I've just about finished reading a book called "NANO!" by Ed Regis, which is a
fascinating book about nanotechnology(very basicaly, little robots building
things atom by atom), and wondered if anyone has ever
considered this as it relates to FT/DSII, or any other wargames.
As far as I've thought about it at the moment, the main advantages it would
give in FT are ship construction(program the robots to build a dirty great big
Super Dreadnaught, go away and do something else, then come back when the're
finished), and damage control (even MP's could be repaired, just build new
bulkhead's, etc. out of whatever slag was left of the old one's).
In the book "Until Releived" by Rick Shelly( ACE Science Fiction ISBN 0-
441-00019-3, DSII players should read this one), nanotechnology was used
to remove all trace of the parasails(ie reduce to their component atoms) used
by Special Forces troops prior to a surface assault.
Anybody else have any thoughts on the subject. I'd be interested to know.
Nanotechnology and wargaming don't really mix well, despite initial
thoughts because once you have nano, there exists no real /reason/ to
go to war for the most part over resources and if, for some reason,
you /do/ want to wipe out/kill/destroy someone else, its always easier
to craft a self-reproducing nanoagent to be delivered and start eating
them alive and converting them into things you need than to send soldiers,
tanks, etc to do the job.
> Thomas Heaney wrote:
If you liked that, you should get a hold of "Engines of Creation" by the
"father of nanotechnology" K. Eric Drexler. It covers nanotechnology and the
social issues that it might raise. He also wrote another book on
nanotechnology that's not as involved. It's title escapes me right now.
> As far as I've thought about it at the moment, the main advantages it
It would depened on just how advanced a civilization's nanotech is.
Civilizations with just "basic" nanotech could build part of ships (e.g.
engines, hulls, weapons, and other systems), while advanced nanotech could
build ships that can sprout weapons and systems, repair itself, and modifiy it
drive systems at a whim. Heck, it would even need a crew.
> In the book "Until Releived" by Rick Shelly( ACE Science Fiction ISBN
The military uses of nanotech would be scary. Factories could turn out weapons
and vehicles quickly and could made out of just about anything that has the
proper elements (dirt, garbage, human bodies, etc.). That, and you could build
the ultimate "doomsday weapon" using "replicators" that just keep builing more
and more of themselves until they devor the entire planet.
> Anybody else have any thoughts on the subject. I'd be interested to
Hmmmm...give me a while, and I'll cook up a paper that will knock your eyes
out. After I knock you eyes out, I can tell you anything I want.
Later,
> At 10:47 PM 2/7/97 +0000, you wrote:
Wired (I think) had an article a few months back about the US military
inviting a bunch of Nanotech guys out to a seminar to discuss the practical
applications of Nanotechnology on the battlefield. They came up with nanos
that eat rubber (ever try to drive a jeep without wheels, or use a computer
without insulated wires?), or turn gasoline into a useless, gelatanious
substance. They talked about nanos that would guard soldiers from the effects
of biochem warfare, as well as speed healing them. From what I recall of the
article, most of the scientists seemed a little bored with the seminar, since
this kind of stuff is still quite far from being a reality, but the Defence
Department seemed to love it. My tax dollars at work, I guess. As far as
playing with nanotechnology, I personally tend to dismiss nanotechnology
altogether. It just seems just a little too much like magic to me (as
sufficently advanced technologies are wont to do, according to Clarke), and I
haven't really seen much in terms of hard science to successfully engage my
suspension of disbelief.
That's my two cents,
> Alex Williams wrote:
I don't know. I'm still willing to play around with the concept.
Later,
An interesting book with some good ideas about nano, its social implications,
and its effects when released in anger is Aristoi by Walter Jon Williams. A
funky and interesting book (as WJW's are wont to be).
Later
Brian
> Alex Williams wrote:
Then again, the war between the Culture and the Idirans in Iain M. Banks'
great "Consider Phlebas" is due to a clash of ideas rather than a scramble
for resources, and this also has major effects on the _way_ the war is
fought.
Cheers,
> Then again, the war between the Culture and the Idirans in Iain M.
Banks'
> great "Consider Phlebas" is due to a clash of ideas rather than a
True, but the Culture in Banks' novels is an interesting study in nanotech and
biotech; you'll notice that they don't go to war internally at all (far more
nefarious plans at grande scale make for
better lit anyway) and in the occasions that they /do/ have to
physically go to war or simply threaten to, we don't hear of massed ranks of
tanks, infantry and whatnot.
Warfare in the Culture would be a drag to wargame. DSII is certainly not
suited to the task.:)
> True, but the Culture in Banks' novels is an interesting study in
Very true ;-)
Anyone still using that primitive stuff (like us, for example, or
anyone in the published FT/MT/DSII timeline) is just going to find
themselves effectorized into a corner in a stushie with the Culture, or just
plain smashed (If you've worked out DSII stats for "offensive drones", (using
large capacities and lots of stealth) however, you'll realize that a "normal"
DSII force need only face around 10.
Zakalwe-style Special Circumstances special operations,
however...
any rules from DBA (or HOTT!) to FT/MT/DSII/SGII should do!
Cheers,
> On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Robin Paul wrote:
> >Warfare in the Culture would be a drag to wargame. DSII is certainly
I've never read anything about the Culture stuff. Can you tell me what kind of
"warfare" is it that you are talking about?
> > Anyone still using that primitive stuff (like us, for
If you've ever seen any of the Traveller/MegaTraveller stuff then the
Idirian/Culture War would have been fought at tech levels 20+. Its a
long way more sophisticated stuff than Full Thrust or Dirtside could support
in table top game play I believe. I seem to vaguely recall that ship
engagement ranges was something like several hundreds of thousands of
kilometres and in an engagement described in "Consider Phlebas" the Culture
ship ambushed the Idirian Light Cruiser by hiding in the Outer layers of the
systems sun. That's not something I'd like to try in my Full Thrust
BattleDreadnaught.
On the same general theme. Has anyone tried to create Full Thrust scenarios
out of the space engagement in David Brin's "Startide Rising" novel? There's a
fair bit of 'tech' used in that as well but would make an interesting game I
think
Dan
> On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Cleyne, Daniel wrote:
> ship engagement ranges was something like several hundreds of
So basically the Culture weapons are like "normal" weapons, only more
powerful?
> >
Well, yes I suppose so. In the same way as a Nuclear Bomb is like a hand
grenade, only more powerful.
Banks doesn't go into specifics as to how the weapons in his books operate.
The most common theme IIRC is the "effector" which is a device that
'manipulates' objects at ridiculously long distances. He describes
various others like CAM (Compressed Anti-Matter) and Grid Fire which
involve the (sci-fi)physics of his universe.
The one common element of all Culture ships is the fact that they are
controlled by a single, very intelligent AI. The crews on these ships are
essentially irrelevant and are there more for the hell of it than for any
other real reason. The ship takes care of itself by using its own intelligent
drones to take care of maintenance. I guess this bears some resemblance to the
S'Vasku bio ships however the Culture Ships are constructed and the minds
created rather than the whole thing being
'grown'.
Dan
BTW These answers do not do any justice to the books at all.
> On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Cleyne, Daniel wrote:
> The one common element of all Culture ships is the fact that they are
Hmm... If ships are completely run by AI's, then they have a pretty nasty
weakness. (like the episode in Dr.Who with the Daleks and the other
robotic race in a war that's grid-locked because of the AI commanders.)
> Chen-Song Qin writes:
@:) Hmm... If ships are completely run by AI's, then they have a @:) pretty
nasty weakness. (like the episode in Dr.Who with the
@:) Daleks and the other robotic race in a war that's grid-locked
@:) because of the AI commanders.)
Dr.Who is a fine television programme but if you base your understanding of
science (computer or otherwise) on it you will be in for a rude awakening when
you enter the real world (like say your typical fifth grade science class).
Perhaps a more instructive example would be the recent series of chess matches
between Kasparov and Deep Blue, in which Kasparov managed to defeat, rather
soundly, a chess computer that, for a few games at least, appeared to be his
equal. He did this by exploiting some apparent weaknesses of the AI which a
human would probably not exhibit. Still, the very fact that Deep Blue beat
Kasparov in several games indicates that it's a pretty damned good chess
player. By whenever it is that Traveller happens, I think we can be as sure as
we can be of anything that AI will have completely transcended anything we can
even imagine. As will the rest of science, probably.
> Chen-Song Qin writes:
@:) Hmm... If ships are completely run by AI's, then they have a @:) pretty
nasty weakness. (like the episode in Dr.Who with the
@:) Daleks and the other robotic race in a war that's grid-locked
@:) because of the AI commanders.)
Oh, and it was the Movellans, I believe.
SNIP
> Hmm... If ships are completely run by AI's, then they have a pretty
They aren't that sort of AI; they are to a large extent
self-created entities with personalities (and personality flaws). A
large part of their being is in hyperspace.
I VERY strongly recommend Banks' novels even if they are mainly outside the
FT/DSII remit.
Rob
In message
<Pine.HPP.3.92.970212073449.15368A-100000@hp24.ee.ualberta.ca> you
wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Cleyne, Daniel wrote:
"Destiny of the Daleks" - the other race was the Movlens (sp?).
If you've read any of the Dr Who New Adventures, then "The Also People" by Ben
Aaronovitch is a complete ripoff of the Culture (but don't
hold that against it - it's one of the better in the series).
But anyway, machines are people too. They are not logical, neither do they
lack emotions. They can be downright greedy, manipulative and cowardly as well
if they want to be.
Thanks for the name. AI's will probably never be as intelligent as humans, but
I highly doubt something like that will happen. (unless their software is made
by Microsoft <g>) In general, I find that the Dr.Who show has a skewered view
of computers, and technology.
Chen-song
> On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Joachim Heck - SunSoft wrote:
> Dr. Who is a fine television programme but if you base your
That's debatable to a lot of people, but probably not in Britain.
> understanding of science (computer or otherwise) on it you will be in
Oh I definitely agree with this. As a computer engineering student myself, I
often find the stuff in Dr.Who downright misleading.
> example would be the recent series of chess matches between Kasparov
Remember though, the computer plays chess by "brute force", by running through
possible moves. First of all, it lacks the "intuition" (I twinge at that term
but it seems the best word at this time.) that a grand master with a great
deal of experience actually has. Secondly, the obvious limitation here is
computing power. The computer can probably muster a relatively simple and
structured game like chess, but for a game with more possibilities, such as
Go, we would have to wait for even faster and more powerful computers if we
keep using the methods we do now.
In message
<Pine.HPP.3.92.970219130237.20502D-100000@nyquist.ee.ualberta.ca> you
wrote:
> Remember though, the computer plays chess by "brute force", by running
Not entirely, and it depends exactly which chess program is being talked
about. Many have moves, especially opening and end game
moves, pre-programmed, as well as relying on brute force breadth
first search of all possible moves.
The better programs do (currently - well, as of a few years ago
when I was doing 1st year AI anyway) rely more on brute force than clever
tricks though (IIRC).
First off, hello to the list. I just joined about a week ago and have been
lurking up until now. I'm mostly playing DSII; I like
tanks, and Dirtside so far seems about as fast-playing as Ogre ever
was but with a much more robust system.
On the subject of nanotechnology. As I understand it, there are two models for
how industrial nanotech might work: the assembly line and the tree. With the
assembly line, the assemblers and disassemblers (the "nanites," if you prefer;
I don't) are arranged along the walls of a big vat, which is filled with a
"soup" containing the raw materials for whatever is to be built. As the right
molecule passes within reach of the right assembler arm, the arm grabs it and
snaps it into place.
The "tree" model is just like what it sounds like: a "seed" is
planted in a resource-rich environment. Contained in the seed are
the blueprints for what is to be built, the controlling computer, and enough
basic tools to get started. As the seed grows, taking in solar energy and
resources from the "soil," it uses its existing tools to build more
specialized tools and expand itself outward to reach more energy and
resources. Once it reached a certain level of maturity, it could begin
producing whatever it was created to produce: screwdrivers, PDAs, suits of
powered armor, etc.
Both models have their advantages and disadvantages. The "fifth column"
tourists mentioned in the fiction that started this thread
would probably be using the tree/seed method, but it probably would
still take weeks before anything useful could be grown, and that would
probably be plenty of time for police microbots to discover the operation.
Note that in neither of these models are the assemblers floating freely in the
air, making use of whatever they come into contact with. In the assembly line,
they're constrained by the physical limits of the vat. In the tree model,
they're contained inside the tree itself; as with a real tree, the only
interaction they have with the outside environment is when the tree absorbs
sunlight and food and gives off waste products. Assemblers that could survive
and reproduce in the open air would be extremely dangerous; they'd probably
only be created as a weapon of mass destruction.
[snip]
> Note that in neither of these models are the assemblers floating
The first half-way believable model for nano-technology that I have seen
-
not that I have paid the subject much attention. But there is a lot of
technobabble around, such as:
> Assemblers that could survive and
To make a whole city you still need a lot of material that oyu have to get
from somewhere. And the proverbial "Speeding Bullet" would pack enough
energy to make a sizeable hole in a U-fog "Solid".
Greetings Karl Heinz