Re: [GZG] Gzg-l Digest, Vol 35, Issue 11

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:37 AM,  <gzg-l-request@mail.csua.berkeley.edu>
wrote:

>> Ah, John John John. It's too bad neither of us will be around long
enough
>> to see this discussion become moot by advances in technology. :-D
>>
>>
> John is also discounting Transhumanist elements where human bodies are
> augmented with non-organic structures and artificial intelligence, or
where
> minds are shifted into artificial bodies. The Tuffleyverse doesn't
> specifically cover these elements, but SG2 and DS2 are technically
generic
> rule sets.

If you're going to do that, treat them as powered armor and include a
fire control system basically the same as a vehicle's.

Problem solved.

> WRT the substance of his argument, I think I'll start by pointing out
> that the links he quoted for optical image stabilization directly
> support autostabilized lasers, since you could move either the emitter
> or the laser in whatever manner was most efficient. Recoil for a laser
> isn't an issue, obviously.

Right.	I personally think laser weapons are one of the stupider
tropes of science fiction - a weapon which explodes if there is dust
on the emitter is NOT one of my fantasies--do you KNOW where I am
these days?  IIRC, there was someone about 10 or 12 years ago on this
list who made a bet regarding near-future battlefield laser weapons
and now owes me money.	You could much more easily stabilize a laser
weapon than one which propels a physical projectile downrange.	 I
concede the point.

> For mini-missiles and plasma weapons, these are sufficiently
> speculative that they're largely PSB to begin with. Additional PSB to
> justify stabilization isn't that much of a stretch once you've
> accepted the weapon itself.

Minimissles don't need much stabilization if they have guidance.  :)

> OK so that leaves conventional firearms. I'm proposing two possible
> forms of autostabilization. First, allowing the barrel to be moved
> slightly within the body of the rifle, then controlling this by
> computer to maintain or alleviate instability. John, you say this
> isn't physically possible even in science fiction, which is a pretty
> wild claim. Certainly nothing I've seen in physics suggests it. The
> computers and sensor systems already exist, as evidenced above. The
> only question is whether mechanical controls small, strong and agile
> enough can be fabricated. It's been a few years since I took physics,
> but I don't see why this isn't a possibility. As you point out, even a
> few degrees makes a big difference downrange.

Right.	And if you're running cross-country, the mechanism necessary
to correct for the amount of movement you are inducing is going to be
several times larger than the weapon, and require its own power
source.  Unless you're going to Star Trek levels of technology and
postulating tractor beams which lock it in place.    And is the
receiver moving as well?  If not, how is extraction/ejection/reloading
going to work?	If so, what isn't moving, and what precisely is it
pushing against when it moves?	Those same unsteady arms that can't
hold it still in the first place?

> The other strategy is what I'd call "fire-by-wire", where you
> de-couple the mechanical connection between trigger and firearm. The
> gun is free to fire when the trigger is depressed, but will only
> actually fire at the moment when the barrel is aimed at the selected
> target. Computers that fast and compact are already in use, though the
> image recognition isn't there yet. Presumably countermeasures might be
> invented, but those would have nothing to do with the shooter's motion
> and everything to do with the target's countermeasures.

If you're postulating that level of AI in the fight, why do you have
people still left on the battlefield?

For SGII to be a game with a point, you need to have human beings
involved in the process somehow.  If you let the computer make the
shoot/no shoot decision with the idea that it's anywhere near that
reliable, you're going to remove the primary reason for human beings
to be involved.  At that point, replace all your little people with
tiny tracked or hover robots and remove all morale and psychology
rules.	You'll find yourself playing a very different game.

Your premise reduces the Soldier's role to 'carry the rifle to the
battlefield and let it do all the thinking'.  Simply carrying a rifle
is something that can be done better, even with today's technology, by
a robot.  So why would you expose your human population to the danger
of combat unless there is something that robots simply cannot do?

I've been on this list for what, 14 years?  Every so often there's a
"well, this technology is conceivable, and it would totally
revolutionize warfare, and it should be modeled in Stargrunt!" thread.
 And then someone comes up with a countermeasure, and so on and so on.
 And a lot of them turn down this rabbit hole pretty quick.  If we
were to presume infinitely advanced technology, our game would devolve
to masses of undifferentiated grey goop fighting it out
electronically.  Plausible given enough technology, but uninteresting.

Like it or not, Stargrunt is not infinitely flexible.  There's a limit
to the technology it can model well.  And one of the limits is that
the game is based on the premise that People Matter.  Troop quality in
general trumps technology so long as it's not an outright stone spear
vs. machine gun dichotomy.  Morale matters.  Suppression, a core game
mechanic, relies on the fact that human beings take cover when shot
at, as a general rule.	Take people out of the equation.  Feel
free--but do not be surprised if the model breaks and you start
running into problems game mechanic wise.  It also loses a lot of the
interest, coming down to a more mechanical analysis of competing
systems.

My basic problems in the game with the idea of stabilized small arms
is based on the idea that small arms are small arms.  There are going
to be incremental improvements.  Hell, even massive improvements.  But
fundamentally changing them by installing a stabilization system will
change how you have to model small arms fire and thus a core mechanic
of the system.	In effect, every rifle will now need to be treated as
a stabilized vehicle mounted system with a fire control.   And then
people wouldn't carry it, because it's going to be so complex,
expensive, and need such a steady platform, that you need to have it
on powered armor.  Or small vehicles.

In real life, I just don't see how you can stabilize something that is
hand carried and requires the entire barrel, chamber, receiver,
magazine, and buffer to be in a certain relationship with each other
in order to operate smoothly.  It's simply not feasible without a lot
of hand waving. I don't mind magic weapons, but I prefer them to stay
in my D&D 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@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l