NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, let's talk target profile, first off. You've got a 10+ ton humanoid. Burning some kind of fuel, covered in metal, and usually moving overland at some absurd speed. Can we say "highly visible?" Radar, IR, acoustic vibration...this is not something easily disguised! So what is with all these "stealth mechs?"

Second, a word about armor. Sloping? Forget it. This thing not only has to move with some agility, it also has to do it on two legs. You can't layer the armor on too thickly here.

"But I'll build it bigger!" You do realize that the bigger it is, the heavier it will be compared to how much more area it has? You'll need MUCH bigger gyros and other mechanical things.

And speaking of mechanics, do you know how complicated legs are? They're beginning to take on a certain ease in the field of robotics, but when it comes to transforming energy into motion they've got nothing on wheels or treads. The maintainence and repair costs of legs are going to be intense, which will be truer the bigger your mech is.

And why is it people feel the need to laden their mechs down with the most amazing assortments of ridiculous weaponry?

You go ahead and field your big ol' war mechs. And don't complain when they're taken down by fighter aircraft, helicopter gunships or even just good old infantrymen with RPGs.

Hooray! A person with an ounce of common sense at last. A pity that people who use mechs are generally godmodders or future-tech though, so will be relatively immune. But I agree, there is no such thing as a modern-tech mech, and practically anything is better than them. And cheaper, too.

Okay, let's talk target profile, first off. You've got a 10+ ton humanoid. Burning some kind of fuel, covered in metal, and usually moving overland at some absurd speed. Can we say "highly visible?" Radar, IR, acoustic vibration...this is not something easily disguised! So what is with all these "stealth mechs?"

Second, a word about armor. Sloping? Forget it. This thing not only has to move with some agility, it also has to do it on two legs. You can't layer the armor on too thickly here.

"But I'll build it bigger!" You do realize that the bigger it is, the heavier it will be compared to how much more area it has? You'll need MUCH bigger gyros and other mechanical things.

And speaking of mechanics, do you know how complicated legs are? They're beginning to take on a certain ease in the field of robotics, but when it comes to transforming energy into motion they've got nothing on wheels or treads. The maintainence and repair costs of legs are going to be intense, which will be truer the bigger your mech is.

And why is it people feel the need to laden their mechs down with the most amazing assortments of ridiculous weaponry?

You go ahead and field your big ol' war mechs. And don't complain when they're taken down by fighter aircraft, helicopter gunships or even just good old infantrymen with RPGs.
Yes, high target profile. There is a thing called active camo that hides it from SIGHT, not sound or radar, etc. Also, I'm a 3-billion pop nation. I've been researching these for a while. I think that helps in the aspects of technology. And yes, legs cost money. But LEGS are the best in a zero-gravity enviroment, because you can hook them onto protrustions from ships. Most of my mechs work best in a zero grav enviroment. And the only speed ever posted about my mech was NOT posted by me. I agreed with it only out of courtesy to a customer and ally.

From an engineering standpoint Mechs would be infeasble for a large number of reasons. You've mentioned some.

1 - Large target profile.
2 - Maintaince nightmare due to a large number of moving parts etc...
3 - Lack of armour and no sloped armour. Why? because you could not armour a mech heavily due to the fact that it has a much larger surface area relative to volume. to much armour and the mech will not be able to move or possibly even stand. It's also not a basic shape (wedge, cube, sphere etc...) that is more useful for heavy armour.
4 - Not a vary good weapons platform (unstable). Any tank is far better.
5 - expensive to manufacture/produce.

Your best bet is a small mech (little more than glorified power armour) designed for reletively high speeds. It would have more versitility than a tank in the city. In the open field it could be of use against infantry. It would also be just as vulnerable to ground attack by air, space or gravidic based craft.

But they still look cool :D

From an engineering standpoint Mechs would be infeasble for a large number of reasons. You've mentioned some.

1 - Large target profile.
2 - Maintaince nightmare due to a large number of moving parts etc...
3 - Lack of armour and no sloped armour. Why? because you could not armour a mech heavily due to the fact that it has a much larger surface area relative to volume. to much armour and the mech will not be able to move or possibly even stand. It's also not a basic shape (wedge, cube, sphere etc...) that is more useful for heavy armour.
4 - Not a vary good weapons platform (unstable). Any tank is far better.
5 - expensive to manufacture/produce.

Your best bet is a small mech (little more than glorified power armour) designed for reletively high speeds. It would have more versitility than a tank in the city. In the open field it could be of use against infantry. It would also be just as vulnerable to ground attack by air, space or gravidic based craft.

But they still look cool :D

Mechs:Cool
Them: 0

I agree. Mechs fall under the same category as these uberdreadnoughts (*cough*DOUJIN*cough). They're too big and impractical for today's battlefield. Plus, they can be destroyed by anything else, as long as you have enough firepower.

In the long run large mechs are not worth the effort, unless someone comes up with a huge break through, although smaller mechs are very feasible.

I agree. Mechs fall under the same category as these uberdreadnoughts (*cough*DOUJIN*cough). They're too big and impractical for today's battlefield. Plus, they can be destroyed by anything else, as long as you have enough firepower.
Yeah. But then there's a whole other class of cool giant things that beat you down like an ugly stick on Donald Trump (*cough*TERRACOSTE*cough*).

Plus i see some nations that have space fleets, that can go extremely fast so mechs may not be that far off.

Who's to say that the government isn't designing and building a Mech right now? Maybe NOT for combat purposes, maybe FOR combat purposes.

Wheeled mechs work, certainly.

Yeah. But then there's a whole other class of cool giant things that beat you down like an ugly stick on Donald Trump (*cough*TERRACOSTE*cough*).

*cough* Akira *cough*

One kilometer of nasty packed with enough weapons to rip any battleship a new one. Ever see a 40kg+ shell fired from 8 kilometers in the sky at 4km/sec?

Wheeled mechs work, certainly.
Why not just build a tank, then?

*cough* Akira *cough*

One kilometer of nasty packed with enough weapons to rip any battleship a new one. Ever see a 40kg+ shell fired from 8 kilometers in the sky at 4km/sec?
My Terracoste can take you any day! If not, then a Keerak class can. You should look at my Terracoste storefront and read the desc of the particle wave cannon. It's on one of the later pages.

Why not just build a tank, then?
Can hold more weapons, certainly, and can make melee strikes with weapons (*cough*Diamond vibroblades*cough*)

OH NO! THE MECHS HAVE MELEE ATTACKS!

Seriously, do you think one is gonna live long enough to even get in range?

Basically, the only things close to mechs we're gonna see in combat is powered armor, and that will be under 12 feet high.

A tank can do anything a mech can (in terms of modern combat, not silly things like melee attacks, being a ninja, stomping on things, knitting, etc), for the same price or lower, and most likely better. And whatever a tank can't do a mech can, powered armor, and helicopters will.

Battle armour, if done correctly, can be fielded in the Present-2020 tech bracket. However, Mecha is securely future tech, the technology necessary to make them work is only present in games and books and no research has even begun to make them possible. Take gyroscopes, for example, building small ones if comparitively easy, boring out ring and checking for imperfections is simple with the small surface area on modern gyros, but once you get to big ones it becomes much harder. Furthermore, the technology doesn't exist to reliably mass-produce the kind of gyroscopes needed for this kind of work and frankly they aren't strong enough to survive on a battlefield.

I think mechs are cool and all, but totally out of the question in nation states. I'm sticking to the good old infantry.

Battle armour, if done correctly, can be fielded in the Present-2020 tech bracket. However, Mecha is securely future tech, the technology necessary to make them work is only present in games and books and no research has even begun to make them possible. Take gyroscopes, for example, building small ones if comparitively easy, boring out ring and checking for imperfections is simple with the small surface area on modern gyros, but once you get to big ones it becomes much harder. Furthermore, the technology doesn't exist to reliably mass-produce the kind of gyroscopes needed for this kind of work and frankly they aren't strong enough to survive on a battlefield.

If this is future tech we're talking about, how about we link the mecha to the pilot via some sort of direct connection? That way, we hijack the pilot's own sense of balance for use in the mech.

If this is future tech we're talking about, how about we link the mecha to the pilot via some sort of direct connection? That way, we hijack the pilot's own sense of balance for use in the mech.
Eeek! Good idea! Go to the NS section and patent that now!

Tanks>mechs. A simple, brutal truth. There is no way to get around it, short of invoking some REALLY ridiculous technology that only works when used by mechs. Somehow. Or lost technology, of course.
Tanks are cheaper, simpler, can pack a larger gun and be better armored. They have lower target profile and are a far more stable firing platform.
Think about it - you take out tank's tread and it becomes a bunker. You take out mech's leg, and it DIES.
Unless you are on a Giant Stair World, mechs are a silly idea.

It's what Battletech mechs do, it's called a neurohelmet. Like I said, it simply isn't possible to build reliable mechs, much less mass produce them, in what is commonly accepted as the modern tech bracket.

Battle armour, if done correctly, can be fielded in the Present-2020 tech bracket. However, Mecha is securely future tech, the technology necessary to make them work is only present in games and books and no research has even begun to make them possible. Take gyroscopes, for example, building small ones if comparitively easy, boring out ring and checking for imperfections is simple with the small surface area on modern gyros, but once you get to big ones it becomes much harder. Furthermore, the technology doesn't exist to reliably mass-produce the kind of gyroscopes needed for this kind of work and frankly they aren't strong enough to survive on a battlefield.
SS, unless you can prove you work for the R&D Division of the Government, then you have no room to talk. Even if you did, Noone knows exactly how many Black Projects there are.

It's what Battletech mechs do, it's called a neurohelmet. Like I said, it simply isn't possible to build reliable mechs, much less mass produce them, in what is commonly accepted as the modern tech bracket.
Not everyone uses the same technology, dumbass... some of us use a control grid, kind of like a bunch of switches and some foot pedals to move the legs using hydraulics...

Tanks>mechs. A simple, brutal truth. There is no way to get around it, short of invoking some REALLY ridiculous technology that only works when used by mechs. Somehow. Or lost technology, of course.
Tanks are cheaper, simpler, can pack a larger gun and be better armored. They have lower target profile and are a far more stable firing platform.
Think about it - you take out tank's tread and it becomes a bunker. You take out mech's leg, and it DIES.
Unless you are on a Giant Stair World, mechs are a silly idea.

You should read some BT novels, there are several instances of mechs leveraging themselves up on one arms and using the other arm's weapons to fend off a platoon or company of mechs. And really, once you get into future tech, mechs play the mechanized job better than tanks do, mostly because mechs can do what tanks do and do it better. Better mobility, better firepower, better speed, better sensor suits, the list goes on and on.

SS, unless you can prove you work for the R&D Division of the Government, then you have no room to talk. Even if you did, Noone knows exactly how many Black Projects there are.

Yes, but I can give you a 99% guarantee none of them are for battlemechs.

The fact is that the power requirements for BT mechs (the only kind that would be superior to tanks) and general technology is still a century off, along with some of the weapons and materials and such.

The US military actually had a project in the 50s or 60s for a four legged truck to haul stuff around in rugged terrain, but it got canceled or something. Never made it past paper.

Like someone said, the closest we will ever get to Mechs, realistically, is powered armor used by infantry for urban warfare. I would think something like the Power Armor used by Space Marines in the Warhammer 40K Universe isn't out of the question.... under a heavy ceramic plate, hydraulic pumps handle the bulk of moving the impossibly heavy armor, allowing the man inside to move nearly as fast as an unarmored man.

Why can't mechs and tanks just get along? They each have their own uses. A mech is much faster and more agile than a tank and can traverse much rougher terrain than a tank. A tank is slow and heavy. It mounts big guns and heavy armor, but can't pass over large debris and dangerous terrain. My army fields 40 light mechs. They are small (20 feet tall) and lightly armed. A 40mm light railgun and a ten shot guided rocket pod are its only weapons.

I use them for anti-infantry, as they are very agile in an urban environment. With air support, a force of light mechs is very difficult to defeat without large numbers of tanks. However, really big mechs (50 - 100ft) are absolutely not realistic and would be easy to shoot with artillery and missiles. They would lose the advantage of agility and speed as well.

In a nation such as mine, in transition from modern tech to future tech has a place for both mechs and tanks. We are in the time period of 2050 and so mechs aren't godmoding so long as they are a realistic size and power.

Akaton, your anti infantry work could easily be done by powered armor instead of mechs, which are smaller, and more effective in rugged terrain or urban environments. This also gives them a smaller sensor profiles.

As for the claims that mechs are faster, they are not. As has been said earlier, treads and wheels are more reliable and effective, as well as simpler. This makes energy transfer easier and allows for greater speed. In short, they are more efficient for speed.

[NE, there are a few specialized striker and scout mechs in BT that have the speed to outpace any modern tech ground vehicle and also have enough firepower and armour to withstand any assault from any such tank.]

"[NE, there are a few specialized striker and scout mechs in BT that have the speed to outpace any modern tech ground vehicle and also have enough firepower and armour to withstand any assault from any such tank.]"

Well if tanks got their fair share of 31st century tech, they should be able to outpace, out gun, and/or out armor such mechs.

"[NE, there are a few specialized striker and scout mechs in BT that have the speed to outpace any modern tech ground vehicle and also have enough firepower and armour to withstand any assault from any such tank.]"

Well if tanks got their fair share of 31st century tech, they should be able to outpace, out gun, and/or out armor such mechs.


Then why didn't they? In BT, there are tanks capable of taking mechs on. It's just that mechs are more prevalent. Way more prevalent. If all tanks (when updated with 31st century technology) would be able to dominate mechs, why didn't they?

Mechs may have a less stable firing platform, but they seem like they can carry more guns. And their hardpoints allow them to swap out weapons as needed, like an aircraft swaps out bombs or missiles. When was the last time you saw a tank swap out its main gun? Mechs do, at least according to the original BT boardgame, IIRC.

[Well, they can. For Inner Sphere mechs to do it means at least half a day's work, although a Master Tech can do a single weapon in as little as six hours. Clan Omnimechs, however, can switch out weapons in less than an hour because of their modular mounts.

And NE, it's because tank technology hasn't changed all that much. There are hover tanks, but the tanks that are the future versions of the Abrams are still tread tanks with improvement in weapons, armour, and power plant. And believe it or not, the one place you'll always see tanks operating is in cities. It's often the case that mechs are simply too powerful to use in cities, so tanks and APCs are often tapped for the job.

You should read some BT novels, there are several instances of mechs leveraging themselves up on one arms and using the other arm's weapons to fend off a platoon or company of mechs. And really, once you get into future tech, mechs play the mechanized job better than tanks do, mostly because mechs can do what tanks do and do it better. Better mobility, better firepower, better speed, better sensor suits, the list goes on and on.

Oh, I read Warhammer 40000 novels, where 100m+ Titans do the same.[they are a complex problem because of the politics of Wh40k; the tanks better than them can be made, but the people who build them just won't do it] However, it eliminates one arm, most likely equipped with weapons. Tank, on the other hand, will have it's full offensive capability.
And I AM future tech. It is just that I saw COUNTLESS tank vs mech debates, and I know the subject.
And is that a bad joke? Tanks will have better armor and better firepower, and similiar sensor suits, unless they were designed by a rabid monkey on drugs. They will be also faster, assuming equal tech level and tonnage. The "mechs are better than tanks" is simply false.

Then why didn't they? In BT, there are tanks capable of taking mechs on. It's just that mechs are more prevalent. Way more prevalent. If all tanks (when updated with 31st century technology) would be able to dominate mechs, why didn't they?

Mechs may have a less stable firing platform, but they seem like they can carry more guns. And their hardpoints allow them to swap out weapons as needed, like an aircraft swaps out bombs or missiles. When was the last time you saw a tank swap out its main gun? Mechs do, at least according to the original BT boardgame, IIRC.

Well, it's a serious case of "the authors said so".

And what is preventing anybody from making a tank that you can customize? Besides, those more guns will individually be far weaker than one, big main gun of a tank. One shot will do the same thing far quicker.

If people are so quick to use examples of mechs in fiction as a proof that they are powerful... how about Bolos, one of the most extreme examples of supertanks?

Then why didn't they? In BT, there are tanks capable of taking mechs on. It's just that mechs are more prevalent. Way more prevalent. If all tanks (when updated with 31st century technology) would be able to dominate mechs, why didn't they?

Mechs may have a less stable firing platform, but they seem like they can carry more guns. And their hardpoints allow them to swap out weapons as needed, like an aircraft swaps out bombs or missiles. When was the last time you saw a tank swap out its main gun? Mechs do, at least according to the original BT boardgame, IIRC.
there is your reason ,as you know the BT boardgame was linked with sci-fi novels pretty much from the start who's going to sell more books the flashy battlemech or the mundane tank?

[Battletech was a game before it was ever a novel, the novels follow BT rules very strictly.

http://www.mechground.com./Battletechdotca/TRO/3067/Readout/Inner%20Sphere/Battlemechs/FNR-5%20Fafnir.html

That's one of the more beastly BT mechs. I think there's exactly one tank that's in its weight class, yet it's slower. I don't know how much armour it mounts, but I suspect it's more due to the simple fact that the Fafnir mounts two Guass Rifles that measure at least two meters across and therefor the mech has to sacrifice some armour. Tanks are simply incapable of mounting weapons that big, and there aren't many mechs that can either, so in a one on one duel between a Fafnir and one of BT's assault tanks, the Fafnir is going to win every time. In fact, I strongly suspect that a Fafnir would hold the advantage going against a platoon of tanks.]

[Battletech was a game before it was ever a novel, the novels follow BT rules very strictly.

http://www.mechground.com./Battletechdotca/TRO/3067/Readout/Inner%20Sphere/Battlemechs/FNR-5%20Fafnir.html

That's one of the more beastly BT mechs. I think there's exactly one tank that's in its weight class, yet it's slower. I don't know how much armour it mounts, but I suspect it's more due to the simple fact that the Fafnir mounts two Guass Rifles that measure at least two meters across and therefor the mech has to sacrifice some armour. Tanks are simply incapable of mounting weapons that big, and there aren't many mechs that can either, so in a one on one duel between a Fafnir and one of BT's assault tanks, the Fafnir is going to win every time. In fact, I strongly suspect that a Fafnir would hold the advantage going against a platoon of tanks.]

of course they do ,the whole battle tech verse ,books and all started as fasa property,the books were contracted and followed first game release closely
as i said what sells better flashy mechs or mundane tanks,if tanks got a raw deal it is because they were ment to. btw i am big battletech fan of both the game and early books(dont like the later books near as much pre-clan was better i think)my favorite is a light mech called the panther pnt-9r .

Bolo MK33 pwns your puny mechs!

the Battle tech game was made by people trying to make money and invent a fun game to play, not a bunch of people who were actually designing a fesiable or even possible system. the concept that a mech would be better than a tank is ridiculous for the many reasons that have been already pointed out several times in this thread which i'm not going to repeat.

the fact remains that the tank is superior to the mech as all the points for the superiority of the tank are valid and virtually all the points for the superiority of the mech are not

Mechs are more designed to take the place of a group of tanks. IE: 1 mech for 3-5 tanks. Since they weigh about the same, but pack a heavier punch usually, that's what they're about. It's not that you're supposed to use mechs alone, they'd die a horrible death. You need air cover and infantry support as with any military action.

At least that's how the Battletech stuff works. ^_^;

[Yes. And despite that fact that tanks usually have slightly more armour, it's not sectioned off into compartments like mech armour is, so mechs aren't screwed if their armour is penetrated as is the case with tanks.]

Exactly. That's the Mech advantage over tanks.

Mechs generally don't exist in my world; or at least mechs as I usually think of them. I can't recognize giant robots being remotely feasible in a modern tech setting, and would like to stipulate to the belief that planes can't just morph into gigantic robots.

O.o

Planes morphing into robots?

Oh! You're talking Gundam Wing style mechs.

We were going on a bit about the Battletech style stuff. >.>

O.o

Planes morphing into robots?

Oh! You're talking Gundam Wing style mechs.

We were going on a bit about the Battletech style stuff. >.>

Actually, he's talking about robotech/macross, where planes literally sprout legs and begin stomping on tanks and infantry.

[There are mechs that can do that in BT, but they're pretty much recognized as the pieces of crap they are. More underpowered and underarmoured than either dedicated mechs or aerospace fighters, they aren't worth the paper their stats are printed on.]

Yeah, those don't exist in my opinion of the BT world...

Macross is a cool show, but... yeah. ^_^;

The biggest draw to Mechs is the resemblence to giant armored knights. It is easier to project yourself into the Mech and imagine yourself as the person piloting it. A tank is just a armored car to them. That is the way it was designed.

The main draw is the human simularity Mechs share. The link in an earlier post listed the top speed of the Mech at 54 Kph. What is the speed of an A-1 tank today? I think it is faster than 54 Kph.

I don't use Mechs. If they started to bother me I would bombard them from orbit into scrap metal and then pick up what was left and take it to a recycling place. Either that or fight them the same way the Rebels did in Empire Strikes Back. I bet you could design a missile system that launches two missiles with a cable connecting them so they will wrap aroung the legs of the mech. Oh, wait. The Ewoks did that with ropes and logs.

I am not trying to disrespect anyone who uses them. Each person has their preferences.

The link in an earlier post listed the top speed of the Mech at 54 Kph. What is the speed of an A-1 tank today? I think it is faster than 54 Kph.

You've got to understand, that Fafnir that SS posted is one of the largest mechs in existance. It is extremely slow by any standard. Lighter mechs such as the Kitfox/Uller or Jenner are capable of going at 130+ KPH.

Edit: That's IIRC. It may be closer to 110+ KPH. :)

Actually, he's talking about robotech/macross, where planes literally sprout legs and begin stomping on tanks and infantry.
I just stick to the standard "I'm a huge robot and proud of it thing. Like I said on my Terracoste thread, compared to mechs, even my Terracoste floating-battleship looks like a wheel. Some Mechs ARE better then some tanks, and for some tasks. But tanks CAN wield huge weaponry. Give me a workshop, a few technicians and the right parts, and I can make you a tank with ERA armor and dual railguns. I'm a thirteen year old KID and I could likely make the majority of it, except for parts of the railgun.

-OOC-

I prefer things like the BuCUE from Gundam SEED. Or quite a few of the things from Zoids.

Like from Animal Farm. Four legs good. Two legs bad.

Actually, that only worked on the AT-ATs in TESB. The AT-STs had to be either crushed or tripped by displacing the terrain they were walking on.

Most BT mechs would have some sort of tool to remove that sort of a threat, IE the LAMS or AMS.

Of course in the Mechwarrior computer games, the tanks and aircraft were slowed down so that it wouldn't be impossible to combat them. I don't think the tanks would have presented as much of a problem as the aircraft though.

As for the Orbital issue, most people running a Battletech based country would have a space force that would keep yours occupied. BT does have space designed ship to ship combat ranging from scouting vessels to dreadnaughts.


EDIT:
If it were toe-to-toe, mechs vs tanks, I'm afraid the mechs would just over power the tanks. But in strategic warfare, based on terrain and visibility, depending on the number of tanks and infantry... it's anyone's guess.

Hey, I use magnets to slingshot enemy sattelites out of orbit or into space.

From an engineering standpoint Mechs would be infeasble for a large number of reasons. You've mentioned some.

1 - Large target profile.
2 - Maintaince nightmare due to a large number of moving parts etc...
3 - Lack of armour and no sloped armour. Why? because you could not armour a mech heavily due to the fact that it has a much larger surface area relative to volume. to much armour and the mech will not be able to move or possibly even stand. It's also not a basic shape (wedge, cube, sphere etc...) that is more useful for heavy armour.
4 - Not a vary good weapons platform (unstable). Any tank is far better.
5 - expensive to manufacture/produce.

Your best bet is a small mech (little more than glorified power armour) designed for reletively high speeds. It would have more versitility than a tank in the city. In the open field it could be of use against infantry. It would also be just as vulnerable to ground attack by air, space or gravidic based craft.

But they still look cool :D

You're thinking more like a Heavy Gear? Those things get upto a max of may'be 8 Meters in height...Though they are classified as Infantry fighting vehicles they can be outfitted with weaponry suitable for fighting Battle Tanks. In a stand up fight, a Mech would never be a match for a Battle Tank of equivalent size.

Actually, that only worked on the AT-ATs in TESB. The AT-STs had to be either crushed or tripped by displacing the terrain they were walking on.

Most BT mechs would have some sort of tool to remove that sort of a threat, IE the LAMS or AMS.

Of course in the Mechwarrior computer games, the tanks and aircraft were slowed down so that it wouldn't be impossible to combat them. I don't think the tanks would have presented as much of a problem as the aircraft though.

As for the Orbital issue, most people running a Battletech based country would have a space force that would keep yours occupied. BT does have space designed ship to ship combat ranging from scouting vessels to dreadnaughts.


EDIT:
If it were toe-to-toe, mechs vs tanks, I'm afraid the mechs would just over power the tanks. But in strategic warfare, based on terrain and visibility, depending on the number of tanks and infantry... it's anyone's guess.

Actually, to tell you the truth, the best place for mechs is in the sky or space, in some of the older Gundam stlyes. Example, Midnight Waltz. Perfect example of where a mech shines. Of course, I sometimes just send out drones to triangulate my enemies and be far-away eyes and pick them off with my Prism Cannons.

*nods*

If you're going for the Gundam style. I myself play with the BT style, but I make sure to only deploy those in terrain unsuitable for tanks, or with suitable air, tank, and infantry support, just like any land warfare action.

I just had a brief war with Terraus and the Mechs did get chewed up by their airforce until mine caught up and engaged, then it was tank & mech vs tanks. It got ugly really fast.

*nods*

If you're going for the Gundam style. I myself play with the BT style, but I make sure to only deploy those in terrain unsuitable for tanks, or with suitable air, tank, and infantry support, just like any land warfare action.

I just had a brief war with Terraus and the Mechs did get chewed up by their airforce until mine caught up and engaged, then it was tank & mech vs tanks. It got ugly really fast.

Mechs can end up too expensive for not enough firepower. Yes, they CAN be stronger then tanks, but it's a lot easier to make a really really really good tank than it is to do to a mech. For the tank, maybe a huge monster like 40k's Baneblade, might be in the tens of millions. For a mech of equal power, around 300 million.

That's why you only produce certain types of mechs and leave the rest to the mobile infantry. ^_^ Most of the stuff I have is like the lighter Ravens for scouting and then straight up to Timberwolves, Hellbringers, and Sunders for combat situations.

We prefer biologically engineered soldiers for our needs, completly loyal, and centered around one species. Our 800 million population has 3/4th dedicated to military research, and military power. the others run the non-military systems. Right now we are designing a class of super-carriers that are larger than any ship known today, but can be broken down into 8 smaller ships for manuverability in combat, and also if a ship sinks, it can be compensated for.

Our tank systems revolve around the interchangable part theory, if one turret isnt fit for a certain target, it can go to a supply vehicle and within 5 minutes the turret switched with one more suitable for our needs. We also employ EMP-proof technology, and rather than using archaic control;l systems that can be jammed, we use high end spectru communications that transmit much faster than AM FM transmissions.

Mech unist wont be able to stand up to the amount of voltages we can shock them with, or the portable nuclear weapons. Although not yet legal or illegal, we do have special soldier ready to die for the cause who will have a nuclear device implanted in their abdomen, all they must do is make it inside one of the "Macro Mega Mechs" and ignight themselfs.

Also we are focused rather than on macro micro. smaller robotics which can spit out rounds like an UZI and cause Chaos on the battlefield. Small as a remote controll car with a gun strapped on, if its snuck behind enemy lines and makes it to the tents used for sleeping it will cause chaos.

Also our robotic gatling units, which are the size of a datsun Z with a swivle head come in usefull, as they can dish out dome punishment with its .30 cal machine gun. The robotic spike mine is also one of our odder weapons, but instead of blowing up it shoots a thousand tiny toothpick sized needles out, all with a powerfull nuro toxin and blood thinner. Disorentation of the soldier, and the inability to form blood clots make it very usefull. and yes there is a medication to null the effects in case one of our own steps on it.

For us, Mech Units are not practicle to have in our arsenal, when we could bring one down with a few tanks and a small thermonuclear device. we prefer mico army, machines, and biological solutions.

That's why you only produce certain types of mechs and leave the rest to the mobile infantry. ^_^ Most of the stuff I have is like the lighter Ravens for scouting and then straight up to Timberwolves, Hellbringers, and Sunders for combat situations.
Yes, but isn't a fast attack vehicle with dual chainguns strapped to the sides faster AND more dangerous than a Raven, AND isn't a heavy tank with a main 120 mm railgun, 35 mm machingun turret and a 9 TOW anti-tank rocket-boasting tank with foot thick armor in most places much more powerful than a Timberwolf? I have to say, the only truly horribly scary weapons on Mechs I've seen are my Diamond Vibroblades(Heavy much...), PPCs(Implausible much...) and third level missiles on a Mad dog(Fast and Painful much!). And only one of those is plausible, but only because it chugs missiles twelve at a time! Oh, and the tanks are cheaper.

Depends on the layout for the Raven. I've made a light scout mech that could take down the assault mechs in two or three hits using a single missile. It all depends on the mechlab work.

As for the bigger tank, sounds like an awful lot like a Sunder with a gauss rifle. I've put out Sunders with railguns, single shot Arrow IV missiles, and heavy lasers all mounted at the same time. At least in the BT fields. Not here. ^_^;

I've seen mechs take hits from railguns and keep trucking, but I've only seen a few tanks take it and "get up" afterwards.

Yes, but isn't a fast attack vehicle with dual chainguns strapped to the sides faster AND more dangerous than a Raven, AND isn't a heavy tank with a main 120 mm railgun, 35 mm machingun turret and a 9 TOW anti-tank rocket-boasting tank with foot thick armor in most places much more powerful than a Timberwolf? I have to say, the only truly horribly scary weapons on Mechs I've seen are my Diamond Vibroblades(Heavy much...), PPCs(Implausible much...) and third level missiles on a Mad dog(Fast and Painful much!). And only one of those is plausible, but only because it chugs missiles twelve at a time! Oh, and the tanks are cheaper.

But isn't a raven with dual chainguns on the sides and a pack of long range missiles above it more durable AND more dangerous than a fast attack vehicle?

AND isn't a timberwolf equipped with twin PPCs, quad medium lasers, and a 40 missile burst (Each shoulder rack can fire twenty of those LRMs as on the mad dog at once, so ouchies for you) and compartamentalized armor much more powerful than a tank?

Ohh, and Mad Dog launchers fire off twenty missiles in a salvo. Hence why they're called LRM 20s.

Depends on the layout for the Raven. I've made a light scout mech that could take down the assault mechs in two or three hits using a single missile. It all depends on the mechlab work.

As for the bigger tank, sounds like an awful lot like a Sunder with a gauss rifle. I've put out Sunders with railguns, single shot Arrow IV missiles, and heavy lasers all mounted at the same time. At least in the BT fields. Not here. ^_^;

I've seen mechs take hits from railguns and keep trucking, but I've only seen a few tanks take it and "get up" afterwards.
Well, being in a mech-based game, I'm not suprised.

Well, see that's the hit from the compartmentalized armor part of the debate that was put forward earlier. It all depends on where you hit the mech with said round. A mech can lose a leg or an arm and remain combat effective.

A hit to the main body of a tank with a gauss rifle would more than likely neutralize the mechanism for rotating the turret or just straight out destroy the turret, neutralizing the combat effectivness of a tank.

Edit:

Once more, I'm not putting Mechs up as invincible gods of war, striding the battlefield and never dying, they just don't compare to a tank in one-on-one more often than not.

Yes, but tanks have BETTER ARMOR. Also, you can shield the entire front of the tank. Yes, it either slows turning speeds of limits aiming range, but it gives tanks yet another advantage. Also, I've been working on some anti-mech missiles. It's an armor-piercer, with a touch senstive spot a few inches up. The missile slides in, hits the pressurepoint, and juts spikes out of the sides of the tip of the missile, to make it impossible to get it, and then it shoots a spiked grappling hook out of the back of the missile, to anchor the mech. It may not kill outright, but it leave for perfect salvage without ruining the entire mech. Then a tank can just do a precision strike with a prism cannon to kill the pilot.

One problem with that:

AMS or LAMS. The antimissile system is designed to deal with a cluster of 10-15 missiles, what would stop it from dealing with that single round? It's a good idea, but you'd have to give it good armor and a really good guidance system.

Mechs usually have about the same type of armor as the tanks, usually ranging from ferrofiberous steel to titanium... I guess it just differs in thickness in areas. It obviously would be thicker in more vital areas.

But isn't a raven with dual chainguns on the sides and a pack of long range missiles above it more durable AND more dangerous than a fast attack vehicle?

AND isn't a timberwolf equipped with twin PPCs, quad medium lasers, and a 40 missile burst (Each shoulder rack can fire twenty of those LRMs as on the mad dog at once, so ouchies for you) and compartamentalized armor much more powerful than a tank?

Ohh, and Mad Dog launchers fire off twenty missiles in a salvo. Hence why they're called LRM 20s.
And aren't those BOTH entire stupid? They would crawl. The raven's legs would snap, and the timberwolf would be more burdened then an italian christmas tree. And I would know. I'm half italian.

Not definately.

A Timberwolf is designed to hold a certain weight in weaponry and move at a certain speed with that weaponry assigned...

That would bring the mech to its maximum of 75 tons and keep it at normal operating speed for the mech at that weight.

As for the Raven, it would really depend on the weight of the weapons systems. I know the Raven is capable of carrying LRM 20s, but I'm not sure what would compare to a chaingun other than the Auto ACs.

Not definately.

A Timberwolf is designed to hold a certain weight in weaponry and move at a certain speed with that weaponry assigned...

That would bring the mech to its maximum of 75 tons and keep it at normal operating speed for the mech at that weight.

As for the Raven, it would really depend on the weight of the weapons systems. I know the Raven is capable of carrying LRM 20s, but I'm not sure what would compare to a chaingun other than the Auto ACs.

Fine then. But you'll still find yourself in a hard spot if you put even that Timberwolf up against a 100-shot hornet launcher and Prism Cannon on a tank. The hornets are small, but each have a tiny C-4 charge in them, and the Prism Cannon can shear through armor like it was paper.

but I'm not sure what would compare to a chaingun other than the Auto ACs.

Whoops, my mistake. I meant to say 'pulse lasers.' Which are like the equivlent of a laser chaingun when refering to battletech.

Yes, but isn't a fast attack vehicle with dual chainguns strapped to the sides faster AND more dangerous than a Raven, AND isn't a heavy tank with a main 120 mm railgun, 35 mm machingun turret and a 9 TOW anti-tank rocket-boasting tank with foot thick armor in most places much more powerful than a Timberwolf? I have to say, the only truly horribly scary weapons on Mechs I've seen are my Diamond Vibroblades(Heavy much...), PPCs(Implausible much...) and third level missiles on a Mad dog(Fast and Painful much!). And only one of those is plausible, but only because it chugs missiles twelve at a time! Oh, and the tanks are cheaper.

[You're comparing a main battle tank to Battletech's equivilant of a Hummer. That Fafnir I showed you earlier has a meter of armour at its thickest point. Those two railguns mounted are 200mm Heavy Guass Rifles supported by a pair of large lasers (probably in the 50Mw range) and four medium lasers (20Mw range). Also, if you want to talk heavy guns, there are a lot of BT assault mechs that mount 120mm autocannons called AC-20s.]

[And just so there's no misunderstanding, Battletech is based in the 31st Century, meaning it's a thousand years from now.]

Quote: Fine then. But you'll still find yourself in a hard spot if you put even that Timberwolf up against a 100-shot hornet launcher and Prism Cannon on a tank. The hornets are small, but each have a tiny C-4 charge in them, and the Prism Cannon can shear through armor like it was paper.

O.o! That'd be quite a challenge to deal with. Maybe the armor more designed for dealing with energy would be appropriate, as far as the prism weapon is concerned, if you're basing it on what I think you are. As for the missiles... well, hope that the AMS nails enough of them to let you survive long enough to return the favor with a salvo of LRM 20s or their energy weapons systems.

I'm all for BT style mechs, simply because they look awesome, but it doesn't change that even in the novels they mention that Mechs are only useful because of the pilot's uplink to it, which allows the pilot to control it as if it was his own body. Which lets them have much faster reflexes, accuracy, etc... than an equivalent tank.

[From his description the Hornets are like Battletech's SRMs, not much of a challenge to soak up damage with. His prism cannon is like a Heavy Laser, so depending on size would probably be a bitch to deal with even with reflective armour, so I'd say don't go specialized.]

I agree that hulking Mech are way way out of the question. But when mentioning Mechs I also think of powered armor and exoskeletons.

I belive that exoskeletons would be a great asset to combate engineers and the common soldier if a proper power source can be found. Think about it; increased speed, lifting/carring capacity, and endurence.

Power Armor brings the exoskeleton approach the the next, and possible highest level. This time you have light armor protection and extra weapon capacity. This would, however, most likely come at the cost of speed.

Overall I think that mechaincal help on an individual level will eventually come about, maybe with the rise of Light Tanks.

That sounds more along the lines of the Elementals in Battletech. Armor equipped with a light laser, a small missile rack, and a claw for tearing through armor.

I was actually basing the Prism cannon more along the lines of a heavier version of the PPC or Bombast Laser. If I'm correct it's based on the Prism tank from Red Alert 2?

[The Bombast Laser... I think the thing's a piece of crap, but then again I'm like most players in that I never mastered it. I was relating the Prism Cannon to the Heavy Large Laser, which I think is more powerful than the PPC. Oh, and just an FYI, I looked it up (because it's been a while) and the Davions came up with the Rotary Autocannon, which is BT's version of the Gatling.]

THAT's what I was thinking of. It jams up a little too often for my tastes though.

I like the Bombast Laser, but you're right, it takes some work to get used to. I always had it in a grouping all its own.

That sounds more along the lines of the Elementals in Battletech. Armor equipped with a light laser, a small missile rack, and a claw for tearing through armor.

I was actually basing the Prism cannon more along the lines of a heavier version of the PPC or Bombast Laser. If I'm correct it's based on the Prism tank from Red Alert 2?

Nope. Warhammer 40k. Concentrated laser.

Okies, then yeah, probably more along the lines of the heavy large laser. *nods*

Can hold more weapons, certainly, and can make melee strikes with weapons (*cough*Diamond vibroblades*cough*)

OOC: A melee strike from a vehicle? It seems a total waste of mechanical parts. Your melee strike would do little good when an opposing vehicle blows off your useless melee-strike limb from long range with a high-velocity kinetic projectile, also known as an APFSDS round, or Armor Piercing Fin Stablized Discarding Sabot round, today's golden standard in heavy armor penetration. Combine that with the cost of manufacturing a vibrating blade out of diamond, of sufficent size to damage a vehicle, and multiply that with the number of vehicles to be outfitted that would be thus equipped, add the number of vehicles that would get close enough to get some use out of this implement, and subtract from that the total amount of avaliable diamond assets in the world today. It would equal a highly unrealistic waste of money.

It is always better to engage an opponent from range, as is evidenced by the fact that the human race now wages war with firearms, ballistic missiles, and biological weapons, rather than the axes, swords, and knives of old.

A wheel-mounted torso would present a larger target profile than a turreted tank. The number of weapons mounted on a vehicle has no bearing on how effective it is. The M1A1 Abrams tank has a 105mm main gun, a 7.62x51mm M60E4 machine gun, and a .50 caliber Browning M2 machine gun. The M60E4 seems to be a waste, as a larger caliber gun would be more effective against infantry, and the main cannon is only used on larger, armored targets. Why equip two guns of different caliber, or in the mech's case a bank of thermal-seeking missiles, a trio of plasma cannons, a multi-launch dumbfire rocket system, and a bank of large-caliber guns when the plasma cannons & thermal missles would be enough? If your vehicle encounters something of similar armament & combat role & is unable to deal with the threat, you would need to rethink your design, or perhaps design a vehicle that is specialized in dealing with such a threat.

You guys who are using Battletech as an example to demonstrate the superiority of mechs really need to play Battletech against a competent tank commander sometime.

The fastest ground units in the game are tanks.

The most heavily armored ground units in the game are tanks.

The most heavily armed ground units in the game are tanks.

The longest-ranged ground units in the game are tanks.

The most effective ground units in the game, in terms of bang for the buck, are tanks.

Mechs are a bit more versatile... you can use mechs in multiple roles where you'd need several different kinds of vehicles to accomplish the same things. There are very few roles where the mech is the best solution available, though. You can't combat-drop tanks from orbit, and your options with vehicles are severely limited in some hostile environments. Other than that... you can use mechs in the woods, but heavy tanks are better. You can use mechs in swamps, but hovertanks are better. You can use mechs in the mountains, but choppers are better. You can use mechs in the cities, but wheeled armor is better. You can use mechs underwater, but subs (even the puny ones BT has) are better. You can use mechs in shallow water, but hovercraft and hydrofoils are better.

And while mechs are usually more effective than tanks, ton for ton (though even that much isn't true with a sufficiently creative and bloody-minded tank commander), they don't even approach the effectiveness of tanks, dollar for dollar. Mechs are expensive, far more so than is justifiable by any improved performance. For the price of that Fafnir mentioned earlier, I could field an entire company of internal-combustion powered hovertanks, each with a Gauss rifle. They could outrun it, outrange it, and, collectively, outgun it (by a factor of about five!) and absorb far more punishment. Not to mention the advantages in deployment versatility of having twelve platforms instead of just one.

I've been playing Battletech for twenty years now. I started the year the game was released. My units have evolved over the years... I started out using mechs exclusively (there were no tank rules when I started!), but as the campaign went on and my commands got big enough that we were worrying about our own purchasing instead of taking whatever the House handed us, and the rules got expanded enough to support things other than mechs alone, the composition of my units changed significantly. The current backbone of my strength is conventional armor backed by a heavy aerospace presence, including dedicated combat dropships (no warships available yet in our timeline). I've got mechs, but they're only maybe a tenth of my nominal strength, and they're primarily shock troops, used where their ability to drop from orbit is necessary... either in establishing an initial landing zone, or as strategic mobility to redeploy them where they're needed after battle is joined (I make Priority One owning the sky, so I can move my dropships around at will, drop mechs wherever I feel like it). My armor does the bulk of the fighting, once the mechs have established a safe LZ to deploy it in.

My army fields very light mechs. Most of them are 10 to 20 tons, and under 30 feet. They work very well against infantry. Even though tanks could bring heavier weapons, and power armors are more cost effective, I find mechs to be my favorite. For one thing, I couldn't find anyone selling power armor when my army was forming and there are few future tech tanks to be found ever. Also, mechs have a certain psychological advantage over tanks. What enemy soldier is going ot stand their ground as a 20 ton, 30 foot tall mech is running at them shooting lasers and missiles? A mech is like the land based equivalent of Doujin class super dreadnoughts. While they could be destroyed, they are a frightening thing to face in battle.

An enemy soldier with an RPG can take one down, and besides, they're meat for aerospace forces. If you have complete and utter aerospace superiority and won't be losing it anytime soon, they're still a mixed bag.

Wazzu hasn't found anything larger then (small) powered armor to be useful in combat.

However, it has found mechs useful in other areas, particularly mining and construction. A 20 foot tall mech has better reach then a man, and the strength of a small crane. Such a vehicle can have any number of useful tools inside its torso or limbs, such as verious welders, grinders, bolt cutters, jackhammers, etc. Other attachments can be added with ease as well, such as a shovel for digging much more quickly then a backhoe is able, or pick your futuristic laser/sonic/plasma/whatever drill/cutter to make overly large rocks much easier to handle.

So mechs have their place...combat just isn't it.

-The Cardboard Avenger

Wazzu hasn't found anything larger then (small) powered armor to be useful in combat.

However, it has found mechs useful in other areas, particularly mining and construction. A 20 foot tall mech has better reach then a man, and the strength of a small crane. Such a vehicle can have any number of useful tools inside its torso or limbs, such as verious welders, grinders, bolt cutters, jackhammers, etc. Other attachments can be added with ease as well, such as a shovel for digging much more quickly then a backhoe is able, or pick your futuristic laser/sonic/plasma/whatever drill/cutter to make overly large rocks much easier to handle.

So mechs have their place...combat just isn't it.

-The Cardboard Avenger

I use mechs for their versatility. They can practically go anywhere. Where as a tank can carry more firepower, they are far less mobile. Or perhaps I should say they aren't as useful in such a variety of terrains.

I use mechs for their versatility. They can practically go anywhere. Where as a tank can carry more firepower, they are far less mobile. Or perhaps I should say they aren't as useful in such a variety of terrains.

OOC:

Both tanks and mechs are hindered by rough terrrain. Go take a walk in the bush sometimes. Do you really think a mech would be able to navigate through trees and over deadfall so easily? Most likely, the blasted thing will trip, to say nothing of the noise it would make crashing around. And rivers will stop a mech just as easily as a tank.

Infantry is the best for versatility.

1. This is a game

2. Realism is secondary

3. Fun is primary

4. Hence, I suggest suspension of disbelief, and, if possible, ending such discussions

Because:

5. Mecha are shiny

OOC: A melee strike from a vehicle? It seems a total waste of mechanical parts. Your melee strike would do little good when an opposing vehicle blows off your useless melee-strike limb from long range with a high-velocity kinetic projectile, also known as an APFSDS round, or Armor Piercing Fin Stablized Discarding Sabot round, today's golden standard in heavy armor penetration. Combine that with the cost of manufacturing a vibrating blade out of diamond, of sufficent size to damage a vehicle, and multiply that with the number of vehicles to be outfitted that would be thus equipped, add the number of vehicles that would get close enough to get some use out of this implement, and subtract from that the total amount of avaliable diamond assets in the world today. It would equal a highly unrealistic waste of money.

It is always better to engage an opponent from range, as is evidenced by the fact that the human race now wages war with firearms, ballistic missiles, and biological weapons, rather than the axes, swords, and knives of old.

A wheel-mounted torso would present a larger target profile than a turreted tank. The number of weapons mounted on a vehicle has no bearing on how effective it is. The M1A1 Abrams tank has a 105mm main gun, a 7.62x51mm M60E4 machine gun, and a .50 caliber Browning M2 machine gun. The M60E4 seems to be a waste, as a larger caliber gun would be more effective against infantry, and the main cannon is only used on larger, armored targets. Why equip two guns of different caliber, or in the mech's case a bank of thermal-seeking missiles, a trio of plasma cannons, a multi-launch dumbfire rocket system, and a bank of large-caliber guns when the plasma cannons & thermal missles would be enough? If your vehicle encounters something of similar armament & combat role & is unable to deal with the threat, you would need to rethink your design, or perhaps design a vehicle that is specialized in dealing with such a threat.

OOC: Humor is wasted on the humorless. Also, look at my other posts. I PREFER tanks. A heavy railgun would take a tank down. Actually, a good shot with a rifle would.

If you decided to build a tank with the same tech as a BT mech... but NOT using BT vehicle design rules, which are horribly biased, ton for ton the tank will be better. Imagine all of the mogots and myomer bundles required to make the mech move, and the fusion reactor it carries. Compare it to the mass of a track system. Compare the mass of the arms to that of a turret. Place the pilot inside the vehicle instead of in the vulnerable head. Then consider the amound of armor that is wasted on extranious parts of the mech; legs, arms, head... and place that armor on the tank. The tank will be harder to hit, faster, and have heavier armor.

gundam background requires some kind of strange SUPER metall
(thats quite hard to explain with the laws of physic and nature)

Im quite into physics and modern technology studing in that direction (also im not very good in english ;) )
Battle tech is by far the most realistic describtion of mech tech u can find (imho) also u should keep in mind that fusion reactors dont explode (a fact that the battletech authors know... they said they kept the big boom just for more fun and effects)

the BT mechs are based on a heavy frame made of some steel composits and aloys generaly around 10% weight of the fully equipped mech or out of endosteel a zero-G manufactured steel product at around 5% weight but with much more space needed (and more expensive)
into this frame the internal components are included: fusion reactor, gyro, sensors, cockpit, com, targeting sys, heatsinks and life support system.
over the skeletal frame there are some counterpart to muscles called mymer some polymerchains that will produce tension when put under voltage. Also some devices called acuators (or so i havent played it in english) will exactly do that and controll the musscles and coordinate them with the skeletal frame. Over all this theres the armour normaly a double layer one with reflectiv heat absorbing fibers (vs energy weapons like plasma lasers ppcs) and a ballistic protection against ACs MGs and rockets. Also possible is a (again zero-G produced) ferro-fibrous armour a steel/iron armour that contains fibers who will take the armour together after heavy hits (remember the system of car glas when it breakes)

well the gyro is also linked to the ballance system of the pilot so he can help the computer of his mech with his natural sense of ballance (the stuff that alowes us to walk bipedal)

About stealth:
well u can ofc use the same stuff the modern stealth fighters/bombers use against radar... the radar wont be able to detect the shape then.
But IR will deffo detect the reactor and the energy weapons. Also i would strongly recomment magnetical anomaly detectors that will detect large masses of magnetical mettals easyly ( a 100t mech with some iron/steel components ie :P) also a neutron radiation detector or something compareable will be able to track the signature of the reactor

EDIT: there is no bombast laser in BT its an invention of MW4 and was removed for the addons

First things first. We must understand that BattleTech, Gundam, mecha, is all Science FICTION. Ficitional things are never meant to be true, they stick around because of some creative figment of somebody's imagiantion. IF someone wants to use Mechs, why not? If it is claimed that they are better than tanks, why not?

We're probably getting down to earth here, you know, and stuff, but I'm a BT fan (And a Fafnir fan too! :P) myself. I indulge in Gundams too, so yea, I'm gonna use Mecha and no one's gonna stop us sci-fi fans from doing it. :P

And whoever said 'Mech pilots have to be palced SOLELY inside the head? Not all 'Mech cockpits are located in the head...

Another point of contention, just to show off some of my Gundam knowledge and stuff (*evil grin*):

In Gundam Wing, the armour material is a strange metal knowna s the Gundanium Alloy, prolly came from the moon or something. :P Gundarium is used in a certain Universal Century series, I forgot which. But in Gundam SEED, they just use normal metals; however they are protected by this weird thing known as Phase Shift Armour (I'm using the British spelling around here) Check out www.gundamofficial.com for details.

I understand that they are sci fi. But there's sci fi and there's sci fi. If you want GOOD military sci fi, check out David Weber and david drake. Weber does the Honor Harrington series, probably the best space opera ever (until the current books...) and david drake does the powerful, disturbing Hammer's Slammers series. If you want to find something that can wipe the floor with a mech, the Hammer's tanks are the thing to do it.

I'm sorry... not all pilots are put in the head. Just most BT ones. My real point is why do you need to anthropormophise a war machine. Cut off the silly decorations like arms and legs, install a reasonable motive system, and you'll have a ligher, better weapon.

A prominent member of the Letilan spacefleet has this to say on Mechs:

"Mechs? Those won't even penetrate the ship's magnetic field. Don't they know that?

It's the coördinators that scare us, not mobile suits! We can so totally pwn any and all mechs sent against us."

Meh... Weber tries to force man-o'-war naval combat on the three-dimensional battlespace. While internally consistent, if I want to read Fire Broadsides For The Empire! I'll read the original: Horatio Hornblower.

Still, it doesn't matter. One can argue about technical feasibility as much as one wants to, but this neglects the basic point on why people want to anthropomorphize fighting machines: Giant robots are cool.

That's it. Anything past that is just concentration on minutae or people rationalizing what is, in essence, an irrational logic. I like giant robots. I think they're unfeasible, but that doesn't keep me from setting aside reality for a moment and basking in the basic coolness of giant robots.

If someone doesn't like mecha, fine--don't play with people who use mecha. If someone likes mecha, fine--don't impose too hard on the people who don't. For the people willing to experiment, just go with the usual concept of mecha being tanks-plus: Higher elevation to fire from, superior mobility, and greater fragility around the joints and stuff. This is about the thirty-second time (no joke) I've seen this exact thread, and it's all been said before.

My two cents: Just don't worry about it. Everyone's gonna play how they want to.

-- Hearty Aerospace Pirate Cap'n Scolo

(Oh, come on, it's good space opera, especially the early ones. I admit... CS Forrester is is far superior, but I do like watching as honor continues to lose body parts... she's turning into nelson, not hornblower.)

I think that there should be some way to compare mecha with tanks... simply saying 'if you can't play nice, don't play' doesn't really help. Tanks are overall superior, though mechs are far better in bad terrain or in space... (my futuretech contingent can't use tanks in space... they're based on the Slammer's blowers). Even in urban enviroments, I'd bet on the mech... or rather, bet on the infantry, then on the mech. Tanks don't like cities.

And there is the basic comparison, which I mentioned:
For the people willing to experiment, just go with the usual concept of mecha being tanks-plus: Higher elevation to fire from, superior mobility, and greater fragility around the joints and stuff.
Even if you're willing to grant someone that 'Mech A has heavier torso armor, say, than Tank B, it's reasonable to assume that 'Mech A's joint armor is at most as strong as, say, Tank B's turret collar (which is generally quite thin--there's a good reason why modern tanks are designed so the bottom of the turret almost scrapes against the top of the hull) and most probably quite less if the joint is articulated for more than one degree of freedom. So 'Mech A's smart commander will try to use terrain to his advantage by covering those weak joints while Tank B's smart commander will try to target those joints and draw Mech A into positions where it becomes vulnerable.

Kitsylvania once said something along the lines of "an AK-47 will kill you just as dead as a quantum photonic plasma beam rifle." Players who find themselves in this circumstance should probably get together, come up with an understanding of relative strengths and weaknesses, agree upon it OOC, and have at it. If someone says "nuh-uh my stuff is better and here's the math" out of spite, screw 'em. When's the last time good drama or good military fiction had to deal with frame structural analysis and linear vibration differential equations? Ignore the fact this omes from an engineer. ;)

And yes... it is a matter of play nice or don't play at all. It always is--if people aren't playing nice, then what's the point? It's just a game, people, and not exactly one where winning or losing is clearly defined past the individual's own opinion of it... which doesn't make it so much of a 'game' as it does a 'toy...'

But that's a different matter altogether.

Please people!! remember one thing:

NationStates is make believe, not real life.

In the onset of powered flight the Wright brothers were told that their dream of flying was impossible.. tripulated flight to the moon was seen as just a dream, an IBM director said that there was a worldwide market for only about 4 computers and Bill Gates said once that computers were never going to need more than 640Kb of memory.

All this is fantasy, true, mech are rather unfeasible from a technical stand point.. now.. but who knows what kind of technologies will be developed in the future that maybe they will be possible some day from now.
Just like faster than light travel in Star Trek or other fantastic things in plenty of sci-fi shows.

Some might be possible, other will just be that. A dream.

You dont like some other nation using some hardware on your RPs? well, set a ground rule that it cannot be used, that you want to use "normal" armament and such.

Imagine what would have been of humanity as a whole if someone said "it cannot be done!" and they listened to him.. frag, we'd still be wearing skins and hunting with stones and bits of sharpened bone and wood and living in caverns.

Many of the "technologies" used by players in NS are considered unprobable, unrealistic, unfeasible and godmod.
Yet, i dont see you griping about, dragons, elves and orcs and such. Well, you want reality?

Then turn off your computer and get out of your house. ;)

This is a Fantastic setting (NationStates) to play, interact and socialize with those of us that share a common theme we like.

Oh, and if you can see the future and say "that will never be posible" then pass me the winning lotery numbers while you are at it. :)

My $.02 Varos.

Please people!! remember one thing:

My $.02 Varos.

Look, everyone knows that NS is not real. The problems arise when trying to agree on what something can do between players of different tech levels. Why do guys like you think that people who are trying to find a common ground among different settings in order to aide interaction among players think they are trying to stifle the imagination?

Very good point that cuts through all the talk.

Get together with the person you are RPing with and get the weaknesses and strengths of each others forces set in stone. Let the readers wonder what will happen!!!

You guys who are using Battletech as an example to demonstrate the superiority of mechs really need to play Battletech against a competent tank commander sometime.

The fastest ground units in the game are tanks.

The most heavily armored ground units in the game are tanks.

The most heavily armed ground units in the game are tanks.

The longest-ranged ground units in the game are tanks.

The most effective ground units in the game, in terms of bang for the buck, are tanks.

Mechs are a bit more versatile... you can use mechs in multiple roles where you'd need several different kinds of vehicles to accomplish the same things. There are very few roles where the mech is the best solution available, though. You can't combat-drop tanks from orbit, and your options with vehicles are severely limited in some hostile environments. Other than that... you can use mechs in the woods, but heavy tanks are better. You can use mechs in swamps, but hovertanks are better. You can use mechs in the mountains, but choppers are better. You can use mechs in the cities, but wheeled armor is better. You can use mechs underwater, but subs (even the puny ones BT has) are better. You can use mechs in shallow water, but hovercraft and hydrofoils are better.

And while mechs are usually more effective than tanks, ton for ton (though even that much isn't true with a sufficiently creative and bloody-minded tank commander), they don't even approach the effectiveness of tanks, dollar for dollar. Mechs are expensive, far more so than is justifiable by any improved performance. For the price of that Fafnir mentioned earlier, I could field an entire company of internal-combustion powered hovertanks, each with a Gauss rifle. They could outrun it, outrange it, and, collectively, outgun it (by a factor of about five!) and absorb far more punishment. Not to mention the advantages in deployment versatility of having twelve platforms instead of just one.

I've been playing Battletech for twenty years now. I started the year the game was released. My units have evolved over the years... I started out using mechs exclusively (there were no tank rules when I started!), but as the campaign went on and my commands got big enough that we were worrying about our own purchasing instead of taking whatever the House handed us, and the rules got expanded enough to support things other than mechs alone, the composition of my units changed significantly. The current backbone of my strength is conventional armor backed by a heavy aerospace presence, including dedicated combat dropships (no warships available yet in our timeline). I've got mechs, but they're only maybe a tenth of my nominal strength, and they're primarily shock troops, used where their ability to drop from orbit is necessary... either in establishing an initial landing zone, or as strategic mobility to redeploy them where they're needed after battle is joined (I make Priority One owning the sky, so I can move my dropships around at will, drop mechs wherever I feel like it). My armor does the bulk of the fighting, once the mechs have established a safe LZ to deploy it in.


Yar! I <3 you. You field BT tech the way I do. ^_^

I can't belive some people are actually trying to use examples from science fiction to prove that mechs are better than tanks.

Realisticly, tanks will always be superrior, if built with the same level of technology and by a compotent engineering team, for the reasons mentioned above, and more.

There are only two exceptions;

1)Very light mechs, which are basicly large suits of powered armour.

2) If you're fighting a protracted campaign on Giant Stair World. Tho you could always develop a stair-climbing tank akin to some police and bomb desposal robots.

As for mecha in space, damnit, that's what fighters are for; limbs only result in extra complication and mass, which add expense, maintaince, and mass, the later of which slows you down.

And if you're talking about future tech, a mech looses it's small terrain-crossing advantage(in soft terrain, a mech is worse than a tank, yaknow; higher ground pressure 'cause of the comparitivly small feet vs treads) as soon as someone whips out a heavy hover tank, or grav tank.



Of course, I only have a problem with those insisting that mechs are realisticly superrior in some way; future tech is science fiction, after all, so the laws of physics already find themselves taking a back seat to style and personal taste.

*cough* Akira *cough*

One kilometer of nasty packed with enough weapons to rip any battleship a new one. Ever see a 40kg+ shell fired from 8 kilometers in the sky at 4km/sec?

actually, when you start building naval guns with greater than about 18" diameter, you start getting diminishing returns. As in, rate at which the performance of the gun increases starts falling after you get to about 18"

So really, anything bigger than about 20" really isn't that worth it.

Small mechs are believable, but I simply do not continue an RP when someone claims to be modern tech and insists on using large mechs. Small mechs would be good anti-infantry and scout weapons, but when people try to use mechs like they would tanks, it's just ridiculous. First of all, mechs would be easy to destroy because of the lack of armor (because you can't put much on them because they won't be able to stand or move) and easy to destroy, because their center of gravity is so high and all you need to do is knock out the legs. But people who use them won't admit that, so it just turns into godmoding.

Actually, the reason mechs shouldn't be as heavily armoured as tanks isn't specificly because of weight, but surface area; mechs typicly have something like 80% more surface area, which means you'd need atleast 80% more armour to net the same protection(which would be countered by your rediculously high target profile); weight, bulk, and cost.

I never understand why people don't get the following fact:

Real World = Real World.

NS = NS.

NS (does not equal) Real World.

If someone really wants to have a huge killer robot does that matter to you?

I never understand why people don't get the following fact:

Real World = Real World.

NS = NS.

NS (does not equal) Real World.

If someone really wants to have a huge killer robot does that matter to you?

I only care when they try and claim that combat mecha will be a realisticly feasible alternative to tanks in the future.

Let's all detract from the roleplay aspect of nationstates, wank about how much more OMG INTELLIGNET ABOUT TEH MILITARY TAHN OTHERS we are and pointlessly bitch about tech somewhere else, shall we?