[Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Greetings, all!

As part of [re]designing a setting, I'm aiming for making the [para]militaries different from each other. The problem is making sure the differences are at least plausible - traditions, civilian practices and the like can only account for so much weirdness. What ways can be used to plausibly avoid the armies of the world from picking a perfect mix and sticking to it, and make it reasonable for different organizations to stick to very different doctrines. Preferably with bits of 'ethnic badass' units and tactics.

This was a crude attempt of a similar discussion (more specific to the setting, not as generic as this one).

Thanks in advance!

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Look at the ancient world: the citizen-states of Rome and Greece produced a strong infantry with a supporting cavalry arm. The aristocratic east produced the persian and parthian cavalry armies with an insignificant infantry component.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

The major cause of army diversity, assuming societies that have enough contact to see one another's technology, is diversity in resources. In the modern world this mostly appears in the form of the relative cost of personnel vs equipment (so first world armies are very different from third world armies), but if there's some other type of unevenly distributed resource, that also works (for example, the English longbow is dependent on having the right type of wood, and Japanese armor is significantly influenced by the shortage of iron).

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

There is IMHO no real perfect mix.

The trick is to look at the talent you have...and find a way to maximize what you can do with it. Bonus points if you can find a way to line it up with the other sides weak points.

But since armies are represitive of the Government, Society and People(s) that create them...much like people, no two are the same.

One of my favorites is here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_S..._Service_Force

A unit created for a mission that was never done, to use a vechile that was built at about the Proto-type level, very nearly disbanded and not really wanted when it was sent to combat; magnificent historical irony that it is one of the models for many current special forces organizations...

Edit: Oh and while certainly not history per se the William Holden Film gets most of the major points about right...and is a decent movie too...

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Wow, Vicky, you don't ask simple questions, do you? :)

Some of the real life influences on armies have included such things as:

Funding - infantry are cheaper to train & maintain than armor/cavalry units. Certain weapons types are certainly cheaper to produce and maintain than others. The training for certain weapons is easier than for others, for example, the firearm, even in its early stages, was easier to teach than the use of the long bow.

Terrain - broad open spaces with fairly good water sources would cause an army to be more mobile, especially when horses (or their equivalent) are the main form of transport. Mountains or steep hills would work best for infantry, especially lightly armored or skirmisher types. Deserts or badlands would indicate small units, possibly mounted. Temperate forests would be good for infantry, especially heavily armored types. Islands would be the source of marines - infantry trained to operate either aboard ships and/or landing on enemy shores, as well as most of the military would most likely be ships or boats.

Tradition - based on the above terrain ideas, later armies would most likely continue with variations as the tech level increases.

Religion - while there are not many historical examples of religion having a major impact on army forces, a fictional setting could have them. For example, a religion could disapprove of edged weapons for the aristocracy, leading to forces made of nobles relying on maces. In history, for a while, the Catholic church "banned" the use of crossbows on Christians. This didn't last very long, as military forces found the advantages of the crossbow far outweighed the ban.

These are some ideas, at least.

I've seen PCs create super armies that are, for example, immobile. (Try shipping a thousand heavily armed knights across a two hundred mile wide channel using small craft - five knights, their horses and their equipment per boat, because that was all they had. That's 200 small boats that may or may not make it all the way. No support troops, no food. No protective navy, either. It wasn't pretty.) Of course, there are very few units that are perfect - the equipment, the men or the leadership always has a flaw.

Real militaries study their possible opponents, and the terrain they could be possibly fighting over.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

I think that if you take a snapshot of any real military organization at any given moment and ask 'Why this?', the answer will fundamentally always revolve around three things -- legacy, purpose (planning/strategy), and resources (including human and intellectual).

Vary those as between the nations, and their militaries will diverge accordingly.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Beyond what Whitestreak wrote their are a couple more reasons for diversity

1: Paranoia: Large well discipline, trained, and armed troops are a godsend in times of war. They are also potential assets that can be influenced by rivals to your leadership by the opposition within your country. The same is true of peasantry that have easy access to weapon. Their familiarity with weapons would let them be trained for warfare quicker in times of war but would also make it more difficult to impose unpopular decisions in times of peace.

2: Population: Smaller populations might very well compensate for a lack of numbers by lavishly equipping each soldier with as much high quality gear and training as possible. While a country who has an overabundance of population might prefer to equip its much larger armies with a much cheaper gear.

3: Sensitivity to losses. The more a country values the life of its soldiers the more it will invest in them as well as pursuing weapons that allow their forces to disengage better or be able to stand off at a greater distance than the enemy. Typically democratic governments will have higher sensitivity to losses than more authoritative governments.

4: Historical Precedent: Governments tend to fight their wars the same way again and again as long as they are successful at it. Its only when they are defeated or suffer phyric victories do they tend to look back at what they did wrong and make the adjustments needed to win the next war.

5: Cult of Personality: In the real world we dont get to see the stats of an army nearly as easily as we can in Gurps and have had to take educated guesses at what will give us the best bang for our buck on the battlefield. Frequently those decisions that we make will have detractors that have valid criticisms of why X is better than Y and what we really need is more W. A popular ineffective army choice is going to be an army that is going to be hard to get rid of for a ruler while a unpopular but effective army choice is going to be very difficult to maintain in peace or even war.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Umm... whats the setting? This becomes a heck of a lot easier, if there are imbalances on the two sides. Suppose in one country everyone learns how to make and shoot a crossbow as part of a tradition, another army is okay with necromancers, and the third army is from the wizards guild. The first army's levies will be filled with crossbowmen and the second will have teams of zombies, and the last army will have nothing but mage created monsters and the mages themselves.

Or in a sci-fi setting, if one side is invading from space, they probably will want light units, or ones that are easy to land and launch. A lack of heavy tanks, but a preference to super-soldiers since the main cost is moving them; certainly no one without excellent training. The ground people don't need to worry about weight, so they can use tanks, or swarms of less well trained infantry.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

That strains plausibility horribly, to my mind.

I can believe a nation with exceptional native crossbowmen, which naturally fields them heavily. Though it's easier with archers, since the bow is a more skill-intensive weapon and easier for people to get their hands on.

It's a bit hard to believe that necromancy is useful, but only one army takes advantage of it. Unless it's a tool of irredeemable evil and you're in the midst of your huge dualistic fantasy war, in which case carry on. It's much more believable that one army makes more extensive use of it that others for some separate reason...what springs to mind for me is they use undead to patrol some kind of terrain that's extremely inhospitable to human troops, but there could be other explanations.

It's plausible that the Mage Guild has minimal conventional forces of its own, but they wouldn't go to war with magic alone (unless balance in the world is so borked that that's a game breaker strategy, in which case any The Mage Guild probably rules the world). They'd field lots of magic, but they'd also use it to buy mercenaries and allies of more conventional types. The point of being a guild is to extract concessions (and money) from outsiders, after all.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Necromancy is usually believed to be a irredeemable tool of evil. Of course if one side believes zombies are fine and dandy then they will use them and the other side won't.
True they could also hire mercenaries. But that would be limited to what mercenaries can offer you. And you can do quite a lot with the standard system magic for creatures. Creating elementals spring to mind as a good source of troops.
I have no idea how hard or easy it is to use/make crossbow's/bows. But it very well might be one is more plausible than the other.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

How does that setting manage not to be the aforementioned big dualistic fantasy war? If necromancy is too abominable to use, it's probably too abominable to tolerate, and away we go.
Mercenaries can very likely offer you battlefield-effective formed units of various sorts. But allies are even better. Especially when you've got some spells to discourage any sort of teachery.
Crossbows, both by being higher-TL and by being mechanical, would typically be produced in urban workshops...which means the rural masses aren't likely to have them ubiquitously at the relevant TLs. Bows are an ancient technology that typically are made out of local materials, much easier to fit into the traditions of a rural population.

The stereotypical crossbow specialists are commercialist urbanites who have plenty of money and workshops but lack large bodies of traditional warriors. So when they need forces they drill up a militia with high-performance but mass produced and easy to use gear.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Unless it is only abominable for social reasons that do not translate across cultural divides, and lacks an objectively known truth. Lets say society A believes that when a person dies its soul is released from its body and that using its body for military or work purposes is no more disrespectful than in finding an abandoned home and moving in.

While society B believes that upon death that the soul of the deceased is trapped within the corpse and cannot move on until body is destroyed typically by cremation as soon as possible after death. That to imprison a soul into a rotting corpse is highly offensive to its ideas regarding the after life.

While Society C takes a little bit of both A and B's beliefs and allows limited use necromancy and only allow necromancy for certain people. People who are still in debt when they die may be reanimated to provide work/military service until they have discharged their debt/duty. People may sign contracts to have their body reanimated after their death in return for money or other services, and criminal sentences may extend to beyond the prisoners death in society C.


Actually to me the stereotypical crossbow specialist tend to the Chinese armies who were using them since 3rd or 4th century B.C. and had no shortages of large bodies of men. Remember typically urban populations typically require much larger Rural populations to support them.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

And again, why is society B ok with societies A and C? If it's not, and throws down in the name of proper treatment of the dead, there's your war. And if it is, how is it going to keep its hard line when constantly rubbed up against and coexisting with the benefits of applied necromancy? Useful technology tends to burn through barriers of custom...
Sure, they work too...but for similar reasons, actually. They've got more people, but the states in question combined a capable manufacturing base with a military that relies on lightly-trained levies.

In Europe, the urban population required the same much larger rural population to support it, but didn't necessarily control the rural population and were often not on good terms with the traditional, trained fighting men.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

But social customs/taboos have remained largely in place even if their abolition would provide a clear advantage that their opponents take repeated advantage of. Think of the limited social status of women even today in several parts of the world for example. Their limited access to education/and the work force let alone military causes clear disadvantages to those societies but are kept in place via strong cultural reasons despite these disadvantages.

Zombies offer some very clear advantages in terms of attrition warfare castle/city assaults but have very low personal initiative are incapable of learning from previous mistakes may be very difficult to keep together in a cohesive manner and may very well increase the propensity of plague developing in the area from their decomposing bodies over all their advantages and disadvantages when taken together may not provide a decisive enough of an advantage for Society B to change its policies regarding necromancy.

Society B might also make the decision that while it finds the Necromatic policies of Society A and C very distasteful that actually going to war with either society is bad for it for several reasons independent of it. Just as in the modern world the United States has several qualms about Chinas Human rights violations and its willingness to allow patent piracy but does not care enough about either of those issues to engage in a war with them despite having what is probably the most powerful military in the world right now.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

In a fantasy setting where a lot of magic is used, one thing you can do is bring up the subject of aspected mana. If anything is going to aspect your mana, it's massive use of a certain kind of magic. Thus go wild with necromantic industrialization, and you find your entire realm becoming death aspected. Not only does it get harder to use Healing, Animal and Plant magics, but you might find yourself dealing with other side effects. Increased still births, crop failures, ghosts and feral zombies cropping up.... And yet, necromantic magic becomes so easy... Divide up your magic into different ideologies and and you can end up with White, Green, Red, Blue... nations, each with a strength and a price you pay for that strength.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

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.


The same way nation C foreswears slavery even while its neighbour nation A profits from it?

It's not clear that necromancy is beneficial enough to a nation to force its adoption in the face of cultural resistance, especially if the nation's advantages lie in a different direction. Armies which rely heavily on mobility, for example, may find classic zombies to be of limited use.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Right. Setting. TL6+3^ that I'm redesigning. Some example reasons behind diversity:

The Justicariate is a densely-populated yet small city-state with superior bio-technology and social engineering. The city is an underground arcology, so they have a negligible navy/airforce/motor pool. Since they are pretty cautious regarding population losses, they refuse to maintain a large army. Instead, their defense force is composed almost solely from extensively-modified super-soldiers, raised and trained from childhood, and given the best equipment.

Game effects: the most common units are Fanatical Élite Super-Soldier Riflemen with best equipment, and often with Night, Terrain, and a Neutralize specialization (depending no loadout). Similar Mortar teams are also available.

I'll describe other factions later.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Well, I have this nice role-playing rule set... that says that Bow is DX/Average, Crossbow is DX/Easy. A weak person can use a high-ST crossbow, simply by reloading slowly or using a device; he can't use a high-ST bow. This gives me a general idea that using a crossbow is easier.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Historically, crossbows were easier to use, and easier to teach, than any of the bows, especially the long bow. Among the many requirements for competent bow use are sufficient upper body strength and the ability to account for the oddities of arrow flight to hit a target.

A crossbow is, in modern terms, point and shoot in comparison.

Makes sense --
 

Other possible reasons for diversity, even with the same set of technologies:

1.) Distance from the theater of war. In WW II, the Americans did not field (until the final months of the war) any armored vehicles heavier than the thirty-odd ton Sherman. One main reason is that the war was, from the USAnian standpoint, fought overseas. There were a lot more 35 ton cranes available than 60 ton cranes to load/unload tanks. I also suspect that the Liberty ship would have had more trouble with a 60 ton tank and it's much greater concentration of mass vs. deck or hold-floor space. Also, problem for moving by rail.

2.) Space, the final frontier. When I first read of Ogre in the late 1970s (IIRC) I thought it was neat but made no sense -- why put all your military eggs into one basket? Then decades later, when I was fooling around with some ultra-tech logistics' planning, I realized that there was one aspect where it did make sense -- logistics.

A 25,000 ton Ogre may have the same firepower as an armored battalion (albeit be rather more vulnerable as a unit) but the delivery mass & support tail is going to be a lot less. (Remember a 51 tank battalion will need LOTS of support vehicles, supply transports, and ongoing provisioning for its men; an Ogre with a long-term nuclear plant is pretty much independent. An Ogre is, moreover, with an add-on jump chassis self-deliverable into a system; the battalion will need transports, support for the transports, escort for the transports, support and bases for all the above, etc.

3.) Zombies are great tankers -- was the argument in the Cold War for troops zapped by radiation. (I think that the military was too optimistic, however.) If you have a mana-rich world, some societies will be very opposed to seeing Uncle Mort or Aunt Wilma as a rotting spear-carrier. Perhaps the Grand Autocrat might not want to buy the kind of unrest that could ensue if he starts recruiting the graveyards. (And they can vote, too!) In other societies, with different scruples, perhaps the plebs are happy to see their dearly-departed shouldering arms (assuming that they have arms, or shoulders, by that point) and going off to fight for King, Country, and Undertaker.

As someone noted, there's also the third-party element; while you may not care what your enemy or your civil population thinks of using zombies you may not want to give your enemy this propaganda gift. Remember that unless there are just two nations in contact with each other you have to consider the neutrals.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

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.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

And they have no interest at all in control of sea lanes? Land-based aircraft can't effectively secure your freedom of the seas.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

No, but a superior aerospace force + a regular navy is another matter.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Only if a 'regular navy' is well supplied with carriers, and you count naval aviation as not contributing to the power of the navy.

According to Wikipedia, only 9 countries on Earth currently have aircraft carriers at all, and most don't have more than one in current commission.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

'Regular navy' as in 'at the setting TL, without deviations from average troop or equipment quality as compared to other navies'.

That being said, I'm not sure maintaining many oceanic paths under control is a priority for a faction that has primarily air-based both in terms of combat and logistics vehicles. Island-based aircraft should suffice to safeguard the naval paths between the islands, the local fishing operations etc.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Sure, but if that means that they have a bunch of CBGs, I definitely don't know that.
Do they do all their civilian bulk cargo transport by air-freight?

It's probably not impossible for their rivals to conduct naval-based interdiction of airlanes, for that matter. I'd be inclined to invest in some submarines with SAMs.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

CBGs?

A large extent. Not all islands even have a clear delivery path between the shore and the central lands.

Doesn't that basically require already having achieved regional dominance in the first place?

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Carrier Battle Groups
Is this a contra-grav setting? You said TL10^, but didn't specify that I noticed.

If it is, their airforce probably could have unlimited endurance with airborne carriers. If it isn't, I'm wondering how this can be economically viable.
I don't see why. It's commerce raiding made slightly more inconvenient because the commerce you're trying to raid is relatively fast-moving.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Yes, though the Khæn favour Hyperdynamic VTOL Ornithopters (they aren't as good at hovering statically, but they can take off from and land pretty much anywhere, and are pretty economical).

Why isn't it? Sure, by MC rules, air logistics are about 2x as expensive (IDHMBWM). But transports don't need unlimited endurance - they just need enough endurance to perform their job plus a bit extra. On the plus side, they can deliver stuff fast. Also, they can deliver stuff to places where a navy or land logistics force can't (or can barely) reach. I guess it just puts them into a niche.

I still don't get it: you're saying that an 'average' enemy navy would be enough to seriously try to threaten the Khæn's local naval commerce, which is protected by both the local 'average' navy and a local 'superior' airforce? While having a stretched logistics trail?

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

I think that the problem is that by weight, aerial transport is much more than twice as expensive as water transport. Closer to an order of magnitude, all told.

At least when you're dealing in bulk, which you will be, when it comes to fuel and ordnance.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

The issue isn't the military logistics...air logistics might not be feasible for truly massive campaigns, but if you aren't doing something like Operation Overlord I wouldn't worry that much. It will be unreasonably expensive but you can potentially absorb that cost.

However, there has been no point in recent history, possibly in history at all where civilian trade didn't make heavy use of water transport as the cheapest of all bulk transport methods. (I have no clue why Mass Combat sea logistics cost more than land logistics.) Contragrav might be able to upset that, though.

"Unable to import or export heavy goods at reasonable prices" is not an economic niche I can believe.
Well, I thought you said they didn't have naval commerce to speak of, I was aiming for their air commerce instead.

Do they not engage in long distance trade? As a nation in a TL9+ world? That's very hard to credit. If your Khæn have no commerce outside easy air patrol range of their land bases that might protect them from raiding, but it's unbelievable.

Also, naval forces don't so much require a 'logistics trail' as such. They can have one, but they also have internal range and stores to allow them to cruise for long distances and timeframes. A modern SSN (nuclear submarine) can circumnavigate the globe without surfacing, never mind resupplying. Operating far from logistics limits how much they can do before withdrawing for resupply, but when each SAM brings down an airliner or cargo plane and a handful of shells or a torpedo destroys a surface freighter that limit is more than enough to be intolerable.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Some trade goes by sea, some goes by air (in our world).

That's not what niche I'm proposing. I'm proposing 'imports/exports/transports those goods that are normally transported by air anyway, and has better aerospace technology, thus having an advantage over the competition'.

Not much by sea, but it can't be totally zero (besides, there's fishing). Okay, let's look at air commerce.

Isn't air (or even aerospace) patrol range pretty long by TL9? As in, 'global'?

I get the impression that you're saying that to engage in air trade, a nation must have 'above-average' navy.

Are you saying that Submarines (or the Navy in general) can ignore the requirements for Logistics TS, don't lose Logistic TS from Raids etc.? I hope not.

What are you trying to say? You keep pointing at the fragility of logistics/merchant vehicles, but they are no less fragile in our world, yet nations trade.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Check the volume, in tons, for each. Seriously. If you were to ignore air freight entirely, it wouldn't make that much of a difference to the total volume. It's an extremely specialised form of transport that is mostly used to move people and luxuries, goods where time is very valuable. Any normal trading relationship between nations will feature more than exhanges of rich tourists and express mail.

Supplying food, fuel, ordnance or raw materials is not economical by air.

Not really. At TL8 and probably more so at TL9, you can design aircraft with extremely long range. The thing is, though, that the design features that go into endurance flight are pretty much diametrically opposite the ones that go into air-to-air superiority fighters.

To have a successful platform that can do both, you need to spend so much more money than the other side that the only way you can compete is if you are so much larger and more economically successful that you can afford to field an enormously suboptimal military.

Even the best combat aircraft at our TL8 burn fuel and expend ordnance at prodigious rates and there is no sign of that changing. The side with bases close has an enormous advantage. Since it's 20 times cheaper to move fuel and ordnance by sea than air, any nation with a fleet and aircract carriers will have an advantage over your 'air-power only' nation as long as their own nation is less than 20 times the distance away from the engagement area than your fliers.

The consequence is that the fliers control only their own island and are essentially unable to effectively project power anywhere else, because it's too expensive. If you want that changed, you will have to make them by far the richest faction and somehow explain why they prefer to throw their enormous wealth into the ocean by trying to use aircraft as heavy logistics vehicles.

The whole point of nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers is that they include their own Logistics. So, yeah, that is what he is saying.

In times of war, though, closing off the avenues of trade for the other side is a powerful economic weapon. Any island nation that has no navy is in the position of a stronghold on a hill that has no access to food and water. No matter how invulnerable they are to assault, anyone patient enough can still defeat them easily.

Without trade, you can't maintain a TL9 economy. You probably can't maintain a TL5 economy. Simply put, the more you trade, the richer you are and the better your technology. A war that turns off all your income will cause your economy to tank and your military to become worthless over time. The higher the TL, the shorter this time is. Hence, a military that can protect your trade lanes is vital.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Operation Overlord: the Allied invasion of Normandy in WWII. One of the larger military operations of history, I think. Even if the planes to do so had existed, trying to haul the supplies for that by air would probably have bankrupted the US.
In addition to Icelander's point about relative quantities, they are not interchangeable. Most things that go by sea wouldn't be worth the cost of shipping by air, and of course if you pay for air shipment it's almost surely because you don't want to allow the time it would take to ship by sea.

In the pretty unlikely case that you were going to not have one of them, it would pretty well have to be air freight.
That's not a national economic niche. They need to be able to trade in the...basically everything that gets moved by sea. In theory they could have little to no merchant marine and have all their sea trade conducted by other people's ships, but that only reduces the loss of capital and life they risk to commerce interdiction. It would probably make it harder to keep trade flowing in the event.
Aircraft can have global range. Global patrol is more of a problem.

Icelander's addressed the issue with extreme-range action against conventional naval forces. If you're flying from the continental US to hit a carrier in the South Pacific, you're going to be fighting at a huge disadvantage. The other component is actual patrolling, to detect and attack submarines before they kill your merchants. That takes long idle times, and sensors that aren't particularly well suited to aircraft too. The problem there isn't so much range as how much sea area you can afford to continuously blanket in ASW patrol planes.
To secure global trade of any sort except land against hostile navies, yeah. That's a big part of why Great Britain went for the huge navy back in the day. Being able to protect their trade lanes worldwide was essential for their existence.

Anyone can engage in global trade in peacetime, but in time of war you can be cut off if your navy isn't powerful.
There might be a way to interpret Mass Combat so that it actually makes sense for naval forces. But basically, yeah, many ships (and probably more in the future) can sail to the opposite side of the planet from their base and fight a battle with no logistics vessels anywhere near them.

...just like if you were using Mass Combat to represent a patrolling squad meeting an enemy squad in the jungle, neither has logistics elements in reach of the fighting. Or if you're modeling a fighter duel over the North Atlantic.
These days are peacetime, with a balance of power that makes major wars difficult at best. And the US has a habit of playing world police with its many aircraft carriers, and tends not to approve of disrupting trade.

In the past, powerful nations that relied on sea trade generally built up a navy with which to protect it. And that at much lower (and thus less global-trade-oriented) TLs than your setting.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

It's certainly less economical than by ground. An ×4 cost modifier seems like a lot, but remember that it allows one to not bother with maintaining an ×1 Land and an ×2 Naval logistic force for operations and trade that involves a land path and a sea path.

First, where are you getting ×20?
Second, it isn't 'air-power only'. It is 'no better than the TL average in stuff other than aerospace stuff'.

Well, if they are their own Logistics, that just means that the Nuclear Submarine (base TS 48k, cost $150M/6M) simply cannot be raised separately, but must also be 'accompanied' by itself for LS 6k, $60M/$6M worth of navy logistics, plus $12M per month of extra supplies it has for autonomous action.

This is not the same as a unit which has a Maintenance of 0.

It's not 'no navy', it's 'average navy quality for its TL'.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Makes no sense. Absent magic or superscience, air transport is not a replacement for shipping. Mass Combat is supposed to allow GMs some system for resolving battles that impact the PCs, but it is not a world-building system that has a workable economic simulator of logistics.

The difference in cost between shipping things to the engagement area for both Gulf Wars vs. flying them in.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

No one suggested a maintenance of 0. Modeling them as having an integral logistics unit makes no sense either. What they can do is operate on internal supplies for a time. They use up supplies as fast as you'd expect, but have reserves that allow them to operate for significant time before needing resupply.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Why not? It is the effect they have:
They have a non-zero Maintenance/Support Cost (be it repairs, supplies, whatever).
They can act for months without returning to a base, ignoring TS losses for lack of support.
...which is possible because...
They have their own storage space, power generator etc. (expressed as Logistics Raise Cost).
They have their own supply of fuel, ammo, food and other resources for several months (expressed as carrying several months of supplies with them instead of steadily picking them from the rear; the price of supplies is expressed as a combination of the unit's and logistics' maintenance cost per month).

How do you propose to express it if not like that?

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Well, looking at it, the navy of those island people would probably be composed of a lot of small units - corvettes, armed trawlers, submarines. They use these to keep their waterways under control and keep their waters clear of commerce raiders. If anything more powerful - battleships, carrier groups - shows up, they call in the air force, which is based on the islands, with enough range to strike the invader.

That still means that their long-distance trade is open to whatever their enemies want to do to it. Carrying on international trade will be next to impossible with this configuration, if major surface units go after your convois. Submarines might still be kept in check by destroyer and corvette escorts. They might plan for this contingency by holding a unit or several of higly specialized planes in reserve, which are designed to attack such surface units. Basically, large fuel supply, powerful anti-ship weapons, stealth capacity. So when the enemy declares war, they send out these units to sink whatever large commerce raiders they can field, then use their smaller units to keep their convois safe from small-scale commerce raiding by subs and auxiliary cruisers.

It might just work. After all, TL 8 carrier groups are not primarily a weapon of sea warfare, they are a way of projecting air superiority. If that is not what you want, you wouldn't need them. The specialized planes outlined above would be sufficient to sweep the seas clean of battleships and carriers, and might serve as a deterrent to enemy naval deployment, and convoi warfare is a matter of lighter units anyway.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Sounds good.

It should be noted that as a political entity, they seem very reluctant to participate in all-out warfare. Selling mercs here and there - sure, as long as they don't take it personally. Committing all of their able-bodied population to pursue a political warfare - no way.

Even though on the individual level the Khæn are seen as loud and daring, in the political sense, the Khænish Islands (official name pending) are supposed to embody the 'Beware the Quiet Ones' trope - they're huge (total area and population somewhere between Australia and China, haven't decided yet), larger than any other sovereign state in the setting (not larger than some semi-temporary alliances, though), culturally monolithic (in contrast to the rest of the setting), capable of hive-mind-like coordination in large-scale combat, and very reluctant to take sides in political conflicts.
Most world leaders think that it's best not to anger the sleeping giant, and they're probably right. Truth be told, while the Khæn can probably defeat any confederation and maybe even any alliance in the setting, this is likely to have catastrophic consequences for them in terms of population loss and expenses.

I'm not saying they can't have carriers. I'm just reluctant to give them special bonuses in the naval area, since I think a +1 aerospace TL (or nearly so) is pretty scary already.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

The 'logistics unit' is inseperable, immune to things like Raids, and doesn't do the job of a logistics unit in the first place. A real logistics force keeps your element supplied. The shipboard supplies give the ship a period between going out of supply and being short on supplies, but it doesn't magically fetch fresh munitions when it uses them up. To restock, either the entire ship has to return to a base, or an actual supply vessel has to come out to it.
By not using Mass Combat, or by applying slash and burn to Mass Combat rules until the ones left actually fit the situation.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

That's only true insofar as you draw a sharp line between naval aviation and sea warfare, or if you read far too much into the shortage of recent serious naval warfare. Carriers are the premiere weapons of sea warfare, because for a multitude of reasons airplanes are much better strike and recon assets than shipboard weapons and sensors can be.

Of course, if you don't need to annihilate an enemy navy you can also use them to project air superiority in support of land operations. They're good for that too.
You're giving them the largest economy on the planet, I gather, paired with a merely average navy. Do you mean 'average' for a great power?

I'd suggest that their navy would lean heavily to light carriers. Assuming that they can operate their favored aircraft off relatively small decks. They can lean on the 'just plain better than you' factor to compensate for the relatively small aircraft complement. A light carrier is roughly cruiser-equivalent so having a number of them doesn't constitute a huge navy, but if your planes are overwhelmingly superior each one is probably at least as scary as anyone else's fleet carrier.

And if they do get in a serious scrap they might roll out escort carriers: dirt cheap, slow light carriers designed for convoy protection.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Largest internal economy, yes. Not the largest external trade exchange - they're the second most autonomous (in the economy & resources department) political entity (the first being the Justicariate). And yes, luxuries and tourism are likely to have a large ratio in their external economy.

When I said average, I meant, in City Stats terms, that their Military Budget Factor dedicated to the navy is no higher than that of the average seafaring nation's MBF (perhaps even lower). Sure, their navy is larger than that simply due to having a large population in the first place. But I don't want to give them a munchkin navy, since due to the Levy mechanics (representing martial training and piloting tradition) they already have a freaky de facto budget for infantry and air.

With lots of craft having VTOL capability, that should work.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

My point was simply, that if you don't need to get close to your enemy, but only need to break anything he extends in your direction, you don't need a carrier. In WWII, the US had all their carriers commited in the Pacific, but where quite capable of keeping U-boats under threat in the Atlantic from land bases, coordinating their efforts with small surface units. The same strategy is feasible against larger targets. You only need a carrier if you have to take your air power elsewhere. And that is not self-evidently necessary for naval warfare, but it is for aerial warfare across oceans.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Not exactly.

Fleet carriers -- yes.

However, by late 1943 much of the Allied (NOT US) ASW effort in the Atlantic was carried by the so-called "escort carriers." These could project air power into regions not covered by short-based aircraft. (See William T. Y'Blood's "Hunter Killer" for details.)

Even in areas which could be covered by shore-side based ASW air the CVEs (escort carriers) were useful. It might take several hours to whistle up a PB4Y from Newfoundland or Iceland or Northern Ireland to respond to a possible U-boat contact in mid-Atlantic; if an escort carrier was present you could get aircraft to sighting location much more quickly. This time saving could translate into a kill vs. a "there's lots of ocean out here & no U-boat, Chief."

Remember that the USN was marginally involved in Atlantic ASW. It made more sense for the Royal Navy & Canadians to cover that area of operations while the USN went after the Japanese. IIRC by early 1943 the USN was contributing three percent only of Atlantic escorts. Note also that a very large number of escort carriers were US-built and British-manned. (I think a few were Canadian-manned, but might be wrong.)

Before the torches & pitchforks come out I should acknowledge that I am an American and have had family members in the USN. However, I also, in the interests of truth, have to acknowledge where our allies carried the lion's share of the load.

Back to Ms. Molokh's point -- it might be possible for an island nation to get by without a major navy if certain odd political arrangements occur. From 1945 to c. 1985 the Japanese navy (excuse me, marine self-defense force) could be fairly small and short-ranged, despite Japan's major need for imports. The US had a vested interest in Japanese prosperity (and still does, IMHO) so the USN basically provided Japan's sea lanes with security. Alternatively, if the nation is pretty much self-sufficient in vital commodities, it could get by with shore-based, relatively short ranged air as anti-invasion forces, and let the relatively more expensive long-range sea-based air (read carriers) go hang.

Other options -- are there space-based military assets in this scenario? While they would be pretty useless against submarines, they could be decisive against surface & air threats.

Other possible factors -- is the island nation needing only fairly small quantities of vital materials? Then cargo/tanker submarines would make sense and be no less tough to find/kill than the enemy's attack boats. (There would be more chance to find them as they approach port -- but then fairly short-range ASW assets could work against the raiders.)

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

I'm not saying they can magically fetch fresh munitions. On the contrary, they have to haul as many supplies as they need for their endurance. But it seems like in MC rules the ability to store supplies beyond one month is never included in the default unit cost.

Just curious, is Mass Combat one of those products like Magic that calls a lot of hate here or something?

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

I think that the bigest problem is that it seems that you're trying to use Mass Combat for things that were not designed into the rules.

Many of the things you seem to be doing are best laid out by GM fiat, not referring to Mass Combat. Remember, MC is intended to help GMs and players settle largish battles - it's not really set up to resolve campaigns, politics or economics.

There are a couple of resources available for campaigns, and when I get back from the dentist's office, I'll dig through them and give some pointers.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Yes.

I'm sure you are too pessimistic about those torches and pitchforks, to the point that I'll add that "the USN went after the Japanese" with all its fleet carriers - plus the USS Robin. Which, despite its code name, actually was the HMS Victorious.

Re: [Mass Combat] PLAUSIBLE army diversity in settings
 

Making armies? O_o

Not using it to resolve politics or economics (except for unit pricing, but that's kinda the point of MC).