National Vehicle/Force Design Characteristics (DS2/SG2)

Preamble: (Or perhaps in my case, pre-ramble)

It seems that most modern and presumably future military forces tend to
derive their TO&E somewhat from their strategy/tactics, and sometimes
the chosen strategy and tactics dictates TO&E. In short, these areas are
inter-related.

It also seems that nationalities exhibit certain flavours. In real life, this
reflects differing political, geographical, and financial realities. In the
GZGverse, these factors must similarly apply. Plus there is one additional
factor: It is kind of neat in a game to have some distinction between forces.

Having said that, I'd be interested to hear differing visions of the
imperatives and limitations that drive vehicle and force designs for the
varying star nations. I'll take a first cut at a few that I've thought about.

NAC:

Observation:
> From what we've seen, the NAC seems to have a number of wheeled
suggests they also have no aversion to large vehicles.

Possible Rationale: It strikes me that the NAC is the largest power, and
therefore probably has the most territory to defend. Much of that defence will
be best accomplished
by cost effective vehicles - cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain. As Jon
T.
has suggested Grav is finicky and maintenance intensive, and we can suspect
ACV may be also, wheeled vehicles make sense for a majority of NAC forces,
with Grav reserved for special strike units. Wheeled vehicles can be
deployed to hole-in-the-wall worlds without a big supply train. The
simplicity of these vehicles will also allow them to be more easily maintained
by colonial units (local planetary defence forces and reserve
regular army units) they are loaned/given to. Weapons wise, the NAC
should be cutting edge, and I think that one could expect to see a fair number
of DFFGs, Superior GMS, and MDCs, perhaps with the more complex systems again
present on the smaller-in-number strike force vehicles, and more
simplistic but nonetheless effective weapons and defenses deployed on the
simpler vehicles. The same logic applies to stealth and ECM systems and other
defensive options. Basically, the NAC has the biggest economy, but given the
cultural past, prudence in defense spending is likely. The Crown has always
been sensitive to budgetary matters, and the populace of the NAC are likely
more interested in investing in other things than in military spending. Of
course, they still want the toughest, biggest military, but done with some
fiscal sense - which means saving the wazoo gadgets for the rapid
reaction regular forces and allowing the serviceable, but more simple, kit to
do many jobs within NAC space.

On a historical note, British design doctrine rarely seems to have evolved
around high speed armoured vehicles, being more interested in well armed, well
armoured.

NSL:
> From what we've seen, some of the NSL vehicles are AC. This seems

Possible Rationale: The NSL are a big power, and probably bigger than the NAC
industrially (not as a state, but in terms of the MegaCorps that call NSL
home). They have a history of manufacturing some of the world's best tanks and
armoured vehicles, and some excellent weapons systems. If this trend
continues, it may be quite likely that the NSL has some of the highest tech
forces in the GZGverse, in terms of average deployed technology level. Their
areas of responsibility are probably somewhat smaller than the NAC, so they
are
probably more willing to invest in reliable but expensive/complex
electronics and propulsion systems. I forsee the NSL not being able to afford
grav vehicles for all their forces, but being quite happy to deploy a large
number of AC vehicles of all varieties. This also would fit with a
blitz hit-fast, hit-hard style of warfare, and the NSL countries have
demonstrated some competence in this area over the years. It emphasizes bold
strategic strokes. I see it as likely their AFVs have high quality electronics
(stealth, pds, ecm, ew, sensors), and are probably powered by FGPs. Weapon
wise, I'd suspect most weapons would be DFFG, HEL, GMS
(Superior/Enh).

On a historical note, German design doctrine seems to have evolved around AFVs
with excellent balance of speed, armour and firepower.

ESU:
> From what we've seen, some of the NSL vehicles are AC. This seems

Possible Rationale: The ESU is another very large power with widely slung
colonies. It has the NAC as its main rival, and may well have internal
struggles running almost continuously thanks to some of its governing
techniques. OTOH, the ESU seems more willing to spend more GDP to
counterbalance their shortages in an economic productivity end so the net
result is a large, potent military. But it strikes me that many ESU vehicles
would be basic (in terms of luxuries or fancy gizmos) but they would also be
easy to maintain, robust, and quite effectual. Good armour can be a result of
wazoo tech or thick walls. ESU fire control and electronics probably isn't up
to NAC (let alone NSL) standards, but it is probably quite satisfactory for
most tasks. The ESU tend to win conflicts by deploying enough numbers to carry
the day. I suspect HKPs, GMS (enh) and RFACs might typify ESU armament, and
ECM and fire control might be at best enhanced. It seems also likely that
extra add
ons like stealth, ablative/reactive armour, etc are less likely.
Mobility is probably often tracked or wheeled and CFE powerplants are probably
still in use in many cases. Artillery will tend to be heavily used.

On a historical note, ESU design doctrine seems to have evolved around AFVs
with excellent balance of armour and firepower. In general, the main design
criteria seems to have been how to produce a tank 80% as capabable as its NAC
counterpart, and for 50% the cost. The ESU has seemed willing to
sacrifice the capability per-tank in exchange for having a robust,
maintainable, and reasonably effective AFV which it can crank out in large
numbers.

Other thoughts on other nations, or contrary opinions, welcome.