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

John Atkinson wrote:
> On 7/13/08, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk> 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'm taking the rules far too literally then.  They say that CFEs can run

on Oil, Alcohol or synthetic based fuels.  I know alcohol is rather easy

to get hold of and make but don't know if there's a specific type of 
alcohol needed.  I know nothing about synthetics but presumably you 
don't have to find the raw material like you do with oil.  I don't know 
what a HMT uses for fuel (other than a power cell).   The name suggests 
water.
>> I was hoping for a modular design where if say a turret was damaged,
you
>> 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.
>   
So when something is "modular", it relates less to its maintainance and 
more to ease if building a variety during initial construction?  That 
is, if a factory is biulding a modular design, the customer can request 
a specific vehicle design by asking for different modules and not have 
to start from the ground up.

>   
>> 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.
>   
I was oddly enough using the US army as a role model.  Up until a few 
years ago, the US army used Bradleys while the national guard used 
M113s.	I don't consider the M113 as a bad crap vehicle, just last 
generation and perfectly suitable for many situatons.

I suspect the main reason the national gaurd suddenly got Bradleys is 
because its become easier to get vehicles than troops at the present 
moment and they appear to have a surplus.

>   
>> 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
be
>> 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
to
>> 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
> diesel.
>
>   
Thats why I asked for ideas, I want to iron out the problems.  Best 
people to ask are experienced people who can see the glaring errors.

>> Secondly is the combined arms problem.  I'm absolutely terrible at
using
>> 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?
>
> John
>   

Oddly enough, I have.  In games that used horse cavalry, I quickly found

out that I am NOT a cavalry commander.	Give me infantry however, and 
I'm not so bad.  I'm vastly better at defending than attacking.

In WW1 games I was ok and could avoid WW1 casualty rates even when 
attacking (again not if it was cavalry).  Tanks weren't a problem since 
they were little more than mobile pillboxes moving at infantry speed.

Modern games proved that just because the cavalry didn't have four legs,

it didn't make me a good cavalry commander.  I lost a LOT of armour in 
most of my attacking battles.	

Got to admit though that most of my modern wargames were done using PC 
games called Steel Panthers and Operational art of war from the early 
90s.  Neither my opponent nor me could afford proper model armies so we 
used software and email.  It worked

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l