Maybe because their imprint technology limit (technology that makes a certain T-doll super proficient with their namesake weapon like their own extra limb)?
Or maybe because Griffin (our company) doesn’t have license for futuristic weapons? They’re PMC after all
In the lore, PMCs are restricted from using "modern" weapons - meaning anything WW3 or later. Also, the Dolls aren't "civilian" in a strict sense, they are combat designs but designed to have humanised appearances and social interaction software to deal with civilians. PMCs are security companies primarily after all, but a more accurate term would be paramilitary. Full military Dolls are straight-up killbots - no humanised features, no personality software. Just armour and guns.
What I heard was that the Dolls we use are converted civilian assets. To make an analogy, if A-Dolls are like pickup trucks, then our T-Dolls are those pickup trucks with machine guns strapped to them, and actual military T-Dolls are APCs. What we have are not combat designs, which only the military has. We instead pick up the old remnants (in lore none of our Dolls are even close to up-to-date) and make do with the cheapest Dolls.
What I heard was that the Dolls we use are converted civilian assets. To make an analogy, if A-Dolls are like pickup trucks, then our T-Dolls are those pickup trucks with machine guns strapped to them, and actual military T-Dolls are APCs. What we have are not combat designs, which only the military has. We instead pick up the old remnants (in lore none of our Dolls are even close to up-to-date) and make do with the cheapest Dolls.
That's a sort of half understanding of what's going on, which is fair given the majority of the relevant information is quite obscure. There's a document that came with the first Chinese artbook that goes into the development history of T-Dolls and it's a pretty good read, there's a fan translation here but the TL:DR is that Dolls were originally a military project that wasn't really successful, then the designs became good enough that they took off in both civilian and military use and then G&K pioneered using them for PMCs in a mutual arrangement with the largest manufacturer which led to the designs rapidly becoming a lot better. By now, we do use dedicated combat designs as well as former civilian models, though the civilian Dolls are mostly used for logistics and the combat models are the frontliners.
There's also the confusion over the definition of the term "civilian." The dictionary definition is anything not police or armed forces (not specifically national military, any armed force) whereas the US legal definition (as I understand it, I'm from the UK) is anything not military. So from a US legal standpoint, which might be what the translators are using, any non-military Doll would be a civilian Doll, even if designed for combat. By the dictionary definition, PMCs are distinctly not civilian and combat Dolls designed for them wouldn't be either.
There's a difference between an armed force, that is, any group of people who are armed, and the armed services, which is a state's armed forces (Army, Navy, Air Force et al.). So no, the dictionary definition for civilian does, in fact, apply to any non-state entity, regardless of how well they are armed. Extending it to the police or not (which is contentious) is irrelevant in this case - PMCs, being not the armed services of a state, are, by definition, actually civilian (mercenaries are a separate thing.)
This distinction is present in the Japanese used here, 民間 (/minkan/), is even broader than the English term - it refers to either society at large (the 'People') or any non-government entity in general - civil servants aren't actually included.
So (without reading the text document there), if the Dolls were acting in a civilian capacity before being refitted with guns (I.e. this 'G&K' took non-military ones (even though some were developed for the military) and armed them, then they were indeed repurposed civilian dolls - but if you prefer, 'private sector' is a perfectly serviceable alternate translation for the phrase in the text, lit "Being used in the private sector/in a civilian capacity".
There's also the confusion over the definition of the term "civilian." The dictionary definition is anything not police or armed forces (not specifically national military, any armed force) whereas the US legal definition (as I understand it, I'm from the UK) is anything not military. So from a US legal standpoint, which might be what the translators are using, any non-military Doll would be a civilian Doll, even if designed for combat. By the dictionary definition, PMCs are distinctly not civilian and combat Dolls designed for them wouldn't be either.
The Chinese uses "民用", the Japanese「民間」, both of which are commonly translated as "civilian". They both correspond mostly to the English dictionary use of the term (and not necessarily some specific US legal uses); that is, police and other official (i.e. government-sanctioned) paramilitary/security organizations are also explicitly excluded.
To be more specific, the Chinese word translates literally as "civil use" (attributive or adjective), i.e. something that is (intended) for civilian use (especially for daily activities). This may technically include weapons that are specifically designed to kill other people, like gear for private security firms and such (but most Chinese wouldn't be thinking of it when they read the word "民用"), like a security guard's shotgun. But definitely not something as militarized as a PMC, sanctioned by the government or no. (but a PMC may use civilian-designed "民用" equipment anyway.)
The Japanese 「民間」 translates as "civil-related" or "civil realm" (attributive noun), or more literally "among (the common) people", i.e. something not for official use. So, technically speaking, all governmental institutions and state actors are excluded (also government employees and civil servants), and this includes something that is purpose-designed for use by such an institution (so, government housing for government employees are likewise excluded from「民間」, but not government housing for the public). As such, PMCs are technically 「民間」(but a lot of Japanese wouldn't think of them that way), precisely because they are private organizations that are not (technically) beholden to a government or state. Likewise for equipment designed specifically for PMC use, even if they are barely distinguishable from military weapons (but again, this is an unintuitive way of using the word. Like referring to PMCs as civilian in English, which is also technically true).
zankde said:
Maybe because their imprint technology limit (technology that makes a certain T-doll super proficient with their namesake weapon like their own extra limb)?
Or maybe because Griffin (our company) doesn’t have license for futuristic weapons? They’re PMC after all
Shiki-kan said:
In the lore, PMCs are restricted from using "modern" weapons - meaning anything WW3 or later. Also, the Dolls aren't "civilian" in a strict sense, they are combat designs but designed to have humanised appearances and social interaction software to deal with civilians. PMCs are security companies primarily after all, but a more accurate term would be paramilitary. Full military Dolls are straight-up killbots - no humanised features, no personality software. Just armour and guns.
thisisformygfstuff said:
What I heard was that the Dolls we use are converted civilian assets. To make an analogy, if A-Dolls are like pickup trucks, then our T-Dolls are those pickup trucks with machine guns strapped to them, and actual military T-Dolls are APCs. What we have are not combat designs, which only the military has. We instead pick up the old remnants (in lore none of our Dolls are even close to up-to-date) and make do with the cheapest Dolls.
I get most of the hand-waving here, but what I don't get is why would they think it's a good idea to "etch" T-Dolls to handguns. Especially a zipgun-lookalike like Welrod. Or even (for non handguns), uh, a backyard literal pipegun like the Sten Mk II (they are lots of better Stens, seriously).
I mean, yeah, both weapons were used to great effect by British special forces and insurgents trained by said special forces, but most of their advantages (ease/cost of manufacture, ease of training, and plausible deniability) just becomes irrelevant when you bond it to a T-doll.
Unless, I dunno, they magically pick up the skills of all the previous users of the weapons? Then again I thought GF is supposed to be somewhat hardish scifi...
The Chinese uses "民用", the Japanese「民間」, both of which are commonly translated as "civilian". They both correspond mostly to the English dictionary use of the term (and not necessarily some specific US legal uses); that is, police and other official (i.e. government-sanctioned) paramilitary/security organizations are also explicitly excluded.
To be more specific, the Chinese word translates literally as "civil use" (attributive or adjective), i.e. something that is (intended) for civilian use (especially for daily activities). This may technically include weapons that are specifically designed to kill other people, like gear for private security firms and such (but most Chinese wouldn't be thinking of it when they read the word "民用"), like a security guard's shotgun. But definitely not something as militarized as a PMC, sanctioned by the government or no. (but a PMC may use civilian-designed "民用" equipment anyway.)
The Japanese 「民間」 translates as "civil-related" or "civil realm" (attributive noun), or more literally "among (the common) people", i.e. something not for official use. So, technically speaking, all governmental institutions and state actors are excluded (also government employees and civil servants), and this includes something that is purpose-designed for use by such an institution (so, government housing for government employees are likewise excluded from「民間」, but not government housing for the public). As such, PMCs are technically 「民間」(but a lot of Japanese wouldn't think of them that way), precisely because they are private organizations that are not (technically) beholden to a government or state. Likewise for equipment designed specifically for PMC use, even if they are barely distinguishable from military weapons (but again, this is an unintuitive way of using the word. Like referring to PMCs as civilian in English, which is also technically true).
I get most of the hand-waving here, but what I don't get is why would they think it's a good idea to "etch" T-Dolls to handguns. Especially a zipgun-lookalike like Welrod. Or even (for non handguns), uh, a backyard literal pipegun like the Sten Mk II (they are lots of better Stens, seriously).
I mean, yeah, both weapons were used to great effect by British special forces and insurgents trained by said special forces, but most of their advantages (ease/cost of manufacture, ease of training, and plausible deniability) just becomes irrelevant when you bond it to a T-doll.
Unless, I dunno, they magically pick up the skills of all the previous users of the weapons? Then again I thought GF is supposed to be somewhat hardish scifi...
Just as a note, the Welrod is basically a fully integrated suppressor with a trigger. Significantly more advanced for its time than a zipgun. Heck, only the De Lisle carbine matches it for stealthiness -- the two are as close you could get to "Hollywood" silencers in that era.
But all that aside? They made a game around weapon geekery, and also a reason to draw cute girls in parodies of period dress. It's probably not worth thinking too hard about how a PMC strapped for cash can somehow get its hands on *multiple* iterations of the WA2000, for instance...
There's a difference between an armed force, that is, any group of people who are armed, and the armed services, which is a state's armed forces (Army, Navy, Air Force et al.). So no, the dictionary definition for civilian does, in fact, apply to any non-state entity, regardless of how well they are armed. Extending it to the police or not (which is contentious) is irrelevant in this case - PMCs, being not the armed services of a state, are, by definition, actually civilian (mercenaries are a separate thing.)
I (sadly) speak neither Japanese nor Chinese so the specific nuances of any particular terminology will escape me, and must obviously be deferred to when used. As for English though, Which dictionary definition you use depends on which dictionary you use - some use "armed services" and some "armed forces". One even included the fire service as an exclusion, amusingly enough. But to quote from the linked document: "After the year 2062, IOP essentially completed the standardization of the modules for combat and civilian dolls, and other than the ACD series that was specially modified for military purposes, the other non-military dolls were reduced to six models, which were the SST-05/05A/05A2 and SSD-62D/F/G models. The SST was one of the more qualified of IOP's brands, and the SST-05 series were IOP's flagship products, possessing high operation speeds, good weapon compatibility and higher storage space for the emotion simulation to make interactions with humans more natural. As one of the early special tactics models, the 05 model had slightly worse performance than the succeeding models, but due to its high production amount and bigger database for mental maps, this model had access to a great volume of combat data. For the 05A model, as an upgrade to the special tactics model, it could use data from the 05 model mental map database to increase its own efficiency, and besides requiring less software to be installed, there was also some improvement to its hardware [footnote-6].
... On the other hand, the SSD series was a brand that was developed by IOP with both the civilian-use and combat-use markets in mind. In order to better integrate into human society, the SSD series have a large amount of storage dedicated to carrying out emotion simulation calculations, along with the installation of a third-party interaction system so that the average citizen would be able to use it brainlessly.
Footnote-6: G&K was extremely pleased with the 05A model, and most of the frontline T-dolls used by them are of this model."
So although former civilian models are used, story material shows them usually assigned to logistics duties while the fighters are dedicated combat designs. Also, I've appreciated your translation work here for a very long time, many thanks.
NNescio said:
Unless, I dunno, they magically pick up the skills of all the previous users of the weapons? Then again I thought GF is supposed to be somewhat hardish scifi...
Hard-ISH is the operative part. The story is pretty good in a sort of Tom Clancy way and is generally internally consistent, but there is quite a fair amount of scifi BS in the setting. The general premise of Etching specifically is that it effectively allows the Doll to sense the weapon as a literal extension of her own body, even if she's separated from it. Combined with ballistics software and an android's calculation ability, they become preternaturally accurate and effective with their weapon. It also does influence their personality to a certain degree, not in that they're anthropomorphisations of the gun, but rather they get a certain suggestion of an appropriate persona from the weapon's history and popular conception as well as the mechanical structure.
gonzomehum said:
But all that aside? They made a game around weapon geekery, and also a reason to draw cute girls in parodies of period dress. It's probably not worth thinking too hard about how a PMC strapped for cash can somehow get its hands on *multiple* iterations of the WA2000, for instance...
We theorise that rather than using authentic weapons, they basically manufacture new ones from schematics as needed, possibly updated with more modern materials and tolerances. Likewise with ammunition, otherwise sourcing some of the stuff the rarer guns use would be nigh impossible. But if you assume advanced CAD/CAM and automated 3D fabrication, you can pretty much make anything you want so long as you have the raw materials and design.
Still doesn't explain why anyone would bother to replicate an L85A1...
To take this discussion in a different direction, though, there could be a reasonable explanation for "making dolls to suit humanity's tastes".
In Iraq, for example, American soldiers were told to take their sunglasses off, especially when dealing with civilians. Even though the sun hurt their eyes, having a bunch of guys in sleek gear with no ability to see most of their face made civilians more angry about the Americans in their country. Speaking with them with their face uncovered meant dealing with them on a personal level and in a way that lets them see individual people rather than just "some soldiers".
There already is a militant human group that tries to fight against T-dolls. How much stronger would it be if all the T-dolls looked like skeletal steel terminators telling them to stay in line or they shall use the maximum legal force to ensure compliance with their mandate? Make them a bunch of distinct, relatable cute or sexy girls, and maybe people'll be slightly less likely to shoot at them.
To take this discussion in a different direction, though, there could be a reasonable explanation for "making dolls to suit humanity's tastes".
In Iraq, for example, American soldiers were told to take their sunglasses off, especially when dealing with civilians. Even though the sun hurt their eyes, having a bunch of guys in sleek gear with no ability to see most of their face made civilians more angry about the Americans in their country. Speaking with them with their face uncovered meant dealing with them on a personal level and in a way that lets them see individual people rather than just "some soldiers".
There already is a militant human group that tries to fight against T-dolls. How much stronger would it be if all the T-dolls looked like skeletal steel terminators telling them to stay in line or they shall use the maximum legal force to ensure compliance with their mandate? Make them a bunch of distinct, relatable cute or sexy girls, and maybe people'll be slightly less likely to shoot at them.
Yes, that is the reason for their appearance. Not the "Don't shoot at us" but the human interaction part overall. Actual military Dolls look very different, far more killbot with no humanised features. Though that doesn't explain why so many Dolls have... eccentric personalities.
Yes, that is the reason for their appearance. Not the "Don't shoot at us" but the human interaction part overall. Actual military Dolls look very different, far more killbot with no humanised features. Though that doesn't explain why so many Dolls have... eccentric personalities.
I'm guessing the worldbuilding is largely left up to us, the fans, since that's probably the smart thing to do. Rather than embed it in the game and make casual players flip through pages and pages of an info-dump (a la Mass Effect), they can just make a nice plot and give the more dedicated fans things like interviews with artists and art books to let our imaginations run wild.
Also, thanks for the link, but I have read that booklet many times. I theorize that while most of the Dolls are 05A models, there are some 05A2 models that simply aren't explicitly noted as such (AK-12 and AN-94 are my leading suspects). I agree that the weapons they use are probably modern replicas of older weapons, since that is probably the only explanation for why there are a bunch of G11 copies floating about. You are also right about the definition of "civilian": I generally consider "civilian" to be anything non-military. In the US, police generally use the same weaponry that is available to civilians (many cops here buy their own patrol rifles from the local store) and civilians can buy police-surplus stuff (as long as it is legal for non-police to own. No machine guns or grenade launchers.)
As for the whole "why are there a hundred anime girls with guns" thing, I generally chalk it up to user-friendliness and approachability. In-lore they just say "it's what sells", and it's the same reason that our smartphones and smart home devices generally use a female voice. Stanford professor Clifford Nass said, “It’s much easier to find a female voice that everyone likes than a male voice that everyone likes. It’s a well-established phenomenon that the human brain is developed to like female voices.”
FYI the official manga does offhandedly mention they use a drone to resupply the girls, and it was indeed a whole mess of different calibers.
It's in a big wall of background text in Chapter 4, when Kalina's introduced. Mangadex's comments have the translation.
One can assume the gun production itself is also automated in some way.
Yeah, but it still doesn't make sense.
Even putting aside the logistics issues (which we really shouldn't as they're stupidly massive, but whatever) many of these girls are using weapons that are simply really bad in a field engagement. A pistol is a backup weapon only, a shotgun is going to be of very dubious value outside highly specific scenarios in enclosed spaces, and SMGs while marginally more versatile then the former are just worse then ARs in every meaningful way if you expect to ever shot beyond like 50 meters. Most of them also have crap firepower, they can be stopped by soft lightweight ballsitc materials even at close range.
You're just not going to be able to concoct a logical reasoning behind building combat androids that solely rely on such poor weaponry that doesn't rely on meta factors. "etching" as a concept is also vague, poorly defined, and makes almost no sense from a logical prospective. Ballistics are ballistics and we can already due perfect calculations for basically any caliber and projectile on a chip-set weighing grams. Unless T-dolls have inferior processors to a modern smartphone they ought to be able to utilize basically any weapon with known ballistic parameters to the limits of it's mechanical accuracy without much issue.
Even putting aside the logistics issues (which we really shouldn't as they're stupidly massive, but whatever) many of these girls are using weapons that are simply really bad in a field engagement. A pistol is a backup weapon only, a shotgun is going to be of very dubious value outside highly specific scenarios in enclosed spaces, and SMGs while marginally more versatile then the former are just worse then ARs in every meaningful way if you expect to ever shot beyond like 50 meters. Most of them also have crap firepower, they can be stopped by soft lightweight ballistic materials even at close range.
You're just not going to be able to concoct a logical reasoning behind building combat androids that solely rely on such poor weaponry that doesn't rely on meta factors. "etching" as a concept is also vague, poorly defined, and makes almost no sense from a logical prospective. Ballistics are ballistics and we can already due perfect calculations for basically any caliber and projectile on a chip-set weighing grams. Unless T-dolls have inferior processors to a modern smartphone they ought to be able to utilize basically any weapon with known ballistic parameters to the limits of it's mechanical accuracy without much issue.
While I do agree that etching does require a more in depth/logical explanation (or perhaps there are CN explanations and I am just not aware of it), the reason why so many girls use such crappy weapons are mostly due to the nature of them as products. They are not designed to be military-use combat units, and are generally only used for civilian protection. SMGs, HGs, and SGs are pretty bad in general combat, yes, but for most missions against equally outdated Sangvis Dolls (Yes, they're shit. Griffin's tech is shit as well) and civilian protection missions those crappy weapons are good enough. In game story shows that HGs are either used for scouting missions (Nagant Revolver) or act as pseudo-commanders to other dolls (Makarov). SGs on the other hand, based on gameplay and external design, I assume are mainly used as literal shields. They are so fundamentally meant to serve civilians that in night missions it is mentioned that they are literally unable to even verbally abuse a human civilian due to design.
*The real reason being that they are repurposed Dolls once used in the private sector!
UMP45 is here.Commander, let's get along.I have a questiooon!What is it, Bigger UMP?Why are T-Dolls' designs all young girls?We would be more effective with more robust bodies, ja?I seee!Can't do a thing about tastes, can we!With the drastic reduction in population, the core of the labour force shifted to "Autonomous Dolls"!And now here in the year 2062!Did you get all that, newbies!?Excellent question!
It's because of...In the place of the nation-states devastated by war, PMCs have taken up the lion's share of maintaining public order. Humanity's tastes, yes indeed.And their main combat forces are battle-specialist models of Dolls... meaning us "Tactical Dolls" here, aye!Wouldn't it be better if humanity had died out all at once?In the year 2045, the earth was engulfed in nuclear flames.
Parody of Hokuto no Ken opening narrationWhat happened? The 3rd World War, that's what.
Parody of Commando