NationStates Jolt Archive

I feel that this might be the best forumn to make this proposal. I had read one previously reagarding mecha, which in my opinion are too god-like and horribly unrealistic. I know my nation is small and probably can't produce these machines, but I reserve the production rights for these machines. I was curious on your opinion on these machines, I belive that they are feasible and highly realistic.

RADHA
http://www.mahq.net/mecha/patlabor/patlabormovie2/radha.jpg

AL-97S Improved "Hannibal"
http://www.mahq.net/mecha/patlabor/patlabormovie2/al-97s.jpg

Road Runner
http://www.mahq.net/mecha/patlabor/patlabormovie2/roadrunner.jpg

This is mostly a bump, but if approved pricing and data will go up when my nation is at the capacity to develop them.

Would you say that any of these units are plausible for modern RP? The RADHA and Road Runner look reasonable.

They look reasonable, but also vlunerable.

The Road Runner seems to lack heavy armor (as well as being a taller target)

The RADHA's legs look pretty vlunerable too.

But you deserve Kudos for trying to RP mecha realisticly.

The RADHA and Road Runner look like jokes, the wheeled legs would be very vulnerable. However, the AL-97S would be acceptable provided its stats werent' godmodded.

When mechs (not mecha) used to be in my army (decommissioned due to so many people arguing about the practicalities of bipedal tanks), I used mechs from the BattleTech universe. As far as realistic mechs (oxymoron) go, BattleTech is your best bet.

My nation is currently developing a mecha that is sort of like the ones in the Matrix movies, except more conservative of ammunition, shoulder missile attachments, and a cockpit that keeps the pilots safe from being shot and having their units hijacked by monkeys.

I believe that the RHADA and Hannibal both have high combat potential. The RHADA functioning as a quick strike urban assualt unit (Though it could be adapted to other terrain) and the Hannibal serving as a main strike weapon. Of course it's 20mm Gattling gun can't compare to the cannon of a tank, the machine could still serve as a psychological weapon as well, against enemy infantry. The Hannibal itself isn't much taller than the RHADA. The Road Runner on the other hand would function as a police/riot control unit, and would not be called into combat unless the battle came to it.

*double posted*

These Are amazing pics, Quite plausible, I would agree the 'RADHA' Would be best suited for support actions, and definatly not for front line combat, The RoadRunner is also, sadly, unsuitable for any true combat, it is simply to spindly, but it would be excellent for Police actions and riot control.

Very good Job Avadria, While a new nation and small industry, you have our full support for these units, I await any other proposals you have. If the look promising, I would think of entering into a business venture with your corporations.

DP

As far as I'm concerned, wheeled and tracked vehicles are far more efficient (not to mention a damn sight faster) than walkers, unless you give walkers the benefit of 'magic technology' that allows them to actually function practically.

Wheeled vehicles are more stable due to the lower centre of gravity, are less likely to be damaged or put out of action by small amounts of damage, are capable of greater speeds, and with modern tech, are able to support much heavier armour, weapons, and ammunition. The benefits of walkers over wheeled and tracked vehicles, even in a future tech environment, are slim to none.

The reason people like mechs is because they look nice. In reality, they just wouldn't be practical.

Wheeled and tracked vehicles are more efficient on a road or plains type of enviroment. What happens if you get stuck in hilly or swampy terrain? A bi/quadrupedal vehicle could traverse such inclimate terrain much more efficiently than a tank or jeep. Tanks and other similar vehicles are vlunerable to tank traps and wide trenches. Mechs aren't.

Wheeled and tracked vehicles are more efficient on a road or plains type of enviroment. What happens if you get stuck in hilly or swampy terrain? A bi/quadrupedal vehicle could traverse such inclimate terrain much more efficiently than a tank or jeep. Tanks and other similar vehicles are vlunerable to tank traps and wide trenches. Mechs aren't.

What makes you think legged vehicles would be capable of traversing this kind of terrain? They might do it in sci-fi, but in sci-fi they don't have to obey the laws of physics.

Mechs are vulnerable to a whole load of other things, such as tripwires. Also, I can't imagine them bulldozing through a brick wall like a tank can.

Wheeled and tracked vehicles are more efficient on a road or plains type of enviroment. What happens if you get stuck in hilly or swampy terrain? A bi/quadrupedal vehicle could traverse such inclimate terrain much more efficiently than a tank or jeep. Tanks and other similar vehicles are vlunerable to tank traps and wide trenches. Mechs aren't.Which is why you never go with one or the other... Use massive treaded tanks for most Terrain. Wheeled walkers for cities and open Planes. And small Walker Mechs for extreme terrain when others cannot penetrate

Hannibals in action firing chaff to divert RPG rockets.
http://www.rapideyemovies.de/movies/patlabor-2/images/img_03n.jpg

Bipedal mechs wouldn't necessarily be vulnerable to tripwires, unless it was a very tough cable or something. Mines and such they would definately be affected. But they would and do obey physics to a point.

Wheeled and tracked vehicles are more efficient on a road or plains type of enviroment. What happens if you get stuck in hilly or swampy terrain? A bi/quadrupedal vehicle could traverse such inclimate terrain much more efficiently than a tank or jeep. Tanks and other similar vehicles are vlunerable to tank traps and wide trenches. Mechs aren't.Which is why you never go with one or the other... Use massive treaded tanks for most Terrain. Wheeled walkers for cities and open Planes. And small Walker Mechs for extreme terrain when others cannot penetrate

Wheeled armoured cars/AFVs would work better than wheeled walkers in city environments and open plains.

I think the current level of robotics technology will leave you severely disappointed, with regards to covering extreme terrain. Infantry would be more efficient than such a vehicle, especially since it won't be able to move fast enough to give rocket launchers and ATGMs a hard time hitting it.

Seriously, these things look good, but the laws of physics lay some major smack down on their ability to work outside a comic.

What makes you think bipedal vehicles would be capable of traversing this kind of terrain? They might do it in sci-fi, but in sci-fi they don't have to obey the laws of physics.

Mechs are vulnerable to a whole load of other things, such as tripwires.

Mechs are certainly vulnerable to trip wires. Just as they are vulnerable to plenty of things. Just like tanks are vulnerable to plenty of things. Nothing is invincible.

Now, as for the Bipedal vehicles versus terrain types:
A bipedal mech could climb hills much like a human could. If it had hands, it could probably climb much steeper hills than an equivelent tank.

Tanks are proven to be rather ineffective when it comes to wet terrain that has water that is too deep to ford (without a fording kit and snorkel.) A mech, as it is much taller than an equivelent tank, can stand in 8 foot deep water and still have its engine above the waterline, meaning you don't need a fording kit. Not to mention that mechs don't have treads that can get gummed up with all sorts of mud and crap.

Also, mechs are more manouverable than tanks (not faster, they can just change direction quickly than an equivelent tank.)

Now I'm not saying that mechs are perfect, they certainly aren't, but they have a place in a near future/far future line up.

(Ohh yeah, I forget the intimidation value. :))

Edit: Current robotics technology is under developed. If we devoted half as much money to robotics as we did to tanks, we'd have a versatile mech within ten years. (Or rather, if a nation chose to develope robotics instead of conventional tanks for example.) The only reason why tanks are better at this point in time is that they have been developed over the past hundred years, while robotics is a relatively new field.

Well said CF, as of now it is simply a matter of perspective of Mechs vs. Tanks, Many see walkers as impractical because, with modern tech, they 'ARE' impractical, but that does not mean impossible, nor does it mean that they will never be practicle, as with all things they have good and bad points. If you shoot anything with a Tow missile, it will blow up, be it a Walker, or an M1 Abram’s Tank... The mechs proposed here really is, with appropriate tech, quite practical under 'certain' uses, they are by no means a magic bullet, but can be useful.

Precisely Crossroads. I by no means meant these as machines to dominate the battlefield. They would function as and/or with tanks in combat. They aren't meant to be the end all to warfare. They are just combat units... walking tanks if you will.

Now, as for the Bipedal vehicles versus terrain types:
A bipedal mech could climb hills much like a human could. If it had hands, it could probably climb much steeper hills than an equivelent tank.

Like I said before, maybe in sci-fi. In reality, robotics technology comes nowhere even remotely close to offering the same degree of agility as a human being. You would have to use severely futuristic tech to achieve this. Infantry would be much more effective over extreme terrain, and would cut these vehicles to pieces; they would essentially offer none of the advantages that armoured vehicles offer in modern warfare. You might as well use helicopters.

Note that all mars/lunar etc. rover vehicles have been wheeled, and vehicles used by NASA will most likely represent the cutting edge of practical robotics.

Tanks are proven to be rather ineffective when it comes to wet terrain that has water that is too deep to ford (without a fording kit and snorkel.) A mech, as it is much taller than an equivelent tank, can stand in 8 foot deep water and still have its engine above the waterline, meaning you don't need a fording kit. Not to mention that mechs don't have treads that can get gummed up with all sorts of mud and crap.

You would need extremely powerful motors, far beyond the capabilities of modern tech, to wade out through 8 foot deep water, as well as remaining stable in the process. Also, a mech that tall would have a high target profile, and would be practically the most vulnerable and useless thing on the battlefield. Far enough into the future for that concept to work, and we'd probably have anti-gravity technology to solve that kind of terrain problem.

Also, mechs are more manouverable than tanks (not faster, they can just change direction quickly than an equivelent tank.)

Do you actually know anything about the maneouverability of tanks? They can turn on the spot. Again, you're declaring that mechs can do this, not based on modern tech (because no modern tech walkers can outmaneouver a tank), but based on the performance of walkers in sci-fi.

Now I'm not saying that mechs are perfect, they certainly aren't, but they have a place in a near future/far future line up.

I really don't think so. They are aesthetically pleasing, and that's all. It's like the idea of blimp aircraft carriers. They work on paper, but as soon as you try to make them work, they fall apart due to uncooperative laws of physics, and the inability of engineering to provide the performance required.

Edit: Current robotics technology is under developed. If we devoted half as much money to robotics as we did to tanks, we'd have a versatile mech within ten years.

It is only 'under-developed' compared to what you want it to be. Robotics is not economically worth developing to that extent in so short a time, solely to produce a mech (with the only rationale being that you find mechs aesthetically pleasing), when modern tanks and APVs do their jobs far, far more efficiently, and will do for years to come (assuming guided missiles don't render all armoured vehicles obsolete).

Mechs=Pretty. Tanks=efficient.

Precisely Crossroads. I by no means meant these as machines to dominate the battlefield. They would function as and/or with tanks in combat. They aren't meant to be the end all to warfare. They are just combat units... walking tanks if you will.

But they really aren't worth using when they are not as efficient as already existing, and much less mechanically complex vehicles that already exist. There really is no role for these vehicles that isn't already filled by a more efficient design.

I don't want to rain on your parade - I actually love mechs. I just see that they're about as practical as a chocolate teapot.

Go for whatever you think will make your military unique. Even if it is not "perfect" by physics standards. Remember: the nationstates world is not our normal Earth. It's thousands of times larger. Larger= either more mass, and therefore more gravity and magnetic field (you could use electromagnets to stabilize these things possibly, or graviton beams if you want to get really advanced), or less density (which would kinda not be good for anything heavy, so I tend to go with the former.) Other physical laws would probaly be different too.

Me, to make my military unique, use for infantry some technologies that are slated for within the next 25-30 years and are on the drawing board now. Vehicles, I take advantage of the presumed increase in the magnetic field to use magnetic levitation vehicles. I've got a bunch of other things making this country unique. Same with all my others.

A unique country is much more fun to play than just another US/UK/France/Germany/Japan/Russia/etc. Make your country as unique as you have the time to. It'll pay off.

Remember: the nationstates world is not our normal Earth. It's thousands of times larger. Larger= either more mass, and therefore more gravity and magnetic field (you could use electromagnets to stabilize these things possibly, or graviton beams if you want to get really advanced), or less density (which would kinda not be good for anything heavy, so I tend to go with the former.) Other physical laws would probaly be different too.

I take the opposite view - I don't believe there is a 'NS world'. I'm ignoring so many nations, that there probably aren't enough left to populate the RL earth. Everyone's idea of the world they're RPing in is different. If you go declaring that there is a 'canon' NS world, and that everything is different, then EVERYTHING should be different, not just the bits you want an excuse to make different.

I subscribe to the multiple worlds theory, whereby all the nations fit on many different earth-sized worlds in alternate dimensions. This takes into allowance all the different nations who are ignoring each other. Therefore, any nation I disagree with, can go in a different dimension to me :D

Sorry, but I will generally rip into any attempt to use 'The NS world' as a basis for an argument, because the 'NS world' as such is not physically possible.

As for the UK/France/Russia clone argument, if you want to play NS as an intelligent political and economic simulation, not to mention a study of culture and human masses, then these countries make good templates. I'd rather that, than be part of a "My tank is better than your tank!" type world, which is what half the mentality on NS seems to be. The constant need to have better, more unrealistic technology of doom than other people, while ignoring the fact that it's roleplay and the human element that makes it fun, not piles of technology.

I will admit that my main reason to have mechs in my armed forces, is for the fact that I do like the way they look. Sure they may be impractical, but they are by no means any weapon of doom, and these machines are by far more realistic than the ones certain people are trying to pass off (The Gundam kid). But I agree with Feline, in that it is good to have your military unique and differed from others.

Yea, He has us on one thing... What it really comes down to is "Mechs Look Cool” But Hey, isn’t part of NS having fun? And its not like godmodding, If this mech has the exact same strength and weakness as a Mech, and it 'IS" after all just an Online Text based RP, what’s the difference between a tank and a Mech?

I agree, Things like Gundums are just plain silly, completly and wholly impractical, especially if you use their base powers (IE Taking on whole armies with just one) Its silly, But these Do have a more realistic approach to them Especially the Wheeled mechs.

mechs won't get you anywhere i know i've tried it myself and got
ABSOLUTLY NOTHING my brother kept on saying GODMODDER to me over and over and over untill i couldn't take it anymore and went krazy
i threw things around and broke doors and did nothing at weekends exept lie in bed wimpering softly and thinking godnodder GODMODDER GOOODDDMMMMMOOODER SO STOP BEFORE IT HAPPENEDS TO YOU!!!

Like I said before, maybe in sci-fi. In reality, robotics technology comes nowhere even remotely close to offering the same degree of agility as a human being. You would have to use severely futuristic tech to achieve this. Infantry would be much more effective over extreme terrain, and would cut these vehicles to pieces; they would essentially offer none of the advantages that armoured vehicles offer in modern warfare. You might as well use helicopters.

Note that all mars/lunar etc. rover vehicles have been wheeled, and vehicles used by NASA will most likely represent the cutting edge of practical robotics.

The thing here is that currently, robotics are underdeveloped. If a nation (such as this one that realisticly can't have a big R&D program) decided to research robotics instead of traditional tank/tread based propulsion, then their robotics (and hence mech) technology would be much more advanced than it is today, but it would still be considered modern for them as they lack virtually any knowldage on 'normal' tread based vehicles. So they could sacrifice their ability to produce tanks for the ability to produce effective mechs.

You would need extremely powerful motors, far beyond the capabilities of modern tech, to wade out through 8 foot deep water, as well as remaining stable in the process. Also, a mech that tall would have a high target profile, and would be practically the most vulnerable and useless thing on the battlefield. Far enough into the future for that concept to work, and we'd probably have anti-gravity technology to solve that kind of terrain problem.

A mech would only need a much bigger motor than a standard tank, but it can be done with modern tech. Now you are quite right about a mech's high target profile, but then again, everything has weaknesses, even tanks. A tank's turret can only track so fast, and a mech using well developed robotics technology (not the crap we have today) could probably out manouver it.


Do you actually know anything about the maneouverability of tanks? They can turn on the spot. Again, you're declaring that mechs can do this, not based on modern tech (because no modern tech walkers can outmaneouver a tank), but based on the performance of walkers in sci-fi.

Tanks can only turn when they are moving (well, some can turn while stationary but not too well.) and they cannot turn in big angles (such as a 180 degree turn) as well as an equivelent walker could. A walker merely has to pivot on its legs, and shabang, off it goes. A tank has to move foward and twist its treads (or twist the wheels inside the tracks) in such a way as to move in the desired direction. You are quite right that current, 2004 technology, in the US or any other nation which has not focused on robotics for their military, cannot produce walkers that even approach the efficiency of tanks.



I really don't think so. They are aesthetically pleasing, and that's all. It's like the idea of blimp aircraft carriers. They work on paper, but as soon as you try to make them work, they fall apart due to uncooperative laws of physics, and the inability of engineering to provide the performance required.

That is your opinion. I'm not going to try and disuade you of it.
Actually, when tanks were first designed, no one thought they would work either. Just like nobody thought we could put a man into space. Where there is a will, there is a way.


It is only 'under-developed' compared to what you want it to be. Robotics is not economically worth developing to that extent in so short a time, solely to produce a mech (with the only rationale being that you find mechs aesthetically pleasing), when modern tanks and APVs do their jobs far, far more efficiently, and will do for years to come (assuming guided missiles don't render all armoured vehicles obsolete).

Mechs=Pretty. Tanks=efficient.

It is only "under-developed" compared to normal tank based systems. Tanks have had almost one hundred years to be refined. If you took a nation which specialized in tanks, and a nation which specialized in mechs instead of tanks, you would probably find that they are fairly equal. Sure the mechs have disadvantages, but tanks do as well. If a nation really wanted modern tech mechs, they would have to give up something else, such as tanks, but they could be done.

Once again, mechs are only inefficient due to the fact that they haven't been really developed to their extent. The first tanks were really inefficient, and the first mechs will be as well. But once the basic problems are addressed (by good design) in both mechs and tanks, they both become effective killing implements.

On a side note, I try not to ignore anyone with the exception of n00bs who have "billion man armies" or such. Sure I'll be forced to interact with nations that have uber gravships and mecha out the wazzo, but that makes for intresting RPing. And nothing is invlunerable, it just takes good tactical thinking to get rid of it. Just like future tech isn't invluerable to modern tech. Why not try RPing with all these nations that you ignore, you may be pleasantly surprised by the quality and intrest of RP to be had in such situations.

OOC:
I'm gonna do this 'cos they look so damn cool!

IC:
Kriegorgrad would like to lend aid in the manufacture and design of the Hannibal and RADHA units, Please TG if your interested.

-Kriegor Zan Varr

The thing here is that currently, robotics are underdeveloped. If a nation (such as this one that realisticly can't have a big R&D program) decided to research robotics instead of traditional tank/tread based propulsion, then their robotics (and hence mech) technology would be much more advanced than it is today, but it would still be considered modern for them as they lack virtually any knowldage on 'normal' tread based vehicles. So they could sacrifice their ability to produce tanks for the ability to produce effective mechs.

Robotics are not underdeveloped! You are only claiming they are, because the technology is not advanced enough at present to do what you want it to.

Robotics are not an equally viable historical alternative to tanks. Tanks are very low tech and simple - the basis of a tank is an internal combustion engine, treaded wheels, armour plating, and a big gun. That's why they were invented in 1916, when even basic robotics was just a far off dream.

Robotics relies heavily on modern advances such as computers and synthetic materials. These are areas that are not underdeveloped (particularly computers). Claiming that robotics is underdeveloped is extremely naive. Advanced robotics are used in many areas of industry, for manufacturing, among other things. It can only progress in efficiency as fast as the other fields of technology that support it (computers, etc). To claim robotics is underdeveloped, is to claim that all technology is underdeveloped. And all technology will always be underdeveloped compared to what will come 100 years later.

Just because modern tech doesn't do whatever you want, does not make it 'underdeveloped'.

A mech would only need a much bigger motor than a standard tank, but it can be done with modern tech. Now you are quite right about a mech's high target profile, but then again, everything has weaknesses, even tanks. A tank's turret can only track so fast, and a mech using well developed robotics technology (not the crap we have today) could probably out manouver it.

This assumes that future tanks will not benefit from futuristic technology also and maintain their advantage. This same futuristic technology can be used to improve the performance of tanks as well, you know.

Putting huge motors into these vehicles, for the sole purpose of fording ability, seems impractical, and by the time technology is sufficient to make these vehicles even remotely practical, tanks will be perfectly amphibious anyway, thus negating that advantage.

In battlefield environments, just about everything going (tanks, infantry, etc) will completely trounce mechs; they really wouldn't offer much advantage in roles already filled by wheeled or tracked vehicles. Plus, they'd be so slow that it'd take months to deploy them anywhere.

Tanks can only turn when they are moving (well, some can turn while stationary but not too well.) and they cannot turn in big angles (such as a 180 degree turn) as well as an equivelent walker could. A walker merely has to pivot on its legs, and shabang, off it goes. A tank has to move foward and twist its treads (or twist the wheels inside the tracks) in such a way as to move in the desired direction. You are quite right that current, 2004 technology, in the US or any other nation which has not focused on robotics for their military, cannot produce walkers that even approach the efficiency of tanks.

Tanks turn on the spot; they turn by rotating one track in the opposite direction to the other. They don't need to be moving, like a car, which actually rotates its wheels.

Even if these futuristic-tech mechs have faster turning circles (which I doubt), this doesn't offer an excessive advantage anyway, especially considering conventional vehicles are just much faster. The vulnerability of having a high target profile and high centre of gravity will negate this in combat. Plus, there's the fact that at close range, a tank could probably ram a mech and tip it over, whereas the mech has no equal response.

Tanks have the advantage that they don't have to watch where they're putting their feet - Mechs will need firm ground - loose debris will have them tripping all over the place.

Actually, when tanks were first designed, no one thought they would work either.

That isn't true.

For a start, the original tanks of 1916-1918 were crap and didn't work. Most broke down before they even reached enemy lines.

Even so, they remained in service throughout world war I (which shows considerable faith on the behalf of a traditionalist and conservative military leadership), and within a few years after the war, had been adopted by pretty much all major armies, to the point where they became the deciding factor in battles 25 years later.

It is only "under-developed" compared to normal tank based systems. Tanks have had almost one hundred years to be refined.

For a start, it is not under-developed comapred to tanks, because tanks are much lower tech than robotic-based mechs. When tank development began, robotics was impossible.

It's not that robotics is comparatively under-developed, it's that it requires much more advanced engineering, computer components, and materials than simple tanks in order to exist.

If you took a nation which specialized in tanks, and a nation which specialized in mechs instead of tanks, you would probably find that they are fairly equal. Sure the mechs have disadvantages, but tanks do as well. If a nation really wanted modern tech mechs, they would have to give up something else, such as tanks, but they could be done.

Again, this is a very naive attitude. You don't just 'specialise' in mechs or tanks. Mechs rely on advanced technology, that requires components from many diverse fields, and haven't even entered the realms of possibility until very recently.

Tanks are just armoured tractors with guns on. They have been easy to develop and refine, because they are simple. This is another advantage of tanks - they will be much much much easier to maintain and repair in the field.

Nimzonia: I'm not declaring there is a "canon" NationStates world. I'm just saying that since you can choose to interact with any nation you choose to, there cannot be alternate universes, since if you wanted to, you would have to travel between said universes.

With a huge world theory, the nations you don't interact with are just too far away to make it worthwhile. I don't blanket I.G.N.O.R.E (as in "they don't exist) anyone. I might ignore (as in "not pay attention) them, but not I.G.N.O.R.E. I do that on a situational basis.

And what is not physically possible about an extremely large planet?

I don't do the "my tank is better than your tank" thing. I do play it as an intelligent simulation. I created Feline, spent about a month working out a unique culture and everything, and only then went onto the forums. I made an intricate unique culture, that's what I mean by doing that. While my tanks are powerful and advanced, the same basic principles behind the ones I use now are the same as the ones I started out with. I don't change them to make them better than anyone else. I've tried to show a logical design progression throughout the time I have been here.

When I said not making it a clone, I did not mean that your nation should be nothing like the real world. In fact, it and its culture can be influenced by the real world. I just mean that like America is different than Japan, and Mexico is different from Saudi Arabia, etc, your nation should have a unique culture. Throw in a few off-the-wall things to make it interesting, but that don't affect how things work out (For example, in my nation, around 70% of the population are intelligent cats. Now, that does not affect any roleplays, except a single scentence mentioning a translator collar on their neck.)

And what is not physically possible about an extremely large planet?

The fact that it would cause unique environmental conditions (such as high gravity, weather systems, etc) that would make life as we know it impossible.

(For example, in my nation, around 70% of the population are intelligent cats. Now, that does not affect any roleplays, except a single scentence mentioning a translator collar on their neck.)

Well, it will cause significant problems roleplaying with nations who don't recognise the existence of intelligent cats. (And I'm really not interested in that 'cats are secretly controlling the universe' nonsense, it's old and tired.)

Nimzonia: Perhaps there is some factor outweighing it. Perhaps NS humans are stronger than normal humans. I don't know.

And I'm not spinning out some nonsense. I don't even know what you are talking about. The IC history of my nation is:

May 1997: All around the world, somehow, about 3500000 suddenly become intelligent due to unknown means.
June 1997: They convince about 1500000 humans that they are intelligent. (Figures come from approximate percents I have decided on, and a five million population.) They then form the nation of Feline.

Like I said, it does not affect roleplay at all. A lot of people just think, when I just mention the names, that they are people with names like "Kitty" or "Fluffy" or the like. Other people just take it in stride and have fun with the concept. NationStates is a game. With the translator collars, the cats can speak just like humans do. I've never had someone refuse to deal with me because of that. I've had to explain it, but it's never taken more than one post, and they've always accepted it.

Like I said, it does not affect roleplay at all. A lot of people just think, when I just mention the names, that they are people with names like "Kitty" or "Fluffy" or the like. Other people just take it in stride and have fun with the concept. NationStates is a game. With the translator collars, the cats can speak just like humans do. I've never had someone refuse to deal with me because of that. I've had to explain it, but it's never taken more than one post, and they've always accepted it.

It affects roleplay for people who want to RP in a realistic setting. All the NS nations cannot co-exist at once. It is simply impossible. Everyone has different ideas of what kind of tech-level, environment, and level of reality they want to RP in. I want to RP realistically. Intelligent cats is not realistic. It really is as simple as that.

Millions of intelligent cats do not suddenly spring up without the world noticing, especially when they're taking part in international affairs. The existence of these cats would Radically change the face of civilisation, not just go unnoticed in some corner of the world. Fine, if you want to RP it with people who don't care about preserving reality, and I'm not going to stop you.

However, they don't belong in serious realistic RP of the kind that I'm interested in playing on NS. Thus, we cannot recognise each other's existence, because as far as I'm concerned, intelligent cats do not exist.

I only protest about these kind of things, because if everyone suddenly starts using unrealisticly efficient mechs piloted by leprechauns, it deprives me of opportunity for RP.

Also, I'm really not a cat person.

Nimzonia........calm down, its a forum on a website....also you lost my vote for NOT liking cats, and my cats ARE intelligent thank you :P

This is my final word on the matter, it is obvious that you won't change your mind, and I won't change mine. If you want to go on thinking that mechs are only viable in far future tech nations, that's your perrogative. You are losing some intresting RPing oppertunity, but it's your choice to maintain your narrow minded interperation of the term 'modern tech.'

1. Robotics, with relation to mechanized combat units, is under developed. Robotics technology, or specifically the technology required for viable combat mechs gets very little funding compared to conventional tank development.

2. Mechs don't require advanced computers or composites. Those things certainly help (and make it a viable battlefield weapon) but a mech could be created without these things. Now it wouldn't be anywhere near effective as a tank in this case, but it could be done with some pneumatic pumps, an effective power source (modern would probably be the smallest possible nuclear generator, pre nuclear would probably be a large and vlunerable diesel/gasoline engine.), and some faith that it wouldn't tip over (a very distinct possibility.) It would be less efficient than a tank in that case, but the shock value (especially to infantry) could be worth it.

3. Modern tech can create a mech. It can't create a mech that as effective as an equivelent tank (this is only using the technological development that our society followed through RL history) but it can create a mech.

4. A mech is a big target, sure. But a mech's height also has the advantage of allowing it to target the weak top armor of a tank.

5. A mech, if faced with a ramming tank, could do one of two things, Step over the tank, or step ON the tank. Now this tactic may or may not work, but it is there as an option. Everything has a counter and a way to defeat it.

6. Mechs don't have any historical path, as they don't "exist" yet. But the point I was trying to make is that Tanks were, in the beginning, ineffective. But they turned into the deadly machines we have today. I believe mechs will be the same way.

7. Mechs don't have to be much more advanced than tanks. Mechs as we think of them (in a sci-fi sense) yes, but a combat vehicle that uses legs doesn't necessarily have to be high tech. It would require a complex series of gears and other vulnerable internal components to create a motion capable mech without drive-by-wire systems, but it could be done. It wouldn't be as viable a battlefield weapon as a modern tank, but it could be done.

8. Mechs don't necessarily rely on advanced technology, but you are entirely correct when it comes to the maintence issues. A nation could specialize in mechs. They would be high maintence in the beginning, but there is nothing anyone can do about that. If someone never thought to put armor on a tractor, and instead opted to create a bipedal combat unit, it could be done. (Such a nation would be following a much different technological developement than what you consider 'modern', but it would still count as a modern tech nation.)

Edit: NS isn't here just for people who want to do a "serious, modern RP." It is here for people who want to have fun. Including people who want to have intelligent felines, or giant mecha. If you are to cloistered to RP with nations that don't follow your opinion on 'modern technology', then don't. Don't start complaining how it isn't possible with modern tech because the nation developing them doesn't necessarily to have to be realistic modern tech. It could be a nation that decided to research nanotechnology instead of trying to get to space. The mark of a good RPer is one who can adapt to different RPing situations. (In my opinion.)

Edit2: Shortened the post by eliminating the quotes. It was hellishly long before. :)

Bravo! All valid and excellent points central facehuggeria, I want to see if he can counter that :D

what are mecha used for? What can they do that a tank can't do better?

what are mecha used for? What can they do that a tank can't do better?

Now this is really my last word.

1. Intimidation. A 20 foot tall mecha can be a lot more intimidating than a tank.

2. Uhh...er...They can't really do anything else better. :) That's why I don't use them, I'm just sick of people complaining that they can't work. They can work. They may not be as efficient as a tank, but if someone wants to use a mecha instead of a tank, they should be able to.

20 ft. tall mecha? bah, how about a 25 ft. tall tank?! :)

http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/theleviathan.jpg
http://www.bateshome.com/jordan/behemoth.htm

Robotics, with relation to mechanized combat units, is under developed. Robotics technology, or specifically the technology required for viable combat mechs gets very little funding compared to conventional tank development.

So you think military robotics use an entirely different set of principles than commercial robotics, which recieve considerably more funding from private companies than tanks?

2. Mechs don't require advanced computers or composites.

I'm afraid they do, and extensively so. They would require computer components for their balance systems and articulation, at the very least.
The leg movements would have to be extensively programmed just for walking, not to mention complex motions, like stepping over obstacles or around obstacles. It will not know how to move its legs or where to put its feet, without computer components. Do some research.

3. Modern tech can create a mech. It can't create a mech that as effective as an equivelent tank (this is only using the technological development that our society followed through RL history) but it can create a mech.

If by mech, you mean a vehicle that can shuffle along at two miles per hour, on thirty stumpy little legs, then yes, it can do that. That's about as far from an efficient combat mech, as the space shuttle is from the millennium falcon.

As for your path of technological development argument, that's like saying 'Star Destroyers are modern tech, if the romans had had an industrial revolution'. THe fact is, that modern is defined by the path history took, and anything else is fantasy and pure speculation. Just because it took us thousands of years to get to this point, doesn't make advanced robotics any more possible in a modern setting. Modern reflects the technology of the modern era, not the technology we would have, if the steam engine had been invented in the 12th century.

4. A mech is a big target, sure. But a mech's height also has the advantage of allowing it to target the weak top armor of a tank.

That is hardly an advantage, unless said mech is standing within ten yards of the tank. The chances of one getting that close to a tank are probably quite slim.

Not to mention the fact that, it probably doesn't matter were a 120mm tank shell hit a mech, it would probably knock it over (if it didn't blow it to bits entirely). A tank with tracks and a lower centre of gravity can carry a great deal more weight in terms of armour and weaponry, than a legged vehicle.

5. A mech, if faced with a ramming tank, could do one of two things, Step over the tank, or step ON the tank. Now this tactic may or may not work, but it is there as an option.

First of all, we need to assess the relative sizes of tanks and mechs. By the time technology progresses to the point where you can have a large enough mech to step on a modern tank, the tanks of that era will be large and powerful enough to squash the aforementioned mech flat.

Everything has a counter and a way to defeat it.

That might sound nice, but it isn't necessarily true. It's like saying that 'what goes around comes around', yet I see no proof of that either. If there is a counter to the tank, it does not come in the form of a mech.

6. Mechs don't have any historical path, as they don't "exist" yet. But the point I was trying to make is that Tanks were, in the beginning, ineffective. But they turned into the deadly machines we have today. I believe mechs will be the same way.

Well, that's a personal belief not based on any evidence whatsoever (unless you want to count gundam as evidence). The impracticality of legged vehicles is plain to see! Yes, Mechs look cool - but they won't outperform a tank!

7. Mechs don't have to be much more advanced than tanks. Mechs as we think of them (in a sci-fi sense) yes, but a combat vehicle that uses legs doesn't necessarily have to be high tech. It would require a complex series of gears and other vulnerable internal components to create a motion capable mech without drive-by-wire systems, but it could be done. It wouldn't be as viable a battlefield weapon as a modern tank, but it could be done.

It would be absolutely pathetic, and no use on the battlefield whatsoever. That's like putting a machinegun on sputnik, and claiming that Star Destroyers are just a step away.

8. Mechs don't necessarily rely on advanced technology, but you are entirely correct when it comes to the maintence issues. A nation could specialize in mechs. They would be high maintence in the beginning, but there is nothing anyone can do about that. If someone never thought to put armor on a tractor, and instead opted to create a bipedal combat unit, it could be done. (Such a nation would be following a much different technological developement than what you consider 'modern', but it would still count as a modern tech nation.)

No, because in 1916, the technology simply didn't exist to create a bipedal combat unit. Also, vehicles throughout history, from the earliest wagons, have used the wheel, so it was an obvious and natural choice. Anyone thinking of building an armoured vehicle, would choose the wheel immediately, and not even consider the ridiculously complex engineering required to manufacture something with legs.

It is here for people who want to have fun. Including people who want to have intelligent felines, or giant mecha.

I don't recall saying it wasn't.

If you are to cloistered to RP with nations that don't follow your opinion on 'modern technology', then don't.

I never declared any intention of doing so.

Don't start complaining how it isn't possible with modern tech because the nation developing them doesn't necessarily to have to be realistic modern tech.

Modern tech is defined by reality. If it's not realistic, then it's either future tech or fantasy tech. Modern tech refers to technology from the modern era of human history.

The mark of a good RPer is one who can adapt to different RPing situations. (In my opinion.)

Well, in my opinion, a good RPer has to have consistency.



Intimidation. A 20 foot tall mecha can be a lot more intimidating than a tank

Don't be ridiculous. Maybe in the middle ages it would have been. In modern warfare, where troops are used to high-powered explosives, airstrikes and rapid-fire weaponry, a blatant target trundling along at 15 miles per hour or whatever pitiful speed they're likely to manage, isn't going to be as intimidating as 50 tons of solid armour, with a 120mm gun charging you down at 50mph. If you think you can intimidate troops with an inferior vehicle, then you underestimate military training.

Bravo! All valid and excellent points central facehuggeria, I want to see if he can counter that

Evidently.

(And you'd have got this grumpy little response over an hour ago, if the forums weren't being so unbelievably slow. Sorry, but I think it may be part of the cause of my grumpiness today.)

Nimzonia........calm down, its a forum on a website....

If this is your idea of a heated debate, I reccomend you never take a philosophy course. :P

I'm not sure exactly why you seem to think I'm frothing at the mouth or something. True, I'm getting a bit annoyed by the fact it's taking me 20+ attempts to post, but I can assure you, I am otherwise quite calm. This is entirely cold-blooded aggression. :P

For once, I agree with Nimzonia: this is not a heated debate.

This is what I say, once and for all:

Go for it. But do it in states: First, do the one at the top, without the legs moving. That's basically a tank really high up. Keep that for a while. Then, have your designers evolve it into a second version where the legs move. Keep that for a while. That evolves into the bottom one. Keep that for a while. Which will eventually evolve into the middle one. That's my advice.

For what it's worth, I don't think you should bother. I mean, looking at your first design, it seems to be a tank hull bwith legs and a light gun. If you got rid of the legs, then you could fit more armour on, more guns...
Stick with regular tanks, they've done the job for nearly 100 years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

(As a personal aside, I think they look silly.)

Excellent points brought up by both parties on this issue, but I'd agree with Feline. First off it's good to let your nation have it's own identity and maybe they will learn the harsh deicison of their folly on the battlefield, but then again there is always room for improvement. But an argument I came up with uses the analogy [Jet is to Tank as Helicopter is to Mech]. The Mech's wouldn't at all be deployed as an anti-tank weapon. You can probably tell by their armnament that they are more suited to an anti-infantry role, of course they'd be coupled with standard infantry as well. Where as tanks would be used as the heavy anti-armor units. The helicopter by no means thought to replace the airplane and the mech by no means is meant to replace the tank. I think the effectiveness of a unit all depends on how it is deployed, I mean no one's gonna hide submarines in the carribbean.

Excellent points brought up by both parties on this issue, but I'd agree with Feline. First off it's good to let your nation have it's own identity and maybe they will learn the harsh deicison of their folly on the battlefield, but then again there is always room for improvement. But an argument I came up with uses the analogy [Jet is to Tank as Helicopter is to Mech]. The Mech's wouldn't at all be deployed as an anti-tank weapon. You can probably tell by their armnament that they are more suited to an anti-infantry role, of course they'd be coupled with standard infantry as well. Where as tanks would be used as the heavy anti-armor units. The helicopter by no means thought to replace the airplane and the mech by no means is meant to replace the tank. I think the effectiveness of a unit all depends on how it is deployed, I mean no one's gonna hide submarines in the carribbean.

Excellent points brought up by both parties on this issue, but I'd agree with Feline. First off it's good to let your nation have it's own identity and maybe they will learn the harsh deicison of their folly on the battlefield, but then again there is always room for improvement. But an argument I came up with uses the analogy [Jet is to Tank as Helicopter is to Mech]. The Mech's wouldn't at all be deployed as an anti-tank weapon. You can probably tell by their armnament that they are more suited to an anti-infantry role, of course they'd be coupled with standard infantry as well. Where as tanks would be used as the heavy anti-armor units. The helicopter by no means thought to replace the airplane and the mech by no means is meant to replace the tank. I think the effectiveness of a unit all depends on how it is deployed, I mean no one's gonna hide submarines in the carribbean.

...crap

Thats certainly a point, and I thyink its one that the pro-mechs have been stating for a while. Mechs are not a replacement for tanks. They are a combined force. It would be very difficult to stop a combined mech tank attack, because a standard infantryman would have no way of getting through the armour, taking him out of the equation. The only response is anti-armour units from then on, and since no country only has at units, it would give the mech-tank force a large advantage.
(+ they look super cool. With enough research they could be only a little bigger than a human, but the augmented strength would allow it to carry large weaponry, so it would be easier to hide, with more destructive potential than a squad of men.) Now I just have to wait for Nimzonia to destroy my view. :)

Thats certainly a point, and I thyink its one that the pro-mechs have been stating for a while. Mechs are not a replacement for tanks. They are a combined force. It would be very difficult to stop a combined mech tank attack, because a standard infantryman would have no way of getting through the armour, taking him out of the equation. The only response is anti-armour units from then on, and since no country only has at units, it would give the mech-tank force a large advantage.


I'll agree with you about the mech/tank mix being the practical use of the mech in the field. However, most mechs were designed for mech on mech combat. Sure they work well against vehicles, and so-so against infantry but if you look at a well-established mech storyline such as BattleTech, the development of the mech was similar to the arms race of the Cold War. New, better mechs were created to take on the other guy's mechs.

As I said before, the reason why I decomissioned battlemechs from my military is because too many people would ignore them/complain that they're inferior. A lot of people never even heard of a mech, let alone their capabilities. Some didn't understand that battlemech weaponry is very powerful because it was designed to take out other battlemechs. Another complaint was the balance system. The gyroscope/neurohelmet system didn't cut it for a lot of people, so therefore many think that battlemechs are easily toppled.

BattleMechs do exist for private use in my nation for security and peaceful uses (they're great loggers). They also exist in my colonies in the Solaris system for mech tournaments, known as the Solaris Gaming Circuit.

(+ they look super cool. With enough research they could be only a little bigger than a human, but the augmented strength would allow it to carry large weaponry, so it would be easier to hide, with more destructive potential than a squad of men.)

Those "mechs" you're speaking of that are only a little bigger than a human are known as powered armor or battle armor. It's more like a suit rather than a bipedal machine. They are what make up most of my marine force. Here's an example:

http://mcx99.homestead.com/files/battarm.jpg

I could have said battle suits, but since we were using the mech catch-all, I decided that they would likely be an evolution of them, rather than a direct branch-off. (Thats just slightly changed space-marine from Warhammer, yes?)
If not, they look similar to me, and definitly fall into the category of looking super cool. And try telling me that a matrix apu wouldn't be able to take standard infantry out easily, and I'll fling biscuits at you in disgust.

Thats certainly a point, and I thyink its one that the pro-mechs have been stating for a while. Mechs are not a replacement for tanks. They are a combined force. It would be very difficult to stop a combined mech tank attack, because a standard infantryman would have no way of getting through the armour, taking him out of the equation. The only response is anti-armour units from then on, and since no country only has at units, it would give the mech-tank force a large advantage.
(+ they look super cool. With enough research they could be only a little bigger than a human, but the augmented strength would allow it to carry large weaponry, so it would be easier to hide, with more destructive potential than a squad of men.) Now I just have to wait for Nimzonia to destroy my view. :)

Well, here you go, then, since that's what you want. :wink:

My point is not that mechs are a replacement for tanks, but the anti-infantry role in which you claim they would work, is already filled by wheeled and tracked IFVs and AFVs, such as the Bradley or Warrior, which would be far more efficient in that role, because of their lower centre of gravity, lower target profile, higher capacity for carrying heavy weights of armour and weaponry, and far superior speed. No unit that isn't capable of at least 20mph is going to be practical in modern mobile warfare; at least with infantry, you can fit a whole squad of them in a truck. Mechs are inherently slow, because they have legs. Speed kills these days.

Mechs have no role anywhere in combat, because wheeled and tracked vehicles fill those roles more efficiently. A mech is basically just the same as any other vehicle, but with legs instead of wheels or tracks. Unfortunately, wheels and tracks are just more efficient. That's really all there is to it.

As for your comment about the 'standard infantryman' being taken out of the equation, perhaps you should research the capabilities of the 'standard infantryman'. Most infantry companies carry anti-tank weapons. Tanks have been declared obsolete numerous times over the last few decades, because of the advantage infantry gain from carrying guided missiles. Since infantry already has to deal with tanks and IFVs, mechs would not pose any extra problem.

In short, a combined Tanks/Mechs force would not work as well as a combined Tanks/Wheeled IFV force does.

I could have said battle suits, but since we were using the mech catch-all, I decided that they would likely be an evolution of them, rather than a direct branch-off. (Thats just slightly changed space-marine from Warhammer, yes?)

No, it's the Infiltrator MkII battlearmor from BattleTech.
(bigger, more detailed picture: http://www.solaris7.com/Images/Art/FSInfiltratorMkII.jpg )

If not, they look similar to me, and definitly fall into the category of looking super cool. And try telling me that a matrix apu wouldn't be able to take standard infantry out easily, and I'll fling biscuits at you in disgust.

It's not a question of what the APU could take out, it's the question of what can take out the APU. Provided the APU had the element of surprize, it can do a bit of damage on an unarmored infantry unit (as long as the APU didn't knock itself over from the recoil of its guns). However, if the APU was deployed and the infantry knew it was coming, it could be easily dispatched with long-range weaponry. If it's close quarters, such as an urban setting, a properly hidden RPG unit could take it out, or a grenade, or even a sniper seeing the APU operator is exposed.

Just because something looks cool, doesn't mean it's practical.

A more practical use of mecha-tech would be powerarmor.

Obviously, such things like the towering Atlas, Masakari and Daishi mechs from the Mechwarrior series aren't gonna happen anytime soon.

There's also a major flaw with reverse jointed legs. Either you have the motor in the back of the knee, or you use a metal cable to pull the lower leg up and down. It's like a hamstring. Slash it, shoot it, whatever, it's useless.

Full size Mecha are also totally impractical for city environments. The amount of collateral damage a 60-ton suit of walking armor can do is pretty big.

Also, for any useful weapons to be produced, energy sources would have to be revolutionised. A mech isn't going to be able to carry 600 missiles internally, or a few thousand machinegun rounds. As for flamethrowers, think about the weight of all that fuel, not to mention the space it takes up.

Lasers aren't too practical either. They need considerable amounts of space for all the equipment.

IMO, and as it has been said many times before, Mechs = Flashy Lookin', Tanks = Practical.

Sidenote: Just remembered this at the last minute. If a mech runs out of ammo, and it's particularly slow, it might not be able to effectively use melee attacks.

Also, a high power shell to the shin of some mechs can unbalance and even topple said mecha. Especially lighter ones.

By the time you've balanced the speed, armor and weapons, you've either got some slug with good firepower, or a speedy little thing that runs around jabbing you with it's fist.

End of Randomness.

I'm not bothered if all the stuff above has been said before.

Speed kills these days.

All too true. Heavy Mech = Slow. Against a fast opponent that can get round behind it and attack the weak rear armor, (most mechs have inherently weak rear defense) a heavy, slow mech is useless.

Also, mechs usually have bugger-all top armor. Now, if we work on the basis that Hellfires scoot up then dive down onto the top of tanks, then the same scheme will work on mechs.

End of Second Randomness.

By standard infantryman I meant the one with a rifle and grenades. Not the one with a rocket launcher.
My main focus is with the battle-suit mechs, which would only be about 8 foot tall, and his main weapon would be like a helicopter minigun, giving him superiority over the rifleman. Couple this with a far increased field of view, (The Bradleys and other IFVS don't have great F.O.Vs, and the ability to navigate forest terrain at a speed far greater than any armoured vehicle, and we do have an alternative. If we also used the 8-foot suits, they could ride on the backs of tanks, then hop off. It would make no sense having them run, as you would have an exhausted soldier.
Minesweeping?
If the soldier is in a mech, and is mineseeping, then if it comes to it, he is very unlikely to have it blown off, whilst in full armour. Since armoured minesweepers are fairly uncommon, the bulk of the work falls to the guy with the metal detector. Scaling large gradients (cliffs) is something to be done by mechs, and if used correctly could seriously help a beachlanding.
Urban (mainly indoor) combat they would excel in, as they would have the ability to enter a house and clear it, minimising collateral, unlike a tank, which, if it tried to enter, would knock the house down.
Reactions. A mech (battlesuit) is far more evasive, and therefore harder to hit with weapons with a significant travel time (rockets). Since a battlesuit can change direction far quicker than a tank, and has a smaller frame (you honestly can't argue that), it would be hard to hit with AT fire. Add this to the large flash firing an AT weapon makes, and if it does miss, the guy with the launcher will die soon, as he is perfectly visible.
(have fun, I'm sure I've missed something fundamental which you'll exploit)

There's also a major flaw with reverse jointed legs. Either you have the motor in the back of the knee, or you use a metal cable to pull the lower leg up and down. It's like a hamstring. Slash it, shoot it, whatever, it's useless.

Just an note: battlemechs limbs are manipulated using myomers, also known as reactive plastics or "artificial muscles". I believe there are some hydraulics are involved as well, but I'm not too sure.

By standard infantryman I meant the one with a rifle and grenades. Not the one with a rocket launcher.
My main focus is with the battle-suit mechs, which would only be about 8 foot tall, and his main weapon would be like a helicopter minigun, giving him superiority over the rifleman. Couple this with a far increased field of view, (The Bradleys and other IFVS don't have great F.O.Vs, and the ability to navigate forest terrain at a speed far greater than any armoured vehicle, and we do have an alternative. If we also used the 8-foot suits, they could ride on the backs of tanks, then hop off. It would make no sense having them run, as you would have an exhausted soldier.
Minesweeping?
If the soldier is in a mech, and is mineseeping, then if it comes to it, he is very unlikely to have it blown off, whilst in full armour. Since armoured minesweepers are fairly uncommon, the bulk of the work falls to the guy with the metal detector. Scaling large gradients (cliffs) is something to be done by mechs, and if used correctly could seriously help a beachlanding.
Urban (mainly indoor) combat they would excel in, as they would have the ability to enter a house and clear it, minimising collateral, unlike a tank, which, if it tried to enter, would knock the house down.
Reactions. A mech (battlesuit) is far more evasive, and therefore harder to hit with weapons with a significant travel time (rockets). Since a battlesuit can change direction far quicker than a tank, and has a smaller frame (you honestly can't argue that), it would be hard to hit with AT fire. Add this to the large flash firing an AT weapon makes, and if it does miss, the guy with the launcher will die soon, as he is perfectly visible.
(have fun, I'm sure I've missed something fundamental which you'll exploit)

If you're going to completely ignore the laws of physics, the constraints of materials and engineering, and reality in general, there's really no point me arguing with you. I'm beginning to feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall arguing on this subject. Mechs can do these things in sci-fi, but I'm arguing from a realistic standpoint, and to be honest, you really don't appear to have any idea what you're talking about.

Your supposed mechs seem to be gifted with magic speed, agility, power and strength; you are just pulling attributes out of thin air, without considering what engineering is capable of, without considering battlefield dynamics and tactics, in fact, without considering anything.

If we can agree on one thing, it's that mechs look cool. Thankfully, cartoon physics allow them to work, even if reality doesn't.

Damn it! I knew it was important!
I've kind of been playing Devils Advocate all along. Mechs are, realistically (and thats what the thread suggests) impractical and impossible. You weren't banging your head against a brick wall, I was just attempting every argument I had against you, in the hope that one would win. At least we all agree they look cool though. I do have quite a good idea of all these things, its just that I want mechs so much they obvious didn't seem so important. I do know that mechs can necer really be realisyically viable, unless some miracle technology that allows these to be made happens tomorrow.
(Anyway, don't pretend you wouldn't like it if the magic tech did exist. We all want giant robots, and we all want battlesuits.)

Damn it! I knew it was important!
I've kind of been playing Devils Advocate all along. Mechs are, realistically (and thats what the thread suggests) impractical and impossible. You weren't banging your head against a brick wall, I was just attempting every argument I had against you, in the hope that one would win. At least we all agree they look cool though. I do have quite a good idea of all these things, its just that I want mechs so much they obvious didn't seem so important. I do know that mechs can necer really be realisyically viable, unless some miracle technology that allows these to be made happens tomorrow.
(Anyway, don't pretend you wouldn't like it if the magic tech did exist. We all want giant robots, and we all want battlesuits.)

Sneaky :o

Well, of course I'd like it. I've loved the idea of mechs ever since I first saw The Empire Strikes Back. However, I came to realise that they really aren't realistically viable. Not that I'd exclude them from my excursions into writing sci-fi, because you have to bend reality a little in sci-fi to avoid making it too dry, but from a purely objective assessment of capabilities, they really don't perform. I'm mostly arguing this, because I don't much fancy the idea of a mech army outperforming my tanks and IFVs in a realistic RP, because it won't happen.

I'm not utterly against the idea of all unrealistic yet cool things; I'm just against them for the purposes of RPing Nimzonia in the same world as. I may even make a more liberal puppet, for the purposes of RPing the flip side of the coin, probably leading to the development of a mad Jekyll and Hyde personality.

A puppet that develops strictly unrealistic uber technology? thats interesting, but it would be difficult to RP unrealistic tech in a realistic way. Otherwise the standard godmodder would have a chance.
Imagine "Since the dawn of my civ i r3s34rch3d n00ks and shi3ldz! we own j00!"
Obviously the response is to fire the ignore cannon, but RP'ing an unrealistic character is asking for trouble. Go for it though!

Nimzonia........calm down, its a forum on a website....

If this is your idea of a heated debate, I reccomend you never take a philosophy course. :P

I'm not sure exactly why you seem to think I'm frothing at the mouth or something. True, I'm getting a bit annoyed by the fact it's taking me 20+ attempts to post, but I can assure you, I am otherwise quite calm. This is entirely cold-blooded aggression. :P

I never actually said it was heated, nor you angry, I was more than less regarding to the size and number of your posts on ONE thread.

Nimzonia........calm down, its a forum on a website....

If this is your idea of a heated debate, I reccomend you never take a philosophy course. :P

I'm not sure exactly why you seem to think I'm frothing at the mouth or something. True, I'm getting a bit annoyed by the fact it's taking me 20+ attempts to post, but I can assure you, I am otherwise quite calm. This is entirely cold-blooded aggression. :P

I never actually said it was heated, nor you angry, I was more than less regarding to the size and number of your posts on ONE thread.

I really don't see what point you're trying to make. For a start, one-sentence posts aren't exactly going to encompass all the points I want to make. As for the number - well, if people keep making counter-arguments, then I see no reason why I shouldn't address them. Or do you go and hide behind the couch when someone starts expressing a different opinion? :P