Looking back from a Designer's view:

[goosebrown]

As for the Falklands, I think that would be pretty interesting too. Both sides were armed almost identically. In fact I believe that it was the only conflict in history where both sides were armed with the FN FAL. As a collector and shooter of FALs, I would love to play that game. I have to say though I think 8–3 is the appropriate strength for the units. FALs are notoriously in accurate on fully auto, and the L1A1s I Believe by that time had the happy switch removed.  Very inaccurate on full auto, and too high a rate of ammunition expenditure. Not to mention heavy. On the other hand the wide open spaces of the Falklands were ideal terrain for them.

I think there might be a slight edge in fire power over a WWII US Marine platoon, but not much. A modern platoon would have at least half again the firepower and survivability because they carry twice or more ammunition into the field. 

The differentiator in the game quite honestly would have to be morale and leadership. And I don't think you have to guess where the edge was in that regard. Although the only speakers I heard at the time were royal navy, there was not much talk about artillery or support weapons. Most discussions I heard at the time were of course about the exocet and air power even from them.