Re: [semi OT] Women wargamers

[oops! sent this to los by mistake. here it is for all 
the rest of the list. if los has a stunningly 
well-prepared comeback, now you know why :-). sorry 
los.]

 ---- you wrote: 
> [ok, manual carriage returns. oh, the things i do for
> you listizens ...]
> 
>  ---- los wrote: 
> > tom.anderson@altavista.net wrote:
> > > > And also
> > > > that the MI _did_ require a high standard of physical fitness
> > > true, but i suspect that this was more for plot reasons than
technology.
> > How do you figure? Guys in power armor still have to walk and run
everywhere.
> 
> the trouble we have here is that we all thing of 
> something different when we think of power armour. for 
> me, power armour is some sort of structural mesoskeleton 
> wrapped around the wearer, then a layer of actuators - 
> hydraulic, electromolecular, something space-age and 
> with a high produced force per unit mass, then some 
> armour. the actuators are controlled by a computer, 
> which is in turn controlled by neural jacks. the user's 
> muscles don't have to do anything except climb in and 
> out of the suit and move his eyeballs.
> 
> > Power Armor doesn't make it any easier to run five miles. It just
makes it easier to run five miles carrying a one ton armored suit.
> 
> if the user want to run in a line at 60 mph for five 
> hours, she just thinks 'control-meta-k', and the 
> computer runs a macro which does the running. the user 
> goes to sleep for the duration. the computer will deal 
> with varying terrain (within limits) and wake up the 
> user if something untoward happens.
> 
> > If you think you're going to pull some slug off the street and watch
him do miracles in PA, that's just not gonna happen in anyone's
universe,
> 
> did i say that? of course pa needs training, it is an 
> advanced precision instrument. i might expect him to be 
> able to work on a building site with a few days' 
> training, however.
> 
> > except maybe GW. (maybe not even theirs) The use of power armor, at
least as described in any SF I've ever read, still required a VERY high
degree of
> > fitness and is usually a "specialist" trade.
> 
> once, the use of firearms on the battlefield was a 
> specialist trade. this is the crux of it: your model of 
> power armour is appropriate to, say, 2100 to 2200, mine 
> from 2200 to 2300 (these dates are somewhat random, 
> ymmv). i suppose this is not really a resolvable issue.
> 
> > > >  I do know that they dismounted some
> > > > normally mech units
> > > now that's a bloody good point;
> > Again, if you are looking at managing your military resources, and
PA is not what your whole army is made out of, OR, you don't feel you
have the extra logistical capabilities required to keep PA troops in the
field, then  I think that is a very real startegic decision.
> > 
> 
> i agree entirely. we can envisage times when power
>  armour is not appropriate because it is too bulky and
> support-intensive, or for other reasons: in dense jungle
> where you would like to go unnoticed, for instance. it
> is hard to conceal a tonne of armour barging through the
> lianas.
> 
> Tom
> 
> ps right, in my browser, what los wrote appears as one 
> (word-wrapped) line. how does it look to you, mr 
> atkinson? of course, i am prone to excessively long 
> paragraphs.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------
Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com