Re: GM-controlled Bad Luck points

gleichman wrote:
> As an owner and firer of both, I can attest to the fact that there
> were basically no reliability improvements. The gun recently brought
> by the marine corps is the same design (being rebuilt 1911A1 pistols),
> although modified to closer tolerances to provide better performance
> at the cost of a reduction in reliability. The Marine corps, with
> their tradition of outstanding weapons maintainance (and the fact the
> weapons were intended for their more elite members) considered this a
> fair trade off.

I don't know enough about the subject matter to comment on some of the 
above, but I'm surprised at the last - I was under the impression that 
military pistols were issued to people who aren't expected to use them? 
Drivers, cooks, staff officers etc, as a "better than harsh language" 
measure if there's a screwup and you end up facing rifle-armed enemies.

On-topicness: in a few weeks I'm likely to have to roleplay some 
platoons of the Royal Marines of Windermere, tech level circa 1900, in 
an amphibious assault. I have the idea they'll be armed with rifles, 
bayonets and one machine gun or other heavy weapon per boatload; would 
they carry revolvers as secondary weapons?

Semi-automatics do exist in the game world, but as new-fangled things 
prone to jamming, so I thus far have them as the Special Security 
Department's trademark weapon. (Rationale: if the only firefights you're 
likely to get into are by surprise at close range and one-off, rate of 
fire and ammo capacity matter more than sustainability. Does that make 
sense?)

-- 
"Always look on the bright side of life."
To reply by email, replace no.spam with my last name.