Welcome to Gaia! ::

Welcome to my tutoring camp. Here, I am willing to help anyone who wants a better understanding of military tactics and methodology. I will cover a mixture of Medivel Era army tactics and strategys, to Modern Warfare tactics and Rules of Engagement styles, to some futuristic style, in how the advances in technology alter the tactics derived from Modern Warfare.

There are only two requirements for my class. Your willingness to learn, and the ability to handle unexpected extended absences on my part.

While that is indeed true, i've also seen some very poorly done jobs on it, even more so when it comes to more 'modern' styles of military tactics. This is up so people can learn the differences, and methods that make modern military tactics from Romo-Medivel tactics. Even the gunpowder age, though the overall tactics were teh same, gunpowder changed everything in the rule books. After the first few months of WWI, the rules of warfare had been rewritten. And again in WWII, and once more in the Korean War, so forth and so on. I'm sorry, but having a legion of heavily armed soldiers in a modern setting just doesn't work unless your in hte middle of a battlefield similar to the trenches of the Western Front in WWI. And then, there's the fact you won't often find a rag-tag group of skirmishers being able to take on an entire army by themselves without a lot of support from an army behind them.

So in short, i'm here to help people learn just how different eras of warfare, should NPC's be used to fill the holes in a RP group, should work, and some of the techniques of the soldiers of those eras. I'm not trying to force people into my style, just help them get an idea of it. Sorry, but one can not go rambo in a modern setting, not against a massive army against one person. It usually takes a well organized, experianced, and long-time team to pull off something that could give the main force a chance. However, if in a middle ages setting, yea, it's possible, if one is rich enough or noble enough to be able to have a set of full plate. In that period, one was pretty much untouchable until the improvement on the Roman Javilien head, and putting it on the arrow of a longbowsman, as well as gunpowder.

Again, i'm trying to help others be able to give a hint of realism to their military-types.

i've got some knowledge, but it's more general, since really most of it is now history. There hasn't been a naval engagement since Korea.

That's not what I meant. I meant the last real naval battle was fought during the Korean War. That's including aircraft carriers. Right now, the US Navy has become more like the Air Force. They support the ground forces, mainly with aircraft and long range missiles. While there are naval landing craft, which are mainly used by the Marines, the navy primarily stay off the coastline, supporting the troops on hte ground. A modern Aircraft Carrier can cover an area the size of California. They don't even have to be near the battle field for it's fighters to have an affect on the battlefield.

And while subs are still on duty 24/7, they are mostly a deterient against Nuclear War, like they had been since the start of the Cold War. They were, and are, still carrying nukes in their tubes, ready to be fired in response to another country launching their weapons at the US. Even Russia still has nuclear armed subs running around the globe, because they still are, like the US, parnoid of a possible nuclear attack. Russia has over a hundred thousand Hydrogen bombs in it's arsenal still, most of them in teh ICBM Multi-Warhead configeration. That means that one missile can have up to 8 or more warheads in it, each of which can be set to hit a different target then the others in it's set.

So again, Naval Combat has become something of a history, while Naval Command is still a ongoing thing.

You Will Never Be A Man

@Takamura Kobayashi: Thank you. I tend to watch a lot of History Channel and Military Channel. If I do not know something, I will not be afraid to admit it, and attempt to fix that lack of knowledge.

@Wiliam Dawnmorrow: It is dependant on the time period in which the magic is set. If it is in a tradtional fantasy setting, then you would have to consider casting time, movement requirements, and vocal chants to do so and possible counters to your magic. However, if one is more like a sorcerer, more of a willful caster, then one must consider the amount of will needed to perform magic. The effects of which, would be like carrying a modern JDAM bomb in your mind, ready to be unleased at an unsuspecting, or unexpecting target. If teh time period is more towards modern combat, then you have to account for much more. Technological adaptations, tech-based counters, and then hte fast-paced, and often chaotic situation. It's still much like the fantasy setting requirements, but if magic developed alongside technology, then there could be possible mechinical counters to common spells, and maybe a rare mechinical counter to a high-end, high-power spell that maybe only a select few, or commonly known but rarely used spell. Again, it is dependant on the time period and place magic holds.

Bumping this thread, in hopes of helping folks.

I was wondering if you could indulge me on the methodical capabilities of the infamous "Desert Fox," General Erwin Rommel. Most importantly I'd like to know about his efficient use of the surrounding environment of the African desert, where he lured a British armored division into a trap of Flak 88's. If you know anything on that. I'm a huge World War II and Modern Warfare guy, especially when it comes to Mechanized Battalions.

On another note, I never really understood air superiority; to me I think it's such a hassle since bombers need to be reloaded and refueled after every strafe. Although you do allow heavy damage on the enemy frontlines at longer distances then artillery, and the option of airdropping supplies and soldiers into the fray is nifty, I don't see the point of airplanes except for eliminating approaching enemy bombers, since the role of a bomber can be succeeded by a mere MLRS system, which would also save you about 11 million dollars and be a hell of a lot cheaper to fire.