Champions at War!

[Alibear]

Champions at war?

 

If and when it all kicks off in the Gulf, how are you going to handle it in your campaign?

 

Are the lads (and lasses) going to enlist?

Will the powers that be make them enlist?

Will they fight terrorists at home?

Will you have them design a "Suicide Squad" to take the War to Saddam?

Will you just ignore it?

 

Well, what you gonna do?

[Syberdwarf2]

Re: Champions at War!

 

Originally posted by Alibear

Champions at war?

 

If and when it all kicks off in the Gulf, how are you going to handle it in your campaign?

 

Are the lads (and lasses) going to enlist?

Will the powers that be make them enlist?

Will they fight terrorists at home?

Will you have them design a "Suicide Squad" to take the War to Saddam?

Will you just ignore it?

 

Well, what you gonna do?

 

Whether or not the Our Heroes enlist is entirely p to the Players, I think. Certainly, the powers that be would contact them to get them to enlist, but the choice would almost always be theirs. Of course, there probably would be some rouge military/government type with an agenda to 'recruit' someone against their will. IMHO however, such an act would be pigeonholing the PCs into the story I WANT to tell, and not the story that THEY WANT to play in.

 

Although, it would be interesting to see superheroes arrested and detained for 'crimes of vigilantism' or declared 'persons of interest' and then given a choice. Serve a prison sentence, or serve a military tour.

[Monolith]

In my campaign the Afghanistan war is currently going on, but most of the heroes are busy fighting the terrorist group The Children of Islam who were sent by Osama to reak the havok in the US. TCoS is responsible for the toppeling of the Twin Towers and the attack on the Pentagon.

 

My campaign does use a new Ameriforce One group, and the heroes with contacts and KS: The Superhero World will hear something about what that team is doing in a Gulf War. But I really have no intention of getting the heroes involved in the war itself; they are too busy fighting groups like TCoS.

[Agent X]

Not gonna go there in my campaign. Too depressing.

[Supreme]

In the campaign I'm currently running, all the PCs are too young to serve. If they weren't I would probably ignore it, unless the players all told me they wanted to shift to a Persian Gulf campaign. In general, I have a hard time buying governments enlisting free-lance super-hero help. I tend to think that the government would view super-heroes as very powerful, but very loose cannons. They're always disobeying orders, having moral epiphanies, discovering that their deadliest enemy is actually their old flame from college, etc.

[Patriot]

War

 

In my campaign, real world stuffhappens, but the heroes stay at home, and fight to protect the US and earth from adversaries

 

That way nothing has the chance of being downplayed ,or becoming offensive.

 

9-11 happened in game, but the pcs were not allowed to intervene, due to the fact they might have had a chance to stop the attrocity.

 

 

It is not good ground to tread on.

[zakueins]

Re: War

 

The PCs could start to get their powers DUE to 9/11....

 

(One of these days, that game WILL be run. By whom, nobody knows.)

 

Originally posted by Patriot

In my campaign, real world stuffhappens, but the heroes stay at home, and fight to protect the US and earth from adversaries

 

That way nothing has the chance of being downplayed ,or becoming offensive.

 

9-11 happened in game, but the pcs were not allowed to intervene, due to the fact they might have had a chance to stop the attrocity.

 

 

It is not good ground to tread on.

[Armitage]

Originally posted by Supreme

I tend to think that the government would view super-heroes as very powerful, but very loose cannons.

 

On the other hand...

Free-lance=Plausable deniability

[Chaosliege]

I'd ignore it. In our champions game, we go up against reality hopping viains, slaving aliens and ultra powerull supervilains. We wouldn't use it because our heros would have wiped out Osama's army without even breaking a sweat.

[Hermit]

I play the game in a large part, for escapism, thus it doesn't come up much. However I'm not above adapting a current real world event to a comic book kind of story. I'd probably use a fictional country instead of a 'real' one for instance. Another thing to take into account, is the universe some play in may not have the same problems. I maybe wrong, but I don't think the CU mentions 9/11, and it seems as if that may not even have happened in it. However, Detroit is gone in an event caused by Doctor Destroyer. This horror lead as inspiration to James Harmon IV taking up super heroing.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Supreme

In general, I have a hard time buying governments enlisting free-lance super-hero help. I tend to think that the government would view super-heroes as very powerful, but very loose cannons. They're always disobeying orders, having moral epiphanies, discovering that their deadliest enemy is actually their old flame from college, etc.

 

While I quite agree with Supreme that many governments would hesitate to use free-lance superheroes, I also suspect that many nations (if not most) would have superheroes in their military forces. In some countries superheroes might be required to work for the government under penalty of law. For example, while I find it very unlikely that China or Syria would tolerate freelance heroes, America might well have superhero SEAL detachments and Powered Armor-clad Secret Service agents guarding the White House.

 

Now for a more philosophical question: If a character is seen as a hero in his country (Fights street crime, rescues kitties stuck in trees, supports local charities, etc.), but his country is seen as villainous by the rest of the world, is he considered a supervillain or a superhero? How would the rest of the world view Bagdad Bob, Saddam's personal superhero bodyguard? How would Hauptmann Hakenkreutz, the official hero of Nazi Germany, be viewed today?

[Klytus]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Now for a more philosophical question: If a character is seen as a hero in his country (Fights street crime, rescues kitties stuck in trees, supports local charities, etc.), but his country is seen as villainous by the rest of the world, is he considered a supervillain or a superhero? How would the rest of the world view Bagdad Bob, Saddam's personal superhero bodyguard? How would Hauptmann Hakenkreutz, the official hero of Nazi Germany, be viewed today?

 

I think that heroes would be judged on their own accord. Rommell aka "The Desert Fox" was a hero of Germany during WWII, highly respected by other foreign nationals as well... and this was before anybody knew he was part of the conspiracy to kill Hitler.

[Mutant for Hire]

When you really get down to it, realistically the government wouldn't let most superheroes run around playing vigilante the way they do. And yes, the military would probably have a special recruiting program for many types of superheroes.

 

But if we're going to toss that out, I see Saddam in a supers universe hiring a lot of the mercenary supers and supers teams to go and cause havoc with the invading forces, maybe even to assassinate the generals running the invasion. This is going to force the armed forces to make some sort of effort to bring supers in to neutralize any native Iraqi supers as well as the mercenaries that Saddam has brought in.

[gewing]

I have often said that I feel many campaigns under-rate the effectiveness of military forced versus superheros. True, this matches most comics, but...

 

I thought this was an impressive video... 3 times the impact energy of a 120mm smootbore, guided...

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=20030213.htm

 

I don't think, however, that getting a superhero team involved in full scale war is usually a good thing. WWII level, sure. Alien invasion, sure. Run of the mill miliatry conflict, they would be more likely to try to head it off if possible.

 

 

 

Maybe they would go in on their own to find out whether he "really" has wmd, and take them out if they exist...

[Isaiah_26_4]

Chello!

 

Nope. But then, my game is set in the 80's.....

 

Now, if it was set in the 90's, the heroes would stay at home more than likely. Use something along the lines of Monolith's "Children of Islam" idea. Unless, of course, the players wanted to get involved. Then I'd activated them (most are Vets)....

 

Tony

[Agent X]

Originally posted by gewing

I have often said that I feel many campaigns under-rate the effectiveness of military forced versus superheros. True, this matches most comics, but...

 

I thought this was an impressive video... 3 times the impact energy of a 120mm smootbore, guided...

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=20030213.htm

 

I don't think, however, that getting a superhero team involved in full scale war is usually a good thing. WWII level, sure. Alien invasion, sure. Run of the mill miliatry conflict, they would be more likely to try to head it off if possible.

 

 

 

Maybe they would go in on their own to find out whether he "really" has wmd, and take them out if they exist...

 

I think the military could be quite a challenge to standard Champions characters. If the higher-end Marvel and DC characters were translated to mimic what they can do in the comics, the military wouldn't stand a chance.

[GestaltBennie]

Originally posted by gewing

I have often said that I feel many campaigns under-rate the effectiveness of military forced versus superheros. True, this matches most comics, but...

 

 

It's partially because many comic book fans' idea of supers versus the army was primarily formed by 1960s and 1970s Hulk comics, which is several generations behind the current arsenal. (It's not the only thing that's behind the curve; shows like CSI also expose the tech gap in investigations and detective work.)

 

And it's partially because being effortlessly pounded into a bloody smear by mil-spec (as a few military loving GMs I've known would prefer) isn't everyone's idea of a good reason to get together at a gaming table every week. It's a valid campaign approach when the players know what they're getting into and you're trying to run things a little grittier than traditional supers, but if you're running a four color game and the players feel the best way to beat the scenario is to hijack an Apache and use its weapons instead of their powers, there's a disconnect somewhere. :-)

 

Scott Bennie

[gewing]

Gotta agree there. I'm not really a big fan of four color, like a little grittier, sometimes much grittier. I do like fairly clear cut villains, though some can be sympathetic.

 

We used to play what I called "Fantasy Champions" 275+ point fantasy characters. I had an archer with a 23 dex, about 6 skill levels, 4 range levels, and he eventually got a magic bow that allowed autofire and a few "explosive" arrows.

 

The brick could kick my ass though. If Baby Elmo ever enters your campaign, be his friend, then move to the far side of the continent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by GestaltBennie

It's partially because many comic book fans' idea of supers versus the army was primarily formed by 1960s and 1970s Hulk comics, which is several generations behind the current arsenal. (It's not the only thing that's behind the curve; shows like CSI also expose the tech gap in investigations and detective work.)

 

And it's partially because being effortlessly pounded into a bloody smear by mil-spec (as a few military loving GMs I've known would prefer) isn't everyone's idea of a good reason to get together at a gaming table every week. It's a valid campaign approach when the players know what they're getting into and you're trying to run things a little grittier than traditional supers, but if you're running a four color game and the players feel the best way to beat the scenario is to hijack an Apache and use its weapons instead of their powers, there's a disconnect somewhere. :-)

 

Scott Bennie

[RDU Neil]

Originally posted by GestaltBennie

It's partially because many comic book fans' idea of supers versus the army was primarily formed by 1960s and 1970s Hulk comics, which is several generations behind the current arsenal. (It's not the only thing that's behind the curve; shows like CSI also expose the tech gap in investigations and detective work.)

 

And it's partially because being effortlessly pounded into a bloody smear by mil-spec (as a few military loving GMs I've known would prefer) isn't everyone's idea of a good reason to get together at a gaming table every week. It's a valid campaign approach when the players know what they're getting into and you're trying to run things a little grittier than traditional supers, but if you're running a four color game and the players feel the best way to beat the scenario is to hijack an Apache and use its weapons instead of their powers, there's a disconnect somewhere. :-)

 

Scott Bennie

 

While I totally agree about the "feel" of a campaign... I think that the "supers vs military" discussion often misses the biggest issue... logistics and infrastructure.

 

A military weapon might have more total firepower than an average Champions character... but think of all the support required to maintain tanks, Apache's, and F-16s. Ammo, fuel, maintenance parts... all of that stuff is expensive and SLOW. A super just wakes up in the morning, eats some Wheaties, and off she goes to kick @$$.

 

Now, it's true that, unless they are VERY powerful, it would be stupid for a super to take on a fully mobilized military force... but the fact is, they don't have to wait for it to mobilize. Go attack the factories, the supply dumps, command centers, etc. Fly below radar and take out planes on the ground. Super stealth into Ft. Benning's basic training camp and slaughter untrained enlistees in their beds. Cut off supply lines and destroy airport runways so tanks run out of gas, and planes can't land or take off.

 

Supers are so much more FLEXIBLE than military might, that they would win by destroying the infrastructure that society and the military depend upon. Humans get tired, hungry and worn out. Supers don't. Most don't need to breathe or eat... can fly or otherwise easily and quickly move over difficult terrain, etc. These are HUGE advantages in warfare... far surpassing the advantage of "bigger guns."

 

In my campaign, this has always been the question. "Why have the supers NOT taken over the world." Military and super police forces do exist... and in my world, very few metahumans are Alpha level threats in terms of raw power. At this point, society has developed enough high tech, self-supporting, secure and resourced military, that it would be hard for supers to do so... not to mention those metas that protect the status quo... but it would not be impossible. The war would be bloody... with heavy casualties on both sides... but the basic fact is... supers are fast, flexible and able to take out major targets in th time in takes for a tank to rotate it's turret in their general direction.

 

In the end, my answer to "Why haven't the supers taken over the world?" is "Well... they haven't really tried."

[Static UK]

Yup, I'd make mention of the Gulf War/ War on Terrorism. I'd possibly even consider having the players get involved in a mission, especially if there were super powered foes to fight. I'd maybe send them on a rescue mission, rather than have them involved in the actually assault on Iraq.

 

However, my campaign is about to return from the Ice Age adventures tomorrow night, at approximately the correct date, which is now 2000. So 9/11 hasn't even happened yet!

[Mutant for Hire]

Actually, the simple answer to why supers can't take over the world is approximately the same reason that you can't conquer territory with nuclear weapons. Defeating a nation's armed forces isn't too hard. The problem is that there is a subtle distinction between beating an army and conqueting a nation. There is another distinction between conquering a nation and holding it.

 

As the military has learned, you can bomb a target from the air all day long, but to take and hold territory, you need a grunt with a rifle. Why did we shove troops into Afghanistan when we could pretty much bomb the nation into the stone age? Because in the end we needed grunts with rifles to hold territory.

 

Sure, Superman could crush the United States' armed forces, but all he can do is dominate everything in his immediate vicinity. Conquering a nation means being able tp project power over a much wider area than that. Even Superman would need a cadre of people obediant to him to help him conquer the territory. He can pacify an area, but he needs to be able to leave people in it to control it, and he needs to leave people strong enough to crush opposition when he is not there. And of course a rebellious captive population can make life next to impossible for a power trying to hold.

 

Supers can destroy a country's infrastructure and leave it vulnerable to conventional forces, but without those occupying forces, they can't do much more than terrorists can. Why haven't supers conquered the world? Well, in the smaller nations where a powerful man or woman can raise an army and overthrow the nation by force, sure. But no super can conquer anywhere without an army.

 

For that matter, if the army is taking on a powerful super, likely as not they could do nasty tactics like disperse their forces to keep them from being an easy victim to an area attack. Sure, the super teams can crush these smaller forces one at a time easy, but as they do that, these teams call for help and powerful forces start mobilizing to track these supers. Satellite photos and so on. And sooner or later one of these attractive targets is going to be a trap set with anti-super weapons.

 

To use a previous example, if Superman keeps attacking US armed forces, sooner or later he's going to run into a force containing kryptonite and having dozens of smart missiles targetted on the spot. Maybe even a small tactical nuke in place to do the job in his case.

 

And incidentally, the major thrust of military technology development these days has been in the area of speed. Tanks are on the decline. Too big, too slow to move to the battlefield and too slow on it. The emphasis of current military technology is on the ability to mobilize and dispatch forces with ever increasing speed and to hit multiple targest faster. Small and mobile targets as well. The superior mobility of the supers is going to be increasingly eroded by the new thrusts in the military's arsenal.

[Armitage]

Originally posted by Mutant for Hire

Why did we shove troops into Afghanistan when we could pretty much bomb the nation into the stone age? Because in the end we needed grunts with rifles to hold territory.

 

And because bombing them back two weeks wouldn't have been terribly impressive.

[James McIninch]

My 0.02 USD...

 

I've been working on a scenario whereby the supers start out as competent normals (airborne) doing pre-offensive recon and tagging (applying targeting transponders to infrastructure and collateral), when they are beset upon by extra-Iraqi insurgents from alQaeda... various supernatural events occur, the soldiers are transformed into supers to be avatars of justice, harbingers of a great reckoning, and preservers of life.

 

The key becomes trying to figure out what "justice" really is and whether there is a justifiable cause to "kill" a villain. The natives are a mix of innocent nomads and rural farmers, iraqi regulars and republican guard troops, and al qaeda sympathizers. There is an underlying theme that true evil is perpetrated by demons and extra-dimensional entities that corrupt, deceive, and manipulate zealots to carry out their purposes (perhaps with the delusion that they are commanded by God). To add to the insanity, everyone claims to be "muslim", though some are good, some are evil, and many just don't want to be shot at or blown up. The US military thinks they are AWOL or spies for the enemy, and there are also WMDs (man-made and demonically wrought) dotting the landscape.

 

Eventually, all this activity gets exported around the world (courtesy of demonically led islamo-fascist groups whose leaders secretly wish to undermine all religion and social structure on a global scale -- islam not being any exception). The trick is keeping the realism and motivations such that when compared to contemporary events they explain the events (however outlandishly they are)...

[TheEmerged]

9/11 didn't happen in the NeoChampions Universe (my current campaign, in which the PC's are villains and there are heavy Aberrant & Brave New World aspects) -- as such. I moved the date of the destruction of Detroit to September 11, 1992 to compensate, since the date should still matter.

 

As for the upcoming war -- in the NeoChampions Universe, the job was done right the first time, so there is no "next Gulf War" coming. I would be a distraction given the PC's motivations anyway.

[Big Willy]

Here's a scary idea that I only share because I'm not currently running a campaign.

 

In a supers universe, Iraq is a ticking timebomb not because of bombs, VX or anthrax, but because twelve years ago the soil was contaminated by vast quantities of depleted uranium. In the real world, that means an increased incidence of birth defects; but on Earth-Super, it means a generation of children who're going to start developing superpowers any day now...