Building Armies

[McPerth]

Commandos in the sense of Marine Commandos or army special forces?

If you mean Special Forces, this is easily represented by upgrading a BE to Elite status.

If Protected Forces are simply infantry with special capabilities why are they a separate branch?

It would be much simpler to have Protected Forces be a quality that is applies to a basic troop type like infantry to show they can function in extreme environment.

However I'm constrained by the rules as written. If Protected Forces are a Branch of the Army, or a troop type all of their own then I have to incorporate them in a way that makes the Maker OTU complient.

Well, you feel constrained by T5 rules, but on earlier sets (CT/MT) protected forces were just a special duty in Mercenary CharGen, while Commandos were a branch...

And no matter what RP CharGen rules are, when you're talking about a more strategic Wargame approach, simplicity may force you to change them, and that's OK. As you say yourself, it would be simpler to have Protected Forces just as a quality marquer (as in most Wargames are paratroopers, or air-lift infantry, just the infantry symbol with a marquer (usually wings) on it). That's how I'd treat them. Of course, as always, YMMV.

Yes Lift would be standard for the tech levels of the forces in FFW, but what if I want to generate an army for a TL6 world? Standard forces would reflect the TL of the world generating the troops.

Having said that I'm not locked in to using Standard as a modifier in the process. Maybe it works or maybe its confusing. I'll refine it as we go.

Just use what most wargames do:

• no marker: foot
• weels under they symbol: ground motor
• symbol underlined: grav lift (in Traveller wargames and in MT:RS tables).

Good point. There's a perennial debate on wheels vs. tracks, but differentiating the two may help the creator add detail to his or her army. Wheeled formations suggest speed and range. Tracked formations suggest heavier forces and greater mobility.

If I reduced mobility to:

- Foot
- Ground Vehicle
- Grav Vehicle
- Army Aviation (air craft organic to the ground forces not the airforce)

Would that be a better system?

I guess so, but I keep thinking aviation should be treated as Artillery. As unortodex (even heretic) this may seem, I guess the effect is more or less the same, being able to affect combat at long range without really movieng (as a unit) to it.

Maybe I' m affected by what one teacher that also liked those games told me when I was a teenager: Stukas were just long range and accurate artillery.

Jump troops are supposed to be a high TL analog to Paratroops. Paratroops jump out of aircraft, jump troops jump out of space craft.....

But of course paratroops rarely make large scale insertions by parachute today unless they can guarantee enemy air defenses are not a factor. I can see that for jump troops it would be the same. Unless planetary defenses are neutralized, no drop.

But in FFW jump troops may land even if the planetary defenses are not neutralized, and in I:E the full invasion is taken without neutralizing them too...

Side note: as for Jump troops being the High Tech equivalent to paratroopers, see that the Solomani jump divisions in I:E are numbered 82 and 101. Sounds familiar? (and see that the fact they are jump troops is irrelevant o nthe game ,as they are defending the planet).

Paratroops have other methods of entering the theater: air landing, helicopter assault, and other more conventional method: road, rail and sea.

So my version; Drop troops can insert by the classic jump from orbit, or be carried from orbit to the surface and air-landed by small craft or specialized landingcraft or they can assault from orbit using specialized "dropships" which not only carry them from orbit but support them on the ground.

For how invasions may be conducted, see the discussion about it in this thread.

I franky don't see much capsule jump in a grav environ, but YMMV, and that's for another thread discussion...

My vision is compatible with FFW and Invasion earth if Jump troops are considered "Lift" capable. That lift is provided by smallcraft.

I'd agree that they are probably only going to make one major descent per invasion. Although since Traveller tech makes getting to and from orbit easy I wouldn't rule out smaller scale movements.

I've never seen in I:E to return the jump troops to orbit to start another front, but that might not be a bad idea...

I'm very much patterning this on the way airborne troops actually operate today. Their principle value is their speed of deployment.

My idea is that mobility is how you get into combat, but you're correct that its important to know what their mobility is once they get there.

For Drop infantry they move from orbit to surface and then they continue as foot infantry. Again I'll point to the RIBs from GT:GF who are jump infantry but organised as light infantry i.e. no vehicles.

Note that my ArmyMaker also generates Drop Cavalry; drop troops that bring their armored vehicles with them in the tradition of the Russian VDV with their BMD armored vehicles. These would also be Jump troops with Lift mobilty in FFW and IE terms.

Why foot infantry?

In Traveller games they use to be grav lift infantry, once they have jumped. Be on grav vehicles or on grav belts, I guess that's what they should be (after all, at their TLs the "standard" mobility is grav lift).

Well see my earlier posts where I'm looking for assistance on this.

The tables in JTAS 10 generate Battalion Equivalents for ground forces.

They do not seem to account for any Wet Navy or COACC forces so I've asked above: should I use a portion of those BEs to build them or, as I'd favor, generate raw COACC Squadrons and Wet Navy Units in a separate pool. A modified form of Kilemall's formula might be the way to do this by figuring the proportion available in addition to the Ground Forces.

I guess both naval and air forces are depicted among the defense BEs and SDBs factors in FFW, and they are not in I:E.

And about total BEs, i guess that while tables in JTAS 10 or MT:RS are nice as a begining, but there may be quite a variation due to many factors.

While the first one that comes in mind is government digit, this may be missleading. jut to give some examples:

• A gov 7 is likely to make more BEs in the planet, as the diferent governments are likely to see others as a threat
• A dictatorship, OTOH, may want a large army, so that he can indoctrinate population in a military service, or may want a small profesional army so that it's more loyal to himself than to the population and few people are military trained (so difficulting a revolt).
• A democracy may see the army as an equalizer for social clases and establish a compulsory conscription (as the French Revolutionary Republic) or may want to have a small, profesional army
• A religious dictatorship may be militaristic or pacifist, depending on the tennets of its religion

This, cupled with other cultural and political factors may make the BE quite variable in reality.

One easy solution would be to modify the tables in JTAS 10 (or MT:RS) by 2d6-7 (or flux, as probabilities are the same, as Aramis has pointed several times) x 5%, so a random variability of -25% to +25%...

 

[Reban]

And no matter what RP CharGen rules are, when you're talking about a more strategic Wargame approach, simplicity may force you to change them, and that's OK.

Good point and noted.

Just use what most wargames do:

• no marker: foot
• weels under they symbol: ground motor
• symbol underlined: grav lift (in Traveller wargames and in MT:RS tables).

I think what were talking about their is standard NATO symbology for unit markers. There are quite a few other mobility options too.

I guess so, but I keep thinking aviation should be treated as Artillery. As unortodex (even heretic) this may seem, I guess the effect is more or less the same, being able to affect combat at long range without really movieng (as a unit) to it.

Maybe I' m affected by what one teacher that also liked those games told me when I was a teenager: Stukas were just long range and accurate artillery.

I can see your point, although in this case I was thinking of aircraft as a mode of transport. I'd push offensive aircraft to the COACC branch.

But in FFW jump troops may land even if the planetary defenses are not neutralized, and in I:E the full invasion is taken without neutralizing them too...

Side note: as for Jump troops being the High Tech equivalent to paratroopers, see that the Solomani jump divisions in I:E are numbered 82 and 101. Sounds familiar? (and see that the fact they are jump troops is irrelevant o nthe game ,as they are defending the planet).

I'm assuming the exact method of insertion would depend on the extent of defenses. For me Jump troops do not exclusively mean capsule assault.

For how invasions may be conducted, see the discussion about it in this thread.

I franky don't see much capsule jump in a grav environ, but YMMV, and that's for another thread discussion...

I think we're in agreement on that.

I've never seen in I:E to return the jump troops to orbit to start another front, but that might not be a bad idea...

You'd have to allow for withdrawal of the jump troops from combat and either rebuilding the formation with replacements or breaking it into small formations, and returning it to the assault ships before a second use, but its possible. If they have their own dropships or shuttles rather than using assault pods then I'd imagine it would be easier.

Why foot infantry?

In Traveller games they use to be grav lift infantry, once they have jumped. Be on grav vehicles or on grav belts, I guess that's what they should be (after all, at their TLs the "standard" mobility is grav lift).

Well rather than foot infantry think of them as Light Infantry, that is infantry without organic armoured transport.

They could be made lift infantry by attaching lift transport to them, or they could drop with grav transport i.e. Drop Cavalry from my earlier example.

Grav belts are cool. But its still the individual soldier and whatever they can carry in the same fashion as foot infantry but faster.

Good and all that Traveller combat armor and battldress are, a battalion of floating soldiers seems vulnerable to me. Its not the application I'd use grav-belts for.

It should be understood that although labelled Foot infantry it doesn't rule out having mobility enhancers. Present day paratroops have light trucks, ATVs, motorbikes, cargo-handling equipment etc. dropped with them, so jump troops with grav-belts, grav-bikes, and air/rafts is bound to be the case.

I guess both naval and air forces are depicted among the defense BEs and SDBs factors in FFW, and they are not in I:E.

And about total BEs, i guess that while tables in JTAS 10 or MT:RS are nice as a begining, but there may be quite a variation due to many factors.

While the first one that comes in mind is government digit, this may be missleading. jut to give some examples:

• A gov 7 is likely to make more BEs in the planet, as the diferent governments are likely to see others as a threat
• A dictatorship, OTOH, may want a large army, so that he can indoctrinate population in a military service, or may want a small profesional army so that it's more loyal to himself than to the population and few people are military trained (so difficulting a revolt).
• A democracy may see the army as an equalizer for social clases and establish a compulsory conscription (as the French Revolutionary Republic) or may want to have a small, profesional army
• A religious dictatorship may be militaristic or pacifist, depending on the tennets of its religion

This, cupled with other cultural and political factors may make the BE quite variable in reality.

One easy solution would be to modify the tables in JTAS 10 (or MT:RS) by 2d6-7 (or flux, as probabilities are the same, as Aramis has pointed several times) x 5%, so a random variability of -25% to +25%...

I agree here with your two overall points. One; that COACC and Wet Navy are assumed in the forces depicted in both FFW and IE, and two; that the table for generating BEs is only a starting point.

Since I'm using BEs as a way of adding colour and background I'm thinking COACC and Wet Navy should be fleshed out separately.

The GT:GF system does adjust the raw BEs as you suggest.

 

[Reban]

Inspiration struck:

• T5 has planetary mapping with detailed terrain types
• T5 VehicleMaker has a table of mobility types modified by terrain

Then reality set in because its slightly more complicated than that, but here's what I came up with:

T5 planetary mapping can be used to generate maps for the wargame aspect.

Next if we look at the Motive types in VehicleMaker we see the following:

T5 Motive Types:

Air Cushioned
Wheeled
Lifter/Grav/M-Drive
Tracked
Legged
Winged
Rotor
Flapper
Lighter-than-air
Person
Beast


Fifth Frontier War and Invasion Earth
Troop Types and Mobility

Infantry/Lift Infantry
Armored Infantry/Lift Infantry
Cavalry/Lift Cavalry
Armored Cavalry/Lift Cavalry
Tank/Grav Tank
Marine
Jump Troop
Guerrilla
Commando
Planetary Defenses

And there are modifiers for lift and wheeled (termed Motorized in the rules).

From the latter list I'd move Planetary Defenses and Marines to other branches. I don't propose to generate Guerillas, but knowing how many raw BEs are available on a world might help someone get an idea of how many could be present in a particular scenario.

Thinking about how the two might interact:

Lift Infantry would qualify for the Lifter/Grav/M-Drive Motive types
Motorized Infantry qualify for the Wheeled Motive types.
Plain Infantry would be Person Motive type


This is still a half formed thought but the various types of formation have a mobility that conforms to a T5 Motive type and hence interact with terrain in a different way and give an indication of the TL and vehicle equipment of the unit.

 

[McPerth]

Fifth Frontier War and Invasion Earth
Troop Types and Mobility

Infantry/Lift Infantry
Armored Infantry/Lift Infantry
Cavalry/Lift Cavalry
Armored Cavalry/Lift Cavalry
Tank/Grav Tank
Marine
Jump Troop
Guerrilla
Commando
Planetary Defenses

Again that depends on what you're looking for.

If a wargame, in those same games you say, the only differences among the units are for armored ones (be them infantry, cavalry or tanks), jump troops (marines being treated as such in I:E, not specifically so in FFW) and gerrilla (that even if you don't intend to use, you can see them also as irregutlar militas, at least on I:E use.

OTOH, if you intend to be background for RPG, there might be more kinds of troops that can be quite relevant. A militarized pólice (akin Spanish Guardia Civil, French Gerndarmes or Italian Carabinieri), while being military, can have some importance, as they are the most likely military units to interact with characters (aside from custoums, but in those countries they use to be part of those corps).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Step 1: On balkanised worlds, each nation averages 1% of popn in the armed forces. On non-balkanised worlds 0.25% of popn is in the armed forces. For worlds/nations above 1 billion popn multiply the total by 0.5

Most of Europe (balkanised) kept 10 - 15% of the population trained and mobilisable in a week or so for the last century. If you have hostile neighbours a small professional army just isn't enough. Britain and US could survive without armies because they had no land borders and superior navies (because they had no armies).

A world government would be like Britain; the Navy is the senior service and the Army is an afterthought.

States on a balkanised continent would be like Europe; massive Armies and the Navy is an afterthought.

 

[Enoki]

Most of Europe (balkanised) kept 10 - 15% of the population trained and mobilisable in a week or so for the last century. If you have hostile neighbours a small professional army just isn't enough. Britain and US could survive without armies because they had no land borders and superior navies (because they had no armies).

A world government would be like Britain; the Navy is the senior service and the Army is an afterthought.

States on a balkanised continent would be like Europe; massive Armies and the Navy is an afterthought.

This is where in Traveller you would get the difference between a land power (like Russia or Germany on Earth) or a sea power (Britain or Japan). Dual powers are very rare in history (America, Persia, Rome).

In Traveller most of the political entities would be more like sea powers than land powers. That is, you need a space going navy to defend things. Land military forces are mostly for defending planets and systems. The need of an offensive land military is limited to an expeditionary force to take a planet that can't be sieged from space (ie., "Marines").

So, you'd expect the bulk of spending is on space going ships both jump capable and not. For any smaller power or single system, the equivalent of a coast defense navy would be the norm.
The Army of any power would primarily be focused on things like planetary defense (coast defense is the analogy), garrison duty, and low intensity colonial and counter insurgency warfare.
The Marine portion would be focused on offensive warfare against well-defended targets so these troops would have far more firepower and be willing to take more casualties to get things done. If you don't want your own citizens doing this you hire mercenaries or establish something like the Foreign Legion, knowing these troops are going to only be used away from home so they're no threat to the established order locally.

The extent to which you need an army for defending a system depends on the threat to that system. For the most part, those that need the most defending are within one or two J4 jumps of a hostile border. Deeper into a polity than that is difficult for an invading space fleet to manage without meeting increasingly more defensive space fleets that now have more time to converge on the attacker who is getting into a situation where any ship that is damaged is essentially a loss in enemy territory.
So, systems deep within a large empire, like the 3I, don't need massive defenses. They need a garrison to keep the peace and not much else. Throw in some defense systems that can take on a ship or squadron but are in "caretaker" status where they cost little to maintain, and you are set. If a threat does appear, you have weeks to mobilize the necessary reserves to man them and get ready for action. Why spend cash on something that's likely never to be used?

So, it still comes down to where the individual system is and that the bulk of spending (I'd guess upwards of 80%) on military "stuff" and manpower would be into space going ships / systems, and heavy artillery for planetary defense not a standing (expensive and largely useless) army.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

In Traveller most of the political entities would be more like sea powers than land powers. That is, you need a space going navy to defend things. Land military forces are mostly for defending planets and systems.

For system or multi-system powers, certainly.

But powers on balkanised worlds with actual land borders would be land powers.

 

[Timerover51]

. . . . . .

Is this not true in most (if not outright all) wargames?

In most I've played they go to simply ignored to "you have to keep you supply lines open"...

If you are building armies, and also fleets, as proposed in this thread, then a reasonable figure for available funds for building or mobilizing additional units would be between 33 to 40 percent of available funds. There should also be a maximum force that can be built and supported by any individual planet. By early 1944, the US was disbanding some units created earlier in the war in order to maintain the maximum 90-division structure that had been determined on. By the end of 1944, the UK was scrapping the bottom of the barrel for replacements, and also breaking units up, while Germany in 1944 was using large numbers of non-Germans in its units. The following comes from the US Army Official History of World War 2 volume, Cross-Channel Attack.

Through increasing admixture with these three categories, Volksdeutsche, Freiwillige, and Hilfswillige, the "racial purity" of the German Army became more and more dilute. In 1944 the Army included as "volunteers" from occupied and allied territories: French, Italians, Croatians, Hungarians, Romanians, Poles, Finns, Estonians, Letts, Lithuanians, North Africans, Negroes, Asiatics, Russians, Ukrainians, Ruthenians, Kazaks, North-Caucasians, Georgians, Azerbaijani, Armenians, Turkomans, Volga-Tatars, Volga-Finns, Kalmucks, Crimean Tatars, and even Indians.

Also, the Attack war game has a fairly good system for simulating resources available for combat through its Oil Production Certificates. Each action taken during a turn requires the expenditure of Oil Production Certificates, with the expenditure cumulative. The first action costs one Oil Certificate, the second action two Oil Certificates, the third action three Oil Certificates, and so on. You start the game with 30 Oil Certificates in your stockpile, but can only replace them with production from Oil Production Cards, of which you might not have any, or only have a replacement production of one or two Oil Certificates per turn.

For Traveller, this could be converted in Resource Units required to support a set number of units or fleets, with additional Resource Units being required to support military actions. The farther away the action is taking place from a major base, the greater the cost in Resource Units. Will the players like it, no, as no combat commander ever liked being told that his grandiose ideas were impossible logistically. However, it will mean that someone who likes to overstretch things will find out how it feels to be Napoleon retreating from Moscow, or the Germans starving at Stalingrad, or the Japanese starving on Guadalcanal.

Edit Note: Definitions for the italicized words in the quote.

Volksdeutsche: "Racial Germans", especially from Poland, who were given conditional German citizenship and under this fiction made subject to the draft.

Recruiting was begun also in the occupied territories of Russia and units formed of the so-called Freiwilligen (volunteers).

In the late fall of 1941 Hitler authorized the employment of Russian prisoners in the German Army, formalizing a procedure already applied by field commanders. The majority of the Hilfswillige (auxiliaries) were employed as labor troops in war areas.

 

[Enoki]

For system or multi-system powers, certainly.

But powers on balkanised worlds with actual land borders would be land powers.

Agreed, but that's sort of the exception to the rule.

 

[kilemall]

Most of Europe (balkanised) kept 10 - 15% of the population trained and mobilisable in a week or so for the last century. If you have hostile neighbours a small professional army just isn't enough. Britain and US could survive without armies because they had no land borders and superior navies (because they had no armies).

A world government would be like Britain; the Navy is the senior service and the Army is an afterthought.

States on a balkanised continent would be like Europe; massive Armies and the Navy is an afterthought.

Well, this is where my hydrographics formula comes into play.


A 20% hydro world isn't going to have the navy be the senior service.

In a balkanized situation I guess I would quantify the percentage of the world's hydrology the nation-state is interested/trading/conquering and calculate that vs. the land area of the nation for a percentage.

 

[whartung]

All good points. However I'm a fan of KISS: keep it simple spaceman and MOARN: Make Only As Needed (and acronyms in general) so personaly I'd make some of those factors "Guidance to the creator" items, rather than incorporate them in the Maker process.

The only problem with KISS in cases like this is that KISS is great for background color.

Where it falls down is when it's tested. This is what was learned in TCS when folks took the "economics" of the Islands Cluster and applied it to the Imperium.

Come up with generic rules for everything, and someone is going to apply them on a broad scale, then highlight where everything breaks down. And try to understand why the numbers don't match canon, etc.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Well, this is where my hydrographics formula comes into play.


A 20% hydro world isn't going to have the navy be the senior service.

I meant Space Navy, not Wet Navy. Only a balkanised world would bother much with planet-bound forces.

In a balkanized situation I guess I would quantify the percentage of the world's hydrology the nation-state is interested/trading/conquering and calculate that vs. the land area of the nation for a percentage.

The state's geopolitical position, basically borders, determine what it needs most (Army or Navy). Two powers sharing a small continent will need to prioritise the Army even on a water world. Few powers will have the luxury of a major Army and a major Navy.


My basic point was that 1% of the population in the armed forces is an underestimation of what can be achieved should the need arise.

 

[Enoki]

In terms of population, a military can run up to about 10% of the total. Half that is about the maximum for quality troops. If on the other hand, you take whatever shows up short of being completely useless, you can go to 10, maybe even 20%, but you end up with all the incompetents, dregs, physically challenged, along with teenagers and the elderly.

A draft that has high standards will reject 30 to 50% of those drafted for something or another, most commonly medical issues and mental incompetence / instability.

 

[Condottiere]

Depending on diplomatic tensions on a balkanized water world, most navies are likely paramilitary coast guards.

They may separate a second strike strategic element, whose primary job is to get lost in the deeps, either as promised retaliation and/or assets that a first strike, either local or from planetary bombardment, can't immediately take out.