Full Version: Infantry in 2070
| QUOTE (Wakshaani) |
| [stuff about skillsofts and entertainment simsense] |
you've missed the mark again.
i wasn't talking about entertainment sims. (which, for the record, obviously do cause you to move, otherwise the RAS override installed into sim modules wouldn't be necessary) and i wasn't talking about skillsofts either.
i was talking about tutorsofts. those things that teach you skills. as in, you use it, and it's like having someone around to train you in improving your skill. if it didn't include any kind of muscle memory, then it would only be usable for purely mental skills, but since it is generically useful, that means it must train muscle memory also.
as far as having physically fit soldiers, sure maybe they'll have a facility for that. shouldn't need much more than a running track, maybe an indoor gymn-type area (but then again, maybe not, this will get them accustomed to working in bad weather conditions too)
so the amount your skillwires can hold isn't relevant (incidentally, has anyone thought to ask if you can implant multiple skillwires into the same person? =D ) because you're not using skillwires, you're being trained.
of course, as i've already said, this all makes little to no sense to me, from the perspective of training someone to do the equivalent job to infantry today... why would you do something crazy like that when there are drones which can do that for a fraction of the cost?
no one should be training infantry. if they're so poor they can't afford decent drones (and a doberman shouldn't cost much more than 15k
to have 10 dice in shooting and 8 dice in a few other areas, especially when you consider software is almost effectively free), then they are too poor to afford to train and equip large numbers of soldiers. in which case, you're basically looking at maybe 2 skill, 3 attribute metahumans given an assault rifle and maybe an extra clip (who knows, maybe they'll actually live long enough to use it after all) sent out to die...so basically, if you're going to use humans for infantry, the *only* reason i could see that is if you're just sending out hundreds of them poorly trained, underequipped, because otherwise drones are just cheaper.
as i have said, the human element in most armies is going to be specially trained people. i believe last time a thread like this came up, i proposed that a team would likely have a rigger/commander, a communications officer (ie hacker), a medic, a mechanic (to maintain the drones which will likely be needed) all loaded into a vehicle. they may very well have some sort of spec ops type people with them (similar to a shadowrunner, whose job is to do things that drones can't do effectively), and if i was going to add on to this team, it would probably include more riggers, each given control over several drones (or groups of drones) and maybe another hacker, just to be safe.
seriously, i'm just not seeing what an infantryman can do physically that anthroform drone can't do when under the control of a skilled rigger.
| QUOTE (toturi @ Jul 31 2007, 11:26 PM) | ||
How many Perception dice do you think he'd need? How much Stealth does he need? What is the threshold for those Tech and Knowledge skills? |
Well, those are opposed checks if I remember correctly, so what he is going to need is more than the other guy. And the other guy and him are both going to be running around in camo suits etc.
That said, most of this assumes that, like I do, serious on fire support is on tap. Because if it is, who gets spotted loses because they get there face shoot off. I think it is too, because you can easily have a couple of drones for not much money that give a completely inordinate level of firepower.
As for the knowledge skills, he's probably going to need a 3, professional ^_^
But yeah, it's the opposed skills that really count.
He's also going to need gymnastics for not getting shot purposes to boot.
| QUOTE (Jaid) |
| no one should be training infantry. if they're so poor they can't afford decent drones (and a doberman shouldn't cost much more than 15k to have 10 dice in shooting and 8 dice in a few other areas, especially when you consider software is almost effectively free), then they are too poor to afford to train and equip large numbers of soldiers. in which case, you're basically looking at maybe 2 skill, 3 attribute metahumans given an assault rifle and maybe an extra clip (who knows, maybe they'll actually live long enough to use it after all) sent out to die... |
Once someone decrypts and spoofs your drones into shutting down for maintenance what is the rest of your army going to do?
Even better, hack into the drones while they are not doing anything exciting and make some subtle changes to their software, which will only trigger at an appropriate time. Like when they receive a given radio signal go to complete power off mode. Then they all fall over at once.
It's a lot harder to convince an infantry battalion that they should all go to sleep when they are under attack. But the drones are a lot cheaper. . .
| QUOTE (Cthulhudreams) | ||||
Well, those are opposed checks if I remember correctly, so what he is going to need is more than the other guy. And the other guy and him are both going to be running around in camo suits etc. That said, most of this assumes that, like I do, serious on fire support is on tap. Because if it is, who gets spotted loses because they get there face shoot off. I think it is too, because you can easily have a couple of drones for not much money that give a completely inordinate level of firepower. As for the knowledge skills, he's probably going to need a 3, professional ^_^ But yeah, it's the opposed skills that really count. He's also going to need gymnastics for not getting shot purposes to boot. |
For Infiltration and Perception: If you really need more than the other guy, then you won't be talking about normal infantry. You'd be talking elite here and no one is denying that elites are necessary for any army.
Again, for Tech and Knowledge skills, all the grunt on the ground needs to know is how to perform the simple routine tasks. Anything more difficult he should be refering to his superiors - his corporals or sergeants, you'd know, those people who are staying in the army for the long haul.
| QUOTE (toturi) |
| Again, for Tech and Knowledge skills, all the grunt on the ground needs to know is how to perform the simple routine tasks. Anything more difficult he should be refering to his superiors - his corporals or sergeants, you'd know, those people who are staying in the army for the long haul. |
That's the soviet army approach. Which has the distinct drawback that the enemy piles you up like cordwood.
| QUOTE (kzt) | ||
That's the soviet army approach. Which has the distinct drawback that the enemy piles you up like cordwood. |
So? That's also the approach adopted by any citizen militia army too.
| QUOTE (Cthulhudreams) |
| He's also going to need gymnastics for not getting shot purposes to boot. |
That would be Dodge.
| QUOTE (toturi) | ||||||
For Infiltration and Perception: If you really need more than the other guy, then you won't be talking about normal infantry. You'd be talking elite here and no one is denying that elites are necessary for any army. Again, for Tech and Knowledge skills, all the grunt on the ground needs to know is how to perform the simple routine tasks. Anything more difficult he should be refering to his superiors - his corporals or sergeants, you'd know, those people who are staying in the army for the long haul. |
What is preventing me from having all my troops trained to a 'very good' level, and take those that are exceptional and training them to 'excellent'? If next door is okay with 'Good' and spec forces to 'excellent', I'm going to win.
The special forces thing is totally overrated anyway. Most special forces are either not very special (spetnaz) or so few that they are completely irrelevant in the context of any larger conflict (Delta force).
The vast body of the infantry (Armoured, mech or otherwise) is what would be doing the fighting, and the other guy is the vast body of everyone else on the planets infantry. One side just needs to ensure that, on average, the boys at the pointy end are better than the other sides boys on the pointy end.
With force multipliers like drones, but the ease of hacking them electronic warfare is going to be super important. I'd say that a team of professional soldiers is going to feature lots of 'rigger' types with quite good hacking skills in addition to the soldiering thing.
Thinking about it though, my model is actually no different from your model in all reality. I'm just proposing that everyone is going to be a corporal or a sergeant level of training, and instead of using warm bodies as force supplementation, I'm saying use drones. Drones are cheaper than people
| QUOTE (kzt) | ||
Once someone decrypts and spoofs your drones into shutting down for maintenance what is the rest of your army going to do? Even better, hack into the drones while they are not doing anything exciting and make some subtle changes to their software, which will only trigger at an appropriate time. Like when they receive a given radio signal go to complete power off mode. Then they all fall over at once. It's a lot harder to convince an infantry battalion that they should all go to sleep when they are under attack. But the drones are a lot cheaper. . . |
that is non-trivial hacking going on there, and also exactly the sort of thing the hacker of each team is supposed to keep an eye out for (in addition to the rigger keeping an eye out).
sure, you can do that. you can also poison/drug someone's food or water supply. for every situation you can come up with a drone weakness or drawback, there is likely a human drawback to match it. we can go back and forth like this as long as you like, but ultimately the fact that drones are cheaper is going to be very important.
| QUOTE (Jaid) |
| that is non-trivial hacking going on there, and also exactly the sort of thing the hacker of each team is supposed to keep an eye out for (in addition to the rigger keeping an eye out). |
You are not dealing with a small team, you are dealing with the population of a major industrial state. They have got oodles of hackers and agents I can throw at this, as the hackers don't need to be on the front. They don't even need to be in the military. And they can do this all the time. The only way to protect against this (in SR4) is to turn the drone radios off, which kind of limits the flexibility of your forces. Are your drone forces going to advance, ala 1914, being controlled by a wire they are playing out behind them?
And the hackers don't have to be especially good, as the law of large numbers will eventually get them successes if 20 hackers/agents go after each drone 24/7.
The reality is that you are likely to end up not wanting to have anything remotely hackable anywhere near where significant fighting is going on as you can't trust it. You may have seen this theme before in some military SF.
| QUOTE (kzt) | ||
That's the soviet army approach. Which has the distinct drawback that the enemy piles you up like cordwood. |
It kicked the crap out of Hitler.
Not really.
Hitler faced the same enemy as Napoleon: General Winter.
Of course, he had the same friend: Counselor Megalomania...
Those don't mix well.
Hitler faced the same enemy as Napoleon: General Winter.
Of course, he had the same friend: Counselor Megalomania...
Those don't mix well.
"Russian front not a good idea....Hitler never played Risk when he was a kid...cuz you remember, Risk, that whole eastern European area, you could never hold it...seven extra men at the beginning of every go, but you couldn't f*ckin' hold it...Austral-Asia, that's the one, Austral-Asia...all the purples...get everyone on Papua-New Guinea and just build up, build up..."
I imagine that Military Drones don't even work on WiFi, rather they receive orders in the field via beam communications, lasers and the like. Not sure where SR stands on the topic, but this type of comm is not susceptable to area wide jamming and it makes the drones hard to hack 'on the fly'. I imagine that they run fairly high end pilot programs with simple, generic, preprogrammed code, and 'swing by' their designated controller every so often for an update/download.
They are used to augment the troops in the field, not replace them.
Networking the battlefield is problematic for many of the same reasons Drones are. Jamming, for one. Two 2070 conventional armies going head to head are going to fill the air with so much noise that only hard lines and couriers are going to be 'reliable' for any length of time.
They are used to augment the troops in the field, not replace them.
Networking the battlefield is problematic for many of the same reasons Drones are. Jamming, for one. Two 2070 conventional armies going head to head are going to fill the air with so much noise that only hard lines and couriers are going to be 'reliable' for any length of time.
Historically, invading Russia from the West has been a Bad Idea. Napoleon lost over 500,000 men invading, and he only fought a few battles. Hitler's invasion was even more catastrophic.
I think that faced with modern airpower/artillery/armor, a poorly equipped human wave would fair poorly.
I think that faced with modern airpower/artillery/armor, a poorly equipped human wave would fair poorly.
| QUOTE (Spike) |
| I imagine that Military Drones don't even work on WiFi, rather they receive orders in the field via beam communications, lasers and the like. Not sure where SR stands on the topic, but this type of comm is not susceptable to area wide jamming and it makes the drones hard to hack 'on the fly'. I imagine that they run fairly high end pilot programs with simple, generic, preprogrammed code, and 'swing by' their designated controller every so often for an update/download. They are used to augment the troops in the field, not replace them. Networking the battlefield is problematic for many of the same reasons Drones are. Jamming, for one. Two 2070 conventional armies going head to head are going to fill the air with so much noise that only hard lines and couriers are going to be 'reliable' for any length of time. |
I think we're merging two important points here:
It may be non trivial to hack a bunch of military grade drones, but it's completely non-trivial to jam the airwaves. Hence, you can no longer command your drones via wireless signal.
Point to point communication like lasers stops working the instant you have smoke in the air, or as soon as your drone turns a corner. Doesn't work so well.
So last option remaining is to have your drones use advanced Pilot/AI programming. This is good, but even by 2070 the human brain of people(even grunts!) is more flexible and intelligent than a drone.
So while drones make awesome supplements to conventional forces, they cannot replace infantry. You need boots on the ground, period. While your drones are good for interdiction and blunt offensives, any tactic requiring cunning cannot be completed by drones.
..of course, MCT has just the deal for people wanting the best of borth worlds...
Yeah but how much does a Jarhead cost again?
With the new cyborg rules, you don't have to choose between the disposability of a drone and the flexibility of a human brain. You can have both. Simply cut out the brains of your soldiers and put them in cheap drones. Require that every single member of your military undergo the procedure and institute a comprehensive forcible conscription program. Universal conscription of all able-brained adults and children above might even be a good idea.
You have all the benefits of a human wave army combined with all the benefits of a SOTA drone army. And think of the huge reduction in your national food consumption if every single citizen of your counrty was a cyborg.
You have all the benefits of a human wave army combined with all the benefits of a SOTA drone army. And think of the huge reduction in your national food consumption if every single citizen of your counrty was a cyborg.
| QUOTE (Backgammon) |
| It may be non trivial to hack a bunch of military grade drones, but it's completely non-trivial to jam the airwaves. Hence, you can no longer command your drones via wireless signal. |
that will only work for as long as it takes for the rigger to fire off an anti-radiation missile.
This is very Halberstammy, but you could put an infant's brain in a jar and raise them as a drone (or fighterjet, or whatever) True, much of it would be VR-simulated, but they couldn't tell the difference; they wouldn't know.
Aren't Jarheads in general just the next gen version of Dr H's "kids"?
Yeah. The really Halberstammy bit is the "from birth" part.
Max Boot's War Made New (a pretty fascinating read if you're into the whole military aspect of the history and philosophy of science) looked at four different "ages" of military advancement in the last 500 years (gunpowder age, first and second industrial age, information age), and the massive differences in effectiveness that an advance could bring, when properly implemented.
Take a look at how Gulf War I played out. Early '90s, you've got the Iraqi military (a pretty well built-up Second Industrial Age army that had been fighting the Iranians for a decade) going up against the coalition, which made extensive use of Information Age tech like precision munitions, satellite recon, GPS systems, stealth aircraft, joint force control, and high-speed mission tasking for artillery/air support (meaning that a target gets hit within minutes or hours of being discovered, not days). Command and control centers were eliminated, ground forces were destroyed without ever bringing their weapons to bear, and coalition casualties numbered under 150, if memory serves.
Look at the "Black Hawk Down" incident... about 100 well trained infantry with body armor, coordinated actions, and some air support were able to survive what essentially amounts to an 18 hour massed militia assault in an urban environment, and while the number of dead (about 20) and wounded (virtually everyone else) were high, they managed to hold out until they could be extracted.
Now, kick this forwards to 2070, where some here are saying the "soviet army" approach is going to be a problem for a modernized force. Think about it for a second:
Sure, this kind of warfare can be hard on the local civilian population, and requires a constant flow of logistical support, but there's really no way that the militia can compete if the rules of engagement for the advanced forces are "kill anyone you see." Situations like "win hearts and minds" can cause issues with that, but a flat-out fight is something that conscript armies are going to be useless for when going up against a modern 2070's military force. Human wave assault? The most complex part for the modern force is going to be timing the retreat of their drones to the ammo dump for reloads.
Take a look at how Gulf War I played out. Early '90s, you've got the Iraqi military (a pretty well built-up Second Industrial Age army that had been fighting the Iranians for a decade) going up against the coalition, which made extensive use of Information Age tech like precision munitions, satellite recon, GPS systems, stealth aircraft, joint force control, and high-speed mission tasking for artillery/air support (meaning that a target gets hit within minutes or hours of being discovered, not days). Command and control centers were eliminated, ground forces were destroyed without ever bringing their weapons to bear, and coalition casualties numbered under 150, if memory serves.
Look at the "Black Hawk Down" incident... about 100 well trained infantry with body armor, coordinated actions, and some air support were able to survive what essentially amounts to an 18 hour massed militia assault in an urban environment, and while the number of dead (about 20) and wounded (virtually everyone else) were high, they managed to hold out until they could be extracted.
Now, kick this forwards to 2070, where some here are saying the "soviet army" approach is going to be a problem for a modernized force. Think about it for a second:
- Drone weapon systems, hard-wired to their controllers, would allow small infantry teams to cover hundreds of meters of perimeter with a massive amount of firepower, and minimal risk to themselves.
- Augmented soldiers would be able to clear important buildings of conscripts with a minimum of losses, due to their sensor capabilities, increased speed, body armor, and medical technology.
- Secured structures could be kept that way with a minimum number of troops, relying on sensors, drones, and booby traps... or simply levelled from afar, if they can't be held efficiently.
- Networked, drone-controlled artillery and mortars, precision-guided using GPS coordinates or target designators, would allow rapid targeting and destruction of large groups of infantry by a single observer. Observe, designate, order a fire mission, wait for the rounds to transit... less than a minute from discovery to impact.
- Scout units (think USMC scout/sniper teams) could maintain a very low profile (due to only being a couple of guys, and having advanced camoflage tech available to them), while still having at their disposal a ridiculous amount of remotely accessed firepower, and never have to personally fire a shot.
- Militia units untrained in signature discipline (minimizing thermal output, enforcing radio silence, being quiet) would be easy pickings for hunter/killer drone systems sent out in front of the infantry lines to sow havoc and terror.
Sure, this kind of warfare can be hard on the local civilian population, and requires a constant flow of logistical support, but there's really no way that the militia can compete if the rules of engagement for the advanced forces are "kill anyone you see." Situations like "win hearts and minds" can cause issues with that, but a flat-out fight is something that conscript armies are going to be useless for when going up against a modern 2070's military force. Human wave assault? The most complex part for the modern force is going to be timing the retreat of their drones to the ammo dump for reloads.
Quick question, exactly what do you mean by;
| QUOTE (Shrike30) |
| Drone weapon systems, hard-wired to their controllers, would allow small infantry teams to cover hundreds of meters of perimeter with a massive amount of firepower, and minimal risk to themselves. |
because I get a vision of Drones dragging cable behind them, and surely you can't mean that.
Why not? Or put it another way, why not deploy stationary smartguns linked to a central network with landlines to hold ground as you take it?
Well from personal experience I can say that dragging cords and hoses behind you in a semi-controlled enviroment such as a shop or outdoor workarea is a real pain in the ass, and I don't think I'd recomend trying it in a battlefield.
However with that said, I can easily imagine using hardwires in a basecamp, ect, but not on the front lines.
However with that said, I can easily imagine using hardwires in a basecamp, ect, but not on the front lines.
In poorer nations, I expect that child soldiers are more popular than ever. Orks breed faster, mature faster, and are stronger, tougher, and more likely to be poor. Throw in machetes and guns for the "officers" and you'd have a dirt-cheap fighting force.
A real army would cut through them in no time, but they'd be effective against lightly-armed civilians.
A real army would cut through them in no time, but they'd be effective against lightly-armed civilians.
| QUOTE (Backgammon) | ||
I think we're merging two important points here: It may be non trivial to hack a bunch of military grade drones, but it's completely non-trivial to jam the airwaves. Hence, you can no longer command your drones via wireless signal. Point to point communication like lasers stops working the instant you have smoke in the air, or as soon as your drone turns a corner. Doesn't work so well. So last option remaining is to have your drones use advanced Pilot/AI programming. This is good, but even by 2070 the human brain of people(even grunts!) is more flexible and intelligent than a drone. So while drones make awesome supplements to conventional forces, they cannot replace infantry. You need boots on the ground, period. While your drones are good for interdiction and blunt offensives, any tactic requiring cunning cannot be completed by drones. |
I agree completely. Note that the drones would be hard coded to return to their designated controller at intervals. Smoke isn't too much of a factor, mind you.. it's all about the timing with smoke. This isn't the black powder era where the mere act of fighting generates it, you have to WANT that smoke practically.
The idea is that the drone follows fairly standardized, pre-coded instructions autonomously for most of the 'moment to moment' of it's life. The squad leader or other designated squad members can select specific programs as well as receive intelligence from the drone via the laser, which is practially impossible to hack (unless you are in the path of the beam) and which also makes the drone much harder to hack as well. Moreso if the drone recognizes incoming lasers as hostile if they don't correspond with IFF transponder locations, specific wavelengths and other such 'safety measures' to prevent 'casual hacks'.
| QUOTE (Ravor) | ||
Quick question, exactly what do you mean by;
because I get a vision of Drones dragging cable behind them, and surely you can't mean that. |
I do, actually. The drones could spool the cable out (rather than dragging it), which would help prevent snagging, and being hardwired makes pretty much all EW (asides from the ever-popular wire cutters) useless. Option B involves the soldiers placing the guns themselves (smart weapon platforms, sentry guns... however you want to do it/call it). The main idea, though, is to get a centralized controller with an unbreakable connection to the perimeter sensors and weapon systems, so that a mix of human observers and drone platforms sprinkled across an area can lay out an overwhelming amount of fire when needed, without exposing the human components to too much risk.
Wires on the floor in a combat environment can be annoying. The other side's hackers turning your wireless sentry guns back on you can be deadly.
| QUOTE (Spike) |
| I agree completely. Note that the drones would be hard coded to return to their designated controller at intervals. Smoke isn't too much of a factor, mind you.. it's all about the timing with smoke. This isn't the black powder era where the mere act of fighting generates it, you have to WANT that smoke practically. |
Sort of true. Certainly, you don't have to worry as much about weapons systems producing smoke through their use... but buildings, vehicles and the like sometimes catch fire in a combat environment, especially with some of the heavier weapons that drones would probably be dragging around and using.
This conversation has been an interesting read. Without jumping into the 'what do we do with highly trained killers no longer under military discipline' argument, I'd like to point out that no one seems to be making the obvious connection about the need for meat body troops.
All it takes is one EMP weapon, or one concerted broadband jamming effort to reduce all that expensive, wirelessly controlled drone technology to so many dogbot autonomous, not-too-bright units that are no longer under anyone's direct control.
Infantry, in 2070 just like 1070 and 70, are necessary to hold ground and operate in confined, low range environments in conditions that machines simply can't respond to effectively. I can think of tons of ways to make drones ineffective in the 4th edition rule set -- your options are more limited with meat body troops.
edit: Of course, there were several posts pointing this very thing out that I hadn't gotten to. Oh, well. I'm with them. Infantry, for the foreseeable future, is a necessity, IMO.
All it takes is one EMP weapon, or one concerted broadband jamming effort to reduce all that expensive, wirelessly controlled drone technology to so many dogbot autonomous, not-too-bright units that are no longer under anyone's direct control.
Infantry, in 2070 just like 1070 and 70, are necessary to hold ground and operate in confined, low range environments in conditions that machines simply can't respond to effectively. I can think of tons of ways to make drones ineffective in the 4th edition rule set -- your options are more limited with meat body troops.
edit: Of course, there were several posts pointing this very thing out that I hadn't gotten to. Oh, well. I'm with them. Infantry, for the foreseeable future, is a necessity, IMO.
| QUOTE (Ghostfire) |
| This conversation has been an interesting read. Without jumping into the 'what do we do with highly trained killers no longer under military discipline' argument, I'd like to point out that no one seems to be making the obvious connection about the need for meat body troops. All it takes is one EMP weapon, or one concerted broadband jamming effort to reduce all that expensive, wirelessly controlled drone technology to so many dogbot autonomous, not-too-bright units that are no longer under anyone's direct control. Infantry, in 2070 just like 1070 and 70, are necessary to hold ground and operate in confined, low range environments in conditions that machines simply can't respond to effectively. I can think of tons of ways to make drones ineffective in the 4th edition rule set -- your options are more limited with meat body troops. edit: Of course, there were several posts pointing this very thing out that I hadn't gotten to. Oh, well. I'm with them. Infantry, for the foreseeable future, is a necessity, IMO. |
funny. i can see lots of things that the drones are going to ignore that the regular troops could be vulnerable too.
of course, if you never require anyone to sleep, never use gas grenades/attacks, never strike when someone isn't paying attention, never have to deal with poisoned food supply, never have to deal with diseased troops, never have to worry about acting 1/3 as often, never have to deal with low morale, never have to deal with betrayal/disloyalty, never have to face light weapons that would just bounce off the drone's armor... then yeah, i guess i can see drones being pretty disadvantaged in that situation.
sure, some of those things can be mitigated to some extent... but then again, drone weaknesses can be mitigated too. if the drone's comm is never transmitting for more than 1 combat turn at a time while outside of it's normal maintenance garage/resupply station, good luck hacking it. if it's running a good signal, and has good ECCM, good luck jamming it (and for the record, regardless of what real life may be, in SR4 ECCM is better than jammers). if it's electronically hardened, then good luck using EMPs on it.
in any event, most of these special anti-drone measures you're talking about are just silly. your army of hackers are going to be risking their necks against agents and such just as surely as an army of infantry risks their neck when attacking the drones physically. the EMP weapons are not as cheap or readily available as a simple grenade, i'm willing to bet, and so forth.
and while all of the countermeasures for the drone's weaknesses are going to cost money, i should point out... that sort of stuff is already going to be needed for infantry anyways, and the infantry costs more to start, and has other vulnerabilities to shore up.
Actually, Ghost, that has been a running theme of mine in this thread. No matter how awesome all this tech is, a soldier is going to have to be expected to do without it, is going to have to train without it. Even if the commander doesn't think training without NVG's at night is a good idea, when they get out to the feild and half their batteries are dead, or the drones act all erratic, the soldiers that plan on surviving their first combat op are already learning that they better be able to do their job when their equipment... doesn't.
| QUOTE |
| in any event, most of these special anti-drone measures you're talking about are just silly. your army of hackers are going to be risking their necks against agents and such just as surely as an army of infantry risks their neck when attacking the drones physically. the EMP weapons are not as cheap or readily available as a simple grenade, i'm willing to bet, and so forth. |
Broadband jammers are very cheap. And monetary cost isn't the only factor. If it costs a gazillion nuyen to win the war, it doesn't matter -- so long as you are /willing/ to spend a gajillion nuyen, if you have victory, the money is well spent, from that perspective.
Drones have their place. But relying /exclusively/ on drones means you have a single point of failuire. No military commander is going to accept that. Not when he has the ability to prevent is (and easily, I might add.) That doesn't even take into account the the military is decidedly traditional-minded community. They aren't going to be very easily convinced that tech is the way to go.
Trust me. I've seen it first hand.
| QUOTE (Ghostfire) |
| Broadband jammers are very cheap. [snip] Drones have their place. But relying /exclusively/ on drones means you have a single point of failuire. No military commander is going to accept that. Not when he has the ability to prevent is (and easily, I might add.) That doesn't even take into account the the military is decidedly traditional-minded community. They aren't going to be very easily convinced that tech is the way to go. Trust me. I've seen it first hand. |
ECCM is software... pay an army hacker to write it up for you and the cost approaches 0 as you give a copy to each and every wireless capable device you use. (you were already paying that hacker too, for that matter)
signal is also cheap.
cost is still relevant, even when cost is no object. someone who is willing to spend 10 times as much money can still win against the drones... but on the other hand, if they spend 10 times as much money on drones, they will brutally *crush* the other side, rather than having troops that are the equal.
and how many times do i have to say, this isn't relying exclusively on drones. this is simply relying on drones to take the place of infantry. you've still got humans involved, you just aren't using them as infantry. in all probability, there will be crazy cybered up teams, and they will probably even be common. but you're not gonna use them for infantry, you're going to use them for more shadowrun sort of purposes.
| QUOTE (Jaid) |
| funny. i can see lots of things that the drones are going to ignore that the regular troops could be vulnerable too. of course, if you never require anyone to sleep, never use gas grenades/attacks, never strike when someone isn't paying attention, never have to deal with poisoned food supply, never have to deal with diseased troops, never have to worry about acting 1/3 as often, never have to deal with low morale, never have to deal with betrayal/disloyalty, never have to face light weapons that would just bounce off the drone's armor... then yeah, i guess i can see drones being pretty disadvantaged in that situation. . |
This is the second time I've seen this and its just as silly.
This isn't the napoleonic era when troops had to forage for food and water, so right off the bad your 'poisoned food supply' is a bit silly. Drone armies won't replace the need for extensive downtime, be it sleep or simple maintenance. Drones will miss things that humans won't, being limited by their programming and sensors. We've seen the movies/shows where the perfectly obvious... to us... heroes stand there motionless while the poor spoofed drone wanders by. Yes, the reverse can be true too, drone sensors will see things invisible to troops.
Your 'acting 1/3 as often' is something I've tried to address here and there in the past. And just as drones don't suffer for low morale, they are not capable of exceeding their capabilities in acts of 'heroism' either, though that is but a crude counter example. As for your betrayal/disloyalty comment??? What do you think all the discussion about hacking is about then? Drone disloyalty, if anything, is even easier to buy.
Drones are not the be all, end all of warfare. Not in Shadowrun, and not really feasably either. Next you'll point out how much better they are because they don't have blood. And it will be as silly as some of your earlier points.
How about just smaller infantry? Instead of a large amount of humans or a large amount of drones, you use both?
You have some human infantry, because an army needs some human infantry, and you have some drone support.
You have some human infantry, because an army needs some human infantry, and you have some drone support.
Drones in 2070 will be used heavily to support infantry and other troops. They cannot replace real soldiers.
For one, even the most durable drones are complex pieces of electronics and machinery. I see a UGV breaking down far more often than a fit infantryman. Drones cannot interact with the local population, thus making occupation hell. Drones are less agile and able to operate in an urban enviroment. Drones aren't going to invent some novel way of using a weapon.
On a side note, does anyone else think that the drones in Shadowrun are extremely cheap?
For one, even the most durable drones are complex pieces of electronics and machinery. I see a UGV breaking down far more often than a fit infantryman. Drones cannot interact with the local population, thus making occupation hell. Drones are less agile and able to operate in an urban enviroment. Drones aren't going to invent some novel way of using a weapon.
On a side note, does anyone else think that the drones in Shadowrun are extremely cheap?
| QUOTE (Spike) |
| This is the second time I've seen this and its just as silly. This isn't the napoleonic era when troops had to forage for food and water, so right off the bad your 'poisoned food supply' is a bit silly. Drone armies won't replace the need for extensive downtime, be it sleep or simple maintenance. Drones will miss things that humans won't, being limited by their programming and sensors. We've seen the movies/shows where the perfectly obvious... to us... heroes stand there motionless while the poor spoofed drone wanders by. Yes, the reverse can be true too, drone sensors will see things invisible to troops. Your 'acting 1/3 as often' is something I've tried to address here and there in the past. And just as drones don't suffer for low morale, they are not capable of exceeding their capabilities in acts of 'heroism' either, though that is but a crude counter example. As for your betrayal/disloyalty comment??? What do you think all the discussion about hacking is about then? Drone disloyalty, if anything, is even easier to buy. Drones are not the be all, end all of warfare. Not in Shadowrun, and not really feasably either. Next you'll point out how much better they are because they don't have blood. And it will be as silly as some of your earlier points. |
food has to be stored somewhere. it doesn't just magically appear when you need it. therefore, food supplies can be poisoned.
drones may not be able to go beyond and pull off acts of heroism (barring direct rigging by someone who spends edge) but since you can have 5-10 times as many drones as you can have of the proposed cybered up soldiers they aren't very likely to need to either.
i have already presented several simple ways to make hacking improbable. unless the enemy can hack the drone in 3 seconds (or heck, why not make it one second, so that it's literally impossible to hack it even if you do hack it on the fly in 1 IP) they aren't going to hack it. period. and the supposed army of hackers that i've been told will hack them is going to be contending with black IC, and is going to see a lot of your hackers get fried. if 1 in 20 drones is hacked but 15 out of 20 of your hackers are sitting there with their brains fried (or, in the case of psychotropic IC, who's to say if you can trust the ones who live?) i would have to say the hackers aren't gonna be so enthusiastic about hacking the drones... even if they can figure out how to hack the drones in the first place...
Hmmm..
..Lots of interesting comments, at least some of them from serving or ex services personnel.
I would mention, tho, that current plans [from articles I've been reading recently] already involve widespread use of robotic gun drones, robotic mules to carry equipment, self driving vehicles and army of one networked troopers calling in heavy weapons fire.
Which, from the sound of the comments, aren't even being very much considered for 2070 troops.
My own [non-serviceman] view is that war will be very different in the future..
..Small squads of soldiers, with robotic support and long range, heavy weaponry [orbital strike, anyone ??].
Not sure where fullbody cyborgs, adepts and magicians fit into the military/navy/air force structure..
..But I think that might depend on how common they are.
We might see completely mechanised squads, penal squads, conscripts, zombie squads, deployed smart weapons, vr squads, computer virus weapons..
..But only the future [and your deviantly creative minds] will let us know for certain.
Just my thruppence..
..Lots of interesting comments, at least some of them from serving or ex services personnel.
I would mention, tho, that current plans [from articles I've been reading recently] already involve widespread use of robotic gun drones, robotic mules to carry equipment, self driving vehicles and army of one networked troopers calling in heavy weapons fire.
Which, from the sound of the comments, aren't even being very much considered for 2070 troops.
My own [non-serviceman] view is that war will be very different in the future..
..Small squads of soldiers, with robotic support and long range, heavy weaponry [orbital strike, anyone ??].
Not sure where fullbody cyborgs, adepts and magicians fit into the military/navy/air force structure..
..But I think that might depend on how common they are.
We might see completely mechanised squads, penal squads, conscripts, zombie squads, deployed smart weapons, vr squads, computer virus weapons..
..But only the future [and your deviantly creative minds] will let us know for certain.
Just my thruppence..
| QUOTE (Synner667) |
| I would mention, tho, that current plans [from articles I've been reading recently] already involve widespread use of robotic gun drones, robotic mules to carry equipment, self driving vehicles and army of one networked troopers calling in heavy weapons fire. Which, from the sound of the comments, aren't even being very much considered for 2070 troops. |
That's because, in the real world, encryption works and it takes a billion years for the most powerful computer allowed by physics to crack 128 bit encryption. The way encryption can be casually broken in SR has huge impact on the game world.
| QUOTE (kzt) | ||
That's because, in the real world, encryption works and it takes a billion years for the most powerful computer allowed by physics to crack 128 bit encryption. The way encryption can be casually broken in SR has huge impact on the game world. |
so just use whatever it is that makes stealth RFID tags undetectable, and therefore unhackable...
(commonly assumed to be that it doesn't broadcast until it's told to, and then only for brief periods of time, after which it shuts down, as far as i understand)
| QUOTE |
That's because, in the real world, encryption works and it takes a billion years for the most powerful computer allowed by physics to crack 128 bit encryption. The way encryption can be casually broken in SR has huge impact on the game world. |
yerr... what?
128 bit encryption is used regularly on wireless internet access (802.11x) and is ridiculously easy to crack.
your average user can do it in 10 minutes. I believe the record stands at 2-3 minutes. the more traffic, the faster it goes.
I'm sure military systems are a bit harder, but given that most hackers today aren't too interested in cracking mil systems, we'll never find out.
Yes. Food stores COULD be poisoned. However, the logistics involved with such an operation would be of such complexity and cost that you'd be better off just trying to shoot the poor bastards you are trying to poison. And the complexity grows if you need it to be 'sneaky'.
Or do you think they store all that unconsumed food Outside the defensive perimeter?
Consider the modern MRE. To poison the food a typical soldier consumes during extended feild operations would consist of sneaking into a factory in the home nation of your enemy, somehow tainting the food, bribing food inspectors not to catch your tampering, and then waiting years for that stuff to get rotated through stocks and into the soldiers hands... probably LONG after the war is over.
Alternatively, you could somehow stealthily set up your own 'MRE' factory in your own territory to produce functionally identical packages of food, at great cost, and then somehow swap, again on your enemies defended compounds, several ton pallets of prepackaged food without getting caught. A several million dollar operation of dubious utility just to prove you can poison the food.
Prepared on site food might be a bit easier to poison, but has even more people looking at it, thus more points of failure unless you just want to gack a few guys at the potential cost of one of your own. For that you might as well go the 'suicide bomber' route used in Mosul a few years back. Just as effective, much flashier, and much easier to pull off in the long and short of it.
Or do you think they store all that unconsumed food Outside the defensive perimeter?
Consider the modern MRE. To poison the food a typical soldier consumes during extended feild operations would consist of sneaking into a factory in the home nation of your enemy, somehow tainting the food, bribing food inspectors not to catch your tampering, and then waiting years for that stuff to get rotated through stocks and into the soldiers hands... probably LONG after the war is over.
Alternatively, you could somehow stealthily set up your own 'MRE' factory in your own territory to produce functionally identical packages of food, at great cost, and then somehow swap, again on your enemies defended compounds, several ton pallets of prepackaged food without getting caught. A several million dollar operation of dubious utility just to prove you can poison the food.
Prepared on site food might be a bit easier to poison, but has even more people looking at it, thus more points of failure unless you just want to gack a few guys at the potential cost of one of your own. For that you might as well go the 'suicide bomber' route used in Mosul a few years back. Just as effective, much flashier, and much easier to pull off in the long and short of it.
| QUOTE (Fix-it) |
| I'm sure military systems are a bit harder, but given that most hackers today aren't too interested in cracking mil systems, we'll never find out. |
An old commo sergeant told me about 7 years ago that the hand held motorola 'walkie talkies' that they were using, completely unauthorized by the military had encryption that NSA couldn't crack, unlike the military SINCGARS radios we used. Which was why the military didn't authorize 'em....
Make what you will of that.
My recollection is that wireless protocols are structured in such a way that you simply need to gather a couple hundred thousand packets to extrapolate the key from them, as it's included in the packet. It's technically "128 bit encryption", but it's not being used to it's full effect, by any means... that would involve key information not being broadcast within the encrypted data.
well, first off, i wasn't suggesting trying to poison MREs... you'd basically have to teleport the poison into those things for it to be undetected (or sneak in a packing machine i suppose, to vacuum seal them all again... like you said, if you can get that inside, you may as well sneak in a really big bomb).
the prepared food, on the other hand... i have my doubts that they can check for every single poison known to exist. all it takes is to use a poison with a delayed reaction. for example, today there is a mushroom. in english it's name translates to 'the destroying angel' or something like that. looks like a normal, edible mushroom. tastes like a normal, edible mushroom. there is no known antidote, and it's more or less guaranteed to kill you (takes something like 12-14 hours i think). you would have to specifically test for it to find it.
you think they couldn't bioengineer something a whole lot worse than that in 2070?
the prepared food, on the other hand... i have my doubts that they can check for every single poison known to exist. all it takes is to use a poison with a delayed reaction. for example, today there is a mushroom. in english it's name translates to 'the destroying angel' or something like that. looks like a normal, edible mushroom. tastes like a normal, edible mushroom. there is no known antidote, and it's more or less guaranteed to kill you (takes something like 12-14 hours i think). you would have to specifically test for it to find it.
you think they couldn't bioengineer something a whole lot worse than that in 2070?
| QUOTE (kzt @ Aug 1 2007, 10:56 PM) | ||
That's because, in the real world, encryption works and it takes a billion years for the most powerful computer allowed by physics to crack 128 bit encryption. The way encryption can be casually broken in SR has huge impact on the game world. |
Hmmm..
Not really sure why my comment is quoted in a comment about encryption, but thank you for your input.
In general, it's accepted that current wireless encryption is almost not worth using because it's so easy to decrypt.
I would imagine that 60 years will produce better encryption [quantum or organic based ??], and using dedicated parallel computer arrays to decrypt them in near-realtime isn't unfeasible.
After all, the security services can already intercept and analyse mobile phone communication and gain useful info from that [unfortunately, I can't remem the name of the method used, but I do know it involves listening for specific words and phrases out of all the calls and sounds and words].
And the sheer computing power necessary to translate neural information into electronic information, to the degree in SR is beyond us at this time - so SR computers are generations ahead of current computers [portable Cray using nanoscale Babbage parallel processors ??].
Just my thruppence..
| QUOTE (Shrike30) |
| My recollection is that wireless protocols are structured in such a way that you simply need to gather a couple hundred thousand packets to extrapolate the key from them, as it's included in the packet. It's technically "128 bit encryption", but it's not being used to it's full effect, by any means... that would involve key information not being broadcast within the encrypted data. |
Only WEP encryption is easy to break, but has been superseded by a new wireless protocol, WPA. WPA is currently thought to be good and supports both AES and TKIP. Any good implementation of AES with a sufficiently long key has no vulnerabilities and has been proven safe and reviewed by numerous people.
The problem with encryption is that a 'good' implementation is really difficult and you need to get lots of people to check to make sure you didn't make a mistake. Lots of people do. In reality AES is unbreakable in any sort of timeframe that matters, currently.
But in shadowrun you can haxor encryption pretty much in real time, and that is huuggee.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.