Re: COLONIAL WEAPONS

>>The point remains that you are accepting a weapon system that
>>is at very best a decade or so away from protype use to one
>>that can be produced today(albeit with several limitations).
>
>Following that logic, it should stand to reason that a longbow is a
better 
>combat weapon than an assault rifle (after all, the AR toook
>SO much longer to develop).  Limitations on a weapon due to it's
particular 
>nature are different than limitations based on the
>technological level of it's makers.

No, that has nothing to do with the point I made.  The point I made is
that 
LASERs actually exist in more or less the same form needed to fulfill
sci-fi 
colonial weapon needs.	All that needs to be done (in reality) is for 
(admittedly) significant advances to be made in a few areas (reliability
for 
one).  Whereas weapons/technology that many (and I assume you) on this
list 
accept as no argument feasible/acceptable are way, way, WAY off in the 
stratosphere of sci-fi (hover tanks, gauss weapons and FTL travel as 
examples).

The only possible point I can think you are trying to make is to suggest

that LASERs are as good as they will EVER get, right now (i.e. the long
bow 
was the highest evolution of the bow, which btw is not true).  If this
is 
the case you are making a large (very large IMO) assumption.   :-)

>True, but To Each His Own would imply that anything someone wants to
play 
>should be made plausible for the game.

Possible/acceptable to a gamer does not equate to plausible in reality
or 
even a sci-fi inspired reality (IMHO).

>My point was merely that for any given gaming background, it is
>possible 
>to insert certain limitations to any technology.  The issue
>of optics sensitivity is definitely as plausible for a given
>background as the idea of a laser >robust enough not to be sensitive.

Sure, but it just seems odd to me that you have no problem with
technology 
that is PURE fiction as "plausible" but balk at what would simply be 
generational improvements of technology that already exists.

>Perhaps more robust laser will make the issue less pressing, but as
long as 
>the weapon relies on optics, there will always be a chance
>that they become jarred, they will probably require precision to
>retune if jarred, and they will probably still be more affected by
>jarring than any other contemporary weapon system (Any other system of
>the same time period will be able to benefit from the same tech
>advances, and be based on a less temperamental system).

You make some sweeping assumptions here IMO.  You assume that the 
improvements made to LASERs will involve simply a 'strengthening' of the

existing system/tech instead of a actual "leap" in tech.  You also make
the 
assumption that whatever form this improvement is for LASERs, this tech
will 
be also transferable to other weapon systems.  These are fairly large 
assumptions IMO.

>>Whereas for things such as gauss weapons, they are not
>>even developed enough for anyone to say what their
>>TRUE battlefield limitations might be (for the
>>first generation) of weapons.
>
>Although by that time, we should be well beyond first generation

Sure, but my point was that we KNOW what a few of the long term
limitations 
are or may be for battlefield, man-portable LASERs.  We really have no
clue 
what they will be for gauss weapons.  That being the case one should
assume 
that they will be at LEAST as large as other, similar high-tech systems.

>>And lets not even get into FTL travel
>Ummm..... I don't recall ever stating FTL was more plausible.
>No Straw Men, please.

PLEASE don't start calling everything a "straw man".  This is the first
sign 
a debate has reached it limit and it is time to end it.  As a point of
fact 
this argument is anything but a "straw man".  FTL travel is a GIVEN in
any 
sci-fi game <period>  If you debate it's existence (in one form or
another) 
then you have a LOT of ground to make up in explaining HOW humans (and 
others) reach the stars and interact to begin with.

So, FTL travel is a given in SG, DS2, 40k, etc. etc.  because FTL travel
HAS 
to exist for the game to exist.  Thus, if you accept FTL travel (and you

must) and balk at an improved version of 20th century technology you are

contradicting yourself (IMHO).

Scott

_________________________________________________________________