> On Sat, 2 Nov 2002 20:40:36 -0500, "Thomas Barclay"
I considered that, but disagree.
> You already have "bounding fire". It's in the fact that you can move
Okay, that's not the case though.
In the real world, with half of my force on "cover", the other half on
"bound", when my guys move, if something takes them under fire, there is reply
fire immediately from about the same effective range as the fire engaging me.
Whereas if I do this with one squad in SG, I may well get suppressed by the
incoming fire with NO return fire, and if I do it with several, bounds take me
far enough away to the point where my fire might be 1) out of range (given
SG2s range band rules) or 2) at least less effectual than the incoming fire.
So the situation is *not* quite covered IMO.
> I made this comment as to FMAS: you can't look at individual
Except actions are resolved individually. Results are applied individually to
units.
> >I thought OW only occured at the midpoint of a two-action move and
That's correct. I meant to reply to the original post and point out
this is the right reading of the rules, but Allan makes my point -
many folks use a house rule for overwatch, feeling it is a lacking in the
standard rules. (Otherwise, try to cover a wall and wait for the enemy unit
behind it to stick their heads up... there is no mechanism!).
***
In the real world, with half of my force on "cover", the other half on
"bound", when my guys move, if something takes them under fire, there is reply
fire immediately from about the same effective range as the fire engaging me.
Whereas if I do this with one squad in SG, I may well get suppressed by the
incoming fire with NO return fire, and if I do it with several, bounds take me
far enough away to the point where my fire might be 1) out of range (given
SG2s range band rules) or 2) at least less effectual than the incoming fire.
***
Two fuzzy thoughts from the vac head:
Do the home-grown overwatch rules include returning fire even if the
opposition doesn't move?
In RL, aren't you restricted as to how far your 'bounds' run so that they
don't 'take me far enough away to the point where my fire
might be...'?
The_Beast
Bounding Overwatch aka Leapfrog Advance Units which have been trained in this
technique (ie just about any army) may execute Leapfrog Advance. First action:
unit goes on overwatch; second action, unit makes a combat move. If during the
course of the move the unit spots a previously unseen enemy, or is fired upon,
it may use its overwatch action to return fire as normal (according to
whatever Overwatch house rule you may be using).
Sounds like this would work. Though it would need to be declared.
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
The only issues that I see are if the unit is fired upon. Who gets to shoot
first? What happens if the bounding unit is suppressed? Will it still get its
fire action?
I would add the following clarifications:
- Both units perform a fire action immediately.
- The leapfrogging unit fires with half its firepower
(since the unit is split between moving and covering troops -
this also has implications for play balance)
- Casualties/Suppressions are determined after both units
have fired.
Cheers, Tony C.
Quoting Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net>:
> Bounding Overwatch aka Leapfrog Advance
This will quickly become the standard movement to contact if used. I think
this is exactly what we need.
Magic
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 08:45:56 -0500, kaladorn@magma.ca wrote:
> So the situation is *not* quite covered IMO.
Sure it is. You're just moving too far in one go. You could easily move a
squad 2 inches and halt it. You could then move another squad two inches (to
catch up) or 4 inches (to bound past).
Okay, so you will now tell me that the game scale of 5 minutes per turn means
you should be able to move much further than that in a bound. You're right.
And _this_ is the problem with an alternating activation system.
It sounds like you could do what you want with a group move rule, as we
determined was needed in FMAS.
Personally, I think you're adding a layer of realism that isn't quite
supported with SG2. I mean, why worry about this as being "unrealistic" when
the game has, built in, unrealistic ranges and many over simplifications as
far as armour and artillery are concerned?
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:26:09 -0800 (PST), Robert Makowsky
<rmakowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This will quickly become the standard movement to
Except that a unit making this kind of advance is just about as fast as a
regular unit that isn't worried about running a little ways and dropping into
cover.
As I mentioned in my previous post, you can still do this with Overwatch rules
and the movement system as it stands. Put a squad on Overwatch. Move a second
squad 2". You now have the moving squad in about the same range band as the
overwatching squad. Next turn, place the stationary unit on overwatch and then
move the previously overwatching unit 4" (so that it's now 2" beyond the
previous unit).
The end result is a squad that's moving and another that is on overwatch. This
movement is much slower than if both squads moved their full distance instead
of bounding, but this is realistic based on what Tom said. You only need one
house rule (OW) rather than two.
What you can't do is move the first unit and have it go on OW, at least not
with my current OW rules. My OW rules, and Tom's, restrict you to spending two
actions to go on OW. Maybe this is a flaw, and it should only cost one action.
For that matter, what happens if we introduce a Reserve Action rule in SG2
like we have introduced in FMAS? This rule would allow a squad to set aside an
action for use later in the turn. If we had a Reserve Action rule in SG2 this
is what you could do:
Activate the first unit. Move it 2" and reserve its second action. Later on,
move the second unit 4", and then reserve its second action. Later on spend
the first unit's reserved action to move an additional 4". You then have the
option of moving the second unit another 4" with its remaining reserved
action, or leaving that action on reserve in case anything pops up.
Okay, so you don't get OW reaction fire. No biggie, because here is what can
happen:
Activate the first unit. Move it 2" and reserve its second action. An enemy
pops up and fires at this unit. Use its second, reserved action, to fire on
the enemy (assuming the squad wasn't suppressed). Since this squad is only 2"
away from the firing squad, you can activate the firing squad normally and
have it fire on the enemy.
Second example: Activate the first unit. Move it 2" and reserve its second
action. Later on, move the second unit 4", and then reserve its second action.
At this point the enemy fires on the second unit. The second unit was
suppressed. Activate the first unit to use its reserved action and fire back
at the enemy. Activate the second unit to use its reserved action to remove
suppression.
I've always liked the idea of a reserve action in SG2, having tried it in
FMAS, but it will slow the game a little.
At this point TomB is probably going to point out that my reserved action idea
does not give the same result as OW. This is because his OW rule, if it's like
what he proposed for FMAS, would allow the OW-ing unit to fire before
the enemy unit. In other words, squad A1 goes on OW, squad A2 moves, enemy
squad B1 announces it will fire at A2 but A1 gets to fire first at B1. My OW
rules
don't allow this, they only allow the OW-ing unit to fire in response to
an opponent's action.
I'm thinking I'd like to playtest this. I think the Reserve Action rule might
actually work for doing what Tom suggests. While adding another house rule, at
least it adds one that will probably show up in FMAS.
ons, 2002-11-06 kl. 15:25 skrev Allan Goodall:
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:26:09 -0800 (PST), Robert Makowsky
First of all, this sounds like a good idea!!
Second - could someone email me a copy of the FMA ruleset (yes I know
its old - :))
> I'm thinking I'd like to playtest this. I think the Reserve Action
It seems like some of you have been writing on your own version of FMA or am I
misreading all the postings here?? Would it be possible to see a copy of this,
if it exists that is;)
> Second - could someone email me a copy of the FMAS ruleset (yes I
It's more like "the FMAS set of jumbled fragments" at the moment
On 07 Nov 2002 22:54:12 +0100, Claus Paludan <cpaludan@worldonline.dk>
wrote:
> First of all, this sounds like a good idea!!
First, sounds like a good idea that needs playtesting. It works in FMA but it
might have issues in SG2.
> Second - could someone email me a copy of the FMA ruleset (yes I know
Second, unless you're on the playtest list, the version Jon posted here is the
only one for public consumption. Did you get that one? If not, I can send it
to you. (Send me an e-mail so you don't end up getting a dozen of them).
tor, 2002-11-07 kl. 23:34 skrev Laserlight:
> > Second - could someone email me a copy of the FMAS ruleset (yes I
LOL! Fair enough - I can handle that - have written a lot of rules my
self - I know the various states such things go through ;)