Articulation [SG2] and RCMP2185

2 posts ยท Oct 10 2000 to Oct 10 2000

From: Barclay, Tom <tomb@b...>

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:57:30 -0400

Subject: Articulation [SG2] and RCMP2185

Allan and Brian have made interesting points.

Seems to me Allan has championed my cause - small units take fire
reasonably morale wise (let's not argue house rules... Allan's improve on the
basic game but I find still have a weakness or two (or did last time I
reviewed them) the only fair ones to discuss are the normal textbook ones),
give out fire effectively (no waste of FP), and they take fire well because
suppressions suppress less of the total available force. They can also be
overkilled - which is a plus for the defender! Waste opponent FP.

If I have a squad with GMS and I detach the GMS, my commander uses 1 action to
transfer command (giving the GMS guy two actions I think) and 1 action is thus
left to the rest of the squad. This is wasteful. If the GMS is a two man team,
or a 4 man detachment with two GMS, it tends to be more tactically
effective - it doesn't impinge on the rifle squads, it can engage LoS,
and its principal role is AT whereas a rifle squad should be worried about
other infantry. It is (IMO) tactically better.

As for the redundancy point - point taken. One or two extra guys isn't
bad. Mind you, having their FP effective is good too. Having too few so that
you don't get big dice (D10 at least) is sort of a problem I must agree. Most
figs I use (NSL or mercs for example) have FP3 kit. So 4 guys is a great size.
Maybe with FP2 the key number is six.

As for the comment about limited activation (being able to activate a
smaller % of total force) - not a huge issue - I have more tactical
flexibility (more squads can manouvre and fire independently or in mutual
support) and I can still reactivate the same raw # of units - so I'll
get the same # of extra firing actions if I want. Movement might be the only
place any slowdown shows. Firing is not impacted.

Stargrunt is a squad game - I like to see forces behave as they do in
reality - elements mutually supporting. This happens even within
"sections"
or "squads" of 6-10 guys - pairings, groups of 3 or 4 (depends if you
are a
2-1 or 2-2 doctrine force) guys - and this is one place I find
large-squad
SG2 lacks something (for me myself!). I find the articulation adds to the
complexity of the movements that are possible, and playing FMASkirmish with a
platoon per side is just too big for casual entertainment... so this is my
substitute.

RCMP2185: Like the idea of the Royal Colonial Mounted Police. Now I need some
figs from someone like Jon or Nic. "Mounty in Red Serge, Riding Pants with
wide-brim hat and AAR". They actually do a lot of work with the UN
around the world and are a very hard working force that is cost effective for
policing at high standards of quality. They aren't foolproof, but they provide
good bang for the buck. And they have a cool tradition. And, let me say, they
do a lot more than we ever hear about to keep our communities
safe. :)

e-mail volume issue:

Also, a note to anyone having problems with listmail volumes: DIGEST! Get
one mail a day, sort through it in Notepad or mail tool quickly - ignore
threads with ease. It solved my grief. 1 50K email a day now. Not 50 messages.
Easy to store, easy to search. No one has any reason to complain about mail
volume needlessly.

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@a...>

Date: 10 Oct 2000 11:48:58 -0700

Subject: Re: Articulation [SG2] and RCMP2185

> On Tue, 10 October 2000, "Barclay, Tom" wrote:

> Allan's improve on the basic

I'd like to hear your comments! You might want to check them again, as I
rewrot e them a little while ago. They are clearer. I think that a platoon
wide morale mechanism might be necessary.

> If I have a squad with GMS and I detach the GMS, my commander uses 1

Ah, but flip it the other way! Put the commander with the GMS guy. Nothing
says you can't. You can then transfer an action to the detached part of the
squad, giving them their two actions, and you then have one action for the
commander/G
MS guy.

Hmm. Is there any reason you couldn't make the commander the GMS guy? If the
co mmander dies, does the GMS guy become squad leader?

> If the GMS is a two

Oh, I'm not arguing that point at all. It's demonstrably better as a
standalone unit. Same with the ECM guys.

The question is, why did Jon put the ECM guys in the command squads of his
unit examples? Was it just as a whim, or was there a game playbalance issue?
If you
 tell me to build a force with 30-odd guys, I'll put my ECM and GMS
units in th eir own little squads.

I'm just curious why Jon sets up his squads as big as they are. Take the card
g
ame Up Front. The squads were typically 10+ men in size, but you got to
set up your own manoeuvre and firebases groups yourself. Typically a 10 man
German squ ad would have the Assistant Squad Leader as LMG crewman, the LMG
and two regula r troopers as a firebase, while the Squad Leader and the other
5 guys worked as a manoeuvre unit. Is Stargrunt abstracted to the point where
the 10 man squad assumes this? Or is this supposed to be handled by the squad
detachment rules? Or should the World War II German squad be set up, in SG2
terms, as an SG2 squa d of 4 and an SG2 squad of 6?

This isn't clear from the rules. I would REALLY like to have an idea of what
Jo n is thinking. It would really help us.

If Jon is thinking a squad is just that, a squad as defined historically, then
even if 4 man squads are more efficient, we should be creating bigger squads
an d assume a layer of abstraction. This SEEMS to be implied by the force
lists at the back of the SG2 book. It ALSO seems implied by the detachment
rules. Detac hed squads tend to stay close to the main squad piece.

On the other hand, the SG2 rules don't allow the sort of manoeuvrability found
in Up Front if you use 10 man squads. To duplicate what happens in Up Front,
yo u would set up the German squad in "fireteams" of 6 and 4 men.

> As for the redundancy point - point taken. One or two extra guys isn't
Most
> figs I use (NSL or mercs for example) have FP3 kit. So 4 guys is a

Good point. I would also like to see guidelines for the game universe as to
the relative availability of FP3 versus FP2 weapons. Would ANYONE not put FP3
weap ons in the hands of their infantry?

> Stargrunt is a squad game - I like to see forces behave as they do in

*L* Well, I just stated above the same thing. Me, I'd like to know the level
of abstraction. I can live with it if this sort of flexibility isn't intended
in the SG2 design. SG2 is a subtactical game, not really a skirmish game.

> I find the articulation adds to the

Good points.