Marines Without Battledress

[mike wightman]

So it does, I should have looked in the rulebook instead of the RCES Equipment guide (but that would have involved moving from my chair...).

In MT the battlesuit is introduced at TL10 as well.

 

[BetterThanLife]

They have one advantage over Army in other rulesets. They are trained to a higher TL standard than local troops. (Well that is an IMTU interpretation but it is implied.) They are an Imperial force and the Army is a local Colonial force. So the Marines have deeper pockets. Otherwise the skill sets are similar. Though the MArines have a better chance of getting either Vacc Suit or Battledress, making a greater proportion of Marines BD capable. It isn't really teh skill set that sets the IM apart from the Army, in MTU at least, it is the way they are deployed and the support they have.

Originally posted by Aramis:
Bhoins: Your assertions that the marines are trained very well is not borne out by any non-GT CG rulesets. They are comparably trained to Army personell, with very different emphasis.

Cultass, rather than Rifle.
Vacc Suit 0.

Sounds like, to me, the basic CG marines are very much ship's security.

Yes, they get access to rifle. They even (under MT) get access to Battledress in Basic CG (Spl Combat).

But nowhere in the rules of non-GT traveller does it make the marines better trained than the army... and the army, well, is a collection of various local forces.

I think far too many take the view that US Marines are an elite force, and therefore the IM's are an Elite Force. I disagree with both assertions. At least the latter is seemingly asserted by GT, by the expense of the marine package.

 

[aramis]

If one is being a rules-nazi, it's important to correct one word in the following:

They have one advantage over Army in other rulesets. They are trained to a higher TL standard than local troops.

That to needs to be "at", not "to".

A very subtle and sometimes important distinction. Training at TL 15 means no penalty for TL14-16 equipment, +1 diff for TL 9-13 (two tech labels), etc. A TL10 native joining the IMC would probably have any skills learned (aside from background skills) at TL15, but would be at TL10 for unlearned skills or background skills, and all TL11-13 equipment is at +1 diffmod in any case for the poor SOB.. (1 cat above native, 1 cat below trained.)

To be honest, most GM's ignore the Diff mods for TL in both MT and TNE. I don't recall if they are in T20, T4 or CT. GT is actually much more formal with TL penalties (and all skills have a TL assumed by homeworld, and learning at other TL's is specified as such), but the relative TL's of the discussion are GTTL10-12...

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
They have one advantage over Army in other rulesets. They are trained to a higher TL standard than local troops.

A higher standard than some local troops, not all local troops. Some troops are local to TL 15 worlds. Duchy armies are even likelier to be trained at TL 15, since they just need one TL15 world (with a decent population) to supply their needs.

And high-population worlds with lower TLs are still likely to have some TL15 troops (if only the High Panjandrum's Guard).


Hans

 

[BetterThanLife]

I stand corrected. (And it looks kind of funny.

)

But being a rules Nazi, remember the following that a major difference between Marines and Army is the ready availability of either the Vacc Suit skill or the Battledress skill. Both allow the wearing and use of Battledress, just not the use of high energy weapons, which is the major difference between the two skills. The Army doesn't have both as available.

I agree that Artillery and Armor troops are unlikely to be wearing Battledress though they very well may be trained in it, and are actually, depending on the rule set likely to be trained in it.

Given other discussions here it appears that TNE is similar, not having a Battledress skill but a Vacc Suit skill that includes Battledress.

Originally posted by Aramis:
If one is being a rules-nazi, it's important to correct one word in the following:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />They have one advantage over Army in other rulesets. They are trained to a higher TL standard than local troops.

That to needs to be "at", not "to".

A very subtle and sometimes important distinction. Training at TL 15 means no penalty for TL14-16 equipment, +1 diff for TL 9-13 (two tech labels), etc. A TL10 native joining the IMC would probably have any skills learned (aside from background skills) at TL15, but would be at TL10 for unlearned skills or background skills, and all TL11-13 equipment is at +1 diffmod in any case for the poor SOB.. (1 cat above native, 1 cat below trained.)

To be honest, most GM's ignore the Diff mods for TL in both MT and TNE. I don't recall if they are in T20, T4 or CT. GT is actually much more formal with TL penalties (and all skills have a TL assumed by homeworld, and learning at other TL's is specified as such), but the relative TL's of the discussion are GTTL10-12... </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[BetterThanLife]

Well I was speaking generally. But yes High Pop/High Tech worlds would be at the same tech level as Marines. (Though they don't have the budget the MArines are likely to have.)

And some high tech worlds with high pops will train at the same standards as the Imperial Marines. Matter of fact in those cases training would likely use most of the same manuals that the Marines use. And it would be in the local world's and the Imperial Marine's best interest to assign instructors from the Marines and have those worlds have soldiers that have cross trained with Marines. (Similar to the US having British officers assigned to some units and vice versa, and a British course I attended.)

I would think, in most cases, that Local Light Infantry under those circumstances would be difficult to distinguish from Marines.

Again my impression is that the vast majority of Marines are a "Light Infantry" force. That doesn't mean they are light on firepower but rather they don't have lots of vehicles. (Unless of course you count Battledress as a vehicle.) Mech Infantry and Armor units would then vary depending on which world they were from. (Though again it would be in the Imperiums best interest that some standards would exist so units could work together. However in this case based on the way politics in the Imperium work I see this as less likely.)

Originally posted by rancke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
They have one advantage over Army in other rulesets. They are trained to a higher TL standard than local troops.

A higher standard than some local troops, not all local troops. Some troops are local to TL 15 worlds. Duchy armies are even likelier to be trained at TL 15, since they just need one TL15 world (with a decent population) to supply their needs.

And high-population worlds with lower TLs are still likely to have some TL15 troops (if only the High Panjandrum's Guard).


Hans </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[aramis]

Actually, Bhoins, not all rulesets permit it.

Under MT, Vacc 0 is the marine default. higher levels are NOT readily available. Vacc Suit serves as battldress at -1; level 0's are not permitted to serve as.

Likewise, ships troops have a 1/6 chance of a battledress reciept if HW is AvgStellar+, on one of three tables, and a 13/18 chance per year of getting a reciept to spend. Likewise, Infatry recieve vacc suit at the same rate. This is an expected 13/324= 4% chance per year of reciept of battledress skill when ship's troops, and 4% chance per year of infantry recieving vacc suit. Commando school includes a 33.333% chance of Vacc suit.

So, extrapolating form the numbers, that means a
years in Infantry % chance of vacc suit 1+
1 y= 4% (1 FT per company)
2 y= 8% (1 Sq per company)
3y= 12%
4y= 15% (1 Sctn per company)
5y= 18%
6y=22% (1 Plt per large company)
7y=25%
8y= 28%
9y = 31%
10y = 34% (1 Plt per Small Co)
11y = 36
12y = 39%
13y = 41%
14y = 44%
15y = 46%
16y = 48%
17y = 50%
18y = 52%
19y = 54%
20y = 56%

Only 56% of 20year infantry will have Vacc suit 1+... by a strictly random CG... still, even if we only pick from the one tables with relevant skills, the base line is a mere 13/108=12% per year.

the mechanics do not support the assertions of Mr. Wiseman as quoth so often. Heck, they don't support the Vaccum worlds having vacc suit infantry in any numbers!

Clearly one or both are broken... but T4 is not much better, and was written with a knowledge that it would be picked apart by canonistas...

Personally, I discount it on sheer cost alone, as the hardware (We'll assume a suit has a 1/2 career lifespan for this, or 10 years) costs are about MCr 1 per soldier (assuming a 50% attrition per term) so equipped for field duty. Plus weapons. Combat armor is one 5th the cost, and probably a slightly higher lifespan, but we'll assume the same ten years. 5:1 ratio in cost, militarily, often equates to a 20:1 numerical advantage in deployment....

And since all marines can wear COMBAT ARMOR, without question (it uses Vacc Suit skill explicitly in the editions which qualify if), Combat Armor provides the same protection (AV and TH tables MT/CT), and the same LS Endurance...

Likewise, the Battledress is NOT JUST AN ARMORED VACC SUIT. (That's combat armor.) Battledress includes strength augmentation, autowalking, and load reduction systems. It will, by very nature, be harder to operate, more dangerous to the wearer should it fail, more dangerous to bystanders and equipment, and more maintenance intensive. Not to mention considerably bulkier.

IMTU, the Imperial Marine infantry and ST combatants generally are issued Combat armor, not BD. True, it's chameleoline, commed-out, integral computer and hud, IR Suppressed, but it also is capable of being worn by VaccSuit 0 troops.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Aramis:
The mechanics do not support the assertions of Mr. Wiseman as quoth so often.

Very true. There is a canon conflict there. Or, as I prefer to think of it, there was a canon conflict until GT:Ground Forces resolved it.

At first I was of the opinion that it was resolved the wrong way, but I've later changed my mind. The rule mechanics are generic rules that supposedly apply to all marine forces in Charted Space whereas Loren's article was a detailed writeup of one specific organization, the regular Imperial Marines. So IMO Loren's article trumphed the basic rules.

Incidentally, it's pretty easy to reconcile the rules and the article: Simply say that regular Imperial Marines always receive battlesuit training, but that practice differ from duchy to duchy when it comes to local marine forces (Some duchies may not even have marines). Since members of ducal organizations are Imperial too, you can have an Imperial marine without battlesuit training - he's just not a regular Imperial marine.


Hans

 

[BetterThanLife]

Aramis,

I didn't say all Marines would be equipped with Battledress, just that the majority would be trained in it. Cost being a major factor. But then again if your Marines are equipped with BattleDress and Grav belts they hardly need an Astrin per squad. (And an Astrin per squad costs about the same as equipping two squads with battledress.)

As for rules. Under skills in the MT player's manual. "Vaccsuit: The individual has been trained and has experience in the use of the standard vacuum suit (space suit), including armored battle dress suits and suits for use on various planetary surfaces in the presence of exotic, corrosive or insidious atmospheres."

"Battle Dress (Includes Vacc Suit): The individual can operate battle Dress, a high tech military armored suit."

Now all that is required to (under MT) operate a Vacc Suit or Battle Dress is skill level 0 in one of those skills. And unlike CT it doesn't specify, in the definition of the skills or the equipment that Battle Dress skill is required for the use of the FGMP-14 or the PGMP-13.

Now that I have done quite a bit of reading on MT skills and equipment. I stand corrected. Since in MT all Marines get Vacc Suit-0 then all Marines (in MT) are capable of wearing Battledress. (Just some are better at it than others.)

Looking at the CT book 4 rules I think your percentages are low. If you get a skill on the MOS table you get 1 chance in 6 of getting Battle Dress as either a Marine or Commando. 2 chances in 6 if you are shipboard for Vacc Suit. (And shipboard is the most likely (single) assignment.) You get 4 chances in 6 if you go to protected forces training, and if you go to the Naval Academy before joining the Marines (I know in CT that choice isn't there.) you have a 50% chance of getting the Vacc Suit Skill. Your percentages may be correct, they just seem low. Especially with the addition of the instruction skill and 0 level skills, anyone with instruction-1 and Battle Dress-1 can train the unit to Battle Dress-0 level. So I would say that while all Marines may not wear Battledress, the majority should be trained in it. (Especially since Combat Armor and the Combat Environment Suit require the same skill.)

Now under both these rule sets the Battle Dress/FGMP-14 combination would be tough to get all marines to get.

Thanks for getting me to reread the rules after all these years.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Actually, Bhoins, not all rulesets permit it.

Under MT, Vacc 0 is the marine default. higher levels are NOT readily available. Vacc Suit serves as battldress at -1; level 0's are not permitted to serve as.

Where in the MT rules does it say Vacc Suit serves as Battle Dress -1?

It doesn't in my copy of the Player's Manual. (Or my copy of the official errata.)

 

[aramis]

I stand corrected. I jut looked, and you're right. It's not there.

TD states, however, in the articles on battledress that Battledress skill is required to use the augment functions.

The percentages, by the way, are based upon
1) 1 in 6 chance on the MT Tables
2) 3 elligible tables per skill reciept; 1/3rd chance each (MOS,Marine Life, and assignment)
3) chance of skill reciept. I used 6+, the BEST chance (26/36=13/18)
Multiply these out, and you get a hair over 4%. Subtract this from 1, raise the result (0.96) to the power o the number of years, then subtract this from one to determine %-age chance of having level 1+. So my results are actually skewed HIGH. Ctr Ins and Patrol will be FAR less...

But, looking again, I find the shiboard table... whichis available only to ship's troops on a 1/3 chance... so ship's troops assignments, per year generate 1-((1-(((1/4*1/6)+(1/4*2/6))*13/18))^(years of ship's troops)) chance for vacc suit.

5 years of shipboard assignment should generate near universal Vacc Suit.

Good enough for combat armor. (Which is the same AV's...)

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Aramis:
I stand corrected. I jut looked, and you're right. It's not there.

TD states, however, in the articles on battledress that Battledress skill is required to use the augment functions.

What is TD? And what augment functions?

[QB}
The percentages, by the way, are based upon
1) 1 in 6 chance on the MT Tables
2) 3 elligible tables per skill reciept; 1/3rd chance each (MOS,Marine Life, and assignment)
3) chance of skill reciept. I used 6+, the BEST chance (26/36=13/18)
Multiply these out, and you get a hair over 4%. Subtract this from 1, raise the result (0.96) to the power o the number of years, then subtract this from one to determine %-age chance of having level 1+. So my results are actually skewed HIGH. Ctr Ins and Patrol will be FAR less...

But, looking again, I find the shiboard table... whichis available only to ship's troops on a 1/3 chance... so ship's troops assignments, per year generate 1-((1-(((1/4*1/6)+(1/4*2/6))*13/18))^(years of ship's troops)) chance for vacc suit.

5 years of shipboard assignment should generate near universal Vacc Suit.

Good enough for combat armor. (Which is the same AV's...) [/QB]

I didn't say your percentages were wrong. They may actually be high as you don't always get a skill. They just feel low. (Though in MT, with Brownie Points, you should easily be able to get it if you want it.) And while the AV may be the same, in CT and MT, they are anyway, there are other reasons to use Battle Dress instead of Combat Armor. Strength and Endurance enhancements being the big reason. In CT, if the person firing at you was any good and used a Gauss Rifle it would still take you out with one shot. In MT you were virtually immune to small arms fire. (So you have to have the extra strength and endurance to carry the heavier weapons to kill your enemy, if they are in Combat Armor.) In T20 Battle Dress is a whole different animal. (And I love the T20 interpretation of Battle Dress, it feels right.)

In T20, while Combat Armor won't make you immune to small arms fire, it offers quite good protection. Battle Dress is virtually immune to small arms fire. (Or should I say properly designed battle dress.) T20 shows a good compromise between the effects of combat and armor between CT and MT.

And yes, in MT all Marines can wear Combat Armor, they can also all wear Battle Dress. That doesn't mean that they all do wear Battle Dress, or that they are any good at it, just that they can. (Same as Combat Armor.)

 

[aramis]

And the CT Resume rules state that level 1 is required for qualification... MT never replaced those.

So most marines are not "qualified" on ANY vaccum armors.

T20's interp is a very different approach from CT/MT. (There are unofficial MT design rules for BDress and Combat armors... they work out fairly close to DGP's numbers...)

 

[Whipsnade]

Bhoins wrote:

(And I love the T20 interpretation of Battle Dress, it feels right.)

Mr. Bhoins,

What is T20's interpretation?


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[aramis]

T20''s interpretation of battledress is that it is a very small vehicle; they are designed using the vehicle design rules, as a walker.

Under TNE, they were designed using FF&S, but had a separate design sequence.

Several other games use the vehicle baseline for "worn vehicles" (MektonZ for one does; EABA can do it either as a vehicle or as a gadget; CORPS can do it under VDS, or as a paranormal ability; GURPS, when last I checked, used a separate design sequence within the vehicle design system, just like TNE), but the breakpoint between personal ability enhancement based and vehicle based model is a complicated one. No one breakpoint can nor will satisfy everyone.

More than one person I've known used hybridization of Bk8 and MT to create battledress variants.

How one handles battledress and similar can radically alter the feel of battlesuit infantry. And, for some of the games I've run, that makes a HUGE difference. (If one uses a vehicular-only model, then a 98# weakling is just as deadly in a battlsuit as Mr. Musclebound, if not better. If we use an Augmentation-Only model, Mr Weak is really crippled by comparison to Mr. Muscle.

And that's before the "effectively unlimited" endurance... which makes CT/MT really self-contradictory... as unlimited endurance implies the suit is doing almost all the work (Yes, this supports the vehicular model).

I just feel the vehicular model negates the need, ne, the desirability, of big burly marines in the suits. Which is contradictory to marine CG in ALL editions.

 

[veltyen]

Another thing on T20's interpretation.

You can build combat armor out of the vehicle design rules.

You need the muscle based powerplant concept out of TA8. But once that is in place it fits together quite nicely.

You have a vehicle consisting of
-Manual Control
-Vehicle Armor
-Legs based drive system
with power solely supplied by the operator inside. Suddenly there is a reason to have Strength as high as possible.

 

[Whipsnade]

Aramis was kind enough to explain:

T20''s interpretation of battledress is that it is a very small vehicle; they are designed using the vehicle design rules, as a walker.

Aramis,

Ahhh... mecha... blecccccch. That isn't my particular cuppa to be sure. The multi-tonne monstrosity of GT:SM yet lives. I now understand the discussion here more fully.

No one breakpoint can nor will satisfy everyone.

Agreed. Battledress IMTU need not and should not be battledress IYTU. This malleability is Traveller's bedrock strength. MTU, YTU, and the OTU. It's all good and it's all Traveller.

How one handles battledress and similar can radically alter the feel of battlesuit infantry.

Put me down for the Augmentation-Only Model. IMTU, that is why not every marine is battlesuit qualified, they haven't the physical/mental makeup to derive full use from the technology. And yes, I know that violates both GT:GF and LKW's dead tree JTAS article. Sue me.

And that's before the "effectively unlimited" endurance... which makes CT/MT really self-contradictory... as unlimited endurance implies the suit is doing almost all the work (Yes, this supports the vehicular model).

Of course, that depends on your personal definition of "effectively unlimited". Did CT/MT mean "effectively unlimited" relative to the duration of a typical PC-scaled ground combat epsiode? Or did CT/MT mean "effectively unlimited" as in over the course of days and weeks? Each interpretation is 'correct' because the needs and desires of every personal campaign is different.

In another example, CT describes starship powerplants as "effectively unlimited" on one hand and yet also requires refueling on the other. In this case, "effectively unlimited" powerplants are in reference to ship combat time periods while the same powerplants require refueling during the monthly trade and travel cycle.

My take always was the former; combat endurance, and I had proto-munchkins who argued the latter; weekly endurance. They wanted 'Energizer Bunny' battledress so they could wear it for weeks and slaughter everyone they met in some type of Traveller dungeon crawl and I wanted something that was deadly but not omnipotent. Guess who won?

When it comes to game rules, there always will be those who drive a supertanker through the eye of a needle. Unless something is specifically spelled out with oodles of examples they will find a way to get what they want. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I just feel the vehicular model negates the need, ne, the desirability, of big burly marines in the suits. Which is contradictory to marine CG in ALL editions.

All that really matters is the style of the campaign at hand. Is it Heroic-Cinematic? Then use Energizer Bunny/Mecha battledress in which Elmo Q. Milquetoast can slaughter dozens. Is it Nitty-Gritty? Then use the augmentation model of battledress that requires certain fairly rare skills and high physcial stats before it can be used.

By the way, each choice is 'correct'!


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Nellkyn]

Originally posted by BMonnery:

FWIW, Book 4 gives the organisation of a Marine Company (if you look hard enough)

Squad (9 men, 2x 4 fireteams under a Lance Sergeant)
Section (19 men, 2x squads and a Sergeant)
Platoon (41 men, 2x sections, a Lieutenant, Gunnery Sergeant and assumidly signaller)
Company (127 men, 3 platoons, plus Captain, Lieutenant (XO), Leading Sergeant, Gunnery Sergeant (CQMS))

A very lean organisation more like a Commando/ Ranger company than an Infantry Company.

Bryn

Bryn,

Could you explain how you were able to find the above in Book 4? This isn't a flame I'm just interested in how you found the information. I've had a good look in Book 4 and wasn't able to see any where that would give me a start.

Thanks in advance.

 

[mike wightman]

The unit size table on page 33 could be it.

 

[mike wightman]

Which is explained a little bit in the Organization section on page 27.

Hope this helps.