Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL]Infantryweapons [SEC=PERSONAL]

Sounds the best to me.	One of the strengths of Stargrunt is the
emphasis on the Quality of the troops instead of the best toys.  
Most movies and books nearly always emphasises how the better troops
were more effective at a given range (even with nominally similar
weapons).
Small arms should cap out at FP:4 instead of FP:3 if a greater range of
tech is needed to be modelled.

Suggestion (without going into 1/2 multiples):
FP 1/2: muzzle/breach loaders/crossbow ("Brown Bess")
FP 1: Bolt action/longbow ("Lee Enfield .303")
FP 2: semi-automatic ("civilian M16")
FP 3: fully automatic ("military M16")
FP 4: full auto w/- grenade launcher ("Aliens Pulse Rifle")

One suggestion regarding squad firepower (purely rules, as opposed to
probable reality) is to cap support weapon die to the size of the small
arms die.  ie: if the squad currently has FP:8, then the SAW has a
maximum of FP:d8 (even if a FP:d10 or d12 weapon).  This gives a
rules-based balance to squad construction, without an artificial army
list arrangement.
The rules should still support individual fire of support weapons, but
will remove the oddness of 1 man firing his FP:2 rifle and 5 SAW/IAVR @
FP:5d10 in the same action.

Also, overflow of squad FP when you exceed d12. Or open shift of the
range die for X amount of firepower (more firepower = smaller range
die).
(NB: I have NOT checked the math for this)
FP:16 = 2d8 or d12+d4 or -1 range shift
FP:20 = 2d10 or d12+d8 or -2 range shift
FP:24 = 2d12 or -3 range shift
If a range shift is used, the cover die from DS2 would probably need to
be used (otherwise cover is not worth a lot).  Casualties determined
using the larger of range or cover die type.
Dug In, +2 range shift
Soft Cover: d6
Hard Cover: d8
Fortified Cover: d10
Invulnerable Cover: use vehicle rules.

Brendan
'Neath Southern Skies
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/ 

> -----Original Message-----
> From:  On Behalf Of 
> Ground Zero Games
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 7:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Infantry weapons [TO BE CLASSIFIED]
> 
 
> In game terms, I think it best to model increasing weapons 
> tech as raising the volume of fire laid down (hence the 
> chance of getting
> hits) and the lethality of those hits; range will remain 
> primarily a function of the quality of the firer, perhaps 
> modified for sensor tech where appropriate.
> 
> Any other opinions on this....?
> 
> 

______________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT
1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses. 
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information 
     for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, 
     please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email. 
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not 
     a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise
stated. 
4. Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous
publications 
     and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic
messages. 
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
     of this type from DVA. 
6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.

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