> "Glover, Owen" wrote:
> It is using the rules to gain the advantage rather than the game
How do you simlute suppression fire, then? It is a valid tactic and takes
advantage of the mechanics of the game, not the rules. It's not something that
creates a loophole that give you an incredible advantage. It simply shifts the
way your fire has effect and allows you to opt for fire that is more likely to
suppress than kill. In RL, I can do this, why not in SGII?
> In RL (quaint abbrev for Real Life), a squad leader will use fire
But the SL can also order the SAW to lay down suppression fire.
> Taking it even further in cheesiness, I've seen guys try to argue that
But that's not what we're talking about here. Even so, I'd allow it in my
games. The squad IS using up it's second action.
> The best try was to fire three rifles getting a d10 (remeber you round
That sounds a bit cheesy, but it's not strictly illegal. I don't know that I'd
use it, but I'd play against a guy who did.
> Now throw a couple of IAVRs in each action; argued that if the
Actually, this example is in the book on p 15:
"Note that even if all the squad is together, one action NEED NOT affect
ALL members of the squad - the player may decide to have some squad
members (eg: the ordinary troopers and the SAW gunner) fire at one target,
while he uses the other action to make the squad's missile launcher fire at
another target such as an enemy vehicle."
> This is only one example of where a player can exploit the 'letter of
I'm not convinced it's an exploitation and not in the spirit of the game. It's
a choice to go for the suppression rather than the kill, which is a valid
military tactic.
> So, where do you 'cut the cheese'?
Hopefully no one will choose to do so at GZG-ECC III. <g>
-Mike
> -----Original Message-----
SOME SNIPS
> In RL, I can
In RL you can actually employ your wepaons to suppress rather than kill!? I
presume you mean the old "movie style" Give me covering fire!
Making noise isn't suppressing. The British Army has done some detailed
research on what was deemed to 'suppress' a soldier. Rounds falling within 1
meter of a soldier were deemed to suppress ie have a morale affect effectively
neutralising him and preventing him conducting further activities for at least
a limited period of time.
Forcing an enemy to duck isn't the same as suppressing. And at the scale of
Stargrunt we are attempting to Suppress an entire section of men spread over
possibly a 60m area.
> But the SL can also order the SAW to lay down suppression fire.
I've never heard or seen a fire control order "suppressive fire" - and
certainly never given or seen given FC orders for seperate teams/groups
on the same enemy.....hmm, except for the M203 to try to put a round into a
hardened fighting pit...
> But that's not what we're talking about here. Even so,
OK, you are playing a completely different philosophical approach to the game.
I can't accept you quoting RL in support of one argument and then turning
around and claiming that if it isn't strictly illegal by the rules you'll
include it in a game.
> Actually, this example is in the book on p 15:
Quoting out of context.
> "Note that even if all the squad is together, one action NEED
And lastly this example was using a GMS which CANNOT be fired using the same
action. And the actions used are to engage SEPARATE targets. Which is the
opposite to the situations we've been discussing. That is maximising the
firepower to be used against a SINGLE target in one Activation.
So I guess we'll just go our seperate ways on this issue. We play for the fun
of the games; the rules are a set of guidelines. Whenever we coming to a point
of interpretation we've rationalised it in RL terms and come up with
acceptable resolutions to all concerned.
Enjoy your gaming,
:-)
> "Glover, Owen" wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
The sarcasm isn't appreciated. Rather than reply in kind, I'll address your
arguments.
> > But the SL can also order the SAW to lay down suppression fire.
It is a common practice to have machine guns lower their rate of fire once a
target has become suppressed. This is done to conserve ammo, keep the barrel
from overheating, and because the only effect that is desired is to continue
with the suppression.
> - and certainly never given or seen given FC orders for seperate
This is the basic concept of fire and movement. It is a well established
tactic.
> > > The best try was to fire three rifles getting a d10
First, that's not what I said. My quote is above. You can see that I clearly
said that I didn't know if I'd use it, but if someone made the case for it,
I'd allow it. Besides, I don't see how you can only use RL as support for a
set of rules. You have to filter everything through the rules. It's not one or
the other. If you only follow the rules, then you're playing chess. If you
only consider RL, then you're just telling stories. Neither of those would be
considered wargames. You have to look at the rules, and how they try to
simulate reality. Then you apply that to individual cases, tempered with your
knowledge of real tactics and warfare.
> > Actually, this example is in the book on p 15:
How is this quoting out of context? We're talking about action and activations
and this quote is the final paragraph in the section labelled "Actions and
Activations."
> > "Note that even if all the squad is together, one action NEED
Which is how we resolve rules questions. Just because we don't come to the
same conclusions isn't cause for sarcastic comments.
-Mike
> "Glover, Owen" wrote:
I have to agree with the esteemable Mr.Sarno on this. I don't think it is
cheesy, because it makes sense given the fluid way the time frame works, as
described by St.Jon. In a given period of time, perhaps the squad is firing
its rifles at a target while the SAW is reloading, or moving to a different
position within the squad's area, or sighting in on the target better, or
whatever. Maybe the squad commander says to the SAW gunner
"ok,
you hold your fire for a minute and save ammo, and then give the squad cover
and keep the supression going on the target while the riflemen are
reloading..."
The fact of the matter is, as has been pointed out, you are a LOT less likely
to do damage to a target by taking the SAW fire out of the squad's fire, but
certainly more likely to lay in supressions. Which makes sense.
And the game is a set of rules that abstracts a lot of what goes on in a RL
firefight, and compresses many complex actions and commands into a simple set
of dicerolls. Lots can happen in 3 or 4 or 5 minutes, in RL. I think one can
make a good argument with examples to support it on both sides of this issue.
So in the end, the gaming group should decide what they feel comfortable with.
Certainly the rules themselves do not prevent this. (Though I always agree
with the statement "play the game not the rules"....)
> Taking it even further in cheesiness, I've seen guys try to argue
OK, that's peaking a lot higher on my "cheese" meter. Which may not make sense
given what I just said about the SAW split, but the game does treat the SAW
and the riflemen as separate elements in a squad... OK, it's completely
subjective here. I don't have a problem with splitting off the SAW and firing
at the same target (especially as it is going to cause less damage). I do have
a problem with doing this with riflemen. Contradictory views? Probably.
Doesn't have to make absolute perfect sense, though. It's a game:)
Sarcasm?
The trouble with email is that it often conveys meanings not intended. There
was no sarcasm meant.
If I have offended you I apologise as it was not intended.
> -----Original Message-----
> adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> >"Glover, Owen" wrote:
That's "Dr. Sarno." I didn't spend 6 years writing my thesis to be called
"Mister," thank you very much. <g>
> I don't think it is
I like this rationalization. I hadn't thought about it like that, but you're
right. The level of abstraction certainly could be used to explain the ability
to split fire.
> So in the end, the gaming group should decide what they feel
Agreed. Any set of rules needs to be interpreted by the gamers involved.
Tweaking the rules, or interpreting them differently, is always the right of
the gamer.
> Certainly the rules themselves do not prevent this. (Though I
Playing the game, is the main reason why I woudn't try to prevent lots of
these little techniques in my games. Since you can already split fire under
some conditions, I'd rather just let a player split fire under any conditions
and not worry about the specific rules.
> >> Taking it even further in cheesiness, I've seen guys try to argue
Contradictory
> views? Probably. Doesn't have to make absolute perfect sense,
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two
opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to
function."
F. Scott Fitzgerald, in The Crack-Up. You could always rationalize this
along the lines you've suggested above. Over the course of the turn, half the
squad is firing while the other reloads, then they switch roles. I just don't
see it as cheese because the squad that splits fire is using up two actions
and has less of a chance to cause casualties. They're giving up something for
the advantage of an increased chance of suppression. To me, that's exactly
what combat is about. You trade off certain advantages and disadvantages.
Knowing when to do what is the whole idea behind tactics.
-Mike
> "Glover, Owen" wrote:
> Sarcasm?
I can accept that. Just look at the comment you made, and understand how I may
have gotten the wrong idea:
"In RL you can actually employ your wepaons to suppress rather than kill!? I
presume you mean the old "movie style" Give me covering fire! "
-Mike
> > OK, that's peaking a lot higher on my "cheese" meter. Which may not
Contradictory
> > views? Probably. Doesn't have to make absolute perfect sense,
Knowing
> when to do what is the whole idea behind tactics.
Well, this one I'm also a bit worried about. One of the people in my
play group usually uses 10-man squads (8 troopers w/ FP3 rifles, 2 w/
SAW). If the squad could split, he'd go from 1 fire action
Quality/D12/SAW/SAW to 2 actions each of Quality/D12/SAW. It doesn't
seem to me like he has much less chance of scoring hits that way....
> Brian Quirt wrote:
> Well, this one I'm also a bit worried about. One of the people in my
Besides the obvious organizational problem here, which I'll address later,
take a look at the average case. You have regular troops firing their weapons
at a squad in the d10 range band. We'll give the squad those two SAWs at SFP
d8. So in the first
case, you have a squad firing d8/d12/d8/d8 against d10. On average,
you're looking
at 4.5/6.5/4.5/4.5 against 5.5. The average situation is going to cause
a suppression. But you can see that by a slight upward rise of any of the
firer's d8s (he's throwing three of them), he's going to score a hit. Also,
when he hits, his total on the dice is going to average out to be around 21,
which would indicate two hits.
Now look at splitting fire. He's throwing d8/d12/d8 and d8/d12/d8
against d10.
You're looking at the average again as 2 cases of 4.5/6.5/4.5 against
5.5. Most likely outcome would be two suppressions. Again, raise the value of
d8 again (now he's throwing four instead three of them), and you get a hit,
but now, on average, the firer is rolling 15 total. That is not an average of
over two hits, as above, but 1.5 hits. It's still a noticeable difference, but
the case you're citing is really more a problem with organization. It doesn't
seem like a good way to organize your troops when you could eliminate half of
the squad's riflemen and still end up with the same
in-game effect. This just doesn't seem to pass the reality check. With
the high FP of the individual riflemen, it seems more likely that the force
involved would have created two squads out of the 10 men in question. Even if
the high command didn't create this structure, it seems likely that the squads
would act as if they wre two seperate entities, in game terms: they'd detach
on a regular basis. It just seems that even in this extreme case, the
interpretation that I'm supporting doesn't really break down that much. At
worst, it handles the "extra" FP better than simply wasting it.
-Mike
I have to agree with splitting off the supporting fire. A SAW can and should
be able to split and fire seperately at the same target. Perhaps the Squad
Leader planned it to cover another access of advance but the identified target
became too important.
Now as for the other riflemen in the squad. Splitting them to "Maximise the
dice potential" of thier fire is definitly treading into cheese mode. Though
possible (barely) the SL would not split the fire of his troops on the same
target.
> Magic wrote:
> Now as for the other riflemen in the squad. Splitting them to
Why wouldn't the SL split fire? Splitting fire is merely an abstraction. It's
hard to say exactly what would be occuring in a turn when a player chooses to
split fire, but it could indicate any number of perfectly reasonable tactics.
Firing to suppress, rather than kill is a perfectly valid RL tactic. When I
first thought about this, I agreed with you on all counts. It wasn't cheese to
split the SAW fire, but it was cheese to split rifle fire. However, I thought
more about it, and it makes sense to me. I'm not saying that anyone needs to
think more on this subject. If you like the idea, great. If you think it's
cheese, that's great, too. Both are reasonable conclusions and there are
plenty of SGII players to allow you to find an opponent who will play
according to the interpretation you prefer. Just so you know how I've reached
my conclusion, consider the following. Cheese is something that may be
reasonably interpretted as legal under the rules, but is unrealistic and
grants an unfair advantage. Without all three, you have something other than
cheese. As I mentoined above, I don't think it's unrealistic. Given the
abstraction of the system, one would be hard pressed to come up with a
definitive description of the action that is unrealistic.
As far
as granting an unfair advantage, I just don't see it. I costs you a full
action to fire the weapons that didn't fire in the first action. Thus, a squad
which chooses to split fire could not move or remove suppression or do
anything else in that activation. All they are doing is concentrating on
firing for that activation. In exchange for that action, they're getting to
throw the dice a little differently, with a slight advantage towards to
scoring multiple suppressions and almost no advantage, if any of scoring more
hits. One of the features of SGII that I like the most, is the fact that good
tactics are always rewarded. If a squad is at the right place at the right
time and has that "extra" FP, or can get a slightly more advantagous effect
from spending both actions to roll the dice differently, why not them do it?
-Mike
After a furious but fruitless search for my Stargrunt rules, I beg a question
from someone who has theirs next to their monitor... (I did find the counter
sheet, though....)
Don't the rules say that you (The Squad Leader) split off a sub section of a
given squad, thereby forming two smaller elements? That accomplishes the
splitting of fire maneuver and has the additional leadership mechanic to
eliminate the "cheesiness"
If you want to lay down split supressive fire, pay the admin costs. This would
emulate the SL saying "You five, burn a clip over there. and YOU five, wait
until these guys reload and then hit em again." After the threat is over, the
SL then reorganizes his squad into one coherent unit then moves on.
Isn't Stargrunt supposed to be squad based in flavor? Splitting fire down to
that level borders on what FMA is supposed to do. ie Squad Based versus Figure
Based gaming.
-=Kr'rt
Quoth Michael Sarno <msarno@ptdprolog.net>...
> Magic wrote:
> -Mike
Mike,
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. 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.
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.
Magic
[quoted original message omitted]
> Kr'rt wrote:
> Don't the rules say that you (The Squad Leader) split off a sub
Yes, we've talked about this over the past few days. It was actually used to
support the argument that splitting fire seemed like a reasonable
interpretation.
> If you want to lay down split supressive fire, pay the admin costs.
This seems reasonable. However, the detach action basically creates another
squad. There are a few restrictions, but it really simulates something much
different from "Tom, Dick, Harry, you fire over there. Larry, Moe, Curly, you
fire over there." From a realistic standpoint, I can see spending the
additional action on splitting fire, but detaching seems like much more effort
than that.
> Isn't Stargrunt supposed to be squad based in flavor?
Sure, it's a squad-level game, but it is also in skirmish scale and
you calculate a squad's firepower by adding up the individual firepower of
each man in the squad.
> Splitting fire
I don't find this to be a convincing argument. There is already plenty of
overlap between FT/DS/SG/FMA. It would be more convincing if casualties
in SGII weren't handled on a per man basis, taking into account the individual
armor that the grunt is wearing. It would be a more convincing argument if
support weapons couldn't fire at a different target. Some elements of SGII are
abstracted out to the squad level, others are not. What we're discussing here
isn't handling each man firing seperately in an activation, but allowing the
player to divide the fire over both actions in one activation.
-Mike
> Magic wrote:
> I can definitly see your points. In the abstract it is true there is
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
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
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