Re: [SG] Leader Loss Questions

>Take a platoon (I hope I got it right this time <g>):
Command Squad
 - Command Team
   - Platoon Leader
   - Communications Specialist
   - Rifle
   - Rifle
 - Support Team
  - Support Team Leader (no command activation's)
  - Rifle
  - SAW
  - GMS/P
Squad A
 - Fire Team A1
  - Squad Leader
  - Rifle
  - Rifle
  - SAW
 - Fire Team A2
  - FT Leader (no command activation's)
  - Rifle
  - Rifle
  - GMS/P
Squad B (same as squad A)

-->Ok, that all makes sense.  Just to be clear - I'm going to assume
that
as far as actual separate units on the board goes, you're talking

Command Squad
Rifle Squad
Rifle Squad
(Rifle Squad)

For a total of three or four units - and not that you're breaking down
each
squad and using them as separate fire teams.

You *could* do that - break down your squads and play them as fire
teams,
if you wanted.	The advantage is that you get more actions for the
platoon's total firepower.  The disadvantage is that you would, under
the
rules as written, be treating each little 4-trooper squad as a separate
unit for morale purposes, and the platoon leader would still only be
able
to transfer actions to two of them (ignoring company level and higher
command).  I prefer to go with larger squads, personally.  I do this
primarily because the game goes faster (less units to move around, roll
dice for, etc) and so I can either get in more gaming, or put more big
units on the table, and also I'm perfectly happy with the idea that I'm
abstracting the "fire team" concept into the squad action concept... 
Some
people want the extra realism of moving fireteams separately.  

>OK. It is pretty obvious that if a Fire Team Leader is lost the next
senior
person in the team takes over (at least until out of immediate combat).

-->Yes.  Though you don't actually have to designate anyone in a
fireteam
as the assistant team leader.

>If a Squad Leader is lost, does command of the squad usually fall to
the
other Fire Team Leader? Or is the 1st and 2nd most senior soldiers in
the
same team?

-->In "real life", command would *usually* fall to the next senior guy,
who
would *usually* be the second fire team leader - who is the assistant
squad
leader.  In game terms, pick a figure and say "you're the new leader"...

>In the same way if the Platoon Leader buys it, would one of the squad
leaders take over, or do they usually group the most senior soldiers in
the
command Squad (or Command Team)?

-->  This comes down to how "realistically" you want to play...  When I
play, I assume that the platoon's senior NCO (platoon sergeant, staff
sergeant, whatever) is with the Officer in the command squad, and if the
officer goes down, the senior NCO (within the command squad) takes over.
For playability reasons, the only time I would have one of the squad
leaders become the platoon commander is if the platoon command squad
gets
wiped out.  Normally, though, if that happens in game, we just say that
the
platoon has lost it's commander all together, and the squads fight on as
individual units.  Later on, after the battle (which is only taking a
relatively few minutes - if game turns are appx 5 minutes, then a 6 turn
game is only half-an-hour...) then the units are reorganized, a new
platoon
commander is picked, etc.  In the "heat of battle", things don't work so
smoothly and if the command squad is wiped, they just don't have a
platoon
commander any more.  Is this "realistic"?  Depends on a bunch of stuff. 
We
do it 'cause it works well from a playability point of view.  Keeps
things
simple, makes people use their commanders carefully.  I've seen very few
games where a platoon or company command squad is wiped out or when it
takes enough casualties that the platoon officer and the platoon senior
NCO
are both wiped out.  Sure it happens, but not often, and not if you're
careful.  We almost never play the "fight 'til the last man" type of
scenarios, so if things are going badly, we will try to withdraw,
usually.

-->Now, having said all that, it seems reasonable to say that as each
trooper has a fancy helmet with massive data processing capability,
individual communications, datalinks to higher hq's etc, etc, it
wouldn't
be too hard for another leader in the platoon to pick up where the
platoon
officer left off...  I wonder, though, if even with all that extra gear,
the "situational awareness" issue will change much - from a
psychological
point of view.	The platoon commander (and, presumably the platoon
senior
NCO) will be keeping an eye on the operations of the platoon as a whole,
as
well as what is going on around it.  The squad leaders will be keeping
an
eye on the squad, and how the squad is relating to the platoon as a
whole.
For a squad leader to suddenly jump into platoon command will require
him
or her to have to try to get the "big picture" - and change his/her
perspective considerably from the "right here, right now" view.  That
would
take a bit of time, and would be very difficult under pressure,
particularly if that squad is actively engaging the enemy.  Sure, the
senior squad leader *would* do it in most cases (well, in most western
armies, anyway), but it would result in a drop in the effectiveness of
the
platoon for a little while at the very least.

-->Like I said, I abstract all that sort of stuff into the background,
and
just say that for the purposes of the time-frame in a game, if a platoon
command is wiped out, there just isn't one for the rest of the game.
Except, maybe, for veteran or elite units... but I *never* field elite
platoons so that's a moot point.

>Going beyond my example, I will ask the same question about the loss of
a
Company Commander.

-->  And here my "abstract it" view becomes stronger.  I'll assume that
at
the company level, there is some "staff" with the company commander.  If
s/he goes down, someone from the company command squad picks up the
slack.
If the company command squad gets wiped out all together, then somebody
made a big mistake somewhere... ;-)   I've never seen that happen in a
game.  But if it did, I'd be much more likely to have a platoon
commander
take over, at some kind of reduced operational effectiveness (that
platoon
commander could, for example, transfer actions to other elements within
the
company, but he still has to run his own platoon, also - so he would
still
only get two actions to use for either his platoon or the company as a
whole...) later, aftter the battle, the company will reorganize itself
and
a new company command structure will be put in place properly.

>Related question: If a Platoon Leader is lost does the entire platoon
have
to spend an action for reorganization or just the Command Squad (or
something in-between)?

-->No, just the command squad.

********************************************

Adrian Johnson