Quote from: Dominus Nox"Why the hell are we losing to these primitive resistance fighters and their inferior weapons?"

Usually not because of anything to do with weapons--rather, doctrine, logistics, dumb political judgments, ideology, etc.

From Varus to the Vietcong, that's pretty much the story.

Quote from: laffingboyWell, to apply the OP's point to roleplaying (or geek stuff, at least)...

On Star Trek, the Federation's  phaser has always seemed to be a pretty poorly thought-out weapon. It's touted as grotesquely powerful (supposed to be able to vaporize huge quantities of rock; 650 meters cubed at 'setting 16'), but shootouts on the show always seem to involve people blasting away at one another from behind packing crates and boulders with no fear of taking a hit. Terrible ergonomics, no sights, trigger on top (with no guard), and about as menacing-looking as a DVD remote. But the Federation is one of the most technologically advanced powers in the setting.

The Bajorans, on the other hand, are presented as a much more primitive society. But they have guns which are shown just as effective as Starfleet's stuff, with much better design. The sidearm and rifle version both have trigger guards, they're 'pointable' like a conventional firearm, and the longarm actually has a stock.

So maybe Dominus Nox's point could be applied to this scenario. The Federation has a self-image as a force for peace, not conflict; explorers, not warriors. Maybe their weaponry design was a compromise, or even an afterthought. The Bajorans, on the other hand, have spent years fighting the Cardassians (who also have more ergonomic guns than Starfleet), so maybe their armament has evolved to be more functional under combat conditions.

Anyway, now that I've spent time debating Star Trek on the Internet, I'm gonna go punch myself in the nuts for about an hour, to normal back up.

Oh, and the Colt M1911A1 rules, fools! :cool:

In an excellent trek novel written by Joe Haldeman, "world without end" he hit on the problem that a phaser from TOS was adjusted by a dial on top of it, and had someone draw a concealed phaser and fire it, but by drawing it she'd spun it up to high power and blew away the alien she shot.


The phasers were OK for work in a certain environment and at close range, but lacking sights they would not be good for long range shots. The ones on TNG looked like some bizarre attempt to pretend a phaser wasn't a weapon by making it look less like a gun. Some kind of PC thinking there, i guess. "If we make it look like it's not a gun it's OK." Style over substance....

Still I liked the way the original phasers could power up by attaching them to the pistol grip, pretty clever and gave them some flexibility.

Another issue with this is that the PLAYERS could be on the "low tech" side of a war, and must find the weaknesses in the higher tech sides weapons and develop counter tactics and weapons to exploit them.

As for the M-16, yeah it had better range and accuracy than the AK, but ITFP in vietnam a lot of fighting occured at fairly close ranges, well within the AK's range, and as for accuracy, you generally have to AIM to get the accuracy effect, and when the lead's flying hither and yon, few people take time to aim, and fewer survive. The AK was better for close range snaptshooting, plus it didn't jam like the M-16 did.

The 1911 colt rules, that's for sure.

Quote from: flyingmiceYeah - I was thinking of High Crusade by Poul Anderson.

Which indicates a high degree of good taste in fantasy fiction.

I'm thinking tactics will often trump tech. Really, they will.

Quote from: Dominus NoxAs usual, pundy misses the point in his mindless rush to flame on me.

Actually, this time I was flaming pretty much everyone who posted on this thread.


RPGPundit

Quote from: beejazzI'm thinking tactics will often trump tech. Really, they will.

Let me give you an example of just that very thing:

During the reign of the first Bush, when he started all this shit with his old buddy saddam over that family owned oil megacorp called Kuwait (Still isn't a free country, BTW, no real free elections, no women's vote, etc.) the iraquis were making fools out of US pilots by putting simply smodge pots, or just building small fires within the hulks of dead tanks, or tanks that had been stripped for parts.

The result was that to IR the tanks looked alive, and as such US pilots would fire tank killing missiles into them over and over, wasting expensive ammo on dead tanks.

Contrary to hollywood, which shows tanks exploding in huge fireballs, most tank killing weapons actually do relatively little external damage to a tanks's hull. The point of modern tank weapons is to pierce the armor and do damage inside it, like killing the crew. As such a "dead" tank may look largely intact on the outside, with little visible damage asides from a 4" or so wide hole in part of it. At night, on IR, it's hard to tell a 'dead' tank with a fire inside it to generate heat from a live tank. US forces wasted numerous expensive weapons.

Sure, the iraquis lost but at least their troops proved it was possible for a low tech force to spoof the highest tech army on earth. If people here want to use this in a game setting, have fun.

Quote from: beejazzI'm thinking tactics will often trump tech. Really, they will.

Often? Every single time.  Look at Full Metal Jacket.  That woman could have had a Lee Enfield .303 (hell she could have even had a brace of Revolutionary War precussion lock rifles and a loader) and she'd have still cut up that platoon

As we're talking about fiction with these themes, Garth Ennis wrote this brilliant comic called 303 that I think's been turned into a trade

Quote from: Dominus NoxOh, as to the "AK 47 myth" check out a new book called "AK-47: The gun that changed the face of war".

You may now resume your petty sniping despite the fact you have no ammo.

I don't believe that anybody on this thread is dissing the AK-47.  I even used the phrase "design classic" earlier on this thread.  I've seen photos of "British Special Forces" carrying it in Afganistan if they know they'll have to be in country for a while and have to loot^H^H^H^Hfollage for ammunition, but you'd better believe that their armourers have done a hell of a lot of work on it to improve the accuracy

On a less gunbunny note, the superior tech<>neccessarily equaling military advantage could be seen in several military encounters during the "Age of the Rifle".  Supposedly "undergunned" groups like the Native Americans at the Little Big Horn, Dervishes during the Sudanese war, and Zulus during the Battle of Isandlwahna cut up regular European and American forces armed with the powerful single-shot rifles of the day.  These groups got massacred due to certain aspects of their weapons--slow fire, brass cartridges that jammed in hot actions, etc.--being less than optimal when being attacked by a screaming horde of natives.  Which is why the Brits and Americans found themselves defeated (if only temporarily) by tribes armed mainly with bows, spears, and swords.

Andrew

Quote from: Dominus Noxno women's vote

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/29/news/web.0629kuwait.php