Re: [DS and SG] Tech dispersal to the frontier

On Mon, 26 Oct 1998 08:00:07   Jonathan Jarrard wrote:
>Far more than initial cost, colonies are going to be concerned with
what
>kind of maintenance and support base a weapon system requires. ANY
>system that requires expensive (probably off-world) spare-parts or
>technicians on a regular basis is likely to be ignored.  

Ah, but this ignores the question of HOW military hardware is procured.
If acquired by a self-supporting colony with (and this would be the
exception, I'd think) a forward-thinking administration, they would tend
to pursue the equipment with the best LONG-TERM cost.

But the reality of the matter is likely to be somewhat different. Many
procurement agencies cannot or will not look beyond up-front costs, and
utterly fail to consider maintenance and upkeep in their consideration
of costs. If so, purchasing agents will happily buy something that looks
cheap on paper but may be a logistical nightmare in the field.

The odds of this drastically increases if the procurement agency is
off-world; e.g. a Terran military force deciding on a standard for arms
which may be eminently suitable for Earth or core colonies but
impossible to maintain at the end of a supply train measured in
light-years. 

Another option, as the less-important colonies will likely get
'hand-me-downs' from more important units, 2nd line units will probably
often be in possesion of technology rejected by 1st line units as
useless, but which the parent bureaucracy is unwilling to just scrap.
I'm sure the US Nat'l Guard of the present day has to deal with this a
bit.

>I see inner system corporations producing high-cost, low maintenance,
>extended life-span systems for export to colony worlds, perhaps
>providing a range of packages that are tailored to the level of local
>tech and industrial support that is available.

Again, this is the ideal, rational result. But for every company with an
eye for the long-term, there will be a dozen producers of weapon systems
that are cheap up front, but likely to break down under sustained usage
(Packard Bell- Your choice for DFFG weaponry!)

And remote colonies will not likely have the time or money to do any
sort of sustained evaluation before purchase, so a good set of glossy
promotion materials and a bit shmoozing/bribery by the sales rep may
well knock a well-built product out of the running.

But it's this dichotomy between what should be and what is that makes
for creative scenarios. Off-the-cuff:

The insurrectionist spice miners of Kessel vs. the planetary militia.
Ore haulers w/ mining lasers vs GEV DFFG tanks... the infamous
Hindenburg class Med. GEV Tank rejected by the NSL 1st line units some
10 years ago. A so-so unit with poor electronics and those fusion
plants, if not well-maintained, tend to convert Systems Down chits into
a BOOM! with alarming frequency. Say 1-3 on d6?

An idea for campaign systems: when buying/building new units, have some
sort of 'morale' roll which represents how likely the player is to get
exactly what is wanted. If failed, the Ref gets to make creative
substitutions in the TO&E: fewer units, more units of drastically lower
quality, just what you ordered, but with surprising 'lemons'....
annoying if overdone, but definitely gives that touch of realism. :)
---
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim 'Jiji' Foster / jfoster@nospam.kansas.net / Jiji @ AnimeMUCK

-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/  Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums