|
Post by Obergefreiter Raimund on Feb 11, 2008 11:56:57 GMT -5
I wanted to bring this up. Perhaps it has been discussed before… but I feel a refresher is in order! Perhaps it is only myself that has noticed, and maybe not… but the MG-42/34 in my opinion, have simply not been used as well as they could be in the various Airsoft engagements. Is the limited range on the weapon the problem? I don’t think it is as the MG-42/34’s have about the same if not a little more range than the Allied Thompsons. Not to mention a heck of a lot more ammo to dish out. So what is the issue? I think the issue is the MG-42’s and 34’s are not being used as a crewed weapon, but as a personal weapon; whereas a team is not being assigned to keep the MG shooting. Thus, when the MG gunner is shot out there is a lull in fire support leaving the German attackers or defenders with their K-98’s and the occasional MP-40 or STG-44’s to fill a big void. So how do we solve this problem? I’d suggest, assuming the owner of the MG-42 or 34 is willing and gracious enough to allow other team mates shoot his gun, that we, in order to become more effective as a combative team, assign MG crews. This would mean that the crew would or should be pre-determined at the start of a scenario or even the OP itself. This would enable the crew to perhaps split ammo cost or even prepare themselves to carry some extra ammo/batteries for the sole purpose of being able to re-load the MG. Furthermore, the owner can instruct his crew how to use the weapon and the do’s and don’ts with his gun. Now, lets examine the advantages of a MG crew! With a crew manning an MG we now can visualize continued fire support. Since, if the MG Gunner is shot out there will be a man to replace him. This should also be somewhat of a relief to all you guys who lug that MG around!!! This means you do not have to carry the MG back and forth from spawn!!! It also means you should consider investing in a sidearm or perhaps sling a K-98 with a single magazine in it. (no real need to carry more than that) but also that you should return as quickly as possible so that you can re-man the gun. This will of course involve coordination with your teammates. But the MG owner or whomever is dominantly assigned the MG Gunner, should, upon return, man his position ASAP! Now, lets look at the obvious tactical advantages of a crew VS a gunner in examples: Example 1: The allies knock out a gunner. With the gunner gone there is little to stop them from forcing an advance against k-98s. After all, with a little fire and movement they can advance to optimum range for the kill. However, if the MG was crewed, taking out the gunner wouldn’t open this sort of advantage to the allied forces. Example 2: The allies again take out the gunner who was overlooking a section of the beach. With the gunner gone the allies are no longer suppressed and being flooding that section of the beach. However, if the gun was crewed this would not occur. Example 3: The Germans are advancing on an allied position and need fire support. But, upon advancing the Gunner is shot and now the Germans are outgunned and desperate for fire support. If the MG was crewed another crew member could take up the gun and offer that support. Example 4: An allied soldier flanks the MG and the gunner is unable to re-position the gun in time to counter his attacker. Now, if the MG was a crewed the crew members would be able to deal with this type of threat. I think everyone gets the idea now. I hope I didn’t overdue with this post…. Maybe I got off on a bit of a tangent. But, I’m passionate about tactics.
|
|
|
Post by Jager.Drü on Feb 11, 2008 13:57:58 GMT -5
Well, If the riflemen were doing their jobs, which is to protect the MG, The gunner would have more of a chance. The MG is the main killing weapon and it does take some training to run it. Most airsoft MG are privately owned and they are expensive. If you owned one would you just want anyone and everyone using it? I wouldn't. Up here in the NW Schmitty owns the axis MG and he does let people use them, after he talks to them and goes over the gun with them. I highly doubt you want to give a briefing to everyone.
MG crews, only had one gunner and a assistant that carried ammo. The Gruppen Furher stayed with the MG to spot with his binos. While the Truppen Furher let the rifle men to 1. protect the MG. 2. Mop up any kills that the MG got. 3. Flank what the MG is suppressing.
Example 1. The Allies did good, they stopped the main weapon. Nothing the Germans could do about that except be in a better postion with the MG with more cover.
E2. Better cover again. If in a fixed postion the MG2 could take over, but if moving he couldn't.
E3. The Germans were moving wrong. The MG should be in the middle of the Gruppe.
E4. Where were the riflemen? Where was the MG2 with his rifle? How did the Allied soldier flank the MG, where the riflemen are there to protect the MG. Again the Germans would have moved wrong.
While moving the MG2 is carrying a rifle on his back, Kar98 rounds, belt around his neck and ammo cans in his hands. Thats quite a load. I did it at a blank reenactment, I carried my Kar98, 100 rounds in my bandoleer, 100 belt around the neck and 250 ammo can. Along with a shovle. I didn't/wouldn't want to carry anything extra let alone the whole machinegun.
|
|
|
Post by Obergefreiter Raimund on Feb 11, 2008 14:17:05 GMT -5
Jager,
Interesting incites. And again, it touches on a couple of things. However, in Airsoft I want to point out that the MG doesn’t have much range if any over the Thompson. Therefore, it is open to receive a lot more fire than in the real life situation. Secondly, yes, it is true! The MG Gunner(s) is being left undefended. You speak volumes of truth in that regard. Thirdly, I believe you are right again. The MG gunners are not moving correctly and into proper cover. I’ve actually seen people fire the MG from their hips and in the standing or crouching position while advancing on fixed allied positions.
But moreover, my suggestions above are merely to bring to light something that I can see being improved upon. Making for a much more effective use of the MG-42’s and MG-34’s.
|
|
|
Post by binarypunisher on Feb 11, 2008 16:01:15 GMT -5
majorray, you should come out to the upcoming Battlesim event 'Drop to Destiny". The German squad tactics utilized at our games, while not perfect - are pretty close to the WWII tactics used. It sounds like you have a problem with how the games are run.
For instance, at BS events all SMGs are supposed to turn their hop up off - this is done to simulate the advantages of a single fire rifle, or the fire superiority of an MG over individual rifleman.
|
|
|
Post by Obergefreiter Raimund on Feb 11, 2008 16:05:29 GMT -5
majorray, you should come out to the upcoming Battlesim event 'Drop to Destiny". The German squad tactics utilized at our games, while not perfect - are pretty close to the WWII tactics used. It sounds like you have a problem with how the games are run. For instance, at BS events all SMGs are supposed to turn their hop up off - this is done to simulate the advantages of a single fire rifle, or the fire superiority of an MG over individual rifleman. Oh, don’t get me wrong!!! I enjoy the sport very much! It is much better than any modern Airsoft game I’ve been to. I just was pondering about how to make better use of the MG-42’s and 34’s. And from some observations I can recollect from previous Airsoft ww2 Airsoft games I came up with my opinion and suggestion. However, yeah, perhaps I will have to attend one of these battle-Sims. I’m sure it would be a blast!
|
|
|
Post by Jager.Drü on Feb 11, 2008 19:22:34 GMT -5
I agree, SMGs with the hop up off. This would help with the MGs range. Also enforceing a "low cap" only type game would too. Or if he have only highcaps you shoot semi. Not semi as fast as you can but with a pasue in between shots, even Thompson user who only have highcaps. Another thing would be not to allow bags of loose ammo. Loose ammo for MGs is okay.
The is one of the bad things about airsoft, most of the guns shoot the same distance. Why have have an MG if a thompson can spray and pray?
|
|
|
Post by CharleyNovember on Jan 15, 2013 17:20:10 GMT -5
Old topic but I wanted to revisit it for a specific reason I recently was at an event where a fella had a custom MG42 he wielded like it was a modern SAW because he had an Assault drum attached. How common was it for SS and FJ troops to hip shoot this thing instead of setting it up in a supported position? I think it was rather unusual for this to happen but would like feed back if I am wrong.
|
|
|
Post by knights52 on Jan 15, 2013 17:47:07 GMT -5
I have an interesting pic of fj shoulder firing an mg42 without resting it on anything. I'll post it when I get home layer.
|
|
|
Post by aj czarkowski on Jan 15, 2013 19:18:14 GMT -5
It was probably done before, but I bet it hurt haha. I don't think they would have done that for a long time though
|
|
stuka
Sergeant
The one and only
Posts: 1,205
|
Post by stuka on Jan 15, 2013 19:41:10 GMT -5
well i mean, that like hipfiring a m60, but with a 8mm round(7.92 if you want to be picky -_-) and a ROF of double that and some
|
|
ersatzjack2
Private 1st Class
"We can still win this thing, once the secret weapons arrive."
Posts: 612
|
Post by ersatzjack2 on Jan 15, 2013 21:59:13 GMT -5
I'm guessing that it could be fired that way in exigent circumstances but I doubt if it was the preferred way. I have seen guys bending over to serve as impromptu bipods with the gunner placing the gun on the shoulder or back of the assistant gunner but I don't think they did that too long either. In airsoft the only advantage to these guns is their magazine capacity. They are heavier than rifles or smgs when you lug them them into the game. In MOA we have three of them on the German team. EJ and I have a MG42 and a MG34 and Shady Cadence has another MG34. We try to use them in defensive skirmishes as attacking with it isn't as much fun. With the addition last year of the halftrack the MG42 will probably only be in the vehicle. Without a doubt, that is the best place for it as it is mounted and can be utilized to maximum effect without wearing out the person assigned to carry it. In the field we'll still use the MG34 and it will also see action on our replica motorcycle. I don't always use the bipod though. Sometimes it is much easier to place the barrel over some branches or a log and swivel it easily that way. They are more work but they are way cool to use. I do remember one game where Ulrich (one of the 6th SS guys) who is very fit and much younger than I used the MG34 like Rambo. He chased a bunch of Russians thru some grass firing from the hip near the end of one skirmish. It was cool to watch but I doubt if he would have wanted to do that all day long.
|
|
|
Post by CharleyNovember on Jan 15, 2013 22:08:44 GMT -5
Just seemed tactically wrong if you were going for historical authenticity which these guys say the were. I dunno just trying to figure out game mechanics for something else. Thanks much for the feedback guys.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jan 15, 2013 23:45:56 GMT -5
Here is something to consider. While its true the MG was the primary weapon for the German squad if employed correctly on offense it will not neccessarily be the primary casualty producer. Instead it will positioned to place plunging fire (beaten zone fire) on the likely enemy positions while the squad members manuever to generate eliminations. The mg simply provides the cover fire . By using the mg as a stand off suppressor you can increase its survivability.
|
|
ersatzjack2
Private 1st Class
"We can still win this thing, once the secret weapons arrive."
Posts: 612
|
Post by ersatzjack2 on Jan 16, 2013 1:03:19 GMT -5
That's actually happened in a couple of our games. It isn't common because of the ranges of the airsoft guns but I do remember one or two times where two mg's worked in tandem to lay down withering amounts of suppressive fire.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jan 16, 2013 18:14:18 GMT -5
Whats interesting is if ammo limits are initiated and adhered to and the bulk of the players have to swap clips, mags etc. The ammo capacity adavantage of the crew served weapons allow them then to function authentically. If the mg selects their positions carefully and they do so with the intent of only closing to direct fire range with their weapons when clear dominance is established their survivability and realistic support role can be maintained? Likewise in defense they be located so their fire plunge in a cross front fashion rather than attempting to sweep side to side. Range limitations prevent that if we use them only in lazer fire mode. Interestingly one residual benefit for our range limitations and abbreviated trajectory is the airsoft machine gun does an amazing job covering defilade gaps to the defenses front. Verbal direction from the squad leaders and fellow squad members can direct this. Also by holding fire until the optimal time the MG in defense can remain hidden and relatively safe until it needs to be employed or can be initiated and produce the most devastating effect.
The German MG and the M1919A6 are much more airsoft appropriate than MGs mounted on tripods but playing with tripod mounted MGs required our MG teams to practice very realistic team drills and genuinely consider how best to employ the weapons. These lessons dramatically impacted the authenticity of our events. It all started with ammo and magazine restrictions and the buy in from everyone. The result is a much more emmersive event and far more realistic tactical phases.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Mar 7, 2014 10:38:09 GMT -5
With the introduction of the Matrix MG42 and cousin AGM offering a far more affordable german machine gun is available which means they will become increasingly commonplace. Obviously there are wonderful upsides to this but I fear they might start showing up like bunny rabbits where their numbers explode. Also some accomodation probably needs to be afforded the allies until an affordable and available M1919A6 comes out. (perhaps BARs will be used to help in that regard.) What does everyone think should be a reasonable limitation on MGs? Or should there be one? I propose at least six riflemen for every sub machine gun and MG. (Greater numbers of riflemen even better). In otherwords an eight man unit would have six players limited to semi auto fire and ammo restrictions, one player could fire full auto with hop up off (sub machine gun) and one player could have full auto, box magazine and full hop but must have a bipod/ tripod installed.
I like very much the fact that with the price way down the willingness of the MG owner to let a dedicated Assistant take the gun over will probably go up.
|
|
|
Post by LϟϟAH1944 on Mar 7, 2014 14:44:44 GMT -5
One per squad, except for late war('45) scenarios, where they were actually quite frequent. I do, however, disagree with the complete nerfing of all SMGs. It will either lead to SMg guys quitting, or all buying Mgs.
|
|
shiftysgarand
Corporal
BangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangPING
Posts: 1,165
|
Post by shiftysgarand on Mar 7, 2014 18:06:28 GMT -5
What would a BAR be counted as? GIs given the BAR frequently ditched the bipod, which would violate the MG rules.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Mar 7, 2014 18:50:12 GMT -5
If the BAR is being used as a substitute for the Light Machine Gun (instead of a squad automatic weapon) with hi cap magazines then it should be required to have the bipod in place. Once an M1919 is readily available the STg 44 and BARs can off set each other. A SMG with hop up off is a REALLY mild penalty for representing the downsides of pistol ammunition vs rifle ammo. The effect on range and effectiveness doesn't come close to the actual disparity. Guys can still use their MP40 and Thompsons and use them with hop up engaged, just set them on semi and accept the role of riflemen. Too many full auto weapons makes a mockery of trying to replicate a realistic battle experience and turns WW2 airsoft into airsoft spray and pray with cool costumes. NOT the direction I hope to see WW2 airsoft go to.
|
|
|
Post by brownien on Mar 7, 2014 18:50:43 GMT -5
The Bar, with its limited mag capacity, and no way to change the barrel in combat, was really used as the first assault rifle. GI's simply used it to add to the volume of fire, kinda like if there was a Garand that had a 20rd mag and full auto. They tried to use it like an LMG, but with its limitations, it was no more capable than a heavy assault rifle. The GI's adapted it as such by removing the bipod, and used it on full auto squeezing off 2-3 rounds interrmitantly. I think allowing the Bar to be full auto, and to be used like an auto rifle would be accurate, whereas the mg34/42 was a crew serverd weapon, so requiring it to fire from a bipod or only while kneeling would be accurate.
|
|
|
Post by newcomer on Mar 7, 2014 19:11:19 GMT -5
What brownien said, 20 rounds and fixed barrel meant that sustained fire was essentially out of the question. The weapon itself simply was not a LMG, more akin to a heavy assault rifle/automatic rifle hybrid.
|
|
|
Post by insterburger on Mar 7, 2014 20:43:54 GMT -5
One per squad, except for late war('45) scenarios, where they were actually quite frequent. I do, however, disagree with the complete nerfing of all SMGs. It will either lead to SMg guys quitting, or all buying Mgs. As 2nd Bat said, hopping down SMGs-- not to mention limiting their number and imposing strict ammo restrictions-- is essential to the success of WWII airsoft. Any guys who would quit WWII airsoft because they can't be pumping out on full auto all the time would probably be more at home at a modern game anyway, and I'm not sure I understand your reasoning as to why rules that severely limit the number of HMGs to be fielded would somehow push people to run out and buy them. I think what will more likely happen with the new rules is that whatever people join up with only a Thompson or MP40 will be welcomed with open arms, but be asked to skirmish on semi-auto. As they experience the quality of simulation and get deeper into the hobby they will probably want to upgrade to something more historically accurate and better suited to semi-auto fire, and invest in an M1, M1 Carbine, StG44, or 98k when it becomes possible for them to do so. The difference between full auto games and scaled simulations is, to me, like the difference between checkers and chess. Sure, they both require skill and strategy to play, but the sophistication and depth of the latter is exponentially beyond the former. Part of establishing the sophistication that comes through a historically accurate balance of arms is that players be willing to accept imposed limitations on their firepower.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Mar 8, 2014 1:40:08 GMT -5
It is great that there are finally sufficient weapons choices where these kind of discussions are taking place. The next discussion needs to a recognition that weapons get very hot. a machinegun fails to function if fired constantly. The German MG was a fabulous weapon with an incredible rate of fire but sustained fire meant barrels had to be swapped about every 300 rounds even with short pauses between bursts. Failing to do so destroyed the barrel and rendered the weapon as useless. The BAR gunner had to mindfull of what his sustained rate of fire could be as did sub machine gunners as neither had the ability to swap barrels. Allied soldiers learned to take advantage of the respite between ammo belts reloads, weapons clearances and barrel swaps. I'm not sure how we can accurately replicate such things but eventually it would be nice.
|
|
Ersatzjack
Corporal
"That silly Franz... he thinks we are winning."
Posts: 1,093
|
Post by Ersatzjack on Mar 8, 2014 2:30:20 GMT -5
I used to be interested in table top miniatures and would spend the day playing Napoleonic battles against other players in the club. Now my approach was to paint up reasonably looking armies, and learn the rule set so that I could maximize my chances for victory the day of the battle and still have some fun pushing the armies on the table and enjoying the spectacle. However there was this one other player that had a different approach. He was lost in the romance of the whole endeavor. When he played, he smelled smoke on the field, felt the air through his hair during cavalry charges, and heard the sound of the guns. He would do historical things with his forces even if it hurt his chances to play a competitive game. You can guess what happened. He almost always lost. Then after the battle he'd rationalize why never learning from his mistakes. He just received a different sense of pleasure in his play doing it his way. That's what I see in some of the comments above and that's fine if you are not interested in dealing with reality. And the reality is that airsoft guns are nothing like the real thing and airsoft crew weapons not the dreadnought imagined. The fact is that the Viva MG-34 uses a Thompson gear box and is a lot harder to handle in combat as it is big and clumsy. Whether it is an MG-42, MG-34, or M1919 the only advantage is if you have a large magazine. A high-cap Thompson or PPsh-41 or Stg-44 is far superior as they are handy, and the user can quickly change direction and they carry about the same ammo loads too. I see no need to limit the use of crew served weapons. Anyone that wants to use one would be better off with something else if competitive drive was their sole motivator. But thankfully, there are those who want to have the crew weapons to add visual immersion and don't calculate every advantage but get lost in the period and want to have things look right. They will even play trying to use real MG tactics (which they find out don't work so well in airsoft) but hey - that's how they want to play. More power to them. But let's not kid anyone. It comes at a price in combat effectiveness.
So now the MG-42 is there for the German side. If it is a good skirmishable gun it will be a decent add. Remember for years now the Germans for the most part have been fighting against Thompson's and Bar's with MP-40's (a less capable airsoft gun) and using a bunch of commercially made K-98's which are underwhelming. The STG-44 came along and helped the Germans become more competitive and now the MG-42 and RWA MG-34 will also add variety but not really increase potential. If you play east front, the Ppsh-41's are the most competitive gun. The best way to use the bigger clumsier crew weapons is to defend with them and provide either a vehicle which gives them excellent cover or place them in fortifications. Then they have the best chance to act as they really would have. Short ranges, and mostly woods fighting will always favor the SMG so let's not worry about the big guns. I think that teams will automagically not over use them because they will want to remain competitive and historical looking at the same time. One or two per 10-players would be a reasonable limit. Also their use as rambo weapons (one-man) is not going to be rampant as they really are heavy and no one will want to swing one that way for long. The natural tendency is for one person to operate the gun and keep some protectors close by and there you have the default MG team.
|
|
|
Post by insterburger on Mar 8, 2014 10:03:35 GMT -5
Ersatzjack, your points are all well taken, but I think you are taking for granted the very issues the tactical rules strive to solve. It is exactly BECAUSE the things you say are true that there is a need to develop rules that create more realistic balances. But what you seem to be missing is that those rules can, indeed, help to replicate a more realistic tactical situation and better reperesent WWII combat. If you haven't played under them, you should, it will change the way you look at this game.
To your analogy about the table top games, the problem frankly was not your friend's historicist approach, it was the disparity between the way he played the game and the more competitive-- but less authentic-- way you did. If you had both played all out, use any tactic to win, that would have been fine, but it would hardly be a Napoleonic battle. If you had both agreed to use only the type of manouvers that would have been acceptable at the time, the game would have been more limited for both of you, but far more accurate and, again, competitive. Precisely the difference between a spray and pray and a tactical. Likewise, if the Germans take the field with one MG42, 5 98k's, and a hopped down MP40 with limited ammo, but the Americans come at them with 7 full-auto Thompsons and pouches brimming with hi-caps, it won't be much of a game. The trick is for everyone to play by the same rules, limited or not.
I think the future of this hobby will be with players who have the maturity and dedication to accept articifial limitations on their firepower. We have to remember that despite appearances, this is not war. It is, at the end of the day, an organized sport, and there's not a single "real" sport that doesn't accept imposed limitations on equipment. Golf clubs can only be so big, golf balls only so "hot." You'll never see an aluminum bat in the major leagues. The technology is there to make these tools "better," but the decision makers in the sports-- and for the most part, the players-- understand that accepting limits on equipment performance is essential to maintaining the integrity and competitiveness of their game. What we are doing is just as simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by tango on Mar 8, 2014 17:17:36 GMT -5
In my opinion, machine gun and squad automatic rules should depend on density in real life use and the commercial availability of airsoft replicas. Different armies of the time fielded automatic weapons in unique ways and varying densities and I think those differences should be preserved if possible, instead of making each army mirror images of each other in the interest of fairness. In addition, not every unit was equipped with everything that it was supposed to be issued with on paper. Lack of machine guns on a particular side could be balanced by other means: amount of ammo issued, mortars, respawn times, grenades, mines, intel, defensive ground, etc. As a example of commercial availability, there are MG 34s and 42s available off the shelf for German players, but no DP-27s or Maxims currently exist for Soviet players outside of custom builds. However, this disparity can be balanced for airsoft games by the heavy use of PPSh-41s (of which there are three different airsoft replicas available) on the Soviet side, which parallels the volume of PPSh-41s used in real life Soviet tactics. This solution doesn't work for every situation however. For instance, the Japanese didn't field huge numbers of submachine guns, so another solution would have to be developed to counter the BARs, 30 cal, and 50 cal replicas available to US players. Certain impressions (German, US) are more popular than others (British, Japanese, Soviet, etc) and generally the commercial availability of weapons follows that trend. However, the airsoft industry isn't stagnant, so tactics and rules can be changed to be more realistic as new weapons become available. BARs are squad automatic weapons and could be differentiated from machine guns by placing restrictions on the rate of fire, number of magazines, capacity of magazines, and/or number of rounds carried. As far as an overabundance of SMG players, I think the way to address that would be to limit the number of magazines and ammunition carried to realistic levels. Early in the war, Soviet soldiers were issued the PPSh-41 with three drum magazines. However, later in the war it was very common to see only one magazine used, with two being a rarity. They were expected to reload from loose ammo carried in pockets, gas mask bags, pouches, etc. With only one or two magazines and a limited amount of loose ammo available, switching to full auto is a tactical decision and not something to be used at all times, or the SMG player will quickly find himself combat ineffective and a detriment to his team (out of loose ammo, empty magazines, reloading by hand or using a speedloader, etc). Again this solution might only work for the Soviet side... that's what I'm familiar with so I'll stay in my lane.
|
|
|
Post by insterburger on Mar 8, 2014 18:14:44 GMT -5
Great points, Tango. I think it's important to note that one of the upsides of the tactical rules that are being introduced in the NE is that they are very flexible and can be adjusted to suit the balance of forces. I don't think the idea is to force each side into being a mirror image of each other (although in the West US and German tactics were similar, though not identical). But the idea IS to create a realistic tactical that can be adapted "in the interests of fairness." So, for instance, if 12 GIs show up and only 5 Germans, the Axis side could be allowed to use a certain number of extra automatic weapons to create a better balance of firepower, or one of the US squads could lose its automatic, or any number of different "field expedient" solutions. A narrower disparity could lead to smaller adjustments. This is all a game, remember, and placing restrictions on firepower gives game organizers a much wider palette to work form in terms of making whatever adjustments might be necessary to keep the game competitive and fair-- which are the two factors that make games of any sort fun.
|
|