_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 10/4/05, Ryan
> Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Using shotguns, great against the swabbies on board. Two of their guys
So tell me, what's the practical difference between a 4 gauge automatic
shotgun (computer-selectable to feed from either the flechette or the
sabot drums) and a light autocannon? If a suit of PA can carry the latter (see
the ESU writeup in SGII) then it should have few problems with the former.
Especially if you put a muzzle brake on it, and equip the 'arm' of the PA with
hydraulic recoil compensation.
Here's the problem with boarding actions vs. PA-suited opponents or with
PA-scale weaponry: Starships are, in general, full of things that do not
'react well to bullets'. Not least of which is the hull. In the case of
merchantmen (IE those ships you'd most want to board and loot rather than just
blow into scrap metal) those hulls are probably not real heavily
armored. And using AP rounds, high-power heat rounds, etc is probably
going to poke holes in things that the design engineer did not intend to
function with holes in it. Like the skin of the ship. For boarding actions
against merchies, I like the Traveller:TNE Guild Deck
Sweeper, a low-tech submachine gun with extendable stock firing 9x24mm
ammo
and an underbarrel 25mm low-velocity grenade launcher. In the hands of
reasonable competent troops working against civillians, it does the job
without opening huge gaping holes in the cargo bay resulting in all your loot
being sucked into hard vacuum which may impair the resale value.
Unlike, say, a man-portable plasma gun designed to kill light armored
vehicles. The GL is intended for locked hatches and security doors only, and
is a single-shot breechloader usually loaded with HEAT rounds, issued 1
or 2 per weapon. Boarding actions against military starships would be rarer
than hen's teeth and undertaken only by special operations forces. I'm
inclined to equip them with cutting torches in one hand, and a 12 ga shotgun
loaded with #1 buck in the other. Against unarmored opponents the latter will
do nicely without overpenetration issues, and against armored opponents the
former makes an
interesting hand-to-hand weapon.
I'm back from the field.
Interestingly enough, a friend and I have been discussing the details of
boarding actions in another gaming setting. One of the things we postulated
was that in any situation where a ship is likely to enter combat any time
soon, the first thing that will happen is that the crew will suit up and
depressurize the ship, to eliminate the risk of explosive decompression from a
lucky hit. The byproduct of this would be that almost all boarding actions
would be in vac. This might mitigate the problems caused by unintentional
holes in the wrong places a bit, since once the action is over, you
repressuirze slowly, detect leaks and patch them. Also, this game setting
doesn't have any
artificial or anti-grav, so recoil is a big problem. We've come up
with a few ways to pay our respects to Mr.Newton:
1. Lasers (Not mounted on fricking sharks, though). I'm not a big fan of them,
but they make sense in this situation. 2. Mag boots. They help, but only
mitigate the problem. 3. The high tech solution for the military is an
integrated weapon and PA suit, where the suit fires little bursts from it's
thrusters to compensate for the gun's push.
As for how rare or common boarding actions would be, I don't know whether I
agree or disagree.
> On 10/6/05, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
From: "Brian B" <brianbinor@gmail.com>
> We've come up with a few ways to pay our respects to Mr. Newton:
> 1. Lasers (Not mounted on fricking sharks, though). I'm not a big
Weapons with rocket-propelled rounds -- gyrojet small arms, for
instance. If you hit the target, *they* tumble -- which is good.
Laserlight schrieb:
> From: "Brian B" <brianbinor@gmail.com>
Another possibility is recoilless guns that shoot out a cloud of gas or dust
backwards. The obvious problem of endangering the shooter should not be an
issue for PA.
Though I agree that rockets are the better solution for most cases.
Something like a Taser might also work - light projectiles trailing
wires that are used to carry an electric discharge.
Greetings Karl Heinz
> On 10/7/05, Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> Weapons with rocket-propelled rounds -- gyrojet small arms, for
Assuming they have recoilless launch systems, sure.
> On 10/7/05, K.H.Ranitzsch <kh.ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
> Another possibility is recoilless guns that shoot out a cloud of gas
In vac, with everyone suited, shouldn't be a problem period.
Without some kind of artificial gravity or inertia dampeners, everytime a ship
changed speed or made a sharp turn, wouldn't its crew become chunky
salsa against the trailing bulkhead?
Aside from that, perhaps boarding parties could be trained in the "Ender's
Game" style of weightless combat.
Fred
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 10:09:28AM -0700, Fred Schmidt wrote:
Not necessarily. Depends on how much a "thrust point" translates to in
real-world terms.
(And of course boarding normally only happens to a ship that can't evade
anyway.)
R
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 08:12:21AM -0700, Brian B wrote:
> One of the things we
While I'm on your side of this argument, I think it does depend on vacc
suit quality - they _will_ impede manual dexterity to some extent. Think
about typing with gloves on...
(Also consider that the air has to be _stored_ somewhere. Under even
higher pressure than normal.)
R
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn 10/7/05, Fred
> Schmidt <fcschmidt@prodigy.net> wrote:
Unless they are strapped into acceleration couches. Amusing scenario:
"Oh, look. Some idiot's attempted to board us." "I can play Silly Buggers
too!" *Slams hard on the acceleration control for about 3 seconds.* "Send a
cleanup crew." Seriously, a setting without artificial grav means boarding
actions are only possible when the boarded vessel's engines are completely
disabled. Of course, a setting with controllable artificial gravity means
boarding actions are more or less impossible, as rapid polarity reversals with
selected gravity generators will take anyone not strapped in and slam them
into the ceiling, then the deck, then the ceiling again, over and over, at
very high G-ratings, until they are nothing but a seriously nasty mess
of bodily fluids and pulped flesh. This is cheerfully known as "Grav Pong" in
some settings.
> On 10/7/05, Fred Schmidt <fcschmidt@prodigy.net> wrote:
I believe Messrs. West and Atkinson have addressed this question sufficiently.
Let me just add: Wah. That's the setting, those are the limitations, the
characters (it's an RPG setting) can deal with it. I can see why others might
decide to add certain technologies into a setting to allow certain behaviors
by characters, but I'm taking hte opposite approach.
> Aside from that, perhaps boarding parties could be trained in the
Probably.
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Roger Burton West wrote:
> While I'm on your side of this argument, I think it does depend on
Think
> about typing with gloves on...
A keyboard... how quaint.
--Greg
> On 10/7/05, Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> While I'm on your side of this argument, I think it does depend on
Think
> about typing with gloves on...
Obviously. In an RPG, that's easily addressed with differing levels of suit
quality. In a wargame, you can always explain that the difference is factored
into crew quality.
> (Also consider that the air has to be _stored_ somewhere. Under even
True, but those high-pressure storage tanks are much smaller and more
localized than the entire hull of the ship.
> On 10/7/05, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
Depending, of course, on how many G's the ship is capable of to begin with,
and how well prepared for such tactics the boarders are, using Mag Boots, etc.
> On 10/7/05, Gregory Wong <sax@soundingrocket.com> wrote:
Think
> > about typing with gloves on...
Keyboard, touchpad, etc. given the amount of audio chaos that is associated
with combat, I'm not sure I'd entrust a ship entirely to voice recognition.
> > "Oh, look. Some idiot's attempted to board us."
In one Trav ship in a campaign I was, part of the defenses were that
the grav plates on deck would cycle +6g to -6g four times a second.
> Keyboard, touchpad, etc. given the amount of audio chaos that is
Direct neural control. Sensor mesh in the helmet.
> On 10/7/05, Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> In one Trav ship in a campaign I was, part of the defenses were that
That's just evil.
> On 10/7/05, Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
Assuming the technology exists in the setting.
> > Direct neural control. Sensor mesh in the helmet.
There's some of that *now*. Very limited bandwidth but it exists.
> > In one Trav ship in a campaign I was, part of the defenses were
Lord Mike wanted to go with pop down laser anti-personnel turrets,
four at every intersection. I suggested the high gee ping pong defense. We
compromised and got both..
> On 10/7/05, Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
Hmmmmm.... interesting. Do you have links? I'm still developing the background
material and this could be useful.
> On 10/7/05, Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> Lord Mike wanted to go with pop down laser anti-personnel turrets,
Of course.
Why not just a dome bubble at every intersection. Innocent enough and could be
mirrored on the outside to double as mirrors for seeing who is coming and
going down the halls in day to day operations. Also think of this when I see
the domes on the ceilings of stores.
Eli
Lord Mike wanted to go with pop down laser anti-personnel turrets,
four at every intersection. I suggested the high gee ping pong defense. We
compromised and got both..
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Brian B wrote:
> On 10/7/05, Gregory Wong <sax@soundingrocket.com> wrote:
Think
> > > about typing with gloves on...
Then use cerebral implants.
--Greg
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThe difference is
the light auto-cannon is not affective in SG close combat
while the flechette shotgun gets you a die shift.
The take I'm getting is people don't really think PA with a shotgun (Close
assault PA bonus with Shotgun shifts) is cheese. I need som shotgun arms for
my NAC PA.
My view of PA is up close and personal anyway. If my PA is not close
assaulting they should be in the rack.
Welcome back John, It will be good to have your "restrained" voice back on the
list.:)
Roger Books
> On 10/6/05, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Direct neural control. Sensor mesh in the helmet.
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2004/01/todays-brain-article-braingate.html
> KHR wrote:
> Another possibility is recoilless guns that shoot out a cloud of gas or
> dust backwards. The obvious problem of endangering the shooter should
It's not so much a problem for the *shooter* as for anyone standing *behind*
the shooter. Recoilless guns and countermass weapons are distinctly bad ideas
if there's any risk whatsoever that you'll have to
fight in corridors :-/
Later,
> On 10/8/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
That's what I meant to address, sorry for the confusion.
> Recoilless guns and countermass weapons are
My original comment still applies, that suited boarders won't be *AS* affected
by this as movern infantry.
Cool, thanks.
> On 10/7/05, Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2004/01/todays-brain-article-braingate.html
> _______________________________________________
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> >>Another possibility is recoilless guns that shoot out a cloud of gas
They wouldn't be *as* affected, in the sense that they (probably) won't be
*killed* by standing in the backblast area.
They would still run a very serious risk of having most of their peripherals
scrubbed off their suits and any surfaces intended to be
transparent (face plates, camera lenses, lightly-armoured weapons etc.)
turned opaque by a myriad of tiny pock-marks, effectively rendering them
both deaf and blind... which takes them out of the fight just as effectively
as actually killing them would.
IOW, the above comment that it "would not be an issue" for them is IMO true
only for a very carefully selected value of "an issue" :-/
Later,
Point taken.
Again, I myself still prefer the option of using manouver thrusters on the
suits themselves to counteract recoil.
> On 10/10/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
won't be
> *killed* by standing in the backblast area.
Brian B schrieb:
> Point taken.
Depending on the type of engine used in the thruster, the result may not
be much more comfortable for those standing behind the shooter.
Greetings Karl Heinz
> On 10/12/05, K.H.Ranitzsch <kh.ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
I'm guessing the designers of the suits would make allowances for such things.
Smaller thrusters set around the suit instead of one large weapon backblast.
Besides, the more I thought last night about what Oerjan said, the more
inclined I was to disagree with him to a certain extent, to whit:
"They would still run a very serious risk of having most of their peripherals
scrubbed off their suits and any surfaces intended to be
transparent (face plates, camera lenses, lightly-armoured weapons
etc.) turned opaque by a myriad of tiny pock-marks,"
That would depend on the hardness of the materials out of which their suits,
peripherals, and transparent surfaces were made, as compared to the hardness
of the countermass being blown out the back of the weapon
-- again, something that is not completely random, but rather can be
factored in to the design of the suit and weapon.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> Besides, the more I thought last night about what Oerjan said, the
Even if the countermass consists of plain water, it can do pretty nasty things
to anything standing too close behind the weapon... particularly if
there's no air to slow it down after it has left the weapon :-/
(Not that plain water is a very good countermass, of course - it has far
too high a freezing point and far too low a density for that.)
Later,
> On 10/13/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
> Even if the countermass consists of plain water, it can do pretty
And just how would you define "too close" in the given context? It's possible,
with the protection provided by the future armor, that the definition of "Too
close" is so close as to be tactically unlikely to occur, or at least easy to
avoid.
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> > Even if the countermass consists of plain water, it can do pretty
Up to at least 2-3 meters, which is exactly the kind of ranges you're
likely to be at when fighting in confined spaces such as buildings or
starships.
Regards,
> On 10/13/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
I'm just curious how you arrived at that figure. Is that what it is now?
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> >>>Even if the countermass consists of plain water, it can do pretty
First-hand experience with countermass weapons and recoilless guns,
including seeing the marks the various countermasses we use can make on steel
plates.
> Is that what it is now?
No, today the danger zones behind countermass weapons are typically around
*20* meters in Earth sea-level atmosphere.
Later,
> On 10/14/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
Ah. thanks for clarifying.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAny idea how the
gyrojet got around this? Was it just so small you didn't have to worry about
it?
For those that have not heard of a gyrojet:
http://www.littlegun.be/arme%20americaine/a%20gyrojet%20gb.htm
Roger Books
> On 10/14/05, Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@telia.com> wrote:
> Any idea how the gyrojet got around this? Was it just so small
The Gyrojet was a miniature rocket launcher, not a counter-mass
firing "recoilless gun", so the efflux problem was very much less.
The smooth-bore barrel was perforated and the low-ish pressure
exhaust gasses from the rocket were vented sideways. Even so, I'd have wanted
to wear goggles while firing one, especially the Gyrojet carbine where the
barrel would have been closer to my face.
> Roger Books wrote:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3l.html
(scroll down to section that begins with