APOCALYPSE THEN REDUX

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Actually, I also have a policy in place for that. If you're going to be away from Internet access, you tell me, or I run your character. It's a simple courtesy thing.

And being up front was why I was establishing a rule. Also, I'm counting on common courtesy, no active recruiting from other games...

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Well I dont officially have a game yet soooooo..............

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Then let's just all agree about what the procedure is before we add more games.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Well I want players, and I want to run a game if they can handle multiple games then I dont mind, if they are going to be rude, not post and waste everyones time there are ways to remove them...

I have a favor to ask though.... Im trying to create a mood in this thread and while I want to talk about this topic Could we do it elsewhere.....?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I don't have a problem with there being more games. And of course you want players. I think the procedure should just be that you post that you want more players. I don't mind keeping a thread that lists the players in each game. When someone joins or quits a game, I'll just edit that post. If you see someone is in more than one game, you don't approach them directly and say "join my game instead." and if someone asks to join your game, and they're in more than one already, ask them to talk to their gms and see if that's ok with them. That way people still MAY join more than two games, but their GMs are always aware of the load on each player.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

The Major Powers of Mars in Space 1889

Britain- After their Arrival in 1872 the British have played an active role in the colonialization of Mars.  Using their great experience in empire building the British have begun to carve Mars up like India, exploiting her reserves of liftwood and fire gems. British Interests are threatened by Germany and the Oenotrian Empire.

Germany- The new Germany burst into the Empire game in 1870 after they humilited France in the Franco Prussian War, they are fairly new to the Empire game, but already they have made gains in Africa, on Venus and on Mars. These colonial ventures have put the Germans into conflict with the British and it is only a matter of time till the two governments decide to settle the score

France- Smarting from her loss in 1870 France is disorganized, behind the times and strapped for cash. On Earth she is a weak power but on Mars, Zout Alous!!!
Two regiments of the French Foreign Legion and 3 Regiments of Chassuer de Srytis keep watch over Frances most valuable Colony, Idaeus Fons.

Belgium- Little King Leopold wanted an empire and in 1876 they got one. Recruiting the worst thugs of Europe the Belgians sent an "expedition" to Mars an expedition that ended in the Belgians controlling the immensely rich Corparates rift Valley.  Their rules is anything but benevolent and their very presences on Mars has stirred up the Martians against all the Humans.

Japan and America- the little trading empires that could...... The Japanese and Americans have large trading enclaves on Mars and the two nations are beginning a new period of friendly prosparity.

The Oenotrian Empire
Led by the Martian high king Barrovarr the Oenotrians and Parhoons were locked in a life or death struggle before the British came. The Triumph of Oenotria was almost assured. Then a thin red line of 'eros drove them back up into the highlands. Its been almost 20 years since that fateful day, and the Oenotrians have long memories.....

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

I guess if anyone wants to play they can just respond here.

[Lieutenant Kije]

I'm very interested!  

FYI: I do not have tons of experience RPing.  I had a brief intro to the Hero system and I know a bit about D&D 3e., but that's it.  I don't think it would be too much of a problem for me to get familiar with a new system, though.

I'm currently in AORP, and think that I can handle a second game with ease.

[Entsuropi]

Ok, so here are my thoughts.

My first recommendation is to return the game to its rightful place - Africa. Setting the game in Mars feels like a throwaway gimmick. It also seems to be so as to avoid offending politically correct sensibilities. Since the players on the forum are mature enough not to need such a decrepid moral crutch, the only effect is to reduce the moral potency of the game. In mars, it feels like a pulpy cheap sci fi game. In Africa, it can be a solid, thoughtful look at the issues of the time, as well as being fun. The dark continent has a exotic and dangerous charm of its own, which the mars in that setting cannot hope to match. Do not be mistaken into believing that a lack of green people makes it less interesting - it makes it more interesting. Research material is in your nearest library - national geographic are likely to have stacks of information on the issue, an aspect I can help with using the CD archives I have.

Second, make it D20 - not out of any preference, but since that is what most people on the site are most familiar with. And that way you can use the gun lists in the D20 version of CoC.

Thirdly, that synopsis makes it sound very combat orientated. That is a no-no for a board game, and it does not do justice to the setting. Try to come up with a campaign synopsis of your own that moves it into more roleplaying orientated territory.

In fact, that is perhaps a very important thing to do. Post a notice in the 'Alternate Realities' board, giving a short outline of your campaign, what you intend for it to be like, why you think it would be fun, etc. Essentially a blurb.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Ok, so here are my thoughts.

"In mars, it feels like a pulpy cheap sci fi game."

Well in that youd be right,... it is a pulpy cheap sci-fi game
Which is why the original game was called Space 1889.
The premise is that the universe is filled with ether, so Humans are able to fly from one planet to the next using etheric flyers.


In Africa, it can be a solid, thoughtful look at the issues of the time, as well as being fun. The dark continent has a exotic and dangerous charm of its own, which the mars in that setting cannot hope to match. Do not be mistaken into believing that a lack of green people makes it less interesting - it makes it more interesting. Research material is in your nearest library - national geographic are likely to have stacks of information on the issue, an aspect I can help with using the CD archives I have.  

While I appreciate your offer to help Entropy I'm also getting a little bit of a condescending vibe from your post (forgive me if I respond a bit defensively).
I was a history major in college and am an amatuer historian, I have over 150 titles about the victorian era in my personal library. I own thousands of national geographics and have loads and loads of notes and other practical information about the era....

That being said I dont want to set the game in Africa. I want to set the game on Mars, with flying Martians or maybe on Venus with its swamps and Lizard men. I will play a bit on earth, but not much mainly because I dont want people looking up how events will turn out on Earth. If Im going to GM I want to GM cheesy late victorian pulp Sci-Fi the kind written by HG Wells and Conan Doyle(who realistically were early Edwardian I think, have to look that one up).
You know the pulps that always involved exploring some sort of dangerous "other world" Be it The Underworld of London or the far flung deserts of Afganistan....

"Second, make it D20 - not out of any preference, but since that is what most people on the site are most familiar with. And that way you can use the gun lists in the D20 version of CoC."

No

I hate D20 with a passion.

I think its a flavorless, souless system.

Plus 1889 doesn't really have a gun list....
I mean they do, but the only real differences between guns are when you change from pistol to rifle, to gatling gun. That and ammo.
When you think about it is there really that much of a diference between a shotgun and an M16.

Besides range---

and when was the last time your players sniped at people from over a half mile away.  

"Thirdly, that synopsis makes it sound very combat orientated. That is a no-no for a board game, and it does not do justice to the setting. Try to come up with a campaign synopsis of your own that moves it into more roleplaying orientated territory."

I do agree with you about this, but since I am writing some fiction about a consulting detective on Mars right nowIm not worried.

 

[Entsuropi]

No condesention was meant. I was merely commenting that if any research was needed then a library could help, and that i have access to some other material that i could share. I hardly knew about your piles of stuff...

On the pulp setting - fair enough. Not something i enjoy though, i was giving a suggestion.

D20 - fair enough. Be warned - WOTC are sending their prestige class assassins to kill you even now.

Guns - fraid not. There is a huge difference between a rifle and a shotgun. Loading - different. Damage type - different. Range - different. Your comment is similar to someone saying "well, there is no difference between Tolkien and between Terry Prattchet - they are both fantasy".

Put it another way. You claim there is little difference between guns. If that is so, then why do american troops armed with M16's consistently get better kills than AK47 armed troops?

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

The real answer is a combination of training and modern battle armor, not weapon quality...

the AK 47 while being the worlds most widely distributed battle rifle is also in the hands of some of the least trained individuals because of its reliability and ruggedness. AK's, Galils, M-16's, FAL's HK's and Steyrs are all just about equal when talking stopping power and velocity. At the very least they are close enough for government work.  The training that modern armies get with their battle rifles is an incredible advantage. I know I've done it in the Coast Guard. You spend days on the range learning the right way to shoot, how to control your breathing etc... then we have combat courses (which admittedly arn't like being shot at, but there close enough to get your heart pumping. The US Army trains with MARS gear (essentially laser tag only all grown up) Compare that to the average Iraqi pesent with an AK and a prayer and it makes a tremedous advantage.
Also modern Kevlar body armor has done more to save lives in modern armies than anything short of pennacillin.  First world countrys with FAL's and M-16's have it 3rd world places with Ak's don't.

Realistically getting shot at short range is deadly, one or two rounds will either kill you or severerly wound you if you dont recive immediate medical treatment.  Smaller Caliber like the (Nato 5.56mm) bullets may do less trauma on the surface, but many rounds are designed to flatten, or tumble or even fragment once hitting the skin evening the score with higer caliber bullets (like the AK's -7.62mm ) at a trade off of a few more yards of range. But since most firefights happen at a distance of less than 10 yards that power is often wasted especially since being 1 millimeter off in aim can translate into  20 yards at the end of the bullets path.  

Loading a shotgun may be different that loading an m-16 and the range may be different, but the damage is still trauma, broken bones and severe blood loss. Furthermore combat shotguns with clips of fifteen shotshells even the gap. Heck Remington pump action shotguns with 5 rounds even the score. Realistically the damage is basically the same no matter what gun you use.

Can you honestly say that there is a type of bullet you wouldnt mind being shot with?

[Entsuropi]

If that is the case, then why is the American army buying new rifles? Why not just use AK47s? It is a lot cheaper... The answer is that there must be an advantage there.

You even detail some methods of improving the damage caused by bullets. Surely that should be recognized?

"Most firefights happen at a distance of less than 10 yards"
huh? Got any evidence or stats for that? Maybe in cityfighting, but are you saying to me that soldiers in Iraq are waiting until they get 9 and a half metres away before they fire?

But never mind.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

If that is the case, then why is the American army buying new rifles? Why not just use AK47s? It is a lot cheaper... The answer is that there must be an advantage there.

You even detail some methods of improving the damage caused by bullets. Surely that should be recognized?  

"Most firefights happen at a distance of less than 10 yards"
huh? Got any evidence or stats for that? Maybe in cityfighting, but are you saying to me that soldiers in Iraq are waiting until they get 9 and a half metres away before they fire?

Now thats just silly, why do you buy new cars, or clothes? Yes the AK 47 is cheaper, but why.... because the rifle hasn't been made for almost 50 years. There are millions on the market because when the Soviet Union switched to the smaller caliber AK74 the sold off millions of their old battle rifles to anyone who cold afford them. At roughly 100 dollars american per rifle a lot of people were able to buy a lot of rifles.
The rifles main limitation was a drop in accuracy past 300 meters due to its heavier ammunition (you have to lead the target up and arc the shot) but a trained soldier could easily adjust to that.
According to the US Army most shooters will only ever be able to reach the 250 meter mark in fact a considerable number of soldiers leave basic without having to ever hit the 300 meter mark so you can see what a huge difference the change made.

Also the US Army is always looking for some sort of edge, the latest edge is in the field of smart weapons... add a camera and laser sight to your rifle and now it weighs 15 pounds more than it did. So the started looking for a way to lighten the MBR. Also new technologys make the rifle more reliable and efficent but dont really improve the damage capability of the weapon. Tumbling, explosive and frangible rounds may do a lot of tissue damage, but they are not as likely to shatter bone as a heavier slug would do. Still since its easy to bleed to death from a gunshot wound the two types are still on par with each other. One just insures a few more bags of blood and skilled surgeons need to be in the MASH tent.
Unfortunately the only evidence I can cite at the moment about combat ranges comes from my Rifle instructor in the Coast Guard but if you want I'll look it up. I know from experience that hitting anyone over 300 meters away reliably is a bit of a crap shoot. You have to be really good your gun needs to be in tip top shape and it doesn't hurt to have perfect weather (windage is a real problem). Anything over 100 yards in IRAQ was probably engaged by heavy machine guns untill about 50 meters when everyone opened up.

[Fellfrosch]

It all depends on the level of detail you're using in your game, Entropy. For my purposes, almost every hand-held gun you can name is more or less the same: you point and shoot, and the target dies. Lesser details such as how long it takes to load, how big the entry hole is, and so on are too complex for me to care about when I'm trying to run a fight scene in a game.

But that's just me--I'm sure everyone has a different preference.