[SG2] Squad Organization and Vehicles (was Re: Strike the colours... etc.)

> On Wed, 03 January 2001, "Barclay, Tom" wrote:

> Strike the colours: Interesting arguments all sides. Strikes me that

Good idea! It makes sense in an FT environment. Although Indy's scenario rules
idea works about as well, and at least it can be tailored. I like
the idea of a "strike the flag" rule for pick-up games and tournaments.

> Battle of Deja Ville:

Yikes! I sort of wondered, what with all the companies clashing and all. A bit
out of scope for me. I just don't have the free time these days to devote 14
hours to one game. *sigh*

> Overwatch:

I've come to this way of thinking. There was a reason I limited mine to NOT
extending past the turn barrier... but for the life of me I can't remember it
now. And the last time I used it, I didn't do that. So maybe that's just me
transcribing old notes...

> I too have shifted to 4-6 man

I'd really like to see guidelines for force building in SG2. I'd like to know
just what Jon was thinking when he modelled squads the way he does. I have a
sneaking suspicion that the game was intended to have fireteams "abstracted".
Hence the allowing of split fire and detachments. That a squad in SG2 was
intended to act as the lowest squad size. Certainly Jon's "canon" squads are 6
and 8 troopers in size.

On the other hand, when I've used fireteams they seem to work just fine.
They are sort of like half-squads in Advanced Squad Leader.

The only thing I'm wrestling with right now is the concept of a squad leader
versus a fireteam leader. I don't think two fireteams (which make up one
squad) should have a leader that has transfer action capability. It would
essentially give every squad in the game an extra activation.

I got thinking about an SG2 point system. The concept I had was based on
command levels, but I'm not sure how it would be put in place. Two
4-trooper squads should be more expensive than 1 8-trooper squad, even
when all the support weapons and such are the same. I got thinking that you
could price things per figure, but you buy the quality and leadership values
of the squad when you buy the leader. Thus, by definition, a large squad will
be cheaper than two smaller squads. The problem is analysing this to come up
with a number for the cost...

> Vehicle action issue:

I've been thinking about this. You're right, of course, but I think moving and
spotting should be allowed as separate actions if the vehicle is moving along
a road or in another automated way.

Technically, isn't a tank just a squad of 4 guys operating a heavy machine?
And what if the squad commander "detached" the elements of his squad? Couldn't
he detach the driver from the gunners? The tank commander would be with the
driver, directing where the vehicle goes? Couldn't the commander then transfer
an action to the gunners, so that the gunners could do two, and then use his
second action to move the vehicle?

*Laugh* Yes, I know this isn't the intention in the rules! I know this would
be unbalancing. But then I got thinking that, if you forced a communication
roll (they are easily within 6" of each other, but you can argue they are
physically separated and need to communicate through internal comms gear and
mapping systems), this might work.

If the communication roll succeeds, the gunners have two actions. They can
fire two weapons, or fire a weapon and spot, or they can do two spot actions.
Because the commander is with the driver element, the vehicle only gets to
make one movement action during that activation. The "can only fire a weapon
once per activation" rule prevents the main gun from firing too often.

Yes, this gives a vehicle three actions, not two. But this isn't any different
from allowing squads to detach. And those turns when the communication roll
fails, the vehicle only has one action available to itself (and it can't be a
gunnery action!).

Hmmm. I'm going to have to try playtesting this...