From:	Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Military, Cyber and Other Stuff
Date:	Sat, 4 Dec 1993 22:26:12 +0930

>
>Ivy, back again

[ Misc. stuff deleted ]

>To :Ed Matuskey
>Subj: Infantry and Cyber
>Well, for openers, there are no conscripted troops in the USA, and I really
>don't expect any in the UCAS.
Well, you don't usually maintain conscripted troops in peace. OTH, you folks
have had conscription for every single war save one (the latest). So I don't
see that as a reason the UCAS wouldn't go for it when needed.

>Secondly, the reason for the cyber is called
>the "Point of Attack" concept. The attacker has to have overwhelming
>advantage for an attack. Neal Porter was coming in with 97 ordinary troops,
>with smartlinks, equaling 1 cyber-grunt with my package.
Sorry, I missed the part in your package when you said you had Hollywood
ammunition...
IMHO, all that's needed for non-cyber to take down cyber is about 10-1 when
given similar weapons.

> So you have 97
>divisions of normos facing a single division of cyber-grunts. OK, the whole
>thing boils down to the plain fact that the cyber-grunts pick the time and
>place of attack and their opponent just can't pack his 97 divisions into one
>spot and get the cyber-grunts to attack that spot. And the cyber-grunts,
>due to speed, momentum, and fire-power will mow down any unit within ten
>times their size. That's warfare, for actual examples of real-life results
>of disparities at that exact level look at the German invasion of France or
>the Allied invasion of southern Iraq. Each of those was a one generation
>disparity, the first was tactical, the second example was equipment.
>Cyber-grunt division versus 97 normo divisions is BOTH.
Yah. Well, the NATO armies have always had the technological advantage over the
(ex?)Warsaw Pact, and yet no-one was willing to bet NATO was guarenteed to win.
And once that cyber division of yours has taken a place, here's what happens:
They need to resupply. While doing it, they get mobbed. End of story.

>to Robert Watkins
>re: Srun Holidays
>NAN and christianity are like water and oil. The evils done to the Native
>Americans by christians up to this time are remembered by all native
>americans. I really don't think that'll change much by 2054, especially
>with what happened in the early 21st century and late 20th.

So? The "Christian" missionaries wiped out over three African empires, and
enslaved the ancestors of the Negros now living in North America. The Europeans
came in and took over both North and South America. (South America now has an
overpopulation problem due to the Catholic Church's problems with
contraception). Wanna bet the large Catholic population of Mexico wouldn't
celebrate Christmas (provided the Aztlan government hasn't outlawed it)?? Or
what about Amazonia? Why should NAN not like it either?

[ Other replies deleted ]

>The Deb Decker
>re: Cyber-Military
>The enemy has a TN of 3 for their smartgoggles at Short Range, the
>cyber-grunt has a TN of 2 at *all* ranges. (that's what the electro-mag 3
>is for) They engage their targets at longer ranges, faster, with more
>firepower. Incidently, Wiring 2 does let you move first. That counts for a
>lot. Also, with the smartlink, your missile is *much* less likely to miss.

Page 240, SR2 main book (black): Scopes may not be used with smartlink systems.
Also, in my game at least, if you want the benefit of a scope, you have to Take
Aim (Simple Action). In theory, you could use a laser sight, but I give those a
range of about 50 meters at best. (Not to mention stuffing up suprise).

I also wouldn't let smart systems work with rockets or missiles. (I assume it's
got the same information displayed on the aiming system, and so it's factored
in. What, you didn't aim?? Tough. Missiles are not rifles).

>GURPS Ultra-Tech was one of the least forsightful books I have ever seen.
>GURPS has a real problem with forsight, but that one was the *worst*!
>
>Of Course money's tight, and of course the gov't is too, but cyber-grunts
>pay off a LOT better than missiles. A missile is a waste of time in the
>Shadowrun world, just like it always was in this one. The troops are the
>ones who do the work. The cyber-grunt will win, and that's the name of the
>game.
>
But will a 400,000Y soldier kill enough of the enemy to warrant the cost??
Considering the enemy will have cheaper external gear that does similar stuff??
(With the exception of Riggers.)

[ Other replies deleted ]
>to: Julian M. Wiffen
>re: Falklands
>Hmmmm, I was still in when that happened, and watched it from Ft. Meade, Md
>at that place there. I was wondering just what was up. I also really
>Wondered why we seemed to side with the Argentinans, now I think I know.
>If they had won, we would probably have had easy access to the oil,
>now wouldn't we?
>
>Resource Wars: Yes, I believe that wars would be fought over recources, by
>both gov't and corps. Holding the ground gets more necessary in those cases.
>
Yeah, but wrecking it becomes SO much easier. (i.e A "Scorched Earth" policy.
Look at what Iraq did to Kuwait as they left.)

>To: everyone
>re: cyber-grunts
>The Argentinian equipment advantage, if there really was one, was more than
>offset by the poor quality of their training. But, in a modern war, fought
>by modern opponents, training will be approximately equal. Look at it this
>way, German army vs British army, both have good to great training, but the
>Germans are cyber-grunts and the british have smart-goggles and body armor
>at a medium level. The Germans also have the body armor and are otherwise
>set up with my list but including trauma dampers. Who wins? No question at
>all, the Germans walk right across the British.
BTW, as Germany is a series of city-states now, and the average German soldier
has no cyber, I'll assume this is a hypothetical.
> Reverse the picture and who
>wins, The British walk all over the Germans. Imagine an Airmobile
>Division, like unto the 1st Air Cav of 'nam fame doing a landing, Imagine
>600+ LAV troop carriers in verticle echelon with everything firing. Now speed the
>picture up by a factor of three times. Brutality doesn't begin to describe
>the effect. That's what the normos holding the ground will see when the
>cyber-grunts arrive.

No, the normos see the troop carriers falling out of the sky due to missile
hits. (600+ LAVS are hard to miss)

There will be a lot of work for the support arms in a
>2050+ war, though not a lot for artillery (it's too short ranged as the
>leaders found out in the desert) but that Point of Attack force will be
>air-mobile infantry and they will *have* to be cybered to win.
>
Say what?? Not a chance. Infantry lacks the protection to take out a hardened
target, and so will be relegated to either "covert" ops, or defense.

I personally can't see ANY major war going on like we can envisage today. The
corps duke it out in set-piece engagements in Desert Wars. And countries would
have vast protected lines, designed to smash up any attack. (If the French had
built the Maginot Line up to the sea, Hitler would have been in trouble).

What I CAN see happening is a series of small unit engagements, such as
penetration, sabotage, assassination, etc. Large unit battles would have such
incredibly high casualty rates as to be not considered. And that's before we
bring magic into the picture. (Imagine what a few storm spirits would do to
that LAV landing up above)

>Trauma Dampers, losers choice, the winners will put in damage compensators
>as soon as they are available.

AT THAT PRICE?? Trauma dampers I can see, but damage compensators cost a
fortune. ESPECIALLY when you realize that in war, there will be a lot of people
unwounded, a lot of people dead, and very few inbetween. It's all that
firepower you mentioned.

>Also, the Essense and monetary costs are seriously skewed for another
>reason. Nanotech! Those lil' nanites will be the cyber installers and bio
>builders of the 21st century. Generally no operations at all, unless limbs
>are put on or accident/combat damage is repaired. So, in a semi-realistic
>game the whole Essense/nYen thing is out the window. (Magic is FUN, thats
>the only reason I leave it in. My primary players both *love* to play
>mages!) I use my Delta clinic prices for the Essense and, if the character
>is ex-official of some kind, Military, Corp, Security, the monetary cost is
>simply used to eat up their Resources pool. In other words, I don't change
>the cost when a character is being created. After that the cost is relative
>to the Legality Class of the item, and to the clinic level. Good work is
>expensive, good illegal work is outrageous! The good stuff plain isn't
>available on the legal market anyway. Per the Shadowtech book.

Ah, how would you put in a datajack without surgery? A smartgun link? What
about a cybereye?? Nanites are used to do things like splice the cyberware into
the nervous system. You still need to cut the patient open to get it in place.

Essence does have a realistic side. Your brain needs a certain amount of
organic support to operate. Remove enough of the body to make way for cyber,
and that organic support isn't there. Your heart can't get the blood pressure
needed to pump, your lungs don't have room to expand and contract, your
digestive system breaks down because it's been cut into too many pieces. They
could take your brain out and put it into total support I guess...

[ Replies deleted ]
[ Part reply to the Powerhouse deleted]

>Cyber and Military: As I have said, all too many times for most of you, if
>a country wants to win conflicts, or even better, *prevent* them, they will
>cyber up highly. Anything else is the formula for losing. Bet on the
>Germans and the UCAS, CSA, Aztlan to cyber to the max. The idea is that the
>force of the future will go even farther than we (USA) have gone so far
>towards the idea that everyone in uniform is combat ready. That's why we
>have civ's doing a lot of the scut work now.

See above. It's just not cost-effective.
>
>As for the cost of Cyber-troops, face it, lot'sa Money is still a lot cheaper
>than having to learn a new language because your conquerers speak it and
>your old, familiar, native tongue is now illegal. THINK about it, people!
>Cyber-troops are a LOT cheaper than Nukes, which aren't really any good
>anyway. And cyber-troops can *take and hold* ground, which NOTHING else can.
>
Okay, I'll argue this. I'm the leader of a Third World nation. You've sent in a
division of cyber to take out some "vital assets". The total cost of the
division is LOTS. Given the choice between losing the assets, and losing the
assets and the destroying the division, I know which I'd pick. And no, they
can't hold the ground much better than the people they took it off.

Nukes, BTW, are the single most cost-effective way of destroying lots and lots
of things. The support for a viable nuclear weapons industry is less than the
cost of an armoured division today.

>Definition for the Day: Munchkin GM; Any GM who reads the rules then blows
>them off to make life harder for the players. The best response for a GM
>like that is find another game. And warn your friends. The rules are
>generally best looked at as the natural laws of the campaign, if someone
>doesn't like the rules, they should GM something else, not ruin a very
>good game for other people by getting creative with their own "rules".
>Especially when these self-created rules are simply there to cheat the
>players.
So why do you wish to remove Essence??

>-----
>
>Marzhavasati Kali |If mail bounces, check spelling. It's deirdre.
>deirdre@***.org |If that doesn't work, send mail to
> |deirdre%efn.org@*******.cs.uoregon.edu
>"You can have my gun when you pry it out of my hand with _your_
>cold, dead fingers."
> -- DB
>


--
Robert Watkins bob@******.cs.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 am,
it's because they were up all night.