Re: SG2 Bunkers/Buildings rules(long)

On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, John Atkinson wrote:

> You wrote: 
> 
> >Small Arms Fire vs. Bunkers/Buildings: as w/ targeting vehicles.
MAJOR
> >success = suppression of squad inside. MINOR success = no affect.
(You 
> can >blaze away a bunker or solidly constructed building for days with

> an >assault rifle and do damn little except use up ammo and 
> occaisionally >scare the occupants...)
> 
> Depends--you should permit snipers to target firing slits seperately.  

Snipers vs. Bunkers: firing as usual, MINOR success = Suppression; MAJOR
=
random squadmember inside bunker hit.
(This is off the top of my head - but it seems workable)

> 
> >CLOSE ASSAULTING STRUCTURES: (a good way to use up troops...)
> >
> >Against UNBREACHED walls of BUNKERS: Defenders take Confidence test
at 
> one >less than usual (+2 instead of +3, say.) Also Defenders get TWO 
> die shifts >up, for the ENTIRE DURATION of the close assault.
> 
> Actually, bunkers are at a severe disadvantage to flanks and rear as 
> far as visibility.  And you're not so much trying to engage in 
> traditional hand-to-hand combat as to throw a grenade or satchel
charge 
> in.  A satchel charge thrown by one man will take down the bunker, and

> even a single grenade will likely clear it--the confined space of the 
> bunker magnifies effect greatly.

Any ideas on re-writing the Close Assault rules here to more accurately
reflect this? We've got to balance the fact that the Defender's are
behind
a couple of feet of concrete, and the only way to kill them is to get
something through a very narrow firing slit - but if you _do_ get
something into the bunker, it's ground meat time inside...

It's difficult to model because either there's very, very few casualties
among the defenders, or else they're dog food - and the same thing can
happen to the attackers. That sort of sharp break is hard to do - it's
got
me stumped...

> >(Urban combat eats troops - Stalingrad, etc. So does attacking 
> undamaged >bunkers, which is usually a real desperate move...)
> 
> It's a pretty normal battle drill in most units. . . Us light types 
> don't have the luxury of tanks and whatnot to knock out bunkers first.
> 
> >BREACHING CHARGES: I'll admit that these are the sketchiest parts of 
> these >rules. Basically, these are large limpet mines/shaped 
> charges/satchel >charges, specifically designed to blow breaches 
> through thick wall. They >need to be emplaced by infantryright on the 
> surface to be blown, and >tentatively have the following stats: 1 
> action to emplace them, "attacks" >chosen surface. Roll QUALITY die of

> emplacing squad & D12x4 'Firepower' >die vs. Armour rating of surface 
> (d12 x Armour level). Effects as per >regular attacks, above.
> 
> This would be things like the shaped charges used at Eben
Emael--actual 
> attempts to breach walls. Note that this generally has negative 
> consequences for the inhabitants.  Actual satchel charges (not shaped)

> are thrown inside doors/windows and tend to collapse the structure 
> unless it's big.  If not, inhabitants are still dead.  Add a die shift

> up on quality if it's an engineer unit.  I also notice you make it 
> practically impossible to knock down the entire building (max d12 
> quality, vs d12xarmor) when on a small structure that's likely.

It's actually QUALITY of unit & D12x4 for the charge itself, vs. target
surface's ARMOUR (D12xwhatever)

Perhaps after the target wall is breached in a MAJOR result, the rest of
the walls roll vs. HALF their armour value? (the charge's D12x4 vs half
armour of each connecting surface (wall/roof)) That makes it more likely
that a charge will blow the building down, esp. in lighter structures.

Anyone else have ideas?

Brian (burger00@camosun.bc.ca)