Re: [GZG] Small arms tech and troop quality

>Jon,
>
>[snip]
>
>So I would say good troops should provide an additional firepower 
>factor at any range and should perhaps have slightly longer maximum 
>effective range. (Note, I'm talking practical range, not how far a 
>bullet could actually travel)

We had a very long discussion on the test list about this point just 
a while back; the general consensus of opinion that emerged from that 
was that effective range probably does NOT alter between quality 
levels as much as SGII depicts; the argument for this was that poorer 
troops tend to open fire at longer ranges than they should do in an 
attempt to prevent the enemy closing with them, even if they can't 
really do anything effective at that sort of range. Better quality 
troops have the fire discipline to wait until the enemy are close 
enough that their fire can really be effective, so might actually 
start firing at a CLOSER range than the poor ones.
The outcome of the discussions was pretty much that for game purposes 
we'd be better off using fixed range bands for all troops rather than 
variable ones by quality level. The firers' quality would then be 
taken into account in the weight of effective, directed firepower, 
not at the range it was used.

However, this is not yet set in stone, and I'd welcome further 
discussion and input here.....

>[snip]
>
>Aggregate FP = Troop Q x Weap TL (rating 1-5 for each)
>
>If you aren't rolling FMAesque dice, and just using this rating, 
>then a Troop of Q2 can effectively *be* 2x as good as a Troop from 
>Q1. Same with tech.
>
>If, OTOH, you are using SG style dice, Green D6 vs. Regular D8 isn't 
>a 2x relationship... I'd have to get Beth or OA to speak to the 
>value, but my guess is that's about a 25% increase. Ditto the way 
>weapon FP/accuracy dice go. Even if I'm a better gun (one die type 
>up), it won't be a 2x relationship.
>
>So it sort of depends on the underlying rules mechanics. The balance 
>would be different depending on the backing rules.

To clarify without actually posting the whole resolution mechanic 
just yet (I don't want to do that till I've pinned down a  few more 
things about it), no, this is NOT an FMA-dice based resolution at 
this stage; it will be totalling up of fixed firepower numbers of the 
elements firing (fire will be on a unit-vs-unit basis), modifying 
that total for range, cover and other circumstances, then using the 
modified total to determine number of potential hits on the target 
unit.

>
>But even then, I don't totally like that formula. If we take a test
case:
>
>TL1 Q1: Rabble with smoothbore muskets
>TL4 Q4: Experienced veterans with high tech advanced combat rifles
>
>Is the ratio 16 to 1? I don't think practically that your described 
>tech spread matches with a xN relationship. TL1 and TL5 are closer 
>than 5x and probably so is troop quality.
>
>If you traded weapons:
>
>TL1 Q4: Veteran Gaurds with smoothbore muskets
>TL4 Q1: Untrained rabble with high tech ACRs
>
>The suggestion here would be that the result is equal. I don't think 
>so. All the expertise in the world won't overcome the basic 
>ballistics and ROF of the smoothbore.	Idiots may be using the ACRs, 
>but some of the rounds are likely to find their mark and they shoot 
>a lot more a lot faster and to better range even in the hands of 
>clowns.

Just to clarify, TL1 will be early-mid 20th Century weapons 
(bolt-action rifles), not 19th Century kit. If you want to use 
smoothbore muskets for a particular scenario (VSF, or alien 
primitives etc) , then they will be in a special category of 
"archaic" firearms with significant adverse modifiers to range and 
firepower.

>[snip]
>TomB

Jon (GZG)

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