Prev: RE: [FT] Efficient Designs (PDS vs C-1) Next: Re: A question ?

Overwatch, almost done....

From: "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@b...>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 18:04:17 -0500
Subject: Overwatch, almost done....

Allan said:

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.
have a sneaking suspicion that the game was intended to have fireteams
"abstracted". Hence the allowing of split fire and detachments. That a
in SG2 was intended to act as the lowest squad size. Certainly Jon's
squads are 6 and 8 troopers in size. 

[Tomb] The problem with detachments is they are kind of (I find) a pain
use. 2 fireteams is easier. Plus an 8 man fireteam gives 3-5 manouvre
elements per platoon and gives a fast game. Translate that into
and you have 10-11 manouvre elements per platoon conceivably and a
slower game.... better feel tactically, but slower flow. Jon took a

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. 

[Tomb] I've had no problems, except if using 4 guys with FP2 rifles
They tend to lose firepower wayfast. 

The only thing I'm wrestling with right now is the concept of a squad
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
essentially give every squad in the game an extra activation. 

[Tomb] No no and no no. I agree! I make a Sgt head the squad and be with
Fireteam One and a Cpl is with the heavy weapon in Fireteam Two
But the Sgt. doesn't "transfer command". I assume the fact that fireteam
is acting suggests things are actually being commanded as normal. Only
Lt. (or sometimes pltn Sgt) can "transfer command". 

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
squads should be more expensive than 1 8-trooper squad, even when all
support weapons and such are the same. I got thinking that you could
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
cheaper than two smaller squads. The problem is analysing this to come
with a number for the cost...

[Tomb] I hashed out one for our FMA game based on my suspicions about
is worth how much, but its gut feeling and reflects the fact
isn't bought in FMA. For SG2, I usually just try to balance the forces
an eye to my experience. And I realize the rule of squares applies to
differences. If I think the difference in capability is 10%, that really
translates to one force having 100%, the other 90%, and their relative
strengths are 1.00/0.81 --> (0.9^2). Thus a force half as tough as
force isn't only 50% as tough, they're really only 25% as tough. This
roughcut formula seems to have prevented too many totally one sided
I use this sometimes when figuring victory conditions.

[Tomb] A point formula would be nice, but DS2 has one and even that
leads to
min-maxing and contention here and there about what things are worth.
combinations just work better. In SG2, there is no "points" to tell you
things are equal - it is an act of gestalt (hard for new people, I
my answer to them is err on the side of caution!)- but it means I don't
in with any illusions about two X point setups being equivalent like
DS2 scenarios might have me think. A point system is neat, but it
replace judgement and experience with the game. Another good point is:
all battles are fair. Warfare is inherently unfair and so if we game it
sometimes we should be prepared for seemingly unbalanced games. I've
awful rolling turn what looked like a balanced scenario into a cakewalk.
then modifying the scenario accoringly, and average rolls then made it a
cakewalk the other way. So you just can't win every battle. Be calm
that and just enjoy playing the game whether you win or lose, takes a
lot of
stress out of unbalanced results! :) 

Thomas R. S. Barclay
Voice: (613) 722-3232 ext 349

2001: To the New Millenium! The next thousand years
are MINE. 

Prev: RE: [FT] Efficient Designs (PDS vs C-1) Next: Re: A question ?