[SG2] [DS2] PA or non-PA - renamed from OT women gamers

3 posts ยท Sep 16 1998 to Sep 16 1998

From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:56:51 -0500

Subject: [SG2] [DS2] PA or non-PA - renamed from OT women gamers

John spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> 1. I imagine most skirmishes will be small (Brigade or smaller) in the

Seems likely.

> 2. Transport will be at a premium. Why transport APCs/Tanks/GEV

Mind you, to a macrocosm, this argument applies to PA. It is also quite
possible 1 suit of PA is as much of a logistics load as 1 full APC.

> 3. PA will be airtight making it great for harsh/vacc environments,

This is an advantage. If we are living in a non Star Trek ish universe with a
lot of planets with crappy temp (too hot, too cold), crappy atmospheric
pressure (too high, too low), crappy atmospheric composition (poisonous,
contaminated, insidious, exotic, unbreathable), then some combat will happen
here. Of course, we'd choose to colonize the Earth like worlds if we can find
em, thus perhaps removing a lot of the need for this harsh enviro gear.

> Don't get me wrong, I love tanks and big armored formations. I just

Only important, big battles. They can still kick PA.

Why transport all these units to
> wipe out a colony when you can sit there pounding it from orbit.

I'm assuming you would be the defenders with this gear on more settled
colonies. Otherwise, you are right. Although if FTL is as cheap as John's
setting and ship construction seem to make it (much cheaper than some other
systems), the long haul, big lift capacity doesn't seem so much of an issue.

The ultimate counter seems to be rooted in logistics: 1. Assume PA is complex
(actuators, sensors, manipulators, optics, EM systems, EW systems, stealth,
chameleon, IR masking, armour (possibly active), weapons systems, targetting,
longer term life support (for
those hostile worlds), heat regulation, damage control, comms/crypto,
medical feeds, etc. etc.). 2. Assume PA is fairly expensive. It probably is
due to its complexity. 3. Assume it takes a lot of training to run PA like a
pro. Hence troops are expensive. This is partly due to PA's complexity. Partly
due to the complex range of capability it provides. 4. Assume such complex
systems have expensive costs to maintain, both
in a money sense, and a personel/training, personel/maintenance
sense. Maintenance techs required to mothball/demothball suits for
transit and combat drops - even if all troopers shipped as frozen
fish sticks. Medtechs required to hook up troopies to life support gear (watch
the team that hooks up the modern day astronaut for a
guide). No rapid reaction capability here - it takes hours to get a
PA guy ready to drop or to even move. Logistics chain to support
power/fuel/food/air resupply and field maintenance. With high stress
gear like this, maintenance cycle between PMs might well run in the
40-60 hour range. That means downtime for a lot of your potential
force. 5. Perhaps the ultimate reason: To keep the peace in a jungle on X2, To
patrol the mines of Amlak Mor, To kick ass on rebellious peasants on New
Gananoque: These tasks DO NOT require powered armour or elite
troops. Normally trained green/regular mix troops with normal
equipment (and locally procured transport - jeeps, trucks,
hoverjeeps, grav lifters) can do this job quite fine. Hard to justify sending
an expertly trained New Anglian Confederation Drop Marine platoon to sit
gaurding a string of pumping stations on East Durango IV. But somebody might
well have to do it. And because no one local would mess with PA if it was
there, no battles. But if the locals thought they could take the (much cheaper
and more logistically sound) garrison force, then that's another story.

You are right in one sense: comparing to the island campaigns of the past, you
can see the advantages of PA. But assuming the logistics train and the
training requirements are what they are (to say nothing of cost), then you may
well decide that it isn't as cheap as you think. Especially when (if you have
a platoon of these guys at (for example) 1 million NACBucksSterling(tm) a
head) I can easily (as an enemy commander) consider the deployment of vast
artillery and potentially nuclear strikes which PA isn't robust enough to
survive. And the island campaign scenario assumes a shooting war between two
major powers deploying line troops - in which case, yes you'd
probably see jump troops, PA, orbital assaults and bombardments, the whole
nine yards. But a lot of SG2 scenarios and DS2 scenarios will revolve around
rebellions, terrorism, banditry, suppression of same, privateering (or
whatever they call it on the ground), and things which neither merit these
kind of overkill responses nor which probably encourage the deployment of such
assets. A cheaper, more cost effective (to keep right at hand) solution would
be infantry, easily portable vehicles (hummvee Mark 27 with TOW 22), and some
basic low cost air support (VTOLs or choppers), and some light arty. This
formation could probably do more, over a wider area, in more situations, for
less costs, and require less of your recruiting and logistics talent to
support, thus allowing you to have your elite PA units for those "Hot Wars"
and "Flashpoints" where the expense is worthwhile or even necessary. But lots
exists to justify non PA scenarios.

Of course, if you think PA is robust, problem free, dead simple to operate,
has long battery life, can be run by a high school dropout, and can be parked,
entered, exited, and maintained by said low skill troopie, then that changes a
lot. Sure everyone will have it. But in
that case, your colonists probably will too - if it is that
ubiquitious and easy to use. Watch out for those PA equipped miners and
farmhands!

I don't think that is the official setting, and I don't think it is all that
likely in the future, unless it gets THAT cheap and easy to use, and then that
changes A LOT of the assumptions underlying the GZG world.

Tom.
/************************************************

From: John Skelly <canjns@c...>

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:24:49 -0400

Subject: RE: [SG2] [DS2] PA or non-PA - renamed from OT women gamers

Whew quite a post Tom. You bring up good points. Again, I have criticized
others for this, we are talking about things not yet invented and straying OT.
My PA seems a lot less.

My last comment on this is: if everyone used PA than there wouldn't be any
fun PA vs non-PA fights ;-).

[quoted original message omitted]

From: Los <los@c...>

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:42:17 -0400

Subject: Re: [SG2] [DS2] PA or non-PA - renamed from OT women gamers

> John Skelly wrote:

> Whew quite a post Tom. You bring up good points. Again, I have

OK what am I missing here? How the heck is an (IMO) in-depth intelligent
discussion about Power Armor OT on this list? Especially as it pertains to how
everyone constructs their armies and plays their game? (unless we were
supposed to keep talking about women wargamers? <g>