[SG2] articulation and efficiency

Allan has raised some very interesting points, with which I concur. 

Articulation of a fighting formation (that is using smaller squads to
produce more manouvre units) is an interesting issue. 

Let's look at the benefits of increased articulation:
1) Harder to completely suppress the unit
2) Easier to execute supporting bounding tactics or other tactics
requiring
mutual support
3) Better efficiency of fire (you don't waste extra FP from larger
formations)
4) Squads with (for example) 7 men with rifles and a GMS are at a huge
disadvantage - the GMS (using a differing fire mechanic and consuming a
separate action to fire) pins the unit and robs it of manouvre - whereas
if
the GMS team is its own entity, it can move and fire without impeding
the
rest of the unit 
5) similar argument applies to why officers and PSgts might want to be
treated as individuals rather than as parts of a command squad - most of
the
time the command squad commands and so it doesn't fire or move. If the
officer is an individual, they can command while this squad actually
achieves things... and from my own experience, it mirrors the tendencies
of
junior officers and platoon NCOs to move about making sure that
everything
in their platoon is squared away. 

Penalties:
1) More brittle morale

Other considerations
1) Every infantry formation in RL is trained to do this type of stuff
instinctively, but in SG2 you might want to restrict this increased
initiative/control to higher troop qualities - setting a minimum level
such
as reg or vet. 
2) It adds extra time to an SG2 game because it adds to the number of
manouvre units on the board

Analysis:
Good benefits - efficiency of fire, hard to pin down, easy to manouvre.
Penalties - Ha! The SG2 morale rules are very generous (they don't track
accumulating casualties which is a MAJOR shortcoming) and the tests for
some
things are a bit easy. 

Effectively you get far more bang for the same amount of buck. I think
Allan
is right - SG2 doesn't use points and can be tricky to balance. But
increased articulation (splitting squads down to 4 men instead of 8) can
be
worth (I'd guess) 20-25% in terms of force capability. Similarly, this
allows GMS systems to be used to real effect rather than constantly
presenting the choice "do I fire the GMS and not move?" to squads. In
reality, the GMS wouldn't have to hold its fire just because it uses a
different mechanic - it would just fire. 

I think SG2, by virtue of being more complex than FT in many ways, is
not
well given to a point system for balance. You have so many variables
(morale
level, quality of troops, weapons systems, organization of forces, comms
kit/EW, armour type, etc) that it just isn't feasible to come up with a
terribly useful point list. You need to just develop a feel for balance
that
takes it all into account... and that is not something you can do (I
think)
without playing. 

Newbies find the lack of point balance painful - it can be. But I'd
share
this bit of wisdom with them:

The trade off in this format of a game is that the balance is harder to
predict (eventually, you get a good idea from experience, but it takes
time)
but you reap a more complex tactical game from this. When you are new to
the
game, this may seem a curse. But once you've played it for a while, you
realize it really is the opposite. It is a boon. And if you can benefit
from
the experience of the more experienced players, do so. They can give
good
advice on relative strengths of units and what to watch for to help you
out
in the early days. 

Just ask, we like to help out. 

Anyway, I don't think increased articulation is something for the timid
or
new to the game necessarily (nor running officers and NCOs as individual
figures). It is something to try and experiment with once you know the
mechanics and have a feel for the game. It does give the combat a better
feel IMO, but YMMV. 

Similarly, some people have tried to address the poor morale rules
(various
suggestions around the net - some good for some things, some good for
others) and some have tried to address the loss of FP efficiency in
large
groups (granting extra FP dice). Both help to make larger and smaller
squads
more balanced - small squads then suffer more from losses (realistic
morale)
and large squads have more FP that works. But as the rules stand, it
isn't
quite just a matter of taste - articulation is quite a bit more
efficient. 

Glad to see discussion on such issues. They might be of some
illumination to
those new to the game or to those thinking of trying it. It is a more
costly
game than FT (you need terrain of some sort plus more minis) but I think
it
is actually a better game (which is saying a lot since FT is good). Give
it
a try!

Tom