RE: [GZG] New game mechanics [sec=UNCLASSIFIED]

["Christopher TenWolde" <christopher@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Before everyone gets too far along this road, can I just jump in and
> say that the infantry small-arms fire mechanism for the 15mm game
> (SG3/whatever)  will very likely be considerably different from the
> SG2 system! By all means keep talking about this, all the input and
> ideas are useful, but don't expect this to be the way it finally
> works.
>
> Jon (GZG)

That's actually very welcome news ... although since you said to keep
talking about it ...

I have been trying to figure out how the SG2 system could be "translated" to
platoon level, and the most important baseline decision seems to be: will
the platoon (basic unit) take Actions as one unit when Activated, or will
subsidiary squads within the platoon takes Actions?  If you are taking
Actions as a platoon, then the bases can be somewhat abstracted, but if you
are taking actions as a squad, then the basing has to be specific enough to
model the different squad types.  The combat system will then flow from this
decision - in SG2 terms how to add up FP and how to apply effects.

However, I think that the system might have to be abstracted to the platoon
level in order to flow nicely - otherwise you will have to worry about
adjudicating coherency, suppression, casualties, morale etc. at the squad
"subunit" level and all you are really gaining is a big "super activation".

IF (I know if it's a big if) we assume that, then the question becomes how
specifically the platoon bases represent individual weapons, or whether they
are just markers for the overall firepower level and special weapon
attributes of the platoon.  The system, whatever it is, has to be flexible
enough to include special weapon attachments, etc. to normal platoon
elements.  So, we are looking at least two types of bases: platoon small
arms and special weapons attachments (and I assume command stands).  Small
arms and special weapons could be the same size and number of figures, with
the weapon itself showing the difference, however making the special weapon
bases smaller would perhaps be visually better.

So, let's say for the purposes of (rather tenuous) argument that a platoon
consists of a number of 3-figure small arms bases and a number of 2-figure
special weapons bases, and a single figure command base.  Even if we model
the platoon at 1:1, that would be (for an 8-man squad with 1 SAW) around 6
small arms bases and 3 special weapons bases per platoon (plus the commander
and any company or battalion level attachments).  That seems a nice size for
a maneuver element, however the ratio of special weapons to small arms bases
is obviously skewed enough that the fire effects can't be directly related
to the stands.  However, the special weapons bases could be used to provide
a visual means of counting the SAW firepower of the platoon, as an add-in to
the small arms firepower.  Likewise, a missile launcher stand could signify
that capability, without necessarily needing to be "pointed and aimed" from
a specific spot in the platoon - i.e. if it's with the platoon, the platoon
as a whole has that capability.

Well, that's as far as I've got in my brainstorming - more of a brain squall
than a storm, I suppose.  I'm eager to hear how things develop!

Cheers,

Christopher

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date: 11/4/2006
5:30 PM

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l