Re: Re[2]: Stargrunt II question - Linear cover

>	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.

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
takes up the
> units entire activation, it looses the overwatch upon its next
activation ( to
> include a leader activation )

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
opponent
> on his toes. Something along these lines might add the kind of feel
the
> original poster was looking for.

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,
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.

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. 
 
/************************************************
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
**************************************************/