RE: SG2, Changes to initiating close assault rules

-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne [mailto:w.pollerd@student.unimelb.edu.au]
Subject: RE: SG2, Changes to initiating close assault rules

>safe from a close assault.  With them normally being Vets or Elites
they
>lose very few confidence levels and with up to three activations a turn
(he
>likes to transfer actions to them) having only three suppression
markers on
>them isn't enough to stop them preforming a close assault.

Ah Ha!

Of course you are playing against Brendan's rather unusually balanced
game forces. So he has three levels of command on a table in every
game?? (Shrugs shoulders in exasperation). IMHO it is verging on 'silly'
to play most games where there is a Company Commander, one Platoon
Commander and the squads on one 6x4 table (I'm assuming this is the
situation unless you play most of your games on 3 or 4 tables together
all the time?).

SG is excellent for playing platoon level games ie ONE platoon plus
supporting troops or attachments such as a Heavy Weapons squad or
Engineers. But having extra levels of command just so one can get extra
activations is poor form.

Have you tried any games with variations like all troops starting
Mission Motivation LOW and Confidence Level Shaken?? One side defending
with lots of leg infantry, mines and the attacker  Mech Inf in MICVs? We
tried an all Walker ambush on a platoon of APC mounted Infantry last
weekend. Nine Size 1 and 2 Walkers in ambush; initiated early knocked
out three APCs but lost two Walkers destroyed and the infantry made it
off board in good order!?

Anyway, back to the Close Assaults, I think if you start questioning the
validity of his force structure you may find that the games will balance
a LOT more evenly.

Cheers,

Owen G