RE: [GZG] "Realistic" Mercenary TO&E

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI think that
Company size Merc units are too fragile.  To be sustainable
they need to be at least a Battalion (+), especially for more mechanized
units.	Using a rule of 40% loss makes a unit combat ineffective; a
company
can only have @ 30 casualties or 4 vehicle losses before they are out of
the
fight.	A Battalion can at least rotate a company in and out of the
line.









Michael Brown

mwsaber6@msn.com



  _____  

From: gzg-l-bounces@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces@lists.csua.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Eli Arndt
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 12:48 PM
To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: [GZG] "Realistic" Mercenary TO&E



Some recent comments made in a reply to the new 15mm Vehicle
announcement
have got me to thinking, “What is a –realistic- way to do sci-fi
mercs”  The
usual tendency seems to be to try to recreate one of the great merc
units
from books and other games – Hammer’s Slammers, Wolf’s Dragoons, etc.
 But
are these units representative of what we think merc units would be?  Is
there a way to build less amazing, but still effective mercenary units? 
Is
so, what are people’s thoughts on them?



Some ideas I have had are – 



1) An all infantry force with no armor but a good number of man-portable
anti-tank weapons.



2) Conventional mobile infantry force with mid-tech resources.



3) Small, but elite and hi-tech unit of combat walkers.



These are just off the top of my head.



Thanks,



Eli