Brian said: Ummm... Did you see my comments earlier tonight? Because as I read
the rules, this would be a house rule as it conflicts with SG2 as written.
Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but I thought I'd mention it.
To which I refer him to the first line of my post he was quoting: These
comments don't specifically adress the rules, but maybe some thoughts on how
things perhaps should be....
Which, if I had been more clear, meant that the proposal I plan to test was
obviously non-compliant with the rules because the rules do seem to
allow some silly things (IMO). YMMV.
Ultimately, too many people I have gamed with have found the idea of an enemy
unit stopping a couple of cm away, recovering from suppression (all this while
ostensibly being chased) and then hailing the enemy with bullets just wrong.
More to the point, it has meant that a more effective tactic than close
assault is moving to about 2" away and firing a volley instead of close
assaulting. This two is legal in the rules and is one bit of cheese that is
encouraged by a bit of a weak point in CA rules. I can't blame the players
from realizing what works and what doesn't. If they get up close and paste the
target unit, it'll probably take casualties. If the target unit breaks back
and they roll badly on a follow up test or movement roll, they get shot by the
unharmed defender at point blank. Given those options, it should be fairly
obvious which is safesty to the attacker! And this particularly is what I wish
to address. If it means stepping outside the published
rules....
oh my.... what an idea.... <*wink*>
Today, at the Autumn Assault Tournament, I will be GMing a game where an OU
platoon trapped at a firebase attempts to recover some airdropped supplies and
some NSL Special Forces backing up some Territorials attempts to stop said
recovery and capture the cannisters (there might be intel to be
had!).
I will use the above interpretation if the issue comes up as it may.
Of course, an AAR will make its way to the list.:)
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 03:37:01 -0500, "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com>
wrote:
> Brian said:
Actually, it was me. *L*
> To which I refer him to the first line of my post he was quoting:
Okay, I misconstrued it.
> Ultimately, too many people I have gamed with have found the idea of an
Funny, but I don't find it all that wrong. I've seen several historical
accounts of units retreating from a position of close combat in a fairly
orderly manner, regrouping a short distance away, and firing.
The problem with the normal activation rules is that they don't let you
retreat before a unit close assaults.
For instance, a close assault could happen up to 120 metres away (12", the
extreme of a combat move) with the defender having no redress but to sit and
wait for the enemy to move that distance. What's the minimum requirement for
football players, 40 yards in ten seconds? That's 30 seconds minimum at a run
for a man with gear. For 30 seconds the defender sees him coming and can't do
a thing about it.
So, I have no problem with the voluntary retreating and the unit able to
respond on its next activation. I see it as the unit withdrawing in those 30
seconds it takes the enemy to advance on their position.
I would also argue that tactically speaking you really ought to be close
assaulting a unit only after you have dropped two suppression markers on it,
just to be safe. There's a tactical challenge in the game, and one that I take
to heart when I play: I try not to close assault a unit that hasn't been
suppressed with two suppression markers.
For simplicity sake, and to keep it in line with the regular rules, I'd
probably modify the written close assault rules thusly: if the unit wants to
retreat voluntarily, it must make a second Confidence Test at a TL of
2/1/0
for low/med/high motivation troops after it has retreated. Retreating in
the face of the enemy can break a unit.
I do think the close assault rules need to be revised. The way they are
written, odds of greater than 2:1 seem to favour the side with the fewer
troops. The smaller force rolls one die versus multiple dice for the larger
force, but if the single die wins it beats ALL the other dice. The odds are
against the smaller force, but the first side to make a Confidence Test is the
side with the MOST casualties. It's actually possible for the smaller side to
lose the most dice rolling contests, but lose the fewest figures.
One thing I'm thinking of trying with my Civil War variant is taken from the
"Brother Against Brother" rules. In a close assault, the most you can have is
two on one. If a defender defeats all attackers, only one attacker is removed
(This last rule can be used even without limiting odds to 2:1).
> More to the point, it has meant that a more effective tactic than close
Which, in modern combat, is actually the case. Modern combat does not stress
hand-to-hand combat.
> This two is legal in the rules and is one bit of cheese that is
Well, I would argue that they shouldn't be close assaulting a squad without
dropping two suppression markers on it in the first place.
I do see your point, though, that a couple of suppression markers still don't
force the enemy to sit still for the assault. I'm just wondering if you are
making close assaults a little TOO likely.
> Today, at the Autumn Assault Tournament, I will be GMing a game where
Looking forward to it!
> >More to the point, it has meant that a more effective tactic than
But, more to the point, SG2 does not stress hand to hand combat, it stresses
close assaults. There is a difference. Close assaults are not the hand to hand
combat of games workshop fame, they represent point blank gunfire exchanges,
grenades, etc. as well as actual physical combat. I have to say that I would
not play with an opponent who wanted to move as close as possible to my squads
and then fire normally rather than close assaulting, as that is the kind of
situation that close assaults are supposed to handle.
In reply to some replies:
1) odds in CC.... When I said defender gets downward die shifts for attacker
odds in CC, I should have also stated if the defender outnumbers the attacker,
the same is true. For example, 2 soldiers end up fighting 1 soldier. So the
single soldier, having odds of 2:1 against him, gets one negative die shift on
his quality for the CC. Note, in this context, either force could be the
"attacker". So if the defender has weight of numbers, that's a plus for him.
For close assaults, bring a friend:)
2) Brian raised an interesting point about CC/CA where he said
(paraphrase) "if a unit is heavily suppressed, should you be able to CC them?
Shouldn't it be dangeorus?". Well, I think it probably is somewhat dangerous
in the
real-world, but if your troops have even rudimentary training, it
shouldn't be too bad.
Since this is all abstract, one PoV suggests you have to not be firing with
one unit at a target and CC it with another.... except suppression isn't
necessarily directly correspondent with fire. I can fire one burst at a unit
and it can become suppressed, even though that burst might not be repeated for
a while. Another PoV suggests that troops are trained to fight with close
assaults and close assaults are NOT necessarily HTH.
So if all I'm doing is closing to within 10m to hurl grenades and use close
range gunfire, then another squad could easily be pouring enfilade fire down
upon the target. It's common practice to have one unit suppress a pillbox,
bunker or other target and then have another unit move up and attack with
grenades, satchel charges, or close in gunfire - which is what most CAs
will be. Actual HTH occurs, but not all that often (depends on terrain to some
extent).
I've trained to fire within 5-10m of one of my own squads without too
much concern. My rounds might deviate by as much as 1m, but 10m is more than
enough clearance. Especially if I know they are going in to grenade or
engage a target with close in high-volume fire. Sure, when the CA rush
occurs, the fire might have to come off... but that's a matter of seconds, not
SG2 turns. If there is a final rush, it is onto a suppressed enemy who really
can't defend against it. The enfilading support unit comes
off-target
only as the other unit begins its rush over the last few meters.
Yes, there is a small risk someone doesn't get the message and isn't bright
enough to come off-target. But its low IMO with even moderately well
trained troops. So, you could probably either not represent it (as I do) or
you could make a quality role for the attacker or the suppressing unit to
coordinate well - failure means 1 hit on the assaulting unit.