SGII Newbie Question

I've just started playing Stargrunt II, and I have a question I am hoping
someone can answer. How is a sniper activated? Is it usually considered as a
detached part of a squad, requiring one of the actions of its squad leader's
activation to fire, or is it treated as an individual unit? Any help would be
greatly appreciated.

[quoted original message omitted]

> -----Original Message-----
Any
> help would be greatly appreciated.

This isn't a correction of what Owen said, just a further clarification in
case you don't quite get how it works (I didn't at first, either).

A "marksman", or trooper in a squad who has a sniper rifle, would be treated
as a normal part of the squad, and his weapon adds to the firepower of the
squad the same way a SAW does (so, you would total up the firepower of the
riflemen, add the firepower die for the SAW, add the unit quality die, then
add one more for the firepower of the sniper rifle). Because you are allowed
to detach an element from a squad and activate it with the split in squad
activations (for example splitting off your missile launcher), you can do the
same thing with the marksman. He would act as a detached element, not an
independant unit, and he wouldn't get to use the special sniper rules (such as
hiding with multiple counters, etc.). The only time you use the special sniper
rules is if the sniper is designated as such at the beginning of the game and
is deployed as an independant "unit". As Owen said, snipers tend to be very
potent in SG2, and should probably be used only in scenarios which are
designed around them, or they may dominate. I would hesitate before dumping a
"marksman" in every squad
also - while there are a few "real life" infantry units that do deploy a
marksman in every rifle squad (2REP of the Foreign Legion comes to mind), it
is not common. In SG2, it adds a lot to the firepower of the squad, because
sniper rifles are so good. If there are too many, it can be "unbalancing".
There are games where having lots of the biggest guns is
the point - but not in SG2, which is about tactics and strategy.  Too
many
extra big guns and your games will turn into a shoot-fest.

FYI - "real life" snipers tend to be attached to units at the company or
battalion level. For example, in the Canadian Forces, we have a Recce Platoon
as part of the Combat Support Company in each battalion. The snipers in a
battalion are from the recce platoon, and would be deployed down to the
company or platoon level as needed depending on circumstances. Again,
depending on circumstances you may find snipers attached at the company level
(maybe one or two sniper teams with the company HQ). Specialist snipers are a
relatively rare and valuable asset, take a long time to train well (in
peacetime, I know we had a huge sniper thread a couple of weeks ago discussing
this), and are used sparingly. In game terms, you might find snipers operating
in a platoon's area, but only in
certain circumstances - that is what we meant by using them in scenarios
designed for them.

Check out the "Sniper Hunt" scenario at the back of the SG2 rulebook. If I
remember correctly, it is two snipers vs. a platoon of infantry - and
that is considered a reasonable fight. I've played it a couple of times, and
the snipers have a good chance of "winning" if they're careful. Doctrine says
taking out a sniper on the battlefield is at least a platoon operation, and
probably a company operation (if the sniper knows what he's
doing - or *she* as a matter of fact...  FYI again, there was a sniper
in
Sarajevo who developed a fearsome reputation - I forget for which side -
who was a female former member of the Yugoslav Olympic shooting team...)

I hear what you guys are saying but I don't really buy into it too much.

As recently Vietnam the US was using SQUADS of 13 men. And although you are
right in that the smaller units give you increased flexibility. There is
much to be said for being able to outgun your opponent in a squad-squad
or
platoon-platoon confrontation...

I have used the 'wrap-around' method I outlined above and I can see no
disadvantage quite frankly. Sure if you heap a lot of firepower into a large
squad then they will tend to do a lot of damage. But that sounds reasonable to
me.

Thanks for the input.

SC

> UsClintons@aol.com wrote:

> I hear what you guys are saying but I don't really buy into it too

Yeah that was what going on 30 years ago now? Keep in mind that the current US
dismount for a mech rifle squad is just SIX guys. A light
infantry/ranger/airborne squads has nine but it fights and manuevers and
puts out fire as seperate 4 man teams under the direction of their team
leaders.

However the wrap around is a good way to go in that case, though it might
upset game balance since the defensive dice were designed a certain way. Let
us know how the playtesting comes out.

Keep in mind that the other problem with big sqauds is that they are hard to
control effectively. That's why no one really uses them any more. The are
either broken down into seperate fire teams, which function as seperate
elements under the control of a team leader. This way the SL is only talking
to two people and policing up stragglers. (esp Orcs!) It's the two team leader
that are the fighting leaders of their own elements. They lead by example and
control everyone's movement and fire by example etc. It's why you might have
to mnkey with the FP (drop it to 1.5 or something) as Brian suggests.

But still even in the wrap around method I'd rather have two attacks (each
with 2 large die assuming no SAW) then one attack (with three die 2 large and
1 small). It's more effective and dishes more damage that way. However the
large squad can take more casualties which allows it to hold it's FP
effectiveness longer.

> Keep in mind that the current US dismount for a mech rifle squad

I was always under the impression that the limited size of APCs and IFVs on
the modern battle field also had an influence on this. Orcs for the most part
will not have organic transport IMHO. But I think we agree here in

principle. I just keep thinking that US mech., light infantry, ranger,
etc.,
squads would just be trained to a different level in and a much different way
from your typical Orc/Goblin squad.

But mainly humans and orcs should differ on more basic psychological levels
IMHO. I mainly trying to model a different race's psychology and trying to
give them a different 'flavor'. I REALLY don't want orcs to be just "green
space troopers".

> Keep in mind that the other problem with big sqauds is

I agree. But I don't know that considering the time scale (5 min per turn)
this should be a huge issue in SGII. I also WANT orcs to be more ridged in
their use. I have not only given them larger squads, but also an entirely new
threat table (as well as several other races). Orcs for example must pass a
threat test to form a detachment (failure is simply loss of activation). It
all goes along with different races having different psychological motivations
and not just playing them like space troopers of a different color.

> But still even in the wrap around method I'd rather have two attacks

I agree. Again, this is supposed to be a limitation on the orcs. They operate
in larger units and are less 'flexible' and also generate less
firepower on a 'man-per-man' basis.  This is only partly compensated by
the
fact that they can outgun their enemies on a squad-to-squad level...of
course while they are doing this the OTHER human squad is busy turning their
flank!
;-)

Thanks for the discussion it really helps (at least for me) to bounce these
ideas off of someone new once in a while.

SC

> UsClintons@aol.com wrote:

> I was always under the impression that the limited size of APCs and

IFVs are not designed and accepted into the force structure in a vacuum.

> I agree. But I don't know that considering the time scale (5 min per

I guess it all comes down to what FP you assign the squads as well as quality
and
leadership value. The value/danger of the Orcs lies in what happens if
you let them get close to you. (I played a lot of EPic40k in my day). You can
also reflect this in higher CC ratings, terror effects vs Humans, and most
importantly, dampening or limiting the assaulting ORCS ability to conduct long
range effective fires. (I.e. No fire above range band 2 except Heavy weapons
or anything over RB2 has double defensive effects.) Leave the LR fires up to
specialist ORC support groups as is in 40k. But sure it would be an
interesting fight to have 4 or 5 smaller squads tassle with 2 big platoon
sized ORC squads. They better hope that the other side has no snipers!

> I guess it all comes down to what FP you assign the squads as well as

Again I see what your are saying, but all this assumes that 'my' orcs are
based upon what the current 40k orcs are. This is not so. I think the closest
orcs I have seen in another system would be perhaps what the 40k orcs were
like in the original "Rogue Trader" (the only set of 40k rules I have ever
used btw).

In the original 40k "Rogue Trader" orcs were fully capable of long-range

fire, high tech weapons (plasma, melta, etc.) It is my understanding that in
the last two editions they have become much more close combat specialized and
lost most of the high tech weapons.

I simply cannot reconcile the fact that somehow orcs discovered and use faster
than light travel daily (and everything that goes with it) and yet the
about best weapon they use on the battlefield is a "Big Shoota"! :-))
Let alone some of the ridiculous other items like jump packs that blow up and
kill the wearer on a 1 in 6 with each use, etc. Nope, my orcs are more like
Klingons with REAL bad manners...that just happen to be green! :-))

But this is one of the best things about SGII. Everyone can play their game
the way the want and we all can be 'right'.

> They better hope that the other side has no snipers!

Funny you should say that... One of the limitations on the orcs is that the
suffers significantly more when they lose a leader than humans. Snipers are
doubly effective against them. But I think that a sniper in a platoon sized
game should be very rare.

Thanks again for the feedback.

SC

> UsClintons@aol.com wrote:

> I simply cannot reconcile the fact that somehow orcs discovered and
Let
> alone some of the ridiculous other items like jump packs that blow up

Well if your orcs are smart enough to have discovered FTL then they should be
smart enough to develop advanced tactics also instead of moving in inefficient
and unweildy mobs. <grin> Actually regarding ORC technology, I thought the
Orcs didn't invent anything? They were (I'm simplifying greatly,) essentially
a slave race of creatures that eventually grew smart enough (through the crap
their
captors/masters had been feeding them to make them smart enough for
useful tasks.) They eventually overthrow their masters and bust out into outer
space. Everything they use is stolen, taken etc not invented by them. there
are some Orcs that are smarter than others and do maintenace and some R&D
(which puts cobbles all the weird shit they use.but apart from them they are a
race of users not creators. I know that W40k dumbed them down (christ haven't
they done that for just about everything?) but the origins of the races have
more or less remained the same. Then again haven't really read that stuff in a
while. But anyway who cares?

> Well if your orcs are smart enough to have discovered FTL then they

What makes you think that moving in smaller units would be MORE efficient for
ORCS? Just because it is more efficient for humans does not mean that it would
be more efficient for orcs.

It seems to me that you are trying to put use human psychology to explain
NON-human behavior.

What if orcs were simply too socially unruly to be able to operate in 'small'
units? What if orcs simply were simply not as individualistic as humans and
had a much more 'mob mentality'. What if any of 1,000 things that we simply
cannot comprehend (because we have yet to meet another sentient race) kept
orcs from forming 'smaller' units? Thus LARGER units really would be more
efficient for THEM (given this psychology). Again this all stems from me
wanting orcs to be orcs and not green space marines. :-]

Also under your explanation (if I understand you correctly) the most
'efficient' unit would be ONE man squads...if the tech. existed and the
training could be achieved to coordinate the 'squads', right? Think of the
flexibility, firepower, etc. Of course this is just not possible for
humans...perhaps for some 'bug' like alien or telepathic space creature, but
not humans.  :-)

As for the tech. thing, again you are simply paraphrasing GW's idea of orcs (I
think), not mine. In the old "Rogue Trader" days such things were left up to
the players and our group developed a nice background to support OUR idea
of orcs.  It was not like it is now where 40K players are spoon-fed a
history
like it or not. :-(

On a side note: I think SGII will suffer because it does NOT
'spoon-fed' a
history.  It would seem most of the people that play sci-fiction
miniatures
seem to WANT to be 'spoon-fed' a history.  But don't ask me why!  I have

always been puzzled by the seeming LACK of imagination in this area when it
comes to people that play a game that REQUIRES an ENORMOUS amount of
imagination to begin with! If someone has an idea on this 'score' please
explain it to me as I have been trying to figure this one out for quite some
time...  :-[

SC

> On a side note: I think SGII will suffer because it does NOT
please
> explain it to me as I have been trying to figure this one out for quite

First of all...I wanna see your variant Threat tables, goshdarnit! Sorry for
the harsh language, but it needed to be said. I want some ideas for MY aliens!
And my Orcs are basically Huns in space, with a lot of found technology.

Secondly...I don't know. There's a very vocal faction on r.g.m.m. who claim
that fluff is what makes a game GOOD. If the backstory is good, so they say,
it will redeem even the worst of rules. And no matter how good your rules are,
they aren't worth anything if they don't have a good background behind them.

Needless to say, I disagree. The game's the thing, in my opinion, and I MUCH
prefer to make up my own fluff. The only "Official" background that I've felt
at all compelled to use is DemonBlade's, and that's only because they don't
take it all seriously. I like games with a sense of humor (anyone else
remember Hol?). But it appears that a compelling background is a major selling
point to a lot of players.

Actually, let me quote one of the Fluff advocates directly:

> Obviously someone can't deal with the fact that a game is useless
"So your troops crest the hill" "Who are we fighting?" "Who cares your
military, your fighting." "Well I'd like to know something about my enemy."
"So it wasn't in the fluff, who cares?' "I do, what's the point of this battle
anyway?" "To kill the enemy!!" "Who was the enemy again?"<<

So anyway, yeah: it matters to some. Not to me, but to many others.

In a message dated 9/12/99 8:58:57 PM Central Daylight Time,
> johncrim@voicenet.com writes:

> Secondly...I don't know. There's a very vocal faction on r.g.m.m. who

> "So your troops crest the hill"

Yep, that's what I have always thought them mean too. It just seemed weird to
me that the players are incapable of creating their own story line...or god
forbid READING a novel or two. On that note I have yet to see a game (sorry
SGII included) that has a background as good as any of a
half-dozen
books sitting on my shelf right now! So why would I want to use their
background when I already have a better one on my shelf! Maybe this all

stems from people reading less these days...hmmm....

I will shoot you my alternate threat tables via email. Be warned they have yet
to be fully play tested...

SC

> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:48:09 EDT, UsClintons@aol.com wrote:

> But mainly humans and orcs should differ on more basic psychological

I've run GW based SG2 games myself. I gave the orks 8 "ork" squads and
regularly had the firepower go over the D12 limit. This, I found, wasn't a
problem. First, there's the assumption that with large squads good fire
control is more difficult and thus large numbers of troops will be harder to
co-ordinate.

But there's a second, more interesting thing that happens. I found that
smaller squads were at a disadvantage already. The way the system works large
squads soak up a lot of casualties before getting a degredation in firepower.
Okay, your system handles that, but also the unit has to take a lot of
casualties before it hits the magic "more than half of the squad in
casualties" mark for a major morale check.

I found against 8 ork squads, 5 man marine squads were at a big disadvantage.
The orks took essentially one or two blows without their firepower being
affected. The marines couldn't.

I'd be hesitant to do what you do simply because I worry about the game
balance ramifications.

> On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 12:46:50 EDT, UsClintons@aol.com wrote:

> Again I see what your are saying, but all this assumes that 'my' orcs

> closest orcs I have seen in another system would be perhaps what the

*L* That's the only version of 40K that I ever played, too.

Okay, seeing that you are limiting the Orks in other ways, with leader losses
and stuff, I retract my earlier comments about game balance problems. It
sounds like what you are doing with large squad firepower may unbalance the
orks in one direction, but your limits on ork officers pull that balance back
to centre.

I'd like to see your rules, if you have them written up.

> UsClintons@aol.com wrote:

> It seems to me that you are trying to put use human psychology to

Not at all. It's not human psychology but the simple constant of lethality vs
dispersion. Stargrunt is attempting to simulate (in some small degree), real
tactics and battlefield effects. Modern weapons and lethality have driven
everyone over the years towards smaller primary groups, more reliance on lower
level leaders and more dispersion to counteract the effects of lethality.
However the ORCs large squads can have great advantages in the fact that hey
are capable of sustaining more losses so are not as brittle.

> What if orcs were simply too socially unruly to be able to operate in
kept
> orcs from forming 'smaller' units? Thus LARGER units really would be

I'm not saying that the ORCS must operate in smaller units. Hell they wouldn't
be ORCS if they didn't operate in mobs. I'm just saying that they will pay for
that in any type of rules system that makes a half hearted attempted a
simulating actual combat. You are absolutely right in that when you have low
quality troops that can't act or think for themselves, AND when you combine
that with a
 lack of
junior leaders, you are very well going to run into a mass of driving cattle.
But that doesn't mean that HE, frags, MLPs, AGLs, and such weapons are going
to be somewhat less forgiving on them than they are smart troopers.

> Also under your explanation (if I understand you correctly) the most

Don't be foolish, there is a mix of firepower and sustainability given that
'll work fine. After that you make other amends to the system to bend them
your way. Actually telepathy would actually help control larger sized units
and perhaps over greater distances too. That would be the Tyrannids no?

> As for the tech. thing, again you are simply paraphrasing GW's idea of

Sorry. I thought you said you were basing your ORCS on the RT 40k universe?
You know you playing all your cards very close to your vest, giving us little
snippets of your orcs and then we're supposed to know how the heck you should
work them in SG2? Since you are the one asking for opinions how about shitting
us some more detail on those vile things of yours? <joke.> If they are walking
around in suits and ties how the heck are we supposed to know that?   We
know nothing about your custom made ORCS but then when something gets said you
go all defensive.

Instead of these one sided conversations why not post some stats? Then we can
see what your Orcs are on to and make meaningful contributions (which is why I
assume you are asking for opinions in the first place?) Heck I gave shitload
of ORCs to my cousin when he was into 40k and now I've got him into SG2 so it
would be good to see some rules to use them. he's too young to have money to
go and buy all new figs and he does have a lot of 40k stuff.

> On a side note: I think SGII will suffer because it does NOT

Well the development of stargrunt's history has been a great and detailed
pastime for most of the people on this list, though most of the discussion
lately has been on the GZG pedia list. Most people also have other backgrounds
they game the system in. There's hardly anything to worry about SG2 as we keep
on getting people dribbling in here as they wake up from GWs anesthesia.

Cheers...

In a message dated 9/12/99 10:54:35 PM Central Daylight Time,
los@cris.com writes:

> We know nothing about your custom made ORCS but then

Hmmm...don't feel defensive and sorry if I sounded like that. Just trying to
'stir' the debate. It helps me to 'think things through'.

I will email you what little I have so far. Be warned, it has been
play-tested only a little so far and will probably need to be 'tweaked'.

But all this talk of "play balance" (by you and others) has me wondering...how
do you define that? Really, I see play balance SOLELY as a scenario to
scenario issue.

For example a US Rangers squad is not a balanced match VS a SINGLE Viet Cong
squad. But if I was setting up a Vietnam scenario I would simply pit the
Rangers against several Cong squads or have them stumble into an ambush or
make them the attacker, etc. So, I am not clear what you (and others) really
mean by making the orcs "balanced". They simply have their advantages and
disadvantages over the 'human norm' and each scenario must be created with
care so as to be fairly balanced, like any scenario.

Later, SC

> UsClintons@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 9/12/99 10:54:35 PM Central Daylight Time,

Sorry for misunderstanding on my part too.

> I will email you what little I have so far. Be warned, it has been

Actually I should be slapped for even harping on play balance (If I did)
because I am one that doesn't give two hoots about it. For example if you have
one squad fighting a platoon, odds are they'll probably ended up forfeiting
the field. However how well did they do relative to their size? Did they good
a give account of themselves? Did they delay the enemy sufficiently. You get
the idea... Though balance in terms of making the system work as it should is
another subject.

BTW regarding large ORC squads, are you making amends to the 2"/6" squad
integrity rule? IIRC models must be either 2" from the next squadmate of
within a 6" radius. You might want to consider changing one of those figures
to help cram all the orcs together. Say like leaving the 2" rule (hell they
love company but expanding the radius rule to some amenable figure to it your
squad in.

Cheers...

> UsClintons@aol.com wrote:

> Again I see what your are saying, but all this assumes that 'my' orcs

> In the original 40k "Rogue Trader" orcs were fully capable of

I play Epic 40k, and mainly with Orks (with a k). The feel is similar to a
1942 vintage Russian or 1970s vintage Chinese army, with a front line of good
assault troops (heck, good troops overall), some massed average
cannon-fodder behind them, and a 3rd line of vast quantities of
short-ranged artillery (equivt of Mortars).
In terms of indirect fire at close range, the Orks in E40k are Firepower
supremos. Long range artillery is different: they don't have any.

Modern analogy: Elite troops with GLs etc at the front. Normal (I won't say
'Green') in the middle.