| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:16 pm Post subject: Imperial Army Order of Battle |
 |
|
So, I've been playing around with the OB section in the Imperial Sourcebook, trying to find ways to change the OB to better fit what we know about the Imperial Army in the SWU, with regards to vehicles and equipment, etc. I have my own ideas, but they all end up mirroring various aspects of the United States Army's organizational chart (not that that's a bad thing, but the US Army is much more streamlined and progressive thinking than the hide-bound conservative Imperial Army). Eventually I'll post most of my ideas here, but I'd like some input from the forum as to how you have changed the Imperial Army OB for your campaigns.
For starters, a couple things that I did...
-Took the Marksman Squad from the Special Missions units and changed it into a dedicated Scout/Sniper unit, which spends most of its time under cover and observing enemy positions (I'll get into how I changed Special Missions later).
-Replaced the Line Squads in the Scout Platoon with one Marksman Squad and one Repulsorlift Squad. The Repulsorlift vehicles are equipped with extra sensor systems to aid in their scouting mission, and also serve as transport for the Marksman squad. A key component to scouting is mobility, and the old squad featured 10 biker scouts and 18 troopers on foot. My version changes that to 12 biker scouts, 8 dismounted Marksmen (Scout/Snipers) and two combat scout vehicles, each with a five man crew. The entire unit is now either vehicle mounted or has some sort of vehicular transport.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Last edited by CRMcNeill on Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:48 pm Post subject: Re: Imperial Army Order of Battle |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | So, I've been playing around with the OB section in the Imperial Sourcebook, trying to find ways to change the OB to better fit what we know about the Imperial Army in the SWU, with regards to vehicles and equipment, etc. I have my own ideas, but they all end up mirroring various aspects of the United States Army's organizational chart (not that that's a bad thing, but the US Army is much more streamlined and progressive thinking than the hide-bound conservative Imperial Army). |
Could you use the OB from an historical army (US or otherwise)? That might give you a less modern more conservative feel that you seem to be looking for. Maybe something from WWII or the 1930s between the Wars period would work or look at the Soviet or Chinese Army in the 1950s.
Not a criticism, but isn't this more of a GM thread? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:14 am Post subject: Re: Imperial Army Order of Battle |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Could you use the OB from an historical army (US or otherwise)? That might give you a less modern more conservative feel that you seem to be looking for. Maybe something from WWII or the 1930s between the Wars period would work or look at the Soviet or Chinese Army in the 1950s. |
That's a thought, but I have no idea where to look for that information.
| Quote: | | Not a criticism, but isn't this more of a GM thread? |
Maybe. I wasn't really sure exactly where it belonged when I wrote it up.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:23 am Post subject: Re: Imperial Army Order of Battle |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
That's a thought, but I have no idea where to look for that information.
|
Wikipedia has a little useful information from our friends across the pond.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:00 am Post subject: Re: Imperial Army Order of Battle |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Wikipedia has a little useful information from our friends across the pond. |
Thanks for that. I checked it out, but unfortunately, they all seem to be lacking the kind of small unit detail that the Imperial OB has. Characters in a game are most likely to face squad or platoon level units, and most of these OBs don't come even close to that.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:32 am Post subject: Re: Imperial Army Order of Battle |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Thanks for that. I checked it out, but unfortunately, they all seem to be lacking the kind of small unit detail that the Imperial OB has. Characters in a game are most likely to face squad or platoon level units, and most of these OBs don't come even close to that. |
I'm certain the information is available, it will just require some research - or a military historian* with the appropriate specialty who likes Star Wars gaming.
You will have to decide if the effort is worth the potential payoff. Most of the ground combat we see in the films looks much more tactically primitive than modern combined arms tactics. The combat we see in TPM, AotC, on Kashyyyk in RotS, on Hoth in ESB, and the vast majority of what we see in the Clone Wars cartoons and TV show looks more like a cross between big, frontal WWII battles and something from WWI or the American Civil War circa 1861-65, not something from the last 25 years.
* Or theoretically a really old veteran who plays Star Wars RPGs, but I think that is probably somewhat unlikely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:53 pm Post subject: Re: Imperial Army Order of Battle |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | Wikipedia has a little useful information from our friends across the pond. |
Thanks for that. I checked it out, but unfortunately, they all seem to be lacking the kind of small unit detail that the Imperial OB has. Characters in a game are most likely to face squad or platoon level units, and most of these OBs don't come even close to that. |
Yeah, it was just a starting point.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 10:17 pm Post subject: Re: Imperial Army Order of Battle |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | You will have to decide if the effort is worth the potential payoff. Most of the ground combat we see in the films looks much more tactically primitive than modern combined arms tactics. The combat we see in TPM, AotC, on Kashyyyk in RotS, on Hoth in ESB, and the vast majority of what we see in the Clone Wars cartoons and TV show looks more like a cross between big, frontal WWII battles and something from WWI or the American Civil War circa 1861-65, not something from the last 25 years. |
True. The SWU is a very curious mix of high-tech and archaic, so it is difficult to know what goes where when you see tactics as you described above combined with modern day concepts like aerial assault and the like. I guess what I keep coming back to is the idea of what it would look like if I were in charge. That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.
For instance, since the Imperial Sourcebook is pretty clear about there being multiple types of vehicular propulsion in the SWU (walkers, wheels, tracks, air cushion, etc.) why is the primary mechanized infantry unit called repulsorlift? Shouldn't it be some sort of name that reflects that the unit could be equipped with a variety of different vehicles types, but they all serve the same purpose (i.e. transport and support of infantry in combat)?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:39 pm Post subject: Re: Imperial Army Order of Battle |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | For instance, since the Imperial Sourcebook is pretty clear about there being multiple types of vehicular propulsion in the SWU (walkers, wheels, tracks, air cushion, etc.) why is the primary mechanized infantry unit called repulsorlift? Shouldn't it be some sort of name that reflects that the unit could be equipped with a variety of different vehicles types, but they all serve the same purpose (i.e. transport and support of infantry in combat)? |
I think the ISB is a hodgepodge. Personally I'm leaning towards focusing on what we see in the films and possibly the cartoons. Which tends towards Walkers big and small for ground transport, armor, and heavy scouting vehicles; stationary artillery for bombardment and support; speeder bikes for fast, light scouting; and some sort of LAAT/gunship for airdrops. But even with gunships we still see the same frontal assault, mass wave effect as we do for ground units. The tactics are incredibly unsophisticated. But maybe that's not so bad for a space opera RPG.
(1) It means tactics are so remedial that even non tactical players can grasp them. Although to be realistic, PCs should have to make tactics and/or command rolls to implement and get troops to follow any moderately clever tactical plan.
(2) Battles can move in fairly simple and predictable fashions, more like a game of Napleonics miniatures. This makes it easier to treat the actual PC involvement as a series of scenes or encounters in what is an otherwise predictable battle.
(3) Combat has a simple rock, paper, scissors paradigm like it did in Napolenonic times. In fact substitute SW Infantry and Walkers for Napoleonic infantry, SW stationary artillery for Napoleonic artillery, and Star Wars speeder bikes or gunships for Napleonic Cavalry and you probably have a similar paradigm as Napoleonic warfare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:58 am Post subject: Re: Imperial Army Order of Battle |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | I think the ISB is a hodgepodge. |
I agree. Even though it is credited to a single author, it is not internally consistent, and is far too haphazard to be useful for anything more than superficial reference. As soon as you start to dig deeper, it falls apart.
| Quote: | | Personally I'm leaning towards focusing on what we see in the films and possibly the cartoons. Which tends towards Walkers big and small for ground transport, armor, and heavy scouting vehicles; stationary artillery for bombardment and support; speeder bikes for fast, light scouting; and some sort of LAAT/gunship for airdrops. |
I'd like to see more on this. SW does seem to emphasize one big vehicle that can do everything, with multiple smaller vehicles as escorts. Whether it is AT-ATs or Star Destroyers, the pattern seems to hold. Perhaps rather than taking the route suggested by the ImpSB, with modern military style tank and mech units, it would be better to fill the gap in the Imperial SB with a single, large, repulsorlift-powered vehicle that is a contemporary of the AT-AT and the Juggernaut, in that it can carry a full platoon of infantry, as well as operating as a heavy tank. It would need to have some sort of smaller repulsorlift-driven escort vehicle (perhaps the existing tanks could fill in in that area).
| Quote: | | But even with gunships we still see the same frontal assault, mass wave effect as we do for ground units. The tactics are incredibly unsophisticated. But maybe that's not so bad for a space opera RPG. |
All good points. My only issue is that, while set-piece, mass-wave attacks may be the norm for the Empire, the Alliance can't afford to fight like this. They have to be sneaky and use innovative tactics or else they will get rolled over and crushed (Hoth is a case in point).
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:20 am Post subject: Re: Imperial Army Order of Battle |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | ...the Alliance can't afford to fight like this... |
Good point. I should have specified I was talking about Imperial tactics in the Rebellion era. Of course not everyone is in that time period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:26 am Post subject: Re: Imperial Army Order of Battle |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | ...the Alliance can't afford to fight like this... |
Good point. I should have specified I was talking about Imperial tactics in the Rebellion era. Of course not everyone is in that time period. |
And in the Clone Wars, with droids fighting clones, the soldiers of either side would ultimately be considered expendable, so tactical consideration for minimizing casualties would not be a major concern to either side. Except perhaps the Jedi, with their respect for all life that would include their clone subordinates. Now if only the Jedi in the Clone Wars TV series didn't make such routinely moronic tactical choices...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:15 am Post subject: Re: Imperial Army Order of Battle |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | ...the soldiers of either side would ultimately be considered expendable, so tactical consideration for minimizing casualties would not be a major concern to either side. |
But a wise general would minimize casualties because soldiers are a scarce resource, even if there was no moral imperative to save lives. It just seems that the generals on both the Republic and Separatist sides are about as tactically creative and innovative as the High Commands on the Western front circa 1916.
A lot of - 'just throw more bodies at the problem and see if we can bash our way through.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Azai
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Posts: 248
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do agree with the tactical "genius" of many commanders in the clone wars.
And only a few battles do you see them try to "combine" forces with airstrikes, artillery, big mechs, jedi, and infantry. Honestly I'd not just be using those LAATs as troops offs but also as gunning runs to support the infantry.
Anyways though, it seems the prequels are more akin to World War I, while the original trilogy was more like World War II. At least to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Azai wrote: | | Anyways though, it seems the prequels are more akin to World War I, while the original trilogy was more like World War II. At least to me. |
Tactically yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
