HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rrn@milton.u.washington.edu (H++ Visser)
Subject: Re: Military Mechs?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 04:02:48 GMT

One thing that has always bothered me about BTECH (I mean the problems are 
legion, but most of the oterhs have already been brought up) is that during
periods of intense warfare, it makes little sense that technology would go
down rather than up. Sure resources go down, but the weight is disproptionally
placed on the shoulders of the civilian population. 

Look at early WW2 tanks versu late-war models. Battletech would have us believe
the russions would have started with T-34s and ended with T-70s. WWI brought
us poiosn gas, tanks, and airplane combat. The US Civil War's contributions
are many indeed.

In times of crisis, the willingness of at least one of the combatant's to
try new and innovative designs goes up, and as a result, so does technology.
Battletech (and new, "improved" Traveller) would have us believe quite the
opposite. Just how does an information society lose technical data? That far
in the future, just how difficult is it to store the data to make weapon system
X or Y? Not hard at all, I imagine.

The real reason, as far as I could tell, was that the BTECH designers quickly
realized that they were years behind in weapon technology, even for today,
and instead of doing a, say, Car Wars (where every new weapon release 
mandated completely new cars), they choose to protect their initial designs
by not updating the tech. Their `new dark ages' excuse is just as silly,
unfortunately. The same thing happened with vehicles (remember that they were
NOT part of the orginal rules). Suddenly it was clear that Mechs were not
useful, and so they had to come out with lame excuses and the utterly silly
Vehicle Critical Hit charts (you'd think a Mech would have more, not less,
important areas exposed -- look at the pictures). The introduction of heavier
weapons amde the fact that armor is far too efficient as well (tank combat
today is hardly the kind of attrition-kill scenerio BTECH and other games paint
-- too much DnD, maybe). BTECH should have stayed a fast, somewhat silly
board-game; the universe don't work.
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Military Mechs?
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:34:26 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

hummell+@pitt.edu (Andrew G Hummell) writes:

> Tanks are only effective against troop transports, buildings, and other
> tanks.

Isn't that what they were always effective against?  They support the infantry
against hardpoints, and the infantry supports the tanks against other infantry.

> Giant humanoid robots (if such beasts *could* be built -- I beleive that is
> *very* unlikely) would have advantages such as terrain (a walking robot can
> move across terrain that is impassable for tanks)...

A helicopter would be even more maneuverable.  Otherwise, there are plenty of
other options (artillery, missiles, etc).  If whoever is in the rough terrain
can shoot out, you can shoot in.

> ...more armor, more firepower,...

You haven't done your physics homework.  Rolling is more efficient than
walking, so you can move more mass with less energy.  Since you did make that
statement, can you support it?

> more versatility (a giant humanoid robot could be used to pick heavy things
> up and move them, i.e. construction work).

Front line commander: "Help!  We need more support up here!"
Rear Line clerk: "Sorry, all the mechs are in use (moving crates of supplies)."

You could simply mount some cargo-handling equipment on tanks if absolutely
necessary.

> If you can't bring yourself to beleive that giant robots are a *possibility*,
> how can you play *any* science fiction game?  FTL travel is no more unlikely
> that giant robots.  Sentient robots/androids/computers are no more unlikely
> than giant robots.

You're mistaken.  Theoreticians are still arguing about possible ways to
achieve "FTL" travel.  Until they tie up all loose ends and show that it is
impossible, gamers and writers have some leeway as to using it.

Sentient AI is definitely not proven impossible.  We don't have the hardware to
support it yet, but there's nothing to show that it isn't possible; no physical
laws or economic laws need to be broken.

Those "mechs" simply don't make sense.  Technologically they are possible, but
economically and militarily they are idiotic.  Their only reason for existence
in games or stories is in being "cool".  If you accept that, you can enjoy your
game.  However, there's no point in trying to justify their existence to
others.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: canders@isr.harvard.edu (Carl E. Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Big vs. Small Weapons
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:08:29 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <Bs40p5.tA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maxson@cerl.uiuc.edu (K R Maxson) writes:
>Actually, trying to figure out how combat really works by watching SCA events
>is not a very good plan.

	Well, it can teach you a lot, if you keep the limitations of the
SCA well in mind.  The most ridiculous thing in SCA combat is the speed and
abandon with which people fight.  Most combats result in a kill after a
very short time - a minute or so at best.  Do you think people would fight
so carelessly if they knew their lives and well-beings depended on it.  A
real fight would be rather more cautious and time-consuming.

Carl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Edlund Anderson	            	"Hefi ek ok aldri sva reitt vapn
canders@isr.harvard.edu			at manni at eigi hafi vidh kommit."
OR
anderso2@husc.harvard.edu			- Skarphedhinn Njalsson 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov
Subject: BTECH: Military Mechs?
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md, USA
	<55239@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <27JUL199217362646@elroy.uh.edu>
	<1992Jul28.161435.89577@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 23:11:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.161435.89577@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> jwadsley@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:


[much deleted...including some double talk about the efficiency of myomers
vs electric motors]

>Hang on here. Fusion engines produce electricity directly? Since
>when. I haven't read Battletech in detail but if this is an assumption
>then this little garbology has to rank as one of the worst flaws in
>Battletech.

Ummm...I think that technically the BattleTech fusion engine is a
misnomer.  I think what it does is store a rapidly rotating charged
plasma or something that produces electricity.  Theoretically such a
device could work...someone who remembers both the BTECH mumbo jumbo
and the real paper on theoretical device can go into further details.
I remember that FASA got the gist, named it wrong and flubbed the
technical description in some way but the thing is possible.  

It doesn't use heat at all as your standard energy transfer medium.
Why they worry about the waste heat is subject to more doubletalk...
more game mechanic than anything else although shedding waste heat is
an important issue with most engines...god only knows how your hide an
IR source as bright as they make mechs out to be...you could probably
easily see the suckers from orbit...which means you could probably
target them from orbit and drop a ton of crowbars on them with 70s
vintage technology.  I don't care how tough your armor is...you simply
are not going to like taking hits from objects travelling at near
orbital speeds...

>James Wadsley.

Nigel
--
Nigel Tzeng
.sig under construction
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: stas@soda.berkeley.edu (Stan Malyshev)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Time Travel ideas summary.
Date: 25 Jul 1992 07:42:15 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

For a different approach, read a story called, I think, _Mozart in 
Mirrorshades_ by Sterling and Gibson, if memory doesnt fail me.

It is one of the stories in the _Mirrorshades_ short story collection.

The story is built on the premise that real history is a set of the
states of the universe collected continuously through time.  Time travel
is possible into the possible states of the universe that did not actually
become part of history as we know it - those states led perhaps to a different 
history that we aren't aware of.

Thus, changing things in a state that did not contribute to "our" history
did not have any effects on our history.  And so the people of future
Earth constructed a worm hole or some field that supported a gateway into
an alternate past.  Then they proceeded to transport natural resources, etc,
through the tunnel, etc etc.

Perhaps a better description of the approach is an analogy with the
Kripke semantics for modal logic - a world being a set of all worlds as they
can possibly be.  Thus, at time T0, the world W would be represented by
an infinite set of all the permutations of all the "variables" that can be
used to describe something in the world.  Then our history would be a
set of pairs of < Wi, Ti > where Wi is one of the possible worlds at
Ti, and we would look at a continuous range of T.  (I hope this is readable)

Modal logic, of course, deals only with finite sets for a finite number of
variables, but the analogy is there.

So you can have PC go into alternate histories and hide there, and drink all
the beer the world has to offer.  Whatever the case may be, it's a pleasant
distraction from "Stop X from doing Y at time T lest our history be
irreparably screwed up!"


Stan
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Malyshev		|	The fruit mother nature never intended.
stas@soda.berkeley.edu	|	(testing the new .sig)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Subject: Re: Cyberpunk (was: SR: SRII combat mods)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:24:16 GMT

oroboros@acca.nmsu.edu (The Wyrm Ouroboros) writes:

>Well, we've heard the great debate of Armed Decker versus Unarmed Decker.
>I'd have to say that armed is better -- because when the corpcops drop
>'twixt you and your sams, and turn on the sams, well, it's nice to be able
>to shoot them in the back after a moment or two of AIMING.

>Y'all keep forgetting that little chance, huh?  Aim for three actions, 'cause
>your Decker should have an intelligence of 6 (That's what you hired him for,
>wasn't it?), which will drop your targets by a few into a range where you can
>plug the fragger.

The only thing that might make this not so viable is that by the time
most deckers have taken 3 actions of aim, the average samurai will have
taken 9-12 actions, and by the time he fires, 12-16. It's just not time
efficient for low speed characters to aim. Deckers are better off investing
in a smartgun link since most deckers have the Essence to spare.

Axly
From: ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Military Mechs? Hexapod
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:42:01 GMT
	<RATINOX.92Jul29101842@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<Bs5yHM.EK0@acsu.buffalo.edu>
	<RATINOX.92Jul29172617@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<Bs6JzG.G86@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
In-reply-to: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu's message of 30 Jul 92 02:23:39 GMT
X-Get-A-Clue: Have two, they're small.
X-Signature-Virus-Protection: Version 1.51
X-Posting-Software: GNUS 3.14.1 [ NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs ]

>>>>> On 30 Jul 92 02:23:39 GMT, dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) said:

[My modified picture deleted]

A> Well, if you add mines to the picture, and some tanks on overwatch to
A> shoot anything that comes over the berm, I'd say that the hexapod would
A> be just as vulnerable coming over that as a tank. The tank wouldn't make
A> it and the tank commander by now knows where his tank can and can't go.
A> The underside of the hexapod would be exposed to all kinds of nasty
A> explosives, guns and infantry fired anti-hexapod missles when they play
A> leap the ditch.

Not really. It first plants it forelegs on the edge of the upper bank, then
uses its middle and rear legs to raise itself. The "body" maintains a level
attitude as it brings its heaviest armor and weapons over the rise. It
might even be safer tilting a bit "nose down," protecting the underside.

BTW, that's one benefit of the walking tank--it can fire down from a height.

You seem to have neglecte the infantry support working with the hexapod.
Their job is to deal with the anti-tank infantry on the other side.

A> Not that I'm saying hexapods wouldn't be real neat looking doing it,
A> but let's not forget all the other combat arms get involved in a war.
A> The best way to beat a dug-in position is to sweep around it (Gee,
A> does that sound familiar, Norm? ) and send the Marines through the
A> worst area (Gee, now that REALLY sounds familiar!) to demine the area.

Actually, the best way to beat a dug-in position is to hit it with an air
strike of penetrating bombs (ya know, like anti-runway bombs). If you can't
get an air strike, call in the artillery. If you can't get that, then you
have to send in infantry and tanks.

--Rat

||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
                                                   __        ___ 
Richard Pieri, Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat/   | /| / /   | The Worlds
Internet: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu   /__  |/ |/ / /| | Welfare Works
    UUCP: ...!northeastern.edu!splinter!ratinox/   | /| / / / | | Association:
  BITNET: UA_RLP@NUHUB{.BITNET}               /__  |/ |/ / /  | | I will solve
  USNail: 14 Westdale RD  Holbrook, MA 02343 /   | /| / / /___| | any problem
 ICBMnet: 42 deg 1 min N, 71 deg 0 min W    /    |/ |/ /_//_____| for you.
From: dunning@chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu (GALACTIC COMMANDER)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Will Tanks Become Extinct?
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:34:36 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <30JUL199214051584@jane.uh.edu> chem7l@jane.uh.edu writes:

	[Too many ideas to relist them all]

>Please post your ideas -- they could lead to some interesting game developement.
>
>Jim Corbit

I think one of the biggest factors that everyone is overlooking is cost.  A
simple infantry soldier with a barely inteligent missile (Heat-seeking) can
take down your $$$ helicopter.  In addition is that the more complex a
weapons system gets the greater the chance that something will breakdown.
Just play Harpoon and curse when you phalanx system shuts down from a jam.

For pounding positions that are fixed nothing gets cheaper than stupid
arty guns using finned shells.  With the proper anti-air support very little
will get near them.  Combine this with a very small signature and they are
very hard to hit.  Just place a small squad with a radio or IR spotter near
the front lines.  They paint the target (or call the grid) and these dumb
shells will get fairly close.

Thr biggest problem with both the Bradely and the Apache is the light armor
is fairly often penetrated by small arms fire.  Even the studies preformed
by the armor indicated this happens fairly regularly.  Therefore small units
of infantry operating behind the lines can cut these light units apart before
they are even spotted.

IMO the finest weapon available is the INFANTRY SOLDIER

o They are cheaper to train, maintain, and arm
o They can live off the land fairly easy
o They can operate behind enemy lines (try slipping that Apache into New York
	without getting spotted, but a soldier can wear a suit and fit right
	in with the crowd)
o They can carry the firepower to eliminate any threat at a fraction of the
	cost (what is the cost of a stinger missile compared to the Apache
	I just shot down?)

I believe that most modern battlefields will have small units of highly
trained soldiers moving around and eliminating target.  Using arty to
soften up targets and then moving in fast.  Bradelys and Light Helicopters
will be used to move troops quickly to drop off areas (Desert Storm-style).
If the infantry finds a hard target they can call in the heavy stuff
(Abrams, Apaches, A-10s and others).

Meanwhile the status of the Air War will determine whether your supply
lines are being threatened or theirs.  I believe that total Air Superiority
is a thing of the past.  When small VTOLs and Helios can pop up and blaze
away then leave you either keep a constant Air Cap up or just shoot what
ya can and only control the air when you need too.  After all if your
fuel depot just got blasted noone really cares how good you planes, tanks,
and Helios are - they aren't going anywhere.

Chip


--

-----------------------------\_/-----------------------------
 Elwood H Dunning III         |     I am a pirate, I don't
  GALACTIC COMMANDER          |           DO decency!!
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: samjones@leo.unm.edu (Sam Jones)
Subject: Re: New Name for Flesh Golem wanted!
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 20:07:08 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Jul25.043223.546@njitgw.njit.edu> cxc4107@hertz.njit.edu (Christopher Lee Cavender) writes:
>Okay all you creative net-types! I need a new name for Flesh Golems! And DONT
>give me varations on Frankenstein! There is no reason to name a medivail monster
>after a 19th centuray fictional creation!
>						Chris

	1st edition GURPS Horror lists things like the Frankenstein Monster 
(no, it's never given a name other than 'the fiend' or 'the creature'), the 
beast-men from The Island of Doctor Moreau, and other humanoid scientific 
creations under the name Construct.  Construct is far from specific, but it 
certainly fits the case.
	Trying to fit together what little Latin and etimology I know, I can 
make suggestions.  If you're running Ars Magica, or something else that has a
similar medieval scholarly feel, I'd probably call them Carnis Mortem, 'Of Dead
Flesh'.  I could be very wrong about that.
	In the more sensationalist form, you could put together one word names.
Carnteknon (son of flesh, mixing Greek and Latin roots).  Arthanoids (those who
are like dead people).  There's lots of possibilities.

-- 
	These opinions are not those of my employers.  In fact, they are not 
mine.  They're yours, and you're projecting them on me because you're unable to
take responsibility for your own thoughts.
From: holmes@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Krishgan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: New Names for a Flesh Golem
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:41:31 GMT
Organization: the Night Crafters Associated Press


 Regarding the arguements on "Frankenstein's Monster"...

 First of all, in the books, he was known as Adam, and was considerably 
 more intelligent that "Frankenstein" from the first two editions of the
 movie back in the earlier part of this century.

 Second, there is a "Golem" legend that actually predates back to the 
 Arabic History/Culture.  It was an animate lifeforce placed within the
 prefabricated shell of a carved object, usually stone or wood.

 There is arguement concerning the connection between the Egyptian "Mummy"
 and the Arabic "Golem" btw.

 Gollum out of the books by Tolkien was a warped (mentally, physically,
 emotionally, and even -spiritually-) individual, and nothing more.  JRR
 actually intended Gollum to be a representation of "mankinds further 
 digression into the pit he moves towards.."

 And as for the ORIGINAL query the poster put out for names for a Flesh
 Golem for AD&D...

    Adam, in memory of the ORIGINAL -Monster-
    Blunt, because that is the preferred mode of attack
    Dense, because they are, physically and mentally
    Trog, because they remind me of something that is "subhuman"
    Grog, because it would make him almost "cute" in a sense
    Batboy, because they are SOOO good at carrying things around for the
       -real- players
    Fluster, because they can be so, well so "flustering" to keep in check

  I don't remember the name of the guy that put out the original posting, 
  but I hope this helps...

  -Keith
From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: Best Super system
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:50:09 GMT

In article <14ksupINNiub@early-bird.think.com> laird@think.com (Laird Popkin) writes:
> jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>	The other thing to be careful of is cost ratios. For example, 
>>damage generally costs 6pts per d6, whereas defense is 3pts per 1DR. This 
>>means that attacks will tend to overwhelm defenses. Pair up a bunch of 
>
>[complaints about DR and hit points being too expensive deleted]
>
>As I've said before, the fix is simple -- make them cheaper if that's what
>you want in your campaign.  You're complaining about the value of a number,
>not the way the system works.

	I am not complaining about a number, I am complaining about *lots* 
of numbers. I agree that most of my complaints about Supers are not too 
difficult to solve - but they are very numerous. 

	I'm not saying the system is 'inherently flawed' or anything like 
that - it's just that it is alot of work to implement and balance. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "Stop, you fiend, or I'll stand remarkably 
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | still for a long period of time."
Columbia University         |                           - Stone Boy
From: stas@soda.berkeley.edu (Stan Malyshev)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: BANNED AT GENCON!!!
Date: 25 Jul 1992 03:25:01 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Jun26.004125.21363@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bh967@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Greg Weller) writes:
>
>who only worry about the bottom line.  But that's the price
>you have to pay I guess when you live in a corrupt 
>Xtian/Capitalist society.  You have to have the patriarchal
>morality shoved down your throat along with your 'products
>of your imagination'.  TSR began to go down the slippery
[more stuff deleted]

Since out society is capitalist (that is until some democrats in congress
succeed in passing what would amount to socialism), and TSR's existence
depends on their profits, you can choose to not buy their products.

As someone's quote goes (Lorens?), the more laws, the more corrupt the
government.  The corruption that has much impact on everyday life is not
that of "Xtian/Capitalist society" but that of the huge ever-spending 
bureacracy for which the Congress democrats are largely responsible.

Perhaps TSR could profit by paying $$ to the whores in Washington
(read: lobby of a special interest group) and make more $$ by
making a show of not giving in to pressure from fundamentalists and their
representatives.

Perhaps TSR wanted to do this, but there was no one left to buy.

Stan
-- 
|---------------------------|							| Stan Malyshev             |  The rule is simple:  Suspect, only suspect.	| stas@soda.berkeley.edu    |  You can read subtexts even in a traffic sign	|                           |  that says 'No Littering.'		
|                           |  - Of course.  Catharist moralism.  The horror	|                           |    of fornication.				|---------------------------|              Umberto Eco, "Foucault's Pendulum"
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Military Mechs?
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:43:52 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

woodhams@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Michael Woodhams) writes:

> Fortunately, I have the solution to make everybody happy. Put the mechs on
> bicycles.

Hahahahahahaha!  I vote Michael as the winner of the "best comment in this
debate" award!  :-)


Now his solution is an example of true SF: extrapolating the scientific
principles of that universe.  :)

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca