SV: Low Tech forces in DSII/SGII

Status: RO

> I have interesting subject that I would like to bring up here on

> The example that I am going to use is the Fading Suns RPG, it has

I don't have SGII yet, so these comments all refer to DSII:

If the medieval guys are used to fight each other, they'll most likely ride
or march in very dense formations. A few machineguns would wreak havoc -
kill or wound a lot of people before the poor guys could even see their
attackers. For a picture of the casualty rates the primitives would suffer,
think WWI and multiply by a factor lots. If, OTOH, they are used to
fighting high-tech forces, they know that they need to disperse a LOT
and
use guerilla tactics - ambushes in close terrain and similar; in this
case, the action is too small to fight out in DSII.

According to most sources I've seen, the maximum effective range of bows,
crossbows etc was less than 300 meters - ie, 3" in DSII - and I don't
think many casualties were scored beyond 100 meters. Since this is about
close-assault range (2"), I'd include their effect in close assaults
instead.

> And how about items like catapult, ballista, etc. these are the

Not really. Indirect firing ancient artillery - single-arm catapults,
trebuchets etc - are slow to aim, have short ranges (some ancient
sources boast ranges of 500 yards, but no reconstructions I've heard about
have achieved this; most seem to have fired at ranges of 300 meters or less),
fire at best one shot every five minutes, are large targets... not good if
you're facing someone with a long-range weapon or you want to hit a
fast-moving vehicle. You have to be extremely lucky to hit, and probably
won't cause much damage if you do - like, "draw two chits. If BOTH are
"BOOM" chits, the vehicle is damaged. Further primitive weapon hits have no
effect."

Ballistae, especially the smaller varieties, are easier to aim with; but again
the penetrating abilities are less than satisfying. Against infantry
targets... well, historically they were effective against massed troops.
Modern troops aren't massed, and a combat rifle has a range comparable to
or exceeding that of a bolt-shooting ballista.

> Should close-assaults be handled differentely when dealing with low-

Most likely, yes. The high-tech forces should always shoot first, for
instance - they're automatically in range, but the swordsmen have a lot
of ground to cover before they can do anything. Also, I think the primitives
should never draw more than at most one chit in close assault.

Regards,

> On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> I don't have SGII yet, so these comments all refer to DSII:

Status: RO

> attackers. For a picture of the casualty rates the primitives would

I think the Colonial era wars, e.g. Brits vs. Zulus and similar highlights of
western "civilization", are more representative.

> If, OTOH, they are used to

Note that some low tech forces, e.g. indians, already fight (fought) this way,
because their vision of war is a series of guerilla raids. They'd be a lot
better prepared to fight higher tech forces than e.g. Napoleon.