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

> If I read your comments correctly, you're saying that you believe
> that starting point should be JUST the troop quality, rather than a
> combination of that and weapon tech?

Yes, I suppose so.  Troop quality should be the driving factor, as it
is with SGII.  After all, you can take the best rifle in the realms of
human imagination, and unless it is completely computer-controlled,
the single most important factor that controls whether or not you can
hit the target is the skill of the user.  Give me one kid with a
bolt-action rifle who has been shooting rabbits since before puberty
over a dozen conscripts with AK-47s and ten minutes worth of
instruction on how not to kill themselves with them.

Troop quality is also a more complex issue than a single value--after
all, that country kid might have relatively high ability to use his
weapon, and good fieldcraft, but no discipline or training in teamwork
or small unit tactics.	Conversely, 19th century Grenadier Guards had
high morale, unit cohesion, and discipline, but no fieldcraft to speak
of.

> Agreed, which is why all this and more needs to be factored in at
> later stages. A SAW/LMG should probably have AT LEAST the firepower
> of an infantry rifle fireteam, maybe more, especially at the lower
> tech levels. But we need to start by quantifying the rifle team's
> effect in game terms, before we add in the LMG or whatever.

OK, my personal opinion is that once you achieve selective-fire
capability, there is no where higher to go on the firepower food
chain.	Full automatic weapons actually produce LESS effective
firepower than short bursts, which is why we took away the full auto
from our service rifles, and those nations that retain full auto teach
their Soldiers to fire short bursts as a rule.	Increasing ROF
decreases controllability and does not (without addition of a bipod
and ammunition feed mechanism turning it into a SAW/Automatic
Rifle/Light Machine Gun) actually increase effective firepower.

>>I have deliberately ignored the question of plasma/fusion rifles, as
>>it all depends on how one wishes to treat them in game mechanical
>>terms.  The precise characteristics of the weapon must be more
>>concrete to determine the effects of the weapon on tactics.
>
>
> For the time being, think of them like their Traveller counterparts -
> very advanced and powerful - though probably with less range than
> lasers.

Lasers. . . in Traveller, lethal against unarmored troops, but useless
against even lightly armored troops.  So not generally issued.	:)  As
for Plasma rifles, their main selling point is in ability to penetrate
battledress.  In raw firepower terms, the aren't much better than a
semi-automatic battle rifle.

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