Re: Low-Tech Forces in DSII

Oerjan spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> Hm. If low-tech forces are effective against high-tech ones, something
is
> badly wrong...

AGreed (prefaces my other comments)
 
> I'd say "draw 1 chit in close combat per 2 elements, AFTER the
high-tech
> force has fired". These guys are trying to get within spear or sword
> reach of enemies armed with assault rifles/SMGs, hand grenades etc.
Since
> DSII assaults are fought out at ranges up to 200 meters, there's no
way
> they'd be as effective as normal high-tech line infantry. Cost? Not
sure,
> but I don't think I'd want to pay more than 1 point.

Note: Range (Max Effective) of Longbow - 200+ yards. Range of some 
crossbows - as 525 meters. And I have heard tell of crossbows passing 
a shot through a greave, the leg of the target, through the greave 
again, through the horse, through the other greave, and into the 
other leg..... which admittedly is unlikely. A lot depends on the 
weapons/time period. I agree that they should fire after taking 
casualties. But they could have an effective range of 1" for bows and 
2-3" for crossbows.
  
> Read some battle descriptions from the Zulu war, for example - the
Zulus
> were pretty much like how you describe the low-tech Melee Militia, but
> the British were far, far inferior of even a DSII militia unit - and
they
> still slaughtered the Zulus in most of the fights. (When the Brits
didn't
> do something terminally stupid, that is... <g>)

Of course, if instead of fighting the brits on the savannah, the bow 
armed enemy faded into the jungles in skirmish formation 
1. You wouldn't kill many at once as you'd have no large taget to 
put your superior FP on
2. They'd retreat before you, then ambush you, kill a guy or two, 
then fall back, (maybe lose that ambush, but they can spare it)

There are situations where old tech troops can be nasty, but stand up 
fights is a good recipe for mass death. 

> In DSII, 1" = 100 meters. Unless the bows and crossbows you're talking
> about have modern composite bows and very advanced sights, there is no
> way an archer or crossbowman can hit and do any real damage at 3-400
> meters.

If using heaviest crossbows, they can. But more likely a 2" range is 
called for. 

 Within DSII close assault range (2", ie 200 meters in real life)
> their weapons can have some effect - but even a trained archer can't
do
> much better than 12 arrows per minute; a crossbowman with a light
> crossbow might manage 3.

12+ if using a Chokyuno repeating crossbow. (Chinese)

 How much lead can an assault rifle fire in that
> time?

A lot. :)
 
> I realise this sounds as slamming down on your ideas. I don't mean to
> sound that harsh, but... unless the background gives some very good
> explanations as to how the low-tech forces can be even a remote
challenge
> for the high-tech ones, the low-tech ones should be slaughtered in
droves
> while inflicting very little damage on the high-tech troops.

Not that I'd want to be in that situ, but I think I could bleed the 
high tech forces and I'd certainly never take them to a set piece 
pitched battle. Hit, run, hide, hit, run, hide. And dispersed units! 
Or air and arty kill you. But you could hurt the small high-tech 
force. But it might not make a fun DS2 battle (turns of doing nothing 
as your troopies looked for the elusive enemy.... then a one squad 
attack on one squad...some casualties....a retreat/death for the 
low-tech ambusher....repeat ad naseum...)

 The
> exception is when a small high-tech detachment gets ambushed or
attacked
> while sleeping.

That's good. Or captures vehicles in bearpits.... :)
Greek fire down the engine intakes and breathing funnels would be bad 
for a tank. 

Tom.  
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/