Leader Replacement

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

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

** Well, I've met plenty of platoon warrants who could call arty, fight
a
platoon, and think tactically and in a way not expensive to the men as
compared to some of our platoon Lts. Anyone who's taken at least the
infantry section commander courses (master corporals in Canada) could be
a
good replacement. Maybe better than the original. 

> 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?

** Ooops. That was a typo. Should be 4 in 6 stay the same. 

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.

** Though I think that a good leader tends to set a far better example
than
a bad one and that tends to (over time) pass down the ladder. Plus he's
less
likely to put up with an inept subordinate. But I take your point. 

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.

** Still not good enough. How about 1 in 6 improves (if possible), 2 in
6
stays the same, 3 in six gets worse? That's just less favorable than the
standard rules of 2/6,2/6, and 2/6. 

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:

** Well, how about the about the composite:
Roll:
6 - improve a level
5,4 - status quo
1,2,3 - gets worse 

Mods:
-1 to roll if deputy leader killed. 

This means first time your leader is killed, sometimes you'll get a
better
trooper, oft times worse as his deputy. After that, you'll pretty much
be
lucky to have the same quality, and most times a cruddy quality. I think
a
level 3 leader was always defined as the cruddiest in the game. 

> 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!

** Okay, you're right. I was trying to remember something and I
misremembered. SOrry :)

Thomas Barclay
Software UberMensch
xwave solutions
(613) 831-2018 x 3008