Moon wargaming - some thoughts.

[Rick]

Right. So you'd need a compressed air/CO2 canister with enough gas to keep it above the ground, keep it stable with small attitude thrusters, and then to move it from place to place - painting it black with the sun above the horizon and puffs of visible gas coming out of it may well be noticeable, do you think?
Personally, I still think that drones based on the 'Battlefield Robot' concept would be more likely; the US has already developed tracked versions and is working on walker versions, so to take that idea to the moon seems more probable to me in the near future. Also, I think that's where the heavy weapons are likely to be - mounted on drones rather than carried by troops - better firing platform, less likely to hole a suit if the recoil sends them back into terrain for example.
I've started jotting down a few ideas already - a couple of pages in, a bit of danger and jeopardy, and not a single mention of weapons so far! 
If I ever get as far as a playtest set it might be quite interesting.

[zrunelord]

Back to the drawing board then .... No air farting drones ...  

But do not discount them , just keep in mind that drones are small & as would be their little puffs of air.

You can also adapt a Boston Robotics Dog to that role , though it may get stuck in deep dust.

So wide tracks or balloon tyres might be better.

z

[Rick]

Honestly, zrunelord, I'm not going to rule them out at all, it's just that I think surface drones are more likely. If you come up with an absolutely essential mission task that only an aerial drone can perform, then you'll find I'm listening.

[Cat]

With the inherent difficulties of tactical movement on the surface, it seems like trenches would be a standard thing with base defenses.  Aerial drones are good for getting over trenches to see what's going on in them and to wreak what mayhem they will.

[Rick]

With the inherent difficulties of tactical movement on the surface, it seems like trenches would be a standard thing with base defenses.  Aerial drones are good for getting over trenches to see what's going on in them and to wreak what mayhem they will.

I agree that, movement-wise, they do make sense. However, they'd be an absolute fire-magnet with little or no cover - they'd never even reach the trench lines, let alone cross them.

[Rick]

You see, my thinking was that the drones, much like the modern day battlefield robot concept, would go forward, amed, and take the fire that would otherwise be directed at human troops, which would follow them. Better to risk a machine in that kind of situation than more fragile humans, especially in the kind of hostile environment of the moon. I'm still not entirely convinced that aerial drones would work as well under those circumstances.

[Pattus Magnus]

Rather than drones, what about a cheap sensor pod launched (relatively) low pressure ballistic system? Essentially a mortar round that carries a camera and transmitter over the enemy position and provides imagery during it (slow compared to Earth) descent. It wouldn’t be able to loiter like a drone can, but if it’s a tiny fraction of the price and the drone will get shot down anyway, it may be an option for getting useful tactical data. Heck, you could even give it a small explosive payload so that when it hits the ground in the enemy’s perimeter it causes some mischief. Or make the explosive package command detonated, so that if it reaches the ground intact it still keeps providing visual data out to its sight horizon- until it becomes tactically useful to pop it (enemy trooper or ‘bot wanders by, or you need a distraction).

[Rick]

That's not a bad idea actually, from the point of view of intelligence gathering - not sure what kind of setup there might be for a moon war though; whether that sort of intelligence gathering is required or not. I need to answer some basic questions about the nature of such a conflict - low intensity skirmishes to hang onto mineral-rich areas or full on widespread carnage? After all, it would all be happening right above us - put a decent telescope in Earth orbit and you've got a satellite's eye view of everything and no clouds to get in the way! 

[Cat]

Small drones can stay low and use whatever cover is to be had flying nape of the moon.

[Rick]

Small drones can stay low and use whatever cover is to be had flying nape of the moon.

Oh. I thought we WERE talking about flying nap-of-the-moon already!

[Cat]

I presume mineral-rich areas are the rockier and cratered sorts of areas with better access to said minerals. 

Also more interesting game table than fighting in the Sea of Billiards.

[Rick]

I presume mineral-rich areas are the rockier and cratered sorts of areas with better access to said minerals. 

Also more interesting game table than fighting in the Sea of Billiards.

You got me there - I really have little or no idea where or what form the mineral-rich areas might take but I don't think we'll ever fight over the sea of billiards! 
Damn - just looked it up; if we want titanium we may yet have to fight in the sea of billiards 'cos that's where it is.

[Rick]

But that does, actually, raise a good point and the beginnings of an idea. So some of the major countries on Earth are in a resources scramble on the moon, establishing titanium mining settlements in the seas with subsidiary mines around the shoreline and further away for other resources. All of which, suddenly, have to be protected from the other major countries trying to take over parts of your territories. Not an all-out war but probably enough scope for section and platoon level conflict.

[Cat]

Lava tubes are the gamers friend!  located between the seas and the highlands.  Provide good potential for habitation and ready made access to underground minerals.

[Cat]

For All Mankind set the conflict (like a great many on Earth) over water rights and the competing bases and opening skirmishes are at Shackleton Crater.