> i'm more on Tom B's side (why is it i always end up siding with
Well, Tom does work for a software company in Ottawa who get involved in
some, uh, interesting contracts with the govt/police... I'm sure he has
access to all kinds of interesting technology...
> who's to say that more advanced kit will require heavy infrastructure?
i
> see most of the key improvements being in the intelligence of the
[snip]
> why on earth would 2150-era people consider 2000-era kit to be 'tried
[snip the rest]
I guess that in the end, the whole point of what I was saying was to question
the assumption we (well, some of "we") have that technology is on
a constantly developing/improving upward slope, and that by necessity
everything that exists a couple hundred years from now will be so advanced
that it is nearly unrecognizable to us today. That may be the case. Given the
rate of change of technology we're seeing now, and over the past 50 years, it
is easy to see that as a realistic probability.
But to be honest, I think that if we extrapolate tech to the degree that we
could under those assumptions, we could easily explain away nearly everything
in the Tuffleyverse as improbable (at least from the
Stargrunt/Dirtside sense). If you have tech *THAT* advanced, why not
have armies of AI controlled machines that self replicate fighting your
battles. Why bother with fallible PBIs, when it should be easy enough to
eliminate them all together, or at least ALMOST all together.
It's kind of strange that we allow certain tech advances to be part of the
acceptible suspension of disbelief (grav tech, FTL, etc), but don't go the
whole way. Why is this? 'Cause we're playing a game, and it is much more
interesting and compelling and fun to have SOLDIERS fighting each other.
A
veneer of sci-fi and future tech covers what is basically the same sort
of fighting as we see today, and have seen for most of the post WWII period.
We *could* say "sure, all the tech is SO advanced that even out on the far
flung colony worlds they have stuff that makes what we've got here and now
look like we're rubbing sticks together to start a fire..."
And perhaps that makes sense, from a logical perspective.
But I don't find it nearly as interesting as the alternative, which is to
self-limit the technological expansion and development in certain cases.
I
was advocating a technological environment which is of a greater range of
difference that what you and Tom B and others have suggested. I was doing so
not because it makes more sense for it to be that way (in the end, how could
we possibly *know* anything at all... we're just making educated guesses), but
because it makes for a more compelling story. I can't possibly suggest that
"my way is more likely than your way, and you are wrong". But I think that
having the range of technology that I'm suggesting is both more interesting
from a story sense, and more likely given the way the game was written in the
first place. Though there are no specific directives in the rules to this
extent (and in fact St.Jon et al have gone to great lengths to NOT impose a
very detailed universe on the game system), I get the feeling from stuff in
the rules and in the fuff
that it isn't a universe where super-high-tech is totally all-pervasive.
This is entirely a personal subjective view, but I think it makes for a more
interesting gaming environment.
> Just some food for thought, on this cold, blustery and snowy Sunday
OK, you suck:)
We had more snow since I wrote the original post, so now the total on the
ground here is close to 20cm I think, and I've had to dig out my car a couple
more times, and there is more expected tonight... And it's cold (real cold,
none of this UK pretend chilliness stuff... way below zero
C,
now that's more of a winter...)
Whine, snivel, moan, snivel. I'm sure I get pleanty of sympathy from the list
membership <g>
In a message dated 2/15/00 4:33:54 PM Central Standard Time,
> adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca writes:
<<
I guess that in the end, the whole point of what I was saying was to question
the assumption we (well, some of "we") have that technology is on
a constantly developing/improving upward slope, and that by necessity
everything that exists a couple hundred years from now will be so advanced
that it is nearly unrecognizable to us today. That may be the case. Given the
rate of change of technology we're seeing now, and over the past 50 years, it
is easy to see that as a realistic probability. >>
MAN is the ultimate robot - he can hold a rifle, drive a tank, repair a
grav-drive - monitor a computer intelligence hadndling things at a rate
he
cannot hope to match - BUJT if you take man out of the loop - it;s
certainly going to be NO fun as a war game.
Not really. Someone could always press the SMITE button & melt all the snow;
but you might start glowing at night.
Neath Southern Skies - http://users.mcmedia.com.au/~denian/
[mkw] Admiral Peter Rollins; Task Force Zulu
[pirates] Prince Rupert Raspberry; Base Commander
> -----Original Message-----
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> Not really.
Or he could move here where it was 67¡F and had a cloudless blue sky. I rode
the bike to work today, as I did yesterday. Georgia in the winter (what many
people would call spring or fall) is so wonderful...
</gloat>
Or move to Dallas... it's 84 and sunny here today.
> --- Ryan M Gill <monty@arcadia.turner.com> wrote:
Which is why half the state was a popsicle for the Superbowl. 67? Brrrr!
I'll take the So Cal 70's thank you... though I am getting homesick for the
seasons....
Brian B
----Original Message Follows----
From: Ryan M Gill <monty@arcadia.turner.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: RE: Was re: RFACS but diverging into philosophic ramblings
about future tech...
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:30:34 -0500 (EST)
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2000, Robertson, Brendan wrote:
> Not really.
Or he could move here where it was 67¡F and had a cloudless blue sky. I rode
the bike to work today, as I did yesterday. Georgia in the winter (what many
people would call spring or fall) is so wonderful...
</gloat>
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 2/15/00 4:33:54 PM Central Standard Time,
Given
> the rate of change of technology we're seeing now, and over the past
*exactly*.
technology gets more advanced, but there are still many things we are nowhere
in sight of being able to do. that's why i don't believe that the bleeding
edge of combat (ie infantry, battlefield ground vehicles, etc)
can be fully automated (remote control aside - see those proposals for
diddy RC GMS-armed vehicles, and the teletrooopers from (getting beyond
a joke now) Ken McLeod's 'the star fraction').
i'm not advocating the robotic battlefield, or the removal of humans from the
tactical decision chain. i'm just saying that nobody in 2150 will be
using 2000-era weapons, and that the weapons they will be using will be
much more advanced than ours, most notably in their smartness. is that really
so hard to believe?
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> It's kind of strange that we allow certain tech advances to be part of
i disagree with your starting assertion: that it's strange, or somehow
inconsistent, to allow grav and FTL but not robot troops. it's not a binary
choice between modern or SF: there is a ladder of advancement, starting with
minor improvements over current tech (eg ARs with thermal
imagers) and ending with the super space-age (eg robot troops). i think
the Tuffleyverse is halfway up this ladder - far enough to have FTL, PA,
some grav, and smart fire control, but not far up enough to have robot troops,
ubiquitous grav, personal plasma cannons, etc.
tom
G'day guys,
> i disagree with your starting assertion: that it's strange, or somehow
Could also be no-one in teh Tuffley-verse has figured how to make a
cheap
robot that works yet - hard truth maybe even with all the fancy kit the
cheapeast thing that gets the thing done is still the grunt.
Just a thought
Beth
> inconsistent, to allow grav and FTL but not robot troops. it's not a
I agree. I kind of thought I was getting a somewhat similar idea across...
This ladder has lots of steps on it, and I think it is plausible that not
everyone will be on the same step at the same time - for a wide variety
of reasons. But in the end, we're trying to argue logically what may or may
not be possible in what amounts to a fantasy setting, for fun games.
As I said before:
"But I don't find it nearly as interesting as the alternative, which is to
self-limit the technological expansion and development in certain cases.
I
was advocating a technological environment which is of a greater range of
difference that what you and Tom B and others have suggested. I was doing so
not because it makes more sense for it to be that way (in the end, how could
we possibly *know* anything at all... we're just making educated guesses), but
because it makes for a more compelling story. I can't possibly suggest that
"my way is more likely than your way, and you are wrong". But I think that
having the range of technology that I'm suggesting is both more interesting
from a story sense, and more likely given the way the game was written in the
first place. Though there are no specific directives in the rules to this
extent (and in fact St.Jon et al have gone to great lengths to NOT impose a
very detailed universe on the game system), I get the feeling from stuff in
the rules and in the fuff
that it isn't a universe where super-high-tech is totally all-pervasive.
This is entirely a personal subjective view, but I think it makes for a more
interesting gaming environment."
In a message dated 2/16/00 5:38:59 PM Central Standard Time,
> beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au writes:
<< Could also be no-one in teh Tuffley-verse has figured how to make a
cheap
robot that works yet - hard truth maybe even with all the fancy kit the
cheapeast thing that gets the thing done is still the grunt.
> [quoted text omitted]
And the grunt (with a little help from a friend) is capable of generating
further grunts for future use.
I think I've finally come up with a position on this topic that I'm comfy
with.
I regards to the quality of systems in the gam(s) as opposed to modern weapons
systems, here's my take on it:
A Basic system..... Is the most basic system you're likely to find on the
battlefield at that time period -- and a Superior is the most advanced.
I know, I know, stating the obvious, but really, that's what it comes down to.
And remember that the time line presented with the games is optional. If
you want to make your setting super-advanced, where a modern AFV would
seem like a knight on horseback, go for it. Come up with some rules for old
antique M1A1's and Challengers that reflect the disparity. If you want
overlap, tell yourself that today's systems roughly equal the game's Basic
systems. Knock yourself out.
Because in the long run, what matters for the game is not how advanced the
systems are compared to today, it's how advanced they are compared to EACH
OTHER.... Y'know, point of reference, relativity, all that jazz. Just my
$.02
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> As I said before:
ah, okay. on this point, we will have to agree to differ. personally, i find
that justifying some part of the future history by saying, essentially, that
it's that way so that the game is better, is missing the point. yes, we want
the history to be good for gaming in, but for me, part of the fun is trying to
explain how it could be like that in terms of the
forces which really do shape history - politics, economics, technology,
sociology, psychology, astrography, etc. i just wouldn't be happy with a
glaringly illogical background [1] in which things were the way they were
'just because'; i wouldn't find a story set in that universe more compelling
than one set in a coherently organised universe; in fact, quite the opposite.
ah well, back to work:).
tom
[1] okay, okay, so the Tuffleyverse includes quite a number of insanely
unlikely events; at least there's *some* logic, though