What are Cyborgs good for?

[whippersnapper]

.

I want you to know TVR that I understand your points and I am not engaging here as a contest to see who is right or smarter or trying to persuade
anyone to my position of acting, doing. My main motivation is to illustrate that the truths are not pat or all that simple. They are multi-faceted, complex and it is of value to see all the possibilities, on the ground. There's a maxim in General Semantics that states - "The map is not the territory." Which just means a map is a useful tool but it is important to not forget that it is abstracted & simplified & a slice in time and in a very real sense cannot take the place of experience on the ground.

Quote "whippersnapper"= 2006, Hezbollah, Lebanon War...

TVR wrote: Those are not examples of open-field warfare, non-military structures are protected by Hague conventions and other rules of engagement, therefore they are not targeted and remain standing.

Tactics & tech (hi or low) that exploit asymmetric edges trump rules of engagement and counters that do not acknowledge that fact and act accordingly are at a critical disadvantage. You make far too much of open field engagement WW 2, Battle of the Bulge style, in 21st century military conflicts. The Guerrilla tac is merely to use that as an opportunity to nettle-distract, hit and run style especially during re-fueling and really focus on supply lines to armor columns. You pick your "field" with velocity (and terrain that places armor at a disadvantage) not as a defining entrenched stand in 21st century doctrine and that is also being manifest in all the resources being poured by Nations into transforming their military to reflect that very different doctrine variously called "Army After Next", "4 G Warfare", etc. You can get a good idea of this real movement by going thru D.A.R.P.A.s archive of funded military application projects from the early 1990s to the present. It is a consistent thread in type and forms.

Quote "whippersnapper" = ... Wonder just how the insurgents are managing that ? ... Guerrilla Tacs used ...

TVR wrote: Insurgency with anti-tank mines placed on patrol routes in a built up area, tactics which do not apply to an assault with combat engineering equipment.

Ok... As I see it however you want to characterize the semantics of losses and casualties does not change the results of the tactics - losses and casualties. You counter the tactics in battle and the semantics are for diplomatic negotiations.

Quote "whippersnapper" = ... Just one of many possible scenario outcomes by way of science-based forecasting ..

TVR wrote: You are challenging canon, the premise of less than a million people on the planet is declared in a statement from the opening monologue.

Yes, I am... It's a tissue thin fiction, why not. In fact even as a fictional canon or construct Pumpkin's portrayal of such a world contradicts (and is not at all consistent) with it's own internal logic. It's a long laundry list, that, and at the moment I'm not inclined to detail here as i have already done elsewhere.. However that's not the reason I challenge it. I challenge it because it's a straight-jacket PoV to a far richer game play experience and that PoV is not at all representative of the peeps who created the game from scratch - Pumpkin Studios...

Pumpkin's choices where mostly geared to making an enhanced tank game in the first phase of WZ's development-release, get it out the door to start generating revenues and over time build on that thru 2120 and making more of Borg and Vtol GPMs, among other changes that included nano tech.

WZ is an unfinished game and was designed, very specifically for open-ended development and change, not just eye-candy but actual game play mechanics as per the peeps that created it - Pumpkin.. That was their mission and it was made as clear as day in their BBs repeatedly over the course of a year.

Regards, whipper
.

[TVR]

... You make far too much of open field engagement WW 2, Battle of the Bulge style, in 21st century military conflicts ...

Technically Warzone 2100 occurs during the 22nd century, conventional warfare applies with AFV versus AFV engagements not seen since WWII, in a manner similar to most RTS games.

My intention is to state AFVs are the end-all of all military tactics in open-field warfare, and practical in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

... As I see it however you want to characterize the semantics of losses and casualties does not change the results of the tactics - losses and casualties ...

Rather, insurgency does not function in an unoccupied territory, and it requires that the occupier follows the Geneva conventions.

[Zarel]

Rather, insurgency does not function in an unoccupied territory, and it requires that the occupier follows the Geneva conventions.

Which Warzone isn't, since Warzone is one of those "shoot anything that moves" games (except that one Cam2 rescue mission).

[whippersnapper]

whippersnapper wrote:... You make far too much of open field engagement WW 2, Battle of the Bulge style, in 21st century military conflicts ...

TVR wrote: Technically Warzone 2100 occurs during the 22nd century, conventional warfare applies with AFV versus AFV engagements not seen since WWII, in a manner similar to most RTS games.

Yes 22nd century so why is combat modeled on warfare from the 1940s, totally skipping-over everything since Vietnam to today ?

TVR wrote: My intention is to state AFVs are the end-all of all military tactics in open-field warfare, and practical in a post-apocalyptic wasteland

I can make a strong case for the opposite point of view based on the concept of "resource scarcity" applied across the board, globally, and a severely curtailed industrial infrastructure base. Strat and tacs are totally dependent on this and in military parlance it is called "Logistics" and it's been said that armchair generals think of strategy, whereas professionals study logistics... Here's a good place to start that -

* Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton by Martin van Creveld

In my analysis (and that's accepting the wasteland scenario defined in the skimpy back-story) AFV investments would be absurd and what would make much more sense under those conditions would be mini tech as opposed to macro tech with mastery of nano being the ultimate goal (Gene engineering would be another central goal). Also, there would be a premium placed first on intel gathering via MUAVs and then guerrilla tacs favoring nimble velocity, multiple vector force strength over a front line in need of massive concentrated, and vulnerable supply lines., Btw this is practically synonymous with Spec Ops. The recent success of the "Surge" in Iraq is directly attributable to this approach and NOT armor.

There are many, many, tomes on maneuver written by combat veteran officers (from Captains to Generals) in the last 15 years that support my position but I will just recommend one:

* Breaking the Phalanx: A New Design for Landpower in the 21st Century by Douglas A. Macgregor

whippersnapper wrote:... As I see it however you want to characterize the semantics of losses and casualties does not change the results of the tactics - losses and casualties ...

TVR: Rather, insurgency does not function in an unoccupied territory, and it requires that the occupier follows the Geneva conventions.

My bad for using the term "insurgency" because it is basically utilized for political and propaganda ends. One sides power structure calls them "insurgents" while they call themselves "Freedom Fighters" or "True Patriots" - ie. the British Crown during the Revolutionary War with the Colonies, the N. vs. S during the Civil War, the US vs Native Americans, and on and on...through-out world history.

The more neutral term that actually has a specific set of military strats and tacs would be "Guerrilla Ops". A good place to start learning about that would be:

* Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam by John A. Nagl

Let me use the analogy of a champion prize fighter boxer schooled in the rules of the Marquess of Queensberry. The bad ass boxer meets up with a competent street fighter schooled in KAPAP in a back alley on his way home after a night of carousing with 3 ladies of the evening (our champion has a potent and virile appetite for the fair sex). If the boxer insists on adhering to the Marquess of Queensberry Rules of fighting then the KAPAP nobody street fighter will kill the champion boxer in under 2 minutes flat. No doubt.

And yes Guerrilla Ops have taken place (and still do) between occupied settlements through-out the last 500 year history of war... at least that long.

Again the corroborating evidence for that position is voluminous - but I'll suggest just one work to get you started:

* Phantom Soldier: The Enemy's Answer to U.S. Firepower by H. John Poole, Mike Leahy, William S. Lind

Regards, whipper
.

[TVR]

... so why is combat modeled on warfare from the 1940s, totally skipping-over everything since Vietnam to today ...

It is such due to the lack of symmetric conventional warfare from the 1945 onward, therefore no tactics from more recent conflicts can apply to a post-nuclear conventional war.

... it is called "Logistics" ... AFV investments would be absurd ...

In barren wasteland with human scarcity, automated AFVs are the superior choice for combat operations.

Organic combat divisions require food specifically, which is not likely to be found in an environment with high levels of background radiation, but robots require energy, which may be generated from numerous existing methods.

The most important reason for the use of automated military robots is for the prevention of human losses, which cannot be replaced as AFVs, and are needed to further various non-combat objectives.

... The more neutral term that actually has a specific set of military strats and tacs would be "Guerrilla Ops". ...

The crucial distinction between guerilla tactics and insurgency is the former occurs during an asymmetrical war with territorial boundaries and a front, while insurgency occurs during territorial occupation.

[Per]

Rather, insurgency does not function in an unoccupied territory, and it requires that the occupier follows the Geneva conventions.

Tell that to the Russian partisans during WWII.

In barren wasteland with human scarcity, automated AFVs are the superior choice for combat operations.

Organic combat divisions require food specifically, which is not likely to be found in an environment with high levels of background radiation, but robots require energy, which may be generated from numerous existing methods.

That is true. Robots also have weaknesses of their own. What could be fun would be to work out what a primarily infantry-based faction would have to be like to be able to not only survive in such an environment, but to challenge the robot-centric armies of the Project/Nexus/Collective/NP.

[Craig]

you know i just thought, you know that scavanger raider footsoldiers are tiny, but i remember in a in game scene where it said cyborgs where people in power suits, how come the cyborgs look about 10 feet tall in game :-S

[Mysteryem]

you know i just thought, you know that scavanger raider footsoldiers are tiny, but i remember in a in game scene where it said cyborgs where people in power suits, how come the cyborgs look about 10 feet tall in game :-S

And have you ever compared the size of scavengers to the size of the doors on the skyscraper features? There are a lot of things that aren't to scale.

[Revelo]

And have you ever compared the size of scavengers to the size of the doors on the skyscraper features? There are a lot of things that aren't to scale.

Considering the game was before the age of realism I'd say it does not matter about size. You have so much fun it doesn't matter.

[whippersnapper]

.
Hmmm... there's lots to think about in those last posts.... I'll be back, as Arnold would say.

.

[whippersnapper]

.

Ok.... back and fully expanded in light of these postings, thoughts, etc... with a plethora of new details.

----------------------------------------->

This is also gonna be a summary of my point of view on all of this on top of speaking specifically to postings...

---------------------------------------------------------->

There is a definition of art that I'm very fond of that goes like this:

Art is the selective recreation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value judgments.

Games are works of art. An RTS is not only a genre of game but of art as well.
(Why I love our branding of A.R.T.S. for Advanced RTS back in the day.)

I've never advocated making a simulation (or hyper realism) out of an RTS.

How I do see approaching RTS evolution vis a vis RL military or science or "realism" is this way:

The creation of RTS GPMs (& game world rules) via the selective recreation of realism based on the most fun and varied
decision making related to the experience of war fighting with armies...(as opposed to squad level tacticals)

Which is why I find Per's suggestion a rich way of framing a direction of development-creation.

Mysteryem is absolutely right. I did a side by side comparison last year of map features and structs which I did a screen cap of (should find it) - scale in WZ is totally fracked (loved the first 3 seasons of the new BSG).

Revelo too makes a key point - as long as it's fun the degree of realism is secondary to the extent that it is trumped by an immersive, engaging, experience overall - that too falls under "artistry".

TVR wrote:

It is such due to the lack of symmetric conventional warfare from the 1945 onward, therefore no tactics from more recent conflicts can apply to a post-nuclear conventional war.

I'm sorry TVR - I honestly do not understand how that translates to a GPM design imperative...

I think the real answer is that when Pumpkin was creating WZ circa 1997 the concept of Asymmetric Warfare was not discussed much outside hardcore military circles so they may not have been aware of it to take it into account. OR if they were aware of it they were NOT prepared to take on the greater design challenges at that time. Implementing asymmetric GPMs in an RTS is a far greater challenge than conventional GPMs. Assuming that the lessons of and commitments to dealing in Asymmetric Conflicts will be lost between now and 2100 and that there would be a wholesale regression to the front line phalanx requires a set rationales and extrapolations I cannot see making credible. Maybe you can. You have in no way done so to this point. You are merely making flat declarations.

Also - armor & Vtol power plants are nothing more than internal combustion engines requiring the same logistics as we presently face but even more pronounced as far as the need for parsimony. Borgs ? Who the frack knows ?

------------------------------------------------------------->

Lastly - you seem totally unfamiliar with current and future infantry commitments, capabilities and tech collectively known at present as Land Warrior Systems..

There is a nice film documentary that can bring you up to speed without having to read the massive lit from the DOD to DARPA. You can get to the film through the following link:

Documentary highlights success of Land Warrior System - May 27, 2009

Technically, by definition, Cyborgs are equally man-machine but if you wanna make them mostly machine like in the Terminator movies, fine (Terminators are more accurately defined as robots, but why quibble over semantics)... Then just take "Land Warrior Systems" and apply it to another faction (like Per's suggestion) or you can even make a good rationale for applying them to Scavs... it's all a fiction - make it credible and entertaining are the real challenges - again, artistry.

I can even see nano tech being tied to a "Land Warrior Systems" based faction or how about this -

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) Programmable Matter - June 2009 which Pumpkin ALREADY wrote the GPM code for !!! (they even released but then later turned it off or commented it out).

Regards, whipper
.
.

[JimmyJumpUp]

Well, not to be breaking in on the Cyborg war but....

Personaly I think a cyborg would be good to take out the trash or walk the dog but in WZ I found the best use is in the repair borgs.

Damaged units will go back to a repair tower stop there and, if it is in use, start to repair themselfs. They will not move again untill they are done. Then they go to the repair tower to get unneeded repairs. This all takes way too much time so I park 4 or 5 repair borgs around the tower to speed up the selfrepairing units and get them back to there commanders faster.

Oh yes, and they move through trafic james real good, if you can find a use for that.

Whip.

You got some good stuff there. I didn't know there was so much science out there realy looking at cyborg tech.

[Deus Siddis]

Cyborgs should be able to climb cliffs, cross rivers and have strong stealth and hit-ability advantages, especially when not moving. In addition they should be cheap and fast to produce, but significantly less durable and always have a weapon no more than half as powerful and ranged as its vehicle/structure mounted counterpart.

Currently they are just spam you produce when you don't have a standing army to face a sudden attacker, or to mix with tanks soley for their damage taking differences (and only when the enemy has no real artillery) and whenever you are too lazy or too cheap to design and build a vehicle.

[Samowar]

If I build Flamer tanks, they always get killed (low hitpoints and they have to go close to their target). So if Flamers are on a suicide mission anyway, I can just as well build expendable Flamer Cyborgs. At least that's their use in Skirmish. In Campaign I see no way to use them.

[devastator]

Flamers are not suicide.The only way to stop them is hardcrete.They can destroy everything.Try to build 10 hover cobra flamers on 15th minute and then soon prepare some inferno units and you will see their power at skirmish game.