Re: Low Tech Scenarios

You wrote: 

>Most bolt action military rifles were .30 cal (7.62mm) and the old 
mussel >loaders were even larger calibers (.56cal? 14.22mm?) I would 
suggest it >would be more accurate to have a higher Impact d10 or d12 
even to reflect >the heavier calibers. 

Nao, can't believe that a black-powder weapon has same impact as a 
gauss rifle.  Larger caliber, but _much_ lower muzzle velocity.  Leave 
it d8 or so.  

>Why not give the low tech troopers really good close assault weapons 
like >bayonets, entrenching shovels (re:WWI) and or a shot gun or two. 
I >beleive these would be classed as terror weapons.  

Feh.  Not likely.  We already discussed this.  Bladed weapons are 
already taken into account in the reaction and confidence checks in the 
normal Stargrunt rules.

>NATO Pltn: 3 6/7 man sqds, a MG & sniper team (Lt & Sqd sargent for HQ
>sqd!)

Which NATO forces have such _small_ squads?  I know US Light Infantry 
is 9-man squads.  USMC is 13, IIRC.  Plus US Army platoon HQ is (LT, 
PSG, RTO), MG team (2xM-60 teams, SAW, M-203) and often a medic.  The 
only time you'd have a 6-man squad is a US Army mechanized infantry 
platoon, and they 1)Wouldn't go on a pilot recovery unless they were 
already close to it, 2)Would bring their Bradleys along for fire 
support, 3)Not many Serbs would be stupid enough to tangle with 
that-four 25mm chain guns will ruin your day.  Plus NATO forces have a 
nasty tendency to have air support on call when doing stuff like this.	
It's a good scenario idea, but to call the hi-techers NATO causes too 
many problems.

John M. Atkinson