Hi!
I was commenting on Ed's points on changing the close combat phase to the
end of the phase.
You're idea I can live with and has been mentioned before. If you wipe out
the enemy a follow up move would be okay.
Peter
> >I'm not so sure about this. In my view if you don't support an attack
> >adequately and permit nearby support on advance to clean you out after an
> >assault the player didn't do his job.
>
> My reasoning for an advance rule is not to prevent fire on the assaulting
> troops, but rather to make assaults a bit more worthwhile, and to
represent
> how troops go "over the top" to take an objective.
>
> After annihilating the enemies holding their objectives, I feel that the
> infantry should be able to follow up and move unto whatever their enemies
> were defending. If they can't do this, why should they assault in the
first
> place???
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> eGroups eLerts
> It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/3079/3/_/7255/_/956425703/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Received on Sat Apr 22 2000 - 18:03:06 UTC