NationStates Jolt Archive

Come to think of it, this is a major reason why I like Mecha. Though they get their butts handed to them on long range encounters, but they can dodge when given enough warning and they are small but are capable of amazing agility and if they had powerful enough thrusters could be a great close-range, slow-speed combat and a decent challenge at long range to.

Eraclea']Come to think of it, this is a major reason why I like Mecha. Though they get their butts handed to them on long range encounters, but they can dodge when given enough warning and they are small but are capable of amazing agility and if they had powerful enough thrusters could be a great close-range, slow-speed combat and a decent challenge at long range to.

The problem is the idea of 'close range' in space. Close rage is 50,000km or so, suicide range is 25,000km or so when the planet scourging weapons of an enemy ship WILL hit. A mecha would never get close enough to a fighter, to a capital ship, to anything to be of any use whatsoever. They'd be cheesed by PD or weapons from strike-craft, which can and do carry more weapons than space mecha.

In regards to your comment about agility, well a fighter is far more agile and graceful than a mecha is, just like a hawk is far more agile than a bipedal human (and faster!). And why not? Bipedal organisms are not made for their speed or agilty, be it by God or chance, so why should a mecha out perform a fighter? Simple answer is they wouldn't and they don't.

Eraclea']Come to think of it, this is a major reason why I like Mecha. Though they get their butts handed to them on long range encounters, but they can dodge when given enough warning and they are small but are capable of amazing agility and if they had powerful enough thrusters could be a great close-range, slow-speed combat and a decent challenge at long range to.
Thing is, you don't GET a warning. Against a RC high c-frac weapon at three lightsecond ranges, you might very well have milliseconds to get out of the way. And at close range, c-frac weapons get even better, as they hit essentially instantaneously, preventing any and all possibility of dodging.

Consider an inbound projectile hurtling in at .99c – 297,000 km/s. During the last AU of flight (8m 25s), the onboard computer's clock will show an elapsed time of 1m 11s, giving the target 7m 14s longer to “think” aboard the encounter. Unfortunately for the target, the image of the projectile will reach the victim just 5 (or so) seconds ahead of the projectile itself; at that point, the separation between the two will be only 1.5M km. Sure, the assailant will only have about .7s to respond to whatever evasive maneuvers the target elects to indulge in, but the target will only have 5.05s to decide what action it wants to take.

I'll still give odds to the attacker under the circumstances.

Your relativity is wrong. All actions are relative to it and the target, but these are seperate also. Also since when is 5 seconds = to 1.5 km? It'd be a lot higher. Check your math as I did. This definately should show advantage to defender, not attacker. Assuming defender is stationary.


6 seconds stationary, it does not mean .7 seconds to respond. Though this 6 seconds is enough to avoid it by even a large margin even at half-light speed, or even an eigth by using a pulse of energy to change its direction unpredictablity. The missile or whatever would now have to redirect its course (let's say its light speed) from that 6 seconds, and it will take 3 seconds for any movement to be detected (light speed again). Now as we both know the direction or angle in which it travels is almost 360 degrees in any way you put it.

Most favorable application of this would be to be straight at it and down or up or to the sides. Closing the gap giving less time to calculate.

Say it chooses to fly straight into it for 2,5 seconds, and veering off at the last .5 second. It will take the computer of the missile 3 seconds to notice the change in placement, then it will see it coming at it for 2.5 seconds. Giving the computer just .5 seconds when the ship's change in direction starts to rethink, reevalutate and move the target in just 299,792.458 km or 1 second to a large or small angle in any direction.

This excludes any other movement from the once stationary ship which could be as close as .1 second from the object before it pulses away in a new direction. This also means no countermeasures and no change from the missile.

If the missile was to change directions this would lower the reaction time by half for whatever distance and speed.

True advantage lies in a stationary target however, it has 6 seconds from inital sighting of an object at .99 c to plan its movement pattern or reaction, while it will take at least 3 seconds to even start to see this plan of evasion, counteract or anything.

Joranhor']The problem is the idea of 'close range' in space. Close rage is 50,000km or so, suicide range is 25,000km or so when the planet scourging weapons of an enemy ship WILL hit. A mecha would never get close enough to a fighter, to a capital ship, to anything to be of any use whatsoever. They'd be cheesed by PD or weapons from strike-craft, which can and do carry more weapons than space mecha.

In regards to your comment about agility, well a fighter is far more agile and graceful than a mecha is, just like a hawk is far more agile than a bipedal human (and faster!). And why not? Bipedal organisms are not made for their speed or agilty, be it by God or chance, so why should a mecha out perform a fighter? Simple answer is they wouldn't and they don't.

Refering to the AMBAC, which fighters don't have. They can spin and avoid laser fire or change their direction without using thrusters. This was already proven and it would allow for greater dodging (considering my mechs are 6-9 ft in size and are far smaller then most fighters), but this is kinda moot when you have a huge beam that is larger then the mech itself lol.

Point-defense lasers are jokes, don't bother with them in FT.

BTW Hawks are not more agile then a human in the form we are talking about. Nimble + ease of movement, not speed.

Thing is, you don't GET a warning. Against a RC high c-frac weapon at three lightsecond ranges, you might very well have milliseconds to get out of the way. And at close range, c-frac weapons get even better, as they hit essentially instantaneously, preventing any and all possibility of dodging.

At that range yes... then movement defeats the purpose of these weapons as you can't see or predict where they will go.

Point-defense lasers are jokes, don't bother with them in FT.
You're kidding, right? Hits instantly, does plenty o' damage with the amount of power being fed into them, and can scythe through entire clouds of missiles, etc. As for six foot mecha, they're smaller than most missiles. PD ain't gonna have a problem with them.

You're kidding, right? Hits instantly, does plenty o' damage with the amount of power being fed into them, and can scythe through entire clouds of missiles, etc. As for six foot mecha, they're smaller than most missiles. PD ain't gonna have a problem with them.

Lasers are easily defended against. That's why.

By what? Cold plasma? It heats up quite nicely when shot, causing the rest of the craft to heat up, conducting heat into the rest of the mecha and melting vital components. And when a megaton's worth of heat is coursing through your "cold" plasma, whatever it's around is going to boil FAST.

Eraclea']Refering to the AMBAC, which fighters don't have. They can spin and avoid laser fire or change their direction without using thrusters. This was already proven and it would allow for greater dodging (considering my mechs are 6-9 ft in size and are far smaller then most fighters), but this is kinda moot when you have a huge beam that is larger then the mech itself lol.

Fighters have these things known as 'thrusters' which allow them to spin on their axes to dodge and avoid laser fire, as well as change direction. Fighters are also faster than mecha which greatly aides them in the dodging department.

Point-defense lasers are jokes, don't bother with them in FT.

Hahahahahahaha, pardon me but that was hilarious. Oh wait, you're serious. Shame that; PD lasers/fracs are not jokes and do serve a vital function; namely, annihilating incoming rounds that may destroy the ship. And to do that they have to be damn powerful, and they are, not enough to vape a capship at range but more then enough to decimate a city from orbit with PD alone, and of course: mecha in space.

BTW Hawks are not more agile then a human in the form we are talking about. Nimble + ease of movement, not speed.

A hawk IS more agile than a human, infinitely so, especially when taking into account the speeds in which they are MOVING and MANOUVERING in the air. Now perhaps you have never seen a hawk (to simplify instead take... a raven) in action, because otherwise you would not have said what I have you quoted as saying. Then again I don't see why you would have to witness their acrobatic magnificence to agree that humans are poor in the agility department; God/Chance did not design bipedal bodies with agility in mind. So why then - a question I think I have asked before - should bipedal mecha even be on the same ladder of a agility as a fighter, something which was designed to be fast and manouverable?

Eraclea']Point-defense lasers are jokes, don't bother with them in FT.

Excuse me, what?

And how am I supposed to take on these fighter swarms that I've faught? With fighters? Funk that, lasers. Thanks to those things I've been able to pwn fighter after fighter after fighter and save me casualties. Sir, that is like saying CIWS is bad on a ship and CIWS is never bad for a ship.

But against mechs? Screw that I'd nuke 'em. I don't use cannons or lasers, I use nukes, like real men.

By what? Cold plasma? It heats up quite nicely when shot, causing the rest of the craft to heat up, conducting heat into the rest of the mecha and melting vital components. And when a megaton's worth of heat is coursing through your "cold" plasma, whatever it's around is going to boil FAST.

Shields. Thogh cold plasma on a laser....I'll have to look into it, though I do believe since the charge will just turn it into plasma it may just shoot around the object, transfering its energy harmlessly away.

Shields work on anything. Thing is, they have their limit, and megaton blasts on six foot targets usually do quite well at that.

Joranhor']Fighters have these things known as 'thrusters' which allow them to spin on their axes to dodge and avoid laser fire, as well as change direction. Fighters are also faster than mecha which greatly aides them in the dodging department.

Why can't my mechs have thrusters? You are making no sense.



Hahahahahahaha, pardon me but that was hilarious. Oh wait, you're serious. Shame that; PD lasers/fracs are not jokes and do serve a vital function; namely, annihilating incoming rounds that may destroy the ship. And to do that they have to be damn powerful, and they are, not enough to vape a capship at range but more then enough to decimate a city from orbit with PD alone, and of course: mecha in space.

Assuming no shielding. We see stronger weapons used in many advanced race sci-fi. Shields also heat up, but it take a lot of heat to destroy a ship.



A hawk IS more agile than a human, infinitely so, especially when taking into account the speeds in which they are MOVING and MANOUVERING in the air. Now perhaps you have never seen a hawk (to simplify instead take... a raven) in action, because otherwise you would not have said what I have you quoted as saying. Then again I don't see why you would have to witness their acrobatic magnificence to agree that humans are poor in the agility department; God/Chance did not design bipedal bodies with agility in mind. So why then - a question I think I have asked before - should bipedal mecha even be on the same ladder of a agility as a fighter, something which was designed to be fast and manouverable?

We are talking space and with AMBAC. Though on earth a human is more capable of changing direction then a hawk. This was already dealt with once in this thread by another person, as to why a fighter will always be lacking in this unless it can shift its weight during flight at a moments notice to spin, turn or change direction. Thrusters don't move btw.

Eraclea']Thrusters don't move btw.
And why not? Same basic principle as a nozzle on a hose: close it half way in one direction and the spray goes the other way. That and most thrusters (mine, anyway) can turn about 180 degrees, making turning a breeze, especially considering the amount on the thing. Much less wasteful than this silly AMBACs anyway, with its massively overcomplicated system.

Excuse me, what?

And how am I supposed to take on these fighter swarms that I've faught? With fighters? Funk that, lasers. Thanks to those things I've been able to pwn fighter after fighter after fighter and save me casualties. Sir, that is like saying CIWS is bad on a ship and CIWS is never bad for a ship.

But against mechs? Screw that I'd nuke 'em. I don't use cannons or lasers, I use nukes, like real men.

Its still photons. Shielding works amazingly well provided that it is reflecting the light and not absorbing it.

Eraclea']Why can't my mechs have thrusters? You are making no sense.


I never said they couldn't or didn't, only that this magical AMBAC you champion for mecha is not the end all for manouveribility. You sir, are making no sense with your wild assertions and bizarre conclusions not based on anything from previous posts (also ignoring everything we say and nitpicking one possible thing that might, or may be in error is rather rude as well).

Assuming no shielding. We see stronger weapons used in many advanced race sci-fi. Shields also heat up, but it take a lot of heat to destroy a ship.

Neither mecha nor fighters carry the shield power generation necessary to repell PD fire more than once. That's just a reality of a smaller combat platform such as fighters, mechas, and bus-sized missles.

We are talking space and with AMBAC. Though on earth a human is more capable of changing direction then a hawk. This was already dealt with once in this thread by another person, as to why a fighter will always be lacking in this unless it can shift its weight during flight at a moments notice to spin, turn or change direction. Thrusters don't move btw.

*Sigh* It is more than a little aggitating when you do this; namely, you make statements based on no evidence at all. Hawks are faster and more manouverable than humans, especially when you consider a hawk can make a hairpin turn going at speeds humans can only reach with machines. And that other person, whoever it was, may, MAY have asserted (and rightfully so) that fighters will be lacking in space combat, but I am nigh-sure whoever this is did not do so in order to support the Mecha > Fighter contintion that seems to be the focal point of this thread right now.

I am no military engineer, but I have the glorious trait of common sense, and common sense says that a fighter absolutely >'s a Mecha in space combat, even IF and that is a big fucking IF bipedal mecha with AMBAC systems can spin (doing a barrel roll does not deflect laser fire, no matter what pippy is telling you) better than a fighter, a fighter is still faster and patently more agile and adept to dodging enemy fire than a mecha is.

Shields work on anything. Thing is, they have their limit, and megaton blasts on six foot targets usually do quite well at that.

Explain it. Cite sources.

And why not? Same basic principle as a nozzle on a hose: close it half way in one direction and the spray goes the other way. That and most thrusters (mine, anyway) can turn about 180 degrees, making turning a breeze, especially considering the amount on the thing. Much less wasteful than this silly AMBACs anyway, with its massively overcomplicated system.

Powered spin, though its not the same. We don't need thrusters to spin and to spin you'd need thusters on your wings or change direction (without moving) its not possible for a typical fighter.

Eraclea']Explain it. Cite sources.
...You've got to be kidding me...

Let's see, A Mote In God's Eye. All the Star Wars movies. Star Trek. Pick something, and I can quote you the words "Shields have failed," or at least paraphrase them. Sheesh, I finally get my ears to stop leaking blood and you pull that one out of your ass...

Eraclea']Its still photons. Shielding works amazingly well provided that it is reflecting the light and not absorbing it.

(Well it's usually absorbing it, so yes. If anything that's why God gave us Uranium, so we may glass each other to no end.)

Eraclea']Powered spin, though its not the same. We don't need thrusters to spin and to spin you'd need thusters on your wings or change direction (without moving) its not possible for a typical fighter.
Erm. No. See, when I push on one end, the rest of the thing spins. Try setting a pencil on a desk and flicking the eraser. No wings needed. Get the idea? Anyway, you're still using power to move, and, by nature of your method, more of it.

Joranhor']I never said they couldn't or didn't, only that this magical AMBAC you champion for mecha is not the end all for manouveribility. You sir, are making no sense with your wild assertions and bizarre conclusions not based on anything from previous posts (also ignoring everything we say and nitpicking one possible thing that might, or may be in error is rather rude as well).

You'll never get it is probably why your arguing it. Speed and manouveribility are relative to you. I don't see them as being one, that's why. Being nimble is different then manouveribility.



Neither mecha nor fighters carry the shield power generation necessary to repell PD fire more than once. That's just a reality of a smaller combat platform such as fighters, mechas, and bus-sized missles.

Really. Explain how a laser works and how a shield or coating won't work against it.


*Sigh* It is more than a little aggitating when you do this; namely, you make statements based on no evidence at all. Hawks are faster and more manouverable than humans, especially when you consider a hawk can make a hairpin turn going at speeds humans can only reach with machines. And that other person, whoever it was, may, MAY have asserted (and rightfully so) that fighters will be lacking in space combat, but I am nigh-sure whoever this is did not do so in order to support the Mecha > Fighter contintion that seems to be the focal point of this thread right now.


Mecha are different. Why you have a problem understanding the differences of a mech. You think they are either gods of combat or wastes of materials. What basis you have for this is entirely different to the original goal of it.

I am no military engineer, but I have the glorious trait of common sense, and common sense says that a fighter absolutely >'s a Mecha in space combat, even IF and that is a big fucking IF bipedal mecha with AMBAC systems can spin (doing a barrel roll does not deflect laser fire, no matter what pippy is telling you) better than a fighter, a fighter is still faster and patently more agile and adept to dodging enemy fire than a mecha is.

I never said that, nimble as in blowing away a fighter that shoots past or comes from behind is not immune to attack as the mech can spin around without (or with moving) and counterattack. (Also it can attack from behind if given the proper weapon placement).

Erm. No. See, when I push on one end, the rest of the thing spins. Try setting a pencil on a desk and flicking the eraser. No wings needed. Get the idea? Anyway, you're still using power to move, and, by nature of your method, more of it.

Explain how astronauts manuver in space. They don't use thrusters to spin or perform many of their actions, this is essentially the unpowered movement capable of changing direction by shifting mass. Pushing a pencil does not apply. Bad example.

A few points on general thread discussions,

1) Anime is no more a genre than live-action is a genre. It's a visual style.

2) Judging all of anime on a few bad shows is like judging all of live-action based on soap operas and The Core.

3) Every anime you ever saw on North American TV was horribly butchered compared to the original Japanese version. The english dubbed verision of Neon Genesis Evangelion, for example, is so horrible as to be unwatchable. It removes most of the Eva vocalizations and turns most of the characters into annoying bastards because of the horrible voice acting.

4) UC Gundam is excellent. The problem is that in North America they aired Wing, which was made for 14 year old girls and Seed which is just a crappy knock off of UC Gundam.

On Evas,

1) N2 mines are tricky to quantify. They range from nuclear yield (Episode 1, 9 and End of Evangelion where N2 mines indeed have effects like kT range nukes) to just fancy looking explosions (Episode 19 where the N2 mine Rei sets off doesn't give Shinji third-degree burns like a nuke would).

2) AT fields can be penetrated by enough energy, see episode 6 where a 180 Gigawatt beam pierces Ramiel's AT field. An Eva would be destroyed by nuclear weapon, probably around a 30 kT yield.

Alright, I couldn't stay away. Not when people are deriding the good names of some of the quality mecha out there (but I admit some bad ones do exist).

They're all poor combat platforms, the only reason they are good in universe is because of plot requirements.

1.) Variable geometry wings do NOT shift mass or weight, but center of gravity.

So? You don't need the retarted AMBAC system to make a fighter maneuverable, old fasioned reaction thrusters will do that just fine.

2.)C-Frac and C (ie, Lasers, Masers, et cetera) weapons are not 100% accurate.

Nothing is, but they're close to 99.999% accurate at ranges of 1-2 light seconds.

Ever hear of a guy named Einstein and about a little thing called Relativity (the original one and not the one he later came up with)? A little thing called time dilation (if you insist on using RL physics) make them avoidable against an agile target that can get out of the way.

Stop talking about things you don't understand. Time dilation just means that the relative rate of time passage is slowed for the observer traveling at higher velocities, this becomes very apparent at relatavistic velocities but it is enough at lower velocites to make GPS sattelites correct for it.

It's governed by the equation T = To/sqrt[1-(v/c)2]. Where T is the relatavistic time elapsed, To is the time elapsed from a stationary viewpoint, v is velocity and c is the speed of light. Thus at .99c one second will seem to be 0.14 seconds for the observer at .99c.

It only means that the faster observer experiences less time than the slower one. Not thay the faster observer actually slows down.

3.) FT = science FICTION. So you can drop all that bull crap about stuff not being applicable in the NS FT universe BECAUSE ITS NOT FROM RL!

You see to have forgotten the science part of science-fiction there.

5.) Mecha as space combat units are limited. IMHO, ground combat mecha supported by other ground combat forces are where they come into their prime.

Mecha are even crappier on the ground, the have a much larger target profile than a tank, much higher ground pressure than a tank and have much more complicated systems where all sorts of dirt and grime can clog up the works.

6.) Anything, if RPed correctly, can account for a great RP. Thus, while my ground combat mecha are amoung my heaviest units, they can still be damaged and/or destroyed by non-mecha enemy forces if done correctly.

As in 100% of the time.

7.) SD.net's God-wanked fanboy bull crap is just that, crap. True Lucas-canon is stuff from places like StarWars.com. Now, unless you can provide real Lucas-canon, and not SD.net God-wanked bull crap, with numbers that are Lucas-canon, then shut your trap.

Ok, the Lucas-canon DK books. Incredible Cross-Sections: Attack of the Clones and Incredible Cross-Sections: Revenge of the Sith. Ships have 3000G acceleration while fighters have 5000G acceleration. The Delta-7 Aethersprite as 1 kT laser cannons, an Acclamator-class has 200 gigaton yield medium turbolasers and tertaon range shields. A Banking Clan Communication Frigate can charge up its heavy guns to 66 petatons, though that takes 27 minutes or so.

Happy now?

8.) When are you freaking retards going to get it through your thick, Neanderthal skulls that SIZE DOES NOT MATTER! Just because a fighter isn't as large as, say, a heavy cruiser, that doesn't mean, using the right technology, it couldn't have the same, or more than, power than the larger ship.

You failed grade school a few times didn't you? If you have the technology to make a fighter more powerfull than a cap ship you can put that same technology into the cap ship and make it invulnerable to the fighter because the cap ship has more room.

Even if you have super-tech like ZPMs you can fit more of them onto a cap ship than on a fighter. You put one on a fighter and you can out seven thousand on the capship and the fighter won't be able to hurt the capship.

(Well it's usually absorbing it, so yes. If anything that's why God gave us Uranium, so we may glass each other to no end.)

Shields can overheat then, but it you have a 100% reflecting coating on the laser won't work in the first place. However Ion Cannons and anti-proton cannons and higher do.

Eraclea']Its still photons. Shielding works amazingly well provided that it is reflecting the light and not absorbing it.

Nothing is 100% efficient, even a mirror will absorb some of the incoming light.

Eraclea']Powered spin, though its not the same. We don't need thrusters to spin and to spin you'd need thusters on your wings or change direction (without moving) its not possible for a typical fighter.

It takes power to run your magic AMBAC system too.

Eraclea']You'll never get it is probably why your arguing it. Speed and manouveribility are relative to you. I don't see them as being one, that's why. Being nimble is different then manouveribility.

Something that can turn 180 degrees in one second is more nimble than something that only turn 90 degrees in one second. Something that accelerates at 10G is faster than one that accelerates at 1G. Something that can turn 180 degrees in a second and accelerate at 10G is more maneuverable than one that can't do that.

It is not subjective.


Really. Explain how a laser works and how a shield or coating won't work against it.

Shields will work against lasers, but with enough energy behind the laser it will burn through the shield. Do you understand that?

Mecha are different. Why you have a problem understanding the differences of a mech. You think they are either gods of combat or wastes of materials. What basis you have for this is entirely different to the original goal of it.

Mecha are wastes of material compared to conventional designs. They're only gods od combat in settings which are contrived to make them so.

I never said that, nimble as in blowing away a fighter that shoots past or comes from behind is not immune to attack as the mech can spin around without (or with moving) and counterattack. (Also it can attack from behind if given the proper weapon placement).

All that a mech can do a fighter can do better.

Eraclea']Shields can overheat then, but it you have a 100% reflecting coating on the laser won't work in the first place. However Ion Cannons and anti-proton cannons and higher do.

(Uh-huh. Well I have all that stuff... so there!)

Eraclea']You'll never get it is probably why your arguing it. Speed and manouveribility are relative to you. I don't see them as being one, that's why. Being nimble is different then manouveribility.

This is indeed your problem, as you see 'nimble' as meaning something other than the mainstream definition: agile, to be. That's all I can say on the matter really; if you can't go without abusing the meaning of a word for your own ends, then well, you lose.


Really. Explain how a laser works and how a shield or coating won't work against it.

I have come to find you to be totally lacking in the intelligence department. Honestly. If a capship PD laser pumps 15kt (hiroshima level blast) of energy into a coherent beam, and that beam hits an object's shields, then those shields must be ready to replace 15kt worth of energy from deflecting the blast. Of course these numbers are arbitrary, and no doubt some of you idiots will see those numbers and rip them out of context and say something as stupid as "ma shilds cna abzourb dat! lol!!!!!111oneoneone". Missing the point entirely that capship level PD weapons will cheese mecha and strike craft alike.


Mecha are different. Why you have a problem understanding the differences of a mech. You think they are either gods of combat or wastes of materials. What basis you have for this is entirely different to the original goal of it.
Yes, I believe now my brain is bleeding out my ears. You cannot apparently read and interpret my words and analyze their meaning. You also cannot develop a cogent response to anything I say, so I don't know why I bother.

I never said that, nimble as in blowing away a fighter that shoots past or comes from behind is not immune to attack as the mech can spin around without (or with moving) and counterattack. (Also it can attack from behind if given the proper weapon placement).

Nimble is being able to move quickly and avoid fire. A fighter is better at doing that than mecha, because fighters are fucking designed to be nimble, whereas mecha are not. Why can you not wrap your head around these facts? What is so hard to understand? Why must you continue to respond to me and everyone else with innane drivel about the suppossed superiority of mecha, that everyone else here has rebuffed?

A few points on general thread discussions,

1) Anime is no more a genre than live-action is a genre. It's a visual style.

2) Judging all of anime on a few bad shows is like judging all of live-action based on soap operas and The Core.

[QUOTE]3) Every anime you ever saw on North American TV was horribly butchered compared to the original Japanese version. The english dubbed verision of Neon Genesis Evangelion, for example, is so horrible as to be unwatchable. It removes most of the Eva vocalizations and turns most of the characters into annoying bastards because of the horrible voice acting. Exactly.

4) UC Gundam is excellent. The problem is that in North America they aired Wing, which was made for 14 year old girls and Seed which is just a crappy knock off of UC Gundam. Mwhaha. Try SD too. It was canceled so fast in America to!

On Evas,

1) N2 mines are tricky to quantify. They range from nuclear yield (Episode 1, 9 and End of Evangelion where N2 mines indeed have effects like kT range nukes) to just fancy looking explosions (Episode 19 where the N2 mine Rei sets off doesn't give Shinji third-degree burns like a nuke would). I made that point, but for the Episode 19 the blast was directed differently and maybe it was damaged. Thermal radiation does not appear an issue even in episode 1 with Misato's car the paint was not vaporized and they felt the force though. N2 mines are strange, but are probably a 3-4th generation device.

2) AT fields can be penetrated by enough energy, see episode 6 where a 180 Gigawatt beam pierces Ramiel's AT field. An Eva would be destroyed by nuclear weapon, probably around a 30 kT yield.

It was a positron rifle...but yes it broke through. Eva's have been known to take the full force of a N2 mine and survive, but what is interesting in magma diver the concern is to Asuka, more then the Eva. Since EVA's are angels it is a fair bet to say that a 30kt yield weapon would not destroy them if all but the first recognized and knew how to protect themselves against it. (Later reference to episode 16, the 12th angel)



They're all poor combat platforms, the only reason they are good in universe is because of plot requirements.


Civilian use before military use. This is what works for the tech in RL, but it all depends on how advanced and how far you can push it. Essentially my mechs will just be troopers for space carrying the weapons and tools for a job. Something that fighters aren't capable of. A mech if it tore through a ship (shields down or no shields) it could be capble of running throughout the ship and perform whatever task nessessary. (Destroying the power core or whatever other task that is not possible directly from a fighter)

They aren't godly... just the ones who are capable of that sort of work, unless you want to go all 'every place has good airlocks and they will have locks so once they enter we can get out of our fighters from wherever (usually hangar bay) we entered from and do it manually.



So? You don't need the retarted AMBAC system to make a fighter maneuverable, old fasioned reaction thrusters will do that just fine.



Nothing is, but they're close to 99.999% accurate at ranges of 1-2 light seconds.

Yep.

Stop talking about things you don't understand. Time dilation just means that the relative rate of time passage is slowed for the observer traveling at higher velocities, this becomes very apparent at relatavistic velocities but it is enough at lower velocites to make GPS sattelites correct for it.

It's governed by the equation T = To/sqrt[1-(v/c)2]. Where T is the relatavistic time elapsed, To is the time elapsed from a stationary viewpoint, v is velocity and c is the speed of light. Thus at .99c one second will seem to be 0.14 seconds for the observer at .99c.

It only means that the faster observer experiences less time than the slower one. Not thay the faster observer actually slows down.



You see to have forgotten the science part of science-fiction there.

I tried myself.... >.>


Mecha are even crappier on the ground, the have a much larger target profile than a tank, much higher ground pressure than a tank and have much more complicated systems where all sorts of dirt and grime can clog up the works.

Moot point. More so in FT.


As in 100% of the time.

Ya.



Ok, the Lucas-canon DK books. Incredible Cross-Sections: Attack of the Clones and Incredible Cross-Sections: Revenge of the Sith. Ships have 3000G acceleration while fighters have 5000G acceleration. The Delta-7 Aethersprite as 1 kT laser cannons, an Acclamator-class has 200 gigaton yield medium turbolasers and tertaon range shields. A Banking Clan Communication Frigate can charge up its heavy guns to 66 petatons, though that takes 27 minutes or so.

Happy now?

How can a laser cannon have the explosive force of 1000 metric tons of TNT? Or a 200 gigaton or 66 Petaton. These figures don't make sense for what a laser is measured in: watts.

I don't think this is right to be honest. Its apples and oranges.

You failed grade school a few times didn't you? If you have the technology to make a fighter more powerfull than a cap ship you can put that same technology into the cap ship and make it invulnerable to the fighter because the cap ship has more room.

Even if you have super-tech like ZPMs you can fit more of them onto a cap ship than on a fighter. You put one on a fighter and you can out seven thousand on the capship and the fighter won't be able to hurt the capship.

Hehee. Good point.

Nothing is 100% efficient, even a mirror will absorb some of the incoming light.

The same exists inside a laser though. Its not 100% efficient, its 100% reflective. It obeys the laws. Also remember Q-switched mirrors increase the power of the beam until the the reflective power is changed, thus if you put it against the reflective surface it would simply bounce away.

Now what would happen if both are thick mirrors, 100% reflective? Now at some point the atoms which released the photons would again retake them as that is the simplest way of storing the energy inside.

How can a laser cannon have the explosive force of 1000 metric tons of TNT? Or a 200 gigaton or 66 Petaton. These figures don't make sense for what a laser is measured in: watts.
A watt is a joule per second. Joules are a measure of force, which is what you measure bomb blasts with. Thus, yes, it does make sense.

(Uh-huh. Well I have all that stuff... so there!)

Actually that is what I think SW should be using, but they clearly aren't. Also the whole red and green beams are just shit. It means that the light sabers are reacting to other molecules. A true laser only has color at the point at which it illuminates and is not a beam.

However I don't know why this general misconception is being carried on for so long.

Case in point: Laser Pointers. You don't see the beam through the air. So why would it be in Star Wars air and space?

Eraclea']

[quote] I made that point, but for the Episode 19 the blast was directed differently and maybe it was damaged. Thermal radiation does not appear an issue even in episode 1 with Misato's car the paint was not vaporized and they felt the force though. N2 mines are strange, but are probably a 3-4th generation device.

The device in Ep1 was also much farther away.

It was a positron rifle...but yes it broke through. Eva's have been known to take the full force of a N2 mine and survive, but what is interesting in magma diver the concern is to Asuka, more then the Eva. Since EVA's are angels it is a fair bet to say that a 30kt yield weapon would not destroy them if all but the first recognized and knew how to protect themselves against it. (Later reference to episode 16, the 12th angel)

We never see an Eva take a full force N2, it's more likely that Rei's device was of a lower yield than the other N2s used.




Essentially my mechs will just be troopers for space carrying the weapons and tools for a job. Something that fighters aren't capable of.

You can design fighters for any specific role that a mech can do and the fighter will do it better.

A mech if it tore through a ship (shields down or no shields) it could be capble of running throughout the ship and perform whatever task nessessary. (Destroying the power core or whatever other task that is not possible directly from a fighter)

If the ship has no shields it'd be easier to nuke it to death rather than board it with a mecha.


Moot point. More so in FT.

No, stuff like that will always be a concern.


How can a laser cannon have the explosive force of 1000 metric tons of TNT? Or a 200 gigaton or 66 Petaton. These figures don't make sense for what a laser is measured in: watts.

The energy the beam carries is equivalent to an explosive of that yield. Power is energy divided by time so a 420 terawatt laser that is on for .01 seconds will deposit 1 kT of energy in the target. It will do its damage in a different way however.

I don't think this is right to be honest. Its apples and oranges.

It is consistent with the movies so it stands.

Because they're not lasers? I believe that's the official Lucas response. Lightsabres especially, as they're just plasma/energy/magical nickel shitting faeries in a magnetic field, IIRC.

Eraclea']The same exists inside a laser though. Its not 100% efficient, its 100% reflective. It obeys the laws. Also remember Q-switched mirrors increase the power of the beam until the the reflective power is changed, thus if you put it against the reflective surface it would simply bounce away.

Now what would happen if both are thick mirrors, 100% reflective? Now at some point the atoms which released the photons would again retake them as that is the simplest way of storing the energy inside.

You can't make anything 100% reflective, eventually the energy will simply strip electrons off the atoms rather than putting them into a higher energy state and re-emiting. You can have a very very reflective surface that reflects most light but it will still absorb a tiny fraction.

Actually that is what I think SW should be using, but they clearly aren't. Also the whole red and green beams are just shit. It means that the light sabers are reacting to other molecules. A true laser only has color at the point at which it illuminates and is not a beam.

Turbolasers and laser cannons are not true lasers, they are a beam of exotic, non-photon, massless particle beams. The light is byproduct of those particles decay.

A watt is a joule per second. Joules are a measure of force, which is what you measure bomb blasts with. Thus, yes, it does make sense.

Joule
a. A unit of electrical energy equal to the work done when a current of one ampere is passed through a resistance of one ohm for one second.
b. A unit of energy equal to the work done when a force of one newton acts through a distance of one meter. See Table at measurement.

Its using B's definition when it should be A. To top it off kiloton is used to measure the explosive force of TNT. Which is measured at its base as in meters a second which refers back to joule, but not in terms of electrical power.

What does that mean when force is not physical, but electrical and just photons. Photons don't exert a force like an explosion, so why classify it as so?

-snip-

If the force was enough to blow the car off the road and into a ditch without causing any burns or anything, its fair to assume that thermal radiation is low or non-existant. Usually the heat is follows with the runs of heat and sense the typical evidence was notseen, its a fair assumption it doesn't. Even with the one dropped on NERV.


Rei's device was strong, but fairly weaker, its still strong enough to do some damage, but the fact is you should base your ability to take a hit much like the angels, since that's what they are at heart.

Height of a 30ft mech is bogus. FT more so with the communication, detection and smart weaponry that makes seeing a target visually a moot point. Since cruise missiles and other devices can still destroy the target without the person firing it having ever SEEN it in the first place. A 1 ft mech or a 300 ft mech, as long as you identify it by some source (heat, sound or whatever x-ray or otherwise possible means of detection) lets it be just easily spotted then. So the whole visual advantage is moot.

Last major point is. You are using explosive power when not everything relies on explosive power. A mirror will reflect the same amount of light at X seconds as it with in 2X. Just realize that not all methods are taken in the same way and a conversion should be possible at the users obligation before you can say it does this. It would have maybe a more direct relation to shield power, but that's about all I can see with that measurement.

Because they're not lasers? I believe that's the official Lucas response. Lightsabres especially, as they're just plasma/energy/magical nickel shitting faeries in a magnetic field, IIRC.

Then let's just slap some magical resistance on like the SW always had for a cop out! :D

Eraclea']Your relativity is wrong... Check your math as I did. This definately should show advantage to defender, not attacker. Assuming defender is stationary.My math is right; I'm rounding things a bit, but this time I won't.

Your first mistake is in assuming that the encounter should be analyzed by looking at it from some third frame of reference. Relatively doesn't work that way. Pick somebody's frame of reference; I chose the target, so by definition the target is stationary.

1 AU = 149,597,870.691 ± .03 km
c = 299,792.458 km/s
1 AU = 499.005 ls

.99c = 296,794.533 km/s

At that speed, it'll take 504.045s for our incoming projectile to travel 1AU to impact our target. But since light takes only 499.005s to cover that distance, our hapless target will get just 5.045s warning before impact.

(BTW, this suggests that if your sensors can only see 1AU, you're scr_w_ed, and you'd probably be right. But it doesn't get much better if you have a detection range of 40AU [a distance slightly greater than the separation between Pluto and the Sun {39.482AU}]; at that range the target will only get 3m 21.6s!)

For the incoming vehicle, it takes (as indicated above) 504.045s to cover 1AU from the perspective of the target; due to time dilation, the time needed to cover the distance is only 1m 11.104s from the perspective of the incoming platform. This is because time is slowed by the Lorentz contraction factor, γ, where:γ = 1 / √ [ 1 - ( v² / c²) ]At .99c, γ = 7.088812; 504.045s / 7.088812 = 71.104s.

(In the case of a projectile rocketing in from beyond Pluto's orbit [40AU], the apparent time elapsed from the perspective of the incoming projectile is 47m 24.173s.)

If the target's detection range is 1AU, and it takes 499.005s for light to travel that distance, the first images of the incoming projectile will arrive when it is just 5.045s away, as indicated above; the distance remaining for the attacker to cover will be 1,495,978.707 km (in the previous post I said 1.5M km [where 1.5M is short for “1.5 million”]). Due to time dilation, the remaining 5.045s will only seem like 0.711s (5.045s / γ) to the missile's computer; equivalent computers on the targeted platform will be working seven times faster.

(If the detection range for the target is 40AU, the incoming platform will have only 28.4s after detection [by its own clock] before impact; again, due to time dilation, the target will see 3m 21.6s pass, as mentioned above. Either way, the projectile will actually only be 59,839,148.268 km away when their final encounter begins.)Eraclea']Though this 6 seconds is enough to avoid it by even a large margin even at half-light speed, or even an eigth by using a pulse of energy to change its direction unpredictablity.The key is acceleration. By how much can the defender change its position in 5.045s (or 3m 21.6s)?

The first thing to keep in mind is that the incoming missile has had quite a bit longer to calculate the course of the target than vice versa. In the case of an encounter that begins a 1AU, the attacker has had 1m 10.4s to track the target and plot an intercept course; we can presume that it is steering, not directly at the target, but at where the target will be in 5.045s (by the target's clock) if it doesn't change course.

Thus only acceleration (δv) matters; you'd might as well treat the target as though it were at rest. In 5.045s, if the target can accelerate at 10G, it can only alter its final position by 1.27 km. If the incoming missile is nuclear tipped, this is not likely to be enough to avoid a kill.

(Things are much better where the detection occurs at 40AU; at 10G, the quarry can change its position by over 2,032 km! This doesn't mean that evasion is a sure thing, of course, but – as you have indicated in you post – sensor delays work against the attacker as much as they work in its favor. Interestingly enough, in either case both sides are almost better off acting randomly to keep the adversary from anticipating their terminal manuevers.

Of course, the attacker could be a missile bus, sporting dozens of warheads in the same may MT ICBM's are MIRV'ed; the attacker could have them just shotgun the whole target sphere with 20-30 warheads and figure that somewhere in that barrage the target will be caught and irradiated.)

Eraclea']If the force was enough to blow the car off the road and into a ditch without causing any burns or anything, its fair to assume that thermal radiation is low or non-existant.

It is impossible for an explosion to not have a thermal pulse. If the explosion didn't have a thermal puls it is more indivtive of a low yield than a magic no-heat bomb.

Usually the heat is follows with the runs of heat and sense the typical evidence was notseen, its a fair assumption it doesn't.

Violating the laws of physics is never a fair assumption.

Even with the one dropped on NERV.

That is by far the strongest case for nuclear yield N2 mines as did indeed have massive thermal and physical effects.

Rei's device was strong, but fairly weaker, its still strong enough to do some damage, but the fact is you should base your ability to take a hit much like the angels, since that's what they are at heart.

And Angels can be damaged by less than 50 gigajoules (the positron beam was on for less than a second). A 30 kT yield nuke is 12.6 million gigajoules.

Height of a 30ft mech is bogus. FT more so with the communication, detection and smart weaponry that makes seeing a target visually a moot point. Since cruise missiles and other devices can still destroy the target without the person firing it having ever SEEN it in the first place. A 1 ft mech or a 300 ft mech, as long as you identify it by some source (heat, sound or whatever x-ray or otherwise possible means of detection) lets it be just easily spotted then. So the whole visual advantage is moot.

A smaller target will always be harder to hit than a bigger one regardless of detection methods.

Last major point is. You are using explosive power when not everything relies on explosive power. A mirror will reflect the same amount of light at X seconds as it with in 2X. Just realize that not all methods are taken in the same way and a conversion should be possible at the users obligation before you can say it does this. It would have maybe a more direct relation to shield power, but that's about all I can see with that measurement.

Joules are just a unit of energy, or how of how much work it can do. Work is anything really, such as heating a pot of water, lifting a boulder or blowing up a starship. Thus if a laser is 100 kT it contains the equivalent amount of energy as a 100 thousand tons of TNT would release when detonated. It is not saying that a laser will do its damage by the same mechanism as an explosion.

And if a mirror reflects 99.999% of all light hitting it, it will still absorb .001% of that light. That means that if you shoot a 420 terawatt laser at the mirror it will still absorb .42 terawatts, which if the beam lasts for one second is equivalent to 100 tons of TNT.

... man I feel sorry for you FT peeps. having to deal with people who think there's no recoil in space, or who try to use time dialation without knowing what it really is.

Its still relative to a third person viewer. The time for a missile to elapse has no effect on what it will do. Nor will it on a stationary object.

HOWEVER if you want to be all technical for it, then yes. Though I don't see time dilation as having an effect here when viewed from a third person view. This only applies to relativity. And as all things are relativity when either is set to stationary the others time will be off for it.

What was the point of all that?

... man I feel sorry for you FT peeps. having to deal with people who think there's no recoil in space, or who try to use time dialation without knowing what it really is.

Exactly. x-x

My model works only because of the third-person view, who gives a care how much time passes on the missile as it crosses one AU? It has no effect on it. The only thing it would effect is how long the passage of time is on the ship on things that matter based on time.

Lifespan of a person for one. Saying someone is 200,000 years old in FT is possible even for a human, but what a lonely existance. :P

Would you guys put away the tape measures for a second? Last I checked, this wasn't a dick measuring contest like you've made it into!

1.) Ground combat mecha do have their roles. A full ground force with general infantry, the right mecha, tanks, artillary, APCs, et cetera, all in the right ratios and so on will be nigh unstoppable.

2.) Variable geometry mecha-fighters (ie, the Valkayries(sp?)) are just a waste.

3.) In space combat, mecha serve pretty well as mobile PD platforms.

4.) SIZE DOES NOT MATTER!!!!

5.) In some FT techs, the technology does exist to power smaller sub-craft from the mother/parent ship. Thus, they don't need their own internal power plants.

6.) Space combat mecha, from what I've seen, are more akin to gunboats than fighters.

7.) If size did matter, then why would a canon XMC (minus my custom mods) be more powerful than a canon Executor class SSD?

8.) Enough with the physics crap! NS is about RPing a story, not if you can back your stuff up with god damn technobabble!

Would you guys put away the tape measures for a second? Last I checked, this wasn't a dick measuring contest like you've made it into!

This has always been about disproving your idiotic bullshit.

1.) Ground combat mecha do have their roles.

Yes, tank fodder.

A full ground force with general infantry, the right mecha, tanks, artillary, APCs, et cetera, all in the right ratios and so on will be nigh unstoppable.

There is no role for a mecha that can't be filled with a conventional vehicle that will do that job better than the mecha.

2.) Variable geometry mecha-fighters (ie, the Valkayries(sp?)) are just a waste.

Well, well. It seems you do have a few working brain cells afterall.

3.) In space combat, mecha serve pretty well as mobile PD platforms.

And you could replace the volume needed to store and maintain the mecha with PD laser clusters that will do a far better job.

4.)SIZE DOES NOT MATTER!!!!

Maybe if I repeat the point over and over again you'll get the message.

Given equivalent technology the larger ship will have more room for power generation, shields and weapond and will thus be far more powerfull than a smaller ship.

Given equivalent technology the larger ship will have more room for power generation, shields and weapond and will thus be far more powerfull than a smaller ship.

Given equivalent technology the larger ship will have more room for power generation, shields and weapond and will thus be far more powerfull than a smaller ship.

Given equivalent technology the larger ship will have more room for power generation, shields and weapond and will thus be far more powerfull than a smaller ship.

5.) In some FT techs, the technology does exist to power smaller sub-craft from the mother/parent ship. Thus, they don't need their own internal power plants.

No, then they need batteries which still take up volume and will still need hald of their energy to get back to base.

6.) Space combat mecha, from what I've seen, are more akin to gunboats than fighters.

Then build a conventional gunship rather than use the crap mecha design.

7.) If size did matter, then why would a canon XMC (minus my custom mods) be more powerful than a canon Executor class SSD?

What is a XMC?

8.) Enough with the physics crap! NS is about RPing a story, not if you can back your stuff up with god damn technobabble!

Because basic high school physics is technobabble.:rolleyes:

Eraclea']My model works only because of the third-person view, who gives a care how much time passes on the missile as it crosses one AU? It has no effect on it. The only thing it would effect is how long the passage of time is on the ship on things that matter based on time.
Say it with me, Time Dialation Does Not Matter. That's right, it matters not. Naught it matters. All that matters is that you can't dodge a c-frac round because you can't see it coming until five seconds before it hits you AT A FULL AU AWAY!

Would you guys put away the tape measures for a second? Last I checked, this wasn't a dick measuring contest like you've made it into!

1.) Ground combat mecha do have their roles. A full ground force with general infantry, the right mecha, tanks, artillary, APCs, et cetera, all in the right ratios and so on will be nigh unstoppable.

2.) Variable geometry mecha-fighters (ie, the Valkayries(sp?)) are just a waste.

3.) In space combat, mecha serve pretty well as mobile PD platforms.

4.) SIZE DOES NOT MATTER!!!!

5.) In some FT techs, the technology does exist to power smaller sub-craft from the mother/parent ship. Thus, they don't need their own internal power plants.

6.) Space combat mecha, from what I've seen, are more akin to gunboats than fighters.

7.) If size did matter, then why would a canon XMC (minus my custom mods) be more powerful than a canon Executor class SSD?

8.) Enough with the physics crap! NS is about RPing a story, not if you can back your stuff up with god damn technobabble!

1.) Orbital Bombardment > Ground forces

2.) Just like all other Mecha.

3.) You know what else does? Mobile PD platforms (or better yet, PD clusters on ships).

4.) Yes. It does. A large, hard object can take a lot more damage than a small, hard object. Now, arm a fighter with some sort of ship-killing weapon and sure, it can take out a large ship (reference WWII, Japanese vs. everyone), but with good enough PD you shouldn't have to even worry about ship-killing weapons.

5.) Can't argue that because I don't know enough about that.

6.) So why don't you just have gunboats that don't have hard-to-control apendages that can be blown off?

7.) I have no idea what a cannon XMC is, but I can guess from that description, it's probably much smaller and therefore more suseptable to nukes.

8.) There's a distict difference between technobabble and physics. If you are completely ignoring physics then what kind of story can you have? Also, this is a tech thread. Emphasis is important, but it's not the topic of this discussion.

-snip-

Prove it. Why refraction is not possible option.

As for the NGE EoE the most clear evidence is found here (3 mins in): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxyQCPdv0gU

In 5 mins here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhStm7HbIeI

Take a good look at that. Notice something weird? In both cases trees, grass, water, plants and everything were still around after the blast that were not directly touched by the explosion.

Btw hear is the coolest video of a nuclear explosion that I found to have effects: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLCJde6VnJc

Note the thermal radiation hits before the shockwave. (And naturally it should!)

Say it with me, Time Dialation Does Not Matter. That's right, it matters not. Naught it matters. All that matters is that you can't dodge a c-frac round because you can't see it coming until five seconds before it hits you AT A FULL AU AWAY!

Wrong person. You wanted Kafers. He's apparently Father Time. :D

Btw I agreed on it with Xessmithia as its about as good as accurate.

Eraclea']Prove it. Why refraction is not possible option.

I never said it wasn't a possible option, but any material that refracts or reflects an incoming laser will absorb some of the energy, and enough energy will destroy the material.

As for the NGE EoE the most clear evidence is found here (3 mins in): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxyQCPdv0gU

In 5 mins here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhStm7HbIeI

Take a good look at that. Notice something weird? In both cases trees, grass, water, plants and everything were still around after the blast that were not directly touched by the explosion.

Btw hear is the coolest video of a nuclear explosion that I found to have effects: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLCJde6VnJc

Note the thermal radiation hits before the shockwave. (And naturally it should!)

All of which points to a low yield for N2 mines, not magic no-heat explosions.

time dialation would only 'matter' to the two frames of refrence. An outside POV won't prevent something targetd by an object moving at .99c get out of the way.

of course, five seconds is a lot of time.

EDIT: I also suggest you keep particle physics out of this. please.

Eraclea']My model works only because of the third-person view, who gives a care how much time passes on the missile as it crosses one AU? It has no effect on it. The only thing it would effect is how long the passage of time is on the ship on things that matter based on time.Are you assuming the the missile has no homing or guidance system? If there is a computer on the missile that is making decisions, then of course time dilation matters: it reduces the machine's effective computational speed, which makes a considerable difference.

Are you assuming the the missile has no homing or guidance system? If there is a computer on the missile that is making decisions, then of course time dilation matters: it reduces the machine's effective computational speed, which makes a considerable difference.

Hence advantage to defender in both cases. Though extreme cases of physics aside, I don't think it is likely for many near-light-speed conflicts to occur.

Eraclea']I don't think it is likely for many near-light-speed conflicts to occur.Why not? Larry Niven's stories are full of them. Or isn't Niven's stuff sci-fi? ;)Eraclea']Hence advantage to defender in both cases.Well, now hold on a second there, cowboy. I wouldn't be quite so chipper if I were you.

First, in the case where detection range is just 1AU, I think we can establish that the target dies: it simply can't get out of the way of the incoming relativistic projectile in time to survive. In the 40AU case, though, it's a little more ambiguous.

Yes, if the target reacts to the presence of an incoming relativistic projectile as soon as it's been detected at 40AU and if it can accelerate in any direction instantaneously at 10G's (and sustain that acceleration for several minutes without killing its crew), it can change its position by just over 2,000 km in the 3m 21s (or so) it has before impact. But that may not be enough. As I indicated, the attacker could release multiple nuclear warheads at the enemy in a shotgun pattern; this would make escape by the target somewhat more difficult. Worse (for the attacker), it could do this prior to detection, since the incoming missile has 47m 24s (from its perspective) or so to prepare for the encounter; it doesn't have to wait for the last 71s (or so) after it's been spotted to take action. While a cluster of 20-30 warheads wouldn't guarantee saturation of a sphere of 2,000 km radius, it would dramatically increase the chance of a kill. There are other things that would make a kill likelier, but I'd rather not give all of my tactics away just yet. :p

As for the slower speed of the projectile's onboard computers, this might not be fatal. Even at 14% of rest performance, the computers would still be capable of a considerable degree of terminal activity before detonation (such as effective proximity detection and detonation, for instance).

Based on data published by various RL sources, I figure that the probability of a kill under these conditions should be somewhere in the range of 10-25%. Not bad, compared to modern anti-aircraft missiles.

I also suggest you keep particle physics out of this. please.May I ask why there is such resistance to incorporating science into science fiction (other than the fact that some people don't have the skill with math or the knowledge of physics to cope with it)?

May I ask why there is such resistance to incorporating science into science fiction (other than the fact that some people don't have the skill with math or the knowledge of physics to cope with it)?

I believe that's the only reason.

I believe that's the only reason.Not a very good one, is it?

The sad truth is that most of this is high-school physics and astronomy; you don't even need the calculus to work out most of the math. A good calculator is all that it takes. :(

A good calculator? I've been using Microsoft's imbedded calculator program, and I'd hardly call that one good...

Why not? Larry Niven's stories are full of them. Or isn't Niven's stuff sci-fi? ;)Well, now hold on a second there, cowboy. I wouldn't be quite so chipper if I were you.

First, in the case where detection range is just 1AU, I think we can establish that the target dies: it simply can't get out of the way of the incoming relativistic projectile in time to survive. In the 40AU case, though, it's a little more ambiguous.

Yes, if the target reacts to the presence of an incoming relativistic projectile as soon as it's been detected at 40AU and if it can accelerate in any direction instantaneously at 10G's (and sustain that acceleration for several minutes without killing its crew), it can change its position by just over 2,000 km in the 3m 21s (or so) it has before impact. But that may not be enough. As I indicated, the attacker could release multiple nuclear warheads at the enemy in a shotgun pattern; this would make escape by the target somewhat more difficult. Worse (for the attacker), it could do this prior to detection, since the incoming missile has 47m 24s (from its perspective) or so to prepare for the encounter; it doesn't have to wait for the last 71s (or so) after it's been spotted to take action. While a cluster of 20-30 warheads wouldn't guarantee saturation of a sphere of 2,000 km radius, it would dramatically increase the chance of a kill. There are other things that would make a kill likelier, but I'd rather not give all of my tactics away just yet. :p

As for the slower speed of the projectile's onboard computers, this might not be fatal. Even at 14% of rest performance, the computers would still be capable of a considerable degree of terminal activity before detonation (such as effective proximity detection and detonation, for instance).

Based on data published by various RL sources, I figure that the probability of a kill under these conditions should be somewhere in the range of 10-25%. Not bad, compared to modern anti-aircraft missiles.


Sure... in a world with FTL speed won't kill them...naturally I can move at any damn speed I want as long as its relative and the proper systems are in place. I can jump from one point to another if I want, like Hyperspace.

Sure... in a world with FTL speed won't kill them...naturally I can move at any damn speed I want as long as its relative and the proper systems are in place. I can jump from one point to another if I want, like Hyperspace.

Not in real-space you can't, what with the oh-so-fun fact that breaching C is essentially impossible, requiring literally infinite energy. Thus, you usually have to use extradimensional travel, such as hyperspace, warp-space, worm-holes, etc. Common FTLi such as my dimensional buffers, prevent exiting realspace by fortifying the barriers between our dimension and the next. Well, that's how mine work, partially. There's more, but this isn't really the place to ramble on about my technology.

Others use different methods with different explanations. For example, hyperspace doesn't work in gravity wells, and ships will be pulled out by them.

Then we get into the whole bag of worms of acceleration, maximum survivable velocity before the interstellar medium begins to cause damage, etc. Then there's the fact that you often to have to chose and program a destination when using FTL, which can take several minutes, if not longer...

Not a very good one, is it?

The sad truth is that most of this is high-school physics and astronomy; you don't even need the calculus to work out most of the math. A good calculator is all that it takes. :(

I used my scientific calc for that last equation. You can't do square roots and exponents in that calc or do the set up quickly.

This is not high-school physics. It is not astronomy. It is Quantum Physics and other very high level Mathmatics based on theory and particle physics on a scale that is not fully understood even.

No one alive has personally experienced these sensations and felt them firsthand, we are witnessing it on a very large or very small scale. You are actually using simplified calculus for these when comparing more then one thing, such as vectors and we AREN'T going to do that, it makes the problem too complex and even our best answers are not exact, they are just estimating for straight lines and simple actions.

We are not calculating for turning or changing in directions which would throw off the times and ability to react, its too complex for NS. Even this is overkill!

Erm, this isn't calc. This is basic algebra, not even trigonometry. Trust me, I'm taking calculus. Much, MUCH different. Calculus is a pain in the ass, this I learned in 6th grade. Most of this is elementary physics, or in the case of temporal thingagummer (brain fart, sorry), a scientifically proven phenomena.

We are not calculating for turning or changing in directions which would throw off the times and ability to react, its too complex for NS. Even this is overkill!
Actually, wouldn't be that hard, and could be solved without math by giving the missile/shell basic sensors to track its target, along with course correction thrusters. Wouldn't need much of a push to get it moving to the side a bit, IIRC. That or simply blanket an area in high volume bomb pumped MASER clusters, which would fry anything they blow near rather nicely. Hell, even focus more energy into the lasing (masing?) system based on simple sensor readings.

Erm, this isn't calc. This is basic algebra, not even trigonometry. Trust me, I'm taking calculus. Much, MUCH different. Calculus is a pain in the ass, this I learned in 6th grade. Most of this is elementary physics, or in the case of temporal thingagummer (brain fart, sorry), a scientifically proven phenomena.


Actually, wouldn't be that hard, and could be solved without math by giving the missile/shell basic sensors to track its target, along with course correction thrusters. Wouldn't need much of a push to get it moving to the side a bit, IIRC. That or simply blanket an area in high volume bomb pumped MASER clusters, which would fry anything they blow near rather nicely. Hell, even focus more energy into the lasing (masing?) system based on simple sensor readings.

Ya sure...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

Its Calc, algebra, geometry, and trig.

No, unless I'm missing some important calculations somewhere, all I'm getting is geometry and algebra (mildly complicated algebra, mind you) from the first page, and I fail to see how length contraction is related to this conversation, so it's safe to say it's irrelevant. That and there's still just geometry there with a few definitions replaced if you really want to compute non-Euclidian forms...

No, unless I'm missing some important calculations somewhere, all I'm getting is geometry and algebra (mildly complicated algebra, mind you) from the first page, and I fail to see how length contraction is related to this conversation, so it's safe to say it's irrelevant. That and there's still just geometry there with a few definitions replaced if you really want to compute non-Euclidian forms...

Reference to time of the incoming missile at .99c. BTW Euclidean space is Calculus. Though the ways of simplifying a complex problem with a formula that is deceptively easy.

Hate to say it, but that wasn't calc, that was just algebra. A couple of simple equations, then some basic arithmetic when you subtract the first answer from the second. If you really want some calculus problems, I'm sure I could post some of my homework on here if you want to do it for me...

BTW Euclidean space is Calculus.
Erm. No. Euclidean space is standard solid geometry. Non-Euclidean space would be another subset of geometry, using a different set of definitions of sine, cosine and tangent IIRC, along with something about parallel lines. Been a while since I took geometry, and since I never need use non-Euclidean models... Anyway, no calculus involved in either, unless you're doing something odd.

@Xessmithia: I give up on you. Why I expected an SD.net supporter to be able to see reason, I'll never know.
@Liberated New Hope:
1.) Size doesn't matter. Just because a larger object can take more of a pounding than a smaller one, it also means the smaller one is harder to hit.
2.) Not all mecha are bad. Its their poor portrayl that disinfranchises some to them.
3.) Sometimes you have to capture a surface target intact, thus nixing the option of an orbital bombardment. This means a balanced ground force, including mecha and everything else, will be required.
4.) Just 1 XMC (ie, Heavy Cruiser (little over 1 klick long)) has enough firepower to decimate a world. Add the rest of an HCBG, and you have a DS style anti-planet force that actually has other uses than that giant hunk of junk the GE flies around.
@The Kafers: You do realize 1 AU = distance between the Earth and the Sun? That is 8 light minutes, IIRC, far outside the effective weapon range of EVERYONE ON NS!
@All: I've noticed this thread turned from the original poster asking questions about ways to start with PMT-NFT level mecha to this bitch fest about fighters versus mecha and all this other bull crap.

1.) Size doesn't matter. Just because a larger object can take more of a pounding than a smaller one, it also means the smaller one is harder to hit.
True, up to a point. After all, AoE weaponry and simple saturation will ensure the target is destroyed.

3.) Sometimes you have to capture a surface target intact, thus nixing the option of an orbital bombardment. This means a balanced ground force, including mecha and everything else, will be required.
True, barring the point that you need mecha. Dedicated vehicles such as grav tanks are still better than mecha due to the same reasons as before.


4.) Just 1 XMC (ie, Heavy Cruiser (little over 1 klick long)) has enough firepower to decimate a world. Add the rest of an HCBG, and you have a DS style anti-planet force that actually has other uses than that giant hunk of junk the GE flies around.
Somehow I don't think this is Star Wars... If not, then you really can't compare the two, equivalent tech being one of the key points here.

@The Kafers: You do realize 1 AU = distance between the Earth and the Sun? That is 8 light minutes, IIRC, far outside the effective weapon range of EVERYONE ON NS!
Not really. I can target something from that range quite easily, especially planet-sized objects and stations, as they're less likely to deviate from their present course before the attack is detected. Anyway, this serves to provesthe point that dodging relativistic attacks is nigh impossible even more so, don't you think?

@All: I've noticed this thread turned from the original poster asking questions about ways to start with PMT-NFT level mecha to this bitch fest about fighters versus mecha and all this other bull crap.
Actually, it started as a thread about whether mecha were viable in FT, and it hasn't deviated much at all since then. After all, we're still discussing how mecha aren't viable choices, are we not? Although I'll admit the argument about the non-use of calculus in these is rather out there.

Size does matter. Bigger ship = more guns, more systems, more power generators. Granted there is a point when big is too big, such as with tanks or... MECHA, since a walking bipedal machine with poor armor (it's a surface area thing that ALWAYS kills them) at even just 12 feet tall is hard to miss. But still, big things have more area to store other things, making them stronger than smaller things (not always better mind).

ZPM > D-cell, obviously. But, a wardreadnoughtofsuperblastiness can carry up in the range of thousands of ZPMs, where as the atypical mecha can't carry more than a few. See the difference? A big hull can carry small things than a small hull can. So size matters.

As far as mech vs. fighter goes, well that's a classic argument as that is what space mecha fight; there are no tanks in space with treads clinging to the vacuum after all. But who wins? The fighter obviously; they were meant to be nimble, there design demands it. A mecha on the otherhand... agility is not high on that list. They also lose, with equivalent tech and figuring equivalent size and mass, because they waste far too much space. A cockpit in a fighter is -small- as hell, it takes up as little space as possible. But if we go with what we know about mecha, the cockpit is not small, it is undeservingly huge. A hollow area that demands more armor than the rest of the craft to protect the occupant inside.

Against tanks they... might could do something. But then again tanks were designed for that kind of warfare, and have more armor than a mecha ever could hope to have, so I have no faith in them there.

They're just bad is all, bad in the light of specialized designs. Why waste money on a mecha that could possibly maybe do alot of things at a subpar level, when you can spend money on designs that excell in their function? I ask you.

I think its funny this topic is still going but let me get this straight with you. This is FT. There are ways to make tough mecha that dont work as well with stretched skin over compartment vehicles. The hard sciencers of NS have finally accepted the validity of Variable mecha [veritechs] after long arguments and the discovery of AMBAC principles.

Anyways fighter planes arent meant to be nimble. Are you insane? They are meant to be fast. Mecha or humanoid forms is one of natures nimblest. We can do things like quickly move up stairs, change our elevation quickly, jump to the side, the back and the front. Maneuver verniers and gravitic impellors would add to that.
Dont forget the agility coming from having a center of gravity in the middle.

Anyways its a silly topic. With weapons grade masers [highly impossible] and singularities being used. Who cares if people have good mecha. Its what you like.

Once again a gun is a gun and a fighter is a fighter. Its about the writing. If the person cant write their fighters as believably taking on anothers mecha then they lose, and vice versa. Give it up spheroid star ship lovers. Your stuff is far far more ridiculous. [And Otagia seems to use a fleet that might as well be the robotech masters canon. His fighters are exactly the type they used. 100 odd meter corvettes.]

Now lets stop wasting time trying to wank all over what other people like. It makes a mess and really only makes you look like an ass.

Focus on things like say writing, then you can come back and talk about how IC 2006 giant robots would suck so FT ones with fantastical technologies have to as well.

Its a game boys and girls, play it have fun and write. If you dont like mecha, too bad. Just see if your opponent can write them as good or bad mecha.

And for Otagia one parting shot before i leave this loathsome wank fest of people desperately trying to vindicate their preffered sci fi over all others.
Agility is jinking. If you knew anything about the military and actual fighting [something all wannabe scientists simply dont, this is a long learned fact. Otagia is full of shit if he thinks agility is useless in FT] jinking prevents the enemy from properly aiming, thus making c fracs and lasers miss. Fighter mode allows you to actually speed up to the same speed as the enemy fighter, allowing you to engage in the dogfights they were designed for. The variable uses its ability to transform to gain advantages in dogfighting. And the extra space isnt as much as you think Otagia, it really only effects weapons payloads, and forces all weapons payloads to be internal.

So seriously, lots of people use mecha, including many far far smarter people then are on this thread. Stop wanking on it or i will have to burst your MASER and singularity bubble. Ie Singularity weapons are useless againsts gravitic shields and masers are Electronic warfare weapons IMMENSELY powerful masers...can actually burn up sensor booms. thats about it though.

I think its funny this topic is still going but let me get this straight with you. This is FT. There are ways to make tough mecha that dont work as well with stretched skin over compartment vehicles. The hard sciencers of NS have finally accepted the validity of Variable mecha [veritechs] after long arguments and the discovery of AMBAC principles.

Veritechs are STILL inferior to specialized designs. One looking half-ass like a plane doesn't stop that, and one looking half-ass like a tank doesn't stop that. It just means someone fucked up at the factory when trying to build a plane / tank.

Anyways fighter planes arent meant to be nimble. Are you insane? They are meant to be fast. Mecha or humanoid forms is one of natures nimblest. We can do things like quickly move up stairs, change our elevation quickly, jump to the side, the back and the front. Maneuver verniers and gravitic impellors would add to that.
Dont forget the agility coming from having a center of gravity in the middle.

I think you are off your rocker. Seriously. Try running at mach 4 or above and try to move around. Then compare your results with that of a fighter plane. You lose, horribly. In space it gets worse as fighters can turn on a dime with all kinds of thrusters and shit while still going at insane speeds no mech could EVER hope to match.

Anyways its a silly topic. With weapons grade masers [highly impossible] and singularities being used. Who cares if people have good mecha. Its what you like.

Because masers and singularities are just weapons. Weapons have weaknesses and can be defeated. Mecha, on the otherhand, are walking fighting samurai robots that are superior to everything, or inferior to everything; there is no in between.

Once again a gun is a gun and a fighter is a fighter. Its about the writing. If the person cant write their fighters as believably taking on anothers mecha then they lose, and vice versa. Give it up spheroid star ship lovers. Your stuff is far far more ridiculous. [And Otagia seems to use a fleet that might as well be the robotech masters canon. His fighters are exactly the type they used. 100 odd meter corvettes.]

Perhaps; shitty writers lose often. But then again that does not take away the twinkiness of mecha as a whole; as I said earlier they are either god's of combat or they're not, there is no inbetween for them.

Now lets stop wasting time trying to wank all over what other people like. It makes a mess and really only makes you look like an ass.

No, what makes someone look like an ass is you for walking into a discussion thread and demanding we end a discussion.

Focus on things like say writing, then you can come back and talk about how IC 2006 giant robots would suck so FT ones with fantastical technologies have to as well.

Its a game boys and girls, play it have fun and write. If you dont like mecha, too bad. Just see if your opponent can write them as good or bad mecha.

The condescending bullshit needs to end, seriously. We're all here have a discussion, heated or no, and you walk in like the Jesus of RPing or the next best thing, and demand we stop. Well fuck that. We're all here to discuss the viability of mecha as fighting platforms, a function in which they FAIL HARD, and that is what we will continue to do. If you don't like to discuss things in a discussion thread, then get out.

@Xessmithia: I give up on you. Why I expected an SD.net supporter to be able to see reason, I'll never know.

Probably because what you define as 'sense' is actually 'a level of retardation enough to make anyone else's eyes bleed'.

1.) Size doesn't matter. Just because a larger object can take more of a pounding than a smaller one, it also means the smaller one is harder to hit. Also, I'm a 'tard, and I can't read.

Look. It's as simple as ABC. No, simpler. Size matters. If size didn't matter, we wouldn't build ANYTHING but fighters. And yet you've got a thread where you're building a fuggin' huge idiotic warship of some kind, so you're nicely disproving your own points there. Seriously.

Ability to hit does not equate to damage dealt. A bigger warship is almost invariably better, given the same technology. Deal with it.



3.) Sometimes you have to capture a surface target intact, thus nixing the option of an orbital bombardment. This means a balanced ground force, including mecha and everything else, will be required.

Or maybe you can just use standard ground troops, like tanks and infantry, and achieve exactly the same goal with even less effort. How about that?


@All: I've noticed this thread turned from the original poster asking questions about ways to start with PMT-NFT level mecha to this bitch fest about fighters versus mecha and all this other bull crap.

Maybe if you'd stayed out of the thread, and hadn't come in at random intervals to make meaningless and retarded remarks, it would've been less of a bitchfest, hm?

@The Kafers: You do realize 1 AU = distance between the Earth and the Sun? That is 8 light minutes, IIRC, far outside the effective weapon range of EVERYONE ON NS!Really? It's not outside my effective range.

<cackles with glee>

Just how far apart do you think spacecraft are when they fight? This isn't WWII...

Of course, Seaquest's XMC wanking itself isn't that impressive either, considering planet's aren't all that hard to decimate in the first place. And taking a surface target intact isn't that hard either, just do pinpoint strikes from orbit on targets surrounding it, followed up by surgical airstrikes and carpet bombing of the surrounding area, and then land a force to seize control of whats left.

If you want to get fancy, you could always bluff. Choose a bunch of secondary targets that might be nice to capture as well, and broadcast to each one of them in turn to surrender or be destroyed by orbital bombardment. After making examples of whichever ones are foolish enough to think you're bluffing (in their case), by the time you get to the one you actually want, whoever is running it should be quite nervous. And if they don't surrender, then you can decide whether its absolutely critical it be captured intact, or merely desired...

Probably because what you define as 'sense' is actually 'a level of retardation enough to make anyone else's eyes bleed'.

Look here, you little dipshit! I've had enough of your beligerant attitude and constant put downs. NOW GROW UP!

I'll also await your apology.

Look. It's as simple as ABC. No, simpler. Size matters. If size didn't matter, we wouldn't build ANYTHING but fighters. And yet you've got a thread where you're building a fuggin' huge idiotic warship of some kind, so you're nicely disproving your own points there. Seriously.

Actually, its even simpler:

SIZE DOES NOT MATTER!!!!

If it did, then, for example, Godzilla would not have been able to be killed by the trio of F-16s on the Brooklyn Bridge! If it was, then Luke would have never stood a chance against the Rancor(sp?)!

Ability to hit does not equate to damage dealt. A bigger warship is almost invariably better, given the same technology. Deal with it.

Incorrect, as usual. I point you to the death sequence for the first Death Star. If bigger was better, like you are wanking, then that would have never happened.

Or maybe you can just use standard ground troops, like tanks and infantry, and achieve exactly the same goal with even less effort. How about that?

Oh, grow up. Just because I, with my mecha including ground forces, can whoop your arse doesn't mean you can get all pissy about it.

Maybe if you'd stayed out of the thread, and hadn't come in at random intervals to make meaningless and retarded remarks, it would've been less of a bitchfest, hm?

Look whose talking.

Really? It's not outside my effective range.

<cackles with glee>

Just how far apart do you think spacecraft are when they fight? This isn't WWII...
Then explain all that bull crap that resulted when I was loading a pair of torps that were effective at a mere 5 light seconds!?

Of course, Seaquest's XMC wanking itself isn't that impressive either, considering planet's aren't all that hard to decimate in the first place. And taking a surface target intact isn't that hard either, just do pinpoint strikes from orbit on targets surrounding it, followed up by surgical airstrikes and carpet bombing of the surrounding area, and then land a force to seize control of whats left.

Look, you little turd. The canon fact that a canon XMC can canonly decimate a planet is proven. I don't recall the episode title, but it was canonly mentioned in the dialouge. It was also canonly shown ON-SCREEN that a full-blown HCBG can blow up a planet more effeciently than a wanky Death Star!

Oh, and I'm talking literal decimation. That means 1/10 of the planet goes bye-bye!

If you want to get fancy, you could always bluff. Choose a bunch of secondary targets that might be nice to capture as well, and broadcast to each one of them in turn to surrender or be destroyed by orbital bombardment. After making examples of whichever ones are foolish enough to think you're bluffing (in their case), by the time you get to the one you actually want, whoever is running it should be quite nervous. And if they don't surrender, then you can decide whether its absolutely critical it be captured intact, or merely desired...
Oh, sure, dumbass. Sit there while BEING SHOT AT!

Jease, could you come up with any stupider ideas. There are enemy ships, orbital defenses, and ground-to-orbit weapons that have to be taken care of FIRST!

I think its funny this topic is still going but let me get this straight with you. This is FT. There are ways to make tough mecha that dont work as well with stretched skin over compartment vehicles. The hard sciencers of NS have finally accepted the validity of Variable mecha [veritechs] after long arguments and the discovery of AMBAC principles.

Anyways fighter planes arent meant to be nimble. Are you insane? They are meant to be fast. Mecha or humanoid forms is one of natures nimblest. We can do things like quickly move up stairs, change our elevation quickly, jump to the side, the back and the front. Maneuver verniers and gravitic impellors would add to that.
Dont forget the agility coming from having a center of gravity in the middle.

Anyways its a silly topic. With weapons grade masers [highly impossible] and singularities being used. Who cares if people have good mecha. Its what you like.

Once again a gun is a gun and a fighter is a fighter. Its about the writing. If the person cant write their fighters as believably taking on anothers mecha then they lose, and vice versa. Give it up spheroid star ship lovers. Your stuff is far far more ridiculous. [And Otagia seems to use a fleet that might as well be the robotech masters canon. His fighters are exactly the type they used. 100 odd meter corvettes.]

Now lets stop wasting time trying to wank all over what other people like. It makes a mess and really only makes you look like an ass.

Focus on things like say writing, then you can come back and talk about how IC 2006 giant robots would suck so FT ones with fantastical technologies have to as well.

Its a game boys and girls, play it have fun and write. If you dont like mecha, too bad. Just see if your opponent can write them as good or bad mecha.

And for Otagia one parting shot before i leave this loathsome wank fest of people desperately trying to vindicate their preffered sci fi over all others.
Agility is jinking. If you knew anything about the military and actual fighting [something all wannabe scientists simply dont, this is a long learned fact. Otagia is full of shit if he thinks agility is useless in FT] jinking prevents the enemy from properly aiming, thus making c fracs and lasers miss. Fighter mode allows you to actually speed up to the same speed as the enemy fighter, allowing you to engage in the dogfights they were designed for. The variable uses its ability to transform to gain advantages in dogfighting. And the extra space isnt as much as you think Otagia, it really only effects weapons payloads, and forces all weapons payloads to be internal.

So seriously, lots of people use mecha, including many far far smarter people then are on this thread. Stop wanking on it or i will have to burst your MASER and singularity bubble. Ie Singularity weapons are useless againsts gravitic shields and masers are Electronic warfare weapons IMMENSELY powerful masers...can actually burn up sensor booms. thats about it though.

For once, a guy who actually gets it.

ITS ABOUT THE DAMN RP! NOT IF YOU CAN BACK YOUR STUFF UP WITH WANKED RL SCIENCE AND MATH!

Size matters. Stop using stupid analogies that make absolutely no sense given the context of the discussion. The deathstar was destroyed due to a design flaw, now because the X-wing >'ed it. Bigger = More powerful, not always better mind, but the fact remains a ship bigger than another ship given equivalent technology, is more powerful than that other ship.

Joranhor']Size matters. Stop using stupid analogies that make absolutely no sense given the context of the discussion. The deathstar was destroyed due to a design flaw, now because the X-wing >'ed it. Bigger = More powerful, not always better mind, but the fact remains a ship bigger than another ship given equivalent technology, is more powerful than that other ship.
And when are you going to get it that given the right tech, SIZE DOES NOT GOD DAMN MATTER!!

And no, my analogies are on the money. Just because you are proven wrong by them doesn't mean they are stupid. Actually try countering them instead of just calling them names.

Here's another valid analogy for you:

A lone F-302 was able to pretty much take out a Wraith Hiveship.

Then there was every time the Daudelus(sp?) (didn't have time to look up the spelling) managed to take out one, if not more, of the MANY times larger Wraith Hiveships.

Need I go on?

And when are you going to get it that given the right tech, SIZE DOES NOT GOD DAMN MATTER!!

Size does matter, 4-5 people have proven that to you beyond a doubt in this thread.

And no, my analogies are on the money. Just because you are proven wrong by them doesn't mean they are stupid. Actually try countering them instead of just calling them names.

No, your analogies suck total ass because they are false.

Example: The Deathstar wasn't very powerful because an x-wing destroyed it.

Why is it false? Because the Deathstar was infinite volumes more powerful than the x-wing, but it had a design flaw that destroyed it.

Your anaologies follow this pattern, IE they have nothing to do with whether or not big things are more powerful than small things.

Here's another valid analogy for you:

Hilighting a word does not make it valid.

A lone F-302 was able to pretty much take out a Wraith Hiveship.

Then there was every time the Daudelus(sp?) (didn't have time to look up the spelling) managed to take out one, if not more, of the MANY times larger Wraith Hiveships.

Need I go on?

Because wraith technology sucks total spelunking ass. A ha'tak could take out 1-2 of them on its own, but that is besides the point.

You keep trying to tailor the discussion with analogies that meet your criteria and your criteria only. When you do that, of course you can win, but none of us here are stupid enough to accept it. Your analogy is false because it compares two unlike things and comes to an illogical conclusion based on the context of the discussion.

That being: with equivalent technology, is something bigger more powerful than something smaller? That was the context. You keep trying to drag it out of that with your false analogies, and we're not letting you do that so you're getting pissed.

I suggest you take a breather, think, and stop posting in this thread if you don't know how to discuss something.

Look, you little turd. The canon fact that a canon XMC can canonly decimate a planet is proven. I don't recall the episode title, but it was canonly mentioned in the dialouge. It was also canonly shown ON-SCREEN that a full-blown HCBG can blow up a planet more effeciently than a wanky Death Star!

Oh, and I'm talking literal decimation. That means 1/10 of the planet goes bye-bye!

Can you not read? I never said it couldn't decimate a planet, I'm just saying it isn't very impressive that it can either, considering planets aren't exactly hard to take out. Retard.


Oh, sure, dumbass. Sit there while BEING SHOT AT!

Jease, could you come up with any stupider ideas. There are enemy ships, orbital defenses, and ground-to-orbit weapons that have to be taken care of FIRST!

Orbital superiority is automatically assumed in the implied scenario. I would never land ground troops without first accomplishing it.

Quite frankly SQ, your roleplaying is crap. That "Improving FT in II" thread I created? It was written in the hope keep players from falling into the pit that you're creating. YOU are the problem with II, and people just like you.

I'm going to ignore that bull crap from the rest of your post, but I am going to point out one important part where you are wrong.

A canon Goa'uld Ha'tak wouldn't stand a chance against a canon Wraith Hiveship.

A.) The Hiveship is many times larger.
B.) The Hiveship has more firepower.
C.) The Hiveship is more deadly.
D.) The Hiveship carries many times more Wraith than a Ha'tak carries Jaffa.
E.) A Wraith is far more dangerous than a Jaffa.

Hate to say it, but that wasn't calc, that was just algebra. A couple of simple equations, then some basic arithmetic when you subtract the first answer from the second. If you really want some calculus problems, I'm sure I could post some of my homework on here if you want to do it for me...


Erm. No. Euclidean space is standard solid geometry. Non-Euclidean space would be another subset of geometry, using a different set of definitions of sine, cosine and tangent IIRC, along with something about parallel lines. Been a while since I took geometry, and since I never need use non-Euclidean models... Anyway, no calculus involved in either, unless you're doing something odd.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus

You've been proven wrong.

@Xessmithia: I give up on you. Why I expected an SD.net supporter to be able to see reason, I'll never know.
@Liberated New Hope:
1.) Size doesn't matter. Just because a larger object can take more of a pounding than a smaller one, it also means the smaller one is harder to hit.
2.) Not all mecha are bad. Its their poor portrayl that disinfranchises some to them.
3.) Sometimes you have to capture a surface target intact, thus nixing the option of an orbital bombardment. This means a balanced ground force, including mecha and everything else, will be required.
4.) Just 1 XMC (ie, Heavy Cruiser (little over 1 klick long)) has enough firepower to decimate a world. Add the rest of an HCBG, and you have a DS style anti-planet force that actually has other uses than that giant hunk of junk the GE flies around.
@The Kafers: You do realize 1 AU = distance between the Earth and the Sun? That is 8 light minutes, IIRC, far outside the effective weapon range of EVERYONE ON NS!
@All: I've noticed this thread turned from the original poster asking questions about ways to start with PMT-NFT level mecha to this bitch fest about fighters versus mecha and all this other bull crap.

Exactly size does not matter as long as you are not breaking any law of physics about miniturization.

Mecha are good for various purposes, and they will ultimately be wonderful atmospheric combatants.

Ya Kafers is a little nuts, but effective is relative. For all purposes it is a dumb choice to be more then 1 AU away since computers can destroy it far faster then a human can react. Even at .99 light speed.

Even though the thread has evolved... its okay.


Joranhor] Size does matter. Bigger ship = more guns, more systems, more power generators. Granted there is a point when big is too big, such as with tanks or... MECHA, since a walking bipedal machine with poor armor (it's a surface area thing that ALWAYS kills them) at even just 12 feet tall is hard to miss. But still, big things have more area to store other things, making them stronger than smaller things (not always better mind).

ZPM > D-cell, obviously. But, a wardreadnoughtofsuperblastiness can carry up in the range of thousands of ZPMs, where as the atypical mecha can't carry more than a few. See the difference? A big hull can carry small things than a small hull can. So size matters.

As far as mech vs. fighter goes, well that's a classic argument as that is what space mecha fight; there are no tanks in space with treads clinging to the vacuum after all. But who wins? The fighter obviously; they were meant to be nimble, there design demands it. A mecha on the otherhand... agility is not high on that list. They also lose, with equivalent tech and figuring equivalent size and mass, because they waste far too much space. A cockpit in a fighter is -small- as hell, it takes up as little space as possible. But if we go with what we know about mecha, the cockpit is not small, it is undeservingly huge. A hollow area that demands more armor than the rest of the craft to protect the occupant inside.

Against tanks they... might could do something. But then again tanks were designed for that kind of warfare, and have more armor than a mecha ever could hope to have, so I have no faith in them there.

They're just bad is all, bad in the light of specialized designs. Why waste money on a mecha that could possibly maybe do alot of things at a subpar level, when you can spend money on designs that excell in their function? I ask you.

Not entirely. You do not realize size is not an issue with fighter vs mechs. My mechs are smaller and able to turn and spin without changing directions and it can do this at great speed even without moving in space.

There is no reason that a mech will have more surface area then a fighter. A mech is more box like and a fighter by general use has more total surface area then a standard fighter.

Fighters are combative in even peace-time. While my mechs are capable of covert ops, mining, fire-fighting, hazardous material clean up, rescue missions, law enforcement, repair operations, construction and exploration operations!

The possiblities of mechs for peace-time and war-time are immense. And not just for logisitics and defending, but even for infiltration and sabotage. Although assumed weaker, the multitude of tasks able to be performed to them are immense.

BTW. My mech cockpit is smaller then a fighters cockpit. The reason the core is so heavily armored is because the power and weapons, communication and central nervous system is controlled in the chest. The heart of a mech contains its pilot surrounded by all the machinery and power of it. This makes defending the mech far simpler and greater armor can be used to protect it from a fighter (having more armor then fighters and being able to take a massive amount of damage before being destroyed).

Also arms, legs, head and other systems can be lightly armored and even replaced at will. Using a simple ball and socket method that opens up to allow electrical connections to be made instantly into the core of the mech a damaged mech could literally rip its own arm off and attached a stronger or whatever arm compatible to it with just mere minutes if the part is ready.

This also allows for various systems and by using a modular set up allows for full peace-time and military use of the Mechs as long as they are compatible (and yes all Cores will be well designed to function like a motherboard on a computer, allowing for expansion, interchangable parts and mixing and matching of powerful upgrades.

Instead of making a powerful mech with set stats, a pilot can choose their type of gear and what weaponry or set up they please to match their style of combat. From pure laser power to smart weaponry, to pure speed and power or a massive juggernaut with more armor then is normally possible.

This also would allow for improvements to specific smaller modules rather then a whole new mech. This allows for faster improvements and on a more specific scale. You can have better arms, better legs, better communication systems, and even a better core. :)



Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaQuest
@The Kafers: You do realize 1 AU = distance between the Earth and the Sun? That is 8 light minutes, IIRC, far outside the effective weapon range of EVERYONE ON NS!
Really? It's not outside my effective range.

<cackles with glee>

Just how far apart do you think spacecraft are when they fight? This isn't WWII...

Relatively close, your weapons are not going to be effect at 1 AU. The reasons lie in the math.
-----------
[NS]Joranhor size doesn't matter. I can use a whole load of nanobots and destroy your ship or I can use a huge warship to do the same. Equal technology does not mean equal in every way. We are not scaling up anything. A nano bot would not even have a signature for warships, but they are capable of destroying entire worlds, started with just ONE bot.

Size matters not. For designs are different and varied, even with the same technology a simple exploitment of them is legal. If you recall a bunch of thermite grenades can take out HUGE artillery cannons used by the Germans in WWII. It was lesser technology with proper information on how to destroy them.

As for how it was done, the thermite melted the gears together and made them unable to function. It is not about the level of technology or the size of the weapon, it is how it is used. Usage is 90% of how the result turns out. Using the right weapon at the right time and for the right circumstance means the very basics of all combat, information is what matters. Not size.

I'm going to ignore that bull crap from the rest of your post, but I am going to point out one important part where you are wrong.

A canon Goa'uld Ha'tak wouldn't stand a chance against a canon Wraith Hiveship.

A.) The Hiveship is many times larger.
B.) The Hiveship has more firepower.
C.) The Hiveship is more deadly.
D.) The Hiveship carries many times more Wraith than a Ha'tak carries Jaffa.
E.) A Wraith is far more dangerous than a Jaffa.
... You are stupid. Sorry to be so blunt, but the fact you cannot follow a simple chain of logic is proof of intellectual failing on your part.

A) A Wraith Hiveship is many times larger, but not technologically equivalent to a Ha'tak.

B) Nein. Wraith Hiveship weapons do far less damage per shot than a Ha'tak staff cannon ever could.

C) That is not an argument, that is a subjective statement based on postulates that are false.

D) And this somehow comes into play how? I guess maybe there are catapults on both ships that hurl men at enemy ships in space, because that is the only reason why you would mention it.

E) Same as above.

You just cannot follow a simple chain of logic or stay in the context of the debate. You blather on and blather on totally missing the point of what everyone says for some assinine reason I could never fathom. You sir, need help in the brain department.

This thread is greatly amusing. Best comedy I've had in a while.

And as usual, SeaQuest's the best of 'em all.

SIZE DOES NOT MATTER!!!!

A canon Goa'uld Ha'tak wouldn't stand a chance against a canon Wraith Hiveship.

A.) The Hiveship is many times larger.

I shall now continue to lurk, to read, and to laugh.

Also, I motion for this thread to be archived, for its sheer hialrity

Eraclea']-snip-

I have to completely agree with Eraclea here. Mecha in nearly all ways are simply more manueverable in combat than a fighter (that being intended for changing direction at angles that would impossible for a fighter). An example:

Imagine an archer standing in a field. A knight comes charging at him and his lance misses the man. The archer locks and arrow and turns on his heel and now has an open shot at the knight's back. The knight has to take either a larger amount of time to properly turn around without losing speed, or take an extreme risk in being unhorsed in order to turn at a sharper angle and lose a lot of speed. Before the knight has time to even contemplate that however the archer has already fired his arrow and hit the knight in the back.

That is the easiest, most mundane, way to show you how a mecha ( I use mobile suits, so saying mecha seems strange to me) could easily outmaneuver and destroy a fighter in combat.

Also as Eraclea said the peace-time abilities of a mobile suit are much more useful than a fighter's peace-time abilities which are be quite blunt, non-existant.

***

Back to the original arguement, I would say that mecha and mobile suits are MPT and FT. You could possibly use them in MT but it would require a skilled rp'er who could be counted on not to god-mod.

If you want a lot of good ideas about what a mobile suit is capable of, then I would say check out Mobile Suit Gundam and Mobile Suit Gundan: 08th MS Team. Both of these show "realistic" enough footage of mobile suit capabilities and combat effectiveness against what some would say "mundane" things. Like in the 08th MS Team, three tanks hold off a couple of mobile suits with their regular cannon. If thats not fair enough, then your asking the impossible.

***

Personally, I use both fighters and mobile suits. Each have advantages over the other and are useful in different combat scenarios. It is simply easier also to just develope tactics against each of the two. As in the archer vs knight scenario I used, a general could simply see to it that another knight would follow the first, so that once the first missed or passed, the second could hit the archer in the rear. Theres one strategy to use. Your welcome. Now how about everyone else use a little imagination?

Imagine an archer standing in a field. A knight comes charging at him and his lance misses the man. The archer locks and arrow and turns on his heel and now has an open shot at the knight's back. The knight has to take either a larger amount of time to properly turn around without losing speed, or take an extreme risk in being unhorsed in order to turn at a sharper angle and lose a lot of speed. Before the knight has time to even contemplate that however the archer has already fired his arrow and hit the knight in the back.

Except its more like two archers in a field, since fighters don't exactly win by ramming.

Not entirely. You do not realize size is not an issue with fighter vs mechs. My mechs are smaller and able to turn and spin without changing directions and it can do this at great speed even without moving in space.

*facepalms* is there a reason you cannot comprehend even the basic logic behind the flaws in mecha design? Is it that hard for you to connect thoughts together into a conclusion that states mecha fucking suck? Small mecha, big mecha; they all have the same problems. They suck from a design standpoint as bipedal machines are poor designs for weapons platforms. Ask yourself why the engineers in WWI designed a tank instead of a walking manbot; or WWII why did we make tanks instead of mecha? Because even then it was known mecha are inferior to specialized designs.

There is no reason that a mech will have more surface area then a fighter. A mech is more box like and a fighter by general use has more total surface area then a standard fighter.

You sir, have been found lacking in the knowledge of design department. A mecha of similar mass to a fighter has more surface area than that fighter, due to the arms, the legs, and the head. It has to armor all of those flimsy ass parts so they don't get blown to hell as they are easy targets. To accomodate its inability to be aerodynamic and all those arms and legs and all, it has to have this magical AMBAC of yours, which takes up more room than anything we have on a fighter and just acts as a detriment.

Fighters are combative in even peace-time. While my mechs are capable of covert ops, mining, fire-fighting, hazardous material clean up, rescue missions, law enforcement, repair operations, construction and exploration operations!

Covert ops? Hell fucking no. Talk about a walking indicator of stuff happening where it shouldn't. I won't go indepth with the other ones, just that any specialized design can do those jobs better than a mecha.

The possiblities of mechs for peace-time and war-time are immense. And not just for logisitics and defending, but even for infiltration and sabotage. Although assumed weaker, the multitude of tasks able to be performed to them are immense.

No, they look immense because of anime fanboism. But the reality is mecha are inferior designs in contrast to those that are made to perform a certain function. A tank is a better fighter than a mecha, a probe is a better exploration platform than a mecha, the list goes on and on.

BTW. My mech cockpit is smaller then a fighters cockpit. The reason the core is so heavily armored is because the power and weapons, communication and central nervous system is controlled in the chest. The heart of a mech contains its pilot surrounded by all the machinery and power of it. This makes defending the mech far simpler and greater armor can be used to protect it from a fighter (having more armor then fighters and being able to take a massive amount of damage before being destroyed).

God no. A fighter is a cockpit, weapons, and armor build around an engine. It is as small as it can possibly be while still being able to excell in its primary function. A mech is a bipedal shaped fighting robot that has to be loaded down with specialized manouvering systems to ever work. And even then its profile is a fucking mess that makes missiles more than happy. Your mecha are just flying targets.

Also arms, legs, head and other systems can be lightly armored and even replaced at will. Using a simple ball and socket method that opens up to allow electrical connections to be made instantly into the core of the mech a damaged mech could literally rip its own arm off and attached a stronger or whatever arm compatible to it with just mere minutes if the part is ready.

I'd love to see you try this in the middle of a battle and survive. If anything you've made something more flimsy and ungainly than before.


[NS]Joranhor size doesn't matter. I can use a whole load of nanobots and destroy your ship or I can use a huge warship to do the same. Equal technology does not mean equal in every way. We are not scaling up anything. A nano bot would not even have a signature for warships, but they are capable of destroying entire worlds, started with just ONE bot.

No, I can use a small static charge to render your pitiful nanobots useless, or let the shields fry them, or just sit there and let them take upwards to 40 years to do what they're trying to do. Of course I won't go into how innane current grey-goo theory with nano-bots is, just be aware that the chance of nanobots being a threat to anyone outside of bio-warfare is low.

Size matters not. For designs are different and varied, even with the same technology a simple exploitment of them is legal. If you recall a bunch of thermite grenades can take out HUGE artillery cannons used by the Germans in WWII. It was lesser technology with proper information on how to destroy them.

Ok. Listen to me. Size matters. Pulling a bunch of exaggerated examples out your ass and trying to use them as evidence never changes that. A stick can kill a man just as well as a tank cannon can, so is a stick just as powerful as a tank cannon? No. But that is what you and SeaQuest are saying everytime you pull this stupidity out of your hats. A big tank with equivalent technology is more powerful than a smaller tank of the same tech tree. But then again that wasn't really the point; the point was that a mecha and a fighter of similar size and mass, with equivalent technology, you will come to the conclusion that a mecha is less powerful than a fighter. That was the point, one you and seaquest cannot grasp.

As for how it was done, the thermite melted the gears together and made them unable to function. It is not about the level of technology or the size of the weapon, it is how it is used. Usage is 90% of how the result turns out. Using the right weapon at the right time and for the right circumstance means the very basics of all combat, information is what matters. Not size.

And under your glorious(sarcasm) analogy, mecha would never be used because they are not right for -anything-. A fighter is better at air combat than a mecha; a tank is better a ground combat than a mecha; a capship is better at space warfare than a mecha; so when would they ever be used? Never. That's when.

Except its more like two archers in a field, since fighters don't exactly win by ramming.
And that the first archer happens to be twice as tall as the second one, making him a hell of a lot easier to hit with that arrow. And that the second archer can't carry as many arrows because his muscles are rather atrophied from not working out. And the smaller guy is wearing full plate armor that stops arrows rather nicely, while the tall guy can't due to his poor physique...

Oh, and Eraclea. You're misinterpreting the article. Just because it says that, say, finding areas falls under calculus doesn't mean that V=LxWxH should be lumped into that field...

I have to completely agree with Eraclea here. Mecha in nearly all ways are simply more manueverable in combat than a fighter (that being intended for changing direction at angles that would impossible for a fighter). An example:

Imagine an archer standing in a field. A knight comes charging at him and his lance misses the man. The archer locks and arrow and turns on his heel and now has an open shot at the knight's back. The knight has to take either a larger amount of time to properly turn around without losing speed, or take an extreme risk in being unhorsed in order to turn at a sharper angle and lose a lot of speed. Before the knight has time to even contemplate that however the archer has already fired his arrow and hit the knight in the back.

That is the easiest, most mundane, way to show you how a mecha ( I use mobile suits, so saying mecha seems strange to me) could easily outmaneuver and destroy a fighter in combat.

Also as Eraclea said the peace-time abilities of a mobile suit are much more useful than a fighter's peace-time abilities which are be quite blunt, non-existant.

***

Back to the original arguement, I would say that mecha and mobile suits are MPT and FT. You could possibly use them in MT but it would require a skilled rp'er who could be counted on not to god-mod.

If you want a lot of good ideas about what a mobile suit is capable of, then I would say check out Mobile Suit Gundam and Mobile Suit Gundan: 08th MS Team. Both of these show "realistic" enough footage of mobile suit capabilities and combat effectiveness against what some would say "mundane" things. Like in the 08th MS Team, three tanks hold off a couple of mobile suits with their regular cannon. If thats not fair enough, then your asking the impossible.

***

Personally, I use both fighters and mobile suits. Each have advantages over the other and are useful in different combat scenarios. It is simply easier also to just develope tactics against each of the two. As in the archer vs knight scenario I used, a general could simply see to it that another knight would follow the first, so that once the first missed or passed, the second could hit the archer in the rear. Theres one strategy to use. Your welcome. Now how about everyone else use a little imagination?


Good to hear someone who also knows what I am trying to refer to with these small mecha (essentially powered armor that augments, amplifies and has full protection for a seated (like a stool mimicing a chair reclining, but its at a steeper angle then a fighter cockpit) pilot.

3 tanks holding down the Gundams... Wow. I can totally see that, but I think even two would be overkill for a single one. This shows realistically that even though they have a good amount of armor, it won't stop a good tank blast.

How about a mounted samurai (since they use bows) against a foot samurai (also uses bows). Each has a close range weapon, almost equivolent armor and one surely moves faster then the other.

Unlike the considerably faster mounted samurai the foot samurai has various capabilities that differ from the mounted one. Namely turning radius and reaction time. From a far distance they are essentially equal, both being able to hit and kill the other, but the mounted samurai has a speed advantage though this does mean each other is well aware of the others existance.

The foot samurai can dodge more effectively and counter attack, but dodging ability (like kneeling or proning) gives him a profile advantage that the mounted Samurai cannot beat. Although he has the speed and accustomed to long range combat and quick movement, he cannot beat the sheer agility (ease of movement, nimble) of the footsoldier. By reducing his profile and even rolling behind objects or even in the field this reduces the chance of a hit and increases the difficulty, since the mounted samurai must keep moving to maintain his advantage of speed before the footsoldier shoots him.

Although the mounted samurai is agile and has a huge speed advantage his inability to hit the samurai on the ground will lure him in closer and closer. This is where that footsoldiers (normally destroyed by calvary) are able to utilze a good chance to strike. Since the foot samurai is equipped with both and long range weaponry as the mounted samurai closes in, ready for a quick effective kill the samurai can go low and dodge easily, this is where it matters, the foot samurai can counterattack far more easily then the mounted samurai and could either use his sword or bow for the kill. (Let's say he never switched since this is more traditional use of lasers) He fires his arrow into the back of the mounted samurai and either wounds him, misses him or kills him. Most likely the samurai will be wounded unless the shot was perfect, and at the range missing is almost impossible. Now the quick foot samurai can fire again as the mounted samurai now turning or running and this second shot while completing his turn (most likely) or riding away, his fall will be now.

Well its hard to explain, but the ability to take advantage of a miss or even a hit that was not lethal to deliver 1 or 2 good attacks is critical to the ability of my forces fighting the fighters. The effect will be ampilified when debris is scattered around, giving them cover and a place to hide.

I appreciate the thought out comment. :D

Joranhor']*facepalms* is there a reason you cannot comprehend even the basic logic behind the flaws in mecha design? Is it that hard for you to connect thoughts together into a conclusion that states mecha fucking suck? Small mecha, big mecha; they all have the same problems. They suck from a design standpoint as bipedal machines are poor designs for weapons platforms. Ask yourself why the engineers in WWI designed a tank instead of a walking manbot; or WWII why did we make tanks instead of mecha? Because even then it was known mecha are inferior to specialized designs.

Maybe because they never had the technology or a computer even? We are not dealing with tanks compared to men here, it would be IFVs to Humvees at close range.



You sir, have been found lacking in the knowledge of design department. A mecha of similar mass to a fighter has more surface area than that fighter, due to the arms, the legs, and the head. It has to armor all of those flimsy ass parts so they don't get blown to hell as they are easy targets. To accomodate its inability to be aerodynamic and all those arms and legs and all, it has to have this magical AMBAC of yours, which takes up more room than anything we have on a fighter and just acts as a detriment.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/117525main_TIEFighter.jpg
http://www.calormen.com/Star_Wars/images/TIE_Defender.gif
http://h1072147.hobbyshopnow.com/ProdInfo/AMT/250/AMT38312-250.jpg
http://www.virgin.net/movies/moviespecials/starwars/desktopwallpapers/starwars1_1600.jpg
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Y-Wing2.jpg

http://www.lurexlounge.com/bsg/jpg/grahamviper.jpg
http://www.kevman3d.com/images/gallery/wipship.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/megatau/mts303dykes.jpg


http://izlin.free.fr/eve/ships/templar.jpg
http://izlin.free.fr/eve/ships/dragonfly.jpg
http://izlin.free.fr/eve/ships/einherji.jpg

According to all these pictures it appears they have more surface area to mass ratio then a Mech. Your arguement doesn't hold water until you can show me otherwise and even then, taking from a few canons it does not seem natural.



Covert ops? Hell fucking no. Talk about a walking indicator of stuff happening where it shouldn't. I won't go indepth with the other ones, just that any specialized design can do those jobs better than a mecha.

A single mech of my size and specifications could indeed perform extended recon and covert operations with the proper gear.

No, they look immense because of anime fanboism. But the reality is mecha are inferior designs in contrast to those that are made to perform a certain function. A tank is a better fighter than a mecha, a probe is a better exploration platform than a mecha, the list goes on and on.

Your gonna send a probe to hostile enemy systems and expect it to automatically perform operations and get away with it, without being detected or able to perform transmissions in an area unable to send transmissions without being detected? Oh really... sometimes probes are not the best option, and who said it would all be military operations? Exploring a debris field or underwater or in some unusual situation that expensive probes (which may not be able to perform the task anyways) would be an option!?


God no. A fighter is a cockpit, weapons, and armor build around an engine. It is as small as it can possibly be while still being able to excell in its primary function. A mech is a bipedal shaped fighting robot that has to be loaded down with specialized manouvering systems to ever work. And even then its profile is a fucking mess that makes missiles more than happy. Your mecha are just flying targets.

One its not 'loaded down' the systems I already decribed would be easy to maintain and repair and functionality is preserved. Said profile would be smaller then a fighter and missiles can be dupped or ineffective the same way a fighter can do.


I'd love to see you try this in the middle of a battle and survive. If anything you've made something more flimsy and ungainly than before.

Explain your reasoning.



No, I can use a small static charge to render your pitiful nanobots useless, or let the shields fry them, or just sit there and let them take upwards to 40 years to do what they're trying to do. Of course I won't go into how innane current grey-goo theory with nano-bots is, just be aware that the chance of nanobots being a threat to anyone outside of bio-warfare is low.

Sure... if you think they are weak let's see how their delivery system will surprise you and even if you do detect them you'd be toast probably. Bio-warefare is not nano-bot related. You have no idea the potentional of this tech.


Ok. Listen to me. Size matters. Pulling a bunch of exaggerated examples out your ass and trying to use them as evidence never changes that. A stick can kill a man just as well as a tank cannon can, so is a stick just as powerful as a tank cannon? No. But that is what you and SeaQuest are saying everytime you pull this stupidity out of your hats. A big tank with equivalent technology is more powerful than a smaller tank of the same tech tree. But then again that wasn't really the point; the point was that a mecha and a fighter of similar size and mass, with equivalent technology, you will come to the conclusion that a mecha is less powerful than a fighter. That was the point, one you and seaquest cannot grasp.

RL examples are not exaggerations. Its been proven that size does not matter when it comes to destroying something else. Size only matters on relative weaponry and defensive power in most cases. Though defensive superiority is not a trait known for either a fighter or a mecha, they surely have different tactics, one that makes each one superior to inferior (namely fighter has the inferior more so then a mech in the long run) of combat between the two.



And under your glorious(sarcasm) analogy, mecha would never be used because they are not right for -anything-. A fighter is better at air combat than a mecha; a tank is better a ground combat than a mecha; a capship is better at space warfare than a mecha; so when would they ever be used? Never. That's when.

Its already been proven a Mecha would be the victor of air/atmospheric combat then a space fighter. A mech is different then a tank, but a Mech can still kick a tank's butt just as well a tank can kick a Mech's butt, though I'd still have to go with Mech agility and dexterious combat over a tank's sluggish mass. Only situation where this would come to a stalemate is at long distances.

@Xessmithia: I give up on you. Why I expected an SD.net supporter to be able to see reason, I'll never know.

Ahh, the fallback of the defeated. You can't respond intelligently to my points so you choose to ignore me. You also see fit to thrown in ad hominem as well, how very nice. In case you were wondering the ad hominem fallacy does not mean using profanity or calling you an idiot, which you are by way, but dismissing a person's arguments because of who they are. In this case you are dismissing my points because I am a member of SD.net, a classic ad hominem fallacy.

I do however invite you to join SD.net, it is free if you do not use a throwaway free e-mail addy from hotmail or the like. If you think you know more than they do, go there and show it, don't snipe from the bleachers.


1.) Size doesn't matter. Just because a larger object can take more of a pounding than a smaller one, it also means the smaller one is harder to hit.

True, but a larger ship can put out much larger volumes of fire thus vastly increasing the odds that said small object will be hit. And since the guns of the bigger ship are more powerfull it will only take 1 hit to destroy the smaller object.

2.) Not all mecha are bad. Its their poor portrayl that disinfranchises some to them.

All mecha are a piss poor combat design, they can indeed be entertaining but entertainment value does not mean mecha are a sound design.

3.) Sometimes you have to capture a surface target intact, thus nixing the option of an orbital bombardment. This means a balanced ground force, including mecha and everything else, will be required.

A balanced well thought out ground force will not include mecha. Their complexity will mean more downtime for maintenance, their inherent instability means they cannot cary as heavy weapons as a tank, their small internal volume means they're no good for personnel carriers and their ground pressure renders them unusable in a lot of terrain. Their only possible advantage over a tank is that they're better in rough terrain, but that can be negated easily in FT by just putting an anti-grav drive in the tank to give you a far superior platform.

4.) Just 1 XMC (ie, Heavy Cruiser (little over 1 klick long)) has enough firepower to decimate a world. Add the rest of an HCBG, and you have a DS style anti-planet force that actually has other uses than that giant hunk of junk the GE flies around.

The 800m Acclamator assault ship/troop transport can decimate a world, a 800 meter long frigate can charge its heavy guns to have enough power to blast melt a 1000km diameter ice moon. There are indeed tech-settings that can hand Star Wars' ass to it in a handbasket, The Culture and the Xelee come to mind, but that doesn't mean that Star Wars is not one the heaviest hitters.

@The Kafers: You do realize 1 AU = distance between the Earth and the Sun? That is 8 light minutes, IIRC, far outside the effective weapon range of EVERYONE ON NS!

Hardly, anyone can fight at those ranges, it just becomes more of a gamble as with the prevalence of FTL sensors warning time becomes large enough to allow for evasive maneuvers.

@All: I've noticed this thread turned from the original poster asking questions about ways to start with PMT-NFT level mecha to this bitch fest about fighters versus mecha and all this other bull crap.

We told him the truth about starting with mecha, you don't.

And that the first archer happens to be twice as tall as the second one, making him a hell of a lot easier to hit with that arrow. And that the second archer can't carry as many arrows because his muscles are rather atrophied from not working out. And the smaller guy is wearing full plate armor that stops arrows rather nicely, while the tall guy can't due to his poor physique...

Oh, and Eraclea. You're misinterpreting the article. Just because it says that, say, finding areas falls under calculus doesn't mean that V=LxWxH should be lumped into that field...


Since the time of Leibniz and Newton, many mathematicians have contributed to the continuing development of calculus. In the 18th century, calculus was put on a much more rigorous footing by Cauchy, Riemann, Weierstrass, and others. It was also during this time period that the ideas of calculus were generalized to Euclidean space and the complex plane. Calculus continues to be further generalized, such as the development of the Lebesgue integral in 1900.

This indeed falls under it. Calculus deals with limits. So V=LxWxH is a poor example... but a more proper one is Speed = distance / time. And the Pyth. Since it deals with limits and maximums of trignometric angles of the triangle.

You might want to read the whole thing through before saying it isn't calculus when we were dealing with complex functions just simplied into speed = distance / time with the function found through other information. Time diliation is also calc.

Ahh, the fallback of the defeated. You can't respond intelligently to my points so you choose to ignore me. You also see fit to thrown in ad hominem as well, how very nice. In case you were wondering the ad hominem fallacy does not mean using profanity or calling you an idiot, which you are by way, but dismissing a person's arguments because of who they are. In this case you are dismissing my points because I am a member of SD.net, a classic ad hominem fallacy.

I do however invite you to join SD.net, it is free if you do not use a throwaway free e-mail addy from hotmail or the like. If you think you know more than they do, go there and show it, don't snipe from the bleachers.

I've read their stuff, it seems right, but I doubt the sources and reasoning on a lot of the shielding as it seems practically stolen from other sources.




True, but a larger ship can put out much larger volumes of fire thus vastly increasing the odds that said small object will be hit. And since the guns of the bigger ship are more powerfull it will only take 1 hit to destroy the smaller object. Ideally yes, though size does not matter with a proper weapon to pierce defenses and deal a major blow. I think that's his point. You don't need perfect defenses if you just need one good hit to destroy whatever the target is. Usually though its fighter vs mech, size will not matter at that difference. Though mech vs capital ship is just pathetic unless that mech had some super suicidal weapon that would take out that capital ship.



All mecha are a piss poor combat design, they can indeed be entertaining but entertainment value does not mean mecha are a sound design.

That comment is burning with irrationality.



A balanced well thought out ground force will not include mecha. Their complexity will mean more downtime for maintenance, their inherent instability means they cannot cary as heavy weapons as a tank, their small internal volume means they're no good for personnel carriers and their ground pressure renders them unusable in a lot of terrain. Their only possible advantage over a tank is that they're better in rough terrain, but that can be negated easily in FT by just putting an anti-grav drive in the tank to give you a far superior platform.


Explain how they will be unusable in a lot of terrain. They can also carry large weaponry, though it won't be unstable as long as it is not obscene. As personnel carriers... rofl, you have a personnel carrier carry THEM.


Hardly, anyone can fight at those ranges, it just becomes more of a gamble as with the prevalence of FTL sensors warning time becomes large enough to allow for evasive maneuvers.

Exactly. Even without it, the time is good enough for most circumstances for computerized countermeasures.

We told him the truth about starting with mecha, you don't.
Thrashia seems to have the most in-depth and understood ideas about my mechs and how I will use them and what are the various purposes that will naturally allow for a civilian developed mech to come then go from civilian to military and advance on. The multitude of uses is also backed up here clearly with the ability to keep Mechs on or off active duty with a huge list of civilian and military applications for my tech level which is also one of the most practicial means to considering my economic condition.

A large segment of the arguement comes down to one simple point; LIMBS. A ground mecha, when losing one out of two limbs is batte ineffective. Hell, if it loses one out of 8 legs it's still pretty fucked.

Then, onto space mecha, I ask what is the point of having arms and legs in space? Do you need to walk? Can turrets not accomplish what gun-wielding arms can? WHY THE HELL DO YOU NEED LIMBS IN SPACE!?!

You're clinging on to some sort of idealistic samurai bullshit manufactured by the Japanese. Get over it.

A large segment of the arguement comes down to one simple point; making something mecha is building in weaknesses. A ground mecha, when losing one out of two limbs is batte ineffective. Hell, if it loses one out of 8 legs it's still pretty fucked.

Then, onto space mecha, I ask what is the point of having arms and legs in space? Do you need to walk? Can turrets not accomplish what gun-wielding arms can? WHY THE HELL DO YOU NEED LIMBS IN SPACE!?!

You're clinging on to some sort of idealistic samurai bullshit manufactured by the Japanese. Get over it.


The ground mecha part is pointless as that would be the same as disabling a tank.

Arms and legs in space for control does help with AMBAC and provides excellent ability to take cover, spin without moving or changing direction, and perform a multitude of non-combat tasks, including inflitrating a weakened ship, something no fighter can do.

Your gonna send a probe to hostile enemy systems and expect it to automatically perform operations and get away with it, without being detected or able to perform transmissions in an area unable to send transmissions without being detected? Oh really... sometimes probes are not the best option, and who said it would all be military operations? Exploring a debris field or underwater or in some unusual situation that expensive probes (which may not be able to perform the task anyways) would be an option!?

Actually, yes. Probes are expendable, pilots aren't. Not to mention, a probe will generally be cheaper than a piloted mech in the first place, due to essentially being a sensor and comm package strapped to some engines.

And yes, I do send them to hostile systems. It doesn't matter whether or not they get caught, because they're just probes.

As for retrieving the information, I can think of quite a few ways.

With FTL: Jump probe into outer limits of system, orient toward target area, accelerate, go ballistic, jump back out after making the run.

Without FTL: FTL equipped drone starship dumps it out, same as above, then retrieves it on opposite end of system.

If you don't need to retrieve it, you could always just stick a tight-beam transmitter on it, have it report back to a communications drone hanging around the edge of the system, which would then report back.

Eraclea']Maybe because they never had the technology or a computer even? We are not dealing with tanks compared to men here, it would be IFVs to Humvees at close range.

No, they did not develop them, or even try, because the design was bogus then, just as it is now.



http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/117525main_TIEFighter.jpg
http://www.calormen.com/Star_Wars/images/TIE_Defender.gif
http://h1072147.hobbyshopnow.com/ProdInfo/AMT/250/AMT38312-250.jpg
http://www.virgin.net/movies/moviespecials/starwars/desktopwallpapers/starwars1_1600.jpg
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Y-Wing2.jpg

http://www.lurexlounge.com/bsg/jpg/grahamviper.jpg
http://www.kevman3d.com/images/gallery/wipship.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/megatau/mts303dykes.jpg


http://izlin.free.fr/eve/ships/templar.jpg
http://izlin.free.fr/eve/ships/dragonfly.jpg
http://izlin.free.fr/eve/ships/einherji.jpg

According to all these pictures it appears they have more surface area to mass ratio then a Mech. Your arguement doesn't hold water until you can show me otherwise and even then, taking from a few canons it does not seem natural.


You sir, are an effing moron. Yes, I am beginning to lose my cool because I cannot believe I have to spell everything out for you, so you will get anything. And even then you still refuse to acknowledge the words that me and others are typing. This latest bandying about of stupid images of fictional fighters as justification for the suck-ass-athon of mecha is a good example. You also FAIL to even render what surface area to mass even means. A mecha the same size and mass of a fighter has -less- surface area for weapons, due to the stupendous requirements of mecha, but at the same time have -more- surface area to armor because of the appendages. Do you get it now?


A single mech of my size and specifications could indeed perform extended recon and covert operations with the proper gear.

And so could a man-sized man who doesn't weigh a few tons and wouldn't show up on radar like the sun in a clear blue sky.

Your gonna send a probe to hostile enemy systems and expect it to automatically perform operations and get away with it, without being detected or able to perform transmissions in an area unable to send transmissions without being detected? Oh really... sometimes probes are not the best option, and who said it would all be military operations? Exploring a debris field or underwater or in some unusual situation that expensive probes (which may not be able to perform the task anyways) would be an option!?

Again you prove your inability to develop and deploy a logical thought. Yes, I would send a relatively inexpensive probe into enemy territory than I would an expensive and massive mecha that would tip the enemy off that I Was there in the first place. The advent of artificial intelligence also makes the probe a wise investment, as it will do as it's told and return without being hampered by the racing stupid thoughts of fleshy human beings in a cockpit. Probes are better for exploring shit nine times out of ten, and that one time out of ten it would be better to use a fighter craft with exploratory gear than it would be a slow/clumsy mecha.



One its not 'loaded down' the systems I already decribed would be easy to maintain and repair and functionality is preserved. Said profile would be smaller then a fighter and missiles can be dupped or ineffective the same way a fighter can do.

Unless it is the 6-9ft powered armor you're talking about, then the profile is still too damned high. A mecha that can peer over a one story building acts like honey to a fly, only this fly is a headseaking warhead. Also mecha are not ever fucking easy to maintain. They have a magnitude or more of moving parts compared to specialized designs so they will work, they are far from easy to maintain.

Explain your reasoning.

Stopping in the middle of a battle to replace arms and legs that are natural bullet magnets isn't good enough? You want me to dumb it down to you even further? I don't think it's possible.


Sure... if you think they are weak let's see how their delivery system will surprise you and even if you do detect them you'd be toast probably. Bio-warefare is not nano-bot related. You have no idea the potentional of this tech.

You know nothing about nanotechnology in the slightest, so please, never comment on it again and spare me your ignorance. Nanomachines can be easily, easily destroyed by minor static discharges, so even if I never did detect them hit my 'ship' the natural electronic emissions from my ships would annihilate them. Also yes, bio-warefare is nanobot related, since well, programming a virus to be mroe deadly is nano-technology, and programming a metal nanobot to act like a virus is as well. You have about as much actual knowledge on the subject as an ocean is dry.

RL examples are not exaggerations. Its been proven that size does not matter when it comes to destroying something else. Size only matters on relative weaponry and defensive power in most cases. Though defensive superiority is not a trait known for either a fighter or a mecha, they surely have different tactics, one that makes each one superior to inferior (namely fighter has the inferior more so then a mech in the long run) of combat between the two.

It has been proven that size does fucking matter. It annoys me to no end when you and SeaQuest cannot ever look at a simple logic chain and determine a conclusion. It is also annoying that neither of you can stay within the context of the debate. A bigger gun is more powerful than a smaller gun, a stick made of steel is less powerful than a cannon made of the same steel from the same factory with the same production methods (equivalent technology). And still, a mecha is defensively inferior to a fighter, if not only because a fighter is FAST and a mecha is SLOW.


Its already been proven a Mecha would be the victor of air/atmospheric combat then a space fighter. A mech is different then a tank, but a Mech can still kick a tank's butt just as well a tank can kick a Mech's butt, though I'd still have to go with Mech agility and dexterious combat over a tank's sluggish mass. Only situation where this would come to a stalemate is at long distances.
... You cannot be serious. A mecha would never best an atmospheric fighter in an atmosphere, or a space based fighter in space. A mecha is slow and clumsy compared to a fighter, and carries less weaponry and armor than a fighter.

As to the tank, a tank of similar size, mass, and technology to a mecha, is far, far, far superior to a slow moving, clumsy mecha. Tanks have so much more armor than a mecha that it isn't even funny, it's just sad. A mecha can't have too much armor to protect all its appendages or it is too slow; an IFV could tear it to ribbons.

Oh, and then there is the fact whatever weapon a mecha is using can't have too much recoil or the shoulder will be ruined. So a mecha with a 155mm chaingun is carrying less weapon power than a tank which is better able to handle recoil, volumes better, than a simple mecha. Which means whatever technologically equivalent weapon a tank is carrying is bigger, stronger, and faster than the weapon a mecha carries. And that is that.

Eraclea']The ground mecha part is pointless as that would be the same as disabling a tank.

Arms and legs in space for control does help with AMBAC and provides excellent ability to take cover, spin without moving or changing direction, and perform a multitude of non-combat tasks, including inflitrating a weakened ship, something no fighter can do.

AMBAC is limited to movement about the center of mass of an object, essentially, flips and spins. Whoop-de-shit. A fighter can do the same, without changing direction of movement.

Also, your "inflitrating a ship" thing is just "wtf?" Most warships don't exactly have 60' high corridors you know....

Eraclea']The ground mecha part is pointless as that would be the same as disabling a tank.

Arms and legs in space for control does help with AMBAC and provides excellent ability to take cover, spin without moving or changing direction, and perform a multitude of non-combat tasks, including inflitrating a weakened ship, something no fighter can do.

Have you ever seen nBSG fighters? They spin without moving or changing direction of motion. As for non-combat tasks, use non-combat units. Don't waste resources on your primary offensive weapons by turning them into big toy soldiers so they'll look neat.

Also, you don't need legs to infiltrate a ship. Hell, you don't even need arms. Ever watch the little Jason robot explore the titanic? The only limbs it had were tiny and meant only for collecting samples, if I remember correctly. As in they weren't primary means of attack or transport.

Drones do have an effectiveness, but not on the scale of which a Mech can provide. A mech can release probes also and in specific places and can perform complex actions and are capable of far better infilitration then drones on specific targets. :)

Eraclea']Drones do have an effectiveness, but not on the scale of which a Mech can provide. A mech can release probes also and in specific places and can perform complex actions and are capable of far better infilitration then drones on specific targets. :)

Alright, post proof then. You're making these claims but have nothing to back it up other than "they're better because I say they are."

Eraclea']Drones do have an effectiveness, but not on the scale of which a Mech can provide. A mech can release probes also and in specific places and can perform complex actions and are capable of far better infilitration then drones on specific targets. :)

That in no way answers anything we've proposed. Thanks.

Originally Posted by [NS]Eraclea
Drones do have an effectiveness, but not on the scale of which a Mech can provide. A mech can release probes also and in specific places and can perform complex actions and are capable of far better infilitration then drones on specific targets.

Actually, I'm not done ripping this apart yet. I'll do a sentence by sentence flaying.

"Drones do have an effectiveness, but not on the scale of which a Mech can provide."

Incredibly vague. You neither define what this effectiveness is, or what the scale is, OR why the mecha is somehow better at these two undefined things.

"A mech can release probes also"

What the hell? Unless you want to stick an FTL drive on a mech, then you'd need something else to deposit the mech into the target system to release the probe. In this case, addding an unnecessary step that also manages to toss in putting a life at risk. Good job.

"and in specific places and can perform complex actions"

Because you know, people just toss probes out airlocks and tell 'em to go wander "somewhere over that way..."

Complex actions: AI. Cheap (copy paste the programming), faster response times and information analyzing than a human, and its just lines of code, not a life. Probe > Mech

"and are capable of far better infilitration then drones on specific targets."

Again, define *WHY* they are better at infiltration and why they would somehow be better at recon than a cheap and dedicated platform.

This indeed falls under it. Calculus deals with limits. So V=LxWxH is a poor example... but a more proper one is Speed = distance / time. And the Pyth. Since it deals with limits and maximums of trignometric angles of the triangle.

You might want to read the whole thing through before saying it isn't calculus when we were dealing with complex functions just simplied into speed = distance / time with the function found through other information. Time diliation is also calc.

Right, I'm not basing my opinion on what's calculus from some silly and ambiguous article on Wikipedia. I'm basing it on what I've learned in class. What we're discussing here I learned in sixth fucking grade. It's no more complicated than Y=X+1 when you get down to it. They dont teach you this shit in college man, hell, they dont even teach it to you in HIGH SCHOOL!

Joranhor']No, they did not develop them, or even try, because the design was bogus then, just as it is now. They are now. WWII was too early. You need to recognize that WWII tech did not have the base technology to produce such creations, but they did have the ability to dream them up and that's why Mechs as you usually see them are large, but as time went on they became efficent, compact and more suited to civilian use with militiary use following in the footsteps of civilian use.


You sir, are an effing moron. Yes, I am beginning to lose my cool because I cannot believe I have to spell everything out for you, so you will get anything. And even then you still refuse to acknowledge the words that me and others are typing. This latest bandying about of stupid images of fictional fighters as justification for the suck-ass-athon of mecha is a good example. You also FAIL to even render what surface area to mass even means. A mecha the same size and mass of a fighter has -less- surface area for weapons, due to the stupendous requirements of mecha, but at the same time have -more- surface area to armor because of the appendages. Do you get it now?


Familar with this?

You sir, have been found lacking in the knowledge of design department. A mecha of similar mass to a fighter has more surface area than that fighter, due to the arms, the legs, and the head. It has to armor all of those flimsy ass parts so they don't get blown to hell as they are easy targets. To accomodate its inability to be aerodynamic and all those arms and legs and all, it has to have this magical AMBAC of yours, which takes up more room than anything we have on a fighter and just acts as a detriment.

You just contradicted yourself. How can it have less and more surface area at the same time, when the pictures of these fighters (which would have essentially about the same mass) have more surface area, but is not armoured all around them.

Mechs can have weapons and armor, I just don't think you understand how this is possible without being bulky because you are so used to Gundam. They would be a cross between Gundam and Appleseed's Heavy Landmates. They have built in weaponry right into the limbs and chest (mostly chest) and are controlled by a power plant in the chest complete with full arrays of sensors and controls.

Btw. You are swearing and cursing at me when you think aerodynamics work in space, I feel sorry for you. AMBAC is not magical, I suggest you read up on it to realize it mimics RL movements in space just at an enhanced rate to compensate for the excess mass, so it will move with the pilot by means of the body. (Take a good look at a F-22, its systems are more advanced then that for this, but it is by no means a revolutionary idea, and the idea of this has been around since the 60's)

And so could a man-sized man who doesn't weigh a few tons and wouldn't show up on radar like the sun in a clear blue sky.


#1 Weight has no effect on radar. Mass does not effect it either.
#2 Take a look at stealthing for airplanes or ships, also look into radar-asborbing materials.

Again you prove your inability to develop and deploy a logical thought. Yes, I would send a relatively inexpensive probe into enemy territory than I would an expensive and massive mecha that would tip the enemy off that I Was there in the first place. The advent of artificial intelligence also makes the probe a wise investment, as it will do as it's told and return without being hampered by the racing stupid thoughts of fleshy human beings in a cockpit. Probes are better for exploring shit nine times out of ten, and that one time out of ten it would be better to use a fighter craft with exploratory gear than it would be a slow/clumsy mecha.

It would not be slow or clumsy and it would be capable of pulling far more specialized explorations even on a planet for indepth information, something probes are not set to do nor can they reason on their own to do so or figure it out on their own.



Unless it is the 6-9ft powered armor you're talking about, then the profile is still too damned high. A mecha that can peer over a one story building acts like honey to a fly, only this fly is a headseaking warhead. Also mecha are not ever fucking easy to maintain. They have a magnitude or more of moving parts compared to specialized designs so they will work, they are far from easy to maintain.

Its not powered armor, its a mech, but it is still small enough to get into most areas without problems. Though your maintaining of it seems childish. Given the systems and time your arguement is almost laughable. You need to take a step back and understand how it will work before you knock it.


Stopping in the middle of a battle to replace arms and legs that are natural bullet magnets isn't good enough? You want me to dumb it down to you even further? I don't think it's possible.


Not in the middle of battle. Are you that thickheaded. It can be done but you at the least take cover and have a proper system for it, otherwise its a waste of time and ou endanger yourself.


You know nothing about nanotechnology in the slightest, so please, never comment on it again and spare me your ignorance. Nanomachines can be easily, easily destroyed by minor static discharges, so even if I never did detect them hit my 'ship' the natural electronic emissions from my ships would annihilate them. Also yes, bio-warefare is nanobot related, since well, programming a virus to be mroe deadly is nano-technology, and programming a metal nanobot to act like a virus is as well. You have about as much actual knowledge on the subject as an ocean is dry.

Why do you have to insult me every single time? I doubt you even know what you are talking about cause bio-warfare (not warefare) is not applicable. You should take a look at what you say before you make assumptions, like how about your 'electronic emissions' is so vague that you can't even come up with a specific on how it will stop them. Your 'programming a virus' comment was also as thickheaded as the rest of this arguement paragraph, if you are at all smart you know that foriegn being do not have resistance to new viruses that they have never been exposed to and therefore even a regular virus would be more then enough to kill.


It has been proven that size does fucking matter. It annoys me to no end when you and SeaQuest cannot ever look at a simple logic chain and determine a conclusion. It is also annoying that neither of you can stay within the context of the debate. A bigger gun is more powerful than a smaller gun, a stick made of steel is less powerful than a cannon made of the same steel from the same factory with the same production methods (equivalent technology). And still, a mecha is defensively inferior to a fighter, if not only because a fighter is FAST and a mecha is SLOW.

'A bigger gun is more powerful then a smaller gun' *cracks up* Ya, sure. Give me a reason why given the same technology level a smaller gun is weaker then a larger gun. If you can't give a clear reason why a large laser is better then a small laser with same output is not a better use of space, then you need to get your head examined.

You need to read more, cause fast and slow are relative when you are fighting at the speed of light, more so when its fighter vs mech.


... You cannot be serious. A mecha would never best an atmospheric fighter in an atmosphere, or a space based fighter in space. A mecha is slow and clumsy compared to a fighter, and carries less weaponry and armor than a fighter.

Give a reason for this, try me. Remember to take in account for size and ability. Also... the speed.

As to the tank, a tank of similar size, mass, and technology to a mecha, is far, far, far superior to a slow moving, clumsy mecha. Tanks have so much more armor than a mecha that it isn't even funny, it's just sad. A mecha can't have too much armor to protect all its appendages or it is too slow; an IFV could tear it to ribbons.

Why would the mech be slow moving and clumsy? You have no idea what you are even talking about.

Oh, and then there is the fact whatever weapon a mecha is using can't have too much recoil or the shoulder will be ruined. So a mecha with a 155mm chaingun is carrying less weapon power than a tank which is better able to handle recoil, volumes better, than a simple mecha. Which means whatever technologically equivalent weapon a tank is carrying is bigger, stronger, and faster than the weapon a mecha carries. And that is that.

Ya sure... ever hear of a recoilless rifle? Though why would I use a 155mm chaingun? I'd use Metal storm weaponry as the advantage to space is immense and I can store all the rounds and missiles or whatever conventional ammo I wish INSIDE the armored mech without messing with balance (still automatically configured to balance to the pilots inital position and then mimic movements...etc without throwing off the center of gravity or taking up any excess space, and having essentially no recoil effect while firing and the total recoil is so little that its laughable when compared to the mass of the mech as a whole (or at least the limb, most cases leg or torso) that it would not be a hinderance in anyway.

If you are going to fight a tank, how about upping the ante with a super dense pentrating explosive round. Without going into FT material wankry, depleted uranium or tungsten. A Mech with a proper weapon will destroy that tank regardless of what 'platform' it is using. With a weapon in its hands or from inside the mech itself, that tank is going down if the Mech hits it when the weapon is MEANT to take it down.

You are confusing power of the weapon for power of the Mech, two entirely SEPERATE things.

AMBAC is limited to movement about the center of mass of an object, essentially, flips and spins. Whoop-de-shit. A fighter can do the same, without changing direction of movement.

Also, your "inflitrating a ship" thing is just "wtf?" Most warships don't exactly have 60' high corridors you know....

AMBAC is, but if you can shift your center of mass (as a fighter can't as easily and as quickly or instanteously as a mech) you'd need to turn around by thrust.

The mech is 6-9ft tall. Last I checked that works.

How can it have less and more surface area at the same time
Simple. Most of the extensive surface area on a mecha is unusable, due to the fact that placing a weapon there will result it being torn off when the arm/leg moves. On a fighter, the lack of parts that can shear against each other means that a more extensive array of weapons can be mounted. Same way you can't mount guns on the bottom of a tank.

Eraclea']AMBAC is, but if you can shift your center of mass (as a fighter can't as easily and as quickly or instanteously as a mech) you'd need to turn around by thrust.

The mech is 6-9ft tall. Last I checked that works.


Alright, didn't know what size of mecha you were using. Most people are using B-tech/Gundam type stuff. 6'-9' is essentially power armor, like a 40K space marine.

But good, we've essentially established that ANBAC isn't some uber manuevering system, just a way to spin and flip without using fuel.

Anyway, I'll wait for you to address the probe stuff before continuing it further, don't want to string our debate all over the place.

'A bigger gun is more powerful then a smaller gun' *cracks up* Ya, sure. Give me a reason why given the same technology level a smaller gun is weaker then a larger gun. If you can't give a clear reason why a large laser is better then a small laser with same output is not a better use of space, then you need to get your head examined.
Because the laser may not have a larger apeture, but will most definitely be hooked up to a larger power source, due to the larger amount of space? Right, think of it this way: Which is more powerful: An M-16 or the main gun on an Abrams?

-snip-

Are you going to send a probe into a wreckage of a fleet or a ship with the mission of repairing, obtaining or searching for survivors? A probe can, but adding all this equipment and material is kind of a waste when a few mechs can handle it when a machine cannot perform the task because a probe is not specialized for retrival or whatever.

If you have probes for every kind of possible use in existance, I feel sorry for your poor choice of creativity and originality and overall simple solution to a complex problem.

I guess its like Russia and the USA during the space race. We spent $1 million for a pen to write in space, the Russians used a pencil.

As for the pilot's life on hostile (or potentionally hostile) locations, it would be a must and a probe will not be able to fufill the depth of involvement capable for machinery. (Like scanning, copying, deleting, sabotaging or whatever inside a facility and stand a DECENT chance making it in and out in one piece.

If you wanted to probe a planet, then sure. Just make sure your probe can survive the planet. Or if the exploration would take several days or was to do recon or a dangerous mission that is probably standard in FT (hence why I menion covert ops). A unmanned probe is a great thing, but for the cases in which it will not be a good idea or successful: use a mech.

(BTW... what would a little probe do when it is under electronic attack or well... any attack in this case. Self-defense is unlikely and if you are in a facility that inhibits transmissions and scans (as would be a smart thing to do to prevent infilitration and transmission) a mech could blow the whole place up or kill the attacker if it deemed the threat was minimal and continue on its mission or get out of there. If worst came to worst an capture was imminent the Mech pilot could get out and fight or self-destruct with a megaton bomb and destroy the whole facility in anycase.)

Simple. Most of the extensive surface area on a mecha is unusable, due to the fact that placing a weapon there will result it being torn off when the arm/leg moves. On a fighter, the lack of parts that can shear against each other means that a more extensive array of weapons can be mounted. Same way you can't mount guns on the bottom of a tank.

Standard Gundams yes....and oh god do those scream for an upgrade as efficient use of the space is terrible. Appleseed ones are heavily armored and are able to survive most gunfire and lots of heat and damage. Though I am simply borrowing the system from it and making them a few steps up on the movement of the limbs.

The reason I am putting weapons into the mech and taking the heavy armor out of the base? Heavy armor does not stop it from heating up and other one-shotter missiles that are flung around in space. On Earth you can attach heavy armor to the torso like putting on a shell and the other limbs must be built with it to function. (Or lock up otherwise) This bulky set up would allow for a fair amount of damage to be taken before it can be destroyed and the 'shell' to the torso would reduce the chance that that actual system would be damaged from even powerful hits. (a relative and vague term I know...but its based on the armor)

Ultimately it will be like powered armor you sit it, but the advantage is you can take serious damage (such as having a arm or leg blown off or steping on a mine) and have the user remain unharmed, also this allows for more armor and internal systems to function without wrapping around the fragile human limbs. It was an improvement in all practical fields, but at the cost (if you can call it that) of the pilots natural movement which will be augmented and physical attributes will be sent through the roof with an armored shell (able to take RPGs, Bullets, and even HEAT rounds without being destroyed) that has its own internal weapons system, and the unique ability of being able to weild oversized scaled-up weapons to fit the Mech (Instead of a puny rifle you can hold a much more powerful and heavy caliber weapon in its place.

Just some of the features...

Eraclea']AMBAC is, but if you can shift your center of mass (as a fighter can't as easily and as quickly or instanteously as a mech) you'd need to turn around by thrust.

The mech is 6-9ft tall. Last I checked that works.

nBSG fighters flip in fractions of a second, methinks that's as quickly and instantaniously. If the only advantage AMBAC gives you is not using thrust, then that's pretty weak. (aka, limbs = still useless)

As for a 6-9 foot tall mech, that's basically a heavily armored marine with space propellant. If I took my heavily armed marines added rockets to them, then shoved them into a space battle they'd be systematically sliced into bits by PD clusters alone. (limbs? hm?)

As for the probe issue, nothing you mention is probing. Probes don't do rescue operations or repairs. You send rescue craft or repair craft guarded by actual military units. The rescue and repair craft do their job, the military units do their's. A probe goes forth and probes things. Hence the name. (also, I'd like to know where limbs come into this)

Also, probes are supposed to be cheap, because there's a large chance they'll be crushed/burned/blown up/sliced/diced/electricuted/you get the idea.

Because the laser may not have a larger apeture, but will most definitely be hooked up to a larger power source, due to the larger amount of space? Right, think of it this way: Which is more powerful: An M-16 or the main gun on an Abrams?

When referencing to lasers you must think in a relative sense. Sure a larger ship may be able to fire the laser more often and have the same (for this case) maximum output. The same laser, just a smaller and larger power source (happy?)

Now we have a large power source that can fully charge in 1 minute and a small power source that can fully charge in an hour. (60x difference) Now all the small fighters (fully charged) and all large ships (fully charged) begin to fight. The inital blasts are critical, they are the full-force powerful weapons.

The catch? The small cheap fighters are also fully charged when heading into battle, although those held on the large ship are capable of destroying the small ships instantly at full charge they are capable of damaging them or even disabling them from 25% of max charge (or at least 15 seconds for cooling down). In terms of power they are equal, but the one who will collectively fire more full charges and do the most damage will be the fighters with the powerful weapons (even if they take a full hour to recharge to be able to pierce the shield and damage the ship faster and even destroy it.

Size does not matter in all cases, although it definately helps in terms of power and ability, it is not the be all end-all. Though it has a lot of sub factors that depend on it.

nBSG fighters flip in fractions of a second, methinks that's as quickly and instantaniously. If the only advantage AMBAC gives you is not using thrust, then that's pretty weak. (aka, limbs = still useless)

As for a 6-9 foot tall mech, that's basically a heavily armored marine with space propellant. If I took my heavily armed marines added rockets to them, then shoved them into a space battle they'd be systematically sliced into bits by PD clusters alone. (limbs? hm?)

Well they are weak... they just have the weapons and turning ability, they are not going to keep up with those fighters, not a chance in hell, but the ability to hide in space debris and hit fighters (well most of them) from behind as they fly all around with my other fighters (coming later) the mechs will play a key role in destroying the fighters or using fully charged weapons on enemy ships in coordinated efforts.

The main use you'll see of Mechs are fleet to fleet combat, Mechs can also be used like escape pods in worst case scenarios as a capital ship or a major assault ship is failing and is about to be destroyed. They can jet away and return to the wreckage and aid the other fighters and other mechs in specific strikes on the enemy. The advantage of hiding behind space debris from the wreckage is simple, instead of the laser hitting you, it will heat up or burn through the debris, but hopefully allow for the Mech user to get away unharmed or only slightly damaged (as they to will be built to take great amounts of damage).

This essentially makes the enemy go nuts, they are dealing with a huge amount of targets that can be hiding the debris scattered all over, while nimble fighters and mechs from all directions are fighting back and forth. Hopefully all this causes the capital ships to be distracted and use their most powerful weapons on destroying the debris, only to see those in Mech's scatter (also letting more attacks on them by the other fleet ships and the other Mechs who now have a good target (or a new one) to hit.

Another bonus for the pilots in the Mechs, they are able to survive the destruction of their ship and fight back as Mechs will essentially be escape pods with the ability to strike them back. However in any event escape pods will also be on the ships to jet away from the fight if unable to pilot Mechs or no Mechs left (or that haven't been damaged). After the fight (or even during) those Mechs can enter friendly ships in event of suit damage.

When enemy ships have their shields, propulsion and otherwise all methods of fighting back (at least known) Mechs can burst through the heavy armor on the ships and then seal the holes (via physical obstruction or force field (not possible yet)) and capture enemies and retrieve key information or technology from disabled enemy ships while still in pretty amazing combat armor. (As the ship's crew will undoubtably resist with some heavy weaponry if they have it.)

I just see so many uses for them, I just love them. :D

As for the probe issue, nothing you mention is probing. Probes don't do rescue operations or repairs. You send rescue craft or repair craft guarded by actual military units. The rescue and repair craft do their job, the military units do their's. A probe goes forth and probes things. Hence the name. (also, I'd like to know where limbs come into this)

Also, probes are supposed to be cheap, because there's a large chance they'll be crushed/burned/blown up/sliced/diced/electricuted/you get the idea.

Ah okay. My mistake. Thanks. ^-^

Here I come in all haughty and making a point when you're actually sensible about things.

I was hastey to assume a pro-mech guy is batshit insane. My mistake.

Eraclea']They are now. WWII was too early. You need to recognize that WWII tech did not have the base technology to produce such creations, but they did have the ability to dream them up and that's why Mechs as you usually see them are large, but as time went on they became efficent, compact and more suited to civilian use with militiary use following in the footsteps of civilian use.

WWII technology was a major thing; the atomic bomb, IR that wasn't absolete till after the 1960s, assault guns and the advent of the missile. If it was possible, and if it was feasible, they'd try to build it. But not once did anyone seriously try to get a mecha built or designed.

You just contradicted yourself. How can it have less and more surface area at the same time, when the pictures of these fighters (which would have essentially about the same mass) have more surface area, but is not armoured all around them.

Otagia explained it well enough.

Mechs can have weapons and armor, I just don't think you understand how this is possible without being bulky because you are so used to Gundam. They would be a cross between Gundam and Appleseed's Heavy Landmates. They have built in weaponry right into the limbs and chest (mostly chest) and are controlled by a power plant in the chest complete with full arrays of sensors and controls.

Mechs have less room for weapons and armor than do designs of similar size and mass. This is due to the surface area problems outlined earlier, and due to the biepedal design itself which is not geared towards speed or strength. Building them in just makes it worse; they are more complicated and thus more expensive than specialized designs.

Btw. You are swearing and cursing at me when you think aerodynamics work in space, I feel sorry for you. AMBAC is not magical, I suggest you read up on it to realize it mimics RL movements in space just at an enhanced rate to compensate for the excess mass, so it will move with the pilot by means of the body. (Take a good look at a F-22, its systems are more advanced then that for this, but it is by no means a revolutionary idea, and the idea of this has been around since the 60's)

It has gotten down to insults because you refuse to follow the simple logic I have laid out for you. For some in effable reason you cannot fathom or understand simple shit that I would expect five year olds to grasp.

And I know what AMBAC is and what it does; I call it magical as a way of poking fun at you for NOT understanding the way it works. You have somehow construed that the AMBAC system makes fighters absolete and capships floating targets for samurai spacedy action.

#1 Weight has no effect on radar. Mass does not effect it either.
#2 Take a look at stealthing for airplanes or ships, also look into radar-asborbing materials.

WEIGHT means that you can be heard from a mile away from the clompety clompety your mech makes when moving.

In regards to number two, you have basically just said you want to place overly expensive equipment on an overly expensive mecha to do simple covert ops missions instead of using a normal guy with a very simple IR shield. Great, you have no idea what you're doing.

It would not be slow or clumsy and it would be capable of pulling far more specialized explorations even on a planet for indepth information, something probes are not set to do nor can they reason on their own to do so or figure it out on their own.

More than a probe, probably not; a probe is a sensor suite encased in some armor plating tied to an engine with a few tools underneath. It's relatively inexpensive, and it works. If you don't want to use a probe, you use a small exploration ship loaded down with sensors, tools, and other such things geared towards exploration, not some stupid mecha piece.

Its not powered armor, its a mech, but it is still small enough to get into most areas without problems. Though your maintaining of it seems childish. Given the systems and time your arguement is almost laughable. You need to take a step back and understand how it will work before you knock it.


You know nothing about maintenence or logistics just like you know nothing about nanotechnology. So I take this at face value: it has none. A mecha is more complicated than a tank, than a fighter, than anything of similar size and mass, so yes it is complicated and expensive to maintain. Speak not again on the subject; your ignorance is painful.


Not in the middle of battle. Are you that thickheaded. It can be done but you at the least take cover and have a proper system for it, otherwise its a waste of time and ou endanger yourself.

You insinuated that a mecha has an advantage over other designs on the battlefield because of its ability to interchange parts. You insinuated that this would be happening during a battle. You are the one who is thickheaded for making such a daft insinuation.

Why do you have to insult me every single time? I doubt you even know what you are talking about cause bio-warfare (not warefare) is not applicable. You should take a look at what you say before you make assumptions, like how about your 'electronic emissions' is so vague that you can't even come up with a specific on how it will stop them. Your 'programming a virus' comment was also as thickheaded as the rest of this arguement paragraph, if you are at all smart you know that foriegn being do not have resistance to new viruses that they have never been exposed to and therefore even a regular virus would be more then enough to kill.

As I said before; your ignorance is for my insults. You pretend to be an expert on these subjects when you really no nothing, and then you condescend to everyone at the same time, so you deserve to be insulted.

Biowarfare is an appilcation of nanotechnology. It is. Programming a virus to do something is an example of nanotechnology, as nano=small, technology=application of knowledge. It obviously fits. Also electronic emissions means just what it says: emissions of electricity from computers, wires, and other things laden in a starship. A static discharge WILL kill little nanobots easily, so yes; electronic emissions from my buck-average computer will kill them all.

Everything else you said afterwards made no sense and is not worth my commenting about. But again, I say, never comment or discuss things you have no knowledge about, ever again.

'A bigger gun is more powerful then a smaller gun' *cracks up* Ya, sure. Give me a reason why given the same technology level a smaller gun is weaker then a larger gun. If you can't give a clear reason why a large laser is better then a small laser with same output is not a better use of space, then you need to get your head examined.

You're a moron. Oh my fucking God it's brain bleeding time. A big gun = bigger and more powerful munition than a smaller gun of equivalent technology. It is fucking elementary common sense you're violating now. Your laser analogy is also stupid and disgusting.

If both lasers have the same amount of power output then the bigger laser is still more powerful because it is doing more damage over a wider surface area than a smaller laser. But if we assumed that wasn't true, then they are just as powerful as one another. But you see, your analogy is fallacious; you're trying to compare an oddity in laser technology to other weapons technologies, to reach a conclusion that says all things are equal regardless of size, which is false.

You need to read more, cause fast and slow are relative when you are fighting at the speed of light, more so when its fighter vs mech.

And you need to not be so blindingly insane. A mecha does not move at the speed of light, not do they fight at such speeds. A mecha is slower than a fighter, even if they could fight at light speed, it is most decidely not relative in reality.

Give a reason for this, try me. Remember to take in account for size and ability. Also... the speed.
Because bipedal humanoid designs are inferior to the designs of fighters. They are also slower in space and in the atmosphere than a fighter. It's elementary but you can't grasp it; amazing and pathetic at once.


Why would the mech be slow moving and clumsy? You have no idea what you are even talking about.
BIPEDAL DESIGNS ARE CLUMSY AND SLOW COMPARED TO SPECIALIZED DESIGNS! Is this so hard for you to fathom?

Ya sure... ever hear of a recoilless rifle? Though why would I use a 155mm chaingun? I'd use Metal storm weaponry as the advantage to space is immense and I can store all the rounds and missiles or whatever conventional ammo I wish INSIDE the armored mech without messing with balance (still automatically configured to balance to the pilots inital position and then mimic movements...etc without throwing off the center of gravity or taking up any excess space, and having essentially no recoil effect while firing and the total recoil is so little that its laughable when compared to the mass of the mech as a whole (or at least the limb, most cases leg or torso) that it would not be a hinderance in anyway.

A recoilless rifle generates HEAT so yes, use it to your hearts content and be annihilated by the simplest of heatseeking munitions, great plan jabbo. Also, explain metal storm weaponry so I can sufficiently argue against it or don't bring it up.

If you are going to fight a tank, how about upping the ante with a super dense pentrating explosive round. Without going into FT material wankry, depleted uranium or tungsten. A Mech with a proper weapon will destroy that tank regardless of what 'platform' it is using. With a weapon in its hands or from inside the mech itself, that tank is going down if the Mech hits it when the weapon is MEANT to take it down.

If you're going to fight a tank, why not use a tank, something that was designed and is good at fighting other tanks while also having a low profile? I guess you can't; that'd make sense.

You are confusing power of the weapon for power of the Mech, two entirely SEPERATE things.
No, you are doing that, and confusing everything else up in the process because you are beyond reason.

Here I come in all haughty and making a point when you're actually sensible about things.

I was hastey to assume a pro-mech guy is batshit insane. My mistake.

I figure almost all people who use mechs here are infact evolved past them for it to be effective on any major scale (here I am talking conventional weapons stored inside the thing, which has very very little effect on most FT nation ships) and they serve mostly a civilian source and a small military survival one.

The whole Eastern philosophy about honor and death is going to be a big part of my nation. Its far better to say that someone's child died defending his comrades on a honorable attack then it is to say he died trying to escape from battle or he died without fighting back against his enemies.

Mechs do have an advantage in the air over space fighters, but still this is neglible. If it was a dog-fight the Mech would win 1 on 1. Though this is unlikely in itself.

I'm going to use Light-Propulsion to do all of my planet to space missions. As it is the best way I currently have. :)

Joranhor']WWII technology was a major thing; the atomic bomb, IR that wasn't absolete till after the 1960s, assault guns and the advent of the missile. If it was possible, and if it was feasible, they'd try to build it. But not once did anyone seriously try to get a mecha built or designed.

That's like saying Christopher Colombus wanted to come to America on a plane. The ability to do these things were not avalible and you are confusing your timelines.

Nuclear weapons are not 'obsolete' they are still a major fear and are a threat to the modern world.

Assault guns? Umm... we had machine guns already. Old news. Missiles... they were being developed yes, but this is the only one that really matters and it was over 20 years in the making.

There was no possible way to make or do a mech in WWII. Its like asking for a laser guns to replace our current guns (and NOT THE CHINESE CRAPPY ONES)!

Your point does not make sense for your arguement.



Otagia explained it well enough.
I have both in the same space + external weapons that can be used. Weapons and armor, but same surface area. (Although the armor is obviously weaker in those spots (like the neck).



Mechs have less room for weapons and armor than do designs of similar size and mass. This is due to the surface area problems outlined earlier, and due to the biepedal design itself which is not geared towards speed or strength. Building them in just makes it worse; they are more complicated and thus more expensive than specialized designs.

Specialized designs are meant for a specific task. Mechs are going to have a variety of uses for me and must be kept variable to the task at hand, whether combative or not they have to be adaptable to make the costs worth it.


It has gotten down to insults because you refuse to follow the simple logic I have laid out for you. For some in effable reason you cannot fathom or understand simple shit that I would expect five year olds to grasp.

I just don't think you get the use is all and that's why you are being like this.

And I know what AMBAC is and what it does; I call it magical as a way of poking fun at you for NOT understanding the way it works. You have somehow construed that the AMBAC system makes fighters absolete and capships floating targets for samurai spacedy action.

I never said that. It offers superior counterattacking for most fighters (one example has the same ability aided by thrusters which negates the Mech advantage and actually would excel at knocking them out enmasse.) and the only way they will destroy capital ships is with fully charged lasers and breaking through the shield to do damage to specific parts, or entering the ships when their shields are down and attacking from the inside in their suits.

WEIGHT means that you can be heard from a mile away from the clompety clompety your mech makes when moving.

Well yes, but their main function is space-operations so that wouldn't let them be heard there, but on the upside it will be able to run at fast speeds (faster then 30 mph) though with thrusters it can reach over the speed of sound, but for a very short period of time (Ionic thrusters using Xenon) to fly for up to 5 minutes at faster then Mach 3 on Earth. (Again weight matters and depending on the gear and if it has heavy armor on this time and speed could be cut greatly and its speed on the ground will be slowed also)

The nice part of Ionic Propulsion, it hits very fast speeds quickly in space, but control is then hard, you will not see these things zipping around like crazy, I assure you.

In regards to number two, you have basically just said you want to place overly expensive equipment on an overly expensive mecha to do simple covert ops missions instead of using a normal guy with a very simple IR shield. Great, you have no idea what you're doing.

A covert ops mech specifically won't exist, it'd be too expensive, though by using energy from the fusion reactor and a tank of helium gas it can give off a dense cloud of cold plasma, dropping its chances of being spotted by radar or infrared, but not visual or FTL sensors.

It would be used for law enforcement more so then military missions that or missions against other nations on the planet. (A rarity in the FT world?)


More than a probe, probably not; a probe is a sensor suite encased in some armor plating tied to an engine with a few tools underneath. It's relatively inexpensive, and it works. If you don't want to use a probe, you use a small exploration ship loaded down with sensors, tools, and other such things geared towards exploration, not some stupid mecha piece.

Ya I was confused on that, its cleared up already.


You know nothing about maintenence or logistics just like you know nothing about nanotechnology. So I take this at face value: it has none. A mecha is more complicated than a tank, than a fighter, than anything of similar size and mass, so yes it is complicated and expensive to maintain. Speak not again on the subject; your ignorance is painful.

I know a fair amount of both, you have to realize to the extent it would be. A computer is a complex machine right? Well at the beginning of computers, they ran on vacuum tubes, the average run time of a computer was 10 minutes in some cases; before a tube failed. Then the technicans would find and replace the tube or tubes and go again.

In the beginning of robotics, it was a mass of cogs and gears and dials. Now we have hydralic pumps and joints that work like a humans. The maintaince and upkeep of them are greatly lowered over time, and the less friction and wear on them the better. With out specially designed and produced methods it would not be worth it to use Mechs. Though anything that is mass-produces has to be made with precision and swiftness, though the key of the mass-production mechs will be around the whole basis that the arms will attach to the torso and lock in automatically (with manual set up possible also) and overall simplicity in the design.

By different businesses focussing on designing to a standard base with standards they can maximize effort and production to long-lasting, powerful and more efficent use of power.

Of course it will have to be maintained, but to the extent you implied is unreasonable.


You insinuated that a mecha has an advantage over other designs on the battlefield because of its ability to interchange parts. You insinuated that this would be happening during a battle. You are the one who is thickheaded for making such a daft insinuation.

You can change weapons on the battlefield or change set up (like a fighter returning from damages or lack of missiles) though it is more implied that the battlefield would also include a ship that would be able to maintain and switch parts as needed for the mission (though these would be speciality ones). Doing so while fighting would be crazy, at the very least you need cover (for planets) to do this and a few minutes at least.



As I said before; your ignorance is for my insults. You pretend to be an expert on these subjects when you really no nothing, and then you condescend to everyone at the same time, so you deserve to be insulted.

How about you go say that to a moderator. I bet they'd love that.

Biowarfare is an appilcation of nanotechnology. It is. Programming a virus to do something is an example of nanotechnology, as nano=small, technology=application of knowledge. It obviously fits. Also electronic emissions means just what it says: emissions of electricity from computers, wires, and other things laden in a starship. A static discharge WILL kill little nanobots easily, so yes; electronic emissions from my buck-average computer will kill them all.

I doubt your computers are full of static discharge and that it is enough to actually fry nanobots.



Everything else you said afterwards made no sense and is not worth my commenting about. But again, I say, never comment or discuss things you have no knowledge about, ever again.

Ouch.



You're a moron. Oh my fucking God it's brain bleeding time. A big gun = bigger and more powerful munition than a smaller gun of equivalent technology. It is fucking elementary common sense you're violating now. Your laser analogy is also stupid and disgusting.

This is FT and it does make sense cause it isn't breaking any rules.

If both lasers have the same amount of power output then the bigger laser is still more powerful because it is doing more damage over a wider surface area than a smaller laser. But if we assumed that wasn't true, then they are just as powerful as one another. But you see, your analogy is fallacious; you're trying to compare an oddity in laser technology to other weapons technologies, to reach a conclusion that says all things are equal regardless of size, which is false.

Uh no. It depends on the weapon. Though the rest of them were so obvious why would I need to comment on it? Since the main weapon is energy-based ones of equal output will be the same power and hence size doesn't matter.

Just to clarify if power output is the same the large laser's beam (if it is larger) is still the same output, but it is just over a wider area, while the smaller (if it is smaller) is the same output, but over a smaller area.

Both will do the same damage to a shield if they are hit in full, but the smaller beam is more intense and without the shield it will be the one doing more damage in a concentrated point. So in a since it is more 'powerful', but its really equal unless you count focusing as power now.



And you need to not be so blindingly insane. A mecha does not move at the speed of light, not do they fight at such speeds. A mecha is slower than a fighter, even if they could fight at light speed, it is most decidely not relative in reality.

Its weapon does. The speeds of the fighter and mech I was saying. You didn't understand apparently.

Because bipedal humanoid designs are inferior to the designs of fighters. They are also slower in space and in the atmosphere than a fighter. It's elementary but you can't grasp it; amazing and pathetic at once.

Superiority does not mean speed. You need to look at the big picture.



BIPEDAL DESIGNS ARE CLUMSY AND SLOW COMPARED TO SPECIALIZED DESIGNS! Is this so hard for you to fathom?

Basis for this 'specialized design' and your clumsy and slow comment does not make sense.



A recoilless rifle generates HEAT so yes, use it to your hearts content and be annihilated by the simplest of heatseeking munitions, great plan jabbo. Also, explain metal storm weaponry so I can sufficiently argue against it or don't bring it up.

Rofl. All things generate heat. Or are you forgetting every fighter, or FT space ship has a massive energy signature? You are still detected one way or the other, by FTL means or standard means, you can't prevent yourself from being found out in all forms, but seriously that is a dumb arguement from you.

Metal Storm uses electricity to fire rounds, grenades or any other little gadget you want (camera, smoke grenade, flash-bangs, etc) and it uses a tube to carry all the bullets, grenades... etc in a tube. This tube can be reloaded as an entirety. Metal Storm systems can fire at speeds of over 1 million rounds per minute. Currently over 2 million (maybe 3, been a few months since I last checked) rounds per minute.

It is so fast that you can deploy a wall of steel (just a load of bullets seperated by inches) to destroy incoming missiles or unleash hell on a moving target inside your range. It can be deployed as a portable mine field with sensors and can be remotely accessed.

It can automatically release bombs (dumb) on a target as a plane flies over the target and it will only release over the targeted area automatically to hit the target below. Such as airplanes, hangars, train tracks, bridges or military installations. Without hitting the same spot twice. (Gets its idea from laser printers on that one!)

Metal Storm can be used to fight fires in civilian life among other uses.


If you're going to fight a tank, why not use a tank, something that was designed and is good at fighting other tanks while also having a low profile? I guess you can't; that'd make sense.

A mech can take it out and it will have a low profile (on the ground) and it can fulfill other tasks to. Remember...it will serve many functions when other options are not available either.

No, you are doing that, and confusing everything else up in the process because you are beyond reason.

Sureee.... >.>

Look here, you little dipshit! I've had enough of your beligerant attitude and constant put downs. NOW GROW UP!

I'll also await your apology.

Ah, yes. I remember this well. I was one of two or three people who originally supported you, even if it was with 'hey, guys, give him a chance, he's probably being sarcastic or something' on the GFFA forums. After awhile, your stupidity got you banned. You claimed someone had rigged an election, and I tried to tell you that people just liked the person who had won. You claimed that 'they' had brainwashed me, or that MM's evil, lying trickiness had subtly transformed me into someone who hated you, and that you were going to bring me back to the 'side of truth and justice'. Since then, I've seen you charge headlong into various RPs and threads without the slightest idea of what's going on, and wanking and lying your way through the various threads you've been in.

"Boo hoo! The GFFA banned me because I was trying to uncover a conspiracy and I have to restore it to its former glory and you guys are all evil!"

Hell, maybe you're not lying. Maybe you actually believe the crap you spout. If so, I feel sorry for you. There's a difference between put-downs and impatience. Amazing as it may sound, Abh, myself, Namtar.. we've all tried to be patient. I tried to give you names and advice to help you when you decided to rip off some Mortal Kombat characters for fun, and Namtar's been trying to make you realise what you've been doing, and why you've been alienating everyone since Day One.

And yet, you manage to blunder through advice and criticism, terming what is given in good nature vicious attacks, and trying to argue stupid, unfeasible points simply because you don't like to lose. I pity you for this, but letting you have your way, when you're like a four-year old who throws a tantrum every time something goes wrong, isn't going to solve anything.

If I have an apology, it's for supporting you early-on, when what you probably needed was a good sharp shock to help you snap out of this trend of stupid arguments and wankery you've fallen into.





SIZE DOES NOT MATTER!!!!

Ah, yes. Big red text. I remember this from your GFFA days. Whenever people disagreed with you, or used the deadly and frightening attacks of logic and reason against you, you pulled this out.

If it did, then, for example, Godzilla would not have been able to be killed by the trio of F-16s on the Brooklyn Bridge! If it was, then Luke would have never stood a chance against the Rancor(sp?)!

Obviously you never paid attention in maths. Or in science. Or in history, geography or english, either. It's really quite simple. Trying to quote examples which have more than two variables which change from examples to example does not allow you to test a single variable efficiently. When you're trying to prove a fact, you have to follow a scientific line of thinking. I suggest you re-enroll in school. It's entirely possible you might learn a few valuable lessons (both in knowledge and in social skills) there.



Incorrect, as usual. I point you to the death sequence for the first Death Star. If bigger was better, like you are wanking, then that would have never happened.

Because it had nothing to do with design, did it now? I mean, the Death Star didn't have one major design flaw allowing a torpedo to be shot straight down to the power core, destroying it, did it now? Oh, wait.


Oh, grow up. Just because I, with my mecha including ground forces, can whoop your arse doesn't mean you can get all pissy about it.

Ah, yes. My supposed pissiness about you being able to 'whoop my arse' in an imaginary game is quite strange, isn't it. I mean, it's almost as if I know that this is an imaginary game! After all, I sit here on the computer all day long, and worry about your imaginary forces in an imaginary game, don't I?. It's entirely possible you'd be able to. But, then again, I don't play to win. I play to write a good, enjoyable story. I don't wank, nor do I deny people chances to use clever tactics. Indeed, against a wanker of your calibre, I doubt I would stand a chance - I probably wouldn't even inflict a single loss, knowing you.

This again?

Mechs, mecha, Gundams, whatever you want to call them, will never be more practical than tanks in ground combat or fighters in space combat; any advance short of physics-screwing devices that happen to only fit on mechs will just make tanks or fighters even better.

On the ground, the limbs and bipedal form add mass for no reason other than to simulate a particular animal; the result is poorly balanced, extremely tall, unstable, and damn-near impossible to adequately armour because of all the angles and organic shapes involved. Joints are difficult to armour and prone to mechanical failures. The suspension must be massively stronger, the ground pressure ends up higher, and the transmission and drive systems more complicated and maintainance intensive.

In space, there's even fewer advantages, since there's really no point in being robot-shaped at all there.

There is no realistic way to design a mech to be better than an equal-tech vehicle designed for a similar mission; you're stuck with either fluffing it because you like the idea of big robots [in which case this thread is pointless] or taking realism and agreeing that mechs will be totally useless unless confined to very specific missions [riot control and paradrops, mainly].

Locked for flaming. End of line.