Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 20:53:36 -0400 
From: "Mark A. Baxter" <mb8p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Huge Robots as weapons, are they valid?  Does it matter?

   I think some of you guys are getting way too bogged down in reality
here (Laird is, of course, excluded from this).  It is concievable that
at some time in the future giant humanoid robot war machines will become
the norm.  It's also at least as conceivable (in my humble opinion) that
we will learn to overcome the bonds of flesh and extend our awareness
into the plane of psionics.  And if you want to make a game out of
either of these premises then HELL, GO RIGHT AHEAD.  If you enjoy
yourself that's all that's important.  Someone made a game on
approximately the same premise as Watership Down, (everyone plays a
rabbit).  I myself like Champions, and there's no way in hell that your
going to catch me saying anything like "Oh yeah, mutants that can
control the weather, lift ten tons or do some other silly stunt could
really happen, really"  NO THEY COULD NOT.  By the same token it is VERY
unlikely that giant humanoid robots will ever become viable.  Defensive
weapons like Stingers, TOW missiles, and the guns the A-10 uses are
driving the tank into extinction.  Right now tanks have an extremely
short range because of the huge amount of spent uranium armor their clad
in.  Basically wars for control of large areas of land are becoming too
expensive.  Look at Afghanistan.  If we'd actually tried to invade Iraq
our asses would have been grass too.  But I digress (and invite flames
from military experts of every stripe, please don't pick up THIS thread
on games.frp.misc)
    The idea of giant robots slugging it out IS appealing.  So is the
idea of superpowered individuals beating the snot out of each other.  So
are western gunfighters.  But as far as economics and the Laws of
Utility, answer me this.  Wouldn't it make more sense just to waldo up
those robots so that the drivers are wired in at some bunker miles away
with a broadcast unit sending commands to the robots.  Hell, why have a
human controller at all.  The criticisms about human reflexes being too
wrong for them to drive a forty foot robot are pretty valid.  Why not
just give them an AI computer brain?  Like Keith Laumer's BOLO  Or a
vat-grown cyborg brain?  Less life support, more space for ecm's and
other goodies.  
    I'll tell you why not.  It doesn't excite as much interest.  In our
guts we're still enthralled with the idea of man to man combat, two
humans trying to crush each other.  And the bigger the weapons the
bigger the spectacle, and the bigger the excitement.  If they ever
achieve (no, when.  It's five to ten years off, max) an AI capable of
piloting a plane or tank there will never be another TOP GUN or another
HAMMER'S SLAMMERS.  Nobody cares about computers.  They were born to
die.  
    So in closing let me say again.  Stop trying to defend the science
behind your game.  You can't.  And using "Anything is possible through
magic, er, I mean science" is kind of silly.  If you like Robot combat,
then play it, if you like superhero games, play them (with me
preferably, I can't find enough people), play what you like.  We wont
say it's silly.  We promise. after all, 
once youve said, "I shall avenge the death of my brother, this I
swear!!!!"  Silly get's pretty relative.       net.hugs.Mark
Mark Baxter              |One is for sorrow,
<mb8p+@andrew.cmu.edu>   |Two is for joy,
ext #4690                |Three for a girl,
                         |Four a boy,
         I               |Five is for silver,
       Have              |Six is for gold,
         A               |And Seven's a secret
      Secret             |Never to be told.