Tactics

[Gary Miles]

Re: Tactics

 

"Watch where you throw that grenade: the casualty radius is larger than you think"

 

"Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend."

[Mister E]

Re: Tactics

 

3) While patrolling, every party member should be in line-of-sight w/ at least one other party member, as far apart as reasonably possible.

 

4) While checking for traps (or taking point), it is good to rotate party members (assuming everyone is competent... there are enough party members (or fire teams) to have such options... & there are no other outstanding solutions).

[Ragitsu]

Re: Tactics

 

Carrying your maximum encumbrance (usually) works fine for hiking, but sucks for tactical squad-level combat.

[Old Man]

Re: Tactics

 

Unless that encumbrance is mostly ammo.

[Alex Williamson]

Re: Tactics

 

Carry weapons with common ammunition. It's amazing how often groups I was in would be packing eight different calibres.

 

Also, a single sidearm is enough. You don't need four guns on top of your primary. It sounds like fun, but a sane GM should assign penalties for carrying a gazillion weapons - even if you're strong enough to.

[OMEGAop]

Re: Tactics

 

I think it's in some players' makeup that they'll do what they want to do (which is usually go on some random walkabout) no matter what. Some will refrain when yelled at. And when they get into a situation where they cannot be yelled at because of breakdown of in-game tactical communications' date=' they go just apes**t on their random peregrinations, poking every beehive with a stick as they pass.[/quote']

 

We have 1 of those in my Dark Heresy Game. It like his PC is playing his own game, and not part of the bigger group. He not always working for the cell, it got so bad this last game out, I am considering dropping out.

[Old Man]

Re: Tactics

 

Carry weapons with common ammunition. It's amazing how often groups I was in would be packing eight different calibres.

 

Also, a single sidearm is enough. You don't need four guns on top of your primary. It sounds like fun, but a sane GM should assign penalties for carrying a gazillion weapons - even if you're strong enough to.

 

Josey Wales disagrees.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Tactics

 

So does Gordon Freeman.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Tactics

 

Unless that encumbrance is mostly ammo.

 

If most of your maximum encumbrance is ammunition, you're either carrying a heavy weapon (such as a machine gun or LAW), or are planning on digging into a fortified position. Moving around combat when your speed and defense are decreased, when certain Skills are penalized, and/or when you are fatiguing yourself faster, is pretty much bad tactics.

[Old Man]

Re: Tactics

 

I dunno if it's bad tactics so much as bad planning and logistics. It all depends--I know for a while at least, operators in Iraq and Afghanistan showed a preference for operating without armor, because it restricted their movement so much. As an armchair general, leaving your body armor at home sounds like suicide, but what do I know? Nowadays I've noticed a big emphasis on carrying as much ammunition as reasonably possible, typically with the entire front midriff area stacked with triple mag pouches, and more on the thighs, plus everyone carries a belt for the SAW gunner. But I'm not over there, fortunately, so I can't say for sure.

[Bolon]

Re: Tactics

 

The seige of Hong Kong in WWII was lost due to the fact that the men arrived on one ship and the ammo was on another ship that never arrived. The modern tactic of blanket fire on a position requires large amounts of ammo and ammo is useless if still in the gun. THe more ammo, the longer the person is a dangerous combatant. Once out of ammo, the person is only a target and a very secondary one at that. If the sh*t hits the fan, you can't just cut and run but usually are caught there. Tactically, you seek cover and wait for rescue. That requires a lot of ammo or you will be overrun. Strangely, they still kill you if you have an empty weapon.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Tactics

 

I dunno if it's bad tactics so much as bad planning and logistics. It all depends--I know for a while at least' date=' operators in Iraq and Afghanistan showed a preference for operating without armor, because it restricted their movement so much. As an armchair general, leaving your body armor at home sounds like suicide, but what do I know? Nowadays I've noticed a big emphasis on carrying as much ammunition as reasonably possible, typically with the entire front midriff area stacked with triple mag pouches, and more on the thighs, plus everyone carries a belt for the SAW gunner. But I'm not over there, fortunately, so I can't say for sure.[/quote']

 

It does depend, but not every adventurer group is military.

 

That aside, there is a definite schism between actual military personnel and RPG characters: this is due to that gamer tendency to hoard equipment that isn't critical for the foreseeable future, and it can in fact clash with a sensible course of action that promotes self-preservation.

 

---

 

 

Most missile launchers produce backblast, so be aware of what's behind you before firing!

[McCoy]

Re: Tactics

 

Also' date=' a single sidearm is enough. You don't need four guns on top of your primary. It sounds like fun, but a sane GM should assign penalties for carrying a gazillion weapons - even if you're strong enough to.[/quote']

Depends. Military, rifle (primary), maybe special weapon (anti-tank OR grenade launcher OR shotgun OR etc; OR not AND), and your sidearm.

 

Police/detective/urban vigilante/spy, yes, need your sidearm, your less lethal option (usually a baton IRL), and your concealed backup-holdout. Redundant holdout? May be in character.

 

Tactical mistake I see players making? Forming a "scrimmage line." The only reason not to be trying to surround the enemy is that the enemy already has you surrounded. (Unless one of your teammates has acquired a nickname like "Friendly Fire" Freddy, then see crossfire / no disappearing bullets above.)

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Tactics

 

The seige of Hong Kong in WWII was lost due to the fact that the men arrived on one ship and the ammo was on another ship that never arrived. The modern tactic of blanket fire on a position requires large amounts of ammo and ammo is useless if still in the gun. THe more ammo' date=' the longer the person is a dangerous combatant. Once out of ammo, the person is only a target and a very secondary one at that. If the sh*t hits the fan, you can't just cut and run but usually are caught there. Tactically, you seek cover and wait for rescue. That requires a lot of ammo or you will be overrun. Strangely, they still kill you if you have an empty weapon.[/quote']

 

Minor clarification: no reinforcements were shipped to Hong Kong. The anecdote may refer to Singapore, although it's not a very accurate accounting of the fall of the fortress. And things like this happened in the Norway campaign. Overall, there's always a tension between combat loading a ship and loading it efficiently. You get more ammunition in the latter case, while it is available more quickly in the former.

 

(If the loaders have correctly deduced the kind of combat into which the ship is sailing. Hence the resupply echelons for D-Day, carrying AA ammunition buried deep in their holds back and forth across the Channel, trip after trip, for weeks on end.)

[Ragitsu]

Re: Tactics

 

Keeping radio silence, anyone?

[Ragitsu]

Re: Tactics

 

Running about at night, during an attack, with flashlights turned on.

[Sundog]

Re: Tactics

 

Or smoking. Or smoking when on guard.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Tactics

 

Or smoking when on guard.

 

There's actually a player character in my game that smokes. I wonder if the GM is going to make him easy to spot.