Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lJoh
n Atkinson wrote:
> On 7/11/08, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>   
>> There will be one basic vehicle frame size 4 with class with 4 armour
>> and 2 infantry squads.  This frame is used by ALL the vehicles
>>     
>
> 1) This is damned big for a lot of roles (scouts, utility vehicles,
> tank hunters, etc).
>
> 2) This would be expensive as hell from both a real-world and a
> points-cost standpoint.  There is a reason that most armies do NOT use
> infantry carriers armored to the same level as their main battle
> tanks.
>
> 3) That's too big for a troop carrier.  You're neatly packaging your
> forces so that it only takes me four to six (depending on dice luck)
> GMS/Hs to knock out a platoon.  Smaller vehicles are better.
>
> Personally, I prefer size 3 vehicles.  Size 4 looks nice on paper, but
> armor 4 isn't enough of a boost to their survivability to justify the
> points cost.	My main battle tanks are typically size 3.  You can
> stick a size 4 weapon on there and punch holes in anything on the
> field all day long, and it's probably 150 points cheaper when its all
> said and done.
>
>   
They were originally size 3 armour 3 however, since my concept required 
them to carry 2 infantry  the main weapons were inadequate and the only 
way to fit a decent weapon was to up the size.

>> The militia will use fast wheeled CFE armed with either HVC/4 or a
>> SLAM/4 (50/50 ratio).
>>
>> The Regulars will use fast GEV HMT armed with either MDC/4 or SlAM/4
>> (75/25 ratio)
>>
>> The Guards will use GRAV FGP armed with either DFFG/4 or SLAM/4
(75/25
>> Ratio)
>>     
>
> If you're looking at this from a real-world standpoint, that's not
> standardized.  Changing the suspension and automotive components
> requires the entire vehicle to be redesigned.
>   
While considering your point, I noticed that my MDC/4s can't work in an 
HMT/4 vehicle - they have to be a size smaller.  I've decided to make 
both militia and regular use Fast GEV HMT with MDC/3 or SLAM/4

> Also, the current rules as written basically mean SLAMs pretty much
> suck.  Guards should have MDC/DFFG mix for long-ranged/close in
> combat, or just go MDC-pure.	Otherwise you're basically begging to
> get picked off by HKP-armed troopies.
>
>   
The SLAMs are to give a degree of anti-personnel capabability over long 
range as well as light artillery support while the other weapons are 
supposed to be used in an AT role.  While they may not be that effective

in the present rules, they are good enough to fit their assigned role 
which is rapid close-support company artillery.

> Finally, do you not have any tanks?  Or are all your maneuver forces
> mechanized infantry?	I have a doctrinal problem with that--you're
> going to end up misusing your infantry very badly because you will
> want to use their carriers as tanks.
>
>   
Thats were my concept hits a problem.  They're not over armed and 
armoured IFVs, they're MBTs that carry infantry.  The idea was based on 
the Soviet tank riders of WW2.	 I know that as soon as possible, all 
armoured infantry ended up with their own transport so they didn't have 
to ride on the tanks, however, no modern force has to transport armies 
across space with limited load capability.  If, for example, I caould 
only carry 20 vehicles and 60 infantry, it made sense to me (at the 
time) to make a vehicle do as much as possible. 

> While having a homogeneous force sounds nice on paper, if you play a
> competent opponent you'll find having a combined arms force will allow
> more tactical flexibility and permit your opponent to present you with
> dilemmas you can't adequately solve.	Given the expense of this force,
> you'll also have less assets on the table to do it with than most
> people will.
>
>   
>> All support units such as artillery, ADS, radar, transport, etc will
use
>> basic frames with Fast GEV HMT.
>>     
>
> So your Transportation Companies will have size 4, armor 4 trucks to
> haul toilet paper?
>
> That's just silly.  Even with a persistent IED threat, the US can't
> afford to build dedicated vehicles armored like literal tanks to haul
> toilet paper.  Even the uparmored vehicle we have converted to aren't
> anything like this (perhaps armor 2, in Dirtside terms, and that's
> only around the crew compartment)  If you point out your support
> forces, you would find (rather rapidly) that they would be terribly
> expensive.
>
> John M. Atkinson
>   

Now that you mention it that is a really dumb error.  They'd be the most

over-equipped vehicles in history*.  *I'm going to have to downgrade 
them to slow GEV CFE with 1 armour.  What can I say - I like GEVs.