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

["Binhan Lin" <binhan.lin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Again the "foundations" of your assumptions could also change. For instance, the ground that people fight over may not be different, but "LOS" may very well be different - neutrino or X-ray detectors may see through buildings and regular geological features but diffract in unique ways on metal or high density ceramics, UAV's may be micronized and every soldier equipped with a loadout of 100's that are considered expendable and thus provide 360 degree views from altitudes up to hundreds of meters or can be sent into buildings and tunnels or other difficult to see places.

 

Redefining LOS means that weapons, such as self-directed propelled grenades may be the round of the future - a soldier merely designates a target using a remote UAV, points his weapon upward and fires a 20mm round that then directs itself to the target.

 

LOS may also be redefined as velocity of projectiles increase - In Desert Storm 40 to 60 foot thick sand berms were no obstacle to the DU penetrators fired by M1 tanks. Irqai tanks were located by the heat signature of their exhaust floating above the tank - there was no direct LOS with the target. If infantry weapons can achieve that type of kinetic energy in a projectile, your current standards for cover - brick walls, ditches, hills, buildings are moot and provide roughly the same kind of cover as a bedsheet.

 

Having a human in the loop is really only required if you have some reason to discriminate a target for some reason- i.e. conserve ammo or reduce friendly damage.  If a computer can scan, track and fire at hundreds of targets simultaneously, it should probably be in charge of firing.  For instance, if a hypervelocity missile is coming at you, human reflexes can't operate fast enough to engage a defensive system - it should be computer run.  If a soldier is presented with 50 simultaneous targets and has the capability to shoot at all 50 at the same time, it would take a significant amount of time for a human to verify each target and pull the trigger 50 times.  A computer would process the target requirements and fire at all 50 within seconds.

 

Humans will play the role of "tactical" co-ordinators - their weapons will be mere extensions of their thoughts.  Humans will provide the parameters, but will leave the actual firing and target selection to computers.

 

--Binhan

 

 

On 2/5/08, john tailby <John_Tailby@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I think the original question may have been framed to narrowly and everyone
has focussed on the weapon system exclusively.

If defensive technologies keep pace with offensive weapons and sensors then
ranges for equal technologies might keep the same.

However a higer tech force maywell be able to detect a lower tech force at
much longer range and with LOS range weapons engage at much longer ranges
than their opponents.

At high tech levels each trooper may be inside their own suit that masks
infrared signatures and projects visible light chameleon camoflage to belnd
in with their environments.

Maybe the sensors to detect such targets actually detect the EM leakage of
such suits or use mass spectrometers to detect the atmosphere gases emitted
by the suits. Maybe no one bothers with infrared scanners at high tech
because everything is IR shielded.

It could also be true that such sensors would not work so well against lower
tech troopers because they don't have any smart gear that emits energy
signatures to lock onto.

So it's a circular argument imagining technologies that could exist. I think
you want to define the type of universe that makes for a good game and use
whatever PSB you want to support that type of view

Two things that won't change much one is the nature of the ground people
fight on. Unless you are fighting on a giant lakebed most ground is very
wrinkled over distances of a few hundred metres. It's not hard to imagine
troopers able to find LOS cover up to short ranges. That's not counting
environments like jungles or built up areas where LOS engagements might be
very small.

The other thing that isn't likely to change is the human usng the gun. In a
few hundred years people won't naturally have evolved much so will still
process information at the same speed as they do today. A computer can do a
lot of the work sorting and classifying targets but it's still a human that
makes the decision to fire and that take time. If you want to get into areas
of bioenhancement, genetic modifcation and other parahuman transformation
technologies then human reactions and procesing capabilities might well
become orders of magnitude faster. That's then a direct challange to the
definition of what it means to be human.

Genetically enhanced, vat grown clone soldiers with the downloaded minds of
experienced combat veterans. These could be substantially tougher faster,
stronger and far braver than normal humans with any kind of weaponsystems.

There's a miriad of alternatives out there about how technoloiges might
grown and develop and who is to say that one is more likely than another?


_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l