Re: [SG2] close assault

On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 03:37:01 -0500, "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com>
wrote:

>Brian said:
>Ummm... Did you see my comments earlier tonight? Because as I read the
>rules,
>this would be a house rule as it conflicts with SG2 as written.

Actually, it was me. *L* 

>To which I refer him to the first line of my post he was quoting:
>These comments don't specifically adress the rules, but maybe some
thoughts
>on how things perhaps should be....

Okay, I misconstrued it. 

>Ultimately, too many people I have gamed with have found the idea of an
>enemy unit stopping a couple of cm away, recovering from suppression
(all
>this while ostensibly being chased) and then hailing the enemy with
bullets
>just wrong. 

Funny, but I don't find it all that wrong. I've seen several historical
accounts of units retreating from a position of close combat in a fairly
orderly manner, regrouping a short distance away, and firing.

The problem with the normal activation rules is that they don't let you
retreat before a unit close assaults.

For instance, a close assault could happen up to 120 metres away (12",
the
extreme of a combat move) with the defender having no redress but to sit
and
wait for the enemy to move that distance. What's the minimum requirement
for
football players, 40 yards in ten seconds? That's 30 seconds minimum at
a run
for a man with gear. For 30 seconds the defender sees him coming and
can't do
a thing about it.

So, I have no problem with the voluntary retreating and the unit able to
respond on its next activation. I see it as the unit withdrawing in
those 30
seconds it takes the enemy to advance on their position.

I would also argue that tactically speaking you really ought to be close
assaulting a unit only after you have dropped two suppression markers on
it,
just to be safe. There's a tactical challenge in the game, and one that
I take
to heart when I play: I try not to close assault a unit that hasn't been
suppressed with two suppression markers.

For simplicity sake, and to keep it in line with the regular rules, I'd
probably modify the written close assault rules thusly: if the unit
wants to
retreat voluntarily, it must make a second Confidence Test at a TL of
2/1/0
for low/med/high motivation troops after it has retreated. Retreating in
the
face of the enemy can break a unit. 

I do think the close assault rules need to be revised. The way they are
written, odds of greater than 2:1 seem to favour the side with the fewer
troops. The smaller force rolls one die versus multiple dice for the
larger
force, but if the single die wins it beats ALL the other dice. The odds
are
against the smaller force, but the first side to make a Confidence Test
is the
side with the MOST casualties. It's actually possible for the smaller
side to
lose the most dice rolling contests, but lose the fewest figures.  

One thing I'm thinking of trying with my Civil War variant is taken from
the
"Brother Against Brother" rules. In a close assault, the most you can
have is
two on one. If a defender defeats all attackers, only one attacker is
removed
(This last rule can be used even without limiting odds to 2:1).

>More to the point, it has meant that a more effective tactic than close
>assault is moving to about 2" away and firing a volley instead of close
>assaulting.

Which, in modern combat, is actually the case. Modern combat does not
stress
hand-to-hand combat.

>This two is legal in the rules and is one bit of cheese that is
>encouraged by a bit of a weak point in CA rules. I can't blame the
players
>from realizing what works and what doesn't. If they get up close and
paste
>the target unit, it'll probably take casualties. If the target unit
breaks
>back and they roll badly on a follow up test or movement roll, they get
shot
>by the unharmed defender at point blank. Given those options, it should
be
>fairly obvious which is safesty to the attacker! And this particularly
is
>what I wish to address. If it means stepping outside the published
rules....
>oh my.... what an idea.... <*wink*>

Well, I would argue that they shouldn't be close assaulting a squad
without
dropping two suppression markers on it in the first place. 

I do see your point, though, that a couple of suppression markers still
don't
force the enemy to sit still for the assault. I'm just wondering if you
are
making close assaults a little TOO likely. 

>Today, at the Autumn Assault Tournament, I will be GMing a game where
an OU
>platoon trapped at a firebase attempts to recover some airdropped
supplies
>and some NSL Special Forces backing up some Territorials attempts to
stop
>said recovery and capture the cannisters (there might be intel to be
had!).
>I will use the above interpretation if the issue comes up as it may. 
>
>Of course, an AAR will make its way to the list. :) 

Looking forward to it!

Allan Goodall		       awg@sympatico.ca
Goodall's Grotto:  http://www.vex.net/~agoodall

"Surprisingly, when you throw two naked women with sex
toys into a living room full of drunken men, things 
always go bad." - Kyle Baker, "You Are Here"