Design question.

[larry marak]

Howcome so many lieutents and usually just one sargent?  Does the lone sarge represent one exceptional non-com among the many sargents who would be present in any PG scenario?

[Matt W]

As PG units are platoon level it would be rare for a SGT to have command in a normal situation. In most cases the commander of a platoon would be a 1st or 2nd LT. Since PG does not typically have leaders for each platoon (especially for some of the early war Soviet scenarios) we are looking at more senior leadership of a force, in that even the LTs that we have are commanding 2-3 platoons.

So any SGTs who show up in PG would have to be quite skilled and the situation very rare. Think of the normal SGTs and typical 2nd LTs as being caught up in the single leader that you do see on the board. The "death" or "capture" of that LT or CPT is actually the destruction of a more significant command structure, usually sufficient to command an entire company (3-4 platoons)

[plloyd1010]

I've always viewed the leader corps in PG, and their assignments in specific scenarios as a reflection army/unit command effectiveness rather than actual command slots. Sergeants thereby become a special command extension. If it wasn't that way we need a lieutenant and sergeant for every platoon and and some captains. Think of the leaders as scaffolding to build the army on.