owner-ftgzg-l@bolton.ac.uk:
> Not to change the subject...
< snip >
> I immediatly
I'd always kind of assumed that an action is required to issue an order to the
detachment but after that they would continue until told to stop.
eg. Your Squad leader would spend one action to tell them to lay down
supressive fire. After that, they would continue to do so until told to stop.
In the next turn, they main squad would be back to 2 actions to assault the
building and the detachment would have 2 actions of supressive firing.
I agree that it's kind of silly for the detachment to do nothing at all though
although that is what the rules say.
I guess the 'cost one action to activate' rule is there to prevent too many
detachments from large units, which would be unrealistic.
I think your suggestion would work just fine as long as it wasn't abused.
Maybe a limit to the number of detachments from a unit? How about a time limit
after which the detachment stops what they
are doing and need 're-prompting' with a command action ?
Not to change the subject...
In SGII it says you can detach part of a squad to do some other activities
that the whole squad doesn't need to do (recon, setup fire base, etc). The
Squad leader spends an action to detach. Ok. But then later it says the Squad
Leader must role a successful communication action to have detached guy do
something. That leaves only 1 action for his guys. That doesn't seem right.
This past weekend my son and I were playing a small SGII game. I wanted him to
detach a SAW marine and a rifleman to lay down supression fire into this
building on the right side of the street. The rest of the squad was assaulting
the building on the left of the street. I had already had another squad laying
fire into that left building. The detached team detached ok and starting
shooting. That left no action for the squad. Next round I wanted to assault
the left. I wanted the SAW team to suppress the right (major bad boys in that
building). By having the detached unit fire that left only 1 action for the
squad, not enough to do what they wanted. I immediatly changed the rules to
say that the detached squad gets 1 action per turn unless the Squad leader
comms with them to give them two. That takes one from him.
Let me know how everyone else plays this.
Jay Haygood
> In SGII it says you can detach part of a squad to do some other
The
> Squad leader spends an action to detach. Ok. But then later it says the
The intent is to prevent a player from gaining a bunch of extra actions by
dividing his squads up into a bunch of little teams. Your proposed rule change
goes against this intent. Since you have control over how big you set your
squads up in the first place, this would be really unbalancing to have, say a
12 man squad, and then deploy into 4 three man teams (or 3 fireteams of 4,
which is actually a very common structure).
I believe the real intent of the detachment rule was to have a small team do
something while the rest of the squad covers them. Only having 1 action for
the main unit would be sufficient for this covering fire.
- example deleted -
A better way to handle what you desired would be to detach an assault team
instead of a cover team. The SL stays with the firebase, directing their fire.
He spends one action to order the assault team to take two, and the other
action is used by the firebase group to fire suppression.
The US Army doctrine for infantry tactics in the early 80's called for the
squad leader to keep close control over his support weapons (M60 and M203). He
would not "lead the charge", but would command from a cover position. Of
course, in SG2 terms, I would set up that unit as two "squads" of 5, each with
a team leader, and a "section leader" who was actually the squad
leader. So you wouldn't have any detachments - you have a cover squad
and an assault squad.
Bottom line, I don't agree with your proposed rule change, and I like the rule
the way it is.
> On 26 Aug 1996, John Phelps wrote:
> I believe the real intent of the detachment rule was to have a small
Could you just detach the Squad Leader from the Squad, then break the Squad up
into two elements or seperate detachments (Fire Teams)? That way the Squad
Leader could sit tight in one location, spend an action to activate one Fire
Team (giving them two actions) and spend another action to activate the other
Fire Team (giving them two actions).
I have no idea if the above is legal, I just started playing (I don't even
have a copy of the rules).:)
By the way, by doctrine (in the US army) the Leader stays with the larger
element of his command, or with the maneuver element if both are of equal
size. In practice I think most units have the Squad Leader moving with the
assaulting Fire Team rather than with the Fire Support Fire Team (there is a
lot of variation out there on this however.)
> Could you just detach the Squad Leader from the Squad, then break the
I'm not sure, I'll have to check the rules on individuals. I'm not sure you
can do that, but that would solve it. Of course, you could deploy that
way to begin with - two small "squads" and an individual extra leader.
That would actually give you more actions.;)
> On 27 Aug 1996, John Phelps wrote:
> >Could you just detach the Squad Leader from the Squad, then break the
That way
> >the Squad Leader could sit tight in one location, spend an action to
> That would actually give you more actions. ;)
A few more questions along that line.
you can have your heavy weapons fire at targets different from the rest of the
squad right? What if I have two PPG, can I have both of them fire at the same
"other" target, would they combine?
We played our first game (after picking up the rules that day) a few days ago.
At the end of the game Mike was getting smacked around pretty bad (we have no
idea if it was a balanced battle of course). He had one squad leader left in
power armor, just for the heck of it he
charged him into H-H with a full squad in normal battle dress. After we
decided he made the assault (he actually fell short) we went about matching
him up with my troops (it was like 1:9), and six guys were placed around him.
We then rolled, he got a six (doubled to 12) and killed all six guys without
chance of injury. Is this for real? Is there nothing
for being outnumbered in H-H taken into account? Could some dweeb with
a sword (or some other hand weapon so he has a d10 and I have a d8) roll a 9
and do the same thing? I realize that there are all kinds of rolls that must
be made for one lone joker to get into CC with a force that outnumbers him,
but still...
How do you go about balancing one force against another? Has anyone come up
with a point system to use as a guide? I realize I probably just stepped on
some toes by asking that, but I really don't feel
like playing a dozen+ games just to learn how to play one balanced game.
Can you combine two squads into one? I plan on fielding 9 man squads of light
infantry (two PPG per squad) and wanted to include on the battle field
separate 3 man heavy teams (one man carrying a SAW) acting as independent
squads. One of the things I would like to do is be able to
combine a Heavy team/squad and one of my light squads during a battle
(so there would actually be two squad leaders in this "reinforced" squad). Is
that legal, or would I have to do that before the game started?
Can a Platoon Leader activate the same squad twice in the same turn (using
both of his actions)?
Is there a modifier for activating a squad (higher command to lower command)
if that squad is suppressed?
How much interesting stuff has been posted to the list that I have missed? Is
there anyway for me to get a look at old files (archive)?
Has anybody posted scenarios? Would anybody be interested in any?
Responding to a few questions from Chad Taylor <ct454792@oak.cats.ohiou.edu>
> you can have your heavy weapons fire at targets different from the rest
That one is debatable. The letter of the rules would appear to say
"no",
since the action of firing a support weapon at a separate target is a separate
one. However, since the action of firing inherent FP at a target can include a
support weapon's die as an increase, one could argue you could add the same
increase to another support weapon. Basically, for two
actions, you can fire at two targets, but all non-support wpn FP must be
fired at only one of those two targets.
Personally, I'd lean towards the second argument and let you do it.
> We played our first game (after picking up the rules that day) a few
> for being outnumbered in H-H taken into account? Could some dweeb with
I'm pretty sure there is something about multiple attackers making a
difference, but I don't have my rules handy. Maybe a die shift. But,
one guy in power armor could rack up a bunch of unaugmented guys.
> How do you go about balancing one force against another? Has anyone
Easiest way to balance is just play it. But as you say, you don't want to play
the same game over and over. I want to know why everyone is so hung
up on playing balanced games??!?!?! Infantry battles could RARELY be
called balanced. You line up what you got, and do the best possible. Even a
perfectly balanced scenario can be cocked up by a couple bad rolls, so why
worry about it?
Of course, I'm no longer an "alpha gamer", so losing doesn't bother me. Sure I
like to win, but playing is what's fun to me.
A points system would be rather difficult, since you have multiple ratings,
most of which are expressed on a scale of dice size. A veteran trooper firing
an FP 1 weapon might be better at certain ranges than a green trooper firing
an FP 3 weapon, not to mention the fact the veteran will stick around longer.
Just do it by feel, and if you are overly competitive - play any given
setup twice, one from each side. The winner is the one who does better
overall, figuring in the results of both games.
> Can you combine two squads into one? I plan on fielding 9 man squads
Is
> that legal, or would I have to do that before the game started?
You can recombine two groups into one (there's a rule for that), but you would
lose the effect of the second group leader. So, no, you can't.
> Can a Platoon Leader activate the same squad twice in the same turn
We've been talking about that. I don't think we have a consensus so far,
but I feel that yes, you can activate the same squad twice - if you
spend the actions and make the commo rolls. The main argument is whether they
can fire again, since the rule on weapon fire is phrased as once per game
turn, not once per activation.
> Is there a modifier for activating a squad (higher command to lower
Don't know this one, I'd have to go look at the rule again.
> How much interesting stuff has been posted to the list that I have
I keep forgetting to save the archive address when it gets posted. I think
Mark (or maybe Adam) runs it???
> Has anybody posted scenarios? Would anybody be interested in any?
I'd be interested in any. I posted the beginning of a campaign idea, but no
expressed further interest so I didn't post any more. I also posted some
alternate organizations from current SF novels. Andrew posted stats on Kryomek
models and I posted an example conversion of a Genestealer. Someone also
posted their interpretation of 40K Space Marines.
If you have something cool, post it!;)
> A few more questions along that line.
Each seperate target/weapon requires a seperate action. So you could
have two seperate Pigs fire at two seperate targets, but that would take
both actions for your whole squad and the regular grunts with ordinary rifles
would just be sitting there with their thumbs up their butts.
Unless you wanted to save the Pigs to fire when you're squad is
re-activated by a leader, or you want to save the riflemen.
> How do you go about balancing one force against another? Has anyone
How about using identical forces?;) The other option is to change objectives
in the middle of the game. If one side's getting trounced, and both players
realize it, just suddenly have orders come down for their new objective to be
something currently within reach. Perhaps not
terribly satisfying, admittedly, but a possible solution.
> Can you combine two squads into one? I plan on fielding 9 man squads
Is
> that legal, or would I have to do that before the game started?
The one thing I don't understand is why people would field a bigger squad than
five members if they were using any weapon of firepower 3, or a seven man
squad if using a weapon of firepower 2. With four riflemen armed with
firepower 3 rifles backed up with an SAW man, you've just
achieved your maximum efficiency--a d12 for the riflemen and then the
SAW as the second action (or Pig, or IAVR or whatever). What good would seven
riflemen do? Aside from helping out as soon as you take casualties? I know, I
know, call me a "power gamer" but this is a little too much of a rules
loophole, unless I'm totally missing something.
Let's take a standard U.S. style rifle squad (I'm not in the military so
please correct me if I've got this wrong--this is just picked up from
other games):
Squad leader w/M16
Fire Team Leader w/M16
Rifleman w/M16
1 SAW Gunner 1 Grenadier
Fire Team Leader w/M16
Dragon Gunner w/M16
1 SAW Gunner 1 Grenadier
Now, assume the M16s are firepower 2 and the grenade launchers are firepower
3. That means altogether the squad has 18 firepower points, 6
of which are wasted because you can't have better than a d12, and you have 2
SAW gunners, which is just fine.
Of course if you divide the squads into fireteams, attaching the squad leader
to one of the fireteams than your fine and dandy and efficient, with one
fireteam firepower 9 and one firepower 7, resulting in each rolling a d8,
right? And each is supported by a nice SAW. But what happens in terms of
leadership? What if I start the game with fireteams
like this, and assuming the squad leader is a sergeant, what is the fireteam
leader, a corporal? If my Liutenant (platoon leader) tries to
give his action to one of the fireteams to re-activate it, is that two
levels of command, platoon leader to sergeant to corporal, instead of just
one? I would think so. Does this rambling make any sense to anyone?
> The one thing I don't understand is why people would field a bigger
You could always use one action to fire some (half?) of the squads weapons and
the second action to fire the rest. This way you'd not waste any firepower and
you could shoot at either two enemy squads (as long as it can be said they
both represent an equal threat value) or if you shoot at the same squad, you
really have a chance to rack up their suppression, and hopefully kill a few.
And then you could always use a higher leader to activate the unit so they can
do other things.
-Greg
> On Tue, 27 Aug 1996, Charles Thumann wrote:
> >
squad). Is
> > that legal, or would I have to do that before the game started?
Yep, you are. :) :) Why would you field the maximum effect squad
configuration in a game that has no point system? How can you "power game" in
a system that has no points? Instead of splitting your squads into groups of
five why not just take the same number of squads but with more people.
Actually the reason most people (I'm guessing) probably field more than five
people in a squad is that it resembles what we see in
the modern battlefields of today. Since the whole point of a non-point
system is to take what should be there rather than what works best game
wise...... ah hell, I give up - I don't know
why..ramble..ramble..ramble..
> Let's take a standard U.S. style rifle squad (I'm not in the military
Close, by TOE (Table of Organization and Equipment) an Infantry Squad (Light)
is composed as above, however you need to add one rifleman (M16)
to each Fire Team (FM 7-8, Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad) for a full
TOE squad of nine. In practice each fire team operates separately (sorta,
kinda, not really), but in mutual support, and is controlled by the Squad
Leader (who will also have control of any Weapons Team that is attached to the
squad, such as an M60 LMG or 90mm
Recoiless Rifle - they kind of form a third Fire Team). In Stargrunt II
each Fire Team (IMHO) should be fielded as a separate squad with the Team
Leader being that squads Squad Leader. The Squad Leader would be an
independent Leader that is the next higher in the chain of command of that
squad. Or something like that.
> Now, assume the M16s are firepower 2 and the grenade launchers
Reality/Game check here please :) Trust me on this, you would rather
get shot at by a squad with fewer men and weapons in it than by one with
more men and weapons - regardless of what Stargrunt says (game glitch I
would say). The reason we operate in the military (talking Light Infantry
here) as two fire teams is NOT that the extra weapons don't help,
it is that with two teams we have maneuver and support elements - and
that lets us rock AND roll.
I would suggest that if you wish to approximate reality a little more that
when you have the above problem (18 fp) that you subtract the max dice (12)
from it and use the remainder as the beginning of a new fp total (6 in this
case, for an extra d6). However, the game seems to work just fine as it is and
I'm really just rambling at this point.
> Of course if you divide the squads into fireteams, attaching the squad
> leader to one of the fireteams than your fine and dandy and efficient,
> with one fireteam firepower 9 and one firepower 7, resulting in each
> levels of command, platoon leader to sergeant to corporal, instead of
Does to me.
By TOE the Squad Leader is a Staff Sergeant (E6) and the two Team Leader are
Sergeants (E5). All three are considered Leadership positions (Team Leader
less so, but I have always put GREAT faith in my Team Leaders). In actuality
the Squad Leader is a "manager" and will control how the Squad fights, the
Team Leaders are Fighting Leaders in the truest sense of the
word and lead by example- in fact the standing order of all Team Leaders
is "Do as I do" (FM 7-8).
I would say that you are right and that it should work as two levels of
command: Platoon Leader -> Squad Leader -> Team Leader.
In message <199608280036.RAA18712@netcom14.netcom.com>, Charles Thumann
writes:
> Each seperate target/weapon requires a seperate action. So you could
Okay, who wants to write the Farmgrunt rules?:)
> In message <199608280338.XAA27269@tyco.cs.utk.edu> Andrew Cowell writes:
Shouldn't that should be "StarOink"?...
> On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, David Brewer wrote:
I thought it was "Full Grunt"...
> In message <199608291503.LAA28769@CS.UTK.EDU>, "Mike Wikan" writes:
...with the capital ship, "Makin' Bacon..."
Okay, I'll stop now.
> ----Pork Thrust?!?!
Pigs In Space!
> ----Pork Thrust?!?!
For those of you who haven't read it, a little passage from the Aliens
Colonial Marines technical manuel:
"Meet mah friend PIG. He's big an' fat an' a bitch to carry, an' he don' look
like much y'know. But 'f I point him at yo' and pull this trigger,
then he'll blow a hole through yo' big 'nuff to drive a panzer thru'. No use
hiding in an APC either; Mister PIG say 'snuff' an' your armored baby carriage
suddenly acquire some new air conditioning, stak? So, say 'hello' to Mister
PIG befo' he get upset. Oink, oink."
--PFC Jonjo "Grifs" Torne, 2/16 Colonial Marine, Kuat
> David Brewer wrote:
Heh, heh. I figured someone might mention this one day. Kinda fits in with
farm animal technology like the cow catapult or the rooster booster.;)
> Mike writes:
> ----Pork Thrust?!?!
Please! My wife already thinks these games are "too phallic."
...on the subject of single soldiers (PA or not) taking out an entire squad
with a lucky roll.
The house rule I have used is just to have the attacker roll off against
*each* defender individually. That way if you have a single d10 attacker and 8
d6 defenders, there is not a 40% chance that the attacker will win
automatically (which I dislike).
This keeps the feel of the combat (one guy still could take on that many and
live) without making for a lot of silly rules loopholes, such as detaching one
PA trooper to make the assault thus increasing the odds of winning.
Just my $.02
I dont yet have a copy of this game but play A.A.firefight & TTG's Imperial
comander .Any one able to give a quick review/comparison ?
Jon (t.c.)
SDL
I'm new to the list, but I've just recently picked up a copy of SG2, and have
fallen in love. I was wondering if there were any SG2 players in the
south-eastern ohio/north-western WV area. If so, drop me a note, and
maybe we can hook up for a game. I'm in Marietta, OH, just north of
Parkersburg, WV.
> I'm new to the list, but I've just recently picked up a copy of SG2,
Hi there,
Welcome to the list.
Check out this site for a list of players and their locations. There's another
site that has a player location list, but I don't have the URL. I'm sure
someone else on the list can tell you.