Wolf

Re: Single Most Powerful Super Hero EVER!!! I haven't read where this showed up, but I saw a picture a while ago, so I'm probably way off "most Powerful" but I humbly submit This "altered" Guy, or a kit-bash if you will. OH, and there is a bad-ish word in the text, it's why I linked it, so let's go with NSFW cursing (not nudity that is) just to be safe. Otherwise I would have put up the pic. But he has to be worth honorable mention.

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC? I've got to agree with Ragitsu for one moment here... I don't think I thought I'd ever say that, lol. However, yah, I've been on here at least twice if not upwards of 10x a day since I joined, and I've only got 645 posts since sep of 03... and I consider myself a regular board member, again I think, mainly because I just don't post, unless I really feel I want to say something, but I don't interject ad hoc. But I haven't missed more than a week, since I joined. Maybe I'm just an outcryer, but I've spent a LOT of time on these hallowed boards... *shrug* That said, I think these boards are most definitely a bastion of well manneredness.

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC? Good point, they also have been getting more and more into the multi-role capacity (I know since before the 60's), so I should probably say carrying on the multi-role capacity... for example (older) the 113 Chassis was the base for a troop transport, Medical tracked vehicle, Mortar carrier (4.2", then later 120mm), (base frame for the) 577, and so forth. I know when I was in (which pre-dates the Striker in the Army) we had folks looking towards a new IFV that could be used for all those previous stated roles, and AA, MLRS, and a few other roles that I can't remember. There was brief talk about trying to take a Brad and converting it over to a Mortar carrier, but it was scraped for just being a lame/silly idea (the body really wasn't made to be able to remove the top and stick a 120mm tube out of it, with any chance of maneuverability.

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC? The only experience I've got with a Striker is from one of my buddies who actually went to Iraq (this guy is by best friend, I joined the Army with him, it's just that I got out in early 2001, on a medical charge, so I missed Afghanistan and Iraq). He was one of the dudes who was training the Iraqi military, so he didn't actually work with the American vehicles. But as he was going to the chow hall (he ate on the American side, but lived on the Iraqi) Anyway he passed this kid (probably 19ish) who was looking a little pale. So he asked if the kid was fine, and his sergeant looked over and said, "yah, he's a little shaken up, he's just hit his second IED today." Apparently while in a striker (he was the driver) he was able to maintain a functional (single) striker after being hit by at least one IED. Now this says nothing of the power of either explosion, but he survived a forward hit twice, and the Striker survived at least one, and kept it's crew alive for a second one, and then at least kept together enough to make it back to base. I've heard tell, from others (who mainly used Brad's) that they had little trouble hearing about Strikers, but the rumor from service men is that you can hit an IED with a Striker, use your dismounts to roll it over (ie back on it's wheels), and drive it away. Again, my last (and first) conflict was a few years before the whole "trouble in the mid east" and all we had were 113s (by the way, an AK 7.62 will penetrate both sides of 113 without slowing much) and the first gen up-armored Hmmwv's. Side note: the military HMMWV is named so as to be abbreviated for of Highly Mobile Multi-Wheeled Vehicle, gotta love that military naming then acronym... sigh.

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC? This: http://www.news.com.au/technology/rewalk-bionic-legs-get-fda-approval/story-e6frfro0-1225989332272 plus 30 years might just get us power armor, no guarantee of course, but that's the first thing I thought of when I saw this article. Yes that technology has a LONG way to go, and total jumps in tech that we can't necessarily predict (powerful, light weight batteries for example), but I'd say +30 years wouldn't be too bad of a time hack given the above story. However if you check out the Steampunk thread, they just put up a site with postcards of what they thought the year 2000 would be like back in 1900, and MAN, the focus was in the wrong direction on a few of them... Anyway, to me it illustrates that we see both the past and the future based on the now (and that's cool), and we really can't ever tell... the world post 2010 is really nothing so spectacular as I was waiting for.

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC? See, I suppose it's a matter of semantics, because to me "bogged down" means running slowly, "Stuck," is a non-mobile designator, in my verbage (I fully acknowledge that is my interpretation of the distinction between the two words). At least in a wheeled vehicle, you can work to move (whether stuck or bogged down) from inside the vehicle, and that provides both concealment and cover for the troops located inside, whereas to get your track back on it's going to take 2-3 troops outside the vehicle upwards of an hour (if it's not bad, if it's been slipped badly, you must then break track, and that's going to run you 3 hours.) So as an infantryman having been in an urban combat zone, I can say, I'd rather go with the wheels. But I know that the soldier really isn't asked in all this and it's just reports that are poured over by men in comfortable offices looking at naked statistics with little to no "on the ground" observations on how things work outside a lab, or otherwise "controlled test" environment. And absolutely it's going to be a compromise between two half-XXX solutions at least till we see anti-grav (lol) that solves all these other than the whole "power" issue, that and who's to say you can't just push an anti grav out of the way, lol.

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC? I know we are talking statistics and "over time" and "as compared to" etc. However having spend quite a few years as a tracked wheel driver (113 and 113A1; and yes, I understand these are older tracked designs, but I've even seen ODS Bradleys and Abrams suffer from a good muddy day), but racks are not a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to "off roading". honestly I'd rather loose some traction, or even bog down, rather than slip a track during a sustained firefight. Just saying.

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC? The American Army is dealing with battles in urban terrains that it will eventually have to re-build. We have less ability to "just toss" grenades than we did in, say, Vietnam, because the powers that be realized that eventually America has to pick up the pieces that it tore down. End point, the US war-machine realizes it's a war that they have to pay to put back together again afterwards, so destroying hundreds of miles of blacktop is something that we don't want to do. We are moving away from tracked vehicles and towards multi-wheeled variants.

Re: Undead Labor: why not? In HBO's Cast a Deadly Spell "Ode to Lovecraft" movie the home construction crew that is seen several times in the build up and investigation are all (or mostly all) undead. I have always thought that was a pretty cool scene, because it shows some of the issues (zombies walking into a concrete form and getting stuck (if not falling down), wandering aimlessly when gone without orders, etc.), and the benefits ("free labor"). But since it shows a 1940's era America, where "everybody uses magic" there are no "moral issues" explored, outside of reflecting on how you feel seeing it on the screen.

Re: Cool Guns for your Games The problem with the US Air Force is they really don't have older craft (like the C-130) that are "perfectly good" So I can say I've never jumped out of a perfectly good Aircraft (LOL, I don't know if I used that one yet... if I have, sorry). Seriously though, When I was in the 82nd we didn't have too many mechanical problems (there were some delays due to maintenance issues), but at Jump School, the C-130's got priority on repairs, and Benning paid for it, so we got in a lot of the reserves or even Air National Guard planes. Long story short, on my second jump one of the engines caught fire on the way to the drop zone, and they green lit us anyway and I got to jump a burning bird... Heck this was late '90's during the Clinton administration, so I don't know if that's still the way things work, but ya, I don't really consider the planes we jumped to be lumped under "perfectly good" Heck, most Air Force cargo craft are from the Viet Nam war...

Re: Cool Guns for your Games Hero System Equipment Guide PG: 103, Second column, just above half way down (Collimating And Reflex Sights). And the stats are on page 107. I'd post those, but I'm honestly not too sure how cool that is with copyright stuff... if someone else is more familiar/ confident then they can either correct me (to my satisfaction, and I'll post it), or just post it themselves, Sorry about that.

Re: Cool Guns for your Games

Re: Cool Guns for your Games I think a drop into Tibet would rock, but hey... I volunteered for airborne Yah, once you get locked into one of the "non-traditional line units" (by this I mean, Airborne (82nd), Air-mobile/Air Assault (101st), or Mountain (10th) all these units have specialized training/Tactics/Combat role) it's difficult to transfer out. However note two things: one, Lewis has mechanized and light infantry units, if I remember right, they also even have a Ranger Bat. And two they now have all infantry (outside of mortars) as 11B, so the old distinction between Mech infantry (11M series) and light infantry (11B) is no longer there. So when I was in, literally, once you were either mechanized or light, you would stay with that until you left the service. Again there was an exception for Mortar infantry, we could go light and Mech whenever.

Re: Cool Guns for your Games Seriously, what we called "Ranger Games" that went/go on are pretty silly also. These current wars have all but eliminated the "light infantry" model that existed when I was in. By way of an example my old unit in the 82nd Abn (Aco 3/325) has now been replaced (I think the whole bloody 3/325, not just Alpha co.) by a Cavalry unit... Airborne infantry needing an embedded Cav unit... wow man, just wow. And now almost every unit has vehicles to move troops around city and rural environments... I think they called it Medium infantry for a while back in 03-05 ish... I even heard that people are being herded through Airborne school after basic so quickly (because everyone is deployed) that almost all green recruits coming into units are all 5 jump chumps. Oh, how the mighty fall. But still, that's a huge waste of money and training (remember there is only the 82nd and Vicenza Italy have jump units... Many changes... It's a different Army, that's for sure. Still, I miss it .

Re: Cool Guns for your Games Just because it's topical, I give you for review: The XM25 Personally I think it looks too much like the OICW or whatever that acronym was for the project that the XM-8 Came out of. But I gotta say as much as I doubt the effectiveness of a troop carried (weight of ammo alone, much less other worries) 25MM Main Battle Rifle, I do dig the effective range of 2,300ft. Again it seems a bit much for me, but hey, if they use it and like it... I mean, heck being able to set where your ammo detonates... still... 25MM WOW! Unless this is 25MM like the Desert Eagle is .50 Cal... lol. Okay, so I'm assuming that this is going to be more of a replacement for the 203/grenade launcher... I can get behind that a bit more, we'll have to bring back the "Grenadier" though, lol.

Re: Cool Guns for your Games Figures, I try to keep my head out of the political games that run rampant when it comes to soldiers equipment. As an example look at the deal with Cry Multicam and then the decision to go with ACU cammo.

Re: Cool Guns for your Games Just a note from an Army Infantry man: we were not allowed ever using the "handle." Drill sgt's through platoon Sgt's would flip if they ever caught you using the one on the top of your M-16/ M-4. Other than that, I think the XM-8 is pretty wicked looking... But apparently it made it barely out of testing, and from what I heard they have now moved beyond it for the SCAR systems. which are being put into SoF right now. SCAR: http://world.guns.ru/assault/as70-e.htm Its funny, in that article it says that the Army is still going with the XM-8, I had heard somewhere that they had taken so long developing it that they no longer wanted it, and had moved on to other weapon systems (Favoring towards the SCAR light for Regular Army usage), but my sources my have been off, or just thought that (like the Army has done for the past many years) just adopt to the units whatever the SF were using as time went on... well, that's one thing that you can always say about the Army... it's always changing.

Re: Handling social stuff in HERO Thanks, I actually took 3 years off of gaming because I could only find these groups... for, like, a year of searching...

Re: Handling social stuff in HERO The attitude you talk of here is what I was truly rallying against, though I admit I went a tad too far. I was, not too long ago, introducing some D&D players to Hero, and I asked him what he said to "the King" and he just replied something like, "I made my roll, how can I know what I said, I just made it happen." and that's the first time I even heard the argument that social elements should be controlled by the dice. Many RPG'ers I've met out here are of that mentality... you make rolls, and keep in character down to nothing, if possible (as in they assume that in character dialogue is a detraction from the game) and if you aren't rolling, then it's not your turn, and that's the entirety of the game. To me, this does not a roleplaying game make... but I guess, to each their own. As a side note, it also helped in my dislike of 3.x mechanics, because it wasn't until that was the dominant system that I saw these guys popping up all over the place.

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD? Sorry, I was out for the weekend. I'm not at anyone's throat, nor am I in any was upset about my previous discussion upthread. It was a good one, that I think was winding it's way down, because we were starting to move the goalposts around a good bit (I was too, not blaming without taking my heat... in one post I specified both 2nd ed and mentioned power attack (clearly a 3.x feat) so, yah, it was pretty much outside of the borders of the OP's question), but it wasn't an argument... I was fully aware that I was not changing his opinion, and I was pretty sure my opinion wasn't being modified. So there was nothing on the table to get uppity about. So meh... I don't much plan on continuing it anywho... I lost a lot of the steam by being offline this weekend.

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD? Quick note: that was a stated 5 PD natural, and not counting Armor... so I don't think that it's that terrible of a situation. Next: Is it a house rule if it's in the core book? As I said, Hero is much more about modeling the game that you want... that's actually why we are having this conversation. Both styles are Hero, by Hero's rules, because you are asked to model your world the way you see it... D&D doesn't have that design theory... it's static. IE (an example): D&D rules for falling= X and only X. If you want to change it, you are deviating from the rules, thus making a house rule. Hero rules for falling= X, or if you'd rather= Y, or how about=Z, but whatever you do, make sure you are doing it the way that you see fit... The golden rule of RPG's (if you don't like it, change it) is hard-coded into Hero (very few things are a solid concrete effect. There is no lightning, there is no drowning, there is no falling, there is no anything that you don't approve of before the game is set, that's also why there are two different ways a character even interacts with many rules (heroic and superheroic) because it's all in flux until you add a GM)... because you really only have the framework for a system, and then tons of parts that you can manipulate to make the system whole. yah, for whatever reason I forgot the 2 CSL's required to buff a DC, over the single... I don't know if I've even looked at the description since Hero 4th (not suggesting it was that way in fourth, I just am saying it's been a bit since I looked at it). Secondly a fighter by the rules can only spec. once. (second ed Zeb rule book, granted 3.x has blown this out of the water, but... well... yah, I argue that the power level is at best "out of control" in that edition anyway, though it is sometimes fun to be that wildly powerful, still that's rangeing into the Supers level encounters closing on 5th level, especially if your using Pathfinder rule set for 3.x.) I don't know the mage you are referring to, and I know you mentioned "her" in your previous post... I'll take your example, but I know absolutely nothing about what she is capable of, so that example is lost on me in it's entirety. Yah, I think your either using the brown books or the 2.5 optional stuff from combat and tactics, which are fun, but not core. In the core rule book it's pretty clearly stated (however the brown books later re-state it in such a way as to counter the core book, and the 2.5 stuff went in a different direction totally) in the main rule book that a Fighter is the only one who can specialize and he can only do that with one weapon, so I've modeled a D&D fighter fairly well. Only a paladin or someone wielding that hammer of hammers has a +5 weapon, otherwise they cap at +4, so you have one shot at a pc being able to randomly roll that hammer if he's a fighter, and he's not specializing if he's a Pally. So I think your numbers are a using some optional rules, and some house rules. Girdles and Gauntlets are also a fairly rare random "drop," so there is some hope in that happening, about as much as actually rolling a number (using the suggested first rolling method) high enough to score any bonuses on your str. I think it's quite a long shot and some pretty broad assumptions that put the fighter where you're looking at him, but again, different groups did different things, and if anyone walked on to our table with someone with that kinda swag (even at 20th) he'd be laughed into making a new one... D&D 2nd ed was much about making due with limited resources, even at high levels. Every battle a stretch, Every victory hard won... sweating from 1-20... Great stuff. Stuff that the new game just gives you so much padding to keep from having a rough fight. I ran a game in 4th ed Hero based on the Disney's Gargoyles cartoon off an on for a while, it was a pretty good game, all in all... well received. In it we had a beat cop, and I think he came in under 100 points, some supernaturals moving from about 200-400 points, and even an fallen angel, who stood neutral to the war in the heavens and he came in just over 1,000 points... they could all participate in combat equally. Granted though, if the cop and the angel went head to head, with all limiters removed (I granted the angel such great power at the disadvantage that Human will had to be free, and he could not interfere with that in any way with all that ambiguity that comes with that disad) it would be ugly... but again, with the limiters on for the campaign, for the most part, the angel couldn't touch him... but I know that's a bit outside the limits of the conversation we are having. I will agree with the term "generally", however, I do say if you have two characters who have equal CV's, equal DC's, and equal Defenses, equal Active Point caps, equal Dice caps, and equal stat caps then you probably have a closer fight; whatever the point totals are... generally. The question becomes, how easily are those caps met between the two characters... If they are so high that the 100 point character is struggling to match them, then yes, absolutely you are right, however if they are low enough that the 100 point character can reach them with a tightly controlled point budget, then I'd say it would probably be a closer game.

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD? lol, yah, but now it means that I also realize that games that are too... I guess "gameist" will be avoided by me outright... lol... I think. I'm not saying that this has led me to be more accepting, just realizing what I want out of an rpg is in-built, and now much more at point. So now when I role-play, I'll have a much better definition of what I'm looking for, rather than what has happened with the others who have had a realization, they seem to have strayed less into bias. I see this as taking me further into a bias... unfortunately, but at least I am starting to understand it. lol.

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD? I think I've figured something about myself with these two posts, and maybe a reason I dislike D&D at times enough to gouge my eyes out, and hang up my dice. I've often described myself as a gamer... and well, I don't think I am. I'm a role-player, sure, but I don't much like gaming. I don't like many board games, I try to get out of them as much as possible when I can, though I met my wife at a board game event at our local game store. I have played and have memory for the times I've had playing the "classics" Risk, and Axis and Allies, but in the end, they are pretty boring for me, and I'd rather be doing shots at the bar. video games... well, I don't own any for the computer. I have a WII, but that's really for the wii sports, though I do dig the crap out of Mario Kart. Other than that, I don't have much interest in anything they have to offer. I even tried one of the MMO's (Champions, in a beta test, and after about 30 min, I quit, never to look back). So no dice there. Miniatures... meh. I collect some because I love modeling and painting them, so why not fight with them, but it get's old quick. CCG's... blach! Now, granted I have enjoyed time doing some of these, and even like some games within these broad categories, but I just would rather be doing just about anything else... heck, I love going to bar's and tossing a few back, be it brew, wine, or harder drink... but I dislike moving over to the pool table, even. So I think a great deal of my issue with D&D and some groups, is that I am not a gamer, and they have made it a gamer style game, always was really. I never had an issue with much of White Wolf, other than the whole whiny Emo thing (I dug Warewolf) and of course I disliked the "1's take away from 10's thing" I always felt you were getting worse the more dice you rolled.... but anyway... hmm, it's always nice to learn something about yourself, thanks for assisting in that endeavor.

Re: How do Hero System players/GM view DnD? Yes, this.