From: Glenn M. Goffin <gmgoffin@y...>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [GZG] re: New to Rules- Close Combat Question
> Posted by: "hundvighong" hundvighong@yahoo.com hundvighong > Going to close quarters ought to be something you do only when you Close combat seems to work best you have power armor and they don't, and when you have flamers and shotguns and they don't.
From: Mark Kinsey <Kinseym@p...>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 19:37:01 -0400
Subject: Re: [GZG] re: New to Rules- Close Combat Question
> Glenn M. Goffin wrote: I'm running a scenario where it's important for the attacker to do things quickly. The attacker has PA and the defender does not. Plus the attacker has better quality troops. It's hard to convince the attacking player that closing the distance and getting into close combat is much more effective for him than sitting at distance and trying to get hits on defenders in hard cover.
From: Roger Books <books@m...>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:33:35 -0400
Subject: Re: [GZG] re: New to Rules- Close Combat Question
_______________________________________________ Gzg-l mailing list Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI just helped my GF design her ESU PA assault squad. Slow Heavy PA and half the 8 man squad has Flachette Cannons. (Assault Shotguns with an impact of d10). Now I'm afraid to face them as she has seen the shock and awe PA cause in a close assault. Roger > On 9/13/06, Mark Kinsey <Kinseym@ptd.net> wrote:
From: Laserlight <laserlight@q...>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:36:21 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Re: [GZG] re: New to Rules- Close Combat Question
> Now I'm afraid to face them as she has seen the shock and awe PA Watching a 4 man PA team shred a 12 man defending squad is lots of fun...if your squad is the PA. Fast PA also makes a good recon unit.
From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:02:54 +0400
Subject: Re: [GZG] re: New to Rules- Close Combat Question
> On 9/14/06, Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote: That's why you put guys in no body armor (d4 armor, 8" movement) or light, fast PA, shooting gauss rifles (Impact d12) and let her chase them around the table. Preferably through anti-armor minefields equipped with IFF.
From: Roger Books <books@m...>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 08:53:39 -0400
Subject: Re: [GZG] re: New to Rules- Close Combat Question
_______________________________________________ Gzg-l mailing list Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lJohn, I need to give her a few times winning before I start trouncing her*. Actually, the doctrine we worked up to go with her P.A. is they are never supposed to operate without the support of normal infantry. They have no heavy weapons of any sort. That said we also decided when we set up random scenarios there should be scenarios that involve the P.A. squad getting screwed by being tasked with unsupported operations because they are, well, P.A. So are you back in the States yet? Roger *trouncing her, yeah right. > On 9/15/06, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 19:22:13 +0400
Subject: Re: [GZG] re: New to Rules- Close Combat Question
> On 9/15/06, Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote: ROFL! Yeah, that'll last until some bright boy in an Operations shop gets a wild hair up his butt and convinces some commander (fresh from an assignment at Army Headquarters, where his superior schmoozing skills got him a battalion command) that PA don't really NEED support for this operation... > That said we also decided when we set up random scenarios there That happens a lot with more specialized equipment... > So are you back in the States yet? Not yet.