The Imperial Army

[McPerth]

:rofl: Nope the horse still isn't dead yet.

Frankly, I didn't expect this when I linked a reference to the Imperial Army ot this thread...

 

[McPerth]

IA's job is going to be showing up for the long haul with the BIG formations and routing out the rebellious infestation, for good. IN is to quarantine, but you don't want to tie up a fleet for 6 months/year while cadres build the Field Armies and what not, THEN transport them. You want fast resolution so those hideously expensive formations are putting down 2-3 rebellions per year and have enough give to shift things frontierward at need.

What I see as a primary need is DETERRENCE, and that means relatively fast reaction so a rebel planet cannot dig in and use the populace as hostage and time cost sink, whether frontier or core.

Or worse, other planets revolt while the Imperium is busy with the first one.

The mix will be different, a lot higher percentage Marine and merc and colonial for the frontier, but to deter a Core World means being able to put on an IE level of effort, fast. That means big formations for the big pop sectors. Imperial Army formations.

I would agree with the characterization, but again big pop x fast restoration = huge army within the sector.

One of the major elements we may be missing here is the NATURE of core worlds.

Because of the bigger pop, they are going to be all those 9ABCD places with unpleasant law levels.

A revolt on such worlds are going to be either discordant protests against such hellholes, in other words against the government not the Imperium, or topdown leaders of said authoritarian governments against the Imperium.

In both cases, the objective is rapid restoration of order, trade and taxation. One 20 billion TL15 planet translates into an entire frontier subsector's worth of revenue using the Striker/TCS valuations, and arguably a more nuanced model with trade routes disrupted at the least would cause other neighboring TL15 billion+ pop worlds to sag in taxation as well.

Of the two types, the second is the more dangerous, as they will be the ones with the guns, access to fighting ships and industry, organized armies, etc.

Probably the most dangerous revolts are by Charismatic Dictatorship/Oligarchys, in that case the populace could be supporting an organized topdown effort and it really may be an IE situation, requiring a nuclear response to avoid consumption of whole armies.

Otherwise the citizens are likely being forced to revolt by unbearable oppression or by topdown order, and will be just as happy to not support the current leadership and get back to work if the government falls to the next one. Rescuing those people, stopping political contagion and getting the revenue stream going again is Job One.

Having an IN fleet sit around while you raise an army for a year is NOT cost effective.

What IS, is

• using your extant hard-hitting Marine units for situations where rapid decapitation of the top echelon of government leaders is doable,
• commit the Imperial Army assets in the sector to bulk up the Marine cutting edge for both invasion and garrisoning,
• get the Marines and IN free and out of there ASAP for return of rapid reaction capability, and
• meantime use the time from the start of the crisis to raise your new replacement Army formations for the NEXT potential revolt in the sector.

Result, quick revolt crushing, only six months or so of vulnerability while assets are committed to the crushing and then moved out, Imperium shows resolve which deters or cows anyone else thinking of following suit, 2/3 of responses (nuke, Marine decapitation) are available again at the earliest possible time frame, the invasion option will be ready again in a year while restoration of taxes pays for the whole operation.

Time value both politically and economically, that's what people are missing about Core World asset management.

But it requires a large standing army, and that this army does not get sent off in bulk to the frontiers except for something like IE.

I do believe the Imperium would economize in the Spinward Marches- as of the classic period, it would not pay for huge formations by itself and is justified only as a means of border deterrence and not having to fight the next generation's battles closer to the Core base.

And of course the moment the crisis is over (frontier or Core revolt) and more normal force can be maintained, there would be a LOT of mustering out, hence a lot of those 26 year old enlisted and junior officers to recruit for all those merc forces.

How many such revols occur in Traveller canon, and how often is IA needed for it in the core?

As you say, most Core worlds are quite developed, many of them HiPop and their economies are quite interdependent, making such revolts quite ruinous for them. That's one reason they are quite unlikely to revolt against the Imperium, and, if the rebellion is internal, that's its government problem, not Imperium's.

You say the most dangerous in this would be a chanrismatic dictatorship or oligarchy. How long will keep they being charismatic once the economical effects of a blockade begin to be felt (and I guess they will in a relatively short time)?

And see that such a rebellion will also affect neighbouring planets' economies, making them probably more willing to lend tropos to restore the situation under IA command...

You say IN assets are unlikely to be tied up for such 6 monts to a year in the rebellious planet blockade. What else are they needed for in the Core? keeping inexistent borders?

As I see, it's precisely in the frontier where IN cannot tie such asets for any long time without making the border vulnerable

And see my repetitive use of the Word relative when talking about a small IA. When we're talking about trillions of people, even a corps is relatively a small army.

As I understand it, IA has Little standig corps, and no standig field armies, but have several cadres for them, that together can be formed in some ones. Even so, I guess the standard policy is to use them as cadres for enlarging them to corps and armies with imperialized forces from nieghbouring planets and reservists.

 

[McPerth]

I refer you to the time/space/resource play of IE and it's predecessor battle example, the Alamo and the companion battle San Jacinto.

Space Alamos can be a form of winning too. Although Santa Anna's naval supply problems are often not understood by most people that led directly to San Jacinto. Don't think there is a SRW San Jacinto, but then again the Solomani aren't plucky lucky Texans.

As to the planetary defense side of things, that is a political play vs. resources sort of thing. Might get away with planetary defenses if they are deep enough and the enemy does not want to slag the planet, or does not have the ships to lose, otherwise it's an invitation to being nuked or bombarded to no good purpose.

let me refer you to Flykiller post:

jump and the associated delays in communication render this obsolete. in a mass conflict in a traveller setting there would be no "front line" but rather a very broad and permeable "battle zone". any planet with no interdiction force parked there could be reached normally by anything capable of jumping there.

Santa Ana could not jump past El Alamo, as you can in traveller setting. Such strongholds will wither be baypassed or just blockaded and left to either siego or latter peace talks to make them yours.

I refer you to Wake Island, where the Marines held off the Japanese by having artillery that outranged the destroyers, the IJN had to bring in additional assets to finish the job.

IIRC the only atoll assault that failed in the wole Pacific War... And just to be taken in a second assault thaks to the fleet supremacy in the zone...

Yaaaaa. No.

Just one quick back of the envelope calc- TCS taxation is 500 Cr per citizen, modified by TL adjustment and government modifier. TL15 is valuated at 100%, we'll skip the GM which is mostly favorable to greater revenue, so our 20 billion pop planet is yielding 10 trillion credits.

Even assuming the 'naval tax' is spread out something like Striker or Aramis' examples, that's 3 trillion per core planet for IN formations, several times the classic TCS naval formation.

Figure something like the US expenditure in WWII where the army was just 13% of the whole thing, and you still have more then 1 trillion in revenue to justify a Very Large Army formation.

Mitigate that expense against say 10 such planets in a Core subsector, and you have enough revenue to have immediate reaction forces close by, fund big formations at the sector level, and still send half of it off to the borders to do their job, which is to keep the wolves (figurative or literal) from messing up the goose that lays the Core golden tax eggs.

I'm afraid (for what I've read in this same board several times) here you bring to bear the only part of TCS and Stiker that has been specifically decanonized: its economic numbers

 

[McPerth]

transporting and landing any army offensively in the face of significant naval opposition would be costly to the point of prohibition.

And even without naval opposition its price is quite high (mostly in CT where tropos have to travel awaken, may vary in other versions), even prohibitive if you have to transport them long distances.

Or.

The Merchant Marine really IS a service, and all those subsidized merchants are 'Imperiliazed'.

That's 30-40 years worth of private ship production partially financed off private enterprise, stretching the Imp credit.

Plus wartime mandatory contracts for private shippers, no doubt at several times the normal rates, the functional logistical allegory to merc units.

I guess you're not talking about the Fat Traders when you say subsized merchants... Even if its cargo isfilled with barrack modules (or anything similar) how many of them would be needed to transport a field army (and at J1 speed...)?

We can infer there are larger subsized freighters that could be converted (just out of player's scale, and so not shown in the rules), but what would its effect on economy if most of them are taken from it to move troops?

Again, IMHO, moving large troop formation from the Core to the borders is prohibitively expensive, and should be avoided if posible.

 

[McPerth]

Tactics in the Imperium would be very different from those of a large conventional war of the Industrial Age (~ TL 4 to 6 per MT, 4 to 8 CT). Their situation more closely resembles the US "Island hopping" campaign of the Pacific War.

Having used this similitude myself, we msut beware, as there are also some key differences.

In PW, bypassed islands and atolls could be used as listening posts/recon bases, something you cannot do in Traveller setting, as you cannot send the info so gained to your main force in a quick way.

OTOH, those island were more supply dependent than most Traveller planets/systems, and, for the same reasons they canot be used as listening posts (at least as effectively as they could in PW), they cannot be effectively monitored by the bypassing force (unless you're keeping forces in the system).

The Imperial Army, or for that matter, anyone's army in that situation is reduced to basically a defense force. You'd need two major types of troops to do this: The first amount to fortress troops. You might call them "coast defense" troops or in this case "planetary defense" troops. This type would man heavy batteries of weapons and shields to defend the planet along with probably manning any orbitals and planet defense ships (system defense boats). That way the planet's defenses are coordinated under a single command.

Again, to defend what exactly?

The only thing IA (or any army, as you say) can defend is the planet itself, and, unless the planet is key to be held, all the enemy force has to do is to bypass it (or at most blockade it) and leave it to fall by siege or by latter peace talks.

Only in very specific cases would a HiPop be assaulted (in fact, there are very few such cases in Traveller canon history). You can take the needed bases on lesser populated (and so more easily taken) systems, and leave those ssytems blockaded.

And even if those HiPop planets have to be taken, its defense is left to local forces, not to IA, that is held in reserve for latter offensives and to retake them.

That's what the Zhodani tried in FFW with jewel and Efate. Their main flawl there was that they allowed fleets to be kept there, but, even so, should their leet not have been beaten in the Abyss/Rhylanor campaign, they would have passed to Zhodani hands soner or latter...

 

[McPerth]

Actually it doesn't. Look again to the Pacific War. Using the Imperium as the attacker, they simply move a fleet into several systems for the purposes of eradicating jump capable and space capable forces. That is in essence, they "sink" the enemy's navy. They do this to a range of systems around the invasion target leaving the enemy no means to reinforce the target system for say, several weeks at a minimum.
That is exactly what the USN did in the Pacific. They literally swept the Central Pacific of all IJN ships before invading the various island atoll groups. That left each on its own.

Denial of transit is done simply by eliminating the enemy's fleet(s) out to say 8 to 12 parsecs from the target. Now they are looking at several jumps just to reassemble forces in the target area.
The invasion fleet the Imperium uses doesn't need offensively capable space ships once that happens. The invasion fleet needs escorts to protect against remaining defense boats and bombardment vessels like monitors to obliterate planetary defenses.

And how do you do this in an environment where you best and more recent intelligence is over a week old (and it will take you at least another week to reach where you know the enemy fleet was)?

Again, in the PW, with all similitudes it can have with this environement), reccon was performed in short time by planes, information reached the HQ i nreal time by radio and the fleet received orders and intelligence updates instantanously by radio too. All of this fails in Traveller setting...

The planetary defenses would best be modelled on the late 19th Century US ones of the Third system Endicott forts, combined with strong coastal naval units. That is, the planetary weapons are as big as they come and can take on any starship. There are enough to make sure you are going to make the attacking fleet hurt, and hurt bad. The shields and protection systems are such that it's going to take a considerable effort to take any of this out.

And how many times have those fortifications avoided a resolved fleet attack?

 

[McPerth]

well, a serious army, especially a high-tech one, will require decades of personnel development and experience to be effective. you can't just stick guys in battledress and hand them an fgmp-15 and say, "there the enemy, go get 'em."

and while such an action may be proper tactics in a cardboard-counter game, real men on being told their primary purpose is to sacrifice themselves in the name of cost efficiency may decide they don't want to fight for the imperium at all.

We're not talking about to stuff untrained personnel to the IA cadres just to stiff their body count, but to rely on imperialized units and reservists, that are already trained.

And if we use LBB mercenary units training rules as a basis, with a good cadre (lots of instructors with good skills) and intensive training you can train a unit to acceptable levels in 6 monts to a year...

 

[McPerth]

Exactly. If it were me I'd start by a scenario similar to one where Japan invades Hawaii on 7 Dec.

Imagine the Traveller version. You have a star system with several worlds (each is like an island of the Hawaiian chain). The main world (Oahu) is heavily defended. It has planetary defenses that can smash any attacking starship that tries to fire on the planet (the coast defenses). There are lots of defending troops. There is a large fleet of space capable ships present.
Taking the other worlds buys you little as I own the only one that's really habitable and has infrastructure on it. I also can reinforce that world in the coming weeks if you fail to take it.
So, invasion or costly siege are your choices.

As I said once (on another thread talking about Regina status):

• Haway=Regina
• Midway=Efate
• Wake= Jewell
• US East Coast=Rhylanor/Mora staging areas

But his is mainly for the Navy. IA has little to say in this full scenario (except for latter counteroffensives. As I said, it's an offensive tool)

 

[McPerth]

What happens if a TL 12 industrial world gets TL 14 terrorist actions against the Starport and Startown? The local forces are being outclassed by imported mercenaries and Interstellar Trade is threatened.

If this is an internal terrorism affair, is Planet's government problema, not Imperial's. if they need some Imperial support, some Marine chargen performing players will roll internal secruity assginement...

Any target the Navy could attack, would probably generate civilian casualties and support for the enemy. You are looking for hundreds of people on the ground among tens of billions.

As the planet is not in full rebellion against the Imperium, any Navy (be it Imperial, Subsector/reserve or Planetary) mission there would be against weapons smuggling, not direct support.

How long are you going to deploy a Warship in orbit to support Marines on the ground?

As long as needed. Being a local terrorism, not a full war situation, what else have them to do?

And, after all, this situation will not need large IN assets, but probably some patrol ships (at most a CruDron), and probably subsectro/reserve fleet ones will sufice (after all, everyone knows IN would support them if needed).

If you have Marines fighting deep 'inland' for extended durations with no connection to the Navy ... then isn't that an Imperial Army?

IMHO, Tactically, yes, Administratively (and politically), no.

 

[McPerth]

Here is are a few more:
S:76 Patrons
Tarsus boxed adventure.
Tarsus boxed adventure.

Again, which one of those quotes supports that IA is a large standing army instead of HQ + Huscarles?

 

[McPerth]

As I have posted several times - I have no problem with the idea that on the frontier the Imperial Army drafts colonial army units, mercenaries, peasants with pitchforks if necessary.
I view it as similar to the Roman army (Traveller's Imperial was originally envisaged as based on the Roman model according to interview sources) in that there were regular legions - regular Imperial Army - and auxiliaries raised from the provinces - colonial forces.

Agreed, Roman Imperim an 3I have many in commoon too...

It has also similitudes with the Feudal armies, where there existed several levles. IMHO, the equivalence would be:

• King's Army (Round Table Knights in Pendragon. Huscarles in Saxon England, IIRC): Imperial Army (cadre & Huscarles)
• Nobles standing Forces: Imperializable Provincial/subsector Forces, usable to bring the IA cadres to full strenght.
• Trained militas (Yeomen in Medieval England): Colonial forces. At least partially usable offplanet (the Colonial counters in FFW/IE)
• Feudal levies: planetary forces (planetary defense battalions in FFW)

I find it odd that the Imperium doesn't aid in the economic development of worlds or the enrichment of the world population living standards, but quite happily drafts their armed forces in times of conflict. Must be a pretty persuasive treaty negotiator... (see AotI)

Like in most feudal armies, where the Lords owed military service to the King, but litle in the way of economical deveopement was given in return...

---------------------------------------

And now, please forgive me for this long series of posts (over a full page of only posts of mine). I use to try to unify posts, but there were too many ones to answer this time.

Now your turn to fire (ducking head )

 

[kilemall]

How many such revols occur in Traveller canon, and how often is IA needed for it in the core?

I haven't read AoftI, but I would gather there are problems that require genocidal solutions. That would suggest a fairly regular revolt problem.

Otherwise, it's largely silent on the topic. But could be problems that are big on the Marches aren't with the Core resources.

I am postulating that this doesn't happen all the time, precisely because there are appropriate resources and a proven methodology that deters.

As you say, most Core worlds are quite developed, many of them HiPop and their economies are quite interdependent, making such revolts quite ruinous for them. That's one reason they are quite unlikely to revolt against the Imperium, and, if the rebellion is internal, that's its government problem, not Imperium's.

I would agree that the Imperium in most cases would hesitate to commit to putting down internal revolts and carrying the water of failed governments, or stepping over the boundary of planetary rights of self-governance, continuing violation of which would ultimately be a source of revolt.

The reason they WOULD is taxation and disruption to the trade routes. When it affects the cash flow and other planets' interstellar commerce or letting something go on too long, the Imperium WILL step in.

You say the most dangerous in this would be a chanrismatic dictatorship or oligarchy. How long will keep they being charismatic once the economical effects of a blockade begin to be felt (and I guess they will in a relatively short time)?

Depends, some would collapse, some would gain a further grip on power. I can think of real world recent examples.

And see that such a rebellion will also affect neighbouring planets' economies, making them probably more willing to lend tropos to restore the situation under IA command...

Absolutely. That may be refused by the Imperium, based on whether there are good or bad relations, but in most cases I would expect local forces to be pulled in. But it takes such a LARGE force to garrison a trouble planet, and Core Worlds are so HiPop and there is plenty of money to pay AND at stake, that the Imperial Army would still need to be the central manning force.

You say IN assets are unlikely to be tied up for such 6 monts to a year in the rebellious planet blockade. What else are they needed for in the Core? keeping inexistent borders?

It's the Core World version of the current US desired goal of being able to fight two regional wars at the same time, when the reality is fight one war then fight the next, often referred to as fight-hold-fight.

The deterrence is not there if the Core forces are tied down for a year or more, which is what this whole raise a force thing THEN put the revolt down mechanism costs disruption time. It's literally trillions of credits being lost for the Imperium and for trade.

So I am postulating a reasonable time frame of six months to get forces there, get it done, and move on to be available for most scenarios short of full occupation. The IA stays behind for however long, in the meantime at the start of the crisis replacement forces are built up, if a second crisis erupts it can be handled and the IN is ready to support that one.

As I see, it's precisely in the frontier where IN cannot tie such asets for any long time without making the border vulnerable

Sure, the principle of cycling off quickly is as important there- the borders are at stake rather then taxbase/trade, but otherwise similar deterrence/time pressures.

And see my repetitive use of the Word relative when talking about a small IA. When we're talking about trillions of people, even a corps is relatively a small army.

As I understand it, IA has Little standig corps, and no standig field armies, but have several cadres for them, that together can be formed in some ones. Even so, I guess the standard policy is to use them as cadres for enlarging them to corps and armies with imperialized forces from nieghbouring planets and reservists.

None of what I am saying invalidates the local Imperialization process or anything else. I am saying that a big IA in the core makes sense, for most players making it offboard but equally a senior service like the Navy and Marines.

 

[kilemall]

let me refer you to Flykiller post:

I would agree that there are Pacific Island bypasses, but there will also be must have spots, politically if nothing else like Earth.

Santa Ana could not jump past El Alamo, as you can in traveller setting. Such strongholds will wither be baypassed or just blockaded and left to either siego or latter peace talks to make them yours.

Actually he could, his logistical support was from the sea not wagons across the wastes of present-day SW Texas/Northern Mexico. But crushing the Alamo was POLITICAL, as part of the exterminate Anglos policy. The Alamo force could not do much more then occasional pinprick raids. So, the example does support my contention.

IIRC the only atoll assault that failed in the wole Pacific War... And just to be taken in a second assault thaks to the fleet supremacy in the zone...

Sure, doughty island armies generally do not beat fleets. But they are not helpless and certainly can 'punch above their weight'.

I'm afraid (for what I've read in this same board several times) here you bring to bear the only part of TCS and Stiker that has been specifically decanonized: its economic numbers

I'm not presenting them as canon numbers, use whatever numbers you like. But it provides an example of the scale of TL15 20 billion productivity/taxbase compared to frontier areas and why it would be worth having forces to maintain that fiscal/industrial power.

 

[kilemall]

And even without naval opposition its price is quite high (mostly in CT where tropos have to travel awaken, may vary in other versions), even prohibitive if you have to transport them long distances.



I guess you're not talking about the Fat Traders when you say subsized merchants... Even if its cargo isfilled with barrack modules (or anything similar) how many of them would be needed to transport a field army 8and at J1 speed...)?

We can infer there are larger sumsized freighters that could be converted (just out of player's scale, and so not shown in the rules), but what would its effect on economy if most of them are taken from it to move troops?

Again, IMHO, moving large troop formation from the Core to the borders is prohibitively expensive, and should be avoided if posible.

I wish people would read all the way through. I wasn't postulating sending the force straight from the Core as people seem to think, that takes too much time.

I am talking a shift one sector over for each sector army, all moving simultaneously. You do that to maintain strength for other borders or mitigate disasters, and to get reinforcements in theater in a year or less.

As to the subsidized ships, I would expect larger ships would be desirable, and the Fat Traders or Liners to be heavily used in the contested subsectors, possibly called up in adjoining subsectors to go to the front.

And as for economic disruption, if there is a war on commerce is already disrupted, very lethal if not conducted in convoy, and the first priority is to delay to buy the Imperium time, have a good jumping off area, then win. Local worlds are likely going to have to fend for themselves for many needs.

Interesting logistical thought- if we use that Foodscore system recently proposed, some planets will be starving shortly and will need food convoys, much like Britain in the world wars and ultimately Japan if the siege had gone on.

 

[jec10]

you can't just stick guys in battledress and hand them an fgmp-15 and say, "there the enemy, go get 'em."

Sorry, but this is one of my personal bugbears - you (and the Imperial Marines, and Army if it exists) won't ever put someone in Battle Dress and arm them with an FGMP-15 because the whole point of the FGMP-15 is to have a gravitic-assisted version of the FGMP-14 for non-power armour use. Note that it is significantly more expensive than the FGMP-14 for precisely this reason.

My point being, the power armour units of the Imperial military will have FGMP-14s.

(I now wait for the inevitable.."but Marines are equipped to TL15" responses!)

 

[pendragonman]

Sorry, but this is one of my personal bugbears - you (and the Imperial Marines, and Army if it exists) won't ever put someone in Battle Dress and arm them with an FGMP-15 because the whole point of the FGMP-15 is to have a gravitic-assisted version of the FGMP-14 for non-power armour use. Note that it is significantly more expensive than the FGMP-14 for precisely this reason.

My point being, the power armour units of the Imperial military will have FGMP-14s.

(I now wait for the inevitable.."but Marines are equipped to TL15" responses!)

Ok. PGMP-15. Take the PGMP-13, then apply 2 tech levels of miniaturization and materials improvements.

 

[McPerth]

I haven't read AoftI, but I would gather there are problems that require genocidal solutions. That would suggest a fairly regular revolt problem.

Otherwise, it's largely silent on the topic. But could be problems that are big on the Marches aren't with the Core resources.

I am postulating that this doesn't happen all the time, precisely because there are appropriate resources and a proven methodology that deters.

I havn't either read AotI, but I guess any such genocide of a HiPop planet would be told about in history (as is Illelesh punishment), and we don't have many references to it in Traveller canon, nor even in the Frontier or Olomani Wars.

And, in any case, if such an action is decided, it would again be more an IN afair than an Army one...

I would agree that the Imperium in most cases would hesitate to commit to putting down internal revolts and carrying the water of failed governments, or stepping over the boundary of planetary rights of self-governance, continuing violation of which would ultimately be a source of revolt.

The reason they WOULD is taxation and disruption to the trade routes. When it affects the cash flow and other planets' interstellar commerce or letting something go on too long, the Imperium WILL step in.

What real effect would this have on Imperial economy, if a single (even a HiTech HiPop one) planet revolts?

And what effect would that have in the planet's economy, mostly when you think on lost contracts and trust by the Megacorps and like economic agents?

Absolutely. That may be refused by the Imperium, based on whether there are good or bad relations, but in most cases I would expect local forces to be pulled in. But it takes such a LARGE force to garrison a trouble planet, and Core Worlds are so HiPop and there is plenty of money to pay AND at stake, that the Imperial Army would still need to be the central manning force.

It may be refused by the Imperium, or it may be favored, as a kind of worse punishment being occupied by a rival planet (and to reward the loyal planet too).

It's the Core World version of the current US desired goal of being able to fight two regional wars at the same time, when the reality is fight one war then fight the next, often referred to as fight-hold-fight.

When you need to have a credible armed force against something like the Zhodani or the Solomani, you can fight more than 2 such revolts, that would not be seen even as regional wars.

The deterrence is not there if the Core forces are tied down for a year or more, which is what this whole raise a force thing THEN put the revolt down mechanism costs disruption time. It's literally trillions of credits being lost for the Imperium and for trade.

So I am postulating a reasonable time frame of six months to get forces there, get it done, and move on to be available for most scenarios short of full occupation. The IA stays behind for however long, in the meantime at the start of the crisis replacement forces are built up, if a second crisis erupts it can be handled and the IN is ready to support that one.

And tis time you say he IA stays behind is the one I say it uses to be brought to full force from the cadre level is uses to stay...

None of what I am saying invalidates the local Imperialization process or anything else. I am saying that a big IA in the core makes sense, for most players making it offboard but equally a senior service like the Navy and Marines.

And I don't question IA seniority, just missoón, size and strategy...

I would agree that there are Pacific Island bypasses, but there will also be must have spots, politically if nothing else like Earth.

Sure, but this cases are few, as the Imperial mission is to keep Space between stars (or planets), and the keeping of this space will at least give you the planets.

Sure, doughty island armies generally do not beat fleets. But they are not helpless and certainly can 'punch above their weight'.

Yes, they can sometimes... if the fleet decides that it's worth to close, as the troops in the island canot do anything if it doesn't.

I wish people would read all the way through. I wasn't postulating sending the force straight from the Core as people seem to think, that takes too much time.

I am talking a shift one sector over for each sector army, all moving simultaneously. You do that to maintain strength for other borders or mitigate disasters, and to get reinforcements in theater in a year or less.

Well, to coordinate those movements would be quite difficultwith the communicaitons lag, and if the units in Corridor must wair for those in Core to move before leaving for the Marches, the reinforcements are quite delayed.

And as for economic disruption, if there is a war on commerce is already disrupted, very lethal if not conducted in convoy, and the first priority is to delay to buy the Imperium time, have a good jumping off area, then win. Local worlds are likely going to have to fend for themselves for many needs.

Commerce raiding is likely to only occur in the (again relative) front lines or close to it, but such moves you suggest, if done by imperialized comercial shipping, would be more disrupting for the Imperial economy in the Core than any revolt...

Interesting logistical thought- if we use that Foodscore system recently proposed, some planets will be starving shortly and will need food convoys, much like Britain in the world wars and ultimately Japan if the siege had gone on.

Sure this will be a problen. Even when I said that most Traveller planets are self sufficinet, if you land a Field army (as said before, about 300000 men) at an agricultural planet to use it as assembly área, this planet, despite being agricultural, is likely to be stretched to feed them, and sure its exports (and so hard currency earning) will be affected.

Though the Imperium is likely to pay for those losses, the planets usually importing those foodstuffs will suffer too...

I'm thinking that one major difference among our view of the IA si that you're talking more about its (as always relative) peacetime use and I'm talking about its Major War activities.

So, what you talk about very large armies (enough to occupy a HiPop planet) i see a small army when compared whith what is needed to recover full subsectors from the Zhodani or Solomani (and this is only one example of the diferences).

 

[Meteoric Assault]

Agreed, Roman Imperim an 3I have many in commoon too...

It has also similitudes with the Feudal armies, where there existed several levles. IMHO, the equivalence would be:

• King's Army (Round Table Knights in Pendragon. Huscarles in Saxon England, IIRC): Imperial Army (cadre & Huscarles)
• Nobles standing Forces: Imperializable Provincial/subsector Forces, usable to bring the IA cadres to full strenght.
• Trained militas (Yeomen in Medieval England): Colonial forces. At least partially usable offplanet (the Colonial counters in FFW/IE)
• Feudal levies: planetary forces (planetary defense battalions in FFW)

Like in most feudal armies, where the Lords owed military service to the King, but lillte in the way of economical deveopement was given in return...

---------------------------------------

And now, please forgive me for this long series of posts (over a full page of only posts of mine). I use to try to unify posts, but there were too many ones to answer this time.

Now your turn to fire (ducking head )

Yet the Royal and imperial authorities continued to raise forces directly, even in the era of regimental proprietors 17th & 18th Century Armies.... Which would mirror that of the imperium.

 

[McPerth]

Yet the Royal and imperial authorities continued to raise forces directly, even in the era of regimental proprietors 17th & 18th Century Armies.... Which would mirror that of the imperium.

In XVII and XVIII centuries the Kings were resorting to abslute monarchies and feudalism was dead. Nobles had no longer their own armies, that were (when far from the King's power) in hands of royal officers appointed by him.

In this sense, the 3I does not mirror this era, as the officers and governors are not appointed by the Emperor, but hereditary (as in feudalism).

In fact, the Imperium is somwhere in the middle of Roman Imperium, Feudalism and Absolutism, and its army should mirror this too (unlike the Navy, that is clearly Imperial fief).

 

[Meteoric Assault]

In XVII and XVIII centuries the Kings were resorting to abslute monarchies and feudalism was dead. Nobles had no longer their own armies, that were (when far from the ing's power) in hands of royal officers appointed by him.

In this sense, the 3I does not mirror this era, as the officers and governors are not appointed by the Emperor, but hereditary (as in feudalism).

In fact, the Imerpium is somwhere in the middle of Roman Imperium, Feudalism and Absolutism, and its army should mirror this too (unlike the Navy, that is clearly Imperial fief).

Actually your are wrong... Colonel proprietors owned their units and considering the noble filled the majority of the officer roles de facto evolution of feudal powers ....I refer you C. Duffy, Warfare in the Age of Reason.

So I would like to make a suggestion I see you are heavily invested in this argument. Read up a little more on history and drill down into the meat of the subject.

I find the whole argument against a Imperial army absurd. It is clear there is a centralized authority that asserts a political will. There are clear references to it in canon materials. The Imperial Army clearly exists de facto. FFW/Invasion Earth says "regular" forces.... Not Colonial or feudal. They are the real armored fist of the Emperor period.

If we carried your faulty model further its fails the test. An Imperial Army has to exists or else there wouldn't be a centralized authority of doctrine, training, and technological standards of development. Further any Sector or Domain level Forces would have the be overseen by a Higher Command and Staff, or what you are going to let the navy plan it's operations?, Do you think the navy can plan a prolonged ground campaign? Getting back to the point without an imperial army it would be a logistics nightmare with the various technology and different weapon systems, reference the French Expeditionary Corps in Indochina with all the various weapons and ammunition nightmares they suffered in combat effiency and utilization.

I sat back and watched this argument long enough to realize everyone has their interpretation, but the reality is if the 3rd Imperium existed their would be a Imperial Army for the sake of centralized standard in training, doctrine, logistics and to ensure combat utility and efficiency.


This is not personal McPerth, but wake up and smell the coffee... And a brioche.