Prev: Re: [GZG] [SG] IAVRs Next: Re: [GZG] [SG] IAVRs

Re: [GZG] [SG] IAVRs

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@h...>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:16:21 -0600
Subject: Re: [GZG] [SG] IAVRs

n 12/13/05,
<> wrote:
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 01:13:21 -0500
> From: Adrian <>

> The rules don't work all that well if you have a single headquarters
> platoon commander - able to transfer actions) with more than 5 or 6
> separate elements under its command.	After that, command action
> get diluted.

This is one reason I don't like the "simply treat fire teams as small
squads" approach. I would allow an action to be transferred to a
squad, thus both fire teams get to reactivate with a transfer. That
way it doesn't dilute transfered actions.

> I've tried playing with squad commanders able to transfer actions to
> fireteams, but I found that this lead to too many actions and
> re-activations, and the game slowed down *a lot*.

How did it work out to too many re-activations? Did you not restrict
the squad leader to only being able to transfer an action to one of
his two fire teams? The number of actions per man in a squad should be
the same as the regular rules.

The way the rules are written, a platoon command unit can take one of
its actions and transfer it to one of his subordinate leaders, who
immediately gets 2 actions. If you extend this to a squad leader, he
gets 2 actions. He transfers one action to his first fire team (which
gets 2 actions) and transfers the other to his second fire team (which
gives them 2 actions). Both fire teams would get 2 actions, which
would mean that all men in the squad would get to do 2 actions, just
as if they were modelled in one big squad.

(The only problem with this approach is that the squad leader can't
move if he uses both actions to motivate his two fire teams. A simple
house rule fixes that. "When a leader transfers an action to a unit
within unit integrity range, the leader can move with that unit for
free." Then the squad leader has an option: transfer an action to a
fire team or motivate a fire team directly. Transferring an action
gives the fire team two actions, but all the squad leader could do is
move with that fire team, not take part in any fire. Or, the squad
leader could motivate the fire team, spending one or two of his
actions directly with the fire team. That allows him to add his fire
power to the fire team, but if he only has one action left then the
fire team can only conduct that action.)

> In the end, my approach to "fire teams" within a rifle squad is to
> assume that this level of detail has been abstracted into the rules,
> the total effect of a squad of troops accounts for fire teams working
> concert.

I totally agree with you. However, I find that there aren't enough
units on the table in platoon-only battles. It's not bad if you have a
platoon with vehicles, but if you have a single platoon of infantry
you might only have 4 units. That's not a lot of units. I would use
fire teams in those situations so that instead of 4 maneuver elements,
I'd have 7 or 8.

> I find that the game runs smoothest with platoons having a
headquarters of
> some kind, and 3 to 5 manoeuvre units.

How many platoons do you field on the table at once? Maybe it's just
me, but I found games with only 4 maneuver elements per side to be a
little dull.


Allan Goodall

Gzg-l mailing list

Prev: Re: [GZG] [SG] IAVRs Next: Re: [GZG] [SG] IAVRs