Proportions Mod Versions 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 available

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by PvK:
For the AI's sake I agree it would make sense to make master computers a seperate tech.

I should proabably revisit master computers a bit, but the point of the penalty is that I do not agree that a computer makes as good a warrior as a martial-minded biological. As we all know, AI's tend to be predictable and unable to adapt to the unpredictable complexities of an evolving tactical situation.

This has nothing to do with target tracking. That is covered by combat sensors and multiplex tracking, which can be used by humans or computers alike. The combat penalties for MC represent the very real factors that are beneath the scale of SE4's combat engine to represent in detail, but which would in my opinion make experiencd biological crews more formidable than computers. Ingenuity, innovation, unpredictability, will to survive, etc.

Also, I think master computers should definitely NOT have the "ability to gain experience". Relative ability arguments notwithstanding, with a computer, if it could learn, there would be no reason you couldn't download and broadcast its data to other computers, and have all master computers at the same experience level. It's not possible to mod that, nor to mod away their learning ability. The penalties therefore also compensate for this silly ability of master computers.

However, if you do climb to the top of the master computer tech tree, the penalties are only -5/-2.

PvK

There are several different factors involved in combat effectiveness, and the problem with the MC vs. 'biological' minds is that these cannot be modeled in SE IV combat, as you say PvK.

The thing that most everyone else thinks is important is sheer detail management -- tracking targets, calculating how much ordinance to throw at those targets based on expected hit ratio and damage that should be done, calculating how to maneuver for a good shot and/or to avoid being hit by enemy weapons, etc. These are all essentially about tactics and the one type of 'biological' mind that we know (ourselves) does tend to be less effective at tactical detail than a 'mechanical' mind. Thus the use of computers in almost all combat vehicles today, and many civilian vehicles.

You seem to feel that strategy and creative problem solving, 'thinking outside the box', is more important than tactical detail management. I certainly agree that in abstruse areas like ship design (balancing fuel capacity, engine power, defenses, weapons, etc...) the biological mind seems to be much superior. But what you do not consider is that actual combat is a small subset of the expansive 'real world' situation where the biological mind can find ways to work around the limitations of the mechanical mind. Once you get into actual combat it's all about speed, distance, and intersecting the enemy location(s) with your weapons while avoiding their weapons. I think that a machine will always be far superior at this limited task than any biological mind as we know them. (But who knows... maybe there is some 'super-sensory' race out there who can track a dozen moving targets at once and calculate ballistic trajectories in their heads? We definitely don't want to piss them off, if so... ) On the other hand, the opportunity for 'creative' solutions in the time it takes a dreadnaught to close in and vaporize you with massive mount PPBs is pretty small.

It makes sense for the early MC to be very ineffective. All technologies take time to mature. But I think it's unfair not to allow the MC to become as good as biological crews at some point. I do agree that we should be able to have a computer that does NOT gain experience, though. There's a difference between remote/robotic piloted ships and true AI control. Only the very top-end of the computer techs should have learning computers. Yet Another Request for MM. Will he ever implement this, and a zillion other small requests?

[ February 09, 2003, 22:00: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]