> > 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. > > So are are saying that humanoid machines get a larger benefit > from AI/VII systems than non-humanoid machines, and that the > margin is large enough to discourage the use in non-humanoid > machines?
Yes as the mech will be doing human things to fight. Walking, rolling, leaning, bending; things the gestalt conversion will have some validity in being their for. The same is unnecessary in a tank. The reflex movement from the human cortex the gestalt could capitalise on wont exist for the tank to use. We can dive and go flat - we never make bootleggers. You sought a technical why - I offer you that VEs assumption is wrong. Its too technically shortsighted, like any guess at what TL10 can do is likely to be. Now, I know you actually want whats in the rules, not whats an answer to your question, but that's _an_ answer. AI gestalt and training makes Mecha nigh as agile as men. Or speed as armour by another tack. > VE64 says that a neural interface on a humanoid machine has a > further +1 bonus to most skills, beyond the +4 for all neural > interfaces. A small edge for Mecha, but nevertheless an edge. As above I would argue a by tl modifier. > > > 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. > > I'm assuming a mature non-Mecha and Mecha technology. Neither > should be saddled with being a prototype. ...this was my noting that you argued a generality against as specific case. In the specific case, mechs exist, and tanks are one tier of armour heavier. Not wrong, just different. > > 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? > > And if it doesn't even try to resist main gun rounds, just > ordinary autocannon-equivalents, a Mecha gets even faster. > Think of them as attack helicopters on legs, not tanks on > legs. You are probably right here. It's a better analogy... Didn't the chinese play with anti-chopper net mines in the 80s, when the Sovs were in Afghanistan? > > 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. > > Flexibility sounds more like modern-day armored cav, who > scout and screen while armor and mechanized infantry are > the heavy hitters. > > "In March of 2345, it was decided to equip one troop in > each divisional cavalry squadron with the XM-something. > Seven Mecha troops participated in the ill-fated drop > on Beta Canis V, where they held the initial perimeter > while the tank units assembled for their epic breakout." I meant multirole to cover that one platform can build defenses, recover vehicles, load transports and fight. Having said this, you are talking something too big for this role. > > Which was what I was trying to say. Or: If your mech army works, why > > build > > tanks? :) > > Because they would have been better? On generalities the tank is better. On cases - ie settings, it goes either way. In a setting with established standard mecha, where the mechs are the big noise in the military industrial complex and the eyes of the military and populace - tanks wont get enlarged spending as they will be deemed _support_ and lower priority. People don't make optimal decisions. A vehicle designed in a vacuum [ie, without a world around it] can be optimised - but it can be readily said to be a minmaxed munchkin PC of a vehicle as its not connected to any gameworld. That's all I was saying. If you are trying to justify mechs by rigid game mechanics then use the only real absolute one - "the gm wants them in this setting/game" The rest is secondary. > I could write a TL8 > ship of the line with sails and broadside guns, and it > could wipe out Nelson's fleet all by itself, but that > doesn't make sailing warships a sound TL8 technology. I know you are the best at the Ve rules. But now justify how it got there? And how it operates for more than a few months without repairs it can't make? And how the locals don't rob it, or board it by skiff? Modern pirates take advanced ships today this way. If you are going to insert an artefact into a world it ceases to be effective because of stats alone. By this same line, mech can fit as the military race car that are too cool but is actually a horrible waste of resources - like MBTs, air superiority fighters, ground attack helicopters, and defensive missiles. Perhaps things that perform in the movies and news better than they do in the battlefield. Ie - artefacts of the setting. Not the stats. _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
