> > > I can't see a justification for a mecha much bigger than a battle > > > suit, say a ton or so. > > > > Until technology we don't yet have reveals itself you are almost > > certainly empirically correct. > > > > > Barring magic, i don't see any such tech possible. (Contra gravity and > reactionless thrusters are *firmly* in the magic camp. Most of the > materials are heading that way, though I'm likely to be surprised there. ) > Mecha simply can't be armored enough to be useful on a high-tech > battlefield: their volume to surface area ratio sucks too badly. ground > vehicles (or even creepy crawly spider mecha) beat the pants off them.
Bad science to say never. :) As I say I agree with you, with what we know now. But the possibility of a niche we don't currently know or a technology we don't see now doesn't seem unreasonable or impossible to me. > > > don't forget that at TL9 you get really good indirect fire weapons, > > > that can do anything that a mecha can do. > > > > Only they will cost more - good missiles are horrible expensive, not > > actually work as well as they are jammable, more detectable, and need to > > be mounted on vehicles anyway... > > > > > Missiles are modestly expensive. Guided artillery shells are dirt cheap. > And gurps gives unrealistic jamming and detection rules, mostly for > playability. it's quite possible to build guidance systems that aren't > jammable, nor even detectable. Not just "we can't find them" > undetectable, but actually theoretically undetectable. (It's not much fun > to play in such a battlefield, but that's what it's going to be like.) Real missiles work less than salesmen claim - much less in the field. If it possible to build unjammable X then its possible to build detectors for it. We are back to technology thresholds we cant forsee. And this is circular... > > Missiles are like fighters - they can't take ground, only drive people > > off it. They are not multirole, so they can't do everything a mech or a > > tank or a chopper can - only scan or attack _once_. > > > > > Except fall over, not move, get stuck in the sand. > > > > Like tanks? They drive them into unknown culverts today and need > recovery. > > Choppers and fighter get FOD problems. > > You assume immature technology > > > > Only physics.... > High center of gravity, high ground pressure is a bad combination. And > you'll need cranes to do the recoveries, and not just a big winch. Again with the assumptions of immature technology - designs may address ground pressure with foot shape or material [deployable fernlike snowshoes] the same was road tracks stopped tanks killing streets. Design decisions may drop centre of gravity to the hips, with the aerogel pads supporting the hull to absorb impact and generate power from it. I can argue theoretical answers all day, but since they are theory its irrelevant. TL11 doesn't exist. I am valid to argue tanks die out because TL11 mecha are so superior because of material developments that appear in the previous century make large masses of armour sub optimal. I am equally valid to argue that man fails to see TL11 because we main the environment and eat each other before TL8 ends. > > And perfect is not fun to play with, is it? > > > > IMO, it's a better game if you struggle to win than if you stroll > through. > > I don't find the future battlefield to be an interesting place to roll > play in. It's full of instant death. Exactly why we make it a game. And in the one Onno is trying for there are mechs. Just saying _No there can't be ever_ because of a highly mutable game rule - Physics - doesn't help this thread very much. So its circular. If you have decided no mechs. Then no mechs. If you want them, then there are _theoretical_ ways. The big 20+ ton ones are stretching it to serious biases. In my SF setting I use battlesuits. Not mechs. McE _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
