Cutlass for the Marines

[mike wightman]

Ever seen/read Starship Troopers? The bit where the recruit asks why they train with knives?

In the fourth film (the animated one) you get to see Rico make very good use of that lesson.

 

[salochin999]

Just re-watched Avatar for the first time since I saw it at the movies. In the climatic fight, the Colonel in the combat walker...uses a big knife! It's a secondary weapon used after he loses his slug thrower.

Yes, I think "Blade" skill pretty much always makes at least a little sense for any military character.

Although personally I'm happy with the idea of the marines using zero-g cutlass fighting for zero-g training and it turned into a galactic sport - gives players something to do during jump.

 

[sabredog]

Yes, I was meaning if YTU was the OTU. If you were using Traveller for John Carter on Mars for example it might not be a problem.

You misunderstand me - the OTU does give Marines cutlass as an automatic skill, therefore the cutlass is used in more than mere ceremonial fashion by Marines. If it was only ceremonial then why make it an automatic skill upon enlistment (so they were taught in Basic) instead of say, FGMP-14 or Battle Dress, and then maybe give cutlass only to officers instead of revolver?

Realistically, training for ceremonial duties isn't done in Basic, or at least what little in that area is trained certainly shouldn't qualify as the most important skill learned - like using a rifle. Which is what happens in Mercenary, but according to the rules in LBB's 4-6 nothing in those rules replaces the rules in LBB1. While this does create a paradox, it's not any worse than the co-existence of HG ships in an LBB2 universe so it doesn't mean some new canon replacing the old.

 

[rancke]

Does the title come with personal use lands to support oneself and/or the right to a share of the taxes (versus a salary) of the governed region?
If the answer to the second is yes, then it's a feudal relationship with whomever granted it.

Ah, I see. You're taking one aspect of feudal relationships and ignoring the rest and defining 'feudal relationship' by that one aspect.

Yes, if you ignore all the other aspects of feudal relationships, then Roman governors were, indeed, in feudal relationships. Only trouble with that is that there are other aspects to a feudal relationship than just that. But since we're down to a matter of definition, there's not much else to say except that I believe your definition is incorrect.

Feudalism is not a well defined term; all the online definitions I find (other than what you're spouting in various boards)...

What a nice way of putting it.

Here's an online definition (or part of one) of feudal relationships:

"Before a lord could grant land (a fief) to a tenant, he had to make that person a vassal. This was done at a formal and symbolic ceremony called a commendation ceremony composed of the two-part act of homage and oath of fealty. During homage, the lord and vassal entered a contract in which the vassal promised to fight for the lord at his command, whilst the lord agreed to protect the vassal from external forces, a valuable right in a society without police and with only a rudimentary justice system." [Wikipedia]​

I'm sure I don't need to point out how that aspect is lacking from all the relationships that I've claimed weren't feudal.

...boil down to "medieval european government" as a reference standard... which means little more than "The Crown gives title and governing authority, and expects service in return."

That's one big part of the feudal relationship: the land grant is the source of the loyalty required of the vassal. Roman citizens were expected to be loyal to the Republic with or without governmental appoinments. So, not feudal.


Hans

 

[salochin999]

You misunderstand me - the OTU does give Marines cutlass as an automatic skill, therefore the cutlass is used in more than mere ceremonial fashion by Marines. If it was only ceremonial then why make it an automatic skill upon enlistment (so they were taught in Basic) instead of say, FGMP-14 or Battle Dress, and then maybe give cutlass only to officers instead of revolver?

Realistically, training for ceremonial duties isn't done in Basic, or at least what little in that area is trained certainly shouldn't qualify as the most important skill learned - like using a rifle. Which is what happens in Mercenary, but according to the rules in LBB's 4-6 nothing in those rules replaces the rules in LBB1. While this does create a paradox, it's not any worse than the co-existence of HG ships in an LBB2 universe so it doesn't mean some new canon replacing the old.

I don't disagree with any of that so I must have not explained my earlier point clearly enough whatever it was.

 

[DickNervous]

The Long Night. In the dawn of the Third Imperium, the expanding Imperials met any number of cultures that were still in the roughly feudal period of technology (TL2-3). Frequently on such worlds, there were warrior-aristocrats. These guys basically didn't respect anyone who couldn't use a melee weapon as a peer. Such aristocrats were not necessarily stupid; they understood full well that the guy in BD with a VRF Gauss Gun would probably gun down an entire army of their singlehandedly, but their social view said that same fellow still wasn't worth spit if he couldn't fight as a "proper, honorable warrior." This obviously led to countless "incidents" and similar things that caused the trader-diplomats of the nascent Imperium problems. So eventually, it was simply decided that it'd be easier to train the marines to use cutlasses (if they just wore them, it'd cause even more problems - the dishonor of a sword being worn by a lackey who can't use it would cause the Imperium even more prestige loss as well as "diplomatic incidents" when the irate marines turned their rifles on the local warriors) so the marines could not only wear a "proper" weapon but could use it if called upon to demonstrate.

This an excellent way of explaining why the cutlass, or any bladed weapon would still be used by a high-tech society/military. In addition to those reasons bladed weapons are good in the following situations (several of which others already pointed out):

• When stealth is needed in close quarters. A blade (especially from behind) is even quieter than a silenced pistol.
• When you run out of ammo.
• To carry on planets where rifles and pistols are banned.
• Very close combat such as fighting in a stateroom, airlock, small rooms, or even ships corridor where even using a pistol may be difficult.
• When hitting a spectator is not an option
• When making a statement (like Obi-Wan in Mos Eisely Cantina) is beneficial.

Besides, I think they are just darn cool, especially when you consider that at TL12 you have thest two beauties available:

• Improved Static Sword which ignores the first two points of armor and does 3d6+2 damage (Heft:1, Mass:2kg)
• Monofillament Sword which is described as having "a cutting edge just 1 molecule thick" and is "as sharp as any physical object". All armor is halved in value (rounded down) and it does 3d6 damage (Heft:-2, Mass:.75kg).

So even against someone in Ceramic Alloy Battle Dress (TL14, Protection 16) it could be effective with a good roll. And considering that most enemies will probably have armor with protection levels in the 5-12 range (Improved Cloth to Combat Armor) it could be very effective.

Then, at TL14 there is the Arc-Field Sword which does 4d6+2 (Heft:0, Mass:2kg), which while it doesn't ignore armor, 4d6+2 is higher than most pistols.

 

[McPerth]

This an excellent way of explaining why the cutlass, or any bladed weapon would still be used by a high-tech society/military. In addition to those reasons bladed weapons are good in the following situations (several of which others already pointed out):

• When stealth is needed in close quarters. A blade (especially from behind) is even quieter than a silenced pistol.
• When you run out of ammo.
• To carry on planets where rifles and pistols are banned.
• Very close combat such as fighting in a stateroom, airlock, small rooms, or even ships corridor where even using a pistol may be difficult.
• When hitting a spectator is not an option
• When making a statement (like Obi-Wan in Mos Eisely Cantina) is beneficial.

Besides, I think they are just darn cool, especially when you consider that at TL12 you have thest two beauties available:

• Improved Static Sword which ignores the first two points of armor and does 3d6+2 damage (Heft:1, Mass:2kg)
• Monofillament Sword which is described as having "a cutting edge just 1 molecule thick" and is "as sharp as any physical object". All armor is halved in value (rounded down) and it does 3d6 damage (Heft:-2, Mass:.75kg).

So even against someone in Ceramic Alloy Battle Dress (TL14, Protection 16) it could be effective with a good roll. And considering that most enemies will probably have armor with protection levels in the 5-12 range (Improved Cloth to Combat Armor) it could be very effective.

Then, at TL14 there is the Arc-Field Sword which does 4d6+2 (Heft:0, Mass:2kg), which while it doesn't ignore armor, 4d6+2 is higher than most pistols.

While I agree in the situations you say a blade can be a good option, I have my doubts about cutlass being the best oprion in most of them (lack of maneuvering space, stealth, etc...). A shorter blade (a dagger or Bowie knife) would be quite better, IMHO, as untrained as I am in close combat (and, for what is worth, for any combat).

 

[BlackBat242]

While the Ka-Bar may well be a more-efficient fighting tool in close quarters, it just does not have the "I don't want to get close to that" factor that the Cutlass does, when dealing with a large unruly mob.

Often, when dealing with the general population, the "show" a weapon has is more important than its actual deadliness. If your weapon has a good enough intimidation factor you might not have to actually use it - while a less-impressive weapon may end up having to be used simply because the mob is not as afraid of it.

 

[WistfulD]

While the Ka-Bar may well be a more-efficient fighting tool in close quarters, it just does not have the "I don't want to get close to that" factor that the Cutlass does, when dealing with a large unruly mob.

Often, when dealing with the general population, the "show" a weapon has is more important than its actual deadliness. If your weapon has a good enough intimidation factor you might not have to actually use it - while a less-impressive weapon may end up having to be used simply because the mob is not as afraid of it.

I think that that is undoubtedly the primary reason for sabres (and all pre-gunpowder weapons) in a space campaign. They are used when you couldn't use other weapons for social reasons. (Of course all weapons become weapons of restraint when you can simply rain down death from above with ortillary).

 

[Easterner9504]

The cutlass has no value in fighting Zho's or Soli types. It is useful in fighting ragtag pirates in vacc. Cut and hisssssssssssssssssssssssssssss. Another one out of the fight, no collateral damage. That would be the only time to issue one, otherwise it just bangs your leg and gets in the way.

 

[Meeko100]

It seems to me that cutlasses are at least on boat for the reason of survival or SAR.

A cutlass isn't too different from a machete which isn't too different from a falchion which isn't too different from a messer. Be good to have some aboard if you end up having to chop some firewood, or hack through some wire to get at something on a derelict ship. Be good to have some in the survival kits.

As a weapon, perhaps to keep it as a sidearm in case you run out of bullets entirely. If you had to fight through the airlock or something along those lines, then having a weapon that you could fight with that was devoid of ammo would be smart. While a bayonet would be a better weapon for that, a cutlass would perform the same niche. Or they could be big sword bayonets, so when the rifle ran dry, you could just take the bayonet at hack at people if that be your wish.

 

[WistfulD]

It's also quiet and doesn't damage the ship much if you miss your target. so it has some more precision uses.

 

[Quint]

I always took at less about fighting other people in Combat Armor or Battledress and more about boarding actions against civvies (and navy rather than opposing marines), riot actions on the surface, and just generally creating a more fearsome and terrifying image.

The idea of a battledress-clad marine cleaving their way through folks, covered in gore, has that very Dune feel of "Imperial Terror Troops".

But, I've always seen the Imperial Marines as more WH40K-ish (because of the Battledress and FGMP's and Cutlasses) than some people have.

D.

 

[Epee]

I think that action against or rather involving civilians is the key. Consider contact with an alien race. They might not recognise a firearm or less-lethal weapon made for humans. But any tool-maker will recognise the uses of a severly acute inclined plane. Which by the way can be applied in varying forms and degrees; from prodding to slapping to full-on cut and thrust.

Of course the obvious answer is that it's fun to include it in the game.

 

[BwapTED]

I am still tempted to replace default Marine cutlass with shotgun skill.