Author Topic: Further Discussion on Titan Plausibility  (Read 13686 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bean (OP)

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Further Discussion on Titan Plausibility
« on: April 04, 2016, 09:36:29 AM »
Mechs or titans would be be a natural progression from combat suits.
The combat suit has a very simple problem: stairs.  If it's capable of going up stairs without breaking them, it's not going to have enough armor to stand up to heavy hand weapons.  If it can't go up stairs, it's a vehicle, not infantry.

Quote
It starts out as a small combat suit for soldiers and get bigger and bigger. A Mech is a more natural movement if integrated as a suit rather than a tank, with articulated arms and legs, it can step over object where a tank cannot, if function like a suit it can be used in a mountain environment where tanks cannot.
Stepping over things is an excellent way to expose yourself to enemy weapons fire.  One of the primary limits on tank warfare is the danger of being killed by ATGMs and the like.  Mechs have no advantage over tanks here, and are much taller for equivalent firepower.  And I'm not sure how much use a mech will be in the mountains.

Quote
A tank needs a crew of three and mech needs a crew of one, and if operates like a suit would be more combat effective in target acquisition and get the round of sooner, however target accuracy may go to the tank.
There's a reason tanks have a crew of 3.  Assuming that one person can drive the mech and fight it effectively when compared to a tank is rather silly.  The tank will win because it can move and shoot at the same time.  Tanks where the gunner and commander were the same person (back in WWII) were seriously handicapped relative to their 3-crew peers, and that was still with a separate driver.

Quote
However I think plasma weapons attached to power suited soldiers would probably make both the mech and tank obsolete.
They've been saying that new weapons will render the tank obsolete for several decades now.  Hasn't happened yet.  Also, plasma weapons don't actually make much sense, unless it's just another name for some form of particle beam.  (And those have their own problems when you're using them in an atmosphere.)
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 07:01:24 AM by sloanjh »
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2016, 12:31:44 PM »
The combat suit has a very simple problem: stairs.  If it's capable of going up stairs without breaking them, it's not going to have enough armor to stand up to heavy hand weapons.  If it can't go up stairs, it's a vehicle, not infantry.
I see is as an in-between. It also depends on technology level. A sufficiently technologically advance race could use gravity manipulation to neutralize the affect of the weight of the suit while retaining its mass.
Stepping over things is an excellent way to expose yourself to enemy weapons fire.  One of the primary limits on tank warfare is the danger of being killed by ATGMs and the like.  Mechs have no advantage over tanks here, and are much taller for equivalent firepower.  And I'm not sure how much use a mech will be in the mountains.
Sure they will step into fire, but it would be to reposition to get to cover and/or to be able to get fire into the enemy. Also, mechs/suits would be able to crouch/prone (depending on design), lean in/out of cover, fire over objects, and be able to move in more directions than a conventional tank (hover tanks are a different matter I will concede). Also, they would probably have defensive systems like modern tanks to shoot down incoming missiles and such. Or even the passive/active camouflaging like some prototype tanks nowadays are doing, to make them invisible to thermal/ir sensors.
There's a reason tanks have a crew of 3.  Assuming that one person can drive the mech and fight it effectively when compared to a tank is rather silly.  The tank will win because it can move and shoot at the same time.  Tanks where the gunner and commander were the same person (back in WWII) were seriously handicapped relative to their 3-crew peers, and that was still with a separate driver.
No one said mech couldn't have multiple crew. Most of the Imperial Titans in 40k have many crew. But I think what he was getting at would be the mech literally hooked up to the pilot so it mimics his movements (or controlled by thought, or transfers his consciousness to it so its like his own body, etc).
Hasn't happened yet.  Also, plasma weapons don't actually make much sense, unless it's just another name for some form of particle beam.  (And those have their own problems when you're using them in an atmosphere.)
I would have thought it would have been ionized gas (plasma) fired/controlled by an electromagnetic system, like a plasma torch but bigger. Or creating a railgun by using plasma.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2016, 12:35:08 PM by 83athom »
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline bean (OP)

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2016, 01:14:48 PM »
I see is as an in-between. It also depends on technology level. A sufficiently technologically advance race could use gravity manipulation to neutralize the affect of the weight of the suit while retaining its mass.
You're into 'indistinguishable from magic' territory with this one.  It's the best answer I've heard, but at that point, I don't think we can say much about what ground combat will look like.

Quote
Sure they will step into fire, but it would be to reposition to get to cover and/or to be able to get fire into the enemy. Also, mechs/suits would be able to crouch/prone (depending on design), lean in/out of cover, fire over objects, and be able to move in more directions than a conventional tank (hover tanks are a different matter I will concede).
A tank-replacement mech will be about the size of a tank, but instead of having its big side oriented vertically, it will be pointing towards the enemy.  Going prone at best evens this up, but the mech now can't move effectively.  Tanks are able to move, too. 
At this point, let's introduce some numbers on ground pressure, which is one of the main determinants of cross-country mobility.  An adult human might have 8 psi (standing, peak is double that for walking).  An M1 Abrams is around 15 psi.  A horse is 25 psi, and a typical car is 30 psi.
If we scale the human up, his ground pressure will rise linearly with our scaling factor, due to the square-cube law.  (This neglects that a mech will probably have a higher density than a human.)  So a human the size (length) of a tank will have twice the average ground pressure of a tank, and four times the peak ground pressure.  In mud (always a good bet on the battlefield), the mech will have much worse problems than a tank.

Quote
Also, they would probably have defensive systems like modern tanks to shoot down incoming missiles and such. Or even the passive/active camouflaging like some prototype tanks nowadays are doing, to make them invisible to thermal/ir sensors.
All of these could be fitted to a tank, too.  They don't change the balance between tanks and mechs.

Quote
No one said mech couldn't have multiple crew. Most of the Imperial Titans in 40k have many crew.
But that's not really a mech anymore, is it?  It's more like one of the walkers from Star Wars.  I can't see a good way to set up a human-shaped robot with multiple operators.

Quote
But I think what he was getting at would be the mech literally hooked up to the pilot so it mimics his movements (or controlled by thought, or transfers his consciousness to it so its like his own body, etc).
That's what I think he's getting at, too.  And I see no reason why a giant walking armored suit would be better than a small walking armored suit, and lots of reasons it would be worse.

Quote
I would have thought it would have been ionized gas (plasma) fired/controlled by an electromagnetic system, like a plasma torch but bigger. Or creating a railgun by using plasma.
Those are research devices.  I don't see any reason to use one as a weapon.  Replacing the plasma with a solid projectile would make it much better.  And a 'bigger plasma torch' would either be a flamethrower (but worse) or a particle beam weapon.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2016, 05:13:22 PM »
Quote
I can't see a good way to set up a human-shaped robot with multiple operators.
  We had a whole movie about this! The drift!
 

Offline QuakeIV

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 759
  • Thanked: 168 times
Re: Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2016, 06:13:14 PM »
I for one am pretty much just going to assume that they are enourmous tanks of some sort rolling around.
 

Offline 83athom

  • Big Ship Commander
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1261
  • Thanked: 86 times
Re: Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2016, 06:58:18 PM »
You're into 'indistinguishable from magic' territory with this one.  It's the best answer I've heard, but at that point, I don't think we can say much about what ground combat will look like.
Technology that is yet understood is always mistaken for magic.
A tank-replacement mech will be about the size of a tank, but instead of having its big side oriented vertically, it will be pointing towards the enemy.  Going prone at best evens this up, but the mech now can't move effectively.  Tanks are able to move, too. 
At this point, let's introduce some numbers on ground pressure, which is one of the main determinants of cross-country mobility.  An adult human might have 8 psi (standing, peak is double that for walking).  An M1 Abrams is around 15 psi.  A horse is 25 psi, and a typical car is 30 psi. If we scale the human up, his ground pressure will rise linearly with our scaling factor, due to the square-cube law.  (This neglects that a mech will probably have a higher density than a human.)  So a human the size (length) of a tank will have twice the average ground pressure of a tank, and four times the peak ground pressure.  In mud (always a good bet on the battlefield), the mech will have much worse problems than a tank.
  I will concede that tanks would be better in those conditions given the mech be 1:1 proportional to human physiology. However, changes to the designs to improve the mech's ability in these conditions would include a larger surface area of the feet (so they are wider/longer or like paddles). Even with those changes, you are correct, the mech will never be as "stable" in those terrain conditions as the tank. Only with improvement of other technologies will mech be able to catch up with the tanks (even though tanks could benefit from said technological improvements).
All of these could be fitted to a tank, too.  They don't change the balance between tanks and mechs.
It all depends on what is equipped where and how it used. Some future gadget may be more suited for tanks, another few to mechs.
But that's not really a mech anymore, is it?  It's more like one of the walkers from Star Wars.  I can't see a good way to set up a human-shaped robot with multiple operators.
What is a mech? They are vehicles that separate themselves from other vehicles (cars, tanks, etc) by humanoid or bimorphic appearance. The list of the types give the Star Wars walkers (AT-AT and AT-ST listed specifically) as an example of a mech, as well as the cargo lifter from aliens (It even lists one of my favorite mechs from Battlefield 2142).
That's what I think he's getting at, too.  And I see no reason why a giant walking armored suit would be better than a small walking armored suit, and lots of reasons it would be worse.
Armor and fire power mainly, area dominance, and psychological affect.
Those are research devices.  I don't see any reason to use one as a weapon.  Replacing the plasma with a solid projectile would make it much better.  And a 'bigger plasma torch' would either be a flamethrower (but worse) or a particle beam weapon.
40k plasma gun is an example of a plasma railgun. I just see it as basically an HE version of a ballistic railgun (even though those could fire HE type shells, but there might be technical limitations when doing that). And flamethrowers are already an example of a modern day plasma weapon (technically). And plasma weapons don't need to be fully plasma. It ould be perfectly viable to use a solid device as your main projectile which holds the EM field to contain the plasma until it reaches the target. Also, plasma torpedoes/missiles. One Sci-fy I've read a while ago had a missile type that, instead of a warhead, had a plasma generator. Once it reached activation range, it would send a wave of plasma at the ship when its still on approach, burning its way inside while simultaneously destroying external components like weapons and sensors. Nothing to say a smaller version of that could be implemented for anti-armor use.
Although, once one has an ample amount of anti-matter generation, one wouldn't need balistic or plasma railguns, just an anti-matter railgun (which is more akin to a plasma railgun than balistic).
I for one am pretty much just going to assume that they are enourmous tanks of some sort rolling around.
I may even do that for one of them so I can have my mobile battlefortress dominating the area of the battlefield, Supreme Commander style.


I feel like this has started drifting off topic from the v7.2 change discussion to a "future tactics/weapons/vehicles" discussion.
Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 

Offline bean (OP)

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2016, 10:57:16 PM »
Technology that is yet understood is always mistaken for magic.
Antigravity is not just 'yet understood', it's firmly in magic territory.  Also, that proposal has other issues.  Among other things, you'll see limited maneuverability, as you're dealing with what is essentially poor traction. 
Quote
I will concede that tanks would be better in those conditions given the mech be 1:1 proportional to human physiology. However, changes to the designs to improve the mech's ability in these conditions would include a larger surface area of the feet (so they are wider/longer or like paddles). Even with those changes, you are correct, the mech will never be as "stable" in those terrain conditions as the tank. Only with improvement of other technologies will mech be able to catch up with the tanks (even though tanks could benefit from said technological improvements).
So we mount it on snowshoes?  I don't have experience with snowshoes, but I'll let you try to use those in combat.  And what technological improvements are/could favor mechs over tanks?  I can't think of anything.

Quote
It all depends on what is equipped where and how it used. Some future gadget may be more suited for tanks, another few to mechs.
I don't really see it.  A mech is a tank with much more complicated propulsion and less efficient armor distribution.

Quote
What is a mech? They are vehicles that separate themselves from other vehicles (cars, tanks, etc) by humanoid or bimorphic appearance. The list of the types give the Star Wars walkers (AT-AT and AT-ST listed specifically) as an example of a mech, as well as the cargo lifter from aliens (It even lists one of my favorite mechs from Battlefield 2142).
Those are more sensible than 'massive powered armor', but I still expect similar problems.  You'll probably evolve down to using tracks again.

Quote
Armor and fire power mainly, area dominance, and psychological affect.
No, why it should suffer from fewer technical issues.  If you can't make powered armor work, you can't make mechs work.

Quote
40k plasma gun is an example of a plasma railgun. I just see it as basically an HE version of a ballistic railgun (even though those could fire HE type shells, but there might be technical limitations when doing that).
No, they aren't.  There's no good way I'm aware of to contain the plasma and have it burst on impact when compared to, say, explosives.  Or just a small bursting charge to turn the ballistic version into shrapnel shortly before impact.  Also, terminal performance of hypervelocity weapons is really complicated.  I think there's a thread in the Newtonian Aurora forum on the subject.  (Although I'm an aerospace engineer, not a plasma physicist, so I could be wrong.)

Quote
And flamethrowers are already an example of a modern day plasma weapon (technically).
A. There's a reason we don't use them much any more.
B. You're twisting the definition of plasma quite a bit.

Quote
And plasma weapons don't need to be fully plasma. It ould be perfectly viable to use a solid device as your main projectile which holds the EM field to contain the plasma until it reaches the target.
That's not an easy problem.  If it's to be competitive with conventional HE weapons, you need much better energy density, and that's a very hard challenge.

Quote
Also, plasma torpedoes/missiles. One Sci-fy I've read a while ago had a missile type that, instead of a warhead, had a plasma generator. Once it reached activation range, it would send a wave of plasma at the ship when its still on approach, burning its way inside while simultaneously destroying external components like weapons and sensors. Nothing to say a smaller version of that could be implemented for anti-armor use.
'Plasma' is not magic.  Your fundamental limit is the energy density of your power source.  That's essentially a standoff warhead/EFP, but with plasma instead of a physical projectile.  It's not totally impossible, but I'd say there are probably easier ways to do things.

Quote
Although, once one has an ample amount of anti-matter generation, one wouldn't need balistic or plasma railguns, just an anti-matter railgun (which is more akin to a plasma railgun than balistic).
That raises the problem of dealing with ammunition that makes nitroglycerin look like water in terms of stability.  And I'm not sure what your second statement means. 

Quote
I feel like this has started drifting off topic from the v7.2 change discussion to a "future tactics/weapons/vehicles" discussion.
Well, yes.  This has happened before, and will happen again.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline ChildServices

  • Hegemon
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Posts: 140
  • Thanked: 10 times
Re: Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2016, 03:27:58 AM »
Personally I always imagined all of the trans-newtonian combat units as being more-or-less what the Mobile Infantry in the Starship Troopers book were, with the Heavy Assault Battalion just being the most advanced (and expensive) type and the Mobile Infantry/Assault Infantry just being cheaper dedicated attack/defence variants.   In other words, less like mechs and more like medium to heavy power armoured infantry. 
Aurora4x Discord: https://discordapp.com/invite/Q5ryqdW

Cold as steel the darkness waits, its hour will come
A cry of fear from our children, worshipping the Sun
Mother Nature's black revenge, on those who waste her life
War babies in the Garden Of Eden, she'll turn our ashes to ice
 

Offline Rich.h

  • Captain
  • **********
  • R
  • Posts: 555
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2016, 04:53:10 AM »
I'm still puzzled over some of the objections to titans, at the end of the day they will be like other ground units. All ground units are simply a set of numbered attributes that all function in exactly the same way, the actual aesthetic details of any of them are completely arbitrary and exist only in the mind of the player. All titans are going to be is simply a high strength ground unit that happens to require it's own method of transport, for all we know they could actually be squads of staypuff marshellow men.
 

Offline Sheb

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 789
  • Thanked: 30 times
Re: Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2016, 05:10:27 AM »
It also has artillery support, and is repaired with maintenance supplies. You could think of normal ground units as infantry, and the titans as armor, or even gunships.
 

Offline TallTroll

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • T
  • Posts: 154
  • Thanked: 19 times
Re: Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2016, 11:45:08 AM »
1) Having an option for Titans (or any of the other optional bits) is surely better than not having those options

2) Tactically, Titans would be like the proposed WW2 German super-super-heavies (P.1000 / P.1500). Wherever they are is the schwerpunkt, unless opposed by other Titans or VERY heavy opposition (although that does suggest that a dedicated "Anti-Titan Battalion" with generally mediocre stats, but a big bonus vs Titans might be a good way to balance them)

3) Titans would have superior mobility over tracked vehicles in rough terrain, for instance.  They would probably be slower on the open plains though. They would certainly offer a different set of capabilities to commanders
« Last Edit: April 05, 2016, 11:50:09 AM by TallTroll »
 

Offline Vandermeer

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 961
  • Thanked: 128 times
Re: Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2016, 01:46:39 PM »
I see this topic is escalating quite a bit. Athom wrote nicely, and already admitted Titans are not feasible without some fundamental technological change.
Byron, you scolded him for that, but I think that is not fair in the context.
You're into 'indistinguishable from magic' territory with this one.  It's the best answer I've heard, but at that point, I don't think we can say much about what ground combat will look like.
Quote
Antigravity is not just 'yet understood', it's firmly in magic territory.  Also, that proposal has other issues.  Among other things, you'll see limited maneuverability, as you're dealing with what is essentially poor traction. 
For real life there are enough phenomena about gravity that are not understood to make this at least not complete wonderland in matters of sci-fi, as who knows what comes up that explains the theoretical discrepancies we currently have.(can only be view re-inventing though) But most important thing today is that in Aurora, this kind of 'magic' already exists, as we have proven movement methods that defy gravity and newtonian mechanics, so that should actually give the proposition of agile battlesuits some argument.
..That is at least if you are really going with agility as the main convincing factor, but then again we happen to know that they are WH40k Titan inspired, and to propose that those walking cabinets would move more dynamically than any tank is just a dead end.
Quote
If we scale the human up, his ground pressure will rise linearly with our scaling factor, due to the square-cube law.  (This neglects that a mech will probably have a higher density than a human.)  So a human the size (length) of a tank will have twice the average ground pressure of a tank, and four times the peak ground pressure.  In mud (always a good bet on the battlefield), the mech will have much worse problems than a tank.
Yeah, this is probably the most striking argument against any traditional mech. There is a reason why small insects walk on water, while we break in, and if you make mechs large enough, they will eventually start to "sink" on even solid stone footing too.
..But we have that physics denying argument here again, so the reason to have large war-machines as this in Aurora could actually be that you need it to be at least around 100tons, like with the fighters, so that one of those TN generators fits onto a land vehicle.
Maybe that accounts for other kind of weapons too, like it would need to be another 50tons at least to have a shield generator, which could be a huge tactical asset to have, so you just need to build something big.
The size of a war-machine is mostly determined by how much we can miniaturize the things we want mobile. If we could build tanks in nano format while retaining all their striking power, and somehow even fitting personal in, we would do it. If 100+tons Titans are the only way to fit in shields, newton denying generators and anti-orbital weaponry, then that will be the size they will come in.
And if science eliminates the critical ground pressure problem, then tank shape is really not needed anymore, albeit most Mechs of science fiction are then still not exactly what you would come up with when the shackle of weight has been reduced to (ghost-)impulse only.(why have so much weak-points; one leg done, whole mech down)

Quote
But that's not really a mech anymore, is it?  It's more like one of the walkers from Star Wars.  I can't see a good way to set up a human-shaped robot with multiple operators.
As Athom said, walkers are mechs. There are multiple franchises that have all kinds of walking steel all listed under mech armor corps.

I'm still puzzled over some of the objections to titans, at the end of the day they will be like other ground units. All ground units are simply a set of numbered attributes that all function in exactly the same way, the actual aesthetic details of any of them are completely arbitrary and exist only in the mind of the player. All titans are going to be is simply a high strength ground unit that happens to require it's own method of transport, for all we know they could actually be squads of staypuff marshellow men.
Good point. Others have said that they would rule them to be giant tanks, or just ignore them, but who says that they cannot be something like "a mobile bunker installation", essentially just a ground HQ building with artillery and all that gets dropped from orbit. It could also be a "drone factory" whose damage can be interpreted as constant attrition from fresh disposable semi-AI troops.
Being a building can easily explain why you'd need an extra component to carry it around in comparison with just normal troops.
Atmospheric gunships does sound nice too, though there might be a similar argument between them and fighters as there was between mech and tanks.
playing Aurora as swarm fleet: Zen Nomadic Hive Fantasy
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 566
  • Thanked: 111 times
Re: Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2016, 01:54:51 PM »
I'm still puzzled over some of the objections to titans, at the end of the day they will be like other ground units. All ground units are simply a set of numbered attributes that all function in exactly the same way, the actual aesthetic details of any of them are completely arbitrary and exist only in the mind of the player. All titans are going to be is simply a high strength ground unit that happens to require it's own method of transport, for all we know they could actually be squads of staypuff marshellow men.

I must subscribe to this way of thought. I don't really understand what the problem seems to be. Call them titans. Call them FriendlyCuddlySmashers.

All they are is a big mechanized unit with high strength. You can imagine them as big robots, as big tanks or as mobile giant plushies with nukes strapped on their back. It does not matter.

Last time I checked Aurora was mostly a game about roleplay, where each person is free to imagine and customize things in his/her own mind since the graphic is basically nonexistent apart from the system maps.

All this huge discussion for something that matters not at all makes no sense....
 

Offline bean (OP)

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2016, 02:11:19 PM »
I see this topic is escalating quite a bit. Athom wrote nicely, and already admitted Titans are not feasible without some fundamental technological change.
Byron, you scolded him for that, but I think that is not fair in the context.
I tend to be rather combative, and that may have come off wrong here.
That said, my fundamental point is that I don't know what fundamental technological change will make walking vehicles a good idea relative to other forms of mobility.

Quote
For real life there are enough phenomena about gravity that are not understood to make this at least not complete wonderland in matters of sci-fi, as who knows what comes up that explains the theoretical discrepancies we currently have.(can only be view re-inventing though) But most important thing today is that in Aurora, this kind of 'magic' already exists, as we have proven movement methods that defy gravity and newtonian mechanics, so that should actually give the proposition of agile battlesuits some argument.
But in that case, why bother making them battlesuits?  Instead of having one propulsion system and potential source of failure, you now how two, both of which have to work for the suit to be effective.  Scrap the legs, and build a Dalek instead. 
(Also, we don't have that many holes in our model of gravity.)

Quote
..That is at least if you are really going with agility as the main convincing factor, but then again we happen to know that they are WH40k Titan inspired, and to propose that those walking cabinets would move more dynamically than any tank is just a dead end.
Agility isn't my main objection.  It was a point about unintended consequences that can come from suggestions like 'antigrav'.  And it was in the context of battlesuits, not big mechs.  I will admit to not being a WH40k person.

Quote
Yeah, this is probably the most striking argument against any traditional mech. There is a reason why small insects walk on water, while we break in, and if you make mechs large enough, they will eventually start to "sink" on even solid stone footing too.
..But we have that physics denying argument here again, so the reason to have large war-machines as this in Aurora could actually be that you need it to be at least around 100tons, like with the fighters, so that one of those TN generators fits onto a land vehicle.
But in that case, make it a hovertank!  If you can use antigravity, then why would you want to anchor yourself to the ground?  Without using special pleading, I don't see any reason to favor antigrav+walker over just antigrav.  Not only do you get better agility, you also have one mobility system instead of two, which is a big deal.

Quote
As Athom said, walkers are mechs. There are multiple franchises that have all kinds of walking steel all listed under mech armor corps.
We have several different people involved, each using a different definition of mech.  One person (can't remember who) definitely seemed to be going for giant waldo suits instead of just walking tanks.  Those are sillier than, say, AT-ATs.

Quote
Good point. Others have said that they would rule them to be giant tanks, or just ignore them, but who says that they cannot be something like "a mobile bunker installation", essentially just a ground HQ building with artillery and all that gets dropped from orbit. It could also be a "drone factory" whose damage can be interpreted as constant attrition from fresh disposable semi-AI troops.
Being a building can easily explain why you'd need an extra component to carry it around in comparison with just normal troops.
Frankly, I just assume that the normal system for carrying light troops is not adequate for moving around heavy mechanized formations.  I'm looking forward to these, although I'll headcanon them as being armored battalions or the like.  I just don't like mechs on practical and aesthetic grounds, and thus am arguing that they're not particularly realistic.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline TheDeadlyShoe

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1264
  • Thanked: 58 times
  • Dance Commander
Re: Re: Change Log for v7.2 Discussion
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2016, 03:11:04 PM »
You use legs so you have extra height for your sweet laser beam and gravity claws to pick targets out with

//supremecommander