Another Timesink

[sinanju]

So I haven't yet bought City of Heroes. And I'm not at all certain that I will. But that's okay, because...I've found another timesink.

MechWarrior 4: Mercenaries. Actually, Twoson found it. snippy and I were cleaning up the house last weekend and amongst the long forgotten debris on a disused computer desk was a demo disk containing several games, including MechWarrior 4. Twoson discovered the disk and asked if he could install it on my computer and I let him do it.

He really liked the demo. Liked it so well, in fact, that he nagged us about taking him to buy the full game. Which Snippy did this past Saturday morning. So now the complete game is loaded on my computer and Twoson plays it every chance he gets. And--god help me--I've been playing it also. I've been playing the same single-player mission over and over again, trying out different Mechs and figuring out the best keyboard configuration for the controls. But I am having fun with it, no matter how stupid the game is.

And it is stupid. I mean, really. If modern warfare has taught us anything, it's that if you can be seen on the modern battlefield, you're dead. So naturally the future of warfare (in the year 3066) is giant (tens of tons in weight) anthropomorphic robots* (standing eight to fourteen meters tall) running (yes, literally running on two legs) around bludgeoning one another into scrap with a wide array of energy and projectile weapons. It's ridiculous. Absurd. And yet, it's fun. Kind of like a computerized version of Rock Em Sock Em Robots with heavy weapons.

It was a tabletop wargame first, and one that I've never been interested in playing precisely because it's so completely idiotic in concept. I like my futuristic wargames to be a bit more realistic, he sniffed. I didn't think the computer version would be any better, but it represents the triumph of nifty graphics and gameplay over stupid concept. What would be tedious and unthinkably stupid as a tabletop game turns out to be a lot of fun when all I have to do is steer my robot steed and fire the weapons. Plus, there's the MechLab, where you can start with stock robot designs and fiddle with the array of weapons, the amount and placement of armor and electronic upgrades to try to build the perfect killing machine. Or the perfect machine for a given scenario or mission. Then, of course, you have to try it out to see how well it works. (In a campaign game, you'd also have to do repairs after each scenario, and manage your resources by earning pay and salvaging enemy mechs and so forth.)

It's a lot more fun than I thought it would be.

*If you can call it a "robot" when it has human pilot sitting in a cockpit in the "head" of the robot.

Comments

Re: You can run but you can't hide...

[sinanju.livejournal.com]

Which is why I've long suspected that someday wars will be won or lost by robots without any human participation. If you can't hide anymore, and if you're visible you're dead, the end result is going to be an escalating battle of disposable units trying to find and eliminate the other guy's disposable assets first. You'll have lost the war not when the other side kills your troops, but when he _can_ kill your troops because he's already taken out _your_ robot sentries and weapons. Unless you're unwilling to accept the reality and force him to prove it, I can see a war being lost with no (or very few) human casualties.

And, despite your arguments, I persist in thinking battlemechs are mind-numbingly stupid. FUN, as it turns out, but stupid.

Maybe...

[seawasp]

I had arguments instead of wiseass commentary? I must be slipping.

Seriously, robots will fight some of the wars. Human beings will still remain more flexible and disposable unless you get to the true AI level, and if your robot is as smart and flexible as you are, will IT want to go running out and get shot on the battlefield? I doubt it.

My vision of the war of the future, assuming we don't get sensible and just stop shooting (yeah, yeah, fat chance), is of AUGMENTED human fighters. The Frankenstein syndrome will make it, I think, very unlikely that even if we can make AIs that we're going to trust them with most of our weapons and defenses.

No giant robots, alas. Powersuits, maybe. PAPA and cyber. UAVs and UGVs and telepresence.

Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;

Re: Maybe...

[sinanju.livejournal.com]

I had arguments instead of wiseass commentary?

Arguments, smartass commentary...same difference.

Humans have human-level intelligence and we don't seem to have too much trouble finding ways to motivate human soldiers to go risk their soft pink hides in combat. I don't imagine it will be too difficult to do likewise with AIs. Though I agree that Skynet would loom large in any discussion of handing off control of the weapons to AI systems.

But whether it's cyber-soldiers or outright robots, I think we're going to see warfare move farther and farther into the realm of relatively bloodless victories (assuming the victor is satisfied with that, of course).

If I can neutralize your PAPA and cyber-systems and knock out your telepresence, leaving my side the only one with effective assets, I've won--even if I haven't yet killed any of your soldiers. Sure, you might be unwilling to recognize that fact and force me to kill them until you yell "Uncle!" But the actual balance of power has shifted decisively in my favor; it's only matter at point of whether I _choose_ to kill them.

But all of this getting rather far afield of my original point. MechWarrior is a really silly concept, but it's been a lot more fun than I'd have thought it would be.

I try to avoid such things...

[seawasp]

... I have enough timesinks as it is. Getting involved in things like a MMPORG or a detailed combat strategy game would Eat My Time, and if I ever want to get the next book finished, that would be a Very Bad Thing.

This doesn't, unfortunately, prevent me from sensing the temptation. I feel like an alcoholic in a bar.

Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;