Just Curious - GROPOS

[Mayhem]

Did anyone here play AoG's Gropos?

How much of what AoG produced for this game did Mongoose use?

 

[ronbogard]

nothing of the rules but the vehicles they did use.

 

[ShadowScout]

Played it, but only a bit (I was waiting for them to complete at least the big armies before really getting into it...)

Mongoose used quite a bit from the vehicles, but unfortunately not the art (most vehicles has CGI art done for them after all - maybe some day in the future Mongoose will be able to dig up what AoG did and use it for their stuff - depends on WB I believe, since they own all things Babylon 5... and I Really hope Mongoose gets access to the AoG ship CGI not yet publicly available... there were such nice shippies to be seen...)

 

[LoneStranger]

Actually I think Mongoose has gotten some of the GROPOS stuff already, all of the Earth Force Ground units were units taken from the GROPOS book for EF, well ok so I never saw anything for the sub used in that book but if memory serves everything else is there.

 

[Agent One]

Well, it also helped that the person who wrote the Earth book (me) also worked for AOG before its closing and was intimately familiar with the GROPOS product line. I added a few units--the fixed wing aircraft, ground turrets, cargo vehicles, and seagoing craft--because those things never came up in the GROPOS game but offered plenty of roleplaying opportunities for the RPG.

 

[LoneStranger]

Yeah it makes perfect sense. If I had thought about it more when I posted I woulda said something about that but I've been going stupid recently, I dunno.

 

[Morgan_Keyes]

Unfortunetly, while Mongoose may have gotten the AoG GROPOS AFVs and general concepts the author shows a bad grasp of those concepts in the translation. Now I know the old saw of 'It's the future, things are different, yadda, yadda...'. But if you are going to use an existing system of organization (ie., squads, platoons, companies, etc.) and least get their hierarchy right. Also such things as the Baldur IFV. Infantry Fighting Vehicles are, more or less, APCs with teeth. Okay, that's an oversimplification, but even that would simplified it would have saved the Baldur. What do I mean? While, as presented the Baldur's infantry contingent rides outside clinging like baby possums. Unnecesary fatigue and exposure notwithstanding, this also exposes the infantry to artillery and weapons fire. An IFV, if we are using that concept, should protect it's charges like and APC or better. It can then also provide fire support to it's contingent during assualts.

If one is going to do an section on the military as extensive as done in the EA Sourcebook, one could at least do some homework or consult with those that do know this.

 

[ronbogard]

Morgan_Keyes wrote:

But if you are going to use an existing system of organization (ie., squads, platoons, companies, etc.) and least get their hierarchy righ

What do you mean?

 

[Morgan_Keyes]

Morgan_Keyes wrote:

But if you are going to use an existing system of organization (ie., squads, platoons, companies, etc.) and least get their hierarchy righ

What do you mean?

Platoon=12 infantry This is in fact the size of a plussed up squad. Glaring for no other reason then we seem to have no organizational level below the platoon.

Then we have the inverting of 'Division' and 'Regiment'. Every military across the world that uses these terms, a Regiment is smaller then a Division. In fact their definition of Regiment in relation to Division is actually the definition between Brigade and Regiment in the US military. IOW to paraphrase, 'Brigades are not formal organizations but refer to a given regiment plus any temporary or permenantly assigned auxiliary support units'.

Again, I'm fine and happy with a new lexicon for the future. But if you are going to use and established organizational scheme one should at least try following that same scheme, not just pull the names cause they sound 'neat' and put them together slap-dash.

 

[Anonymous]

Morgan_Keyes wrote:

Then we have the inverting of 'Division' and 'Regiment'. Every military across the world that uses these terms, a Regiment is smaller then a Division. In fact their definition of Regiment in relation to Division is actually the definition between Brigade and Regiment in the US military. IOW to paraphrase, 'Brigades are not formal organizations but refer to a given regiment plus any temporary or permenantly assigned auxiliary support units'.

This is the American usage...things are slightly different in Britain.

In the UK Battalions are organised into Brigades (permenant units) which are then organised into divisions. Generally 4 battalions to a brigade and three brigades to a division.

The concept of a regiment is differnet in Britain too. Each 'regiment' is made up of one or more battalions and they have traditional names (Royal Greenjackets, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (my old unit), THe GReen Howards, etc). THe battalions of a regiment are linked by a common heritage but do not necessarily serve together...except in the Guards where they form the Guards Brigade (Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Coldream and Grenadier Guards).

 

[Morgan_Keyes]

Morgan_Keyes wrote:

Then we have the inverting of 'Division' and 'Regiment'. Every military across the world that uses these terms, a Regiment is smaller then a Division. In fact their definition of Regiment in relation to Division is actually the definition between Brigade and Regiment in the US military. IOW to paraphrase, 'Brigades are not formal organizations but refer to a given regiment plus any temporary or permenantly assigned auxiliary support units'.

This is the American usage...things are slightly different in Britain.

In the UK Battalions are organised into Brigades (permenant units) which are then organised into divisions. Generally 4 battalions to a brigade and three brigades to a division.

The concept of a regiment is differnet in Britain too. Each 'regiment' is made up of one or more battalions and they have traditional names (Royal Greenjackets, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (my old unit), THe GReen Howards, etc). THe battalions of a regiment are linked by a common heritage but do not necessarily serve together...except in the Guards where they form the Guards Brigade (Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Coldream and Grenadier Guards).

Actually that does apply to the US as well. While the brigade concept is supposed to be 'mixed as per mission requirements', they have become more or less permenant groupings. Also, very few regiments are ever kept together anymore expect for those in the 82nd Airborne, 101st Air Assault, and the 75th Infantry, as well at the Armored Cavalry Regiments. Unfortunetly beyond those notables we don't keep as strong a regimental identity as our British counterparts. Do appoligize for not noting the European traditions as well. I've done enough time working with Royal Highland Fusiliers to have at least given such a nod.

But I think that you will agree, American or British the inverting of GROPOS 'Division' and 'Regiment' just doesn't ring true.

 

[El Cid]

I wouldn't get too hung up on what the terms mean today.

Remember that JMS had the Hyperions as cruisers and the Omegas as Destroyers.

In mordern navies, I believe that these two terms would have the cruiser as a heavier ship than the Destroyer.

I do agree with APC concept that to have the troops on the outside is ludicrious.

Sidney

 

[Morgan_Keyes]

I wouldn't get too hung up on what the terms mean today.

Remember that JMS had the Hyperions as cruisers and the Omegas as Destroyers.

In mordern navies, I believe that these two terms would have the cruiser as a heavier ship than the Destroyer.

I do agree with APC concept that to have the troops on the outside is ludicrious.

Sidney

It's just part and parcel of some really bad research on the author's part. They got it (more or less) right in the AoG GROPOS material. And that was JMS authorized, so why the disconnect? Agent One, what happened? But somantics I can change. it's just as a serving soldier I cringe at the info this puts in the heads of gamers that haven't been in before.

When I finish de-mobilization and get back to California in FEB I'll have to dig out my AoG GROPOS book on the EA and post the organizational make-up of the various companies and battalions for those interested. That or build them from the ground up.

 

[Jal]

Remember that JMS had the Hyperions as cruisers and the Omegas as Destroyers.

oh god......... not that one again. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

When I finish de-mobilization and get back to California in FEB I'll have to dig out my AoG GROPOS book on the EA and post the organizational make-up of the various companies and battalions for those interested. That or build them from the ground up.

If you ever get that information put together do you mind dropping me a line and letting me use it. I'm deployed right now and trying to gear up my group back home over the internet before I actually begin the campaign upon my return. I'm looking for any and all information B5 related. Thanks.

 

[Dag'Nabbit]

BTW, that "Guest" is actually me. I had forgotten to log in. Oh well.

Your going back to CA? I'm currently replacing a unit going back to CA. Are you leaving the Balkans?