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

>On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 03:52:55PM +0000, Ground Zero Games wrote:
>>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?"
>
>You're going to hate this answer, but: a linear scale can't really tell
>you. Even in a basic "kill the other guys before they kill you"
>situation, ignoring RoEs:

I don't hate the answer, but I fully expected it.  ;-)

That's why I phrased the question as I did, and then I added all the 
rest of the explanation in the post...	:-)

>
>* Maybe his armour is shotgun-pellet-proof. Or not.
>
>* Maybe his tactical information feed can show him exactly where each
>enemy is at all times. Or maybe his armour is so all-encompassing that
>he can only see a thirty-degree cone in the direction he's pointing his
>head, and he moves at a slow walk.
>
>And so on. I can easily enough build a scenario in which either side
>wins.

Yes, so can we all; the thing is, if we do this, then we might as 
well throw away all wargames rules and reduce it to who can present 
the best argument to the umpire about why their force should win.

There are innumerable other factors, as you rightly point out, that 
will contribute to who ACTUALLY wins. But, in writing a rules system, 
we have to have some method of determining relative effectiveness. To 
take the classic and much-argued WW2 example, most folks accept that 
a Tiger is more effective than a Sherman (in simplistic terms of 
which is likely to win a one-on-one firefight).  BUT, we have to 
determine HOW much better it is, and therefore how many Shermans the 
Allied player must have to "balance" the game against the German 
player's Tiger. You could easily devise a specific and limited 
scenario which makes it quite likely that a single Sherman could 
defeat a Tiger, but that does not mean that the rules should say that 
the two tanks are effectively equal, or even that the Sherman is 
better.

ALL I am talking about is raw weight of firepower in terms of bullets 
or energy pulses being sent downrange with a reasonable chance of 
killing something when they arrive, with all other factors being 
equal for now. The only factors under consideration IN THIS PHASE OF 
THE DISCUSSION are the combination of the firepower output of the 
weapon system and the training/experience level of the guy firing it. 
All the rest will be factored in later.

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

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