Marines with Cutlasses
- Thread starter mshensley
- Start date
FlightCommanderSolitude
SOC-13
See my really old thread http://www.farfuture.net/ixs/Forum1/HTML/000058.html for a longish discussion of blade weapons in Traveller.
-FCS
-FCS
Yeah, I know this subject has been debated to death, but there has to a break with nonsense from past versions at some point.
There really is no rationale behind marines armed with cutlasses other than "but we've always done it that way". Marines on shipboard today don't carry swords, they carry shotguns and pistols. That will not change in the future.
This is just the sort of thing that turns a lot of people off from trying Traveller. Let it go...
There really is no rationale behind marines armed with cutlasses other than "but we've always done it that way". Marines on shipboard today don't carry swords, they carry shotguns and pistols. That will not change in the future.
This is just the sort of thing that turns a lot of people off from trying Traveller. Let it go...
Simon Jester
SOC-12
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mshensley:
Yeah, I know this subject has been debated to death, but there has to a break with nonsense from past versions at some point.
There really is no rationale behind marines armed with cutlasses other than "but we've always done it that way". Marines on shipboard today don't carry swords, they carry shotguns and pistols. That will not change in the future. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As a member of the boarding party/anti-boarding response team aboard the USS Brooke (FFG-1) in 1987 we were issued police batons and encouraged to think of any other weapon that might be useful. I was armed primarily with a full-auto modified Remington Model 7188 shotgun equipped with a bayonet lug that I attached an old 16 inch Springfield bayonet to. The CPO in charge of my section found it humorous and fully approved. We found that that bayonet was more intimidating that most of the guns covering the "boarders" during our training runs; most people have never seen or felt what a gunshot can do to someone - everyone KNOWS what it feels like to get cut, and that bayonet promised one hell of a lot of pain.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is just the sort of thing that turns a lot of people off from trying Traveller. Let it go...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you're trying to make your point the hard way. Noone I know that has tried Traveller and decided they didn't like it turned it down because the Marines used cutlasses...it was almost always due to their simply not liking SF rpgs.
Simon Jester
------------------
Good. Fast. Cheap.
Pick two.
[This message has been edited by Simon Jester (edited 15 March 2002).]
Yeah, I know this subject has been debated to death, but there has to a break with nonsense from past versions at some point.
There really is no rationale behind marines armed with cutlasses other than "but we've always done it that way". Marines on shipboard today don't carry swords, they carry shotguns and pistols. That will not change in the future. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As a member of the boarding party/anti-boarding response team aboard the USS Brooke (FFG-1) in 1987 we were issued police batons and encouraged to think of any other weapon that might be useful. I was armed primarily with a full-auto modified Remington Model 7188 shotgun equipped with a bayonet lug that I attached an old 16 inch Springfield bayonet to. The CPO in charge of my section found it humorous and fully approved. We found that that bayonet was more intimidating that most of the guns covering the "boarders" during our training runs; most people have never seen or felt what a gunshot can do to someone - everyone KNOWS what it feels like to get cut, and that bayonet promised one hell of a lot of pain.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is just the sort of thing that turns a lot of people off from trying Traveller. Let it go...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you're trying to make your point the hard way. Noone I know that has tried Traveller and decided they didn't like it turned it down because the Marines used cutlasses...it was almost always due to their simply not liking SF rpgs.
Simon Jester
------------------
Good. Fast. Cheap.
Pick two.
[This message has been edited by Simon Jester (edited 15 March 2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Jester:
As a member of the boarding party/anti-boarding response team aboard the USS Brooke (FFG-1) in 1987<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, what type of boarders did you train to repel (i.e. did you also cover pirates or terrorists)? I ask for reality check reasons to see if the US Navy considered such threats as credible (for comparison with the idea of "civilians" taking over a small military ship in Traveller).
As for the heavy presence of blades and polearms(!) in Traveller, I'll admit that it took me aback at first (1980), but since then I've gotten used to it. Now it just wouldn't feel right without 'em.
------------------
Wendell (IMTU tc++ tm !tn !t4 !tg ru+ ge+ 3i+ c+ jt- au ls+ he)
As a member of the boarding party/anti-boarding response team aboard the USS Brooke (FFG-1) in 1987<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, what type of boarders did you train to repel (i.e. did you also cover pirates or terrorists)? I ask for reality check reasons to see if the US Navy considered such threats as credible (for comparison with the idea of "civilians" taking over a small military ship in Traveller).
As for the heavy presence of blades and polearms(!) in Traveller, I'll admit that it took me aback at first (1980), but since then I've gotten used to it. Now it just wouldn't feel right without 'em.
------------------
Wendell (IMTU tc++ tm !tn !t4 !tg ru+ ge+ 3i+ c+ jt- au ls+ he)
Simon Jester
SOC-12
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WendellM:
So, what type of boarders did you train to repel (i.e. did you also cover pirates or terrorists)? I ask for reality check reasons to see if the US Navy considered such threats as credible (for comparison with the idea of "civilians" taking over a small military ship in Traveller).
As for the heavy presence of blades and polearms(!) in Traveller, I'll admit that it took me aback at first (1980), but since then I've gotten used to it. Now it just wouldn't feel right without 'em.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We trained primarily to oppose boarders from multiple small boats, such as Zodiac inflatables, because that was what Iran was using for their coastal patrol forces. The Brooke was one of the frigates escorting supertankers in and out of the Persian Gulf, along with the Stark and others, and Iran's 'skeeter boats' were taken fairly seriously by the higher-ups. One-on-one they were just annoyances, but they usually patrolled in packs of five or ten.
Another big training focus was repelling boarders when we were docked. We would conduct some 'show-the-flag' visits in ports up and down the African east coast, and the Captain wanted us ready in case any anti-American feelings got out of control, or so I was told. I was only aboard for four months, then got dropped to Reserve status.Still, it was fun while it lasted.
Simon Jester
------------------
Good. Fast. Cheap.
Pick two.
So, what type of boarders did you train to repel (i.e. did you also cover pirates or terrorists)? I ask for reality check reasons to see if the US Navy considered such threats as credible (for comparison with the idea of "civilians" taking over a small military ship in Traveller).
As for the heavy presence of blades and polearms(!) in Traveller, I'll admit that it took me aback at first (1980), but since then I've gotten used to it. Now it just wouldn't feel right without 'em.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We trained primarily to oppose boarders from multiple small boats, such as Zodiac inflatables, because that was what Iran was using for their coastal patrol forces. The Brooke was one of the frigates escorting supertankers in and out of the Persian Gulf, along with the Stark and others, and Iran's 'skeeter boats' were taken fairly seriously by the higher-ups. One-on-one they were just annoyances, but they usually patrolled in packs of five or ten.
Another big training focus was repelling boarders when we were docked. We would conduct some 'show-the-flag' visits in ports up and down the African east coast, and the Captain wanted us ready in case any anti-American feelings got out of control, or so I was told. I was only aboard for four months, then got dropped to Reserve status.Still, it was fun while it lasted.
Simon Jester
------------------
Good. Fast. Cheap.
Pick two.
I used to think that bayonet would be a better choice for Marines, but then it occured to me that a cutlass leaves one hand free for maneuvering jets in zero-G.
Besides, Burton taught manchette attacks as (barely) less-than-lethal saber attacks. If only I could figure a way to adapt the rules...
A friend of mine was part of a destroyer's boarding party in the early 80s, although they were never depoloyed to SW Asia. As a civilian he had done target shooting (the National Match course), so he was issued a M14 to detonate floating mines and cover the proceedings.
[This message has been edited by Uncle Bob (edited 16 March 2002).]
Besides, Burton taught manchette attacks as (barely) less-than-lethal saber attacks. If only I could figure a way to adapt the rules...
A friend of mine was part of a destroyer's boarding party in the early 80s, although they were never depoloyed to SW Asia. As a civilian he had done target shooting (the National Match course), so he was issued a M14 to detonate floating mines and cover the proceedings.
[This message has been edited by Uncle Bob (edited 16 March 2002).]
To be honest I would say using a bayonetted SMG firing dum-dum rounds would be hugely more effective than any kind of plain bladed weapon. If you are using squash head ammunition it is not going to go through much in the way of walls, and the lethality of firearms over bladed weapons is significant.
Yes if somebody has a knife they are dangerous at short ranges, but if the guy with the gun has it cocked, braced against their shoulder and pointing where they are looking (as I hope anyone would do when boarding a ship! It is certainly standard operating procedure when patroling on land.) you would have to be very close indeed.
For a start a bayonetted rifle is not much inferior to a sword as a melee weapon even when not loaded.
Bladed weapons have a place yes, but as backup weapons, not as replacements for firearms.
Yes if somebody has a knife they are dangerous at short ranges, but if the guy with the gun has it cocked, braced against their shoulder and pointing where they are looking (as I hope anyone would do when boarding a ship! It is certainly standard operating procedure when patroling on land.) you would have to be very close indeed.
For a start a bayonetted rifle is not much inferior to a sword as a melee weapon even when not loaded.
Bladed weapons have a place yes, but as backup weapons, not as replacements for firearms.
Marines train in Cutlass Drill as part of their cermonial duties (I have fought someone who had never been trained TO FIGHT as a swordsman but merely used drill against me. He could not parry for toffee, but on the offensive he was lethal) and to allow a repsonse at less than lethal level (you can choose to inflict a non-fatal wound with a sword, opr pin someone wit it). Same way a Britiash guardsman stopped an intruder at sword point oiutsaide Buckingham Palace a few years back.
Guns are forbidden in many places; Marines can always wear their dress swords.
Guns are forbidden in many places; Marines can always wear their dress swords.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Jester:
We trained primarily to oppose boarders from multiple small boats, such as Zodiac inflatables, because that was what Iran was using for their coastal patrol forces. [...]
Another big training focus was repelling boarders when we were docked. We would conduct some 'show-the-flag' visits in ports up and down the African east coast, and the Captain wanted us ready in case any anti-American feelings got out of control, or so I was told.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks for the reply. That at least shows that big, bad Soviet Marines weren't the only concern, and that at least semi-civilian boarders were considered.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PHeslip:
Bladed weapons have a place yes, but as backup weapons, not as replacements for firearms.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Traveller has never portrayed blades as replacements for guns, and gun skills are more likely to be learned in most services (unless taking lots of Personal Development, where blades would presumably fall into the fencing or streetfight categories). Good point about the backup idea: blades don't jam and they can't run out of ammo, so it makes sense to learn about and carry them as backup.
------------------
Wendell (IMTU tc++ tm !tn !t4 !tg ru+ ge+ 3i+ c+ jt- au ls+ he)
We trained primarily to oppose boarders from multiple small boats, such as Zodiac inflatables, because that was what Iran was using for their coastal patrol forces. [...]
Another big training focus was repelling boarders when we were docked. We would conduct some 'show-the-flag' visits in ports up and down the African east coast, and the Captain wanted us ready in case any anti-American feelings got out of control, or so I was told.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks for the reply. That at least shows that big, bad Soviet Marines weren't the only concern, and that at least semi-civilian boarders were considered.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PHeslip:
Bladed weapons have a place yes, but as backup weapons, not as replacements for firearms.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Traveller has never portrayed blades as replacements for guns, and gun skills are more likely to be learned in most services (unless taking lots of Personal Development, where blades would presumably fall into the fencing or streetfight categories). Good point about the backup idea: blades don't jam and they can't run out of ammo, so it makes sense to learn about and carry them as backup.
------------------
Wendell (IMTU tc++ tm !tn !t4 !tg ru+ ge+ 3i+ c+ jt- au ls+ he)
"This is my Cutlass their are many like it but this one is mine." If the cutlass skill bothers you don't use.Every Marine is a rifleman but not every Marine carries a rifle,it could be the same with a cutlass.I do think a shotgun or some other type of firearm, with or without bayonet,is a better choice. Remember the scene in the Indy Jones movie were the dude pulls out a big sword,and Indy caps him with his sidearm.
The police and armed services are using a lot more non-lethal weapons,maybe these could be used by boarding parties also.
The police and armed services are using a lot more non-lethal weapons,maybe these could be used by boarding parties also.
Hey!
I liked the cutlass my marine got when I was 16 playing Traveller and I still like it now when I'm 40 waiting for T20.
And just to muddy the thread a bit all my nobles have a rapier for the moment that honor must be defended.
It's Traveller!
I liked the cutlass my marine got when I was 16 playing Traveller and I still like it now when I'm 40 waiting for T20.
And just to muddy the thread a bit all my nobles have a rapier for the moment that honor must be defended.
It's Traveller!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Jester:
I think you're trying to make your point the hard way. Noone I know that has tried Traveller and decided they didn't like it turned it down because the Marines used cutlasses...it was almost always due to their simply not liking SF rpgs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I disagree. One of the most cited complaints in reviews of Traveller was the presence of so much ancient technology in a so-called science fiction game. The most advanced weapon in the LBB's was the laser rifle and marines got an automatic skill level in cutlass. The problem with the cutlass skill mainly lies in the fact that it was automatically given. You could have marine characters whose only combat skill was cutlass. And you want to defend the realism of that? At least MT changed this to an automatic skill level in the more generic blade combat.
I think you're trying to make your point the hard way. Noone I know that has tried Traveller and decided they didn't like it turned it down because the Marines used cutlasses...it was almost always due to their simply not liking SF rpgs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I disagree. One of the most cited complaints in reviews of Traveller was the presence of so much ancient technology in a so-called science fiction game. The most advanced weapon in the LBB's was the laser rifle and marines got an automatic skill level in cutlass. The problem with the cutlass skill mainly lies in the fact that it was automatically given. You could have marine characters whose only combat skill was cutlass. And you want to defend the realism of that? At least MT changed this to an automatic skill level in the more generic blade combat.
Cleon the Mad
SOC-12
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mshensley:
Please tell me that marine characters don't get an automatic cutlass skill. That was beyond a doubt the most stupid thing in CT. Never bring a sword to a gun fight...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One thing to consider though...lasers, gauss weapons, FGMPS and PGMPS, even good old fashioned gunpowder based slugthrowers do horrid things to starship electronics when they miss their intended target. They also do horrid thing to internal walls of starships, at least ones that are not bulkheads or load bearing walls...if I may quote from an old CT campaign book, "The Traveller Adventure", this is on page 130:
"Interior walls are partitions; they are non load bearing panels fixed firmly in place...Inflicting 100 points on such a wall with an energy weapon will burn a hole big enough for one person per turn to pass through...". Okay...at first you may think "Hey, I need to do 100 points with a laser or even a PGMP to hurt that wall, no problem..." But...that's for a mansized hole...to me this implies that it would take a lot less then 100 points to actually penetrate the wall in question. Now, what is my point with this? Simple...one also has problems with accidently over penetrating the interior walls of a starship, so even if no electronics were hit in the room you're in due to missing, something, or someone else might be in the room next door.
Now, I'm not saying that firearms and energy weapons don't have their place in a boarding action, sometimes one does need firepower to overcome the armor of the people being boarded...but if one does not see much armor on them, then it's probably much wiser to start drawing melee weapons, at least if one wants to take the ship intact during the action.
(That, and well, they keep on putting bayonet lugs and/or built in bayonets on present model assault rifles for some reason...
)
------------------
It is not I who am crazy, it's I who am mad!
Please tell me that marine characters don't get an automatic cutlass skill. That was beyond a doubt the most stupid thing in CT. Never bring a sword to a gun fight...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One thing to consider though...lasers, gauss weapons, FGMPS and PGMPS, even good old fashioned gunpowder based slugthrowers do horrid things to starship electronics when they miss their intended target. They also do horrid thing to internal walls of starships, at least ones that are not bulkheads or load bearing walls...if I may quote from an old CT campaign book, "The Traveller Adventure", this is on page 130:
"Interior walls are partitions; they are non load bearing panels fixed firmly in place...Inflicting 100 points on such a wall with an energy weapon will burn a hole big enough for one person per turn to pass through...". Okay...at first you may think "Hey, I need to do 100 points with a laser or even a PGMP to hurt that wall, no problem..." But...that's for a mansized hole...to me this implies that it would take a lot less then 100 points to actually penetrate the wall in question. Now, what is my point with this? Simple...one also has problems with accidently over penetrating the interior walls of a starship, so even if no electronics were hit in the room you're in due to missing, something, or someone else might be in the room next door.
Now, I'm not saying that firearms and energy weapons don't have their place in a boarding action, sometimes one does need firepower to overcome the armor of the people being boarded...but if one does not see much armor on them, then it's probably much wiser to start drawing melee weapons, at least if one wants to take the ship intact during the action.
(That, and well, they keep on putting bayonet lugs and/or built in bayonets on present model assault rifles for some reason...
------------------
It is not I who am crazy, it's I who am mad!
Simon Jester
SOC-12
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mshensley:
I disagree. One of the most cited complaints in reviews of Traveller was the presence of so much ancient technology in a so-called science fiction game. The most advanced weapon in the LBB's was the laser rifle and marines got an automatic skill level in cutlass. The problem with the cutlass skill mainly lies in the fact that it was automatically given. You could have marine characters whose only combat skill was cutlass. And you want to defend the realism of that? At least MT changed this to an automatic skill level in the more generic blade combat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now, admittedly, I was in the Navy and so did not go through Marine Corps basic training, but several of my friends did. One of the things each one mentions is their training in the sand pit, armed with what were essentially padded quarterstaves. They trained with these for two reasons: in combat, they would run the risk of running out of ammunition, either overall or having to deal with an enemy at close range without having the time to reload their weapon; it helped to get them used to aggressive behaviour, stripping some of the civilized veneer away to help keep them from thinking too much about how dangerous melee combat really is. They all had to learn how to react aggressively at a level below conscious thought, or at least that was one of the main ideas. In combat, if they stopped to think about what they were doing, their opposite number might be showing their liver some daylight. Even Eve, my friend who became a clerk after basic and never got assigned anywhere but the Pentagon until her term was up, had to learn how to use a quarterstaff, so I see little problem with believing Marines 3400 years in the future being taught how to use a sword.
Simon Jester
------------------
Good. Fast. Cheap.
Pick two.
I disagree. One of the most cited complaints in reviews of Traveller was the presence of so much ancient technology in a so-called science fiction game. The most advanced weapon in the LBB's was the laser rifle and marines got an automatic skill level in cutlass. The problem with the cutlass skill mainly lies in the fact that it was automatically given. You could have marine characters whose only combat skill was cutlass. And you want to defend the realism of that? At least MT changed this to an automatic skill level in the more generic blade combat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now, admittedly, I was in the Navy and so did not go through Marine Corps basic training, but several of my friends did. One of the things each one mentions is their training in the sand pit, armed with what were essentially padded quarterstaves. They trained with these for two reasons: in combat, they would run the risk of running out of ammunition, either overall or having to deal with an enemy at close range without having the time to reload their weapon; it helped to get them used to aggressive behaviour, stripping some of the civilized veneer away to help keep them from thinking too much about how dangerous melee combat really is. They all had to learn how to react aggressively at a level below conscious thought, or at least that was one of the main ideas. In combat, if they stopped to think about what they were doing, their opposite number might be showing their liver some daylight. Even Eve, my friend who became a clerk after basic and never got assigned anywhere but the Pentagon until her term was up, had to learn how to use a quarterstaff, so I see little problem with believing Marines 3400 years in the future being taught how to use a sword.
Simon Jester
------------------
Good. Fast. Cheap.
Pick two.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cleon the Mad:
Now, I'm not saying that firearms and energy weapons don't have their place in a boarding action, sometimes one does need firepower to overcome the armor of the people being boarded...but if one does not see much armor on them, then it's probably much wiser to start drawing melee weapons, at least if one wants to take the ship intact during the action.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmm... if a bunch of marines armed with cutlasses were about to board my ship, I would turn off the gravity. Try swinging a sword in zero-g and you'll see why it makes a terrible shipboard weapon.
Also, I'm not going to care if the ship is damaged or blows up when the alternative is some guy hacking me apart with a sword. I'm going to pull out my accelerator rifle and blow them away. Anyway, if I'm being boarded, my ship probably already looks like swiss cheese.
Now, I'm not saying that firearms and energy weapons don't have their place in a boarding action, sometimes one does need firepower to overcome the armor of the people being boarded...but if one does not see much armor on them, then it's probably much wiser to start drawing melee weapons, at least if one wants to take the ship intact during the action.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmm... if a bunch of marines armed with cutlasses were about to board my ship, I would turn off the gravity. Try swinging a sword in zero-g and you'll see why it makes a terrible shipboard weapon.
Also, I'm not going to care if the ship is damaged or blows up when the alternative is some guy hacking me apart with a sword. I'm going to pull out my accelerator rifle and blow them away. Anyway, if I'm being boarded, my ship probably already looks like swiss cheese.
Shadow Bear
SOC-12
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mshensley:
Please tell me that marine characters don't get an automatic cutlass skill. That was beyond a doubt the most stupid thing in CT. Never bring a sword to a gun fight...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While I can agree with many of the reasons listed here as to why a Marine has to learn a cutlass skill, the one I feel may out wiegh all other is tradition. What would a Girka be without his famous knife?
Somewhere down the line it became tradition for Marines to learn and use a cutlass. Just like it is tradition for a Marine to be a trained rifleman regardless of his or her MOS. It is just one of the things that makes Imperial jarheads different.
Please tell me that marine characters don't get an automatic cutlass skill. That was beyond a doubt the most stupid thing in CT. Never bring a sword to a gun fight...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While I can agree with many of the reasons listed here as to why a Marine has to learn a cutlass skill, the one I feel may out wiegh all other is tradition. What would a Girka be without his famous knife?
Somewhere down the line it became tradition for Marines to learn and use a cutlass. Just like it is tradition for a Marine to be a trained rifleman regardless of his or her MOS. It is just one of the things that makes Imperial jarheads different.
bryan gibson
Absent Friend
I agree with MJD. while iI would be the last to say the cutlasses should be first choice, they have their place: law levels that balk at firearms might think nothing of blades, and in my own experience, I got into a comba( in my youth I was in service) while deassing a buildeing and our squad fell afoul of a fellow awith a 24 inch machete in a hallway, and believe me, we took him seriuosly. He killed two of our men by closing and fighting in the crush, and wounded another before we could kill him.Imf he had been content to fall back and book it, we couldn't have touched him and he would have been clean away.In a starship, yeah, I can see it.
Gallowglass
SOC-12
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mshensley:
I disagree. One of the most cited complaints in reviews of Traveller was the presence of so much ancient technology in a so-called science fiction game. The most advanced weapon in the LBB's was the laser rifle and marines got an automatic skill level in cutlass. The problem with the cutlass skill mainly lies in the fact that it was automatically given. You could have marine characters whose only combat skill was cutlass. And you want to defend the realism of that? At least MT changed this to an automatic skill level in the more generic blade combat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, now we see the argument laid out and realise that there are multiple targets:
1) Marines with only Cutlass Skill in CT - yep this was daft, so change it IF you are running CT AND you don't like it...
2) Weapons too low tech in CT: IMHO this is down to idiot reviewers to be blunt, too obsessed that all SF RPG's had to be Star wars. Given the nature of the CT universe (and the style of game implied in the original 3 LBB's), covering a range of low-tech weapons was more useful. I always took the high tech stuff (air-rafts, Jump Drives, Laser weapons) as ONE view of the high tech levels and a guide to home brewing my own definitions (in the CT / Blake's Seven game I recollect various types of Blaster, Teleporters and a radically different FTL tech - alas the notes are long lost).
3) Does T20 still give Marines Cutlass Skill?
I hope so; I like the ceremonial weapons and I like that idea that in a lot of combat situations tech weapons will be restricted so severely that ONLY low-tech weapons are available. But this is a question for Hunter, MJD or one of the T20 Playtesters to answer definitively
4) Is it possible to create a Marine Character who's ONLY combat "skill" is Cutlass?
Again, one for those who know T20 to provide a definitive answer to, but unless T20 is a VERY weird variant of the d20 rules, it would actually be impossible to create a character who only knew how to use a cutlass, and a VERY weird definition of a Marine who didn't have a basic level of competence in military small arms...
I disagree. One of the most cited complaints in reviews of Traveller was the presence of so much ancient technology in a so-called science fiction game. The most advanced weapon in the LBB's was the laser rifle and marines got an automatic skill level in cutlass. The problem with the cutlass skill mainly lies in the fact that it was automatically given. You could have marine characters whose only combat skill was cutlass. And you want to defend the realism of that? At least MT changed this to an automatic skill level in the more generic blade combat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, now we see the argument laid out and realise that there are multiple targets:
1) Marines with only Cutlass Skill in CT - yep this was daft, so change it IF you are running CT AND you don't like it...
2) Weapons too low tech in CT: IMHO this is down to idiot reviewers to be blunt, too obsessed that all SF RPG's had to be Star wars. Given the nature of the CT universe (and the style of game implied in the original 3 LBB's), covering a range of low-tech weapons was more useful. I always took the high tech stuff (air-rafts, Jump Drives, Laser weapons) as ONE view of the high tech levels and a guide to home brewing my own definitions (in the CT / Blake's Seven game I recollect various types of Blaster, Teleporters and a radically different FTL tech - alas the notes are long lost).
3) Does T20 still give Marines Cutlass Skill?
I hope so; I like the ceremonial weapons and I like that idea that in a lot of combat situations tech weapons will be restricted so severely that ONLY low-tech weapons are available. But this is a question for Hunter, MJD or one of the T20 Playtesters to answer definitively
4) Is it possible to create a Marine Character who's ONLY combat "skill" is Cutlass?
Again, one for those who know T20 to provide a definitive answer to, but unless T20 is a VERY weird variant of the d20 rules, it would actually be impossible to create a character who only knew how to use a cutlass, and a VERY weird definition of a Marine who didn't have a basic level of competence in military small arms...
Similar threads
