RE: [SG2] morale/CC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mark.langsdorf@amd.com [SMTP:mark.langsdorf@amd.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 5:45 PM
> To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject:	RE: [SG2] morale/CC
> 
[Tom B]
> > 2) Close Assault
> > Close assault has lots of little idiosyncratic behaviours. 
> > Think on these ones:
> 
[Mark L]
> Close assault is a bit weak.	Hopefully Bugs Don't
> Surf or SG3 will clarify a bunch of this stuff.
> 
[Tom B]
> > 1) Why do you retreat from CA before you even know the enemy 
> > will reach you?
> 
[Mark L]
> Err?	What do you expect the grunts to do, wait until
> the other guy's hand grenades are rolling into their foxholes
> and then decide to get up and run?  The time of decision is
> when it looks like the other guy is coming, not when it's
> apparent he won't make it there.
> 
[Tom B]
> > 2) Why do whole units retreat or stay?
> 
[Mark L]Simplicity, just like why can't I have a unit with some
> green members and some veteran members.
> 
[Tom B]
> > 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?
> 
>	I agree that base-to-base is unreasonable, but I think 
> 6" away is a bit much - that's short range for green troops!
>	I'm going to push for some house rules around here such
> that 3" is the minimum distance between unfriendly, unsuppressed
> units - any closer and the non-moving unit gets a free shot
> (possibly at reduced firepower or quality) on the moving unit.
> But I don't think performing close assault on an unsuppressed
> unit should be allowed by the rules.
>	Regardless, 2" should be more than enough for close
> assaults.
> 
[Tom B]
> > 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. 
> 
>	Given that SG2 has standard movement rates of 120 meters
> per 5 minutes, I don't see a problem that units can sometimes
> move much faster when they need to.  If anything, I think the
> restrictions on travel movement should be reduced quite a bit.
> 
[Tom B]
> > 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?
> 
>	You can't.  Routing and broken troops can't fire on anyone
> who hasn't fired on them first.
>	Oh, you mean why can a unit voluntarily fall back from a
> position and then turn around and shoot people?  This makes sense
> to me - it's a fighting withdrawal and some booby-traps.  Sure,
> it's abstracted a bit, but so are a lot of things in SG2.
>	As a house rule, I agree with the idea that close assaulted
> units should be suppressed or activated or both, and units that
> perform an involuntary retreat should be disorganized at the end
> of the retreat and automatically out of coherence.
> 
[Tom B]
> 6) Why is the retreat 6" and the follow through a combat move?

>	To guarantee that fleeing units have a good chance to get 
> away.  Isn't retreat supposed to be faster than pursuit, anyway?
> 
[Tom B]
> > 7) Why are odds not accounted for in the close assault 
> > combat? 
> 
>	Good question.	I like the "extra fighter reduces opponent's
> die" house rule, myself.  Simple, and reasonable, but a good fighter
> can still get lucky and take all his opponents down.	(We also play
> that you beat everyone who rolls under you, even if you get beaten
> by someone else.  Simulates what I've seen of large melees and other
> close actions).
> 
[Tom B]
> > 8) Does anyone else notice that CA rules seem to have been written
for
> > assaults on fixed positions/points of tactical significance? 
> 
>	Yep.
> 
[Tom B]
> > 9) Why are units running from close combat still combat 
> > effective? 
> 
>	See above.  Also, a unit that drops down to BROK by failing
> morale tests (happened to me) is no longer combat effective, and
> that's a single bad roll on the morale test for a ST unit.
>