| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Raven Redstar wrote: | I don't like the idea of requisite skills for non-advanced skills in the game. In combat, pretty much the only use for command is combining attacks. It doesn't take a lot of tactical know-how to say "Everyone shoot the rancor!" You cannot combined action dodge.
Suppression, flanking, and taking overwatch are skills that can't really be combined, not unless you have everyone jumping on overwatch or whatever. Technically, they're not even actions that can be taken in combat. This isn't D&D where attacking characters get a bonus when flanking. Suppressive fire is an optional rule which only gets brought up in Rules of Engagement.
What about with uses of command that don't involve combat, like coordinating a repair effort? You don't need tactical know how to know how to deploy a repair crew to fix something more effectively.
I think that like most knowledge skills, the tactics skill gets sort of glazed over, but that is because the GM fails to reward a player with a decent tactics skill. Reward the player for taking tactics, don't force them to.
Also keep in mind that neither Luke Skywalker, nor Han Solo have tactics at all, yet they are in command of Rebel troops. |
You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying.
It doesn't take a leader for everyone to know "we should all shoot at the rancor." Suppression, overwatch ect is EXACTLY what is being represented by the combined actions (i.e. the command skill). How your shooters are positioned is just as important (if not more so) than how well they shoot. The reason that you get a bonus to your attack roll is because the shooting is coordinated in such a way that makes it more difficult, or even impossible, to evade.
As for combining non-combat actions... that isn't really the focus of this thread, but, a person who is an expert at the task he is coordinating can more effectively distribute his assets than someone who is just "managing personnel." For example, consider a group of people performing a tire change. Let's assume that no-one, not even the "leader" has done this before.
The leader wouldn't know to tell his followers that they should loosen the bolts on the wheel before they jack the car up. He also won't know that he should use a jack-stand if available. Heck, he wouldn't even know where to tell his team to place the jack (for example, they might wind up punching the jack right through the floor board). Sure, he might have the sense to say something like, "you two work the jack, and you two get that that tire off, while the rest of you bring the spare." But that's not enough to actually get the job done right (much less grant a bonus).
Also, notice that I'm not saying that you MUST have the tactics skill in order to use command. Rather, when in your element, you get a bonus to command proportionate to your tactics skill.
Last edited by Naaman on Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I look at tactics as...well tactics...the art/science of disposing your forces for battle.
I look at command as the art/science of leading others and getting them to follow you.
A leader with great tactics and poor command knows how to dispose his forces but no one is inspired to follow.
A leader with great command but poor tactics bravely leads his men into a meat grinder. Like this or this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Which is a totally understandable interpretation. But it doesn't explain why a bonus would be applied to a coordinated roll.
And LOL at those links. Too funny.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not clear as to what you are looking for. Do you want a way to get a bonus for using Tactics with Command?
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | Thanks for those references. The give me some ideas on how to implement the tctics skill all by itself. |
Thanks garhkel, I too appreciated those references. Does anyone have the Thrawn Source book, one of those threads mentioned that it has rules for tactics in it, and I would be interested in reading what WEG's idea on doing it was.
| Naaman wrote: | | Though, what I was trying to get at was the idea that if you are coordinating troops to accomplish a task, your tactical expertise (or lack thereof) should be a factor. |
I think WEG saw it more as having a plan and understanding the plans of your enemies and uses Command for the coordinating part, though I think I see what your trying to do. I, like garkhel, find your ideas as well as the others on the matter interesting, but with your stated idea focusing on coordination perhaps it might be accomplished by defining some actual tactics in game terms and using the Tactics skill to limit which ones are available for use by the Command skill. Though it might be a bit more complex than you are looking for, it's the best way I can see to achieve, what I understand to be what you want.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just thought of another option.. Limit tactics, to how good your command is..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: |
A leader with great command but poor tactics bravely leads his men into a meat grinder. Like this or this. |
Of course good tactics can demand the meat grinder approach, and bad ones can yield a "victory".
Anyways, back on topic, tactics and command should be able to potentiate, but shouldn't necessarily rely upon one-another. I generally give +D bonuses for command and use tactics to accomplish objectives (e.g. separate infantry from armor support or force an engagement in a canyon).
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not sure where you are going there. Trying to overwhelm heavy infantry in a confined space by a frontal charge with light infantry was poor tactics on Xerxes part and the Persians ended up in a meat grinder. Casualties were low on the Greek side at Thermopylae until the Persians were able to flank the Greeks by going through the pass. Which was a good tactical choice on the Persian side and changed the casualty ratio in their favor as the Greek rear guard was wiped out.
The defeat delayed the Persian main army which was advantageous to the Greeks giving them more time to organize and the Greeks' abilty to stand up to the Persian army was a propaganda victory and morale booster for the Greeks. Prior to that battle the Persians had been very successful defeating and subjugating Greek colonies in Anatolia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | Which is a totally understandable interpretation. But it doesn't explain why a bonus would be applied to a coordinated roll.
And LOL at those links. Too funny. |
I see the combined action rule as a way of lowering the number of dice rolled and of allowing a group of characters (frequently of NPCs) of increasing their chance to hit to make them a threat to the higher skilled characters (frequently PCs).
The command roll reflects the idea that someone has to organize and direct the combined actions and that good leaders should be more effective at that direction than poor leaders.
Which is not to say that I think the command and tactics skills are well thought out or do a good job of reflecting anything in the RW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Not sure where you are going there. |
I was looking at it from the Spartan side. The whole battle was a delay tactic, and there was never much hope from the outset that Leonidas and his 300 Spartans would survive. They were sacrificed to give the Spartan army time to assemble.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | I was looking at it from the Spartan side. The whole battle was a delay tactic, and there was never much hope from the outset that Leonidas and his 300 Spartans would survive. They were sacrificed to give the Spartan army time to assemble. |
Gotcha.
It's interesting how people remember the 300 Spartans and so often forget the more numerous Thespians and Thebans who also stayed for the last day's battle. I guess the Spartans had the better PR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: |
I look at tactics as...well tactics...the art/science of disposing your forces for battle.
I look at command as the art/science of leading others and getting them to follow you.
A leader with great tactics and poor command knows how to dispose his forces but no one is inspired to follow.
A leader with great command but poor tactics bravely leads his men into a meat grinder. Like this or this. |
Sorry, Bren....
| Bren wrote: |
I see the combined action rule as a way of lowering the number of dice rolled and of allowing a group of characters (frequently of NPCs) of increasing their chance to hit to make them a threat to the higher skilled characters (frequently PCs).
The command roll reflects the idea that someone has to organize and direct the combined actions and that good leaders should be more effective at that direction than poor leaders.
Which is not to say that I think the command and tactics skills are well thought out or do a good job of reflecting anything in the RW. |
... but I'm just not seeing the connection here.
Don't get me wrong, from a rules perspective, I can see how each skill should have it's own domain. What I'm talking about is when two competencies have synergy with each other.
Also, without a tangible benefit for a skill like tactics, the player could just come up with the idea on his own, without "wasting" character points on the skill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: |
Sorry, Bren....
... but I'm just not seeing the connection here.
Don't get me wrong, from a rules perspective, I can see how each skill should have it's own domain. What I'm talking about is when two competencies have synergy with each other.
Also, without a tangible benefit for a skill like tactics, the player could just come up with the idea on his own, without "wasting" character points on the skill. |
You are quite right that a player can come up with a good tactics idea without recourse to the skill. That's the same as a player coming up with a persuasive speech without recourse to the skill. It is no more nor less a problem for tactics than it is for bargain, con, or persuasion. In our campaign, I specifically spent CPs to raise my character's tactics to justify my ability in tactics - which however good or bad it is it is at least better than the other GM who has to act as my character's opponents.
Tactics is not a skill that has been problematic in our gaming for a number of reasons. Were it to be more problematic I would probably use tactics in two ways.
- As the GM giving the player a hint as to a more effective way to approach the battle - this usage is to help a player to play a character with a better tactics skill than the player himself has. Alternatively, instead of the GM giving the player a hint, other players (who themselves have better tactical acumen could suggest approaches to the player whose character has a good tactics skill).
- As an opposed skill roll between the commanders of each unit/side. The side that wins gets a bonus to their actions in the battle. This is similar to how the Battle Skill works in Pendragon.
- Army commanders roll opposed tactics. Winner provides bonus to next level down.
- Major Unit commanders roll opposed tactics with bonus/penalty from previous level.
- Minor Unit commanders roll opposed tactics with bonus/penalty from previous level.
- Apply net bonus/penalty to individual rolls.
I'd use command to cover things like morale. So a command roll can effect morale allowing a unit to hold when taking casualties or to attack a superior force, be used to rally a broken unit, stuff like that.
In the rules - command is used as a limit on how many people/things can be combined using the combined actions rules. I don't particularly like the combined action rules and I house rule to use powers of two rather than arithmetic adds - each power of two adds +1D. But the notion that a command roll would be required to combine fire sort of makes sense.
I understand that you like the idea of command and tactics being synergistic. It just doesn't appeal to me in Star Wars where we have Mon Mothma and Princess Leia as leaders and commanders (IIR they do have good comman skills) although I question how good their tactics skills really are. We also have Han and Luke as leaders even though as someone mentioned above they don't have particularly good tactics skills. Dramatically I find this intersting in space opera even if it isn't particularly realistic - though arguably Joan of Arc may be an example of that.
I don't know if that clarifies what I was saying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Han and Luke don't have the tactics skill at all according to the Special Edition Sourcebook.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apparently according to the Movie Trilogy Sourcebook neither do Leia, Mon Mothma, or Lando. So all of them are at base KNO for their tactical ability.
Leia KNO 4D
Han KNO 2D
Luke KNO 2D
Lando KNO 3D
Mon Mothma KNO 4D
But hey the good news is, for a very reasonable CP expenditure your PC can be better then the heroes from the films. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
