Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:56:25 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
From: Tom Anderson <thomas.anderson@university-college.oxford.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Leader Loss
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Thomas.Barclay wrote:
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.
** Well, I've met plenty of platoon warrants who could call arty, fight a
platoon, and think tactically and in a way not expensive to the men as
compared to some of our platoon Lts. Anyone who's taken at least the infantry
section commander courses (master corporals in Canada) could be a good
replacement. Maybe better than the original.
> Now, I liked someone's suggestion (posted on one of the SG2 web
worse than a level 3 leader?
** Ooops. That was a typo. Should be 4 in 6 stay the same.
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.
** Though I think that a good leader tends to set a far better example than a
bad one and that tends to (over time) pass down the ladder. Plus he's less
likely to put up with an inept subordinate. But I take your point.
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.
** Still not good enough. How about 1 in 6 improves (if possible), 2 in 6
stays the same, 3 in six gets worse? That's just less favorable than the
standard rules of 2/6,2/6, and 2/6.
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:
** Well, how about the about the composite: Roll:
6 - improve a level
5,4 - status quo
1,2,3 - gets worse
Mods:
-1 to roll if deputy leader killed.
This means first time your leader is killed, sometimes you'll get a better
trooper, oft times worse as his deputy. After that, you'll pretty much be
lucky to have the same quality, and most times a cruddy quality. I think a
level 3 leader was always defined as the cruddiest in the game.
> 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!
** Okay, you're right. I was trying to remember something and I misremembered.
SOrry:)
> Funnily enough at Platoon Level, the Platoon Sergeant will generally
Or maybe the leadership level is as high (or low) as it
is because the Plt Ldr is at his skill level _and_ there's
a Plt Sgt (of whatever level) behind him. If the Plt Ldr goes down, then your
Plt suffers as all the leaders go shufflin' 'round and you wind up short a
leader with a Plt Sgt who's not able to concentrate on the troops (like he
usually does) but has to concentrate on the mission objective.
Sorry, as a junior officer I just had to stand up for all of the LT's out
there...
> I guess we can talk this around in circles forever....
I'm tryin' my best!:)
Funnily enough at Platoon Level, the Platoon Sergeant will generally have a
much better grasp of tactical combat than the Platoon Commander unless the
Army/Military Officer promotion scheme revolves around promoting from
the ranks. A junior officer graduates from the Academy, spends one or two
years (maybe three?) as a Platoon Commander and then moves on to other
postings; staff training maybe specialist platoon etc.
The Sergeant will have spent maybe 6 to 10 years in his trade before making
Platoon Sergeant rank and in most cases will have participated in dozens if
not more platoon/company operations.
In game turns I would be inclined to see the Platoon Comd replacement have a
higher chance of a better Leadership.
1,2,3 Better
4,5 Same
6 worse
At squad/section level it may be a little different Generally the Squad
Leader/Section Commander is the senior and most experienced soldier.
Anyone who replaces him is most likely to be of equal skill or worse rather
than better.
1 Better
2,3,4 Same
5,6 Worse
I guess we can talk this around in circles forever....
Owen G
> -----Original Message-----
Funnily enough at Platoon Level, the Platoon Sergeant will generally have a
much better grasp of tactical combat than the Platoon Commander unless the
Army/Military Officer promotion scheme revolves around promoting from
the ranks. A junior officer graduates from the Academy, spends one or two
years (maybe three?) as a Platoon Commander and then moves on to other
postings; staff training maybe specialist platoon etc.
The Sergeant will have spent maybe 6 to 10 years in his trade before making
Platoon Sergeant rank and in most cases will have participated in dozens if
not more platoon/company operations.
In game turns I would be inclined to see the Platoon Comd replacement have a
higher chance of a better Leadership.
1,2,3 Better
4,5 Same
6 worse
-------------------------
** Owen, your background as a platoon sergeant (bias? nay! not our Owen!) is
showing <*big grin*> ** FWIW, you might be right. Though I think in some
armies an Lt. stays in the job longer than in others.
-------------------------
At squad/section level it may be a little different Generally the Squad
Leader/Section Commander is the senior and most experienced soldier.
Anyone who replaces him is most likely to be of equal skill or worse rather
than better.
1 Better
2,3,4 Same
5,6 Worse
---------------------------
** Well, I'd agree with that, except that I've seen a few cases where you had
a section with 2 MCpls, one acting as squad leader, the other as 2ic because
there wasn't a sergeant available and a corporal, or whatever. But I guess
this is the more rare case. Generally there may be a disparity of skill.
Plus, I think at the Company level, if you lose your Commander, and a Pltn
Cmdr takes over, I *don't* think things likely get better. I get the
impression higher level officers have harder jobs, more info to manage, and
acquire different skills which the younger fellows who'd succeed them tend not
to have yet. So I think the chart for
Squad/Sections probably applies to Company level too.
Generally I get around this by assigning the leadership of the Lt, the PSgt,
and the Sgts or MCpls leading the squads. Then I only worry about losing squad
leaders.
Hmm, Tom, i think I like your idea better; assign Leaderships all before the
game; if using squad cards it is easy.
I would almost agree 100% about Coy Level. This is where the Officer really
comes into his own. IMHO the junior officer learns his Leadership skills as a
Platoon Commander and puts this into practice at Company and Bn level. I've
seen some pretty average platoon Commanders go on to be excellent Coy and Bn
operators I've not known of many Good PCs turn into dud Coy Comds either. I
guess there are always exceptions just waiting to prove you wrong
and it is so often TOO easy to over-generalise!
On another note here's a reasonable amount of info on the OICW, although the
page is annotated 27 October 1998!
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/oicw.htm
Anyone have any other web pages of worthy note?