This is great, thanks a lot for putting it up!

I did this for a while, with two of us at the table. It was great fun.

Once in my early days of AWing the two PCs went at each other's throats in the first session. It was a disaster, fun-wise. Since then I've taken the 'PCs should be allies' advice very seriously.

Sounds cool! But I suggest you keep an open mind about the specifics of who he is, on a deeper level, so you can discover and connect with those things in-game!

So, make a new doc, put it in the shared folder, and write down your choices from the playbook's options. And shout out with any questions, either here or there!

Is it still to come?

This looks awesome! I've shared a folder for you in google docs now. Every doc in it will have the same sharing settings, so you don't need to share new docs when you make them and put them there. I hope you are okay with a first name basis, but if you prefer your forum alias, just change it in the doc.

I love your ideas about your characters and relations, but for the record I see specifics of what you have said here to be speculations about how it might be. Only what is on your sheets and what we see and state in-game becomes actual fact.

Soylent, of course it's okay to swap the adjectives! :) And, yeah, I prefer vulnerable: breakdowns for various reasons. For one, the hold economy in this case is so loose, I don't want to fiddle with it in that way, while the tag is something I know works well for this kind of stuff.

If you say you have jetpacks, I'm sure you do! But I would also assume that your 'mobile' means you have something like assault shuttles and troop transports under your direct command, on top of that. You know, for when jetpacks don't have the range covered.

Also, if you say your power armor is stealthy, I'm sure it is! I'd say it is still tagged with 'bulky' though, because of their size. If that's cool with you.

Right, good point. Thanks!

Soylent, good points!

Yes, you're right, i did misunderstand about the stacking moves. The answer, I think, is that they do stack. If you have one person who is great at giving advice, and one person who is great at acting on others' advice, then the result is like fire and gasoline, as someone put it in a thread about the Quarantine! (You can get the exact combo of moves with a Quarantine and a Savvyhead.)

You're right about the strain on the ship's ecosystem, as well, but it's a feature, not a bug. It is a perfect reason for the Ship's Master to take the Ravenous option for her ship!

Right, not sure if you got my point, so I'll illustrate by way of an example.  Two different commanders, A and B, are fighting an identical size 7 force.  Commander A has a size 9 force.  B has a size 6.  Both are commanding from behind the lines.
Using battle commander, commander A doesn't appear to be at any advantage - they're still just rolling 'status'.  Actually, if casualties are determined percentage wise, so let's say they suffer 10% casualties if 'Losses are small' and 30% if they're not, commander A is actually at a disadvantage, losing roughly 30 times as many men (absolute numbers) as commander B for the same result.
This is why I was asking if losses 'scale' according to the size - if so, having a larger army is an asset if you're fighting on the front lines and a liability when you're commanding from behind, because you need so many more replacements after a battle.

Yeah, I think I get your question, but it's hard to answer because it comes from a different direction than the philosophy of the rules here. Here's how I see it:

When you lead from the front, and seize an objective by force, with your command around you, that move gives you numbers on what kind of harm you and your people take. It is based on the enemy force's harm stat and adjusted by size difference, your guys' armor and of your choices from the move's options.

When you lead from the rear, with your guys out there without you, then they are at the mercy of your loving MC. And I'm looking at them through crosshairs. Like any other violence going on between NPCs, I will let you know how it goes. However, through your guidance from afar and this move, you can instruct me to go easy on them. And if you do, I will, because that's the rules. Exactly what that means is, as I said earlier, entirely contextual.

Of course, when I inflict harm, I do it as established, and it is well established that a larger force suffers less harm against an enemy force than a smaller one does. It's just not resolved using percentages. (See more in the rules about gangs and harm, beginning on page 168, and how they count fatalities as a few, several, many, etc.)

1) It is mechanically consistent, but logically impossible, for a force to be both well trained (+1 harm) and untrained (+unprofessional).  (As distinct from mobile/grounded, where the narratively opposed elements are mechanically opposed as well).  Not a *problem*, but slightly odd.

Nah, it's not that odd, I think. If you would take both those options, I would assume that they are well-trained in killing enemies, but untrained in maintaining discipline and coherency and generally not breaking or deserting when things go south. I looked at changing the wording, but I didn't think of anything better, so I think I'll let it stand.

2) The new arrangement makes the elite squad much less prominent.  The difference between elites and command is twofold: +1 harm, and better upgrades. 
There is an option for the command to get +1 harm (and it is unclear if that affects the elite or not), which in one move makes them better overall than elites can ever be (assuming that each step in army size is equivalent to one step in gang size mechanically).

Your assumption about harm is correct, but I don't agree that bigger is better, when we speak of these things. You can't take your regiment into a house as bodyguard, or send them to infiltrate an enemy position. For that you want a crack squad.

You have good suggestions here, about the elite, but I have rearranged things a bit now in a different way. I put supply dependence back in as default for the command in it's entirety (remembering the old idea that logistics win wars, not bullets) and given the elite unit the creatively named tag "elite", meaning they more or less don't break under the pressure of casualties. Also see the option of having only your elite unit. For those time when you want a space marine company!

Oh, yeah, unprofessional means that it takes less casualties to break them, and that they tend to desert when things are bad for a long time.

Remind me if I missed to address something now!