Marines Without Battledress

[aramis]

Larsen:

Since The Traveller Adventure provides rules for wakefulness (in the text of the Aramis chapter's stuff), limits on wakefulness thereby existed. (There are similar-but-different ones for MT and TNE, as well.)

THe question becomes "how much effort is required" to use the augment mode, and the concept of "Casual Strength" (Matters of encumbrance, really.)

I always made the assumption that the effort involved was light physical activity UNTIL the encumbrance (exclusive of suit) was equal to the STRx2 of the wearer (At which point the augments are needing human add-in).

Nellkyn:
as for the "Std Organization" model, Check pages 27-30, in the "Recruiting" chapter of Bk 4.

Similar is in Striker, Striker II, and MT Ref's Companion.

Striker II has "Cannonical" organization tables.

 

[Peter Newman]

"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. - Aramis"

Unless of course the Marines are looking for big burly guys because they know that not everyone is going to be in battledress all the time. Even if Battledress gives the ST 2 guy the same STR as the STR 12 guy when worn you'd still rather have the STR 12 guy for all those times when they won't be in Battledress. YMMV

 

[aramis]

And, as you know, IMTU, they aren't always in BD.

THe arguments by D. Barry, D. Golden, et al, back on the TML (where I first enountered mention of LKW's assertion that all marines were BDT's) was that marine duty/field uniform was BD.

Which is a whole different level of "Absurd", but is the extreme to which it has been taken by some.

IMTU, Marines DON'T wear BD unless part of elite units. Just because I happen to have run campaigns around such elite units doesn't mean they are representative.

edit chopped a whole lot that didn't reflect the discussion nor make much sense.

The main parts of Battledress pan-rulset are:
1) heavy personal armor.
2) vacuum capability.
3) Strength and endurance enhancement
4) frightful expense.

In CT, MT, and T4, Combat armor provides similar protection (both environmental and armor) at a small fraction of the cost, in exchange for minimal battlefield gains on units which are (In CT and MT) very fragile and have short battlefield lifespans if not in protective terrains.

T4 combat armor is much more effective due to rules mechanics than under CT/MT/Striker/AHL, but is still not supportive of the "Personal Tank" which TNE Battledress and even combat armor winds up being.

A combat-armored, or even unarmored, marine corps makes more sense for the CT/MT/T4 "Atts can be readily raised by service" model; it gives a reason for the strength and endurance gains.

Given that training to fight aboard a ship is a unique environment, I suspect the value placed on marine lives is far higher than most army units would have; I don't believe it extends to a typical 100 man marine detatchment having personal armor which is worth a total MCr 30+ (as MT Imp Marine BD would be) given the relatively low firepower they would present, when a combat armored unit would have Equipment totaling about MCr5 or so.

from MTIE
Combat-12: KCr30
BD-13: KCr200
Combat 14: KCr60
BD-14: KCr350

Roughly a factor of 6x for the addition of Str and End augment.
add KCr50 for sensors, and then add weapons, at KCr5 per man, plus KCr200+ for PG/FG-MP HW troops...

and the same guys, in CES's get 1/3rd the AV (about 1/10th the armor, due to the MT/Striker log scale), and can be equipped to use the same weapons. Well, PGMP and FGMP's must be of the correct TL's to be carried... but non-BD versions are available for some of them. With CES's costing 1000Cr...

Two Tailored Vacc Suit marines (Cloth-2) can be equipped for the costs of one Combat Armor marine. For the same cost, you can outfit a full squad in CES's.

One BD trooper costs as much as equipping 50 CES troops, 5 CbtArmor Troops., or 10 Tailored Vacc Suit marines. And you can wear additional armor over a Tailored Vacc Suit, if fitted that way. (Heck, a CES would probably be worn with hard breast and back, ala Aliens.)

 

[Straybow]

The main parts of Battledress pan-rulset are:
1) heavy personal armor.
2) vacuum capability.
3) Strength and endurance enhancement
4) frightful expense.

You missed a couple "steps" in there. When properly defined and included item 4) becomes redundant as a separate entry.

Heavy personal armor can be a close-fitting piecemeal assembly. Incorporated vac suit may still leave completely unarmored joints. Before you "step up" to substantial strength and endurance enhancement you need a hard shell and an exoskeletal frame at the least.

The full hard shell is not necessarily armored at all, nor does it necessarily incorporate load-bearing frame or power assist. Exoskeletal framing isn't necessarily complete or powered. Each has benefits in its own right.

Exoskeletal framing for knees and elbows can easily be incorporated into various grades of hard armor. Protecting those joints from hyperextension and lateral buckling can be as important as armor itself in hand-to-hand combat.

Simple framing for hips and shoulders restricts motion. Full-movement, load-bearing framing for hips and shoulders gets expensive and somewhat bulky.

The next step is adding a power plant and joint motors. What little I've seen of vehicle-type rules don't cut it. Making a mecha with legs is not the same as making power assist that fits around limbs and allows easy entry/exit. We can imagine clever technologies such as memory metal wire "tendons" and phase-change pistons that simplify implementation, allow redundancy, etc.

Again, this can be limited to the knees and elbows for a low-cost solution. Adding one-degree-of-freedom power stabilization to shoulders and hips makes an intermediate stage. Multiple-DoF shoulder and hip power gets expensive. Full implementation on an exoskeletal frame including fingers gets prohibitively expensive.

I would model this by levying a fixed cost for each joint-DoF, treating fingers as singly jointed and single-DoF assuming memory metal tendons or similar implementation. Single-DoF stabilization-only for hip or shoulder could be done at half cost, but rotational DoF for hip or shoulder costs double.

Some savings can be found by coupling the three non-trigger fingers to a single motor, locking out ankle rotation, and coupling foot-toe-flexure to ankle-flexure or locking it entirely.

Then we come to controls. Generic controls that respond to limb movement are the low-end solution. Personal controls that respond to sensors applied to muscle groups to allow fine motor control are the high-end solution. A mixed solution allowing fine control for arms only is a compromise.

At present, I can see that the knee + elbow ± stabilization type power will add to the physical strength of the individual. Without hip/shoulder stabilization I'd limit it to +2 points for CT or T20. With stabilization I'd limit it to +3 for CT and +4 for T20.

Elbow power alone does not enhance endurance. Knee power removes endurance costs for walking and running entirely and doubles combat endurance.

Fully powered movement will assume all loading and greatly exceed muscle power of the individual. I'd treat as STR 20+ CT or STR 25+ T20.

 

[aramis]

Those were not steps, but discernible features.

THey are not a logical pathway, just four observations on battledress as presented, supported by ALL extant Traveller rulesets (perhaps excluding GT, which i don't consider nor reference as traveller).

4 is not redundant at all; it was in fact the most important bit. In all the rulesets, BD is F'ng expensive.

So much so, that the MT BD, relatively the cheapest by comparison to it's ruleset's combat armor, is well more expensive than non-elite unites are likely to be afforded.

The extremeness of the expense is what makes the difference between combat and battledress armors... And, for CT, MT, and T4, it's no better an armor; the difference is ONLY the Str & End bonuses, and lock points for recoil control measures.

The joints on Combat armor are probably no more flexible; it, too is a hard shell of heavy personal armor, with vaccum capability. It is moderately expensive, and does not augment Str nor End.

As to loading: A lot depends upon the nature of the limbs of that combat armor.

I dislike the T20 treatment of BD....

 

[veltyen]

In all the rulesets, BD is F'ng expensive.

Except in T20, where it is only a biscuit more expensive then combat armor. 72KCr vs 60KCr for combat armor. Add in the extra kit that is standard on BD (vision gear, radio) and the combat armor is even closer.

The trade off I see is length of wear and bulk. Accessways and small corridors become a problem in BD which is significantly bulkier then in other editions. Carrying space in transports needs to be so much bigger as well. Obviously I fit into the "not all marines are in BD all the time" faction

 

[The Oz]

At least in CT, battledress provided one more benefit over combat armor beyond the enhanced STR and END: if you look at the rules for surprise, you see that a character in BD gives their side a +2DM for surprise, simulating the enhanced sensors in a suit of BD.

 

[Antony]

The TNE suits of battledress have initiative and agility penalties (in Striker II this is reflected by a reduced move) This would mean that in that TU marines in battledress would be the most agile troopers (to minimise the penalty) and those with the highest initiative ratings (for the same reason)

 

[Straybow]

"The TNE suits of battledress have initiative and agility penalties..."

Agility penalties would only arise from kludgey controls, which is a really bad assumption to apply to all BD of all TL. Initiative penalties make no sense unless initiative penalties are standard for encumberance in general (I know nothing of TNE rules).