01-20-2013, 10:19 AM | #11 | |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: [UT] Help! Future Combat Revolving Around Ultra-Tech Stabbery
Quote:
Or just go low tech with a bang stick.
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. |
|
01-20-2013, 10:35 AM | #12 |
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: [UT] Help! Future Combat Revolving Around Ultra-Tech Stabbery
They grenades won't be competing against guns, they'll be competing against melee weapons. Except that they won't, because I don't see any weapon to restrict TL11 warfare to melee weapons, as anything that allows a melee weapon to penetrate force-fields also provides some method of introducing an explosive warhead using a similar method.
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
01-20-2013, 10:51 AM | #13 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: [UT] Help! Future Combat Revolving Around Ultra-Tech Stabbery
Quote:
This is linking the blade to the shield and the body wearing the shield. A piece of condictive metal physically linked to a shielded body of at least ...eh, call it 40 kilos penetrates a flexible shield with a shower of sparks but no physical resistence. Said shower of sparks tends to detonate explosives _before_ the shield is penetrated and only the attacker goes boom. This generally prohibits powered blades as well. Non-flexible shields used on spaceships and so on don't have this vulnerability to physical penetration but do still detonate explosives on contact. This tends to exclude practical use of HEAT warheads but Explosively Forged Penetrators(SEFOP in UT) have adequate stand off distance.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
01-20-2013, 10:53 AM | #14 |
Untagged
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
|
Re: [UT] Help! Future Combat Revolving Around Ultra-Tech Stabbery
What if the shield protects against temperature extremes too? That would stop hot explosions and work as an environmental encounter suit.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check. |
01-20-2013, 10:53 AM | #15 | |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: [UT] Help! Future Combat Revolving Around Ultra-Tech Stabbery
Quote:
|
|
01-20-2013, 10:57 AM | #16 | ||
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Re: [UT] Help! Future Combat Revolving Around Ultra-Tech Stabbery
Oh boy oh boy, that was fast!
Quote:
Quote:
Raw feedstock for nanofabricators would come in many varieties, but it would be quite universal. A 2 lb. tube of generic paste would probably be all you need to fabricate a simple object such as a 2-lb. pistol. Electronics might require more expensive feedstock. Plot-device phlebotinum (like contragravity boosters, reactionless drives and FTL jumps) and extremely complex stuff (neural implants) couldn't be made at home, and may require specialized feedstock and better-than-commercially-available nanofabricators. But for most consumer goods, you purchase a license (or you don't, if you know what I mean), stick the blueprint into your home or neighborhood fabricator and build yourself a nice couch. I assumed fusion (specifically, Deuterium/Helium-3 reactions) would provide enough power. Gas giants are a common sight, judging by the number discovered so far, and even just one would provide thousands of years of fuel. Raw materials could be mined from moons and asteroids, yeah. For no other reason than keeping computers familiar to us puny 21st century people, I decided to stall computing a bit in comparison to other technologies. So, computers are conservatively TL11. Processing power has reached a plateau long ago; it's impressive by our standards, but not outlandish or revolutionary. AIs are nonvolitional at best; the most sophisticated ones may superficially seem sapient, but they aren't. Drones, AI assistants, and maintenance bots are all common, and considered personal property. Quantum computers aren't consumer goods, and are reserved for mainframes. Communication has advanced, however, so most people don't bother with hard drives - they rent a gajillion petabytes from a local provider and access them remotely. UIs have greatly improved: keyboards and screens have been replaced with augmented-reality glasses or eye-implants, controlled with hand & eye movements, voice commands and (for those with the proper cybernetics) even thoughts. One can immerse himself completely in a multitude of digital worlds. People send and receive huge amounts of data directly from their brains, to the point where it resembles digital telepathy. They can also share memories, sensations and feelings between each other, and messages may have "subjective runtimes" - you experience a week inside, but a small amount passes in real time. Of course, one needs heavy cognitive augmentation to reap all of these fruits of progress. In essence, think of Iain M. Banks' Culture series, only the eponymous Culture is somewhat less advanced, less stable, more fragmented, and largely leaderless - it's a good model for about half of humanity in the setting. Regarding that last part about powerful weapons, I assumed one couldn't exactly field something that would reliably cause 80+ damage and still be man-portable, convenient, accurate and have multiple uses. Sure, you can blow someone apart with a thermobaric missile regardless of his barrier, but unless you can make Bulk -4 weapons that shoot such missiles, preferably more than one at a time, you're don't have a viable individual weapon. Last edited by Seneschal; 01-20-2013 at 11:07 AM. Reason: grammar |
||
01-20-2013, 11:00 AM | #17 |
Untagged
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
|
Re: [UT] Help! Future Combat Revolving Around Ultra-Tech Stabbery
It should go without saying that bringing a knife to gun fight is always dumb in the real world. But fiction can get away with stuff, just because it's cool.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check. |
01-20-2013, 11:07 AM | #18 |
GURPS FAQ Keeper
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyïv, Ukraine
|
Re: [UT] Help! Future Combat Revolving Around Ultra-Tech Stabbery
In ÆS, bringing only a knife to a gunfight is still stupid. But the fact that a proper knife can get past the 50 or so points of conditionally ablative DR means that a knife can still be of use under certain circumstances. Mostly for ambushes, or very close quarters combats (when you can still charge through the room before your shield is brought down).
|
01-20-2013, 11:11 AM | #19 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Europe
|
Re: [UT] Help! Future Combat Revolving Around Ultra-Tech Stabbery
In what way would grenades which have to be within a metre of the target when they go off and can only ever injure one person be more effective than swords, javelins, and bows?
__________________
"It is easier to banish a habit of thought than a piece of knowledge." H. Beam Piper This forum got less aggravating when I started using the ignore feature |
01-20-2013, 11:11 AM | #20 | |
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Re: [UT] Help! Future Combat Revolving Around Ultra-Tech Stabbery
Quote:
That was one of my first inspirations for trying out this kind of sci-fi idea. Was that yours? |
|
Tags |
dune, force shields, sci-fi, space opera |
|
|