Prev: Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 39, Issue 13 Next: Re: [GZG] [FT] Beam batteries as point defense

Re: [GZG] [SG2] Sights and FCS for infantry

From: Tom B <kaladorn@g...>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 02:11:16 -0500
Subject: Re: [GZG] [SG2] Sights and FCS for infantry

Gzg-l mailing list to
disagree with you, Robert.

The sniper rules are almost like a whole other game - they are a
vastly dis-similar to the rest of normal play. Even the marksmen rules
posted on under the rules section, which are
alien and potent than the sniper rules are still meant to address the
one or
two man sniper team, not squads with higher technology weapons with
performance at range.

One thing SG-2 assumes is that everyone more or less has the same tech
and deployment strategy. It makes little allowance for better or worse
technology, except insofar as you could argue some weapon types are
and thus justify a higher FP rating (but that's a pretty minor benefit).
also posits combat ranges which are short, which may be borne out in
cases in the modern world, but there are a lot of gunfights going on
days at longer ranges as well. I'm not sure I see that going away in the
period referenced by SG, and yet the rules really do limit ranges.

I think there is some argument that there is room for a greater breadth
technology level in SG-2. Doubly so if you are using SG-2 mechanics for
non-GZG setting in which there is more variance than that in the
GZG setting.

The thing about adding these sort of flavours is *you don't have to use
if you don't like them*. I wouldn't be worried about an overly
new SG-3 coming out anytime soon. This is just simply people saying
for their purposes, they'd like a bit more variance in technology

I don't think sights/optics alone justify 2-4 die shifts. I just don't
they have that much impact. Do I think they have no impact? No. I think
die shift either way is enough. One die shift to range also opens up an
additional range band, translating to an extra 80m of range for REGs and
100m for vets. Technology might just justify doing that.

I'm happy to see discussion like this on the list. Even though I perfer
small perturbations of existing mechanics to large ones, I still think
having options and discussing them is a good activity. Otherwise the
gets old and dies.

Tom B.

Prev: Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 39, Issue 13 Next: Re: [GZG] [FT] Beam batteries as point defense