That's not a bad idea.

iirc, modern day militaries are moving more and more towards using off the shelf gear (hell, i recall reading about a ipod touch/iphone based ballistics calculator for military use). And do not forget the VCR emulator for cyberdecks.

then there is the military grade sidebar in unwired.

basically, do not expect that the gear described in the books are all there is in the world, or ever will be.

hell, the devs have clearly stated that they are trying to make SR4 be more street/security then military special ops (tho a potential future book under the working title "war" may change that).

You mean like the PSI Corps from B5?

5 sys the Dumpshock bitch about how the book hasn't lived up to expections is titled 'War, what is it good for?'

The only thing that lives up to it is The War Song.

Pretty much, its one - quite probable - solution; although your suggestion is more to have them as reserves. I agree there would be reserve Magicians who do much the same work as reserve Doctors, Psychs, Lawyers etc - but that would only be a proportion of the entire body. There would still be some in the permanent forces.

That raises possibilities though: your runners exploit a reserve officer as a way into a head-quarters.

Read up on 'Network Centric Warfare'. Its pretty much the way militaries say they want to go, and is reflected in the 6th world by wireless communications. The killer in NCW is 'air-gaps' - where information cannot be transferred between the networks except by human interaction (transferring the information on removable storage for example). Wireless technology assists with this. Would they go completely wireless: probably not, to cut down on their electronic signature almost certainly wired methods are used when possible.

As an aside what this will mean is that even squads will have an EMCON policy. I'd also expect that military Tac-nets are designed with graduated levels of transmission: from 0 outgoing communciations, up to 100% of available outgoing bandwidth with as much sensor information all the time.

And you can jam a VCR with current tech - to jam ANY signal that is transmitted through the air you simply need to pump out enough noise on the same frequency that the signal to noise ratio is so bad the communications can't get through. If you want to set up a wired tac-net feel free, but its screwed the first time your squad hits 'wait-a-while'. (A vine common in the Australian bush that snags anything and holds up movement through it, hence the name).

WRT range: most squad level systems would have very limited range (less chance it will get picked up by the enemy), the comms operator in a squad will have a LR feed (I'd use the Sat-link stats), the IC will probably also have a high signal. Its also possible this is able to be graduated (I'd tend to play this was anyway with hacker/rigger characters even if I have a Signal 6 commlink, if I only need to use a lower rating then I do. Cranking up the power to get through ECM / communicate over long ranges.)

I could definitely see this in the UCAS or the CAS militaries. Magicians (however that is defined, I could see phys ads with Astral Perception fitting in there as well) are part of their own units, and are assigned to other units like Chaplains or Corpsmen. I can see "Magician" being worth a comission. I wouldn't see magicians in leadership roles, one because of their rarity, and two I think the subtle bias is magicians deal with magical shit, and the platoon or company commander has to deal with everything.

In militaries where magical traditions are more ingrained-- like Amazonia, Aztlan, or the tribal lands (most notably Sioux), I think this would be reversed-- magical characters, when you can get them, make the best leaders. I think there might be a subtle bias against mundanes in leadership roles, because even if the guy is in charge, he's still going to have to defer to his magical advisor on most things.

Speaking of Cyberware: It is possible that some job specific cyberware could be included as part of enlistment or reenlistment bonuses; today the Army gives out 20k, so an 11k set of Wired Reflexes (that the army is getting much more cheaply) is not outside the realm of possibility. I would say that for people getting out with non-punative discharges (General under Honorable or Honorable), the cyberware wouldn't have to be automatically removed. If the soldier or marine can get the permits (they're going into corp sec or law enforcement fields), the cyberware goes with them; if they're not, they can simply have the cyberware deactivated. This leaves the door open for reactivation if they reenlist or go corp sec or LE at a later date.

And if not he can go awol, find a street doc, reactivate it and become a freelancer.

I don't mean reserves, I mean officers that are not in the chain of command such as the JAG Corps, the Medical Corps, or even the Chaplain Corps, they are all officers even though they are not in the chain of command since they are specialists. They can be assigned on an 'as needed' basis.

Wired reflexes? Probably not for the common grunt, Special Forces or even lifers, perhaps, most likely even, but for common grunts, I doubt it.

They are in the chain of command. They are not typically in command of combat units, but neither are communication officers or quartermaster officers. Medical officers command medical units, intelligence officers command intel units etc. Technically the battalion surgeon is in the line of succession for an infantry battalion, but in any likely situation that would arise where they would get it they are probably going to be much too busy, and they won't be in the right place with the necessary radios and situational knowledge.

I think by 2072, we're getting to a point where Wired I could be filtering down to the "ass-in-the-grass" level. I mean, it might not be common but as pointed out upthread, at 11k it's one of the most cost-effective mods for anyone who plans to be shot at. At the elite levels, I'd consider Wired I to be the absolute least a professional soldier would have. Perhaps it would be more likely as a reenlistment bonus (meaning you have 4 years invested in the soldier, and are investing 4 more), but who knows?

Also, someone going into a Combat Arms MOS who plans to go Corp Sec or LE after they get out, taking cyber as part of an enlistment or reenlistment package could equal greater future earnings in their chosen field. If the U.S. Army of today can afford to advertise 20k bonuses to certain applicants of certain MOS's, then the UCAS Army of tomorrow can probably afford an 11k piece of cyberware for qualified applicants (perhaps with a longer term of service attached). Smaller ticket items like smartlinks and cybereyes seem like they'd be pretty common.

or maybe they go the LS way, and hand out doses of jazz to the grunts...

Medical Corps are outside of the chain of command isn't it?

Possibly so.

In my opinion, skillwires remains something that most armies would like. Not to use instead of the specialists, but to be able to replace them in an pinch and to improve the teeth-to-tails ratios. They let you to grab any grunt and slot him as a competent - rather than good - specialist when said specialist isn't available.

If you have a choice between having your multi-million plane destroyed on the ground because the pilots got fragged and having it flyed by a wired grunt, I think most armies will pick the wired grunt - even if it's only to fly the plane back to an airbase with real pilots.

Other examples would be demolitions or medics - you have the dedicated experts, with real training and skill, but if you don't have them around, a wired skill is better than no skill. Maintenance is another area where skillwire can improve things - train a core of professionals techs and give them skillwired helpers for run-of-the mill repairs.

Or:
You need extra hands in the field hospitals. Extra "nurses" with the Medical skill will save lives.
Your group's medic gets shot. Would be nice to have First Aid at higher than a 1 or 2.
Your sharpshooter gets killed, and you need to "snipe" the machine gun nest. Any good with longarms?

And so on. There are tons of situations that having a decently qualified guy is TONS better than having no one trained, or only poorly so. No edge sucks (be careful), and no, they would not be your primary specialist. But as backups or extra hands (like fleeing with your planes, as mentioned above) they would be "invaluable."



I thought of that, but I think it would lead to addiction way to quickly. For LS the beat cops are just that, foot cops. They don't face determined opponents very often. But if your job is to specifically be in combat (SWAT, First Responders, line soldiers), juicing up every time you see combat would lead downhill fast. And that's not even in a Iraq or Vietnam situation, where you couldn't use Jazz because of the short duraction. You would be taking Cram at the start of every day's patrol, and behind lines, you would be taking it 2-4 times a day.

SR is a dystopian future, but I just don't think the military would be purposely getting their soldiers addicted (unless it's for some further purpose). Addicts just aren't reliable a good portion of the time. I agree totally, however, that non-line soldiers probably have Jazz (or Cram) patches or inhalers in their kit, and in war zones have a couple in their pockets at all times.

Well, morphine addictions did rise as a result of WWII iirc. War isn't very good for soldier's mental welfare.

I can imagine a future general noting "An army marches on it's Fix." Though it's likely not the best army around the place


I imagine the armies of the future might be very.. varied. Nations coming up with very different ideas about the best strategy to win their wars.

- A "regular" army focused on taking and holding ground
- Defense Through Annihilation doctrine; actually preventing damage to your own territory considered unfeasible, but destroying the enemy is the purpose of the war machine. This army might focus on ultra-elite operatives skilled in infiltration, sabotage, terrorism and massive strikes.
- Total Resistance doctrine: everything in the state is mobilized towards resisting invasion. Every civilian with skillwires is conscripted, given military skillsofts and a gun. The idea is that everything worth capturing fights back, until nothing worth capturing remains.
- Subversion and Disruption doctrine: focuses on taking apart the enemy army, and turning it against itself. Would emphasize Matrix and Magic over normal soldiers
- Stay-Behind doctrine: while conquest by a greater power is seen as inevitable, weapons are hidden and plans made, so that if the enemy weakens a resistance force can liberate the country. Expect lots of backdoors in public service computer systems. Hackers are crucial here, as are infiltration-oriented specialists.
- No Bodybags doctine: heavy emphasis on using spirits and drones. Tricky, but popular with voters. Prefers to fight abroad, requiring special measures to prevent infiltration and terrorism in the homeland. Sound familiar?
- Guerilla: use hostile terrain against enemies with superior forces as a force multiplier. Usually a defensive tactic.
- Target Their Boss: focused on intimidating enemy leaders. Assassins primary. Works well against corrupt politicians who prefer to send others into danger rather than themselves.
- Turn Their Soil To Glass: emphasis on bombarding the enemy into submission. Ethical considerations, but tends to be light on casualties of your own.
- Political Warfare: attempt to organize a political collapse in the enemy; by exploiting social problems, replacing enemy leaders with clones, mind control, false information, or UN intervention. Make sure to catalog all their war crimes (even the ones you had to fake).

I'm sure there are more options...

Wait, you mean if someone shoots me in a gunfight I won't magically regenerate like a D&D troll if I hide behind a column for a few seconds?

A couple thoughts.

First of all, I think there's a lot of merit in believing that structure changes based on the country involved. The UCAS and CAS probably maintained the inertia of moving towards the BCT system, while other regions may rely heavily on reserves, or militias. I also agree that mages are worth their weight in gold, equivalent to pre-educated commissions today (doctors, lawyers, etc). Medicine, by comparison, probably requires a lot less specialization then it used to, with the advent of automated medkits and the equivalent. Sleepwalkers (always liked that term for cantrip mages) get trained in magic and brought in as Warrant Officers, while fully-trained mages and magical academics get direct commissioned and go in as O3s-O4s.

I'm also not so convinced that every line unit is going to have a hacker. I'd say that every squad/element is going to have the modern equivalent of a RTO/commtech. Logically, they're going to be fully trained in keeping the TacSofts running, and will probably have some skill with Electronic Warfare software. Hacking, on the other hand, can be passed down from a command center straight through the squad or platoon mesh network. Similarly, cyberwar probably isn't going to get executed on any level lower then company, although platoons may serve as relays for the squad. I also doubt that every platoon is going to have a rigger - they're busy rigging whole wings of air superiority drones, and flying tough ops like inserting operators. Instead, simple drones can just be guided around by a platoon leader (simple Command program) and rigged by somebody at a higher echelon if necessary. On the other hand, national armies are going the way of the dinosaur. Essentially, states are no longer the basic global unit. Unilateral action is a no-no, and alliances are going to be largely defined by the Megas behind them. Non-private forces are going to be defensive; just big enough to hold on until the corporate court steps on anybody who loses their mind.

I'm actually more interested in what the corporate armies are going to look like. Obviously, the big megas are going to have security brands, but are they going to have armies? They're tremendously expensive, and corporate war is one of the core prohibitions. Do they hire smaller merc outfits so they can deny it later?

Ares has regular military forces per the fluff.

That said, it really makes no sense for a corp to have military forces. They are crazy expensive if they are any good, they are useless if they are not any good, and there is NO possible way they can ever turn a profit. What does a worldwide corp need with a military force large enough to be useful? What are they going to do that can't be done more effectively by hiring someone else when needed?

I believe Corps don't have terribly large conventional armies (with the exception of Corp/Countries, like Aztec). What they do have will be running around in Desert Wars, to gain experience and for PR reasons.

It's one of the reasons I think Countries in SR aren't completely 2nd class entities. Countries still have fairly significant standing armies, which are concentrated in one place, while Corps mostly don't, and what they have are spread across the world.

Corps have a million CorpSec, and they have special forces. They also have Cool Toys (like Thors), control of the global market, and access/connection with Shadowrunners. 1-on-1 I think a large country could take a Corp in a straight up fight, but this is Shadowrun; there are never straight up fights.

On a previous subject, I think that even the UCAS and CAS make fairly extensive use of Reserves, National Guards, and units like the Metroxplex Guard. Unlike today, the US doesn't have it's friend Canada to the north, and Mexico to the south. Every country in the world is bordered by a potential enemy.

P.S. And Corps with standing armies, like Lone Star, will likely rent them out, or have them pose as "Mercenaries."

So, I was discussing this yesterday with Garou: "what is the benefit of piloting an aircraft inside a cockpit instead of remotely?"

Inside the cockpit:

Pros:
You can keep radio silence.
Using a skinlink or datajack the aircraft becomes unhackable.

Cons:
If the aircraft is shot down, not only you lost an aircraft, but also an expensive highly trained pilot.
The aircraft must have space to fit a full cockpit instead of a rigger system, space that could be useful in some other way.

Piloting remotely:

Pros:
If the aircraft is shot down, the pilot will survive (unless of course he was using hot sim and the dumpshock was a nasty one).
You may switch control between multiple aircrafts on a wing.
Vehicle no longer has to be engineered for human tolerances. Instead it can now be engineered to what forces the materials can handle. (added by StealthSigma)

Cons:
The aircraft is hackable.
The aircraft can be affected by electronic warfare.

So, are there any others pros and cons you might think and which one would be the best? IMHO, putting the rigger inside the aircraft is better for offensive actions... Any thoughts?

Remote Piloting Pro:
Vehicle no longer has to be engineered for human tolerances. Instead it can now be engineered to what forces the materials can handle.

Right, no more worrying about G-LOC effect. Yeah, that is really a boon.

An no more worrying about athmosphere pressure, or athmosphere in the cockpit at all. That allows another saving on space.

But certain equipments may still be affected by the lack of atmosphere or low-temperatures and stuff. But yeah, point taken.

So, anyway, what is the best approach? Piloting inside a cockpit or remotely?

Without a rigger inside the plane, won't it end up becoming a game of jammers?

One side will figure the other side's riggers are better. So they throw up a powerful jamming field. Then it becomes a "who's Pilot, 'Softs, and Fuzzy Logic Systems" are better? Sure, some battles will be about the egos, but as soon as one side starts loosing (and admits the other guys are better), up going the jamming field.

It would end up as a game of cat and mouse. Riggers remotely control the aircraft. However inevitably the jammers will go up. At that point the pilots will duke it out. But aircraft with riggers will move in to wipe up the Pilot programs. Knowing that, when jammers hit the Pilot programs will know to launch remaining missles and break off for home. OR a rigger (or two) will be a part of an airwing, so that he is present when the jammer goes up. But knowing that, all the drones will be programmed to attempt to ID the hacker (who is trying to blend in with his own drones) and shoot him down. Which means the Pilot programs will have to operate like they are carrying riggers, and the planes will all have to look like they can carry a rigger....

Yeah. What a headache second guessing the enemy is. Likely airwings will have 1-2 riggers physically present, and the rest will be remotely rigged. That way someone is physicall there when the Electronic Warfare starts.

So, I guess the canopy wouldn't be made out of transparent material anymore, since the rigger can see through any implanted cameras on the aircraft, which means that identifying the aircraft carrying the rigger would have to be made by thermovision, then again, an aircraft without a rigger could have a device that generates heat inside the cockpit to pretend there is a metahuman pilot inside...
Yeah, this is worst than I thought, I think I'm having a migraine right now...

Tell me about it. Every time I post, I'm taking a break from my Zen Buddhism take home final.

Wouldn't RC drones have less vulnerability to spirit influence? No manifesting in the cockpit to take out the pilot if there's no cockpit (or pilot) in the first place.

But won't you need LoS to manifest a spirit inside the cockpit? And as I mentioned earlier, a rigger doesn't need a transparent canopy to fly the aircraft. Heck, you don't even need to put the pilot's cockpit in the front of the aircraft anymore. You could as well put him near the engine and the heat would mask the rigger's presence even to thermovision.

The big win is there is no need for a cockpit.

In the real world there is a huge win for reducing weight. Every pound of weight you remove helps. You don't have to include oxygen, no ejector seat, no control panels, etc. You probably save a 1000 KG+ of direct weight, with means you probably save 3-4 tons.

Plus no pilot means you no longer have a fixed diameter for the fuselage, which means you can do some interesting stuff.

Ok, let's assume 2 wings start a dogfight. One of the wings is totally controled by cockpit riggers, while the other is controlled remotely. As soon as they engage, both sides start the electronic warfare to cut off communications.
At this point, the remote riggers can't do shit, except wait. Even considering that the lack of cockpit and all the life support system can improve the performance of an aircraft (either making it lighter, or adding more fuel/weapons) at this point they are being controlled by an Agent would the metahuman factor in this case be superior?

I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here. More and more I have the feeling that most air forces would work on remote pilot instead of the usual way.
Although, I still think that evac choppers would work with riggers on cockpit since their work is likely to put them behind enemy lines or during combat and jamming the remote communication can bring more loss than just the chopper.

Nobody dogfights anymore. The point where you detect a hostile aircraft is where you fire a AAM. Or in SR Top Gun, the pilot software tells the missile software "this plane is hostile - go kill it" and the missile launches itself. And with 10+ dice on each missile a salvo will probably get close enough to go bang.

Smaller, lighter planes have smaller radar signatures. Smaller lighter planes are harder to see visually. Smaller lighter planes put out less heat as their engines run at lower power, so their IR sig is less. Smaller, lighter planes can maneuver harder, as their weight/thrust ratio is better. Unmanned planes could be stressed to survive maneuvers that would incapacitate or kill a human pilot, though that would add some weight so there is a tradeoff.

Don't forget about simple endurance either-- an unmanned drone can use the space normally reserved for life support to reduce weight and/or carry more fuel, and Pilot programs don't tire. If we assume that they'll have fixed the issue of UAV in-flight refueling by the 2070s, we're talking about some serious operational time, maintenance and reloading not withstanding. The other thing is that any of your riggers could jump into it at any time provided that Signal isn't an issue. That's a huge boon to quality of life and reducing pilot attrition; rather than running one pilot ragged you could have however many men you feel is necessary monitoring a given UAV. Hell, they could take shifts if you like-- and with Sleep Regulators they could be very long shifts indeed. And has been mentioned, dumpshock is a hell of a lot less likely to lose you a good airman than crashing into the ocean or enemy territory is. In Shadowrun human assets are still worth something even in remote controlled warfare, so that's not really something to discount lightly. All-out warfare would still require long, hard hours, but the routine stuff would at least be more manageable.

There's certainly a good argument on both sides, both today and in Shadowrun's 2070. True enough, a jammed drone is, at the very least, going to have to abort after it executes its most recently uploaded set of commands. Additionally, if you're running that drone off of a mobile launch platform (aircraft carrier), you can suppress it for a much longer window of time with intelligent jamming - has to take a longer detour to get back on its network and figure out where it's going to land. On the other hand, no pilot means a bigger weapons load, and, as mentioned, no squishy pilot to crush when the drone pulls a six-gee immelmann. On the other hand, the pilot has those disadvantages, but has the critical advantage of initiative. There's no need for a pilot to strike and pull back out to signal range, or work off of an overly complicated set of priorities.

To be honest, I think you'd probably see a lot of everything. The most rational plan for the up-to-date countries like the UCAS and CAS would be similar to what the U.S. doctrine is turning into; a small, elite force of manned air superiority aircraft (in SR's case, rigged), and a much bigger, cheap fleet of drones to exploit the battlespace once the skies are clear (Predators, Reapers). This strategy only gets better in Shadowrun. A single rigger could fly a single stealth attack aircraft, and have two or three "pet" drones go with him. That's your strike package. The drones are coded to know that they hit whatever their current target is and break for safe airspace. Once the lights go out on the network, you've got carte-blanch to fly the cheapest, most basic, single-purposed drones that you can find. You own it.

Well, there's a couple different takes on this. First of all, if you have competent programming, there's no reason why an automated air superiority drone can't outclass a manned fighter. Doubly so if that drone can pull maneuvers that would blatantly kill the pilot. Also, in a vacuum, drones don't overshoot a turn or misjudge their altitude. I also doubt that any fighter-to-fighter combat at dogfight range is going to be remote; I'd assume that satellite latency would kill that idea dead.

There's also no reason that you can't have both. I have no doubt that USAF Predators have a set of priorities to follow if the satlink goes down. No reason that it can't be expanded so a drone can finish up one tank before heading back to link back up with control. It also doesn't mean that a drone couldn't do air-to-air on the way home. Autosofts aren't too heavy.

That's what they were saying in the 90's, when I was in middle school. Back when they decided to take guns off of planes, because they were obsolete.

Since then, guns have been reintroduced. What is that show on History channel? I think it's called Dogfight. Amazing how many (many) missiles fail to launch correctly, fail to connect, or simply... fail. When they removed guns from jets, efficiency went way down (though I can't remember the percent off the top of my head). Fighter pilots were happy to have their guns back.

The reason "no one dogfights anymore" is because no one has the sort of assets it would take to challenge the US. Russian (and Chinese) MIGS were the last major threats; Saddam Hussein hid his fighters in neighboring countries during the first Iraq War. *tosses in his 2 *



This. I like this.

Incidently, I don't have the time to work out the math, but instinctively I want to say that Thermal Masking and Cameleon Coating (whatever the cool vehicle grade upgrades are called) on jets will likely overule guided missile's sensors (but I don't know for certain; don't have the books with me). If so, it will lead to more dogfighting, not less. (If you can figure out where the other guy is, at least.)

If you had a big enough spirit, you could sustain Concealment on your super Stealthed Drone Rigger's jet. "Back home" it would likely take a summoning teamwork test, but it very well might be a very good tactical use for a Big Old spirit.

If you have smaller radar and IR signature, than it is quite logical that dogfighting will return since a missile couldn't lock on a signature so small.

No, if you can see it to shoot at an aircraft a seeker can see it too. As can the targeting system on a multi-megawatt laser cannon. Line of sight weapons will really change things for aircraft.

i think you mean the 60's (and no, not the 2060's...)

and thats mostly based on US experience in vietnam.

for one thing, the IR system was less reliable back then (like say, no upper limit on the heat target to follow. Hello sunshine), and that they wanted to be damn sure the aircrafts where north vietnamese and not chinese or similar (cant risk a larger war). That was also why there was no wholesale bombing for north vietnamese ports or similar, cant risk hitting a chinese or russian ship.

all in all, vietnam was a mess of politics getting in the way of a effective war, and over-confidence in the technology of the time (most of it never tested in real combat before that point).

all in all, not unlike the "bomber will always get through" thinking of the opening days of WW2, based on misunderstood experiences from WW1, where the bombers where able to out fly the fighters (something that radically changed ones one had single wing fighters without the external wiring to support said wings).

A significant advantage riggers have over pilot programs is the additional IPs from simsense boosters etc. - that can really add up in a critical situation. The really high Initiative a rigger can get is also very significant vs. Pilots.

There's a lot to be said for combined groups though; one local rigger and several remotely rigged drones working together. The local rigger has some additional means of communication on board (maybe laser link or suchlike), to take over command in case jamming occurs.
The remotely rigged drones can act as a sort of bodyguards for the local rigger; they're supposed to take the big risks, not him.

There are also some options when you add mages with major optical vision enhancement tools; spell bombardment from way above.

Also: at the speeds you fly, how hard would it be to outfly a jammed area?

that would depend on the jammer being on the ground or on the opposing aircraft...

Given the bizarre SR jamming rules if you can get a jammer close enough to jam the aircraft systems you can destroy the aircraft instead by just using a warhead vs a jammer.

In the real world it's really hard to jam a system if you don't have RF line of sight to the antenna. So the SatComm antenna on the top of the drone is very hard to jam from the ground, as it is only visible from above. You can try to jam the sat itself, but this isn't easy and tends to result in your expensive jammer suddenly being converted into a parking lot full of burning junk.

sadly, SR4 do not provide for the possibility that a jammer can be used as the target of a anti-radiation missile.

they only hold a version of the outlaw that can target something doing active targeting...

tho i guess one could rule that targeting a jammer works the same as targeting a sensor lock, adding the jammer rating to the missiles sensor rating.

so one option then would be to send up wild weasel drones with orders to shoot at anything sending out signals jamming the data link.