Jump torps - why not?
- Thread starter EDG
- Start date
[/quote][/quote]BenGunn said:
Indeed. However, it would be nice, just once, in the 30+ years since Traveller came out, if there would be some acknowledgement that technology (bar Jump drives and a few other things) has actually advanced since the 1950's.
Like allowing as how, sometime in the next 7 TLs (assuming we are TL8) that Cruise Missiles get the actual intelligent targetting programming that they are currently planning (or have actually implemented) for some ATGMs and Artillery rounds.
Y'know, pattern recognition, movement recognition, emission detection, smart attack profiles ... not especially complex things, based on our current Tech understanding.
What I find so ... distressing ... about Canonistas is that they often (if not always) deny reality and insist that nothing change when real world technology has moved past what was available in the 1950s, which seems to be when the last tech developments for Traveller were made (well, OK, early to mid 60s).
Missiles of any sort are a case in point. They would be embarrassingly old fashioned even today if anyone were planning for space warfare.
I have always assumed that the missiles that civvie ships are armed with are made from, in effect, off the shelf low tech components, and bear about the same resemblance to real military missiles as fairy floss (candy floss to non Aussies, I guess) does to real food ... not much at all.
Which would seem to be realistic, but has never, as far as I can tell, been accepted by canonistas or dealt with in the rules. Ever.
Like I said, you're not ever likely to play in MTU, and I'm unlikely ever to play in YTU, for which we are both undoubtedly exceeding glad :wink:
Phil
EDG said:
Of course they can!
Which isn't the point.
At least humans can handle situations that are completely off the wall and unexpected ... Robots can't. I would suspect that if AIs are ever possible (and I have doubts that they ever will be) they will be distressingly ... simple minded ... when it comes to something not covered by their programming.
In the "joke", of course, one could hope (if one were being somewhat serious) that one of the passengers could take charge and land the plane ... like in all those movies where the pilot is killed or incapacitated ... whereas the robot? Pah! :shock:
Phil
aspqrz said:
What I find slightly strange is that people often use cruise missiles, ba-
sically "fire and forget" weapons, as examples for discussions about the
abilities of real world unmanned craft.
You only have to take a closer look at the current and the currently de-
veloped generations of AUVs (Autonomous Underwater Vehicles) to see
what really is possible today.
These vehicles are not one shot, throw away stuff, but designed to ope-
rate (and even cooperate) over comparatively long times in complex
environments without much or even any human intervention, and they
often have quite complex missions, far more complex than going from
A to B and there hitting C.
So, if you really want to know what autonomous craft are capable of
right now and in the near future, do not look upwards to cruise mis-
siles and drones, just look the other way, downwards into the deep sea.
You might well be surprised.
aspqrz said:
You talk about how some peoples' definitions are stuck in the 50s, but I think you're a bit behind on your AI lore yourself
. "AI" to me by its very definition isn't "simple" - the whole point about AI is that the robot can go beyond its programming. SJGs' Transhuman Space RPG has non-sapient AI, limited-sapient AI (e.g. HAL 9000) and fully-sapient AI (e.g. Data from Star Trek), which goes from the full spectrum of a relatively dumb robot able to learn its way through a maze to a sentient being that's completely indistinguishable from a human in terms of its sapience. And then you can have the AI that's on the level of Iain M Banks' Minds from his Culture novels.
Obviously there's degrees of AI, but I'm pretty sure that a fully sapient artificial being (like Data) would be able to land your crashing airplane as well as (if not better than) a mere human could!
BenGunn said:
I understand what you mean, but I still think that it is not really difficult
to have both, the hands-on approach and the high technology. At least
in my setting it has worked quite well for almost exactly a year now,
and I am convinced that my setting is Traveller - although not the OTU.
EDG said:aspqrz said:
You talk about how some peoples' definitions are stuck in the 50s, but I think you're a bit behind on your AI lore yourself
"AI" to me by its very definition isn't "simple" - the whole point about AI is that the robot can go beyond its programming. SJGs' Transhuman Space RPG has non-sapient AI, limited-sapient AI (e.g. HAL 9000) and fully-sapient AI (e.g. Data from Star Trek), which goes from the full spectrum of a relatively dumb robot able to learn its way through a maze to a sentient being that's completely indistinguishable from a human in terms of its sapience. And then you can have the AI that's on the level of Iain M Banks' Minds from his Culture novels.
Obviously there's degrees of AI, but I'm pretty sure that a fully sapient artificial being (like Data) would be able to land your crashing airplane as well as (if not better than) a mere human could!
My problem with AIs is that I don't think that they're possible. At all.
Or, to be fair, I can't see that they're likely any time soon, since we simply do not understand fully how our own brains work, or the software which runs them, even with current CAT scan tech.
I may well be wrong, and it wouldn't (hasn't!) prevented me from including them in a variety of SF games I have run/designed over the years, but I still strongly suspect they aren't gonna happen.
I fully accept yours (and others) MMV.
Phil
BenGunn said:
Ah.
Canonistas.
Gotta luv 'em.
Complete lack of vision.
There is no reason whatsoever why more advanced tech would change Traveller in any significant way ... and I find it difficult to grasp the thought processes of anyone who thinks it would.
High Tech Jump Missiles are not gonna change the need for exploration. Or tramp traders. Telegraph didn't. Radio didn't. The Internet didn't. To think that Jump Torps would is to completely miss the point in a way that I find it difficult to fathom.
To assume that the pathetic weapons used by Civilian tramp traders in the form of missiles are the same, effectively, as those used by the Imperial military is also incomprehensible and unfathomable to me.
Or, take Mercenary ... I was gobsmacked to read the description of the 3000 Cr MapBox ... Google Earth + Laptop + GPS in effect.
"Hand crafted by blind Vilani craftsmen working 24/7* from pure iridium" ...
Right. I'm sure the canonistas will have some really tediously unbelievable "explanation" for it ... one that flies in the face of anything even vaguely resembling reality.
In reality, what difference does it make if its available at TL8 and not TL9, and has the features of the TL11 version at TL8 as well ... its a glorified map. It adds +2 to not getting lost, in effect.
This is supposed to be a science fiction game ... the tech is a game mechanic more than anything else. And that applies to Jump Torps and all the rest of the baggage that canonistas love to lumber themselves with opposing.
Seriously, I don't really worry too much that you seem to like things a la 50's ... that's your prerogative ... but to condemn changes out of hand is to condemn Traveller to become a forgotten backwater as its tech base becomes more and more risible.
But, hey, I'm not telling you or anyone else that you have to have Jump Torps, or Google Earth and GPS units ... it's your game and you can run it the way you want, but I don't think you're going to attract new players unless you allow as how they may well see things different.
Even different to what I see ... and I accept that, as well
Phil
aspqrz said:
Well, for the OTU we're talking about something that's about 3000 years in Earth's future - plenty of time to develop AI there. And someone else (Vilani? Hivers?) probably could have invented it too, if one ignores the artificial and arbitrary tech limitiations of the setting.
I'm quite sure we will at some point
. I think Non-sapient AI is probable within the next decade or two (it's practically here as it is when you look at computer game and robot AI). Give it another couple of hundred years and we'll have fully sapient AI, assuming the usual bunch of wacko religious groups and technophobic fearmongers don't stop it from happening first.You think that major changes in the tech paradigm wouldn't affect the game universe in any significant way, and you accuse other people of complete lack of vision?aspqrz said:
Why not? If you build a few dozen jump torpedoes, equip them with scanners and a radio, and send them out to neighbouring star systems, why do you need to train and pay for an expensive Scout Service as well? Your remote drones have already done all the exploration. Especially if you also give them advanced AI capabilities.
Sure, there might be the occasional problem with this approach. Larry Niven's 'Known Space' universe used robot probes of this type, with consequences that formed the plot of several novels. But 'Known Space' isn't the OTU.
You think? Compare trade in the days of the Age of Sail, when merchants would arrive in mysterious ports filled with exotic goods, and bargain for whatever they thought would raise the best price back home. Then race each other to be the first back to the homeland and so get the highest prices for their goods. And the sponsors of the voyage would stand on the hilltops waiting for the first sight of a sail on the horizon, not knowing if the ship they'd invested their fortune in and not seen or heard of for six months would arrive, or if it had been sunk by storms or pirates.
Now look at today, when brokers make the deal by email without ever seeing the goods, and watch the prices constantly updated on their computer screens. And the ship that carries the containers from port to port according to a delivery schedule, its route plotted and tracked by GPS every minute of the day, is no more than a glorified delivery van.
Which of those options is the most evocative and romantic setting for a role-playing game? Traveller attempts to create the first; your suggested changes in technology would make it into the second.
I thought it was clearly established in canon that the Imperial military uses nuclear missiles, which are strictly prohibited for civilian use? As for whether a civilian turret missile is the same as a military 50-ton bay missile, I can't tell you off the top of my head...
I bet you think Space 1899, with its Victorian steam-powered spaceships, is even more risible?
The Traveller OTU is a specific type of setting, recreating Golden Age SF, with recognisable humans having adventures in space. You can certainly use the Traveller ruleset to play in other types of campaign, but it wouldn't be the OTU.
And getting angry with people who actually enjoy the OTU setting and accusing them of "lacking vision" isn't really productive...
My problem with some posts in this thread and other threads simply is
that people use "Traveller" and "OTU" as if it were the same thing.
Well, in fact it is not, and at least for me it never has been. All of my
settings over the last about thirty years have been "Traveller", and as
far as I recall not a single one of them has been "OTU".
So, I do not mind if someone tells me that what I have in my setting is
"not OTU", because of course it is not. But please do not tell me that it
is "not Traveller" - whatever I decide to do with my Traveller rules and
material is "Traveller".
that people use "Traveller" and "OTU" as if it were the same thing.
Well, in fact it is not, and at least for me it never has been. All of my
settings over the last about thirty years have been "Traveller", and as
far as I recall not a single one of them has been "OTU".
So, I do not mind if someone tells me that what I have in my setting is
"not OTU", because of course it is not. But please do not tell me that it
is "not Traveller" - whatever I decide to do with my Traveller rules and
material is "Traveller".
Well, you will soon have "Traveller: Babylon 5", without jump drives
and lots of the other features you consider necessary for Traveller.
I think you will have to get used to the idea that the people who will
play this Traveller: Babylon 5 (or Strontium Dog, or whatever) will of
course call their game "Traveller".
And, by the way, they will be quite right in doing so.
and lots of the other features you consider necessary for Traveller.
I think you will have to get used to the idea that the people who will
play this Traveller: Babylon 5 (or Strontium Dog, or whatever) will of
course call their game "Traveller".
And, by the way, they will be quite right in doing so.
BenGunn said:
Indeed. But canonistas have an extremely rigid version of the "one true way" of what can or can't change.
BenGunn said:
Ah. As I though. A justification on the level of complete unbelievability, showing not the slightest understanding of what is possible with existing tech.
GPS systems store maps as it is, they merely need the GPS signal to locate themselves and then process that into putting the right section of the map up.
The point is that they have the storage capacity to hold whole countries NOW in a GPS unit not much larger than a pack of cigarettes ... in a Laptop, with its much larger storage capacity, I don't doubt you could hold a whole world's GTOPO map data (hell, I have it downloaded onto *mine* ... sure, its down to 1 klick resolution ... but that's at, conservatively, TL7/8. Not TL9. :shock:
And that's FREE data. On a not particularly state of the art laptop that's three years old. Hell, I had it (still do) on the previous laptop, which is now six years old.
I am sure proprietary systems can and do hold better resolutions. 8)
With the right software I can zoom, rotate and manipulate ... which, according to the ludicrosity you are defending, can't be done til TL11.
As for positioning yourself inertially, well, sure. We can't do that now, can we? :shock:
http://www.insetsystems.com/
Like I said. Unbelievably silly to claim that existing technology costs the equivalent of US$6000 (at the usual US$2 = 1 Cr) one TL ahead when you could do it on a sub US$500 laptop today. And then to say that you can't rotate and zoom for two more TLs!
I am sure that an expert canonista would be able to justify the unjustifiable.
As for it "changing" things ... ha. The whole Traveller universe as we know it will collapse simply by admitting that the MapBox is TL/7-8 for all its functions!
Sure.
As we say here in Oz, Pull the other one, it plays 'Jingle Bells'"
How could this possibly change anything of any significance. It's worth a +2 DM to "not getting lost" instead of using a Map for the same DM, one presumes.
The whole OTU would collapse into a heap because of it, right? :wink:
Phil
BenGunn said:
Please return the favour.
All I noted was that for a +2 DM to "not getting lost" we can do it now
Which is hardly going to cause the OTU as we know it to end :shock:
Wasn't surprised at the response, however, for the reasons already noted.
Whatever floats your boat in your version of the OTU but, as many threads have already established, the OTU is, at best (and that's being generous) either so logically inconsistent as to be impossible to be dogmatic about or makes no sense at all ... mostly both ... in key areas.
I fail to see how techno-fluff (which is what it amounts to) in a Science Fiction role playing game is going to cause the sky to fall.
YMMV :wink:
Phil
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
aspqrz said:
It depends on the fluff, obviously - and needs to be looked at on a case by case basis, equally obviously.
Is it me, or is it getting very black and white in here ?
Gruffty the Hiver
Banded Mongoose
Oh ffs. I come here to get away from that sort of thing - if I want snarky comments, screaming arguments, fanboi accusations and playground/school yard fights I can go to a certain other board and get all that, and more.aspqrz said:
C'mon people, let's not descend to that level, eh?
