> Datum: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:58:02 +1300
> Von: "Classified TS/BBR" <[email protected]>
> An: "The GURPSnet mailing list" <[email protected]>
> Betreff: Re: [gurps] How to justify a Mecha
> I'd also suggest that a VR/AR control interface might offer advantages to
> Mecha pilots if body image were relevant, say via DNI.
Good suggestion, but it must be balanced against the workload
of a single pilot.
> Hostile Automated/Drone Anti-Combat Vehicle Units/Weapons, programmed to
> ignore ignore Anthropomorphic Targets on the assumption they're actually
> lifeforms, deployed by some defunct entity & outside the ability to control
> or shutdown by extant forces?
That is one example of arbitrarily stacking the deck, not much
different from giving tanks a flat -2 to hit rolls ...
- - - - - - - -
Roger replied:
> However, once the things are on the ground, why doesn't someone just lob
> a salvo of missiles towards them (looking for great masses of metal in a
> vaguely human shape - well within current smart-weapon technology)?
The same applies to space-dropped tanks, so the fact that there
may be an attack seeking out the shape doesn't disqualify Mecha.
The ability to handle those attacks may be worse than for tanks
when it comes to armor, but a Mecha might be better than a tank
in using the main gun(s) as supplementary missile defense.
- - - - - - - -
Nigel wrote:
> Maybe you need a specific word? Anthro-mecha?
Mecha-without-weaseling-out-of-the-consequences?
:-)
For what I have in mind, the BattleTech Scorpion is probably out,
being four-legged and low on the ground, the BattleTech Goliath
and Star Wars AT-ST are marginal, without proper arms but walking
tall and "proud", and the BattleTech Mad Cat and Vulture are in,
even if they lack hands.
In fact a Mad Cat with hands suits my ideas better than a Thor.
> Writers assume circumstantial reasons
> - Mech construction vehicles require more flexible forms for general usage
> which lead to EMS mechs and police mechs and military mechs
But as utility vehicle or frontline AFV?
> - Power allows powerful weapons leads to power armour leads to deal with it,
> exoframes to carry the armour.
Battlesuits are a different ballgame from Mecha, even if there is
a grey area in between.
> - Colony worlds wildlife is huge so the animals need exoskeletons to handle
> them, armouring them to stop people using them for crime was an obvious
> evolution.
Counts as arbitrary excuse for me. Sooner or later somebody will
say "forget the cost, let's build just one real tank" and wipe
the floor with all opposition.
> Mecha seem to be a scale vague term to me - one guy uses the word to mean
> battlesuits, err, 2m, another 3m, another 6m, another 10m.
>
> Which do you mean?
Big enough to replace tanks. If a dozen five-ton, $0.5M suits can do
the job better than a 60-ton, $5M track, they are the right size. If
it takes a 60-ton Mecha to challenge a 60-ton tank, so be it. I want
to find out where the number falls.
- - - - - - - -
Pauli wrote:
> - Species compatibility skill bonus and higher maneuverability,
> better combat engineering abilities, ease of changing the main
> armament by simply picking up a new mecha rifle and also mechs lend
> themselves better for multienvironmental operations than tanks
I hadn't thought of mecha rifles. What are the benefits and
drawbacks, and why can't tanks find an equivalent mod?
* Carrying a rifle in articulated arms means it can be dropped
when it is damaged, out of ammo, or in the way. But the same
would also apply to pods, and tanks could mount pods on their
turret, too.
* It would be possible it carry a much longer rifle than in a
turret mount, which could matter for long-barreled railguns.
* It can be used from partial cover, especially if there are good
sensors in the rifle.
> - Transformable mech with thrusters can flexibly perform the duties
> of both an aerospace fighter and a ground combat AFV, which can
> help with both achieving aerial superiority and simultaneously
> delivering the armor onto the battlefield more quickly.
If you can do that with legs, why not with wheels or even tracks?
And with TL12 contragrav or TL11 reactionless thrusters, you get
flying brick tanks as default AFV, I believe, hovering close to
the ground most of the time.
> Mechs are more expensive than tanks and can never have quite as
> good armor as a tank of equivalent tonnage, but these downsides
> do not matter so much when one really wants the best and most
> tactically flexible combat vehicles for the more skilled soldiers.
A bit like a "speed as armor" doctrine. That didn't work so well.
> This may actually lead to mecha versus tanks battles
> where tank casualties just keep on piling up despite their higher damage
> resistance scores.
... which might just possibly be a strategic victory for the tanks,
if the attacker expends enough of those highly priced Mecha.
- - - - - - - -
Anthony wrote:
> I'd say you have something of a problem then, since stacking the deck is
> pretty much required.
So call it an elegant, non-obvious way to stack the deck.
> 3) One way around the shape problem is a setting where shape is almost
> entirely irrelevant for defensive purposes. This makes sense if the
> primary defenses used in the setting are not a function of surface area
> (for example, force fields).
Which are, in VXii, rated for their longest dimension. That could
encourage "squat bipeds" like a Mad Cat.
- - - - - - - -
David wrote:
> There's not likely to be a technical one.
I'm trying to make sure before I give up :-)
- - - - - - - -
More thoughts:
* Current tanks are built around one big gun, while stereotypical
Mecha often have two main guns in the two arms.
Right now, one full-weight tank gun beats two half-weight tank
guns. Things are different for AAA use, where RoF counts for
more than punch. What future technologies could de-emphasize
weapon weight?
- Maybe stored power and recharge times (or stowed ammo) are the
limiting factor, not gun size. Maybe some of the more energetic
beam weapons could be available.
- Maybe weapons are powerful enough that even small guns can
penetrate available armor. With the existing GURPS rules, the
that might mean selecting micronukes, or declaring that the
most advanced armor of the TL isn't developed yet, while all
weapons are there.
- As briefly mentioned above, perhaps it becomes necessary to let
the main gun double for air/missile defense, even if that comes
at reduced anti-ground performance.
- Energy-phasing surfaces could render the whole point moot.
* Orbital fire could put an upper limit on the size of viable AFVs,
both legged and tracked/wheeled (so tanks are not singled out in
any way), and the contest between a 5-ton Mecha (almost a large
battlesuit) and a 5-ton tank might look different than the
contest between a 50-ton Mecha and a 50-ton tank.
The size limit is not a firm limit, just a rule of thumb that
one big vehicle draws more fire than ten little ones, unless the
forward observer screams loudly enough to go after ONE of the
little ones with an orbital sledge hammer.
* A stargate or transporter limits the dimensions of AFVs which
can be deployed easily. Mecha can kneel and tuck in their head.
Against a special folding tank, the Mecha doesn't look quite as
bad. Similar to the forcefield idea, except that this time the
Mecha can stand up after deployment.
* Abandon the goal of beating tanks, and make it better than an
equally heavy recon AFV. That brings the size down a little,
too.
Onno
_______________________________________________
GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]>
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
