RE: New firearms technology
From: "Bell, Brian K" <Brian_Bell@d...>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:49:38 -0500
Subject: RE: New firearms technology
How does the anti-personnel mine treaty define an anti-personnel mine?
Does it have to be an explosive device?
Would this device qualify? (sentry gun attached to sensors)
How about old fashioned snares/punji spikes/pits, etc.?
Devices that deploy chemicals/nerve agents/biological attacks?
The device describes seems interesting. As I read it the gun has
multiple shells loaded in the barrel with propellant inbetween. Then
the shells propellant is ignited sequentally. Then the weapon would
need to be fitted with a new barrel before it could fire again. It
mentioned fireing 180 rounds in 0.1 second, but it did not state
what a sustained rate of fire would be. How long does it take to
switch barrels? It it took only 1/2 second to change barrels, you
would need 5 barrels for continous fire. It would seem that the
spent barrels and the full barrels would take up an awful amout
of space compaired to the same number of shells in a magazine.
True, you would put out a lot more shells, but you would run out
of ammo at an accelerated rate as well.
-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
-----
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Mancini [SMTP:peter_mancini@msn.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 12:32 PM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: New firearms technology
>
> 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 17:41:50 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 LAA15486;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:57:50 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB5Hv8911670;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:57:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 5 Dec
2000 09:57:07 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB5Hv6m11649
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:57:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:wgXuia3S9MiaxgCYSY8CIVCe1/4EsStX@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB5Hv4P11644
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:57:04
-0800 (PST)
Received: from tuttle.kansas.net ([199.240.130.11])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB5Hv4f33147
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:57:04 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from jfoster@kansas.net)
Received: from nat-7.cat.com (wildcat.kansas.net [199.240.130.8])
by tuttle.kansas.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eB5Hv3j31188
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:57:03 -0600
Message-Id: <200012051757.eB5Hv3j31188@tuttle.kansas.net>
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
From: jfoster@kansas.net
Subject: Re: New firearms technology
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 17:57:03 +0000
X-Mailer: Endymion MailMan v2.0
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: 39d245de0000073d
>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.
I'm reminded of a quotation:
"I think instead of building newer and more powerful weapon systems,
mankind
should be getting more use out of the weapons it already has." -- Jack
Handey
;)
I do think the civilian version has promise, but I'm not sure I can see
the
rather reactionary gun-owning public attracted to a gun that a) might be
difficult/impossible to reload, b) keeps records of firing. Then again,
the
safety features would make it a prime choice for anyone with kids in the
house.
>From a military point of view, it seems to have some real advantages,
but what
about supply? Isn't it going to be difficult to keep up with ammo
expendiature
at such high rates of fire?
And finally, once the technology is disseminated a bit (especially if
sales to
the civilian market make reloading technology widely available) this
type of
firearm could easily be modified into a very nasty, highly concealable
zip-gun.
So, what kind of impact die would a MetalStorm assault rifle have in
FMA?
From - Wed Dec 06 17:41:50 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 MAA18721;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:11:50 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB5IAc111890;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:10:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 5 Dec
2000 10:10:37 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB5IAav11869
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:10:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:H1NFotROhpubeMEpivvWsFdVl1c3lUaM@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB5IAYP11864
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:10:34
-0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.quixnet.net (psmtp1.array3.laserlink.net
[63.65.123.51] (may be forged))
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB5IAXf36302
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:10:33 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET)
Received: from hqmknt04enu ([63.88.48.82])
by smtp1.quixnet.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA22070
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 18:10:32 GMT
Message-ID: <006901c05ee6$bad90e10$1e0aa8c0@hqmknt04enu>
From: "Chris DeBoe" <LASERLIGHT@QUIXNET.NET>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References:
<9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D1006C5@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
Subject: Re: Unofficial Official Lists?
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 13:11:03 -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: 39d245de0000073e
> The Unofficial GZG Fleet Rosters are "by no means complete".
> They show only examples of fleet organization.
> When I did the PAU fleet lists, I subsumed that there was overlap
> between the Task Forces. I.e. some elements of a Strike Task
> Force would be drawn from Patrol or Escort Task Forces.
>
> Also most of the PAU forces are escort forces for their
> commercial shipping. I started under the assumption that the
> PAU forces broke down about (not counting scouts):
> CT/FF/DD: 40%
> CL/CE: 40%
> CH: 15%
> BC and above: 5%
Well, we know that 5 Rostovs form a major part of the battle line, so we
can
work it out from there.
From - Wed Dec 06 17:41:50 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 MAA21093;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:22:49 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB5ILkj12083;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:21:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 5 Dec
2000 10:21:44 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB5ILhB12062
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:21:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:pH7qw0YRaeOmgZ3pIOgRd6UC0cufz8lC@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB5ILgP12057
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:21:42
-0800 (PST)
Received: from lilac.propagation.net (lilac.propagation.net
[63.249.238.1])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB5ILff38432
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:21:41 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from jhan@warpfish.com)
Received: from warpfish.com (daisy.thestar.com [192.206.151.130])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA20952
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:21:31 -0600
Message-ID: <3A2D327B.C90FF01@warpfish.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 13:22:51 -0500
From: Jerry Han <jhan@warpfish.com>
Organization: Warpfish Consulting
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: New firearms technology
References: <F17s8TAGUjGnAKYoo9t00000218@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: 39d245de0000073f
Peter Mancini wrote:
>
> 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.
If you like your duck reduced to a fine mist. (8-)
JGH
--
*** Jerry Han - jhan@warpfish.com - http://www.warpfish.com/jhan ***
"Life's not long, so I hope when I am finally dead and gone,
won't you gather 'round? When I am lowered into the ground..."
Crash Test Dummies, "At My Funeral" -- TBFTGOGGI
From - Wed Dec 06 17:41:51 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 MAA22025;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:26:35 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB5IOkM12203;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:24:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 5 Dec
2000 10:24:45 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB5IOiP12181
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:24:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:iFHpqAW6rlPXYJP6PxHRbTZemfGYaFmX@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB5IOhP12176
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:24:43
-0800 (PST)
Received: from lilac.propagation.net (lilac.propagation.net
[63.249.238.1])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB5IOgf38971
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:24:42 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from jhan@warpfish.com)
Received: from warpfish.com (daisy.thestar.com [192.206.151.130])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA21292
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:24:39 -0600
Message-ID: <3A2D333E.9C16ACEA@warpfish.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 13:26:06 -0500
From: Jerry Han <jhan@warpfish.com>
Organization: Warpfish Consulting
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: New firearms technology
References:
<9DB05BB477A8D111AF3F00805F5730100D1006C6@exchange01.dscc.dla.mil>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: 39d245de00000740
"Bell, Brian K" wrote:
>
> How does the anti-personnel mine treaty define an anti-personnel mine?
> Does it have to be an explosive device?
> Would this device qualify? (sentry gun attached to sensors)
> How about old fashioned snares/punji spikes/pits, etc.?
> Devices that deploy chemicals/nerve agents/biological attacks?
I'm assuming that this wouldn't be as much of a problem as AP mines.
The main problem with AP mines is that they can sit around for years
after the conflict is over, being a threat to anything/anybody in
the area. That item was the main point being raised by anti-mine
advocates, and (as far as I can recall) the main force behind the
anti-landmine treaty.
Automated defences, or obstacles aren't as bad, since
you can usually see them, and they usually get taken down by one side
or the other after the conflict is over.
JGH
--
*** Jerry Han - jhan@warpfish.com - http://www.warpfish.com/jhan ***
"Life's not long, so I hope when I am finally dead and gone,
won't you gather 'round? When I am lowered into the ground..."
Crash Test Dummies, "At My Funeral" -- TBFTGOGGI
From - Wed Dec 06 17:41:51 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 MAA24378;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:37:58 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB5IZ9R12384;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:35:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 5 Dec
2000 10:35:08 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB5IZ7Y12363
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:35:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vex.cs.colorado.edu (vex.cs.Colorado.EDU
[128.138.241.27])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB5IXiP12343
for <gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:33:44
-0800 (PST)
Received: by vex.cs.colorado.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eB5IXdI11438
for gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:33:39
-0700 (MST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:v1Z3CKQCp9umkT6UGKfwCMlDvT2OJNsm@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB5IWiP12316
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:32:44
-0800 (PST)
Received: from sunlotion.arepa.com (mcmuffin.arepa.com [4.19.240.20])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with SMTP id
eB5IWhf41264
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:32:43 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from lcs@intonet.com)
Received: from arepa.arepa.com by sunlotion.arepa.com
via smtpd (for soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.43.52]) with
SMTP; 5 Dec 2000 18:32:43 UT
Received: from nt-exc1.arepa.com (nt-exc1.arepa.com [4.19.240.205])
by arepa.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA32112
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 13:32:42 -0500
Received: by nt-exc1.arepa.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
id <YHA03PNB>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 13:32:42 -0500
Message-ID: <F021B784A8C9D411A66F0002A52CA9360A50BF@nt-exc1.arepa.com>
From: "Stark, Luke" <lcs@intonet.com>
To: "'gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu'" <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: Question that may be really *old*...
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 13:32:42 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
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: 39d245de00000741
> Is Play-by-Email an option for you? A number of us on the list do
that...[snip]
Sadly, no. I'm a bit more instant gratification than that. ;)
-L
From - Wed Dec 06 17:41:51 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 NAA01317;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 13:18:03 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB5JHQ312826;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:17:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 5 Dec
2000 11:17:24 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB5JHNi12804
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:17:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:z+73ZXJfd0U1AVxzn4scBmnNgwK7Q3SX@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB5JHMP12799
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:17:22
-0800 (PST)
Received: from c008.sfo.cp.net (c008-h005.c008.sfo.cp.net
[209.228.14.194])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with SMTP id
eB5JHLf51480
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:17:21 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from agoodall@canada.com)
Received: (cpmta 20279 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2000 11:17:14 -0800
Date: 5 Dec 2000 11:17:14 -0800
Message-ID: <20001205191714.20278.cpmta@c008.sfo.cp.net>
X-Sent: 5 Dec 2000 19:17:14 GMT
Received: from [192.206.151.130] by mail.canada.com with HTTP;
05 Dec 2000 11:17:14 PST
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
From: agoodall@canada.com
X-Mailer: Web Mail 3.8.1.2
Subject: Re: FT: Question that may be really *old*...
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: 39d245de00000742
On Tue, 05 December 2000, Jonathan white wrote:
> I believe it's one of the things Jon T has always asked to be run by
him
> before anyone started it. He is I believe quite rightly nervous about
> things which will allow people to play FT without having bought at
least
> a set of rules first :).
I think there are a couple of issues.
First, it's the miniatures and not the games that make the money. A
business ca
se would have to be developed to see if a computer game would just
canibalize t
he miniatures market. This wasn't a big deal with DBA Online, as the DBA
rules
were written by someone not involved in miniatures. But I know I have
lost some
interest in painting DBA armies when I can play more quickly and easily
on the
computer.
Second, creating a computer game even for something as simple as FT
takes a lon
g time. Jon isn't a computer person. He'd have to farm it out. Would it
have to
look like current computer games with 3D rendered graphics? Or would it
just b
e a "bare bones" thing? Regardless, it would be a very big project. It
would ne
ed to have excellent graphics to attract the non-FT playing mainstream.
Without
it, it would just appeal to us FT players and not make back the money
it would
take to create it. Oh, and it would canibalize the miniatures sales
(see the f
irst point).
Several people have done Play By E-mail games, me being one of them. I
have a s
et of spreadsheets I used form my game. Even still, it was a fair bit of
manual
effort to make it work. I started building a program to handle the
processing,
and got quite far along with it, but lost the program in a move. I
haven't tri
ed going back and redoing it. The amount of time I spent on it tells me
that it
's not going to be feasible creating a program for e-mail games unless
it's som
eone's labour of love.
Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com
From - Wed Dec 06 17:41:52 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 NAA03396;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 13:27:59 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB5JRLa12977;
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:27:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 5 Dec
2000 11:27:14 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB5JRDX12954
for gzg-l-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:27:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:7izghg/7EtnEmEWo/MLKTbO9pLSMtLQd@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB5JRBP12949
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:27:11
-0800 (PST)
Received: from exsrv.bitheads.com (mail.bitheads.com [64.26.142.194])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB5JRBf53798
for <GZG-L@csua.berkeley.edu>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:27:11 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from tomb@bitheads.com)
Received: by host-253.bitheads.com with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2448.0)
id <X54KGVQH>; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 14:27:05 -0500
Message-ID:
<417DEC289A05D4118408000102362E0A34D01B@host-253.bitheads.com>
From: "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com>
To: "Gzg Digest (E-mail)" <GZG-L@csua.berkeley.edu>
Subject: [OT] [HUMOR] AmmoStorm(TM)
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 14:27:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
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: 39d245de00000743
July 01-2183, Alice Springs, Australia, Terra (API)
Mick Dunn, inventor, former OUDF quartermaster, and self-proclaimed
Wombat
afficionado, today unveiled his latest invention - a totally
revolutionary
form of weapons system conceiveded while Mick was floating in a small
rubber
life raft in the South China sea after a skirmish with ESU forces that
ended
poorly.
Delerious with sunstroke, heat exhaustion, and a Tequila hangover, Mick
came
up with a simplifying concept which seemed immediately applicable to
modern
infantry combat. He has since named this concept "Mass Firepower
Delivery"
and the system that demonstrates this concept is called AmmoStorm(TM).
The concept is simple - the way to kill the enemy dead is not to fire
careful, well aimed shots displaying accuracy, marksmanship and
lethality
(such as used at Mons in WW1) but rather to saturate the enemy with so
many
incoming rounds that not only will cover be of no benefit, but even body
armour will prove useless.
Gen. (Ret) John McDonald (OUDF), spokesman for the massive defence
contractor Colt-Sig-Bofors spoke enthusiastically about the new system
they
co-developed with Mick - "We expect it will replace every other weapon
system known to man. The concept is simple, unbelievably effective, and
has
a brutally high profit margin in consumables for those of us in the M-I
complexes... you can bet we'll be lobbying the NAC and ESU militaries as
well as the UN to adopt this technology wholesale!"
AmmoStorm(TM) works by saturating the target with ammunition. In the
older
model of warfare, this ammunition was "fired" by chemical or electrical
propulsion methods. In the new method, it is simply lofted by hand or
dropped by a vehicle. Where an old KI-72 Advanced AR could deliver
sustained
fire rates around 400-500 rpm, the new AmmoStorm system easily delivers
10,000,000 rounds in one strike. Any target even grazed is instantly
dead.
Suppression (a product of slower sustained fire) isn't even a
consideration.
And if you miss? Well, you just unleash another 10,000,000 round
cannister.
Serious concerns have been raised within the Logistics community about
the
resupply of 10M round cannisters. Weighing 27 kg each, each infantryman
is
expected to be able to deploy with two of these cannisters in addition
to
the usual 60 kg of other kit. This means a standard unit of fire is
likely
to be around 150kg per man. When the Chief of NAC Army Logistics
examined
these figures, he was immediately rushed to hospital in what has been
characterized as "a fit of apoplexy". Despite the lack of a combat
system to
deliver AmmoStorm(TM) attacks, logisticians justly fear that will
require
approximately 10 times as many transport vehicles as current force
levels
support in order to deploy this new weapon system.
An infantry sergeant from the King's Own Memphis Rifles (who wished to
remain anonymous) and who was involved in the development program was
heard
to quip "I can only lug two of these cannisters. And I can only throw
them
about ten feet. Who the hell came up with this idea? What happened to
firing
single shots or short bursts and actually hitting your target? ^$#!!!"
These concerns are brushed aside by Mick (he likes to relate, from his
typical Tequila stupor, how he isn't going to be the poor b@st@rd
carrying
it) and by the Military Industrial Complexes anxious to start cranking
out
billions of billions of rounds. Both Mick and his backers seem to feel
the
increase in their net worth will more than offset any potential harships
for
individual soldiers or the military logistics system. In fact, they even
go
so far as to say that if this system renders war impossible, then
everyone
should buy it.
------------------------------------------
Thomas R. S. Barclay
Voice: (613) 722-3232 ext 349
e-mail: tomb@bitheads.com
Now, now my good man, this is no time for making enemies.
Voltaire (1694-1778), on his death bed in response to a priest asking
that
he renounce Satan.
------------------------------------------