HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: meharg@fraser.sfu.ca (Gersham William Meharg)
Subject: Re: Will Tanks Become Extinct?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:11:07 GMT

What you must consider is what tanks are used for, and if that use is
important in future battles.

The most significant use of tanks is to take terrain (and hold it)
quickly from an enemy. To take terrain you need a ground vehicle, unless
you have infinate fuel in an A/C. Sure helicopters can do damage to the
enemy in an area, but they will not be able to hold it. This is what
you need tanks for, to clear an enemy from an area and to keep it clear.

When I say tank I mean any maneuverable, fast, heavily armored and armed
vehicle. Different platforms must take an important factor into consider-
ation : if you can see it you can kill it. Therefore a low profile is 
critical for a tank, all the armor in the world wont help if everybody on
the battlefield can see you to shoot at you. This is partly why helicopters
are not a good replacement, any flying vehicle gives up the protection of
ground clutter. Its much harder to conceal in the air than on the ground.
A ground vehicle can use terrain as its advantage.

Giant two leg battle mechs (mecha) are simply stupid. They are HUGE targets
, you can see them in whatever terrain they travel through (thus you can
kill them).  Perhaps the only mecha that I would consider decent would be
the veritech mecha of robotech. Hell if you can do acrobatics at lighting
speeds and take to the air in a second thats not bad. Not terribly realistic
though. 

Tanks of the future will be faster, more maneuverable, armed with smart 
weapons, low profile, and with ECM (active and passive).

A note on hovertanks: not very usefull as a MBT. Try driving along a hill
that is sloped 30' to the side, impossible with a low friction base. Sure
hovertanks are fast but useless as MBT due to terrain restrictions. They
also have a helluva signature because they require thrust from some sort
of engine (be it jet or prop), this will have a much higher thermal sig
than a tracked vehicle (nomatter what) as well as a higher acoustic sig.

You pointed out that tanks are easy to kill with a hellicopter, sure thats
if you dont have air cover protecting your forces. Look at the gulf war, 
the Iraqis had no air cover, the Americans were able to take out the tanks
no prob.  

A breadth of force is required to fight a war, you need air land and sea
vehicles. If you are deficient in one your enemy will use this against
you.

I havnt seen ANY rpg (ive seen a lot of em too), that properly (realisticly)
handles futureistic tank combat.

Gersham Meharg
Simon Fraser Unniversity
Vancouver, Canada.
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason steiner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Genres
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:30:16 GMT

canders@isr.harvard.edu (Carl E. Anderson) writes:
> 
> 	So who makes "Centurion"?  Is it liable to be in local gaming
> stores?

Centurion is made by FASA. it's a futuristic tank combat game
that's part of the Renegade Legion series. other games include
Interceptor (much like Aerotech), Leviathan (-large- spacecraft),
and Legionaire (roleplaying, fills a place similar to MechWarrior.)
i see these games as successors to BattleTech. the systems hold
together better but are still fun to play. 

tactics in Centurion can get rather...interesting. combat tends
to resemble a mix of helicoptor/jet fighter dogfights, but
with the survivability & heavy weapons of armor.

both gaming stores that i've frequented carry them.

--
...in the 1967 trial, Smith, a wealthy carpet distributor, testified that
the death of his second wife, April, came after a lengthy period of domestic
discord which climaxed on the night she was shot in a bitter argument over
leftover chicken. - the LA Times, quoted by Tonio K. on "Romeo Unchained"
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
From: canders@isr.harvard.edu (Carl E. Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Will Tanks Become Extinct?
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:26:31 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <30JUL199214051584@jane.uh.edu> chem7l@jane.uh.edu writes:
>I've read (and participated in,to a limited extent) a lot of posts dealing with
>the feasibility (or lack thereof) of man-shaped robots, hexapods, or tanks on
>tracks being the heavy weapons platform of choice in futuristic armies.  All of
>these have faults: the (BattleMech) robot is limited by many factors (high 
>profile, hi IR sig, unstable vulnerable legs for locomotion), the tank is 
>limited by terrain and speed, and the hexapod is limited by the vulnerability
>and (probable) lack of strength in its legs (which limits the weapon size and
>armor strength).
>What I'm wondering, is whether anyone has any ideas for better platforms.

>I personally favor the helicopter.

	You have many good points about the helicopter, but I wonder if the
vulnerability  of the rotor blades wouldn't prove a fatal flaw.  After all,
you can only protect/harden them so much without reducing their efficiency,
and if they got shot off, then you're screwed.  Any ideas for getting
around this?

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: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Re: SRun (deckers without guns)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 06:29:59 GMT

Jayhawk (my decker character in a long Shadowrun campaign) carried a gun
all campaign long, and had occasion to use it a couple of times.  She
finished off a wounded enemy early in the campaign, something which came
back to haunt her much later.  On the whole, I don't think it
contributed particularly to her safety one way or the other; but she was
running with close friends, and wanted to do everything she could to
help.

On the other hand, the team had a policy of keeping non-coms back if
they knew there was going to be a firefight.  Most of the times Jay got
into combat, it was unplanned and undesired (they were on the wrong end
of a couple of Shadowrunning teams themselves).  For planned runs, she
often could just as well have left it at home.

Which brings me to the question:  do most Shadowrun campaigns consist of
a series of shadowruns?  My GM tried that for a little while, and both
he and I lost interest; too disjointed.  The campaign ended up being a
single, complicated, long-term operation against agents of a rather
insane corporation.  Some of the stages of our little private war looked
like shadowruns, but the overall feel was quite different.  We got a
good taste of what it's like to be hunted, as well as hunters.  And
homeless, and scared shitless, day after day.  It was one of the best
campaigns I've ever been in, despite a couple of stretches where I could
feel my characters' desperation so intensely I almost gave up myself.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:58:55 -0400 
From: William Henry Timmins <wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Military Mechs?
	<Bs4KMF.H65@acsu.buffalo.edu>

>Hey, It could be done!  But you might find yourself in a time period when it
>works efficiently in mechs and not in tanks.  And a muscular drive system
>would be more intuitive for use in Mechs.  Mind you, I point to a number
>of BTECH vehicles(tanks) that use Fusion engines.  They would be a boon to
>tank technology.

I had thought about that... battletech makes sense if you assume that it
takes place during a technical hiatus, before the next generation of
vehicles utilize the myomer technology.

Of course, this period would, most likely, be on the order of 10-20
years in length. Long enough for a campaign.


Sort of like 'the old west'. The cowboys and frontier of the US depicted
in stories and Westerns really only lasted about 10 years.


-Me
[Pooh Bear incarnate.]
<B1 c+ f+ w g+ k+ s+ r- e+ p>

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: bkdavis@eos.ncsu.edu (B K DAVIS)
Subject: Re: SRUN: Combat, Initiative, Rule of 6's...
Originator: bkdavis@c00121-100lez.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: bkdavis@eos.ncsu.edu (B K DAVIS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 04:03:00 GMT


>
>Having heard, IMHO, adequate discussion about the documentation of the
>non-implementation of the Rule of 6 for initiative rolls, I would
>like to say that I will continue to to inappropiately apply it
>since I think it plays better.  Tom Dowd may believe otherwise. So
>>be it; I disagree.  SR rules as is makes being nonwired totally hopeless
>in combat.  Here is a classic example of the rules adding insult to
>injury: initiative.  It is one thing for wireheads to have more actions.
>Or to go first.  But both?!?  I played a character without cyber once and
>it is a little dull to have to wait around while everyone else completes
>their three actions so that my character has an opportunity to draw
>his gun.  Without the Rule of 6, that character does not even have the
>hope of getting 2 actions with a lucky roll.  (He was a troll.)
>
>My proposed solution:  Give EVERYONE another intiative die
>			    (i.e. Reaction +2D6)
>		       Change the added action thresholds to 11, 21, 31, etc.
>		       (Next action at -10)
>>
>Results:	Downplays wires a bit, but does not really make them
>		any less necessary.
>
>		Unfortunately, the Bulletcatchers, also known as guards,
>		may get an opportunity to fire.
>
>My thinking is that, provided one survives the round, the total number of
>actions should be balanced out.  If I get 1 action and someone else gets
>3, I may as well go home because I can't even reload his spare rifle
>fast enough to keep up.  But if he gets 3 and I get 2, well, it is obvious
>who is the better gunslinger, but I can get things done, also.


>--Peter

Hmm sometimes being slow can be an advantage. The person that has dodged all 
the attacks thrown at him ending his last turn on 18 get shot by the guy with 
uzi who goes on 7. Dodge pool gone. BLAM ...THUD.
A single shot rings out and blam another razorboy is geeked. Why ?
CAUSE HE WAS STUPID!!!


Brebane
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: pmwg1641@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Peter M. White)
Subject: Re: SRUN: Combat, Initiative, Rule of 6's...
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:33:37 GMT

Having heard, IMHO, adequate discussion about the documentation of the
non-implementation of the Rule of 6 for initiative rolls, I would
like to say that I will continue to to inappropiately apply it
since I think it plays better.  Tom Dowd may believe otherwise. So
be it; I disagree.  SR rules as is makes being nonwired totally hopeless
in combat.  Here is a classic example of the rules adding insult to
injury: initiative.  It is one thing for wireheads to have more actions.
Or to go first.  But both?!?  I played a character without cyber once and
it is a little dull to have to wait around while everyone else completes
their three actions so that my character has an opportunity to draw
his gun.  Without the Rule of 6, that character does not even have the
hope of getting 2 actions with a lucky roll.  (He was a troll.)

My proposed solution:  Give EVERYONE another intiative die
			    (i.e. Reaction +2D6)
		       Change the added action thresholds to 11, 21, 31, etc.
		       (Next action at -10)

Results:	Downplays wires a bit, but does not really make them
		any less necessary.

		Unfortunately, the Bulletcatchers, also known as guards,
		may get an opportunity to fire.

My thinking is that, provided one survives the round, the total number of
actions should be balanced out.  If I get 1 action and someone else gets
3, I may as well go home because I can't even reload his spare rifle
fast enough to keep up.  But if he gets 3 and I get 2, well, it is obvious
who is the better gunslinger, but I can get things done, also.


--Peter

______________________________________________________________________________
						|
     "Guards!  Let me draw their fire!"		|	p-white@uiuc.edu
		   --Scapegoat,_Marshal Law_	|
______________________________________________________________________________
From: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: HERO vs. GURPS
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:16:23 GMT
Reply-To: doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

That "dorky AD&Der" was obviously well-trained by T$R.

"Oh, but I just HAVE to have those silly Wizard Spell Cards!  They're
OFFICIAL!!!"

-Doug Gibson
 doug@abby.chem.ucla.edu

Neither UCLA nor the National Science Foundation has a clue what I am doing.
They just pay me to do it.

"We have to tear you to shreds because we care." - EAC
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: SR: Blood 'n guts games
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:00:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

jerry@teetot.acusd.edu (Jerry Stratton) writes:


>Here's a question for Mage/shaman players. Do you find spell locks at all
>useful for keeping spells on yourself? I thought about having a spell
>(Oxygenate) locked on my latest character, but I couldn't think of a
>reasonable way to protect myself against spell grounding. I mean, as
>near as I can tell from the  rules, anyone with a spell lock is a
>sitting duck for astral mages/shamans.

There is no real way to protect yourself against spell grounding. However,
when you are going at IMP REACTION +4, few other mages get the 
chance. *sigh* I'd like to see that spell lock get fried. Maybe an
ambush, oh GM-who-reads-r.g.f.m?

Yes, a spell lock makes you very vulnerable to astral shamans/mages, 
but most GM's don't use ritual sorcery or astral combat enough to
have this matter. Too bad..'cause the mages get something for nothing.
I have to wire half of my body to get the reaction I do, and spend
the rest of my life watchign the world go by in slow motion. Joe Mage
gets a spelllock and can kick my butt, and no one ever picks on that
glaring vulnerability.

Axly

********************************************************************************
*  Axly               *  "I didn't want to shoot him."                         *
* Red Sword Targa     *  "Well..maybe I did want to shoot him, but I didn't    *
*                     *   mean to kill him."                                   **                     *  "OK. Maybe I did mean to kill him ... but he deserved *
*                     *   it. "                                                *
*                     *        -Axly                                           *
********************************************************************************
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: ArsM:  Twilight question
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 23:36:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.113221.5749@iscsvax.uni.edu> gobeski8618@iscsvax.uni.edu (Steve 'Gobes' Gobeski) writes:
>I have a question about an apparent contradiction in the 3d Edition Ars Magica
>as regards Twilight (p. 356).  "Magi do not gain Twilight Points until they
>begin using a longevity potion..." and "Twilight points also come from studying
>the Art of Vim...".  My question is that, e.g. my character, if you have a Vim
>score of 5 (one Twilight) but have not taken any longevity potions, do you have
>Twilight points?

  In our campaign, you don't get twilight points from studying Vim until you
start you start taking your longevity potion, or get a twilight point some
other way (massive botch). So in our campaign, your character youldn't have
any twilight points. (Important for those of us with 20+ vim scores.)



-- 
Mike Swaim            | "What izzis wunnderful thing? S' Beautiful
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu | I think I'll put my tongue on it." -Arthur
Rupp doesn't even know who I am,
 much less care what I think
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
From: cjudd@esk (Craig Thomas Judd)
Subject: Re: Anyone Heard of Rifts
Organization: University of Tasmania at Launceston
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 06:13:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.205136.3130@ducvax.auburn.edu>, mh563b12@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
>
>RE: Rifts
>
>I was wondering if anyone here has tried Rifts.  I have been playing it for
>about a year on and off and really like it, but I have seen no postings about
>it on this net.  ( I have only had access for a short time though.)
>
>I would appriciate anyone's $.02 worth.
>
>Chris

I've been playing RIFTS for about a week now, in two all-nighter sessions. I'm
very impressed with the game we're running, although since we have lost the 
main rulebook we often have to deal with discrepancies... :-)

My only real problem is that I get shot at too much, and there is too much of
a change in power levels between SDC and MDC creatures. Some of you here may
remember my Tele-operator with the reviled Recoilless Rifle and grenade 
launcher. Well, I've been playing her, and the GM seems annoyed that her major
priorities are sleeping and staying alive. The recoilless rifle is not that
powerful a weapon in RIFTS, but I have had some special AP shells made so they
go through armour before/while exploding (since, I believe, it's a type of
rocket launcher). I may not be a combat-oriented character, but I do have a
fetish for guns, and there are an awful lot of things to shoot...

Last night (well, this morning) I managed to destroy a Coalition training camp
by getting captured and transported back there in an Enforcer... 
when I touched the hullmetal,
all hell broke loose and the guard inside it shot the pilot >:-)

Not sure when I'm playing next, but since Northern Gun has effectively fired
the Juicer I was tagging along with, we shouldn't have more than routine
danger for a while. Ahh, time for my Operator to catch some zzz's...

Yours sleepily;

-- 
   \/\ "Abide by the contract of blood and inherit me!" Grossporina, SM2 /\/
====\/\"Shit, it's that skinhead again!" Kaneda about Col., AKIRA Book 3/\/====
=====\/\      *** WANT ANY MANGA ARTWORK DONE? Just email me! ***      /\/=====
      \/\   cjudd@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au      a.k.a. Kuroto Shiro   /\/
From: mavra@cpac.washington.edu (Peter D. Adkison)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: VOTE FOR ME  ;)
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:03:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: bailey.MAVRA.92Jul23080316
Organization: Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

I'd say vote for *our* products, but we didn't publish anything in
1991.  Unless you can count old Bard Games inventory.  That's the
ticket!  Let's get Dave to create a new category:

	Best Product Licensed From An Out-Of-Business Gaming Company!

And Greg, what do you mean calling my company puny!  We've published
three products now!  Count them, T-H-R-E-E!  And we recently
experienced a three-day streak where we didn't lose money!  :-)

				--Mavra!
				  Peter D. Adkison
				  Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
				  mavra@blegga.cac.washington.edu

The above internet address should be used for e-mail if it is
different from the e-mail address in the header.
From: inb@creare.COM (Ian Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Throw away your greatsword! ( Big vs. Small Weapons )
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:36:25 GMT
Reply-To: inb@creare.UUCP (Ian Brown)
Organization: Creare Inc., Hanover, NH


Personally, unless I was looking for a Conan-style character, I rarely use
heavy weapons.  I tend to prefer characters who rely on their intelligence and
skill to defeat opponents, rather than brute strength.  This makes a weapon
that is somewhere between a rapier and the standard FRP longsword much better
than something as unwieldy as a greatsword.

In my own game, I tend to restrict the use of the heaviest hand-to-hand weapons
(which does *not* include polearms - more on that later) to those with greater
than average (for PCs - which means strong) characters.  I've done many of the
things suggested, such as forcing people to stay at a distance relative to the
wielders, allowing opponents to get in multiple blows due to faster weapons,
etc.

In general, heavy weapons, including polearms, are most effective if used in a
general melee or as part of an organized unit.  In a one-on-one situation, the
decreased mobility will probably make the weapon less attractive.  Something to
keep in mind that wasn't mentioned; the extra length will make the weapon
dangerous at a distance, but will make it unwieldy in a tight situation.  For
something like a polearm, if your opponent gets inside the effective range of
the weapon, you end up with a giant quarterstaff - without the staff's
manueverability.

Most polearms were designed for unit tactics, especially from horseback or
against those on horseback.  A pike, for example, was specifically intended to
negate the effectiveness of a cavalry charge (and was quite successful at it,
in the hands of a trained foot soldier.)  As GM, I suspect that I would give
someone wielding the pike one chance to strike their opponent, after which that
person would be inside their reach.

This is getting rather rambling, so I think I'll close it now.
-- 
Ian Brown
inb@creare.com
Xref: sparky rec.games.frp.misc:2785 rec.games.frp.advocacy:1237
From: stas@soda.berkeley.edu (Stan Malyshev)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Armor/Weapons Controversy
Keywords: Armor, Arrows
Date: 24 Jul 92 10:07:18 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Jun28.035839.13240@tamsun.tamu.edu> jrp3935@tamsun.tamu.edu (Jonny Ray Purvis) writes:
>In article <2A4D1FDB.2540@ics.uci.edu> mmadsen@ics.uci.edu (Matt Madsen) writes:
>>Is there a concensus on the effectiveness of arrows vs. chain and other mail?
>>I personally would like to know how effectively chain protected against, say,
>>a spear.  Recently, in a GURPS fantasy game, a character got eaten alive by
>>an orc with a spear.  With only a DR 2 (vs. the normal 4 against non-impaling
>>weapons), the spear shot right through otherwise good armor.  Is this sensible?
>>How do you think chainmail would behave against spears (and other _big_ pointy
>>objects) and rapiers (and other _small_ pointy objects)?
>

I would imagine that a spear thrust against chain mail is similar to
bullet impact against kevlar - neither penetrates (hopefully) but you're
left with a huge bruise and the wind knocked out of you.

(In my defense, I cite teh case of Frodo vs. the Orc captain ;-)  )

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"
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc