Motivations?

[jester]

Rae;

In alot of units they do have clicks. People who actively hate each other. And on occassion fists fly. Or even subtle things which are also common like slapping a hand away if someone who is hatted asked for a hand over a wall or up a cliff or whatever. I have seen folks fall and land atop the SOB they hated and ride them down a hillside like a sleigh. Its been done on purpose too, then the reply is simply, "Slipped, ooops."

The whole lovely dovey band of brothers crap is a myth.


Now, in a unit it is weird as well. You can phuc with someone you utterly dispise. You may want to mess with them and even inflict light injury on them whenever the chance arises. But he is part of your unit. And thus like the younger sibling who is a total pain and source of constant irrigation whom you mess with, woe to any outsider who does anything to him. Its a strange world for sure.

After all, think about it. People of all kinds or personalities are working together under extremely stressful conditions. People are going to become irritated with one another. And basic issues will arise. Also, have you ever been stuck with the same people forever? To the point you can't stand any of them anymore? One little habit which was no problem before is now a source of great irritation? That also happens.

Just things of human nature to think about.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by jester

Rae;

In alot of units they do have clicks. People who actively hate each other. And on occassion fists fly. Or even subtle things which are also common like slapping a hand away if someone who is hatted asked for a hand over a wall or up a cliff or whatever. I have seen folks fall and land atop the SOB they hated and ride them down a hillside like a sleigh. Its been done on purpose too, then the reply is simply, "Slipped, ooops."

The whole lovely dovey band of brothers crap is a myth.


Now, in a unit it is weird as well. You can phuc with someone you utterly dispise. You may want to mess with them and even inflict light injury on them whenever the chance arises. But he is part of your unit. And thus like the younger sibling who is a total pain and source of constant irrigation whom you mess with, woe to any outsider who does anything to him. Its a strange world for sure.

After all, think about it. People of all kinds or personalities are working together under extremely stressful conditions. People are going to become irritated with one another. And basic issues will arise. Also, have you ever been stuck with the same people forever? To the point you can't stand any of them anymore? One little habit which was no problem before is now a source of great irritation? That also happens.

Just things of human nature to think about.

There are also people in units who are universally despised by the troops, but do well enough and/or kiss the right asses to not get kicked out. She's people might be given shit jobs or constantly put on point in T2K. These are the guys you send to check reports of a minefield. These are the guys you tell to look over a wall to see if the enemy is still there.

You also have troops like I was in the Army -- you thought I was damned good, to the point of recommending me to superiors and early promotion, or you hated me and wished I would die or at least screw up enough to get kicked out. This was primarily because rank did not awe me, I refused to kiss ass, because I would tell you the truth sometimes to the detriment of myself, and if you asked my opinion, you got it, unvarnished (though perhaps politely). I took pains to make sure I did things right, even if the right thing wasn't popular, and that my troops did too. I could be your best friend or soldier or your worst enemy. Not sure where that would get me in T2K. It got me both respect and hatred.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by jester

In alot of units they do have clicks. People who actively hate each other. And on occassion fists fly. Or even subtle things which are also common like slapping a hand away if someone who is hatted asked for a hand over a wall or up a cliff or whatever. I have seen folks fall and land atop the SOB they hated and ride them down a hillside like a sleigh. Its been done on purpose too, then the reply is simply, "Slipped, ooops."

The whole lovely dovey band of brothers crap is a myth.


Now, in a unit it is weird as well. You can phuc with someone you utterly dispise. You may want to mess with them and even inflict light injury on them whenever the chance arises. But he is part of your unit. And thus like the younger sibling who is a total pain and source of constant irrigation whom you mess with, woe to any outsider who does anything to him. Its a strange world for sure.

After all, think about it. People of all kinds or personalities are working together under extremely stressful conditions. People are going to become irritated with one another. And basic issues will arise. Also, have you ever been stuck with the same people forever? To the point you can't stand any of them anymore? One little habit which was no problem before is now a source of great irritation? That also happens.

Just things of human nature to think about.

That's an interesting, first-hand impression. Were the incidents you described during wartime/in a combat zone?

In a lot of my reading, there are indeed conflicting personalities, rivalries, and that sort of thing but they seem to be suppressed or surpassed by the bonds formed during combat. I really can't recall reading portions of any memoirs or small unit histories where comrades actively fought and/or undermined one another. I have read of tension between enlisted men, NCOs, and officers, though.

[jester]

YES!!!!

I recall one instance where after a patrol in hostile territory one not well liked person was trying to scam out of his task and was playing kiss up. <He often stole credit for actions done by others.> It ended up with a freind of mine grabbing my SAW, and ended up in a tense situation between my freind and this dude in our hootch. One with a SAW, the other with a 203.

Another instance, a character was taking more than his share of water. It was a regular thing. A time when we had 1 liter of water resupply a day. No one cared when he showed up with a busted lip. Other than a few comments such as, "too bad" or "tough sh!t" or "serves ya right."

Another time, a constant whiner who had a very light pack and always cried about everything. As a result, he ended up being a pack mule for the squad because we said so.

It is usualy the problem children whom get this sort of treatment. Your shirkers, kiss ups, slackers, theives and such.

But, other times, it is just a personality clash, which is on going and has caried over from months, years or in many cases the entire enlistment where things build.

And as I said, in close confines for months on end with the same faces, tempers get short. Or you just want to get away from them for a period.

And of course those bucking for rank by virtue of acting like they are some kind of boss when they aren't and never take initiative unless someone is around to see. Then they get blown off, which in turn they become pissy which often resulting in going nose to nose with words or further.

However, does this degrade from the mission? Nope, that is put aside when it is time to do the job. You have to work together. But, you do not have to like each other.

I seem to recall reading somewhere, I forget where maybe American Civil War, or WWI, where a units history did not match its members diaries, or interviewed accounts and courtsmartial records. The units diaries had sections litteraly torn out. I think this occured with the French Mutiny of WWI and with some UK units in WWI as well.

One must remember. Commands tend to try and hide such things, promotion to the higher ranks is often political and if such occurances are reported, well that shows the unit and commanders in a bad light, as well as the whole morale thing for other units and the folks backhome.

I mean history is littered with things that were burried. Like, the black troops who were loading ammo on the docks of the West Coast of WWI at I want to say Lemore, there was an explosion and many of the troops were charged with mutiny because they refused to move the munitions for fear of it exploding. Or the LSTs that exploded in Pear Harbor in the preperation for the invasion of Siapan or Okinawa. Or, the loss of the ships when they were attacked by the German attack boats as they prepped for D-Day, the fratricide of the Airborne troops durring the invasion of Sicily. Generals hate bad press.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Raellus

In a lot of my reading, there are indeed conflicting personalities, rivalries, and that sort of thing but they seem to be suppressed or surpassed by the bonds formed during combat. I really can't recall reading portions of any memoirs or small unit histories where comrades actively fought and/or undermined one another. I have read of tension between enlisted men, NCOs, and officers, though.

Like most situations, I think each unit is different and unique. I think what you are originally referring to is common enough.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

In a lot of my reading, there are indeed conflicting personalities, rivalries, and that sort of thing but they seem to be suppressed or surpassed by the bonds formed during combat. I really can't recall reading portions of any memoirs or small unit histories where comrades actively fought and/or undermined one another. I have read of tension between enlisted men, NCOs, and officers, though.

Just as one example, read through (from several sources, just to be sure you get the complete story) about the American commanding generals of the Revolution. These guys were undercutting each other left and right -- it's surprising we even won the Revolution, with their behavior.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Just as one example, read through (from several sources, just to be sure you get the complete story) about the American commanding generals of the Revolution. These guys were undercutting each other left and right -- it's surprising we even won the Revolution, with their behavior.

Shoot, you can read that in just about any army's command, nearly any level. The Confederate generals in the Civil War were notorious for feuding. It fades in effect a lot the more recent you get, though.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Just as one example, read through (from several sources, just to be sure you get the complete story) about the American commanding generals of the Revolution. These guys were undercutting each other left and right -- it's surprising we even won the Revolution, with their behavior.

You're right. I was referring more to the grunts actually "in the sh*t", so to speak.

[jester]

Let me put it in these terms.

Have you ever had a roommate that was a total pig? Or had an anoying habit? After a while, it gets on your nerves. Now, compound that, over and over and over. Eventualy you will blow up at them. They will respond back and it can end up in blows.

Hell, I remember one fight over someone borrowing a section of cleaning rod without asking.

And then we have the whole aspect of general prankery which also is quite common. Spiking cigarette filters with tobasco, or someones snuff was always worth a laugh. However, at times this could result in a general @$$ beating if the person was in a generaly bad mood. And often it was your only enterainment, so it is an ongoing thing. Guys with thin skins, or who were PO'ed for some other reason would often take it personaly and it would get physical.

Keep this in mind tempers tend to be short to begin with in a general high stress situation. Usualy weather extremes, short rations, short food, officers and senior NCOs who are playing politics, or who want everything done but fail to remember troop welfare or the capalities of what their men can do. After all, there are only so many hours in a day and your people can only do so much. So the stress gets ratchetted up higher and then poof they play more games which in turn pisses everyone off even more. And then the whole regular operations as well.

I have seen platoons and companies play Phuc Phuc games well into the middle of the night because a four round section of machinegun ammo was found adrift, or the lense caps to the binoculars were not where the Platoon Sgt thought he left them...thus someone was messing with them as a prank, so everyone gets to dig trenches until midnight.

Or, the word doesn't get passed so the entire platoon gets into full kit including back breaking packs and gets to run though a Waddi, lovely thing. A nice baked crust of sant about an inch deep, then your weight breaks through into the stinking mud beneath halfway to your knees. Games are the last thing to be doing when such resources as limited food, water and clean clothing or sleep are available, sadly, alot of the leadership fails to get out of the garison mode where that is the norm of conduct. It makes no sense to exhaust your troops playing games and doing PT in addition to digging positions and conducting patrols and assorted working parties involving pretty heavy labor.

Hell, I remember after a death run in blackflag weather the platoon wasn't sounding off to the cadence enough so add another six miles for penance.

I think the T-shirt is very true, "The beatings will continue until morale improves." A sick joke based on reality, often by leadership that can give a damn about the troops, Lord have I seen those types.

[copeab]

I would tend to think that most soldiers in 2000 are not career professionals, who I think would have mostly killed by then, but drafted civilians after the start of the war. Most people in 2000 are in the military because they were forced to be, not because they wanted to be, and I expect that to color their motivations a great deal.

[jester]

Cob;

EXACTLY! And thus the friction between the regulars and the draftees. An example, the History Channel had a program on WWI last week. In it, they looked into the senseless battles of the very last day, issued the morning of 11 Nov. The troops were set to go home, a end time was set. But, the careerists, wanting the last hurrah! Had their men attack anyways. As the program explained,

"Attack to take ground they could have simply walked into at 1101."

Thus, you would have the draftees/conscripts who just want to survive and go home. They would be less enthusiastic to go on the offensive and as they are not part of the military regime, they may even voice their disagreement more so than a regular. A regular well that is his home and his proffession. A civilian, well, he is there for a temporary time, then he is going back to his home and proffession and well, the military just doesn't matter to his long term career plans. So, he can care less. Further, he wouldn't be upset at sitting in a nice comfy stockade rather than being on the recieving end of an enemy attack.

[Mahatatain]

Originally Posted by copeab

I would tend to think that most soldiers in 2000 are not career professionals, who I think would have mostly killed by then, but drafted civilians after the start of the war. Most people in 2000 are in the military because they were forced to be, not because they wanted to be, and I expect that to color their motivations a great deal.

While I agree with your logic I don't think that this is how the character generation rules tend to work. Most players seem to generate PCs who are one of the few remaining career soldiers.

One of the criticisms of the character generation system (in my opinion) is that you tend to end up with a group of career military PCs and that the majority of them are NCOs with possibly a Captain or a Major in charge. While that will often work as a group I've always felt that it is slightly "unrealistic" (if you can use that word to describe a RPG) as there should be some recent draftee Privates/PFC/L.Cpl etc (depending on the nationality of the characters).

Essentially the way the character generation system works the resulting PCs seem to be the command element of a larger unit, though that unit is often missing (unless the GM wants to run 20ish NPCs).

[Targan]

Originally Posted by copeab

I would tend to think that most soldiers in 2000 are not career professionals, who I think would have mostly killed by then, but drafted civilians after the start of the war.

Originally Posted by Mahatatain

While I agree with your logic I don't think that this is how the character generation rules tend to work. Most players seem to generate PCs who are one of the few remaining career soldiers.

I see what both of you are saying and I agree that using the standard T2K rules most PCs seem to be career soldiers. At the start of my last campaign most PCs were career soldiers including SF types but as the campaign progressed several players chose to generate draftees (mainly to give themselves a challenge and also to create poignant back stories). I also deliberately inserted a number of prominent major NPCs who were draftees and who were valued members of the party.

The char gen rules we were using were able to create extremely rich and detailed character backstories (year by year char gen after high school, family backgrounds, siblings, even major friends and enemies and other interesting tid bits). Because of this it wasn't necessarily a disadvantage to play a draftee/start of the war civilian who volunteered.