Re: [sg] Starting Forces

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, John Atkinson wrote:

> 
> --- Derk Groeneveld <derk@cistron.nl> wrote:
> 
> > I was wondering about this. Should one use these
> > specialists as
> > individuals or as members of the command squad? In
> > the latter case having
> > EW active will eat up half the command squad's
> > activations?
> 
> What I tend to do is run the command squad as
> individual figures.  I also use the optional rules to
> allow the PSG and PL to each use one action to
> activate a squad.  This way I don't have the PL
> parking in one spot and blowing all his actions
> reactivating line squads.  Doesn't fit they way I've
> seen most PLs operate. 

Umm. Which optional rules exactly? And I'm guessing PSG = platoon
sergeant, and PL = platoon lieutenant? Anyway, what you describe makes
sense.
 
> > Since the gurkha's all carry IAVR, I was wondering
> > how to use this? Do you
> > have, for a squad of 8, an effective 8 shot IAVR,
> > which doesn't 'die'
> > until the last figure?
> 
> The honest way to do it is for each buzz-bomb-carrying
> trooper, leave a missle counter with him.  When the
> squad shoots, decide who's actually launching a
> rocket.  Then if someone's killed carrying a
> buzz-bomb, the squad looses that shot.  

This absolutely makes sense, but I'd MUCh rather see less counters on
the
table. Then again, one could tick this off on a unit sheet, assuming the
figures are numbered.

> > My command squad has no missile capability, but does 
> > have sniper, EW and
> > forward observer.
> 
> I tend to attach FOs and snipers from higher echelons
> (administratively, I follow the US pattern of having
> the sniper teams no lower than BN level and the FOs
> being part of the artillery batallion attached to the
> maneuver elements).

Mmm. Again, makes sense. I'll have to think on this :)

> > Also, is there anything to stop me from putting more
> > SAW's in my squad,
> > thus getting more dice? I'm not planning to, but I'm
> > curious what the
> > thought on this is. (I'd say 'munchkin' ;) )
> 
> It fits most modern organizational patterns.	I do it.
>  Let someone holler munchkin.  Us 'Mericans have been
> doing it since WWII.	Especially with adoption of
> Minimi as our Automatic Rifle.

True.

Just thinking about the number of minimi's, I recall the bravo-two-zero
distribution. 8 men, 4 M16/203, 4 Minimi. It's a thought for how to run
special forces type operations.

Then again, with special forces, you could make a case for running them
as
8 individuals.

Cheers,

  Derk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine

iD8DBQE6uQU3JXH58oo6ncURAr1nAKDZKKH2EoqmZiTAhWkY5TFKuSqrhgCg1KQn
W3Bc7nUU6q6tkTon9rvud+s=
=MvGE