Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Ruthenium (Re: Questions of great importance)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 16:08:29 EDT
In a message dated 9/2/1999 9:54:33 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
cyberraven@********.net writes:

> >How about PolyPOV Ruthenium? Considering what the team would be doing and
> >where they are going, this is entirely possible.
>
> Hadn't actually thought of that. And rigid armour would make sense (light
> to medium security) for special operations forces.
> Whats the refresh rate on Ruthenium?

FAST!!! And something tells me its' going to be even FASTER in upcoming
materials down the road (we've advanced the SR SOTA Curve, this only makes
sense)... I also have a strange question concerning "Ruthenium" in general.
It's stated as a "woven" material. Why is it going to be impeded greatly if
it's part of garb/clothing?

For instance, I'm not an expert, but the last thing I knew was that "armor
jackets" (as an example) are actually jackets with various kevlar weaves
underneath the surface coat of material, with heavier plates in certain
areas. WHY is Ruthenium going to have a reducing effect upon *ANY* kind of
armor. If anything, I see armor that has been hit (especially by HE rounds,
Acid, etc...) as having *ITS* effectiveness reduced.

On a car I can see problems, yes as you have to either coat the car with a
"sheathe" of ruthenium, or polybond the material to it somehow. Sheathing
IMO wouldn't effect the body of a car while polybonding would (think of
putting Ruthenium into the "blower" for fiberglass car bodies for instance).

I just don't like the way they've pointed the rules out as they stand here.
Its' used for flexible screens/trids, etc...I don't understand the problem.

-K (okay, I'm confused, I admit it)
Message no. 2
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Ruthenium (Re: Questions of great importance)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 19:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
> > >How about PolyPOV Ruthenium? Considering what the team would be
doing and where they are going, this is entirely possible.
> >
> > Hadn't actually thought of that. And rigid armour would make
sense (light to medium security) for special operations forces.

Actually, isn't that stuff kinda restrictive? That's why I put the team
in soft armour to start with. They're loaded for bear, but they're
trying to get through WITHOUT fighting. Much. :) Like I said,
concealment is everything. In which case ruthenium rocks, but I
wouldn't think rigid armour would.

Thoughts, army-type-dudes? Would a spec ops team who's going in to get
someone out, not start a war, wear heavy-ish armour?

> > Whats the refresh rate on Ruthenium?
>
> FAST!!! And something tells me its' going to be even FASTER in
upcoming materials down the road (we've advanced the SR SOTA Curve,
this only makes sense)...

Can you give me more than vague hints here, K?

> WHY is Ruthenium going to have a reducing effect upon *ANY* kind of
armor. If anything, I see armor that has been hit (especially by HE
rounds, Acid, etc...) as having *ITS* effectiveness reduced.
>
> I just don't like the way they've pointed the rules out as they stand
here. Its' used for flexible screens/trids, etc...I don't understand
the problem.
> -K (okay, I'm confused, I admit it)

Good question. I for one certainly can't answer it. But the rule stuffs
me up pretty good. :) Now, I think I'm going to have to take some
"artistic license" and ignore the armour-reduction of the polymer - or
I'll have them wearing standard armour, with a ruthenium "suit" over
the top of that. Is that allowed in the rules?
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Message no. 3
From: caelric@****.com caelric@****.com
Subject: Ruthenium (Re: Questions of great importance)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 19:41:43 -0700
At 07:35 PM 9/2/99 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Thoughts, army-type-dudes? Would a spec ops team who's going in to get
>someone out, not start a war, wear heavy-ish armour?
>

Well, being a Marine type dude, whose worked with and on spec ops teams,
although not the shoot em up kind, I can answer some questions...First,
body armor is great! It might be hot, heavy, and cause you to get much
more tired than otherwise, but all that agony pays off when a round smacks
you in the cest and you walk awy with a bruise instead of a hole in the
chest. And, body armor is easily made to be quiet. It's not like chain
mail where you get a -25% to your move silent..uh wrong game, but you
understand what I am saying. Sure, I mean if you have 100 lbs of body
armor on, well, then you deserve to get caught, but any decent suit of
bullet stopping body armor, especcially the kind aa spec ops team would
have is not going to cause any stealth problem. The might run the 440 a
second slower, but the kind of people we are talking about, thats not a big
deal.

Just remeber, that flak jacket might stop some serious flak, so it is worth
it, in my opinion. I had a Gunny Sergeant who wore his flak jacket out in
29 Palms (middle of California desert) during the heat of the summer on a
training exercise. I asked him why, when it was SO DAMN HOT! He said he'd
be wearing it whenever combat rolled around, no matter the temp, so why not
train right. So, most people who know what they are doing (which includes
special forces types) would be weaing some type of body armor.

Just my thoughts

Dave

PS No, I have never busted into a room and shot up all kinds of
terrorists, so take my opinion with some salt.
Message no. 4
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Ruthenium (Re: Questions of great importance)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 23:01:38 EDT
In a message dated 9/2/1999 9:36:00 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
docwagon101@*****.com writes:

> > > Whats the refresh rate on Ruthenium?
> >
> > FAST!!! And something tells me its' going to be even FASTER in
> upcoming materials down the road (we've advanced the SR SOTA Curve,
> this only makes sense)...
>
> Can you give me more than vague hints here, K?

Not really.

> > WHY is Ruthenium going to have a reducing effect upon *ANY* kind of
> armor. If anything, I see armor that has been hit (especially by HE
> rounds, Acid, etc...) as having *ITS* effectiveness reduced.
> >
> > I just don't like the way they've pointed the rules out as they stand
> here. Its' used for flexible screens/trids, etc...I don't understand
> the problem.
> > -K (okay, I'm confused, I admit it)
>
> Good question. I for one certainly can't answer it. But the rule stuffs
> me up pretty good. :) Now, I think I'm going to have to take some
> "artistic license" and ignore the armour-reduction of the polymer - or
> I'll have them wearing standard armour, with a ruthenium "suit" over
> the top of that. Is that allowed in the rules?

I know that we've used it for some time now actually. There is one character
and a drone (anthroform) that use the concept all the time. Both of them
ordered a larger than size for them type of "rain parka/slicker" with a
hood/mask of sorts. The character wears his armor jacket/shin guards
underneath it as they go along. Sure, he's a bit warm, but for *many*
targets, he's vanished anyway.

The drone is a bit more complicated but functions along the same principle.

-k
Message no. 5
From: Starrngr@***.com Starrngr@***.com
Subject: Ruthenium (Re: Questions of great importance)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 23:22:37 EDT
In a message dated 9/2/99 1:58:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Ereskanti@***.com
writes:

> FAST!!! And something tells me its' going to be even FASTER in upcoming
> materials down the road (we've advanced the SR SOTA Curve, this only makes
> sense)... I also have a strange question concerning "Ruthenium" in
general.
>
> It's stated as a "woven" material. Why is it going to be impeded greatly
if
>
> it's part of garb/clothing?

According to ST, its not the fibers itself, its the support part of it that
reduces armor integrity (I would assume this was like the signal wires that
are used to change the color). And its only for armor that its affected... a
normal coat with a RP outer layer wouldnt be affected for some reason.
Message no. 6
From: Patrick Goodman remo@***.net
Subject: Ruthenium (Re: Questions of great importance)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 22:27:16 -0500
> > FAST!!! And something tells me its' going to be even FASTER in
> > upcoming materials down the road (we've advanced the SR SOTA Curve,
> > this only makes sense)...
>
> Can you give me more than vague hints here, K?

I don't know if he can, and I can't give anything canon (since I don't know
anything canon), but I imagine that, just like the real world, processing
power is increasing at a staggering rate, which will improve the refresh
rate (more info at more speed).

The SR SOTA curve has been climbing since the game began, but it really got
a hard push when the Big D bit the big one and left staggering amounts of
money to all sorts of research types.

As for the armor issue: I just ignore it, since it's always seemed silly to
me.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 7
From: Jalong1@***.com Jalong1@***.com
Subject: Ruthenium (Re: Questions of great importance)
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 01:36:22 EDT
>I also have a strange question concerning "Ruthenium" in general.
>It's stated as a "woven" material. Why is it going to be impeded
>greatly
if it's part of garb/clothing?
<snip>

> WHY is Ruthenium going to have a reducing effect upon *ANY* kind of
>armor. If anything, I see armor that has been hit (especially by HE
>rounds, Acid, etc...) as having *ITS* effectiveness reduced.
>
> I just don't like the way they've pointed the rules out as they >stand
>here. Its' used for flexible screens/trids, etc...I don't understand
>the problem.
> -K (okay, I'm confused, I admit it)

I don't remember anything saying that the polymers were woven at all (not
that I couldn't have missed something though) but IIUC the polymers are
chemically coated to the item allowing the item it's apparently normal
flexibility.

IIRC the reason wasn't because of the polymers but with the support
electronics needed for the polymers to operate as a chameleon type suit. My
guess is that the small cameras and processing equipment is thin enough not
to impede ones movement yet to be such they need to reduce the armors
protection so that the camera can see 'out ' the armor.

Hmm, no that doesn't quite sound right.

Well, we can hope it's been updated in M&M then…

Jalong1
Message no. 8
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Ruthenium (Re: Questions of great importance)
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 08:16:58 -0400
At 19.35 09-02-99 -0700, you wrote:
>Thoughts, army-type-dudes? Would a spec ops team who's going in to get
>someone out, not start a war, wear heavy-ish armour?

Oh, hell yes. Light and medium security with military-grade electronics
integration for folks where mobility is a concern (most
shooting-and-looting-type special operations units, airborne, mountain and
light infantry), on up to light military stuff for heavy infantry units in
an urban environment. However, this would only go to the combat troops,
and then only to front line (heavy infantry in the Gaurd might have light
or medium sec armour with civilian-grade electronics, for example).
Trust me, armour helps keep you alive. Getting shot sucks. Anyone who's
ding close quarters work will strap on all the armour they can wear without
it becomeing restrictive or a danger during ingress and/or egress if you
are using an exotic method.






Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 9
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Ruthenium (Re: Questions of great importance)
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 13:55:48 +0100
In article <19990903023501.2376.rocketmail@******.mail.yahoo.com>,
Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com> writes
>Thoughts, army-type-dudes? Would a spec ops team who's going in to get
>someone out, not start a war, wear heavy-ish armour?

Depends on the threat, but quite possibly. If the armour offers protection,
for sure: if the enemy's using huge-bore APDS then why bother?

One detail - we _always_ wore helmets in built-up areas, and most of us
made sure we wore gloves too. Even in training we had a lot of heads
bashed on low rafters, hands torn on jagged brickwork, and similar
injuries caused by the environment.

>Good question. I for one certainly can't answer it. But the rule stuffs
>me up pretty good. :) Now, I think I'm going to have to take some
>"artistic license" and ignore the armour-reduction of the polymer - or
>I'll have them wearing standard armour, with a ruthenium "suit" over
>the top of that. Is that allowed in the rules?

That's the way I thought to do it :) Can't see any obvious illegality, just
the inconvenience of wearing a loose-fitting oversuit over rigid armour.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 10
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Ruthenium (Re: Questions of great importance)
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 21:59:16 -0400
> It's stated as a "woven" material. Why is it going to be impeded greatly
if
> it's part of garb/clothing?

Ruthenium used as camo [ex. dermal sheathing ruthemium] would be fine for
clothes. But how would you control the rebroadcast "corrected" image on any
flexible surface? How would the computer know what image to show as the
clothing bent? On heavy armor, the corrected image [that is, corrected for
point of view, minus the person wearing it] can be altered as arms, etc.,
move within the armor. That's easy. [The armor can just tell the RP
controller where the arm has gone.] But how can it know what position a
cloak is in as it waves?

I can't seem to explain this very well. Long day. Sorry. But I think you'll
get my point.

> For instance, I'm not an expert, but the last thing I knew was that "armor
> jackets" (as an example) are actually jackets with various kevlar weaves
> underneath the surface coat of material, with heavier plates in certain
> areas. WHY is Ruthenium going to have a reducing effect upon *ANY* kind
of
> armor. If anything, I see armor that has been hit (especially by HE
rounds,
> Acid, etc...) as having *ITS* effectiveness reduced.

I hate to say it, but there's only one really good reason [not that that
should stop someone from rationalizing it] and that is the worst one; game
balance.

> On a car I can see problems, yes as you have to either coat the car with a
> "sheathe" of ruthenium, or polybond the material to it somehow. Sheathing
> IMO wouldn't effect the body of a car while polybonding would (think of
> putting Ruthenium into the "blower" for fiberglass car bodies for
instance).

I can see it on some parts of cars, but again, what about things that move,
like tires, and how the hell would you bond the ruthenium to tires and
expect it to last? [Please, take a moment to picture the reaction of the
average citizen to four tires rolling down the road in perfect sync, with no
car attached.]

> I just don't like the way they've pointed the rules out as they stand
here.
> Its' used for flexible screens/trids, etc...I don't understand the
problem.
>
> -K (okay, I'm confused, I admit it)
>
Don't feel bad. I think RP [at least the sneaksuit kind] is one of the
shakiest things SR has done. It's a great idea, and it really could work.
But I sure would like to see more specifics on it. You know, the exact
specifics you're asking about. [MM, are you reading this?]
Message no. 11
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: Ruthenium (Re: Questions of great importance)
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 11:59:51 -0400
At 09:59 PM 9/5/99 , abortion_engine wrote:
> > For instance, I'm not an expert, but the last thing I knew was that "armor
> > jackets" (as an example) are actually jackets with various kevlar weaves
> > underneath the surface coat of material, with heavier plates in certain
> > areas. WHY is Ruthenium going to have a reducing effect upon *ANY* kind
>of
> > armor. If anything, I see armor that has been hit (especially by HE
>rounds,
> > Acid, etc...) as having *ITS* effectiveness reduced.
>
>I hate to say it, but there's only one really good reason [not that that
>should stop someone from rationalizing it] and that is the worst one; game
>balance.

A regular armor jacket is mostly regular material that you would find in
any jacket. Under the material the kevlar weave is embedded that provides
the protection of the armor. The ruthenium fibers, along with their
powerpacks and imaging cameras, take up bulk. One choice is to replace some
of the kevlar with these materials, thus reducing the armor protection of
the jacket. The other choice is to keep the same layer of protection along
with the extra parts from the Ruthenium. In that case, I would add half the
value of the armor to its current value to determine how bulky it is and
what the Quickness penalty is.

> > On a car I can see problems, yes as you have to either coat the car with a
> > "sheathe" of ruthenium, or polybond the material to it somehow.
Sheathing
> > IMO wouldn't effect the body of a car while polybonding would (think of
> > putting Ruthenium into the "blower" for fiberglass car bodies for
>instance).
>
>I can see it on some parts of cars, but again, what about things that move,
>like tires, and how the hell would you bond the ruthenium to tires and
>expect it to last? [Please, take a moment to picture the reaction of the
>average citizen to four tires rolling down the road in perfect sync, with no
>car attached.]

A much better use of Ruthenium on a car is as camouflage. Buy yourself a
good generic cargo van and cover it with RF. Program into the feed several
different paint jobs and logos. Pull the job in a bright red van with a
naked troll on the side. If you get picked out, pull into an alley or
tunnel for a second and switch to a UPS delivery truck.

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Ruthenium (Re: Questions of great importance), 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.