Re: SG2 Platoon leader casualties

Hi Yves,

>
>I like the idea to split the ability to transfer action over 2
differents
>squads. The only problem I saw is that you still allow 2 transfer from
the
>command squad, so it's still tempting to just do transfer of action
with
>it.

True.  But what we found is that if the commander doesn't *have* to use
both of his actions in transferring, then he's more likely to move.  I
didn't want to force the officer to do stuff other than commanding the
platoon - there are situations when tactically it makes sense for him to
sit and give orders (he got into a good position, and is now commanding
the
unit to exploit it, for example).

The most satisfying use of this was when I had the third transfer action
being taken by the platoon sergeant, when the plt. sgt. was commanding a
mech platoon's vehicles.  He couldn't transfer actions to any of the
units
OTHER than the vehicles, and the platoon commander could transfer
actions
to anybody BUT we didn't let the plt.sgt. transfer an action again if he
was re-activated.  It seemed to work fine.  The problem I was trying to
solve with this approach was that in a "platoon size" game with one
officer
on the table, but using a mechanized unit with apc's and an attached
tank,
we end up with one officer commanding 8 - 10 separate units, so his
transfered actions get a bit diluted.  At the same time, I didn't want
to
add a complete separate platoon HQ and say that all the vehicles are a
separate platoon with their own platoon officer.

This reflects modern usage - sometimes vehicles are a separate unit
carrying infantry, but it seems that more often (as with US Army
forces), a
mech infantry platoon has both vehicles and dismount infantry being
commanded by the same platoon officer - but *someone* has to be running
the
vehicles if the officer is off with the infantry.  Giving the vehicle
commander (the plt.sgt.) a single transfer action seemed a good balance.

> In my version the command squad has 3 actions but a limit of 2
>transfer, so it has to do something with the remaining action (move,
fire,
>etc) (and one of the 3 Must be a transfer). Maybe I could try your idea
but
>limit each squad to 1 transfer of action each. Also, did you allow the
>command squad to transfer action to the platoon sergeant squad ?
>

When we played this with officer and platoon sergeant (and giving the
plt.sgt. a single transfer action) and used all infantry, it was in
special
circumstances.	I have a number of relatively conventional platoon-size
forces, with a command squad and 3 or 4 infantry squads.  In a "regular"
type of platoon-size scenario, I wouldn't use the plt.sgt. approach as
outlined.  What seems to end up happening is a bit of "command
confusion" -
too many units are tied up commanding, and not enough are out fighting.
But I also have several platoon-size forces that are larger than just 3
- 4
squads, including attached combat walkers, specialists, etc etc.  In
those
situations, and depending on the scenario (in some cases, for example,
the
platoon has to deal with 2 objectives or mission parameters that require
splitting forces a bit), then using the plt.sgt. with an extra transfer
action works pretty well.

In those cases, as with the mech unit, I let the officer transfer
actions
to anybody, but if the plt.sgt's squad is reactivated, he can't transfer
actions again.

>I know your idea of having a smaller command squad. However, my
thinking is
>if this squad just sit in a corner because it's more effective to do
that,
>then it's probably not needed to have the mini on the table at all! 

Well, true.  But I find that this sort of thing often varies depending
on
scenario and on in-game conditions.  I've seen many "hiding" command
squads
suddenly have to come charging out into the fight at a crucial moment
because they have a bit of extra firepower, or manoevered into the
middle
of the board because of the tactical situation.

On the other hand, I've also seen lots of command squads sit in the
corner
for the whole game...  :)

On a
>big table, it's even more noticeable. I think that encouraging the use
of
>the command squad offensively by giving some bonus (either your
suggestion
>or mine) is a good way to stop it being in the corner. Let's face it,
if
>the command squad has 1 remaining action that can't be a transfer,
would it
>waste it doing nothing? I think not!

Well, I don't think I've ever seen a command squad do NOTHING on it's
actions -  but certainly I've seen situations where it makes sense for
the
command squad to sit and not move....

-Adrian

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

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

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