Ãrjan is certainly on the right track there. The crew is a very valuable
component, often almost totally ignored or abstracted in game systems. This
can easily lead to "horde" tactics that would be insane or impossible to pull
off in real life.
The more high tech your equipment is, generally the more invested training
expense the crew represents. And it is not just money -- it's a lot of
time! Sure you can roll out a new B-24 every 50 minutes, but it takes a
lot longer to roll out a qualified crew to fly it.
Before anyone pipes in, yeah, scifi hypno-training, vat-grown combat
clones or fully AI automated systems could change this -- but it would
be naive to assume that widespread cheap availability of such would not
otherwise fundamentally change the face of warfare.
Also, one should not forget soft factors. The world changes and people change
with it. It used to be okay for young men to die in droves on
foreign soil for one of the divine ruler's petty squabbles -- heck,
warfare was semi-knowingly used as a population growth control tool.
Casualties still are no-issue to some extent in some cultures, but the
more "civilized" a society we're talking about, the more political cost is
attached to a used body bag.
These two factors combined have resulted in some going to almost ridiculous
lengths to avoid taking any casualties at all (*.
Logistics is another mind-boggler, espcially in interstellar cultures.
The cost of transporting 50 tons of crap is pretty much the same as the cost
of transporting 50 tons of ultra-advanced combat gear. The cost of
transportation can be *the* deciding factor -- you only got so much
cargo space, and just flying out there costs many times more than anything you
could reasonably fit in the hold.
Thus, the stereotypical scenario would have an invader highly trained but few
in numbers, using the best equipment money can buy but averse to
taking casualties, against a larger but less well-trained defender using
more or less outmoded (but locally maintainable) equipment but very likely
much better motivated (dying on West Bumfuck and dying to protect your loved
ones have distinctly different rings to them).
The exact balance of these factors determines the exact severity of the
stereotype.
Be careful with the balance though -- get it wrong and your entire
setting might turn laughable. E.g. BattleTech (back when...) -- Mech's
are supposed to be king of battlefield, but they're so laughably few that any
reasonably populated planet could swamp every invading mech in thousands
of quite effective rifle troops and SRM-jeeps...
What does all this boil down to? Well, even though I strongly agree that game
points should balance on the game table, tying the result to a specific
background framework introduces elements not visible on the
gaming table. What is balanced in a one-off may not be balanced in a
campaign. You must either have a separate point system for campaigns, or
simply accept that the environment may force you to make suboptimal choices.
*) I certainly don't advocate anyone taking a bullet to save a few bucks
(or for nearly any reason at all), but the current fad of "zero-risk"
warfare makes for a horribly boring game...
> On 3-May-00 at 03:54, Mikko Kurki-Suonio (maxxon@swob.dna.fi) wrote:
> Logistics is another mind-boggler, espcially in interstellar cultures.
The
> cost of transporting 50 tons of crap is pretty much the same as the
I think I may have to argue this one. If you can't put stuff in the hold worth
many times the cost of the shipping interstellar commerce won't occur. Without
interstellar commerce there is no real reason to be "out there". Why go force
a rebel colony back in the fold when you are never going to turn a profit off
of it anyway? Let your enemies^H^H^H^H competitors drain themselves shipping
things through space.
To rephrase, if I can make money shipping food with a bulk hauler I can use
that same bulk hauler to move medium or low tech tanks reasonably. Even a
"Low" tech tank is not a cheap piece of machinery.
From: "Mikko Kurki-Suonio" <maxxon@swob.dna.fi>
> Thus, the stereotypical scenario would have an invader highly trained
> Alan Brain wrote:
> Suggest that we have Combat PVs, so that forces with equal PVs have
<g> I concentrate on the Combat PVs. If you want economics, you do them
:-)
Later,
> Alan Brain wrote:
> Suggest that we have Combat PVs, so that forces with equal PVs have
I know that was meant in Jest. I don't even play SG. OTOH my ego is large
enough so that I'm actually willing to give it a go. The relativity between
one system and another can be done, with effort. Normalising it to a
particular currency would be harder, but since we have costs in MCr in FT, I'd
try to make them consistent.
A good first approximation would be that Spaceships:AFVs in FT:SG have about
the same cost relationship as Aircraft do to MBTs today. Or perhaps we should
use ships?
Approximate figures:
4000 tonne frigate costs about $800 mill these days - 5 tonnes/ mill
50 tonne MBT costs about $5 mill - 10 tonnes/ mill
200 tonne Cargo plane costs $100 mill. - 2 tonnes/ mill
A size 100 ( 10,000t ) FT ship costs about 350 MCr - about 25-30 tonnes
per MCr. So we have 1 Cr is about the same as $25 in military purchasing
power. Roughly. Making large quantities of unverifiable and possibly
unjustified assumptions.
SANITY CHECK: Look at FT Fighters. FT Fighters cost 2Mcr for the basic model
(plus hanger, crew etc) so a basic
FT fighter would cost $50 mill in today's purchasing power - about right
IMHO. With a further $100 Mil in basing facilities if on board ship, $75 Mil
if not. Also about right (CVNs and Airfields with spares, ordnance, equipment
cost a
LOT).
Carrying on, you'd get 250 tonnes of MBT for 1 MCr. Unreliable memory has it
that a MILAN AT round costs Pounds 20,000, call it $40,000. Applying out 25:1
formula, we're looking at 1500 Cr per sophisticated ATGM. Really
low-tech ones
would cost 100 Cr or so, no more.
There's more - some figs to think about:
Cost of training a fighter pilot today is about $5 Mil
Cost of an old T-55 is about $20 k, but $50 k with adequate NV equipment
and
very basic laser Fire Control. Double these figures for having 5-years
of spares. Call it $100k each for basic (but not WW2 vintage) equipment.
Cost of a ZSU-23/4 is about $12 Mil (with 5 yrs spares - this was the
price of the last lot offered to be sold to Egypt during the Cold War if
memory serves).
Yes, the reason that you have 1 ZSU 23/4 per company of T-55s is that
the cost
of the 10 T-55s is a lot less, even with crew training taken into
account.
Please bear in mind these caveats: Firstly, the figures are so rubbery that
making calculations with a precision
greater than +/- 25% is misleading. For example, how much would the US
Army pay for an M1? An M1A1? An M1A2? If bought in lots of 1000 vs lots of 10?
What's the cost of upgrade kits for them? How much would the same equipment
cost if bought under FMS (Foreign Military Sales)? What's the upkeep cost in
peacetime? In wartime? How worn out do they get in training? and so it
goes....
Secondly, we're not modelling the world at the year 2000: it's 150+
years later. Assumptions about increased cheapness of electronics have to be
made, and increased
expense of less high-tech materials.
Re electronics: it's actually easier and cheaper to make Low-scale
integrated chips than it is to make Vacuum tubes and so on. You can make
500-component
chips in your home, with easily-available chemicals and a good
photography setup, and get good yields. I've actually helped someone do this.
If your industrial architecture is good enough to smelt steel, it's good
enough to make late 1960s vintage electronics in any amount, cheap as chips
(if you'll pardon the
pun).
Higher-tech Mid/Late 70s stuff, eg Z-80 or M6502 processors require a
Clean
> A good first approximation would be that Spaceships:AFVs in
I'd suggest use ships.
Snip lots of interesting stuff.
> * 1 FT/SG/DS Cr = about $25 US
If we assume inflation averages about 2%, then that would be about right.
Unfortunately, inflation has been more in the 5-7% range,
despite Federal fiction to the contrary. Sigh.