Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: mrnexx@*********.net (Mark Hall)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:21:08 -0600
Matthew Bond wrote:

> In RL warfare, very few casualties are caused by aimed fire, so there is
> little pressing need for Smartgun Links except for a couple of trained
> marksmen per platoon or so. The rest will be using suppresing fire,
> throwing grenades etc.

But a smartlink changes that, doesn't it? A functioning smartlink makes
it possible to walk supppressive fire without hitting your own troops,
especially if the smartlink can recognize the identifier signal on the
troop's cyberware, or the battletac is linked to everyone's fire
capabilities and is feeding information on where not to shoot. This
suddently makes the information warfare specialists a really big
concern, because they can confuse the signals of the cyberware identifiers.

However, I will point out a couple things. First of all, the induction
datajack means that a smartlink is not 100% necessary... you can have
your troops link into their smartguns via the DNI connection. Secondly,
however, there is another cost for having everyone smart-ready... you
have to buy them guns with brains, which is another big expense to deal
with.

--
***
Nexx
aka Skaldmark
aka Mark Hall
***
http://www.editors-wastebasket.org/nexx/
***
"We have not even to risk the adventure alone, for the heroes of all
time have gone before us."
-Joseph Campbell
Message no. 2
From: pentaj2@********.edu (John C. Penta)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:40:39 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Hall <mrnexx@*********.net>
Date: Sunday, October 31, 2004 2:21 pm
Subject: Re: Cyber for Soldiers

> Matthew Bond wrote:
>
> > In RL warfare, very few casualties are caused by aimed fire, so
> there is
> > little pressing need for Smartgun Links except for a couple of
> trained> marksmen per platoon or so. The rest will be using
> suppresing fire,
> > throwing grenades etc.
>
> But a smartlink changes that, doesn't it? A functioning smartlink
> makes
> it possible to walk supppressive fire without hitting your own
> troops,
> especially if the smartlink can recognize the identifier signal on
> the
> troop's cyberware, or the battletac is linked to everyone's fire
> capabilities and is feeding information on where not to shoot.
> This
> suddently makes the information warfare specialists a really big
> concern, because they can confuse the signals of the cyberware
> identifiers.
> However, I will point out a couple things. First of all, the
> induction
> datajack means that a smartlink is not 100% necessary... you can
> have
> your troops link into their smartguns via the DNI connection.
> Secondly,
> however, there is another cost for having everyone smart-ready...
> you
> have to buy them guns with brains, which is another big expense to
> deal
> with.

You forget something, though...

The UCAS is still a democracy. The Army is all-volunteer.

Most soldiers, even most NCOs and officers, don't spend 20 years in.

The military service obligation (including IRR liability) is 8 years per contract.
Typically, only 4-6 is on active duty.

SR3 makes clear that cyberware, especially stuff like smartlinks, SCARES people.

That being the case, soldiers are NOT going to accept cyber. They still have to get out,
and still have to live in the civ world.

So, they could take it out...Yes, but how do you replace the organic bits you ripped out
upon enlistment?

Also, what if they later awaken?

John
Message no. 3
From: silvercat@***********.org (Jonathan Hurley)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:14:39 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com
[mailto:shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com] On Behalf Of Mark Hall
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 2:21 PM
To: Shadowrun Discussion
Subject: Re: Cyber for Soldiers

Matthew Bond wrote:

> In RL warfare, very few casualties are caused by aimed fire, so there is
> little pressing need for Smartgun Links except for a couple of trained
> marksmen per platoon or so. The rest will be using suppresing fire,
> throwing grenades etc.

But a smartlink changes that, doesn't it? A functioning smartlink makes
it possible to walk supppressive fire without hitting your own troops,
especially if the smartlink can recognize the identifier signal on the
troop's cyberware, or the battletac is linked to everyone's fire
capabilities and is feeding information on where not to shoot. This
suddently makes the information warfare specialists a really big
concern, because they can confuse the signals of the cyberware identifiers.

However, I will point out a couple things. First of all, the induction
datajack means that a smartlink is not 100% necessary... you can have
your troops link into their smartguns via the DNI connection. Secondly,
however, there is another cost for having everyone smart-ready... you
have to buy them guns with brains, which is another big expense to deal
with.

------ Response Separator ------

Well, you need to get the data from the 'jack to the gun - you may as well
install the second pad in the hand. And having a datajack in the hand is
useful in its own right, you've now got a passcard always at hand, as it
were - no need to carry a swipecard that can be lost or stolen.

Purpose-built smartguns (as opposed to those retrofitted later) isn't that
expensive, the Areas Alpha is in the same basic price range as the M22A2,
FN-HAR, and the HK G12A3z (all of which it outperforms), and is cheaper (!)
that the AK-98. So lets dispose of the Smart Weapons are too expensive.
Message no. 4
From: tzeentch666@*********.net (Tzeentch)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:40:39 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
From: Jonathan Hurley <silvercat@***********.org>
But a smartlink changes that, doesn't it? A functioning smartlink makes
it possible to walk supppressive fire without hitting your own troops,
especially if the smartlink can recognize the identifier signal on the
troop's cyberware, or the battletac is linked to everyone's fire
capabilities and is feeding information on where not to shoot. This
suddently makes the information warfare specialists a really big
concern, because they can confuse the signals of the cyberware identifiers.

* Shadowrun electronics countermeasures are so powerful that it's a fools game to rely on
many electronics. COMINT alone is such a nightmare I don't know why people simply don't
bother with encryption and just use codewords and one-time pads for anything important.

However, I will point out a couple things. First of all, the induction
datajack means that a smartlink is not 100% necessary... you can have
your troops link into their smartguns via the DNI connection. Secondly,
however, there is another cost for having everyone smart-ready... you
have to buy them guns with brains, which is another big expense to deal
with.

* Use smartgoggles if you really, really want to give people the technology. The game
effects of smartlinks are so extraordinary it's not likely to simply be ignored.
* As has been stated over and over, there's little reason to outfit the average trooper
with cyberware. A datajack might be doable, it really depends on the demands for surgery
time (that's a lot of recruits to implant each month even with a smaller military),
complications (oops critical failure on my Surgery roll!), and volume discounts (how much
for a contract to provide 50,000 datajacks each year for the next 10 years?).
* First World countries spend quite a bit on individual soldiers (as in $/soldier) but
it's deceptive because that often includes long-term procurement program costs, funded but
unrealized programs, training costs (which often include "equivalent costs" as
if they were paying personnel a wage, long-term cleanup costs, and equipment replacement),
and equipment costs that have nothing to do with the average grunt. Sure you have 10
soldiers fitted with clubs and furs, and you have a tank that costs 100,000,000 nuyen. You
could say that the military spends 10 million nuyen/man but you have to look deeper to
find out what costs are actually going to the troops.

Well, you need to get the data from the 'jack to the gun - you may as well
install the second pad in the hand. And having a datajack in the hand is
useful in its own right, you've now got a passcard always at hand, as it
were - no need to carry a swipecard that can be lost or stolen.

* Site security in Shadowrun is a JOKE. A datajack does nothing to enhance your physical
protective measures. Only a fool or corporation would rely on electronic security
measures.

Purpose-built smartguns (as opposed to those retrofitted later) isn't that
expensive, the Areas Alpha is in the same basic price range as the M22A2,
FN-HAR, and the HK G12A3z (all of which it outperforms), and is cheaper (!)
that the AK-98. So lets dispose of the Smart Weapons are too expensive.

* Except you are ignoring the fact that the military doesn't buy onesies and twosies of
these guns and could care less about nuyen difference in price -- it's all about a)
volume, b) long-term procurement, c) support, and d) training and implementation costs.
The military doesn't look through the SOTA catalogue and pick out the latest and greatest
munchkin handcannon -- they look for a gun that fulfills their program requirements (which
are probably not as demanding in some respects compared to what a Shadowrunner wants), is
cheap, has a decent cost-over-lifetime, and most importantly helps fulfill political
porkbarrel policies (e.g. it's built in as many locations as possible).
Message no. 5
From: silvercat@***********.org (Jonathan Hurley)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:53:46 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Hall <mrnexx@*********.net>
Date: Sunday, October 31, 2004 2:21 pm
Subject: Re: Cyber for Soldiers


You forget something, though...

The UCAS is still a democracy. The Army is all-volunteer.

Most soldiers, even most NCOs and officers, don't spend 20 years in.

The military service obligation (including IRR liability) is 8 years per
contract. Typically, only 4-6 is on active duty.

SR3 makes clear that cyberware, especially stuff like smartlinks, SCARES
people.

That being the case, soldiers are NOT going to accept cyber. They still have
to get out, and still have to live in the civ world.

So, they could take it out...Yes, but how do you replace the organic bits
you ripped out upon enlistment?

Also, what if they later awaken?


------ Reply Separator ------

That's right - they are volunteers; if they don't want the cyber, they don't
have to join. But once they're in, between active duty and reserve duty,
they will be 10 years in the military. It's more than today, but I can see
the duty times being extended.

None of this is obvious cyberware - no social stigma. And everything except
the smartlink processor and limited simsence rig is dual-use, and the
smartlink system will be useful for police/security work, a career that is
popular among ex-military types.

I don't accept the viewpoint that light cyber is frightening to people -
there are cybermod clinics in MALLS for goodness sake. But an essence point
worth of generally useful cyberware frightening off every recruit? I don't
think so.

This isn't cyberware that needs to be removed on demobilization. Dump the
IBS codes so they can't use milspec hardware, and you're set. Everything
else is OK for the ex-mil type to have
Message no. 6
From: tzeentch666@*********.net (Tzeentch)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 14:04:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Jonathan Hurley <silvercat@***********.org>
That's right - they are volunteers; if they don't want the cyber, they don't
have to join. But once they're in, between active duty and reserve duty,
they will be 10 years in the military. It's more than today, but I can see
the duty times being extended.

* Uhm. Adding an element of significant social stigma and known *spiritual* corruption is
not going to help your retention rates of enlistment rates. Sure it's volunteer, but you
have to make sure that military service is competive with other career choices
(patriotism, pay, security, social prestige, etc.).
* Even if you only make it mandatory for the grunts you have a problem -- because that's
one of the hardest fields to get people to join in the first place!

None of this is obvious cyberware - no social stigma. And everything except
the smartlink processor and limited simsence rig is dual-use, and the
smartlink system will be useful for police/security work, a career that is
popular among ex-military types.

* <snerk> I think you're overestimating the job opportunities in that market
(although it has a lot of turnover in Shadowrun with mass murderer players running
around). In any case it certainly won't lack social stigma the second your prospective
employer runs even the most cursory check or even, you know, reads your resume. If people
have a problem with cyberware, then putting down "UCAS Army 2062-2066" will
probably be a big clue you have some cyber if it's standard issue.

I don't accept the viewpoint that light cyber is frightening to people -
there are cybermod clinics in MALLS for goodness sake. But an essence point
worth of generally useful cyberware frightening off every recruit? I don't
think so.

* Cyberware pricing makes no sense for it to be in malls or anywhere near as common as the
fiction portrays it.

This isn't cyberware that needs to be removed on demobilization. Dump the
IBS codes so they can't use milspec hardware, and you're set. Everything
else is OK for the ex-mil type to have

* Oh yeah what a wonderful recruitment pitch -- we'll give you cyberware only useful for
killing people, and as an added bonus we'll cripple it for you when you get out! Thanks
Uncle Sam!
* Long story short -- what are the cost/benefits that put cyberware smartlinks (with
attendant medical costs, complications, and social issues) ahead, compared to using
smartgoggles/smartcontacts?
Message no. 7
From: silvercat@***********.org (Jonathan Hurley)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:48:43 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com
[mailto:shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com] On Behalf Of Tzeentch
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 5:04 PM
To: Shadowrun Discussion; 'Shadowrun Discussion'
Subject: RE: Cyber for Soldiers


* Long story short -- what are the cost/benefits that put cyberware
smartlinks (with attendant medical costs, complications, and social issues)
ahead, compared to using smartgoggles/smartcontacts?

------ Reply Separator ------

Well, cybernetic smartlinks are flat-out cheaper than goggles (cybernetic
Y2,500, goggles Y3,000), perform better, and can't be lost. Furthermore,
they are always at hand, don't need batteries (SR cyberware at this level is
supposedly powered by body heat, and I can accept that), and IMHO are more
soldier-proof (can't be dropped, don't need to be dusted, etc). The biggest
deal is that with a cybernetic smartgun link, your interface is in the
gripping hand, you don't need a cable from the weapon to the goggles. As I
pointed out earlier, factory-designed smartguns are no more expensive than
non-smartguns.

Medical costs and complications for upkeep can't be that outrageous, since
there aren't any in the rules to my knowledge (other than stress points, and
you get those from damaging stuff, not normal ops).

As near as I can tell, our differences are philosophical; I believe
cyberware is much more prevalent than you do. In my campaign, I'd say
something like 1/2 to 2/3 of the adult non-awakened population has some kind
of cyberware (at least a datajack), and possibly more. Most jobs require
that you be able to interact with VR systems, preferably via DNI.

There are examples in the fiction of construction workers that have
significant cyberware - enhanced musculature and skeletal reinforcement.
While heavy equipment is mostly drones in SR, the guy running them has a 2
essence (at least) piece of cyberware to do it. And every construction site
is going to need at least 1 drone rigger per shift working. Most upper-level
sararimen have at least a datajack so they can link into the corporate net.
Every serious chip abuser has a datajack or chipjack.

The point of the package was to give the soldier the ability to jack into
most equipment, significantly enhance the effectiveness of his weapons, and
not take up more than 1 point of essence. You will note - no optic
enhancements (retinal mods being expensive in essence, external optics are
as effective as onboard ones, plus, you don't want to over-write the natural
eyesight of the metahumans). No cyber-implant weaponry or reflex
enhancements, they aren't necessary and are bad for the ex-soldier to have.
No bioware at all - it's too new. Not even headware radios (I considered it,
but the headware radios are just too limited and expensive).

Just three (and a half) basic systems - an induction datajack, a vision
link, and a smartlink system (the half is expanding the limited simsense rig
of the smartlink system so it can gather and report information on the
soldier's condition, and throwing a negligible amount of memory into it).
All linked via the datajack's router, so the smartlink's induction pad
functions as a secondary datajack. The radio is in the soldier's uniform (as
is the transducer, I had forgotten they could be external). His sensors are
in his helmet, vehicle, or remoted to him via the radio.
Message no. 8
From: hangfire@*****.com (Hangfire)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:40:20 +0000
Just to chime in.

1) Just Compensation (Novel)
2) State of the Art 2063 (Sourcebook)

Both of these books make comments about cyberware in the armed forces.

Just Compensation Page 114

State of the Art page 62 (Bottom right column)

Both talk about the difficulties of dis-arming (if you can) troops
with built-in weapons... and the high turnover of basic line troops...
adding in cyberware is more in the province of elite, SF and
Mercernary units.... about the only common item would be a datajack
which many people have. But anything more and you're facing a lot of
problems in addition to which the psychological issues of such pieces
of cyberware.
Message no. 9
From: wyldwolf@*****.com (Kevin Kelley)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:36:49 -0600
Wow, this has gone way past my initial question... But to throw in my
thoughts, re soldier w/ cyber: I would accept that ALL cybernetics
which are not a medical necessity would be on a volenteer only basis
(in "civilized countries" at least) and would come with a maditory
re-enlisting of a certain amount of time (I would say 8 years,
starting at the end of your current contract, would be reasonable).
Now certain groups within the armed forces, say the SEALs, or the
Rangers, or Force Recon, etc... might have certain maditory cyber/bio
requirements, but even that could be argued.
Oh, and smart-goggles are a perfectly valid option for soldiers who
don't want to get cybered. Even better would be a "smart-scope" of
some type.
*shrug*

Wyldwolf
--
6 gmail invites currently available. Email to get one (first come, first serve).
Message no. 10
From: tzeentch666@*********.net (Tzeentch)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:28:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Jonathan Hurley <silvercat@***********.org>
Well, cybernetic smartlinks are flat-out cheaper than goggles (cybernetic
Y2,500, goggles Y3,000), perform better, and can't be lost.

* If you use the advanced surgery/implant rules in M&M this advantage disappears. Once
you have a single new recruit the goggles become very competitive. Add in the low-light
and IR mods (+2,000 nuyen) it really spanks cybernetics. The price difference is a single
day of hospital lifestyle (p. MM151).
* Smartgoggles-2 is superior but is way more expensive because of the requirements.
* These goggles weigh a whopping 3.5 ounces. This entire debate just points out how
illogical and frankly, kind of stupid, the methodology used in the SOTA books is. Nothing
ever gets better if it already exists. Smart goggles and cybernetic smartlinks are exactly
the same as they were way back in Shadowrun, First Edition. That's what, over 10 years of
game time now?

Just three (and a half) basic systems - an induction datajack, a vision
link, and a smartlink system (the half is expanding the limited simsense rig
of the smartlink system so it can gather and report information on the
soldier's condition, and throwing a negligible amount of memory into it).

*Datajack $1,000 ($3,000 for an induction datajack)
*Smartlink-1 $2,500 (permit required, Class A cyberware)
*Image Link $1,600
*Router $1,000 + ports (may not be necessary in some cases)
*Baseline Simrig $300,000 (probably more economical to use a biomonitor $5,000)

* All of which can be done for a lot less using external devices. And they don't require
every discharged soldier to purchase a permit.

All linked via the datajack's router, so the smartlink's induction pad
functions as a secondary datajack.

* Not supported in the rules, and probably wouldn't work right anyways since it appears to
be a dedicated weapon link, not a general I/O port.
Message no. 11
From: mrnexx@*********.net (Mark Hall)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:02:08 -0600
Jonathan Hurley wrote:

> There are examples in the fiction of construction workers that have
> significant cyberware - enhanced musculature and skeletal reinforcement.
> While heavy equipment is mostly drones in SR, the guy running them has a 2
> essence (at least) piece of cyberware to do it. And every construction site
> is going to need at least 1 drone rigger per shift working. Most upper-level
> sararimen have at least a datajack so they can link into the corporate net.
> Every serious chip abuser has a datajack or chipjack.

Specific example from fiction: Sam Verner, inthe Secrets of Power,
needed a datajack in order to advance in his job.



--
***
Nexx
aka Skaldmark
aka Mark Hall
***
http://www.editors-wastebasket.org/nexx/
***
"We have not even to risk the adventure alone, for the heroes of all
time have gone before us."
-Joseph Campbell
Message no. 12
From: tjlanza@************.com (Timothy J. Lanza)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:38:48 -0500
At 08:28 PM 10/31/2004, Tzeentch wrote:
>*Datajack $1,000 ($3,000 for an induction datajack)
>*Smartlink-1 $2,500 (permit required, Class A cyberware)

No permit required for a /soldier/. And when he leaves, the government can
just staple a permit to his discharge paperwork.

>*Image Link $1,600
>*Router $1,000 + ports (may not be necessary in some cases)

Not needed at all. The datajack has a small number of integral ports.

>*Baseline Simrig $300,000 (probably more economical to use a biomonitor
>$5,000)

The smartlink includes a limited simsense rig. Your argument below applies
more strongly up here - trying to use the smartlink simsense rig for
anything other that position sensing and feed back is way outside the
spirit of the rules.

>* All of which can be done for a lot less using external devices. And they
>don't require every discharged soldier to purchase a permit.

Be given a permit by the federal government. It's just paperwork.

>All linked via the datajack's router, so the smartlink's induction pad
>functions as a secondary datajack.
>
>* Not supported in the rules, and probably wouldn't work right anyways
>since it appears to be a dedicated weapon link, not a general I/O port.

There's some evidence to support this. It talks about feeding weapon data
through a datajack. I see no reason why a smartlink induction pad connected
to the integral router in the datajack shouldn't work the other way, too.

--
Timothy J. Lanza
"When we can't dream any longer, we die." - Emma Goldman
Message no. 13
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 12:11:53 +0100
According to Tzeentch, on Monday 01 November 2004 02:28 the word on the
street was...

> This entire debate just points out how illogical and
> frankly, kind of stupid, the methodology used in the SOTA books is.
> Nothing ever gets better if it already exists. Smart goggles and
> cybernetic smartlinks are exactly the same as they were way back in
> Shadowrun, First Edition. That's what, over 10 years of game time now?

14, give or take.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Ik ben het beu
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 14
From: Toubrouk@*********.ca (Toubrouk)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:35:34 -0500
Zebulin wrote:

>If you are going to fear every shadow, you might as well not join up. I'm
>sure that "ruggedised" versions of the smartgun systems exist. After all,
>they're designed to be installed on a weapon which, if I'm not mistaken,
>isn't exactly a friendly environment for electronics even if you aren't in
>combat.
>
>
There's a old saying among soldiers: "All your equipment is made by the
lowest bidder, this includes your gun.".

Another thing: Laser sights and scopes are quite cheap these days. Why
the U.S. army dint equip all their M-16 with them? Two reasons:
1-) Laser pointers can be seen from far away. they just don't indicate
where the bullet goes but also where the bullet came from.
2-) A scope would be a loss for everybody except a sharpshooter.

This is the same reasons why a Smartgun link would be useless for a
grunt. The gun's "Sensor beam" could be seen with special tricked
goggles and unless you aim, just like a sharpshooter.

>You make it sound as if you don't believe in electronics at all. Last I
>
>
>checked, the military is doing just fine with their encryption, and it's
>only getting better. And AoD trackers aren't always on, anyway, so there's a
>much smaller likelihood of anyone doing something bad to them.
>
The more you put stuff that break in harm's way , the most chances it
will break. This is why relying on a single piece of tech in a battle
field is a bad thing.

If you take the standard military Hummer and the civilian Hummer, you
will see that the military type is literally gutted of all the fancy
electronics and everything not helping the car to perform at the top of
his capacity. Here's the idea: they don't want to get useless broken
stuff going in the way of useful working stuff.

> And, you'll note, I didn't say that the bombs would be of use to KILL the
>
>soldier, but to disable the cyberware. Please try to keep your comments
>relevant.
>

Okay.

So, you're a patriotic young men living in the 50'-60' and chose to
enlist un the U.C.A.S. Army. You are proud to serve your country. You
are filled with joy when you pledge to defend the constitution of the
U.C.A.S. against all his enemies, foreign and domestic. You just can
wait to get the "Kick-Ass" uniform to impress the girl back home!

And what happened after? Hun?

They put boobytraped cyber in your head BECAUSE YOUR GOVERNMENT CAN'T
TRUST YOU WITH IT !

Call it insulting, chummer! There's no way to kill the troop's morale
than telling them that their country don't trust them.

Let's take an other angle. You're a general in the U.C.A.S. and you're
the responsible for the "Cybernetic-Enhancement" program. You have
equipped all the grunt soldiers of the Army with a cyber package. The
said package came with a kink bomb to be sure that the soldier who goes
A.W.O.L. wouldn't be able to "Enjoy" their ill earned cyber.

I am a general in the Aslan Army and i want to "Nationalize" the Panama
Canal. How can i do that? Simple. I just have to find a "Street
consultant" who will contact "Street Operatives". I will meet those
operatives under the name of Mr. Johnson and i will give them the job of
raiding an army installation who implant the soldier's cyber to retrieve
data. It would not be much: the encryption key and the logarithm that
make the passcodes for the kink bomb. It might not cost me more that
150K NY. for the job (Even if i have a budget of 200K NY.).

Then, i would just have to fly back to Aslan with the data. I would meet
my engineers and i would ask them to equip 300 MB Jabberwocky Rockets
with the Encryption code and the logarithm. Then i will make the little
transponders in the rocket broadcast 600 "valid" destruction codes every
minute. Even if they trigger the destruction code of only 15%-25% of the
U.C.A.S. Army personnel cyber, those persons will go into a panic. After
all, they are dependent of the cyber because they were trained with
it.They would disturb the chain of command, making the defense of the
U.C.A.S. territory impossible. I would just have to back the
"Jabberwocky Attack" with a full scale assault to take the Panama Canal.
Great idea, don't you think?
Message no. 15
From: Toubrouk@*********.ca (Toubrouk)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:45:40 -0500
Mark Hall wrote:

>Hey, the modern military does it all the time... bonuses for enlistment,
>preferential schooling, re-enlistment perks, money for college, you name
>it. Now, cybernetics would be another form of perk you could offer.
>Even if they don't offer top of the line stuff (boosted instead of wired
>reflexes, smartlink instead of smartlink 2), they're still giving you
>legal access, for free, to the stuff which makes you a hot commodity
>after your enlistment period. Not every security company is run by a
>AAA, after all.
>

I agree. Everything under 50 000 NuYen would be a good idea. Of course,
the cheaper, the better!

I always saw boosted reflexes as a "grunt" piece of cyberware.
Message no. 16
From: mrnexx@*********.net (Mark Hall)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:01:18 -0600
Toubrouk wrote:


>
> I agree. Everything under 50 000 NuYen would be a good idea. Of course,
> the cheaper, the better!

Precisely. Plus, if you offer it as an inducement, rather than a
requirement (which would never fly in the UCAS, anyway; too many people
who would find a grounds to object), you have a carrot to get people to
sign longer contracts, and you can also spin it for eventual promotion
or special training opprotunities. While I'm starting to agree that not
every grunt would get smartgun links, it would certainly be a factor in
your favor for sniper school or special forces training if you're
already equipped and proficient with the smartlink.


--
***
Nexx
aka Skaldmark
aka Mark Hall
***
http://www.editors-wastebasket.org/nexx/
***
"We have not even to risk the adventure alone, for the heroes of all
time have gone before us."
-Joseph Campbell
Message no. 17
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 00:55:57 +0000
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 06:35:34PM -0500, Toubrouk wrote:
> Zebulin wrote:
>
> >If you are going to fear every shadow, you might as well not join up. I'm
> >sure that "ruggedised" versions of the smartgun systems exist. After
all,
> >they're designed to be installed on a weapon which, if I'm not mistaken,
> >isn't exactly a friendly environment for electronics even if you aren't in
> >combat.
> >
> >
> There's a old saying among soldiers: "All your equipment is made by the
> lowest bidder, this includes your gun.".
>
> Another thing: Laser sights and scopes are quite cheap these days. Why
> the U.S. army dint equip all their M-16 with them? Two reasons:
> 1-) Laser pointers can be seen from far away. they just don't indicate
> where the bullet goes but also where the bullet came from.
> 2-) A scope would be a loss for everybody except a sharpshooter.
>
> This is the same reasons why a Smartgun link would be useless for a
> grunt. The gun's "Sensor beam" could be seen with special tricked
> goggles and unless you aim, just like a sharpshooter.
>

Now that's a silly argument. The whole real advantage of the smartgun link (and of a
laser sight for that matter) is that you can use it 'from the hip' without aiming. You
just look at the target and see where your shots are going to land without having to use
the sights. The primary disadvantage of a laser sight is, as you pointed out, that it
gives away your position. That doesn't apply to a smartgun link. You can't get 'tricked
goggles' to see the 'sensor beam' because there is no 'sensor beam'! The smartgun is able
to use the position the gun is being held in to calculate the direction the bullets will
go and display it either on goggles or a display link in the user's eye. Presumably,
though as far as I know the text doesn't mention this, it could even incorporate some
basic ballistic processing to account for things like bullet drop, making it more accurate
than laser sights (which are really only useful at short range). Anyway, the point being
that all this is internal and there are no emissions of any kind for you to detect (well,
none beyond what any electronic equipment would produce, but you'd need to be *extremely*
sensitive to pick that up).

I guess the conclusion is that some tech is just better. We don't use horse and buggies
anymore, and neither does the army. While you can make some analogies in 2060 to tech of
today, there are also going to be cases where new tech has taken over. Smargun systems
really don't have the disadvantages of laser sights and would be extremely useful for
grunts in the field (at least assuming that it was make rugged and reliable, but that's
hardly impossible to do).

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
http://davek.freeshell.org/
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 18
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:27:11 -0700
IMO the primary reason for not providing soldiers with cyber would be
the same reason that soldiers are provided with (relatively) simple
equipment: maintenance and resupply.

If you put bio/cyberware in you soldiers, then you need to have
cybersurgeons. And if a soldier is wounded in combat not only do you
have to fix the damage done to his body, but you have to fix any
damage done to any of his bio/cyberware. And then there's ongoing
maintenance.

If your grunts don't have bio/cyberware then you only need regular surgeons.

The military strives for simplicity.

--
-Graht
Message no. 19
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:13:31 -0800 (PST)
--- Graht <graht1@*****.com> wrote:

> IMO the primary reason for not providing soldiers with cyber would
> be the same reason that soldiers are provided with (relatively)
> simple equipment: maintenance and resupply.

How often does a datajack "break down" in your SR games? How about a
smartlink? Most PC's cyber outlives them, due to their dangerous
occupation. The average citizen doesn't put much wear and tear on
their chrome to begin with. Cyberware in SR is 'maintained' by
nanites, microscopic machines doing for the chrome what your body
does for itself with living micorscopic organisms. Cyberware is
described as having roughly the same durability as flesh and bone,
sometimes stronger (in the case of heavier, more essence-unfriendly
ware). In point of fact, cyber in SR is the definition of simple,
maintenance-friendly gear. Once installed, for the small price of a
portion of your body's connection to your spirit, you have a
self-sustaining system, a cybernetic symbiote. If cyberware needed
constant tune-ups and refueling (more than the flesh it was installed
in), it would not be possessed by salarymen and gangers. Both lack
the resources to be in surgery all the time (either because of lack
of time or lack of cash).

> If you put bio/cyberware in you soldiers, then you need to have
> cyber surgeons. And if a soldier is wounded in combat not only do
> you have to fix the damage done to his body, but you have to fix
any
> damage done to any of his bio/cyberware. And then there's ongoing
> maintenance.
>
> If your grunts don't have bio/cyberware then you only need regular
> surgeons.

Given the large number of street docs, plus hospitals, plus
cyber-clinics... I somehow think cybersurgeons are pretty common. Or
perhaps between 2030 and 2060, cybersurgery has become a basic part
of med school? That does not seem so unreasonable. In fact, it
seems quite possible that if you can perform regular surgery,
cybersurgery is a snap... open the guy up, keep him stable, clip
nerve tissue to blue input, attach bone to black anchor points,
stitch primary muscle to red cable, secondary muscle to... blah blah
blah.

> The military strives for simplicity.

So does your average back alley, black market surgeon and her
clientelle. We keep arguing SR logistics in terms of modern
limitations. Except on those occasions when we argue modern
logistics in terms of SR limitations. :)

======Korishinzo
--To abstract or not to abstract... that is the essence of the
question. :p



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
Message no. 20
From: ShadowRN@********.demon.co.uk (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:17:12 +0000
In article <4186C846.8010401@*********.ca>, Toubrouk
<Toubrouk@*********.ca> writes
>Another thing: Laser sights and scopes are quite cheap these days. Why
>the U.S. army dint equip all their M-16 with them? Two reasons:
>1-) Laser pointers can be seen from far away. they just don't indicate
>where the bullet goes but also where the bullet came from.
>2-) A scope would be a loss for everybody except a sharpshooter.

Which is why the US Army's issuing either ACOG four-power scopes, or
red-dot sights, extremely widely? And why the British Army's put x4
SUSATs on its rifles and Light Support Weapons for twenty years (and
widely used the similar x4 SUIT before that)

>This is the same reasons why a Smartgun link would be useless for a
>grunt.

Far from it, having done some urban and CQB shooting as well as a fair
bit of range time.

>The more you put stuff that break in harm's way , the most chances it
>will break. This is why relying on a single piece of tech in a battle
>field is a bad thing.

The rifle can and will still have iron sights, in case the electronics
break.

>If you take the standard military Hummer and the civilian Hummer, you
>will see that the military type is literally gutted of all the fancy
>electronics and everything not helping the car to perform at the top of
>his capacity.

However, you'll notice that the stereo has been replaced by a much more
sophisticated piece of electronics: and the HMMWV is a utility vehicle,
not a fighting vehicle.

Compare instead to an armoured fighting vehicle like the M1 Abrams, or
the M2 Bradley, and observe the sighting arrangements: simplicity would
dictate merely squinting along the gun barrel and applying Kentucky
windage, where in fact the gunner views the target through a complex and
sophisticated thermal imaging system (that like the gun, is stabilised
in two axes), uses a laser to determine range, and has a ballistic
computer assessing everything from vehicle angle to barrel wear to air
speed and temperature that calculates aim-off. (You've still got a basic
telescope with etched graticule as backup, though).

Even basic armoured personnel carriers like the Stryker use Overhead
Weapon Stations (gun and sight, remotely controlled from inside the
vehicle) rather than a pintle-mounted weapon that exposes the user to
fire and fragments.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 21
From: ShadowRN@********.demon.co.uk (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:21:52 +0000
In article <f525734004110207274f7a15e7@****.gmail.com>, Graht
<graht1@*****.com> writes
>IMO the primary reason for not providing soldiers with cyber would be
>the same reason that soldiers are provided with (relatively) simple
>equipment: maintenance and resupply.

With laser weapons a reality, anything that lets you quickly replaced
damaged eyes is a huge bonus.

>If you put bio/cyberware in you soldiers, then you need to have
>cybersurgeons. And if a soldier is wounded in combat not only do you
>have to fix the damage done to his body, but you have to fix any
>damage done to any of his bio/cyberware.

Physical damage bad enough to ruin cybereyes, smartlinks et cetera is
damage enough to require field hospital treatment at the very least, and
isn't "slap on a band-aid and send him back to the front" stuff. Doesn't
seem like a critical problem.

>And then there's ongoing
>maintenance.

Not a big problem, as described by the rules and the associated
information. "Man and Machine" described cyberware maintenance as being
managed at streetgang level.


>If your grunts don't have bio/cyberware then you only need regular surgeons.
>
>The military strives for simplicity.

The military strives for success, which is similar but not identical.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 22
From: Toubrouk@*********.ca (Toubrouk)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 08:05:47 -0500
Paul J. Adam wrote:

>In article <41852DBE.5030602@*********.ca>, Toubrouk
><Toubrouk@*********.ca> writes
>
>>>I disagree with Smartgun Link. Do you really want to have a soldier
>>>going A.W.O.L. with a Smartlink system?
>>
>>
>
>Sure, what's the big deal? He's already going AWOL with significant
>combat skills.
>
Personaly, i am not at ease with the smartlink being given away like
candy. For me, the Smartlink system means murder. Why the average joe
out there need such a piece of technology anyway? For this reason, i
would see from a bad eye anyone leaving the army with one but this is
just my personal point of view. Or mabee the smartlink system can be
dedicated to army weapons only.

>>>The gouvernment must prepare itself to lose every piece of cyber he put
>>>on a soldier.
>>
>>
>
>You lose all the training you invest in them anyway, when they leave.
>
I just thought about something: If the average weapon system is updated
every 10 years, cyber should be updated at the same frequency. So, if a
soldier want to leave after 10 years of service, he's leaving with
obsolete cyberware. I am in peace with that.

>>>The only cyber that makes sense is the induction datajack. it cost
>>>almost nothing (3000 NuYen) and is less dangerous at the long term that
>>>the Smartlink. You can let a soldier goes to the civilian life with an
>>>induction datajack. Making the equipment to fit would be a breeze. If
>>>you fit the induction datajack under the scalp, a helmet could be
>>>design to accept a build-in adaptor. It's clean, simple, economical.
>>
>>
>
>For infantry I'd be using smartlinks for the improved accuracy, and
>cybereyes because of blinding lasers. It's much easier to build flare
>compensation into a cybereye than a biological eye: CCDs are much more
>damage-tolerant than human retinas: and replacing cybereyes could
>credibly be at least a field-hospital job, if not a RAP task, whereas
>replacing laser-burned retinas in organic eyes is a much more serious
>undertaking.
>
>How far out you push that is a good question. The USMC have the right
>idea IMO with "Every Marine a rifleman" - the notion of support troops
>not really needing to fight, has suffered badly recently.
>
Let's see what we got

Induction Datajack: 3000 NuYen (0.3 Essence)
Smartlink Ststem: 2500 NuYen (0.5 Essence)
Cybereyes with Low-Light, Thermographic and Flare Compensation: 13 000
NuYen (0.5 Essence)

Total:18 000 NuYen, 1 Essence cost.
I don't believe that the average infantryman need more. The package is
simple to install enough to have it done with a Valkyrie module.
Message no. 23
From: ShadowRN@********.demon.co.uk (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:32:29 +0000
In article <4188D7AB.7030602@*********.ca>, Toubrouk
<Toubrouk@*********.ca> writes
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>>Sure, what's the big deal? He's already going AWOL with significant
>>combat skills.
>>
>Personaly, i am not at ease with the smartlink being given away like
>candy.

It isn't, any more than the military currently runs demolitions,
sabotage or heavy-weapons classes for all comers.

>For me, the Smartlink system means murder. Why the average joe out
>there need such a piece of technology anyway?

To kill people more effectively.

Just what do you think a soldier's job actually *is*? The primary role
of the military is to find the enemy and *kill* him.

>>You lose all the training you invest in them anyway, when they leave.
>>
>I just thought about something: If the average weapon system is updated
>every 10 years, cyber should be updated at the same frequency. So, if a
>soldier want to leave after 10 years of service, he's leaving with
>obsolete cyberware. I am in peace with that.

Update cycles are longer. On the other hand, coming out of the military
means they know exactly what you've been impanted with, plus they've got
your fingerprints, retina scan (or equivalent for cybereyes), blood
samples, DNA, inside leg measurement and all... this isn't a good start
for an aspiring criminal hoping to go unnoticed by officialdom :)

(Handy for anyone considering a career in police or security work,
though)

>>How far out you push that is a good question. The USMC have the right
>>idea IMO with "Every Marine a rifleman" - the notion of support troops
>>not really needing to fight, has suffered badly recently.
>>
>Let's see what we got
>
>Induction Datajack: 3000 NuYen (0.3 Essence)
>Smartlink Ststem: 2500 NuYen (0.5 Essence)
>Cybereyes with Low-Light, Thermographic and Flare Compensation: 13 000
>NuYen (0.5 Essence)
>
>Total:18 000 NuYen, 1 Essence cost.

Costs the same as a single X-E chemsuit, and you need enough of those
that every deployed soldier not only has one to wear, but has spares to
change into when contaminated or if the suit gets damaged.


>I don't believe that the average infantryman need more.

Might add a display link, but that's hardly a big deal. SF units could
easily add more gear, such as reflex enhancers and skillwires: maybe
infantry would go that far: depends on the flavour of game you want.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 24
From: mrnexx@*********.net (Mark Hall)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:52:51 -0600
Toubrouk wrote:

> Personaly, i am not at ease with the smartlink being given away like
> candy. For me, the Smartlink system means murder. Why the average joe
> out there need such a piece of technology anyway? For this reason, i
> would see from a bad eye anyone leaving the army with one but this is
> just my personal point of view. Or mabee the smartlink system can be
> dedicated to army weapons only.

A military-specific smartlink system has its ups and downs. The upside
is that, when the grunt leaves the service, his smartware isn't going to
do him any good unless he gets his hands on some military hardware. It
also means military hardware is less useful to the black market, without
reworking its brains.

The downside is a bit smaller, but it means that your soldiers can't
make use of miscellaneous "smart" weapons as the situation demands (more
of an issue for special ops than grunts).

Personally, I think the military would be all for the idea, but that's
just me.


--
***
Nexx
aka Skaldmark
aka Mark Hall
***
http://www.editors-wastebasket.org/nexx/
***
"We have not even to risk the adventure alone, for the heroes of all
time have gone before us."
-Joseph Campbell
Message no. 25
From: mrnexx@*********.net (Mark Hall)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:56:18 -0600
Gurth wrote:

> IMHO smartlinks would cause similar effects: to put it in game terms, a
> soldier who gets a smartlink after several years of service may have
> Assault Rifles 4, while another soldier who gets a smartlink implanted
> during or straight after basic training may have only Assault Rifles 3 but
> use the smartlink to compensate for the "lost" die.

I agree, Gurth, but that is, IMO, why the implant surgery would be the
last part, not the first part, of training. After you've had every
available chance to wash out, after you've graduated and get your
orders, you go and get your body upgraded... not when you're just
picking up a gun.


--
***
Nexx
aka Skaldmark
aka Mark Hall
***
http://www.editors-wastebasket.org/nexx/
***
"We have not even to risk the adventure alone, for the heroes of all
time have gone before us."
-Joseph Campbell
Message no. 26
From: flakjacket@***********.com (Simon Nixon)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 04:29:41 +0000 (GMT)
Toubrouk wrote:

> Personaly, I am not at ease with the smartlink being
> given away like
> candy. For me, the Smartlink system means murder.
> Why the average joe
> out there need such a piece of technology anyway?

Murder? Possibly, if you're aiming at a person, or
just a really great score if you're aiming for the
x-ring at the local shooting range.

Why do people go out and buy massively customised
firearms or spend thousands, or tens of thousands, of
dollars modifying their cars? Maybe they're a gun
enthusist or they want to work in the security sector.
How much do the telescopic sights that people buy
today cost? Granted it's not going to be two and a
half grand but if you're that into something. How much
does breast enlargements cost- as an example on an
elective surgery that's done frequently?

Besides, you need a license to own a firearm to begin
with. Plus another one if you want to carry concealed.
Would it be that much more hassle to get one for a
smartlink system as well? Well that's my view on it.
Message no. 27
From: caseless@*****.com (Stephen Allee)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 22:16:54 -0800
It comes down to a straight cost analysis:

Which is cheaper? Smartlink-equipped troops, or a larger number of
unaugmented troops? Also, ammo costs. In today's world (I know, don't
bring reality into a game, and vice versa...) it costs roughly $0.70
per 5.56mm round fired in Iraq. This cost-factor includes the initial
purchase price of the round, fuel cots for transportation, salary
costs for the logistics guys who have to do the paperwork to order and
ship it, ammo handlers and ammo supply point costs, etc.

If I am firing full auto (10 rounds) and have to walk my weapon across
open ground, I waste 1 bullet for every meter of traverse unless I
have a smartgun link. Also, if I fire at a target and miss, I waste
$0.70 per wasted round.

The average infantry soldier carries 270 rounds of ammo into combat.
In the Vietnam War, IIRC, the number of rounds fired per confirmed
kill for a rifle-armed infantry soldier was about 70:1 (average for
the war was 200,000:1). Assuming that a Smartlink II would cut that
number by 25%, or 17.5 rounds fired per kill, the average cost savings
would be approximately $12.25 per enemy KIA. Or, in effective scale,
the average rifle-armed trooper can kill 3+ enemy soldiers before
needing immediate ammunition resupply, compared to 5+ possible KIAs
with smartlinks. At closer ranges (inside of 50 meters), the smartlink
is twice as effective (TN 2 versus TN 4) as traditional iron sights
(barring movement modifiers, etc.) and could theoretically increase
the effective KIA rate to 7+ enemy combatants per basic combat load.
When percentages are factored for squad support weapons, the savings
in wasted ammunition will easily offset the higher initial equipment
cost.

>From a logistics standpoint, smartlinks reduce my ammunition overhead
costs, transportation costs for resupply, and also free up space for
transport of other materiél that would otherwise be used for
ammunition. Fewer flights means lower maintenance costs for transports
and fewer resupply convoys for enemy troops to attack. Also, I can
stockpile less ammunition and other expendables prior to launching my
attacks, so as to limit the ability of enemy intelligence assets to
predict my operational plans. Any cyber that can cost-effectively
increase the effectiveness of my soldiers, increase the effective
engagement range of their weapons systems, and increase their
survivability on the battlefield is quite probably going to be
implemented as quickly as budgetary constraints allow.

Regards,
~Caseless
Message no. 28
From: mrnexx@*********.net (Mark Hall)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 20:50:58 -0600
Aramis wrote:

> You could always implant the smartlinks from scratch, then have the
> soldiers use standard (non smartlinked) weapons during the majority of
> their training.

Theorhetically, yes, but it would be better to implant after they've had
every chance to wash out, rather than give them a haircut and a cybermod
the day they reach boot camp.

--
***
Nexx
aka Skaldmark
aka Mark Hall
***
http://www.editors-wastebasket.org/nexx/
***
"We have not even to risk the adventure alone, for the heroes of all
time have gone before us."
-Joseph Campbell
Message no. 29
From: Toubrouk@*********.ca (Toubrouk)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:19:52 -0500
Paul J. Adam wrote:

> In article <4188D7AB.7030602@*********.ca>, Toubrouk
> <Toubrouk@*********.ca> writes
>
>>>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Sure, what's the big deal? He's already going AWOL with significant
>>>>>combat skills.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Personaly, i am not at ease with the smartlink being given away like
>>>candy.
>>
>>
>
>It isn't, any more than the military currently runs demolitions,
>sabotage or heavy-weapons classes for all comers.
>
Yet, they din't give them the material to blew-up the neighbourhood
after they leave the Army. My little problem with this is that ,
throught the ages, the government of all nation always tried to restrict
the acces to weapons for their citizens in case of rebelion. In the
middle ages, the crossbow was forbitten because it was way more precise
that the bow. My own vision of the 2050'-60' includes a healty dose of
political paranoia towards the people and a desire of a more controled
nation. But of course, it's my own personal.

>>>For me, the Smartlink system means murder. Why the average joe out
>>>there need such a piece of technology anyway?
>>
>>
>
>To kill people more effectively.
>
>Just what do you think a soldier's job actually *is*? The primary role
>of the military is to find the enemy and *kill* him.
>
True but Let's talk about the average joe. I do believe you can be a
happy person in the world of shadowrun. As an example, Mr average is
happy with his job as a low corporate drone. He got his 3000 trideo
channels at his condo and all the flavored soy he can eat. He live in a
A-security enclave and the only gun he own for self protection is a
Beretta 101T barely able to punch into a paper bag. The only cyber he
got is a datajack he receive as a gift from his corp. Do he want
something that definite him as a sharpshotter? Do he want to be put in a
life and death situation? I don't think so, but the guy who got a
Smartlink system looks like that.

Of course, there's a brunch of 16 years old who want danger and being a
sharpshotter out there. Mabee it's the point of the Army

>>>I just thought about something: If the average weapon system is updated
>>>every 10 years, cyber should be updated at the same frequency. So, if a
>>>soldier want to leave after 10 years of service, he's leaving with
>>>obsolete cyberware. I am in peace with that.
>>
>>
>
>Update cycles are longer. On the other hand, coming out of the military
>means they know exactly what you've been impanted with, plus they've got
>your fingerprints, retina scan (or equivalent for cybereyes), blood
>samples, DNA, inside leg measurement and all... this isn't a good start
>for an aspiring criminal hoping to go unnoticed by officialdom
>
>(Handy for anyone considering a career in police or security work,
>though)
>

Even better for Shadowrunners...

Runner #1 : ...And the security is runned by Mr. X, Who was a C.A.S.
Chrome Berret before be turned bodyguard for our mark.

Runner #2 : I just remember something; Did the Chrome Berrets got dermal
plating and bone lacing in their basic Cyber-Kit ?

Runner #1 : Mmmm, you're right. Mabee we will need to use those APDS
slugs anyway...

:)
Message no. 30
From: Toubrouk@*********.ca (Toubrouk)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 10:39:37 -0500
Simon Nixon wrote:

>Toubrouk wrote:
>
>
>>> Personaly, I am not at ease with the smartlink being
>>> given away like
>>> candy. For me, the Smartlink system means murder.
>>> Why the average joe
>>> out there need such a piece of technology anyway?
>>
>>
>
>Murder? Possibly, if you're aiming at a person, or
>just a really great score if you're aiming for the
>x-ring at the local shooting range.
>
>Why do people go out and buy massively customised
>firearms or spend thousands, or tens of thousands, of
>dollars modifying their cars? Maybe they're a gun
>enthusist or they want to work in the security sector.
>How much do the telescopic sights that people buy
>today cost? Granted it's not going to be two and a
>half grand but if you're that into something. How much
>does breast enlargements cost- as an example on an
>elective surgery that's done frequently?
>
As a GM, i am a social-type master. I like to believe that eveything the
players do to their Caracters will have a social impact around them. In
example; a caracter with peg legs and a balancing tail will be openly
called a freak in my game.

Smartlink systems are quite easy to detect. Everytime you shake the hand
of an individual, you can feel if he got an induction pad under his
skin. This prop one question: "Why do you want a piece of symbiotic
mechanic in your body to aim better? ". It might be nothing, but as
profiling science going on, a company will make an extra "Research" on a
job applicant in the hope he will not turn "Postal" if he get too much
stress.

Besides, on the morality of things, Lone Star standart foot patrol don't
get the Smartlink System as standart Cyber-Package. As the book "New
Seattle" says, they got a comlink and a radio but no smartlink until
they reach "Elite Officer" grade. Why Lone Star, who got a great
interest of maintaining the "colateral damage" as low as possible is not
ready to invest 2500 NY for each policemen to allow them a better aim?

>
>Besides, you need a license to own a firearm to begin
>with. Plus another one if you want to carry concealed.
>Would it be that much more hassle to get one for a
>smartlink system as well? Well that's my view on it.
>
Nope, Not at all. And i do believe that owning one can be a prerequise
to be a member of the NRA.
I just say one thing: do this is a good choice for your caracter?
If it is, please get one. This is just my .02 f.
Message no. 31
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:11:34 +0000
On Nov 5, 2004, at 15:39, Toubrouk wrote:

> Smartlink systems are quite easy to detect. Everytime you shake the
> hand of an individual, you can feel if he got an induction pad under
> his skin. This prop one question: "Why do you want a piece of
> symbiotic mechanic in your body to aim better? ". It might be nothing,
> but as profiling science going on, a company will make an extra
> "Research" on a job applicant in the hope he will not turn
"Postal" if
> he get too much stress.

The thing is, when someone goes mad and starts shooting at random
people in the middle of the street, whether or not he has a smartlink
doesn't make a lot of a difference. What you have to wonder is how and
why he acquired the weapon, not how he got the smartlink.
You seem to imply that there's no way in hell the army (or the 'Star,
or whoever) would ever implant a VCR into one of its people, out of
fear that after he resigns/retires/whatever, he'll decide to take his
car and play Carmaggeddon in the streets of Seattle.
Or that they wouldn't teach their mages combat spells, either -- those
are even harder to remove than cyberware, and are potentially far more
dangerous than a smartlink (manaball in a crowded area: up to a dozen
dead every three seconds, awully hard-to-detect source, nearly
unlimited ammo).

> Besides, on the morality of things, Lone Star standart foot patrol
> don't get the Smartlink System as standart Cyber-Package. As the book
> "New Seattle" says, they got a comlink and a radio but no smartlink
> until they reach "Elite Officer" grade. Why Lone Star, who got a great
> interest of maintaining the "colateral damage" as low as possible is
> not ready to invest 2500 NY for each policemen to allow them a better
> aim?

That's a good question, although another one that springs to my mind
is, why do they even bother with implanted commlinks, when the things
are outrageously overpriced (both nuyen-wise and essence-wise) and have
no advantage whatsoever (okay, they're harder to remove) over
high-rating micro-transceivers linked to a datajack transducer?
And the 'Star doesn't seem to be bothered that much about collateral
damage. After all, their default service weapon is burst-firing (see
Thunderbolt topic).

>> Besides, you need a license to own a firearm to begin
>> with. Plus another one if you want to carry concealed.
>> Would it be that much more hassle to get one for a
>> smartlink system as well? Well that's my view on it.
>>
> Nope, Not at all. And i do believe that owning one can be a prerequise
> to be a member of the NRA.
> I just say one thing: do this is a good choice for your caracter?
> If it is, please get one. This is just my .02 f.

In Shadowrun, you do need a license to own a firearm, no matter how
small and wimpy. In fact, anything classified as a weapon requires a
license. Even pepper spray.


-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 32
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:26:06 -0700
> Toubrouk wrote:
>
> > Personaly, I am not at ease with the smartlink being
> > given away like
> > candy. For me, the Smartlink system means murder.
> > Why the average joe
> > out there need such a piece of technology anyway?

I'm suddenly reminded of Timothy Zhan's Cobra books. In those books
the character join the military, and then are heavily cybered so that
they can fight a war with aliens. After the war is over and they
aren't needed anymore the military disables the cyberware that it can
(the built in weapons for example) but can't disable the wired
reflexes. Zhan did a pretty good job of writing it up from the
character's perspective as he had to deal with discrimination when he
did something that identified him as an ex Cobra, and dealing with his
wired reflexes (he was twitchy).

I highly recommend checking them out.

--
-Graht
Message no. 33
From: Toubrouk@*********.ca (Toubrouk)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:25:15 -0500
Mark Hall wrote:

>Aramis wrote:
>
>
>
>>> You could always implant the smartlinks from scratch, then have the
>>> soldiers use standard (non smartlinked) weapons during the majority of
>>> their training.
>>
>>
>
>Theorhetically, yes, but it would be better to implant after they've had
>every chance to wash out, rather than give them a haircut and a cybermod
>the day they reach boot camp.
>
There's also the problem of the surgery. If we take as the base kit the
combo Smartlink - Induction Datapad - Cyber eyes, it makes a total of 1
Essence lost. If we take the "Man and Machine" manual, it tell us that
the soldier would take a medium wound. such a wound would take at least
a week to heal. This is not a way to start a bootcamp.

Here's my idea: The bootcamp first, the surgery to implant the cyber-kit
and 2 weeks of training via simsense. All the courses like Basic
Cyber-kit 101 or War History can be given throught this method. Wargames
on a closed system simulating a battlefield could also be a great idea.
Omaha beach, anyone ? :)
Message no. 34
From: jcotton1@*********.net (jcotton1@*********.net)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 0:11:17 -0500
> From: Toubrouk <Toubrouk@*********.ca>
>
> Mark Hall wrote:
>
> >Theorhetically, yes, but it would be better to implant after they've had
> >every chance to wash out, rather than give them a haircut and a cybermod
> >the day they reach boot camp.
> >
> This is not a way to start a bootcamp.
>
> Here's my idea: The bootcamp first, the surgery to implant the cyber-kit
> and 2 weeks of training via simsense.

That's probably a good idea too. As someone that has gone thru military training (and I'm
probably not the only one here on this list), I can opine with reasonable confidence that
cyberware would probably be installed once you got to your MOS (military occupational
speciality, for those who don't know) school. At the very least, you wouldn't get it
until you got your MOS assignment, as why would you want to go to the expense of
installing a smartlink into some supply weenie that's always going to be in the rear? :)

Although there can be arguements made against the military wanting to spend the money on
every infantryman for a smartlink, I'd give you good odds that fighter pilots are going to
get VCRs (at least) put in as a matter of course before they get strapped into a
multi-million nuyen jet and put into combat.

Joseph M. Cotton
"There are only two stories in all of literature -- a man goes on a journey, and a
stranger comes to town." Leo Tolstoy
Message no. 35
From: Toubrouk@*********.ca (Toubrouk)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 10:31:41 -0500
Grath Wrote:

>
> I'm suddenly reminded of Timothy Zhan's Cobra books. In those books
> the character join the military, and then are heavily cybered so that
> they can fight a war with aliens. After the war is over and they
> aren't needed anymore the military disables the cyberware that it can
> (the built in weapons for example) but can't disable the wired
> reflexes. Zhan did a pretty good job of writing it up from the
> character's perspective as he had to deal with discrimination when he
> did something that identified him as an ex Cobra, and dealing with his
> wired reflexes (he was twitchy).
>
> I highly recommend checking them out.
>
> -- -Graht
>
Thanks for the info, i will try to get the books.

--Toubrouk
Message no. 36
From: Toubrouk@*********.ca (Toubrouk)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:19:11 -0500
Joseph M. Cotton wrote:

>> From: Toubrouk <Toubrouk@*********.ca>
>>
>>
>>> Here's my idea: The bootcamp first, the surgery to implant the
>>> cyber-kit and 2 weeks of training via simsense.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> That's probably a good idea too. As someone that has gone thru
> military training (and I'm probably not the only one here on this
> list), I can opine with reasonable confidence that cyberware would
> probably be installed once you got to your MOS (military occupational
> speciality, for those who don't know) school. At the very least, you
> wouldn't get it until you got your MOS assignment, as why would you
> want to go to the expense of installing a smartlink into some supply
> weenie that's always going to be in the rear?


First, thanks for your input as a military guy. I believe that you're
the best info source that we can have on military training !

I know there's some military personnel that will never see combat. In
fact, if my memory serve me well, i heard that four guys on the USS
Enterprise carrier who have the mission to keep the Coke(tm) machines
full. If we start with the idea of "All men is a riflemen", i saw no
problem in equipping every soldier with a basic Cyber-Kit. If every
soldier receive one, the mass bulk buying and the repetitive implant
surgery will cost a lot less, witch is a good point in favor of the kit.
I even think at a special automated "Valkyrie" rig specialy made to only
implant a basic Cyber-Kit ! You can't have more costless.

I am for the creation of a second Cyber-Kit that we can call a MOS-Kit.
Let's take the tank pilot. First, let's give him the standard bootcamp
and the basic Cyber-Kit. Then, you send them to their MOS training (In
that case, the Main Battle Tank course) and you train them in the
traditional manner. Those who din't fall the course leave for surgery to
receive their MOS-Kit (In this case, a V.C.R.1).

Since every cyberware that's got more than 1.29 essence loss give a
serious damage when you implant it, your meatbody is stucked in a
hospital bed for almost 4-6 weeks. During that time, your brain can be
pluged into a VR battlefield! The trick is to build a computer with
"Rigger Ports" that send you the illusion that you're plugged-in a real
tank. This way, you can do hundreds different simulated combat without
ever living your hospital bed. When you're healed, you are a seasoned
tank pilot ready for real action.

> Although there can be arguements made against the military wanting to
> spend the money on every infantryman for a smartlink, I'd give you
> good odds that fighter pilots are going to get VCRs (at least) put in
> as a matter of course before they get strapped into a multi-million
> nuyen jet and put into combat.
>
Every soldier must receive all the cyberware that he's need to do his
job, nothing more, nothing less. In the case of the fighter pilot, it
would means an Alpha-grade VCR 2, a level 2 synthacardium and some
re-inforced arteries (to increase G-tolerance) after receiving the basic
kit.
Message no. 37
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:34:49 -0700
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:19:11 -0500, Toubrouk <toubrouk@*********.ca> wrote:
>
> Every soldier must receive all the cyberware that he's need to do his
> job, nothing more, nothing less. In the case of the fighter pilot, it
> would means an Alpha-grade VCR 2, a level 2 synthacardium and some
> re-inforced arteries (to increase G-tolerance) after receiving the basic
> kit.

Pilots have a slightly different resource priority than ground
pounders :) The cost to train, equip, and maintain a pilot is
significantly higher then the price of a soldier. And a pilot has a
much greater impact on the field of battle. As such, militaries
rarely spare any expense when it comes to their pilots, and especially
their fighter pilots, with the goal of getting the survivability of
the pilot and the airplane as high as possible.

A fighter pilot (for a 1st world country or megacorp) would have the
best grade VCR 3 and whatever other maximum grade cyber/bioware they
can fit in him to increase his strength (to withstand Gs), reaction
time, and skill level.

--
-Graht
Message no. 38
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:42:24 +0100
According to Toubrouk, on Wednesday 10 November 2004 19:19 the word on the
street was...

> First, thanks for your input as a military guy. I believe that you're
> the best info source that we can have on military training !

I don't think Joe is actually in the military right now (unless he changed
jobs since I last talked to him :)

> I know there's some military personnel that will never see combat.

The vast majority, I would say -- certainly if you don't consider coming
under sporadic fire or convoy bombings as "combat".

> In
> fact, if my memory serve me well, i heard that four guys on the USS
> Enterprise carrier who have the mission to keep the Coke(tm) machines
> full.

Is their rank Third Technician...?

> If we start with the idea of "All men is a riflemen", i saw no
> problem in equipping every soldier with a basic Cyber-Kit.

"Every soldier is a rifleman" is not the same as "Every soldier is equipped

as a rifleman". What it means is that every soldier (or, in the
organization where the phrase originates, every marine) is trained to fire
a rifle to the standards required of riflemen. They then go on to learn
and do whatever their normal job in the military is, using the normal
tools for that job -- the idea being that they can then fire a rifle
adequately should the need to do so ever arive, such as when they suddenly
find themselves in the front lines due to being overrun, due to shortages
of true combat soldiers, and so on. The actual riflemen get a lot more
training for their particular job, which is to be real riflemen.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Ik ben het beu
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 39
From: pentaj2@********.edu (John C. Penta)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:52:58 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Gurth <gurth@******.nl>
Date: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 1:42 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Cyber for Soldiers

> According to Toubrouk, on Wednesday 10 November 2004 19:19 the
> word on the
> street was...
>

> > I know there's some military personnel that will never see combat.
>
> The vast majority, I would say -- certainly if you don't consider
> coming
> under sporadic fire or convoy bombings as "combat".

Ehm, Gurth...As Iraq has wonderfully demonstrated, if they want to kill you, it's combat.

However, for the UCAS military, do we have ANY idea if they've even MADE any sort of
foreign deployments since 2018?

John
Message no. 40
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:53:01 -0700
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:52:58 -0500, John C. Penta <pentaj2@********.edu> wrote:
>
> However, for the UCAS military, do we have ANY idea if they've even MADE any sort of
foreign deployments since 2018?

I don't think so. They (and the UCS military) are pretty much
hunkered down along their borders (more so along the NAN borders),
IIRC.

--
-Graht
Message no. 41
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:02:29 +0100
According to John C. Penta, on Wednesday 10 November 2004 19:52 the word on
the street was...

> Ehm, Gurth...As Iraq has wonderfully demonstrated, if they want to kill
> you, it's combat.

I'm aware of that, but what I'm trying to say is that the term "combat
soldier" usually refers to those soldiers trained to be in the front line.
Being in a convoy that takes fire is being in combat, true, but is IMHO
rather different from being a soldier who is sent specifically into
combat, such as the troops fighting in Fallujah ATM.

> However, for the UCAS military, do we have ANY idea if they've even MADE
> any sort of foreign deployments since 2018?

Not AFAIK.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Ik ben het beu
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 42
From: pentaj2@********.edu (John C. Penta)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:32:50 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Graht <graht1@*****.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 1:53 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Cyber for Soldiers

> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:52:58 -0500, John C. Penta
> <pentaj2@********.edu> wrote:
> >
> > However, for the UCAS military, do we have ANY idea if they've
> even MADE any sort of foreign deployments since 2018?
>
> I don't think so. They (and the UCS military) are pretty much
> hunkered down along their borders (more so along the NAN borders),
> IIRC.

OK then. We can draw up some pretty good ideas about what the UCAS military will look
like...Or at least, these are my ideas as to what it would look like.

ORGANIZATION:

Prior to World War II, the US was divided up into "Departments". Chances are,
with the merger with Canada and the loss of the NAN territories, this will happen again,
and the UCAS military would be very, very territory-focused.

Seattle will be a lot like what a deployment to the frontier forts was for soldiers after
the Civil War: Lonely duty, a long way from home. Think duty in Korea in the modern day.
---
STRATEGY:

Chances are, the UCAS military, in the UCAS proper, will focus a lot on fortifications.
They really don't seem to have space to trade for time.
---
RECRUITMENT:

I'm unsure if the UCAS has a draft, so there's a hole here. However, they've got 172
Million people versus a barely a tenth of that in each of the rest of the nations on the
continent (from a quick skim of SoNA). A draft would be unlikely.

However, why would many people join the military? The corps are an infinitely better
option, and the UCAS's strategy will almost-inevitably be one with high casaulties on
their side. They don't have the space to trade for maneuver.
---
TRAINING:

I fully expect a high-trained force. However, I can't see cyber, actually, except where
soldiers request it (the military will pay for it, of course). It certainly wouldn't be
required; It might be something lots of soldiers get, but it would creep out mom and dad
in Peoria if you turned Johnny into a human targeting system. Remember, these people do go
home on leave.

Instead, the emphasis will be on training, and leveraging equipment to match cyber. With
the rise of simsense, training apparently becomes far more efficient, such that what you
learn today in 12 weeks of training may only take 9. This would be a wonderful chance for
the military to train soldiers harder in their MOS, or perhaps cross-train them in a
second MOS.

At the same time, I would be unsurprised to see lots of soldiers leaving service with a
college degree at the bare minimum.
---
EQUIPMENT:

High-tech, but unlikely to see cyber in the line troops. (Special Ops, not so
unlikely.) Expect it to be *heavier* equipment: The UCAS is unlikely to head overseas
anytime soon, so they don't need to worry about it fitting on aircraft. The heavy tank
would definitely be back in style, as would artillery.
Message no. 43
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:40:50 -0700
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:32:50 -0500, John C. Penta <pentaj2@********.edu> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Graht <graht1@*****.com>
> Date: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 1:53 pm
> Subject: Re: Re: Cyber for Soldiers
>
> > On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:52:58 -0500, John C. Penta
> > <pentaj2@********.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > However, for the UCAS military, do we have ANY idea if they've
> > even MADE any sort of foreign deployments since 2018?
> >
> > I don't think so. They (and the UCS military) are pretty much
> > hunkered down along their borders (more so along the NAN borders),
> > IIRC.
>
> OK then. We can draw up some pretty good ideas about what the UCAS military will look
like...Or at least, these are my ideas as to what it would look like.
>
> ORGANIZATION:
>
> Prior to World War II, the US was divided up into "Departments". Chances
are, with the merger with Canada and the loss of the NAN territories, this will happen
again, and the UCAS military would be very, very territory-focused.

Sounds good.

> Seattle will be a lot like what a deployment to the frontier forts was for soldiers
after the Civil War: Lonely duty, a long way from home. Think duty in Korea in the modern
day.

>From what I've heard, Korea has it's benefits ;)

> ---
> STRATEGY:
>
> Chances are, the UCAS military, in the UCAS proper, will focus a lot on
fortifications. They really don't seem to have space to trade for time.

<nod>

> ---
> RECRUITMENT:
>
> I'm unsure if the UCAS has a draft, so there's a hole here. However, they've got 172
Million people versus a barely a tenth of that in each of the rest of the nations on the
continent (from a quick skim of SoNA). A draft would be unlikely.
>
> However, why would many people join the military? The corps are an infinitely better
option, and the UCAS's strategy will almost-inevitably be one with high casaulties on
their side. They don't have the space to trade for maneuver.

Economic desparity. As wealthy as the corps are, there are a lot of
people below the poverty line. Except for a few exceptions, the poor
tend to stay poor. If your parents are corp, you'll probably end up a
wage slave. But if your parents are poor, you'll probably end up poor
or a military lifer (IMHO based on my perception of Shadowrun). If
your parents are military, then you'll probably end up an officer.

> ---
> TRAINING:
>
> I fully expect a high-trained force. However, I can't see cyber, actually, except
where soldiers request it (the military will pay for it, of course). It certainly wouldn't
be required; It might be something lots of soldiers get, but it would creep out mom and
dad in Peoria if you turned Johnny into a human targeting system. Remember, these people
do go home on leave.
>
> Instead, the emphasis will be on training, and leveraging equipment to match cyber.
With the rise of simsense, training apparently becomes far more efficient, such that what
you learn today in 12 weeks of training may only take 9. This would be a wonderful chance
for the military to train soldiers harder in their MOS, or perhaps cross-train them in a
second MOS.
>
> At the same time, I would be unsurprised to see lots of soldiers leaving service with
a college degree at the bare minimum.

I would actually be unsurprised to see lots of soldiers signing up for
extended time. In today's economy the military is a stepping stone.
But in Shadowrun's economy I would consider the military to be a
lifelong option (kind of like government service was in the US before
the 90s).

> ---
> EQUIPMENT:
>
> High-tech, but unlikely to see cyber in the line troops. (Special Ops, not so
unlikely.) Expect it to be *heavier* equipment: The UCAS is unlikely to head overseas
anytime soon, so they don't need to worry about it fitting on aircraft. The heavy tank
would definitely be back in style, as would artillery.

I would expect to see more basic cyberware (like datajacks and such),
but other than that it sounds good.

--
-Graht
Message no. 44
From: flakjacket@***********.com (Simon Nixon)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:05:18 +0000 (GMT)
John C. Penta wrote:

> Seattle will be a lot like what a deployment to the
> frontier forts was for soldiers after the Civil War:
> Lonely duty, a long way from home. Think duty in
> Korea in the modern day.

Well except for the large metropolitan city of three
million people down the road. And the whole it not
being a foreign country bit. Or did you mean more in a
remote location away from any other units? :)

That aside, I thought the UCAS had pretty good
relations with the Salish-Shidhe? I know that they're
still pretty tense with the Sioux and the Ute IIRC.

> Chances are, the UCAS military, in the UCAS proper,
> will focus a lot on fortifications. They really
> don't seem to have space to trade for time.

Is that really viable though? Even now with todays
precision weapons and guided munitions it's pretty
much the mantra of 'If you can see it you can hit it,
if you can hit it you can kill it.' With all the
advances and changes I'd have thought fixed defences
they'd have been even more outmoded than they are
today. :/
Message no. 45
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:54:03 -0700
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:05:18 +0000 (GMT), Simon Nixon
<flakjacket@***********.com> wrote:
> John C. Penta wrote:
>
> > Chances are, the UCAS military, in the UCAS proper,
> > will focus a lot on fortifications. They really
> > don't seem to have space to trade for time.
>
> Is that really viable though? Even now with todays
> precision weapons and guided munitions it's pretty
> much the mantra of 'If you can see it you can hit it,
> if you can hit it you can kill it.' With all the
> advances and changes I'd have thought fixed defences
> they'd have been even more outmoded than they are
> today. :/

Not stationary defenses, but fortified areas; like fences, walls,
trenches, minefields, barbed wire, etc, that have enough room for
defending forces to maneuver, but channel the attacking force.

While the US Air Force has been operating unnopposed in Iraq to date,
that would not be the case in a UCAS/UCS/NAN war. All three sides are
pretty equal when it comes to technology. There'd be one hell of an
air campaign before one side or the other came out on top and could
then take the time to pick apart ground defenses (or both sides
crippled eachother). Even then the ground-to-air defense would
probably still be formidable, making it much harder to soften up
defenses from the air. If the UCAS, UCS and/or NAN engaged eachother
it would not be a short victorious war. All IMHO.

--
-Graht
Message no. 46
From: jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:02:55 -0800 (PST)
> > However, for the UCAS military, do we have ANY
> idea if they've even MADE
> > any sort of foreign deployments since 2018?
>
> Not AFAIK.

UCAS troops must've been plenty busy within their own
borders in the past few decades, no need to invade
other countries to give the troops their blood
baptise.

Cheers,

Jan Jaap



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
Message no. 47
From: mattgbond@********.com (Matthew Bond)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:42:16 -0000
Toubrouk wrote:
> Since every cyberware that's got more than 1.29 essence loss give a
> serious damage when you implant it, your meatbody is stucked in a
> hospital bed for almost 4-6 weeks. During that time, your brain can be
> pluged into a VR battlefield! The trick is to build a computer with
> "Rigger Ports" that send you the illusion that you're plugged-in a
> real tank. This way, you can do hundreds different simulated combat
> without ever living your hospital bed. When you're healed, you are a
> seasoned tank pilot ready for real action.

I would think that most implants would take some considerable time to
become adjusted to mentally, especially if their sensory feedback is
radically different from normal (meta)human senses, though this would
run in parallel with the physical healing time.

Implanting a VCR then imediately plugging the recipient into a Tank
Simulator for several hours a day will probably cause extreme
disorientation and possibly mental illness.

It would more likely be done in small steps beginning with sessions
lasting only a few minutes a day as very basic vehicles, building up
slowly until the recipient has come to be at ease with slipping into
being a vehicle...

Once the recipient is comfortable with basic vehicle sensorsthen more
advanced training can be undertaken.

Matt




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 04/11/2004
Message no. 48
From: tjlanza@************.com (Timothy J. Lanza)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:20:00 -0500
At 05:42 PM 11/10/2004, Matthew Bond wrote:
>Implanting a VCR then imediately plugging the recipient into a Tank
>Simulator for several hours a day will probably cause extreme
>disorientation and possibly mental illness.

Isn't it stated someplace that cyberware doesn't function at all until the
healing has completed? Probably in the advanced surgery stuff in M&M.

--
Timothy J. Lanza
"When we can't dream any longer, we die." - Emma Goldman
Message no. 49
From: pentaj2@********.edu (John C. Penta)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:08:22 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Graht <graht1@*****.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 4:54 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Cyber for Soldiers

> While the US Air Force has been operating unnopposed in Iraq to date,
> that would not be the case in a UCAS/UCS/NAN war. All three sides are
> pretty equal when it comes to technology. There'd be one hell of an
> air campaign before one side or the other came out on top and could
> then take the time to pick apart ground defenses (or both sides
> crippled eachother). Even then the ground-to-air defense would
> probably still be formidable, making it much harder to soften up
> defenses from the air. If the UCAS, UCS and/or NAN engaged eachother
> it would not be a short victorious war. All IMHO.

Query: UCS?
Message no. 50
From: anders@**********.com (Anders Swenson)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:09:25 -0800
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:08:22 -0500
"John C. Penta" <pentaj2@********.edu> wrote:

> >
> Query: UCS?
>
Confederate.
--Anders
Message no. 51
From: msde_shadowrn@*****.com (Mark S)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:12:06 -0800 (PST)
--- Matthew Bond <mattgbond@********.com> wrote:
> Toubrouk wrote:
> > Since every cyberware that's got more than 1.29 essence loss give a
> > serious damage when you implant it, your meatbody is stucked in a
> > hospital bed for almost 4-6 weeks. During that time, your brain can
> be
> > pluged into a VR battlefield!

> I would think that most implants would take some considerable time to
> become adjusted to mentally, especially if their sensory feedback is
> radically different from normal (meta)human senses, though this would
> run in parallel with the physical healing time.

I can't imagine it being any different than simsense, which is
widespread and popular as a form of entertainment, and a simsense rig
can be used if they are currently recovering from datajack surgery.
Rigging sensations might require some time to adjust, but this can
start before implantation using the simsense rig.

Mark




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
Message no. 52
From: Toubrouk@*********.ca (Toubrouk)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:37:04 -0500
Mark Wrote:

>--- Matthew Bond <mattgbond@********.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Toubrouk wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> > Since every cyberware that's got more than 1.29 essence loss give a
>>>> > serious damage when you implant it, your meatbody is stucked in a
>>>> > hospital bed for almost 4-6 weeks. During that time, your brain can
>>>
>>>
>>> be
>>
>>
>>>> > pluged into a VR battlefield!
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>> I would think that most implants would take some considerable time to
>>> become adjusted to mentally, especially if their sensory feedback is
>>> radically different from normal (meta)human senses, though this would
>>> run in parallel with the physical healing time.
>>
>>
>
>I can't imagine it being any different than simsense, which is
>widespread and popular as a form of entertainment, and a simsense rig
>can be used if they are currently recovering from datajack surgery.
>Rigging sensations might require some time to adjust, but this can
>start before implantation using the simsense rig.
>
>Mark
>

I don't expect submiting the soldiers to a VCR feed right out of surgery
for long hours. Starting by a couple of minutes, they will increase to
hours. The main idea is to give the soldiers something to do while
staying at the hospital.
Message no. 53
From: mrnexx@*********.net (Mark Hall)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:06:41 -0600
Graht wrote:

> A fighter pilot (for a 1st world country or megacorp) would have the
> best grade VCR 3 and whatever other maximum grade cyber/bioware they
> can fit in him to increase his strength (to withstand Gs), reaction
> time, and skill level.

Why not plastic bone lacing? Not sure about the essence cost, but with
alpha VCR 3, a couple alpha datajacks, you should be able to do it.
Throw in a synthcardium to make sure the blood keeps pumping, and you
don't have to worry about the chest collapsing even at really high Gs.

--
***
Nexx
aka Skaldmark
aka Mark Hall
***
http://www.editors-wastebasket.org/nexx/
***
"We have not even to risk the adventure alone, for the heroes of all
time have gone before us."
-Joseph Campbell
Message no. 54
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:16:30 -0700
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:06:41 -0600, Mark Hall <mrnexx@*********.net> wrote:
> Graht wrote:
>
> > A fighter pilot (for a 1st world country or megacorp) would have the
> > best grade VCR 3 and whatever other maximum grade cyber/bioware they
> > can fit in him to increase his strength (to withstand Gs), reaction
> > time, and skill level.
>
> Why not plastic bone lacing? Not sure about the essence cost, but with
> alpha VCR 3, a couple alpha datajacks, you should be able to do it.
> Throw in a synthcardium to make sure the blood keeps pumping, and you
> don't have to worry about the chest collapsing even at really high Gs.

Because bone lacing doesn't help a pilot stay conscious (avoid Stun)
during high G maneuvers. What you want to do is increase the stats
that will stave off stun damage (Body and Willpower) and allow the
pilot to act during high G maneuvers (Strength). Of course
Intelligence (perception) and Quickness (which increases Reaction) are
also important.

--
-Graht
Message no. 55
From: mrnexx@*********.net (Mark Hall)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:28:30 -0600
Graht wrote:

> Because bone lacing doesn't help a pilot stay conscious (avoid Stun)
> during high G maneuvers. What you want to do is increase the stats
> that will stave off stun damage (Body and Willpower) and allow the
> pilot to act during high G maneuvers (Strength). Of course
> Intelligence (perception) and Quickness (which increases Reaction) are
> also important.

Is Quickness actually going to increase reaction, though? Wouldn't it
be quicker and more effective to control the stuff normally done
manually with a frontal-lobe mounted jack, and the gross actions of the
plane with the mastoid one?

--
***
Nexx
aka Skaldmark
aka Mark Hall
***
http://www.editors-wastebasket.org/nexx/
***
"We have not even to risk the adventure alone, for the heroes of all
time have gone before us."
-Joseph Campbell
Message no. 56
From: tjlanza@************.com (Timothy J. Lanza)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:36:47 -0500
At 10:28 PM 11/10/2004, Mark Hall wrote:
>Graht wrote:
>
>>Because bone lacing doesn't help a pilot stay conscious (avoid Stun)
>>during high G maneuvers. What you want to do is increase the stats
>>that will stave off stun damage (Body and Willpower) and allow the
>>pilot to act during high G maneuvers (Strength). Of course
>>Intelligence (perception) and Quickness (which increases Reaction) are
>>also important.
>
>Is Quickness actually going to increase reaction, though? Wouldn't it be
>quicker and more effective to control the stuff normally done manually
>with a frontal-lobe mounted jack, and the gross actions of the plane with
>the mastoid one?

Fortunately, the game doesn't get into such minutiae. The location of the
datajack doesn't make one lick of difference.

For story purposes, my crew tends to have rigger jacks in the back of the
neck and decker jacks near the temple, but that's all it is... story purposes.

Quickness is the source of half of your Reaction, and that's all there is
to it.

--
Timothy J. Lanza
"When we can't dream any longer, we die." - Emma Goldman
Message no. 57
From: mrnexx@*********.net (Mark Hall)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:55:45 -0600
Timothy J. Lanza wrote:

> Quickness is the source of half of your Reaction, and that's all there
> is to it.

Not necessarily. Astrally, your Intelligence is your Reaction and,
IIRC, you can opt for a pure cybernetic interface with your deck (and
have to, if you've got a C^2), which puts your Reaction just in your
intelligence.


--
***
Nexx
aka Skaldmark
aka Mark Hall
***
http://www.editors-wastebasket.org/nexx/
***
"We have not even to risk the adventure alone, for the heroes of all
time have gone before us."
-Joseph Campbell
Message no. 58
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:01:56 -0800 (PST)
> "John C. Penta" <pentaj2@********.edu> wrote:
>
> > Query: UCS?
> >

> Confederate.
> --Anders

Ummm... I may have missed something in SoNA, but up through SR2 the
correct acronym was CAS, for Confederated American States.

======Korishinzo
--needing sourcebooks at work




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
Message no. 59
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:43:15 +0000
On Nov 11, 2004, at 03:36, Timothy J. Lanza wrote:

> At 10:28 PM 11/10/2004, Mark Hall wrote:
>> Is Quickness actually going to increase reaction, though? Wouldn't
>> it be quicker and more effective to control the stuff normally done
>> manually with a frontal-lobe mounted jack, and the gross actions of
>> the plane with the mastoid one?
>
> Fortunately, the game doesn't get into such minutiae. The location of
> the datajack doesn't make one lick of difference.
>
> For story purposes, my crew tends to have rigger jacks in the back of
> the neck and decker jacks near the temple, but that's all it is...
> story purposes.

The physical location of the datajack has precisely zero influence on
its functionality. You can get a datajack embedded inside your Mr.
Studd(TM) implant if you want.
Most riggers, however, get the datajack that's routed to their VCR
implanted between their ear and the base of their jaw, pointing
downward. The reason for this is actually very simple, and has nothing
to do with technical stuff: it's one of the few ways you can use a
datajack and a helmet at the same time.

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 60
From: Toubrouk@*********.ca (Toubrouk)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:54:54 -0500
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:16:30 Graht wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:06:41 -0600, Mark Hall <mrnexx@*********.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Graht wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>> > A fighter pilot (for a 1st world country or megacorp) would have the
>>>> > best grade VCR 3 and whatever other maximum grade cyber/bioware they
>>>> > can fit in him to increase his strength (to withstand Gs), reaction
>>>> > time, and skill level.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not plastic bone lacing? Not sure about the essence cost, but with
>>> alpha VCR 3, a couple alpha datajacks, you should be able to do it.
>>> Throw in a synthcardium to make sure the blood keeps pumping, and you
>>> don't have to worry about the chest collapsing even at really high Gs.
>>
>>
>
>Because bone lacing doesn't help a pilot stay conscious (avoid Stun)
>during high G maneuvers. What you want to do is increase the stats
>that will stave off stun damage (Body and Willpower) and allow the
>pilot to act during high G maneuvers (Strength). Of course
>Intelligence (perception) and Quickness (which increases Reaction) are
>also important.
>
Just a little idea i got from Joe Haldeman's book "The Forever War":
would it be possible to take the pilot and put it into a presurized
acceleration tank? The tank could be overpressurized with an oxygenated
amiotic fluid that the rigger could breath (C.C. P.57). The pilot would
receive a cyber-valve just over the hip to allow the system to pump
High-Tech fleuro-carbons and nitrogen in his body to maintain the
ballance of high pressure. By keeping the pilot "Extra-Dense", it would
help to deal with the G problem.

At least, it was the excuse Mr. Haldeman used to explain how a human
body can survive to a 30-40G acceleration. I believe it could be done
with the technology of Shadowrun.
Message no. 61
From: ShadowRN@********.demon.co.uk (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:07:31 +0000
In article <4192D741.9080608@*********.net>, Mark Hall
<mrnexx@*********.net> writes
>Why not plastic bone lacing? Not sure about the essence cost, but with
>alpha VCR 3, a couple alpha datajacks, you should be able to do it.
>Throw in a synthcardium to make sure the blood keeps pumping, and you
>don't have to worry about the chest collapsing even at really high Gs.

You're getting towards devoting too much airframe to the "puny fleshy
one" in the cockpit - plus the interface and life-support requirements,
and the need to give the PFO a view - compared to drones with
jam-resistant links and decent AI to take over when forced to
standalone.

Software can be copied a lot faster than people...

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 62
From: mikepaff@***.rr.com (Michael Paff)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:12:37 -0800
At 03:54 PM 11/11/04, Toubrouk wrote:
>Just a little idea i got from Joe Haldeman's book "The Forever War": would
>it be possible to take the pilot and put it into a presurized acceleration
>tank? The tank could be overpressurized with an oxygenated amiotic fluid
>that the rigger could breath (C.C. P.57). The pilot would receive a
>cyber-valve just over the hip to allow the system to pump High-Tech
>fleuro-carbons and nitrogen in his body to maintain the ballance of high
>pressure. By keeping the pilot "Extra-Dense", it would help to deal with
>the G problem.

That might work, until the pressurized tank takes a bullet. Then you end
up with a pilot with extreme decompression sickness.

Mike
Message no. 63
From: maxnoel_fr@*****.fr (Max Noel)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:46:30 +0000
On Nov 11, 2004, at 23:54, Toubrouk wrote:

> Just a little idea i got from Joe Haldeman's book "The Forever War":
> would it be possible to take the pilot and put it into a presurized
> acceleration tank? The tank could be overpressurized with an
> oxygenated amiotic fluid that the rigger could breath (C.C. P.57). The
> pilot would receive a cyber-valve just over the hip to allow the
> system to pump High-Tech fleuro-carbons and nitrogen in his body to
> maintain the ballance of high pressure. By keeping the pilot
> "Extra-Dense", it would help to deal with the G problem.
>
> At least, it was the excuse Mr. Haldeman used to explain how a human
> body can survive to a 30-40G acceleration. I believe it could be done
> with the technology of Shadowrun.

Damage to the body due to over-acceleration (i.e. your body is not
made of strong enough materials to withstand the acceleration, and it
breaks apart) is only part of the problem.
The biggest catch is that the human heart doesn't have enough power to
keep pumping blood under hard accelerations. Your blood is too "heavy"
and your heart can't get it to your brain -- this is what happens when
a pilot "blacks out".
A typical human G-LOCs at about 5G. A trained fighter pilot wearing an
anti-G suit can withstand about 9G. Your system may be able to raise
the bar up to perhaps 15G, but to get any further, you'll need to
replace the pilot's heart with a more powerful pump. A synthacardium
will probably get you up to 20G. For anything above that, you must
start looking into mechanical pumps, which seems kinda awkward.
(by the way, when you "red out", it's the exact opposite that happens:
your blood has negative relative weight and has trouble getting down
from your head -- happens around -5G IIRC)

In 2004, most missiles can take turns up to 40G, and planes would
approach that if it wasn't for the fact that there's a human body
inside.
By 2060, I would expect fighter planes built specifically as drones
(large UAVs) and making full use of what vectored thrust, smart
materials and dynamically unstable flight models (that last point, to
me, is the one reason why VCRs were invented -- double bonus, as
forward-swept wings look badass ^^) can give us, to be able to pull out
maneuvers straight out of Macross as standard operating procedures.

When you add to this all the other advantages of VCRs and
remote-control interfaces (lagless controls, sensor overlays,
simultaneous multiple PoVs, image-/signature-recognition software
linked with central databases piped through a real-time knowsoft hash
straight into your KS link, to name but a few... Not to even mention
Battletac IVIS/FDDM systems, and the fact that you don't absolutely
need as many pilots as there are planes), it becomes *really* scary.
You'd better make sure your AWACS or whoever else is doing full-time
MIJI of the battlefield is very-well protected. Because as soon as your
opponent becomes able to deploy those remote-controlled fighters, you
might as well order your pilots to eject at once.

However, the Shadowrun rules don't seem to reflect this. No vehicle
fits what I've just described. In fact, SR fighter planes don't seem to
be much better than what we have now. Although you might raise the
point that the game probably wasn't written with fighter pilots in
mind. ^^

-- Wild_Cat
maxnoel_fr at yahoo dot fr -- ICQ #85274019
"Look at you hacker... A pathetic creature of meat and bone, panting
and sweating as you run through my corridors... How can you challenge a
perfect, immortal machine?"
Message no. 64
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:04:21 +0100
According to Ice Heart, on Thursday 11 November 2004 17:01 the word on the
street was...

> Ummm... I may have missed something in SoNA, but up through SR2 the
> correct acronym was CAS, for Confederated American States.

That's always been the name, and still is in SONA.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Ik ben het beu
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 65
From: jcotton1@*********.net (Joseph Cotton)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:41:08 -0500
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Toubrouk
>
> First, thanks for your input as a military guy. I believe that
you're
> the best info source that we can have on military training !

Well, that's real kindly of you to say that, but it overstates the
case by quite a bit. :) I can tell you what boot camp at Parris
Island was like back in the early 70s; and I can tell you a bit more
about Marine Corps recruiting practices from around 1980 to 1995; but
that hardly qualifies me as an expert overall. Actually, your best
bet (at least here in the US) is to walk into your local
Army/Navy/USMC/Air Farce, er, Force recruiting office and see if
they'll let you walk away with a bunch of recruiting materials. Tell
'em it's for your little brother/nephew/neighbor, unless you want to
get a sales pitch and about a dozen follow-up phone calls. Sure,
you'll get a glorified version of what it's like, but you'll know what
sorts of inducements they can (theoretically) offer, how long the
training is, and what sorts of things are covered.

One thing to keep in mind, though -- they call it "basic" training for
a reason. :)

Joe Cotton
Message no. 66
From: msde_shadowrn@*****.com (Mark S)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:01:31 -0800 (PST)
--- Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:
> According to Ice Heart, on Thursday 11 November 2004 17:01 the word
> on the
> street was...
>
> > Ummm... I may have missed something in SoNA, but up through SR2 the
> > correct acronym was CAS, for Confederated American States.
>
> That's always been the name, and still is in SONA.

This came up during the wiki, actually. There is some confusion
because SoNA refers to it as the "Confederation of American States",
while every other sourcebook lists it as the "Confederated American
States". We went with SoNA's usage and redirected the other one to the
first.

http://wiki.dumpshock.com/index.php/Talk:Confederation_of_American_States

Mark




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
Message no. 67
From: Toubrouk@*********.ca (Toubrouk)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:21:28 -0500
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:12:37, Michael Paff wrote:

> At 03:54 PM 11/11/04, Toubrouk wrote:
>
>>>Just a little idea i got from Joe Haldeman's book "The Forever War":
would
>>>it be possible to take the pilot and put it into a presurized acceleration
>>>tank? The tank could be overpressurized with an oxygenated amiotic fluid
>>>that the rigger could breath (C.C. P.57). The pilot would receive a
>>>cyber-valve just over the hip to allow the system to pump High-Tech
>>>fleuro-carbons and nitrogen in his body to maintain the ballance of high
>>>pressure. By keeping the pilot "Extra-Dense", it would help to deal
with
>>>the G problem.
>>
>>
>
>That might work, until the pressurized tank takes a bullet. Then you end
>up with a pilot with extreme decompression sickness.
>
>Mike
>

Or a pilot who blew-up due to explosive decompression. There's was some
disgusting examples of that in Haldeman's book.

On another point of view, if it can down a fighter plane and it hit you,
you're mostly dead anyway.
Message no. 68
From: ShadowRN@********.demon.co.uk (Paul J. Adam)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:30:14 +0000
In article <4193FBCE.8090001@*********.ca>, Toubrouk
<Toubrouk@*********.ca> writes
>On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:16:30 Graht wrote:
>>Because bone lacing doesn't help a pilot stay conscious (avoid Stun)
>>during high G maneuvers. What you want to do is increase the stats
>>that will stave off stun damage (Body and Willpower) and allow the
>>pilot to act during high G maneuvers (Strength). Of course
>>Intelligence (perception) and Quickness (which increases Reaction) are
>>also important.
>>
>Just a little idea i got from Joe Haldeman's book "The Forever War":
>would it be possible to take the pilot and put it into a presurized
>acceleration tank?

In theory, but there are several problems.

1) - Weight. This is a lot of mass to add to the aircraft, meaning
either reduced payload or reduced performance. Stressing the aircraft
and all its payload to withstand much higher G-loads also means much
heavier structures, and so much less performance or payload: there's no
point having the pilot wide awake and aware while the aircraft folds up
around him.

2) - Situational awareness. This means no cockpit, no real view, and so
your pilot is depending on the sensors: at which point, the advantages
over a UAV are limited.

3) - G-loads are less critical than is usually thought. Generating lots
of G means you turn really tightly while losing most of your speed: this
is generally not that useful, since pulling a 30G turn to evade a
missile means you can radically change direction... but end up so slow
that you're still inside the warhead's lethal volume.

It's worth remembering that while the F-16 is notionally stressed for
9G, in practice that's almost never used, and with actual combat loads
the aircraft is limited to 5.5G. Later aircraft save weight and effort
by accepting lower G-limits: the F-22 is stressed for only 7G, from
memory.


The critical parameter for fighter aircraft is actually excess power:
whatever you do to either destroy the enemy or avoid being killed (which
means losing airspeed and/or altitude), more excess power means you can
get altitude and airspeed back faster. True in WW2 (note tight-turning
Japanese fighters slaughtered by bigger, faster, more powerful, less
agile Hellcats and Corsairs), even more true now (where BVR missile
effectiveness is directly related to total energy, and recovering from
evasion to get superior energy to the enemy gives you an escalating
advantage)

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 69
From: Toubrouk@*********.ca (Toubrouk)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:54:37 -0500
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 00:46:30, Wild_Cat wrote:

>On Nov 11, 2004, at 23:54, Toubrouk wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Just a little idea i got from Joe Haldeman's book "The Forever
War":
>>> would it be possible to take the pilot and put it into a presurized
>>> acceleration tank? The tank could be overpressurized with an
>>> oxygenated amiotic fluid that the rigger could breath (C.C. P.57). The
>>> pilot would receive a cyber-valve just over the hip to allow the
>>> system to pump High-Tech fleuro-carbons and nitrogen in his body to
>>> maintain the ballance of high pressure. By keeping the pilot
>>> "Extra-Dense", it would help to deal with the G problem.
>>>
>>> At least, it was the excuse Mr. Haldeman used to explain how a human
>>> body can survive to a 30-40G acceleration. I believe it could be done
>>> with the technology of Shadowrun.
>>
>>
>
> Damage to the body due to over-acceleration (i.e. your body is not
>made of strong enough materials to withstand the acceleration, and it
>breaks apart) is only part of the problem.
> The biggest catch is that the human heart doesn't have enough power to
>keep pumping blood under hard accelerations. Your blood is too "heavy"
>and your heart can't get it to your brain -- this is what happens when
>a pilot "blacks out".
> A typical human G-LOCs at about 5G. A trained fighter pilot wearing an
>anti-G suit can withstand about 9G. Your system may be able to raise
>the bar up to perhaps 15G, but to get any further, you'll need to
>replace the pilot's heart with a more powerful pump. A synthacardium
>will probably get you up to 20G. For anything above that, you must
>start looking into mechanical pumps, which seems kinda awkward.
> (by the way, when you "red out", it's the exact opposite that happens:
>your blood has negative relative weight and has trouble getting down
>from your head -- happens around -5G IIRC)
>
Then, you have two options:

The first idea is to implant a synthacardium (Or a tougher cyber-heart)
and artificial carotid arteries equiped with regulating cyber-pumps. The
other idea would be to remplace the carotid artery with a cyber
equivalent equiped with by-passes. The by-passes would be plugged into a
exterior machine who will have as function to pump, clean and
re-oxygenate the blood so the brain would be on a closed circuit.

>
> In 2004, most missiles can take turns up to 40G, and planes would
>approach that if it wasn't for the fact that there's a human body
>inside.
> By 2060, I would expect fighter planes built specifically as drones
>(large UAVs) and making full use of what vectored thrust, smart
>materials and dynamically unstable flight models (that last point, to
>me, is the one reason why VCRs were invented -- double bonus, as
>forward-swept wings look badass ^^) can give us, to be able to pull out
>maneuvers straight out of Macross as standard operating procedures.
>
> When you add to this all the other advantages of VCRs and
>remote-control interfaces (lagless controls, sensor overlays,
>simultaneous multiple PoVs, image-/signature-recognition software
>linked with central databases piped through a real-time knowsoft hash
>straight into your KS link, to name but a few... Not to even mention
>Battletac IVIS/FDDM systems, and the fact that you don't absolutely
>need as many pilots as there are planes), it becomes *really* scary.
> You'd better make sure your AWACS or whoever else is doing full-time
>MIJI of the battlefield is very-well protected. Because as soon as your
>opponent becomes able to deploy those remote-controlled fighters, you
>might as well order your pilots to eject at once.
>
> However, the Shadowrun rules don't seem to reflect this. No vehicle
>fits what I've just described. In fact, SR fighter planes don't seem to
>be much better than what we have now. Although you might raise the
>point that the game probably wasn't written with fighter pilots in
>mind. ^^
>
>-- Wild_Cat
>
Please keep in mind: In the world of Shadowrun, the typical handset unit
cellphone weight one kilo., a large flashlight weight two and a
microflare launcher, described as a "pen-sized flare launcher", weight 2
kilos! The truth here is that a part of the tech of Sahdowrun is
straight out of the 1980.

--Toubrouk
Message no. 70
From: Toubrouk@*********.ca (Toubrouk)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:18:02 -0500
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:41:08 Joseph Cotton wrote:

>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Toubrouk
>>>
>>> First, thanks for your input as a military guy. I believe that
>>
>>
>you're
>
>
>>> the best info source that we can have on military training !
>>
>>
>
>Well, that's real kindly of you to say that, but it overstates the
>case by quite a bit. I can tell you what boot camp at Parris
>Island was like back in the early 70s; and I can tell you a bit more
>about Marine Corps recruiting practices from around 1980 to 1995; but
>that hardly qualifies me as an expert overall.
>
You got a lot more experience than me, you lived it!
Of couse it will not put you into the realm of the experts, but some
basic info is always welcomed. :)

>
>One thing to keep in mind, though -- they call it "basic" training for
>a reason.
>
>Joe Cotton
>
>------------------------------
>
Just what the soldier need to know, right ?
Message no. 71
From: silvercat@***********.org (Jonathan Hurley)
Subject: Cyber for Soldiers
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:55:10 -0500
Baen just released (or is about to release) an omnibus edition of the three
Cobra books

-----Original Message-----
From: shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com
[mailto:shadowrn-bounces@*****.dumpshock.com] On Behalf Of Toubrouk
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 10:32 AM
To: shadowrn@*****.dumpshock.com
Subject: Re: Cyber for Soldiers

Grath Wrote:

>
> I'm suddenly reminded of Timothy Zhan's Cobra books. In those books
> the character join the military, and then are heavily cybered so that
> they can fight a war with aliens. After the war is over and they
> aren't needed anymore the military disables the cyberware that it can
> (the built in weapons for example) but can't disable the wired
> reflexes. Zhan did a pretty good job of writing it up from the
> character's perspective as he had to deal with discrimination when he
> did something that identified him as an ex Cobra, and dealing with his
> wired reflexes (he was twitchy).
>
> I highly recommend checking them out.
>
> -- -Graht
>
Thanks for the info, i will try to get the books.

--Toubrouk

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Cyber for Soldiers, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!