RE: Leader Replacement

Funnily enough at Platoon Level, the Platoon Sergeant will generally
have a
much better grasp of tactical combat than the Platoon Commander unless
the
Army/Military Officer promotion scheme revolves around promoting from
the
ranks. A junior officer graduates from the Academy, spends one or two
years
(maybe three?) as a Platoon Commander and then moves on to other
postings;
staff training maybe specialist platoon etc.

The Sergeant will have spent maybe 6 to 10 years in his trade before
making
Platoon Sergeant rank and in most cases will have participated in dozens
if
not more platoon/company operations.

In game turns I would be inclined to see the Platoon Comd replacement
have a
higher chance of a better Leadership.

1,2,3 Better

4,5 Same

6 worse

At squad/section level it may be a little different Generally the Squad
Leader/Section Commander is the senior and most experienced soldier.
Anyone
who replaces him is most likely to be of equal skill or worse rather
than
better.

1 Better

2,3,4 Same

5,6 Worse

I guess we can talk this around in circles forever....

Owen G

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas.Barclay [mailto:Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca]
> Sent: Friday, 28 January 2000 6:08 AM
> To: GZG List (E-mail)
> Subject: 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
>