Robot_Nixon

Re: Hypothetically and unofficially, what would you like to see in a Mecha Hero book? Enough so, that there is a new F2P computer game based on it. Although, so far it has much less than the beta players expected.

Re: Bibliography

Re: Bibliography The one where you finally join us in the 21st century.

Re: Bibliography looks like this might make it to print...

Re: History of Space Opera, aka Finally an io9 article that doesn't suck. Reynolds' series really has recaptured the feel of space opera for me. So much so, I've gotten out of the series and started reading some of his books that aren't a part of that universe. No thanks, you provided quite enough of an example for my tastes.

Re: History of Space Opera, aka Finally an io9 article that doesn't suck. They?

Re: Ultra-Tech Punishments? If you subscribe to the concept of the technological singularity, man-machine interface, and personality recording and transcribing. And you don't get hung up on the star trek transporter sophism that it doesn't actually transport you, it only kills you by disintegration and recreates an exact copy of you at the destination, then; You could record and store the personality of the offender in a virtual prison cell where time passes in real time, he must attend virtual rehabilitation courses, and if underprivileged, is allowed to attend some form of training to allow a productive reintegration into society. Meanwhile, to pay for the data storage, power, and rehabilitation and vocational courses, your body would be provided as a rental to others who have died, had theirs stolen, or just want to vacation as someone else. Of course the renter has to pay for repairs or buy insurance that will do the same, but the implications create a strong deterrence to crime. Not only do you have to put up with the general aging of your body while incarcerated, but you may have new injuries that will be impairing to some greater or lesser degree depending on the medical technology available. More importantly, you'll have to deal with the social impact of the rentals, insofar as any social contracts made by your renters, like romantic involvements, business relationships, and all the other drama that comes with being alive and interacting with people. Since these contracts were made through some form of duplicity either explicit or implicit because of the false nature of the body rental, none of them will likely be very rewarding for the person that eventually has to reclaim the recognizable body and its new allotment of social baggage. Still within the realms of sadism, but not terribly so. Of course, you would have to come up with a surrogate if the convicts rental body is permanently destroyed that isn't rewarding, such as a basic robot lacking features, and even human levels of agility and strength, or a generic clone made without appealing features and only rudimentary physical abilities. It sounds terrible but if the released personality works hard enough they can upgrade to a more custom clone or robot/android, or with stored genetic code, even regrow their old body.

Re: Where does it show the price list for Hero system equipment guide.

Re: Where does it show the price list for Hero system equipment guide. His other post where he gets more of the same Granted he was somewhat unwarranted in that post but it's worth asking what he means before we react negatively. A lot of the new people we see looking to get into Hero System aren't going to be perfect, they might not be well spoken, or gaming veterans, or elderly and curmudgeonly like the rest of us, but I'm willing to bet they or their guardians have cash and they want to use it on Hero books. We might want to watch our snarky replies when the post count is below 10. Sorry if I have overstepped my bounds here or caused any bad blood, but recently I have seen posts about what can we do to make Hero more accessible, and I think it's foundational that we start right here on the forums by being a bit more welcoming.

Re: Where does it show the price list for Hero system equipment guide. Is it just me, or does Sevrick represent the 'new blood' Hero System needs and we probably shouldn't be making fun of his youthfully improper grammar and spelling or his previous gaming choices until we're, say... back to profitability?

Re: So how did you guys learn the system? Well, I learned with the first edition, and the core combat rules have remained very simple. But for a truly uninitiated player all the possibilities of full blown Champions game can be a bit daunting. So, I teach them using campaigns with minimal aspects of hero system included, such as; wild west, military, or spy genres. None of these include powers, magic, or cybernetics, or for that matter not much beyond the basic parts of character creation, skills, and combat. So they can learn the core systems without all the exceptions and options. Once the players get a good feel for that I will run a space or cybernetic campaign that allows me to introduce a very limited subset of the powers, with very strict creation rules mainly through the use of technological equipment and cybernetics which are typically fixed in what powers they use and how much power they have. This gives them familiarity with the powers system but doesn't ask them to make or modify any themselves or worry about frameworks or other 'advanced' power topics. Next up might be a low magic fantasy or horror/cthulhu campaign where the players get more familiar with powers as spells that they can start to modify using the power rules to make higher powered/altered versions of their starting spells. Finally we break out the high magic fantasy or Champions campaign and they can make everything from scratch. I've done this a few times, and the players always seem to have a better grasp of the rules than the ones that get thrown into a full Champions of Fantasy Hero game. They also seem to retain the information longer. Obviously YMMV, and if you are working with a group that is catching on quickly (and not just saying so) you can skip a campaign or step (though why would you? they are all great fun) and if the group is struggling to catch on, have the campaign focus on the area they are having trouble with. More combat, have them roll up a sidekick/contact with your supervision, or start making a few spells you can review and add to your fantasy campaign. Just remember for all the pages in the books and all the flexibility of the rules the core combat is deceptively simple.

Re: Making Hero 6E More Dangerous (Skyrealms of Jorune Conversion) ? I posted a way to have less chance of a character in a dying state as opposed to completely dead. My suggestion of 0% is still well below your suggested method.

Re: Making Hero 6E More Dangerous (Skyrealms of Jorune Conversion) ? Re-read the first line of my post if you really want an answer.

Re: Making Hero 6E More Dangerous (Skyrealms of Jorune Conversion) ? Do you want them dead-dead or dying a lot? If you want them to go from EEG/ECG active to flatline in a single shot, house rule the dying rules. Instead of body under 0 before death, make it death at zero or half or quarter body below zero. As far as the above suggestions, all are good but the easiest is the high active power total vs. the low defense option. (i.e. 50-60 KA AP vs. >8 rPD/rED) be warned though, you're going to need a full pad of backup characters.

Re: Why We Should Go Into Space No problem, no feathers were ruffled at you, it was directed at the general idea that we westerners think the chinese are inferior. I know what you did was just try to lighten the thread, and in response I went from addressing you directly in the first paragraph and then addressing the national feeling of arrogance in the next two. I should have delineated those two points a little more distinctly.

Re: Why We Should Go Into Space

Re: Why We Should Go Into Space We won't be competing with the Chinese on a new space race with this deficit, unless you mean for a seat on one of their rockets. None of the probes have been on the financial scale of the space race, and if you had read more closely I specifically wrote, 'on that scale'. Yes, I know we will go forward with spending on space exploration in dribs and drabs to be discussed and cancelled from Administration to Administration. That isn't what I was posting about, however. I was posting about the commitment and spending required to set up a water cracking plant on the moon or just a manned mission to mars. That is just wishful thinking right now. As far as another country going to the moon, I am sure it will happen. China has the money and the captive populace to be able to fund it and ignore popular opinion. We won't even have a design for a new heavy lifter until 2015 (if all discussions go perfectly and the design isn't questioned at all) and the Chang'e-3 should be lifting off in 2013 or 14. That's a decade worth of difference from plans to blast off.

Re: Why We Should Go Into Space The United States initiated a space surge twice and both for the same reason; fear of the soviets. The Soviet Union went into space for one reason; Fear of the United States. The real space program in the 21st century is going into space for one reason; Fear of the west (can you guess who I mean?) Man has explored space for one reason and one reason only; Military gain. The US thinks it is secure against all other major powers. It will not go into space for exploration, knowledge or that big fat cash ball asteroid. It will only do it again on the previous scale out of fear.

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC? I provided my facts, and was having a friendly 'good faith' discussion with you. I made my replies and read your posts. Unfortunately, your links didn't match what you were saying and were only put there to help you continue your argument. But, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and continued the discussion hoping that was just a mistake. Then you followed up with a bigger post with more links and while you seemed to take the time to get them to match your words this time they were old and from poor sources. That's when I realized you were just trolling my friendly 'good faith' discussion. So I dropped it, and that's when you proved you were a troll. "You stop because you have no further point" Troll translation: 'You quit, I win'. If you were having a friendly 'good faith' discussion you would have been more interested in why the tone changed, but since you were trolling you already knew why it changed, and were just happy with the 'troll-win'. if I "resort to insults as soon as they have nothing useful to add", what does that say about someone trying to insult long after the discussion is dropped?

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC? Yea, just got tired of you putting in false links and trying to bury them under tons of blah blah blah. Sorry but sad is being a liar, and emotional... well I'll let you bold type your next tearful reply.

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC? Sorry Mark, but you are losing your credibility fast. Your previous post contained links that were in direct opposition to what you said they contained, and this post contains 3 to 4 year old links and the last link you provided is from some fly-by-night site that hasn't even filled out their 'about' page, and call some guy that runs a weekend-warrior surplus store a 'military consultant'. I'll save you from spending your workday researching bad links and typing out multi-quote box replies that are as long as the one above, and even a possible health issue after your emotional last post and let this whole 'I got the last post' iArgument drop. Cheers

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC? Your sources don't support your suppositions. The first link is in direct opposition, even the title states, "US Army Moves Ahead with V-Hull Strykers" and the latest update (Dec/10) is that $92M has been allotted to upgrade the program. The very first paragraph states there are currently 7 medium armored brigades, and an 8th is on it's way. They are expanding their use of Strykers, not mothballing them as you contend. The second link states they are going forward with the GCV and talks about it merits but does not state it is replacing the Stryker. In fact, the second link is dated (Feb/10) while your third link titled, "U.S. Army's GCV Delay: Lesson Unlearned?" which is dated (Aug/10) states the GCV has been put on hold due to 'overreaching', and the pentagon has asked for too much from the FCS program and want to re-evaluate the GCV to see if the same is happening to this 50-70 ton super APC. Only the contractors are "surprised" at the delay, and that's only because building this monster would be a gold mine for them. As far as the 'swipe' in the third link, that the Stryker offers a lower level of protection simply states the obvious what is expected from an airliftable APC. That's not a condemnation, just a division of roles. However it does say this about the GCV, "What will I get with the GCV that an upgraded Bradley [armored fighting vehicle] won't give me?" And as far as the fourth link goes, it just looks like the Marine Corp wants to distance themselves from the Army's 70-ton APC boondoggle that, as per your third link, even the Army is now unsure of. But all of this goes back to the question of are you considering the types of battles we'll be fighting in the future. Set piece armored conflict, or asymmetric skirmishes? If you really think we'll mostly have wide open Kursk tank battles from now on the Abrams and 70ton APC chugging along the open field towards the enemy makes sense. (well, except for the 70ton APC part) If, on the other hand, you think we'll be fighting more of the same asymmetric battles that have dominated the second half of the 20th century, then the Marines have it right with light airliftable wheeled vehicles zipping through the cities getting out of trouble as quick as they get into it. As far as powered armor in the next thirty years, well as huge an Iron Man fan as I am, I'd love to see it, but just don't think so.

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC? That's an apples to oranges comparison. The Army is creating the GCV as a replacement for the Bradley, not the Stryker. It is basically the Bradley upgraded to include the squad multiplier features they found so valuable when they fielded the Stryker, such as the intra-squad information links, extra-unit digital communications suite, and reduced fuel consumption. They plan to maintain the the Stryker units for urban environments, which they recognize as being a more likely situation in future engagements. You seem to be discussing engineering questions in a vacuum and avoiding the bigger picture of political truth. The aspect of symmetric warfare is the remote possiblity, not the likely one. Asymmetric warfare is the expected norm. In assymmetric warfare the smaller side (ostensibly the side without the super-APC of the future) would use areas that provide cover such as; cities where wheels dominate, mountains where helicopters dominate, or underground where boots dominate. The possibilty of open field tank battles is becoming more and more remote. A better example of a new vehicle replacement would be the Marines MPC. Before the Stryker even appeared they were using a wheeled APC the LAV-25, and now that the Army has seen the wisdom of the Corp and built their own version with the Stryker, the Marines decided they would like the digital features the Stryker introduced as well. Both branches see the benefit of wheeled vehicles for urban environments, or they would only build Bradleys and AAV-7A1 Amtracks. However, we are talking about 30 years in the future, and with that statement we can let our imaginations slip into the area of science-fiction... If for some reason the world intelligence agencies are wrong and the political climate changes to the point where China feels it can withstand the global financial crisis of calling the US debt due, or the EU decides China or America isn't drinking enough wine or eating enough cheese and will kill to enforce that lifestyle, then here is a good wheel/track comprimise... Imagine in this Sci-fi future that we'll be having our wars with an all-binding accord not to include cities in the warfare. Then we could build a track system made up of three or four of those 'track-pods' per side. The front and back units or pairs could turn to improve manueverability, the pods would be independent and damage to one would not affect the others so if one pod loses a track the others will get the cargo into/out of combat, and then the repairs can be made in a safe area instead of under fire. While the load would be distributed over a wide track-like footprint providing exceptional cross-country traction. Of course, the individual pods would have to support more weight than what we can presently build in small track pods, the coordination/synchronization systems and replicated powertrains would make it more vulnerable than a single track, but that's what the 30 years of science-fiction track development would provide.

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC? That's another misconception, an eight wheeled vehicle takes an RPG hit in the wheels and it knocks out one or two and you've got a damn good chance of scooting along on the 6 or 7 remaining. You take a hit in the tracks with an RPG and you're a bunker. The only moving you're going to be doing is by two boot drive. I was actually referring to the individual wheels vs tracks not the entire vehicle motive system, they are already at parity depending on terrain.