Thanks for all those replies.
One design I'm considering is a TL11 'light spacemobile AFV'
Mecha, capable of reactionless VTOL flight but with legs to
walk in arcologies or asteroid bases. One arm could mount
an oversized AGL with lots of different ammo, including
less-than-lethal, while the other mounts a beam weapon. It
could not go face-to-face with a VTOL flying tank of the
same size, but it adds flexibility to the Space Marines.
At a slightly lower TL, I could see how large an 'urban
warrior' battlesuit can become before it gets unwieldly,
but room heights and floor strengths will be problems
pretty soon. One or two tons, tops, and hence not really
a Mecha.
A third option would to use the two-configuration
transformable option to build build an aerospace-capable
Mecha -- unlike a tank in a drop capsule, it can get back
into orbit when required, and transformable legs are
marginally more believable than transformable tracks.
(Retractable tracks would be another issue, but there
are no rules for them.)
The two non-battlesuit designs would have to justify why
they have only two legs, not four or six, but that is
easier than justifying legs to start with. Maybe engines
in the legs, wouldn't do to have too many separate units.
On to the detailed replies:
Eric wrote:
> - human-shaped Mecha are more logically intimidating (adding the height
> to rolls)
I doubt that rules applies to machines of a known design. Tank
Terror was historically more of a factor when the infantry had
no training and weapons to deal with tanks. So Mecha might get
a bonus to intimidate civilians, while soldiers behind the
sights of an ATGM just smile about the large target coming up.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Eric wrote in another mail:
> > I hadn't thought of mecha rifles. What are the benefits and
> > drawbacks, and why can't tanks find an equivalent mod?
>
> the closest to me seems almost power-rangers-y with the 'addon' guns
> being flown in as a cg craft, but the parent vehicle has the main
> powerplant, computer, and PESA ... :P
A human would carry a rifle in his or her hands, but for a
Mecha there is no need to waste effort on hands, just bolt
the rifle to the arm. And even if there are hands, why not
mount the rifle in a clamp to keep the hands free?
In GURPS, that could be a hardpoint with a gun pod.
But if that technology is good for a Mecha, it is good for
a tank. In fact there are historical examples of MRL being
mounted that way.
> > * 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.
>
> or perhaps a time limit, say one second per vehicle, and the mecha can
> run in time, but a tank can't?
If that is an issue, get a launch catapult.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nigel wrote:
> Yes - but a 2 _tank guns_ tank would be a bad idea.
While there were perfect reasons to have two-gun fighters or ADA
tracks. Multiple guns are good if even small guns are capable of
penetrating the target DR, while actually scoring a hit is more
difficult and requires high RoF.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brandon replied to Kurt:
> > Legs would be weak points in the design.
>
> The treads on a tank are far more vulnerable than legs.
Six or more legs in a 'spider-mech' mean you can do without
some of them. For a biped, each leg is valuable.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brandon wrote:
> For certain terrain, special footgear ("snowshoes" could be worn.
I'd prefer to follow the Vehicles rules. Legs make ground contact
with 8% of their surface, while tracks do it with 20%. Legs are
two subassemblies while tracks are one, so square-cube gives the
legs a little boost, but probably not enough to catch up. On the
other hand, they are in a better off-road category than tracks.
By the VE rules, legs really shine in 'broken' terrain.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nigel wrote:
> 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?
Arbitrary rule in favor of Mecha. Some general would decide to put
an AI and a VII in a tank.
> > 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
[...]
> And 2, inertia
[...]
So some country decides to build a thousand tanks, train their
troops, and conquer the world.
> I think you need to lock down circumstances.
Other way around -- I want to write a Mecha or two, but they
should be viable in their assigned role without saying "well,
nobody builds tanks because they're uncool/taboo/forgotten
tech."
The idea is that a reasonable development team, tasked with
the design of an AFV, able to draw on experience with both
legged and wheeled/tracked vehicles, would decide to build
a biped for that specific job.
A bit like the million-man transport I talked about some
days ago (coming soon to a mailing list near you). Why a
million-man ship and not a thousand thousand-man ships?
Lower crew requirements for a mass evacuation ship held
on standby, and the inclusion of a fat FTL radio in the
transport (one would have to go into EACH of the little
ones, too, for effective coordination).
> Do you always assume the mechs are the assault force?
No, that was Pauli. I replied to that scenario.
> Make most vehicular armour ablative?
Ablative is already the lightest armor for its DR, but some
effects (like ablating stealth with the first DR loss) make
it seem iffy.
> Lock armour to 75% of the best TL
> appropriate DR:DAM figures
How, if I keep the rule that armor is purchased by DR*SF?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A couple of months ago I wrote this one. Scale it up to five or ten
tons and mount some guns and a thruster, and it could be the 'light
spacemobile AFV' I mentioned above ...
Hostile Environment Construction Walker v1.0 (TL11)
Copyright 2008 by Onno Meyer
The Hostile Environment variant of the Construction Walker is used to
build bases on inhabitable worlds. Instead of the roll cage of a normal
Construction Walker, it has a sealed hull with life support. Improved
arm and hand actuators allow the Walker to replace spacesuited humans
in many jobs.
Subassemblies: Body +1, two Legs +0, two Arms +0.
Powertrain: 4-kW legged drivetrain; 7.5-kW RTG; 45,000-kWs rechargeable
D power cell.
Occ: CCS.
Armor F RL B T U
All: 4/200 4/200 4/200 4/200 4/200
Equipment:
Body: Two medium-range radios; two 1-mile PESAs; 5-mile multiscanner;
two transponders; two global positioning systems; two C4 small, hardened
computers; terminal; emergency lights and siren; 1-man full life system.
Arms: Two ST-240 arm motors, cheap, extendable.
Statistics
Size: 4'x6'x8' Payload: 200 lbs. Lwt.: 2,000 lbs.
Volume: 50 cf Maint.: 45 hours Price: $198,120
HT: 12. HPs: 360 Body, 144 each Leg, 216 each Arm
gSpeed: 18 gAccel: 8 gDecel: 20 gMR: 3 gSR: 2
Ground Pressure Very Low. Full Off-Road Speed.
Design Notes
Body is 25 cf. Legs are 7.5 cf each. Arms are 5 cf each, extended
reach 4 yards. Structure is extra-heavy, expensive. Improved suspension.
Armor is expensive composite. Sealed. Computerized controls. There are
0.15 cf of empty space in the body, 4.94 cf in each leg and 2.84 cf in
each arm. Empty weight is 1,800 lbs. Body ST is 240.
The vehicle uses the design rules from Vehicles [second edition, third
printing, Dec 2004 errata], Robots (the rD power cell), Mecha (the reach
and ST rules) and VXii (the armor volume rule) with the text format from
Vehicles Lite.
_______________________________________________
GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]>
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
