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

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:02:30 -0700 (PDT) John Atkinson
<johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>--- warbeads@juno.com wrote:
>> Well, depends if it's your force or your opponent's
>> - I started to say
>> "his" but the distaff side of the hobby is
>> growing... Right, Beth?
>
>Even I found one. . . 
>
>OK, she's not a minis gamer, but I think I can change
>that.	:P
>

Excellent.

<snip>
>Backwards.  Colonial Forces with a single brigade or
>division responsible for an entire planet probably
>live and die by Semper Gumby!
>

AH, assumption difference!  I do not assume that. 

My setting has multiple groups (NPC, LLAR, PHR, NEA, IC, and RH) on a
slightly less than  Earth sized planet and with much smaller
sub-colonies
(PHR, NPC, LLAR) on  a dry slightly larger, drier planet in the same
system plus PHR, UNSC and NPC stations on the large moon that orbits the
'main' planet .  

And a backwater system at that.  The people putting the most money into
the planetside forces beyond  enough to have basic forces are the locals
(NPC because they have the most resources due to most land and largest
population, PHR because this is their 'Promised Land') and the IC (and
that ain't a bunch...) more because they see it as a symbol of their
importance then any return; with the NEA living off their own smaller
resources and FSE support, and the RH seeing it as a colony where new
officers get their first assignments and (out of favor) pre-retiring
officers get their last active duty assignments.  UNSC is meddling...
observing and doing 'research' on the planet.

>Forces in a
>> tropical zone probably
>> don't have a  lot of capability in adapting to
>> arctic conditions.  Units
>> intended for inter-continental warfare  more likely
>> would need and have
>> that capability.
>
>Why not?  After all, while it's not quite that
>extreme, look at the deployments of 10th Mountain from
>upstate New York to Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan. . .
>And the 25th sent units to Cobra Gold (exercise in
>Thailand) and then off to Afghanistan, and they are
>primarily tasked to support the war in Korea when it
>breaks out again.  
>

None of these are  anywhere near major power status (RH and IC assume
that role more by default then actual power.)

>> Well, I don't like the odds of a size 5 going down
>> due to evil chits. 
>
>I don't like the 459 point price of a first-class size
>4 tank.  Size 3 is the workhorse of my force.
>
>John
>

PHR have mostly 4 or 3 with sizes ranging from 1 to 5.	Standardization
is 'a goal'.

NPC run mostly size 4 to allow the organic infantry in many of their
vehicles.  
	Fair numbers  of Infantry Walkers too.

IC run almost exclusively size 2 or 3.

RH run mostly 3 but have a fair percentage of larger vehicles.

NEA mostly 1/2 or 5 (PA transporters with MDC/5. )  *  
	And a  strange attraction to Combat Walkers (I use rules from DS
group.)

LLAR Size 2 and 3 mostly.

* I don't personally like Size 5 because of the increased "Firer Down"
odds but the NEA likes them on their 'Extra Heavy Assault Tanks'...

Gracias,
Glenn

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!