RE: Where's the Cheese?

Sarcasm?

The trouble with email is that it often conveys meanings not intended.
There
was no sarcasm meant.

If I have offended you I apologise as it was not intended.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Sarno [mailto:msarno@ptdprolog.net]
> Sent: Sunday, 20 February 2000 12:25
> To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject: Re: Where's the Cheese?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Glover, Owen" wrote:
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michael Sarno [mailto:msarno@ptdprolog.net]
> > > Subject: Re: Where's the Cheese?
> >
> > SOME SNIPS
> >
> > > In RL, I can
> > > do this, why not in SGII?
> > >
> >
> > In RL you can actually employ your wepaons to suppress rather than
> > kill!? I presume you mean the old "movie style" Give me 
> covering fire!
> 
>     The sarcasm isn't appreciated.  Rather than reply in kind, I'll
> address your arguments.
> 
> > >	  But the SL can also order the SAW to lay down 
> suppression fire.
> >
> > I've never heard or seen a fire control order "suppressive fire"
> 
>     It is a common practice to have machine guns lower their rate of
> fire once a target has become suppressed.  This is done to conserve
> ammo, keep the barrel from overheating, and because the only 
> effect that
> is desired is to continue with the suppression.
> 
> > - and certainly never given or seen given FC orders for seperate
> > teams/groups on the same enemy.....hmm, except for the M203 
> to try to
> > put a round into a hardened fighting pit...
> 
>     This is the basic concept of fire and movement.  It is a well
> established tactic.
> 
> > > > The best try was to fire three rifles getting a d10
> > > (remeber you round
> > > > up?) in the first and then the second three rifles with a d10 in
> > the
> > > > second action.
> > >
> > >	  That sounds a bit cheesy, but it's not strictly illegal.  I
> > don't
> > > know that I'd use it, but I'd play against a guy who did.
> >
> > OK, you are playing a completely different philosophical approach to
> > the game.
> >
> > I can't accept you quoting RL in support of one argument and then
> > turning around and claiming that if it isn't strictly illegal by the
> > rules you'll include it in a game.
> 
>     First, that's not what I said.  My quote is above.  You 
> can see that
> I clearly said that I didn't know if I'd use it, but if 
> someone made the
> case for it, I'd allow it.  Besides, I don't see how you can 
> only use RL
> as support for a set of rules.  You have to filter everything through
> the rules.  It's not one or the other.  If you only follow the rules,
> then you're playing chess.  If you only consider RL, then you're just
> telling stories.  Neither of those would be considered wargames.  You
> have to look at the rules, and how they try to simulate reality.  Then
> you apply that to individual cases, tempered with your 
> knowledge of real
> tactics and warfare.
> 
> > >	  Actually, this example is in the book on p 15:
> >
> > Quoting out of context.
> 
>     How is this quoting out of context?  We're talking about 
> action and
> activations and this quote is the final paragraph in the section
> labelled "Actions and Activations."
> 
> > > "Note that even if all the squad is together, one action NEED
> > > NOT affect
> > > ALL members of the squad - the player may decide to have 
> some squad
> > > members (eg: the ordinary troopers and the SAW gunner) fire at one
> > > target, while he uses the other action to make the squad's missile
> > > launcher fire at another target such as an enemy vehicle."
> >
> > So I guess we'll just go our seperate ways on this issue. 
> We play for
> > the fun of the games; the rules are a set of guidelines. Whenever we
> > coming to a point of interpretation we've rationalised it 
> in RL terms
> > and come up with acceptable resolutions to all concerned.
> 
>     Which is how we resolve rules questions.	Just because we 
> don't come
> to the same conclusions isn't cause for sarcastic comments.
> 
> -Mike
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Sarno
> 
> http://vietnam.isonfire.com
> Check out the Charlie Company Discussion Group:
> Info, resources, and links for RAFM's miniatures
> skirmish wargame of infantry combat in Vietnam 1965-1972
> 
> "Tradition refuses to submit to the small and
>  arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen
>  to be walking about."
>  -G.K. Chesterton
> 
>