robotic aliens...

devans@uneb.edu said

> Instead of a point cost, can you think of a different mechanic to make
the
> tanks FEEL non-human? Some inflexibility of action, or spoofing by
novel
> situations? Dependency on central control? EMP-vulnerability is a
little
> oversold, and a relatively good reason for NO AI.
>
> As with aliens, I want more than different weapons and systems. I want
a
> different species. Given my limited imagination, I hope for rules that
> force me to be an alien or robot, not a man.

	Yeap I guess it's what makes the difference between a new race
for
super weapons or for play value..  However in order to get to where you
want
to be it's worth stopping and reconsidering the relative value of not
being
alien.. Human elements lets call them soldiers for the sake of the
argument
take their strength from being just that..  Unique , different,
individually
thinking but born with an almost mind numbing need for companionship and
a
huge capacity to work intellligently together.... True loners are few
and
far between..	The difference between good and bad units is not just
experience it's also and I believe principally, the ability to act
cohesively with a natural knowledge of what is to be done what and where
and
how your fellow members are going to be acting at any time..  Morale
failure
is the result of breaking down this instinctive confidence..   Good
units
also "know" when the shit has hit the fan and are prepared to reshape
the
facts to suit the circumstances. The plan said do this... The plan is a
crock of crap and we are all going to die.. change the plan..
	 So the basics of what makes a human soldier a good one are .
Experience , morale/cohesion and ability for group/individual/
innovative
thought.  How do we therefore make a robot army different,..  there are
two
alternatives ..
1) give them a group mind..  ie instant communication and central
drive..  .
The problem with this is that first you need an unjammable communication
system. secondly and more importantly you have just made them human
because
the player would be the hub mind and play in a very human style..
2) preprogramme them..	ie a central plan is fed into the circuitry
prior to
battle.. Your units then work with a basic standing orders .. ie if
fired on
do this .. if circuitry is fried do that.. On broad plan however each
unit
should have a preprogrammed and consecutive set of objectives.. and
follow
them unfailingly and unhumanly to the point of extinction.. the only
central
influence being a change of objectives subject to succesful
communication..
Ttaking Beths Daleks , this rings a bell in the memory banks.. after
spinning round screaming exterminate for a while , the screen daleks
would
suddenly recoordinate and dash off with new found determination...  I
suppose they passed a communications check...
	Looks fairly obvious from my comments that I favour the second
route.. The clever bit is to produce a mechanism to achieve it..I never
claimed to be clerver but then again !!! Well, each unit would need a
prescribed path of attack... No ifs.. Go that way my son!!   Allow no
retreats only physical confusion can stop them.. "oops theres a wall
there!!!". The unit may never be further from the objective than the
start
of the current turn.. Ignore losses..Morale should not exist in human
terms.. ie half the unit just died . "so what we still have 50% left ..
onwards!!!.  The play mechanism should be directed to getting to the
objective no matter what and the "morale" rules should be built around
physical factors .. ie why can't we reach the objective.. How do we
change
the route etc.. The presence of enemy troops should be a physical not a
mental proble.. ie treat them as just another wall..  The problem being
how
to smash through the wall, not how do we stop the wall falling on us...
       Well thats my initial reaction..  Rereading it I seem to have
provided more questions than answers but hope there some sense in there
somewhere...

		    Bob deAngelis