RE: SG2 Platoon leader casualties & GMS/P against infantry?

Hi Thomas,

>Finally, with an 8-man squad and counting casualties as potential
targets,
>it would have taken another 2+ rounds of fire to wipe out the squad. 
Even
>though I nominally killed the platoon leader TWICE, the FSE command
squad
>had just as much affect on the rest of the combat as my NSL command
squad,
>who never drew a single shot and never did anything but transfer
actions.
>
>So...	I'm reading the rules again cover-to-cover to see if I missed
>anything.  I have some ideas on how to handle this in the future, but
I'm
>just wondering what house rules and/or errata exist (if any) to cover
this
>situation?  

Well, Allan's comments gave you lots to think about re whether or not
the
commander could transfer actions at all, but I thought I'd toss in my
$0.02
on the issue of leaders.

I've played plenty of SG games where someone's command squad is getting
toasted and command passes down the chain within the squad, so
eventually
the support weapon gunner or the EW operator are commanding the platoon.
 I
think this is silly, and certainly is unrealistic.

For one take on how you might approach this, check out Tom Barclay's
"Platoon Sergeant" rules on our website, at:

http://www.stargrunt.ca/rules/sg2_platoon_sergeants/sg2_platoon_sergeant
s.htm

I would like to try approaching the issue like this:

The ability to command the platoon (and transfer actions) normally
passes
down the chain to SOMEBODY if the platoon commander and then the senior
NCO
are casualties.  Usually, it would be the next senior squad commander,
then
the next, and so on, down through the platoon's NCOs.  That would be a
bit
of a pain to model in Stargrunt - mostly from an "administration" point
of
view. But command has to pass to someone.

On the other hand, in any one single battle, if too many command levels
are
made casualties, unless you have a very, very experienced and confident
unit, what you'll have is chaos not a smooth transition of leadership.

How about saying that in the platoon command squad, you have two capable
commanders (the platoon officer and the platoon senior NCO).  If the
officer is a casualty, the senior NCO takes over (and you use the normal
procedures in terms of morale/confidence checks, suppressions, etc).  If
the senior NCO goes, then that command squad loses the ability to
transfer
actions.

You could just stop things here, and say that for the purposes of any
one
single Stargrunt battle (which are usually representing relatively short
engagements between small forces), if you lose your platoon officer and
platoon sergeant, you lose the ability to transfer actions.

That raises the possibility that you could designate one of the OTHER
squad
leaders as the platoon sergeant, so that if the officer is a casualty,
the
ability to transfer actions switches to another squad.

Alternatively, you could take a peek at TomB's rules for playing leaders
as
individuals:

http://www.stargrunt.ca/rules/sg2_leaders_as_individuals/sg2_leaders_as_
indi
viduals.htm

You could do what I suggested (command squad has 2 allowable "platoon
commanders" and once they're gone, the command squad can't transfer
actions
any more) but add one more wrinkle.  Designate one of the other squad
leaders as the senior squad leader of the platoon, and if the officer
and
platoon sergeant are lost, that squad leader can take over partial
command
of the platoon.  The new "platoon commander" (ex-senior squad leader)
can
transfer ONE action within the platoon (though his squad is allowed two
actions as normal - they can just only use ONE of them to transfer). 
This
represents the decreasing ability of the command-and-control structure
of
the platoon to deal with the confusion of losing too many command
levels.
If THAT leader is a casualty, then his squad is taken over by someone
else,
but the ability to transfer actions within the platoon is lost.

This way, you have some ability to absorb casualties among the command
staff of the platoon and keep fighting effectively, but only a limited
amount rather than the current "my 8 figure command squad enables me to
have 8 different platoon commanders..." situation that seems to occur in
many games.  It also gives some "feel" for the way command would start
to
break down as the leadership is lost.

Regarding your questions about GMS versus infantry - I always thought
the
restrictions against using GMS against infantry don't make sense.  It
happens now, it has happend before (Falklands, Gulf War I, etc.), and
I've
always played that you CAN do it in Stargrunt games.  How we resolve it
depends on the target:

For non-PA infantry, we give them a Basic level of ECM which is modified
by
cover (difficult to target people who are hiding), and roll the attack
with
ECM vs. Guidance/Quality as per normal.  Damage is d8 impact from
shrapnel,
same as with other heavy weapons vs. infantry.

For PA, I've played a this a couple of different ways, but the method
that
I like is that you can either target ONE PA trooper, in which case the
PA
gets basic ECM (unless you give them something more crunchy) and his
regular armour vs. the GMS hit (treat him the same as a vehicle target)
BUT
the damage can only be against that one PA, or you can target the whole
squad just as you would a non-PA squad above.  We play that you can't
choose which PA suit you're shooting at - you can just say "I'm
targeting
one not the whole squad" and randomize which one is hit if you do hit.
This is to prevent people from using GPS as a substitute for snipers and
being able to snipe out the PA squad leader...

I have played this using GMS-L and GMS-H also, using the same rules.

I remember reading somewhere that the US is trying out Hellfire missiles
with the anti-armour warhead replaced by a fragmentation warhead
designed
to work against softer targets, so that the Hellfires can be targeted at
high-value human targets (through windows, etc) and do more damage.
Related
to this, I've always liked the idea of a multiple-setting warhead -
anti-air as one setting, anti-armour as another setting, and
anti-personnel
as a third.  This might be interesting for Stargrunt - you can change
the
setting of your GMS warheads (maybe this can't happen with GMS/P because
they're too small??), and the effects would be different.  For example,
GMS-antipersonnel - roll attack as above, but d10 impact instead of d8 -
or
something like that.

Anyway, just a thought.

-Adrian

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

Adrian Johnson
adrian@stargrunt.ca
http://www.stargrunt.ca

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