RE: Stargrunt II question

I don't think an apology is in order. I was directed to this list as a
FT/DS/SG list not just exclusive FT.

I agree about the "Overwatch" "Watch and shoot" "Fixed Lines" or
whatever you want to call it. The Reaction Fire rule I think was meant
to cover that situation. Well, a House Rule of some sort until a "Rules
Ammendment/Addendum" (yeah, I shudder at the mention of those too) comes
out. Jeremy Sadler's SG Web Page would be a fine place to put it. Other
questions that spring to mind might include the unit facing in buildings
type of problem; although we generally manage to work them out
ourselves.

Anyway, the problem; if B is on the edge of the cover, then A could have
fired at them  at any time they were sitting there. If not, then they
must have been Inside the woods; ie can't see, can't shoot BUT can't be
seen or shot at. Assume then that they on the edge of the woods (A is
dumb if they didn't shoot within close range anyway!).

6" move would require some of that move inside the woods to get out. So
if B are on the edge of the wood then a minimum of 1" move to get out of
the trees; doubled for poor terrain to 2", then they have 4" move left.
Now if A is in a concealed position the scenario should have give them a
number of dummy markers. So B would have to do a spotting turn on them
first or else the fire would be Recon By Fire and no casualties anyway.

I know this is a specific situation and my response above was specific
to that one. Actually we've never actually had that exact problem arise.

Cheers,

Owen G
> ----------
> From: 	Thomas Barclay[SMTP:Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca]
> Reply To:	FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
> Sent: 	Thursday, January 22, 1998 9:01 AM
> To:	FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
> Subject:	Stargrunt II question
> 
> I know this is the FT newsgroup.... but I'm hoping someone can 
> address this. Is it just me or is there something missing in SGII.
> 
> Scenario:
> 2 clumps of cover 70 m apart (7"). 
> Infantry squad A (Red team) in clump 1. 
> Infantry squad B (Blue team) in clump 2. 
> 
> A has been setup in a defensive position, but could not (for whatever 
> reason) engage squad B before it got to clump 2. Squad B is advancing 
> in Advance-To-Contact mode (bounding up and down... standard combat 
> move) assuming enemy nearby (maybe other units of force engaged 
> nearby). Maybe it knows A is in the clump ahead. A's officer has 
> issued the order: Shoot the enemy when they leave the woods to move 
> advance on our As position. Several turns pass while B does nothing, 
> A waits for them to move to 'swat them like a bug'. B then (during 
> its activation) does a combat move (rolls a 3 lets say) stops 10m in 
> front of As woodsedge position and opens up with a fire action, 
> tearing A apart. Now, A was just sitting there waiting to swat B when 
> B moved, but since B didn't perform 2 move actions, they had to let B 
> run 60 m IN PLAIN SIGHT and then conduct a round of fire combat AT 
> THEIR POSITION WITHOUT RETURNING FIRE. Hmmm.... methinks I see a 
> problem. 
> 
> My question: Have I missed something in the current rules? I suspect 
> not. I think what the game is missing is a Gaurd/Overwatch action of 
> some sort that will allow a unit to basically watch a line of 
> approach and say "fire when you see the whites of their eyes boys" or 
> "shoot anything that moves over there!". In real life, my experience 
> with even small squads setup in such situations is that the moving 
> unit (moving towards a stationary unit aware of their approach and 
> waiting for them locked and loaded) is that the moving unit would get 
> totally annihilated (a platoon fire is something to see, but even a 
> squad with C7s and Minimis could put out enough fire to destroy 
> another squad moving across the open like that) and definitely the 
> moving unit definitely couldn't move up and then conduct a close 
> range fire action before being chewed to bits.....its usually a bad 
> idea to move within the unobstructed line of sight of an enemy unit 
> which can fire upon you and which is inclined to!
> 
> I have several ideas for such an overwatch implementation which I'm 
> willing to share if anyone is interested, or if I haven't overlooked 
> some way to handle things within the context of existing rules. 
> 
> BTW, all complaints to the contrary (and there are few), Stargrunt II 
> is an excellent system which seems to not only offer flexibility and 
> ease of play, but covers most oddball situations you might expect to 
> need. Kudos to the GZG crew!
> 
> Thomas. 
> 
> /************************************************
> Thomas Barclay
> Software Specialist
> Police Communications Systems
> Software Kinetics Ltd.
> 66 Iber Road, Stittsville
> Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
> Reception: (613) 831-0888
> PBX: (613) 831-2018
> My Extension: 2034
> Fax: (613) 831-8255
> Our Web Page: http://www.sofkin.ca
> **************************************************/
>