Prev: Re: Worried about GenCon. Next: Re: Worried about GenCon.

RE: SG II House Rules - longish post

From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:13:25 -0500
Subject: RE: SG II House Rules - longish post

> (I admit freely that I'm an obsessive about simplicity; before I feel
> comfortable adding more mechanics to my games, I have to feel that I'm
> getting something that's not covered under the current complexity.)

Fair enough. 
> No, that goes back to the Reorg-Fire-Reorg suggestion; a quick-fix for
> that might be to suggest that the dispersal distance is only
applicable if
> you're going to move the unit; if they are going to be commanded 'in
> place,' you needn't have them in dispersal range, but all units
> must have a Reorg spent on them.

That has its shortcomings too. Really it shouldn't be any easier to 
command in place (in the case of giving a bunch of 'changing' 
commands). With a set order,  then maybe. 
> This could lead to some serious tactical imbalance if requiring a
> Action per squad isn't 'costly' enough.  One of the reasons I like
> that it rewards varied tactics fairly equally.

I will agree with that. Although I might also suggest the reasons 
many militaries have doctrine is because they like 
wait.... its because certain tactics work better than others. I'm not 
sure varied tactics should always be equally rewarded. 

I guess the answer to this one depends where you lie on the 
Simulation/Game continuum. In a game, it is really great to have lots 
of options and have them all have a fair chance to pan out. In a 
Simulation, it is an attempt to simulate a situation which might not 
allow such lattitude or encourage certain ways of acting. 

> True, but then again /anyone's/ first reaction is to throw themselves
> the ground and try to find something chunky to put between them and
> incoming things, in my experience ...

Given. But I've seen footage from Russian Spetsnaz ambushes in 
Afghanistan and some American Ambushes in Vietnam, and I've seen 
first hand Ambushes from the Canadian excercises, and one can see the 
difference in response between untrained or green troops and regulars 
or veterans.  The reactions, although in principle similar, vary a 
fair bit in efficiency, effectiveness, and speed. A green troop that 
is ambushed tends to hit the dirt but not always find cover or take 
advantage of terrain. They tend to sometimes bolt, and a lot of 
confusion ensues. They don't know how to react a lot of times. 
Veterans that are ambushed tend to realize the bad situation they are 
in quickly, hit the deck making good use of cover and where they can 
fire back from (or they move to such positions quickly) and they are 
unlikely to bolt. 

In short, some people in an ambush are passive targets, others are 
far more active and very shortly cease to be targets and become 
combatants (returning fire, attempting a breakout, etc). 

> Note that, typically, better troops have better armour (which leads to
> fewer casualties when the resolution of fire rolls around), and that
> attack sequence determines if the firers put the fire down
> and in the right position; no matter how good you are, if you're under
> effective fire you're going to be sucking on a bullet just as easily
as a
> civie.

That's a tough one. Anyone can take a bullet, and in the open I'd 
have to agree. In any sort of close or rugged terrain, I'm fairly 
sure troop quality makes a difference (how much? I don't think I 
could guess). 

  Vetran rifle squads firing on Green troops in PA will very likely
> be more effective than if it were more Vetrans in the same PA because
> latter is more likely to be in position, respond to morale checks and
> supression faster and more effectively, etc.	No matter whether its a
> Green or Vet man in the PA, however, if they get hit by a good shot,
> they're just as dead.

> > Or perhaps a unit quality mod to range die? Hmmm. I don't know. Just

> > some stray thoughts. 
> Again, that starts complicating things a bit more than I'd like;
> already a /lot/ of die shifts and mods to keep in mind; there's good
> reason to not want micromanagement to go that low in SGII.

It's a good argument. I think I can buy that.the effect of troop 
quality of the target unit is debatable (it probably factors in to 
some extent in some instances) and therefore hard to quantify. I'm 
willing to buy that this is an extra complexity that gives a not too 
significant return. Thanks for the input Alexander! 

Thomas Barclay
Software Specialist
Police Communications Systems
Software Kinetics Ltd.
66 Iber Road, Stittsville
Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2034
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Our Web Page:

Prev: Re: Worried about GenCon. Next: Re: Worried about GenCon.