_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI'm setting up
squads like this:
7 soldiers, including Squad Leader, armed with ACRs 1 soldier armed with a
SAW.
For every 2 squads substitute 1 Anti-Aircraft Rocket Launcher for an
ACR. If Intelligence says it will be a high threat air environment 1 AARL per
squad.
Is it reasonable to have each ACR equipped soldier carrying 1 IAVR?
I'd assume firing an IAVR takes an action so no more than 2 could fire without
an action transfer.
That brings up a scenario. A platoon of infantry/cavalry in associated
MICVs, the organic artillery vehicle (locked down), and a heavy tank, are
travelling on a road in mountainous terrain. They are ambushed by 2(?) dug in
squads. Victory conditions: eliminate 3 vehicles and escape with no more
than 20% wounded/killed.
All vehicles are hover and can't reach the attackers.
Is this reasonable? Suggestions welcome.
My platoon is back from the painters and I'm basing as fast as I have time. I
want to game.:)
Also, if they have assigned MICVs that makes them cavalry, correct?
> On 12/8/05, Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it reasonable to have each ACR equipped soldier carrying 1 IAVR?
Sure. Depending on your PSB, IAVR can be pretty lightweight.
> That brings up a scenario. A platoon of infantry/cavalry in
Depends on vegetation, cover, and distance from the attackers to the kill
zone, as well as the reaction of the dismounts and their ability to get to the
enemy.
> All vehicles are hover and can't reach the attackers.
Once the artillery disengaged the travel lock and started direct firing at the
attackers, it would be pretty ugly. If they can kill the enemy in the first
turn they win. Otherwise they are going to loose. Ambushes of targets with
this much mismatch in capabilities are either over quickly or don't work out
real well.
> Also, if they have assigned MICVs that makes them cavalry, correct?
Nomenclature is entirely dependant on the nation's traditions. However, that
is not the case for any current major power that I can think of.
John beat me to the punch with a response, but I have a comment or two to
add...
> > Is it reasonable to have each ACR equipped soldier carrying 1 IAVR?
Why have the guided rocket launcher gunner lose his rifle? You could have the
rocket gunner also carrying a rifle, no? Or some other personal weapon. No
reason that trooper shouldn't have a personal weapon to use when not firing
off the missile launcher.
Or by "substitute" do you mean "one of my rifleman figures is replaced by a
figure with a rocket launcher"? In which case, again quite reasonable.
How about "dual purpose guided light rocket launcher", and have both
anti-armour and anti-aircraft missiles as part of the standard load,
particularly if in a high-threat air environment?
You could keep the rocket launcher as a standard part of the platoon's gear
- soldiers like to have something that goes *bang* to take out bunkers,
tanks, enemy gun emplacements in buildings, etc.
> > That brings up a scenario. A platoon of infantry/cavalry in
From a game-mechanics point of view, the problem you run into is with
balance.
The rules say that an IAVR is a support weapon. So, you can fire it with
the squad's rifle fire the same way you can use a SAW.
That doesn't help the attackers much against armoured vehicles since the
impact of a squad's fire is based on the impact of the rifles and not the
support weapons. In your scenario, what you might see happen is that the
attackers pop off a few rounds of IAVR to get the enemy force infantry to
deploy, and then blast the dismount infantry with massed IAVR fire.
I've tried giving one IAVR per trooper in games in the past, and had "canny"
players dump all of them in a single round into a (troop squad)
target. So, out of the 8-trooper squad, you have one rifleman fire and
add in the SAW and six IAVRs. That uses them all up, but makes for a really
devastating round of firing (against infantry)...
Now, your mission objective is to eliminate 3 vehicles, which means that
the focus will be on them, but giving one IAVR per trooper means that the
attackers will have 14 to 16 IAVR. That's a lot of rockets - four
firing per turn for four turns.
I would suspect what you might have happen is exactly what John says -
either the attackers will win outright in the first turn or two, or they're
toast. Handing out lots of IAVRs, in my experience, makes for a more
"unpredictable" game. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, if you like
unpredictability. Lots of IAVRs will push the game results out to the
extremes (which can be fun). In a non-campaign game, there is no reason
for the troops to hold onto weapons that in other circumstances they might
want to be careful about using up all at once, so you'll see players happy to
dump all their ordnance on targets without concern about what happens next.
> >I'd assume firing an IAVR takes an action so no more than 2 could
Yes, and yes. Unless the IAVR is being used to fire in support of the squad's
rifle fire, in which case you can fire as many as you like (as long as there
is a regular rifle firing somewhere in the squad). They add in
firepower support dice, but impact is per the rifles.
> > All vehicles are hover and can't reach the attackers.
Well, I can't speak to real life, but in Stargrunt II this certainly holds to
be true, unless the attackers get really lucky or the defenders are unlucky
(or are played really badly).
I've run ambush scenarios like this a few times, and it usually seems to
work out best for the ambushee...
> On 12/8/05, Adrian <adrian@stargrunt.ca> wrote:
> You could keep the rocket launcher as a standard part of the platoon's
I disagree from a doctrinal standpoint. If you tell a troopie that he can use
a weapon against anything he pleases, then he will. If you tell him it's for
shooting down aircraft then he MIGHT use it to shoot at aircraft instead of
blazing away at every bunker he finds.
Personally, I'd punish anyone foolish enough to shoot off their only
anti-air asset at a stupid bunker by having an airstrike show up on
the next turn whether my scenario called for it or not.
Besides, I don't think systems using mere eyeballs as a target acquisition
system are terribly effective vs. modern aircraft, much
less futuristic ones. I'm inclined to keep anti-air assets in
anti-air batteries that fight as integrated systems, rather than
handing yet another complicated piece of kit to some poor infantry schlub.
> That doesn't help the attackers much against armoured vehicles since
Unless you fire them at the vehicles as support weapons, and I would
permit (based on real-world doctrine for these things) firing two of
them as a single activation so long as it is at a single target.
> I've tried giving one IAVR per trooper in games in the past, and had
Canny my ass. I'd force a reaction check. TV+3, +6 if there are ANY
vehicles on the board at all. If it fails, the squad looses an activation
while the squad leader tactfully tells the platoon leader he's a damn fool,
shut up and let him run his squad.
> Now, your mission objective is to eliminate 3 vehicles, which means
I wouldn't give one to the squad leader or team leaders. We carry too much
crap already and are too busy directing fire and leading to be bothered with
firing support weapons. Often a squad leader will fire his weapon 10% as much
as his troops will. That cuts it down to 4 per squad. Given that the modern
doctrinal answer is to fire two per target, that's two armored vehicles per
squad, which means if one survives, they still win the fight.
> I've run ambush scenarios like this a few times, and it usually seems
Ambush is a specialized form of attack which requires the ambusher to have a
certain force ratio (GMs frequently misjudge)and to have a good grasp of the
basic principles of conducting an ambush.
> On 12/8/05, Adrian <adrian@stargrunt.ca> wrote:
In a non-campaign game, there is no reason
> for the troops to hold onto weapons that in other circumstances they
One way to mitigate that might be to have a sliding scale for victory, and
have the number of IAVR's left be part of the equation.
> On 12/8/05, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ambush is a specialized form of attack which requires the ambusher to
Anythoughts on specific force multipliers that can affect that ratio in the
ambushers' favor, such as command detonated mines, preregistered arty, terrain
selection, etc.?
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lMy thought process,
The average soldier is carrying an IAVR. Why would I want to bring in a weapon
that does a poor job against armor and a poor job against aviation targets? I
want that pilot running, not dropping bombs on my head.
I'm thinking for the doctrine I am going to follow it will be no more than 2
IAVRs a turn. I really can't see combining them with rifle fire. 6 IAVRs an 1
rifle is well into "playing the rules."
I'm also thinking that if I want more than three rockets someone else will
have to give up an IAVR.
So it would not be abusive to say the rocketeer is carrying a rifle?
In a real world squad you have a squad leader and a team leader in each squad?
That lets me cut
IAVRs to 4, 5 if no anti-aviation assets. That is about what I wanted
but couldn't justify.
Roger
> On 12/8/05, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
A more balanced (and useful) ORBAT IMO would be:
HQ
|
|-------------|----------|-----------|
Line Sqd Line Sqd Line Sqd Heavy Wpns
Line Squad (7):
1 x Leader + ACR
1 x Specialist (medic, comms, EW etc) + ACR
4 x ACR + IAVR
1 x SAW
Heavy Weapons Squad (7):
1 x Leader + ACR
2 x GMS/L or RFAC/2 (Anti-air or Anti-Armour)
2-4 x ACR or SMG (support personnel for heavy weapons)
***
Specific to your scenario though, I would put one line squad on each side of
the road and a heavy weapon team as a "stopper" to take out the lead tank.
Mixing assets too heavily in the same squad degrades performance of your
entire force.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
[quoted original message omitted]
> I disagree from a doctrinal standpoint. If you tell a troopie that he
Sure, since it's a sci-fi game, there is nothing stopping us from saying
that the rocket launcher in the platoon (a GMS/P) has multi-target
warheads, "dial-a-warhead", multiple types of warheads, or whatever.
So, useful against a tank one round and against an aircraft the next.
The Canadian Army issues a Carl-G rocket launcher at the platoon level,
or
light anti-armour and bunker busting. They have the Erxy system as a
close-in guided anti-armour missile, and the TOW for long range stuff,
but neither would appear as standard at the platoon level. In a SG setting, I
think it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that a weapon the size and
weight of a Carl-G could have guided missiles.
So, IMU one can use GMS/P against multiple types of targets.
Where the GMS/P isn't very good is against dispersed infantry.
I don't see a problem with having this kind of weapon at the platoon level
- it isn't really much of an extension beyond what we already deploy at
the
platoon level (Carl-G vs. "guided" Carl-G).
Roger was talking about having both IAVR and a guided system in his squads,
but limiting the guided system to an anti-air role. My whole point here
was to suggest that if he was going to include a guided weapon in the first
place (and take up a trooper in each squad carrying one), might as well
make it useful for the scenario and give it an anti-armour capability.
An alternative to this (if you don't like the "GMS/P can shoot at
everything idea) is to say that the GMS/P comes in two versions - the
"anti-air" version and the "anti-armour" version, and both can shoot at
each type of target but less effectively at the targets they're not
specifically meant for. So, a GMS/P anti-air might have guidance D8 and
D12* impact vs. an aircraft, but guidance D6 and D12 impact (but as a heavy
weapon) against light armour.
Otherwise, per Roger's original suggestion (two squads, 8 troops each, 2
carrying anti-aircraft missile and no rifle), you have 16 troops, 2 of
which are nothing but wound bait and can't contribute to the mission -
which doesn't make sense.
> > That doesn't help the attackers much against armoured vehicles since
That seems fair.
> > I've tried giving one IAVR per trooper in games in the past, and had
Canny, in quotes, as in "cheesy tactics"....
As Roger says, this is very "gamey". Seen it though, before I started GMing
games more regularly.
Giving them a reaction type check with a big penalty to compensate for this
sort of thing is a good idea to prevent gaminess, though that assumes there is
a GM hosting the game who can enforce it. Personally, I'd not want to play
with someone who would try this in a "home game" between friends, but
still...
> > Now, your mission objective is to eliminate 3 vehicles, which means
...or, the IAVR is really small and doesn't make much impact on their personal
load...
It's your PSB.
> Often a squad leader will fire
...in real life.
In Stargrunt, there is nothing to say that you don't count a squad leader's
rifle into the action when a squad fires. I certainly do.
There has to be some level of abstraction with stuff like individual squad
leadership in a game like this.
Some folks (Allan G. for one) suggest that the morale system doesn't account
well enough for squad leaders and cumulative effects of bad things happening,
but as it stands, there isn't really much reason to count the
squad leader OUT of regular weapons fire. His effect is just abstracted
into the effect of the rest of the squad's fire.
> > I've run ambush scenarios like this a few times, and it usually
Problem with "real" tactics is that they don't often make for good games.
Overwhelming force to secure an objective may be doctrinally correct, but dull
for a game unless set up really well. I've done a platoon defense against a
mechanized company attack game, and it was a lot of fun, but the mission
conditions were set out to be "how long can you hold out before being overrun"
and not "hold out forever and prevent being overrun". We
didn't expect for a second that the defenders would actually hold out, since
the forces were technologically equal and the defenders were outnumbered
something like 6 to 1 from a "game effect" point of view (platoon worth of
infantry, a walker, a squad of PA and a couple of jeeps
versus a company of infantry, 8+ heavy APCs with twin fusion cannon, etc
etc).
If you set up the scenario so that - as with a good officer doing his
job
correctly - the ambush is going to be a winner, then the game might not
be as fun for the ambushee as it could be if you set things up to be more
"balanced" with the outcome in doubt. It might not make for perfect real life
tactics, but it makes for a better game.
That's the tricky part of being a good GM for Stargrunt, which takes most
folks a while to get a handle on...
> I'm thinking for the doctrine I am going to follow it will be no more
Yes, very much so.
Within the rules technically, but very cheesy.
> So it would not be abusive to say the rocketeer is carrying a rifle?
I don't think so.
> Specific to your scenario though, I would put one line squad on each
<with tongue in cheek> This reminded me of the scene in Ronin when Sean Bean's
character outlines his plan for an ambush, and gets cut to shreds by Robert
DeNero's character...
Personally, I'd *not* put ambushing squads on both sides of the road.
I'd put them all on the same side of the road, and one at the end to act as a
stopper. If they're on opposite sides of the road and the ambush goes
bad and they have to withdraw, their force is split. Plus, it would be much
harder to manoeuvre in support of each other if one squad has to cross the
open road to come to the aid of the other.
Having said that, deployment is very dependent on the terrain. It might
well not be a problem, and in a game, of course, you don't worry about
friendly fire since that doesn't happen without a lot of GM intervention...
;)
Let's hear it for good editing.
Sigh.
> Sure, BUT since it's a sci-fi game, there is nothing stopping us from
So,
> IT COULD BE useful against a tank one round and against an aircraft the
You got the general idea, anyway.
I've played way too many wargames where dead vehicles providing cover means
the difference between winning and losing. Of course I've also stopped playing
those games as the rules are even more munchkin than they used to be.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
> On 12/9/05, Adrian <adrian@stargrunt.ca> wrote:
> The Canadian Army issues a Carl-G rocket launcher at the platoon
Does the platoon have a specific weapons squad, or are the heavy weapons split
among the squads?
> >Canny my ass. I'd force a reaction check. TV+3, +6 if there are ANY
Yeah, I copied that.
> ...or, the IAVR is really small and doesn't make much impact on their
It's not the personal load, it's extra time and concentration to focus on
using it. I want my leaders to lead.
> > Often a squad leader will fire
I do too, although with FP3 rifles and 6 rifles in the squad, the
squadleader's firepower is irrelevant.:) I just wouldn't saddle him with
something extra. That's all.
> Problem with "real" tactics is that they don't often make for good
Hehe. That's because in the real world, we don't find a fair fight
entertaining, and a great deal of effort is put into preventing them.
:)
> If you set up the scenario so that - as with a good officer doing his
Finding a 'balance' point is very difficult for the ambusher. The premise is
that the ambusher is generally going to be a smaller force than the ambushee.
So if he doesn't inflict crippling losses quickly, then he is going to get
overrun when the ambushee gets his act together and counterattacks.
> On 12/8/05, Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking for the doctrine I am going to follow it will be no more
Actually what I'd do would be 2 actions, each firing 2 IAVRs, each salvo being
at a different vehicle.
> So it would not be abusive to say the rocketeer is carrying a rifle?
Not at all.
> In a real world squad you have a squad leader and a team leader in
Usually 2 Team Leaders.:) Depending on precise organization. But SG doesn't
model squad organization so it is really up to you.
Except for the Point Fire damage its individual weapon fire, so only 1 IAVR
per action.
You can get up to 4 IAVRs off per squad by using detachments.
Squad Leader + riflemen / 2 x IAVR / 2 x IAVR; Sqd Leader uses both
actions to activate the detachments.
Takes 2 actions to set it up and? actions to break it down again, but gives a
devastating first round of fire.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
> > I'm thinking for the doctrine I am going to follow it will be no
The more I think about this, the more I like the idea of allowing a player to
salvo fire a couple of IAVRs from different troopers for a single action.
> > In a real world squad you have a squad leader and a team leader in
John, while I realise that "official" tables of organization may get mucked up
when a unit is actually on operations, does the US Army go with a squad leader
*and* fire team leaders, or with the squad leader leading one of the fire
teams?
I ask because I *think* the current standard in the CF is for an infantry
squad to have 9 troops - two fire teams of four (each with 3 riflemen
and a SAW gunner, and one of the riflemen having a 40mm GL on his rifle), and
then the squad leader as the 9th guy. Each of the fire teams would have a team
leader.
(And, quite right, SG doesn't model any of this anyway... so being "finicky"
about it isn't worth the effort other than for personal satisfaction).
> You got the general idea, anyway.
Oh, for sure.
It just struck me as a bit funny - more thinking about Sean Bean wilting
away in Ronin, than anything else.
I have a friend who is a serious Sean Bean fan, loves the Sharpe films, etc.,
and who got all excited when he heard Sean Bean was going to be in
Ronin as an "Ex-SAS Trooper". When it turned out that the character was
a complete wanker, it was pretty funny watching my friend all disappointed...
Mean of me, I suppose...
> I've played way too many wargames where dead vehicles providing cover
When I run games, I always travel with extra craters, so when a vehicle is
killed spectacularly, I take off the vehicle model and plonk down a crater.
Then there is no argument about whether or not it provides
cover...
> Does the platoon have a specific weapons squad, or are the heavy
Short answer; I don't know.
I'm fairly certain that besides the Carl-G you also get a GPMG (C-6 in
Canadian army parlance, but it is the MAG-58 machine gun - er, M240 I
think in American...) in each platoon. Not sure if they are in a separate
weapons section. I think it varies between the types of battalions -
the
weapons load-out and TO&E for the mechanized battalions is different
than the light battalions. The mech units have the support fire available from
the APCs (since many of our LAVs have 25mm cannon)...
> > ...or, the IAVR is really small and doesn't make much impact on
Right. That makes sense.
> > In Stargrunt, there is nothing to say that you don't count a squad
Heh. Yes, very true.
> I just wouldn't saddle him
Makes sense.
YMMV.
> > Problem with "real" tactics is that they don't often make for good
Heh:)
That makes much sense. No point in making it easier for the other
guy...
> Finding a 'balance' point is very difficult for the ambusher. The
Yep.
That's one of the things that is hardest to explain to new SG players who are
used to wargames that have a points system.
Balancing a game so that it seems fairly reasonable/realistic on the one
hand (as much as any wargame can feel "realistic") while on the other hand
being entertaining and giving both sides a chance to succeed, can be tough.
It's a bit of an art (or good guesswork), and something that is fairly
dependent on experience with the game.
I've found that some people also have a hard time getting past the idea of
"unequal" victory conditions: ie - for one side, "you have to take
objective X as quickly as possible" and for the other side "you know you're
going to lose objective X, but you have to delay this happening for as long as
possible while preserving as much of your force as you can and then
withdrawing in good order". That leads to "so, you mean I'm going to lose
before the game starts...?"
Anyway, you're right - balance is a challenge. In the case of the
ambush scenario, you probably have to place limits for the ambusher ("you have
to complete as much damage as you can as quickly as possible and then withdraw
to preserve your force") so they don't try to die in place to win...
> >Hehe. That's because in the real world, we don't find a
Of course, that's assuming your intel is accurate. If you ambush 5 trucks and
2 APCs, and it turns out there's another 3 MICVs trailing 200m behind...
> going to be a smaller force >than the ambushee. So if he
Which suggests that part of the scenario should be a mechanism for "how long
does it take the ambushee to get his act together?" The convoy may be
unblooded troops on their way to the front, might take a suppression or two
just from being ambushed. Or might start firing in all directions...including
towards friendlies.
> Anyway, you're right - balance is a challenge. In the
As that memorable low-casualties SG2 game you ran a couple
of years ago.
Another take is to have anyone taking cover next to a wreck be "attacked" by
small arms and fuel cooking off.
I will let wrecks block LOS (smoke and flame). I have not seen them used as
cover though.
Mike
SNIP<>
When I run games, I always travel with extra craters, so when a vehicle is
killed spectacularly, I take off the vehicle model and plonk down a crater.
Then there is no argument about whether or not it provides
cover...
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lSo does anyone
require a roll to leave an APC under fire? I know that is the absolute worst
place to be, but I can't imagine how difficult it is to get out of that nice
bullet blocking armor.
Roger
> On 12/9/05, Michael Brown <mwsaber6@msn.com> wrote:
> On 12/9/05, laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
That's why one of the basic ambush concepts is left and right security
with eyes-on, who can let the main killing force know what's following
the convoy.
> SG doesn't model squad organization so
Unless, of course, you decide to run fireteams as SG "squads".
Responding to a couple of messages in the digest.
> From: "laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> > Anyway, you're right - balance is a challenge. In the
I don't know about Adrian's game, but I ran an ambush scenario at GenCon with
those limits. In 15mm scale, too!
The scenario, Plasma Ambush on my web site, had a small force of PAs with
Plasma Guns take on a convoy rushing to the aid of a force outside of a city.
John would probably have a cow at the set up, but I envisioned two local
colony forces with some military gear (and originally one side was using
mercenaries) when I set it up. Basically a "come as you are war" on some
backwater, with good equipment, but not a lot of it and not a lot of training
in it. Kind of like the wars in Africa in the last 50 years, but with the
bigger Tuffleyverse powers able to supply weapons openly.
Anyway, I received complements on the game from several players. The ambushers
had to disable or destroy 3 out of 4 vehicles and get half the force off the
board for a marginal win, and all 4 four a decisive win. The tricky part is
this: in order to have a good chance of taking out at least 3 of the 4
vehicles during the ambush, the attacker has to set up along the road in some
depth. This means that part of his force has to extricate itself a fair
distance. In almost every case, that part of the force gets beat up pretty
badly.
It's an example of both a fun ambush scenario and why ambush scenarios are
very hard to balance. Basically, if the ambusher tries for a marginal victory
only he usually wins. If the ambusher tries for the decisive victory, he
usually loses. But in all playings of the game the result was pretty close.
> From: "Michael Brown" <mwsaber6@msn.com>
> Another take is to have anyone taking cover next to a wreck be
I allowed wrecks to be used as cover in my ambush game, provided the wreck was
disabled and not destroyed. I probably need to specify house rules for going
near a wrecked vehicle.
> From: Roger Books <roger.books@gmail.com>
> So does anyone require a roll to leave an APC under fire? I know that
If a vehicle is fired on but it isn't penetrated, doesn't the vehicle receive
a suppression marker? And doesn't the rules explicitly state that the
suppression marker prevents troops inside the vehicle from escaping?
On the other hand, I have house rules on my web site where troops have to make
a roll to stay inside a disabled vehicle.
> From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>
> That's why one of the basic ambush concepts is left and right security
John, how do you handle this in SG2, since SG2 has pretty specific --
and restrictive -- rules for spotting hidden counters, and problems
with activating squads in a moving vehicle?
> From: "laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
But it's not quite _that_ simple, is it? What about the squad leader,
what does he do? And what about morale? Is Confidence kept for each fire team,
or for a squad as a whole?
John's comment that a squad leader only uses his weapon about 10% of the time
is very telling. I've been thinking a lot about the fire team rules. The
easiest idea I came up with is to have the squad leader activate as normal
(check the rules; it's quite clear that you activate squad leaders, not
squads, in SG2) and then he does a transfer action to each of his fire teams.
If he stays within 6" this is done without a communication roll, otherwise it
requires a communication roll. Confidence is done per squad, not fire team,
but in all other areas a fire team acts like an SG2 squad (and I'm willing to
try Confidence per fire team). The one wrinkle is how can a squad leader move
and fire with his squad. John answered part of the question; the squad leader
doesn't usually fire as part of the squad.
That leaves movement. It's not realistic that a squad leader orders fire teams
to move but has to remain stationary because he ran out of actions,
particularly in a 3 to 5 minute turn. So I came up with a rule that a squad
leader could move with one of his fire teams for free, but I'm not sure if
this is a good idea or not.
Haven't playtested these rules, due to a dearth of players where I live.
I said:
> > As that memorable low-casualties SG2 game you ran a couple
Allan said:
> I don't know about Adrian's game, but I ran an ambush scenario at
Adrian's game had my side ambushing a TomB's convoy, which turned out to have
a couple of truckloads of troops along with the supplies. The first shot of
the game destroyed the lead APC and killed a couple of
its crew; on the last turn, an artillery strike disabled 5/6ths of a
PA squad. I also tordered my two-man lead element to surrender when it
became clear they were in an untenable position. Aside from that, there were
no casualties...although Adrian hadn't planned it that way, TomB just couldn't
roll well enough.
I said:
> > Unless, of course, you decide to run fireteams as SG
Allan said:
> But it's not quite _that_ simple, is it?
<grin> Yes, it is!
> The one wrinkle is how can a squad
> That leaves movement. It's not realistic that a squad leader orders
Either move with a team for free, or at the cost of one of his actions.
Example of the latter: Sgt Murphy activates Team A with his first action. Team
A fires, then moves. Sgt Murphy moves with the team as his (and its) second
action. Not happy about that, because
what if he wants Team A to move/move instead of fire/move? He couldn't
keep up. It looks like "free move with the team" is the way to go...but should
his movement detract from his ability to give orders?
Gropos, any opinions?
Chris wrote on 12/10/2005 01:28:05 PM:
> I said:
***snip***
> Allan said:
***snip***
> ...I also tordered my two-man lead element to surrender when it
I read that as 'I also tortured...' I was never so glad I wasn"t drinking
anything at the time; right out the nose it would have come!
Sorry, no Gropos comments for me; for a sec, I thought I'd perfect proof
of what barbarians you are. *sniff*
The_Beast
Using the rules, just have one detachment and the squad leader is in direct
command of the second.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
> >SG doesn't model squad organization so
What you end up with is effectively a platoon with a whole bunch of squads.
The rules don't work all that well if you have a single headquarters (the
platoon commander - able to transfer actions) with more than 5 or 6
separate elements under its command. After that, command action transfers get
diluted.
I've tried playing with squad commanders able to transfer actions to
fireteams, but I found that this lead to too many actions and
re-activations, and the game slowed down *a lot*.
In the end, my approach to "fire teams" within a rifle squad is to just assume
that this level of detail has been abstracted into the rules, and
the total effect of a squad of troops accounts for fire teams working in
concert.
Also, I use 25mm figures and with ground scale 1" = 10m, often end up with a
single squad covering what might be 60 to 80m of area (possible within
the coherency rules). That's plenty of space to account for two fireteams
spreading out...
I find that the game runs smoothest with platoons having a headquarters of
some kind, and 3 to 5 manoeuvre units.
> I don't know about Adrian's game, but I ran an ambush scenario at
If you're interested, there is a photo-essay version of something very
similar to the convoy scenario I ran at ECC up on stargrunt.ca, at
http://www.stargrunt.ca/gallery_modeling/sg2_gal_convoy/sg2_gal_convoy_m
ain.htm
this has a TO&E summary for both forces involved. It isn't quite the same as
the one Laserlight played in, but is similar enough to get a feel for
what was going on.
> It's an example of both a fun ambush scenario and why ambush scenarios
Yep. I've run versions of my ambush scenario a few times now, and see almost
the same results.
Easy for the ambushers to score a bit of damage, but if they try to slug it
out, they lose.
> I allowed wrecks to be used as cover in my ambush game, provided the
I allow wrecks to be used as cover, unless they're destroyed (in which case
they turn into a crater - maybe not so realistic militarily, but more
fun and satisfying for the players).
> If a vehicle is fired on but it isn't penetrated, doesn't the vehicle
I don't have my SG rulebook handy, but that sounds right. I think the
suppression isn't on the vehicle, per se, but on the side of the vehicle
taking fire. So, if you suppress the back doors on an APC and there is no
other troop exit, the troops inside can't deploy without removing the
suppression.
If you were to suppress the front of the APC, the troops inside could deploy
out the back without restriction.
I think that's how it works, anyway...
> > That leaves movement. It's not realistic that a squad leader orders
My problem with this is something I mentioned in a previous email - I
think
you end up with too many actions and command-reactivations.
With a "normal" breakdown in a SG platoon, you might have something like this:
Platoon HQ Squad 1 Squad 2 Squad 3
And each of those elements would get 2 actions. So, each squad could
take 2 actions, and then the HQ could transfer its two actions to reactivate
squads. That would mean you get up to 10 total actions worth of stuff (moving
or shooting) happening within the platoon.
If you had a platoon structured into fireteams, treat the fireteams as
separate little units and allow the squad leaders to transfer actions as
well as the platoon leader, then you end up with a structure like this:
Platoon HQ
Squad 1 Leader Squad 1 Team A Squad 1 Team B
Squad 2 Leader Squad 2 Team A Squad 2 Team B
Squad 2 Leader Squad 2 Team A Squad 2 Team B
Is each of these a separate element? If so, and if the fire teams are treated
as separate from the squad leaders, then you have 20 actions possible before
any reactivations (10 elements in the platoon, 2 actions
each). But when you add in reactivations, the number of actions
jumps...
Squad 1 would have 2 actions for team A, 2 actions for team B and then 2
actions for the squad leader who could transfer his actions to A and B and
reactivate them. So Squad 1 would have 8 actions worth of
shooting/moving
(if you allow the squad leader to move for free with one of the squads, then
he doesn't have to blow actions to keep up and you get them all being taken as
moving or shooting). Then what happens when the platoon commander takes his
two actions? Can he reactivate the Squad 1 leader, who can reactivate his
teams again. If so, the two teams would get 2 more actions each for another 4
total in the squad.
That means you'll be getting something like 32 actions worth of shooting
and moving out of the platoon.
This is, in effect, using a company + platoon level of command, with
really little tiny platoons (where each platoon is a leader and two fire
teams).
For a platoon-size game (where you have, say, 36 figures per side),
you'll have waaayyyy too many actions happening and each game turn will take a
LONG time to work out.
> > Allan said:
I read it as "tortured" the first time too...
Wasn't drinking at the time either, thankfully.
On 12/13/05, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Using the rules, just have one detachment and the squad leader is in
If you use the rules, you end up with the detachment getting two actions and
the main portion getting one. Remember, according to the rules, the only
things activated are LEADERS. Leaders do actions on their own or motivate
others. When you activate a squad, the leader gets 2 actions. He can transfer
one to a detachment, but that only leaves one for him and the main part of the
squad.
The reason people want to use fire teams is so that both halves of a squad get
two actions per activation, not 2 for the detachment and one for the main
portion.
n 12/13/05, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> The rules don't work all that well if you have a single headquarters
This is one reason I don't like the "simply treat fire teams as small squads"
approach. I would allow an action to be transferred to a squad, thus both fire
teams get to reactivate with a transfer. That way it doesn't dilute transfered
actions.
> I've tried playing with squad commanders able to transfer actions to
How did it work out to too many re-activations? Did you not restrict
the squad leader to only being able to transfer an action to one of his two
fire teams? The number of actions per man in a squad should be the same as the
regular rules.
The way the rules are written, a platoon command unit can take one of its
actions and transfer it to one of his subordinate leaders, who immediately
gets 2 actions. If you extend this to a squad leader, he gets 2 actions. He
transfers one action to his first fire team (which gets 2 actions) and
transfers the other to his second fire team (which gives them 2 actions). Both
fire teams would get 2 actions, which would mean that all men in the squad
would get to do 2 actions, just as if they were modelled in one big squad.
(The only problem with this approach is that the squad leader can't move if he
uses both actions to motivate his two fire teams. A simple house rule fixes
that. "When a leader transfers an action to a unit within unit integrity
range, the leader can move with that unit for free." Then the squad leader has
an option: transfer an action to a fire team or motivate a fire team directly.
Transferring an action gives the fire team two actions, but all the squad
leader could do is move with that fire team, not take part in any fire. Or,
the squad leader could motivate the fire team, spending one or two of his
actions directly with the fire team. That allows him to add his fire power to
the fire team, but if he only has one action left then the fire team can only
conduct that action.)
> In the end, my approach to "fire teams" within a rifle squad is to
I totally agree with you. However, I find that there aren't enough
units on the table in platoon-only battles. It's not bad if you have a
platoon with vehicles, but if you have a single platoon of infantry you might
only have 4 units. That's not a lot of units. I would use fire teams in those
situations so that instead of 4 maneuver elements, I'd have 7 or 8.
> I find that the game runs smoothest with platoons having a
How many platoons do you field on the table at once? Maybe it's just me, but I
found games with only 4 maneuver elements per side to be a little dull.
On 12/13/05, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:36:30 -0500
Okay, I think I see what you mean, and I handle it differently.
> If you had a platoon structured into fireteams, treat the fireteams as
<<snippage>>
> Squad 1 would have 2 actions for team A, 2 actions for team B and then
I would still make the squad leader the lowest level to activate. I would NOT
give the fire teams actions of their own. The squad leader would get 2
actions, just as he does in regular Stargrunt. Fire teams would only get an
action if the squad leader motivates them directly or transfers an action to
them.
Yes, you are right, if you do it the way you outline you get 20 actions before
transfers are taken into account, and 32 actions if all transfers work. This
is too much. If you only activate down to the squad level you get 8 actions
for the platoon. Now in most cases the squad leaders would transfer actions to
their fire teams (and move with one of the fire teams for free, if they are on
the move) so in reality it would work out to 12 actions plus the HQ squad's
action.
> That means you'll be getting something like 32 actions worth of
With my proposal, assuming that each squad leader transfers an action to each
fire team and the platoon HQ activates two squads with its action, you would
get 20 actions maximum, not 32 (three squads of 2 fire teams getting 2 actions
per fire team, and then two squads being
re-activated).