[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Heh, Ok I;m going to split this post off as it is a bit of a tangent, and I don't want to get this response too bogged down the more thread relevant stuff.

How easy it is to recruit and train people who can use ST 11-13 weapons is at least somewhat related to the subject of the thread.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Well given navy seals are what a two and a thousand chaps selected and culled through an intensive vetting process from an armed service that numbers a million+, which itself sits within a country with potential a recruitment population of up to a hundred million and benefits of C20th training and selection processes. (As do the navy seals themselves once they make the grade). So I'd say no, historical heavy infantry in general and navy seals are in no way analogous in this regard.

Kromm seems to have used 'Navy SEALS' as shorthand for 'really elite soldiers'. I doubt he was going for an exact correspondance. In any case, most of what makes Navy SEALs rare has little to do with their physical strength. It's true that GURPS assigns the average Navy SEAL ST 12, but that's simply because any human male of a reasonable size (i.e. no smaller than 5'6" or so) who has the willpower and mental discipline to be selected as a SEAL will develop at least ST 12 as a natural consequence of his training and lifestyle.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

To make a historical comparison one for the historical societies that woudl have been most able to select and train with concerted effort was the roman empire (but still not in the same league as the Modern day US in terms of methodology).

The total population of the roman empire at it's height seems to be between 50-90m so even if we divide the highest by 3 to get recruitment population (which I did to get the US one) for elite infantry we end up with 30m significantly less than the current US one. Were each legion was approx 5k men. Not that I have problem with exceptional legionary's having ST12 or higher it's just they will be increasingly exceptional and not the norm.

ST 12 for encumbrance purposes will certainly be the norm, otherwise you'd have to give them all Move 8+ for them to be able to march at anything even approaching historical speeds over the five hours per day that they did.

On the other hand, note that the Roman legions specifically aren't the type of 'heavy infantry' that Kromm was talking about. Roman legions are heavy infantry in the sense of Mass Combat, but they do not wield heavy weapons that require ST 12+.

Those who do are the Varangian guard with axes, Swiss guard with halberds, doppelsoldners (double-pay experts in mercenary companies with ten years or more of longsword training) with two-handed swords, etc. They are tiny minorities even among the comparatively small percentage of the populations who can be accounted as professional warriors and it is very reasonable to assume that people would not be numbered among them if they could not manage the weapons.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Personally I view a ST of 10 as being the average result for a reasonably average healthy diet and exercise regime. These discussions only ever seem to see ST10 as the possible starting point for rather than the average point (possibly an artefact of how we create characters in GURPS!)

GURPS Attributes aren't entirely inborn and they certainly aren't static. ST less than any other. ST 10 is average for largely sedentary modern adult males, who are very well fed and extremely tall compared to earlier, more active populations. In general, smaller and less well fed males of earlier times will also average ST 10, because they are much more accustomed to physical exertion.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

On top of this historically armed forces we're just not groomed and selected like this most of the time. Yes you might have occasional elites with extensive training, to call on but that was the exception, both in terms of numbers and context. Now this changed over time, but it took a long time.

A centralised government setting up camps and extensively training soldiers was a new development in Early Modern Times, only partially matched by the Roman legions. But that's not to say that there weren't alternative systems in place before that. In the main, those were cultural, with elite military units being recruited from social classes and populations where certain training to arms was expected of male youths.

The lifestyles of certain groups of people were designed, consciously and unconsciously, to train boys and young men to be elite soldiers in certain traditions. The games and sports they engaged in while boys were military training; the hunting and riding they delighted in as young men in peacetime were continuing military education.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Then we get into the point that sadly throughout history an awful lot of soldiers arrived on the battlefield, hungry, exhausted or sick. Or a combination of all three, and this was often a decisive factor for performance. The Crimean war was famously the first war were death by disease didn't out match death by enemy action (or was it the last one that did, I can't quite remember).

This is true, but most soldiers who have used weapons with ST 12+ in combat have been imperial, papal or royal bodyguards, specialists with certificates for years of training at arms paid at double rates or similar elites. The Varangian guard or mercenary doppelsoldners would eat much better than Status -1 common soldiers and would less commonly be subjected to the rigours of campaign life.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

So yes even you have ST12 at peak condition back home in your castle sleeping in you own bed, chances are you won't after only a pretty short time on campaign.

Many humans have a pretty remarkable way of developing enough physical strength to cope with the exertions of their daily lives. Soldiers on campaign have always carried a ridiculous amount of gear compared to what an average person would accept for a hike, but they somehow manage to adjust and be able to perform even with these huge weights.

In GURPS terms, that's higher ST, either just Lifting ST or general ST. I wouldn't hesitate to give the average soldier +1 or +2 Lifting ST, but the elites who are chosen to wield special weapons, like two-handed swords or halberds, will simply have higher ST than the average soldier.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

We seem to assume that all soldiers had the raw ST to match the MinST of their weapons. This is a huge assumption, I think more realistically some weapons where just harder to wield in certain ways, and so a lot of halbardiers may well have been suffering a -1 to hit etc. The former assumption is based on a perfect world that really didn't (hell still doesn't) exist in war, reality in war is much more making the best of less than perfect situations.

The extra 1 FP cost for fighting a battle with a weapon that's too heavy means that it's profoundly dangerous and stupid to use a weapon that doesn't match the physical strength of the character. Either he'll end up delaying everyone else while they wait for him to recover from exertion or he'll enter a negative feedback loop where he'll have less FP than his fellow soldiers at the start of battles, this will reduce his ST further and action will cost him proportionally more of his waning endurance, until he's no use to man or beast.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

This also leaves aside the point specific training tends to give specific results, so I find the idea of a well trained halberdiers having a the big hands perk to offset the The MinST deficit rather than training tp fight with halberds suddenly giving them all the benefits a blanket +1 to ST would give. (not that I assume they all be 8st weakling either of course)

I agree, but I'd use such Perks to ensure that elite troops did not just meet the minimum ST for their chosen weapon, but could continue to use it even when less than 100% fresh and rested.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Lasts and not least, how weapon weight and MinST works.

First off the weights of these weapons even in LT are historically speaking too high (Dan Howard has said this, beofre you take my word for it). Secondly I think BL and MinST give conflicting results here. A ST13 chap can lift with both hands 270lbs above his head without effort for as long as he likes, you're telling me he can only just use a Halbard that weighs 4% of that without penalty?

I agree that weapon weights can sometimes be a bit too high. On the other hand, I don't really have a problem with assuming that people can only fight effectively with a melee weapon that weighs a small fraction of the maximum weight they can lift over their head.

Also, note that just because there is no FP cost listed for a single lift of maximum press over a character's head, it should not be assumed that this is effortless and can be done for an infinity. Moving at full move, punching at full power or shooting a warbow on a combat time scale doesn't cost FP for each individual action either, but it's nevertheless extremely tiring. It's just less tiring than redlining the system so hard that it will render you unconscious in less than half a minute, which is what the rules for lifting heavier weights than 12xBL imply.

There aren't any generic rules in GURPS for assessing FP costs for physical effort over time, but I'd personally look at the Digging, Running and Swimming rules to adjudicate extended lifting or dragging.