Protection v. Mobility

[Raellus]

In Freedom, journalist Sebastian Junger (Perfect Storm, Restrepo) pointed out that in the USA's last few wars, US troops have faced more mobile opponents (on foot, at least)- this may have contributed to the USA's inability to win those wars. For example, when aircraft and motorized vehicles were not involved, both the VC/NVA and the Taliban could usually run circles around American soldiers. Why? Because the American soldier today typically carried/carries at least 70lbs of kit into battle, whilst his/her opponents often fight much lighter. A lot of the weight that American soldiers have to bear is body armor. Their enemies usually fight without. As a result of a typically heavy combat load, American troops are not only slower on their feet, they often get physically exhausted more quickly than their opponents. That begs the question, which is more important in sustained infantry combat, protection or mobility?

I think one can argue that, in game terms, protection is more important. Taking less damage due to wearing body armor means a PC has greater odds of surviving a firefight. However, there are in-game penalties to being over-encumbered.

I'm currently playing in a T2k PbP (4e rules) where the party is operating in the tropics as a commando force. I want the extra protection of body armor for my PC, but having him wear a PAGST vest and K-pot whilst humping through jungle in triple-digit heat seems somewhat unrealistic. How would you handle this conundrum?

Does one game system or another handle the downsides of wearing body armor better?

Please share the reasoning behind your poll selection in the comments.

-

[TGirl Kelley]

I voted mobility because when I was in the USAF our body armor sucked and I would rather shoot and scoot than rely on it.
But from what I understand of the 4e rules (I'm still learning) it doesn't seem to be much benefit in forgoing protection though. Moving only provides a -1 penalty so mechanically it would seem that if you have good cover you'll just turtle up and rely on the body armor instead of tactical movement.
If you are wearing body armor in the tropic heat you would definitely need increased hydration requirements per day and maybe more Stamina rolls and/or higher penalties depending on temp and activity levels. If you forego the flak vest you may have lesser penalties.

[kcdusk]

Random thoughts;

Not armour per se. Do you give the negative penalty if PCs are moving with their backpack? If they take an action to drop their pack, do you note where they left it (more importantly, does the player know where they left it!)?

I like the conundrum of protection verse mobility choice that players should be made to make.

In game i'd always take the protection. I think you would have to focus on NPC mobility or protection modifiers as much as PC modifiers if you are going to go down that path - and i am in favour of this. It often comes up in my game, so i think this is a great thread question.

I haven't voted yet.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

Not armour per se. Do you give the negative penalty if PCs are moving with their backpack? If they take an action to drop their pack, do you note where they left it (more importantly, does the player know where they left it!)?

Yes and yes. I've tried running with a full backpack on, IRL, and it does significantly impact speed and agility negatively.

Another thought about protection v. mobility that I forgot to include in the OP is that wearing body armor could psychologically prime the wearer to take more risks on the battlefield. This is probably much more the case in the game than it is IRL. In the game, a player might make the following calculus:

"My PC can probably survive a hit to the head or torso so I'm going to have him/her charge that MG nest..." or whatever.

The irony is that armor protection might make a PC more likely to get hit.

-

[bash]

I'm not sure American doctrine in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Vietnam WRT equipment would necessarily hold in the Twilight war. It wasn't until the late 90s (our timeline) that deployed soldiers might be expected to have the ISAPO plate carriers. In T2k I think those would be super rare and rarer still in soldier's hands at the time of the game.

The average body armor in T2K would just be the soft PASGT vest which is 3lbs. Not nothing but not the 16lbs of IBA with all the plates installed or ~20lbs of the PASGT with ISAPO. I would definitely see soldiers trekking through Poland dropping plate carriers if they had them but keeping their soft armor to protect against fragments.

So for the poll I guess I pick both. Keep some protection but not being around when the bad guys start shooting is a great defense.

[Mahatatain]

Personally, based on zero experience in real life, I think that mobility is more important but that most RPGs don't reflect this, particularly in modern settings.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

Not armour per se. Do you give the negative penalty if PCs are moving with their backpack? If they take an action to drop their pack, do you note where they left it (more importantly, does the player know where they left it!)?

Yes. The system I use has all carried weight impacting the skill checks of characters. But the weight affects each character differently, as their Str and End stats and Condition skill are all different.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by bash

I'm not sure American doctrine in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Vietnam WRT equipment would necessarily hold in the Twilight war. It wasn't until the late 90s (our timeline) that deployed soldiers might be expected to have the ISAPO plate carriers. In T2k I think those would be super rare and rarer still in soldier's hands at the time of the game.

Fair point. T2k body armor would have been less cumbersome (and effective) that current issue.

Originally Posted by bash

The average body armor in T2K would just be the soft PASGT vest which is 3lbs.

The PASGT vest is listed at between 7-10 lbs on the sites I checked, and the K-Pot weighs in at 3 lbs.

Regardless, I feel for the grunts that had to hump this much gear through triple canopy jungle and/or under the tropical sun. Note the soldier on the far right of the picture carrying a tube sock full of C-ration cans. It's no wonder the VC and NVA could move much faster on foot.

[Homer]

I’d have to go with “it depends”. Sitting in a static position under indirect fire, go ahead and get as much armor as you can. Moving cross country to conduct a recon, mobility may be your best bet. There’s also the compromise, like carrying your helmet in your ruck and putting it on in the ORP before actions on the objective but being in a soft cap otherwise. Being able to move and not wear yourself down more than necessary is often more important in close combat than the ability to shrug a hit- taking one in the plate still tends to take you out of the fight long enough for the enemy to do unto you if you are alone. That said, I do know a few guys who got to keep their used plates as souvenirs.

I will say the game standard Kevlar vest filled a vital role in the pre-SAPI plate army, because it was perfect to put down on an uneven surface in a vehicle as a sleeping pad. It really smoothed out the assorted brackets and buckles you’d have jabbing into you otherwise. As we transitioned to helmet mounted optics, the Kevlar helmet was increasingly worn as a more comfortable alternative to the old “skull crusher” NVG mounts.

Once the IBA and successor designs came out, it seemed like light units very quickly leaned the various pieces of armor down to plates, minimal soft armor and a helmet- and plates could be dropped at high altitude or if there was a long hump. The DAPS, groin guard, blast panties, etc all seemed the province of mounted units.

The original RBA would likely exist in T2K, but that was heavy and rare.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Targan

Yes. The system I use has all carried weight impacting the skill checks of characters. But the weight affects each character differently, as their Str and End stats and Condition skill are all different.

From a game design perspective, I have been thinking that wearing armor and a ruck should be the mechanical default. Dropping the ruck and/or going without armor should provide bonuses to mobility/evasion. This is based on players' tendency to forget inconvenient situational penalties but remember bonuses with unerring accuracy...

- C.

[kcdusk]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

From a game design perspective, I have been thinking that wearing armor and a ruck should be the mechanical default. Dropping the ruck and/or going without armor should provide bonuses to mobility/evasion. This is based on players' tendency to forget inconvenient situational penalties but remember bonuses with unerring accuracy...

- C.

this

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

From a game design perspective, I have been thinking that wearing armor and a ruck should be the mechanical default. Dropping the ruck and/or going without armor should provide bonuses to mobility/evasion. This is based on players' tendency to forget inconvenient situational penalties but remember bonuses with unerring accuracy...

- C.

This is a keen insight into player psychology

By George, I think he's got it!