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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: agoodall@canada.com [SMTP:agoodall@canada.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 11:50 AM
> To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	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.
> 
[Bri] You are, of course, correct. 

>  
> > 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.
> 
[Bri] I will bow to experience. However, I will explain my original
intent
here. Communications problems (2nd class equipment, strong EM
interference,
etc.) should effect all communications not just the first or most
important
communication. This is why I meant that only 1 CP could be used against
any
one comm attempt -- to spread them out and cause some interference, but
less
selective interference. 
Example: The player with comm problems wants to call an air strike. He
announces a comm attempt (and tells the referee privately what the
attempt
is for or writes it down if no referee). His opponent not knowing what
the
comm attempt is for, thinks "Eh, they're free" and uses a CP chit. The
first
player then uses EW to enhance his chances of success. The second player
begins to wonder what's so important that the first player is using EW 
to
get through and decides to jam with EW. Back and forth until one side
decides not to spend more EW chits. And the attempt is made.
This also makes them more distinct from EW chits as multiples cannot be
used, and they cost nothing to use.
However, again, I will bow to experience.

>  
> > 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.
> 
[Bri] Am I wrong on how support/heavy weapons fire is handled as well?
If a
unit has 8 soldiers (7 with assault rifles and 1 with a SAW) and comes
into
a cross-fire and the SAW gunner chooses a different target than the rest
of
the unit, does it take a separate action for him to fire? If so, then
the
SAW gunner would not be able to select a different target (as the unit
has
spent one action on movement). If not, then this is an example of what I
called Element Action (one part of a unit doing something different than
the
rest of the unit [support fire being listed as a separate action from
small
arms fire when not combined with it]).
Please advise as I want to do it correctly.

> 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.
> 
[Bri] Again, I will bow to experience. Perhaps I have played
incorrectly. I
had a mid-tier command unit (call him Lt. since I can't remember the
rank)
move to support an attack by a unit under them (call it Unit B), the
rest of
the unit used suppressing/harassing fire while the Lt. used a comm
action to
reactivate Unit B. Again, I may have played this incorrectly, but it
seemed
a logical thing for the Command Unit to do.

> Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com
> 
---
My replies marked by [Bri]

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net	  
-----