Re: Where's the Cheese?

"Glover, Owen" wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Sarno [mailto:msarno@ptdprolog.net]
> > Subject: Re: Where's the Cheese?
>
> SOME SNIPS
>
> > In RL, I can
> > do this, why not in SGII?
> >
>
> In RL you can actually employ your wepaons to suppress rather than
> kill!? I presume you mean the old "movie style" Give me covering fire!

    The sarcasm isn't appreciated.  Rather than reply in kind, I'll
address your arguments.

> >	But the SL can also order the SAW to lay down suppression fire.
>
> I've never heard or seen a fire control order "suppressive fire"

    It is a common practice to have machine guns lower their rate of
fire once a target has become suppressed.  This is done to conserve
ammo, keep the barrel from overheating, and because the only effect that
is desired is to continue with the suppression.

> - and certainly never given or seen given FC orders for seperate
> teams/groups on the same enemy.....hmm, except for the M203 to try to
> put a round into a hardened fighting pit...

    This is the basic concept of fire and movement.  It is a well
established tactic.

> > > The best try was to fire three rifles getting a d10
> > (remeber you round
> > > up?) in the first and then the second three rifles with a d10 in
> the
> > > second action.
> >
> >	That sounds a bit cheesy, but it's not strictly illegal.  I
> don't
> > know that I'd use it, but I'd play against a guy who did.
>
> OK, you are playing a completely different philosophical approach to
> the game.
>
> I can't accept you quoting RL in support of one argument and then
> turning around and claiming that if it isn't strictly illegal by the
> rules you'll include it in a game.

    First, that's not what I said.  My quote is above.	You can see that
I clearly said that I didn't know if I'd use it, but if someone made the
case for it, I'd allow it.  Besides, I don't see how you can only use RL
as support for a set of rules.	You have to filter everything through
the rules.  It's not one or the other.	If you only follow the rules,
then you're playing chess.  If you only consider RL, then you're just
telling stories.  Neither of those would be considered wargames.  You
have to look at the rules, and how they try to simulate reality.  Then
you apply that to individual cases, tempered with your knowledge of real
tactics and warfare.

> >	Actually, this example is in the book on p 15:
>
> Quoting out of context.

    How is this quoting out of context?  We're talking about action and
activations and this quote is the final paragraph in the section
labelled "Actions and Activations."

> > "Note that even if all the squad is together, one action NEED
> > NOT affect
> > ALL members of the squad - the player may decide to have some squad
> > members (eg: the ordinary troopers and the SAW gunner) fire at one
> > target, while he uses the other action to make the squad's missile
> > launcher fire at another target such as an enemy vehicle."
>
> So I guess we'll just go our seperate ways on this issue. We play for
> the fun of the games; the rules are a set of guidelines. Whenever we
> coming to a point of interpretation we've rationalised it in RL terms
> and come up with acceptable resolutions to all concerned.

    Which is how we resolve rules questions.  Just because we don't come
to the same conclusions isn't cause for sarcastic comments.

-Mike

--
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