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

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:04:30 +1000 <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au> writes:
>G'day,
>
>More from Brian ;)
>
<snip>
>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?
> 

Thank you.

<snip>
>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.  
> 

I heartily ascribe to that model being as common (or more so) as the one
power planet model.  If nothing else it allows drop troops from the same
planet (how many minor powers have lots of assets (as in multiple
planets
simultaneously) for space to ground assault?)

>>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 this assumes you get to shape your force for that foe.  When
you get a force already designed and several possible foes (as in Cotu
where only the LLAR and NPC don't seem to be at each other's throats but
all other groups are possible to find in opposition to any other group
on
planet) the changes you can make are significantly small.

>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.
> 

I have yet to set down the definitive organization for the "Great Bear
State" force when technoly is mixed at Company and Battalion level. 
Since, IIRC,  the name has been taken already I need to come up with a
variant - The Grizzly Bear Confederation maybe... Or Golden Bear
State.... or ???

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!