Afghanistan d20: overview

[JimWardrip]

That's why I ask for tips on playing a squad using small-unit tactics, somewhere along the line of the old Commando supplement for Top Secret/S.I.
[/i] [/B]

What exactly are you looking for, Field Manual type info?
I've never seen the Top Secret supplement you mentioned.

Molon LABE'
Jim Wardrip

 

[Ranger REG]

Well, I haven't got a spare copy, but if you e-mail me (webmaster@modus-operandi.co.uk) with what bits you're interested in, I'll try and scan the pages for you and e-mail it.

Well, it's been a long while so I can't really recall the exact pages or chapters of the Commando supplement.

You're gonna have to give me the table of content.

My Email

 

[Ds Da Man]

I'm not so sure about the 9mm vs crossbow. The 9mm has a lot less mass so the recoil will be tons worse making it seem more powerful. The bullet will go faster but with it's really light weight it's force aint that great.

Well, a semi-auto handgun uses the gases expelled after the bullet to recock the weapon, so it significantley cuts down recoil. I was referring to a test my friend and I did with several weapons. I have only two pistols, a 9mm semi, and a .357 revolver. When shooting at steel, at 30 ft, the 9mm and 357 pierced it, the crossbow didn't (well, it barely pierced). That was only a 150# crossbow, and I really dont know what the draw strengths on the heavy crossbow of yore. I do know that even if I survived the xbow, I would still be hating life. So as before, I really couldn't compare the two. The 9mm was designed for a man-killer, but I wouldn't hunt with one even if it was legal. The crossbow on the other hand.....

 

[Shard O'Glase]

9mm is desegned to be a non-com man killer. It bounces off even light body armor. Many if not most ploice agencies are ungrading too more powerful guns in america now that more and more of the criminal element are sporting bullet proof vests and kevlar. And the ability to penetrate steel isn't necessarily a good test. The 9mm might penetrate it while the 150lb crossbow couldn't but when shot into a bodythe crossbow might cause a lot more trauma. Also as a side note the crossbow bolt might fare better against modern armor, which isn't designed to handle relatively slow moving pointy projectiles.

 

[mirzabah]

side point it is really hard to resist going into politics on this one I was blazingly tempted to make some choice remarks on hongs 1st couple paragraphs ...

You must have a real itchy flame thrower trigger finger. All he said in those paragraphs was "I bought Afghanistan d20. It's not a whitewash." Nothing flame-worthy there.

 

[Henry]

Why am I reminded of the personal shields in the Dune Series of books? Now that guns are being protected against, are we going back to personal body armor for protection?

 

[NemesisPress]

9mm is desegned to be a non-com man killer. It bounces off even light body armor. And the ability to penetrate steel isn't necessarily a good test. The 9mm might penetrate it while the 150lb crossbow couldn't but when shot into a body the crossbow might cause a lot more trauma. Also as a side note the crossbow bolt might fare better against modern armor, which isn't designed to handle relatively slow moving pointy projectiles.

Good points, but you also have to realize that they are designed around different principles. A 9mm is designed to maximize hydrostatic shock (temporary wound-channel effects). A bow, of course, can't rely on that and so has to rely entirely on the longer term effects of tissue damage (ideally bleeding from a major vein or artery). The latter, of course, is not really modelled by any popular set of wargames rules.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Good points, but you also have to realize that they are designed around different principles. A 9mm is designed to maximize hydrostatic shock (temporary wound-channel effects). A bow, of course, can't rely on that and so has to rely entirely on the longer term effects of tissue damage (ideally bleeding from a major vein or artery). The latter, of course, is not really modelled by any popular set of wargames rules.

Which is why I wouldn't get pissy about the damage, and just let it fly. There are way too many factors that can determine damage in an rpg for me to say a weapon does the wrong damage. I just think they could of put the 9mm at 1d6 and it's damage would of made just as much sense on a logical level, because for every factor that says it should do more damage there is another that says less. Personally I'd of set 9mm lower because I wouldn't want to start at 2d6. There really aren't that many rounds smaller than 9mm, the 22 and 32 are the only ones I can think of off hand, the 38 is about the same with maybe a smidge more punch(I haven't really looked at this in a while so I may be off a bit). So if you start at 2d6 for a 9mm what do I make the 10mm federal rounds, or 11mm, or 42, 45, or heaven forbid 50 cal pistol rounds. What do I make the rifle rounds. It would seem that the damage could get too nasty to quick with one shot automatically meaning death.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

You must have a real itchy flame thrower trigger finger. All he said in those paragraphs was "I bought Afghanistan d20. It's not a whitewash." Nothing flame-worthy there.

If you want to talk about it we can on a more appropriate board. If not just drop it, and don't respond to this so we don't waste more space here.