NationStates Jolt Archive

So I've been working a bit of the ground forces of the Feazanthian Navy and Defense Forces, and I've come onto a connundrum. While most of my ground tech is based on Halo's UNSC, I've noticed many other nations using bipedal or quadrapedal ASCA (Autonomous Space Combat Armor) or "Mecha". While normally content with wheeled/tracked/hovering vehicles, I'm trying to place a utility with legged combat machines. A weakness of legs is that they are easily disabled - too many moving parts needed to be effective, and it's too easy to disable one of those parts. Mounting heavy armor and weapons higher above the ground puts greater strain on the legs, forcing them to be larger and bulkier. The heavier a leg is, the slower it moves and the more power it takes to move it in ther first place.

Now take a vehicle, such as the M808 Scorpion MBT. Its mass is moved around by four independent bogies which, while making it a rather broad target, gives it a good deal of speed and maneuverability. This puts the M808's center of gravity much lower to the ground, making it not only harder to knock over but also easier to pilot than an equivalent-weight ASCA. The technology needed to deploy it is also cheaper and its main weapon, a 105mm HV-HEAT gun, seems to me would be very effective against something of equal tonnage.

Now take a BattleTech mech, the Timber Wolf (Mad Cat). It's 10 tons heavier than the M808, uses much more advanced and expensive technology, but its loadout doesn't seem to be all that much more effective. More varied, yes, but an artillery-style gun provides longer range than the mech's direct-fire directed energy weapons coupled with the capability to fire without LOS. The Timber Wolf also suffers from a higher center of gravity. Should the tech levels be equalized (say, no myomir muscles in the legs), the Timber Wolf would be unable to mount the 105mm gun on the M808 without knocking itself over in the process. If we brought the Scorpion up to the Timber Wolf's level of technology, you would be able to mount a much bigger and more effective gun on its chassis.

The only conceivable (to me at least) use for ASCA would be on a small scale - such as powered combat armor for marines (MJOLNIR-VII armor from Halo) or light urban assault armors such as the Goliath from StarCraft. Also, if used on a light chassis, I could see legged vehicles having a slight edge over wheeled or tracked vehicles over rugged terrain, but these are trumped by your basic magnetic suspension propulsion drive.

But maybe I'm missing something here. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Personally, I feel Mecha have no place in FT, if you are going on their effectiveness. They have so many flaws it is ridiculous. However, mecha are used for one reason: Cause its cool. They look cool and we all like the idea, damn the reasons for using them.

*shrugs* To each his own, but that is my opinion.

Looks like you've managed to sum up a lot of the reasons mecha don't work pretty well. There's a few more I could go into, but I don't really want to waste the time writing 'em all out when I could be working on other things. The only real reason to use 'em at all is the whole "I'm using inferior locomotive systems and I'm STILL kicking your ass" bad-assitude factor.

Otagia, that last sentence is signature-worthy.

But I'd like to hear from some of the proponents of bipedal walker technology. Where are the BattleTech users? The Zoids users (I'm lookin at you, CW). Hell, the Star Wars users? Everyone remembers those AT-ATs and AT-STs.

Not currently into future tech roleplaying yet, I can't speak from personal experience beyond what I've read in other players RPs, but as far as I can tell, much as it's been said already, they're cool. It's no different then having FT fighters, or Super Dreadnoughts of MT fame.

As much as I'd like to say something witty and clever here to help my point, I'm coming up blank, heh.

Plus a mech will have vastly inferior mobility to tracked or even wheeled vehicles. Try mounting 70 tons on two legs and then walking through some mud or sand. Mechs simply have too much ground pressure to be effective.

See Starfighters are different. They're small, so maneuvering thrusters have greater effect and give them unmatched agility (see: Battlestar Galactica Viper, Babylon 5 Starfury). Also their acceleration is better than that of a capital ship. Now Star Wars-style fighters I'll agree with you.

As for MT superdreadnoughts, back when they were first developed no nation had a counter for one. Hell, I remember back in the day when I fought my first SD with a few arsenal ships. Got my ass handed to me.

Now? Yeah, uneconomical what with supercav torpedoes, supersonic cruise missiles, and E-T naval guns with SCRAMJET rounds.

I swear to goddess I've seen this type of thread, at least four times now. Seriously... :headbang:

The only real reason to use 'em at all is the whole "I'm using inferior locomotive systems and I'm STILL kicking your ass" bad-assitude factor.

Exactly. That's the only reason that there are Facehuggerian mecha at all.

See Starfighters are different. They're small, so maneuvering thrusters have greater effect and give them unmatched agility (see: Battlestar Galactica Viper, Babylon 5 Starfury).

But the thing there is that capital ship point defense weapons (say, lightspeed weapons like lasers) should have absolutely no trouble tagging a fighter and blasting it with more energy than its poor little fighter-scale shields and armor can possibly cope with. IOW it's a lot easier to move a turret to track a distant target than it is to accelerate a fighter enough to get out of the way.

My fighters are only used for force projection purposes because I have so few capital ships that I can't adequately cover everywhere I need to in a typical battlespace. And even then, I much prefer to send a capital ship if at all possible because volume-wise, larger ships have *lots* more space (and thus potential shield strength/power generation) to play with than smaller ones.

Also their acceleration is better than that of a capital ship.

Not as much as one might think since while capships have lots more mass to accelerate and inertia to overcome, they also have a lot more reaction mass to use accelerating. As well as the physically larger engines, of course.

Not that it really matters all that much if you use some sort of physics-raping non-newtonian drive, of course.

Use whatever you want. For the most part in FT, statistics mean about as much as DBZ power levels, so it's quite possible for one to have useful mecha.

Read the BOLO tank series. Its about gigantic tanks of the future, rather than mechs. It actually spends part of some of its books describing Man's brief flirtation with walkers.

That series of books is badass. The Mark XXXIII Bolo Tank is a 36,000 ton armored beast controlled by an AI and mounting three guns that fire 6 megaton per second bolts of energy, as its main armament.

And they can fly:P

Bolo's are just as unfeasible. Modern Air power and future Air power will prove to be decisive against a slow ass 36000 tonne tank. Now on the other hand mecha in cities RIGHT NOW would be effective as they would be in rough terrain? Why because they have humanoid mobility. Humans are built to move through rough terrain, so are mecha. As for FT feasability..people just remember it flies. As for having less stuff, remember it can strap stuff on its back, shoulders and carry almost as much armament.

Fact is high technology makes up for the weaknesses in the mecha, and you can always come up with a few reasons why a mecha would have the edge in close on a tank.
1: Turret traverse. The mecha has a turret [waist] and arms. This will enable it to swing its weapon actually faster, as well as give it a more nimble firing profile. The arms can move seperate to the torso. Firing Agility. Even the biggest Tank Fanboy cant argue the truth of that.
2: Mobility: In close quarters, the ability to sidestep and move as quickly as feet would allow it to can allow the mecha to avoid that big old tank cannon, it can also duck, go prone and fire and make itself actually lower then a tank. It can move in terrain a tank couldnt dare to move in..and in FT ground combat open field battles would be tantamount to suicide.
3: In the open height doesn't matter. This has been proven in the wars of the 20th century. American tank philosophy was for high tanks, that can see over terrain and fire. The Russians preferred smaller, lower tanks that couldnt be seen over terrain. When all was said and done, and M-60's fought T-72's in the desert, the big HIGH M-60's beat the T-72's. Dont believe me? Look it up for yourself, the wikipedia's and histories are full of such comparisons. And a 15 meter tall mecha may actually be tall enough to hit a super low tanks top armour..not a good thought.
4: Technology: A mecha with enough technology..or even a decent design wont actually be any weaker then a tank. Forcefields and all that will enable it to take a hit, or just good armour, with interlocking plates to cover weak spots covers the "weak points" as effectively as a tank. It may not be as tough, or mount as big of a gun..but its ability to get out of the way quickly and change its height at a whim will even out those advantages.
5: Armament. It is true a full on fighter can carry bigger guns then a veritech mecha, but that doesnt mean that a veritech fighter is at a serious disadvantage in a dogfight. The early Spitfires carried 30 cal machine guns and handily shot down german fighters. The ability to turn in to a humanoid gives you that firing arc agility that WINS dogfights. Remember how complex a dogfight is, multiform mecha can switch forms and "cheat" at dogfights.
6: The legs weak? Tracks are JUST as weak..in fact likely weaker. Also tracks stay in the same place, legs move back and forth. Trying to hit the legs with a conventional round you are FAR more likely to miss a pair of moving legs then you are a track.
7: Mecha traditionally fly. taking part of the role of attack chopper. At the least most mecha would be the equivalent of an aggressive hovertank, designed to smash in to the enemy lines or act as a cavalry unit.


Mecha like anything else are part of a combat arm. You can make an army full of mecha, or have them support other parts but its FT, it doesnt matter past a point. Trying to argue they are inneffective in FT, as Otagia...Always..does is as pointless as trying to argue how awesome pown a bolo is over everything. I have a tactic to take down bolo's that requires twelve multiform mecha, and it works. It would work with infantry and artillery as well as aircraft. Its very simple.

Small tac nukes designed to make hundred meter craters about a hundred feet deep are launched all around the bolo. The bolo can shoot alot down but it doesnt matter if only a few land..it is now sunk in to a pit and cant move. For all of its rage and might it is now utterly impotent as it attempts to crawl out of the pit. Then the artillery can drop, dead on precise at its leisure. No more bolo. Bolo like mecha are part of combined arms. Superheavies, tanks, infantry nor mecha alone could win in a combat situation. However mecha are the only unit that could be versatile enough to equip to win such situations.

Also if FT allows you to make a mecha as good as the PMT mecha of armoured core [it allows FAR better] then this little clip should explain all of why a mecha can be a feasible combat unit. Its not a battlemech, its not trying to slug it out with tanks. On a parting note, in 1914 everyone said that the Airplane would never be useful in combat, in 1918, no one thought there was a future for the Tank. Just remember this.

Now watch and learn..FT allows mecha FAR GREATER then this one to be used.
This is all that needs to be said. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0MmsXdgszA

A mecha's true purpose is to do morale damage by showing off just how much more badass your technology is. You can handicap yourself by using such an inefficient machine, and still totally school your opponent.

If they still have the will to fight, and think they can win, after that, then it is time to say "screw that" and just carpet-nuke 'em. Hey, can't say that you didn't give them the chance to run for their pitiful lives!

----------
Honestly, you can justify using almost anything in FT. However, if you can't find a good reason to use mecha, and you don't really want to use them anyway, don't effing use them! Don't try to force yourself to do anything in FT just because you see others doing it. That always ends badly.

I use mecha in my nation, but mostly because of the morale effects (that's the OOC reason. I had a bit too much fun coming up with the IC version). I probably could not bring myself to write a good bit about fighters shooting up and bombing an urban area, but having mechs jump in, gun down anyone around, claw all the buildings down, leave the city in a heap of burning ruin, and jump out just gives a lot more opportunity to me for description.

Agreed Cerberus, I do like them, however I do know of some real life reasons why people are attempting to build military robots. I gave some of them up there plus the big giant..its FT. Magic Quizanart that costs a whole lot of money somehow makes one nations mecha awesome. Be it a magic powersource, or just that the nation somehow after years of trial and error..figured out how to build one that worked..really well. These threads tend to turn in to massive arguments so it should be remembered..this is FT.

When we have FTL, 20km battleships that fart planetkilling beams of death, Bolo tanks, magic psyker powers combating against alien horrors with strange nethertech, mecha seems alot more feasible. Mine icly have a purpose, close combat and destroying the enemy. Dogfighters on the ground and in the air [veritechs] after years my nation somehow figured out a principle that made them very effective, as well as got past the big gunzor's handicap. Missiles.

Point is if you want to use mecha, this is FT..they are feasible. If you wanted to use giant idols of your god pulled by statues on grav howdahs..they could be effective..if you find a way to make them so they are killing machines of epic proportions. Its FT, if you think mecha are cool have fun. If you hate them so much you cant stand playing with them or even respect players who use them, dont play with those players.

small, light chassis, light weapons, rough terrain, infantry support: somewhat viable.

powered armor etc for infantry: various degrees of viability, as it's not really a mech/mecha so much as it is simply enhanced infantry, which is a whole other story.

pretty much anything else in the mech department: only has 'because it's cool' going for it.


a small note though: six legged chassis are actually a good idea in really bad terrain, if done right. thing to remember is that you want to build it more like a tank with insect legs rather than tracks, not an awesome cool mech thing.

most situations where a mech would be better than a tank, a helicopter's better still [with the exception of the fact that a helicopter can't go 'quiet' or some such] and vice versa.

a summery of what i remember from my own thoughts, talking with people who have a clue, and previous such threads.

edit: for the argument regarding legs being less vulnerable because the move around:

waste.

one hit mission kill on the mech. it's like a tank's turret, only More so, as pretty much Everything is Above it.

personally, i like mechs, they're fun, they have nifty things, but they're not Viable, really. the whole 'humanoids are more agile' bit falls down too, as the shear Bulk required to make them work properly tends to completely counteract that advantage.

multiform fighter/mechs have another disadvantage: mass, again. they have to carry all the components for bipedal mech function, And all the components for air-form function. the vast bulk of which are probably Not readily interchangeable and willg et in the way of the other form, reduceing it's aerodynamics badly [which is NOT a good thing in a dog fight]. if it transforms into humanoid form in mid air, it will fall, unless it uses [somehow] it's engines to keep it in the air, without much in the way of assistance from the wings, and the engines have to hold up it's mass.

the components needed just to move the bits around to transform make this problem still Worse.

the best you can hope for out of mechs, with any degree of 'realism' in terms of air power, are 'jump jets' a boost to kick you into the air, then fall at the other end. even That requires an increase in structural components for the legs etc.

all that aside, my fav mech ever was from Ring of Red. as about 3, maybe 4 times as tall as a man? had two legs [reverse knee joints] and above the 'waste' was basically a ww2 light tank, armed with an MG. (that game also did the armoring of the joints and stuff quite well, even if the drive systems for some of the designs were questionable even within the game's own reality].

it Crouchd to fire, and the recoil from it's mg Still rocked it back. [the reverse knee joints + ankles + balance in general meant that if it crouched it rocked back, then came forward again when you stopped firing. if you fired standing, you had to step back or fall over.]

generally trundled around with 3 squads of infantry [common equipment for Them was an anti armour load out, and various support troops (medics, engineers, etc.)

and that is one long edit.


edit the second:

on the subject of capital ships vs fighters and ability to kill one with the other: after a huge multi-page thread some time back, the closest anyone came to a consensus was something to the effect of: pet theories aside, there is no viable place for the large capital ship OR the fighter in any space navy that's even attempting realism. cost to effect, combined with the Useful roles combat ships can actually fill in space, mean that by far the most common, and most effective, ship types are the mid weight classes, from corvettes to, perhaps, light cruisers, depending on desired task. "

the whole 'it's easier to aim an energy weapon than to dodge it' thing breaks down when you realize the distances involved and thus the lag in targeting data, just to start with. rarely do i see mid weight units as being superior to a balance of heavy and lights... space combat is a notable exception.

I love those arguments for mecha agility; have you actually tried to outrun a car lately? Moving legs can avoid incoming fire? So... the mecha-maker can make moving targets that move so quick that the enemy missile producer can't match 'em with rocketry? That's a funky inversion of the usual paradigm, and no mistake. And of course, if you can have your mechas traditionally flying, the enemy can surely make his tanks fly too, which rather negates any advantage offered by multiple points of articulation, given that both tank and mecha would be unhindered by ground traction.

As for reasons to have them. Hah. I see your stupid-yet-cool mecha, and raise you... "Mount up" (http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/8/8c/Lancer_trooper.JPG)

on the subject of capital ships vs fighters and ability to kill one with the other: after a huge multi-page thread some time back, the closest anyone came to a consensus was something to the effect of: pet theories aside, there is no viable place for the large capital ship OR the fighter in any space navy that's even attempting realism. cost to effect, combined with the Useful roles combat ships can actually fill in space, mean that by far the most common, and most effective, ship types are the mid weight classes, from corvettes to, perhaps, light cruisers, depending on desired task. "



In pure actual combat per dollar, though, bigger ships give you the most bang for your buck. When you put in other postulations such as area to be covered, planets owned, etcetera, lighter ships were more useful in larger nations because they could cover more area.

Also, to contribute something to the mecha argument, mecha are, as most others have noted, more inefficient. But, like the capship argument, I'm not going to penalize people for having mecha by refusing to take casualties unless they're of the "OMG MY KEWL EVALENGO NEO GENSIS SUITS ARE RAEPAGE! :LOL!" variety. Which is, obviously, more of a general problem than a mecha one.

Bolo's are just as unfeasible. Modern Air power and future Air power will prove to be decisive against a slow ass 36000 tonne tank.

This depends heavily on the techbase of the Bolo in question. If it's got energy shields and accurate point defenses (as canon Bolos do), modern/future air power would end up dead as soon as it cleared the horizon.

Now on the other hand mecha in cities RIGHT NOW would be effective as they would be in rough terrain?

...Err, Mecha in cities will always be worse than tanks simply because they're big and can't go hull down.

Why because they have humanoid mobility. Humans are built to move through rough terrain, so are mecha.

Cities as terrain are built for human habitation. A thirty foot tall mecha isn't going to be able to go to the same places as a normal human, you realize this, right?

As for FT feasability..people just remember it flies.

Aerospace fighter >>>>> Flying Mecha.

As for having less stuff, remember it can strap stuff on its back, shoulders and carry almost as much armament.

Except that armament it's carrying on its back by necessity can't be as large as those on a tank due to the mecha's inferior platform. And besides, a tank *could* carry multiple smaller weapons rather than one large one, and some do, it's just that most of the time one big gun is better for taking out equivelent targets than a smaller one.

Fact is high technology makes up for the weaknesses in the mecha,

Eh, the problem with just about any high technology is that it can be applied to a tank just as well, and that it will still make the tank better. Generally speaking, given equal technology, a tank is always better than a mecha in every remotely important way except for coolness.

1: Turret traverse. The mecha has a turret [waist] and arms. This will enable it to swing its weapon actually faster, as well as give it a more nimble firing profile. The arms can move seperate to the torso. Firing Agility. Even the biggest Tank Fanboy cant argue the truth of that.

...A tank has a turret that can be turned considerably more quickly simply because it doesn't have to worry about knocking itself over by swinging the turret too quickly.

Besides, there's absolutely nothing preventing you from strapping on small gimballed mounts onto a tank and thus eradicating this dubious mecha "advantage."

2: Mobility: In close quarters, the ability to sidestep and move as quickly as feet would allow it to can allow the mecha to avoid that big old tank cannon,

First the mecha has to get close to the tank (not at all likely except in a city, and even then the tank is at an advantage simply because cities tend to be cramped for giant thirty foot tall robots, meaning there isn't much room to 'sidestep' anything.)

it can also duck, go prone and fire and make itself actually lower then a tank.

Except that's a damn terrible idea because it kills mobility. To compare, a tank can go hull down, only exposing the turret, and then shoot and scoot as necessary. The Mech has to go prone, shoot, then get back up and run away.

It can move in terrain a tank couldnt dare to move in..

If by terrain you mean "giant staircase planet" you're right. Else, the tank has the advantage due to its better distribution of weight (meaning it won't sink into terrain nearly as easily as the already topheavy mecha.)

and in FT ground combat open field battles would be tantamount to suicide.

Not necessarily. Depends on techbase. Highly powerful theater shields and anti-orbital weapons can negate ortillery to some extent, for instance.

3: In the open height doesn't matter. This has been proven in the wars of the 20th century. American tank philosophy was for high tanks, that can see over terrain and fire. The Russians preferred smaller, lower tanks that couldnt be seen over terrain. When all was said and done, and M-60's fought T-72's in the desert, the big HIGH M-60's beat the T-72's. Dont believe me? Look it up for yourself, the wikipedia's and histories are full of such comparisons. And a 15 meter tall mecha may actually be tall enough to hit a super low tanks top armour..not a good thought.

...Your example is flawed because there aren't any fifteen meter tall tanks. A difference of maybe a meter or a meter and a half is nothing next to three meters versus fifteen meters.

Also, height drastically limits what one can use as cover. Arguably it gives an intelligence/sight advantage, but even that isn't very good compared to putting yourself out for any weapon to blast you.

4: Technology: A mecha with enough technology..or even a decent design wont actually be any weaker then a tank.

To produce a mecha with equal performance to a tank of any given tech level, the mecha will have to be much more expensive and maintenence intensive due to the comparative complexity of the two. Mecha legs are big and complex, while a tank's drive train is quite simple.

So while the mecha could theoretically have similar performance to a tank, you would pay through the nose for that performance. When you could afford several tanks for the cost of a mech with similar performance... Well, unless your bean counters are all idiots, the results speak for themselves. :p

Forcefields and all that will enable it to take a hit, or just good armour, with interlocking plates to cover weak spots covers the "weak points" as effectively as a tank.

Forcefields take energy to absorb hits, and a tank can have a bigger reactor than a mech. As for your idea of interlocking plates... Yeah, that's a mobility killer right there. Much as it is for normal humans in plate mail. -While full plate's effect upon mobility is often overstated, a person in plate armor still doesn't have anywhere near the range of movement that a man in a cloth suit does.

It may not be as tough, or mount as big of a gun..but its ability to get out of the way quickly and change its height at a whim will even out those advantages.

No it won't. Unless the mech is fast enough to dodge a hypersonic railgun/120mm shell. Or heaven forbid a laser/relativistic particle beam. The problem here is that tanks are faster, better armored, more versatile, and better armed than equivelent mecha.

5: Armament. It is true a full on fighter can carry bigger guns then a veritech mecha, but that doesnt mean that a veritech fighter is at a serious disadvantage in a dogfight.

No, but it does mean that a dedicated fighter can perform its mission (dogfighting/strike/whatever) better because it isn't wasting weight and space on complex transforming equipment and arms that are practically useless in aerial combat compared to a simple gimballed turret.

The ability to turn in to a humanoid gives you that firing arc agility that WINS dogfights. Remember how complex a dogfight is, multiform mecha can switch forms and "cheat" at dogfights.

You can get the very same advantage with a turret without forcing your fighter into retardo-land.

Besides, no matter how complex a dogfight is, the idea of a multiform mecha dominating in such an environment is patently absurd. -A dedicated fighter can carry bigger engines, more/bigger guns, more ammunition, more fuel, more maneuvering jets as needed compared to a veritech of the same mass simply because the veritech is wasting mass on useless arms and legs and the dedicated fighter is not.

6: The legs weak? Tracks are JUST as weak..in fact likely weaker.

Tracks are much easier to replace, and they are also considerably lower to the ground (ie they're harder targets.) Especially since almost anything can block LOS from a gun to a track. The same is not the case with a leg.

Also tracks stay in the same place, legs move back and forth. Trying to hit the legs with a conventional round you are FAR more likely to miss a pair of moving legs then you are a track.

On the other hand, legs tend to move in a rather predictable fashion. Plus, since they're much bigger and easier targets than tracks means that they're more vulnerable.

7: Mecha traditionally fly. taking part of the role of attack chopper.

A dedicated attack chopper and MBT equivelent will both be cheaper than the mecha, probably at once. And of course they can do their own jobs much more effectively. Haven't you ever heard of "jack of all trades, master of none?"

At the least most mecha would be the equivalent of an aggressive hovertank, designed to smash in to the enemy lines or act as a cavalry unit.

The problem there is that if you've got the tech to make flying sixty-ton aircraft, you might as well make them in the form of a tank and be able to use a better armor scheme.

Mecha like anything else are part of a combat arm. You can make an army full of mecha, or have them support other parts but its FT, it doesnt matter past a point. Trying to argue they are inneffective in FT, as Otagia...Always..does is as pointless as trying to argue how awesome pown a bolo is over everything.

It's not really pointless to take apart the opposition's arguments.

I have a tactic to take down bolo's that requires twelve multiform mecha, and it works.

This I've got to see. Please, post it by all means. Might as well use a canon Mark 33, because that's the kind with most info about them.

Small tac nukes designed to make hundred meter craters about a hundred feet deep are launched all around the bolo.

Intercepted by the Bolo's point defense lasers, which are capable of shooting down hundreds of hypersonic nuclear missiles per volley as per Bolo Strike. Furthermore, the Bolo is intelligent enough to realize that extremely simple tactic and move out of the way.

This also assumes that the Bolo's multi-megaton hellbores don't tag your mecha while they're shooting those nuclear missiles.

The bolo can shoot alot down but it doesnt matter if only a few land..it is now sunk in to a pit and cant move.

Problem: Bolos can fly.

Second problem: Bolo drivetrains are rediculously effective. A single almost-destroyed Bolo was able to bust its way out of an underground, concrete bolo-size sarcophagus designed to keep it contained while its rad count died down. It then dug its way to the surface and across the ocean floor until it was able to get to a city, which it was going to destroy until its commander was able to convince it that the war was over.

This happened in the very first Bolo book, as a matter of fact, and was done while the Bolo had no working weapons and obviously no specialized digging tools.

For all of its rage and might it is now utterly impotent as it attempts to crawl out of the pit.

Except that a Bolo could just crawl out of the pit quite handily. Failing that, it can use its hellbores to blast its way out. Assuming this is one of the pre-flight Bolos of course. :p

Then the artillery can drop, dead on precise at its leisure. No more bolo.

The Bolo could shoot down the artillery with its point defense weapons and possibly hellbores. Have you read any of the Bolo books? Or even seen them well-used on NS? You don't have to answer, because it's damn obvious that you haven't.

Bolo like mecha are part of combined arms. Superheavies, tanks, infantry nor mecha alone could win in a combat situation.

Actually, late-mark Bolos are designed to be deployed only with other Bolos. They're called "planetary siege units" for a reason. This reason is that Bolos carry their own small armies (with remote controlled tanks and small aircraft) as standard.

Facehuggerian Bolos are designed to deploy in support of a Legion, though, so you might be getting confused there. Of course, Facehuggerian Bolos are really designed more towards being gigantic mobile firebases with anti-orbital capability than direct assault tanks.

[quote]However mecha are the only unit that could be versatile enough to equip to win such situations.

No. Any weapon you put on a mecha can be put on a tank. Further, while you could make a force with nothing but mecha and have it be partially effective... it would still be very inefficient for what you put into it.

Also if FT allows you to make a mecha as good as the PMT mecha of armoured core [it allows FAR better] then this little clip should explain all of why a mecha can be a feasible combat unit. Its not a battlemech, its not trying to slug it out with tanks.

Except that clip is absurd. All Armored Core combat is. As if the lightsabers and odd designs didn't give it away. Melee combat shouldn't happen much in FT unless you're so enamored with the sheer awesome of it that you shoehorn it into places where it really shouldn't go, like I do. (Hello chainsaw bayonets!)

On a parting note, in 1914 everyone said that the Airplane would never be useful in combat, in 1918, no one thought there was a future for the Tank. Just remember this.

...Except that neither the Tank nor the Aircraft had cheaper, more effective equivelents available when they were built. There's no role that can't be performed better by a dedicated platform than a mecha. Except for falling down. Mecha take that one hands down, I'm afraid.

Now watch and learn..FT allows mecha FAR GREATER then this one to be used.

Yes, this is true. In fact, it's pretty much the only logical thing you've said so far. On the other hand, FT also allows tanks "FAR GREATER" than that to be used as well. And here, as with everywhere else, tanks have the advantage.

however I do know of some real life reasons why people are attempting to build military robots.

Show me a serious military project to develop a thirty foot tall mecha. Any one will do. People are trying to build military robots, to be sure, but these are more of the "unmanned ground vehicle" sort or the "infantry/infantry support unit" variety. Not thirty foot tall killbots.

Bolos are not god machines. It's much more difficult to detect incoming projectiles than it is to detect guided missiles. Hypersonic, 25mm DU slugs from the gauss gun on a M12G1 Warthog LAAV would be unlikely to be intercepted by PD lasers. The 120mm ACs of my HSF-25A Avenger superiority fighters would most likely be very effective at penetrating the defenses.

Something similar to a FT equivalent of the GAU-8 cannon.