While colonies are unlikely to ever have the real cutting-edge,
first-line gear, I don't see frontier communities using any present day
style equipment. I think that most military technology being used by indigent
forces will be considerably more advanced than even the best of today's gear
in several very important ways, and most of it will
probably be purpose-built by Earth or other Core World industries for
export.
Far more than initial cost, colonies are going to be concerned with what kind
of maintenance and support base a weapon system requires. ANY
system that requires expensive (probably off-world) spare-parts or
technicians on a regular basis is likely to be ignored. This would put most of
the current U.S. arsenal out of the running immediately.
However, the current trend is toward tougher, easier to maintain electronics
systems, so even if colonies do end up using obsolete equipment, it won't be
today's obsolete equipment (with the possible exception of small arms).
I see inner system corporations producing high-cost, low maintenance,
extended life-span systems for export to colony worlds, perhaps
providing a range of packages that are tailored to the level of local tech and
industrial support that is available.
> I see inner system corporations producing high-cost, low maintenance,
For sure this makes sense - but just the same way that US equipment
out-tech's today's obsolete-but-reliable gear used by poorer nations,
the equipment of the 23rd century would have the same kind of relative values.
I don't think we were necessarily saying that the colony world equipment would
be equivalent to AK47's and vietnam era tactical radios, but that there would
be an EQUIVALENT difference in tech capability between the leading edge stuff
fielded by the main powers and what can be supported by
a colony with a limited industrial infrastructure / economy.
> On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 08:00:07 Jonathan Jarrard wrote:
Ah, but this ignores the question of HOW military hardware is procured.
If acquired by a self-supporting colony with (and this would be the
exception, I'd think) a forward-thinking administration, they would tend
to pursue the equipment with the best LONG-TERM cost.
But the reality of the matter is likely to be somewhat different. Many
procurement agencies cannot or will not look beyond up-front costs, and
utterly fail to consider maintenance and upkeep in their consideration of
costs. If so, purchasing agents will happily buy something that looks cheap on
paper but may be a logistical nightmare in the field.
The odds of this drastically increases if the procurement agency is
off-world; e.g. a Terran military force deciding on a standard for arms
which may be eminently suitable for Earth or core colonies but impossible to
maintain at the end of a supply train measured in
light-years.
Another option, as the less-important colonies will likely get
'hand-me-downs' from more important units, 2nd line units will probably
often be in possesion of technology rejected by 1st line units as useless, but
which the parent bureaucracy is unwilling to just scrap. I'm sure the US Nat'l
Guard of the present day has to deal with this a bit.
> I see inner system corporations producing high-cost, low maintenance,
Again, this is the ideal, rational result. But for every company with an
eye for the long-term, there will be a dozen producers of weapon systems
that are cheap up front, but likely to break down under sustained usage
(Packard Bell- Your choice for DFFG weaponry!)
And remote colonies will not likely have the time or money to do any sort of
sustained evaluation before purchase, so a good set of glossy
promotion materials and a bit shmoozing/bribery by the sales rep may
well knock a well-built product out of the running.
But it's this dichotomy between what should be and what is that makes
for creative scenarios. Off-the-cuff:
The insurrectionist spice miners of Kessel vs. the planetary militia.
Ore haulers w/ mining lasers vs GEV DFFG tanks... the infamous
Hindenburg class Med. GEV Tank rejected by the NSL 1st line units some
10 years ago. A so-so unit with poor electronics and those fusion
plants, if not well-maintained, tend to convert Systems Down chits into
a BOOM! with alarming frequency. Say 1-3 on d6?
An idea for campaign systems: when buying/building new units, have some
sort of 'morale' roll which represents how likely the player is to get exactly
what is wanted. If failed, the Ref gets to make creative substitutions in the
TO&E: fewer units, more units of drastically lower quality, just what you
ordered, but with surprising 'lemons'.... annoying if overdone, but definitely
gives that touch of realism.:)
---
> Adrian Johnson wrote:
I agree. I was just getting at the fact that I suspect that colonies might not
WANT the actually obsolete stuff, even if it is cheap, because they couldn't
maintain it. Then again, looking at Libya's army, where there's almost no
repetition of individual MODEL vehicle, let alone manufacturer or
interchangable spare parts, and where the artillery uses an astounding array
of different calibers, there's bound to be a market for everything.
> On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 08:00:07 Jonathan Jarrard wrote:
> Ah, but this ignores the question of HOW military hardware is procured.
If
acquired by a self-supporting colony with >(and this would be the
exception, I'd think) a forward-thinking administration, they would tend
to
pursue the >equipment with the best LONG-TERM cost.
> But the reality of the matter is likely to be somewhat different. Many
In present day conditions this is especially true - I do think that off
world interests (such as colonies, especiall small start-ups) will have
overcome this to SOME degree. Not eliminated it by any means, but they are
in a position where a rash of equipment failures caused by short-sighted
decisions could lead to major hardship and catastrophic, or even total,
loss of life and/or resources. Of course the wisdom will not be
universal, and a rifle is not an O2 production system, but after watching a
couple of startups fail, and entire colonizing populations die, the
administrators of these technology dependant groups are much more likely to
understand the
concept of lifetime costs - at least this would improve your chances...
<SNIP>
> I see inner system corporations producing high-cost, low maintenance,
Again, this is the ideal, rational result. But for every company with an
eye for the long-term, there will be a dozen producers of weapon systems
that are cheap up front, but likely to break down under sustained usage
(Packard Bell- Your choice for DFFG weaponry!)
<SHUDDER> Packard-Bell munitions of any sort. The very thought makes me
cringe...Hopefully those dealing in munitions know more than the average
computer consumer who gets suckered in by Packard-Bell or their ilk.
But then again there are those who get shafted by buying a Presario because
someone told them that Compaq can actually make a decent server. A little
knowledge is a dangerous thing - almost as bad as ignorance.
> And remote colonies will not likely have the time or money to do any
sad but true - but administrators who make decisions like that should be
ejected.
> I agree. I was just getting at the fact that I suspect that colonies
Absolutely right. Although, just because it isn't "modern" doesn't mean it
is REALLY obsolete - and these things need to be taken in context. An
AK47 is still an excellent weapon, in the context for which it was designed:
to provide high volume fire within a couple hundred metres, operated by poorly
trained conscript troops without the resources for complex maintenance, and
never break. This they do admirably. They're heavy and clunky and noisy,
but they work well - even if you've had them sitting in mud all day.
Within one or two hundred metres, they're even quite accurate. The Israelis
based their Galil rifle action on the AK (well, their prototypes were built up
on Valmet rifles from Finland, but these were a Finnish copy
of the AK) for a good reason - they are a good, durable design that
works well in harsh conditions. AK's are good because they work, and you can
open a crate with it, and hit somebody over the head with one without the
stock breaking.
An NAC colonial militia would not be expected to have to realistically
defend against a full-out planetary assault by FSE Legionaires or ESU
Naval Infantry. If they were, the military planners would give them the
resources to do it with (or not - but that is a big political issue...
"Colonists Abandoned By Incompetant General Staff" is not what the politicians
would want to hear). What they would be expected to defend against without
screaming for help is insurgencies, mercenary forces, etc. who would
presumably be equipped with similar gear. Having stuff lower
tech than the first line forces wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing - it
would not necessarily be obsolete IN CONTEXT. OK, if they were given old
military castoffs for which there are no spare parts, they would have a
problem...
Here's an example - the Candian military maintains a war storage system
to allow for a relatively quick buildup of forces in a large war (WWIII type
scenario). We keep lots of our old equipment, like the FN rifles and Sterling
submachineguns that we replaced with M16's in the late 1980's. We have
warehouses with 1960's vintage fighter jets, old tanks, old artillery, etc etc
etc. This equipment is still perfectly deadly, just not as efficient or
capable as more modern gear. But the bullet from a FN will kill you just as
dead as the M16... In a general war scenario in Europe, if it lasted longer
than a couple of months and didn't go nuclear, the formations that would be
trained and fielded by the combatant nations would
start to be equipped with this kind of older technology - our second or
third line divisions with tuned up Centurion tanks and FN rifles versus their
third line divisions with T54 (?) tanks and AK47 rifles. There would
be a rough equivalency - everybody's stuff would be equally old... If
they had to fight a force with modern equipment (say we suddenly had to fight
WWIII versus Egypt and Saudi Arabia) we'd have a real problem...
It could well be that the colonial forces would be equipped with NEW equipment
that is simply LESS COMPLEX (and possibly less capable) which would not
require the complex infrastructure to maintain that the first line military
equipment would. So, a FSE battalion fighting a colonial militia battalion
would have a qualitative edge, but so they should. When the colonial militia
fights another colonial militia, or mercs, or
insurgents - they would be on more equal footing - which is the fight
they would be expected to fight, after all.
Just a thought.
Interesting to draw parallels with some current or recent producers of
"lo-tech" weapons tech.
Hill tribesmen have been building small arms in
India/pakistan/Afghanistan
since pre-1900. Granted fairly basic 303 bolt action but in a village
environment with no other technology they can produce some very accurate
firearms.
The other fine example is in the Golden Triangle of
Thailand/Myanmar(Burma)where the drug lords in the back country had
factories producing small arms, heavy machine guns, mortars and the ammunition
for these as well as ammo for artillery up to and including 155mm!! So,
proposing that colonies should be able to produce some
comparatively effective although 'relatively' lo-tech hardware in 2180's
should be very reasonable.
How far we go with these assumptions is worth a lot more argument, but if we
give a population of some of these colonies as in excess of 1 million people
we should have reasonable local tech levels. What do we define as
'self-supporting'?
> On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Jared E Noble wrote:
oh i don't know - they seem prettty good at blowing up.
Tom
ps sorry, as always
> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 11:09:06 John M. Atkinson wrote:
Oooh... nifty idea!
> The players seem to be, as a result, designing their initial forces
Will you allow arms dealers to continue selling hi-tech even after the
start of hostilities? Cost will go up, but it opens the strategic gamble of
spending more up front to hopefully overwhelm your opponents quickly with
superior technology. If the strategy works out, expensive, limited
resupply from off-world would be acceptable limitations. This would also
make space superiority and control of starports important tactical and
strategic goals for the players.
-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums
> Jonathan Jarrard wrote:
> While colonies are unlikely to ever have the real cutting-edge,
OK, I'm starting a campaign wherein the players will be playing factions on a
balkanized colony world. They have 100K to build their ground
forces buying whatever they want--arms dealers are, I presume, more than
happy to ship out to the frontier. But, once the shooting starts, their
limited infrastructure will be incapable of turning out any of the advanced
military items such as
fusion power plants HELs DFFGs MDCs Grav suspensions
The players seem to be, as a result, designing their initial forces with those
limitations in mind, on the grounds that they don't want to have to switch
designs in the middle of the conflict because no more heavy grav tanks are
available.
There's also factors of space superiority--they can't build a jump
drive, and their spacecraft construction facilities have a lead time of nine
months for even a small ship. So they will start off with 700 points of actual
warships, and quickly start converting their merchant hulls with basic weapons
(which they have stockpiled).
> Jim 'Jiji' Foster wrote:
> Will you allow arms dealers to continue selling hi-tech even after the
Oh, sure you can. It just
a)takes a long time (gotta ship in, I'm going to set up a 2 month lead
time--send out the ships, pick it up, bring it back in)
b)gets shut down if the Empire throws sanctions on the warring parties for
whatever reason c)gets real expensive d)requires your own merchant hulls (no
one ships into a war zone without
military escort, and I don't forsee any of the jump-capable warships
surviving past initial hostilities).
e)is vulnerable to interdiction from the other guy--and given that their
only spaceports will be in their capital cities, taking them will mean the war
is over anyway.
> Jonathan Jarrard wrote:
> John M. Atkinson <john.m.atkinson@erols.com> wrote:
Have you got any rules to deal with the recovery of vehicles from the battle
field yet?
> Andrew & Alex wrote:
> Have you got any rules to deal with the recovery of vehicles from
Ah, well...
I was thinking on that, and it seems to me that most knocked out vehicles, if
recovered, can be refitted and sent back into the fight. I was considering
having a roll, perhaps:
1-2: Repairable immediately
3-7: Depot-level maintinence
8-10: Useless except as spart parts for the 3-7 group.
Plus on a 1 or 2 on a d6, the crew survives a tank destruction, so that
if you roll snake-eyes, the crew gets back in the tank, restarts the
engine and drives back into formation.
The rules I came up with for the abortive Ogre miniatures campaign I was gonna
run are similar to the Esteemed John A's.
I just rolled a d10 for the vehicles KOd and figured that was the%of damage in
points needed to repair said vehicle. This allows for vehicles to
have sustained minor/ no damage to being totalled. I figure if you want
to
be insanely anal-retentive you could use a d%. And or introduce rules a
la
John A's that say if under 20% damaged it is field reparable, 20-70%
needs a
depot, 70+% is doa and parted out (to the tune of the remaining points
in supplies perhaps?) Simple, elegant, and now assimilating into my never to
be run pseudo campaign rules that reside in me noggin.
Gene
> ----------
I
> was considering having a roll, perhaps:
> George,Eugene M wrote:
> The rules I came up with for the abortive Ogre miniatures campaign I