SAN Default Settings

[Nineteen Kilo]

First off my apologies for the new thread, I'm sure this had been discussed many times, but when I use the search function I can't seem to narrow down the topic enough to get any hits.

My question: Is there a standard rule of thumb for what the SAN should be set at?
Something along the lines of:
"2" if both sides setup on map
"3" for the Defender if the Attacker is entering Map (Attacker remains at "2")
Bump up both sides by one if dense Urban/Jungle
Bump up the Defender by +1 if the historical record states that sniper fire was heavy Etc.

19K

 

[Cult.44]

I don't think there's any standard rule of thumb regarding SAN. I raised a similar question in the following thread and got some interesting responses ...

http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?111530-Selecting-SAN

Basically, it's the designer's judgment based on historical situation. An encounter battle in the countryside probably wouldn't have a high SAN for either side. If it's ground that's been fought over for awhile then both sides might have a high SAN. Defenders that have had time to prepare typically would have higher SAN than an attacker probing into a new area. For me, a base might be defender SAN 3, attacker SAN 2, then adjust it from there depending on the situation.

 

[witchbottles]

When you set a SAN for a side, remember that it reflects many more events than a sniper getting a bead on an experienced NCO or officer and connecting enough to either cause the NCO and his troops to go to ground, or scoring on flesh and blood.

It also reflects the myriad of other events going on that can cause casualties. the Harassment and Interdiction Arty fires, the pre - plotted arty fires, the grazing fire from flanking MGs, the stray round that just got lucky and connected with the Captain's forehead, the NOBA round that blew up in the treetops and shredded the big tree limbs and trunks enough that that way up high 290 pound tree limb fell and got the Corporal across both legs, shattering his femurs, etc ,etc, etc. All of these things are occurring in the filed of battle, but only a single randomizing event is present to encompass them all in our game.

Consider it a "mark of fate" and then determine from the sources how effective or ineffective the sniper fire may have been , and how much or how little fate acted upon a battlefield, then factor it in accordingly. Remember, if not but for a rifle shot being exactly 3 metres off to one side, there would have been no "Desert Fox". His aide de camp was killed outside Le Havre in 1940 by such a rifle shot, a single 8mm Lebel bullet. Certainly never fired from a sniper, but a beautiful kill shot nonetheless, albeit totally random.

KRL, Jon H

 

[jwb3]

In the early days of scenario design it was semi-standard to give the scenario's defender a SAN of 4 and the attacker a SAN of 3, and then adjust from there if it seemed appropriate. Giving the attacker a SAN of 2 was also fairly common.

There was certainly nothing sacred about those numbers. I'd say it was mostly a matter of, "If you have no idea what SANs to use, try these."

They were used without reference to terrain -- equally likely in a city fight or a desert battle.

These days some people are rather vocal about SAN being too random, so there's been a trend for designers to instead start from a defender SAN of 3 and attacker SAN of 2. Personally I think that's a pity.


John

 

[jwb3]

Bump up both sides by one if dense Urban/Jungle
Bump up the Defender by +1 if the historical record states that sniper fire was heavy Etc.

There are some situations that did frequently see a SAN bump, but I want to stress again that there's nothing formulaic about any of this. Indeed, deciding what SANs to use is one way of really putting your personal stamp on the scenario, because it's all so very design-for-effect.

• Japanese are often given a higher SAN. I even came across one scenario where the Japanese attackers had a SAN of 4, while the Chinese defenders only got a 3.
• Poorly trained defenders, like the Chinese in that scenario, are often given a lower SAN than usual.
• Partisans are often given a higher SAN.
• There are a lot of scenarios with Russians defending in cities where they have a higher SAN. But be aware, a large part of that may go back to the "mythology" of Stalingrad.

Also, when there is a clear and obvious reason to bump up SAN, it's not uncommon to see a +2 bump, not just a +1.


John

 

[Vinnie]

If you wish to discourage lots of low odds attacks, bump up the SAN. This can be tge case when the opposing side has low FP troops.
If one side has mainly armour, lower it.

It is a lot more art than science.

 

[Nineteen Kilo]

My thanks to everyone for the great answers!
19K

 

[jrv]

Another potential SAN cause: friendly fire.

JR

 

[Michael B]

If your source documents mention Sniper activity for the action, then I would consider a 5 or 6.

 

[Carln0130]

Yet another source of san bump, the first three ( I believe) turns of an amphibous invasion typically sees a 3 point bump for the attacker. Not because of actual sniper activity, since frequently none are even out of the LC yet, but due to naval and air assets throwing lead around all over the playing area. It drops back down three, normally around turn 3, as the firing is assumed to have lifted from the immediate area. As others have said, san is not exclusively sniper fire.

 

[Cult.44]

Yet another source of san bump, the first three ( I believe) turns of an amphibous invasion typically sees a 3 point bump for the attacker. Not because of actual sniper activity, since frequently none are even out of the LC yet, but due to naval and air assets throwing lead around all over the playing area. It drops back down three, normally around turn 3, as the firing is assumed to have lifted from the immediate area. As others have said, san is not exclusively sniper fire.

I like the idea. I'm working a scenario that depicts action where both sides were generously equipped with mortars. But having a bunch of mortars on board can get pretty tedious. Bumping up the SAN for both sides is a good way of dealing with it, and just have a couple of mortars on board.

 

[Carln0130]

It's certainly an option. It's always fun to look at what is trying to be simulated and to come up with different ways of attaining that end.

I like the idea. I'm working a scenario that depicts action where both sides were generously equipped with mortars. But having a bunch of mortars on board can get pretty tedious. Bumping up the SAN for both sides is a good way of dealing with it, and just have a couple of mortars on board.