SG2 close assault

Allan said:

>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* 

[Tomb] Mea Culpa. I stand corrected. 

>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.

[Tomb] I'll bet you'd find far more of those retreating in disarray. I
didn't say this should not be possible, just that it should be the
exception
not the rule.

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

[Tomb] If you had the option to be activated and retreat, then yes they
do. 

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.

[Tomb] This presumes an unactivated unit. If this is the case, then they
should probably be able to flee. But if the unit has already activated,
fired etc, it has already filled its several minutes of activity! It
therefore could be presumed to be doing something else when it should
have
been falling back....

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.

[Tomb] I think this is possible, but uncommon. You had (generally) the
option to withrdaw that unit and chose not to, therefore you opted to
remain
there when a close assault could have been inbound. Similarly, I can't
break
off the pursuit 20m into my assault if the enemy flees.... 

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.

[Tomb] Agreed.

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. 

[Tomb] That isn't bad. I may take this to heart.

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).

[Tomb] I drop the outnumbered figures die type by 1 for every increase
in
odds (2:1 downshifts it one type, 3:1 two types, etc). This means a
figure
outnumbered 5:1 has a very rough day. 

>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.

[Tomb] Whereas from conversations with several people in Canadian and US
SF,
I know this to be true even in elite units, undoubtedly if we consider
what
SG2 close assault is, it is high-rate close-range fire, hand and rifle
grenades, and only in very rare cases is it actual bayonet assault.
Since it
represents the close in fire fight, using the mechanistic trick of
stopping
2" away and rolling fire dice kind of reeks of cheese. I'd be tempted to
let
the enemy unit (if unactivated) attempt reaction fire or to initiate a
counter close-assault if someone tried to pull their squad up 20m short
and
engage...

------------------------------------------
Thomas R. S. Barclay
Voice: (613) 722-3232 ext 349
e-mail: tomb@bitheads.com

Do not go where the path may lead, 
go instead where there is no path 
and leave a trail.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)  
------------------------------------------