laserlight@quixnet.net schrieb:
> >One point to keep in mind is that many of the problems
> How do we represent the effect on the CRUD
Do we need any special rules at all?
SGII has leadership, quality and mission motivation values for just such a
purposes. If we set all these to 'abysmal' I don't think we need any special
rules.
However, as discussed in the article, the low-level units of such
armies are often not all that bad. It's the high-level command and the
support that fails. How to model that in a squad/platoon-level game ?
Would using average quality squads with poor mission motivation and
poor higher-level command give the desired effect ?
Greetings Karl Heinz
You replicate higher levels of incompetence by issuing non-sensical
objectives.
For instance - Take Hill 834 regardless of casualties. Even if there is
a heavily fortified position backed with artillery.
Or "No Retreat" otherwise you will be shot by the secret commissar in your
squad.
Or merely change objectives half-way through the game - Turn 3, instead
of capturing the HQ, destroy the fuel dump on the other side of the board.
Alternatively, promise artillery support then "accidentally" divert it for a
"more important" objective.
Allow the enemy to lay additional minefields or have more prepared
positions than first reported - "the Major said that they hadn't
entrenched yet and it would be a cakewalk..."
It should be stuff that the players have absolutely no control over, they just
have to suck it up and keep on trucking. Obviously less competent armies would
allow more of this to reach the higher levels of command.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> --- KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
> However, as discussed in the article, the low-level
Someone already put it up, but the biggest and most
obvious way is to allow the better-trained side to
change mission easier should the first one be impractical.
Jerk the worse army around regarding supports and intelligence.
> How do we represent the effect on the CRUD army in SG?
> Do we need any special rules at all ?
(and also suggestions on "change/don't change the mission" and "poor
suport")
No, unfortunately that doesn't really reflect what I'm looking for. For
example, that article talked about the lack of initiative/flexibility in
the junior leadership and the lack of good noncoms. Okay, partly you can show
that by giving the CRUD player a poor leader and giving the other guy a decent
lieutenant and maybe a platoon sergeant also. What it does not do, though is
show the difficulty in getting units to move in the first place.
For example, let's say during a withdrawal I've gotten a squad of REMFs and I
need them to watch a road, report any AFVs and shoot any soft targets.
In an army with high initiative, I should be able to send the squad out and
they'll actually go and set things up on their own. In a poorer army though,
I'd pretty much need to lead them by the hand (ie use a Reactivation every
turn until they got to where I wanted them). Right now
there's no mechanism for that--until the shooting starts, there's no
difference between a CRUD squad and anyone else.
G'day,
> What it does not do, though is show the difficulty in
Give each of the units a suppression marker at the start of the game. That and
a 3 leader should mess them up a fair bit.
Cheers
[quoted original message omitted]