Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

If your over 400yds then I call in air support, but having just watched
a 
dvd on the first Mons, where you have the BEF with such a high rate of 
accurate fire with the 303 Enfield, that the advancing Germans thought
they 
were attacking a battalion of machine gun's, I'd say compare the ranges
of 
WW1 rifles to modern assault weapons and you find that the ranges of 
engagement are less for infantry vs infantry now, compared to then.
So well trained troops using a bolt action weapon would have the upper
hand 
over badly trained troops using modern weapon's. And at a greater range
so I 
think keep it simple and playable.

james

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ground Zero Games" <jon@gzg.com>
To: <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 7:27 PM
Subject: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

> Following on from last week's interesting discussions, I want to pose
> a question to the list-mind; this is something that has already been
> talked over on the test list, but I wanted to widen the discussion to
> include everyone on the main list, especially those of you who have
> done this stuff "for real".....
>
> In reasonably open terrain, assuming clear lines of sight, do you
> foresee the advance of INFANTRY weapons technology having much effect
> on engagement ranges against personnel targets?
> I'm working on ideas for SG-style 15mm combat, and trying to decide
> if the RANGE of infantry weapons fire should change with the tech
> level of the weapons, or if just the effectiveness of the fire should
> change with the overall engagement ranges remaining constant.
> I'm looking at tech levels ranging from "Primitive" (bolt-action
> rifles etc), "Basic" (automatic assault rifles), "Enhanced" (advanced
> combat rifles), "Superior" (Gauss and laser weapons) and "Advanced"
> (plasma and fusion weapons).
>
> Discuss......  ;-)
>
>
> Jon (GZG)
>
>
>
>>On Jan 31, 2008 1:21 PM, Damo <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Jan 31, 2008, at 10:52 AM, John Atkinson wrote:
>>>
>>>  > On Jan 31, 2008 6:42 AM, Damo <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>  >
>>>  > Relatively little, actually.
>>>
>>>  What basic tenets have changed in room to room combat?
>>
>>I'm not regurgitating the appropriate field manual.  That is left as
>>an exercise for the student.	But technological changes have been
>>introduced, including the following.
>>
>>Night vision.
>>
>>Automatic or burst fire weapons in the hands of every single
combatant.
>>
>>Automatic Rifles (M-249, RPK) as common issue, with enough ammo to
>>matter.  The only WWII equivalent was the BAR, and that was huge,
>>unweildy, and had a mere 20rd mag.
>>
>>Body armor.
>>
>>Radio communications down to the individual or at least the team
leader.
>>
>>Smaller squads in most 1st World Armies.
>>
>>Vehicle support, frequently armored, integrated at every level.
>>
>>More responsive and more accurate artillery and air support.
>>
>>The impact on MOUT should be immediately obvious.
>>
>>John
>>--
>>"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
>>and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
>>--Vita Aureliani
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Gzg-l mailing list
>>Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>>http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> 

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l