Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[piecewise]

All these huge posts and only one that actually asks for things. Alright.

Run several tests (same parameters as the recent tests Tavik did for his Halberd), give the increase or decrease in effectiveness (keeping in mind different resource costs) compared to Tavik's most recent Halberd tests (without perfect rolls):

1) replace current halberd design with the smaller one (you said it could be made smaller, to about 8 feet, without losing anything)
2) replace halberd design with standard battlesuit carrying the same weapons (or weapons of comparable strength and cost)
3) replace halberd design with mobility battlesuit carrying the same weapons (or weapons of comparable strength and cost)
4) replace halberd design with melee battlesuit carrying the same weapons (or weapons of comparable strength and cost)

For reference, this is the test I'm talking about:

Now do all that again but observe with normal rolls. Do 10 times then get an evaluation of the Halberd.

Speed and maneuvering is its greatest strength, that's for sure. But basically, if someone shoots it in the leg and slows it down, it is boned. Very boned.

Otherwise, the weapons work fairly well, though the blades really don't work against anything with much armor.

If the Battle suits are Chromehounds mechs, then yours is Armored core style.

Depends on if we factor in the Artillery fun time, which rather reduced your forces.

Run two tests, one where Artillery fun time remains like it was, the other where the simulation is reset. Get in- or decrease in effectiveness for UWM

It varies by mission, but on average it's about 20%, though thats considering the UWM's massive sod production system and the fact they can crank out sods for almost nothing. On an interesting note it would mean you could have several hundred year old sods that have seen combat on dozens or hundreds of worlds.

Could the average UWM sod actually benefit from this battlefield experience, or not? Could our current upgraded sods benefit from it? Is it possible to create sods that are smart and independent enough to benefit from it? If yes, would we face the loyalty problems we would with that 'guerilla sod'?

@RC: Do the training course in that program piecewise did the warehouse history thing. And have the player pass a virtual multiple choice test in the end, where wrong options kill your virtual self in gruesome ways.

An interesting idea, but it would be a huge amount of work. I don't think I can devote the time or energy for that, though if other people were to help it might be possible.

Also, as to the training course, pickmepickmepickme.  Modern military tactics, especially CQB, is one of my favorite things.  I have more information than is actually useful.))

Sure, but you'll have to wait until the flesh horror stuff on your planet is solved before Saint can help with that IC. But until then we can plan things through OOC. I'm gonna lay down a framework for these vids soon, so hold your horses for a little while.

@ Sean and Tavik: why not merge your designs and work together? If your stuff is going to fill the same niche, I think that'd be the most optimal way to go about it. Yes; I know there's pride involved in wanting your own design to be proven best and used, but I think the two of you working together would find the best solution to the 'lightly armored rapid assault mech' problem.

Dammit why do people keep stealing tinker ideas out of my head when I'm on mission? First the goop sprayer now the electroreactive ballista. This is why I wanted to buy that vr backpack.

Heh, welcome to my world. But if another works out your idea in a good way, does it matter all that much you weren't the one to do it? After all, you know you had a good idea, you just didn't get the time to work on it. And you can still help out in OOC. For example, do you (or anyone else) have an idea to improve upon the goop thrower/universal chem thrower?

1.Did about 30% better. Faster, smaller, harder to hit.
2.All battle suits do about the same,  after the data is averaged out across several simulations. In general melee type has most kills, lowest survivability, while the other two are about even, with better survivability then the the halberd and over all more kills, but only because they can go toe to toe with other battle suits with less chance of being killed.

3.Sods can benefit from battlefield experience, yes. They're dumb but at least in terms of battle and things they know, they can recognize patterns. It might take them a while to get it through their skulls, but they can learn.

[syvarris]

((Normally I wait until the argument really gets going to start off the book, but spoilering them to start is probably better.  And serves as something of a warning, I suppose.))

Spoiler: Arguments with Paris, Volume 1, Preface (click to show/hide)

Still, the fact that it can launch non-aerodynamic ammunition doesn't mean that it can't launch properly constructed aerodynamic ammunition, a fact that was also mentioned in my post.

Please explain how your device can launch normal gauss bullets?  I'm pretty sure that even gauss rifles have barrels, which aren't just there for accuracy- they also keep the round in the center.  If the round is even slightly off center, then it's going to slam into a side and be dragged along.  Not only does that mean you'll have less accuracy than a smoothbore cannon, you'll also very quickly destroy the barrel.

That is, unless you actually are using a standard 20mm rifle.  In which case: How do you expect to be firing grenades?  20mm is huge for a bullet, but in the grand scheme of things, it's still less than an inch.  You're not gonna fit much down the barrel.

This weapon is designed to function with as little resources necessary as possible, while allowing a large variety of ammunition to be launched. It's like a laser working off a generator that allows it to have infinite ammo, only this one has the strengths of the Gauss Rifle: It can launch specialised ammunition like Grav-Shot or other kinds of Ani-Tank Gauss Ammunition and it can launch non-magnetic ammunition designed by the wielder.

While I understand your point, I think this gun would have too much wear to be a long term weapon.  The ammo would probably last longer.  If you really want a gun that can fire special rounds, I suggest you just use Pyro's grenade launcher- it can launch larger stuff than a gauss rifle, is cheaper than a gauss cannon, and would be much more accurate than this thing.  Probably cheaper too.  I mean, honestly, you'd be losing the ability to fire pebbles, and gaining the ability to actually accurately fire grenades.  If the rebellion is relying on pebbles, when we can give them infinite ammo lasers (or almost infinite ammo Testaments >.>), then I don't think they're in a situation where that capability will save them.

Also, I would love to see how grav shells react to being slammed against the side of the barrel. ;P

Also, what does cladding mean? I think it means to put a layer of metal on top of something but I don't understand what it means in this context.

I think they meant it like putting 'armor' of sorts on the inside of the barrel?  That would reduce wearing problems, but the gun would still break after some time.

And vector manips go against the spirit of the weapon. It's meant to be a multi-purpose tool rather than a pure weapon that can be cheaply mass produced and given to civilian forces/sod commandos/infiltrators that could end up cut off and without supplies.

Why does using a manip mean it can't be used as a multipurpose tool, and mass produced?  I think you fail to realize the prevalence of automanips in this world, and their cheapness.  They're kinda like nuclear stuff today: Really, really bad if you mess up, but understood well enough that they're actually extremely safe.

And while most linear applications of automanips are less efficient than comventional methods to achieve the same thing, this is one of the few places where their versatility comes in handy.  They can accelerate anything, accurately and reliably, without any barrel fouling, or any barrel at all.

A vector manip would mean that the weapon would be very expensive, require manipulator batteries and there would be no variable power setting (so that things like launching a grappling hook or spear or grenade from it would be impossible, greatly reducing its versatility). The fact that it can be used for those crazy projects most inmates sometimes build is an added bonus (like that one guy who tried to build that kinetic-amp-tipped-stake launcher).

Automanips aren't all that expensive.  More expensive than gauss or rockets, but like comparing rechargeable batteries to single use batteries.  And I don't think automanips need batteries, but nobody has ever bought/used a small automanip so eh.  Could be either way, and needs research.  If they do, then sure, don't use automanips.

And you can have variable power automanips.  Overlapping effect, with several pancaek manips- each accelerates stuff by x feet per second, so you activate all of them for high velocity stuff, and just one for low, ballistic arc things.

The cradle can be locked in place and the coils unlinked so that the weapon functions like a normal gauss rifle.

Gauss cannon you mean.  No way you're fitting grenades in a 20mm barrel unless they're redshells or something.

Yeah, that's actually a very good idea. It would solve the deceleration problem when launching not-as-magnetic-as-the-cradle objects. And probably increase the power output a bit and decrease maintenance.

All good, except that last bit.  Decrease maintenance?  Sure, in the same way that hacking your hand off with a kitchen knife is slower than with a lightsaber.  But the big issue with railgins is that they are high maintenance- every shot abrades away some of the rails.  If you go that route, and want to keep the gun working for a long time, then you'll need to use some of that fancy electroreactive metal they use in the LESHO.  And that is very expensive.

An interesting idea, but it would be a huge amount of work. I don't think I can devote the time or energy for that, though if other people were to help it might be possible.

I would be willing to help out with something like that, but I'm not sure if it would work well.  If it's similar to multiple choice games (Which is what I think Twine is for?), then it would probably result in a lot of "Do you order the sods to: Charge stupidly and suicidally?  Advance slowly and carefully with little support?  Enact a complicated plan that is obviously the right choice?"

Sure, but you'll have to wait until the flesh horror stuff on your planet is solved before Saint can help with that IC. But until then we can plan things through OOC. I'm gonna lay down a framework for these vids soon, so hold your horses for a little while.

I don't think Saint would even help IC.  He's supposed to know almost nothing about actual military tactics and operations, and only knows stuff about weapons and equipment because he spent a year studying it.

That said, I'm pretty terrible at keeping my character IC when it would limit my own fun.

Heh, welcome to my world. But if another works out your idea in a good way, does it matter all that much you weren't the one to do it? After all, you know you had a good idea, you just didn't get the time to work on it. And you can still help out in OOC. For example, do you (or anyone else) have an idea to improve upon the goop thrower/universal chem thrower?

Of course it matters!  Everyone has to know that you are the best tinker and have all the genius ideas!  What's the point if you don't get recognized for coming up with them?

_{FYI, I'm making fun of myself here, not someone else.}


This might be out of bounds, but I have a question:  Do small automanipulators need batteries, like the handheld manips that use Uncon?

[Sean Mirrsen]

@ Sean and Tavik: why not merge your designs and work together? If your stuff is going to fill the same niche, I think that'd be the most optimal way to go about it. Yes; I know there's pride involved in wanting your own design to be proven best and used, but I think the two of you working together would find the best solution to the 'lightly armored rapid assault mech' problem.

We'd kind of be working long-distance, and we're not yet in time-sync, and Anton has a nonzero chance of not surviving until then anyway. Plus, Anton's design needs certain important technological breakthroughs. But yeah, like I said, the two projects are likely to end up being related. Either one based off the other, or one inspired by the other.

I kinda think PW wouldn't mind if you ignore the time-sync suff, he has said as much in the past. You are right Anton can't help right now IC, but you can always discuss things OOC. You do what you want of course, I just suspect that, if there are two designs that somwhat fill the same niche, one will just be forgotten in favor of the other, which could be a waste since you both have interesting ideas the other doesn't.

But there's almost nothing to discuss! The design philosophies in both cases seem to be exceedingly similar - a light-armor, highly mobile mechsuit with extra punch in close combat. Except mine is designed after a basic mass-produced Mecha Mook from a somewhat-known tactical mecha TBS, and his is a recreation of an advanced mass-produced hunter-killer mech from a little-known mecha anime. His is customizable with mounted ranged weapons, mine uses handheld weapons only. His uses its mobility more to evade the enemy, mine uses it more to close in with the enemy. His uses mostly existing tech, mine requires extensive R&D. They're two very different machines based around the same conceptual idea. I can no more help him design the Halberd than a swordsman can help an axeman improve his backswing.

[Radio Controlled]

1) Could you tell me what the rest of the waves during Hep defense looked like? The ones we didn't fight because timeskip? Because I'm curious to the other weapons the UWM uses.

2) Are there weapon systems the UWM (often) uses that we haven't seen yet? If yes, what are they?

3) How smart and independent could sods be made? At what point do loyalty problems emerge?

4) Can you give me a % increase in effectiveness for the UWM if they used robosods during the battle for Hep? And could you tell me how the ratio of effectiveness/cost changes? Run two tests: once with artillery funtimes, one without.

But there's almost nothing to discuss! The design philosophies in both cases seem to be exceedingly similar - a light-armor, highly mobile mechsuit with extra punch in close combat. Except mine is designed after a basic mass-produced Mecha Mook from a somewhat-known tactical mecha TBS, and his is a recreation of an advanced mass-produced hunter-killer mech from a little-known mecha anime. His is customizable with mounted ranged weapons, mine uses handheld weapons only. His uses its mobility more to evade the enemy, mine uses it more to close in with the enemy. His uses mostly existing tech, mine requires extensive R&D. They're two very different machines based around the same conceptual idea. I can no more help him design the Halberd than a swordsman can help an axeman improve his backswing.

If you keep your designs apart, then indeed there is not. However, I proposed you guys merged your designs into one. In that case, you'd need to decide what parts of each design to use.

I would be willing to help out with something like that, but I'm not sure if it would work well.  If it's similar to multiple choice games (Which is what I think Twine is for?), then it would probably result in a lot of "Do you order the sods to: Charge stupidly and suicidally?  Advance slowly and carefully with little support?  Enact a complicated plan that is obviously the right choice?"

Yeah, multiple choice situations are hard to pull of. But even without that, just presenting the info, with a multiple-choice quiz at the end could be feasible. Or maybe you're presented with a few options, and for each option it tells you the advantages, disadvantages and risks, which you can then compare with what you had thought of yourself.

[Sean Mirrsen]

If you keep your designs apart, then indeed there is not. However, I proposed you guys merged your designs into one. In that case, you'd need to decide what parts of each design to use.

The problem is that there isn't anything to merge. It's one or the other, built around essentially the same frame.

Both designs are high-mobility, low-armor, with mobility rollers in the feet, shoulder pylons, and a shield. One uses its pylons for rocket pods, the other for mounted weapons. One has a short-range plasma emitter in its arm, the other doesn't. In effect, the closest we can get to merging the two projects together is making them both based on the same chassis, that can be refitted into one model or the other, with just a few stages of "inbetween" like putting the Plasma Stake on the Halberd.

[Radio Controlled]

Why would it be impossible to merge the ideas?

Say you decide on a chassis. Then, for example, you take the rocket pods from the one, and the plasma emitter from the other. Or maybe got for the myomers from the one, and the electric armor from the other. Then, in the end, you have one bot using ideas and stuff from both designs.

[Parisbre56]

I don't have enough time (nor the desire, since I don't draw any enjoyment from this) to argue like that, so I won't. Don't know why I bothered in the first place.

@Sean: Thanks for the helpful suggestions. That's a good idea. I could run some tests on something like that later.

@Syvarris: We had the exact same argument in the past. You actually need automanipulators to be as large as the ones used on ships to have them be self-sustaining. So it could work on a spaceship (or perhaps a Titan or other large vehicle) but not on something you want to be man-portable/cheap. Yes, I know piecewise usually doesn't keep track of batteries and ammo anymore.

Do person sized automanipulators use standard manipulator batteries?
Do ship sized automanipulators use some larger version of that battery?

Well, sorta. The use more of the driving substance at least.

I would be willing to help out with something like that, but I'm not sure if it would work well.  If it's similar to multiple choice games (Which is what I think Twine is for?), then it would probably result in a lot of "Do you order the sods to: Charge stupidly and suicidally?  Advance slowly and carefully with little support?  Enact a complicated plan that is obviously the right choice?"

I was mostly joking with that, but if you're serious:
Not all multiple choice games are bad. It depends on the creativity of the author and how good they can be.
For example: Escaping the Prison, a fun short multiple choice game. Or at least I find it fun.
Not that something like that would be good for a training program, because this displays a situation which relies on luck and rule of funny. In a training program you need the outcome to be less affected by luck and more realistic, since you're trying to teach someone instead of amusing them.
To create a fun training program, you'd need to challenge the player, you'd need to give them a choice that is the tactically correct choice but not the obvious choice (for example, it relies on a clue hidden in a previous choice). You'd need to make them be able to have a good score by making the right choices but only be able to get a 100% score by making the awesome choices. And you could put some funny bits in there in the non-combat situations, like when the instructor is speaking or when the player is given their evaluation. Or maybe even in the combat itself, if you find a good place to put the funny bit in.

What are Titans armed with usually?

Are they more "Weapons Platform","Mobile Bunker","Carrier","All of the above","Something else"?

How are Titans deployed on a planet? Can they fly or are there larger Titan Carriers? Or maybe they temporarily negate gravity like the Sword does? Or are they simply synthflesh battleships that usually stay in orbit, simply taking advantage of the physics bending abilities of synthflesh, only landing when absolutely necessary?

Are automanipulator shields in use on larger vessels like Battleships? If not, why? Do they somehow overheat or run out of juice and have to recharge? Or would they need to be as big as the ship to offer proper protection?

[piecewise]

((Normally I wait until the argument really gets going to start off the book, but spoilering them to start is probably better.  And serves as something of a warning, I suppose.))

Spoiler: Arguments with Paris, Volume 1, Preface (click to show/hide)

Still, the fact that it can launch non-aerodynamic ammunition doesn't mean that it can't launch properly constructed aerodynamic ammunition, a fact that was also mentioned in my post.

Please explain how your device can launch normal gauss bullets?  I'm pretty sure that even gauss rifles have barrels, which aren't just there for accuracy- they also keep the round in the center.  If the round is even slightly off center, then it's going to slam into a side and be dragged along.  Not only does that mean you'll have less accuracy than a smoothbore cannon, you'll also very quickly destroy the barrel.

That is, unless you actually are using a standard 20mm rifle.  In which case: How do you expect to be firing grenades?  20mm is huge for a bullet, but in the grand scheme of things, it's still less than an inch.  You're not gonna fit much down the barrel.

This weapon is designed to function with as little resources necessary as possible, while allowing a large variety of ammunition to be launched. It's like a laser working off a generator that allows it to have infinite ammo, only this one has the strengths of the Gauss Rifle: It can launch specialised ammunition like Grav-Shot or other kinds of Ani-Tank Gauss Ammunition and it can launch non-magnetic ammunition designed by the wielder.

While I understand your point, I think this gun would have too much wear to be a long term weapon.  The ammo would probably last longer.  If you really want a gun that can fire special rounds, I suggest you just use Pyro's grenade launcher- it can launch larger stuff than a gauss rifle, is cheaper than a gauss cannon, and would be much more accurate than this thing.  Probably cheaper too.  I mean, honestly, you'd be losing the ability to fire pebbles, and gaining the ability to actually accurately fire grenades.  If the rebellion is relying on pebbles, when we can give them infinite ammo lasers (or almost infinite ammo Testaments >.>), then I don't think they're in a situation where that capability will save them.

Also, I would love to see how grav shells react to being slammed against the side of the barrel. ;P

Also, what does cladding mean? I think it means to put a layer of metal on top of something but I don't understand what it means in this context.

I think they meant it like putting 'armor' of sorts on the inside of the barrel?  That would reduce wearing problems, but the gun would still break after some time.

And vector manips go against the spirit of the weapon. It's meant to be a multi-purpose tool rather than a pure weapon that can be cheaply mass produced and given to civilian forces/sod commandos/infiltrators that could end up cut off and without supplies.

Why does using a manip mean it can't be used as a multipurpose tool, and mass produced?  I think you fail to realize the prevalence of automanips in this world, and their cheapness.  They're kinda like nuclear stuff today: Really, really bad if you mess up, but understood well enough that they're actually extremely safe.

And while most linear applications of automanips are less efficient than comventional methods to achieve the same thing, this is one of the few places where their versatility comes in handy.  They can accelerate anything, accurately and reliably, without any barrel fouling, or any barrel at all.

A vector manip would mean that the weapon would be very expensive, require manipulator batteries and there would be no variable power setting (so that things like launching a grappling hook or spear or grenade from it would be impossible, greatly reducing its versatility). The fact that it can be used for those crazy projects most inmates sometimes build is an added bonus (like that one guy who tried to build that kinetic-amp-tipped-stake launcher).

Automanips aren't all that expensive.  More expensive than gauss or rockets, but like comparing rechargeable batteries to single use batteries.  And I don't think automanips need batteries, but nobody has ever bought/used a small automanip so eh.  Could be either way, and needs research.  If they do, then sure, don't use automanips.

And you can have variable power automanips.  Overlapping effect, with several pancaek manips- each accelerates stuff by x feet per second, so you activate all of them for high velocity stuff, and just one for low, ballistic arc things.

The cradle can be locked in place and the coils unlinked so that the weapon functions like a normal gauss rifle.

Gauss cannon you mean.  No way you're fitting grenades in a 20mm barrel unless they're redshells or something.

Yeah, that's actually a very good idea. It would solve the deceleration problem when launching not-as-magnetic-as-the-cradle objects. And probably increase the power output a bit and decrease maintenance.

All good, except that last bit.  Decrease maintenance?  Sure, in the same way that hacking your hand off with a kitchen knife is slower than with a lightsaber.  But the big issue with railgins is that they are high maintenance- every shot abrades away some of the rails.  If you go that route, and want to keep the gun working for a long time, then you'll need to use some of that fancy electroreactive metal they use in the LESHO.  And that is very expensive.

An interesting idea, but it would be a huge amount of work. I don't think I can devote the time or energy for that, though if other people were to help it might be possible.

I would be willing to help out with something like that, but I'm not sure if it would work well.  If it's similar to multiple choice games (Which is what I think Twine is for?), then it would probably result in a lot of "Do you order the sods to: Charge stupidly and suicidally?  Advance slowly and carefully with little support?  Enact a complicated plan that is obviously the right choice?"

Sure, but you'll have to wait until the flesh horror stuff on your planet is solved before Saint can help with that IC. But until then we can plan things through OOC. I'm gonna lay down a framework for these vids soon, so hold your horses for a little while.

I don't think Saint would even help IC.  He's supposed to know almost nothing about actual military tactics and operations, and only knows stuff about weapons and equipment because he spent a year studying it.

That said, I'm pretty terrible at keeping my character IC when it would limit my own fun.

Heh, welcome to my world. But if another works out your idea in a good way, does it matter all that much you weren't the one to do it? After all, you know you had a good idea, you just didn't get the time to work on it. And you can still help out in OOC. For example, do you (or anyone else) have an idea to improve upon the goop thrower/universal chem thrower?

Of course it matters!  Everyone has to know that you are the best tinker and have all the genius ideas!  What's the point if you don't get recognized for coming up with them?

_{FYI, I'm making fun of myself here, not someone else.}


This might be out of bounds, but I have a question:  Do small automanipulators need batteries, like the handheld manips that use Uncon?

They don't have batteries in the same way, they're single use.

1) Could you tell me what the rest of the waves during Hep defense looked like? The ones we didn't fight because timeskip? Because I'm curious to the other weapons the UWM uses.

2) Are there weapon systems the UWM (often) uses that we haven't seen yet? If yes, what are they?

3) How smart and independent could sods be made? At what point do loyalty problems emerge?

4) Can you give me a % increase in effectiveness for the UWM if they used robosods during the battle for Hep? And could you tell me how the ratio of effectiveness/cost changes? Run two tests: once with artillery funtimes, one without.

But there's almost nothing to discuss! The design philosophies in both cases seem to be exceedingly similar - a light-armor, highly mobile mechsuit with extra punch in close combat. Except mine is designed after a basic mass-produced Mecha Mook from a somewhat-known tactical mecha TBS, and his is a recreation of an advanced mass-produced hunter-killer mech from a little-known mecha anime. His is customizable with mounted ranged weapons, mine uses handheld weapons only. His uses its mobility more to evade the enemy, mine uses it more to close in with the enemy. His uses mostly existing tech, mine requires extensive R&D. They're two very different machines based around the same conceptual idea. I can no more help him design the Halberd than a swordsman can help an axeman improve his backswing.

If you keep your designs apart, then indeed there is not. However, I proposed you guys merged your designs into one. In that case, you'd need to decide what parts of each design to use.

I would be willing to help out with something like that, but I'm not sure if it would work well.  If it's similar to multiple choice games (Which is what I think Twine is for?), then it would probably result in a lot of "Do you order the sods to: Charge stupidly and suicidally?  Advance slowly and carefully with little support?  Enact a complicated plan that is obviously the right choice?"

Yeah, multiple choice situations are hard to pull of. But even without that, just presenting the info, with a multiple-choice quiz at the end could be feasible. Or maybe you're presented with a few options, and for each option it tells you the advantages, disadvantages and risks, which you can then compare with what you had thought of yourself.

1. other waves? I think that directory might have been reformatted. Try again?
2.Thats a bit difficult to say. They're often situational, you see. The use of gas bombs and toxic-fame troops is common in colony control and "liquidation" so to speak, but you've never seen them since they're not really as useful against people in open areas, especially people in space suits. So you're gonna have to narrow the type of engagement. Also, you're gonna have to assume that they're going to develop new shit to counteract your actions. (Translation: This info has a half-life.)
3.Curious question, and a difficult one. Intelligence and independence are, of course, not simple sliders. I can't say "oh yeah, 45% intelligent is the threshold. But 44%? Fine." it's more to do with specific kinds of intelligence and independence. The capacity for simple reasoning, or hell, even complex reasoning, does not necessarily correspond with free thinking or possible disobedience. There was a good deal of research done in the past on such things, most of it in regard to wetware computers, to prevent feedback while keeping some degree of personality. The doctor might have some insights, but calibrating it might just come down to time and a degree of trial and error, different models on field tests, weeding out the ones that don't perform well.

4.To be honest, these %'s are all just guesses, obviously. I don't have a working model here to simulate it. But lets go with this: basically what it would do is make lower end rolls survivable and let injured sods continue to fight, to some degree. So if we assume that 3's would have a good chance of incapacitating, and 2's would bring em down good, in terms of flesh, then we can get a rough estimate of somewhere between 16-30% increase in efficiency if we're just counting "Stay alive and keep fighting" as our goal. What that would translate to in full scale retelling of the battle, I don't know, probably a lot more of me writing about half a robot clawing it's way toward the bunker with a machine gun in one hand.

I don't have enough time (nor the desire, since I don't draw any enjoyment from this) to argue like that, so I won't. Don't know why I bothered in the first place.

@Sean: Thanks for the helpful suggestions. That's a good idea. I could run some tests on something like that later.

@Syvarris: We had the exact same argument in the past. You actually need automanipulators to be as large as the ones used on ships to have them be self-sustaining. So it could work on a spaceship (or perhaps a Titan or other large vehicle) but not on something you want to be man-portable/cheap. Yes, I know piecewise usually doesn't keep track of batteries and ammo anymore.

Do person sized automanipulators use standard manipulator batteries?
Do ship sized automanipulators use some larger version of that battery?

Well, sorta. The use more of the driving substance at least.

I would be willing to help out with something like that, but I'm not sure if it would work well.  If it's similar to multiple choice games (Which is what I think Twine is for?), then it would probably result in a lot of "Do you order the sods to: Charge stupidly and suicidally?  Advance slowly and carefully with little support?  Enact a complicated plan that is obviously the right choice?"

I was mostly joking with that, but if you're serious:
Not all multiple choice games are bad. It depends on the creativity of the author and how good they can be.
For example: Escaping the Prison, a fun short multiple choice game. Or at least I find it fun.
Not that something like that would be good for a training program, because this displays a situation which relies on luck and rule of funny. In a training program you need the outcome to be less affected by luck and more realistic, since you're trying to teach someone instead of amusing them.
To create a fun training program, you'd need to challenge the player, you'd need to give them a choice that is the tactically correct choice but not the obvious choice (for example, it relies on a clue hidden in a previous choice). You'd need to make them be able to have a good score by making the right choices but only be able to get a 100% score by making the awesome choices. And you could put some funny bits in there in the non-combat situations, like when the instructor is speaking or when the player is given their evaluation. Or maybe even in the combat itself, if you find a good place to put the funny bit in.

What are Titans armed with usually?

Are they more "Weapons Platform","Mobile Bunker","Carrier","All of the above","Something else"?

How are Titans deployed on a planet? Can they fly or are there larger Titan Carriers? Or maybe they temporarily negate gravity like the Sword does? Or are they simply synthflesh battleships that usually stay in orbit, simply taking advantage of the physics bending abilities of synthflesh, only landing when absolutely necessary?

Are automanipulator shields in use on larger vessels like Battleships? If not, why? Do they somehow overheat or run out of juice and have to recharge? Or would they need to be as big as the ship to offer proper protection?

1.Depends on the type.
2. Depends, but the "all of the above" option works in most cases. If you really want to see, VR it and get inside one.
3.That depends as well. Most are carried aboard supermassive carriers, which would deliver them and huge amounts of other things to a target, though, if I remember right, there's only one remaining supercarrier and it's derelict. Now adays they're built on the planet they guard. They're also rare as hen teeth. There were a few...unique ones though. But I don't think you have the security clearance for that.

[Radio Controlled]

1. other waves? I think that directory might have been reformatted. Try again?

1) The first wave were the sods and battlesuits and such. Second were the mass of drones. There would have been more, but we skipped them to get to the boarding. I'm curious as to what the other waves/dangers would have been.

2. So you're gonna have to narrow the type of engagement. Also, you're gonna have to assume that they're going to develop new shit to counteract your actions. (Translation: This info has a half-life.)

2) How would they defend a military base? How would they assault it (assume they need to capture it, not just destroy)? And if said base has anti-air/drop pod defenses (so they can't drop in with battlesuits and such)?

3.Curious question, and a difficult one. Intelligence and independence are, of course, not simple sliders.

3) I know, but even so you gave me a better idea of how to go about the sod intelligence. Guess I'll have to go bother Doc some more.

That said, could you perhaps give me a general idea, based on previous (IC, as in in-universe) data, on certain threshholds? For example: "Once a sod is intelligent enough to perform completely independant on the battlefield on par with a trained human, then questions of obediency or loyalty potentially come into play."

4.To be honest, these %'s are all just guesses, obviously.

I know it's difficult, it's just that it's handy to have some sort of measurement, even if it's very abstract or with large margins (e.g. "10 to 40%") so we can make informed decisions. Giving broad ideas is good enough usually. The % is just to try and get a bit more concrete answer, so one can actually prove to another player of why it's neccesary.

4) Lastly, could certain research on Hep be done automatically? Say I need a material to have X properties, would I need to assign this to a Hep team, or could ARESTEVE do it alone?

[Parisbre56]

Are automanipulator shields in use on larger vessels like Battleships? If not, why? Do they somehow overheat or run out of juice and have to recharge? Or would they need to be as big as the ship to offer proper protection?

[syvarris]

-snip-

Ignore this!

[piecewise]

1. other waves? I think that directory might have been reformatted. Try again?

1) The first wave were the sods and battlesuits and such. Second were the mass of drones. There would have been more, but we skipped them to get to the boarding. I'm curious as to what the other waves/dangers would have been.

2. So you're gonna have to narrow the type of engagement. Also, you're gonna have to assume that they're going to develop new shit to counteract your actions. (Translation: This info has a half-life.)

2) How would they defend a military base? How would they assault it (assume they need to capture it, not just destroy)? And if said base has anti-air/drop pod defenses (so they can't drop in with battlesuits and such)?

3.Curious question, and a difficult one. Intelligence and independence are, of course, not simple sliders.

3) I know, but even so you gave me a better idea of how to go about the sod intelligence. Guess I'll have to go bother Doc some more.

That said, could you perhaps give me a general idea, based on previous (IC, as in in-universe) data, on certain threshholds? For example: "Once a sod is intelligent enough to perform completely independant on the battlefield on par with a trained human, then questions of obediency or loyalty potentially come into play."

4.To be honest, these %'s are all just guesses, obviously.

I know it's difficult, it's just that it's handy to have some sort of measurement, even if it's very abstract or with large margins (e.g. "10 to 40%") so we can make informed decisions. Giving broad ideas is good enough usually. The % is just to try and get a bit more concrete answer, so one can actually prove to another player of why it's neccesary.

4) Lastly, could certain research on Hep be done automatically? Say I need a material to have X properties, would I need to assign this to a Hep team, or could ARESTEVE do it alone?

Oh, we just skipped the last wave of stragglers. Nothing different.

Defense would probably involve mostly automated defenses with varying degrees of armored troops depending on the importance of the base. Lower level bases might get groups of sods, maybe some in battle suits. Higher level bases might get Heavy Protectorates (Who are called that because they are considered sovereign and exempt from local law.) or High Guards, together with battle suits or, if you're really unlucky, an avatar. And, if you try and assault somewhere they REALLY don't want you, you might find a titan.

Assuming capture, that depends on the environ of the base. They'll try and poison you out if they can. Or use radiation. If they can't do those, they'll send in ground troops much like they did on Heph. Usually they'll just bury you in sod bodies (assault forces will have so many of the fucking things they'll win by sheer attrition, even if it takes 100 sods to kill one defender.) Assuming they want it fast, they'll send in human soldiers of varying kinds. They're not very subtle or tactical most of the time; they don't need to be.

Hmm. Well sods that are completely independent can be made loyal by restricting their cognitive capacities for understanding ideas. In a sense, built in neurological blinders. They can't defect to the enemy because they don't have the neural capacity to understand what the hell the enemy is talking about.  Of course that also means it won't be able to understand other things...

Basically, as soon as they're capable of understanding their motivations on anything other then an instinctual level, you have potential problems. And the problem with that is, to be able to be independent they need to understand their orders and be able to think about how to carry them out. Thats why they are, in their normal form, basically just highly trained dogs.

It could be, though you'd need to create the automated materials labs for ARESTEVE to use. He can simulate a lot but sometimes you just need to have the physical stuff there.

Are automanipulator shields in use on larger vessels like Battleships? If not, why? Do they somehow overheat or run out of juice and have to recharge? Or would they need to be as big as the ship to offer proper protection?

They are, but they have limits. Think about the force of a round fired from the sword. Not try and stop that round within a short distance. Thats a fuck ton of force, to use a technical term. So while their automated manip systems provide some degree of protection against smaller weapons (Below a certain size or power you're basically never going to damage one of those ships) they really can't stop a full power round without an automanip of horrendous size and frightening cost; a cost measured not solely in dollars, either.

[Parisbre56]

((Ahh, so that explains how they can avoid micrometeorites and other space garbage without constantly using point defence systems. Good to know.

Okay, I'll wait to see whether or not I'm going to the rescue mission before posting an action.))

[Radio Controlled]

1) what are heavy Protectorates? What gear do they carry?
2) what are High Guards? What gear do they carry?

3) Could you give a short list of technologies we have the UWM doesn't in terms of things that could be used for defense or armor? For example, that anti-laser defense coating made from the Samsonite sand. Are there technologies we don't have the UWM does (that Steve knows of, of course)?


Just realized I'm also 'on mission', so I'll refrain from tinkering.

[NAV]

Project name: Monorapier

Monorazor can't stab. This reduces its effective reach, prevents its use against flat planes like walls, doors, or shields, and limits its use as a bayonet.

Take the thinnest possible rod (or strand) of mythril that will remain rigid. make it 1 meter long.
Give it a handle. Attach a monorazor's vibrator in the handle.
Does this work? How well does it cut compared to a monorazor? How expensive?

(Mythril's that extremely strong, extremely expensive metal. This design only calls for extremely small amounts so it might be economically viable.)