Prev: RE: [FT] Kra'Vak Summary So Far... Next: Re: [FT] FB Kra'Vak

Re: [SG] Scenario with engineers

From: "John M. Atkinson" <john.m.atkinson@e...>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 11:47:52 -0800
Subject: Re: [SG] Scenario with engineers

Brian Burger wrote:

> Sorry, but "FUBID"?

F**k You Buddy, I'm Detached.

Should by FYBID, by how do you pronounce?

Means "I'm not in you chain of command, and you're dumb enough to get us
all killed, so we're going to find something more important to do than
walk into machine fire for you."
 
> When doing graphical representation of military units (using NATO
symbols,
> in this case) how does one treat HQ unit sizes? A platoon formation,
laid
> out with squad symbols, has, say, three rifle squads and an HQ squad.
So
> does the HQ unit get tagged as a squad (by the # of troopers in it) or
as
> a platoon (by the level of command it has)?
> 
> Or, say, a tank comany, laid out with plt markers - 2 line plts & one
with
> HQ in it. Is the HQ a plt symbol or Coy symb?

Level of command.  So BDE HQ has an X, Coy HQ has an I, and PLT HQ has
ooo.

John M. Atkinson


Prev: RE: [FT] Kra'Vak Summary So Far... Next: Re: [FT] FB Kra'Vak