Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

>Robert Mayberry wrote:
>>  On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Adrian1 <al.ll@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
>>  
>>>  The original reason for choosing wheeled CFE was because that was 
>>>the lowest
>>>  tech option.  It should theoretically be possible to repair and 
>>>resupply the
>>>  equipment using local resources - SLAMs are low tech dumb fire
weapons that
>>>  could be supplied locally too.  Like most theories though, fact 
>>>just doesn't
>>>  fit.
>>>    
>>
>>  That depends on where you are. As John points out, CFE and HMT both
>>  use hydrocarbons that require some significant infrastructure to
>>  support (though fusion is another story-- depending on your setting
it
>>  might be ideal, as in my setting, or tricky to maintain and
>>  expensive). On earth you're always just a few thousand miles from
the
>>  oil wells and refineries. On a newly colonized world, there won't be
>>  oil deposits even if you had the resources to drill and refine.
You'd
>>  need some kind of chemical refinery and power source (probably
>>  nuclear, possibly solar, wind or biological).
>>  
>
>Striclty speaking, the rules state that fuel isn't only oil but also
>alcohol and synthetic.  I don't know what the minimum requirements are
>for a multi-fuel engine which is what I'm assuming a CFE is.

It was intended that CFE would be a catch-all term for an internal 
combustion type engine; what it runs on can depend on your own 
setting - that may be refined hydrocarbons, or it may be fermented 
juice from the snargle-fruit trees of Anthrax IV, as long as it goes 
"bang" enough to drive a piston or turn a rotor.....  ;-)

Jon (GZG)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l