Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Networked Tactical Computers [was: Sentry...Question]
Date:	Sun, 15 Nov 1998 12:25:51 -0500

Message no. 1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 11:01 AM 11/15/98 -0500, Mike wrote:
>IMHO, the networked sentry gun systems would not enhance the sensor
rating of
>the vehicle they are in.
<<Snip rest>>

Alright, we seem to be coming at this from different angles.

I wasn't looking into mounting these things on vehicles, at the
moment. I was just considering sentry guns mounted as gun
emplacements.

The only reason I brought Sentry II into the picture was the fact that
they could be affiliated with a Remote Control Network, which can be
equiped with BattleTac IVIS and FDDM, with all the information sharing
capabilities those options imply.

Having mulled over this by myself some, I'm thinking the best option
would not be to give bonuses to a networked TacComp's rating. Instead,
I think it might be best to let networked TacComps share their Lines
of Sight with each other. This is a fairly powerful bonus in and of
itself, without sending any ratings through the roof.

The above rule works nicely for a peer-to-peer network of TacComps.
Anyone have any ideas on how to implement a client-server network for
Tactical Computers, with one powerful master TacComp acting as a
server collecting data from lower rated client TacComps, and feeding
tracking data back down to those clients?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3

iQCVAwUBNk8Ok6PbvUVI86rNAQGdjwP/aTq4tfIITtCAhms+2qX6rzI72WQAA57L
aA13vrVTBUk0vJ8GkkngPqsd/UXVV57ZyRrtwykP+N799Cr9WabX/jrxJAnnSBWj
qiCCLi1FNIzTI7ds/0fe+d+8VoLr0stl9A/vC6TdiFFwopdkOps10W47f46SRIb4
Pq4ABKPX1+k=
=6T4p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344

From:	Slipspeed <atreloar@*********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Networked Tactical Computers [was: Sentry...Question]
Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:52:55 +1000

Message no. 2 >The above rule works nicely for a peer-to-peer network of TacComps.
>Anyone have any ideas on how to implement a client-server network for
>Tactical Computers, with one powerful master TacComp acting as a
>server collecting data from lower rated client TacComps, and feeding
>tracking data back down to those clients?

Just an idea or two...

#1. Can we say triangulation? The master TacCom would probably be able to
work out to an extremely precise location of any contact in 2 dimensions, 3
if the sensors/sentry guns were set up right. From there it ought to be
able to work out line of sight for any and all sentry guns to the target,
allowing a murderous amount of firepower to be trained at one particular
point in space, at extremely low target numbers.

#2. A server/client system would allow the master TacCom to designate
targets and fields of fire against multiple targets. With individual sentry
guns it's quite possible that two guns would fire at the same target,
leaving one or more other targets alone. the master TacCom would be able to
stop this.

#3. Depending on what sensors are available in the pool, it's quite
possible that a master TacCom would have some rudimentry idea of threat
levels of targets, allowing it to concentrate fire on heavily
armed/armoured/big targets. It might also be able to tell the gun which
type of ammunition to fire at a certain target if several types are
available. The troll carrying a vindicator in partial heavy might have as
many as 5 or 6 sentry guns all aiming at it with explosive and/or APDS
rounds, rather than the other (perceived) weak members of the group.

#4. A master TacCom might also have the ability to reason to some degree.
"By grenade arcs, firing lines etc there should be no problem, yet an
explosion just went off at X location... Hmmm, which of the targets isn't
firing his weapon much... That one. Ok, raise probability of target #3
being a mage/shaman by quite a bit. Guns 2 and 3, concentrate fire on that
target for one FA burst each." Or even more advanced, it might be able to
decide, using a biology program or something similar, that target X isn't
taking as much, if any damage as it should, and what it is taking is
regenerating... Hmmm, wooden/silver/other rounds are needed. If you used
the right type of sensors, it might even be possible to sense elementals and
other spirits, and alert the proper people, as I don't think one of these
can hurt that type of creature short of orichalcium rounds.

#5. By the same token, it could perhaps identify friendlies and
non-combatants in the combat zone. Possible benefits are 1) it would ignore
them as targets, or, even worse, it could 2) assist friendlies by providing
covering fire and keeping the heads down of anyone near the friendly, taking
out people shooting at the friendly, not firing at a target if a friendly is
in the line of fire etc.

#6. Central control means that friendlies in combat could give voice (or
other) orders to the system, greatly enhancing their ability to achieve
certain things.

#7. It could determine that part X of the system is under fire, and act to
protect itself, diverting firepower to take out the threat to itself.

#8. The master TacCom might have some idea about overkill and necessary
firepower. While it will (probably) always shoot to kill, it might be
unlikely to use the auto-cannon on a rat that's sneaking through the fence.
On the other hand, a Banshee LAV that flies too close might find itself on
the receiving end of surface to air missiles, ripples of rockets, or the
toys out of Rigger 2. Give the system access to everything from light
pistols to shotguns to machine guns to the said toys and it ought to be able
to handle almost any threat.

These are just some of the benefits that could/would be available to a
server/client sentry gun system. How well it works is up to individual GMs,
and mainly for that reason I didn't include game mechanics. It's also
mostly smart GMing in combat for several of the ideas. To fully use the
above benefits, however, I'd say that serious computing power would have to
be put behind the master TacCom, both in terms of hardware, and software
such as image and voice recognition, battle tactics, complex maths and
physics, perhaps biology to some degree to work out how hurt a target is
likely to be, and what areas of the body are best fired apon. The list goes
on. It also greatly depends on your GM's idea of just what AIs in the 21st
century are capable of doing. Lastly, I don't imagine this type of system
on every corner store. Perhaps a few
top-secret-you-don't-get-in-here-without-voiceprint-check military bases, or
the most protected and valuable research stations, or the headquarters of
some big, powerful and RICH megacorp. (Ares and Saeder Krupp (sp?) spring to
mind). These systems would have price tags in the millions, and require the
very best of products every step of the way.

There IS a downside to server/client based systems, though. If the master
TacCom goes offline, then the above benefits would be lost as each sentry
gun goes back to it's independant AI. That's not the bad part, though. If
the master TacCom contracts a virus, then the server sentry guns would still
do what it says, as the master is still online. This could mean that it
could fire at friendlies, or do other extremely odd things.

Worst case scenario is if the enemy somehow gains control of the system.
Then your people have to work out how to take it back or take it out,
neither of which would be particularly palatable ideas.

----

There's about 15 minutes of thinking, and I'm sure that given time I could
think of other things that a master TacCom could do. Note, however, that
the TacCom I'm talking about would be much bigger and better than the ones
that fit in someone's head.

Can I have my Evil GM/Combat Master badge now? :)

Slipspeed

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology. So
there."
Adam Treloar aka Guardian, Slipspeed
atreloar@*********.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1900/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer