Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

_______________________________________________
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,
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 wrote: 
> > 
> >> 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. :) 
> > 
> > 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. 
> > 
> > John -- "Thousands of Sarmatians, Thousands of Franks, we've slain
them 
> > again and again. We're looking for thousands of Persians." --Vita 
> > Aureliani 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________ Gzg-l mailing list 
> > Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU 
> > http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> John K. Lerchey 
> Assistant Director for Incident Response 
> Information Security Office 
> Carnegie Mellon University 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Gzg-l mailing list 
> Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU 
> http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l