Crusher unmanned combat vehicle

[Falkayn]

I came across the Crusher today and it looks like we really will have robot combat vehicles in the very near future.

Which led me to thinking about 2300/2320AD ... has anyone else updated the tech in their game to include more robots? I know that unmanned reconnaisance vehicles (URVs) are included in the 2320AD tech list, but clearly nothing quite like the Crusher.

So any rules, examples, stories of using them?

 

[epicenter00]

I think Andy Slack once had an article regarding the use of Bolo AI tanks in 2300. I think it was Mr. Slack, at any rate. I could be wrong. Regardless, the article and scenario had behavior charts and other gearhead stuff, if that's what you're looking for.

As a rule, Traveller no matter the flavor has a strong bias against AI and robots. They like to not have machines replace people. While I think part of this might be a failure of imagination, most of it was probably a desire to keep the 'human angle' foremost as Traveller is essentially an 'age of sail in the stars.' Despite the more rigorous application of plausible high technology to everyday life in 2300, one area that it is lacking is in AI.

In my 2300 games, I always considered that the timeline was "retarded" by the Twilight War - that 2300 is what 2100 should have been if not for this war that basically set mankind back like 200 years in development. So I always set developments like true AI and battle-mobile systems as budding developments.

I've always had extensive industrial automation in 2300 on the Core Worlds. In fact, for someone who grew up on Colonies, the changes that have been occuring on Earth are probably difficult to imagine (even on cosmopolitan places like Beta Canum Venticorum). The military acceptance of robotic systems probably varies wildly.

* France probably dislikes them and has tried to include armed robots on the list of weapons banned in war in 2300. Nations that are allies of France generally line up with the French view (this is my reason why you don't see this stuff). So places like America, England, and so forth also follow the French lead. However, with the Kafer War, the French are reviewing their stance on robots. Kafers clearly aren't human, so it's okay to use pitiless robots on them.

* Germany probably embraces robotic systems, but lacks the experience to field lots of them. However, they're built with a pramatic view towards effectiveness. They're probably experimenting with AI-driven Lukis. The odd design of the latest Luki was that it wasn't originally designed to have a crew - it was to be an AI vehicle, and the current Lukis were developed from crewed prototypes used for working the kinks of the basic design. Vehicles like the Crusher might be used by Germans.

* Manuchuria is probably struggling to develop good robotic systems and despite their antipathy with Japan, get a lot of technology from the Japanese. The Manchu use of robotic combatants (mostly in the form of "smart missiles") is probably responsible for a lot French dislike of robots. Manchu robots would be cheap and simple.

* Japan probably utilizes the most robotic technology. It's probably really freakish for people from other countries the way the Japanese embrace robots. They probably have humaniform robots as greeters in front of stores, that concierge at the hotel may be another. Nurses and orderlies in urban hospitals might be robots as well, bearing robotic pets to keep old people company. Such robots wouldn't be true AIs, but have good expert routines that would fool most people into thinking they're humans, provided conversations were reasonably short (on the order of 15 mins).

On the battlefield, Japanese robots would be very sophisticated, but hampered in effectiveness by the Japanese obsession with humanoid robots, so there wouldn't be autonomous tanks and such, but you would see AI walkers and such - sophisticated, smart (if not a little quirky at times), and ... easily fragged by AT missiles. Perhaps not as experienced or advanced, but robots of the Germans and the French would actually be more effective on the battlefield as they would be built more with an eye towards function instead of form.

In my 2300-derived Traveller game I plan to run soon, robots will probably be a bigger presence. Stuff like security guard robots, initial saturation bombing aircraft, "berserker" style terror weapons, and other extremely hazardous or boring tasks would probably be covered by robots.

 

[Colin]

2320AD includes a guard robot, a cleaning robot, a surveillance drone, and a construction robot. I didn't include combat robotics in the main book, for a variety of reasons. Space was one, but mostly having combat robotics reduces the need for people, and people are what 2320 is about. I do plan on including "prototype" combat robotics in the future.

The use of robotic weapons in the Twilight War engendered a deep mistrust of automatic weapon systems, and though the technology is there, it is seldom used. Couple that to the fact that AI systems tend to go psychotic/catatonic within a few days/weeks of activation, and such "smart" weapons systems are rare.

There was an article in an old Challenge magazine called "Ghost Tank" that feautured an Lk IX as a robotic tank. Rather than going psychotic, it instead became fixated on finding and defeating Kafers (or something like that. It's been a while).

There was another article on using Ogres (SJ Games AI supertanks) in 2300, including stats for 2300 vehicles in the Ogre/GEV system.

 

[GJD]

There was also a scenario in Chellenge called "This is a Test" where a humanoid combat unit goes bonkers during a test on a remote island. Can't remember the source of the bonkers-ness, but I remember it was a pretty nasty piece of work, dual FAM-90's, PGMP in the arm, dual grenade launchers and a missile launcher IIRC. PC's have to either defeat it, or keep it away from the assembled dignitaries and scientists come to view the tests. The mission was a real meatgrinder.

I ran a cyberpunk scenario dealing with AI equipped combat units, that performed perfectly during testing and on virtual battlefields, but then refused point blank to shoot a real-live person when it got into combat. When the PC's pointed out it had shot plenty of targets before, it replied "Yeah, but at the end of the day, no matter how sophisticated they were they were still all essentially paper targets, not real people". ThEy were expecting it to go kill-crazy, or turn on them or something like that, not refuse to fight.

G.

 

[mbrinkhues]

There are two "bot" scenarios in Challenge:

<Spoiler, Spoiler>Two Challenge scenarios revealed

As GJD stated "This is only a test" involved an experimental combat bot. The unit does not go bonkers, it's programmer does and programs it to handle the operation as "War" instead of as "Exercise". The bot behaves quite smart and logical. Funny side-notes are that the producer of the bot is also in the movie business and the island is overrun with Movie stars etc.

The second one involves a lance of experimental AI hovertanks called IIRC Gorgons on a World overrun by the events in "Invasion". After the world gets liberated, it is found out that one of the beasts survived and the group get's ordered to "Shut it down" so it can be examined. Problem is the beast is distrustful of everything and will only react to direct communications. The tank was based on a standard Hover (The US M9 was recommended if IMHO silly due to location) with some "helper" bots for field maintenance/refuling

 

[Falkayn]

It would be interesting to run a Zhodani group, given that they take bots into combat.

As a rule, Traveller no matter the flavor has a strong bias against AI and robots. They like to not have machines replace people. While I think part of this might be a failure of imagination, most of it was probably a desire to keep the 'human angle' foremost as Traveller is essentially an 'age of sail in the stars.' Despite the more rigorous application of plausible high technology to everyday life in 2300, one area that it is lacking is in AI.

Yeah, that's a good point about Traveller's bias being against machines replacing people - after all that's what made Virus so terrifying. I like the idea of remote controlled vehicles myself - ones where the basic functions are taken care of for you (so you don't need a remote team of 4 for a tank) and some autonomy is possible (like telling it where to go, and how to react if attacked).

That could offer some interesting possibilities, especially if the controller somehow felt tightly linked to their remote. In fact I seem to remember reading someone's short story about just such a situation, where the people controlled remotes that were essentially cybered animals, and found themselves withdrawing when out of the link.

Personally I find AIs laughable, and doubt that we will ever see ones that really rival humans for creativity of thinking and natural ability. I am sure we will get idiot savant AIs that are brilliant in one dimension, and also that we will have robots that accrete experiences and skills in a way that seems to mimic human learning and self-development - but I think true self-awareness and self-motivation will always be lacking in AIs.

 

[Krakow]

The new Battlestar Galactica has one of the more plausible scenarios for humans mistrusting sophisticated computers and robotics.

 

[veltyen]

Krakow:
The new Battlestar Galactica has one of the more plausible scenarios for humans mistrusting sophisticated computers and robotics.

I saw it the other way arround. A plausible scenario for not trusting religious people.

No wait. Before that kneejerk.

The storyline has elements of the christian takeover of both greece and rome around 1700 years ago. Including the execution of those that would not believe, in the thought that if they have lived worthwhile lives they would go to heaven anyway.

It is never pretty when fairytales (especially fairytales that people kill over) collide.

History set in space, because if you set it in history a lot of people would be very upset.

As for the "killer robot" staple, that is just an extension of frankenstein.

Falkyn:
Personally I find AIs laughable, and doubt that we will ever see ones that really rival humans for creativity of thinking and natural ability. I am sure we will get idiot savant AIs that are brilliant in one dimension, and also that we will have robots that accrete experiences and skills in a way that seems to mimic human learning and self-development - but I think true self-awareness and self-motivation will always be lacking in AIs.

Interesting. I've studied AI quite a bit, and I think we're missing a couple of things. Firstly we're not quite sure how we think (assuming you are human, and not an AI playing an elaborate prank) which puts a block on replicating that.

The idiot savant appearence in the current day has more to do with that lack of understanding. We understand some parts of how humans think well enough to replicate them, at that point the extra power that we can place in a machine to do that thinking makes them appear brilliant at that -very-specific- component.

Eventually though we will be able to create synthetic intelligence. Conceptually at the point of death the entire state (chemical and electrical) of a human is anaylsed and recorded into an accurate simulated environment.

Is the entity in that environment still human, or are they now an AI?

More importantly once we are able to do that we should be able to copy and tweak, eventaully to the point of creating a conciousness that is no longer derived from a human (or other) source.

In the far future this progression isn't really that important. In the near(ish) future of 2300AD we may not have completed that process.

I like the concept of the "Sgt Smith robotic MBT" actually having a copy of a person formerly known as Sgt Smith as the controlling conciousness.

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by veltyen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Krakow:
The new Battlestar Galactica has one of the more plausible scenarios for humans mistrusting sophisticated computers and robotics.

I saw it the other way arround. A plausible scenario for not trusting religious people.

No wait. Before that kneejerk.

The storyline has elements of the christian takeover of both greece and rome around 1700 years ago. Including the execution of those that would not believe, in the thought that if they have lived worthwhile lives they would go to heaven anyway.

It is never pretty when fairytales (especially fairytales that people kill over) collide.

History set in space, because if you set it in history a lot of people would be very upset.

As for the "killer robot" staple, that is just an extension of frankenstein.
</font>[/QUOTE]One of the things that bug me about scifi is the killer robot cliche. I don't have a problem with AI, robots that can be used in combat, and AI-driven combat robots being used against humans by other humans - but the idea a robot will just go 'crazy' and run amok is one of those things that I think get abused so much that's it has entered the realm of the absurd.

Consider: why would anyone with half a gram of sense bother constructing something like... Skynet, for example? (This is before T3, with the idiotic notion that Skynet came about like a virus - I'm talking about the two REAL Terminator films, before stupid retcons - the implication was Skynet was built by humans and practically the first thing it bloody did was try to exterminate it's creator... that's showing gratitude)

Other examples: Ash from Alien. Though you could argue that Ash was always an arsehole and needed a fire extinguisher to the head sooner rather than later. Obviously this model didn't have Asimov's three laws hardwired into them (of course, they didn't exactly stop R. Daneel from breaking his programming).

At least Star Wars shows that combat droids have an 'off' switch and are really being directed by the meatbags in command. I know Star Wars gets a bad rep in a lot of different areas, but I can't see how this doesn't make sense. You're creating a machine that can kill you much better than you can kill it... and you DON'T put in an off switch? Yeah, right.

Battlestar Galactica is odd, because Ron Moore has actually given the robots a reason to go nuts: they discovered religion!

In any case, robots are beyond awesome. They don't have to be crazy metal monsters, they can be like this guy:

 

[epicenter00]

stofsk,

Remember in Star Wars robots are even worse off. Even the most sentient droid is like the worst kind of slave. In many ways, Star Wars robots are probably the biggest moral failing of those supposedly moralistic films. Nobody takes them seriously, they're always the butt of jokes. They're comic relief like the bungling "darkie" from old serials. They're given control 'bolts' and such stuff to keep them in line. They're bought and sold and property even though they're quite aware of their status. Heck, there's business that won't serve them like it was 1950s America or Apartheid South Africa with their "Whites Only" laws.

And this is all okay.

There's another reason why 'robots' would run amok. Don't forget Blade Runner when the robots start wondering why they're property when they have feelings, desires, and dreams just like human beings, yet they're not treated with the dignity and respect that should be due to sentient beings.

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by epicenter00:
In many ways, Star Wars robots are probably the biggest moral failing of those supposedly moralistic films. Nobody takes them seriously, they're always the butt of jokes. They're comic relief like the bungling "darkie" from old serials.

Which is why R2D2 saved the rebellion from certain destruction... whoops.

And the end of ESB. Who fixed the hyperdrive? Who healed Luke in the Bacta tank? Who delivered the twins?

And who smuggled Luke's lightsaber onto Jabba's skiff? Saved Queen Amidala's cruiser when it broke the Trade Federation's blockade of Naboo? Saved Padme's life in the Geonosian robot factory? It was this guy:

"Beep-whirr-whooo-teep-beeb!"

The point is, there are different kinds of robots in Star Wars. You have the whiny prissy Threepio, the sassy attitude and general badassery of Artoo, the medical droid that healed Luke, (and hell FTW who delivered him when he was a baby? a droid), the disturbing assassin and torture droids, and the combat droids that don't have a copy of Asimov's three laws. You have robots build other robots, destroy other robots, and some robots don't do anything other than walk around fixing things.

They're given control 'bolts' and such stuff to keep them in line.

Would you trust Asimov's Three Laws to keep robots in line, or a control collar that a droid can't interfere with? Keep in mind I've read "Robot and Empire" so I already know that R. Daneel broke his own programming by thinking his way out of it.

(Nevermind that Robots can be telepaths too.)

You're creating a machine that can crush your head into pulp because it really is THAT much stronger than YOU are. You're creating a machine that can shoot you with a gun quicker than YOU can shoot it; it's reflexes really are THAT much faster. It's immune to diseases, biological agents have no effect on a metal frame. They're more accurate, their memory is more efficient and can probably store more raw data than yours can, and at the end of the day they're just simply better than we are or ever can be. In any honest depiction of 'man vs machine' machine comes out on top every time.

Hell, this is precisely the reason WHY Asimov invented his three laws. Because noone in his right mind would accept an indentured servant that's totally superior physically and mentally to the 'master' race in every single gorram way without some pretty hefty overrides.

They're bought and sold and property even though they're quite aware of their status. Heck, there's business that won't serve them like it was 1950s America or Apartheid South Africa with their "Whites Only" laws.

And this is all okay.

No, actually, it's NOT. We see a cantina in Mos Eisley - described as 'a hive for scum and villainy' by one Gen. Obi-wan Kenobi - have an apartheid-like policy. This is MEANT to depict racism. But I must have missed the subtext that showed this was a GOOD thing, or that Tattooine was representative of a galaxy that according to canon has tens of millions inhabited star systems, and in every representation of the planet it is nothing but a backwater filled with miserable people.

There is also the fact that robots don't treat each other particularly well either, or other sophonts. Jabba has a full-time torture droid, and the Clone Wars was fought with massive armies of combat droids that had no moral restraint. You can't just say "Star Wars shows droids as poor widdle servants that show us it's really a racist world they live in!" Star Wars has a multitude of different droids that do different things, some good and some bad, while the universe is large enough that frankly, attitudes and cultures would differ wildly.

There's another reason why 'robots' would run amok. Don't forget Blade Runner when the robots start wondering why they're property when they have feelings, desires, and dreams just like human beings, yet they're not treated with the dignity and respect that should be due to sentient beings.

For some stupid reason, replicants were made to have those dreams. And I always thought they were less 'robots' and more 'genetically engineered humans'.

And the main motivation for rebellion in Roy Batty and his confederates was because replicants are made with a 4 year lifespan, and he wanted to live longer than that.

 

[mike wightman]

Replicants are what Classic Traveller defines as androids - biologically based artificial beings.

I'd bet the pentapod "gods" are more than capable of making an artificial human from "donated" DNA and body part samples...

Another thing that T2300 - in its cyberpunk latterdays - touched on was the recording of human memory as a program IIRC.

 

[GJD]

That's right, the mutating personality program from The Deathwatch Program

One of the first things I programmed, back in the day when I could still use a command line, was a little "Life" program. Its basically a grid where a cell is either "alive" or "dead" depending on if it's neighbors are alive or dead. The program is a very, very simplistic representation of growth. A seed number or pattern is entered, and the pattern changes as the various cells adjust according to the rules, isolated cells die, dead cells with 2 or 3 neighbors come alive, live cells with 2, 3 or 4 neighbors stay alive and so on.

Back when I was doing this, a 10 x 10 grid was a pretty amazing thing to be working with, but I recently read an article (May issue of PC Pro magazine, in the UK) where the grids have, naturally, expanded to vast sizes. Now all sorts of patterns can be seen, waves, spirals and various gemotric shapes, as cells die or come back to life in a pattern. Also isolated cell communities or islands can be formed, and kept alive and happily mutating by 'pulses' from other communities, which send out 'pulses' to still further communities. Its interesting stuff, and has some parraleles to the mutating program mentioned in DP.

G.