[SG2] leader loss

Hmmm. Here's my take:

I myself use the platoon leader and platoon sergeant as individual figures,
thus I know when they are corpsed. But assuming that you know which figure it
is and it goes down when someone shoots at the command squad, you have an
interesting situtation: If the Lt goes down, the PSgt can usually take over.
Often times, he's as good of a combat leader if not better. So a normal leader
loss replacement roll should be made (remembering the suppression placed on a
squad for losing its leader). The rest of the command probably wouldn't react
directly.

However, in the event that the Platoon Sergeant goes down, power tends to
devolve to the senior squad commander, who himself is probably a sergeant (may
be a corporal).

I find by assigning my Lt and his Platoon Sgt leadership values explicitly
before the game, I save a little bit of mid game bookkeeping.

Now, let's talk about the situation where a unit has had its next highest
level of command wiped out (ie the platoon loses the entire command squad
including Lt and Sgt, or the Company loses the Major and the CSM).

In this situation, I think it not unreasonable to 1) halt command transfers
until a new company or platoon commander is put in place 2) for each level
down of the new commander (ie a squad leader running a platoon), degrade the
leaders leadership value by 1 (a squad leader 1 becomes a platoon leader 2 and
if forced to assume company command, would become a company commander 3) 3)
The unit that should succeed (senior squad leader) should take a reorg which
would cover his informing the platoon he's in command now 4) All units in the
command should take a morale test at TL 2. This represents the morale issues
introduced by losing key command elements. People might keep on fighting, but
everyone might be kinda shookup about it also.

So, if your platoon loses the entire command squad, it temporarily can't do
command transfers, and the squad leader who will be taking over the platoon
must spend an action from his squad to reorg and take command. When he does,
his effective leadership drops by 1 (he's managing more than he usually does)
and all the platoons units take a TL 2 test for morale.

This isn't "rulebook", but it seems like a reasonable approach.

I have to, OTOH, disagree entirely with Allan's comment about NOT leading from
the front. Most of the good military forces of the 20th century with high
levels of motivation have had officers that lead from the front. The Israelis
have had brutal "officer killed" stats. In WW2, many german officers were
killed (as were Canadian and other allied officers) leading from the front.
This applies particularly at the platoon and company level, but even at the
regimental level. Reading about Falaise, I'm finding stories of units who
changed high level command three times in a day due to casualties and stories
of
majors and lt-colonels taking point to get their
units moving during assaults. This isn't just a luxury, this is a necessity.
Men will follow officers who take the risks and who demonstrate they won't ask
anyone to do what they would not do. And it helps get a stalled unit moving
again, even if the officer is injured or killed. This is one of the reasons
the Aliens CMC model of the Lt. back in the APC wouldn't be too likely.

My 0.02.

On Sat, 26 May 2001 14:02:46 -0400, "Thomas Barclay"
<kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:

> I have to, OTOH, disagree entirely with Allan's

Well, I didn't mean "out of harm's way" sense. I meant in the "don't do a
charge into close combat with your company commander, thinking he's your best
soldier" sense. I was trying to show the problems with using your commander in
a GW way.

> This applies particularly at the platoon

And higher. This isn't restricted to WW2. Remember how "Stonewall" Jackson was
mortally wounded...

> Men will follow officers

Except that the main reason leaders lead from the front is to get a better
tactical feel for the terrain and relative troop positions. Reading Ambrose's
"D-Day", it's interesting to see that pinned troops were often pinned
not out of intense fear, but out of fear mixed with not knowing what to do.
The troops started moving on Omaha beach mostly because everyone from
Sergeants up to Generals started giving them orders. Transfer of actions, in a
SG2 sense, if you will.

But as I said, the point of my "not lead from the front" comment wasn't in the
sense that troops don't or shouldn't do it. It's in the sense that I like to
show the problems with doing it in a game sense (versus those games that
encourage it to the point of silliness).