[UT] So, what is the maximum skill level for NAI, LAI, SAI?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

(perhaps no more than the TS of the best single unit on that side, as a suggestion).

TS and margin of success aren't remotely comparable units. What do you mean here?

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'm bringing this up in a separate thread, because the issue deserves being resolved once and for all. What is the maximum level that various AIs can have? Having no limit results in skill-40 computer generals worth a mere $50k at TL9, so I guess there should be a limit. But what is it? Attribute+Complexity? Attribute+2 regardless of Complexity? Something else?

You're looking at it from the wrong direction. A skill-program isn't limited by the hardware so much as it is limited by the skill of the programmers. You can always get better hardware; it is rather more difficult to acquire better programmers. I'd especially argue that a skill-program represents a specialized field of knowledge (which is something that has additional rules).

As such, I'd argue that you can't program a skill-program with a skill-rating higher than the skill-rating available to the programmers. Which leads to the question: What is the maximum skill-rating a human can have?

(In practice, I'd say the answer to that is IQ20 + Talent4 + 10ish. Different campaign assumptions would lead to a different answer.)

In most of my campaigns, that answer would be 34.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

At any rate, I don't really see the problem, Skill-50 is generally a waste of resources even if it is possible. I know that you think it should apply to Contests of Skill in Mass Combat, but really I think that's a fault of those rules, there should be a maximum benefit that good planning can have on a battlefield (perhaps no more than the TS of the best single unit on that side, as a suggestion).

I strongly disagree.

Skill -50 probably ought not be available in any kind of plausible setting. But if it was, it would absolutely be worth the piddling amount of money it costs.

Even with -10 for instant use and -20 for lacking all kinds of information, say, you'd be reliably better than an expert with preparation. Being able to adapt plans on the fly and have them come out better than even one's that the opposition spent x30 time on... well, you'd win. Always.

The limit on the utility of Strategy in the real world is because the difference between the best and the worst is a matter of 10 skill levels or so, not 40 skill levels.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

TS and margin of success aren't remotely comparable units. What do you mean here?

Sorry, I was rather convolutedly referencing his argument here:

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Not bad for the ability to gain an effective 50fold TS increase (having 50 times the enemy's TS of troops is worth a +20 TDM to Strategy, so having such a computer for a strategist is the same as having 50 times the troops).

My point being that the margin of success benefit ought not exceed that of the material strength of your forces. The best plan in the world isn't going to let a couple of kids with slingshots crush an army division.

Originally Posted by Icelander

Even with -10 for instant use and -20 for lacking all kinds of information, say, you'd be reliably better than an expert with preparation. Being able to adapt plans on the fly and have them come out better than even one's that the opposition spent x30 time on... well, you'd win. Always.

I'm saying that such an absurd use probably shouldn't be allowed and that effective skill ends up being limited by any number of factors, realistically.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

My point being that the margin of success benefit ought not exceed that of the material strength of your forces. The best plan in the world isn't going to let a couple of kids with slingshots crush an army division.

Indeed.

On the other hand, if the difference between the kid's skill level and the major general's was really 35 levels, I suppose that would represent them never being anywhere near where he deployed his forces and them happening to be present, with their slingshots, near a button that only needed to be pressed in order to cause the Major-General's mission to fail.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I'm saying that such an absurd use probably shouldn't be allowed and that effective skill ends up being limited by any number of factors, realistically.

If allowed, skill 50 is absurd.

You can do Surgery blindly and without tools, while hanging upside down and on fire.

All other skills are similar. Skill 50 doesn't exist. It makes no sense.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Icelander

On the other hand, if the difference between the kid's skill level and the major general's was really 35 levels, I suppose that would represent them never being anywhere near where he deployed his forces and them happening to be present, with their slingshots, near a button that only needed to be pressed in order to cause the Major-General's mission to fail.

Except there's no such button; the entire scenario is absurd. Effective skill ought to be limited to realistic levels, regardless of whatever it is on paper.

Besides, you still have find somebody with Skill-50 (or as many CPs) to program it in the first place. I suppose you could bootstrap it with lower complexity machines programming higher complexity ones with steadily increasing attribute levels. Which is basically a very silly version of the Vingean Sigularity.

Originally Posted by Icelander

All other skills are similar. Skill 50 doesn't exist. It makes no sense.

That's my point. You can allow Skill-50 and limit it to an effective skill of 22+(2x equipment bonuses) or something and point to B172 when they complain.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Except there's no such button; the entire scenario is absurd. Effective skill ought to be limited to realistic levels, regardless of whatever it is on paper.

Which is why I'm arguing that skill levels ought not exceed certain levels, because that leads to silly results.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Besides, you still have find somebody with Skill-50 (or as many CPs) to program it in the first place. I suppose you could bootstrap it with lower complexity machines programming higher complexity ones with steadily increasing attribute levels. Which is basically a very silly version of the Vingean Sigularity.

First you'd need a sensible rule that limited AI skill levels based on the skill accessible by the programmers. Currently, there is no such rule, which is why vicky-moloch is prone to suggesting absurd skill levels for AIs based on extrapolation from the simplistic and unrealistic rules in Ultra-Tech.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Icelander

First you'd need a sensible rule that said that limited AI skill levels based on the skill accessible by the programmers. Currently, there is no such rule,

Sure there is, just extend the rules for Education (B293) to AI.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I suppose you could bootstrap it with lower complexity machines programming higher complexity ones with steadily increasing attribute levels. Which is basically a very silly version of the Vingean Sigularity.

TL12 Mega Computer (Genius) is limited to Complexity 15. So ... IQ 24.