Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Planes
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 15:56:44 -0600
Of course, even as good as the A-10 and F-16 are, I'll always have a soft
spot for the old F-4. Proof true that if your scream hard enough at the
ground, it WILL run away....

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Veteran of the Bermuda Triangle
\/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> Expeditionary Force -- 1993-1951
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 2
From: The Powerhouse <P.C.Steele@*********.AC.UK>
Subject: Planes ?
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 18:54:49 GMT
Just out of interest how many times have you been in runs where players have
actually had access to fighter planes ? No seriously, I'm not being sarcastic
but I'm interested if anyone's GM has actually let them get their hands on
this type of military weaponry and wether or not they managed to keep it.

Phill.
--
Phillip Steele - Email address P.C.Steele@***.ac.uk | Let's get out there
Department Of Electrical & Electronic Engineering | and TWAT it !
University Of Newcastle Upon Tyne, England |
Land of the mad Geordies | The Powerhouse
Message no. 3
From: Misty's Witch Brigade! <MHILLIARD@******.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Planes ?
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 17:51:39 -0500
I dunno about military planes, but I did observe a game where the players
hijacked a passanger plane, tok it to Columbia, and traded the 200 passangers
for a boat back to the US. All to shake the CIA off their tale.

And ask Mike/Harlequin about his Banshee and Stonewall experiences. *grin*

Phelan
Message no. 4
From: ANGLISS@****.PSU.EDU
Subject: Re: Planes ?
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1993 17:52:43 -0400
Well, GMing once I almost let a guy have a prototype fighter. He was going to
be the test pilot as he was the only one who was nuts enough and expendable
enough too. Too bad that we never got to that run...

The only thing I can compare it to was generating Robotech
Cyclones(tranformableand everything) into SR. The runners were in Orbit(I run
a mutant kind of
magic in space with Cthulan elements) after Ares bought a certain item from
them in exchange for a Beta Clinic, and on thier way down they were arrested
for the murder of a Lone Star cop by the authorities, then turned over to the
UCAS Space Forces for transport down to Seattle for trial. They never made it
that far as terrorists advocating the sucession of the Orbital Colonies from
Earth-bound control took control of an Orbital factory and succeeded in killing
all the UCAS Special Forces that could respond to the attack. So they cut a
deal with the Runners, gave them one Cyclone and lots of fother goodies(power
armor and unusual weapons) and told them to re-take the factory in return for
thier not being prosecuted by Lone Star. So they went in, nearly died, and
then returned to Earth-without any of the stuff. Took like 3 weeks to run this
one...

Brian
Message no. 5
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Planes ?
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 13:04:52 +0930
>
>Just out of interest how many times have you been in runs where players have
>actually had access to fighter planes ? No seriously, I'm not being sarcastic
>but I'm interested if anyone's GM has actually let them get their hands on
>this type of military weaponry and wether or not they managed to keep it.
>
>Phill.

My players invaded the Seattle Air Force Base, once. Still trying to figure out
why. Security spotted them on the way in, but they put up a hell of a good
fight. The rigger actually got within 10 metres of one (it was that VTOL bird
in RRB (FB Eagle??)) :)


--
Robert Watkins bob@******.cs.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 am,
it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 6
From: Robert Nesius <frodo@******.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Planes
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 10:25:43 EST
Robert A. Hayden wrote
>
> Of course, even as good as the A-10 and F-16 are, I'll always have a soft
> spot for the old F-4. Proof true that if your scream hard enough at the
> ground, it WILL run away....
>
> <.sig deleted>

Sorry to jump in late but the above statement is one I definitely have
to support. The Phantom is a great plane. In Fargo, ND (close to where
I live in MN), the air gaurd units there had a squadron of F-4 Phantoms.
My friend would take me into the hanger from time to time and it was
always very impressive to see 8 F-4's lined up and ready to go.
TOUGH looking plane. Btw, anyone ever run a Shadowrun in Fargo, ND? :)



For those interested, the F-4's were phased out and F-16's brought in.
I haven't had a chance to see those yet myself. Which brings another
question to mind. Anyone ever use any old war-tech from our era in their
runs (F-16's, Tomcats, etc..... )? Just curious.

Leon
--
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Robert Nesius -- holmes@******.cc.purdue.edu a.k.a. Rob, Bob, etc. |
| Remember, if it wasn't for Macintosh, pc fans would not have windows. |
| GAT d++(--)(@) -p+ c++(++++) !l u+ e+\* m+(*) s-/- n+@ h-(--)(*) |
| f g+(-) w++@ t++(+++) r+ x?
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Hi! I'm a replicating .sig virus. Copy me into your .sig and join the fun!
Message no. 7
From: Deird'Re Brooks <deirdre@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Planes ?
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 09:54:36 -0800
> Just out of interest how many times have you been in runs where players have
> actually had access to fighter planes ? No seriously, I'm not being sarcastic
> but I'm interested if anyone's GM has actually let them get their hands on
> this type of military weaponry and wether or not they managed to keep it.

Nothing quite so fortunate . . .

Our characters were in a cargo plane, and due to various (no need
to mention what) reasons we were being pursued by a pair of
EFA's. Sigh.

Jazz (my Cat Shaman) conjured a force 12 Spirit of Wind and used
the two whole services to protect against accidents and multiply
the aircraft's speed. What fun!

I have to say that's the closest we've been to fighter planes.

Marzhavasati Kali |If mail bounces, check spelling. It's deirdre.
deirdre@***.org |If that doesn't work, send mail to
|deirdre%efn.org@*******.cs.uoregon.edu
"There's no such thing as overkill, just under-targetting."
-- Strega
Message no. 8
From: "James W. Thomas" <cm5323@***.AC.UK>
Subject: planes
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 15:59:06 +0100
Why are all the SRII planes OLD?
you look at the way the world of AeroStuff (tm) is developing
and then jump on 55 yrs.
And you expect old,tried and tested designs / new designs/ state
of the art groundbreaking designs.
Not in SR. Its all old hat

Where are the mission specific veriable airframes?
the Rutium polymer coated planes?
The ringwings? Slotted wings? Canarded planes?

Where is the FUTURE?

Its the same with the guns
Look in a NEW gun book. (Janes Infantry Weapons 94 is great. look
in your library)
Flechette rounds.Duplex.helix mags.caseless.
new calibres/ new weapon ideas.
And they all Look and Sound SciFi!

And the Cars?
where are the computer freeways? the carbon fibre H2 burners?
the electric cars that can go for hundreds of miles?

The Technology change, what should be the biggest thing in any
near future game, is overrun by the Awakening.
The biggest thing that happened was not 5% of the world
changing, but the sum total of computer power becoming greater
that the sum total of human brainpower. That was the change.
When technology moves faster that the peaple who use and abuse
it. When 1 new idea sparks off a chain reaction and creates a
hundred new ideas, which cascade into an informantion tsunami.

Chopper
(i needed that.steam all let off now)
Message no. 9
From: Matt Fullenwider <mattf@***.UNR.EDU>
Subject: Re: planes
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 10:35:52 -0700
You should read the SR novel "Shadowplay." It tells why technology usn't
as far ahead as it should be in the future. Remember the crash of 2029?
A LOT was lost in that!
---Matt Fullenwider (mattf@***.unr.edu)
"I'm not the only dust my mother raised." -TMBG
Message no. 10
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: planes
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 13:42:27 -0400
>>>>> "James" == James W Thomas <cm5323@***.AC.UK> writes:

James> Why are all the SRII planes OLD?
James> you look at the way the world of AeroStuff (tm) is developing
James> and then jump on 55 yrs.

You can say the exact same thing about weapons technology. Based on current
projections, the "standard" sidearm of 2050 is going to be either some form
of electromagnetic accelerator or a chemical laser.

So why don't they have them? Simple: one shot, one kill, you're dead, make
a new character. And that's no fun. So the technology curve has been
deliberately flattened.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> |Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox|which, if exposed due to rupture, should
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Message no. 11
From: Matt Hufstetler <gt2778a@*****.GATECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: planes
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 15:12:07 -0400
> Where is the FUTURE?

Umm, well, remember, most of the information like that got lost in the big
computer crashes. The only reason that computer tech didn't go the same
way, is because they had to develop new stuff really quickly to kill the
virus.

Another point, remember the 'cars of the future' made back in the 60's(I
think it was the sixties). Remember how shitty those things look?
I laughed my ass off the first time I saw one of those.
Message no. 12
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: planes
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1994 16:02:48 +1000
Matt writes:

> You should read the SR novel "Shadowplay." It tells why technology usn't
> as far ahead as it should be in the future. Remember the crash of 2029?
> A LOT was lost in that!

Well, that still leaves about 25 years until the crash. An _awful_ lot of
technology is going to be developed between now and then, and the crash
won't iradicate that. Think of the technological differences between the
moderne world (1994) and the 1970's, and that's the difference we should be
seeing _minimum_ between now and 2055. The only area where the difference is
even apparent is cyberware, and matrix tech.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+(d) H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v(?) C+(++) US++ P? L !3 E?
N K- W+ M@ !V po@ Y(+) t+ !5 !j R+(++) G(+)('') !tv(--)@ b++ D+
B? e+ u@ h* f(+) !r n--(----) !y+
Message no. 13
From: Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@***.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: planes
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1994 10:18:17 -0500
> technology is going to be developed between now and then, and the
> crash
> won't iradicate that. Think of the technological differences
> between the

It didn't destroy it all, but it DID lower the tech standard by more
than 10 years. They lost lots of stuff they had before.

--
Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@***.uiuc.edu)
Message no. 14
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: planes
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 01:23:06 +1000
Tim writes:

> > technology is going to be developed between now and then, and the
> > crash
> > won't iradicate that. Think of the technological differences
> > between the
>
> It didn't destroy it all, but it DID lower the tech standard by more
> than 10 years. They lost lots of stuff they had before.

Well, thats almost 20 years advanced over us, plus the advances in the years
after the crash, that makes a total of about thirty. I think the tech level
is still too low, and the only reason for it I can see is Rats(?) argument
about one-shot-one-kill, which is all too likely in a high-tech environment.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+(d) H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v(?) C+(++) US++ P? L !3 E?
N K- W+ M@ !V po@ Y(+) t+ !5 !j R+(++) G(+)('') !tv(--)@ b++ D+
B? e+ u@ h* f(+) !r n--(----) !y+
Message no. 15
From: Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@***.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: planes
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1994 10:37:58 -0500
> Well, thats almost 20 years advanced over us, plus the advances in
> the years after the crash, that makes a total of about thirty. I
> think the tech level

Subtract some more.

VITAS made them work on getting that cured. They spent a LOT of time
on that. There goes tech research in that area (while it did probably help
in other areas, I'll admit...)

Riots in Chicago. There goes lots of stuff there. Who knows WHAT
was being stored in the Sears Tower?

Lots of revolutions. Instability everywhere, including the UCAS.
Less ability to research stuff. Less coordination in researching stuff when
the corps start taking over the stuff.

The corps are killing off each others' scientists, too.

All in all, I can see plenty of advances, but not as much as there
was previously.

(Beyond that, what more do you want exactly? What kinds of tech?)

--
Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@***.uiuc.edu)
Message no. 16
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: planes
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 16:35:13 +1000
Tim writes:

> Subtract some more.

OK, I suppose there are a few other things which could be considered.

> VITAS made them work on getting that cured. They spent a LOT of time
> on that. There goes tech research in that area (while it did probably help
> in other areas, I'll admit...)

Yeah, a worldwide epidemic on the scale of the black plague could have a few
adverse effects.

> Riots in Chicago. There goes lots of stuff there. Who knows WHAT
> was being stored in the Sears Tower?

Personally I couldn't see this having much of an effect at all. But then
again I don't know Chicago, so I can't really say.

> Lots of revolutions. Instability everywhere, including the UCAS.
> Less ability to research stuff. Less coordination in researching stuff when
> the corps start taking over the stuff.

A few collapses of world governments might somewhat set things back I guess.

> The corps are killing off each others' scientists, too.

I'd only rate this as nominal.

> All in all, I can see plenty of advances, but not as much as there
> was previously.

The Awakening might've thrown the world into turmoil for a few years too I
imagine.

But do remember, the technology curve is on the increase, so what occurs
over a five year period nowadays is perhaps equal to the advances occuring
over a longer period in the past. I can't see the increase in the curve
slowing down too much.

All in all I spose we can expect advances for maybe a quarter of the time
gone by, which would be about 15 years or so. When one looks at what we do
have in the SR world, I guess the few meager (or not so in a couple of
cases) advances might be sufficient to pass.

> (Beyond that, what more do you want exactly? What kinds of tech?)

Beats me. One day when either I've travelled to the year 2055, or when we
actually get there, I'll tell you :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+(d) H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v(?) C+(++) US++ P? L !3 E?
N K- W+ M@ !V po@ Y(+) t+ !5 !j R+(++) G(+)('') !tv(--)@ b++ D+
B? e+ u@ h* f(+) !r n--(----) !y+
Message no. 17
From: Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@***.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: planes
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 09:46:08 -0500
> have in the SR world, I guess the few meager (or not so in a couple
> of cases) advances might be sufficient to pass.

Actually, when you think about it, it's not THAT bad.

The biggest advances are, of course, in cybernetics and biotech. The
matrix stuff is probably even logical from what we're at now, in about 15
years.

Cybertech was worked on a lot because of the Crash.

Biotech was worked on a lot for VITAS.

It would make sense that these were the biggest advances.

(There are also probably more military advancements that we don't
know about yet...)

--
Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@***.uiuc.edu)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about planes, 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!