The .223 allows one to carry more ammo for the same weight/space. It's light recoil is well suited to female users and older less fit males, a serious consideration for the Project. One can recovery from firing and quickly fire again (major concern for close quarters battle- CBQ), and the weapon is controllable on auto-fire. The light bullet however is often less than effective against humans, and unsuited for any larger creature.
On the other hand, the .308 is much more effective bullet for bullet, able to handle any North America big game and better suit to dealing with the left overs from the alien invasion that caused the Project to come into being in the first place. It is however heavy both in weight and in recoil. Quick recovery from shots in CQB is an issue.
So it's a bit of damned if you do, damned if you don't decision. Makes one wish there was something inbetween doesn't it? Well, it seems I'm not the only one with that thought.
Members of SOCOM working with Remington attempted to address this very issue with the 6.8mm Remington SPC. The problem here is that there's no current or planned US Military Rifle chambered in this, let alone the HK416/417. However that doesn't mean that one couldn't be- it was designed for AR15 pattern rifles and it should be easy enough to modify the HK 416.
Selecting this last option however means cutting oneself off from using non-Project ammo found along the way (which would likely include .223 and .308 but not 6.8mm).
Also from a background PoV, it means the Project had to produce it's own weapons and ammo for deployment rather than 'buying off the shelf'. Less of a problem in my campaign as it had Gov. backing, but still an issue.
So much for reality, how does this stack up in game terms? I use HERO System and have my own real world conversion methods for firearms. Let's take a look:
HK 417 .308 20" Barrel:
Damage: 2d6+1K
Stun Mod: +1
Armor Mod: 1 point piercing
STR Min: 14
CQB: -3 (modifier to DEX only to determine order of action).
Shots: 20
+1 OCV, +4 RMod (match barrel modifier added)
HK 416 .223 16.5" barrel
Damage: 2d6Stun Mod: +0
Armor Mod: 0
STR Min: 12
CQB: -2
Shots: 30
+1 OCV, +2 RMod
6.8mm SPC 16.5" barrel
Damage: 2d6
Stun Mod: +1
Armor Mod: 1 point piercing
STR Min: 12
CQB: -2
Shots: 28
+1 OCV, +2 RMod
The STR MIN above are unmodified, but lets add a Muzzle Brake for a -1 modifier and another -1 for the inline design advantage of the AR15 pattern rifles, reducing the STR Min for all the above by 2 points.
The clear winner in my mind viewing the game stats is the 6.8mm SPC (which matches my opinion in the real world). But does that make up for drawbacks of using such a non-standard chambering?
The upside of doing one's own campaign is that one gets to write or even rewrite history. I could easily say that the US Military got off it's backside and switched to the 6.8mm SPC after its testing was completed. Or I can say that the alien invasion resulted in the switch, perhaps not completed by the time the Project was equipped- but it was well underway.
With that in mind the question becomes one of:
- Do I want to use one of the other two chambering to give the game the air of 'Gov't FUBAR' or not? The .223 is perfect for that option.
- Or do I want to use the best gear for the job?
I'm leaning towards the latter right now, and unless I change my mind before the campaign- the standard rifle will be the HK416 chambered for the 6.8 Remington SPC.
Perhaps as I pick the other Project weapons that will change.
Posts
11 comments:
I was going to mention the 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8 SPC in your previous post. You might be interested in taking a look at the ballistics comparison test on Shooters Forum.
It measures recoil, velocity, energy, drop, & drift for 5.56, 7.62, 6.8, and four 6.5 loads.
@Mad Brew: I'm glad I beat you to it here then :)
Sigh, the 6.5mm Grendel breaks my HERO conversion method :(
It's a rather different bird given that it was designed for long range applications. The result was a a bullet with high weight and an excellent drag co-efficent intended to 'start slow and end fast'. Thus compared to the .223, .308 and 6.8mm, it's not so hot up close but is better than any of those at long range.
And my firearm conversion methods just don't handle that as I don't degrade damage over range (trying to keep things simple).
Besides, such features make it more of a sniper round than an assault rifle round, it may reappear when I consider that role.
This is actually a serious question... but how much does this matter?
Do your players care about authenticity of the weapon systems they use? Do the game mechanics differentiate significantly between these weapons? How much of the campaign do you want to focus on the logistics of weight and ammunition supplies?
It may be that these things are important to you and your group. If so, cool. If not, though, are you just making busywork for yourself?
What is the tactical doctrine for the teams?
Equipment should flow from doctrine. The AK-47 was designed to support mass amounts of suppressive fire in a combined-arms doctrine.
This isn't a SOF team; this is a team of scientists whose first primary objective is to survive, their secondary objective is to link up with other teams, and their third one is to rebuild society.
They'll need to blend in with the locals to do that so anything that makes them stand out is likely not a good thing. So, I'd say stick with standard ammo and a low-profile weapon.
From a game play perspective, I think the gov't FUBAR option has merit. It also makes finding rare ammo a valuable goal. The players may be forced to fall back on suboptimal weapons that they can actually find ammo for. I can see some funny tidbits being discovered by the players.
Newspaper articles describing the army's new changeover to the new ammo; then later ones with congressional opposition (all those 5.56 rounds are made somewhere); finally a compromise, where the army sticks with TWO calibers of ammo, and all the special ammo is made in North Dakota, because that senator was head of the right committees, etc.
@szilard: The short answer is that it matters a great deal, otherwise I wouldn't be wasting my time on it.
You may not be familar with HERO System, but those stats I detailed are significant differences (in any good firearm simulation, they'd have to be), and the concept of limited resources like ammo is key to a Morrow Project campaign.
@Vedron: Some Project teams are scientists, most actually are not- being instead more hands on practical types: engineers, construction crews, farmers, teachers, etc.
Many are police and/or military focused teams, more so in this setting than the original game's due to the different cause of the collapse. The players have already selected one of these for their group.
Even those teams that are not primarily military, are still armed and trained to defend themselves and will include military personal as 'security' in any case.
With that in mind, the use of the HK416 is intended for those characters with military or police backgrounds. It will likely see wider use in the Project due to the fact that providing a different weapon to 'non-combatants' comes with it's own logistic issues best avoided. But I'm still thinking that part over at this time.
I should also note that blending in with the locals was not a original Project goal. The Project wasn't suppose to hide, it was to rebuild the nation. Flags and drums are more in order than ninja suits and disguise kits. That things didn't work out for them in that way is suppose to be one of the problems the player face.
I should also note that much of the Project 'first months' doctrine was defined by US Special Forces- as they had actual practical experience and of what is needed to bring lawless regions under control and the history of success to back it up.
Unlike the original game, this time the Project was ran by professionals. A module like Ruins of Chicago would see the snake eaters (or people quickly trained by them) as the PCs this time around.
I'm not familiar with the Morrow Project personally, but a quick google/wiki makes it seem like its very similar to the Fallout universe (only a little less dark/campy). With that assumption in mind...
Did the Project know about the Alien aspect you mentioned? or was it only intended for a post-nuclear setup?
In my mind, based on the constraints of civilians vs savages, I would imagine that the Project would not have issued assault rifles at all; SMGs or carbines would have been better suited. 100 years post-apocalypse it is unlikely many folk would be running around with functional anti-ballistic body armor. Armor piercing ability would not be an issue, and SMGs are lighter, more compact, and easier to use (especially in CQB).
Personal defense seems like it would be the order of the day, and frankly assault rifles are HEAVY. I know 8lbs doesn't sound like a lot, but having played with a AR15 before, I was shocked at how much 8lbs is when you are actually trying to use one, and I didn't have to carry any ammo or repair kit/spare parts.
Re: Aliens. I'm not sure what tactics the aliens are prone to using, but I suspect that they probably have superior technology and fewer numbers compared to the human population, which would lead me to think they would use more armored cavalry/rapid response tactics than foot patrol/checkpoint. Are small arms tactics feasible? Will the rifle cartridge be of any more use against an alien vehicle/installation/armored infantry than a pistol cartridge?
I would imagine that anti-armor weapons might have been issued, such as a M82 Barrett, M32 MGL, or even just an M79 grenade launcher for civilians and light weights. Demo charges would also be extremely handy, not just for direct actions but also for engineering projects, etc.
Obviously, the game specifics/mechanics would override any of these arguments. I personally find assault rifles a bit of a mismatch based on the tactical constraints; that said, its not like the military is known for its prescience. Always fighting the last war, as they say.
Hmm just read the part where your players had selected a military team vs a civilian team. Kinda changes the tactical dynamic a bit. What sorts of missions are these teams supposed to deal with? CQB, breaching, raids? Assaulting a fortified position/armored target? Recon in force/asymmetrical warfare? All of the above?
@Roeguard: I think the background on the campaign is likely worth its own article or two, I'll be starting on those today. I'll also be covering SMGs, although I bet you won't agree with my view of them.
As for the mission assigned to this specific team, it first days of *planned* operation was to respond as 'in-depth' recon for anything the more common recon teams encountered that was beyond them or considered a serious threat. They would have the option to deal with the problem themselves, or provide the intel needed to call upon more Project resources.
If not involved in that, they would serve in the classic SOF role of rebuilding local order much like Special Ops did during Vietnam and Afghanistan with an eye towards supporting immediate goals defined by Prime Base. The snake eaters from the original Game module Ruins of Chicago is something of a layman's example for such operations.
My question wasn't whether the stats matter, but whether the authenticity of the weapons matter. Obviously, you care about this... so it seems worthwhile to you. I guess my concern is whether your players would care what their rifle was called and whether it had a real-world analogue. They might. If so, cool.
If they don't, though, then they aren't going to appreciate all the work you're putting into this... which doesn't mean you shouldn't do it... as long as you realize that you're doing it for yourself.
@szilard: I feel that my first sentence in reply to you was a complete answer to all the elements of your question.
But to be clear, yes it matters to at least a majority of this gaming group and is at least no drawback to the reminder.
Post a Comment