NationStates Jolt Archive

A recent NSUN discussion on clones got me wondering; which is REALLY better for warfare. There is evidence that clones would win *cough*Star Wars*uncough* but I'm curious what you FT experts think.

*dons fireproof suit and ducks*

The clones only won because the battle droids were so terrible for combat; if they had used all super battle droids or droidekas for their forces, the clones would have been cut to pieces. It had more to do with the fact that the Trade Federation in particular was really cheap more than a problem with robotic soldiers themselves.

Plus, there was no chem/bio warfare, which would wreak havoc with biological organisms while robots would be unharmed (possibly damaged by chemicals, but not biological weapons).

Plus, there was no chem/bio warfare, which would wreak havoc with biological organisms while robots would be unharmed (possibly damaged by chemicals, but not biological weapons).

Surely it could be said that electronic warfare would wreak similar havoc on robots?

EMP Vs cheap Robots

A recent NSUN discussion on clones got me wondering; which is REALLY better for warfare. There is evidence that clones would win *cough*Star Wars*uncough* but I'm curious what you FT experts think.Try hitting an iron bar with your bare fist, and see what happens.

Now, use the iron bar to hit a bare hand and see what happens.

Then, draw your own conclusions.

EMP vs. Diseases

It's a complicated problem, and I'd say that cyborg clones would win the war. Cybernetic bones, juiced up muscles, a machine counterpart for every organ, and probably some way to get power from blood, and you'd be the scourge of the battlefield. Until you got blown up with a spaceship.

The clones were highly trained as fighters. Remember the person who the clones came from could fight a trained jedi to a standstill. The robots didn't have a chance fighting a jedi. I would place my money on the clones because of the selection of good base stock and the extensive training process.

that will do it every time

Terminator-like robots would kick clone ass.

Well, I use a professional citizen army, because, you can RP their emotions and I do it to spite everybody that uses robots and clones.

So there.

i would prefer heartless machines of death than petty humans who have to think about their action...and the liquid type terminator robots would totally rip the clones apart...literally..

I use moreaus-- genetically modified canids as soldiers, as well as franks-- genetically modified humans as soldiers. During the second Vodais plague wars to survive the Commonalitarianism had to create something capable of taking on a plague vampire in open combat, as well as other nasties like rage zombies.

If I get into FT (again?), then I'd use a combination of the two. No no no, not cyborgs, but rather I'd use clones AND robots, in either different battle groups or completely intermixed groups.

I'd also use some sort of genetically enhanced/created hivemind creature, but that's a different story all together.

The first thing to remember is that is going to have to be FT, so we don't really know how the clones or robots will function.

That said, if we're talking about clones as in just cloned, not genetically monkeyed with... it depends on the AI. Presumably it is possible to create robots that are physically more capable than humans. If the robots could function mentally on a level equal to or above human capacity, then the fight goes to the robots, no question.

If not, then it's still no question, but the fight goes to the clones, who are after all, basically humans. Presuming equal number, adaptability and unpredictability would probably win out in the long run.

Or are we talking Star Wars robots vs. Star Wars clones specifically?

Ewoks.

Remember the person who the clones came from could fight a trained jedi to a standstill. Which has what to do with the training of the clones?

The robots didn't have a chance fighting a jedi. I call shennigans! Episode one, a pair of droidekas forced one of the best Jedi alive and his padawan to retreat.

Just saying.

Ewoks.

You sir, win the thread.

You sir, win the thread.

Yay. It was quite the dastardly Good Friends challenge.

Though, a bit more serious, I would have to say Robots, since they are manufactured much faster than clones, as well as being capable of being augmented with biotechnology much easier than clones. On top of that, they won't feel fear as much.

In a war of entirely clones versus entirely robots, I guess the clones, would win, however, since they could simply just EMP battle after battle.

Ewoks.

Teh win!


This really is a pointless argument unless you set some context. You could make robots or clones powerful to the max if you create your own tech or mix... now, if you want to set it in Star Wars or something, that's another story.

Well this brings me back to my SupCom doctrine argument. (This is assuming you have the stupidly advanced enough technology)

The biggest advantage robots/droids have over clones is the ability to be mass produced.

Ok..

You thinking "hey I can mass produce clone too you noob!"

No, not really, not how I am talking about mass production. You see it takes years to grow suitable clones and even if you give them a super wanked 3 month growth period they still need years of training to be combat ready. And DNA is for basic instruction not urban combat tactics so you can't say they don't need training because its in their DNA..bs.

Now drones on the other hand can be built in a factory. Wether it takes a few hours, days, or weeks, you can mass produce a new set of drones hardwired and ready for combat. Given you have the technology and resources you can easily outnumber a cloned opponent.

Also think of this; if you can land a skeleton crew and advanced factories on a planet, in weeks or months time you can create a huge robot factory capable of pumping out more combat ready robots in a month than then planet has total human population.

My 2 cents.. :D

Robots don't need food either.

don't use the clone wars as an example. Plapatine rigged the war to serve his purpose of destroying the jedi.

Surely it could be said that electronic warfare would wreak similar havoc on robots?

It could, but it would also wreak havoc on their own weapons and systems; even though the soldiers were biological, they still used large quantities of computing, robotics, and electronic technology in their weapons and vehicles. So, it might be effective, but it would also hurt them as well.

I hate to say it, but whether the humans were cloned or not doesn't matter. A machine-only army would almost certain defeat any human military.

Firstly there is a question of the oft-ignored logistical variety. It's not just as simple as one big conveyor belt putting the robots together at a thousand units per second - every single tiny component has to be manufactured at various different factories, and then put together into working subsystems at various other factories, before being brought to life as a robot in the last factory. One must also consider the vast number of different materials required for something as complicated as a walking, talking, fighting robot. Who mines it all? Where must it be mined? What sort of alloys need to be made? Where is it all processed? How does it get from the processing plants to the numerous factories required to make it all work? Who writes the software that will be installed on them at this point? In the real world, it ultimately takes a lot of different companies, with numerous specialisations, to build something like a tank, and the same would be true for an infinitely more sophisticated combat robot. Take out just one part of the chain, and the entire assembly process comes to a halt.

Then you have technical questions. In an age of railguns capable of penetrating capital ship armour, particle weapons capable of destabilising matter on the molecular level, and your other staples such as tactical nukes and similarly powerful explosives, any armour put on the things is going to be a token gesture at best. Assuming you are talking about humanoid robots, anyway - tank-like devices will be able to mount much heavier armour. With armour piercing weapons a reality in every age (especially FT, where it's unlikely any infantry can be equipped with remotely adequate armour against the weapons they will face), the question becomes, how much of a beating can these robots endure without protection? Does it take more or less stopping power than organic combatants to bring them down? Are there redundancies? Do these redundancies increase the power consumption and weight, therefore the mobility, of the robot? How much so? Perhaps you could equip them with personal energy shields somehow, but on that sort of scale the same is true for normal soldiers at that point. How easy is it to repair damaged robots in the field?

Power also becomes an issue - they might not eat, but they still need fuel. What source of power do they use? Is it vulnerable to attack? Is it reliable? How long does it last? There is no such thing as an everlasting power source, and on something as small, sophisticated and power-hungry as humanoid combat robot, it wouldn't last as long as you think. How easily can it be replaced or recharged? If it does get hit by weapons fire, is it volatile? Sufficiently so to risk the 'lives' of robots nearby?

Who codes the software was an earlier consideration, and it's an important part of the equation - the software ultimately guides how well the robot will perform and what their capabilities will be. How complex is it? How long does it take to write, and how often are updates written? What kind of bugs are there? There are always bugs in software. Is the software vulnerable in some way that could be exploited? What soft of capabilities does the software afford to the robots? You can't write emotions or imagination, but are they capable of learning, or thinking outside the box? How well can they respond to unforeseen circumstances or complications in their plans or orders?

Clones aren't exactly perfect either. If you are just starting out with a cloning program, you won't have any adults ready for immediate training and deployment - you'll have to grow them from scratch. I won't even begin to cover how much resource this will cost you - ranging from the equipment to the scientists required to carry it out, and all of the support personnel they will need. Any cloning program capable of churning out millions of troops is going to be enormous and costly. And then you'll have to train them as well. By the time you have finished, you will have what is essentially an army of slaves, and I'm sorry to say that you could devise the most perfect training program possible and you will never infuse them with the same passion and will to survive as a regular volunteer - they have no family to defend, nothing to look forward to, no real reason to fight other than being told to. They will also have questionable morals and ethics, and being bred as slaves, they aren't going to lean towards imaginative thinking any more than robots will. I think the last installment of Star Wars once again shows us this. And all of this is not to mention the political and sociological upheaval that will undoubtedly begin when your people learn that you operate an army of slaves.

Also don't forget that the army is typically one of the largest employers in any given country, making it extremely important to the economy. Even if either solution was cheaper to implement and maintain, and I'm not so sure that they are, the damage you would cause to your economy by suddenly most or even all of your conventional troops would be catastrophic. Any savings you made would quickly be lost.

At the end of the day I contest that neither is particularly advantageous. Despite all of the railguns and particle cannons, the most powerful weapon on the battlefield will be morale, imagination, determination and loyalty. You can't program or train any of these qualities. You need to be born with them, and develop them as you grow up. The same is true today, in fact. And so far as roleplay value goes, frankly speaking, with millions of soulless robots and faceless clones, there isn't any.

Clones pwn.

http://aicentral.planetannihilation.gamespy.com/arm_image2.jpg

Clones times a thousand.

(Cookie to anyone who gets the ref.)

At the end of the day I contest that neither is particularly advantageous. Despite all of the railguns and particle cannons, the most powerful weapon on the battlefield will be morale, imagination, determination and loyalty. You can't program or train any of these qualities. You need to be born with them, and develop them as you grow up. The same is true today, in fact. And so far as roleplay value goes, frankly speaking, with millions of soulless robots and faceless clones, there isn't any.

Yup. Ultimately, the effectiveness of an armed force, especially in FT, is going to hinge on quality because the sheer size of most nations makes winning wars of attrition more or less impossible. If your forces lack morale and imagination, they're going to get pounded regardless of whether they're genetically perfected super-soldier clones or heavily armed robots with a personal arsenal of weapons capable of individually annihilating an entire platoon of enemy troops.

If you can out-think the enemy, you will be able to overcome many of disadvantages and ultimately prove victorious. Of course, clones and robots that are independent people are also capable of disobeying your orders and demanding said war be ended, so it's also a major gamble.

Thing is, clones have the exact same logistics problems as machines (where to get their food, where to get their tubes, where to get their jammies, where to get their armor, weapons, etc...). You're just removing the meat from the equation in the case of the robot, and keeping the armor and guns. That, and with sufficient technology (Schlock fabbers, Trekkie replicators, etc), you can manufacture any mechanical item using dirt as your only raw materials. Humans, meanwhile, take years still, far shorter than how long it would take to manufacture a robot by even the most primitive of means.

Then we have the sheer performance issues involved. Barring really bad representations in movies *cough*starwars*cough*, a robot is going to be superior in pretty much every conceivable way. Thinks faster (MUCH faster), moves faster, harder to kill, and is a FAR better shot (to be honest, there shouldn't really be any reason for an FT bot to actually miss). Meatbags, on the other hand, think horribly slowly, bitch and moan about having one small hole in their torso, have to sleep, squish easily, need to be fed several times a day, haven't put any thought into redundancy at all, and worst of all, have a shelf life of only a couple decades.

Anyway, we all know that a Culture Drone, let alone an SC Terror Weapon wtfpwnz any meatbag, any day of the week.

Then we have the sheer performance issues involved. Barring really bad representations in movies *cough*starwars*cough*, a robot is going to be superior in pretty much every conceivable way

Yeah, but that was mostly because the TF and their allies were a bunch of cheapasses. The droidekas kicked some serious ass when they unloaded in to the enemy with their lasers. Too bad they didn't show IG-88 in action...he apparently pwns in the novels.

Thinks faster (MUCH faster), moves faster, harder to kill, and is a FAR better shot (to be honest, there shouldn't really be any reason for an FT bot to actually miss). Meatbags, on the other hand, think horribly slowly, bitch and moan about having one small hole in their torso, have to sleep, squish easily, need to be fed several times a day, haven't put any thought into redundancy at all, and worst of all, have a shelf life of only a couple decades.


Damn biologicals with all their limitations and their...fluids. That's why I'm going straight robotic once I decide to RP FT.

Let's take a look at another aspect of this debate. Are robots better than human beings at fighting? The answer is no. Never will they be, either. Human beings invented war, our Chimpanzee cousins dabble as well... I forget my point.

In the end, if nations start throwing robotic Armies at one another it's just a giant episode of Battlebots.

No one wins. No one loses. There is just a lot of broken robots on the ground. War loses its purpose. And that purpose is for human beings to do gloriously inhumane things to one another. Gloriously violent we are as a race...War is the pinnacle of human achievement, it is drama in the greatest sense.

So when we grow clones to fight robots, in essence, we destroy our humanity.

Try hitting an iron bar with your bare fist, and see what happens.

Now, use the iron bar to hit a bare hand and see what happens.

Then, draw your own conclusions.

ok, I have a better test.

Try out smarting an Iron Bar and see what happens.

Now tell the iron bar to out smart you.

Finally ask the iron bar what conclusions it has drawn.

ok, I have a better test.

Try out smarting an Iron Bar and see what happens.

Now tell the iron bar to out smart you.

Finally ask the iron bar what conclusions it has drawn.Ever played a first person shooter? That's what we can do now. Now imagine it improved, about thirty+ years in the future (I.e. the time it took for Pong to turn into System Shock II). And also consider that:

The robot has more HP (== damage resistant materials, 'Armour') than you
The robot has better perception (Going beyond visible light, to name one example) than you
The robot has greater physical strength than you (Ever tried to armwrestle one of the assembly robots in a car factory?)
The robot is much less bothered by overpressure (== explosions) than you
The robot wont get exhausted, unlike you
The robot doesn't need sleep, unlike you
The robot doesn't fear detah, unlike you
There are many more robots than there are of you

There aren't necessarily more robots than you. I can buy an SKS for 150 bucks and a box of 200 7.62x39mm rounds for 10 dollars. You don't have to clean these things and they're easy enough to use...you don't even need magazines for them!

So no, I can buy more ammo and guns for one of your robots and hand it to some poor kid before throwing him into combat.

Also...War is not a video game. It's an experience, as I said before. A completely human experience that should not be diminished in any way at all. It's a glorious, honourable, thing that is a privilege for us.

Robots are destroying tradition and we will suffer for it.

For some reason, with robots, I always get this mental picture of them rolling off an assembly line with the Breakfast Machine tune from 'Pee Wee's Big Adventure' in the background.

With clones, it's even more illogical. I think of two clone soldiers standing next to each other doing 'Bananas in Pyjamas'.

"Are you thinking what I'm thinking, Clone #65535?"
"I think I am, Clone #65536!"

So, here's your definitive test.

You have a breakfast machine, and you have two bananas.

You set the breakfast machine in motion, then you peel and eat a banana. Then you watch the breakfast machine in motion, and try to keep your mind off eating the second banana in the process.

If you have the patience to wait for the breakfast machine to finish making your breakfast, then Clones are the best.

If you absolutely positively must eat that second banana *now*, Robots are the best.

@Ghost Tigers: It's the Arm Commander from TA. The ARM were against patterning and used clones instead.

The robot has more HP (== damage resistant materials, 'Armour') than you

Why? You make a humanoid robot, and it'll be able to carry just as much armour as a human. It's a size thing. History has shown that whenever somebody makes some armour, somebody else always develops a way of penetrating said armour - this will be just as true in the future as it is today. If you want thicker armour, you need a bigger model, in which case you won't have an infantry force anymore anyway. One armour-piercing round through a power source, or through the highly vulnerable joints, or into whatever manner of computer system it uses, will finish the robot just as surely as it will a human.

The robot has better perception (Going beyond visible light, to name one example) than you

Multi-spectral vision is just as possible on a person. It is at this very moment, in fact.

The robot has greater physical strength than you (Ever tried to armwrestle one of the assembly robots in a car factory?)

Not really relevant. Although many FT players would like to debate the issue, what with their troops all being armed with swords for some reason, armies kill each other from a greater distance with each passing decade. Soldiers don't arm wrestle each other on the battlefield now, nor would they in the future.

The robot is much less bothered by overpressure (== explosions) than you

Not necessarily. Put a grenade next to anything standing on two legs and it'll be knocked over, regardless of how strong it is - it'd have to be pretty heavy, with big feet, to stay upright, in which case they're not going to be very nimble. And many sensitive electrical components can be damaged by severe shocks, even if they're protected against such.

The robot wont get exhausted, unlike you
The robot doesn't need sleep, unlike you

No, but they need energy, and that would need recharging regularly. Considering the power requirements of something as sophisticated as a combat robot, the power requirements will be extensive, and you'd need some kind of chemical storage battery to power them. Contrary to popular belief you can't fit a nuclear reactor onto something that small, regardless of if it's fusion or fission (and I don't think you'd want to really), nor would an RTG be remotely sufficient for the power requirements of something of this nature.

What sort of battery would they use? How volatile would it be? Would it explode if punctured, or suffer damage if they were exposed to too much heat? How much charge would it have, and how long would it take to recharge? You can't just cram all of this extremely power-consuming technology onto something as complex as a humanoid robot without considering its power requirements, which would be immense and difficult to satisfy.

The robot doesn't fear detah, unlike you

Not really an advantage in the crunch, I think. There's nothing like a health fear of death to keep you on your toes. If they don't care about their own lives, they're much easier to shoot at.

There are many more robots than there are of you

Not necessarily. As described above, something as complex as a robot would require extensive and expensive production lines, with many links in the chain just waiting to be blown up. Logistically speaking, it's far cheaper and faster to just arm your entire population and give them basic training, if you're after quick soldiers.

Besides, if robotic infantry were as effective as people liked to belief, I'm not sure you'd want to make them more numerous. Haven't all the evil machine movies taught you people anything yet? And what happens if their OS crashes, or they catch a virus, and they all go berserk?

Clones and humans have something which ultimately often lets us win against these kind of things fear and an urge for self preservation. We know when to retreat and fight again. Unless you program a robot to defend itself and protect its life it is going to have a hard time adapting to new tactics which humans or clones will constantly come up with. Robots by their nature are quite often inflexible.

The robot has more HP (== damage resistant materials, 'Armour') than you

Der Angst is correct. And why? The robot only needs to make room for microprocessors and his "musculature", the rest can all be body armour if the designer feels like. Further more, the robot doesn't feel pain. You could drop this thing into a raging fire and it could probably walk out of the damn thing, guns blazing.

The robot has better perception (Going beyond visible light, to name one example) than you

I agree, that this is not necessarily correct. Equipping a soldier with correct optics gives the human the same set of advantages the robot will have. For instance, modern soldiers are capable of seeing in the dark and identifying friend from foe using correct optics. SWAT teams in the US have strobes on their armour that flash, and are only visible to their specific set of NVG...I saw it on TV so it has to be true!

The robot has greater physical strength than you (Ever tried to armwrestle one of the assembly robots in a car factory?)

British Troops in Basra engaged in a bayonet charge I believe in 2004. It was so gruesome that local residents thought it should be a warcrime. Later on that year an El Salvadorian Special Forces soldier ran out of ammunition and used a 2 dollar lock blade to get 3 kills in a desperate escape.

Imagine those same soldiers attempting these same maneuvers against a solid, bullet proof, metal device that has the ability to tear your head off with a single swipe of its arm. It would really suck.

The robot is much less bothered by overpressure (== explosions) than you

Human beings burst like ripe melons in this situation. Likewise, radios shatter, engines break, tires burst, glass shatters, metal rends, etc. A robot is not necessarily superior in this situation...it really depends.

The robot wont get exhausted, unlike you

Machinery requires maintenance.

The robot doesn't need sleep, unlike you

Robots need to refuel.

The robot doesn't fear death, unlike you

Robots are expensive and should fear death. This is tax payers money we're talking about here.

There are many more robots than there are of you

Robots need to be manufactured in factories. Prime targets in war time. Human beings are manufactured in women, which can be hidden more easily than a factory. Women take only 9 months to manufacture. Robots can be built in less than a day. However, a woman is free and a robot is not. Women manufacture replacements at an exponential rate, where as a combat robot is incapable of building his own replacement, there's another robot to do that for him, however...when that robot is destroyed, the war is over.

Human beings, however, will always keep coming back for more. Fueled by hatred and ideology, programming in which robots are lacking.

ok, I have a better test.

Try out smarting an Iron Bar and see what happens.

Now tell the iron bar to out smart you.

Finally ask the iron bar what conclusions it has drawn.

Certainly, once I stick a entanglement-based distributed sentience into my iron bar. The answer we recieved when we chatted with it, if I recall correctly, was 42.

Not really relevant. Although many FT players would like to debate the issue, what with their troops all being armed with swords for some reason, armies kill each other from a greater distance with each passing decade. Soldiers don't arm wrestle each other on the battlefield now, nor would they in the future.
Strength is still important. From carrying gear to combat engineering, strength can help. A lot.


No, but they need energy, and that would need recharging regularly. Considering the power requirements of something as sophisticated as a combat robot, the power requirements will be extensive, and you'd need some kind of chemical storage battery to power them. Contrary to popular belief you can't fit a nuclear reactor onto something that small, regardless of if it's fusion or fission (and I don't think you'd want to really), nor would an RTG be remotely sufficient for the power requirements of something of this nature.
Or a Otagian matter conversion module would work quite nicely. Seriously, this is FT. We have antimatter powered toasters for christ's sake. Conclusion: Robots will have a much higher power density than a human and their Mk. 1 Stomach.


Not really an advantage in the crunch, I think. There's nothing like a health fear of death to keep you on your toes. If they don't care about their own lives, they're much easier to shoot at.
There's a difference between fearing death and having a basic idea of tactics. Rule number one: Don't throw away assets needlessly. An AI is going to grasp this one quite well, I would think, and their faster thought processes, better sensory capability, and superior motive abilities make dodging a lot easier.

Multi-spectral vision is just as possible on a person. It is at this very moment, in fact.
Yes, but you can't see behind yourself, or detect the residual radiation level (well, not efficiently), or "see" using ultrasound. Robot = better.

Put a grenade next to anything standing on two legs and it'll be knocked over, regardless of how strong it is - it'd have to be pretty heavy, with big feet, to stay upright, in which case they're not going to be very nimble.
Or, using the smart solution, you don't bother with feet and go with a simple flight mechanism using whatever fancy FT method you prefer. Now we can move several hundred miles per hour as well as not get knocked flat on our asses, as we lack asses. Sadly, we now have nothing shiny nor metal for you to bite. ;)

Not necessarily. As described above, something as complex as a robot would require extensive and expensive production lines, with many links in the chain just waiting to be blown up. Logistically speaking, it's far cheaper and faster to just arm your entire population and give them basic training, if you're after quick soldiers.
Or one Von Neumann machine, one nano-assembler, one replicator, or one fabber. Seriously, FT man. Logistics is a matter of simply having raw material sitting in front of you in many cases.


Besides, if robotic infantry were as effective as people liked to belief, I'm not sure you'd want to make them more numerous. Haven't all the evil machine movies taught you people anything yet? And what happens if their OS crashes, or they catch a virus, and they all go berserk?
One would wonder how they'd catch a virus, given that nobody should really be able to upload things to your fancy combat robots without pretty good clearance (or being an omnipresent deific AI, for that matter). And really, an FT grade self-improving artificial intelligence shouldn't be experiencing OS crashes anyway.

As for the evil machine thing... Well, besides from that being the point some times, we also have such things as modified four law compliance, and other wonderful hardwired rules that prevent such ill-conceived issues.

Machinery requires maintenance.
Less often than a human.

Robots need to refuel.
Given appropriate technology (nuclear generators, annie plants, conversion systems, etc), far less often than a human.

Women take only 9 months to manufacture.
And another sixteen years to be able to manufacture more.

However, a woman is free and a robot is not.
Try being married and saying that. ;) Seriously though, how much will this person eat? How much will it cost to cloth her? Water costs (not just drinking, but sanitary use as well)? Hobbies?

where as a combat robot is incapable of building his own replacement,
Depends on the robot. Given a pair of hands (or other manipulators, such as, say, field effectors) and a decent knowledge-base, even the lowliest AI should be able to manufacture more robots quite well. Von Neumann FTW.

Human beings burst like ripe melons in this situation. Likewise, radios shatter, engines break, tires burst, glass shatters, metal rends, etc. A robot is not necessarily superior in this situation...it really depends.
Yes, but the overpressure required to rend metal is far more than that required to pop a human like a melon.

Human beings, however, will always keep coming back for more. Fueled by hatred and ideology, programming in which robots are lacking.
Humans easily tire of causes, they aren't guaranteed to follow their orders, and have individual thought that can quite easily be made to doubt. Robots don't tire of anything, always follow their orders, and (given the distributed sentience I do so love) certainly don't question whether it's "right" to kill their enemy.

Neither. Clones are expensive to grow, and are rather unnecessary if your populace is willing to fight, and robots are expensive to build. Good, cheap, dependable labour has always been the natural-born populace.

A fully grown adult needs only 6 hours of sleep to operate at full capacity. A vehicle such as a tank or airplane needs dozens of hours of maintenance for each our of operation it is put through.

As for humans quickly tiring of causes...how long has that war in the Middle East been going on? Oh wait, all of those wars. Palestine? Lebanon?

Why, I think Palestine's been in a constant state of civil unrest for about 60 years. Yeah...actually...more so if you count the Jewish terrorist attacks before the 1947 war and if you think of it, this conflict dates back further than the Egyptian Empire to when the 13 Tribes of Israel were fighting over the place. Humans will never tire of war, Otagia.

A fully grown adult needs only 6 hours of sleep to operate at full capacity. A vehicle such as a tank or airplane needs dozens of hours of maintenance for each our of operation it is put through.
And other machines, such as my car, need rather less. And depending on how the robot is designed, it may not need to be serviced at all.

Humans will never tire of war, Otagia.
Not of war no, but of a war, hell yes. WW2 Japan, Vietnam and the current conflict in Iraq, for example.

I'd like to interject with the perfectly serious point that if you have a clone army you're going to need these machines which require many hours of service to a single hour of operation anyway.

Well, unless you're comparing an integrated AI mechanised robot army to an army of clones charging things with small arms.

In which case the robots would win, because Combined Arms > Just Infantry.

Just make clones with robot parts on them - cyborgs.

Why? You make a humanoid robot, and it'll be able to carry just as much armour as a human.You do realise that the 'bot is made of things like, oh, I don't know... steel, meaning that it'll be inevitably more damage-resistant than a human, before 'Real' armour even comes into play, yes?

Your point applies to something that can be added on (Though the 'bot can carry more, again, better construction materials it's made of - but it's unlikely that one would want it to), not to what is inherently there.

And it raises the point of 'Why bother with the CHON inside?' It's a liability, nothing more.

Multi-spectral vision is just as possible on a person. It is at this very moment, in fact.Oh, absolutely. But it does, again, raise the question of 'Why bother with the meat inside? An unnecessary addition, it is.

Not really relevant. Although many FT players would like to debate the issue, what with their troops all being armed with swords for some reason, armies kill each other from a greater distance with each passing decade. Soldiers don't arm wrestle each other on the battlefield now, nor would they in the future.Soldiers still need to carry their weaponry, ne?

Not necessarily. Put a grenade next to anything standing on two legs and it'll be knocked over, regardless of how strong it is - it'd have to be pretty heavy, with big feet, to stay upright, in which case they're not going to be very nimble. And many sensitive electrical components can be damaged by severe shocks, even if they're protected against such.The point is that the 'bot can get up - its internal organs wont have turned into paste.

Certainly, you've a point in that sensitive components will be damaged, anyway - but if I have the choice between 'Total loss' and 'An hour of maintenance until it goes again', well...

It's not really a tough choice to make.

No, but they need energy, and that would need recharging regularly. Considering the power requirements of something as sophisticated as a combat robot, the power requirements will be extensive, and you'd need some kind of chemical storage battery to power them. Contrary to popular belief you can't fit a nuclear reactor onto something that small, regardless of if it's fusion or fission (and I don't think you'd want to really), nor would an RTG be remotely sufficient for the power requirements of something of this nature.And? Humans need energy, too - the robot does, admittedly, need considerably more (Courtesy of being heavier), but that's doable. And aforementioned advantages remain.

What sort of battery would they use? How volatile would it be? Would it explode if punctured, or suffer damage if they were exposed to too much heat? How much charge would it have, and how long would it take to recharge? You can't just cram all of this extremely power-consuming technology onto something as complex as a humanoid robot without considering its power requirements, which would be immense and difficult to satisfy.Well, I could quote you what I'm presently using in NS, but as it amounts to watered down Culture drones, they may be a bad example... A bit too twinky to count as average.

As you appear to argue from a semi-'Feasible' POV (Defined as 'Theoretical limits set by physics')... It'd most likely be a pretty amazing capacitor-successor (I'm peering at energy densities in the GJ/ m^3 range, should be able to squeeze somewhere between 10 & 100 MJ into a 'bot), plus thermal recharging - lie in the sun, get energy - at some pretty absurd efficiency. Not something that can recharge it fast, certainly (Upper limit would be below 100 W), but it helps.

Gives some perfectly reasonable standing power, really.

Of course, in NS FT, you do have exceedingly tiny fission/ fusion reactors, or handwaved matter annihilation or whatever, whether you like it or not. This doesn't actually change the argument - A human in powered armour will have the same available -, which is that the meatbag is unnecessary, adding additional modes of failure to the system ("What a headache..."), adding further 'Maintenance' requirements (Food, sleep), while providing nothing actually useful, once you've the machine engineering necessary to get usable bipedal robots.

Not really an advantage in the crunch, I think. There's nothing like a health fear of death to keep you on your toes. If they don't care about their own lives, they're much easier to shoot at.True enough. The thing is, a few lines of coding, and you've some reasonable 'Duck and Cover' routines (Assuming, of course, that your 'bots aren't sapient in the first place. Admittedly, if they are, they also fear death), without the liability of 'Panic'.

Not necessarily. As described above, something as complex as a robot would require extensive and expensive production lines, with many links in the chain just waiting to be blown up. Logistically speaking, it's far cheaper and faster to just arm your entire population and give them basic training, if you're after quick soldiers.Incorrect analogy. Your population is already there - but it still takes ~ 15 years to turn a newborn into a vaguely useful combatant. It's thus only a matter of time until the 'bots outnumber the target (Though, this doesn't quite apply to NS, where game balance limits numbers).

Besides, if robotic infantry were as effective as people liked to belief, I'm not sure you'd want to make them more numerous. Haven't all the evil machine movies taught you people anything yet?Well, in my case, I don't pull plugs when machines turn out to be sapient - I give them citizenship instead. Kind of removes the need for a rebellion from their side, doesn't it?

And when they're not, they can, by definition, not be any more dangerous than, lets say, UACVs.

And what happens if their OS crashes, or they catch a virus, and they all go berserk?They become a problem, just like humans who suffer a mental breakdown, or catch the flu, or suddenly run amok become a problem.

By and large, none of these points are machine-exclusive (Well, humans are themselves machines, but anyway), which kind of makes your points irrelevant.

Machinery requires maintenance.Oh, absolutely. The thing is, they require less 'Downtime' for maintenance than a human. Now, I'll be the first to admit that while they need less of it, they need considerably more 'Sophisticated' support - a human can sleep and eat quite easily, the 'bot needs some rather more serious support.

The thing is, with all the given advantages of the 'bot, this disadvantage is something it can take.

Human beings, however, will always keep coming back for more. Fueled by hatred and ideology, programming in which robots are lacking.This is a bad thing. Note that the people filled by hatred and ideology tend to blow themselves up - it doesn't get much more inefficient than that.

Drills and discipline were introduced for a reason, and the reason was that the generals needed their soldiers to function more like machines, not less. You may have noticed the general assrapings various indigenous people received when having to deal with more disciplined - == more 'Machine-like' or, maybe a better term, 'Coded' - attackers.

Seriously, this is FT.

Aaah, I see! That's how we explain away everything. In that case this discussion is entirely pointless, and I counter all of your points with the same.

Yeah Der Angst, technically I agree with you. But in reality I do not. In the end I believe War is an experience that should be dealt with firsthand by human beings on the frontline...otherwise it just becomes pointless.

There has to be a human reason not to conduct war. The loss of loved ones. The loss of material assets. The loss of jobs. The loss...time?

Humanity must experience atrocity in order to be human. We can't just sit on our ass and enjoy it every day. There must be suffering. And while this sounds terrible, it is true and humanity must accept it.

Otherwise we breed uncontrollably and have no purpose other than to breed and not perpetuate glory! Glory is larger than all of us. Glorious acts must be committed, lives must be taken and given as a result.

WAR IS A HUMAN EXPERIENCE! A ROBOT CANNOT SEE WHAT WE SEE! WAR IS ALWAYS LOST IF PEOPLE DO NOT EXPERIENCE IT FOR WHAT IT IS!

WAR IS A HUMAN EXPERIENCE! A ROBOT CANNOT SEE WHAT WE SEE! WAR IS ALWAYS LOST IF PEOPLE DO NOT EXPERIENCE IT FOR WHAT IT IS!

Yah that pretty much sums up my view, besides it'd make for boring storywriting if every soldier in my military was a robot. Then I couldn't have conversations about football or if Geddy Lee could so pwn Les Claypool.

But in between clones and robots, I choose robots, because robots can be made to look sexy.

For cheap, no less m i rite?

Geddy Lee could pwn the crap out of Les Claypool.


And the fact of the matter is, clones or robots, whomever RPs better wins. Which means everyone on II loses. :p