NationStates Jolt Archive

The topic mechs vs. conventional fighters/tanks/vehicles is a long and fiercely debated subject without either side a clear winner. I wish to hear the opinions of the many nations out there on which they prefer, and why.

Personally, I prefer mechs. My most abundant military assets are mechs. Soome mechs, like mine, are as maneuverable as fighters of the same tech level do to the fact that they may possess retro thrusters or other propulsion systems in key areas that the fighter may not. My mechs are not built for speed, but for agility.

NOTE: This is a debate, not an argument. Please do not resort to flaming for any reason whatsoever. Please do not use this as an excuse for any provokations of war, incidents, etc...

I prefer conventional:

1. Conventional is... well... conventional, it's within the realms of my tech level. Mechs, mecha, etc; all require some sort of stabilization device that will keep them from getting pwned by a tank shell to the leg. And, unless you can prove me otherwise, I don't think modern or even post-modern tech could produce something like that. But, of course, as everything else is in NS, I'm sure someone will say that the technology needed is around now but there's not enough incentive, funding, etc.

2. Cooler. Personally, I think any type of mech is downright stupid looking. Especially the kinds with arms, or the ones that can transform into jets/tanks/nuclear bombs/fat girls, or the ones that have super-gravitational warp cannons, etc.

3. Cheaper. I'd take a bargain and say it's cheaper to make a bunch of tanks and fighters than it is to make highly specialized mechs that require extra armor or high-tech gyro-stabilizers and neural interfaces, etc.

Hence, why I prefer conventional mechanisms.

1. Conventional is... well... conventional, it's within the realms of my tech level. Mechs, mecha, etc; all require some sort of stabilization device that will keep them from getting pwned by a tank shell to the leg. And, unless you can prove me otherwise, I don't think modern or even post-modern tech could produce something like that. But, of course, as everything else is in NS, I'm sure someone will say that the technology needed is around now but there's not enough incentive, funding, etc.
Most mech users are FT nations

2. Cooler. Personally, I think any type of mech is downright stupid looking. Especially the kinds with arms, or the ones that can transform into jets/tanks/nuclear bombs/fat girls, or the ones that have super-gravitational warp cannons, etc.
That's not a very convincing argument...

3. Cheaper. I'd take a bargain and say it's cheaper to make a bunch of tanks and fighters than it is to make highly specialized mechs that require extra armor or high-tech gyro-stabilizers and neural interfaces, etc.
This not a problem for FT nations

I'd like to point out there have been 'Mechs' built using modern technologies that actaully exist presently.

http://news.com.com/Giant+robots+in+the+backyard/2100-1026_3-5499730.html?tag=nefd.lede

Conventional here. Think about the number of shot-traps, vulnerable bendy-places, and general instability of putting your centre of mass up-in-the-air that a humanoid or chickenwalker 'Mech has to deal with.

That doesn't even begin to approach the tendency to 'skyline'- modern armoured vehicles are built as low-to-the-ground as possible so that they don't present an enormous and easily hit target to an enemy force.

I'm going to have to go with conventional, in terms of combat. There's simply no reason to have a 'mech' over a tank. They're less stable, more complicated, and disadvantaged. A tank can have a much higher powered weapon on the top of it without as much fear of toppling over. Tanks are low down and make harder targets to hit. Tanks aren't up in the air, so aircraft aren't as likely to knock them over with a direct hit to the 'chest'. Tanks hulls are designed to deflect projectile weapons if at all possible -- it would be very hard to do so with a mech, especially with the vulnerable areas. Even if you're talking energy shields, you wouldn't need as much power to shield a tank as you would a huge, upright mech, and there would still be stability issues. And if you somehow get a hover tank in operation, well, that'll own all territory. 'Mechs' can look cooler, though, depending on your point of view. Can't see that winning it any fights, though.

The only 'mech' I would bother with is something along the lines of powered infantry armour, but I'd rather save the money and just have increased air support or something.

Conventional. I concur with Cadillac here.

Another mecha disadvantage is the fact that a mech is going to have a lot of surface area. The more surface area you have, the more painful it's going to be to try to armor your vehicle. Compared to a humanoid mech, a squat, compact tank is going to get more protection for the same weight of armor.

Add to the fact that a mech (unless you're talking about a little battle-suit), is going to have a higher profile and attract more attention.

As for retro thrusters, that would take a *lot* of fuel. And, a humanoid shape is not the most logical shape for a flying vehicle. There's a reason birds and helicopters aren't shaped like flying people.

If you are going to use retro thrusters to give your mech the agility of a fighter, then you might as well build a more aerodynamic design and save yourself some fuel. Or if fuel doesn't matter, you could at least build something more compact, with a slimmer profile or more feasible construction. Like a flying saucer.

Combined Arms

If mechs were a feasible combat weapon, they probably would not replace all other conventional weapons. Rather, they'd probably fulfill a specific niche (like the urban combat mecha in the anime Gasaraki).

A realistic near-future army that used mechs would not replace its tanks and fighters with mechs, but would rather add a few mechs to take advantage of whatever advantage a mech might have, and keep the rest of their conventional forces to minimize the disadvantages of mecha.

Aesthetics

Even though aesthetics wouldn't have much bearing in designing a real army, I think most mechs are hideously ugly. Some mechs are cool looking though.

At Megas,

Never said it was a convincing argument. You asked for the reasons why I like what I like. I happen to like conventional because it looks better, is realistic according to my tech level, and isn't ridiculously impractical.

You did not, however, ask for arguments debating which is actually better. Which I could do, if you'd like. But others have already outlined the main focal points of the disadvantages of mechs.

By the by, I'm curious as to why you added an "s" to Nova.

In my opinion, this question is unanswerable. At least in my case, mechs and tanks have a different niche. I use mechs in tough terrain, like swamps, mountains and deserts, where tanks and other vehicles would have a tough time. Although my mechs have countermeasures in case they are engaged by tanks, they are not meant to fight tanks and airplanes.

I could see how using mechs in rough terrain could make sense. I'm not if its the best way to deal with rough terrain, but I'm not sure what strange gadgets the engineers of the future will devise.

Conventional.

1) Single role vehicles will outperform multi-role transforming mechs anyday since the single-role vehicle can devote all of its resources to its job while a multi-role can't.

2) Mechs have a high center of gravity making them easy to knock over. One tank shell to the upper torso and it's down.

3) Overly complicated. This makes them more prone to breaking down which requires more maintenance. Since they are so complicated that will mean expensive maintenance.

4) Cost. A mech will cost far more than a convential vehicle.

5) The pure wank potential of them. Too many people watch anime and think that mechs are "t3h u836!"

Does it have to be one or the other? Just like with Seige Tanks and Golaiths in Starcraft, mecha and conventional tanks can work together to be very tactically efficent.

Point being: you don't have to choose one and forsake the other, in fact it's downright stupid to do so. Mecha open up a whole new tactical front for tanks, pure and simple.

Mechs aren't really a stand alone force and the same goes with a conventional tank or aircraft. Mechs or tanks alone won't win you a war, it's how they are used on the battlefield, the use of all an army's resources and force elements in an "All Arms" strategy will win you a war.

Mechs are better suited for terrain that tanks cannot traverse so easily, such as wooded and jungle terrain whereas mechs don't stand such a good chance on open plains or desert. As well, mechs are probably better suited for infantry support in an urban setting instead of tanks.

All in all though, it all really comes down to your infantry, the most important element of any army is the infantryman (or infantrywoman if you believe in it). I feel that everything else is just there to support them.

My $0.02.

Both, really, since they have vastly different combat applications.

Are we comparing 'possible' FT mechs vs. current conventional vehicles? Why not do the same with the M-60 tank vs. the M1A3, or maybe compare warfare as completely opposed in military logic, as what happened between WWI and WWII, or even between Korea/Vietnam vs. Gulf War I and II.

Sorry, but armchair generalship doesn't work, and no one here, including myself, can 'dare' call ourselves experts of any kind, nor presume that everything's supposed to be static in technology. Look at the M-60 and the M1A3, and tell me the obvious difference.

If mechs come into a possibility down the future, the idea that along with it, that the idea of 'conventional' forces will go along with it, that technology will either be advanced enough to field 'both' possibilites at once, or that warfare in one form or another has ceased to be.

In the vein of what I'm used to in Battletech, conventional capability in that version of the future, would put today's militaries to shame. It's no different when comparing our tech to WWI tech.

The world 'will' be radically different, and if mechs exist one day for 'real', the nature of humanity on this world and probably beyond will be too radically different for us to imagine properly. Just look at the thirty year span between the 80's and now. Look how different everything is...

Do not presume on the basis of rp alone, that conventional or mech vehicles are better over each other. We just do not know...

...as for the rp realm, I like the idea of both coexisting. I use it, and well understand both. A proper rp military can incorporate both as far as I'm concerned.

Not that either is better, but that both are 'compatible' with each other.

I do not see mechs as viable weapon's platforms, stating earlier the previous statements in this thread on prefering conventional to mecha, but will concede to Gaian Ascendancy on the basis that it would be difficult to tell in the future if the process of technology makes mechas viable.

The conventional vehicles vs mechs, to start tanks and other such things can be produced in large numbers and they are more user friendly for training.

I'd have to agree with Resi in that there is no reason for why mechs cannot be used alongside more traditional weapons platforms. Either way, realistically, mechs the way they are commonly portrayed in anime, games, and books cannot exist due to limitations on materials, systems, and sheer mass of some of the units involved.

I use quadruped mechs as light tanks when I need close fire support but cannot invest the resources to deploy and maintain hovertank or gunship fleets. Since Weyr is not particularly militaristic, it puts more emphasis on powered armor and on patrol craft than on things like mechs.

Generally, the greatest problem with mechs comes down to maintenance costs versus traditional units. Even a future-tech state cannot simply pour cahs down the drain; any competent military planner would preffer to recieve the same amount of firepower for a lower cost.

A few comments...

Airborne mechs
(1) Air resistance -- we all know what that is, yes? Air pushes against anything that moves through it, which is why modern air fighters are as streamlined as possible. The greater the resistance, the greater the friction, the more power you need to accelerate and the more heat you get from said friction. A modern fighter could fly circles around any even remotely plausible aerial mech.
(2) Conversely, a mech could make for a rather versatile platform if it were able to move on the ground and in the air.
(3) Because it does not have to move in order to stay airborne, a mech is a much more stable platform; however, a gunship or non-humanoid weapons platform could fulfill the same role with much lower maintenance costs.

Space mechs
(1) A larger ship can have larger drives and move much faster than a smaller ship, provided it has a good power to mass ratio.
(2) Unless you plan to have your mechs walk on enemy ship hulls (assuming they get through shields, point-defense systems, fighters, etc, and traverse the distances associated with capitol ship combat in space), legs make up nearly a third of the mech's total mass while being utterly useless except as additional weapons mounts with complicated joints, controls, and stabilizers.

Ground mechs
(1) Unstable due to their high center of mass, making them incapable of using high-recoil weapons.
(2) Capable of traversing terrain where tanks cannot enter and where aerial support is not enough. Not valuable unless you plan to fight on a spiral staircase and need to hold each step against enemy armor.
(3) High profile makes them much more visible to radar and other sensors.
(4) High pressure makes mechs unsuitable for unstable terrain such as deserts, swamps, etc. Consider that every step transfers the entire mass of a mech onto -one- foot.
(5) High maintenance requirements, especially for systems associated with keeping the mech balanced.

===Addendum===
All this isn't to say that mechs cannot or should not be used in RPs. Mechs would definitely have a niche in any NS army, even if their only purpose is to scare enemy recruits by marching at them in the middle of the night. I would preffer that anyone who uses mechs at least give some consideration to the problems of maintaining and deploying them. Then again, it doesn't seem as though that many people consider the limitations of any equipment in regards to breakdowns and failures.

even if in some future time mechs become viable militarily, the reasons they don;t work NOW will not go away, even if fuel and ammo and armor are not technically an issue, in a more purposeful design they will be even less of an issue and the more efficiently you can use your resources, the better no matter how many of your resources you have. also, mechs will ALWAYS be high profile targets with many many obvious weak points in the armor and will ALWAYS be more complicated than a more compact less jointed design. the problems with the the Mech design will never go away, they may become less of an issue but they will always be proportianlly greater than the problems assosiated with more compact designs.

I however have no problem witht hings like power suits, exoskeletons and whatnot, those are more like assistive machines than mechs and because they are essentially clothing items they have none of the problems assosciated with mechs, the only possible problems that i can see are limited agility and price but those can be overcome with technological progress (unlike the problems with mechs)

Personaly I dont think that it matters much. If my memory serves me correctly, "Mechs" are just the conceptual future of today's "Conventual" weapons, and vehicles. :confused: :mp5:

even if in some future time mechs become viable militarily, the reasons they don;t work NOW will not go away, even if fuel and ammo and armor are not technically an issue, in a more purposeful design they will be even less of an issue and the more efficiently you can use your resources, the better no matter how many of your resources you have. also, mechs will ALWAYS be high profile targets with many many obvious weak points in the armor and will ALWAYS be more complicated than a more compact less jointed design. the problems with the the Mech design will never go away, they may become less of an issue but they will always be proportianlly greater than the problems assosiated with more compact designs.

I however have no problem witht hings like power suits, exoskeletons and whatnot, those are more like assistive machines than mechs and because they are essentially clothing items they have none of the problems assosciated with mechs, the only possible problems that i can see are limited agility and price but those can be overcome with technological progress (unlike the problems with mechs)
One word: Sliksteel.

Or you could use what we use, sliksteel interwoven with carbon-60 particles. Either one provides excellent protection for jointed areas from most any kind of shell weapon (with the exception of tank shells, but those are fairly easy to intercept).

In regards to the terrain advantages of a mech are nullified since any one that can make a mech could make decent powered armor. Equip infantry with this and you have no need for massive high visibility mechs for heavy support in urban or otherwise limited terrain.

A platoon of PA troops would cost less than a single mech and would serve just as well. I see no point in building them.

As for Modern tanks vs FT mechs it would be a hopeless match for the poor modern tank. However an FT tank would make a mech its bitch.

THis is the simplest arguiment against mechs... surface area. Sure, mechs have nasty shot traps, have more moving parts and therefore are more prone to breaking down, and have little internal space, not to mention higher ground pressure, higher profile, and a lot of points where a single hit will cause a mission kill, but the simplest refutation is one of surface area. The more surface area you have, the more surface you need to armour. A tank, which is practically a box, has the highest amount of useable room for in comparision to surface area, end even then it is only possible to armour a single face heavily. Imagine how much worse off a mech would be, which needs armour all around the legs, the torso, the arms.... because of the way mechs move, you can't even guaruntee that the front is the most likely to be hit. A mech would need to carry at least twice the mass of armour of a tank to even approach the tank's protection.

The Closest I've ever come to Mecha is my powered infantry combat suits. Mecha are simply inefficient at what they do due to all the reasons stated and given my nations character ICly, why wasted effort on an inefficient system?

I have nothing against mechs, if you use them fine, but none of this "OMG MY MECHS PWN YUR TANKS AND SHIPZ CUZ THEY ARE TEH uBER LOLOL!" crap I seem to be hearing. Use your mechs, go ahead, I accept they can have a role - but the fact is they don't do it as well as other vehicles could in many cases.

Power armour is cheaper and has a much lower profile (and i use it) but mechs do have that fear factor (if you're an infantryperson and you see a mech heading your way, you are going to sh*t yourself. okay, if you're in an even vaguely comparable tank you're gonna laugh all the way to the bank) and they do have the immpression value if you use them in parades, but they'll die in fair combat against tanks in any but the roughest of terrain. so basically they end up being as much use as those MT uber-battleships that just cant survive combat and are stupidly expensive (but useful as hell for cowing a small low-tech nation).
thats my tuppenyworth anyway.

There's one reason for Mechs - Chicks dig giant robots! :D

There's one reason for Mechs - Chicks dig giant robots! :D

Damn right they do. I had to fit more weapons to my mech just to keep them away! They love big stompy robots...

I think mechs are useful against infantry. They're not anti-tank weapons. Just like a tank isn't much use against an anti-tank helicopter -- that doesn't mean you replace your entire army with anti-tank helicopters!

Err... the mechs I use simply stamp on the tanks... :D

how do they stamp the tanks when the tanks have just knocked them over with gunfire?

Err... the mechs I use simply stamp on the tanks... :D

Depends on how big you have them, I suppose *shrugs*. I'd like one that can stamp on battleships...
Heh, imagine that for an uberweapon -- a planet-killing stompy robot. It'd be like that giant foot thing off Monty Python.

how do they stamp the tanks when the tanks have just knocked them over with gunfire?

'cos they have shielding, polerised Armour, Deterium plating, and I only have 2 of them.

They're almost too expensive to maintain, but they prove their worth on the battlefield. Of course in my ultimate universe RP, i'm gonna encounter an evil army of them... :D

hey, you only have two of those. :eek:
still, how would they deal with my powered armour jumping all over them.

hey, you only have two of those. :eek:
still, how would they deal with my powered armour jumping all over them.

Simple-they have fighter cover, and the Imperial Armada behind them. Which reminds me, I need to add the mech info to my factbook...

Mechs do have one main advantage especially if they are more akin to mechanised infantry than tanks as they can go over more kinds of terrain

however I still would have conventional equipment to back them up

Err... the mechs I use simply stamp on the tanks... :D

In the meantime, my tanks with vastly superior firepower and speed and armour for their cost, run rings around your mechs, blasting them with their bigga gunz (to quote orks). I win, you lose. Or I use of on my ships to introduce your expensive waste of space to the wonders of splitting atoms, despite how stupid that may be IRL :)

Except you get all the chicks. So maybe we do lose. *waves fist in anger, despite being engaged*

I thought the question was the feasibility of mechs, not humanoid mechs. bipedal mechs of the human type seem terribly ineffective. But no one has mentioned spider mechs, i.e. the kind in ghost in the shell. They're close to the ground, can climb on walls, ceilings, etc. and navigate uneven or dangerous terrain that would normally stop treaded tanks. And that brings me to my next point, you all have mentioned that tanks have bigger guns than mechs, well, what about putting a tank turret on top of quadruped mech legs? But the kind of weapons I just described are pure fantasy and would most likely be extremely expensive to produce, reasearch, etc. So for now in the real world the conventional treaded tank isnt going anywhere.

Except you get all the chicks. So maybe we do lose. *waves fist in anger, despite being engaged*

Heh. Gravity is my co-pilot... oh yeah, and this team of space chicks... :D

Dammnit, me no like-e losing.
oh, and what happens when i get my navy in as well? there be no mechs, and no power armour. :(

Heh. Gravity is my co-pilot... oh yeah, and this team of space chicks... :D

You have made me sad. I feel sad about being beaten on the internet. I must now attempt to conquer smaller nations because I feel like it. (THE INTERNET IS SERIOUS BUSINESS YOU KNOW. SERIOUS BUSINESS).

A spidermech - certainly a possibility. Have any nations made full use of those at all? Might be worth looking into for my own greedy self, although I wouldn't call that a Mech per say.

For even a modern or near-future tech nation, walking technology has some very useful applications. In some types of terrain, wheeled or tracked vehicles are next to useless. Helicopters and VTOL craft can fill some of their tasks but are vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire and have a limited payload.
This is what I had in mind:
http://koti.welho.com/tkovala/Duuneja/timberwolf.jpg

A spidermech - certainly a possibility. Have any nations made full use of those at all? Might be worth looking into for my own greedy self, although I wouldn't call that a Mech per say.

Heh, I posted the link above without even reading your post. They're up for sale. :D
And why isn't it a mech per se?

Heh, I posted the link above without even reading your post. They're up for sale. :D
And why isn't it a mech per se?

Because I'm old fashioned and I'd probably call those walking tanks. Mind you, I use Gravtanks, so I probably wouldn' need them, and If I did, I'd make them myself. ICly, we don't let anybody touch our technology and we don't use other peoples.

Mind you, I use Gravtanks, so I probably wouldn' need them, and If I did, I'd make them myself. ICly, we don't let anybody touch our technology and we don't use other peoples.

Sounds like an expensive policy. Anyways, gravtanks are fantasy, more or less. I was talking realistic sci-fi in my first post.

you can have both with the VF-1 Valkyrie. The Veritech can change from fighter, to Guardian, which is a transitional phase, and then to Battloid, the humanoid configuration.

Sounds like an expensive policy. Anyways, gravtanks are fantasy, more or less. I was talking realistic sci-fi in my first post.

It is an expensive policy, but it also means I have probably the best ground forces in this little world. Sure, only 100 000 of them, but you'd never want to pick a fight with Xenonian marines. It might hurt you, badly.

As for Antigravity, well I've seen arguments for either side. I've never really looked up statistical arguments for either however, which is daft of me. Whether or not it works isn't my business, the only reason gravtanks are called Gravtanks is because that's what your average Human being would call them. Xenonians call something something in relation to how it fits into their scales, not Human ones. It's really more like a Heavy VTOL fighter/bomber/standoffartillerygun.

If we used human descriptions, our Destroyers would be more like Omg wtf ub3rships of d00m, our soldiers elite guards of pwnland and so on. We keep things simple, for my sake and those who will read my factbook when I get around to making it.

On other thoughts, I'd love to see some customdesigned mecha, rather than things based on TVshows such as Gundam. It'd be impressive to see the works of people who design ships in 3d Programs to do the same for mecha.

A spidermech - certainly a possibility. Have any nations made full use of those at all? Might be worth looking into for my own greedy self, although I wouldn't call that a Mech per say.


Actually our nation utilize them, they are called the Talon Light HERC unit, theses mechs have recently been outfitted with blades and grapple shots in the front to break armor up (kinda like the harpoon gun in timesplitters). Here is a rough pic of them

http://www.empireearth.com/sketches/images/renders/11.gif

you can have both with the VF-1 Valkyrie. The Veritech can change from fighter, to Guardian, which is a transitional phase, and then to Battloid, the humanoid configuration.

While your transforming mech is in fighter form all of the joints, gears, and transforming parts required to mach the battloid form work will be dragging down the fighter, making a realistic veritech a crappy airplane. While the veritech is in humanoid form, it's bogged down by giant, temporarily useless wings.

From an engineering standpoint, it's probably better to have a really good fighter and a really good land mech rather than two mediocre fighter-mechs.

The Veritech still looks cool, though.

Are we comparing 'possible' FT mechs vs. current conventional vehicles? Why not do the same with the M-60 tank vs. the M1A3, or maybe compare warfare as completely opposed in military logic, as what happened between WWI and WWII, or even between Korea/Vietnam vs. Gulf War I and II.

Sorry, but armchair generalship doesn't work, and no one here, including myself, can 'dare' call ourselves experts of any kind, nor presume that everything's supposed to be static in technology. Look at the M-60 and the M1A3, and tell me the obvious difference.

If mechs come into a possibility down the future, the idea that along with it, that the idea of 'conventional' forces will go along with it, that technology will either be advanced enough to field 'both' possibilites at once, or that warfare in one form or another has ceased to be.

In the vein of what I'm used to in Battletech, conventional capability in that version of the future, would put today's militaries to shame. It's no different when comparing our tech to WWI tech.

The world 'will' be radically different, and if mechs exist one day for 'real', the nature of humanity on this world and probably beyond will be too radically different for us to imagine properly. Just look at the thirty year span between the 80's and now. Look how different everything is...

Do not presume on the basis of rp alone, that conventional or mech vehicles are better over each other. We just do not know...

...as for the rp realm, I like the idea of both coexisting. I use it, and well understand both. A proper rp military can incorporate both as far as I'm concerned.

Not that either is better, but that both are 'compatible' with each other.

That's very true; we *don't* know what kind of technology the future will have, but we can still speculate, even if we're clearly not experts. It's fun to debate about hypothetical things, even if our speculations don't hold much water.

In RP land, I also like the idea of both coexisting.

Veritechs make up the bulk of my mech forces. But as many people have stated, I also support them with conventional stuff.

Some people are confused and think that I asked for FT mechs vs. MT conventionals. The question was supposed to imply a comparison between any 2 units of the same tech level. Sorry about that...

Drahkens IG infantry division occasionally uses mechs as support weapons. As was stated earlier, equiping troops with partially mechanized armour is more effective. Coupled with the speed of a drop ship, infantry can be a tank/mech units worst nightmare. For the credit you would spend on a mech, you could conscript and train an entire unit of elite troopers.
25 elite troopers equiped with hand held rockets vs 1 Mech. :mp5: :mp5:

That is a valid point, I use powered armour calles Cyclones that are built for speed and maneuverability. A platoon of them could easily take out a few enemy tanks or mechs, but their pretty much defenseless against aircraft.

By the by, I'm curious as to why you added an "s" to Nova.
oops, typing error...

One word: Sliksteel.

Or you could use what we use, sliksteel interwoven with carbon-60 particles. Either one provides excellent protection for jointed areas from most any kind of shell weapon (with the exception of tank shells, but those are fairly easy to intercept).

even if you use that on the joints, it would still be much more effective if used in greater quantities and in more battle hardened forms. There's nothing you can do to make a mech more feasible that could no be applied to a more compact design to make it exponentially better.

Also, Spider 'mechs' are quite acceptable, the only real problem witht hem is that a tracked or wheeled platfrom can achieve much higher speeds, but in terrain more suited for the spider like design they would be easily worth it

What about a humanoid mech having near acrobatic abilities? Like say a Gundam or a Veritech?

Mechs fail on too many levels. Modern/close future tech offers no viable defense for mechs that is both resistant to Kinetic warheads and light weight. Mechs also are far too complex of machines to be mass produced. The use of mechanical legs over wheels or treds makes mechs highly unstable, and almost worthless in hilly terrain. A anti-tank team of 3 men can render a $100 million mech worthless with one AT-14 to the poorly defended sensor systems, or exposed leg pistons that are a characteristic of Mechs. Mech armorment is also chaotic, for such a large automatic weapon, firing up to 100mm shells, the mech itself has to overcome the massive recoil operation and stay on target. As wonderful as Mechs sounds they are too impractible on the battlefield of today, or tomarrow.

I thought the question was the feasibility of mechs, not humanoid mechs. bipedal mechs of the human type seem terribly ineffective. But no one has mentioned spider mechs, i.e. the kind in ghost in the shell. They're close to the ground, can climb on walls, ceilings, etc. and navigate uneven or dangerous terrain that would normally stop treaded tanks. And that brings me to my next point, you all have mentioned that tanks have bigger guns than mechs, well, what about putting a tank turret on top of quadruped mech legs? But the kind of weapons I just described are pure fantasy and would most likely be extremely expensive to produce, reasearch, etc. So for now in the real world the conventional treaded tank isnt going anywhere.
We've made a spider mech, although it's completely not based on the smaller guys from Ghost in the Shell.

Behold! The FARQ! (http://members.cox.net/resicorp/farq.htm)

My first mecha ever made... and we still use them all the time.

We've made a spider mech, although it's completely not based on the smaller guys from Ghost in the Shell.

Behold! The FARQ! (http://members.cox.net/resicorp/farq.htm)

My first mecha ever made... and we still use them all the time.

NIIICE! That pic is so neat... it looks so organic, but the mechanical parts look very good with the rest of it.

We've made a spider mech, although it's completely not based on the smaller guys from Ghost in the Shell.

Behold! The FARQ! (http://members.cox.net/resicorp/farq.htm)

My first mecha ever made... and we still use them all the time.
Wicked...

If I had to choose, conventional. But I agree with Resi, use both. Of course, I don't use "mecha" persay, being a biological nation. I just use 15 metre tall biological monsters.

If I had to choose, conventional. But I agree with Resi, use both. Of course, I don't use "mecha" persay, being a biological nation. I just use 15 metre tall biological monsters.
Kinda like Hobbeebia's Biomechs?

For all but the FT nations, conventional units win battles. Your uber prototypes may inflict serious casaulties, but those numbers will be peanuts in the larger scope of the war (unless they have fusion cannons of doom). Conventional gets my vote.

My best armored vehicle is a sort of half-mech. It borrows from the mech concept while staying well within the realm of reason. I can also adapt them for a larger assortment of roles. The Mobile Weapons Battery is an advanced weapons platform mounted on tank treads. The "arms" are conventional miniguns such as the ones mounted on most helicopter gunships. It features no head and has a relatively stable center of gravity. More for city sweeping or artillery bombardments than uber-fast assaults.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Just letting II know I'm still alive.

I like Mechs only if they are the Battletech/Mechwarrior mechs

Armored Core and Gundam is way to advance though

I think most people are overlooking the most famous yet most over-looked mechs of all time: the AT-ATs, AT-STs and AT-TEs of Star Wars. They fill the roles of tanks and armored scout vehicles for the Empire, and do it splendidly.

If you go by anime mechs (Gundams, Macross, etc) then mechs aren't that good. Battletech is a little better, and uses what Resi talked about, both mech and conventional, but most are weak for the reasons listed above. However, the Star Wars mechs are what you should be looking at if you want a viable mech.

2 legs = bad
4+ legs = good

Look at Huntaer's FT land store front (here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=397454)), it shows several of Star Wars' mechs, which can be far superior than conventional vehicles. The AT-AT's high profile is compensated for with great balance and heavy armor. The AT-ST is fast, and so is harder to hit. The AT-TE and AT-AA have lower profiles and medium armor. If you stick these mechs up to more conventional vehicles, they are much better.

And don't forget, you still have to support your mechs with other vehicle types too, just like with tanks, planes and other military vehicles.

I recently switched most of Ybronneb's armored military over to battle mechs. I still use conventional, quite often. Mechs are best for large engagements on relatively flat terrain. The reason they are not very good for hills or mountains is the fact that it is extremely easy to lose balance, especially when there is mud/water. Of course, airlifting the mechs is always an option.

In conclusion, I think that both can successfully coexist in a modern tech nation.

I think most people are overlooking the most famous yet most over-looked mechs of all time: the AT-ATs, AT-STs and AT-TEs of Star Wars. They fill the roles of tanks and armored scout vehicles for the Empire, and do it splendidly.

Hardly.

AT-STs got pwned by EWOKS for crying out loud, whereas your average WWII tank would have completely crushed them.

As for the AT-AT, the only reason that was any good was because of the totally invulnerable armour, and it would have been better used on a conventional vehicle which couldn't have been tripped over by a cable.

In fact, you even said "The AT-AT's high profile is compensated for with great balance and heavy armor." Its only redeeming features aren't features of mecha at all, but features that work just as well, if not better, on a conventional vehicle with a lower centre of gravity.

Really, I can't see any advantage of mecha over conventional vehicles. They only appear so cool in film/television, because cartoon physics smooth over all their shortcomings.

Does it have to be one or the other? Just like with Seige Tanks and Golaiths in Starcraft, mecha and conventional tanks can work together to be very tactically efficent.

Point being: you don't have to choose one and forsake the other, in fact it's downright stupid to do so. Mecha open up a whole new tactical front for tanks, pure and simple.


I Agree with Resi... they can do a job if they work as a team.

NIIICE! That pic is so neat... it looks so organic, but the mechanical parts look very good with the rest of it.
Thanks. :)

A lot of my tech looks (http://members.cox.net/resicorp/crawler.htm) very (http://members.cox.net/resicorp/atlantis.htm) organic (http://members.cox.net/resicorp/fury.htm) because we copy our vehicle designs from the last billion years of evolution. If nature figured out how to do something right, why not take the easy path and follow its example?

AT-STs got pwned by EWOKS for crying out loud, whereas your average WWII tank would have completely crushed them.

Your average WW2 tank wouldn't have been able to travel far enough through that terrain to get near them...

AT-STs got pwned by EWOKS for crying out loud, whereas your average WWII tank would have completely crushed them.

That was a major continuity error. In the battle we see an AT-ST crushed by two logs, when obviously, logs wouldn't dent that armour. It's Imperial for gods sake. Also, when Chewbacca and the ewoks capture the AT-ST, there is no WAY in hell that the pilots would be stupid enough to open the hatch. It is clearly a trap, and I would keep the lid locked and closed, ignoring them and their puny weapons. Also, if I were in charge i'd keep all the AT-ST's at the bunker, guarding it until the Rebel fleet was destroyed. Ewoks are nothing to fear if you're in an AT-ST, AND staying at the base. Superior tactics make any weapon useful.

That was a major continuity error. In the battle we see an AT-ST crushed by two logs, when obviously, logs wouldn't dent that armour. It's Imperial for gods sake. Also, when Chewbacca and the ewoks capture the AT-ST, there is no WAY in hell that the pilots would be stupid enough to open the hatch. It is clearly a trap, and I would keep the lid locked and closed, ignoring them and their puny weapons. Also, if I were in charge i'd keep all the AT-ST's at the bunker, guarding it until the Rebel fleet was destroyed. Ewoks are nothing to fear if you're in an AT-ST, AND staying at the base. Superior tactics make any weapon useful.

The other explanation of course, is that the EWOKS were godmodding.

*Bad dum tish*

Yes, but what you say is true. Mechs > Ewoks. But Ewoks > Stormtroopers.

The other explanation of course, is that the EWOKS were godmodding.

*Bad dum tish*

Yes, but what you say is true. Mechs > Ewoks. But Ewoks > Stormtroopers.

Yeah, the godmodding losers. But anyway, I would have held position, and kept ALL troops at the bunker, as they only have so many arrows, and without GODMODDING, those arrows could not possibly penetrate stormtrooper armour.

That was a major continuity error. In the battle we see an AT-ST crushed by two logs, when obviously, logs wouldn't dent that armour. It's Imperial for gods sake. Also, when Chewbacca and the ewoks capture the AT-ST, there is no WAY in hell that the pilots would be stupid enough to open the hatch. It is clearly a trap, and I would keep the lid locked and closed, ignoring them and their puny weapons. Also, if I were in charge i'd keep all the AT-ST's at the bunker, guarding it until the Rebel fleet was destroyed. Ewoks are nothing to fear if you're in an AT-ST, AND staying at the base. Superior tactics make any weapon useful.

One could also say that it was a fine example of story taking priority over technology statistics, something which I for one think is sometimes overlooked around here.

okay, ewoks will get PWNED by any AT-?? vehicle, but the AT-AT is not stable, if you hit it from the side with pretty much anything like a tank shell it will fall over. basic physics. anyway, ewoks rock damn you, even if they did godmod.

BTW, would you stand around in the open getting shot by hidden enemies when you could be chasing the guys shooting at you? the imps always have awful discipline, no matter how good a commander you are, those guys wouldnt listen.

Your average WW2 tank wouldn't have been able to travel far enough through that terrain to get near them...

If the laws of physics were observed at all, then neither should an AT-ST. In fact, I am highly skeptical that such a vehicle could maintain balance on anything other than completely flat ground. No doubt other mechs could do it better, but AT-STs were just totally lame.

In any case, the empire had decent enough anti-gravity technology that hovering vehicles would have rendered walkers of any variety completely obsolete.

I forgot about the SW mechs, those are cool...

Does it have to be one or the other? Just like with Seige Tanks and Golaiths in Starcraft, mecha and conventional tanks can work together to be very tactically efficent.

Point being: you don't have to choose one and forsake the other, in fact it's downright stupid to do so. Mecha open up a whole new tactical front for tanks, pure and simple. I agree with what The Resi Corporation is saying. Why can't there be both. Tanks provide heavy artillery while the mechs take out air support and other threats the tank can't eliminate. And why do the mechs have to sound so weak? What if they turn into some thing really strong like a gundam in Gundam Wing. With enough funding and scientific development it could probably happen.

I agree with what The Resi Corporation is saying. Why can't there be both. Tanks provide heavy artillery while the mechs take out air support and other threats the tank can't eliminate. And why do the mechs have to sound so weak? What if they turn into some thing really strong like a gundam in Gundam Wing. With enough funding and scientific development it could probably happen.

because if you can make your mechs strong you can make your tanks and other "conventional" units strogner usign the same tech.
A good example can be found in the classic Battletech game/design rules: despite the fact that everything is stacked hugely against non mech units you can still design monster tanks that have more firepower and armour than any possible mech, they tend to be a bit cheaper too. Yes there are areas Where a mech is more useful ie: very mountainous terrain, shallow/coastal waters (from thier ability to operate amphibiously) or heavily wooded areas, but in the grand scheme of thigns strageically speaking i would rahter have the very heavy tank i could have for the price of a medium mech...

but thats btech and merely a game and a set of (rather fun) design rules so who is to say how thigns will go.

Now if you were to take mecha to it's ultimate evolution you end up with 40k Emperor class titan (walking fortress with star ship weapons...)

because if you can make your mechs strong you can make your tanks and other "conventional" units strogner usign the same tech.

People keep saying this, but I don't understand why a mech couldn't have the same or better armour and guns than a tank. Also, a tank may have a bigger gun, but what's it gonna do when it can't hit the mech because its too maneuverable?

In my opinon, mecha fit best in postmodern. With the materials and power systems available therein, it's not hard to make something mobile enough to evade heavy guns and tough enough to resist man-portable weapons, for the most part.

Plus, if you're using PM tech, the 'complexity' argument is specious at best. :P

I still think that a 4-legged design (or one that can transform from 4 to 2 legs and back again) would be the best type of mecha for terrestial battles.

IMHO the main advantage of mecha, other than their greater maneuverability compared to conventional tanks and so forth, is generally their ability to carry many different types of weapons and equipment.

In my opinon, mecha fit best in postmodern. With the materials and power systems available therein, it's not hard to make something mobile enough to evade heavy guns and tough enough to resist man-portable weapons, for the most part.

Plus, if you're using PM tech, the 'complexity' argument is specious at best. :P

I still think that a 4-legged design (or one that can transform from 4 to 2 legs and back again) would be the best type of mecha for terrestial battles.

IMHO the main advantage of mecha, other than their greater maneuverability compared to conventional tanks and so forth, is generally their ability to carry many different types of weapons and equipment.
I could go with that. The mecha I use are agile enough to evade heavy weapons and can transform into a fighter for aerial battles. Despite what people say about the conventional fighter having the advantage, if the mech/fighter has the same aerodynamics, is a bit slower but has more armor why wouldn't have a chance?

People keep saying this, but I don't understand why a mech couldn't have the same or better armour and guns than a tank. Also, a tank may have a bigger gun, but what's it gonna do when it can't hit the mech because its too maneuverable?

How could a mech have better armour and guns than a tank? It naturally follows that anything you can put on a mech, you can put on a tank. But a tank has the advantage of a lower centre of gravity, and a better design for carrying large weights, because it's designed to crawl, not run/skip/jump. The very fact that mechs work on legs reduce their ability to carry heavy armour and weapons.

A mech is never going to be so maneouverable that a tank of an equivalent tech level cannot hit it. Anything that goes prancing around the battlefield and is more than ten feet tall is going to be a big fat target. Chances are that developments in infantry weapons will render all heavy armoured units obsolete anyway.

Conventional weapons and vehicles own mechs in the same way that modern tech owns future tech.

End of discussion.

Conventional weapons and vehicles own mechs in the same way that modern tech owns future tech.

End of discussion.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but as you arn't a moderator, no, not end of discussion.

I could go with that. The mecha I use are agile enough to evade heavy weapons and can transform into a fighter for aerial battles. Despite what people say about the conventional fighter having the advantage, if the mech/fighter has the same aerodynamics, is a bit slower but has more armor why wouldn't have a chance?


Maybe it could take a sopwith camel, but that would be about it.

A conventional fighter is designed specifically for that one role; it's form is geared entirely to that one purpose, it is supremely balanced for that one purpose, and it carries no excess weight that does not aid it in its intended role.

A mecha, on the other hand, would be full of heavy robotic parts from its 'mecha' form, transformation gears and whatnot, non-fighter weapons, and all manner of junk which will have to go somewhere when it turns into an aircraft. Realistically, you would be pushing the bounds of possibility to get a mecha to transform into a winged vehicle that could even fly, let alone engage in arial combat.

And since the current generation of fighters can completely massacre pure fighters from 20 odd years ago, something not even designed 100% with fighter in mind, is never going to stand a chance.

I will never use mechs, not only because I'm modern tech, but they are immensly impractical.

1. Fuel

Mechs would most likely use an enourmous amount of fuel, no matter what kind, be it a fluid or solid.

2. Cost

Huge. These things are huge. How much would it cost to develop, build, and maintain these things?

3. Why?

The infantryman is the heart of any army. What's the point of them climbing into giant robots with giant guns? There is no improvement in their fighting capibility, since other armies would do the same thing in response.

That is a valid point, I use powered armour calles Cyclones that are built for speed and maneuverability. A platoon of them could easily take out a few enemy tanks or mechs, but their pretty much defenseless against aircraft.


OOC: Why is that? Don't they carry any man-portable AA systems? Don't they use the terrain to their advantage (like hide in a cave or under trees)?

I think most people are overlooking the most famous yet most over-looked mechs of all time: the AT-ATs, AT-STs and AT-TEs of Star Wars. They fill the roles of tanks and armored scout vehicles for the Empire, and do it splendidly.

If you go by anime mechs (Gundams, Macross, etc) then mechs aren't that good. Battletech is a little better, and uses what Resi talked about, both mech and conventional, but most are weak for the reasons listed above. However, the Star Wars mechs are what you should be looking at if you want a viable mech.

2 legs = bad
4+ legs = good

Look at Huntaer's FT land store front (here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=397454)), it shows several of Star Wars' mechs, which can be far superior than conventional vehicles. The AT-AT's high profile is compensated for with great balance and heavy armor. The AT-ST is fast, and so is harder to hit. The AT-TE and AT-AA have lower profiles and medium armor. If you stick these mechs up to more conventional vehicles, they are much better.

And don't forget, you still have to support your mechs with other vehicle types too, just like with tanks, planes and other military vehicles.

OOC: Do you think that an AT-AT will have a high degree of success against something like an Ogre or Bolo tank? Or how about the "old fashioned" looking Republic SPHA-T (Self-Propelled Heavy Artillery Turbolaser) from Attack of the Clones? It doesn't have legs, but it can bring down star ships.

Originally Posted by Megas
I could go with that. The mecha I use are agile enough to evade heavy weapons and can transform into a fighter for aerial battles. Despite what people say about the conventional fighter having the advantage, if the mech/fighter has the same aerodynamics, is a bit slower but has more armor why wouldn't have a chance?

I hate to say it, but I've always been against transformable mecha. The early editions of BattleTech featured expensive Land/Air Mechs (LAMS) which were identical to Veritechs from the first Macross series. Harmony Gold eventually sued and the LAMS were taken out of the game (including some mechs that were based on Destroids, but come on! They were actually cool as 'mechs!), but the LAMS were no major loss, as they carried minimal weapons, and could be owned by even light aerospace fighters.

On the ground though, mechs do have some advantages that make them viable in different types of terrain. Almost every tank I have seen, MT or FT, has a limited range of motion for its main guns, and must have a decent amount of its body showing to fire. A mech with arm-mounted weapons can fire in an almost full sphere (or at least hemisphere) while keeping its body covered.

As for space units, I do agree that the legs are conceivably useless for most FT nations, but my nation consists of space colonies in the Gerard K. O'Neill style (like in the original Gundam series, or Jovian Chronicles). This means that they can launch from colony to colony, fighting inside or outside as the battle demands. They might not be as good as specialized units, but the versatility such units offer is worth a good deal. Since my nation is mostly defensive, the few mech units we have are geared towards such tactics.

Maybe it could take a sopwith camel, but that would be about it.

A conventional fighter is designed specifically for that one role; it's form is geared entirely to that one purpose, it is supremely balanced for that one purpose, and it carries no excess weight that does not aid it in its intended role.

A mecha, on the other hand, would be full of heavy robotic parts from its 'mecha' form, transformation gears and whatnot, non-fighter weapons, and all manner of junk which will have to go somewhere when it turns into an aircraft. Realistically, you would be pushing the bounds of possibility to get a mecha to transform into a winged vehicle that could even fly, let alone engage in arial combat.

And since the current generation of fighters can completely massacre pure fighters from 20 odd years ago, something not even designed 100% with fighter in mind, is never going to stand a chance.


Nice strawman you have going there. Perhaps next you'll tell us that a mecha couldn't even defeat a WWI tank, since modern tanks can completely massacre tanks from 20 odd years ago.

OOC: Do you think that an AT-AT will have a high degree of success against something like an Ogre or Bolo tank? Or how about the "old fashioned" looking Republic SPHA-T (Self-Propelled Heavy Artillery Turbolaser) from Attack of the Clones? It doesn't have legs, but it can bring down star ships.

Unfortunately SPHA-T's have centipedeesque legs. *shakes fist* Damn you Lucas!


In regards to the old stuff,

1) The AT-ST was crushed between two logs because it's primary means of dissipating impact energy is to move it's head to the side to soften the blow. You see this when the catapult rocks hit it. Same goes for when it hit the ground. The explosion is likely the grenade's from it's launcher cooking off.

2) The Ewoks were getting slaughtered by the Stormies until Chewie got the AT-ST.

3)AT-AT's are massive. It would take a car impacting at orbital velocities to knock it over.

4) The Empire has repulsorlift tanks. They didn't use them in TESB because the Rebel's theater shield messed them up thus requiring walkers. In ROTJ the terrain was unsuited to them.

All in all I still think convential forces of equal tech level will beat a mech any day of the week.

My FT MBT could easily destroy any mech it sees with its main gun.

Unfortunately SPHA-T's have centipedeesque legs. *shakes fist* Damn you Lucas!


In regards to the old stuff,

1) The AT-ST was crushed between two logs because it's primary means of dissipating impact energy is to move it's head to the side to soften the blow. You see this when the catapult rocks hit it. Same goes for when it hit the ground. The explosion is likely the grenade's from it's launcher cooking off.

2) The Ewoks were getting slaughtered by the Stormies until Chewie got the AT-ST.

3)AT-AT's are massive. It would take a car impacting at orbital velocities to knock it over.

4) The Empire has repulsorlift tanks. They didn't use them in TESB because the Rebel's theater shield messed them up thus requiring walkers. In ROTJ the terrain was unsuited to them.

All in all I still think convential forces of equal tech level will beat a mech any day of the week.

My FT MBT could easily destroy any mech it sees with its main gun.


...provided it can HIT it, of course. And provided that said mecha doesn't have some sort of barrier system...

Unfortunately SPHA-T's have centipedeesque legs. *shakes fist* Damn you Lucas!


In regards to the old stuff,

1) The AT-ST was crushed between two logs because it's primary means of dissipating impact energy is to move it's head to the side to soften the blow. You see this when the catapult rocks hit it. Same goes for when it hit the ground. The explosion is likely the grenade's from it's launcher cooking off.

2) The Ewoks were getting slaughtered by the Stormies until Chewie got the AT-ST.

3)AT-AT's are massive. It would take a car impacting at orbital velocities to knock it over.

4) The Empire has repulsorlift tanks. They didn't use them in TESB because the Rebel's theater shield messed them up thus requiring walkers. In ROTJ the terrain was unsuited to them.

All in all I still think convential forces of equal tech level will beat a mech any day of the week.

My FT MBT could easily destroy any mech it sees with its main gun.

Ah, right. I forgot about those legs. Kind of dumb actually. Anyhow, I agree with you that a convential style force is, pound for pound, more than up to the task of taking on mechs.

...provided it can HIT it, of course. And provided that said mecha doesn't have some sort of barrier system...

OOC: Well, now you are adding all kinds of systems onto the mech here. What's to say that a FT tank would not have advanced detection gear, hypersonic rounds, etc...

In other words, for all the gizmos the mech camp think up, the "conventional" side can as well. Again, a Bolo or Ogre tank are "conventional" in design but would any mecha want to met them on the battlefield?

...provided it can HIT it, of course. And provided that said mecha doesn't have some sort of barrier system...

Let's see.

Tank has:
- Fast tracking turret
- 30km/s+ explosive rounds
- fancy FT armor
- fancy FT sensors

Yeah I can hit it.

Nice strawman you have going there. Perhaps next you'll tell us that a mecha couldn't even defeat a WWI tank, since modern tanks can completely massacre tanks from 20 odd years ago.

Well done, you completely failed to read what I said. :rolleyes:

The only Mech-like things in my armies are Dreadnoughts and Defilers; nothing as large as a Titan yet tho' :P
Though, sooner or later, my Tech Priests will get round to it.

The only Mech-like things in my armies are Dreadnoughts and Defilers; nothing as large as a Titan yet tho' :P
Though, sooner or later, my Tech Priests will get round to it.

Or you could just produce a 5th god - the god of laze and say your techpriests serve him, hence the lack of innovation in your fleet.

Besides one thing I never worked out about Titans was how they can stand and not sink, unless they have some sort of gravitational field or something hackneyed that prevents them from sinking (I severley doubt even their massive feet could spread the sheer mass of that thing around evenly)

Nah, my tech priests are all Machine God worshippers ;)
Yet they serve me well with much innovation, just look at my nice big pretty Ecstacy of Slaanesh planet killer ;)

Although I voted for conventional, I like to keep a resonable balance. Yes, my main units are tanks and whatever else for ground warfare, but I also field my mech units, all of which are based upon Metal Gear (simply because I love the games, no matter how impractical the designs are).

Nah, my tech priests are all Machine God worshippers ;)
Yet they serve me well with much innovation, just look at my nice big pretty Ecstacy of Slaanesh planet killer ;)

With a name like that, I shudder to think of the "optional extras" they've put on the thing.

I still don't understand how a mech the size of titan can work in a roleplay. Unless you use it like you would a suit of terminator armour. Point it at the enemy, push it over and watch it roll into their lines, knocking all the goddamn dark reapers over in the progress.

Tee hee; personally I'd prefer conventional things, like what I already have. Much more fun with Terminator and Obliterator squads than an uber mech o' doom ;)

Also one of the added extras is neural attachments which let the Emperor himself experience the mindblowing power of consuming a world as pain and pleasure ;)

Tee hee; personally I'd prefer conventional things, like what I already have. Much more fun with Terminator and Obliterator squads than an uber mech o' doom ;)

True, but a titan does get one thing going - it's a gigantic showpony. I mean, I'd never use one but I could certainly use the point of having just one for news purposes. After giving it a bit more thought, I agree with somebody who mentioned morale, as you have to admit it's a bit like Masspwnage's dragon ubercarrier. A lovely piece of media, plus the fact nobody seems to use them in FT makes it all the more effective to the average, falliable, sheep of a citizen.

"And in today's news, the Xenonian Protectorate has crushed yet another Chronosian system. We > them. "

*Screen switches to veiw of a titan crushing Chaos troops under it's feet*

Disclaimer. There were no underlying themes of what a rabid imperial guard player wants to do to Chaotic heretics. None. Nada. Squat. I would never dream of it. Really.

However, in other news; Chronosia retaliated, violently and brutally wiping out Xenonierian resistance;

<Cut to Khornate Berzerkers chainaxeing civilians, Nurgle worshippers vomitting on babies, followers of Slaanesh rounding up the good looking populace for...unsavory things, and Tzeentchian Sorcerers setting fire to people with their mind>

And this!

<Planets being burned clean with warp energy>

That last shot was actually from a non-Xenonier world....in fact they supported us...ah well!

Disclaimer: No actual people were harmed during this war, only Xenonierians; all random acts of destruction are copyright of the Four Gods, and are endorsed in all forms by them. Have a nice day, loyalist scum ^^

~snip~

It's Xenonian! Obviously you burned some other poor fools. Ah, Daemons. Great Warp navigators, horrible spellers, good at broadcasting the slaughtering of innocents and forgetting I deflate my population for a very good reason.

Those babies will so play with your Deathguards intestines, my civilians will introduce your Beserkers the the weapons of the new century - Restraint, personal shielding and energy blades while Tzeentchian sorcerors meet my GreyKnights for tea, cupcakes and purging. Slannesh ... well, you lose there as well. Some of our anthromorphic citizens have more appendages than your noise marines, they win in that respect.

Yar. I'm not cluttering this thread up with stuff anymore. Nevertheless, I am still curious to work out how titans work without sinking into the ground.

Actually brining up 40k does raise a few interesting questions: first the sheer impossibility of titans (actually 40k titans are quite easily killed by "conventional" units if you include your average EPIC scale squat army or the imperial ordinatus and capitol imperialis in the conventional defiantion).
Secondly mecha's hideous vunerability to infantry, be it khonre bezerkers chopping through your ankles with chain axes, ewoks/jedi's using trip lines or btech anit mech infantry using jump pack and grapple rods to place stachal charges in inconveint places (or using thier knowledge of battlemech emergency acess codes to open your cockpit and shot you in the head...).


mech's do have one advantage: big roomy cockpits with room for mini bars, jacuzis, the odd disco hall (sorry you need to be an older btech player to ge tthat).

I tend to think that mecha don't have much of a place in an FT environment.

I tend to think that mecha don't have much of a place in an FT environment.
Um, considering that we don't have mecha in MT, I fail to see where else they could go

Um, considering that we don't have mecha in MT, I fail to see where else they could go

As I said earlier, postmodern.

Another good point for bipedal (and other multipedal) units is turning speed and stopping distance. Vehicles can only rapidly accelerate in two directions, and so must have room to make and arcing turn. Mecha can side-step, and can also leap sideways (assuming the unit is maneuverable enough).

You could say that a hover vehicle can shift sideways as well, but hover vehicles are notoriously bad at turning and stopping, unless they spin around and aim their fans in the direction of travel. Rather than suffer such a bone-jarring deceleration while aiming any non-turret weapons in the wrong direction, a mecha can attempt to skid to a halt while still standing.
(Note for BattleTech players: This is not recommended unless you
a] have a piloting skill of 2
b] are a complete newb to the game
c] are named Kai Allard Liao ;) )

After reading this I have learned a lot... I do use mechs, and now I need to rethink my plans... in truth my nation has never gone to war... but I have planned to use mechs heavily... now I know to back them up, or not use them in war

at Resi Corporation
I have this odd feeling that i have seen you before... before the change in forums... I also remember buy several things from you, though I know not what any more... to the point I wish to buy the plans and rights to some of your teck... though if I remember the last time you did not sell them to me... I do understand this and will not try if I already have... to my next point, if you are the one I remember, it is nice to see you again, alive and well

how do they stamp the tanks when the tanks have just knocked them over with gunfire?


In order to knock them over you must be able to physically hit them. You
seem to think that they must be used in a face to face confrontation. Even
with Modern Tech Mecha I believe I could beat tanks using Guerilla Tactics.

In order to knock them over you must be able to physically hit them. You
seem to think that they must be used in a face to face confrontation. Even
with Modern Tech Mecha I believe I could beat tanks using Guerilla Tactics.

Nobody with a brain ever sends tanks in alone. They'd have superior support, which is exactly what a good commander would give them, as they are cheaper to use as a main battle unit than mechs, or they'd have enough gadgetry. Either would be superior to what the mech can call upon, as the mech is more expensive and often less efficient.

New Exodus, true, but I got around that.

OOC: Why is that? Don't they carry any man-portable AA systems? Don't they use the terrain to their advantage (like hide in a cave or under trees)?

Mecha could use the terrain for cover and use jump jets to out manuever
the enemy.

After reading this I have learned a lot... I do use mechs, and now I need to rethink my plans... in truth my nation has never gone to war... but I have planned to use mechs heavily... now I know to back them up, or not use them in war

at Resi Corporation
I have this odd feeling that i have seen you before... before the change in forums... I also remember buy several things from you, though I know not what any more... to the point I wish to buy the plans and rights to some of your teck... though if I remember the last time you did not sell them to me... I do understand this and will not try if I already have... to my next point, if you are the one I remember, it is nice to see you again, alive and well

Don't not use them, just make sure they are supported. With an infantry platoon and other such ground support, a mech can deliver fire-support with ease. However, don't rely on them, as you will get taken down

Nobody with a brain ever sends tanks in alone. They'd have superior support, which is exactly what a good commander would give them, as they are cheaper to use as a main battle unit than mechs, or they'd have enough gadgetry. Either would be superior to what the mech can call upon, as the mech is more expensive and often less efficient.

New Exodus, true, but I got around that.

Did I say the Mecha would be alone? Don't think so. Also I've seen some pretty expensive tanks on NS too.

In order to knock them over you must be able to physically hit them. You
seem to think that they must be used in a face to face confrontation. Even
with Modern Tech Mecha I believe I could beat tanks using Guerilla Tactics.

Why would anyone bother using Mecha for Guerilla warfare when infantry already fill that role perfectly?

Why would anyone bother using Mecha for Guerilla warfare when infantry already fill that role perfectly?

Infanty vs Tanks? Thats a good way to get a large portion of your army
wiped out very quickly because they have no protection against a tank. At
least a mech would have a better chance.

Did I say the Mecha would be alone? Don't think so. Also I've seen some pretty expensive tanks on NS too.

Where did I say They were alone. I said tanks would have superior support, because tanks are cheaper. Tanks can be as expensive as you want - they'll always be far far cheaper than a mech of equivalent capability, and if the mecha isn't as good a weapon, then we don't have a fair comparison.

Nimizonia - beats me. Mecha are tremdnously complex as is, which is a bad idea for guerilla warfare.

Where did I say They were alone. I said tanks would have superior support, because tanks are cheaper. Tanks can be as expensive as you want - they'll always be far far cheaper than a mech of equivalent capability, and if the mecha isn't as good a weapon, then we don't have a fair comparison.

Nimizonia - beats me. Mecha are tremdnously complex as is, which is a bad idea for guerilla warfare .

I disagree ... surprise is always a good thing to have on your side. Further
even if it is expensive, if it helps you win the war ... isn't it worth the
investment? How much is your freedom worth to you?

I disagree ... surprise is always a good thing to have on your side. Further
even if it is expensive, if it helps you win the war ... isn't it worth the
investment? How much is your freedom worth to you?

It depends. What if, shall we say, you pour investment into a mech design that you are assured is flawless, and then one, just one, gets destroyed by a stray missile (lucky shot or whatever)? Then, you've designed a 'flawless' weapon that your enemy now knows the weakness to exploit. And whilst doing this, you don't have the funds to add something to defeat this weakness? It's a balancing act, one between getting a mech that can fight and survive, or one that is just wormfood as soon as you get it out there. Better to provide one with sufficient support in the form of infantry and normal tanks, than let many go out and get vaporised

mechs vs. conventional fighters I choose Mechs

It depends. What if, shall we say, you pour investment into a mech design that you are assured is flawless, and then one, just one, gets destroyed by a stray missile (lucky shot or whatever)? Then, you've designed a 'flawless' weapon that your enemy now knows the weakness to exploit. And whilst doing this, you don't have the funds to add something to defeat this weakness? It's a balancing act, one between getting a mech that can fight and survive, or one that is just wormfood as soon as you get it out there. Better to provide one with sufficient support in the form of infantry and normal tanks, than let many go out and get vaporised


I promise you the mecha won't be alone and I won't give you an opening to
hit me that easily. I don't believe in a face to face confrontation when there
is no need to use that type of tactic.

Regarding Guerilla Warfare and Mechs, this is another role where powered armor troopers would be far more practical than mechs. They'd be cheaper, can pack heavy weapons and best of all aren't 20ft tall robots.

Regarding Guerilla Warfare and Mechs, this is another role where powered armor troopers would be far more practical than mechs. They'd be cheaper, can pack heavy weapons and best of all aren't 20ft tall robots.

I would use power armored troops as well. Also I think mecha like troop transports would work very well.

Regarding Guerilla Warfare and Mechs, this is another role where powered armor troopers would be far more practical than mechs. They'd be cheaper, can pack heavy weapons and best of all aren't 20ft tall robots.

Mecha doesn't have to be twenty feet tall. Power Armored Troops are really
a smaller form of mecha themselves.

I would use power armored troops as well. Also I think mecha like troop transports would work very well.

Quadraped mechs work best as firing platforms and troop transports. Why not use them?

I promise you the mecha won't be alone and I won't give you an opening to
hit me that easily. I don't believe in a face to face confrontation when there
is no need to use that type of tactic.
I never said I would be fighting you, and do you really think I would go head-to-head with a mech? Please, you don't have a clue about how I work

Infanty vs Tanks? Thats a good way to get a large portion of your army
wiped out very quickly because they have no protection against a tank. At
least a mech would have a better chance.

Wake up, we're talking about guerilla warfare here.

The idea of guerilla warfare is to sneak up on the enemy, hit them, and then disappear before they can retalliate. Therefore, infantry would be vastly superior to mecha in this regard, in that they can sneak up on a target, and likewise sneak away again, much more efficiently than a lumbering 10+ foot tall machine. For guerilla warfare, you need camouflage, and maneouverability, and not armour, because the idea is that you don't intend to weather a heavy assault. Infantry anti-armour weapons will do the job much more efficiently than mecha in a guerilla situation, because mecha weapons will be fixed on hardpoints or whatnot, and therefore will have certain limitations in where they can be fired from, whereas infantry can climb trees, hide in long grass, etc.

Plus, guerilla infantry don't need loads of extra fuel and spare parts to keep running.

I never said I would be fighting you, and do you really think I would go head-to-head with a mech? Please, you don't have a clue about how I work

This discussion is a " what if " kind of thing. I am not saying that you or anyone here will ever be fighting me. You did not say you would go head-to-head with a mech, but others have made it sound like a confrontation should
always be face to face. There is a time for face to face and there is a time for Guerilla Warfare Tactics. The tactics used should be changed with what is needed. Just as the weapons used should fit the use at any given time. Which is why a world class army should have a large variety of weapons to pick from.

Mecha doesn't have to be twenty feet tall. Power Armored Troops are really
a smaller form of mecha themselves.

In a sense. Generally speaking though Powered Armor is worn while a mech is piloted, thus making the mech far larger.

A soldier in PA will be human sized or just a bit bigger. While a mech is pretty well guranteed to be much larger than a human.

As such a mech will be loud and visible and perfectly unsuited to guerilla fighting.

The only thing a mech is good at is looking cool to some people and scaring mech-tech ignorant people.

Wake up, we're talking about guerilla warfare here.

The idea of guerilla warfare is to sneak up on the enemy, hit them, and then disappear before they can retalliate. Therefore, infantry would be vastly superior to mecha in this regard, in that they can sneak up on a target, and likewise sneak away again, much more efficiently than a lumbering 10+ foot tall machine. For guerilla warfare, you need camouflage, and maneouverability, and not armour, because the idea is that you don't intend to weather a heavy assault. Infantry anti-armour weapons will do the job much more efficiently than mecha in a guerilla situation, because mecha weapons will be fixed on hardpoints or whatnot, and therefore will have certain limitations in where they can be fired from, whereas infantry can climb trees, hide in long grass, etc.

Plus, guerilla infantry don't need loads of extra fuel and spare parts to keep running.

Mecha doesn't have to be twenty feet tall 0r even ten feet tall. Power Armored Troops are really a smaller form of mecha themselves. Power Armor is
armor with on board weapons that is powered ... a machine or small mecha.

This discussion is a " what if " kind of thing. I am not saying that you or anyone here will ever be fighting me. You did not say you would go head-to-head with a mech, but others have made it sound like a confrontation should
always be face to face. There is a time for face to face and there is a time for Guerilla Warfare Tactics. The tactics used should be changed with what is needed. Just as the weapons used should fit the use at any given time. Which is why a world class army should have a large variety of weapons to pick from.
Agreed, although I prefer hit and run tactics normally, as I very rarely like to get drawn into wars of attrition. I take my lessons from the Britsh Army, the best in the world :). Anyway, back to the topic at hand...

Conventional weapons own all forms of mech because a lot of that kind of future tech stuff in my opinion is just an opportunity to be invincible, but that rarely works. EX:

"My invisible star destroyer destroyed your capital!"
"No, my shields were up!"
"Well...my guns automatially penetrate shields!"
"WELL MY SHIELDS...automatically penetrate your guns...?"

Come on. So a mech is just a quick, easy, stupid way to turn one man into an armored division.

Conventional weapons own all forms of mech because a lot of that kind of future tech stuff in my opinion is just an opportunity to be invincible, but that rarely works. EX:

"My invisible star destroyer destroyed your capital!"
"No, my shields were up!"
"Well...my guns automatially penetrate shields!"
"WELL MY SHIELDS...automatically penetrate your guns...?"

Come on. So a mech is just a quick, easy, stupid way to turn one man into an armored division.
The you've come across God-modders, when they use mechs. Mechs are by no means invincible, nor is convential weaponry

Agreed, although I prefer hit and run tactics normally, as I very rarely like to get drawn into wars of attrition. I take my lessons from the Britsh Army, the best in the world :). Anyway, back to the topic at hand...


It seems to me that we beat the British with Guerilla Warfare Tactics even
in colonial times.

I just want to know why every one aganced mechs always asumes they would be human shaped. You know 2 legs 2 arms. After all is't mech short for mechanised, at one point all conventional were refered to as mechanised.

Conventional weapons own all forms of mech because a lot of that kind of future tech stuff in my opinion is just an opportunity to be invincible, but that rarely works. EX:

"My invisible star destroyer destroyed your capital!"
"No, my shields were up!"
"Well...my guns automatially penetrate shields!"
"WELL MY SHIELDS...automatically penetrate your guns...?"

Come on. So a mech is just a quick, easy, stupid way to turn one man into an armored division.


Only noobs do that. There a lot of respectable, talented FT RPers. I like to consider myself one of them. Now stop making generalizations about it just because you don't like it.

Conventional weapons own all forms of mech because a lot of that kind of future tech stuff in my opinion is just an opportunity to be invincible, but that rarely works. EX:

"My invisible star destroyer destroyed your capital!"
"No, my shields were up!"
"Well...my guns automatially penetrate shields!"
"WELL MY SHIELDS...automatically penetrate your guns...?"

Come on. So a mech is just a quick, easy, stupid way to turn one man into an armored division.

This is not a MT / FT Tech slug fest.

All else being equal, a conventional vehicle will be:

Cheaper [less complex components]
Faster [wheels / tracks are a more efficient method of propulsion than legs]
Tougher [you can put a greater thickness of armour on a tank because of its shape, and the fact that it doesnt have large, vulnerable legs]
Heavier Armed [you can carry more weight on a tracked vehicle with a low center of gravity]
Easier to Repair [less complex components]
More Mobile [tracks with good suspention can go over rocks etc, whereas legs have trouble]

I really don't see the point in a mech.

I just want to know why every one aganced mechs always asumes they would be human shaped. You know 2 legs 2 arms. After all is't mech short for mechanised, at one point all conventional were refered to as mechanised.

The majority of mechs in popular culture are the humanoid ones. That's also what the majority of mechs on NS are from what I've seen. Although looking at this thread it would seem it's about half humanoid/half not.

So that's where the humanoid mech comes from.

I just want to know why every one aganced mechs always asumes they would be human shaped. You know 2 legs 2 arms. After all is't mech short for mechanised, at one point all conventional were refered to as mechanised.


I like spider form mecha myself. Not only are they much scarier then a
human form would be. But they would be much quicker and more stable.
Besides why couldn't you have like a marrage of the the two. A spider-like
tank body with tracks, legs, jump jets, etc?

It seems to me that we beat the British with Guerilla Warfare Tactics even
in colonial times.
That was then, this is now. Look at us, we are among the smallest, yet also the most successful. I love my country

That was then, this is now. Look at us, we are among the smallest, yet also the most successful. I love my country

There is no reason you shouldn't love your country .... I do too. However what is it that you are most successful at? I believe our two countries work together alot of the time.

Having read the post a bit more (Low clock speed due to DVD encoding)

I see most NS players use mech to define the human shape robot. I guess multypod (GITS ripoff) is more suited for spider tanks's and such.

I still find it funny that most people dont gripe abought hover tanks and there big recoil guns, yes they say a mech will fall on it's arse if it had one.

Altho I will be sticking with MT's and powerarmour my self.

Mecha doesn't have to be twenty feet tall 0r even ten feet tall. Power Armored Troops are really a smaller form of mecha themselves. Power Armor is
armor with on board weapons that is powered ... a machine or small mecha.

So what? It's still far less efficient for guerilla warfare than unarmoured infantry. It will hamper the infantry wearing it in terms of stealth and agility, which are the main pre-requisites for guerilla warfare (and infantry in general), without offering any reasonable benefits, since the idea of guerilla warfare isn't to engage in a straight up fight where armour is going to be useful. Plus, no infantry power armour is ever going to be able to stand up to the main gun of a tank of an equivalent tech level.

Mecha is one of those ideas like the parasite fighters of the 50s; sounds cool, looks cool from an aesthetic point of view, and working models can even be built, but just isn't practical enough for real warfare.

I like spider form mecha myself. Not only are they much scarier then a
human form would be. But they would be much quicker and more stable.
Besides why couldn't you have like a marrage of the the two. A spider-like
tank body with tracks, legs, jump jets, etc?

I agree on the stability. Not so sure on the quickness. And more legs would need more computer power to run correctly and would mean more moving parts which means more maintenance and a higher construction cost. But that's all old news.

As for the combining, I have to ask why?

What good would legs do an a tank with tracks other than make it unecesarily complicated and expensive? It would be a hindrance not a help.

There is just no role that a mech could fill that could not be filled for less cost and more efficiently by conventional vehicles and forces.

There is no reason you shouldn't love your country .... I do too. However what is it that you are most successful at? I believe our two countries work together alot of the time.
I don't actually know where you are from, it kinda helps

So what? It's still far less efficient for guerilla warfare than unarmoured infantry. It will hamper the infantry wearing it in terms of stealth and agility, which are the main pre-requisites for guerilla warfare (and infantry in general), without offering any reasonable benefits, since the idea of guerilla warfare isn't to engage in a straight up fight where armour is going to be useful. Plus, no infantry power armour is ever going to be able to stand up to the main gun of a tank of an equivalent tech level.

Mecha is one of those ideas like the parasite fighters of the 50s; sounds cool, looks cool from an aesthetic point of view, and working models can even be built, but just isn't practical enough for real warfare.

You can't have it both ways here people. First you say Power Armored
troops would work better because they are smaller. Now you contridict
yourselves and say they won't. Sense when is war practical? Or even
sensible?

I don't actually know where you are from, it kinda helps

I am American ... ok ... now lets hear why you think I shouldn't be proud of
my country or even be considered as good as people from other countries. Even though I personally would never say that to you.

I am American ... ok ... now lets hear why you think I shouldn't be proud of
my country or be considered as good as people from other countries.
I have nothing against Americans in general, but sometimes American attitudes irritate me. I think it's a good thing to be proud of your country, America has done some incredible things in its time, and is currently the worlds only true superpower. Now, taking things like this into account, I dislike the fact that America sees itself as the police of the world, stepping into conflicts where it is not needed. Iraq was a prime example, where Bush lied to the rest of the globe, and went to war. It was a move aimed at improving his status. And whilst I see working alongside you as a good idea, both politcially and economically speaking, look who got attacked? You did, 9/11.

Having said all of these things, I think you are a good people as a majority, but the way you are percieved by the global community is something that you could really do without.

Now that I have said my piece, feel free to comment on Britain. I welcome it

You can't have it both ways here people. First you say Power Armored
troops would work better because they are smaller. Now you contridict
yourselves and say they won't. Sense when is war practical? Or even
sensible?

Who exactly are you talking to here?

I haven't at any point suggested that any kind of mech would be even remotely practical. As far as I'm concerned, tanks would pwn them, infantry would pwn them, aircraft would pwn them, and you'd have to have a serious amount of magic-tech before you could get one to work even half as efficiently as the average anime mecha.

Another thing to think abought, pick your battles. We dont send aircraft in to AA controled areas, well atleast not untill we disable the radar of said AA. Chances are we would't want to send mechs in to tank controled areas. You send anty tank stuff in first, then clear out what's left with you mechs.

How ever as most have said it seems infintry can do the role of a mech just fine, so untill I see some more practal mech useage I will stick powerd armor/mt's. Then again this is NS and resi's ravins are fisking cool. evne if they are AC's

Well I guess we will all just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I'll agree to that

Another thing to think abought, pick your battles. We dont send aircraft in to AA controled areas, well atleast not untill we disable the radar of said AA. Chances are we would't want to send mechs in to tank controled areas. You send anty tank stuff in first, then clear out what's left with you mechs.

How ever as most have said it seems infintry can do the role of a mech just fine, so untill I see some more practal mech useage I will stick powerd armor/mt's. Then again this is NS and resi's ravins are fisking cool. evne if they are AC's
First, thanks for the plug. :D

Second, my Ravens play two different roles depending on which theature they're fighting in. On-planet against your every-day cities and city defenses, Ravens are massive mobile artillery bases. But against spacecraft, larger tanks, or other mechs, they're gigantic uber-soldiers and the differentiation of Raven Unit types really comes into play.

Wonder if I should start using the Battletech ProtoMechs along with the OmniMechs, Mobile Suits, Battlearmor (Elementals/Inner Sphere Suits) and all manner of conventional and aero assets in my forces.

Heh, a mech midway the size of a Battlemech/Mobile Suit and a Battlesuit, with decent firepower. (The Battle of Huntress is a good indicator of their potential.)

Hmm.. *goes to talk to Republic engineers and scientists that built the Eternity Battlemech.*

I would recommend making your own mech designs instead of basing them on some pre-established series. It's much more rewarding.

And before you say anything about my Raven Units being ACs, they really aren't. Their stats and specs are completely different, I just use ACs as the artistic basis because my art sucks, aside from photography (http://tyflame.deviantart.com).

Sadly, I haven't found a mech to photograph. Alas. :(

Was that first part directed at moi? If so, then I should reveal soon, my Legion Seige Command Platform Mechs.

Just think a SLDF Command Post (yes size included) placed within a Mech the same immense size. Heck, 100 Ton limit is rediculously blown away with this baby.

And all homegrown. =^^=

You know I just like buging you abought it resi cause I am such a fan.

As for the elemental's those things rocked nothing like cuting the legs off of other much larger mech's. And now the mechjacking makes it even more fun even tho I just leave the empty mech for the vtol's to come get.

Oh and I know what makes mech's kick arse over other battle units. Laser swords ^_^