Prev: Copyright infringement (was Re: Could someone make me decals?) Next: Re: M113 APCs and Things

Re: Leader Loss

From: Tom Anderson <thomas.anderson@u...>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:56:25 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: Leader Loss

On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Thomas.Barclay wrote:

> Designating the succession through an entire force seems like
overkill. The
> chart is pretty brain dead:
> d6:
> 2 in 6 - gets better if possible
> 2 in 6 - status quo
> 2 in 6 - gets worse if possible
> 
> And I don't necessarily think PFC Bramblewood, 4 years in-country, is
> necessarily gonna be worse than 2 Lt. Imanewguy who just arrived on
the
> scene from ROTC yesterday. Rank does not necessarily correspond to
> leadership ability. If it did, every officer would be a leader. 

otoh, a soldier with no leadership training is unlikely to be a good
leader, especially when a significant part of being a good leader is
being
able to work the SquadComp, the Tactical Data Interface, etc. there are
all sorts of things an NCO or officer gets taught to do with running
things that you can't just make up: the UK army has a 'platoon
sergeant's
battle course', if i'm not mistaken.

otoh, maybe this is more true of officers than NCOs, whose main job is
to
be a focus and driving force for the squad, rather than to do
high-faluting tactical thinking.

> Now, I liked someone's suggestion (posted on one of the SG2 web
resources)
> (paraphrased as I recall it so I might be a wee bit off but the
concept is
> what matters):
> 
> Leader was level 1:
> 2 in 6 - status quo
> 4 in 6 - gets worse if possible
> 
> Leader was level 2:
> 1 in 6 - gets better if possible
> 2 in 6 - status quo
> 3 in 6 - gets worse if possible
> 
> Leader was level 3:
> 2 in 6 - gets better if possible
> 2 in 6 - status quo
> 2 in 6 - gets worse if possible

worse than a level 3 leader?

assuming high rolls are good leaders, this means the level of the new
leader is given by this table.

Roll	Level of old leader
	1	2	3

6	1	1	2
5	1	2	2
4	2	2	3
3	2	3	3
2	2	3	'4'
1	2	3	'4'

which seems to indicate that squads with good/bad leaders have troops
who
make good/bad leaders, which seems a bit dicey to me.

how about the following:

Roll	New Leader

6	1
4,5	2
1,2,3	3

the quality of the new leader is this independent of the old leader,
although the pattern above sort of remains.

Leader was class 1
6 - status quo
4,5 - gets worse
1,2,3 - gets a lot worse

Leader was class 2
6 - gets better
4,5 - status quo
1,2,3 - gets worse

Leader was class 3
6 - gets a lot better
4,5 - gets better
1,2,3 - status quo

given my doubts about good leaders emerging untrained, you might even
use
two tables, the one i mentioned for replacing the leader with his
deputy,
and then another for replacing the deputy with a random soldier:

6 - new leader is class 2
4,5 - new leader is class 3
1,2,3 - squad has no leader; it retreats as if broken or something

> This means that poor leaders can be killed off to let a good sergeant
or
> corporal behind them - which is historically believable.

absolutely.

> Good leaders are hard to replace or even equal.

which is not what your suggested table says!

tom

Prev: Copyright infringement (was Re: Could someone make me decals?) Next: Re: M113 APCs and Things