RE: [SG] Leader placement

I guess that here is where I would call "cheese". 
I would argue that a unit cannot reactivate itself. So if a Platoon
Leader
(PL) is part of a platoon, the PL could not reactivate the platoon (i.e.
itself). Reactivating the platoon should only be done by the company
commander (1 level up).

Also, if you set the PL as a seperate level in the chain of command the
Platoon could get 3 activations (it's own, and 2 from the PL).

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Cowell [SMTP:andy@cowell.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 10:19 PM
> To:	gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject:	Re: [SG] Leader placement 
> 
> In message <NFBBJACGGLFJHGBEMHHBMEEPCBAA.bkb@beol.net>, "Brian Bell"
> writes:
> > Yes,
> > What I would object to is if someone organized the company as
follows:
> > 
> >  
> >  Company Commander (Independant Figure)
> >   |
> >  Company Command Squad
> :
> >  _|____________		   _|_		  _|_
> >  Platoon Leader		   PL		  PL
> > (Independant Figure)	   -+-		  -+-
> >  -+------------		    |		   |
> >   | 			    |		   |
> >  Platoon			   Platoon	 Platoon  
> 
> Actually, this doesn't give an extra level of command, it simply gives
> the PL an extra unit to activate.  It's similar to assigning the PL to
> a normal squad, and letting it activate itself.  It *could* be a used
> as a bit of gamemanship, but not really that bad.
> 
> My command squads are typically smaller, say 4-5 people, because for
> whatever reason that's what feels realistic to me.  It's pretty much
> the PL and a few riflemen to protect him.  It's not so different than