Rise Again (second draft, complete with system)

[Mike Holmes]

I'd also cleans out the last references to things like "volleys" and "breast works" neither of which have any real place in modern warfare.

Any suggestions as to what to replace them with?

BTW, did you notice the reference to an infowar I threw in there as an excuse not to deal with certain things? ;-) I also think it's realistic, as the CSA military is really just the US military in rebellion, so both sides have the access codes to the satellite weapons, which invites burnout.

Warning, what follows are the rambling ravings of a blatant Simulationist grognard.

Um..er...lots of problems I see with the actual war history, here.

First, who gets the federal armed forces? One huge difference between the Civil War of the ninteenth century and yours is that the vast majority of forces at that time were militia, and not professionally trained.

Today, the National Guard and Reserve make up about 60% of the USAs total armed forces (looking at numbers of personell). I suppose we can assume that the regionally located National Guard forces could be commandeered by the states to which they notionally belong. But even that assumption has considerable holes. Having been a member of the Wisconsin Army National Guard for fifteen years, I can tell you that the organization is such that even willing Guard members would only be able to obtain a portion of their equipment. Much of it would have to be obtained by attacking federal military posts which would have the benefit of being able to defend said equipment by using it. And that assumes that those Guardsmen would actually defect. I think many would, but many others would not.

The Reserves have even a stronger affiliation with the national government. And actual Federal bases, as I said, would likely remain faithful to whatever was seen to be the "rightfully" empowered government. Meaning the one that had passed on power from the previous legitamate government (in the case of the game, the North if I read correctly). This is due in no small part to the fact that military personell are mixed together from all regions of the US, no matter which post you go to. So a post in Georgia will not have many more Georgians there than, say Pensylvanians. This is not to say that ther would not be traitors to the local cause, but the bases might have to be taken by force which would inevitably lead to equipment being damaged and destroyed.

The "Datawar" would require a whole lot of espionage or traitorism by people specifically selected for their inability to become traitors. Or in other words you are implying some paradigm shift but not labeling it. Something big would have to happen to take control of strategic resourcees out of the hands of the Federal governement.

Fortunately, you've given control of both Texas and California to the South. That goes a long way to explaining any equipment parity as these states are both overrun with military facilities. Still, I give the North the advantage in equipment before all is said and done. Possibly most important, every ship goes to the North.

This is very important, because of the likely nature of the war. First, land invasion would be extremely dificult if not impossible, not to mention pointless. This war would not be conducted as wars in the past have been. Imagine trying to take control of the landscape from a populace as heaviliy armed as the US public is. Also consider the bad publicity; much worse than the Civil War, many more brothers would be shooting at brothers today. Again, perhaps there is a paradigm shift that I'm unaware of, but without one I do not see a traditional land battle occuring at all.

Instead I see battles with the intent of eliminating the heads of state from each side. In order to restore power in an area, the mantle of authority would have to be retaken. This means lots of surgical activity. Which requires a few opening moves.

The most important would be air superiority. Air assets being mobile as they are would also be amongst the least retained assets of a rebeling government. They would simply be flown north upon news of an impending rebellion. Along with whatever they could carry. Again, the South captures some stuff, but superiority seems unlikely. And, as stated previously, the naval support for any operations would remain almost entirely in the hands of the North.

Once the federal government has re-established air-superiority, the South is forced to fight that guerilla fight. If, somehow, the South were to win then the situation would be reversed. In any case, with modern technology you are unlikely to see anything like the warfare of the ninteenth century with forces slowly pushing around the country. Even without the consideration of air power, the presence of good roads everywhere and the mobility of armed forces (every militiaman raised has a car) make it so that whatever actions taken would occur suddenly.

What I can see possibly happening is something much more like the situation with Israel/Palestine.

1. The South grows very disenchanted over time.
2. They finally rebel.
3. The Federal government comes in with a superiority in equipment and "takes control" of the South. Takes a month, maybe two, with a few major battles that are, essentially, fought between Northern forces destroying attempts by Southern assault teams driving on particular strategic targets (oil reserves, for example which would leave the North in a bad situation). Some of these assaults are successful, but again, cost the SOuth most of their strategic equipment (the SOuth was figuring it was a use-it-or-lose-it situation, anyhow)
4. A situation much worse than Vietnam devlops with  Nothern "police" forces trying to maintain control over the Southern regions.

Anyhow, this is where it seems very unlikely to me. Either the populace submits when the North gets control of the centers of power in the South or the North realizes the futility and either gives up early, or never even attacks. Worse, given the relatively stable democracy of the US (which still has some states rights), which would adapt to make such unrest very unlikely, I don't see a rebellion actually occuring.

So you need to really drive home the issues that divide the country, and why they end up being so regional (why don't they use BAs in the plains states? why do they need them at all?). And then you need to have a coherent idea of how the war goes. Consider that all my above ideas are based on current technology, not technology sixty years from now. Which might just make war as we know it completely obsolete.

General Cramptonham, "What's the situation in Richmond?"

Aide: "Well, sir, it seems as though the southern states have just voted to seceed."

General Cramptonham: "Send the signal to 'The Sky-shroom' they are to launch 'operation spore'."

Aide: "'OperationSpore', sir?"

General Cramptonham, "Yes, it's a retrovirus that will cause a gene therapy to occur on the populace of the affected states that will make them all sensitive to a signal broadcast at Ultra-Low Frequency thus rendering them unable to fight."

Aide: "I see, sir."


Given your assumed level of Genetic Manipulation, I'd think that bio-weapons at the very least would be more effective than your "buzzers" sound. And who knows what else might be developed? If you're going to go with such a setting with any seriousness at all, you need to give some reall consideration to what has happened in the interim technology-wise.


Sorry for the rant, just my $.02,
Mike

[xiombarg]

Warning, what follows are the rambling ravings of a blatant Simulationist grognard.

Well, then, my first response is the game isn't really simulationist.

I deliberately left a lot of it vague because I didn't want to get bogged down in the details you mention. But let's go into it anyway...

First, who gets the federal armed forces? One huge difference between the Civil War of the ninteenth century and yours is that the vast majority of forces at that time were militia, and not professionally trained.

[snipping excellent information about the National Guard and Reserves and the low possibility of the "traitors" needed for an infowar]

Well, would the (anti-)globalization strangeness that Bill White suggests be enough of a paradigm shift to cause more US military to go renegade? I was seriously considering slipping that into the third draft.

Fortunately, you've given control of both Texas and California to the South. That goes a long way to explaining any equipment parity as these states are both overrun with military facilities. Still, I give the North the advantage in equipment before all is said and done. Possibly most important, every ship goes to the North.

Well, that's the idea, exactly. That was intentional on my part. You notice the South is losing the war.

This is very important, because of the likely nature of the war. First, land invasion would be extremely dificult if not impossible, not to mention pointless. This war would not be conducted as wars in the past have been. Imagine trying to take control of the landscape from a populace as heaviliy armed as the US public is. Also consider the bad publicity; much worse than the Civil War, many more brothers would be shooting at brothers today. Again, perhaps there is a paradigm shift that I'm unaware of, but without one I do not see a traditional land battle occuring at all.

Okay, noted. But you don't think a couple of futile land attacks would happen? Remember, even generals are not 100% rational. I mention this because I don't want to lose my flavor text. ;-)

Also, would New Hampshire joining the side of the CSA, as Ring Kichard suggests, change anything? Particularly if I stuck a major biotech firm there, with all sorts of juicy defense contracts?

Instead I see battles with the intent of eliminating the heads of state from each side. In order to restore power in an area, the mantle of authority would have to be retaken. This means lots of surgical activity. Which requires a few opening moves.

That's fine, that suits the guerilla nature of the war as I see it evolving.

The most important would be air superiority. Air assets being mobile as they are would also be amongst the least retained assets of a rebeling government. They would simply be flown north upon news of an impending rebellion. Along with whatever they could carry. Again, the South captures some stuff, but superiority seems unlikely. And, as stated previously, the naval support for any operations would remain almost entirely in the hands of the North.

Right, fine, this is a given. I already saw air superiority as key.

Once the federal government has re-established air-superiority, the South is forced to fight that guerilla fight. If, somehow, the South were to win then the situation would be reversed. In any case, with modern technology you are unlikely to see anything like the warfare of the ninteenth century with forces slowly pushing around the country. Even without the consideration of air power, the presence of good roads everywhere and the mobility of armed forces (every militiaman raised has a car) make it so that whatever actions taken would occur suddenly.

[interesting outline and comparison to the Israel/Palestine situation snipped]

Okay, so far as I can see this is mosly an argument for the war to be shorter, going to guerilla war sooner. I can certainly support compressing the timeline a bit.

Anyhow, this is where it seems very unlikely to me. Either the populace submits when the North gets control of the centers of power in the South or the North realizes the futility and either gives up early, or never even attacks. Worse, given the relatively stable democracy of the US (which still has some states rights), which would adapt to make such unrest very unlikely, I don't see a rebellion actually occuring.

Again, what do you think of what Bill White suggests?

Also, I'm tempted to hand-wave this issue. Several "the USA breaks up" backgrounds in RPGs and fiction, both in future histories and alternate histories, just assume tensions get to a certian point and then things snap, since the authors are more interested in dealing with the logical consequences of what happens after.

So you need to really drive home the issues that divide the country, and why they end up being so regional (why don't they use BAs in the plains states? why do they need them at all?). And then you need to have a coherent idea of how the war goes. Consider that all my above ideas are based on current technology, not technology sixty years from now. Which might just make war as we know it completely obsolete.

[amusing "future warfare" anecdote snipped]

As for "why use BAs", my answer is: Cheap labor. You don't even have to go out of the country to get it! I see BAs being viewed in a lot of places as a sort of piece of farm equipment.

Also, maybe they don't use BAs in the Midwest. After all, they're on the side of the North.

As for your example of future warfare, the Datawar is supposed to take a lot of that out (at least as hardtech goes), plus it is an assumption of the background that while genetic engineering has gotten very sophisticated, they still can't engineer behavior, or else the BAs would have no free will. As for, say, "Hyper-Anthrax", there is the idea is that it's tougher to engineer diseases that effect multiple species (especially when those species may be designed to be disease-resistant), and on top of which: Do you want to release a disease in a territory you consider yours, and risk it mutating out of control? Not good. There's a reason biological and chemical weapons are not in common use by the US today.

Given your assumed level of Genetic Manipulation, I'd think that bio-weapons at the very least would be more effective than your "buzzers" sound. And who knows what else might be developed? If you're going to go with such a setting with any seriousness at all, you need to give some reall consideration to what has happened in the interim technology-wise.

Well, I give some reasons above why that might not be as relevant or effective as you think. Killing all the humans and leaving the BAs probably doesn't sound like a good idea to either side. ;-)

As for the buzzers, they pretty much exist for flavor, and as alien, amoral entities to contrast the PCs against. Even the worst, most brutal non-insectoid BA isn't as bad as a buzzer. In terms of the system, buzzers are the only creatures that can have a Responsibility of 0.

I want enough about the technology to make it seem realistic, but not so much that the PCs have to assimilate a large amount of new information to understand what's going on.  Other futuristic backgrounds have gotten by without worrying about this too much.

Essentially, I want it realistic and detailed enough to create the situation I want for the game, and to meet most people's criterion for suspension of disbelief. Now, that might mean it doesn't quite meet your suspension of disbelief, but as long as most people can deal with it, that's cool. I have thought about a lot of this stuff, and made the concious decision not to deal with it.

Now, if you want to be really helpful, you can tell me how to modify the initial flavor text so it sounds more realistic, and then take a look at the timeline when I get the third draft up. While I may not implement all your suggestions, I very well may reduce the amount of time the war takes -- even I thought that was a little unrealistic, even as I was writing the second draft.

Also, as a simulationist grognard, what do you think of the combat system?

[Mike Holmes]

Warning, what follows are the rambling ravings of a blatant Simulationist grognard.

Well, then, my first response is the game isn't really simulationist.

I know, hence the warning. Still consistency is always a cool thing. Personally, I think the best way to handle the situation is to use future projections to figure out how to make them cause the situation that you want. As opposed to reverse engineering the events.

Well, would the (anti-)globalization strangeness that Bill White suggests be enough of a paradigm shift to cause more US military to go renegade? I was seriously considering slipping that into the third draft.

I didn't make that point well. It doesn't much matter the cause. Yes, actually I like the globalization issue as a catalyst. That could cause the societal changes necessary. So could issues with beer. That's not the point. The problem is the disparity between the presumeably slow rate of change of societal attitudes versus the short amount of time it takes to change your security. By that I mean that it might take years for the rebel attitude to infect enough people to make the rebellion occur, while it only takes a few months to clean hous of them from your military organization.

Let's look at modern professional military indoctrination. Once a soldier is in the military today he/she becomes fairly inculcated with the idea of following orders, and the chain of command. In fact there are sociological studies that show that many soldiers become "Institutionalized", and are less able to function afterwards in regular society. In effect, they lose affiliation with region or state, and adopt the military as their "home state".

Now this is not to say that military personel do not have political opinions, or anything like that. Just that their first loyalty is usually to supporting the current government's smooth transition of power. Any shift in attitudes would take some time to occur. The powers that be would note this shift (unless it somehow managed to happen completely surrepetitiosly; nigh impossible), and take mesures to eliminate personel with these attitudes from positions of power. As it stands every soldier that enters the military today is screened by the FBI for just such attitudes (communism in my day, for example).

Those who did slip in under the radar (happens some) would then have to deal with quite a bit of Cognative Dissonance in their daily life. That is they would have to hide their attitudes and conform to the behavior of the other soldiers or be at least ostracised, and possibly kicked out. After a while of conforming most people actually change to the beliefs to which they are conforming. So this eliminates many or most of those who do get in as potential rebels.

So what you are left with is a small minority who, because they are mostly powerless to arrange such things are mixed in randomly with the other soldiers in a situation where they cannot openly discuss their attitides. All such organizations are strongly discouraged in the military. Which means they cannot organize into an effective force for the purpose of taking assets by force. What you are left with is individuals stealing what they have access to, and fleeing. The military is designed this way on purpose, to reduce and, if possible, eliminate dissent. These things are antithetical to security, and the ability to conduct effective military operations.

Okay, noted. But you don't think a couple of futile land attacks would happen? Remember, even generals are not 100% rational. I mention this because I don't want to lose my flavor text. ;-)

OK, in the name of art, we can allow for the Charge of the Light Mechanized Brigade. As I mentioned, there would be a few battles, they'd just be quick and decisive. Causing a quick shift to the guerilla warfare. Which is OK as that's where you want to be anyhow.

Also, would New Hampshire joining the side of the CSA, as Ring Kichard suggests, change anything? Particularly if I stuck a major biotech firm there, with all sorts of juicy defense contracts?

Actually, I wanted to mention this. I don't think that New Hampshire matters much other than as a sort of historical footnote. Being isolated from their allies, they'd be subdued first I'd think. But how about this idea? What if the members of the biotech firms started to send their creations down South secretly so that they could be free. A sort of reverse "Underground Railroad". That might be an interesting parallel.

Okay, so far as I can see this is mosly an argument for the war to be shorter, going to guerilla war sooner. I can certainly support compressing the timeline a bit.

That was my biggest objection, really.

Also, I'm tempted to hand-wave this issue. Several "the USA breaks up" backgrounds in RPGs and fiction, both in future histories and alternate histories, just assume tensions get to a certian point and then things snap, since the authors are more interested in dealing with the logical consequences of what happens after.

Point taken. But the best of these histories have details that explain away the inconsistencies. Often just BS, good BS can go a long way to helping with SOD. In fact, its really an opportunity in disguise to create novel ideas to explain how the unlikely occurs. I'm just suggesting that you don't pass over that opportunity. I'm sure you can get ideas from people here on The Forge.

As for "why use BAs", my answer is: Cheap labor. You don't even have to go out of the country to get it! I see BAs being viewed in a lot of places as a sort of piece of farm equipment.

Also, maybe they don't use BAs in the Midwest. After all, they're on the side of the North.

That's a circular argument. They don't use BAs because they're on the side of the North, and the North doesn't use BAs. Why doesn't the North use BAs? In the original Civil War the reason was that the crops in the South were more labor intensive making slavery a (arguably) profitable means of producing agricultural goods. That disparity doesn't exist any more, really. With modern combines and whatnot labor requirements are about the same in the North and the South (my wife was a bean walker in Minnesota as a kid). So the question is, why, if it is ecomnomically viable in the South is it not economically viable in the North? Or, if it is economically viable, why have people in the North eschewed such profitable means (this is rare but not unknown in history; socioeconomics is highly motivating)?

As for your example of future warfare, the Datawar is supposed to take a lot of that out (at least as hardtech goes),

I forgot to address that. This is a very sweeping generalization, but lets take it on face value. OK, now that the US is weakened by this Datawar, what happens to the rest of the world? Do they turn their sights on the weakened US? At the very least, the war will cause some effects economically, and diplomatically abroad. I'm sure that US peacekeepers and whatnot would be pulled back to help fight the war at home.

This should be adressed at least in brief. The US does not exist in a vaccuum.

plus it is an assumption of the background that while genetic engineering has gotten very sophisticated, they still can't engineer behavior, or else the BAs would have no free will.

OK, that's the kinda BS you need. You didn't mention that before. Perhaps a little more BS as to why (such modifications cause brain cancer in 94% of engineered creatures). Again, these explanations are an opportunity to be creative.

As for, say, "Hyper-Anthrax", there is the idea is that it's tougher to engineer diseases that effect multiple species (especially when those species may be designed to be disease-resistant), and on top of which: Do you want to release a disease in a territory you consider yours, and risk it mutating out of control? Not good. There's a reason biological and chemical weapons are not in common use by the US today.

Again, that's why they're not in use today (though the US has the world's largest stockpiles of these things). In the future with improvements they might be. We make mines right now that explode in 24 hours if not detonated previously. This is so that they do not cause casualties to our troops later. I can envision creating diseases and whatnot that had limited life-spans and could only infect a single person at a time. Perhaps you need some BS ethics commitee that somehow stops these things from being produced while simultaneously allowing bioengineered intelligent animals (I see a war fought in the 2030s that causes a worlwide ban on such weapons or something). But again, just some explanation.

Well, I give some reasons above why that might not be as relevant or effective as you think. Killing all the humans and leaving the BAs probably doesn't sound like a good idea to either side. ;-)

Not at all what I was suggesting. You could make something that could kill everything, or just the BAs, theoretically. I like the rationale that you provide that everyone might be resistant with new treatments. Go with something like that.

As for the buzzers, they pretty much exist for flavor, and as alien, amoral entities to contrast the PCs against. Even the worst, most brutal non-insectoid BA isn't as bad as a buzzer. In terms of the system, buzzers are the only creatures that can have a Responsibility of 0.

I understand their allegorical and symbolic presence. And with the right explanations I can buy into them.

I want enough about the technology to make it seem realistic, but not so much that the PCs have to assimilate a large amount of new information to understand what's going on.  Other futuristic backgrounds have gotten by without worrying about this too much.

But your future can be better. And such information is just there in case a silly Simmie like me needs an explanation to prevent total disbelief. (Actualy, again, all players crave consistency)

Essentially, I want it realistic and detailed enough to create the situation I want for the game, and to meet most people's criterion for suspension of disbelief. Now, that might mean it doesn't quite meet your suspension of disbelief, but as long as most people can deal with it, that's cool. I have thought about a lot of this stuff, and made the concious decision not to deal with it.

Again, that just seems like a wasted opportunity. There are really only a few issues, and I think that you almost have them covered now. Just a bit more exposition, and you'd have a situation that anyone could buy into.

OTOH, it's your game, and there are people who will buy into it as is, I suppoose.

Now, if you want to be really helpful, you can tell me how to modify the initial flavor text so it sounds more realistic, and then take a look at the timeline when I get the third draft up.

I'll certainly take a look.

Oh, BTW, replace Brestworks with bunkers, or some description of a mobile defense. Volleys, OTOH, we still do have. As it happens I was in the Field Atrillery. A volley is a series of shots fired in succession, pretty much what it sounds like. Not much has changed terminologically since the Civil War with artillery (we don't have cassons anymore, instead we have things like Field Artillery Support Vehicles [FASV]).

The effects of fire have changed, though. You don't even want to be in a bunker under today's artillery fire. In modern history (since WWI) Field Artillery has been the cause of 75% of all battlefield casualties. My unit was not activated for Desert Storm. Why? Because if the US Regular Army FA is not enough to destroy an enemy, and all the reserve artillery has to be brought in, the goal has obvioulsy just changed to turning the enemy territory into a large parking lot. Its just overkill.

And, of course that's all without getting into exotic weapons currently available, or what may be available in the future. Ask me about the SADARM munition, sometime.

This is the problem with the idea of modern warfare. The US has enough force available to be able to thouroghly destroy just about any enemy that will come out to face it head on (the Chineese army would be highly problematic as it is around 100 times as large). The result is that enemies are forced to fight in other modes right from the get go, mainly guerilla warfare. See Afghanistan.

What is really interesting about your setting and believable is the large disincentive that the Federal forces would have to use overwhelming force against the rebeling states (a PR problem, mainly). Making the use of guerilla warfare all the easier and effective. That part of the background I buy into implicitly. I've always thought what a horrendous time an enemy would have invading the US even if it weren't for the military. The guerilla war would be ridiculous given the number of firearms the populace has alone.

General Cramptonham: "We've been ordered to take Los Angeles?"

Aide: "LA!?!, they can't be serious! The place was a war zone before the rebellion. Maybe if we just stick to taking DisneyLand in Anaheim, sir?"

General Cramptonham: "No, the whole enchilada."

Aide: "Have they considered the nuclear option, sir?"


Mike

[Laurel]

At first (and second) glance, they appear to be workable to me, but the way its written right now is...well... unpolished.   I could see a casual reader or new player getting lost, even if the average Forger understands exactly what you are saying.

[xiombarg]

I'm working on the third draft as I write this. I hope to have it up sometime late tonight. It should integrake Mike and Laurel's comments, with a more realistic (and compressed) timeline and perhaps a better explaination of the mechanics. Thanks, everyone, for the feedback so far... Keep it coming!

[Mike Holmes]

Also, as a simulationist grognard, what do you think of the combat system?

Actually, given the Narrativist nature of the game, I think its well devised. In fact I would rephrase the system such that it was, even more, just an extension of the standard system. Also, being tagged should probably affect other rolls besides just going down, etc. To represent being hurt. Perhaps these penbalties can be overcome by a guts check to cancel them.

All in all this looks a lot like a system that I'm working on called FantaSea, as it happens. Another case of convergent design.

Mike

[xiombarg]

All in all this looks a lot like a system that I'm working on called FantaSea, as it happens. Another case of convergent design.

Interesting. I'll definately look forward to seeing that...

[Ring Kichard]

All right, lets see here.

I think some good points have been raised about the modern structure of a military making division within the ranks difficult. Armies are structured, now days, to force allegiance to the top brass. A quick solution to the dilemma that this poses is to start the revolution at the top.

Suppose the President and Vice President and a couple of the major political players all get killed or rendered incompetent somehow. While the constitution is supposed to set up a clear line of succession, do you want to take orders from the Secretary of Agriculture?

The idea here is to divide the military at the top and split it apart. Maybe the half goes with the VP and the other half thinks she orchestrated the disaster that killed the President and so sides with the Undersecretary of defense, or something. The two sides consolidate their power politically in roughly North South lines and things boil over from there.

Other ideas might be another contested election a la Bush Gore, with a resolution that makes 2000 look clean, or insanity in the oval office.

As for taking all the satellites and advanced weapons systems out of the war, if you don't choose to toss them out at the top (say someone burns the command codes and some group acts to keep them burned) nothing says loving like an EMP burst.

I like the idea of biotech firms being the strength of New Hampshire. Maybe NH had the laxest biotech laws allowing for the most in-depth experiments. Maybe they start making Rillas nearly indistinguishable from humans fighting for the CSA as spies or they start making some sort of virus effective on insect based life. Who knows? ;- )

And I really like the idea of a reverse underground railroad.

So that's how I ramble, today. Ug, need food.