Jump to content



Photo

A few ship related questions.


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#21 Annaamarth

Annaamarth

    Member

  • Members
  • 412 posts

Posted 03 June 2014 - 12:16 AM

Pulling numbers out of my butt, I'd say allow a group of 14 or 15 to qualify as a "squadron" for support small craft purposes. Note that the "open bay" of the Cetaceus matches the Lathe-pattern open bay in description, and that every transport is allowed one landing bay.  This looks like a hold landing bay to me, or possibly a fore-mounted Lathe bay as an exception to normal rules- alternatively, assume three or four Lathe launch bays and reduce squadron size accordingly- Lexicanum says they come with other support craft, so the fighter and bomber squadrons may be reduced in favor of the Minotaur tugs and whatnot.

 

Each one holds a "regiment," vague as that is.  From the size (and art, terrible as it is), I'd assume that each one can carry 30-50 Leman Russes/Chimerae and 500 troops. 

 

Of course, I don't expect my interpretation to blend with anyone else.

 

Relevant: Rather than trying to come up with hard numbers in this game (an exercise in futility, in my opinion) I assume that every Barracks comes with an eight point Only War regiment.  Each Munitorium improves all armoured or heavy regiments aboard that ship by one point.  Each Drop Pod bay improves each drop-pod insertable regiment aboard by one point.  Each 50 acheivement points or fraction thereof of cargo hold space provides 1 point to distribute amongst the regiments. Each unit of Aeronautic assault boats taken as a support craft point improves any unit transportable by Valkyries or similar craft aboard that ship by one point.

 

Each barracks component comes with unarmed landing craft sufficient to offload the troops within a 10 hour timeframe.  It's a big component- it should come with that.

 

Support ships with hold space may load their holds with equipment, allowing them to "spend" their regimental points to support ships throughout the fleet.

 

Each quality upgrade to a barracks provides one bonus regimental point to its regiment, in addition to the normal benefits of upgrading quality.

 

Two cruisers for the initial assault plus a Star Galleon or two (or a Mass Conveyor!) with follow on forces?  Yes, please.

 

This system is abstract, but allows heavy armoured regiments, artillery regiments, light infantry regiments and so on to be modeled fairly well.


Edited by Annaamarth, 03 June 2014 - 12:25 AM.

  • Marwynn likes this

RIP AND TEAR THROUGH THE TIDE OF BLOOD WITH BATTLESUIT PILOT. SUPLEX HIVE TYRANTS. DO WHATEVER, YOU'RE PILOTING A HUGE-ASS MECHA.

 -Errant, on how Rogue Trader ought to be played


#22 Errant Knight

Errant Knight

    Member

  • Members
  • 398 posts

Posted 03 June 2014 - 07:56 AM

I, too, prefer the abstract over the concrete, though numbers of craft are usually exempt from that since they are few, and they do get shot down or shot up.  I do like my players to have an idea of what the designations can deploy.

 

I like your idea of a landing craft of some sort coming with each barracks.  That just makes sense.  And, the Lathe Landing Bay in a prow mounted position seems inevitable since every Space Marine strike cruiser appears to mount one.  Still, since fluff has transports in a troop transport mode the Hold Landing Bay is also a must, though I don't recall seeing any that were prow mounted (not that I'm a photo hound).  A Hold Landing Bay (Cetaceous Landing Bay?) can hold 120 Furies or 60 Starhawks so I guess 10-20 Devourers isn't out of the question.  Gods, that seems excessive.  Even minimally, that would mean that a militray transport could put 5-10k troops AND 500-1000 vehicles on the ground in a single lift.  AND, military transports might very well have more than a single barracks component.

 

The regiment designation has always thrown a certain group of people into confusion and I have to wonder if that isn't we Americans.  To us, a regiment is almost always a subunit of a division, until very recent times when we've built combat brigades around them.  In Britain, a regiment is the core unit, around which brigades and divisions are built.  Those regiments were traditionally composed of 2 battalions, of which one was active and the other a recruiting cadre.  Hence, these undersized British regiments (most Continental armies had regiments numbering 700-1000) are really oversized battalions (usually about 500 men each).  All of that changed considerably in the world wars, for all nations.  Regiments grew to about 3000 men each.

 

In 40k, Imperial Regiments are the core unit, though often the size of divisions, which just tells me that there are other lower-tiered designations, though I'm only familiar with 40k IG companies and smaller.  Just to give some ideas, though, our group established some of the following numbers:

 

An armored "field regiment" consists of about 100 tanks.

A mechanized infantry "field regiment" consists of about 100 APCs and their passengers.

An artillery "field regiment" consists of 30-50 pieces, their crews, and support vehicles.

Note that a field regiment is a fighting unit, NOT an IG organizational regiment.

 

Keep in mind that these formations aren't decided by their combat ability, but their logistical consumption.  Any number of armored and mechanized units might be in only a single engagement at a time, while the supporting artillery might be engaged in all of those same fights simultaneously, throwing shells in support of all of them.  I guess my next question would be, "How much supplies does a basic military transport carry?"  How long is that one ship supposed to keep its troops in a campaign?  Certainly, the little fluff I've read has follow-on convoys bringing more ammunition and such up.

 

I'm sorry if logistics bores most people, but Rogue Traders deal with this very thing and should have staffs that are quite expert at it.  I remember statting medieval  armies back in the D&D days and we figured 2500 infantry would form a road column a mile long, followed by a baggage train a 1/2 mile long, not including such things as stragglers and "meat on the hoof."  And for our European cousins out there, a mile is 1.6 kms.

 

I'd have to dig out some old manuals, but by memory I recall that infantry divisionsof approx. 10k men required 2 tons of supplies per day and mechanized divisions 3 tons (in WWII), and that went up in combat conditions.  That's a lot of support ships.  I'll take a stab in the dark and guess that every dedicated transport needs another supply ship just to keep the troops fighting for 3 months.

 

And thanks, Annaamarth, for your Only War conversions.  I'll have the book in a couple more days and I look forward to employing your points suggestions to it.

 

Well, I'll stop for now.  I happen to like logistics, but I know that it puts most people to sleep.  For those of you interested, I recommend the book, Feeding Mars.



#23 Annaamarth

Annaamarth

    Member

  • Members
  • 412 posts

Posted 03 June 2014 - 04:25 PM

Professionals study logistics.

 

Depends on hold space.  I assume that each 25 endeavour points of hold space can maintain one regiment for 1 month, and each barracks has stores on its own for another month.

 

A Cruiser with an Invasion Bridge, 2x Barracks and a Compartmentalised Cargo Hold can maintain two regiments on independent combat operations for three months.  Add a Munitorium, Bombardment Cannons and maybe a hangar bay full of aeronautica, and you have a planetary beachhead ship. (Those stats pulled from nowhere, not sure if such a build is possible- seems likely though).


RIP AND TEAR THROUGH THE TIDE OF BLOOD WITH BATTLESUIT PILOT. SUPLEX HIVE TYRANTS. DO WHATEVER, YOU'RE PILOTING A HUGE-ASS MECHA.

 -Errant, on how Rogue Trader ought to be played


#24 Errant Knight

Errant Knight

    Member

  • Members
  • 398 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 07:43 AM

That is the old saw, "Professionals study logistics, amateurs tactics."

 

25 AP for 1 Regt. for 1 Mo.?  I like that.  It's nice, easy, and structured.  And yes, it looks like a legal build.  As I said in my first post on this thread, cruisers make for awesome invasion platforms.  Add in an invasion bridge and assault scanners and you've pretty well topped that baby out.

 

Still, for sustained or massive invasions you'll need more than 10k troops, which is where those dedicated military transports come in.  The cruiser can provide the direct support, but you might need more troops.  And this is where that Universe comes in.  Yeah, I'd probably use multiple Vagabonds, but there's nothing wrong with the Universe, other than a lot of eggs in a single basket.



#25 Lady Kataline Jianwei

Lady Kataline Jianwei

    Member

  • Members
  • 79 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 08:08 AM

While multiple Vagabonds does spread the risk out some, I'd imagine that any massive invasion force would have the resources to protect a huge dedicated troop carrier like an Universe. While I've seen the thread on the forums have come to an agreement that a Barracks holds 1 regiment of troops, my group thought that was far far too small.

 

Instead our GM has roomed that a Barracks can contain up to the crew population on a ship. This is based on the fact that Voidsmen Quarters and Barracks are the same size (LC+ at least) and you aren't required to have multiple sets of quarters for the crew. In the case of the Universe, that's 60k men. Throw in the passenger room of up to 500k more and 1 Universe can bring a lot of men to one place.

 

The issue then becomes deployment but this thread seems to have covered that in some depth. And is admittedly much more sane then my billion drop pod idea.


"Defeat? Genocide? Why quibble with semantics?"

 


#26 BaronIveagh

BaronIveagh

    Member

  • Members
  • 895 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 06:41 PM

Ok, time to throw on the brakes on this crazy train:

 

Guys, they have a canon number they hold (1 company or approximately 80-200 men).  Further, these drop ships are big BECAUSE THEY ARE THE BARRACKS!  There is NO internal barracks in this ship.  They carry a rack of 27 of these externally.  This is NOT the same as a Lathe pattern hanger as there is no force field keeping anything in, they are CONTINUOUSLY exposed to the void.  The troops DO NOT EXIT THEM AT ANY TIME and have NO ACCESS TO THE SHIP.  They have to carry air and water plants sufficient to provide for the IG troops on board for the duration of the journey from wherever IG is embarking from, to wherever they are being dropped at.  The description of it makes a point of bringing this up. 

 

In addition, the SM Strike cruiser does not carry a lathe pattern either, as they can conduct through decks operations (ie they fly the thunderhawk through one side of the hanger and out the other, stopping to refuel and rearm), which would be impossible in a lathe.  They're actually similar to a Jovian in that the thunderhawk can fly entirely through the ship.

 

Strike cruises have as few as one and as many as 3 prow slots, and are able to fit launch bays, bombardment cannon, and torpedoes at the same time (Though this last may be unique to the Ultramarines).



#27 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 845 posts

Posted 04 June 2014 - 07:35 PM

Ok, time to throw on the brakes on this crazy train:

 

Guys, they have a canon number they hold (1 company or approximately 80-200 men).  Further, these drop ships are big BECAUSE THEY ARE THE BARRACKS!  There is NO internal barracks in this ship.  They carry a rack of 27 of these externally.  This is NOT the same as a Lathe pattern hanger as there is no force field keeping anything in, they are CONTINUOUSLY exposed to the void.  The troops DO NOT EXIT THEM AT ANY TIME and have NO ACCESS TO THE SHIP.  They have to carry air and water plants sufficient to provide for the IG troops on board for the duration of the journey from wherever IG is embarking from, to wherever they are being dropped at.  The description of it makes a point of bringing this up. 

 

In addition, the SM Strike cruiser does not carry a lathe pattern either, as they can conduct through decks operations (ie they fly the thunderhawk through one side of the hanger and out the other, stopping to refuel and rearm), which would be impossible in a lathe.  They're actually similar to a Jovian in that the thunderhawk can fly entirely through the ship.

 

Strike cruises have as few as one and as many as 3 prow slots, and are able to fit launch bays, bombardment cannon, and torpedoes at the same time (Though this last may be unique to the Ultramarines).

Uhmm... Whoa! Couple of Holes here!

 

1.) A "Standard" (Canon) IG Infantry company is approx 300 men (OW: No surrender pg.30). This consists of six Platoons each consisting of 3 Infantry Squads, 2 Heavy or Specialist squads and 1 Command squad (Approx. 50 men total). Pretty much right out the Codex: Astra Militarum there! So yes, there is a Canon number.

 

2.) A SM Strike cruiser is much smaller than you suggest! It is a light cruiser (Similar to the Lathe class cruiser in ITS). It supports a single company of Astartes with all their vehicles. In BFG It could support 2 squadrons of small craft and mounted a Bombardment cannon in a Dorsal mount. In Rogue trader this would translate to a Jovian pattern Escort bay and a Bombardment cannon dorsal mount as well as a Storm drop pod bay (Which would theoretically allow the entire company to be deployed in a single salvo!). In current Background, The squadrons held on board the launch bay would probably include a Thunderhawk squadron, A Thunderhawk Transport squadron and an Aeronautica Squavdron made up      of a mix of Storm Ravens and Storm Talons. (I think Baronlveigh was actually thinking of the Battlebarge.) I actually came up with a pretty close approximation of a Strike cruiser using the Lathe class as a template!

 

3.) The Barracks component on a Starship would be VERY different from what is being suggested on the Devourer! The Barracks component in RT is commonly accepted to House a Regiment. Since specifics are painfully hard to pin down in 40k I would rule that said Regiment would be limited to Brigade sized per Battlefleet Koronus, pg. 125. (2000-20000 men) The Barracks component IMO is actually a lot more than simply Berthing space for soldiers. It would also include training facilities, Armories and various support facilities (Galleys and rudimentary recreation facilities). The theory being that one could embark a regiments worth of any planets PDF and train them to be an IG Regiment enroute. (Which is exactly what the background suggests happens!). The Devourer by comparison would not have anything like the room necessary for those kinds of facilities nor does it carry a Regiment's worth of troops! I suspect that when used as the transport I/S a Cetaceous it is strictly transport only and VERY uncomfortable. (I would rule that a Cetaceous cradle could not support it's compliment for more than 1 month without an associated Barracks component. (Standard extended voyage penalties from RT pg. 227 would apply to any embarked troops.)

 

I definitely like the Stats of the Devourer and Baronlveigh's version of their carrying cradle although to look at it, It looks like the Cetaceous is a purpose built vessel although the other two vessels next to it not so much.5aba8d855b9d.jpg

 

I think the 25 capacity AP for 1 month per regiment is well thought out and very easy to manage as a Gm. I further would rule that once a regiment is deployed into a secure area of at least 10 times it's number in population it would no longer require outside supply (Other than specialized equipment).  


Edited by Radwraith, 04 June 2014 - 08:14 PM.


#28 Annaamarth

Annaamarth

    Member

  • Members
  • 412 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 12:26 AM

The Devourer Dropship sources from the Inferno magazine, which dates from 2nd Edition to very early 4th edition of the Tabletop.  That means that roughly three editions of fluff changes and increasingly standardized fluff have happened since this was published.  Pardon my attempt to reconcile the fluff, the art, and the scales, please.

 

If you wanted to use Devourers, I should think you'd either have to get a Cetaceus or get a Universe mass conveyor, specifically because the Cetaceus is built-for-purpose and only the Universe is big enough to convert to a Devourer hauler.  The paragraph that comes with the art Radwraith dropped calls those escorts Battlecruisers, which means that a Devourer is apparently nearly the size of some of the smaller Raider-class vessels.

 

Personally, I find it ridiculous that such obstensibly large vessels would be armed with a couple of lascannon and naught else, and only carry 200-300 souls.  If you want void-capable combat dropships, use the Thunderhawk as the basis for it- or use Shark assault boats.  The Devourer simply seems too ungainly to field and logistically challenging.


  • Tenebrae likes this

RIP AND TEAR THROUGH THE TIDE OF BLOOD WITH BATTLESUIT PILOT. SUPLEX HIVE TYRANTS. DO WHATEVER, YOU'RE PILOTING A HUGE-ASS MECHA.

 -Errant, on how Rogue Trader ought to be played


#29 Errant Knight

Errant Knight

    Member

  • Members
  • 398 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 07:26 AM

I'm with Annaamarth on the standardizations.  They have gone through many changes over the years.  My last IG codex (not sure if it's the latest) has some pretty nebulous companies.  They range from ~50-500 troops depending on several things, including training and weapons teams deployment, and they are deliberately that way because not every PDF fields them the same.  This makes a lot of sense given the differing environments they are expected to work in and originate from.

 

Now that I see the Devourers in a picture, I finally see what some of you have been trying to explain in words.  Once again, I'll have to agree with Annaamarth.  If those behemoths are supposed to act as the barracks during space flight then they are incredibly inefficient.  Now 40K is nothing if inefficient, so that fits the fluff nicely.  Still, war is a pursuit that aggressively discourages inefficiency with the death penalty.

 

Now that I get the picture, I'd never want to use them.  I do, though, still think a large drop ship is needed in the 40K arsenal.  I'll disagree with Annaamarth on that count.  I don't see Thunderhawks and Sharks as being necessary past the first two waves of landing.  They, too, are inefficient...in terms of cost.  They don't land the number of vehicles necessary to support an offensive.  I think the Imperium of Man is a large enough entity to support yet another boat design.  Perhaps GW or FFG can find the money to hire someone with an inkling of knowledge in this department.  They might need to, given that their market base is aging and gaining a knowledge of their subject matter.

 

As I recall, the SM strike cruiser is slightly smaller than a Dauntless-class light cruiser.  And, I don't see it having room for 3 prow mounts, though I do recall some Inquisition Black Ships being that large and designed much as a strike cruiser.  They are based on a cruiser hull (with 8 hull pts. in BFG), though, having torpedo tubes, bombardment cannon, and prow landing bays.  The bombardment cannon can be mounted on a dorsal mount, though, at least by RT rules.  The type of landing bay, btw, is a small detail, call it Jovian if you will, or Plutonian, Saturnian, or Vegan.  I'm beginning to think I'll apply the moniker "Copernican" to all components in the future.

 

The idea that a strike cruiser can only support a single company of Astartes in combat is absurd, given the sheer size of vessels.  That's just what they deploy on them.  They could just as easily field 40K space marines if they cared to empty the ship of crew and wouldn't be breaking Imperial law in the process.  My guess is that's how it used to be before the break-up of the SM Legions.

 

In my final analysis, there should still be a boat capable of landing thousands of troops in a single drop.  That boat is not living quarters, though it could double as cramped sleeping quarters.  It is a transport vehicle designed to deploy those troops in relative rapidity and safety.  A Mass Conveyor would be suitable to carry such boats, though other ships would still be suitable.  Any ship carrying a large number of such boats would have to be heavily retrofitted or purpose-built.



#30 Annaamarth

Annaamarth

    Member

  • Members
  • 412 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 08:00 AM

Boats for landing thousands I wouldn't consider using for a combat drop- that's like the difference between a C-130 and the Emma Maersk. Too much time to unload in combat conditions.  I'd call it a landing barge, and call it the thing that a dedicated transport with three or five barracks components and umpty-squat main holds would use.


RIP AND TEAR THROUGH THE TIDE OF BLOOD WITH BATTLESUIT PILOT. SUPLEX HIVE TYRANTS. DO WHATEVER, YOU'RE PILOTING A HUGE-ASS MECHA.

 -Errant, on how Rogue Trader ought to be played


#31 Errant Knight

Errant Knight

    Member

  • Members
  • 398 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 08:20 AM

But that's what I'm talking about, Annaamarth.  After the landing craft have disgorged the first couple waves, and those troops have secured the landing zone, where are the "LSTs" and related vessels that bring in all the vehicles necessary to prosecute an offensive campaign?

 

And don't even get me started on the dearth of "all those vehicles."  Okay, the logistician is coming out again.  I'll shut him up.

 

It's hard, though.  The brass!  The brass!  Pick up the brass!  Do you know how much that stuff weighs?  Ack!  The weight of DPU!  The amount of waste generated from an excited 18-yr. old firing at shadows with an automatic weapon!



#32 Annaamarth

Annaamarth

    Member

  • Members
  • 412 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 08:30 AM

I was aboard an aircraft carrier- I understand.

 

Anyway, here's the thing- 40k is a tactical wargame.  Similarly, Rogue Trader is either a political thriller or an action flick.  In neither of these are container ships usually featured very strongly, which is sort of what you're talking about.  So I'm pretty sure they just gloss over them.

 

I've seen the landing ships described in various BL fiction, but never statted out or well defined, because that sort of thing tends to happen off camera.  I'm perfectly willing to leave it off camera, and just say that the landing barges come with the barracks.

 

You just might be grognard enough for The Campaign for North Africa. That might exercise your logistical bones.


RIP AND TEAR THROUGH THE TIDE OF BLOOD WITH BATTLESUIT PILOT. SUPLEX HIVE TYRANTS. DO WHATEVER, YOU'RE PILOTING A HUGE-ASS MECHA.

 -Errant, on how Rogue Trader ought to be played


#33 Errant Knight

Errant Knight

    Member

  • Members
  • 398 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 10:01 AM

Heh.  I used to get all the SPI games when they came out in the bi-monthly S&T mags back in the 70s.  I'm familiar with the photo used for the front cover of that game.  I think it's the same they used back then with Panzer Armee Afrika.  Rommel, though an excellent tactician, was a total failure at logistics.  His request for 5 armored divisions to take the whole of the Middle East with would have required more supply trucks than employed by the whole of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front, and Halder and Keitl unsuccessfully explained that to him.  England and the USA, however, needed a brilliant German general for their war heroes to defeat so Rommel has been given that role by western sources.  This is not disimilar to the role played by Hannibal for the Romans' Scipio.

 

Actually, I'm totally not into bullet counting.  I do like an abstracted supply system that doesn't allow for unlimited length lines of supply snaking through zones of control.  These are prohibitive in a board game resulting in general silliness.  Video games are a great vehicle, though.  SSI once put out a game called Pacific Theatre of Operations that made you stockpile War Materiel and Oil at advanced bases in order to carry forward your offensives.  You only had to tell your merchants to carry it there and the computer did the rest of the job, including keeping track of your convoys, their escorts, enemy bases nearby your sea routes, and enemy SS activity.  It was an excellent game and I'd love to get a copy of it again.

 

All I really want for RT is 1) an idea of how many troop transport vessels are necessary per 10k troops landed, 2) how many supply vessels should be in a fleet per troop transport to keep those troops supplied for a given period of time, 3) what vehicles are needed in abundance (not every specialized vehicle out there) to get that job done...and 4) a recognition by the general audience that a very small percentage of the total people involved are actually carrying a lasgun.  I might have unrealistic expectations.

 

I liked your suggestion of 25 AP per barracks for a month.  That goes a long way towards defining my first two objectives.  My last few posts have been trying to determine the third.  All this conversation probably gives the people who read this stuff a pretty good idea of the last.



#34 Annaamarth

Annaamarth

    Member

  • Members
  • 412 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 10:39 AM

re: expectation #4 and this conversation- yeah, the point may be getting conveyed.  Whether or not it's interesting to the general audience is another, unrelated matter that may be irrelevant.

 

re: what vehicles are needed- I figure it varies.  There are multiple patterns of Leman Russ which are functionally identical but bear the hallmarks of different manufacturers.  Every ship is unique and no two are alike, though two ships may have the same class and an identical set of components.  Similarly, I'd expect different landing barges to handle different numbers of troops, but I'd expect each barracks component to come with sufficient lift capacity to offload the troops quickly-ish.  I think Abnett wrote that the Tanith First and Only took multiple landing barges to drop, but I cannot cite a source at this time.  The novel Commissar also used multiple landing barges for a single regiment, I believe.  Hard numbers, however, are not available to the best of my knowledge.

 

This is like Calgor Grim looking for hard numbers for load capacity of freighters- you can bull values, but there'll probably never be anything set it stone.  More to the point, as long as you're using an abstract system (which we necessarily are), then my question should be "does it matter to the game?", possibly rephrased as "is there a benefit to knowing this?"


RIP AND TEAR THROUGH THE TIDE OF BLOOD WITH BATTLESUIT PILOT. SUPLEX HIVE TYRANTS. DO WHATEVER, YOU'RE PILOTING A HUGE-ASS MECHA.

 -Errant, on how Rogue Trader ought to be played


#35 Errant Knight

Errant Knight

    Member

  • Members
  • 398 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 01:27 PM

It took a long time to get here, but the value of knowing this information is being able to tell your party, "well, you'll need transports containing at least "X" number of barracks, and transports with "Y" AP bonuses in their cargo holds to carry the supplies, and (this part is unnecessary if you assume the drop ships in the barracks components) acquisition tests to obtain "Z" landing craft.

 

Knowing how many merchants are necessary clues the party into how many escorts are advisable, and that's what they really want to know.  Of course, all this becomes unnecessary is you just play Frozen Reaches instead.  All the troops you need have been stockpiled for you ahead of time.  All you need to do is supply the necessary tact and play the part of the hero.

 

I don't know.  The players in this last campaign thought in epic scale and I've tried my best to keep up with their grandiose schemes.



#36 Annaamarth

Annaamarth

    Member

  • Members
  • 412 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 05:32 PM

I'm used to players thinking ambitiously, but never worried about acquiring basic lift capacity.

 

If they want a BEHNBLADE company then they'd have to work for it- extra heavy lift capacity, as well as the tanks themselves.

 

Also, I suppose you can now ambush their basic lift capacity and have an idea of what kind of acquisition it would take to replenish their forces... or you could just rule it as a test to "repair" the Barracks component with a +10 bonus. Whichever.


RIP AND TEAR THROUGH THE TIDE OF BLOOD WITH BATTLESUIT PILOT. SUPLEX HIVE TYRANTS. DO WHATEVER, YOU'RE PILOTING A HUGE-ASS MECHA.

 -Errant, on how Rogue Trader ought to be played


#37 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 845 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 05:52 PM

Heh.  I used to get all the SPI games when they came out in the bi-monthly S&T mags back in the 70s.  I'm familiar with the photo used for the front cover of that game.  I think it's the same they used back then with Panzer Armee Afrika.  Rommel, though an excellent tactician, was a total failure at logistics.  His request for 5 armored divisions to take the whole of the Middle East with would have required more supply trucks than employed by the whole of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front, and Halder and Keitl unsuccessfully explained that to him.  England and the USA, however, needed a brilliant German general for their war heroes to defeat so Rommel has been given that role by western sources.  This is not disimilar to the role played by Hannibal for the Romans' Scipio.

 

Actually, I'm totally not into bullet counting.  I do like an abstracted supply system that doesn't allow for unlimited length lines of supply snaking through zones of control.  These are prohibitive in a board game resulting in general silliness.  Video games are a great vehicle, though.  SSI once put out a game called Pacific Theatre of Operations that made you stockpile War Materiel and Oil at advanced bases in order to carry forward your offensives.  You only had to tell your merchants to carry it there and the computer did the rest of the job, including keeping track of your convoys, their escorts, enemy bases nearby your sea routes, and enemy SS activity.  It was an excellent game and I'd love to get a copy of it again.

 

All I really want for RT is 1) an idea of how many troop transport vessels are necessary per 10k troops landed, 2) how many supply vessels should be in a fleet per troop transport to keep those troops supplied for a given period of time, 3) what vehicles are needed in abundance (not every specialized vehicle out there) to get that job done...and 4) a recognition by the general audience that a very small percentage of the total people involved are actually carrying a lasgun.  I might have unrealistic expectations.

 

I liked your suggestion of 25 AP per barracks for a month.  That goes a long way towards defining my first two objectives.  My last few posts have been trying to determine the third.  All this conversation probably gives the people who read this stuff a pretty good idea of the last.

1.) and 2.) Did somebody put my posts on ignore? I thought I had a fairly decent answer to this! (1 Barracks component per regiment up to 20k men.) 

3.) As stated earlier, Standard transport vehicles vary considerably and have never been statted out in 40k. To keep with the WWII-ish feel, we could come up with some 40k version of the Ubiquitous 6-by (A 2-1/2 ton truck used by the axis and the allies in WWII.) I've actually been thinking of creating a modular "Transport vehicle" system construction system for my game for just this reason.

4.) IRL it is generally accepted that it takes 3-5 non combatants to support 1 combatant. The problem is, Until a Forward base is established, many of these support personnel will be far away from the front lines! A Forward operating base in 40k would be staffed primarily with Adeptus Administratum  personnel (Adepts for administration and Scum for labor in DH class terms). These would only be in-theatre once a secure base could be established. Until that point troops will be living off field rations and camping in tents! My simple  thought was that once the IG controls a settlement with a number of people equal to 10 times it's number of combatant personnel it no longer requires outside support (In the form of cargo components) provided said unit remains within said settlement. This gives a good reason to conquer towns as well as Starports and capitols. It allows your forces to establish a base and replenish themselves. This also why the Russians in WWII established a "Scorched earth" policy in WWII. It wasn't just to spite the Germans! It was to deny them the ability to replenish their forces as they advanced. 



#38 Errant Knight

Errant Knight

    Member

  • Members
  • 398 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 06:25 PM

Sorry Rad, no I wasn't ignoring you at all, and included you in the discussion.  I'm just too old school to take apart people's conversation and provide line by line comments and critiques.  I guess it was easy to think I was only speaking with Annaamarth.

 

Barracks holding 20K troops isn't unreasonable, if a bit large by my own standards.

 

I'd hate to jury-rig a modular system for vehicle builds.  It would feel too much like Car Wars, and that just wouldn't do for 40K....for me, though you could certainly draw parallels.

 

3-5 troops holding positions in the rear for every front line combatant isn't a bad number, but going with your WWII analogy there were still pretty large differences.  The Germans at the beginning of the war were closer to 8:1 while at the end of the war were more like 5:1.  The Soviets were more like 3:1 and the United States varied per theater from 12:1 to 21:1.  40K is going to more like the American numbers because, like them, you are projecting your troops across a vast distance, and the logistics tail is very long.

 

The Allied invasion force at Normandy included over 6000 ships, aside from 1200-1300 combat vessels, but how many of those were vessels being carried by other vessels, and how many of those warships were torpedo boats and other coasters?

 

I don't recall a Soviet policy of scorched earth, though I've heard others speak of it.  I think they are remembering Napoleon's invasion of Russia.  The Soviets moved their industry because they needed it and weren't going to be able to hang onto the cities it was located in.  They moved their populations so they would be able to draw on them for the entirety of the war.  The vast majority of their population was in the west and some of that would come of military age well after an invasion.  They didn't bother wrecking their rails because the Germans used a different gauge.  They didn't bother destroying their stockpiles of airplane fuel because the Germans used a different octane.  They didn't bother destroying their petrol because the Germans were 75% reliant on diesel.  They didn't bother destroying their ammunition stockpiles because the Germans used very different calibers.  That last one was a mistake, though.  The Germans did convert old tank models and carriages with Soviet guns and used that captured ammo, which anyone with knowledge of the German "76" could attest (the Germans didn't manufacture a "76").

 

There aren't too many campaigns where invaders lived on their spoils past the 1600's (30 Years' War).  You can find food in a populated area to eat, but that's about it.  You had to bring your own gunpowder, and your own ovens, for that matter.  Napoleon's campaigns stand in stark contrast to this rule, but that's why they were special and not the rule.  Grant's Vicksburg campaign is also an exception, but once again, the gunpowder became an issue until regular lines of supply could be reestablished.

 

And again, for those wanting to read more on that subject I recommend Feeding Mars, which is a collection of theses on the subject, edited by John Lynn.  Among some of the exciting subjects is the carrying capacity of an ox and the logistics of a Venetian galley.  Don't everyone jump at once.  Then again, it might change your outlook on warfare.



#39 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 845 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 09:28 PM

@ Errant Knight: Thanks for answering! :)

 

Here's a quickie primer on scorched earth (Though I admit Wiki is not the best source sometimes it's good enough here.)

 

http://en.wikipedia..../Scorched_earth

 

I agree with you that the ratio could easily get much higher than 5:1! I just sited that as a commonly accepted number. I have always assumed that said ratio was for actual military non-combatant personnel at a given base (Perhaps wrongly!). If one includes all the personnel needed to bring supplies from another planet...Well, The line would get long indeed!

 

The 20000 number I sited was basically an upper limit. From what I've read, the "average" (If such a thing exists) IG regiment numbers around 5000 men (Combatants). The numbers I chose were meant to Jive with Battlefleet Koronus definitions of unit sizes.

 

The Vehicle thing is something I've thought about for awhile. It is intended to be simple and would only apply to transport vehicles not to dedicated combat vehicles. If I get anywhere I'll let y'all know! ;)



#40 Errant Knight

Errant Knight

    Member

  • Members
  • 398 posts

Posted 05 June 2014 - 10:09 PM

I'm not one of the scholars who likes to bad-mouth the largest work of philanthropy ever.  I like Wikipedia.  Just the same, that article doesn't take into account any of the information written by Russian historians of the post-Communist era.  Stalin may have given such an order.  It doesn't appear to have had any significant effect.  When reading about Barbarossa, you hear about the shortage of just about everything, but not bread and sausages.  Then again, maybe the trains carrying them would otherwise have been filled with ammo and replacements that never made it to the front.

 

Your figure for proportions of support troops are actually on a par with those numbers given by many contemporary military historians.  They don't, however, take into account the increasing numbers of civilian contractors in the military supply chain.  They have never taken into account the merchant marine or the people back home actually manufacturing the bullets and bombs.  I think the current number of soldiers considered combat troops in a modern infantry division is around 70%, but that includes artillery, engineers, and others.  Artillerists are usually about 20% of the division's troops, account for 50% of the division's firepower, but incur less than 10% of the division's casualties.  Yes, they are combat troops, but they are not front line troops, unless their side is losing very badly.  And, I was talking about the guys actually carrying lasguns.

 

Don't get me wrong.  I don't want to keep track of all that in a campaign.  I just want my players to have considered it and made necessary arrangements for it.  Rogue Traders are supposed to have small armies of accountants for the details.

 

Yes, BFK does list Brigades as 2k-20k and that's not a bad number.  I still consider the 20k figure a bit high, but it's doable.

 

Hey knock yourself out with the vehicle system.  Check out Car Wars.  It might give you some ideas.  It also uses internal spaces, and also weight and external mounts.  Post it up if you get something workable.  I'd be happy to comment on it.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS