As for drugs and the military (in 2070), Lonestar developed Jazz, so it makes sense for the military to provide their soldiers with something. At least the disposable grunts that they won't put cyber in (and it appears to be the majority opinion that they wont cyber you unless you're SpecOps or some such).

Shadows of North America has UCAS per capita income at ¥28,000 in 2062. US per capita incoma was $39,138 (according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis definition of "per capita income", different from the more commonly used "GDP per capita").

The military isn't going up against shadowrunners or go-gangers on a regular basis. They also tend to have serious numbers/firepower advantages.

LS developed Jazz to give their line patrols a life expectancy above a Combat Round - with luck, enough to survive until reinforcements arrive. If a unit requires the drugs to keep alive, chances are they're calling in a serious airstrike anyway and there won't be much left regardless.

Remember, LS is a corp and not a government. Governments do have additional restrictions levied upon them by their constituancy.

You make a good point.

Don't tell anyone; it'll damage my credibility.

Lol.
Q: "What is the life expectancy of a Lone Star officer?"
A: "Against gangers? Around 15 combat turns. Against runners? Less than three IP's."

In a balkanized North America of even questionable democracy? I wouldn't even think so. After all, corp security guards die all the time. They have loved ones, too. The populace is used to having people die on them, and the media can be spun. Why would anybody care that the goverment is drugging the soldiers? Hell, you can do it NOW, and noone cares.

Oh? I must've missed that particular cocktail addition in the military TOE.

I would also add that because of the military's differing duties from the corporate security, getting ones troops hooked on combat drugs would be a bad idea. A junkie soldier is no good to his unit or his country. Training > drugs.

I may as well keep going on this. LS officers are typically patrolling alone or in pairs. The military patrols as a larger unit, be it a fireteam or platoon (or larger). The military has the numbers advantage - that has been preferred doctrine for a very long time. A good unit has coordination to maximize firepower and minimize losses. Combat drugs damage that coordination, and the soldier that juices becomes a liability to his team. I have a very hard time believing any military unit would knowingly prescribe combat drugs to its soldiers unless they were on a suicide run.

Yeah, I'd have to say the Doc is right here. Even without the PR/democracy angle a military unit is going to benefit less than a corporate cop outfit from emergency-use combat drugs. Jazz and its ilk might help you out in a pinch here and there, but a cop using Jazz and surviving (good luck) his emergency encounter is probably going to be immediately pulled off the street, given counseling, detox if necessary, etc. There's a whole procedure any time a police officer clears leather - this would be an extension of that. You can't do that with troops in the field. There's way higher chances of getting hooked, damaging unit effectiveness and making a terrible decision that gets your whole team killed. A military has to be able to trust its soldiers a bit further than a security force needs to trust its cops.

We're moving away from the topic.

Are we? Drugs were mentioned, and I explained why that might be a bad idea. I think it still applies.

This thread is too realistic. This is the dystopic future. Drugs have negative effects? So what. Soldiers are there to be used. A soldier with ware who is dishonorably discharged has his ware removed before being released? No, he gets a bullet in the brain unless there's ware to be salvaged there. Then he gets harvested.

Other than things like that, I enjoyed people's theories on eq.

Mesh

It just comes down to how dystopic a future you're getting from the books, really.

Yeah... like in RL, soldiers aren't exposed to massive abuse of drugs, painkiller, sleepless pills, various booster cocktail even alcohool while in action to help them perform their duties under massive stress, fatigue and lack of sleep.

Combat drug will just be the next(?) step but probably limitated to one-shoot for extrem situation.

A) There are no fixed rules for the addictiveness of drugs, with the exception of Betel. I checked (unless they were hidden away somewhere). That means it's GM-dependant. So every GM has to decide how addictive his combat drugs are. I would say if his runners use them, then so should the military.

B) Who says that every military drug is in the books? I would assume only drugs that widely, or at least selectively, appear on the black market are in the books. Even now, where it is very, very probable that the US military gives amphetamines to their soldiers to enable them to stay awake for three days without sleep, they have no rep of bringing those amphetamines to the black market. (And at the same time the suspicion about how all that Afghani hashish, etc., lands in the US is somehow hard to eradicate.)

I would concur that on the long run it seems more advisable to give troops cyberware, especially as that has become rather cheap, and the chance of dying from essence loss is no longer so great. However, I would assume that all non-career soldiers do still get drugs if and when they enter combat against a superior enemy, simply to keep up.

The other things which keeps coming up, the numerical advantage: I don't buy it. The UCAS army is ridiculously small. Even now the US fights its wars with only 1:3 or even 1:4 ratio (vs. the enemy) of infantry troops on the ground, because the effectiveness of CAS and Artillery allows them to do that. But even in an assymmetric battlefield they have taken a good number of casualties. If they merely relied on numbers, a single OpFor hiring a team of runners could wipe out a entire platoons of ill-equipped UCAS soldiers and then vanish back into obscurity when the specops in their fancy gear join the party. And that's the time where even a UCAS platoon might break out the Jazz or even Kamikaze, and then stim themselves back into operational state when they crash.

The point is, some of these drugs are cheap. And if even a horde of gangers can afford then, then the UCAS army has to do something to keep up.

For example: Support personell: Anyone in the the supply line. They are often not combat troops, and at the same time, the small size of the UCAS army necessitates a precariously unsafe supply line - because they simply can't put good security everywhere. So the truck drivers (in case they are not drones) and other personell get their PDW and an injector with a combat drug, only for use in emergency situations. That's cheap and effective, and the backlash will be small.

That's usually self medication
and not given to you by the Medics.

I seem to remember fixed rules for drugs since 2nd/3rd edition. I'll give you the 4A page/book when I get back to them.



While absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, this is still baseless assumption. I'm a fan of the USS-Make-Shit-Up to a point, but it seems to me that this is grasping at straws. If you want to give every jack Private a juicer cocktail to make him into a 'roiding killing machine every time someone fires a weapon at him, have a ball. Realistically, both DoD and military command staff understand that turning their ground troops into thoughtless murder machines is a monumentally stupid idea. Your mileage may vary.



Assume what you like.



You don't have to buy that the sky is blue, but it still is.

The military of the CAS, UCAS and even the Sioux, Pueblo and Salish of today are placed in positions where their soliders have to think. They serve on the borders, as part of the FRFZ Zone Defense Force (which is a coalition of all of 'em) and provide border security against threats both foreign and domestic. Combat drugs make your soldiers stupid. They do not want stupid soldiers. Stupid soldiers are dead soldiers.

It seems increasingly clear to me that you think that government armies are ill-trained, ill-equipped and only good as your standard Lone Star officer. I'm sure it works fine in your games, but I disagree with...basically everything that you've said. The fluff disagrees with what you've said - the troops at Fort Lewis aren't to be trifled with, and any runner worth their salt avoids them unless they really want that good milspec gear in the armory right bloody now. If you believe that APC rolling up is going to be a cakewalk, if sneaking onto a military base is child's play, such is your prerogative. I will disagree, and continue to do so.

Not to mention that the guys at Ft Lewis have to deal with constant attacks from the 405's . Which is weird. if I was the UCAS military and a gang was attacking my fort on a consistant basis.. I'd be laying down some serious ambushes. Unless the Command is using the Gang attacks to do some live fire exercises.

The US Military today is going towards highly trained, professional army, where each man is dangerous.
Now, a Private is unlikely to be as dangerous as a runner, although he's learning to become that dangerous. But he's going to be better than your average street thugs.

it's not just 'basic training' it's all the training afterwards. The PT, the exercises, the drills.

I don't really care about the drugs.

But I'm a beancounter, so how would you equip your grunt? (and within budget)...

Tell me where, in the RULES do the drugs make people stupid? Cram or Jazz gives you +1 Reaction, +1 IP. It DOES NOT make you stupid. Neither does Long Haul. Neither does Kamikaze. Before you talk about what the drugs DO, you actually have to LOOK at them. Combat drugs don't make people stupid, period, until they crash. At which point the fight is hopefully over.



I believe government armies to be of above average training, and fairly well equipped. But it's not all a cakewalk for them, either. Look at how much equipment is missing today in Afghanistan (and Iraq) that the fighting troops could use. Armies have to cut corners somewhere, too. The US invaded Iraq in un-armoured, sometimes stripped down, HMMVs. The Marines, (notably the Recon Marines) who were at times the fore-most units in the attack, used them. The British soldiers in Afghanistan had to, and possibly still have to, fight the Taleban in unarmoured vehicles. Do you think that will change, in times where big companies might not even pay taxes anymore because their headquarters are all extraterritorial? Hell no.

However, the game rules make these things simpler. You don't have to think so much about what would happen in the future, you just have to come to a cost estimation. How much money for the equipment of a standard grunt?
Also, in game rule terms, you would have to come up with a point-buy or karma estimate on the basic stats that a soldier could have. These would have to be at least a good deal lower than what is allocated to a runner, since we're not talking about elite troops here. So I would think about a 250 point-buy for stats and skills, without allocating anything to resources or lifestyles, because those are paid for.

This should give you your standard soldier, be he Army, Marines, or whatever. Then equip him with some gear, a little better for fighting troops, a little worse for support.

Grunt 'Combat Kit'
Light Military Spec Armor: 12/10 12KNy

mods: Autoinjector 1500NY
Helmet Mods:
Imag Link +25
Flare Compensation: +50
Smart Link +500NY
Vision Mag +100NY
Vision Enhancement R2 +200NY
Audion Enhancement r2: +200NY
Select Sound Filter R1: +200NY
Thermographic: +100NY
Low-Light +100NY
Sensor Mods:
Motion Sensor: 50NY
Radio Signal Scanne r3: 75NY
WBDR r2 1000NY


Weapon:
Colt m23 6P -1 SA/BF/FA 1 40© 1510NY w/ Sling, internal Smart gun
Grenades: 2x Flash Bang, 2xHE or COncussion depending on mission specs.

Commlink: Hermes Ikon 3000
armor: 5 250NY
Biometric lock: 150NY
Hardening 3: 75NY

Total:
21085

This does not include their software costs, but those are harder to speculate on.

Down, kiddo. I'll be happy to recite chapter and verse when I'm back at my books, since you seem so gung-ho on thinking a drug they name Kamikaze, of all things, leaves you perfectly lucid and rational.



Name a foreign war the UCAS has fought since their inception. One.
Or the CAS.
Or the Sioux.

I also fail to see how this means they have to have these magical combat drugs you're harping about. To each their own, I suppose.

@sabs: Dig the loadout. Not sure how quickly they'd update commlinks/software based off half the crap I've seen on bases, but I still dig the loadout.

K-10 (Blood of Kali) also knows as Kamikaze Grade 10.
Duration 5x1d6 minutes
Effects: +3 Body, +3 Agility, +6 str, +1 Willpower, +3 IP, High Pain Tolerance, Berserk
Automatically go berserk when wounded, make an Edge(1) test, if they fail, they stay berserk permanently.
Users suffer 18S unresisted (which as we talked about, at body 4, will 3, that means if you take more than 6 boxes of stun(or physical) damage before the duration ends, you will die instantly.

There is no way the UCAS is giving K-10 to grunts.


Jazz and Cram maybe.
Except that they both talk about shooting up the paranoia and twitch factor.
Jazz being worse, and Jazz causes disorientation and depression when you crash off it.

Yeah I'm not sure either.
Hermes Ikon is 3K Ny, that's pretty reasonable. I think that Soldiers in 2070 all have, while on duty, assigned commlinks that are slaved to the battalion level Nexus running operations.

The software updates, etc, are going to be entirely dependent on the Character and Quality of the Battalion Commander, and his Intel/Electronics guys.

A good officer, will have scrounged himself some hacker with skillz, and will let him do things 'not by the book' as long as he's careful and covers his tracks. Those guys will have personafixed agents, etc.

A Bad officer will probably mean those guys have out dated software, and their commlinks tend to be out of date and behind the times. I'd apply a +1/-1 modifier for device ratings and stuff based on that alone.

to Colt M23 I would add:Internal Smartgun system,Gas Vent 3,Shock pad,and Underbarrel weight/Personalized Grip (5RC)
one i would REALLY add is Improved Range Finder - mod.

I thought about all those. And it does have an Internal Smartgun.

But it would /definitely/ not have a personalized grip
It would maybe have a gas vent 1 or 2, but not 3.
I could see a shock pad, but I don't think an underbarrel weight.

Not for grunts.

I could see a special forces rifle with those modifications, but not Regular Army.

Rather shock pads, foregrip, gas vent I and alternate trigger group (no FA).

Why did you exclude a grenade launcher?

Is milspec armor intended to be 'normal' for all military units? I got the impression even the light stuff was for special units. I do know we're talking about UCAS, historically very high-tech/low-numbers.

Tough to say. Current body armor kits for ground-pounders run just over $1,500 each for the whole caboodle. The vest itself is about a third of that. Would they spend 10x that for a full suit per trooper if it kept them alive longer?

@sabs: I wouldn't be surprised if they had CYBCOM hackers/riggers throwing a GruntDefense agent on each 'link then before it goes out. Their rigger support could probably keep the things up to date...Hm.

It's either their own software (free distribution) or it's a contract (user, site, etc. fees?), so no worries about keeping their software up to date. Obviously, at the source end, there's SOTA going on, but that's not really the grunt's concern.

You get it within the budget? Your grunts have it

True, though I'm not terribly impressed with the contracts at times. I don't recall seeing a lot of upgrades built into the contracts from, say, Windows 98 to XP, XP to Vista, Vista to a can of SPAM, and so on.

With the 'ease' of being able to create and modify programs, I do wonder if CYBCOM would go in-house for development.

Ooh...if we're not adding the cost of programs in...allow me to revise...I'll have a sub 20K list shortly.

CYBCOM is starting to go in house already.
So I think I agree that they would have a basic "grunt' agent.. and usability, and anything over that would be downloaded into their comms by CYBCOM on a mission/deployment basis.


I did tech support for a group that was on a contract providing support to the people testing and evaluating a Laptop System to be rolled out by 2002 (this was in 1999). They were using NT 4.0 SP2 (the other service packs were not yet DOD approved), with no upgrade plans. The laptop was tough, could take a bullet, was shock resistant.. etc.
We were looking at windows2000 coming down the pike, and they were 2 major service packs behind with NT and had no plans for upgrading it. (everything was custom coded.. it was a nightmare)


I left out a grenade launcher, because it's not standard issue. I think that 1 member of a fireteam would have an underbarrel grenade launcher. Much like 1 member of the fire team would have a Light machine gun with an ammo drum.

I think that Yes, in 2070 Light Military armor is standard issue for troops in a warzone/deployment.
Rangers might have medium armor with survival mods and Ruthenium Coating.
I could see certain combat missions/special purpose units with heavy military armor with str mods, and all sorts of other fun toys.

A problem. Light military armor, with its helmet, come to 22k . So either everyone wears it, and our budget to grunt ratio is wrong, or our budget to grunt ratio is right, and the "milspec" armors are reserved for a different type of troop.

Also, for the great commlink/software debate, in the milspec rules, a "standard" military commlink is a device 4 system, with upgrades for 5 or 6.

Why is 22k out of the budget for the UCAS Military?

I think Kliko worked the GDP to person versus sustainable tax/budget ratios and came up with the 20K figure.

Or, alternatively, the cost of a current US Infantryman's kit, accounted for in nuyen by process of inflation and then currency exchange as listed in 6th world almanac. A 2010 dollar is worth 1.56x 2072 nuyen. Currenlty the kit costs just over 13 grand, resulting in a equivalent costs of 20,553

Note that said figure includes the communications functions replaced by commlink averaged out over a platoon. Once we start talking company or higher, we start talking TO&E costs, not grunt costs.

We'll also not taking into account bulk ordering savings or anything.
It's 22K retail/black market costs.
We don't know how much having 20,000 of these things built in a lot, with all the modifications pre-planned would drop the price.

I could see that. They turn in their commo gear after an op to be maintained, sort of like with a trooper's weapons when they're in garrison.


Hahahaha! Sucker. I've seen those laptops, and they're rugged as all hell. All they're good for is stopping a round.



I'd agree with that. I'd hate to give Pvt. Nubcakes(you know him, he's the one that throws the pin and drops the grenade in Basic) a -203.

They turn in their commo gear to be maintained, debriefed, probably have the thing wiped, and a new image dumped on it, if they're worried that enemy hackers might have gotten into it.

They probably have two commlinks. An operational Commlink (which is what I mentioned) and a Base Commlink that never gets worn out in the field. But is their life line while on post doing their non-combat duties.

LMA wouldn't be issued to REMF's, so CYBCOM, Logistics, Administration, Intelligence(har) - anything that's really not front line wouldn't be issued that kind of armor. They'd probably get something around an Armor Vest unless they're being sent into the frontline. That takes a serious chunk out of the budget considerations if their admin & support divisions are of any decent size - about 10k a person which can add up.

We did say this was a combat kit for grunts...
This is what I would expect UCAS Military in the equivalent of Afghanistan to be wearing.
Or when they're having their little cocksman match with Sioux.

But the budget is averaged among all military personnel. If we took the combat kit and multiplied it by frontline troops, we'd probably be pretty close to where we need to be...but I don't recall the actual numbers they've got.

I just assumed a number. We can also agree on a higher or smaller budget

True.. it probably would be just about right.
Course I'm one of those freebirths who hates that there are non front line troops in the military.

Also that 22K setup includes the cost of the commlink and the cost of the weapon.

If you drop the weapon, you get down to basically 20K.

So I don't think it's really that far off. Though I think of the commlink as being 'part' of the armor.

Adding in known retail values for a lot of the weapon stuff and the body armor will give you ~$2500 more to play with. So, add 3900 : to my previous budget, for 24,400 : overall.

Of course, my kit figures have one giant flaw in them: The current US Army model for equipping ground troops comes from the days of everyone worrying to the max if PFC Ressica Mynch who runs the eagle cash card center has the absolute best chance of surviving the stray bullet that may just happen to zip in through her window (and she's wearing her body armor), or she gets bushwacked when her convoy takes a wrong turn. To be honest, the only area US infantry is substantially better equipped than its rear area counter parts, as of 2010, is in communications and backpacks. They may have a slight edge in having ALL carbines, instead of only 95% and 5% rifles, and a slightly higher per capita for some accessories, but really its not a marked difference. Rant below. Skip next paragraph to get back to SR4 bits in 2nd para after.

After all, when every casualty is a potential congressional inquiry in the age of ultra-limited war, no one wants to be the guy who said "Yes. We though that equipping the cook with old flak jackets that stop most shrapnel WAS a more cost efficient decision than giving them all brand new ceramic body armor. We're pretty sure , given the bullet went though his leg, that it wouldn't have mattered anyhow. What'd we do with the money? We bought the new Thermal sights that fit on your helmet for all the combat MOS's. No, senator, I don't value their life more than cook Bobs, but you'll admit they were alot more likely to use those thermals than the cook was his shiny new armor""

So, if the UCAS has abandoned said ultra-conscious model, and has accepted reduced soldier gear for the support echelons then potentially you could open up the budget for the infantry and tankers a bit more.

Heh.

Based on this and what Cheese just said, I think we've got the preferred loadout at about 22k.

Damnit, this thread is running away with me. I'll try to get my thoughts in today or tomorrow, but I definitely won't have time to catch up on all the posts so far.

Well, taking a quick peek at my clothing record I'd say I'm indebted to the US Army about 10 grand, easily. That includes 2 complete rifleman kits, 2 rucks, 2 sleeping kits and several other goodies. And the only stuff I get to keep is stuff that's touched my skin i.e. my neck gaiter, gloves, polypros, etc. Before I deployed we upgraded to the IOTV but kept most of our kit the same. After the deployment, we turned in our IOTVs to be used by the next deploying unit and picked up IBAs for garrison.

And I'd definitely say that although the REMFs get the same armor setup, they definitely do not get the same weapon setup. I've been in both a headquarters company and a line company. The line companies easily have 90% to 10% M4 to M16, and the M16s are only reserved as a back-up weapon for the M-249/240 gunners. They also pack the better optics (ACOGs). M203s and other crew-served weapons are usually 1-2 per squad, based on how many soldiers per squad.

I still think the only implant every soldier would get is the sleep regulator, no matter what MOS. WAY too useful to pass up. I'm pretty sure the soldier would get a garnishment to pay for it or have a minimum enlistment of 4 years. Other than that, I'd think only datajacks and sim modules would really be standard implants. Everything else would be implanted based on MOS or built into helmets/eyepro/earpro.

There's regular Kamikaze, not K-10. Doesn't do quite as much, but still gives a significant boost for a significant crash, afterwards.



All the side effects are fluff. What matters is mechanics. It should say you need to do composure tests in certain situations, but there is no such thing in the book. The world works as the mechanics say it does, unless you change the mechanics via house-rules.

There were some good posts above about equipment. while I don't agree with all the opinions, I don't think I can add much of value - other than my own opinion, so...