Hi,
Does anyone know what the RF antipersonnel plasma gun (as carried
by figure SGN-18D) counts as for Stargrunt? Is it just a standard
plasma gun?
Also, does anyone have any pictures of SGN-15B (NSL sniper)? What
I had assumed was a sniper has turned out to be an RF plasma gun, so I now
need to figure out if my collection contains a sniper.
(really looking forward to the day when the GZG site contains pictures of all
the models next to the 'buy' button).
Thanks.
> Samuel Penn wrote:
I once made some pictures:
> On 26/09/06, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> Also, does anyone have any pictures of SGN-15B (NSL sniper)? What
http://eurekamin.com.au/images/GZG-SGN-15B.jpg
> On Tuesday 26 September 2006 10:03, Steve Pugh wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 September 2006 10:03, Frits Kuijlman wrote:
Okay, thanks to Frits and Steve for the pics. I do have one of those, and
assumed it was a grenade launcher of some type. It actually reminds me of the
flak cannon from Unreal Tournament.
> At 12:30 PM +0100 9/26/06, Samuel Penn wrote:
Doesn't seem very sniper like to me. I kitbashed up a sniper for my NAC teams
and made a prone version of the figure as well. I need to take some pictures.
On 9/26/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:49:00 +0100
> Does anyone know what the RF antipersonnel plasma gun (as carried
It's different from an Infantry Plasma Gun. For one thing, if it's
"anti-personnel" it probably shouldn't get the D12* impact of a
regular Plasma Gun.
If I remember correctly, I used D8 Firepower, D10 Impact (more shots than the
Plasma Gun's D6, less impact than the Plasma Gun), but causes terror effects.
You could also argue that it should be a FP D8, Imp D12. The "antipersonnel
rapid fire" nature of it increases FP by one die type, but the weapon loses
the double impact on a Major Success against
armoured targets. This also fills a niche, as there are D8/D10,
D10/D10, D10/D12, and D6/D12* weapons, but no D8/D12.
If I were to use it again, I'd opt for the latter option.
> On Tuesday 26 September 2006 20:01, Allan Goodall wrote:
Sounds reasonable
> If I remember correctly, I used D8 Firepower, D10 Impact (more shots
Does a flame thrower cause terror? How about a DFFG fired from a vehicle?
We've only played once so far (just infantry, no vehicles or even power
armour), so my knowledge of the rules is very light. I'm currently trying to
juggle painting figures with reading the rules again.
> You could also argue that it should be a FP D8, Imp D12. The
Thanks Allan, there's some good ideas there which I probably need to discuss
with our group.
> Does a flame thrower cause terror?
Yes, the rules do say so (although i couldn't tell you where)
> How about a DFFG fired from a vehicle?
I would say no, because a DFFG hit will merely vaporize you, not set you on
fire.
> On 9/27/06, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> > If I remember correctly, I used D8 Firepower, D10 Impact (more shots
Maybe it's just me, but that whole "terror" thing just doesn't do it for me.
I don't see anything inherently more terrifying about a plasma gun as compared
to a gauss rifle. You're just as dead, and the gauss rifle is a lot harder to
pinpoint as compares to a huge, hot (shows up nicely on thermals) weapon that
spits fireballs at a slow rate of fire.
IMNSHO terror is a thing for draftees or green troops.
> On Wednesday 27 September 2006 15:19, John Atkinson wrote:
That's what I was thinking, hence the check to see if similar weapons were
already ruled as causing a similar effect.
p.43 under 'Terror Effects' is where the rule is btw. Speaking as someone
who's never had someone shoot at them or try to set them on fire, Fire does
seem slightly scarier because a crispy fried corpse looks worse than a corpse
that is simply blood stained.
However, futuristic full armour probably gives pretty good protection versus
short bursts of flame, thereby preventing the sort of horrific burns you'd
otherwise get.
> I don't see anything inherently more terrifying about a plasma gun as
Presumably big guns should have a similar effect - I'm remembering
the scene in 'Saving Private Ryan', where a big vehicle mounted gun (20mm
cannon?) was used to cut down infantry, blowing them to pieces everytime
someone was hit. Sitting comfortably in my armchair, that looked scary.
> IMNSHO terror is a thing for draftees or green troops.
Maybe the terror effect should be +1/+2 instead of doubling the
threat level. Experienced troops can ignore it, greens are more likely to
loose their cool.
> Fire does seem slightly scarier because a crispy fried
Not to mention the noise he makes as he runs around, after being hit and
before one of his buddies shoots him.
> However, futuristic full armour probably gives pretty good protection
Remember that many troops are not wearing full coverage. And even if the armor
does give full coverage, it might be a plastic that burns and melts...
On 9/27/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
I think Plasma Guns and flamethrowers both cause terror effects, but I don't
have my rules with me to be sure.
All a Terror weapon does is cause a panic test in Regular and lower quality
units. Greens and Untrained have other things that cause panic tests, too.
According to the rules, a DFFG is not a terror weapon (implied by omission).
In fact, being a Heavy Weapon it only has a D8 impact against dispersed
targets.
Now, a Green or Untrained is supposed to panic if see an AFV or fired on by
one, so for these low quality troops a DFFG firing at them is already going to
cause a panic test.
On 9/27/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Maybe it's just me, but that whole "terror" thing just doesn't do it
I tend to agree. All a "terror" unit does is cause a panic test in Blues,
Greens and Yellows. It could be a simple matter to drop Blues from the list
and just add terror units to the list of things that cause panic among Greens
and less.
Flamethrowers are terror units not because they can kill, but because they
kill you in a horrible way. There are people who will brave a bullet but are
scared to death of burning (even if it doesn't kill them). Whether this
manifested itself in real life is questionable. I have seen accounts where
some Japanese surrendered when given the chance partly due to the idea of
being roasted alive. I think Guy Gabaldon used the threat of flamethrowers
when he captured 800
Japanese single-handedly on Saipan. On the other hand, the vast
majority of Japanese troops on islands like Tarawa, Peleliu, and Okinawa
fought until the end, or killed themselves, even with the threat of
flamethrowers.
"Flamers" are a part of the sci-fi genre (largely thanks to GW), so I
guess that's where the terror aspect comes in.
I may be wrong about Plasma Guns being terror weapons. If they are not, then
the Rapid Fire version should not be, either.
On 9/27/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:54:55 +0100
Certainly the burned corpse photos I've seen from the fighting in the Pacific
during the Second World War are some of the worst. Even in black and white
they are incredibly gruesome compared to the pictures I've seen of other
corpses, with the possible exception of those poor souls who had their
intestines ripped out. Fried corpses may even be worse than decapitations.
That having been said, I think it's more a fear of being burned alive that
haunts people. Dying from a bullet to the chest or an artillery piece that
takes your head off is merciful compared to roasting to death.
> Presumably big guns should have a similar effect - I'm remembering
As I mentioned earlier, AFVs cause panic in Greens and Untrained, so except
for Regulars they already cause "terror" effects.
You could ignore the terror effect and treat attacks by Heavy Weapons the same
as an attack by artillery. If the unit has to make a Confidence Test due to
Heavy Weapon fire, add 2, 1, or 0 to the Threat
Level for Low/Medium/High motivation troops.
> Maybe the terror effect should be +1/+2 instead of doubling the
As I mentioned, veterans and elite are immune to panic tests of any kind.
> Does a flame thrower cause terror?
> From: ~ On Behalf Of laserlight@verizon.net
> I would say no, because a DFFG hit will merely vaporize you,
I only have the DS2 description of a DFFG to go by, but if you ever get one
into effective range they certainly are frightening
in game terms. DS2 pg 9 para 4 specifically mentions good anti-
infantry potential due to explosive and fragmentation effects when the bolt
strikes any solid object, including the ground.
Envisioning any plasma weapon is difficult as they are the furthest away from
contemporary weapons both in terms of technology and effect. We know that MDCs
and HELs are possible, albeit less efficient than current weaponry, but the
DFFG cannot even fire without inordinate quantities of PSB. The most practical
(and rewarding) course of action for any wargamer wishing to include plasma
weapons is to fall back on the fictional material depicting these systems. By
that yardstick, works such as David Drake's Slammers series leave absolutely
no doubt that these weapons have an extremely powerful effect, psychologically
as well as physically. However, one could argue that HE does much the same
minus the illumination.
I know we've previously agreed that DFFGs are not Powerguns, but I can't seem
to find the right words to pull the articles from the Firedrake archives.
Nathan
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAllan said:
> "Flamers" are a part of the sci-fi genre (largely thanks to GW), so I
I'd suggest that the career of "Flamers" in sci-fi probably goes back at
least as far as a certain Ridley Scott movie about a starship named "Nostromo"
and its sequel. As far as GW is concerned, I suspect that they inherited it
(along with bolters, Red Redemptionists, et al) from Brian Ansell's Laserburn
rules. Not too sure when they were originally published, but I'd figure they
were early 80's at least.
> On 9/27/06, laserlight@verizon.net <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:
> >However, futuristic full armour probably gives pretty good protection
Highly unlikely.
The US is already (slowly) transitioning to Nomex coveralls for all personnel
on missions. We are quite aware that burns are one of the primary types of
injury inflicted on the modern battlefield. As they put it, all IED blasts
involve a fireball.
I have a hard time believing that armies 200 years in the future are going to
be less capable than today.
> On 9/28/06, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:
> You could ignore the terror effect and treat attacks by Heavy Weapons
Don't like that. Artillery is BAD because there is little an infantryman can
do about it. Hunting tanks, on the other hand, is 'fun and easy' to use the
USMC slogan. Equipped properly, there is a great deal a 'crunchy' can do to a
tank.
> On 9/28/06, Stephen Bond <daibaka2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Actually, the earliest reference I can find to a 'flamer' in my memory comes
from a book published in the 1950s.
Starship Troopers. You might have heard of it.
> --- Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 September 2006 15:19, John Atkinson wrote:
p. 21 covers TERROR effecta vis-a-vis PANIC.
p. 41-43 covers TERROR effects vis-a-vis Infantry Close Assault.
These are the only places that I found it mentioned. Also, the section on p.43
specificly says that TERROR effects should be agreed upon or designated by the
ref, and also says that TERROR effects can depend on the type of troops on
each side. This leads me to conclude that is could be resonable for some
troops to be subject to TERROR from a specific source while others are not.
e.g. PA and
well equipped regular forces w/nomex undies do not receive TERROR from
flame
weapons, but conscript forces and volunteer militia w/o fire resistant
suits do. Or newbies who have never encountered or even heard of
xenomorphs/bugs/Posleen are ready to kick butt, but veterans who have
seen their buddies swarmed under do suffer TERROR from such drooling beasties.
So you could say that well equipped NAC, NSL, and IJF professionals have nomex
skivvies, but the ESU doesn't waste funds on such frivolities for their
conscript hordes.
J
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lJohn Atkinson said:
> Actually, the earliest reference I can find to a 'flamer' in my memory
Quite right. Know it well and I stand corrected. My own memory obviously
doesn't work as well at 1am!
On 9/28/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:40:43 +0400
Oops! You're right!
> On 9/28/06, J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So you could say that well equipped NAC, NSL, and IJF professionals
You know, I'm eventually going to write my entire rant on the extreme
unlikelyhood of 'conscript hordes' in a war where your expeditionary forces
have to be transported by spacecraft. Unless your space fleet is the size of
America's merchant marine in WWII, your naval dominance
is as pronounced as the USN/RN dominance in the Atlantic by 1944, your
travel time is as short as an ocean-crossing in the 1940s, you can't
project a force the size of the US's in WWII in Europe. And even that was tiny
compared to the Soviets or Germans. Rember, the US had something like 90
divisions and fought two wars with them, compared the Russians who raised in
the neighborhood of 400 or so, or the Germans who also had hundreds.
Think of the Falklands. Even if the UK had WANTED to send a 'horde', the
logistical tail was such that it was at the outer edge of their capability to
send a pair of reinforced light infantry brigades and a company of light
armor.
Given that sort of limit, you better put everything your nation has into
building expeditionary forces that give you the most capability for the
smallest tonnage of spacelift capacity, because money is no object compared to
the number of starship hulls you can dedicate to any one fleet.
You really want a spiel, ask me about the likelyhood of conflict between two
independantly planted colonies on the same planet.
John A said:
> You really want a spiel, ask me about the likelyhood of conflict
Hey John! What do you think the chances are of ground combat on a planet with
independently planted colonies? You can use for example Cibola, which has an
Islamic Fed colony, a PAU colony, a couple of independent colonies (a Sikh one
and a corporate venture) and a UN observer station.
> On 9/28/06, laserlight@verizon.net <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:
The real question is: Where are these colonies located in relation to each
other?
Let's say you are dropping 10 colonies of 25,000 people each on Earth. Let's
say you have one in New Zealand, another in Italy, a third in Argentina, a
fourth in Ireland, another in New Jersey, another in Denmark, one in Moscow,
one on the Cape of Good Hope, one in Florida, and one in Japan.
How long would it be before the transportation infrastructure between any two
given colonies would be sufficient to permit the nations to engage in serious
conflict?
What in God's name would they find to fight over? Resource scarcity wouldn't
be an issue for decades if not centuries.
And what the hell kind of brand new colony has the spare resources to waste on
fighting?
Um.. religion? Political agenda? Racial hatred?
Or have these been eradicated by the time humans colonize?;)
I agree that it's unlikely that there will be sufficient resources, both in
personnel and industrial capability, but where is the wargaming fun in that?
John L. (not to EVER be confused with John A, for John A's protection!)
:)
> On 9/28/06, laserlight@verizon.net <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:
> Let's say you have one in New Zealand, another in Italy, a third in
> On 9/28/06, John Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
Nobody fights wars over religion or racial hatred. They fight wars over
economics, and use religion and race to drum up the populace.
But no matter how fanatic your religion or racial creed, you can't physically
take an armored battalion across 3,000 miles of howling wilderness with no way
to feed, fuel, or fix the tanks.
John A said:
> Let's say you are dropping 10 colonies of 25,000 people each on Earth.
Let's say you have one in New Zealand, another in Italy, a third in Argentina,
a fourth in Ireland, another in New Jersey, another in Denmark, one in Moscow,
one on the Cape of Good Hope, one in Florida, and one in Japan.
You know, if you'd left out the one in Jersey, you'd've been okay...
> What in God's name would they find to fight over? Resource scarcity
Someone is bound to have the bright idea "hey, they put 100MCr into developing
the infrastructure for quzzle plants; if we capture it, we've saved 100MCr."
:) Welcome back John:)
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Thursday 28 September 2006 16:23, John Atkinson wrote:
They feed on each other. Once religion has been used as an excuse enough
times, people forget the original reasons and religion or whatever becomes
enough by itself.
> But no matter how fanatic your religion or racial creed, you can't
Tanks? I'd go as far as saying they probably won't have the resources to
maintain the single tank sitting in the village square, let alone
move a battalion of them :-)
They'll hate each other, and want to rip each other's lungs out because they
wear the wrong colour scarf when praying, but not this year. This year they
have to get the crops in, fix the one surviving tractor and put a new roof on
the barn. Maybe next year (when they'll have to get the crops in, fix the one
surviving water purifier and try and remember how to make glass to repair the
greenhouse).
Eventually (with any luck), their grandchildren will have forgotten who they
hated and why, and when the two colonies finally meet, they'll
find all new reasons to hate each other :-(
There *could* be something they need to fight over, such as control of a bean
stalk, or the single known uranium mine. A planet with an unfriendly ecology
might also have scarce resources (pure water, fertile soil, a hot spot on a
cold world), but generally most reasons to fight will probably be dictated
from above (homeworld sees the colony as having strategic importance, and
doesn't want any unfriendly colonists there). This will of course totally
change the nature of the battle and the resources available.
> Nobody fights wars over religion or racial hatred. They fight wars
Well, if that's what they use to drum up the populace, then it sounds like the
populace, or at least some of it, is indeed fighting over religion and race.
> But no matter how fanatic your religion or racial creed, you can't
You don't have to have a tank battalion to fight. Think more like Janjaweed
militia on both sides. The Islamic fellahin dug in to defend the village
(Green 1 leader with Yellow 2 followers, high motivation) against the
marauding Sikh herdsmen who object to the loss of their carefully terraformed
grasslands (mostly Blue 2's, medium motivation).
> Let's say you are dropping 10 colonies of 25,000 people each on Earth.
Let's say you have one in New Zealand, another in Italy, a third in Argentina,
a fourth in Ireland, another in New Jersey, another in Denmark, one in Moscow,
one on the Cape of Good Hope, one in Florida, and one in Japan.
But you wouldn't necessarily do that, because everyone's gong to want to be
reasonably close to a spaceport. Let's say all you need to land is a
body of water (a la Pournelle's Falkenberg series)-- tt's still going to
be more economical to have three settlements at the north, east and south side
of the bay, instead of three separate bays on different continents. If it
takes a physical starship landing field with infrastructure, then taht becomes
a scarce resource for people to fight over.
Sure, military assault ships can land on unimproved fields. I'm assuming cargo
ships don't usually have assault landers to make their
orbit-to-surface deliveries.
> On Thursday 28 September 2006 17:22, laserlight@verizon.net wrote:
Assuming there is a spaceport, supplies are even a semi-regular
occurrence, and the colony has anything to ship back. Supplies could be
'dropped' near the colony, with no need for a ship to land. After all, what is
the colony producing that homeworld will actually want to take back?
The nicer the planet, the less the need for supplies and therefore the less
the need to stay near a centre of some kind.
For low tech, colonies will probably be dropped off and forgotten. Maybe
resupplied with a second wave of colonists a few decades later. There won't be
the resources or the will to keep on shipping supplies to the colony.
For high tech, re-supplies can be frequent, but landing/take off
will be reasonably cheap. If you've got thruster technology with
multiple-g acceleration (e.g. Traveller, Star Wars), all you need
is a flat bit of ground to land on.
You'd need a middle ground, where re-supply is common but technology
is at the point where a hefty planet-side infrastructure is needed to
get supplies down to the planet.
You could PSB it to require a central space port, but I think it's also
reasonable to assume that there won't be one. The GZG universe tech seems to
fall into the Traveller category.
> From: Samuel Penn
If you don't expect to get anything out of it, why put a colony there? Maybe
you dont expect something right now, but you will, sooner or later.
I don't see "any flat bit of ground" as likely. You'll want cargo handling
equipment, warehouses and so forth. Not to say that you absolutely have to
have that, but if you want to keep costs down, you will.
On 9/28/06, gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> <gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> But you wouldn't necessarily do that, because everyone's gong to want
This depends entirely on the economics (there's that word again) of the trade
routes to the planet.
If the Alarishi or some neutral transport fleet come calling to the planet,
you're right. It's more economic to put all your colonies fairly near one
another.
If the NAC are going to send NAC ships to pick up NAC goods and drop off NAC
supplies at the NAC colony, and the ESU are going to send ESU ships to pick up
ESU goods and drop off ESU supplies at the ESU colony, it would be best if the
colonies were separated so that there would be as little conflict as possible.
The only exceptions would be for mutual defence (perhaps the local fauna is
particularly nasty), or for mutual support (you need the farmers from all
three colonies for the colony to be self sufficient in food), or the habitable
area is tightly constrained (think Larry Niven's Plateau).
I think John's point still stands, that you need to have a reason for the
colonies to be close together in order to fight, and then you have to have an
economic reason why they are fighting.
It's not impossible, but you have to come up with a good reason for it without
it seeming "made up".
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/28/06, J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
Who said anything about conscript horde EXPEDITIONARY forces? But YOUR
expeditionary forces have to deal with THEIR (local) conscript hordes.
When someone shows up to take possesion of an ESU frontier world after
thrashing their fleet, who do you think is under arms on the surface? The
"Filitov" Guards Grav-Tank Shock Corps or a horde of 2-year conscripts
and reservists recalled from the local populace?
For that matter, who is manning the garrison force keeping the local workers
and peasants in line? Well-paid long-service volunteers or a bunch of
conscripts commanded by officers who didn't have the political clout to get a
better posting and a commissar who pissed off his superiors back at Third
Chief Directorate headquarters? Are the garrison locals or shipped in from
other colonies? Remember when the PRC had to call in provincial forces to
drive a bunch of students out of Tien An Mien because the local conscipts had
spent too much time chatting with the students to be trusted to fire into the
crowd? To paraphrase Capt. Armand Pahner, "If the troops are raised there, and
their officers come from there, and the governer is from there, how do you
keep control from here?"
So the "Black Sea" Guards Armored Heavy Naval Drop Infantry Regiment (Spiffy
+1) probably gets fancy longjohns, but the 1st Backwaterskaya Reserve
Motor-Rifle Regiment (Dismounted) isn't going to get them, even (or
especially) when the Reactionary Imperialist Bourgoise Capitalist
Counter-Revolutionary
Enemies-of-the-Proletariate land. Or the drooling beasties... but
they're hard to tell apart.
For that matter, when the Black Sea blah blah blah Regiment shows up in orbit
around New Ozark, the local Minutemen Chapter probably doesn't have
no-flame
bloomers either:)
J
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> How long would it be before the transportation infrastructure between
How long did it take before there was serious conflict between the colonies of
New England and New France? How long was it befere New Amsterdam was captured?
How long after 1784 did state militias start fighting each other over
territory expansion west of the Appalachian Range? All they had was
sail- and
animal-transport and smoothbore muzzle-loading flintlocks and
matchlocks, but they managed it pretty quick. For that matter, how long did it
take before the Boers and Afrikaaners got ornery?
> What in God's name would they find to fight over? Resource scarcity
Beavers, timber, and snow? Rum, spices, and sugar cane? How to pronounce God's
name? Whether a man who's been dead for fifteen hundred years should have been
the first Successor or the fourth? When Mo got the Inspiration instead of Ali,
was it because the Almighty zapped the wrong talking monkey or because Gabriel
took the one in Apt. 4D instead of 4B? Is it better to pray in congregation
with the assistance of clergy or in solitary contemplation in your own log
hovel?
> And what the hell kind of brand new colony has the spare resources to
The kind that thinks your scarce resources are darn spiffy?
Or the kind that thinks having you mine the Tiberium that they sell for a
handsome profit is a good idea?
Or the kind that spent all their startup capital on grav-guns and Little
Red Books?
Or the kind that doesn't like having genies settle on their
harsh-enviroment
heavy-grav world ("it's not fair", "it's against God's design")?
Or the kind that thinks you have settled too close to their resources?
Or the kind that thinks your irrigation project 1000km away is depriving them
of water (or hurting the salmon-pike spawning)?
Or the kind that doesn't want Wayland-Yutani-Yoyodyne Interstellar, Inc.
to set up a mining colony on Muir's World?
Or the kind that thinks Interplanetary Expeditions Ltd. shouldn't disurb the
possible burial site of the noble long-dead aboriginal civilization?
Or the kind that "came here to get back to the historic ways of our ancestors
and don't want your technology ruining it for us (so we're gonna paint hand
prints on the side of our grav trucks for each of you we disintegrate, and 'U'
shapes for each of your speeders that we capture)"?
:)
J
> On 9/28/06, laserlight@verizon.net <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:
> >What in God's name would they find to fight over? Resource scarcity
At which point you still need starships to supply an expeditionary
force (or at least high capacity sub-orbital freighters) and that
expeditionary force is gonna be tiny.
> On 9/28/06, laserlight@verizon.net <laserlight@verizon.net> wrote:
against the marauding Sikh herdsmen who object to the loss of their carefully
terraformed grasslands (mostly Blue 2's, medium motivation).
Which still raises the point of why the Muslims and Sikhs were dropped within
riding distance when they have a whole planet to choose from.
> On 9/29/06, J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
> How long did it take before there was serious conflict between the
Ummm... over a century. Virginia was colonized in 1604, Quebec was colonized
less than 30 years later.
> How long was it befere New Amsterdam was captured?
By an expeditionary force.
> How long after 1784 did state militias start fighting each other over
Umm... at which point the Americas had colonies for nearly 200 years.
. .
All they had was sail- and
> animal-transport and smoothbore muzzle-loading flintlocks and
They didn't get 'ornery' until an expeditionary force from England showed up
and conquered them.
> On 9/29/06, J L Hilal <jlhilal@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Who said anything about conscript horde EXPEDITIONARY forces? But
That will likely be extremely ugly. At least in DSII terms, and
uglier in DS3 terms. Militias are fine for partisan/guerilla warfare,
which DSII (or any other essentially tactical game) cannot adequately
simulate. They tend not to do well against real opposition
(well-trained, well-led, well-equipped).
At best, they keep the invaders from getting any advantage from their
'conquest' before a relief force shows up.