What Makes Great Science Fiction?

Science fiction should be more than entertainment. Great science fiction should make you think. It needs to challenge the status quo and ask questions that many fear to ask. Science fiction should not only show the range of possibilities, but also consider their ramifications. This is why certain books, movies and television series make an impact. The old classic “Forbidden Planet” was a space opera on the surface, but it came to a point where it asked deep-seated questions of the psyche and the possible consequences of tapping its power. That is why it endured. The original Star Trek series was an anthology wrapped around a central story line and cast of characters. Each episode tackled different subjects, from time travel to bigotry. The crew, star-ship and “federation” were but a milieu to tell those stories. Though the special effects, uniforms and aliens are hokey by today’s standards, the stories still hold.

Great sci fi challenges us to think. Robert Heinlein’s “Starship troopers” (the book, not the movie) questions why men fight. Philip K. Dick’s dystopian Blade runner questioned the issue humanity and technology. The old classic “A canticle For Liebowitz” questions nuclear war and humankind’s repeated attempts to annihilate itself.

Yes, science fiction can be entertaining. Movies like “The Fifth Element” and “Valerian” are a romp through fantastic worlds. However, they merely entertain, though they entertain well. The truly great sci-fi asks and inspires.

 It is truly said that the idea is not to have all the right answers, but to ask all the right questions. Great science fiction does just that!

OMOG Science Fiction / Space Supplement Available

The Science Fiction / Space supplement to the OMOG Advanced game rules can be downloaded here:

www.thortrains.net/shambattle/OMOG-space-supplement.pdf

Have fun!

This is a set of ideas for running your own skirmish games. Much is still tentative.


You can download OMOG Advanced here: http://www.thortrains.net/downloads/OMOG-advanced-game-2015.pdf


There is a place to discuss OMOG and Shambattle games here:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/shambattle/

Sci-Fi; Adding Mystical Power to Games

 

The mix of mystical powers and science fiction is hard enough to reconcile. Though the Warhammer 40,000 series of games seems ot have done it, they are a genre all their own. Warhammer blends science fiction and fantasy and technologies that have long since passed plausible reality. It is strictly a game that stands alone. Most science fiction does not blend the two easily. 

The following examples are ideas on what might be usable in sci-fi games. They are general concepts which can be adapted to fit within a game. I wrote them with the intention that they serve as idea which others would want to alter and adapt to fit their own games. Please feel free to adapt as you see fit.

Shambattle Spy Rule: Each side designates one soldier of the enemy to act as a spy. This figure is played as a normal soldier on the other wise. The spymaster chooses when to activate him. At that point, he is operated by the spymaster. He can be used to attack enemy soldiers.

In my opinion, there have to be limits. He cannot be an officer. You may have to limit what kind of soldier he is. Maybe he cannot be a heavy weapons man, or an elite trooper, etc.

Telepaths and empaths: there is little use for telepathy in the heat of a battle. Like most psychic skills, its use is for non-combat situations. Indeed, most psychics cannot use their skills when under duress, such as in a gunfight. They need time and enough calm to concentrate. The one use in a battle game would be to expose the spy. Should a telepath come within a half move of a spy, the agent is exposed. To make it harder, neither the telepath nor those within a half move of him can have fired that move. The also cannot be involved in hand to hand combat or the operation of a weapon.

Zen / The Force: A fighter using spiritual power will have certain advantages. The use of Zen and the Force are both legendary in their respective fields. The first obvious effect is to enhance the fighter’s offense and defense in close combat. A fighter can strike and deflect weapons.

A second enhancement is for those fighters who may use aimed weapons. They will have improved accuracy, like snipers. Think of Luke using the force to aim his missiles in the first Star Wars movie, or a Zen Kyudo archer hitting target.

The Force allows a fighter to move objects and attack at a distance. He can push an enemy or knock him down, depending on his skill.

With Zen and the Force, there are levels of ability. We can simplify this for game purposes. These would be Novice, Average and Master. We think of a novice as Luke first learning to use the Force. A Master is a highly accomplished fighter. Historical figures like Miyamoto Musashi and fictional characters like Obi Wan and Darth Vader are masters.

A Novice gets +1 when defending and attacking with a sword or light saber. If using the Force he can also deflect one shooter per turn using a standard firearm. (This is not a Zen power, except whe ndeflecting arrows and hand-launched projectiles).

An Average warrior gets +2 on attack and defense. A Force user can deflect 2 shooters per turn using standard personal firearms.

A Master gets +3 on attack and defense. Usoign the Force, he can deflect three shooters with personal weapons or one squad-level heavy weapon.

As novices have yet to develop enough concentration, they must roll before using the Force. On a six-sided die (not the nerdy D&D dice) 1 and 2 he fails the concentrate and so fight as a normal fighter.

An average Force fighter who is not shooting or in close combat can stop an opponent at 1/2 move away. This does not work on other Force users, nor on officers, as they have developed sufficient will to be unaffected. The affected individual cannot move for 1 move.

A Master force fighter can push an opponent to the ground at 1/2 move. The individual cannot move for 1 turn and fights at -1 for one turn. If the opponent is an Average Force user, he can only push him back. A Master can use this skill against anyone with whom he is not engaged in combat.

Like a telepath, a Force fighter will detect a spy at up to 1/2 move away.

A Master is going to be a very powerful piece in a game, so steps must be taken to retain game balance.

Rule of Three: to make close combat more practical ,we had invented the Rule of Three for the updated Shambatte (A Game for Old Fashioned Toy Soldiers) and OMOG. A figure attacked by three figures resolves combat thus:

In a 2 to 1 fight, the single fighter is penalized:

He fights at -1 against the first enemy

He fights at -2 against the second foe

If there is a third enemy in the fight, the defender still fights the first and second enemies as above. The third automatically kills him. This Rule applies to all normal fighters and the Novice.

　

For fighters using the Force, an Average level fighter has the Rule of three extended to a Rule of Four. He gets -1 for the first enemy, -2 each for the 2^nd and 3^rd enemies, and is automatically killed if there is a 4th enemy.

For a master, he fights the first enemy at no loss, the second fighter at -1, and additional enemies at -2. He is not automatically killed, no matter how many are in the melee..

***

Thinking of Sci Fi commanders, who would be my picks? Kirk was too much of a hothead and too impatient. He got a lot of people killed. Not a guy you want on your side in a gunfight. Adama was too laid back. Picard was passable., Archer and Crichton both would be good in small actions with a squad or smaller. Darth Vader was good with small units and larger operations. He would be a good man to have on your side in a small gunfight and a larger assault.

Vader’s problem is the material with which he must work. Let’s face it, folks, Imperial Stormtroopers are matched by Star Trek’s red-shirt security for coming up short in a fight. If Vader had troops like the mobile infantry of Starship Trooper, he would have done wonders. Even with mediocre troops, Darth Vader got things done

 

Retro Space part 2 - Space Tanks and Space 1955

Space Tank

What would a space tank be like in 1955?  If energy weapons were unavailable, how might it work?  We cam imagine that in low gravity, the recoil of the main gun would rock the tank ferociously. I am reminded of stories crewmen told of the old M551 Sheridan Light Tank. Its 152mm gun was great for firing the Shillelagh missile. Using the conventional rounds was another matter. It rocked the vehicle and knocked out the missile launcher’s electronics. The main gun of a tank firing a 76mm gun or larger would likely do the same or worse in low gravity.

The big problem is having an engine large enough to power the tank. We have already discussed the problem of engines, fuel and the need for oxygen. The tank would require an electric motor and a very large battery. That meant it would have to be relatively light. Vehicles the size of the Patton series (M46, M47, M48) then in use would be too heavy both to transport and to power.

Solutions existed at the time for the gun and the tank’s size. The recoilless rifle and rocket launcher were both viable weapons which had little recoil. The problems were that they had a back blast and that the shells would have to carry their own oxygen if used in a vacuum or a low-oxygen atmosphere. One of the weapons of the time combined a one-man tank with six recoilless rocket launchers mounted on the outside of the hull. The Ontos was used by the Marine Corp in Vietnam as a type of mobile direct-fire artillery. Such a vehicle was light enough that it could be battery-powered with 1950s technology. Of course, it would require significant alteration.

Another light vehicle tested by the Army could have been used. The experimental T92 light tank could be adapted to carry a recoilless weapon on top. Many light tanks could be fitted with external missiles the size of the Nike, Hawk and Little John rockets. One successful type of mounting was for small rockets. The American Calliope and Soviet Katyusha could be fitted to light vehicles. Each fired a battery of small rockets.

For the recoilless rifle and rocket launcher to be recoilless, the backblast would have to be directed outside the vehicle. There would also have to be some space between the back of the vehicle and another object like a wall or cliff.  There is always a give and take with weapons systems. For the ability to fire without recoil, the backblast is a problem

Reloading can be difficult. Perhaps an automatic system would be made to slide the tube forward, bringing the back end into the crew compartment for reloading. The Swedish S tank had its breech in back, outside the vehicle. Someone would have to go outside to reload. The Ontos also had to be loaded from outside. That is not very convenient in the midst of a battle!

A vehicle would have enough room to make a recoil-absorbing buffer for light automatic weapons. A light machine gun could be used with a recoil buffer.

Among good toy tanks to convert into retro vehicles are the old MPC snap together toys. The four that are easiest to get are the tank destroyer (loosely based on the T92), open carrier with 106mm gun based on the Weasel, and an open-back Armored Personnel Carrier. These could easily be converted to retro space combat vehicles. Indeed, they can also be made into futuristic ones.

MPC also had a heavy carrier track and an open-backed track. These are harder to find, but are easily made into model space vehicles.

Marx made several tracked space vehicles for its Operation Moonbase playsets. These included a tracked wrecker, tracked vehicle with water or fuel tanks, and a vehicle with plow. All had hooks to pull a trailer and giant wheels. These wheels were supposed to be a way to transport liquids. There was also an eight-wheeled vehicle that looked like a large armored car. Marx’s vehicles were mostly one-piece castings with snap-on wheels underneath and perhaps one or two snap-on parts.

The Hamilton’s invaders sets had an odd “tank” and armored car with clear dome cockpits. The tank was more like an assault gun.

Projectile weapons in space

Projectiles such as bullets and heavier rounds work according to the laws of physics. On Earth with its gravity and atmosphere, the path of a shell is affected by velocity, gravity and windage. Windage is the flow of air that may push a round off course. Higher velocity can minimize the affect of windage.

Three things will stop a round: gravity, air resistance and an object. Velocity can resist all of them, to a point. As the round loses velocity, gravity will exert more force until it pulls it to the ground. The only exception is if the round hits an object solid enough to stop it. Air resistance and objects cause the round to lose velocity.  Light objects slow it down more than air. Heavier objects can slow or stop it. Gravity itself will pull a projectile down eventually.

A low atmosphere means less air resistance, so the projectile travels further. The same goes for low gravity. A vacuum offers no resistance. The projectile will proceed unless it hits an object or gravity gets it. With enough velocity, it can travel over the curve of a planet to escape gravity, at least theoretically. On the other hand, denser atmosphere and stronger gravity will slow a bullet faster then Earth’s normal atmosphere.

Theoretically, a pellet fired in deep space could travel at its original velocity indefinitely. The reality is that it would be affected by solar winds, cosmic rays, and the minuscule gravity from very distant celestial objects. A bullet would travel a very long distance, at least thousands of miles, before various cosmic forces slowed it significantly. It may even be able to go millions of miles, like the Voyager space mission.

For the soldier fighting in a low atmosphere, low gravity situation, it means that he can shoot further. Of course, he will have to learn to compensate his aim for the new conditions. At normal combat ranges, he will be more vulnerable. Projectiles will be coming at him faster and harder than usual. In some cases, a 9mm pistol fired in low gravity and low atmosphere could have the range and impact of a 30.06 rifle on Earth.

Machine guns would likely need a large recoil buffer for low gravity. While such a thing could easily be added to a vehicle, it might be bulky and awkward for infantry using light machine guns like the Browning .30 caliber and the M60. The buffer might have to be carried separately from the weapon. It would be put on while setting up the weapon.

Grenades, like ammunition, would have to carry their own oxygen for use in low or no atmosphere conditions. A special explosive would be needed that yielded a high blast for very little oxygen. Concussion and fragmentation grenades might not have the same blast power as their conventional counterparts used in atmosphere. Then again, in a low or no atmosphere with low gravity, fragments would not meet resistance from air.  The blast effect would be less than a normal grenade, but the fragmentation may be the same or even greater without resistance of air and gravity.

Thermite grenades would require an air supply. They might even be issued in two parts: a thermite can and an oxygen tank of the same size. Incendiary grenades would have little impact in low atmosphere or vacuum environments. Fire needs oxygen, and the kind of fire sets by incendiaries would need a lot of it.

Explosive warheads on rockets, missiles and other ordnance would need enough air to ignite. An oxygen supply might be built into an air-tight warhead. Again, science would have to develop an explosive that needed less air to do its work.

Whose Op Is It Anyway?

The norm is that the branch of service who first develops or discovers something is the one who owns it. Secret German technology from World War II would have been the province of the Army. The Navy would be the one turning up Japanese secret technology, since they operated across the Pacific. That is, except for operations in New Guinea and the Phillipines. Those were Army operations.

Our secret technology would have been found by the Army. That would have invoked Army Intelligence and the Office of Strategic Services. Because of its expertise in flying ,the Army Air Corps would play a dominant role in the future of the technology. I believe the whole operation would be assumed by the Air Force when it was formed from the Army in 1947.

Operating crews for the new technology would be Air Force personnel. Security would be provided by the Air Police. The Air Force has few personnel trained for sustained ground combat. These include liasons from the Strategic Air Command who travel with Army combat operations. They direct air support, especially bombers. The other are the Air Commandos, an elite unit trained for rescuing downed pilots under fire. Normally, air bases are distant enough that any ground combat will be handled by the Army.

For forays with the space technology, the Air Force will have ways to consolidate successful landings. They would create their own landing force that would include explorers, security personnel, engineers to build temporary structures etc. As combat troops for on-planet situations, they have options. They may create special armed landing parties, somewhat similar to the traditional Naval use of Marines. They may also develop larger ground formations or they may transport Army personnel for the purpose. The problem is one of purpose. The Air Force is supposed to fly. Ground operations are the work of the Army.

Either way, ground troops would need specialized training and would probably have to go through a screening process.

Would NASA or something like it emerge as a space program? Might the space operations eventually become a separate branch? Might this branch handle non-combat exploration, evoking the military only when needed? We have seen the evolution of NASA away from the Air Force to become its own civilian government agency. Many of its space crewmen are from Air Force and Navy Aviation. A specific branch for space travel makes sense.

Though space travel might be available, it would not change the status of things here on Earth all that much. There would still be tensions between nations. The military would be needed to protect the country. Just as NASA has not caused the end of conflicts here, so a Space 1955 situation would not end it in an alternate reality. The Air Force would be committed to national defense. Creating a separate branch focusing strictly on space would allow the Air Force to stick to its mission. nonetheless, the Air Force would be the guiding military branch to handle space travel in the early years of the program. When the split would be made is hard to decide. Space still might be strictly Air Force in 1955. Then again, it may already be transitioning into another arm of the government, in the alternate history scenario.

*****

Sergeant Horner leaned back in his chair, taking a sip of beer. He looked at the fellows at his table, grinned, and finished his tale,”

“Now, you know how dusty it is out at the G5 sector on the big red rock. We were holding off at least a squad of Bemmies out there. Lousy shots. Those big buggy eyes don’t help them aim any better...”

The other soldiers guffawed knowingly. Almost everyone sitting in that NCO club knew the Bemmies’ reputation for poor marksmanship.

“Okay, so we just about scattered them when my arm shakes and I hear a crack.  The damn bug-eyes got a lucky shot and hit my M9's stock. Blasted the air reservoir. I was about to crawl over and grab the side-arm from the kit box when three of them rushed me. They love the hand-to-hand fight.”

The other men nodded. It was a known fact that the Bemmies liked to brawl rather than shoot.

“I dropped what was left of the rifle. Those buggy bums thought they had me, but I gave them a surprise that they never recovered from. I snatched up my entrenching tool and let them have it.  Wham! Wham! Wham! Shattered their face plates and let that “healthy” Martian atmosphere do the rest. Ya gotta love that tool. Best thing to come out of the last World War,” Horner said.

Retro Space part 1 - For Sci Fi Readers and Gamers

Radio Punk

I grew up with the kind of spacemen that inspired the old Archer and Ajax figures. Prior to the Mercury flights, we thought spacemen would look like the toys. Reality trumps fiction. Toy spacemen made ever since have usually been in the mold of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo type astronauts. That is, except for a few fictional types such as Star Trek and Star Wars. Even then, modern characters in space suits were more like conventional astronauts.

Along with toy spacemen were old movie posters featuring futuristic astronauts in various adventures. The Buck Rogers serials and others like them gave us an idea of space that would be very cool with a touch of Art Deco and Streamline artistic flair. Thinking of them made me wonder where such spacemen might represent real astronauts. Just as they were suited for space operas in the 1950s, might they be appropriate if we had gotten into space by the middle of that decade?

What with Steampunk trying to create an alternate history with the technology of the late 1800s, I wondered. Could we not do the same with technology developed in the decade after World War II?  Perhaps...perhaps, if we can come up with a means to go into space without overstepping the limits of plausible deniability.

The following is based on some random speculation I did about ten or twelve years ago.

I call it “radio-punk”.

A thought experiment from a few years ago based itself on an unusual premise. What if some kind of unfinished secret Nazi technology was found at the War’s end that could make space travel possible? I have heard old conspiracy theories about everything from flying saucers to levitating occult devices. For sake of science fiction, let us suppose that one of them was viable. Though it would not have been ready by the end of the War, it could be developed further afterward. Remember Space 1999? How about Space 1955? It would be an alternate history kind of thing.

Getting to space would be one thing. What about dealing with the vacuum and the intense cold of Space? How about shielding from solar radiation and cosmic rays?  How about the Van Allen Radiation Belt?  Our astronauts did not have to deal with the Van Allen Belt until the Apollo Missions to the Moon. The Belt was only discovered in 1958. That I think of it, in Space 1955, dealing with the Van Allen Belt could be an episode all in itself.

In real time, a lot of advances in technology were accomplished between 1955 and 1969. Several of them were crucial to making the Moon landing a success. I do not know all of them. One necessity was a pressurized suit that shielded the wearer from extreme temperatures and radiation. Look at the evolution of Space Suits from the Mercury crew, whose gear was not very different from a high-altitude military pilot, to the Moon suits worn by the Apollo crew. Not being expert, I do not know how many of the materials used were even a thought in 1955.

If these things could be handled with the secret Nazi technology and 1950s ingenuity, what might they be? The first Laser was made in 1960. That pretty much precludes laser communications, laser navigation, laser rangefinders and energy weapons for our 1955 space crew. I do not know how advanced we were with transistors in 1955, or how much of a radio or video would still require vacuum tubes. Video cameras were large and awkward at the time. Broadcasting television signals was a much bigger operation. It took years to miniaturize many of these things. Communication would require more equipment and space in 1955.

As for armaments, things would be quite different without ray guns and other energy weapons. I imagine for close range, spring-loaded weapons might be useful for no or low gravity. A spear gun or even small crossbow type gadget may be the thing, especially since there is no atmosphere to slow the projectile. Rockets would be ideal, from larger missiles fired from a space ship to man-carried rockets like those fired from a bazooka. Rockets would have to carry their own oxygen if used in a vacuum or an atmosphere lacking it. Weapons used inside a spacecraft would have to be low-velocity projectile weapons with ammo that does not penetrate the hull. They would rely on the air in the craft for ignition. For ground combat with gravity, but low or no atmosphere, or an atmosphere lacking oxygen, there could be projectile weapons. A powerful air gun, working along the lines of CO2 pellet guns, might work. It would have to carry its own propellent. Firearms would have to be adapted for the purpose. First, they would need to have an oxygen supply to provide ignition. Second, the projectile’s powder would have to be formulated to give plenty of power with less oxygen. Firearms would likely have their own small oxygen tank, either external, internal, or both. A soldier would be in trouble if he ran out of ammo or air.

Of course. there is always a chance of getting alien technology. One might discover it left behind  on a moon or planet in our solar system. We may capture some in a skirmish with aliens. Suppose an alien culture developed energy weapons, but never had the transistor or solid-state electronics? Even on Earth, all cultures did not develop evenly. That would allow for the ray guns carried by old style toy spacemen.

Speaking of space, a lot of things might trickle down from the secret technology into the everyday world. It may affect air travel and the future development of aircraft, for instance. In the series inspired by Philip K. Dick’s The Man in the High Castle, the Nazis developed a supersonic passenger jet akin to the Concorde SST called “the Rocket.” Might a different technology lead to different aircraft with capabilities superior to those in real time?

Would the new technology affect ground vehicles? How might that work?

Suppose the new technology only applied to air and space travel. What kind of vehicles could be made to explore other planets? The Lunar Rover used batteries, but its technology was far in advance of what was available in 1955. Back then, batteries did not last as long and needed to be handled with more care. Leaking was a big problem for dry cell batteries in the 1950s. The electric motors of the day tended to be large and needed a large power source. Battery operation would have been ponderous because of all the batteries that were needed. Steam and internal combustion engines would be impractical because they need oxygen for the fuel that provides heat. As with powering electric motors, a lot of batteries would have to be used to provide enough heat for just a little steam. There is also the problem of water. Transporting water for a steam-powered vehicle would use up valuable space. A space rover powered like a bicycle might work on smooth terrain. It would have to be small and light, and could not carry much more than the passengers pushing the pedals.

Solar panels and similar technology were nowhere in sight in the 1950s. Energy sources would have to be brought.

As you can see, Space 1955 is more difficult, requires more time, more space, heavier and bigger objects that what could be made in 1969. Just as modern technology is well advanced of that used for the Apollo missions, so the Apollo technology was a quantum leap ahead of 1955. Look at what we had in our everyday lives back then. Radios, televisions, appliances and the like were bigger and heavier. Very few had electronics. Tube technology was at its height. Most things were heavier because most were made of metal and wood. The plastics were heavier and thicker.

How would we reconcile that with the idea of space travel and interplanetary adventurers?  How might the technology be explained?  To devise technology from that era taking the place of its modern counterpart, you would have to go back to 1950s tech and then bring it forward by another route. This route would be limited to the materials and know-how of the time. For instance, there would be a lot of wires and tubes. Transistors and solid state were relatively new and rather primitive as compared to what was available a decade later.

Keep in mind that this is all wildly speculative. I do not have the background in science history to know enough 1950s “state of the art”. Likewise, I do not have the kind of specialized knowledge about space travel and astronomy to know all of the  conditions to be overcome for the safety of astronauts. With Space 1955, I was having fun stretching a few ideas. Frankly, I do not know if it would have been remotely possible, even by stretching the limits of plausible deniability. Still and all, it was fun to consider.

Besides, the old fictional space suits and the old style rocket ships with fins look a darn sight better than the real things that emerged since 1960. NASA does amazing things, but compared to the Buck Rogers serials, it looks bland. And while Buzz Aldrin could probably out-think, out-shoot, out-fight and out-smart Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon and the rest of them, their stuff still looked better.

*****

Aliens 1955

During the original Star Trek series, Aliens began to change. Most of Star Trek’s alien encounters involved humans or creatures very close to human. Things were not so in the 1950s. A look at the covers of science fiction novels and magazines shows a very weird variety of creatures. While green was the most popular color for aliens, the shape of them was truly bizarre. There were tall ones, short ones, thick ones and skinny ones. Most had pointy ears and big buggy eyes., A nickname for standard sci-fi aliens was “Bemmies”, a take on the acronym for Bug Eyed Monster. One thing that is notable is that many looked like mythical beings as described in old folktales from around the world. Sci-fi had given a scientific update to the general run of trolls, ogres, demons, imps, gnomes and hobgoblins. There were also assorted clunky robots, from sinister cylinders to boxy metal men to “Robbie” of forbidden planet. One funny example was a robot who opened the door to the underground world in Gene Autry’s “The Phantom Empire”. The top of the robot’s head was shaped like a cowboy hat.

Keeping a 1950s sci-fi flavor to Space 1955 would be enhanced by aliens like those of the 1950s. For toy soldier buffs, plastic makers Lido and Marx both produced their own ranges of alien spacemen.  They are a bit hard to find these days. Lido’s aliens and robots were quite bizarre. Marx’s “Moonbase Alpha” aliens were just a little less so. If you cannot find the ones you like, sculpt your own or look at fantasy figures. Many of them can be converted to 1950s-style alien spacemen.

One of the more bizarre alien space things was a series of cards from the early 1960s called “Mars Attacks.” They were about an alien invasion of Earth and the depravity of the invaders. Some of the cards were quite gruesome, too. A movie of the same name was made in 1996, including some retro elements. One could get some ideas about aliens of the 1950s from the movie and cards. If anything the movie was a lot of fun.

Alien space ships, vehicles and other equipment was often illustrated on the covers of science fiction.  They can be used to devise your own alien airdromes and motor pools.

******

Game Adjustments

There would not need to be many game adjustments made to incorporate Space 1955 / Radiopunk. Most alterations would be to work at a level of lower technology. Many things accepted in current futuristic sci-fi would not even be on the drawing boards in the 1950s. A problem might be in finding suitably large alien figures if you use the old Ajax and Archer type figures.

Part II will be posted tomorrow

Science Fiction: Subterranean Warfare

Currently, there are people who have some expertise in rescuing trapped miners. What of people whose specialty is subterranean warfare? We see an inking of it in Starship Troopers, where the Bug "Brains" had to be hunted underground. The other bugs were ferocious defenders. A computer game from the 1990s called "Descent" involved a special vehicle to go underground and clear hostile elements from a mining complex. Space- Above and Beyond had an episode that was based on combat in a subterranean Chig or AI complex. Vietnam had its "tunnel rats" who went in to Vietcong tunnels to flush them out. Siege Warfare often devolved into a game of mine sand countermines. culminating in underground tunneling in World War I. Considering the likelihood of combat in mines or against a subterranean-dwelling species, it stands to reason that future space armies might have special troops for the purpose.

I would imagine such troops would have advanced version of things like seismographs and ground penetrating radar. They would also need sophisticated equipment to detect gasses and places where air is too thin or humidity is to thick to breathe. Such conditions exist in Earthly cave systems. One cave with deadly heat and humidity had giant quartz crystals. Explorers must bring air and wear special suits to enter. Certainly, we may find cavern-dwelling aliens who thrive in that kind of environment. Indeed, some may thrive in any one or more underground environments that would kill a human. These same aliens may very well have a bad reaction to our air. I am reminded of the volcanic tubes in the Western Pacific that spout toxic fumes and great heat. Various crustaceans and other sea life have adapted to breathing it and thrive in that environment. Take then away from it and place them in normal seawater and they die and crumble rapidly. Certainly, there may be alien species living underground who evolved in a toxic (to us) environment or adapted to it. Going into their realm would be like entering the chemical warfare battlefield.

Other aliens may have taken to the underground to avoid harmful radiation or toxins on the surface. A cosmic accident, extreme series of solar flares or other misadventure might be the cause of their planet’s surface turning inhospitable. There was a very hokey movie titled "The Mole Men" that had a surviving Sumerian people who had adapted to living deep underground. The original Superman series had its own mole men in one episode. Horror movies dealt with things like CHUD (Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller) that were humans who had devolved underground. There are also urban legends of bums living in abandoned sewers and forgotten subways tunnels who devolved into something creepy. Imagine a civilization where part of the populace was forced to take refuge underground to escape persecution or as a result of losing a war. There may very well be a war between underground and surface societies.

What with archetypes and mythology, the underworld has always figured in the science fiction, horror and fantasy genres. The popular Dungeons and Dragons nerdware originally based itself on a subterranean adventure. Now there are millions of nerds playing it. Movies have dealt with underground themes, from radioactively-altered giant ants in "Them" to the Martians concealed in their underground lair in the 1953 movies "Invaders from Mars". There is a primal aspect to the subterranean monster genre. We shall leave further discourse on that to adherents of Dr. Jung’s work on archetypes.

We may find anything from hostile aliens, giant monsters or worse on our journey to other worlds. It stands to reason that special units may be needed to handle them. I wonder if they will be an elite force of individuals with a penchant for spelunking. On the other hand, underground combat duty might be a place for commanders to send their misfits and troublemakers. An unofficial punishment duty and convenient place for commanders to dump undesirables is as old as armies themselves. The U.S. Air Force used to send troublemakers to a stint at Thule, Greenland. Maybe a subterranean unit will be composed of a handful of elite specialists and a rank-and-file of the dregs of the army. Then again, it may be an all-elite unit or a group of misfits with few qualifications and little additional training.

No doubt some specialized heavy equipment, weapons and vehicles will be in order. I think of the long line of vehicles railroads use to replace ties and fix roadbed. Imagine a similar device to place roof supports in caves so as to prevent collapse. There would likely be various troops carriers, drills, robots and drones for underground warfare. Some would be altered mining equipment of its time and some may be entirely original. I see crawling, slithering, rolling and small flying drones and robots playing a large role. As the rules of warfare may not apply to alien combat, I would imagine scientists would develop heavier-than-atmosphere gases to use against underground dwellers. We can be certain that despite technological advances, gas warfare will be as messy at it was in the trenches of World War I.

There may even be weapons to cause vibrations, like localized earthquakes, to collapse tunnels and caves at a safe distance from the operators.

One thing is certain: the Bugs of Starship Troopers are not the last work in sci-fi underground warfare. There will be more to come so long as popular fiction feeds off common archetypes.

(This is another part of the thought experiments inspired by science fiction. It is not an answer, but a starting point for further thought. Hopefully the article will inspire writers, toy soldier collectors and battle gamers who enjoy the science fiction genre.)

Sci-Fi: Ray Guns, Grenades, and Close Combat in Space

Sci-Fi: Ray Guns, Grenades, and Close Combat in Space

Let’s face it , folks. I have been exposed to outer space stuff for almost 60 years. There were children’s shows and reruns of space movies to get us started. Saturday morning kids’ shows played reruns of old Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon serials. The Air Force had its high-altitude balloons and X15s scratching the edge of space. Then came NASA and Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and the Moon. Forbidden Planet and The Twilight Zone used SciFi to ask the deeper questions. Lost in Space amused us. The new type series like Star Trek and Space 1999 enthralled us. Along came the Space Shuttle, and then Star Wars, Stargate, the Martian Chronicles and topping the list, Farscape.

Toy-wise ,we came a long way too.  From the clunky spacemen of Archer and Ajax in the 1950s to MPC’s “Mercury” astronauts, it began. Next came the figures based on TV shows and moves, from the Thunderbirds of ITC TV to Imperial Stormtroopers and Klingon soldiers.

There is the challenge - to make a space game that can accommodate almost any space toy figure in the last 60 years. One game that did it well is Laserblade by Echidna Games, Laserblade accommodates small skirmish action for three to perhaps ten or twelve pieces. It focuses on individuals.  OMOG differs, being a squad-level game that emphasizes a small unit.

Space Weapons

The Ray Gun of science fiction originated in people’s fascination with X-rays and radioactive waves.  In the 1920s, science was discovering more about radiation and waves. Fantastic possibilities were discussed as to the future benefits of Alpha, Beta and Gamma rays. Being a science-savvy lot, science fiction writers seized on these ideas. They concocted a variety of ray guns, disrupters and disintegrators. This was a few decades before lasers, by the way.

Ray guns and their lot are energy weapons. They emit a wave of energy at their targets. The immediate problem is containing the energy so it does not dissipate.  The energy must be focused. Other measures have to be invented so that the wave or ray is not dissipated by the atmosphere or conditions like clouds, dust, humidity, etc. These are among the reasons why long range laser weapons are only now becoming possible. Science has found ways to focus the ray and minimize dissipation.

The only hand-held energy weapons in general use today are stun guns, cattle prods and Tasers.  All discharge electrical energy and all require contact with the target. A stun gun and cattle prod has to have its electrical nodes pressed against an opponent. A Taser fires thin wires with a small barb to attach to the target, after which an electrical charge is sent through them. The smallest lasers are laser pointers, and the green ones can pop a balloon if fired at it long enough at close range. That is, if they do not run out of energy first.

Small lasers do not pack much power. Powerful lasers need plenty of energy. A person using one would have to wear a bulky battery packs, and even then it would only be good for two or three bursts. Obviously, part of the science is to devise a more compact power supply. Power supplies are already getting smaller so it is only a matter of decades before science creates one that could fit into a man-carried weapon.

The use of energy weapons would be practical, once focusing the beam and powering it are perfected. The necessities of space make them more practical than projectile weapons. In low-gravity and weightless conditions, a weapon with even the slightest recoil can unbalance and even topple the shooter. Projectile weapons, be they powered like our bullets or if their bullets are small rockets, will have some degree of recoil. In low gravity, even the almost-imperceptible recoil of an M16 could dislodge a person. The other problem is in thin-atmosphere and no-atmosphere conditions. Most projectile weapons require some sort of ignition. In space, the ammo or weapon would have to contain the oxygen necessary for ignition. Energy weapons have no recoil and require no air supply. They would work in high gravity, low gravity and no gravity. Gravity would not affect their range, either. A high-gravity situation would alter the path and range of a projectile.

Liquid-squirting weapons would also be at a disadvantage, since they have a “recoil” of their own. Anyone who has fired a man-carried flamethrower knows the push they feel as the jet of liquid flame squirts forth.

Would a small energy weapon have the range and power of a larger one?  After all, one might argue, they are only firing waves of some sort of radiation. The answer is a resounding NO.  A major aspect of an energy weapon is to contain and focus the energy. The smaller weapon could contain and control a lesser amount of energy than a larger one. Compare a pistol-sized weapon to one the size of a rifle. The pistol contains and controls less, and so the ray it emits is weaker and dissipates at a much closer range than that of a larger weapon.  The larger weapon can contain and control more energy, allowing each shot to have more power and greater range.

Heat would be a factor.  One of the problems of automatic weapons is their tendency to get hot after firing for awhile. The larger the barrel and weapon itself, the more it can withstand heat. Indeed, heat would be a bigger problem in energy weapons. Not-yet-invented materials might help dampen some of the heat.  Nonetheless, better dampening would require more material, more technology, and thus a larger weapon. The heat that could be dissipated in something the size of a pistol would have to be much less than that of a rifle. A smaller weapon would be unlikely to sustain as much shooting. A pistol might be limited to single shots like a semi-automatic weapon. The same may apply to a rifle firing more powerful rounds.  A larger rifle might be needed to fire bursts or a longer sustained shot.

Rays could vary.  Some would obviously be destructive, harming materials and damaging the body. Others may or may not break materials, but could adversely affect bodily functions, either permanently or temporarily. A “stun” weapon is likely. Knowing how radiation has adversely affected people, from Madame Curie to the more current disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima, a harmful ray is likely.  It would not have to damage materials to affect the body. The Neutron Bomb comes to mind as an example. This may be the alternative to chemical warfare in the future. Of course, it is already covered by various treaties. However, those treaties would not apply in space against aliens. I imagine that these rays would be a technological equivalent to “Dim Mak”, the delayed-reaction ancient Chinese “death touch.”

There can be no “cold ray,” as cold is a slowing of molecules. For a ray or wave to move, the molecules would necessarily have to be accelerated.

The only projectiles useful in space would be rockets. The problem would be the back blast. The Bazooka remedied it partly by letting the back blast escape from he rear of the launcher. While small projectiles fired from pistols and rifles would be impractical, larger launchers might have their place. Rockets move by the energy they emit in flight. They would have to be large enough to carry their own oxygen. Large rockets meant to reach space have been doing this for over 70 years. Perhaps smaller rockets would have to do the same, Then again, perhaps the future will see a different propulsion system that needs no oxygen to work in a vacuum.

The idea of smart munitions and guided bullets sounds fascinating, but they will have their limits. I believe shooters will still be required to aim, to some degree.

Certain old weapons would still be around, with improvements. Hand grenades would be around. Along with the explosive, concussion, fragmentation and white phosphorous (incendiary) grenades there might be different radiation and energy burst weapons. Some may even have a small time and / or impact detonator. A futuristic “smart” grenade could also be set for a burst or for blasting through an obstacle. One version is drawn from the old Archer (now Glencoe) spacemen. He holds a finned grenade. A weapon like this would be thrown toward the target. A few feet after leaving the thrower’s hand, it would ignite a small rocket motor and proceed to target.  Perhaps there might even be limited guidance to target, but that is unlikely in a weapon so small and cheap.  Guidance systems are better reserved for weapons aimed at larger targets.

Those physics classes paid off! They have certainly given insight into the future possibilities of weaponry for this planet and beyond.

Close Combat in Space.

In the Star Trek: the Next Generation movie “First Contact,” Captain Picard and Worff are on the outside of the starship. They wear space suits. Their goal is to defeat several Borg tampering with the ship.  Somewhere along the line, Picard mentions remembering their anti-gravity hand-to-hand combat lessons.

My mind went back to the old Gemini space mission and some of the special tools they had to invent for work in weightless space. They had to make a special hammer.  If an astronaut was using a hammer and cocked back his arm to swing, that motion would propel him  backward., For every move there is a counter-move, according to Newton’s Third Law of Physics.

Another example was from an old ninja manual from the 70s.  It showed a few special techniques for fighting in water. Though not exactly weightless, many of the same principles apply to a buoyant individual.

(You an find the Ninja book here: http://www.thortrains.net/downloads/oldninjabook.pdf )

Close combat training was also mentioned in Robert Heinlein’s brilliant book, “Starship Troopers”. There the fighting happened in places with gravity. I do not remember if low-gravity combat was discussed in the book.

Human unarmed and close combat systems were developed on our won planet where there is gravity. They apply the physics of gravity.  This is obvious with Judo, Aiki and Chin Na, which use various throws and takedowns to defeat an opponent. The same dependance on gravity exists in Boxing, Karate, Chinese Boxing (Kung Fu) and arts using hand held weapons. Some leverage has to be gained in order to power a strike, trip or trap. Even a leaping punch, kick or thrust still requires thrusting one’s feet against the ground. Do that in low-gravity of weightless environments and you may find yourself headed for planetary orbit!

The same goes for primitive projectile weapons. Thrown weapons, arrows and slings all require drawing back.  The pilum-thrower draws back his arm.  The archer draws back his firing arm, and the slinger spins his sling and cocks his arm back before shooting. These could all be problematic in a low or no gravity environment. Add the fact that it would also affect trajectories and the like.  This would also occur in low or no atmosphere. All would be lurched back by drawing their weapon and forward by launching it in the usual way, if it happened where gravity was lacking.

For fighting within gravity, the annals of close combat are voluminous. There are many systems for hand-held weapons, striking and grappling. While the Asian fighting arts have enjoyed some popularity, older systems from Europe and elsewhere have left such traces as manuals, guidebooks, literature and art. Indeed, one can this very day see the methods used for Medieval polearms, Renaissance fencing and Ancient Egyptian wrestling.

What would a hand-to-hand system be like in the future? Let us clear up a distinction between martial arts and hand to hand combat. A martial artist is someone who dedicates himself to the study of close combat systems.  He works to perfect his skill.. Most martial artists are actually sportsmen.

Hand to hand combat is a collection of fighting techniques intended for defeating an opponent. It is neither a sport nor an art. One might more correctly describe many of the hand-to-hand systems as self defense. However, more than few are also offensive. Hand to hand combat is taught to those who are not going to devote their lives to the study of martial arts. It is taught to soldiers, police, and corrections officers. A self-defense version is taught to civilians.

The kind of hand-to-hand taught to space personnel would likely include unarmed techniques and others using hand -held weapons. Modern troops learn striking and grappling, as well as the combat knife, club or baton, and rifle with bayonet. Troops improvise weapons from entrenching tools, pioneer gear, etc. I had learned the riot baton as well as bayonet. In the early 70s, baton was taught to a few combat arms units on each post. They were to back up the military police in repelling anti-war protesters.

A low and no gravity system would have to avoid maneuvers that unbalance the fighter. Cocking one’s arm to strike would be omitted. Leaping kicks would also be eschewed, as these would likely send the kicker flying backward. The most likely methods would be grappling: holds, locks and chokes.

A problem emerges in just what holds to use on aliens whose physiology makes it difficult. Imagine a being with an arm more like the prehensile tail of a monkey than that of

a human. And consider a creature with almost no neck, which would be nearly impervious to chokes. The armies of the future might have to develop techniques for fighting adversaries with tentacles, extra arms, or one or more robotic limbs.

Soldiers would be taught to use a knife or stick to enhance grappling.

An important aspect of modern close combat is the use of weak spots and pressure points. Hand to hand fighters are taught to strike vulnerable places such as the throat, base of the skull, collarbones, kidneys, groin and joints. Certain holds put pressure to the throat, neck , limbs, spine and joints. Aliens species may have different weak spots. Some could be “double-jointed” and rather impervious to joint locks. Others may have evolved thicker, more muscular necks that resist strangles and chokes. Some may have evolved a bone structure over the throat or nape of the neck. All this certainly adds new elements to the development of close combat for space. You can be sure that potential alien adversaries would be teaching their troops how to defeat out weak points, just as we would teach ours to attacks theirs.

System developed by other species would reflect their strengths and weaknesses.  At one end would be a lighter, supple species who would capitalize on agility and speed. The other end would be a heavier, slower, bulkier species who would focus on power and strength. Think of a lighter, faster type of King Fu like White Crane opposed to Sambo Wrestling. Each species would naturally builds its system on its own abilities.

I do not think hand-help weapons would change all that much. A few might be issued as weapons, but most would be weapons of opportunity. The standards would be combat knives, short swords / machetes, bayonets / lances and sticks.  A fighter might make do with whatever is at hand, hence axes, impromptu clubs, etc. Someone with good hand-to-hand training could do serious damage with anything he picked up. There may even be specialized hand-to-hand weapons in some species, such as tentacle choppers, antennae loppers and the like.

There would be one other aspect to hand-to-hand combat. The way one fights in normal attire different from how one can fight when encumbered with extra clothing, a space suit or some type of armor. A person would have to be trained to fight in those circumstances. He would also need special techniques, as the presence of a suit would make some methods impractical, if not impossible. There is also the problem of fighting a suited or armored opponent. Again, methods to be used by an unencumbered fighter would be different from those used by one who is wearing armor or a space suit.

Now comes the problem of fighting alien species in their space gear and body armor. Indeed, hand-to-hand combat will be a very intriguing thing under those circumstances. We have an Earthly precedent which can give us a little idea of what is to come. The methods used by frogmen when fighting other divers include cutting air hoses, turning off regulators, unseating masks, and so on. I am sure that there would be a set of close combat techniques for interfering with an adversary’s protective suit and breathing apparatus.

Man to man combat in space and against aliens is going to face very different conditions than what we have encountered on Earth. Be it an individual gunslinger, military squad to hand-to-hand fighter, conditions such as gravity, weightlessness, toxic are and the vacuum of space will affect how one fights.

(This is part of the original thought experiment. I thought our serious sci-fi fans and battle gamers might enjoy it. The idea here is not to provide answer, but to provoke thought on the subject. This all started over devising space game skirmish rules and it quickly snowballed. The experiment has gone past military concerns and now totals about 50 pages.)