View Single Post
  #93  
Old 05-10-2014, 04:48 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh View Post
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.
The Project has them because Morrow Industries and their partners in the Council of Tomorrow are the manufacturers and distributors of them. The Project with exceptions like MARS One, Science One, HAAM suits, and fusion plants uses off the shelf technologies. This stuff has had the research and development paid for, the investment in the manufacturing capability, and the investment in training workers paid for by large government contracts. After the government contract is fulfilled the production line just runs for a bit longer. This or the assembly line is broken down and sold as scrap by “Manufacturing! A wholly owned subsidiary of the Coucil of Tomorrow!” over to “Recyclers! A wholly owned subsidiary of Morrow Industries. A percentage is melted down in front of government auditior then it is out on the town for drinks and lapdances. The rest of the percentage is re-installed in another plant and the process restarted to make more Browing HP-35s, or hundreds of resist weave uniforms, or thousands of pounds of RDX to make various munitions.
Government contracts paid all the initial startup costs and most of the production costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh View Post
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.
The Morrow Project has been building and planning since the Cuban Missile crisis for a War that eventually happens 9 November 1989. That is a lot of time to stock pile equipment, train personnel, and hide them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh View Post
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."
It is a hostile world. In conflict there is adventure.
If you run a campaign emphasizing the rebuilding your players are going to be almighty bored and probably abandon your game for something else.

Nobody wants to make saving throws for crop rotation, or skill rolls on ox plowing 40 acres.
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh View Post
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.
The players have the obligation to make the world safe for the rebuilders. To be the Heroes (or Don Quixote!) and stand up for what is Right. They have to recruit the NPCs to do the rebuilding work. Even in my campaigns the Morrow Project Civil engineering teams are all NPCs. Making skill rolls on bridge building, and skill rolls to make a function village power grid are not going to make a great night gaming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh View Post
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.
Nope, what ever I give I can take away. The KFS uses Thunderbolts. The KFS uses their own pre-War manufacturing base and education of very loyal subjects (the 2000) to build from scratch more Thunderbolts. This doesn’t mean the KFS could not field F-16s within 12 months it would take to train the pilots. There can be a cache of F-16s mothballed by the KFS , simply because it is not a necessary expense to fly them if Thunderbolts will do the job. The KFS may also be sitting on Theater air defense systems and advanced radar systems like Patriot and phased array systems. They don’t field them because they don’t have to. To do so, without a credible threat is to tip your potential enemies off.

See even if I give the Morrow Project, ten, twenty, two hundred F-5s I can still rebalance the threat and take those F-5s away or make them useless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh View Post
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.
Nope, that is built into the game canon. Project personnel are thoroughly psychologically screened to pick out potential warlords or rogues. If that fails the PD could invoke the Phoenix Project and still remove that threat. This is if Bruce (the Wander Warlock) doesn’t deal with the matter quietly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh View Post
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.
I am fleshing out all the missing data from what the Project was intended to be and how it intended to function had the mission launched in the planned for 3-5 years after the war. I would expect there to be significant threats to the Project from rogue elements of the Armed Force of the U. S., Canada, and Mexico, in addition to actual Soviet threats from over the North Pole, and from Central America or Cuba.
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh View Post
But it is your story to do with as you will.
As always everyone’s input is welcome and adds new facets for everyone to use or discard as best benefits them.
Reply With Quote