A question for discussion by the ListMind Gestalt, especially those elements
of it with Real World(tm) experience of such things......
Do SAWs become less significant in terms of the overall firepower of a squad
or fireteam, as the tech level of the individual soldiers' weapons increases?
In the case of WW2, the German MG34 or MG42 was often quoted as being the main
weapon of their infantry squad, with the riflemen being little more than
ammunition porters to keep the LMG fed. This we can
consider the LMG/SAW to represent a very large part of the squad's
aggregate firepower output, with the rest of the soldiers' individual weapons
adding relatively little.
In the present day, when (in most armies anyway) each soldier carries
an individual weapon capable of a considerable fully-automatic
firepower output, the SAW is obviously still useful - but it probably
doesn't represent quite as large a% of the squad's total firepower as the LMG
did in earlier times.
Extrapolating this to near (or far) future weapons, will this trend continue?
Will the individual soldiers' weapons get better to a degree that the SAW
becomes effectively obsolete because EVERYONE can lay down a huge amount of
automatic fire?
Or, should we assume that the SAW will increase in effectiveness in proportion
as well, so will still represent a significant fraction of the overall
firepower?
Discuss...... ;-)
G'day,
> From Derek's experience (admittedly nearly 20 odd years ago now) the
Other nations will have done it differently back then and weapons of today may
have progressed some, but from the discussions Derek and I have had with guys
who've seen combat (and the 4 books of interviews I've read this summer
covering interviews with guys in Australian army that have seen combat WW1 to
now) the power of an MG still out does that of combat rifles and so they
remain a significant component of a units fire power (and certainly dictate
tactics). Just because the rifles evolve there is no reason to think they'd
stop developing heavier support weapons along the same lines.
After all how sexy would Prince Harry look holding a piddly rifle for the
press instead of letting lose on a honkingly huge gun?;)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lInt
eresting question Jon. Pardon the lengthy reply.
If we assume that shortly many squaddies will have the ability to successfully
engage enemies in hard cover (without top protection) and in
windows using laser-ranged grenades from every AR in the squad, then we
have to imagine a ubiquity of firepower previously unseen. Presumably other
forms of grenades will enable direct engagement of light armoured and
soft-skinned
vehicles and potentially powered armour when it appears.
At the same time, a SAW still tends to have 1) greater (practical) range, 2)
greater accuracy at range, and 3) a sustained fire capability that outpaces
the rifles of the squad. Heavier and replaceable barrels, belt feed
mechanisms, bipods, and so forth. Further, if we start to project more
portable AGLs (25mm auto AGL with a bipod for instance), we may find that the
SAW maintains a lot of support power. Even now, the 40mm AGL has a significant
range and a great ability to lay some seriously dangerous ordinance onto a
target at a high rate and fairly continuously, as long as ammo is in easy
supply.
Now, I've heard some argue we need to move ARs in favour of heavier rounds or
even 10:1 flechettes to deal with newer armour for persons and perhaps shortly
for exoskeletons. I've heard comments saying the 25mm GL grenade will be too
small to be effective against many targets and still weighty to carry. I've
even heard arguments suggesting infantry will be replaced or at
least preceded by swarms of autonomous sensor and weapons-capable robots
of small size. All of these things may prove true, or not. Much like when you
wrote Stargrunt in 1987, it is hard to know what the full truth of the next 30
years will be, let alone 300.
I've heard rumours we've got railgun and laser rifle prototypes waiting for
sufficient power density in batteries. I've seen pictures of Darpa
exoskeletons that make me think we'll see combat armour in the next twenty
years and then of course, weight of armour and weapons may well go up (thus
meaning weapons have to hit harder and possibly rendering conventional rifles
nearly a moot point).
A lot in the assessment of military armament and defense depends on who you
are talking about assessing. First world nations taking on
tunic-wearing,
sandal-clad insurgents with basic rifles and explosives? Or first line
powers who will perhaps have powered armour, modern infantry body armour,
robots in support, and the new generation of visual and wideband optical
camouflage that is coming?
If you're fighting the natives, they'll be relegated to ambushes, explosives,
plus the occasional smuggled in weapon capable of actually scoring kills
against vehicles and maybe powered armour. The rest of the time, they'll hide
because they'll lose any open field engagement due to the presence of armed
drones, armed groundside bots, advanced sensors and recce, and high quality
personal armour and defenses. The SAW here will probably still play a role,
but infantry engagements generally will be rarer as most warfare will be
asymetric. You can thus expect individual infantry firepower to receive only a
limited portion of the tech budget so it may generally
fall behind. Look where money is being spent now - not the X programs
for
infantry weapons - mostly on robots, recce, sensors, detecting
underground lairs, artillery, ground penetrating air deployed munitions, smart
weapons, IED detection and autonomous transports.
If, on the other hand, any sort of conflict with Russia or China looms, or
at least seems feasible enough to allow the military-industrial complex
to get its lobby into gear, then we'll see more research on fighting those
sorts of foes. And in that scenario, we'll probably still see a lot of money
go into smart weapons, but the warfare may be more symetric, so there may be
more attention to individual capabilities of infantry - say a shift
toward combat armour or powered armour and weapons to penetrate same. Support
platforms may become robotic mules (like Big Dog) with chainguns or AGLs,
controlled by heavy weapons controllers or maybe just squad leaders. In that
case, we'll still see a big place for the squad support weaponry and it'll
still be important for the same reasons - long range, heavy round,
better sustained fire, better coordination with remote sensors.
As an instantaneous sort of evaluation of FP at any one moment, I've often
thought that 1 point of firepower for the added GL and d8-d12 for a SAW
is disproportionate. But I don't think SAWs fade to insignificance at any
point where the fighting still looks like men fighting, instead of a bot fight
controlled from afar. Seems to me the SAW is worth the firepower of about
3-5 riflemen, if they aren't making frequent use of grenades. If they
are
using lots of grenades, maybe it drops to 2-3 riflemen. But the SAW may
still retain range advantage and sustained fire capabilities.
In SG and DS, the turns are long enough that those two capabilities should
still mean the SAW keeps its role as 'the hitter' in the squad. In FMAS, with
shorter turns, the SAW might not tend to put out much more FP than the
rifle or rifle+GL, but it should keep it up over a longer number of
turns. Similar ratings, just capable of acting over a longer period.
> On Jan 31, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
I'd say no. Perhaps the name changes from SAW (Sq. Auto. Weapon) to SSW (Sq.
SUPPORT Wpn) but I'd think the infantry squad will always have something
special to anchor their tactics around.
This may not be the case for non-infantry or specialized troops who
only have their standard issue rifle. Having said that back in my
Arty days we actually had quite a few M-60s and M-203s. 203s I could
understand but 60's? I mean really now -- we had at least thirteen .
50's spread throughout the battery... Oh well.
D.
> On Jan 31, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
Thanks Damo (and Beth) for your input, anyone else want to chime in?
To put it more in game terms, what I'm trying to decide is whether to
always have a SAW/SSW adding the same percentage to a squad's overall
firepower, or adding a fixed number so that the% drops as the tech level
increases. To explain this a bit more by putting some (arbitrary at this
stage) numbers to it:
Let's just assume for this example that a fireteam's base firepower (by
weapons tech only, before modifying for troop quality) is 1 for PRIMITIVE
weapons, 2 for BASIC and so on up to 5 for ADVANCED. This is for a team armed
with individual weapons ("rifles") only.
Primitive (bolt-action rifles) Base FP = 1
Basic (semi-auto rifles and early automatic rifles) Base FP
= 2 Enhanced (improved automatic rifles) Base FP = 3 Superior (gauss and
energy weapons) Base FP = 4
Advanced (very-high-tech energy weapons) Base FP = 5
Now, we add a SAW/SSW to the team. If we say that the SAW increases
its effectiveness in proportion to the tech level (fixed%), and for the sake
of argument we assume that the SAW's output doubles the raw firepower of the
team, then:
Primitive WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 2
Basic WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 4
Enhanced WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 6
Superior WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 8
Advanced WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 10
OR, if we assume that the SAW/SSW becomes less of a % factor as the
tech level increases, and decide to represent it by a fixed number
(let's say +2) on the team's FP:
Primitive WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 3
Basic WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 4
Enhanced WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 5
Superior WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 6
Advanced WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 7
I'm trying to decide which option to go for on this, for working out fireteam
base firepower output for SG:AC......
Feel free to discuss further! ;-)
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lhtt
p://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=gCra4qOrjFw&feature=related
By the way, this is what 2d8 or 2d10 FP *per gunner* looks like.
Oh, noez! I haz giffen ze munch-i-kins a excuze!
Tom
--
http://ante-aurorum-tenebrae.blogspot.com/
http://www.stargrunt.ca
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that
will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
"When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty
quits the horizon." -- Thomas Paine
Jon,
I have been waiting for those with more recent experience to chime in. I agree
with the others though, the SAW will continue to improve in the same ways as
the rifle so that when we move to Gauss and Energy weapons we will have a
larger version that fires either more rapidly, with more
power or for longer periods - the SAW. Unless there is some physical
limit I think that a larger base of fire weapon will continue. If it exists,
it gets used.
Bob Makowsky
----- Original Message ----
From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
To: gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2009 7:46:05 AM
Subject: Re: [GZG] QUESTION: are SAWs becoming less significant...?
> On Jan 31, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Ground Zero Games wrote:
Thanks Damo (and Beth) for your input, anyone else want to chime in?
To put it more in game terms, what I'm trying to decide is whether to
always have a SAW/SSW adding the same percentage to a squad's overall
firepower, or adding a fixed number so that the% drops as the tech level
increases. To explain this a bit more by putting some (arbitrary at this
stage) numbers to it:
Let's just assume for this example that a fireteam's base firepower (by
weapons tech only, before modifying for troop quality) is 1 for PRIMITIVE
weapons, 2 for BASIC and so on up to 5 for ADVANCED. This is for a team armed
with individual weapons ("rifles") only.
Primitive (bolt-action rifles) Base FP = 1
Basic (semi-auto rifles and early automatic rifles) Base FP = 2
Enhanced (improved automatic rifles) Base FP = 3 Superior (gauss and energy
weapons) Base FP = 4
Advanced (very-high-tech energy weapons) Base FP = 5
Now, we add a SAW/SSW to the team. If we say that the SAW increases
its effectiveness in proportion to the tech level (fixed%), and for the sake
of argument we assume that the SAW's output doubles the raw firepower of the
team, then:
Primitive WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 2
Basic WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 4
Enhanced WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 6
Superior WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 8
Advanced WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 10
OR, if we assume that the SAW/SSW becomes less of a % factor as the
tech level increases, and decide to represent it by a fixed number
(let's say +2) on the team's FP:
Primitive WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 3
Basic WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 4
Enhanced WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 5
Superior WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 6
Advanced WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 7
I'm trying to decide which option to go for on this, for working out fireteam
base firepower output for SG:AC......
Feel free to discuss further! ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> _______________________________________________
> On Saturday 31 January 2009 11:58:09 Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Extrapolating this to near (or far) future weapons, will this trend
Could a SAW provide a range advantage that won't necessarily be provided by
advanced assault rifles?
I agree with the others.
There's always going to be an advantage to having a weapon that's bigger than
what the squads carry. "Bigger" meaning everything from physically bigger, to
the same weapon with greater abilities. Greater abilities come at a cost, and
that cost usually comes down to
per-soldier weight penalties.
There are advantages to having a weapon that fires larger ammunition further
down range than the ARs carried by the regular soldiers. For
one, it allows you to fire at the enemy out of the range of _their_
ARs to suppress them while you manoeuvre some of your guys into position. To
get further down range with more energy is going to require... well, more
energy. That energy has to come from somewhere, be it chemical, electric, or
nuclear. The bigger weapon will use up more energy, meaning that it's energy
supply has to be greater, be it bigger batteries or more ammunition. So you
won't be able to have as many of these bigger weapons in the squad as the
number of base weapons.
If your SAW uses the same ammunition as your ARs, has the same range,
the same _sustained_ rate of fire, and is just as accurate as your
ARs, then yes, you're going to see the SAW disappear in that form. However,
some bright spark is going to say, "You know, it would be really useful if one
or two guys in the squad had a weapon that had
greater range/greater sustained rate of fire/greater stopping
power/greater penetration. At which point, the support weapon comes
into being, albeit possibly in a different form than we see today.
I see what you're saying, Jon. If we extrapolate technology far enough
out we end up with everyone in, oh, let's say neutrino-powered
metallic hydrogen power armour with hellbeam projectors in their finger tips.
There is no bigger, badder weapon than the hellbeam, you can't have a bigger,
faster, or longer range hellbeam, and going with bigger armour is useless as
nothing can penetrate it but a hellbeam (and see above, hellbeams can't come
in bigger sizes). In this setting, larger support weapons don't exist, and you
get to a point where every squad member's firepower is identical. (And we're
simplifying the idea that hellbeams can fire beyond line of sight, otherwise
there'd be a role for an indirect fire weapon other than a hellbeam.)
But if you _did_ have a larger hellbeam, or one that fired faster, or
one that flew further downrange, or penetrated armour better, presumably
there's a reason you didn't give all your soldiers this bigger hellbeam. That
reason could be anything. Maybe it requires bigger batteries. Or, maybe it's
big enough that you only get one per
power armour glove instead of five, and so in close-in battles it's a
bit of a handicap. In this case, you'd give your squad one or two of these
bigger hellbeams, and we're back to a squad support weapon.
About the only time I see SAWs being useless is if the environment is such
that the SAW's capabilities are offset by the weapon's disadvantages. If
you're fighting bugs on a planet with deep tunnel complexes with virtually no
long straight corridors, and your SAW has a long barrel, it may be more
trouble than it's worth. In this case, doing away with the SAW for this
operation would be worthwhile. (Though in reality, probably what would end up
happening is that you'd develop a shorter range SAW because I bet having the
greater firepower is useful to kill bugs; this is the exception that proves
the rule.)
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
I know this doesn't address your SAW question, but I think you should drop the
Primitive category and have something like this instead.
Basic (semi-auto rifles and early automatic rifles) Base FP = 1
Enhanced (improved automatic rifles) Base FP = 2 Superior (gauss) Base FP = 3
Advanced (energy weapons) Base FP = 4
Very Advanced (very-high-tech energy weapons) Base FP = 5
I don't know how many folks want to run games where the low tech opponents
only have bolt action rifles. But (as an example) in the Traveller universe
there are tech levels where troops are armed with plasma weapons which are
then replaced by fusion weapons. I would argue that a squad armed primarily
with a gauss rifles compared to a squad armed primarily with plasma rifles are
not only going to have different impacts, but markedly different firepower as
well. This would allow you
to represent that while keeping your 1 - 5 scale.
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
An interesting point, Mark; while I'm not writing a Traveller ruleset, of
course, but one that is as generic as possible, you do raise a good question
as to how low a tech level should we start the scale with.
I guess the question is whether anyone really wants to play with very
low-tech forces (I'm talking early-mid 20th century level here, not
"archaic" tech)? Obviously there are the alternate-history games to
consider, with aliens vs WW2 troops and such, but how common might
these be compared with "straight" SF games with future-tech forces?
Opinions, anyone? ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> _______________________________________________
> An interesting point, Mark; while I'm not writing a Traveller
I think having the primitive/low tech is important, militia's with old
weapons and hunting weapons can easily fall into that catagory, let along
playing the alternative history style game.
> On Mon, February 2, 2009 11:24, Ground Zero Games wrote:
Would it complicate things too much if weapons had properties other than a
straight FP rating? For example, increased or reduced range bands, or reducing
effects of cover (e.g., advanced fusion guns with explosive shots).
This might allow more advanced/primitive weapons without
having to extend the 1-5 scale.
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> An interesting point, Mark; while I'm not writing a Traveller
Aliens vs. WW2 troops is going to make for boring games unless your
aliens are using 1970s-level technology, incompetent leadership at all
levels, and no tactical or operational doctrine worthy of the name. I actually
read that series too.
Just my.02 cents. Said it before, will say it again. Asymmetrical warfare
makes for crap games played by actual gamers. It isn't much fun in real life
either, but that's a side conversation. Asymmetrical warfare relies on the
insurgents being able to avoid confrontation with the counterinsurgents under
any but the most carefully planned
circumstances--and that's flat out boring on the table.
Tech levels ought to be relatively close--anything that cannot
penetrate body armor worn by front line troops or which cannot generate enough
firepower to go head to head with a unit of front line troops need not be
modeled. It's a waste of time because troops armed with that low a level of
technology will not stand and fight against front line troops, and human
nature being what it is, you are unlikely to convince them to try unless they
are suicidal death cultists. And in that case, they are actually more likely
to strap bombs to retarded girls and go try to blow up markets full of
civilians rather than Soldiers. Again, not an interesting game.
As for the original question of SAWs, I vote for keeping them. I disagree with
the original statement that the rifleman is closing the
firepower gap or is likely to close it completely--perhaps in relation
to WWII bolt action vs. WWII GPMGs, but not enough to remove the role of the
SAW. The US tried to get rid of the "automatic rifle" role by
giving it to regular rifleman armed with an M-16 on full auto, but it
didn't really work out. The rifle couldn't handle the job, and we had to buy a
"SAW" (dual purpose LMG and Automatic Rifle) from the Belgians as a result, as
well as taking away the full auto capacity from the riflemen. A bipod mounted
weapon with provisions for accurate sustained automatic fire will be, under
any technological permutation I can imagine, be heavier and require more
ammo/batteries/whatever than you will want to issue to every single
Soldier. Hence they will be issued on a more limited basis than your
rifle-equivalent.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAct
ually a SAW doesn't have to use different ammunition to provide increased
firepower. By simply increasing barrel length you derive more energy per round
(increase efficiency) without having to change the round at all. In addition,
by increasing barrel length, you increase accuracy. Therefore, by simply
making an AR with with a heavier, longer barrel you can create a SAW type
weapon without having to increase the round size. This does create a heavier
weapon, but not because the ammo is larger or heavier. With this in mind it
appears that a SAW will continue to provide a major
base of firepower for the squad for several key reasons - increased rate
of fire, increased penetration, increased accuracy and increased range over
assault rifles.
By its nature, the SAW will be a heavier more substantial weapon than an AR
- this increases stability when grounded, thus increasing accuracy over
a weapon held by hand.
Sustained ROF will be critical as an area denial capability - an AR that
fires 600 RPM will drain a 30 round mag in 3 seconds, it then takes several
seconds to reload meaning that there are large gaps in firing coverage -
whereas a SAW with 100 or 200 round belt or magazine could sustain 10-20
seconds of fire, along with a heavier barrel would also be able to maintain
such rates over longer periods of time. Thus a single SAW provides the
firepower equivalent of 3-5 regular AR's.
I think that as individual AR technology improves, the SAW will also improve
proportionately and remain a mainstay for assaults and defense.
--Binhan
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com>wrote:
> I agree with the others.
> On Mon, February 2, 2009 11:24, Ground Zero Games wrote:
This will all be factored in; the FP rating is only one property of the weapon
types, it's simply a raw rating of how much fire can be directed onto a
target.
> This might allow more advanced/primitive weapons without
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lTo
jump in here. I would say that special effects for new types or variant
weapons is a natural direction to go in a game with a very general weapons
line. This is a typical gaming rules conventions when you are dealing with a
system that uses an abstracted (not a bad thing) pallet of weapons stats.
I am not so sure that I would say you can get an explosive round out of a
fusion gun as the DFFG fires a plasma charge, but this all comes down to the
PSB of the setting you are playing in.
-Eli
> To jump in here. I would say that special effects for new types or
I think that it was the explosive EFFECT of the fusion gun discharge hitting a
solid object that was meant, rather than actually firing an HE round!
> On Monday 02 February 2009 18:31:38 Ground Zero Games wrote:
Something like that, though the specifics weren't meant to be important, just
random ideas of what special properties could be applied.
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 4:24 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> I guess the question is whether anyone really wants to play with very
It really depends on what the high tech gives the high tech force. If the
aliens have a personal armor that is proof against 'five rounds rapid', than
it will not be much fun to game. If it is a more flexible command structure,
better CCCI, and faster mobility, than there is the fun of achieving your
objectives while you still have enough units to keep the low tech juggernaut
from overrunning you. There is also the intriguing scenario of luring the high
tech enemy to a battlefield where difficult conditions hamper him more than
you. Jungle warfare with 200m sightlines is bad, but it really sucks for
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI
agree that SAWs will continue to be prevalant, esp as their power increases
and weight decreases. You always need that base of fire...
G'day Jon,
> Primitive WITH SAW/SSW Base FP = 2
Derek's response
" Go with this option because.
A saw/ssw/lmg will still produce the bulk of the fire power for a squad.
The basic characteristics of the weapon the allow a high rate of fire at or
through a given area over a sustained period of time (as long as there's ammo)
won't change. Assault rifles even though they are capable of automatic fire
and might share the same ammunition aren't designed to do this. Also they
probably won't get 'larger' either, after all these things and the large
amount ammunition have to be carried."
My response would also be for the first as the kind of non-linearity
you're talking about (where when it turns up, IF it turns up enough to be
significantly noticed on the playing table) would be at the very high end
(really only kicking in for Advanced, maybe superior) which makes it hard to
smoothly represent under the FP system you're discussing (gamers aren't going
to want to see a progression of 2,4,6,7,8 or 2,4,6,8,9
etc).
And as to the range of tech to represent, despite it not being to the taste of
all people some people will want to have games where
bolt-action rifles (or things of that calibre) are on the table (look at
the range of wacky games that have turned up at ECC). So I'd keep the range of
weapons as you currently have them.
Cheers
Well I could accept gauss and plasma fireteams having the same FP if the
plasma team also gets some sort of reducing effects of cover or similar bonus.
I'm imagining the defending team behind a wall or earthen berm. In the case of
the attackers having plasma weapons there will not soon be any cover to hide
behind.
-Mark Kinsey
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Mark Kinsey <Kinseym@ptd.net> wrote:
> I'm imagining the defending team behind a wall or earthen berm. In the
In the world of sci-fi, true.
In reality? Not so much. Plasma makes for a rotten weapon. They're as
practical as a "hot steam gun".
For more information I direct you to the wonderful Atomic Rocket site
(warning, if you like your sci-fi the way it's commonly portrayed,
don't go to this site if you can't handle dejection):
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html#plasma
And this is a link from Atomic Rocket:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/PlasmaWeapons.html
I've been chuckling quietly to myself that Jon is asking about the realism of
SAWs in the future (a discussion I've found very interesting), in a game that
includes plasma guns.
I have a strange image in my mind of some old Chinese guy in the middle ages
saying something similar to someboy about the practical application of
gunpowder.
Not saying you're wrong, just a funny mental image that popped up.
-Eli
[quoted original message omitted]
Yeah, I've seen that site. It is pretty depressing. I'd rather just think
about the "Bacon Explosion"
http://www.bbqaddicts.com/bacon-explosion.html
> Allan Goodall wrote:
on my to-do list
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Mark Kinsey" <Kinseym@ptd.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 6:05 PM
To: <gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [GZG] QUESTION: are SAWs becoming less significant...?
> Yeah, I've seen that site. It is pretty depressing. I'd rather just
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
I'll be in my bunk.
> Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:05:38 -0500