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

["Binhan Lin" <binhan.lin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jon,

 

The issue of ranges is a little misleading - just like the discussion of top speeds of aircraft being stagnant for the last 50 years.  Although a 19th century rifle has similar range to a modern assault rife, the overall effectiveness of the modern weapon is way higher - faster rates of fire, increased reliability, decreased logistics (for a given amount of firepower), increased accuracy, more consistent manufacturing.

 

Extrapolating that to a future wargame, I don't think that ranges are the solution.  Either by using firepower dice, defensive modifiers or some other mechanism, top line weapons should be more effective than "primative" weapons.

 

For instance defensive modifiers - smoke or visibility modifiers to weapons not equipped with IR/magnification/nightvision - i.e. a target that can't be seen due to smoke, foliage, darkness should be harder to hit for primitive weapons.

 

"soft cover modifiers" - a wood or corrugated metal fence, a wood building - things such as arrows would not penetrate - 19th century muskets could penetrate at a penalty, but modern weapons would suffer no penalty at all.

 

Medium cover modifiers - forest, shallow ditch, stone wall - modern weapons take a penalty, but high tech railguns or super propellants do not.

 

hard cover modifiers - concrete barriers, bunkers, steel plates (i.e. bridges or other large structures) - impervious to low-tech and low caliber modern - larger caliber modern and high-tech weapons take a modifier.

 

In all these cases, it is not the range that is important, but the effectiveness of the weapon against the the type of cover - the higher the technology, the heavier the cover needs to be to be effective.

 

Example - in modern terms a sniper with a .50 caliber rifle can kill targets through armored glass that would stop a .50 bullet from a Martini-Henry.  Overall ranges are probably similar, but due to faster muzzle velocity, higher tech bullet materials and better manufacture processes, the modern rifle in going to be effective wheras the primitve weapon is going to make a lead paperweight.

 

In game terms - a high tech opponent is going to have more choices of cover vs. a low tech opponent, so while a board may be filled with terrain, each piece is not of equal value to both sides - light woods may provide cover against a primitve single shot weapon, but be completely useless against hypervelocity rifles that fire hundreds of rounds per minute using advanced Thermal/sonic targeting.

 

--Binhan
 

On 2/9/08, Ground Zero Games <jon@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Dragging this back to the particular question I asked, let me ask it
again in a slightly different way.

Setting aside all the myriad different opinions about what future
warfare may REALLY be like, what do folks WANT from the game?
We sell infantry (from militia to Heavy Power Armour) and tanks (from
tracked to Hi-Tech Grav). What we're writing is a game that allows
people to play with the toys they buy from us. So, it is a given that
the game will be about infantry and tanks, of varying tech levels. If
that means it is more about Science FICTION than about projections of
probable military technology, so be it.

I am assuming that in order to get a "balanced" game, the forces
deployed will get smaller as the tech level increases; so to address
the specific question I asked, do folks WANT the small high-tech
infantry force to be able to shoot and kill enemy infantry at twice
or three times the range that lower-tech troops can, or do you just
want their fire to be more effective but at the same sort of ranges
throughout?

Jon (GZG)



>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@xxxxxxxxx>
>>  You can handwave what ever you like--although I suspect that the
>>  economic costs of training infantrymen/controllers AND buying remotes
>>  for them AND the recovery and maint assets will be prohibitive for a
>>  long, long time.
>>
>>  Which won't stop people from designing them, putting them on TV, or
>>  inserting them into wargames.
>>
>>  It's really a question of what do you want to include?
>
>I could imagine the military backlash against autonomous weapons the first
>time there is a blue on blue incident or the automated weapons get hacked or
>electronically subverted in some way.
>
>You might not have to subvert that much of the weapon systems programming
>just change it's recognition of the IFF codes and suddenly it's surrounded
>by enemies.
>
>If all future infantry are plugged into a datanet receiving all sorts of
>sensor information how would you guarantee that it is 100% secure? I don't
>think there is an unhackable network that humans have built so far so why
>would this not continue into the future?
>
>I think that's why the Mk1 eyeball comment will always be relevant. Human
>beings are likely to be the hardest weapon system to subvert via EM warfare.
>Unless you subscribe to the future weapon systems described by Richard
>Morgan where soldiers get their brains wiped by signals received over their
>comms units.
>
>I think it is likely that weapons will get smarter and do more, but humans
>will always want to be in control of the decision making process.
>
>I agree with John Atkinson that humans are likely to need to be involved in
>future combat for as long as it resembles infantry combat. To quote some old
>sci-fi, "Nothing is more adaptable than a humanoid", maybe that is what we
>will always be able to bring and what will give us an edge, adaptability,
>unpredictability and flexibility.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gzg-l mailing list
>Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l


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

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