Re: John A.

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 13:01:52 -0600 "Allan Goodall" <agoodall@att.net>
writes:
>On 3 Nov 2003 at 12:11, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
>
>> 1)Low-tech DSII. As far as mixing tech levels, it's a 
>> waste of time.
>
>This is a really, really good point!
>

Agreed, the difference between HVC and MDC is a lot less then with
pre-2100 stuff versus 1970's (much less 1940's) stuff.

>> Now, the SAW category in SGII 
>> presumes that exotic propulsion technologies (binary 
>> liquid, gauss, ETC, etc) push the muzzle velocities 
>> and sustained ROF of SAW-weight weapons up to GPMG 
>> levels and hence the distinction between these weapons 
>> disappears.
>
>To me this seems a lot like the computer concept, "it's not a bug, 
>it's a feature!" I haven't seen anything in the SG2 rule book, this 
>list, or the playtest list to suggest that Jon T. designed the game 
>with the above in mind. Maybe he did, but I haven't seen anything 
>about it. I suspect, instead, that John A. is rationalizing the lack 
>of GPMGs in SG2. 
>
>My own opinion? Using Occam's Razor, I suspect that Jon lumped all 
>machine guns in the SAW category due to the restrictions of the game 
>system. If AGLs have D12 impact and rotary (gatling type) SAWs have 
>D10 impact, that leaves non-rotary SAWs at D8. Likewise if a Gauss 
>SAW has a D12 impact and an AGL has a D8 impact, that doesn't leave a 
>lot of room for the impact of machine guns in general (D10). I 
>suspect that with this level of granularity Jon didn't see the point 
>in the modelling the difference between SAWs and GPMGs.
>
John A. is thinking as a professional soldier and Jon T. is thinking as
a
professional game designer (Yeah, even John has to be aittle envious of
that label <grin>)

>> I've said it before and I'll say it again: SGII does 
>> not model heavy crewserves like the .50 cal or the 
>> Mk19 at all. It's a light infantry game, and light 
>> infantry doesn't have these puppies except on 
>> vehicles. And we all know SGII rules only cover 
>> vehicles because JT couldn't get away with 
>> dispensining with them entirely. 
>
>I agree that it's a light infantry game. I disagree that it's a light 
>infantry game by design. I do agree that Jon made a conscious 
>decision to tone down vehicles, but I think that decision was 
>unfortunate.
>

I plan to use the DS2 table I created for DS2/SG2 crossovers and indeed
almost * everything * has 80 inches or more (usually more) as Close
range...  I think even DFFG/1 is up there.   Yep the DS2 range for APSW
is 120 inches in SG2 terms (converting DS2 to SG2 range sis easy since
1"=100 meters adjust to 1" = 10 meters (IIRC) in math even "I" can do)
and DFFG/1 is a mere 80 inches in an anti-infantry role - the non-HEL LR
champion is MDC/5 at 600 inches in SG2 terms.

Anyone interested in a copy of this Excel spread sheet with almost all
the SG2/DS2 weapons listed with SG2 Inches/DS2 Inches (Anti-infantry and
Anti-armor)  can e-mail me at warbeads@juno.com  and I will forward a
copy from work (look for a ".mil" address ) or warbeads@aol.com since my
juno account does not do attachments..)

Gracias,
Glenn

Hx, SF, and Fx: 6 mm figures, Starships and 1:6K "Wet Navy" warships
are my main interest.	But I have forces in 6 through 25 mm FWIW...

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!