The first game of Stargrunt I played in over 2 years finally occurred last
weekend. We messed up a few rules, got confused on some others but generally
had a good time, even though I was pretty well trounced.
One situation that came up was a little unfortunate, and the ruling we made
(after reading a bit) is probably one I'll not make in the future.
Unfortunatly, it ended up being the difference between a win and a loss for
me, or at least a close game and complete rout.
I was playing a standard (straight out of the rulebook) NSL platoon against
another standard FSE platoon. The FSE was defending, but caught a bit off
guard, having to move forward into position.
The FSE command squad made a rush for a rock formation in the center of the
battlefield but stopped short. It seemed safe, but they hadn't counted on the
mobility of my PA squad. The PA got up on a hilltop with LOS to the command
squad and opened fire, pinning them down. Needless to say, I was quite pleased
by this, thinking that I'd just executed a masterstroke!
Over the next two turns the PA squad continued to suppress and close on the
command squad, before getting pinned down (and unluckily decimated) by the
combined efforts of two other FSE squads. The problem was, I'd already killed
the enemy platoon commander. Unfortunatly, the rules state that:
A) The platoon commander could continue to transfer actions while suppressed.
B) Killing the platoon commander results in nothing more than a confidence
test (passed) and an additional suppression (ignored as above). Command
transfers immediately to the next in line, who rolls for change in LV
(unchanged) and continues to transfer actions.
Finally, with an 8-man squad and counting casualties as potential
targets,
it would have taken another 2+ rounds of fire to wipe out the squad.
Even though I nominally killed the platoon leader TWICE, the FSE command squad
had just as much affect on the rest of the combat as my NSL command squad, who
never drew a single shot and never did anything but transfer actions.
So... I'm reading the rules again cover-to-cover to see if I missed
anything. I have some ideas on how to handle this in the future, but I'm
just wondering what house rules and/or errata exist (if any) to cover
this situation?
Tom
Tom,
Yeah, something pretty similar happened to me a while back in my first dabbles
with SGII. I took the opposite reading of the rules.
It states that if "Unit" looses it's commander then it gains an extra
supression and must take confidence test.
So I suppressed the entire platoon and they all took a morale check (this
resulted in pandemonium with nearly the complete force failing).
Feeling that this was a) a bit harsh and b) unrealsitic I collared John
Tuffley at a wargames show and asked him. His response was something along the
lines of "Oh, that... yes we didn't write any rules for that... it would
depend on the scenario".
Basicly if you have an unpire, he (or she) can make it all up on the spot to
seem fair. Without an umpire it all becomes a bit trickier.
I would certainly only allow the comander and Sgt to trasnfer actions etc.
Beyond that, it's all a bit difficult to say.
Any thoughts anyone else?
Richard
> So... I'm reading the rules again cover-to-cover to see if I missed
P.s. my appologies for the cross-posting, but as ever, 2 lists are
better than one
After some more thought and discussion (though still unresolved) I'm thinking
of the following rule:
When a platoon (or company) commander becomes a casualty, all of the normal
rules apply for the loss of a squad leader. In addition, the newly "promoted"
platoon leader may not transfer actions to other squads until the squad
performs a reorganize action.
This at least takes care of the case in our game, where the FSE command squad,
in the open, triple suppressed, fire coming in from all directions, casualties
screaming (including the platoon CO and XO) was able to manage the overall
battle just as well as the NSL command squad, sitting on a hill watching the
battle from 300m away.
Bitter? Me? Never. :-)
Tom
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:10:05 +0000 "Richard Kirke"
> <richardkirke@hotmail.com> writes:
<snip>
> P.s. my appologies for the cross-posting, but as ever, 2 lists are
That's okay, I have 3 lists that I use for DS 2 questions...
Here's the reply I posted to the Yahoo Group. Since the question was
cross-posted, I'll post my answer here as well.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:32:54 -0400, Thomas Pope
<tpope@exchange.cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
> A) The platoon commander could continue to transfer actions while
No, it can't. Page 18, under "Suppression of Infantry Units" states that the
only actions a unit can conduct while suppressed are:
1) defending itself against a close assault;
2) carry out a Reorganise action, but only if it is cover;
3) the unit's leader may carry out Observe, Communicate and Remove Suppression
Leader Actions.
Number 3 is the important one. Some people think that a "Communicate" action
is a "Transfer Action". It is _not_. If you look at the list of Leader
Actions on page 16 you'll see that they are listed as Communicate, Observe,
Remove Suppression, Form Detached Element, Rally Unit, and Transfer Action.
According to the rules on page 18, a unit can not conduct a Form Detached
Element, Rally Unit, or Transfer Action if it is suppressed.
The unfortunate part is that a Communicate action isn't really defined.
"Communications" is, and the mechanism for communicating -- often used
in the
Transfer Action -- is explained, but there's no clearly defined list of
what you do with a Communicate Action. My take on it is that Communicate
Actions are used to call for reinforcements, artillery, aerospace attacks,
etc. It can also be used for scenario defined purposes. The point still
stands, though, that three actions are listed on page 18 as being allowed
while suppressed (Communicate, Observe, Remove Suppression), but "Transfer
Action" isn't one of those three.
So, Tom suppressed the platoon commander, and therefore it could not do a
Transfer Action.
> Command
Except, as per page 18, he shouldn't have been able to continue transferring
actions until he removed suppression. :-)
> Finally, with an 8-man squad and counting casualties as potential
Even
> though I nominally killed the platoon leader TWICE, the FSE command
A common house rule, though not one I currently use is to force every unit in
a command to make a Confidence Test when the commander is a casualty. I think
that's a bit harsh, but would consider making a Confidence Test for every unit
if the command unit is eliminated.
> I have some ideas on how to handle this in the future, but I'm
I hope this reply helps...
> Here's the reply I posted to the Yahoo Group. Since the question was
action
> is a "Transfer Action". It is _not_. If you look at the list of Leader
It can
> also be used for scenario defined purposes. The point still stands,
I'm not sure about this. On page 16 Transfering Action: "For a superior
officer to transfer an activation, he must make a succesful Communication
action in the same way as a normal communications". So, to me, it look like
the Transfering Action is a special form of Communications action.
Also, calling artillery is a special form of Communicatins action like you
said. It is implied on top of page 18 (second colums) Suppression of infantry
units: "as the leader himself may still make OBSERVE and COMMUNICATE actions
while his unit is suppressed, in some cases it might well be more important to
call in that fire mission than...". So this means that calling artillery can
be done while suppressed as it fall under the communicate action.
Anyway, I see your point. It's open to interpretation I think...
All the game I played, we allow transfering action while suppressed. I'm under
the impression that preventing that will just increase by a big factor the
"command squad in the corner" syndrome.
All the game I played, we allow transferring action while suppressed. I'm
under the impression that preventing that will just increase by a big factor
the "command squad in the corner" syndrome.
Yves, Your right about that...) I allow transferring actions while suppressed
in all the games I do. In my personal experience radio calls are more
prevalent when under suppression ("Where the **** is my ****** air/arty
support"etc.) than not......;-)
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:58:59 -0700, Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@abacom.com>
wrote:
> I'm not sure about this. On page 16 Transfering Action : "For a
Except that you don't need to do a Communicate action to do a Transfer Action
if the unit is within 6" of the squad. So, does this mean that a unit that is
suppressed can't tell guys within 60 metres what to do, but he can tell guys a
kilometre away what to do?
I just posted my interpretation, that the Transfer Action and the Communicate
action are both listed separately, yet only the Communicate -- of the
two --
is specifically allowed to occur when the unit is suppressed. It is incredibly
unclear, and I can see the other side of the coin. For a house rule, I'd allow
a transfer action while suppressed, but I'd also either add a Reaction Test
before it was allowed, or add a modifier to the communication roll. This is
because there _should_ be an adverse effect for the commander being
suppressed.
> So this
Yes, definitely, this is something that should be allowed. Historically it
happened quite a lot. What is a Transfer Action representing? *shrug* Not
sure, but I always assumed that the commander had to be a bit more aware of
what his units were doing for a Transfer Action to work, hence the reason that
it doesn't work while suppressed.
> Anyway, I see your point. It's open to interpretation I think...
Oh, definitely. It's a very unclear part of the rules. Unfortunately, much of
the SG2 rulebook is unclear.
> All the game I played, we allow transfering action while suppressed.
I'm
> under the impression that preventing that will just increase by a big
Not allowing it didn't increase the problem... because it's already a big
problem anyway! *L* Seriously, yes, it will make players even more likely to
move their commander out of harm's way. I have a house rule that makes the
"commander in the corner" syndrome less likely. I will consider allowing
Transfer Actions while suppressed to work, too.
On the other hand, I see Tom's original post, too, and suppressing a commander
ought to have an effect on the Transfer Action. Perhaps the problem is that
even my house rule (where by a +1 communication roll is needed if the
commander is outside of LOS to the unit and further than 6") isn't nasty
enough.
My current house rule is this:
- Commander is within 6" of unit and in LOS, no communication roll is
needed for a Transfer Action.
- Commander is within 6" of unit but out of LOS (such as a building or
hill between the commander and the unit), a communication roll is needed for a
Transfer Action.
- Commander is more than 6" away from the unit but is in LOS of the
unit, a communication roll is needed for a Transfer Action.
- Commander is more than 6" away from the unit and is out of LOS of the
unit,
a communication roll at +1 is needed for a Transfer Action.
Maybe something else needs to be done. Note that in a heavy EW environment,
communication rolls can be nasty so the commander is less likely to be in the
corner. Of course, the EW rules aren't very clear either...
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 03:46:12 -0700, "Don Maddox" <dmaddox1@hot.rr.com>
wrote:
> Your right about that...) I allow transferring actions while
That makes sense, but what is the Transfer Action representing? I felt that it
represented command control, and that a commander under suppression is less
likely to effectively command his troops. Situational awareness drops
dramatically while suppressed.
The problem is that there is very little reason to put a commander anywhere
near the action due to the "commander in the corner" syndrome. It's one of the
game's failings that commanders are so useful that you don't dare risk them in
the front lines. I suppose the proper way to fix this is to give Confidence
Tests a negative modifier if a unit is X inches from the commander (or add to
the TL if the unit is more than X inches from the commander).
You know, that also helps fix the fact that the Confidence Tests aren't nasty
enough. Perhaps add a TL+1 for every range band a squad is away from the
platoon commander. If you have a Veteran platoon commander, squads more than
10" away from it would have TL +1 added to Confidence and Reaction
tests, more
than 20" would be TL + 2, etc.
Next highest levels, (the company commander, if present on the table), could
be double this distance.
It's a thought, anyway...
> That makes sense, but what is the Transfer Action representing? I felt
Transfer action, normal: "Sgt Kalenichenko, set up your machine gun in the
alcove of that next building. There are enemy troops in the first floor of the
white house with blue shutters at the end of the block on the left. Put a
rocket into the wall of that house and then suppress them with the
MG."
Transfer action, suppressed: "Someone shoot at those @!%$ who're shooting at
me!"
> Next highest levels, (the company commander, if present on the table),
good idea
> At 08:45 AM 2003-06-27 -0500, you wrote:
wrote:
> I'm not sure about this. On page 16 Transfering Action : "For a
This is
> because there _should_ be an adverse effect for the commander being
I'm
> under the impression that preventing that will just increase by a big
In the last 2 games I played, the attacker had to move accros the table to
reach the objective. Like I said, we always allow transfer action while
suppressed. In the first game, the "commander in the corner" syndrome was very
present for the attacker.
Action report here:
http://www.abacom.com/~ivanohe/game/gaming_e.html#SG2
The second game was similar in concept than the first (higher tech attacker
that must reach for the objective). I had read your house rule but found that
it might not be enough for this scenario. I feared that either the command
squad will sit in a corner trying to do transfer of action (even with
penality) or try to follow the rest of the force, not doing that much transfer
of action.
What I came up was to give the command squad 3 actions (yes 3!). One of those
action is a free transfer of action. The other 2 action are normal action
(except that the command squad can't do more than 2 transfer of action total).
This allowed the command squad to follow the rest of the troop. It made it as
far as the center of the table (even a bit more). We didn't feel it was too
powerful. In fact, the command squad didn't do 2
transfer of action each turn. On about 50% of the time, it was moving +
firing and doing it's free transfer.
It gaves a nice flow to the games since all attacker where moving and the
command squad play a role by itself, not just transfering action. I tend to
made my command squad a normal size unit by itself so this look more
realistic than seing 6-7 fig in a corner.
Anyway, this work great for games where one side need to move a lot. You still
get the flexibility of having a command squad without all the other squad
moving twice as fast.
Hi folks,
> Since everyone has been so helpful to this new vachead I am going
Just curious... (I don't have my SG rulebook handy)... does it say that you
don't need to do a communicate action if 6" or less, or does it say that the
communication is automatically successful because you don't need to use
a radio - you just yell? My impression was that you're taking the same
*action* (game mechanic term) but that it automatically works because you're
yelling rather than using the radio, so no chance of the radio call going
wrong... (plus the commander can point, wave arms, gesture emphatically, use
hand signals, etc etc...) but the commander is still *communicating*...
?
<snip lots, and switch to Yves...>
> What I came up was to give the command squad 3 actions (yes 3!). One of
We
> didn't feel it was too powerful. In fact, the command squad didn't do 2
I've played giving 3 "command" actions to a platoon, using the officer +
his command squad with 2 actions, and the platoon sergeant with a separate
"command capable" action. In other words, the platoon sergeant is located
somewhere in the platoon OTHER than the command squad, and he can transfer one
of his regular actions. The platoon sergeant, and his squad if he's with one,
have two actions as per normal, but he can transfer one of them. The officer
has two actions as normal, and can transfer both if he chooses. This way, you
don't have one squad getting 3 actions, but you can still have 3 actions
transferred if you want OR you have two transfer actions and two squads that
can still move.
Where this was really effective was in a game where I had a mechanized
platoon, including 4 dismount infantry squads, 4 apc's, and a tank in support.
We said that the platoon sergeant was commanding the apc's and the tank, but
the whole force was organized as a single platoon. So, the officer disembarked
with the dismount infantry to run the battle, and he could transfer his
actions to everybody. The platoon sergeant (I think I put him in one of the
apc's) could transfer ONE of his two actions, but
only within the vehicles - he couldn't transfer an action to the
infantry dismounts. It worked really well.
To combat the 6-8 model command squad in the corner problem, I cut down
the command squad in many of my units to only 4 figures, and include a
separate medic team (2 troops) who are "administratively" part of the command
squad (out of game) but on the table are run as a separate unit with their own
actions. Of course, this does nothing to stop the commander being in the
corner, it just prevents having 6 or 8 guys sitting in the corner with the
commander...
:)
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 03:20:03 -0400, Adrian Johnson
> <adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Just curious... (I don't have my SG rulebook handy)... does it say that
It's not quite as clear cut as saying, "You don't make a Communicate Action"
or "A Communicate Action is automatically successful."
It says on page 16, "If a superior commander is actually within 6" of a
subordinate element, it is deemed to be within direct contact range and may
transfer actions automatically without die rolls or risk of jamming -
hence the advantages of "leading from the front", even on the future
battlefield."
So, I can see the interpretation that this is a Communicate Action that is
automatic. On the other hand, the wording muddles things up by implying to
others that it is in "direct contact range" thus no Communicate Action is
needed.
On page 18, under Detached Elements, it says, "If the main squad and detached
element are within 6" of each other, then the part containing the squad leader
may get the detached element to activate by simple direct communication (still
taking one action to accomplish); if they are more than 6" apart then a
successful COMMUNICATION [Jon's emphasis] roll is required to get the detached
element to activate, rolling against the LV of the leader."
Again, not exactly clear cut. It says "direct communication" (is that a
Communicate Action, or is it not?) for within 6" and it says "COMMUNICATION"
in capitals (does the emphasis mean that this is a COMMUNICAT Action or
not?)
for greater than 6". Not exactly clear.
> My impression was that you're taking the same
We had a similar discussion about this on the playtest list. Just _what_
is
happening at 6"? That's 60 metres. Can you _really_ yell orders 60
metres away, in all terrain types, in the middle of a battle? If so, why does
it not require a roll to be understood. The implication some of us put was
that, given a game turn of 3 to 5 minutes, this "direct communication" meant
that the leader, or a member of the leader's squad, could run up to another
squad and give them an order directly and then run back. If that's the case,
it's certainly not something that can be done suppressed. But if you can't do
it directly while suppressed, why not just make a Communicate roll as though
the unit was more than 60 metres away?
See what I'm getting at? We're really not given a clear indicator of the
mechanics of a Transfer Action. On one side players have argued that it's
communications so it should be allowed while suppressed. On another, players
have argued that it requires having a good view of the battlefield and that
you can't do it while suppressed. This is additionally confused by the fact
that only Suppression Removal, Communicate, and Reorganise actions are allowed
while suppressed, "Transfer Action" is definitely _not_ one of the
actions listed, but is a Transfer Action a separate action (not just implied,
but
specifically listed on page 16) or is it _really_ just a special case of
the Communicate Action (implied by the description of the Transfer Action on
page
16)?
Now you can see why many of us wish the rules were a little bit clearer, or
Jon wasn't so silent on the matter. *L*
For my part, I have ruled that a Transfer Action is not one of the specific
actions listed as being able to be done while suppressed and have not allowed
it. However, I can see that the rules aren't exactly clear and I am willing to
allow suppressed units to conduct transfer actions. HOWEVER, it does
_not_
strike me as realistic that a suppressed commander gets to do this without a
communication roll, even if a unit is within 6". If the commander is
suppressed then I can't see him being able to "communicate directly" with a
squad 60 metres away, and so he should have to use a radio. This would then
require a Communication roll. This would have to be a house rule, as the rules
as written clearly state that a Transfer Action doesn't need a communication
roll if within 6" (there is no mention of the commander's suppression state in
the rules).
That's my best guess on it. *S*
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:46:46 -0400, Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@abacom.com>
wrote:
> I had read your house rule but found
For Hardtack, the Civil War rules that I created as a "plug-in" for SG2
(I'm
currently working on divorcing them entirely from SG2 and making them a
stand-alone game), I let the commander lead by example and move with a
regiment as it moved. (Long story as to how a whole regiment moves...). You
could allow a command unit to move with another squad nearby for free, and
still do other actions.
Or, you could let a command squad do a Communicate Action while moving, but
slow the squad by shifting its movement die down one (it is busy, after
all).
This is a flaw in the SG2 rules: movement doesn't allow you to do anything
else. It shows up a great deal with vehicles. If you do a vehicle only game, a
commander can't transfer an action and move for two actions even though the
vehicle has a dedicated driver? A vehicle can't fire a machine gun and spend
two actions moving? This is definitely an area that has room for house rules.
> What I came up was to give the command squad 3 actions (yes 3!). One
We
> didn't feel it was too powerful. In fact, the command squad didn't do
I like the idea to split the ability to transfer action over 2 differents
squads. The only problem I saw is that you still allow 2 transfer from the
command squad, so it's still tempting to just do transfer of action with it.
In my version the command squad has 3 actions but a limit of 2 transfer, so it
has to do something with the remaining action (move, fire, etc) (and one of
the 3 Must be a transfer). Maybe I could try your idea but limit each squad to
1 transfer of action each. Also, did you allow the command squad to transfer
action to the platoon sergeant squad?
I know your idea of having a smaller command squad. However, my thinking is if
this squad just sit in a corner because it's more effective to do that, then
it's probably not needed to have the mini on the table at all! On a big table,
it's even more noticeable. I think that encouraging the use of the command
squad offensively by giving some bonus (either your suggestion or mine) is a
good way to stop it being in the corner. Let's face it, if the command squad
has 1 remaining action that can't be a transfer, would it waste it doing
nothing? I think not!
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:27:10 -0700, Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@abacom.com>
wrote:
> In my version the command squad has 3 actions but a limit of 2
I really can't see how giving the command squad _more_ actions, one of
which
_must_ be a transfer is going to solve the "commander in the corner"
problem. The reason for the command squad being in the corner is that it's
more effective to have the commander transfer actions than it is for it to do
anything else. Risking the command squad, even if it has an extra action, is
just not worth it. Unless you also give serious penalties to command units
that are too far away from the target of their transfers, there's still no
good reason to risk the commander. In fact, you now encourage him to sit back
near the base line in order to rally the odd unit that might go to Broken or
Routed.
I don't think playing around with the number of actions is going to work. This
is a fundamental flaw in SG2. I think you need to make the penalties worse
when transferring actions. _Beer and Pretzels Skirmish_ has something
similar to a Transfer Action. Each figure gets orders from a leader, costing a
point per soldier. Leaders only have so many points. When the leader is more
than 12" away from the soldier, and for every multiple of 12" after that, it
costs an extra point to give a soldier an order. This encourages leaders to
stay up front when transferring actions. A similar idea in SG2 would be to
allow the transfer action to occur for free up to 6" away (as in the current
rules), require a communication roll from 6" to 12" (as in the current rules,
sort
of), and add a +1 to the communication attempt for every 6" (or if you
are feeling generous, 12") beyond that.
Variation 1: first 6" is free, 6" to quality die range requires a
communication roll, every range band beyond 1 requires a +1 on the
communication roll. So, a Regular leader would not make a roll from 0" to 6",
would make a roll from 6" to 8", would make a roll at +1 from 8" to 16",
at +2
from 16" to 24", etc. A Green, though, would have the first 6" for free, but
6" to 12" would be at a +1 to the communication roll.
Variation 2: the free distance is half the quality die range. So, a Green
wouldn't need a communication roll from 0" to 3", would need a communication
roll from 3" to 6", would need a communication roll at +1 from 6" to
12", etc. The only issue with this is that the unit leader would be making a
communication roll for transfer actions to guys who are technically within the
command unit's integrity range.
Variation 3: no communication rolls are needed for transferring actions to
units within the first range band; a communication roll is needed for the
second range band; a +1 is needed for the third range band, etc. You
could even consider changing the integrity range from a fixed 6" to the squad
leader's quality die type, though this might have major effects on the game
and I haven't even considered playtesting it.
Variation 4: any of the above, but include an additional +1 to the die
roll if
the unit receiving the Transfer is out of Line-of-Sight of the command
unit.
> At 09:01 AM 01/07/2003 -0500, you wrote:
wrote:
> In my version the command squad has 3 actions but a limit of 2
problem.
> The reason for the command squad being in the corner is that it's more
It may depend of a number of factor:
- The number of soldier in the command squad (can it absorb casualties
or not)
- The quality dice, FP and armor of the command squad.
- If you allow transfer of action while suppressed or not.
- Scenario objective
The reason I use 3 actions for the attacker command squad in my scenario is
because they have to cross the table to reach their objective (with a time
limit). We feel that without the bonus action, the command squad will quickly
fall behind the rest of the troops or not use transfer of action a lot. The
command squad was veteran and with good weapons and armor, so it make sense to
use them offensively. They reach the center of the table, still behind the
rest of the platoon but they were able to do something else than just
transfering action: Firing smoke to protect some other squad from the
defensive position just passed, firing on some ennemy squad, forcing the
defender to split his fire and forcing one squad at least to keep under cover
instead of counter attacking some other squad.
The attacker was more high tech than the defender. We found it will help
giving the attacker command squad the bonus action. It gives a better feel,
compared to similar games where they just fall behind at the very start and
after that, you're better just trying transfering action since they are too
far to do anything good.
It may not work well in all case, but in this particular one, it has worked
very well...
> I don't think playing around with the number of actions is going to
This
> is a fundamental flaw in SG2. I think you need to make the penalties
to 6",
> would make a roll from 6" to 8", would make a roll at +1 from 8" to
Those are good idea as well.
Hi Yves,
> I like the idea to split the ability to transfer action over 2
True. But what we found is that if the commander doesn't *have* to use both of
his actions in transferring, then he's more likely to move. I didn't want to
force the officer to do stuff other than commanding the
platoon - there are situations when tactically it makes sense for him to
sit and give orders (he got into a good position, and is now commanding the
unit to exploit it, for example).
The most satisfying use of this was when I had the third transfer action being
taken by the platoon sergeant, when the plt. sgt. was commanding a mech
platoon's vehicles. He couldn't transfer actions to any of the units OTHER
than the vehicles, and the platoon commander could transfer actions to anybody
BUT we didn't let the plt.sgt. transfer an action again if he
was re-activated. It seemed to work fine. The problem I was trying to
solve with this approach was that in a "platoon size" game with one officer on
the table, but using a mechanized unit with apc's and an attached tank,
we end up with one officer commanding 8 - 10 separate units, so his
transfered actions get a bit diluted. At the same time, I didn't want to add a
complete separate platoon HQ and say that all the vehicles are a separate
platoon with their own platoon officer.
This reflects modern usage - sometimes vehicles are a separate unit
carrying infantry, but it seems that more often (as with US Army forces), a
mech infantry platoon has both vehicles and dismount infantry being
commanded by the same platoon officer - but *someone* has to be running
the vehicles if the officer is off with the infantry. Giving the vehicle
commander (the plt.sgt.) a single transfer action seemed a good balance.
> In my version the command squad has 3 actions but a limit of 2
When we played this with officer and platoon sergeant (and giving the plt.sgt.
a single transfer action) and used all infantry, it was in special
circumstances. I have a number of relatively conventional platoon-size
forces, with a command squad and 3 or 4 infantry squads. In a "regular"
type of platoon-size scenario, I wouldn't use the plt.sgt. approach as
outlined. What seems to end up happening is a bit of "command
confusion" -
too many units are tied up commanding, and not enough are out fighting.
But I also have several platoon-size forces that are larger than just 3
- 4
squads, including attached combat walkers, specialists, etc etc. In those
situations, and depending on the scenario (in some cases, for example, the
platoon has to deal with 2 objectives or mission parameters that require
splitting forces a bit), then using the plt.sgt. with an extra transfer action
works pretty well.
In those cases, as with the mech unit, I let the officer transfer actions to
anybody, but if the plt.sgt's squad is reactivated, he can't transfer actions
again.
> I know your idea of having a smaller command squad. However, my
Well, true. But I find that this sort of thing often varies depending on
scenario and on in-game conditions. I've seen many "hiding" command
squads suddenly have to come charging out into the fight at a crucial moment
because they have a bit of extra firepower, or manoevered into the middle of
the board because of the tactical situation.
On the other hand, I've also seen lots of command squads sit in the corner for
the whole game...:)
On a
> big table, it's even more noticeable. I think that encouraging the use
Well, I don't think I've ever seen a command squad do NOTHING on it's
actions - but certainly I've seen situations where it makes sense for
the command squad to sit and not move....
Hi,
> I really can't see how giving the command squad _more_ actions, one of
problem.
Wasn't Yves' idea to have one extra action for the command squad, and the
requirement was that one of which must *not* be a transfer...?
Or did I misread what he posted originally?
I thought his point was to give the command squad an extra action that must be
used for moving or shooting or whatever (that couldn't be used for
transferring) thereby giving them the opportunity to be more mobile...
> Variation 4: any of the above, but include an additional +1 to the die
I tend toward the "everyone has in-helmet-heads-up-display with info
feed
from dozens of sensors, personal video cameras, satellites, micro-uav's,
etc" image of infantry combat in the SG-verse, so being out of
line-of-sight isn't such a big deal. But that's a flavour thing
really...
Good ideas as usual Allan!