Technology of 2183

The nameless critic speaks out again:

Actually it's nothing like changing the system. The system is a bunch of
weapons with a die associated with them. You're the one associateing bullet
size and rate of fire with the weapons and getting irked that they don't
match.

** Hmmm. I'm not just inventing it - at least I perceive myself to be
deriving some portion of the description directly from the text in the SG2
rulebook.

You even go through some leaps of logic that would be appropriate to Star
Trek.

** If you're trying to be offensive, you've surely succeeded. Next you'll
brand me a munchkin or a GWer....;)

My personal favourite is the one where you talk about how much better
targetting systems would be in the future so should get better than d6.

** If you ignore the other half of that argument, I'm sure it could be taken
to sound that way.

Fine, whatevever, but it's just as valid to say they get d6 unless your
crystal ball is that much better than mine. Mine personally says that things
as large as a human won't play much part on the battlefield in the future, but
hey... it's a fun game.

** Yes. However, I believe my contention is that if a human fired support
weapon can be rolling d10s and d12s, and given we're presuming our human is
not something unrecognizably advanced and presumably vehicle weapons mounts
move forward at the same rate, then their is no way *COMPARITIVELY* that I can
see to justify d6 for the vehicle. I'm not arguing for more than a D6
for weapons guidance - or if I am it is only when taken in the context
of the effectiveness of the infantry FP die. All I'm suggesting is if, as we
seem collectively to realize, we're playing a game that loosely mimics
today's world - we still have infantry, tanks, etc and most of the stuff
is
recognizable modern day kit with some sci-fi PSB bolt-on boiler-plate,
then isn't it perhaps desireable to try to reflect the proportionality of
modern infantry SAW efficacy of fire to that of vehicle mounted gunnery?
Especially when the vehicle mounted technologies seem surficially more likely
to progress (since they have far more areas to improve and a far faster rate
of
imporvement) than said human-fired version?

Anyway, do what you think is best. I won't challenge your right to excercise
your judgement or your sarcasm.:)

I take it by your long reply you're all set for Lancaster?:D

** Working steadily to reach that state.:)

> On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Thomas.Barclay wrote:

> The nameless critic speaks out again:

But we aren't talking about actual weapons here. This sort of argument is
appropriate for a WW2 game where the rules might not match how the weapons
ACTUALLY are, but here you are talking about fictional weapons in
an unforseeable future.  In otherwords, take the die-roll you get for
what it is and be happy.

> Fine, whatevever, but it's just as valid to say they

It sounds sort of like you're arguing that the person who made the background
made the stats for his weapons wrong by using the background to say he's
wrong... Maybe it's like Dune and all the AI is 'steam powered.':)

> for weapons guidance - or if I am it is only when taken in the context
Especially
> when the vehicle mounted technologies seem surficially more likely to

And thats exactly why I was discussing making WW2 weapons like muskets and
blunderbusses in my earlier post... My future idea of what the battlefield
will be like is quite a long shot from being anything like SG2, but hey, as
long as SG2 is a fun game and the play isn't broken, I'm not going to
complain.