Johannes replied to me: > A less canonical but IMHO more realistic approach to the tactics skill > would be to require specialisations for different types of foes with > different equipement, training and tactics (for quick and dirty you can > use TL as specialisation, or you can add the opponents tactics > specialisation to the description of armies of your world) or alternativly > use some style familiarity mechanism.
The WWII series does that. It doesn't quite answer my objections if you consider the investment in MRAP vehicles and IED sensors, at the expense of MBTs and MLRS. So even if there is the old tank battle tactics expert system on file, will there be the kit to use it? > I would assume, that at some point the amount of learning required to > increase your abilities would increase by much, though that is not > represented by GURPS rules. It also would be hard to come up with a skill > level, where this should start, because there does not really seem to be a > consensus, which skill level should map to which real life abilities. Agreed. > So essentially you have tactics (AI on humand) versus tactics (human on > AI) that get assymetric situaational modifers. This gives you some > wiggleroom for slapping penalities on AIs. It works even better, if in > your setting combat AIs are built to fight other AIs and using them on > humans is an exceptional case, that happens to hardly anyone but pcs, > because then the AIs have to default from their tactics (AI on AI) skill. Nah, my idea is a setting where AIs are marginalized, because they don't work and not because of an arms control agreement like the Traveller setting. Regards, Onno _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
