[snip]
> I think you are falling into the trap of not thinking at the right
(400m),
> which is not unreasonable for SF weapons. Thus the firefight is going
I agree completely with Mike Elliott on this point. There is a flow to the
game that makes it difficult to imagine troops concentrating on only one
threat to the exclusion of all else. Any overwatch rule should include some
restrictions on the overwatching unit. For example, The overwatch takes up the
units entire activation, it looses the overwatch upon its next activation ( to
include a leader activation) and is limited to an area of 'unit quality'
inches in diameter, centerd on a point represented by a marker. If it's not
too much added complexity, allow for two bogus counters to keep the opponent
on his toes. Something along these lines might add the kind of feel the
original poster was looking for.
I wonder what people think of a slightly different situation, where a squad
tries to share a linear defensive position ( a low wall, burnt out building,
etc.) with an enemy already occupying the opposite side of the barrier? In a
game of SG2 I played recently ( Hi Phil!) a particularly unfortunate squad was
pinned along one side of a wall and taking quite a pounding ( it was our first
game with light artillery support, which BTW favorably changes the character
of SG2.) One of my squads advanced into some nearby woods. I wanted to
activate them to close to the other side of the obstacle to remove it as a
bonus for the target squad and to use it as a bonus against other supporting
enemy units. The argument was made that to approach that closely required a
complete close assault to keep it within the spirit of the game, otherwise the
manuever is simply 'gamey', taking advantage of coner cases in the rules, etc.
So, is such a move reasonable? Would the obstacle count for both squads if
they exchange fire or would it be nullified. BTW, we were counting it as hard
cover.
> I agree completely with Mike Elliott on this point. There is a
Usually it would be a bad idea to be THAT focused, but usually you'd watch an
area (see the area overwatch I envisioned). Unless you had a particular unit
in front of you that you were concerned with. And I have seen small squads
become intimately involved with another unit (watching or shooting) to the
point where they ignored their
flanks.....
Any overwatch rule should include some
> restrictions on the overwatching unit. For example, The overwatch
My suggested rules don't say that, but it is something I meant to have in
there. (It was sort of implicit). You are speaking along the same tack I took.
and is limited to an area of 'unit quality'
> inches in diameter, centerd on a point represented by a marker.
Heh. You certainly think along the lines I did.
If it's not
> too much added complexity, allow for two bogus counters to keep the
Hadn't thought of that, but that makes good sense too - lay down two
or three flipped counters, one of which is the actual Overwatch Target, and
the others are dummies.... just to keep the enemy units from knowing exactly
where you are watching. I'll incorporate that.
> I wonder what people think of a slightly different situation,
This is one of those "That depends" situations. If it was a long fence line
and you wanted to scramble over the obstacle a distance from the other unit,
that would probably be fine. If you wanted to scramble over the fence
basically into the other units position, I'd say you were (de facto) involved
in a close assault. Please note that just closing to that level of proximity
(directly opposite sides of a fence or small wall) should probably result in a
close assault
automatically - if I was in a squad on one side of the fence, and I
knew you were on the other, I'd be sticking my gun over, firing, or
putting my knife in my teeth and going over after you - or - best
case - throwing grenades over the wall! I don't think it would make a
lot of sense to be that close trying to conduct 'non close combat'. Now, if
you were 30m down the fenceline, that's different. But if we're on opposite
sides of a stone fence, that situation would be unlikely to endure for long.
Someone would pull back or launch a close assault, I would think.
If you did exchange fire, I'd think what was good for the goose was good for
the gander (that is to say you'd both get the same cover benefits, probably
hard). And that would apply for the supporting
enemy units - you'd have hard cover from them and they'd have none
from you once you were against the wall. (The one case where it is easier to
hit something farther away than something closer).
If the close assault was joined, you'd have to decide who initiated it
(probably climbed the wall) and if the whole fight was transpiring on one
side, or if the melee was split across the wall. The other enemy units you
referred to should be reticent to fire into their own unit just to offer a
chance of inflicting casualties on your unit.
Thomas.
/************************************************
> At 12:51 PM 1/23/98 PST, you wrote:
Sounds like the Navy boy was whining gain! <G> (Hi Phil!) :-)