Combat System
HoL
Just wondering if anyone else uses a customised combat system for GURPS?
We changed because we thought that it was unrealistic in that you didn't
die easy enough. I mean you get shot with a pistol and your pretty
screwed in my opinion.
Whats the figures, how many of u use custom combat systems or heavily
modified systems and in what way are they modified?
HoL
-Friendly PsYCHoPaTH-
"V is for VIRTUE so i aint gonna hurt you.
E is for EVEN if you want me too."
Nick Cave - LOVERMAN
Eric Smith
HoL wrote in message <3589DB22...@cygnus.uwa.edu.au>...
>Just wondering if anyone else uses a customised combat system for
GURPS?
>
>We changed because we thought that it was unrealistic in that you
didn't
>die easy enough. I mean you get shot with a pistol and your pretty
>screwed in my opinion.
So long as prompt medical attention is given you stand a fairly good
chance of surviving a gunshot. The problem is that the prompt medical
attention isn't always given, like when you pass out from the wound
(10-12 damage is enough to knock most people out within a minute or
so, using the current rules, and many hand guns do 2d-3d so 2 shots
will probably cause you to go unconsious eventually).
Once you're out cold you'll likely bleed to death if someone doesn't
call the paramedics soon.
3-4 shots could easily kill a person by reducing them to -HT, causing
them to roll against HT just to survive. Each shot after that will
cause them to make 1 or more HT rolls just to survive.
Frankly, I think Hand Guns are deadly enough as they are.
>Whats the figures, how many of u use custom combat systems or heavily
>modified systems and in what way are they modified?
EricBSmith
@msn.com
Telekinesis: It's the thought that counts.
The word "Politics" comes from the Latin words "poly" meaning many,
and "tics" meaning bloodsucking parasites.
HoL
Eric Smith wrote:
> So long as prompt medical attention is given you stand a fairly good
> chance of surviving a gunshot. The problem is that the prompt medical
> attention isn't always given, like when you pass out from the wound
> (10-12 damage is enough to knock most people out within a minute or
> so, using the current rules, and many hand guns do 2d-3d so 2 shots
> will probably cause you to go unconsious eventually).
Indeed this is so, however 1 bullet in the torso and you lose something
vital. Bullets make large messy hole and hit bones and lungs and livers
and hearts and kidneys and stomaches. When arms get hit they stop working
well, same for legs. I know thats not always the case, but we just found
it poorly represented (and we wanted combat to be used less). However your
point is noted. =)
> Once you're out cold you'll likely bleed to death if someone doesn't
> call the paramedics soon.
I agree with that one... at this moment in time i can't remember the rules
on bleeding to death.. heheh i haven't slept for way to long.
> 3-4 shots could easily kill a person by reducing them to -HT, causing
> them to roll against HT just to survive. Each shot after that will
> cause them to make 1 or more HT rolls just to survive.
Nodnod, my point was really for the one shot. I consider someone who has
been shot three times incapacited, unless they are very very luck. Also
with respect to other weapons as well such as piercing swords and stuff.
> Frankly, I think Hand Guns are deadly enough as they are.
We don't really use any combat system now... mind u the only system we
seem to use is some strange GURPS by-product skill system and the
character creation. =)
Thank you =)
Eric Smith
HoL wrote in message <358A0293...@cygnus.uwa.edu.au>...
>
>
>Eric Smith wrote:
>
>> So long as prompt medical attention is given you stand a fairly
good
>> chance of surviving a gunshot. The problem is that the prompt
medical
>> attention isn't always given, like when you pass out from the wound
>> (10-12 damage is enough to knock most people out within a minute or
>> so, using the current rules, and many hand guns do 2d-3d so 2 shots
>> will probably cause you to go unconsious eventually).
>
>Indeed this is so, however 1 bullet in the torso and you lose
something
>vital. Bullets make large messy hole and hit bones and lungs and
livers
>and hearts and kidneys and stomaches. When arms get hit they stop
working
>well, same for legs. I know thats not always the case, but we just
found
>it poorly represented (and we wanted combat to be used less). However
your
>point is noted. =)
Shots to the Torso are not always deadly (hell, even shots to the head
can be survived). Many times a bullet can completely miss vital
organs, ricochet off a rib, or maybe just slightly nick something
doing little damage.
As for arms, blowthrough man, blowthrough. All damage over HT/2 to an
arm or HT/3 to a hand is lost, and after a couple minutes you need to
make (IIRC) a HT roll to see if it's permantly crippled or soon
recovers. That said, It wouldn't be out of the question to say that a
gun does less damage if the roll to Hit is made exactly or if the roll
to dodge is missed by only 1, to represent flesh wounds. Maybe -2
damage per die with a minimum damage of 1 pt.
Another possibility is to change the way damage is rolled. Increase
the dice rolled and give a rather large negative modifier to to keep
the average the same. For instance, say a hand gun does 2d damage (7
avg.). Change the damage to 4d-7 (14-7=7 avg.). The average damage
stays the same, but the extreme ends of the curve are changed (with a
decent chance of no damage and a decent chance of doing *more* damage
than with just 2d).
Something else you could do is have guns do half listed damage, make
it Imp., and give guns an armor divisor of 2. This keeps damage about
the same in all respects but increases the chance of doing little
damage. The above gun that does 2d damage would now do 1d Imp (2), so
against an arm it would do between 1-6 damage (arms don't get the Imp
miltiplier), against a body it would do between 2-12 damage. The
armor divisor is to let guns to keep their current armor penetration
(which, IIRC, is why SJG changed guns from Imp to Crushing damage
about two editions ago).
So, hows them apples taste?
>> Once you're out cold you'll likely bleed to death if someone
doesn't
>> call the paramedics soon.
>
>I agree with that one... at this moment in time i can't remember the
rules
>on bleeding to death.. heheh i haven't slept for way to long.
I think it's a HT roll every minute or lose a hit point (don't have my
Basic on me now). The Advanced Healing System (p. CII 155) covers the
healing of different sized wounds fairly well, and the First Aid
modifiers for wound size could probably be applied to Bleeding rolls.
It's not out of the question to require a bleeding roll for each wound
too, the guy who just lost both arms is going to bleed more than the
guy who lost only one.
>> 3-4 shots could easily kill a person by reducing them to -HT,
causing
>> them to roll against HT just to survive. Each shot after that will
>> cause them to make 1 or more HT rolls just to survive.
>
>Nodnod, my point was really for the one shot. I consider someone who
has
>been shot three times incapacited, unless they are very very luck.
And in real life as well as GURPS, they usually are.
>Also with respect to other weapons as well such as
>piercing swords and stuff.
>> Frankly, I think Hand Guns are deadly enough as they are.
>
>We don't really use any combat system now... mind u the only system
we
>seem to use is some strange GURPS by-product skill system and the
>character creation. =)
Hmm...
Nothing, just Hmm...
Chuckg
HoL wrote in message <3589DB22...@cygnus.uwa.edu.au>...
>Just wondering if anyone else uses a customised combat system for GURPS?
>
>We changed because we thought that it was unrealistic in that you didn't
>die easy enough.
Say WHAT? GURPS is the easiest system to die in I've ever found! One shot with
a .38 in anywhere vital and you kick right off!
(Don't forget bleeding rules, *continuing* HT rolls to survive against death,
etc. Remember, even in the real world most gunshot victims don't die that
second. They take a few additional seconds... but one combat turn lying
helpleslly on the ground dying, ten combat turns lying helplessly on the ground
dying, dead is dead either way)
>I mean you get shot with a pistol and your pretty screwed in my opinion.
That's GURPS combat system, as is.
One hit anywhere will pretty much incapacitate any normal human. One hit
anywhere important will eventually kill him. One vitals hit or brain hit will
turn him off like hitting a light switch.
IOW, just like real life.
==
Chuckg
Neko2048
IIRC, the bleeding rules were one point per 5 minutes, with a HT roll made each
time to avoid losing the point.
The only difficulty I have with this is that First Aid takes 30 minutes at "our
current TL", meaning the victim has to make 6 HT rolls while he's being worked
on. That could lead to character death, even if the individual is not below
-HT when the medic begins working on him.
We've ruled (and it may be somewhere in the rules) that the moment the
individual begins receiving treatment, it is assumed that a point is given back
which stops the bleeding. The following First Aid/Physician roll, if it rolls
a 1 on the recovery die, doesn't do anything beyond simply staunching the flow
of blood.
Of course, in the past, I haven't let characters die in a simple gun fight.
Not very cinematic (I like to have heroes - when they DO die - go out fighting
the individual or group of people who was/were intended as the major bad
guy(s).
Neko
"Life is hard and then you Tao"
Darin McGrew
HoL <dis...@cygnus.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
> Indeed this is so, however 1 bullet in the torso and you lose something
> vital.
That depends on what is hit. If a vital organ is crippled, then yes, the
wound will be fatal. Other than that, it depends. Before modern
antibiotics, a shot to the lower torso was almost certainly fatal (long
term) because of the infection caused by the release of the contents of the
intestines into the abdomenal cavity. However, chest wounds that didn't
hit the heart or major arteries were often survivable, albeit with some
scarring to the lung tissue. Or so I hear.
Consider the recent case of the high-school wrestler in Oregon who tackled
his gunman classmate dispite having a through-and-through bullet wound to
his chest. Sometimes a shot to the chest just slows you down a bit, at
least until the blood loss kicks in anyway. On the other hand, IIRC one of
the other kids died at the scene and another died at the hospital within
hours. It depends on what is hit.
--
Darin McGrew, mcg...@alumni.stanford.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Q: How do I exit Windows?
A: First, you click the "Start" button,...
HoL
Thanks =)
I'll give try out some of those suggestions.. see where it gets us.
Oh, and i like my apples very much. So golden, Kallisti.
--
S. John Ross
| Say WHAT? GURPS is the easiest system to die in I've ever found! One
shot with
| a .38 in anywhere vital and you kick right off!
Depends on how many points you have to play with (as it should). HT 10
characters go down fast, sure, but once you hit HT 14, you can survive
*almost* anything. Once you hit HT 16, you're pretty much unkillable
without the utter destruction of your body. To use your example of a hit to
the vitals, a heavy rifle round doing total blowthrough to the vitals on a
HT 16 person (48 points of damage) puts the guy in a position where he must
make four "death checks:" the first at -16, then -21, -26, and -31. The
odds of succeeding at four consecutive HT 16 rolls is still a rather safe
93%!
Now let's just whack him across the middle with a big sword. Wielded by a
titan. Doing 50 points of cutting damage! Assuming he spent all his points
on HT and has no Toughness, that's 75 points of damage. Nine death rolls,
on the spot. His odds of survival (at least in the short term)? 84%
And to anticipate some comments, I don't consider this a realism problem.
Rather, I consider it an observation of how elegantly GURPS handles the
spectrum of characters from the realistic to the very cinematic. 80 points
well spent ;)
[all figures rounded to piss of the geeks]
[]
[] S. John Ross
[] sj...@io.com
[] http://www.cybercity.com/blueroom
[]
[] "Hmm boy! Just smell that art. Yessiry this is
[] just the break I needed after a long day of
[] making art & being insane."
[] - Duckman
[]
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <01bd9bec$4d067d60$650e7ad1@john---sandra>,
"S. John Ross" <sj...@io.com> wrote:
>
>
> | Say WHAT? GURPS is the easiest system to die in I've ever found! One
> shot with
> | a .38 in anywhere vital and you kick right off!
>
> Depends on how many points you have to play with (as it should). HT 10
> characters go down fast, sure, but once you hit HT 14, you can survive
> *almost* anything. Once you hit HT 16, you're pretty much unkillable
> without the utter destruction of your body. To use your example of a hit to
> the vitals, a heavy rifle round doing total blowthrough to the vitals on a
> HT 16 person (48 points of damage) puts the guy in a position where he must
> make four "death checks:" the first at -16, then -21, -26, and -31. The
> odds of succeeding at four consecutive HT 16 rolls is still a rather safe
> 93%!
Correction -- the odds of Mr. HT 16 surviving *only the first second* is a
rather safe 92.6%
After that, he's making rolls at HT-9 (-1 for every 5 points of damage) every
minute after being wounded to avoid bleeding damage... and every time he
bleeds out for another 5 points, he has to make another roll. So over the
next hour, he will make his HT-9 roll an average of 9 times... that's 51
extra points of damage. And he only needs 48 more to kick him all the way
down to -HT * 5, at which point death is automatic. Not to mention the nine
additional HT rolls vs. death he had to struggle through on his way down, and
the odds of his surviving thirteen "death checks" in a row is 77.9%.
Hmmm... given that a 7- (HT 16 - 9) roll succeeds 16.2% of the time, and a 4-
roll succeeds 1.9% of the time, the odds of his making one critical success
over the course of an hour to stop the bleeding are about .8%, and the odds of
his ever making three normal successes in a row to stop the bleeding are about
.4%.
So what you have proven is that a person in absolutely Olympic condition (HT
16) can take one round from an assault rifle through the vitals and actually
cling to life for at an absolute maximum of one hour, and that's assuming that
the dice have consistently smiled on his behind the whole way through.
I think that at least one similar experience re: battlefield medicine have
actually been recorded in the real world. Wounded men have survived an
amazingly long time waiting for the corpsman to reach them... and not just
guys who were shot in the gut, we're talking about some guys who had lost
right-of- way arguments with mortar shells and grenades.
And this entier example assumes that our hypothetical HT 16 victim didn't take
two hits from the initial AR burst (at which point he'd have eaten 48 HT from
each bullet, been kicked right to 5 * -HT in the first turn, and been dead
before he hit the floor), or that whoever shot him didn't just invoke the
"cutting the throat rule" and shoot him again on the next turn. :-)
> Now let's just whack him across the middle with a big sword. Wielded by a
> titan. Doing 50 points of cutting damage! Assuming he spent all his points
> on HT and has no Toughness, that's 75 points of damage. Nine death rolls,
> on the spot. His odds of survival (at least in the short term)? 84%
True, but he's only got 21 points more to bleed out before he reaches the
automatic death level and kicks it -- and that's assuming that the titan just
doesn't step on his helpless body. :-)
> And to anticipate some comments, I don't consider this a realism problem.
> Rather, I consider it an observation of how elegantly GURPS handles the
> spectrum of characters from the realistic to the very cinematic. 80 points
> well spent ;)
I totally agree with you here.
Summary of my opints -- is GURPS an absolutely accurate mathematical model of
the real world? IMO, no. But is GURPS significantly more realistic, and more
lethal, than most other RPGs of our acquaintance? IMO, yes.
And I do so like to play it.
--
Chuckg
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Protaganis
>> | Say WHAT? GURPS is the easiest system to die in I've ever found! One
>> shot with
>> | a .38 in anywhere vital and you kick right off!
Don't consider it as easy to get killed off, think of it as an oppertunity to
do "real" roleplay instead of hack and slash...
cgla...@hotmail.com
Neil Bailey
> HoL wrote in message <358A0293...@cygnus.uwa.edu.au>...
<a whole buncha stuff I don't want to address...
> >Indeed this is so, however 1 bullet in the torso and you lose something
>
> >vital. Bullets make large messy hole and hit bones and lungs and livers
>
> >and hearts and kidneys and stomaches. When arms get hit they stop
> working
> >well, same for legs.
<snip: Eric Smith replied:>
> Shots to the Torso are not always deadly (hell, even shots to the head
> can be survived). Many times a bullet can completely miss vital organs,
> ricochet off a rib, or maybe just slightly nick something doing little
> damage.
>
> As for arms, blowthrough man, blowthrough. All damage over HT/2 to an
> arm or HT/3 to a hand is lost, and after a couple minutes you need to
> make (IIRC) a HT roll to see if it's permantly crippled or soon
> recovers. That said, It wouldn't be out of the question to say that a
> gun does less damage if the roll to Hit is made exactly or if the roll
> to dodge is missed by only 1, to represent flesh wounds. Maybe -2
> damage per die with a minimum damage of 1 pt.
I dunno about arms, but a lucky hit to the main artery in the leg (femoral
artery? I ferget the name) severs a larger blood vessel than the carteroid
artery running from heart to brain. Around 45 seconds leaves you
stone-cold, blood-drained dead. Another reason why groin injuries are
bad...Ciao,
Neil
Andrew Priestley
Neil Bailey wrote:
Depends on how its hit as well. You hit it with a knife and sever it cleanly,
it may withdraw up into the muscles and get squeezed off, a nasty ragged wound
and chances are its gonna bleed like a firehose and kill the person in
something like 3 minutes. Femoral artery bleeds must be controlled
immediately though because they can go from bad to worse really fast. The
brachial artery presents a lesser, but still severe problem.
Iceman
Andrew Priestley
Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> In article <6mr4fi$giq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >So what you have proven is that a person in absolutely Olympic condition (HT
> >16) can take one round from an assault rifle through the vitals and actually
> >cling to life for at an absolute maximum of one hour, and that's assuming that
> >the dice have consistently smiled on his behind the whole way through.
>
> Without *any* medical help, *including* self-administered bandaging.
> The real question here whether he can make enough consciousness
> checks to bandage himself -- given these are unmodified rolls, the chance
> is relatively good.
>
> And that was assuming a vitals hit... GURPS *does* have a lethality problem
> because of a combination of blow-through and the ease of stopping bleeding
> (which in itself is an *optional* rule). People are *very* hard to kill by
> *accident*.
>
> Example, horribly contrived to illustrate how the game rules fail to reflect
> reality:
>
> Evil dude Slobo needs to transport a resisting English teacher to somewhere.
> The teach is annoying, but sickly (HT5), posing no real physical threat. What
> to do?
>
> Answer: Take a .50cal rifle (13d damage I recall, but as you will see, it's
> largely irrelevant -- almost any gun will do). Shoot the teach in torso. This
> will cause an average of 45.5 points of damage, but blow-through limits it to
> 5 points.
>
> Teach is at 0 HT now. She will fail a HT roll and fall unconscious pretty
> soon, so soon it won't matter for the next stage.
>
> Slobo has First Aid-10. He should have at least 4 chances to
> stop bleeding before teach needs to take a death check. That's
> about a 93% chance to succeed in at least one of them.
>
> (It's slightly more complex than that, but the overall odds aren't
> affected much).
>
> Now Slobo has an unconscious teach at a couple of points negative HT,
> due to wake up in a couple of hours. What happens then if Slobo slaps
> her for 0 points damage is largely fuzzy, at least in vanilla 3rd ed (I don't
> remember if Compendiums make this any clearer, but I doubt...).
>
> The funny thing is, the healthier the victim was to begin with, the longer
> he'll stay down...
>
> Now, find me a *real* doctor that will verify this is a 93% safe
> procedure to make prisoners docile...
>
> --
> Maxxon (Mikko.Kur...@stat.fi) | Hate me? Check out:
> A pig who doesn't fly | http://www.swob.dna.fi/
> is just an ordinary pig | ~maxxon/hateme.html
> - Porco Rosso |
Actually that's pretty funny, and true in its essential premises. Some of the
details may be off, but its still essentially true. Weaker folks don't get beat up
as bad with the blowthrough rules as they are. But how to solve it.
Iceman
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <35925DFE...@ziplink.net>,
Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
>
>Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
>> Answer: Take a .50cal rifle (13d damage I recall, but as you will see, it's
>> largely irrelevant -- almost any gun will do). Shoot the teach in torso. This
>> will cause an average of 45.5 points of damage, but blow-through limits it to
>> 5 points.
>Actually that's pretty funny, and true in its essential premises. Some of the
>details may be off, but its still essentially true. Weaker folks don't get beat up
>as bad with the blowthrough rules as they are. But how to solve it.
>
>Iceman
I thought it was a straight ten points. Did I misremember it, or did it
change?
--
"Don't just do something, stand there!" - Buddha
pulver
> Actually that's pretty funny, and true in its essential premises. Some of the
> details may be off, but its still essentially true. Weaker folks don't get beat up
> as bad with the blowthrough rules as they are. But how to solve it.
Base blowthrough on racial Health modified by age and (perhaps) a +/-
bonus for relevant advantages (Fat, Gigantism, etc.).
Alternatively, base on ST. See the notes on bullet overpenetration of
flesh in High Tech's first chapter for guidelines. Or weight/15...
S. John Ross
There's always the Optional Blowthrough Rules in GURPS Black Ops, which
address the exact question that has been raised. [plug, plug]
--
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
[] S. John Ross [] The Blue Room []
[] Husband · Cook · Writer [] http://www.cybercity.com/blueroom []
[] In That Order [] Updated Weekly. Why aren't you there? []
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Andrew Priestley
Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
> In article <35925DFE...@ziplink.net>,
> Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
> >
> >Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
>
> >> Answer: Take a .50cal rifle (13d damage I recall, but as you will see, it's
> >> largely irrelevant -- almost any gun will do). Shoot the teach in torso. This
> >> will cause an average of 45.5 points of damage, but blow-through limits it to
> >> 5 points.
>
> >Actually that's pretty funny, and true in its essential premises. Some of the
> >details may be off, but its still essentially true. Weaker folks don't get beat up
> >as bad with the blowthrough rules as they are. But how to solve it.
> >
> >Iceman
>
> I thought it was a straight ten points. Did I misremember it, or did it
> change?
> --
> "Don't just do something, stand there!" - Buddha
I think I might be inclined to state that blowthrough starts at the greater of either
racial norm for HT or HT, plus or minus a certain percentage for Fatness, Skinniness,
etc. Since low HT people aren't typically very small, often they are fat from lack of
activity, generally they have genetically deficient autoimmune systems, or otherwise
weakend systems. There is still pretty much the same flesh to be damaged.
Iceman
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <Pine.BSI.3.96.980625...@pentagon.io.com>,
pulver <pul...@io.com> wrote:
> Alternatively, base on ST. See the notes on bullet overpenetration of
> flesh in High Tech's first chapter for guidelines. Or weight/15...
What I do is just set the "massive damage ignores blow-through" cap at 12d
damage instead of 15d... IOW, I make the .50 BMG round the dividing line as to
what weapons ignore blow-through limitations because of massive damage.
Again, this was a strictly rule-of-thumb fudge I based on what little I knew
of real-world conditions... 7.62mm ball rounds just punch 7.62mm-sized holes
in flesh and break bones, but 12.7mm ball rounds pulp flesh and shatter bone.
(And yes, a very very few people have been known to take 12.7mm in the torso
and lived -- but you can represent those very rare cases in GURPS simply by
the possibility of all 12 damage dice coming up 1's, not by a blow-through
cap.)
Again, all of this is just how I'd fudge it.
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <35927423...@ziplink.net>,
Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
>
>Gregory Loren Hansen wrote:
>> I thought it was a straight ten points. Did I misremember it, or did it
>> change?
>> --
>> "Don't just do something, stand there!" - Buddha
>
>I think I might be inclined to state that blowthrough starts at the greater of either
>racial norm for HT or HT, plus or minus a certain percentage for Fatness, Skinniness,
>etc. Since low HT people aren't typically very small, often they are fat from lack of
>activity, generally they have genetically deficient autoimmune systems, or otherwise
>weakend systems. There is still pretty much the same flesh to be damaged.
>
>Iceman
I think I prefer doing a straight amount of damage. A healthy person
might have more muscle mass, a bigger heart, bigger lungs, and so on.
That's more tissue to be damaged, but there's also more leftover tissue
that isn't damaged.
A weaker person's susceptibility to damage is described already by his
health. We don't adjust damage from clubs and knives and grenades for
mass or health. I don't see a need to adjust blowthrough, either. Unless
you want to find out what happens to the guy behind the target.
I think I would like to use a straight ten points, with possible
modifications for bullet type. E.g. a soft-point bullet would do 15
points (10*1.5). This is only possibly lethal to the 18 health
world-class athlete if you hit him in the head or the vitals. And people
have been known to suck up a lot of bullets before going down, so I think
it's reasonable or even still particularly deadly.
But I still don't know if I'm just misremembering what I've read in the
rules.
Andrew Priestley
cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <Pine.BSI.3.96.980625...@pentagon.io.com>,
> pulver <pul...@io.com> wrote:
>
> > Alternatively, base on ST. See the notes on bullet overpenetration of
> > flesh in High Tech's first chapter for guidelines. Or weight/15...
>
> What I do is just set the "massive damage ignores blow-through" cap at 12d
> damage instead of 15d... IOW, I make the .50 BMG round the dividing line as to
> what weapons ignore blow-through limitations because of massive damage.
>
> Again, this was a strictly rule-of-thumb fudge I based on what little I knew
> of real-world conditions... 7.62mm ball rounds just punch 7.62mm-sized holes
> in flesh and break bones, but 12.7mm ball rounds pulp flesh and shatter bone.
Whoa there, 7.62mm NATO ball rounds don't just punch a 7.62 mm tunnel through
someone, they also break bones and pulverize flesh, just not as much flesh as the
.50 BMG. But I get your general meaning.
>
>
> (And yes, a very very few people have been known to take 12.7mm in the torso
> and lived -- but you can represent those very rare cases in GURPS simply by
> the possibility of all 12 damage dice coming up 1's, not by a blow-through
> cap.)
>
> Again, all of this is just how I'd fudge it.
> --
> Chuckg
>
One other way is to apply blowthrough limitations before applying damage modifiers
for things like expanding bullets, armor piercing and large caliber bullets, which
a .50 caliber is. This would model the extra, or lesser damage produced by these
within the boundaries of the blowthrough rules.
Iceman
David L. Pulver
On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> What I do is just set the "massive damage ignores blow-through" cap at 12d
> damage instead of 15d... IOW, I make the .50 BMG round the dividing line as to
> what weapons ignore blow-through limitations because of massive damage.
>
Multiply blow through by the wounding multiplier based on caliber?
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <3592C188...@ziplink.net>,
Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
> cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.BSI.3.96.980625...@pentagon.io.com>,
> > pulver <pul...@io.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Alternatively, base on ST. See the notes on bullet overpenetration of
> > > flesh in High Tech's first chapter for guidelines. Or weight/15...
> >
> > What I do is just set the "massive damage ignores blow-through" cap at 12d
> > damage instead of 15d... IOW, I make the .50 BMG round the dividing line as
> > to what weapons ignore blow-through limitations because of massive damage.
> > Again, this was a strictly rule-of-thumb fudge I based on what little I knew
> > of real-world conditions... 7.62mm ball rounds just punch 7.62mm-sized holes
> > in flesh and break bones, but 12.7mm ball rounds pulp flesh and shatter
> > bone.
> Whoa there, 7.62mm NATO ball rounds don't just punch a 7.62 mm tunnel through
> someone, they also break bones and pulverize flesh, just not as much flesh as
> the .50 BMG. But I get your general meaning.
I know I worded it vaguely... 7.62mm NATO does indeed break the bones it hits,
it just doesn't shatter them into a zillion tiny spaces like a .50 BMG does...
<snip>
> One other way is to apply blowthrough limitations before applying damage
> modifiers for things like expanding bullets, armor piercing and large caliber
> bullets, which a .50 caliber is. This would model the extra, or lesser
> damage produced by these within the boundaries of the blowthrough rules.
Great!
So max damage on eating a .38 special round(2d-1) to the non-vital torso on a
HT 10 scrub would be 10 (capped down from 11), while max damage from a .45 ACP
round (2d) would be 15 (12 damage, capped down to 10 via blow-through, and
then brought back up to 15 by applying the bullet size multiplier of 1.5...
*after* blow-through.
So getting shot with a .45 in the unarmored chest will FINALLY hurt more than
getting shot with a .38, like it's supposed to in the real world... which was
*not* the case under the old blow-through rules, at least as far as HT11 and
under victims were concerned.
I like your ruling.
S. John Ross
| > What I do is just set the "massive damage ignores blow-through" cap at
12d
| > damage instead of 15d... IOW, I make the .50 BMG round the dividing
line as to
| > what weapons ignore blow-through limitations because of massive damage.
| >
|
| Multiply blow through by the wounding multiplier based on caliber?
There's this optional rule in Black Ops, see . . .
delph...@geocities.com
> > damage instead of 15d... IOW, I make the .50 BMG round the dividing line as to
> > what weapons ignore blow-through limitations because of massive damage.
> >
>
> Multiply blow through by the wounding multiplier based on caliber?
It's about the difference between a 2-inch hole all the way through you
and a 4-inch hole through you.
- Dare "Just grin and Dare it!"
* All typos in the previous message are to be considered edicts of Eris.
Please update your dictionaries accordingly.
* Unsolicited commercial email sent to this address will be subject to a
$1500 processing fee. Sending mail to this address, manually or
automatically, implies consent to these terms. (Thanx, Carrie!)
.. \ôô1!1 !‰I²éqq1²Aq1rÆ ‰!Q)±r „Ìô,„
http://members.xoom.com/Darekun
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980625202458.8572D-100000@mercury>,
"David L. Pulver" <dlpu...@kos.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Jun 1998 cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > What I do is just set the "massive damage ignores blow-through" cap at 12d
> > damage instead of 15d... IOW, I make the .50 BMG round the dividing line as
> > to what weapons ignore blow-through limitations because of massive damage.
> Multiply blow through by the wounding multiplier based on caliber?
I don't quite see it -- that makes max damage from a .50 BMG round to the non-
vital torso of an HT 10 scrub the exact same as max damage from a .45 ACP
round... 10 hits capped at blow-through, multiplied by bullet size mod of 1.5
for 15 hits of total damage. So the scrub ends up at -5 HT after taking a .50
BMG right through the torso, and isn't even rolling to avoid death yet, just
unconsciousness.
Hmm... doesn't quite fit. IMO, bullet size mods work OK for "fudging" blow-
through for pistols, but it kind of breaks down when you're starting to play
with HMG's.
==
S. John Ross
| > Multiply blow through by the wounding multiplier based on caliber?
|
| I don't quite see it -- that makes max damage from a .50 BMG round to the
non-
| vital torso of an HT 10 scrub the exact same as max damage from a .45 ACP
| round... 10 hits capped at blow-through, multiplied by bullet size mod of
1.5
| for 15 hits of total damage. So the scrub ends up at -5 HT after taking
a .50
| BMG right through the torso, and isn't even rolling to avoid death yet,
just
| unconsciousness.
|
| Hmm... doesn't quite fit. IMO, bullet size mods work OK for "fudging"
blow-
| through for pistols, but it kind of breaks down when you're starting to
play
| with HMG's.
There's always that optional rule in Black Ops.
[sob]
S. John Ross
| Correction -- the odds of Mr. HT 16 surviving *only the first second* is
a
| rather safe 92.6%
|
| After that, he's making rolls at HT-9 (-1 for every 5 points of damage)
every
| minute after being wounded to avoid bleeding damage..
Bleeding is an optional rule.
Not unlike that nifty one in Black Ops about bullet blowthrough.
Andrew Priestley
Bill Seurer wrote:
> In article <6n06l3$pft$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cgla...@hotmail.com writes:
> |> In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980625202458.8572D-100000@mercury>,
> |> "David L. Pulver" <dlpu...@kos.net> wrote:
> |> > Multiply blow through by the wounding multiplier based on caliber?
> |>
> |> I don't quite see it -- that makes max damage from a .50 BMG round to the non-
> |> vital torso of an HT 10 scrub the exact same as max damage from a .45 ACP
> |> round... 10 hits capped at blow-through, multiplied by bullet size mod of 1.5
> |> for 15 hits of total damage. So the scrub ends up at -5 HT after taking a .50
> |> BMG right through the torso, and isn't even rolling to avoid death yet, just
> |> unconsciousness.
> |>
> |> Hmm... doesn't quite fit. IMO, bullet size mods work OK for "fudging" blow-
> |> through for pistols, but it kind of breaks down when you're starting to play
> |> with HMG's.
>
> What you really need is some sort of sliding scale of blowthrough
> maximums. For small rounds (.38's and the like) it'd be x1. For larger
> rounds it'd be x1.5 to whatever. So maybe the .45 would be x1.5 and the
> .50 would be, oh, x3.
>
> --
>
> Bill Seurer Compiler Development IBM Rochester, MN
> Bill_Seurer AT us.ibm.com BillSeurer AT aol.com
> http://members.aol.com/BillSeurer (replace " AT " with "@" to email me)
Not bad.
Try this.
< .40 caliber/10mm pistol no modifier
> or = .40 caliber/10mm pistol x1.5
rifle calibers from .223-458 Weatherby Magnum etc. x2
HMGd 12.7mm Soviet, .50 BMG, etc. x3
This way a pistol is basically limited to 15 points in a 10 HT person
a hunting/combat rifle is limited to 20
and a HMG is limited to 30
I might be tempted to call these flat rate limitations plus or minus 1 or 2 points
for gigantism, fat, skinny or every 5 points of HT or ST (whatever you base your
stuff on) over or under racial norm. Of course we could just say screw it, the flat
rate is close enough and drive onward.
What do you think?
Iceman
Incanus
pulver <pul...@io.com> wrote:
> > Actually that's pretty funny, and true in its essential premises. Some
> > of the details may be off, but its still essentially true. Weaker folks
> > don't get beat up as bad with the blowthrough rules as they are. But
> > how to solve it.
>
> Base blowthrough on racial Health modified by age and (perhaps) a +/-
> bonus for relevant advantages (Fat, Gigantism, etc.).
>
> Alternatively, base on ST. See the notes on bullet overpenetration of
> flesh in High Tech's first chapter for guidelines. Or weight/15...
Actually, I think that there is an important misconception based on a
general confusion in GURPS: blowthrough should be based on Hit Points,
not HT. And since I find the optional rule that uses ST for Hit Points
and HT for Fatigue much more realistic than the default, it only proves
the point.
BTW, I remember reding somewhere that a human body gives DR equal to its
original HT to someone behind it (again, it should be HP), and double
that if the weapon hits from a side; this conforms pretty much with the
blow-through rules.
--
Incanus: inc...@bigfoot.com
Personal Web page: http://incanus.home.ml.org
Rare GURPS Items: http://incanus.home.ml.org/gurps/
Xiphias Gladius
"S. John Ross" <sj...@io.com> writes, three times so far:
>There's always that optional rule in Black Ops.
>[sob]
Okay, fine. I hate to see a grown game designer cry.
So, Sjohn, what's this optional rule in Black Ops?
- Ian
Jay Adan
S. John Ross wrote:
>
>
> Bleeding is an optional rule.
>
> Not unlike that nifty one in Black Ops about bullet blowthrough.
>
Yeah, that optional rule is the main reason I bought Black Ops. ;)
--
T A N G E N T S
Your US Source for:
Sci-Fi & Fantasy Models Magazine
&
Science Fiction Modeller
http://tangents-sf.com
Be Sure to check out the new SF modeling Newsgroup - alt.sf.scale-models
S. John Ross
| >There's always that optional rule in Black Ops.
|
| >[sob]
|
| Okay, fine. I hate to see a grown game designer cry.
|
| So, Sjohn, what's this optional rule in Black Ops?
It's called "torso blowthrough: an optional rule" and it's on page BO65.
S. John Ross
| > Bleeding is an optional rule.
| >
| > Not unlike that nifty one in Black Ops about bullet blowthrough.
| >
|
| Yeah, that optional rule is the main reason I bought Black Ops. ;)
Somebody NOTICED it! Joy!
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <01bda11e$273c5c80$640e7ad1@john---sandra>,
"S. John Ross" <sj...@io.com> wrote:
>> Hmm... doesn't quite fit. IMO, bullet size mods work OK for "fudging"
>> blow-through for pistols, but it kind of breaks down when you're starting to
>> play with HMG's.
>
> There's always that optional rule in Black Ops.
>
> [sob]
We're teasing you. :-)
OK, due to frequent demand, I will *finally* post the optional "Torso Blow-
Through" rules from GURPS _Black Ops_. :-)
"In the normal GURPS rules,k any bullet penetrating the torso has a blow-
through limit equal to the target's hit points (pp. B109, CII57). This works
well enough for small-arms, but black ops face (and use) heavy firepower -- a
.50-caliber slug through the torso can rip part of the body away! Big
Bullets do big damage. To reflect this, use the following optional rule:
"The torso blow-through limit is equal to the target's hit points or the
average basic damage of the bullet striking him, whichever is *higher*.
Thus, a 7d+1 rifle round (average basic damage 26) striking a HT 10 man could
do up to 26 pionts of damage before the excess "blows through," while a 2d
pistol bullet (average basic damage 7) hitting a HT 10 man could do up to 10
points. "Blow-through for the vitals is equal to triple this figure.
Blow-through for the extremities use the normal rules. Average basic damage
is equal to 3.5 points per die, plus adds."
From GURPS _Black Ops_, p. 65, authors Jeff Koke and S. John Ross.
PS -- IMO, it's a good rule, I can easily live with it.
--
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <6n06l3$pft$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980625202458.8572D-100000@mercury>,
> "David L. Pulver" <dlpu...@kos.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > What I do is just set the "massive damage ignores blow-through" cap at 12d
>> > damage instead of 15d... IOW, I make the .50 BMG round the dividing line as
>> > to what weapons ignore blow-through limitations because of massive damage.
>
>
>I don't quite see it -- that makes max damage from a .50 BMG round to the non-
>vital torso of an HT 10 scrub the exact same as max damage from a .45 ACP
>round... 10 hits capped at blow-through, multiplied by bullet size mod of 1.5
>for 15 hits of total damage. So the scrub ends up at -5 HT after taking a .50
>BMG right through the torso, and isn't even rolling to avoid death yet, just
>unconsciousness.
What if blowthrough is something like eight points of damage plus a number
of points equal to the number of dice damage the weapon does? Modified for
bullet type. So a .45ACP would go to (8+2)*1.5=15 points, a .30-06 would
do (8+7)*1=15 points, a .50BMG would do (8+13)*1.5=32 points.
S. John Ross
| What if blowthrough is something like eight points of damage plus a
number
| of points equal to the number of dice damage the weapon does? Modified
for
| bullet type. So a .45ACP would go to (8+2)*1.5=15 points, a .30-06 would
| do (8+7)*1=15 points, a .50BMG would do (8+13)*1.5=32 points.
Of course, there's always the Bullet Blowthrough rule in GURPS Black Ops.
Xplo Eristotle
S. John Ross wrote:
>
> | >There's always that optional rule in Black Ops.
> |
> | >[sob]
> |
> |
> | So, Sjohn, what's this optional rule in Black Ops?
>
> It's called "torso blowthrough: an optional rule" and it's on page BO65.
You know, some of us don't HAVE Black Ops, money, or proximity to a game
store. So thank you, S. John, for providing this information about optional
blowthrough rules and where they may be found.. but having done so, will you
please either TELL THE REST OF US WHAT THE DAMN RULE IS OR ELSE SHUT UP ABOUT IT!?
*ahem* Thank you.
Xplo "Endymion" Eristotle xp...@infomagic.com
# Grand Master - Lunar Inquisition #
Yog: http://www.infomagic.com/~xplo/index.html
delph...@geocities.com
Incanus wrote:
>
> pulver <pul...@io.com> wrote:
>
> > > Actually that's pretty funny, and true in its essential premises. Some
> > > of the details may be off, but its still essentially true. Weaker folks
> > > don't get beat up as bad with the blowthrough rules as they are. But
> > > how to solve it.
> >
> > Base blowthrough on racial Health modified by age and (perhaps) a +/-
> > bonus for relevant advantages (Fat, Gigantism, etc.).
> >
> > Alternatively, base on ST. See the notes on bullet overpenetration of
> > flesh in High Tech's first chapter for guidelines. Or weight/15...
>
> Actually, I think that there is an important misconception based on a
> general confusion in GURPS: blowthrough should be based on Hit Points,
> not HT. And since I find the optional rule that uses ST for Hit Points
> and HT for Fatigue much more realistic than the default, it only proves
> the point.
>
> BTW, I remember reding somewhere that a human body gives DR equal to its
> original HT to someone behind it (again, it should be HP), and double
> that if the weapon hits from a side; this conforms pretty much with the
> blow-through rules.
The Basic Set assumes HT and HP are equal, and many other books carry
on this bad habit. I think CII fixes it(I don't have it yet)...
S. John Ross
| The Basic Set assumes HT and HP are equal, and many other books carry
| on this bad habit. I think CII fixes it(I don't have it yet)...
The Basic Set USED to assume that HT and HP were equal for *humans.* The
rules for separate Hit Points are in the Animals chapter. However, the
Basic Set now includes things like the Extra Hit Points advantage (p.B236).
If your copy of the Basic Set doesn't say "Third Edition * Revised" on the
front, then the additional material is available as a free download at the
official GURPS site.
delph...@geocities.com
S. John Ross wrote:
>
> | The Basic Set assumes HT and HP are equal, and many other books carry
> | on this bad habit. I think CII fixes it(I don't have it yet)...
>
> The Basic Set USED to assume that HT and HP were equal for *humans.* The
> rules for separate Hit Points are in the Animals chapter. However, the
> Basic Set now includes things like the Extra Hit Points advantage (p.B236).
> If your copy of the Basic Set doesn't say "Third Edition * Revised" on the
> front, then the additional material is available as a free download at the
> official GURPS site.
I don't mean it's stated that way. I mean damage is sometimes described
as a loss of HT(and Fatigue as a loss of ST), and a lot of sections in
the combat chapters require you to examine the system to figure out
whether they mean HT or HP because they *always* say HT. And I think
those various resistance rolls are based on HP, not HT(I could be
wrong).
Incanus
<delph...@geocities.com> wrote:
> And I think those various resistance rolls are based on HP, not HT(I could
> be wrong).
You are. The HT is *rarely* over 20, even for supers, aliens etc; HP can
be measured in 1000's, even for a pretty sick creature (a whale, for
instance).
delph...@geocities.com
Incanus wrote:
>
> <delph...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> > And I think those various resistance rolls are based on HP, not HT(I could
> > be wrong).
>
> You are. The HT is *rarely* over 20, even for supers, aliens etc; HP can
> be measured in 1000's, even for a pretty sick creature (a whale, for
> instance).
Thanx. The pixies in the party should be happy :)
Ian Cote
> Through" rules from GURPS _Black Ops_. :-)
>
> "In the normal GURPS rules,k any bullet penetrating the torso has a blow-
> through limit equal to the target's hit points (pp. B109, CII57). This works
> well enough for small-arms, but black ops face (and use) heavy firepower -- a
> .50-caliber slug through the torso can rip part of the body away! Big
> Bullets do big damage. To reflect this, use the following optional rule:
> "The torso blow-through limit is equal to the target's hit points or the
> average basic damage of the bullet striking him, whichever is *higher*.
> Thus, a 7d+1 rifle round (average basic damage 26) striking a HT 10 man could
> do up to 26 pionts of damage before the excess "blows through," while a 2d
> pistol bullet (average basic damage 7) hitting a HT 10 man could do up to 10
> points. "Blow-through for the vitals is equal to triple this figure.
> Blow-through for the extremities use the normal rules. Average basic damage
> is equal to 3.5 points per die, plus adds."
>
> From GURPS _Black Ops_, p. 65, authors Jeff Koke and S. John Ross.
It's kinda like the "testing the big gun scene" in the Jackel...
And they said that was a 7.62 come'on that was at least .50 cal
One bullet took the guys arm clear off...
-Ian
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <359644...@bbnplanet.com>,
ic...@bbnplanet.com wrote:
> It's kinda like the "testing the big gun scene" in the Jackel...
>
> And they said that was a 7.62 come'on that was at least .50 cal
Wrong. They said it was a 14.7mm KPV Soviet chain gun. A .50 caliber is only
12.7mm.
> One bullet took the guys arm clear off...
And yet he was conscious and able to run at full speed for at least ten more
seconds before the Jackal finished him off. Ergo, one hit to a limb location
with a heavy machine gun does not necessarily kill you instantaneously. Ergo,
blow-through limits for limbs remain valid.
--
Chuckg
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Ray Cochener
cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <359644...@bbnplanet.com>,
> ic...@bbnplanet.com wrote:
>
> > It's kinda like the "testing the big gun scene" in the Jackel...
> >
> > And they said that was a 7.62 come'on that was at least .50 cal
>
> Wrong. They said it was a 14.7mm KPV Soviet chain gun. A .50 caliber is only
> 12.7mm.
>
> > One bullet took the guys arm clear off...
>
> And yet he was conscious and able to run at full speed for at least ten more
> seconds before the Jackal finished him off. Ergo, one hit to a limb location
> with a heavy machine gun does not necessarily kill you instantaneously. Ergo,
> blow-through limits for limbs remain valid.
> --
> Chuckg
>
A thought on this- size of the creature- blowing through an elephant
with a low caliber bullet might not do much damage, but hitting a
firefly with that same bullet is going to do a lot more than it's hit
points in damage.
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <6n5nlc$9hv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <359644...@bbnplanet.com>,
> ic...@bbnplanet.com wrote:
>
> > It's kinda like the "testing the big gun scene" in the Jackel...
> >
> > And they said that was a 7.62 come'on that was at least .50 cal
>
> Wrong. They said it was a 14.7mm KPV Soviet chain gun.
Correction. It was a 14.5 x 114mm KPV Soviet heavy machine gun round, fired
from what appeared to be some type of electrically fired anti-aircraft
chaingun.
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <35966A...@feist.com>,
silv...@feist.com wrote:
<snip>
> A thought on this- size of the creature- blowing through an elephant
> with a low caliber bullet might not do much damage, but hitting a
> firefly with that same bullet is going to do a lot more than it's hit
> points in damage.
That's why a firely has an HT of 10 and an HP of 1 or less... and why blow-
through, according to my Compendium II, is based off of HT and not HP.
Ergo, a .45 bullet at max does 10 hits (blow-through cap) to a HP 1 firely,
and thereby takes Mr. Firefly straight to goo... esepcially if the DM rules
that since the bullet diameter is larger than the entire firely, that the
damage should be applied to every hit location on the body simultaneously.
Incanus
Ray Cochener <silv...@feist.com> wrote:
> A thought on this- size of the creature- blowing through an elephant
> with a low caliber bullet might not do much damage, but hitting a
> firefly with that same bullet is going to do a lot more than it's hit
> points in damage.
That's why you base the blothrough on HP, not HT.
Andrew Priestley
cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <6n5nlc$9hv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <359644...@bbnplanet.com>,
> > ic...@bbnplanet.com wrote:
> >
> > > It's kinda like the "testing the big gun scene" in the Jackel...
> > >
> > > And they said that was a 7.62 come'on that was at least .50 cal
> >
> > Wrong. They said it was a 14.7mm KPV Soviet chain gun.
>
> Correction. It was a 14.5 x 114mm KPV Soviet heavy machine gun round, fired
> from what appeared to be some type of electrically fired anti-aircraft
> chaingun.
>
> --
> Chuckg
>
Yup, by the way, a gun that heavy mounted on the sheetmetal floor of your
average minivan would tear free in very short order. The floor would distort
under recoil and the van would shift and shake on its suspension enough to
negate any inherent accuracy in the system.
As far as the accuracy of the system goes, while it was a grimly funny scene, it
is totally unrealistic to think that the weapon/mount combination would shoot
exactly to point of aim when it was first mounted to the weapon and the
targetting device. It was a funny way to get rid of a loose end, but pretty
stupid from a reality standpoint. With such a complex system, it wuld probably
take upwards of nine shots or more for a competent marksman to get it zeroed, if
it had a stable and consistent mounting, and since the weapon was based on the
dirt and a lightweight tripod mount, we can pretty much assume that it shifted
with every single shot, unless spikes were driven at least a foot or more into
the earth under each tripod foot.
Good movie though.
Iceman
Dr Kromm
Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
> cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Correction. It was a 14.5 x 114mm KPV Soviet heavy machine gun round, fired
>> from what appeared to be some type of electrically fired anti-aircraft
>> chaingun.
If you catch a glimpse of the computer screen as he "orders" it, you'll see
that it's a ZSU -- the Soviet equivalent of a Vulcan.
> Yup, by the way, a gun that heavy mounted on the sheetmetal floor of your
> average minivan would tear free in very short order. The floor would distort
> under recoil and the van would shift and shake on its suspension enough to
> negate any inherent accuracy in the system.
Big-time. This is why ZSUs are normally mounted (in twos and fours) in a heavy,
tracked vehicle that's only marginally less heavy than a tank or APC.
Kromm.
--
Sean M. Punch o E-mail: o 4122 rue Rivard
(a.k.a. Dr Kromm) | At SJG: kr...@io.com | Montreal, Quebec
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=o Local POP: kr...@cam.org o Canada H2L 4H9
GURPS Line Editor | WWW: | Home: (514) 288-9600
and Net Guru o http://www.io.com/~kromm o Work: (514) 288-9615
cgla...@hotmail.com
Please excuse the off-topic rant, but now that the subject has come up I just
*have* to vent a whole lot of things about the movie "The Jackal" that I've
been keeping bottled up for so long.
Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
<snip>
> > Correction. It was a 14.5 x 114mm KPV Soviet heavy machine gun round, fired
> > from what appeared to be some type of electrically fired anti-aircraft
> > chaingun.
> >
> > --
> > Chuckg
> Yup, by the way, a gun that heavy mounted on the sheetmetal floor of your
> average minivan would tear free in very short order. The floor would distort
> under recoil and the van would shift and shake on its suspension enough to
> negate any inherent accuracy in the system.
True enough about first-burst accuracy, but since the Jackal could easily
observe the fall of shot against the backdrop of the building right behind his
target I still can't believe that he went through an entire 200-round belt and
didn't hit the beaten zone at least *once*. I mean, unstable mount or not,
saturation of the entire beaten zone still has a certain primitive
effectiveness to it.
> As far as the accuracy of the system goes, while it was a grimly funny scene,
> it is totally unrealistic to think that the weapon/mount combination would
> shoot exactly to point of aim when it was first mounted to the weapon and the
> targetting device.
It is also totally unrealistic to expect that an assassin of the Jackal's
skill would be entirely unable to using the "Aiming Successive Groups"
principle to *eventually* hit that stationary -- emphasis, stationary -- pile
of Secret Service agents + First Lady huddled together behind that podium.
I mean, he had four, five, six full seconds of rocking and rolling on full
automatic... wham, walks a burst *over* their heads from left to right. Wham,
walks a burst *over* their heads from right to left. Wham, he walks it back
again -- at the *exact same elevation every time*, and right over his target's
head every time.
You just can't make me believe that he couldn't just nose the joystick down a
little and sweep his last burst just two stinkin' feet lower than his first
four bursts.
I'm sorry, but I was sorely disappointed by "The Jackal". The beginning was
great, and the way they established the character was first-rate. The
tradecraft he displayed in the early stages of the movie was excellent.
Entering the US via the Great Lakes like that, obtaining his Washington
safehouse by setting up and killing the guy he met in the gay bar, etc. -- all
of that was perfectly plausible.
And then they just plain piss away this excellent beginning at the end, by
piling gross stupidity on top of grosser stupidity. It would have been
better if the movie had just been uniformly crappy the whole way through...
I'd still not have liked it, but I wouldn't feel as enraged as I currently do
just at the terrible *waste* of it all.
Several things about the movie that I just couldn't make myself believe were
plausible, given the characters as stated.
The Massacre At The Safe House -- The Jackal's going to the house to kill
Richard Gere's girlfriend at all makes absolutely no plausible sense. The
director obviously just wanted a gratuitous action scene, but what motivation
was ever given for the Jackal to go there at all?
Her only threat to the Jackal was the information she can give the FBI --
ergo, killing her is pointless *after* she's made contact with the FBI (even
though killing her *before* she makes contact with them is a really neat
idea), since if she's already contacted them, she's already given them the
information.
After she's given the FBI her story, killing her is a worthless waste of time.
And since the Jackal got her address in the first place from the FBI's own
*Report of Eyewitness Interview*, well *duh*.
The Assassination Scene, Stupidity One -- Hollywood Time in action.
The Jackal finishes setting up the final touches on his weapon and arming it.
The Jackal then looks up and sees Sidney Poitier and the assault team fast-
roping down from a helicopter onto the roof of a neighboring building.
Obviously, at this point, he *knows* he's blown. If he doesn't know after
seeing that chopper, he's not only blind, he's lobotomized.
So -- how much time after fast-roping down from the helicopter would it
plausibly take Sidney Poitier to make it down X flights of stairs from the
roof, cross the street, talk his way through the Secret Service barricade
(which has this habit of shooting people who just run up and charge at the
stage -- yet another gaping plausibility error), and then tackle the First
Lady? Several *minutes*, at least.
How much time would it take the Jackal, after seeing the fast-roping troops,
to open fire? Seeing as how by this point in time, he had *already* armed
his weapon, up-linked the firecontrol, inserted the joystick, and *finished
laying the gun on the target*...
Two seconds, tops.
So why did the Jackal wait the several minutes necessary for Sidney Poitier to
make it all the way down, across the street, and onto the stage *before* even
starting to pull the trigger? A sense of melodrama?
*Screw* melodrama, the Jackal is supposed to be a completely pragmatic
genius! He shoots as soon as he's certain of his sight picture, and then he
leaves. He is *not supposed* to screw around like this just for the sake of
a pretty plot. The director of this movie obviously forgot exactly *which*
movie he was making halfway through. It started off as "The Jackal", but it
ended up looking like "Face-Off" or "Broken Arrow" (two other really stupid
movies, IMO).
The Assassination Scene, Stupidity Two -- the Secret Service goes blind.
Sidney Poitier *explicitly* mentioned in the helicopter ride en route to
target that the Secret Service had *not* been notified via the radio,
allegedly to avoid spooking the Jackal. Ergo, the First Lady's Secret
Service detail had absolutely no prior warning that the FBI was sending a
team over.
So picture it. You are the Secret Service Presidential Protection Detail,
famed throughout the whole world for your alertness, paranoia, and twitchy
nerves. You have been known to tackle people in crowds because they reached
quickly into a raincoat pocket while a member of the First Family was walking
by, only to find out that they were just getting out a pack of cigarettes.
You don't let the President or the First Lady even step into a strange
bathroom stall until after you've swept it for bombs.
And you look up and see this *unknown* helicopter, that is *not cleared to be
here* (anything over a Presidential function is restricted airspace for the
duration), unloading an *entire commando squad* who are all holding *machine
guns* onto the roof across the street.
At this point in time, what are you doing?
You are screaming "LETS GO LETS GO LETS GO!" into your radios at the top of
your lungs, grabbing the First Lady, and getting the hell out of there RIGHT
FRAGGING NOW, that's what you're doing!
Of course, what they did in the movie was absolutely nothing. They didn't
even see Sidney Poitier charging at the stage at top speed screaming at the
top of his lungs when he was only ten feet away, how could they be expected
to see a whole helicopter across the street? We can't be bothered with
noticing such petty details, they might actually interrupt the First Lady's
speech!
Please, give me a break.
The Assassination Scene, Stupidity Three -- why the world's most dangerous
assassin suddenly displays what in GURPS Terms would be Incompetence (Gunner
-- Heavy Machine Gun), instead of the Gunner (Heavy Machine Gun)-16+ that he
shown to have earlier. (detailed above)
The Assassination Scene, Stupidity Four -- Richard Gere's asking the Marine
for his sniper rifle on the roof, and that Marine's actually giving it to
him.
This one sentence encompasses multiple gross stupidities, any one of which
would be large enough to sink an entire movie:
1) Who called the Marines in the first place? Sidney Poitier is a senior FBI
man, this is an FBI mission the whole way through, and Posse Commitatus does
apply here -- so *where's the FBI Hostage Rescue Team*? Why do I see any
Marines here at all?
2) The presence of Richard Gere's character, at all. In any form.
Why was this terrorist SOB even in the story? This is a modernized remake of
"The Day Of The Jackal". There was no even remotely comparable character in
the original movie, "The Day Of The Jackal". The whole premise of that movie
was how heroic and diligent police work stopped the world's most dangerous
assassin just in time. So what's this "sympathetic terrorist" doing in the
story at all? Goodness knows the *police* in this movie weren't given any
strong points for brains. I bet the scriptwriter gives lots of money to
NORAID, too.
3) This is the biggest stupidity in the whole damn movie, bar none. That
Marine actually gave Richard Gere the rifle.
They're on a roof within easy rifle range of the *First Lady*, and our Marine
just *hands* this *known terrorist sniper* a loaded sniper rifle.
WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT, OVER? What's next... the Secret Service handing out
Saturday night specials for door prizes at the next campaign fund-raiser?
4) And just as a truly minor nit-pick, since when does USMC Force Recon use
PSG-1 sniper rifles instead of Remington M700's?
> Good movie though.
Only for the first half. Only for the first half.
--
Chuckg (who has seldom experienced such a great buildup to such a horrible
letdown. I had more fun watching "Commando".)
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <6n8dsg$m4g$1...@hiram.io.com>,
Dr Kromm <kr...@dillinger.io.com> wrote:
>
> Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
> > cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> fired from what appeared to be some type of electrically fired anti-
>
> If you catch a glimpse of the computer screen as he "orders" it, you'll see
> that it's a ZSU -- the Soviet equivalent of a Vulcan.
It was supposed to be the Soviet equivalent of a *Vulcan*?
Gross movie inaccuracy # I-forget-which-there-have-been-so-many... as we all
know, the weapon used in "The Jackal" had only one barrel.
==
Chuckg
Dr Kromm
cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> It was supposed to be the Soviet equivalent of a *Vulcan*?
> Gross movie inaccuracy # I-forget-which-there-have-been-so-many... as we all
> know, the weapon used in "The Jackal" had only one barrel.
Let me rephrase, then: "It's supposed to be the weapon that the Soviets
used to fill the same tactical role as the Vulcan." While the U.S. uses
a multi-barrelled rotary cannon, the Russians use a single-barrelled
automatic gun with a chain gun-like action. That's the ZSU. The ZSU and
Vulcan fill the same AAA role, however, regardless of how their actions
may differ.
Andrew Priestley
cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Please excuse the off-topic rant, but now that the subject has come up I just
> *have* to vent a whole lot of things about the movie "The Jackal" that I've
> been keeping bottled up for so long.
>
> Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > Correction. It was a 14.5 x 114mm KPV Soviet heavy machine gun round, fired
> > > from what appeared to be some type of electrically fired anti-aircraft
> > > chaingun.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Chuckg
>
> > Yup, by the way, a gun that heavy mounted on the sheetmetal floor of your
> > average minivan would tear free in very short order. The floor would distort
> > under recoil and the van would shift and shake on its suspension enough to
> > negate any inherent accuracy in the system.
>
> True enough about first-burst accuracy, but since the Jackal could easily
> observe the fall of shot against the backdrop of the building right behind his
> target I still can't believe that he went through an entire 200-round belt and
> didn't hit the beaten zone at least *once*. I mean, unstable mount or not,
> saturation of the entire beaten zone still has a certain primitive
> effectiveness to it.
Its not just an unstable mount. Have you ever fired an .50 BMG M2 machinegun? In
its very heavy mount that sucker bucks like a mule if it isn't sandbagged heavily
into place. That gun and mount weighs well over 150 pounds all told. Bruce Willis
character unloads the receiver and barrel of the 14.5 like its nothin' a real 14.5
receiver and barrel would weigh in over 100 pounds.
Now take this massive receiver, barrel, ammunition supply and marry it to a
motorized weapon mount. set it in the back of a mini-van, bolting it through the
floor. You fire that puppy and after the first burst, the bolts are going to start
tearing through the sheet-metal as the several hundred pounds start to bounce
around. The second burst should rip it free completely and it will start to drive
backward into the van. Your targeting system is truly screwed and anyhow, the
weapon is bouncing all over hell and creation every time it shoots so correcting
your aim ain't gonna happen. You'll be real lucky if the damned thing doesn't fall
over (especially with a lightweight carbon fiber base) and shoot a hole in the gas
tank.
> > As far as the accuracy of the system goes, while it was a grimly funny scene,
> > it is totally unrealistic to think that the weapon/mount combination would
> > shoot exactly to point of aim when it was first mounted to the weapon and the
> > targetting device.
>
> It is also totally unrealistic to expect that an assassin of the Jackal's
> skill would be entirely unable to using the "Aiming Successive Groups"
> principle to *eventually* hit that stationary -- emphasis, stationary -- pile
> of Secret Service agents + First Lady huddled together behind that podium.
>
> I mean, he had four, five, six full seconds of rocking and rolling on full
> automatic... wham, walks a burst *over* their heads from left to right. Wham,
> walks a burst *over* their heads from right to left. Wham, he walks it back
> again -- at the *exact same elevation every time*, and right over his target's
> head every time.
He was flustered ;-)
One you missed: This absolutely, positively competent Russian cop doesn't slam a
few rounds through the goddamn couch just for good measure...how stupid is that?
>
>
> The Assassination Scene, Stupidity One -- Hollywood Time in action.
>
> The Jackal finishes setting up the final touches on his weapon and arming it.
> The Jackal then looks up and sees Sidney Poitier and the assault team fast-
> roping down from a helicopter onto the roof of a neighboring building.
> Obviously, at this point, he *knows* he's blown. If he doesn't know after
> seeing that chopper, he's not only blind, he's lobotomized.
I don't think the chopper landed in direct line of site, but he definitely should
have been concerned since a goddamn Pave Low makes a hell of a racket and has a
pretty distinctive rotor sound.
> So -- how much time after fast-roping down from the helicopter would it
> plausibly take Sidney Poitier to make it down X flights of stairs from the
> roof, cross the street, talk his way through the Secret Service barricade
> (which has this habit of shooting people who just run up and charge at the
> stage -- yet another gaping plausibility error), and then tackle the First
> Lady? Several *minutes*, at least.
>
> How much time would it take the Jackal, after seeing the fast-roping troops,
> to open fire? Seeing as how by this point in time, he had *already* armed
> his weapon, up-linked the firecontrol, inserted the joystick, and *finished
> laying the gun on the target*...
>
> Two seconds, tops.
If he didn't see the helicopter, he wouldn't necessarily know that it was a danger,
but then again, why assume its harmless when your ass is hanging out in the breeze?
>
>
> So why did the Jackal wait the several minutes necessary for Sidney Poitier to
> make it all the way down, across the street, and onto the stage *before* even
> starting to pull the trigger? A sense of melodrama?
>
> *Screw* melodrama, the Jackal is supposed to be a completely pragmatic
> genius! He shoots as soon as he's certain of his sight picture, and then he
> leaves. He is *not supposed* to screw around like this just for the sake of
> a pretty plot. The director of this movie obviously forgot exactly *which*
> movie he was making halfway through. It started off as "The Jackal", but it
> ended up looking like "Face-Off" or "Broken Arrow" (two other really stupid
> movies, IMO).
I liked Face Off, it was horribly unrealistic, but it was a good trash action
flick. It was a John Woo movie so realism doesn't play into it.
You ain't just whistling dixie.
>
>
> 1) Who called the Marines in the first place? Sidney Poitier is a senior FBI
> man, this is an FBI mission the whole way through, and Posse Commitatus does
> apply here -- so *where's the FBI Hostage Rescue Team*? Why do I see any
> Marines here at all?
All I can think of is that the Marine detail from Camp David was available and
scrambled for convenience sake. Marines do protect the president at Camp David.
> 2) The presence of Richard Gere's character, at all. In any form.
>
> Why was this terrorist SOB even in the story? This is a modernized remake of
> "The Day Of The Jackal". There was no even remotely comparable character in
> the original movie, "The Day Of The Jackal". The whole premise of that movie
> was how heroic and diligent police work stopped the world's most dangerous
> assassin just in time. So what's this "sympathetic terrorist" doing in the
> story at all? Goodness knows the *police* in this movie weren't given any
> strong points for brains. I bet the scriptwriter gives lots of money to
> NORAID, too.
I don't object to his presence in the movie, remakes very often depart dramatically
from the originals, but I am not at all certain why he was on the rooftop other than
because he was the only one who really knew what the Jackal looked like and what his
methods were, and could be expected to do. Remember, they have no photos, and no
strong MO to work with yet.
>
>
> 3) This is the biggest stupidity in the whole damn movie, bar none. That
> Marine actually gave Richard Gere the rifle.
>
> They're on a roof within easy rifle range of the *First Lady*, and our Marine
> just *hands* this *known terrorist sniper* a loaded sniper rifle.
>
> WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT, OVER? What's next... the Secret Service handing out
> Saturday night specials for door prizes at the next campaign fund-raiser?
That I don't understand. But maybe the Marine was ordered to. That takes care of a
lot of misgivings where Marines are concerned.
>
>
> 4) And just as a truly minor nit-pick, since when does USMC Force Recon use
> PSG-1 sniper rifles instead of Remington M700's?
I don't know what the Marine SWAT teams and protective details use for sniper
rifles, Their Infantry battalion Scout/Snipers and Recon teams (Force Recon no
longer exists, all the Force Recon guys were transfered to Battalion Recon units) us
the M40A1 which is only superficially an M700. Actually, the M40A1 is built on a
Remington 40X benchrest action, mated to a custom barrel. It uses a custom tuned and
modified Winchester trigger and a McMillan stock. The whole thing is topped by a
Unertl custom built scope. I don't actually know what that stupid thing was mounted
on the HK in the movie, looked a bit like one of the weapon mount laser designators
I have seen, but those are usually mounted over a scope. (sorry to digress)
>
>
> > Good movie though.
>
> Only for the first half. Only for the first half.
>
> --
> Chuckg (who has seldom experienced such a great buildup to such a horrible
> letdown. I had more fun watching "Commando".)
I usually find that the only way the heroes can take out a smart villain in the
movies is if he catches a terminal case of the stupids at the end. Smart villains
have much more freedom of action than the heroes which gives them a nearly
insurmountable advantage, so they have to get stupid toward the end to let the good
guys get them. basic movie rule.
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Iceman
coy...@concentric.spamthis.net
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 21:21:38 -0400, Andrew Priestley
<and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
[lots of big snips]
>One you missed: This absolutely, positively competent Russian cop doesn't slam a
>few rounds through the goddamn couch just for good measure...how stupid is that?
Hey, everybody crit fails an IQ roll once in a while. ;)
>> 1) Who called the Marines in the first place? Sidney Poitier is a senior FBI
>> man, this is an FBI mission the whole way through, and Posse Commitatus does
>> apply here -- so *where's the FBI Hostage Rescue Team*? Why do I see any
>> Marines here at all?
>
>All I can think of is that the Marine detail from Camp David was available and
>scrambled for convenience sake. Marines do protect the president at Camp David.
That was what I assumed.
>> 3) This is the biggest stupidity in the whole damn movie, bar none. That
>> Marine actually gave Richard Gere the rifle.
>>
>> They're on a roof within easy rifle range of the *First Lady*, and our Marine
>> just *hands* this *known terrorist sniper* a loaded sniper rifle.
>>
>> WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT, OVER? What's next... the Secret Service handing out
>> Saturday night specials for door prizes at the next campaign fund-raiser?
>
>That I don't understand. But maybe the Marine was ordered to. That takes care of a
>lot of misgivings where Marines are concerned.
In the helicopter, as they were going in, Poitier ordered the marine
to give Gere a gun, or something to that effect.
And, obviously, Gere's character had some Charisma going for him; and
the Marine rolled a good reaction roll. :)
------------------
|-- Bob Huss --
|coy...@concentric.net
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <6n9479$6u8$1...@hiram.io.com>,
Dr Kromm <kr...@dillinger.io.com> wrote:
>
> cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > It was supposed to be the Soviet equivalent of a *Vulcan*?
> > Gross movie inaccuracy # I-forget-which-there-have-been-so-many... as we all
> > know, the weapon used in "The Jackal" had only one barrel.
>
> Let me rephrase, then: "It's supposed to be the weapon that the Soviets
> used to fill the same tactical role as the Vulcan." While the U.S. uses
> a multi-barrelled rotary cannon, the Russians use a single-barrelled
> automatic gun with a chain gun-like action. That's the ZSU. The ZSU and
> Vulcan fill the same AAA role, however, regardless of how their actions
> may differ.
Ah. Stupid me, I confused form with function. Thanks for the clarification.
--
Chuckg
Geoffrey Brent
I've been looking at this thread, and I have to ask. This is the same
film
that's supposedly based on "Day of the Jackal", right ?
So, do the two films have _anything_ in common beyond being about
assassins called "the Jackal" ?
Geoffrey Brent
(who liked DotJ, even though it had very little in the way of heavy
machineguns and terrorists-for-peace.)
idcr...@cmq.com
> > A thought on this- size of the creature- blowing through an elephant
> > with a low caliber bullet might not do much damage, but hitting a
> > firefly with that same bullet is going to do a lot more than it's hit
> > points in damage.
>
> through, according to my Compendium II, is based off of HT and not HP.
This seems flawed... Compare a person with dwarfism to a person with gigantism,
each with a health of 10... If each of them are shot in exactly the same way
(identical hit locations, velocities and bullets), it seems like the smaller guy
would take *more* damage, because even though the holes are identical in size,
the dwarf's hole takes up a much larger percentage of his body than the
giant's. Everything's packed in there so tightly...
-IdentityCrisis
Leszek Karlik, aka Mike
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 22:24:12 GMT, cgla...@hotmail.com disseminated foul
capitalist propaganda by writing:
[...]
>> If you catch a glimpse of the computer screen as he "orders" it, you'll see
>> that it's a ZSU -- the Soviet equivalent of a Vulcan.
>
>It was supposed to be the Soviet equivalent of a *Vulcan*?
Yep.
>Gross movie inaccuracy # I-forget-which-there-have-been-so-many... as we all
>know, the weapon used in "The Jackal" had only one barrel.
Nope. Not an inaccuracy. Soviets do not use multi-barrel guns. That does not
prevent the gun from being an equivalent of a Vulcan.
Lemme see, so according to you, since russian Ka-50 (IIRC) Hokum is the Russian
equivalent of AH-64 Apache it should have one rotor, not two counter-rotating
ones? 'Equivalent' does not equal 'copy'.
>Chuckg
Leslie
--
Leszek Karlik, aka Mike - tr...@friko.onet.pl; www.wlkp.top.pl/~bear/mike
Star Wars junkie; ICQ UIN 6947998; WTF TKD; FIAWOL; IMAO; SNAFU; TANJ
GL/O d- s+: a20 C+++ L++ P E--- W-(++) N+++ K? w(---) O+ M- PS+(+++)
PE Y+ PGP- !t--- 5+(-) X- R*+++>$ tv-- b++++ D+ G-- e h--*! !r-- !y-*
John Freiler
cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> That's why a firely has an HT of 10 and an HP of 1 or less... and why blow-
> through, according to my Compendium II, is based off of HT and not HP.
Cool! That HT10, HP 250 T-Rex is going to be alot tougher to kill. Every
bullet only does 10 points and the rest blow through. I'd hate to be
standing behind one though.
</sacrcasm>
Not in my games. Blowthrough is most definetly based on HP. The issue
with a firefly is one of scale. A firefly doesn't even have one HP. .1
perhaps. To accurately model the firefly, we have to go to a 100 x scale.
This makes the .45 round coming at the firefly equvalent to a 45" round
coming at you. That's a striaght-to-paste without rolling situation.
John
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <35983DA2...@ziplink.net>,
Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
<snip>
> > I mean, he had four, five, six full seconds of rocking and rolling on full
> > automatic... wham, walks a burst *over* their heads from left to right.
> > Wham, walks a burst *over* their heads from right to left. Wham, he walks
> > it back again -- at the *exact same elevation every time*, and right over
> > his target's head every time.
>
> He was flustered ;-)
I know you're joking. :-) As we both recall, the character of The Jackal
was supposed to have had the Unfazeable advantage.
> > You just can't make me believe that he couldn't just nose the joystick down
> > a little and sweep his last burst just two stinkin' feet lower than his
> > first four bursts.
<snip>
> > The Massacre At The Safe House -- The Jackal's going to the house to kill
> > Richard Gere's girlfriend at all makes absolutely no plausible sense. The
> > director obviously just wanted a gratuitous action scene, but what
> > motivation was ever given for the Jackal to go there at all?
<snip>
> One you missed: This absolutely, positively competent Russian cop doesn't
> slam a few rounds through the goddamn couch just for good measure...how
> stupid is that?
Quite. As the Jackal so promptly demonstrated the principle for her, by
shooting her through the couch. Tip for action movie heroes -- learn the
difference between hard cover and soft cover.
And admittedly, the Jackal's performance at the safe house was tactically
brilliant... a tour-de-force in how one clever, determined, and skilled SOB
can reduce an entire house full of troops into protoplasm. What makes the
scene not work for me is the fact that it may have been *tactically*
brilliant, but it was *strategically* stupid, seeing as how he had no real
reason to be there in the first place.
> > The Assassination Scene, Stupidity One -- Hollywood Time in action.
> >
> > The Jackal finishes setting up the final touches on his weapon and arming
> > it. The Jackal then looks up and sees Sidney Poitier and the assault team
> > fast-roping down from a helicopter onto the roof of a neighboring building.
> > Obviously, at this point, he *knows* he's blown. If he doesn't know after
> > seeing that chopper, he's not only blind, he's lobotomized.
>
> I don't think the chopper landed in direct line of site,
It did.
> but he definitely should have been concerned since a goddamn Pave Low makes a
> hell of a racket and has a pretty distinctive rotor sound.
I remember a scene where the Jackal is looking up from the street and seeing
the Pave Low just finish settling into ground-effect hover over the roof of a
neighboring building. The building's roof blocked his LOS from seeing the
commando team actually hit the roof, but I think he could see them leaving
the helicopter. And he definitely saw the helicopter itself... and saw that
it was settling in for a landing approach right in the area, not just flying
by.
> > So -- how much time after fast-roping down from the helicopter would it
> > plausibly take Sidney Poitier to make it down X flights of stairs from the
> > roof, cross the street, talk his way through the Secret Service barricade
> > (which has this habit of shooting people who just run up and charge at the
> > stage -- yet another gaping plausibility error), and then tackle the First
> > Lady? Several *minutes*, at least.
> >
> > How much time would it take the Jackal, after seeing the fast-roping troops,
> > to open fire? Seeing as how by this point in time, he had *already* armed
> > his weapon, up-linked the firecontrol, inserted the joystick, and *finished
> > laying the gun on the target*...
> >
> > Two seconds, tops.
>
> If he didn't see the helicopter, he wouldn't necessarily know that it was a
> danger, but then again, why assume its harmless when your ass is hanging out
> in the breeze?
And even if he didn't see the helicopter (which he did), how in the hell could
he have missed Sidney Poitier... who he *knows* is the FBI guy in charge of
this case... running right across the street? Shoot, already!
<snip>
> I liked Face Off, it was horribly unrealistic, but it was a good trash action
> flick. It was a John Woo movie so realism doesn't play into it.
Yes, but the John Woo exemption only applies to movies that are actually made
by John Woo. Which this was not. :-)
> > The Assassination Scene, Stupidity Two -- the Secret Service goes blind.
<snip>
> > And you look up and see this *unknown* helicopter, that is *not cleared to
> > be here* (anything over a Presidential function is restricted airspace for
> > the duration), unloading an *entire commando squad* who are all holding
> > *machine guns* onto the roof across the street.
As I recall, there is a viewpoint scene from inside the chopper on final
approach, where Sidney Poitier is looking down at the stage from inside the
chopper. If he has LOS to the stage and the First Lady, that means the Secret
Service has LOS on the chopper he's in. And so, of course, does the Jackal.
<snip>
> > The Assassination Scene, Stupidity Four -- Richard Gere's asking the Marine
> > for his sniper rifle on the roof, and that Marine's actually giving it to
> > him.
> >
> > This one sentence encompasses multiple gross stupidities, any one of which
> > would be large enough to sink an entire movie:
>
> You ain't just whistling dixie.
> > 1) Who called the Marines in the first place? Sidney Poitier is a senior
> > FBI man, this is an FBI mission the whole way through, and Posse Commitatus
> > does apply here -- so *where's the FBI Hostage Rescue Team*? Why do I see
> > any Marines here at all?
>
> All I can think of is that the Marine detail from Camp David was available and
> scrambled for convenience sake.
When the world's most dangerous assassin is believed to be after the FBI
Director, the FBI Hostage Rescue Team is already on full alert status, in the
city, and sitting on its packed bags and ready to move on plus five. Or at
least that's how it would work if *I* was the Director. :-)
>Marines do protect the president at Camp David.
True, but Camp David is a US military reservation, and a downtown Washington
hospital is not.
And due to the Posse Commitatus law that absolutely forbids US military
participation in any domestic law enforcement operations not related to
narcotics trafficking or not on a US military reservation, the only way they
could have legally used USMC was with the express consent of the President.
(Executive orders override Posse Commitatus).
However, that would have meant that the President had been brought into the
loop. And if he is brought into the loop, then there is no way that the
Secret Service could not have also been in the loop... and if the Secret
Service in the loop and knows the Jackal is coming, the First Lady is
*leaving right now*.
> > 2) The presence of Richard Gere's character, at all. In any form.
> >
> > Why was this terrorist SOB even in the story? This is a modernized remake
> > of "The Day Of The Jackal". There was no even remotely comparable
> > character in the original movie, "The Day Of The Jackal". The whole
> > premise of that movie was how heroic and diligent police work stopped the
> > world's most dangerous assassin just in time. So what's this "sympathetic
> > terrorist" doing in the story at all? Goodness knows the *police* in this
> > movie weren't given any strong points for brains. I bet the scriptwriter
> > gives lots of money to NORAID, too.
>
> I don't object to his presence in the movie, remakes very often depart
> dramatically from the originals,
If there is an actual *necessity* for departing dramatically, then I can
accept it.
Example -- the original Jackal used a gimmicked walking stick for an intended
kill at close range. However, in the decades between the original movie and
now, the close-in security cordons on heads of state have changed to the
point where that simply wouldn't be plausible anymore... hence the dramatic
departure in the remake of the Jackal intending to use an entirely different
method of making the kill, i.e. a heavy machine gun bombardment. Ergo, I
have absolutely no problem with them switching over from the walking stick to
the chaingun, despite it's being one helluva change.
But I cannot see any reason whatsoever for Richard Gere's character to exist
in its current form or any remotely similar one.
Why not the heroic undercover man who was the only person to ever see the
Jackal and live? Heck, why not shift the role of "only one who knows the
Jackal?" over to the Russian cop, having her bend the rules (another time-
honored action movie cop tradition) by providing information on the Jackal the
FBI could not otherwise get out of the KGB's classified files?
IOW, why bring in a *terrorist* at all, when the core values of the original
movie were "heroic police work vs. master assassin"? Ex-terrorists have no
place here.
The original movie, "The Day Of The Jackal", was not in any way whatsoever
about moral ambiguity and/or redemption of evil. It was pure 100% Good vs.
Evil cops & robbers. Moral gray areas and anti-hero characters are intended
for an entirely different type of movie, and IMO severely muddied the waters
of this remake by being included at all.
> but I am not at all certain why he was on the rooftop other than because he
> was the only one who really knew what the Jackal looked like and what his
> methods were, and could be expected to do.
And as I said below -- that makes him a spotter, not a shooter. Just because
I have to use him, that does not mean that I'll give him a sniper rifle.
Pistol, maybe... he may need to defend himself. But not a rifle. Not with
the First Lady only 300 or so yards downrange.
> Remember, they have no photos, and no strong MO to work with yet.
Actually, after having interviewed Richard Gere and his girlfriend repeatedly,
they did have a strong MO by the end of the movie (even though they were
totally at sea at the start of the movie, of course). They also already knew
about the Jackal's having some kind of remote-controlled heavy weapon, having
already captured the plans for the mount.
> > 3) This is the biggest stupidity in the whole damn movie, bar none. That
> > Marine actually gave Richard Gere the rifle.
> >
> > They're on a roof within easy rifle range of the *First Lady*, and our
> > Marine just *hands* this *known terrorist sniper* a loaded sniper rifle.
> >
> > WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT, OVER? What's next... the Secret Service handing out
> > Saturday night specials for door prizes at the next campaign fund-raiser?
>
> That I don't understand. But maybe the Marine was ordered to. That takes
> care of a lot of misgivings where Marines are concerned.
In the helicopter, the Marines had been ordered to give him a *sidearm*. OK,
the exact wording was "give him a gun"... but in that context, "gun" means
"pistol". To a Marine, a rifle is not a gun, it is a *rifle*.
Also, when you are ordered to give the unarmed confidential informant a weapon
*solely* so he can defend himself in a last-ditch situation, you usually start
thinking of sidearms or shotguns, not sniper rifles.
The Marine's response when asked for his sniper rifle should have been "No,
you spotter, *me* shooter. Point at him and I'll kill him." And as an
experienced sniper himself, Richard Gere should know all about spotter +
shooter.
> > 4) And just as a truly minor nit-pick, since when does USMC Force Recon use
> > PSG-1 sniper rifles instead of Remington M700's?
>
> I don't know what the Marine SWAT teams and protective details
I didn't know that Marines had SWAT teams. :-) As far as the Camp David
detail, beats me... I thought it was M700's (correction, M40A1's) w/ infrared
scopes.
> use for sniper rifles, Their Infantry battalion Scout/Snipers and Recon
> teams (Force Recon no longer exists, all the Force Recon guys were transfered
> to Battalion Recon units) us the M40A1 which is only superficially an M700.
> Actually, the M40A1 is built on a Remington 40X benchrest action, mated to a
> custom barrel. It uses a custom tuned and modified Winchester trigger and a
> McMillan stock. The whole thing is topped by a Unertl custom built scope. I
> don't actually know what that stupid thing was mounted on the HK in the
> movie, looked a bit like one of the weapon mount laser designators
> I have seen, but those are usually mounted over a scope. (sorry to digress)
<snip>
> > Chuckg (who has seldom experienced such a great buildup to such a horrible
> > letdown. I had more fun watching "Commando".)
>
> I usually find that the only way the heroes can take out a smart villain in
> the movies is if he catches a terminal case of the stupids at the end. Smart
> villains have much more freedom of action than the heroes which gives them a
> nearly insurmountable advantage, so they have to get stupid toward the end to
> let the good guys get them. basic movie rule.
True, but there is a limit beyond which that rule should not be abused, and
"The Jackal" most definitely surpassed it. I mean, there's a difference
between having a smart villain make one or two big mistakes (which even smart
people can do), and having a certified super-genius whose track record is
almost literal perfection suddenly start making mistakes that a 16-year old
crack-addicted gang-banger wouldn't be dumb enough to make.
If you establish a character, you should *stay in character*. The Jackal's
character is that of a super-genius, and he should have stayed one till the
end. Heck, if you're that desperate for an ending where the good guys win,
have the heroes win solely because a million-to-one chance actually made it
home... I think that's about how they did it in the original movie.
--
Chuckg
Andrew Priestley
coy...@concentric.spamthis.net wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 21:21:38 -0400, Andrew Priestley
> <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
>
> [lots of big snips]
> >One you missed: This absolutely, positively competent Russian cop doesn't slam a
> >few rounds through the goddamn couch just for good measure...how stupid is that?
>
> Hey, everybody crit fails an IQ roll once in a while. ;)
>
> >> 1) Who called the Marines in the first place? Sidney Poitier is a senior FBI
> >> man, this is an FBI mission the whole way through, and Posse Commitatus does
> >> apply here -- so *where's the FBI Hostage Rescue Team*? Why do I see any
> >> Marines here at all?
> >
> >All I can think of is that the Marine detail from Camp David was available and
> >scrambled for convenience sake. Marines do protect the president at Camp David.
>
> That was what I assumed.
>
> >> 3) This is the biggest stupidity in the whole damn movie, bar none. That
> >> Marine actually gave Richard Gere the rifle.
> >>
> >> They're on a roof within easy rifle range of the *First Lady*, and our Marine
> >> just *hands* this *known terrorist sniper* a loaded sniper rifle.
> >>
> >> WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT, OVER? What's next... the Secret Service handing out
> >> Saturday night specials for door prizes at the next campaign fund-raiser?
> >
> >That I don't understand. But maybe the Marine was ordered to. That takes care of a
> >lot of misgivings where Marines are concerned.
>
> In the helicopter, as they were going in, Poitier ordered the marine
> to give Gere a gun, or something to that effect.
>
> And, obviously, Gere's character had some Charisma going for him; and
> the Marine rolled a good reaction roll. :)
Don't ask, don't tell ;-)
>
>
> ------------------
> |-- Bob Huss --
> |coy...@concentric.net
Iceman
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <35987A2F...@student.student.unsw.edu.au>,
Geoffrey Brent <z221...@student.student.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
>
> I've been looking at this thread, and I have to ask. This is the same
> film that's supposedly based on "Day of the Jackal", right ?
>
> So, do the two films have _anything_ in common beyond being about
> assassins called "the Jackal" ?
Well, they're not the same target (Premier of France vs. First Lady of the
US), or set in the same country, or hired by the same client, or...
About the only thing they have in common is the name, personality, and skill
level of the assassin, plus the "staredown" shtick. Although this ;atest
Jackal, like the original one, does indeed display a very convincing and
masterful portrayal of both his disguise and acting skills. The border
checkpoint scenes in the remake are still classics.
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <3598BA6C...@cmq.com>,
idcr...@cmq.com wrote:
>
> > > A thought on this- size of the creature- blowing through an elephant
> > > with a low caliber bullet might not do much damage, but hitting a
> > > firefly with that same bullet is going to do a lot more than it's hit
> > > points in damage.
> >
> > through, according to my Compendium II, is based off of HT and not HP.
>
> gigantism, each with a health of 10... If each of them are shot in exactly
> the smaller guy would take *more* damage, because even though the holes are
> identical in size, the dwarf's hole takes up a much larger percentage of his
> body than the giant's. Everything's packed in there so tightly...
That is because an HT (and HP) of 10 means that you can take X damage,
regardless of build. The special effect of a dwarf and a giant both with an
HT of 10 is a slightly stouter-than-average dwarf standing next to a
frailer-than- average giant.
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <6nasap$dno$1...@mycroft.westnet.com>,
John Freiler <ra...@westnet.com> wrote:
>
> cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > That's why a firely has an HT of 10 and an HP of 1 or less... and why blow-
> > through, according to my Compendium II, is based off of HT and not HP.
> Cool! That HT10, HP 250 T-Rex is going to be alot tougher to kill. Every
> bullet only does 10 points and the rest blow through. I'd hate to be
> standing behind one though.
> </sacrcasm>
Goddamn it, I misread the rule. Blow-through is based off of HP.
(pounds head on desk).
> Not in my games. Blowthrough is most definetly based on HP. The issue
> with a firefly is one of scale. A firefly doesn't even have one HP. .1
> perhaps. To accurately model the firefly, we have to go to a 100 x scale.
> This makes the .45 round coming at the firefly equvalent to a 45" round
> coming at you. That's a striaght-to-paste without rolling situation.
Like I said... since the diameter of the round is larger than the entire
firefly, I'd just rule that the firefly takes the full damage to every body
location simultaneously... kind of like being hit with a blast wave.
IOW, instant paste. :-)
Andrew Priestley
cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
They had the President bottled up tight at Camp David (as best I can remember,
getting his approval would have been easy), but I don't remember this very well
right now.
>
>
> > > 2) The presence of Richard Gere's character, at all. In any form.
> > >
> > > Why was this terrorist SOB even in the story? This is a modernized remake
> > > of "The Day Of The Jackal". There was no even remotely comparable
> > > character in the original movie, "The Day Of The Jackal". The whole
> > > premise of that movie was how heroic and diligent police work stopped the
> > > world's most dangerous assassin just in time. So what's this "sympathetic
> > > terrorist" doing in the story at all? Goodness knows the *police* in this
> > > movie weren't given any strong points for brains. I bet the scriptwriter
> > > gives lots of money to NORAID, too.
> >
> > I don't object to his presence in the movie, remakes very often depart
> > dramatically from the originals,
>
> If there is an actual *necessity* for departing dramatically, then I can
> accept it.
>
> Example -- the original Jackal used a gimmicked walking stick for an intended
> kill at close range. However, in the decades between the original movie and
> now, the close-in security cordons on heads of state have changed to the
> point where that simply wouldn't be plausible anymore... hence the dramatic
> departure in the remake of the Jackal intending to use an entirely different
> method of making the kill, i.e. a heavy machine gun bombardment. Ergo, I
> have absolutely no problem with them switching over from the walking stick to
> the chaingun, despite it's being one helluva change.
I actually don't like the chaingun idea too much; its tactically and mechanically
complicated, which makes it a significant point of failure or "friction" to use
Clauswitz's term. Keep it simple, a sniper with a really excellent rifle, buried in
a building a half mile away without direct line of sight is probably the way to go.
I remember a Marine Corps sniper situation in which the sniper team in Beirut was
trying to find and countersnipe a sniper who was picking off people in the streets.
They couldn't locate him despite their best efforts until one day the spotter
noticed a muzzle flash through a window of a burnt out building. The next shot
revealed that the shooter was not in the burnt out building, the spotter had spotted
the flash through the window on the other side of that building, through an alley
way behind and in a building some 800 yards away. The sniper was taking opportunity
fire at any target that wandered through his narrow shooting window. A really good
assassin could manufacture such a window for himself and make the shot. Heads of
state are relatively easy to kill, especially if you don't care if you live or die,
its when you want to survive the mission that it gets tough, but not impossible.
> But I cannot see any reason whatsoever for Richard Gere's character to exist
> in its current form or any remotely similar one.
>
> Why not the heroic undercover man who was the only person to ever see the
> Jackal and live? Heck, why not shift the role of "only one who knows the
> Jackal?" over to the Russian cop, having her bend the rules (another time-
> honored action movie cop tradition) by providing information on the Jackal the
> FBI could not otherwise get out of the KGB's classified files?
>
> IOW, why bring in a *terrorist* at all, when the core values of the original
> movie were "heroic police work vs. master assassin"? Ex-terrorists have no
> place here.
>
> The original movie, "The Day Of The Jackal", was not in any way whatsoever
> about moral ambiguity and/or redemption of evil. It was pure 100% Good vs.
> Evil cops & robbers. Moral gray areas and anti-hero characters are intended
> for an entirely different type of movie, and IMO severely muddied the waters
> of this remake by being included at all.
There is a big pro-Irish thing going on right now and the sentiment extends to the
IRA. I personally think that the only good terrorist is a dead one, but many just
don;t think of the IRA or PIRA more properly, as terrorists. I say you know the
Tango by his methods. I soldier attacks military targets, a terrorist attacks their
children. The IRA like to set bombs in department stores and shopping centers where
non-military personel congregate, that makes them terrorists.
To be fair, the IRA is as factionalized as an organization can become and different
factions and cells operate differently, some do only attack military targets, others
are bully boys who attack the softest targets they can find so as not to get hurt
themselves, there is a difference there, but since you can't tell one from the other
and since they defend one another you have to judge the man by the company he keeps
and err on the side of civilian safety. Those are the risks you take when you
undertake a guerilla/terrorist war.
But in any case...Irish independence is a big issue right now and one that a lot of
well meaning, but essentially ignorant , actors are taking up along with Tibetan
independence. There is, of course, merit to these causes, but if they cannot gain
sufficient popular support to carry in their home environments, all the lobbying by
actors in the world won't amount to a hill of cowdung. That's what happened
here...someone found a way to project their pet cause into the movie.
> > but I am not at all certain why he was on the rooftop other than because he
> > was the only one who really knew what the Jackal looked like and what his
> > methods were, and could be expected to do.
>
> And as I said below -- that makes him a spotter, not a shooter. Just because
> I have to use him, that does not mean that I'll give him a sniper rifle.
> Pistol, maybe... he may need to defend himself. But not a rifle. Not with
> the First Lady only 300 or so yards downrange.
Besides the fact that sniper rifles are zeroed to their shooters, each of whom has a
slightly different stock-weld, and eye relief, and thus different scope settings.
The rifle would not have been adequately tuned to Gere to be effective, but
Hollyweird doesn't pay attention to details like that since it erodes their general
standpoint that guns are amazingly lethal in anyone's hands, practically doing all
the aiming and killing on their own. Gere doesn't know what range the weapon is
zeroed to, he isn't therefore, capable of compensating for the rather steep angle of
the shot(which you have to aim low to compensate for) He has no time to judge the
wind through the streets which could drive the fall of the shot off by many inches
or even feet. Hell, he doesn't even know if the rifle is loaded with M118 173 grain
Special Ball, or 168 Grain HPBT Federal Match ammunition? For all he knows, the
thing could be loaded with 147 grain Ball ammunition. Each of these shoots very
differently. Also, when you shoot through glass, all bets are off as to where the
bullet goes. There is a strong chance it will continue within a few degrees of the
angle of impact, but it could do something different as well, depending upon the
slope of the glass, its composition, and how it flexes when broken (rendering
microangles of deflection that cannot be predicted without a f*cking supercomputer).
The sniper knows all this (except for the glass) and has trained recently with his
weapon, presumably Gere's character hadn't handled a rifle in years and sniping
marksmanship being a perishable skill, would be rusty. He should have been given a
set of binoculars or a spotting scope and acted as a spotter. You are right about
that.
Anyhow, there would have been at least a few FBI or Secret Service countersnipers on
hand anyhow, there always are around the first family, its part of the set up to
bring in a team or four and case the area for potential sniper hides where a shooter
could shoot from; they then search those positions and take positions to observe
and, if necessary, to lay down effective countersniper fire on those positions and
others.
>
>
> > Remember, they have no photos, and no strong MO to work with yet.
>
> Actually, after having interviewed Richard Gere and his girlfriend repeatedly,
> they did have a strong MO by the end of the movie (even though they were
> totally at sea at the start of the movie, of course). They also already knew
> about the Jackal's having some kind of remote-controlled heavy weapon, having
> already captured the plans for the mount.
>
> > > 3) This is the biggest stupidity in the whole damn movie, bar none. That
> > > Marine actually gave Richard Gere the rifle.
> > >
> > > They're on a roof within easy rifle range of the *First Lady*, and our
> > > Marine just *hands* this *known terrorist sniper* a loaded sniper rifle.
> > >
> > > WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT, OVER? What's next... the Secret Service handing out
> > > Saturday night specials for door prizes at the next campaign fund-raiser?
> >
> > That I don't understand. But maybe the Marine was ordered to. That takes
> > care of a lot of misgivings where Marines are concerned.
>
> In the helicopter, the Marines had been ordered to give him a *sidearm*. OK,
> the exact wording was "give him a gun"... but in that context, "gun" means
> "pistol". To a Marine, a rifle is not a gun, it is a *rifle*.
>
> Also, when you are ordered to give the unarmed confidential informant a weapon
> *solely* so he can defend himself in a last-ditch situation, you usually start
> thinking of sidearms or shotguns, not sniper rifles.
>
> The Marine's response when asked for his sniper rifle should have been "No,
> you spotter, *me* shooter. Point at him and I'll kill him." And as an
> experienced sniper himself, Richard Gere should know all about spotter +
> shooter.
Agreed 100%
>
>
> > > 4) And just as a truly minor nit-pick, since when does USMC Force Recon use
> > > PSG-1 sniper rifles instead of Remington M700's?
> >
> > I don't know what the Marine SWAT teams and protective details
>
> I didn't know that Marines had SWAT teams. :-) As far as the Camp David
> detail, beats me... I thought it was M700's (correction, M40A1's) w/ infrared
> scopes.
The Corps has a number of different SWAT teams for presidential and embassy
protection...they are heavily trained in countersniper tactics and CQB (Closed
Quarters Battle) shit, they invented the term if not the concept.
As for Infra-red scope, those are obsolete in the extreme. Nightvision scopes are
available and the Corps is trying very hard to appropriate funds to purchase Simrad
NODs (Night Observations Devices) which attach to their existing optical telescopes
allowing them to sight through their regular scopes, maintaining zero and all
adjustments, and allows them to get rid of the NOD in daylight withou having to
completely change sighting systems. Scandanavian or English manufacture as best I
can remember.
I agree, I enjoyed the movie overall, partially because I am getting used to the
stupid mistakes and deus-ex-machina that hollyweird throws in for effects...hell I
even tried to like Waterworld. I will probably watch it again with your comments in
front of me so I can check them out. It'll probably be fun.
Iceman
Douglas Bailey
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 16:10:29 GMT, cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>...that would have meant that the President had been brought into the
>loop. And if he is brought into the loop, then there is no way that the
>Secret Service could not have also been in the loop... and if the Secret
>Service in the loop and knows the Jackal is coming, the First Lady is
>*leaving right now*.
Maybe the President *wants* the First Lady bumped off to make more
time for White House interns? (The Oliver Stone version of the film.)
:)
doug
--------------douglas bailey (trys...@ne.mediaone.net)--------------
don't you let my letter get you down...
--david bowie
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <35993970...@ziplink.net>,
Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
<major league snippage required>
<snip>
> > However, that would have meant that the President had been brought into the
> > loop. And if he is brought into the loop, then there is no way that the
> > Secret Service could not have also been in the loop... and if the Secret
> > Service in the loop and knows the Jackal is coming, the First Lady is
> > *leaving right now*.
>
> They had the President bottled up tight at Camp David (as best I can remember,
> getting his approval would have been easy), but I don't remember this very
> well right now.
True enough, the man was right there to be asked... but the point is,
*anything* the President hears, his Secret Service detail hears, because he is
never out of their earshot. And if his protective detail knows about the
Jackal, then the First Lady's protective detail will be radioed ASAP... but we
know as a fact that they were weren't.
Ergo, the inference is that POTUS was not in the loop on this one.
> > Example -- the original Jackal used a gimmicked walking stick for an
> > intended kill at close range. However, in the decades between the original
> > movie and now, the close-in security cordons on heads of state have changed
> > to the point where that simply wouldn't be plausible anymore... hence the
> > dramatic departure in the remake of the Jackal intending to use an entirely
> > different method of making the kill, i.e. a heavy machine gun bombardment.
> > Ergo, I have absolutely no problem with them switching over from the
> > walking stick to the chaingun, despite it's being one helluva change.
>
> I actually don't like the chaingun idea too much; its tactically and
> mechanically complicated, which makes it a significant point of failure or
> "friction" to use Clauswitz's term.
I meant that I liked it as plausible enough for an action movie... even if,
in real life, the true professional would most likely really use something
simpler.
> Keep it simple, a sniper with a really excellent rifle, buried in a building
> a half mile away without direct line of sight is probably the way to go.
Barrett Model 82 comes to mind, although there's also the Soviet PTRD? PTRS?
(can't remember exactly).
<snip>
> > But I cannot see any reason whatsoever for Richard Gere's character to exist
> > in its current form or any remotely similar one.
> >
> > Why not the heroic undercover man who was the only person to ever see the
> > Jackal and live? Heck, why not shift the role of "only one who knows the
> > Jackal?" over to the Russian cop, having her bend the rules (another time-
> > honored action movie cop tradition) by providing information on the Jackal
> > the FBI could not otherwise get out of the KGB's classified files?
> >
> > IOW, why bring in a *terrorist* at all, when the core values of the original
> > movie were "heroic police work vs. master assassin"? Ex-terrorists have no
> > place here.
> >
> > The original movie, "The Day Of The Jackal", was not in any way whatsoever
> > about moral ambiguity and/or redemption of evil. It was pure 100% Good vs.
> > Evil cops & robbers. Moral gray areas and anti-hero characters are intended
> > for an entirely different type of movie, and IMO severely muddied the waters
> > of this remake by being included at all.
>
> There is a big pro-Irish thing going on right now and the sentiment extends
> to the IRA. I personally think that the only good terrorist is a dead one,
Join the club, which is why I'm so incensed at Richard Gere's character having
been put in that darn movie.
> but many just don;t think of the IRA or PIRA more properly, as terrorists. I
> say you know the Tango by his methods. I soldier attacks military targets, a
> terrorist attacks their children. The IRA like to set bombs in department
> stores and shopping centers where non-military personel congregate, that
> makes them terrorists.
>
> To be fair, the IRA is as factionalized as an organization can become and
> different factions and cells operate differently, some do only attack
> military targets, others are bully boys who attack the softest targets they
> can find so as not to get hurt themselves, there is a difference there, but
> since you can't tell one from the other and since they defend one another you
> have to judge the man by the company he keeps and err on the side of civilian
> safety. Those are the risks you take when you undertake a guerilla/terrorist
> war.
>
> But in any case...Irish independence is a big issue right now and one that a
> lot of well meaning, but essentially ignorant , actors are taking up along
> with Tibetan independence. There is, of course, merit to these causes, but
> if they cannot gain sufficient popular support to carry in their home
> environments, all the lobbying by actors in the world won't amount to a hill
> of cowdung. That's what happened here...someone found a way to project their
> pet cause into the movie.
I totally agree, and it severely honks me off, let me tell you.
<snip>
> Besides the fact that sniper rifles are zeroed to their shooters, each of
> whom has a slightly different stock-weld, and eye relief, and thus different
> scope settings. The rifle would not have been adequately tuned to Gere to be
> effective, but Hollyweird doesn't pay attention to details like that since it
> erodes their general standpoint that guns are amazingly lethal in anyone's
> hands, practically doing all the aiming and killing on their own. Gere
> doesn't know what range the weapon is zeroed to, he isn't therefore, capable
> of compensating for the rather steep angle of the shot(which you have to aim
> low to compensate for) He has no time to judge the wind through the streets
> which could drive the fall of the shot off by many inches or even feet.
> Hell, he doesn't even know if the rifle is loaded with M118 173 grain
> Special Ball, or 168 Grain HPBT Federal Match ammunition? For all he knows,
> the thing could be loaded with 147 grain Ball ammunition. Each of these
> shoots very differently. Also, when you shoot through glass, all bets are
> off as to where the bullet goes. There is a strong chance it will continue
> within a few degrees of the angle of impact, but it could do something
> different as well, depending upon the slope of the glass, its composition,
> and how it flexes when broken (rendering microangles of deflection that
> cannot be predicted without a f*cking supercomputer).
Damn. Were you, yourself, a Marine sniper at one time? I sure wasn't, and I
knew about none of the above except the glass and the problem of shooting
downhill ... even I knew that you can't shoot accurately through glass, but I
*didn't* know spit about the butt, etc, having to be zeroed to the shooter,
the fact that adjustments for shooting downhill require you to know exactly
how the weapon iz zeroed, bullet type, etc.
> The sniper knows all this (except for the glass) and has trained recently
> with his weapon, presumably Gere's character hadn't handled a rifle in years
> and sniping marksmanship being a perishable skill, would be rusty. He should
> have been given a set of binoculars or a spotting scope and acted as a
> spotter. You are right about that.
>
> Anyhow, there would have been at least a few FBI or Secret Service
> countersnipers on hand anyhow, there always are around the first family, its
> part of the set up to bring in a team or four and case the area for potential
> sniper hides where a shooter could shoot from; they then search those
> positions and take positions to observe and, if necessary, to lay down
> effective countersniper fire on those positions and others.
Yup. Forgot about the fact that the Secret Service counter-sniper detail
should have shot the Marines who were setting up with their rifles on the
roof, just on general principles.
<snip>
> > The Marine's response when asked for his sniper rifle should have been "No,
> > you spotter, *me* shooter. Point at him and I'll kill him." And as an
> > experienced sniper himself, Richard Gere should know all about spotter +
> > shooter.
>
> Agreed 100%
<snip>
> > I didn't know that Marines had SWAT teams. :-) As far as the Camp David
> > detail, beats me... I thought it was M700's (correction, M40A1's) w/
> >infrared scopes.
> The Corps has a number of different SWAT teams for presidential and embassy
> protection...they are heavily trained in countersniper tactics and CQB (Closed
> Quarters Battle) shit, they invented the term if not the concept.
> As for Infra-red scope, those are obsolete in the extreme. Nightvision
> scopes are available and the Corps is trying very hard to appropriate funds
> to purchase Simrad NODs (Night Observations Devices) which attach to their
> existing optical telescopes allowing them to sight through their regular
> scopes, maintaining zero and all adjustments, and allows them to get rid of
> the NOD in daylight withou having to completely change sighting systems.
> Scandanavian or English manufacture as best I can remember.
I no longer feel guilty about having started this off-topic a thread. I am
picking up large amounts of knowledge that I otherwise would not have had.
Thanks!
<snip>
> > True, but there is a limit beyond which that rule should not be abused, and
> > "The Jackal" most definitely surpassed it. I mean, there's a difference
> > between having a smart villain make one or two big mistakes (which even
> > smart people can do), and having a certified super-genius whose track
> > record is almost literal perfection suddenly start making mistakes that a
> > 16-year old crack-addicted gang-banger wouldn't be dumb enough to make.
> >
> > If you establish a character, you should *stay in character*. The Jackal's
> > character is that of a super-genius, and he should have stayed one till the
> > end. Heck, if you're that desperate for an ending where the good guys win,
> > have the heroes win solely because a million-to-one chance actually made it
> > home... I think that's about how they did it in the original movie.
> I agree, I enjoyed the movie overall, partially because I am getting used to
> the stupid mistakes and deus-ex-machina that hollyweird throws in for
> effects...
I'm not. Then again, I've been accused of having an overly analytical
personality. :-)
I actually kinda enjoy counting flaws in action movies, even if I am nowhere
near sharp enough to catch them all. But I'd still be in seventh heaven if I
ever found a movie that both had a plot I liked *and* had no stupid mistakes
for me to count.
> hell I even tried to like Waterworld.
You *what*? You are a far, far stronger man than I, let me tell you! As
soon as I even heard the part about the guy on the boat reclamating drinking
water from his own urine a la "Dune"... when his boat is floating on a one
and a half *quintillion* ton mass of salt water otherwise known as an
"ocean", easily recoverable for drinking purposes with any solar still.
Sheesh. As soon as I heard about that part, I just plain decided to not even
go.
> I will probably watch it again with your comments in front of me so I can
> check them out. It'll probably be fun.
You're actually gonna check up on me? I'd better start covering my ass in
advance, then. (LOL)
I do not have Eidetic Memory, several of my more detailed recollections may be
a bit off. But we are at least agreeing on the basic objections, anyway.
Knight
> This makes the .45 round coming at the firefly equvalent to a 45" round
> coming at you. That's a striaght-to-paste without rolling situation.
How do other members of the list refer to this situation? Cool similes
for being blown away are always useful, and one of my players reads
Sinster+Dexter, so I can't use them.
Knight
This doesn't follow directly, but I always find that I far prefer playing
"bad guys", that characters with any moral scruples. I find it very
consrianing in genres/games where heroism is required, such a Feng Shui.
Lokking over some recent characers, about two are government assassins,
one's a sadist, and all of them would definately end up dead,dead,dead at
the end of most movies.
Andrew Priestley
cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <35993970...@ziplink.net>,
> Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
>
> <major league snippage required>
>
>
> Barrett Model 82 comes to mind, although there's also the Soviet PTRD? PTRS?
> (can't remember exactly).
There are better .50 cal sniper guns than the Barrett, the Barrett has just had a
lot of good press recently. Most of the Soviet heavy snipers are really just hopped
up anti-tank rifles and not really in the "sniper" class. Actually, the Russians
have remained consistently about 20 years behind the west in fielding high quality
sniper guns. Despite some really good press, the Dragunov SVD is pretty much a
piece of sh*t in comparison to the M21. Better killing range on the bullet, but the
weapon itself is horribly inconsistent and scope is utterly insufficient.
I am not a sniper, though I have done a lot of study on the subject and am building
my marksmanship skills in that direction. I have a good friend who was a National
Match grade shooter (Service Rifle) and competed at Camp Perry a few years back, as
well as a couple of acquaintances who were Marine, Special Forces, and Army
snipers. I have learned a lot about the theory and art of sniping from these people
and my studies. As for the precision zeroing of weapon/sight/cartridge
combinations, any precision rifleman, whether they be a sniper, benchrest shooter,
or Long range varmint or beanfield hunter, needs to know about that.
Some side info:
A Stock or cheek-weld is where the shooter positions his face against the buttstock
of the weapon. For absolute consistency, the shooter must place his face in contact
with the stock in "exactly" the same spot every time. The rifle must be seated in
the shoulder exactly the same way every single time, and the eye must be positioned
the exact same distance from the scope lense, or the steadiness of the hold, the
sight picture, etc will all be off. When a shooter has his position habitualized to
the point that he or she automatically assumes it every time they pick up the
weapon, they can develop their marksmanship to the highest standards, without this,
they cannot be sure of where they are shooting.
Eye-relief is the distance of the shooter's eye from the scope lense, as mentioned
above, it must be consistent. This is achieved by having the buttstock length
adjusted to a comfortable length and by practice.
Length-of-pull is the length of the buttstock from buttpad to trigger it affects eye
relief and the comfort of the shooter's hand on the trigger and can affect smooth
trigger release.
Ammunition of different loadings shoots differently. 147 grain ball ammunition
shoots a lighter projectile at higher velocity than either 173 grain Special Match
ammunition or 168 Grain Federal Match ammunition. Ball ammunition and the M118 173
grain Special Match ammo are also noticeably less consistent in quality
concentricity, weight, etc, than the 168 grain Federal Match ammunition, differences
in consistency within lots of ammunition can make a significant difference in where
the bullet impacts. Generally speaking, a sniper or precision rifleman shoots one
type of ammunition through their weapon and has everything adjusted to compensate
for that ammunitions particular ballistic characteristics. Every time the rifleman
changes ammunition, even if they are using the same ammunition type, but from a
different production lot, they must re-zero their weapon to the slightly different
characteristics of that round. Different environmental conditions also affect
bullet flight; if the air on target is significantly colder or warmer, drier or more
humid, or even at a significantly different barometric pressure, the accuracy of the
current sight settings is in question, and if possible, the weapon should be
rezeroed to that environment. These small variations are not very significant at
close range, but are a bear at long range. A change in impact of .5 minutes of
angle at 100 yards is only an inch, but at 800 yards it is 4 inches.
What range a weapon is zeroed to also makes a big difference. The Marines typically
zero their sniper rifles at 600 yards, the Army at 300, SWAT snipers tend to zero to
100 yards. Depending upon the range the rifle was zeroed at, the adjustments for
shooting the exact same cartridge at the exact same elevation, to the exact same
distance can vary dramatically. If you don't know that information, you cannot
compensate for it. For instance, a rifle zeroed for 600 yards will shoot very high
with the same point of aim at 300 yards while a 300 yard zero is shooting dead on
and a 100 yard zero is shooting way low.
>
>
> > hell I even tried to like Waterworld.
>
> You *what*? You are a far, far stronger man than I, let me tell you! As
> soon as I even heard the part about the guy on the boat reclamating drinking
> water from his own urine a la "Dune"... when his boat is floating on a one
> and a half *quintillion* ton mass of salt water otherwise known as an
> "ocean", easily recoverable for drinking purposes with any solar still.
> Sheesh. As soon as I heard about that part, I just plain decided to not even
> go.
PUR, a company best known for producing waterfilters for hikers, started in the
business making hand pumped de-salinization plants for yachts and lifeboats. Big
and bulky, they work. I had a lot of problems with the movie that were detailed
in another thread a few months back when the movie aired on network tv. I won't go
into them here.
Iceman
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <359A706D...@ziplink.net>,
Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
>
>
> cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> > Barrett Model 82 comes to mind, although there's also the Soviet PTRD?
> > PTRS? (can't remember exactly).
>
> There are better .50 cal sniper guns than the Barrett, the Barrett has just
> had a lot of good press recently. Most of the Soviet heavy snipers are
> really just hopped up anti-tank rifles and not really in the "sniper" class.
That's what I was thinking about... the Soviet anti-tank rifles. Heck, the
Jackal could take one of those, up it to "Very Fine (Accurate)" (GURPS
gamespeak strikes again) in the machine shop, put a nice scope on it... voila,
the 14.5mm KPV "Crunch Gun", straight out of Traveller -- The New Era. :-)
> Actually, the Russians have remained consistently about 20 years behind the
> west in fielding high quality sniper guns. Despite some really good press,
> the Dragunov SVD is pretty much a piece of sh*t in comparison to the M21.
> Better killing range on the bullet, but the weapon itself is horribly
> inconsistent and scope is utterly insufficient.
<much other useful information shipped -- but thanks!>
Jaeger
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <35983DA2...@ziplink.net>,
> Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
>
> Quite. As the Jackal so promptly demonstrated the principle for her, by
> shooting her through the couch. Tip for action movie heroes -- learn the
> difference between hard cover and soft cover.
The correct terms are concealment (blocks vision) vs cover (blocks fire)
something may be both (cinderblock wall) or one or the other
(cover-thick plexiglass window, concealment-the aforementioned couch).
> As I recall, there is a viewpoint scene from inside the chopper on final
> approach, where Sidney Poitier is looking down at the stage from inside the
> chopper.
At which time it is obvious the helicopter is not rigged for fast rope
insertion/extraction system (FRIES), which requires a special framework to
be used on MH-3, CH-46/47 type helicopters.
> > > 1) Who called the Marines in the first place? Sidney Poitier is a senior
> > > FBI man, this is an FBI mission the whole way through, and Posse Commitatus
> > > does apply here -- so *where's the FBI Hostage Rescue Team*?
Maybe they couldn't get the rules of engagement (ROE) straightened out :)
> And due to the Posse Commitatus law that absolutely forbids US military
> participation in any domestic law enforcement operations not related to
> narcotics trafficking
Weapons of mass destruction are also now fall under this catagory, note
the "counter narcotics" restrictions are still pretty tight. JTF-6 would
have provided non-combat troops/assets to assist if the FBI could have
shown a drug connection (the Jackal's funding came from the red star mafia
or some such).
> the only way they
> could have legally used USMC was with the express consent of the President.
> (Executive orders override Posse Commitatus).
The declaration of martial law is the only way around posse commitatus
(sp), something not done often or easily.
> However, that would have meant that the President had been brought into the
> loop. And if he is brought into the loop, then there is no way that the
> Secret Service could not have also been in the loop...
I will let the politically biased reality check go by...
> Example -- the original Jackal used a gimmicked walking stick for an intended
> kill at close range. However, in the decades between the original movie and
> now, the close-in security cordons on heads of state have changed to the
> point where that simply wouldn't be plausible anymore... hence the dramatic
> departure in the remake of the Jackal intending to use an entirely different
> method of making the kill, i.e. a heavy machine gun bombardment. Ergo, I
> have absolutely no problem with them switching over from the walking stick to
> the chaingun, despite it's being one helluva change.
An indirect fire weapon using laser target designation would have been the
ideal way to destroy the target and get out alive. He obviously had the
technology and the funding.
> The Marine's response when asked for his sniper rifle should have been "No,
> you spotter, *me* shooter. Point at him and I'll kill him."
Your grammer was about right there. :)
> > I don't know what the Marine SWAT teams and protective details
> > > Chuckg (who has seldom experienced such a great buildup to such a horrible
> > > letdown. I had more fun watching "Commando".)
The movie is much more enjoyable when no pretence is made to stick to
realism (I enjoyed it too.)
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the original book which preceded the
movie.
wrj
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <Pine.BSF.3.96.980701...@dillinger.io.com>,
> > Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
> >
> > Quite. As the Jackal so promptly demonstrated the principle for her, by
> > shooting her through the couch. Tip for action movie heroes -- learn the
> > difference between hard cover and soft cover.
>
> something may be both (cinderblock wall) or one or the other
> (cover-thick plexiglass window, concealment-the aforementioned couch).
>
> > approach, where Sidney Poitier is looking down at the stage from inside the
> > chopper.
>
> insertion/extraction system (FRIES), which requires a special framework to
> be used on MH-3, CH-46/47 type helicopters.
Thanks for spotting a detail I missed.
>>>> 1) Who called the Marines in the first place? Sidney Poitier is a senior
>>>> FBI man, this is an FBI mission the whole way through, and Posse Commitatus
>>>> does apply here -- so *where's the FBI Hostage Rescue Team*?
>
> Maybe they couldn't get the rules of engagement (ROE) straightened out :)
True... maybe they were afraid they'd shoot at the bad guy and hit the First
Lady by "accident". :-)
> > And due to the Posse Commitatus law that absolutely forbids US military
> > participation in any domestic law enforcement operations not related to
> > narcotics trafficking
>
> Weapons of mass destruction are also now fall under this catagory, note
> the "counter narcotics" restrictions are still pretty tight. JTF-6 would
> have provided non-combat troops/assets to assist if the FBI could have
> shown a drug connection (the Jackal's funding came from the red star mafia
> or some such).
Actually, the Jackal's employer on this contract was one of the "kingpins" of
Soviet organized crime -- which would, presumably, include narcotics
trafficking.
> > the only way they could have legally used USMC was with the express consent
> >of the President. Executive orders override Posse Commitatus).
>
> The declaration of martial law is the only way around posse commitatus
> (sp), something not done often or easily.
Well, there's always the government's favorite fudge -- declaring a "state of
emergency". (Otherwise known as what is a de facto state of martial law, even
though it is not a de jure state of martial law.)
>> However, that would have meant that the President had been brought into the
>> loop. And if he is brought into the loop, then there is no way that the
>> Secret Service could not have also been in the loop...
>
> I will let the politically biased reality check go by...
I know of no way to speak to the President -- at least on normal business
matters -- without being within earshot of the Secret Service.
>> Example -- the original Jackal used a gimmicked walking stick for an intended
>> kill at close range. However, in the decades between the original movie and
>> now, the close-in security cordons on heads of state have changed to the
>> point where that simply wouldn't be plausible anymore... hence the dramatic
>> departure in the remake of the Jackal intending to use an entirely different
>> method of making the kill, i.e. a heavy machine gun bombardment. Ergo, I
>> have absolutely no problem with them switching over from the walking stick to
>> the chaingun, despite it's being one helluva change.
>
> An indirect fire weapon using laser target designation would have been the
> ideal way to destroy the target and get out alive. He obviously had the
> technology and the funding.
You are a mind-reader! One of my best friends said that how he'd have had the
Jackal do the job was:
a) Put a laser designator in the frame of a large camcorder or some other
such device that the Jackal could legitimately be pointing at the stage...
from a *long* distance away! When you see what's coming next, you will
understand why he doesn't want to be too close.
b) Park a UPS panel van a couple of blocks away. Rig the (thin plastic) roof
of the truck with det cord to have a large hole blown in it at the proper
moment.
c) Sitting in that UPS van is a Soviet 240mm mortar, loaded with one of those
240mm laser-guided mortar rounds that they've got a surplus of at the moment.
d) Punch the cellular phone in his pocket, which is linked to the cellular
pager that you've linked to the electronics he rigged up to blow the det cord
and then fire the mortar in the proper sequence.
e) WHOONK. 240mm of mortar shell falling on either the podium or the
Presidential limo (whatever he chooses, laser-guided munitions go where you
tell them) will reduce the target to goo... and her Secret Service detail...
and God alone knows how many innocent bystanders.
Then again, the Jackal's employer was deliberately *intending* to create a
horrific, bloody incident for purposes of public terror.
> > The Marine's response when asked for his sniper rifle should have been "No,
> > you spotter, *me* shooter. Point at him and I'll kill him."
>
> Your grammer was about right there. :)
<snip>
>>>> Chuckg (who has seldom experienced such a great buildup to such a horrible
>>>> letdown. I had more fun watching "Commando".)
>
> The movie is much more enjoyable when no pretence is made to stick to
> realism (I enjoyed it too.)
Commando? Yup. Good old farce violence, does not pretend to be anything but.
Admittedly, just once in my life I'd like to see a realistic action movie,
just to prove that it actually *can* be done. It was the raising and then
dashing of this hope that made me so p.o.'ed at "The Jackal".
> I'm surprised no one has mentioned the original book which preceded the
> movie.
Was the book that different from the original 1970's movie?
Andrew Priestley
cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <359A706D...@ziplink.net>,
> Andrew Priestley <and...@ziplink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > Barrett Model 82 comes to mind, although there's also the Soviet PTRD?
> > > PTRS? (can't remember exactly).
> >
> > There are better .50 cal sniper guns than the Barrett, the Barrett has just
> > had a lot of good press recently. Most of the Soviet heavy snipers are
> > really just hopped up anti-tank rifles and not really in the "sniper" class.
>
> That's what I was thinking about... the Soviet anti-tank rifles. Heck, the
> Jackal could take one of those, up it to "Very Fine (Accurate)" (GURPS
> gamespeak strikes again) in the machine shop, put a nice scope on it... voila,
> the 14.5mm KPV "Crunch Gun", straight out of Traveller -- The New Era. :-)
He'd also have to handload his ammunition from machine turned monolithic bullets
and selected brass. The problem with cartridges like these, is that out of the
box, they aren't designed to hit point targets, just somewhere within a couple of
feet of where I'm aiming on the hull of that tank. Some .50 cal shooters have
gone so far as to mill their own shell casings and bullets on computer controlled
milling machines. This allows them to keep concentricity, and uniformity to
absolute minimum standards and produce consistent ammunition. Costly, but
doable.
> > Actually, the Russians have remained consistently about 20 years behind the
> > west in fielding high quality sniper guns. Despite some really good press,
> > the Dragunov SVD is pretty much a piece of sh*t in comparison to the M21.
> > Better killing range on the bullet, but the weapon itself is horribly
> > inconsistent and scope is utterly insufficient.
>
> <much other useful information shipped -- but thanks!>
>
> --
> Chuckg
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Iceman...always happy to be of service.
Douglas Bailey
On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 14:51:36 GMT, cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Was the book that different from the original 1970's movie?
There may be some piddly details differing, but the older film is a
remarkably faithful rendition of THE DAY OF THE JACKAL. It's also an
excellent film in its own right, and I highly recommend it to any
readers of this thread who weren't aware that THE JACKAL was a
semi-remake.
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <35a513e1...@nntp.ne.mediaone.net>,
trys...@ne.mediaone.net (Douglas Bailey) wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 14:51:36 GMT, cgla...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> remarkably faithful rendition of THE DAY OF THE JACKAL. It's also an
> excellent film in its own right, and I highly recommend it to any
> readers of this thread who weren't aware that THE JACKAL was a
> semi-remake.
Excellent. Off to Blockbuster's I go...
JefWilson
In article <3599B5...@compuserve.com>, Knight <10671...@compuserve.com>
writes:
Interesting you should say "constraining." The reason I play good guys is
because playing evil is just too _easy_. When I game I prefer to have the
character face a challenge of some sort. Of course, sometimes I just need to
relax, so I do play bad guys on occasion.
Jeff Wilson
GURPS Page: http://members.aol.com/JefWilson/rpg/
delph...@geocities.com
"Warning shot to the forehead"
"Last chance to fill your pants"
"Being welcomed to UNIX" (based on Shadowrun slang "to geek" = to kill)
- Dare "Just grin and Dare it!"
* All typos in the previous message are to be considered edicts of Eris.
Please update your dictionaries accordingly.
* Unsolicited commercial email sent to this address will be subject to a
$1500 processing fee. Sending mail to this address, manually or
automatically, implies consent to these terms. (Thanx, Carrie!)
.. \ôô1!1 !‰I²éqq1²Aq1rÆ ‰!Q)±r „Ìô,„
http://members.xoom.com/Darekun
Dr Kromm
>> How do other members of the list refer to this situation? Cool similes
>> for being blown away are always useful
"Experienced structural failure."
"Died of kinetic-energy poisoning." (not original, but a classic)
"Ready for the Zombie spell."
"Blown into spare parts."
etc.
Kromm.
--
Sean M. Punch o E-mail: o 4122 rue Rivard
(a.k.a. Dr Kromm) | At SJG: kr...@io.com | Montreal, Quebec
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=o Local POP: kr...@cam.org o Canada H2L 4H9
GURPS Line Editor | WWW: | Home: (514) 288-9600
and Net Guru o http://www.io.com/~kromm o Work: (514) 288-9615
Dr Kromm
JefWilson <jefw...@aol.com> wrote:
> Interesting you should say "constraining." The reason I play good guys is
> because playing evil is just too _easy_.
Correction: playing stereotyped, semi-insane, over-the-top evil is easy.
This is because all you really need to do is be rabid and indiscriminate.
Being coldly, calculatingly evil in a subtle, realistic way is extremely
difficult, mostly because it goes against one's own convictions -- at
least for most people. It's easy to gun down cops, blow up banks and
execute the odd incompetent henchman in a game; it's a lot harder to
spend 2 years of play time making friends with another PC so that you
can sell him out later on . . .
Vegard Valberg
Dr Kromm wrote:
>
> JefWilson <jefw...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Interesting you should say "constraining." The reason I play good guys is
> > because playing evil is just too _easy_.
>
> Correction: playing stereotyped, semi-insane, over-the-top evil is easy.
> This is because all you really need to do is be rabid and indiscriminate.
> Being coldly, calculatingly evil in a subtle, realistic way is extremely
> difficult, mostly because it goes against one's own convictions -- at
> least for most people. It's easy to gun down cops, blow up banks and
> execute the odd incompetent henchman in a game; it's a lot harder to
> spend 2 years of play time making friends with another PC so that you
> can sell him out later on . . .
>
> Kromm.
Hmm, then you have evil characters who doesn't consider themselves
evil, in the PBeM campaign which I run, I had a player who's PC was a white
supremacist assassin, now he [the PC] didn't consider himself evil. I think
this is what is missed by many people who play evil characters, they rarely
think of themselves as evil.
--
- Vegard Valberg
My Sig: My e-mail address is <vval...@online.no>,
that is two v's, not one w.
JefWilson
In article <6nj4hg$gr6$2...@hiram.io.com>, Dr Kromm <kr...@dillinger.io.com>
writes:
>JefWilson <jefw...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Interesting you should say "constraining." The reason I play good guys is
>> because playing evil is just too _easy_.
>
>Correction: playing stereotyped, semi-insane, over-the-top evil is easy.
>This is because all you really need to do is be rabid and indiscriminate.
>Being coldly, calculatingly evil in a subtle, realistic way is extremely
>difficult, mostly because it goes against one's own convictions -- at
>least for most people. It's easy to gun down cops, blow up banks and
>execute the odd incompetent henchman in a game; it's a lot harder to
>spend 2 years of play time making friends with another PC so that you
>can sell him out later on . . .
Uh, actually no. The "stereotyped, semi-insane, over-the-top evil" is more
difficult for me because it's STUPID. The "coldly, calculatingly evil in a
subtle, realistic way" is what's easy for me. The two times a GM has forced an
alignment change on me I've gotten some horrified looks as I've proceeded to
rearrange the local landscape to suit my character. Probably it's because I
believe it's immoral to be stupid, so it's more immoral to be stupid and evil
than it is to be just evil.
Jeff Wilson
GURPS Page: http://members.aol.com/JefWilson/rpg/
"It's immoral to be evil, it's more immoral to be STUPID and evil."
Knight
Very good, thanks. Has anyone actually written any gurps stuff up for
Sinster/Dexter?
cgla...@hotmail.com
In article <6nj402$gr6$1...@hiram.io.com>,
Dr Kromm <kr...@dillinger.io.com> wrote:
>
> >> How do other members of the list refer to this situation? Cool similes
> >> for being blown away are always useful
>
> "Experienced structural failure."
> "Died of kinetic-energy poisoning." (not original, but a classic)
> "Ready for the Zombie spell."
> "Blown into spare parts."
"Assumed room temperature." (another not original, but a classic)
"Stared down the pipe and saw the light at the end of the tunnel."
"Became one with the ecosystem."
"Requested an immediate audience with his patron god."
"Tried to debate the right of way and lost."
Xplo Eristotle
Dr Kromm wrote:
>
> JefWilson <jefw...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Interesting you should say "constraining." The reason I play good guys is
> > because playing evil is just too _easy_.
>
> Correction: playing stereotyped, semi-insane, over-the-top evil is easy.
> This is because all you really need to do is be rabid and indiscriminate.
That can be said of pretty much any character with a strong character trait,
actually. Playing Bully is easy. Playing Delusions is easy. Playing Compulsive
Lying is easy (if you can remember to lie all the time!) Playing a "normal"
character, OTOH, is a lot trickier, because you can't support characterization
with wild stereotypical behavior.
> Being coldly, calculatingly evil in a subtle, realistic way is extremely
> difficult, mostly because it goes against one's own convictions -- at
> least for most people. It's easy to gun down cops, blow up banks and
> execute the odd incompetent henchman in a game; it's a lot harder to
> spend 2 years of play time making friends with another PC so that you
> can sell him out later on . . .
That, and it takes a lot of patience to wait that long to reveal your
character's nature and intentions...
Xplo "Endymion" Eristotle xp...@infomagic.com
# Grand Master - Lunar Inquisition #
Yog: http://www.infomagic.com/~xplo/index.html
delph...@geocities.com
sw wrote:
>
> In article <199807031813...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, JefWilson wrote:
> >In article <3599B5...@compuserve.com>, Knight <10671...@compuserve.com>
> >
> >>"bad guys", that characters with any moral scruples. I find it very
> >>consrianing in genres/games where heroism is required, such a Feng Shui.
> >>Lokking over some recent characers, about two are government assassins,
> >>one's a sadist, and all of them would definately end up dead,dead,dead at
> >>the end of most movies.
> >
> >character face a challenge of some sort. Of course, sometimes I just need to
> >relax, so I do play bad guys on occasion.
>
> several complimentary factors.
>
> First is the characterization thing -- True Evil(tm) is easy to understand,
> typically because anyone who's truly evil is well over the event horizon
> for insanity and accellerating rapidly. Cool, calculating dark-greyness is
> much more difficult (as are all the other shades of darker grey).
> Constructing a villain with an understandable viewpoint, who may be "evil"
> but isn't just a hopeless bloody loon is pretty hard. Also hard is
> resisting that tendency to give them a suppressed nice streak...
You could look into Shadowrun(but look at what they say, not what they
do).
> Second is plotting. Heroes are reactive, villains must be proactive. This
> is always hard.
The only solution to this I've found in keeping a collection of
villainous things handy, and consulting it periodically.
> Third is the fact that a PC-played villain is much less (dare I say, utterly
> un-) likely to make that One Fatal Mistake(tm) that lets the heroes win in
> the end. "And then Admiral Morgan conquered the world. The end."
> Tricky.
What's the problem? :)
Doug Atkinson
On 4 Jul 1998, sw wrote:
> I've always found that playing villains is rather difficult, due to
> several complimentary factors.
>
> First is the characterization thing -- True Evil(tm) is easy to understand,
> typically because anyone who's truly evil is well over the event horizon
> for insanity and accellerating rapidly. Cool, calculating dark-greyness is
> much more difficult (as are all the other shades of darker grey).
> Constructing a villain with an understandable viewpoint, who may be "evil"
> but isn't just a hopeless bloody loon is pretty hard. Also hard is
> resisting that tendency to give them a suppressed nice streak...
>
Looking back on the villain campaigns that ran in my college
group, I can say that the basic niceness of the players showing through
can be a definite problem. In the first campaign they would up hanging
out with the heroes a lot (my fault; the campaign had no foundation, but a
really cool final session that sort of made up for it.) In the second, we
had:
A character who wasn't bad, just misunderstood. (I don't think
the player could have made an evil character; he was one of those who was
heavily into character identification.)
A character who wasn't so much evil as completely amoral and
self-centered.
A character who wasn't too bright and worked with the villains
because he had a crush on the team leader; apart from somewhat disgusting
personal habits, he could have been a hero just as easily).
A character who wasn't evil at all, and I'm not entirely sure why
he defined himself as a villain (the player was also into character
identification, although less so).
And the team leader, who was emotionally dead...she made the most
convincing villain, but was also fairly similar to the player's favorite
heroic character.
I, at least, find it hard (even as a GM) to run characters that do
things I find really repugnant, because I want to be able to live with the
voices in my head. :) I want to be able to get into my characters' heads
enough to know how they justify what they do, and a rapist or racist is
far-enough removed that I can't reach that point. (Not to say that I
can't ever use one as an NPC, though my better villains tend to be more
subtle partially for this reason.)
Another problem that comes to mind: Villainy is relative, of
course, and blatant situational ethics are more common in RPGs than in
real life. (Partially because of their roots in mayhem and loot,
partially because games more often deal with Really Big Problems--if
you're saving the world from Cthulhu, what's a little theft?--and
partially because it can be a break to cut lose in fantasy in ways you the
player wouldn't.) Not that all PCs are immoral thugs, but if yours are,
then your villains have to be *really* bad...
--Doug
Gregory Loren Hansen
In article <6njjvp$ehh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <cgla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <6nj402$gr6$1...@hiram.io.com>,
> Dr Kromm <kr...@dillinger.io.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> How do other members of the list refer to this situation? Cool similes
>> >> for being blown away are always useful
>>
>> "Experienced structural failure."
>> "Died of kinetic-energy poisoning." (not original, but a classic)
>> "Ready for the Zombie spell."
>> "Blown into spare parts."
>
>"Assumed room temperature." (another not original, but a classic)
>"Stared down the pipe and saw the light at the end of the tunnel."
>"Became one with the ecosystem."
>"Requested an immediate audience with his patron god."
>"Tried to debate the right of way and lost."
"Retirement due to health problems." -- In a description of the Mob in
Paranoia.
--
"Don't just do something, stand there!" - Buddha
sw
In article <199807031813...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, JefWilson wrote:
>In article <3599B5...@compuserve.com>, Knight <10671...@compuserve.com>
>
>>This doesn't follow directly, but I always find that I far prefer playing
>>"bad guys", that characters with any moral scruples. I find it very
>>consrianing in genres/games where heroism is required, such a Feng Shui.
>>Lokking over some recent characers, about two are government assassins,
>>one's a sadist, and all of them would definately end up dead,dead,dead at
>>the end of most movies.
>
>Interesting you should say "constraining." The reason I play good guys is
>because playing evil is just too _easy_. When I game I prefer to have the
>character face a challenge of some sort. Of course, sometimes I just need to
>relax, so I do play bad guys on occasion.
I've always found that playing villains is rather difficult, due to
several complimentary factors.
First is the characterization thing -- True Evil(tm) is easy to understand,
typically because anyone who's truly evil is well over the event horizon
for insanity and accellerating rapidly. Cool, calculating dark-greyness is
much more difficult (as are all the other shades of darker grey).
Constructing a villain with an understandable viewpoint, who may be "evil"
but isn't just a hopeless bloody loon is pretty hard. Also hard is
resisting that tendency to give them a suppressed nice streak...
Second is plotting. Heroes are reactive, villains must be proactive. This
is always hard.
Third is the fact that a PC-played villain is much less (dare I say, utterly
un-) likely to make that One Fatal Mistake(tm) that lets the heroes win in
the end. "And then Admiral Morgan conquered the world. The end."
Tricky.
--
"Ideas are not usually a good thing..." -- Tom Russell, describing RACC.
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make
my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." -- Voltaire
sw
In article <359D83...@geocities.com>, delph...@geocities.com wrote:
>sw wrote:
>> First is the characterization thing -- True Evil(tm) is easy to understand,
>> typically because anyone who's truly evil is well over the event horizon
>> for insanity and accellerating rapidly. Cool, calculating dark-greyness is
>> much more difficult (as are all the other shades of darker grey).
>> Constructing a villain with an understandable viewpoint, who may be "evil"
>> but isn't just a hopeless bloody loon is pretty hard. Also hard is
>> resisting that tendency to give them a suppressed nice streak...
>
>do).
I had scads of first edition Shadowrun books... I don't think they'd be
very helpful, though.
>> Second is plotting. Heroes are reactive, villains must be proactive. This
>> is always hard.
>
> The only solution to this I've found in keeping a collection of
>villainous things handy, and consulting it periodically.
"What're we going to do tonight, Brain?"
>> Third is the fact that a PC-played villain is much less (dare I say, utterly
>> un-) likely to make that One Fatal Mistake(tm) that lets the heroes win in
>> the end. "And then Admiral Morgan conquered the world. The end."
>> Tricky.
>
> What's the problem? :)
Besides the fact that it's then tough to provide real challenges besides
the occasional arch-rival or rebellion... this is the point of the game when
your character realizes he/she didn't spend any points on Global
Administration skill...
delph...@geocities.com
sw wrote:
>
> In article <359D83...@geocities.com>, delph...@geocities.com wrote:
> >sw wrote:
> >> Third is the fact that a PC-played villain is much less (dare I say, utterly
> >> un-) likely to make that One Fatal Mistake(tm) that lets the heroes win in
> >> the end. "And then Admiral Morgan conquered the world. The end."
> >> Tricky.
> >
> > What's the problem? :)
>
> Besides the fact that it's then tough to provide real challenges besides
> the occasional arch-rival or rebellion... this is the point of the game when
> your character realizes he/she didn't spend any points on Global
> Administration skill...
Sounds like a fatal mistake to me!
HoL
delph...@geocities.com wrote:
> Knight wrote:
> >
> > > This makes the .45 round coming at the firefly equvalent to a 45" round
> > > coming at you. That's a striaght-to-paste without rolling situation.
> >
> > How do other members of the list refer to this situation? Cool similes
> > for being blown away are always useful, and one of my players reads
> > Sinster+Dexter, so I can't use them.
How about a simple:
The [insert weapon thing] has negatively impacted your lifeforce. =O)
HoL
-Friendly PsYCHoPaTH-
"V is for VIRTUE so i aint gonna hurt you.
E is for EVEN if you want me too."
Nick Cave - LOVERMAN
Lance
Doug Atkinson wrote:
> A character who wasn't so much evil as completely amoral and
> self-centered.
This is, I think, the xD&D definition of Evil. Then again , I never met aGM (no,
make that DM) who liked any alignment I played;-(
--
Lance Berg
http://empyre.net
Xplo Eristotle
Tim Hall wrote:
>
> On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 12:24:28 -0700, Knight
> <10671...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> >To give examples, my two of my latest charactes tend
> >to show almost no regard for human life, including one incident in a car
> >chase where one drove a small tank through a McDonalds, just to cut a
> >corner.
>
> Sounds like a perfectly sensible things to do, since McD are a well
> known evil megacorp hell-bent on total world domination. If I had a
> tank I be tempted to do the same...
Naah, Disney and Microsoft are worse. Which isn't to say that, if someone
offered me the chance to plow through a McDonalds in a tank, I wouldn't take it...
Pinochet
Xplo Eristotle wrote in message
>Tim Hall wrote:
>> Sounds like a perfectly sensible things to do, since McD are a well
>> known evil megacorp hell-bent on total world domination. If I had a
>> tank I be tempted to do the same...
>
>Naah, Disney and Microsoft are worse.
How can you guys forget the evil that are the Long Distance companies,
such as MCI and AT&T? Not to mention Time Warner and Nike.
> Which isn't to say that, if someone offered me the chance to plow >through
a McDonalds in a tank, I wouldn't take it...
I'd prefer a Bulldozer or other construction equipment. Unless the tank
is one of Colonel Hammer's.
Blank Dave
>
>I am surprised no one has brought up Glen Cook's Black Company as a model
>for playable villains.
It's all in the looking. In my group, the times we played as ourselves, we
were rivaling the villains in villainy. We'd mock them, call 'em names,
steal their stuff. Then we'd turn around push innocents around etc. Sure
we were the "good guys," we were out to save the world, but we would stoop
pretty to do it. Like I said we'd fight with the NPCs there to help us.
Our standard arguement for this behavior was "we don't want to be doing this
in the first place." We were usually drafted in these games, so we were
fighting both sides. But our Aura Battler games, we were like the Black
Company, stuck between two groups who couldn't convince us they were good,
usually by pissing us off.
What I'm saying is bad guys can be used as good guys, just they won't be
very good.
--
Blank Dave
Leg Breakers
We kick ass cheaper
Cuz we enjoy it
Vos MC
Xplo Eristotle (xp...@infomagic.com) wrote:
: Tim Hall wrote:
: >
: > On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 12:24:28 -0700, Knight
: > <10671...@compuserve.com> wrote:
: >
: > >To give examples, my two of my latest charactes tend
: > >to show almost no regard for human life, including one incident in a car
: > >chase where one drove a small tank through a McDonalds, just to cut a
: > >corner.
: > Sounds like a perfectly sensible things to do, since McD are a well
: > known evil megacorp hell-bent on total world domination. If I had a
: > tank I be tempted to do the same...
: Naah, Disney and Microsoft are worse. Which isn't to say that, if someone
: offered me the chance to plow through a McDonalds in a tank, I wouldn't take it...
Speaking of the great Satan himself, Bill Gates would make a perfect
villain for a big campaign. He's making billions by selling crap to
the world, and he's trying to conquer the world by controling every
computer, and thereby the people's access to information. And he
crushes the competition by either bying them, or by giving a similar
product away for free.
Now, instead of turning this into a ms-windows versus everything else
flamewar, try turning it into a "What would a campaign with Bill Gates
as main villain look like"-thread.
ttfn,
mcv. <><