Re: [GZG] [SG] IAVRs

>I disagree from a doctrinal standpoint.  If you tell a troopie that he
>can use a weapon against anything he pleases, then he will.  If you
>tell him it's for shooting down aircraft then he MIGHT use it to shoot
>at aircraft instead of blazing away at every bunker he finds.

Sure, since it's a sci-fi game, there is nothing stopping us from saying

that the rocket launcher in the platoon (a GMS/P) has multi-target 
warheads, "dial-a-warhead", multiple types of warheads, or whatever. 
So, 
useful against a tank one round and against an aircraft the next.

The Canadian Army issues a Carl-G rocket launcher at the platoon level,
or 
light anti-armour and bunker busting.  They have the Erxy system as a 
close-in guided anti-armour missile, and the TOW for long range stuff,
but 
neither would appear as standard at the platoon level.	In a SG setting,
I 
think it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that a weapon the size and 
weight of a Carl-G could have guided missiles.

So, IMU one can use GMS/P against multiple types of targets.

Where the GMS/P isn't very good is against dispersed infantry.

I don't see a problem with having this kind of weapon at the platoon
level 
- it isn't really much of an extension beyond what we already deploy at
the 
platoon level (Carl-G vs. "guided" Carl-G).

Roger was talking about having both IAVR and a guided system in his
squads, 
but limiting the guided system to an anti-air role.  My whole point here

was to suggest that if he was going to include a guided weapon in the
first 
place (and take up a trooper in each squad carrying one), might as well 
make it useful for the scenario and give it an anti-armour capability.

An alternative to this (if you don't like the "GMS/P can shoot at 
everything idea) is to say that the GMS/P comes in two versions - the 
"anti-air" version and the "anti-armour" version, and both can shoot at 
each type of target but less effectively at the targets they're not 
specifically meant for.  So, a GMS/P anti-air might have guidance D8 and

D12* impact vs. an aircraft, but guidance D6 and D12 impact (but as a
heavy 
weapon) against light armour.

Otherwise, per Roger's original suggestion (two squads, 8 troops each, 2

carrying anti-aircraft missile and no rifle), you have 16 troops, 2 of 
which are nothing but wound bait and can't contribute to the mission - 
which doesn't make sense.

> > That doesn't help the attackers much against armoured vehicles since
the
> > impact of a squad's fire is based on the impact of the rifles and
not the
> > support weapons.
>
>Unless you fire them at the vehicles as support weapons, and I would
>permit (based on real-world doctrine for these things) firing two of
>them as a single activation so long as it is at a single target.

That seems fair.

> > I've tried giving one IAVR per trooper in games in the past, and had
> > "canny" players dump all of them in a single round into a (troop
squad)
> > target.  So, out of the 8-trooper squad, you have one rifleman fire
and add
> > in the SAW and six IAVRs.  That uses them all up, but makes for a
really
> > devastating round of firing (against infantry)...
>
>Canny my ass.	I'd force a reaction check.  TV+3, +6 if there are ANY
>vehicles on the board at all.	If it fails, the squad looses an
>activation while the squad leader tactfully tells the platoon leader
>he's a damn fool, shut up and let him run his squad.

Canny, in quotes, as in "cheesy tactics"....

As Roger says, this is very "gamey".  Seen it though, before I started 
GMing games more regularly.

Giving them a reaction type check with a big penalty to compensate for
this 
sort of thing is a good idea to prevent gaminess, though that assumes
there 
is a GM hosting the game who can enforce it.  Personally, I'd not want
to 
play with someone who would try this in a "home game" between friends,
but 
still...

> > Now, your mission objective is to eliminate 3 vehicles, which means
that
> > the focus will be on them, but giving one IAVR per trooper means
that the
> > attackers will have 14 to 16 IAVR.	That's a lot of rockets - four
firing
> > per turn for four turns.
>
>I wouldn't give one to the squad leader or team leaders.  We carry too
>much crap already and are too busy directing fire and leading to be
>bothered with firing support weapons.

...or, the IAVR is really small and doesn't make much impact on their 
personal load...

It's your PSB.

>   Often a squad leader will fire
>his weapon 10% as much as his troops will.

...in real life.

In Stargrunt, there is nothing to say that you don't count a squad
leader's 
rifle into the action when a squad fires.  I certainly do.

There has to be some level of abstraction with stuff like individual
squad 
leadership in a game like this.

Some folks (Allan G. for one) suggest that the morale system doesn't 
account well enough for squad leaders and cumulative effects of bad
things 
happening, but as it stands, there isn't really much reason to count the

squad leader OUT of regular weapons fire.  His effect is just abstracted

into the effect of the rest of the squad's fire.

> > I've run ambush scenarios like this a few times, and it usually
seems to
> > work out best for the ambushee...
>
>Ambush is a specialized form of attack which requires the ambusher to
>have a certain force ratio (GMs frequently misjudge)and to have a good
>grasp of the basic principles of conducting an ambush.

Problem with "real" tactics is that they don't often make for good
games.

Overwhelming force to secure an objective may be doctrinally correct,
but 
dull for a game unless set up really well.  I've done a platoon defense 
against a mechanized company attack game, and it was a lot of fun, but
the 
mission conditions were set out to be "how long can you hold out before 
being overrun" and not "hold out forever and prevent being overrun".  We

didn't expect for a second that the defenders would actually hold out, 
since the forces were technologically equal and the defenders were 
outnumbered something like 6 to 1 from a "game effect" point of view 
(platoon worth of infantry, a walker, a squad of PA and a couple of
jeeps 
versus a company of infantry, 8+ heavy APCs with twin fusion cannon, etc
etc).

If you set up the scenario so that - as with a good officer doing his
job 
correctly - the ambush is going to be a winner, then the game might not
be 
as fun for the ambushee as it could be if you set things up to be more 
"balanced" with the outcome in doubt.  It might not make for perfect
real 
life tactics, but it makes for a better game.

That's the tricky part of being a good GM for Stargrunt, which takes
most 
folks a while to get a handle on...

Adrian Johnson
adrian@stargrunt.ca
www.stargrunt.ca 

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l