Empire Doctrines

[UGoBoy]

Before even discussing the basics of what vehicles should or shouldn't be available, perhaps there should be at least a rough outline of military troop doctrines for the three empires. After getting an idea of what the "thrust" of each empire is, adapting vehicle ideas would be quite a bit easier.

For example:

---

"Golden Horde" - Utilizes very traditional Mongol-style fast ground attacks and flanking. Vehicles are tuned for land speed and the ability for shoot-and-scoot warfare. The main vehicles utilize small crew numbers, and are best fielded in groups, while clearing the way for the larger tank-class vehicles. Air support is built along an archaic "ground attack" paradigm, where aircraft is utilized almost exclusively to support the ground troops in an attack role. Air superiority is harbored from the ground, with several strong AA units. Infantry units are very good at anti-infantry work, but their other attack capabilities are somewhat crude, relying on heavy bulky weapons that minimize their ability to wear armor.

Technocratic Regime - The entire army is aligned to a mobile Air Cavalry strategy. Tanks and troop transports are lightweight, and are designed for air transport. Vehicles are maneuverable, but not especially fast or rugged. Air support is built along a very transport-driven line, with even the medium fighter-bomber able to carry along a light vehicle as "payload". Good air superiority available in their aircraft, but their clever "all is one" paradigm can lead to their aircraft being a jack-of-all-trades, but a master of none. Infantry is the most versatile in the game, able to use lightweight multipurpose weapons. Though this gives Technocrats the ability to be very flexible in the field, their flexible weapons don't damage some targets as heavily as a more specialized weapon might, leading to the need for more teamwork in squad structures.

Religious Regime - Utilizes a rigid combined arms strategy. Can make moderate use of air transport for ground vehicles, but their lifting units are huge and unweildy compared to technocratic designs. Their light craft are designed mostly for scouting and anti-infantry work, whereas their tanks are best-of-class. Very good purpose-built aircraft, but with very little in the way of versatility...i.e. fighters are very good at dogfighting, but bad at ground attack, ground attack aircraft are bad at air-to-air, etc. Infantry units are specialized by their ability to carry their gear...for the religious zealots of the Remnant, overkill is the order of the day. Remnant infantry weapons are often large and more fearsome than really neccessary. This leads to low field hang-time as ammo becomes very heavy to carry, and true versatility is out the window. Though incinerating enemies in the flames of your Purifier might be satisfying, having more than a few per squad makes for a group of slow-moving targets...

----

From descriptions like that, it would be easier to start envisioning what weaponry and vehicles that a faction would field.

[RebelCommander]

Good post, and a really fucking good explination/summary.

I can actually go off of that pretty well and think up several deisgns.

BTW, the Purifier as a weapon anme is the fucking win.

[UGoBoy]

Thanks Reb. I've been noodling these concepts around for a while, and wanted to throw them out there.

The Sodalite model is based mostly on Ruso-Soviet airborne tactics, post-Kruschev. Soviet Airborne is probably the most complete airborne strategy in the world, utilizing purpose-built lightweight vehicles. They're also pretty versatile...Russian motorized field mortars can also double as direct-fire anti-tank guns, and also transport troops. Their troop transports pack a good punch, and are as a bonus almost completely water-tight, and can be airdropped with troops in them! A pretty good model for a high-tech army.

The Remnant doctrine I sort of based off of the heavy mechanized flavor of the U.S. Army. Army equipment is usually designed to do one thing, and do it pretty damned well. What the U.S. lacks in heavy air cavalry, they make up for in specialized attack units. The cool thing is that we can incorporate a "modern" army structure on the Remnant, but still have them *look* cool because they're religious zealots :P

And the Horde is pretty self-evident. In a simplified battlefield like a video game, the easy-to-understand tactics that the Mongols used to great effect would be pretty easy to implement. Since the Mongols like to feint and pull enemies back into their heaviest troops and their artillery, they get effective fast-strike vehicles and slower, more powerful back units. Horde tactics would probably employ quite a bit of fixed artillery combined with their mobile harrassing force, and a deriliction towards close-range infantry combat.

[Cogburn]

I'd really rather not get THAT specific about doctrines and fighting styles.

Reason being, I don't want to give the impression that you are locked into a particular strategy by selecting a particular empire.

We can certainly tweak vehicle values to fit some sort of overall scheme, or even design weapons to have slightly different capabilities (Magrider vs Vanguard), but I don't want to pigeon hole empires to a fighting style.

Overall, your ideas are sound, but understand they will appear in-game more as nuances than empire strategies.

[UGoBoy]

It'd be easy to incorporate the doctrines as simple nuances. For example...

Sodalite transports are more efficient at picking up vehicles, and perhaps their main transport can carry a larger number of vehicles. So a Sodalite heavy lifter might be able to pick up a tank from the ground without landing, and perhaps carry a 3rd small vehicle as opposed to 2 vehicles total for a Remnant transport. This would still equate to them having a more efficient Air Cav model.

Horde light vehicles might have a speed edge and damage edge over other empire's light vehicles, while their tanks are slower.

And Remnant vehicles are less versatile than Sodalite equipment, but more more effective at their designated goal. This might be reflected by Remant tanks having interchangable turrets for different purposes, while Sodalite gear is all-purpose in field but somewhat less effective. Effectiveness would have to be decided at the "manufacture" time, hopefully encouraging mixed arms groups.

[RebelCommander]

I'd really rather not get THAT specific about doctrines and fighting styles.

Reason being, I don't want to give the impression that you are locked into a particular strategy by selecting a particular empire.

We can certainly tweak vehicle values to fit some sort of overall scheme, or even design weapons to have slightly different capabilities (Magrider vs Vanguard), but I don't want to pigeon hole empires to a fighting style.

Overall, your ideas are sound, but understand they will appear in-game more as nuances than empire strategies.


These could also be referenced as "traditional tactics of this faction." Whereas it's left to the player to discover their own niche with the vehicle and how to really work with the equpiment and strategies.

[Cogburn]

It'd be easy to incorporate the doctrines as simple nuances.* For example...

Sodalite transports are more efficient at picking up vehicles, and perhaps their main transport can carry a larger number of vehicles.* So a Sodalite heavy lifter might be able to pick up a tank from the ground without landing, and perhaps carry a 3rd small vehicle as opposed to 2 vehicles total for a Remnant transport.* This would still equate to them having a more efficient Air Cav model.

Horde light vehicles might have a speed edge and damage edge over other empire's light vehicles, while their tanks are slower.

And Remnant vehicles are less versatile than Sodalite equipment, but more more effective at their designated goal.* This might be reflected by Remant tanks having interchangable turrets for different purposes, while Sodalite gear is all-purpose in field but somewhat less effective.* Effectiveness would have to be decided at the "manufacture" time, hopefully encouraging mixed arms groups.


This is more along the lines of what I was referring to. I'm gonna ponder on this for a bit.

[Cl2v2r]

I think we should refer to Erudite Sodality vehicles etc as 'Sodality vehicles' and not 'Sodalite vehicles.'

Just to stop the soft drink (soda) jokes.

[Cogburn]

LOL... empire nicknames already?* When talking about these ideas with my wife (who is a published writter) we've already started referring to the ES as "The Poptops".

Back to the topic at hand... I'd like to reiterate what it is we are trying to do with this thread: Whereas the NC, TR, and VS are the "Instagib", "Spray and Pray", and "Versitile" empires (respectively); what are the overriding principals that govern the technology of our 3 empires?

Erudite Sodality - Technophiles - Proposed Weapon: Beam Laser
The Remnant - Zealots - Proposed Weapon: Plasma Projectiles
"Mongols" - Militaristic - Proposed Weapon: Ballistic Projectiles

Originally I think the Remnant used ballistics, but in thinking about how our empires have developed I think giving the "Mongol" empire something a little less technically sophisticated is in order.* They just flipped weapon types.

So given the above...

Erudite Sodality - Focus on speed, efficency and precision (like the nature of scientific study... it has permeated into their military)

The Remnant - Focus on suppression, adaptability, and survivability (like the nature of missionaries converting non-beilevers)

"Mongols" - Focus on force, cunning, and bravery (like the nature of what it takes to survive in their own society)

So now a little elaboration and discussion....

Erudite Sodality - Vehicles should be lightly armored compared to other empires, but have precise weaponry on stable platforms (Magrider)

The Remnant - Vehicles should be slow, spammy LOS weapons, but have the heaviest armor (Prowler)

"Mongols" - A mix of speed and armor, designed to charge into enemy columns and break through frontlines (modified Vanguard)

I mention the closest match in PlanetSide to how I see these empires playing out.

Thoughts?

[abathur]

I'd attribute survivability to the mongols and perhaps fortitude or something similar for the religious who would presumably stand up for what is right (to the point of martyrdom.)

The mongols were known for their abilities to ride for days on end without leaving the saddle and without carrying food. Sounds like survivability if ever I heard it. Might look at giving mongol vehicles an afterburner type function (not for mowing!) but for employment of the famouse hit-and-fade tactics for stringing out enemy forces. Shouldn't be powerful enough that they can long-AB out of an area, or do it frequently, probably only matched in speed by the lightest 1-2 person vehicles and aircraft.

[Kyraal]

I'll comment on the hand held-weapons doctrine for now.

I need to think about this quite a bit, as I'm currently brainstorming concepts to bring under Cog's scrutiny. My thoughts have been the following:


Sodality weapons are beam weapons.
Remnant weapons have been ballistic weapons in my mind, but I like the idea of plasma. I was, after all, a heavy user of them while playing the revered X-COM/UFO games.
Mongol weapons are ballistic weapons. Both crude and elegant, depending on what culture you (the observer) were raised in.
Mongol weapons are made out of metal, and are heavy in weight; they look intimidating.
Sodality weapons are made out of lightweight material, with few hard edges.
Mongol weapons arsenal should have a heavy revolver-type pistol.

[Aftiel]

I'd attribute survivability to the mongols and perhaps fortitude or something similar for the religious who would presumably stand up for what is right (to the point of martyrdom.)

The mongols were known for their abilities to ride for days on end without leaving the saddle and without carrying food. Sounds like survivability if ever I heard it. Might look at giving mongol vehicles an afterburner type function (not for mowing!) but for employment of the famouse hit-and-fade tactics for stringing out enemy forces. Shouldn't be powerful enough that they can long-AB out of an area, or do it frequently, probably only matched in speed by the lightest 1-2 person vehicles and aircraft.


I'm fairly certain they probably carried some dried meats and whatnot, not eating for multiple days might sound hardcore but in reality it's very stupid. Quite a few battles have been lost from needing a good nappy time. Oh and each horseman had multiple horses hence their ability to ride so continuously. But I'm wandering into history instead of game mechanics...for ground vehicle "afterburner" if you wanted to adopt that you could have a NOS type system possibly.

[abathur]

Ability doesn't necessarily mean they did it all the time. Likewise, many a battle has been won, or an escape secured by the ability to move faster, more efficiently and for longer than your enemies. I think I was the one who brought up them using multiple horses, I'm all over it! (they rode without food by carefully bleeding the horse and sucking some out to keep them going.)

[Aftiel]

I don't remember you ever posting about them using multiple horses per rider but I actually recall reading it from paper books (yes those things IRL ;)).

[abathur]

Ghengis Khan was an absolute fucking badass. However, more recent information and portrayals of him aren't so much a purpetrator of senseless violence as a brilliant leader. I believe there's only really evidence of more isolated slaughter of entire villages which ultimately resulted in the capitulation of many many others without a fight (if we're going to talk about barbaric this is the basic principle behind the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.) The tactics were mostly applications of already existing nomadic tactics, yet they were none the less used with brutal efficiency and combined with management and training that allowed each rider to have multiple horses and essentially ride for days straight (staying alive by bleeding but not killing the horse they were riding if necessary.

Absolute badass. Go do some more reading up on Ghengis, the mongolians and their tactics. (and re: blitzkrieg tactics, I believe I've heard that tactics they used are still taught to cavalry/tank crews today) Whether it's an ultimate decision or not, it's hard to consider past great military empires for influence without the Mongolian's making the list.

http://www.markovforums.com/SMF/index.php?topic=2440.0

Psht. And you call yourself a forumwhore. :p

[GreatMazinkaiser]

Back to the topic at hand... I'd like to reiterate what it is we are trying to do with this thread: Whereas the NC, TR, and VS are the "Instagib", "Spray and Pray", and "Versitile" empires (respectively); what are the overriding principals that govern the technology of our 3 empires?

Erudite Sodality - Technophiles - Proposed Weapon: Beam Laser
The Remnant - Zealots - Proposed Weapon: Plasma Projectiles
"Mongols" - Militaristic - Proposed Weapon: Ballistic Projectiles


Is it really necessary to limit each empire to one type of weapon? More to the point, wouldn't it be boring if, say the Erudite Sodality's armory only featured lasers of varying colour/width/range?

Personally, I think they, as the most tech savvy empire, should also get access to various magnetic weapons such as needle guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needlegun), railguns, coilguns, and mass drivers.

Yes, all of the above are technically ballistic weapons, however, they are quite different from the kinds of slugs the
Mongols will be throwing out.

Also, the Needlegun makes an excellent sidearm for the ES: it's elegant, efficient, and is very precise. It is a rather small weapon (see my avatar) that can fire quickly with very low recoil, and do a fair amount of DoT...

I'm not saying that lasers are bad, it'd just be nice for there to be a little more variety.

[Aftiel]

Ah well if it was that thread I skipped all the shit I already knew so someone blabbing about Khan would = I skip it. :P

[abathur]

Back to the topic at hand... I'd like to reiterate what it is we are trying to do with this thread: Whereas the NC, TR, and VS are the "Instagib", "Spray and Pray", and "Versitile" empires (respectively); what are the overriding principals that govern the technology of our 3 empires?

Erudite Sodality - Technophiles - Proposed Weapon: Beam Laser
The Remnant - Zealots - Proposed Weapon: Plasma Projectiles
"Mongols" - Militaristic - Proposed Weapon: Ballistic Projectiles


Is it really necessary to limit each empire to one type of weapon? More to the point, wouldn't it be boring if, say the Erudite Sodality's armory only featured lasers of varying colour/width/range?

I'm not saying that lasers are bad, it'd just be nice for there to be a little more variety.


QFE

[Cogburn]

Nope.... No reason to limit at all.

In fact, giving each empire one or two weapons of the enemy empires isn't a bad idea either. Call it reverse engineering from captured battlefield technology.... or even better, they stole the concept from their enemy and adapted it to their needs using their own tech. Why not have a weapon like a beam laser MCG?

What we've stated are the PREDOMINANT characteristics for each empire. There's no reason that they cannot diverge or even cross.

Before we get carried away, remember... A Weapon For Everything and Everything Has A Weapon. We're not going to make weapons that dont fulfill a clearly defined battlefield purpose.