anyway.

This makes SF go "Shuffling allows support tactics"
E.g. little sensor-y mechs spotting for big cannon-y mechs.

This makes NinJ go "Sydney knows what's what."

This makes VB go "cool."
I'm figuring mechanical implications now. I'd want it to be a yellow die, for instance, I think...

This makes NinJ go "Oh, also, I like those parts. But that's not really why, just the inspiration."

This makes NinJ go "Yellow's fine, but..."
I was saying White so that it didn't interfere or complexinate the rules further.

I like the idea of them being instead of weapons or armor, but I guess that's built into the Jeez Louise rule.

This makes VB go "oh no, yeah, you can't mess with the 2 white dice."
They'd have to be yellow dice, which become red dice when you give 'em away. Even yellow dice which become white dice when you give 'em away would wreck the game.

This makes NinJ go "Oh, they should totally become Red."
I just meant that the spotter could spend its white dice to do it.

But this is fine, too.

This makes VB go "the spotter can spend its white dice..."
But doesn't get any extra white dice, gets yellow dice instead. Like how shields work: if you have shields, you get blue dice and can spend white or blue dice on shields. If you don't have shields, you don't get blue dice and can't spend white dice or blue dice on shields.

This makes SF go "Yes, I rock"
Reading my own weight in military history and military theory, then spending the last seven years interviewing military officers, is rather a leg up. All bow down before me, or at least ask me questions.

This makes NinJ go "OK, smartypants..."
... why is it said that infantry are needed to hold territory (as opposed to armor or helicopters or whatever)? What is it that the infantry are doing there to "hold" an area?

This makes SDL go "Being cheap! ;)"

This makes NinJ go "It's efficiency, not cheapness, I'm sure..."
... I don't know that it's pure "cheapness"; I think that if a dude costs $n and a tank costs $100n, 100 guys will still be worth more in a territory holding position than a tank?????at least that's what they tell me ??? and I'd like to know why.

I think it's probably the number eyes, weapons, and personal-scale decision makers. Particularly in the era of the RPG.

This makes SF go "Infantry hold ground best because..."
Because no amount of armor your tank (or knight) can carry will protect you well as cowering in a hole. Look at Monte Cassino 1944, when the Allies bombed the monastery flat -- and afterwards, German infantry crawled out of the rubble and kept fighting. Look at any attempt to bombard WWI trenches. See how fast we plinked Saddam's tanks from the air, and how long it's taking to dig out the guerrillas on foot hiding in buildings. Build me a tank that can cower in the dirt while I bombard it, and I'll hold ground with that tank and no infantry support. Until then, infantry.

This makes NinJ go "Is that the reasoning behind the buried Iraqi tanks?"
So vehicles are all about mobility? Like a tank, helicopter, plane, they're all about hitting first to increase the odds against a wounded opponent?

This makes SF go "Tanks = mobility"
Iraqi tank parked in sand berm visible from air = dead. 100 expensive tanks charging headlong into 100 cheap anti-tank guns/missile launchers = 100 dead tanks. BUT the 100 tanks can move to where there are only 10 anti-tank weapons and run over them.... And marginalia is SO not the venue for military theory. Crap, am I going to have to get a blog?

This makes NinJ go "Oh, no, this is the perfect medium for discussing this!"
But aren't infantry cheaper for taking out those 10 anti-armor dudes?