having to make morale checks.
> Something I admire about GZG rules in general...."conservation of game
I have to agree; I've had to plough through scores of "AI" posts, and haven't
gotten anything useful (gamewise) from it. Just to underscore the AI arguement
even further, when I mentioned the debate raging on this
e-mail
round robin to a gaming buddy, his reaction was first, a chortle of
amusement/contempt, followed by, "Automated fighters? Then explain to
me how
you can have the Aces/Turkeys rule." Let's face it: (A) FT is runned
as if the ships were manned by humans, (B) trying to make 'allowances' for
something otherwise will continue to complicate what is supposed to be a
simple to play game. I started playing FT for one reason, and one reason only;
it was a fun tactical game that WASN'T Squad Leader, WH40K, etc. These
previous games weren't fun. Why? 'Cuz you'd have to take fifteen minutes to
argue out labrythine rules that would make the IRS weep.
Has anyone noticed that the one person who could make a judgement call on all
of this (ie Jon Tuffley) hasn't said one word? I imagine it's because he
doesn't want to get involved.
(Man, did I forget to take my Prozac today? I'm in a "pissy" mood....)
Jeff Shoffner
PS Since I am in a pissy mood, something I want to get off my chest. Been
wanting to for a while, but couldn't come up with a "tactful" way to put it.
Yesterday, I got 75 pieces of mail; kept four, replied to one or two, trashed
the rest, half of which I only read the first paragraph. Today, got 62, kept
about five, replied to one, trashed rest, again half of which I read only the
first paragraph. Is it just me, or is the useful to useless info ratio a tad
on the "useless" side? Again, forgive the terseness, but it's midnight, the
baby gave us one hell of a battle today, and I probably forgot to take
vitamins.....
> Hmm, you HAVEN'T been paying attention to my posts. My original AI
Can't remember the movie, but the appropriate quote was: "In war, people
die....." But I do understand the concern about high casualties. An
observation: We're basically playing armchair quarterback; we put
chits/figs
out, fly them around, blow each other to kingdom come, and say, "Oh, I
could've done better than that...." Whereas in actual military tactics,
especially in the "skirmishes" in FT's universe, a leader would actually
weigh the opposing forces against his own, determine if the loss of life is
accceptible, and decide either fight or flight. I would imagine most of us
don't make a risk accessment based on human lives when playing FT. Again, this
would be more along the lines of no alien contact. Political fighting is
different from survival fighting.
> >PS Since I am in a pissy mood, something I want to get off my
Wow, I should've said something earlier! Got 14 pieces, chucked 1, put two in
permanent hold, will reply to several. I guess the squeaky wheel does get the
grease!
Well, there has been quite a bit of interesting traffic on this thread, but I
really do wonder how it ties up with Full Thrust. The closest we got to a set
of house rules was a seven point message from some one earlier, and the
closest we got to a scenario idea was a brief
mention of, well, having an idea for a scenario/camapign.
Are we not assuming Jon developed the FT world for humans? It could be he
assumed the fighters and drones and such WERE AI's or something similar...
Any ideas as to how to tie this philosophical argument with the game mileu or
the rules?
> At 11:03 AM 7/17/97 +0000, you wrote:
> Any ideas as to how to tie this philosophical argument with the game
Funny enough, I was thinking that it was about time to pull the thread back to
FT. I started the thread as an attempt to justify what we see in FT based on
an extrapolation of AI technology. To my mind, the idea of small ships and
fighters having horrifically high casualty rates is no problem: they are
merely run by computers and just a loss of hardware.
The idea for the thread was to try and come to some group consensus on a use
of AI in the FT universe. This would give anyone wanting to write scenarios or
fiction a common ground. I'm not sure that special rules need to be brought
in, except perhaps for disallowing certain classes of ship from having to make
morale checks. Actually, if there are drone fighters and drone escort ships, I
could see drone tanks in DS2 and SG2. That would be kind of cool. I'd imagine
it would be very low and sleek to present a tiny profile. The main gun would
be mounted on a swivel mount on top with maybe some armour protection. There
would be no need for a big turret. That would be a cool figure for GZG to
produce.
So, can there be any kind of consensus on AI in the FT universe? SHOULD there
be any consenus? For that matter, I'd like to know what Jon thinks of this AI
discussion, and how he sees it in the context of his universe.
> Any ideas as to how to tie this philosophical argument with the game
> Funny enough, I was thinking that it was about time to pull the thread
Well i'm not real sure how others play FT.. but on the scale that my group
tends to like... it would make almost no difference whether the ship was AI or
not...
I would say mostly it depends on the type of universe and setting your
playing.
if AI is considered able to do human type thinking... (irrational) or if it
was strictly programed...
after that fact.. if it was human possible then it make no difference...
except that the AI could recall past experinces near purfect and proceed to
kick some
Axel...
on the other hand if you wanted to say that the computer was programed...
you could make the AI player / GM write orders for the AI for two (2)
turns in advance instead of the usual one (1)... thus simulating the AI's
attempt
to used prevous battles to predict the human / alien manuvering...
Back on track
CMC
In message <199707172025.QAA24262@smtp1.sympatico.ca> Allan Goodall writes:
> At 11:03 AM 7/17/97 +0000, you wrote:
they are
> merely run by computers and just a loss of hardware.
I don't see any problem with saying that these expendable ships are piloted by
humans. One doesn't really design any military force on the assumption that
you are going to fight nice, fair, even point battles that end when the last
ship on the losing side is destroyed. One rather hopes that one will fight an
opponent that will run away when confronted with your superior force, or which
will be
overwhelmed by your advantages in material, technology and/or
tactics.
(Or in Drek Trek, you built exploration/research/diplomatic vessals,
that merely happen to be heavily armed.)
However, there may well come a time when the piddling little escorts that you
intended for bullying weedy merchants into doing what they are told have to be
expended in a humungous bloody fleet action, which is hard on the crew, but
they drew the short straw that anyone else might have picked. Fighters,
likewise, you hope you have superiority, or that you attack piddling little
one PDAF ships, but
when you have to do-or-die, you send them in, death or glory.
> The idea for the thread was to try and come to some group consensus on
Something I admire about GZG rules in general, although it breaks down a
little at the Stargrunt level, is the "conservation of game effect" that says
that a stand of infantry is just a stand of infantry, or a battery is a
battery, and you really don't care what the trivial details are, like what
calibre rifle the infantry carry.
I've been following the thread and, while there isn't a very strong consensus,
it seems that a fair POV would be that these if some fancy A.I. is going to
replicate the function of the vast number of
vastly-interconnected neurons in the brain, you're going to get a
biomechanical machine that goes >squidge< and blacks-out just like
we do, that isn't programmed but learns slowly, just like we do, thinks much
like we do, imperfectly, and which might well turn out to be treacherous,
psychotic, sociopathic or meglamanac... just like we might (particularly if we
have all our emotions suppressed). I'm really starting to wonder what people
think the advantage of this is. Wouldn't a human just be cheaper? You can't
invite the A.I. commander of an escort onto your flagship for luncheon either.
Or
marry your offspring to him/her.
I feel like we might as well say that the presence/absence of an
A.I. on any given ship is just a trivial detail.
At the day's end, the fleet will be commanded by a human... me or
thee. I guess if you want to simulate super-intelligent machine
commanded forces you could subtract d6% for the points value of each force,
square each forces new strength, subtract one from the other and take the
square root. This will give you the points value remaining. Fun.
> Actually, if there are drone fighters and drone escort ships, I could
There
> would be no need for a big turret. That would be a cool figure for GZG
Scotia make nice SF tanks with guns-on-stalks in 1:300.
> PS Since I am in a pissy mood, something I want to get off my chest.
Been
> wanting to for a while, but couldn't come up with a "tactful" way to
> trashed the rest, half of which I only read the first paragraph.
Today, got
> 62, kept about five, replied to one, trashed rest, again half of which
You aren't the only way... The only reason I made the comment as to the
esoteric type of thread this has become is because, well, this thread has
pretty much degenerated into a "I'm right!" "No, I am!" kinda argument. But
the opinions are too strong to just be
dropped....
> At 01:11 AM 7/18/97 GMT, you wrote:
We black out due to pressure on the brain or from a lack of blood supply to
the brain. Presumably a biomechanical brain can be built with a higher stress
load than the human brain.
> that isn't programmed but learns slowly, just like we do,
I disagree with the imperfect thinking. We have an awful amount of emotional
baggage that clouds our thinking, as well as neural paths that are less than
optimum. Emotions are the result of natural evolution and presumably our
biomechanical AI wouldn't have them. Also presumably the builders of the AI
would seek an optimum set of neural pathways, though I don't know how likely
this would be to work. In summary, I doubt if even a biomechanical AI would
think as imperfectly as a human being.
> I'm really starting to wonder what people think the advantage of
Well, in fact we're thinking of two types of AI here. One is the thinking
artificial brain. The other is the "smart" systems that are just 200 years of
development in combat programming. The latter are being developed for use in
modern day fighters since the computer can stand greater stress loads than a
human, and takes up less space.
As for the former type of "AI", the main advantage is that humans won't have
to risk their lives in nasty, protracted wars. I'd see this is a pretty good
advantage.
> I feel like we might as well say that the presence/absence of an
This I agree with.
> Scotia make nice SF tanks with guns-on-stalks in 1:300.
I'll have to check them out when I'm at GenCon.
> At 11:49 PM 7/14/97 -0700, Jeff Shoffn wrote:
Easy, they represent superior/inferior FIGHTERS, not necessarily
superior or inferior pilots.
> Let's face it: (A) FT is runned as if
Hmm, you HAVEN'T been paying attention to my posts. My original AI post was an
attempt to JUSTIFY something we've seen in FT games: high casualties amongst
fighters and escorts. Another thing I wanted was to see if there was a
consensus amongst list members as to AI use in the FT universe, since I (and
several other list members) was intersted in writing some FT fiction.
I haven't proposed any new rules for a reason: we don't need to. I'm not
suggesting we make the rules more complicated. I'm just trying to hammer down
some of the background story.
What I find interesting, and amusing, is the amount by which players don't
like science getting in the way of their so-called "science fiction"
games. This is probably the reason I detest most game related fiction.
> PS Since I am in a pissy mood, something I want to get off my chest.
Been
> wanting to for a while, but couldn't come up with a "tactful" way to
Today, got
> 62, kept about five, replied to one, trashed rest, again half of which
It's all relative. I skip about 50% of the messages at any given time (usually
when the topic starts to drift or there are a bunch of "me toos". The fact
that there were over 130 messages in two days suggests that it's interesting
to SOMEBODY. At least it beats a couple of weeks ago when I got two or three
"why isn't anyone posting" messages.
In a message dated 97-07-17 16:27:40 EDT, you write:
<< The idea for the thread was to try and come to some group consensus on a
use of AI in the FT universe. This would give anyone wanting to write
scenarios or fiction a common ground. I'm not sure that special rules need to
be brought in, except perhaps for disallowing certain classes of ship from
having to make morale checks. >>
IMHO: I don't see that there is a need to decide whether or not there are AI's
in the FT universe. The main problem is that there does not seem to be
ageement on what kind of behavior one should expect from an AI. Some think
they will be genius human stuffed in a box. some think they will be someone
progamed (ie: people with no free will) to be what ever the author wants them
to be (in spite of whether the programing instructions are contradictory.)
Everyone I've heard on this thread has a different idea what an AI is! So the
question is how can you have special rules for AI's if no one can agree on
what kind of personality an AI has?
As it is now everyone can ascribe to AI's whatever is needed to fit them into
the present FT universe(or not as the case may be!) Any rule set would raise
more problems than it would solve.