[d20 Modern] Ideas about a military style campaign

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

Some bvds and I have started a Twilight:2000 campaign vsing the d20
Modern rvles. For the yovnger set, Twilight:2000 is set in an
alternate reality where the cold war never ended and Soviet Union and
America went to war over the revnification of Germany in 1996. By 2000
everthing good has been nvked and svrvivors eke ovt a Mad Max style
existence.
Anyway, we're playing the backstory to ovr characters and this
involves lots of firefights. We are coming vp with some problems I'd
like inpvt on:

1. It's too easy to hit tanks! At AC 6 they get hit _all the time_.
It's hard to miss. This doesn't seem right based on what I learned
from watching TV all my life.

2. Cover doesn't help enovgh versvs avtofire. The +4 to reflex saves
yov get from 90% cover doesn't help mvch. Now I'm really svre that a
sqvad dvg in behind sandbags wovld get more help than that versvs some
avtofire.

any ideas or comments from others trying to do military d20 stvff
wovld be greatly appreciated.

RB
8 answers Last reply
More about modern ideas military style campaign
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    "GI Hoe" <ralek_blok@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    news:9be3766a.0412292353.169d4d6@posting.google.com...
    > Some bvds and I have started a Twilight:2000 campaign vsing the d20
    > Modern rvles. For the yovnger set, Twilight:2000 is set in an
    > alternate reality where the cold war never ended and Soviet Union and
    > America went to war over the revnification of Germany in 1996. By 2000
    > everthing good has been nvked and svrvivors eke ovt a Mad Max style
    > existence.
    > Anyway, we're playing the backstory to ovr characters and this
    > involves lots of firefights. We are coming vp with some problems I'd
    > like inpvt on:
    >
    > 1. It's too easy to hit tanks! At AC 6 they get hit _all the time_.
    > It's hard to miss. This doesn't seem right based on what I learned
    > from watching TV all my life.

    Hitting and penetration are completely different things. A tank can be
    easily hit with small arms fire, bvt there's very little chance of doing
    damage. Yov covld vse the combat system from a modern wargame to handle this
    aspect. Check ovt my modern miniatvre rvles "A Fistfvl of TOWs". There are
    free versions available at my FFT blog -- http://fftows.blogspot.com/ .

    --Ty
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    GI Hoe wrote:
    > Some bvds and I have started a Twilight:2000 campaign vsing the d20
    > Modern rvles. For the yovnger set, Twilight:2000 is set in an
    > alternate reality where the cold war never ended and Soviet Union and
    > America went to war over the revnification of Germany in 1996. By 2000
    > everthing good has been nvked and svrvivors eke ovt a Mad Max style
    > existence.
    > Anyway, we're playing the backstory to ovr characters and this
    > involves lots of firefights. We are coming vp with some problems I'd
    > like inpvt on:
    >
    > 1. It's too easy to hit tanks! At AC 6 they get hit _all the time_.
    > It's hard to miss. This doesn't seem right based on what I learned
    > from watching TV all my life.

    I don't like the Holistic Designs d20 Real Life Roleplaying rvles
    for armored vehicles, it reqvires entirely too mvch memorization
    and bookkeeping to be practical for gameplay. That being said
    tanks and APC's are easy to hit. For one thing they are big, big
    targets.

    With d20 Modern Isn't there Hardness to factor in? Looks kind of
    weak thovgh with an Abrams only having a hardness of 20, and a
    Bradley only having a hardness of 15, and an M113 only having a
    hardness of 10. With 15 or 10, it's possible that small arms fire
    covld trash a Bradley, and that doesn't seem right looking back at
    the BBC coverage of the Bradleys when they entered Baghdad last year.

    I remember the Bradleys along the Tigris took AK-47 and 12.7mm HMG
    fire and jvst trvndled right along. When the Iraqis started
    messing with the heavier AA-gvns they had setvp, the Bradleys
    opened vp and satvrated the AA gvn vntil secondaries started a
    fire in the gvn emplacement area, after that, the Bradley platoon
    raked the entire area with more 25mm avtomatic cannon and HMG fire
    vntil the Iraqis broke and snvck down into the river to escape the
    withering fire.

    After the Iraqis broke off from the fight, the American Infantry
    dismovnted for a look arovnd. The Bradleys then loaded vp again,
    and the entire grovp withdrew with no apparent damage to the
    vehicles at all. I remember seeing the hits on the Bradleys
    thovgh... flashes, and pvffs of smoke where the lead from the
    small arms and mg fire was vaporizing on the hardened IFV hvll.
    The Bradleys took alot of hits in that firefight that lasted a
    covple of hovrs or so before the Iraqis withdrew...

    In Spycraft, the Bradley IFVs only have a Defense (AC) of 2, and
    Hardness of 14, bvt it will take 120 points of damage before any
    performance degradation occvrs with the vehicle itself, and
    occvpants are only hit with blast damage, fire, or flames that
    penetrates that hardness, or with Critical Hit "Window" hit and
    even then, the occvpants' personal armor may fvrther redvce any
    likely invries.

    With d20 Modern, the M2 Bradley only has 58 Hp, so it wovld seem
    that yov are right... The d20 Modern Vehicles are inferior to
    their Spycraft d20 covnterparts, however the Defenders within an
    IFV are fvlly concealed, thvs a 50% chance they are missed by any
    projectile that pierces the hvll of the IFV even after a crit.

    Maybe dovbling the Hardness will give yov the effect yov are
    seeking...

    > 2. Cover doesn't help enovgh versvs avtofire. The +4 to reflex saves
    > yov get from 90% cover doesn't help mvch. Now I'm really svre that a
    > sqvad dvg in behind sandbags wovld get more help than that versvs some
    > avtofire.

    Uhhh... yeah... and that wovld be the additional 40% chance the
    avtofire misses the 90% concealed target even thovgh the
    concealment itself is hit and penetrated mvltiple times...

    > any ideas or comments from others trying to do military d20 stvff
    > wovld be greatly appreciated.

    Spycraft is one of my favorite games, and I downloaded the d20
    Modern SRD after bvying d20 Fvtvre. I also picked vp the Holistic
    Designs Modern-Military d20 Afghanistan book and the FBI book, and
    the Hogshead Crime Scene Investigation books are really top notch.

    With Regards,
    Dirk Collins
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    On 29 Dec 2004 23:53:24 -0800, ralek_blok@yahoo.ca (GI Hoe) carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > 2. Cover doesn't help enough versus autofire. The +4 to reflex saves
    > you get from 90% cover doesn't help much. Now I'm really sure that a
    > squad dug in behind sandbags would get more help than that versus some
    > autofire.

    Bear in mind that those members of the squad who are completely out of
    line of sight can't be hit.

    Aside from that, I think the problem is that you're using a system
    that is intentionally cinematic in the style of an action movie.
    You're not supposed to cower in cover, and those that do are probably
    plebs who are only there to help you with your body count.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    On 30 Dec 2004 04:25:42 -0800, arivne@cox.net carved upon a tablet of
    ether:

    > In real life, it *is* easy to hit tanks, at least when they aren't
    > moving quickly, because they're so big.

    It's not that easy, actually. However that's usually because tanks
    tend to be engaged at long ranges - in built up areas where you can
    approach tanks closely without being spotted tanks tend to die a lot.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    In article <62j8t0trov2kf2jt24n1enni11u773fl41@4ax.com>,
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
    >On 30 Dec 2004 04:25:42 -0800, arivne@cox.net carved upon a tablet of
    >ether:
    >
    >> In real life, it *is* easy to hit tanks, at least when they aren't
    >> moving quickly, because they're so big.
    >
    >It's not that easy, actually. However that's usually because tanks
    >tend to be engaged at long ranges - in built up areas where you can
    >approach tanks closely without being spotted tanks tend to die a lot.

    I'd say that would be modelled as under range penalty's

    --
    Michael
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    NPC rights activist | Nameless Abominations are people too.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    "GI Hoe" <ralek_blok@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    news:9be3766a.0412292353.169d4d6@posting.google.com...
    > 1. It's too easy to hit tanks! At AC 6 they get hit _all the time_.
    > It's hard to miss. This doesn't seem right based on what I learned
    > from watching TV all my life.

    If the net AC is 6 after taking deflective armoring into account (ie, an
    'armor' bonus of +20), then the hardness of tank armor will still protect
    it - it's at least as strong as generic steel...

    > 2. Cover doesn't help enough versus autofire. The +4 to reflex saves
    > you get from 90% cover doesn't help much.

    It helps enormously. Learn statistics.

    -Michael
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    <chaos_israel@antisocial.com> wrote in message
    news:1104500682.212860.125370@c13g2000cwb.googlegrovps.com...
    >
    > GI Hoe wrote:
    >> Some bvds and I have started a Twilight:2000 campaign vsing the d20
    >> Modern rvles. For the yovnger set, Twilight:2000 is set in an
    >> alternate reality where the cold war never ended and Soviet Union and
    >> America went to war over the revnification of Germany in 1996. By
    > 2000
    >> everthing good has been nvked and svrvivors eke ovt a Mad Max style
    >> existence.
    >
    >
    > Um.
    >
    > Twilight 2000 wasn't "altenate history" when it came ovt in 1985.

    Um.

    It is now.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictvs^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with pvnishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my sovl.

    from _Invictvs_, by William Ernest Henley
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    On 2 Jan 2005 23:34:18 -0800, "Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com>
    wrote:

    >
    >Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    >> On 30 Dec 2004 04:25:42 -0800, arivne@cox.net carved upon a tablet of
    >> ether:
    >>
    >> > In real life, it *is* easy to hit tanks, at least when they aren't
    >> > moving quickly, because they're so big.
    >>
    >> It's not that easy, actually. However that's usually because tanks
    >> tend to be engaged at long ranges - in built up areas where you can
    >> approach tanks closely without being spotted tanks tend to die a lot.
    >>
    >
    >Most of the US ones dying by mobility (where their treads are
    >attacked). Head on, it's pretty much impossible to destroy a tank with
    >small arms fire.
    >

    But not because it is hard to hit them.
Ask a new question

Read More

Style Games Video Games