Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Plane Sailing" data-source="post: 802074" data-attributes="member: 114">The article (and my comment) both revolve around the whole point that it is *not* about the larger damage potential!!The article makes the point that weapons of the same calibre have the same damage, so choices have to be made on other grounds. My point is that if there are two or more weapons with otherwise similar characteristics, it would be helpful to be given considerations why someone might choose one over another.Giving us a distinction between longarms and sidearms is pretty pointless because it is so obvious. He would have been better putting his experience to use in helping to understand when you would choose a sidearm with a 40ft increment over a 30ft increment, or one with a slightly higher magazine capacity.Similarly the licensing levels of a weapon would, I would think, have a potential impact on choices, as would cost.The two guns that I mention above have identical damage and range. One has an extra two rounds in its clip, but costs 1 wealth point more (16 as against 15). Beyond that, is there a style issue? A "service" issue?I applaud the target that the article is aiming at, but I'm frustrated that he simply picks the low hanging fruit and leaves us none the wiser about the finer distinctions.Cheers</blockquote>