Re: Re: [GZG] Small thought re: Orbital Assault

>The last 50 years of earth history has been full of advanced nations 
>losing wars to local militia. The Europeans all lost their colonial 
>empires to local revolts. Some were managed in semi peaceful
transitions 
>but others were violent rebellions. Yet they had the technology and the

>economics to suppport their army if they wanted to. The Americans
suffered 
>a similar reverse in Vietnam as did the French.

That's a really broad simplistic brush you're using to painting over the

period of decolonialization.  The European nations "lost" their colonial

empires to a wide, wide range of issues.  One big influence on the
British, 
for example, was the sheer cost - they just plain couldn't afford to
keep 
up with the costs of empire with their economy destroyed by WWII and the

years needed to build back up again (on top of the costs of fighting the

cold war).  Imperatives changed - the Cold War became the big focus. 
The 
idea of fighting through WWII for "freedom and democracy" and then 
maintaining empires didn't sit well with large portions of the public in

many countries.  There were all kinds of newly emerged states with a lot
of 
geopolitical pull that used their influence in ways that they European 
imperial states hadn't had to face before (look up the 
Malaysian/Malayan/Borneo/Indonesian conflict and in particular what the 
Indonesians were trying to do - the British and Commonwealth forces were

*not* simply fighting against "local militia").  There was the influence
of 
the USA and the Soviets on their "client" states (the USA wanted to see
the 
end of the Imperial system... as did the Soviets). Etc etc etc etc etc.

I would say that the last 50 years of earth history has seen very, very
few 
examples of advanced nations losing wars *simply* to local militia.  It
was 
much more complicated than that.  And the last *30* years have seen few 
examples of advanced nations losing anything to local militia.

"...full of advanced nations losing wars to local milita" is pretty
loaded 
- the Americans in Vietnam never lost a major encounter on the
battlefield 
with any of the opposing forces (and battles, after all, are what we're 
talking about here - these are wargames, not "geopolitical games" or
"media 
and public opinion back home" games)  and didn't lose all that many
lesser 
encounters either, when it comes down to it.  Sure, they lost the
overall 
conflict, but much of that had to do with US domestic politics as much
as 
anything that happened militarily:  The US press painted a picture of
the 
war that was very different from what the military leaders knew what was

going on, and public opinion made a big difference... (Tet being painted
as 
a "loss" for the Americans, for example - hence the Pentagon's desire
for 
the past 30 years to control press access to conflicts... they knew how 
badly they were beaten by the US press and how drastic the effects of
the 
press were on the overall military outcome - and they don't want to see
it 
happen again).

(For the record, I'm not saying that the US loss in Vietnam was the
result 
of the US press.  My point is that it was a lot more complicated that 
simply saying they were beaten by local militia).

Anyway, bringing this back to the point at hand, Jon A. is quite right
when 
he points out that playing an insurgency could be dead dull as a
tabletop 
miniatures game - if you assume the same sort of paradyme we see
currently 
in Iraq.  As the US is showing in Iraq, "local militia" going up against
an 
advanced nation lose.  Lose consistently, and lose overwhelmingly.  The 
terrorists have resorted largely to blowing up their countrymen because 
attacking the American troops in open battle is a losing proposition. 
So, 
unless your "local militia" are really, really well trained, there isn't
a 
game.  You can certainly *write* it any way you like, of course - it's
your 
universe.  And really well trained and well equipped "local militia" 
presupposes a colony with substantial resources - and so the fight is 
against a regular army, not a local militia...

Now if you have something a bit less "modern" - say, like the 
aforementioned British conflict with Indonesia back in the '60's, then
the 
"local militia vs. advanced forces" has a bit more potential.  Much of
the 
fighting there was small groups of British (or other Commonwealth forces
- 
lots of Gurkhas and Australians and others) light infantry getting into 
short, sharp fights with small groups of "insurgents" (who were, in
large 
part, Indonesian regulars).  That makes for much more interesting
wargaming 
- and well suits the style of play in Stargrunt (with a platoon or two
per 
side).

Jon A. seems to be basing much of his opinion on the military capability
of 
insurgents on the current situation in Iraq.  That isn't necessarily
going 
to be the only model to use, however.  One could postulate a much closer

balance of capabilities between the combatants.  Think Foreign Legion 
fighting in Chad, for example - sure, the Legion is better, but there 
aren't all that many of them and they don't have a large supply of the
very 
best stuff simply because of logistical reasons - the high-tech gear 
requires massive logistical support, and either the attacking power
*can't* 
provide the support (they're busy elsewhere - it's a big war), or
*won't* 
for political reasons. So, the 123rd Battalion battle group of the Royal

New Anglian Light Infantry gets dumped with a few months of supplies
onto a 
FSE outpost colony with the objective of tieing things up for a 
while.	They're up against several companies of the Legion and a bunch
of 
militia. It is a far-flung outpost colony, so they can't afford heavy 
logistical support;  so a "light" formation is sent which has lower
support 
requirements - they march on foot, etc.   That kind of thing can make
for 
interesting battles.

In my view, it isn't realistic to think that every planetary assault
will 
be by forces that have the qualitative (and logistical) edge the way the
US 
does over the Iraqi forces (either now or back in 2003).  If planetary 
assaults were going to always be that starkly defined, then I think it 
might go something like this:
Either a colony is big enough and wealthy enough to have first rate
troops 
(full time locals or garrison of off planet regulars), in which case it
is 
very, very difficult to assault, or they lose against a modern invader. 
That doesn't make for fun gaming.

Anyway, enough of my rambling.

-Adrian

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l