robotic aliens...

devans@uneb.edu said

> Instead of a point cost, can you think of a different mechanic to make

Yeap I guess it's what makes the difference between a new race for super
weapons or for play value.. However in order to get to where you want to be
it's worth stopping and reconsidering the relative value of not being alien..
Human elements lets call them soldiers for the sake of the argument take their
strength from being just that.. Unique, different, individually thinking but
born with an almost mind numbing need for companionship and a huge capacity to
work intellligently together.... True loners are few and far between.. The
difference between good and bad units is not just experience it's also and I
believe principally, the ability to act cohesively with a natural knowledge of
what is to be done what and where and how your fellow members are going to be
acting at any time.. Morale failure
is the result of breaking down this instinctive confidence..   Good
units also "know" when the shit has hit the fan and are prepared to reshape
the facts to suit the circumstances. The plan said do this... The plan is a
crock of crap and we are all going to die.. change the plan.. So the basics of
what makes a human soldier a good one are.
Experience , morale/cohesion and ability for group/individual/
innovative thought. How do we therefore make a robot army different,.. there
are two alternatives.. 1) give them a group mind.. ie instant communication
and central drive... The problem with this is that first you need an
unjammable communication system. secondly and more importantly you have just
made them human because the player would be the hub mind and play in a very
human style.. 2) preprogramme them.. ie a central plan is fed into the
circuitry prior to battle.. Your units then work with a basic standing orders
.. ie if fired on do this.. if circuitry is fried do that.. On broad plan
however each unit should have a preprogrammed and consecutive set of
objectives.. and follow them unfailingly and unhumanly to the point of
extinction.. the only central influence being a change of objectives subject
to succesful communication.. Ttaking Beths Daleks, this rings a bell in the
memory banks.. after spinning round screaming exterminate for a while, the
screen daleks would suddenly recoordinate and dash off with new found
determination... I suppose they passed a communications check... Looks fairly
obvious from my comments that I favour the second route.. The clever bit is to
produce a mechanism to achieve it..I never claimed to be clerver but then
again!!! Well, each unit would need a
prescribed path of attack... No ifs.. Go that way my son!!   Allow no
retreats only physical confusion can stop them.. "oops theres a wall
there!!!". The unit may never be further from the objective than the start of
the current turn.. Ignore losses..Morale should not exist in human terms.. ie
half the unit just died. "so what we still have 50% left.. onwards!!!. The
play mechanism should be directed to getting to the objective no matter what
and the "morale" rules should be built around physical factors.. ie why can't
we reach the objective.. How do we change the route etc.. The presence of
enemy troops should be a physical not a mental proble.. ie treat them as just
another wall.. The problem being how to smash through the wall, not how do we
stop the wall falling on us... Well thats my initial reaction.. Rereading it I
seem to have provided more questions than answers but hope there some sense in
there somewhere...