Re: [GZG] [SG] IAVRs

>
>Does the platoon have a specific weapons squad, or are the heavy
>weapons split among the squads?

Short answer; I don't know.

I'm fairly certain that besides the Carl-G you also get a GPMG (C-6 in 
Canadian army parlance, but it is the MAG-58 machine gun - er, M240 I
think 
in American...) in each platoon.  Not sure if they are in a separate 
weapons section.  I think it varies between the types of battalions -
the 
weapons load-out and TO&E for the mechanized battalions is different
than 
the light battalions.  The mech units have the support fire available
from 
the APCs (since many of our LAVs have 25mm cannon)...

> > ...or, the IAVR is really small and doesn't make much impact on
their
> > personal load...
>
>It's not the personal load, it's extra time and concentration to focus
>on using it.  I want my leaders to lead.

Right.	That makes sense.

 >
> > 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.
>
>I do too, although with FP3 rifles and 6 rifles in the squad, the
>squadleader's firepower is irrelevant.  :)

Heh.  Yes, very true.

>   I just wouldn't saddle him
>with something extra.	That's all.

Makes sense.

YMMV.

> > Problem with "real" tactics is that they don't often make for good
games.
>
>Hehe.	That's because in the real world, we don't find a fair fight
>entertaining, and a great deal of effort is put into preventing them.
>:)

Heh :)

That makes much sense.	No point in making it easier for the other
guy...

>Finding a 'balance' point is very difficult for the ambusher.	The
>premise is that the ambusher is generally going to be a smaller force
>than the ambushee.  So if he doesn't inflict crippling losses quickly,
>then he is going to get overrun when the ambushee gets his act
>together and counterattacks.

Yep.

That's one of the things that is hardest to explain to new SG players
who 
are used to wargames that have a points system.

Balancing a game so that it seems fairly reasonable/realistic on the one

hand (as much as any wargame can feel "realistic") while on the other
hand 
being entertaining and giving both sides a chance to succeed, can be 
tough.	It's a bit of an art (or good guesswork), and something that is 
fairly dependent on experience with the game.

I've found that some people also have a hard time getting past the idea
of 
"unequal" victory conditions:  ie - for one side, "you have to take 
objective X as quickly as possible" and for the other side "you know
you're 
going to lose objective X, but you have to delay this happening for as
long 
as possible while preserving as much of your force as you can and then 
withdrawing in good order".  That leads to "so, you mean I'm going to
lose 
before the game starts...?"

Anyway, you're right - balance is a challenge.	In the case of the
ambush 
scenario, you probably have to place limits for the ambusher ("you have
to 
complete as much damage as you can as quickly as possible and then
withdraw 
to preserve your force") so they don't try to die in place to win... 

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