Originally posted by SGB - Steve B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BetterThanLife:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SGB - Steve B:
The way I look at it the Grav vehicle would be more common.
Grav Belts would make sense for some units - but at half the cost of a Grav Vehicle, they wouldn't replace them any more than motorcyles replace Humvee's. Some units are equipped with motorcycles, but not most.
Its really a matter of continuous balance of the availabilities of soldiers, equipment/finances, and precieved mission and effectiveness that determines the optimum mix. No single solution is likely to ever be the best for all situations.
You guys have to remember one thing here as you compare the way to move things around. We look at combat from the perspective of someone that lives on a nice Earthlike environment. Where there is room for armor maneuver under an open sky. In Traveller that happens on less than 30% of the main worlds in a typical Sector. In many situations here on Earth there are situations where armor and artillery have little place in a combat environment. (The Mountains of Afganistan or Kosovo are situations where armor has limited use, the jungles of Viet Nam is another place.)
And how do you use a Mortar or other artillery in the Concrete Canyons of Manhattan?
YOu can like Armored vehicles and Mech forces all you want. But in Traveller, those not only seriously raise the price of your Mercenary Unit, seriously increase your required transport, but also seriously limit where your unit can be effectively employed.
Even in this environment, there are situations where armor isn't the right choice. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, what I was saying is that one single mix of equipment seldom is the best for all situations.
As far as RW combat goes, if I were fighting in the concrete canyons of manhattan, I would ceretainly want armor support. And if it's unrestricted warfare, (ie I'm not worried about collateral damage) I'd want mortars and arty support as well (call me old fashioned but I still think we should have learned something from Stalingrad) At the same time, I'd NEVER want a pure armor (tank) force without infantry support much less a pure arty force regardless of terrain - there are times you really need to put boots on the ground.
Returning to the game, if you're talking limited warfare in an urban environment with tall buildings and a strong desire to limit collateral damage, I would think you would want a grav belt heavy group if the option were available. If you're fighting in a verticly oriented acrology, same thing. If you're infiltrating caverns and cave complexes you'd also want to be grav belt heavy. However, if you anticipate a most of your operations to be in open terrain (including mountains and jungle by the way) or if destroying the buidlings is an acceptable option or if you're in single story to two story urban environments, the most cost effective mix for resupply, etc; will be the grav vehicle heavy.
Of course if cost is no option, I'd prefer to have both. 
</font>[/QUOTE]Artillery within Manhattan is useless. (well midtown and South for mortars, most other artillery anywhere on the island except within Central Park. You can't fire over the buildings, you are limited to direct fire over open sights, shooting down a street. (Tanks are a better solution.) In Manhattan in particular, and many other major cities, armor only has very limited uses. It is extremely vulnerable to anti-armor fire as the enemy tends to be closer and firing from angles that make a tank vulnerable. (APC's with their lighter armor are death traps.) Further with all the below street tunnels, you have to be concerned about your tanks going through the pavement. (In an uncontested city, no problem, in that Urban Warfare environment, a handful of demolition charges could weaken the street enough to drop tanks through.) NYC is not armor country. While tanks were used in Stalingrad, they weren't as effective as would have normally been expected and had very short life expectancies.
In an environment with a ceiling, like an Arcology, you can't use artillery, because similar to NYC you have no place to arc a shell. I am not saying a big canon is a bad thing, (Well if it brings the roof down on you it is a bad thing.) but in that case it isn't artillery. You will lose the vehicle well out of proportion to its effectiveness.
Now in an environment with a breathable atmosphere, where the population is potentially in good tank country, in a typical traveller sector you are looking at roughly 100-120 worlds that you can use armor. If at any given point 10% need mercenaries (I think that number is high.), that means you are limited to 10-12 systems in a sector for a ticket at a time. If you drop the mech concept, (Because light Infantry/Gravbelt infantry
can operate in the same environment as the mech units plus everywhere else.) you have roughly 40 systems that you can find work in at any given time. That increases the odds that your next job will be within two jumps for a Jump-3 Mercenary transport and it is highly likely that it will be within 3 jumps. If you have 12 systems that are looking to hire you, that isn't even 1 per Subsector.
Further a light force can get by with a smaller ship and without the expense of the armored vehicles so is more profitable.
Remember one other thing, we are talking about Mercenary Units. A Mercenary unit that loses a Tank is not getting paid enough to cover that loss.
