idea about a company-level tactical & strategic game based on the superpower elements

Anonym

Explorer
actually not quite so,It's closer to an original world setting.

In the last few years of the 20th century, millions of people around the world suddenly gained superpowers. they were scattered all over the globe.

who acquires superpowers is nearly random, completely unrelated to nationality, race, gender, religion, education level, or moral character. it almost follows a normal distribution—if there is any significant influencing factor, it is intelligence level (sometimes unrelated to education level; some illiterate people are very intelligent). no one with intellectual disabilities or an IQ below 90 acquires superpowers.
Basically, it's based on a super-simplified list of psionic powers (DND3R or PFRPG, you know what I mean), but all the different disciplines have been extremely simplified and abstracted to suit the needs of larger-scale tactical-strategic games.


In this alternative timeline world which full of various Supers, it would be common practice to consolidate them into powerful military combat units. a well-trained,well-organized and well-equiped Supers special forces unit which possessing incredible super powers————such a combat force is clearly beyond the capabilities of any ordinary infantry, no matter how elite they are. only similar units also composed of Supers can deal with such enemy.of course, a hail of heavy artillery, a well guided swarm of bombers, and missile or even ICBM with nuclear warhead could effectively destroy them———but in most cases, their enemy won't do such hard and painful job.

here we won't discuss whether these Supers will develop into military oligarchs similar to the Ottoman Turkish Janissaries and become the masters of their countries (I believe this will certainly happen, regardless of whether you organize and train them).

Their abilities are very diverse. to simplify I've categorized them based on their fighting style rather than their specific power.

Close-quarters combat: Supers with power of flesh enhance , super regeneration, the vomit acid or toxins, breathe fire, and any other attack with a short range, possessing incredible defensive capabilities and/or super agile (regardless of their specific power).

Mid-range combat: Telekinesis, throw fireballs, lightning, or freeze beams, or accelerate bullets with electromagnetic force, giving ordinary rifle bullets the power of .50 BMG (but this will cause the barrel to melt instantly).

Snipers with precognitive power can also be categorized into this type; they know whether the bullet will hit and how it will spread before pulling the trigger, and then adjust their gun accordingly.

Long-range combat: powers capable to attack helicopters or even fighter jets, such as the ability to accelerate projectiles using electromagnetic control power, or to fire laser beams. they typically require the assistance of other Supers to help them aim accurately and hit their targets precisely.

Assault: Any supers who can quickly break through or penetrate enemy lines and enter their rear. this includes powers such as teleport, super speed, invisibility, and shapeshifting.

Non-Direct Combatant: Supers unsuitable for frontal combat, such as those with precognition, mind control, or healing power.they are better suited to other place such as HQ besides the frontline.

Of course, even with the same power, there are differences in strength. some can throw a motorcycle with telekinesis force, while some can crush a tank. the latter would obviously not want to accept having the same military rank as their weaker peers.

The question here is: given their enormous diversity, how should these supers be organized?

I have two ideas:

A. An organizational structure similar to Rangers (or, regular infantry units).

In this idea, the smallest combat unit comprising these Supers is a 9-man squad, consisting of two 4-man teams and a significantly stronger squad leader. these two teams consist of a specialized squad and a support squad; the former includes four supers with similar fighting styles, while the latter includes four members with distinct powers, thus balancing strength and flexibility.

a super platoon is made up of several super squads. perhaps each platoon should have a different fighting style. Some platoons are all-rounders and jack of all trade, while others prefer a specific fighting style.

B. no platoon level units,but these Supers are divided into several smaller 4-man team units, and categorized into two types————the Leader team and the combat team———— based on their strength or strategy talent.

In this organizational structure, the company commander's subordinates are not platoon leaders, but rather several leader team' leaders and a dozen or so combat team's leaders.

Each mission requires the company commander to decide which teams to deploy, and how many, based on the mission and the intensity of the combat. these combat force consist of several combat squads commanded by the leader teams.

For example, if the mission is to "capture or eliminate an unusually powerful Biomancer," the commander would deploy two leader teams and each assigned four combat teams. their personnel composition also adjusted according to the mission, ensuring they are all skilled at and suitable to dealing with Super who can turn people into infectious zombies or even more terrifying monsters, and command a pack of super-mutants equipped with heavy machine guns.

That's all I can think of for now. I'd like to see your opinions.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I understand the drive to organize similar to Army subdivisions, but Air Force and Naval groupings might actually be more appropriate.

In fact, I’ve often thought of D&D parties as being similar to carrier groups, organized around specialized ships protecting the main force projector.

My point?

Smart military leaders will organize militarized super teams in ways that would work best for their mix of abilities.
 

Of course, even with the same power, there are differences in strength. some can throw a motorcycle with telekinesis force, while some can crush a tank. the latter would obviously not want to accept having the same military rank as their weaker peers.
I think the plan breaks down right here. A chain of command based on personal strength rather than tactical prowess and ability to command? That's like putting the Hulk in charge of the Avengers. That's gonna be one weird army!

And if a military force is so undisciplined that members won't "accept" their rank, it's going to break down into chaos very quickly.
 

I understand the drive to organize similar to Army subdivisions, but Air Force and Naval groupings might actually be more appropriate.

In fact, I’ve often thought of D&D parties as being similar to carrier groups, organized around specialized ships protecting the main force projector.

My point?

Smart military leaders will organize militarized super teams in ways that would work best for their mix of abilities.

My vision is a compromise: a 9-man squad,it comprising:

a squad leader, who significantly powerful and stronger than his subordinates, or possessing outstanding strategic and tactical talent.

an assault team, consisting of 4 Supers with telekinesis power. their power are versatile and alway effective in any situation and environment.

a support team, composed of 4 Supers emphasizing diversity and versatility, provide various useful help such as medics, precision shooters, high-speed melee combatant and AOE blaster.for a example:

A energy blaster who can throwing fireballs at enemies,

A lycanthroper who can transform himself into a monstrous killing machine that can breathe fire, possess teeth and claws capable of tearing through tank armor, run 100km per hour and heal nearly any wound in seconds.

A Marksman with precognitive abilities can hit the bullseye every shot.

and A Mattersharper who can sharping any nearby matter and materiel to break wall,create cover or destroy any tank,machine or precision structure instantly, no matter how thick its armor is (but their range of effect is very small).



Each such squad will be quite different and unique, but one key point is—————I suspect that they may no platoon-level units but the commanders issuing direct orders to their squads,deciding how many squads to deploy, which squads to deploy, and appointing a specific squads as platoon leaders or similar roles based on mission requirements.

Given the unique nature of Supers (and their own cycle), their camp culture is certainly very different from that of ordinary soldiers or even ordinary special forces. some supers cannot work together, some always disregard discipline while others do the opposite, and military law enforcement agents would struggle to handle their internal problems. this requires a commander who is himself a powerful Super to manage them with force and prestige.

This may mean that they are more like gangsters than soldiers.
 

I think the plan breaks down right here. A chain of command based on personal strength rather than tactical prowess and ability to command? That's like putting the Hulk in charge of the Avengers. That's gonna be one weird army!

And if a military force is so undisciplined that members won't "accept" their rank, it's going to break down into chaos very quickly.

thats why they alway have to need a extraordinary powerful individual as their captain,or reasonable Company first sergent to make sure the military order works.
 

thats why they alway have to need a extraordinary powerful individual as their captain,or reasonable Company first sergent to make sure the military order works.
I actually think you are making a false fundamental assumption about how mammals organize themselves.
The "alpha" of a pack, group, gang, isn't the strongest. They are the one who if the group does what they say everyone eats.

The most powerful wolf doesn't lead the pack, he backs up the wolf he thinks is best suited to lead, and others fall in line.

What this means is . . . the best leader leads. The leader who is most fair, and able to keep the most people safe while still completing the mission. (Sure, their are dysfunctional teams and leaders, but they don't last -- especially under pressure.)

In a war waging situation, Supers with certain powers are more likely to take on leadership rolls. Supers who have elevated situational awareness due to super-senses/telepathy, precognition and similar are more able commanders i.e. they can provide proper strategic commands. Just being able to better issue those commands to clearly to everyone is also key -- from throwing your voice, to telepathy, to being highly mobile to issue those commands are all useful.
Better information, knowing your people, and being able to make snap decisions are key.
All this person needs to do is convince the "strongest" person to back them, and everyone else will probably go along with it happily.
Since your "squad" leaders would all tend to have these types of abilities, your higher officers probably would to.

n.b. I haven't included "super-genius" because that can basically be the power that says "I have the perfect plan." Assuming your super-genius is actually a supergenius and when a plan goes sideways they are able to revise almost instantly for another great plan, then well, they are the best possible leader.
 

thats why they alway have to need a extraordinary powerful individual as their captain,or reasonable Company first sergent to make sure the military order works.
There’s a reason why humans, not elephants, rule were world. It’s not because we’re extraordinarily powerful. ;)
 

t
I actually think you are making a false fundamental assumption about how mammals organize themselves.
The "alpha" of a pack, group, gang, isn't the strongest. They are the one who if the group does what they say everyone eats.

The most powerful wolf doesn't lead the pack, he backs up the wolf he thinks is best suited to lead, and others fall in line.

What this means is . . . the best leader leads. The leader who is most fair, and able to keep the most people safe while still completing the mission. (Sure, their are dysfunctional teams and leaders, but they don't last -- especially under pressure.)

In a war waging situation, Supers with certain powers are more likely to take on leadership rolls. Supers who have elevated situational awareness due to super-senses/telepathy, precognition and similar are more able commanders i.e. they can provide proper strategic commands. Just being able to better issue those commands to clearly to everyone is also key -- from throwing your voice, to telepathy, to being highly mobile to issue those commands are all useful.
Better information, knowing your people, and being able to make snap decisions are key.
All this person needs to do is convince the "strongest" person to back them, and everyone else will probably go along with it happily.
Since your "squad" leaders would all tend to have these types of abilities, your higher officers probably would to.

n.b. I haven't included "super-genius" because that can basically be the power that says "I have the perfect plan." Assuming your super-genius is actually a supergenius and when a plan goes sideways they are able to revise almost instantly for another great plan, then well, they are the best possible leader.

herefore, a more appropriate combination is:
the smartest, most strategically astute individual serve as commander/captain, deciding what to do.he is the brain.
the most powerful individual serve as Company first sergeant major, or company champion, to act as the speartip on the front lines and to suppress those overly individualistic or unruly troublemakers within their company.
 

I actually think you are making a false fundamental assumption about how mammals organize themselves.
The "alpha" of a pack, group, gang, isn't the strongest. They are the one who if the group does what they say everyone eats.

The most powerful wolf doesn't lead the pack, he backs up the wolf he thinks is best suited to lead, and others fall in line.

What this means is . . . the best leader leads.

Um, no.
The alpha of the pack... is Dad.

I mean the whole "alpha" thing is a huge misreading of social structures of a mixed bag of wolves thrown together in captivity. The observed behavior, our picture of "alphas", is entirely unnatural behavior for wolves. It is what wolves did when taken out of their normal places, shoved together with strangers in a strange place, and put under stress.

In nature, a wolf pack is mostly a family group. The "alpha" is the father of most of the wolves present. He is old enough to have learned a lot, but not so old to be decrepit, yes. But, he's leader not because he's the best leader. Nor because he's the survivor of constant testing of his personal dominance. He's just Dad.
 

Remove ads

Top