WARNING:WALL OF TEXT. USE DISCRETION BEFORE READING, LEST YOU GET SUCKED INTO A SEMI-SUPERFLUOUS SYMPOSIUM WITH SYVARRIS.My original idea of sod elites was to keep them together in separate squads to give them maximum flexibility and efficiency. Not saying they can't go into open battlefields, but in my mind these are too valuable to mix with the grunts. If we wanna give those squads more punch, I'd think inserting (mini)battlesuits (like you propose here) would be better.
I didn't specify this when writing that spoiler, because I was trying to keep it short, but I hadn't intended them to actually enter combat with the rest of the ARMy. They're more in the distribution to show the ratio, make sure we always have an elite wherever we have power, and to minimize paperwork of deploying them too. Originally, I did just add them to round out the number, but then I realized the below, and liked it.
The role I imagined for them is more insurance- that small base that we deployed two ARMies to attack? Turns out it's hiding an extremely advanced research base, and would actually need ten ARMies if we wanted to fully take it. The two elites that are there can't fully
take the place, but they might be able to sneak in and sabotage something important while the rest of the troops are attacking, hindering the function of the base somewhat. Since they're away from the action, elites also give us the insurance that they can probably get away if something destroys an ARMy, and hopefully inform us.
I don't think elites would work well in teams. Relative to a battlesuit, they're quite squishy, so they could all be taken out by a single nuke. Considering the value we were gonna put in each one, spending a megaton nuke just to kill
one is great for the UWM, let alone a whole team. Beyond that, they're not even all that extra effective in combat, compared to the survivability of a battlesuit.
Also, those ratios I mentioned were mostly guidelines, not hard rules. Not that you can't follow them of course, but don't worry too much about being constrained by them.
Yeah, I know. I actually thought about your original ratios after I came up with the basic composition, and it just made me like it more because it worked so well. It's a supporting point, not a reason.
Making the basic squad a 7-man unit could work and seems reasonable. An odd number though, no? Would it perhaps be agreeable to make the basic unit consist of ten men? Would have the added benefit of being able to split them into 2 fireteams (which wouldn't have the exact same people, because there is only 1 designated marksman per squad).
Yes, seven is an odd number. Would an even number like ten really be better?
Joking aside, I don't see the real advantage of a ten man squad, but five is arguable. If you have ten, and the leader sod's the only heavy body, then you can't really split it into two five man fireteams that are equal. If you have two heavy sods, then is there really any difference from two five man teams, aside from only having one DM/Grenadier/whatever?
A five man basic squad has merit if you want to remove the elite sod from the standard distribution. I think it would lead to a slight oversaturation of specialized troops like marksmen, anti-battlesuit units, heavy bodies, ect, but that's probably not a large issue. Plus, it allows smaller numbers to specialized troops to be swapped for a regular squad.
Also, you used the word "agreeable" in there. That implies you don't merely want my opinion, but my approval. That's silly, you're the boss, and I'm not gonna get angry and sabotage something if you don't like my idea. You should go with what you like and think is effective, and not something that makes the weapon researchers happy.
Then, as you said, this is a handy basic way to have a unit, but hard to implement more specialised units. So how about we take a page from existing military organisation and say that 5 squads of 10 men (or 7 of 7 in your system, which would also be ok for me) form a platoon, and a company consist of 5 platoons? The first three platoons would be these regular squads, but the last last two consists of specialized units such as battlesuit groups, dedicated sniper teams, and individuals that can be added to normal squads. That would mean it's flexible without being overly chaotic (I don't think pw will ask us to precisely define what is in those special groups). And if we then say 4 companies form a battalion/regiment, with 3 normal companies and one where stuff like armor regiments, airforce and supporting staff (NEVER underestimate the logistics) and such, we have a nice round number (1000) we can fling around.
Very true, and I originally figured we'd do something like this. However, I'm now kinda against the idea, for gamey reasons:
A.Having the minimum amount we can throw around being 250 (or worse, 1000) limits us from really having wide coverage. I don't know how much we're really gonna do, but a minimum of a thousand per planet, in a galactic war, when we're only going to have ten or so thousand a year, seems very... limiting. We might only be fighting on ten or so planets at a time though, which would make that much more practical. Dunno.
B.It makes things more complicated. Unless the special groups are like emergency kits, where you can use them three times for any types of wound, but they're useless afterward, we'd want to keep track of what's been destroyed, whether this regiment is without heavy armor, or if this one had most of the infantry taken out, or if this one had the MK.III troops hamstrung... If we do something like using the 50 troop model, then PW can more easily just handwave it away as saying we lost X number of ARMies. Of course, if people
(me!) are willing to keep track of those platoons/companies/regiments, you're actually allowed to use them tactically to their full extent, and PW is understanding of how the troops battles work, then it would be good.
Please note, I'm deliberately trying not to mimic real military in general, because this game is nothing like a real war simulator. In many cases, militaries do things in real life for very good reasons, but I think if we did it in game it would end up working poorly.
as Paris said, we might wanna be careful putting too much importance on a single sod. On the one hand, I can see the logic in armoring the leader of the group, but on the other, the most heavily armored one will often be taking the brunt of the fire and advancing first, and do we really want to put squad leaders in that position?
...Do note that the "leader" isn't really a leader, because sods don't have the depth and variance that a leader implies. So, having the leader in a dangerous position isn't as bad as it sounds. Anyway, that's probably the safest sod, even if it is advancing at the front and taking the brunt of the fire, because it's under two layers of
battlesuit plate. Most infantry weapons, which is what it should be facing for the most part, have barely any effect on BS plate.
Paris does have a good point though, having both the primary communication role
and the primary anti-tank role on the same sod is probably unwise. The former I did because of the aforementioned safety of that sod, the latter is because most other sods wouldn't even get the chance to use the weapon. I'd say one of the grunts should get the anti-BS weapon, and the leader should keep the advanced comms. If the comms were given to a grunt, then the squad could potentially be cut off from command with one stray bullet, which would quickly result in their destruction. If the anti-BS sod is lost along with his gun, then any nearby battlesuit could quickly result in their destruction.
Author
Topic: Hephaestus No Longer Exists: Crater thread. (Read 190893 times)