Re: (TFT) Ty's New TFT Campaign -- Swords 'n Space

["Ty Beard" <tbeard@tyler.net>]

From: "Anthony Merlock" <amerlock@execpc.com>
...
> If the PC's are paramilitary, then your model could work,
because the people
> the PC's will be going against will be armed to the teeth.

Most of my SciFi campaigns are paramilitary in nature.

> Also remember that soft armor of pretty much any sort does not
protect
> well against bludgeoning weapons - a baseball bat to the head
won't be
> stopped by most soft armors.

Agreed. But that just reinforces the fact that melee combat is
the most effective combat system.

> You also seem to be ignoring sabot rounds - if a shotgun shell
is filled
> with adamantium 3mm flechettes rather than a slug or buckshot,
the darts will
> be able to punch thru most soft armor.

The combat rifles fire APDS -- armor piercing discarding
sabot -- rounds. The Stormguns are essentially large calibre
weapons that can usually punch through armor -- and they fire
APDS rounds (and HEAP). Weight, recoil and ammunition are the
problems though.

> Likewise, simple discarding sabot
> rounds with 3mm adamantium penetrators in 6mm cartridges will
penetrate
> most armor, and a low-tech assault rifle could just have new
DS ammo
> put in it, at high rates of fire.

Since the technologies and materials do not actually exist, I'd
like to point out that your "take" on the relative penetration
capabilities is not necessarily dispositive. If it makes you
feel better, I could change the name of the armor from duralloy
to duralon or somesuch.

> In My Opinion:
> If you want realism, guns will be around, and they will be
able to defeat just about any armor.

As a person well-acquainted with modern weapons and warfare --
see my modern miniatures rules at www.tyler.net/tbeard/home.htm
(particularly A Fistful of TOWs) -- I agree that the current
trend indicates that guns are here to stay.

But you seem to be missing a key point -- I reject any notion of
"realism" -- whatever that is. The reason is that no one knows
what technology will look like in 200 years. I believe that any
predictions that turn out to be accurate will merely be lucky
guesses.

Therefore, what's important is that the pieces fit together
logically. The technological assumptions themselves must be
internally consistent -- to a certain point. But let's not get
carried away. I recall an article on energy costs in Traveller
by Greg Costikyan. He found that guns were about 1 million times
too expensive in Traveller and backed it up with lots of
impressive math. But in the end, he admitted that it was still
his favorite RPG. So "realism" be damned. It's nothing more than
thinly disguised conceit in my opinion...

Anyhow, I designed the technological assumptions to produce a
particular type of game. I like TFT and want to play it. Now TFT
is not a very good ranged weapon game (IMHO). Its combat system
works best when modelling melees. But my group has about done
fantasy to death. Therefore, I decided to create a somewhat hard
SciFi universe with a twist. My assorted technological
assumptions produce that result IMHO.

And I'm not as sanguine as you regarding military technology. It
changes fast. Real fast. A few examples:

40 years ago, it would have been considered fantasy to talk
about guiding air to ground missiles through a 3 foot airshaft
from 5 miles away. It *was* science fiction in Star Wars (1977).
Yet it happened in the Gulf War. Similarly, many commentators in
the 1970s were convinced that HEAT rounds spelled the end of the
armored fighting vehicles. They failed to predict Chobham armor.
In the late 1980s, many were convinced that the new depleted
uranium penetrators would once again render tanks fatally
vulnerable. They failed to predict the depleted uranium armored
sheaths that are now deployed on the US M1A1/A2 tanks. I just
read an article claiming that bumblebee sized remotely piloted
vehicles are being developed right now. This would have been
fantasy 20 years ago. For that matter, it would have been
unimaginable in WWI to think of being able to fire every gun in
a Corps at a single target with only minutes of preparation. Yet
that happened 20 years later in WWII. And today, we can do it in
seconds -- and time all shells to land at the same time.

I can generate hundreds more examples, but I think you get my
point.

Therefore, I'll disagree with you on whether my postulation of
highly effective personal armor is "unrealistic".

> If you want swords & space, you should go more
> fanciful and 'fantasy-ish', and have only three or four armors
(light,
> medium, heavy, super-heavy), a multitude of fancy melee
weapons (which you
> already have, although don't forget the bludgeoning or
piercing weapons,
> like warhammers or axes), and only a few fanciful projectile
weapons
> ('stinger' (which ignores most armor, but only causes
'fatigue'-class damage),
> light blaster, blaster, heavy blaster, assault blaster).

Not to my taste. I like hard SciFi -- I was just intrigued by
what would have to happen to bring back melee combat. The
solution -- a type of light, inexpensive armor that renders
kinetic energy penetrators (relatively) ineffective.

> Yes, it's more 'star wars'-ish, but if you try to go too
realistic, you'll
> get more players asking "why can't I use adamantium sabot
rounds to
> give my assault rifle better penetration?".  Or at least, my
players would.

Mine won't. And I have three computer programmers (one with a
physics degree), plus assorted other critical types. They
understand the notion of "it's just a game" quite well. Besides,
they know the folly of presuming that they can predict the shape
of technology hundreds of year from now. Plus, we all get plenty
of realism in our daily jobs...

I also note that the changes in warfare will have a profound
effect on armies. It takes much longer to develop proficiency
with a melee weapon than with a gun. Years versus weeks. This
will change the nature of militaries. The 20th century style
mass army will disappear and be replaced by much smaller long
term professional armies. Of course, there will be the modern
equivalent of peasant levies. But the real fighting will be done
by long-term professionals.

Wars will be much more expensive in that armies cannot be
replaced as quickly. Therefore, I'd expect fewer large scale
wars and more smaller "brushfire" wars. Mercenaries should
flourish in such a setting. It takes a long time to build a
competent army from scratch, so many worlds might simply hire
the work out. And equipping infantry is relatively inexpensive
in this setting -- no $3 million IFVs with $100,000 missiles and
cannons that spew out $30 shells.

I've not fully considered the effect of the armor technology on
vehicles yet, but my guess is that tanks will be armed with
heavy railguns capable of defeating enemy tanks. Missiles will
be relegated to short range fire (say under 500m), as they will
have to use much more of their mass for their warheads than
missiles do today. I don't think I'm going to postulate grav
vehicles, so this means that tracked vehicles will rule the
battlefied, with cheaper wheeled vehicles and maybe hovercraft
(in civilized areas at least). Less well developed planets will
rely on airmobile infantry -- using advanced helicopters,
tilt-rotor craft, etc.

Sounds like fun to me.

--Ty Beard

=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"