From: dianne McCatty [dianne@zenn.com] Sent: Tuesday, 10 March, 1998 11:26 To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Blue Planet Slang Ok, Since we are on the topic of weapontry. Why aren't there such things as EMP emmiters. Or how about new chemical/biological agents, or gun that fires IR homing Peizo (spelling?) finned bullets. I recal deleting a file about cat mercenaries. If any of you have this reply soon. David Krahm *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: William Hindmarch [hindmarc@stu.beloit.edu] Sent: Sunday, 22 March, 1998 4:00 To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Mechs vs. Tanks > Put him in a 50 foot tall 'mech, and yes, he can carry even bigger guns as > rifles, but what's the point? I don't want to meet anything that M-60 or > BMG loaded with explosive or APFSDS can't hurt. Your effectiveness is > increased into the ridiculous realm, but you have to have an on-board > fusion plant, and it cost one hell of a lot! Incredibly expensive utilities that contain firepower in the realm of the near-ridiculous? This makes me think of the US Air Force and Naval Air powers. By world standards, our air combat units outclass neighboring units to the point of being ridiculous to even have. It would seem a waste. Why do we need so much power and what not? From the military standpoint - the best way to win is to not have to fight, a la The Art of War. Outclass your enemies such that they never strike. If one aircraft of ours is worth a dozen of theirs, then we should have room for human error. In theory. From the engineering standpoint - if these aircraft are so expensive why bother? Well, ironically, *this* is a good reason to overload them with weaponry. First, get all the use you can out of a single aircraft. There are entire countries that could be neutralized by less than a single US fighter squadron. In theory. Second, presumably, by spending enough on weapons for the aircraft, it will be armed such that no one will try to approach it. And, if someone does, it will survive the conflict, and we (in a sense) save money. In Battletech I've seen 'mechs evolving along this route, except that the huge expanses and increased resources of space (and the time from one system to another) has allowed a variety of nations to achieve this level of expertise, such that warfare regresses to an earlier state: that of matched forces (like medival and renaissance combat) so that simply having the weapons doesn't work - you have to use them. Suddenly the size of the weapons doesn't matter anymore, just the use of them. Then, once the technology slips away, they become power fortresses again - the strong get stronger, so everyone starts stealing technology to advance faster or even things up, and people break even, and it keeps going. To a certain extent it makes sense for the Battletech universe, but sooner or later you'd think someone would start developing weapons on the relative scale of nuclear conquest, and change the field again. In other words, the Battletech logic works to a point in "grounded" SF. Anime is just comic-book/space opera SF (and that's great, too), so doesn't need this logic. Mechs are cool, so we use those. Jets are cool, so we use those. Transforming is cool, so we do all three. > For that matter, why even bother giving Supertroopers power armor? > They're scary as hell without it! And, after all the above, this is still so true. "Fear will keep the local systems in line." Until someone else builds an equal or better mousetrap (or power armor, or Death Star, or whatever), and then it all starts over again. But, in a stylistic and literary sense, your argument is the much more satisfying one. And so I ramble on. wil *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Greg Benage [gbenage@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, 22 March, 1998 16:56 To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Blue Planet Slang -----Original Message----- From: dianne McCatty To: blue_planet@mpgn.com Date: Sunday, March 22, 1998 4:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Blue Planet Slang >Ok, >Since we are on the topic of weapontry. Why aren't there such things as EMP >emmiters. There are - they're called "nuclear bombs." Of course, they have limited utility as personal infantry weapons. ;-) >Or how about new chemical/biological agents, In terms of the setting, I think most world powers would be pretty responsible about these kinds of weapons in the wake of the Blight. In terms of the game, frankly, they just aren't that fun to roleplay. GM: Okay, you've contracted an engineered strain of Ebola Zaire...roll for organ decay and internal bleeding. Player: Eh... Other Players: Er, we start building a fire. >or gun that fires IR homing >Peizo (spelling?) finned bullets. You'll probably see some info on "smart rounds" in Wetware. Greg Benage Biohazard Games *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message.