New single person mechs designed from scratch for PS2

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

The body could turret like mechwarrior does.

Exactly how I was imagining it.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

If it could swap gun mounts for proper arms

Heh. I think your getting ahead of the idea. I was never a fan of different arms really. I'd prefer the arms just have guns. If you had them with the ability to repair it sounds over powered and not as specialized.

[Malorn]

I thought it was an interesting tangental discussion. Its not like this idea is actually going anywhere because it still has no purpose and role overlap with maxes and reavers.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Malorn

I thought it was an interesting tangental discussion. Its not like this idea is actually going anywhere because it still has no purpose and role overlap with maxes and reavers.

That's just like your opinion... man. No, but seriously we get you hate the idea. Your the only person who cares about role overlap. The purpose is a maneuverable vehicle... Also a reaver is a plane. You're reaching for straws.

[Snow]

I care about role overlap, in fact I've already posted saying that any type of mech would make tanks slightly redundant and vice-versa.

Answer me this, what role does a mech fill that another vehicle cannot?

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Snow

I care about role overlap, in fact I've already posted saying that any type of mech would make tanks slightly redundant and vice-versa.

Answer me this, what role does a mech fill that another vehicle cannot?

Ground based reaver role. Imagine we had canyons with overhangs that made air combat difficult. Unless reavers can still camera fly around they would have troubles in these areas. Not to mention forests, but that obvious. They'd fill a role of a quick attack vehicle similar to the air based reaver. Again that's unless reavers can go anywhere. The new flight mechanics might make that difficult.

[Malorn]

And someone else pointed out that such an environment may be intentionally created as a combat area where infantry is intended to be dominant. Creating such a mech vehicle would be detrimental to that.

Moreover, that would be about the only place such a vehicle was useful and desirable over a reaver. And then MAX may also be overlap for the same purpose.

[2coolforu]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Indeed. They wouldn't replace tanks. They would exist in addition to them, to go places tanks can't. They would have less armor, and would, as you say, want to avoid mud/soft ground like wheeled vehicles.



On smooth flat surfaces, you are correct. There are plenty of obstacles in terrain where the superior maneuverability of a mech would be a significant aid.

Like what? Tracks are relatively all-terrain which is why they are used, effectively the only terrain a tank cannot cross is a jungle. Tracks spread the weight extremely effectively compared to a footpad, a huge amount of the weight is resting in a very small area that would just sink it catastrophically into any muddy terrain.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

The body could turret like mechwarrior does. And large bore cannon are nice if you can use them, but not the only option. Missiles that can kill tanks are commonly carried by infantry. Also, since their niche is rough terrain, they can expect to not encounter a whole lot of armor. Smaller cannon(like the 30mm on the APCs) would be suitable for anti infantry and air defense work.

If the form is like a standard mech, then the arms would stabilize the weapons if needed.

There's a reason we still use cannons on tanks and don't just use missiles, missiles are highly expensive, inefficient in the role as a ground weapon. Missiles traverse distances very slowly compared to SABOT rounds which is why only a few MBT's have cannon fired missiles. The only advantage is a slightly increased range, there are also multiple tank defense systems against ATGM's such as SHTORA and TROPHY both of which are battle tested. A missile also affords little versatility as a cannon can be switched to HEAT, FRAG, Canister or APFSDS very quickly and avoid being shackled in a very small role.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Missiles = no recoil, and its guns are smaller, meant for AA, AI, or light AV work.

So it's effectively an IFV then? What makes it any better than an IFV. IFV's apply less force on the ground than a soldier due to their large treads ,they are amphibious, have sidewinders, TOW Missiles, Autocannons, can carry troops, have a low profile, emit low amounts of heat, are astoundingly all-terrain. An IFV has a small profile and a low centre of gravity, how the hell is a mech going to climb a steep slope without tipping over like it's in a comedy?

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

True enough now. In the future its impossible to say. Many weapons we use today, especially aircraft, but also tanks and APCs, would be considered extremely complex by the standards of 50 years ago.

No it's not impossible to say, our technology may have advanced but we don't have tanks the size of Battleships due to limitations in surface area to volume ratio, power to weight and structural limitations. Anything that improves a mech would improve a tank, why would we make a tank that stood upright and ran on two tiny tracks? Because it would just sink into the ground, it would present a huge target and it would tip over easily.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

A mech would not be a tank. Stop comparing it to one. Because of issues with foot loading, it would be a small vehicle, intended for infantry support operations in rough/city environments or scouting work. Its possible armaments would not include large bore tank cannon. It would field missiles, light cannons, and/or gatling guns. Its complexity would be an issue, but being the only vehicle that can keep up with infantry in certain more extreme environments, it could have a modest niche.

Then why are we using these extremely complex and expensive machines, all vehicles can keep up with infantry in any existing condition except perhaps Jungle. Even then we have mechanisms to clear paths for vehicles in jungle and the support for infantry is a helicopter in those conditions which is far more mobile and versatile than a mech would ever be, in a city why would we not use IFV's, APC's or MBT's which both operate in these environments often with infantry screening.

Also you could never equip a vehicle with autocannons, gattling guns and missiles, More =/= Better.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

If it could swap gun mounts for proper arms, it could also prove an extremely useful tool behind the lines as a general utility vehicle for moving loads, preparing fortifications, clearing debris, etc. Tbh, thats probably where it would start out at.

This is about the only use for a mech, as a human sized suit to provide engineering or load-lifting support. Even then in a battlefield environment it would probably be useless, this is why we have MBT's modified with cranes, ploughs and load-bearing equipment to do fortification and engineering.

[2coolforu]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I don't think he was arguing against mechs in the game. He was arguing that in the real world they wouldn't work. You'd be hard pressed to resort to bringing realism into a debate about sci-fi vehicles.

Then again I addressed those concerns by making it weak on its light components and more compact. It's also been addressed that there can only be a 20% max difference so this is a balancing act for all vehicles. The shield could protect friendlies momentarily or if it crouched down, but honestly that would be a huge sacrifice since a few tank shells would severely damage everything. Bullets even would do a lot depending on the component hit.

Why in the game does a bolt-driver have a longer barrel than a cycler, why does a Main-battle tank exist, or an APC exist. Or an air superiority fighter exist. Clearly it takes quite a bit of inspiration from real life, tanks have tracks and a traversable turret, they aren't like armored vehicles from WW1 which had a gun stuck to the front and semi-traversable. Even the Vanguard, Prowler and Magrider despite being very different to modern tanks resemble them in the basics. They have a mostly low profile with a thin profile but a longer depth, they have a turret more or less central with a low height and a main heavy cannon.

I am just using logic, there's no reason why we can't reject an idea simple because it doesn't make any real sense in the physical world. These are the same reasons we don't have an assault rifle that points out at a 90 degree angle or that the vehicles resemble real life counterparts. Everything to some extent obeys logic, it's hardly a 'realism' argument and more of a 'why the hell would you have this' argument.

[PsychoXR-20]

Originally Posted by Redshift

if it's realism you want we'd all be in bunkers with UAV's shooting eachother :P

Maybe we already are . Maybe the soldiers we are controlling are just highly advanced robots, and we are all living underground controlling them remotley! WHAT A TWIST!

On a more serious note Sirisian. One of your primary arguments is that mechs could go places normal vehicles can't. Matt has said that they have handcrafted every inch of every continent. If there is an area that vehicles can't get to, wouldn't you figure they intended that area to be inaccessible to vehicles. Having a mech that could traverse that terrain would invalidate all that work.

[opticalshadow]

Originally Posted by PsychoXR-20

Maybe we already are . Maybe the soldiers we are controlling are just highly advanced robots, and we are all living underground controlling them remotley! WHAT A TWIST!

On a more serious note Sirisian. One of your primary arguments is that mechs could go places normal vehicles can't. Matt has said that they have handcrafted every inch of every continent. If there is an area that vehicles can't get to, wouldn't you figure they intended that area to be inaccessible to vehicles. Having a mech that could traverse that terrain would invalidate all that work.

well as far as already doign that, theres no need in planetside. as the story goes, all three empires are trapped in a war where no one can die. the reason UAV's and other unmanned vehicles were made was to prevent loss of life. in a situation where life cannot be lost, creating a machine to prevent that loss is pointless, and the research is better spent somewhere else.

as for the real life implement of a mech with the thorey it can go places a tank couldnt. the mech is limited even more then the tank. going up or downhill would greatly disable the machines capacity to stay upright, many surfaces (sand, mud, even roads) would buckle/gie way under the very specific area use of a mech "foot" which only one would support the whole thing as it walked. it could if as heavy as a tank, never cross most bridged, most non highway roads, many non solid surfaces (not concreate) it would be slow and a missle or rpg could knock it over mid stride. never mind the fact alls you have to do is hit the leg with an armor peircing bullet or anti armor round, and destroy any one of the many cables, pumps, tubes, jacks that make its movement possible.


as its been stated realisticaly a large mech is mechanicaly obsolete, dispite being more advanced, and a small mech is essetially what a max suite is.

[exLupo]

The "real life" discussion is fairly interesting. In regards to tracks vs legs, we are seeing potential preference to legged vehicles but only as things get smaller. Mostly I'm thinking of the work being done by Boston Dynamics (Big Dog, etc.) as well as assistance frames. Things that need the terrain dexterity that tracks and wheels cannot provide. However, the only time you really need this in any financially viable regularity is in man-sized or smaller environments. The bigger you get, the less spaces you can go and the less you need to deal with funky terrain. The outliers are covered by specialized equipment.

As utterly boss as a giant, 4-6 legged arty mech looks (Chromehounds, you will be missed)...

http://images.gamersyde.com/image_ch...3-822_0007.jpg

There's just no real world justification for what can be done easily and with more mobility using current design philosophy. That sort of thing may look cool but it won't be able to fire and leave the area fast enough to avoid retaliation.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by opticalshadow

as its been stated realisticaly a large mech is mechanicaly obsolete, dispite being more advanced, and a small mech is essetially what a max suite is.

MAXs in PS are balanced for indoors use. Outdoors they are one of, if not the most pitiful creature, since they have zero self sufficiency and cannot shoot in run mode(and walk mode is terribly slow).

When I'm talking of a large mech, I think you think I'm speaking of a walking tank like mechwarrior. I'm talking something small. A couple tons at most, that stands like 10 feet tall. Hell, it can even be an exoskeleton, just one primed for outdoors use that can't fit inside buildings so you don't have to gimp it for indoor balance.

[Malorn]

Why is it needed for outdoors use?

[Vancha]

To kill things? Or possibly repair things...

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Sentinel

While I'm in a 40k comparison state of mind, imagining these in PS2 makes my brain happy. Are they bikes? No. Are they tanks? No. They still fit, though.

[exLupo]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Why is it needed for outdoors use?

Why it's useful at all is that exoskeletons maintain relative human range of motion so it's more natural for the user. However, that's where the MAX begins and any further need ends. Human augmentation vs a walking vehicle.