Following on from last week's interesting discussions, I want to pose
a question to the list-mind; this is something that has already been
talked over on the test list, but I wanted to widen the discussion to include
everyone on the main list, especially those of you who have done this stuff
"for real".....
In reasonably open terrain, assuming clear lines of sight, do you foresee the
advance of INFANTRY weapons technology having much effect on engagement ranges
against personnel targets?
I'm working on ideas for SG-style 15mm combat, and trying to decide
if the RANGE of infantry weapons fire should change with the tech level of the
weapons, or if just the effectiveness of the fire should change with the
overall engagement ranges remaining constant.
I'm looking at tech levels ranging from "Primitive" (bolt-action
rifles etc), "Basic" (automatic assault rifles), "Enhanced" (advanced combat
rifles), "Superior" (Gauss and laser weapons) and "Advanced" (plasma and
fusion weapons).
Discuss...... ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> On Jan 31, 2008 1:21 PM, Damo <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
Ground Zero Games schrieb:
> Following on from last week's interesting discussions, I want to pose
I doubt it. AFAIK the basic reason that engagement ranges agaisnt infantry are
just a few hundred meters is that beyond that it is hard to
make out individual infantrymen clearly enough to shot at them, and
suppressive fire beyond that range just scatters too much.
Existing rifles etc. all can shoot and do damage well beyond those few hundred
meters. It is just that you can't hit much at that range.
In fact, the period when the longest engagement ranges were used was in the
late 19th century up to WWI, when infantry still moved in fairly dense
formations, walking upright. Such formations could be engaged at longer ranges
(up to a 1000 m or so). After that, infantry learned to disperse.
What technology changes could increase engagement ranges?
- better detection and aiming gear (better optics for everybody,
surveillance drones with links to every squad or even every soldier etc.
- giving "everybody" indirect fire ability, e.g.by adding a light
grenade thrower with sufficient range to every rifle - the US OICW was a
step in this direction, but it had a fairly limited range.
These can be countered, of course - by better camouflage / stealth
technology, electronic countermeasures, body armour for example.
As is often the case, these effects may well cancel out to a fair degree.
Greetings Karl Heinz
If your over 400yds then I call in air support, but having just watched a dvd
on the first Mons, where you have the BEF with such a high rate of accurate
fire with the 303 Enfield, that the advancing Germans thought they were
attacking a battalion of machine gun's, I'd say compare the ranges of WW1
rifles to modern assault weapons and you find that the ranges of engagement
are less for infantry vs infantry now, compared to then. So well trained
troops using a bolt action weapon would have the upper hand over badly trained
troops using modern weapon's. And at a greater range so I think keep it simple
and playable.
james
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Feb 5, 2008 12:45 AM, K.H.Ranitzsch <kh.ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
> Existing rifles etc. all can shoot and do damage well beyond those few
Given 100 years of technological development, I don't think it's impossible to
imagine a small arms weapon that can hit anything out to 2 km with little
effort. We can do that now, but the weapon is only usable in the hands of a
specially trained, and gifted, sniper. One hundred years from now, with some
sort of sensor that accurately adjusts for wind and motion of the target,
every squad gets a "sniper"; he's just a regular Joe with a nifty weapon that
can hit pretty much anything it's aimed at. (Downside: it has such a narrow
field of view that you can't afford everyone in your team having one.)
And why should Joe fire this thing? Give it to a drone/robot.
This is the problem with trying to extrapolate future weapon design. Once you
throw something like an "everyman sniper rifle", every squad gets a sniper.
Then once you get on the tabletop someone decides that the optimum mix isn't
one sniper, but two, or four. Does this make for an interesting game, or does
it unbalance things?
The same thing goes for suppression fire at long range. I can imagine, in 100
years, a weapon that can change its cyclic rate based on range. Targeted for 2
km? No problem, increase the rate of fire so that the shots don't scatter so
much at long range. Hitting a closer target? Dial down the cyclic rate (and do
it automatically for the shooter; he has enough to worry about).
If the "smart gun" of the future can add these features cheaply without adding
to the weight (or the sensors, etc. are used at short range for other reasons)
then there's no reason engagement ranges can't be increased in terrain that
allows it.
I think the original question may have been framed to narrowly and everyone
has focussed on the weapon system exclusively.
If defensive technologies keep pace with offensive weapons and sensors then
ranges for equal technologies might keep the same.
However a higer tech force maywell be able to detect a lower tech force at
much longer range and with LOS range weapons engage at much longer ranges than
their opponents.
At high tech levels each trooper may be inside their own suit that masks
infrared signatures and projects visible light chameleon camoflage to belnd in
with their environments.
Maybe the sensors to detect such targets actually detect the EM leakage of
such suits or use mass spectrometers to detect the atmosphere gases emitted by
the suits. Maybe no one bothers with infrared scanners at high tech because
everything is IR shielded.
It could also be true that such sensors would not work so well against lower
tech troopers because they don't have any smart gear that emits energy
signatures to lock onto.
So it's a circular argument imagining technologies that could exist. I think
you want to define the type of universe that makes for a good game and use
whatever PSB you want to support that type of view
Two things that won't change much one is the nature of the ground people
fight on. Unless you are fighting on a giant lakebed most ground is very
wrinkled over distances of a few hundred metres. It's not hard to imagine
troopers able to find LOS cover up to short ranges. That's not counting
environments like jungles or built up areas where LOS engagements might be
very small.
The other thing that isn't likely to change is the human usng the gun. In a
few hundred years people won't naturally have evolved much so will still
process information at the same speed as they do today. A computer can do a
lot of the work sorting and classifying targets but it's still a human that
makes the decision to fire and that take time. If you want to get into areas
of bioenhancement, genetic modifcation and other parahuman transformation
technologies then human reactions and procesing capabilities might well become
orders of magnitude faster. That's then a direct challange to the
definition of what it means to be human.
Genetically enhanced, vat grown clone soldiers with the downloaded minds of
experienced combat veterans. These could be substantially tougher faster,
stronger and far braver than normal humans with any kind of weaponsystems.
There's a miriad of alternatives out there about how technoloiges might grown
and develop and who is to say that one is more likely than another?
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAgain
the "foundations" of your assumptions could also change. For instance, the
ground that people fight over may not be different, but "LOS" may very
well be different - neutrino or X-ray detectors may see through
buildings and regular geological features but diffract in unique ways on metal
or high density ceramics, UAV's may be micronized and every soldier equipped
with a loadout of 100's that are considered expendable and thus provide 360
degree views from altitudes up to hundreds of meters or can be sent into
buildings and tunnels or other difficult to see places.
Redefining LOS means that weapons, such as self-directed propelled
grenades
may be the round of the future - a soldier merely designates a target
using a remote UAV, points his weapon upward and fires a 20mm round that then
directs itself to the target.
LOS may also be redefined as velocity of projectiles increase - In
Desert Storm 40 to 60 foot thick sand berms were no obstacle to the DU
penetrators fired by M1 tanks. Irqai tanks were located by the heat signature
of their
exhaust floating above the tank - there was no direct LOS with the
target. If infantry weapons can achieve that type of kinetic energy in a
projectile,
your current standards for cover - brick walls, ditches, hills,
buildings are moot and provide roughly the same kind of cover as a bedsheet.
Having a human in the loop is really only required if you have some reason
to discriminate a target for some reason- i.e. conserve ammo or reduce
friendly damage. If a computer can scan, track and fire at hundreds of targets
simultaneously, it should probably be in charge of firing. For instance, if a
hypervelocity missile is coming at you, human reflexes can't
operate fast enough to engage a defensive system - it should be computer
run. If a soldier is presented with 50 simultaneous targets and has the
capability to shoot at all 50 at the same time, it would take a significant
amount of time for a human to verify each target and pull the trigger 50
times. A computer would process the target requirements and fire at all 50
within seconds.
Humans will play the role of "tactical" co-ordinators - their weapons
will be mere extensions of their thoughts. Humans will provide the parameters,
but will leave the actual firing and target selection to computers.
--Binhan
> On 2/5/08, john tailby <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
In
> a
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI'll
agree that this is certainly a way that warfighting technologies could go.
At the point that you have all warfighters with servo assisted suits, personal
battlecomputers running their own network of remote sensors and weapons, why
isn't the human sitting back safely in their bunker or armoured command
vehicle running a bunch of stand off smart weapons?
It's certainly not how the GZG universe looks like it is imagined where it's
still very much human centric person to person combat.
In the kind of environment you describe the worst thing you could do is fire
your personal weapon because they would instantly confirm your location to
hundreds of enemy remote sensors and you would get a barrage of anti personell
smart weapons delivered in counterbattery mode.
You would need to set up your weapons in remote locations so they could fire
and not draw fire back at you.
Also if both sides have similar technologies there would be whole levels of
warfare between sensor drones and the hunter drones trying to protect their
own sensors and kill the enemies. EM pulses and jamming to kill drones and
blind signals could be very common as well.
Quite a lot of this is reflected by the fact that the players have the ability
to get up walk around the table and observe eveything from all angles. So the
player does have something of a coordinating battle computer about them.
Also defensive technologies and doctrines will keep pace with sensors. If
tanks are detected by heat signatures from hot engines coming out from their
top, how long before tanks get some kind of IR sensor blanket to mask the heat
signatures or tanks that mount the heat exchangers some place other than the
top rear?
What is highlighted by this discussion is that a low tech force might be
almost completely ineffective against a higher tech force. Killed by smart
bullets before they ever new they were in range.
----- Original Message ----
From: Binhan Lin <binhan.lin@gmail.com>
To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Thursday, 7 February, 2008 6:24:18 AM
Subject: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?
Again the "foundations" of your assumptions could also change. For instance,
the ground that people fight over may not be different, but
"LOS" may very well be different - neutrino or X-ray detectors may see
through buildings and regular geological features but diffract in unique ways
on metal or high density ceramics, UAV's may be micronized and every soldier
equipped with a loadout of 100's that are considered expendable and thus
provide 360 degree views from altitudes up to hundreds of meters or can be
sent into buildings and tunnels or other difficult to see places.
Redefining LOS means that weapons, such as self-directed propelled
grenades may be the round of the future - a soldier merely designates a
target using a remote UAV, points his weapon upward and fires a 20mm round
that then directs itself to the target.
LOS may also be redefined as velocity of projectiles increase - In
Desert Storm 40 to 60 foot thick sand berms were no obstacle to the DU
penetrators fired by M1 tanks. Irqai tanks were located by the heat
signature of their exhaust floating above the tank - there was no direct
LOS with the target. If infantry weapons can achieve that type of
kinetic energy in a projectile, your current standards for cover - brick
walls, ditches, hills, buildings are moot and provide roughly the same kind of
cover as a bedsheet.
Having a human in the loop is really only required if you have some
reason to discriminate a target for some reason- i.e. conserve ammo or
reduce friendly damage. If a computer can scan, track and fire at hundreds of
targets simultaneously, it should probably be in charge of firing. For
instance, if a hypervelocity missile is coming at you,
human reflexes can't operate fast enough to engage a defensive system -
it should be computer run. If a soldier is presented with 50 simultaneous
targets and has the capability to shoot at all 50 at the same time, it would
take a significant amount of time for a human to verify each target and pull
the trigger 50 times.. A computer would process the target requirements and
fire at all 50 within seconds.
Humans will play the role of "tactical" co-ordinators - their weapons
will be mere extensions of their thoughts. Humans will provide the parameters,
but will leave the actual firing and target selection to computers.
--Binhan
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAnother
good example of technology removing humans from direct combat -
aircraft. UAV's are cheaper, smaller and can be run for extensive periods of
time by rotating remote crews. Since the aircraft doesn't have to carry a crew
and all the attendant atmosphere, food, space considerations, it can be loaded
with more fuel and munitions or made much smaller. Also Humans are limited to
short periods of about 9G's while hardware can be designed for sustained
levels of 9G's and short durations of up to 50 G's or more. The US Air Force
is fighting tooth and nail to hang on to the dwindling supplies of human
manned aircraft as remote piloted vehicles take over 50% of their missions.
Would a WWI biplane work as well as an F-22 Raptor? The difference in
spotting, propulsion, material and weapon technology is so vast that they
really aren't comparable, and yet only 90 years separates the two levels of
technology.
As you mentioned - use whatever background you like to game then PSB it.
For instance, aliens could invade in the next decade and electronics are
useless due to giant electromagnetic jammers that they use and we have to
resort to mechanically operated chemically propelled weapons in our war
against the Space Squid or whatever.
--Binhan
> On 2/6/08, john.tailby@xtra.co.nz <john.tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
If
> tanks are detected by heat signatures from hot engines coming out from
For
> instance, if a hypervelocity missile is coming at you, human reflexes
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lWould a
WWI biplane work as well as an F-22 Raptor? The difference in spotting,
propulsion, material and weapon technology is so vast that they really aren't
comparable, and yet only 90 years separates the two levels of technology.Um
would the raptor be able to lock on to a ww1 biplane, cause I think he may be
too basic to lock on to, a good emp blast would make mr raptor a flat raptor,
can his guns train on to the biplane or is he just moving to quick.
james.
P.S jon where did you get the resign buildings eg hallways from that appear in
SG 2.
[quoted original message omitted]
Binhan Lin schrieb:
> Another good example of technology removing humans from direct combat
> and nail to hang on to the dwindling supplies of human manned aircraft
> as remote piloted vehicles take over 50% of their missions.
Though it has been found that a UAV that has capabilities similar to a modern
fighter or bomber does not come that much cheaper than a crewed plane. The
costs for the aircraft body, propulsion system, ammunition etc is similar,
electronics may be more costly because it needs better
telecommunications gear. You do save in life-support systems and in the
synergy of a smaller platform. Certainly a major UAV has become too expensive
to be seen as expendable.
> Would a WWI biplane work as well as an F-22 Raptor? The difference in
> spotting, propulsion, material and weapon technology is so vast that
> levels of technology.
Though it isn't clear that technological change will continue at that pace.
Aircraft speeds, for example, haven't increased significantly for almost 50
years.
Greetings Karl Heinz
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThat's
exactly the sort of example I was talking about.
What's the radar signature of a WW1 biplane? there is very little metal used
so they could be hard to spot. They fly so low and slow that a raptor would be
hard pushed to engage it with it's cannon and even then I'd bet the WW1 plane
could out turn it. With radar guided weapons and minimal infrared signature
the raptor might have a hard time of engaging.
The WW1 plane has little chance of engaging the Raptor.
I don't know that remote controlled drones can fly as well as manned air
combat. They are fine for surveillance but I don't think they could do
air -air without an onboard AI and a large amount of bandwidth to
transmit the sensor data to the human operators.
The other challenges of using remote control drones is maintaining
communications. At the speed a warplane travels a few seconds delay to bounce
the signal from one or more satellites to base and back could produce an
unacceptable lag.
There is also the susceptibility of the "droid army" where if you command
signal is lost then your remote drone would all lose control and resort to
onboard computer backups and preplanned flight paths, Pretty easy for a human
operated plane to take apart a drone then.
I certainly see why an airforce that makes fighter pilots the top of it's
pecking order wants to keep funding to manned operations. The last thing you
want is to be replaced by a geek with a games consol.
[quoted original message omitted]
> James Mitchell wrote:
> Would a WWI biplane work as well as an F-22 Raptor? The difference in
> spotting, propulsion, material and weapon technology is so vast that
All the raptor needs to do is to supercruise past the biplane - the
string bag is too fragile to survive the Raptor's sonic shock wave...
> P.S jon where did you get the resign buildings eg hallways from that
If you mean the photo on p.56 (that's the only photo of buildings I can find
in SG2), it seems to be GZG's old GPM range. Not sure if they're still in
production.
Regards,
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThere
is actually a significant amount of metal in a bi-plane - the entire
engine is pretty much a solid chunk of steel. In addition, while having a
lower radar reflectivity than metal, other materials such a wood and
composites still have a radar signature -(
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-stealth.htm
)
"While not invisible, the F-22's radar cross section is comparable to
the radar cross sections of birds and bees." (see above web reference)
For radar, the F-22 uses an AN/APG-77 Radar, which is estimated to be
able to detect modern jets at ranges in excess of 30 miles, most of which have
smaller radar profiles than a WWI aircraft. In addition the APG-77 is
capable of tracking a 1 square meter target out to 110 nautical miles (
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Raptor.html).
IR of a WWI plane is also not insignificant with a 3.75 micometer wavelength
window (least background from sun, ground and clouds) being used by most IR
homing missiles, the energy of reflected sunlight is sufficient for an IR
missile to track - ( http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-IR-Guidance.html )
Modern
Jets have paints that reduce this to 5-15% reflection, but older paints
reflect as much as 60% of solar IR. In addition, the heat of a piston engine
is well into the detection range of IR detectors.
Airspeeds of a WWI aircraft are well into the range of modern helicopters, and
the general consensus is that helicopters are easy pickings for modern jets.
A more detailed link on the F-22 Raptor is :
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Raptor.html or the official Air Force
fact
sheet: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=199
Regarding your other comments - As we move to more UAV's, the computer
systems running them will improve, especially once the people get over the
idea that an autonomous machine is a dangerous thing. Most people still have
the hang up that they want a human "in the loop" to make final decisions. The
newest planes can not be flown mechanically and require computers to be flown,
the pilot merely makes an overall choice and the computer executes it. The
same will occur with combat overall, the human
merely makes the decision to engage and the computer will do the rest -
piddling details such as maneuver, target acquisition, weapon selection and
firing will all be left to the computer. Technology will force human action
to higher and higher levels of decision making - the minutae will be
handled by computers, so issues such a communication lag, communication loss
etc.
are moot - the computer knows what it needs to do and will do it, it
doesn't need to be micromanaged.
-Binhan
> On 2/6/08, john tailby <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOverall
aircraft speeds have not increased as there has been a change in the combat
environment where speed is not the defense that it used to be. Overall stealth
capabilities (defense through not being seen) has increased dramatically over
the last twenty years.
Overall speed is not a good indicator for technology either, a better gauge
would be cruise speeds. For instance:
WWI biplane - cruise speed ~70 mph
WW2 - P-51D - cruise speed - 362 mph
Vietnam - F-4 Phantom II - 585 mph
Modern - F-15C Eagle - 570 mph
Future - F-22 Raptor - 1140 mph
The main block to increasing cruise speed from the the 60's on was the sound
barrier. Once super-efficient engines and more refined aerodynamics
were used, the cruise speed was able to leap beyond the sound barrier.
--Binhan
> On 2/6/08, K.H.Ranitzsch <kh.ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2008 1:23 PM, Binhan Lin <binhan.lin@gmail.com> wrote:
And this all begs a question: what's the tactical or strategic reason for
engaging the WWI aircraft in the first place?
The biplane can't do a thing, essentially, to the Raptor. The Raptor
can drop anti-personnel and anti-fortification munitions on troops
with pinpoint accuracy, at least compared to WWI artillery standards.
The point I'm making is that whether or not a Raptor is the best weapons
platform for taking out biplanes is moot. For that matter, with modern smart
weapons you don't even need Raptors to be effective
against a WWI technology. Use something old, like a B-52, with modern
munitions. You can let the biplanes fly all you want while you take
out the ground troops at altitudes and/or speeds the biplanes can't
touch. Only part of your force needs to be truly advanced.
> Technology will force human action
Funny enough, that's the same thing I was arguing on this list a decade ago.
At the time, most list members argued against it, partly
because they like the sci-fi idea of humans in the cockpit, but there
was all sorts of touchy-feely "humans are special" and "computers are
predictable" comments, too.
I think we're seeing a sea change. You can't deny the fact that UAVs have made
an important impact. Regardless of whether or not they are about the same
price, or size as a manned aircraft, there is one very important factor: there
is no pilot at risk in a UAV! This has a huge impact. UAV pilots actually
learn from mistakes that would have been fatal in an aircraft. The physical
requirements of a UAV pilot aren't as great as an aircraft. (Besides the fact
that a UAV pilot doesn't have to be in such top shape that he can survive an
8g turn without passing out, you don't have to turn down a UAV pilot because
he's 6' 7", 250 lbs.) If a UAV is downed, you don't have to send in a recovery
team, nor does your opponent gain a political benefit from parading airmen
before cameras. I'd love to see a study on the morale of troops attacked by
unmanned vehicles.
GOOD point about the sonic boom.
james
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Fri, February 8, 2008 02:06, Allan Goodall wrote:
The main advantage here is that UAVs have the potential to be mass produced in
a very short space of time. You can go from a small number (and low expense)
of UAVs in peacetime, to lots of UAVs simply by throwing money at some
factories.
As AI improves, so the need for pilots on the ground is reduced. Even without
this, training of human remote pilots is going to be easier than real pilots,
since (as I believe you said, but I've snipped it now) they can learn from
their mistakes. No more problems like the RAF faced in the Battle of Britain.
For the record, I'm a proponent of strong AI, so I don't think we'll be
needing the pilots on the ground in the next 200 years. Whether this makes for
an interesting SF background is another matter entirely (some authors have
done it, some have sidestepped the problem).
Allan Goodall wrote on 02/07/2008 08:06:43 PM:
> On Feb 7, 2008 1:23 PM, Binhan Lin <binhan.lin@gmail.com> wrote:
***snippage***
> > Technology will force human action
Good gosh, we aren't going to get started about 'MK I eyeball' again, are
we? ;->=
Not sure if it's up to a sea change just yet, but 'within 200 years' seems a
more conservative than necessary.
For the romantics amongst us, the same rationalization as with
biologic/nano warfare may gloss this over; if one side or the other has
the advantage, there's no contest, and therefore, no game. Otherwise, there's
still room for PBI.
Or, as we in the gentleman's service say, "Nuke the site from orbit; it's the
only way to be sure."
The_Beast
> On Feb 8, 2008 7:30 AM, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
> Not sure if it's up to a sea change just yet, but 'within 200 years'
seems
> a more conservative than necessary.
You know, even when it is the Talon clearing the IED in the alleyway, it's
still the Soldier on the security cordon that gets the chai from the little
girl whose daddy is grateful that his kids didn't stumble into it.
Wars are fought to control populations and resources. Even the
Mongols didn't fight to eradicate the entire population--just a large
enough proportion to control the rest by fear. That will be the province of
people.
UAVs are taking over airpower because air combat is relatively simple,
essentially a matter of basic physical laws and fought in a
featureless mass of air. And they are still human-guided. I can see
full robot fighters relatively soon, but not robot or even remote
infantry. Introduce complex terrain and non-combatants, and it will
be more difficult for some software geek to write code to control them.
Especially as playing video games doesn't introduce you to the principles
involved in quite the same way.
> Or, as we in the gentleman's service say, "Nuke the site from orbit;
it's
> the only way to be sure."
Yeah, because that's the best way to control resources and
populations--render them into an unusable mass of radioactive waste.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lThe
original analogy was trying to extrapolate ground weapons and infantry
into the future - how would future technology change the arms race in
terms
of range, LOS etc. Are ranges of 1000 m reasonable for a hand-held
weapon?
Are LOS ranges of 100-500m reasonable? or will technologies such as
hyper-velocity projectiles combined with x-ray sensors make anything
less than 10 feet of granite ineffective as protection or camoflauge? Will
there
be an arms race in detection and counter-measures - chamelon clothing
(IR/Visible) vs. new detectors? Will weapons be automated? Will UAV's
for individual soldiers be common?
The WWI to modern aircraft analogy was to show how just 90 years can
completely change the aspect of warfare. If infantry weapons proceed at the
same rate, what would infantry weapons look like in future, or would there
even be infantry?
In the future, would a colonial army armed with the equivalent of today's
weapons stand a chance against the top-notch armies of the future?
-Binhan
> On 2/7/08, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2008 7:30 AM, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
...
> UAVs are taking over airpower because air combat is relatively simple,
> essentially a matter of basic physical laws and fought in a
...
> John -- "Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain
And yet, on Future Weapons, they've been showing small tracked bots
(remote control - I actually have issue with "robot" being used for
remote control, but who cares?) about the size of a german shepard that
can be armed with an M249, grenade launcher, multi-shot ATM launcher,
etc. Pretty neat, and it keeps the humans further from direct harm.
So, I can see where remote control man-sized gun platforms could easily
start to, maybe not replace, but enhance infantry. In fact, that might be a
neat thing for me to try out in DS3. The basic rules are in place for remote
controlled vehicles. I just need to whip up some suitable small tracked small
arms platforms for playtesting. I even have a force that I don't have infantry
selected for that I could try it out on.:)
> On Feb 8, 2008 10:12 AM, Binhan Lin <binhan.lin@gmail.com> wrote:
> The WWI to modern aircraft analogy was to show how just 90 years can
There will always be infantry. If you don't hold the ground, you have not won
the war. You may have eradicated your opponent with nuclear devices, but you
have not gained control of terrain, population, or resources.
> In the future, would a colonial army armed with the equivalent of
No.
Would a World War 2 Panzergrenadier division stand a chance against a
battalion of M-1A1 SEPs and Bradleys?
The invention of counter-battery radar doomed primitive artillery, to
the point that you pretty much only survive against 1st world artillery forces
if you use single tubes on mobile platforms firing from areas full of
civilians and don't do enough damage to inspire a change in the ROE to permit
counterbattery.
Tanks without stabilizers, laser rangefinders, and other fire control advances
are dead meat against tanks without.
So on and so forth.
Instances where primitive forces inflicted tactical defeats against
high-tech forces since the invention of the machine gun (the first
point in which technology became decisive at the tactical level) are
essentially limited to two circumstances.
a) The high-tech force made absolutely boneheaded mistakes that
effectively nullified their tactical advantages (British troops
deployed badly and without sufficient on-hand ammo at Isandalwalha)
b) The low-tech force outnumbered the high tech force so heavily that
they could absorb the casualties and keep fighting (reference recent
discussion about Mogadishu and the force ratios involved--although
there was a good bit of problem a in that situation as well).
Most cases combine the two effects.
> On Feb 8, 2008 1:15 PM, John Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> And yet, on Future Weapons, they've been showing small tracked bots
So, I can see where remote control man-sized gun platforms could easily
start to, maybe not replace, but enhance infantry. In fact, that might be a
neat thing for me to try out in DS3. The basic rules are in place for remote
controlled vehicles. I just need to whip up some suitable small tracked small
arms platforms for playtesting. I even have a force that I don't have infantry
selected for that I could try it out on.:)
You can handwave what ever you like--although I suspect that the
economic costs of training infantrymen/controllers AND buying remotes
for them AND the recovery and maint assets will be prohibitive for a long,
long time.
Which won't stop people from designing them, putting them on TV, or inserting
them into wargames.
It's really a question of what do you want to include?
Personal suggestion: Anything that makes infantry combat essentially
unrecognizable ('X-ray vision' effects that make terrain and LOS
irrelevant, masses of combat drones, etc) is going to:
a) be impossible to simulate effectively due to the high complexity and lack
of data b) change the game so much that it is no long a fun game about
infantry combat, but a miniature version of Robot Wars, which may be fun, but
is NOT the strength of Jon Tuffley's ground combat games.
> On Feb 8, 2008 4:14 PM, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tanks without stabilizers, laser rangefinders, and other fire control
Against tanks with. Obviously. My brain is only half-functional today.
Remote devices sound a bit like FCS which hopefully will be scaled back from
the grandeous plans which have been put forwards so far.
I do like the idea of remote piloted vehicles for certain roles. UAVs are
certainly handy. Smart remote weapons platforms that can randomly patrol
routes could be handy too, at least as sort of a moblie semi smart minefield.
The weapons from aliens, the sentry guns were certainly a good concept but
good for fixed defense. But then for small infantry forces fixed defenses that
cannoy redeploy to secondary firing positions are limited.
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> Even without this, training of human remote pilots
In addition to pilots being able to learn from their mistakes, there is one
far more important factor easing pilot training:
Real fighter pilots need to be physically fit enough
to handle multi-G turns. A guy siting back at HQ
operating a remote doesn't need to be in very good shape.
That provides a substantially larger pool of potential pilots.
> On Saturday 09 February 2008 06:06:43 john tailby wrote:
Does it matter if your automated weapon takes out a friendly automated weapon?
Does it matter if your automated weapon takes out a friendly human, but that's
the only friendly human casualty in the entire war? There's always a backlash
whenever anything goes wrong, but if the advantages are seen to outweigh the
risks, then they'll stay.
> If all future infantry are plugged into a datanet receiving all sorts
That's been true for at least 60 years. It's claimed we got the Germans to
bomb Dublin by interfering with their radar in WW2. We very effectively hacked
their Enigma system. Just because something can be compromised and turned
against you isn't necessarily a good enough reason not to use it (again, it
depends on how good the benefits are, versus the risks).
A communication channel *can* be made 100% secure (one time pads), though
secure distribution of the pads can be difficult. As a system approaches human
level intelligence, it may become less susceptible to viruses and the like as
it begins to be able to make better decisions about what data to trust.
> I think it is likely that weapons will get smarter and do more, but
Though that decision making process may move further up the chain as
technology progresses.
> I agree with John Atkinson that humans are likely to need to be
That's almost a tautology. The ~200 years between now and StarGrunt is a long,
long time, and personally I think we'll have AIs at least as adaptable,
unpredictable and flexible as humans by that point.
Until we get to that point though, we don't know exactly what it's going to be
right.
However, having said all that, I think Stargrunt should stay human focused. A
game fought between machines is going to be very different.
btw, the anime "Ghost in the Shell" (especially the series), as well
as being very good, concentrates a lot on man-machine interfaces,
automated military units, hacking interfaced minds and sensor systems and what
it means to be human.
Dragging this back to the particular question I asked, let me ask it again in
a slightly different way.
Setting aside all the myriad different opinions about what future warfare may
REALLY be like, what do folks WANT from the game? We sell infantry (from
militia to Heavy Power Armour) and tanks (from
tracked to Hi-Tech Grav). What we're writing is a game that allows
people to play with the toys they buy from us. So, it is a given that the game
will be about infantry and tanks, of varying tech levels. If that means it is
more about Science FICTION than about projections of probable military
technology, so be it.
I am assuming that in order to get a "balanced" game, the forces deployed will
get smaller as the tech level increases; so to address
the specific question I asked, do folks WANT the small high-tech
infantry force to be able to shoot and kill enemy infantry at twice
or three times the range that lower-tech troops can, or do you just
want their fire to be more effective but at the same sort of ranges
throughout?
Jon (GZG)
> ----- Original Message -----
Human
> beings are likely to be the hardest weapon system to subvert via EM
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 02:05:51AM -0800, Chris Ronnfeldt wrote:
> A guy siting back at HQ
Have you read _Spiders_? http://www.saturn5.com/~esheep/spiders/
R
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lChris
> Ronnfeldt wrote:
Dale Brown made use of this idea in his /Dreamland /novels. One of the
heroes of the series is injured during an operation and becomes a paraplegic,
but he can still be a combat pilot by sitting in the back of
a modified B-52 and operating the two drone UAVs that the "Megafortress"
carries. There's a slight(?) touch of Tom Clancy about the series, but they do
foreshadow what might come, and also make the point that, with remotes
available, a wounded serviceman does not become ineffective or
incapable in combat, even if s/he is immobile. If remotes can't do it
all and only have the capability to back up the PBI (why do I suddenly
remember the battalions of Iraqis trying to surrender to a couple of
Apache helicopters? :-) ), who better to control them than squad- or
platoon-mates of the soldiers on the ground?
Phil
> Allan Goodall wrote:
> >Airspeeds of a WWI aircraft are well into the range of modern
Not to the Raptor *itself*, but that is only relevant if the Raptor is
there all by itself - in which case it'll have severe difficulties
winning the war. If, which is highly likely, the Raptor is there to support
some
form of ground forces the biplane can:
1) scout for its side's ground forces,
2) attack the Raptor's side's ground forces with machineguns and light bombs,
3) possibly disrupt the Raptor's side's aerial recon efforts by engaging
low-flying tactical UAVs. (During the Kosovo war Serb transport
helicopters
were fairly successful in using door-mounted machineguns to shoot down
NATO UAVs, until the NATO forces deployed manned jet fighters to protect the
UAVs... :-/ )
Early in WW1, task 3) above was handled with pistol and rifle fire between
otherwise essentially unarmed aircraft. That wasn't a very effective way to
conduct air-to-air combat though, which led to the rapid development of
specialized fighter craft - of which the Raptor is currently the latest
version. As long as the biplane is capable of detecting and reporting the
location of the Raptor's side's ground forces, and much more so if it is
capable of actually harming them physically, the Raptor has every reason to
engage the biplane.
Later,
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Feb
> 9, 2008 6:10 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> Dragging this back to the particular question I asked, let me ask it
Personally, I'm with the latter. Ranges slightly better for high tech vs low,
but volume and effectiveness of fire should be markedly better.
Just my non-military experience two bits worth. :-D
Mk
> On Saturday 09 February 2008 11:10:38 Ground Zero Games wrote:
To diverge slightly yet again, I think there's also the issue of physical game
limitations imposed by the size of the table. If
high tech troops have 2-3 times the range of low tech troops, then
either the former can easily hit everything on the table (within line of
sight), or the latter have very short and ineffective ranges. This may be okay
if you're doing a high tech v low tech scenario, but most scenarios are
(probably) between forces of about equal tech, so you could break the game
just to make things more interesting in a small number of cases.
Some possible suggestions (not all compatible): * Snipers have longer range at
higher techs, but standard troops are unaffected. * Possibility of high tech
chameleon armour, which increases the range band by one level. * High tech
sensors, which reduce the range band. Nullified by troops with high tech
armour. * Possibly SAWs have their range affected by technology, but standard
weapons don't. * High tech have better ability to spot enemy units, but not to
shoot at them. * High tech have bonuses for communication checks, or greater
ranges for unit integrity.
Also, from another practical point of view, how many games are set in an open
desert, as opposed to in hilly woodland? In the games I've played, we
generally have a lot of terrain on the table, meaning it's often LOS which
affects range, not troop quality or technology. This may actually go someway
towards nullifying my original point however, since then the 'hit anything on
the table' only applies across the few open spaces, making it less of an
issue.
So, to get back to your original question - it would be nice
for tech to affect range, but only if I had a *really* large table. I do play
at 25mm, so dropping any of the ranges for low tech forces would be a bad idea
IMO.
A "reduce range band by one" could work, but increasing the size of each band
wouldn't. IMO.
> On Feb 9, 2008 12:06 AM, john tailby <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> I could imagine the military backlash against autonomous weapons the
Or the first time some kid throwing rocks triggers the codes to unleash
automatic weaponry on a crowd of feisty civilians who aren't actually hostile.
> On Feb 9, 2008 5:10 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> Setting aside all the myriad different opinions about what future
I want drones to be a part of it, but not a big part of it. Small, cheap
drones with TV cameras are going to be more likely to be easily maintained
than complex armed ones. Think the Raven not the Predator.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/raven.htm
> I am assuming that in order to get a "balanced" game, the forces
Presuming your weaponry more or less continues to resemble Traveler infantry
weaponry, or whatever, there should only be range limitations on the most
primitive weaponry. IMHO.
Anyone using a 19th century bolt action rifle can engage targets at the same
effective range as a 20th century assault rifle, or longer. Future ACRs would
have higher muzzle velocities or higher effective rates of fire due to use of
exotic propellant technologies (gauss weapons, binary propulsions, whatever),
they would be more accurate due to better optics, but they are not going to
essentially CHANGE. Or at least, that's been the assumption of Stargrunt in
the past and it makes for good gameplay. The real determination of accuracy at
long range is, has been, and should remain in game (and IMHO will
remain in the future) training/experience. Troop quality has been the
emphasis of the Stargrunt game and should remain so. It's a refreshing change
from other SF games that spend most of their time worrying about the toys the
troops are using.
Forces using smoothbore muskets or bows and arrows should be severely
penalized at longer than point blank range, as should folks armed with
shotguns or submachine gun equivalents. I could see allowing a force using
expensive optics to drop their rate of fire down to lay precision fire on long
range targets (essentially, at ranges longer than X, permit fire unpenalized
by range, but the FP becomes 1) I haven't done the math or playtesting on
that, I'll leave it to folks who enjoy that sort of thing (for the math) and
who have time and opponents (for the playtesting).
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
I'd say one question is can you have a flexible enough game at SG scale
and force size if the high-tech grunts have the extra range and/or
firepower? At present, SG allows for much of the usual kind of infantry
combat that players (and historians) are used to -- everything from
long-range exchanges of fire to melee, depending on scenario. Can you
still do that with a high/low tech match-up if high-tech = much longer
range? Or will such a match-up become the 22nd century equivalent of
spear-carrying natives walking into machine-gun fire? If the latter,
then the kinds of scenario that give both sides a decent chance become
human wave attacks, in which the low-tech side needs a huge numerical
advantage to cope with the fact that most of his troops are going to end
up as mincemeat, or must involve ambushes or terrain that negates the
range advantage -- in which case, it's not much use as a game mechanic.
There are lots of ifs, ands and buts about that, but it makes the point,
I think. Do players have games in which extra range can become decisive,
or is it moot because a Lee Enfield has the same range as a plasma rifle
in an urban/jungle/forest/wbatever environment? I wouldn't know, I'm a
vacc-head. :-)
Phil
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Well, only having limited Star Grunt play.. I would like to be able to deploy
my high tech infantry force and be able to take on a greater # of low tech
enemies and have a good chance of coming
out on top. I would like my High tech troops to be able to out
shoot/range
effectively the lower tech enemies.
DOCAGREN
Just a Lurker here on the Digest, But maybe I have a good idea or 2..
    :-)
Or a few questions, that need answering
In Memory of Russ Manduca 7/22/67-1/8/08
In a message dated 2/9/08 10:36:42 AM,
gzg-l-request@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
writes:
> Dragging this back to the particular question I asked, let me ask it
**************
Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003
000000025 48)
> On Feb 9, 2008 5:10 AM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
I want a game set in the future, with humans and/or aliens doing the
fighting, because I like morale rules. (I would like a game where it's mostly
about AI, but that's for a different company to produce.)
I want more manoeuvre units in the game than SG2 typically handles, but I want
it playable in about the same amount of time.
I want a science fiction game where the troops are at least as capable as
modern troops. No more "Vietnam in Space". Vehicles shouldn't be neutered,
heavy weapon ranges should be realistic.
In spite of the last paragraph, I want it to _feel_ more like sci-fi.
Often when playing SG2 I get the feeling that I could plop down modern tanks
and figures and it wouldn't feel incongruous. I don't need teleportation
devices or energy fields. Maybe just EW rules that work, and drones as John A.
mentioned, would be enough. Maybe add more chrome to the futuristic weapons so
that lasers and plasma guns have a truly futuristic feel.
I want rules for aliens.
I disagree. Adding "bots" (remote controlled gun drones, terminators, etc.)
simply modifies the specific sides infantry. They are all still able to be
engaged by "standard" infantry, and do not have to remove the fun of the game.
Then again, I like DS types of battles with companies to battalions, so my
take on what such might do to SG is somewhat limited.:)
J
> On Feb 8, 2008 1:15 PM, John Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lNot to
mention the Iraqis who surrendered to the drone spotter aircraft from the US
battleship.
_____
From: gzg-l-bounces@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU] On Behalf Of Phillip
Atcliffe
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 7:20 AM
To: gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?
> Chris Ronnfeldt wrote:
Even without this, training of human remote pilots is going to be easier than
real pilots, since (as I believe you said, but I've snipped it now) they can
learn from their mistakes. No more problems like the RAF faced in the Battle
of Britain.
In addition to pilots being able to learn from their mistakes, there is one
far more important factor easing pilot training:
Real fighter pilots need to be physically fit enough to handle multi-G
turns. A guy siting back at HQ operating a remote doesn't need to be in very
good shape. That provides a substantially larger pool of potential pilots.
Dale Brown made use of this idea in his Dreamland novels. One of the heroes of
the series is injured during an operation and becomes a paraplegic, but
he can still be a combat pilot by sitting in the back of a modified B-52
and operating the two drone UAVs that the "Megafortress" carries. There's a
slight(?) touch of Tom Clancy about the series, but they do foreshadow what
might come, and also make the point that, with remotes available, a wounded
serviceman does not become ineffective or incapable in combat, even if
s/he
is immobile. If remotes can't do it all and only have the capability to back
up the PBI (why do I suddenly remember the battalions of Iraqis trying to
surrender to a couple of Apache helicopters? :-) ), who better to
control
them than squad- or platoon-mates of the soldiers on the ground?
Phil
I tend to agree with Allan on this.
Bob Eldridge
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 02:25:36PM +0000, Samuel Penn wrote:
> Also, from another practical point of view, how many games are
Don't know if anyone else here remembers OHMU, but in that game weapon ranges
tended to encompass most of the table; the game was about manoeuvreing into
the right terrain, not shifting in and out of weapon envelopes. (It was to
some extent a reaction to Battletech.)
R
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOne
interesting application for these small bots would be in vehicle support.
Infantry is a constant threat to big vehicles and usually means your big
vehicles need accompanying infantry to combat them. Now, imagine if each tank
has assigned to it a number of drones, perhaps two of these rollers and one
aerial drone to allow it that screen and the ability to root out smaller
targets who can fall back to tighter cover.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "John Lerchey" <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu>
> I disagree. Adding "bots" (remote controlled gun drones, terminators,
> >> (remote control - I actually have issue with "robot" being used for
> >> remote control, but who cares?) about the size of a german shepard
> >> So, I can see where remote control man-sized gun platforms could
> > unrecognizable ('X-ray vision' effects that make terrain and LOS
(drops out of lurk mode again)
[quoted original message omitted]
I want a game where it's squads, platoons and companies that can engage each
other.
I want to be able to refight a Sci-Fi version of Black Hawk Down. Or
something like Terminator.
One problem that a lot of games have with their "horde" armies, is that's its
really expensive to buy the masses of green conscripts and you need a shovel
to remove your casualties each turn.
I like the idea that higher tech weapons could select their mode of firing a
lot better than a lower tech weapon. Maybe they can change between sniper,
assault rifle and shotgun type weapons from turn to turn as the situation
warrants.
In regards ranges of weapons, if you have aground scale anything like the
scale of the models and terrain then a 6 by 4 table represents about 100 by
150 yards so a figure with a low tech bolt action rifle should be able to
cover the table. I think this is OK, it just means you need lots of LOS
blocking terrain so that the action can be pretty close and furious.
If you have longer range bands say rifles have 24" range you risk the game
being too dominated by heavy weapons, artillery and tanks.
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Feb 9, 2008 4:30 PM, John Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
bots = "I don't like being limited by morale rules and supressions"
IMHO.
That may not be why you're saying it. It's why some people are saying it.
It removes a major strength and emphasis of the rules. A game where robots
dominate (and they will, if you allow them to be more or less infantry immune
to morale and supression with no balancing disadvantages) will not be
Stargrunt.
I see two ways of balancing out bots that are going to ignore morale and
suppression. One is to make them more expensive. Two is to take advantage of
the fact that response to suppression also happens to
involve a self-preservation instinct, and that if they don't have one
then they should also be more apt to just eat whatever munitions someone may
bring that can actually take them down instead of taking cover.
This is reflected in all three Terminator movies -- I for one can't
remember a single instance in any of them where any terminator model ever
actually took cover to preserve itself. They pretty much just stood up and
took whatever small arms fire they had to, and if something came along that
could actually hurt them they tended to be way, way too slow to get out of the
way. This is also reflected somewhat in the
droid armies that appeared in the Star Wars prequels -- they didn't tend
to care much about preserving themselves, but this was by no means a
_good_ thing for them in most instances.
EF
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Feb
> 8, 2008 1:53 AM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> The main advantage here is that UAVs have the potential to be
The cheapest way to build a small number of UAVs is to not build a factory and
produce a small number of what could be called preproduction units. If you
build the capability to mass produce them, a small number will be
prohibitively expensive. An important question is what does the factory do
between production runs?
If it sits idle, an embarassing amount of time and money will be spent
determining which inactive machinery is actually dead, and/or training
inexperienced people to run it. If it is used to produce something else,
time is lost to retooling and dealing with the loss of non-UAV
production (unless the factory puts out consumer goods between UAV runs, but
that still causes diruptions). Part of the reason for district pork barreling
is to keep enough production at an aircraft plant to prevent it from closing
and having all of the machine tools exported to China (This is not exclusive
to any particular industry, or country. I am watching the line next to mine at
a suspension parts plant, in Canada, being packaged for delivery to a company
owned subsidiary in China, as I work.).
Aircraft cruise speeds have not meaningfully increased since the XB-70,
about 40 years ago. The problem with supercruise is that it only really pays
off if you do it all the time
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Feb
> 8, 2008 9:12 AM, Binhan Lin <binhan.lin@gmail.com> wrote:
> The original analogy was trying to extrapolate ground weapons and
How on any terrestrial planetary surface are you going to get xray sensors to
work?
Passive is right out, there are no useful natural sources. Active requires an
xray emitter which will be much easier to detect than backscatter off
of an armored vehicle. They are also devilishly hard to focus. It
> On Sunday 10 February 2008 07:51:18 Eric Foley wrote:
[...snip examples of suicidal machines...]
But why should they ignore morale and suppression? If they're just drones with
no AI then this makes sense, but if they're controlled by an AI that is (or
almost) as capable as a human, then it may well have self preservation as an
instinct.
As an SF example, the Tachikomas do take cover and try to avoid being shot.
> On Sunday 10 February 2008 08:36:30 Richard Bell wrote:
It's easier than building lots of manned aircraft, and training the pilots.
Assuming a major war (which doesn't result in total annihilation of both sides
within 30 minutes), you'll have time and incentive to build the factories to
build the UAVs. UAVs lost in the early stages of the war don't result in pilot
loss, so the old pilots just fly the newly produced UAVs.
If you lose aircraft, you also have to spend time training up good pilots. I
don't have figures on how long it takes to build a modern fighter, or how long
it takes to train a modern pilot, but I'd be surprised if the first is longer
than the second. Regardless, doing one rather than both is going to be
cheaper.
Why couldn't your example of how aircraft factories are kept running in peace
time also work with UAV factories?
> On Feb 9, 2008, at 7:25 PM, emu2020@comcast.net wrote:
> One interesting application for these small bots would be in
Transhuman Space (for Gurps) has man-packed nanite packages that do
all sorts of wonderful things. Taken to the extreme you could have blobs of
these nanites hovering around the vehicle ready to assist at a moments notice.
D.
> RBW wrote:
> >Also, from another practical point of view, how many games are
OHMU is an 1/300-scale vehicle-based game like DirtSide though, not an
1/72- or 1/120-scale infantry-based game like StarGrunt... Yes, weapon
ranges in OHMU are pretty similar to those in DirtSide.
Later,
> On Feb 9, 2008 9:17 PM, john tailby <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> In regards ranges of weapons, if you have aground scale anything like
One of the many things that Stargrunt DOESN'T have that makes me like it.
Ground scale is about 5xfigure scale.
> If you have longer range bands say rifles have 24" range you risk the
I don't mind this. A game that teaches that there is a time and place for
light infantry and a time and a place for heavy weapons is a feature, not a
bug.
> On Feb 10, 2008 5:42 AM, Damo <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Transhuman Space (for Gurps) has man-packed nanite packages that do
Nanites have been discussed to death on this list.
Eventually the discussion runs down to this, every single time:
Nanite-based games will essentially be a stack of grey blobs, rolling
around the field and eating each other. It might be fun for some people, but
it isn't infantry combat and it isn't Stargrunt.
You can have a 200 post thread on the subject, or you can just end it with the
above comment.
I'm officially sick of the subject. For the logic chain that ends in that
statement, see the archives.
> On Feb 9, 2008 9:17 PM, john tailby <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> I want to be able to refight a Sci-Fi version of Black Hawk Down.
> One problem that a lot of games have with their "horde" armies, is
"I want my cake, and I want to eat it also."
Feh.
I posted the math. I'll say it again in small words.
You want "Blackhawk Down", you get hordes of troops. You need 500 militia to
do it right against a single SG platoon. And the
high-tech, highly-trained force with fire support is going to kill
lots and lots and lots of them. It's pretty much the whole point of having
training, tech, and fire support. Horde armies ALWAYS take lots of casualties.
Do you think for a half a moment that if you could take underarmed, untrained
idiots in small numbers and have them be just as effective as very expensively
trained and equipped Soldiers, anyone would EVER bother with expensively
trained and equipped Soldiers?
You have failed Logic 101.
I'm sure your figures have highly detailed facial expressions.
> On Feb 10, 2008, at 5:47 AM, Samuel Penn wrote:
> On Sunday 10 February 2008 07:51:18 Eric Foley wrote:
I think J.A. is talking about the "gamey" types out there. Ample use of
robotics doesn't necessarily mean that you ignore morale and suppression if
you assume these robotics are expensive and take time
to build / maintain. Perhaps FAR into the future you can mass
produce these things but for a certain amount of time robotics will
be expensive -- and if played during this time no operator is going
to willingly sacrifice a squad of robots JUST because he can.
> Samuel Penn wrote:
Incentive, perhaps, but time? I dunno. If there's one thing that
post-Vietnam combat has shown, it's that you go to war with what you
have available at that time, both in terms of go-forces and replacement
equipment. You (or an ally) can ship in already-manufactured stuff to
replace losses, but there's no time to build new tanks, aircraft, AFVs
-- even missiles. It takes too long to make, even using a factory that's
producing the item(s) in question at the start of the war. There have
been a few inspired improvisations (like the GBU-28 "bunker-buster"
bombs) and conversions (Vulcans converted to the tanker and SEAD roles),
and even quick introductions of equipment nominally in the test and evaluation
stage, but modern war is too fast and too intense to allow equipment,
particularly aircraft, to be made from scratch.
The fighting would have to bog down for some reason to give one or both sides
enough time to start or accelerate production runs. It could well happen, but
you can't depend on it. When the balloon goes up these days,
what you and/or your friends have in the way of equipment, in service or
in reserve, is all there is. Out on other worlds... well, maybe. How much room
can you trade for time while you ramp up production, amd will there be enough
of anything left by the time it gets going to make the effort worthwhile?
Phil
> On Feb 10, 2008, at 8:51 AM, John Atkinson wrote:
> Nanites have been discussed to death on this list.
[snip]
I hear ya. I think it's an exercise in restraint myself -- just
because you can EVENTUALLY end at a particular point doesn't mean you have to
game AT that point in time.
But having said that I guess a common theme is we should ignore every
possibly fun scifi development because some power-gamer of the future
will abuse it. It's almost like you shouldn't even bother discussing
*anything* because 200 messages later someone will say "two blobs converge on
each other and that isn't fun."
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Feb
> 10, 2008 3:59 AM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sunday 10 February 2008 08:36:30 Richard Bell wrote:
Easier, yes. However, nearly everything is easier than building manned
aircraft. A UAV is not a simpler aircraft, it is a smaller aircraft. A UAV
with the identical capabilities as a raptor will be very nearly the same size.
Current UAV's are cheaper than manned aircraft, because expectations of what
they will be doing are relatively low.
> Assuming a major war (which doesn't result in total annihilation of
Unless the number of UAV's flown remains constant, you will be training
pilots, anyways. I accept that UAV pilots will not have to learn
g-compensation, but every other aspect of UAV pilot training that is
easier than manned aircraft training is due to the UAV being less capable
(excepting automated landings by net).
> Why couldn't your example of how aircraft factories are kept running
Adding 20 million dollars to the cost of a $100 million aircraft is easier to
swallow than adding $1 million to the price of a $50,000 UAV. I do not
actually know if aircraft plants are kept open this way, but it is why
carriers are built at as slow a rate as they are.
> On Sunday 10 February 2008 14:11:38 Damo wrote:
Actually, reminds me of a story from "I, Robot", where a robot was meant to
test fly a prototype FTL ship, and something went wrong. Humans were sent in
to find out the problem, because Susan Calvin doesn't want to risk another
robot. (But then Calvin never really liked humans).
I'm sure there's lots of examples from SF of humans being considered
expendable, and robots kept back for safer duties.
Fair point.
What we've been doing in DS3 is to have the remote units *operators* take
morale tests when the bots get damaged to see if they pull 'em out. OA says
that ops tend to fall in love with their toys.:)
I've only played a little with actual robots, but plan to do some more with
it. Yes, they have advantages in no morale, but they should also lack in
tactical flexibility (or maybe, depending on your background and desired
limitations). They also likely cost more (in battle effectiveness) than living
units. And they likely don't really take cover.:)
Things can be offset.
For the record, I *require* strong morale systems for my more serious games.
That was one of the biggest failures of a lot of the older games like
Starguard and Strike Team Alpha. Ok mechanics, no morale. No communications.
No control problems. Too unrealistic (yeah, like I can say that when I want
disruptors and blasters!).:)
J
> On Feb 9, 2008 4:30 PM, John Lerchey <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lYou
also have to establish limits in a particular rules system. I mean,
this could be drawn out into every crazy sci-fi direction such as we
need rules for aliens who have transcended the phsycial form and exist as
being of pure energy. Um...no we don't. Sure one player in a thousand might
want to play such a race, but do you write it into the rules?
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Damo <damosan@gmail.com>
> On Feb 10, 2008, at 8:51 AM, John Atkinson wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
This all comes down to the cost and society's values on human life. A Human
costs X amount to train. An AI costs X amount to construct and outfit. When
you get AIs that can perform at human or beyond human abilities, humans may
very well be the expendible ones.
A human still needs time to learn (barring cybernetic alternatives like
skill wires/chips/programming/etc). Once you have your AI constructed,
you can theoretically upload and alter skill sets as needed, making the AI
infinitely more versatile (assuming they operate at similar levels to
human intelligence/response) than a human.
This is only one way to look at it, but this of cousr assumes a lot. The
Tachikomas in GiTS are the sort of AI that would be more expensive and
therefore more valuable than humans. They think, intuit, function on every way
like human mentally and even emotionally with the added benefit of operating
with mechanical efficiency in its physical capabilities. Of course, the
Tachikoma exists in a world where the line between man and machine is very
blurry with human formed cyborgs existing with capabilities that venture into
the realm of superhuman.
> Actually, reminds me of a story from "I, Robot", where a robot
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lA
friend developed a force that I think used robots in a very snesible way. He
played a smaller nation which compensated for lack of available
manpower by using hi-tech force multipliers. His infantry units were
equipped with robots that performed hi-risk jobs - point, medical
retrieval, EOD, etc. All of these are done in tandem with humans and none of
them independent of some sort of handler or command.
I thought this was an effective, but not overpowering use for robots in game.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "John Lerchey" <lerchey@andrew.cmu.edu>
> Fair point.
> > infantry immune to morale and supression with no balancing
> --- Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> Actually, reminds me of a story from "I, Robot",
Just to be pedantic, that wasn't a Susan Calvin story. The human was sent
because a robot congressperson used his influence to force it (to buy votes
from the humans).
"My precious sense of honor Just a shield of rusty wire, I stand against the
chaos
and the cross of holy fire' - N. Peart
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 06:42:45AM -0500, Damo wrote:
> Transhuman Space (for Gurps) has man-packed nanite packages that do
Sorry, no.
Transhuman Space has swarm bots with a "group mind" within the swarm.
These are _not_ on a nanite scale; they're visible to the naked eye, and
tend to be somewhere around wasp or bee-sized. I agree that these might
be interesting to represent on a battlefield, but let's not get them tangled
up with nanotech.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lemu2020
> @comcast.net wrote:
> exist as being of pure energy. Um...no we don't. Sure one player in a
> thousand might want to play such a race, but do you write it into the
Only if you include rules for trapping them to use as a power source...
:-D
Phil, long-time reader of /E-Man/ comics... ;-)
> On Feb 10, 2008 11:06 AM, Damo <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
> But having said that I guess a common theme is we should ignore every
Knock yourself out.
Just do me a favor and start a new thread, labelled "Nanites" and go apenuts
there.
Then email me an apology in a week.
I'm not pulling this statement out of my ass. I've been reading Nanite threads
on this mailing list periodically. I think the oldest one was in 2001?
It's always the same.
> On Feb 10, 2008, at 5:36 PM, Roger Burton West wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 06:42:45AM -0500, Damo wrote:
Confused their use of nanotechnology when talking about the swarms. My bad.
Been too long since I looked at the books.
As you say though -- nifty idea even with them being the size of a
wasp or bee.
Damo
> Transhuman Space has swarm bots with a "group mind" within the swarm.
!
SG3 *totally* needs *robot bees*. Seriously, that's awesome.
-P.
John Atkinson schrieb:
> bots = "I don't like being limited by morale rules and supressions"
Robots should be subject to suppression and morale in a fashion similar to
other troops.
Why?
A trooper becomes suppressed when his immediate surroundings become too
dangerous to continue with his mission - a robot that ignores this would
very soon become a heap of scrap metal.
A platoon's morale fails when the situation is too hot to continue -
again, only robots with a scrap-heap wish would go on regardless.
Greetings Karl Heinz
Samuel Penn schrieb:
> On Sunday 10 February 2008 08:36:30 Richard Bell wrote:
It will depend on the capabilities you specify for the UAV whether building
them is that much easier than building a manned aircraft. If it
can do everything a modern fighter can do, with similar speed, range, weapon
load, electronics suite etc. its cost (=building effort) will be comparable to
a manned aircraft. Even half the price of a Raptor is quite a lot of money.
> Assuming a major war (which doesn't result in total annihilation of
If you look at the years before WWII and the early stages of that war, it took
all combatants half a decade or more to ramp up their weapons production
capacity to a full war footing, and even so the military didn't get everything
they wanted. Nowadays it would take at least as long, if not longer, given
that weaponry has become more complex and that factories are more specialized
and that many production steps are outsourced to foreign countris.
> If you lose aircraft, you also have to spend time training up good
It is not obvious to me that there will be no need to replace UAV pilots.
- UAV control centers will be a prime target for enemy actions, and with
their need to broadcast control commands, they shoudl be easily detected,
- Running a UAV in a full-blown war certainly must be stressful, so
pilots may well 'burn out' psychologically after a time.
> Why couldn't your example of how aircraft factories are kept running
It can be done, wiht similar overheads and waste.
Greetings Karl Heinz
John Atkinson schrieb:
> In regards ranges of weapons, if you have aground scale anything like
To each his own.
Over the years, I have come to more and more appreciate games where the ground
scale is similar to the figure scale and to dislike the
distortions inherent in off-scale games.
That said, Stargrunt can also be played with small figures (15 mm, 6mm etc.)
and it should be possible in any new edition.
Greetings Karl Heinz
> On Sun, February 10, 2008 21:32, Chris Ronnfeldt wrote:
Hmm, admittedly it's been a few years since I read it. Since I'm not currently
at home, a quick search shows that it's probably "Risk", which does have
Calvin in it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_%28Asimov%29
It does look like it was in "The Rest of the Robots" rather than "I, Robot"
however.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Feb
> 11, 2008 12:56 AM, K.H.Ranitzsch <kh.ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
> John Atkinson schrieb:
Going on with this, if you set it up so robotic units do not take suppression,
then they should drop a die type for each suppression marker
they would otherwise take. So yeah, one can have morale-less units, but
it's then increasingly easier to hit and disable them.
Least, that's how I see it being game-able.
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lJohn,
I think your arguments basically boil down to experience.
Is this scenario is any different than a nervous MP or National Guard guy
being placed in a bad situation at a bad time - there are many instances
of improperly trained or equipped troops facing a large mob and then firing
live rounds after being sparked by a bottle or stone, simply because the
troops "felt" they were in danger. Is a soldier's intuition of danger any
different than a computer's analytical determination of the situation? In both
cases, it depends on the "training" or "programming" to make the correct
decision. Part of mob psychology is shaped by what the police
forces do - if the mob sense fear, it may embolden some to attack.
Throwing a rock and hitting a person is more morally stimulating than throwing
a rock and hitting a slab of armored plate. (i.e. this is why armored cars are
so
imposing in riot situations- people know that a rock isn't going to do
squat.)
--Binhan
> On 2/9/08, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lJon,
The issue of ranges is a little misleading - just like the discussion of
top speeds of aircraft being stagnant for the last 50 years. Although a 19th
century rifle has similar range to a modern assault rife, the overall
effectiveness of the modern weapon is way higher - faster rates of fire,
increased reliability, decreased logistics (for a given amount of firepower),
increased accuracy, more consistent manufacturing.
Extrapolating that to a future wargame, I don't think that ranges are the
solution. Either by using firepower dice, defensive modifiers or some other
mechanism, top line weapons should be more effective than "primative" weapons.
For instance defensive modifiers - smoke or visibility modifiers to
weapons
not equipped with IR/magnification/nightvision - i.e. a target that
can't be seen due to smoke, foliage, darkness should be harder to hit for
primitive weapons.
"soft cover modifiers" - a wood or corrugated metal fence, a wood
building -
things such as arrows would not penetrate - 19th century muskets could
penetrate at a penalty, but modern weapons would suffer no penalty at all.
Medium cover modifiers - forest, shallow ditch, stone wall - modern
weapons take a penalty, but high tech railguns or super propellants do not.
hard cover modifiers - concrete barriers, bunkers, steel plates (i.e.
bridges or other large structures) - impervious to low-tech and low
caliber
modern - larger caliber modern and high-tech weapons take a modifier.
In all these cases, it is not the range that is important, but the
effectiveness of the weapon against the the type of cover - the higher
the technology, the heavier the cover needs to be to be effective.
Example - in modern terms a sniper with a .50 caliber rifle can kill
targets
through armored glass that would stop a .50 bullet from a Martini-Henry.
Overall ranges are probably similar, but due to faster muzzle velocity, higher
tech bullet materials and better manufacture processes, the modern rifle in
going to be effective wheras the primitve weapon is going to make a lead
paperweight.
In game terms - a high tech opponent is going to have more choices of
cover vs. a low tech opponent, so while a board may be filled with terrain,
each
piece is not of equal value to both sides - light woods may provide
cover against a primitve single shot weapon, but be completely useless against
hypervelocity rifles that fire hundreds of rounds per minute using advanced
Thermal/sonic targeting.
--Binhan
> On 2/9/08, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
Human
> >beings are likely to be the hardest weapon system to subvert via EM
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_27521_1202760823_2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_27521_1202760823_2--
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lI would
say that it comes down to deployment too. If your robots are left on their
own, therei s likely going to be a guy in a bunker someplace
monitoring R2-Death4U. This guy could have a switch he has to flip to
allow the robot to go "hot" and then use deadly force. This would be a way to
avoid the rock situation. the added bonus here is that the robot can get rocks
chucked at him all day and not get POed or worn down to the point where he
does somethign stupid.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Binhan Lin" <binhan.lin@gmail.com>
John, I think your arguments basically boil down to experience.
Is this scenario is any different than a nervous MP or National Guard
guy being placed in a bad situation at a bad time - there are many
instances of improperly trained or equipped troops facing a large mob and then
firing live rounds after being sparked by a bottle or stone, simply because
the troops "felt" they were in danger. Is a soldier's intuition of danger any
different than a computer's analytical determination of the situation? In both
cases, it depends on the "training" or "programming" to make the correct
decision. Part of mob
psychology is shaped by what the police forces do - if the mob sense
fear, it may embolden some to attack. Throwing a rock and hitting a person is
more morally stimulating than throwing a rock and hitting a slab of armored
plate. (i.e. this is why armored cars are so imposing in
riot situations- people know that a rock isn't going to do squat.)
--Binhan
> On 2/9/08, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> I could imagine the military backlash against autonomous weapons the
Or the first time some kid throwing rocks triggers the codes to unleash
automatic weaponry on a crowd of feisty civilians who aren't actually hostile.
John
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Well, I think JA's point on how the media would spin the Autonomous Weapons
engaging "civilians", with Lethal Force. And if that "Armored Bot" is
all
that there, holding the line... U know someone going to try to cross
it by
taunting it. Never mind what happens if a "Robot" trooper goes Beserk
and engages civilians or friendly forces.
Now as I said before I do have a lack of SG2 play, but I would like if you are
adding "Bots" then to have the ability to use them they did in the SciFi
novel "Warbots" by G. Harry Stine. For 1 thing the back of these book,
showed a
TOE for the unit. And the basic of idea was after going to "a Warbot
force"
the US is slowly intergrating humans back into forces.. but I could be
wrong been a # of years since I read them.. But I do remember if the
Human operator was interfaced when the Unit was destroyed, then U also KOed
the Human as well.
In Memory of Russ Manduca 7/22/67-1/8/08
DOCAGREN
Just a Lurker here on the Digest, But maybe I have a good idea or 2..
    :-)
Or a few questions, that need answering
> In a message dated Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:53:03 -0700, "Binhan Lin" writes:
> John,
**************
The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards. Go to AOL
Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)
> On Feb 11, 2008 12:37 PM, Binhan Lin <binhan.lin@gmail.com> wrote:
> The issue of ranges is a little misleading - just like the discussion
Firepower increases. Range does not. A man with a Martini-Henry can
put effective fire to the same range as a man with an M-16, perhaps
better with the right optics. Remember that sniper rifles are basically the
same weapons that line Soldiers were carrying during World War I, but with
better manufacturing, and better optics.
> Extrapolating that to a future wargame, I don't think that ranges are
I agree entirely. That's not the point that I'm arguing, however.