Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:51:09 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
>Robert Mayberry wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Adrian1 <email@example.com>
>>> The original reason for choosing wheeled CFE was because that was
>>> tech option. It should theoretically be possible to repair and
>>> equipment using local resources - SLAMs are low tech dumb fire
>>> could be supplied locally too. Like most theories though, fact
>> 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
>> might be ideal, as in my setting, or tricky to maintain and
>> expensive). On earth you're always just a few thousand miles from
>> 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.
>> 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..... ;-)
Gzg-l mailing list