in the begining...

[Olefin]

and I agree with that totally - if all you have is a Hummer or truck then it becomes a cat and mouse game where it could take you a very long time to get out of dodge

also it depends where you start the scenario - is it several days later and you are miles from Kalisz - or are you in the midst of blasting your way out and you play the firefight getting out of the pocket

[LT. Ox]

Me, I like the LAV-25, it has a good cargo load fair survivability and fair weapons mix, it's swim is ...well it is made for swimming right?
I do not go along with fuel as a factor, they all use fuel faster than can be replaced which leaves choices and that my friends is what the game is about.
What I see is the main problem is who the game is for?
To me it is about the players, the GM has to enjoy his work but the game has to be driven by the mix of players involved.
Do they want to shoot it out or do they want to think their way around?
What equipment do they have, whatever they want, within reason and the desire of the DM to work with them? I mean what DM wants to run a Twilight game of two corps of tanks?
I like to keep things within the USA realm as far as equipment goes, I know it and have worked with a lot of I,t I get more enjoyment out of riding an M-113 or Even a Bradley or LAV then a captured Russian or a picked up German or French ride, it feeds my wants.
I tend to play longer and have more fun but that is me.

[Olefin]

Remember as I mentioned my first campaign was run by a GM who loved the military part of the game - meaning that we had a bunch of firefights - as he said "you rolled the tank, might as well put it to the use that it was intended for"

and I agree completely with Ox - a campaign is really what the players are looking for - thats why I love the game - there are so many ways to play it and things you can do that there really is no "right way or wrong way" to play the game - as long as its fun for all concerned

[Adm.Lee]

That's a large and impressive group to start. I think I ran/started Kalisz at least 4 times, always with 1 PC/player, and sometimes 1 NPC for the GM to feed them information ("Sir, do you really want to do that?"). I've run for 3 players and for 8.

Since then, I've gravitated to adding more PCs and NPCs, since once a character gets hit, they're likely out of action for a good long while.

[Draq]

Im sure somebody has done a red campaign.

[Draq]

Besides armor and fuel economy, speed is also a factor. The Bradley is better armored but the lav and Humvee are much faster. Can't kill what you can't hit. And the Humvee is a smaller target too. And take into consideration the SLEP for the lav, upgrading the armor to withstanding 14.7mm/.50cal, but sacrificing its amphibious ability.

[CDAT]

I am working on an idea right now. Each player will make two characters, One will be a SpecOps of players choice. The second one I will have them make a version of them self. Either as they are now more or less, or as they would have been at the start date. The plan is then to have the game start with a two fold mission. Part one, the SpecOps are sent to recover a device, so the players will gear up as they want, but anything that the GM (me) thinks is out of place make them explain why they want to take it. Everything also needs to fit in a Chinook along with the NPC's I am thinking at least a Pilot, Copilot, Crew Chief and two Gunners. I am thinking six Operators with two FAV's, if I do not end up with six players, I will fill out the team with NPC's after they recover it and are on their way back the Helo get shot down and this is were the players take over. As this is going on the second team will that will be made up of players as them self's will be assigned to the US Embassy either working for the Embassy or military assigned there. They will be sent out on a mission of utmost importance to the Ambassador, saving his daughter who is working as a DR. without boarder. They will be heading out in a couple of unarmored SUV's and what ever gear they think is appropriate again having to explain anything that does not feel right to the GM. The players are all that the Ambassador has available. As they get to picking up the DR. they receive a a radio call for any unit that can hear them that they are going down with precious cargo (the first players group). When both groups hook up is when I plan for the strikes around the world, and the team is on their own.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Draq

Besides armor and fuel economy, speed is also a factor. The Bradley is better armored but the lav and Humvee are much faster. Can't kill what you can't hit. And the Humvee is a smaller target too. And take into consideration the SLEP for the lav, upgrading the armor to withstanding 14.7mm/.50cal, but sacrificing its amphibious ability.

The other things you need to consider are:

How large & heavy is the vehicle?

There are quite a few 5-ton bridges in Europe. A Hummer can go places a Bradly would NEVER fit. I like to have the dimensions of the commonly used vehicles in game (height, width, and length). There were many places in Somalia where my HEMTT could not go... it was simply too big and too heavy.

What is the "lifespan" of the suspension?

Most tracked vehicles will gain 1 Wear Value level per 500km travelled (min) up to 5000km (max) based on the vehicle's listed "track life" (anywhere from 5000km to 50,000km based on the model). This is one area where US armored vehicles lose out to the lighter Soviet T72. The T72 has a supposed "track life" of 50,000km (if you can believe the Russians).

Wheeled vehicles will have a "tire life" of from 50,000km (passenger car performance tires) up to 180,000km (heavy truck/semi tires) with wheeled AFV tires lasting about 150,000km. The Wear Value level would increase by 1 for every 5k to 18k kilometers moved. As you can see, wheeled vehicles hold an advantage here.

These are both eclipsed by horses or motorcycles. Horses are to most "economical" means of transport in terms of resources required.