--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_10017_1215712126_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_10017_1215712126_2--
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lNot
really, but it seemed like a good title considering how focused the list has
been on certain topics...
My question is more to the hobby aspect of GZG gaming. I have been skirting
around building forces in 15mm and seem to have done a lot of adhoc purchases
that form nothing in particular. What strategies have folks used in assembling
forces and keeping on track.
So far I have the following -
3 hover scout cars 3 light hover tanks 3 combat walkers
2-3 platoons of mid-tech infantry (AR, RPG, SAW)
I have more possible additions but these are what I have ready to play
of my own sci-fi forces. I've mostly been playing with others minis up
until now.
Thanks,
Eli
I can't speak to folks who do 15mm, but for my 6mm stuff, I try to plan out at
least a core of what I want for each force.
For my NRA (New Republic of America), I've used non-GZG minis consisting
of Ral Parth/Steve Jackson OGRE minis. Mostly Combine, but I like the
PanE GEVs so I have some of them as well.
I have a large (more than a solid battalion) of more primitive units (all
wheeled and tracked) from the GZG Future Wars line. Once I oultined my basic
company (3 x 4 tank platoons, plus command) I figured out what kinds of tanks
and APCs and such I wanted to use, and then obtained them in company packets.
Thus, every time I get a set of new minis for them, I try to buy a complete
company. Of course, with command APCs, AA tanks, and the like, I end up over
or under with some vehicles, but it evens out over time.
I also have a bunch of the grav vehicles from the dirtside line
(DSM-114?) - a heavy grav tank, medium grav tank, and grav APC that I
use with Alder Kif infantry as alien raiders.
I have others as well, but not yet as well defined, nor filled out enough to
want to start painting.:)
J
> Not really, but it seemed like a good title considering how focused
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 12:48 PM, <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
For 15mm I decided my goal was a mechanized company for each side. I figured
on three squads per platoon, plus a command section, and 3 platoons per
company, with additional support elements. In reality, when playing SG2, I
don't need more than two platoons on the table.
With that in mind, I needed something around 15 vehicles per faction. I
decided the entire company would have the same types of vehicles, with the
possibility of recon units having higher mobility. At the time I started, Jon
wasn't making 15mm vehicles so I bought a bunch of HO scale Roco Minitanks. My
APC of choice was the German Marder, because its shape was futuristic and few
in North America recognize it. I bought enough for two companies over the
course of a year or so, with two different models (one with a gun mounted on
top, another a driver's training variant with a shallow dome on top). I
painted enough vehicles for two or three platoons (not sure how many; would
have to look).
I started kit bashing several of the vehicles into grav variants, but that
work was slow and fiddly. Then Jon started supplying 15mm vehicles, so I gave
up on that. I purchased several of his tracked vehicles; once painted, I could
field two companies on opposing sides,
with different styles of tracked APCs/IFVs.
I plan to buy a company's worth of grav vehicles, but so far the weak U.S.
dollar and a lack of time have prevented me. I'm also hoping at some point Jon
will do 15mm Phalon vehicles, at which point I'll jump at the chance to buy
those!
So, that's my strategy: pick a force size, sketch out the TO&E, and then start
collecting. For SG2 you'll need between one and two platoons worth of vehicles
to get started.
I'm only just building my SG force now-- I have had a large DS force
for quite a while. I'm also starting a new force, based on totally different
assumptions.
For the L-O force, I started with buying a few key figures, because I
was still getting my feet wet. Once I had a sense of what was out there, I
planned and then bought my DS force. I took a three phase approach. In phase
I, I bought critical core units (infantry and APC's in this case, since in my
background the force didn't make heavy use of tanks). Then, once I had a
small, basic force, sufficient for most small scenarios, I started to build up
my peripheral and support units: specialists like Infantry Walkers for use in
orbital insertions, engineering and logistics units, artillery, CB radar
vehicles, etc. Then in Phase III, I bulked out my army with another good
dollop of core units.
Now I'm buying, slowly, an SG unit to match its DS equivalent. Again, I'm
starting with core, but this time I'll only have one or two example vehicles
of each type of support unit, since SG scenarios are light on vehicles. If I
can get modular turrets to swap around to create the illusion of a larger
force, even better. I've been hamstrung by the lack of direct 15mm equivalents
to the Future Wars and Dirtside vehicles I have. Depending on my timing and
what Mr.Tuffley has in the pipeline, I might look to Old Crow or Combat Wombat
for close substitutes.
Meanwhile, I'm starting a new army. Here I'm starting in SG scale and moving
to DS. I'm being more cautious to buy figures available in both 6mm and 15mm
scales. Once I have a core platoon or two of infantry, APCs and a couple
tanks, I'll buy that core in DS scale, and then start getting support units.
In both cases, I plan my force out from the beginning, then buy core general
units first, then later get the peripheral units that you only find in certain
scenarios. An APC appears all the time in SG games. A heavy artillery vehicle
does not.
Rob
> On 7/10/08, emu2020@comcast.net <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
> At 5:48 PM +0000 7/10/08, emu2020@comcast.net wrote:
What's your final strength going to be? Why odd numbers? With scout cars, 2 by
2 is the best number for patrols because you want one unit to watch a road
while the other pair patrol down the main road. One leads, one hangs back.
Since SG is very low unit counts, I'd throw some trucks in for use as
objectives or convoy vehicles.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lSo
far these responses to this have been really useful.
I have tried to think of a core force of reinforced infantry or mobile
infantry. So far, I haven't put together any APCs but I'm sure I'll find
something. I am also converting some old Nam figs into a mid-tech force
by updating some tanks and using boxy M113s stock out of the box. I tend
to think of military vehicle designs as having certain constants - boxy
APCs, for example, seem to be a constant.
My biggest problem is that I tend to think up grand ideas for all aspects of a
military and want to try to build too many parts of that force, thus never
completing a working element of any particular part of that army.
I am working on a way to make a mobile infantry company that includes a
platoon of combat walkers for support. To this end, I want to develop some
walker carrying vehicles.
-Eli
Well, I'm maybe a bad example. For the most part, if Jon made it in 25mm and
it wasn't silly (and sometimes even if it was), I bought it.
About the only parts of the SG line I balked at were the all-female
Scanfed troops (was there some sort of male genocide?) and the OUDF weebles
(PA). I'm up to around 1000 painted figures now and have about 60 vehicles in
various stages of production. My unpainted lead count is probably at about 200
or so in GZG stuff and another few hundred in fantasy.
But, stepping aside from my insanity, here's one way to think of it:
A good game in SG2 seems to require at least a platoon on each side.
If you want to include multiple players bank on 2-3 manouver elements
per player. This can mean splitting squads into fireteams to get there, if you
are going figure light, but less than about 3 manouver elements and you don't
get much involvement.
So # of players x 3 = manouver element count. Smaller player counts can play
like they were larger ones if they want more to do and a longer game.
So, if I need to field enough for a 4 player game, 2 per side, that
suggests 6 manouver elements per side (assume meeting engagement -
balance accordingly changes for static defense/assault). That could be
4 x infantry squads + 2 support vehicles (1 platoon of infantry + a
couple of vehicles). If you want to play a bit bigger, go for a
platoon of infantry with APCs and a couple of other support elements -
a PA squad or a tank or MGS. That would put your total commitment for such a
game to:
4 x infantry squads (1 of which is command)
4 x MICV/APC
1 x tank/tank destroyer/MGS/AT missile launcher
1 x PA squad or gunship or something interesting
Get something roughly the same for the other force, you've got a good evening
of gaming. So you need two different types of infantry of at least platoon
strength (ideally with commander types, heavy weapons, snipers etc so you can
vary a bit), some APCs (two varieties), some other vehicles or PA and you're
done.
Looking at the initial army list provided:
3 Scout Cars - could substitute for APCs in support of an infantry
platoon.
3 Light Hover Tanks - one or two of these could fill in the 'support'
roles on one side.
3 combat walkers - ditto on the other side
2-3 platoons of infantry - good, but if they're all one force, you
need to get some different ones from another force.
So, it seems you've got most of a good basic game present. Add some enemy
force infantry and you're there.
> From there:
- APCs/MICVs or Trucks (most infantry are mechanized or motorized)
- Some PA squads (your heavy hitters and fast reaction guys)
- a VTOL or two (easy to throw in on either side if they don't have
one sides insignia all over them)
- Some hover jeeps (the GZG hover jeep/closed cab is a fantastic
generic utility or light armed vehicle)
After that: More infantry of different nations. Open out collections of
MICVs/APCs/Tanks for each nation and paint accordingly.
Things like mortars, auto GL teams, artillery vehicles, TOCs, etc. all tend to
fit within the broadening of game range and scenario options. So do marksmen.
And then, there are the KraVak. You honestly can't have the GZGverse without
some Kravak. Not only are they fun at parties, but they have some cool figure
sculpts and vehicles.
And then and then and then... always more stuff and you Scalist Heretics (ie
15mm folk) are getting all the new sculpts so any cool new things that come
out will be for you.
25mm is like the Squats of the gaming scale. Some scales went up and charge $8
a figure, some scales went down and got lots of bang for the buck. Jon clearly
recognizes that good work can be done in 15mm and people get good value for
the money and can buy lots of toys to go on the table.
So, there you have my wisdom.
TomB
TomB,
Quick question:
This was a fantastic post. Do you organize your DS army similarly to your SG
army? That is, for example, if you use your PA squads as fast recon support
for your line infantry, do you have mixed squads in your DS games also (ie an
element of PA attached to infantry platoons rather than separate platoons of
each)?
How many people use the same force organization in both games?
Robert Mayberry
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI'l
l try to answer the various posts in this one -
As for why all in 3's simply because that's how I bought them. That is not to
say that I will not increase beyond that, but it is what I have right now.
Tom, my hoverscouts are only big enough for a crew of two but are enclosed and
armored with a weapon mounted on an exposed ring mount (converted from WW2 M20
scout cars). This makes them unsuitable for APCs.
I am not sure if PA troops fits my force model. My Combat Walkers fill that
role. I had sort of written PA out for the current incarnation of my force.
They have no grav vehicles either, at least for the moment.
I am building toward using 8-man squads each including a SAW and RPG.
The squads are broken into 4-man fire teams.
I do have enough vconversion stock to produce more hoverscouts as well as an
upgunned version mounting a turret but these are in multiples of 3 so far.
-Eli
I don't play SG, but would consider playing SG:AC, if/when it's really
out. My primary reason for being willing to play SG:AC and not playing SG, is
exactly what you just brought up. I want to organize my units the same way for
both games. In fact, I would want to play both games in 6mm, and hopefully
have the exact same weapons and equipment.
The difference for me would be in focus of command and control. My DS games
would focus on battalions and companies, while the SG:AC game would focus on
companies and squads.
<shrug>
J
> TomB,
About
> the only parts of the SG line I balked at were the all-female Scanfed
If
> you want to include multiple players bank on 2-3 manouver elements
> evening of gaming. So you need two different types of infantry of at
> the table.
> terrible responsibility but I have learned to live with it." Londo, A
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:48 PM, <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
> Not really, but it seemed like a good title considering how focused
I have forces in 6mm and 15mm that I've been collecting. *Ideally* I'd have
identical forces (composition and vehicles) in both scales, but alas, most
manufacturers don't make their vehicles in both. :-( Not even GZG,
though
they do some and are slowly expanding. :-) There are still some others
GZG doesn't yet make in 15mm they do in 6 that I want.
I've been *trying* to put together comprehensive forces for DS2/DS3 and
SG:AC-type games. In 6mm scale this is easy. Vehicles are relatively
inexpensive. In 15mm, not so easy. I can only spend a bit at a time. I've
dabbled in getting vehicles from different companies (esp when GZG wasn't
making many 15mm models), but with the sole exception of Brigade [from the
companies I sampled], all of them have either gone under or reduced what
they were selling or cut the ranges. :-( DLD, ForceXXI, etc. I have
partial company forces from each, and would like to finish fleshing them out.
But alas...
So, so far my largest # of 15mm vehicles are GZG and Brigade (and happily,
many of Brigades 15s are also in 6, but not all of their 6s are in 15 -
but
I have hope :-) )
I've looked at Combat Wombat and Old Crow, but haven't committed to purchasing
anything from either as of yet. I'll probably try CW first,
mainly because the dollar is so darn weak in the UK. :-( I *might* have
a fighting chance at putting together an entire company (if I focus, that is
;-) ).
I am hopeful and ready(ish) for SG:AC to start really getting developed on
the vehicle front. :-) I have another 15mm order from GZG that should
be
winging its way to my door any time now. :-D
Mk
> Well, I'm maybe a bad example. For the most part, if Jon made it in
Eh? Only a few of the 8 ScanFed figures are female.... not that you
can really tell with the bulky padded parkas with hoods up..... ;-)
Jon (GZG)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Lots of good stuff has been said, let me throw in just a few comments.
I prefer to have a sort of 'core force' then buy support elements to attach to
that core force, then expand some of the support elements to be a core force
of their own.
What I mean is (using DSII as an example) my first sort of 'core'
element was high-tech grav tank heavy. I bought up the various
attachments necessary to build well-balanced and tailored reinforced
company teams (each of which would punch way above its weight numerically, due
to the high techn emphasis) first of tanks reinforced by infantry, then
expanding the infantry so I could build a
infantry-heavy force supported by tanks if I wanted to.
Know what each element is supposed to do. Fact of life is that few pieces of
military equipment and few military organizations do all things well. Most
tactical situations are best met by a mixed force wherein each element does
something that is its forte. Example is street fighting, where tanks blast
strongpoints but are protected by infantry from RPG gunners.
I like even numbers for vehicles so that each vehicle has a 'wingman'. I like
having at least 3 subunits at each level of command because that lets me have
a main effort, a supporting attack, and a reserve. That's not with attachments
and supports, that's three subunits as a core. The only exception is at the
squad level, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. Four subunits is nice, but
a lot more than that gets to be too much to deal with (real world, at least).
Sounds like you've got the core of a company team, right? Decide whether it's
to be light or mechanized. You can use the figures for both, but there may be
some organizational differences. It's not terribly hard to have the same bunch
of models with different options
do double duty--if they are light infantry on Tuesday they have jeeps
with machine guns and GMS launchers rolling out with them, but when they are
mechanized they have the APCs.
Light infantry means you can have larger squads (12-13) with three
fireteams if you want them. Not necessary, but it's an option. Light infantry
also requires dedicated heavy weaponry if it is going to face anything heavier
than bandits or insurgents. Machine guns and
anti-armor weapons, and by anti-armor weapons I don't mean IAVRs or
GMS-Ps. Those are a joke against real armor.
Mechanized infantry has two models generally available. One is the
"battle taxi" approach with machine-gun armed APCs which provide
operational and tactical mobility but aren't mean to get into the
fight in a seroius way. M-113s, Strykers, etc. These have a limit on
max squad size (size of vehicle) and require much the same level of
anti-armor support that light infantry does.
What could be called "armored infantry" itegrates more heavily armed infantry
fighting vehicles into tactics as both transportation and as
fire support. They may or may not have integral anti-armor
capabilities (due to space in the vehicles, I'd rather drop the GMS
launcher and have a seperate anti-armor platoon in the company) but
the weaponry is going to sharply limit squad size even further.
What I've done is to presume that not only do mechanized troops have integral
fire support, but can be more heavily armored. I use NI figures for my
mechanized troops but my light infantry have vests
only. That's from personal experience--humping a vest with ceramic
plates limits mobility and endurance a great deal, I can't imagine foot
patrolling in a full suit, much less an approach march.
Power armor can fill a number of roles. You can use them as scouts, although I
think that's a waste of time. You can use them as fire support or assault
elements. Or you can presume that power armor is concentrated in certain units
and unavailable in others. Most sample organizations I've seen tend to use
them in the assault or fire support roles, but I personally disagree. If any
power armor is on
the table, it's all I have on the table--and it comes with IFVs. I
don't use my armored infantry very often. When it comes to mixed
PA/line forces, I find that integrating the different speed is a bit
tricky--either you slow your PA down to the speed of your line dogs,
which wastes capability, or you basically keep your PA as a reserve. That
works best if your PA is all consolidated as your force reserve at the highest
echelon of command present on the table.
Walkers I don't use, but I can see them supporting light infantry easily, or
power armor that isn't also mechanized. I have a hard time seeing them
integrated with mechanized infantry because they are less mobile than the
carriers the troops move in. Once you start building walker transports, that
gets silly. It's easier to replace them with
a "fire support platoon" consisting of RFAC-armed vehicles mounting
GMS-Hs. The vehicles will be just as capable, if not more so, and
more heavily armed and armored.
And yes, I use basically the same force structures for SG and DS. There's some
complication translating infantry platoons, but that's trivia. In fact, I know
my organization tables up to division level. That's not necessary, but its not
a bad idea to do them up to battalion level at least, so that you have a good
idea what your organizations have as organic support and what is unusual. If
your battalion includes, say, a motorcycle recon platoon than you might want
to put together a stargrunt motorcycle recon team for some games.
I'm boring, and I think I annoy some people, because I assume that without
some drastic changes to modes of warfare (and making more
powerful direct-fire weapons and faster hovertanks aren't enough) then
modern-style organizations are going to work better than "more
interesting" ones. On the other hand, they work and work well. YMMV.
In infantry, I am building 15mm forces of armies I like from movies, fiction,
and my own imagination...so far we have...
- A Terminator force, along with human resistance fighters (GZG militia)
- A US 2300 Marine force (no vehicles yet, nothing I have found is
suitable for M24s)
- A Traveller Imperial Marine force and some Sword World types (OUDF
from GZG) as well as some Imperial Army in Combat Armor (GZG New Israeli) I
have yet to find anyone suitable for the Zhos (Again, a problem on the vehicle
end, I found something I think would make a good Grav tank, but APCs?)
- A French 2300 FFL force (Again, no vehicles, but Brigade makes some
nice ideas for them)
- A Stargate Go'aould army and a mix of humans to take them on (An SG
team, along with some 15mm Rangers and Delta from an Australian company who's
name escapes me at the moment).
- A Hammer's Slammer's army (Hey, I love the books)
- A Kafer army (GZG Kra'vak) (Again, no vehicles, but with the new
Kra'vak stuff from GZG, that's only a matter of time)
- Aliens and Colonial Marines (Nobody makes APCs in this scale)
- Some odds and ends (More 15mm militia and civies, cops, traveller
figs in vacc suits, some stan johansen and laserburn figures, most of that is
playing armed civillians and ships crews)
On the vehicle side?
- Lots of old crow (a platoon each of Hammer's Slammer's tanks and
combat cars and two APCs and a Gladius), some combat wombat (3 8x8 wheeled
vehicles with either the MGS turret or the APC turret,and two painted hover
light tanks) 3 old laserburn tracked APC, some Mechwarrior stuff (including
some nice aerial HKs for my terminators),
a force of wheeled matchbox APCs for my militia/cops, some tracked
light APCs from GZG and some tracked anti-armor stuff from the same
source, two plastic models of battletech marauders, and some other matchbox
odds and ends as well as two laserburn hover cars.
I am sure I have more but memory doesn't serve too well right now.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am hopeful and ready(ish) for SG:AC to start really getting
What is SG:AC?
Also agree with the DLD comments -- I have a TOC and an APC in 25mm and
I want a few more. Alas Mr.DLD is a bit, urm, unreliable.
Anyone have any spare DLD 25mm 8x8 APCs they want to get rid of? I need
2-3
more.
Damo
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:00 AM, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Power armor can fill a number of roles. You can use them as scouts,
This is a great point.
This stuff obviously can be very setting-specific at times. In my
background, PA is very, very common (at least, off-world), because 1)
a lot of the fighting happens in uninhabitable environments, 2) you can turn
out large numbers of PA suits in a few days, but training skilled professional
soldiers to fight takes years, and 3) the mass requirement of a PA suit on a
transport is negligible compared to the life support the soldier uses. So for
me, "light" infantry is typically also hard suited, possibly with light (and
optional)
power-assist to alleviate fatigue, and is a specialist unit designed
for the few things that PA aren't good at. Hence my interest in PA snipers and
engineers; which in other settings would make little or no sense.
> Walkers I don't use, but I can see them supporting light infantry
I mainly use infantry walkers in orbital insertions. Organizationally, they're
treated as "heavy infantry" (as opposed to the standard infantry power armor),
but I use them as combat vehicles. Basically, they're dropped with the PA
troops to clear landing zones and for other "paratrooper" missions. They're
also great for fights in rough terrain or weather, especially since the
decreased ranges help make up for their fragility and high signature. Of
course, a unit that has them won't hold them back if they're in a serious
fight, even if infantry walkers aren't perfect in a straight up battle. In my
setting, an APC can be reconfigured in a shop in a few hours to transport a
single infantry walker instead of a PA squad.
They also make good engineering vehicles: while I also have normal engineer
vehicles, the extra mobility and opposable thumbs really come in handy for
certain combat engineer missions. It doesn't come up in my forces, but I think
infantry walkers have good value for civilian tasks as well: engineering,
setting up a colony, and exploration. I can imagine an occupied settlement
fitting a few out with weapons and heading out into the rough countryside,
supporting hit and run strikes while the occupier's support ship is below the
horizon.
I agree that walker transports/mechs don't make much sense. I'm glad
DS gives you the option to make one, but I wouldn't use it myself.
Rob
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l200
8/7/11 Damond Walker <damosan@gmail.com>:
> What is SG:AC?
> 2008/7/11 Damond Walker <<mailto:damosan@gmail.com>damosan@gmail.com>:
Yes, exactly that. Something that I'm working on (with feedback from the
playtest group) to fit in between SGII and DSII, designed for
reinforced-company-level forces. Still in early alpha form at the
moment with a number of major decisions still to be made about rule mechanics,
but I hope it will progress to a reasonably complete playtestable beta version
before TOO long.
I haven't said much about it outside the playtest group because it's
still at a very early stage - it's not exactly secret, but much may
change before it's in any shape for even a limited playtest release, so there
hasn't been a lot to tell you yet.
What I CAN say with reasonable certainty is:
It will be called STARGRUNT: ASSAULT COMPANY, to keep the link to SGII on
which a lot of it is based. Hence SG:AC, with or without the colon.
It is designed primarily for 15mm figures and vehicles, with infantry
based as multi-figure stands (typically 3-5 man fireteam stands,
though 2-man teams and full squad stands will also feature depending
on organisation and tech level) and vehicles based individually.
Basing size and shape is non-critical, so those of you with
single-based figures for SGII needn't worry - you can just blu-tack
them to a card fireteam base, or even just move a little clump of them around
as a single element. Using 10mm, 6mm etc. with it should not be a problem.
Typical forces at medium tech levels will be Company sized - three or
four platoons plus maybe some supporting units. Lower tech forces may
be larger, and higher-tech ones much smaller than this. Tech level
differences will feature particularly strongly, with a platoon-sized
force of very high-tech troops being able to take on a couple of
companies or more of low-tech in what we hope will be a reasonable
game matchup.
The game mechanics will be broadly similar to both SGII and DSII in many ways
(still the FMA system at the core of it), but we WILL be changing things where
we feel there is better way of doing them. While we will try to keep as much
overall consistency between the games as practical, the overall goal is to
make SG:AC as good as we can.
Yes, it's an unashamed and blatantly commercial attempt to get you all to buy
lots of our lovely 15mm figures and vehicles. However it will remain as
broadly generic as possible so that you can use your own setting if you wish,
it won't be specifically tied to just the
GZG-verse.
No, I don't know when it will be ready for release, or in what format it will
be published, but when something is ready you will all be
among the first to know! ;-)
Oops, I forgot about the DLD Bengal and Komodo I have, single model each...is
DLD still around?
> At 12:12 AM +0000 7/11/08, emu2020@comcast.net wrote:
The british used 3 tank platoons in WWII. They stuck to that, but other
formations used 4 vehicles in a section or platoon. The US does the same
today. (the british also used 3 aircraft in a flight). 3 vehicles is hard to
work, especially in aircraft terms, but also in terms of tank platoons. You
want a wingman and buddy that can over watch you while you do something
hazardous. Or a pair of tanks to watch your tanks while you move forwards on
bounds.
In recce terms, 2x2 works well. When you get above that, your job is usually
more complicated. Cav Scout Platoons in Vietnam used 3 tanks and 5 apcs for a
10 track section. British carrier platoons (attached to infantry divisions)
used 7 carriers as a unit.
> At 11:00 AM +0300 7/11/08, John Atkinson wrote:
Something to add to this, unless technology changes drastically, you don't see
major changes in organization. With new system you do get differences in
doctrine until the best method is found.
In the previously mentioned case of British tank platoons of 3 tanks (3 three
fighters in a flight) they tried that first. IT seemed to work in training,
but after a LOT of combat and a LOT of soul searching, the 4 tank platoon and
4 fighter scheme was found to work better.
If you have tanks that just get faster (hover or grav tanks) you're still
likely to want to stick to 4 tank units for general purposes as a basic unit.
They're still tanks, they still fight like tanks and even if you're faster and
more fighter like, those still tend to fight 2x2.
Robert,
I shoot for having the same unit types if possible (which is why I'm
peeved I can't get old-school 6mm Eldar Tempest grav tanks anymore
since I'm using Armourcast 28mm Tempests for my Kravak). Sometimes this is not
feasible and that's just an annoying reality. A lot of really cool models in
the FW lines never made it into SG25s.
Force organization tends to be flexible in the modern day and will be even
more flexible in the future. A hard TO&E will the the oddity rather than the
norm I suspect. So I just try to have the models and assemble them in a
reasonable manner for the sort of mission being undertaken.
T.
Robert said:"Tom, my hoverscouts are only big enough for a crew of two but are
enclosed and armored with a weapon mounted on an exposed ring mount (converted
from WW2 M20 scout cars). This makes them unsuitable for APCs."
When I meant 'fill the role of', I didn't mean the battle-taxi job. My
experience in SG2 is that once an APC is on the board, it should be empty or
you are just asking for a troop BBQ. So the role they really
fulfill is fire support. The Scout Cars may be fine for that - they
can provide heavy weapons fire to support infantry manouver.
T.
Mr.Lerchey,
Why don't you just play SG in 6mm? 6mm is the correct figure scale = ground
scale for SG. 1" = 10m is roughly 6.6mm = 2.5m which is pretty close to 2m for
a 6mm figure.
No need to wait! Get our 6mm forces out now and play away! The only
challenge is wound/casualty marking for stands and detaching units,
but if you have enough models or a cunning basing scheme this is probably
workable too.
T.
This is actually pretty interesting stuff to me.:)
So far, my human forces all have 4 tank platoons. Not for any really
good reason - they just felt right. Now I understand a little better
why that is. I have some in 3 tank platoons, but on the assumption that the
number of platoons per company would not differ, but that the one tank type
I'm using is not in good supply, and thus, they run with short
platoons. Not ideal - just what they have to work with. :)
Some of my aliens are in 3 tank platoons, but mostly cause they look neat in
little Vs heading across the table.
I hadn't thought of making multi-vehicle scout sections. I typically
run them as individuals. I may see how many total I have for my Order
scout jeeps and re-do them. Scouts will operate in pairs, while FO
teams might run around individually.
Thanks for the insight!
J
> At 11:00 AM +0300 7/11/08, John Atkinson wrote:
then
> modern-style organizations are going to work better than "more
YMMV.
> Something to add to this, unless technology changes drastically, you
404-545-6205
> ( Suwanee and Manassas DCs) - - Office: 404-588-6191
Hello Mr.T.:)
'cause I don't care much for SG. It always seemed to me be organizationally
odd. Kind of sqaud level, but not quite really. I think that I'll like SG:AC
better.
For what it's worth, my gaming buddy Tom (Pope) made a deal with me a few
years ago that we haven't acted upon. He does want to play SG in 6mm and has
some NSL painted up and mounted on individual stands. I've promised that when
he sets up an NSL force of at least company size for DS, I'll set up a company
sized force from one of my factions on individual bases to use in SG as the
opfor.
So, maybe some day.:) For now, I'm gonna keep playing DS3 and try to work the
kinks out.
:D
J
> Mr. Lerchey,
> Still in early alpha form at the moment with a number of major
So, right after Bugs Don't Surf, then?:}
-P.
> At 12:02 PM -0400 7/11/08, Tom B wrote:
Did you see the Israeli method of getting their breaching and entry teams up
on the Palistinian Authority compound? Heavy APCs with doors in the FRONT!
Suppress the enemy infantry. Move the APC up close to the building, infantry
deploy there where they're not easily attacked with the APCs for cover and
place their demo, take cover, demo and then enter. Having some breaching
mechanism on the APC's themselves OR on a support vehicle would make it even
smoother (which they may have done, I'm only extrapolating from the sparse
reports I heard).
> At 12:12 AM +0000 7/11/08, emu2020@comcast.net wrote:
I believe that, at least early on, Cruiser tank squadrons had troops of 3
while Infantry tanks (Matildas etc) used 4 tank troops; not sure why this was
the case.....
The Germans used a 5-tank Zug, at least when they had the vehicles
available. Russians used 3s, but then a Russian Company acted pretty much like
a platoon of any other nation.
Jon (GZG)
> They stuck to that, but other formations used 4 vehicles in a
> At 12:25 PM -0400 7/11/08, John Lerchey wrote:
Looking at the WWII Brit Recce squadrons (my main hobby, that's why I have the
armoured cars), I discovered that theres some amazing flexibility on the part
of the table of organization and use in doctrine.
A Recce Troop (a platoon in British parlance) had:
HQ Section 1 Lt on a carrier (light APC) 1 Lt on a heavy armoured car (wheeled
light tank) a motocycle for communications to the rear and light errands
Recce Section 2 scout cars 2 'heavy' armoured car
Carrier Section 3 bren carriers
2nd Carrier Section 3 bren carriers
They initially had 5 light armoured cars (Light Recce cars actually) that were
eventually replaced with scout cars and armoured cars. The war diaries of more
than just 15 recce shows that they'd split the troop up and one LT would go
with the armoured cars and one would go with the carriers. There were 3 of
these Troops in a Squadron with a 4th Troop
having 4-5 APCs (Half Tracks) with a full 4 sections of infantry, known
as the assault troop. The actual combat formations could have a pair of
halftracks assigned to a recce troop which may have had several carriers to
accomplish particular tasks.
There were of course supporting elements for the whole set of 3
Squadrons in the form of rear echelon support AND Anti-tank guns and
mortars also mounted/towed on/by bren carriers or llyod carriers.
The US Cav Scout Troops of the Vietnam era mirror this a great deal as I
mentioned with a 3 and 5 setup of tanks to apcs. The tanks and apc's being
much larger than their WWII counterparts with more infantry able to be carried
and more firepower.
> Tom B wrote:
How many would you need. Not want, but need?
I have about 6 IIRC.
Zoe
> At 5:52 PM +0100 7/11/08, Ground Zero Games wrote:
I have some Staff Tables (TO&Es) from a now defunct website
(Militarytablesoforganization.com) that had the following listed in very good
detail.
They show 3 tank troops (platoons) for a Cavalry Light Tank Regiment as of May
'38, an Armoured Regiment in July of '43 for the Mid East and an Armoured
Regiment of May '45 (Cruisers or infantry). I think in each case they're 4
troops of 3 tanks. Even the Light Armoured Regiment (Wheeled) from '40 shows
three "Tank, Light, Wheeled" in each troop but with 5 troops. This is of
course armoured cars with a 2 pounder or perhaps a 15mm Besa.
The Army Tank Brigades (with Churchills) may have been different, but I don't
think so.
Gotta love old British Staff Tables and trying to find what works.
> > Still in early alpha form at the moment with a number of major
OK, I know this was tongue-in-cheek, but I'm going to answer it
seriously! ;-)
BDS will not happen in it's originally planned form. As you know, it was
intended to be a supplement for SGII, but it just got overtaken by events and
other projects. However, the name is too good not to
use - so it may eventually see the light as a supplement for SG:AC
instead.... :-)
Good name for an aliens supplement for DS3 as well.:)
J
> Still in early alpha form at the moment with a number of major
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lMak
ing up TOEs is half the fun of SF gaming. ;-) Of course, once you've got
your establishment, you can always rationalize away insufficient quantities.
How long was a formation of practically any era up to its paper establishment,
if ever, once in the field? Five minutes? (Okay, I exaggerate. A little.)
Things go sproing (to quote the great Australian naval gamer Mal
Wright) with depressing speed and regularity. In my WWII micro-armor
games, it's a rare day indeed to see a battalion of _anything_ show up
with everything the TOE says it's supposed to have--even if I do have
all the miniatures.
Best,
Ken
> Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
(additional interesting content snipped)
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:41 AM, <paul@otd.com> wrote:
I will take the opportunity to point out that there are Phalon playtest rules
for SG2 on my web site, awaiting more feedback. These were part of Jon's
attempt at distributing BDS production out to members of the playtest group.
You can find them here:
http://www.hyperbear.com/sg2/sg2-bds.html
> On 7/11/08, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
On most compounds in the Middle East, the gates will fly across the courtyard
if you ram them with an APC. No demo needed.
Or so I've heard.