Prev: Bunkers in SG2 Next: [FS] NOT - B5 Fighters

[SG2] Squad Organization and Vehicles (was Re: Strike the colours... etc.)

From: agoodall@c...
Date: 3 Jan 2001 13:40:49 -0800
Subject: [SG2] Squad Organization and Vehicles (was Re: Strike the colours... etc.)

On Wed, 03 January 2001, "Barclay, Tom" wrote:

> Strike the colours: Interesting arguments all sides. Strikes me that
what is
> missing is the concept of mission motivation (present in SG2) which
> how important the mission is to the force, hence what level of losses
> force will voluntarily endure before breaking contact.

Good idea! It makes sense in an FT environment. Although Indy's scenario
rules idea works about as well, and at least it can be tailored. I like
the idea of a "strike the flag" rule for pick-up games and tournaments.

> Battle of Deja Ville:
> Setup time: 2 hours
> Play time: On and off over about 14 hours (2 companies fighting with
> support). 

Yikes! I sort of wondered, what with all the companies clashing and all.
A bit out of scope for me. I just don't have the free time these days to
devote 14 hours to one game. *sigh*

> Overwatch:
> Allan, overwatch should be (IMO) 1 action, last action. Overwatch
> stays until the unit activates again (essentially, you've given up a
> action so you really shouldn't be gyped). 

I've come to this way of thinking. There was a reason I limited mine to
NOT extending past the turn barrier... but for the life of me I can't
remember it now. And the last time I used it, I didn't do that. So maybe
that's just me transcribing old notes...

> I too have shifted to 4-6 man
> fireteams in place of squads, for more flexibility and manouvre. This
> I rarely have more than 1 SAW in a squad, so I don't often have
> with too much FP. 

I'd really like to see guidelines for force building in SG2. I'd like to
know just what Jon was thinking when he modelled squads the way he does.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the game was intended to have fireteams
"abstracted". Hence the allowing of split fire and detachments. That a
squad in SG2 was intended to act as the lowest squad size. Certainly
Jon's "canon" squads are 6 and 8 troopers in size. 

On the other hand, when I've used fireteams they seem to work just fine.
They are sort of like half-squads in Advanced Squad Leader. 

The only thing I'm wrestling with right now is the concept of a squad
leader versus a fireteam leader. I don't think two fireteams (which make
up one squad) should have a leader that has transfer action capability.
It would essentially give every squad in the game an extra activation. 

I got thinking about an SG2 point system. The concept I had was based on
command levels, but I'm not sure how it would be put in place. Two
4-trooper squads should be more expensive than 1 8-trooper squad, even
when all the support weapons and such are the same. I got thinking that
you could price things per figure, but you buy the quality and
leadership values of the squad when you buy the leader. Thus, by
definition, a large squad will be cheaper than two smaller squads. The
problem is analysing this to come up with a number for the cost...

> Vehicle action issue:
> As the rules have it, you probably have to fire main gun and SAW/APSW
> separately eating up the two actions of the vehicle, so your vehicle
> fire on the move. If you move twice, your commander can't spot,
despite the
> fact he isn't driving. Vehicles are intentionally penalized in SG2. If
> let them do more (ie let the commander and driver or gunner act
> separately) then you really change the balance. So this problem
extends well
> beyond just overwatch and into normal game play.

I've been thinking about this. You're right, of course, but I think
moving and spotting should be allowed as separate actions if the vehicle
is moving along a road or in another automated way.

Technically, isn't a tank just a squad of 4 guys operating a heavy
machine? And what if the squad commander "detached" the elements of his
squad? Couldn't he detach the driver from the gunners? The tank
commander would be with the driver, directing where the vehicle goes?
Couldn't the commander then transfer an action to the gunners, so that
the gunners could do two, and then use his second action to move the

*Laugh* Yes, I know this isn't the intention in the rules! I know this
would be unbalancing. But then I got thinking that, if you forced a
communication roll (they are easily within 6" of each other, but you can
argue they are physically separated and need to communicate through
internal comms gear and mapping systems), this might work. 

If the communication roll succeeds, the gunners have two actions. They
can fire two weapons, or fire a weapon and spot, or they can do two spot
actions. Because the commander is with the driver element, the vehicle
only gets to make one movement action during that activation. The "can
only fire a weapon once per activation" rule prevents the main gun from
firing too often. 

Yes, this gives a vehicle three actions, not two. But this isn't any
different from allowing squads to detach. And those turns when the
communication roll fails, the vehicle only has one action available to
itself (and it can't be a gunnery action!).

Hmmm. I'm going to have to try playtesting this...

Allan Goodall -

Prev: Bunkers in SG2 Next: [FS] NOT - B5 Fighters