Re: do GMS/P troopers carry ARs?

sportyspam@harm.dhs.org wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Michael Sarno wrote:
> > >	I think any arguments that should be made should be kept
strictly at the
> > > game balance level.  Although it's fun to bash around our
assumptions like
> > > this, we all know it isn't going to get anywhere.  :)
> >
> >	I can't gree here.  Game balance is a secondary consideration. 
If both sides
> > have to abide by the same rules, game balance becomes a matter that
is belt
> > addressed on the level of scenario design.	Besides, the only way to
hash out any
> > rules change or house rule is to perform a reality check.
>
>   Game balance is the primary concern.  If the game doesn't work, it
isn't
> fun and there isn't any point playing it.  To take this to an extreme,
> imagine a weapon that kills everything on the enemy force when
triggered.
> Okay, roll to see who goes first... trigger weapon... win.  Did you
> have fun?  The 5 second game.

    Again, this is a scenario design issue.  Using your argument, it
would seem logical
that tactical nukes don't exist.  However, they do exist, we just don't
see them often
because they would make for a lousy game.

>   Reality check?  The only check is against game balance.  You might
think
> support weapons in the future will jump out of the dead persons
> grasp and into the arms of someone else, it's just as viable to say
that a
> weapon self destructs when it detects the user dies so the enemy can't
use
> it!

    Now you're just being silly.  No one mentioned anything along the
lines of
smartmetal guns running to catch up with the squad.

>  You can't make a 'reality check' against something that isn't real.

    Yes you can, you simply compare the situation to your source
material.

> >	Besides, it doesn't really matter how complicated they're going
to make a
> > weapons system in the future.  If it's designed for grunts, a
support weapon is
> > always going to be able to be picked up quickly (Just how quickly is
the point of
> > this discussion. <g>)  by a comrade should the operator fall in
battle.  That's
> > the way it is know, and that's the way it is in the vast majority of
sci-fi combat
> > we've seen.
>
>   Certainly using comrades, or enemy's, weapons is a nice little
dramatic
> flair we see in movies.  I wouldn't say it occurs in the vast majority
> though, and it's usually the hero that does it.  The G.I. Plain Janes
> doen't get enough camera time to waste watching them spend 5 seconds
> swapping weapons.

    Picking up a SAW isn't just something for films and TV.  It's a fact
of modern
combat and will most likely to continue to be a fact.

-Mike

--
Michael Sarno

http://vietnam.isonfire.com
Check out the Charlie Company Discussion Group:
Info, resources, and links for RAFM's miniatures
skirmish wargame of infantry combat in Vietnam 1965-1972

"Tradition refuses to submit to the small and
 arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen
 to be walking about."
 -G.K. Chesterton