I've played rpg a fair bit as well as tabletop gaming.
To get a load of detail into stuff like clearing a house you need to switch to a larger scale.
At one time we had 15mil figures on the main table and 28mil on another one with floor plans.
This was hard enough work where there's just the one or two buildings to worry about. A village would mean you had to standardise all the buildings to like 3 designs.
It's not practical in a wargame.
I think one of the strengths of stargrunt 2 ( which I like a lot ) is that it glosses over the stuff which is difficult to simulate on the table. Once you get close you're just in close combat and that's that. No mucking about with throwing a grenade so far and it bounces off a wall so the burst area is wherever and reflects off this piece of furniture.
I use sg2 for ww2 with some modifications. Although ww2 orientated I recommend anyone playing sg2 take a look at them because they fix a couple of issues.
I also wrote a learning guide which some might find interesting. SG2 is essentially pretty simple but the mechanics are kind of unusual and the layout not necessarily ideal for the new reader.
It takes me like 10 minutes to teach new players enough to play.
In sg2 terms you need to consider whether you want a "squad" to be a real life fire team. If a fireteam is your expected level of granularity for moving and shooting then substitute the word "fireteam" for "squad" in the rules. Chains of re-activation will be very powerful if you allow them though.
Having said all that.
There's a reason those fellows are using IEDs.
Engaging in firefights just doesn't work so well for them.
That's kind of why it's called asymmetric warfare.
You can't just do platoon regulars vs platoon irregular (scum) and expect the irregulars to do anything much.
You need situation or victory conditions to level the playing field game wise.
A BHD kind of situation is way easier to give as an example – but that could translate sort of into an Iraq of Afghan city.
From the perspectives of the regulars with their overwhelming advantages.
There's a shed load of bystanders you lose vp per bystander killed or wounded. Spraying with a 50cal means you probably lose vp.
Most of the bad guys with ak47 are not core militia – they're shooting at you but you lose a vp for each one you kill.
Core militia and their leaders you get vp for killing.
Achieving you objective you get vp – or maybe failing to achieve your objective you lose vp. This could be situationally very challenging.
From the local yokels perspective.
You win big vp per regular killed.
The vp match the "political" situation where the locals have a different attitude to death than the western populace. Killing locals enables the bad guys to recruit more.
On table you can see a shed load of locals mowed down but the regulars still lose. In fact the more shooting the regulars do, the more their player loses by.
Some people don't find this sort of game very satisfying though and the more straightforward symmetrical warfare of ww2 suits them better.
Maybe also the glossing over aspect necessary to make a game practical would be less intrusive if you play a game where you can forget cutting pies, stacking and fireteams.
There is one other thing.
We play double blind games with duplicated tables and a referee. You only see on table what your figures spot.
This adds ENORMOUSLY to small skirmish games.
At quite a price though.
You need two sets of terrain, two tables and a way to separate them so the players can't see ( adjoining rooms is best ).
The rules can be pretty simple actually since you have the referee.
You don't need friction or morale systems.
The players supply both.
Moves are resolved simultaneously.
The ref goes into a room and each of the players in turn says what his figures will do. Or try to. Other players may not speak and the players may only describe what their figures will do. ( So they can't remind each other I'm going there because wossname will be going there to do this ).
Every game players eff up and do the wrong stuff.
Soon as the shooting starts then almost all players become very timid. You don't know where shooting is coming from.
You might know direction but unless your figure can see the muzzle flashes that's all.
Another big plus is the referee can interpret and provide narrative.
So you can do technical stuff and the ref can think ahah, yes that means +1. Or whatever. You feel better because there's your pie and it has some sort of pie effect. The game works because the referee can gloss over all the impractical nastiness and it's all good.
It's partly kriegsspiel.
The less they know about the actual rules as wrote the happier the detail orientated player is likely to be.
I hope that helps someone.
first saw these figures, he was dreading painting them...