Situation:
We played a game this afternoon and during a close assault we had a squad in a
bunker that had, through failed reaction tests dropped to SH. Two squads Close
Assaulted and the squad within failed the Reaction Test and were supposed to
withdraw and lose one CL. So, the only way out of
the bunker/room was the entrance the CC troops were coming through.
In the ensuing battle the 5 defenders did pretty well. In the first round of
combat they lost 4 defenders to 5 attackers. Both sides passed Reactin Tests
so round two. Strangely enough, we now had one defender against 9 attackers!!!
And the lone defender still took out about another 6 attackers in this Forlorn
Hope defence!!
Questions:
1. In the instance of second round of Close Combat how does the 1
versus 9 relate??
2. One of the players suggested that the defenders actually should
have surrendered. Personally I thought that if they had been Routed that they
would perhaps have been forced to surrender, but the Broken troops are allowed
to shoot if shot at and therefore should be able to fight back. Comments?
All contributions gratefully received.
> Situation:
This is the kind of case where, provided you a playing with a
reasonably-minded friend rather than a munchkin powergamer, you might
agree to ignore the exact rules due to the unusual circumstances. There would
certainly be a case for the bunker squad surrendering (or trying to!) before
the last assault, as they had nowhere to go. On the other hand, maybe being
"backs to the wall" just made the defenders fight like demons until they
fell..... as to the last guy taking six attackers with him, that
certainly isn't without historical precendent - maybe he triggered his
last grenade just as they stormed in and surrounded him....? [Hey, see how a
few dice rolls can start to make a story...?!]
Interested to hear others' opinions....
> Questions:
Well, he/she made a valiant last stand. However given what happened
prior...
> 2. One of the players suggested that the defenders actually should
I agree. Most wargames/table top games have a provision that if a unit
is routed and there is no where to go, the unit surrenders. IMHO, it make
sense. As for Broken troops being allowed to shoot back...
I think others had better comment on that.
> In the ensuing battle the 5 defenders did pretty well. In the first
I would say that if the attackers called for surrender before firing, the
defender would have surrendered. However, this would have taken an activation
and they would have had to wait for a response. If they did not ask for
surrender or didn't wait for a response, the defender would have probably
tried to take as many with him as possible.
Glover, spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> In the ensuing battle the 5 defenders did pretty well. In the first
Had the same thing happen in Tom M's Kryomek scenario at the con. (That is, a
badly outnumbered guy slays most of his attackers).
> Questions:
Well, I'm not sure I get your question. You roll nine sets of dice for the
attackers, and one for the defender, and the results will tell. Was the
question how to interpret the result or whether the representation of 9 to 1
is very adequate? You figure someone is rolling nine dice, they ought to be
able to beat one die of the other guy (the problem comes here if the one guy
has a high die value and
rolls high so the others CAN'T beat him - but maybe he's a John Woo
hero and excels in CQB....).
> 2. One of the players suggested that the defenders actually should
Broken troops cut off that cannot withdraw.... hmmm. Seems like another check
(leadership?) might need to be made. If you make it, they fight. If not, since
they cannot withdraw, they surrender. (In short, if you can't withdraw, you
test again. Since failure drops your morale futher, you'll probably hit routed
and surrender. If you succeed, it means you're shaken up but you're darn well
gonna go out fighting....). Remember Hudson in Aliens? I'd call him 'Broken or
Shaken' but he put up quite a fight in the control room when the Aliens
swarmed in for close Assault ("...Who wants some? You? Here's some for You!
...oh Yeah? You want some too?...
etc.").
> All contributions gratefully received.
Snota pRoblem.
:) Thomas.
/************************************************
> From: "Glover, Owen" <oglover@mov.vic.gov.au>
> Situation:
> In the ensuing battle the 5 defenders did pretty well. In the first
I would have made them surrender, OR not count the building since they ran out
to fight (ala Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid).
KR
Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> > In the ensuing battle the 5 defenders did pretty well. In the first
Half a sec! You're implying almost that surrender is attacker driven. I don't
think I agree. I think when the troop decides to head for the hills, and they
can't, a set rule like "they should fight" or "they should surrender" is
limiting. If you make them test again, to see if they fight like cornered rats
or surrender like yellah dawgs is appropriate. And I don't think you have to
ask for another force to surrender. I know if my guys were being totally wiped
out and were in an untennable position, I don't think that we'd wait for the
attackers to take the initiative in this surrender thing. If we were going to
surrender to avoid being killed, it would be on our time frame if they didn't
ask.
Just some thoughts.
/************************************************
> At 11:38 16/03/98 -0500, you wrote:
SNIP
> Half a sec! You're implying almost that surrender is attacker driven.
A couple of thoughts on the cornered/surrender situation- There
are numerous cases, e.g. in WW2, of troops firing of all their ammunition then
trying to surrender immediately, only to be told, "too late, chum" and shot
down. Conversely, especially when troops are cornered or expect to be killed
by their captors (not unusual for either side on the Eastern Front)
fighting to the last man is quite possible, and with modern/SF weaponry
such a last stand might easily cause disproportionate casualties on the
attackers. As Don Marquis more or less put it, "sometimes things get so bad
there's no point giving up" and it might just work.
I think that whether surrender by small groups, rather than by chunks of a
defeated force, is attempted or accepted is probably so multifactorial as to
be almost random.
Rob
Rob spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> A couple of thoughts on the cornered/surrender situation-
I think the Eastern Front scenario is covered by the Last Stand rules. I think
they quite clearly state that extra motivated troops make last stands very
easily (ones who know they'll be shot anyway). Despite what you say, a VAST
number of Germans surrendered on the
Eastern Front. So the 4-6 roll on a d6 for Last Stands in this case
gives a good chance of such a last stand, but still gives them a chance to
surrender. There is ALWAYS the hope of mercy, if not the actual possibility.
And sometimes guys just don't want to fight anymore, don't really even care
what happens to them.
And nowhere did I see it in the SG rules that said you had to accept
a units surrender - I sort of assumed you could still press the close
assault or just gun them down....although a leadership check on your side
might be apropos.
Tom.
> >Brian spake thusly upon matters weighty:
At least things aren't as difficult to resolve as in the HERO system
(Champions, etc.) where after a typical hero calls on a normal soldier to
surrender, they have to stand there and give up two or three full actions
waiting to see if they will (it takes that long for the normal to move, you
see).
Off topic, I know. I was just thinking along the lines of ridiculous surrender
rules;)
On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 16:14:31 -0500, Thomas Barclay
> <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> wrote:
> Broken troops cut off that cannot withdraw.... hmmm. Seems like
I like this idea.
Note that it makes troops in dugouts, bunkers and caves very difficult to kill
if they start a close assault with good morale. This isn't without historical
precedent. US Marines were rather hesitant to charge into the caves on Okinawa
in order to flush out dug in Japanese troops. I'd use Tom's suggestion to keep
things simple.