Roger makes a good point about the culture shock of a Core Worlder going to
the Outposts.
Here's one for you: Core world greenie LT (think Gorman from Aliens plus a
touch of real Earther smugness) goes to the Outworlds. He thinks he has it all
covered. Drops his platoon in, then wonders where the GPS feed is and when
SATINT will be available? What? No GPS? No orbital recon assets? No Ortillery?
And something in the local atmosphere bollixes up the short range RF
connections between his weapons sights and the combat helmets? How can he run
a battle if his laptop doesn't show the positions of all of his troopers and
the telemetry of all their health states and ammo loadouts? He'd have to SHOUT
commands, and maybe even SEND runners... and from time to time, he'd have NO
IDEA where some of his units were or what was going on. How could he cope?
Sounds like the grist for an interesting scenario to me.
PS - One thought for those interested in
Canada: Just think, you get to visit two distinct countries for the price of
one and don't need a passport to travel between them (Canada and
La Belle Provence <Quebec>). All gun-crazy
cowboys (you know who you are! *ROFL!*) need only leave your ironware at home!
(We solve all disputes of honour up here either on the curling sheets or the
hockey rink!)
PPS - For the humour impaired: Not all (nor
even most) Americans are gun crazed cowboys. I'm quite sure some have never
worn a Stetson nor chaps nor ridden a horse. *Hint: I'm kidding, dammit,
laugh!*
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 12:32:54AM -0400, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Drops his platoon in, then wonders
That part, I suspect, he'll have been trained for, if the forces are any
good - on a par with training for doing an assault without lots of
artillery and tac-air.
> And something in the local
Ah, bluetooth. How can I scorn thee, let me count the ways... :-)
> Sounds like the grist for an interesting scenario
Hard to model, though. Hmm. A single-blind system with dual tables, and
this guy's table is set up by the ref? This (perfect information most of the
time) does seem to me to be one of the major failings of wargames in general.
> On 21-Jun-02 at 04:46, Roger Burton West (roger@firedrake.org) wrote:
This (perfect information most of
> the time) does seem to me to be one of the major failings of wargames
Isn't this one of the things that Piquet is attempting to take care of? You
have to treat it like you don't know where your opponent is because he may
appear far from your last reported position.
I've been thinking of doing high tech/low tech with DS using Piquet
cards. The low tech forces use normal Piquet draw procedures. The High Tech
force has only 1 or 2 cards in his deck. Maybe move any and reload any. Other
than that use normal DS rules, this would just replace alternating
activations.
G'day,
> This (perfect information most of the time) does seem to
Actually this brings to mind a question I've been meaning to ask JohnA for a
while....
John, you're "stereotyped" TO&Es, do they actually govern how you take on a
force and thus have to play catch up if they're not like you expected
(thinking of my Grandpa's recount of the first time he saw a 6ft+
Japanese guardsman in WWII after being told they were all 4 ft with glasses by
Aussie propaganda guys....)
Cheers
> At 11:27 PM +1000 6/22/02, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
Well, the nice thing is that many of the countries that the US was expecting
to fight would have Soviet organization. How ever, most of what he's been
discussing is friendly side TO&E and the things that the US learned over the
past 80 years fighting modern wars and trying to increase flexibility and
effectiveness. The arrangement of fire teams and platoons, the arrangement of
the support and command elements at company, battalion and brigade level (all
the way up to corps level), the disposition of specialist units like engineers
and artillery, all of this has to do with lots of thought and testing by
people in the US services. Additionally, much of it parallels British service
to a larger or lesser degree. Especially when you get to smaller units and
command structures or liason elements.
Beth said:
> John, your "stereotyped"
"Standardized"
> TO&Es, do they actually govern how you take on a
To some extent, yes. If you think your're facing IF troops, you'll know you
can't stand around in the open even beyond rifle range, because they always
have mortars on call. On the other hand, they
don't stand up well to close assault (+1 penalty to morale check to
initiate or receive). If you then find you're facing fedayeen
http://www.stargrunt.ca/toe/sg2_toe_fedayeen/fedayeen.htm
you may need to adjust your plan a little bit.
On the other hand, if you play IF vs NAC tonight, NSL vs FSE tomorrow, PAU vs
AE next week, and KV vs SV the following weekend, then you're not likely to
have much opportunity to fine tune your plans to the opponent's force.
It also depends on how you play. If you just set your troops on the board and
say "these are infantry, those are pioneers, you know the combat walkers are
off board over there somewhere", then it's not the
The "stereotyped" TO&Es for enemies are only a guide for field officers, not
an exact order for soldiers to follow when engaging enemies. Most of the time,
the guide would be useful because it gives you a general idea of the enemy's
approximate strength, and most of the time the enemy would have units similar
to the guide, but of course not exactly the same. Remember that a guide like
this, like most stereotypes, represents the majority case, not all cases. As
to the story of your grandfather, it's true that Japanese soldiers in World
War II were much shorter on average than the Allied soldiers. Your grandpa's
case is the "man bites dog" story, not the "dog bites man" story.:) Remember
that all stereotypes come with an implicit warning label, that they represent
the common case, not all cases.
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day,
I appreciate everyone's responses, what I was actually talking about was the
"stereotypical" ones John has given for the NAC etc not the ones we've been
discussing over the last week or so in response to my platoon questions. So,
unless I've misunderstood your responses (and I'm sorry I'm being thick if I
have), John do they actually govern how you take on a force and thus have to
play catch up if they're not like you expected?
Thanks
> At 10:19 PM +1000 6/23/02, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
Liklely his TO&E's allow a very great flexibility to respond to opponent
tactics. He's an engineer. Their jobs in the military is to crack obstacle
nuts while potentially under fire and in a potentially dangerous way. Likely
he's gots some damn good sense on the tactics
for getting through/past/over obstacles that are covered by fire and
thus finds mobile tactics of less than 3-1 odds easy.
Imagine a miniatures game that was specifically arranged around zoological
nomenclature and Marine Biology. You'd be pretty much set wouldn't you?
G'day,
> Imagine a miniatures game that was specifically arranged around
Nomenclature is of little importance if you're expecting a group of sloths and
you get a group of tigers, which is what you'd be getting if you were
expecting "x are inflexible idiots" when x actually will showed nouse and
flexibility, thus the question about whether John would have to start off
treating x in one way and only change stride (so to speak) once x proved to be
anything else;)
Thanks
Like I've said before, when people say "x are inflexible idiots", they mean x
are most likely to be inflexible idiots, not every single x is an inflexible
idiot. And frankly, if you go by historical precedent, John A's "stereotypes"
would be mostly right on that account. And in any case this description is a
guide, not something that's expected to be followed to the letter. Having a
guide for the enemy's possible behaviour certainly would be better than
nothing at all, or some silly useless guide that says "the enemy are human
beings just like you, and will show a great variety of different types of
behaviour". If any officer is dumb enough to think the "stereotyped"
description is a 100% accurate portrayal of the enemy all the time, and always
follows the guide to the letter, I suspect John A. would kick him out of his
army.:)
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day,
> Like I've said before, when people say "x are inflexible
I did notice you kinda answered my question <and I also apologised for being
thick;)>
> Having a guide for the enemy's possible behaviour certainly would
Given the number of accounts of "unexpected activities" in my recent reading
of military reports (I'm trying to play catch-up on modern military
history) I think that such instructions are too often assumed when they should
be stated;)
> If any officer is dumb enough to think the "stereotyped"
That may well be true, but I was intrigued by the "psychological" potential in
game. We often pose very structured, flow chart responses for aliens
overlooking the fact that humans start with preconceived notions and have to
adapt on the fly when things don't go as expected - some do it better
than others, some flog the same dead horse until they're handed their own
heads
(the difference between class 1 and 3 leaders in ds/sg). I thought it
might
have been fun to have (say) a set set-up, or even lax attitude ("they
haven't broken our ciphers" or "they'd never do that, outside their doctrine"
etc) at the start and then be faced with the challenge of adapting on the fly
as they put a new arrow to their bow right in front of your eyes
;)
This thought came to mind when we were playing some FMA the other day. I
noticed distinct moments of panic and decided changes in attitude and tactics
amongst some of the guys when a squad they expected to be
green-3s
(and thus "we don't need to worry about that flank") turned out mid-game
(and after said flank was exposed) to be vet-1s who stayed in cover, in
place and did a lot to hurt the flank in question;)
Cheers
I think I'm going to have to agree with Beth. An analysis of your enemy that
does nothing but denigrate that enemy would only encourage your troops to
underestimate your enemy. Seems I recall an American officer who
underestimated his enemy, I believe the quote was along the lines of "Could
ride through the Sioux nation with eighty men." Underestimating your enemy
causes complacency and gets people killed. G.A.Custer learned this the hard
way.
Roger Books
> On 23-Jun-02 at 21:46, Control Robot (cqin@ee.ualberta.ca) wrote:
would
From: Control Robot <cqin@ee.ualberta.ca>
> inflexible idiot. And frankly, if you go by historical precedent,
<snip>
> If any officer is dumb enough to think the
would
> kick him out of his army. :)
It's very easy to think "I know that X doctrine is thus" and find out to your
chagrin that this particular opponent isn't doing what he's supposed to. You
can assume he's doing what he's supposed, but you risk falling into a trap. Or
you can be cautious and creep along,
preserving your unit--but you lose the opportunity to destroy the
enemy, or you fail to relieve one of your other units in time. Not to mention
the fact that your subordinates have minds of their own. You may be screaming
at him get his butt in gear, or you may be wondering what kind of idiot would
stick his neck out like that.
It's easy to say "_I_ would never make a mistake like that" and I've
heard a number of gamers claim "my troops would never get out of
control." Baloney. You've got a God's-Eye view, no outside
pressure, and little lead soldiers to move around. In the real world, even the
greatest commanders have found their subordinates doing something unexpected
and undesirable; and they're forced to take risks because of political or
strategic concerns that don't show up on the
> At 11:11 PM -0400 6/23/02, Roger Books wrote:
By the same notion, over estimating your enemy can result in cake walks where
you loose more of your troops to friendly fire and accidents than to enemy
fire. Witness Desert Storm for example. Another instance is the Royal Marine
detachment that worked over the Argie frigate that went past their point. They
weren't "just a bunch of infantry..."
The important factor is that you either over estimate or get your accounting
for enemy capabilities accurate. The expectation of human wave tactics in
Korea after the initial attacks as the basis for all later attacks was a
pretty valid one. The statement that all Japanese Pilots were nearsighted and
couldn't fly combat aircraft worth a damn prior to WWII wasn't a valid notion.
> At 11:16 PM -0400 6/23/02, Laserlight wrote:
As it's been stated on this list and on others that I've been on, the biggest
thing the Germans hated about Americans was that we don't always operate
according to our own SOPs. This drove more than a few Germans nuts in how to
deal with US troops. Another characterization was that US troops seemed
accustomed to working in Chaos as a matter of course.
G'day,
> By the same notion, over estimating your enemy can result in cake
Something I'd like to see crop up in games, especially SG etc. Has anyone
tried TomB's (or others) friendly fire ideas? How did they go?
> The important factor is that you either over estimate or get your
This is the kind of scenario/campaign stuff I'd like to try out. May be
play a few games where x is characterised in one way and then follow up with
another scenario where x is very different (a shot out of left field).
Cheers
[quoted original message omitted]
On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 23:16:38 -0400 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes: <snip humorous comment>
> It's very easy to think "I know that X doctrine is thus" and find out
And the risk of "me too" I can relate to the above comments. War Games
are just that - Games about War viewed through a lense (in the case of
SF and Fantasy, a skewed lense.)
Gracias,
On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 23:11:07 -0400 (EDT) Roger Books
> <books@jumpspace.net> writes:
<snip>
LOL! Thanks Roger, that was a pleasant moment. Think also (Speaking as
an American) of Fetterman, the general attitude pre-Pearl Harbor towards
Japanese Capability ("..who have they fought and beat? The Chinese and The
Russians??...") and, correspondingly, the 'super hero' status of Americans
towards Japanese Jungle War Skills for the first 6 months to a year of WW2 as
reverse view. {in retrospect we saw some inherent
advantage in Jungle skills from sons of rice farmers and shop owners -
sheesh, these were NOT the Apaches or Seminoles for heaven's sake!]
Never under estimate your enemy Never over estimate your enemy Sufficient
application of properly delivered Firepower solves most problems (okay,
remember I am an American <grin> on that one!) Never Demonize your enemies
after a war. Never apologize for killing your enemies or their support
infrastructure during a war.
And most important, Remember that "they" (the junior leaders and line guys)
are running with the same potential for culture shock as your guys. Especially
the Third World types who have had, often (note the caveat) significantly,
less exposure to opportunities for seeing other cultures besides the 'local
ones' in action on the nightly news (yes, it is filtered, I know but so would
the news in say Saudi Arabia, Mozambique or Malaysia...)
I'M B-a-a-a-c-k!
Gracias,
Beth, How about...
Scenario (1) (FT) You brush away a screen of older 'reserve' ships in their
equivalent of the Border Police? (Lot's of Beam 1 and some Beam 2, no screen,
no armor, mostly Thrust 2 and 4 no advanced drives,
yayda-yada-yada.)
Scenario 2 (SG) You meet the local militia (in the worst sense) using
French WW1 mind set/tactics and a _lot_ of troops but with 10% (1's)/
30%
(2's)/ 60% (3's) for leadership who attack your new colony on a
'claimed' (not known to humans) but not 'populated' planet?
Scenario 3 (DS2) the local response force (used to quelling local natives
in rebellion thing) strikes with their wheeled/tracked HVC/RFAC infantry
heavy force ("why do we need Artillery?") comes to reclaim their colony.
Role Playing ideas: The small local (actually imported non-indigenous
types for 'manual labor' role) low-intelligent species [several
generations removed from their own language, speaking only broken "Speak to
Masters" language, and actually believing they are 'created to serve',
yada-yada-yada] alternately gives you over glorified (initially)
expectations of the enemy followed by the "You must be Gods" awe view. Most
players will let this affect them one way or another.
Scenario 4 (it should be about scenario seven but most won't have the
time...) (any rules) When the "82nd Airborne/Commandoes/Galactic
Guards/whatever" elite strike force of the ruling hegemony show up....
(MUCh's for DS2, Cheap reliable Gauss rifles for SG2, advanced goodies for the
FT thing) and make life interesting. What the player doesn't know is that due
to budget considerations these guys ARE the enemy
Army/Space Forces and if they persist in bloodying them, they will cause
the Alien plutocracy to collapse!)
Just something off the cuff. Lots of holes I can already see in reviewing the
spelling but a start...
Gracias,
> At 9:42 AM +0100 6/24/02, Bif Smith wrote:
Its my understanding that the Royal Marine detachments on South Georgia island
were deployed on a headland or some similar type of jetty. An argentine
frigate or DD (passed close enough to the jetty that the detachment of 20 or
so marines was able to take it under fire from smaller arms, heavy weapons and
MG fire. The combination of rocket, guided missile and MG fire pretty much
worked the frigate over.
From http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/South-Georgia.html
Trombetta now realized that there was in fact a very healthy British military
presence at Grytiken and ordered Alfonso to bring Guerrico closer in and to
bombard King Edward Point. The Argentines now knew where Mills and his Marines
where positioned and opened fire with
Guerrico's 100 mm semi-automatic gun. But even at maximum depression
the shells smashed into the scree behind the plateau. Frustrated, Alfonso
brought Guerrico closer in, broadside to the Royal Marines. Mills waited until
the frigate was 550 meters from his position, then ordered his men to open
fire with every weapon they had. A Type A69 frigate is a very big target and
the Guerrico shook under the impact of thousands of rounds ripping though her
thin structure.
Marine David Combes, who was normally the ships steward on Endurance now
placed his name in naval history books by firing his Carl Gustav 84 mm anti
tank weapon at the Guerrico. The Royal Marines watched as the 10lb projectile
staggered across the waves and then, on it's last legs, smashed into
Guerrico's hull just above the waterline, sending up a column of white water.
They then heard a loud rumble come from inside the ship. Below decks Argentine
damage control parties struggled to stop the flow of water that was now coming
though the hole.
The explosion killed one Argentine sailor and wounded several others. It also
destroyed many electrical cables, including the ones used to power the 100 mm
gun's traverse mechanism making the gun useless at this close range. The aft
40 mm was still working until Marines Parsons and Chubb cut down the Argentine
gun crew with their LMG. Alfonso was having a hard time trying to manoeuvre
the big ship quickly inside the small bay. He knew he had to get out of the
bay quickly. As the ship came about, Sergeant Major Leach lying on a table up
stairs in Shackleton House, took his time and fired 15 shots into the bridge
with his sniper rifle. This caused panic and confusion as officers and sailors
trying to steer the ship had to take cover. With the ship turned, Alfonso
steered the ship out of the bay, but she had to run the gauntlet of fire from
the Royal Marines again before getting out of range. Marine Combes let go
another 84 mm at the frigate that smashed into the hull below the Exocets. The
Marines also managed to hit Guerrico at least twice with 66 mm rockets.
Corporal Peters was severely wounded in the arm while standing to fire his 66
mm. The rifle shot had come from one of the Argentine Marines in the buildings
near Shackleton House.
Guerrico finally made her way out of range. Later an Argentine officer counted
over 1,000 hits to her structure. The Royal Marines had taken on a warship,
and won the fight. While
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> By the same notion, over estimating your enemy can result in cake walks
> where you loose more of your troops to friendly fire and accidents than
Would it be better to go in with weaker ground forces, still take casualties
to friendly fire, but *also* take more casualties to enemy
action...?
> Another instance is the Royal Marine detachment that worked over the
This is surely a case of someone (namely the Argies) *under*estimating the
enemy? They didn't expect that a Carl Gustaf could damage a frigate.. though
it didn't stop said frigate (the Guerrico) and its supporting land forces from
forcing the Royal Marines to surrender very soon afterwards
:-/
Regards,
[quoted original message omitted]
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> From http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/South-Georgia.html
> counted over 1,000 hits to her structure. The Royal Marines had taken
The Guerrico was hurt, yes... but as soon as she had moved out of the Royal
Marines' weapon range range she opened up with her 100mm gun again, causing
the Marines to surrender. To say that the Royal Marines "won the fight" on
this occasion is similar to saying that Al Gore won the latest Presidental
elections in the United States :-/
Regards,
> At 6:46 PM +0200 6/24/02, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
Well true, but I never said they won did I. I said they worked the ship over,
then surrendered. Its not a normal occurrence for infantry to hurt a ship of
far heavier capability in firepower to suffer such a severe mauling.
Additionally, the detachment of 20 marines nearly screwed the entire little
invasion of South Georgia. The Invasion was a success but at a pretty heavy
cost compared to the opposition faced by the Argies. Given that the Royal
Marines suffered one casualty and the Argies suffered quite a few as well as a
helocopter destroyed and a frigate badly damaged, the Royal Marines gave far
better than they got. How does all this relate?
The Argies thought they had an unopposed invasion, then suddenly they were
getting their asses handed to them. Then it's realized that this
tiny force of 20 men was a hands-breadth away from scuttling their
entire plans. As it was, the Argies were very respectful of the Marines when
they took their surrender. And the RMs were very respectful when they returned
a few months later to take the Argies and guard them after their surrender.
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Germans nuts in how to deal with US troops. Another
The quote is "The American Army will always excell at war because war is chaos
and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis."
I don't recall who said it, but it was a pretty common saying in Germany, and
I've heard it here too.
And if you don't believe me, I cordially invite you to hang out in our
motorpool for a few days.
Morning Formation: "We're pulling the torsion bars on
C62."
All morning: "Where's the fuckin' mechanics??"
Still havn't seem 'em and it's lunchtime already...
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> From http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/South-Georgia.html
Quoting the quote from your previous post: "The Royal Marines had taken on a
warship, and won the fight."
OK, *you* didn't say that they won - but the quote you included in your
post did say precisely that, and I saw no mention of the subsequent RM
surrender in either of your posts.
> I said they worked the ship over, then surrendered.
Hm? Please re-post the part where you said they surrendered - I must
have
missed that completely in your previous posts :-( The post with the
quote
from the small-wars web page ended one word after "...won the fight."
> The Argies thought they had an unopposed invasion, then suddenly they
Respectful against the Argies, but not against the local weather conditions...
two Wessex 5s crashed on the Fortuna glacier while attempting
to save a SAS party who were freezing to death :-/
Regards,
> --- Control Robot <cqin@ee.ualberta.ca> wrote:
> inflexible idiot. And frankly, if you go by
Thank you.:)
> dumb enough to think the
I mentioned something like this to Laserlight. He asked whether or not someone
would tend to underestimate the enemy, my answer was along the lines of "That
better not be the excuse he uses at the board of inquiry." Relief for cause
followed by courtmartial for criminal negligence would be the least said
officer could expect.
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> I appreciate everyone's responses, what I was
To a certain extent, yes but...
Stuck in there is a lot of valid tactical advice--for
instance, when fighting a NAC light infantry batallion, identifying the
deployment of the infantry walkers and power armor is going to be a top
priority
of recon/intell assets and is going to be considered a
primary indicator of the enemy's main effort.
Some of the comments on polyglot forces will guide soem decisions: For
instance, if I have a choice between attacking a Chezch unit and German Alpine
troops, I'm going after the Chezchs. This worked for the Russians in WWII,
where they deliberately concentrated on Roumanian, Italian, and other
lower-quality troops rather than hitting German Panzer
Corps head-on. If I'm fighting NAC and I have a
choice between trying to fight outflank an American unit and a British one,
then all other factors being equal, I'm going after the British one because
historically their leadership is less imaginative and has difficulty dealing
with mobile situations.
On the other hand, if there's one Canadian batallion intheater, I'm likely to
assume that they will be used as shock troops and hence an idicator of whether
an attack is the main effort or not.
Occasionally this will bite me in the ass, but 99 times out of 100 it's not a
bad way to begin.
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> To some extent, yes. If you think your're facing IF
Of course, if they are fedayeen they will be quickly identified by their light
use of heavy weapons and the fact that they are getting badly outshot. At
which point, you take up a hasty defensive position and drop artillery on
them. Their reaction will usually be to charge into hand to hand, and you get
to shoot them up on the way in.:)
Which is why I hate specializing my units to do one thing and one thing only.
Semper Gumby!
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> John, you're "stereotyped" TO&Es, do they actually
Standardized. And yes, but. You have to have a starting point or you can't
plan. For instance, counting tanks coming down the road, and you see 3, short
gap, 1, short gap, 3, short gap, 3.
Your batallion staff gets your salute report and says "Aha, a tank company. We
know that there are only 3 tank companies in the Abu Saeed Motorized Brigade,
so this is a significant portion of their combat power. We need to watch
this." Then they get reports telling where the other company is, and it's 1 km
away going the same direction. "Well, there's 2 of the 3 accounted for. They
are going the same direction, which means this is probably their main axis of
attack and we will prepare to defend along this route. Let's go get some
attack helicoptors in here to thin them
out."
> (thinking of my Grandpa's recount of the first time
What percentage of Japanese males are over 5'6"?? It's pretty small, and was a
LOT smaller earlier in this century (Asians as a whole are getting taller due
to improvements in pediatric medicine and nutrition,
mostly post-WWII. This is most noticable among those
who have immigrated to first-world states which have
meat-heavy diets). Saying "Most of these guys are
small and squirrelly and can fit into sniper hides you wouldn't belive would
hide a cat" would be valid. Saying that being small impairs their fighting
ability hasn't been valid since the 19th century when the Japanese finally got
over their moronic obsession with blades and adopted real weapons.
> On 24-Jun-02 at 13:40, John Atkinson (johnmatkinson@yahoo.com) wrote:
John,
The writeup on how to deal with NAC forces was truly excellent. The bits of
flavor made it a fun read.
The IF writeup OTH was mostly denigrating and would encourage a culture of
disrespect and contempt for their fighting abilities. That would end up biting
the non-IF in the posterier when they encounter the
IF force that was trained by one of the major powers.
Sure, you can court-martial the officers but the better
solution would be to encourage everyone to respect your enemy and be prepared
for them to be competant.
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:56:06 -0700 (PDT), John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Saying that being small impairs their fighting ability
It was hardly a "moronic obsession". There were entirely good reasons for the
Tokugawa shogunate outlawing guns in the 17th Century. Since they didn't have
any contact until the late 19th century with anyone else, guns weren't
necessary. There wasn't anything moronic about it.
> At 10:24 AM -0700 6/24/02, John Atkinson wrote:
But have you got the torsion bars pulled?
> At 7:29 PM +0200 6/24/02, Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
That is from the web site actually. Note the FROM. If you read the account,
they state that the argentine ship was forced to suffer the fire twice and
then put out at a great range and turned. During the shore to ship fight where
the Argies were pretty much crawling around their ship trying not to get
plugged by 20 diggers with small arms the other Argie assets were ferrying
more infantry ashore.
> OK, *you* didn't say that they won - but the quote you included in
Strictly speaking the Marines "lost" but when you add up the cost, the Argies
clearly came out the loosers in lost material. Add to that, the RM's were
returned to the UK by way of Bolivia and returned to the theatre to fight.
> I said they worked the ship over, then surrendered.
Ok. Well, lets see. The Argies invaded the Falklands and South Georgia, then
the RMs either did one of two things. Surrendered after the Government gave
them leave to or they died. These RM's lived to fight another day. So they
must have surrendered. The website gave specific account to that though I
didn't mention it in my own text. I thought it was pretty implicit.
> Respectful against the Argies, but not against the local weather
The entire environment was pretty crappy there. However the original point
stands that the RM's gave a very heavy accounting for themselves.
I have been listening to these arguments about fixed TO&Es and am very
suppressed none have brought up the biggest issue. Each of these colonies is a
frontier to start with. You have various communities with mines, farmland or
some other specific item being produced that are scattered with little contact
between them and no large population base.
You are talking about planets with population density's measured in hundreds
maybe thousands of miles per person. You don't have brigades or even
battalions (except for political reasons). You have local communities which
may have 500, 50 or 5 "soldiers" present and only what weapons are on hand (or
some special weapons that are surplus from the colonies originators). The
threat that they make is that they are armed, scattered and will resist.
Now you want to land an invasion force that may have a brigade or a battalion
to"take and hold" one of these worlds. The act of tying up your military force
may be more costly to you then anything your enemy could do to you. Fine you
hold the planets spaceport and most valuable raw materials and industries but
how many of your best soldiers are going to be tied up and how long before
your best soldiers start breaking down.
So you replace you first line fully equipped invasion force with a second line
not so well equipped National Guard (NG) (territorial to you English types)
force. This is not the cream of the army but the no fat skimmed milk These NGs
may be up to present TO&E, one that was issued 10 years ago or get drunk each
time they look at the list of equipment that they are supposed to have.
Now lets start talking about the real type games.
A company of NGs (all 50 of them) are chasing a company of raiders (about 15
to 20 soldiers) who snuck into the spaceport and changed the piping in a
warehouse so that liquid hydrogen instead of water came out of the sprinkler
system. The NGs may have special forces team (4 men) somewhere but then again
maybe not. The raiders may have some special weapons but probably not.The NGs
may have fire support on call but will the FO (who has never called a live
fire mission) be able to direct it.. The raiders may have an ambush force,
command detonated mines of other type of nastiness (or maybe not). The village
that is on the
table may be pro raider, anti raider or pro/anti everybody.
Have FUN!!!
From: Scott Siebold <gamers@ameritech.net>
> very suppressed none have brought up the biggest issue. Each of
Not necessarily. Sure, I may claim title to an area the size of Australia, but
that doesn't mean my population is evenly distributed
across that area. I'll probably have one main town/admin
center/spacesport, and people who don't live *in* that town will
nonetheless live fairly close to it unless there's compelling reason to be
elsewhere. Why? Well, how about access to medical help, spare parts, imported
goods, vitamins, etc. Sure, there may be *some* hardy souls who wander off
into the wilderness to set up their own
homesteads--but not likely to be enough to be militarily significant,
given that you're not on Earth.
Now, there may BE a compelling reason--"the balonium mines are way up
in the mountains", or "we have some religious/social theory we want to
adhere to" or "beefasaurs take a lot of prairie to raise".
And just because you've got 1,000,000 population doesn't mean that you've got
a couple of battalions, although you probably could afford it.
> --- Scott Siebold <gamers@ameritech.net> wrote:
> issue. Each of these
Actually, there will be a starport and there will be a cluster of population
around the starport. In fact, in Pournelle's Codominion universe (major
influence on
GZGverse, at least in atmosphere/technology), there's
a point in which one character says something to the
effect that on Sparta, _unlike_ most planets only a
quarter of the population lives in Sparta City and the outlying area. The
group he's speaking to agrees this is much more healthy than the settlement
patterns which predominate in human space, in which "more than half" of the
planet's population is in one city.
> You are talking about planets with population
On an average, yes.
They are not evenly distributed. Take Australia for instance. Overall, it has
a very low population density, but if you look at a more detailed breakdown
you find urban areas, moderately settled areas, and huge tracts of land
uninhabited except for tiny bands of Aborigines.
> don't have
Ummmm... all militaries exist for political reasons. Police exist out of
necessity. Soldiers exist to force on other bodies politic the political will
of the society they fight for. (Note: Not a values
statement--the 'will' may be as benign as 'leave us
the hell alone')[1]
> local communities which may have 500, 50 or 5
Maybe in your universe. My Empire prefers a tighter pattern of control. The
central government sends the brigades and batallions to the planet to provide
a force capable of putting up real resistance.
The local community defense forces are built around the company, although
occasionally having an independant platoon is necessary. Anything less is a
waste. Militia is comprised of all ablebodied males
ages 16-50, and some female volunteers ages 18-40. On
frontier of Balkanized planets (and I've got 6 of those in my background)
there are fortress zones
> Now you want to land an invasion force that may have
Well, pretty much not likely less than a division or two.
> The act of tying
May be costly, but guerilla forces cannot ever achieve anything in the long
run without conventional military force, safe havens, and outside logistical
support. Thanks for playing, though.
> enemy could do to you. Fine you hold the planets
That's all I'm after... Living area is cheap and we've got plenty elsewhere.
> many of your
None. My best soldiers (Tagmatic Corps, all veterans with grav tanks and power
armor) are rarely comitted and if they are, they are withdrawn as soon as
serious organized resistance breaks down.
Within 6-12 months I'm rotating second-line (but still
active duty) units through and setting up training encampments to start
training collaborationist military forces (feoderatii).
Plus, I'm evacuating the population of guerilla districts offplanet and
setting them down on other planets to dilute their support base. This tends to
get everyone's attention pretty damn quick.
And if we ship an Amnesty International camera crew to the dilithium mines of
Rura Penthe, that's too damn bad.
> Now lets start talking about the real type games.
In those armies that actually have more soldiers than are absolutely necessary
to hold one deployment,
deploying units get plussed up to about 105-115% of
authorized strength.
> --- Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
Are you kidding?
The reason we're pulling them in the first place is because 4 of them have
shattered. We did it 'by the book' and got a 4" piece out. No one from private
to platoon sergeant has any good ideas that don't involve mechanics, so we're
waiting on them.
Never did show up, but at "final formation" I got handed a tachometer and told
to install it...
> --- Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net> wrote:
Sure. If you wish to create a permenantly stratified static society with no
ability to defend itself from outside influences, then having a religious
hangup on bladed weapons is a good idea.
However, this leads to a permenant warrior aristocracy holding all the
political power, which leads to a mystical reverence for their way of life, no
matter how warped, and a devaluing of all other ways of life and those who
lead them.
This leads to the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, and Hiroshima.
On the whole, I prefer being a gun-crazy cowboy.
> --- Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:
> The IF writeup OTH was mostly denigrating and would
Umm... you have been watching the news lately?
> the non-IF in the posterier when they encounter the
The IF is hostile to all major powers. All of 'em. Hell, they don't get along
with most of the minor ones. And with fusion power being cheap and efficient,
there's no reason for anyone, even the French, to pretend to like them.
Besides, that's not enough. You have to have foreign
officers. Think about it--the only Arab formation to
give the Israelis a hard time in '48 was the JAL which was officered by
British Army officers.
> Sure, you can court-martial the officers but the
Well, that's best accomplished the way the US does it:
Force-on-force where you let the OPFOR cheat their
happy asses off and highly overvalue every capability of the enemy's equipment
and undervalue every capability of yours.
> --- Roger Books <books@jumpspace.net> wrote:
> Seems I
Actually, it was less a case of underestimating the enemy than overestimating
his own abilities. Take a
look at his Civil War career--he made general and was
given a brigade of cavalry for pulling the sort of stupid stunts he did at
Little Big Horn.
> --- Thomas Barclay <kaladorn@magma.ca> wrote:
Uuuuhhh... should be laid by the assault ship before dropping troops...
What? No GPS? No orbital recon
> assets?
How'd he get on-planet?
No Ortillery? And something in the local
See above?
> atmosphere bollixes up the short range RF
And no one briefed him beforehand? Why not? Why are you carrying out an
invasion of a planet with no intel? Why don't you have an agent inserted
onplanet to tell you all these things? Why didn't you run some scans.
Obviously you've got an objective in mind or you wouldn't drop troops.
> his laptop doesn't show the positions of all of
Well, given the budgets of most ROTC units, he's probably just relieved he's
not wearing a steel pot.
I've got the outline of a bit of fanfic where a young LT who did his enlisted
time as a Tagmatic scout trooper ends up commanding a platoon of Akritai on
some rockball.
Someone replied to John:
> > The IF writeup OTH was mostly denigrating and would
If I were an army writer, I'd have toned it down a bit, myself--I'd
rather have my boys on the battlefield find out I was a pessimist, not an
optimist. John also makes the assumption that a culture which has X
characteristics NOW also has those same characteristics THEN (not just the
Arabs, also the Americans, Canadians, etc). Okay, it's
superficially plausible--but that doesn't make it correct. Certainly
other cultures have changed substantially in 150 years time.
John replied:
> The IF is hostile to all major powers. All of 'em.
Not true. The IF is not hostile to the FSE. And they don't
necessarily let animosity interfere with business--I don't have the
timeline handy but I'm sure there have been periods in which the IF
didn't *like* the NAC, NSL and/or ESU but might have gotten training
You missed a big assumption. John assumes that all factions of the IF behave
in the same manner. If one faction sees a possible
advantage in having troops trained by "ex"-NAC military and the
NAC sees a possible threat to the ruling elite we could end up with a well
trained force. What's the old cliche? "Politics make for strange bedfellows."
Roger Books
> On 24-Jun-02 at 19:49, Laserlight (laserlight@quixnet.net) wrote:
[quoted original message omitted]
> Ryan Gill wrote:
> Quoting the quote from your previous post: "The Royal Marines had
Which is exactly what I pointed out in the next sentence in my previous post.
> I said they worked the ship over, then surrendered.
> then the RMs either did one of two things. Surrendered after the
> was pretty implicit.
Thanks. You did not mention the surrender and I thus didn't miss your
mention of it :-)
Frankly, implicit statements are a very good way of being misunderstood on
a forum as heterogenous as this one - particularly when the implications
were as well hidden as in this case: your quote from the web site (as opposed
to the web site itself, which requires people to have enough time to read it
through instead of simply reading your short quote) didn't mention which of
the two scraps in South Georgia you were talking about,
and you were describing the battle to people (eg. BIF) who didn't know about
it and thus didn't have much background to it. Because of this, your choice of
ending point for your quote ("...won the fight. ") gave a very
different impression of the outcome of that fight than the impression you'd
get from reading the entire web site.
Regards,
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:06:11 -0700 (PDT), John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sure. If you wish to create a permenantly stratified
As mentioned, the "religious hangup" was a way of controlling other political
forces within the country, in order to maintain control of an island nation
that was almost constantly in civil war.
> However, this leads to a permenant warrior aristocracy
You've got the cause and effect backwards. The Japanese permanent warrior
aristocracy and mystical reverence for their way of life predates the
introduction, and later abolition, of guns by several centuries. It was well
entrenched by the end of the Hiean period.
Their "mystical reverence for their way of life" is no more warped or
devaluing than any other "mystical reverences for a way of life" throughout
history that have led to slavery, holocausts, and inquisitions. No culture or
nation is immune from a past period where religious belief allowed a portion
of a population to enslave or horribly abuse another portion of the
population.
> This leads to the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death
Oversimplification, as Japanese society was swinging away from its intense
militaristic society during the Meji Restoration, but returned to it in the
years after the Russo-Japanese War. There was a point where Japan could
have pulled away from that direction, but fell back into it. It wasn't
guaranteed thing. Japan fell into its own version of the same horrible fervor
that gripped Germany, Italy, and Russia in the same period.
> On the whole, I prefer being a gun-crazy cowboy.
As I pointed out, the whole "mystical reverence of the blade" predates
gunpowder weapons in Japan by several centuries. The gun came, was used
effectively, then left Japanese society. Its abolition introduced a period of
political stability unknown in the island's history.
> --- Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net> wrote:
> As mentioned, the "religious hangup" was a way of
Wonderful. But stasis in this case was not healthy. That's why Europeans and
the North American descendants thereof are so overwhelmingly
sucessful--the geography of Europe was a good
compromise between being too easy to invade and too easy to defend. You had to
push technological development because otherwise your neighbors would overrun
your happy butt. A homogenous static society
is one solution, but ultimately self-defeating.
> You've got the cause and effect backwards. The
And would have been pretty well unentrenched had large armies of peasants with
firearms been allowed to attain battlefield effectiveness and stay that way.
Once peasants could stand against a charge by the aristocracy without the
benefit of terrain and obstacles (ie, by the introduction of flintlock muskets
with socket bayonets) the aristocracy either starts sharing power (see:
England) or gets stood against a wall (see: France). The Japanese didn't get
effective democracy until we nuked them flat.
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 08:19:56 -0700 (PDT), John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Japanese didn't get
I will only slightly disagree with you here in the sense that it's debatable
whether or not they actually _did_ get effective democracy. *grin* It's
obvious that corporations have become the new aristocracy in Japan.
> --- Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net> wrote:
That's a topic that's too hot to discuss on a public
list. I'll go off on the subject off-list, but those
who are pro-Japanese culture would probably send me
mail bombs if I posted that here.
I would argue that the same situation exists here in America, where laws don't
appear to apply to one who makes enough money, and corporation
co-operate with law enforcement as they see fit, aided by their bought
representatives in our gov't.
> On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 11:33, Allan Goodall wrote:
> At 8:40 AM -0700 6/25/02, John Atkinson wrote:
Forward them to me John. I spent enough time studying Japanese, their
history, and their culture to have a love/hate respect for the
culture. Just like the US they have faults and blessings intermixed in many
ways. I think they have some concepts down better than we, but others are just
plain wrong.
Just as in the US, there aren't any easy answers to Japan's problems.
> --- "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
> Unfortunately, the link between firearms and
It's a simplification.
> close. Germans and Russsians had firearms as early
The Russians are a complicated issue--terror can hold
off any social change, the question is how long?
The German question is also not very clear-cut. Most
of the 19th century was spent trying to actually create a German state rather
than a collection of culturally simillar entities in an area generally
referred to as "Germany".
The situation was not conducive to creating liberal democracy.
Beth, How about...
Scenario (1) (FT) You brush away a screen of older 'reserve' ships in their
equivalent of the Border Police? (Lot's of Beam 1 and some Beam 2, no screen,
no armor, mostly Thrust 2 and 4 no advanced drives,
yayda-yada-yada.)
Scenario 2 (SG) You meet the local militia (in the worst sense) using
French WW1 mind set/tactics and a _lot_ of troops but with 10% (1's)/
30%
(2's)/ 60% (3's) for leadership who attack your new colony on a
'claimed' (not known to humans) but not 'populated' planet?
Scenario 3 (DS2) the local response force (used to quelling local natives
in rebellion thing) strikes with their wheeled/tracked HVC/RFAC infantry
heavy force ("why do we need Artillery?") comes to reclaim their colony.
Role Playing ideas: The small local (actually imported non-indigenous
types for 'manual labor' role) low-intelligent species [several
generations removed from their own language, speaking only broken "Speak to
Masters" language, and actually believing they are 'created to serve',
yada-yada-yada] alternately gives you over glorified (initially)
expectations of the enemy followed by the "You must be Gods" awe view. Most
players will let this affect them one way or another.
Scenario 4 (it should be about scenario seven but most won't have the
time...) (any rules) When the "82nd Airborne/Commandoes/Galactic
Guards/whatever" elite strike force of the ruling hegemony show up....
(MUCh's for DS2, Cheap reliable Gauss rifles for SG2, advanced goodies for the
FT thing) and make life interesting. What the player doesn't know is that due
to budget considerations these guys ARE the enemy
Army/Space Forces and if they persist in bloodying them, they will cause
the Alien plutocracy to collapse!)
Just something off the cuff. Lots of holes I can already see in reviewing the
spelling but a start...
Gracias,
> > close. Germans and Russsians had firearms as early
The Russians simply replaced the aristocracy of the Communist Party with an
aristocracy of Oligarchs. Before that, they replaced an aristocracy of
nobility with an aristocracy of the Communist Party. The more Russia changes,
the more she stays the same...
> The Russians are a complicated issue--terror can hold
If you are talking the Soviet period, terror was used. If you are talking
pre-revolutionary Russia, you are wrong. The Russians simply kept the
average serf illiterate and drunk. It worked until Russia started widespread
industurialization in the late 1800's.
> The German question is also not very clear-cut. Most
Actually, I suspect that these exceptions are enough to make the general rule
rather suspect.