Re: SG2 Platoon leader casualties

At 08:45 AM 2003-06-27 -0500, you wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:58:59 -0700, Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@abacom.com>
wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure about this. On page 16 Transfering Action : "For a
superior
>>officer to transfer an activation, he must make a succesful
Communication
>>action in the same way as a normal communications". So, to me, it look
like
>>the Transfering Action is a special form of Communications action.
>
>Except that you don't need to do a Communicate action to do a Transfer
Action
>if the unit is within 6" of the squad. So, does this mean that a unit
that is
>suppressed can't tell guys within 60 metres what to do, but he can tell
guys a
>kilometre away what to do?
>
>I just posted my interpretation, that the Transfer Action and the
Communicate
>action are both listed separately, yet only the Communicate -- of the
two --
>is specifically allowed to occur when the unit is suppressed. It is
incredibly
>unclear, and I can see the other side of the coin. For a house rule,
I'd
allow
>a transfer action while suppressed, but I'd also either add a Reaction
Test
>before it was allowed, or add a modifier to the communication roll.
This is
>because there _should_ be an adverse effect for the commander being
>suppressed. 
>
>>So this
>>means that calling artillery can be done while suppressed as it fall
under
>>the communicate action.
>
>Yes, definitely, this is something that should be allowed. Historically
it
>happened quite a lot. What is a Transfer Action representing? *shrug*
Not
>sure, but I always assumed that the commander had to be a bit more
aware of
>what his units were doing for a Transfer Action to work, hence the
reason
that
>it doesn't work while suppressed. 
>
>>Anyway, I see your point. It's open to interpretation I think...
>
>Oh, definitely. It's a very unclear part of the rules. Unfortunately,
much of
>the SG2 rulebook is unclear.
>
>>All the game I played, we allow transfering action while suppressed.
I'm
>>under the impression that preventing that will just increase by a big
>>factor the "command squad in the corner" syndrome. 
>
>Not allowing it didn't increase the problem... because it's already a
big
>problem anyway! *L* Seriously, yes, it will make players even more
likely to
>move their commander out of harm's way. I have a house rule that makes
the
>"commander in the corner" syndrome less likely. I will consider
allowing
>Transfer Actions while suppressed to work, too. 
>
>On the other hand, I see Tom's original post, too, and suppressing a
commander
>ought to have an effect on the Transfer Action. Perhaps the problem is
that
>even my house rule (where by a +1 communication roll is needed if the
>commander is outside of LOS to the unit and further than 6") isn't
nasty
>enough.

In the last 2 games I played, the attacker had to move accros the table
to
reach the objective. Like I said, we always allow transfer action while
suppressed. In the first game, the "commander in the corner" syndrome
was
very present for the attacker.

Action report here:
http://www.abacom.com/~ivanohe/game/gaming_e.html#SG2

The second game was similar in concept than the first (higher tech
attacker
that must reach for the objective). I had read your house rule but found
that it might not be enough for this scenario. I feared that either the
command squad will sit in a corner trying to do transfer of action (even
with penality) or try to follow the rest of the force, not doing that
much
transfer of action.

What I came up was to give the command squad 3 actions (yes 3!). One of
those action is a free transfer of action. The other 2 action are normal
action (except that the command squad can't do more than 2 transfer of
action total). This allowed the command squad to follow the rest of the
troop. It made it as far as the center of the table (even a bit more).
We
didn't feel it was too powerful. In fact, the command squad didn't do 2
transfer of action each turn. On about 50% of the time, it was moving +
firing and doing it's free transfer.

It gaves a nice flow to the games since all attacker where moving and
the
command squad play a role by itself, not just transfering action. I tend
to
made my command squad a normal size unit by itself so this look more
realistic than seing 6-7 fig in a corner.

Anyway, this work great for games where one side need to move a lot. You
still get the flexibility of having a command squad without all the
other
squad moving twice as fast.

Yves