Re: AI in FT (was Re: Be gentle...)

>>And have said all that, I think that AI in fighters is a very good
idea.
>>Download the program of attack at the time of launch and let them go. 
Why
>>would you risk a human on what is really a multi-attack drone?  

> You point out the exact reason, though, why fighters should be
automated. 
>
>One other thing, you could probably program the fighters to update
their
>combat algorithms from transmissions coming from the carrier. Not only
would
>the carrier supply sensor information, it would also supply updated
combat
>parameters and tactical analysis.

And when the Carrier's controls/transmission ability are damaged, the
drone
fighters become so much useless chaff, as the _other_ guy's fighters
might
still be linked; if both lose communications, then again, you have a
tactical impasse, and 60%-100% casualties. Acceptable for drones, of
course,
but if each side faces that same difficulty, how long would they keep
deploying fighters? 

I've always been under the impression that, in FT, a 'destroyed' fighter
can
be assumed combat ineffective (engine damage, systems failure, bailing
out,
etc.). So, yes, there will be pilot fatalities, but I don't believe them
to
be on the same order of _hardware_ casualties.

In the same vein, how many conscripts would willingly set foot on a
capital
ship, given the amount of damage sustained and/or life expectancy of the
ships in FT?
Makes a fighter look a whole lot safer by comparison. At least the
fighter
pilot can die with the illusion of direct control over his own fate...
not
so for the poor shmucks that exploded when the ship decompressed, that
were
burned down at their weapons stations, or met their demise otherwise
aboard
a capital ship.

KJ