Boarding Actions: Do those really happen?

[PathfinderAP]

Well how the Navy reacts to pirats taking hostages is each GM's decision. Mine would be a nice ultimatum like "You have 20 minutes to release the hostages. Refuse to do it or try to move/fire up your reactors and you'll be fired apon" followed by a nuklear tipped missile shortly after the ultimatum ends.

Yes, I loose between 14 and 26 personal. But pirats quickly learn that taking marines hostage means death. Similar to what ElAl did with armored cockpit doors and a "don't yield" policy. You can blow their planes up but you can't take them.

The rest is a matter of codes, fake codes, alarm codes etc.

1)He wouldn't just "kill" his own people like that, put them in harms way yes, but never kill by his own hand, (they are his responsibility, and he would be made to account for all deaths) and if he managed to behavior in your way, that officers career would no doubt be a very short one, (you are thinking like a merc, big difference)

2) After spacing the dead marines to show the will to follow through,
I would tell them the facts,
I will space any or all marines should you continue ANY act of aggression,
On reaching the jump point I will release the marines unharmed,

Each of the marines will be released with full comm's but little oxygen,
delay picking them up, they die,

END COMM'S (no discussion, no further comm's)

3) Start up the engines and move to the jump point,
dropping of the odd marine (alive) on the way, for them to pick up,
as a sign of good will, but mostly to tie them up

4) If they fire, return fire and space half the marines
inform via comm's, the other half will follow (I never ever bluff, so don't force my hand)




btw this is nothing like "armored cockpit doors and a "don't yield" policy. You can blow their planes up but you can't take them"

But I will not discuss those sort of tactics, (and its Pirates with an E )

 

[sabredog]

I use a hostage policy like the one we have at work: we won't negotiate for their release any longer than it takes to get ready for a dynamic entry. Civilian hostages are treated differently in that we will take a little more time, but as we tell our recruits: its tough being a hostage. We trust the tac team knows what it's doing and we know the best chance to get out alive is to make sure the bad guys know the only way they are going to survive the experience is to surrender and not harm the hostage officer.

But we don't rush in and kill the hostages, we don't throw grenades in and kill everyone - we make it a waiting game until we are ready to go in and take down the threats. The longer the hostages are in there, the more likely it is that some of them are going to just get hurt by the bad guys as the pressure amps up, so we try to get it done as soon as we can.

 

[rancke]

1)He wouldn't just "kill" his own people like that, put them in harms way yes, but never kill by his own hand, (they are his responsibility, and he would be made to account for all deaths) and if he managed to behavior in your way, that officers career would no doubt be a very short one, (you are thinking like a merc, big difference)

If it's Navy/Marine Corps policy not to give in to hostage takers, his career would be a lot shorter if he gave in. As mbrinkhues says, it depends entirely on "company policy".

2) After spacing the dead marines to show the will to follow through,
I would tell them the facts,
I will space any or all marines should you continue ANY act of aggression,
On reaching the jump point I will release the marines unharmed,

Each of the marines will be released with full comm's but little oxygen,
delay picking them up, they die,

END COMM'S (no discussion, no further comm's)

Goodbye. If it's Imperial policy not to give in to hostage takers, you WILL be shot to pieces. And the whole point of such a policy is that you'd know that ahead of time. The purpose of the policy would be to make everyone know that just as you don't step off a cliff without a safety device, because gravity WILL kill you, you don't try to use Imperial servicemen as hostages, because the Imperial forces WILL kill you.

If the captain doesn't kill you, he'll be betraying every Imperial serviceman that you and others like you will be encouraged to to take hostage in the future.


Hans

 

[PathfinderAP]

I use a hostage policy like the one we have at work: we won't negotiate for their release any longer than it takes to get ready for a dynamic entry.

True, but maybe we shouldn't be talking about this...

Civilian hostages are treated differently in that we will take a little more time, but as we tell our recruits: its tough being a hostage. We trust the tac team knows what it's doing and we know the best chance to get out alive is to make sure the bad guys know the only way they are going to survive the experience is to surrender and not harm the hostage officer.

True again

But we don't rush in and kill the hostages, we don't throw grenades in and kill everyone - we make it a waiting game until we are ready to go in and take down the threats. The longer the hostages are in there, the more likely it is that some of them are going to just get hurt by the bad guys as the pressure amps up, so we try to get it done as soon as we can.

You know your stuff, thats also True,


(israeli anti terrorist actions expect to loose up to over half of the hostages though o

 

[PathfinderAP]

If it's Navy/Marine Corps policy not to give in to hostage takers, his career would be a lot shorter if he gave in. As mbrinkhues says, it depends entirely on "company policy".

He would not be giving in to demands as such,
but buying time to get his people back (which would be his prime focus, big difference, you really think he would just kill his own people?)

Goodbye. If it's Imperial policy not to give in to hostage takers, you WILL be shot to pieces.

Maybe, maybe not, thats the difference in confronting governmental vs mercenary, (mercs are unstable and could do anything, governmental branchs have a set protocol and tend to be more professional

And the whole point of such a policy is that you'd know that ahead of time.

But thats only your assumption of the policy, and the understanding and execution of such policies,

The purpose of the policy would be to make everyone know that just as you don't step off a cliff without a safety device, because gravity WILL kill you, you don't try to use Imperial servicemen as hostages, because the Imperial forces WILL kill you.

Well yeah I really expect he will try,

If the captain doesn't kill you, he'll be betraying every Imperial serviceman that you and others like you will be encouraged to to take hostage in the future.


Hans

What?! LOL, so its not a betrayal to kill his own people?
Its an Officers duty to maintain the safety and survival of the people under his command to the best of his abilities at all times,

It would be almost impossible to justify such an action as killing your own in the attempt of trying to capture a criminal,

 

[mbrinkhues]

Actually the Russian Anti-Terrorist forces have a reverse policy: "Get the terrorists!" is their main objective. "Save the hostages" is a nice add-on but not required. As shown i.e in the attack on the theater a few years back.

And Imperial Marines are portrait (at least in MT/TNE) as quite "nuke happy" (PeaceMAKERS not PeaceKEEPERS) so I would not rule out a similar policy. Even more so given the Vilanie element that views certain types of troops as "Expendabel" (GT: ISW)

After all you won't have to do and broadcast that all that often until even Joe Stupid understands that "Take boarding team hostage == DEATH!"

As for the betrayal: Depends on wether the troops know up front or not. Sacrificing some soldiers has been done in history often enough both in attack and defence. And you don't need fanatics for that either. So if the Imperium is up front about the "No hostages, no negotiations" element I can't see a problem (Marines are volunteers after all) An officer should try to keep losses down but sometimes you need to loose 9 Shermans so that number 10 can get the side-shot at the Panther blocking the main route/bridge/pass(1). MOUT/FIBUA is murder but sometimes you must send in the troops and do it anyway because tanks can't flush that enemy squad and bombs/artillery will only produce more cover for them.

(1) Actually the Panther crew is an other example. They hold that bridge/pass/road to give their unit time to withdraw in order knowing that they likely won't make it but consider it a sensible sacrifice.

 

[mbrinkhues]

1)He wouldn't just "kill" his own people like that, put them in harms way yes, but never kill by his own hand, (they are his responsibility, and he would be made to account for all deaths) and if he managed to behavior in your way, that officers career would no doubt be a very short one, (you are thinking like a merc, big difference)

2) After spacing the dead marines to show the will to follow through,
I would tell them the facts,
I will space any or all marines should you continue ANY act of aggression,
On reaching the jump point I will release the marines unharmed,

Each of the marines will be released with full comm's but little oxygen,
delay picking them up, they die,

END COMM'S (no discussion, no further comm's)

3) Start up the engines and move to the jump point,
dropping of the odd marine (alive) on the way, for them to pick up,
as a sign of good will, but mostly to tie them up

4) If they fire, return fire and space half the marines
inform via comm's, the other half will follow (I never ever bluff, so don't force my hand)




btw this is nothing like "armored cockpit doors and a "don't yield" policy. You can blow their planes up but you can't take them"

But I will not discuss those sort of tactics, (and its Pirates with an E )

Actually it's exactly the same. You can't achive your target (Take hostages in the ElAl case, get away in the Traveller case). Sure, you can kill some of mine but you WILL die in the process. Simply because when you try to do 3) (Start engines, that takes some time in Traveller) you'll eat a contact nuke and die. Number 4 never happens.

It's carrot(1) and stick approach with the idea that pirats go somewhere else/attack someone safe

(1) AFAIK/IIRC Traveller does not have the death penalty. I never found an indication pre Rebellion, just lot's of prison planets

 

[rancke]

1)4) If they fire, return fire and space half the marines
inform via comm's, the other half will follow (I never ever bluff, so don't force my hand)

But what if you know for a fact that the Imperial Navy never ever bluff and that it's a really bad idea to force their hand?

See what I did there?



Hans

 

[PathfinderAP]

Sigh,

Beating a deceased Equus here

Well each to their own, etc



It just makes me thankful for have having a Good GM,

 

[sabredog]

Sigh,

Beating a deceased Equus here

Well each to their own, etc



It just makes me thankful for have having a Good GM,

I agree, the meat's off the bones by now.

Back on track....since the game is a, well, game after all....why not have boarding actions? A lot of this thread has been spent in describing why nobody seems to want to have them or because they are not realistic, but why not? They are fun, give players and ref's a chance to use all those nifty snub guns and cutlasses and are the stuff of sci-fi adventure.

As for my part - they happen, most civilian ships are not armed, though the crew might be. If a pirate or privateer ordered the captain to heave to and prepare to be boarded the merchie captain might just shrug and say ok, its' not his cargo.

In tradewars passengers are off limits, and if pirates assault the passengers I can only quote the words of Thomas Truxtun upon issuing orders for America's first cruise against the French in 1798:

"Nothng is said in your instructions respecting pirates. You know how to treat them."

 

[PathfinderAP]

Back on track....since the game is a, well, game after all....why not have boarding actions? A lot of this thread has been spent in describing why nobody seems to want to have them or because they are not realistic, but why not?

But they are realistic if done in the right way (I don't know how anyone could say its not), and the fact is, thats what Marines are for, boarding (amongst other things)

 

[PathfinderAP]

But what if you know for a fact that the Imperial Navy never ever bluff and that it's a really bad idea to force their hand?

See what I did there?



Hans

But if you knew that for a fact, it wouldn't be forcing their hand,
it would be a predictable outcome, if you do X, then they always do Y in response, it becomes predictable, nothing forced about it, because there is no other choice they Always do the same thing.....

See what I did there?


If you really need a solution to this, (its really a railroady bad GM issue)
but if the navy in your game behaviored in such manner,

Then forget about guns, forget about boarding (cuz its not an option in "some" games) instead get large Freighter and fill the hold with nothing but spare gas "fuel cells" bags, once they get within weapons range, don't wait to get hit, just jump, misjumping away is better than getting in to a shooting match with a navy ship, and you get to use the spare fuel for a chance home,

 

[rancke]

But if you knew that for a fact, it wouldn't be forcing their hand, it would be a predictable outcome, if you do X, then they always do Y in response, it becomes predictable, nothing forced about it, because there is no other choice they Always do the same thing.....

Exactly my point. It would prevent you from embarking on such a suicidal course of action, which means no marines get killed after all.

You do know that there are both historcal and fictional examples of people and organizations with just that attitude, right?

If you really need a solution to this, (its really a railroady bad GM issue)...

It's a "mbrinkhues made a valid suggestion, you dismissed it on faulty grounds, I was bored enough to express my opinion" issue. Now, if you had objected to the notion on the grounds that it was bad GM'ing, you'd've been on much firmer grounds.

Mind you, if the GM lets you know about such a Navy policy far enough in advance to affect your choices, it's not railroading. If he springs it on you after you've taken marine hostages, that would certainly be bad GM'ing!


Hans

 

[PathfinderAP]

Exactly my point. It would prevent you from embarking on such a suicidal course of action, which means no marines get killed after all.

No, not at all, thats like saying an automatic death sentence deters killers,
not the case, it just makes them more desperate, they still kill,

Any marines boarding risk getting killed (or you just would not need them would you?) hence the armour and weapons,

If that wasn't the case you could just send over a lone unarmed or armoured officer, and hope they don't kill him because if they do they will destroy the ship.....

You do know that there are both historcal and fictional examples of people and organizations with just that attitude, right?

Anything can happen in fiction, so thats hardly a yardstick,
And historcally, Only in the extremes, and even then it tends to bo the last choice, get a perspective, if it was to win a war, or save a planet then okay,
but to knowingly and willingly kill your own people just to try to capture a few criminals, I don't think so..

Think about it, say you take a small navy ship,
all the crew are hostages, you think the navy will just try and bomb and kill everyone on board?, really?

It's a "mbrinkhues made a valid suggestion, you dismissed it on faulty grounds, I was bored enough to express my opinion" issue. Now, if you had objected to the notion on the grounds that it was bad GM'ing, you'd've been on much firmer grounds.

Mind you, if the GM lets you know about such a Navy policy far enough in advance to affect your choices, it's not railroading. If he springs it on you after you've taken marine hostages, that would certainly be bad GM'ing!


Hans

Its about being fair and realistic within the setting,
and not enforcing on the players some sort of short sighted and unrealistic point of view,

which can end up as the worst kind of Mary-Sue Rail Road trips ever

 

[rancke]

If that wasn't the case you could just send over a lone unarmed or armoured officer, and hope they don't kill him because if they do they will destroy the ship.....

How do you think a captain secures a ship that has surrendered? Usually not with a single unarmed officer, true, but quite often with a boarding party that's weaker than the crew of the ship.

And historcally, Only in the extremes, and even then it tends to bo the last choice, get a perspective, if it was to win a war, or save a planet then okay, but to knowingly and willingly kill your own people just to try to capture a few criminals, I don't think so..

You know what? Believe what you like. I could dig out a bunch of historical examples, but I strongly suspect each one would fail in some way to measure up to your standards of rational behavior, so I really can't be bothered.

Oh, I might as well mention the first example I did dig out before realizing I couldn't be bothered: The Knights Templar had a strict rule against paying ransoms. It got them killed on the battlefields where their temporal allies were taken prisoner. It may or may not have contributed to their effectiveness as fighters. Was it worth while? Depends on for who. For the ones that got killed, probably not. But for the Templars as an organization? They certainly believed it.

Think about it, say you take a small navy ship, all the crew are hostages, you think the navy will just try and bomb and kill everyone on board?, really?

What navy? The Israeli Navy? Hirohito's Navy? The Russian Navy? What circumstances? Your question is so broad as to be meaningless.

BTW, when was the last time you heard of a police force who had surrounded a bank with robbers and hostages inside who let the robbers escape? How often does that happen? And when it happens, how often is it done contrary to policy?

Its about being fair and realistic within the setting, and not enforcing on the players some sort of short sighted and unrealistic point of view...

Assumes unproven fact, namely that all people think like you. Such a policy would be the opposite of short-sighted, it would be taking the long view. As for unrealistic, it's not at all unrealistic that some people might consider such a policy a good idea (Note: Whether it is or is not a good idea is irrelevant. It doesn't have to be a good idea for someone to think it is).


Hans

 

[PathfinderAP]

Nope, nope, and no, not sure whether it's that you can't understand, or don't want too, but this will be the last post on this subject either way,

How do you think a captain secures a ship that has surrendered? Usually not with a single unarmed officer, true, but quite often with a boarding party that's weaker than the crew of the ship.

Now that is a poor attempt to twist
The key word in that example is "surrendered"

You know what? Believe what you like. I could dig out a bunch of historical examples, but I strongly suspect each one would fail in some way to measure up to your standards of rational behavior, so I really can't be bothered.

Oh, I might as well mention the first example I did dig out before realizing I couldn't be bothered: The Knights Templar had a strict rule against paying ransoms. It got them killed on the battlefields where their temporal allies were taken prisoner. It may or may not have contributed to their effectiveness as fighters. Was it worth while? Depends on for who. For the ones that got killed, probably not. But for the Templars as an organization? They certainly believed it.

Thats a very poor example that hardly relates to the policy of a modern military organization, in those savage days they still burnt people for being witchs, hardly a sane state

What navy? The Israeli Navy? Hirohito's Navy? The Russian Navy? What circumstances? Your question is so broad as to be meaningless.

Didn't know I had to spell it out for you, Try any modern navy (for a start)

BTW, when was the last time you heard of a police force who had surrounded a bank with robbers and hostages inside who let the robbers escape? How often does that happen? And when it happens, how often is it done contrary to policy?

But do the police ever try killing everyone in the bank?
another poor example

Assumes unproven fact, namely that all people think like you. Such a policy would be the opposite of short-sighted, it would be taking the long view. As for unrealistic, it's not at all unrealistic that some people might consider such a policy a good idea

Not unproven fact, you should go study the facts on hostage taking and Negotiators, I have never heard of any hostage situation where they choose to kill everyone as a solution, you can guaranty that would make world news,

Do your homework

(Note: Whether it is or is not a good idea is irrelevant. It doesn't have to be a good idea for someone to think it is)

evidently so......

 

[rancke]

Didn't know I had to spell it out for you, Try any modern navy (for a start)

E.g. the Israeli Navy, the US Navy, and the Russian Navy. Got you. All three nations have or recently had, a strict policy of not negotiating with hostage-takers. In the case of the US, various circumstances have, on occasion, caused the US to deviate from that policy, and even the Israeli has given in on one known occasion, but they did have that policy. I imaging that their navies all had the same policies as their respective governments, don't you?

Incidentally, your insistence of only accepting modern examples is suspect. Thanks to the speed of news distribution and the democratic government form, the US, Israel, and even Russia are far more subject to public opinion than the Imperium, so examples from earlier days are far more analogous.

Not unproven fact, you should go study the facts on hostage taking and Negotiators, I have never heard of any hostage situation where they choose to kill everyone as a solution,

Nor have I, but I've heard of a lot where they chose to risk getting some or all of them killed. If you want to do a little homework, try googling 'hostage-taker' and 'assault'.

...you can guaranty that would make world news,

It did. If you'd done your homework, you'd know that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis

Do your homework

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Bravo! Good one! For sheer audacious irony you're never going to top that one.



Hans

 

[PathfinderAP]

In response to you rancke, and not the subject issue of this thread,

That is one of the lamest things to try to win and argument I think I've ever seen man, you are counting on me not replying, in a poor attempt to make me look wrong, (ie didn't reply = must be wrong)

I don't know if you are a kid or what, but do your homework before you start yapping about something you know little about, (and wiki will not save your arss)

I also think you underestimate people's intelligence,

 

[mbrinkhues]

I can't see where the railroading is. The only thing the players can't do is take an Imperial Boarding crew hostage. Since a pirat or smuggler should try NOT to meet those guys in the first place, run from them in the second and NOT fight them at all, where's the problem?

Remember even a small Imperial Warship (say a destroyer) can and will likely blow a pirat to pieces in the first pass given it's heavy armament and nukes.

And ever since HMAS Sydney warships DO know the dangers.

================================

Oh and pathfinder: I recommend reading that link (or researching the incident on your own - it's well documented and I've referenced to it earlier too) It's a prime example of a state putting "kill the criminals" before everything else. Checking the whole "Tschetschian Terrorist and Russian Response" theme will give you more. Including flattening a town with rocket artillery to get a Tschetschian Terrorboss.

Or research "Forlone Hope in the Napoleonic Era" for a rather modern western military sending troops to a missiob (Storming a breach) where most of them, quite likely all, will die. Even Wellington did it (Badajoz)

 

[far-trader]

In response to you rancke, and not the subject issue of this thread,

That is one of the lamest things to try to win and argument I think I've ever seen man, you are counting on me not replying, in a poor attempt to make me look wrong, (ie didn't reply = must be wrong)

I don't know if you are a kid or what, but do your homework before you start yapping about something you know little about, (and wiki will not save your arss)

I also think you underestimate people's intelligence,

Careful Pathfinder, this is approaching the level of a personal attack:

"response to you rancke, and not the subject" frames it as such and,

"counting on me not replying, in a poor attempt to make me look wrong" is an accusatory presumption on your part

You were the one who tried to make it a fait accompli* by saying previous to this that it was your last word on the subject. That is your decision to not continue but you can't seriously expect others to simply drop it or accuse them of trying to make points by anticipating you won't respond, nor that anyone would think because you didn't that you were admitting they had won.

* if I interpret this reply correctly