[GZG] Question: small-arms tech and troop quality....

Here's a deliberately vague and provocative question to get a 
stimulated debate going...... <GRIN!!>

"Is one super-trained elite special forces soldier with the best 
cutting-edge high-tech weapon worth 25 untrained farmers with 
shotguns?"

OK, now to put it a little bit into context.....

If we have a (game) situation where there are five levels of troop 
quality from 1 = Untrained up to 5 = Elite, and similarly five bands 
of "tech level" where 1 = primitive firearms (that's "primitive" in 
the SF sense, eg: early to mid 20th century stuff, bolt-action rifles 
and such) and 5 = highly advanced weapons (plasma/fusion rifles), 
then is it in any way reasonable to calculate effective firepower by 
a simple multiplication of the two factors?

Being a little more specific, we have:

Troop Quality:

UNTRAINED = 1		(civilians and militia rabble)
GREEN = 2		(unblooded troops, conscripts and better
militias)
REGULAR = 3		(most standing armies and more experienced
conscripts)
VETERAN = 4		(experienced battle-seasoned troops)
ELITE = 5			(special forces, the best of the best)

Weapons tech:

PRIMITIVE = 1		(early 20th century firearms and simple 
civilian weapons)
BASIC = 2			(mid-late 20th century firearms)
ENHANCED = 3		(early 21st Century weapons - today's best, 
plus early lasers, gauss etc)
SUPERIOR = 4		(better lasers and gauss, early plasma)
ADVANCED = 5		(extreme tech, advanced plasma/fusion, alien
ultratech)

The obvious extremes, as in the original question above, are 
Untrained troops with Primitive weapons at 1 x 1 = 1, and Elites with 
Advanced weapons at 5 x 5 = 25. More average examples might be:

Veteran troops with Basic weapons  = 4 x 2 = 8
Veteran troops with Superior weapons  = 4 x 4 = 16
Green troops with Superior weapons = 2 x 4 = 8
Regular troops with Enhanced weapons = 3 x 3 = 9
Elite troops with Enhanced weapons = 5 x 3 = 15
Untrained troops with Enhanced weapons = 1 x 3 = 3

Don't worry for now what these final numbers actually MEAN in game 
terms - what I'm wanting to get discussion and opinions on are how 
people here feel about the RELATIVE values. This is all very 
simplistic at this stage and of course takes no account of the 
effects of cover, concealment, range, armour or anything else that 
will matter a lot. All I'm talking about is the ability to place an 
effective weight of fire down on a target area, at whatever we decide 
to be the effective combat range for a given type of weapon.

Input from those who have seen real action are very welcome as always 
(and by the way, John A - glad to hear you're safely back home!), but 
everyone's opinions, whether armchair expert or professional, will 
add to the discussion.

Over to you.....  :-)

Jon (GZG)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l