Re: A Question and Discusion -- Squad Leader Discussion Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:41:05 10/23/06 Mon
Author: Alan Yngve
Subject: Re: A Question and Discusion
In reply to: JaimeH 's message, "A Question and Discusion" on 12:07:18 10/16/06 Mon

>Hi Everyone,
>
>I'm finally playing solo the ALPHA1 TTS scenarios and
>getting on my way to enjoying SL once more!!

Great to hear!

>I have a question a CLOSE COMBAT that doesn't seem
>clear to me. In 4th edition rules it states undeer
>rule 20.4 "You may divide your close combat attacks in
>any manner you wish as long as no unit attacks more
>than once per Close Combat phase."
>
>Yet in the example given is states "Both players could
>choose to divide their combat the following ways..."
>
>What I don't understand is if i'm the attacker with 3
>squads (4-6-7) against 3 squads (4-4-7), If i decide
>to make one attack 2 squads against 1 (2-1)and another
>1 against 1 attack (1-1), then is the defender
>obligated to the same attacks (1-3) and (1-1) or can
>the defender decide a totally diffrent approach (for
>example one 3-1 attack)? If the latter, is the rule
>realistic?

Yes, each player may make their own choice.

Don't think of close combat as (necessarily) hand-to-hand
combat. It is just CLOSE (all within the hex that is about
50 meters across). So close combat is presumed to include
firing weapons and using granades ... and in all of these
activities there is some choice as to WHERE the troops
choose to direct their efforts.

>I would also like to know your opinions about the
>Defensive Fire Principals and the alternate method of
>Semi Simultaneous Movement and Defensive Fire. Which
>do you consider more accurate? I believe the second
>method is more real as it allows the mover to feint
>advances to draw deadly machine gun fire away form you
>main advance but on the other hand it forfeits too
>much the MG's capacity to cover open avenues of
>advance. I'm undecided and would like to see other
>opinions.

A couple of things:
1) Almost everyone who plays over the internet does NOT
use the alternate methods.
2) The semi-simultaneous movement system does not work real
well as presented. in fact, it was players who wanted to
play this way that led to the eventual development of ASL.
In ASL (at least) there are provisions to let a unit make
"final protective fire" against enemies that have moved up
adjacent after said unitws have fired somewhere else.
3) Much as I have read about assaulting MGs, using a "feint"
was not one of the tactics. Approaching from two directions, yes.

What SL does is create an infantry movement system that is not cumbersome while permitting the defefender (non-moving side) the opportunity to fire in the most threatening direction. AS IF all infantry were moving at the same time (as they should be, given the time scale of the game).

>BTW..I'm available to play VSQL on weekends. So if
>your intrested in playing the alpha1 TTS please drop a
>line. My Time zone is +1 GMT (Europe).

Great to have you in our community. Hopefully I'll see you
on the VSQL server ... maybe even to play a game! :-)

-- Alan

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]