"Animal progenitors as inspiration for alien fighting styles?" Topic

Many discussions on alien force development and figure design often include many commentary to the effect of -

"If they are animal X, why do they not fight like Y?"

In the question above Y is often some sort affectation related to the progenitors of the species or some related sort of creature.

Now, I understand that this is a cool and sometimes easy way to establish a non-human (I won't say alien) methodology to the species you are building a force for, but really there is nothing about it that makes sense (not that Rule of Cool doesn't apply).

Humans have not fought like monkeys for a long time and we aren't extending ourselves into space. In fact, we have done everything we can to move beyond our species limitations so that our fighting styles are about as alien to our nature as aliens are to our species.

So, why then are almost all bug machines, big metal bugs? Why do alien carnivores always seem to have claws and teeth on their battle machines? Rule of Cool withstanding, there are few good reasons.

Leaving Rule of Cool behind there are a couple of reasons that I can see to justify this -

1) The species has an innate understanding of the merits of these particular aspects and therefore has chosen to implement them in their combat style.

or

2) The species is highly traditional and values these aspects on a much deeper level than pure tactical efficiency.

-Eli

To me it is the difference of hard sci-fi vs. pulp or space opera. (I am using my definitions of what I think is hard or not). So to me hard sci fi the aliens would not have bug tanks or teeth on their tanks ect.. but in space opera maybe, and pulp they would. I prefer hard sci fi now so never buy models like those.

I do think there is a middle ground between the two.

For example, a dropship with feather-like control surfaces might come from a bird race in some sort of biomech version of nature's wing design.

-Eli

Have humans really dropped some of their innate characteristics? Would aliens, seeing human warfighters, think that we'd taken our teeth and put it on our vehicles, not unlike the carnivorous species?

I think they would in some cases. Certainly, at least, in the world of SF:

1) Camouflage. Humans are not naturally camouflaged very well, regardless of terrain or skin color. Sweat can even make you appear shiny at a distance and easy to see. This is actually one reason soldiers wear facepaint.

But we've been using camo since very early in our development (relative to, say, Chimps… I'm not sure how much our ape cousins use artificial camo, though I'd imagine its not nearly as necessary due to having brown fur). Ever notice that even to this day most 'traditional' tribal wear involves leaves, or blocks of different, vaguely muddy colors (I've heard that the origins of plaid actually had to do with camouflaging yourself on the Scottish hills). Painting yourself blue is a great way to be hard to see if you're also using cover, shadows, or are worried about being silhouetted against the sky.

Camo and stealth are still essential to human militaries, possibly more than any other one element.

Weapons: Our big thing has often been endurance over speed. Our ancestors would walk at a faster animal til the faster animal fell over from being too tired. That or we'd spear an animal with ranged weaponry. Even monkeys throw poop. Using artificial, ranged weapons and long endurance foot men are essential parts of ape warfare, basically.

That is reflected in the dominance of artificial ranged weapons, instead of claws, natural poisons, or whatever else we've never had, and light infantry. Mechanized infantry can be viewed as a sort of inverted version of this trope. Its a species taking its weakness (short term speed) and coming up with the best solution (mechanical assistance to allow short term movement at rapid speeds and, with enough fuel, even faster long term movement, while not reducing the endurance or flexibility of the humans within, keeping them ready for combat).

In contrast a species that was very fast but had poor endurance and was always excellent at clawing its foes to death would, even if they became intelligent, be slower at developing weapons like throwing spears (and then guns). They're less important, less essential to their hunting and fighting style. Mechanized infantry vs. Light infantry might look quite different…. though actually that is one of the rare cases where it might not matter, as they have endurance problems solvable by vehicles or pack animals, while their light infantry are basically faster than ours but less mobile…. probably means they just wouldn't have light infantry. Its a very human idea, once you come down to it, its all about endurance and flexibility in environment.

We put skulls on a lot of our military stuff. Its not just 40k ad WW2 Germans, either. its on weapons, ammunition, helmets, badges….Thats not unlike adorning your tank to look kinda like a tiger (if you're a cat-like species). Hell, humans make their vehicles look like animals (but you never see plants… so i guess we stick to our closer relatives, too), why can't aliens?

Our whole infantry tactics and vehicle design are based around the human body, ultimately. If we had 360 degree vision our squads would work differently from a formational stand point.

The list goes on.

Now, I'm of the view that most species that would be at all comparable to humans would need to have a lot in common (fairly social but not to the point of an insect, fairly individualistic with no inherent specialization though society often causes specialization in career, etc) or else they'd basically never become intelligent in the way we think of it-- a predator might be extremely intelligent, even more than a human, but without a good social set up technology and specialization doesn't happen…. herd animals tend to be too stupid.
There is some wiggle room, though:
You can have 'weird' intelligent species, but they'll be TRULY alien (even more so than the other guys), and then even on Earth you have some candidates that fit my criteria but would still be significantly different than humans (note that I don't mean biologically per se, but in many ways I mean niche… though thats tied together).

Wolves are fairly intelligent pack animals. Have a lot in common with early humans in a lot of ways. You could have wolf like (in development) aliens.

You can have kinda human like development that takes several rather different turns.

Some birds are kinda close.

Insects are pretty darn different but you could have an insect-like race (not so much biologically, though) that could be kinda inbetween "totally alien" and "kinda thinks like a human but still alien."

Interesting topic.

EDIT:

Oh, and of course, in SF, our powered armor looks like gorilla suits. So there you go.

Have you ever seen a bar fight? Doesn't seem so far from monkeys fighting to me.

Some interesting points made here.

First off, I never said that we as a species don't use our natural talents, just that we've built beyond them and tend to not integrate aspects of our own anatomy or natural abilities into the fighting capabilities of our military machines.

We may use skulls in banners, patches, and logos, but we did not build the front of tanks to look like a giant chimpanzee face or weapons that resemble throwing our own poo.

While using ranged weapons IS an extension of one of our evolutionary advantages, once you go beyond thrown weapons you really start to leave the natural elements of this behind and start turning it into something else.

There is also a big difference between something being called something because that is what it's function requires and it being intentionally made to look like that thing. In the example of the "gorilla suits" I was always under the impression that is what they were called because the functional form of final product. Sort of like our A-10 being called the Warthog because people think it's ugly and pig-nosed. We didn't sculpt the end to look like a warthog.

I'm not saying it would never happen, or that it shouldn't happen, and as I pointed out, there are a few cases where you can come up with good reason for it.

-Eli

I could see the animal progenitors manifesting in subtle ways in the technology just because of the instinct and/or knowledge the race will either have kept as it advanced.

Humanity still has a tendency to build armor that you climb around in. Close hatches, ladders, etc. All reminders of the trees we left behind.

If I wanted to build tech for the avian Harook (as that is where this discussion started earlier this week), I might be inclined to look at some of Shirow's flight tech, with the finger-like wingtip control surfaces, back-swept antennae, and interiors that, in the case of the Harook, take big feet into account.

David Brin's books give some hints about how starship design would change for Dolphin use, and some of those lessons would extend to smaller vehicles as well, with drive and steering mechanisms on a flier concentrated in winglets and tail because that's how the pilot will react.

The big "dino-surfer" of the Garn probably unconsciously emulates a pre-tech group hunting formation in its crew and passenger station layout.

Things like hatch size and shape *and location* are also going to change.

It will take longer for a claustrophobic race to develop enclosed vehicles than it would a race that had no preference, and longer still than a race that depended on caves, tree nests, or a shell for protection.

Anatomy is certainly a factor, but adaptations can be developed separately of style.

Is the climbing around in our vehicles a style thing? No, it's a function thing.

The discussion here isn't function more than it is style and weapon systems capabilities, not how they are operated.

-Eli

But how something is operated *can* affect the style. Our tendency to climb leads to stacking. We think nothing of having an occupied enclosed turret on top of a fighting vehicle. A race of intelligent groundhogs would probably think the same way, but a race like the Garn would probably stop at a bubble pintle on top and prefer side mounts they can walk into, while the Harook will use the top surfaces for sensors and control surfaces and depend on chin mounts and belly mounts, and Dolphins would go for chin and tail mounts.

I think the point of the topic is being missed though.

What we DON'T do is slap a big monkey face on our tanks and make them fight with big metal monkey hands.

The Garn have open-topped vehicles because they use force field tech, not because of their animal ancestry. At least that is Jon's reasoning for the open tops.

Why would the Harook rely on chin and belly mounts any more than we? We position guns based on where we need them to get to the enemy. Plenty of belly and chin mounts on human vehicles throughout history. Not a lot of belly flop attacks or chin strikes in primate anatomy.

-Eli

No, but we did develop grenades pretty early. Throwing things at the enemy is another of our biases, and offensive ballistic arcs are hard-wired into us.

By comparison, you might find the Garn are bowlers, and the Harook prefer mine dropping.

why then are almost all bug machines, big metal bugs?

In the case of the Tyranids and Kryomek, and the SST movie bugs, that's not cast or rolled metal. They grow their tanks. The Reticulan Parasite (the "Alien") alters its environment with resins (presumably) to make it easier to hide in and ambush from. In one really old anime series, the mechs looked like bugs because they were using the native giant bugs of the setting as building materials.

And yes, I am now considering converting the 15mm Garn commander, cheesy grin and all, with a loud shirt and bowling spats.

And maybe a beer.

I guess that I can keep ranting about this until I turn blue in the face, or until FINALLY someone decides to maybe think about it.

I do not like the anthropomorphizing of aliens, and GW is about as bad at this as any company out there in the gaming business.

And others, as has been mentioned, who put fins on fish-aliens' vehicles, or feathers on bird-aliens's stuff, or claws on cat aliens' stuff, and so on…

No one stops to think about the (and I can't believe I am going to use this word again… I'll put a footnote to explain it this time) teleological¹ form and the sensory and cognitive modalities that create the form (Teleological Phenotype).

As I mentioned in another thread on a similar subject. This would depend upon the modalities involved with the aliens.

For instance, one thing that has always baffled me is why no maker of bug-aliens has created tanks for them that have an almost flat profile. Bugs tend to lay flat, and even a bug-alien that was capable of partially erecting its body for tool use would probably still lay flat on all sixes to operate a vehicle (or for transportation within a vehicle).

And, bug-aliens would probably not use legs on their vehicles. They would probably discover the utility and simplicity of the wheel, just like we did (who also have legs, but didn't start by trying to imitate the leg). Why would an insect have an innate knowledge of how to build a walking vehicle?

And just like we discovered the ease and utility of the fixed wing aircraft, a bird-alien is not going to necessarily have any innate knowledge of aerodynamics just because they can fly – so they are likely to have aircraft that are teleologically identical to ours. The only things that would be different would be stylistic and functional to the bird body-plan. The birds might have a better flying ability, due to the adaptation of their inner ear coupled to the visual centers of their brain (giving them less vertigo and better coordination at certain tasks), but that doesn't translate into an innate knowledge of flight any more than our increased brain size gives us an innate knowledge of thinking or of neuroscience.

But… That said, our vehicles do have teleological displays of our big brains all over them (but they aren't in the form of a big brain sculpted into the vehicles): The display of antennae, windows, telescopic sights and computers on everything. These are essentially displays of our reliance upon our most effective weapon: Our big brain (and opposable thumbs – but we don't sculpt opposable thumbs onto all of our vehicles either).

¹ Teleology basically has to do with the function of a form. For instance, things that fly tend to have a group of characteristics that are recognizable (wings is one of those typical characteristics for most Earth flying things – even Helicopters have wings. They just spin around). The pointed stick is an example of teleological development, and it is universal as a weapon (octopodes tend to even use them). The gun is our currently most advanced version of the "pointed stick." Yet Teleologically, the spear and the gun are identical. One can think of this as sort of like Topology, where the Donut and the Coffe Cut are Topologically the same item.

And just in case anyone doesn't want to read my whole post to get the two jokes embedded in it:

The display of claws on Carnivore-Alien Vehicles, or Fins on Fish-Aliens vehicles would be the equivalent of humans sculpting huge brains or opposable thumbs on all of our vehicles.

And after reading a lot of this thread, people are STILL anthropomorphizing the aliens with comments about anatomy as compared to a human.

When something develops a big brain, it is capable of thinking past its evolutionary adaptations (ESPECIALLY if it has discovered evolutionary theory).

The (damn I hate to use this word here) "design" of the brain on a species will dictate what it tends to do more of as it is primitive (but may still affect later cybernetics as the species grows in sophistication), but these will tend to minimize as it learns how to more effectively overcome its own biological limitations.

For instance, someone mentioned that the "Alien" (of the movie fame) manipulates its environment to make it easier to hide it (hmm… I am suspicious of that explanation, but let's go with it), but as that species develops intentional cognitive capacities, it will probably learn to manipulate its environment in specific ways to more effectively take advantage of the weapons systems it constructs.

Tool use changes a species dramatically, and physics then begins to dictate form rather than biological inclination.

Even in cases when biomechanics is involved, and a vehicle is a giant living organism, physics will still play a major role in form. Only by using a naturally occurring, fully biological organism as a vehicle will physics take a backseat to biological form (and then only because of evolution – physics will still drive the biology to a great degree – such as no giant bugs, because their weight would crush them).

I don't much like your future. Very boring.

There will always be room for Rule of Cool.

However, when cool becomes ordinary, it is time to invent a new cool.

-Eli

I'd think that a non-human species evolved for close-combat (claws, teeth, stingers, blades, etc.) that develops ballistic technology (atl-atl, crossbow, firearms, RPG, etc.) would soon see the advantages of dealing damage at long range (much as our species has.) Over time, some bright (or practical) thinker in that other species would figure out the concept of what we call "armor" (if their own body form does not already have it), and the arms race would be on. Similarly with "mobility", if they had some form of 'animal' that could be domesticated to ride, it would only be a matter of time before some one of their fellows said to another "I dare you to jump on it's back and ride it!" (most likely that's what happened millenia ago with horses.) There are probably other parallels that could be applied…. ;-)

That does assume that their own anatomy allows riding, or even sitting.

Yep… Sort of my point.

The Garn have open-topped vehicles because they use force field tech, not because of their animal ancestry. At least that is Jon's reasoning for the open tops.

And dollars to donuts there is a deep-seated reason for developing that direction. Force-field tech doesn't happen as easily as figuring out how to keep a wall upright or a roof in place.

When something develops a big brain, it is capable of thinking past its evolutionary adaptations

Maybe. Not all of the "habits" associated with those adaptions will fall easily, either. We will need to develop a lot more interesting tech before we stop installing artificial tree limbs (ladders and stairs) in our structures to get from one level to another, and stacking our structures vertically will never stop being acceptable.

But not every race is going to be a climber, or have feet in the right length ratio to leg length and lift to use stairs or ladders. Inventing elevators *might* get them to stack buildings more than they did with ramps, but if racial claustrophobia is a survival trait (such as with some egg-layers, for whom the first conscious action is to ESCAPE!) getting them into a building they can't always see the exits from (or getting them into full power armor, for that matter) may not ever be comfortable or conditionable for more than a fraction of that populace.

So they don't build that way. Buildings or vehicles.