[UT] Help! Future Combat Revolving Around Ultra-Tech Stabbery

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

A grenade which could only injure one person on a direct hit would not be very effective at disabling opponents. Especially if one could protect oneself completely by moving 1 m away from where it landed.

It's a lot more effective than using knives.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Icelander

It's a lot more effective than using knives.

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?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

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?

Because swords, javelins and arrows from bows have be within the target to be effective and the likelihood of them harming more than one target in an attack is not much higher. Not to mention that it's far harder to become expert in their use than it is to learn to lob a pebble or baseball within a meter of someone. Or just aim a user-friendly GL.

[Seneschal]

Oh boy oh boy, that was fast!

Originally Posted by Icelander

You're going to have to do something about the fact that anything which allows a decent punch or kick through is also going to allow lobbing a grenade through. Which is considerably more effective than stabbing someone, if you're on a battlefield and not trying to avoid having anyone know that there is a fight on.

Yes, though if the barriers were close-fitting, even a small bounce would mean an ineffective grenade. Something like limpet-mines from UT would be useful. Let's say you have a launch mechanism (seeing as lobbing isn't very accurate and requires more training than, say, a sticky-nade launcher with sights, targeting programs, and a muzzle velocity of 50 km/h), the grenades stick to whatever they hit, and then they blast a shaped charge into it. Though it might sound instantly fatal, note that something like that would be more expensive, impractical, inaccurate and easily avoided than a bullet. And it may even provoke countermeasures - small shoulder-mounted lasers that detect such grenades and fry them before they make contact (they wouldn't even have to do much damage).

Originally Posted by johndallman

Given nanofabrication, the society needs matter, which it presumably gets from moons, asteroid belts and other shallow gravity wells, and energy. Is that fusion, solar, or what? Can a primary power source be small enough to carry? Without that, simply running an opponent's power supply down seems to be a good tactic.

What is there in the way of computing, AI and robots?

Presumably there are social controls on using large enough explosions to just kill someone through the DR of a personal barrier? Using a lot of small explosions or a machine gun to chew through the ablative DR looks very possible at present.

Sorry, I omitted those things in the OP for brevity's sake, but if they make a difference...

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.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Seneschal

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.

The EMGL on UT p. 142 could probably be made with a folding or retractable stock, for Bulk -5*. And at TL11, it can launch anything up to mini-nukes and anti-matter, which is going to ruin the day of anything, force field or not. Or you could make do with HEMP at 6dx5(10)* cr inc + 4d+4 cr ex or thermobaric at 5dx4 cr ex inc.

*+1 per die.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Icelander

. Or you could make do with HEMP at 6dx5(10)* cr inc + 4d+4 cr ex or thermobaric at 5dx4 cr ex inc.

Hence my proposal about negating shaped charge weapons. that's practia;lly always necessary for any strong defnse future combat sceario.

You don't use Thermobaric warheads insde space habitats. Expecially not ones you want to capture intact.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Icelander

The EMGL on UT p. 142 could probably be made with a folding or retractable stock, for Bulk -5*. And at TL11, it can launch anything up to mini-nukes and anti-matter, which is going to ruin the day of anything, force field or not

Unless you have a stasis web, some serious range on that EMGL, or you have some means of rapidly getting away, or you have no intention of surviving, the mini-nuke and the anti-matter grenade are seriously overrated weapons. They tend to kill everything around them, including the attacker.

Or you could make do with HEMP at 6dx5(10)* cr inc + 4d+4 cr ex

That's more like it.

EDIT: Also, even with epic, conformal shields that stop everything dead except very slow things: Limpet mines.

(So, IMO, my solution would be not to worry excessively much about the "realism" of your setting. I can't remember any grenades being on offer in Dune, for example, so don't offer any grenades in your game. Realistic? No. But not everyone needs diamond-hard SF)

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Seneschal

Oh boy oh boy, that was fast!

Dismantling setting assumptions is something we do around here.

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.

Well, unless I'm misunderstanding Ablative DR badly, it's easy enough with a TL9 Storm Carbine. Bulk -4, 7dpi+ damage, RoF 10.

I shoot you and get three hits the first round, 21d damage, average 74. Your DR100 barrier has 26 points left. Next turn, it recovers 10 points, giving it 36. I shoot you again, and get three more hits. The first knocks 24 off, leaving 12, the second does 25 so 13 get through, and inflict 18 points of damage after the wounding modifier, the third one is against no DR and does you 36 after wounding modifier.

I appreciate that this isn't rule-of-cool, but you do need some in-setting reason why it doesn't work or won't be done.

Edit: Notes: I've taken average damage and rounded the half up and down on alternate hits. Please note that I have not used any of the fancy UT options like ETC - they just make it easier.

[Seneschal]

Originally Posted by johndallman

Dismantling setting assumptions is something we do around here.

Well, unless I'm misunderstanding Ablative DR badly, it's easy enough with a TL9 Storm Carbine. Bulk -4, 7dpi+ damage, RoF 10.

I shoot you and get three hits the first round, 21d damage, average 74. Your DR100 barrier has 26 points left. Next turn, it recovers 10 points, giving it 36. I shoot you again, and get three more hits. The first knocks 24 off, leaving 12, the second does 25 so 13 get through, and inflict 18 points of damage after the wounding modifier, the third one is against no DR and does you 36 after wounding modifier.

I appreciate that this isn't rule-of-cool, but you do need some in-setting reason why it doesn't work or won't be done.

Edit: Notes: I've taken average damage and rounded the half up and down on alternate hits. Please note that I have not used any of the fancy UT options like ETC - they just make it easier.

Pretty much any non-vehicle defence in UT breaks down if you throw enough Storm Carbines at it. :P

Still, even with that weapon, six shots were needed instead of one. And getting six shots in a row on target, especially from a weapon with such high Rcl, isn't easy. Even if range penalties are low, as they would be indoors, the target could act on its turn without shock penalty, and disappear behind the corner. In either case, "one-shot kill" becomes a myth.

Even without ETC and ETK (which I don't plan on using; I don't see how they could increase damage without dislocating the user's shoulder, they strike me as gamey "bonuses" for a higher TL), ablative DR seems to be weak against high-volume-of-fire weapons. I previously toyed with the thought of using single-use metalstorm weapons that would be discarded immediately after whittling down an opponent's barrier before closing in for the kill, but metalstorm doesn't work well in small arms.

[johndallman]

Given nanofabrication, the society needs matter, which it presumably gets from moons, asteroid belts and other shallow gravity wells, and energy. Is that fusion, solar, or what? Can a primary power source be small enough to carry? Without that, simply running an opponent's power supply down seems to be a good tactic.

What is there in the way of computing, AI and robots?

Presumably there are social controls on using large enough explosions to just kill someone through the DR of a personal barrier? Using a lot of small explosions or a machine gun to chew through the ablative DR looks very possible at present.