Re: [GZG] [SG] IAVRs

[John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/9/05, Adrian <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

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

> >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"....

Yeah, I copied that.

> ...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.

> >   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.

I do too, although with FP3 rifles and 6 rifles in the squad, the
squadleader's firepower is irrelevant.  :)  I just wouldn't saddle him
with something extra.  That's all.

> 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. 
:)

> 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.

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.

John
--
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani

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