The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Streamlining Imperial Military Forces
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> Streamlining Imperial Military Forces Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 2:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Streamlining Imperial Military Forces Reply with quote

Ning Leihrec wrote:
Imperial Battle Carrier: heavily armed star carrier / 900 meters long / compliment: 1 star fighter wing & 1 full battalion with Air Ship

Maybe something like this...

Quote:
Imperial Air Ship: Mobile Command Center, Seige Platform, and Battalion Headquarters all-in-one / high flight ceiling / drops from orbital vessels and establishes a battlefront / often used as mobile garrison / army compliment (full battalion)

I'm having trouble picturing this. I guess I'd need to see stats to get a better grip on it.


As far as your TO&E, it seems overly rigid. Assigning all units a specific number of AT-ATs and AT-STs doesn't take into account the varied environments and scenarios in which army forces operate. For instance, a infantry unit assigned to garrison duty in an urban environment like Coruscant isn't going to have much use for AT-ATs, but will have use for things like your modular airspeeder or the Floating Fortress.

What I would suggest is starting with a generic unit of infantry, then treating it as a modular formation to which additional units can be attached. The ImpSB specifically mentions this as part of the Imperial Army's organization, that their HQ & Support units are bulked up to accommodate additional units (in practice, it doesn't work out that way, but the idea is there). So, for instance, you have an infantry platoon of 40 troopers, to which you can then attach a single AT-AT and a pair of AT-STs for ground assault, or a section of Floating Fortresses for urban operations, or a unit of light speeders for skirmishing operations, etc, etc. Realistically, it's going to work better to leave a particular unit assigned to a particular vehicle type, as training time and lack of familiarity will be an issue when transitioning from one type to another, but that's not really pertinent for a bunch of Imperial mooks...

And I don't see why you are mixing stormtroopers and regular army troopers together. Stormtroopers have long been considered a separate formation, so having stormtroopers make up the bulk of the Army while simultaneously throwing in 4 regular Army troopers seems off. Why bother? Make them all stormies or all regular Army. Practical considerations may require mixing the two, but they will always be ad hoc formations, not official ones.

Your use of 5=1 in unit building is quite jarring to me, as I don't think I've ever seen anything like that. For starters, it's going to throw off pairing larger units with existing vehicles. If you are committed to it, what I would suggest is using a 4+1 scenario, where you have four regular units plus one artillery or heavy weapons unit grouped under the unit HQ. The heavy weapons can start with man-portable repeaters and mortars at low levels, then work up to heavier stuff like missile launchers and anti-aircraft quad-lasers and such at the higher levels.

At the division level, I don't recall there ever being mention of a division in the actual films. There is, however, frequent mention of Legions. I know the ImpSB replaced "division" with "battlegroup", but that never really sat well with me, so I used the "battlegroup" backstory but changed it to "legion" instead.

For your TIE organizations, again, it seems awfully rigid, with each unit being assigned X amount of everything, regardless of what that unit's mission is.

It is also quite confusing to have the word "Fleet" make up every level of organizations in your Navy. Having Fleets be composed of Fleets composed of Fleets makes it very difficult to sort one from the other. I strongly suggest using more common nomenclature: Lines, Squadrons, Forces, Groups, Fleets, etc.

You also need to examine your ship choices. Having 2 Lancers in every Strike Fleet means every Sector Fleet is going to have 1,250 Lancers (50 for every Star Destroyer) even though the Lancer was only supposed to be a relatively rare prototype platform.

Use of the Lancer also has a bearing on mission assignments. With the Lancer's Space of 4, putting it in a formation with a Space 6 Strike Cruiser will just hold the Strike Cruiser back.

It's also important to note that, organizationally, Support Craft are almost never directly assigned to Line or Squadron level units, but are instead detached as part of task forces while organizationally remaining part of their own units.

Ultimately, there is very little here that I would use, if only because I don't mind the way things are generally arranged in the ImpSB (it's the details I don't like). Here's my version of Army reorganization at the Squad & Platoon level. I haven't gotten around to doing the same for the Navy, but I have some ideas there, as well.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
Yeah. Could be why stormies cant ever win a fight... Very Happy

Have you ever played Renegade Legion? An interesting thing I've found in that universe is that their Mechanized Infantry squads are primarily equipped as anti-armor units. The individual squads are great at concealment, and carry a 50/50 mix of non-LOS missiles and spotting lasers in addition to their personal weapons. I'm considering how to fit something similar into the Imperial TO&E; maybe simply basing it on the Line Squad. If you treat an Imperial Army line squad as a starting point organizationally, you can then attach whatever weapons are needed for the mission at hand. Anti-personnel gets repeating blasters and grenade launcher, anti-armor gets spotting lasers and concussion missile launchers, etc.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dredwulf60 wrote:

When I was doing it; in Canada, it was 8 men in a section. (We didn't use the term 'squad', and still don't AFAIK)
The section was composed of 2 Assault Groups; Assault group 1 and Assault group 2. (these are roughly analogous to what Garkhal calls Fire teams I think.)


Seems like it.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Never even heard of it.


As for the military organization, in RPG terms, I suppose it doesnt really matter how a unit acquires its equipment. From a real life logistical standpoint (which is where I'm coming from), having "equipment" under the control of a completely different chain of command is too much red tape.

If two different elements need the same item, then one of them cannot accomplish their mission since the owning commander cant give the equipment to both units at the same time. Same goes for personnel: The lowest ranking commander needs everything that is essential to his unit's big picture mission (that is, the over arching purpose for the unit's existance) under his command so that he can actually accomplish whatever mission he gets OR (perhaps more importantly) to maintain what we call mission readiness so that in the event of a 9-11 or Red Dawn scenario, the unit is able to respond in full effect and not need to coordinate with higher commands just to get a repeater for each of his squads.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I should've been clearer. Per the ImpSB, the Imperial Army is an adherent to uniformity and conformity over all. I don't think it's really a realistic mindset; the Navy's focus on mission, and their willingness to vary uniform organization based on specific mission requirements is, IMO, much more practical. What I'm thinking is more along the lines of starting with the basic Line Squad & Platoon as a framework upon which to add additional weapons based on mission as part of their permanent organization. In other words, you get 9 troopers to a squad and 4 squads (plus a lieutenant and platoon sergeant) to a platoon for a total of 40, but individual platoons or squads will have specific missions based on how they are trained and equipped.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also, as an aside, I agree that the HQ&S units in the ImpSB are pretty lean, but you have to take droids into account. IMO, a lot of the basic level functions (food service, maintenance and sanitation, clerical work, etc) are handled by droids with humans supervising.

There's a sci-fi novel I once read called War Machine, in which military officers are assigned an AI Assistant; essentially a droid intelligence in a small, man portable casing that was carried by the officer to which it was assigned. That droid handled all of his clerical and data work, as well as handling communications duties. I could see something similar in the SWU, with mass-produced droid-brain "command assistant" units being carried around by the OIC to take a lot of the load off him and pare down the need for a full-fledged HQ staff.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Line Captain


Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 910

PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2017 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
Dredwulf60 wrote:
For us, while a section was trained to operate as it's own unit, doctrinally speaking it was never expected to operate on its own in open battle; a platoon was the smallest unit that could be intentionally committed to combat.


See, I knew there would be some alternative perspectives.

The way we trained, squads did everything:
In infantry-land, it was a 9-man deal with two fire teams and a squad leader.

In MP land, it was a 12-man element with four fire teams (one of which included the squad leader)


This was true for us as well; in training infantry almost all of it is done at the section (squad) level. A lot of people get the wrong impression fro this and believe that they will be doing section-level attacks in a real engagement. (I did when I was a young soldier).

But when I became an instructor I learned the 'truth' (not that it was ever a secret, but it doesn't seem to filter down to the troops);

That truth is that training at the section (squad) level is an efficient way to train. It's a good instructor to student ratio for supervision, and more importantly it gives more opportunity for every soldier to take part in the action.

In a platoon or company sized engagement, you only see a small piece of what is going on. You don't learn as well. And the whole thing takes a lot longer; you can practice putting in 4 section attacks, or maybe a single platoon attack in the same time frame.

I can't speak for your training, but that was the method behind ours.

Also, this was still coming off Cold War doctrine, with its big counter-soviet set piece battles. Lessons and new ways of operating were just starting to filter in from the Afghanistan operations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 4:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
I should've been clearer. Per the ImpSB, the Imperial Army is an adherent to uniformity and conformity over all. I don't think it's really a realistic mindset; the Navy's focus on mission, and their willingness to vary uniform organization based on specific mission requirements is, IMO, much more practical. What I'm thinking is more along the lines of starting with the basic Line Squad & Platoon as a framework upon which to add additional weapons based on mission as part of their permanent organization. In other words, you get 9 troopers to a squad and 4 squads (plus a lieutenant and platoon sergeant) to a platoon for a total of 40, but individual platoons or squads will have specific missions based on how they are trained and equipped.


Okay. Yes, that makes sense. I suppose where I may not be coming across clearly is in how all of that training/equipment is administered (or how I think it should be). Using myself as an example, I was the "gunner" in a 3-man team. I had certain equipment issued to me and it was up to the squad leader, team leader, or myself to decide what to bring on any given mission (usually the squad leader would make this call). As the gunner, I had issued to me (via my signature on a hand receipt) a .50 cal, an M249 SAW, an M4, an M590A1 and an M9. I was fully trained and qualified on each of those weapons. The driver on our team was signed for the vehicle (HMMWV), the team radios, the combat lifesaver kit, the contents of the vehicle (basic stuff like jack and water jugs, jumper cables etc), his M4 and his M9. We were both trained and qualified to drive the vehicle, but as the more senior soldier, he had already done his time as the gunner (and was also fully capable of filling that role if need be). The team leader was signed for all of our equipment (who sub-receipted it to us, basically), plus his own equipment which included a rifle with grenade launcher, pistol, pyro (smoke/incendiary grenades) and whatever else.

During mounted patrols, it's a no-brainer: bring the .50. For dismounted patrols, another no-brainer: bring the SAW. House to house? Shotgun or M4, depending on whatever the squad leader thinks and how much autonomy he wants to give me to make that choice.

So in other words, whatever you decide is the smallest operational element, IMHO, that element should have the ability to outfit each and every squad therein optimally for the mission at hand without having to requisition stuff from HQ or a separate chain of command (provided that mission falls within the scope of that squad's job function: infantry, force protection, artillery, etc).

And that's an excellent point about the droids, as well.

Dredwulf60 wrote:


This was true for us as well; in training infantry almost all of it is done at the section (squad) level. A lot of people get the wrong impression fro this and believe that they will be doing section-level attacks in a real engagement. (I did when I was a young soldier).

But when I became an instructor I learned the 'truth' (not that it was ever a secret, but it doesn't seem to filter down to the troops);

That truth is that training at the section (squad) level is an efficient way to train. It's a good instructor to student ratio for supervision, and more importantly it gives more opportunity for every soldier to take part in the action.

In a platoon or company sized engagement, you only see a small piece of what is going on. You don't learn as well. And the whole thing takes a lot longer; you can practice putting in 4 section attacks, or maybe a single platoon attack in the same time frame.

I can't speak for your training, but that was the method behind ours.

Also, this was still coming off Cold War doctrine, with its big counter-soviet set piece battles. Lessons and new ways of operating were just starting to filter in from the Afghanistan operations.


For us, (military police) the squad was all we ever worked with or trained with. All skill level one (basic soldiering skills) were trained at the team and squad level. MP squad leaders are highly autonomous and pretty much run the whole show during any mission (at least, that's how we did it in OIF; might be different when fighting against a peer force).

US infantry tended to "roll deep" wherever they went, and a platoon was more or less what you'd get if you wanted to meet with the infantry commander on some other FOB, he'd bring 30 or 40 guys with him. We ran with 12. No more. No less. Of course, I'm talking about mounted elements. I don't know how they would have done it on foot in a live combat zone (it just never came up for us).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
So in other words, whatever you decide is the smallest operational element, IMHO, that element should have the ability to outfit each and every squad therein optimally for the mission at hand without having to requisition stuff from HQ or a separate chain of command (provided that mission falls within the scope of that squad's job function: infantry, force protection, artillery, etc).

I agree; my only question is, to what degree does Imperial Army High Command micro-manage these decisions? If you go by the ImpSB, Army officers can get executed for violating doctrine, even if that violation is subsequently evaluated and adopted into doctrine. So does this emphasis on adherence to doctrine extend down to the squad and fireteam level, with specific instructions as to what weapon is used for what kind of mission, even if the guy on the ground knows from experience that the prescribed weapon isn't the best choice? And if so, to what degree does the guy on the line bend or break the rules to get around pudu-brained regs that don't make sense in the real world?

Quote:
And that's an excellent point about the droids, as well.

At what point in the chain of command do you think it would be appropriate to assign adjutant droids? Obviously, squad sergeants have to deal with paperwork, too, but I could see it being an institutional bias, that only officers (lieutenant and above) rate an adjutant assistant.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the US Army, generally speaking, a Lieutenant Colonel (and the accompanying Sergeant Major) are the lowest eschalon of command which has an assistant. The assistant is usually an E3 or E4 (generally a somewhat experienced to well-seasoned lower enlisted soldier). At the O7 and higher level, there would be a whole squad of soldiers on the general's detail (proba ly including one NCO).

So, I wouldestimat that at the battalion level or higher (which is all headquarters personnel) the commanders would have droid assistants.

Generally speaking, Lieutenants have almost no prestige and are assumed to be clueless until they have been around long enough to demonstrate consistent competence. At the junior officer level, their counter part NCO (platoon sgt) is the one really running the show. I would imagine battalion commanders and above get the fancy droids.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As to violations of doctrine, I dont really know. I suppose that micro managing the loadout is one way to represent the anal-retentiveness of imperial command, though (and I have less of a problem with this for the Imps, however, I also feel like the RAW rebel military is represented in an equally silly way, which may be where I am coming from in general: the military organizations presented inthe sourcebooks present just like they were written by someone with no military experience at all).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Line Captain


Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 910

PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:


Generally speaking, Lieutenants have almost no prestige and are assumed to be clueless until they have been around long enough to demonstrate consistent competence. At the junior officer level, their counter part NCO (platoon sgt) is the one really running the show. I would imagine battalion commanders and above get the fancy droids.


In the Soviet, and presumably the current Russian military, NCOs are considered useful idiots. They only trust commissioned officers; mainly because the officers are career, while all the enlisted conscripts rotate through at a fast pace.

Their sergeants are identified during basic training, taken out of the mix and given more 'leadership' oriented training, then tossed back into the military with a sudden promotion as instant-sergeants.

From what I had learned, what year you were, in your mandatory conscription term counted more than rank at the non-commissioned level.

So, it's interesting to wonder how valuable the empire considers it's non officers, considering the military grew out of a cloning program.

Edit:
From a paper on the selection and training of Soviet NCOs

Quote:

SUMMARY
Criticisms of the Soviet NCO-training process in Russian opensource
articles display much concern over the lack of quality in
this training, the frequent substitution of officers in NCO
functionary roles, and dissatisfaction with the initial selection
process of candidates for this training.
Upon arrival in his assigned unit, the NCO, normally 18-19 years
old, has received six months of specialist training. His leadership
training supposedly commences with practical work in his
assigned unit. In reality, however, officers often give detailed
orders to the squad members and use the squad leader to ensure that
the orders are carried out. The conscript sergeant's problems
are compounded by the fact that he is of the same age and, generally,
of similar educational background as many of his squad members and,
though he has had six months training, is inexperienced, especially
in leadership fundamentals.
This paper concludes that Soviet NCOs are inefficiently trained,
and ineffectively utilized; therefore, the NCO corps is the weakest
link in the Soviet chain of command structure and a distinct liability
to future military operations, at least in the opening stages of such
operations.


re: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a098467.pdf
if further interested.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dredwulf60 wrote:
In the Soviet, and presumably the current Russian military, NCOs are considered useful idiots. They only trust commissioned officers; mainly because the officers are career, while all the enlisted conscripts rotate through at a fast pace.

I found myself thinking about the Red Army as well, but from the other end. The Red Army is probably a good analogy for the Imperial Army: massive, with a LOT of combat power, and with good doctrine, but hampered by overly rigid control from the upper echelons who micro-manage every decision. Naturally, it's not a perfect match, as units scattered across the galaxy can't be commanded from afar in real-time, but the draconian adherence to doctrine is high command's way of compensating for that.

Quote:
So, it's interesting to wonder how valuable the empire considers it's non officers, considering the military grew out of a cloning program.

The ImpSB indicates it's closer to the Soviet pattern than the Western one. The only unit that lists a Sergeant as part of the HQ section is the platoon; at Company level and above, the sergeant isn't there. In the Support Section at the company level, the support unit includes 4 lieutenants; one commands the support section and also serves as the company XO, while the other three are in charge of the squad / fire team equivalent Medical, Technical and Logistics units. This is consistent with the officer-oriented culture of the Soviet military; a Western unit would be more likely to have sergeants heading the various sections.

This creates some problems for the sharpshooter units, as Spetsnaz troopers in the Soviet Union were exclusively officers, yet under the ImpSB, they are troopers by default...
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
As to violations of doctrine, I dont really know. I suppose that micro managing the loadout is one way to represent the anal-retentiveness of imperial command, though (and I have less of a problem with this for the Imps, however, I also feel like the RAW rebel military is represented in an equally silly way, which may be where I am coming from in general: the military organizations presented inthe sourcebooks present just like they were written by someone with no military experience at all).

I'd like to hear some more detail from you on this...

Also, with regard to your above, your scenario may explain the commonality of the E-11 carbine among stormtroopers and (presumably) Imperial Army. The carbine is probably the best "general" weapon insofar as being usable at multiple ranges while still being usable in close quarters and able to be holstered. So units equipped with an E-11 carbine can simply holster it and use repeating blasters, grenade launchers, missile launchers, light laser cannon, etc, as their mission requires.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's possible the Empire takes a middle ground as far as NCOs, maybe by taking volunteers or promising draftees and offering incentives to extend their enlistment by promoting them to sergeants, but still treating them as senior enlisted men by having officers handle most of the higher-end duties. Entry level officers (lieutenants at the platoon level, where a sergeant is still part of the HQ) would fit in with the Western model; in nominal command of the platoon while an experienced sergeant does all the real work.

The same could be used to promote enlisted with specialist skills, such as the Technical or Medical staff assigned to the Support Units, as well as specialist combat skills, such as the Sharpshooter and Engineer units...

Of course, in a totalitarian state like the Empire, who knows how long an enlistment period is? What if you are drafted "for the duration of the current emergency", which means you are stuck in the Army until they decide they don't need you any more (maimed or killed)?
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0