Re: Where's the Cheese?

adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:

> >"Glover, Owen" wrote:
> >
> >> It is using the rules to gain the advantage rather than the game
> >> mechanics or tactical employment of your squads that makes it
cheesy.
> >
> >    How do you simlute suppression fire, then?  It is a valid tactic
and
> >takes advantage of the mechanics of the game, not the rules.  It's
not
> >something that creates a loophole that give you an incredible
> >advantage.  It simply shifts the way your fire has effect and allows
you
> >to opt for fire that is more likely to suppress than kill.  In RL, I
can
> >do this, why not in SGII?
> >
>
> I have to agree with the esteemable Mr. Sarno on this.

    That's "Dr. Sarno."  I didn't spend 6 years writing my thesis to be
called
"Mister," thank you very much. <g>

>  I don't think it is
> cheesy, because it makes sense given the fluid way the time frame
works, as
> described by St. Jon.  In a given period of time, perhaps the squad is
> firing its rifles at a target while the SAW is reloading, or moving to
a
> different position within the squad's area, or sighting in on the
target
> better, or whatever.	Maybe the squad commander says to the SAW gunner
"ok,
> you hold your fire for a minute and save ammo, and then give the squad
> cover and keep the supression going on the target while the riflemen
are
> reloading..."

    I like this rationalization.  I hadn't thought about it like that,
but
you're right.  The level of abstraction certainly could be used to
explain the
ability to split fire.

> So in the end, the gaming group should decide what they feel
comfortable
> with.

    Agreed.  Any set of rules needs to be interpreted by the gamers
involved.
Tweaking the rules, or interpreting them differently, is always the
right of
the gamer.

>  Certainly the rules themselves do not prevent this.	(Though I
> always agree with the statement "play the game not the rules"....)

    Playing the game, is the main reason why I woudn't try to prevent
lots of
these little techniques in my games.  Since you can already split fire
under
some conditions, I'd rather just let a player split fire under any
conditions
and not worry about the specific rules.

> >> Taking it even further in cheesiness, I've seen guys try to argue
that
> >> since they have 6 riflemen with FP 3 rifles that they are wasting
the
> >> fire of two of them (6xFP3=18 but they only get a d12) so they wish
to
> >> fire 4 rifles in one action and then use a second action to fire
the
> >> other two!!
> >
> >    But that's not what we're talking about here.  Even so, I'd allow
it
> >in my games.  The squad IS using up it's second action.
>
> OK, that's peaking a lot higher on my "cheese" meter.  Which may not
make
> sense given what I just said about the SAW split, but the game does
treat
> the SAW and the riflemen as separate elements in a squad...  OK, it's
> completely subjective here.  I don't have a problem with splitting off
the
> SAW and firing at the same target (especially as it is going to cause
less
> damage).  I do have a problem with doing this with riflemen. 
Contradictory
> views?  Probably.  Doesn't have to make absolute perfect sense,
though.
> It's a game :)

    "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two
opposed
ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to
function."
F. Scott Fitzgerald, in The Crack-Up.  You could always rationalize this
along
the lines you've suggested above.  Over the course of the turn, half the
squad
is firing while the other reloads, then they switch roles.  I just don't
see it
as cheese because the squad that splits fire is using up two actions and
has
less of a chance to cause casualties.  They're giving up something for
the
advantage of an increased chance of suppression.  To me, that's exactly
what
combat is about.  You trade off certain advantages and disadvantages. 
Knowing
when to do what is the whole idea behind tactics.

-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