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.
You still have some leeway to essentially give humans a free bonus, with
the reasoning, that the conditions of the setting favours tactics (human
on AI) over tactics (AI over human)
Extrapolating from the differences between chess and poker, that should be
a setting, where stealth is good and sensors bad, and where it's hard to
change plans during the battle. Propably jamming communication lines
works very well.
Yet an other direction to consider is that AIs and humans play different
roles in the same army. Like humans are infantry and AI's are tanks.
If you assume analysis of pictures stays a computer weakness, humans may
stay valuable for scouting for instance.
If your aim is conquering territory with civilian population, you might
need humans for crowd control that does not boil down to "no more crowd,
no more control neccessary", if you assume AIs will not be good at social
skills.
_______________________________________________
GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]>
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
