Fighting fire with fire-the concept of all out war

[devinpatterson]

Edward Sallow (later to become Caesar) introduced the concept of total war to the Blackfoot tribe. It was a concept so brutal, ruthless and unforgiving it forever changed the wasteland.

It is a principal that guides the legion, and has been the foundation of it's strategy, allowing it to conquer broad swathes of the post apocalyptic world.

 

The NCR is a democratic republic, and as such has high ideals to uphold in a world concerned with little more than survival. As such their strengths and virtues are also their Achilles heal, It may even be their greatest weakness when facing an opponent that has no morals, no reservations and only a single minded quest to subjugate or destroy. Like all governments they have more than one face or facade.

 

I have an idea or pitch that I think would encompass these game world realities and bring up some interesting choices.

Essentially it would be a small detached unit of black ops rangers, ghosts that have no official recognition, and are not bound by the Republics morals, laws or other restrictions. They would essentially wage the same "total war" ideology on the Legion. Their guiding principal would be the ends justify the means, and almost any means would be justified in destroying the Legion. If that meant killing women, children and other non combatants to cripple the legion it would be justified for the greater good. These broken and tortured souls would be willing to do whatever was needed to stop the legion.....and what the republic could never consider (at least publicly).

 

I believe there is rich material here for deeper moral questions, quests and a chance to really showcase the gritty, horrific nature of the legion, and how we become what we hate/fear.

 

I'd appreciate any input and requests for what potential scenarios players might enjoy.

[Snipa299]

It sounds like it'd make for an extremely interesting expansion, and if it were to be done well, I would probably look into it. The issue I see is that it would require quite a bit of story writing, integration into the main game and story-line, and good voice acting to make it fit. Not only that, but this seems like a project that would require a few people working together to get it done in any reasonable amount of time. If you can manage to pull it off though, then hats off to you. I personally hope someone will take up this project.

 

Good luck.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Snipa299

[dubiousintent]

Rich material indeed. But as a retired military (Army, but not Special Forces), I'd like to put some context around such an NCR unit. The primary assumption (which may not hold up in the FNV universe but such exceptions ought to be pointed out to provide context), is that the NCR has similar to the "Uniform Code of Military Justice" (UCMJ) which governs how military personnel are required and expected to conduct warfare.

 

The UCMJ always applies, even on "black ops" (to the best of my knowledge). There are defined "rules of engagement" for any "combat theater", which can vary by theater and mission. Combatants have to be "engaged in hostilities". Mere possession of a weapon is not enough, unless that is defined as justification in the "terms of engagement" (i.e. legally no "non-combatant" is supposed to possess a "weapon"). This is why you get some of these news videos where troops are calling for permission to fire: they have to get "clearance" under the "terms of engagement". The usual reason is to avoid civilian (i.e. "non-combatant") casualties or damage to historical landmarks. The "terms of engagement" have to comply with the UCMJ (or they are not "lawful"; and there is an obligation to raise objections through the chain-of-command to orders you perceive to be "unlawful". This is always risky and tricky; best done before a mission). There is also a duty to report violations of either the "terms of engagement" or the UCMJ to higher authority after a mission.

 

From various documentaries I have seen on "special forces" training, part of their training is on "morally ambiguous" situations, above and beyond what regular troops receive due to the independent nature of their operations. Things like: "what do you do when the leader of a guerilla band you are working with wants to torture a prisoner of war for information critical to the accomplishment of your current mission?"

 

There are three basic missions: "recon", "retrieval", and "strike". (Possibly more, but my guess is they all can be broken down into variations of those three.) Each of those types of mission can present a "morally ambiguous" situation as they are always into "contested" territory.

* Recon: infiltrate, observe, and withdraw undetected. If detected, break contact as quickly as possible and call for rapid extraction from a designated rendezvous point. Getting back with your information is your priority.

* Retrieval: infiltrate, recover possession of something that was "lost" (person, body, item, information, etc.), and withdraw, preferably undetected. If detected, break contact as quickly as possible and call for rapid extraction from a designated rendezvous point. The recovery is your priority.

* Strike: infiltrate, locate an objective, eliminate the objective, and withdraw. As this tends to attract an armed response, and is usually behind enemy lines, a quick means of extraction is essential. The elimination of the objective is your priority.

 

In all of these, if "rapid extraction" (i.e. aircraft, vehicle, horse, boat, or some other means of supplemental transport) is not possible, the unit has to be able to outrun and out-endure the pursuit.

 

Military training is all about "completing the mission is priority one". All three basic missions have the requirement to "infiltrate", which means "without being noticed or the alarm being raised". This is the most common point that presents a "morally ambiguous" situation: a "non-combatant" threatens to reveal the unit's presence, but it can occur at any stage. However, situations are less ambiguous once the primary mission has been accomplished.

 

Now, a "non-military" civilian authorized unit (i.e. CIA black ops unit) or "non-governmental organization" (NGO) unit (i.e. mercenaries) is governed by local law or in accordance with treaties between the host country and the employer of the unit. But they have the same "moral ambiguity" situations.

 

In all such situations, the number of people with immediate knowledge about the situation is limited. It's relatively easy to discount "enemy knowledge" as "propaganda" instead of something to worry about. But higher authority has "broad picture" considerations that can make the deniability of a small unit more politically advantageous in a particular situation. Members of the military are all ultimately "expendable" to the politicians and the generals "big picture".

 

Small units, especially if they have a history together of dependency and trust, become more likely to place "mission focus" on a higher priority than "abstract legal/ethical" considerations especially if that is the way a strong leader is pushing.

 

Of course, the key consideration is one of how likely the unit feels it is to escape repercussions of a violation. Assurances of immunity by higher ups (legitimately or otherwise) makes a unit more likely to choose "mission priority" over "moral rectitude". (Once you have engaged in killing "the enemy", it becomes a question of who you categorize as "the enemy". When you are behind enemy lines, that can easily become "everyone else". Which is why such units undergo scrutiny and evaluation to weed out those too susceptible to blurring the lines.)

 

So, for your purposes, you need to consider the constraints your unit is expected to operate under. If you want the character to start out by joining such a unit, they will need to build trust with the other team members. For game purposes, most likely you will want a PC to have a certain level of experience and NCR faction reputation so it would be logical they would be asked to put together a team to conduct such operations. The other members of the team should probably have something (personality traits?) that affect their reactions to the leader's choice of solution to the "morally ambiguous" situations over time. Team members should NOT be "essential", so the loss of team mates will have a negative effect on morale and acceptance of the PC's leadership in such "morally ambiguous" situations. Conversely, successful mission without losses should boost it. Injuries incurred would have a moderating effect. Enough loss of confidence in the PC's leadership would eventually lead to a member reporting "violations".

 

-Dubious-

[Snipa299]

Hmm, well considering UCMJ I don't believe that, in the FO universe, there would be an established law outside of the NCR considering lawful terms of engagement. Also considering that the wasteland is essentially a No Man's Land, there would be no other governing authority to press charges against the NCR, or this ghost-squad, should things go sour. (The Legion doesn't count since they themselves conduct such actions on a regular basis and have no diplomatic relations with the NCR)

 

It seems that most of the story action/drama would take place within the squad itself, and perhaps with a couple higher-ups within the NCR that manage things. On a side-note, I have an idea on how the player could be recruited into the squad in the first place.

 

The player could probably be visited by a member of the NCR once their reputation reaches the "Loved" status and has gained access to the safehouse. Such an invitation should also be dependent on the player's karma score, with scores towards the far end of Good discouraging recruitment while Neutral would probably be desirable by the recruiter. Either that, or you can have the Karma score, no matter what it may be, effect how others in the squad react to you and could possibly have it limit your actions in the field in the form of story choices.

[devinpatterson]

Rich material indeed. But as a retired military (Army, but not Special Forces), I'd like to put some context around such an NCR unit.

-Dubious-

Taht is a lot of in depth (and very useful) info, I think I'm going to have to look it over in detail before I even attempt to comment on it in a semi cogent manner.

 

Hmm, well considering UCMJ I don't believe that, in the FO universe, there would be an established law outside of the NCR considering lawful terms of engagement. Also considering that the wasteland is essentially a No Man's Land, there would be no other governing authority to press charges against the NCR, or this ghost-squad, should things go sour.

I don't believe dubiousintent is suggesting anything along those lines. He's referencing an *internal* code of conduct within the military, not suggesting the UCMJ is relevant to other forces or entities outside of the Republic. This isn't equivalent to something like the geneva conventions in our world, which are agreements/treaties between various nations/countries. This is solely established, regulated and enforced by the NCR, dubious isn't making the argument that the NCR version of the UCMJ has any validity outside of the republic (If I'm wrong dubiousintent, please correct me).

I do believe the NCR would and do form a great deal of their government on the bedrock of the united states and the state of Ca. "The NCR is a democratic federation, modeling itself on the government of pre-War United States. The government is divided into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. The legislative branch is the Congress, staffed by representatives elected by their states and senators, forming two houses: House of Representatives and the Senate." from the wiki. So I believe they would have a version of the UCMJ for their military branches.

 

It seems that most of the story action/drama would take place within the squad itself,

I too believe that is a very important aspect, but there are many aspects to this story that could also take center stage depending on the palyers focus. For example the basic philosophy is that if Caesars legion prevails there won't be anyone to champion the cause of the republic, so the moral ambiguity of how far the player is willing to go to make sure that doesn't happen can be a focus.

Another important focus can shed some light on the legion itself. According to the wiki "Those living under the Legion's control are considered subjects, not members of the Legion proper. Lands under Caesar's protection enjoy stability and security far greater than lands outside its sphere of influence. Traders that have to cross NCR's territories with a guard contingent can safely travel on Legion trade routes alone, without any fear or danger of being attacked by raiders or other criminals. [2] Caesar is considered a harsh, but benevolent lord by those who reside inside his domain but have not been enslaved into his army[3]." that's a view of the legion we don't often have a chance to appreciate, on the front lines. It is also a potential vulnerability of the Legion in the same way that the NCR's civilian population is to the republic.

Anyway I should probably grab some sleep so I can better communicate my thoughts on the subject, instead of the word salad rambling I'm doing in this post.

[dubiousintent]

The subject of "total war" as a concept is, in and of itself, from a pragmatic perspective: a bad policy.

 

Why are you at war in the first place? In the end it always breaks down to: "control of resources". These include people as well as real estate and natural resources.

 

"Total war" destroys population, existing infrastructure, and depletes natural resources as well as opposition. Carried to the extreme you are left with worse than a "wasteland"; the equivalent of a lifeless moonscape. The so called "pyric victory". The surviving losers (which you need to help you restore your conquered territory to anything approaching "useful") hate you with a deep abiding emotion that lasts generations. (Just look at the basis for any of the long lasting enmities and "intractable" conflicts in the world today.)

 

Military discipline is the difference between a "mob" and an "army". Discipline is what allows an "army" to retreat to a more advantageous position and no further, where a "mob" starts running and doesn't stop until it's exhausted. Discipline depends upon leadership, morale, training, and the certainty that transgressions will be punished and not ignored. When you start blurring those lines, your units degenerate into "war bands" each looking out only for themselves. They no long trust in their upper leadership, knowing that they are not bound by any constraints either, and the constant suspicion that leadership is merely enriching itself at the expense of your lives. ("The meals are always better at the commander's table.") When your daily life consists of a constant litany of "bare existence or sudden death" to both yourself and others, the threat of death becomes fatalism. Fatalism leads to an attitude of "get what you can while you can enjoy it now, for tomorrow you die". And discipline fades while the mob grows.

 

Caesar's approach is fine for Caesar, because he is "top dog". Without a check on his ambition, he might just conquer everything. But then when he dies, it will all fall into warring "fiefdoms" as the various unit leaders and the underlying enmity of the conquered erupt to fight over the scraps of empire. A bad situation will get worse. This scenario is borne out throughout history around the globe. And the ability to "bounce back" degrades each cycle.

 

From the NCR's perspective, their best policy is to foster internal strife among Caesar's leadership and convince the conquered subjects to continue resistance and preparation for the unstable situation following Caesar's inevitable death. Covert missions to that end will be a constant series of "recon", "retrieval", and "strike".

 

-Dubious-

Edited February 17, 2017 by dubiousintent

[devinpatterson]

The subject of "total war" as a concept is, in and of itself, from a pragmatic perspective: a bad policy.

Unfortunately I haven't had time to really dig into your first post or this second one (slammed for time, and I want to give it the proper attention it deserves), but just skimmed it (so I apologize if I misunderstand the central concepts). I think though it would be useful to define the term total war as it's used in this posts context and the game world.

"Caesar introduced the tribe to the concept of total war against the tribes around them. Sallow knew that, even though the tribes had always fought each other via occasional skirmishes, he considered them to only be "playing at war," having never seen warfare at its most destructive and barbaric state. They defeated the weakest of their enemies first and enslaved many of the able-bodied survivors; but Sallow had the rest, including women and children, killed to the last, leaving their remains piled high. When Sallow surrounded the next of the Blackfoot tribe's foes, they refused to surrender. Sallow brought an emissary of the tribe back to witness the fate of the first tribe. The tribe surrendered, rather than suffer the same fate. The concept of total war was an entirely new and terrifying type of conflict that the tribes had never encountered before. Such brutality would form the core of the Legion's tactics and philosophy." from the wiki.

 

Essentially I see this as having many aspects that integrate and are related to the actual warefare (for instance terrorizing and demoralizing your opponents).

What I'm pitching here is a very small group of NCR senators or possibly only the president having knowledge (with plausible deniability), and clandestinely approving methods similar to the legions, for a specialized black ops squad. I.e A force multiplier that far exceeds the value they could bring on the battlefield.

They would not be focused on, for instance civilian casualties, or wholesale destruction of resources and would try to avoid such. But having much greater flexibility and less moral restrictions in re: to how they accomplish mission objectives could result in such losses with the final objective being the highest priority. This frames and focuses the quests, show casing the question of moral ambiguity.

[dubiousintent]

That ("total war" as described) is a very legitimate "policy decision" to have made. But it has very serious political ramifications as I only touched upon above. (There are entire books and graduate college level courses on the subject.)

 

The thing about "plausible deniability" means that such a unit HAS to be outside of the military (at least one based upon the current US constitution). The "Chain of Command" runs:

* President (civilian, elected official, and thus responsible to the voters for his policies: internal and international. Otherwise he has to be impeached by the Senate, and only then can be "taken to court".)

* Secretary of Defense (civilian, an appointee by the President and replaceable at his pleasure).

* Commanders of the Combatant Commands (following the Goldwater–Nichols Act in 1986; career military officers, usually of General rank).

* Downward through the specific military chains of command (all military, usually career until you reach those who have completed less than two enlistments).

 

For the President, his "deniability cutout" has to either be someone outside of his direct authority (because the buck always stops in the Oval Office), or with the Secretary of Defense (whom he is still responsible for even if he "cuts him loose"). Everyone else is under the UCMJ.

 

An NGO is the most likely scenario, with "ex-military" being recruited for it. Certainly the NGO can "claim" that they have the backing of the "those in authority". Whether it's true or not will only be revealed if the unit fails badly enough to "need the cover" of that "authority" and will most likely not get it even if it actually exists. "The Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions" is why it's called "plausible deniability".

 

But as I said up front: lots of potential scenario material.

 

-Dubious-

Edited February 18, 2017 by dubiousintent