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

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

The issue of ranges is a little misleading - just like the discussion of
top
speeds of aircraft being stagnant for the last 50 years.  Although a
19th
century rifle has similar range to a modern assault rife, the overall
effectiveness of the modern weapon is way higher - faster rates of fire,
increased reliability, decreased logistics (for a given amount of
firepower), increased accuracy, more consistent manufacturing.

Extrapolating that to a future wargame, I don't think that ranges are
the
solution.  Either by using firepower dice, defensive modifiers or some
other
mechanism, top line weapons should be more effective than "primative"
weapons.

For instance defensive modifiers - smoke or visibility modifiers to
weapons
not equipped with IR/magnification/nightvision - i.e. a target that
can't be
seen due to smoke, foliage, darkness should be harder to hit for
primitive
weapons.

"soft cover modifiers" - a wood or corrugated metal fence, a wood
building -
things such as arrows would not penetrate - 19th century muskets could
penetrate at a penalty, but modern weapons would suffer no penalty at
all.

Medium cover modifiers - forest, shallow ditch, stone wall - modern
weapons
take a penalty, but high tech railguns or super propellants do not.

hard cover modifiers - concrete barriers, bunkers, steel plates (i.e.
bridges or other large structures) - impervious to low-tech and low
caliber
modern - larger caliber modern and high-tech weapons take a modifier.

In all these cases, it is not the range that is important, but the
effectiveness of the weapon against the the type of cover - the higher
the
technology, the heavier the cover needs to be to be effective.

Example - in modern terms a sniper with a .50 caliber rifle can kill
targets
through armored glass that would stop a .50 bullet from a Martini-Henry.
Overall ranges are probably similar, but due to faster muzzle velocity,
higher tech bullet materials and better manufacture processes, the
modern
rifle in going to be effective wheras the primitve weapon is going to
make a
lead paperweight.

In game terms - a high tech opponent is going to have more choices of
cover
vs. a low tech opponent, so while a board may be filled with terrain,
each
piece is not of equal value to both sides - light woods may provide
cover
against a primitve single shot weapon, but be completely useless against
hypervelocity rifles that fire hundreds of rounds per minute using
advanced
Thermal/sonic targeting.

--Binhan

On 2/9/08, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
>
> Dragging this back to the particular question I asked, let me ask it
> again in a slightly different way.
>
> 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
>