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

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l"Is
there any particular reason the SF trooper let the farmers get within 
effective range. "
 
Because they were trying to avoid a confrontation because it would (for
example) draw attention to them instead of doing the real mission.
 
They might not have been gunning for farmers. They might have been
waiting for a High Value Target (TM) and were hoping to hide with a very
low profile until then...

F.P. Kiesche III
"Ah Mr. Gibbon, another damned, fat, square book. Always, scribble,
scribble, scribble, eh?" (The Duke of Gloucester, on being presented
with Volume 2 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.) Blogging at
The Lensman's Children and TexasBestGrok!

--- On Tue, 12/16/08, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

From: Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [GZG] Question: small-arms tech and troop quality....
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 12:31 PM

Is there any particular reason the SF trooper let the farmers get within

effective range.  Because if he's that good, he'd have laid a load of 
booby traps and a kill zone out before he even thought about fighting 
them.	Then he would find himself a nice secure point or two to do some

sniping.  If he did his job even reasonably well, he should be facing 
half a dozen petrified wounded survivors who dearly want to live.

The question as it stands sounds like a wild west gunfight and if he's 
dumb enough to do that then who cares how good he is,  he's got no 
common sense.  His weapon simply woundn't put out enough effective FP to

take all of them unless he's using a star trek phaser on wide beam.

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?"
>
> OK, now to put it a little bit into context.....
>
> If we have a (game) situation where there are five levels of troop 
> quality from 1 = Untrained up to 5 = Elite, and similarly five bands 
> of "tech level" where 1 = primitive firearms (that's
"primitive" in 
> the SF sense, eg: early to mid 20th century stuff, bolt-action rifles 
> and such) and 5 = highly advanced weapons (plasma/fusion rifles), 
> then is it in any way reasonable to calculate effective firepower by 
> a simple multiplication of the two factors?
>
> Being a little more specific, we have:
>
> Troop Quality:
>
> UNTRAINED = 1 	(civilians and militia rabble)
> GREEN = 2		(unblooded troops, conscripts and better
militias)
> REGULAR = 3		(most standing armies and more experienced
conscripts)
> VETERAN = 4		(experienced battle-seasoned troops)
> ELITE = 5			(special forces, the best of the best)
>
> Weapons tech:
>
> PRIMITIVE = 1 	(early 20th century firearms and simple 
> civilian weapons)
> BASIC = 2			(mid-late 20th century firearms)
> ENHANCED = 3		(early 21st Century weapons - today's best, 
> plus early lasers, gauss etc)
> SUPERIOR = 4		(better lasers and gauss, early plasma)
> ADVANCED = 5		(extreme tech, advanced plasma/fusion, alien
ultratech)
>
> The obvious extremes, as in the original question above, are 
> Untrained troops with Primitive weapons at 1 x 1 = 1, and Elites with 
> Advanced weapons at 5 x 5 = 25. More average examples might be:
>
> Veteran troops with Basic weapons  = 4 x 2 = 8
> Veteran troops with Superior weapons	= 4 x 4 = 16
> Green troops with Superior weapons = 2 x 4 = 8
> Regular troops with Enhanced weapons = 3 x 3 = 9
> Elite troops with Enhanced weapons = 5 x 3 = 15
> Untrained troops with Enhanced weapons = 1 x 3 = 3
>
> Don't worry for now what these final numbers actually MEAN in game 
> terms - what I'm wanting to get discussion and opinions on are how 
> people here feel about the RELATIVE values. This is all very 
> simplistic at this stage and of course takes no account of the 
> effects of cover, concealment, range, armour or anything else that 
> will matter a lot. All I'm talking about is the ability to place an 
> effective weight of fire down on a target area, at whatever we decide 
> to be the effective combat range for a given type of weapon.
>
> Input from those who have seen real action are very welcome as always 
> (and by the way, John A - glad to hear you're safely back home!), but 
> everyone's opinions, whether armchair expert or professional, will 
> add to the discussion.
>
> Over to you.....  :-)
>
> Jon (GZG)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.17/1846 - Release Date:
12/12/2008 18:59
>
>   

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