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

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> 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?

Aliens vs. WW2 troops is going to make for boring games unless your
aliens are using 1970s-level technology, incompetent leadership at all
levels, and no tactical or operational doctrine worthy of the name.  I
actually read that series too.

Just my .02 cents.  Said it before, will say it again.	Asymmetrical
warfare makes for crap games played by actual gamers.  It isn't much
fun in real life either, but that's a side conversation.  Asymmetrical
warfare relies on the insurgents being able to avoid confrontation
with the counterinsurgents under any but the most carefully planned
circumstances--and that's flat out boring on the table.

Tech levels ought to be relatively close--anything that cannot
penetrate body armor worn by front line troops or which cannot
generate enough firepower to go head to head with a unit of front line
troops need not be modeled.  It's a waste of time because troops armed
with that low a level of technology will not stand and fight against
front line troops, and human nature being what it is, you are unlikely
to convince them to try unless they are suicidal death cultists.  And
in that case, they are actually more likely to strap bombs to retarded
girls and go try to blow up markets full of civilians rather than
Soldiers.  Again, not an interesting game.

As for the original question of SAWs, I vote for keeping them.	I
disagree with the original statement that the rifleman is closing the
firepower gap or is likely to close it completely--perhaps in relation
to WWII bolt action vs. WWII GPMGs, but not enough to remove the role
of the SAW.  The US tried to get rid of the "automatic rifle" role by
giving it to regular rifleman armed with an M-16 on full auto, but it
didn't really work out.  The rifle couldn't handle the job, and we had
to buy a "SAW" (dual purpose LMG and Automatic Rifle) from the
Belgians as a result, as well as taking away the full auto capacity
from the riflemen.  A bipod mounted weapon with provisions for
accurate sustained automatic fire will be, under any technological
permutation I can imagine, be heavier and require more
ammo/batteries/whatever than you will want to issue to every single
Soldier.  Hence they will be issued on a more limited basis than your
rifle-equivalent.

John
-- 
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani

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