After slogging through the SG/DS stuff, I think we need to set some
perspective on just what will confront the lads once they are on the ground.
Think about
what systems will be available on a colony 30-50 years old. Will they
have any heavy industry? How much will be devoted to armaments? Does the
colony have
the raw materials/means of production to make anything more than small
arms?
What I see is only the regulars will have anything approaching armor and
artillery. The numbers are limited by shipping. Battles in the Inner Sphere
or on Earth would see the full gamut of weapons systems, but colonies /
independents would have the last war's equipment (Surplus/hand me downs)
instead of "Low tech". It is just not cost effective in terms of shipping or
production. When a colony can afford (is allowed?) to arm, they will probably
want to get the most bang for the buck.
My vision is full combined arms teams of regulars against well motivated or
numerous infantry (militia), or small task forces of regulars fighting over
key objectives (spaceport, mines, alien artifacts...).
FWIW
> What I see is only the regulars will have anything approaching armor
> independents would have the last war's equipment (Surplus/hand me
I agree. There have been several military-sci-fi authors who have
explored this sort of idea in detail, and most of them (Drake being a notable
exception) seem to suggest that most fights on distant colony worlds will
be foot-infantry with little/no "heavy support". Small-size forces
(landing a battalion would be a BIG deal) with assault landers but few if any
vehicles would be the norm for any but the biggest and most important
inner-system conflicts...
And as I'm a SGII player, this mindset allows for all kinds of great conflicts
without having to worry about the details of the heavy stuff
:)
To add to Michael's list above, you'd probably get a lot of the "small task
force of regulars" against "numerous militia" type scenarios too - with
little heavy stuff on either side.
A colony with 50 years on the ground, unless they are terminally incompetant
or hopeless underachievers, will be able to get SOME sort of industry going,
one would think. It doen't take much to convert a truck or
farm transport into a Katushy-style MLRS platform, and to make mortars
up
to including big stuff (like 120mm). I see that as being the de-rigeur
artillery for the low-tech colonial militia type forces. The company
size force of regulars might not have even this much heavy firepower. Of
course, they counter with zoomie communications gear, PA, etc... to make it
interesting.
Good scenario opportunities there...
> -----Original Message-----
> A colony with 50 years on the ground, unless they are terminally
SNIPS A LOT
Of course this is the best breeding ground for SG games!
Mind you, in 1994/1995 in the Golden Triangle area of Thailand/Myanmar
the drug lords were producing heavy caliber artillery and ammunition up to and
including 155mm!! So, the so-called lo-tech forces can still be given
plenty of relative oomph....
SNIP some stuff about colony forces ----
If I am planning a colony I would be interested and willing to pay big
bonuses for ex-military people to join our group and invest in a small
arsenal of weapons to equip them. They would not be a unit unto themselves but
would form the core of my leadership and planning for my militia. A few
mortars, some IAVRs, and some other medium support type weapons and you are
good to go for anything but a determined invasion and piracy would be a dicey
thing indeed.
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Michael Brown wrote:
> After slogging through the SG/DS stuff, I think we need to set some
Think about
> what systems will be available on a colony 30-50 years old. Will they
Peter F Hamilton's "Reality Disfunction" describes the settling process very
nicely, dropships with supplies was converted after alnding to a small town,
who used the onboard power generator for 20 or so years until they had built a
reactor of their own...
Well, my 2 öre.
I happen to think that most of the fighting will still be planetary based
action that involve NO outside interventions. (Meaning planetary assaults or
what not). Heck the home ofice may never even hear about it or rely on the
locals to deal with their own porblem. People fighting themselves on various
worlds colonies or otherwise. (though early colonies will be more occupied
with survival (maybe not so: fewer resources means more reason to be the guy
in charge of them.) But once humans pull themselves out of basic grubbing
survival mode they 'll look around and find something big or small to disagree
about, or better yet fall back to one of eth old standby's religeon, race,
who's grandpa killed who a thousand years ago, etc etc. Hey it's not like
people are going to get along any better in the future than they are now.
Los
> At 02:38 AM 12/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 02:38:27AM -0500, Adrian Johnson wrote:
Drake points out that the mercenary forces like Hammers
are centered on high-tech worlds, are rare, and are usually the
deciding factor once brought in. Most of the native forces are
infantry-heavy; it appears to be cheaper to hire mercs for the
duration of wars than to build and maintain native armored forces.
I think the light equipment scales, reliance on local forces, etc. are all
valid. I'd say the best indicator is to look at history.
Light equipment scales: From the age of sail to the dawn of the 20th century
European armies fighting in colonial environments were always weak
in cavalry and artillery - the most difficult things to transport. For
heavy arty, armies abroad usually relied on the guns of the fleet - and
not just for shore bombardment (i.e. Ortillery). Scott landed naval guns for
the siege of Veracruz and Buller's army at Colenso (that was Buller, wasn't
it?) included a battery of 4.7" naval guns on improvised carriages. For
Cavalry you relied on local forces or often did without - Chelmsford's
cavalry in the Zulu war was almost etirely provided by local volunteer
forces. Even in modern times it was the light equipped guys - the
marines
and airborne - who show up first.
Local forces: Britain throughout the Empire period relied heavily on local
forces. Consider all Loyalist troops in the American Revolution (one regiment
of which, the Royal Americans, were incorporated into the British regular
army) or all the American units (Rangers, etc.) in the French & Indian War.
There's also the possibility of native "sepoy" troops raised
from indigenous aliens - like the British Indian Army or the Imperial
German Schutztruppen (or check out H. Beam Piper's "Uller Uprising"). I'd say
that Roger's Rangers or the Royal Natal Carbineers from the Zulu War are good
models for local forces - lightly equipped but specialists in local
terrain, tracking, etc. Colonies with extensive agricultural "outbacks" should
provide useful units of "Light Horse" - basically motorized light
infantry
columns mounted in jeeps/skimmers or light utility vtols - the sorts of
vehicles easily requisitionable from farms and cattle stations (maybe even
Owen Glover's grav bikes). Not what you'd want to hurl against a tank
regiment, but handy for counter insurgency work. Home made MLRS and mortars
seem likely for support but small amounts of more modern/lethal stuff
might exist (such as your local National Guard Armoury). The Boers even
started out with a nice little train of modern Krupp and Schneider guns
(bought with
gold mining profits) to back up their home-grown "commandos" (actually
the Boers or even modern South Africa are pretty good models for colonial
forces).
Garrison Forces: Throughout most of the empire period half the Britsh army was
tied up in overseas garrisons. Each colony would likely have at least a
battalion of regulars on hand. Garrison units would likely be of two
types - heavier units with tanks, arty, etc tied to one particular
locale (the starport, the capital, the core region of the colony) but most
would be
light and fast "rapid reaction" forces - airmobile or similar - held as
a
centralized back-up for local militia.
I don't know about considering plantery defense as a Normandy
Beach/Atlantic
Wall kind of thing. A planet is an awfully huge place. Thinking along the
lines of shore defense back to the days of sail (and keeping playability in
mind), ground based defenses could probably make a specific location
(i.e.
the orbital space directly above a city or starport) fairly unhealthy for
attackers but would leave lots of back country relatively easy to plunk your
dropships down on (although capture of an intact port would then be a
priority - unless you landed one like the D-Day Mulberries). The real
key to planetary defense seems likely to be dispersion. Sure you can hole up
in
a city or starport and try and fight a Stalingrad - a valid option since
alot of the value of a colony world would be its fixed installations and
nuking them from space sort of defeats the purpose of capture - the
grunts will most likely be sent in to try first. But another option, one where
your local troops would be a real plus, is to pull a Chairman Mao and head for
the hills, keeping the invaders forces tied down and committed until relief
arrives (both options show up in Los' nifty Rot Hafen saga)
-M
Good set of comments!
> Light equipment scales: From the age of sail to the dawn of the 20th
For sure. British forces operating in North America both before and after US
Independance were noteworthy for their lack of cavalry and artillery. There
was some, but not much. Discounting militia units, the first Regular army unit
raised in Canada for permanent stationing here (an actual
"Canadian" unit) was an Artillery unit - the British and the local
militias could supply needed infantry, but having the specialists of an
artillery plus the infrustructure needed to support it based locally was
considered so important that it was established first...