Re: Ecology of the Scro

On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 00:33:29 -0500 Paul Westermeyer
<westermeyer.3@???.edu> writes:
>
>
> >Without powder and bullets a USMC M91 .50 caliber sniper rifle is
> just an expensive (and heavy) rifle.
>
> Actually, it's just a club.


   Doouggh! (smacks forehead in dismay)
   I meant to say club, really!! (Sigh) dramatic comment grenade turns
out to
be a dud.


> I guess I just feel SJ has enough 'super-powerful' powers-behind the
> throne
> already:)  But i agree with Adam, the technology really kinda ruined
> the
> usefullness of the article for me personally.

   From that and other comments on the list it seems to be the
overwhelming
complaint. Thats fine, just remove all references to leveraction and use
flintlock (or lower) firearms instead. It stands well on its own without.

  As to the other posts question about the leveraction rifle and
cartridge
debate in civil war era. (This goes a little bit off topic and I
apologize):
   I did a bit of research on the civil war on my own because I wanted a
good
guideline on what was available and what wasn't. Sorry but but no tommy
guns were around, nor included in my post if you read it.
  About midway through the war both the Sharps and Henry repeating lever
action rifles were invented and used in limited numbers by the union
army.
The Sharps was advertised as being able to hold 15 cartridges in the
circular
feed tube. Their slogan was "the rifle you load on Sunday and fire all
week!"
Both never saw more than a few thousand delivered to union forces before
wars end and neither seemed to make a large impact on the war effort.
   Records of one encounter between a union patrol armed with the new
lever actions stated that the soldiers fell to immediate "spray and pray
"
tactics emptying nearly every round on the confederates who escaped as
far they could tell with no sign of injury except a wounded mule left
behind.
Most of the historian comments I read stated that the advance firearms
never could hav made a significant impact on the battlefield without an
evolution in the tactics of infantry that would bring their abilities
into play.

  Last question was why an undead base, if it just wants to eat you. The
simple answer is two points. First, a gammaroid is so large that it is
powerless to "eat" little things like scro wandering around the interior
of its
remains. That would be like you deciding to eat the dust mites that
inhabit
the little craters where your eyelashes reside. Not espescially easy or
likely.
Second a simple undead is a simple undead no matter how large, and it is
controlled by the creator(s). For the same reason an evil necromancer
surrounds himself with undead minions and has no fear of them, because
he is in control.
  That aside a series of steamengines and levers to make the appendages
of Gamaro move would be ludicrously huge and expensive , requiring far
more than 4 scro even per appendage to operate. Short of massive
technological
innovations or powerful magic on the scale of a Mythal that would be
unlikely.
Remember that in scale a gammaroid is about 5 times longer than big ole'

Godzilla that you all watched tramping through newyork last year. Thats
just
longer not counting overall volume considerations. Godzilla would make a
nice mouthfull for that 500 foot wide mouth on Gamaro. We're talking big,
very
big. A simple undead animation can cover all that quite easily because it

employs the innate strengths of the creature from its former life. In
other words
its a nifty shortcut that isn't too complicated.
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.