Re: Question that may be really *old*...

"Stark, Luke" wrote:
> 
> Bridge simulator...interesting idea...almost cerainly not a first rev
thing.
> *wink*
> 
> > Before we go too far there is the matter of licensing.
> 
> That is something I'm treading carefully on. It's only been an hour or
two
> since I started this thread and three people have sent me email about
> licensing. I do not want to screw anything up for any of us. Read my
other
> posts for more info. I wouldn't enjoy playing this game alone...

Is Play-by-Email an option for you? A number of us on the list do that
on occassion (esp since time/distance between our respective selves is
really a tad vast to simply drive over to visit in an evening ;-).

Mk
From - Wed Dec 06 17:41:48 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
	by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA09859;
	Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:33:01 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB5HWNl11089;
	Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:32:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 5 Dec
2000 09:32:22 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB5HWLe11068
	for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:32:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:MtzXwP+Io42E2nc3EtiC6MZIuDrmGtCl@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB5HWKP11063
	for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:32:20
-0800 (PST)
Received: from hotmail.com (f17.pav0.hotmail.com [64.4.33.88])
	by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB5HWKf28018
	for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:32:20 -0800
(PST)
	(envelope-from peter_mancini@msn.com)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft
SMTPSVC;
	 Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:32:11 -0800
Received: from 206.154.117.139 by pv0fd.pav0.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
Tue, 05
 Dec 2000 17:32:11 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [206.154.117.139]
From: "Peter Mancini" <peter_mancini@msn.com>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: New firearms technology
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 12:32:11 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F17s8TAGUjGnAKYoo9t00000218@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2000 17:32:11.0749 (UTC)
FILETIME=[4CEAE950:01C05EE1]
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:   
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de00000739

This is old news.  I've seen a prototype in action.  It uses a matrix to

launch the rounds.  Electric action.  Kinda neat and probably useful for

clearning minefields of mines.	Think of it as a really wierd claymore
mine. 
  The one I saw was probably operating at around 10,000 rounds a minute 
which is better than Phalanx.

I think it needs a lot of work before it will be useful in a military
sense. 
  Right now it is great for duck hunting.

--Peter

>From: "Jay Arnold" <jdarnold@siu.edu>
bang
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>An Australian inventor has developed technology that can allow a 
>machine-gun
>to fire at a rate equivalent to a million rounds a minute. Think about
>security systems, robot assassin drones, point defense against incoming
>missiles . . . Here's the Scientific American story
>  http://www.sciam.com/1999/0499issue/0499techbus2.html ).
>
>

________________________________________________________________________
_______
______
Get more from the Web.	FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
From - Wed Dec 06 17:41:48 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
	by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA13188;
	Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:47:52 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB5Hk8s11334;
	Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:46:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 5 Dec
2000 09:46:07 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB5Hk6511313
	for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:46:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:isW4MBwFlc98IhXw0+MAW2ufuwNRTu41@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
	by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB5Hk5P11308
	for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:46:05
-0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp6.quixnet.net (psmtp6.array3.laserlink.net
[63.65.123.56] (may be forged))
	by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB5Hk4f30801
	for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:46:04 -0800
(PST)
	(envelope-from LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET)
Received: from hqmknt04enu ([63.88.48.82])
	by smtp6.quixnet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA06333
	for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:46:03 -0500
(EST)
Message-ID: <005101c05ee3$4f102860$1e0aa8c0@hqmknt04enu>
From: "Chris DeBoe" <LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References:
<417DEC289A05D4118408000102362E0A34D001@host-253.bitheads.com>
Subject: Re: fleet sizes
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:46:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:   
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de0000073a

> Have to disagree with Chris' assessment of the PAU. Having seen some
> projections of how their economy might go, I think it might be far
more
> comparable to the NAC than you think.... not a match, to be sure, but
far
> better than one might suspect watching Sally Struthers in Etheopia or
> Somalia. If they get good water, abundant energy resources (which will
both
> lead to more food) and a bit of political stability for even a short
while,

Not a good record on that, eh?	And there's an amazing amount of HIV. 
My
parents took a short-term medical missions trip to an African country
about
10 years ago and about 35% of patients had it.	I understand the
percentage
has increased since.

> their economy will probably boom quite hugely so flat curve growth
> projections are out the window. Now, is 66 percent of NAC size too
big?
> Quite possibly. I'd guess more like 25%.

The other factor is that, if they're pouring money into economic
development, they may not need/want/have as much for military.	IIRC
Nigeria, a fairly wealthy country by African standards, has a few
vessels in
the FF range plus some patrol boats and maybe a destroyer.  Most of them
are
beyond economic repair due to lack of maintenance & trained crew.

If you're using Crew Quality rules and the Major Powers are "standard",
I'd
suggest downgrading PAU (and IF).

> I think the "militancy" of the ESU will help make up for its shortages
> economically.  They probably accept that to compete with the NAC means
a
tad
> lower standard of living and so they spend more of GNP.

Right.	But that hurts your GDP in the long run--I've read that every
1%GDP
spent on the military reduces growth by 1/2%.

All this having been said, I'd rather increase the size of the Major
Powers'
fleets than decrease the PAU (et al).  If you have only a few ships, you
can't really fight a battle--you can't risk losing anything.  If you
have 40
battleships, losing one is unfortunate rather than catastrophic.