Allan has raised some very interesting points, with which I concur.
Articulation of a fighting formation (that is using smaller squads to produce
more manouvre units) is an interesting issue.
Let's look at the benefits of increased articulation: 1) Harder to completely
suppress the unit 2) Easier to execute supporting bounding tactics or other
tactics requiring mutual support 3) Better efficiency of fire (you don't waste
extra FP from larger formations) 4) Squads with (for example) 7 men with
rifles and a GMS are at a huge
disadvantage - the GMS (using a differing fire mechanic and consuming a
separate action to fire) pins the unit and robs it of manouvre - whereas
if the GMS team is its own entity, it can move and fire without impeding the
rest of the unit 5) similar argument applies to why officers and PSgts might
want to be
treated as individuals rather than as parts of a command squad - most of
the time the command squad commands and so it doesn't fire or move. If the
officer is an individual, they can command while this squad actually achieves
things... and from my own experience, it mirrors the tendencies of junior
officers and platoon NCOs to move about making sure that everything in their
platoon is squared away.
Penalties: 1) More brittle morale
Other considerations 1) Every infantry formation in RL is trained to do this
type of stuff instinctively, but in SG2 you might want to restrict this
increased
initiative/control to higher troop qualities - setting a minimum level
such as reg or vet. 2) It adds extra time to an SG2 game because it adds to
the number of manouvre units on the board
Analysis:
Good benefits - efficiency of fire, hard to pin down, easy to manouvre.
Penalties - Ha! The SG2 morale rules are very generous (they don't track
accumulating casualties which is a MAJOR shortcoming) and the tests for some
things are a bit easy.
Effectively you get far more bang for the same amount of buck. I think Allan
is right - SG2 doesn't use points and can be tricky to balance. But
increased articulation (splitting squads down to 4 men instead of 8) can be
worth (I'd guess) 20-25% in terms of force capability. Similarly, this
allows GMS systems to be used to real effect rather than constantly presenting
the choice "do I fire the GMS and not move?" to squads. In reality, the GMS
wouldn't have to hold its fire just because it uses a
different mechanic - it would just fire.
I think SG2, by virtue of being more complex than FT in many ways, is not well
given to a point system for balance. You have so many variables (morale level,
quality of troops, weapons systems, organization of forces, comms
kit/EW, armour type, etc) that it just isn't feasible to come up with a
terribly useful point list. You need to just develop a feel for balance that
takes it all into account... and that is not something you can do (I think)
without playing.
Newbies find the lack of point balance painful - it can be. But I'd
share this bit of wisdom with them:
The trade off in this format of a game is that the balance is harder to
predict (eventually, you get a good idea from experience, but it takes time)
but you reap a more complex tactical game from this. When you are new to the
game, this may seem a curse. But once you've played it for a while, you
realize it really is the opposite. It is a boon. And if you can benefit from
the experience of the more experienced players, do so. They can give good
advice on relative strengths of units and what to watch for to help you out in
the early days.
Just ask, we like to help out.
Anyway, I don't think increased articulation is something for the timid or new
to the game necessarily (nor running officers and NCOs as individual figures).
It is something to try and experiment with once you know the mechanics and
have a feel for the game. It does give the combat a better feel IMO, but YMMV.
Similarly, some people have tried to address the poor morale rules (various
suggestions around the net - some good for some things, some good for
others) and some have tried to address the loss of FP efficiency in large
groups (granting extra FP dice). Both help to make larger and smaller squads
more balanced - small squads then suffer more from losses (realistic
morale) and large squads have more FP that works. But as the rules stand, it
isn't
quite just a matter of taste - articulation is quite a bit more
efficient.
Glad to see discussion on such issues. They might be of some illumination to
those new to the game or to those thinking of trying it. It is a more costly
game than FT (you need terrain of some sort plus more minis) but I think it is
actually a better game (which is saying a lot since FT is good). Give it a
try!
One thing that you did not address is leader activation. And it probably
balances out.
More articulation either means that you have to increase the leadership
hierarchy OR there will be more units that will not gain benefit from
leadership reactivation.
On the other hand, more articulation provides greater area of coverage and
greater flexibility to leadership activation.
Disclaimer: I play Stargrunt once a year at GZGECC. So weigh my comments
appropriately.
-----
Brian Bell bkb@beol.net
http://members.nbci.com/rlyehable/sg2/
-----
> -----Original Message-----
Give
> it
On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:23:55 -0400 , "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com>
wrote:
> 4) Squads with (for example) 7 men with rifles and a GMS are at a huge
This is very true.
However, wouldn't you be better off detaching the non-GMS part of the
unit? If you give the squad leader the GMS unit (is this strictly disallowed?)
or keep the GMS trooper with the squad leader, you could detach the rest of
the squad. It still requires a "transfer action" to activate the other part of
the squad so the GMS unit and the squad leader would only have one other
action. You would, though, get 2 actions for the rest of the squad. This does
let the GMS fire without hampering the other part of the squad. It also lets
the entire squad move and fire when the GMS unit isn't needed. In fact, it
allows the squad to move and fire while letting the squad leader do something
else.
I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that smaller squads have more options.
This is just a method of giving more options within the large squad structure.
> 5) similar argument applies to why officers and PSgts might want to be
I'm not sure if this command squad idea came out of playtesting or what.
However, I still use the command squad idea and don't allow the commanders to
run around on their own.
When I describe how SG2 works, I point out that the squads are the important
thing, not the individual figures. The figures are simply markers for
casualties. In this case, it's not the number of figures that's important,
it's the number squads. The number of figures simply indicates the strength of
a squad.
So, when designing scenarios, I keep command squads. The figures in the squad
may be "wasted" as they don't do anything else, but that's irrelevant. They
are there to soak up fire the command squad might take.
If we were to come up with a Stargrunt point system I think the points should
be spent on squads, not figures. In this case, I'd simply "price" the command
squad slightly higher for having more soldiers in it, as its defensive value
is higher. However I also think that if you were to put those same figures in
another squad by themselves and leave the commander alone in their own squad,
you'd end up paying a lot more.
> Penalties:
Yes, the morale is more brittle. BUT (and it's a big one) the chance of
actually being reduced to a lower morale state while the unit is still
effective is less.
If you take a 12 soldier squad, which is pretty darned big, and assume an
average of 2 casualties a turn, that squad will take 5 Confidence Tests before
it is wiped out on the 6th turn. Now, according to the rules, it will never
take a nasty TL3 Confidence Test unless it loses a leader (it will never "take
more casualties in one attack than it has surviving members afterwards").
Instead it will take 5 TL1 Confidence Tests. Using my house rules, the squad
would take two TL3 Confidence Tests, once when the squad drops to 6 figures,
and another when it goes from 4 to 2 members.
Now, compare this to two squads of 6. Using the regular rules, each "half
squad" would take 2 Confidence Tests before being wiped out. It might get down
to Routed, if it loses two levels per squad, but chances are they won't get to
worse than shaken, which is what I found usually happens. With my house rules,
at least one of the 2 Confidence Tests would be at TL3.
Compare this to three squads of 4 figures. Each squad would take, at most, 1
Confidence Test. The worst it could do is drop to Shaken.
See what I'm getting at? The morale is more brittle (there's a greater chance
of taking out a leader for one thing) but the smaller squads tend to get wiped
out before morale can do much to affect them. That was the reason for my house
rule, to make morale nastier. Even still, smaller units are usually rendered
useless before morale effects kick in.
One other thing, smaller units tend to have more "overkill" results against
them. A large squad will soak up those casualties. This makes fire from
smaller units more efficient, but fire against small units is less efficient.
> Analysis:
*G* Okay, so you came to the same conclusions as me. *L*
My house rules do track accumulating casualties at the squad level, by forcing
a TL 4/3/2 (for low/med/high motivation troops) Confidence Test when
half the squad is removed, and when a squad takes "AS MANY OR MORE casualties
in one attack as it has figures left in the squad").
The lack of morale effects to the platoon as squads take casualties is a
shortcoming, both in SG2 and Dirtside.
> Effectively you get far more bang for the same amount of buck. I think
can be
> worth (I'd guess) 20-25% in terms of force capability.
As I was getting at earlier, if we were to design a point system ("we" being
"SG2 players on the list") I would be tempted to buy squads, not individuals,
but use the number of figures in the squad as a way of pricing the value of a
squad. Thus, a 4 four soldier squad would be worth less than an 8 soldier
squad, but one 8 soldier squad would cost less than two 4 soldier squads.
There would be a "price" just to create the squad, and a bonus cost for the
figures in the squad, and the types of support weapons, etc.
> Similarly, this
I agree with moving GMS into a different squad. Again, forces that do this,
though, should pay more for that flexibility.
> I think SG2, by virtue of being more complex than FT in many ways, is
Hmmm. It's not as easy, certainly. For one thing, terrain can completely
invalidate the point system. I saw a good point system in the WRG World War II
rules, though, which essentially inflated one side's points based on its
mission, and some other factors. I think it can be done, but it wouldn't be as
easy as FT.
> You have so many variables (morale
Okay, I disagree with that. I think you can come up with a useful point
system. I think the trick is to buy squads, not figures. I'll have to think
about this. A point system would only be a guideline, certainly. I'll have to
take a lot at Advanced Squad Leader again and see how they came up with their
"Do Your Own" point system.
> The trade off in this format of a game is that the balance is harder to
I fully agree with this. A point system is still only going to give players a
frame work. Mission, terrain, and deployment, not to mention just plain old
luck, will make a hash out of any scenario. SG2 sometimes has "key" points to
a scenario. My Operation: Dust Off scenario, for instance, has a key piece of
terrain. Both sides need to take the terrain and hold it. If they don't,
whichever side takes it is at an advantage. This was designed into the
scenario. Even a balanced force, point wise, would have problems succeeding if
this key terrain feature isn't taken. (Interestingly, at GenCon both sides
ignored this piece of terrain and fought elsewhere.) It's just the nature of
the game.
On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:39:46 -0400 , "Bell, Brian K"
<Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
wrote:
> More articulation either means that you have to increase the
This... "depends". You are quite right, but the degree to which this helps
depends on the size of the forces.
It's a bigger advantage in a small scenario. If one side has 3 squads of 8
figures plus a command squad against a force of 6 squads of 4 figures plus a
command squad, a leader for the larger side could re-activate 2/3 of the
force's squad. The force with the smaller squads could only activate
2/6, or
1/3 of the total number of squads.
In a larger scenario, with -- say -- twice the number of regular squads,
the
force with the big squads could re-activate 1/3 of it's total, while the
force
with the smaller squads could reactivate 1/6. The proportion of
"un-re-activated" squads gets smaller and smaller.
Another thing, once squads start taking suppression markers, a greater
proportion of the force with large squads is "pinned" due to suppression. This
will have a balancing effect against the leadership activation effect.