Where's the Cheese? [Was Newbie Questions . . .]

    Splitting the fire against a target is more likely to cause
suppressions,
but less likely to cause casuaties.  I've always used this mechanism to
employ
"suppresive fire," which is a standard military technique.  What is so
cheesy
about it?

-Mike

"Robertson, Brendan" wrote:

> #1	  Exceedingly cheesy, but not prohibited by the rules.	I got a
nasty
> shock the first time I played a tournament in melbourne & my PA squad
took 3
> suppressions from 2 enemy activations...  Especially as I was
following the
> recommended reason for splitting fire in the rulebook; to attack
multiple
> targets (infantry & vehicles) instead of multiple attack the one
target.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: -MWS- [SMTP:mshurtleff1@uswest.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 5:31 PM
> >
> > Question #1) Can a unit "split fire" against the *same* target in a
turn
> > by
> > using both of its actions?

--
Michael Sarno

http://vietnam.isonfire.com
Check out the Charlie Company Discussion Group:
Info, resources, and links for RAFM's miniatures
skirmish wargame of infantry combat in Vietnam 1965-1972

"Tradition refuses to submit to the small and
 arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen
 to be walking about."
 -G.K. Chesterton