Hi, I just came back from a weekend playing games at Pacificon, here in the
San Francisco Bay area. In one of the DS2 games, it was brought up that there
are restrictions placed on choosing targets, and that these restrictions
purposefully conflict with 'optimal' strategies. If, for example, it seems
better for a unit to spread its fire across multiple enemy units (the
intention is to cause morale problems, weaken their ability to concentrate
fire, etc.), would this conflict with the rules, should it be considered 'bad
form' or against the spirit of the rules?
Anyone else take the targeting guidelines into consideration in their games?
> From: mechavar@arm.com[SMTP:mechavar@arm.com]
There is the similar Rule of Engagement within SG, ie closest target firing on
you, greatest threat, that sort of thing. I like it as it keeps those tempted
to do the "God thing" on the battlefield a little more in line.
Owen Glover IT Services
> ----------
In a message dated 97-09-04 15:35:32 EDT, you write:
> Hi,
I always use the targeting guidelines in games I run. The guidelines are IMHO
intended to reflect the fact that the grunt in the field really doesn't give a
crap about the general's master plan. His goal is to live to see tomorrow.
Therefore he will identify the greatest threst to himself and take it out.
Often there is a strategically better target, but the grunt in the field is
just not interested. Various methods can be used to simulate the commander's
direct control in target selection, etc. to allow engagement of important
targets. One idea is to use a system of communications rolls to allow the
commander to direct fire at certain targets. I often use a
card-based turn sequence, and when doing so include a number of cards
representing the command unit that can be used to direct fire.
Later
Brian