"Ground Forces"

[JALU3]

There was once a string in the Narattor Board that talked about "Marines." I started talking about it, and got band from it, and the strings conversation changed by the Narrator.

Now I understand why, however, I do feel that my response was warrented and my request to move the string was a valid request. However, they are the law, so it has been written and there is nothing I can do about that.

Therefore, I shall do as they have requested and move this discussion here. The discussion, I'm sure has been done before, but as I understand it, and do to the multiple postings about it, it is a discussion that should be continued.

This discussion centers around what the Ground Forces as stated by ADM Ross on air (thus being canon) that have been called RRTs in the LUG Players handbook (thus being Canon) and Marines (non-Canon). The discussion has ranged from name, to structure, to even whether it is "with in Star Trek" to have these forces for as a part of Starfleet, and thus the Federation.

Thus, let us continue this debate.

Personally, I call them Marines myself and don't believe that they were part of Starfleet until the Dominion War, and have been left as part of Starfleet since. Prior, I speculate, the units that now make up the Marines were part of each Members Defense Force.

I use them in the same sence, as seen on TV. Ground forces, not to replace the Security personnel onboard Starfleet vessels. Their use is rare, if at all. Furthermore, there numbers are small, and their make up is dependent on whether a Member Planet volunteers their units to Starfleet for them to become part of the Marines.

Therefore . . . it is very much structured techniqually like the current United States Army National Guard. In which they are techniqually under the command of that States Governor, and only are Federalized if there is a national emergency, such as a war.

------------------
"See Everything; overlook a great deal; correct a little." -Pope John XXIII

[Cmd.Hentar]

Since Starfleet personnel handle both spacial and planetary exploration (I dont say it logical, but thats what they do), Marines's job is only planetary infiltration/occupation.

Personnaly, i think that Marine should be more like a Departement of Starfleet. Cause everything is handle by starship and starfleet. there's no Tank combat or man to man combat, War are handle by fleet of starship, and Starfleet should have a kind of Security Departement for Combat (Infiltrating Vessels, Ground base...)

[JALU3]

Well if you look at the structure of the US Army and the place that The USANG has in it you'd see what I'm talking about. These forces aren't standing active units. However, they have the capability of active combat and combat support units and can be activated, i.e. Federalized, as the need is required. When there is no need . . . they revert to the techniqual command of the State.

However, the National Guard is supplied by the Army . . . and trains with the Army.

------------------
"See Everything; overlook a great deal; correct a little." -Pope John XXIII

[USS Intrepid]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JALU3:

This discussion centers around what the Ground Forces as stated by ADM Ross on air (thus being canon) that have been called RRTs in the LUG Players handbook (thus being Canon) and Marines (non-Canon).

</font>

Well I don't use 'marines' in my game, and there's something about the marines implication that just doesn't fit into the Trek universe the way I see it.

However, if you or anyone else wishes to use them in their version of the Trekiverse then they should. If you like 'em use 'em. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks

One thing though, and I may have picked you up wrong here, but exactly where is it written that if something is in a LUGTrek book that it's canon???

------------------
Captain Daniel Hunter
CO NCC-73602, U.S.S. Intrepid
Star Trek: Intrepid

[JALU3]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by USS Intrepid:
One thing though, and I may have picked you up wrong here, but exactly where is it written that if something is in a LUGTrek book that it's canon???

</font>

Good point . . . it doesn't state. However, I consider it to be due to the licensing of the material. But if you used that chriteria ALL the novels would also be canon, and can you imagine what that would lead to?

OK, point taken. However, in game I have stated to my players to consider the LUG books I do have, the episodes and the movies (of course) (except ST:V), and the TrekRPG sight (unless contridicted by one of the above) as canon.



------------------
"See Everything; overlook a great deal; correct a little." -Pope John XXIII

[Eric R.]

I had started a egroup disscussion board awhile back which has kinda died down a bit but February produced a lot of stuff of interest. I open up the past messages so you can read them. feel free to sign if you want.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GFOUFP

[Flecha]

Indeed, an old debate, this is...

Well, I'm very strong on this point, so I must first state, and please, consider it so ALWAYS, that everyone of us can play the game as we like, and it needs not to be cannon. Thus, they are different matters how any of us like to play, and what is cannon. So, there's no criticism on the way we like to play, but in the way we accept cannon, we like it or not. Right? Right. Let's go...

First, we should consider cannon only what it's seem on tv (and films) because there the ultimate person(s) responsible(s) for Star Trek tell the filmed stories. Nothing else should be considered cannon because the person(s) responsible(s) for Star Trek can contradict anything on the basis of what they need. And please, note carefully this fact; the person(s) responsible(s) for Star Trek will contradict even themselves from episode to episode just to follow the needs of the story; that's the basis of the Star Trek Drama Rules" which are even more important than the laws of physics in order to narrate a Star Trek story.

Then again, we should consider an hierarchy between th person(s) responsible(s) for Star Trek to know what items are more cannon than others. Since the person(s) responsible(s) for Star Trek untill know have been Gene Roddenberry and Rick Berman, it's obvious -even if some people is now feeling pain for this- that Roddenberry's creations have more importance than Berman's, and in case of contradiction, we must choose Roddenberry's.

With all this in consideration, we can say:

1.- LUGTrek material created exclusively for the game is not, obviously, cannon, even if licensed by Paramount; I really doubt that Berman ever have a look to een one written word of any manual, not to speak of Gene.

2.- Any mention of the Rapid Response Teams or Ground Forces, or whatever, mentioned in DS9, is the solely cretion of Berman for the purposes of the DS9 story; which is about a PEACEFUL civilization -namely, the UFP-, faced with an out-of-control-war as it never thought it could happen, and so develops some emergency -but UNDESIRABLE- mechanisms than turn unuseful after the war.

3.- In no time and place we have seen an organized structure, or even a glimpse of any special ground forces, for a simple reason: Roddenberry created Starfleet as that part orf the UFP dedicated to space exploration, and solely of space exploration; starfleet is composed of astronauts, not soldiers, who face the dangers of puter space, and so are the defense against any threat from outer space, be it an ion storm, a cristalline entity, or not-so-peace-loving alien civilization. And the branch of Starfleet called security works for maintainsing the well-being of all Starfleet personel, so they are the first ones to engage in conflict, while not the only ones; in Classic Trek, In TNG, in DS9; everywhere we've seen our beloved starship officers sometime battling in the ground, because all officers in Starfllet make all jobs sometime. There are no specialized ground forces or anything like that -until, maybe, the Dominion war, and surely as a temporary matter, because that has nothing to do with Federation policy-, because that's not the way the Federation handle things. More on this on the next:

4.- I just can't understand why some people need to identify Trek's subject with real ones, like when someone compres Starfleet with some current Forces, like marines. In the name of the Lord, if Roddenberry would hear this! Haven't anyone hear the declarations of Majel Barret about the wrongness of presenting a war in a Trek show? Withouth taking her by the letter, that should make everybody think about the peaceful vision that Gene created. And that vision was science fiction; it has nothing to do with the real world. It can be better or worse, but it's definitely different. So, please, don't make comparisons; Starfleet is a organization of astronauts explorers -doesn't anyone watch TNG or Voyager in here?-, not of military people. It's maybe something many people cannot understand, but because they're trying to see a science fiction comncept under the optics of a modern mind, which is absolutely wrong.

Yes, maybe the problem is that Star trek proposes a better world, one today's people is not used to; one that today's people find incredible to believe in. But that, you want it or not, is the true Gene's vision. And the only logical path is understand that what Gene created, IS teh cannon.

[Phantom]

This statment is mad from the view point of the game. So, it can be taken as canon or not.

I have stated in the previous posts about "marines", I don't agree with "marines" being in Star Trek, but I do believe that there must be some officers, NCOs and crewmen that are cross trained in "dirtside" combat. I noticed in an above post someone said there was no man-to-man combat in ST. I disagree, why would thye be issued sidearms if that was the case? We have seen artillery (phaser and mortars), grenades, rifles and sidearms all being used in heavy combat situations through out the various series.

SF definitly views ground combat somewhat differerently then we do, the absence of armoured vehicles is an example of this. However, both DS9 and the RPG do recognize the need for ground forces, RRTs in DS9 and the fact they include Tactics (small unit) in the skill section of the game, someone must be trained in that skill if they put it in the game. I would also like to point out the character of Col. West, from Undiscovered Country) another example of GFs in SF.

My basic conclusion is are there marines in SF? No, not like todays marines anyway. Are there ground forces? Yes, we have seen evidence of this.

[Phantom]

I would also like to add here, I have looked at both sides of the arguement and I would like to ask one question. What is the contraversy, someone calls them "marines" the next guy calls them "ground forces" what is the difference?

I, personally, don't like when the "marine" terms is used to describe SF "ground forces", just as I don't like the term "carrier" used to describe a starship...there are no fighters in star trek. At most they are dropships. But apparently it is something I will have to get use to...if current trends continue.

[toadkiller]

I started to suggest this on the other thread:

I think we are sticking to much to current military models.

Today, and for the last 50-60 years or so, it has been technically feasible for a Navy to transport enough troops to a particular "beachhead" to effect a forced entry into a hostile country. This isn't the first time that this has been possible, and it arguable that in the future it might become impossible/infeasible as the various technologies change.

Basically, you have to be have to be able to establish control of the sea (at least locally) and then control of the beachhead, and then enough of a presence (requiring continued sea control) to withstand the counterattack. All this ignores, for simplicity, air power.

Now carry this to Trek. In order to take a planet you have to:

Clear the system of hostile ships and keep t clear, no high speed ships nailing your troop transports while they have their shields down.

Get a "beachhead" in orbit from which to beam down (maybe can beam down via "fly bys") or land "boats" or ships.

Establish a foothold on the ground from which to fight local ground (air) forces.

Are any of these possible in Trek?

Clearing the system - this seems possible, at least in the Dominion war both sides were able to hold systems for days to weeks against opposition.

Clearing orbit - maybe. Certainly obtaining any meaningful "loiter" time in Cardassian orbit was going to cost a lot of ships lost in the "softening up" phase. We have heard of "type X+" planatary phasers, orbital battle platforms, (possibly) planet or orbit based torp magazines, and mines. Getting a safe beachhead, against a fortified location, is going to be very costly. In this case cutting off the fortified location by blockade is likely going to be cheaper. this could change if you have some way of beaming in from outside the defensive sphere but that is unclear (show canon wise anyhow).

Getting the beachhead on the ground - to little information. We've never seen a real large scale ground battle but have some information that they exist.

TK's conclusion (for what it is worth):

"Marine" style landing are possible only against "soft" targets - D-day style landings against organized resistance are going to be very, very expensive in lives and ships.

IMHO " marines" are more likely to be used out on the frontier, boarding ships or defending, conducting small raids, and taking and defending the soft colony worlds. Taking Earth or C-Prime is best done by cutting them off by blockade and "starving" them out like in the days of siege warfare.

All IMHO to keep the debate going

------------------
TK

[Cessna]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by toadkiller:
"Marine" style landing are possible only against "soft" targets - D-day style landings against organized resistance are going to be very, very expensive in lives and ships.
</font>

That's missing the point.

The same could be said of a classic amphibious assault today - due to the lethality of modern weapons, a frontal amphibious assault would be near-suicide.

But the Marine Corps still trains to do amphibious assaults. (Trust me; I've done hundreds.) Why? Because the THREAT of an amphibious assault forces an enemy to divert lots and lots of troops to defend his coastlines. He can't afford to gamble that the Marines will NOT attack a strip of undefended beach, then run roughshod over his rear area.

The same applies to Trek. Maybe a massive starship-to-planet assault would be nearly impossible to pull off - BUT - the threat of such an assault could case the enemy to set up defences and place troops on potentially hundreds of planets. This will "tie down" unit after unit of troops that could be attacking elsewhere...

[Roy Cowan]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by toadkiller:

I think we are sticking to much to current military models.
</font>

Actually, I think there is a lot of emphasis on "low-intensity" conflict in some military quarters, and this is where dedicated combat troops would be most useful in a LUGTrek campaign.

It's no longer necessary to gather up vast numbers of troops to do great damage -- there are more efficient weapons of mass destruction available -- but there would still be many situations that would need to addressed by infantry. Hostage rescue, counter-terrorism, intelligence-gathering (in the sense of direct infiltration and/or extraction), police actions (restoring order to colonies heavily devastated during the Dominion War, etc).

As has been noted by others, the availability of personnel trained in these areas can actually reduce the threat of violence, both by deterrance and by the ability to use more surgical options (whereas lesser-trained troops might carry out these missions in a poorer manner, endangering themselves and others to a greater degree).

OTOH, part of the atmosphere of Trek is that the heroes take on these challenges themselves. Ground troops make sense as background flavor or supplementary forces, but they shouldn't take the spotlight -- or the responsibility -- off of the PCs anymore than treknology should.

As an off-the-cuff campaign suggestion, Section 31 may have helped the Federation by addressing many of these problems behind the scenes so that Starfleet proper did not have to. If Section 31 were to be shut down, the UFP might have to decide how and if they will handle the tasks that Section 31 once did. This can be particularly thorny when weighing efficiency versus principle. This struggle was addressed to some extent during the attempted coup on Earth during the Dominion War.

-- Roy

[Cessna]

Flecha, these are very good points. However, I submit the following:

Television shows – and Roleplaying games, for that matter – thrive on drama. Dramatic situations draw people to both the Star Trek TV shows and the Roleplaying game. Let’s face it, a world without conflict would be a great place to live in, but it would be a very boring background for a TV show/RPG.

You make a great point when you state, “Star trek proposes a better world, one today's people is not used to.” This is very true. But consider – would this proposed world make an engaging TV show/RPG in the long term? After a while, people conducting peaceful survey missions of space would get, well, boring. This may be shallow, but I believe it reflects the prevailing mindset of both TV audiences and RPG players.

As a result of this mindset writers (and GMs) will try to inject drama and conflict into their stories. This is where the “wars” come from. Warfare is inherently a dangerous and dramatic conflict – and when the audience/players do not have to experience the terrible pain and horror of a real war it becomes much more acceptable to include a “war” in a story.

Yes, this goes against what Star Trek was intended to stand for. But Star Trek has always had a kind of “love-hate” relationship with war stories. Sure, there are plenty of anti-war stories. But from the beginning Star Trek has had engaging and dramatic war stories as well – if you don’t believe me, watch the episode “Balance of Terror” from the first season of Old Star Trek. And yes, Star Trek goes to great length to explain that Star Fleet is not military – but Starfleet’s ships carry weapons, their crews have military ranks, and they perform military missions…

Now to address the now-infamous “Marines” dilemma…

We’ve established that there are going to be wars and conflicts in “Star Trek.” Given this, I’d actually think that a dedicated, professional force of ground combat troops could fit in perfectly with a more pacifistic view of the future. Why, you ask?

Without ground troops, a Starship commander has less options for dealing with problems. Picture the following: a group of anti-Federation terrorists is holding a Federation ambassador as a hostage on the surface of a planet. Negotiations have failed. The terrorists have shields, so the Starship commander can’t just stun them from orbit. How does the commander rescue the ambassador? He sends down troops, either by transporter or shuttlecraft.

If he sends a bunch of chumps, they might not rescue the ambassador. They might get killed. Worst of all, innocent people might get killed by stray fire from the terrorists.

If, however, the Starship captain had highly trained commandoes – navy SEALS, British SAS – he should be able to send them in to rescue the ambassador effectively and quickly, with less people getting hurt. They charge in, phasers set on stun, and get the situation taken care of – FAST – and with less injuries/pain than an untrained, unprofessional force could accidentally cause.

The same idea applies for bigger situations. If Starfleet sent a battalion of marines to protect a colony planet from invasion, wouldn’t the colonists be able to live a more peaceful life and concentrate on colonizing? Perhaps the mere presence of a relatively small number of ground troops could stop or (better yet) prevent an invasion…? To use a Star Trek analogy, maybe the Gorn wouldn’t have wiped out that colony if there had been a unit of marines protecting it…?

Another scenario: Starfleet is trying to stop a planet’s civil war. Again, negotiations fail. They can’t just stun troops from orbit forever, and can’t afford to keep a starship on permanent peacekeeping duty. Why not land a contingent of ground troops to keep the two sides separate?

In short, ground troops – call them marines or rapid reaction force – could go a long way towards giving a Starship Captain more options for keeping the peace.

Ironically I’ve never used marines in my Trek campaign – they just haven’t been needed. But if I had a scenario in which their presence would allow Starfleet to solve a situation peacefully, they’d certainly be there. To NOT have ground troops available strains the “suspension of disbelief,” in my opinion…

“If you want peace, prepare for war…”

[Cessna]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Phantom:
I would also like to add here, I have looked at both sides of the arguement and I would like to ask one question. What is the contraversy, someone calls them "marines" the next guy calls them "ground forces" what is the difference?

I, personally, don't like when the "marine" terms is used to describe SF "ground forces", just as I don't like the term "carrier" used to describe a starship...there are no fighters in star trek. At most they are dropships. But apparently it is something I will have to get use to...if current trends continue.</font>

I think one major reason that the Star Trek franchise doesn’t like the term “Marine” is because Star Trek was first produced in the late 1960’s, and back then the term “Marine” conjured up images of the then ongoing war in Vietnam. To me "Marine" has a "historic/naval tradition" sound to it - possibly because I was a US Marine - but obviously many here disagree with me...

[Phantom]

Don't get me wrong, star trek is about the only sci-fi universe I think the term "marine" shouldn't be used. It just goes against the grain...I just think that Roddenberry probably thought the term to militant for the Federation, so he used Security forces (a more defensive term)instead.

Other situations then yes, the naval tradition of the Marine would definetly be the way to go for ships troops.