Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Unfriendly Skies, new aircraft-riffic PDF book, now on sale
Posted by: JM Hardy May 27 2011, 09:22 PM
I hope all you Dumpshockers are on the verge of some kind of nice weekend. If your weekend involves Shadowrun--and it should, right?--we have a new PDF product for you. Unfriendly Skies is now available at the http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=2789 and http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=91994. Here's what it's got:
WINGS TO FLY
It’s a big world, and not all of the work that’s available is sitting right outside your front door. Sometimes you might need to hop across a country, across a continent, or across an ocean. Other times you might look to the air to find a way across a border that’s too tough to cross on the ground. And then there are the times you might need something in the air that can pack a much-needed punch.
Unfriendly Skies provides descriptions and game information for thirty-two aircraft, including the EuroWars-tested MiG-63, the slow but easy-to-overlook Skyswimmer, and the luxurious Platinum II. The book also includes information on the basics of air travel in 2073, including information on which paths you may or may not want to follow if you are trying to lay low.
Get your runners into the skies and moving fast with the options Unfriendly Skies provides. Unfriendly Skies is for use with Shadowrun, Twentieth Anniversary Edition.
Posted by: hobgoblin May 27 2011, 09:51 PM
do wonder if this clear up the randomness that is launch weapons..
Posted by: Redjack May 28 2011, 02:19 AM
Anybody ready to review this?
Posted by: CanRay May 28 2011, 05:12 AM
I would have to say it's a very interesting read. Not something that a lot of Shadowrunner groups would use all of, but certainly things to take into consideration for the universe. The inclusion of civilian and corporate passenger craft is excellent, as is the additional rotorcraft. The blimp section I found a bit lacking, but then again, I loves me my blimps.
I'm slightly upset over the lack of the Avro Aircar, but that's another issue altogether.
EDIT: Forgot the downsides, bad Dumpshocker!
The usual about the lack of concrete passenger space (Hard numbers for each craft, I mean. There's "Suggestions" given just like in SR4A.) and cargo rules. Which, when you consider what we're likely to use these things for as GMs or PCs, is really telling.
Posted by: Daishi May 28 2011, 05:19 AM
Yeah, not even the a little bit. The standard upgrades on the combat aircraft are consistent with Arsenal and MilSpecTech - a handful of mounts for guns, make up your own rules for launch weapons.
I'm still reading it over, but here are my initial impressions: The page and half description of air travel seems a little cursory, but not bad otherwise. I think an opportunity to discuss private air travel and some detail about smuggling was missed, though. What are the typical rules for operating a chopper in a city's airspace? What sensors and patrols do smugglers have to beat, and how do they usually do that? These are the kinds of things that would be of great interest to shadowrunners who might actually take possession of the aircraft listed in the book.
The production values for the vehicles are on par with MilSpecTech. Some good artwork, some serviceable, and some just goofy looking (zeppelins particularly). Write-ups seem decent so far. Nothing obviously broken about the stats yet, though I am scratching my head a bit about the sub-orbital speeds, but I think I kind of know what they were going for. The shadowtalk has been amusing me. The in-character chatter about including the sub-orbitals was some good fourth-wall poking. Good mix of aircraft too, I think.
Posted by: Fatum May 28 2011, 09:02 AM
Also, are there LAVs-are-there-LAVs-arethereLAVs?!
Posted by: hermit May 28 2011, 10:58 AM
Okay, bought it. The download file is not broken.
No.
Maybe in Eurowars Vintage. There are a couple low-end jet fighters - Mig 63, Hawker-Siddley Fiebrand, Evo Reckoner; the SU-41 and two helicopters, the MK Sperber and the EC Tiger attack helicopters.On a quick glance (More deatiled when I have the time): The art's good, though sometimes inconsistent with the description (the china clipper looks pretty tiny, as does the grande concorde, and why is the Firebrand designated a transport plane and looks like a light and overarmed fighter?), some is brushed up old art, some is original, and at least one is a photomanip (the SK Lakota).
Posted by: hobgoblin May 28 2011, 11:40 AM
I get the impression that launch weapons is something they expect to be fired at runners, not by runners...
Posted by: CanRay May 28 2011, 03:28 PM
'Runners will launch weapons... Of vehicles they steal.
Posted by: Fatum May 28 2011, 07:21 PM
Maybe in Eurowars Vintage. There are a couple low-end jet fighters - Mig 63, Hawker-Siddley Fiebrand, Evo Reckoner; the SU-41 and two helicopters, the MK Sperber and the EC Tiger attack helicopters.Posted by: hermit May 28 2011, 07:33 PM
Apparently, though by SR time, the Su-41 design is more than 70 years old. then again, so is the Eurofighter, which also is still around, and the primary plane the SU-41 fought against, apparently. So maybe it's leftovers or something. The Mig 63 is a relatively new design though.
Will you leave my little nitpicks alone?
Posted by: Fatum May 28 2011, 08:53 PM
Or is it just based on any of the old Soviet models like Su-27?
Posted by: hermit May 28 2011, 09:27 PM
Or is it just based on any of the old Soviet models like Su-27?
Going by the art, it is a somewhat updated Su-47. The same frame, at least. The Su-47 was designed around 2000, IIRC.
Posted by: Fatum May 28 2011, 10:08 PM
So, forward-swept wings? They seem popular on SR illustrations - look unusual and thus represent the progress, or something?
Su-47 is a test plane/"flying lab" which first took off in 1997. It's a result of a project started as early as 1983 (don't you just love the 90ies in Russia, heh). So, that brings us to almost a hundred years, if it's indeed the same airframe
Posted by: Bull May 29 2011, 07:21 AM
Or is it just based on any of the old Soviet models like Su-27?
Shadowrun diverges from RL officially in the late 80's. I've seen some compelling arguments that the divergence must have been even earlier, smaller things that eventually set up the larger things that happen in the SR 90's and 00's (The corporate rulings, the whole Amerind war, etc). Not to mention a vast difference in the way technology developed both pre- and post-Crash.
So in SHadowrun? Yeah, there's a production model with that index that was in development for the last 10 years
RL, well... It's RL, not game. So it don't count.Bull
Posted by: Tycho May 29 2011, 11:39 AM
I have to say many of the pics look like they where designed for crimson skies, many airplanes have turboprops for no reason. Also the most of the airplanes are really slow, some Jets are slower than helicopters...
cya
Tycho
Posted by: hermit May 29 2011, 11:45 AM
The turbopropped airplanes for the most part are brushed up Rigger Blackbook art, so they precede Crimson Skies by a few years. Besides, propeller engines have their pros in modern aviation; whether executive jets are better equipped with these, though, YMMV.
Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 03:24 PM
So in SHadowrun? Yeah, there's a production model with that index that was in development for the last 10 years
RL, well... It's RL, not game. So it don't count.Bull
So we can as well suppose that SR Sukhoi developed the same aircraft RL Sukhoi did :ь
Posted by: CanRay May 29 2011, 04:09 PM
C-130s are Turboprop Planes, and are still in common military usage today, despite being close to 50-years old. (I think the Canadian Armed Forces still have some of the original airframes as well. Which will, hopefully, finally be retired soon.).
And then there's the AC-130, which is a C-130 that you don't pick a fight with.
Posted by: Bull May 29 2011, 04:42 PM
So we can as well suppose that SR Sukhoi developed the same aircraft RL Sukhoi did :ь
SR includes some elements of real life as neeeded, and "retcons" major events in. In this case, obviously Sukhoi developed a different aircraft at a different time. I wouldn't think too hard about it, or worry too much in the long run. Shadowrun tends to run into trouble if you try applying too much real world logic to it's background and history anyways. If you end up nitpicking every minor detail, it will likely implode in a puff of logic
Bull
Posted by: hobgoblin May 29 2011, 04:51 PM
And then there's the AC-130, which is a C-130 that you don't pick a fight with.
Iirc, props are nice if your looking for short runways as they handle low speeds better.
for instance, there are some crazy claims about this birdy up in northern Norway:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-6_Twin_Otter
One claim is that the pilot was able to come in 90 degrees off from the runway, due to strong crosswinds, but at the last moment bring it around and land.
Hell, the local saying is that if the Twin Otter do not fly cause of weather one better stay in doors. And they fly even in weather the military will not send a C-130 into...
Posted by: CanRay May 29 2011, 05:06 PM
The deHavilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver (And it's upgrade the Turbo Beaver) have been around forever. Some of the original airframes are still seeing use. And so on.
"High Technology is not always Better Technology." is something I've said a number of times, and there are times that even technophiles will agree with me.
Also, if you build/test something to work under Canadian Conditions, you can pretty much be sure that it'll work anywhere. (Yes, Canada even has Deserts, so even in those hot, dry places.). Also, Canadian designs typically have the idea that modifications and jury rigging will need to be done in the field (We have to do so much of it already anyhow), so even if local conditions make things difficult (IE: Fine sand of Afghanistan.), a fix is probably just around the corner and easily done.
And that's why I like the Ford-Canada Buffalo.
(I've also flown on the Dash-8 Turboprop a number of times. Aside from worrying about how the engines appeared to have been repaired, and being put in the place where the guy in the WWII Bomber Movies always gets cut in half when the prop gets shot off, it was a very nice ride.).
Posted by: PoliteMan May 29 2011, 05:39 PM
So in SHadowrun? Yeah, there's a production model with that index that was in development for the last 10 years
RL, well... It's RL, not game. So it don't count.Bull
Wouldn't SR have begun deviating in the pre-Sumerian days, sometime around the 1st or 2nd world? I mean, this is the 6th world and dragons/immortal elves were sleeping for quite a bit, even if we discount the ED stuff.
Posted by: hobgoblin May 29 2011, 05:41 PM
Deserts do not have to be hot, they are however very very dry
Posted by: hermit May 29 2011, 05:53 PM
there isn't really enough realworld knowledge about the world at that time to retcon much. And (early) ED actually ties in what little is known. Check out who the Aryans were and where they probably came from ...
Posted by: Larsine May 29 2011, 07:31 PM
So we can as well suppose that SR Sukhoi developed the same aircraft RL Sukhoi did :ь
It all depends on what version of SR you take as canon.
In SR1 it was still USSR in 2016:
Without any further explanations, that was changed in SR2 to Russia:
According to SR1 page 19 the USSR does not fragment until the end of the Euro-War.
That, however, was retconned in SR2 (published in 1992), where it is just assumed that the collapse of the USSR has already happened, and it is not even mentioned.
Posted by: redwulf25 May 29 2011, 07:56 PM
In SR1 it was still USSR in 2016:
Without any further explanations, that was changed in SR2 to Russia:
According to SR1 page 19 the USSR does not fragment until the end of the Euro-War.
That, however, was retconned in SR2 (published in 1992), where it is just assumed that the collapse of the USSR has already happened, and it is not even mentioned.
That's because crash 2.0 corrupted all the data.
Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 08:10 PM
In SR1 it was still USSR in 2016:
Without any further explanations, that was changed in SR2 to Russia:
According to SR1 page 19 the USSR does not fragment until the end of the Euro-War.
That, however, was retconned in SR2 (published in 1992), where it is just assumed that the collapse of the USSR has already happened, and it is not even mentioned.
Posted by: hermit May 29 2011, 08:21 PM
Well, not the Baltic republics, they were just overrun, but with Belarus and Ukraine, recognised as Little Russia and Littler Russia in Tom Clancy books.
But yes, for some reason Russia decided it would become USSR 2.0, with no ressources (however that happened to Russia). and then decided to try and conquer known ressource rich states such as Germany for their vast natural ressources.
Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 08:38 PM
Posted by: hermit May 29 2011, 09:11 PM
Okay, so you meant a more chinese reunification. Usually, I take this with a slant of 'voluntary'.
Still, Russia staring a war for ressources is like Saudi Arabia occupying Egypt for it's oil fields.
Posted by: Fatum May 29 2011, 09:27 PM
Posted by: Bull May 29 2011, 10:04 PM
Well, yes. But I'm specifically talking modern timeline and how events came about to shape Shadowrun politically and technologically.
But again, this proves the point that you really have to look even further back. But late 80's is where the "Hard" break comes in, and we as writers and freelancers are free to disregard real life and recent history as needed.
Bull
Posted by: CanRay May 29 2011, 10:15 PM
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." - Adam Savage
Now, if you excuse me, I have to start figuring out how to use a Rotodrone to tenderize a steak.
Posted by: hermit May 30 2011, 06:12 AM
It's a common trope (though pretty much wrong) that Belarus and Ukraine totally would, usually in conjunction with Russian Nationalists™ taking power. Target: Smuggler Havens (and later shadows of Europe and Shadows of Asia) went with that pretty much, just like a bazillion of shooter games and action movies.
Posted by: CanRay May 30 2011, 08:44 PM
It's a common trope (though pretty much wrong) that Belarus and Ukraine totally would, usually in conjunction with Russian Nationalists™ taking power. Target: Smuggler Havens (and later shadows of Europe and Shadows of Asia) went with that pretty much, just like a bazillion of shooter games and action movies.
There's voluntary, and there's what APPEARS to be voluntary. That can make all the difference.
Posted by: Brazilian_Shinobi May 30 2011, 08:48 PM
And there's "you can get no food except by joining the Army" voluntary...
Posted by: hermit May 30 2011, 10:28 PM
The latter, in reality, has a strong tendency to blow up thoroughly into the extra smart oppressing party's faces.
Posted by: BlackHat May 31 2011, 03:13 PM
Could someone with this PDF shine some light on how much of the PDF could be used by out-of-the-box characters? Is this more of a GM-book with stats for toys he might toss his players way, or a PC-book with options for riggers who want to take to the skies? Not that most Runners have need for personally-owned aircraft, in my experience, but if you had a PC who wanted to - and didn't mind investing BP in a toy he wouldn't get to take out very often - could he actually use anything in the PDF, or is it all million-nuyen aircraft with availability in the 30s?
Edit: I did look at the preview (which made adobe cry with a couple of errors), and the two stat blocks I could see did have prices well above anything a PC could generally acquire (without the GM allowing one to be stole, or handing out way too much cred) - which is probably just fine for aircraft, and keeps them out of the hands of street-level criminals... I'm just curious if that is the case with everything in the book, or if there are some "discount" options that PCs could actually pick up (like some of the light helicopters in BBB and Arsenal).
Posted by: CanRay May 31 2011, 03:41 PM
Not much available for starting characters... Experienced characters will have to save up if they want to buy one of these things.
Lots of items to steal, however.
But mostly a GM book for "The Target is flying in on $Plane, you are to extract him while he's still in the air, as the security at both airports are too high."
Posted by: Sengir May 31 2011, 08:39 PM
Anyone (I'm looking at you, Mr. Hardy) can post a breakdown of vehicle types?
Posted by: CanRay May 31 2011, 08:47 PM
Well, most of them can fly.
Usually. If the parts are in. And the mechanic on call isn't unconscious from drinking that rotgut he distills himself.
Posted by: Fatum May 31 2011, 09:08 PM
Usually. If the parts are in. And the mechanic on call isn't unconscious from drinking that rotgut he distills himself.
The Party cared for its children!
Posted by: Nath May 31 2011, 10:05 PM
The relations between officers and NCO can be of three kinds :
- in the army, the officers can stay in his tent while the NCO goes on the front line
- in the navy, the officers and NCO are on the same ship
- in the air force, the NCO stay on the ground, looking at their officers taking off in the aircrafts they took care off...
Posted by: JM Hardy May 31 2011, 11:46 PM
3 Personal Luxury Aircraft
1 Tactical Transport
3 Transport Planes
2 Passenger Planes
1 Glider
1 Tactical Aircraft
5 Light Transports
3 Medium Transports
3 Passenger Liners
2 Jumbo Airliners
2 Cargo Helicopters
1 Utility Helicopter
5 Tactical Aircraft
There ya go!
Jason H.
Posted by: CanRay Jun 1 2011, 02:21 AM
I'm still trying to wrap my head around "The Family Blimp" like it was just a Ford AmeriCar or something.
One of the Light Transport Planes (Lear-Cessna Rover to be exact), however, has a lot of potential uses for a Shadowteam. A bit out of the price range of most Riggers, it's something to save for. I could see it used as a item for Teams that pull in the big money working out of town, especially if modified for Aquatic Landing (Floatiation). I'd liken this bird to being like the de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Turbo Beaver. With a bit of work (Extra Entry/Exit Points) it could even be used for parachuting duty. Frankly, the suggestion given in the Shadowtalk lacks... Thought. But is still cool. Yes, I found a new baby.
The two DocWagon items are exceptionally good to have at any time, with all the DocWagon conctractees. Pop Mr. Bullet into the wrong person, and Air Calvary comes in a Tilt-Wing with Wagner blaring from the speakers. Or Black Sabbath. Both would be considered Classical Music by the 2070s.
All the Rotorcraft have practical applications for a well-equipped Shadowteam, but most are in the "Steal It To Own It" category of price. Or, better yet, have a contact that owns one.
The rest of the items are great for GMs that need a piece of equipment or item statted out for a 'Run, rather than the typical "You extract the target at his home/in his car, if he wants the extraction or not."-type runs.
Also, it gives an image of what the hell the group is flying in if they somehow get past airport security.
Posted by: Sengir Jun 1 2011, 12:11 PM
Makes sense, a huge load of Ethanol every couple of days to stave off the effects from drinking brake fluid
And thanks Jason, if I need something from that list I will remember it...
Posted by: hermit Jun 1 2011, 01:09 PM
Yeah ... back in the day my rigger had one of these babies. Saved endlessly for it, but it's worth it, or was during SR2/SR3 times, because of the loads and loads of mod space it had. Not sure if that still applies, but I'd pretty much sign this for this bird otherwise.
Posted by: Fatum Jun 1 2011, 04:02 PM
I wonder how Orbital DK can tell what kind of a plane the team used for deployment just by looking at it...
The Platinum One's propulsion system makes me wtf. Turbines... and a propeller after them? With the kind of jet stream the turbines leave, that prop is more likely to be used as an airbrake! Same goes for the Skytruck.
Elijah's comment at the Platinum Two made me laugh.
I'm not sure why Doc Wagon needs two different kinds of helicopters and a tilt-wing plane in their fleet; or why their light helis use the twin-rotor scheme used for heavy-lifters...
The Grande Concorde's speed is far too low for a suborbital, same goes for the SV250.
IL-159 “Molyniya”. I'll just leave it as it is... No, actually, not - it's not 1992 any more, there's is goddamn google translate, it would have taken fragging seconds to get the spelling of "Molniya" right.
The Airstar 2050 suggested to be a Body 15 Armour 4 gunship made me laugh yet again.
The Dakota looks goddamn badass.
The Reckoner makes no sense. The description says it's used for rigger training, but it has no Rigger Adaptation. Then the shadowtalkers talk about how VR is good, but real training aircraft is better, and topple it off with "militaries are also not willing to risk losing a multi-million nuyen aircraft to an area jammer or unforeseen turbulence" - because no amount of VR training is preparing you for those, and 1,6m¥ for the Reckoner is not that much to lose!
> This MiG was assigned the marketing name “Founder” in keeping with former NATO codename conventions.
Rrrright.
> The Fixer features enhanced maneuverability and super-cruise capability in an attempt to dominate the dogfight arena.
Minding that super-sound flight without afterburning and highly stealthy design are both on the requirements list for the fifth generation fighters, and War! states SR current gen is the seventh, I can't see how super-cruise ability is making the Su dominate dogfights.
Also, I wonder why modern-day Su fighters have 11 hardpoints and a chin-mounted gun, and the SR MiGs and Sus have three to five...
Posted by: CanRay Jun 1 2011, 04:07 PM
Body of 14 with Improved Take Off/Landing 1 already in play. So a fair amount of play using the new Slots System in Arsenal.
If I had one, I'd probably upgrade that to TO/L 2 with JATO Rockets. If for nothing else than just driving the thing out of a warehouse and then taking off over the cop cars that were sure we were trapped inside and helpless.
Posted by: hermit Jun 1 2011, 04:37 PM
Do the cops often trap you in your hangar?
But that's got style, hands down. 18 actually. I'd prefer the LC P-2 (same body score, faster, moremaneuverable, more stealth oriented) and upgrade it to VSTOL. YMMV. Upon rereading though, I was wrong about the LCP-2 being wore than the ED Mistral, because it's actually just a bit better, too. Pity they didn't pick up the old R3R alternative model names, though.
Posted by: CanRay Jun 1 2011, 05:01 PM
*Sighs* Never gamed yet. Three groups lined up and each and every one of them fell through.
And I love the alternative names for things. Might have to do something about that if we can ever get the Dumpshock Data Haven back on track...
Posted by: hermit Jun 1 2011, 05:20 PM
That sucks, man.
The Embraer-Dassault Mistral is based on the now oop Ares Daytripper, because Aztech bought design and rights to it from Ares when they introduced their new tilt-wing traveller machines. Similar models are: Cessna C860 and CASA J-329 Kestrel (Rigger 3, German edition, supposedly identical to Rigger 3 Revised). Also, according to the same book, the Mistral off the shelf seats 17, including pilot and copilot, and is accessible by one side door and a tail-mounted freight ramp.
Posted by: CanRay Jun 1 2011, 05:25 PM
I will take this opportunity to, once again, complain about the lack of seating and cargo space per vehicle, rather than generic "Here's a suggestion" bit. Yeah, it makes rules easier, but still, it's not that much more complex.
It's not like we're trying to figure out the fuel efficiency of a Methane-powered vehicle after all.
EDIT: And, yes, it sucks. Very badly.
Posted by: hermit Jun 1 2011, 05:29 PM
It's not like we're trying to figure out the fuel efficiency of a Methane-powered vehicle after all.
+1 (and really, with these modding rules, the increase in ease is marginal at best).
And let's not talk about fuel efficiency. That part of Rigger 3 still gives me nightmares. Nominal ranges per battery/gas tank filling would be nice though.
Tried online gaming? It's a little more reliable in my experience.
Posted by: CanRay Jun 1 2011, 05:31 PM
Can't do online. Don't know why, just can't.
Posted by: hermit Jun 1 2011, 05:35 PM
Pity. Helped me still have my games on and off even though all the people I play with are either constantly on the move, or do live someplacefar off now. I do miss the old get-togehters, though.
Posted by: Sengir Jun 1 2011, 09:56 PM
Without any further explanations, that was changed in SR2 to Russia:
I guess it has something to do with RL changes between 1st and 2nd edition - while the original Shadowrun was developed the USSR was still around, then it was suddenly gone.
Posted by: hobgoblin Jun 3 2011, 02:44 PM
Heh, had a look at the pdf today.
while for the most part the tactical helicopters looks sane, the aircrafts towards the back do no.
The MIG got 3 point, one will likely be taken up by a gun. Non are listed as reinforced, but if one assume so then the best bet for carrying a large payload is the Hail Barrage. Anything else will result in 1 gun and 2 launch weapons! The image looks like a F-16/F-35 knockoff, and the F-165 can carry 7 launch weapons plus gun. And that do not account for the ability to carry multiple rounds via racks.
the SU seems modeled on the F-22, but even there things go weird. 2 concealed? Try 8+gun. The 3 external was close to the 4 tho. But those 4 can again take racks.
Not sure how these are supposed to be used. En mass, or via heavy drone support?
Posted by: Fatum Jun 3 2011, 07:11 PM
Well, hobgoblin, just as I've noted up there - current gen Sus have 9 to 11 hardpoints, plus a chin-mounted Gryazev-Shpagin...
I believe the low number of weapons is meant to tone down the craft's relative power, minding that the design is at least 40 years old; but still, that all just doesn't make much sense...
Posted by: CanRay Jun 3 2011, 10:33 PM
This (And earlier) is also a time of downchecking military equipment to make it last longer and not be as expensive.
Even taking training into consideration, Metahuman Life just got so cheap that military equipment got to be too expensive. (Take the comments about the bombs costing more than the targets destroyed today, and magnify it through a Corporate Boardroom!).
The Combat Multiplier cost more than to just send in the base "Combat" itself in at a multiple number of times.
To whit: More boots, less fancy jets that can mount multiple weapon racks.
Posted by: Fatum Jun 4 2011, 08:13 PM
Uh, you see, CanRay, the chassis, the avionics and the engines - you know, the expensive parts of the jet besides the pilot (although a good fighter jet pilot is goddamn expensive, as well) - they cost the same whether you mount three weapons or eleven. And the planes discussed are dual-engine jet fighters, there's just no reason for them not to be armed. Hell, the Reckoner, which is basically L-39 70 years later, is armed almost no worse than the Founder, which is supposed to "incorporate the first Euro-War experience". I guess that experience was "do not start wars for no fraggin reason", huh?
Posted by: CanRay Jun 4 2011, 10:19 PM
"War is bad for business. We're in the business of doing business. Thus, we do not wish war. So, we will make bad military products to encourage people not to have expensive wars that destroy valuable property. Infantry is so much cheaper and far less destructive. And we can sell in bulk to Infantry."
Posted by: Fatum Jun 4 2011, 10:32 PM
Haha, that logic'd work if S&K was making that MiG
Posted by: CanRay Jun 4 2011, 10:54 PM
Really? Who owns MiG then?
Oh, you think so huh? Who owns them? And the people they answer to? And those people? And the people above them?
The Corporate Court does not want War in any way, shape, or form. It is literally "Bad For Business". It destroys property values, expensive factories, and so on. Oh, sure, the Military Industrial Complex is a great way to make a profit, as long as it's kept in check.
And that, not-so-gentle'runners is why we have Desert Wars!
Posted by: hermit Jun 4 2011, 10:56 PM
Posted by: Fatum Jun 5 2011, 12:31 AM
Oh, you think so huh? Who owns them? And the people they answer to? And those people? And the people above them?
And that, not-so-gentle'runners is why we have Desert Wars!
Same way the Sixth World has a bunch of countries corps do not really care about, like, say, the Awakened Yakut, which chopped up the megacorp negotiators when they arrived to discuss the feature business plans.
Posted by: CanRay Jun 5 2011, 04:07 AM
Yeah, but US Military Contractors aren't countries in their own rights...
And wars have a nasty tendency of spilling over into their extraterritorial land.
Posted by: Udoshi Jun 6 2011, 09:06 PM
There ya go!
Jason H.
What? No drones? No vehicle mods? No new miniguns to put on those attack choppers? Nothing affordable at character creation? How bout some rules for upgrading vehicle armor with Modifications like personal armor (the vehicle mod that does this is way way worse.)
Would it kill you guys to make a supplement the average game will want to purchase?
Posted by: CanRay Jun 6 2011, 11:47 PM
Would it kill you guys to make a supplement the average game will want to purchase?
I'm an average gamer and I bought and liked it. Gives something for PCs to strive for. The art for the jets is right out of left field (As has been commented on, so I'm leaving that Dead Centaur to mature in the desert heat.).
Anyhow, it's "Unfriendly Skies: New stuff that flies", just what it says on the tin.
If you want Drones, they're in "This Old Drone" and "MilSpecTech". Rules for upgrading armour is in Arsenal (And if you don't like it, Houserule.).
And it sold, so, no, it's not killing them at all. Quite the opposite in fact.
That said, I still wish there was a flying MPUV now...
Posted by: hermit Jun 7 2011, 07:24 AM
DON'T check 'this old drone' because the stats are totally out there. Or rather, if you check it, write your own stats. Because CGL don't do Errata, eve on phenomenally broken product like this.
It's a booster rockets and LTA add-on vehicle mod away.
Or were you looking for http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/10/flyinghumvee.jpg?
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jun 7 2011, 02:52 PM
Would it kill you guys to make a supplement the average game will want to purchase?
I'm (We're) Average... I bought it...
Posted by: CanRay Jun 7 2011, 03:06 PM
Or were you looking for http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/10/flyinghumvee.jpg?Something like that.
Posted by: DWC Jun 12 2011, 01:20 PM
- in the army, the officers can stay in his tent while the NCO goes on the front line
- in the navy, the officers and NCO are on the same ship
- in the air force, the NCO stay on the ground, looking at their officers taking off in the aircrafts they took care off...
Depends on what you do in the Air Force.
Posted by: LostProxy Jun 13 2011, 06:04 AM
Indeed, I know a Pararescue vet who may take umbrage to saying all the officers do is fly away on stuff they don't take care of
Posted by: Nath Jun 13 2011, 10:09 AM
That one was coined after the beginning of the air force, after WWI. It was a lot truer then. And as far as I can tell (as I work at the French ministry of defense), you can really see the difference in the officers behavior, no matter what their actual specialty is.
Posted by: Kerenshara Jun 26 2011, 02:52 AM
And then there's the AC-130, which is a C-130 that you don't pick a fight with.
*cough*
B-52H, ca. 1962 at the most recent.
KC-135, ca. 1960 to 1964 for the ones still airborne.
Expected retirement dates for both are now somewhere in the vicinity of 2040... and both were supposedly to have been retired sometime in the 1980s, then again in the 1990s, and... you get the idea. It's not totally inconceivable that somebody is still flying a BUFF in 2070. Actually, desktop forge technology would make keeping the beasties in the air EASIER than it is NOW because the new parts would outperform the originals and not just be re-machined bits from retired aircraft or one-off hand-builds by the heroic depot matinenance personnel.
The [?]C-130[?] is still in production TODAY so it's hard to gauge how old any particular airframe might be, and thus not as effective an example, but you're right about being a turbo-prop.
As turbo-prop aircraft OUT of production go, how about the P-3C Orion Maritime Patrol Aircraft? It's actually based on the old Lockheed Electra airliner, ca. 1957 - 1961 give or take with a first flight in 1959. They MAY start phasing them out of service in 2013 if the new P-8 Poseidon actually keeps on schedule. I'll believe that when I see it - "There aren't any subs left to hunt now that the Russians are out of the game!" Right. Tell that to the Chinese who surfaced a NUCLEAR (not a Diesel-Electric) sub within SIGHT of a US carrier in the Sea of Japan INSIDE all the ASW escorts and sub-hunting aircraft while ON AN EXERCISE! Sorry, pushed my own button there and I digressed.
-Kerenshara
Posted by: CanRay Jun 26 2011, 03:00 AM
Actually, talking with some of the folks here in Winnipeg, it turns out that every now and then some Redneck finds a crashed trainer from WWI or WWII (Manitoba was a major training area for the British Empire/Commonwealth during those times) and gets them up and flying again. It's getting rarer and rarer, but it still happens.
And you're right about the nanoforge bit, it's certainly going to make old equipment performable again. I mean, hell, it actually found a way to improve on the AK-97!
On the flipside, the feed material for those nanoforges are RFID rigged out the wazoo, and it makes for some really visible equipment to the forces that provide said material. Not always a good thing. (And because they're deeply imbedded, a simple tag eraser isn't going to cut it.).
Posted by: Kerenshara Jun 26 2011, 03:05 AM
I'd like to have seen something on a larger MILITRAY VTOL. I see the "Osprey" for DocWagonTM but things being what they are, the need for a LARGE true VTOL aircraft would seem to be self-obvious, especially for the corps if they have isolated outposts needing resupply or evacuation.
I was thinking something like we saw in Avatar with ducted fans in multiples or a double-wing "Osprey" tilt-rotor at the least. As forces get smaller, the need to deploy tactically rapidly will continue to grow to where conventional aircraft, even STOL aircraft like the one featured in Unfriendly Skies won't be sufficient to the need, and the current V-22 system is inadequate. It's a huge improvement on the (ancienct) CH-46 Seaknights and their Vietnam-era bullet holes, but with improving materials technology it would be fairly trivial to maximize the technology. That was MY big disappointment, anyhow.
-Kerenshara
Posted by: Kerenshara Jun 26 2011, 03:16 AM
On the flipside, the feed material for those nanoforges are RFID rigged out the wazoo, and it makes for some really visible equipment to the forces that provide said material. Not always a good thing. (And because they're deeply imbedded, a simple tag eraser isn't going to cut it.).
Go back and re-read the fluff... untagged stock is available TO THE CORPS and GOVERNMENTS or on the black-market at exorbitant prices and high availability. It's the stuff you buy at the [6th World Hardware Store] that's tagged to Hades and back. The corps and/or government s would be the ones mostly making the aforementioned parts... or those in their employ who could demand a supply of the tag-free stocks. Further, remember the signal range on RFID tags: 0. You've got to be within zilch range to find them by the tag (say, walking through the metal detector built into the door frame of the corp you're trying to infiltrate?); they're there more for "tracking" sources than as a "Hey! I'm over HERE Stupid!" kind of thing. Like a supply of nannie-manufactured illegal weapons show up on the market and KE scans the things and finds them loaded with stock from batch [email="47A-66$#-@~99-2072"]47A-66$#-@~99-2072[/email] and they run that back against records and find out Binky the Ork bought them at his corner store, and a raid on the registered address for the SIN turns up Binky counting his Nuyenn as his forges burble happily behind him. That night, on the news, "a 27-year-old ork was killed in a police standoff with Knight Errant security forces forced to employ deadly force when the suspect produced a high-powered weapon and..."
(Yes, the pun is intentional.)
-Kerenshara
Posted by: CanRay Jun 26 2011, 03:20 AM
-Kerenshara
That's how I'd read the Cascade Orks selling the Skraacha to the Native American Nations, using it as a Fast Troop and Materials Transport that could also be provided to "The Private Sector" (Read: Smugglers.).
Anyhow, IIRC, there's a picture of a Helicarrier in Arsenal as well...
Posted by: CanRay Jun 26 2011, 03:24 AM
-Kerenshara
But what if the enemy, with their own nanoforges get their hands on the feed? Wouldn't it also make sense to have your own back door in there as well?
Then again, if those back doors are found, then the troops are at a great disadvantage due to...
DAMNIT! Now my brain hurts! This is why I didn't take that CSIS guy up on his job offer!
-Kerenshara
Or one guy who the CO hates in a Lockheed Sparrow with some jacked up sensors specifically tunned for RFID tags...
Posted by: Kerenshara Jun 26 2011, 12:51 PM
That's how I'd read the Cascade Orks selling the Skraacha to the Native American Nations, using it as a Fast Troop and Materials Transport that could also be provided to "The Private Sector" (Read: Smugglers.).
Anyhow, IIRC, there's a picture of a Helicarrier in Arsenal as well...
LAV's (Low Altitude Vehicles) are good for speed, mediocre at best for range, CAN NOT benefit from in-flight refueling, and positively lousy for payload beyong their own mass. Not a one of the LAVs as presented or even described can haul something more than a Shadowrun-er, SpecOps team. Awesome for smuggling and raiding and insertion of SCOUT forces, no way to really move whole companies of troops. WAR! still talks about company size units, and so do other books in things like Desert Wars.
So LAVs are not like 'Nam Air Cav. Think of them as specialized descendants of the Harrier as opposed to the Huey. The Huey takes more power to hover, but In Ground Effect can pull that off for as long as it has fuel. Not only is the Harrier pushing it's engines to the maximum in VTOL mode, but it has an actual finite time limit in that mode per-mission. Put another way, LAVs can hover, but it's not their nature. I keep saying this: LAVs are WIGE (Wing In Ground Effect) aircraft, not true VTOLs.
And as to hovering being a bad idea in combat, yes and no. Think of the argument about the A-10 Thunderbolt II (aka Warthog) - It's a dumptruck of a plane with a top speed most airliners would sneer at. But when supporting ground troops, that lower speed means it can loiter in the combat zone on-call whereas a true fast-mover is more of a single-strike aircraft, with limited engegement time. Granted, sensors and computers in 2070 are much more capable of self-direction, but we don't see much of that in the Fluff. The human element still has primacy. Why is that? Because IFF can fail, and the human brain can make judgement calls much more effectively.
And there are plenty of circumstances where you want you ARMED transports to "hover" (or just fly overhead slowly and menacingly) overhead. Note how recently we're seeing airborne sniping becoming a more common tactic? Cripes, the US Coast Guard uses it daily in stopping drug runners! The smartlink combined with a full-up comlink and tied into the aircraft's flight control system would be the next best thing to a unmoving platform, calculating lead/trail and other factors lik bank.
Anyhow, I'm liking the meat of this discussion, sorry if I'm turning out my signature Wall-o-Text.
-Kerenshara
Posted by: Kerenshara Jun 26 2011, 01:06 PM
But what if the enemy, with their own nanoforges get their hands on the feed? Wouldn't it also make sense to have your own back door in there as well?
Then again, if those back doors are found, then the troops are at a great disadvantage due to...
"What if the enemy captures our fuel?" See: German primary objective in the Battle of the Bulge. It's an axiom of military operations.
The feed is mostly inert. The RFIDs are "tags", not a computer network. It's not like being able to slip in lines of code to the finished device's OS. These things aren't Star Trek "replicators"; you have to assemble the parts and load the software. That is assuming you can use them to make something as advanced as the (optical) computer circuitry of 2070 with them. In one of the books it discussed how nanites are used in a lot of heavy manufacture, but this ain't them. This is a 3-D "inkjet" printer that builds working parts a few molecules at a time. It may even use nanites to some extent, but it's not the level seen in real manufacturing. I just don't see how your stock could be tampered with short of destroying it, like gasoline.
Or one guy who the CO hates in a Lockheed Sparrow with some jacked up sensors specifically tunned for RFID tags...
Ah, true of ground operations, yes, and a very good point. But we're talking about aircraft. You're going to fill every square decimeter with an rfid? To keep them in place, you'd need drones. No, in flight operations, it's just not pat.
Now for ground operations it's another matter. And I imagine since the tags are passive, you'd still be able to scan your recaptured stocks before you used it, neh?
-Kerenshara
Posted by: CanRay Jun 26 2011, 04:03 PM
"I'm Being Stolen!"
-Kerenshara
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)