In terms of troop qualities, here is the IMU
version (keep in mind, these are averages -
some units in any poor nation's forces may be good and some units in any good
nation's forces may be less useful):
This rating is in terms of doctrine, troop training
and the training/motivation/leadership skills of
junior and senior leaders, as well as the design, supply and logistical
abilities of the armed force. It doesn't reflect the "size" of the armed
forces at all, thus it isn't a relative POWER ranking, just quality. Note:
Being 2nd Rate in this categorization is not being substandard!
Also note that ratings of the aliens is a tough one as they are just plain
"different" and so its only a rough guess.
First Rate
----------
NAC NSL Empire of Gorkha (Gurkhas) UNSC Marine Corps KV
Second Rate
--------------
ESU FSE SK Swiss NI FCT Japan RH OUDF (though there are concerns that budget
cuts may take them to 3rd rate) PH Some of the best mercenary units The best
of the megacorp forces
Third Rate
-----------
NFR IF Turkey PAU UNSC (foreign troops) Scanfed (budgetary constraints and
inability to perform large scale exercises have taken them
from 2nd->3rd)
ORC (and only rate here because of getting
some good defectors with former bloc-power
military experience) SV Average mercenary units Most megacorp forces
Fourth Rate
-------------
IAS (just not a military power - more security
focused) AE (some parts of it.... some might classify as high as 2nd rate such
as the Imperial forces) LLAR The worst of the mercenary units (often short
lived) Most pirates and other criminal forces
This is only my own view of my own universe, of course, and YMMV. I tend to
give poorer units things like: Less efficient TO&E (less command and control,
less articulation, fewer support weapons and special weapons, fewer
specialists in fields like CBE, Intel, Med, EW, Comms, etc), poorer ratings
for leadership (2's and 3's),
poorer ratings for troop quality (blue -> green
and sometimes yellow), and the occassional special morale or reaction rule
(such as pirates and such being plunder driven and not too interested in
helping other subunits in trouble). You can also reflect it by making fewer
units mechanized, by making mech units degrade
from grav -> AC -> tracked -> wheeled ->
cavalry -> foot. And by applying the pre-battle
attrition rolls to represent a higher incidence of disease, of desertion, of
unfit for duty (drunk, in the klink, etc).
The problem is you have to kind of be careful. Especially in SG2, it isn't
always obvious how fast these reductions potentiate in a synergistic way. One
or two small reductions, no big deal, some game effect, three or four, more
effect, half a dozen or more, and suddenly a unit drops from moderately
handicapped to utterly ineffectual. So a small amount of discretion (and dare
I say playtesting) is a good idea.
Giving out 2nd and 3rd rate forces is a good handicapping technique too! Give
the good player the weak forces and the newbie or weaker player the strong,
good quality forces. That really DOES make the game more of a challenge for
the good tactician, though he might find even the best tactics can't save some
forces.....
T.
First Rate
> NAC
I see the AE Imperial troops as 1st rate, because: a) the AE has more money
than manpower and compensates by providing topnotch training and equipment to
the few troops they do have (eg all infantry are in powered armor)
b) the AE has a very pragmatic attitude--if something doesn't work, they
have a cultural inclination to change it c) enough mercs are based in the AE
that there is a wide base of professional experience available
None of this applies to sovereignity troops or mercs, and the AE's operations
are limited in several respects (eg the maximum gravity they
train in is around 1/3 gee), but for what they do, they're very good.
As far as power goes, 4th rate at best--only about 20 battalions
> Third Rate
> ORC (and only rate here)
probably rate as "variable" since it's a coalition, but since we have no
further information, it's hard to say
> SV
G'day,
> First Rate
Given their reputation (or the mythos Jon has built around them) I'd slide the
SV in here too.
> Second Rate
Actually by this period I could see the IF and PAU as at least second rate
too.
> Third Rate
Given these later points I'd definitely bump the IAS up to third rate. The
nation may have science at heart, but when push comes to shove who do you
think can dream up the truly mean stuff?;P
Just for comparison sake (and for what its worth), here's the ratings of the
naval prowess of the various nations (which was a direct result of a poll I
did on the list a few years back) that I did up with Piquet in mind, but it
can be used to think about relative ratings too.
<Sorry if the table gets mangled by the mailer>
CF OQ Opp MR Ld Qd Ace% Vet% Reg%
Green%
ESU 7 3 6 4 +1 NC 10 10
55 30
FCT 3 4 5 3 NC -1 5 15
55 25
FSE 6 3 6 3 +2 +1 15 15
55 25
IC 5 5 4 5 -2 -2 5 5
60 30
IF 5 4 5 4 -1 -1 5 10
40 45
JAP 4 4 4 2 NC +1 10 15
70 5
LLAR 3 5 5 4 -1 -2 5 10
60 25
KNG 4 4 5 4 -1 NC 10 20
60 10
NAC 6 2 6 3 +1 +1 10 15
65 10
NI 4 3 5 3 +1 NC 10 25
55 10
NSL 6 2 7 2 +2 +1 10 15
65 10 OU 5 4 5 4 NC NC 15 30 35 20
PAU 4 5 5 5 -1 NC 5 10
50 35
RH 4 4 5 4 -1 -2 5 10
55 30
SK 3 4 5 5 -3 NC 5 5
40 50
SWISS 3 4 4 2 -2 -1 10 10
60 20 UNSC 6 3 4 2 NC NC 20 20 50 10
Std 3 4 5 4 -1 NC 5 10
65 20
Poor 2 6 3 5 -4 -3 0 5
50 45
Good 5 3 6 3 +1 +1 5 15
60 20
By the way Std/Poor/Good = for generic forces, also
CF = command flexibility. The higher the number the more flexible the command
structure can be (doesn't always mean they will be) OQ = overall quality
(especially with regard to willingness to stand and fight and covers
confidence with regard to training as well as equipment), in this case the
lower the number the better Opp = Relative ability to make the most of
opportunities, the higher the number the better MR = mechanical reliability,
the lower the number the more reliable their equipment is
Ld = leadership, + ratings = likely to have better leaders, NC = average
leadership, - ratings = likely to have poorer leaders
Qd = determination/confidence of the troops, + ratings = likely to be
more
determined/confident, NC = average, - ratings = likely to be flighty
Ace/Vet/Reg/Green = % makeup of their forces with these grade of troops
As you can see it gets a bit messier.
Cheers
> Actually by this period I could see the IF and PAU as at least
If the bulk of the "Major Powers" are considered Second Rate, then I can't see
IF or PAU regulars as any better than Third...and it wouldn't take all that
much argument to convince me of Fourth.
> Given these later points I'd definitely bump the IAS up to third
It's not the theory that gets you, it's the application. The Germans in WW2
dreamed up a lot of really inventive weapons, put few into production and
developed good tactics for even fewer. OTOH the Gurkha
was feared, not because of his high tech razzle dazzle gizmo--all he
had was a rifle and/or knife--but because he could and would slither
G'day,
> If the bulk of the "Major Powers" are considered Second Rate, then I
Obviously I'm more generously inclined than you then. Given available
resources and the good deal of action they see (IF at least) I would've
thought quality wise they'd be pretty hot by 2180. To my mind if the ESU, RH,
OUDF rate as second rate IF and PAU should too (especially IF). By the way Tom
you forgot to rate the IC.
> It's not the theory that gets you, it's the application. The Germans
If you've ever been to an academic conference you'd know that a fountain pen
is enough;)
Cheers
> --- Thomas Barclay <kaladorn@magma.ca> wrote:
> Second Rate
I'd tend to consider them as first rate. Note that historically the Swiss
provided the only "first rate" infantry in many people's armies.
> NI
1st rate training wise, 2nd rate equipment with the impending threat of
downgrading.
> PAU
The only PAU unit we have (the one on stargrunt.ca) is evidence of this. I
havn't done any analysis about it because there's nothing good to say.
In message <A8877251964B294BAB5BA1FC58B43FED6137E2@molly.tas.csiro.au>
> Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> G'day,
[snip]
> Just for comparison sake (and for what its worth), here's the ratings
Thanks Beth,
At some point - I must get round to integrating this with my crew
quality/leadership rules I posted recently.
Hmm.. probably base Crew Quality on OQ and Qd, possibly Opp and MR as well.
Base Leadership on Ld, modified by CF.
Could produce a more complex version that uses all of these ratings :-)
Need to think about it a bit...
Hello
I have been thinking about this whole thread, and I feel that Tom
Barclays original one-dimensional ranking has some problems. Mainly for
trying to press 'military quality' into a single number (1-4) and by
not stating clearly how he arrived at that number.
In his remarks on various powers, he mentions several criteria for his
ranking:
1) fighting skill at the 'small unit' level Example: the Gurkhas. I take it
that this is the quality of units you would see on an SG or DS table, up to
bataillon level, perhaps.
2) operational skills of handling large units Discussed as the reason for
downgrading e.g.the Scandinavians
3) budget/equipment/logistics capabilities
Example: the OUDF downgrading
Not that I have particular problems with that, but what was the intended
overall statement?
What was TomB's list supposed to mean:
* The performance of such troops on the gaming table? In which case, only
point 1) seems relevant, with 3) dictating the equipment.
* The capability of a nation to win a war against another? Here 2) and 3) seem
the most relevant.
A case in point:
The Gorkha Empire: I'll grant you the 1st rank in fighting skills. But
do we have any reason to assume it is top-notch in the other aspects,
too? If they are 2nd rate competent in operations (probably generous, anybody
ever heard of a Gurkha Army Corps?) and 3rd rate in budget (they are a small
nation) and just average out the numbers, they end as
a 2nd-rate military power. Competent but not top-notch.
Such an explicit, detailed ranking might have made the discussion more
meaningful.
Greetings
KarlHeinz said
> original one-dimensional ranking has some problems.
> 1) fighting skill at the 'small unit' level
> The Gorkha Empire : I'll grant you the 1st rank in fighting skills. But
Not even all fighting skills, just Infantry. Are there Gurkha units in armor,
artillery, or aerospace?
We might add:
Fighting spirit/courage/elan
Cohesiveness (the "looking out for your buddy" factor) Technology level
(possibly folded into Budget)
Breadth of skills/experience available (eg not just light infantry, but
also armor, orbital assault, zero gee, etc)