OTU is 3000 years in the future

[Condottiere]

Could be that differentiation was needed, and choice validation.

As regards to effect, at ground zero, whether pressure or radiation get you first, I rather doubt it matters.

A few klix further out, probably a concern.

 

[Badenov]

Lincoln was killed by a gun so low-powered that at a range of about four feet the bullet didn't manage to exit Lincoln's head (despite being slow enough that it didn't deform or break up). Bullet placement has always been the key, not mere power.

Yes, but in 1865, so at TL 3! He also wasn't killed immediately, though he was certainly hors de combat, he hung on for like a day, IIRC. If he'd taken that hit in 2026, it was a probably a survivable event.

I wear a jacket pretty much every day, save for the warmest days in the summer. If nothing else, I like putting stuff in my jacket pockets rather than my pants pockets.

And, sure, if the jacket I wore also managed to give me that bit more protection, I would take it. But that would not be why I'm wearing it. I wouldn't wear it for its protection, I'd simply appreciate the protection it offered should that need arise.

Because, and here's the real distinction, were I at risk for being attacked, by anything, at risk enough to where I'd say "we're going down town, let's armor up", I wouldn't go.

And, yes, I'm being a bit disingenuous here, because I do ride a motorcycle, and I do armor up, head to toe with gear that makes me look like the Michelin man. I have more protection than a football player. My gear is heavy, spectacularly unfashionable, and not particularly comfortable off the bike. I can argue that I do not have enough, I still do not have an airbag vest, which is on my list. I just haven't pulled the trigger yet.

So, why is gearing up to ride a motorcycle different from doing something similar to go out to dinner? Well, mostly is a matter of intent, what risk you're preparing for, and where it comes from.

My riding gear to protect me pretty much from accidents. To protect against mostly unconscious actions. I'm not gearing up because I fear someone will chase me down and knock me off my bike. I'm gearing up because someone may be driving distracted and unintentionally knock me down.

Driving is typically not dangerous because folks are out to cause harm to each other, whether to me specifically, or someone nearby by happenstance. It dangerous because of distraction, mechanical failure, bad reactions to a road condition, or whatever. Sure, there's always stories of things like road rage and other nonsense, but it's not prolific enough to plan for specifically outside of basic guidelines "don't antagonize crazy people on the highways".

So this is because in modern RL, you are able to live in a world where bad stuff doesn't come up randomly. In 1865, on the frontier, raids and bandits were a thing, and in many parts of the world historically, wars were a regular thing. If armor had been available and accessible, I think people would have chosen it.

This is in stark contrast to being somewhere where assault is expected. You're preparing for someone to consciously move to do harm to you. That's what you're preparing for. That's why you have "armor in your luggage". "Here, Timmy, let's make sure that your armor fits well and make sure you stay close to your sister if pirates attack, ok? What do you mean you have nightmares?"


Those are desperate people putting themselves in that position. "Can we go a route that's not being raided by pirates?"

They're desperate if they're paying several months income for a one-week trip in space to another system. But if they're that desperate, will the chance of pirates dissuade them? That's one of those decisions that happens differeently in every campaign. In the book, the chance of piracy does not affect the roll for passengers, so it seems like the risk is not a factor in the decision to travel.

Ocean ships require their passengers to do a drill on how to use their life preservers. Airlines go through the safety talk. Those are required by law. Because, I guarantee you, the last thing that a ship company, or even an airway wants, is to put people in the mindset "Hey folks, remember to do this so you DON'T DIE during your stay with us...kthx". Do you think those safety lecture help or harm the aerophobes on the flight? Ruins the mood.

When you want to go to cotillion, there may be serious men outside with rifles to keep the bandits away, but you're not going to be wanting to wearing armor inside the dance hall. Not because it's uncomfortable, because you don't want to be in a place where you need to be armored! It's a party. It's supposed to be safe. It's supposed to be an escape to dance and laugh and flirt.

MOST folks want to be not just in a safe place, but in a safe mindset. Folks WANT to be in condition WHITE, unaware, not paying attention, condition YELLOW (aware, paying attention, but no threat) is enough cognitive load, however routine, that it is it's own category. Its exhausting.

If folks are living in areas where they feel they need to be armored up, they need to be working on their society to bring down the threat level that makes them feel that way. It's not an "adventure", it's freaking dangerous. Don't go there. Don't live there.

This is when safety is an option. That's just not the case in Traveller.

Back in the day, folks wore hats, partly in fashion, but also as protection from God knows what that was being flung out of windows. Today, we don't typically wear hats.

Hats were mainly worn so bald men didn't look so old/weak compared to men with a full head of hair. JFK, who had a full head of hair and was used to going hatless as a PT boat skipper, is who changed that fashion.

I don't know if you've looked at the combat tables, but more shots are missed than hit.

If you're weaponizing to overcome armor, then you have a very real chance for over penetration when you shoot, and hit, unarmored targets.

There's bulkheads and there's cabin walls, and these are not the same. One is there structurally as part of the ship, and perhaps as a compartmentalization mechanic (for maintenance of air, water tightness, etc.) And, besides, there's more combat in urban areas than on starships anyway.

Over penetration is a real problem, and why modern forces have moved on from things like the 9mm to the 5.56, as it behaves "better" in that regard.

I'm not sure what you're saying here?

In the end, the problem is based on us being meaty, bony animals with about 12-18" of vital meaty parts, and the slug throwers have evolved to (mostly, in a generic combat setting) to solve THAT problem (vs grizzly bears or wild yaks). And, it's pretty much a solved problem, and has been for some time.

Well, they keep re-solving the problem, so it doesn't seem to be completely settled.