Steve Jackson Games Forums - [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings

Steve Jackson Games Forums (https://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)

- GURPS (https://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)

- - [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings (https://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=80872)

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCB (Post 1198626)

How often do nations go to war over differing funerary practices?

A culture may find zombies disgusting or even morally offensive without being willing to wage a costly war over the issue. As a historical example, consider nations which outlawed slavery at different times, but which were otherwise largely on good terms.

Religion is actually a common cause of war. And sometimes its over what to an outsider seem to be pretty minor differences.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings

OK well that is a very good setup. Unless all of the nations are the same arcologies they will have differnt focus. A lower tech nation or one with more population may very plausabily go for larger but less well equiped and trained armies.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings

Quote:

Originally Posted by Refplace (Post 1199439)

The Nariyása race evolved primarily in harsh, flat lands - mostly deserts and prairies with occasional oases; they are adapted to desert life. While it contains several cultures, they all are neither densely packed nor prosperous. Long distances between resource spots and barren landscapes have resulted in a focus on cheap, rugged and highly mobile vehicles. Soldiers range from inferior conscripts to high-paid and bloodthirsty veterans.

Game effects: Lots of cheap ground vehicles, varied troop quality. Fanatics are rare, but finding Good-quality Impetuous Mercenaries is quite doable. Nearly all units have Terrain (Desert).

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh (Post 1199519)

This is the kind of situation where clans or tribes wage low-intensity warfare among themselves (raiding). They should be good at guerrilla and reconnaissance.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michele (Post 1199525)

This is the kind of situation where clans or tribes wage low-intensity warfare among themselves (raiding). They should be good at guerrilla and reconnaissance.

Yep, these are the factions that I might be give lots of Motor Recon to.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings

The Khæn culture places great emphasis on realistic martial training - 'wargames' are a popular sport. Also, they treat flight with an almost religious fervor - those who never piloted a real vehicle have at the very least learned to handle a parachute (or glider). Since the locale mostly consists of islands full of either cliffs or dense jungle, they don't have many ground vehicles.
Despite their martial prowess, they have no standing army - warriors act more like mercenaries or (in the rare cases of protecting homeland) highly organized militia.

Game effects:
TL9^ in general, TL10^ in airspace tech.
No MBTs or Battlesuits, and very few land vehicles (10% of TS, element count or total budget, at most).
Most infantry, air transport, air combat, and Sky Trooper units are Levy units (or Mercenaries).
All infantry units Must have the Airbourne Feature.
Terrain: Jungle and Mountain are common.
All-Weather is common for air units.
Code of Honour: everybody has strict rules of behavior, and are obliged to keep their combat skills at a respectable level - all Infantry and Air units must be Good Quality, and many are counted as Fanatical. Élites, though, are not as common.
Retarded biotech: casualty reduction after a battle is halved (this might be negated by units having Rapid Healing or Slow Regeneration).
Instinctive Tactics: groups of Khæn have a Cunning rating equal to average primary skill of all participants in a force, instead of the usual IQ/Per (MC27). Instinctive Tactics are unavailable for Khæn Mercenaries lead by non-Khæn leader(s).

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh (Post 1199627)

Since the locale mostly consists of islands full of either cliffs or dense jungle, they don't have many ground vehicles.

...

No MBTs or Battlesuits, and very few land vehicles

I understand why no tanks and not a lot trucks, but I'm unsure as to why no battlesuits, and I am surprised that a nation of islands has no navy to be mentioned.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michele (Post 1199714)

I understand why no tanks and not a lot trucks, but I'm unsure as to why no battlesuits, and I am surprised that a nation of islands has no navy to be mentioned.

No battlesuits because the setting lacks them. The closest thing to a battlesuit is a light mech similar to the Wolverine, IF I finally decide they exist at all.

Navy no better than that of other seafaring states due to huge emphasis on flying vehicles - these fellas would make the Flying Arab himself envy them.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings

Quote:

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh (Post 1199765)

So the flying vehicles have no need to land and refuel?

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Johnston2 (Post 1199779)

So the flying vehicles have no need to land and refuel?

I didn't say that. Bases do exist. But the faction/race has most of its logistics force made of air logistics units too.

Plus, they don't wage wars of aggression, and there have been very few wars of retaliation. So as levies they mostly stick to local landing or refueling, or, as mercs, expect the faction hiring them to give access to their own bases or carriers.