Re: [GZG] [SG] IAVRs

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lMy thought process,

The average soldier is carrying an IAVR.  Why would I want to bring in a
weapon
that does a poor job against armor and a poor job against aviation
targets?
I want
that  pilot running, not dropping bombs on my head.

I'm thinking for the doctrine I am going to follow it will be no more
than 2
IAVRs a turn.
I really can't see combining them with rifle fire.  6 IAVRs an 1 rifle
is
well into "playing the rules."

I'm also thinking that if I want more than three rockets someone else
will
have to give up an IAVR.

So it would not be abusive to say the rocketeer is carrying a rifle?

In a real world squad you have a squad leader and a team leader in each
squad?	That lets me cut
IAVRs to 4, 5 if no anti-aviation assets.  That is about what I wanted
but
couldn't justify.

Roger

On 12/8/05, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/8/05, Adrian <adrian@stargrunt.ca> wrote:
>
> > You could keep the rocket launcher as a standard part of the
platoon's
> gear
> > - soldiers like to have something that goes *bang* to take out
bunkers,
> > tanks, enemy gun emplacements in buildings, etc.
>
> I disagree from a doctrinal standpoint.  If you tell a troopie that he
> can use a weapon against anything he pleases, then he will.  If you
> tell him it's for shooting down aircraft then he MIGHT use it to shoot
> at aircraft instead of blazing away at every bunker he finds.
>
> Personally, I'd punish anyone foolish enough to shoot off their only
> anti-air asset at a stupid bunker by having an airstrike show up on
> the next turn whether my scenario called for it or not.
>
> Besides, I don't think systems using mere eyeballs as a target
> acquisition system are terribly effective vs. modern aircraft, much
> less futuristic ones.  I'm inclined to keep anti-air assets in
> anti-air batteries that fight as integrated systems, rather than
> handing yet another complicated piece of kit to some poor infantry
> schlub.
>
> > That doesn't help the attackers much against armoured vehicles since
the
> > impact of a squad's fire is based on the impact of the rifles and
not
> the
> > support weapons.
>
> Unless you fire them at the vehicles as support weapons, and I would
> permit (based on real-world doctrine for these things) firing two of
> them as a single activation so long as it is at a single target.
>
> > I've tried giving one IAVR per trooper in games in the past, and had
> > "canny" players dump all of them in a single round into a (troop
squad)
> > target.  So, out of the 8-trooper squad, you have one rifleman fire
and
> add
> > in the SAW and six IAVRs.  That uses them all up, but makes for a
really
> > devastating round of firing (against infantry)...
>
> Canny my ass.  I'd force a reaction check.  TV+3, +6 if there are ANY
> vehicles on the board at all.  If it fails, the squad looses an
> activation while the squad leader tactfully tells the platoon leader
> he's a damn fool, shut up and let him run his squad.
>
> > Now, your mission objective is to eliminate 3 vehicles, which means
that
> > the focus will be on them, but giving one IAVR per trooper means
that
> the
> > attackers will have 14 to 16 IAVR.	That's a lot of rockets - four
> firing
> > per turn for four turns.
>
> I wouldn't give one to the squad leader or team leaders.  We carry too
> much crap already and are too busy directing fire and leading to be
> bothered with firing support weapons.  Often a squad leader will fire
> his weapon 10% as much as his troops will.  That cuts it down to 4 per
> squad.  Given that the modern doctrinal answer is to fire two per
> target, that's two armored vehicles per squad, which means if one
> survives, they still win the fight.
>
> > I've run ambush scenarios like this a few times, and it usually
seems to
> > work out best for the ambushee...
>
> Ambush is a specialized form of attack which requires the ambusher to
> have a certain force ratio (GMs frequently misjudge)and to have a good
> grasp of the basic principles of conducting an ambush.
>
> John
> --
> "Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
> and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
> --Vita Aureliani
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>