Prev: Re: Some FT rules ideas(Longish) Next: Re: Star Blazers [Re: EFSB]

Re: Stargrunt II question

From: Mike.Elliott@B...
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 14:58:05 +0000
Subject: Re: Stargrunt II question



The Reaction Fire rule (see p.53) was meant to cover this type of
situation, but as you point out, this rule does not apply in your
example
because the unit only used ONE action for movement.

Bear in mind that if both squads A and B are NOT on the edge of the
clumps
then the situation you describe cannot happen - you cannot fire on a
target
that is not on the edge of a wood.

If _both_ are on the edge of the clumps then neither needs to move in
order
to fire -  7" is pretty close range for most weapons.

The initiative is in fact with the squad that moves. Because the
distance
is short then it should probably be dealt with by a close assault.

You will usually find that careful interpretation of the rules will
resolve
most issues.

Any comments, Jon?

Mike Elliott, GZG

______________________________ Reply Separator
____________________________
_____
Subject: Stargrunt II question
Author:  owner-ftgzg-l@bolton.ac.uk at INTERNET
Date:	 22/01/1998 0:52

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
**************************************************/

Prev: Re: Some FT rules ideas(Longish) Next: Re: Star Blazers [Re: EFSB]