I was just rereading full thrust and more thrust with an eye to how solar
systems would communicate with each other and exactly how long would it take
to go from system to system. John hints that there might be some form of
interstellar communications in his senarios but doesn't actually say so. The
communications might be in system. If there is no interstellar communications,
then the fastest way to get word out is a small fast ship. (Lots of work for
the scouts). How fast could a scout get to the next system. Consider a scout
going from Alpha Centari to Sol (a distance of over 4 light years, I think).
The ship would have to make 3 or 4 jumps to leave the system, 5 more in deep
space, then 3 or 4 more coming into the solar system. A total of 11 to 13
jumps (say 12). At a minimum 6 hours between each jump, 3 days (really pushing
it) A normal military ship would take about 12 days (1 jump per day) and a
merchant ship 24 to 36 days (say 30).
This means a month of travel to one of the closest worlds. If human
space is about 40 light years accross, thats 3 months travel at a normal pace.
And that if the ship doesn't make any stops. Convoys and fleets will take
longer as they will need to periodicly reform.
> You wrote:
> John hints that there might be some form of interstellar
<snip math>
> (really pushing it) A normal military ship would take about 12 days
Yikes! Methinks I'm gonna use Alderson drives in my 'deviant' universe. I've
got spacegoing Greeks, so why not snag something different for the FTL? BTW,
my computor hiccuped a few weeks ago, and
I lost the e-mails of the two folks on the list with whom I had
discussed the Nea Rhomaioi via e-mail, and could you two buzz me? I
got a couple of questions and ideas to kick around. Back to on-topic
stuff: The Traveller Universe was built around this sort of hellacious time
delay, but the charted space was huuuuuuuuge (almost 920
light-years from the Imperial-Zhodani border to the Solomani-Hiver
border), and it took only 46 weeks to cross,at Jump-6, flat-out, one
per week. 91 if you take three days between jumps for
maintinence/refueling and a jump-4 ship. If that's going to be the way
the FT/DS/GS universe works, so be it. But then expect the
communications lag to play a MAJOR part of the background. To the point that
it would be overwhelming. Regional governors would have
almost complete autonomy--if it takes a year or three to send a message
back to Terra for little questions like "Should I nuke this damned Eurie
settlement on that planet we claimed a few years ago?" then action will be
taken and sorta passed on as a fait acomplii to the central government. In a
relatively short time, the commo lag will
force a massive decentralization and fragmentation--if not in name,
than in fact. Eventually you'll get a large number of small
mini-states, each small enough to communicate from one end to the other
in a short enough time to respond quickly to invasion, and each caught up in
it's own concerns.
As for me, I'll be digging through my FF&S (the TNE kind, not the current
bastardization) and reading up on the alternate FTL drives presented there.
I'm undecided on FTL commo, but kinda favoring it.
[snip]
> If there is no interstellar communications, then the fastest way to get
You could also assume some sort of FTL message missile, similar to those in
MT. I've wrote something up some time ago for my own fiendish delight. Anyone
else interested?
> How fast could a scout get to the next system. Consider a scout going
[snip]
The skeleton campaing rules in FT (pg34) give speed of 6 LY per week for
standard military vessels.
These areas (commo & travel) are intimately linked, and define the entire
universe. Most of the decisions are made about this to acheive a certian
flavor of a game world. I think that we should be very careful how we tread
here. Personally, I would be happy with this: Full Thrust is set in a universe
that requires ships of all sizes and duties; where both fighters and
SuperDreadnoughts can be effective; where commercial space travel is
commonplace and relatively cheap; a large interstellar economy exists; commo
insystem is fast (lightspeed), but between systems is slower (either fast ship
or FTL 'radio'); surprise is possible, either through sensor evasion or clever
FTL plotting; travel between stars takes some time, either in FTL transit, or
STL transit insystem. Any more detailed that that, and we get into pretty
arbitrary decisions. However, if we are talking about just the 'official'
background, well, let's debate that sucker and let Jon decide what's what on
the end! Noah V. Doyle
I much prefer a mix of technologies. In the campaign/world setting I was
designing, I had the following communication/travel technology:
Interstellar FTL communication: Limited to asteroid/lifeless world
installations due to the power requirements and environmental impact of
sending such a huge signal. Also, used mainly for emergency, diplomatic
communication due to cost. Can only target planetary (stellar?) objects for
communication. This leaves it vulnerable to espionage. Limited to 36 light
years range.
Intrastellar FTL communications: Common. This allows ship to ship
coordination.
FTL jump range: 12 light years is the maximum range for both military and
civilian ships for a single jump. Military FTL drives recharge quicker than
civilian drives. Military drives recharges at a rate of 1/2 hour per
light year jump range. Civilian ships recharge at a rate of 2 hours per light
year jump range. Minimum time between jumps is 1/2 hour (2 FT turns).
This encourages the use of courier ships for both military and civilian
buisness. It also gives a reason to make small military ships (to protect
the courier ships from pirates/corporate raiders).
This also limites reinforcements from other systems in a campaign (something
that needed addressing in my proposed campaign).
These are just MY technical overlays for the GZG universe. Feel free to take
what you like and leave the rest.
Well I have always felt that communication was a function of the small scout
and courier vessels. Other than these functions they don't have much relevance
to game system. If you remember one of the short fiction parts of FT there was
a battle where a couple of destroyers (I think) went out to meet a large enemy
force. They sent a message to Confed Navfltcom via a lancer (presumably a
courier).
Of course this doesn't preclude other forms of communication. For instance in
Starfire there are message drones that can be launched from any ship. These
are somewhat faster than the ships in that universe but still may take months
to arrive at their destination if it is any distance away. In the Renegade
legion universe communication is via ships but important systems may have
VLCA's (Very large communication arrays) which allow
instantaneous transmission of messages. Co-ordinating fleet movements
is
usally done through a VLCA. Of course this is in a universe where you
can travel up to 10,000 LY per month. So even though Terra is a huge distance
away it can still maintain contact with its sector capitals and such. This may
have some application to the FT universe. Major colony worlds may have some
sort of direct link with each other. Overall though I think I prefer the
courier soloution to this question. It would explain the need for small ships.
It also fits in with frontier feel of FT.
> You wrote:
> You could also assume some sort of FTL message missile, similar to
And if this were a Traveller mailing list, the flame wars would be commencing.
.. With my prediliction for the Newtonian intrasystem travel and 'wormhole'
(Either the Starfire or the Alderson
system--havn't decided) it's pretty anathema to me too.
> The skeleton campaing rules in FT (pg34) give speed of 6 LY per week
Still pretty slow in terms of interstellar distances.
> At 10:55 11/06/98 -0500, you wrote:
SNIP
> The skeleton campaing rules in FT (pg34) give speed of 6 LY per week
A general slowness in interstellar travel might also justify the use by larger
powers of mobile "amphibious" forces, perhaps with most of the marines in cold
sleep, with secret peacetime movement schedules so that outlying worlds would
be more reinforceable. Such forces might include heavy stuff, with crews in
the fridge, to be landed if a beachhead was available, and dropable raiding
forces (normally accommodated) in case the opposition was already down. The
squadron would include a number of substantial military transports, some sort
of CVE, plus escorts. A fast ortillery sloop might be a useful element in
support of such forces.
This could give rise to assorted FT scenarios such as recce to find a lurking
phibron, recce in support of the phibron, skirmishes to stop couriers or drop
raids etc.
Rob
> At 10:55 AM 6/11/98 -0500, John Atkinson wrote:
> delight. >Anyone else interested ?
Just a quick comment... seeing as a lot of the colines are apparently 'close'
to Earth (Centauri and Barnard's Star were mentioned, I believe)
I'd go with an Alderson-type system. From what I remember of the
Starfire
holes, they don't really connect near systes to each other -- they can,
true, but don't always. (Unlike the Heavy Gear Tannhauser Gates, which
fling you 1/6 of the way across the galaxy without blinking... though
there are alos likely to be a l*lot* more Tannhauser Gates out there than
previously believed.) Anyway... the Alderson Drive does connect the closers
stars, as I recall, so it would make more sense if humanity is
close-packed
in real space terms.
Though I actually favor the 'short' hop method that Jon describes. ^_^
(I
also love the stutterwarp from 2300AD....)
Later,
> You wrote:
> A general slowness in interstellar travel might also justify the use
> This could give rise to assorted FT scenarios such as recce to find a
Minor peeve--note that it's only possible to actually conquer a small,
small colony from space. Once you get a couple million colonists with a
homegrown industry, it becomes impossible to physically land enough troops to
do more than raid. Example: Israel, with 6 million inhabitants, can field 13
armored divisions, and one parachute division (or is it 12 and 1? I don't
recall). Taking down a force that big would require either massive and
indiscriminate use of orbital support (trashing what you're supposed to be
trying to conquer!) or one even
larger--which would be prohibitive to transport.
> You wrote:
> Though I actually favor the 'short' hop method that Jon describes. ^_^
Stutterwarp, however, makes a mockery of sublight combat--as I
understand the system it's functional in all but the steepest gravity wells.
> You wrote:
> (or is it 12 and 1? I don't recall). Taking down a force that big
> At 03:36 PM 6/11/98 -0500, John Atkinson wrote:
> (I >also love the stutterwarp from 2300AD....)
Well... not at c+ speeds. The sub-light gradient is at 0.0001 g, or
around about the asteroid belt in Sol system. (Also depends on how close you
are
to the gas giants, of course. ^_^ ) So you're not going too too
terribly
fast below that -- as I recall, it actually takes longer to travel from
the 0.0001 g gradient to a planet and it does to travel between stars. <shrug>
Basically, it means that any combat would be fought inside a star system; no
engagements in the void between stars, because your opponent moves faster than
your sensors can see.
And actually, because stutterwarp has pesudo-velocity, it actually ties
in very nicely with the cinematic movement in Full Thrust, though you do need
to PSB away why you can't make rapid changeovers. But given stutterwarp to
begin with,that isn't too hard. ^_-
> John Atkinson wrote:
^_^
> (I >also love the stutterwarp from 2300AD....)
On the flip side, it also makes it pretty easy to fix; just figure out how far
out you want your limit given a G class star, and calculate what the
acceleration due to the Sun's gravity is at that point. Then limit the system
to below that g acceleration.
The nice thing about systems that don't exist is that you can fix them
real easy for play balance. (8-)
J.
> jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John Atkinson) wrote:
[snip]
> Minor peeve--note that it's only possible to actually conquer a small,
I disagree. Israel is a technologically advanced state supported by an
extra-structure of advanced states in close proximity. A FT colony,
which is most liklely at least a week's transit from any support, would be
reliant on lower technology, and wouldn't have nearly the work-force
surplus available for a standing military.
Likewise, depending on who founded the colony, their loyalty to the
"motherland" may not be too solidly ingrained.
Looking at it in these terms, you'd need a much smaller landing force, and
may only have to achieve space-superiority to convince them that siding
with you may be in their best interests.
> Aaron wrote:
> From what I remember of the Starfire
It's more like "they usually do, but not always" :-/
Starfire communication within populated systems (or uninhabited systems
well within the empire's borders) tend to rely on light-speed signals
between comm bases positioned close to each warp point, but the messages have
to be carried through the WP by some physical courier (usually a drone of some
sort).
Later,
David Gerrolds briefly discusses some of the ramifications of interstellar
communication in his book SPACE SKIMMER. He notes that the size of one's
interstellar empire is more or less determined by the speed of one's
communications. If it takes more than a year to get a message from an outlying
province and the imperial capital, it is an open
Winch:
[quoted original message omitted]
Actually there would be quite a few cases where all that would be necessary is
to seize the critical components of a colony. For example if you seized the
integrated steel plant, they wouldn't be able to smelt enough steel to build
tanks ( OK scrap iron will let them make a dozen or so, but that's it.) A few
raids and the BIG dam at the head of the valley will control a lot of farm
land (Boom and you drown the valley.) If you take over the Industrial Power
plants they can only make weapons by ones and twos in the farmers garage, but
not enough to prosecute a war. The simple fact is that a colony all by itself
has too many jugular veins to feel safe. (Unless of course it has a Plan! But
that's MY book.) The real trick is to know which colony is vulnerable and
which one has a 10mm
Colt-Kalashnikov under his dinner napkin!
IMHO Tom Hughes
On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:26:15 -0500 (CDT) jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John
> Atkinson) writes:
> Minor peeve--note that it's only possible to actually conquer a small,
> You wrote:
> I disagree. Israel is a technologically advanced state supported by an
Excuse? Israel has states supporting via economic aid and military sales, all
of which are quite possible in FT universe. And only once
has needed rapid replenishment--and that's because it has neighbors
with hostile intentions and lots of tanks a few feet away. Not the
case with your average extra-solar colony.
> is most liklely at least a week's transit from any support, would be
Minor note: Israel has, in the past 60 years, created it's population from
almost scratch, it's economy from less than that, and heavy
industry from nothing. I submit that given a half-century of growth a
nation will have the capability to hold it's own. Especially if it doesn't
have to deal with a lot of genocidal neighbors invading once a decade.
> You wrote:
> Israel is not a colony so I can't see the comparison. When I think of
Given it wasn't even a theoretical concept 100 years ago, had negligable
amounts Jews actually living there until what, 70 or so years ago (Even in
1948, 600K Jews, a tenth of today's population), and no real industry until
the past 50 (or less) years, there are certain comparisions that could be
made.
> colony I think of early settlers/homesetters much like colonial
Depends on rate of colonization, local hostile natives (not a major problem in
most space settings) et al. Remember ship sizes and speed of transit, too. And
after 171 years (Jamestown in 1607 to 1776) of slow, fitful, lowtech
colonization, we were too big to conquer, and
that's with a very high level of loyalty to mother country--we were
defending ourselves pretty well against Indians and Frenchmen (note no
joke here--it was difficult, but I resisted) many years before. That
is also with pre-industrial capabilities, no medicine to speak of,
animal-powered farming, etc, etc, etc.
> When you get to the size of 6 million inhabitants I would consider the
Of course--and practically unconquerable.
And let's not get into colonies with a religious, philisophical, or
nationalistic motivator to resist, even through guerilla warfare...
> Chris Klug wrote:
I think it's not problems, more than difficulties.
Since the rate of communication is 'relatively' slow, you end up with the same
problems that the old colonial emprires of the 17th, 18th, and early 19th
centuries had, where the first warning that war had been declared might be the
enemy navy coming over the horizon. (Also take a look at the Battle of New
Orleans; took place AFTER the US and Great Britain had decided to end the War
of 1812, but word didn't get back to the armed forces in time.)
It makes co-ordination extremely difficult as well. Something as
strategically simple as a pincer attack from two opposing star
systems becomes horribly complex and dangerous to co-ordinate.
(What happens if at the last second, one of the pincers has to abort? You'll
never know until you pop out of hyper and find out that an enemy you were
supposed to outnumber 2:1 is actually fighting at parity with you.)
You have to tease it out, but David Weber makes mention of some of these
problems in 'A Short Victorious War' (Honor Harrington Novel.) Or take a look
at the history of the British Empire. I think those are the two most
accessible examples (unless somebody
can think of a better sci-fi novel?)
Some babble,
J.
> Chris Klug wrote:
Quotes from SPACE SKIMMER by David Gerrolds:
No matter how great the speed of the starcruisers were, the distances of the
galaxy were greater.
...
For every ship travelling towards the galactic west, there was another headed
for the galactic east; and the rate of man's outward growth was twice as fast
as anyone could travel. Thus the Empire grew. Even so, there were places where
the Empire was only a dim legend. The further it reached, the more tenuous was
its control. There were vast undeveloped areas within its sphere, areas that
had simply been overlooked in man's headlong rush outward. Communications
followed trade routes, and there were backwaters in that flow of information.
News travelled by the Empire Mercantile Fleets, synthesized as Oracle Tabs
(note: Oracle Tabs are sort of a high tech floppy disk). Or by independant
traders, synthesized as rumor. It leapfrogged from planet to planet, not
according to any kind of system, but by the degree of mercantile importance in
which any planet was held by its immediate neighbors.
...
by the time any part of the human race received news from the opposite side of
the Empire, it was no longer news, but history. The Empire's communications
were the best possible, but they weren't good enough. CONTROL DEPENDS UPON
COMMUNICATION. Weak communication means weak control, eventually no control at
all.
...
The Empire had always been unwieldy and unmanageable. By the year 970 H.C. it
was not so much an empire as a loosely organized confederation. Lip service
was paid to the idea of a unified central government for all the races of man,
but the Empire was only as strong as its local representative. Where that
represenative was only one agent with an Oracle
machine and a twice-yearly visit from a trading ship, the Empire
was a distant myth. Where that representative was an Imperial Fleet, the
Empire was law. And there were all the possible variations in between. Some
were just, some weren't.
...
The Empire maintained few fleets of its own - and these stayed
close to home. Instead, "letters of marque" were issued. Member planets and
systems often had their own armadas to police their own territories. Often
those territories consisted of as much volume as those armadas could
effectively patrol. Armed with letters of marque, these fleets were
automatically acting in the name of the Empire. As agents of such, their
duties were whatever their admirals wanted them to be. In return, the badge
of the Empire made them - and their control - legal.
The local governments controlled the fleets, and in so doing, they wielded the
real power. Some were just, some weren't. The Empire
didn't care - as long as they paid their taxes.
In return they received the benefits of Empire. In addition to the implied
legality of their regimes, they were automatically privy to the vast
scientific and cultural library represented
> You wrote:
> That and 8+ billion $US a year in militrary aid, not to mention
And would not an interstellar colony be recipients of a considerable amount of
aid? After all, the initial outlay for such a colony (except on the smallest
scale on the most habitable worlds) would be quite
large--I expect the mother country would make a sizeable effort to keep
the damn thing intact until it can begin contributing to the mother country's
economy!
> At 09:22 12/06/98 -0700, you wrote:
I really hope we are not getting into all this again...Keep the politics
offline.
We were talking about how communications would be dealt with in over
Interstellar distances in FT. Which brings up the question, how long would it
take for a major power to react to an invasion. Or for that matter even
realise they were being invaded? One planet being hit by enemy forces may only
be a border skirmish. Do you send a large task force to investigate or only
regional forces? You lose contact from 5 planets or an entire sector and then
it would seem to be an invasion. How do planetary colonies indicate that they
are under attack if there are no ships around to relay the message? Perhaps
evry system has at least a courier boat insystem?
> At 09:50 12/06/98 -0500, you wrote:
> on the smallest scale on the most habitable worlds) would be quite
> the damn thing intact until it can begin contributing to the mother
There seems to be an assumption that the various powers are the only ones
colonising. What about private firms and groups? Similar I suppose to Lalonde
in Peter Hamiltons "The reality dysfunction". It surely couldn't be worthwhile
for the major powers to colonise all the various worlds they find even if some
are perfectly viable. Why not farm them out to corporations or ethnic
groupings (Remember the Scottish Ethnic planets in Julian Mays books).
These types of colonies may have military forces but they might be local
militias or mercenaries. I remember a scenario Mike Elliot wrote for one of
the Ragnaroks in which a minoing corporation were about to take over a
planetary government but the government hired some mercenaries to steal some
nukes from the mining corp. It went something along those lines.
> jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John Atkinson) wrote:
[snip]
> Minor note: Israel has, in the past 60 years, created it's population
Israel was not cut from rugged untouched terrain - nor did it require
limited terraforming or introduction of edible grains and stock animals. The
state was formed upon an existing infrastructure. In fact, one that's been
around for quite some time.
The beginning FT colony doesn't have these advantages. Also, given the near
constant state of near economic exhaustion from warfare that exists in the FT
background, they may not also have the advantage of gross monetary support
from an outside source.
On top of that, add the occasional military strike from an unfriendly power
(say if the NAC wants to rattle the ESU's cage), and your development slows
considerably.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> Minor note: Israel has, in the past 60 years, created it's population
That and 8+ billion $US a year in militrary aid, not to mention civilian
aid, plus all teh foreign donations.
A secondary consideration is that a colony will *probably* use 2nd or 3rd tier
technology for it's defense forces. I mean imagine trying to engage a
battalion of American M1 or British Challengers with Russian
T-34s or German Panthers! Those particular tanks were stupendous for
their era, but compared to a Chobham armored turbine driven tank armed with a
hypervelocity smoothbore that is deadly accurate at 40 mph over terrain
coupled with realtime satellite recce....
Absolutely, no argument aboute colony creation there. However to say
that Isreal _itself_ created their economy from "less than scratch" (as
you put it) is not quite accurate.
Los
> John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
> >A general slowness in interstellar travel might also justify the use
I would think that in general you could only conquer those colonies where
order was maintained by force or a monopoly on a particular vital supply.
For example, if the colony has no established industry or a concentrated
industrial area under control of the local rulers then an attacker would only
have to displace the rulers.
The rulers may not be very popular, and the militia may not be very
enthusiastic about fighting a war that doesn't mean much to them. In general,
an attacker will try to only attack those colonies where it believes the
defenders aren't heavily motivated.
As far as a campaign game goes, early encounters would probably have higher
numbers of lower morale and quality troops defending. If the attackers suffer
a setback the defenders morale and motivation goes up. Likewise, if the
attackers resort to ortillery bombardment the motivation will either go to
elite or down a level. You take your chances by inflicting civilian
casualties, after all.
On a colony world it would be a huge expense to maintain a standing army, as
spare parts would be hard to come by and the colony needs every resource it
can to survive and grow. A lot of equipment may be cheap obsolete equipment. A
way to reflect this would be a much lower ECM rating for militia troops,
unless the communications infrastructure of the planet is such that the locals
produce their own comm gear.
A lot of equipment is going to be converted or dual use equipment. They may
have a lot of airplanes and helicopters which are used in ranching and
surveying which will be
armed. They would be less effective in air-to-air than
aerospace fighters, but they should do just fine in ground attack mode, and
there could be a lot of them.
A lot depends on the military philosophy of the colony. Here are a few
possibilities:
1) Defend the local space or orbit. This philosophy is a good one for detering
pirates and raiders. Versus any serious force the planet will just surrender.
Local taxpayers like this because there is little risk of bombardment, just a
change of government. Often the locals don't much autonomy anyway and are part
of a centrally planned economy.
It is a large easier to put local production into orbit where it will be under
control of the government than to try to arm the populace. The local spaceport
and heavy industrial areas would be the most heavily defended, as nothing else
would be a militarily important objective.
2) At the other end is the poison pill defense. On a planet where humans can
live and subsist in the while, especially a world with dispersed resources a
policy of denying an enemy control of the surface could be taken. The locals
will fight for their property and the government which protects their
property. They are willing to fight and commit more resources to defense
because the citizens believe the world belongs to them.
And heaven help the government which tries to displace them for new
immigrants, whether it is their mother country or not! On such a world, all
the locals can be considered armed and part of the armed forces. Overall
equipment quality will be low, but the locals will be very familiar with the
terrain and the ecology can be deadly as well.
For extreme examples of this:
_The People of the Wind_ by Poul Anderson,
_The Lone Star Planet_ by H Beam Piper
_The Uplift War_ by David Brin
Of course, a planet rich enough to support such a defense would also be an
attractive prize. It is quite possible that several rival ethnic groups
colonized a rich planet as different governments controlled the orbitals.
A planet, Avalon, could be colonized by NAC citizens and grow in population
when a NSL fleet takes over the orbitals. The locals aren't too upset about it
at first until the NSL starts sending colonials of its own to the planet.
Eventually the locals decide to eject the colonials, even though that means
attacking against both orbital and air superiority. Sure, they outnumber the
defenders ten to one on the ground but they often have to attack in the open.
Models for this would be the Boer War, as successive waves of European
immigrants had different loyalties and cultures and eventually came into
conflict. The bad news for the defenders is their distaste for powerful
governments may prevent them from arming their government! The locals could
feel that a powerful government airforce would result in a lot of surveillance
of their lands, and a government fast response battalion would be a government
tool for quashing dissent, not for stopping invasions.
There could be no standing force capable of preventing the attackers from
establishing a base on a different continent or less populated part of their
continent.
3) The locals could have a Churchill defense strategy, defend the orbitals,
the air, the landing grounds, etc... Defending the space would be ideal, next
would be denying the enemy a bridgehead by attacking their landing area and
defending their airspace. Finally, if they can't prevent the enemy from
gaining orbit or landing troops they try to make their stay as unpleasant as
possible. This would involve a significant portion of the colony's GDP going
to defense,
with the proportions of space/air/ground defense being
governed by what the local industry could turn out in quantity.
One tactic would be to 'let' the enemy land troops and then engage them at
ammunition wasting ranges. The theory would be that the locals can replace
tons of ammunition faster and easier than the attackers can be resupplied, and
the resupply shuttles would be targetted by missiles and aerospace fighters.
The attackers would have enough resources to punch through the defenses in
order to land troops, but the defenders would reserve aerospace assets to
attack when they have an advantage. Resupply missions would therefore require
the same resource commitment as the original landing against an opponent who
has a better idea as to where they
are heading, and so can position ground-to-air, ground-to-space
weaponry more efficiently.
Or the defenders could attempt the NVA tactic, "Engage the enemy at close
ranges, grab him by the belt buckle at the landing zones". The attackers would
not be able to evacuate a heavily pressed beachhead without heavy casualties.
A lot depends on the level of motivation of the troops and the initiative of
the officers.
Thomas spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Actually there would be quite a few cases where all that would be
Let's assume you don't want to trash either the industrial capacity or the
agricultural capacity of your colony. If you are willing to do
that kind of damage, screw the JarHeads landing - just drop Ortillery
on the key places like dams and plants and then you have more or less the same
effect.
If you
> take over the Industrial Power plants they can only make weapons by
Ever visited a Mennonite Farm? Or was that Hutterite? I can't
remember which it is (or both) - but they have FULL machine shops
that make some commercial ones look like nothing. And this includes
computer driven CAD/CAM rigs, which are getting cheaper, smaller and
more capable. It is entirely within the range of imagination to imagine a
single farmstead (with adequate raw materials) turning out
20-25 serviceable assault weapons in a week. Now raw materials, ammo,
primers, etc. become a bit of an issue, but you'd be surprised what a colony
of people who live by being self sufficient because most of the time help is
not nearby or DNE can do.
The
> simple fact is that a colony all by itself has too many jugular veins
Yes the other issue is the liberty standards. If the colony is Tombstone, then
you're in for a world of hurt as all the adult males and a lot of the adult
females may be competent armsbearers. If the colony has a civil defense plan,
bunkers, the right terrain, etc. it
might be the same type of nightmare that Sweden would be to attack -
any invader would find the experience very unpleasant.
It seems to me in any of these scenarios, we're talking about an
elite or veteran high-tech force (maybe with actual drop troops and
SF), ortillery, and some limited high-tech aerospace craft, and
orbital superiority versus a larger number of colonists, colonial
militia, police, industrial gaurds/mercs, and maybe a few foreign
'advisors' from another power. These folk would likely be equipped with second
tier weapons systems but they'd be serviceable and deadly. They'd have less
skill perhaps as a formation force, but perhaps more on an individual level
(perhaps bonus to quality die for fire combat?), but they'd know their terrain
quite possibly like the
back of their hand. They might lack for anti-armour elements, but an
invading force (by virtue of space transit) can't carry THAT much armour. What
they had might be hard to hurt, but their might not be
much of that. And every casualty the high-tech invader takes is worth
more than each colonist lost.
You'd devolve to a war where the orbitally based invader tried to pinpoint
local formations so it could bring its superior firepower to bear in a
precision manner, and where they tried to (through ELINT and recce) locate
local leaders to decapitate them with small strikes. They'd avoid a pitched
battle, as would the colonists. They'd try to avoid wrecking stuff.
The colonists, by contrast, would try to lure the smaller elite formations
into ambushes or into fights in mountains or other spots where ortillery
wouldn't help as much. They'd keep decentralized to avoid giving the orbiting
invader much to shoot at. If they had cavern complexes, they'd use them.
They'd certainly harness any natural phenomena or conditions that the invaders
might not be equipped to cope with. And they may, as mentioned above, have
advisors from SF of another power to lead and train them. They might be able
to arrange smuggled arms if the situation persisted. They might just have to
hold for reinforcements.
Like most things in FT, a lot depends on the tech and gov't organization of
your setting.:)
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
> You wrote:
> There seems to be an assumption that the various powers are the only
A private firm that attempted to plant a colony would a)Have it 'taken under
the protection of' a major power, or b)provide it with the firepower to
prevent same.
> find even if some are perfectly viable. Why not farm them out to
Ethnically based (especially ethnic groups/subgroups with a persecution
complex, real or imagined) colonies would tend to have a Swiss/Israeli
model military (if high-tech) or 'Minuteman' sort of ethic if lowtech.
And a motivation to go guerilla if they loose out. Guerilla wars are
hard to win--but even harder to supress guerillas with a
batallion-sized force. You need large numbers of quality light
infantry. They'll fight, and a million light infantry, even if irregularly
equipped is enough to give any armored commander in close terrain major
headaches. Just ask the Ruskies about going into countries full of irregularly
equipped people with ethnic pride. All it takes a couple dozen IAVRs and fancy
tanks tend to go boom real quick (last DS game I played was with hidden units,
and the owner of
the high-tech force didn't ask about a certain hidden unit until it
activated, turned out to be an infantry platoon, and sent a full platoon of
size 4 tanks to the great scrapyard in the sky).
> You wrote:
> Interstellar distances in FT. Which brings up the question, how long
As long as it takes a courier to slip past the enemy fleet and bring sensor
scans...
> sector and then it would seem to be an invasion. How do planetary
Again my Traveller-playing background comes into play. I usually
assume a regular network of small couriers (mail packet ships?).
> You wrote:
Not quite valid comparision. Ever seen a swarm of size 2 HKP/3-armed
tank destroyers with attitude problems? It's ugly. And cheap. The other
approach is to assume that since the colonies have limited manpower resources,
and given the problems of transport, colonies might have the best money can
buy. Again, a colony is a major investment, and military power, in the middle
of an interstellar war, would be a requirement.
> You wrote:
> motivation goes up. Likewise, if the attackers resort to
Not to mention unless you're fighting some sort of apocalyptic,
genocidal, all-or-nothing war (WWII would be a good example) blasting
away indiscriminately expensive factories and valuable natural
resources is kinda self-defeating.
> grow. A lot of equipment may be cheap obsolete equipment.
Doncha know it. That's the Achilles Heel of the colonial militias in my
background. That d4 when someone shoots GMSs at you hurts! Settled planets
with Thematic (locally maintained professionals in this hybrid background)
forces have a lot less to worry about, and Tagmatics (central government's
standing army, best trained and equipped) tend to laugh at GMSs.
> And heaven help the government which tries to displace
Wasn't there a David Drake book along those lines (Patriot or Patriots or
something?) based on actual history of Vermont or New Hampshire or something.
> would also be an attractive prize. It is quite possible
What would likely occour often would be that colonies of different
nationalities could be planted on same planet. After initial skirmishes, both
central governments form some sort of agreement.
Fine--until some scarce resource causes renewed conflict.
> Or the defenders could attempt the NVA tactic, "Engage the
Umm. I hesitate to take lessons from the NVA unless you're willing to blow a
couple million troops inflicting a lousy 50K (and your opponent will back down
after taking 50K). Terrain dictates your engagement ranges. The Steppes of
Central Asia would be a bad place to try to use
a knife-fighting strategy, but a back alley in Beiruit is not the place
to try out your new HEL with the 6km range.
> A lot depends on the level of motivation of the troops and the
And that on sentence more or less summarizes the Art of War in a nutshell.:)
> You wrote:
> Ever visited a Mennonite Farm? Or was that Hutterite? I can't
Given that the Viet Mihn threw the French out of the country with primarily
homemade weapons and captured equipment...
Actually given 200 years of development, making an AK would be as easy
making black powder would be today (I could do it in the basement--the
first few batches wouldn't be too great, but I'd get the corning procedure
down after that.) Problems might arise, but I think farmsteads, especially on
a frontier planet, will be more capable than some assume.
Given genetic engineering's uses in farming, might not the
well-equipped farmstead be capable of churning out biowarfare viruses
or bacteria capable of turning the dastardly invaders into quivering blobs of
flesh?
And don't forget the way the Dorsai threw the Earthers off-planet in
one of the Amanda Morgan stories.
> back of their hand. They might lack for anti-armour elements, but an
And you can always whip up 20-lb satchel charges with will, I
guarantee, ruin any DAT's day. Anti-armor not a problem if you planet
isn't nothing but steppe and desert.
> At 00:56 6/12/98, Jerry Han wrote:
Which history of the British Empire? Did you have a specific title in mind?
> At 16:33 6/12/98, Niall Gilsenan wrote:
Ah, but communication, travel and war are the concerns of politics.:) And I
don't think John and Los were stating political views, merely citing a
well-known example.
> We were talking about how communications would be dealt with in over
If the empire in question has the economic power to do so, most likely it
does. This was the method in the 'classic' Traveller universe: a network of
fast X-boats that travelled regular routes that had at least one stop in
any Imperial-controlled sector, and more stops in sectors of higher
importance. According to my copy of the Traveller Book, a message sent by this
'pony express' method took 44 weeks to go from core to periphery of the
Empire.
Something else the book pointed out: the Imperium took pains to cultivate a
proper culture of feudalistic honor in its governors and fleet officers. This
loyalty is ultimately what made the Empire a cohesive one, even when
communication lines were so long.
This could be the basis of interesting law (and scenarios) as well. Would at
least one child of every planetary governor have to be educated on the home
world to make him or her eligible to take their parent's place? Or would
governorship automatically be someone from the core worlds if no heriditary
system existed?
> imagine a single farmstead (with adequate raw materials) turning out
Homesteaders being a case in point. My great-grandfather established a
telephone system in NW Kansas long before Bell considered it profitable to do
so by using a local commodity: fence wire. So long as no one opened a gate,
calls went through.:) Kept that going well into the 1950s for cheap
long-distance into Nebraska (even tied it into Bell's system for a
while) until they finally figured it out and shut him down.
The point is, given the right sort of attitude and culture, there are some
surprising things that can be done with "low-tech". I think any
colonists who have a will to fight, communicate and survive will find a way to
do it that traditional schools of thought would laugh at.
To go back to the example of Isreal, I highly reccommend the book _O,
Jerusalem_. It's a good looke at how exactly the Israelis did build and
equip an army out of second- and third- hand military surplus and
homegrown hardware. An excellent book.
> At 19:14 6/12/98, John Atkinson wrote:
India being a prime example of b) until they screwed things up and the Crown
chose option a).
Most colonization (at least in our world) has been on behalf of individuals or
corporations that were in it for the money. Once the degree of wealth
available was seen, governments rapidly took over, or at least made their
presence known. I'm assuming a similar model for space colonization (assuming
free enterprise can even make it in to orbit....)
> A secondary consideration is that a colony will *probably* use 2nd
So you spend vast amounts of resources partly terraforming a planet for
hopeful proper colonisation from the overcrowded core world, and then defend
it with rubbish? Seems unlikely to me.
Colony worlds get potent defenses if you can manage to get it there. Habitable
planets are the most valuable resource around. Living space.
However, I do agree with the problem of mounting space fleet borne assualts on
a planetary surface. My guess is to target the power
distribution systems and/or threaten planetary bombardment, which
could easily be pinpoint attacks.... then again, if you blow the powerplants
to peices, what are you going to use once you occupy the place?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Ever visited a Mennonite Farm? Or was that Hutterite? I can't
Can Mennonite farms produce apache attack helicopters, missile systems, AWACS,
strike fighters, M1 tanks. Nope. Farm machine shops on colony worlds won't be
able to make state of the art hardare either. A guy with a rifle (ten guys
with rifles... 100 guys with rifles?) Aren't much threat to state of the art
systems. (q.v. road to basrah)
You also talked of luring the elite troops into ambushes etc. I understand the
Vietnam parallels, and the desire to perhaps have scope for such problems
(perhaps for RP potential, or just for that 'feel). However, elite units have
come a long way (and learned a lot of lessons) as well as advanced technolgy
and sensor systems looking carefully down from space.
My thrust is.... civil based defense is at a severe disadvantage from top of
the line military units with space superiority. A real
garrison with planet or orbital defenses and/or fleet presence is the
best line of defense, and probably the most economic. The role of on planet
grunts would be for them to hide (with stealth technology) and conduct
guerilla actions in preperation for relief by their own fleet, who will no
doubt want to take the place back again asap.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> You wrote:
> either. A guy with a rifle (ten guys with rifles... 100 guys with
Speaking as someone who has, in exercises, "killed" fighting vehicles by
placing a simulated satchel charge on them while they were parked in defensive
positions, I'd say "Bullshit". You've never tried MOUT personally, either,
have you? Remember, a war of occupation is not the same as sitting in the
desert dropping bombs on everything that moves. You gotta sleep some time, and
that's when nasty light infantry like me are ruining your entire incarnation.
Or how about just having locals
stabbing your troops with low-tech knives as they stumble drunkenly out
of whorehouses (and don't tell me you'll prevent them from visiting
whorehouses--never been an army yet that managed that, 'cept in Desert
Storm, and that's coz the Saudis don't tolerate whorehouses, and at any rate
there aren't any in the desert.) Or we could ask the Chechens about whether or
not light troops can stop tanks cold. I think they'd have a few choice
comments. Guerilla wars rarely win by themselves in the long run, but they can
cause a hell of a lot of damage in the meantime.
> 'feel). However, elite units have come a long way (and learned a lot
All the sensors in the world won't penetrate triple-canopy jungle, or
mangrove forests, or tell you if those peasants are hiding SMGs in the
basement.
> On 13 Jun 98 at 22:03, John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
Hey, no need to get uppity, I didn't make a personal attack against you.
Answers.
Keep most of your forces in orbit with those on the ground quickly
reinforcable and with almost instant ortillery support.
Bring your whorehouse with you and keep it in orbit. or, be like the saudi
example, don't base your troops near enough whorehouses that they wil visit
them. Also, if you take anything other than very infequent stabbings and
killings while on local r&r, even the most hormone driven squaddies won't go
there any more. (or if they do, it will be with a flamethrower).
However, I do take the point that an army of occupation facing a determined
guerilla resistance is going to have problems. q.v. Vietnam.
If the civil/guerilla disobedience is so bad that the planet is an
overall liability, *and* if the political climate allows it, you kill or drive
off everyone and resettle. Perhaps a bit unrealistic, I'll admit, but hey,
look at ethnic cleansing today.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> If the colony is
Um - you are thinking of Switzerland, not Sweden. I am Swedish. We don't
have to have a lot of supplies and a rifle in every household (and most of us
don't), and we're pretty damn vulnerable to those jugular cuts you were
discussing earlier... and we don't have the much of the right
terrain either :-/
Later,
> You wrote:
> Hey, no need to get uppity, I didn't make a personal attack against
No, just what I do.
> Keep most of your forces in orbit with those on the ground quickly
Kinda hard to collect taxes from orbit.
> Bring your whorehouse with you and keep it in orbit.
Very difficult to control a city without a garrison. You're assuming all the
little civillians and local military personell will be so terrified they'll
just do your bidding "or else". Somehow I doubt it, unless someone has managed
to breed everything worth keeping out of the human race.
> If the civil/guerilla disobedience is so bad that the planet is an
And that leads to your enemy's navy nuking your planets, you nuke their
planets, and both sides are pretty much wiped out. Only a drooling idiot or a
madman (See:Adolph Hitler) would start a war on those terms. Rarely are wars
fought over simple hatred, with no goal whatsoever in mind. And frankly, I
don't care to game genocide. I leave the
Dirtside table when nuclear weapons come into play--for me it's the
same as gaming Auschwitz or something like that.
This whole discussion remind me of a Larry Niven novel (which list discussion
don't remind somebody of a Larry niven novel) anybody ever read footfall...a
great book about an alien invasion by little elephants:) don't let that turn
you away from a really great book though the aliens used the ships to
ruthlessly maintain control of both air and orbit and did much of what we have
been talking about here
an excellent read
later Christopher Pratt valen@gatecom.com
[quoted original message omitted]
> You wrote:
> This whole discussion remind me of a Larry Niven novel (which list
Good book--and raises some interesting questions. But could you run
around dropping rocks on people who had the capacity to do the same to you?
On Sun, 14 Jun 1998 22:03:39 -0400, Christopher Pratt
<valen@gatecom.com> wrote:
> This whole discussion remind me of a Larry Niven novel (which list
<<shudder>> Ooooo, sorry, but I thought Footfall was pretty stinky. I hated
the ending. It's almost like they had no way of ending the novel. They kill
off one character for no reason whatsoever, too, just out of the blue. Roundly
considered by SF critics to be the worst of the Niven and Pournelle books.
On the other hand, it does have some neat DS2 applications. You're right about
how the critters handled air and orbit. There's also the nuclear bomb powered
launch vehicle, that would make an interesting FT ship. I think Mote in Gods
Eye has better GZG applications, though.
> <<shudder>> Ooooo, sorry, but I thought Footfall was pretty stinky. I
Roundly
> considered by SF critics to be the worst of the Niven and Pournelle
Can't say as I've read it. Generally avoid Niven and Pournelle.
> On the other hand, it does have some neat DS2 applications. You're
Interesting boarding actions perhaps. Liittle moties boarding your ship and
taking it apart. Or else just making it work better as is their wont.
I've always wanted to have some Culture battles. If only to be able to use
eccentric ship names! The old Idorian "Hand of God 137" vs the "Who wants to
know?" or any other silly name you can come up with...Probably need to use the
Supership rules for this kind of fight.
Plent of scope for Stargrunt as well. Although I suspect whoever has the
Special Circumstances drone on their side may as well not worry about
opposition for very long.
Julian Mays many coloured land series (Tanu vs Firvulag) might present some
interesting ideas. All those mental powers flying around could be
entertaining.
Any other books out there lend themselves to gaming?
> Allan Goodall agoodall@sympatico.ca
> At 03:28 PM 6/14/98 +0000, you wrote:
The whole trick of being an army of occupation is scaleable response.
Ortillery is not. If you pull into orbit with your uberbattlewagon and
threaten to nuke the civvies, they will surrender.
Great. Okay. Now what?
Well, obviously you wanted this planet for a reason. Presumably, it was so you
could force the populous to work for you. What sort of scaleable response can
you get out of ortillery when the whole planet calls in sick? "I'm sorry we
can't meet the production quotas El Supremo, but we've got a nasty case of the
flu going around down here. Cough, cough."
;)
So you send a bunch of guys with guns down. Not so much to shoot people, but
to grab them by the scruff of the neck and shove them into line. Most humans
(unfortunately) respond well to intimidation. They may fume about it in the
safety of their homes, might even curse the invaders at a local pub with a few
stiff drinks in them, but by and large very few will actively resist without
an example, a leader or a lot of assurance that it is safe.
Well, one of these mornings, as your goons are going down the street rounding
up workers, a sniper is gonna open up on them or a kid with a grenade is gonna
run up to them or your nice pretty grav tank is gonna catch a homemade satchel
charge or a guy is going to drive a truck load of explosives into your troops'
barracks.
Boom. It's over. Okay, where is your ortillery now? And would you do with it
if you could? You can't take out an entire city block (and you troops with it)
to kill a sniper or kid or a carbomber or housewife with a satchel charge.
> Bring your whorehouse with you and keep it in orbit.
Sensible. There a Hammer's Slammers story where they do this (more or less).
> Also, if you take anything other than very infequent stabbings and
It wasn't the fault of the working girls. It was a random attack (possibly
even an opportunity hit) by the resistance. Toast the whorehouse and the
resistance will get a whole batch of new recruits by nightfall due to the
outrage. The trick is telling the good civilians from the bad ones.
> If the civil/guerilla disobedience is so bad that the planet is an
That "political climate" qualifier is the trick. Given a domestic goverment
anywhere to the left of Vlad the Impaler, this is a quick way to get the local
Commandante reassigned.
Given a bipolar balance of galactic power, this a good way to experience the
adage "what goes around comes around." So, what? There are no friendly planets
elsewhere occupied by the enemy? And think of how they can use it to whip up
the folks back home. Atrocities have a way of ending apathy about a conflict.
Given a non-bipolar galactic political situation, such actions are more
likely to bring in neutral powers on the side of the enemy.
Besides, the logistics of exterminating an entire population really are
formidable. (As the Nazis discovered.) Replacing them with your people make it
doubly so.
Richard spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> > Ever visited a Mennonite Farm? Or was that Hutterite? I can't
True. But doe strike fighters an AWACS land? yep. Do they need fuel? Yep. Do
they need parts? Yep. Are they crewed by people? Yep. Is there a way to attack
them? Probably. Can they produce things to kill M1 tanks for $10,000 or
less... probably. Can they deal with the 49% mission capable (with a full
contingent of mechanics mind you) apache when it is grounded? Yep. Can they
hid from these things so they are nearly useless and infantry has to be sent
out? Yep.
Farm machine shops
> on colony worlds won't be able to make state of the art hardare
Oh, you mean the ambush of the already broken and fleeing troops by the
overwhelming air, ground, surveillance, resources of the united force of about
a dozen countries (although only 3 or so were major contributors to the war)?
hmm. I don't think this is terribly analogous. Try the chechens vs. the
russians. Try the russians vs. the afghans. Try the americans vs. the
vietnamese. Try a number of other conflicts in the last century. I'm sure if
the NAC, NSL, and the Israelis and OU banded together to pound on one annoying
colony world led by Sodamn Insane or the like, they wouldn't have too much
trouble trashing it. Especially if given six months to build up. But maybe,
just maybe, other scenarios might pan out differently.
To each his own, as far as a universe setup. Strictly from a gameplay point of
view, I find a universe with a lot of colonies with different flavours (some
defended by high tech regs, some by colonials, some by private forces or
colonists) and different
strengths (some an easy mark, some like attacking Switzerland - eh
Oerjan?) makes for a much more interesting set of strategic and
tactical problems - and maybe political too. So it's just then a
matter of picking constraints for the universe in terms of economy, politics,
and physics to make such an environment feasible.
:) Tom.
> You also talked of luring the elite troops into ambushes etc. I
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
> You also talked of luring the elite troops into ambushes etc. I
> > understand the Vietnam parallels, and the desire to perhaps have
Anyone who things the majority of US forces in Vietnam were "elite" troops is
really stretching reality.
> On 14 Jun 98 at 16:48, John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
fairynuff.
> >Keep most of your forces in orbit with those on the ground quickly
Send tax collectors, not infantry units.
> >Bring your whorehouse with you and keep it in orbit.
It rather depends on the level of civil disobedience and guerilla activity.
I'm not sure what number of troops the soviets needed to keep Hungary in line.
Probably many at the start, reducing as the populace became less enthusiastic
about disobedience, but with the constant threat of a new iron fist. Not a
long term solution, but it's the sort of thing that happens.
> >If the civil/guerilla disobedience is so bad that the planet is an
> >or drive off everyone and resettle. Perhaps a bit unrealistic,
Plenty of wars are over simple hatred. In fact, probably the majority of
todays wars are, or have that as a major factor. Religious hatred, class
hatred, racial hatred, or a combination. I guess the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
was one of the few invasions recently was largely for (oil) resources.
The thing is... if we don't find a way for planets being at least worthwhile
or feasible to try and conquer, then there isn't too much point doing it.
> John M. Atkinson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> At 00:32 16/06/98 +0000, you wrote:
SNIP
> >Keep most of your forces in orbit with those on the ground quickly
SNIP>> Very difficult to control a city without a garrison. You're
> assuming all the little civillians and local military personell will
SNIP
> And that leads to your enemy's navy nuking your planets, you nuke
> Plenty of wars are over simple hatred. In fact, probably the majority
I'd suggest that the relatively large number of well-armed Powers, most
of whom consider themselves civilized, and the relatively small number of
useful planets might well lead to formal laws of war, along the lines of: 1)
enemy civilians who don't engage in armed resistance musn't be harmed or
mistreated, while franc-tireurs may be shot out of hand.
2) agreements that an invaded world not retaken or contested within a certain
length of time may be internationally recognized as belonging to the invaders.
This could be done with relatively small forces, and lead to numerous actions
of the GZG scales. etc., etc.
The idea is generally along the lines of the mid-18th century European
idealized view of the conduct of war (at least within Europe), where
slaughters, especially of civilians, were at least _supposed_ to be
avoided. None of the big powers wants to be condemned as brutal and monstrous,
and the minor powers additionally want to avoid making themselves into pariahs
who can't get help when they need it.
Treaties might also lead to a return of the "Defensively Equipped Merchant
Ship", which is not allowed any forward-firing armament if it's to use
neutral ports- that would perhaps be a way to stop FT merchies behaving
like large clumsy corvettes in convoy actions.
Rob
On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 05:33:57 +0100, Niall Gilsenan <ngilsena@indigo.ie>
wrote:
> I've always wanted to have some Culture battles. If only to be able to
I hate "me too" posts but... me too! I think FT3, with it's abstraction of
ship size (i.e. a mass point can mean anything) would allow you to do Culture
battles. What would a General Contact Unit look like, anyway?
> On 15 Jun 98 at 9:01, Jeff Lyon wrote:
> The whole trick of being an army of occupation is scaleable
Grav tanks, class one beams, something smaller than ortillery in the first
place...
> Great. Okay. Now what?
Well, you probably start sending your own colonists too. My feeling has always
been that there are probably serious population pressures on earth, and more
living space is just as important as grain production, or mining raw
materials.
> ;)
Agreed.
> Well, one of these mornings, as your goons are going down the street
Also agreed.
> Boom. It's over. Okay, where is your ortillery now? And would you
What did the americans do in Beruit or was it the Lebanon when they were
sniped at. Used the New Jersey for fire support on at least one occasion. What
did they do when they got a truck bomb in a barracks? They kept doing their
job until they were told not to. As a note, there is little reason why you
can't use smaller ship mounted 'ortillery' for pinpoint attacks, or use some
sort other sort of fire support platform. You use the weapon that does the
right job.
> >Bring your whorehouse with you and keep it in orbit.
It's... sort of sensible, but the troops complain bitterly.
> >Also, if you take anything other than very infequent stabbings and
Squaddies aren't always rational when a few of their mates got killed. History
shows that usually the occupying force reacts indescrimenantly and brutaly,
and yes, more recruits to the other side by nightfall.
My aim here is to think of ways that there is a point to invading a planet,
and that it is feasible to hold it, and that it is possible to play
substantial parts of the conflict with the rulesets available.
FT allows pretty darned big fleet actions, so that base is covered. Dirtside
and Stargrunt however, are relatively small scale. So how to integrate them
into the picture while allowing the actions that you can portray in them to be
of significant scale to the whole planetside action. Or do we need an
'operational' level ruleset for ground warfare?
> >If the civil/guerilla disobedience is so bad that the planet is an
> >or drive off everyone and resettle. Perhaps a bit unrealistic,
Well, I did qualify it with "Perhaps a bit unrealistic". But then again,
ethnic cleansing is alive and well at this very moment.
> Given a bipolar balance of galactic power, this a good way to
Agreed.
> Given a non-bipolar galactic political situation, such actions are
Depends on trade agreements, and a whole myriad of political
backstabbing/manuevering.
> Besides, the logistics of exterminating an entire population really
Well, I tend to agree with John on the "I don't want to play auschwitz"
comment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 15 Jun 98 at 14:40, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Richard spake thusly upon matters weighty:
The 'probably' is rather important.
> Farm machine shops
True, my example was extreme. Chechen versus Russians is minor power using
much the same technology as Russians (a second line 'technological war
machine'), with the Russians not commiting front line troops (In fact, I think
they were raw conscripts mainly) due to political machinations back 'home'.
Americans versus Vietnamese, I think you will find the american military
complaining that their political policies lost them the war. Although, I'll
readily admit it still would have been difficult without that.
> To each his own, as far as a universe setup. Strictly from a
Agreed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 15 Jun 98 at 19:29, Los wrote:
> > You also talked of luring the elite troops into ambushes etc. I
Agreed. But my original proposition was that (In FT) military units have
become very small and very well trained due to the equipment they use, and the
multitude of situations that they have to deal with, and that 'space marines'
at least, are elite. I'm trying to find a way to rationalise small numbers of
elite troops being able to play an important, of not critical role in
Planetary invasion (Not highly populated core worlds), so that it's possible
to play out 'major' engagements while using small scale rules sets.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> In a message dated 98-06-15 21:14:13 EDT, Allan writes:
<< I think FT3, with it's abstraction of ship size (i.e. a mass point can mean
anything) would allow you to do Culture battles. What would a General Contact
Unit look like, anyway? >>
Well, having just _consumed_ 'Consider Phlebas' and 1/2 of 'Excession',
if you were close enough to resolve detail like engines or weapons, a GSV
would look
like...
A really big wall of metal.
Me, I want a Psychopath-class Rapid Offensive Unit.
Love the names!
Also, for an excellent book covering both colonies and troop transport issues,
read Robert Frezza's 'A Small Colonial War'
Noah
> You wrote:
> there a way to attack them? Probably. Can they produce things to
20-lb satchel charge on back deck. And don't tell me a high-tech
farming community can't come up with high explosives.
> analogous. Try the chechens vs. the russians. Try the russians vs.
Don't try American vs. Vietnamese. You'll find yourself taking a couple
million casualties in the process. The Vietnamese were actually
not too bright militarily--they just didn't care about casualties,
whereas we did.
> You wrote:
> >Keep most of your forces in orbit with those on the ground quickly
And you protect these tax collectors how? Unless you're planning to
threaten orbital bombardment every time his house gets firebombed/he
get sniped at/his office is set on fire/etc.
> It rather depends on the level of civil disobedience and guerilla
Off hand, a couple divisions. Plus a lot of collaborationists. But to build
your network of collabos, you've got to have the ability to keep them alive
until there are enough to control the colony for you.
> Plenty of wars are over simple hatred. In fact, probably the majority
Yeah. Doubt it. If you check, actually in most cases the ethnic or religious
issues (I will not dignify the 'class' nonsense with a response) are actually
just an aggravation of land or other resource issues.
> You wrote:
> What did the americans do in Beruit or was it the Lebanon when they
In the first place, Lebanon was a case where they actually could identify
areas controlled by the various militias, making it possible to target them.
In the second place, the New Jersey ended up plastering a bunch of villiages a
couple valleys over and doing a lot more harm than good.
> What did they do when they got a truck bomb in a barracks? They kept
Actually, the government panicked and pulled back.
> As a note, there is little reason why you can't use smaller ship
Particle beams are not "pinpoint". Nothing is "pinpoint" in the military. It's
like this "surgical strike" nonesense. You don't conduct surgery with high
explosives. To pretend you're getting precision with anything other than a SOF
strike is loony. They've yet to build a weapon that can go in, search the
hootches for weapons, check IDs, and take appropriate action in each
individual case. And they never will.
> FT allows pretty darned big fleet actions, so that base is covered.
Yup. I'd like to see more rules for Planetary Defenses, though.
> Dirtside and Stargrunt however, are relatively small scale. So how
Options: 1)Realize you're never going to simulate the entire war on a tabletop
with minis. I've yet to see this done for, say, the Eastern Front in WWII, so
why do we insist on it for SF wars? 2)Bathtub scale. Don't ask me how this
term came into being. But what it refers to is a series of Command Decision
WWII campaigns played at the 1:25 scale. IOW, one Batallion's worth of
miniatures would be used in the campaign for every 25 batallions in the real
war. So for every Corps, you might have a combined arms regiment in minis.
> You wrote:
> The 'probably' is rather important.
It's a non-issue. Tanks are fun and easy to kill. Mines, satchel
charges, shoulder-fired rockets.
> True, my example was extreme. Chechen versus Russians is minor power
Notes: First, Chechens had mainly the contents of local reserve unit armories,
and then could not operate the heavier weapons they found. Second, entire
Russian Army is "Raw Conscripts". I know at least one division of armor was
Guards Tank division, and they also committed Guards Parachute division(s?).
Of course, that's a comment more on sad, sad shape of current Ruskie army than
on military prowess of Chechens.
> Americans versus Vietnamese, I think you will find the american
*Snx* Name a single encounter where the Vietnamese didn't come away worse for
the experience. Tactically, we had them beat cold.
[snip]
> Agreed. But my original proposition was that (In FT) military units
In general terms, I think we have to look at planetary invasion as being a
series of small surgical strikes to destroy/capture key points, and the
threat of orbital support to subdue the colonists' will to resist. All this
has been discussed at length over the last few days. In game terms (with DS
> On 15 Jun 98, at 23:31, John Atkinson wrote:
TTFN
Jon
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> And you protect these tax collectors how? Unless you're planning to
A point to remember though: Although I can't remember the exact number (I
could find it if I looked), the Germans in WWII committed a lot fewer troops
to partisan suppression than you might think in
the occupied countries - and a lot of these were either military
police or pretty poor quality units anyhow. In fact, from a strictly numeric
perspective, the partisans didn't do all that much despite all the allied
rumblings about 'the resistance'. Now, this isn't true in all cases I'll
admit, but it is worthy of note.
Also note that many groups collaborated with the Germans due to
sympathy to their cause or outlook and due to German pre-invasion
covert activity - rabble rousing, supporting dissident factions that
were pro-german, assassinations, etc. Don't assume this won't be
the case in an invasion of a contested world. Especially if two major powers
have land claims and colonies there.
> >Plenty of wars are over simple hatred. In fact, probably the majority
> >of todays wars are, or have that as a major factor. Religious hatred,
> >class hatred, racial hatred, or a combination. I guess the Iraqi
Have to concur with John here. Most wars (a few in the middle east being
exceptions) have been about power, land, money, or
resources - all of which are by some factor exchangable for the
other. A lot of times hatreds are fanned by those in power to suit their needs
and to drive the war (by provocateurs), but you'll find that even the most
severe religious dictatorships often have very secular concerns and act in a
suprisingly rational (strictly from the
perspective of the acquisition of resources/power) way.
On a personal level, I don't want to be the poor gruntie in front of a horde
of screaming fanatics who hate me, but in the larger picture, my commanding
general probably realizes these fanatics have been
whipped into a froth by someone for very political/economic/military
secular ends....
Tom.
> >Americans versus Vietnamese, I think you will find the american
It wasn't problems of the _US_ government that caused the most
problems. The big problem was the nature of the government we were supporting.
A dictatorship, even a benevolent dictatorship only has the support of the
people when it can provide security and prosperity to the people. When the
Viet Cong demonstrated how little security the South Vietnam military regime
could provide the morale effect on the South Vietnamese people and army was
huge.
> *Snx* Name a single encounter where the Vietnamese didn't come away
And strategicly they kicked our butt! Sure, everywhere we met them in battle
we hurt them a lot, but where we didn't meet them in battle they had a lot of
success.
> John M. Atkinson
One of the really big successes of the Viet Cong is they made the average
soldier hate and fear the very people they were trying to defend. Unlike in
Europe, for example, where the US soldier was much beloved by the people, in
Vietnam the soldiers were not an optimistic representation of American
Culture. American soldiers violated religious shrines, violated taboos and
generally insulted the native culture while providing a very shabby example of
American culture. Is it a wonder that the Vietnamese didn't love us?
> On 16 Jun 98, at 10:45, Michael Sandy wrote:
TTFN
Jon
> At 23:51 6/15/98, John Atkinson wrote:
Terminators, assasin droids, powered armor controlled by VR setups from ships
in orbit.... those kinds of weapons could do the above. But I understand your
point.
Sorry for my tardiness in response, I've been out of town for a week.
> On 15 Jun 98 at 23:51, John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
My example was to show what actually happens, not what was a good idea.
> >What did they do when they got a truck bomb in a barracks? They kept
Well, I meant 'they' as in the troops.
> >As a note, there is little reason why you can't use smaller ship
> >of fire support platform. You use the weapon that does the right job.
Hmm, hitting a ship from several thousand miles away is pretty pinpoint, and
they are dodging. Planetary surfaces are fairly predictable in their movement.
Deciding what is a sensible target, as you point out, is the real issue. It's
what special forces and forward observers are for, but
that means putting /them/ in harms way.
> >FT allows pretty darned big fleet actions, so that base is covered.
So would I. Want to throw some ideas out here?
> >Dirtside and Stargrunt however, are relatively small scale. So how
I don't insist on using minis. However, there are some WWII
rulesets that allow divisional/corps engagements with minis. (Each
1:300 tank represents 5 or so) That was why I wanted to get actions down to
the size that could be portrayed with similar rulesets. If we have planetry
invasions take scores of divisions, then it's another scale up again, and
tabletop mini gaming gets awkward. 1 model = a division starts to get icky. If
you have invasions which take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of
combatants, then supply becomes an even more critical issue. Third Reich in
space anyone?;) I'll toy with the idea of what a game like that would need
represented in it for a week or two.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 15 Jun 98 at 23:55, John Atkinson wrote:
> You wrote:
<shrug> depends if tanks are hover, or grav. Some things just need a high tech
solution to kill them. Unless they have some sort of advanced guidance for the
smart mine to target with, or people with a hell of a throwing arm to chuck it
up at it, or missiles that don't get shot away with the tanks personal point
defense.... etc etc. You made the point before that getting them when they are
landed, in garrison, or going for the crews when vulnerable (on r&r etc) which
I agree with. But there comes a point when the technological gap in
battlefield conditions gets too extreme for the lower tech to be able to
achieve much.
[snip commentary on Russians and chchens that I think we basically
agree upon]
> >Americans versus Vietnamese, I think you will find the american
> >Although, I'll readily admit it still would have been difficult
The whole war.
It doesn't matter if you win every single engagement if you lose the war.
In extremis: If your government withdraws you from a war because you lost
unnaceptable casualties of.. twenty men, while you inflicted thousands of
casualties, it still means the other side won.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 16 Jun 98 at 8:43, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> In general terms, I think we have to look at planetary invasion as
And very welcome those thoughts are. I think I will still tinker with the
concept of an organisational level system, well, for the heck of it;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 16 Jun 98 at 13:23, Jonathan White wrote:
> I'm going to step in pre-emptively here and point out that the
And I'll counter post-emptively <wink> that I believe that the
*general* parallels are directly relevant to how wars may be fought
in the FT/GZG universe, or adaptations of it. When we start talking
about spurious things that have no relevance, feel free to jump in as the
'theme police'. Drawing on the parallels in history are a very handy way to
put across a point, and so far I think it's been very much on target. If the
list differs with that opinion, my apologies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 16 Jun 98 at 10:28, Thomas Barclay wrote:
[snipped stuff that I'm not responding to]
> > >Plenty of wars are over simple hatred. In fact, probably the
> > religious issues (I will not dignify the 'class' nonsense with a
> > issues.
Hmm, Ok, I'll put it a different way. Most wars /are/ really about
political power, political expediency, or resources. Governments tend to have
wars: To distract the people from internal problems by giving them something
to focus on. (Argentina invades falklands) To gain real power, (land,
resources, access to ports, etc) At the whim of some great ideological
masterplan.
However they are usualy 'sold' to the people as being about whatever reasons
they will go for. Be they ethnic, or religious, or the apparently spurious
'class' reason. Odd, I seem to remember the french revolution being largely
against class. The three do tend to get used in combination however. Those
<insert religion>, <insert race>, <insert optional 'upper class or corrupt
nobility'> are taking away all our <resource>, <freedom>, <women>, <jobs> etc.
etc.
> On a personal level, I don't want to be the poor gruntie in front of
<nods> Then again, since when did the government care what the poor 'gruntie'
thought.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 17 Jun 98 at 9:42, Jonathan White wrote:
> On 16 Jun 98, at 10:45, Michael Sandy wrote:
I beg to differ, as long as it's to a level that is relevant to how wars are
fought. We are using them as case examples of how wars have
been fought, and how they may be in the future. The FT/GZG universe
is one in conflict, (luckily, or FT would be a merchant trading game
;)
However I think we've covered the aspects of the vietnam war that are relevant
to the issues we were dicussing now anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> You wrote:
> Hmm, hitting a ship from several thousand miles away is pretty
Yeah. However you can use weapons with blast radii, SLMs (really, when
d6-1 of each salvo go off into the wild black yonder, how precise can
they be). You don't have to worry about the airbase's kindergarten three
blocks down.
> Yup. I'd like to see more rules for Planetary Defenses, though.
I'll throw something together to start discussion...
> I don't insist on using minis. However, there are some WWII
Actually, at the platoon level, you're better off playing
regimental-size battles, a la Command Decision (15mm, one stand is
platoon) which gets real crowded if you take it above the
regiment/brigade level. Patton's dictum that you should issue orders
one level down and know where your troops are two levels down comes into play.
Anything more begins to present real commanders with information overload.
> You wrote:
> <shrug> depends if tanks are hover, or grav. Some things just need a
Dependeth on your grav paradigm. If you're using Trav-grav that flies
at 300kph 50m off the ground, perhaps. But that's not the feel I get from DS
II. YMMV.
> You made the point before that getting them when they are landed, in
Which is why you don't face them "on the battlefield" but in a place and time
of your chosing. Guerilla tactics 101.
> The whole war.
Maybe you missed it--but in order to avoid lynch mobs, I'll discuss
this over e-mail, not list.
In message <199806191856.NAA16707@dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com>
> jatkins6@ix.netcom.com (John Atkinson) wrote:
> >> Yup. I'd like to see more rules for Planetary Defenses, though.
Well, many many moons ago (actually, checking the pages, it was exactly one
year ago) I wrote some which are currently kicking around on my web site at:
http://www.bifrost.demon.co.uk/Gaming/FullThrust/Planets.html
It needs updating now for FTIII, and vectored movement, but it's a start.