SG II House Rules - longish post

> Cavalry

Someone has seen the new figures at Eureka..;)

----------
> OK, here are a couple of suggestions I'd like some comment on please.
Snip
> Cavalry
Snip
> OK, constructive comments please?!

These seem to be well thought out. I can't see any fatal flaws just yet,
playtesting is in order.

Michael Brown

http://www.wco.com/~mkkabrow

Comments:

Group Firing - I think this is unnecessary since the existing mechanism
to pass actions down from Platoon Commanders should cater sufficiently for
this kind of situation.

Animal Cavalry - Something we didn't have room for in the book, some
nice ideas here!

> In situations such as a Platoon Ambush or a defensive position the

Just to clarify - This roll is required for all units participating,
not just those outside 6". Perhaps this is obvious to all, but I thought I'd
better make sure. (assume this is the case)

Shift the dice used DOWN once for each squad in excess
> of two participating (this reflects the added difficulty of a Pl Comd

Right then, or do the ones that blew their roll fire later (as a separate
firing) in the normal alternating scheme of initiative?

 It
> just represent the unco-ordinated fire from the squads. Whether

Hmm. If both your actions are used up, how do you move, re-org, throw
smoke, etc?

> Cavalry

Maybe areas rugged enough that vehicles (except for air) can't go, and they
can't land.... thus making pack and riding animals quite useful. Or (following
an SG2 economic model) its just plain cheaper!

> A number of issues.

Okay, you appear to be assuming the human leader's leadership is the relevant
value here. Although this is simple, it isn't too accurate I'm thinking (or it
may not be).

I'm thinking you rate EW systems, ECM systems, Fire Cons, etc. Why not rate
mounts similarly (as a system). And better mounts (war trained, experienced,
or from a breed that is really disciplined or is just mostly oblivious to the
outside world) would have a better die roll to avoid bolting.

Assuming you have a mounted cavalry troop (not just people on horses who don't
know anything), use the higher of the unit quality or mount quality
(representing the ability of a good horseman to control even
an unruly beast). Roll the higher die against Lv2 + TL. If the unit
is unskilled horseman, use the lower die.

For example: Poor Mounts (riding horses, untrained, skittish): d4 Below
Average (draft horses): d6 Average (military riding horse): d8 Excellent (war
trained military horse): d10 Superior (Tros horses, or like the one Gandalf
rode or some exotic
breed of War Beast - like the big green lizards ridden by the storm
troopers in Star Wars): d12

So if we had a unit of Regulars cavalry mounted on average horses,
they'd roll a d8 vs 2+TL.

If we had a unit of Elite cavalry, mounted on Excellent horses,
they'd roll d12 (the higher die) vs 2+TL.

If we had a unit of Elite infantry, who happen to have be mounted on Below
Average mounts (scavenged to escape an enemy offensive?),
they'd roll d6 vs 2 + TL. (They aren't cavalry so all that matters
here is the stability of the mounts).

> Failure results in the unit 'bolting' for one combat roll directly

You've seen my idea for warhorses. Another variant would be using your idea of
rolling against Lv, but rating the mounted unit Lv seperately for this purpose
(A Horsemanship roll if you will) and
rating the mount/rider combo as you do a leader in the game.

ie war and experienced trained rider and mount with lots of time under fire:
Lv 1 trained rider (not too much experience) and mount: Lv2 untrained mount or
untrained rider: Lv3

As for alien characteristics - what about carnivorous mounts that
require checks (as above) at TL 2 vs mounting a charge when within 1 move of
the enemy.... etc.

How do we handle cavalry charges? The intiial charge should be devastating
(moreso than normal close assault) and subsequent rounds should be fought as
close assault. We need to think about the implications of how this is
conducted. They may (with fantastic cavalry) have natural weapons that are
awesome.

How fast do cavalry move? I'd say 8-10" would be a good guess for a
base move for normal creatures (faster than infantry, slower than vehicles)
but fantastic creatures (taun taun) may move very fast.

Note such beasties may also make excellent flankers, skirmishers, or scouts,
even if you end up fighting hobilar style (dismount to fight).

> Casualties

I think your 'kill the rider if he falls off' roll is too brutal. Yes this is
dangerous, but you can stand a fairly good chance of falling from a horse
without dying. And I really have my doubts about PA armoured troops on
horseback (and I'd hate to meet the beastie that they could ride). How about a
d10 for the fall, or a d8?

> Firing from mounts

What about some cheap but high tech horse-holder that could be used
in place of a guy?

> OK, constructive comments please?!

If these get hammered out, you should write them up and post them to the
USG2W3P and Deathskull's page too for all to see and use. I think this is
quickly becoming the central repository for such info for SG2.

Thomas
/************************************************

> Comments:

Don't let me speak for Owen, but I'm thinking that there is a distinct
difference between what he spoke off, and what exists now.

Lets say I have four units set up in ambush, concealed. Enemy unit moves into
'best' range for ambush. I want to have everyone open up and cut him to bits.
As I understand it, I can't. All I can do is have one group fire, then he can
act (run away!) and then my other groups can fire, but if he's ran away very
effectively, I'm going to
be at a heck of a long range (say an average of +120 to +140m) and
that is really going to reduce the effectiveness. There is no mechanism I am
aware of that lets multiple squads fire as one action, thus preventing an
enemy response until afterward.

Am I wrong? If so, please explain how this would be accomodated under existing
rules..... I'm interested....

And yes, I thought the cavalry was a neat idea. Especially for frontier
worlds.

Thomas.
/************************************************

> On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Glover, Owen wrote:

> an ambush. As you have said the Platoon Commander communication pretty

Define how the full impact of that mass of firepower is not represented, if
you will. There are twice the chances for casualties and, as noted
before, two opportunities to /fail/ the morale check.

> squad has to take two Confidence checks if it takes casualties in both

This folds into the above in making sequential attacks more effective. Should
my single Squad take fire from a mass of three opposed Squads, I
know I'm going to be /far/ more likely to turn and run ...

Hi Mike (and thanks to Thomas for the reply - that did put my case
pretty well)

just a footnote

The Group Fire I am proposing is only to cover a few specific instances where
you would have a MASSED firepower, as in a Defensive position or an ambush. As
you have said the Platoon Commander communication pretty well covers most
instances. However in a Platoon Ambush (linear or area) the impact of the full
firepower of two or three squads is not reflected by two squads firing
sequentially. And a little unfairly, the target squad has to take two
Confidence checks if it takes casualties in both combats (depending on MM)!

Owen G

> ----------

> On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Glover, Owen wrote:

> Massed you have dxd8, 3xd10, 3xd12 vs ONE d8

Er, that'd be 3 seperate rolls to attack vs three seperate d8 defense rolls,
as sequential attacks (as a result of Command Actions); on the
average, with the dice as given, the attackers will inflict /many/ more
casualties than they would had they not all attacked together (because the
target squad will have skittered away with all speed as quickly as they could,
perhaps removing the opportunity for second and third squads to fire).

> On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Alexander Williams wrote:

> --
I'm not really following the SG2 rules debate (except I'll say that the
'Masses Fire" rules seem a bit redundant given the command transfer rules
already in place) but just wanted to say that this is a wonderful.sig
...

"...we just borrowed his SMITE button..." indeed...seen the Far Side cartoon
of God at his computer, about to hit the smite button and bring a grand piano
down on some shmuck?

Just my irrelevancy of the day...

Hi Alex,

> From: Alexander Williams[SMTP:thantos@decatl.alf.dec.com]

3 squads firing; Qual d8, SAW d10 and Squad weapons d12 vs range d8

Individually you have 3 rolls of d8, d10, d12 vs d8

Massed you have dxd8, 3xd10, 3xd12 vs ONE d8

One major consequence of the massed firepower is the chance of casualties!!

> On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Glover, Owen wrote:

> However, without the massed firepower the attacker will only ever get

Give the rather flexible timescale given in SGII, I'd say that a Platoon
Commander getting two squads into position and ready to fire on a target in
rough simulatanity is about as believable as it gets. We're talking a fairly
narrow scope of battle and a somewhat narrow field of time. Enough
coordination that a larger number of squads could convene on a target would
involve command at a higher level coordinating combat (ie Manus Commander
activates the Platoon Commander twice, who then activates
/four/ squads with his actions).

I have to say, anything more feels a bit like 'cheaping out' on the loss
of flexibility you get from having /larger/ squads with more mass
firepower vs smaller squads with more tactical flexibility. If you really want
to mass firepower on a target, spend a few actions in Reorganization
to create one /massive/ squad, use Platoon Command activations to get
them into position and fire as one, then Reorg back into seperate squads to
continue the attack.

At the risk of running on to boredom (if anyone else is a SG player and not
interested in seeing more on this thread I'll continue as private emails with
Alex)

For the massed firepower, rolling average scores > for the 3d8, 3d10 and
3d12 we get( 3x4)=12 + (3x5)=15 + (3x6)=18 total of 45 divided by 8 = 5
potential cas plus a roll of better than 5 to avoid a third. similar
rolls for three individuals is 4+5+6=15 = 1 potenetial cas and a roll of
better than 7 to avoid a second. Therefore 3 potential cas plus 3 chances for
three more.

However, without the massed firepower the attacker will only ever get
two squads firing (1 Platoon Commander - two actions - two fire combats)
therefore, using similar averaged die rolls, two combats would result in 2 cas
plus rolls for 2 more potentials.

Owen G

> ----------

> On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Glover, Owen wrote:

> I like the idea of a Re-org to combine two or more squads for a

Unit Integrity is one of those 'setting dependent' bits that can shift around
depending on what you're trying to simulate. Heinleinesque Powered Armour
fight dispersed kilometres wide while modern armour doctrine puts a tank and
his 'wingman' in considerably closer querters. Integrity seems more dependent
on how fast the elements in question can move than any fixed means of decision
(and is one of the truly minor places I think
SGII/DSII can be improved upon).

A better means of deciding how dispersed is 'out of organization' may be to
multiply the Quality Die by some numberss of metres (then scale to liking).
Renegade Legion grav tanks may operate seperated by QD * 100m, giving the
highly skilled units the ability to envelop almost by themselves and holding
the less experienced troops together to strike
in-force.  A group of low-tech militia may disperse QD * 3m before being
considered disorganized, keeping them bunched together because of lack of
ample coordinating communication. A squad of powered armour may can disperse
QD * 10m, due to the better range and control of their arms and their constant
locational beacons.

(Note, I consider the lack of a dispersed platoon/squad's ability to
co-ordinate fire a /good/ thing.  The coordination as a 'single unit' is
part of why that one /can/ Reorg squads into much larger squads; with
the use of Command actions, this can be done frighteningly quickly
(Command->Reorg/Move, Squad Actions->Fire/Fire, Next turn:
Command->Reorg/Move.))

> ----------
We're talking a
> fairly narrow scope of battle and a somewhat narrow field of

The thing about SG I like the most is the level of success in simulating
small unit combat. A platoon ambush/defensive fire is one of a few small
areas I think could be improved. As a Regular Army Platoon Sergeant I
had occasion to initiate an inf/APC ambush involving the HQ (me and two
others) four killer groups (two each of a full infantry section and two
M113 APCs),  the third section and their APC were in flank/rear
protection. This wasn't a one off special occasion, but a standard SOP
for the anti-armour ambush against lightly armoured AFV. From memory,
the 50 cal on one of the M113s misfired/jammed and started firing about
3 seconds later (far too late in the scheme of things).

So I really think that we can aim for, and acheive, realistic deployment of
massed fire.

I like the idea of a Re-org to combine two or more squads for a
temporary fire combat or other action, but then I guess we are going to have
to look at adjusting unit integrity concepts and it would not
enable a dispersed platoon engaging in a co-ordinated fire.

> ----------
big snip here
> just represent the unco-ordinated fire from the squads.
Whether
> successful or not the communication and fire uses up both

> Hmm. If both your actions are used up, how do you move, re-org,

Soory, this may have been unclear. This is similar to the close assault using
up both actions if successful. As with any other leader communicated
activation, the squads may later in the turn may activate if they haven't
already. it is just that if the group fire fails to
occur as a co-ordinated fire then the squads fire is resolved
individually.

> > Cavalry
Like the suggestions on rider qualities. More to ponder. I'll send these to
Jeremy for consideration for his Web Page once I've
reworked/refined them.

> This folds into the above in making sequential attacks more effective.

True. But on a philosophical level this isn't (IMHO) quite right -
its one attack, one set of casualties, should be one confidence check.
Besides, the math whizzes are right. Also, the mass attack should (if its an
ambush) probably kill you, not chase you away. (Although if you survive,
running is a good idea!) You are more likely to inflict more casualties with
full combined fire, especially if you consider the additional little fact:

The defending unit reacts before subsequent attacking units fire -
this can remove the capability for subsequent attacker units to fire depending
on circumstances.

And this makes, IMHO, the difference. And if you don't like Owens suggestion,
the great thing is you don't have to use it! I like the
fact that SG2 can be 'tweaked' without re-writing the game and people
can pick and choose from optional suggestions without fear (or at least with
only a little fear..... heh heh).

:) Tom
/************************************************

> Unit Integrity is one of those 'setting dependent' bits that can shift

I think this may have more to do with Tactical Doctrine and unit caps than
with speed alone. But speed is definitely an issue. So is unit equipment,
tactical doctrine, and unit quality. (Spec Forces tend to be better able to
operate right down to the individual level, and better able to coordinate even
complex actions with minimal guidance).

Fer example - Heinlein-esque PA couldn't fight close together as a
rule because of the types of employment they had and because of the types of
weapons they were deploying.....

> A better means of deciding how dispersed is 'out of organization' may

Interesting idea. I kind of like a more flexible definition of unit integrity
which reflects the type of unit, the quality of the unit, etc.

Does anyone still play RL? I have to admit I loved Centurion!

> (Note, I consider the lack of a dispersed platoon/squad's ability to
is
> part of why that one /can/ Reorg squads into much larger squads; with

Hmm. I agree and I disagree. Here we see the distinction between 'logical
grouping for fire' and 'grouping for integrity' if you will.
In real life, you might call the prep for an ambush a re-org action
where you co-ordinate who fires first (thus initiating the ambush)
and what conditions they'll fire under and what the responsibilities of
everyone in the ambush will be, whereas that is not a 'reorg into one big
unit'. Your squads can still be dispersed, but (for ambush purposes) they are
functioning as one big logical unit. I think maybe
a Re-Org action should be involved in setting up the ambush, and
possibly communications tasks and unit quality rolls, but once the ambush is
set up, it isn't necessary for ambushers to do Comms to initaiiate the ambush
unless that was the method of initiation.... (ie 'Initiate fire on receipt of
code group GREEN ECHO STAR on TacFreq One'). Instead, units could take the
fire directive off of a support weapon opening up, a flare going up, or an
enemy unit reaching a given location.

Of course, if you want to be nasty, I can suggest that some ambushes
are screwed up by pre-mature firing (maybe a leadership check).

What we haven't covered here is another interesting point: You get reaction
fire when people try to close with you.... yet you don't get a reaction roll
to go IP (*HIT THE DIRT!*) when someone opens up on you in the open. I hate to
say it, but the default behaviour of any Infanteer I've met when ambushed in
the open is to eat dirt and reduce his or her target profile.....

Just some thoughts:)

Tom
/************************************************

> On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:

> Fer example - Heinlein-esque PA couldn't fight close together as a

That too, though one could suggest that if H-PA were to fire /away/ from
the center of the squad, they could have the same level of defense that they'd
have in dispersal, and not have to worry about catching a squadmate in a nuke
blast radius.:)

> Does anyone still play RL? I have to admit I loved Centurion!

I still play RenLeg, actually; I have a fairly complete RenLeg->DSII
text done that can be found on the Renegade Legion Web Pages floating around;
one of these days I should finish it and post.

> In real life, you might call the prep for an ambush a re-org action

This sounds a /lot/ like it should be in the scenario conditions rather
than something put together ad-hoc in the timeframe described by SGII or
DSII (in the latter case, it can be assumed such things are abstracted into
the QD results; high rolls imply that a good
ambush/coordinated-attack was pulled off).

> What we haven't covered here is another interesting point: You get

I read it as going IP being a bit more involved than *just* 'hit the dirt,'
picking a good rise to lie behind, making sure you have a decent line of fire,
etc. The immediate tendency for trained soldiers to go
belly-down in the bush better and quicker than civvies is why they get
that better QD.

> > Does anyone still play RL? I have to admit I loved Centurion!

Please do. Do you have the URL for the RL web page?

> This sounds a /lot/ like it should be in the scenario conditions

I was thinking Hasty Ambush here. I can put together an ambush in 5 minutes
(one SG2 turn) but doctrine requires that I identify who initiates the ambush,
where squads and support weapons should be positioned, how the fire will be
conducted (and any special designation of targets or units that will have
special fire instructions), and when things stop. These are typically outlined
by the Lt. or senior sergeant to the squad leaders in about a two to four
minute quick huddle. Then break. It might take a total of ten minutes to get
setup. Part of the thing most people don't understand is that you have to be
able to set these up quickly and it is a drill you practice.

I don't buy the comment about QD necessarily because you still have the one
unit fires, defending unit runs away, other units can't fire too well effect.
All the QD in the world doesn't solve that one.

> I read it as going IP being a bit more involved than *just* 'hit the

And perhaps a bad die roll on your QD implies that the enemy hit the dirt
really fast. What I don't like about it is you roll a range die for defending
against a course of fire, but that isn't based on your unit quality, so in SG2
there isn't (unless I've got this muddled) any difference in how fast
civilians go prone and how fast a SOG team hits the deck and finds the best
available cover. Perhaps IP implies getting behind whatever cover is available
defensively, but I think that you'd really be trying to do that 'on the
bounce' when people are shooting at you.

Or perhaps a unit quality mod to range die? Hmmm. I don't know. Just some
stray thoughts.

Tom
/************************************************

On Mon, 02 Feb 1998 16:32:25 +1000, "Glover, Owen"
> <oglover@mov.vic.gov.au> wrote:

> Group Firing

I see the point of the rule. Ambushes are a devil of a thing to set up in a
game. My preference would be to see this ability used only once in a scenario.
It takes a lot of effort and explicit orders to set up an ambush. I'd also
like to see rules for prematurely firing, as is often the case with green
troops.

My preference would be to set up a scenario rule for ambushes. Something like
letting the ambusher set up his units, the ambushee
pre-plotting his movement, and then rolling for whether or not the
trap is sprung prematurely. Setting up an ambush in the middle of a firefight
is problematic at best.

> On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:

> Please do. Do you have the URL for the RL web page?

http://www.madcoyote.com/renleg should get you to the central core.

> four minute quick huddle. Then break. It might take a total of ten

Given that it might take the equivalent of two SGII turns (easily 4 Actions, 2
xferred from platoon commander and the squads involved putting their 2 Actions
apiece in), aside from the question of unit dispersal, I don't see why you
feel a need to add any additional mechanical complexity on top of what's
already there.

(I admit freely that I'm an obsessive about simplicity; before I feel
comfortable adding more mechanics to my games, I have to feel that I'm getting
something that's not covered under the current complexity.)

> I don't buy the comment about QD necessarily because you still have

No, that goes back to the Reorg-Fire-Reorg suggestion; a quick-fix for
that might be to suggest that the dispersal distance is only applicable if
you're going to move the unit; if they are going to be commanded 'in place,'
you needn't have them in dispersal range, but all units involved must have a
Reorg spent on them.

This could lead to some serious tactical imbalance if requiring a Reorg Action
per squad isn't 'costly' enough. One of the reasons I like SGII is that it
rewards varied tactics fairly equally.

> for defending against a course of fire, but that isn't based on your

True, but then again /anyone's/ first reaction is to throw themselves to
the ground and try to find something chunky to put between them and big
incoming things, in my experience...

Note that, typically, better troops have better armour (which leads to fewer
casualties when the resolution of fire rolls around), and that the attack
sequence determines if the firers put the fire down consistantly and in the
right position; no matter how good you are, if you're under effective fire
you're going to be sucking on a bullet just as easily as a civie. Vetran rifle
squads firing on Green troops in PA will very likely be more effective than if
it were more Vetrans in the same PA because the latter is more likely to be in
position, respond to morale checks and supression faster and more effectively,
etc. No matter whether its a Green or Vet man in the PA, however, if they get
hit by a good shot, they're just as dead.

> Or perhaps a unit quality mod to range die? Hmmm. I don't know. Just

Again, that starts complicating things a bit more than I'd like; there's
already a /lot/ of die shifts and mods to keep in mind; there's good
reason to not want micromanagement to go that low in SGII.

Well, I think I have enough input to work on now!

Thanks to all those who have contributed to the discussion. In particular the
lively discussions from Thomas and Alexander Group Firing and Bruce on
Cavalry.As Tom put it, any of these "house rule" are exactly that; "In house"
mods. At least here on the list I can get a lot of quick answers and comments
that would take weeks or months to get if I just dropped it off at the club.

Thanks again.

> (I admit freely that I'm an obsessive about simplicity; before I feel

Fair enough.

> No, that goes back to the Reorg-Fire-Reorg suggestion; a quick-fix for

That has its shortcomings too. Really it shouldn't be any easier to command in
place (in the case of giving a bunch of 'changing' commands). With a set
order, then maybe.

> This could lead to some serious tactical imbalance if requiring a

I will agree with that. Although I might also suggest the reasons many
militaries have doctrine is because they like paper....no wait.... its because
certain tactics work better than others. I'm not sure varied tactics should
always be equally rewarded.

I guess the answer to this one depends where you lie on the
Simulation/Game continuum. In a game, it is really great to have lots
of options and have them all have a fair chance to pan out. In a Simulation,
it is an attempt to simulate a situation which might not allow such lattitude
or encourage certain ways of acting.

> True, but then again /anyone's/ first reaction is to throw themselves

Given. But I've seen footage from Russian Spetsnaz ambushes in Afghanistan and
some American Ambushes in Vietnam, and I've seen first hand Ambushes from the
Canadian excercises, and one can see the difference in response between
untrained or green troops and regulars or veterans. The reactions, although in
principle similar, vary a fair bit in efficiency, effectiveness, and speed. A
green troop that is ambushed tends to hit the dirt but not always find cover
or take advantage of terrain. They tend to sometimes bolt, and a lot of
confusion ensues. They don't know how to react a lot of times. Veterans that
are ambushed tend to realize the bad situation they are in quickly, hit the
deck making good use of cover and where they can fire back from (or they move
to such positions quickly) and they are unlikely to bolt.

In short, some people in an ambush are passive targets, others are far more
active and very shortly cease to be targets and become combatants (returning
fire, attempting a breakout, etc).

> Note that, typically, better troops have better armour (which leads to

That's a tough one. Anyone can take a bullet, and in the open I'd have to
agree. In any sort of close or rugged terrain, I'm fairly sure troop quality
makes a difference (how much? I don't think I could guess).

Vetran rifle squads firing on Green troops in PA will very likely
> be more effective than if it were more Vetrans in the same PA because

Agreed.

> > Or perhaps a unit quality mod to range die? Hmmm. I don't know. Just

> > some stray thoughts.
there's
> already a /lot/ of die shifts and mods to keep in mind; there's good

It's a good argument. I think I can buy that.the effect of troop quality of
the target unit is debatable (it probably factors in to some extent in some
instances) and therefore hard to quantify. I'm willing to buy that this is an
extra complexity that gives a not too significant return. Thanks for the input
Alexander!

T.
/************************************************

> >Group Firing

Good idea on the premature firing. Remember here when we talk about ambushes
you have a 'proper' one which could take days to set up (digging field
fortifications, laying mines to channelize the enemy, figuring out arcs and
zones of fire and beaten zones for support weapons, ranging for arty, setting
up fire priorities and Immediate Actions or Actions On for your squads, etc.
etc.) and which is an order of magnitude more dangerous than a 'Hasty' ambush
which is set up in five or ten minutes as an impromptu thing (which is still
an order of magnitude more effective than no coordination at all). But once
(or less) per scenario is probably reasonable.

> My preference would be to set up a scenario rule for ambushes.

Agreed. But depending on your board and forces, you can have forces not even
involved in fighting which could perform such actions.

Here is a quick idea (based off what you mentioned above, although I like
owens way of handling the group fire)

Set Piece or Full Ambush
- Defender sets up units and dummies (to disguise the ambush),
ideally you'd use hidden placement and a map here
- Attacker plots movement
- Roll for premature setoff of the ambush AND possible spotting by
attacker (spotting should be hard)
- Ambush trigger instructions may be moderate complexity
- Conduct ambush using Group Fire (if it isn't botched)

Hasty Ambush
- Defender sets up units and dummies (no map placement here, its a
quick one so concealment is nowhere near as good)
-Attacker plots movement
-- Roll for premature setoff of the ambush (easier to do than in
Set Piece) AND possible spotting by attacker (spotting should be moderate
difficulty)
- Ambush trigger instructions must be simple
- Conduct ambush using Group Fire (if it isn't botched)

Just a thought.

TB
/************************************************

> On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:

> That has its shortcomings too. Really it shouldn't be any easier to

And, of course, once you get into 'set orders' you're back to
scenario-specific rules (which, oddly enough, I'm a strong /proponant/
of). If the scenario starts out saying 'Red Team can organize an effective set
piece ambush of up to three squads in size by making a Morale Test and a Reorg
as a single Action for all squads involved, allowing them to fire as one
unit,' I'm keen for that. It makes sense in the context of the situation.

> I guess the answer to this one depends where you lie on the

I can only say 'Its SF, it can't be a simulation.':) This, of course, begs the
question of whether predictive models are simulations.:)

> confusion ensues. They don't know how to react a lot of times.

I think this may actually come into play in the differing efficency in
groups going 'In Place' /after/ being fired upon and the results of
morale
rolls for being /under/ fire, both of which are affected by QD.  After
all, once you're /under/ fire, its too late to do anything but react,
the bullets are already in the air. The Vets will immediately after try to go
IP for better defenses, and will likely pull it off quickly. The Greens will
mill around confusedly, trying to get down effectively, and are
probably doing so /while/ Supressed.

> That's a tough one. Anyone can take a bullet, and in the open I'd

It'd have to make enough difference to be visible under as much granularity as
SGII presents; is it enough? Unknown.

> willing to buy that this is an extra complexity that gives a not too

My pleasure.

> B: You ahve clearer feild of vision, hearing and sense without the

Speaking as an ex motorcycle rider, I can _certainly_ understand that..

> C: It's still pretty heavy. 99% of all warmovies or wargames ignore

(chuckle)

<snip>

> worked out immediate action drills that are almost like football

Hmm.. for the self trained tacticians among us is there any chance of giving a
thumbnail of what such things as the 'Australian peel' involve? It sounds
intriguing.. especially as I am from the land of Oz.
:)

> Funny but I always think the side with the most money have better

Just as what comprised a knight in some time periods had less to do with
heredity or social standing than it did with money (which probably had to do
with the other two in many ways). For example, in many ways, the NY National
Gaurd have better equipment (in many regards) than the Canadian Primary Land
Force, but the Canadians I think (by virtue of being regulars) have a better
troop quality. (Now, regular US troops vs regular Canucks I won't touch as
that could spark an *incident*).

 As a perhaps non-applicable aside, I have
> spent now 19 years in the Army, the last ten in Special Forces (the

DE OPPRESSO LIBRE (excuse the spelling). A Grand Tradition.

In most cases
> outside of actually going on a "door kicking" op, we do not use body

Heh. I just call them a pain in the butt, and doubly so if they aren't Kevlar.

 Even in
> Desert Storm the great majority of SF and SAS did not carry body armor

When I heard how much kit the famed Bravo Two Zero supposedly carried (and I
don't doubt it), I realized I (as a reservist) would not probably be able to
move under that load (least not for the duration of normal movement). 80 lbs.
of kit is a heck of a lot to hump about
on a regular basis. I don't like carrying 45-55 lbs, let alone 80+.
It's a pretty good justification for ammo rules too.

> This primarily has to do with:

<probably the big one for most small units operating semi-covert>

> C: It's still pretty heavy. 99% of all warmovies or wargames ignore

Yes. Shooting, spotting, marching, reacting, etc. are all affected a heck of a
lot by the units state of fatigue.

> D: That foolish feeling of invincibility that elite forces have.

I met some Canadian SSF guys, and one or two US Spec Forces in my
time (and even a SAS Sgt.) - I have absolutely no desire to call that
feeling foolish - when you're that well trained, that experienced,
and that *select*, you may not be invincible, but you sure are a hell of a lot
more dangerous and more survivable than your average ground pounder...
.

> I think troop quality makes the overwhelming differnce in any and all

Hear Hear!

 A good
> example as it applies to ambushes. Regular or conscript troops pretty

Been on both sides of that situation. Your description is almost perfect.
People would like to believe troops are alert, ready to
react, etc. but a lot of times the part-time soldiers like the
reserves or conscripts (and to a lesser extent the reg forces) are
just not on the ball all the time - they're too preoccupied with
their aching feet, sore back, wet head, the awful god forsaken sergeant, etc.
etc.

> A well trained soldier is still humping along under the heavy weight,

Training is incredibly valuable.

> As he walks along, he's looking around and lokking at the ground,

Generally beforee an ambush, he will at least
> realise he's in an area of high probability danger and be more alert.
At
> first contact, he'll still hit the ground, but will recover and return

Exactly. And one of these units receives no more benefit in SG2 than a green
unit when being fired on in an ambush.

> All of this is what should be represented by that quality factor, and

Now, how to put that into a game context?
- one suggestion was a reaction roll to go IP before fire is resolved
- another suggestion was a mod to range die based on unit quality

any other ideas?

:) Tom

/************************************************

> ----------

Also known as the tunnel of love. A number of variations all based on:

1. first two patrol members return fire (panic mag?) remainder adopt fire
positions further back

2. first two now run back BETWEEN the next pair whoa are returning fire

3. as the first pair pass the next they will find position to return fire,
second pair move back as next pair open return fire

4. this will continue as the pairs rotate through; each pair running back into
the "tunnel"

5. this will continue as a drill for a set distance, set number of rotations
or unitl the patrol commander gives the command to break contact.

And no I am not giving away classified tactic or information; this has
been explained/demonstrated in a number of magazine/news articles and
the movie 'The odd angry shot'.

> In short, some people in an ambush are passive targets, others are

> > Note that, typically, better troops have better armour

Funny but I always think the side with the most money have better armor,
regardless of troop quality. As a perhaps non-applicable aside, I have
spent now 19 years in the Army, the last ten in Special Forces (the first bit
was as a paratrooper then drill sergeant). In most cases outside of actually
going on a "door kicking" op, we do not use body armor or even helmets (we
call them the dome of obedience). Even in Desert Storm the great majority of
SF and SAS did not carry body armor or even fhelmets. We had too much other
shit to carry and after getting dropped off across the fence, you are on your
own with your LPCs (Leather personnel carriers).This primarily has to do
with:A: You are much mroe manueverable without the stuff on. B: You ahve
clearer feild of vision, hearing and sense without the stuff on. C: It's still
pretty heavy. 99% of all warmovies or wargames ignore the fact that you
usually had to carry your ass twenty klicks from point A to point B BEFORE you
get into teh first fight. And weight=fatigue=lack of attention. D: That
foolish feeling of invincibility that elite forces have.

> That's a tough one. Anyone can take a bullet, and in the open I'd

I think troop quality makes the overwhelming differnce in any and all
circumstances short of overwhelming firepower and numbers. A good example as
it applies to ambushes. Regular or conscript troops pretty much put their
heads down and hump along under a heavy rucksack with their eyes on the guys
feet in front of them. Except if Sarge is watching. Their minds are focussed
on their pain and fatigue and how much real army stuff sucks compared to what
they saw on Rambo. As soon as the shit hits the fan there is confusion and
they drop straight to the ground. Usually with their heavy ruck driving their
heads into the dirt. The logistics of all that weight, fear and surprise acts
as a natural dampener to doing anything. It'll take a few seconds of screaming
or yelling before they start to shoot back. Of course they won't have the
foggiest idea of where the targets are so they'll pretty much just shoot up
into the air.

A well trained soldier is still humping along under the heavy weight, but he
has long since become used to the feeling of being a mule and worked out how
best to make his equipment ride so that he stays fresher. As he walks along,
he's looking around and lokking at the ground, wondering where he will dive if
the shit hits the fan in the next few seconds. Most likely he's also watching
his writst compass, counting pace, and thinking about who he's going to bang
on his next leave and in what order he will visit his favorit restaurants when
he gets out of the field. All this (except for the sexual fantasies and food)
are done
virtually sub-conciously. Generally beforee an ambush, he will at least
realise he's in an area of high probability danger and be more alert. At first
contact, he'll still hit the ground, but will recover and return fire more
accurately quicker. More importantly, his unit will have worked out immediate
action drills that are almost like football palys, that have long been
ingrained into muscle memory. These will be inacted at the moment of contact,
sometimes initaited by the leader. those not in the kill zone will
immediatelya sses the situation and begin manuevering to flank the ambush. OR
the entire patrol will begin break contact drills such as the Australian peel.

All of this is what should be represented by that quality factor, and should
apply to targets as well as firers. IMO.

A well trained unit

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

> When I heard how much kit the famed Bravo Two Zero supposedly carried

Actually don't feel bad, they couldn't move underneath all that stuff either
and ditched it as soon as they got in trouble. Special Operations Forces can
sometimes fall under the "we can do anything and we can carry any wait and we
are invincible mindset." This manifests itself first off in accepting missions
beyond the capacity of resources at hand. (as in B20), Allowing an operation
to be monkeyed with by outsiders until it's impossible to accomlish. (as in
the Seal hit on Torrido<sp?> airbase in Panama), or acciepting a mission byond
the physical capabilities of the team (such as the seal drowning due to their
jump into rough seas off of Grenada. Then you get the we'll muddle through" no
matter what types when stuff doesn't look right. (again B20 in particular with
their shoddy communications equipment preparations).

> I met some Canadian SSF guys, and one or two US Spec Forces in my

This is absolutely true. However I'll relate a story concerning body armor,.
We (not my team but another) had a team sergeant killed in Haiti. They
stoopped a vehicle that had a coupel of suspected Haitians in it. He just
assumed becasue they were crappy littel Haitains that they couldn't hurt him
and failed to take the necessary precaustions when pulling them out of the
vehicle. Low and behold one whips out a.357 and shoots him in the chest. A
number of things went wrongg with hat stop but it does boil dwon to A: Not
wearing the body armor that woud stopped that round no problem and B. just
being lazy and underestimating the enemy.

I'm as guilty of it as the next and almost never wore body armor (except noone
preplanned door kicker that we went on). Even when we were busting up riots
and mobs where there was four of us and 500 of them. Stupid when you thing
back on it, but somethimes projecting the absolute certainty that you will
kill anyone who blinks at you the wrong way works as well as a ton of body
armor in stopping trouble.

> react, etc. but a lot of times the part-time soldiers like the

To be honest with you though all soldiers will eventually get like this as
tehy wear out even SAS/ SF or whatever. It just takes longer to happen,
and an SF team needs to plan that fatigue factor into their time required for
ingress/egress so they stay fresh.

> Now, how to put that into a game context?

Those are probably a good start.

BTW, I strongly urge anyone who hasnt seen this to go here and read an an
outstanding net article on the Somalia raid/firefight
http://www3.phillynews.com/packages/somalia/nov16/default16.asp

> Glover, Owen wrote:

<snip to save bandwidth>

> And no I am not giving away classified tactic or information; this has

Thanks!:)

> Thomas Barclay wrote:

Also, I would imagine, the _time_ available and good teachers.
Experience, training and decent equipment/armour pre-gunpowder would be
a killer (literally) combination.

_Then_ add a warhorse, squire and men at arms and a large dose of sheer
bloodymindedness..

I like the idea of a scenario specific rule to cover ambushes - it is
the cleanest solution so far to this problem.

Mike Elliott

______________________________ Reply Separator