On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:30 PM, <gzg-l-request@mail.csua.berkeley.edu>
wrote:
> So are takeing into consideration say smartgun links, eg point the dot
You've never actually fired a weapon, have you?
When you run, you are moving up and down--and tiny variations in the
position of the muzzle translate into large deviations in the position of the
bullet 100m downrange.
You can run and fire with lots of weapons, but you aren't going to hit shit
except by accident.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Wed, Jul 7,
2010 at 3:14 PM, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:30 PM,
He's talking future weapons, not contemporary. Take into consideration the
evolution of the tank. When it was first fielded, shooting while moving
accuracy was pretty dismal. Nowadays, shooting while moving is pretty
realistic. Who's to say in 50-100 years hence infantrymen won't have the
same or similar technological capabilities? We're not trying to model combat
in 2020 here (well, okay, maybe some are :-D ).
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lA tank has mass
and serious stabilization mechanics working for it too.
I'm with John on this one
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com
From: Indy
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 1:20 PM
To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 35, Issue 9
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:14 PM, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:30 PM,
> <gzg-l-request@mail.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> So are takeing into consideration say smartgun links, eg point the
You've never actually fired a weapon, have you?
When you run, you are moving up and down--and tiny variations in the
position of the muzzle translate into large deviations in the position of the
bullet 100m downrange.
You can run and fire with lots of weapons, but you aren't going to hit shit
except by accident.
He's talking future weapons, not contemporary. Take into consideration the
evolution of the tank. When it was first fielded, shooting while moving
accuracy was pretty dismal. Nowadays, shooting while moving is
pretty realistic. Who's to say in 50-100 years hence infantrymen won't
have the same or similar technological capabilities? We're not trying to
model combat in 2020 here (well, okay, maybe some are :-D ).
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Wed, Jul 7,
> 2010 at 3:26 PM, Michael Brown <mwsaber6@msn.com> wrote:
> A tank has mass and serious stabilization mechanics working for it
I say it's all relative. Gotta be open-minded about some stuff. :-) We
have
image-stabilized cameras, no? What's to say that that technology won't
some year be married with an HUD targeting system for infantry weapons?
And people used to say there was no physical way possible to fly faster than
the speed of sound. Proved that wrong, didn't we? Now it's common-place
knowledge.:^)
Mk
Present day, I'd agree. 2 centuries down the road? I think it's quite
realistic to assume that by then you'll have a "steadycam" for rifle barrels
that compensates for movement, or metastable guided rounds that to some
limited extent can steer themselves. Certainly you'll have it for laser
weapons.
Rob
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Michael Brown <mwsaber6@msn.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Wed, Jul 7,
2010 at 3:40 PM, Robert Mayberry <robert.mayberry@gmail.com>wrote:
> Present day, I'd agree. 2 centuries down the road? I think it's quite
Where I was going with this. Two posts back I said not present day, not even
near future (like, not 2020). But 50-100 years hence? I totally can see
it being a reality. How to model it game mechanic wise? I didn't cross that
line yet. :-D
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAnd people used
to say there was no physical way possible to fly faster than
the speed of sound. Proved that wrong, didn't we? Now it's common-place
knowledge.:^) Mk
=====
People also said we'd be flying to work, living on Mars or the moon, etc. by
2000 (or sooner). There's a lot of things we think we'll be able to do or ways
we think we'll be able to use things (using nukes for civil engineering
projects like creating reservoirs, for instance) that turn out to be not
feasible.
The dynamics of the human platform will limit the ability of infantry to
identify, select, and engage targets on the move. You have to have a high SA
(situational awareness) in combat, and when moving, your SA tends to be lower
(one reason we stop when we want higher SA). Also, you have to be able to
concentrate on the movement itself at times. Then there's the issue of hitting
what you aim at.
So you are clearly talking about 3 different improvements that would be
required: a) Ability to maintain SA while on the move to spot targets and
identify
targets from non-targets and to prioritize them
b) Ability to move smoothly and without problems or risk while identifying
targets on the move c) Ability to hit targets on the move with man portable
weapons
Now, tanks can do all of this sort of thing because *they are big* and have
room for suspensions, stabilization systems for guns, computer fire control,
sensor rigs, and even then, point A) is still very hard (many inputs on the
battlefield and managing that is still a big challenge) and point B) is
moderately difficult (as good as stabilization is, when you bump through rough
terrain, you do experience disruptive motion that may interrupt line of sight,
etc).
A human in powered armour might manage more of what you are talking about, but
a human without powered armour and using the kind of weapons seen on GZG
miniatures (mostly rifles of 20 years from now AFAICS) is not going to be
capable of that.
Ground combat wise, we are imitating life from WWII to 2040 at best with SG or
DS. 2300? Ground combat may not even happen in the sense we think of and one
would expect a very heavy drone and AI contigent not seen in the
GZGverse. The minis and the rules are modern or mid-to-late 20th century
+ a
few sci-fi bolts ons.
So, in that environment, moving and shooting will be challenging. If you want
to assume a steady harness for the squad LMG, reducing its move and shoot
penalty, that's okay too. But most of the time, moving and shooting will still
really mess you up as far as putting out effective fire.
T.
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
> And people used to say there was no physical way possible to fly
I am pretty sure that the problem was not flying at supersonic speed,
but controlling the aircraft once you hit those speeds. The P-38
Lightning came close to sonic speeds in dives, but compressibilty issues put
such aerodynamic loads on the control surfaces that the stick could not be
moved, until the speed dropped. The secret to the
X-1 was not the rocket engine that drove it at more than the speed of
sound, but the all flying tail that kept it under control.