08-21-2011, 06:22 AM | #41 | |
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Shropshire, uk
|
Re: Making Melee viable vs future weapons.
Quote:
Small caliber and or low velocity weapons firing rounds based upon some form of secondary effect Needlers firing Neurotoxin or Burrower darts or Tangler type weapons firing either the eponymous non-lethal load or Stingrays are one approach. Alternatively if there is an atmosphere you can add Electrolasers or Sonic weapons to the list. While all of these approaches are pretty limited they are better than nothing and it will probably take more trouble than its worth to prevent all of them from being viable. At the same time I think you are underplaying the risk posed by failed melee attacks. While it is true that relatively few of them will connect with the ships structure (assuming of course a comparatively open space) the attempts to push up the effectiveness of the weapons themselves will begin to cancel out the benefits when the contacts do occur. For example a vibroblade short-sword or cutlass in the hands of a strength 10 combatant is turning out 2d-2(3) or 2d(3) i.e. something comparable to a light pistol loaded with armor piercing rounds. Strength 12, a larger weapon and say an exoskeleton can easily push this to 4d(3) i.e. SMG territory. |
|
08-21-2011, 07:06 AM | #42 |
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Re: Making Melee viable vs future weapons.
I can't cite it, but years ago I read someone saying something like if you emptied two clips from a sub-machine gun into the walls of the Mir space station it would take 15 minutes before the air loss became immediately dangerous, which was plenty of time to win a gun fight in such close quarters and start slapping on patches.
|
08-21-2011, 07:37 AM | #43 | |||
Dog of Lysdexics
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne FL, Formerly Wellington NZ
|
Re: Making Melee viable vs future weapons.
Quote:
While the Energy Weapons are not useless. However Melee weapons can now be an effective option. Quote:
Quote:
So said compdates are either way are locked until untill the authenticated show up, and in the latter case just as up the creek as if it was a bigger breech unless they have the codes. |
|||
08-21-2011, 07:45 AM | #44 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Making Melee viable vs future weapons.
Quote:
|
|
08-21-2011, 10:26 AM | #45 | |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: Making Melee viable vs future weapons.
Quote:
Edit: approximately
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. Last edited by RyanW; 08-21-2011 at 10:36 AM. |
|
08-21-2011, 10:31 AM | #46 |
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
|
Re: Making Melee viable vs future weapons.
That can't be right. That means a 100 square centimeter hole would halve the air pressure of a 1x1x1 meter compartment in 3,500 seconds, while a 1 square centimeter hole would halve the air pressure in a 1,000 cubic meter compartment in less than a tenth of a second. I think you've got something backwards?
__________________
My Blog: Mailanka's Musing. Currently Playing: Psi-Wars, a step-by-step exploration of building your own Space Opera setting, inspired by Star Wars. |
08-21-2011, 10:34 AM | #47 |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: Making Melee viable vs future weapons.
Air escapes at the speed of sound in a given atmosphere. Multiply speed by hole area to get volume lost per unit of time in a given moment. This rate falls as pressure falls.
|
08-21-2011, 10:36 AM | #48 | |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: Making Melee viable vs future weapons.
Quote:
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. |
|
08-21-2011, 10:42 AM | #49 | |
Dog of Lysdexics
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne FL, Formerly Wellington NZ
|
Re: Making Melee viable vs future weapons.
Quote:
For mirco-cracks and putures sure, a 9mm holes isn't micro. |
|
08-21-2011, 10:57 AM | #50 | |
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The plutonium rich regions of Washington State
|
Re: Making Melee viable vs future weapons.
Quote:
dM = - rho A c dt where rho is the gas density, A is the area of the hole. If m is the molar mass, P is the pressure, T the temperature, and R the ideal gas constant rho = m P / (R T) dM = - A c m P dt / (R T). If the volume of the compartment opened to vacuum is V, the mass of air inside that compartment is M = rho V = V m P / (R T). We now have dM = - (A c / V) M dt or equivalently, M = M0 exp( - A c t / V) for initial mass M0 at time t=0. This can be more conveniently expressed in terms of pressure P = M R T / (V m) P = P0 exp( - A c t / V). You might expect a bullet to produce a hole about 1 cm^2 in area. A typical room in a cramped spacecraft might be 2 m x 2 m x 2.5 m, or 10 m^3. We thus see that in a time t = V / (A c) = 10 m^3 / (0.0001 m^2 * 300 m/s) ~ 300 s the pressure will have dropped by a factor of 1/e ~ 0.37. The time to drop the pressure by a factor of 2 is about 250 s (to within the accuracy of the crude approximations we have been making), or about 4 minutes. Fit people can survive on half an atmosphere of earth-composition air, a third of a standard atmosphere's pressure causes extreme hardship. So with a single bullet hole in the wall of a small pressure compartment will give the inhabitants about 4 to 5 minutes to do something. This time scales with the volume of the compartment, and inversely with the number of holes and the size of the holes (so with four or five bullet holes in the same size compartment, you would have about a minute). But to change topics somewhat - what prevents the attackers from suiting up in armored pressure suits and using guns? They don't care if the place gets shot up, and if the defenders are using low penetration rounds to minimize damage to the spacecraft their bullets will not go through the armor, either. Luke |
|
Tags |
martial arts, melee, sci fi, sword, ultra-tech |
|
|