1. +1 is probably okay. There should be some
penalty (given you believe leaving position should be a check period which the
rules say). If I'm down behind a wall and the whistle goes, it isn't that much
harder to get up and moving.
2. There should, IMO, be a modifier (an
additional +1) for attacking IP troops. Why?
Those IP troops have a clear advantage in the early going of the close assault
and their IP status is easily assessible. Anyone attacking is doing so at a
disadvantage. A penalty to the attack initiation test seems indicated to me.
Discussion?
quoth TomB:
> 2. There should, IMO, be a modifier (an
Those IP troops have a clear advantage in the early going of the close assault
and their IP status is easily assessible.
I think of "IP" essentially as "prone firing position", since it is by
definition not the same as "hard/soft cover". If so, it is not clear to
me that it is necessarily an advantage in close combat. In fact, I might go so
far as to say that troops would need to leave IP if the attacker makes it past
final defensive fires.
Now, I can see giving a modifier if your assaultee is in cover--but
isn't that who you're going to be assaulting most of the time anyway? If the
silly beggers are standing around in the open within assault range, wouldn't
you just shoot them? And if it's the usual situation,
you wouldn't want to add another modifier, instead you'd say "-1 DRM
bonus if target consists of idiots milling around in the open like bewildered
sheep"
On Wed, 3 Jul 2002 12:31:36 -0400, "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@magma.ca>
wrote:
> 2. There should, IMO, be a modifier (an
I personally think it adds "yet another modifier", the kind of thing that adds
to creeping game complexity.
I also debate the "easily assessible" part. If a squad is dug in behind some
bushes and is IP, it's quite possible that the attacker wouldn't see them as
being in IP. They would see bushes, they would see muzzle flashes from the
bushes. They wouldn't know the squad had dug some shallow rifle pits behind
the bushes, for instance.
Then you get into the question of whether a squad out in clear terrain in IP
should require a modifier or not. I wouldn't think so. Seeing a squad hugging
the ground out in the clear shouldn't make you more "fearful" of attacking
them. For that matter, why give a modifier for IP troops when you don't have a
modifier for troops under hard cover. Assaulting forces in a bunker, or behind
a stone wall, should be scarier than assaulting guys in some shallow rifle
pits out in the open.
This opens up the idea of adding modifiers to the close assault Reaction Test
based on the circumstances, thus the "creeping complexity" I fear.
I can see your point, and I suspect you'll end up using it with your group
(*grin*) but I wouldn't bother, myself.
G'day,
> 2. There should, IMO, be a modifier (an
Personally its not something I'd do. For one because IP is such a catch all it
would be hard to say it fits all the time (which is where arguments will
start); and two is it an advantage in HTH? I know cover is, but being IP could
be a two edged sword if you're actually laying in a scrape, being on the
ground would be a disadvantage in HTH I would've thought.
Just my 2 razoos