Johannes replied to me: > 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)
That would be a house rule, right? > 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. A lot of humans could die to take out one AI. I want people to shine. > If you assume analysis of pictures stays a computer weakness, humans may > stay valuable for scouting for instance. Or humans in the command tent and AIs on the frontline. But then where is the risk for PCs? > 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. That could turn the other way, too. The human MPs may be a bit xenophobic (because media at home supports the war), under stress, in fear for their life, and then one pulls the trigger. Or the crowd sees young people much like themselves, and there are cynical activists in the rear who urge them to cross the red line, and another red line, and another, because "those cowards wouldn't shoot" ... Regards, Onno _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
