> > 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.
Perhaps a one man and one AI team? The pilot-AI gestalt learns together to run the machine. The gestalt is what makes mecha viable? Perhaps the mechajock has a VII in an otherwise VII free world? > - - - - - - - - > 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? > > :-) LOL :) > 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. 'k full on robot chubbies :) > > 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? Patlabor and GitS, frex, shows a more direct line from modern construction vehicles. I have a poster of the Patlabor paratrooper labor. Which looks like a guy wearing a pilots helmet and funky armour carrying a bulky rifle but with a second little head popped up under his chin. > > - 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. > Just seeking scaling. > > - 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. Err, no they wont... Two reasons. 1, economic Building tanks takes masses of tooling and engineering. If you build mechs as part of a developed industry you have tooling for the building of infantry mechs. They are known and you have many boys and girls who can use them. And mostly the penny pinchers don't care what _might work_. And 2, inertia Tanks are slow, easy to detect, noisy, easy to flank, and mostly: unfamiliar. People will hate tanks as they are "not ours", or "for'n", or plain wrong, irrespective - look at this thread. We have some listies who will not consider the mecha - no matter what. You may be right, but you'd have to prove it. Given the same technology I don't think you could consistently introduce a tank on a developed mech world without bending some rules either. Your first tank wont be a maximally engineered TL10 tank as the developments on this world wont exist. You wont have the need for high speed track transmissions. The jollies got from hotrodding will have come from mech racing. Etc, etc. > > 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. Err, which tank? The M1 Abrams is built for a war that never happened. It's arguably the superlative cavalry tank for plains warfare. For urban warfare its overcomplex, over engineered, vastly overpriced and overweight and oversized. You cant ship it anywhere in useful numbers as it needs ludicrous amounts of support and it has a huge thermal signature as its jet propelled. I think you need to lock down circumstances. Does the makers government push it because it's cool? Then its #1 and the loses get hidden. I think you are at a false logic conclusion Who is likely using the mech? Why? What infrastructure supports the mech? Is the mech new tech? Who is likely using the tank? Why? What infrastructure supports the mech? Is the tank modern tech? Its not equitability that would make this viable or not, imo. [but I do think your size choice is too big to actually be viable :)] Btw; as a tactic absolute I could argue that a dozen units will always do a better job than a single one. A single unit can be killed with one shot. A dozen cant. > - - - - - - - - > > 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. And it allows you to have hands available to do everything you use hands for. Not melee, but engineering. > > - 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. But weapons at TL11 or 12 will be to fast for any armour to be worthwhile in any form but all around. No tank will be able to afford that. You sure the tanks can be armoured well enough that top or side attack missiles will have to face better than the face armour the mecha might have? > > 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. Do you always assume the mechs are the assault force? > - - - - - - - - > > 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? Are the mechs assumed to be higher TL? > - 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. Make new assumptions? Mecha plasma rifle - 500 anti-materiel shots or 3 tank killing plasma shots per 1 ton magazine Build the weapons with special restrictions as they are built for niches never made before. Set on anti tank it needs a 5 minute cool down as the coil will probably melt in standard atmo if fired out. I am approaching this as I would as GM - cool piece of kit, but it needs a shroud of foam over it to hide it from enemy sensors, but it pops the shroud to cool. Or cans of coolant. Mass effect suggests sand sized rounds fired down relativistic massdrivers ripped from bars of metal as personal weapons. [And collapsing guns, which is nice :)] Railgun or energy weapon, it makes the mech detectable. Are they nukes? > - 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. Make most vehicular armour ablative? Lock armour to 75% of the best TL appropriate DR:DAM figures > - 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. Higher rof, lower velocity? > - Energy-phasing surfaces could render the whole point moot. Yes - and perhaps that's the mechs advantage. > * 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. Good one. And it explains mecha for assault and crops mecha to moderately sensible sub-20 ton sizes. > * 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. This, imo, is another nail on the 100 tonne tank. [Although I will always have a soft spot for the Bolo XXX] > * 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 Since I reckon the MBT likely is dead on worlds that don't have multiple polities, it seems a more reasonable and plausible balance, imo. McE _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
