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

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

From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@g...>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:41:02 +0300
Subject: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

On 7/13/08, Adrian1 <> wrote:

> The original reason for choosing wheeled CFE was because that was the
> lowest tech option.  It should theoretically be possible to repair and
> resupply the equipment using local resources - SLAMs are low tech dumb
> fire weapons that could be supplied locally too.  Like most theories
> though, fact just doesn't fit.

CFE, on the other hand, requires refined hydrocarbons, and HMT is
worse.	FGP runs on water, and not much of that.  If you're worried
about logistics, you're best off with FGP.

> I was hoping for a modular design where if say a turret was damaged,
> could just take an undamaged turret from a identical vehicle that had
> suffered different damage.  This wouldn't have any effect in a battle,
> jus the campaign.  If you had forty identical damaged vehicles, you
> could take the working modules and make a few working vehicles quickly
> instead of trying to repair each one seperately.

Generally BDAR is a bit more complicated than that.  It's also a hell
of an job taking the turret off a vehicle.

> That goes to prove my post was very badly worded.  In my mind, militia
> troops are fully combat capable troops who lack experience (similar to
> the US national guard or UK territorials both of whom can serve in war
> zones).  They will as time goes by become regualars.	Policing and
> paramilitary stuff is left to the locals.

Then can you politically sell making them use crap gear?  Seriously?
Both the US and UK arm reserve component troops who are actually
deployed to the same standard as Regulars.  When it comes to vehicles,
if you are planning to integrate them in the same theater of combat,
you do NOT want three seperate logistical chains hauling different
types of fuel, lubricants, spare parts, etc.

> First is that I reckon good campaign construction and supply rules
> should make variety a real pain to deal with.  To make this have an
> effect, the items built are tracked through the supply lines and can
> lost to enemy action.   So it's not impossible for a force to be in
> urgent need on GEVs for desert warfare but end up with boats.  I know
> this sounds (and is) complicated but I always preferred the campaign
> the battles anyway.

The humor in this statement in only explicable if I mention that
across the parking lot from the building I work in is the offices of a
Navy Riverine detachment.  Why would you design a force that is
deliberately set up to cause confusion in your logistical areas?  I'd
be pretty bored by a game where your vehicles don't move because your
last fuel resupply convoy brought you five water tankers instead of

> Secondly is the combined arms problem.  I'm absolutely terrible at
> it.  I can deal with it ok but I just can't effectively USE it.  I'm
> much better at using Jack-of-all-trades tactics and equipment than
> specialist equipment.  The less variety, the better I am.

I really don't understand this.  To me it seems MORE complex and
difficult to use tanks that carry infantry than it is to use tanks and
infantry carriers.  You don't have to decide how you want each
particular platoon to act today, you already know what role you are
going to put them in.

I'm going to out on a limb and guess you've never done anything with
historical or modern gaming?

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