Drone tanks

[Airborne Rifles]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-drone-uran-9/

The Russians are showcasing one. Looks to be based on the BMD chassis. Not suggesting that this needs to be in any OOB, but it got me thinking about how something like this could be modeled in the game. A couple thoughts I had were:

1. Reduced vision rating to show loss of situational awareness by the remote operator

2. No suppression (crew of 0, no one to suppress)

Thoughts?

[DRG]

You can't have a vehicle in the game with zero crew

[Mobhack]

A crew of 0 => a dead unit.

Why do you think that UAVs have 1 crew?

A "drone" tank would thus just be yet another tank in game terms.

[Airborne Rifles]

Thanks for the info on the crew size. I hadn't looked at the UAVs (or IEDs for that matter) already modeled.

I guess my question is if there is a way to prevent the unit from becoming suppressed since there is no one to suppress, while at the same time giving the unit a lower likelihood of spotting things around it since the operator is going to be looking at everything through a TV camera instead of standing up in a hatch to look around freely (I have some experience with this using the RWS on Strykers). These are the two main differences I see between a 'drone' tank and a manned one.

[Mobhack]

It is a completely unworkable idea, given that the whole game is based round units that have morale and training, that get suppressed by bad things happening to them and their mates. Drones don't have morale.

There is no game concept of command of such beasties - I'd have to write oodles of code to say that A controls B,C and D and if A gets killed, B,C and D stop working. They would need a new class - and there really isnt any free, all 255 are used up IIRC.

So, basically a whole heap of "not going to happen".

See WW2 - the Goliath remote demolition tank. Its treated pretty much as a suicide truck is in MBT. There isn't any way to connect the Goliath with some control box. And it can get frightened and run away all by itself since as far as the game is concerned, its a vehicle. Which is OK for a fringe item that really could only be useful for flavour in a scenario.

You may want to try a drone tank class with a container formation with experience -50, morale +50. But they would have no "boss" to kill to make them all go stupid, etc.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I see "suppression" being assigned to lesser degree maybe, but, still there in terms of "electronics" and reliability of internal moving parts i.e. the auto loader etc. The constant jarring of a tank taking multiple hits and near misses is bound to have an effect on all the extra circuitry and computers that will be required not to mention also extra sensors around the tank also that'll be more susceptible to artillery fire etc. The other issue will be how do you treat the "experience" level? A tank crew are made up of mechanics and technicians, hopefully cross trained that can keep the tank in the fight. Point being there's a lot to take into consideration here, and I'm afraid that until the ARMATA goes into combat with it's automated computer based turret (But with a crew to repair damage as they will have access to the turret.) we're not going to have much in the near to mid term on to be able to much more than guess on the capabilities of such a tank. Just a few quick thoughts.
But technology does march on.

Regards,
Pat

[Airborne Rifles]

Gentlemen, thanks for the replies. Mobhack, I'll try what you suggest and see what happens. Again, I'm not in any way clamoring for this to be added to the game (I've got serious doubts about whether this whole 'drone' tank concept is at all viable on the battlefield), but on the other hand a good scenario designer could possibly manipulate some of the unit characteristics to approximate some of these emerging technologies. I really appreciate the work you all put into this incredible program. I don't think there is anything out there that even comes close to the versatility of WinSPMBT!