Re: [SG2] close assault query

Hi,

>1) You can move, with 1 or less suppressions on you, when CA'd. You
must
>retreat to cover if you have a suppression before removing it.
Alternately,
>the retreat places one upon you and therefore you must do this. This
>prevents the fleeing defender from suddenly turning around and firing
>cohesively. 

I would modify this and add the following:

You have to make a leadership test to beat feet in some semblance of
order.
 If you fail the test, the squad can still beet feet, but they
automatically drop THREE levels of morale (complete disorganization,
more
likely to rout the squad as they all head for the hills with the leader
first...).  If you pass the test, then follow the "#2" below.  This
makes
retreating from a CA a difficult thing for a unit to come through in
good
order, and be able to immediately respond, which makes sense.

Penalties to the test?	Standard ones, I guess.  And a BIG penalty to
morale if you leave wounded behind.  

>2) As an alternative, any retreat from a close assault will
automatically be
>considered to put the squad out of unit cohesion and therefore a re-org
must
>be taken. If you also have a suppression, you have to remove it too
before
>you can fire back (so effectively, if both disorganized and suppressed
and
>fleeing, you can't pull up short and gut your pursuer with direct
fire). 
>
>3) A further alternative is to say being close assaulted consumes your
>action for a round - therefore you can't activate again until the next
>round. It would be a good penalty for being assaulted. 

But this penalizes troops who haven't been activated over those who
have.
If it costs a unit it's action for the round to retreat, what about a
unit
that has been activated already?   Do they lose the option to retreat?

I'd leave this one out.  Make the squad take a big hit to morale, and I
think that's plenty.  Of course, another option is to give the attacking
squad the option of continuing the assault against a voluntarily
retreating
enemy.	There are lots of examples of troops close assaulting the
*enemy*
rather than the enemy *position*, because they are angry, or whatever.	

>
>4) If you have 2+ suppressions, you are pinned hard and can't leave and
must
>eat the close assault.
>

Yes.

>Comments on what the rules say that I've missed or not interpreted
right?
>Comments on my suggestions or the situation?
>

It's a good idea.

Adrian Johnson
adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca
	AND
acjhumber@yahoo.ca