And if you play an all Irregular force you'll know what an anarchist military would be like. There actually used to be a rule where you can take an Irregular Lt. (Morlocks had a profile) if your entire force was Irregular.
The Nomads are experimenting with various forms of political anarchy that comes out of their desire to reject the traditional social structures of the Sphere. Notably Tunguska seems to do this the least, arguably they're Anarcho-Libertarians but at the same time they aren't really Libertarians and in fact they have a very strong central state which is all about allowing the smooth running of business. Anarcho-corporate maybe? Anyway. Point is, Anarchism says that you minimise hierarchy in public life. The original anarchists were anti-monarchists and anti-aristocrats, they wanted to replace the class system with equality of opportunity but split with the Marxist Communists over the whole Dictatorship of the Proletariat (which Bakunin thought was repressive and unnecessary, turns out he was probably right). Political anarchism does not mean that your community defence militia can't have a chain of command, what it means is that wherever you are in that chain, you have your job, but none of these positions entail social privileges or are granted due to any kind of inherent social status. Basically, in a purely anarchist military force, all of the soldiers agree to go along with a chain of command so they can do an effective job. But the guy in charge is socially on the same level as the guy at the bottom, it's just that the guy pulling the trigger has that job, and the guy sending troops to various locations has that job. The guy pulling the trigger goes where the guy who sends troops around tells him, because he knows that the guy sending the troops around is good at that, has the intel, and that's their responsibility. So you have a hierarchy, but also you don't follow orders from your LT because they're the LT and you are ingrained to follow orders, you do it because we all agree that's the best way to do things and we have a social contract with the LT where we consent for them to be in charge. Probably who is in charge has a more lose definition in any given time in the NMF than other militaries as well; when the squad needs to do something where the hacker is best suited to direct them, they do, and the previous LT gets on with whatever the hacker says or whatever. Anyway point is, anarchism =/= everyone does what they want and nobody does as they are told. Anarchism means that you minimise social hierarchy where possible. Which means that in public, the opinion of the private is worth as much as the opinion of the LT, and the private can say to the LT "you're an asshole," but on mission, they do their job properly. Although being a commander in the NMF probably means that you are essentially chosen by the troops under your command because they trust your character, deeds and personal ability, and in all likelihood requires a certain level of charisma and experience. Probably nobody goes straight in as a newly minted officer; everyone starts as a private and works it up. You don't get respect because you're an Officer, you're an Officer because you are respected.
I end up in loss of lieutenant often enough to have a fair idea. I think i failed to make myself clear: I'm not arguing that a structureless military would function. I was trying to agree with McNamara that for a small spec ops squad it's feasible for everyone to mind their own job and watch each other's backs without rank. But of course ITS requires an Lt profile so this is a purely fluff claim anyway.
Lmao But no, I think they would get eaten alive. Maybe with a MGS4 style instant communication nanobots it could happen without a clear leader. But any hesitation from disagreement is basically instant death.
Nah we will get a curve ball, Sun tzu and saladin in Tunguska, after their private chat away from Aleph they decided to join Tunguska also someone will Pirate Achilles and put him in black and red armour. on the anarchy front I dont think any Nomad ship operate on full anarchy, maybe 1-2 Bakunin modules do but that anarchy has limits inside it (and from some outward pressure if their actions are seen as damaging to the ship itself) I think all Nomad ships can have justification of chain of command, Tunguska its through some professionalism and likely clearly defined jobs, though executive order is more fitting. Bakunin it would likely be a person with high social capital (not same as born nobility), someone like Kusinagi could in theory have chain of command due to general respect of her actions during earlier fluff events or particularly highly ranking Moderator with a talent for re enforcing order amongst Bakunin crowds. For some reason I find correg might have a harder time enforcing chain of command as they seem to be a "everyone pulls their weight equally" group, veteran would make more sense with them just ignoring fact that leader died and can handle themselves. If chain of command ever exists in Nomads though, it should be locked to sectorial access only and not in vanilla as the personality or command structure that lets them throw weight around enough in their factions military wont work on Nomads from other ships (apart from maybe Kusinagi (due to her likely being considered a hero anyway, or some high ranking Tunguskan due to their veto ability among nomads, but I think executive order works better there). But ye if we wanted to add more leadership options (id prefer put LT choices remain limited in Nomads) Tunguska-Executive Order Bakunin- Chain of command kusinagi Correg- more veterans Would be my approach If any person could be an all morlock team leader it would be Bran, having survived the Morlock group he likely has some ability to keep them from turning on him most likely due to skill and force of personality.
Now I know that fate pushed me towards collecting Nomads just so that at some point in my Nomad life I could be at the right place and time and read that magnificent post of @Solar - seriously this is a truly majestic summary. Kudos.
Yeah they have nice stuff THAT'S HOW THEY GET YOU. I mean I don't agree with anarchism but you don't do anyone any favors by not understanding it.
Haha thanks! I actually do have a streak of political anarchism in me so I love the Nomads, but yeah the faction is definitely not operating their military the same way the other ones are!
Great post! Reading a bit up on it, I have to agree that there probably is some form of command necessary, but contrary to Civilized Barbarian's Irregular analogy, I tend to lean more towards using Veteran to represent it (maybe like Mothman suggested mostly for CJC, who's structure strikes me as the best form of an anarchist military anyways (actually the suggestion is a really good comprise, I absolutely support)). I suppose since there is no pressure to comply it's up to the individual to choose, if they want to act more in a Irregular or Veteran way and that's represented by the training of the troops. Still a shame that we don't have Veteran in Nomads then though! I guess the argument could be made that in a situation were you lost your elected most capable commander, anarchistic troops might fold like any other, but then again it also shouldn't matter who dies since everybody should count equally in such a force too. Surprisingly I am coming more and more to the conclusion that DBS is actually what I always wanted from Corregidor! Pretty ironic, but it works for me. If they only had a Bandit and HD+, that would make them perfect!
In a situation where the guy who's job it is to tell people where to go, and when, and what to do when they get there, is taken out, that's going to be bad. Doesn't really matter how they got the job, the job is still critical and the loss is felt badly. Who tells us where to go now? The Commander is no more socially significant than the trigger pullers but on the battlefield their role is still key.
It's like you put together custom furniture and you have a guy who keeps track of hundreds of instructions. Then he doesn't come back from lunch. You might be able to find his binder and flip to the right spot but you can't expect 0 seconds of downtime. He could be paid less than you it doesn't change that losing a vital instructional role causes chaos. I don't even know if something like Chain of Command exists irl right now. We have a chain of command but that's already represented in the game by choosing a new one at the end of the turn, on the timescale of the game that's very quickly. That's why I mentioned 15 BS sharpshooters. In the scale of the game your 13 BS troops are already sharpshooters; 15 is superhuman. Recovering from LoL in one turn is already a fast recovery; Chain of Command is superhuman.
wait are we getting chain of command in tunguska i told only suckky armies got that skill? (/taunt YJ pano ariadna aleph haq toha starco and JSA)
Ok valid points! It still does not explain though why Japanese space bullies and fanatical assassins have a way easier time executing it then anarchists. Mini Judge Dredds and the massively beloved super Sikh super have their issues, so they are fine, I guess.
We after you've shot the Lt in the back of their head you need to be able to stand up and take charge. Also, game balance.
Having pacified cultists under your command has its advantages. (Almost?) every force with that setup (ISS and Phalanx as well) has CoC.
I pretty much picture it like this and I think the fluff backs it up too. I can think of two fluff examples that show a Nomad officer giving orders and interacting with their troops... -The piece in the new Uprising book where Starco's Captain Cardoso is touring her ship with a Warcor -The piece in the Icestorm rules where the Nomad officer is briefing his team on the way to the Motoronica facility These show nomad officers definitely do give orders and even dispense punishments for laxes in discipline. But they also show the relationship between Nomad officers and their troops is very informal to the point where they tolerate backchat from soldiers (This also shows soldiers feel confident to question their orders if they disagree with them and joke around with their superiors)
