Prev: My DS2 page is back Next: Re: Jon Tuffley

Re: Mixed Small Arms Squad

From: M.J.Elliott@u...
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 22:29:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Mixed Small Arms Squad

Adam Delafield wrote:

>As much as I hate to disagree with the great Mike Elliot, 

Me? Great? Much as I appreciate the accolade Adam, I think its a bit 
misplaced. How can I be great if the only wargames I win are the ones I 
play solo? 8-)

Seriously, though, my policy to answering any questions regarding GZG
here is based on firstly, the "spirit" of the game (ie what Jon and I 
originally intended), secondly, a careful reading of the rules as they 
stand (not always entirely accurate, though, as I've been caught out by
of you on more than one occasion), and thirdly my own gaming experience.

That way I hope any answers I give are as open and honest as possible.
to that the caveat that "you can always do your own thing anyway", which

means that you all can ignore us totally if the mood takes you....

>but I took it as read that you'd use whichever weapon the majority of 
>firers had, just as if the odd man had a support weapon rather than a 
>different type of rifle. So you'd use the AARs. If the number of
>is a draw, use the lowest impact (serves you right).

I think this is a neat idea that I admit I didn't think of. Thanks Adam.

Again, my view is that if you are going to use mixed small arms you need
decide how you're going to resolve their fire combat. You've now got
ways to do it - you choose. Anyone got any more ideas?

>I'd only give Gurilla, Partizan, Tororist or Criminal forces mixed 
>armament though. Regular armies will tend to have the same type of
>to ease supply problems (eg. weapons use NATO rifle ammo and M16 boxes
>most Western armies). And most Gurilla and Partizan forces will use the

>same type of weapon as their opponent (so they can 'liberate' ammo).

I would agree with this completely. It would be VERY unusual for any 
regular forces to have mixed small arms. Good point.

Mike Elliott, GZG

Prev: My DS2 page is back Next: Re: Jon Tuffley