US 43rd MP Brigade Mutiny

[Raellus]

My guess is that a hot, dry desert wasteland is more fun to adventure in than a frozen desert wasteland.

(emphasis added)

I just wanted to point out that I am not a total dunderhead.

[Webstral]

I've always been adamantly opposed to the idea of the 43rd disintegrating because I perceived the MPs to perceive cohesion as being in their best interest. However, I could accept the MPs breaking apart if a reasonable thesis were advanced to describe how and why MPs might feel that they would get a better deal by going their own way. I'm not saying I'd be open to any "Well, that's the way they feel. Duh," sort of explanation. However, if someone (not me--I don't believe in the breakup of the 43rd) were to go into some detail about conditions in the 43rd and why large numbers of the MPs might believe their chances were better elsewhere, I'd be willing to read.


Webstral

[HorseSoldier]

I don't picture the issue being so much waves of starving people as facing the operational impossibilities of being stretched past the breaking point with a dwindling logisitics base. At a certain point, you've either got to face the impossibility of the situation and just write off most or all of your AOR, or face a death of a thousand cuts sort of thing.

Actually, that was one big reason the 43rd's decision to pull out never made sense. They were from RI. They have local ties. A unit called up from TX would be more likely to pull out and decide to look after themselves first and &*@% the locals.

Actually a unit of outsiders would have better cohesion in that sort of situation, I think -- operating in close proximity to family and friends (most of whom you couldn't do a damn thing for) would destroy a unit in pretty short order. Desertion would be a huge problem and then divided loyalties and redlined stress and compassion-fatigue would destroy morale among those who didn't run for home. I could see a unit under those circumstances imploding.

[helbent4]

Let me rephrase my statement. I said "The only real explanation seems to be the drought/famine." What I meant to say was "The only real explanation offered by GDW seems to be the drought/famine."

I agree 100% that hordes starving refugees are not going to turn into human wave attacks throwing themselves carelessly in front of the guns like something out of 28 Days Later or the Dawn of the Dead remake. But that sure seems to be the message I get from Howling Wilderness.

Scott,

Please accept my apologies, I should have better understood you were stating GDW's rationale, not that you agreed with it.

I agree, their rationale for the drought and continuing civil collapse stink on ice, even if there's a scientific evidence to back the former. Their "Return to Europe" series betrayed a similar motivation. Wanting to make a profit is perfectly fine, releasing poorly thought-out material to this end is not.

To a degree, I can see some players chafing under the constraints and rules of civilisation. Many players of that era (especially those who played Traveller) were freebooters at heart, or at least quite liked being the cocks o' the walk and running roughshod over the civvies as it suits them. Reviews of T2K scoffed that one of the game's main pleasures was roaming the wasteland in your personal tank, with no damned commanding officers yappin' at ya' and tellin' ya what ta do!

My campaign is set in Canada, where a civilian government has taken control by 2001 and is busy unifying the country (even Quebec, of 2300AD is considered accurate) so I and my players don't have to suffer through pointless post-apocalypse mayhem. The whole point is to see their AO slowly improve over time as they restore order and bring security to the population. Further, I really think the yanks could get their act together even sooner than 2003.

Tony