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

On Feb 9, 2008 5:10 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> 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 want drones to be a part of it, but not a big part of it.  Small,
cheap drones with TV cameras are going to be more likely to be easily
maintained than complex armed ones.  Think the Raven not the Predator.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/raven.htm

> 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?

Presuming your weaponry more or less continues to resemble Traveler
infantry weaponry, or whatever, there should only be range limitations
on the most primitive weaponry.  IMHO.

Anyone using a 19th century bolt action rifle can engage targets at
the same effective range as a 20th century assault rifle, or longer.
Future ACRs would have higher muzzle velocities or higher effective
rates of fire due to use of exotic propellant technologies (gauss
weapons, binary propulsions, whatever), they would be more accurate
due to better optics, but they are not going to essentially CHANGE.
Or at least, that's been the assumption of Stargrunt in the past and
it makes for good gameplay.  The real determination of accuracy at
long range is, has been, and should remain in game (and IMHO will
remain in the future) training/experience.  Troop quality has been the
emphasis of the Stargrunt game and should remain so.  It's a
refreshing change from other SF games that spend most of their time
worrying about the toys the troops are using.

Forces using smoothbore muskets or bows and arrows should be severely
penalized at longer than point blank range, as should folks armed with
shotguns or submachine gun equivalents.  I could see allowing a force
using expensive optics to drop their rate of fire down to lay
precision fire on long range targets (essentially, at ranges longer
than X, permit fire unpenalized by range, but the FP becomes 1)  I
haven't done the math or playtesting on that, I'll leave it to folks
who enjoy that sort of thing (for the math) and who have time and
opponents (for the playtesting).

John
-- 
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani

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