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

On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 1:10 PM, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> 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.

I have zero military experience, but I do think that it's instructive
that the NATO round decreased in size since WWII. Certainly, there are
many factors at work, but clearly something is going on.

Jon, one thing you might consider is an obsolete firearms rule. This
would cover obsolete weapons, plus hunting weapons, hand weapons and
even improvised weapons not intended for combat. Once you have that
(obviously, such weapons are exceptions to the rule), the weapons you
have left are military-grade weapons that will kill or wound an
unarmored target if they hit, and can put out a decent enough rate of
fire for suppression. Weapons can have a penetration ability (as
currently in SG2 with "impact") that is technical in nature, as John
suggests to defeat armor/countermeasures, much as they do now.

What could increase firepower? Some kind of auto-aim feature, to
improve accuracy. Some kind of weapon that either has a very small
projectile or is a pure energy weapon, so troopers could use full auto
without ammunition or accuracy problems. I could even picture a weapon
that uses a speaker and computer-controlled fire to ensure that just
enough noise and dust are kicked up to suppress enemies, but real
bullets are only fired when the computer estimates a good probability
that a shot would hit something. Perhaps, borrowing from someone
higher up in the thread, a networking feature that helps troopers know
when and in what direction targets are most likely to appear. But I
can't picture many advances that would increase firepower by changing
the actual payload that's fired.

> 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.

This highlights one of my favorite features of SG/DS: that people are
more important than gadgetry. I'd rather invest more stats to describe
my troops as units (leadership, confidence, motivation) than their
stats as individuals or their gear. It's actually a beef I have with
Full Thrust, which eliminates crew and leadership issues entirely.

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