RE: Ummm... actually...

Why, thank you... you made me feel like much less the fool. And I agree
that 
the rules should find a way of reflecting the high ROF of such weapons.

I think, and you'll pardon me if this is rambling or self-apparent or
old 
news, or if my inebriated state is at all revealed(My wife had to be out
of 
town for valentines day, I have found solace in the arms of Messrs. 
Bacardi), That it is important to consider the specific attributes of
any 
weapon or system before employing it for a given situation.

I have made the mistake, quite often in the past, of trying to develop 
tactics around a specific weapon or system of weapons.	Then the
epiphany 
came.  It started with a comment by Jerry Pournelle in one of his Sparta

novels that strategy dictates tactics. From this I have begun to 
extrapolated that as tactics descend from strategy, so weapons design
must 
serve tactics.

I suppose this is most likely the main reason that the ancient Greek
word 
for weapon (Hoplon) is derived from the word for tool.	If we again 
extrapolate (Hell, others accused me of it, and rightly so, I might as
well 
do a lot of it) from a definition of a tool as an implement for the 
application of force to accomplish a specific task or end result, then
we 
see that a weapon is a tool to bring about a specific tactical end.

Whether that be a very specialized tactic, like the death of an enemy 
soldier or Tank, or a more generalized tactic, like the taking of hill
1234, 
the basic truth remains - A weapon is a means, not an end. Thus, a
commander 
must consider the tactical situation, and employ the weapons he has at
his 
disposal to accomplish the tactical ends as efficiently as possible.
Just as 
you would never use a shovel to break rock when you have a sledge
hammer, or 
use that same sledge hammer to stir your stew, so it behooves (I've
always 
wanted to  use that word in a real conversation) the commander to
consider 
the strengths and weaknesses of each weapon at his disposal and deploy
them 
in such a manner as to conceal the weaknesses and exploit the stengths.

That is why I heartily agree that the rules should somehow allow for
such 
considerations - high rate of fire weapons vs slower weapons with
greater 
penetrative power, etc.  As it stands, enfilade fire is not a factor,
even 
though as you've pointed out, it's one of the most effective uses of
rapid 
fire weaponry.

Brian Bilderback

"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis
is 
of no use."

				 - S. Freud

----Original Message Follows----
From: "Glover, Owen" <oglover@museum.vic.gov.au>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: "'gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU'" <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: RE: Ummm... actually...
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:13:25 +1000

But I like the idea of anyone considering the effects of Enfilade
Fire.....it is something that is intrinsic to good use of any rapid fire
weapon on the battlefield today! And quite likely in the future. I think
the
only game system I've seen that came close to affording it good practice
was
ASL. The current result is that most people will end up using machine
guns
as a frontal fire weapon which is a total misuse and abuse of the weapon
:-(

Cheers,

Owen G

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com