Re: Initiative - was RE: Piquet

From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>

> That's why in my half-baked proposal, I suggested that you designate
> all your orders for the turn first; only then do you get to see
> whether your subordinates act or not.

> I don't have any ideas yet on how to model "Your subordinate unit is
> not where you think it is" or "moves in a direction you didn't
> intend."  Maybe if you blow your activate roll badly enough, your unit
> moves in a random direction.	"The most dangerous thing is a 2nd
> lieutenant with a map..."

Well, from the sounds of it, this is where the leadership quality things
that are already there in DS2 (and, I presume, SG2, haven't played it)
perhaps need to have a greater effect than they already do.  At the
moment,
it seems to primarily just affect how well they can really troops and
whether or not they can keep them in the line of fire when the excrement
strikes the rotating blades.  Perhaps, in a system like Piquet (or if
someone wanted to adapt it for DS3), it needs to have a greater effect.

For instance, have a set of orders where you write out what you want
your
units to do.  You might even have queue for the orders you give them on
different turns.  Then you have a table that decides how well your units
obey your orders on each turn, based on the leadership ratings of your
sub-commanders, the effectiveness of your communications based on
technology
and/or how far away they are from the main group, etc.	Good leaders
follow
their orders and are ready to take initiative based on how the situation
develops, bad leaders are going to either follow them slowly or make
contrary decisions on their own and _won't_ take initiative or adapt to
adverse situations well.

This would possibly not only account for the way different units are
going
to behave based on how good their sub-commanders are, but would also
allow
the overall force commander to know where the weak links in the chain of
command are and try to account for them.

E
(aka StiltMan)