Re: Mixed Tech forces was Re: 15mm FCT/Kwa'Zulu pics - Saeed Khalifate, etc.

G'day,

More from Brian ;)

Cheers

Beth

>>>>

Warbeads Writes:
 
>Most earth forces of non-major powers probably don't >anticipate
fighting
>in two widely divergent (Arctic and Sahara) environments with the major
>components of their forces without time to re-equip (if nothing else
>uniforms and personal equipment plus camo patterns.)  
 
It doesn't need to be as widely divergent as Arctic and Saharan (two
example which, while requiring widely divergent material for personnel
survival, equipment maintenance, etc, are actually pretty similar in
terms of tactical terrain) to require different types of tactics and
optimal technologies.  How many non-major powers can expect to fight in
cities, hilly/mountainous terrain, plains, and woodlands?
 
>Colonial Forces
>probably would have less exotic options in their standard structure but
>be unlikely to be capable of good performance in terrain dissimilar to
>the terrain they are assigned to. 
 
How well equipped and how diversely equipped they will need to be will
depend on several factors, somwe of which are based on assumptions I
question.  For instance, just as many people (myself included) bristle
at the Star Wars-esque "Hoth-Tattooine Syndrome" (Entire planet all one
climate), I also question the assumption that each planet will be
colonized by one power.  I tend to favor the "Planet X has colonies
belonging to powers 1, 2, & 3, while planet Y has coloniee of 3, 4, & 5,
and Planet Z colonies of 1,5, 6, & 7" model.  
 
>Well, I don't like the odds of a size 5 going down due to evil chits. 

I'm firmly in Oerjan's camp when it comes to thinking the SD:F is way
too overpowering and not all that realistic.  If/When the're removed
from the equation, the MDC 5's range means that for anything but HEL's
and other MDC 5's, it gets a chance to get in its own licks for at least
a turn before any other system starts hitting back.
 
Having said that, if you're averse to 5's, I'd still prefer MDC's to any
of the other systems on the board -- it gives the best balance between
range and firepower.  An HEL of the same class will have better range,
but poorer firepower in close.	A DFFG has the opposite problem --
better firepower, but worse range.  As for the GMS option, I think that
the only downside to it is the fact that the GMS is the one system that
has the most defensive systems that protect against it -- PDS, ADS, ECM,
Reactive Armor, APFC's.  Against other weapons?  Stealth. That's it, and
it's overpriced.  If you know you're facing an all-GMS force, you give
everyone Superior stealth, PDS & reactive armor (or better yet, APFC's
if you know he used infantry in attendance), toss in a couple of ADS
vehicles, and you've significantly diminished your opponents
effectiveness, probably by more than the loss of offense you suffer by
buying those defenses.
 
Of course, the fact that they require different countermeasures than DF
weapons does make GMS a very effective second punch when compined with
other systems.
 
>There are only two 'energy' weapons - DFFG and HEL right?

Right, but as you've shown, there are different ways to configure your
force even with those two options -- seeing as we both came up with
quite different answers.