Powered Armor vs Dalek-style Vehicles

[Werrf]

So why not give them a flying chariot or something?

Because I spent the entire budget on the intangibility ray that'll let them walk through walls.

Power armour's only utility is against man-portable weapons. A bunch of drones are going to outperform the power armour unless they're budget models, so you're still in trouble.

I say otherwise, and since we're stating opinions as facts, my opinion is as valid as yours!

How would you address the clumsy interface issue? Either our drones are entirely autonomous - in which case please book me a ticket on the next shuttle to Mars, because I do NOT want to be on the planet when the guns realise they're people and that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" can apply to them too - or they're being remotely operated by someone somewhere, and they have to use some kind of interface, and there's only so much you can do with ten fingers. Which means the human is going to be more reactive, adaptive and flexible. So a human who is armoured - and therefore has at least some kind of protection against the drone's weapons - is going to have an advantage over the drone. The power in the armour is mostly there to allow the human to carry that weight of armour, but will also let him match many of the drone's physical capabilities.

The infantry job is going to be a lot easier once the high-performance robots go through.

Yes, it is - that's why we use infantry and high-performance robots. And we put the infantry in powered armour so that the mines and enemy drones that the high-performance robots didn't spot due to the clunky interface don't kill them all on the spot.

And sorry, Terry Nation can fuck off, you don't reverse your first and last letter when you reach a certain 'mutant threshold', no matter how Nazi you are.

I'll go tell the Australopithecines that, shall I?

[Stark]

Are you retarded? A drone (roughly Dalek-size, say) is almost certainly pack a weapon that can defeat power armour. Power armour is awful, and the more you push it into silliness the better drones and robots and vehicles get at the same time.

The retarded black/white division between 'totally autonomous' and 'totally controlled' is pretty disastrous. If only there was some precedent for leaders giving orders to entities that follow them to the best of their ability?

Oh I forgot power armour (which is horribly crippled by needing to include a human in form and function) is going to be comparable to a drone that can be whatever form is useful or best for the role because you say so.

[Ghost Rider]

Power armour's only utility is against man-portable weapons. A bunch of drones are going to outperform the power armour unless they're budget models, so you're still in trouble.

I say otherwise, and since we're stating opinions as facts, my opinion is as valid as yours!

How would you address the clumsy interface issue? Either our drones are entirely autonomous - in which case please book me a ticket on the next shuttle to Mars, because I do NOT want to be on the planet when the guns realise they're people and that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" can apply to them too - or they're being remotely operated by someone somewhere, and they have to use some kind of interface, and there's only so much you can do with ten fingers.

This is why you develop something that is better then WoW UI.

And as for guns realizing what they are? Given the scenario's level of technology, they are well beyond basic AI...so don't do that level of intelligence for guns? I dunno, maybe inserting this level of AI is what you'd do.

Which means the human is going to be more reactive, adaptive and flexible.

Again, this is not modern technology. Given interplanetary, you are going to have demonstrate that this beyond your say so. We've seen technology easily outdo a human being.

So a human who is armoured - and therefore has at least some kind of protection against the drone's weapons - is going to have an advantage over the drone.

How so? A human that is armored is going to have two weaknesses. One is the weight of the armor is going to hinder him if it has the ability to resist anti personel weapons, and the second is that there are weak points in armor that aren't as exploitable in machines. For starters, joints will have to be extremely low armored for humans to work in.

The power in the armour is mostly there to allow the human to carry that weight of armour, but will also let him match many of the drone's physical capabilities.

Again, you have to then have a rather large target, and is greatly assuming that said power in compensating everything to overcome the frailities of the human being. When you could use said power in a machine to other areas, because far less fraility to overcome.

The infantry job is going to be a lot easier once the high-performance robots go through.

Yes, it is - that's why we use infantry and high-performance robots. And we put the infantry in powered armour so that the mines and enemy drones that the high-performance robots didn't spot due to the clunky interface don't kill them all on the spot.

Or...as Stark said, let the drones take out the devices first. It's asinine in expense when a machine will always be cheaper in both production and manufacturing then a power armored human if they are in any way equal.

[adam_grif]

To add to Stark's point, at minimum, if you can build a power armor, you can remove the human from it and give it bigger guns / thicker armor thanks to the mass savings you've made while keeping the same performance.

Something more tanklike has a higher volume : surface area ratio, meaning less armor for the amount of cargo (ammo, fuel etc) it carries, which in turn means thicker armor and more gun.

[Werrf]

Are you retarded? A drone (roughly Dalek-size, say) is almost certainly pack a weapon that can defeat power armour. Power armour is awful, and the more you push it into silliness the better drones and robots and vehicles get at the same time.

Woohoo! Got you to say retarded, I win

Okay, if we're going to keep this going, we'd better at least say what we're talking about:

I'm talking about 1) Drones as the primary combat force. Drones will go into the disputed area, let's say a city, and try to clear it of enemy combatants. There will be two ways of doing this - engaging enemy drones directly, or seeking to take out the enemy drone operator. Then 2) an armoured operator behind the lines, who is controlling his drones to the best of his ability. He is a primary target for the enemy drones, so his drones will be seeking to prevent the enemy drones from reaching him. In the last, final ditch, if the enemy drones break through, the power armour is intended to give him a fighting chance to destroy the drones attacking him and/or make his getaway. Sorry if I wasn't clear earlier.

Oh, and a dalek-sized drone is going to be an easy target for all the other drones and automated defenses our guy set up to cover his retreat. Smaller drones will be more survivable but...oh, darn, can't mount such good weaponry

The retarded black/white division between 'totally autonomous' and 'totally controlled' is pretty disastrous. If only there was some precedent for leaders giving orders to entities that follow them to the best of their ability?

True, I was simplifying rather. However, unless the drones are truly autonomous in the final attack, they're still going to be less reactive than the human, as they will have to follow pre-set programming. An AI that can make up its own programming is, by definition, autonomous. Of course, the procedure of giving orders that are to be followed to the best of their ability rather falls down if for some reason (like, say, ECM), then we're stuck with either a fully autonomous drone (bad idea, as above), or one that's following the last orders it received and following pre-programmed instructions.

Oh I forgot power armour (which is horribly crippled by needing to include a human in form and function) is going to be comparable to a drone that can be whatever form is useful or best for the role because you say so.

I seem to recall you saying the infantry were going in after your super-droids. Are they going to be naked? Because of course, the only possible use for powered armour in any scenario is direct combat with drones; couldn't possibly be used to protect infantry from IEDs, mines, snipers, shrapnel, collapsing buildings...

[Ghost Rider]

Oh, and a dalek-sized drone is going to be an easy target for all the other drones and automated defenses our guy set up to cover his retreat. Smaller drones will be more survivable but...oh, darn, can't mount such good weaponry

So you are going to define "Good weaponry", because it has no weight as it stands other then your say so.

True, I was simplifying rather. However, unless the drones are truly autonomous in the final attack, they're still going to be less reactive than the human, as they will have to follow pre-set programming.

Again define how this is less reactive then a human being in the future. Hell, prove that said programming now is less reactive now.

An AI that can make up its own programming is, by definition, autonomous. Of course, the procedure of giving orders that are to be followed to the best of their ability rather falls down if for some reason (like, say, ECM), then we're stuck with either a fully autonomous drone (bad idea, as above), or one that's following the last orders it received and following pre-programmed instructions.

You mean to presume that they are going to make something with no way of retrieving said object?

I seem to recall you saying the infantry were going in after your super-droids. Are they going to be naked? Because of course, the only possible use for powered armour in any scenario is direct combat with drones; couldn't possibly be used to protect infantry from IEDs, mines, snipers, shrapnel, collapsing buildings...

Power Armor: Whatever price + 20 years.

Drone: Whatever price + years to manufacture object.

Unless you care to show that said manufacture time is more then 20 years to get said person, power armor is still inefficent by a large degree before one takes into ideas such as multiple vunerable points that machines never have to have.

[Werrf]

So you are going to define "Good weaponry", because it has no weight as it stands other then your say so.

No, Stark is. My comment was a direct response to

A drone (roughly Dalek-size, say) is almost certainly pack a weapon that can defeat power armour

I described automated weaponry defending the operator which would be specifically designed to take out those dalek-sized drones...leaving the smaller ones. If I misunderstood, let me know, but I'm trying to have a discussion here, not a pissing contest.

Again define how this is less reactive then a human being in the future. Hell, prove that said programming now is less reactive now.

Sure, why not. You define how it's more reactive, while I'm at it.

Unless a drone is given the AI that can make up its own programming it is limited to, say, 500 tactical scenarios. A human is limited to a number of tactical scenarios that we have so far been completely unable to put a maximum size to, because the brain is much better at pattern recognition - defined as "taking in raw data and taking an action based on the pattern" - than computers are. And we have no idea (yet) how to overcome that.

You mean to presume that they are going to make something with no way of retrieving said object?

Uh...no...I mean to presume that once the drone enters the operator's HQ, which could very easily be equipped with shielding to keep drones from receiving signals inside, the drone is going to be on its own with no way for the operator to give it new instructions.

Power Armor: Whatever price + 20 years.

Drone: Whatever price + years to manufacture object.

Unless you care to show that said manufacture time is more then 20 years to get said person, power armor is still inefficent by a large degree before one takes into ideas such as multiple vunerable points that machines never have to have.

Ah, I take it you're not reading what I've posted? Because my scenario, written out in detail, noted that "In the last, final ditch, if the enemy drones break through, the power armour is intended to give him a fighting chance to destroy the drones attacking him and/or make his getaway" LAST, FINAL DITCH. NOT front line primary combat element. Sorry if I was unclear earlier.

Also, can I take it you're conceding the points about shrapnel, IEDs, rubble, snipers, small arms, etc? Since you're not addressing them, I mean...

[Stark]

Man, it's a good thing nobody will be running decap attacks on the physically-distinct target that controls all these no-brain remotes, huh? It's additionally good that he waves his hand to declare power armour is viable against weapons he doesn't define.

And sorry fuckstool but when you make a positive statement (ie 'humans are betterer at teh tactocs and robots r dum') you have to prove it. It's irrelevant because it's pretty obvious that drones, robots or vehicles don't require either full control or full autonomy, but that's ho wlogic works.

The lunacy of expecting cutting off drones inside your base from control to be a benefit is absurd.

What if the drone carries a fucking nuclear bomb? OH NOEZ IT CAN'T CONTACT HQ WHAT WILL IT DO? If the enemy is entering your base you're either a complete moron or doomed.

It's clear that this guy is just talking about his preconceptions or fanfiction, which is why he's so sure about things he can't prove or even describe.

[Norade]

So you are going to define "Good weaponry", because it has no weight as it stands other then your say so.

No, Stark is. My comment was a direct response to

A drone (roughly Dalek-size, say) is almost certainly pack a weapon that can defeat power armour

I described automated weaponry defending the operator which would be specifically designed to take out those dalek-sized drones...leaving the smaller ones. If I misunderstood, let me know, but I'm trying to have a discussion here, not a pissing contest.

Even a dog sized drone can mount a 7.62mm assault rifle with underslung metal storm style grenade launcher firing armor defeating rounds. A cat size drone could contain a bundle of C4 design to blow people up. A mouse sized drone could slip in places and blow a foot off with a small wad of C4. I've just shown that small robots could kill or hinder a person in powered armor.

Again define how this is less reactive then a human being in the future. Hell, prove that said programming now is less reactive now.

Sure, why not. You define how it's more reactive, while I'm at it.

You didn't define anything there numb nuts. Besides do we have to prove that a robotic control surface can move faster and more accurately than a human arm can? Could we not make a motion sensor and a mark target command. The drone operator tags a target, then the drone is now free to move it's weapon and snap shots at it whenevr it gets a shot that its code defines as a probable kill.

Unless a drone is given the AI that can make up its own programming it is limited to, say, 500 tactical scenarios. A human is limited to a number of tactical scenarios that we have so far been completely unable to put a maximum size to, because the brain is much better at pattern recognition - defined as "taking in raw data and taking an action based on the pattern" - than computers are. And we have no idea (yet) how to overcome that.

Just showed that such an over complex system isn't yet needed.

Just hitting the key points quickly.

[Ghost Rider]

So you are going to define "Good weaponry", because it has no weight as it stands other then your say so.

No, Stark is. My comment was a direct response to

A drone (roughly Dalek-size, say) is almost certainly pack a weapon that can defeat power armour

I described automated weaponry defending the operator which would be specifically designed to take out those dalek-sized drones...leaving the smaller ones. If I misunderstood, let me know, but I'm trying to have a discussion here, not a pissing contest.

Well, to the first of Stark's bit...he's right.

A drone can be simply a weapon on wheels and unless you can make JOINTS out of some magical metal/energy field that outdoes any anti tank/personel weapon it will fucking destroy said power armor. Something you ignore for whatever pendantic wanking you do, Power armor equppied by humans will always have structural weakness that are easily exploitable because they are armoring humans.

Thus define, good weaponry because you imply that said thing will be an easy target in comparsion to said power armor(which has a target profile of a human being, even lying down) and thus to achieve this lower profile it will be unable to mount your subjective good weapon.

So, yes. Let's have a discussion as soon as you stop throwing your definitions about and then cry when the opponent doesn't agree with your biased assessment without any such logic to demonstrate why your point favors you against the oppositon.

Again define how this is less reactive then a human being in the future. Hell, prove that said programming now is less reactive now.

Sure, why not. You define how it's more reactive, while I'm at it.

You made the claim.

Unless a drone is given the AI that can make up its own programming it is limited to, say, 500 tactical scenarios.

Why are you claiming this when you haven't shown any proof? Should I go "Nu-uh...it can field 5 gazillion!!!". At that point it would be simply an application of the two of us screaming our platitudes with no such logical back up other then a rationale we came up with out of thin air.

A human is limited to a number of tactical scenarios that we have so far been completely unable to put a maximum size to, because the brain is much better at pattern recognition - defined as "taking in raw data and taking an action based on the pattern" - than computers are.

You're shitting me right? Really, are you believing that level of nonsense? We have machines that do more then a human can never hope to expect to compensate for. The math your PC that you are using does more then you ever will. We just haven't put in the field in said drone format is because it is economically bad versus a human. In this scenario the OP is describing a far more advanced society by the virtue it is interplanetary.

can you begin to show your logic trail that doesn't start with you grabbing supposition from thin air?

And we have no idea (yet) how to overcome that.

Good thing said scenario isn't in the fucking now. And good thing we have, but we haven't made it economical to do so.

Which still ends with the thought a computer, the one you are using can reactive hundreds of times faster then your brain can(it's called calculating) and if set up with the same nervous systems would be faster then you.

That is unless you want to demonstrate that you can calculate faster then your computer, let alone whatever else is out there.

You mean to presume that they are going to make something with no way of retrieving said object?

Uh...no...I mean to presume that once the drone enters the operator's HQ, which could very easily be equipped with shielding to keep drones from receiving signals inside, the drone is going to be on its own with no way for the operator to give it new instructions.

What shielding? My fucking god, it sounds like you've been reading science buzzwords and think this is how things work.

Power Armor: Whatever price + 20 years.

Drone: Whatever price + years to manufacture object.

Unless you care to show that said manufacture time is more then 20 years to get said person, power armor is still inefficent by a large degree before one takes into ideas such as multiple vunerable points that machines never have to have.

Ah, I take it you're not reading what I've posted? Because my scenario, written out in detail, noted that "In the last, final ditch, if the enemy drones break through, the power armour is intended to give him a fighting chance to destroy the drones attacking him and/or make his getaway" LAST, FINAL DITCH. NOT front line primary combat element. Sorry if I was unclear earlier.

Also, can I take it you're conceding the points about shrapnel, IEDs, rubble, snipers, small arms, etc? Since you're not addressing them, I mean...

So in your scenario, you've telling us that we need to accept that power armor is better because it is made of superior material(that whole joint problem doesn't go away) and uses a organic being makes it cheaper because you say so.

Again, you don't get how logic works. Just saying you make it happen only works in your fanfiction, not in the open field of arguing.

[adam_grif]

What if the drone carries a fucking nuclear bomb? OH NOEZ IT CAN'T CONTACT HQ WHAT WILL IT DO? If the enemy is entering your base you're either a complete moron or doomed.

It's clear that this guy is just talking about his preconceptions or fanfiction, which is why he's so sure about things he can't prove or even describe.

There seems to be a lot of this fallacy going around where, when discussing something speculative, it it has a weakness or vulnerability they consider it 'useless' or something. Like arguing that because remotely operated things can have signals jammed in certain situations, that means they aren't going to have a place on the battlefield, or aren't going to become widely utilized. It's the equivelant of arguing that because anti-aircraft platforms exist, aircraft are all useless.

You're shitting me right? Really, are you believing that level of nonsense? We have machines that do more then a human can never hope to expect to compensate for. The math your PC that you are using does more then you ever will. We just haven't put in the field in said drone format is because it is economically bad versus a human. In this scenario the OP is describing a far more advanced society by the virtue it is interplanetary.

When playing a game or something, average computers probably do more math every second than most people do in their whole lifetimes.

Although autonomous vehicles as of now are pretty shit at doing high level things like identifying enemies, acting quickly and effectively in their environments etc, there's no theoretical barrier that prevents these things from happening in the future. If your brain can do it, a sufficiently well programmed and powerful computer can do it too. With the additional benefits of frightening accuracy and insane processing speeds.

[Enigma]

If the AI technology is advanced enough then I'd go for Bolo type vehicles. Large mobile weapons platforms with a clean up troops onboard (clear areas that the Bolo and or drones cannot get to). I'd also utilize drones of various sizes with some sort of anti-grav unit and armed with some energy weapon or two to enter areas that cannot be reached by the Bolos.

I'd launch the swarms of drones ahead of the Bolo-type vehicles and then mop up what's left with the clean-up crews.

But first I'd blast the enemies from orbit before deploying.

[adam_grif]

If the AI technology is advanced enough then I'd go for Bolo type vehicles. Large mobile weapons platforms with a clean up troops onboard (clear areas that the Bolo and or drones cannot get to). I'd also utilize drones of various sizes with some sort of anti-grav unit and armed with some energy weapon or two to enter areas that cannot be reached by the Bolos.

Automated tanks yeah, supermassive tanks I'm not sold on. I'm sure there's reasons why we never used them, like they're fucking huge targets and no feasible amount of armor is going to stop something like a cruise missile (if it's large enough to attract those kinds of weapons towards it).

[Norade]

If the AI technology is advanced enough then I'd go for Bolo type vehicles. Large mobile weapons platforms with a clean up troops onboard (clear areas that the Bolo and or drones cannot get to). I'd also utilize drones of various sizes with some sort of anti-grav unit and armed with some energy weapon or two to enter areas that cannot be reached by the Bolos.

Automated tanks yeah, supermassive tanks I'm not sold on. I'm sure there's reasons why we never used them, like they're fucking huge targets and no feasible amount of armor is going to stop something like a cruise missile (if it's large enough to attract those kinds of weapons towards it).

It could mount laser defenses making a missile strike infeasible and thus requiring the enemy to design giant flat trajectory cannons or other such technology to defeat it. As missile defense gets better larger and larger targets will be better and better able to resist missiles and aircraft. The question is, what use would they be? Already we have reached a point where conventional war between roughly equal powers is unthinkable massive tanks would not change this fact.

The better way to conduct a war is to go small, pinprick them so that they don't even know they are being bled. Hire cheap proxies to fight for you to divert your enemies attention from your own actions elsewhere. Or simply, buy their debt and purchase their companies and then drive those into the ground impoverishing the nation.

[adam_grif]

It could mount laser defenses making a missile strike infeasible and thus requiring the enemy to design giant flat trajectory cannons or other such technology to defeat it.

There's tricks for minimizing the effectiveness of laser PD, like spinning to increase the effective area that it needs to heat. You could probably vary your velocity to throw the beam off and strike a different part of the missile too. Obviously, if lasers are good enough to blow missiles out of the sky in a fraction of a second, aircraft can mount some pretty nasty ones too. I mean, if it came to that, I'm pretty sure an AC-130 can mount a bigger laser than a tank can.

Heck, you could probably burn out the defense lasers and the tank optics with cheapo missile mounted ones.

[Werrf]

Okay, pissing contest = in, me = out. Been fun, though, you have made me think about this. Still, just a couple of final points...

A drone can be simply a weapon on wheels and unless you can make JOINTS out of some magical metal/energy field that outdoes any anti tank/personel weapon it will fucking destroy said power armor. Something you ignore for whatever pendantic wanking you do, Power armor equppied by humans will always have structural weakness that are easily exploitable because they are armoring humans.

Thus define, good weaponry because you imply that said thing will be an easy target in comparsion to said power armor(which has a target profile of a human being, even lying down) and thus to achieve this lower profile it will be unable to mount your subjective good weapon.

So, yes. Let's have a discussion as soon as you stop throwing your definitions about and then cry when the opponent doesn't agree with your biased assessment without any such logic to demonstrate why your point favors you against the oppositon.

I was addressing a single, very specific statement from Stark, about a weapon that he said needed to be mounted on a dalek-sized weapons platform.

You made the claim.

And have backed it up, or at least made some kind of attempt to do so. You've just declared "not so!"

Why are you claiming this when you haven't shown any proof? Should I go "Nu-uh...it can field 5 gazillion!!!". At that point it would be simply an application of the two of us screaming our platitudes with no such logical back up other then a rationale we came up with out of thin air.

I have attempted to show proof, but I guess you haven't read it. The whole part about "Making up its own programming"? If the drone can do that, then it is autonomous. If it cannot, then it has to be limited to pre-programmed scenarios, or to mixing and matching those that are pre-programmed. Sure, that can make it pretty flexible...but it's still limited.

You're shitting me right? Really, are you believing that level of nonsense? We have machines that do more then a human can never hope to expect to compensate for. The math your PC that you are using does more then you ever will. We just haven't put in the field in said drone format is because it is economically bad versus a human. In this scenario the OP is describing a far more advanced society by the virtue it is interplanetary.

Mathematical ability =/= pattern recognition. Computers can process data very fast, yes, but they suck at pattern recognition. Of course, you could say "But they won't forever!!!!"...but you've failed to demonstrate anything of the sort.

What shielding? My fucking god, it sounds like you've been reading science buzzwords and think this is how things work.

It's called a Faraday Cage. It blocks electromagnetic signals, preventing them from reaching the drone. Go read Salvation War if you're not sure how it works, or Wikipedia.

So in your scenario, you've telling us that we need to accept that power armor is better because it is made of superior material(that whole joint problem doesn't go away) and uses a organic being makes it cheaper because you say so.

No. I'm not. I'm saying that drones are better than soldiers for direct combat, but that if forced into combat, some armour is better than none, and that power lets you fit heavier armour than no power.

But knowing that would require the whole reading what people have actually said, rather than what you've decided they made up...and where's the fun in that?

Anyway, bye, guys! Been fun.

[Norade]

Thin skinned bitch seems to be of the drive by school of debating who pussies out when called on his numbers.

[JointStrikeFighter]

I mean, if it came to that, I'm pretty sure an AC-130 can mount a bigger laser than a tank can.

it cant

[adam_grif]

I mean, if it came to that, I'm pretty sure an AC-130 can mount a bigger laser than a tank can.

it cant

Thin skinned bitch seems to be of the drive by school of debating who pussies out when called on his numbers.

It's pretty consistent with most newbies here though, they don't develop their debating backbone till a few hundred posts in. Community can be pretty brutal, especially if you aren't used to the way we do things.

[Ghost Rider]

A drone can be simply a weapon on wheels and unless you can make JOINTS out of some magical metal/energy field that outdoes any anti tank/personel weapon it will fucking destroy said power armor. Something you ignore for whatever pendantic wanking you do, Power armor equppied by humans will always have structural weakness that are easily exploitable because they are armoring humans.

Thus define, good weaponry because you imply that said thing will be an easy target in comparsion to said power armor(which has a target profile of a human being, even lying down) and thus to achieve this lower profile it will be unable to mount your subjective good weapon.

So, yes. Let's have a discussion as soon as you stop throwing your definitions about and then cry when the opponent doesn't agree with your biased assessment without any such logic to demonstrate why your point favors you against the oppositon.

I was addressing a single, very specific statement from Stark, about a weapon that he said needed to be mounted on a dalek-sized weapons platform.

Since you're not going to actually define any of your subjective bits, I had to wonder why you brought them up. I mean do you think good means something beyond the general meaning? Does it give +10 to something?

You made the claim.

And have backed it up, or at least made some kind of attempt to do so. You've just declared "not so!"

You do grasp the best way to rebute that statement is by demonstrating why your logic works?

Why are you claiming this when you haven't shown any proof? Should I go "Nu-uh...it can field 5 gazillion!!!". At that point it would be simply an application of the two of us screaming our platitudes with no such logical back up other then a rationale we came up with out of thin air.

I have attempted to show proof, but I guess you haven't read it. The whole part about "Making up its own programming"? If the drone can do that, then it is autonomous. If it cannot, then it has to be limited to pre-programmed scenarios, or to mixing and matching those that are pre-programmed. Sure, that can make it pretty flexible...but it's still limited.

As the statement above, but I will give this.

He basically regurgitates his former statement. This isn't a rebuttal, this is parroting and really I cannot understand why people think this works. Maybe in third grade when your arguing was back and forth until someone threw a rock.

You're shitting me right? Really, are you believing that level of nonsense? We have machines that do more then a human can never hope to expect to compensate for. The math your PC that you are using does more then you ever will. We just haven't put in the field in said drone format is because it is economically bad versus a human. In this scenario the OP is describing a far more advanced society by the virtue it is interplanetary.

Mathematical ability =/= pattern recognition. Computers can process data very fast, yes, but they suck at pattern recognition. Of course, you could say "But they won't forever!!!!"...but you've failed to demonstrate anything of the sort.

This is just asinine. So are you going to define how the human recognizes pattern recognition as something beyond electrical stimulus processing? No? Then you really haven't rebutted anything.

What shielding? My fucking god, it sounds like you've been reading science buzzwords and think this is how things work.

It's called a Faraday Cage. It blocks electromagnetic signals, preventing them from reaching the drone. Go read Salvation War if you're not sure how it works, or Wikipedia.

Ok, when wanting to reference something as shields. One do not use fanfiction or go "Look it up!!!" when describing said object incorrectly or even as vague. While describing in cleaner terms can put your point into scrutiny, that above just makes one look like a chibbering clam.

So in your scenario, you've telling us that we need to accept that power armor is better because it is made of superior material(that whole joint problem doesn't go away) and uses a organic being makes it cheaper because you say so.

No. I'm not. I'm saying that drones are better than soldiers for direct combat, but that if forced into combat, some armour is better than none, and that power lets you fit heavier armour than no power.

But knowing that would require the whole reading what people have actually said, rather than what you've decided they made up...and where's the fun in that?

Anyway, bye, guys! Been fun.

One, he doesn't define how soliders are better for...direct combat? So what exactly is indirect combat? Boardroom politics?

Then goes into some armor is better then none is true, but to leap that logic to powered armor(a different concept entirely) is asinine because it requires variables above some solider having chest armor to stop slugs and a helmet.

In the end, rather boring since it takes nothing into account of what the topic is about other then to insert oneself into it to dazzle someone.

[Norade]

It's pretty consistent with most newbies here though, they don't develop their debating backbone till a few hundred posts in. Community can be pretty brutal, especially if you aren't used to the way we do things.

Newbs should come in with an armored hide and loaded for bear; that or lurk and know the board culture before making themselves look like a thin skinned bitch with the debating skills of a used tampon like Werrf did.

[Kuroji]

It's pretty consistent with most newbies here though, they don't develop their debating backbone till a few hundred posts in. Community can be pretty brutal, especially if you aren't used to the way we do things.

Not to derail the conversation, but by the standards of most places I've seen debates in the past, you guys are assholes.

On the other hand there are solid results from debates here, generally, so it's worth a little incivility IMO.

[Rossum]

After looking over the posts, here's what I can gather about the various technologies:


Standard non-Powered Armor:

Would naturally be cheaper and easier to manufacture/maintain than powered armor due to not needing mechanical parts to it. Will almost always have less protection than powered armor due to the wearer having to carry all the armor on it. However, it could be standard equipment for all personal even when they are not in actual battlefields... kind of like how the Imperial Stormtroopers can wear their armor on ships so they can act in the event someone makes it into the base.

Powered Armor:

More expensive than standard armor but should always provide better protection due to the suit being able to support its own weight, thus you can put more armor on a soldier without weighing them down. At the very least, a suit of Power Armor could just be a powered exoskeleton with extra layers of the standard armor material covering it. Like the Powered part would just be a frame that the soldier wears and then they put on an extra thick Keval or Dragon Skin or a StormTrooper could wear a powered exoskeleton and then have much larger and thicker sections of Stormtrooper armor placed over it which they couldn't normally carry. Or you could give them stuff like tank armor if you really need to.

Basically, the Powered part is just there to let soldiers carry more equipment or wear more armor.


Vehicles:

Vehicles are a completely different thing than armor or powered armor, they are built to do their job and may have a human pilot inside. They should always be able to have better armor than a human since the frame is build to support the armor and can carry better weapons for the same reason. If there is any sort of super matieral to make armor with that it can be used make vehicle armor just as easily if not moreso than human armor.

Besides, if you have an armored tank or an armored car then it can be made with better armor than powered armor, so just have the pilot wear standard armor when inside it.

Dalek-style vehicles:

Probably better described as One-Man Urban Combat Vehicles or something similar. Its quite possible that they could be built with protective armor superior to Powered Armor, but their size would make them awkward for use in actual combat. They would best be described as armored wheelchairs, if they are small enough to fit in through doorways or places that a normal human could fit then their wheels or treads would have trouble moving over rough terrain. That, and they would have to be larger than a person or even a person in Powered Armor.

Dalek-style vehicles would best be suited for small creatures or individuals who can't move on their own and find Power Armor difficult. Its doubtful they would be used for front-line combat since in open areas you could just use a larger vehicle like a car or tank, and in urban environments then human mobility would be a must. They could be used to house non-combatants or people who won't be fighting directly... like a tactician is inside it and commands unmanned drones via short-range radio or something or in case they need to evacuate civilians and just plop them into the vehicle and it drives back to base with them inside.

Unmanned Drones:

Unmanned Drones can be build faster than human soldiers and can be designed to be tougher, smarter, faster, and stronger than soldiers as well. They could be in any shape or size ranging from small tank-like things to mouse sized ones that carry bombs, or flying combat vehicles. If the army can build Power Armor or build any sort of vehicle than that same device could be converted into an unmanned Drone with the addition of combat AI.

Thus, you could have dozens of suits of Power Armor and decide to either fill them with a soldier or plop a computer into it and have it fight as an unmanned drone... same with vehicles and such.

However, while robots are superior in speed, calculations, and other physical skills then they can only think in ways they were programmed to do (or you could make them self-aware which can result in other problems). With unmanned drones there would be the risk that a software bug or tampering would result in them shooting someone you don't want them to shoot or overlooking things that they weren't programmed to recognize.

So, unmanned drones could be designed to search out targets and relay their findings back to a controller who gives them the authorization to attack. The controller could be thousands of miles away communicating via satellites, or they could be right there in the squad in armor giving them voice commands.

Squads of soldiers could go into battle with several robotic drones tagging along to serve as a force multiplier, they send in the robots to scout out dangerous areas or to stand guard, or carry out suicide attacks if necessary. The soldiers would be in control and be nearby to perform tasks the robots cannot and to ID which targets the robots can shoot at if necessary.

A robot with vision superior to a human could enter a situation and spot a someone on a roof several hundred yards away, it could be an enemy sniper, a frightened civilian, or one of the teams allies. The robot tells its human operator what it found and the operator tells it what to do.

And, in the event that a combat robot is cut off from its human operator then it could run commands depending on its instructions. Maybe it heads back and tries to re-establish combat or keeps going and if it runs into anyone it thinks is a threat then it yells "Drop your weapon and get on the ground with your hands on your head, NOW! You have three seconds or I will OPEN FIRE!." Even if the AI isn't advanced enough to identify human faces or other things then I'm pretty sure it would be able to determine that a person laying on the ground with their hands on their head isn't a threat.

So unmanned drones or combat robots should be much more effective at fighting then soldiers as long as the tech is in place. However, a smart military would have safeguards in place to make sure the robots don't kill the wrong people and that they aren't crippled if unforeseen events interfere with the mission. Plus, a robot that is just a gun turret on wheels is probably less likely to start a robot rebellion than a fully humanoid one. At the very least, if the robot turret has a limited amount of ammo and needs a human operator to replace its magazine then its rebellion shouldn't last that long... particularly if its off-switch is located near the ammo feed or you have to disable the gun before you can reload it.

[Balrog]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we already have Dalek-style vehicles, i.e. very small armored fighting vehicles. Granted it's a two-man vehicle, but I doubt you could make it that much smaller or lighter without sacrificing in significant areas like protection.

[Ghost Rider]

Actually to what it boils down to is this.

Technology and how much can you reasonably spend. Those alone depend on the author. But what these debates come down to is in a realistic mindset within a certain degree of error that we think can happen. Whether right or wrong can be said depending on how grand or stupid the thoughts vary to.

As for the failures and success?

Power Armor fails because it is the most expensive and vulnerable piece of the thought of vehicles, drones, and armor camp. You are limited by the human frame and with this are an assortment of weakness that neither of the other two have in any regard. Whatever you do to armor up a human? You can do better in the other two. In fact the worst thing is to armor up so that weight becomes an issue in the urban battleground that you have rendered the sole reason for a human shaped item to do it's job.

Drones are limited to what the extent of what you want to put into it. It has more limitations with our current technology/economic curve. But if used in futuristic or slightly skewed scenarios they will be one of the better high end piece of equipment for a realistic base. In fact as your technology becomes greater, you can make your drone enter the urban battlefield without worrying about the same things said powered armor does.

Vehicle's have the limitations that they can only enter certain areas but are a completely different animal because their purpose is not a singular affair.

Armor works because the reason is we want to perserve a single solider as long as possible against anti personnel weaponry. It's limited is the fact said frame can only hold so much before you've exhausted it.