Re: [SG2] articulation and efficiency

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:23:55 -0400 , "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com>
wrote:

>4) Squads with (for example) 7 men with rifles and a GMS are at a huge
>disadvantage - the GMS (using a differing fire mechanic and consuming a
>separate action to fire) pins the unit and robs it of manouvre -
whereas if
>the GMS team is its own entity, it can move and fire without impeding
the
>rest of the unit 

This is very true.

However, wouldn't you be better off detaching the non-GMS part of the
unit? If
you give the squad leader the GMS unit (is this strictly disallowed?) or
keep
the GMS trooper with the squad leader, you could detach the rest of the
squad.
It still requires a "transfer action" to activate the other part of the
squad
so the GMS unit and the squad leader would only have one other action.
You
would, though, get 2 actions for the rest of the squad. This does let
the GMS
fire without hampering the other part of the squad. It also lets the
entire
squad move and fire when the GMS unit isn't needed. In fact, it allows
the
squad to move and fire while letting the squad leader do something else.

I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that smaller squads have more
options.
This is just a method of giving more options within the large squad
structure.

>5) similar argument applies to why officers and PSgts might want to be
>treated as individuals rather than as parts of a command squad - most
of the
>time the command squad commands and so it doesn't fire or move. If the
>officer is an individual, they can command while this squad actually
>achieves things... and from my own experience, it mirrors the
tendencies of
>junior officers and platoon NCOs to move about making sure that
everything
>in their platoon is squared away. 

I'm not sure if this command squad idea came out of playtesting or what.
However, I still use the command squad idea and don't allow the
commanders to
run around on their own.

When I describe how SG2 works, I point out that the squads are the
important
thing, not the individual figures. The figures are simply markers for
casualties. In this case, it's not the number of figures that's
important,
it's the number squads. The number of figures simply indicates the
strength of
a squad.

So, when designing scenarios, I keep command squads. The figures in the
squad
may be "wasted" as they don't do anything else, but that's irrelevant.
They
are there to soak up fire the command squad might take.

If we were to come up with a Stargrunt point system I think the points
should
be spent on squads, not figures. In this case, I'd simply "price" the
command
squad slightly higher for having more soldiers in it, as its defensive
value
is higher.  However I also think that if you were to put those same
figures in
another squad by themselves and leave the commander alone in their own
squad,
you'd end up paying a lot more.

>Penalties:
>1) More brittle morale

Yes, the morale is more brittle. BUT (and it's a big one) the chance of
actually being reduced to a lower morale state while the unit is still
effective is less.

If you take a 12 soldier squad, which is pretty darned big, and assume
an
average of 2 casualties a turn, that squad will take 5 Confidence Tests
before
it is wiped out on the 6th turn. Now, according to the rules, it will
never
take a nasty TL3 Confidence Test unless it loses a leader (it will never
"take
more casualties in one attack than it has surviving members
afterwards").
Instead it will take 5 TL1 Confidence Tests. Using my house rules, the
squad
would take two TL3 Confidence Tests, once when the squad drops to 6
figures,
and another when it goes from 4 to 2 members. 

Now, compare this to two squads of 6. Using the regular rules, each
"half
squad" would take 2 Confidence Tests before being wiped out. It might
get down
to Routed, if it loses two levels per squad, but chances are they won't
get to
worse than shaken, which is what I found usually happens. With my house
rules,
at least one of the 2 Confidence Tests would be at TL3.

Compare this to three squads of 4 figures. Each squad would take, at
most, 1
Confidence Test. The worst it could do is drop to Shaken.

See what I'm getting at? The morale is more brittle (there's a greater
chance
of taking out a leader for one thing) but the smaller squads tend to get
wiped
out before morale can do much to affect them. That was the reason for my
house
rule, to make morale nastier. Even still, smaller units are usually
rendered
useless before morale effects kick in.

One other thing, smaller units tend to have more "overkill" results
against
them. A large squad will soak up those casualties. This makes fire from
smaller units more efficient, but fire against small units is less
efficient.

>Analysis:
>Good benefits - efficiency of fire, hard to pin down, easy to manouvre.
>Penalties - Ha! The SG2 morale rules are very generous (they don't
track
>accumulating casualties which is a MAJOR shortcoming) and the tests for
some
>things are a bit easy. 

*G* Okay, so you came to the same conclusions as me. *L* 

My house rules do track accumulating casualties at the squad level, by
forcing
a TL 4/3/2 (for low/med/high motivation troops) Confidence Test when
half the
squad is removed, and when a squad takes "AS MANY OR MORE casualties in
one
attack as it has figures left in the squad").

The lack of morale effects to the platoon as squads take casualties is a
shortcoming, both in SG2 and Dirtside.

>Effectively you get far more bang for the same amount of buck. I think
Allan
>is right - SG2 doesn't use points and can be tricky to balance. But
>increased articulation (splitting squads down to 4 men instead of 8)
can be
>worth (I'd guess) 20-25% in terms of force capability. 

As I was getting at earlier, if we were to design a point system ("we"
being
"SG2 players on the list") I would be tempted to buy squads, not
individuals,
but use the number of figures in the squad as a way of pricing the value
of a
squad. Thus, a 4 four soldier squad would be worth less than an 8
soldier
squad, but one 8 soldier squad would cost less than two 4 soldier
squads.
There would be a "price" just to create the squad, and a bonus cost for
the
figures in the squad, and the types of support weapons, etc.

>Similarly, this
>allows GMS systems to be used to real effect rather than constantly
>presenting the choice "do I fire the GMS and not move?" to squads. In
>reality, the GMS wouldn't have to hold its fire just because it uses a
>different mechanic - it would just fire. 

I agree with moving GMS into a different squad. Again, forces that do
this,
though, should pay more for that flexibility.

>I think SG2, by virtue of being more complex than FT in many ways, is
not
>well given to a point system for balance.

Hmmm. It's not as easy, certainly. For one thing, terrain can completely
invalidate the point system. I saw a good point system in the WRG World
War II
rules, though, which essentially inflated one side's points based on its
mission, and some other factors. I think it can be done, but it wouldn't
be as
easy as FT.

> You have so many variables (morale
>level, quality of troops, weapons systems, organization of forces,
comms
>kit/EW, armour type, etc) that it just isn't feasible to come up with a
>terribly useful point list.

Okay, I disagree with that. I think you can come up with a useful point
system. I think the trick is to buy squads, not figures. I'll have to
think
about this. A point system would only be a guideline, certainly. I'll
have to
take a lot at Advanced Squad Leader again and see how they came up with
their
"Do Your Own" point system.

>The trade off in this format of a game is that the balance is harder to
>predict (eventually, you get a good idea from experience, but it takes
time)
>but you reap a more complex tactical game from this. 

I fully agree with this. A point system is still only going to give
players a
frame work. Mission, terrain, and deployment, not to mention just plain
old
luck, will make a hash out of any scenario. SG2 sometimes has "key"
points to
a scenario. My Operation: Dust Off scenario, for instance, has a key
piece of
terrain. Both sides need to take the terrain and hold it. If they don't,
whichever side takes it is at an advantage. This was designed into the
scenario. Even a balanced force, point wise, would have problems
succeeding if
this key terrain feature isn't taken. (Interestingly, at GenCon both
sides
ignored this piece of terrain and fought elsewhere.) It's just the
nature of
the game.

Allan Goodall		       awg@sympatico.ca
Goodall's Grotto:  http://www.vex.net/~agoodall

"Surprisingly, when you throw two naked women with sex
toys into a living room full of drunken men, things 
always go bad." - Kyle Baker, "You Are Here"