Posted by: doodle_sm
« on: July 02, 2021, 12:40:22 PM »I am getting burn out due to the slow progress each nation is making on getting out of the Sol System.
Posted by: doodle_sm
« on: June 29, 2021, 03:35:40 PM »Vendarite is in high stockpile throughout most nations (besides the United States) the mines have run dry, however. Corundium and Neutronium supplies and mines are dwindling.Now with Vietnam as a proving ground it will be interesting to see what conclusions the different powers draw about their own TN military techs. We may see a covert arms race for bigger and heavier weapons rather than just bigger TN armies.Especially with the neutronium/TN material shortages that are impacting the world economy!
Would this have a major impact? The ground units principally use Vendarite I think, a mineral I for one can never seem to use up at any great rate...
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: June 29, 2021, 01:10:03 PM »Now with Vietnam as a proving ground it will be interesting to see what conclusions the different powers draw about their own TN military techs. We may see a covert arms race for bigger and heavier weapons rather than just bigger TN armies.Especially with the neutronium/TN material shortages that are impacting the world economy!
Would this have a major impact? The ground units principally use Vendarite I think, a mineral I for one can never seem to use up at any great rate...
Quote
July 1962
The Soviets, Germans, and the Japanese have finished their survey of the Sol System.
When asked about that one comet 250b km away, the spokesmen start whistling innocently and shuffle off the stage.
Quote
A memoir from an ARVN soldier details the destructive power of the United States Automatic Kinetic Machinegun:
"Pressing down the trigger of the machine gun destroys whatever I am aiming at. Tree, bush, or Viet-Cong. My platoon was armed with four of these machine guns. More destructive power than an anti-material rifle from the first Indochina war... I fear that the wrong people have access to this power and potency."
But then who, really, are the right people? A haunting question...
Quote
Pictured: the 1st Guards Regiment TO&E
I would point out that LVH+LOG supply trucks will not automatically send supply to the other battalions. Formations only draw supply from other formations which are directly above them in the hierarchy. In order for this to "work" the supplies must be held at the HQ formation level rather than in a separate formation.
However if you use the replacement units method instead this can work as long as the actual formations providing resupply have enough logistics modules to provide 5+ days of supply (or otherwise equal to your construction cycle).
World tensions continue to ratchet ever upwards...between the USA sticking their fingers in every pie, and British-Soviet confrontations, the world may be on a path to a WW3 before long. With the power of TN weapons it would be a war to end wars - this time for sure!
Germany may have the right idea, putting most of their eggs into the spaceship basket will give them the advantage when it comes time to evacuate the planet under threat of Trans-Newtonian hellfire.
Posted by: kingflute
« on: June 27, 2021, 08:43:00 AM »Yep, NuclearSlurpee has pretty much got it.
Although it had somewhat fallen out of favour by WW2, the deployed battalions in a brigade were sometimes referred to simply as the regiment itself, e.g. if the 1st Battalion, The Rifles was deployed, it would be reffered to simply as The Rifles. This was due to the way in which a regiment's battalions were cycled, but by WW2 this was falling out of favour because over the course of a deployment, the men would gain experience of operating in certain conditions (such as the deserts of North Africa or the Burmese jungle) in a way which had never been relevent before.
Although it had somewhat fallen out of favour by WW2, the deployed battalions in a brigade were sometimes referred to simply as the regiment itself, e.g. if the 1st Battalion, The Rifles was deployed, it would be reffered to simply as The Rifles. This was due to the way in which a regiment's battalions were cycled, but by WW2 this was falling out of favour because over the course of a deployment, the men would gain experience of operating in certain conditions (such as the deserts of North Africa or the Burmese jungle) in a way which had never been relevent before.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: June 27, 2021, 12:06:35 AM »Yeah, you're right that the problem is entirely admin vis-a-vis combat order. Regiments are still quite important for administrative purposes as well as tradition but for combat purposes they have been meaningless since WW2. It's the battalion-brigade-division routine for the British with regiments as admin units at home which can be confusing as most European armies used battalion-regiment-division for combat and occasionally brigades for admin, to give an extremely generalized version.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: June 26, 2021, 07:32:35 PM »If I am understanding correctly (a big 'if'!), the role of a regiment is primarily administrative/mobilization related, so it shouldn't show up in an order of battle but you can still roleplay it effectively with some creativity.
A combat division order of battle would look something like:
XX Division
X Infantry Brigade
II Infantry Battalion
II Infantry Battalion
II Infantry Battalion
X Infantry Brigade
II Infantry Battalion
II Infantry Battalion
II Infantry Battalion
X Infantry Brigade
II Infantry Battalion
II Infantry Battalion
II Infantry Battalion
Other formations...
For the sake of simplicity I'm not looking at the artillery, etc.
And each battalion would in turn have come from a regiment, which is an administrative division not present in an order of battle. In a peacetime situation, with the division deployed somewhere (India, Egypt, Gliese 487, etc.), the battalions would basically be rotated with others from the same regiment so each could receive leave time, training, manpower rotation/turnover, and so on.
So in Aurora terms if you have the 1st Infantry Brigade stationed on Luna, made up of the 1st Battalion, Martian Regiment and 2nd and 5th Battalions, Terran Regiment, then in six or nine or twelve months or however long a transport flotilla would arrive bearing the 2nd Battalion, Martin Regiment and 3rd and 8th Battalions, Terran Regiment, which would replace the former three battalions in the 1st Infantry Brigade OOB. The former battalions are then shipped back to Mars and Earth where they would (in RP terms) undergo training, receive leave time, see some personnel turnover, maybe receive equipment upgrades, and so on.
If my understanding is correct...that sounds like a lot of extra work to do manually just for RP goodness. The simple solution is probably just to use Battalion names to represent regiments and leave the numbering off, so instead of "1st Battalion, Martian Regiment" you could name it something suitable - "Martian Battalion" to be concise, or "Infantry Battalion, Martian Regiment" to be wordy. A bit awkward but it gets the point across and you can imagine the rotation in your head.
A different solution would probably be to have the regiments as large HQ formations with a bunch of battalions under them, and then for wartime pull those battalions out of the regimental OOB and organize them into brigades and divisions on an ad-hoc basis. That could be interesting later on as you put GU training facilities on different bodies and have Terran, Lunar, Martian, etc. regiments on each one instead of the traditional garrison formations.
A combat division order of battle would look something like:
XX Division
X Infantry Brigade
II Infantry Battalion
II Infantry Battalion
II Infantry Battalion
X Infantry Brigade
II Infantry Battalion
II Infantry Battalion
II Infantry Battalion
X Infantry Brigade
II Infantry Battalion
II Infantry Battalion
II Infantry Battalion
Other formations...
For the sake of simplicity I'm not looking at the artillery, etc.
And each battalion would in turn have come from a regiment, which is an administrative division not present in an order of battle. In a peacetime situation, with the division deployed somewhere (India, Egypt, Gliese 487, etc.), the battalions would basically be rotated with others from the same regiment so each could receive leave time, training, manpower rotation/turnover, and so on.
So in Aurora terms if you have the 1st Infantry Brigade stationed on Luna, made up of the 1st Battalion, Martian Regiment and 2nd and 5th Battalions, Terran Regiment, then in six or nine or twelve months or however long a transport flotilla would arrive bearing the 2nd Battalion, Martin Regiment and 3rd and 8th Battalions, Terran Regiment, which would replace the former three battalions in the 1st Infantry Brigade OOB. The former battalions are then shipped back to Mars and Earth where they would (in RP terms) undergo training, receive leave time, see some personnel turnover, maybe receive equipment upgrades, and so on.
If my understanding is correct...that sounds like a lot of extra work to do manually just for RP goodness. The simple solution is probably just to use Battalion names to represent regiments and leave the numbering off, so instead of "1st Battalion, Martian Regiment" you could name it something suitable - "Martian Battalion" to be concise, or "Infantry Battalion, Martian Regiment" to be wordy. A bit awkward but it gets the point across and you can imagine the rotation in your head.
A different solution would probably be to have the regiments as large HQ formations with a bunch of battalions under them, and then for wartime pull those battalions out of the regimental OOB and organize them into brigades and divisions on an ad-hoc basis. That could be interesting later on as you put GU training facilities on different bodies and have Terran, Lunar, Martian, etc. regiments on each one instead of the traditional garrison formations.
Posted by: kingflute
« on: June 26, 2021, 07:07:05 PM »Ill be changing how I currently organize the British Army in the Duranium Curtain game. Currently, in the game, a regiment consists of 3-5 battalions in the British Army.No, Im afraid not. So it depends on if you want to RP the non-deployed battalions. If you dont want to RP them, you would probably get away with renaming battalions to regiments (and abstract the non-deployed battalions as the battalions switch automatically w/out player involvement) and renaming your regiments to brigades. If you want to include them, it becomes much more complicated and much more micro-intensive.
Regiments will act as division headquarters. The built regiments will be renamed to battalions and the battalions will be renamed to brigades.
If I am understanding this, this organization nomenclature would be correct?
I hope this answer makes sense as it is 1AM where I am.
Posted by: kingflute
« on: June 26, 2021, 07:00:24 PM »The way I have been RPing it in my games is to form 2-3 battalions per regiment, and keep 1-2 on my homeworld with the remaining one deployed to another body.words
To clarify, I think it is important to differentiate between talking about the British administrative or mobilization scheme versus their orders of battle. At least in WWII, British divisions were not organized by regiments but rather with brigades made up of battalions - at least for the infantry and armoured elements, as artillery and some others were listed as regiments in the OOB. The latter is what I'm talking about, as I think it is the more relevant for Aurora since mobilization in Aurora is highly abstracted if not arguably nonexistent entirely due to how GU production works.
That said I am thankful for clarifications on the matters of British mobilization as I was admittedly unclear on their role under the (administrative) corps. I know the British Army reformed the use of the regimental system in the aftermath of WWI due to the localized devastation to some regions but I seem to know less than I ought about the subject.
The reforms were mostly in the vein of amalgamating regimental recruitment areas and unifiying the number of battalions in each regiment.
Posted by: doodle_sm
« on: June 26, 2021, 06:58:11 PM »Ill be changing how I currently organize the British Army in the Duranium Curtain game. Currently, in the game, a regiment consists of 3-5 battalions in the British Army.
Regiments will act as division headquarters. The built regiments will be renamed to battalions and the battalions will be renamed to brigades.
If I am understanding this, this organization nomenclature would be correct?
Regiments will act as division headquarters. The built regiments will be renamed to battalions and the battalions will be renamed to brigades.
If I am understanding this, this organization nomenclature would be correct?
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: June 26, 2021, 06:47:14 PM »words
To clarify, I think it is important to differentiate between talking about the British administrative or mobilization scheme versus their orders of battle. At least in WWII, British divisions were not organized by regiments but rather with brigades made up of battalions - at least for the infantry and armoured elements, as artillery and some others were listed as regiments in the OOB. The latter is what I'm talking about, as I think it is the more relevant for Aurora since mobilization in Aurora is highly abstracted if not arguably nonexistent entirely due to how GU production works.
That said I am thankful for clarifications on the matters of British mobilization as I was admittedly unclear on their role under the (administrative) corps. I know the British Army reformed the use of the regimental system in the aftermath of WWI due to the localized devastation to some regions but I seem to know less than I ought about the subject.
Posted by: kingflute
« on: June 26, 2021, 05:55:50 PM »Would the Regiments be organized into divisions? Or would Regiment be the highest formation? If the regiment is the highest formation, then I can just keep the current organization and move a few battalions around. This is VERY insightful and good to know!
Not to preempt the proper Britishmen in the thread, but by the end of WWII the British had an organization for which the terminology was a bit wonky, but broadly a "regiment" would be a supporting element of a division or brigade. British divisions still used the brigade nomenclature with 3x infantry brigades and 1x artillery brigade plus supporting units. However, the infantry brigades were in turn made up of 3x infantry battalions plus supporting units, while the artillery brigades were made up of several regiments instead (though battalion-size equivalent).
In general the regimental system had fallen out of favor by WWII due to the horrendous effects on the British population during WWI, so you still see the regimental terminology survive in some formations but at least for the infantry and armo(u)r it was phased out in favor of battalion/brigade nomenclature.
Post-WWII I can't speak to with any real knowledge, but as WWII is the point of departure here this is a reasonable starting point.
The regimental system stayed in use until the 90's, just usually with a reduced scope of 2 battalions, and 1 TA battalion post WW2. The stumbling block I think is that the British regimental system had a different basis than the continental system, but in this period a British regiment was roughly the same size as a continental division without the specialist support units (such as engineers, signals, artillery etc...). These supporting elements came from a central corps (e.g. REME or Royal Logistics Corps), but often split into smaller formations more-or-less permanently embedded with a regiment. A brigade usually was several battalions that operated together (normally more battalions than were in a single regiment but drawn from different regiments). The system becomes more clear with a bit of history:
The origins of this system are that a regiment would be raised locally, with a number of "active" battalions which would rotate between being deployed and R+R/training (e.g. No.1 Battalion Kings Own would be deployed overseas, while No.2 and No.3 battalions are in the barracks at home, after 9 months No.1 and No.2 battalions would switch and so on) and a number if Territorial Army battalions (essentially a local militia that would train alongside the regular battalions that could be raised in the event of invasion, or provide a ready source of trained men to replace casualties - although this was not technically allowed). The 'central' corps were the units that either had to operate at a higher scale or between regiments in an army (such as logistics or signals), or required specialised training (such as artillery or engineers).
However, at times of war the entire regiment could be deployed, although this would only really be done if there was a massive need for more men (such as the 1st half of WW2), but this was generally avoided if it could be helped (such as during the Napoleonic wars or Korea).
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: June 26, 2021, 04:42:17 PM »Would the Regiments be organized into divisions? Or would Regiment be the highest formation? If the regiment is the highest formation, then I can just keep the current organization and move a few battalions around. This is VERY insightful and good to know!
Not to preempt the proper Britishmen in the thread, but by the end of WWII the British had an organization for which the terminology was a bit wonky, but broadly a "regiment" would be a supporting element of a division or brigade. British divisions still used the brigade nomenclature with 3x infantry brigades and 1x artillery brigade plus supporting units. However, the infantry brigades were in turn made up of 3x infantry battalions plus supporting units, while the artillery brigades were made up of several regiments instead (though battalion-size equivalent).
In general the regimental system had fallen out of favor by WWII due to the horrendous effects on the British population during WWI, so you still see the regimental terminology survive in some formations but at least for the infantry and armo(u)r it was phased out in favor of battalion/brigade nomenclature.
Post-WWII I can't speak to with any real knowledge, but as WWII is the point of departure here this is a reasonable starting point.
Posted by: doodle_sm
« on: June 26, 2021, 04:37:08 PM »I take mild amusement from the fact that a CMC was established all the way out on Io a year before humans colonized the moon. This could certainly be read as a triumph of capitalism over the spirit of adventure, and I have no doubt the Soviets are privately furious about this.Ill be sure to add in how the Vietnam War is going! The last report was mostly about the colonization, didn't help that I accidentally deleted my notes of 1959-62. But all is well!
I would like to know more about how the TN equipment in Vietnam is performing and what lessons the clandestine (or not) participants are learning from the reports filtering back to their government offices.
Posted by: doodle_sm
« on: June 26, 2021, 04:36:09 PM »I have a minor gripe about terminology. In the UK, we have the British Army not the Royal Army (dates back to the Civil War in the 1600s).Ill fix that right now! I had no clue, to be honest! I appreciate being informed about the proper phrasing.
The second one is that in the time period in question, the the "base" unit that would be created would be the regiment (normally consisting of 2-3 battalions and 1+ Territorial Army (home defense/reserve) battalion(s)), unless you coinsider the TN forces to be specialists that would be distributed to other units on a more as-needed basis, in which case something like "Royal TN Corps" would be more appropriate.Would the Regiments be organized into divisions? Or would Regiment be the highest formation? If the regiment is the highest formation, then I can just keep the current organization and move a few battalions around. This is VERY insightful and good to know!
Please dont take this as a critisism of the AAR as a whole (its good and I want to read moreOfcourse! Thank you for your constructive feedback and knowledge! Im also going to be giving names to these regiments, seeing how the British name theirs in real life!)
Posted by: kingflute
« on: June 26, 2021, 04:05:49 PM »I have a minor gripe about terminology. In the UK, we have the British Army not the Royal Army (dates back to the Civil War in the 1600s). The second one is that in the time period in question, the the "base" unit that would be created would be the regiment (normally consisting of 2-3 battalions and 1+ Territorial Army (home defense/reserve) battalion(s)), unless you coinsider the TN forces to be specialists that would be distributed to other units on a more as-needed basis, in which case something like "Royal TN Corps" would be more appropriate.
Please dont take this as a critisism of the AAR as a whole (its good and I want to read more )
Please dont take this as a critisism of the AAR as a whole (its good and I want to read more
)