Designating the succession through an entire force seems like overkill. The
chart is pretty brain dead: d6:
2 in 6 - gets better if possible
2 in 6 - status quo
2 in 6 - gets worse if possible
And I don't necessarily think PFC Bramblewood, 4 years in-country, is
necessarily gonna be worse than 2 Lt. Imanewguy who just arrived on the scene
from ROTC yesterday. Rank does not necessarily correspond to leadership
ability. If it did, every officer would be a leader.
Now, I liked someone's suggestion (posted on one of the SG2 web resources)
(paraphrased as I recall it so I might be a wee bit off but the concept is
what matters):
Leader was level 1:
2 in 6 - status quo
4 in 6 - gets worse if possible
Leader was level 2:
1 in 6 - gets better if possible
2 in 6 - status quo
3 in 6 - gets worse if possible
Leader was level 3:
2 in 6 - gets better if possible
2 in 6 - status quo
2 in 6 - gets worse if possible
This means that poor leaders can be killed off to let a good sergeant or
corporal behind them - which is historically believable. Good leaders
are hard to replace or even equal.
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Thomas.Barclay wrote:
> Designating the succession through an entire force seems like
otoh, a soldier with no leadership training is unlikely to be a good leader,
especially when a significant part of being a good leader is being able to
work the SquadComp, the Tactical Data Interface, etc. there are all sorts of
things an NCO or officer gets taught to do with running things that you can't
just make up: the UK army has a 'platoon sergeant's battle course', if i'm not
mistaken.
otoh, maybe this is more true of officers than NCOs, whose main job is to be a
focus and driving force for the squad, rather than to do
high-faluting tactical thinking.
> Now, I liked someone's suggestion (posted on one of the SG2 web
worse than a level 3 leader?
assuming high rolls are good leaders, this means the level of the new leader
is given by this table.
Roll Level of old leader
1 2 3
6 1 1 2
5 1 2 2
4 2 2 3
3 2 3 3
2 2 3 '4' 1 2 3 '4'
which seems to indicate that squads with good/bad leaders have troops
who
make good/bad leaders, which seems a bit dicey to me.
how about the following:
Roll New Leader
6 1
4,5 2 1,2,3 3
the quality of the new leader is this independent of the old leader, although
the pattern above sort of remains.
Leader was class 1
6 - status quo
4,5 - gets worse
1,2,3 - gets a lot worse
Leader was class 2
6 - gets better
4,5 - status quo
1,2,3 - gets worse
Leader was class 3
6 - gets a lot better
4,5 - gets better
1,2,3 - status quo
given my doubts about good leaders emerging untrained, you might even use two
tables, the one i mentioned for replacing the leader with his deputy, and then
another for replacing the deputy with a random soldier:
6 - new leader is class 2
4,5 - new leader is class 3
1,2,3 - squad has no leader; it retreats as if broken or something
> This means that poor leaders can be killed off to let a good sergeant
absolutely.
> Good leaders are hard to replace or even equal.
which is not what your suggested table says!
tom