Prev: Re: [GZG] UN Recruiting Video Next: Re: [GZG] QUESTION: are SAWs becoming less significant...?

Re: [GZG] QUESTION: are SAWs becoming less significant...?

From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:24:17 +0000
Subject: Re: [GZG] QUESTION: are SAWs becoming less significant...?

>Ground Zero Games wrote:
>>
>>  Let's just assume for this example that a fireteam's base firepower
>>  (by weapons tech only, before modifying for troop quality) is 1 for
>>  PRIMITIVE weapons, 2 for BASIC and so on up to 5 for ADVANCED.  This
>>  is for a team armed with individual weapons ("rifles") only.
>>
>>  Primitive (bolt-action rifles)				Base FP
= 1
>>  Basic (semi-auto rifles and early automatic rifles) 	Base FP
= 2
>>  Enhanced (improved automatic rifles)			Base FP
= 3
>>  Superior (gauss and energy weapons) 		Base FP = 4
>>  Advanced (very-high-tech energy weapons)		Base FP = 5
>>
>>  
>>
>I know this doesn't address your SAW question, but I think you should
>drop the Primitive category and have something like this instead.
>
>Basic (semi-auto rifles and early automatic rifles)	Base FP = 1
>Enhanced (improved automatic rifles)			Base FP = 2
>Superior (gauss )					Base FP = 3
>Advanced (energy weapons)				Base FP = 4
>Very Advanced (very-high-tech energy weapons)		Base FP = 5
>
>I don't know how many folks want to run games where the low tech 
>opponents only have bolt action rifles. But (as an example) in the 
>Traveller universe there are tech levels where troops are armed with 
>plasma weapons which are then replaced by fusion weapons. I would 
>argue that a squad armed primarily with a gauss rifles compared to a 
>squad armed primarily with plasma rifles are not only going to have 
>different impacts, but markedly different firepower as well. This 
>would allow you to represent that while keeping your 1 - 5 scale.
>
>-Mark Kinsey

An interesting point, Mark; while I'm not writing a Traveller 
ruleset, of course, but one that is as generic as possible, you do 
raise a good question as to how low a tech level should we start the 
scale with.

I guess the question is whether anyone really wants to play with very 
low-tech forces (I'm talking early-mid 20th century level here, not 
"archaic" tech)? Obviously there are the alternate-history games to 
consider, with aliens vs WW2 troops and such, but how common might 
these be compared with "straight" SF games with future-tech forces?

Opinions, anyone?  ;-)

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


Prev: Re: [GZG] UN Recruiting Video Next: Re: [GZG] QUESTION: are SAWs becoming less significant...?