DS2 Unit Integrity

One thing that has always bugged me about miniature games (mostly
tactical
level) is the required unit separation. DS2 is much better than most,
the
required distance between vehicle ELEMENTS is 3" or 300m. Now comparing
this to modern day it isn't all that bad. Standard minimum separation in
"normal" terrain is at least 100m. In very open terrain a tank platoon
would spread out to 3-500m between tanks. There are two main limiting
factors dictating separation: First is the need to keep the tanks
separated
but close enough to allow command and control by the platoon leader (by
both visual and com. means). The second is the tactical need of mutual
support. You can't help your buddies if they're a klick ahead of you.
Current U.S. doctrine divides a four-tank tank platoon into two two-tank
maneuver elements. One is lead by the platoon leader with a wing-tank
and
the other is lead by the platoon sgt. with a wing-tank. Depending on
terrain and the current level of enemy contact, the elements are usually
at
least 500m apart and the two tanks within the element 1-500m apart.

BUT, DS2 takes place hundreds to thousands of years in the future so:
How
about making Unit Integrity distances relative to a units a) training
and
b) tech level. Thus, Green UNITS are limited to 2" separation between
ELEMENTS, Regular UNITS are limited to 3" between ELEMENTS, and Veteran
UNITS are limited to 4" between ELEMENTS. On top of this add the UNITS
tech
level so: Basic Tech UNITS have no modifier to their Integrity, Enhanced
Tech UNITS would get an additional 1" to their separation distance, and
Superior Tech UNITS would get an additional 2" (or perhaps -1, 0, +1). I
see the tech levels as indicating additional commo and such equipment
and
is much like the difference between WW2 tank units vs. a modern M1A2
tank
platoon using the new IVIS system.

In addition to the above, one could also break the UNIT size down to
allow
smaller maneuver elements but I think this should only be done with
units
that are supposed to be very good or very high-tech otherwise the whole
basis behind the game's command system begins to break down.

Above, I've used the tank platoon as my example but a similar system
would
apply to infantry units as well (with different numbers of course). In
many
cases I would treat Powered Armor as Vehicle units for the above rules.

So what do you all think?

-----
Paul J. Calvi Jr.
tanker@rahul.net

"Objective, Offense, Mass, Economy of Force, Maneuver, Unity of Command,
Security, Surprise, Simplicity"

15SEP16