That is the coolest thing I've ever read.

>>7644336

It's the reason I saved it

bumpan with more alternatives. The details on these guys look kinda... not there.

http://www.blackscorpionminiatures.com/range.asp?the_range=USM

Any more suggestions would be great, I'm not adverse to sculpting the mask myself if I need to.

doop doop doop.

This is where you can see the quality difference.

http://www.theassaultgroup.co.uk/store/product.php?productid=624&cat=52&page=1

It's what I want, but.. compare the first link to these guys.

I guess they really are just a myth.

oh well.

Didn't realise, but the actual supplier site for these guys has fully painted/360 degree views.

enjoy:http://www.mercsminis.com/Store.php

>That is the coolest thing I've ever read.

Then download Delta Green and Delta Green: Countdown off of /rs/ and read even more. Shit's great.

>>7646798
Bump for motherfucking Delta Green.

Anyway, anybody has other DG pdfs than base and countdown? IIRC there was philadelphia project circulating around the internets (remember tilinghast resonator?). I had it once but lost it.

z0mg. I just got an idea that gave me a raging boner.

A scenario/campaign based miniature wargame mechanically kitted to resemble the Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six/Rogue Spear/Raven Shield games, and the SWAT series. DG material optional. Hmm... that shit'd blow Shadowrun out of the water for me, at least.

Basically the defender would get to choose the map, set the victory conditions and deploy first, while the attacker would get tons of intel, superior training and a free pick of a a very wide range of equipment.

>>7647545

Yeah, that's in Delta Green: Eyes Only. It's also got chapters on the Mi-Go (Awesome) and The Fate (Pretty good). Unfortunately, I've never seen a scan of it, and I'm sure as hell not ruining my own copy.

Other than that, I understand there's been quite a few articles in The Unspeakable Oath, Pagan's magazine, and in the Black Seal. Both thoroughly sold out.

There's quite a few scenarios floating about though. Google "PX Poker Night", since 4chan won't let me post the link. There's a few scenarios for free from Dennis Detwiller's site as well.

http://web.me.com/drgonzo/Site/Download.html

Apart from that, we've just got to wait until Targets of Opportunity comes out. It's looking pretty awesome.

Really what I want is a book that updates the setting to reflect the post-9/11 changes in law enforcement and intelligence, as well as the impact it has on the setting overall. Then I'd be a happy man.

>>7644266

http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/collections/SV/index.asp

... say, is there a very fast-paced, fluid and lethal combat system for modern games? The kind where initiative is everything, and an SAS squad bursting through the doors is practically TPK for everyone in the building?

>>7644266
err, is it just me, or is that entire sound a lot like the monologue from trainspotting?

http://eurekamin.com.au/index.php?cPath=87_126_150&sort=3a
http://eurekamin.com.au/index.php?cPath=87_126_179&sort=3a

>>7647699
>A scenario/campaign based miniature wargame mechanically kitted to resemble the Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six/Rogue Spear/Raven Shield games, and the SWAT series. DG material optional.

And all weapons and attachments have different effects in the game. Not only weapons, mind you, but body armor, communications, VEHICLES (you want to put a grenade launcher on the Hummvee instead of a .50cal? Sure!), accessories like climbing ropes and tactical visors, different kinds of grenades, physical, tactical and intelligence perks to reflect special training and logistics, etc...


It would be a game where you get to deploy Delta Force from a Blackhawk to fight your opponent´s Russian Paratroopers with heavy armor in a booby-trapped building to recover a data disk with the plans of the Russian counter-attack in Washington.

And you can name your squad 2iC "Ramirez".

>>7647811
a set of 50 SWAT guys.. WoW

http://www.hasslefreeminiatures.co.uk/range.php?range_id=33


http://eurekamin.com.au/index.php?cPath=591_592_593

http://eurekamin.com.au/index.php?cPath=87_150


http://www.theassaultgroup.co.uk/store/home.php?cat=40

>>7647932
You don't have to buy all:
http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/collections/SV/6/index.asp
http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/collections/SV/2/index.asp
http://www.wargamesfoundry.com/collections/SV/6/index.asp

>>7647925
Ramirez was a PFC. Dunn was second in command. Also, this picture confuses me in like fifty different ways, the most embarrassing being that I know that mission is Charlie Don't Surf, which was a Jackson mission. Soap was in Russia at the time.

>>7647898

Yes. It's deliberate.

I'm sure you can find plenty of "guy/girl in trenchcoat" miniatures that would work.

>>7647966
That missions is Shock and Awe. Notice the reddish tint in the air and the Cobra support.


But yeah, basically, I think it would be awesome to make a "Oscar Mi/k/e: The Modern Warfare Miniatures Game".

First add-on: exploding glocks.

>>7647925
Oh Yeah!

... except for Ramirez. Screw Ramirez, Ramirez don't do nothing.

But yeah, you know what I mean. It could be mixed up very easily, too, changing special forces teams to cowboy DG investigator squads, Hitman meets GTA-style organized crime games, UA, more or less anything where there's two or more parties with guns that don't like eachother. What to structure the setting around is a difficult choice though.

.>>7648029
Wording failure. Not what to structure the SETTING around, but rather the combat rules. Perhaps some sort of alertness level vs. initiative opposed roll system on who gets the bead on the other guy first?

You could maybe adjust Ambush Alley.

http://www.deepfriedhappymice.com/html/rd_ambush_alley.html
http://www.rebelpublishing.net/content/Ambush_Alley_Review.pdf

>>7648029
>What to structure the setting around is a difficult choice though.

Modern Warfare 2.

Seriously.

It has, like, EVERYTHING you could possibly want. Russians? Check. Americans? Check. Potential for Europeans/Chinese? Check. Open warfare and special ops? Check. Police and spies? Check. Air support? Artillery support? Hacking? WMD-based plot points? Over-the-top action? Realistic action?

ALL

FUCKING

CHECKED

>>7648067
I'll have a gander at it. I wonder if something fun could come out of this...

>>7647875
seconding this request, surprise rounds ought to be fucking deadly in a modern setting

>>7644266
Check out alternate WW2 miniatures. Combine with Kasrkin/Stormtrooper type body/helmet/weapon/whatever pieces. You can get interesting models that way without FUCKHUEG pauldrons.

>>7648056
>Perhaps some sort of alertness level vs. initiative opposed roll system on who gets the bead on the other guy first?

Spotting, action/attack, damage resolution, response.


Your Delta OPERATORS enter a building. Spot a booby-trap, disarm.

Russian sentry comes around the corner following a pre-made patrolling pattern. He spots the Deltas. He draws.

Next turn, Deltas spot. Because they are ready, they attack. Deltas maneuver into the corridor, two first guys fire. Their M4s do not have much spotting power but they manage to pierce the Russian´s armor. Because he is killed, the M4´s deficient stopping power is not a disadvantage.

Russian player rolls for alertness against the M4´s noise level. He passes, so now all his men can draw weapons, assuming a ready stance.

And so on.

>>7648135
Kill Team, then?

http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?topic=14820.0

>>7647875
>>7648106

I don't know what changed with the current edition of Hero System, but Dark Champions can probably do this. Surprise rounds can be potentially deadly. Head shots with kill dice will be lethal when playing 'normal' scaled games thanks to damage multipliers on hit locations. If you get pegged in the head and survive, there's a good chance you'll be stunned or unconscious.

>>7648081
>>Hacking?
HOW RIGHT YOU ARE.

Also, as fun as the setting for MW2 is, note that the plot is pretty retarded for the most part. It's fairly jingoistic pro-America anti-Russia bullshit, and I STILL have trouble believing that the Russians would invade the US and equip their soldiers with nothing to use against armour but goddamn RPGs.
Americans get ridiculous techno-wizardry like Stingers and Javelins, heartbeat sensors and motion sensitive turrets. Russians get.. RPGs and AK-47s. Slight disparity here?

>>7648135
Advanced LOS rules.

Delta pointman spots Russian sentry A through a hedge. Rest of the squad will remain oblivious to the target unless pointman expends a swift action to radio or signal the position of the target. If sentry A wins spot and reaction, has weapon drawn, and succeeds in incapacitating pointman, his position on the table will not be revealed unless the rest of the squad succeed in triangulating by the report of his AKSU, or risking their neck for a visual confirmation.

>>7648173
>It's fairly jingoistic pro-America anti-Russia bullshit

Can be changed through fluff to make it more believable.


>and I STILL have trouble believing that the Russians would invade the US and equip their soldiers with nothing to use against armour but goddamn RPGs.

They DID have a ton of air support to deal with the heavier equipment, so they could use RPGs against light armor.

>>7648173
Not just AK47s, the Russians get a bizarre range of oddities and vaporware with no consideration of logistical burden at all.

>>7648192

mirror it

>>7648173
AK-47s?

I'm not a /k/ommando by any means and even I know that the Russians switched to AK-74s a LONG time ago. Looks like they dropped the ball research-wise.

>>7648192
>Delta pointman spots Russian sentry A through a hedge. Rest of the squad will remain oblivious to the target unless pointman expends a swift action to radio or signal the position of the target. If sentry A wins spot and reaction, has weapon drawn, and succeeds in incapacitating pointman, his position on the table will not be revealed unless the rest of the squad succeed in triangulating by the report of his AKSU, or risking their neck for a visual confirmation.

The radio bit sounds overcomplicated, but the visual confirmation is nice. I would work it out in that if the Russian is not killed or knocked out immediately, the Delta player has that turn to finish him off. Otherwise, if the Russian has equipped his men with radio equipment, and the Russian sentry is only knocked out for the first turn (because of the shock of being shot and then passing a willpower roll), he will alert the others.

>>7648240
They had to cater to their demographic. Since every action shooter game before them called AK47s, therefore every game that follows must do the same.

>>7648264
Ah, fair enough.

>>7648242
Also, I strongly believe that combat should be very much like it was in the old R6 computer games - 9mm or heavier caliber will incapacitate unarmored targets in a single hit to center mass, rifle rounds and heavy pistol rounds will generally do the same for all but the heaviest armor, and even the heaviest won't survive more than two to three of these direct hits. Shooting at a person would more or less of the complexity of pointing at the target with a pencil.

>>7648320
Those games were awesome, especially the first one.

>>7648173
>>7648204
It makes you wonder who and how some country could effect an invasion of the continental US with any degree of success. Games like Modern Warfare 2 and World in Conflict try to suppose that a crippling weakness in our ability to detect the invasion and a absence of main army forces would allow such a scenario, but even then it always seems wrong. As a guy who spent 8 years living in Texas and Alabama, I know for a fact that there'd be thousands if not millions of people who would react with anger to any type of invasion and fight in such numbers that any kind of government attempt to keep them from the fighting would be near futile. China and Russia both boast very large armies, but they would be dwarfed by what you could call the 'Redneck Response'. And considering all the good ol' boys that'd be fighting on their own turf, there really wouldn't be any kind of equalizer for the Chinese/Russians. Throw in our natural defenses and inhospitable borders (desert in the south, fuck gray cold in the North, Rocky Mountains to the West, Appalachian Mountains to the East) and it would be easy to bottleneck enemy forces and slow their advance to the point where we could pound them to pieces. The US would have the advantage in air superiority thanks to our wealth of land bases, while the invading forces would have to rely either on captured bases, or on carrier aircraft, which thanks to the size of the US would reduce their endurance drastically in order to interdict very far into the continent.

>>7648240

AN-94

Hmm. In the case the defender is played by the GM, a system similar to the Space Hulk boardgame might be interesting. For, y'know, fog of war and the like. Also, hex or square maps.

>>7648242

Something thing to do with line of sight and visual confirmation that I think would work pretty well, is give certain units, like snipers, the option to take a ghillie suit.

Provided they're crouching, far enough away, and in grass/woodland or something similar, it could let them avoid line of sight rules, and even fire without being detected.
Then you could use a system to how Company of Heroes reveals snipers. For each shot fired without relocating the time they stay revealed is longer.
This could be implemented in game by triangulating the sound, and each time a shot is fired without relocating, the enemy soldiers can work out where the sniper is more precisely.

This could be applied to any situation where shots are fired without direct line of sight as well.

>>7648359
I have to point out that paramilitary forces are good only for shooting unarmed people or other forces with a similar lack of force organization, training and resources. Even conscript militaries are of very dubious usefulness these days. But that's a subject /k/ is more suited for. I think they still go on a row about it at least once a day.

>>7648359
>TL;DR WOLVERINES

>>7648359
Irregular militias would make life hell for any kind of occupation force, yes.

"Occupation" being the key word.

>>7648390
Spotting should have a margin of error for all situations. Just spotting someone standing in everyday clothes down a dark alley is difficult enough. Someone in camo in the woods at midnight will be heard before they're spotted, unless some sort of low-light equipment is used.

>>7648359
Your so called "redneck responce" wouldn't really do much to halt a full on invasion. It could however, cause a problem with the subsequent occupation, like the problems our militaries are having with guerilla warfare in iraq and afghanistan.
But were entering /k/ territory here so take it there.

Saying that, it would be pretty impossible to have a discussion about it there seeing as they seem to beleive a single one of themselves, armed with a "nugget" could probably take on an entire battalion of infantry and tanks.

>>7648173
modern RPGs are pretty kick-ass (the old RPG-7 that you see in 3rd world conflicts can still get a mobility kill on an M1 Abrams if it's a lucky/well placed hit)

but yeah, MW should have had RPG-29s, which look totally different.

>>7648390

Way I figure that, is that any hostile action taken in the direction of the enemy sniper (shooting, mortar and artillery strikes, etc...) is disallowed until the sniper is spotted. To spot him, the sniper must have fired a minimum of two times without relocating. If the sniper also has camo equipment (guillie suits or appropriate camouflage), then that must be three shots.

The downside to snipers is that they cannot use their sniper rifles to their full effect if they have moved in the same turn they fire. That is, even a nigger with an AK-47 can fire at a target 2 miles away, but chances are he won´t hit anything (the penalties are too severe to give him a chance in a roll, or the chances are way low). But a sniper won´t be able to fire at the same range with the accuracy his scope gives him.

>>7648449
>>7648446
At a casualty rating seen in Iraq, naturally. With the exception that the Russians, as an occupation force, wouldn't be prone to pussy-footing in front of the civilian populace.

Rather, if Russia ever got a piece of the 'states in their hands, it would propably be one of the cruelest and bloodiest occupation in the history of mankind.

Or then every single trooper sent to the 'states would defect and turn over the occupied land and all military equipment in exchange for immigration rights.

>>7648359
I'm pretty sure anyone who invaded the US would be setting up their own forward air bases as soon as possible.

>Implying that there will ever be a regular war between two countries that are armed with nuclear weapons

>>7648491

>>7648500
Perhaps there should be a large margin of error for spotting sniper fire. Thus, opening fire with everything available towards the assumed position would be allowed after the first suspicion of a sniper arises, but the likely result would be that due to scatter dice from failed locating rolls, the warthog airstrike falls on a granny picking berries in a small copse of woods two miles east of the sniper's location.

>>7648500
That seems a little unfair. Rather than just 'You can't see him because he's only fired twice', how about every time he fires, there's a chance for the opposing side to spot him? Then, every additional time he fires without relocating, they get a bonus to their spot attempt, which zeroes should he choose to relocate?

>>7648424
Probably. It's the survivalist/gun-nut dream, and most of /k/ population is comprised of a good chunk of them. I just like contrasting it to other countries like England or France, where civilian weapon ownerships is more strictly policed.

And it's only a facet of the factors involved in a US invasion. Just think about the Alps circa the AD. Despite facing overwhelming and increasingly better equipped barbarians, Roman Legions were able to hold for hundreds of years, in the face of low morale and decreasing financial support. Now granted, the Rockies aren't the Alps by any stretch, but when combined with other terrain features and the fact the the ratio of our armies vs the invader's would be much closer to parity than the Romans were, US forces would be as or more successful. Armored and Mechanized Units would change the battlefield somewhat, but I think that our troops would be better equipped to deal with them than the Romans were when facing Hannibal's elephants.

>>7648459
Yeah that would work.
Visual confirmation should be a combination of the skill of each soldier (how perceptive the spotter is, how good at staying hidden the other soldier is) and the camoflaging properties of their clothing relative to the terrain they're currently in.

This thread is full of win

>>7648500
>>7648544

speculative shots should be allowed. Also, area fire should be considered. That's what MGs are built for. Keep in mind, there are a few simple things a shooter can do to mask their presence. Standing away from the window and using a carpet or blanket, to name two.

>>7648573
Also, I think the system should build around the possibility that the enemy can be anywhere, and that just sweeping over the suspected target areas isn't a guarantee for anything. Practically, all hexes/squares of the map not being observed by the players' forces should be under fog of war of some kind at all times.

I also fancy simulating some sort of leadership rules in accordance of chain of command. A field base would be situated somewhere on the theater, and the commander would have to expend actions in giving orders to his troops and relaying background info apart from what was given during briefing. And if some bearded, towel-wearing goatherd manages to run into the field base and explode during the mission, there should be some independent action rules for the operatives executing the mission when they suddenly realize they're out of information and backup.

>>7648544

Hmmm... your idea is much better. But I´m thinking of using areas somehow. Like when the sniper fires, he is assumed to be within a grid, and the better the opposing player rolls, the smaller that grid becomes. If the player wants to kill the sniper, he has to roll to see in which "hex" of the grid the shots fall. Same if he wants to call down artillery (but normal spread and deviation rules would still apply).

So if he managed to reduce the sniper´s location to a 6x6 grid, he has to roll 2d6, and that´s where the fire hits, or what the target for the artillery is. Whether that is the sniper´s actual location or not.

Extensive, autism-level planning time gives me a hardon. Especially with the timing-related parts of Rogue-spear. Rushing the hostage room with flashbangs and breaching charges from three separate entrances 'n all.

>>7648675
I dunno, that would be very difficult to simulate in a player vs player tabletop wargame. It could work with player vs GM, the rules should accomodate the possibility of both.

Something like a command truck or FOB could be implemeted in larger games, but again the rules should be scaleable to large military operations involving a few vehicles and a fairly large amount of troops, to very small operations involving say 4 special forces soldiers and about 10 terrorists.

>>7648675
>I also fancy simulating some sort of leadership rules in accordance of chain of command. A field base would be situated somewhere on the theater, and the commander would have to expend actions in giving orders to his troops and relaying background info apart from what was given during briefing.

Intelligence assets (satellite uplinks, surveillance camera feed and similar) are assumed to be centered in the area the leader is in all the time, depending on whether they are fixed assets (control rooms, improvised command posts) or portable assets (laptops).

If the leader steps away from the fixed asset or loses the portable asset, he does not have access to them any more. If the leader is killed, the same. If the enemy reaches these assets with a tech-savvy soldier who also knows the language, he has a chance at using them.

If the player that lost these assets manages to recover them (he assaults and takes back the control room or kills the enemy soldier with the laptop), he has a chance at using them again if he has a tech-savvy, leader-type trooper.

Needless to say, these assets can be destroyed.

>>7648743
Have you heard of an indie game currently being developed called Frozen Synapse?
If you're into that level of planning you might want to check it out.

>>7648240
>>7648264
Actually, yeah, that was kind of my point. The Russians in MW2 use AK-47s, even though AK-47s are tremendously outdated, for no apparent reason other than 'Russians use AK-47s'. Also Dragunov sniper rifles, FALs and an oddly large number of P90s. Admittedly they do use Predator drones at one point, but I'm pretty sure they actually stole them from the US.

Now, I'm not much of a military expert, but it seems to me that for a game set in 2010, the Ruskies really are using a shitload of old equipment. Do they even still use BMPs anymore? What about Hinds? I'm assuming they do still use MIGs, but I could be wrong.

One thing I want to implement as well - stopping power vs. killing power. Both a .45 wound and a .22 wound in the torso area can, and if neglected, will be lethal. How fast this happens differs, but most important is the wound's ability to hinder the recipient's ability to function. A .45 to the chest ought to put most men on the floor by kinetic energy alone even if they're wearing a vest, while a .22 wound in the lung, while eventually lethal, could still leave the one taking the hit time to react before shock sets in. Am I anywhere near the point with all this?

>>7648803
I'd say the Russians still use most of their tremendous AFV stockpiles, but for helicopters and air forces and the like they'd propably be dry on pilots. And they couldn't mobilize their whole armored assets simultaneously due to fuel concerns anyway.

>>7648803
They did seem to use a lot of stolen shit. Like the sniper's nest near the end with a Barrett sniper rifle.

On the other hand, you had random Brazilian militia who had thermal sights and other crap on their weapons.

It was confusing.

>>7648803
they probably still use BMPs, and I'm almost certain they still use HINDS as well as other helicopters.

MIGs are not a single kind of aircraft, they are one of the main aircraft manufactures in Russia along with Sukhoi.

>>7648822

"Stopping power" can incapacitate soldiers out-right, for a little time. "Killing power" can kill them, wound them, and given time, incapacitate them long-term.

For example, take the Deltas with M4s shooting at a Russian sentry with heavy armor. The M4 has little stopping power, but suppose you roll well and, even though the armor stops the round (no "killing power"), you do manage to pass the stopping power roll.

The Russian is assumed incapacitated for a turn. He might be stumbling while grabbing at the point where he was shot, he might have fallen to the floor (you could rule that up too), whatever, he cannot take any action, not even a "response" action.

"Response" actions are done in response (duh) to what is happening to the character. If he is a leader on a laptop and is getting readings of enemy airplanes coming, a response action would be asking for AA support.

In the hit Russian´s case, given he is temporarily incapacitated, he can´t duck, fire back, or take cover.

>>7648900
How would 'stopping power' be affected by different rounds like armor piercing vs expanding bullets? A .50 machine gun firing armor piercing rounds would apply slightly less kinetic energy to a target, but it's still a .50 caliber round.

Jeeze. This is the kind of thread I've been waiting for, and I'm churning out general ideas, but I can't get my mind to crunching to save my life due to just having had my first cup of coffee in 2 years. Picture related.

>>7648944
Suppose shape, weight and velocity are still what matter. A 5.7 x 28 will have a normal lethal value and a high penetration value but a low stopping value, while for .50 bmg the numbers are generally a moot point as the round has enough energy to relocate the subject's ribs inside his helmet, body armor or no. The need to calculate for such rounds should come in when firing through car doors AND body armor or the like.

It does remind me, though, penetration values are needed as well.

>>7648944
>How would 'stopping power' be affected by different rounds like armor piercing vs expanding bullets? A .50 machine gun firing armor piercing rounds would apply slightly less kinetic energy to a target, but it's still a .50 caliber round.

Some rounds have more stopping power than killing power, and viceversa. Some rounds do not even compensate. An RPG would have so much stopping power and piercing power that a direct hit would normally kill a soldier instantly (normally as in 99% of the time... supposing you don´t want to add defective projectiles into the rules).

Stopping power does not need to apply only to people, but vehicles as well. For example, an RPG hitting a moving car on the side might flip it onto its side. Hitting it on the front might make it swerve to a side. But in both cases, that car would still be getting a nice hole punched through it.

What I am interested on in this matter, though, is whether wearing a bullet proof vest would increase the stopping power of a round in exchange for negating the killing power. For example, if you get shot with a pistol and have a low-grade vest, you might survive but the 9mm round´s stopping power would be heightened (the bullet punches you, rather than INTO you).

That´s something I don´t know about.

>>7649019
I can see it now. Penetration vs concrete, vs aluminum siding, vs cinder-block wall. That could get tedious.

>>7648822
I'd say each type of round has both a stopping power value that affects the target regardless of armour, and an armour piercing value.
AP will affect its ability to penetrate armour.
While the SP will affect how the bullet affects the target.
When it fails to penetrate there is minor wounding and temporary incapacitation.
Succesful penetration will lead to far greater wounding, temporary incapcitation from the shot and other incapacitation effects from such a heavy wound.
If the bullet has a very high AP relative to the targets armour it causes less wounding and temporary incapacitation as it punches straight through.

eg.
A .45 will have high SP but bugger all AP
A 5.56mm will have high AP but less SP than a .45
A 50cal would have both a high AP and SP.

>>7649035
Agreed. Despite armchair generalry, I'm hesitant to claiming knowing that much. Never been shot at, and all that. But it makes sense by my layman's physics, the energy does have to dissipate in some other way when the bullet's completely stopped.

One detail I remembered, about sound. Aren't rifles, and firearms in general, often suppressed for indoors combat as much so that they don't deafen and daze their users as much as for misleading the enemy?

>>7649047

I´d say weapons should have killing power and stopping power only when factoring damage, nothing else. Bulletproof vests and cover in general would negate or reduce killing power and stopping power, while stopping power could normally be reduced only by the heaviest bulletproof vests, and then bypassed with a good willpower roll.

For example, if the Delta player fails to roll a good killing power against the Russian sentry´s heavy armour, there is no lasting damage. Because he is wearing HEAVY armour, the stopping power stays the same (the bullet does not receive extra stopping power for the vest absorbing the hit and transferring it dissipated to the wearer) or is even reduced (the heaviest armour actually reduces the impact even more).

The Russian player then rolls willpower to see if his Russian sentry can act normally through the pain and shock.

>>7649046
Maybe it could be done away with an arbitrary cover rule. Such as dividing cover to heavy, medium and light. Light cover would be undergrowth, plywood, planks, barrels, medium would be car doors, trees, cinderblocks, and heavy would be reinforced concrete, tanks and the like. Weapons or rounds would be allocated a penetration class, such as light for most pistol rounds, medium for rifle rounds and some specialized rounds, and heavy for... well, something very heavy. Explosives would need cover rules of their own.

>>7649035
>>That´s something I don´t know about

Imagine being hit with the end of a broomstick handle really damn hard. The impact is spread out somewhat, but it still isn't much larger than a quarter, and you'll end up with a welt from time to time.

>>7649083
>Aren't rifles, and firearms in general, often suppressed for indoors combat as much so that they don't deafen and daze their users as much as for misleading the enemy?

I would leave that for the Ultra-Realism Oscar Mi/k/e supplement.

But in the worst cases, it could be ruled that any high-powered weapon fired in close quarters reduces the willpower of all those within the room.

>>7649149
I suppose this makes sense, although I personally prefer to maintain the lethality of combat, and survival being most dependent on initiative.

On the topic of willpower, shock and panic are interesting things to play with. If the entry team is an Uruguayan hodge-podge state police cowboy team playing at SWAT and the hostage takers are meth gangers angel dusted out of their wits, things could get both messy and hilarious. But still, there should be a great chance at troopers without prior combat experience or the support of comrades with such to freeze or overreact in live fire situations. Hell, just adding civilians on the theater in such a situation makes for some scary stuff.

>>7649194
>>A scenario/campaign based miniature wargame mechanically kitted to resemble the Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six/Rogue Spear/Raven Shield games, and the SWAT series. DG material optional. Hmm... that shit'd blow Shadowrun out of the water for me, at least.

Silhouette System. Heavy Gear.

>>7647925
>>And all weapons and attachments have different effects in the game. Not only weapons, mind you, but body armor, communications, VEHICLES (you want to put a grenade launcher on the Hummvee instead of a .50cal? Sure!), accessories like climbing ropes and tactical visors, different kinds of grenades, physical, tactical and intelligence perks to reflect special training and logistics, etc...

Silhouette. Heavy Gear.

>>7649258
>I suppose this makes sense, although I personally prefer to maintain the lethality of combat, and survival being most dependent on initiative.

Have in mind that military-grade armour would have to be bought as an extra asset (HILARIOUSLY expensive) or as a part of the package of your force (and if your force has heavy armour as basic, that means it also has a ton more of expensive shit as basic). So yeah, you can swarm the Russian armored troops with niggers and win because your rusty, AIDS-infested AK-47s keep incapacitating the enemy turn after turn until you get into close combat, or until a bullet finally goes through.
And I haven´t even explained my ideas about basic force composition...

>AIDS-infested AK-47

BAHAHAHA. I am reminded of the hilarious C&C Generals and it's anthrax-tipped AK bullets.

Maybe we, assuming enough interest to do something is present, should try bashing together a single, brick-simple scenario that brings crudely satisfying answers to most of the suggestions present in the thread. Perhaps hijack some existing system and use it as a template?

>>7649599
>C&C Generals and it's anthrax-tipped AK bullets.

If this game ever gets off the ground, I now know what I´m playing.

>>7649622
gets off the ground? Been in stores for 5 years?

>>7649622
And to think the whole idea in this thread started from the objective of OPERATOR MAXIMUM OPERATING REALISM OPERATIONS. Ah, well. Live and let live, I'm not one to scream wrongbadfun.

>>7649630
>gets off the ground? Been in stores for 5 years?

I mean the miniatures wargame.

DERKA DERKA JIHAD with anthrax-tipped AK bullets? I can just buy cheap-shit Arabs, give them AKs, and send Delta Force and SAS home with AIDS!

Or load them up with LSD. Pic related.

/k/ is watching this tread, and isn't sure whether to laugh or cry...

>>7649194
Usually they just wear hearing protection in the way of giant-ass earmuffs rated to work in a factory inside of a factory underneath a combine.

Get out of here, /k/

>>7648856
Yeah, they still use Bimps.

Hey guys! How about magic guns? You could have, like, lightning cannons and missiles that create zombies!

>>7649599
The way I see it we need to come up with a base set of rules that can work with many scales from say, two gangs having a small street war, to small scale operations involving special forces and terrorists, to large scale military operations including vehicles.

As far as the rules go it just needs to include the basic engagement rules. These include armour, damage, LoS, camoflage, triangulation of enemy positions, basic equipment, etc. Other advanced rules, scenarios, and equipment can be made through houserules and homebrew.

Also, lets get this thread archived.

Albedo: Platinum Catalyst and the supplement Structural Integrity would likely be of some interest to the thread, so long as you're not all going to tard out because the rules are used with a furry setting. The rules for Albedo seem relevant to whatever is going on ITT.

Well, blimey. I'll throw in a sample to putter around with.

Weather conditions: temperate, early autumn, 00 hours, no moonlight.

Black: agent SMITH. Silenced M4, frag & flash grenades, knife, USP .45, TACTICOOL vest, urban camo bdu, everything else he could think of while writing his letter to santa.

Red 1: TERRIST 1, AK47
Red 2: TERRIST 2, AK47

White 1: HOSTAGE, soiled trousers, blubber.

Agent Smith advances stealthily past the corner of the 9-foot high, solid brick wall surrounding the graveyard, coming into sights with TERRIST1. How shall we resolve the situation? Smith is prepared, while terrist has propably been standing on guard for hours already. Surprise round? Competing awareness rolls? Does Smith spot terrist at all due to lack of GOGGLES?

... jeeze, I shouldn't have had that cup of coffee, I'm not making sense even to myself. Anyway, let's just pile up whatever we want to be rolled in this situation, then move on to the actual combat.

>>7649801
>>The way I see it we need to come up with a base set of rules that can work with many scales from say, two gangs having a small street war, to small scale operations involving special forces and terrorists, to large scale military operations including vehicles.

Silhouette. Heavy Gear.

>>As far as the rules go it just needs to include the basic engagement rules. These include armour, damage, LoS, camoflage, triangulation of enemy positions, basic equipment, etc. Other advanced rules, scenarios, and equipment can be made through houserules and homebrew.

Silhouette. Heavy Gear.

>>7649899
... what the hell, who stole my picture? :V

>>7649866

There are three states of alertness. "Relaxed", "Nervous" and "Fired up".

The sentry is Relaxed, whereas Smith is Fired up. If Smith sees the TERRIST1 face-to-face, both roll Alertness, receiving bonuses or penalties according to their Alertness state. Because Smith is an OPERATOR and the TERRIST 1 is not, Smith is probably going to win. Both roll to get the same result, but Smith gets a bonus for his Alertness status "Fired Up".

Thus, Smith gets to draw his weapon first. But what´s this? Smith ALREADY has his weapon out, whereas TERRIST 1 does not. This means Smith gets to fire at the TERRIST this turn, whereas the TERRIST was slower in spotting him and therefore is drawing this turn. If Smith is good enough at shooting, the TERRIST is as good as dead.

Depending on the range, Smith might also benefit from his camouflage in the spotting phase. His camo gives the enemy penalties at spotting at any range except medium and short. If we assume medium range to be fifty meters, and the surface Smith is near is his camo´s colour, then TERRIST 1 suffers penalties to see him from 51 meters and beyond.

>Also, lets get this thread archived
*snort* lol

>>7649986
Yeah, this basically.

Also, what the fuck is going on in this thread?? All I see is the disorganized ramblings of some schizophrenic describing a wargame/videogame taking place in his imagination. None of this makes any sense.

>tacticool USP .45
>large scale military operation
which is it?
>stopping power AND killing power...
DURP

WTF Thread, are you drunk? Make some god dam sense!!!

>>7650089
I think you're new to /tg/'s habit of doing things. It's something akin to a great big kettle with every passer-by tossing in an ingredient, be it meat, vegetables or feces. Eventually, as the passage of time slowly scrapes away the most casual contributors, a glimpse at whether the end result is crap or not comes to sight.

Also, this is a game we're talking about, you butt-plumber. It's made for people looking to have a bit of fun around a table, not /k/'s operators looking to operate in operations.

Foundry has free rules for their Street Violence range:

http://www.mediafire.com/?nmimmthtwgy

OP here, holy shit I didn't expect this to still be around

you guys are fantastic

>>7650243
too bad /k/'s ruining all our fun...

>>7648853
Brazilian AC-130 = lol wut.

In any case, what do you guys think would be a good name for this game? I proposed Oscar Mike, but maybe you have better ideas.

>>7650352

OPERATION OPERATOR: THE OPERATING

>>7650352
Oscar Mike sounds well enough for the time being. I doubt anything's going to come out of this, though, but whatever.

>>7650063
The alertness system sounds very good, although I have no idea of the crunch of it, as I hadn't even heard of Albedo before this.

Anyway, I scribbled a picture for the next obvious step. Which might be a little silly, since we haven't even gotten around to deciding what to stat, what to roll, what to use for those rolls, and the like.

>>7650352
STAY FROSTY.

Ok, new idea for the name. Stay Frosty Oscar Mike: The Operationing.


>>7650398
>The alertness system sounds very good, although I have no idea of the crunch of it, as I hadn't even heard of Albedo before this.

I´m just thinking it out as I write, I don´t know Albedo.

Relaxed Alertness is when the characters are sentries or the like. They have been on watch for hours, their weapons are holstered or cradled on their arms, and they are not alert.

Nervous is when they first start their watch (up to one hour time) or after a firefight. They know/think someone is out there, so they get normal Alertness rolls, but their weapons are still not drawn.

Fired-up is when adrenaline runs. The soldiers have their weapons up on their shoulders and have a clear purpose and confidence. Their weapons are drawn, and they get bonuses to spotting enemies. However, this state cannot last forever. If the enemy gets out of their sight and nothing exciting happens during the next hour (like finding and dismantling boobytraps or being attacked from the air), they go on to Nervous status.

>>7650470

Makes me think of MGS alert modes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQiDzSWLIm4&feature=related

So, how would that work? Defending player has the choice to announce alert mode when a unit he controls detects intrusion?

>>7650470
Okay, so if we want to keep it to a wargamey level, we propably should keep stats, rolls and the like low. How about a set of natural stats from 1 to 5, where each point represents a roll of 1d6? What to choose as the stats, though... marksmanship with separate special weapons skills, explosives, electronics, mechanics, medical, senses such as spot and listen... I'd think bundling as many actions as possible to a single attribute might be advantageous for the speed of the game.

>>7650398
>So, how would that work? Defending player has the choice to announce alert mode when a unit he controls detects intrusion?

Nope.

If a weapon without a suppressor is fired in the open, all units go into Fired Up mode. If not, nothing happens.

If an intrusion is detected, it must be communicated. There are three ways of communicating this:

1- Visual signal. All units in the same side are assumed to be seeing each other all the time within a given range. Soon as an intrusion is detected, a sentry makes a signal to another nearby sentry, who will relay the message to other sentries within his sight. This goes on and on.

2- Radio equipment. If all sentries have personal comms, a single word can be enough to put a whole base on alert. Radio equipment combined with surveillance cameras is the best possible security measure, probably, because the man in the control room can detect and quickly communicate to other men what he sees. Also, the sentries will receive huge bonuses on their spot checks since the man in the control room will be telling them where the enemy is.

3- Alarm. You know, a good old horn? Everyone in the base enters Fired Up status same as with radio equipment.

>>7650515
That depends on range, individual soldier's choice of action, communication equipment, etc.

If he has a radio, then it's possibly mission TPK just by alerting. If he hasn't, it's possible no-one hears the terrist derka in panic. He might even freeze and lock up altogether due to panic. Variables are fun.

We propably haven't really decided on the nature of the defending player yet anyway, the system might just be used for combat in a normal modern campaign, and as such it'd be usually the DM running the defender.

Er, yeah, um - what >>7650593 said. Makes more sense.

About >>7650570, on a second thought, 5+ d6's per action per model might actually be too much rolling, on an afterthought. I can't seemingly think of a fluid system to work with, though.

>>7650598

running it heroquest style might be fun.

Group of four dudes on a mission, with the DM controlling the opposition.

to make it interesting for the DM, there would always be a "head honcho" who could challenge the PC's in a one on one.

I guess sorta like the broodlord in spacehulk

>>7650712
Space hulk's fog of war thingy with the cardboard squares came up as something interesting earlies... but that's, uh, kinda tedious. Don't think bossfights and the like fit the theme, though, that's a little more MGS than necessary.

>>7650753

not proposing it as a bossfight, rather something to challenge the players as they finish their objective.

but maybe that's borrowing a bit too much from the "action movie" trope

>>7650593
The way I was thinking about alert levels is slightly different to you. here are my ideas.

Relaxed - Completely unaware that a fight is going to happen. As soon as any hint of a fight starts unit changes to nervous or alert. Weapon is not drawn, unit is not alert.

Nervous - When either a completely untrained or poorly skilled combatant is aware combat is happening, but not actively engaging they enter this state. Weapon is drawn, but not shouldered and they're more alert. They still take a while to respond though. Once entered a unit will remain in this alert level unless engaging.

Alert - This stage is entered when a skilled combatant is aware that combat is about to take place. Weapon is shouldered and they are more alert than a nervous person. This is the standard alertness level for most combatants once alerted to combat. Once entered the combatant will remain iat this alert level unless engaging.

Engaging - the combatant knows where the enemy is, and is actively engaging them, or about to engage.

Prepared (Need to think of a better name) - This state is entered by combatants who are aware of enemies presence, and are about to engage, but the enemies are not aware. This is mainly for special forces about to door breach, attack unsuspecting guards, etc. The unit gets a very high initiative bonus during the first round of combat. After combat is initiated the unit reverts to engaging.

>>7650712
I think the point is to make the rules flexible enough to make it work both as a wargame for two or more players, or heroquest style with multiple players and a GM.

>>7650781

Something I do about Alertness levels, is assume that if the scenario calls for a special forces assault, the attacker´s forces are on Fire Up until they complete their primary objective. SWAT, SEALS, SAS and other special forces operators go into combat expecting, and seeking, combat. Thus, they are not going to relax until their objective is complete. At that point, after finishing a firefight, they go back to Nervous status.

The mission is accomplished, and most (if not all) hostiles are assumed dead. This gives the defender the chance to escape with his remaining forces, or retaliate.

The defender, meanwhile, goes straight from passive to active when the alarm is up. It is the Fight or Fly instinct.


That said, some special forces and/or scenarios might have a special rule that says the defender can maintain Fire Up until the mission ends. For example, if the defender is protecting an object in particular (that is, there is NOTHING ELSE in the base that might interest the attacker), it would make sense for the defender soldiers to remain on Fire Up until their primary object (escaping with the objective) is accomplished. If the defender has Spetsnaz guarding his base, the Spetsnaz units might the special rule of having Fire Up until a given number or percentage of the enemy forces are destroyed.

>>7650570
I think each unit needs an overall training level. This affects peception, alertness, and is the modifier for accuracy.
The weapon the unit is using defines the accuracy, with the training level modifier. It is assumed the training level incorporates the units training with that particular weapon, so as not to need multiple weapon skills.

Extra skills like electronics, explosives can be given to a unit seperately as these are only needed in special cases. eg. Special forces guy with explosives skill can rig traps more quickly, blow up walls more efficiently etc.

Marksmanship could also act as a bonus "perk" given to some units like Designated Marksmen or snipers. This allows them to have a higher accuracy modifier than their training skill would normally allow, provided they take longer to line up the shot.

>>7650871
>I think each unit needs an overall training level. This affects peception, alertness, and is the modifier for accuracy.

These stats would be their starting training. Investing in more training, and experience gained in missions, would improve that.

But at this point, I think we´d be going into force composition, which is a wholly different topic that might warrant starting a new thread, since I think this one is auto-saging.

>>7650890
If you are doign a long campaign setting that would work. However, training levels and equipment for soldiers for a single game would be agreed on by the players beforehand. Levels and skills increasing shouldn't be covered in the core rules but should be worked out as a homebrew extra, or suplemental rules specifically for campaigns.

Also I think the way the game would play, most units, despite not being expendable as such, probably won't have a very high survival probability.

>>7650951

Well, personally, I´ve looked at this game as a Necromunda kind of game. Half roleplaying, half wargame. A GM making a story Tom Clancy/Modern Warfare 2 style would work the best for this, I think.

>>7651063
Thats why I'm saying make the core rules combat focused only.
Roleplaying aspects can be added on for players playing through a campaign or multiple scenarios. But they're not necessary for wargaming.

>>7651063
I concur. It should be able to function as a wargame, but it would be all the more rewarding as a hybrid. Especially since this thread started from my dear beloved Delta Green - a fluid, exciting, tactical firearms-based combat system for the game could be entertaining for the parts of the game that deals with mundane opposition. Another thing I've been thinking this would fit well is a Noir-verse based campaign. I've actually been thinking of that for years now.

But that's all quite weeaboo.

>>7651133

In that case, you still need to work out the initial force composition, even leaving resources and experience out. And there is still a roleplaying aspect in that, which is how the character of the force configures the unit even in single battles.

Playing British SAS even in a single battle is still pretty roleplay-oriented.

>>7651176
Oh yeah, I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that there isn't any need for experience and leveling up within the core rules. Just the initial stats and equipment.

>>7651206

It is agreed, then.

How stripped-down should it be? D20-level detail to skill levels, or a remotely Warham-esque experience rating?

Say, 4 "generalist" skill levels:
1: Untrained. Petty criminals or common civilians that have gone nutters and taken hostages. Grants familiarity, but no bonuses, for most checks.
2: Regular. Basic military training equivalent. Familiarity with the soldier's craft, but lacking trial by fire. Examples could be, say, the average Russian sentry, or a particularily determined jihadist.
3: Veteran. Well-trained active duty military personnel with possible combat experience. Veteran soldiers from Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechenya, Georgia or whatnot. Possibly SWAT.
4: Elite. Either training or on duty 24/7, with rank to reflect the skills and commitment. Extensive experience. SAS, GIGN, SEAL, et cetera.

I generally feel against making characters strong by stats, but rather cling stubbornly to the initiative/tactics/planning dimension.

>>7651414
>I generally feel against making characters strong by stats, but rather cling stubbornly to the initiative/tactics/planning dimension.

That would be where assets come in. Before playing an assault mission (for example) the defender has to draw a patrol plan. Satellite feed would let you know what the patrol plan is outside of buildings (unless the defender has multiple plans for different days, but he has to draw them up and present them to the GM).

Having a spy in the enemy faction would also help. Surveillance equipment and radio communications are not free. Neither are vehicles. And so on and so forth.

In the end, when you put all these assets together, you get a plan, which is where tactics, planning and in part, initiative, come in.

The same can be done for open engagements when air support, mortar and artillery strikes and similar things come into play.

Stats are not all. Stats, equipment and assets, though... that´s another story.

I'm tempted to take DH as the base system on which to build, since it seems to be /tg/'s favorite homebrew system of the date. The problem is, I have a shameful secret.

... I've never read Dark Heresy.

>>7651414
>>7651492
Tactics will be a huge factor. But if you're doing a game with multiple terrorist vs a small number of elite troops they need to have an advantage as far as gameplay goes. That will be achieved through stealth rules, training and superior equipment.

>>7651532
Someone already said Silhouette/Silcore. It is basically made for battles in sci-fi enviroments, probably only needs the stress or willpower rules and turn sequence

>>7651764
Hmm. Trying to find some downloadan as is. Funny I've never heard of it before.

bit of a bump, OP here.

Decided on taking this model and modifying it to match my ideas. Subtract hair, add helmet/gasmask/upperbody gear

Wish I could contribute some rules, but I'm an RPG virgin

>>7652273
No hassle, mang. We're just throwing stuff out in the open in case they assimilate eachother and mutate to something funny all by their own, anyway.

Ah, creativity and sloth.

As long as we're talking tabletop in the modern setting, I wish we had some kind of armored unit creator ala the ship creator in Rogue Trader.

>>7652685
What type of armored unit? MBTs, APCs, AFVs, Tankettes? You'd need a slightly different formula for all of them, or one massively complicated creator.

>>7652685

Vehicles are too specialized to fit into a general profile like that, better to stat them on a per-unit basis.

What would be useful, though, is an infantry unit creator. Define the unit's skill level, give it equipment, assign one guy to demolitions, one guy to sniper, one guy to field medic, et cetera. Kit them out with vests, claymore mines, suicide belts or camo of different kind. Give them access to sattelite surveillance or Predator drones, or give them intricate knowledge of the local area. Basically, a generator like that should allow you to make any kind of unit, from mechanized US Marines to Colombian guerillas to French Foreign Legion to Spetznaz to Taliban.

>>7652837
Here's how I would handle it.

Have some basic rules for MBTs, APCs, Jeeps etc.
Essentially all vehicles of the same class will be the same, however you could have alot of potential upgrades such as extra weapons like machine guns, smoke launchers to affect line of sight and extra armor, such as ERA.

Tanks also have access to more than one type of round to better deal with enemy armour or fortified positions etc.

Tanks and APCs would have heavy armor that can not be pierced by normal bullets at all, so specialist anti tank weaponry must be used. Bullets with a high AP can damage light vehicles.

Another element of combat to add thogh is that high AP rounds could potentially be used to fire at weak spots on tanks and APCs, such as tyres and tracks to restrict mobility and whatnot.

>>7652935
I like that idea. Assigning statistics could also generate some type of backstory. For instance:

British
Advanced Pilot Training
Survival Training
Expert SMG Marksman

A Royal Navy Tornado pilot reassigned to the Special Operations of NATO, Geoffrey Nelson was shot down over the Falklands Islands in enemy territory. He successfully navigated back to friendly lines, but the injuries he sustained precluded his return to supersonic fighters. Nelson is still cleared to fly subsonic aircraft like the Harrier and Lynx, and the addition of his wilderness skills make him a valuable asset. His preferred weapon is a MP5-K, the firearm he used during his evasion of Argentine forces during the Falklands War.

>>7652990
Something I've been working on the last hour or so.

______
Engine: Pick 2 positive factors of the 4 possible engine factors. The remaining factors are negative unless otherwise listed:
[Weight, Ruggedness, Horse Power, Fuel Consumption]
-----
Factor: Positive Effects / Negative Effects
Weight: +2 weapon slots, +2 cargo slots / -2 weapon slots, -2 cargo slots
Ruggedness: Reroll failed armor saves for the engine / A hit to the engine always counts as critical
Horse Power: Max Speed increased by 15km/h, +2 cargo slots / Max Speed decreased by 15km/h, -2 cargo slots
Fuel Consumption: Increase range by 25% / Decrease range by 25%

>>7653695

Mobility: Tracked or Wheeled
-----
Tracked Pros - lower ground pressure, increased off-road traction.
Tracked Cons - decreased traction over time due to track wear, lower road-going efficiency.

Wheeled Pros - High road speed and mobility, ease of repair, survivability (loss of 1 or 2 tires acceptable depending on number available)
Wheeled Cons - lower off-road pressure (vs. tracked) so is more easily mired in bad conditions, lower overall durability (can take damage more easily).

______
Armor: pick 2 positive qualities of 4 possible qualities:
Weight, Repairability, Protection, Size
-----
Factor: Positive Effects / Negative Effects
Weight: +1 weapon slot, +2 cargo slots / -1 weapon slot, -2 cargo slots
Repairability: Armor repair time is halved / Armor repair time is doubled
Protection: +4 armor pts / -4 armor pts
Size: Counts as hull down in hindering terrain / Opponent gains +4 to hit on attack rolls

>>7653737
______
Weapons: 12 slots available base (before factors)
-----
*Smoothbore 120mm - 11 slots
*Rifled 105mm - 10 slots
*Smoothbore 105mm Cannon - 8 slots
4x23mm Automatic Cannons w/radar - 7 slots
*30mm Bushmaster Automatic Cannon - 7 slots
*Smoothbore 73mm Cannon - 5 slots
*20mm Rheinmetall Automatic Cannon - 5 slots
SAM system w/radar - 5 slots
SAM system (shorter range heat-seeking) - 4 slots
Anti-Tank Missile Launcher (i.e.: TOW, AT-5) - 4 slots
#40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher - 3 slots
Coaxial 12.5mm machine gun - 3 slots
Smoke Grenade Launcher - 2 slots
#Commander/Anti-Air 12.5mm machine gun - 2 slots
Coaxial 7.56mm machine gun - 2 slots
#Commander/Anti-Air 7.56mm machine gun - 1 slot
Remote 5.56mm machine gun - 1 slot
-----
* -Main Weapon - Only one of these can be chosen per vehicle.
* -Main Weapons can be made non-turreted (limited traverse, depression, etc) and receive -2 to their slot cost.
# -Crew Served Weapon - Can be made remotely operated for an additional slot cost, only 1 remote turret per vehicle.

>>7653781
______
Cargo/Internal Load: 12 slots available (before factors)
-----
Large Infantry Compartment (9 soldiers) – 8 slots
Medium Infantry Compartment (6 soldiers) – 6 slots
Small Infantry Compartment (3 soldiers) – 4 slots
-----
Extra Large Ammo Storage (75A, 2,400B, 3,600C, 11D, 120E) – 5 slots
Large Ammo Storage (40A, 900B, 2,200C, 7D, 100E) – 3 slots
Medium Ammo Storage (25A, 600B, 1,200C, 4D, 60E) – 2 slots
Small Ammo Storage (15A, 300B, 700C, 2D, 40E) – 1 slots
Ammo Storage Key – A =120mm-73mm shells
B = 30-20mm shells
C = 12.5mm-5.56mm bullets
D = Missiles
E = 40mmGrenades
-----
Floatation Curtain (Fording Capability) – 4 slots
-----
Large Fuel Tank (600mi) – 4 slots
Medium Fuel Tank (400mi) – 2 slots
Small Fuel Tank (300mi) – 1 slot
-----
-Spare weapon slots can be allocated to cargo slots to make up for weight and size penalties up to the 12 base slot number limit.
-The 4x23mm weapon receives half again as much ammunition as listed from the B ammunition storage levels. (i.e. Extra Large ammo storage of B shells for the 4x23mm is 3,600).

>tracked Cons - decreased traction over time due to track wear

You propose the player and GM keep track of track wear during one operation? Or an entire campaign?

>>7653895
Originally that had been the idea, although in a tabletop session it would be more appropriate to register that the damage to the treads from mines or other hits would decrease traction; causing reduced speed.