Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PyroDesu]

Sorry for spoiling your pristine subforum PW, but we really need this.

You need not spoiler plans here, as this is where they should go.

[Radio Controlled]

A bold move! Let's see how the big cheese reacts...

[piecewise]

If you say so, pyro. Though, you could have just asked; that is to say you could have just asked specifically for me to create one because up until now I've only seen questions of if one is needed. Regardless, if it helps you post more often, then it's fine.

[PyroDesu]

If you say so, pyro. Though, you could have just asked; that is to say you could have just asked specifically for me to create one because up until now I've only seen questions of if one is needed. Regardless, if it helps you post more often, then it's fine.

Eh, I've been seeing (and feeling) sentiment that we need one for a while, and even a few questions as to whether we could have one.

Also, I noticed that Toady left it so anybody can post new threads here (you (well, Toady) can restrict posting of new threads in a subforum, I'm fairly sure).

[piecewise]

If you say so, pyro. Though, you could have just asked; that is to say you could have just asked specifically for me to create one because up until now I've only seen questions of if one is needed. Regardless, if it helps you post more often, then it's fine.

Eh, I've been seeing (and feeling) sentiment that we need one for a while, and even a few questions as to whether we could have one.

Also, I noticed that Toady left it so anybody can post new threads here (you (well, Toady) can restrict posting of new threads in a subforum, I'm fairly sure).

True, and I don't really mind in this circumstance, but certain people have voiced concerns about the precedent this might set. In the future, just ask and I'll make the thread myself. Fair enough?

[syvarris]

Yay, new thread!  Pyro, might I ask that you change the name to Tinker discussion or something?  Mostly, I'm asking because it would be nice to have OOC type posts out of the Tinker thread, because then it's easier to search through it for specific PW posts about things.

Spoiler: Sod divisions (click to show/hide)

You don't need two identical fireteams. The basic unit for deciding ratios is the 10 man squad, a fireteam is just an extremely efficient thing to use in the field, which is why they use it as well in RL. Also, it might be a good idea (if it's 10 men teams) to have two identical leaders, with one being subordinate to the other (though not necessarily as armored) just in case. But, for intents of deciding gear (do we even need to do that in detail?) the 10 man squad would be the basic unit.

I'm not sure what the bit about "basic unit for deciding ratios" is supposed to mean.  Just that ten is a nice number?  Well, I'll point out that real militaries don't use ten man squads:

America:
--Army:2 FT of four (
--Mil. Police: 3 FT of three (9)
--Marines: 3 FT of four (12)
--Air force Security: 3 FT of four (12)
USSR:
--BTR squad: 9 troops, -2 stay with BTR. (7)
--BMP squad: 9 troops, -2 stay with BMP. (7)
Britain:
--Army, Marine, RAF (wow): 2 FT of four (
Canada:
--Army: 4 "FT" of two (
Not called a fireteam:
Finland
--Defence forces: 3 FT of 2 (6)

In any case, I think you're missing the point of squads being divided into fireteams.  They're not there because those fireteams necessarily need to be in the same group with other fireteams, but because it's easier for the platoon leader to give orders to three or so squad leaders, who then only need to command three fireteams.  Since we have sods commanded by some number of guys in a bunker who're sipping coffee, we don't need a structure revolving around commanders.

Now, I can understand lowering the size of the basic fireteam to five sods, but I think seven sods is good because we have more roles in a sod team than a real life fireteam.  If you can think of a five man fireteam assortment that doesn't have holes, then by all means I'll accept it.

Well, yeah, that's kinda what I meant: they're more for specific mission objectives than 'general' deployment. Battlesuits work better for the latter. And honestly, even a team wouldn't be more than 3-4 or so, and we shouldn't be sending them into situations where it could happen that they get TPK'd (it can always happen though). Consider it like this: in real life, the special forces are used in coherent teams, getting in, do what needs doing, and getting out again, leaving the brunt of the fighting itself to regular infantry.

I'm pretty sure that the main role of special forces is pretty much sending them into situations where there is a significant risk of getting TPK'd.  It's just that they're better than everyone else, so they have the lowest risk.

Anways, yes, I'm fine with this if that's how you want to handle the elites.  I think it'll add unneeded complexity, and also overlap with the Black Ops if you're specifically sending them out, but it's your war.

I'm the kinda guy who likes to put the volume on his tv on an even number, or at least a multiple of 5. Is it silly? Yes, but I find beauty in harmony.

And I'm the type of guy who sets the microwave to run for 57 seconds.  Is it silly?  Yes, but I like the number seven, especially when paired with five or three.

If this comes down to personal preference, somebody is going to be disappointed.

A thousand peeps really isn't all that big. It's a scale thing. for reference: on D day the Allied deployed about 150.000 people, and lost 10.000. And that's just for a single continent! Sure, sods are better than the regular human trooper, but still. A thousand dudes for a planet is peanuts. Unless you adhere to the common sci fi trope that an invading army only needs to take and hold the capital city/a single building in order to take over a planet.

Oh, and I'll say it again: on the scale of a universe, we're producing laughably small amount of sods (we really needs to get those instructional vids going). And even if we switched everything to robot sods, it'd still be lacking by a long margin. I mean, how many are we producing per month right now? Let's assume we could produce 50.000 a month . That's 600.000 a year RL.

Right now China, a single nation on a single continent, has about 2,285,000 people in active service. Not a 1-on-1 comparison, I know that, but you get the point.

Yes, I'm aware of all this, but the point stands that we don't have anything like those numbers.  Currently, we're producing 24,600 sods per RL year.  We could up that to 37,800 if we switched all the fleshpits to produce brains rather than bodies, but aside from that Pyro has all but said we aren't going to increase sod production further.  That means that we're either going to have a frightfully insignificant number of troops, or we're going to have to massively supplement our forces with forces from allies like Q'baja.

In either case, if we have to fight on a large number of planets, we aren't going to be dropping thousands of troops on each, especially if there's remote bases and things that wouldn't even need a full fifty troops.  Yes, this is unrealistic, but SPACE MAGIC it's a game.

There's a reason I've been focusing on growing our sod production so much, and still trying to find ways to up production further.

((Also, we probably will be capturing planets by just taking single cities/buildings.  Remember how we captured Heph?  Single city-sized area.  Q'baja?  Destroying one building.))

I don't think pw would ask us to detail everything, and certainly not to keep track of everything. It would just ensure that if we deploy one, we could ask for armored regiments or whatever to be deployed, and as long as it's reasonable, I think he'd be ok with it. Remember that the majority of the war will be behind the scenes, especially after what pw learned from Hep defense mission.

...You realize that earlier in the post, we were discussing whether a ten man squad split into two five man fireteams is superior to just using seven man fireteams, right?  Detailing the amount of artillery/armor/airforce in a regiment is way above that level.

Anyway, I meant that if we have large sums of troops, and the UWM goes and nukes our artillery, it's a larger break to say that this brigade is without "special" troops in general, or to just not really make any fuss about it.  If we use small fifty-troop ARMies, then it's less unrealistic to say we effectively lost two out of twenty of them- maybe future artillery is performed by heavy bodies shuffled out of the regular infantry.

Then we should hold for a second and decide who will be leading these sods. With leader I thought you meant a special sod that was independent enough to lead a team.

I mentioned it earlier in this post, but I figured our sods would be commanded the same way sods are always commanded- by a guy in a bunker with computers and nice comms.  The Leader sod is only a "Leader" because it leads the fireteam due to it's armor, and because it has the best comms- if it's killed, then it's possible for the team to be cut off from command.

And yes, we could just give every sod the same mediocre comms like what we do with our normal operatives, but I think this method would be better.  A sod team can operate with more reaction time, and at a greater distance, if we give them one comm set that's really really good, rather than seven that are okay.

Oh, and I'm not sure if we can continue to bank on battlesuit plate being as good and protective as the war progresses and the UWM ups its game.

There's two ways it'll get to be worse: one, tech advances, which we should beat the UWM in (meaning our armor would get stronger quicker relative to the UWM's weapons), and two, the UWM switching to weapons that trade something for AP ability (Which will mean our regular infantry will be more effective by comparison).

Either way, I don't think this is something to worry about.  At most it requires using somewhat different tactics, which are easily adjusted.

Yes, I do have the power IC to force my vision on matters like this. But I try not to. It's more fun that way for everyone (as you said, you're enjoying the discussion, no?). I only try to be dictator if it seems there's an impasse or things are grinding to a halt. Or to deflect blame and frustration to me so other people don't have to squabble (see: money dividing), but shh, don't tell anyone!

You are a better leader than I.  That's probably why you're the leader, I suppose.

And yes, I am enjoying this discussion.  I better be, considering that I drug you into it.

[Radio Controlled]

I'm not sure what the bit about "basic unit for deciding ratios" is supposed to mean.  Just that ten is a nice number?  Well, I'll point out that real militaries don't use ten man squads:

Ratios, as in the amount of heavier troops and what kind of roles we mix in with the grunts (eg if one has 2 support troops in a 7 man squad, that means about 29% of your squad/forces is support). And yes, they don't use ten, but they use numbers around that, so it seems reasonable.

In any case, I think you're missing the point of squads being divided into fireteams.  They're not there because those fireteams necessarily need to be in the same group with other fireteams, but because it's easier for the platoon leader to give orders to three or so squad leaders, who then only need to command three fireteams.  Since we have sods commanded by some number of guys in a bunker who're sipping coffee, we don't need a structure revolving around commanders.

Oh no, I know the reason why (see when I said "a fireteam is just an extremely efficient thing to use in the field, which is why they use it as well in RL"). I know a lot of the stuff they do in the military is for reasons not entirely applicable to a force of perfect warriors, but still. Besides, when the going gets chaotic, I still think the ability to say 'fireteam one hold, fireteam two flank right' would be mighty convenient. Even if they're not in the thick of battle, it'll still be chaotic. Ever played a frantic online shooter? But I do agree that it's not nearly as vital as in RL.

Now, I can understand lowering the size of the basic fireteam to five sods, but I think seven sods is good because we have more roles in a sod team than a real life fireteam.  If you can think of a five man fireteam assortment that doesn't have holes, then by all means I'll accept it.

This is what i meant with ten men being the basic unit for ratios: you'd only need to ensure the 10 man squad is covered. The constituent fireteams wouldn't be equal, but they are not supposed to get extremely separated from the rest of their squad to the point that one gets in a situation it can't handle, and the other isn't reasonably near enough to help.

Anways, yes, I'm fine with this if that's how you want to handle the elites.  I think it'll add unneeded complexity, and also overlap with the Black Ops if you're specifically sending them out, but it's your war.

I believe we might have a different view on the idea of an 'elite' unit, so we can still also use your idea. It's probably that the two roles are different enough to warrant different loadouts anyways.

Could you give me an idea as to what you would see an elite equipped with within your vision?

And I'm the type of guy who sets the microwave to run for 57 seconds.  Is it silly?  Yes, but I like the number seven, especially when paired with five or three.
If this comes down to personal preference, somebody is going to be disappointed.

Nah man, I was just joking with that. "beauty in harmony", really? That's a line so cheesy I can make a sandwich out of it!

Yes, I'm aware of all this, but the point stands that we don't have anything like those numbers.  Currently, we're producing 24,600 sods per RL year.  We could up that to 37,800 if we switched all the fleshpits to produce brains rather than bodies, but aside from that Pyro has all but said we aren't going to increase sod production further.  That means that we're either going to have a frightfully insignificant number of troops, or we're going to have to massively supplement our forces with forces from allies like Q'baja.

In either case, if we have to fight on a large number of planets, we aren't going to be dropping thousands of troops on each, especially if there's remote bases and things that wouldn't even need a full fifty troops.  Yes, this is unrealistic, but SPACE MAGIC it's a game.

So, we agree we have way to few troops. So then, what would be better: to consolidate them enough so that we at least ensure we can win when we deploy them, or spread our meager forces even thinner? I admit though that always flinging a 1000 around might be a bit much (in the context of this game) but 50 just kinda feels underwhelming. For the record, when I say 'fling around' I mean, for example, the size of a troopship. In a model of 50 dudes, you'd have ships ferrying 7 squads of people around as a standard unit, which to me feels silly low. To use some hyperbole, why not give each sod his own ship then? Maximum flexibility!

I have to admit I might be thinking too much as if this was a real war, in which matters of organisation would be very important. But if we can get away with deploying army groups that are literally outnumbered by my biochem class and pw says that works, that would be hilarious.

Question: in your model of 50-man armies, how are armored units, airforces, and specialized units handled? Are these their own armies, deployed alongside them? Do they get their own ships?

((Also, we probably will be capturing planets by just taking single cities/buildings.  Remember how we captured Heph?  Single city-sized area.  Q'baja?  Destroying one building.))

In order to preserve my fragile sanity I like to think those were exceptions. We got Hep due to their over reliance on automatization and the loopholes Steve put in, and on Q'baja we aren't taking the planet, our allies will do that themselves. We are just ensuring their loyalty by preventing the UWM from crying for help, they will then handle the rest.

There's a reason I've been focusing on growing our sod production so much, and still trying to find ways to up production further.

For which you have my gratitude.

...You realize that earlier in the post, we were discussing whether a ten man squad split into two five man fireteams is superior to just using seven man fireteams, right?  Detailing the amount of artillery/armor/airforce in a regiment is way above that level.

Yes, but we might actually use those squads in-game ourselves in the future, as in during missions. I doubt pw will let me organize a full-scale campaign anytime soon. As such, it makes some sense to work out in detail the smaller matters, but handwave the larger ones.

Anyway, I meant that if we have large sums of troops, and the UWM goes and nukes our artillery, it's a larger break to say that this brigade is without "special" troops in general, or to just not really make any fuss about it.  If we use small fifty-troop ARMies, then it's less unrealistic to say we effectively lost two out of twenty of them- maybe future artillery is performed by heavy bodies shuffled out of the regular infantry.

If we ever actually get to do stuff like this (crosses fingers). But I do get where you're coming from. It's just that I think we'll just be sending these units out into the void for Steve to command behind the scenes, rather than us having to worry ourselves that one group is growing short on x or y.

I mentioned it earlier in this post, but I figured our sods would be commanded the same way sods are always commanded- by a guy in a bunker with computers and nice comms.  The Leader sod is only a "Leader" because it leads the fireteam due to it's armor, and because it has the best comms- if it's killed, then it's possible for the team to be cut off from command.

And pray tell me, where do we get these trained dudes? Recruit them? Grow them?

Also, if there's ever anything disrupting your comms (eg that bunker is nuked) then all of the forces they commanded are all useless. If there's a commander per squad, there's more redundancy.

There's two ways it'll get to be worse: one, tech advances, which we should beat the UWM in (meaning our armor would get stronger quicker relative to the UWM's weapons), and two, the UWM switching to weapons that trade something for AP ability (Which will mean our regular infantry will be more effective by comparison).
Either way, I don't think this is something to worry about.  At most it requires using somewhat different tactics, which are easily adjusted.

Hey, why do you think I commissioned that armor research? Either way, that was just a side note, to remind us we can't grow complacent and just say 'battlesuit plate is good enough' indefinitely. If we do indeed try to keep a leg up over them, then good job guys!

And yes, I am enjoying this discussion.  I better be, considering that I drug you into it.

At least you gave me the chance to bail before it started 

[syvarris]

Spoiler: Spoilered for length (click to show/hide)

Oh no, I know the reason why (see when I said "a fireteam is just an extremely efficient thing to use in the field, which is why they use it as well in RL"). I know a lot of the stuff they do in the military is for reasons not entirely applicable to a force of perfect warriors, but still. Besides, when the going gets chaotic, I still think the ability to say 'fireteam one hold, fireteam two flank right' would be mighty convenient. Even if they're not in the thick of battle, it'll still be chaotic. Ever played a frantic online shooter? But I do agree that it's not nearly as vital as in RL.

I think we got a bit away from each other here- I agree fully with this statement, but I was saying that if you want more granular teams that can do different things, you shouldn't lump them into one ten-sod "squad".  Instead, if seven per team isn't granular enough, you can just make the basic team size five.  Also, the seven sod team I described can be divided into two three man teams, plus the heavy robosod.  That's the primary reason that I put two supports in it, instead of just one.

Also, yes, I've been playing one a lot recently.  That is a terrible example because barely anyone ever communicates and plays as a team.

This is what i meant with ten men being the basic unit for ratios: you'd only need to ensure the 10 man squad is covered. The constituent fireteams wouldn't be equal, but they are not supposed to get extremely separated from the rest of their squad to the point that one gets in a situation it can't handle, and the other isn't reasonably near enough to help.

This is a decent point.  I just don't feel that ratios of 1/10 or 1/5 are good for more specialized units.  That's just a gut feeling though, I don't have any strong arguments against ten man teams.  I'd still prefer five man teams over ten though.

I believe we might have a different view on the idea of an 'elite' unit, so we can still also use your idea. It's probably that the two roles are different enough to warrant different loadouts anyways.

Could you give me an idea as to what you would see an elite equipped with within your vision?

I doubt our visions of the loadout are different, I think we're just viewing where it would be useful differently.

Synthflesh body optimized for use with a robot optimized Mk.III, milnoplate, avatar cloak (Or some other combination that allows flight but still gives good protection), and one of the better stealth cloaks.  Armed with a PSL for straight combat, and then concealable weapons for stealth.  Probably a Sibilus, and a HEP for use as an emergency weapon.  Maybe throw in a few combat stims, if robosods can actually take advantage of those.

Basically, everything we can give it.  I had thought our elites were supposed to be the sods who have everything spent on them, for the missions where nothing less is good enough.  Something like just a straight stealth synthbody would probably be better for the role I was thinking of.

So, we agree we have way to few troops. So then, what would be better: to consolidate them enough so that we at least ensure we can win when we deploy them, or spread our meager forces even thinner? I admit though that always flinging a 1000 around might be a bit much (in the context of this game) but 50 just kinda feels underwhelming. For the record, when I say 'fling around' I mean, for example, the size of a troopship. In a model of 50 dudes, you'd have ships ferrying 7 squads of people around as a standard unit, which to me feels silly low.

I'd figure a troopship would hold a lot more than fifty sods, but would jump from system to system dropping groups off.  You don't need a FTL capable ship to tend that remote research base you left fifty sods on for guarding.  Also, dropping just fifty on each planet would be foolish- you could still drop a hundred groups of fifty on a really important planet.

This model might not work well, depending on how our logistics will work.  If we have to wait a mission cycle for every jump, then we just won't even be capable of covering enough territory to justify the granularity.  If we can transport troops to twenty systems every cycle, then I think it would work very well.

Question: in your model of 50-man armies, how are armored units, airforces, and specialized units handled? Are these their own armies, deployed alongside them? Do they get their own ships?

Depends.  Are we ever gonna get real tanks/artillery/aircraft?  If so, then if they are cheap enough to spread around, every group gets some set number.  If they aren't that cheap, or we just don't want more than one aircraft per hundred infantry, then your method of full companies will work better.

In the case we don't get actual vehicles, which seems preeetty likely right now, then they'd be handled by just having certain squads take over those roles.  Heavy robobodies or MK.IIIs can work as aircraft decently, full battlesuits as tanks, and HGCs are basically handheld mortars.  Every ARMy would have it's own mini airforce and armor teams.

If we ever actually get to do stuff like this (crosses fingers). But I do get where you're coming from. It's just that I think we'll just be sending these units out into the void for Steve to command behind the scenes, rather than us having to worry ourselves that one group is growing short on x or y.

If that happens, what's the point of really specifying anything about those groups?  If they're just gonna be abstracted, then I don't think defining whether or not those thousand sods you deployed have artillery or armor is going to affect the game much.  At most, it'll give flavor text about destroyed tanks littering the battlefield, or aircraft blowing up buildings or something.

Also, I think PW is more likely to let us play tactical wargames if we simplify the complexities.  I really want PW to let us do that.

And pray tell me, where do we get these trained dudes? Recruit them? Grow them?

Where do we get the sods with the mental depth to actually command groups?  We haven't really experimented with intelligent sods much at all.

It's way easier to get humans from allied planets or something, possibly those who are already officers, and train them to command sods.  Also, just the fact that the commander can sit back and just think about tactics, without needing to aim a gun and watch for enemies, should be enough to justify keeping the commander back.

Also, if there's ever anything disrupting your comms (eg that bunker is nuked) then all of the forces they commanded are all useless. If there's a commander per squad, there's more redundancy.

In most cases, I think if the UWM manage to destroy the base where we keep the high level personnel it's going to screw the troops anyway.  Plus, in a lot of cases those commanders are probably going to be behind some quantum entanglement communicators, on another planet.  That does leave a vulnerability the size of a backpack, but it shouldn't be hard to protect that.

Also, with QECs our commanders wouldn't die, and would get a whole lot of battle experience.  There's value in that, although PW might not factor that into anything.

[Nikitian]

Oooh, finally we have the thread!

I'm going to chime in a little about the troops discussion. Poor, deluded me.

1)It might have merit to keep certain units robosod-free, to get the most out of that ease of supply bonus flesy sods enjoy - not having to depend on the special nutritional fluids.
That, or perhaps it's time we devise a little cute omnivore fleshmonster producing the nutrient slurry in the field to deal with that particular supply issue once and for all.

2)Most of the time, I think, it would likely be just a few - well, not buildings, sites - we have to take, secure and control to conquer the planet. I assume that most of threats can be simply glassed from the orbit (or, in case of population, threatened to be glassed). That leaves us with either installations that are buried deep enough to be virtually invulnerable to any bombardment safe planet-busting one, or high-value target sites that we want to capture mostly intact (and those are likely to be few and far between).

[NAV]

In Soviet Hephaestus, gun wields you.

PTW.

[PyroDesu]

Oooh, finally we have the thread!

I'm going to chime in a little about the troops discussion. Poor, deluded me.

1)It might have merit to keep certain units robosod-free, to get the most out of that ease of supply bonus flesy sods enjoy - not having to depend on the special nutritional fluids.
That, or perhaps it's time we devise a little cute omnivore fleshmonster producing the nutrient slurry in the field to deal with that particular supply issue once and for all.

2)Most of the time, I think, it would likely be just a few - well, not buildings, sites - we have to take, secure and control to conquer the planet. I assume that most of threats can be simply glassed from the orbit (or, in case of population, threatened to be glassed). That leaves us with either installations that are buried deep enough to be virtually invulnerable to any bombardment safe planet-busting one, or high-value target sites that we want to capture mostly intact (and those are likely to be few and far between).

For 1, while it might be amusing to convince Xan the 3rd to produce such things (well, the potential results might be amusing), perhaps we might look at some kind of digester equipment (insert local edibles (with sufficient nutrient content), get nutrient slurry) before expanding into using an organic solution?

As for 2: Just wait until the UWM makes you carry out that threat. Even if they don't, threatening to glass from orbit is not the best of plans, especially if we want the (newly freed from UWM control) planet to work with us.

In Soviet Hephaestus, gun wields you.

No no no, in Soviet Hephaestus, factories make YOU!

[Xantalos]

If you want you totally could get Xan3 to do stuff. All he needs is a will decomp and I can do whatever.

[Nikitian]

Well, they've got the 'don't work with them or we will annihilate you' terror propaganda going on, why shouldn't we do the same thing? Only with good-guys flavor: 'They are monsters, we exterminate them, support them against us and you're a monster too, you bastard' or something like that.
We'll anyway have to run a convincing public awareness campaign to paint us as 'good guys' if we are to counter the very likely mass brainwashing of population on UWM worlds we conquer, so better put it to use, right?
And we don't have to devastate whole planets, just a few key strokes against the military targets, and the planet would be mostly ripe for conquest.

All this assumes, of course, orbital superiority. Which is, except for rare cases of either stealth landing (like Assault on Hephaesus) or maybe 'hot' spacedrop with their fleet still in orbit (possibly engaged in combat), the main approach to conquering planets, and that is why we probably need to focus on fleet much, much more. Perhaps even design and produce several specialised siege ships.

In Soviet Hephaestus, gun wields you.

No no no, in Soviet Hephaestus, factories make YOU!

In Soviet Hephaestus, robots design YOU!

[Empiricist]

If you want you totally could get Xan3 to do stuff. All he needs is a will decomp and I can do whatever.

Think that if a robotic head was stripped of everything except cameras, a Xanling might be able to form an emotive, user-controlled face on it? Because having something like that might be more beneficial to Charles than just an emoticon display.

[Radio Controlled]

Imaginary military: logistics edition

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Hmm, an interesting use of the term 'granular' you've got there.

I doubt our visions of the loadout are different, I think we're just viewing where it would be useful differently.

Synthflesh body optimized for use with a robot optimized Mk.III, milnoplate, avatar cloak (Or some other combination that allows flight but still gives good protection), and one of the better stealth cloaks.  Armed with a PSL for straight combat, and then concealable weapons for stealth.  Probably a Sibilus, and a HEP for use as an emergency weapon.  Maybe throw in a few combat stims, if robosods can actually take advantage of those.

Basically, everything we can give it.  I had thought our elites were supposed to be the sods who have everything spent on them, for the missions where nothing less is good enough.  Something like just a straight stealth synthbody would probably be better for the role I was thinking of.

So, a stealth-oriented unit still. Now, tell me honestly: do you really think that there are gonna be a lot of situations where there's a sudden and urgent need for a stealth-oriented unit, as opposed to another kind of elite? Sure, there's that one example from before, but it seems awfully specific, so I don't suspect that those situations (or similar ones) will crop up enough to warrant adding a stealth unit to every 50-man group. Finally, good luck hiding all that hardware while still being stealthy.

Because if you wanna have that nice 50 number, you could still include something like a stevebot or modified Renen-type robobody as a choice for elite. Wouldn't one of those make more sense to include in a combat unit as standard? And then the actual stealth work could be done by teams/individuals actually designed solely around that.

Also, yes, I've been playing one a lot recently.  That is a terrible example because barely anyone ever communicates and plays as a team.

Nah man, that just means you're playing the wrong game, or with the wrong people. Would you care to tell what game it is?

I'd figure a troopship would hold a lot more than fifty sods, but would jump from system to system dropping groups off.  You don't need a FTL capable ship to tend that remote research base you left fifty sods on for guarding.  Also, dropping just fifty on each planet would be foolish- you could still drop a hundred groups of fifty on a really important planet.
This model might not work well, depending on how our logistics will work.  If we have to wait a mission cycle for every jump, then we just won't even be capable of covering enough territory to justify the granularity.  If we can transport troops to twenty systems every cycle, then I think it would work very well.

While this might work, I do think it'll be awfully unflexible and complex on a logistics scale, because you could be abandoning squads without any support like this. And more importantly, it assumes that this squad of 50 dudes is the right answer to every situation. what if the nature of the deployment means that one time you need a lot of vehicles/battlesuits, and the other time you can't use any? With a system of a fixed amount for every small squad, it could mean a very sub-optimal division of forces (eg leaving a 50 man unit to guard an underground base, and their tank sitting useless outside). If you have a system where companies have a separate division for gathering stuff like vehicles and specialized units, you can more easily apply them where necessary. And on the off chance that you do need to leave some dudes to guard a base while the rest skedaddle on, that can still be done in a company system, where the specific gaps in the company are then later refilled. Of course, if you say "each 50-man unit gets what he needs on a case-by-case basis", that could work, but due to the distances and timescales involved, getting everything to where it needs to be would be a nightmare.

Oh, and if you say a troopship can hold multiple 50-man platoons (and perhaps say that each troopship has a storage of stuff to deploy as necessary), isn't that basically the same as the company system? Only you aren't deploying the whole company at once all the time, but as I mentioned before "1000 dudes to fling around" isn't primarily for the number we deploy per mission, but also for stuff like logistics and how many we put on a ship and such.

In the case we don't get actual vehicles, which seems preeetty likely right now, then they'd be handled by just having certain squads take over those roles.  Heavy robobodies or MK.IIIs can work as aircraft decently, full battlesuits as tanks, and HGCs are basically handheld mortars.  Every ARMy would have it's own mini airforce and armor teams.

A Mk.III will never adequately replace a dedicated aircraft, nor is the battlesuit equal to a tank. I know you know this. Either way, we come back to that point from before: if each group has its own stuff, some will fall short and others will have no use for it.

If that happens, what's the point of really specifying anything about those groups?  If they're just gonna be abstracted, then I don't think defining whether or not those thousand sods you deployed have artillery or armor is going to affect the game much.  At most, it'll give flavor text about destroyed tanks littering the battlefield, or aircraft blowing up buildings or something.

Because for the most part, it might be abstracted, but even them I'm gonna request one or two for the Sword for if they're needed. And in that case, I'd like to ensure I can tell pw 'oh yeah, there's dedicated battlesuit groups in a company, totally' and not be lying too blatantly.

Also, I think PW is more likely to let us play tactical wargames if we simplify the complexities.  I really want PW to let us do that.

Unilateral agreement on that last part there.

Where do we get the sods with the mental depth to actually command groups?  We haven't really experimented with intelligent sods much at all.

It's way easier to get humans from allied planets or something, possibly those who are already officers, and train them to command sods.  Also, just the fact that the commander can sit back and just think about tactics, without needing to aim a gun and watch for enemies, should be enough to justify keeping the commander back.

Well actually I... Oh wait, that's all still classified. Erm, let's just say there might be ways.

Anyways, as M17 proofs, QEC are expensive. So, you wanna give one to each and every squad we have, plus train and maintain their commanders? Might be more expensive than just getting a smarter sod. Secondly, there are no systems in place whatsoever to recruit and train these commanders, and we'd need a bunch, whereas we do have the infrastructure and most of the know-how for sods. Finally, those flesh sods we are growing specifically for use on more backwater worlds? Are they too gonna be commanded by some bored schmuck behind a computer?

In most cases, I think if the UWM manage to destroy the base where we keep the high level personnel it's going to screw the troops anyway.  Plus, in a lot of cases those commanders are probably going to be behind some quantum entanglement communicators, on another planet.  That does leave a vulnerability the size of a backpack, but it shouldn't be hard to protect that.

We should really check if QEC equipment that powerful (and small enough to fit in a backpack) for every squad isn't too expensive, and see if there aren't any possible signal delays and such. And if you put them closer to the action, then you still run the aforementioned risk of losing some.

Also, with QECs our commanders wouldn't die, and would get a whole lot of battle experience.  There's value in that, although PW might not factor that into anything.

True, but get this: we can still use the system of a QEC commander if we also go for sod squad leaders, then you just put them (or a small group of 3 or so) in command of that 50-man unit of yours, instead of one for every single squad. And you could use him to replace your 1-unit elite, keeps the numbers nice and round.



Hmm, we seem to be in some agreement for the important parts, so I think we can reach a consensus here. How about this: we use your 4*7+1=50 man system as the basis for a platoon (with 7 squads each). However, we group those into a company/regiment of 3 'Army' each, with two additional units that consist of a mix of vehicles, specialist units and the like (these two units are about equal in resource cost to the regular platoon, not in number). That gives us units of about 150 people + support as a basic unit to put on a ship, and if for example 1 50-man army and some equipment needs to stay behind while the rest moves on, that gives and easy way to quantify things should it ever be needed.

It might have merit to keep certain units robosod-free, to get the most out of that ease of supply bonus flesy sods enjoy - not having to depend on the special nutritional fluids.

Yeah, we had agreed on that before. That's why we're building fleshies in the first place.

Most of the time, I think, it would likely be just a few - well, not buildings, sites - we have to take, secure and control to conquer the planet. I assume that most of threats can be simply glassed from the orbit (or, in case of population, threatened to be glassed). That leaves us with either installations that are buried deep enough to be virtually invulnerable to any bombardment safe planet-busting one, or high-value target sites that we want to capture mostly intact (and those are likely to be few and far between).

We don't know what the average mission profile will be. Also, do we really wanna go there, threaten civilian populations to force them in line? And I'm not even talking about "but we're the good guys blablabla", but getting others to rise up voluntarily is kinda hard when you are menacing them with orbital bombardment at the same time elsewhere. It'd be a PR nightmare!

Finally, what is, say, 25% of the population on a planet is really pro-UWM? And what if 5% of those are hardcore and willing to fight for it guerrilla-style? Have you seen the Middle East lately? Good luck holding the planet if there's suicide bombers hidden among the civilian populace that's not even a threat.

And we don't have to devastate whole planets, just a few key strokes against the military targets, and the planet would be mostly ripe for conquest.

Pfff nope. You know what is a good way to get a grudging populace to rally behind their government? Give them a nice external enemy to rally against! And if you then proceed to threaten them with orbital bombardment if they don't listen, good luck holding that planet once the ships are gone.

A big important factor: this war is too big for us. We can't take and hold all the UWM worlds. However, the more we can force them to spread their forces, the better. So we need to only focus on key targets, and get the people to rise up themselves. For that, we need to win the propaganda war. Taking out a few key military targets on regular planets is great, but only if that allows the populace to rise up and overthrow the local UWM themselves.