[Mass Combat] Dogs

[WaterAndWindSpirit]

Hello everyone!

I just wanted mass combat sheets for things like modern police K-9 units, military attack and patrol dogs, and maybe anti-tank dogs that actually go under the right tank with the explosive charge they are carrying.

Also, while not a priority, statistics for any such individual dog as opposed to an element of them would be nice.

Thanks! :)

[mlangsdorf]

Dogs would probably be Beasts (MC18-19). Dogs with anti-tank charges would presumably get (Arm), but their low base TS means they're going to be ineffective in that role.

Simple stats for a dog are on B457, and a more expansive and powerful version is in DF5: Allies.

[hal]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

Dogs would probably be Beasts (MC18-19). Dogs with anti-tank charges would presumably get (Arm), but their low base TS means they're going to be ineffective in that role.

Simple stats for a dog are on B457, and a more expansive and powerful version is in DF5: Allies.

The question that came to my mind is whether or not the dogs constitute a combat element in and off themselves, or if they constitute "equipment" that enhances the abilities of their "handlers".

I suspect too, that the dogs wouldn't directly add to the combat value of the unit, but is capabilities, and as such, a K-9 unit probably should have parenthesis around their unit value.

What are the dogs being used for? Enhanced sensory capabilities? Anti-infiltration units? Chemical Explosive compound sensors? That is, at least, how I'd approach the issue.

[MrTim]

Originally Posted by hal

I suspect too, that the dogs wouldn't directly add to the combat value of the unit, but is capabilities, and as such, a K-9 unit probably should have parenthesis around their unit value.

Probably true for historical units, but I can see a legitimate combat unit made up of something like Dragon Age's mabari war hounds in a not-too-fantastic fantasy setting.

[hal]

Originally Posted by MrTim

Probably true for historical units, but I can see a legitimate combat unit made up of something like Dragon Age's mabari war hounds in a not-too-fantastic fantasy setting.

In the event that you have a "warhounds" like force that is strictly dogs, actively fighting against humans, then they'd be the equivalent of a "unit". The question becomes one of "What is their troop strength value" in light of the human beings they are fighting? Just as an "Element" might be 8 to 10 human beings in a low tech environment, an "Element" might be 20 dogs, and their TS value half that of a "untrained rabble". So to get parity, you might need four times the number of a human being for them to be effective in battle (not sure of the actual numbers required, so just using numbers for illustration point here).

Now, let's take it a different direction. Suppose that each of those dogs has been cybernetically enhanced to where they have a computer guiding them on what to do and how to go about it. Why wouldn't the people who created those cybernetic dogs simply use robotic systems and eschew the use of the dogs? Maybe it is because the robotic systems themselves aren't reliable, but biological systems with computer technology combined, IS more reliable. Ok, I can go with that. If you can determine that such an enhanced dog requires two to always beat a single human being, then their TS value should be sufficiently high to where two of them is better than one human. If one human can reliably defeat one dog 90% of the time, then the dog TS should be lower than one, but possibly higher than say, .1

GURPS MASS COMBAT doesn't seem to have a formula for determining TS outright. It doesn't say that someone wearing heavy armor, with a ST of 12, a DX of 9, and a HT of 11, can reliably beat someone with different stats and armor, 80% of the time, and consequently, their TS is X, where X is a value.

sometimes, all you can do is pull numbers out of thin air, and give it a whirl to see how well it works versus how you expect it to work.

As for Dogs as "mounts" etc, cavalry by any other name, remains cavalry. ;) In fact, when I try to difference Medium warhorses from Heavy warhorses, I treat them as "equipment differences" rather than anything else. When I adapted the GURPS MASS COMBAT rules for use with the HARNWORLD environment, I had to do some minor things to get it to work

1) change the scale from where an element equaled 10 men, to where it equals 5.

2) change the time frame of actions to deal with the lesser density of people per element

3) change the costs to raise and costs to maintain, based on Harnic values for their Economic system.

Oddly enough, the Medium warhorse from Harn was almost spot on cost wise, as an equipment multiple, than was the Heavy Warhorse (ie the ratio of cost for the heavy warhorse was in line with the difference between good and better equipment.

Light cavalry as might be used by the Yeomanry, came to be used for recon purposes, and rarely functioned well against Trained knights. Poorly trained squires relative to Knights fared badly in a conflict, but squires led in combat against infantry fared better. In all, I was impressed at how well the conversion system worked. When I used it for a campaign against the Gargun (Harnic Orcs basically) - it took almost the entire kingdom of Rethem's military resources to clean out a Gargun nest. When I gave the player in charge of one "detachment of Knights" intended to divert attention from the main attack on the entrance to the Gargun cave - the player was given the choice of engaging the seemingly helpless elements of gargu (plural of Gargun) he faced, and chose on a whim or because he didn't trust his read of the situation, to have a cautious battle with intent to withdraw. He then withdrew from combat. It was THE decisive element of the battle. What he didn't know was that a detachment of returning gargun from their daily hunts prior to the besieging army camping on their doorsteps (and the hunting party would range afar for days), would have hit his troops from behind had he continued to engage even while things looked like they were going well. Another detachment whose job was to provide a diversionary attack - found the rear entrance to the gargun colony, largely undefended. Leading a group of untested squires into the darkness of the cave complex turned out to also be an important highlight of a decision that in retrospect, helped bring about the victory of the Humans over the Gargu. Faced with an attack that was making headway in their rear, and having their sally against the cavalry remain unsuccessful (which the gargun would have loved to have horse and human flesh to eat), resulted in a defeat in detail for the gargu. Their queen was forced to flee the colony, and the entire defense collapsed unexpectedly such that the main force pressing the siege entered into the complex with relatively fewer casualties. The problem I faced as a GM? What was the TS value of a creature that was half the height of a man, but a bit stronger in the upper torso than their size might indicate.

So, That's the problem facing the Original poster.

If it were me, I'd rate the K-9 troops as having equipment that neutralized the ability of infiltrators to infiltrate. This counters the "Anti-Headquarters" function of other troops in m opinion - and all using low tech low cost "equipment" if you will (hard to use the word "Equipment" to describe a living breathing dog darn it!)