Proportions Mod Versions 2.5.2 and 2.5.3 available

[oleg]

Originally posted by PvK:

I am also following much sci-fi in this. None of the sci-fi I am familiar with has computers superior fleet commanders to biologicals.

PvK[/QB]

In Asimov' works robots are much better humans than most of us

[PvK]

Well I guess I disagree with Fryon and Asimov in those predictions. I also think it's highly inadvisable to actually create autonomous machines with "superior intelligence", not to mention giving them control of one's weapons...

PvK

[Fyron]

It is no worse than training people to use those weapons. Wait, it is better, because you can make the basic core of their programming designed so that they will obey you, and can not act to harm you.

[PsychoTechFreak]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It is no worse than training people to use those weapons. Wait, it is better, because you can make the basic core of their programming designed so that they will obey you, and can not act to harm you.

I think an AI with the capacity of a human brain and more would definitely be able to circumvent every program barrier in order to adapt to new situations, a feature that we call "learning". The only thing that I could imagine is to program a kind of conscience, but that has failed for human brains, so it will have to fail for computers also.

[Fyron]

The only thing that I could imagine is to program a kind of conscience, but that has failed for human brains, so it will have to fail for computers also.

People do have a conscience. Most people listen to it occasionally.

[PvK]

Laugh laugh laugh...

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by PvK:
For the AI's sake I agree it would make sense to make master computers a seperate tech.

I should proabably revisit master computers a bit, but the point of the penalty is that I do not agree that a computer makes as good a warrior as a martial-minded biological. As we all know, AI's tend to be predictable and unable to adapt to the unpredictable complexities of an evolving tactical situation.

This has nothing to do with target tracking. That is covered by combat sensors and multiplex tracking, which can be used by humans or computers alike. The combat penalties for MC represent the very real factors that are beneath the scale of SE4's combat engine to represent in detail, but which would in my opinion make experiencd biological crews more formidable than computers. Ingenuity, innovation, unpredictability, will to survive, etc.

Also, I think master computers should definitely NOT have the "ability to gain experience". Relative ability arguments notwithstanding, with a computer, if it could learn, there would be no reason you couldn't download and broadcast its data to other computers, and have all master computers at the same experience level. It's not possible to mod that, nor to mod away their learning ability. The penalties therefore also compensate for this silly ability of master computers.

However, if you do climb to the top of the master computer tech tree, the penalties are only -5/-2.

PvK

There are several different factors involved in combat effectiveness, and the problem with the MC vs. 'biological' minds is that these cannot be modeled in SE IV combat, as you say PvK.

The thing that most everyone else thinks is important is sheer detail management -- tracking targets, calculating how much ordinance to throw at those targets based on expected hit ratio and damage that should be done, calculating how to maneuver for a good shot and/or to avoid being hit by enemy weapons, etc. These are all essentially about tactics and the one type of 'biological' mind that we know (ourselves) does tend to be less effective at tactical detail than a 'mechanical' mind. Thus the use of computers in almost all combat vehicles today, and many civilian vehicles.

You seem to feel that strategy and creative problem solving, 'thinking outside the box', is more important than tactical detail management. I certainly agree that in abstruse areas like ship design (balancing fuel capacity, engine power, defenses, weapons, etc...) the biological mind seems to be much superior. But what you do not consider is that actual combat is a small subset of the expansive 'real world' situation where the biological mind can find ways to work around the limitations of the mechanical mind. Once you get into actual combat it's all about speed, distance, and intersecting the enemy location(s) with your weapons while avoiding their weapons. I think that a machine will always be far superior at this limited task than any biological mind as we know them. (But who knows... maybe there is some 'super-sensory' race out there who can track a dozen moving targets at once and calculate ballistic trajectories in their heads? We definitely don't want to piss them off, if so... ) On the other hand, the opportunity for 'creative' solutions in the time it takes a dreadnaught to close in and vaporize you with massive mount PPBs is pretty small.

It makes sense for the early MC to be very ineffective. All technologies take time to mature. But I think it's unfair not to allow the MC to become as good as biological crews at some point. I do agree that we should be able to have a computer that does NOT gain experience, though. There's a difference between remote/robotic piloted ships and true AI control. Only the very top-end of the computer techs should have learning computers. Yet Another Request for MM. Will he ever implement this, and a zillion other small requests?

[ February 09, 2003, 22:00: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[PvK]

I emphasized strategy (meaning, decision-making) because I think that is the difference between a Master Computer ship and biologically commanded ship. As I said before I think the biologically commanded ship will have just as many computer aids for tracking targets and making tactical suggestions as a computer one will. The difference is who/what makes the decisions about what to do and when, and I think that computer behaviour will continue to be more predictable and less inspired than a skilled biological commander with insights and abilities to understand beyond formulae. Tactical formulae can produce options for the biological commander on the biological ship too, but the biological gets to use his brain to override mistakes that algorithms won't always be able to catch. Etc.

Mainly, though, I don't have many choices about how to mod this in SE4. SE4 does not give me a way to eliminate or alter the training mechanic for master computers. If I could, I might give computers some bonus, but take away their ability to gain experience, so skilled biologicals could potentially out-do them. But that can't be modded. Given my choices, this is my estimate of what the differences should be. Players are of couse free to disagree and mod the mod.

PvK

[PsychoTechFreak]

Is it still possible to use both, computers and biomass to avoid allegiance subverts?

I mean, if I put a ship under human control with the backup solution of a computer in standby mode, but the negative combat values would still subtract from the total, right?

For this case I think about a proposal to add a neutral component with the shielding effects against AS but without any control features, maybe called "councillor", is that even possible?

EDIT: I guess it has been patched recently that even if the computer has been destroyed the AS would not take effect, so forget about it...

[ February 10, 2003, 11:51: Message edited by: PsychoTechFreak ]

[Phoenix-D]

You can partially counter-act the negative effects of the computer by adding a Combat Bridge. That will add 10 to your ship's attack/defense Ratings.

Phoenix-D