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

>Assuming that the purpose of the discussion is leading to an expression
of
>the points value of units in a wargame, then you need to factor in the
>mission types.

Thought the DO have some bearing on points values, the actual point 
of the initial question was to determine infantry small-arms fire 
resolution, not cost points. Overall combat value is a very different 
thing, which needs to include command and control, mobility, 
survivability and all the rest; at this time I'm only concerned with 
very specific question of useful firepower output when engaging the 
enemy with small-arms fire.

>
>If the mission involves protecting the base line from the enemy, say
against
>a zombie horde or whatever or its a rescue the downed aircrew in no
mans
>land, then a small number of power armour elite troops might not be
able to
>be in enough places on the table to achieve the mission and simply be
>swamped by the low tech hordes.
>
>If the missions are simply to kill each other then it could be a
reasonable
>place to start.
>
>As has been mentioned morale and training are not necessarily the same
axis
>but could be 2 different dimensions. Historically training and morale
has
>not always been the same. The recent discussion on mercenaries could
leave
>you with highly trained mercenaries that are reluctant to get killed
>unnecessarily, or you could get units motivated by belief in the system
but
>who are not well trained.

Yes, and this will all be taken into account!

Jon (GZG)

>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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