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

I want a game where it's squads, platoons and companies that can engage
each 
other.

I want to be able to refight a Sci-Fi version of Black Hawk Down. Or 
something like Terminator.

One problem that a lot of games have with their "horde" armies, is
that's 
its really expensive to buy the masses of green conscripts and you need
a 
shovel to remove your casualties each turn.

I like the idea that higher tech weapons could select their mode of
firing a 
lot better than a lower tech weapon. Maybe they can change between
sniper, 
assault rifle and shotgun type weapons from turn to turn as the
situation 
warrants.

In regards ranges of weapons, if you have aground scale anything like
the 
scale of the models and terrain then a 6 by 4 table represents about 100
by 
150 yards so a figure with a low tech bolt action rifle should be able
to 
cover the table. I think this is OK, it just means you need lots of LOS 
blocking terrain so that the action can be pretty close and furious.

If you have longer range bands say rifles have 24" range you risk the
game 
being too dominated by heavy weapons, artillery and tanks.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ground Zero Games" <jon@gzg.com>

> 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 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?
>
> Jon (GZG)
>
>
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>
>>>  You can handwave what ever you like--although I suspect that the
>>>  economic costs of training infantrymen/controllers AND buying
remotes
>>>  for them AND the recovery and maint assets will be prohibitive for
a
>>>  long, long time.
>>>
>>>  Which won't stop people from designing them, putting them on TV, or
>>>  inserting them into wargames.
>>>
>>>  It's really a question of what do you want to include?
>>
>>I could imagine the military backlash against autonomous weapons the
first
>>time there is a blue on blue incident or the automated weapons get
hacked 
>>or
>>electronically subverted in some way.
>>
>>You might not have to subvert that much of the weapon systems
programming
>>just change it's recognition of the IFF codes and suddenly it's
surrounded
>>by enemies.
>>
>>If all future infantry are plugged into a datanet receiving all sorts
of
>>sensor information how would you guarantee that it is 100% secure? I
don't
>>think there is an unhackable network that humans have built so far so
why
>>would this not continue into the future?
>>
>>I think that's why the Mk1 eyeball comment will always be relevant.
Human
>>beings are likely to be the hardest weapon system to subvert via EM 
>>warfare.
>>Unless you subscribe to the future weapon systems described by Richard
>>Morgan where soldiers get their brains wiped by signals received over 
>>their
>>comms units.
>>
>>I think it is likely that weapons will get smarter and do more, but
humans
>>will always want to be in control of the decision making process.
>>
>>I agree with John Atkinson that humans are likely to need to be
involved 
>>in
>>future combat for as long as it resembles infantry combat. To quote
some 
>>old
>>sci-fi, "Nothing is more adaptable than a humanoid", maybe that is
what we
>>will always be able to bring and what will give us an edge,
adaptability,
>>unpredictability and flexibility.
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Gzg-l mailing list
>>Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>>http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l 

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