Tactics for adversary near-future soldiers

[Rupert]

Bear in mind that the supers, being part of a resistance, will have some tech themselves, presumably. Alternatively, they can just blend into the civilian population. Even without special powers hiding them, they'll be hard to find before they strike, and if they're quick, afterwards as well. As for tech, if they're able to wear/carry tech for a given mission, stealth gear would be very high priority, and even bricks can be useful then - they can carry lots of stuff that goes Bang!, after all (and make new doors in standard walls with no prep, and that sort of thing).

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

In this case, I think the classic bricks are a liability and will likely end up being killed during the initial invasion.

This is true if they lack the inclination or ability to run after a "Hit and Run", and if they can even be hurt by the enemy (consider the hulk or superman in such a situation).

If they can successfully disappear after a raid, they can be quite useful.

[Black Leviathan]

It's hard not to imagine Space Nazi's without the Space Blitzkreig. And it makes some sense in modern warfare to overwhealm and pacify as much resistance as possible then co-ordinate mop-up battles to put down anything that wasn't disabled in the first wave. If your hyperspace Nazi's know there are Ubermensh resistance fighters but don't know where they'll encounter them the'll hold a rapid response force to deal with them. So your heroes will attack a group of Space Nazi's attacking a local police department, space Nazi's will dig in or stall and within about 30 minutes a flying troop transport will drop Panzerzoot Space Nazi warframes with heavy weapons. Once the Space Nazi overmind is able to see what the Super Insurgency is capable of they'll respond with more measured responses or to actively hunt the heroes. However if the heroes attack the space nazi's quickly and all the Spacereich Marshall hears is that super earthlings are attacking but he doesn't get details then he'll continue to respond with the same dropships full of armored spacenazi heavy weapons teams.

[DAT]

As an idea, you could use the tactics of the colonial Marines from Aliens.

Vertal dropships deliver AFV to surface, provide support artillery, and extraction.

AFV provides mobility/transport, direct support fire, plus command and control. Crew includes driver, gunner, and leader/combat controller.

Individual soldiers have networked passive and active sensors that feed to the leader/combat controller in the AFV. Fireteams are formed around a support weapon operator (Smart Gunner), with a supporting fireteam of rifleman, grenadier, and team leader. Two fire teams to a squad. The squad leader has the squad RTO/Tech, Medic, and EOD Specialist or Sniper. Communication networks should be better than modern special ops, sensor networks should be linked/integrate, so what one sees/hears/senses, everyone knows.

The amount of information the adversaries have, how much they believe, and how much they share with the front line troops is not necessarily the same. The early fights, the front line troops might know next to nothing about powers. A few squads might be sacrificed for the bad guys to learn more, and new tactics deployed soon after.

I commonly use IQ rolls for a leader to simulate how smart a group will act. A roll of 3, and they come in in the most intelligent way I as a GM can think of. A roll of 18, and the squad sets up a field kitchen and showers in the middle of the PC's ambush.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by DAT

As an idea, you could use the tactics of the colonial Marines from Aliens.

You mean, carefully ignore pretty much every advantage their technological superiority gives them in order to give the aliens the best chance possible?

To behave like drugged and unwilling conscripts in Vietnam, instead of modern professional soldiers, even as the costs of sending a soldier into space make it utterly impractical to use poorly trained cannon fodder?

Originally Posted by DAT

I commonly use IQ rolls for a leader to simulate how smart a group will act. A roll of 3, and they come in in the most intelligent way I as a GM can think of. A roll of 18, and the squad sets up a field kitchen and showers in the middle of the PC's ambush.

Tactics checks, surely.

Normal people have skill 3-5 in it, which makes them capable of making a Tactics check at +4 TDM (to avoid the most obvious mistakes) some of the time. Soldiers should have skill 6+ and any squad or team leader in a professional military should ideally have skill 12 at minimum.

A successful Tactics roll should generally mean NPCs act as smartly as the GM can imagine given what they know about the situation. A success by a lot, let alone a critical success, will mean that the NPCs guess a lot of what the PCs are doing, especially if they win a Quick Contest against the leader of the PCs' side.

[AlexanderHowl]

Well, most soldiers should use the Soldier skill for routine uses of Tactics (how not to be ambushed) while experienced NCOs should have a good 12+. With Tactical software giving a +2 to Tactics, the experienced NCOs should function at 14+. Most supers will probably not have similar levels unless they have military training and combat experience.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Well, most soldiers should use the Soldier skill for routine uses of Tactics (how not to be ambushed) while experienced NCOs should have a good 12+. With Tactical software giving a +2 to Tactics, the experienced NCOs should function at 14+. Most supers will probably not have similar levels unless they have military training and combat experience.

Soldier is only useful to tasks that would be considered easy. I don't think most uses of Tactics would qualify, and especially not recognizing an ambush, which you probably be a contest of Tactics. Soldier is more about the day to day tasks of being a soldier, rather than the specifics of specialized branches or service(such as infantry). In less modern settings it makes sense to combine them to some degree, but in modern settings where 90% of your soldiers are in logistics or support, it might not make any sense for them to know anything at all about tactics.

There's also the issue of specialist officers. For example, let's say there's a forward medical facility, and it comes under attack. The Major or Colonel in charge of the medical staff is almost 100% not going to be the guy with command authority over the security detail. You may even have a situation where a very junior NCO would be in command, rather than a medical service colonel.

[DAT]

Originally Posted by Icelander

You mean, carefully ignore pretty much every advantage their technological superiority gives them in order to give the aliens the best chance possible?

To behave like drugged and unwilling conscripts in Vietnam, instead of modern professional soldiers, even as the costs of sending a soldier into space make it utterly impractical to use poorly trained cannon fodder?

I was more suggesting how they were suppose to act, rather than how they ended up doing so in the movie.

Originally Posted by Icelander

Tactics checks, surely.

It depends. I will give a leader an IQ roll to even determine if they may think tactically for a situation (green leader may need to roll well, an experienced leader has to not fail), and if they are thinking tactically, then a Tactics roll to determine how well they do.

Originally Posted by Icelander

Normal people have skill 3-5 in it, which makes them capable of making a Tactics check at +4 TDM (to avoid the most obvious mistakes) some of the time. Soldiers should have skill 6+ and any squad or team leader in a professional military should ideally have skill 12 at minimum.

A successful Tactics roll should generally mean NPCs act as smartly as the GM can imagine given what they know about the situation. A success by a lot, let alone a critical success, will mean that the NPCs guess a lot of what the PCs are doing, especially if they win a Quick Contest against the leader of the PCs' side.

Yes, we are thinking along the same lines.

[tshiggins]

Originally Posted by DAT

As an idea, you could use the tactics of the colonial Marines from Aliens.

Vertal dropships deliver AFV to surface, provide support artillery, and extraction.

AFV provides mobility/transport, direct support fire, plus command and control. Crew includes driver, gunner, and leader/combat controller.

Individual soldiers have networked passive and active sensors that feed to the leader/combat controller in the AFV. Fireteams are formed around a support weapon operator (Smart Gunner), with a supporting fireteam of rifleman, grenadier, and team leader. Two fire teams to a squad. The squad leader has the squad RTO/Tech, Medic, and EOD Specialist or Sniper. Communication networks should be better than modern special ops, sensor networks should be linked/integrate, so what one sees/hears/senses, everyone knows.

(SNIP)

This is a good approach, so long as you keep modern military lessons in mind. Remember, Aliens came out in 1986, and our experiences with asymmetrical warfare against terrorists/insurgents in the Middle East and Afghanistan have taught us a lot.

The use of dropships and fast, well-armored APCs seems a good thing to keep, as is the networked infantry squad. You do have to be careful to not overload the troops with too much information, so a feed back to the platoon controller in the APC is probably a good idea to keep, as well.

I'd still want the platoon leader out in front with his or her troops though. Officers who send others off to get killed while they stay safe won't create good morale. Make the platoon controller a "chair-guy" NCO, who feeds info to the officers and fellow NCOs on the point of the spear.

In the U.S. military, a platoon consists of three rifle squads, one squad of heavy weapons, plus six support personnel in the "HQ" team.

I'd switch up the platoon load-out. One of the most important things we've learned in the past generation is the sheer utility of rocket-launchers, for all sorts of purposes.

I'd keep two squads built around a "smart" MMG such as what Vasquez and Drake were supposed to have carried (the gyro-mounted medium machine gun integrated with a targeting computer). Every other members of the team uses a caseless round (10 mm is as good as any) and an integrated 25mm grenade launcher.

However, I'd build the third squad around a TL9 version of the Carl Gustaf. The Gustaf is an 84 mm recoilless, so I think the 64 mm Hunter from Ultra Tech would make for a good squad support weapon. I'd put the 100 mm Striker on the APC.

The U.S. military's "heavy weapons" squad usually has two MMG teams and two missile teams (usually armed with the Gustaf) plus the squad leader.

For the TL9 version of that squad, go with a mix of couple more 64 mm Hunters supported by troops with lighter carbines or SMGs. Add in a couple more smart MMGs, or maybe a 100 mm mortar team, or a couple of x-ray laser snipers, or maybe a drone team or two. Maybe add in a robot "mule" to help carry ammo, missiles and other useful items.

Mix it up a bit, so the PCs never know exactly what they'll encounter when the rapid responders show up.

The two rifle squads with the smart MMGs go in first, with good intervals and dispersion, with the Hunter squad between and a bit behind, to offer support to either, as needed.

Behind them comes the weapons team, which deploys based on its exact configuration. A mortar squad could hang back a few hundred meters (maybe next to the APC with its 100 mm recoilless), and set up in a sheltered spot.

Any sniper teams would go for high ground with good lines of sight so as to provide not just fire support, but also situational awareness. Put some sensors up with them that sends video and sensor data to the "chair-guy" controller(s) in the APC.

The smart MMG personnel might just mix in with the third squad, which mostly tries to flank any opposition pinned by either of the primary squads, or responds to flanking attempts made by the enemy.

The drone team would provide recon and better situational awareness, followed up with remotely-piloted or semi-autonomous kill vehicles, for those hard to reach annoyances.

[Michele]

Very good job there. I'd just add that I'd insist on having smart area and saturation warheads for the launchers, too, not just various types of anti-armor warheads. Or even entirely in place of those, once the resistance has lost its last armored vehicles.