Re: Jon, we need an Official Ruling! (was Re: SG2 newbie Q)

Allan Goodall wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 07:02:55 -0500, Michael Sarno
<msarno@ptdprolog.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Which could be reasonably edited to read:
> >"One of the key uses of actually having command elements... present
on the table
> >is that in certain circumstances they can
> >'transfer' both of their actions... down their chain of command to a
subordinate
> >unit."
>
> Well, my English courses hit me on this. If you look at it another
way, the
> "transfer one or both of their actions" attaches to "to a subordinate
unit or
> units". Or, said another way, "...they can 'transfer' one action down
their
> chain of command to a subordinate unit, or both of their actions to
> subordinate units". In strict English, that's how the sentence (in
what I
> remember from English) should be parsed.

    Well, we're remembering English a bit differently, then. <g>  The
sentence, as it
is written, can be parsed multiple ways, none of them being the
"correct" way.

> Of course, it makes for horrible rules syntax. *S* We need a ruling
from Jon
> on this!
>
> So, the question for Jon is... how many times can a unit be activated
by a
> command squad or squads through the transfer of actions?

    Jon's opinion on this matter is no more valid than yours or mine. 
He had the
opportunity to write the rule, and that's the rule he chose to write. 
He can certainly
address this issue in BDS or SGIII, but that wouldn't change the rules
in SGII.

> >    Being activated multiple times does give the activated squad the
use of many
> >more actions, but it is at the expense of the leader activating other
squads or
> >taking other actions.
>
> I find the biggest problem is that it makes it too easy to keep one
squad from
> EVER getting suppressed.

    Which could represent the PL paying more attention to one squad and
providing it
with the leadership, logistical, and command support it needs.

> It makes for a "super squad" instead of forcing the
> use of other squads.

    Characterizing the squad as a "super squad" is a bit prejudiced. 
Unless we know
exactly the maximum capabilities of a squad given the complete attention
of the PL, we
can't really make this comparison.

> >    Here's the real problem I'm having with limiting the transfer of
actions.  Way
> >back in the 1900s, we used to take these little tactical marches
wearing fatigues,
> >full canteens, with bayonets on the web belts, and carrying M14
rifles.
>
> Jon mentions movement in the book. Movement, even combat movement, is
not
> considered to be the maximum easily achieved.

    Why can't I have my men sprint to their positions?	Why can't troops
move at a
march rate behind the fighting, along covered routes?

> It's considered to be what is
> average when the troops are hugging terrain and being careful not to
get shot.
> And 80% of reality isn't bad since Jon never does give a time scale
for a
> turn. 5 minutes a turn in SG2 is only a rough estimate. It could be 2
minutes,
> or it could be 10, depending on what happens.

    Right, which makes the case that if the same squad is activated a
number of times
in the turn, it just happens to be one of those 10 minute turns.  The
amount of
activity during the turn would have some indication of how long the turn
lasted in
minutes.

-Mike

--
Michael Sarno

http://vietnam.isonfire.com
Check out the Charlie Company Discussion Group:
Info, resources, and links for RAFM's miniatures
skirmish wargame of infantry combat in Vietnam 1965-1972

"Tradition refuses to submit to the small and
 arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen
 to be walking about."
 -G.K. Chesterton