[SG2] morale/CC

Morale:
	Morale is weak in SG2. Some people like having a game where
units
don't route with 10% casualties like real units sometimes will. Some
people
like fighting to the last man. And others don't. (Me included). Allan
took
some good steps towards remedying the problem with morale. There was a
cascading morale rule suggestion (don't recall if Allan was using it)
but it
seemed like too much rolling to me. 
	Platoon morale is actually a good idea. Platoon commanders
sometimes
also bug out without losing that great a percentage of their force...
(This
isn't such a big deal in platoon sized forces... victory conditions can
serve well here)...and this matters most in a company sized game.
Although I
would certainly NOT do it as the recent suggestion was made by rolling
for
every squad on the board.... that isn't how it happens. If one platoons
morale reaches a point where they refuse to advance or will pull out,
then
test other platoon commanders for morale (and possibly the company
commander). You don't need to test the units. If the company commander
decides then is the time to withdraw the force, then everyone goes. If
other
platoon commanders morale drops to the point they don't feel they can
advance, then they don't and the company commander may have to withdraw.
Individual squads in other platoons leave or stay based on their platoon
commander or the company commander (and of course, their own casualties,
but
that is a whole separate issue).
	In a case like this, any higher level of command (platoon
commander
if it is a platoon, company commander if it is a company) should be able
to
rally his broken forces (or attempt to) and get them back into the
fight.
History has plenty of stories of units that rallied, returned to a fight
after an initial fright/retreat, and gave a good accounting of
themselves. 

2) Close Assault
Close assault has lots of little idiosyncratic behaviours. Think on
these
ones:
1) Why do you retreat from CA before you even know the enemy will reach
you?
2) Why do whole units retreat or stay? (I think this is simplicity
reasons,
but in real life some retreat, some stay to the bitter end from time to
time)
3) Why do you have to be base-to-base when close assault is grenades and
high volume fire at close range? Would 2" away, 4" away or 6" away not
be
close enough? <Make ALL combats under 6" close assaults???>
4) Why do you find your Nike's when fleeing? Or when advancing against
opposition? You move far faster than you might in an unopposed advance. 
5) Why can you pull up short and shoot the crap out of your pursuers
without
any sort of leadership test to rally your routing troops?
6) Why is the retreat 6" and the follow through a combat move?
7) Why are odds not accounted for in the close assault combat? <I mean
the
actual fighting, not the die roll to stand>. One elite trooper can
pretty
much slaughter 20 untrained soldiers.... or 2000... if he rolls a 5 or
better...
8) Does anyone else notice that CA rules seem to have been written for
assaults on fixed positions/points of tactical significance? They seem
to
assume that the defender WANTS to hold. Many times, I see them used to
rush
units in the open who have ZERO interest in holding their piece of grass
(usually because the attackers outnumber them). The parts that speak
about
"moving to the objective" for the attacker before a followthrough don't
make
much sense if your objective is _the_enemy_unit_ rather than a piece of
ground. Perhaps the idea of assaulting units in the open was not really
considered when these were put together. But it is the most common use
I've
seen for them so far. 
9) Why are units running from close combat still combat effective? I'd
think
a re-org might be necessary as a first action after a retreat from CA.
Heck,
if the retreat was involuntary, many times in history, soldiers have
discarded weapons, armour, ammo, packs, webgear, etc. when trying to
beat
feet from an onrushing enemy. 

Interestingly, I've seen many green forces advance to 2" from the foe
and
fire, because at that range their fire IS dangerous, whereas a CA would
get
them killed. And the difference is what? Their opponent doesn't fight
back
(until after he's shot), no rolls to initiate, more chance of killing
the
enemy.... and all when within a distance I'd call "close combat range".
Fascinating....

Anyway, I can see areas to work on here. 
------------------------------------------
Thomas R. S. Barclay
Voice: (613) 722-3232 ext 349
e-mail: tomb@bitheads.com

2001: To the New Millenium! The next thousand years
are MINE. 
------------------------------------------