Re: do GMS/P troopers carry ARs?

sportyspam@harm.dhs.org wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Glover, Owen wrote:
>
> > Exchanging kit especially if you have to grab extra ammo or
specialist
> > equipment can actually take a considerable amount of time....if an
> > Activation is approx 5 minutes then an Action is reasonably argued
to be 2
> > and a half minutes...that isn't really very long at all..ever tried
clearing
> > a double feed on a machine gun? It can take a minute of two in
> > itself...getting kit off a body that has been blasted can be a very
messy
> > thing, clearing the weapon, checking ammo feeds etc WILL take
time....
>
>   I think any arguments that should be made should be kept strictly at
the
> game balance level.  Although it's fun to bash around our assumptions
like
> this, we all know it isn't going to get anywhere.  :)

    I can't gree here.	Game balance is a secondary consideration.  If
both sides
have to abide by the same rules, game balance becomes a matter that is
belt
addressed on the level of scenario design.  Besides, the only way to
hash out any
rules change or house rule is to perform a reality check.
    Besides, it doesn't really matter how complicated they're going to
make a
weapons system in the future.  If it's designed for grunts, a support
weapon is
always going to be able to be picked up quickly (Just how quickly is the
point of
this discussion. <g>)  by a comrade should the operator fall in battle. 
That's
the way it is know, and that's the way it is in the vast majority of
sci-fi combat
we've seen.

> > The time thing is something I'm always uncomfortable with too. Jon
> states in
> > his rules that he doesn't like to put a fixed time limit on a game
turn and
> > mentions 1 minute and a few minutes. Then we say it can take up to 5
minutes
> > and then we all start quoting 5 minutes. I really think Jon T didn't
really
> > want to get pigeon holed with a SET 5 minutes turn yet now we all
argue it
> > is a gospel fixed time span.....
>
>   Which is why we should leave the philosophising up to him.	:)

    Hey, I paid my money, the rules are mine, now. <g>

>   I think the question should be, should a support weapon be
transferable,
> and if so, how hard should it be to transfer so it doesn't make the
> support weapon so useful to have that a squad 'must' have one or two.

    Again, I don't think this is a primary concern.  It's not like we're
creating
a whole new weapon or even a who new game mechanic.  We're just talking
about how
to handle casualties.  But even if you value game balance more than I do
in this
decision, it favors a more simplistic system where troopers can pick up
a fallen
comrade's weapon.  If you already have a balanced system, inserting a
totally
random loss of an important weapon when even wound casualties occur just
plays
havoc with the previously established balance.

-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