Re: Articulation [SG2] and RCMP2185

On Tue, 10 October 2000, "Barclay, Tom" wrote:

> Allan's improve on the basic
> game but I find still have a weakness or two (or did last time I
reviewed
> them) 

I'd like to hear your comments! You might want to check them again, as I
rewrot
e them a little while ago. They are clearer. I think that a platoon wide
morale
 mechanism might be necessary.

> If I have a squad with GMS and I detach the GMS, my commander uses 1
action
> to transfer command (giving the GMS guy two actions I think) and 1
action is
> thus left to the rest of the squad. This is wasteful. 

Ah, but flip it the other way! Put the commander with the GMS guy.
Nothing says
 you can't. You can then transfer an action to the detached part of the
squad, 
giving them their two actions, and you then have one action for the
commander/G
MS guy.

Hmm. Is there any reason you couldn't make the commander the GMS guy? If
the co
mmander dies, does the GMS guy become squad leader?

> If the GMS is a two
> man team, or a 4 man detachment with two GMS, it tends to be more
tactically
> effective - it doesn't impinge on the rifle squads, it can engage LoS,
and
> its principal role is AT whereas a rifle squad should be worried about
other
> infantry. It is (IMO) tactically better. 

Oh, I'm not arguing that point at all. It's demonstrably better as a
standalone
 unit. Same with the ECM guys. 

The question is, why did Jon put the ECM guys in the command squads of
his unit
 examples? Was it just as a whim, or was there a game playbalance issue?
If you
 tell me to build a force with 30-odd guys, I'll put my ECM and GMS
units in th
eir own little squads. 

I'm just curious why Jon sets up his squads as big as they are. Take the
card g
ame Up Front. The squads were typically 10+ men in size, but you got to
set up 
your own manoeuvre and firebases groups yourself. Typically a 10 man
German squ
ad would have the Assistant Squad Leader as LMG crewman, the LMG and two
regula
r troopers as a firebase, while the Squad Leader and the other 5 guys
worked as
 a manoeuvre unit. Is Stargrunt abstracted to the point where the 10 man
squad 
assumes this? Or is this supposed to be handled by the squad detachment
rules? 
Or should the World War II German squad be set up, in SG2 terms, as an
SG2 squa
d of 4 and an SG2 squad of 6?

This isn't clear from the rules. I would REALLY like to have an idea of
what Jo
n is thinking. It would really help us. 

If Jon is thinking a squad is just that, a squad as defined
historically, then 
even if 4 man squads are more efficient, we should be creating bigger
squads an
d assume a layer of abstraction. This SEEMS to be implied by the force
lists at
 the back of the SG2 book. It ALSO seems implied by the detachment
rules. Detac
hed squads tend to stay close to the main squad piece.

On the other hand, the SG2 rules don't allow the sort of manoeuvrability
found 
in Up Front if you use 10 man squads. To duplicate what happens in Up
Front, yo
u would set up the German squad in "fireteams" of 6 and 4 men.

> As for the redundancy point - point taken. One or two extra guys isn't
bad.
> Mind you, having their FP effective is good too. Having too few so
that you
> don't get big dice (D10 at least) is sort of a problem I must agree.
Most
> figs I use (NSL or mercs for example) have FP3 kit. So 4 guys is a
great
> size. Maybe with FP2 the key number is six. 

Good point. I would also like to see guidelines for the game universe as
to the
 relative availability of FP3 versus FP2 weapons. Would ANYONE not put
FP3 weap
ons in the hands of their infantry? 
 
> Stargrunt is a squad game - I like to see forces behave as they do in
> reality - elements mutually supporting. This happens even within
"sections"
> or "squads" of 6-10 guys - pairings, groups of 3 or 4 (depends if you
are a
> 2-1 or 2-2 doctrine force) guys - and this is one place I find
large-squad
> SG2 lacks something (for me myself!).

*L* Well, I just stated above the same thing. Me, I'd like to know the
level of
 abstraction. I can live with it if this sort of flexibility isn't
intended in 
the SG2 design. SG2 is a subtactical game, not really a skirmish game.

> I find the articulation adds to the
> complexity of the movements that are possible, and playing FMASkirmish
with
> a platoon per side is just too big for casual entertainment... so this
is my
> substitute. 

Good points.

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