EDIT: I did come up with that scene in my head over the last two weekends while in Portsmouth and London. Blame them!
The Last War: 357.
-
Bernard Woolley
- Posts: 953
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 4:06 pm
- Location: Earth
Re: The Last War: 357.
I was seriously thinking of binning that scene as written and starting again. However, pdf27’s points have made me reconsider. Thanks for that.
EDIT: I did come up with that scene in my head over the last two weekends while in Portsmouth and London. Blame them!
EDIT: I did come up with that scene in my head over the last two weekends while in Portsmouth and London. Blame them!
-
Simon Darkshade
- Posts: 1402
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 10:55 am
Re: The Last War: 357.
Having been the chap who originally raised the issue, I see no problem with running with it, even before PDFs eminently applicable point. It is a mess up born of friction and that makes the best drama.
The end of it is unclear, and there is still scope for a surprise ending, but the fundamental issue is that mistakes can be made, which adds to realism. Whether or not it results in the worst case scenario, it illustrates how carefully laid plans don’t survive the chaos of action and un-anticipated events.
Having said that, with the wartime scenario and D-notices, there is somewhat less likelihood of the full operational details of a situation leaking in full or being published, as this is the different shooting war paradigm. Spinning the event to the absolute maximum is a given and a possible morale winner.
Thus, I’d consider whether there might be capacity for some additional elements to come into play in this case, changing the expected outcome. In the alternate, if the worst comes to worst, then changes can occur.
I do like to drill down into data and particularly the consequences of force structures and availability. Once kick off has occurred, pre-existing plans and patterns can be altered, even if they are decades old. Additionally, there is the devil’s advocate case that, if there are nominally sufficient home defence assets, why they cannot have some degree of flexibility in light of the shocking initial wave of Soviet SOF actions.
This is a Britain that is a tad more serious in some aspects than, say, 2023, exacerbated by the TTW and ~3 weeks of WW3. Whilst ‘taking one for the team’ has a certain resonance, this is a situation where the enemy has killed top rank politicians and has a few goes at cities et al. Losing the 4th in line may give some benefit of ‘they are sharing the risk’, but it carries with it wide reaching constitutional consequences. Lose the boss to an errant cruise missile and everyone gets bumped up; it makes sense to secure the immediate line of succession with a bit more effort than other scenarios.
There are arguments on both sides and I’m not hugely invested in them, but it is worth pondering, even as a side note.
The end of it is unclear, and there is still scope for a surprise ending, but the fundamental issue is that mistakes can be made, which adds to realism. Whether or not it results in the worst case scenario, it illustrates how carefully laid plans don’t survive the chaos of action and un-anticipated events.
Having said that, with the wartime scenario and D-notices, there is somewhat less likelihood of the full operational details of a situation leaking in full or being published, as this is the different shooting war paradigm. Spinning the event to the absolute maximum is a given and a possible morale winner.
Thus, I’d consider whether there might be capacity for some additional elements to come into play in this case, changing the expected outcome. In the alternate, if the worst comes to worst, then changes can occur.
I do like to drill down into data and particularly the consequences of force structures and availability. Once kick off has occurred, pre-existing plans and patterns can be altered, even if they are decades old. Additionally, there is the devil’s advocate case that, if there are nominally sufficient home defence assets, why they cannot have some degree of flexibility in light of the shocking initial wave of Soviet SOF actions.
This is a Britain that is a tad more serious in some aspects than, say, 2023, exacerbated by the TTW and ~3 weeks of WW3. Whilst ‘taking one for the team’ has a certain resonance, this is a situation where the enemy has killed top rank politicians and has a few goes at cities et al. Losing the 4th in line may give some benefit of ‘they are sharing the risk’, but it carries with it wide reaching constitutional consequences. Lose the boss to an errant cruise missile and everyone gets bumped up; it makes sense to secure the immediate line of succession with a bit more effort than other scenarios.
There are arguments on both sides and I’m not hugely invested in them, but it is worth pondering, even as a side note.
Re: The Last War: 357.
No matter how this scenario ends, the unnamed no. 4 is Her favorite son, and an attempt on a Royal, even of the USSR has nothing to do with it is going to be laid squarely at their feet and will generate a LOT of "goodwill" in the British public towards the "Evil Empire"…the eventual discovery of his dubious ties to even more dubious Septic groups is going to come too late and will end up on page 13.
-
Kendog52361
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2022 6:56 am
Re: The Last War: 357.
Something else occurred to me, in regards to the attack on the unnamed VIP and the hospital. I can't recall the name of the hospital, but it occurred to me that if they're bringing him there, due to injuries needing him to be hospitalized, it's likely that other VIPs were brought there, as well. Yes, on the one hand, that means grouping together potential targets, but that's probably not viewed as a major risk, since I doubt anybody expects the enemy to target a hospital.
It also allows them to focus a group of AFOs at a single hospital, versus needing to spread "full protection teams" out at multiple hospitals to both guard and protect the VIPs, along with any enemy soldiers/POWs who are found and need medical care, there, and can't wait for a dedicated military hospital. So, I wouldn't be surprised if there were other AFOs there, at the hospital, providing protection/guard services to other potential targets, and some of them may respond to the attack "just outside".
It also allows them to focus a group of AFOs at a single hospital, versus needing to spread "full protection teams" out at multiple hospitals to both guard and protect the VIPs, along with any enemy soldiers/POWs who are found and need medical care, there, and can't wait for a dedicated military hospital. So, I wouldn't be surprised if there were other AFOs there, at the hospital, providing protection/guard services to other potential targets, and some of them may respond to the attack "just outside".