Re: SG2 Platoon leader casualties

At 09:01 AM 01/07/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:27:10 -0700, Yves Lefebvre <ivanohe@abacom.com>
wrote:
>
>>In my version the command squad has 3 actions but a limit of 2
>>transfer, so it has to do something with the remaining action (move,
fire,
>>etc) (and one of the 3 Must be a transfer).
>
>I really can't see how giving the command squad _more_ actions, one of
which
>_must_ be a transfer is going to solve the "commander in the corner"
problem.
>The reason for the command squad being in the corner is that it's more
>effective to have the commander transfer actions than it is for it to
do
>anything else. Risking the command squad, even if it has an extra
action, is
>just not worth it. Unless you also give serious penalties to command
units
>that are too far away from the target of their transfers, there's still
no
>good reason to risk the commander. In fact, you now encourage him to
sit back
>near the base line in order to rally the odd unit that might go to
Broken or
>Routed.
>

It may depend of a number of factor :

- The number of soldier in the command squad (can it absorb casualties
or not)
- The quality dice, FP and armor of the command squad.
- If you allow transfer of action while suppressed or not.
- Scenario objective

The reason I use 3 actions for the attacker command squad in my scenario
is
because they have to cross the table to reach their objective (with a
time
limit). We feel that without the bonus action, the command squad will
quickly fall behind the rest of the troops or not use transfer of action
a
lot. The command squad was veteran and with good weapons and armor, so
it
make sense to use them offensively. They reach the center of the table,
still behind the rest of the platoon but they were able to do something
else than just transfering action : Firing smoke to protect some other
squad from the defensive position just passed, firing on some ennemy
squad,
forcing the defender to split his fire and forcing one squad at least to
keep under cover instead of counter attacking some other squad.

The attacker was more high tech than the defender. We found it will help
giving the attacker command squad the bonus action. It gives a better
feel,
compared to similar games where they just fall behind at the very start
and
after that, you're better just trying transfering action since they are
too
far to do anything good.

It may not work well in all case, but in this particular one, it has
worked
very well...

>I don't think playing around with the number of actions is going to
work.
This
>is a fundamental flaw in SG2. I think you need to make the penalties
worse
>when transferring actions. _Beer and Pretzels Skirmish_ has something
similar
>to a Transfer Action. Each figure gets orders from a leader, costing a
point
>per soldier. Leaders only have so many points. When the leader is more
than
>12" away from the soldier, and for every multiple of 12" after that, it
costs
>an extra point to give a soldier an order. This encourages leaders to
stay up
>front when transferring actions. A similar idea in SG2 would be to
allow the
>transfer action to occur for free up to 6" away (as in the current
rules),
>require a communication roll from 6" to 12" (as in the current rules,
sort
>of), and add a +1 to the communication attempt for every 6" (or if you
are
>feeling generous, 12") beyond that. 
>
>Variation 1: first 6" is free, 6" to quality die range requires a
>communication roll, every range band beyond 1 requires a +1 on the
>communication roll. So, a Regular leader would not make a roll from 0"
to 6",
>would make a roll from 6" to 8", would make a roll at +1 from 8" to
16",
at +2
>from 16" to 24", etc. A Green, though, would have the first 6" for
free, but
>6" to 12" would be at a +1 to the communication roll.
>
>Variation 2: the free distance is half the quality die range. So, a
Green
>wouldn't need a communication roll from 0" to 3", would need a
communication
>roll from 3" to 6", would need a communication roll at +1 from 6" to
12",
etc.
>The only issue with this is that the unit leader would be making a
>communication roll for transfer actions to guys who are technically
within
the
>command unit's integrity range.
>
>Variation 3: no communication rolls are needed for transferring actions
to
>units within the first range band; a communication roll is needed for
the
>second range band; a +1 is needed for the third range band, etc. You
could
>even consider changing the integrity range from a fixed 6" to the squad
>leader's quality die type, though this might have major effects on the
game
>and I haven't even considered playtesting it.
>
>Variation 4: any of the above, but include an additional +1 to the die
roll if
>the unit receiving the Transfer is out of Line-of-Sight of the command
unit.
>

Those are good idea as well. 

Yves