mrspaz

I always root for the arsonists.

"Quaid... start the reactor!"

In a conversation the other day the film Contempt came up, and we looked up the movie and were surprised Brigitte Bardot is still around at 90.

It really is a lot of fun and a great way to spend an evening. With a big group there's enough time resolving turns to talk and have some drinks or snacks. We had a dedicated person to "run" the game that helped keep it moving.

Due to a whole lotta reasons we don't play anymore and I do miss it.

If you're interested, it looks like you can still get the rulebooks (albeit as kinda high-priced PDFs): https://www.wargamevault.com/browse/pub/16332/SEEKRIEG? I'd imagine these days with 3D printers you could find models for the ship minis and print them at a fraction of the cost of the metal models we used to use, so most of the cost would lie in the books.

I used to play a naval tabletop warfare game called Seekrieg with a group of friends; usually 8 to 10 people participating. It was basically a WW2 sim; the group would split into "fleets" of Axis, Allied, French Forces, whatever the scenario called for and then face off. Each player controlled a ship in a fleet.

The game was played with miniature ships on a large table (or the floor if the engagement was large enough). One fleet would move their ships, then the other fleet would do the same. Once moves were finished each player wrote down what guns were firing and what target(s) they were being fired at. It's important to note that ships had movement rules based on the type of ship. They could only turn a certain amount in degrees, and only reach certain speeds based on their maneuvers; they'd lose a certain amount of speed in turns, had max speeds, etc.

There were two official methods for playing the game: First was the "statistical" method, where each ship had certain bonuses and hindrances based on historical data, and dice rolls would determine if the ship was successful in hitting their targets. This was the option for "serious biz" players. The other method was much better suited to our group (drinking beer and bullshitting style) and was known as "range estimation." In this method, players would pick a target and visually estimate the range to that target in inches. When firing was resolved, the actual distance would be measured and hits determined. Players estimated to the 1/2 inch and could hit to the 1/4 inch (ex; if the player guessed 30" range and the ship was actually at 30.25", it would still hit).

Well, during this time I had been working on my degree and had gone most of the way through college trigonometry. The functions and identities were all fresh in my head. We came together one night for a game and as we were setting up I thought I could probably use my newfound skills to get the range estimation down pat. I was given a light cruiser with 8" guns. One of my opponents, who often made terrible mistakes in the game, was given a heavy cruiser with fewer guns, but bigger nastier 12 inchers.

We started the game and the first round closed distance. He outranged me and fired before I could, but missed. Second round I fired a huge spread at his ship, just to range him out (I should note that the actual range is called out when your estimate is checked if you're within 1/2 inch). So I fired at 30", 31", 32" etc., but in doing so learned the true range to his ship. For round three I wrote down his ship's turn angles and distances, noted mine, and then calculated the new distance. I fired all guns at his ship on this range; every single shell hit as I had dialed it in exactly. His ship took massive damage and was crippled. Repeat for round 4 and he was sunk. I repeated the performance against other players (though some of them were a bit tricksier in their maneuvers so it wasn't quite as brutal), but our fleet carried the match without a loss.

Everyone took it in stride, but it also kinda dampened the game. I decided not to do it again since it really kinda shit on the fun factor we were playing for.

They have a name for it: Dead Sea Effect.

When he gets hit by the 6000 SUX and liquefies was a great shot.

My family bought in to cable television very early on, and we had HBO as part of the service. My parents forbid me from watching it alone, but of course that just upped the intrigue and I would sneak viewings when they weren't around.

The first mistake was The Thing. I had no idea what the movie was about, and so the first part of the film seemed unremarkable; they're at an arctic base, there's the shootout, all relatively tame. Then the dog scene. Holy crap that one is burned into my memory forever. I was utterly terrified but glued to the screen. That gave me screaming nightmares for a bit but I could never admit what the issue was, since I wasn't supposed to have watched it!

The second a few years later was Aliens. Wasn't nearly as bad of an experience but the scene with the people glued to the walls in the tunnel was a bit much. I recovered from that one much quicker than The Thing.

"WORTHLESS!!"

Your first paragraph reminded me of a short story: There Will Come Soft Rains.

It is a matter of scale and tactics.

For scale, the US Army has ~4700 tanks according to the internets. Assuming they have a matching number of crews and can put them all into service, that's 94 tanks per state. That sounds like quite a bit until you consider the coverage of a state. If we take NY as an example, that's 0.0017 tanks / square mile. The military will be pinning down only small areas at a time with armor.

For tactics, no reasonable person expects to take on a tank with a pistol. The deterrence of an armed populace is in the scale and ubiquity of resistance. There are ~3M personnel in the US military from cooks and secretaries to special forces. They are outnumbered by firearms-owning civilians 76 to 1. The odds are bad. The military has force multipliers (tanks, bombers, drones), but deploying them effectively against the civilian population is not easy. Who are the combatants? If no one is standing outside waving a rifle, where do you drop the bomb, or fire the cannon? You could level an entire neighborhood and hope to destroy some of them. Will the non-rebellious populace remain on your side if you do this? An effective resistance will wait until the tank or plane is stopped to refuel and resupply, and then destroys the operators.

There is also the question of logistics. When operating abroad, part of the formula for success of the US military is their unbreakable supply lines. They bring everything from fuel to food to tools and don't need to rely on local supplies. But all those things are sourced and shipped from the US.. When the fight is on home soil, these supplies cannot be guaranteed. Sabotage of roads, bridges, pipelines, and railroads could significantly hinder the operating capacity of the military.

When speaking as any one person remaining armed as opposition to government tyranny, it is not as "Rambo," but as a thorn on the vine. Collectively there are many thorns and any attempt by the government to crush the vine will result in a lot of pain. You make the option as unattractive as possible.

They did call her the "Queen of Mean." She was an unrepentant asshole in her own time.