Prev: Re: [GZG] Living rulebooks Next: Re: [GZG] And now for something completely different...

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

From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@g...>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:39:55 +0300
Subject: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

On 7/11/08, Adrian1 <> 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

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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
> 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

John M. Atkinson
"Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain them again
and again.  We're looking for thousands of Persians."
--Vita Aureliani

Gzg-l mailing list

Prev: Re: [GZG] Living rulebooks Next: Re: [GZG] And now for something completely different...