Re: Technology of 2183

On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Thomas.Barclay wrote:

> The nameless critic speaks out again:
> 
>   Actually it's nothing like changing the system.  The system is a
bunch
> of weapons with a die associated with them.  You're the one
associateing
> bullet size and rate of fire with the weapons and getting irked that
they
> don't match.
> 
> ** Hmmm. I'm not just inventing it - at least I perceive myself to be
> deriving some portion of the description directly from the text in the
SG2
> rulebook. 

  But we aren't talking about actual weapons here.  This sort of
argument
is appropriate for a WW2 game where the rules might not match how the
weapons ACTUALLY are, but here you are talking about fictional weapons
in
an unforseeable future.  In otherwords, take the die-roll you get for
what
it is and be happy.
 
>   Fine, whatevever, but it's just as valid to say they
> get d6 unless your crystal ball is that much better than mine.  Mine
> personally says that things as large as a human won't play much part
on
> the battlefield in the future, but hey... it's a fun game.
> 
> ** Yes. However, I believe my contention is that if a human fired
support
> weapon can be rolling d10s and d12s, and given we're presuming our
human is
> not something unrecognizably advanced and presumably vehicle weapons
mounts
> move forward at the same rate, then their is no way *COMPARITIVELY*
that I
> can see to justify d6 for the vehicle. I'm not arguing for more than a
D6

  It sounds sort of like you're arguing that the person who made the
background made the stats for his weapons wrong by using the background
to
say he's wrong...
  Maybe it's like Dune and all the AI is 'steam powered.'  :)  

> for weapons guidance - or if I am it is only when taken in the context
of
> the effectiveness of the infantry FP die. All I'm suggesting is if, as
we
> seem collectively to realize, we're playing a game that loosely mimics
> today's world - we still have infantry, tanks, etc and most of the
stuff is
> recognizable modern day kit with some sci-fi PSB bolt-on boiler-plate,
then
> isn't it perhaps desireable to try to reflect the proportionality of
modern
> infantry SAW efficacy of fire to that of vehicle mounted gunnery?
Especially
> when the vehicle mounted technologies seem surficially more likely to
> progress (since they have far more areas to improve and a far faster
rate of
> imporvement) than said human-fired version? 

  And thats exactly why I was discussing making WW2 weapons like muskets
and blunderbusses in my earlier post...
  My future idea of what the battlefield will be like is quite a long
shot
from being anything like SG2, but hey, as long as SG2 is a fun game and
the play isn't broken, I'm not going to complain.