A tank needs a gunner, driver, and commander in Rl now. If we can have fully autonomous robots, I'm pretty sure we can have support AI that can take care of everything regarding driving and aiming. So the pilot only has commander duties, then tells/thinks "drive over there, shoot that thing" and then the computer takes over. Also, I'm thinking more in the direction of braincase drivers.
First, if everything is automated, then there's not much point in calling it a driver. You'll never get a human in there, nor is there any point in putting one in there. It's an AI. Might as well be remote controlled, RTS style, where some commander gives the order "Move to that specific area with that specific objective" and the unit takes care of everything else automatically.
Second, I'm pretty sure some of our allies would like human drivers, because something that does everything to ensure victory probably does not fight well alongside human soldiers. Even if we disregard everything else, it won't be good for morale.
Also, this doesn't sound like a good idea, because it will certainly have some flaw that needs compensating. Large size, slow reaction time, high cost, something. Otherwise, it conflicts with what you said about things being realistic, because there's no reason we all don't have autoaming guns with integrated IFF that automatically hit all enemies and prevent us from shooting teammates unless we specify it. Even Indigo Hydra isn't that overpowered.
Not only that, if something like that is allowed, it also brings about the problem that it is allowed for our enemies. Imagine facing something like that in combat. What chance would a player have if the moment they enter its range they are dead, since what you're describing is a mechanical equivalent of the AM: invulnerable, all knowing and all powerful.
What I'm saying here is, that your "realism" isn't always fun or balanced for proper gameplay.
Also, running while shooting means you won't be hitting a lot. Try it on a paintball course someday, you'll see what I mean.
From my experience playing laser tag, it's not that bad. You can still hit something, just takes more skill.
Besides, there are guns that have a wider area of effect or can fire many bullets, making aiming less necessary when there is no chance of collateral damage.
Another problem is that gunner and driver don't have the required coordination needed to respond to their individual movements, so in frantic combat that depends on mobility, they won't be able to adjust for each others movements. The gunner won't know when the vehicle is about to turn or stop. Although I guess your OP AI would essentially be controlling the vehicle like it's its body.
Also, what if the weight distribution of a battleuit requires pilots needing to learn to walk a certain way to keep balance? Like in the third matrix movie? I can easily see that be the case, but be abstracted away for convenience.
A body that moves as naturally as the battlesuit should be easy to learn by just walking around a bit and allowing the natural ability of the human body to compensate for changes take effect. It'd be like someone attaching weights on you and wearing uncomfortable shoes. It'd be a bit uncomfortable at first but a few minutes later you'd be OK. And it's not like falling down a couple of times in a battlesuit is going to hurt much.
Indeed. But I hope you see why it can be exhausting to explain the same things over and over. Most of the points here have been discussed before, by me and others. Hmm. Maybe I should look for the previous discussions and link them... then again, some of those were long and 'diffuse', so it might be hard to find a good start point.
No, I meant that I had read those arguments at that time and disagreed, I just didn't want to get involved because I'm not enjoying this. I try not to get involved in things like this. But since I believe that this is important and nobody else is arguing my position, I'm going to have to get involved so that others don't impose their will on things unopposed, without at least hearing another opinion.
Did you read my whole battlesuit analysis from before? One of the big conclusions was: a battlesuit is touted as a walking tank and infantry support. However, it can't easily go where the infantry must go, so it's inferior there, and for things like straight-up shooting a dude from afar or forming an armored spearhead in the open, a vehicle does better. That's why I, for our army, think that 'splitting up' the battlesuit role/design into at least 2 (maybe 3) more focused units is better, one of them being an armored but small humanoid suit for infantry support, like syv's suit.
But here's the problem: What happens when a heavy robobody gets face to face with a battlesuit? A heavy robobody is a light tank. It's good for taking out infantry and lightly armoured targets (well, what passes for lightly armoured targets in ER anyway). If you put it up against something heavier, it's not going to cut it. There are places where tanks can't go but battlesuits can. They can go there and provide the support a heavy tank should provide.
Of course, for a merc team having to buy its own equipment, the great mission versatility of a battlesuit holds more ground, but that's because our needs are different due to the different (relative amount of) missions we face.
So no unit in our army and none of our allies are going to have any use for the versatility and capabilities of battlesuits? I don't think that's true.
Another thing: you seem to have in your head the archetype of a tank that's slow and lumbering.
You on the other hand seem to be offering very conflicting ideas about what a tank should be. It's like you're not comparing the battlesuit (which is a real thing that exists (in universe)) to a single vehicle but a large number of imaginary vehicles each with different abilities. If that was the case, I could also just design a battlesuit model that is plain better in a specific area and say "this battlesuit is better than that vehicle". But I'll get on that later.
For almost every thing a battlesuit does better than a vehicle, the same counts for a heavy robobody (eg having hands to move rubble).
But as has been said before, battlesuits are stronger and with more capabilities than heavy robobodies.
However, it cannot follow infantry, a massive drawback. And in the areas that don't require following infantry, a vehicle can do it better for cheaper.
But, as I demonstrated, there are areas where a battlesuit can follow infantry but a vehicle can't.
If it turns out this is a vulnerability, why would we adhere to it?
Because you design vehicles with the role they have in mind. If you are designing something for anti-armour combat, then you're going to be putting most of the armour in the front. Because if you try to cover everything, an enemy that has focused on anti-tank combat is going to crush you, because you won't be able to survive as well as they can in 1 on 1 combat. Assuming equal tech-levels between rivals, of course.
Secondly, a tank could carry armor that, at its thinnest point, is still as thick as frontal battlesuit armor
Then it is very expensive compared to a battlesuit. Most of the cost of the battlesuit is the armour, not any of its electronics or exoskeleton. Add to that your OP control system (which is bound to be either large, expensive, fragile or have some other drawback that prevents player use, thus creating the need to compensate for that flaw) and it becomes even more expensive. So for each expensive and complicated tank you make, you could make 1.5 or 2 battlesuits which are cheap, proven, easy to use and understand tech and where you can just stick a human in them and have them drive it around just fine.
And a battlesuit is often worse when it comes to the angle a round impacts on, since getting sloped armor on such a thing is difficult.
Incorrect. Battlesuit armour is always sloped, like those ball-like soviet tank turrets. Check the wiki.
Nope. The second a thread starts turning, the vehicles's moving. In order to move with legs, you need to bend the knee and push off before even moving a little. Again, you are comparing a mental picture of a modern tank with that of a far-future mech. Why would not the tech involved for vehicles have advanced greatly?
First of all, there's the problem of the crew. Most people instinctively know how to move their body to avoid danger, because of things trying to eat us for millions of years. The driver would not be able to react as fast, he would not have the same understanding of where the vehicle is or what the best action to do would be, because he's doing a more complex task, driving. Of course, a sufficiently experienced driver or your OP AI could negate that, which is why I said about the same time in best case.
Second, there's traction. Legs are better than wheels at certain circumstances. However since we are comparing the battlesuit to some perfect imaginary tank, I can offer no specific argument.
Third, there's mass. You can't have everything. Stronger armour means bigger mass. Bigger mass means bigger force required for the same acceleration. Again, since we are comparing the battlesuit to some perfect imaginary tank you have in your mind, I can offer no specific arguments besides that the mass requirement should give it different strengths and weaknesses.
Why would it be that much bigger? Ok, imagine a regular battlesuit with gaus cannon. Put it on its back. Put threads on inside of its back, making it a little higher. Move gauss cannon on turret on top. Remove limbs, and expand the battlesuit in length and width a bit so that the top of the cannon turret moves down. Now you have a tank of similar size as a battlesuit, probably even smaller in volume.
But a much bigger target compared to a battlesuit at the angle I described. It's like having a car walking on its back wheels and a car driving. They have the same size, different profiles from different angles.
And again, you are creating different things for different comparisons. Can a tank that size have all the things you used in the previous arguments? The extra armour, the lower profile, the control system, the rockets, the threads, the ability to have its turret face everywhere...
A vehicle should be able to move out of the way just as fast, if not faster.
Nope. Increased mass, increased size and predictable path mean that a vehicle of similar tech level is more likely to get hit.
Not to the side, true, but again, the very concept of dodging a round is extremely unlikely (go get a buddy to shoot with a paintball gun at you. Can you dodge that? And if yes, more than one shot? because just throwing yourself to the ground (one of the only ways to move out of the way fast enough) leaves you right open for a follow up shot.
I'm not talking about dodging a round. This is not the matrix. I mean getting to cover. If you are ambushed by a sniper, it doesn't matter how fast you move after the bullet is heading your way. If the enemy's aim is good, then the moment they pull the trigger, you're going to get hit and there's nothing you can do about it. But after you learn that there is a sniper, it does matter: a) how fast you can get to cover b)how unpredictable and hard to follow your movement is while doing so. And I can not believe that a man on an electric wheelchair is better at finding cover than a man on his legs, no matter how quickly the wheelchair's wheels can spin. At best, the man in the wheelchair can run away really fast and abandon his team.
Finally, a vehicle with jump rockets on the underside can dodge to the side just fine, if you really want that possibility.
A heavily armoured tank using rockets sounds like something that would be either expensive, create vulnerabilities and add weight for little profit. Could probably create some mechanical system or thread configuration that would be able to achieve the same easier, like a pair of deployable hexplate skates that eliminate friction combined with rockets (by the way, you can replace the battlesuit's wheeled leg design with hexplate skates, should look into that), but I'm still not sure if it would be efficient enough to warrant the cost. Tanks are tanks. They are built for a specific purpose.
I had a space-magic-assisted system in mind as a piece of equipment for my APC chassis that allowed it fly for a few seconds (it then had to recharge), but even that will need some tinkering, since I'm not sure it can work in an efficient manner or at all.
A lot of assumptions about a non-existent design there!
You are right, assuming we are able to build some sort of perfect tank is much better.[/sarcasm]
So, our tank can't hit something upward, but our suit can? That sounds like a very badly designed tank.
On the contrary, it's probably well designed. It would be a very strange tank if it could. Some APCs can aim straight up, but I don't think there's any tank that can do so. Mostly because tanks are designed with anti-tank combat in mind. If you wanted to make it capable of aiming upwards, you'd probably have to sacrifice something else, like armour or firepower. I guess you could do something like launch rockets out of the barrel of the cannon and have them fly upwards, sort of like a javelin rocket, but that would require specialized ammo. Point is, individual tank models are designed with a specific goal in mind, and that's what they're best at doing. One can't be good at everything. Same with battlesuit models.
A human pilot doesn't have the required reaction time. Even if the suit can move fast enough (dubious) then you still have the slow organic controller. Though perhaps, a sufficient support ai can solve this. but that AI could also move the vehicle out of the way, dodging the shot, or making it hit in a less bad area.
Disputed + You misunderstood me. See above. This is not the matrix.
And a battleuit's 'sensitive piece of equipment' is impervious to these? His fuel or ammo can explode just as easily.
Correct, rocket pods are sensitive, but that's as much sensitive equipment as you'll get in a battlesuit, barring any automanipulator shields. A tank is likely to be larger, have large numbers of explosive shells, etc. Again, without a concrete tank design, I can not make a good comparison because there is nothing to compare the battlesuit to.
Other things being equal, a vehicle should be cheaper than a legged suit. You need heavy duty actuators or whatever to support all that weight on two small legs, and move limbs. You need a much smaller motor to just spin the gears to drive the wheels or rotate the gun turret.
But you have more mass and more armour, meaning you'll need more power, meaning it will be more expensive. As has been noted before, armour contributes much more to cost than generator or engine.
And I am not convinced that the battlesuit's motors would be much more expensive. They are more, since the battlesuit offers more degrees of movement, but not necessarily more complex or more expensive. Could in fact be smaller and cheaper individually.
And I think turret movement is usually hydraulic. Not relevant, just saying. Could probably use some frictionless system and a motor positioned in the turret with our tech.
And, to use your argument, this is the future. What's to say that there isn't a cheaper muscle-like material available that is actually more effective at moving robotic bodies than electrical motors? You have no idea how technology may have progressed. If a muscle-like material more effective then motors existed, then it would make sense to use suits instead of wheeled vehicles, due to the cost efficiency of the material, while the same material could not be used in wheeled designs because of the obvious problems with efficiency. You'd have to build something like the engine of a train, where the muscles push and pull a piston and that would take more space and be less efficient.
A heavy robobody can do this as well.
But not as well as a battlesuit.
In my original analysis, I did specify various vehicles, not just tanks
But you can't have multiple vehicles in one. Unless I can make that pokeball design work. Or unless you can come up with some sort of
shapechanging IFV.
Threads can be hidden inside the main body.
But doesn't that either dimish their capacity to support the vehicles weight, make it turn rate or traction lower or warrant additional armour, which means bigger engine, bigger size, less speed and even greater cost? Again, depending on the vehicle, it will have its strength and weaknesses. Again, we can't compare imaginary and everchanging things with real things. (Well, imaginary imaginary things with imaginary real things, but you get the point.)
Yes, we can always design something that is better than something else in some areas, I already know that. Same as we can design something to counter that. Nothing is perfect. Because that's basically your argument here. Unless you are arguing that tanks are superior in everything and everyone should chop their legs off and replace them with treads. Which I agree would be fun.
They would be more robust against damage than legs, which have big weakpoints (joints) and are more difficult to armor.
On the other hand, joints are smaller and its harder to predict their movements, thus making them harder to hit. It's one of the reasons non-lethal gun combat is hard. It's so much easier to kill a human then to cripple them. On the other hand, tracks are giant things on the front and side of the vehicle and unless the tank is spinning around like crazy, it is easy to predict where they are going to be and hit them.
Also, lose one leg, and you not only become almost immobile, but also very hard to keep shooting decently.
So people can't shoot while being prone? I will attribute this one to you being tired, as this is obviously not the case.
And, much like a tank can have spare tracks, the battlesuit can have a spare leg or joint with it. And a joint would probably be easier to swap out then the damaged suspension of a tank, especially if that part of the tank is heavily armoured.
And I just had the silly mental image of a battlesuit ripping a lamp post out of the ground and using it as a crutch.
An immobilized tank is still an excellent turret.
But modern combat relies on mobility. If you stay still you're dead, because you're an easy target.
Sorry, but here we are delving straight into action movie territory. How does the battlesuit get to that roof unseen?
With its arms/legs/rockets/other equipment, depending on the model. As for the unseen part, it doesn't have to be unseen. Since we have already established that the buildings here block make it harder to sense things with x-rays and similar, approaching from the roof should give it sufficient cover for the enemy to not know exactly where to hit. Most cities don't have single floor buildings, they're 5 storeys or higher, so spotting it from the ground and keeping it in sight would be hard. Even worse, some cities have very narrow, very sloped streets, barely large enough to fit a car, so your ability to spot a battlesuit would be even worse. You'd need to have an allied unit on a roof to spot the suit and keep giving the tank information good enough for it to accurately hit the battlesuit through the building. A building sturdy enough to support a battlesuit, mind you. You can say that this is all situational, but that's the point. There are situations where a battlesuit is better, just like there are situations where a tank is better.
Why is our tank always standing still?
The only thing a tank can do in these sorts of situations is stand still or retreat. Either way, the same arguments apply. Attacking would not be a good idea because it exposes its flanks to unknown armaments and looses any infantry support it may have. If it doesn't retreat, then the only viable tactic for our attackers is to flank, no matter whether they're battlesuits or tanks. If it does retreat, a more careful advance is needed, because there's a chance there are enemy infantry laying in ambush. The tank can't just start smashing through buildings because it's wider than a battlesuit, thus it would have a higher chance of collapsing a giant building on top of itself. And tanks don't have arms to dig themselves out.
The very second it shows itself, the gun turrets turns and shoots it dead. If you can have multi-ton legged suits that can close into melee fast, you can have a gun turret that turns and aims in less time than that.
Again, armour and cover. If it can move fast enough, then it's not armoured enough. If it is decently armoured, it's not fast enough. If it has a gun that can shoot through sturdy buildings and destroy a battlesuit it's not fast enough. If it's fast enough, then it can't shoot through walls as well and the battlesuit can smash through a wall, dive under the turrets minimum elevation and hit it. If it has none of the above drawbacks, then it is very expensive compared to a battlesuit.
Or it can just jump from the roof for a kinamp punch. Even if the tank manages to hit the battlesuit as it is falling, you just sacrificed a battlesuit to take out a much more expensive tank. It's a good trade.
And again, balance and gameplay: weapons like this cannot exist without drawbacks if nothing else for balance reasons. Otherwise every enemy we meet will have an autohit weapon, making combat meaningless. We might as well equip everyone with LESHO rifles and start lobbing nukes at each other.
At best, you've showed why we indeed need a humanoid infantry sized suit. I have never doubted that, but there's no really good reason to make it battlesuit sized when it comes to army needs.
What will take the place of a tank in a place where no tanks can be deployed due to the terrain, as in the example I provided? Or maybe some other place where a tank would lack traction or be unable to support itself. Just send more heavy robobodies? What happens if they come face to face with a battlesuit, which is better armed and armoured? What happens when they come under fire from battlesuit artillery that is much more powerful and mobile? In terrain like that, the army would be missing an important component.
Get a painball gun, and see how straight you shoot with 1 arm to hold it. Then, see how fast you move while hopping on one leg, or dragging yourself.
Get a laser pointer and see how straight you shoot with 1 arm to hold it. Then see how fast you can drive a tank with no tracks.
A lot of it seems to stem from a sort of idée fixe on that a futuristic vehicle would behve like a modern one, while legged designs are allowed to have advanced that much more.
And you seem to simply be saying tanks are flat out always objectively better 100% of the time. And then creating a different tank for each situation to prove how it is better in that specific situation. Tanks are not always better. The always part is bothering me. Even if they are (which they are not) you have no concrete evidence to support that nor any better units to show for comparison, just your assumption that tanks are better because right now tanks are more common than exoskeletons, which are a very recent thing, still in development, compared to tanks that have been around since the first world war and their design has become more or less stable.
Pfff. Tomatoes tomatos right there.
I believe the statements "I did not kill him." and "I did not have to kill him." are very different.
Unless you make the generator unnecessarily large, the extra power from the suit isn't all that great. And you are very vulnerable while you are routing all that extra juice to your gun.
Doesn't change the fact that it works. The current battlesuit has a large capacitor and a large generator, much larger than it needs, plus a secondary battery on a separate system, the claymore defence system, kinetic amps, a powerful computer and sensor suite... It can be used to power things. There's no mobility problems caused by using it unless the draw is excessive enough to completely drain the capacitor. It can be used to power external equipment. Like all altered wars equipment, they're built to be versatile, after all. If you wanted, you could lower the battlesuit's cost by removing all those extra capabilities to make something like a superheavy robobody, but I think those are useful enough to keep.
And outfitting a suit with a little plug to hook up weapons gets the same result without needing a different variant.
More easily damaged, easily severed connection, gun only useful in the hands of a battlesuit and thus needless to be a gun in the first place since it can be integrated, less protection, less ammo if the gun requires it, etc.
Plus, if all the gun is taking is power and the battlesuit doesn't store ammo in its torso or something, then it's much easier to just replace the limb.
Why would the weapon cost fewer resources, apart from a token perspective maybe (in which case you'll also have to give up other features to get that gun for free)?
No need for a generator, shielding, frame, targeting equipment, etc. It's sharing the battlesuit's resources. Plus, you are replacing equipment, you are removing functionality from the battlesuit to give it some other functionality. That's an extra way to save resources.
but "easier to move, aim and store" seems off. Why?
Because the gun is there in your arm, because point and click is literal (especially with the addition of the arm camera) and because the gun is there in your arm, respectively.
Have you ever had an arm replaced by a gun to check if shooting goes better than just holding it?
I know that pointing at something is easier than pointing a gun at something. Especially if you have a camera in your finger showing you exactly what you're pointing at. Plus it's easier to stabilise the gun while firing. Shooting an assault rifle with one hand around a corner is bound to be harder than having your arm be the assault rifle. I bet that if the army could get away with it, they'd be chopping off our arms and replacing them with tentacle-like weapon arms.
"it can't get lost" I find hilarious, makes me think of soldiers misplacing their weapons all the time all over the place.
Punch someone through a building. They just lost their weapon. I believe you can come up with situations where the same happens. All you need is acceleration and the arms of the battlesuit loosening for just a second. Or even an enterprising sod willing to hit you with a grenade.
"there is little reason for a military suit to change its main weapon in the middle of a fight" Indeed, but having to build a different suit for every weapon is less effective than just giving a different weapon before each engagement.
As I said, some weapons might be easily replaced by switching the limb, which is a very easy process, much easier then changing the armament of a tank. Some other battlesuits will not be able to do that.
But integrated weapons are still a big advantage. The fact that they are sturdy and stable and yet able to move in all terrains better than tanks makes them very good heavy weapon platforms. You can have artillery that can fire giant guns with minimal deployment time and then reposition anywhere they want, while still being able to defend themselves from infantry.
Well, this is the first major rebellion against the UWM, so we're pioneers there. And yes, our missions probably won't feature these (because they don't make for very good missions, see battle of Hep), but the background units probably will. I mean, it's very silly to start with that an entire planet has only a single important base with a QEC (like on Q'Baja), but I can see that's needed for story reasons. But that doesn't hold water for the background. And you can have close-range vehicles as well, we have them in RL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT_Terminator
The advantage: more armor and heavier weapons on a more stable platform for the same money. Also note that the tactics the UWM used there were idiotic at best. Had they dropped longer ranged tanks outside our laser battery umbrella, they could have spawned 5 times the troops at least, and started shelling us from afar. Why do you think I ordered so much artillery back then? I was afraid they'd just outgun us, LESHO snipe our defense batteries or something, then overwhelm us with numbers. Instead they threw most their forces at our laser defenses (those things had by far the most kills).
I believe our troops will be simply doing that, taking important objectives and being the elite troops, with the local forces handling the large scale fighting with some assistance. After all, we don't have the resources to equip entire planets and it will take a while for other planets to create any advanced manufacturing facilities needed to build advanced materials like we're using and then upgrade their entire arsenal.
And those things were part of the
space defence laser
planetary network. They were hitting things too high up for us to see. By the time anything got close enough to be seen, it couldn't be hit by them. It did not matter where they landed, the entire planet was covered more or less the same (the extra one we had built in the base probably did not make a very large difference). So landing close to us is actually a better idea, since we cannot launch hit and run, sniper or artillery strikes at them z(not without risking hitting our own troops) and they can take advantage of the smoke, heat and debris that makes seeing them harder so that they can make their way past our defences and reach our sensitive targets. Plus, they were not equipped for a planetary invasion, so going for the kill and capturing the enemy command post was a better idea, since they had no clue how many of us were down there. It's better to shut down our laser defences so that they can send troops down more easily and stop wasting men instead of just destroying a single target. Because even if they destroyed the Sword, if they destroyed the command centre, the laser defences and ARESTEVE would still be online. They could still be shot down from orbit. Only reason we didn't do so immediately is because we wanted to capture those ships. And it would have worked for them too if it wasn't for our amp wielders (which was our biggest advantage) and piecewise being nice. The only move they made that did not make sense was not sending the killbots first, although that might have been because they were afraid they were going to be shot down while in orbit and wanted to shutdown our defences as quickly as possible. Or maybe because the killdroids have no IFF. In hindsight, ordering so much artillery was a bad move. It would had been better to focus on automated defences for sensitive areas and sods with heavy weapons and armour.
Also, if you want spess magick protection, consider sticking those anti-magic rods from outside R&D on your suit. Those seem to work.
I'll bet you they have some sort of extreme energy or resource cost, or maybe they're alien artefacts themselves. Still worth looking into though, if there's a chance it will help. From what I understand, they stop the destabilization of spacetime and reality that makes some of space magic possible. Or maybe the simply block off levels of spacetime different than our own, given how the things Pancaek was imagining became real but ineffective. And who knows, if they turn out to be useful, maybe we can get some sort of anti-ghost-ship weapon.
Hmmm... Wonder what would happen if you got the AM near one of them...
Still, we were examining the needs for our npc troops, and we are conflating with the situation for an rtd-based merc group with very different mission parameters. If we were given our equipment before a mission, you could jsut take a special drone/robot/specialized equipment to help you explore, and use combat equipment for actual combat.
Well, it does reduce complexity. A battlesuit is a battlesuit. It has the same chassis as all battlesuits, just different equipment built into that. And saves you from designing new equipment for each mission. And designing equipment for each mission is extremely hard because we have no idea what we are going to face. It's better to have something that does an OK job against anything than something that does a superb job against one thing. Plus, we re given tokens to buy equipment. We are not given equipment before each mission unless absolutely necessary. And yet for a group of explorers, we have very little things to buy that help us to explore. We just have a lot of guns. Which seems very strange considering what the HMRC was supposed to be. Then again, I guess when you have enough men to throw at the problem, you start hoping that out of the thirty-six that go in, one of them will survive with an interesting trinket, one of them will come back impregnated with a superpower bestowing alien virus and one of them will become the host of some hideous creature that wants to kill everything around it. So, you know, acceptable losses.
Author
Topic: Hephaestus OOC (Read 164237 times)