PDA

View Full Version : Equipment and tactics for warlords in post-apocalytic setting



Rasilak
2008-11-18, 11:04 AM
I'm staring a campaign in a post-apocalyptic setting inspired by Warzone 2100 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warzone_2100) and RIFTS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifts).
Here a more detailed description of the setting:
It's probably some time between 2050 and 2100. Some decades after a WW3 with generous use of nuclear and chemical weapons nearly all larger cities are completely uninhabitable. We're not sure if we want to have magic at all, but if we have it, its rare and not very powerful (even to the relatively tame standards of games like shadowrun). Most nations, corporations and nearly all global trade ceased to exist and the areas that are still somewhat inhabitable are controlled by local warlords who are in constant turf wars with their neighbours. There's still something left of the larger nations like the US, but they only claim about 1/5 of their former territory and control and inhabit not even half of that. Most of them are isolationist, reactionary and highly religious dictatorships. They preserved or rebuilt much of the old technology (which is a bit more developed than ours, pretty much upper cyberpunk standard), but deny the people access to most of it (there is no such thing as the internet, and most people can't even read or write). These nations forbid the export of technology or resources, making modern equipment, electricity and fossil fuels extremely hard to come by for anyone outside.
I have some questions:
- How far could the tech level of the world (outside the last remaining nations) reasonably drop?
- What equipment (especially weapons and transport) will the warlords probably use? Is it at all feasible to maintain and fuel a few motorized vehicles, or is returning to horseback riding (and walking) the better option?
- Is there any material you'd suggest for information on what life's like in a setting like this?

Tsotha-lanti
2008-11-18, 11:36 AM
You're only one generation after the "end of the world", so there's plenty of people who know first-hand how everything works. There's not a lot lost yet by way of knowledge and science.

What presumably is lost is industry. There's practically no access to raw materials - since there's no infrastructure, presumably no shipping, and no international trade. Metals would have to be dug up and smelted locally, lumber cut locally, and so on. This means no factory-produced anything, but this shortly after the war, there's going to be plenty of conveniences, vehicles, and weapons to scavenge (especially since the population of the once-civilized areas must be a fraction of what it used to be). In general, nothing that requires factories could be produced - advanced technology like computers would have to be assembled from scavenged and repurposed parts.

You can probably forget about fuel - oil-based, anyway. Ethanol- and methanol-burning engines are where it's at. It's probably possible to repurpose most ground or water vehicle engines for this, but it will severely cut both range and performance for most of them - especially heavy ones, like MBTs or IFVs. Horses and mounted dragoon-type units are definitely going to be useful (although the feasibility of feeding animals depends on how devastated the ecology is, exactly; if a bomb went off nearby, forget about it), although they will be relatively useless when they do face working combat vehicles. (Relatively meaning that, yes, light skirmishing cavalry with RPGs could mess up vehicles...) Most vehicles would probably be repurposed and refitted civilian vehicles - cars, motorcycles, busses, etc. - or custom-built "junk buggies."

For maintenance, you can scavenge parts from vehicles to fix others. A few decades later, the number of functional combat vehicles would probably have dropped to a fraction of what survived the end, since no new spare parts are produced or easily available - you have to cannibalize one vehicle to fix another.

Look at, say, Fallout and (especially) Twilight 2000 for more ideas. Fallout has some decent ideas for long-term effects, while Twilight 2000 happens right after the nuclear apocalypse. You want something in between. (Warning: Fallout Tactics screws up on basics of the world like "there is no oil"; don't use it as a source.)

LibraryOgre
2008-11-18, 12:21 PM
1) As pointed out, fuel vehicles will likely be rare, and only in places where limited industry can support them.

2) Firearms are also going to run into trouble. The initial shock will see a lot of rounds being used. While some folks might develop new methods, and a lot of people will save their brass to be recartridged, you're likely to also see a lot of lower-tech weapons becoming popular. Black powder can be made in a relatively small scale operation, and advances in firearms technology (rifling, cartridges instead of muzzle-loading unmeasured powder) will make them effective. For the cost-conscious, you'll likely see bows and crossbows making a comeback, with swords, axes, and baseball bats becoming common hand weapons.

3) Keep in mind social organizations. How do folks live in this place? You're going to see tribes, kingdoms, military dictatorships, a few clinging to federalism... there should be a variety of political and social organizations.

I'd suggest looking at a few different sources. "Dies the Fire", by S.M. Stirling is set in a world where electricity and high-pressure chemistry (internal combustion engines, firearms, etc.) stop working; they have some novel ideas on how to make due with the detritus of modern civilization. I'd also suggest Palladium Books "Mutants in Avalon", which deals with an EMP blast from nuclear war crippling a nation's electronics, and with ways of dealing with limited oil supplies; Palladium's Road Hogs deals with the opposite end of the social spectrum, where society really falls apart.

You might want to look at the first few chapters of Heinlein's Farnham's Freehold (after the war, but before the future humans show up), Joel Rosenberg's Guardians of the Flame series (especially "The Sword and the Chain" and "The Silver Crown"; all of the books are excellent, dealing with modern humans being sent into a fantasy world), and Eric Flint's "163x" series (which I haven't read, but have had suggested to me)..

Rasilak
2008-11-19, 01:57 PM
You're only one generation after the "end of the world", so there's plenty of people who know first-hand how everything works. There's not a lot lost yet by way of knowledge and science.
Yeah, you're right, haven't thought of this. So I probably need at least 60-80 years, better 100, until nobody remembers the world before. This is no big deal timeline-wise, but would the ecological damage still be severe enough to make large parts of the industrialized countries uninhabitable?
And, to the fuel problem: Is it easily possible to power ethanol-engines with moonshine, or is higher quality needed? (I'd like to say no, because I like the idea that motorized transport is rare and expensive, but I don't want to base my world on wrong assumptions)
And I could imagine that fuel-cell based engines (methanol, hydrogen would probably be next to impossible to produce and store in adequate quantities) don't survive that long without maintenance, especially since the technology is still quite new?

ClericofPhwarrr
2008-11-19, 02:00 PM
"Dies the Fire", by S.M. Stirling is set in a world where electricity and high-pressure chemistry (internal combustion engines, firearms, etc.) stop working; they have some novel ideas on how to make due with the detritus of modern civilization.

Thanks! I've been wanting to read this since a friend had described the book to me, but couldn't remember the author or title.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-11-19, 02:30 PM
And, to the fuel problem: Is it easily possible to power ethanol-engines with moonshine, or is higher quality needed? (I'd like to say no, because I like the idea that motorized transport is rare and expensive, but I don't want to base my world on wrong assumptions)

You can't drink the stuff you pour into the fuel tank (well, okay, I guess you could drink the ethanol, but you'd go blind; you'd need to distill it some more to make it into a drink), but if you've got biological materials (plants - grains and wood, mainly) and a still (easy to build), you can make them. The knowledge of making these stills would certainly have been passed on since soon after the apocalypse.

I don't understand that bit about fuel cells, though. Can you explain? I don't believe alcohol-burning engines are any different, in principle, from gasoline-burning ones (although one can't use the other; retrofitting them should be possible, however). You have an engine and a tank of liquid. (Actually, most gasoline contains ethanol.) Some of the oldest cars were designed to burn alcohol.

Check out the Wikipedia articles on ethanol and methanol - both have fairly in-depth entries about use as fuel.

Note that ethanol and methanol would also be used to power generators to power everything electrical - mostly lamps and radios.


Yeah, you're right, haven't thought of this. So I probably need at least 60-80 years, better 100, until nobody remembers the world before. This is no big deal timeline-wise, but would the ecological damage still be severe enough to make large parts of the industrialized countries uninhabitable?

I haven't a clue. I'm no nuclear physicist or NBC specialist, and can't speak on how long an area would stay irradiated, and at what point would said radiation cease to be deadly. Groundwater contamination could screw life up pretty long-term, though, assuming a proper nuclear holocaust with hundreds of ICBMs landing all over. (Admittedly, it apparently only took months for the water contamination from the Chernobyl accident to clear up.)

Fallout probably wouldn't affect the ecosystem for all that many years, actively, but the consequences of initial contamination could be long-reaching, as species and plants may be wiped out.

The effects are very complicated. For instance, the dust thrown up by the nuclear explosions would cause global cooling, specifically affecting the targeted areas, shortening growing periods even where plant life is possible, and making food production more difficult...

I think it's safe to say that games like Fallout grotesquely exaggerate the effects and duration of contamination from radioactive fallout, though.

Prometheus
2008-11-19, 03:08 PM
A feature that you can decide whether or not to include in the world-shattering event is e-bombs, which destroy electronics (even ones that aren't plugged in). This takes with it battery-powered things, in addition to things that require a power grid (which should be down at this point) to charge.

It is worth noting that is some places in the world, for example Afghanistan, gun-smithing is still a local trade that could continue even to the end of the world. Presumably, this knowledge would spread from Africa and the Middle East outward (either the nice way or the mean way).

I'd think about the effects on civilization in four stages. Fewer people make it to each stage, but the death rate generally (but erratically) drops over the course of time.
Extinction: Looting is abound, anyone who is going to commit suicide does it down. Many of the disastrous effects of war (radiation, chemical poisoning) are still on-going and people are primarily focused on immediate survival - most of whom fail at the task.
Adaption: Those who survive the shock stage turn to scavenging materials and uncovering stockpiles of food. Communities organize themselves into miniature groups, at times in opposition to other groups. Cars, guns, and communications not consumed in the Shock stage are gathered and used here, but sparingly. Weapons, hospitals, and forts are all makeshift adaptions of previous permanents.
Evolution: The supplies, technology, and shelter of the Adaption stage are running out and the extend to which inhabitants have to improvise increases. Tricks become trades and at some points the more creative and organized production of the Evolution stage overtakes the crude adaptions of sophisticated technology in the Adaption phase. Knowledge is power - a good blacksmith is worth more than a strongarm with a machete, but not worth more than two (who can take the blacksmith for themselves). For probably the first time, libraries are pilfered for things other than immediate survival knowledge and more focused on recovering technology.
Growth: At a certain point, everything knowledge wise that was going to be recovered is, and there is still the massive task of rebuilding infrastructure and organizing gangs into larger city states which keep the peace within themselves and leverage power over smaller organization. Repopulation, of course, is most effective at this stage, when there is some sanity. Relics of the past are still very much present, however: chronic health effects, superstitions, & infighting.

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-19, 04:04 PM
Well I won't point out all the flaws in your base premise (suffice it to say that the results you are talking about are highly unlikely in the event of a nuclear war in the US) I will attempt to answer your questions.


- How far could the tech level of the world (outside the last remaining nations) reasonably drop?
Not very. A large portion of the world already exists without the need for high technology (most of Africa and china come to mind). The places that would be screwed would be western Europe (england specifically). Without a concerted effort to wipe out the knowledge it will still be around, either from survivors, books, or computers.


- What equipment (especially weapons and transport) will the warlords probably use? Is it at all feasible to maintain and fuel a few motorized vehicles, or is returning to horseback riding (and walking) the better option?

It depends entirely on what they have access to. An M1A2 Abrams can run on most anything, cooking oil, alcohol, plants, etc. Jet fuel is a bigger concern. But it depends on how much of the militaries infrastructure the warlord managed to grab (at least in the case of the US).

- Is there any material you'd suggest for information on what life's like in a setting like this?
The 1632 setting is similar (21st century US town transported back to 1632). But I don't know of any that do a good job discussing the after effects of total nuclear war. And most people have several major misconceptions about the after effects of nuclear weapons, which tends to make many potential settings a lot less reliable.

If you want to IM me (AIM in profile) I'll be glad to discuss this with you in more detail but it's not really something that can be done on the boards without coming very close to breaking the rules.

Dublock
2008-11-19, 04:25 PM
I think it's safe to say that games like Fallout grotesquely exaggerate the effects and duration of contamination from radioactive fallout, though.

purely depends on what nuclear weapons used. The cleanest bombs can have fallout last a year, if that. The dirtiest bombs can last millions of years of fallout, yea it can be that bad.

The effects, yea they over did it. Duration...no not at all.

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-19, 04:29 PM
purely depends on what nuclear weapons used. The cleanest bombs can have fallout last a year, if that. The dirtiest bombs can last millions of years of fallout, yea it can be that bad.

The effects, yea they over did it. Duration...no not at all.

Those kind of dirty bombs aren't used by nations. Cobalt bombs have no real military purpose. And even if they are used, you can deal with the fallout relatively easily (relatively easily being a relative term :smallwink:).

Tsotha-lanti
2008-11-19, 05:39 PM
It is worth noting that is some places in the world, for example Afghanistan, gun-smithing is still a local trade that could continue even to the end of the world. Presumably, this knowledge would spread from Africa and the Middle East outward (either the nice way or the mean way).

This is very true. Firearms would continue in use even after all the olds ones have worn and rusted away - but they'd be "zip guns", "sten guns", rifled muskets, and the like, each one unique and hard to repair because there's no such thing as spare parts; you have to craft everything separately.


The effects, yea they over did it. Duration...no not at all.

The mutation effects weren't radiation-related anyway.

I'd assume Chinese nuclear warheads aren't dirty bombs, though.

chiasaur11
2008-11-19, 06:10 PM
This is very true. Firearms would continue in use even after all the olds ones have worn and rusted away - but they'd be "zip guns", "sten guns", rifled muskets, and the like, each one unique and hard to repair because there's no such thing as spare parts; you have to craft everything separately.



The mutation effects weren't radiation-related anyway.

I'd assume Chinese nuclear warheads aren't dirty bombs, though.

Some of the mutations were Radiation caused (Ghouls, giant rats, that kind of thing).

The FEV was only some of the mutations. Of course it's all 50s monster movie SCIENCE! anyway, so, realism is not a priority.

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-19, 06:23 PM
I'd assume Chinese nuclear warheads aren't dirty bombs, though.

They're dirtier than current generation US warheads (being less efficient) but they aren't built to be dirty bombs (generally done by surrounding the warhead with cobalt or gold or the like).

Oslecamo
2008-11-19, 07:17 PM
They're dirtier than current generation US warheads (being less efficient) but they aren't built to be dirty bombs (generally done by surrounding the warhead with cobalt or gold or the like).

Yeah, because some countries can't afford to have state of the art weapons of mass destruction.

Actually, only one country can afford to have state of the art weapons of mass destruction.

There's a reason why terrorrists use dirty tricks. They can't afford "clean" tricks.

Emperor Tippy
2008-11-19, 08:06 PM
Yeah, because some countries can't afford to have state of the art weapons of mass destruction.

Actually, only one country can afford to have state of the art weapons of mass destruction.

There's a reason why terrorrists use dirty tricks. They can't afford "clean" tricks.

Only partially. Other countries could afford too, it's just that none of the major countries has any real reason to prioritize WMD research. And actually, a cobalt bomb would be a better choice for terrorists than a clean, pure fusion bomb.

Bonecrusher Doc
2008-11-19, 08:33 PM
Bicycles were used heavily in "Dies the Fire" for dragoons (using the word to mean mounted infantry who fight dismounted) Not unrealistic for a warlord to use a lot of bicycles. Porters on the Ho Chi Minh trail used bicycles with sticks across the handlebars to carry heavy loads, I believe.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-11-20, 02:22 AM
Bicycles were used heavily in "Dies the Fire" for dragoons (using the word to mean mounted infantry who fight dismounted) Not unrealistic for a warlord to use a lot of bicycles. Porters on the Ho Chi Minh trail used bicycles with sticks across the handlebars to carry heavy loads, I believe.

Every modern Finnish infantryman has a bicycle (in theory, anyway; you have one assigned to you while in service, anyhow). They'd definitely see a lot of use, yes; cheaper to maintain than horses, and very easy to build.