Untested, but these seem reasonable
1. The basic unit is a fire team, which is normally either a rifle
element (2-5 men) or a support weapon element (gunner and assistant).
2. Support weapons normally require two soldiers to operate. The assistant
gunner is notionally armed with a rifle but does not use it if the support
weapon is functional. If a support element drops below two soldiers, it may
fire normally on its own action but cannot receive transferred actions. 3. The
squad leader may leave any element without creating a detachment, and may
operate independently. If he wants to join an element (add his firepower,
operate its weapon, etc), it has to reorganize. 4. A squad leader may transfer
actions to elements of his squad. 5. Morale penalties are calculated on the
entire squad and affect the entire squad.
Sample TOs:
NAC squad: 8 men = Squad leader + 3 man rifle team, 2 man SAW team, 2
man GMS/P team
IF squad: 11 men = Squad leader + 2x 3 man rifle teams, 2 man AGL
team, 2 man SAW team
> Laserlight wrote:
...or a vehicle (driver, gunner, SL as commander).
It seems to me that in the more modern fireteam organisation that people
hanker for the rifle element and weapon element are the same thing, the
riflemen act as ammo carriers, assistants and
spotters for the weapon or as riflemen/rocketeers as appropriate.
Furthermore...
> 2. Support weapons normally require two soldiers to operate.
...furthermore I don't think this is true for modern squad weapons
like belt-fed SAWs and machine rifles or RPG-7s. Your weapon
element seems more like modern platoon weapons like GPMGs, light
mortars, guided anti-tank weapons or specialised bunker-busting
rockets.
> The
Another possible restriction on a single gunner might be a narrow arc of fire
to reflect the lack of a separate spotter or director. With a system of ammo
chits a single gunner might move with few but an element with many (not a
restriction on a static or vehicular gunner).
The GZG Digest wrote on 4/4/2005 1:00 AM:
> Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 17:04:15 -0400
In the modern U.S. infantry organization, a fireteam consists of three
riflemen and a support weapon, which usually does not require an assistant.
One of the riflemen can be armed with another support weapon,
such as a grenade launcher.
I'm basing this on reading of some of the U.S. Army manuals online, and I know
there are others on the list with actual expertise in this area who will point
out my flaws.
> 2. Support weapons normally require two soldiers to operate. The
That's true for World War II, and for some big support weapons, but isn't true
of support weapons in general.
> 3. The squad leader may leave any element without creating a
That's a pretty hefty penalty for something that happens instinctively.
Imagine two fire teams sitting beside each other. The squad leader runs from
the one on the right to the one on the left to add his firepower to
the team. I'm not sure why it would take a Reorganise action for him to yell,
"You're firing too high!" and get them to fire more effectively.
> 4. A squad leader may transfer actions to elements of his squad.
Works fine for two fire teams per squad. What about the Phalons with three
fire teams per squad? Historically there are other armies that played around
with three fire teams per squad. I'm still working on this
myself.
> 5. Morale penalties are calculated on the entire squad and affect the
You have one fire team heading for cover across a field with some light bushes
to a tree line. You have another fire team giving suppressing fire. The firing
fire team is hit with artillery and drops to broken status. Does it make sense
that the maneuvering team should drop to broken status, too? As per the RAW,
the moving unit would have to dive for cover in the nearest bush and could not
continue to the trees if broken.
I would give them different Confidence Markers and have them make Confidence
Tests on their own. However, I would add a form of cascading morale. If the
other fire team is all killed or wounded, or if the squad
leader is a casualty, it should force a Confidence Test on the remaining
fire team. Perhaps if the other fire team is down to half strength or less it
should also trigger a Confidence Test on the part of the unharmed fire team.
What happens when you transfer actions from a command unit to a fire team? Do
both fire teams become reactivated or only one? If both are reactivated, do
they get two actions?
On transfer actions, I thought that the flow of the action would be from
command unit to squad leader. The command unit would transfer the action
to the squad leader using the regular rules, but then it would flow from
the squad leader to the fire team for free if he was in integrity range of the
fire team, or it would require a Communications roll if he was outside of
integrity range. This gives the fire teams a reason to stick near the squad
leader.
<snip>
Ahem. "Fire teams, which consist of 3-5, usually with one support
weapon...".
LL> 3. The squad leader may leave any element without creating a
> detachment, and may operate independently. If he wants to join an
Allan constinued:
> That's a pretty hefty penalty for something that happens instinctively.
Imagine two fire teams sitting beside each other. The squad leader runs from
the one on the right to the one on the left to add his firepower to
the team. I'm not sure why it would take a Reorganise action for him to yell,
"You're firing too high!" and get them to fire more effectively.
I'm thinking of the reorg as the team leader reporting what's going on, the SL
assesssing the situation and taking over a weapon. I'm considering the
"transfer an action" to be what he does to get them to fire more effectively.
LL> 4. A squad leader may transfer actions to elements of his squad. AG> Works
fine for two fire teams per squad. What about the Phalons with
three fire teams per squad? Historically there are other armies that played
around with three fire teams per squad. I'm still working on this
myself.
In the initial concept (rifle and support teams) the Islamic Fed would have
four teams per squad. Someone just wouldn't get an extra activation.
AG>You have one fire team heading for cover across a field with some light
bushes to a tree line. You have another fire team giving suppressing fire. The
firing fire team is hit with artillery and drops to broken status. Does it
make sense that the maneuvering team should drop to broken status, too?
I could swallow that, or I can see doing it the way you suggest.
AG>What happens when you transfer actions from a command unit to a fire team?
Do both fire teams become reactivated or only one? If both are reactivated, do
they get two actions?
The squad leader is the one transferring activations, and one transfer is to
one team (and of course the PL could transfer an activation to the
SL).
The GZG Digest wrote on 4/6/2005 1:00 AM:
> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:02:20 -0400
> I'm thinking of the reorg as the team leader reporting what's going
After re-reading your posts, I think I was misunderstanding what you
were saying.
I think I understand you now:
- During a normal activation, you would activate a fire team and it
could do two actions. The fire team would do your standard combat, suppression
removal, and movement actions. In essence, the fire team is like a small SG2
squad.
- If you activate a squad leader, he can do squad leader stuff (call for
support, rally a fire team, etc.). He can also transfer actions. If he
transfers an action to a fire team, that fire team would get an additional two
actions.
Is that what you were talking about? You see, I got confused because in one of
my original concepts I had squad leaders become activated and then transfer
actions to the fire teams. This is a little different from
what I outlined above, and what I think you meant, but it's close enough
that I simply confused myself.
I like this approach of a squad leader being the squad equivalent of a platoon
or company command unit. There is a problem with this approach, however. If
the squad leader has to use up actions to move himself,
you'll end up with the commander-in-the-corner problem at the squad
level. Most players would have the squad leader sit safely under cover and
transfer actions all game. The occasional failed communications roll
will be more than offset by not requiring the squad leader to keep up with the
two fire teams. Since a squad leader triggers a nasty Confidence Test if he
becomes a casualty, there is even more incentive to keep him under cover.
I propose another rule. The squad leader _must_ be within integrity
range of at least one fire team. If he is not, he must spend actions moving
toward one of his fire teams, if he's capable. If I remember correctly,
independent characters have Confidence Markers, don't they? If so, it's
possible for a Squad Leader to be suppressed or broken. Obviously in those
cases he won't be able to move to his squad, so he would be allowed to do
actions allowed when a unit is suppressed. This creates the odd situation
where a squad leader can do transfer actions when he's suppressed and out of
integrity range, but not if he isn't suppressed, but I can live with it.
I also suggest applying a modifier to Confidence and Reaction tests of
+2/+1/+1 for Low/Medium/High motivation troops if the squad leader is
out of integrity range. That has the dual purpose of motivating the squad
leader to stay with his squad, and to motivate the fire teams to operate
together as a unit.
We've had lots of discussions about integrity range in the far future, and
whether it's valid in an environment of high speed communications, but I still
think there will be no substitute to having a squad leader seeing things up
close and personal, with the ability to kick a trooper in the behind when he's
cowering, etc.
> The squad leader is the one transferring activations, and one
SL).
I can live with this, now that I think I understand your fire team idea.
I'm going to have to try this now, you realize...
From: Allan Goodall
> I think I understand you now:
<snip> Yes
> I propose another rule. The squad leader _must_ be within integrity
Or "must be within integrity range in order to transfer an activation"
> I also suggest applying a modifier to Confidence and Reaction tests of
ok
> but I still think there will be no substitute to having a squad leader
Concur. "I think it's important for *you* to stick your head up into LoF, but
I'm going to stay back here" probably won't go over very well.
This also models C+C of various periods.
In most forces of pre-2000, once you get to the squad leader, transfer
would have to be within 6" integrity as basic grunts don't carry their own
commo equipment. In forces of the future, I would expect that even with
personal commo gear,
basic grunts wouldn't be told a lot unless face-to-face, so having to
stay within integrity still fits the model.
Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
> -----Original Message-----
IMPORTANT 1. Before opening any attachments, please check for viruses.
2. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and delete all copies of this email.
3. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and are
not a statement of Australian Government Policy unless otherwise stated. 4.
Electronic addresses published in this email are not conspicuous publications
and DVA does not consent to the receipt of commercial electronic messages.
5. Please go to http://www.dva.gov.au/feedback.htm#sub to unsubscribe
emails
of this type from DVA. 6. Finally, please do not remove this notice.
Allan,
How about the SL stays with one section and moves automatically when the
section does? Then the SL would get one action to use for leadership type
stuff.
To change sections the two sections would have to be within integrity range
and the SL would use his "command action" to transfer sections.
Just a thought that popped into my head while reading your good ideas!
Magic
> --- Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net> wrote:
The GZG Digest wrote on 4/7/2005 1:00 AM:
> Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 13:20:47 -0400
> I propose another rule. The squad leader _must_ be within integrity
I can live with that, but there are others that would disagree, since Transfer
Actions have a communication component in them if the action is
being transferred from a distance. It is nice and simple, though.
It also gets around the problem of giving the squad leader a free move so that
he can stay with an advancing squad. Squad Leaders would expend actions just
like any other unit.
It does one other thing, too: adds tactical complexity. You have a squad
assaulting an enemy position. Typically you'd suppress the enemy with one fire
team and move around the enemy's flank with the other fire team. What do you
do with the Squad Leader? Does he go with the maneuver
unit or stay with the firing unit? If he stays with the firing unit, do you
attach him to it (giving a bonus to their firepower) or do you leave
him unattached (so he can transfer actions?).
(For the record, I think the smart thing to do would be to have the Squad
Leader stay back with the firing unit. In an ideal situation you would
activate the SL first. You'd transfer an action to the firing unit
to attack the enemy position, and maybe go IP, and you'd transfer an action to
the maneuver unit to move with two actions. Next, you would activate your
firing unit to lay down more suppressing fire on the enemy. Finally, you'd
activate the maneuver unit to move, and hopefully fire on the suppressed enemy
from a flanking position.)
Integrity range is pretty short: 6". That's not a very long distance when it
comes to the sort of flanking attack I describe above. One thing
I've been toying with is giving units an integrity range equal to their
Quality Die type. So, Greens would have 6" integrity range, Regulars would
have 8" integrity range, Veterans would have 10" integrity range, etc. If we
force squad leaders to be within integrity range in order to transfer their
actions, I think this rule would help.
I guess we need to codify these rules into some sort of coherent form. Let's
see if I've got it straight:
PLAYTEST RULES - SG2 FIRE TEAMS
ORGANIZATION A squad consists of one squad leader and a number of fire teams
(typically 2 or 3). Each fire team has a designated fire team leader. The
squad leader is an independent figure and uses the independent figure rules.
A fire team is activated like a "squad" unit in regular SG2. It has its own
Confidence Marker. It has its own Quality Marker, but all fire teams
in a squad have the same Quality Die type, though each fire team can have
different leadership values. For instance, if you had a Veteran squad
consisting of two fire teams, both fire teams and the squad leader
would be of Veteran quality. The Leadership Values for all three could be
different, or they could all be the same.
If the game does not specify Quality Chits, draw chits randomly for each
_squad_ as per the random quality rules in the rule book. The chit drawn
will represent the quality and leadership value of the squad leader. Once all
squad leaders have a chit, separate the chits by colour. Randomly draw a
quality chit for each fire team from the pile that matches the squad leader's
quality.
Example: You have a platoon of three squads, with each squad consisting of two
fire teams. You draw Quality Markers: a Green 1, a Regular 2, and
a Veteran 2. Squad 1's squad leader is Green 1. Squad 2's squad leader is
Regular 2. Squad 3's squad leader is Veteran 2. Now, separate the chits into
piles so that each pile has the same colour. For Squad 1's fire teams draw two
chits from the green pile. For Squad 2's fire teams draw two chits from the
blue (Regular) pile. For Squad 3's fire teams draw two chits from the orange
(Veteran) pile.
Each fire team gets its own Confidence Marker, as does the squad leader.
Unless otherwise designated by a scenario, all fire teams within a squad
and the squad leader start with the same Confidence Level. Determine a squad's
beginning Confidence Level as per the SG2 rules.
It's possible for different squads on one side to have different Motivation
Levels. In these cases, the squad leader and all fire teams within a squad
would have the same Motivation Level.
In almost all ways, the fire team is treated just like a squad in regular SG2,
with exceptions listed below.
Squad leaders are treated like independent figures, as per the independent
figure rules in the SG2 rule book, with one exception. Squad
leaders are allowed to Transfer Actions to their fire teams, allowing the fire
team to be activated for two actions. This is the same as a platoon command
unit transferring an action to a squad in regular SG2.
UNIT INTEGRITY The SG2 Unit Integrity rules apply to individual fire teams,
and not to squads. In other words, the figures within a fire team must be
within the integrity range of the fire team leader (6"), or within 2" of
another squad member, as per the SG2 rules.
Squad Leaders have a special type of Unit Integrity known as "Squad
Integrity". Squad Integrity range is 6".
Squad Integrity is different from unit integrity. The ramifications of squad
integrity are explained below.
ACTIONS Fire Teams receive two actions when they are activated, just like any
unit in SG2. They can do anything that a squad can do in regular SG2.
Squad Leaders are treated like independent figures.
Squad Leaders can Transfer Actions to their fire teams, allowing the
activation of the fire team (giving the fire team 2 actions). This works
the same way as a platoon commander transferring actions to a squad in regular
SG2 but with one exception. The squad leader must be within Squad Integrity
range of a fire team leader in order to transfer an action. If one fire team
is outside of his Squad Integrity range, he may
not transfer an action to it.
Squad may join or leave one of their fire teams at will. If they join a fire
team, they are treated as part of that fire team, with the firepower of the
squad leader's weapon added to that of the rest of the squad. However, when a
squad leader is part of a fire team he may no longer transfer actions. If he
uses one action to leave a fire team that
he belonged to, he may immediately transfer his last action to either of
his fire teams.
Remember that if you make a communication roll directly to a fire team
from a higher level unit, you must apply a +1 modifier to the fire
team's Quality Level for skipping the squad leader. This could happen if
a platoon commander transfers an action directly to a fire team, or if a
fire team tries to call in for artillery support, etc. This is not a new
rule, but players have to be aware of this.
CONFIDENCE TESTS Fire Teams make Confidence Tests under the same circumstances
as squads in regular SG2. If a fire team leader becomes a casualty, the fire
team
must make a 4/3/2 Confidence Test (for Low/Medium/High motivation
troops), just like a squad would have to make in regular SG2 if the squad
leader became a casualty.
There are some additions to the Confidence Test rules:
1. If a fire team is outside of Squad Integrity range, apply a +2/+1/+0
modifier (for Low/Medium/High motivation troops) to all Confidence
Tests.
2. If a squad leader becomes a casualty, all fire teams must make 4/3/2
Confidence Test.
3. All fire teams in a squad, and the squad leader, must make a 4/3/1
Confidence Test if the squad in total takes more casualties in one attack than
it has figures remaining. Example: A squad of Medium Motivation consists of
two fire teams with 4 figures and a squad leader.
Fire Team 1 loses three figures, and Fire Team 2 loses two figures from an
artillery attack. Fire Team 1, Fire Team 2 and the squad leader must each make
a Threat Level 4 Confidence Test (TL 3 for the squad
casualties at Medium Motivation, with a TL +1 for coming under artillery
attack).
As per the regular SG2 rules, if two Confidence Tests can be applied at once,
choose the worst test and roll once. For instance, in the above example Fire
Team 2 took casualties. For Medium Motivation troops this
would be a TL1 with a +1 modifier due to the artillery attack. Instead
of rolling a TL2 test for the fire team's casualties and then a TL4 test
for the squad's casualties, the fire team makes a single Confidence Test
using the worst Threat Level.
NOTE: It is recommended that you use the Morale modifications from the
HyperBear web site
(http://www.hyperbear.com/sg2/sg2-house-rules-morale.html). If you use
those rules, number 3 -- above -- is modified as follows: All fire teams
in a squad, and the squad leader, must make a 4/3/1 Confidence Test if
the squad suffers casualties greater than or equal to the number of figures
remaining in the unit. Additionally, all fire teams and the
squad leader make a 4/3/1 Confidence Test if the squad as a whole has
lost 50% or more of its strength as casualties.
CLOSE ASSAULT The Close Assault rules from the SG2 rule book apply, with the
following
modifications.
When attacking, a player may choose to close assault with some or all of
a squad's fire teams.
If a player is attacking with an entire squad, the player makes a single
Confidence Test for the squad using the squad leader's Quality Level. If
the squad passes the test, all fire teams in the squad -- and the squad
leader -- join the Close Assault. If the test fails, all of the squad's
fire teams and the squad leader have their Confidence Level dropped, and
none of the fire teams may take part in the Close Assault.
If a player is attacking with part of a squad, only those elements taking part
have to make a Confidence Test. In this case each element must make their own
Confidence Test. If a squad leader was to take part in a close assault, and
the squad leader passes his Confidence Test but none of the other fire teams
passed, the squad leader may choose not to take part in he close assault.
Example a squad consists of a squad leader and two fire teams. The squad
leader and one of the fire teams is taking part in a Close Assault. The squad
leader and the fire team must make their own Confidence Tests. If the fire
team passes the Confidence Test but the squad leader fails, the
fire team still conducts the assault. If the fire team fails its test but the
squad leader passes his, the player may choose whether or not the squad leader
takes part in the assault.
When defending against a close assault, make Confidence Tests for each
defending fire team, and each defending squad leader. If all of a squad
leader's fire teams involuntarily withdraw, the squad leader may voluntarily
withdraw with them.
OPTION: As written above, the attacker must make a single roll for a squad if
the entire squad is defending, while the defender must roll for
each fire team individually even if the entire squad is defending. In both of
these cases, allow the player to decide if he wants to roll for each element
of the squad individually, or if he wants to make a single roll for the entire
squad.
Questions:
1. Do we give squad leaders an integrity range equal to the squad leader's
quality die type? If we do, should we give the fire teams the same integrity
range to be consistent? Should the extended integrity range apply to all
units, or only units with communications gear?
2. If we give squad leaders an extended integrity range for the purpose of
transferring actions, should a communication roll be required for transfers
beyond 6"?
3. Should a fire team make a 4/3/2 Confidence Test if the fire team
leader becomes a casualty? Obviously from the rules, above, I'm leaning that
way, but I can see arguments against it.
I think I covered everything we talked about.
The GZG Digest wrote on 4/7/2005 1:00 AM:
> Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 09:47:48 +1000
gear,
> basic grunts wouldn't be told a lot unless face-to-face, so having to
stay
> within integrity still fits the model.
That's exactly my take on it. Communication gear isn't so much a tool for
micromanaging a fight, but a tool for spreading information up and down the
chain of command quickly.
Questions:
> 1. Do we give squad leaders an integrity range equal to the squad
To the team's QD.
> If we do, should we give the fire teams the same integrity range to be
commo, unless they're Zhodani
> 2. If we give squad leaders an extended integrity range for the purpose
of transferring actions, should a communication roll be required for transfers
beyond 6"?
yes
> 3. Should a fire team make a 4/3/2 Confidence Test if the fire team
No, save that for the SL (ie anyone who can transfer an action).
> I think I covered everything we talked about.
Yeah.
I love this list. I can toss out a vaguely-worded incomplete idea,
and a couple days later all the implications have been worked out, a tech
writer has documented the whole thing, and it's ready for publication. <g>
G'day,
Looks like a good starting point.
Found one typo..
"Squad may join or leave one of their fire teams at will."
Should be Squad leader.
> 1. Do we give squad leaders an integrity range equal to the squad
Does appeal, but then you get into the comms argument (why should it matter if
over comms anyway) so not sure now really!
> If we do, should we give the fire teams the
Again fine with me, though it does mean your elites can be very thinly spread!
> Should the extended integrity
If one assumes that there is a limit to the range of a voice or hand signals
then I'd say yes to only having the extension if you have comms.
If non-comms signals can actually be seen/heard at the extended ranges
represented by the longer ranges over the higher QDs then anyone could have
it. (I'd personally probably still want to restrict it to those with comms so
you can start differentiating their reltaive
strengths/weaknesses on the board).
> 2. If we give squad leaders an extended integrity range for the
I'd also say yes here.
> 3. Should a fire team make a 4/3/2 Confidence Test if the fire team
I'd be tempted to say yes, but are we going to end up with a lot of tests that
way?
Cheers
I'm going to combine three responses into one, since they are all about the
same thing.
The GZG Digest wrote on 4/8/2005 1:00 AM:
> 1. Do we give squad leaders an integrity range equal to the squad
Laserlight:
> To the team's QD.
Beth:
> Does appeal, but then you get into the comms argument (why should it
and
> Again fine with me, though it does mean your elites can be very
Brendan:
> 1. QD=Unit Integrity (for both tranferer & transferee). It gives a
It seems that folk are interested in at least trying integrity ranges equal to
quality die type.
Beth's comment about them being spread thinly makes me think that perhaps this
isn't a good idea. You could have an entire elite squad of two fire teams
spread out over 2 feet of board space! You could spread a Phalon squad over 3
feet of space. I think that causes too many headaches.
I think we should playtest it with fire team integrity at 6", and squad
integrity equal to the squad leader's die type. To be consistent with the RAW,
we should probably do communication rolls if the squad leader is greater than
6" away from a fire team. I actually see Brendan's point
about _not_ making a communication roll for the squad leader, but I'm
guessing that the SG2 community in general would want it.
> 3. Should a fire team make a 4/3/2 Confidence Test if the fire team
Laserlight:
> No, save that for the SL (ie anyone who can transfer an action).
Beth:
> I'd be tempted to say yes, but are we going to end up with a lot of
Brendan:
> 3. Yes. Additionally, what happens to the chain of command when the
To answer Beth, it won't be a lot more tests. You will have to make a
Confidence Test whenever a fire team takes casualties. However, it means
that there would be a lot more 4/3/2 Confidence Tests made.
I think it should be playtested with Laserlight's suggestion, that only the
squad leader triggers a Confidence Test.
Brendan makes a very good point about the chain of command. I have longed for
cascading morale in SG2, but I'd like to address that at another point, after
we see if fire teams are viable.
I am following this thread fairly closely. I think I started this by
talking about SG/DS for Traveller. I have mounted my 15's onto 2 figure
bases (single figure commanders) ala Striker2. Using a base as a fireteam,
with one team designated as the SL's Team a squad will have 2-4 stands.
If
integrity is 6" then a squad would cover 12-18" max. My reasoning is
that
Team members are rarely more than 4-5m apart (1/2" in SG).
This starting to look like a bridge between SG and DS, which is what I'm
starting to feel is what I want. Players start maneuvering platoons allowing
more vehicles and heavy weapons.
Having played a lot of Command Decision, Striker2 is really not that hard.
Striker1 was a great platoon leader trainer. I want Tech levels, I want fast
playing games, I want realism;)
Mike
[quoted original message omitted]
> Mike Brown wrote:
> I want Tech levels, I want fast playing games, I want realism ;)
All three in one game? Sorry, that'll have to wait for DS3 ;-)
This is why I'm looking at writing a merge of SG/DS/Striker. Probably
using Striker organizations, FMA mechanics with a simplified design system
(some players will demand points!). I may even use some of the C2 mechanics
from Striker, this is one are tech levels show up.
So far I'm looking at:
Ground Scale: 1"=25m
Troop Scale: 1 stand = 4-6 men, 1 Vehicle=1 Vehicle
Time Scale" 1 turn = 2-6 minutes
Mike
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Apr 5, 2005 7:11 PM, Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net> wrote:
I'm back from CMTC, let the games begin.
> > 4. A squad leader may transfer actions to elements of his squad.
USMC, for instance.
The entire 'fire team' issue is METT-T dependant.
If I were running a recon section, I might operate by fire team. Or a single
squad on patrol. If I were fighting an entire platoon, I'd fight it as 3
squads and a weapons squad (or whatever your MTOE, the
vagaries of cross-attachment, and other factors permit).
After all, what are you gaming? If you are working at a simulation of
platoon-level command, a PL isn't going to maneuver individual
fireteams. And if the entire platoon is present the maneuver scheme is
probably not going to involve individual teams but squads operating as
coherent wholes. If something comes up where a team is the only thing you can
detach off to deal with the situation then the 'reorganize' action simulates
the squad leader giving a sketchy FRAGO to his team leader and sending him
off.
Don't get me started on MTOEs which have 8-man squads COUNTING the
vehicle crews. My squad currently has 1 SGT(P) Squad leader, 1 SGT team leader
(ME) commanding the track, two vehicle drivers (driving the squad track and
the LT's track), a pair of SAW gunners, and two
PFCs with M-16s. Sappers on the ground: five guys, including two
SAWs, led by the squad leader directly, no team leader. We don't even have a
specialist.
Real life rarely matches a neat paper organization.
> After all, what are you gaming? If you are working at a simulation
True but the teams are two levels down in command, so perhaps he should have
some idea what they're doing. A game should have enough
units to give the player options; in my experience roughly 8-12 units
(eg a platoon worth of fireteams) plays better than 3-4 units. The
other way to get the same effect is to run two platoons on a side, but that
feels odd to me.
> On Apr 9, 2005 10:44 PM, Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
True, but that encourages people to run platoon as a collection of fireteams
rather than as 3 squads. That's bad doctrine and incredibly
gamey. Realistically, it causes work overload for your poor PL/PSG
and so it should be penalized in the command rules, not rewarded.
John,
While the squads are working together are there not still fire team activities
below the command level of the PL? In movement does the squad assume a 2
fireteam movement scheme?
I just wonder if there are things that are done below the PLs requirements and
if that is what is working its way up here.
And if so, how to bring this correctly into the rules. (I am thinking that
your view is correct this is
below the level of the PL/PSG and so not needed. It
is assumed that the squad will fight in the most efficient manner).
Bob Makowsky Former 11H
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> True, but that encourages people to run platoon as a
In a message dated 4/10/05 1:43:11 AM Central Daylight Time,
> johnmatkinson@gmail.com writes:
<snip
True, but that encourages people to run platoon as a collection of fireteams
rather than as 3 squads. That's bad doctrine and incredibly
gamey. Realistically, it causes work overload for your poor PL/PSG
and so it should be penalized in the command rules, not rewarded.
John <snip>
So the PL NEVER adjusts a FT (two levels down) for any reason? <grin> In Real
Life, you probably hope it only happens in extreme circumstances I would
think.
To a large degree it depends on whether you want a 'simulation' in game
format or a 'game' that simulates the appearance of the experience.
Gracias,
In a message dated 4/10/05 1:43:11 AM Central Daylight Time,
> johnmatkinson@gmail.com writes:
> On Apr 9, 2005 10:44 PM, Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
<snip>. That's bad doctrine and incredibly
gamey. Realistically, it causes work overload for your poor PL/PSG
and so it should be penalized in the command rules, not rewarded.
John <snip>
I offer this as an example of my previous post.
Gracias,
In a message dated 4/10/05 1:43:11 AM Central Daylight Time,
> johnmatkinson@gmail.com writes:
> On Apr 9, 2005 10:44 PM, Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
<snip>. The
> other way to get the same effect is to run two platoons on a side,
<snip>
Maybe a mini-Task Force commander assembled for the mission? I am sure
there times when more then one Platoon is used for a mission but not a whole
Company.
Gracias,
> True, but that encourages people to run platoon as a collection of
But this is not "Platoon Leader Sim"...if it were, your PL would give orders
and then wonder what's happening, wait for reports, deal with a company
commander who thinks you're on a different map, and so forth.
:-) Same thing as in in FT -- the commodore wouldn't be worrying
about which individual ship systems get repair rolls, or which PDS gets
assigned to which incoming missile, but the players have to deal with it. I
suspect you're thinking "we're going to end up with Squad 1 Team A on this
edge of the map and Team B on the other side, when it wouldn't happen that
way." I concur this would be a problem, but I think it can be handled by use
of the integrity rules and limits on how far away the SL can be while
transferring actions.
Other designers have approached the '2 down' command issue by having the
smallest unit be a single base. For our example an infantry platoon; The PL
is a single figure base, each squad is 2-4 bases. The PL (player)
maneuvers (orders) squads and knows where his teams are. The teams (bases)
need to stay within integrity of their squad and to a certain extent squads
need to stay within range of the PL (command radius?). Even within platoons
there are unit boundaries (zones of responsibility).
IMU a squad has a 2" integrity range; a PL has a 24" command range (ability to
transfer actions). PA squads have a 6" integrity range (I think the carry more
C3I assets).
Mike (who has spent too much time in and around Combat Arms, especially
training Squad and Platoon Leaders)
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Apr 10, 2005 12:24 PM, Robert Makowsky <rmakowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:
Depends on METT-T. If there is a whole platoon present, usually not.
Too many moving pieces slows the whole works down.
> On Apr 10, 2005 2:39 PM, Warbeads@aol.com <Warbeads@aol.com> wrote:
> <snip>
In my experience, if you've got one platoon tasked out for one thing, and two
tasked for another, the company commander is usually going with the two
platoons.
> On Apr 10, 2005 2:59 PM, Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> But this is not "Platoon Leader Sim"...if it were, your PL would give
Not really--PLs do very much up-front leadership. And the company
team commander is not that far removed from the action either. I just spent 27
days at CMTC watching this in action. I doubt my PL was much
more than 5-600 meters behind me at any time, and that ain't squat for
mechanized.
> I suspect you're thinking "we're going to end up with Squad 1 Team A
Curiosity--has anyone played with team-sized units against squad-sized
units. I have a sneaking suspicion the results might influence this discussion
heavily.
John,
Thanks I had not thought it out like that.
We were usually running around in our Tow Jeeps trying to find the one spot
that we could get a shot and not wind up dead seconds later <G>.
Bob Makowsky
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not really--PLs do very much up-front leadership.
My point is, this is not intended to be PL Sim--I'd dig out the Striker
rules if I wanted something closer to that, and have a GM move all my units.
> Curiosity--has anyone played with team-sized units against squad-sized
<shrug> yeah, but if you have platoons on one side and companies on the other,
that would influence it too. If you're playing with teams, it should be on
both sides. One of my tests is going to be a fedayeen squad (3 teams x 3 men)
going through a militia platoon (roughly 7 teams x 5
men).
On Apr 11, 2005 3:19 PM, laserlight@quixnet.net <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> >Not really--PLs do very much up-front leadership.
OK, point. I just don't want things to get too gamey.
> >Curiosity--has anyone played with team-sized units against
Depends. In DSII with the rules as written I'd prefer to have platoons because
otherwise you loose too much flexibility. In SGII with the rules as written
(plus the tweaks you gave) the fireteam doesn't really have enough firepower.
Quality dice, d6 or d8, and a
SAW die. If you want an anti-armor weapon you screw yourself out of
the SAW firepower and basically don't have a hope in hell of doing serious
damage to an opposing unit. Methinks that diluting the firepower this way will
mean less decisive games which will in the end, be settled by close assault.
Way more often than close assault would happen in "real life".
Compare to a regular squad with a d12 for 6 rifles and a trio of d8s for
quality and SAWs.
> If you're playing with teams, it
The Fedayeen will be rolling what, d10 quality, d4 for the two rifles, and a
d8 for the SAW? How are you planning on causing actual casualties? And don't
forget to take away one SAW in favor of an RPG or something.
> Methinks that diluting the
And if you wanted *that* then you may start to eye "easier" games like 40k
that stress such things in the first place.
> In SGII with the rules as written (plus the tweaks you gave) the
That's my main worry about fireteam level and the reason it needs to be tested
instead of just theorized about. I don't actually feel a need for fire combat
to cause a lot of casualties; what I want is for it to cause morale failures.
> compare to a regular squad <snip> d12 plus 3 x d8
OTOH an IF squad can put out a lot of dice: QD, d12FP rifles, SAW, AGL, and
up to five IAVR--or, more realistically, other support weapons if
they've had a chance to scrounge a spare SAW or two. I think that's too much,
though--if you get a good hit, then you tend to mow down the entire
enemy squad.
The GZG Digest wrote on 4/11/2005 1:00 AM:
> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 08:42:42 +0200 From: John Atkinson
The playtest house rules for fire teams are designed to make it much less
gamey.
There are rules to encourage the entire squad to stick together. Squad leaders
are heavily encouraged to stick near their fire teams.
A player is not prevented from having the platoon leader transfer an action to
a fire team, but it's far less efficient than transferring an action to a
squad leader. Not only do you get 1 platoon leader action activating one fire
team (whereas if he activated the SL he'd get to activate 2 fire teams), but
the "skipping a command level" rule kicks in, making it less likely for a
communication roll to succeed. This is no different than the rules in regular
SG2 for having a company commander directly order about a squad.
Others have made comments that I would have added, so I won't repeat them.
> The Fedayeen will be rolling what, d10 quality, d4 for the two rifles,
Rolling QD10 plus d8 support weapon plus d6 rifles against, for example, a d10
defense die, you beat the defender with: 0 dice: 26.8% (miss) 1 die: 45.3%
(suppression) 2 dice: 23.9% (hit) 3 dice: 3.9% (hit) So you have about a 28%
chance of causing casualties (not counting IMP vs Armor rolls). Dropping the
rifles to d4, you still have about 23% chance. Assuming I've set up the
spreadsheet correctly, of course.
See http://home.quixnet.net/deboe/links/fmaodds.htm and the linked
spreadsheet.
On Apr 11, 2005 4:03 PM, laserlight@quixnet.net <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
put out a lot of dice: QD, d12FP rifles, SAW, AGL, and
> up to five IAVR--or, more realistically, other support weapons if
Just like a Roman rifle squad, although an NCO who fired all five IAVRs at
troops in the open would likely be relieved for cause. Although I go with 2
Gauss SAWs.
The Cheese rating of Roman infantry is such that if I ever make it to the US
for an ECC, I'm planning on bringing a recon section.
> The Cheese rating of Roman infantry is such that if I ever make it to
Feel free to bring it to Carnage con Queso, I want to see if anything can be
cheesier than Doug's supersized zombies with sniper rifle, chain sword,
flamer, rockets, and heaven knows what else. Although I'd have to mention
that he fired three anti-tank rockets at Darth Baa and they all bounced
off my armor with no effect....
On Apr 11, 2005 6:54 PM, laserlight@quixnet.net <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> >The Cheese rating of Roman infantry is such that if I ever make it to
Varangian Rifle Squads: SL, TL, 2xAR, 2xSAW, 2xAA
That's 6 guys in heavy fast power armor with FP3 Imp d12 rifles, 2 with gauss
SAWs, plus close combat weapons (axes) and causing terror.
Oh, and two of the riflemen (or more, METT-T) are armed with IAVRs.
Elite 1s, of course. If I were really trying to be silly, I could add the
platoon designated marksman. It's actually illegal since there is
a six-man limit on PA squads. In fact, no Roman PA squad is legal. I
hate six-man squads. Cheese rating 36, plus GM bonus for being
illegal as hell.
Now I could take Thematic Light Infantry which is only Cheese rating 12.
A Tagmatic Scout Squad has 2 grav bike riders and a grav jeep with a driver, a
squad leader, an EW figure, and a SAW. A mere 9 points if veteran 2, plus the
cheese cost of the vehicles and the EW package.
A light infantry scout squad? 5 men, including a SAW and an EW
package. Another 9 points even if veteran 2.
> If I were really trying to be silly, I could add
Illegal? In the Cheese Game? I don't even see why it'd be illegal in
vanilla StarGrunt -- at least, I don't recall ever seeing a rule that
you can't have more than 6 PA.
> Cheese rating 36
You have a long way to go. I believe Doug's squad was 56. And someone else
brought a squad which had, IIRC, a cheese rating of 7, but he also got a 50VP
penalty for Exceptional Evil and Using the Force.
On Apr 11, 2005 9:08 PM, laserlight@quixnet.net <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> >If I were really trying to be silly, I could add
The squad building rules for this version of Carnage Con Queso are really
simple. You bring your own squad, and can choose whatever equipment and
weapons you like, with the following few limitations:
Maximum of 10 troops (or maximum of 6 if they are wearing Power Armour)
Maximum of 4 support weapons Maximum of 3 IAVR rockets All troops must be
equipped with the same type of armour All troops armed with a basic weapon
must be equipped with the same type of basic weapon
> >Cheese rating 36
OK, I can add the marksman for another 6 points, plus (since his sniper rifle
is actually FPd10 Imp d12) and an EW guy who costs one point plus cost of the
EW package. Two more IAVRs, and that kicks me up to 45. Can't doctrinally
support much more.
The GZG Digest wrote on 4/12/2005 1:00 AM:
> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:03:46 -0400
> In SGII with the rules as written (plus the tweaks you gave) the
I agree with you. The diffusion of firepower is a worry, and the reason this
needs to be tested.
Perhaps a combined fire rule is needed, whereby both fire teams can combine
their fire into a single attack, as long as the Squad Leader is within
integrity range of both fire teams. This would only work, though,
if you activated whole squads at once.
> OTOH an IF squad can put out a lot of dice: QD, d12FP rifles, SAW,
It will be interesting to see what happens in playtesting. My Japanese squads
tend to have 8 figures, with two rotary SAWs, a missile launcher (who can use
his rifle instead), 4 troopers with flechette guns and grenades, and a squad
leader. That's QD, 2D10, D12 for the rifles. Often
one of the rifle guys puts down his gun and fires an IAVR, keeping the
D12 for the squad but adding a D10. So that's D8 + D12 + 3D10. Ouch!
Now, in a fire team environment the squad would be split into two fire teams,
one with the SL, a SAW, and two troopers, the other with a SAW,
missile launcher, and two troopers. That's typically QD + D10 (SAW) +
D10 (rifles).
I suspect there will be fewer casualties and more Confidence Test failures.
Only playtesting will shake out whether it's worth going this route.
The Phalons are going to be interesting. I originally thought of 3 fire teams
of 3, but I worry that this will badly dilute their firepower. The
set up would be Team 1: 2 Phalons with pulsers, 1 Phalon with a support
pulser; Team 2: 2 Phalons with pulsers, 1 Phalon with a plasma
projector; Team 3: SL, 1 Phalon with pulser, 1 Phalon with pulser +
missile launcher. Team 1 could roll QD + (D4 to D10 pulsers) + (D8 to
D12 support pulser), Team 2 could roll QD + (D4 to D10 pulsers) + (D6
plasma projector). Team 3 could roll as high as QD + D10.
I think for fire teams the Phalons are either going to have to reorganize
their squad structure (increase the size of a squad or change
some of the support weapons), or they will have to split into 2 fire teams
instead of 3 (with the missile launcher and the plasma projector in one fire
team). I didn't build the Phalons with fire teams in mind. I'm leaning toward
the latter, assuming that fire teams are even worth meddling with.
If they aren't, I'm not sure where to go from here. As I've mentioned before,
it's too slow a game for a full company on the board and a single platoon just
isn't all that interesting a game.
Allan said:
> I agree with you. The diffusion of firepower is a worry, and the
Taking a QD6 team with FP6 and no support weapon (eg a 3 man NSL or 4 man
FSE team with a GMS/P)--ie the worst likely, until you start taking
casualties--firing against a D12 defense:
Miss 62.7% Suppress 32.9% Hit 4.3%
Swap the GMS/P for a d8 SAW and you get:
Miss 44.4% Suppress 41.6% Hit 14%
Following up on the rules codified by Allan on 7 April. One proposal was:
"Squad may join or leave one of their fire teams at will. If they join a fire
team, they are treated as part of that fire team, with the firepower of the
squad leader's weapon added to that of the rest of the squad. However, when a
squad leader is part of a fire team he may no longer transfer actions."
One a first dry run, I had two teams advancing and the SL running after them,
trying to catch up. Looked pretty silly, so let's modify things a bit:
A squad leader may be co-located with a team, move with it, and count
as a team member for purposes of allocating hits. If he spends an action
moving (with the team), he still has one action remaining, which may be to
move again (with the team), join his team's fire, pass an activation (to his
own or another team), etc.