Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Lloyd Vance ljvance@*******.edu
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:52:48

Message no. 1 >Think about it, does your average SR player go to "Guns-R-us" to pick up
>heat? No, they get them by illegal means.
>
>Smilin' Jack

Ah, look. Back on the SR track. Cool. This brings up a good point. How
many refs out there actually prep their players by making them figure out
how they acquired all their starting equiptment. I've been doing it for
years, but I know others just let you pick and start. I've also played
with guys who give karma for doing the 20 questions, also a helpful tool.
In the long run, I think it helps because you get the players in the
mindset of 'extra-legality', and they are much less likely to try to walk
down the street with a PAC.

The Hamm
aka Lloyd Vance

Lloyd Vance
ljvance@*******.edu
(530)752-5643
"To be an artist is to fail,
as no other dare fail."
--Samuel Beckett

From:	Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:20:21 +0200

Message no. 2 Smilin' Jack wrote in his infinite wisdom:
> Ah, look. Back on the SR track. Cool. This brings up a good point. How
> many refs out there actually prep their players by making them figure out
> how they acquired all their starting equiptment. I've been doing it for
> years, but I know others just let you pick and start. I've also played
> with guys who give karma for doing the 20 questions, also a helpful tool.
> In the long run, I think it helps because you get the players in the
> mindset of 'extra-legality', and they are much less likely to try to walk
> down the street with a PAC.

How would you go about prepping your players? If done right, it seems like a
good idea.

Dennis

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is..."

From:	Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:15:04 -0700

Message no. 3 Smilin' Jack wrote in his infinite wisdom:
> > Ah, look. Back on the SR track. Cool. This brings up a good point.
How
> > many refs out there actually prep their players by making them figure
out
> > how they acquired all their starting equiptment. I've been doing it for
>
> How would you go about prepping your players? If done right, it
> seems like a
> good idea.

GM: So what's the story behind the Howitzer your Sam carries around on his
shoulder?
Player: Um... Well...

From:	Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:53:57 +0200

Message no. 4 Arcady wrote in his infinite wisdom:
> Smilin' Jack wrote in his infinite wisdom:
> > > Ah, look. Back on the SR track. Cool. This brings up a good point.
> How
> > > many refs out there actually prep their players by making them figure
> out
> > > how they acquired all their starting equiptment. I've been doing it
for
> >
> > How would you go about prepping your players? If done right, it
> > seems like a
> > good idea.
>
> GM: So what's the story behind the Howitzer your Sam carries around on his
> shoulder?
> Player: Um... Well...

So no good story, no go on the Howitzer. That's a good plan, I think I'll
start doing that.

Dennis

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is..."

From:	Twist0059@*.com Twist0059@*.com
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 08:38:07 EDT

Message no. 5 In a message dated 7/17/99 3:25:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dv8@********.nl
writes:

> > Ah, look. Back on the SR track. Cool. This brings up a good point. How
> > many refs out there actually prep their players by making them figure out
> > how they acquired all their starting equiptment. I've been doing it for
> > years, but I know others just let you pick and start. I've also played
> > with guys who give karma for doing the 20 questions, also a helpful tool.
> > In the long run, I think it helps because you get the players in the
> > mindset of 'extra-legality', and they are much less likely to try to walk
> > down the street with a PAC.
>

In my new campaign I gave all my players a list of simple gear (and I mean
simple: an armored vest, a Streetline Special, 10 rounds ammo, and some
clothes) and have let them work their way up the ladder. It's looking
promising, but the restrictions for gear-heavy archtypes like riggers and
deckers make them scare in the game. In my experience, players who buy all
their gear at CharGen tend not to appreciate it, yet it's so cool to be a
Samurai with 1 Mil to spend on chrome so I can't blame them for loading up on
toys. Ah, memories.

-Twist

From:	Twist0059@*.com Twist0059@*.com
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 08:42:38 EDT

Message no. 6 In a message dated 7/17/99 5:59:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dv8@********.nl
writes:

> > GM: So what's the story behind the Howitzer your Sam carries around on his
> > shoulder?
> > Player: Um... Well...
>
> So no good story, no go on the Howitzer. That's a good plan, I think I'll
> start doing that.
>
> Dennis

If I read one more generic background history to a character I'll start
taking hostages! !!!! A favorite thing I've found is lifting characters from
other movies, books, game systems and translating them to SR stats, so you
have a full and worked out history for those players who dread the 20
Questions. I found Hatchetman difficult to crame the cyber into, but it was
fun trying. I never did find the stats for his "Colt Commanche" though.
Snake Plissken was a good one as well. Dodger is on hold until I figure out
if he's really an Otaku, a Denver "Otaku", or just a super-good-extra-special
Decker.

-Twist

From:	IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:50:44 -0400

Message no. 7 At 01.15 07-17-99 -0700, Arcady wrote:
>GM: So what's the story behind the Howitzer your Sam carries around on his
>shoulder?
>Player: Um... Well...

And if he can't back explain to your satisfaction, he doesn't keep it. If
you are feeling particualrly nice, the get all the money back.

CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"'Impossible' is a term used by those little imagination or intelligence to
describe that which they can not understand."

From:	IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:50:44 -0400

Message no. 8 At 01.15 07-17-99 -0700, Arcady wrote:
>GM: So what's the story behind the Howitzer your Sam carries around on his
>shoulder?
>Player: Um... Well...

And if he can't back explain to your satisfaction, he doesn't keep it. If
you are feeling particualrly nice, the get all the money back.

CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"'Impossible' is a term used by those little imagination or intelligence to
describe that which they can not understand."

From:	IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:43:56 -0400

Message no. 9 At 08.42 07-17-99 EDT, you wrote:
>if he's really an Otaku, a Denver "Otaku", or just a
super-good-extra-special

OK, what are Otaku, for those of us who've never read VR2?

CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"'Impossible' is a term used by those little imagination or intelligence to
describe that which they can not understand."

From:	Arclight arclight@**************.com
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 17:58:02 +0200

Message no. 10 And finally, Lloyd Vance expressed himself by writing:

> Ah, look. Back on the SR track. Cool. This brings up a good
> point. How
> many refs out there actually prep their players by making them figure out
> how they acquired all their starting equiptment. I've been doing it for
> years, but I know others just let you pick and start. I've also played
> with guys who give karma for doing the 20 questions, also a helpful tool.
> In the long run, I think it helps because you get the players in the
> mindset of 'extra-legality', and they are much less likely to try to walk
> down the street with a PAC.

When we started playing Shadowrun, my players always spent their complete
money, usually for weapons and a _lot_ of ammo, sometimes getting into
10,000+ rounds for each weapon type.
I obviously had to [and have to :(] do something, and the first I did
was limiting them to 10 full loads of ammo for each weapon.
Next thing was to enforce the Availability, and limit them to SMGs,
banning Assault Rifles and better. Especially for the Munchkin in our
group...
I also ask them where they cache their stuff, and have no problem
to send some burglars if there's too much. One time, I even blew it up...
Runners shouldn't get into a "Quartemaster" thinking, they need to
remain mobile and able to leave within 5 minutes if it gets too hot.

--
[arclight@*********.de]<><><><><><>[ICQ14322211]
All suspects are guilty, serious. Otherwise they
wouldn't be suspects, would they?
<><><><[http://www.datahaven.de/arclight]><><><>;

From:	Michael & Linda Frankl mlfrankl@*****.msn.com
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 12:34:37 -0400

Message no. 11 Arcady humored:
>GM: So what's the story behind the Howitzer your Sam carries around on his
>shoulder?
>Player: Um... Well...

That is so true!

I find that using the restrictions set out in the SR3 Core Rules work really
well. No base skill starting higher than 6, no attribute beyond racial max.,
and no item with an availability higher than 8. My players found it
challenging to build new characters after playing with their older ones for
so long, when they couldn't start off with certain things. It becomes a
whole new way of thinking. I also get all warm and fuzzy when I think of the
new gear acquisition rules (etiquette is now a skill to be reckoned with).

I also make them make their purchases through gaming to keep it interesting.

:)

Smilin' Jack

From:	Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:22:09 -0700

Message no. 12 > At 08.42 07-17-99 EDT, you wrote:
> >if he's really an Otaku, a Denver "Otaku", or just a
> super-good-extra-special
>
> OK, what are Otaku, for those of us who've never read VR2?

An otaku is a pervert in Japanese.

But in Shadowrun it's someone who can get into the matrix without a
cyberdeck.

I have no idea why they chose that word...

From:	Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:51:04 -0700

Message no. 13 > In a message dated 7/17/99 5:59:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dv8@********.nl writes:
>
> > > GM: So what's the story behind the Howitzer your Sam carries
> > > around on his shoulder?
> > > Player: Um... Well...
> >
> > So no good story, no go on the Howitzer. That's a good plan, I think
I'll
> > start doing that.

Had one player try to tell me he just 'went down to a clinic and had it all
put in, it's just stuff, doesn't affect you much unlike magic so it doesn't
need a story'... I responded by mentioning a recent topic in here that had
commented that something many players take as 'simple' like cyber eyes would
completely overhaul your view of life. As a graphic artist student myself it
was a point that hit home.

You could get really mean: So what was it like on the day your PC bought
that suit he's wearing? :)
But that may be a bit too far. Definitely anything illegal or anything
'built in' should have a story though. No story = No get. if(!story)
item=0; } :)

> If I read one more generic background history to a character I'll start
> taking hostages! !!!! A favorite thing I've found is lifting

Can I join you on that? Should we get matching ski masks and start printing
up revolutionary pamphlets? :)

> characters from other movies, books, game systems and translating them to
SR
> stats, so you have a full and worked out history for those players who
dread the 20
> Questions. I found Hatchetman difficult to crame the cyber

Two of my players tried to out-John Woo each other. One doing it as a Sam,
the other as an Adept. It can help if they take ideas from fiction. But it
can also get a little stereotyped if overdone.

From:	Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:54:14 -0700

Message no. 14 > When we started playing Shadowrun, my players always spent their complete
> money, usually for weapons and a _lot_ of ammo, sometimes getting into

Unfortunately Shadowrun encourages by dividing down any money you don't
spend. I too have found myself trying to get an 'Imelda Marcos' collection
of shoes and other trinkets just to not have any cash get divided up... You
can always sell it all on the 2060 version of eBay after the game starts to
get your money back. :)

From:	IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 15:27:12 -0400

Message no. 15 At 10.22 07-17-99 -0700, you wrote:
>An otaku is a pervert in Japanese.

That is the reason I was asking. I knew it was a form of magic, and
involved computers, but I was afraid that FASA was going White Wolf on us.
<shudder>

>But in Shadowrun it's someone who can get into the matrix without a
>cyberdeck.

OK....
Can this be explained in fifty words or less? I just need a generalisation.

CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"'Impossible' is a term used by those little imagination or intelligence to
describe that which they can not understand."

From:	Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 14:20:26 -0700

Message no. 16 > At 10.22 07-17-99 -0700, you wrote:
> >An otaku is a pervert in Japanese.
>
> That is the reason I was asking. I knew it was a form of magic, and
> involved computers, but I was afraid that FASA was going White Wolf on us.
> <shudder>

There's a thought.

Poor misunderstood toxic shamans and bug warriors out to protect the earth
from the evils of the corporations... I'm having visions of Keano Reaves
playing a trench coat wearing toxic shaman in an angst ridden cafe being
depressed and poetic. He's summoned up the Garbage monster from that old
Godzilla movie and is writing poems about it to the nude to semi-nude
succubus sitting at the table with him. His buddy is beetle monster who's
angsting over the destruction of his domain by the 'gentrifying' mega corps.
:)

> >But in Shadowrun it's someone who can get into the matrix without a
> >cyberdeck.
>
> OK....
> Can this be explained in fifty words or less? I just need
> a generalisation.

If you don't plan to use them as a PC option all you need to know is that
they're mysterious hip young kids who can run the Matrix with little more
than a modified simsense hookup. Play them mysterious and spooky. Like AIs
with bodies.

From:	IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:35:19 -0400

Message no. 17 At 14.20 07-17-99 -0700, you wrote:
>Poor misunderstood toxic shamans and bug warriors out to protect the earth
>from the evils of the corporations... I'm having visions of Keano Reaves

Actually, I was thinking of Black Dog products. I switched from a
criminal justice major becuase I can't deal well with that stuff. I don't
want to deal with it in an RPG.

>they're mysterious hip young kids who can run the Matrix with little more
>than a modified simsense hookup. Play them mysterious and spooky. Like AIs
>with bodies.

Hah...
Cybermancers, and I'm not talking about the kind who make cyber-zombies.

CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"'Impossible' is a term used by those of little imagination or intelligence
to describe that which they can not understand."

From:	Schizi@*.com Schizi@*.com
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:56:11 EDT

Message no. 18 In a message dated 7/16/99 7:53:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ljvance@*******.edu writes:

>
> Ah, look. Back on the SR track. Cool.

SR? on the SR list? hmmm, that could work :-)
(of coruse, you all seem to discount the novel thread, and of course none of
you felt this strongly when the Tim-Tam thread garnered just as much junk,
but hey, why complain now :-)

>This brings up a good point. How
> many refs out there actually prep their players by making them figure out
> how they acquired all their starting equiptment. I've been doing it for
> years, but I know others just let you pick and start.

I don't nit-pic every item, I usually prefer an over all back ground. If
someone was in the military (not that any runners are ex-military mind you) I
don't see justifying each piece of cyber etc.

> I've also played
> with guys who give karma for doing the 20 questions, also a helpful tool.

I would say it more like "how can I award you karma for staying in character,
if I don't know what that character is?"
I would not give karma for doing something so basic as the 20 questions, but
I agree witht eh intention.

From:	Ereskanti@*.com Ereskanti@*.com
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 22:26:08 EDT

Message no. 19 In a message dated 7/17/1999 4:23:42 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
arcady@***.net writes:

> If you don't plan to use them as a PC option all you need to know is that
> they're mysterious hip young kids who can run the Matrix with little more
> than a modified simsense hookup. Play them mysterious and spooky. Like AIs
> with bodies.

Nice analogy there at the end ...

-K

From:	Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:27:27 -0700

Message no. 20 > > Ah, look. Back on the SR track. Cool.
>
> SR? on the SR list? hmmm, that could work :-)
> (of coruse, you all seem to discount the novel thread, and of course none
of
> you felt this strongly when the Tim-Tam thread garnered just as
> much junk, but hey, why complain now :-)

An off topic item that is about an issue where people have strongly opposing
views such as politics, religion, and so on is a very different animal from
one that's just commentary or debate.

>
> I don't nit-pic every item, I usually prefer an over all back ground. If
> someone was in the military (not that any runners are ex-military
> mind you) I
> don't see justifying each piece of cyber etc.

I still would. I'd want to know what part of their military service
involved them getting outfitted like that. If they're outfitted like that
it's likely they were special forces and not regular soldiers.

That brings up another point. In the North America of 2060 it's very likely
that many of the nations have a draft. With all those other countries around
you and the politics very unstable you'd want a ready defense. Does
Shadowrun say anything on this?

> > I've also played
> > with guys who give karma for doing the 20 questions, also a helpful
tool.
>
> I would say it more like "how can I award you karma for staying
> in character, if I don't know what that character is?"
> I would not give karma for doing something so basic as the 20
> questions, but I agree witht eh intention.

I plan to give out Karma for in depth stories. That means players who go
'above and beyond' the requirements of the 20 questions.

You have a good point there in your 'how can I' comment. I think I'll
mention that one to my players.

Arcady http://www.jps.net/arcady/ <0){{{{><
The Revolution will not be televised; it'll be emailed.
/.)\ Stop making sense. Be an Anti Intellectual
\(@/ Be Tao. Live Tao. Feel Tao. But don't do Tao.

From:	Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 17:55:20 +0100

Message no. 21 In article <LOBBJIIHDGKNJHCGCIMMCEPICEAA.arcady@***.net>, Arcady
<arcady@***.net> writes
> I still would. I'd want to know what part of their military service
>involved them getting outfitted like that. If they're outfitted like that
>it's likely they were special forces and not regular soldiers.

Hmmm... thirty years ago only special forces had night vision gear on any
serious scale of issue. The new infantry weapon for the US gives every
infantryman his own thermal imager and laser rangefinder.

By the time you've trained an infantryman to be a useful combat asset,
the cost of a set of Boosted-III reflexes can be a quite worthwhile force-
multiplier.

But, there's a downside. At best, you've done a ten-year hitch, been
honourably discharged, and now your SIN is on file as "combat-trained and
cybered out the butt". At worst, you're a wanted deserter... whose SIN is
on file as "combat-trained and cybered out the butt".

Being wanted by a megacorp isn't so bad. Just stay off their turf. Being
wanted in the UCAS by people who know that much about you makes life
_much_ more challenging.

> That brings up another point. In the North America of 2060 it's very likely
>that many of the nations have a draft. With all those other countries around
>you and the politics very unstable you'd want a ready defense. Does
>Shadowrun say anything on this?

Conscript militaries drop in utility as the sophistication of warfare goes
up. You can teach a man to stand in line and load and fire a musket quite
quickly. Teaching him to use a M1 rifle, hand grenades and a BAR is
harder. Teaching him to use a M16, a M60, LAWs, and grenades; how to
mount and dismount from an APC; how to do all of that in NBC kit; and
the expanded library of tactics needed to take advantage of all this...

Not to mention the costs invovled. Conscription's okay if you want lots of
men with rifles. It gets really expensive if you want a large force of
mechanised infantry with armour and artillery support and you have to
turn your entire force over every two years (or however long the draft is
for).

--
Paul J. Adam

From:	Starrngr@*.com Starrngr@*.com
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 01:13:27 EDT

Message no. 22 In a message dated 7/18/99 10:28:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Paul@********.demon.co.uk writes:

> By the time you've trained an infantryman to be a useful combat asset,
> the cost of a set of Boosted-III reflexes can be a quite worthwhile force-
> multiplier.
>
> But, there's a downside. At best, you've done a ten-year hitch, been
> honourably discharged, and now your SIN is on file as "combat-trained and
> cybered out the butt". At worst, you're a wanted deserter... whose SIN is
> on file as "combat-trained and cybered out the butt".

There is also a third option, one htat I used for a charecter who had a
Cranial deck and a couple of restricted toys... He was part of a black SOG,
and was the teams decker. Cranial ware took up most of his essance, had
some Bioware as well. He moved form tghe government sector to the private
one after the team pulled a mission into the Tir, and got wiped out except
for him.

So, as far as the UCAS is concerned, he is missing and presumed dead, and he
intends not to abuse them of that belief! He runs the shadows because its the
only way for him to earn money, plus the fact that his training made him look
down on shaodwrunners as an destablizing influnace on society. Now that his
country wrote him off by sending him on that mission, he takes great pleasure
in being a destablising influance himself.

He has no compulsions against killing per say, but he has a definate interest
in keeping a mission low profile... If the Star ever got a copy of his
fingerprints and ran them against the UCAS database, well....

From:	Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Sun, 18 Jul 1999 23:04:30 -0700

Message no. 23 > > I still would. I'd want to know what part of their military
service
> >involved them getting outfitted like that. If they're outfitted like that
> >it's likely they were special forces and not regular soldiers.
>
> Hmmm... thirty years ago only special forces had night vision gear on any
> serious scale of issue. The new infantry weapon for the US gives every
> infantryman his own thermal imager and laser rangefinder.

Which US is that? I don't remember getting any gear like that when I was in.
I've used such gear. But it was more of one per group and they were kept
locked away at most times. And I served in a place which is technically
considered a war zone and maintains a constant state of readiness (S.
Korea).
I'll have to ask my player who got out only a few months ago. It's been
three years for me.

I don't see a military performing intensive medical modifications on it's
regular soldiers anytime soon. Most of the cyber ware is useful for close in
small scale combat only. The arena of mostly special forces and occasionally
marines. And higher tech makes this more and more true. We didn't have too
much 'war in the trenches' in Iraq and Kosovo.

Generally you're not going to make a modification like that on a soldier
unless you plan to either keep them for life or undo all the mods when you
put them back on the street.
Few soldiers in 2060 will ever see close range combat. They'd be used to
hold a position or perform mop up operations after aircraft and then drones
had done the initial attack.
Smart links might be common. But the rest of it's the stuff that goes in
the range of the troops that have to engage in heavy skirmishes and guerilla
tactics: special forces.

> > That brings up another point. In the North America of 2060 it's
very likely
> >that many of the nations have a draft. With all those other countries
around
> >you and the politics very unstable you'd want a ready defense. Does
> >Shadowrun say anything on this?
>
> Conscript militaries drop in utility as the sophistication of warfare goes
> up. You can teach a man to stand in line and load and fire a musket quite

The best military in the world. With the highest tech and highest level of
training is a conscription military located in the middle east...
The Israelis have motivation. And that makes them darn good.

The toughest marines among all the nations that the US sees as allies are
also from a conscription country. And while the South Koreans don't have the
raw technology and well trained regular troops that we in the US have; their
marines are something to be feared. What they call a marine and have in the
thousands we call a 'Seal' or a 'Ranger' and have only in elite units. And
they too are this way due to motivation; as their northern enemy has some
80000 soviet trained special forces troops who our (US) military admits to
being hands down better than any special forces troop we have. And I might
add that those boys in North Korea are also conscripts.

Arcady http://www.jps.net/arcady/ <0){{{{><
The Revolution will not be televised; it'll be emailed.
/.)\ Stop making sense. Be an Anti Intellectual
\(@/ Be Tao. Live Tao. Feel Tao. But don't do Tao.

From:	Starrngr@*.com Starrngr@*.com
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 07:13:45 EDT

Message no. 24 In a message dated 7/18/99 11:07:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, arcady@***.net
writes:

> Generally you're not going to make a modification like that on a
soldier
> unless you plan to either keep them for life or undo all the mods when you
> put them back on the street.
> Few soldiers in 2060 will ever see close range combat. They'd be used
to
> hold a position or perform mop up operations after aircraft and then drones
> had done the initial attack.
> Smart links might be common. But the rest of it's the stuff that goes
in
> the range of the troops that have to engage in heavy skirmishes and
guerilla
> tactics: special forces.

I'd have to disagree with that, Arcady. The US has always used its
technology advantage as a force mulitplier. THere is no reason to belive
this would change, and in fact I would expect that trend to increase in the
future.

I would, however, expect that the military would not invest in installing
cyberware in its first term enlistees. Arcady is right about that point...
it isnt cost effective to install such hardware in someone who is going to be
gone in a max of six years. once they re-up, possibly for as long as 10
years, I can very easily see the Army upgrading its solders though, as they
know that baring a major screwup, they will have them for several years. In
fact, most members of the armed services who do re-enlist after their first
term intend to serve a full 20-30 years and then retire. This would make
them a good candidate for extensive upgrading. I could also see such people
winding up in the shadows after their discharge for several reasons, ranging
from being an adrenaline junkie to hving been RIF'd, or even because they
have no other choice, having drawn a BCD or even a DD, so no 'respectable'
job would touch them.

I should also note that there is no enforced mechanism reguarding Age for
'runners in the main rule book. Nothing says that even though this is a
starting "runner, he cant be 38 or more. Hell, if I was a Johnson, I'd
actually prefer older runners, as they are more likely to be reliable, less
certain of their own mortality and less likely to do something stupid that
might lead the Star back to me.

Also given the state of the world in general in 2060, I don't see the
military worrying that much about the fact that these enhanced solders are
now out on the streets. Once thier service is over, they really have no
controll over that person if they decide not to re-enlist, and have no reason
to belive that just because they have cyber theri going to turn around and
start killing babies. In fact, with a great deal of similar equipment
available through the private sector one way or another anyway, its not like
the're going to be the only ones out there with that gear anyway...

On the other subjects, those of The Israeli and Korean armed forces, your
analogy is not accurate. In both those cases, the countries in question are
surrounded by neighbors who would like nothing better than to see the nation
cease to exist. This is a powerful motivator for those solders for one, and
for two, as Rob pointed out, their force strucuture is alligned in such a
way that its the ones who volenteer to remain in the service after their
manditory service that recieve the best training.

From:	IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:20:00 -0400

Message no. 25 At 01.13 07-19-99 EDT, you wrote:
>Cranial deck and a couple of restricted toys... He was part of a black SOG,
<snip>
>in keeping a mission low profile... If the Star ever got a copy of his
>fingerprints and ran them against the UCAS database, well....

<grrr> Not another nitwit who defected from a deep-black ogranization.
When will people learn that you don't go AWOL from such groups.

If LS was to run the prints, they would get back nothing that would make
the character sound like anything impressive. Most likely, they'd get
zilch. HOwever, the UCAS would send out a recovery team.

CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"'Impossible' is a term used by those of little imagination or intelligence
to describe that which they can not understand."

From:	IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:27:23 -0400

Message no. 26 At 23.04 07-18-99 -0700, you wrote:
>Which US is that? I don't remember getting any gear like that when I was in.

The new Objective Individual Combat Weapon. It is a fancy, small-bore
grenade launcher that uses a computer fusing system to detonate the
projectiles just prior to striking the target, with a back-up 5.56mm
"go-away" gununder the main barrel.
I'll keep my opinions of ten thousnd dollar wonder weapons to myself.

> Few soldiers in 2060 will ever see close range combat. They'd be used

I'm thinking that a lot of the combat is going to be low-intensity work,
mostly in an urban theatre. However, most of the equipment is going to be
helmet or armour mounted, with the only issue cyber being a datajack and
lo-end I/O processor so that the grunt can actually use the data.

>marines are something to be feared. What they call a marine and have in the
>thousands we call a 'Seal' or a 'Ranger' and have only in elite units. And

I would say that they fit the profile of the Rangers. SEALs and Rangers
are very different.

CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"'Impossible' is a term used by those of little imagination or intelligence
to describe that which they can not understand."

From:	IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:38:36 -0400

Message no. 27 At 07.13 07-19-99 EDT, you wrote:
>I'd have to disagree with that, Arcady. The US has always used its

It isn't the US anymore. It is a bunch of second and third tier countries.

>it isnt cost effective to install such hardware in someone who is going to
be
>gone in a max of six years. once they re-up, possibly for as long as 10

Well, some units and MOS, the initial tour is five years, but most of that
is due to havin gspent two or three years in training. I could see a
"cyber corp" ("E-infantry"?) who get upgraded, but they are
UCAS/CAS/CFS
property of the next ten years and have have a nice remote destruct package
just in case they go AWOL.
However, things like WR 2 or 3, VCR 3, tactical computers, and most
weapons systems are going to be repoed at the end of that.

>starting "runner, he cant be 38 or more. Hell, if I was a Johnson, I'd

I've run a 55 year old grandmother, but when she was younger she was one
of the "first runners".

CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"'Impossible' is a term used by those of little imagination or intelligence
to describe that which they can not understand."

From:	IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:41:09 -0400

Message no. 28 At 07.13 07-19-99 EDT, you wrote:
>I'd have to disagree with that, Arcady. The US has always used its

It isn't the US anymore. It is a bunch of second and third tier countries.

>it isnt cost effective to install such hardware in someone who is going to
be
>gone in a max of six years. once they re-up, possibly for as long as 10

Well, some units and MOS, the initial tour is five years, but most of that
is due to havin gspent two or three years in training. I could see a
"cyber corp" ("E-infantry"?) who get upgraded, but they are
UCAS/CAS/CFS
property of the next ten years and have have a nice remote destruct package
just in case they go AWOL.
However, things like WR 2 or 3, VCR 3, tactical computers, and most
weapons systems are going to be repoed at the end of that.

>starting "runner, he cant be 38 or more. Hell, if I was a Johnson, I'd

I've run a 55 year old grandmother, but when she was younger she was one
of the "first runners".

CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"'Impossible' is a term used by those of little imagination or intelligence
to describe that which they can not understand."

From:	Seraph seraph4plm@*********.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 06:07:57 -0700

Message no. 29 ----- Original Message -----
From: IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net>
To: <shadowrn@*********.org>
Sent: Monday, July 19, 1999 5:38 AM
Subject: Re: Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]

> At 07.13 07-19-99 EDT, you wrote:
> >I'd have to disagree with that, Arcady. The US has always used its
>
> It isn't the US anymore. It is a bunch of second and third tier countries.
>
> >it isnt cost effective to install such hardware in someone who is going to
> be
> >gone in a max of six years. once they re-up, possibly for as long as 10
>
> Well, some units and MOS, the initial tour is five years, but most of that
> is due to havin gspent two or three years in training. I could see a
> "cyber corp" ("E-infantry"?) who get upgraded, but they are
UCAS/CAS/CFS
> property of the next ten years and have have a nice remote destruct package
> just in case they go AWOL.
> However, things like WR 2 or 3, VCR 3, tactical computers, and most
> weapons systems are going to be repoed at the end of that.
>

Why would they bother repoing that stuff? After 10 years it will be very outdated. Look at
computers after 10 years of advancement: Nobody will even touch one 10 years old unless
they had no choice...
Most likely they will 'convince' them to keep working for the government. After all, if
they warranted some high grade cyberware then they are probably effective personnel.

From:	Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:39:13 +0100

Message no. 30 In article <LOBBJIIHDGKNJHCGCIMMIEAHCFAA.arcady@***.net>, Arcady
<arcady@***.net> writes
>> Hmmm... thirty years ago only special forces had night vision gear on any
>> serious scale of issue. The new infantry weapon for the US gives every
>> infantryman his own thermal imager and laser rangefinder.
>
>Which US is that? I don't remember getting any gear like that when I was in.

Not surprised - OICW isn't expected to hit service for a while yet. But,
current expectation is that every rifleman will have a thermal-imaging
sight for his rifle (Hughes have done a good job getting weight and cost
down, by managing to eliminate reference sources and the need for
cooling air)

> Few soldiers in 2060 will ever see close range combat.

Yeah, and missiles made close air combat obsolete too :)

>They'd be used to
>hold a position or perform mop up operations after aircraft and then drones
>had done the initial attack.

I don't know... time and again we've heard that _this_ advance in
firepower or technology will eliminate the need to fight through the
enemy position on foot, but time and again it turns out that you don't
own the ground until the infantry get there.

>> Conscript militaries drop in utility as the sophistication of warfare goes
>> up. You can teach a man to stand in line and load and fire a musket quite
>
>The best military in the world. With the highest tech and highest level of
>training is a conscription military located in the middle east...
> The Israelis have motivation. And that makes them darn good.

To a point - they have the big advantage of knowing where they'll have to
fight. Gets a lot more complicated when you have some troops in
Northern Ireland, some in the Persian Gulf, more in the Balkans and a
garrison in the Falklands...

> The toughest marines among all the nations that the US sees as allies are
>also from a conscription country.

Same applies - and be wary of making comments like that around the
bootnecks.

--
Paul J. Adam

From:	arcady@*.net arcady@*.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 99 10:57:32 +700

Message no. 31 >On the other subjects, those of The Israeli and Korean armed forces, your
>analogy is not accurate. In both those cases, the countries in question are

>surrounded by neighbors who would like nothing better than to see the nation

>cease to exist. This is a powerful motivator for those solders for one, and

>for two, as Rob pointed out, their force strucuture is alligned in such a

>way that its the ones who volenteer to remain in the service after their
>manditory service that recieve the best training.

Not accurate?

So UCAS, CAS, Quebec, Tir Taingire, Souix, Aztlan, CFS, Carribean League, and
all the NANs are perfectly friendly to each other and have no concerns about
a potential military conflict?

If anything it's a very tense situation in North America of 2060.

I can see places like CAS being particularly motivated. The UCAS already proved
in 1861-65 that they don't like the south being independant. If I were a CAS
senator I'd be screaming for the need for a draft. I'd want every one of my
citizens ready to defend the south against a northern invasion.
And the NANs... well they have the history of 1492 to 2060 to show them that
non NAN nations are unfriendlies, and all history before that and during that
period to show that other NANs are also non friendlies.
And Quebec is well, Quebec...
Azltan's already had a military conflict with the north... and sooner or later
it will decide it wants back what the USA took from Mexico in the US-Mexican
war (the entire southwestern USA from Texas to California).

In 2060 these nations are not as friendly as they are today. And they all have
better technology while lacking a clear cut supeior side. Didn't the Tir and
one of the NANs have a conflict of some sort at one point? Or one of them with
Seattle? I don't recall to well on that point. But I'm pretty sure it's a tense
region as well.
Arcady WebRPG Magistrate http://townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
Artwork: http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/lothlorien/artists/brianfw/brianfw.html
/.)\ The revolution will not be telivised. It'll be emailed.
\(@/ Homepage: http://www.jps.net/arcady/

From:	arcady@*.net arcady@*.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 99 11:06:27 +700

Message no. 32 >Also given the state of the world in general in 2060, I don't see the
>military worrying that much about the fact that these enhanced solders are

>now out on the streets. Once thier service is over, they really have no
>controll over that person if they decide not to re-enlist, and have no reason

>to belive that just because they have cyber theri going to turn around and

>start killing babies. In fact, with a great deal of similar equipment
>available through the private sector one way or another anyway, its not like

>the're going to be the only ones out there with that gear anyway...

I can legally buy all sorts of guns and explosives today in the USA. So why
did the military not let me take home my M16? Or maybe a tank or two? Or some
Night Goggles? Why did they bother when the streets are already full of this
sort of stuff and gangs and so on... Most of it's available through the private
sector legally (save for the tank perhaps).

But the military is not in the business of "openly and publicly" being an arms
dealer and supplier of weapons to the streets of the USA.
Nor is the military in the business of wasting it's budget giving out military
grade equipment that it loses control and ownership of.
Nor do I suspect the military would reasonably change this.
Arcady WebRPG Magistrate http://townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
Artwork: http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/lothlorien/artists/brianfw/brianfw.html
/.)\ The revolution will not be telivised. It'll be emailed.
\(@/ Homepage: http://www.jps.net/arcady/

From:	Starrngr@*.com Starrngr@*.com
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 15:13:15 EDT

Message no. 33 In a message dated 7/19/99 5:20:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
cyberraven@********.net writes:

> <grrr> Not another nitwit who defected from a deep-black ogranization.
> When will people learn that you don't go AWOL from such groups.
>
> If LS was to run the prints, they would get back nothing that would
make
> the character sound like anything impressive. Most likely, they'd get
> zilch. HOwever, the UCAS would send out a recovery team.

WHich is exaclty why he doesnt want to get caught aor let the star get a copy
of his prints. As far as the army is concerned he is MIA and he has every
intention of haiving it remin that way. Also, given that it happened in
during a mission, there is every reson to belive they would see it as
Desertion in the face of the enemy, and that recovery team may well just
include a sniper who shoots first and never bothers to ask questions later....

From:	arcady@*.net arcady@*.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 99 13:48:16 +700

Message no. 34 >WHich is exaclty why he doesnt want to get caught aor let the star get a copy

>of his prints. As far as the army is concerned he is MIA and he has every

>intention of haiving it remin that way. Also, given that it happened in
>during a mission, there is every reson to belive they would see it as
>Desertion in the face of the enemy, and that recovery team may well just
>include a sniper who shoots first and never bothers to ask questions later....

Execution of deserters is not about punishment. It's about setting an example
for other troops. They'd be much more likely to have the sniper take him down
from a mile out with a high dose tranquilizer and then hual him in for a public
trial to let other's know that 'you can run, but you can't hide'. Then execute
him.
Arcady WebRPG Magistrate http://townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
Artwork: http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/lothlorien/artists/brianfw/brianfw.html
/.)\ The revolution will not be telivised. It'll be emailed.
\(@/ Homepage: http://www.jps.net/arcady/

From:	arcady@*.net arcady@*.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 99 13:34:24 +700

Message no. 35 >> The toughest marines among all the nations that the US sees as allies
are
>>also from a conscription country.
>
>Same applies - and be wary of making comments like that around the
>bootnecks.

Well, it was a US marine officer who first told us that in a briefing in Korea...
It's well established fact.

And recent wars have shown that ground troops are more and more just mop up
and hold position. Iraq and Kosovo.

As to knowing where you'll fight; that easily applies to 90% of all expected
engagements for a nation in 2060 North America. If I'm a CAS or Souix soldier
I know where the enemy is... Just a few miles from home across the border.
Arcady WebRPG Magistrate http://townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
Artwork: http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/lothlorien/artists/brianfw/brianfw.html
/.)\ The revolution will not be telivised. It'll be emailed.
\(@/ Homepage: http://www.jps.net/arcady/

From:	IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:56:23 -0400

Message no. 36 At 15.13 07-19-99 EDT, you wrote:
>of his prints. As far as the army is concerned he is MIA and he has every
>intention of haiving it remin that way. Also, given that it happened in

They are still looking for him, if for no reason than to silence him and
anyone he may have talked to, if that is how he disappeared.
In any case, he needs a new face, teeth, eyes and finger prints. It won't
stop a DNA test, but that can't be avoided.

CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"'Impossible' is a term used by those of little imagination or intelligence
to describe that which they can not understand."

From:	Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:57:55 +1000

Message no. 37 Arcady writes:
> And recent wars have shown that ground troops are more and more
> just mop up
> and hold position. Iraq and Kosovo.

Recent wars have not been fought against a power capable of neutralising the
air power the US/NATO have supplied. But _despite_ the pounding NATO did to
Kosovo, NATO refused to send ground troops in until the Serbs pulled back of
their own accord. The reason: the Serbs, despite the bombings, still had the
potential to inflict extreme casualties on an invading force. Had NATO
needed to invade, then it would have been up to the foot soldier to take and
hold ground. Not just mop up.

As for Iraq... six months of air raids, but the war didn't end. Three days
after sending in the tanks, well...

"You can use air power to deny possession, but you don't own a hilltop until
you send a pimply 17-year old kid with a rifle to stand on top of it" --
paraphrasing someone I can't remember.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com

From:	Starrngr@*.com Starrngr@*.com
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 19:25:15 EDT

Message no. 38 In a message dated 7/19/99 11:07:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time, arcady@***.net
writes:

> I can legally buy all sorts of guns and explosives today in the USA. So why
> did the military not let me take home my M16? Or maybe a tank or two? Or
> some
> Night Goggles? Why did they bother when the streets are already full of
this
> sort of stuff and gangs and so on... Most of it's available through the
> private
> sector legally (save for the tank perhaps).

That Arcady, is because an M-16 is not implanted into your body. Nor would
the army have to pay for a couple of months of convalecence leave for you to
recover once they took it out of you because you were going to be discharged.
Plus the cost of growing a clonal body to supply the parts that were
replaced when the cyberware went IN.

Also look at it from another perspective. They train you in your job and
then let you take that information with you when you leave. That information
is theirs, and in many cases is classified... so why don't they brainwash you
so you dont remember it when you leave? becasue its WRONG, for one. Its
also not cost effective for another, just as is having to pay a solder for
several month who isnt doing anything but laying in a hospital bed after
having his GI issue cyberware removed prior to discharge. I will acknowlege
that short timers tend to be more laid back right before their discharge, but
they are still there, doing their job until they ARE discharged.

Third point.. An M-16, NVG, or M1A2 Tank can be taken from one solder and
given to another with no loss of efficency. Not so with Cyberware. Remember
those Second hand Cyberware rules? Basicly, the rist of damaging the paitent
and or the cyberware in question is another thing that makes it non cost
effective, not to mention the fact that if they did take it out and put it in
someone else the cyberware doesnt work as well.

Under your system, your talking about loosing up to a year's worth of service
TWICE.. once at the start of the second enlistment, when the cyberware is
installed, and the second either right before or right after the solder is
discharged when they take it out. You've just dumped an equal amount of
money down the drain at the end of his term when he isnt going to be around
anymore as you did to put him together. THAT is what makes it cost
ineffective in more ways than one.

From:	Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 00:09:56 +0100

Message no. 39 In article <37938bd0.2de5.0@***.net>, arcady@***.net writes
>>> The toughest marines among all the nations that the US sees as allies
>are
>>>also from a conscription country.
>>
>>Same applies - and be wary of making comments like that around the
>>bootnecks.
>
>Well, it was a US marine officer who first told us that in a briefing in Korea...
>It's well established fact.

I can think of a lot of peacetime statements that have been "well
established facts"... right up until reality bit their believers in the butt.

I was trained by Falklands veterans who didn't try to puff themselves or
any allies - and they'd won their war. Dixie Dixon fought his way up Mount
Longdon, where 3 Para expected to meet a company and instead found
themselves facing a well-equipped battalion... but they fought through
and won anyway.

>And recent wars have shown that ground troops are more and more just mop up
>and hold position. Iraq and Kosovo.

Falklands. Infantry combat all the way.

Ethiopia/Eritrea, began last year and ongoing. Two roughly equal powers
slugging it out: over 50,000 groundpounders dead and the war still going
on.

Iran/Iraq. Rough equivalency and _hideous_ infantry losses on both sides.

You really think that, if North Korea sent its hordes south, the infantry
action would be "mopping up and holding position"?

Don't extrapolate a few David-versus-Goliath matches with leisurely air
supremacy, into a general trend.

--
Paul J. Adam

From:	Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 00:11:23 +0100

Message no. 40 In article <000301bed23a$233ba480$7f5211ac@******.oz.au>, Robert
Watkins <robert.watkins@******.com> writes
>As for Iraq... six months of air raids, but the war didn't end. Three days
>after sending in the tanks, well...
>
>"You can use air power to deny possession, but you don't own a hilltop until
>you send a pimply 17-year old kid with a rifle to stand on top of it" --
>paraphrasing someone I can't remember.

"I faced US air power for two months and lost five tanks. I faced British
armour for two hours and lost _all_ my tanks." An Iraqi battalion
commander. Same story was repeated with variations throughout the
war.

--
Paul J. Adam

From:	Sebastian Wiers m0ng005e@*********.com
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:06:47 -0500

Message no. 41 : <grrr> Not another nitwit who defected from a deep-black ogranization.
:When will people learn that you don't go AWOL from such groups.

There is the current day example of ex-KGB agents, is there not? Surely
a few of them have decided to leave the ex-soviet sphere for greener
pastures and ended up in unusual places?
I'd think with all the upheavel in SR, parallels could be found.

: If LS was to run the prints, they would get back nothing that would make
:the character sound like anything impressive. Most likely, they'd get
:zilch. HOwever, the UCAS would send out a recovery team.

The above mentioned parallels might carry a similar risk- there is
(afaik) still a KGB intellegence network, and I bet they do keep an eye out
for folks who might know to much about them.

Mongoose

From:	Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:49:19 -0700

Message no. 42 > > I can legally buy all sorts of guns and explosives today in the USA. So
why
> > did the military not let me take home my M16? Or maybe a tank or two?
Or
> > some Night Goggles? Why did they bother when the streets are
> > already full of this
> > sort of stuff and gangs and so on... Most of it's available through the
> > private sector legally (save for the tank perhaps).
>
> That Arcady, is because an M-16 is not implanted into your body.

Which is one more argument against implanting cyber ware in normal day to
day grunts.

> Also look at it from another perspective. They train you in your job and
> then let you take that information with you when you leave. That
information
> is theirs, and in many cases is classified... so why don't they brainwash
you
> so you don't remember it when you leave? becasue its WRONG, for one. Its

They do however monitor you. I know several vets who worked in top secret
projects and they all had to report on their actions and travel plans on a
regular basis and whenever going overseas. They had to get approval for many
things and were restricted from many places of travel.

The military doesn't hand out it's sensitive data nor it's equipment
lightly.

> also not cost effective for another, just as is having to pay a solder for
> several month who isnt doing anything but laying in a hospital bed after
> having his GI issue cyber ware removed prior to discharge. I will
acknowlege
> that short timers tend to be more laid back right before their discharge,
but
> they are still there, doing their job until they ARE discharged.

I got two months paid leave when I left.

> Cyber ware. Remember
> those Second hand Cyber ware rules? Basicly, the rist of damaging the
paitent
> and or the cyber ware in question is another thing that makes it non cost
> effective, not to mention the fact that if they did take it out
> and put it in someone else the cyber ware doesnt work as well.

Yet another reason to not hand out cyber ware to normal day to day grunt
troops. All that is reasonable to hand out is a data jack that can take a
smart link and the equipment needed to run skillsofts.

Arcady http://www.jps.net/arcady/ <0){{{{><
The Revolution will not be televised; it'll be emailed.
/.)\ Stop making sense. Be an Anti Intellectual
\(@/ Be Tao. Live Tao. Feel Tao. But don't do Tao.

From:	Da Twink Daddy datwinkdaddy@*********.com
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:38:11 -0500

Message no. 43 ----- Original Message -----
From: Arcady <arcady@***.net>

> Yet another reason to not hand out cyber ware to normal day to day
grunt
> troops. All that is reasonable to hand out is a data jack that can
take a
> smart link and the equipment needed to run skillsofts.

What are people's opinions of skillsofts in the military or FASA view?
Personally, I would rather want my soldiers to _know_ the skill and
not have to depend on a computer that can get damaged much more easily
that human memory.

Do people allow skillsoft [non-active] use though simply a datajack, I
believe the rules allow it but I think I've also seen some dissenting
opinions about that.

If skillsofts could be used via datajack I would probably outfit any
Infantry that is spending >4yrs. service with a (at their cost) 1/2
smartlink [only the head stuff, essence cost as a cyberarm smartlink,
.25 IIRC] with a datajack that they can plug their smartguns [std.
issue] into and also a few knowsofts [general purpose stuff, plus
action-specific 'packs' such as local-liguasoft some map-softs etc.]

This is <1 essence and it's not removing anything from them ['cept a
little skin, some bone and maybe (?) a little brain...] so it's not
going to have _that_ big an effect on their self image. Also, surgery
is minimal and effectiveness is maximal.

I would also have some military Riggers, normal enlistees would just
Rig though the Datajack. 'Lifetime' enlistees would actually get a VCR
(low level, their cost.)

Boosted/Wired are generally a no-no for std. troops as well as most
other cyberware. Special Forces and other stuff you just _*don't*_
leave _might_ get improvements like these but, the government is
keeping a very close watch on you and it will be at your cost. [Also,
they like to keep total essence loss to a minimum b/c they don't want
someone snapping.]

Hrm, that was longer than I intended and I still haven't said
_everything_ I'm thinking... maybe it's time to write 'my view on the
2060 military' for NAGEE or something.

Da Twink Daddy -- "Who has really no idea what he's talking about"
(No Mil Schooling, Never Enlisted, Running Away If Drafted)
bss03@*******.uark.edu
ICQ# 514984

From:	Allen Versfeld moe@*******.com
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:08:03 +0200

Message no. 44 "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>
> "I faced US air power for two months and lost five tanks. I faced British
> armour for two hours and lost _all_ my tanks." An Iraqi battalion
> commander. Same story was repeated with variations throughout the
> war.
>
> --
> Paul J. Adam

Oh God! Not the old "US vs UK" discussion again! ;-)

--
Allen Versfeld
moe@*******.com
Wandata

QVANTI CANICVLA ILLA IN FENESTRA

From:	Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:16:41 +1000

Message no. 45 Allen Versfeld writes:
> "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
> >
> > "I faced US air power for two months and lost five tanks. I
> faced British
> > armour for two hours and lost _all_ my tanks." An Iraqi battalion
> > commander. Same story was repeated with variations throughout the
> > war.
>
> Oh God! Not the old "US vs UK" discussion again! ;-)

It's not a US v UK discussion... it was an air power vs ground power
discussion. The Iraqis faced American tanks too, you know.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com

From:	Allen Versfeld moe@*******.com
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:39:17 +0200

Message no. 46 Robert Watkins wrote:
>
> >
> > Oh God! Not the old "US vs UK" discussion again! ;-)
>
> It's not a US v UK discussion... it was an air power vs ground power
> discussion. The Iraqis faced American tanks too, you know.
>

Note the smiley - I'm not *completely* ignorant, you know :-)

Come to think of it, and sadly enough, that's not a safe assumption to
make anymore... About ignorance, I mean.

--
Allen Versfeld
moe@*******.com
Wandata

QVANTI CANICVLA ILLA IN FENESTRA

From:	Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:17:13 +0200

Message no. 47 According to Da Twink Daddy, at 22:38 on 19 Jul 99, the word on
the street was...

> What are people's opinions of skillsofts in the military or FASA view?
> Personally, I would rather want my soldiers to _know_ the skill and
> not have to depend on a computer that can get damaged much more easily
> that human memory.

I'd say that in situations where the soldier has a chipjack or softlink,
this would make sense. Although I doubt the military would equip everyone
with a softlink-4 and four skill chips, not because it's too expensive but
because, like you say, they would want the troops to know the skills
themselves in case of damage to the cyberware.

> Do people allow skillsoft [non-active] use though simply a datajack, I
> believe the rules allow it but I think I've also seen some dissenting
> opinions about that.

I do not allow any chips to be inserted into datajacks. It just dosn't
make much sense -- it'd be like sticking a diskette into your PC's
parallel port, and _having_it_work_...

With an adaptor inserted into the datajack, though, I do allow chips to be
used through a datajack. Alternatively, you could put the chip in a
computer or datareader, and then plug that into your datajack.

> I would also have some military Riggers, normal enlistees would just
> Rig though the Datajack. 'Lifetime' enlistees would actually get a VCR
> (low level, their cost.)

I'd see fighter pilots get fitted with a VCR very rapidly, but apart from
them, not too many troops would have one IMHO. Although I don't think the
soldiers themselves would pay for the item -- it'd be like saying "Here's
an HMMWV to transport you across the battlefield. That'll be $45,000."

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Cooking with the devil, frying down in hell.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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

From:	Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 11:17:13 +0200

Message no. 48 According to Arcady, at 18:49 on 19 Jul 99, the word on
the street was...

> They do however monitor you. I know several vets who worked in top secret
> projects and they all had to report on their actions and travel plans on a
> regular basis and whenever going overseas. They had to get approval for many
> things and were restricted from many places of travel.

Sound like there are very strong restrictions on the practice of animal
medicine in the US...

:)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Cooking with the devil, frying down in hell.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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

From:	Da Twink Daddy datwinkdaddy@*********.com
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Tue, 20 Jul 1999 05:22:22 -0500

Message no. 49 ----- Original Message -----
From: Gurth <gurth@******.nl>

> > I would also have some military Riggers, normal enlistees would
just
> > Rig though the Datajack. 'Lifetime' enlistees would actually get a
VCR
> > (low level, their cost.)
>
> I'd see fighter pilots get fitted with a VCR very rapidly, but apart
from
> them, not too many troops would have one IMHO. Although I don't
think the
> soldiers themselves would pay for the item -- it'd be like saying
"Here's
> an HMMWV to transport you across the battlefield. That'll be
$45,000."

Well, someone's got to pay for it and the government isn't just going
to give that away. They would probably 'sell' it to the soldier at
cost but you are either going to pay for it when you get it or when
you leave. I'm not sure above the military but, I'm pretty sure that
cops have to buy most of their required equipment and I _know_ that
you have to buy the clothes to work at a fast food chain. Why should
the military be any different? Of course, like I said, they are going
to sell it to you at cost and simply garnish a significant amount of
your wages to pay for the thing over time. They wouldn't make _any_
kind of profit, but they sure as heck aren't going to hand out 45k
worth of equipment only you can use. [Or others can only use at
extreme difficulty.]

Da Twink Daddy
bss03@*******.uark.edu
ICQ# 514984

From:	arcady@*.net arcady@*.net
Subject:	Starting equiptment [was: Value and so on]
Date:	Tue, 20 Jul 99 09:38:21 +700

Message no. 50 >> I would also have some military Riggers, normal enlistees would just
>> Rig though the Datajack. 'Lifetime' enlistees would actually get a VCR
>> (low level, their cost.)
>
>I'd see fighter pilots get fitted with a VCR very rapidly, but apart from

>them, not too many troops would have one IMHO. Although I don't think the

>soldiers themselves would pay for the item -- it'd be like saying "Here's

>an HMMWV to transport you across the battlefield. That'll be $45,000."

Having seen fighter pilots fly out military jets from the states to do a one
day shopping trip in Korea while regular enlisted techs got pulled off their
leave to go refuel the bastard's jet... I would say that yes; they would get
the top toys like VCR setups.
I don't think tank drivers would though. They're enlisted and not officers so
they're expendable.
Arcady WebRPG Magistrate http://townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
Artwork: http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/lothlorien/artists/brianfw/brianfw.html
/.)\ The revolution will not be telivised. It'll be emailed.
\(@/ Homepage: http://www.jps.net/arcady/

Message no. 51 >> I'd see fighter pilots get fitted with a VCR very rapidly, but apart from

>> them, not too many troops would have one IMHO. Although I don't think the

>> soldiers themselves would pay for the item -- it'd be like saying "Here's

>> an HMMWV to transport you across the battlefield. That'll be $45,000."
>
>Well, someone's got to pay for it and the government isn't just going
>to give that away. They would probably 'sell' it to the soldier at
>cost but you are either going to pay for it when you get it or when
>you leave. I'm not sure above the military but, I'm pretty sure that
>cops have to buy most of their required equipment and I _know_ that
>you have to buy the clothes to work at a fast food chain. Why should
>the military be any different? Of course, like I said, they are going
>to sell it to you at cost and simply garnish a significant amount of
>your wages to pay for the thing over time. They wouldn't make _any_
>kind of profit, but they sure as heck aren't going to hand out 45k
>worth of equipment only you can use. [Or others can only use at
>extreme difficulty.]

To an officer they would. That's pocket change compared to what those jerks
get today... To an enlisted guy they'd make him pay somehow.

Special Forces types are often enlisted. They'd pay by losing a good part of
their freedom for life. Even after they're out they'd be reporting in routinely.

I don't think there's a country out there that uses enlisted fighter pilots.
To my knowledge they're all officers. Helicopters, tanks, and such however are
enlisted. At least in the USA.

I can't recall if I was issued my initial uniforms or if thy were deducted from
my pay. I think it was issue though. Further uniforms came out of pocket. I
was enlisted by the way.
Arcady WebRPG Magistrate http://townhall.webrpg.com <0){{{{><
Artwork: http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/lothlorien/artists/brianfw/brianfw.html
/.)\ The revolution will not be telivised. It'll be emailed.
\(@/ Homepage: http://www.jps.net/arcady/

Message no. 52 In article <37942053.1A56EF3E@*******.com>, Allen Versfeld
<moe@*******.com> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>> "I faced US air power for two months and lost five tanks. I faced British
>> armour for two hours and lost _all_ my tanks." An Iraqi battalion
>> commander. Same story was repeated with variations throughout the
>> war.

>Oh God! Not the old "US vs UK" discussion again! ;-)

Nope. The better-known version was a brigade commander whose loss
numbers were different but similar in proportion, except it had been US
VII Corps M1A1s that did the execution... I just had the Anglocentric one
nearer to hand.

--
Paul J. Adam

Message no. 53 In article <199907200916.LAA05300@*****.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.nl> writes
>I'd see fighter pilots get fitted with a VCR very rapidly, but apart from
>them, not too many troops would have one IMHO. Although I don't think the
>soldiers themselves would pay for the item -- it'd be like saying "Here's
>an HMMWV to transport you across the battlefield. That'll be $45,000."

I think opinions will vary a lot on whether soldiers get cybered. I see
infantry with Boosted-III, tank commanders with VCRs et cetera... but I
also see _much_ longer terms of enlistment and much stricter discharge
criteria for those wishing to take advantage of that 'ware.

Others will opt for uncybered troops with shorter, easier-to-escape
enlistments. Both viewpoints have a lot of merit.

--
Paul J. Adam

Message no. 54 At 09:47 AM 7/20/99 +0700, Arcady wrote:
>I don't think there's a country out there that uses enlisted fighter pilots.
>To my knowledge they're all officers. Helicopters, tanks, and such however are
>enlisted. At least in the USA.

AFAIK all pilots are officers. However, helicopter pilots in the army are
Warrant Officers, which are a weird stopover between ncos and officers.
Does that follow in other countries?

>I can't recall if I was issued my initial uniforms or if thy were deducted
>from
>my pay. I think it was issue though. Further uniforms came out of pocket. I
>was enlisted by the way.

My stepfather is in the US Navy Jag as an O5. HE got his first uniform for
free about 20 years ago and has had to pay for them ever since. He got his
promotion to O5 1 Jan and had to go out and buy his new insignia. Didn't
even buy that for him.

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.

Message no. 55 At 09:47 AM 7/20/99 +700, you wrote:
>
>To an officer they would. That's pocket change compared to what those jerks
>get today... To an enlisted guy they'd make him pay somehow.
>

I take it you had some bad experiences with officers? :)

By the way, I've been enlisted 10 years, and I'm about to find out what
officer life is like. Oh joy.

>Special Forces types are often enlisted. They'd pay by losing a good part of
>their freedom for life. Even after they're out they'd be reporting in
routinely.
>

Yes, special forces types, and also what someone else said, about people
working with classified. Theres one rule somewhere that says if you have
ever held a top secret clearance, if you ever write anything remotely
related to the job, you have to submit it for approval. This applies even
after you are out of the military for good.

>I don't think there's a country out there that uses enlisted fighter pilots.
>To my knowledge they're all officers. Helicopters, tanks, and such however
are
>enlisted. At least in the USA.
>

The USMC used to have enlisted pilots...this was back around WWII'ish,
though. Army helo pilots are warrant officers...approx 1/2way between
regular officers and enlisted (At least in the Army...in the USMC, warrant
officers are VERY highly respected).

Tank drivers and such are enlisted.

>I can't recall if I was issued my initial uniforms or if thy were deducted
from
>my pay. I think it was issue though. Further uniforms came out of pocket. I
>was enlisted by the way.

Yes, you bought your uniforms, you just didn't know it at the time. They
came out of your pay. Trust me on that one. On the other hand, you didn't
buy your M-16, or your flak jacket, or other such gear, which was mission
essential gear. If the army of 2060 deems a VCR essential gear, I highly
doubt they will make the average private buy it. So, you say, what happens
when he gets out? Well, first, they might have the people with cyber
thingies stay in longer...say 6 years as opposed to 4. This happens
today...when the military agrees to send you to a certain school, you have
to agree to a longer enlistment.

Another way of looking at it, is similiar to the college benefits. I can't
say for sure, since I'm a jarhead, but I think the army offers around
50-60K in college money to enlistees if they agree to the right contract.
Well, how about instead of college money, its cyberware they take with them
when they get out?

Dave

Message no. 56 At 10:53 AM 7/20/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >I can't recall if I was issued my initial uniforms or if thy were deducted
>from
> >my pay. I think it was issue though. Further uniforms came out of pocket. I
> >was enlisted by the way.
>
>Yes, you bought your uniforms, you just didn't know it at the time. They
>came out of your pay. Trust me on that one. On the other hand, you didn't
>buy your M-16, or your flak jacket, or other such gear, which was mission
>essential gear. If the army of 2060 deems a VCR essential gear, I highly
>doubt they will make the average private buy it. So, you say, what happens
>when he gets out? Well, first, they might have the people with cyber
>thingies stay in longer...say 6 years as opposed to 4. This happens
>today...when the military agrees to send you to a certain school, you have
>to agree to a longer enlistment.

The standard hitch after graduating from the US Naval Academy is 6 years.
If you sign up for advanced training (read flight school) the year of
training does not count towards your 6 year requirement, and you have to
put in an additional year on top of it in your contract, for a grand total
of 8 after graduation.

If they were putting all of that time and effort into training you, I
assume they give you a VCR. I would think that the army would for its
helicopter pilots too. They might give it to the grunts who drive the
tanks, since it would probably be rigger controlled. It might only be a
level 1, but they'll give it to you.

>Another way of looking at it, is similiar to the college benefits. I can't
>say for sure, since I'm a jarhead, but I think the army offers around
>50-60K in college money to enlistees if they agree to the right contract.
>Well, how about instead of college money, its cyberware they take with them
>when they get out?
>
>Dave

I'd see that as probable. For guys who got the VCR or datajack, yeah you
get to keep them. Its not hugely expensive, and there are all sorts of
civilian uses for them. Hell, the airlines are having a shortage of pilots
in the US right now because there are less pilots in the military. Less
going into the Air Force means less coming out and becoming airline pilots.
Its probably just as bad in Shadowrun.

The stickier part comes from combat gear, like smartlinks and boosted and
wired reflexes. For how much it is, I've always assumed that the regular
grunt who signs up for two or more tours gets the datajack and maybe
boosted reflexes. They use a stripped down version of the smartlink that
goes through the datajack, and still has good civilian uses. The lifers get
high level boosted, or maybe Wired 1, and a regular smartlink. The spec
forces guys are the ones outfitted with the cyber death on two legs, and
are the guys who keep their clearances until death.

For a good comparison, you might want to check out the archetypes in Lone
Star (for those who have it). It shows different levels of cyber depending
on the job for a civilian company. The army should be the same, with maybe
even a bit more to them.

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.

Message no. 57 In a message dated 7/20/99 12:17:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
robert.watkins@******.com writes:

> It's not a US v UK discussion... it was an air power vs ground power
> discussion. The Iraqis faced American tanks too, you know.
>

There is also another key factor that's overlooked in that statement. In the
gulf war, mosst of the air assets were tasked to strategic targets, not
tanks. Airfields, Command and Communication centers, Bridges, and the like.
With the exception of the republican guard units near Basra, for the most
part the Iraqi tanks were low priority targets until the tanks started
rolling, and even then they wouldnt have called in the snakes or the fast
movers unless they hit a pocket of heavy resistance.

Message no. 58 In article <9e30ba5.24c6242e@***.com>, Starrngr@***.com writes
>There is also another key factor that's overlooked in that statement. In the
>gulf war, mosst of the air assets were tasked to strategic targets, not
>tanks. Airfields, Command and Communication centers, Bridges, and the like.

True to a point, but the F-16s in particular spent a _lot_ of time
tankhunting. They started out with two TERs of Mark 82s each, but
switched to a pair of Mark 84s each: the F-16 could deliver bombs to "near
as damn it hit" with CCIP dive attacks, the 2000lb bombs provided clearer
damage assessment, and good targets were sparse enough that the Vipers
had problems finding _one_ target per sortie, let alone three. (Let's
discreetly forget about the GPU-2A)

For _real_ entertainment, though, how about the F-111F 'tank plinking'
sorties? Strolling along at night using the Pave Tack to find tanks on IR,
then picking them off. One GBU-12 500lb laser-guided bomb per tank.
Sixteen bombs per Aardvark. Ouch :)

--
Paul J. Adam

Message no. 59 In a message dated 7/20/99 9:48:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, arcady@***.net
writes:

> I don't think there's a country out there that uses enlisted fighter pilots.
> To my knowledge they're all officers. Helicopters, tanks, and such however
> are
> enlisted. At least in the USA.
>
I don't know about now, but During WWII, there were 'Flight officers' who
were actually NCOs in the European armed forces. Only the USA insisted on a
totaly officer flying corps. This may no longer be true, but I think FO's
still exist in smaller nations like Israel and places in Africa. Chopper
pilots are usually Warrent officers, which are actually niether Enlisted nor
true officers. Only ground vehicles are operated by enlisted men.

> I can't recall if I was issued my initial uniforms or if thy were deducted
> from
> my pay. I think it was issue though. Further uniforms came out of pocket. I
> was enlisted by the way.

Yes, you did pay for your inital issue of uniforms. It was deducted from
your pay while you were in boot camp, which is why you don't really get your
first paycheck till near the end of boot, and often then you wonder why it
seems so small. In addition to this, while you do have to pay to replace
your uniforms yourself, they give you like $50 or so every 3 months or so for
the express purpose of uniform upkeep.

Interestingly enough, for officers the feeding system is still modeled after
the Brittish system, wherein an officer gets a bit extra, but he has to pay
for his meals. On ship, this is often done in a flat per month payment.
Enlisted get their chow and bunks as part of their basic entitlement.

Message no. 60 On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 21:07:20 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
<Paul@********.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <9e30ba5.24c6242e@***.com>, Starrngr@***.com writes
>True to a point, but the F-16s in particular spent a _lot_ of time
>tankhunting. They started out with two TERs of Mark 82s each, but
>switched to a pair of Mark 84s each: the F-16 could deliver bombs to "near
>as damn it hit" with CCIP dive attacks, the 2000lb bombs provided clearer
>damage assessment, and good targets were sparse enough that the Vipers
>had problems finding _one_ target per sortie, let alone three. (Let's
>discreetly forget about the GPU-2A)
Not being in any of the military branches and following all this
through books; I was under the impression that the A-10 was the
primary tank killing aircraft, why use F-16's?

Ratlaw
Walter Scheper
-----------------------------------------------------
How should I look today, in the presence of Americans,
dividing and subdividing a discourse, to show that men
have a natural right to freedom, speaking of it relatively
and positively, negatively and affirmatively?
Frederick Douglass

Message no. 61 In article <3796035d.176180003@****.megsinet.net>, Walter Scheper
<Ratlaw@*******.com> writes
>Not being in any of the military branches and following all this
>through books; I was under the impression that the A-10 was the
>primary tank killing aircraft, why use F-16's?

The A-10 has always been the USAF's ugly stepchild. They didn't want it,
don't (as an institution) like the CAS/BAI mission, and have kept the A-10
units short of funds and starved of upgrades. Compare how much has
been added to the F-16 in its service life: the A-10 got LASTE and that
was it.

By 1991 the A-10 was being moved to the Reserves and phased out, and
the "more flexible" F-16 was being touted as its replacement - using, it
was planned, the GPU-2 gun pod (carrying a version of the A-10's GAU-8A
in a centreline pod).

The concept failed dismally in the Persian Gulf - the GPU-2 was a disaster,
and the F-16s proved to be poor CAS assets. However, that didn't cause
the Air Force to authorise any of the upgrades (like night vision gear or
better survivability equipment) that the A-10s could really make use of...

Compare the money being flung at the F-22 Raptor by the Silk Scarf
Mafia, to what the A-10 gets - then see who gets tasked heaviest in any
conflict.

--
Paul J. Adam

Message no. 62 "And now, a Channel 6 editorial reply to Arcady."
] Unfortunately Shadowrun encourages by dividing down any money you don't
] spend. I too have found myself trying to get an 'Imelda Marcos' collection
] of shoes and other trinkets just to not have any cash get divided up... You
] can always sell it all on the 2060 version of eBay after the game starts to
] get your money back. :)

Or, just keep the extra after charcater creation, a house rule I use.
I mean, why can't a character have savings?

-Murder of One

Message no. 63 > Or, just keep the extra after charcater creation, a house rule I use.
> I mean, why can't a character have savings?

I generally allow this as well. It doesn't seem to throw the balance any.
Either they spend it prior to the game or after on things they might not
have thought of during creation. It all turns out the same, I think.

CT

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer