Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 39, Issue 13

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:50 AM,  <gzg-l-request@mail.csua.berkeley.edu>
wrote:

> I think this is getting way too fiddly. SG2 is a game where the
infantry squad is the basic unit, so I don't think SG2 needs to get down
to the level of what sort of sight is mounted. At the level of squad
shooting, in the field rather than on the range, I think the
troop-quality factor is plenty. A key part of the SG2 philosophy is,
after all, that a lot of shooting isn't really aimed at individual
targets anyway, but employed to suppress the opposing force.
>
> The rules don't say anything about assuming iron sights, or any other
specifics of infantry weapons, and looking at the wide adoption of
optical sights today, I doubt if iron sights would be the standard in
two hundred years (though a prudent military might well continue to have
them on the rifle just in case). Presumably the rules simply assume the
"standard kit" with which a soldier of the period is likely to be
equipped, and reduced effectiveness for improvised or obsolete
lower-level firearms is already included.
>
> Finally, when it comes to weapon/sight/shooter combinations that
really are a "step up" from the standard infantry, there are already the
sniper rules.

What he said, plus:

Granularity.  There's only so many die shifts you can do in the
system.  It handles well "good, better, worse" pretty well.  Anything
more precise than that is creeping in the realms of far more
complicated games with thicker rule books and percentile dice.

John
who liked Striker II, but can't find opponents
-- 
"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@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l