Motivations?

[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.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by jester

Cob;
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.

If this were generally true, wouldn't far more American units be going rogue/marauder c. 2000?

I think your point is valid but a bit overstated. What about all of the draftees who generally fought well for nearly all armies involved in WWII?

Also, many of the conscripts/draftees c.2000 would have some idea that there wasn't really any home to return to. The army would, for all intents and purposes, become their new "home".

I think the German army of late WWII is an interesting case study for soldiers' motivations. Their home cities being bombed to rubble, weapons, ammo, fuel and food supplies increasingly scarce, and enemies pressing in on all sides, most German units- even ones made up mostly of late-war conscripts and "surplus" Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine personnel- fought on, some until the bitter end.

Some historians argue that this was because of the Prussian military tradition and the totalitarian police state that many young Germans had grown up in. This may be the case. But, once again, study after study have shown that the fighting man's primary motivation is their comrades.

[HorseSoldier]

Unit cohesion ultimately reminds me of the Arab proverb that says something about "me against my brother, but my brother and I against the world." You'll always have various internal conflicts based on personalities, objectives (the self-promoters who put themselves ahead of the mission that various people have talked about, for instance), competency, and a million other factors like regulars vs draftees, racial/ethnic divisions, etc. How effectively leadership deals with those internal divisions is often the difference between a good unit and a bad one.

Now in terms of military membership in 2000, I suspect that most guys have come to regard themselves as professional combatants whatever path brought them into military service. By 2000, being in a military unit may mean danger on one hand, but on the other it also means knowing where your next meal comes from (or at least having a better idea where its coming from), not being prey for marauders and bandits, etc. Some soldiers in ex-pat units may have fantasies about how things aren't as bad in the US or UK or wherever they came from compared to continental Europe, Iran, etc., and may want nothing more than to get home, but even the most ardent dreamers probably realize on an intellectual level that reality won't measure up to the dream.

This is one of the flaws in the later stages of the T2K timeline, in my opinion, with Going Home/Howling Wilderness positing the idea that MilGov is going to demobilize tens of thousands of troops in Virginia. First of all, I suspect that most of those troops would be willing to remain in service when they grasp how trashed the US is. Second, MilGov needs troops. Third, dumping tens of thousands of troops with personal weapons and no plans for resettlement, relocation, etc., is like an ideal plan to destroy the Virginia/Carolinas/Maryland area, as if someone sat down and tried to dream up a plan for unleashing hungry marauders on that part of the country. I suppose that's on par with some other high level dumb moves made by the US .gov and .mil, but it's still pretty mind boggling.

[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 Mahatatain

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).

That is what I was doing. Actually it fluctuated (depending on the location and fortunes of the party) between just a couple and more than 50 pretty much permanent NPC members of the party. In the darkest days of the European phase of my campaign there were only three PCs and a handful of important NPCs left (after a really poorly planned attempt to run a heavily fortified road block a hundred kicks or so west of Warsaw). The party size really ballooned once the party got back to the States and the CO of the party was given virtual carte blanche to recruit surviving high speed, low drag types by the senior SF brass at Norfolk.

[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.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Targan

I see what both of you are saying and I agree that using the standard T2K rules most PCs seem to be career soldiers.

An average PC isn't an average person and, by extension, an average military PC isn't an average member of the military.

It is true that T2K skimps a bit on civilian careers (unlike, say, Dark Conspiracy, which has several more) and goes into great detail in military careers (again unlike DC, which has simplified military options). However, a lot of this depends on the theme of the campaign. If it's "rebuild the world" then ex-civilians become rather important, for example. Also, some civilian careers are more useful than others, like police vs factory worker.

[HorseSoldier]

View Post
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.

If you use the ver 1.0 rules this isn't the case because it's not up to the players. If you use the 2.x character generation rules are flawed in any number of ways, just one of which is it encourages your entire party to as close to military retirement age as they can get to max out their skill sets on lists of skills that are not in any way realistic for what professional officers or NCOs actually learn to do.

Realistically for professional soldiers (assuming a start point between, say, 18-22), career middle age is probably around 30, before wear and tear on the body starts to take its toll on one hand and responsibilities as an NCO or officer start to be more and more about administrative and bureaucratic skills and less and less on honing actual combat/fieldcraft/etc skills. I always liked how ver 1.0 built in trade offs during character generation, and looking back at the system from my late 30s (with a bad knee, a back that aches when in full kit, and that general lack of bounce back I had when I was 20 years younger) I think it's a system that suggests reality. For larger than life campaigns you can always just fudge the MOS rolls with ver 1.0 if you want, whereas 2.x requires more creative surgery to avoid everyone generating five term military veterans.