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

["Anthony Merlock" <amerlock@execpc.com>]

Ty wrote (and I snipped much):
> > 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.

Actually, I also like hard SciFi.  I would just have a lot of trouble
believing that military forces would go back to melee combat, rather
than invest billions to develop ranged weaponry to defeat current
personal armor.  I see them investing in sonic, radiation, flechette,
explosive, large-calibre-penetrators, laser blinding weapons, chemical
and biological weapons before resorting to melee weapons for their armed
forces.

Unless, of course, that all happened, with brutal and bloody results, and
then political and sociological forces went in to effect to limit weaponry
"galaxy"-wide.

> > 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...

That is *so* cool... I have trouble just finding anyone else who doesn't
believe that D&D is the penultimate RPG.
 
> 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.

To me, too.

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