 To build a Green Beret..., No, not the silly hat... |
  |
 Jan 12 2008, 11:12 PM
Post
#101
|
|||||||||
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,323  |
I still think you're over-estimating the average soldier. My personal belief would be expert=3, all others=2. Skill 4 isn't going to be attained by someone in basic training/OSUT without either a lot of natural talent or previous training. The instruction just isn't that good. On that same topic, sniper school isn't really all that impressive either. What it does do is bring you up to competency in a number of skills that aren't as emphasized otherwise (infiltration, long rifle, even land-nav to a large extent.) You won't graduate without a skill=3 in a number of different areas, and some people may have skill=4 as a result of previous experience + training, but it doesn't make you a superhero. Military training is often lowest-common-denominator, meaning that it brings troops up to the LOWEST standard possible, which frankly isn't that high. Troops can excel in these schools, but it is often a factor of natural aptitude rather then the quality of instruction, but that's maybe 30% (anecdotally) of the trainees.
I do agree with these figures though.
I'm sorry that reality doesn't jive with your world. Two simple facts that you need to accept are (a) Game designers often have no clue about the systems they are modeling and (b) Just putting on a green suit and making a trip to the 'Benning School for Wayward Boys' doesn't make a superhero. I can understand the reluctance to let go of the published skill table, but it becomes a question of 'Are you looking for statistics that reflect reality or a table created by someone who hasn't done any of the high-speed things he's writing about?" Either way is actually fine, but it's important to recognize which side of the simulation/arcade divide you are trying to create statistics for. |
||||||||
 |
 
|
||||||||
|
Jan 13 2008, 02:09 AM
Post
#102
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
The reality of the game is that with skill levels translated lower than said table, such a character will reliably accomplish... nothing. Which doesn't fit reality either. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 13 2008, 02:37 AM
Post
#103
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,210 Joined: 5-September 05 From: Texas Member No.: 7,685 |
Don't forget that when they give a grunt or beat cop a three, they are likely a one or two with a specialization in their rifle or service pistol. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 13 2008, 05:36 AM
Post
#104
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,408 Joined: 31-January 04 From: Reston VA, USA Member No.: 6,046 |
Yes, trainees in military boot camp are qualified marksmen. Trainees in boot camp who fail to qualify with at least the minimum passing score (marksman) are re-trained and sent back to the range until they can qualify, even if it means knocking them back to a later graduating class. In reality, many rear-echelon soldiers rarely use rifles, and therefore never get past this point. Only those soldiers who consistently train on the range show much improvement. Grunts (i.e. infantry soldiers, a/k/a 'crunchies' by tankers like me) put more emphasis on rifle marksmanship than any other MOS, and they are the ones who elevate their scores up to sharpshooter and expert. Also, this is just the average rating. You'll invariably find some regular infantry NCOs who still barely qualify as Marksman, and a few prodigy recruits who shoot expert (or better). So no, not every military grunt is a Sharpshooter, but the average one probably is.
Many times trained officers do accomplish very little. (The following example is not intended to make light of the tragic shooting of an innocent man, but just to illustrate that many professionals with guns are shockingly bad shots.) February, 1999 - Four plain clothes police officers confront Amadou Diallo. Observing the suspect reach into his jacket, they [mistakenly] believe Diallo to be reaching for a gun and open fire. The four officers fire 41 shots at close range with no cover and good lighting against a [mostly] still, standing target [Threshhold 1], but only hit him 19 times (46% accuracy). In their cases, giving them Agility 3/Pistols 3 would be overly generous. Perhaps their 6DP was reduced by -3 when they all failed their Composure tests? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jan 13 2008, 05:48 AM
Post
#105
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 609 Joined: 13-August 07 Member No.: 12,615 |
I dare anyone to go to Ft. Bragg and tell a group of Green Berets that their hats are silly.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 13 2008, 07:10 AM
Post
#106
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,883 Joined: 16-December 06 Member No.: 10,386 |
Oh, I'd argue that reliably accomplishing nothing with firearms isn't that weird. People miss pretty damn often in real life, especially in a firefight when they're concentrating as much on keeping their heads down, keeping track of where everyone is and suppressing enemy positions. In both shadowrun and real life fire fights at close quarters between equally "skilled" grunts with minimal cover are pretty damn deadly on both sides while fighting from cover can result in a stalemate until someone suppresses and flanks. If anything we're just being skewed by the fact that shadowrun gunfire tends to come across as rather crazy accurate since firing off a burst of gunfire is treated as one all or nothing attack for the sake of speeding things up and the fact that a jacked up and cybered Street Samurai tends to be crazy accurate; we get to thinking in terms of a 60-80% chance to hit with any given round being fired with automatics against a hostile target as being normal when the reality just isn't so. There's a lot of situations where simulating reality would likely require firing a helluva lot more and hitting less in the same short combat round.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 13 2008, 09:12 AM
Post
#107
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
A 2% hit rate from small arms is considered pretty good in real combat. That means you average infantryman hits someone 4 times going though their 210 round basic load in a multi-minute firefight.
In SR everyone is crazy accurate. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 13 2008, 11:40 AM
Post
#108
|
|||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Nope. Not even for Grunts. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 13 2008, 12:05 PM
Post
#109
|
|||||||
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Actually, that would make 'Qualified Marksmen' Skill 3 - to have passed boot camp. But thanks for the buzzwhack.
Sure, that's the usual gauss of incompetence and talent. And if you aim to build an incompetent specop, that's perfectly fine.
Actually, the incident happend after midnight, qualifying for partial lighting (-2). Depending on the story you want to believe, he either ran away in front of his door (+2 on his dodge) or opended the door which is partial cover (-2). That nets the average officer a total of 2 dice, with the average target having 3 dice to start to dodge with in the latter case - 4 and 5 vice versa. One office even was said to simply fall down the stairs and thus injured, reducing the pool further. But, honestly - that story has so many variants it not even funny anymore. My point, on the other had is - having the average start dice pool of 6 in combat isn't actually that impressive. In fact, someone trained for more dire circumstances needs a bit more. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 13 2008, 01:00 PM
Post
#110
|
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,168 Joined: 15-April 05 From: Helsinki, Finland Member No.: 7,337 |
Well, i try to take anything in a game with a grain of salt. They aren't meant to mirror real life. Some come closer than others(SR is one), but the game also has elves, dwarves, magic, dragons, devil rats, giant armadillos that eat motorcycles, krakens, adepts, full AR, laser beams, giant bears with tusks, and i could go on. Even back in SR3, they discussed how full-auto weapons aren't fully real life, because IRL, they are acutally insane in their ROF. If they copied them, anyone could turn any character to swiss cheese in a hurry. So they made it more 'comfy' for the game.
In a game, you're not playing Joe Average unless you WANT to play Joe Average(attributes 2 maybe 1 or 2 at 3, skills 0-1, with a 2 for the one they are specialized in, like the profession). I'd think Special Forces guys would be well above that. And even above your 'typical shadowrunner', who is built with 400 BPs. Now, i know for a fact that 400 BPs is workable for one of these guys. We've spent 150-170+ on skills MANY times and still had points left over. Assume(ok, the way we do it), a handful of positive and negative qualities(which equal to about +15 on average at the end...say +10, -25, and that's nothing worse than the Sample Characters did), for 415. 200 for Attributes, 10 Edge, 10 Contacts(ok, we also use the Cha x2 Contact Point rule, if not, add a few more points on if you like), and 25 resources. Yep, 170 points left to spend(155 if you don't take any extra negative qualities, or anywhere in between depending), and that's a load to play with. If you decide to keep them at edge 2 if human(a friend of mine had a good point saying that sometimes experienced characters might have lower than average Edge...thinking they may have gained and burnt it over their careers.) Now, with that many skill points at their disposal(yeah, i understand not everyone uses Cha x 2 contacts, but bear with me for this example, it can be adjusted by a few points), ill allocate some skills. Using my method of +15 BPs aver all(415), and this can run from 170-180(if Edge is not spent). Firearms group 4(40), or if you prefer a speciality, seperately. More points, but sometimes them's the breaks. If you want a Sniper, Longarms(Rifles) 5(+2), Automatics 2, Pistols(Semi Automatics) 3(+2) for a total of 44 points. Or divided up as you choose, depending. Total: 40-44. Close Combat group 3. (30 points). Or, again, divided up. Or you might want someone very adept at fighting in close. Say Unarmed Combat(pick style): 4(+2), Blades(Knives) 4(+2), for a total 36 points. Running total: 70-80. Heavy Weapons: 3-5, depending on your concept.(12-20 points). Running total: 82-100. Pilot Ground Craft(say Wheeled, unless you want a tank pilot.). 2(+2). Now, there is room for super special forces drivers...but even with 170 you should pick some sort of focus, unless you really want the jack of all trades. 10 points(running total, 90-110). Perception(Visual) 2(+2). Maybe more for a sniper...id say 3(+2) at least. Running: 100-124. Dodge(Ranged) 1(+2). 2(+2) if you have some points left. But something here is nice. Running: 106-134. Athletics Skill Group: 1-2. I'd say a Special Forces guy has some skill here. Again, let it depend what you want. 1 should suffice, in the whole group. 116-154. Getting close now, if you've taken the higher end. First Aid(Combat Wounds). For a Combat Medic specialist, this could be higher. But low end, 1(+2) should be cool. Total: 122-160. Infiltration and Shadowing. These are very concept dependent, again. I'd say they should have a minimum of 1(+2), for a running total of 134-172. Social Skills. I think any Special Forces guy should have Etiquette(Military) of at least 2(+2), if not better, but skill points, again, do run out. Negotiations(any merc should indeed know how to negotiate a contract) at 2 for 8, and Instruction/Intimidation as well, if you can. Now the skills are becoming a bit blurry. Ok, so here i go. I'll toss out what i would do in my game. Ill be using Cha x 2 contact points, but it doesn't give enough points to really matter. Im basing it off of an actual concept ive had, but didn't get to play yet. I'll keep Availability in check, though, even though we don't use it at our table. Im not buying gear, though, just for cyberware. Also, ill be sticking to Negative Qualities in the books, but we have converted the old Negative Qualities of SR3 over already, and thus have had more to choose from. [ Spoiler ] The concept here was more of a front line guy; but with enough stealth and little odds and ends to make him useful in other situations. Special Forces guys don't live long if they are total one-trick ponys. Some people here might find this guy a bit excessive...but looking at it, he's not completely overblown. For his highest skill(assault rifles spec), he does throw down 15 dice with a smartlink. Other gun skills go around 11-13. Melees between 9-12 dice. Social skills float between 5-8 dice, throws 9 dice for Urban Infiltration(this can be changed to Wilderness if it fits the concept) and 7 dice for Tailing. He even throws 6 dice to get someone from dying to somewhat stable with combat wounds...he's far from a doc but he can keep one of his men alive for a while. You could even take a few BP from one skill to move it to Leadership. He's got some negative qualities to work around, but to me, this is around how an experiences Special Forces type would look. Again, depending on type, skills change. I can think that there are many, many combinations...from combat medics, computer experts, stealth ghosts, and the like. The Combat Medic is an idea ive been wanting to play with for a long time, actually. [/endless post] |
|
|
|
|
Jan 13 2008, 05:37 PM
Post
#111
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,883 Joined: 16-December 06 Member No.: 10,386 |
Which is why many of us are talking in terms of starting with a dice pool of 8 (4 agility, 4 Firearms) as the absolute ground floor for Special Ops. Throw in a smartlink and these guys are ALL in the double digits and most of them will likely have an appropriate specialization and/or an augmentation or two boosting them higher. Snipers and guys who've seen a lot of combat or specialize in high risk house-to-house fighting all being in the 5-7 range plus being blessed with higher unaugmented agility wouldn't offend me either. And perhaps most importantly, these things are all relative; there is no "average dice pool of 6" for the average person, there's only an average dice pool of 6 for the average trained soldier. Start with a dice pool of 6, an aimed shot and a short wide burst and and suddenly your average target (and even an average soldier) has only a single die to defend against 7 dice with unless they've got the benefit of full defense and/or cover; in other words, your average soldier will stomp all over the average person in a firefight. Sure, the second everyone takes cover and uses full defense to keep their heads down rather than to shoot back, attacks become wildly innaccurate at these dice pool ranges, but again, as I've said before, I don't see that as a problem as that's basically how combat works. As Ravor's fond of pointing out things don't get wacky until you start comparing these guys to augmented people who are quite happy to take full defense and attack at the same time and have the dice pool to nail you despite cover modifiers. Where he and I differ is that I don't mind augmented characters being superhuman. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 13 2008, 05:56 PM
Post
#112
|
|||
|
The ShadowComedian Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,538 Joined: 3-October 07 From: Hamburg, AGS Member No.: 13,525 |
excuse me but . . ain't that the hollow point of the whole biz ? O.o |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 13 2008, 06:02 PM
Post
#113
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
See, a little while ago I was trying to think how SR3 dice mechanics could be calibrated to more or less line up with real world police accuracy statistics. However, it wasn't so easy to make things "fit". Likewise, I believe you'd encounter a similar problem with the SR4 mechanics when trying to tie it to real world stats. At this point I'm not sure what to do. One option is to use similar mechanics but make significant modifications to gear the system towards what "should" happen in the real world based on statistics. However, this has the problem of potentially getting really complicated and alienating a lot of current SR players. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 13 2008, 06:03 PM
Post
#114
|
|||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,883 Joined: 16-December 06 Member No.: 10,386 |
Different strokes for different folks. Regardless of where you set the power level, however, the important thing to keep in mind in shadowrun is how dicepools perform relative to eachother. Things may scale upwards, but once you've got a single net hit, somebody's losing. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jan 13 2008, 06:10 PM
Post
#115
|
|||||||||
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,168 Joined: 15-April 05 From: Helsinki, Finland Member No.: 7,337 |
Full agreement. Some games have lower averages, others higher. None are wrong. It's what you like. The only times problems arise is when A. People try to shove their gaming styles on others, and accusing other people of having ''wrong'' styles, and B. Sometimes people have different opinions on how to make a character. The Special Forces thread is an example. The example i posted is one that would be found in one of our(my group's) games. He, in turn, might be considered a bit/alot overpowered by other people who have the 6-8 dice norm going. And, in turn, he also might be considered a weakling in others campaigns, who have specialties of 20+ and mid pools of the teens. There is no 'correct way'. Ask 8 people how they would make, say, a Former Company Man. You'll easily get several different ones(and that's assuming they don't change variants...former company troubleshooter, black ops, demolitionist...). Do the same with a Weapons Specialist, and again, you'll get several variants. But, if someone asks an opinion on 'how to make _____?'', best we can do is post our versions and let them decide which fits best. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Jan 13 2008, 09:28 PM
Post
#116
|
|
|
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309 |
That character would, despite being weaker than what I´d expect of SpecOps, be very wellcome in my campaign, and also fit the present power level well.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 14 2008, 03:48 PM
Post
#117
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729 |
Pretty much the whole reason I started this thread is to see what others in the community think in terms of how a 2070 Army Green Beret would be statted out in SR4 mechanics.
I also hoped to be able to share a little of what I've learned over these about these operators and maybe dispel a few myths that some of the community may have about these types of soldiers. I've actually been fairly impressed with most of what I've seen...a lot of you take this sort of thing seriously, and make sure you get do as much research as you can before posting up stuff. I like that. 8-) Plus this thread has started a few debates that I've quite enjoyed as well. That's always a bonus. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 14 2008, 09:06 PM
Post
#118
|
|
|
Cybernetic Blood Mage Group: Members Posts: 3,472 Joined: 11-March 06 From: Northeastern Wyoming Member No.: 8,361 |
As a disclaimer, I'm writing this post before I've completely caught back up on the thread, thanks Whipstitch. ;)
Anyways, as it has been pointed out, I would build Special Forces with natural dicepools of 6-8 in their primary skills with an occasional high-water mark in the soldier's area of expertize, and having the various cross-training and secondary skills being a couple of points lower. For cyberware, everyone, even Mages would at least have a datajack in order to make full use of the various 'softs, sure, a program isn't really a substitute for learnt knowledge, but being able to speak and read any langauge known to man as well as being able to call up detailed cultural references, mission specs, ect with DNI that can't be lost or taken away in a situation where the soldier isn't already completely fragged is just too big of an advantage not to use. I also envision sense-enhancing cyberware as being standard (Especially for Mages.), but not awhole lot of flashy cyber. *Edit* Now some of you may be wondering what seperates Special Forces from Soldiers in my games, well the basic answer is that Special Forces have a broader range of training then a normal grunt. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 14 2008, 09:37 PM
Post
#119
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729 |
I personally feel that, when dealing with What I Think™ Special Forces Operators should have in terms of skills, it comes out looking something like this:
Core Competencies: (skills everyone has, regardless of specialty) Athletics (Group) Influence (Group) Outdoors (Group) Stealth (Group) Close Combat (Group)/or relevant hand to hand skill Firearms (Group, except for Weapons Sgts) Perception Parachuting (all are Airborne qualified) First Aid Instruction (all are qualified instructors) Computer (prob at 1 unless Commo specialty) Hardware (same as above) Demolitions (prob at 1...everyone knows how to setup breaching charges and how to demo equipment, Engineers will have a much higher skill) If I had more time, I'd go into what skillsets would be found with each specialty, but I have to jet. I leave the ratings of said skills up to the rest of you... |
|
|
|
|
Jan 14 2008, 09:49 PM
Post
#120
|
|
|
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951 |
Don't forget:
Heavy Weapons - without it, you can't even handle a grenade launcher or LMG. Electronic Warfare - it covers everything concerning SigInt for those specialists. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 15 2008, 06:16 AM
Post
#121
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 385 Joined: 20-August 07 Member No.: 12,766 |
I'm also concerned with how Special Forces will have changed in the Sixth. The Matrix is a reality, and network warfare will probably be as serious a battleground as land or air is today. You're also going to have to address how a Special Operations Company may have changed with the advent of magic.
In general, I agree that a UCAS Special Forces Soldier would probably be a better then average shooter. Perhaps a four in his main category. However, I really see two true differences with special forces. The first is education and approach; special forces would approach a problem with a totally different strategy and capability background then average troops. The second varies by branch: From what I've read, Rangers are generally exceptional light infantry, and their strength comes from physical and mental hardening, and refined combat skills. In SR4, I would give them higher ranged and melee skills, as well as slightly higher bod and willpower. The pure Green Beret units seem to have a special emphasis on stealth, so I would give them higher stealth stats. Delta Force does a lot of fast-moving urban operations, so they'd probably have cyber similar to a corpsec HTR team. SEALs would have better then average transportation skills (particularly RIBs and like), and probably generally more talent in demolition then their Army counterparts. Finally, I see Air Force as having a lot of communications training and equipment, as well as a good strong Matrix background. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 15 2008, 02:37 PM
Post
#122
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729 |
Yeah, I forgot about the heavy weapons skills...probably because I generally use some house rules for that. But yeah, all Special Forces operators should be at least borderline competent with GLs and LMGs, as well as tripod .50 cals (HMGs), and vehicle mounted ballistic weapons (from LMGs to miniguns...prob some Gunnery too). I'm not so sure about EW, though. I can see all the members of an ODA having training on some EW/Commo equipment, but using most of that should fall under the Computer skill rather than the EW skill, I would think. IMHO, the EW skill itself would probably only be known by the Commo Sgts and Intel Sgts. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jan 15 2008, 03:46 PM
Post
#123
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729 |
A couple of things here. First off, the info warfare stuff just means that commo sgts will be THAT much more critical to successful operations, and that the rest of your ODA will have to have that much more technical training on commo related equipment. As for Magic, that's a whole new ballgame. I would bet that ODAs would either move to 13-man teams with a Warrant Officer Mage slot, or possible there would be a single Mage per SF Company, attached as needed to ODAs. It would be idea for each ODA to have a Senior and Junior WO Mage, but I don't think the numbers would be there. I doubt there are enough awakened people who have full spellcasting capability AND the ability to pass SF Selection. And like I said in an earlier post, I would be that the Team Mage's spells/training would revolve around intel gathering and doing things that you can't replicate (or can't easily replicate) with mundane means. I think you'd see the following spells in an SF Mage's repertoire: -Analyze Truth (more for dealing with indigs than for interrogation) -Clairaudience (fucking awesome for gathering intel) -Clairvoyance (same as above) -Detect Enemies/Extended (priceless when clearing buildings and moving through hostile territory) -Detect Life (lots of uses here) -Detect [Object] (Detect Explosives, Detect Firearms, etc...) -Cure Disease (this would be HUGE for building trust with indigs) -Heal (duh...) -Stabilize (another duh) -Influence (these aren't the Americans you are looking for...) And not to mention spirit summoning, astral perceiving/projecting, and warding. All VERY good abilities to have.
Agreed. That's what makes them "Special". 8-)
Just gonna add some clarity here. When I use the term "Special Forces" in this thread, I have been specifically speaking about the US Army Special Operations Groups, which are sometimes called Green Berets because of their headgear. This is a SPECIFIC group of Special Operators, and not just a generic term for all Special Operations capable units. Their missions and responsibilities are oftentimes different than what the Rangers, SEALS, CCTs, PJs, DevGRU, and CAG do. Just so we are all on the same page here...I've been talking about a specific organization, not just SpecOps in general. Moving on...
Pretty much correct.
Higher than whom? The average light Infantryman? Sure, I'll buy that, though I don't think the SR4 system is granular enough to reflect the small differences between the two. If anything, the Rangers only really surpass other light Infantry in their motivation/morale.
Not sure where you get that from. Infiltration skills are important, but aren't necessarily emphasized any more for ODAs than for other small groups of operators. Social skills are probably much more at the top of the list for ODAs than for any other US SpecOps unit.
Delta, or CAG (Combat Applications Group) is primarily a counter-terror unit, and so yes, room clearing, hostage rescue and other such ops are their forte. So I would agree that you would be more likely to see HTR Team equivalent cyber in their units than in an ODA.
I don't know as much about SEALs as I know about Army SF, but I don't feel that your statement here is accurate. Rangers and SF train in using RHIBs, and because of their regular army backgrounds, probably also get some training on Military Ground Vehicles (namely Hummers and transport trucks). SEALs might get more vehicle-based training, but I haven't read anything to confirm or refute that. And as for Demo, each ODA has two Engineer Sgts that are probably experts with all types of demo...and probably have an EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) background. Again, not sure why SEALs would have a leg-up on SF when it comes to demo.
Well, I'm guessing you are talking about the Air Force Combat Controller Teams (CCTs) and Pararescue Jumpers (PJs). Again, they would be experts at using the equipment that is specific for their missions, but ODAs have Commo Sgts, which are probably Matrix experts, Drone Rigges, and EW guys all rolled into one. Again, I'm not positive, but I would bet that ODAs have more matrix/commo expertise than any given CCT or PJ unit. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Jan 15 2008, 04:32 PM
Post
#124
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,883 Joined: 16-December 06 Member No.: 10,386 |
I certainly understand how SEALs could have that reputation since they're basically the direct descendents of the Underwater Demolition Teams and it's likely still a big part of what they do. On the other hand, I would think Special Forces would at some point be trained to a comparable level since they're supposed to be able to do eachother's jobs, and demolitions isn't really a field where it's acceptable to "sort of" know what you're doing.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 15 2008, 04:42 PM
Post
#125
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729 |
Especially since the two Engineer Sgts in an ODA probably have the Combat Engineer MOS before they get into SF, which means they have a shit-ton of Demolitions background.
I had forgotten about the SEAL BUD/S stuff. So what you would have is a basic level of demolitions competency across the entire SEAL team, while SF would have a much higher level of demolitions skill isolated to two soldiers per ODA. Makes sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 13th November 2025 - 03:47 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.