Assaulting an IP Unit

1. IP is easily assessible. Rationale: I can see the chit placed on the table.
;)

Okay, I admit whether my guys can see this or not is questionable, but I
actually think you can tell the difference between people down and in position
and people moving, milling about, doing something else, etc.

2. Whether IP should or should not offer a benefit (as Allan and Beth mention)
when hard cover does not (IIRC) is irrelevant. In the rules, it does offer a
benefit for the first round of Close Assault. If needed, I can hunt up the
specific textual referents.

3. Laserlight, I see your point. I assume your
default CA is versus a non dug-in foe. You are
suggesting it should be versus a dug in foe. Both are valid. All I'm
suggesting is I've seen some close assaults I didn't think anyone would make
(five guys getting up to charge a trench line 100m away with 2 x HMG, and 2
rifle squads ready to shoot).

There are a lot of vagarities in CA. For example, there is an odds modifier
for CA. But is it really sensible to do this by squad? What if I'm doing
a joint close assault of (to be ludicrous) 6 4-
man squads... versus one 8 man squad. Looks
like (for each test, x 6) I'm attacking at 1-2
odds. But in reality, I'm attacking at 3-1 in
favour.

Another case: I close assault a unit within range that I know is there, but
they haven't spotted me. The terrain is woods. The first time they see me is
when I'm hitting them. (What did we rule?
No test for defender to stand - it was automatic
as they had no warning).

What about hard or soft cover? What about attacking units in the flank or rear
or that were unaware?

Stargrunt CA rules are very light on detailed resolution. A lot of people
think of IP different ways. A lot of people think of CA as HTH, even
though that is extremely unlikely - gunfire at 10-
30m is most likely, as is extensive use of hand grenades. Many situations are
not covered. Some people prefer simplicity to creeping elegance. Some people
prefer a more realistic feel to speed. No one interpretation will be correct
and most will spark "discussions".
I haven't even mentioned the multiple-follow-
through and fleeing issues.

T.

> 3. Laserlight, I see your point. I assume your

World War 1, and make sure you advance at the walk lads, no running, everyone
stay in line, there's a good chap.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you--*I'm* certainly of the opinion that
a few kilometers is a good range and anything closer is getting a little too
personal.

> There are a lot of vagarities in CA. For example,

Once everyone gets up and going, yes, but you may not know whether Charlie's
squad is actually going to come to the party. But I agree.
Maybe test in succession (first is at 1-2, he makes it, second is at
1-1, he makes it, third is at 2-1, he misses, fourth is also at 2-1)