Re: Question (was: Re: Command Reactivation)

--- Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> A quick question to all out there; not terribly
> relevant to anthing in > particular, but maybe an
interesting topic for > discussion...

Heh. . . definitionally, nothing from gzg can be
off-topic on a gzg-list. . . But anyway. . . 

> When you are playing a ground combat game (any game,
> not just SG or DS), > what "role" do you see YOU, as
the player, actually > playing - it it the
> highest level commander ON-TABLE (eg: the Company
> Commander if you've got a > company deployed on the
table), or the next higher > command level overseeing
> the battle from off-table (the Battalion Commander
> in the foregoing > example)?

Third option--depends on the decisions I'm making. 
When it comes to force design (which in my case is
ALWAYS mix and match from a pregenned list) I think at
least one level up--batallion or brigade.  Usually to
the level that's assigning the support.

Once I roll onto the table, it's basically roleplaying
as the commander on the table.	For some decisions, I
do what would make sense to his subordinates.  For
instance, if I have an infantry company with an
engineer platoon on the table, the engineers will
achieve their mission as they were assigned, not
necessarily as the infantry would want them to do.  It
depends on what level of control I'm giving the main
force over their attachments.

But then, I'm also in a line of work where the
difference between "attached" and "assigned" and "in
support of" is a major issue.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.