Spence

Pretty much true. It is one of those things you cannot comprehend unless you see it. On board my ship, I live in an 86 man berthing. The racks are stacked three high and you cannot sit up when in one. The head (bathroom) has 7 showers, 6 urinals and 8 toilets. A shower is about two-three minutes of water once a day. The shower heads have valves so you can cut the water off and on without messing with the adjustments, get wet, turn water off, lather wash, turn water on, rinse, you're done. By the by the standard apartment livingroom is large enough to be a 24 man berthing. All of your laundry underway is done as group. All mixed into one big machine and sorted latter. Chiefs and Officers can put their laundry into individual meshbags which are all washed together. After cruise my "whites" are usually grey and all of my clothes have that distinctive metallic "ship smell" and I usually throw everything away and buy new. Back in the eighties one of the southern states, Mississippi I think but am not sure, wannted to lease old troopships to serve as temperary prisons until the new facilities were completed. Some of the ultra far left socialist Congressmen and women went on a "factfinding" trip and determined that the living conditions were too far below standards for the average rapest and murderer to endure. We have standards of decency in this country you know. Well the funny thing is they never saw the actuall troop berthings. What they toured was the actual quarters of the live aboard crew. They were too stupid to realize that they were saying that active duty sailors have lower standards of living than convicted criminals. And the Dems wonder why most military, especially Navy, dislike them If you live near a naval base, see about getting a tour. It may surprise you but they are really easy to get. Most ships like to show off

Love pulp! I saw the trailer at Return of the King. made me dig out my cpoy of Justice Inc and Daredevils.

Also smaller is better. The smaller the crew, the less "people in charge". Which means the fewer officers. Now don't get me wrong, I know so really good "O's" , but since I have had the "pleasure" to serve aboard a carrier as ships company, I have discoverd where all of the political types went. A carrier is generally a battlegroup flagship underway. Because of that we will have at least one admiral aboard, sometimes more than one. We will also have more Commanders than were in the navy at the height of WW2 , all this means they are all coming up with "improvements" so they can stand out and advance. That even impacts the enlisted because the new advancement system has established quotas based on total number of personnel. With a small number of a certain rank, say 10, it is easy to determine who is the best and who is the dirtbag. But when you have to choose who is number one from 400 individuals who all have completely different jobs and work for 19 different bosses it all becomes politics. In general each of the posisions listed above, except for some of the specific ones that cannot be delegated, are actually performed by a group of enlisted personnel with the "O" supervising.

Weapons and such I actually think they were right on with the "low tech" approach. And for this series it makes perfect sense. LordGhee has some really valid points for the real world, but. Quote: "Two, Super computers which allowed the focus to be calcated quickly enough and three the chemcal laser which was powerful enough for the job." The new BSG series is based on a civ that had barely survived being annilated by intellegent machines. Adama was absolutely against any kind of network. In fact the overall sense was that any computer very far above a calculator was not really well thought of. Now the vipers (Mark II?) shot a lot of rounds down range and saturated the area so the enemy (cyclon or missle) would run into it and go boom. Kinda like the current phanlanx system we use now. The Cylons on the other hand like guided stuff, hence the missles. As for other high tech, sheilds and such. All would need extensive networks and computer logic systems to maintain. Hmmm... and it all makes sense to me....

All I can say is "awesome"

For a really great idea for airships that are non-magical and not zepplins find a copy of Lin Carters book "Sky Pirates of Callisto". It was an adventure pulp like ERB's "John Carter of Mars" I first read in the late '70's. Really really GREAT idea for lowtech airships.

For me I try to make the focus fit its type. For instance, in this case the focus is a necklace. I wouldn't allow it to be considered inaccessable unless its effect fits. A necklace that is obvious and flops around has to be Obvious Accessable, if it is obvious, but say fuses to the heroes neck or sinks into him/her when active, then it can be Inaccessable. But there has to be a reason it is considured Inaccessable other than wanting the Focus bonus without the drawbacks.

All I had to go on was the movie critic's and so far they have all hated it (that I've read/seen). Keeping this in mind I went in expecting a REALLY GOOD MOVIE. I was not disappointed. I really enjoyed it. Over the years I have developed an extreme dislike for movie critics that seem to think people go to movies for ethical/moral education. For myself, I go to be entertained. If the movie is scifi, fantasy or adventure/war related and the critic's hate it, it's usually good. Now if they say they like it before the first weeks box office is in (and they can see how well everyone likes it), it will probably be a really crappy show.

I zoomed in on the picture and was reading (sort of) the back cover of FH. I'm not positive, but I believe it says there are mass combat rules/guidelines. Did I read correctly? Spence

I don't know about conversions to hero, but he did some outstanding work with LUGTrek before WotC bought them out and killed the game. Here is a link to a free download of Spacedock and four of the ship supplements. http://www.trek-rpg.net/trek/index2.htm It is a starship construction manual for StarTrek. Even if you don't play in the Trek universe, you'll want it. I'd love to see a similar book (books?) for Terran Empire, at least in layout.

My version was "Flight limited to within 3 feet of a surface". The hero's flight was telekinetic based and he had to be close to "something" in order to levitate himself.

AAARrrrrgggghhhhhh!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: All these titles and only four. FOUR! I haven't read..... :( All I can say is someone better get to writing.

Now that is something I'd like to see.

Most of my favorites are already listed but.... Insurrection Crusade In Death Ground The Shiva Option The first two ( I & C ) are complete stories each describing complete campaigns. IDG and TSO are part one and two of a single campaign/war. The emphasis of the stories is Fleet actions. Fleets with a capital F. These are really good reads, especially if you like fleet level carnage Also John Ringo's series A Hymn Before Battle, Gust Front, When the Devil Dances and Hell's Faire are pretty good. And last but not least all seven of Debra Doyle and James D. MacDonalds Mageworld novels are really good scifi.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kick and shots per minute Yup.....I think I'll go outside shoot myself now. Did I mention I graduated high school in Arkansas........ This has been a good thread... and there were no arguments or politics either...wooohooo!!!

It does. When I find it I'll make available the plans for a deep space salvage tug/transport I made for LUGtrek Using "Spacedock". Twas before the "coming of the evil ones".

Re: Re: Re: Enough Power to Destroy A Planet? Doesn't carry Hero!!??? Only one thing that can be done. You'll have to move!

Re: Re: Re: Kick and shots per minute I have a little .50 cal BP rifle, and you are right that its recoil isn't that bad. But the .58 cal I fired had a more substantial kick, more than I expected based on my .50. I never had the oportunity to fire anything BP .70 or better, but I have been told that it really packs a whollop. I would really like to hear from someone who has actually fired a .70 to .76 cal BP rifle or musket. Right now I am going by hearsay and reading, but nothing can replace first hand experience.

Now I could go for some of that. Once I get all the way unpacked I would be glad to share some of my deck plans. They are done with Campaign Cartegrapher.

Steve, Geoff Speare, Apologies. I didn't realize I never responded when you answered me. Thank you Spence

Lots of detail usually translates to a very large book regardless of medium. Just a thought, but have you considured pitching the basic city and map first and then the secret GM style stuff as a second book. That way when everyone buys the "basic" city it would only be all the public knowledge stuff. The one reason I never really used a "bought" city as a GM no matter how well done, was everyone would buy a copy and read it. That is what happened to MC. Everyone read the GM Vault. So I just use it as a guide for making my own. As soon as I find the box with my copy of Campaign Cartegrapher (add-ons) I'll start mapping.

GURP's Age of Napoleon? I may have to get that one. How is it? How crunchy?

Re: Re: Re: Kick and shots per minute OK I get it. I was confused until you mentioned stands. You're thinking of the 1600's. I'm thinking after 1700. Gustavus Adolphus had lightened (is this a word?) the musket and abolished the stand. Introduced the paper cartridge eliminating the soldiers need to prepare his own. Reduced the line to six ranks and had helped introduce the bayonet as a viable weapon. All around 1630ish (???) I really wish I had my books here. The period I am leaning toward see's the total elimination of the pike from the battlefield. Most nations had adopted three ranks as the optimal depth of a firing line (except the British who had transisitioned to two ranks). Think American Revolution to mid 1800s. Valmy, Waterloo, Quatre Bras, and on our side of the pond, Alamo. Moviewise think The Patriot or Sharps Rifles. For my campaign idea it will be pre-percussion cap, so the advanced weapons will be flintlock. Muskets will be the most numerous, but rifles will exist. My reasoning is this allows a firearm to be effective but limits them to the point the adventurers will need to fall back on blade weapons, swords and such. The Pike and Musket era is also pretty interesting too. I just haven't spent as much time on it.

Re: Kick and shots per minute Yes and no. IIRC while the kick was more substantial, but it was more absorbed by the shooter's shoulder. In a long duration engagement, in addition to fatigue, the resultant bruising could actually be severe enough that it would reduce a troopers combat effectiveness. I have read accounts that speak of soldiers who were physically incapaciatated from bruising or actualy broke their collarbones. One of the standard British musket was a "Standard No. 11 Bore" or .76 caliber. The French of the same period used a .70 caliber. The desease or the doctor. Battle field surgery was brutal. But for my purposes I am going to conveniently ignore the grittier aspects for a more heroic feel

I’ve been working on a set of Blackpowder rules for my Hero game. Back on the old boards there was a good thread “Blackpowder Weapons†started by Usutha in April 2002, that had real good info. My hard drive crashed while I was deployed so I lost most of my “blackpowder†adaptation (remember! Back-ups back-up back-ups!!!). I am really slow on a keyboard so I am just going to paste in some items from my old posts. Of all the periods, in my opinion the best to base a BP rule adaptation is the Napoleonic period. The two references I have found most helpful are Hughes' "Firepower" and Haythornthwaite's "Weapons and equipment of the Napoleonic Wars". While there are others, these two provide a good store of information and generally agree with eveything else. Also, please excuse my writing style. I tend to state the obvious. It is not intended to disparage anyone. It is more so anyone reading this can better understand what I “mean†as opposed to what I write. When looking at BP weapons, I chose to break-up the different “characteristicsâ€. First, smoothbore or rifled. Second, type of firing mechanism. Third, is whether the weapon is being used by civilian hunters or a military. Fourth, training/experience of the user. 1) Smoothbore or rifled. Smoothbore’s are generally referred to as muskets, rifled as rifles (doh!). Muskets tend to be very inaccurate. The round will “tumble†down the barrel when fired, and general fly in “that general directionâ€. The only thing you can do is use a patch, which will increase range/power of the shot by reducing blow by and maybe add a fraction of accuracy. Unlike a musket, a rifles’ accuracy depends on the tightness of the bullet/ball in the barrel. While a musket ball (as used in the Napoleonic period) will simply roll down the barrel unless "patched", a rifle ball or "bullet" won't. It fits tightly and has to be forced in, with the use of a starter tool or even a small mallet to start. And then it must be rammed all the way down to seat the round and ensure the rifle grooves cut into the bullet. It is this tight fit that ensures that a good spin is imparted to the round when fired as well as reducing/eliminating blow by. 2) Type of firing mechanism. There were several different designs, but in general you had three basic “typesâ€. In the first, after loading, you would pour some powder into the touch hole and then use a “match†to light it off. Think “Matchlockâ€. Very inefficient and not generally used once the “flintlock†was developed so I will not dwell on them. The next was the flintlock. For this post I am going to use the term flintlock for any of the mechanisms that utilize a flint, a striker and a pan, wheelock, flintlock, snaphaunce, etc. Powder is placed into a pan which feeds the touch hole. A cover is snapped down to hold/protect the powder. A piece of shaped flint is held, usually by a “hammerâ€, which is powered by a “springâ€. When the trigger releases the hammer it will strike the flint against the pan cover, knocking it away and at the same time igniting the powder with sparks. These sparks fire the weapon. While this was years ahead of the previous methods, there were still many things that could go wrong. In the heat of battle it is easy for the flint to be knocked out of alignment or cracked, the powder to be knocked out or the touch hole fouled, and so on. The next development was the percussion cap. The entire pan/cover mechanism is replaced with a “nipple†which was a small tube screwed into the touch hole. A “cap†was then fitted on the nipple. When a hammer or pin struck the cap would explode a mini charge directly down the touch hole, firing the weapon. While it still has its own share of disadvantages, the percussion cap is light-years ahead and much more moisture resistant. 3) Whether the weapon is being used by civilian hunters or a military. Hunters rely on accuracy, especially with a muzzle loader. You will only get one shot. Knowing this, you would use a rifle if at all possible and if not you would very carefully load your musket with patch and wad. The weight and shape of the round as well as the exact measure of powder would all be carefully determined for each shot. In other words, loading was a careful and deliberate activity to achieve the best accuracy possible. For a military, it was an entirely different proposition. Most armies developed their tactics based on the musket and even with the appearance of the rifle, they changed little. The physical characteristics between rifle and musket as well as the difference in the training requirements fairly well decided that the musket would remain the primary infantry weapon until well into the early industrial age. Insanely, tactics held on even after the rifle became predominant, as demonstrated by the horrendous losses in the American Civil War. But that is a topic for another time. Let’s talk about the musket. Unlike rifles, accuracy wasn't even a concern for troops firing muskets. Understanding the inherent inaccuracy of a musket, the thought trying to achieve any level of accuracy was abandoned. Rate of fire was everything. Even the definition of terms are different. An "aimed" shot simply meant the firing trooper could see the enemy troops and point in the general direction. In fact you didn't aim at a specific "man" you aimed at the formation and hoped it hit something. Picard in his "La Campagne de 1800 en Allemahne" states that a test against a target measuring 1.75 meters by 3.00 meters under battle conditions gave the following results: Range.... Percentage of shots hitting 75meters(82 yards)....60% 150m(164y)........ ...40% 225m(246y)......... ..25% 300m(328y)......... ..20% Muller in his "Elements of the Science of War, 1811" gives results against a target representing "a line of cavalry" by both "well trained men" and "ordinary soldiers": Range.......Percentage of hits obtained ............Well trained.....Ordinary 100 yards...53%..............40% 200 y.......30%..............18% 300 y.......23%..............15% Since rate of fire was the primary concern, several steps would be modified by "veterans" to increase their fire. A couple are skipping the priming step (non-percussion cap) and ramming the main charge in hard enough to force powder into the pan or discarding the paper altogether and just dropping in the ball. Also rate of fire was aided by the ammunition used. An example is the British using a "standard No. 11 bore" with a ball of "No. 14 bore" giving a 1/20th inch difference or gap between the sides of the barrel and the ball. This could allow the trooper to skip the ramrod altogether. Firing independently an experienced soldier could fire five shots a minute or while when in ranks firing "volleys" this would be reduced to 2 or 3. As the weapons become fouled with burnt powder these rates will decrease. I have read accounts where elite troops would urinate into the barrel to clear powder build up and maintain fire. A repeating theme through-out all of my reading is the agreement that no one was ever killed in a period battle (in formations and such) by the man who "aimed" at him. In other words a soldier in ranks who aimed specifically at the eighth guy from the left in the advancing enemy line hand a snowballs chance in hell of actually hitting that guy. Now he had a good chance (at least 60% at 75 meters depending on your reference) of hitting “someone†in the enemy line. Another thing is "misfires" I don’t have all my references and the only one I have on hand states 1 misfire in 6.5 shots, with a increasing misfire rates if the weather was damp, rainy and so on. So in a nutshell we have a soldier able to load and fire 1 to 6 shots a minute (unless the 1 in 6.5 shot misfires) at a general target somewhere "over there" getting somewhere around 3 to 6 hits per 10 rounds actually fired. Not a really good ratio considering this assumes the firing trooper is standing in place and NOT MOVING. Now to rifles. Unlike a musket, a rifles’ accuracy depends on the tightness of the bullet/ball in the barrel. While a musket ball (as used in the Napoleonic period) will simply roll down the barrel unless "patched", a rifle ball or "bullet" won't. It fits tightly and has to be forced in, with the use of a starter tool or even a small mallet to start. And then it must be rammed all the way down to seat the round and ensure the rifle grooves cut into the bullet. It is this tight fit that ensures that a good spin is imparted to the round when fired. It is the very mechanism which imparts the rifles range and accuracy which cut its rate of fire to the 2 to 3 rounds a minute by an experienced veteran. Which would be quickly reduced to 2 or even 1 round a minute as the barrel fouled. Of course a rifles accuracy would mean a much higher kill rate at range than a musket could ever hope to achieve at the same range. However a company of musket bearing soldiers would cut a company of rifles to shreds if they faced off in formation at 100 yards or less. At an optimistic 200 rds a minute for the rifles even if 100% hit, the 60% of 600 rds fired by the musket unit would still yield 360 hits. Of course this kind of face off probably never happened (at least I haven’t found a specific reference to a face off at less than 100 yds by a pure rifle unit vs a musket unit) as rifles were usually employed by skirmishers who tended to avoid the stand-up fight. 4) Training/experience of the user. This was a critical aspect. Training varied wildly. The majority of training involved dry runs. The soldier would execute the drill (formation marching) and perform the firing drill without powder. The other involved firing “blanks†(powder but no shot) and live rounds. For regulars (center companies) and levy none of their practice was versus a “markâ€. Usually firing at a mark (target practice) was reserved for skirmishers, some light units and rarely Grenadier’s (elite). In the period most commanders were paid by the “crown†and then in turn paid/equipped their troops. Any “saved†money was theirs to keep. The result was that on average 2 live rounds and 6 blanks a year was considered a lot for training regulars. Skirmishers might double that and some “rifle†companies were given up to 20 live rounds and 50 blanks a year. I have a reference that speaks of on army being “trained†on 1 live round and 5 blanks. Now all of my figures are a compilation of multiple sources. I have “split the difference†with many of them. The British gained a real edge when the government of the time changed the process to providing their troops with powder, rounds and equipment directly from the Crown rather than cash, bypassing the commander. This meant that British soldier, at the worst, doubled his practice ammunition. This allowed an increase in the use of targets in training across all troop types. Which in turn enabled British troops to reach their rightly feared accuracy and rates of fire. I haven't rewritten my Blackpowder rules for FRED yet, but a 6 phase reload essentially means a rate of one round per 30 (36 but who's splitting hairs) seconds or 2 rounds per minute for a speed 2 character (actually 1 minute plus one turn (or about 72 seconds). In my version of BP weapons, smoothbore and rifled weapons require different familiarities. My list is familiarity with: smoothbores, rifles, matchlocks, wheelock and flintlocks. The familiarity with "locks" covers the maintenance and use of the firing mechanism. Smoothbore/Rifle covers proper loading and aiming of the used version. Having just the basic familiarity with a weapons type allows a load speed of 5 phases (one shot per minute) for smoothbores and a load speed of 10 phases (one shot per 2 minutes) for a rifle. I was using a "Rapid Fire" skill which could be bought to reduce load time allowing a "veteran" to be able to reach the 6 round a minute historical rate of fire, but FRED has a maneuver by that name so I have to do a little redesign. All in all my rules tended to force the PC's to adopt "a fire once and drop it" approach to fire arms. A musket was powerful enough to drop pretty much anyone they came up against if it hit, but too slow and inaccurate to be relied on as a sole weapon. Anyway, tell me what you think. Any input/constructive criticism would be most welcome