Roleplaying games are not accurate reflections of real-world performance. In dealing with firearms, game engines tend to focus on simplified models of external and terminal ballistics, often to the exclusion of all other considerations. They very rarely consider factors that drive weapon design and adoption but can't readily be operationalized into damage dice and squares of range.
In the case of the M4 versus the M16, the carbine's major advantages are lower weight, shorter overall length and its benefit to maneuverability, and the collapsible stock's ability to adjust length of pull for individual user dimensions (with or without body armor). Of those factors, the only one most gamers will examine is the weight reduction, and then only if the GM is being a hard-ass about encumbrance. The trade-off is reduced muzzle velocity and a shorter iron sight radius, which translate in game terms to reductions in damage, penetration, and range increment - all factors which are of concern to many gamers. Thus, the game engine "favors" the M16, while considerations outside the game engine's ability to model may tell a different story for the real world.
(The 93GS design team tried to address this in 2013's Reflex System. This is why Bulk and Speed play a greater role in that combat engine. In Reflex, an M4 may be a better choice than an M16 for closer engagement ranges because of its relatively quicker attack speed.)
- C.
|