed for more espionage type games (an american doesn't pull of a VC impersonation to infiltrate an area very well) but still allows access to US supplies and theoretically a longer life span than playing a VC.

 

Last year I got all of the original Recon materials for less than $30 on Ebay, I see them there fairly frequently. I think Haiphong / HALO is the one with info on some of the types of missions indiginous troops were used for.

[Nuadaem]

cyst13 what I meant, and I assume the author of my source meant, by "lower incidence of combat" was that the average VC/NVA soldier was involved in a combat situation (live rounds fired by a hostile force) less often than the average U.S. G.I.

As far as any statistic quoted by Robert McNamara as to body counts on the enemy side, I'd assume those numbers to be exaggerated. As I mentioned earlier, the U.S. focus was on body count and battallion days in the field. When an officer's career is dependant on a high body count, it's amazingly easy for that "body count" to result from the most minimal contact. Belive me, a small little lie like one body becoming three is easy if you like the officer, and even easier if you dislike him and want to get him promoted out of your unit, which is easier to deal with than "fragging".

In any case, I think the disparity in "incidence of combat" had to deal with the fact that VC/NVA units tended to disperse until the day or two before a major operation and the U.S forces generally operated in force. So a contact involving three to six VC/NVA may involve 12-50 U.S. personnel.

Just my take on the situation. Unfortunately the logistics of the game became too difficult (players belonging to different platoons with exclusive schedules) and we switched to game that worked better with a "pick up" sort of feel.

[cyst13]

Your theory of body count exaggeration is certainly valid for the casualty statistics coming out of the US military at the time of the conflict. However, it's been nearly thirty years since the end of the war and historians have had the opportunity to compare those statistics with the records kept by the Vietnamese. It is true that there is no precise number. Vietnam was (and still is) a low tech agrarian nation with a divided government and little bureaucratic tradition. But simply comparing the census (which is done for taxation purposes) from before and after the war will give a rough estimate of how many people died in that period. Then you have to control for the normal birth and death rate and make decisions about whether people who died of malnutrition because the war kept them from harvesting their crops are war casualties and similar judgements. Our current lack of a civilian casualty rate in Iraq shows how difficult it can be to determine a number, especially when some people really don't want to know the number. Ambiguous as this question may be, though, what is unequivocal is that many more Vietnamese died as a result of the US invasion than would have if we had not invaded.

[Beowulf]

Attributing alll casualities in Vietnam to the US ignores many events and factors, but lets not take this thread into NGD territory.

 

As for engagement lengths, I have two thoughts on the matter. First is that most guns are not fired at a specific enemy in a general engagement. Hero rules tend to encourage the players to act like an elite unit on a specific mission rather then a unit in a general firefight.

 

If the players are making precise shots, moving and picking off enemies every phase then you and your players need to reconcieve the battle.

 

First of all, use covered rules and have someone who sticks their head out without covering fire to break the enemies cover of the hex take a bullet or three.

 

Once people are keeping their heads down waiting, keeping open hexes covered and quiet manuevering when possible then you will have a good battle situation that you might take out of combat time as each side throws a few rounds at eachother and moves for position.

 

Second, I would consider go for larger battles, and moving to turn based time keeping rather then segment or phase based. Turn 1, Turn 2 etc. Speed would still give each person a total number of attacks in a turn (2 for speed 2 etc.) and total movement for the turn. At twelve second interv als, five minutes passes much faster. Then drop down to phase based movement for the real intense scenes.

[Tamashii2000]

There is a book out named 3G (guns, guns, Guns) that you can order unline which has a very detailed system for creating almost any fire arm. It has conversion for most game systems including Hero and can be used to make sure the differences between say an AK-47 and M-16 are included in the game stats. (althrough for the life of me I couldn't tell you what the differences are as I am no military buff/expert)

[Tamashii2000]

Althrough I have never ran a WW2 or Viet Nam style game, I am currently running an on again off again game based vaguely off the old PS game named Metal Gear Solid (more stealth and Guile then shoot out..the main character (its a solo game) is rather infamous for the number of head hits he has made)

[Nuadaem]

Let's project ourselves back to, say 1973. We are a U.S. Army 1LT or SFC as either PLT Leader (1LT) or PLT Sergeant (SFC). A round comes whizzing out of who knows where! What do you do?

I deploy my platoon to engage the son of a gun. I destroy the vegetation in our path of march and continue the mission. If I happen to suppress the sniper and/or the mission of his/her higher, then I am Happy. Happy means that I can continue on my assigned mission without deterrence. If the sniper pops off another shot, then I saturate the area with artillery. The King of Battle, which dispenses hot flaming portions of High Explosive Shells throughout the battle area. A 105mm or 155mm will do the job equally well. the possible exception being that overrunning a 105 mm Battery may be more costly in terms of lives due to their Beehive rounds. The 155's can still fire their hand tools and such through their barrels to SHRED the advancing enemy, but it won't be as effective as Beeehive rounds at zero elevation.

[Toadmaster]

I seem to have lost the continuity of the last post, not sure if it is a response to the US didn't belong in Vietnam or is the begining of your campaign, anyway it reminded me of a book I read which might be helpful for ideas other than SF or recon. I recently read Brown Water, Black Berets which follows the activities of the US Coast Guard and Navy in Vietnam, in particular your post reminded me of an incident covered where a mobile amphibious unit had been having problems with large numbers of VC ambushing shipping at one particular spot in a river, so they loaded up 4 105mm howitzers loaded with Beehive on a barge and proceeded down river with a number of PBR's and Monitors in support, when they were attacked they opened up with everything including 40mm bofors, 81mm mortars, .50's, small arms and of course the 105's, there were no ambushes in that area following that, not much vegetation either. Another book that you may find interesting is US Navy Seawolves, the only Navy attack helo unit in Vietnam, they were used specifically to support Spec ops and the riverine forces. Navy pilots were used because they were all instrument rated so could fly at night and during bad weather, most Army pilots were visual flight rules only so were grounded in poor visibility.

 

A PBR crew or Seawolf helo crew could make an interesting game, since they could get involved in small unit actions while delivering or picking up spec ops types. Just an idea for something a little different.

[Dauntless]

If you can get your hands on the game Phoenix Command, I'd play your Vietnam era game with that. Back in the 80's, I ran a few campaigns with that system, and they were very fun and sobering at the same time. That game system was lethal, but hitting someone was also not that easy.

 

And Phoenix Command still to this day has one of the best initiative/resolution of order systems I've seen of any game. It takes a a lot of record keeping, but it's very nice. Every Action takes a certain amount of phases to perform. Depending on how smart you are, how combat experienced you are, how fast you are, how encumbered you are, and how fatigued you are, you modify the phase cost of each action. Also, some weapons due to how bulky they are require more actions to aim, or from their complexity to set up (think of trying to set up a ATGW versus a simple LAW). Things like reloading a magazine required fewer phases than loading shotgun shells into the tubular magazine.

 

For example, combat starts at phase 1. Let's say I want to take aim (put the rifle to my shoulder) and spend 2 phases aiming. It takes for example 3 phases to bring the rifle to my shoulder, plus the 2 for aiming. My opponent is racing to make to a tree for cover, and it takes him 4 phases to reach the tree. So by the time I'm ready to shoot, he's behind the tree.

 

Now he decides to pop out from behind cover and take a quick pot-shot at me. It takes him 2 phases to make a quick non-aimed shot, but, I'm already aiming at that position by the tree by Phase 5. So I get to act on Phase 5, whereas the enemy doesn't get to shoot until Phase 6. However, I no longer get my aiming bonus because I lost sight of him when he went behind the tree...so I have to make a quick aimed shot too.

 

It's more data-tracking than the Hero System....but it's really really nice for very precise combat engagements. If you can find the Advanced Supplement on ebay or something, I'd get that too as it has some rules on Morale.

 

Anyone remember the original Recon game not done by Palladium? It was a small print book, and I remember it dealt with Special Warfare teams. I think there was a supplement Called Haiphong Harbor where you HALO dropped into North Vietnam. I wish I could remember that game more...but I was only around 13 or so, and only played it once or twice before I loaned it out and never got it back.

[Dauntless]

Sometimes artillery wasn't an option, either because it was tied up for another patrol out on recon, the firebase itself was under attack or because the sniper is near a civillian population. Ditto for CAS. But hey, if you got it...definitely use it If I didn't have any big guns at my disposal, I'd probably split up by squads to try to surround the position, popping smoke to obscure the squad movements. Of course there's always the potential that that's what the enemy would expect....split up your forces, so they could lay an ambush against a split force. So I'd probably split my platoon in half, each half bounding against the other to look out for that.

 

I do wish the Hero System was a bit more "crunchy" in certain areas. I want to know how bulky a weapon is, what its aiming class is, how reliable the weapon is, etc etc. You can model alot of these with limitations or advantages, but it seems to me that weapons should have a universal format depending on the genre.

[Toadmaster]

Phoenix Command was a great game but just a tad over the top in complication (it was written by actual rocket scientists), I loved the way aiming works, short weapons gain accuracy much faster than long guns (shorter aim time) but long guns get much more accurate if you take the time to aim that long. A couple of my friends tried playing a post apacalypse game with it and once we got the rules down it really wasn't that hard to play, one of the characters was bummed to get a .22 until he found out what an American 180 was, I eventually got a .444 Marlin which was pretty nifty for a lever gun. Unfortunately the majority wanted to play something a little easier and faster moving (1/10 second phases in PC) so we moved back to HERO which wasn't a bad compromise. That is one aspect of GURPS that I prefer, some of the gun rules allow a little more variety (wider damage spread, snap shot etc).

[Chris Goodwin]

Try a couple of additional rules:

 

1. If you're behind cover, take -2 OCV.

 

2. Make an EGO roll to come out from behind cover.

 

3. Make an EGO roll to shoot someone, unless you have actually taken Psych Lim: Casual Killer on your character sheet.

 

4. Every segment you're not behind cover, there's a 5- chance you'll be hit; roll 3d6 for location and use the enemy's standard battle weapon for damage. Increase this by +1 if they outnumber you, +1 additional for every 2x; their platoon sergeant's Tactics roll is complimentary, while your PSG's Tactics roll reduces it in an anti-complimentary fashion. This is not something you see coming, so you don't get a Dodge.

 

Or adapt the mass combat rules to modern day weapons.

 

Note: These are all for infantry soldiers on the front lines. Elite troops are treated as normal.