Matrix Games Forums

Erik,

On p. 44 of the manual it has Sighting Factors modifier for ... Infantry Squad (-15) and Infantry team (-19).

I was wondering ... If a full strength squad has step losses, is it designed to show the reduced size of the squad as a team, in reference to the sighting factor?

If not, I have a suggestion ...

Infantry Squad : -15
Infantry Squad (step 1) : -16
Infantry Squad (step 2) : -18
Infantry team : -19

Any thoughts?

Rob

That makes sense.

Perhaps adding a sighting factor for each unit ... to personalize it. If no sighting factor defined, then defaults to vanilla.

Below is just an example of what I mean (not in Pck) ... in the XML, the Sniper Team show's 19/22/25 ... meaning -19 full, -22 step 1, -25 step 2.

Just an idea .... you know I'm full of 'em ... some not smelling too good [;)].

Thoughts? Comments?

Rob

Once you get down to steps in the team level abstraction takes over.  All teams aren't 3 men.  What if they are really two?   Sometimes I thinks teams should be 2 steps but it a step loss then they are -22.

I think it's a good idea overall. We didn't get into quite that level of detail but it makes sense, especially for squads. As far as exposing data in the XML, in general we would just add a sighting modifier there (like we do for vehicles).

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Once you get down to steps in the team level abstraction takes over.  All teams aren't 3 men.  What if they are really two?   Sometimes I thinks teams should be 2 steps but it a step loss then they are -22.

Completely agree. Teams shouldn't have as many steps as a squad.

I disagree about teams needing to have fewer steps, for a few reasons. Some of you may not be aware of how teams are currently handled casualty-wise, so let me try to explain.

Right now, teams generally have lower firepower than squads for obvious reasons. Thus, the existing Light/Heavy casualty reductions to firepower actualy affect them more significantly than they affect squads. They also have lower morale than Squads do.

Finally, and this is the key, every time they take casualties they have a significantly increased risk of being "wiped out" instead of taking just a casualty step. The net result is that teams statistically are generally destroyed by a lesser concentration of fire than what is required to take out a full squad. This allows us to still have the Light/Heavy casualty "steps" for a team for resolution, but it's quite possible that a team could go from "fine" to "destroyed" or from "light casualties" to "destroyed" whereas a squad is far more likely to take each step at a time.

This is mentioned in the manual, but it's easy to miss this nuance. The net effect is that teams are not as resilient as full squads, even though they have the same number of steps.

Regards,

- Erik

From a functioning point of view I see your point, Erik.  But from a battlefield of view point what does 1 step in a 2 man team equal?

ORIGINAL: Mobius
From a functioning point of view I see your point, Erik.  But from a battlefield of view point what does 1 step in a 2 man team equal?

"It's only a flesh wound?" [;)]

Seriously, while I take your point the same question could be made of 8 vs. 12 man squads and so on. At some point you have to accept the abstraction if you don't want to get into bean counting.

I'm essentially going by ASL terms.  There, squads could be reduced to half-squads through combat, but weapons teams and half-squads only had their one step.  The smaller size units didn't have a step.
 
If it's a density issue, then why doesn't a hvy casualty squad get two more casualty steps since at that point it'd be the same size as a 3-man team that gets 2 casualty steps?
 
But it's a fine point and as you say Erik apparently there are other weaknesses to a team.  I haven't noticed it being an issue in play yet so it's not a big deal at all to me.  There are always a number of valid ways to represent things in games where reasonable minds can differ.  Perhaps teams without steps don't survive as well as they should?  No problem. [:)]

Ok, a bit more explanation is probably in order. The reason I originally designed it this way was more for the future. We planned to allow a "men=" tag to list the actual size of the squad. This would also be used for visual reasons to set the limit/no limit size in models but would also then be used in the formulas to modify how easy it was to reduce a squad a step vs. two steps or destroying it. The end result would be that a 2 man team would usually go right to Heavy Casualties or be Destroyed, while a 12 man squad would take a bit more effort to reduce a step than a 8 man squad. That's still the plan right now, so within that context I'd rather allow each of these to have the _potential_ of taking a step at a time, though the goal is to make it very unlikely for small units to actually go through the step progression.

Regards,

- Erik

Kewl. [8D]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
We planned to allow a "men=" tag to list the actual size of the squad. through the step progression.

I'd like something like that to apply to crew=" tag or TC-" for AFV turret crewmen. That way a 3 man turret could take 2 "crew" losses and still fire the gun. A 2 man turret could only take 1 crew loss, and a 1 man turret would have a main gun KO when it lost its TC.

Thanks for the explanation Erik. I do like the sound of things that may come.

I finally made it through the Minefiled sction in the manual. A few more sections and I"ll get to the editor manual. Now if it wasn't for these battles and this Bootcamp campaign that keep getting in my way! <g>.

By the way, as I read through the rules, they seem very simple and elegant.

Rick

ORIGINAL: Mobius
I'd like something like that to apply to crew=" tag or TC-" for AFV turret crewmen. That way a 3 man turret could take 2 "crew" losses and still fire the gun. A 2 man turret could only take 1 crew loss, and a 1 man turret would have a main gun KO when it lost its TC.

Yeah, something like that was discussed/planned too.