Re: [SGII] Furry troopers

Excerpts from mail: 20-Oct-99 [SGII] Furry troopers by Beth
Fulton@marine.csiro 
>  
> You've given us a good start here, my basic advice would be start with
the
> stereotype (like you have) and then build on it - what is behaviour
that is
> 'alien' to us and what is behaviour that just wouldn't last the
distance -
> modify accordingly.
>  
Well, I wasn't concerned too much about whether or not the behavior made
sense in the long term, because I wasn't trying to create well-adapted
species.  Rather, my goal was to be able to handle as many classic SF
creatures as possible.	And not all SF creatures are well adapted to
long-term survival.

>  
> >>-Proud warriors (Kzinti, Klingons, etc.).  They fight individually
for
> >>honor.  In a hopeless situation, they'll fight to the last man. 
They
> >>refuse to retreat, which gives them staying power but reduced
tactical
> >>flexibility.
>  
> Watch out on thsi one, a race/species with this kind of attitude ain't
> going to last long in an evolutionary sense. The odd individual 'yes',
but
> as a general race characteristic I'd steer well clear.

Of course, that's exactly what starts to happen to the Kzinti in Niven's
books....
Again, I'm just trying to classify pre-existing SF creatures, not to
decide whether or not they "make sense".

>  
> >>-Logicians (Vulcans, maybe Moties).  They do what is required, what
is
> >>logical.  They won't run away in terror, but they also won't charge
> >>madly and terrify their opponents.
>  
> That one is OK, but may be harder to play for us. Should lead to some
very
> large scale cultural misunderstandings on contact...

I suppose how difficult they'd be to play depends on the personality of
the gamer playing them.  Personally, I find that the more dispassionate
I get, the better I do tactically; but there's often a tradeoff in how
fun the game is.

What do you mean about large-scale cultural misunderstandings?	They'd
dismiss much of human culture as irrelevant, but once the humans
understood that they were rationally self-interested, they'd be
relatively easy to understand.

>  
> >>-Automatons (robots, undead).  They just keep coming.  They won't
> >>retreat or charge.	They won't change their plans much even if
things
> >>start going really poorly, because they're just not smart enough to
> >>figure it out.
>  
> Not sure I agree wholey with this one either as even the AI of today
is
> being programmed to learn/adjust at least on a simple scale.
Automatons
> which don't react would soon be VERY redundant (at least in my
opinion).
> You could also have them linking together to form larger/different
robots
> if needed etc.
>  
I wasn't thinking about extrapolating current, real, technology - I was
thinking along the lines of Krikket (sp?) robots and so forth - dumb and
unrelentless.

You could also have smarter robots, but if they got too smart, they'd
turn into Logicians.  So how would you deal with robots of
middle-of-the-road intelligence?

I like the combination idea - I'm ashamed that I didn't think of it,
given that I spent some of last summer working on tiny (3cm cube)
military scout robots that are supposed to be able to join together to
overcome obstacles.

>  
> >>-Hive Mind (Buggers, Starship Troopers bugs).  All that matters is
the
> >>survival of the colony.  Individual bugs are expendable.  There may
be
> >>enough individuality that groups can panic.  If they do "bug out"
(pun
> >>intended), they do it as a group, not as individuals.
>  
> Add to that that each has its particular function, often of limited
scope,
> and so gaps are filled by reserves not by flexibility of knowledge
etc.
> This also gives them a critical weakness, separate them from the hive
or
> kill the "Queen" and its game over (in teh long term). You'd also have
to
> be careful of the timing of attacks as you woldn't want to hit a
colony
> which is just about to split in two (that kind of crossfire is more
than
> just plain old hell).

Good ideas.  Of course, a smart Hive Mind would avoid putting its Queen
in danger if at all possible (see Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card).

>  
> >>-Fanatics.	Combine aspects of the Hive Mind (the individual is
> >>irrelevant) and the Proud Warriors (aggressive charges, etc.)
>  
> This is actually a goer (more so than the Proud Warrior by itself),
but I
> still see this more as a subgroup of the hive mind itself  they'd be
the
> warrior caste/soldiers for the colony.

OK; but you could also have an army of Fanatics (Arab Conquest, WWII
Japan) or individual groups of Fanatics in armies with a different main
psychology type (Berserkers in Viking armies, Ghazis in Turkish armies).
>  
> >>-Cowards (Pierson's Puppeteers).  Fight with long-range weapons and
> >>avoid personal danger.
>  
> I'd choose another name maybe, but this is a goer too. Though I'd put
in
> some clause about they're expected behaviour when cornered - do they
play
> dead? Do they suddenly get a personality change? Do they exhibit decoy
> behaviour so that they lead you away from vital positions allowing
them to
> return to their usual long range behaviour?
>  
Good questions.  The Puppeteers just freaked out and would revert to
their hidden "violent maniac" mode where they'd strike out quickly and
effectively until they could get away.	In terms of decoy behavior,
maybe we should split this into Individual Cowards (or whatever) and
Collective Cowards (or whatever), with the Collective Cowards leading
you away from vital positions and the Individual Cowards just caring
about their own personal survival.

> >>-Carnivores (Dreenoi).  They're just looking for lunch.  First they
> >>subdue their lunch and rip off its armor, then they settle down for
a
> >>meal, despite the fact that there's a battle (or, to their point of
> >>view, an attempt to subdue food) going on around them.
>  
> Once again nice basis, but a little too simplistic. When carnivores
hunt
> they hunt then eat. When carnivores are in a battle with threats all
around
> they just don't stop for a quick snack! In those circumstances they're
more
> than likely to be wary and chased off no blind to external stimuli.
I'd
> also have challenges between individuals as they try to advance
(they'll
> follow the leader just fine until he/she is wounded or killed then its
on
> for young and old to see who takes over).

I was thinking specifically of how I've heard Dreenoi described.  So we
could have Oblivious Omnivores and Predators; the latter would make
kills, but not carry them off or start eating unless they felt safe.

>  
> >>What did I miss?
>  
> Just off the top of my head...<if anyone's interested I can look into
it a
> bit more thoroughly>
> -A parasite (be they cyborg or biological) which 'infects' its victims
so
> they slowly switch sides or are permanently immobilised.

Interesting.  This could be combined with any of the other psychological
types.

> -Hoka-like which take everything literally and adopt 'roles' very
quickly

I'd appreciate it if you'd explain this a bit more - I don't know what
the Hoka are.

> -Ones that use conditioning/psychology/education and infiltration
rather
> than straight out weapons...Your Sgt is in't going to be too pleased
to
> hear "Oh those colours are sooo pretty I think I'll just sit here for
a
> while and watch..."

I'd put that more under the category of weapons, because it affects the
enemy rather than the behavior of the troops.
>  
> Different lifespans wold also add flavour to this - beings who think
on the
> scale of 100s years are vastly different to thos working with a few
decades.
>  
I could see this being valuable in background information, but I'm not
sure how it would work for tactical situations.  Perhaps caution and
acceptance of losses would be partly functions of age.