I don't think it's necessary, although I did forget to detail how the Air Force is divided among the regions, like I did for the Army and Navy, I'll correct them shortly.



LOL! And a merc colonel that starts every briefing with "You are not in Kansas anymore".

:crazy:

YES.

I've organized the files into a folder here and added the document layout template.

The problem is to design an efficient and air-independent propulsion. Gasoline or diesel engines require oxygen to function. Submarines using those must rely on electrical propulsion when submerged, and resurface regularly to recharge the batteries with their combustion engine. A few countries developed conventional air-independent propulsion, but nuclear propulsion remains far superior, autonomy-wise.

The very point of Cold War-era missile nuclear submarines was to stay at sea for months while avoiding detection by the other side considerable naval forces. Attack nuclear submarines were designed in turn to hunt them, and also needed to escape detection (otherwise the other side could warn its own submarines of where the hunter were searching).

-- Is Amazonia a naval power? I didn't think it was, and probably doesn't need to be if all they require is denying Aztlan immediate access to coastal population centers and prevent trade routes being disrupted. Any trade with North America must be pretty circuitous indeed unless they can control their port at Buenaventura at least. They probably don't need any carriers or marines (except in the general sense of naval infantry).

-- Submarines would probably be a good idea, possibly even fusion power as it's only about twice as expensive as an electric fuel cell (straight Design Points comparison, Rigger 3). The advantages of diesel-electrics currently is that they are quieter when using batteries (as nukes can't shut down the reactor), smaller (probably not a huge issue in SR), and FAR FAR cheaper (not so much in SR). Plus the fact that getting ahold of nuclear fuel is a big hassle - probably doubly so in an ecofreak nation like Amazonia.

While they don't need to be a naval power, they need ships to defend the coast. But the whole point of having a carrier is for offense. Since Hualpa intended in conquer Suryname, Guyana, Venezuela and Colombia, carriers are good offensive tools.

They're also likely to have a "Brown Water Navy" (Armed River Boats) for use inside of the country.

Coastal Defense Craft of some sort are a necessity, and there's the possibility of some smaller Navy Ships (Frigates, for example) to attempt to protect shipping, as Piracy is a major concern in the 6th World.

I would suggest researching the current Canadian Armed Forces Maritime Command for examples of a practical but poorly equipped navy, but, well... We have three subs, and two are in the West Edmonton Mall...

I always thought that carriers are only needed for offense against the countries you don't have a land border with.
See RL - the countries who have the most carriers, UK and US, are bent on establishing their dominance throughout the world. Other countries, like, I don't know, Russia, don't have nearly as many carriers in their fleets since what they have is intended to work as a part of naval group, providing air coverage, not control whole foreign countries.

While this could be a paradigm shift for the Amazonian Armed Forces, the 'brown water navy' is actually a branch of the Brazilian Army for the brigades located in Amazonia and Pantanal.



May be so, but Brazil, for instance, is one of the few countris who owns a carrier and we don't even know why. Our coast may be wide enough but we have airbases located all over the coast do attack any necessary ship. Amazonas and Pará, the only states with air base big enough for major operations near Guyana and Surinam are far enough that taking a carrier there could be considered more efficient, I don't know...

My point is, Brazil has a carrier that the only acceptable reason I can think of is for the lulz.

One - sure, makes sense - as I said, to cover the other ships of the naval force should they venture far from the friendlies.
Three is imho taking it a bit too far for the strategic situation Amazonia finds itself in.

Amazonia I don't think has a /modern/ Air Craft Carrier. I could see them having Brazil's Aircraft Carrier from 40 years ago.
They have the one, and it's old, and the catapults don't work. But that's okay because the airplanes that they have are all VTOL anyways.

I view Amazonia as having a low-tech military. Pilots are expensive, and need training. It's not their style really.

But maybe what we need to do is decide what Amazonia actually looks like.
What's their Metasapient vs Metahuman totals. What's their Human vs Everyone else percentages.
What's the level of education, training, livelyhood.

The 6WA says Amazonia is a well-oiled machine, keeping the population fired and mobilized. This alone makes no sense with what we see in War!, saying that Aztlan declaring war against Amazonia got them with their pants down. Is there anywhere saying how Amazonia invaded Guyana and Suriname? Because I don't think they would do it only by land, and I think a maritime invasion to secure the capitals would have been made.

Anyway, yes, we should discuss what kind of country we want Amazonia to be.

It says that it looks like one when seen from outside.

Maybe use SoLA Amazonia drafts as a starting point?

The SoLA drafts don't help much either. It is just a two-page entry talking, mostly, about cities.
Not even a demographic distribution we have.

I'm going to make a seperate thread about amazonia
I'll have to find my copy of SoLA and see if I can cut and paste in that info