Unit Activation and Comms Quality (was RE: [SG2] [FMA] [Am I the last one to use tags?] Comms Quality )

On Thu, 31 August 2000, "Bell, Brian K" wrote:

> I would suggest limiting the CP (Communications Problems) chits to the
> number of EW chits that can be committed (i.e. if you can only use
upto 3 EW
> chits in a bid, then the max CP chits given to a side would be 3. 

I don't think there is a limit to the number of EW chits you can use.
The limit of 3 is because you only get 3 EW chits when an EW unit is
activated. Technically, if you had two EW units on one side both could
be combined to go over the 3 limit. 3 is a reasonable limit, though for
the CP chits.
 
> Only 1 CP chit could be used in blocking any 1 comm attempt.

I'd have to see how this played out.
 
> CP chips count toward the total EW chits that can be used in a bid
(i.e. if
> the max. EW chits that can be used in a bid is 3 and a CP chip is used
for
> side A, then side A may only use 2 additional EW chits in that bid).

I disagree with this. If we assume one side has an EW unit and the other
does not in a regular SG2 game, then the one side could use three EW
chits on one communications attempt. If we assume that these CP chits
are for communications problems on one side or another, then it would
make sense that there would be an even WORSE chance of communicating
when the other side has EW available.

I would modify this. I would allow up to 3 CP chits to be used against
any communications roll. However, I would only allow the use of 1 CP
chit when also using EW chits. Any number of EW chits can be used (as
per the rules) but no more than 1 CP chit with them, and the CP chit has
to be used first.
 
> CP chips must be used before EW chips in a ECM/ECCM bid.

Agree, as above.

> The bad thing about this system is that the CRITICAL calls are the
ones most
> likely to be effected by the communications problem (Murphy's Law?).

That is true. I'm not sure if there's a way around this (or should be a
way around this).

> Is EW activation an action?

How about that. It's not on my "Advanced Rules Summary" charts. And I
thought I'd gone through the rules with a fine toothed comb. I have
played it as an action by the EW unit. If the unit is part of the
command unit (as it often is), then it counts as one of the two actions
conducted by the command unit. If it's a separate unit, it requires an
action, when it is activated, to operate the EW unit.

> If it is an action, it would have to be an Element Action (to coin a
new
> phrase). An element action is one that effects an individual element
of a
> unit (restricting the number of additional actions that element can
perform
> without restricting the number of actions that the rest of the unit
may
> perform). Element Action is not unprecedented (just not named so) as
heavy
> weapons action is a separate action for a unit, but only counts as an
action
> for the element and all of the leadership actions are element actions.
Thus
> an EW unit could activate the EW and move or activate the EW and fire
a
> weapon, but not activate the EW, move and fire a weapon. But a 2 man
unit
> with an EW element could move, activate the EW and have the non-EW
element
> fire.

Ummm... I don't think so. That's not how I was shown how to play the
game, or how I take how the game is played.

My understanding is that a leader action counts as one of the two
actions for a unit. There are no "element actions". If a unit's leader
attempts to transfer actions to subordinate units, that transfer takes
up an action. The rest of the command unit could not fire at the same
time. Likewise, if a unit has an EW component attached to it, activating
EW counts as one of the unit's actions.

Maybe this is something I've interepreted incorrectly, but it's the way
I've played every game and it's the way I've seen every game played.

Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com