Drones and UAVs in T2K

[bash]

Yes and the fact remains the magic T2K EMPs either worked as written or don't. If they work as written the logical conclusion is that everything electronic is toast. If control systems in factories (essentially giant Faraday cages) are fried then there's no way the ECMs in every HMMWV and M1 aren't also fried. So if you run the magic T2K EMP as written there's no need to ever crack open any of the Vehicle guides, the Last Sub adventure is pointless, half of the Heavy Weapons guide is useless, and the RDF guide is a waste of paper.

If instead you run the game where an EMP acts more like a real life EMP there's damage to power grids and some totally unshielded electronics but plenty of electronics survive. In that case there's no problem at all talking about drones and UAVs that existed in the timeline of the game and how they might be used at the table or in the co text of adventures.

I've never run games with the magic T2K EMPs because they don't make sense. I can concede magic Diesel engines that can run on alcohol but not the magic EMPs. That does not mean high tech devices are over abundant. In my games technology exists but is highly prized and often ends up the focus of adventures.

[pmulcahy11b]

Kind of reminds me of the car I had in college: "C'mon, start up...c'mon, radio work...c'mon, radiator don't have leaked too much fluid..."

The most likely unit to have organic, fully integrated UAV support available in the Twilight 2000 timeline IMHO is...

...wait for it...

...The 9th Infantry Division (Motorized) in the RDF Theater... (you knew it would involve the RDF Sourcebook, didn't you?).

MERCURY GREEN

When the 9th ID became the High Technology Test Bed Division, it experiment with a lot of kewl stuff like FAVs, AGS, Pedestal-mount Stinger AA, Hellfire armed HMMWVs, and they really wanted UAVs.

But the technology didn't exist yet. So they used a stand-in manned system, called MERCURY GREEN. Which, from what I've found, was a Cessna, lol.

Had the 9th ID HTTD project continued past the fall of the USSR, it's highly likely they would have moved past using surrogate aircraft and would have had a mil-spec UAV platform available for combat operations.

It's all outlined here, especially Appendix D.

https://web.archive.org/web/20191026...u2/a370233.pdf

[Silent Hunter UK]

You could have land drones i.e. remote control cars or bomb disposal robots.

[Vespers War]

Bringing this thread back to life and reorienting it slightly, does anyone have house rules for drones? The only GDW rules I can think of for them are from the Twilight Nightmares scenario "Warlord," with its GCUX series of ground UCVs functioning like vehicles with a fixed initiative of 3. They're either disabled on a radio hit (for the smaller drone) or have initiative get worse if the radio is destroyed and have crew hits disable the on-board computer (for the larger drones). They seem workable, but I'm curious what others may have come up with.

[Lurken]

Originally Posted by bash

If instead you run the game where an EMP acts more like a real life EMP there's damage to power grids and some totally unshielded electronics but plenty of electronics survive. In that case there's no problem at all talking about drones and UAVs that existed in the timeline of the game and how they might be used at the table or in the co text of adventures.

You forget the loss of lives, the loss of knowhow, the loss of production capabilities, the loss of spare parts. That is in the nuclear exchange only. Then add starvation, sickness, desperation, exposure to elements. As a final kicker, add a war that drags on for another 2-3 years, grinding even more spares and materiel.

At the start of the war, totally plausible. Directly after the nuclear exchange, just a little burnt but can still operate. After the ongoing chaos, destruction and war it will be quite rare to find high tech stuff. As specified on the books themselves. That high-tech stuff is lost and will not be replaced. Except for the RDF, where they can enjoy of local high tech support of the Israelies and Saudies, and the nuclear exchange was lesser there.

[Raellus]

Your arguments are quite logical, Lurken. I don't disagree with you per se, but consider the per capita amount of tech left by 2000. As more and more people die off due to nuclear warfare, starvation, disease, exposure, and/or conventional combat attrition, the ratio of tech to people might stay the same or even increase.

In other words, as the population decreases, there are fewer people making use of available tech. So, some tech might not get used up as quickly as it would if there were more people around to use it. This could apply to drones/UAVs, or the parts needed to jury rig one.

We tend to think that tech will get used up, and people killed, at roughly the same rate, but that isn't necessarily the case. I posit that the faster people die off, the more slowly that remaining available tech will get used up. Obviously, as modern manufacturing grinds to a halt, very little, if any, new tech will be produced, but for a time- one could argue that this period would occur around the year 2000- the rate by which tech would be used up by surviving people would be so slow that the amount of tech still left to use might last longer than one would think.

I know it's a video game, but one encounters this phenomenon in the Fallout series, where there are so few survivors left in some parts of the wasteland that an explorer will, from time to time, encounter pockets of forgotten, unused, viable tech.

-

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Your arguments are quite logical, Lurken. I don't disagree with you per se, but consider the per capita amount of tech left by 2000. As more and more people die off due to nuclear warfare, starvation, disease, exposure, and/or conventional combat attrition, the ratio of tech to people might stay the same or even increase.

In other words, as the population decreases, there are fewer people making use of available tech. So, some tech might not get used up as quickly as it would if there were more people around to use it. This could apply to drones/UAVs, or the parts needed to jury rig one.

We tend to think that tech will get used up, and people killed, at roughly the same rate, but that isn't necessarily the case. I posit that the faster people die off, the more slowly that remaining available tech will get used up. Obviously, as modern manufacturing grinds to a halt, very little, if any, new tech will be produced, but for a time- one could argue that this period would occur around the year 2000- the rate by which tech would be used up by surviving people would be so slow that the amount of tech still left to use might last longer than one would think.

I know it's a video game, but one encounters this phenomenon in the Fallout series, where there are so few survivors left in some parts of the wasteland that an explorer will, from time to time, encounter pockets of forgotten, unused, viable tech.

-

I agree with this and I could see RC toys being "weaponized" and used like a poor man's MCLOS missile, ala TREMORS II.

[bash]

Originally Posted by Lurken

You forget the loss of lives, the loss of knowhow, the loss of production capabilities, the loss of spare parts. That is in the nuclear exchange only. Then add starvation, sickness, desperation, exposure to elements. As a final kicker, add a war that drags on for another 2-3 years, grinding even more spares and materiel.

For starters, the US is absolutely lousy with technology and has been for decades. It's got layers of technology in scrap yards, junk yards, and back yards. It's also lousy with cars, books, airplanes, boats, lawnmowers, guns, and schools. In addition it's got mandatory childhood education and a high literacy rate. This was just as true in the 90s as it is today.

That means even if you reduce the population by half (as per Howling Wilderness) you've still got a huge population of people and tons of technological knickknacks lying around. With half the population you've actually got more knickknacks per person and a smaller support load in terms of food, water, and shelter. Loss of production and spares doesn't mean as much because everyone is surrounded by spares.

With spares readily available the average community college would have the books needed to get a lot of small scale infrastructure up and running. Even if all the knowhow didn't already exist in that population. I also don't think it's right to assume that the US and other countries pre-TDM wouldn't start Civil Defense programs back up in earnest, even just free classes on stuff like first aid and survival skills.

The people still kicking in July 2000 are going to have gotten together to survive the three years after TDM. I don't see them not trying to rebuild some force multipliers using salvaged/scavenged technology and equipment. Anything that makes people's lives easier to helps more survive it going to be useful and a desirable use of resources.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

So far, there's a lot of valid points on both sides of the argument.
I would add though, that it does not matter if the knowledge and tech are available, if said tech does not help people stay alive, those people will not give a shit about that tech.
If it doesn't get food for them, doesn't give them shelter, if it cannot be traded for something they need... then it is just so much extra junk lying around in the world.
Which does leave it available for those people who are interested in it.

But ultimately, it comes down to what you as a Referee and you as a Player want from the game.
I've declined invites to some games because they were too sci-fi for what I expected of T2k, I've quit other games because they were too damned harsh with an attrition rate of one dead PC every four or five sessions and the game was a grind and not an enjoyable hobby.
Everybody has their own take on what the game world could be like.

It's worth remembering that before we try to shove our own personal take on the game down someone else's throat