Re: Where's the Cheese?

Magic wrote:

> I can definitly see your points.  In the abstract it is true there is
no
> reason not to do it.	I just see folks taking squads that are just big
> enough to get "max dice for split" a setup that caters to the dice
values
> and not to the game.

    I certainly value this assessment and I can't tell you that it won't
happen.  However, if someone is going to try to cook up something like
that,
this particular rules interpretation won't be the only loophole they can
exploit.  But even if they should do this, I don't see it as such a
problem.
Let's face it, after all, they're going to have to spend the extra each
turn
they want to split fire.  At that point, why not just split the squad
into two
smaller squads and get twice the number of actions and have that many
more
squads that need to targeted?

>  Of course if someone does this and uses split fire
> then they can get another attack (at the loss of other actions) until
that
> unit takes damage.  Then his well crafted "dice squad" is at the mercy
of
> the rules.  As you argue it, it is hard to say it should not happen.

    You can always find some way to cook the results in a system as open
as
SGII.  It's the nature of the beast.  It's also one of the reasons I
like the
system: there are no artificial points systems to balance out the
battles.
However, if someone gets their kicks from trying to find the best
possible
combination of troops for a fighting force, let them have their fun.  If
anything, adding this little rule gives them many more possibilities. 
Many more
possibilities translates into many more chances to guess wrong. <g>  As
you so
aptly pointed out, if you're relying on a "dice squad" to save your
butt, you
better hope to get through the firefight without taking casualties.

> It would be interesting to game this out.  One side with "multiple
fires at
> same target" and one without and see if there is any real advantage. 
I
> would think in the defence it would have more value.

    Yes, if you don't have to move, you can exploit the split fires more
often.
So a static defender would get	an advantage more often than average. 
However,
a single suppression jams up the whole works.  You can't split fire if
you're
spending one of your actions to remove suppression.  A numerically
superior
attacker against a static defender (Which is a rather common gaming
combination.) is going to be able to take advantage of the split fire
almost as
often, too.

-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