Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:14:06 +0100
There's a trend recently, and also in the SR books themselves, that technology
options which *TODAY* is state of the art, is also 'design improvement options'
in SR. This goes for both guns (gas vents, silencers, shock pads, folding
stocks etc) and vehicles (custom engines, roll bars, turbo option, etc.).
(Was the turbo option taken out of the R2? I think it was, but not sure).

This is IMHO a mistaken way to think about it. SR is in 60 years. It's an
okay way to *EXPLAIN* the changes, but it is not valid reasoning for realism.
How much has technology advanced the last 60 years? Quite a lot. Completely
new things is nukes, computers, space travel, television, jet engines, velcro,
teflon, and so on. Sciences that has gone through multiple paradigm advances
in chemsitry, metallurgy, medicine, sociology, physics, economy.
(To name a few). 60 years ago, aircraft were, while not new, still mostly
requiring double or even triple decks to get enough lift to take off. Their
weapons were either hand guns or, for the more advanced, fixed guns.
Today aircraft, while looking the same, is supersonic monstrosities able to
easily carry 20 tons of guns, bombs and missiles, may go halfway across the
world, and can find and destroy any target within hundreds of kilometers.

We cannot imagine the advances made for the next sixty years. What we can
be fairly certain about is that what is state of the art today is hopelessly
outdated in 2057. Using a gas vents then would, most probably, be far *worse*
than regular weapon designs. Cased/Caseless? Get serious. Caseless two stage
guns, perhaps chemical variable charges? Whatever. Explosive ammo? Sure.
It doesn't specify what explosives it is, or how it works, which is good.
Nanobot disintegrator rounds? Heartseeker target systems? Cardiac arrest taser
rounds? Even today's magscopes/vision gear is better than the systems in SR.
(Modern sniper gear has scopes which sees through walls, and can ID and kill
targets -through a wall- a few kilometers away. The rifle in question has
such a recoil that, if firing it more than ten times in a few minutes, you
suffer some effects from concussion - teeth fall out, that sort of thing.
Bruising? Make a guess...).


There's a reason for this. They do not want to fall into the StarTreknology
trap. Tech should not intrude more than necessary. Things should rely on the
players' ingenuity and their interaction with a predictable environment, rather
than 'We need to reverse the polarity of the.. um.. field generators' kind
of solutions. Purely technical solutions to problems should be kept to a
minimum.. even at the cost of some realism. Within this system, there should,
and must be, technological consistency. You get that by assuming a few
key technologies work as improvements (gas vents, cybertech, smargun links etc)
and extrapolating and abstracting it. In R2, you get load, max speed increases,
etc. out of a theory that a number of techniques - mostly unspecified - work.
Now naming parts of these unspecified technologies might or might not improve
matters. In that manner, R2 is perhaps a bit too detailed.

Well, I'm rambing. I don't think I made the point I set out to make. Still,
it should inspire a thought or two on the subject.
Message no. 2
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:30:11 +0000
In article <199711092314.24269.naglfar.ifi.uio.no@***.uio.no>, Rune
Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO> waffled & burbled about Today's state of
the art VS. SR design options

<big snippy>
>There's a reason for this. They do not want to fall into the StarTreknology
>trap.

Your reasoning is interesting, and given ideal circumstances, perfectly
true.

However, Shadowrun is not only 60 years into the future, it's also 50
years into the past.

Think about it. Cyberware, bionetic enhancements, genetic engineering,
and massive industrial complexes, factory farming, homelessness of a
incredible degree. Decentralisation and destabilisation of central
government reverting to local and sectional government rule, reliance
upon multinational corporations for funding and employment, housing and
general services. Debilitation of common conveniences and human right
of life. Destabilistation of housing, health care and welfare.

Something very reticent of 1930's economic strife and 1950's
industrialisation. Yet this is all mixed in with futuristic technology
that is beyond our capability to immitate. Add into this maelstrom of
chaos, the Awakening, VITAS, the Crash of 2029, and a number of other
things... For example, the war with NAN, Tir Tairngire's rather violent
birth, the occupation of California (and subsequently Silicon Valley) by
the Japanese. the segregation of the United States, the assumption of
Central America into the form of Aztlan. The break-up of European Union
during the Euro Wars and the destabilisation of European economies and
country-wide fracturing into Balcanised areas rather than nation states.

On top of this, there is the influence of magic and other paranormal
events/activities/creatures preventing access or exploration of areas,
or at least making them more difficult. The subsequent loss of
essential research establishments and hierarchical information.

The almost complete collapse of law and order for a number of years and
general starvation of the masses during the country-wide exodus of towns
and villages into the metroplexes we know in the game.

The subsequent increase in lawlessness and violent crime, not just from
paid assassins, robbers and killers, otherwise known as Shadowrunners
but also from the masses of unemployed, SINless homeless people
attemtpting simply to survive in an uncaring world.

Consider all of these factors, and quite honestly I'm surprised that
technology is as far ahead in Shadowrun as it is.


--
Dark Avenger -:- http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk -
Unofficial Shadowtk Newbies Guide, Edgerunners Datastore &
Beginnings of the Underseas Sourcebook.
http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims - Alternative UK Sourcebook (U/C)
Message no. 3
From: QKSilver <qksilver282@*****.MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 21:06:45 -0500
On November 09, 1997 at 6:14 PM Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO> wrote:

>There's a trend recently, and also in the SR books themselves, that
technology
>options which *TODAY* is state of the art, is also 'design improvement
options'
>in SR. This goes for both guns (gas vents, silencers, shock pads, folding
>stocks etc) and vehicles (custom engines, roll bars, turbo option, etc.).
>(Was the turbo option taken out of the R2? I think it was, but not sure).

No, the turbocharging option is still available.

>This is IMHO a mistaken way to think about it. SR is in 60 years. It's an
>okay way to *EXPLAIN* the changes, but it is not valid reasoning for
realism.
>How much has technology advanced the last 60 years? Quite a lot

[Snip]

SR technology, even though timewise it's 60 years in the future, has only
advanced since 2029.
The crash of 29 actually destroyed so much technology that some technology
that might, conceivably, be available within the next couple of years will
not be readily available until many years into the SR future. For more
background information on SR technology the novel "Shadowplay", by the late
Nigel Findley, should clear some misconceptions. Even that might not fully
explain the advances or lack thereof, but it's a good starting point.
Message no. 4
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 10:56:03 -0500
At 09:06 PM 11/9/97 -0500, you wrote:
>On November 09, 1997 at 6:14 PM Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO> wrote:

>SR technology, even though timewise it's 60 years in the future, has only
>advanced since 2029.
>The crash of 29 actually destroyed so much technology that some technology
>that might, conceivably, be available within the next couple of years will
>not be readily available until many years into the SR future. For more
>background information on SR technology the novel "Shadowplay", by the late
>Nigel Findley, should clear some misconceptions. Even that might not fully
>explain the advances or lack thereof, but it's a good starting point.

The problem (and I've argued the topic with a friend over BattleTech more
than once, and eventually saw his side of things) is that technology
doesn't disappear because some of the technical data was lost. People
don't forget how a gas-vent is supposed to work simply because the computer
that held the designs crashed. Yes some data would be lost, and it would
take perhaps ten years (if that) to catch up, but... SR shows off laser
sights and gas-vents as if they're new. Myself, I kinda think a laser
sight (for non-smart weapons), gas-vent enough to prevent recoil from the
highest non-FA fire the weapon is capable of, and caseless ammo would be
standard by this time. And wouldn't destroy the concealability of the
weapon (I know, I know, game balance...) I would also think that
low-light and thermograph technology would have advanced a tad rather than
reflecting only what we have now, not to mention perhaps a few advances and
new ideas in night vision (the ultrasound is the only one in SR). I'm
amazed to hear that there are finally humanshape drone in R2, because the
idea that they can completely cyber a person yet can't build an
anthropomorphic robot was another silly point. In short, I don't see
enough progress, it being 2058 and all. It annoys me that apparently wired
reflexes, datajacks, _cranial cyberdecks_ for Pete's sake were developed,
but other things just failed to advance... No one worked hard enough on
designing an electrically powered car that could replace the petrochem
engine (or... at least... an alcohol-driven engine?). Hm, this has turned
into a bit of a rant, hasn't it? :) It's not really a rant at anyone in
particular, just confusion at the lack of neat new toys aside from HV
weapons and miniguns on gyro mounts.

losthalo
Message no. 5
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:57:16 +0000
In article <3.0.3.16.19971111230156.35870b68@**********.com>, losthalo
<losthalo@********.COM> waffled & burbled about Today's state of the art
VS. SR design options
>>On November 09, 1997 at 6:14 PM Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO> wrote:
>>not be readily available until many years into the SR future. For more
>>background information on SR technology the novel "Shadowplay", by the
late
>>Nigel Findley, should clear some misconceptions. Even that might not fully
>>explain the advances or lack thereof, but it's a good starting point.
>
>The problem (and I've argued the topic with a friend over BattleTech more
>than once, and eventually saw his side of things) is that technology
>doesn't disappear because some of the technical data was lost.

True enough. Technology doesn't. complex technology can suffer
setbacks, but the technicians and labourforce will still retain their
knowledge, but when you add into that equation, massive civil unrest,
economic collapse, starvation (food rioots) poor housing and all the
other factors that go together to make the beginnings of SR. It's not
so clear cut.

Although I am one of the one's who is an advocate of advanced tech, (and
this is obvious from my game world), there is a certain logic to the
situation created by SR.

The mistake commonly made by many people, is to focus on one aspect of
the low tech rating. Oh "The Crash of '29" destroyed all data, and most
of hte information and blueprints to make things was lost.

I disagree entirely. However, the crash isn't the only factor is it?

>take perhaps ten years (if that) to catch up, but... SR shows off laser
>sights and gas-vents as if they're new.

Admittedly, laser sighting is a bit passe, and has been around for a
number of years. However, it is a reliable way of aiming a weapon when
you don't have the wherewithall to aim, or ation that prevents steady
aiming. Same thing with gas vents, gas vent technology may change
considerably in the next 10 years, let alone 62, but that very much
depends on the development of propellant. ANd that rather neatly takes
me onto the next point.

I disagree that all future weapons will use caseless. I have (sorry
had) a home loading kit. There is no way I'm going to pay large sums of
money to a manufacturer, just because they demand it, when I can save
some money and load my own. I like brass, it's clean, reusable, and it
makes that neat ding noise when it bounces off something. <grin>

Caseless has two inherent problems. Both are for the casual user.
First, although the round logically is cleaner, there is still residue
left behind. With no slide, and ejector system, it is not possible to
easilly see the breech and internal mechanisms, this would require
dismantling to clean the weapon properly, rather than a quick pull
through with a rag and rod.

Second. People like wheelguns, people like the sound, smell and feel of
a weapon that kicks and ejects brass. Why would they change this?
Caseless rounds would probably be more prevelent in the SR world, and
not offered as an option, but there is no way that I can see,
enthusiasts and gun nuts, giving up their brass. You can't hotload
caseless, you can't change the ballistics of caseless, by altering round
weight, or using diferent materials. It would be very difficult, if not
impossible, to home load caseless silver bullets.

Now I appreciate that in the future, they may have homeloaders for
caselss (I can't see it myself, but you never know). This still does
not detract from the fact, that personally I prefer brass, and would buy
brass over caseless every time.

Wheel guns, are not really condusive to firing caseless rounds, so it is
unlikely that they will ever be converted to be caseless capable. In
order to say that all weapons in the future are caseless, you are
essentially, saying that the worlds best selling weapon type no longer
exists.

>Myself, I kinda think a laser
>sight (for non-smart weapons), gas-vent enough to prevent recoil from the
>highest non-FA fire the weapon is capable of,

Disagree. Laser sights allow rapid targetting, they do not, under any
circumstances prevent the rise of the muzzle due to recoil. gas vents
are there to prevent recoil. The laser, allows you to bring the weapon
onto target again, quicker, assuming you can see the aiming dot anyway,
but I fail to see how you can justify saying they act as a gas vent.

>and caseless ammo would be
>standard by this time.

Yes in many if not most weapons, with brass being an option. But brass
will not die, unless the weapons manufacturers suddenly come up with a
new technology that convinces every shooter in the world to say, "Wow,
fuck brass, I want >>insert name<<. Plus you have to allow for the
developing nations and third world countries. can they afford the extra
cost of caseless, or are they likely to employ older weapons, with
extreme reliability, like the Russian AK's?

>And wouldn't destroy the concealability of the
>weapon (I know, I know, game balance...)

Game balance, in my opinion has little or nothing to do with it. I
agree, casless rounds should not affect the concealability of the
weapon. OK, you can get more rounds in a mag, but that doesn't change
the size and shape of the magazine, just it's capacity.

>I would also think that
>low-light and thermograph technology would have advanced a tad rather than
>reflecting only what we have now, not to mention perhaps a few advances and
>new ideas in night vision (the ultrasound is the only one in SR).

SR was written some years ago, when this technology was pretty new to
the general public. Modern night vision equipment and thermographic
imaging is far in advance of what was available ten, nay even five years
ago. So yes, it should have advanced considerably by SR times.
Logically, the desert wars, Euro Wars and other conflicts would have
accelerated this technology. Wars are always good for that sort of
thing.

>I'm
>amazed to hear that there are finally humanshape drone in R2, because the
>idea that they can completely cyber a person yet can't build an
>anthropomorphic robot was another silly point.

In a way yes, in another no. This I feel, was purely for game balance.
I don't think (and excuse my attempt at second guessing FASA) but I
don't think that they wanted cyborgs (ala robocop) androids, and robots
(terminator) running around in Shadowrun. Also, Cyberpunk 2020 allows
full body conversion, so, they already have 'borgs and such like. For
FASA to also adopt this type of future, people would have started
shouting about the similarities between the two systems. With FASA
removing the possibility of cyborgs without seriously heavy magic, and
some extreme costs, they have prevented the game from becoming an
overbloated Terminator scenario.

>In short, I don't see
>enough progress, it being 2058 and all. It annoys me that apparently wired
>reflexes, datajacks, _cranial cyberdecks_ for Pete's sake

now now, don't use my name in vain <grin>

>were developed,
>but other things just failed to advance...

There are limits to the creativity of a product. this sort of thing is
very much left up to the players. Don't forget, the equipment available
to the game now, is far in excess of what some of us had at the
beginning. I still remember the excitement that went with the release
of the Street Samurai Catalogue. However, in some ways you are right.
It is strange that things haven't advanced. But what do you want. The
dirty film noir atmosphere of 1950's/2058 Shadowrun, or Star Trek?
Where do you draw the line, and keep the Cyberpunk feel, without losing
out to tech overkill with flying cars, floating restaurants and grav
tanks? Space travel, and fleets of ships, or a dirty decaying world
where things regress as fast as they advance.

Products advance, but in SR civilisation is regressing. Who knows what
the major corporations have developed? Nowhere in SR material does it
state what they're doing. FASA have avoided the question of space for
years, for all we know, the corps are out there, mining the asteroid
fields, colonising other planets, exploring further out, and leaving
earth to fall apart and decay. On the flip side of that, maybe the
corps just don't care, they are answering demand for a product that is
quick and easy to produce and in high demand, why bother advancing tech
too far, and destroying your profit margin.

In order to put that into context. The lightbulb that doesn't burn out,
we have it today, yet is it on the market? no. Vehicle tyres that
don't wear out. We have it today, it's stored in some American
manufacturers wheelie bin, but they will not release it onto the market.
There are many other products like this, that companies simply willnot
realease to the general public, because of the damagge it will cause to
the almighty and all important profit margin. Companies and
corporations don't want to get rich quick, they want to get richer...

>No one worked hard enough on
>designing an electrically powered car that could replace the petrochem
>engine (or... at least... an alcohol-driven engine?).

Or gas turbine? That was a successful, albeit expensive vehcile, and
sounded great when it stuffed itself down a road. There are electric
cars in Shadowrun, quite a few I seem to recall. But ask yourself, As a
"man of the world" what would you rather hear. The thunder of a couple
a hundred horses, or the whine of a pissant little electric motor?

To hell with corbon poisoning, to hell with the ozone, to hell with
pollution, give me the revs man, I wanna feel that baby rock, I wanna
hear it rock, I don't wanna trundle up no road sounding like a kiddies
toy.

>Hm, this has turned
>into a bit of a rant, hasn't it? :)

Don't worry the list is use to rantings. ;)

>It's not really a rant at anyone in
>particular, just confusion at the lack of neat new toys aside from HV
>weapons and miniguns on gyro mounts.

Toys are always difficult. Look at some of the toys that Shadowrun
already has, and consider the abuse some of these undergo from munchies
and power gamers. The worst introduced weapon of all time, the
Savelette Guardian. how many people use these because they have a high
rate of fire, kill things with abandon, and look cool? Quite a few.
How many of those people used the Predator initially, because of the
cool name, and it's heavy capabilities? Quite a few.

The Ares Thunderbolt. Three heavy rounds every time you pull the
trigger. I know of at least one player (previously on this list I
think) who uses these paired - one in each hand. Why? Becuase he can.

The other side to creating toys, is that it takes time to design them
and not lose game balance. I personally am quite happy with the toys in
SR already, there are a great many available from SR fans on the net, if
you feel the need, or take the conversions from Cyberpunk 2020 that
Gurth and co have produced. There are plenty of toys around, and I
would rather not see Shadowrun turned into a "toys" game. The world
itself isn't anywhere near detailed enough for me to want FASA to start
that silly route. Rifts, is primarily a game based on toys, and it can
stay exactly where it is thank you very much.

I do have some serious problems with SOTA, which was FASA's way of
trying to deal with advancing tech and development, but for a fudge
through, it works - sort of - and is usable.

While ont he subject of a lack of new toys, why not also mention that
it's been four years into Shadowrun, and we've not had any new spells
recently, or new mage types, or new cyberdecks (aside from the VR2), no
development in the Matrix, what about AI's what about fully automated
production lines, and vehicles, why not have Total Recall style taxis
running around, instead of Red Cab, and the rest... Why not...

Many reasons. It's a game, and as such usually molds itself to the way
individual GM's would like it to be and this usually operates around the
pre-conceptions that the players have of what they expect to see. New
toys, new ways of doing things, new methods, new factories, new
anything, is down to the GM, and there is little chance, bar destroying
the planet, that FASA is going to produce something that will destroy
whatever ideas you use. Only in locations can this really happen.

I appreciate where your coming from with your comments, but they can be
explained with a little thought and imagination. I don't rely on FASA
for anything beyond what they've produced themselves. Other things come
about during conversations with my players, or as a result of reading a
particularly good novel.

Not ranting back at you, just ranting. :)

--
Dark Avenger -:- http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk -
Unofficial Shadowtk Newbies Guide, Edgerunners Datastore &
Beginnings of the Underseas Sourcebook.
http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims - Alternative UK Sourcebook (U/C)
Message no. 6
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:57:04 -0500
At 12:57 AM 11/13/97 +0000, you wrote:
>True enough. Technology doesn't. complex technology can suffer
>setbacks, but the technicians and labourforce will still retain their
>knowledge, but when you add into that equation, massive civil unrest,
>economic collapse, starvation (food rioots) poor housing and all the
>other factors that go together to make the beginnings of SR. It's not
>so clear cut.

Yeah, but... people have a tendency to do better at finding something once
they know it's possible. Even if somehow enough knowledge was lost that
some innovations disappeared, I'm figuring that it wouldn't take decades to
recover that tech, especially with some people being very motivated to do
so (this is when the corps rise into the spotlight, after all). Less than
sixt years to go from the bulky, unreliable machineguns you saw WWI era, to
what we have today, from the earliest tanks to those we have today, from
something you could barely call a computer, to what we have today... I
won't even type out the quote, FastJack said it best.

>Although I am one of the one's who is an advocate of advanced tech, (and
>this is obvious from my game world), there is a certain logic to the
>situation created by SR.

>The mistake commonly made by many people, is to focus on one aspect of
>the low tech rating. Oh "The Crash of '29" destroyed all data, and most
>of hte information and blueprints to make things was lost.
>
>I disagree entirely. However, the crash isn't the only factor is it?
>
>>take perhaps ten years (if that) to catch up, but... SR shows off laser
>>sights and gas-vents as if they're new.
>
>Admittedly, laser sighting is a bit passe, and has been around for a
>number of years. However, it is a reliable way of aiming a weapon when
>you don't have the wherewithall to aim, or ation that prevents steady
>aiming. Same thing with gas vents, gas vent technology may change
>considerably in the next 10 years, let alone 62, but that very much
>depends on the development of propellant. ANd that rather neatly takes
>me onto the next point.

I'm not saying you wouldn't see laser sights any more, that something would
replace them, rather that you'd see them wherever you didn't see a
smartgoggle system. They'd be the rule, truly smart weapons would be the
exception outside of the military.

And gas-vents and the like should be standard, period. There's no drawback
to them, they shouldn't lose concealability the way they do, and they're a
big increase in effectiveness, especially with a smartgun link-up.

>I disagree that all future weapons will use caseless. I have (sorry
>had) a home loading kit. There is no way I'm going to pay large sums of
>money to a manufacturer, just because they demand it, when I can save
>some money and load my own. I like brass, it's clean, reusable, and it
>makes that neat ding noise when it bounces off something. <grin>
>
>Caseless has two inherent problems. Both are for the casual user.
>First, although the round logically is cleaner, there is still residue
>left behind. With no slide, and ejector system, it is not possible to
>easilly see the breech and internal mechanisms, this would require
>dismantling to clean the weapon properly, rather than a quick pull
>through with a rag and rod.
I didn't say caseless weapons wouldn't have a slide, or an ejector port.
It would make sense to have an ejector (perhaps manually operated only) to
eject jammed rounds, since certainly caseless weapons do still jam on
occasion.

>Second. People like wheelguns, people like the sound, smell and feel of
>a weapon that kicks and ejects brass. Why would they change this?
>Caseless rounds would probably be more prevelent in the SR world, and
>not offered as an option, but there is no way that I can see,
>enthusiasts and gun nuts, giving up their brass. You can't hotload
>caseless, you can't change the ballistics of caseless, by altering round
>weight, or using diferent materials. It would be very difficult, if not
>impossible, to home load caseless silver bullets.

True, and much like today, I'm sure there would be people who would cling
to those older types of ammo, and who perhaps considered themselves
'connoisseurs' of firearms. I can still see a lot of manufacturers going
to a 'caseless only' as the primary product run, perhaps doing a cased
version as a variant run for people who like them. Just think, though, the
way society has embraced the new, in SR. My favorite example of how
different the world is, is 'Print is dead.' Even my players, who've been
with SR for a while, have a hard time getting used tot he fact that not
much comes in hardcopy any more. But I also bet there are a lot of old
firearms still around from the 'cased' days, still serviceable like a '60's
car today (there are a lot of cars born decades ago that I'd give a
brand-new US-made model for today, just because they last longer and
they're built to take more...).

>Now I appreciate that in the future, they may have homeloaders for
>caselss (I can't see it myself, but you never know). This still does
>not detract from the fact, that personally I prefer brass, and would buy
>brass over caseless every time.
>
>Wheel guns, are not really condusive to firing caseless rounds, so it is
>unlikely that they will ever be converted to be caseless capable. In
>order to say that all weapons in the future are caseless, you are
>essentially, saying that the worlds best selling weapon type no longer
>exists.

No, I'm just saying that for a lot of weapons caseless would become the
rule, if only because of lighter weight, and other small benefits. I
didn't say cased rounds would cease to exist. Hey, I like cartridge brass
myself...

>>Myself, I kinda think a laser
>>sight (for non-smart weapons), gas-vent enough to prevent recoil from the
>>highest non-FA fire the weapon is capable of,
>
>Disagree. Laser sights allow rapid targetting, they do not, under any
>circumstances prevent the rise of the muzzle due to recoil. gas vents
>are there to prevent recoil. The laser, allows you to bring the weapon
>onto target again, quicker, assuming you can see the aiming dot anyway,
>but I fail to see how you can justify saying they act as a gas vent.
I think you missed what I was saying, that those features, and perhaps
others, would become standard on firearms, not that they're the same thing.
Oops, maybe I wasn't clear there. :(

>Yes in many if not most weapons, with brass being an option. But brass
>will not die, unless the weapons manufacturers suddenly come up with a
>new technology that convinces every shooter in the world to say, "Wow,
>fuck brass, I want >>insert name<<. Plus you have to allow for the
>developing nations and third world countries. can they afford the extra
>cost of caseless, or are they likely to employ older weapons, with
>extreme reliability, like the Russian AK's?

True, but I'm not talking about the whole world here, mainly N.A. The
Third World will also prolly be capable of producing their own ammo by that
point, though.

>Game balance, in my opinion has little or nothing to do with it. I
>agree, casless rounds should not affect the concealability of the
>weapon. OK, you can get more rounds in a mag, but that doesn't change
>the size and shape of the magazine, just it's capacity.

Here I was talking more about gas-vents... and their rather serious
concealability penalties.

>>In short, I don't see
>>enough progress, it being 2058 and all. It annoys me that apparently wired
>>reflexes, datajacks, _cranial cyberdecks_ for Pete's sake
>
>now now, don't use my name in vain <grin>

Ah, sorry, I don't know what came over me. ;)

>There are limits to the creativity of a product. this sort of thing is
>very much left up to the players. Don't forget, the equipment available
>to the game now, is far in excess of what some of us had at the
>beginning. I still remember the excitement that went with the release
>of the Street Samurai Catalogue.

Yeah, so do I. But I've always wondered why there were no robots, no
alternatives to slug-throwers, no et cetera.

And my 'toys' comment was not so much about things for PCs (actually I'm
pretty happy with the neat things players can get for their characters,
weapons and ruthenium polymer suits, et cetera, et cetera). I'm jsut
wondering why there aren't more things like voice masks...

>While ont he subject of a lack of new toys, why not also mention that
>it's been four years into Shadowrun, and we've not had any new spells
>recently, or new mage types, or new cyberdecks (aside from the VR2), no
>development in the Matrix, what about AI's what about fully automated
>production lines, and vehicles, why not have Total Recall style taxis
>running around, instead of Red Cab, and the rest... Why not...

>I appreciate where your coming from with your comments, but they can be
>explained with a little thought and imagination. I don't rely on FASA
>for anything beyond what they've produced themselves. Other things come
>about during conversations with my players, or as a result of reading a
>particularly good novel.
>
>Not ranting back at you, just ranting. :)

Heh. I guess I just figure if you're going to all the trouble of creating
this setting, why not go all the way and give it what you'd expect to see.
'Cause I like the idea of Pepsi logos juxtaposed with cyberware, robots,
and the Grid.

losthalo
Message no. 7
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 07:28:00 -0700
Avenger wrote:
/
/ In article <3.0.3.16.19971111230156.35870b68@**********.com>, losthalo
/ <losthalo@********.COM> waffled & burbled about Today's state of the art
/ VS. SR design options
/ >>On November 09, 1997 at 6:14 PM Rune Fostervoll <runefo@***.UIO.NO> wrote:
/ >>not be readily available until many years into the SR future. For more
/ >>background information on SR technology the novel "Shadowplay", by
the late
/ >>Nigel Findley, should clear some misconceptions. Even that might not fully
/ >>explain the advances or lack thereof, but it's a good starting point.
/ >
/ >The problem (and I've argued the topic with a friend over BattleTech more
/ >than once, and eventually saw his side of things) is that technology
/ >doesn't disappear because some of the technical data was lost.
/
/ True enough. Technology doesn't. complex technology can suffer
/ setbacks, but the technicians and labourforce will still retain their
/ knowledge, but when you add into that equation, massive civil unrest,
/ economic collapse, starvation (food rioots) poor housing and all the
/ other factors that go together to make the beginnings of SR. It's not
/ so clear cut.

And then there might be large numbers of people who blame technology
for all there problems so they stop using it and try to return to
simpler times. They raise their children with as little technology as
possible and pfft, you've just set a generation back.

IMO, another problem created by the crash and VITAS was the damage it
did to the education system. It wasn't just the loss of computer
data, but the loss of people and the social structure. The crash of
29 probably played havoc with paychecks and bank statements. And I
would think that government services would've been hit the hardest.
What happens when a large portion of the government can't buy food
anymore? And VITAS comes along just when things are starting to
restabilize and topples a weak and totering structure.

-David
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 8
From: Les Ward <lward@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:57:27 -0500
losthalo wrote:
> The problem (and I've argued the topic with a friend over BattleTech more
> than once, and eventually saw his side of things) is that technology
> doesn't disappear because some of the technical data was lost. People
> don't forget how a gas-vent is supposed to work simply because the computer
> that held the designs crashed.

BattleTech is sort of a different story than the Crash of '29. In BT, tech
got lost mostly because computers _and_ people were destroyed (nukes and
germ weapons were used constantly in the First Succession War). If you
have, say, five research/manufacturing installations that make some
specific do-dad and all of the get disintegrated _with_their_staffs_, I can
see some technology being lost for a long time.

Since people didn't get killed in large numbers during the Crash,
Iosthalo's point is totally accurate for Shadowrun. You can reconcile
FASA's vision of lost technology with losthalo's though:

After the crash, tons of companies were really screwed, running around like
mad to gain some sort of advantage in the chaos. It seems likely to me that
some of these companies grabbed/bought key scientists known to have
knowlegde of some cutting edge topic or another, and had them recreate
their work. The companies then keep some of this work to themselves,
fostering the rumor that a given technology is "lost". This only makes
sence if keeping the invention secret is worth more than selling it, which
is not likely with most inventions. The device allowing tapping of
fiber-optics might fall into this category, though, as it would be
tremendously advantagous for a company to possess and eavsedropping
technology that everyone else thought didn't exist.

Wordman
Message no. 9
From: Czar Eggbert <czregbrt@*********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 14:31:22 -0600
On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, losthalo wrote:
>
> And my 'toys' comment was not so much about things for PCs (actually I'm
> pretty happy with the neat things players can get for their characters,
> weapons and ruthenium polymer suits, et cetera, et cetera). I'm jsut
> wondering why there aren't more things like voice masks...


Accually Voice Masks exist... they are in the gear section of the
main book, along with flat micto transevers, 3cm^3 camra's, and even
smaller voice recorders. Also did you know that in the main book under
cyber-eye camera's it states the 1Mp = 1 second (or minuit I dont have my
book :() of viedo? I was just re-reading the main rule book lastnight and
noticed a lot of things that we bitch about answered in it. I recomend
that everybody just take one night and re-read the BBB, you'll find a lot
of info you never thought was there.

"This has been a public service announcement from Czar Eggbert"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Czar Eggbert
Ruler, Dark Side of the Moon.
homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/5648
mailto:czregbrt@*********.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality!? Is that some new game?"
-MDF
"I'll need morphine, lots of it, and a pistol."
-The English Patient
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 10
From: "Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:46:34 -0500
Czar Eggbert[SMTP:czregbrt@*********.EDU] wrote:
> Also did you know that in the main book under
> cyber-eye camera's it states the 1Mp = 1 second (or minuit I dont have my
> book :() of viedo?

*groan* No comment.

> I was just re-reading the main rule book lastnight and
> noticed a lot of things that we bitch about answered in it. I recomend
> that everybody just take one night and re-read the BBB, you'll find a lot
> of info you never thought was there.

Yeah, there's a lot of stuff that people forget, but when that
happens around here, Gurth usually quotes page and verse and that
just fans the flames of discussion ever higher. :-)

James Ojaste
Message no. 11
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:40:32 +0100
Ojaste,James [NCR] said on 15:46/13 Nov 97...

> > I was just re-reading the main rule book lastnight and
> > noticed a lot of things that we bitch about answered in it. I recomend
> > that everybody just take one night and re-read the BBB, you'll find a lot
> > of info you never thought was there.
>
> Yeah, there's a lot of stuff that people forget, but when that
> happens around here, Gurth usually quotes page and verse and that
> just fans the flames of discussion ever higher. :-)

That's because some people don't believe things even if presented with the
evidence ;)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
So what if we're making a scene now?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 12
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:49:45 -0500
On the subject of cased vs caseless ammo: My characters typically carry =
cased ammo weapons despite the disadvantages for a slew of closely =
related reasons. Namely, cased rounds are more environmentally stable. =
If my main character drops his gun into a puddle, has to trudge through =
a sewer, or has to swim into a target, he'd much prefer to have a gun =
whose ammunition is not going to start to sludge if it gets wet. =
Currently, caseless ammo must be kept perfectly dry, or shellacked, to =
be able to fire reliably. And the shellac ends up about where you'd =
expect it, on the inside of the barrel, necessitating even more rapid a =
cleaning cycle. (This doesn't really factor into SR, as the downtime =
between runs gives ample time to clean weapons, but still...)

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 13
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 01:40:27 +0000
In article <MAstcKAsBla0EwI9@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
<Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>I disagree that all future weapons will use caseless.

Ditto, for all the reasons Pete suggests. Plus a purely engineering
reason: in an automatic or semi-auto weapon, the cartridge case acts as
a disposable heatsink, soaking up a lot of the thermal energy that would
otherwise heat up the weapon's breech.

LMGs and heavier would _have_ to be cased: H&K tried to build a caseless
LMG cousin for the G11 and it died a painful death. For weapons intended
to put down lots of rounds, cased ammo is inherenty and unavoidably
better: a caseless version will always be more limited in rate of fire.

>I have (sorry
>had) a home loading kit. There is no way I'm going to pay large sums of
>money to a manufacturer, just because they demand it, when I can save
>some money and load my own.

Ditto. Plus I can load 200-grain lead semi-wadcutters in an IMI case
using a Federal primer over 5.9 grains of Hercules Red Dot, knowing that
this load makes Major for Practical Pistol while grouping tighter than
factory ammo :)

Caseless can't be custom loaded or tweaked, nor can you pick up your
empties and reload them.

>Wheel guns, are not really condusive to firing caseless rounds, so it is
>unlikely that they will ever be converted to be caseless capable. In
>order to say that all weapons in the future are caseless, you are
>essentially, saying that the worlds best selling weapon type no longer
>exists.

In Shadowrun this seems to be true, which is grossly neglecting a key
point: the .38 Special revolver, usually in a snubnose and often in a
hammerless double-action-only configuration, is a favourite weapon for
personal defence. It fires when you pull the trigger and not otherwise.
Five or six shots, no stoppages, no jams; if one round's dud just pull
the trigger again. No safety catch, no slide lock, no hassle.

Where's this simple, popular weapon in Shadowrun? Automatics take a lot
more learning; I favoured them but then I learned to shoot with semi-
auto rifles. My wife always preferred the shooting club's own Smith and
Wesson 686 firing .38Spl to either my .45 automatics or the club's 9mm
Browning.

>Disagree. Laser sights allow rapid targetting, they do not, under any
>circumstances prevent the rise of the muzzle due to recoil. gas vents
>are there to prevent recoil. The laser, allows you to bring the weapon
>onto target again, quicker, assuming you can see the aiming dot anyway,
>but I fail to see how you can justify saying they act as a gas vent.

I think he was saying "laser sights _and_ gas vents" not "laser sights
_as_ gas vents", Pete :)

Agree in one sense: look at the AK-74, so well compensated the muzzle
drifts _downwards_ in automatic fire. Disagree strongly about lasers,
having tried them: red dot scopes work better, especially at rifle
ranges, and don't tell the target you're aiming at him.

>Plus you have to allow for the
>developing nations and third world countries. can they afford the extra
>cost of caseless, or are they likely to employ older weapons, with
>extreme reliability, like the Russian AK's?

Also, where do many street level automatic weapons come from? Cased ammo
will still be on the streets because it's fired by North Korean AK-97
clones that a fixer brought into Seattle, hidden in a consignment of
Malaysian trideo sets, and those are what most people get offered if
they want to buy an assault rifle.

>Game balance, in my opinion has little or nothing to do with it. I
>agree, casless rounds should not affect the concealability of the
>weapon. OK, you can get more rounds in a mag, but that doesn't change
>the size and shape of the magazine, just it's capacity.

Worsen it in some cases. Compare the 45-round magzine for the G11 (about
two feet long) with the 50-round magazine for the Galil (shorter, if
fatter) or a Beta Industries C-Mag (can't see caseless rounds rolling
over each other through a drum magazine, they'd grind each other away).

>Or gas turbine? That was a successful, albeit expensive vehcile, and
>sounded great when it stuffed itself down a road.

Problem was sickening fuel consumption. Gas turbines are very efficient
at full load, but don't understand the idea of "partial load" very well.
That's why warships tend to have multiple GT engines: you run one, two,
three or four at full power, not all four at idle-to-full-power.

>Toys are always difficult. Look at some of the toys that Shadowrun
>already has, and consider the abuse some of these undergo from munchies
>and power gamers. The worst introduced weapon of all time, the
>Savelette Guardian. how many people use these because they have a high
>rate of fire, kill things with abandon, and look cool? Quite a few.
>How many of those people used the Predator initially, because of the
>cool name, and it's heavy capabilities? Quite a few.

It's a point of pride that none of my characters have used either the
Savalette or the Ruger Thunderbolt. They're just too munchy for me:
almost assault shotguns, with better concealability. The Franchi SPAS-12
could be said to be as bad, but it's a full-size shotgun, it's _meant_
to be nasty. The Savalette is just too lethal for a handgun and the
Thunderbolt is worse.



--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 14
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 01:20:02 +0000
In article <3.0.3.16.19971111230156.35870b68@**********.com>, losthalo
<losthalo@********.COM> writes
>SR shows off laser
>sights and gas-vents as if they're new. Myself, I kinda think a laser
>sight (for non-smart weapons), gas-vent enough to prevent recoil from the
>highest non-FA fire the weapon is capable of, and caseless ammo would be
>standard by this time. And wouldn't destroy the concealability of the
>weapon (I know, I know, game balance...)

Personally, I think Aimpoint/Singlepoint sights (look through a scope,
see a glowing red dot, put dot on target, fire, no laser beam) are the
way to go. Especially given that in 1994 you could get the C-More sight,
which replaced the bulky tube of an Aimpoint with a single lens and a
conformal projector/battery pack. By 2058 the red dot is projected
holographically with no need for any sort of lens. Lift the weapon to
your sightline and see the boresight mark, aim off as necessary for
range and windage, squeeze gently.



>I would also think that
>low-light and thermograph technology would have advanced a tad rather than
>reflecting only what we have now, not to mention perhaps a few advances and
>new ideas in night vision (the ultrasound is the only one in SR).

Millimetre-wave radar, anyone? Good kit. Not visible anywhere in
Shadowrun, despite being handily manportable.

>No one worked hard enough on
>designing an electrically powered car that could replace the petrochem
>engine (or... at least... an alcohol-driven engine?).

I got the impression that gasburners were sort of luxury items: if you
can afford a Westwind you don't care about fuel bills :) Mind you, I
used to play Car Wars and kept some attitudes from there.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 15
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 07:44:22 GMT
On Sat, 15 Nov 1997 01:40:27 +0000, Paul J. Adam wrote:

> In article <MAstcKAsBla0EwI9@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
> <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>
> >Game balance, in my opinion has little or nothing to do with it. I
> >agree, casless rounds should not affect the concealability of the
> >weapon. OK, you can get more rounds in a mag, but that doesn't change
> >the size and shape of the magazine, just it's capacity.

I believe the "lower concealibility" rule is based on the idea of replacing
the standard magazine capacity (designed for use with cased ammo) with a
smaller one of *equal* capacity (designed for caseless). Of course, I
can't see how doing this would be able to shift a Shadowrun Concealibility
rating by a full factor of "one" since the bullet/weapon calibre remains
the same.

> Worsen it in some cases. Compare the 45-round magzine for the G11 (about
> two feet long) with the 50-round magazine for the Galil (shorter, if
> fatter) or a Beta Industries C-Mag (can't see caseless rounds rolling
> over each other through a drum magazine, they'd grind each other away).

Actually, since the magazine(s) on a G-11 lay parallel to the barrel, the
weapon is a lot less prone to snagging on underbrush and the like. And in
addition to the 45 rounds in the "active" magazine, the G-11 can store an
additional *two* magazines on either side of the first without changing the
dimensions of the weapon in the slightest (although its mass will increase,
of course). It also allows the firer to get closer to the ground if he so
wishes, instead of digging the bottom of the Galil's magazine into the
dirt. This all translates into a slightly more "concealable" weapon,
although it shouldn't really be worth a whole "-1" either.

If caseless ammo will be using square blocks of primer it will be difficult
to design a multi-column/staggered magazine like those in so many of
today's automatic pistols. Most magazine or feed mechanisms *rely* on the
individual rounds rolling against each other and into the breach.

What about the helical magazines patented by Calico (or is that what you
are referring to as a C-Mag)? Any experiences? Having 50 9mm rounds or
100 .22 LR rounds on immediate demand would be kinda neat, and reloading
them isn't supposed to be as bad as you would think.



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 16
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 11:50:17 +0100
James Lindsay said on 7:44/15 Nov 97...

> What about the helical magazines patented by Calico (or is that what you
> are referring to as a C-Mag)? Any experiences? Having 50 9mm rounds or
> 100 .22 LR rounds on immediate demand would be kinda neat, and reloading
> them isn't supposed to be as bad as you would think.

C-Mag is an American company that makes a 100-round dual-drum magazine for
5.56x45 mm ammo. The center section (that goes into the weapon) can be
fitted with an adapter for most common assault rifles, though the basic
magazine is intended for use with the M16. I imagine it would be difficult
to use this magazine in a bullpup, BTW.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
So what if we're making a scene now?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 17
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:45:36 +0000
In article <347252cf.30988379@****.direct.ca>, James Lindsay
<jlindsay@******.CA> writes
>On Sat, 15 Nov 1997 01:40:27 +0000, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> Worsen it in some cases. Compare the 45-round magzine for the G11 (about
>> two feet long) with the 50-round magazine for the Galil (shorter, if
>> fatter) or a Beta Industries C-Mag (can't see caseless rounds rolling
>> over each other through a drum magazine, they'd grind each other away).
>
>Actually, since the magazine(s) on a G-11 lay parallel to the barrel, the
>weapon is a lot less prone to snagging on underbrush and the like.

It's also a bugger to change while prone, and my point was more about
hiding a spare magazine in a pocket than the weapon itself. Didn't make
that clear enough, sorry.

>What about the helical magazines patented by Calico (or is that what you
>are referring to as a C-Mag)? Any experiences? Having 50 9mm rounds or
>100 .22 LR rounds on immediate demand would be kinda neat, and reloading
>them isn't supposed to be as bad as you would think.

The Calico 9mm also does a 100-rounder. From what I've heard they're
reliable and effective.

The C-Mag is a double-drum magazine, also considered effective.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 18
From: James Lindsay <jlindsay@******.CA>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 18:04:50 GMT
On Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:45:36 +0000, Paul J. Adam wrote:

> In article <347252cf.30988379@****.direct.ca>, James Lindsay
> <jlindsay@******.CA> writes
> >On Sat, 15 Nov 1997 01:40:27 +0000, Paul J. Adam wrote:
> >> Worsen it in some cases. Compare the 45-round magzine for the G11 (about
> >> two feet long) with the 50-round magazine for the Galil (shorter, if
> >> fatter) or a Beta Industries C-Mag (can't see caseless rounds rolling
> >> over each other through a drum magazine, they'd grind each other away).
> >
> >Actually, since the magazine(s) on a G-11 lay parallel to the barrel, the
> >weapon is a lot less prone to snagging on underbrush and the like.
>
> It's also a bugger to change while prone, and my point was more about
> hiding a spare magazine in a pocket than the weapon itself. Didn't make
> that clear enough, sorry.

Ok, more to the point then: how much ammunition does an average infantryman
carry into battle on his or her person (I'm referring to modern military
loads and not a bunch of Shadowrunners packing around 1,000 rounds)?

If it is around 145-150 rounds of ammunition, that would mean that a
soldier equipped with an M-16 would be carrying four extra magazines in
addition to the one loaded into the weapon. A soldier equipped with a
G-11, OTOH, can "carry" two additional magazines "on the G-11 itself",
in
addition to the one ready magazine already loaded.

At this point, the soldier equipped with a G-11 (and 145 rounds of ammo) is
at a slight advantage when everything is taken into account (eg: ammo is
*always* near by, overall combat load is somewhat lighter, weapon/soldier
share a slightly lower profile, etc.). Where the soldier equipped with an
M-16 begins to gain the advantage is when *more* than 145-150 rounds of
ammo are carried, considering the awkward shape of G-11 magazines.

So I guess it all depends on the actual combat load of the soldier. I
think I'd prefer a more conventional weapon like the M-16 in a real,
"all-out" firefight, while sticking with the G-11 for smaller, more
specific actions (where more than 145 rounds of ammo wound not be
required).

Here's another question: Is the G-11 "officially" adopted for use by the
German army yet? Has it replaced the G-3 (or whatever they were using
last)? I remember over the summer Germany sent armed troops off German
soil as part of a UN-sanctioned incident for the first time since WW2 and I
can't remember what the grunts may have been armed with...



James W. Lindsay Vancouver, British Columbia
"http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero";

Money talks... it usually says "bend over"...
Message no. 19
From: Hernandez <hernandez@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 15:51:57 -0700
From: James Lindsay
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options


>Ok, more to the point then: how much ammunition does an average infantryman
>carry into battle on his or her person (I'm referring to modern military
>loads and not a bunch of Shadowrunners packing around 1,000 rounds)?


IIRC including what is already loaded is:
M-16 150 rounds
M-249 400 rounds
M-60 1,000 rounds
M-9 45 rounds
M-2 2,500 rounds



MoonShadow
hernandez@********.com
ICQ 3220365
May the god, goddess, or deity of your choice bless,
curse, or completely ignore you, as per your wishes
Message no. 20
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 23:51:50 +0000
In article <346de109.2817649@****.direct.ca>, James Lindsay
<jlindsay@******.CA> writes
>On Sat, 15 Nov 1997 14:45:36 +0000, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> It's also a bugger to change while prone, and my point was more about
>> hiding a spare magazine in a pocket than the weapon itself. Didn't make
>> that clear enough, sorry.
>
>Ok, more to the point then: how much ammunition does an average infantryman
>carry into battle on his or her person (I'm referring to modern military
>loads and not a bunch of Shadowrunners packing around 1,000 rounds)?

Put it this way. In 1981, the "standard load" was something like 120 or
140 rounds (three mags in each pouch, one on the weapon.

Then we had the Falklands War.

After that, standard ammo scale became "every round you can lay hands
on. Then some more for luck". 2 Para were reduced to using captured
Argentinian 7.62mm during the battle for Goose Green (luckily both sides
used the same ammunition), and rifle ammo was in critical supply by the
war's end.

>If it is around 145-150 rounds of ammunition, that would mean that a
>soldier equipped with an M-16 would be carrying four extra magazines in
>addition to the one loaded into the weapon. A soldier equipped with a
>G-11, OTOH, can "carry" two additional magazines "on the G-11
itself", in
>addition to the one ready magazine already loaded.

It's nearer 300 to 500 in action. Infantry combat _devours_ ammunition.

>Here's another question: Is the G-11 "officially" adopted for use by the
>German army yet? Has it replaced the G-3 (or whatever they were using
>last)?

The G11 is dead. That's official, from the H&K reps at BARNEE '97. The
German Army is buying and fielding the G36, a very impressive 5.56mm
assault rifle (good design, good ergonomics, I really liked it. Wish I
could have fired it). There are no current or projected customers for
the G11 and it's been relegated to technology demonstrator status.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 21
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Today's state of the art VS. SR design options
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 19:51:45 +0100
James Lindsay said on 18:04/15 Nov 97...

> Ok, more to the point then: how much ammunition does an average infantryman
> carry into battle on his or her person (I'm referring to modern military
> loads and not a bunch of Shadowrunners packing around 1,000 rounds)?

Usually between 4 and 6 magazines in pouches, plus one in the weapon; the
exact number depends on the doctrine of the army in question and whether
it's peace or wartime. In wartime, it's very likely most soldiers will
carry more (GIs in Vietnam are a very good example -- standard issue was
9 magazines of 20 rounds for the M16, but if you look at photos and start
counting magazines, you'll often reach at least 15 and sometimes more than
20).

> If it is around 145-150 rounds of ammunition, that would mean that a
> soldier equipped with an M-16 would be carrying four extra magazines in
> addition to the one loaded into the weapon.

Current US Army ammo pouches (ALICE) hold three 30-round magazines each,
with two pouches per soldier; the new(ish) loadbearing vest has four
pockets for a total of 6 mags as well. That's 210 rounds, including the
magazine in the rifle.

[snip]
> At this point, the soldier equipped with a G-11 (and 145 rounds of ammo) is
> at a slight advantage when everything is taken into account (eg: ammo is
> *always* near by, overall combat load is somewhat lighter, weapon/soldier
> share a slightly lower profile, etc.). Where the soldier equipped with an
> M-16 begins to gain the advantage is when *more* than 145-150 rounds of
> ammo are carried, considering the awkward shape of G-11 magazines.

It seems to me that G11 magazines aren't much more awkward in shape than
many magazines for SMGs, especially older ones like Stens. They should be
relatively easy to carry in slanted pouches on a waist belt, much like
German MP-40 magazines in WWII.

> Here's another question: Is the G-11 "officially" adopted for use by the
> German army yet? Has it replaced the G-3 (or whatever they were using
> last)? I remember over the summer Germany sent armed troops off German
> soil as part of a UN-sanctioned incident for the first time since WW2 and I
> can't remember what the grunts may have been armed with...

The G11 has not been adopted; instead, Heckler & Koch's G36 was introduced
one or two years ago. That's a fairly conventional 5.56x45 mm rifle,
without any fancy additions except perhaps the built-in optical sight (but
that's not a remarkable feature either anymore).

The German troops you mentioned were sent to Albania earlier this year to
evacuate foreigners, and when they were fired upon, they returned fire. I
can't remember the rifles used, but I did see a soldier fumble around with
an MG 3.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
So what if we're making a scene now?
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Today's state of the art VS. SR design options, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

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

Thwap!