Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmySGT.
Using that criteria justify the Morrow Projects fielding of:
The MARS One
The Chapparal missile
The TOW Missile
The 81mm Mortar
The M9 flamethrower
40mm grenade launchers
fragmentation handgrenades
M60 machineguns
M240 machineguns
M2 .50cal machineguns
Antitank mines
claymore mines
Antipersonnel mines
Nerve agent
Because they are all in 3rd edition and fielded by the Project.
|
In short, they are all problematic. The weapons systems would all be difficult to get in the US by normal legal means. That's not to say that a private company couldn't buy them, but under very strict licensing rules or they could buy them abroad. But large purchases of such weapons- needed to field an army of between 10-50K people would raise serious red flags. Even private military companies will often acquire weapons through the surrogate agency of a sovereign state.
But most of the weapons above a small arms and can be purchased abroad. In certain places around the world, there is a glut on small arms. Some of these weapons however are rather unusual. Morrow One for instance. Other weapons would raise other red flags- nerve agents? We see by the administration's willingness to provide TOW missile systems to Syrian insurgents that such transfers draw attention.
But when you talk about advanced fighters you are talking some big ticket items. Those who sell such systems are under significant constraints in how they sell and where those weapons going. Advanced fighter aircraft are prestige items, the prize of a country's arsenal. They don't go to private agencies easily.
I would be concerned about costs- A lightly armored V-150 is significantly less expensive than an advance F5 fighter aircraft, and you can probably do more with the V-150.
Sgt your argument is "If the Morrow says it, than it is possible." I am not disputing that. My argument is "How?" I admit that's a question I have with regard to other weapons that the Morrow Project offers to players. To me, that becomes the basis of some rather interesting story telling about the nature of the Morrow Project itself.
A second argument point is "does it make sense for the game." That goes to the issue of game craft. If you want a game that emphasizes the use of military technology in a post-apocalyptic world- ok. But it seems from the game design that the military aspects are secondary to the overall story. This I am pulling form the 4th edition where the authors are justifying "why so many weapons-because it might be a hostile world."
I think there is a choice that needs to be made- is this a game about war making or a game about rebuilding. Arguably, aspects of war and development overlap, but every story needs to show some heirarchy of preferences.
If you argue abundance and warmaking- than anything is possible. The danger is you've set up a bunch of strawmen that are easily knocked down- like world war 2 era Thunderbolts taking on modern F5 aircraft.
If you argue constraint and development - than things are more difficult and challenging, your enemies are harder to fight and require more imagination and innovation, where your scouts are being hunted down by World War 2 era Thunderbolts. I find that a better story.
As for game design and consequence, well history suggests that in regions with little real political infrastructure, weak economies and social conflict- those with military dominance tend to rule and exploit their military power to rule through the use or threat of coercion. Dictatorship becomes the norm, even if originally motivated for benevolent purposes. I would be surprised if the Morrow Project would be able to overcome that temptation. And should it fall to that temptation, than the result is usually a coup within.
If you give your Morrow Project a decisive military edge through superior aircraft, and if you are trying to tell a realistic story, than you have to deal with those implications. Otherwise, its just more wishful thinking.
But it is your story to do with as you will.