Return of the Mad Genetic Engineer

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

This time you are looking to adjust your population so as to optimise
their performance on the battlefield. Let's give you a budget so you
won't go hog-wild. You have 150 points. You can give them as many
genetically based psychological limitations as you want, but none of
them count against that total.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:42449a0c.170365057@news.telusplanet.net...
> This time you are looking to adjust your population so as to optimise
> their performance on the battlefield. Let's give you a budget so you
> won't go hog-wild. You have 150 points. You can give them as many
> genetically based psychological limitations as you want, but none of
> them count against that total.

150 points wealth.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> In article <42449a0c.170365057@news.telusplanet.net>,
> David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> >This time you are looking to adjust your population so as to
optimise
> >their performance on the battlefield. Let's give you a budget so
you
> >won't go hog-wild. You have 150 points. You can give them as many
> >genetically based psychological limitations as you want, but none of
> >them count against that total.
>
>
> Extra Fatigue. Night Vision. An acute sense of smell. I've
sometimes
> wondered what the effect would be if the average soldier could smell
as
> well as a dog. They could smell an ambush ahead-- the people,
> lubricants, food. They could track infiltrators by scent. They
would
> have to practice scent discipline to stay safe.
>

Alertness might be useful, or Acute Hearing.

Being able to get by on less sleep would be _very_ useful over the long
haul. Give everyone 1 or 2 levels of Less Sleep (3 pts/lvl!), and
you've effectively leveraged your manpower by a huge margin.

Disease Resistance (take a look at the casualty rates from direct enemy
action and compare it to diseases in various wars) and its only 5 pts.
Give it to everyone in your army, and you've got a significant edge
over an enemy that does not have it.

A non-cinematic Cast Iron Stomach would be very useful. Make if a 10
pt version in which you can tolerate foods that are mildly spoiled, and
your sense of taste is selectively adjustable so you can stand to eat
almost anything reasonable.

Temperature tolerance would be nice. Even 1 level of it would increase
the fighting efficiency of your forces somewhat.

Little advantages add up over time and in large groups.

For example, Less Sleep is somewhat useful to an individual, giving him
an extra hour a day to work. If everyone in a 100-person military unit
has it, 100 extra man-hours/day, the equivalent of 8 to 12 extra people
working! Multiply that by an entire army, and it's a killer of an edge
if the other side doesn't have it.

An army that needs an hour less sleep per day on average, is Disease
Resistant, is naturally Sharp Eyed/Night Visioned and Sharp Eared, Fit,
Alert, 1 lvl of Temperature Tolerance, and has Cast Iron Stomach in
_all_ its troops is now possessed of a _huge_ collective edge of its
opponents, all else being equal. All for under 45 pts(!).

One on one, these advantages are modest or irrelevant, but they make
one army incredibly dangerous to an opponent collectively lacking them.
The advantaged army can work longer and more effectively in harsher
climates, can do more work in a day, can march further and fight
longer, can 'live off the land' more effectively, etc.

We've still got over 100 pts left, too.

Some things that would at least be potentially useful:

Peripheral vision just might come in handy, though I'd rather have
Alertness or Less Sleep if I had to choose.

Manual dexterity would be handy (no pun intended).

For a stretch:

If you can engineer it in, Danger Sense would obviously be useful, as
would Intuition. (It's not the utility that's a stretch, it's the
genegineering of them, IMO).

Eiditic Memory is hardly indispensable, but it might make training a
lot faster and easier.

Absolute Direction would be a nice luxury for everyone to have, if it
can be engineered in.

Some of the things you could theoretically do with your remaining 100+
pts wouldn't make a lot of sense as individual advantages, but could be
very useful for an army. Pheromone control, for ex, could give an army
the equivalent of crude Secret Communication and a perfect recognition
system.

"How did I know Julian was an imposter? I just knew."

A genetic engineer might theoretically knock out a lot of _disads_,
lack hemophilia, allergies, genetic unFitness or nearsightedness or the
lack, from the populace. This would mean that otherwise useful
personnel would have a much lower chance of being disqualified by some
common disad.



Shermanlee
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 05:33:58 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David
Johnston) wrote:

>This time you are looking to adjust your population so as to optimise
>their performance on the battlefield. Let's give you a budget so you
>won't go hog-wild. You have 150 points. You can give them as many
>genetically based psychological limitations as you want, but none of
>them count against that total.

Both genders: Increased fertility, and a skewed gender ratio so that
more males are born - this provides a larger number of (male) soldiers,
at the expense of turning the women into breeders. (You *did* say this
is a mad scientist, so gender equality goes out the window...) I
believe these are 0-point traits.

Females: Easier childbirth (keeps those soldiers coming), increased
mental ability and manual dexterity (to keep the "home front" working
properly). Specifics depend on the society's target TL.

Males: Increased carrying capacity and ability to travel (to get to the
front with his gear), increased senses (to spot ambushes and target the
enemy), increased healing ability (to recover from wounds), immunity to
disease (to stay in fighting shape in swamps, plague areas, and the
like), temperature tolerance (to be able to function in jungles and
arctic areas). Again, specifics depend on the society's target TL.

The only mental disad I'd give them is Sense of Duty (Patriotism) -
anything else would constrain their ability to strategize, or function
well on the battlefield.

--
Rob Kelk Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- wxfei -qbg- pbz
"As far as Doug is concerned, "dignity" is just a tragic disease that
other people suffer from."
- Bob Schroeck, talking about his V&V character, 15 March 2005
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <42449a0c.170365057@news.telusplanet.net>,
David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>This time you are looking to adjust your population so as to optimise
>their performance on the battlefield. Let's give you a budget so you
>won't go hog-wild. You have 150 points. You can give them as many
>genetically based psychological limitations as you want, but none of
>them count against that total.


Extra Fatigue. Night Vision. An acute sense of smell. I've sometimes
wondered what the effect would be if the average soldier could smell as
well as a dog. They could smell an ambush ahead-- the people,
lubricants, food. They could track infiltrators by scent. They would
have to practice scent discipline to stay safe.

A lot of the advantages so popular with PCs, like Toughness and Combat
Reflexes, I think aren't actually that important on a battlefield.
Infantryman need to carry stuff long distances. They're always ambushing
each other and attacking each other at night, so senses can only help.
The rest is training.

--
"Tell me, Dr. Einstein, at what time does Boston arrive at this train?"
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:33:37 -1000, "Warren Okuma" <wokuma@lava.net>
wrote:

>
>"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:42449a0c.170365057@news.telusplanet.net...
>> This time you are looking to adjust your population so as to optimise
>> their performance on the battlefield. Let's give you a budget so you
>> won't go hog-wild. You have 150 points. You can give them as many
>> genetically based psychological limitations as you want, but none of
>> them count against that total.
>
>150 points wealth.

Wealth is not a genetic trait. Nor does it let you perform very well
on the battlefield.

>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:33:37 -1000, "Warren Okuma" <wokuma@lava.net>
>wrote:

>>150 points wealth.

>Wealth is not a genetic trait.

True only up to a point. Lots of people are born rich,
after all. You couldn't exactly genetically engineer
wealth into children, though. I suppose you could
put the money you'd spend on genetic engineering into
bank accounts earmarked for the children, though.

>Nor does it let you perform very well
>on the battlefield.

Not raw cash itself, no, but being able to afford
better and more advanced equipment is a huge advantage
for an army as a whole. And there have been numerous
reports of soldiers in Iraq buying their own body
armor or having it bought for them by their families,
which is definitely a case of using money to upgrade
your combat effectiveness.

Pete
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <1111855882.574624.106690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Johnny1a <shermanlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>> In article <42449a0c.170365057@news.telusplanet.net>,
>> David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>> >This time you are looking to adjust your population so as to
>optimise
>> >their performance on the battlefield. Let's give you a budget so
>you
>> >won't go hog-wild. You have 150 points. You can give them as many
>> >genetically based psychological limitations as you want, but none of
>> >them count against that total.
>>
>>
>> Extra Fatigue. Night Vision. An acute sense of smell. I've
>sometimes
>> wondered what the effect would be if the average soldier could smell
>as
>> well as a dog. They could smell an ambush ahead-- the people,
>> lubricants, food. They could track infiltrators by scent. They
>would
>> have to practice scent discipline to stay safe.
>>
>
>Alertness might be useful, or Acute Hearing.

I sort of implied that, but didn't say it explicitly.

>
>Being able to get by on less sleep would be _very_ useful over the long
>haul. Give everyone 1 or 2 levels of Less Sleep (3 pts/lvl!), and
>you've effectively leveraged your manpower by a huge margin.

Yes, that's a good one. Not for the reasons you gave below-- getting an
hour more of work per day from them. It's in the field where that would
be important, not so much on the base. It wouldn't keep them in the field
longer; they're out there anyway, Less Sleep or not, on an overnight
ambush or something.


>
>Disease Resistance (take a look at the casualty rates from direct enemy
>action and compare it to diseases in various wars) and its only 5 pts.
>Give it to everyone in your army, and you've got a significant edge
>over an enemy that does not have it.

Sure. I was thinking more specific to war. That one would be useful for
any group of people in any context, but useful for soldiers, too.

>
>A non-cinematic Cast Iron Stomach would be very useful. Make if a 10
>pt version in which you can tolerate foods that are mildly spoiled, and
>your sense of taste is selectively adjustable so you can stand to eat
>almost anything reasonable.

I was using the modern US military as my reference, and that's not really
an issue for them. In other nations or other time periods it may be.

>
>Temperature tolerance would be nice. Even 1 level of it would increase
>the fighting efficiency of your forces somewhat.

High temperature tolerance, thinking of Iraq. Besides reducing heat
exhaustion, it would ease logistics a bit. They drink a lot of water
in the summer. I think low temperatures are basically accomodated by
clothing.

But I'm sort of thinking minimalist.
--
"Will we be suturing the anus?"
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

At what tech level will they be fighting? For engineering a low tech
race, you would go for the physical and sensory enhancements. But at
tech level 7/8, technology picks up a lot of this. Battlesuit
troopers are skinny little wimps but have great reflexes, reactions,
and endurance. Give high a battlesuit and he rocks. Strand him at
tech level 3 and he's toast.

But number one for attribute across the board is fearlessness. This is
the real difference between a Ghurka and a Frenchman.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Peter Knutsen wrote:
> 10 CP
> Enhanced Move (Ground), 1/2 level
> This allows the troops to move at a speed of 12! Useful both
> tactically and strategically.

Turns out that 4E actually does allow the purchase of Move,
at the cost of 5 CPs per +1 Move. I managed to overlook that
earlier.

So the question is which of these will have an easier time
getting past the GM:
+50% Ground Move for 10 CPS
or
+4 Move for 20 CPs.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On 26 Mar 2005 08:51:22 -0800, "Johnny1a" <shermanlee1@hotmail.com>
wrote:


>
>Some of the things you could theoretically do with your remaining 100+
>pts wouldn't make a lot of sense as individual advantages, but could be
>very useful for an army. Pheromone control, for ex, could give an army
>the equivalent of crude Secret Communication and a perfect recognition
>system.
>
>"How did I know Julian was an imposter? I just knew."
>
>A genetic engineer might theoretically knock out a lot of _disads_,
>lack hemophilia, allergies, genetic unFitness or nearsightedness or the
>lack, from the populace. This would mean that otherwise useful
>personnel would have a much lower chance of being disqualified by some
>common disad.
>
>
>
> Shermanlee
>

it occurs to me that a bit of telepathy would be incredibly handy.
teleport could be useful at low levels as well. this grenade in
through that window for instance.
--
"Ineffective, unfocused violence leads to more violence. Limp,
panicky half-measures lead to more violence. However, complete,
fully-thought-through, professional, well-executed violence
never leads to more violence because, you see, afterwards, the
other guys are all dead."
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:42449a0c.170365057@news.telusplanet.net...
> This time you are looking to adjust your population so as to optimise
> their performance on the battlefield. Let's give you a budget so you
> won't go hog-wild. You have 150 points. You can give them as many
> genetically based psychological limitations as you want, but none of
> them count against that total.

What kind of battlefield? If they're shooting ray guns, I'd go with Combat
Reflexes, Sharpshooter, Dwarfism, a lot of Enhanced move, cameleon powers,
telepathy if it's allowed, if not built in radio communication with some
sort of code, Radar sense, wings.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

mathilda wrote:

> But number one for attribute across the board is fearlessness. This
is
> the real difference between a Ghurka and a Frenchman.

No, it isn't.

Fearlessness, as such, is of doubtful utility in combat personnel. You
don't want someone who won't retreat when the situation does call for
it, anymore than you want someone who won't advance when the
opportunity is real.

The difference between the French forces in WW II and the Ghurkas
wasn't courage, it was _morale_.

Shermanlee
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On 3 Apr 2005 10:22:34 -0700, "Johnny1a" <shermanlee1@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>mathilda wrote:
>
>> But number one for attribute across the board is fearlessness. This
>is
>> the real difference between a Ghurka and a Frenchman.
>
>No, it isn't.
>
>Fearlessness, as such, is of doubtful utility in combat personnel. You
>don't want someone who won't retreat when the situation does call for
>it, anymore than you want someone who won't advance when the
>opportunity is real.

Of course a rational decision that a different position would be less
disadvantageous isn't precisely fear. I suspect my Mad Genetic
Engineer will go with Callous and Gregarious, though.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <424fd72b.69554450@news.telusplanet.net>,
David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>On 3 Apr 2005 10:22:34 -0700, "Johnny1a" <shermanlee1@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>mathilda wrote:
>>> But number one for attribute across the board is fearlessness. This
>>is
>>> the real difference between a Ghurka and a Frenchman.
>>
>>No, it isn't.
>>
>>Fearlessness, as such, is of doubtful utility in combat personnel. You
>>don't want someone who won't retreat when the situation does call for
>>it, anymore than you want someone who won't advance when the
>>opportunity is real.
>
>Of course a rational decision that a different position would be less
>disadvantageous isn't precisely fear. I suspect my Mad Genetic
>Engineer will go with Callous and Gregarious, though.

I'd avoid Callous... its great for killing the other guy without compunction
but troops need to be able to win 'hearts and minds'...


--
Michael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPC rights activist | Nameless Abominations are people too.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 03:58:38 +0000 (UTC), mlush@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk (Mr.
M.J. Lush) wrote:


>>
>>Of course a rational decision that a different position would be less
>>disadvantageous isn't precisely fear. I suspect my Mad Genetic
>>Engineer will go with Callous and Gregarious, though.
>
>I'd avoid Callous... its great for killing the other guy without compunction
>but troops need to be able to win 'hearts and minds'...

Wussy 20th century troops, sure, but there are other approaches to
"winning hearts and minds". Scaring the hell out of people, for
instance.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Mr. M.J. Lush <mlush@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <424fd72b.69554450@news.telusplanet.net>,
> David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>>On 3 Apr 2005 10:22:34 -0700, "Johnny1a" <shermanlee1@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>mathilda wrote:
>>>> But number one for attribute across the board is fearlessness. This
>>>is
>>>> the real difference between a Ghurka and a Frenchman.
>>>
>>>No, it isn't.
>>>
>>>Fearlessness, as such, is of doubtful utility in combat personnel. You
>>>don't want someone who won't retreat when the situation does call for
>>>it, anymore than you want someone who won't advance when the
>>>opportunity is real.
>>
>>Of course a rational decision that a different position would be less
>>disadvantageous isn't precisely fear.

Exactly. Fearlessness is not the same as Stupidity.

>> I suspect my Mad Genetic
>>Engineer will go with Callous and Gregarious, though.
>
> I'd avoid Callous... its great for killing the other guy without compunction
> but troops need to be able to win 'hearts and minds'...

And they need to be able to count on each other. I don't think you want
soldiers to not care if their buddies die.


mcv.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On 05 Apr 2005 10:30:14 GMT, mcv <mcvmcv@xs3.xs4all.nl> wrote:

>Mr. M.J. Lush <mlush@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> wrote:
>> In article <424fd72b.69554450@news.telusplanet.net>,
>> David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>>>On 3 Apr 2005 10:22:34 -0700, "Johnny1a" <shermanlee1@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>mathilda wrote:
>>>>> But number one for attribute across the board is fearlessness. This
>>>>is
>>>>> the real difference between a Ghurka and a Frenchman.
>>>>
>>>>No, it isn't.
>>>>
>>>>Fearlessness, as such, is of doubtful utility in combat personnel. You
>>>>don't want someone who won't retreat when the situation does call for
>>>>it, anymore than you want someone who won't advance when the
>>>>opportunity is real.
>>>
>>>Of course a rational decision that a different position would be less
>>>disadvantageous isn't precisely fear.
>
>Exactly. Fearlessness is not the same as Stupidity.
>
>>> I suspect my Mad Genetic
>>>Engineer will go with Callous and Gregarious, though.
>>
>> I'd avoid Callous... its great for killing the other guy without compunction
>> but troops need to be able to win 'hearts and minds'...
>
>And they need to be able to count on each other. I don't think you want
>soldiers to not care if their buddies die.

That's why they'll be Chummy. (not Gregarious). They'll want to avoid
having their buddies die because then they'll be alone. The idea is
come up with soldiers resistant to combat fatigue but still possessing
esprit de corps.
 

TRENDING THREADS