Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1902
Location: Norway
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
my point is that while someone argues that some troopers should not have this I say ALL military and i mean ALL military have the basics of command and control skills.
however to combine anything you need to be more than one
I think this is in part the mistake that stormtroopers somehow is "bad soldiers"
they are the elite of the elite, reblels can maybe matche some of the stormtrooper units with their own super elite forces and special forces.
"only imperial stormtroopers are so precise"
so to me the whole stormtrropers can't hit is silly, they are elite soldiers, they know everthing "we" don't know about tactics, command etc etc.
then again how is combined fire done in the rules, 2 or more shooting the same target at the same time
not much skill outside blaster required.
This reminds me of another thread of lets get rules for things just for the sake of rules.
I have 1 rule with stormtrooper encounter for my players, RUN.....or try fight it out but even 1 will be though let alone a squad, as my players sledom if even havve the fortune of having troopers ORDERED to not hit
Yes the average srormtrooper hits 77% of targets statistcally, this is about godly compared to "regular earth infantry" who is considered to have a good hit rate at 15%
77% is AMAZING accuracy, just amazing |
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mamatried wrote: | my point is that while someone argues that some troopers should not have this I say ALL military and i mean ALL military have the basics of command and control skills.
however to combine anything you need to be more than one
I think this is in part the mistake that stormtroopers somehow is "bad soldiers"
they are the elite of the elite, reblels can maybe matche some of the stormtrooper units with their own super elite forces and special forces.
"only imperial stormtroopers are so precise"
so to me the whole stormtrropers can't hit is silly, they are elite soldiers, they know everthing "we" don't know about tactics, command etc etc.
then again how is combined fire done in the rules, 2 or more shooting the same target at the same time
not much skill outside blaster required.
This reminds me of another thread of lets get rules for things just for the sake of rules.
I have 1 rule with stormtrooper encounter for my players, RUN.....or try fight it out but even 1 will be though let alone a squad, as my players sledom if even havve the fortune of having troopers ORDERED to not hit
Yes the average srormtrooper hits 77% of targets statistcally, this is about godly compared to "regular earth infantry" who is considered to have a good hit rate at 15%
77% is AMAZING accuracy, just amazing |
I'm not sure we are on the same page with this one.
My interpretation of combined fire is much more nuanced than just "two or more guys shooting at the same target."
That is a very oversimplified way of looking at it, IMO.
For example, if I say "lay down a base of fire on that target" to my troops, they immediately take several things into consideration:
1) number of personnel in their team
2) assortment of weapons in their team
3) penetration power of weapons in their team
4) effective range of their weapons vs the range to the target
5) rate of fire as a group
6) rate of fire as individuals (this varies depending on many things, and it matters a WHOLE lot).
Depending on the variables above, the "appropriate" volume of firepower will be different.
This doesn't even account for the actual objective of the mission, which will change the outcome of all of those variables, as well. Also, do we have a flanking element, or CAS coming, or artillery, etc? All these variables matter when deciding how much to shoot and for how long.
A "15%" hit rate, as you call it is incredibly misleading. Much of the shooting performed in battle is performed under the assumption that it will miss because it is intended to intimidate the target (that is, make him realize that moving from cover is a virtual guarantee of death).
Then again, I'm drawing on US military doctrine here... it's possible that other armies with less resources and inferior training might actually be 15% shooters (which, seems to me to be about what a completely uninitiated person would do the first time they picked up a gun).
Let's look at a tire change as an example of how combined actions require some actual knowledge about the subject (and not just a high "perception/command" skill):
First scenario, you have the most inspirational, motivational leader in the galaxy and 6 people who have never even heard of an automobile, let alone a tire change, so they will use base technical.
Leader: "You two, go get the new tire. And you two, set the jack and start jacking up the car. The rest of you, get that old wheel off."
Now, in this scenario, the two people operating the jack will not know that they need to use a jack point under the frame, and so end up punching a hole through the floor board instead. Then, they figure out that they need to use a stronger point under the car. Then, the two taking off the flat, run in to a problem because the wheel is off the ground, so it just free spins and they can't get it off. Eventually, they figure something out and get the wheel off. Then, the new wheel arrives and gets installed. And the car drives off, but then one of the wheel lugs sheers off because it was over-torqued, and the wheel falls off because the other lugs were under-torqued, and now you have a car with frame damage, suspension damage, and burnt up rotors from sparking along the ground...
Scenario 2:
The leader is the only one who knows what to do:
Leader: "You two, make sure to put the jack here so that you don't damage the vehicle, and set it up, but don't lift the car" (requires leader to provide "hands on" micromanaged instruction). "You to, loosen the lug nuts on the wheel with the flat using this tool... no, no... the LUG nuts!" (more micromanaging). And you two, bring the new wheel. Now, before you lower the car, install the wheel, and hand tighten the lug nuts. Now, you two with the jack, lower the car. And you two with the new wheel, set this torque wrench to 100 ft. lbs... no, no... like this... good, and tighten the lugs in a star pattern so that the wheel doesn't wobble against the hub from being unevenly torqued."
Now, you could vary this situation and say that none of the workers have any Technical based skills, but they all have a few dice is Scholar: Engineering or Scholar: Physical Sciences or whatever. Consider these skills as a stand-in for the tactics skill, while the repair skill (which they don't have) would stand-in for blaster. In this case, the workers would understand things like PSI/load bearing, torque, and other things related to mechanical function, and could at least ask the "right questions" concerning the task (such as, "can this part of the car support the rest of the car's weight given the material construction and the amount of surface area in contact with the jack?")
Now, in scenario 3, everyone knows what to do:
Leader: "Hey guys, let's change a tire on THAT vehicle."
If we are going to provide a bonus for combined actions, doesn't it make more sense that the bonus should ONLY apply if all participants are at least initiated, and that the bonus should be BIGGER if the team is actually trained not only in the task, but also trained to work together?
THAT is where I'm coming from on this one.
Cheers.  |
|
