Page 1 of 1

Re: FT Riley kansas?

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:03 pm
by Dustin Fireblade
Lord Rashagoth wrote:the talk about military bases in the dinosaur swamp book got me wondering what happened to Ft riley, Kansas.

anyone know?


Whatever was left was likely picked over clean by the surviving NEMA/US military forces, then any other looters and finally the Commanche Preserve.

Re: FT Riley kansas?

Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:24 am
by Syndicate
Lord Rashagoth wrote:the talk about military bases in the dinosaur swamp book got me wondering what happened to Ft riley, Kansas.

anyone know?


Are you at Ft. Riley?

Ft Riley kansas?

Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2004 4:29 pm
by gaby
I Think Fort Riley will be one of the Several city-states in Kansas (see Aftermath page 122)

I Hope ther will be a (Nebraska,Kansas and Oklahoma) worldbook!

Who wants to see it?

Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2004 10:30 pm
by glitterboy2098
arissa65 wrote:Not sure, I would assume the bases along with most others fell. NEMA must have not had much of a military left. Or just assume the military stopped using big forts/bases when they stoped acting like a army. (Replacing Tanks, IFV's, and Self Proppled Guns with Glitter Boys, strikes me as a real bad idea).


NEMA is not the military.

NEMA is a multi-national replacement for the CIA, FBI, Delta Force, NSA, and the like. all the paramilitary forces. as well as state and national police forces.


the militaries of Canada, mexico, and the USA were still intact.


it is unlikely that the actual militaries replaced their tanks, IFV's, and Self Propelled Guns with GB's. (more than likely the Iron Heart Armaments Tanks, IFV's, and MLRS vehicle are the NEA (Northern Eagle Alliance) main combat vehicles.



NEMA, being a showcase force and taking on a role similar to police, are given the best equipment to provide a sense of security to the american people (may not be much use, but knowing that they are there helps avoid potential panic)


the militaries, while using their own GB's and a dedicated military version of the SAMAS (the Eagle SAMAS from spirit west.), would not drop conventional armored vehicles.

1) its not cost effective. a tank only costs about 1-2 million credits at most. a GB costs over 10 million. for the price of one GB you can produce nearly an entire company of tanks.

2) tanks are easier to use than power armor, and require less training.

3) most tanks are strategicly and tacticly faster, owing to the fact they can fire while moving, and don't have to stop.




now, i imagine the GB and SAMAS were in heavy use by mechanized infantry units, and by paratroops.