--- On Wed, 1/13/10, Onno Meyer <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Von: "Classified TS/BBR" <[email protected]>
> 
> > 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.

With a proper control system, I don't think it would be any more work than a 
rifleman with assorted electronic do-dads.

As I've said before, though, I view humanoid mecha as very tall, very heavy 
riflemen (or an oversized battlesuit if you prefer).
 
> 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?

If your control system is advanced enough, it would feel like the operator if 
firing a gun in his own hands. That is, more like Guns (Rifle) than Gunner 
(Cannon).
 
> * 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. 

You can carry a larger weapon in hand than what you could reasonably mount 
inside an arm.

A shoulder pod might present recoil problems.
 
> * It would be possible it carry a much longer rifle than in
> a 
>   turret mount, which could matter for long-barreled
> railguns. 

I prefer large bore, short barrel railguns over small bore, long barrel 
railguns. Under VE2  you can get damage to work out the same, although range 
suffers for the wide, short rail gun (I'm not sure if this is an issue in most 
situations, as combat in extremely open terrain is the exception rather than 
the rule). The reason I prefer the larger bore is because you can then use very 
useful non-KE warheads.

> * It can be used from partial cover, especially if there
> are good
>   sensors in the rifle.

Given that there are flexible rifles today with sensors that allow them to fire 
around corners, this is a reasonable assumption for the near future.
 
> Anthony wrote:
> > 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.

Given the existence of "top attack" missiles that are aimed and fired directly 
at tanks now, plus air-launched weapons, the large top area of tanks becomes 
almost as much a liability as the large frontal area of a mecha.

Oh, and a mecha can turn sideways when firing (like a man with a rifle) 
presenting a much smaller target.
 
> More thoughts:
> 
> * Current tanks are built around one big gun, while
> stereotypical
>   Mecha often have two main guns in the two arms. 

I've mostly done battlesuits instead of mechs. For a 2 ton suit, I tend to 
facor a 7-10mm minigun in one arm and a 40mm AGL in the other. Some also carry 
a 20-30mm rifle.
 
>   - 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.

I think it's a reasonable assumption that ECM will become more important than 
physical armor.

>   - 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. 

Missiles and rockets may become the primary weapon, with guns as backup -- just 
like jet fighters.

Unguided rockets will have some value simply because they can't be jammed. The 
can also (relatively) cheaply be fired in salvos to overwhelm point defense.

> * Abandon the goal of beating tanks, and make it better
> than an 
>   equally heavy recon AFV. That brings the size down a
> little,
>   too.  

I think humanoid mecha would also be very useful for combat engineering.

Brandon



_______________________________________________
GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]>
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l

Reply via email to