I wasn't in either of Stuart's games at GZG IX ("To the Victor the Spoils" and
"Contact, Wait, Out") but I kept sneaking over to check on them and I was
fascinated by a number of things; Gorgeous terrain, wonderfully painted figs,
but also the fact that he bases his 15mm Stargrunt figs and his games seemed
to move fairly quickly.
At the end of "Contact, Wait, Out" the attacking troops had made it entirely
across the board and things seemed to have come to a fairly satisfactory end.
I know from talking to Stuart that he had reinforcements (and a wonderfully
painted mob!) planned for the upcoming
turn, so there was more of the battle to be fought but it looked like a lot of
the battle had already been resolved.
I don't think Stuart is a list member, so I'm wondering if anyone who was in
either of his games could clue me into any rules
changes/shortcuts that Stuart uses to move the game along. I know from
watching Stuart in action he's a stern taskmaster (which is a good thing
if everyone is having fun and the game moves along quickly). but there's
got to be more to it than that.
Thanks in advance,
> Mark Kinsey wrote:
> I wasn't in either of Stuart's games at GZG IX ("To the Victor the
> them and I was fascinated by a number of things; Gorgeous terrain,
> watching Stuart in action he's a stern taskmaster (which is a good
> there's got to be more to it than that.
I've forwarded your e-mail to Stuart.
He likes to simulate the rapid decision making that a tactical leader has to
make in the field. If a player waits and is indecisive, you can lose
opportunities.
> On Mar 15, 2006, at 11:48 PM, Mark Kinsey wrote:
> I don't think Stuart is a list member, so I'm wondering if anyone
I played in Stuart's sunday morning game and it was a hoot (even though my
side lost).
The basic idea is that you're playing a DS level game using SG. Instead of
moving individual figs you're moving fireteams. Each fireteam can take two
wounds with a third wound killing it. You activate a platoon at a time intead
of a squad. Each fireteam has two actions and can do different things. In our
game that normally meant the missle teams moved into position and let loose
with a volley of rockets.
Platoons would activate, become suppressed, etc. Individual fireteams would be
damaged or would die. Each platoon had something
on the order of 9+ stands depending on type and equipment.
Just think SG2 but go up a level and you have the basic idea.
Damo
On 3/16/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> I wasn't in either of Stuart's games at GZG IX ("To the Victor the
<<snippage>>
> I don't think Stuart is a list member, so I'm wondering if anyone who
I don't know about Stuart, but I discovered while doing my board game
version of Stargrunt that there is only one reason for _not_ mounting
SG2 figures onto a single base: the unit integrity rule.
When I first taught myself SG2, I had all figures clumped together around the
squad leader. All measurement was from squad leader to
squad leader (which is easier to adjudicate than centre-of-squad to
centre-of-squad). The individual placement of figures didn't matter.
In fact, due to the way the integrity rules, you are encouraged to clump the
figures together.
The only time you don't do this is for the squad spread out in different
terrain, or you are using minefields, or you are using artillery.
If you have a squad at the corner of a building, having individual figures
pointing down each wall of the building makes it easy to see who can attack
whom. You can't do this with a base. The easiest way to handle it is to write
a quick note, or drop a numbered counter on each side of the terrain feature
indicating the number of figures down where.
I have an "enhanced squad sheet" I use with the board game. It has the unit's
quality, leadership, IAVRs, missiles, etc. on it. I'm thinking of creating an
area on the sheet that could handle players splitting the figures between
terrain features, or I may create a new sheet. I have an idea how to handle
this, but it would take some playtesting to see if it works.
Minefields attack everyone in a squad that is within so many inches of the
minefield counter. There are a couple of ways to handle this: 1) Attack every
member of the squad with the minefield. 2) Roll a die with a number of sides
equal to the number of figures in a squad (rounding up); that's the number of
figures caught in the minefield when the first figure triggers a mine. 3) A
minefield has, what, a 6" radius? (Don't have the books with me.) If the
centre of the squad comes within 3" of the counter, all figures are caught in
the minefield. If it is 3" to 6", assume half the figures are caught in
the minefield, and if 6" to 9", assume 1/4 of the squad encountered
the minefield. Roll randomly for who was caught in the minefield. (You
could change these numbers around, such as all figures up to 2", 2/3
for 2" to 4", and 1/3 for 4" to 6".) 4) Use a template. More on this
below.
The third use for the unit integrity rules has to do with artillery. When
artillery hits, all the figures within the blast range of the artillery shell
are caught in the blast. All the other figures are completely safe. To avoid
the integrity rules, you have the same options as those listed above for
minefields. For the record, my preference is number 3, though there's a lot to
be said for number 1
(it's simple, and artillery _should_ be nasty; besides, artillery
already seems to be a little underpowered, given that you still get to make
armour rolls for each figure caught in the blast). By the way, option 1 is
what I use in the SG2 board game and it seems to work fine.
Finally, templates. I ran an SG2 PBEM game a couple of years ago for
Laserlight, Beth, and Roger. It worked okay. I used MS Excel to adjudicate the
game, with squads indicated by dots on a map. This caused some issues with
regard to artillery, so I came up with a new spreadsheet. I allowed the
players to indicate if their figures were spread out in a row or column, or if
they were equally spread out in a circle. I then let them decide the diameter
of the circle. I plugged in the shape and size of the squad formation, I
plugged in the radius of the artillery or mine blast, and I plugged in the
direction from which it came. The spreadsheet then showed me each figure as a
point on a graph with a big circle representing the blast. Any point within
the circle was hit by the artillery.
I think I could reproduce these in cardstock form, if there was any demand for
it. They would be slower than any of the other options I
listed above, and I'm not sure -- given that there's not a lot of
artillery use in SG2 anyway -- that they would produce a "better"
result.
> I don't think Stuart is a list member, so I'm wondering if anyone who
He usually has multiple actions going on at once -- "Brits, take two
actions"--and he doesn't hesitate to say "Take your action or lose it."
As far as moving the game along quickly, that's it.
He encourages you to take interesting (Cinematic) actions and has interesting
characters, which makes it fun but desnt inherently make it faster. And, as
Damond mentioned, Stuart uses about a 5:1 ratio of men
to figures--for instance, I had a sepoy company which had, IIRC, 16
figures, and would in reality have had about 80 men.
From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com>
> I don't know about Stuart, but I discovered while doing my board game
Well, casualties (although that's easy to cope with--make a small loop
of red pipecleaner and put it around a casualty, for instance) and detachments
too. But I agree that if you put multiple figures on a base it'd go faster.
As far as the artillery / minefield issue, I'd make one fireteam a base
and say that the attack affected all the members of the fireteam
On 3/16/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Just think SG2 but go up a level and you have the basic idea.
Do you know if Stuart has codified these rules anywhere? They sound
interesting.
> On Mar 16, 2006, at 1:13 PM, Allan Goodall wrote:
I don't think so. JON! Get Stuart on the list so he can talk about his rule
hacks!
Damo
> Do you know if Stuart has codified these rules anywhere? They sound
Playing in his games, you sort of get the impression that Stuart uses a very
fast and loose set of rules that are "codified" in his head, and then flex and
bend as needed to make the story more interesting...
"Every game is a role playing game", as someone once said, and with Stuart's
games this is doubly so.
The things that keep Stuart's games moving include: i) multiple activations
ii) platoon level units iii) his urgings and pushing
i) and ii) mean you activate an awful lot of men and material very quickly.
But that's fine, because most of the time, you're just moving and not
interacting with anything. Platoon level units only had one
command rating and one morale level, but each 3-4 man stand could fire
independently. With SG2 rules, a platoon quickly maxes out the firepower die
for small arms, and splitting fire between 3 targets still lets you generate
lots of suppression.
iii) is pretty significant, too. Steve Barosi and I were really feeling
pressured to get all our stuff deployed and on the board quickly in Sunday's
'Contact...'. The time pressure was harsh, given that the choice of how much
to push onto the board that turn was one of our biggest tactical decisions of
the game, and after each turn Stuart pointed out to us exactly where we'd left
ourselves vulnerable to a critical strike by the defenders.
The pace has its downsides, too. During 'Victor', both sides missed a rule
clarification on leaders and travel movement, for example.
> I played in Stuart's sunday morning game and it was a hoot (even
And after 3+ hours of play, the game was decided by a close combat
assault by reinforcements pouring onto the board and running into a platoon
which had motored down the board, through fire from defenders on a flanking
hill. It was as close as that. Reverse the die rolls on that close assault,
and Damond and Joel win.
That kind of tight, close game is awfully hard to create.
On 3/17/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Playing in his games, you sort of get the impression that Stuart uses
Thanks, Adrian (and everyone else who responded).
The reason I asked is that he has some ideas that match what I've been doing
in Hardtack (American Civil War Stargrunt, which I'm in the process of
refining and making more of a 19th century rule set).
Laserlight and I are looking at playing a game of Hardtack by e-mail.
Just as aside, I mentioned long ago about modifying the Aliens boardgame, and
making the bonus bug rule at GM's discretion, for anyone spending too much
time doing strategy.
I only once came close to using the rule, and that was a case where the team
were all friends, and were enjoying plotting every move out. Me, I enjoyed
running the game a lot less without the fast pace.
In every other case, merely describing the rule in the first place gives the
players the idea, and especially, given that it's a cooperative game, cause
the other players to remind anybody that dawdles.
That, and of course the movie gives the rushed, unprepared feeling, along with
everyone gleefully quoting Hudson. Good luck on trying to keep those to JUST
the person playing Hudson. Game over, man, game over.
The_Beast
From: "Allan Goodall"
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 11:38 AM
> The reason I asked is that he has some ideas that match what I've been
Which brings up a point I noticed in Stuart's Saturday morning game. I had a
unit of cavalry which took a suppression...and they stayed there in that spot,
adding and removing suppressions, for the whole rest of the game. Now, I can
see an infantry unit going to ground and freezing under fire, but
it doesn't seem to me that cavalry would be "suppressed"--or at least I
can't picture horses diving for cover. For this sort of situation, I'd suggest
that the unit has to take a reaction test; if they fail, they have to withdraw
at least 6 inches.
> On Mar 19, 2006, at 4:52 PM, Laserlight wrote:
Perhaps cavalry should lose confidence faster than standard infantry?
I said:
> I had a unit of cavalry which took a suppression...and they stayed
From: "Damond Walker"
> Perhaps cavalry should lose confidence faster than standard infantry?
I don't think that's necessarily the case--certainly it'd be hard to
reconcile with the Charge of the Light Brigade, for instance. I just think
their response ought to be different.
> On Mar 19, 2006, at 6:25 PM, Laserlight wrote:
> I don't think that's necessarily the case--certainly it'd be hard
True dat. But is that the general case or a particular one?
You'll have to forgive my ignorance here but my basic assumption with cavalry
(during that timeframe anywho) is that if they charged a weak line (weak in
strength or morale) and caused a break Bad Things would occur.
If, on the other hand, the charge was met with a wall (or square) of cold
steel then, well, they were basically pointless. So my comment wasn't implying
that Cavalry were fearful types... It was just a game mechanic to try and
model the "well...we're not going so well here...lets bolt and try again
somewhere else!"
Damo
I could certainly imagine a rule that standard cavalry CAN'T be suppressed for
more than one turn. After a turn of the horses milling and circling under
fire, the squad must make a double move away,
carrying the suppression chits with it. That makes cavalry fast and
very dangerous in close combat, but easily driven back.
Alternatively, cavalry CAN'T suffer suppression effects. Where another
squad would be suppressed, they must take a morale test (with a +1
bonus, perhaps? Or perhaps a penalty, if the mounts are skittish?).
Neither sounds perfectly realistic, but both might be gameable.
On 3/20/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
I had
> a unit of cavalry which took a suppression...and they stayed there in
Now you know why I did away with Suppressions in Hardtack.
Suppression just doesn't represent 19th century combat properly. The steady
volume of fire that results in suppression isn't present in linear tactics.
Even in terrible killing fields like Fredericksburg you didn't have the type
of suppression that happens in SG2.
So, instead of suppression I do Confidence Tests. Shaken, Broken, and Routed
Confidence Levels better model 19th century combat.
> Now, I can see an infantry unit going to ground and freezing under
No, there's that, too.
I've seen people add a house rule to SG2 that allows a unit suppressed in the
open to automatically head for cover (i.e. act like Shaken) and then go
suppressed when they reach that cover. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it
would work for a cavalry rule.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> I've seen people add a house rule to SG2 that allows a unit
When I use squads of HS skimmer bikes we modify suppression for these units.
Essentially, they need 2 suppression markers before effectively being
suppressed. They then need to use their movement to get into cover before
removing suppression. Even if they have stacked multiple suppressions they are
able to move without removing suppression first. It seems a pretty good
mechanic for highly mobile troops like cavalry.
I said:
> Now, I can see an infantry unit going to ground and freezing under
Allan said:
> I've seen people add a house rule to SG2 that allows a unit suppressed
I don't know that it would need to be "head for cover" -- I think "pull
back out of range" might work as well, even if they're in the open the whole
time. Perhaps "suppression" means you have to withdraw two moves and then
unsuppress--which would actually be getting your lines formed again.
G'day,
Here to stir the age old mines in space question again.
For a long time I've liked the idea of mines representing fields of tiny
nodes. In nature today they had a piece on potential future sensor networks.
In particular they highlighted existing node usage where glaciologists put
down a dozen or so nodes to track what the glacier is up to. Most importantly
the nodes cooperate, and to quote tha article (which was quoting a a
scientist)
"You can get the pods talking to each other, and deciding that nothing much
has happened recently as most of our readings have been the same, so lets the
rest of us go to sleep and save batteries, with one waking us up if something
starts happening," says Martinez.
Oceanographers here have used a similar technique for a few years now and as
far as we can tell some invertebrate swarms act in the same way too.
This is what has attracted me to the idea about mine counters on the table
marking the position of a cloud of mines. I know some here don't like the idea
as they say the chatter between nodes would give them away. Yes it may when
mines are reaching the end of their lifetime or when the field goes active
because something of note bumped into it and caused the sleeping nodes to
"wake up". The later isn't an issue as then the minefield is hopefully blowing
things up (which would give away its position anyway) and the former problem
isn't a problem while the power sources last (initially when minefields are
young the watcher node may just tap a nearest neighbour and quietly subside,
which should minimise detection).
Now after rambling on so long, basically my question boils down to. For those
in the audience who don't like that vision of a minefield (and people like
Noam who just don't like mines in 3D space fullstop can go switch off now),
given advances in batteries and distributed sensor nets
using this node-like behaviour, why can't minefields of the future use
them to?
Curious as ever;)
> Beth wrote:
[...]
> "You can get the pods talking to each other, and deciding that
[...]
> ... given advances in batteries and distributed sensor nets
They can and they do - you've pretty much described the PSB behind the
StarFire 3rd Edition minefield rules from way back when; and I've seen several
other SF backgrounds featuring this type of networked minefields too.
Unfortunately networking doesn't change the main problem with space minefields
at all: unless you can emplace them in a position the enemy *has* to pass by
in order to get somewhere he wants to go and you don't
want him to go (eg. a StarFire-style warp point), or you can lure him to
run into your minefields (eg. the way Honor Harrington did in "The Short
Victorious War"), the odds that the enemy will get close enough to the mines
to be affected by them (either attacked by them or forced to revise his
movements to avoid them) are very low.
Regards,
G'day,
> Unfortunately networking doesn't change the main problem with space
Given its a game with FTL and large-scale biological material that can
withstand vacuum I'm quite happy to brush that one under the rug;)
Stuart sent me an email recently about what he calls his SGII Company Mods. I
personally find it fascinating. I remember my disappointment in reading a
discussion on the Yahoo 15mm SciFi group a few months ago where people were
saying that you couldn't really play SG with more than 50 figs per size. I
read the DS rules and thought that there had to be a way to come up with a
compromise between the two. At GZG ECC IX I walked up to "Contact, Wait, Out"
and Stuart was running the game I imagined, only it looked better! Grant
walked up and made the observation that the game looked very fluid, the
attacker had made it across the entire
battlefield during the 3-4 hour game.
So here's what Stuart had to say. I'd be interested in any comments. I'm going
to try this out, although I think I'll get some 30mm bases instead of 1"
because my figures are larger than Stuart's (his are Peter Pig 15's). Also, I
don't think I'll permanently base my figures. Since my 15's are on steel
washers I'll add a magnet to a Litko 30mm base and create a "movement tray".
It'll give me more flexibility as I work all of this out.
Stuart Murray
SGII - Company Mods
(This does not relate to Cinegrunt, that's an entirely different beast*)
It became apparent to my gaming group that the typical platoon-level SG
game was over too quickly if one side lost a single squad from arty or
aerospace attack. We kind of stopped using these in games so games lasted a
little longer. I started thinking about this more and I realized that what I
wanted to play was a reinforced company level combined arms game in which a
small amour contingent could effectively
support a single company (including organic mortars/HMGs) and not skew
the game too much with its firepower.
One problem with using larger forces is the alternating action phase. Because
opponents can react to the actions of a single squad operational coherency
quickly dissolved. It seemed wrong to me that a company commander could not
gain an advantage by activating a whole platoon rather than a single squad.
Another disadvantage of playing larger SG games is the time it takes to move
lots of individual figures. While playing I observed that players tend to
worry greatly about the facing and disposition of individual troops. I noted
that in larger games this focus on the individual troops tended to distract
the commanders from the 'larger picture' of the tactical battle.
I began tinkering with how I could activate whole platoons in a timely manner
while lifting the tactical level from squad combat to
platoon/company combat.
To speed moving figures and relieve the player of worrying about individuals I
started to gang base squads. I found that too much detail
was lost when basing squads so I dropped the multi-basing to the level
of fire teams. I tried it a few times and it seemed to work out. I
then tried lifting the tactical level by activating platoons/or platoon
equivalents (such as a pair of tanks) with a single chit, like Dirtside.
I tried it a couple of times on gaming buddies before bringing it to the GZG
ECC. The feedback from them was positive. There is very little 'learning
curve' and the leaner game appealed more than regular SG to a player who was
new to SG (he had only played a couple of times).
So, what I ended up with is a way to play faster, more complex, games of SG in
an evening and I still get to use all my little toys*
Mods for company gaming: (NB, I use 15mm figs) I've nothing written down, its
all in my head so here goes... Basing Fire teams, or functional groups (such
as command, SAM, ATGW etc) are based on a single base. I use a 1" base,
usually square. This represents the team within a 10mx10m area (SG scale is
stated as 1"=10m) Fire teams are two (high tech and PA), to four figures (low
tech) per
base. Specialists are usually 2-3 figures.
Example Platoon * Commonwealth Infantry Platoon Command: Base of Lt., Sgt, RTO
3x Rifle Sections: Base of NCO and 1 rifleman, 2x (Base of 2 riflemen and 1
SAW) Support: Base of Marksman and 1 rifleman, Base of ATGW (2 figures)
Platoon rides in 4x IFVs Company Command Only company command has EW and
artillery support chits. Platoons do not, this helps preserve the chain of
command for such
request/priorities.
Activation A single platoon group (or equivalent) is activated at a time. When
activated all bases/elements in the group may perform independent
actions, i.e. in an infantry platoon some may fire while others move (An
example of cover fire and move, otherwise not modeled well in SG). All SG
rules apply, such as leader replacement etc (in this case it will be a base
that is promoted). Movement I typically choose a base near the center of the
platoon, measure and move that base, then move all the other bases without
measuring. Firing Firepower is calculated per figure in a fire team, as SG.
NB, the PLATOON is firing, so, it is up the player how they resolve fire team
firing. Pick targets and detail how many fire teams are firing at each target.
Example, a Commonwealth Infantry platoon firing on a Union infantry group. The
Commonwealth player chooses to target the Union group with three sections
(three groups of three fire teams). First determine the firepower for each
section; resolve as SG for each section independently. GMS: Any figure with a
GMS may fire with either the GMS, or with a
rifle/SMG etc. I do not limit the GMS to 3/4 shots; the fire team will
carry reloads. Mixed bases: bases with riflemen and a SAW gunner may fire
either combined i.e. SAW in support, or just as a SAW. Casualties Each base
can take TWO wounds; this is independent of the number of figures actually on
a base. If a base gets one hit I place an untreated casualty marker next to,
or on, the base. If the casualty gets treated I replace that with a treated
casualty marker (I use regular casualties for untreated and figs on stretchers
for treated). I use casualty marker castings from Peter Pig. If a base gets
two hits it is dead and I replace it with two untreated casualty markers. (I
adopted an idea from a historical gamer, he used two sets of generic markers,
one green, one grey, that way he did not have to buy specific casualties, he
used the same ones for everything. It sounds strange, but I find it is
effective) Any casualty (treated or not) is moved with the fire team.
Casualties can be 'pooled' for protection, left at an aide point, or recovered
by medevac; if so I use a small marker (a small piece of pipe cleaner placed
on the base) to represent the base having one 'hit'. Alternatively, casualties
can be abandoned like regular SG and the base marked accordingly.
If I've forgotten anything I'll try to add later.
A few comments on 'Moving Things Along Quickly'
One thing I try to do ay the GZG ECC is move games along, if people feel that
I'm being too pushy, I'm sorry. That is not the intention.
In Cinegrunt games I try to steer the game toward a suitably cinematic climax.
The casualty in this is usually the SG rules. I tend to play
them very loosely, perhaps players have already noticed this =8-). I
feel that player involvement and a fun plot is more important than the rules.
I tend not to run many 'normal' SG games. When I do I'm pushy for a different
reason. I'm trying to create something of the tactical decision making
atmosphere of the battlefield in the game.
In combat a platoon commander has to make quick decisions, they may not always
be the right ones, but his men are depending upon him to make decisions. If a
commander is slow and indecisive he may miss key opportunities to turn the
battle. If this wasn't enough, junior commanders are always under pressure
from their higher command.
So, when I press players to 'use it or lose it' I'm encouraging them to
try to take timely actions/turns and not spend too much time agonizing
over strategies, that's the job of the higher-ups !
In my defense, I do try to balance this pressing. I only push players
who I think will respond positively and I also try to teach/coach during
a game. I don't want players to feel I pushed them into a strategy that they
did not want. I try to help them out with tips and pointers, either how kit or
rules work, or with tactical perspectives of how their advance looks from the
other end of the table (Its remarkable how few players actually walk round and
look at the game from the other end of the table; me included when I'm
gaming!).
My goal is to try to show players an alternative style of SG game, it may not
always suit their style but I try to help make it a fun game. Finally, I'm no
ogre; if you do play in one of my games and you feel I'm pushing unreasonably
please let me know. It's a game; it should be fun for you too.
Specifically regarding the 'Contact, Wait, Out' game. I've seen a few games
like it at historical events and one real problem with 'deployment' games like
this is the game stalling while the attackers spend large amounts of time
worrying about getting their toys on the table. I tried to prevent this from
happening and keep a certain dynamic tension during the game. Tom and Steve
were under pressure to deploy and attack while being simultaneously hit by air
attack and arty fire. I think they did a great job of it. They conducted a
decisive and effective assault down the table. Damon and Joel did a good job
of stalling the attack; they fought doggedly to the last, they held the
advance right to the edge of the table. If their reinforcement rolls had been
different by one turn perhaps the game may have turned out in their favour.
I think both sides played a good game and they appeared to enjoy it too, a
bonus! Stuart.
> On Mar 24, 2006, at 12:34 AM, Mark Kinsey wrote:
> Stuart sent me an email recently about what he calls his SGII
Scanned the email. Did it say anything about suppressions and stuff? From
memory only the platoon becomes suppressed. Not individual stands.
Anywho I'm toying with running a 20mm WW2 game at next ECC with
Stuart's mods. Probably Eastern Front with loads of T-34s, etc. One
tweak I may make is to raise the level up one so that you activate a
company...each company having 6-9 stands...
Damo
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThe FTL I
understand, but the biological material that can withstand vacuum surprises
me. I would think that anything that we can currently do could, at least in
theory, be duplicated by a biological system.
Roger
> On 3/23/06, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> wrote:
From: "Mark Kinsey"
> Stuart sent me an email recently about what he calls his SGII Company
Concur! Thanks for pursuing this.