Just some more scribblings...
Henrix... (sorry, I may have called you Hendrix the first time, but I'm jus' a
po' dumb Canuck tha' cannae speak.... er... type... in this case...) said
these words of wisdom:
Ah, yes, good point. On the other hand we don't penalize figures in PA,
s=
ome of the models I've seen seem to have rather inflexible neck joints, if th=
ey have neck joints at all!
** Good point. I sort of assumed the targetting systems in the PA offset this.
However I didn't figure every vacc suit would be thus equipped. A 1 RB
penalty would be good for combat if there was a tech-edge issue. Maybe
move as encumbered.
Ouch, I wear glasses. Gas mask + glasses (specially made for the mask) +
sighting =3D significantly less accurate fire :-)
** Don't need mine to shoot. In fact, prefer to shoot with 1 layer of gogs
on - so the only way I'd shoot that way is if I could get a mask with
special optics for the eyepieces.
I was sort of hoping we'd solve some these problems in the next 200 years=
,
** Everyone will have perfect vision by then!:)
> ** And has the enemy dropped a suit-eating nanite in the area?
That's a nasty thought you have there. There's a confidence test for just
thinking the enemy may have done that.
** Oh, its only one of many....:)
> But what happens if a vacc suit is punctured? That would naturally
Or then again, perhaps not. The really terrible thing is to leave a lot
o=
f wounded for the enemy to take care of. (Awful pictures of long lines of
mustard gas-blinded soldiers being led away from WWI comes to mind...)
** I assume the following: 1) Hostile environments kill if the breach is big
enough not to autoseal. 2) A weapon might wound and the suit might autoseal.
But the lethality should probably be higher than a normal situation.
** How about this for resolving casualties from such hostile environments:
1-3: Dead
4-5: Wounded
6: Okay (lightly wounded, but able to fight)
That was why I proposed a reaction test instead of a quality of MOPP (a
n=
ew acronym for me, wonder what it stands for;)
** Mission Oriented Protective Posture
) kit roll. I assume fairly g= ood detecting gear, automatic chemical sniffers
or somesuch....but in the end=
it
boils down to troop quality and leadership to get everybody buttoned up
i=
n time.
** Yep, but I think it should maybe take an action to button up. Either the
one you haven't yet used this turn or the lose your next activation... this
makes fake chem attacks a nice plus as it forces the enemy force to button up
and consume time...
I doubt that. I think getting the concentration of gas high enough for it=
to
affect you through the skin will still be impractical. You would of cours= e
still have to watch out for fluid spray or on the ground of course.
** I think you'd be wrong. I believe you'll find a number of places where
chemical agents have been used in the world lately have had the kind of agent
used were of a variety such that some small number of milligrams of the agent,
undetectable by smell or sight, and which kills you in under 30 seconds, and I
believe in some cases were skin absorbtive. And I think you might find in 2183
that you have clouds of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) acting as
carriers and maybe even nanites. I'm pretty sure you'd need full body covering
when fighting a high tech chem attack. Low tech you could defend against with
masks.
Or perhaps automatically wounded, with a special marker. If given medical
treatment roll the die as usual: 1-2 =3D still unstabilised, 3-5 =3D
stab= ilised 6 =3D OK. This representing disabling chemicals, making the poor
bastard
=
blind or in terrible pain or hallucinating or whatever, specially made so as
to=
be
difficult to treat.
** Hmmm.... don't think so. You're assuming conventional wounds are easy to
treat. Fragmenting rounds, Napalm, rounds laced with poisons, etc. etc.
-
there are plenty of horrors covered and all the GZGverse does is abstract
these, the turn length (could be 5 min) and the medical tech. Chem weapons are
hideous but we should try to not modify mechanics for wounding if we can avoid
it based on the idea we can't comprehend how hideous their other weapons would
be...
> ** My ideas: (Similarly rambling)
Similarly,
> if you enter a contaminated area, consider this a chemical attack with
Yes, I like that, except that I think the units Quality should come to be ar
in the initial attack (did everyone remember to change filters?), and that
there should be a bunch of confidence tests all round and reaction tests for
entering contaminated areas.
** What should trigger reaction tests, and how severe: 1) Being under NBC
attack (taking a casualty, detector going off, etc)
I'd suggest this one be TL +2/+1/0 for various motivations...
2) Entering a contaminated area
I'd suggest this one to be TL +1/0/NTR
** For resolving the attack Attack Dice: Quality of Agent (Basic, Enhanced,
Superior) Defence Dice: Quality of Defending Unit
Modifiers: Defender quality +1 DS if superior MOPP gear
Defender quality -1 DS if basic MOPP gear
Results: Attack < Defence dice - no effect
Attack = Defence dice < 2x defence dice - wounded
Attack 2x or more Defence dice - dead
Silent death _is_ scary!
** Yes it is, but it can be a fun game.... <*grin*>
Henrix
Last night I got to watch The Simpsons. It was the episode where Bart and Lisa
go to military school. At the end, during graduation, the old soldier got to
give his speach to the cadets. It was along the lines
of...
'In the future, wars will be much different. Battles will be fought by small
robots in space, or maybe on a tall mountain. But anyway, your job will be to
build and maintain these robots...' Why send a 500kg of man, munitions,
medications and meals when you can send 1mg of nanites.:D
Here we go, getting closer to something that perhaps could be used in a game.
The guys I usually GM 'Grunt for are probably going to hate me, but what else
are friends for, anyway.
Thomas Barclay had these interesting things to say:
> Henrix... (sorry, I may have called you Hendrix the first time, but
Don't worry, I'm used to it. My name is really Henrik, the -rix is from
Gallophilic (as in Asterix, Obelix, Vercingetorix, etc.) tendencies rather
than musical.
> ** How about this for resolving casualties from such hostile
I am not certain I would bother with such a relatively small difference, I'd
just forget it in the heat of battle;)
> ** Yep, but I think it should maybe take an action to button up.
Either the
> one you haven't yet used this turn or the lose your next activation...
this
> makes fake chem attacks a nice plus as it forces the enemy force to
Let's give them a suppression marker! It only takes up half an activation (if
you're lucky), but it is easier and more in line with the game mechanics. Or
give them two suppression markers, if you want, one for the arty and one for
the gas. Perhaps we should give everybody who isn't buttoned up a suppression,
after all somebody is throwing some nasty stuff around less than (let's see,
my ordinary gaming table is 75 in across=) 750m away!
By the way, I don't really believe in fake cham attacks. If you go throwing
stuff around to fool any detectors, why not use something that has a chance of
making somebody's mother very sad. Use something that evaporates fast if you
want to go into the area immediately after. I could see some use for making a
fake contaminated area, a spot of land the enemy probably will not thread, but
which does not in any way hinder you, but...
> ** I think you'd be wrong. I believe you'll find a number of places
I am fairly certain you need to get a minute drop on you (or a slightly larger
on your clothes), but with more advanced delivery systems aerosol spraying and
other carriers you could probably manage that too. Besides I cannot see what
difference it would do for the game, unless you want to go _full_
wysiwyg and
condemn figures in short sleeves or shorts to a lingering death :-}
> ** Hmmm.... don't think so. You're assuming conventional wounds are
etc. -
> there are plenty of horrors covered and all the GZGverse does is
Well, I agree actually. Perhaps in some scenario where the enemy presents a
new
secret weapon (LSD-32455?), and effective cures are not yet available to
our average Johnny Grunt.
> ** What should trigger reaction tests, and how severe:
1) I would say it is worse than being under artillery attack, which is
+2/+1/+0,
or perhaps cumulative with (I assume they are delivered by some sort of
artillery), so being under the beaten zone of a BC attack would be a
Confidence
test at TL 4/2/1, pretty severe.
2) Entering a contaminated area I would give a Reaction test at 0, or +2
if the
unit only has obsolete/basic protection.
but you forgot 3) First time BC is used, all units on the side being attacked
must take a
Confidence test at TL +3/+2/+1, while all units on the side using BC
takes one
at +1/+0/NTR, being, hopefully, a slightly more prepared for it.
Furthermore I think this is cumulative with being under attack, so a unit hit
by the first round of biochemicals takes one test for being under attack and
one for first use.
Oh, and I almost forgot: Panic. This is a terror weapon, which means that any
Regulars (or below) test for Panic when first attacked.
This would give a Regular unit under the first biochem attack a confidence
test at an immense TL of 7 (ouch!) as well as a Panic test, and one or two
suppression markers. Tough! But perhaps "realistic"?
Of course, we could have a situation where BC weapons have become in
relatively
common use, when the latter (+1/+0/NTR) should be used for both sides. I
am
assuming that NBC is used only as some sort of desperate last-ditch
thingy, unpopular with the home audience, and severely frowned upon by the UN
(if anybody cares). (Maybe we should put a warning label on these rules,
saying "Mature Players Only!". But then, aren't all Grunt players mature,
managing without any points system *grin*.)
> ** For resolving the attack
Should probably be quality of Agent/Delivery system, meaning that a good
(Evil?)
agent delivered badly will still be basic.
> Defence Dice: Quality of Defending Unit
Uhm, yes, sounds pretty good. I would like to add
Modifiers: +1 DS if in PA or full BA (but that's possibly what superior
MOPP gear is all about, I don't know. Or is PA immune?)
+2 DS if not first use of BC on table or entering known
contaminated area.
How do we deliver the biochemicals. Artillery (Ortillery, first you drop the
BC, then you drop the fully insulated Power Armour troops), or can anybody
think of anything else?
How about this: Every arty round gives one to three biochem counters (wherever
did I put my Dirtside counters?) per round, depending on size of delivery
system: Medium - 1 , Large - 2, and, of course, Very Large - 3. Scatter
them around the impact point as for normal deviation (clockface, D8 in
distance). Anything within 6 in of a counter is affected. And if the agent is
lasting, that is evaporates slowly, just leave the counter for the rest of the
game, otherwise remove at the end of turn.
In a message dated 2/23/00 12:36:14 PM Central Standard Time,
> sportyspam@harm.dhs.org writes:
<< 'In the future, wars will be much different. Battles will be fought by
small robots in space, or maybe on a tall mountain. But anyway, your job will
be to build and maintain these robots...' Why send a 500kg of man, munitions,
medications and meals when you can send 1mg of nanites.:D
> [quoted text omitted]
Let's quote the intro to SG ii, shall well"What style of game is Stargrunt II?
WWell, for a start it is not meant to be "How war will be fought in the far
future". I don't know how war will be fought in the far future"..
.
"... but I could hazard a guess that a lot of it will involve a few automated
drones shooting at each other over a virtually empty
battlefield -
not very inspiring as a miniatures game!
No, what we are doing here is creating anenvironment for SF miniatures games
that has a similar style to those portrayed in Combat SF novels, films, and
TV series; most of these have their roots firnly in present-day military
concepts, tactics and organization - which is why the Colonial Marines
in the
ALiens movies look (and act) just like present-day US Marines and the
"boot camp" sequences in Heinleing's classic Starship Troopers would be
familiar to any recruit from WW! onwards. Consider that although technology
and tactics may change, basic human nature doesn't.
"So, what we have tried to do with STARGRUNT II is to produce a system for
simlating SF actions where the ordinary soldiers are not too unlike those
tramping across the battlefield of yesterday or today.. "
A couple of KG of nanites might win a war - but its damned poor gaming.
> A couple of KG of nanites might win a war - but its damned poor gaming.
Here, here!
> A couple of KG of nanites might win a war - but its damned poor gaming.
Here, here!
(or is that "Hear, hear..."!)
> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> A couple of KG of nanites might win a war - but its damned poor
Absolutely. Anyone who tried to win a game by saying that his invisible
nanites just ate my figures, so there! Well, I don't think I'd wanna play with
him anymore.
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> "So, what we have tried to do with STARGRUNT II is to produce a system
Heh. Not true, it just wouldn't be the WWII with lasers that you want to play.
:) Seriously though, this is supposed to be SF, but everyone on this list
seems to be doing their best to make it exactly like WWII. People aren't
talking about combat in low gravity, but how encumbering cold weather gear is.
They aren't talking about terminator robots slaughtering their way through
squads [okay, the Daleks come close LMAO], but if mines should do blah because
they do in WWII, etc. etc. I'm all for having people running around on the
battlefield despite how utterly unrealistic that is. I don't feel any need to
'identify' with the models on the board, but most people feel more comfortable
with little people on the table instead of robots or what have you, but I want
to play
a sci-fi game, not a WWII game with the names of the weapons changed
slightly. The point I'm trying to make is, instead of ripping off some weapon
from WWII, rip off some weapon from Terminator or Ghost In The Shell or Gal
Force. Instead of trying to make the rule fit with some grunt in the
vietnam war, make it cool, make it sexy, make it high-tech. Heh. Make
it fun.
Dare I mention this, but anyone have rules for Starcraft forces?:)
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Henrix wrote:
> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
"invisible nannies ate my army"?? This would be when a Predator Mary Poppins
is let loose on the battlefield?
Too good a line not to share...
It's funny, you have essentially come on here and somewhat slammed everyone
because the discussion on this list do not conform to what you think fun in an
SG2 game should be even though this thread and every other one on here at the
moment is fairly typical of the discourse that goes on..
> sportyspam@harm.dhs.org wrote:
> Seriously though, this is supposed to be SF, but everyone on this
There have been very extensive discussions on subject such as Robots and AI
combat, nanotech combat and other wazoo movie-based ports and TCs here
in the past and they come up time and again. (The recent discussion last month
over remapping experienced combat troops brains to clones when they die and
other advanced medtech issues comes to mind) Sorry if you either just joined
the list or missed those discussions for whatever reason.
Maybe instead of realistic, people here will tend to try and make stuff
"plausible". Else we'd all be playing Warhammer all the time. In the vast
majority of movies the science behind the fantasy is cooked up while the
writer
is waiting for his three-minute egg to boil. That's OK, still makes for
an entertaining movie and even entertaining gaming even with SG2 rules. But
the bent of many on this list is to try and apply some sort of reasoning too
how the little things would work or might work, based on stuff like physical
laws, what biological constraints we operate under (and might reasonably be
expected to operate under in the near future), as well as other factors.
Certainly the core interest of this group for me, is when someone cooks up
something and everyone hashes it around. I mean, for example, if I come up
with something wazoo, regarding..whatever... the evolution of some alien race,
then I find it real interesting to hear what Beth says about, who works on
this stuff for real ever day down under. Sure at any time during the
conversation one could say, yeah well it's just my universe and things evolved
like this, period, but it's also fun to take maybe some actual principles of
evolution and apply them to the race. It may not be your cup of tea, but it
seems that this process is the cup of tea for the majority on this list.
Likewise there's a few of us on this list with extensive naval, or ground
combat
arms experience and even combat experience. Sometimes it's nice to get
that perspective on a subject since we are talking about infantry action in a
rules system that covers anything from now all the way forward. Not that I
have participated in the NBC discussion or the "what to do if your buddy dies
while
carrying the SAW" discussion (Too busy getting ready for GZG-ECC), but
its completely plausible to wonder how the heck you would extract a SAW from a
dead body especially if it's on a gyromount and get it on you instead, as well
as how long would that take and what's the best way to simulate that in a SG2
game since it is something that happens plenty of times. For many THAT IS the
fun of this board and the game.
Cheers...
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Los wrote:
Just joined. Think I'm glad I missed that one.:)
> Maybe instead of realistic, people here will tend to try and make
/me shudders
If I wanted to play a game that was determined literally by the roll of the
dice and no other factor, I'd go to Vegas.:) I'd rather give my money to the
casinos than GW.:) You have to admit that SG has nicer rules than WH40K, and
they don't spell thingsz with a z on the endz of everything. Oi!:)
> majority of movies the science behind the fantasy is cooked up while
But the
> bent of many on this list is to try and apply some sort of reasoning
Well I think most stuff gets thrown at physics PHDs and such, it's just when
something gets to the director and they look at it and go... Hmmm,
$100,000,000 for a movie with cyborgs and robots, or $20,000,000 if we just
cut this corner... and that one...
Which is why a lot of the cartoons and such, particularly one-shots
can be a bit more 'realistic'. They don't have to pay the hefty fx budget,
and they don't have to deal with the actors guild, or the soap-operaie
requirements of the same attractive, likeable characters in each in every
episode. Think Vasquez, Bishop and Frost would have died if they were
expecting to make an Alien 3? Maybe not. Too bad they never did make an Alien
3...
:)
> Certainly the core interest of this group for me, is when someone
Yeah, but I can't help think they'd be happier playing a WWII or Vietnam game.
:)
> Likewise there's a few of us on this list with extensive naval, or
Well, since I've never had to extract a heavy weapon from a gyromount after my
buddy sucked down a bit too much plasma, I guess I can't really contribute
much to the discussion.:)
> sportyspam@harm.dhs.org wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Los wrote:
What's wrong with trying to come up with a plausible answer? The lack of
plausibility in sci-fi films and TV is one of the aspects that irks most
fans. We're trying to correct that trend where we can: in our games. If that's
a characteristic of WWII or Vietnam gaming, I'll plead guilty to both charges.
But I'll never apologize for wanting a plausible game.
> > Likewise there's a few of us on this list with extensive naval, or
You're free to contribute to the discussion without having experienced the
gyromount problem. That's hardly a requirement. However, thinking about how
you'd go about such a procedure certainly is.
-Mike
> sportyspam@harm.dhs.org wrote:
> Think Vasquez, Bishop and Frost would have died if they were
Ughh there was but let's not go there....
> Yeah, but I can't help think they'd be happier playing a WWII or
Many do. Mike Sarno being for instance a big Vietnam (CC) player. But then I
think many if not most of the players on this list do other historical gaming
(I go way back to ancients occasionally and all the way up from there.) And
actually I'm as much fascinated by what stays the same about soldiering and
combat over the millennia then what changes. (Having been one myself for 23
years and having studied the subject my whole life I have no doubt that I
could sit down with a legionnaire or some guy 200 years from now and find more
in common about being a soldier than many would suspect.)
I think warfare in all ages has at its core principles a set of if you will
physical laws that will remain immutable regardless of the age. You'll always
need a plan, the enemy will always have their own plan. There will always be
uncertainty, about the enemy, his intentions, dispositions, the battlefield.
In support of that, every good sensor will have a counter to it, or else
someone in R&D isn't doing their job. Your plan will be, in part or in whole,
invalidated upon implementation due to the situation and circumstances and
will require modifications and changes faster than the enemy can make his
changes. Chaos will always interfere. The preparation of your force, be it
animal, vegetable, mineral, or circuitry, will always be a key factor in how
will effectively or ineffectively you overcome the situations that arise on
the battlefield. At times one technology or another will give an edge to
combatants, until the inevitable counter technologies restores equilibrium to
the equation. War will always be painful and destructive or else it will serve
no purpose.
And even in smaller terms a soldier, if he's human, will always have to drink
water, will probably have to occasionally take a dump, and will have to run
risks and suffer the consequences of other's decisions, bah blah blah. If
squads in the future have different weapons, meaning one guy has a high
firepower weapon like a SAW, the SL will always have to consolidate and
reorganize to ensure that weapon remains in operation if at all possible blah
blah blah.
> Well, since I've never had to extract a heavy weapon from a
No but I've had to extract a PK and ammo belts from a guy that was missing
both legs and bleating like a cow. Same thing sort of.
Los -
All I can say is AMEN! The common thread of warfare through the ages is
the human soldier - when we can replace that particular individual we
will no longer have warfare or humanity either.
REgards,
Scott
In a message dated 2/24/00 2:15:59 AM Central Standard Time,
> sportyspam@harm.dhs.org writes:
<< The point I'm trying to make is, instead of ripping off some weapon
from WWII, rip off some weapon from Terminator or Ghost In The Shell or Gal
Force. Instead of trying to make the rule fit with some grunt in the
vietnam war, make it cool, make it sexy, make it high-tech. Heh. Make
it fun.
> [quoted text omitted]
AS long as you have men dong the pointing and shooting HOW is it different
from WW 2 - at its essence?
Well, without sitting down to think too much about it, my first thought would
be that the trend has been to have fewer men. Hundreds of archers or pikemen,
tens [or hundreds] of musket in a line, tens of rifle, half a dozen rifle. My
impression is that the weapon lethality and area of coverage has been
increaseing far faster than defence has been. At a guess I'd say that in the
future squads might be 2 or 3 people as any more would be overkill for taking
things out, but no more usueful for ensuring squad survivablity [so when you
lose a squad you lose twice as many people]
Hmmm, another example might be tanks. Someone was musing about them. You have
to figure, 150 years the AI is going to be pretty good, good enough that you
won't need someone in the tank. With a good power source
and anti-grav, and a computer behind the wheel, a tank whipping through
a
dense forest at 300+ miles per hour pulling 20+g turns and doing this
all in complete silence is not hard to believe. Add to that limited flight or
at least pop-up ability, and limited burrowing, and potential aquatic
ability... That isn't WW2, and it's well within the scope of the proposed
technology. If you won't let your cold dead hands off the controls for the
tank as you insist someone be controlling it, remote control or technology
capable of keeping a human alive through high G is an alternative. Both may be
a reality in less than 50 years.
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 2/24/00 2:15:59 AM Central Standard Time,
Make it
> fun.
> -----Original Message-----
> At a guess I'd say that in the future squads might be 2 or
The smallest tactically useful element today IS the two man team; although I
think that you'll likely find that 4 is probably as small an INDEPENDANT
grouping as you'll likely get. In my current unit the Ops people have been
hashing over a wide variety of tactically deployable elements and the smallest
reasonable for independant tasking is four. For a quite large number of
reasons but including:
Command and Control; too many elements in an operational force and you add too
many complexities of command,
Training; it literally takes years for the average soldier to develop the
skills and experience to be an effective small unit leader; for the Australian
Army; on average at least 3 to 4 years. The youngest ever Section
Commander(Squad leader) I knew was 21 and he had a real hard time of it for
the first 18 months as a Corporal (US Buck Sergeant equiv).
Medical; if a casualty occurs you are hard pressed to maintain security or
continue with a task with less than 4 men; one wounded at LEAST one to carry
him and you really need 2 more to be able to operate effectively.
Cheers,
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2000, Roger Books wrote:
> On 25-Feb-00 at 18:05, sportyspam@harm.dhs.org
Fighter jets are already being controlled by the computer. A pilot says go
left and the jet figures out how to actually do it. How long until the pilot
doesn't even decided left and right but 'kill that' and the jet figures out
how to do it? Then how long until it's "you go over there, kill any military
targets without IFF and come back; I'll stay here and drink some coffee?" We
already trust cruise missles with nuclear warheads. You're worried about a
tank? Although admittedly if somethng 150 years from now that is as large as a
modern day tank couldn't also easily level a city, I'd be a bit surprised. As
for AI, even conservative estimates [and if the past has shown us anything
even the most optomistic estimates about computers have fallen far short of
the actual advances] make it a practical certainty that a computer in 150
years will be so frightfully fast and powerful that even if it wasn't
'intelligent', it would still pretend so well that it would clearly be the
better choice as a tank commander.:) Thats assumeing
biotech doesn't catch up to, and surpass, non-organic computation.
On 25-Feb-00 at 18:05, sportyspam@harm.dhs.org (sportyspam@harm.dhs.org)
wrote:
> Hmmm, another example might be tanks. Someone was musing about
I don't know, the pattern recognition will be much better, possibly the threat
ranking will be better, but as far as I can tell there isn't that much
progress being made with respect to AI. I don't think that in 150 years you
will have intelligent machines, and even if you do
would you put a self-aware, self-modifying machine in sole charge of
a super tank? We humans seem to have an instinct dislike of anything that
smacks of Frankenstien. I'm sorry, I don't like the idea that the next step on
the evolutionary ladder is a machine.
On 27-Feb-00 at 13:21, sportyspam@harm.dhs.org (sportyspam@harm.dhs.org)
wrote:
> We already trust cruise missles with nuclear warheads. You're
cruise missiles are not intelligent, you don't have to worry about them
deciding they don't like their creators.
> As for AI, even conservative estimates [and if the past has shown us
Except in the area of AI. There were many predictions in the 80's that the AI
problem would be over with by Y2000. We don't seem much closer than we were
then.
We may at some point have psuedo-intelligent tanks for doing things like
"hold this pass" or "do this suicide mission", but when it comes to
to working with footsoldiers I can't see a pseudo-intelligent tank
being in charge, there will be at least 1 human to override the beast should
it make a mistake.
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Roger Books wrote:
You mean, you don't worry a cruise missle will go the wrong way and end up
nuking a friendly carrier?
> > As for AI, even conservative estimates [and if the past has shown
I'm sure there were predictions we'd all be living on the moon by now too.
Some people make really bad predictions. Turing may have got it wrong but we
have a lot better perspective now.
> We may at some point have psuedo-intelligent tanks for doing things
Foot... soldiers? Oh, you mean the drones the drone tank launches. I'm sure
that won't be a problem.;)