Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Psienesis wrote:
There's a blog post out there by one of the BL writers, can't find it at the moment, that explains that the computers of M40 are massively advanced, far moreso than anything even imaginable today, but the layers of security required (free-floating scrapcode and killer-AI are a thing) and the general decline of maintenance (like a defrag) means that they aren't particularly efficient in the setting... but would still devour any modern computer in complexity and potential data-manipulation.

Sounds about right, given what we know.

No way in hell it's humans making an Imperator Titan walk.

I was under the impression that the imperium is so afraid of AI (abominable intelligence), that they have to have an organic part in any piece of computer. I do believe this was originally introduced concerning more powerful AI and VI to keep them under control. Eventually I believe this spread to anything automated.

As such they are universally called the machine spirit, of varying levels of ability. A land raiders for example has some examples of moving, firing and aiming all it's weapons with no crew. Others such as the logic engine within a hunter killer missile & hunter rounds are simply used to change the trajectory of the projectile.

As such you would have to realistically differentiate between different types of machine spirits seeing they all can vary quite vastly.

 Selym wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They obviously have no computers at all, or they'd use them for targeting systems in their crappy vehicles like we do today!

Why do you assume they aren't using targeting computers?

They aren't as advanced or capable as ours today are at least. An M1 Abrams can hit a Womprat from 1000m while moving over parked cars.

Are you going by fluff, or game mechanics? I'm fairly certain that FoW would not have them that accurate (if they use them, I'm not too familiar).

Fluff of course. I didn't know FoW did modern era units. Even so my statement was less about theory and more I've seen the tank shoot and hit something 1000m away while riding over cars.

 Ignatius wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They obviously have no computers at all, or they'd use them for targeting systems in their crappy vehicles like we do today!

Why do you assume they aren't using targeting computers?

They aren't as advanced or capable as ours today are at least. An M1 Abrams can hit a Womprat from 1000m while moving over parked cars.

Are you going by fluff, or game mechanics? I'm fairly certain that FoW would not have them that accurate (if they use them, I'm not too familiar).

Fluff of course. I didn't know FoW did modern era units. Even so my statement was less about theory and more I've seen the tank shoot and hit something 1000m away while riding over cars.

I've been informed by a few people who are more familiar with FoW that they do Challenger 2's. Notable for being almost unkillable in the game. Having an Abrams around seemed like a logical leap.

It's entirely possible that the crew of targeter-equipped vehicles simply forgot what an "on" button was, but the Shadowsword explicitly has targeters. And you'd certainly need high level computers to make the larger titans mechanically functional.

 Selym wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They obviously have no computers at all, or they'd use them for targeting systems in their crappy vehicles like we do today!

Why do you assume they aren't using targeting computers?

They aren't as advanced or capable as ours today are at least. An M1 Abrams can hit a Womprat from 1000m while moving over parked cars.

Are you going by fluff, or game mechanics? I'm fairly certain that FoW would not have them that accurate (if they use them, I'm not too familiar).

Fluff of course. I didn't know FoW did modern era units. Even so my statement was less about theory and more I've seen the tank shoot and hit something 1000m away while riding over cars.

I've been informed by a few people who are more familiar with FoW that they do Challenger 2's. Notable for being almost unkillable in the game. Having an Abrams around seemed like a logical leap.

It's entirely possible that the crew of targeter-equipped vehicles simply forgot what an "on" button was, but the Shadowsword explicitly has targeters. And you'd certainly need high level computers to make the larger titans mechanically functional.

Of course targeters might be in tanks and the crew simply doesn't know it's an option in there. Heck I'm learning new stuff all the time about one specific system in our tanks and Humvees, let alone entirely new stuff.

All I'm saying is that our tanks today are insanely powerful, quick, accurate, strong, reliable, etc. etc. If we had these things in 40k they'd be OP for sure.

Leman Russ's were designed to be tractors not tanks. So I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think the pinnacle of modern tank design might have some more capabilities compared to the Russ. Imagine the tank the Imperium could produce had they actually tried to create a dedicated Heavy Line Battle Tank. But they didn't, and in a round about way, that's the point I was trying to make (not very well I know I know).

Where do people get it from, that the Leman Russ was designed as a tractor?

Depends on the task. A mono taal could be insanely powerful and able to calculate beyond the levels we can imagine.

Yet useless as a simple task that isa outside its area.

A true generalist all round system, might lack power but be far more flexible.

Titan AI, now that's just insane, all devouring war spirit that can be 10,000 years old and learning all that time. Thousands of battles, hundreds of big kills, every war and environment know.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Where do people get it from, that the Leman Russ was designed as a tractor?

Background material from somewhere. Old as 5th edition or earlier, iirc.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why do you assume they aren't using targeting computers?

Because they're using the Force.

How do you know that a modern tank would be way worse than what the current in-game stats are?

For all we know, an Abrams would probably be BS2 and armor11.

The Abrams isn't made of space-metal with 20k+ years of development behind it.

I say they're not using targeting computers because their hit rate sucks. Maybe thats applying too much logic.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Where do people get it from, that the Leman Russ was designed as a tractor?

IIRC it's because the basic STC chassis is almost identical. They look very similar, but the tractor and the russ are indeed different vehicles intended from the start for specific jobs. I'm yet to see someone actually locate the original leman russ was originally a tractor fluff. IIRC before the leman russ STC was discovered the imperial army used Land Raiders in its place. Another rumour I've hear was the Russ was originally suppose to be a heavily armoured artillery tractor.... yet again different to the normal agricultural example people normally think of.

Grey Templar wrote:How do you know that a modern tank would be way worse than what the current in-game stats are?

For all we know, an Abrams would probably be BS2 and armor11.

Psienesis wrote:The Abrams isn't made of space-metal with 20k+ years of development behind it.

I'm aware of "space magic" and such. But having seen the thing in action sort of warps your perception a little I suppose. I've seen the thing hit what look to be little dots on the horizon dead center while moving every which way. So my bias perhaps is a little much for this discussion but I can tell you that being accurate with the Abrams main cannon is pretty damn easy. If I can do it after an hour of hands on training, I'll be able to do it with years of experience in the future.

So. Meh.

 Ignatius wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:How do you know that a modern tank would be way worse than what the current in-game stats are?

For all we know, an Abrams would probably be BS2 and armor11.

Psienesis wrote:The Abrams isn't made of space-metal with 20k+ years of development behind it.

I'm aware of "space magic" and such. But having seen the thing in action sort of warps your perception a little I suppose. I've seen the thing hit what look to be little dots on the horizon dead center while moving every which way. So my bias perhaps is a little much for this discussion but I can tell you that being accurate with the Abrams main cannon is pretty damn easy. If I can do it after an hour of hands on training, I'll be able to do it with years of experience in the future.

So. Meh.

Which doesn't actually say anything about 40K tanks. You say "the Abrams is super-accurate!" I say "the Baneblade can absorb every round the Abrams throws at it until the Baneblade decides to drive over it and crush it under track".

The mechanics of the tabletop game, specifically the ranges and the fact that it's a granular game based on the non-granular d6 are the problems.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:How do you know that a modern tank would be way worse than what the current in-game stats are?

For all we know, an Abrams would probably be BS2 and armor11.

Psienesis wrote:The Abrams isn't made of space-metal with 20k+ years of development behind it.

I'm aware of "space magic" and such. But having seen the thing in action sort of warps your perception a little I suppose. I've seen the thing hit what look to be little dots on the horizon dead center while moving every which way. So my bias perhaps is a little much for this discussion but I can tell you that being accurate with the Abrams main cannon is pretty damn easy. If I can do it after an hour of hands on training, I'll be able to do it with years of experience in the future.

So. Meh.

Which doesn't actually say anything about 40K tanks. You say "the Abrams is super-accurate!" I say "the Baneblade can absorb every round the Abrams throws at it until the Baneblade decides to drive over it and crush it under track".

The mechanics of the tabletop game, specifically the ranges and the fact that it's a granular game based on the non-granular d6 are the problems.

Also, I would assume that the Scatter mechanic was originally designed as a way to "balance" Blast and Large Blast weapons.

 Psienesis wrote:

 Ignatius wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:How do you know that a modern tank would be way worse than what the current in-game stats are?

For all we know, an Abrams would probably be BS2 and armor11.

Psienesis wrote:The Abrams isn't made of space-metal with 20k+ years of development behind it.

I'm aware of "space magic" and such. But having seen the thing in action sort of warps your perception a little I suppose. I've seen the thing hit what look to be little dots on the horizon dead center while moving every which way. So my bias perhaps is a little much for this discussion but I can tell you that being accurate with the Abrams main cannon is pretty damn easy. If I can do it after an hour of hands on training, I'll be able to do it with years of experience in the future.

So. Meh.

Which doesn't actually say anything about 40K tanks. You say "the Abrams is super-accurate!" I say "the Baneblade can absorb every round the Abrams throws at it until the Baneblade decides to drive over it and crush it under track".

The mechanics of the tabletop game, specifically the ranges and the fact that it's a granular game based on the non-granular d6 are the problems.

Like I said in the post you quoted, my personal bias is going to make my contribution to this thread perhaps a little less meaningful. If I were really trying to troll here I could argue a few different points I've already been taught about engaging targets with armor too thick for HEAT rounds to penetrate. But I won't, because in 40k nothing is really truly known outside of in universe contextual evidence. So trying to put an Abrams into 40k is an example of a pointless thought experiment. And I'll admit that was my fault for gushing over the tank I'm training with right now and trying to shoe horn it in.

So I'll drop it.

 Lone Cat wrote:
1. Does 'Personal Computer' we use today exists in the 40k universe?
2. Many electronical devices in the Imperium (and Admech) are all have skulls attacked to it. (including ones incorporated into Hydra/Wyvern targeting systems) Do they use human brain as CPU or do they also use the same (microtransistor) chips as we do? or are these skulls ornamental? (so to serves as faction symbol)

1. Yes, there are personal 'cogitators' being similar to PCs, and there are also data slates which I guess is a kind of tablet computer. Some hive world governments also make use of huge super-computers. In the BL book 'Ravenor'

2. I'm not entirely sure, but I think they use cogitators (normal computers) for the more basic, civilian, mathmatical tasks. They use skulls with human brains to control the things which involve making intelligent decisions (though their intelligence is limited to the context of their job, as they're just servitors) and controling things which they don't want an AI to get control of, avoiding another Dark Age of Technology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
The Abrams isn't made of space-metal with 20k+ years of development behind it.

Leman Russes could have all the protective power of an M1A2 Sherman, as there's not alot to compare it to. It reminds me of when someone on another forum said that "Guardsmen will barely be hurt at all by an M16 rifle, as humans have evolved in the 40K universe". Except that evolution doesn't always work out that way, and even if it did, 40K years isn't 'that' long by evolution standards. Though granted, the Leman Russ being better than an Abrams is certainly more plausible than the Guardsmen idea, especially if all that 'plasteel' and other exotic materials are better than chobham armour.

"So trying to put an Abrams into 40k is an example of a pointless thought experiment"

Not really. We have a hit rate for the Abrams. And then another hit rate for 40K tanks. Those numbers are directly comparable. 40K targeting sucks. 40K is basically the retro future, which basically makes me think that their ground forces would struggle against any non-retro future military.

Their tanks look like WW I tanks for crying about loud. And they don't have gyro stabilized turrets. (Can't fire on the move) And there are precious few seeking weapons. And the weapons ranges are absurdly short. It's like Battletech all over again.

In real futuristic warfare, you don't get to see your opponent, and there is no assault phase. And Orks and bugs just auto-lose for the most part. (Like in the Starship Troopers novel)

Martel732 wrote:
"So trying to put an Abrams into 40k is an example of a pointless thought experiment"

Not really. We have a hit rate for the Abrams. And then another hit rate for 40K tanks. Those numbers are directly comparable. 40K targeting sucks. 40K is basically the retro future, which basically makes me think that their ground forces would struggle against any non-retro future military.

Their tanks look like WW I tanks for crying about loud. And they don't have gyro stabilized turrets. (Can't fire on the move) And there are precious few seeking weapons. And the weapons ranges are absurdly short. It's like Battletech all over again.

In real futuristic warfare, you don't get to see your opponent, and there is no assault phase. And Orks and bugs just auto-lose for the most part. (Like in the Starship Troopers novel)

The real issue is that wargame balance (yes, it exists) isn't directly comparable to the fluff. Elite soldiers like Astartes are going to be more accurate than 67%, and shooting an assault rifle doesn't keep you from charging into glorious melee combat. Nor does power armor fail two times out of three. But the limits of the d6 and attempts at balancing the game limit the realism of the simulation.

 asorel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"So trying to put an Abrams into 40k is an example of a pointless thought experiment"

Not really. We have a hit rate for the Abrams. And then another hit rate for 40K tanks. Those numbers are directly comparable. 40K targeting sucks. 40K is basically the retro future, which basically makes me think that their ground forces would struggle against any non-retro future military.

Their tanks look like WW I tanks for crying about loud. And they don't have gyro stabilized turrets. (Can't fire on the move) And there are precious few seeking weapons. And the weapons ranges are absurdly short. It's like Battletech all over again.

In real futuristic warfare, you don't get to see your opponent, and there is no assault phase. And Orks and bugs just auto-lose for the most part. (Like in the Starship Troopers novel)

The real issue is that wargame balance (yes, it exists) isn't directly comparable to the fluff. Elite soldiers like Astartes are going to be more accurate than 67%, and shooting an assault rifle doesn't keep you from charging into glorious melee combat. Nor does power armor fail two times out of three. But the limits of the d6 and attempts at balancing the game limit the realism of the simulation.

But they aren't more accurate than 67%. And power armor does fail 1/3 of the time. They are what the stats say they are. Which makes them kinda losers, actually. That's the way wargames work. The fluff is just the delusion of some author. I could write my own fluff and it would has just as much impact on the tabletop game. Which is zero.

Remember that the answer in any fluff question is "Whatever the author says it is". That couldn't be more irrelevant to a table top war game. Hence, fluff = ignored.

Martel732 wrote:

 asorel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"So trying to put an Abrams into 40k is an example of a pointless thought experiment"

Not really. We have a hit rate for the Abrams. And then another hit rate for 40K tanks. Those numbers are directly comparable. 40K targeting sucks. 40K is basically the retro future, which basically makes me think that their ground forces would struggle against any non-retro future military.

Their tanks look like WW I tanks for crying about loud. And they don't have gyro stabilized turrets. (Can't fire on the move) And there are precious few seeking weapons. And the weapons ranges are absurdly short. It's like Battletech all over again.

In real futuristic warfare, you don't get to see your opponent, and there is no assault phase. And Orks and bugs just auto-lose for the most part. (Like in the Starship Troopers novel)

The real issue is that wargame balance (yes, it exists) isn't directly comparable to the fluff. Elite soldiers like Astartes are going to be more accurate than 67%, and shooting an assault rifle doesn't keep you from charging into glorious melee combat. Nor does power armor fail two times out of three. But the limits of the d6 and attempts at balancing the game limit the realism of the simulation.

But they aren't more accurate than 67%. And power armor does fail 1/3 of the time. They are what the stats say they are. Which makes them kinda losers, actually. That's the way wargames work. The fluff is just the delusion of some author. I could write my own fluff and it would has just as much impact on the tabletop game. Which is zero.

Remember that the answer in any fluff question is "Whatever the author says it is". That couldn't be more irrelevant to a table top war game. Hence, fluff = ignored.

This is the background discussion subforum, the fluff isn't ignored. Even if that weren't the case, other crunch sources such as the FFG RPGs portray the units rather differently. What is valid crunch changes from one addition to the next, and when going between different systems. While fluff isn't too useful for hard values, it at least remains somewhat consistent.

I'll let you get back to it, then, but the IoM seems decidedly Dune-ish to me with no real computing and a total reliance on special people power. And reliance on fanboi authors. Can't forget them.

Martel732 wrote:
In real futuristic warfare, you don't get to see your opponent, and there is no assault phase. And Orks and bugs just auto-lose for the most part. (Like in the Starship Troopers novel)

Indeed. And even in modern-era warfare I doubt they'd do especialy well (ignoring the huge numerical advantage and orbital support, of course). I wonder how the Imperium will counter laser-guided bombs, anti-radiaiton missiles and decent artillery. That is assuming that a Chimera has the armour of a BMP2, and Space Marines can be taken down with a 14-25mm round.

I wonder how the Imperium will counter laser-guided bombs, anti-radiaiton missiles and decent artillery

Void Shields.

 Psienesis wrote:

I wonder how the Imperium will counter laser-guided bombs, anti-radiaiton missiles and decent artillery

Void Shields.

Damn those void Shields...

And while we're on the subject of Imperium vs IRL forces

The IoM would be too stupid to use them. Yeah, they're that stupid.

Martel732 wrote:
"So trying to put an Abrams into 40k is an example of a pointless thought experiment"

Not really. We have a hit rate for the Abrams. And then another hit rate for 40K tanks. Those numbers are directly comparable. 40K targeting sucks. 40K is basically the retro future, which basically makes me think that their ground forces would struggle against any non-retro future military.

Their tanks look like WW I tanks for crying about loud. And they don't have gyro stabilized turrets. (Can't fire on the move) And there are precious few seeking weapons. And the weapons ranges are absurdly short. It's like Battletech all over again.

In real futuristic warfare, you don't get to see your opponent, and there is no assault phase. And Orks and bugs just auto-lose for the most part. (Like in the Starship Troopers novel)

While you have a point, by thaat logic all IG are dead eyes with their lasguns, as their hit rate is many many times better than that of the IRL military.

Martel732 wrote:
"So trying to put an Abrams into 40k is an example of a pointless thought experiment"

Not really. We have a hit rate for the Abrams. And then another hit rate for 40K tanks. Those numbers are directly comparable.

No they are not.

We have a hit rate for LRBTs in universe, funneled through a poorly designed game system and based on arbitrary numbers and a D6 system(which is about as far from granular as you can get). For Abrams we have actual real world data. These things are not comparable.

Next we have no idea what the exact state of targeting systems is in 40k. Given 38,000 years of technological advances, its almost certain that there are insane counter-measures around. Not to mention battlefield radiation from all the plasma/fusion weaponry with output yields able to level mountains. An Abrams targeting systems(which is the only reason its so accurate) probably would just get overloaded and the crew would be forced to use the iron sights. And even if it was able to still hit stuff, there is no guarantee that its weapon would be sufficient. For all we know it could be as useless as a single 75mm Sherman trying to take out an Abrams, sure its possible but the Sherman would have to get around the sides and try to hit a weak spot at almost point blank range.

Really the best you can do is say that BS3 is the ballistic skill of a soldier that has gone through basic training and had a fair bit of drilling. BS4 is a highly trained soldier that has made marksmanship his life. BS5 is a legend among men.

 SDFarsight wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:
1. Does 'Personal Computer' we use today exists in the 40k universe?
2. Many electronical devices in the Imperium (and Admech) are all have skulls attacked to it. (including ones incorporated into Hydra/Wyvern targeting systems) Do they use human brain as CPU or do they also use the same (microtransistor) chips as we do? or are these skulls ornamental? (so to serves as faction symbol)

1. Yes, there are personal 'cogitators' being similar to PCs, and there are also data slates which I guess is a kind of tablet computer. Some hive world governments also make use of huge super-computers. In the BL book 'Ravenor'

Spoiler:

a group of heretics keep adding more modules to the hive's super computer in order to decode a pseudo-pskyer language.

2. I'm not entirely sure, but I think they use cogitators (normal computers) for the more basic, civilian, mathmatical tasks. They use skulls with human brains to control the things which involve making intelligent decisions (though their intelligence is limited to the context of their job, as they're just servitors) and controling things which they don't want an AI to get control of, avoiding another Dark Age of Technology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
The Abrams isn't made of space-metal with 20k+ years of development behind it.

Leman Russes could have all the protective power of an M1A2 Sherman, as there's not alot to compare it to. It reminds me of when someone on another forum said that "Guardsmen will barely be hurt at all by an M16 rifle, as humans have evolved in the 40K universe". Except that evolution doesn't always work out that way, and even if it did, 40K years isn't 'that' long by evolution standards. Though granted, the Leman Russ being better than an Abrams is certainly more plausible than the Guardsmen idea, especially if all that 'plasteel' and other exotic materials are better than chobham armour.

Also we know Imperial armor is craaaazy good strong stuff considering a Baneblade once got hit by what was basically a MOAB, formed a crater fit for a significantly large meteorite, and sent the Baneblade flying a hundred feet into the air, and the crew didn't even die from a concussion.