Re: Platoon Leaders in SG2

John spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> >And of course this is 1960s or 70s tech (PRC-77 sets are not what I'd

> >call "state of the art" comms). Not 2300s tech. Imagine how much 
> >warfare has evovled over the last 100 years. Now imagine the next 
> >300. Our doctrines and tech should progress a bit I think....
> 
> Imagine how easy it will be jam them off the air!  Imagine EW 
> capabilities growing as fast as or faster than commo tech.  And radio 
> waves don't change much.  

Hmm. Most of the EW guys I've worked with (a spooky bunch) have 
suggested that broad spectrum jamming is not the approach taken 
because it is WAY too power consumptive. You tend to target specific 
bands at specific times. That's why the military also uses frequency 
hopping comms nowdays. And If I ever develop a Meson Communicator (a 
la Traveller), I won't be jammable in any practical sense.  

Jamming is a hazard, but I think it is represented by the EW rules. I 
think if they are not being used, it is not present, and therefore 
shouldn't be a factor. Right now, platoons tend to have a radio. 
Maybe in 2300, each guy has a radio capable of punching through to 
orbit (compact power sources for gauss rifles, plasma guns, and grave 
tech exists, so assuming they harness the same for comms...) and 
operating across the frequency band from about 10 KHz up to 10 GHz. 
They might not, but they might. This might be yet another place where 
the mainline powers (NAC, NSL, FSE) have advantages because of their 
high budget equipment. 

I'm just saying we shouldn't be creating something set in 2300 that 
plays necessarily exactly like Vietnam or even modern. I realize we 
want to maintain certain 'human factors' and an understandable 
tactical situation, but we should account for technological progress 
and doctrinal progress (which follows technological progress). 

Having said that, I realize it is hard to predict the future. But we 
should be cognizant of our assumptions. If we assume jamming tech has 
superceded commo tech (hence rendering comms risky or problematic), 
doctrine must reflect this. If comms is as good as I think it will 
get, doctrine should reflect this instead. Each 'version' of a 
setting might have different baseline assumptions. But we should just 
be aware of them, and be aware of their impact on how one would 
fight. 

Tom. 
 
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay
Software Specialist
Police Communications Systems
Software Kinetics Ltd.
66 Iber Road, Stittsville
Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2034
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Our Web Page: http://www.sofkin.ca
**************************************************/