Quote:
|
Originally Posted by copeab
I see the average soldier in 2000 as grossly inferior to the soldier of 1996. With units in 2000 at around 90% the strength of 1996, I think it's reasonable to assume that most of the combat troops in uniform from 1996 are dead. The bulk of most armies in 2000 are made up of men who were non-combat troops or civilians in 1996. New soldiers in 2000 are, most likely, poorly trained and equipped and most would probably never be allowed in a peacetime army. I can't see how this wouldn't lead to poor morale and discipline.
|
You're probably right about the
average soldier in 2000. On the flip side, some of your veteran soldiers would have combat experience going way back to early '97. Kind of like how American divisions in 1945, although made up of mostly draftees, still had a sprinkling of soldiers, noncoms, and junior officers who'd fought in North Africa, Italy, France, the Low Countries, and across the Rhine (and maybe the Philippines, Guadalcanal, the Aleutians, or New Guinea).
As you noted, even folks who were clerk-typists, truck drivers, cooks, etc. would have real, crunchy combat experience by 2000. In that sense, at least, divisions in 2000 would be leaner and meaner than they were when the war first kicked off.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by copeab
On a more metagame level, i think one of the key selling points of the setting ifor civilian players is the weak or non-existent command structure. I somehow get the feeling that ex-military players are more bothered *without* the command structure.
|
I agree. In my experience, this is very true. I prefer a looser rank structure (more democratic, you could say) but I've found players with RL military experience get very uncomfortable with this.