Re: COLONIAL WEAPONS

Scott Clinton Wrote:

>>>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).

And my point was that in any given background, it is possible that
lasers 
will still have a problem with optics jarring that makes them a less 
desireable option for rough use.

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).

This is granted, although assuming anything about me is an iffy
proposition.

>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).

That was not my point at all.  My point was that just because a
technology 
has been around longer does not necessarily make it the BEST technology.

If
>this is
>the case you are making a large (very large IMO) assumption.	:-)

As you can see, that was NOT the case.

>>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).

This is true.  I was merely reacting to what I perceived as a flippant 
dismissal of my concerns.

>>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.

To which technology are you referring?	I never once defended another 
technology, I merely presented a concern about laser technology.  Again,
I 
take issue with you basing arguements on what you ASSUME is my position 
without ever confirming it IS my position.

>>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.

Sweeping and large assumptions seem to be the order of the day.  In 
actuality, what I meant was not that the SAME technological advances can
be 
applied to all techs, but that an equal or comparable amount of effort
to 
make advances in general will be applied to many technologies.

>>>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.

Which is where this seems to be going.	This was never intended to be a 
debate about the relative plausibilities of different technologies, my 
original goal was to present some reasons to consider other technologies

(Including good old fashioned powder rounds) as more reliable in a rough

country setting).

Again, my observation about laser reliablility definitely falls under
the 
YMMV caveat - it can vary from one setting to another, as well as from
one 
era within a setting to another (we are talking about a generic game, so
the 
tech level setting CAN be varied).  If you want lasers to be rough and 
ready, then, as you said, To Each His Own.

2B^2

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: