RE: Numerous bits

Realistically I don't think so.  It's just a variation on shoot and
scoot or fire and duck.  Other examples might be soldiers in a bunker
firing then slamming blast shutters down immediately after, or soldiers
firing GL's then ducking back down into trenches or foxholes.  In both
situations the soldiers expose themselves for the least amount of time
and gain the benefit of increased cover compared to soldiers who stay up
in position.

In real life, this type of action usually results in less accurate fire
- if you don't take a few seconds to sight on a target and make the
appropriate corrections for cover, movement, wind, etc then your
outgoing fire is going to pretty inaccurate.

Other game systems that I have played offer a wider variety of
modifiers, some give a bonus for being braced (i.e. on a tripod/bipod,
using a window or door frame or being prone) and sometimes a negative
modifier for moving, with ducking or shifting position counting as
moving.  This allows players to shoot and scoot with a negative impact
on their accuracy.  In play, I have found most will opt to stand and
shoot on the theory that if you shoot and hit first, you will take less
shots in return.

Then looking at your example more closely - one scenario is that two
soldiers pop smoke just as their teammates fire - within a few seconds,
the whole group is enguled with smoke and can't be fired on.  I think
that is a viable tactic.  I think the defect is in the rules - smoke
blocks LOF.  The rule book makes no distiction between smoke grenades
and smoke generated by fires, which is obviously a defect - after all
modern firefighters now use IR goggles to see through the smoke in
building fires.  A possible solution is to modify the rule to smoke
decreases the effectiveness of firing (perhaps a die shift) with
multiple layers of smoke being cumulative (i.e. three layers in the way
would result in a triple die shift).

I mentioned before that perhaps smoke needs to come in various levels
from basic natural smoke to high tech versions that block almost all
types of sensors and detection equipment.

Thus it would provide another edge to high-tech forces - local militias
might be equipped with basic sensors (Thermal) so it would be a
perfectly viable option then for the high-tech forces to use chemical
smoke dispensers that wouldn't block radar, ultrasonic ranging, or other
high-tech means, but are impervious to IR, and lay down a thick smoke
screen and work under conditions that effectively neutralizes the
militia.

--Binhan  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Books [mailto:books@jumpspace.net]
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 9:14 AM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: Numerous bits
> 
> 
> So what about this situation:
> 
> I have 6 soldiers: FP3.  I have four fire (d12) and, as my 
> second action
> have the remaining two drop smoke.  Any less abusive than the "not a
> firing action" scenario?
> 
> Roger Books
>