rollin' on dubs
NO, make the 'spider-bomb' say "I AM A TEN SECOND BOMB! NINE..EIGHT..SEVEN.." and then explode on a random number.
Edited by TairaMai on Apr 27th 2020 at 12:32:57 AM
I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....^ Por qué no los dos? Have it go "Scree!" when launching and then when it latches onto the poor fool it goes "I AM A TEN SECOND BOMB, YOU HAVE JUST ARMED ME! TEN! NINE! EIGHT!...." and so on.
Double the terror, double the fun.
Wait, is the point to scare the heck out of the people who will shortly be reduced to Ludicrous Gibs? Does it season the meat?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"What is the purpose of scaring opponents? Get them to surrender? That is antithetical to the idea of sending kill-bots into a battlefield. A robotic weapon should be efficient, and that efficiency should be its own kind of intimidation factor. This thing will come in, murder you without mercy, and you can't reason with it or surrender to it (unless it's programmed to accept surrender).
If fear is an actual design principle, then we are getting into the realm of terror weapons, and I can't really condone those.
Going back to sci-fi, the ED-209 is a terrible police robot, because it can only shoot people. It can't arrest them or hold them while arresting officers arrive. Its purpose is as an intimidation weapon: to terrify people into submission lest the killbot march in and blow your arms and legs off.
Now, I realize that given the circumstances in the film — a more or less perpetual war zone between police and criminals — a terror weapon might be the point they are going for... assuming they've completely given up on the whole "police" thing and are treating the situation as a literal war. But they are still attempting to pacify and arrest criminals, so war robots are a really bad idea.
Edited by Fighteer on Apr 27th 2020 at 9:35:50 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The ED-209 is terrible, a thing acknowledged in the film, the thing is overdesigned and not even for proper urban environments. It can't even climb stairs, compared to Robocop who can maneuver through detroit much better because of his humanoid build and engineering into making him a functional result.
Obviously, but I'm talking about the concept. It's only useful if you want to murder people, not arrest them. Similarly, the design of a robotic weapon will vary depending on whether you want to frighten people away from the battlefield or kill them. Doing both is redundant, and an efficient killing robot will be terrifying in and of itself.
Edited by Fighteer on Apr 27th 2020 at 9:56:19 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Actually wouldn't the Robocop design work better as a Robot Soldier than the ED-209? He's very nearly indestructible, takes high powered munitions to even dent him, can enter anywhere a human can enter, and sure he's not super fast but he gets there eventually and can even use human vehicles.
Edited by EchoingSilence on Apr 27th 2020 at 9:35:56 AM
There are disadvantages to the cyborg design. If you want to take individual soldiers and up their combat effectiveness, yeah, go nuts. But there's still a human brain in there (plus other bits), with all the associated drawbacks (and advantages).
It's a generalist approach, when real combat robots will probably be more specialized for their tasks.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Oh, spider-bots are efficient. They can move in urban or other heavy terrain. They can hide in the underbrush, they can climb walls and enter buildings. They can jump significant distances and land on targets without warning. They can deploy weapons at range, but if it's prisoners you want, they can grab you with their steely legs and pin you down and climb all over your body until the prisoner squad arrives.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Unless you're talking a Lilliput scenario, you are choosing between spider-bots that can nimbly climb over surfaces and spider-bots with enough mass to pin down a full-grown human. Not both.
Edit: Of course, if your tiny spider-bots can web people up, then you have a recipe for unforgettable mental trauma.
Edited by Fighteer on Apr 27th 2020 at 11:51:28 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The reason to make enemies extra afraid of a weapon is the same reason they put dive sirens on dive bombers. Psychological warfare can impede and spread panic. In small doses, it isn't notable but pressure builds quickly and facing a horrifying screaming, bomb that latches onto you is going to make people afraid to face them.
There have been a few occasions where enemies were afraid to face something and in fact, avoiding it. Snipers are well known to inflict this kind of psychological terror and have a variety of techniques purposely used to induce the effect.
Who watches the watchmen?Ooooooooooooooooookay. You just said two very different things.
"Hollow out the Moon" implies taking all of that mass that's inside it and moving it somewhere else. "Live inside the Moon" requires only that you dig down a few kilometers beneath the surface at most. This is MANY orders of magnitude different in scale.
If you have the pure fantasy magic that would let you construct a stable spherical shell 1,737 km in radius, then it literally does not matter what other science you have in your story. You've broken physics, so just have diamond starships the size of suns.
Again, we'll take this at face value. What you've effectively done is reduce the Moon's mass. How much depends on much material you remove, but let's say you remove 90% of it. The Moon's tidal effect on the Earth will now be 1/10 what it was before. The Sun will now be the dominant object in our tidal system, so tides will be more regular and lower in magnitude.
That's basically it. No other significant changes. Although I wonder what you did with 90% of the Moon's mass. Dumped it on Mars?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Well, the specification was "...must be under 3 meters in height, can be used in urban or outdoor scenarios", so I suppose we can make them a bit smaller. Most exterior building walls (in the US), can support a couple hundred pounds at least, so something useful could be designed within that parameter.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.