-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi there, folks,
Upon re-reading the StarGrunt rules, I wondered about something.
Recalling the recent discussion about squad sizes, and a good many people
favouring relatively small squads, it struck me that these would be rather
severely affected by any reductions in size due to the 'under strength units'
rules on page 3.
Am I correct in guessing most people elect not to apply these rules? Or do you
feel the benefits of small squad sizes still outweigh the disadvantages, even
with these rules?
Cheers,
> Derk Groeneveld wrote:
Uhm, page 3? You mean p.10? Rolling a d10 (if fresh) for each figure, on a one
they're absent?
We use them, although we often make the die rolls in advance, as we generally
play refereed scenarios (where the referee decides scenario and forces) where
SNAFU is the order of the day. On the other hand, we do not use very small
squads. Generally 6 or 8 man in a squad.
---
In message
<Pine.LNX.3.96.1010416153142.25132E-100000@cc5127-a.deven1.ov.nl.hom
> e.com>, Derk Groeneveld writes:
Or do
> you feel the benefits of small squad sizes still outweigh the
I can't say I've ever used these rules (and they're on page 10--
thanks for the index, Allan!), but having completely forgotten about them, I
almost made up my own for my last game. I'll use these in my next.;) Sounds
like it would really hurt small squads, particularly
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Andy Cowell wrote:
> In message
Or do
> > you feel the benefits of small squad sizes still outweigh the
Me either, even if I _knew_ at the back of my mind that they existed.
> thanks for the index, Allan!), but having completely forgotten about
Which doesn't strike me as altogether unrealistic;) Still, your leaders get
replaced before the battle.
Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Henrix wrote:
> Derk Groeneveld wrote:
Apparantly my brain rolled a 1; I could have sworn I checked the page no.
> We use them, although we often make the die rolls in advance, as we
That's the squad size I'm aiming for. And I agree, those SNAFU's do make for a
more interesting day, as they supply problems to solve:)
Cheers,
G'day guys,
We haven't used the rule. Mainly becuase those who have big squads and have
taken the time to paint them like seeing them on the table (or not depending
on how good the cam is... and yes we have been caught by some very well done
jobs)...
...and more importantly because I'd actually like to get a figure on the
table... I can see it now
> On Wed, 18 April 2001, Derk Groeneveld wrote:
> Recalling the recent discussion about squad sizes, and a good many
Or do
> you feel the benefits of small squad sizes still outweigh the
Well, I've been thinking about this, and I'm coming to the conclusion that
small squads (i.e. fireteams) are modelled within the squad structure of the
game itself. The integrity range is 60 metres, which seems pretty spread out
for a fireteam. I think the game works well without modelling fireteams by
making them their own special squads.
So, with that in mind, fielding a small squad is doing just that: fielding a
small squad. As such, the under strength units rules apply. If you want to
gain the benefits of all those extra activations by using small squads, you
run the risk of losing a lot of figures to the understrength rules.
That having been said, I don't use them that often. I usually create my own
scenarios, where the squad size and composition is part of the scenario
design.
> On 19-Apr-01 at 13:54, agoodall@canada.com (agoodall@canada.com) wrote:
Or
> > do you feel the benefits of small squad sizes still outweigh the
fielding
> a small squad. As such, the under strength units rules apply. If you
You aren't going to lose any more figures with small squads or large squads.
The rules say you roll once per figure, not once per squad.
In message <20010419175254.3548.cpmta@c001.zsm.cp.net>, agoodall@canada.com
wri tes:
> Well, I've been thinking about this, and I'm coming to the
Synchronicity. I've been mulling this over the last few days, and had pretty
much come to the same conclusion. I was just waiting to try and dig through
some of the army FMs to see if they commented any on normal distances
fireteams should operate at.
Especially with the "wasted firepower" of large squads and the ability to
break that firepower up and effectively hit two targets or the same target
twice, I feel the current game structure adequately represents fireteams. Add
to this the fact that additional squads add additional play time and game
complexity (esp. with additional FT rules), and I'm thinking I'll stick with
large squads.
I'll note that my main concern with fireteam ranges comes from my recent
reading of Antal's "Infantry Combat: The Rifle Platoon,"
whereby several anti-armor and machine gun teams were detached (at
fair distances) from the main squads. Now, the anti-armor teams were
actually company attachments (IIRC), so they'd perhaps be better
served as small squads (this is what I did in my recent games-- AA
teams were two man squads). However, in there book, there was at
least one real detachment-- a machine gunner from the MG squad
detached to cover the rear. There was no contact between the command and the
detachment past this. The team went "there" and did "that" until receiving
further orders, and the main squad suffered a "morale check" later when the MG
squad couldn't be reached by radio.
P.S. The book rawked. It's an educational choose-your-own-adventure
style book; i.e., "Forward Defense? Go to 12. Rear Slope Defense? Go
to 15" and "Incoming Artillery. Roll 2d6: 2-4, go to 18. 5-12, go
to21." He's also got a tank platoon book, and an infantry company book which
I've got on order right now.
Check 'em out:
In message <ML-3.4.987703010.2088.books@babinga.dms.state.fl.us>, Roger
Books w rites:
> >
True, but the effect could be much greater. With four guys, even if you lose
only a rifleman, that's 25% of your FP and almost certainly an FP die shift
down. A larger squad could possibly soak a loss or two with any immediate
combat effect. If you've got small squads that are weary (or whatever the
worst roll is), you really might not have
> On 19-Apr-01 at 14:26, Andy Cowell (andy@cowell.org) wrote:
Unless, of course, you treat your large squad as two fire-teams
and split off a detachment. Then you are in the same boat.:)
There are other disadvantages to small squads, close assualt a squad of 4 with
a squad of 8 and see what happens. I'm neutral on the arguement, it's just
there is so much hostility to small squads that it makes me want to jump in on
the other side.
In message <ML-3.4.987705120.5202.books@babinga.dms.state.fl.us>, Roger
Books w rites:
> Unless, of course, you treat your large squad as two fire-teams
Sure-- my 4 POWER ARMOR with auto-shotguns and flamers will KICK ASS.
;)
Actually, I haven't followed most of these discussions closely, but I was
under the impression the majority of the list was PRO small squad,
> On 19-Apr-01 at 14:53, Andy Cowell (andy@cowell.org) wrote:
Those pre-combat rolls are really going to be rough on PA. :)
> Actually, I haven't followed most of these discussions closely, but I
They like the det rules but there are complaints about munchkinism with the
small squad rules, even though the disadvantages seem to about equal the
advantage of extra activations.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Roger Books wrote:
> On 19-Apr-01 at 13:54, agoodall@canada.com (agoodall@canada.com)
wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 April 2001, Derk Groeneveld wrote:
fielding
> > a small squad. As such, the under strength units rules apply. If you
Yes. But face it, the odds of losing your leader are a lot bigger in the
smaller squads, same for heavy weapons. Also, since larger squads usually have
a bit of 'spare' FP, they can do without the first 'standard grunt' loss a lot
easier than, say, a 4 figure squad.
Cheers,
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> own scenarios, where the squad size and composition is part of the
That is generally how we do it as well. But we prefer designing the scenarios
with full strength units, and then roll to see who's got better things to do
than helping his squad mates. Often the referee would do this, to save gaming
time and be able to fudge it if necessary. But sometimes we roll it when it is
time to place the grunts on the table. That f*cks it all up and makes it a bit
more... interesting.
---
> ...and more importantly because I'd actually like to get a figure on
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Beth Fulton wrote:
> ...and more importantly because I'd actually like to get a figure on
.... and you'd still score a moral victory;)
Seriously though, I know what you mean with painting the figures for a reason.
But OTOH, this does keep a nice bit of unpredictability in the game (... I
think, I still have to actyually TRY playing with that rule
;)
)
Cheers,
G'day guys,
Laserlight asked:
> They make you roll for that one?
All Nuns are equal in the sight of the rules;P
Derk stated:
> .... and you'd still score a moral victory ;)
This is trully a grand moment!! Derk mentioned moral and victory with
reference to me!;)
> Seriously though, I know what you
Yeah we'll probably give it a go too sometime in the future (hopefully not too
distant).
Cheers