> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:gurpsnet-l-
> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Onno Meyer
> Sent: 14 January 2010 18:48
> To: The GURPSnet mailing list
> Subject: Re: [gurps] How to justify a Mecha
>
> 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:
> 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.
True, its all about weapon utility.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> 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.
...so the rules fall short... biased against mechs :)
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> 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.
Why?
My point was the man-machine interface experiment gives you the gestalt from
mech technology. The mecha needs it. The tank doesn't. with the gestalt
the mech can make the human-like dodges.
> Some general would decide to put an AI and a VII in a tank.
Even with the gestalt the tank simple cant - its centre of gravity has too
small a range to allow it.
For the tank it would be a pointless gain. The tank could do everything the
mech needs with a stock computer it wouldn't need the AI to learn to walk.
> > > 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.
Still, sounds doubtful - recall that this was a response to the world which
has a developed mech environment. Because of megascale animals, herding,
whatever, such as the Heavy Gear setting: Terra Nova.
The mech allows essentially fast & tough super infantry to flank tanks and
kill them as they can swarm the tanks. But these mechs are the 2-5 ton
range.
So its all down to cases....
Point being that no paradigm of designs alone is ever valid as it is
unreasonable by definition - no design exists in a vacuum.
> > 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.
I am not saying that mech are better than tanks, I'm saying the roles arn't
the same.
A mech will be more flexible than a tank. If engineering allows the mech to
have enough of able to be deployed for reasonable amounts of time the issue
comes down to what the technology can do, not the platform it's deployed on.
What is the balance here?
The mech can kill the tank with one shot - maybe except from the front, the
tank can kill the mech with one shot from any side - but the mech can dodge.
The tank is cheaper but the mech is more agile?
Short answer: the mech should work if it can do several things fairly well.
If it can be a multirole platform.
Big feet allowing it to walk quietly with a lower signature than flight.
Modular weapons and sensors
Cargo space to support ammo and supplies
And imo - tanks operate like cavalry. Mech operate like infantry.
> 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).
Yes - its all about what resources you actually have in the setting you are
writing for.
Which was what I was trying to say. Or: If your mech army works, why build
tanks? :)
> > Do you always assume the mechs are the assault force?
>
> No, that was Pauli. I replied to that scenario.
Ah.
> > 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.
Why would it be optimal?
Design it, then crop 1d*10% off the budget then redesign it and you have the
stock field unit. So flaws like stealth that only works once seems
militarily viable to me.
For play it's certainly good - it makes players need cans of spray-on armour
and armoury (mech armour) rolls with big spatulas to repair it.
> > 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?
Just be sub-optimal in your choices.
I meant if the normal choice would be basic weapon = 6d*10, basic armour
=300 [for example] then make the armour figure =225
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> 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
>
Cute as ever.
McE
_______________________________________________
GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]>
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
