Breaching 2183

Adrian discoursed:

->Ok, a few thoughts on the discussion - breaching and future 
->construction...
->
->Construction:
->
->I think this discussion is *seriously* underestimating the 
->likelihood of
->200 years of technological development producing methods of building
->construction that are a) a whole lot stronger and safer than 
->the ones we
->use, and b) really inexpensive and simple to use, in their 
->own context.

Yep. And the construction of a lot of things will still be the
cheapest-ass
way people could build it. Why don't all houses feature earthquake
proofing?
even in danger zones? answer: Because they could be built otherwise and
live
with the risk. I could, cheaply, build a really good house now in
Ontario.
Chances are most builders aren't using all the new tricks because they
don't
have to. And if you've ever owned a car, you know new tech makes them
cheaper and lighter and per pound stronger... but they've _REDUCED_
collision ratings of bumpers to 2.5mph! The fact is, high-tech materials
let
you get away with even thinner construction and attain the same
strength! 

The point is that people will often make the cheapest thing (and
flimsiest,
relative to what could be made) thing that will do the job. Not
everywhere,
but in many places. Construction is the art of building the cheapest
object
that will meet the spec, and in most cases (housewise) that means keep
the
rain off, keep the wolves out, and keep some of the heat in...

->My point in all this is that we're debating how breaching 
->should work in FMA by making reference directly to modern-day
construction

->and breaching methods.  That makes sense to a degree...  But while it
is
perfectly
->reasonable to say that 200 years from now, construction may go to the
->lowest bidder and use low-cost construction methods - there 
->is NO reason to think that the "low-cost, simple" construction methods
THEN would bare
->*any* relation to what we use now.  Or maybe they do.  Same with the
->breaching charges.  

There is one reason: The nature of man and the economic process. 

I agree it is a paper-scissors-rock, where particulars aren't
predictable.
However, the basic fact is a house only NEEDS to be so strong, and that
is
how strong it will be, regardless of if it is built of old fashioned
clay
brick or modern sheet plastic. AND on colonies, much of this new-tech
may
not be available. So I don't see _any_ reason to suppose that breaching
most
facilities will be  even _as_hard_ as it is today...

->The real issue is that we should just decide on the game 
->effect we want, and then make up some PSB to cover it.

I mostly agree here. 

->Ok, now write PSB to fit...
->
->
->I really don't think it should get any more complicated than 
->that, or else we'll end up with a page of rules covering different
material types,
->different breaching charge types, rules for danger distances 
->and effects on the firers' side of the wall, rules for danger
distances
and 
->effects on the targets' side of the wall, etc etc etc.

1) Assumption: That what you describe would be a bad thing. For core
rules,
undoubtedly. Your rules work okay for that. For expansion, detail isn't
necessarily a bad thing. 

2) If I try to breach the new materials with an old explosive, I may
have to
use so much as to make it very difficult OR risky to those in the room
using
it OR I may injure those inside. So, your rules cover "new tech vs. new
tech". There is also "old breaching tech vs. new construction tech" and
vice
versa.

3) Your rules make breaching in 2183 significantly less risky than it is
today I suspect. Perhaps that is what we want, perhaps not. :) 

My 0.02.