Well for the same reason as the ecoterrorist thread really. I could just shoehorn Aliens into a cyberpunk world, but there's no buy-in there. In my opinion its sloppy world building and hurts credibility and immersion.

However if freakish amphibious monsters with acid for blood who are very adaptable can be blamed on a rogue ecoterrorist faction who tomb raided a drowned research complex to get the capability, complete with motivations, it makes for a much smoother experience.

Likewise if the justifications are too plainly forced or contrived, the experience of the players suffers. Maybe its just the need to get every last drop out of things, but bouncing ideas off other people so they can poke holes I don't see is the best way to achieve that.

Based on this thread for example I'd feel comfortable putting largish mecha in that jungle world or at a stretch Afghanistan. I wouldn't put them on the battlefields of Europe or other well developed regions, where tanks clearly have the upper hand. This is what I mean by avoiding excessive contrivance - even those who don't like mecha can take some satisfaction in how the idea was developed.

Quote from: flyingmice;554270Those who love mecha would be happy, and those who don't will just avoid it.

This.  It's okay to say "because AWESOME" as a justification for things.

I have a minor in classical and medieval history.  I can get into a completely arbitrary world with utterly inexplicable elements as long as it's presented that way.  Some people are afraid to do that; they need to have some kind of justification for their fan service.  That's when my suspension of disbelief gets shot, because most fantasy worlds just don't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

Quote from: daniel_ream;554295Some people are afraid to do that; they need to have some kind of justification for their fan service.  That's when my suspension of disbelief gets shot, because most fantasy worlds just don't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

Fear has nothing to do with it. Its the difference between a Paranormal Activity and a Battleship. One is a well told and woven tale, the other is a mish mash of random elements thrown together for the awesome.

To my mind, Battleship suffered because of the nonsensical plot, and I wouldn't be one of those people who goes around picking holes in things. I get annoyed at those who do, usually, but wow, that was glaring to the point of painful. It didn't excuse itself beforehand either, the trailers gave no hint.

Quote from: The Traveller;554310It didn't excuse itself beforehand either, the trailers gave no hint.

I think movies that are made solely as contractual obligations need to have something like the Alan Smithee disclaimer in the credits somewhere.  You know, "Produced by John Whatthefuckever McROICalculation-Jones" or something.

Quote from: daniel_ream;554331I think movies that are made solely as contractual obligations need to have something like the Alan Smithee disclaimer in the credits somewhere.  You know, "Produced by John Whatthefuckever McROICalculation-Jones" or something.

Seeing Uwe Boll as director serves the same purpose for me.

Short Answer: Because they are cool.

Long Answer: Many people consider technology based on what we know and what functions today. Low profile, weight issues, and so on. They may be wrong.

There were people (yes, seriously) who thought the human body couldn't go faster than the speed of sound. There were people who couldn't fathom chemical weapons in WWI despite us using them in history books (Disease laden blankets, cows?)

The fact is, just because we don't think its reasonable, now, doesn't mean things won't change in the future. Yes, there are certain physics based limitations, but someday, how those interact may change.

Lets suppose we develop limited small scale control of gravity. We can make mecha that move fast enough, human enough to dodge incoming weapons--within limits, and depending on their pilot. We have super materials to use, and ECM/ECCM has surpassed the ability of most kinetic weapons (other than dumb fire ones) to matter.  Low profile works best at range, and following the targeting parameters we understand. Yet a giant 30' multiton machine that can dance like a ballerina, plus can scramble electronics, may completely subvert that--unless you want to send some suicidal people up to use a direct targeting rocket.  


Armor improves, technology changes. There are lots of ways it can. Even assuming certain small scale changes a 10' tall mecha that can duck like a human now becomes both low/high profile and an armor clad figure for urban combat.

Add in some ECCM/ECM, that's a few decades ahead of where our tech is today and a small Urban mecha become reality.

A tank with six short spider legs and wide feet is a mecha. The low profile Tachikoma's of Ghost In the Shell, are another mecha. They may not be humanoid, but they're a reasonably useful form, considering slow/almost no significant tech changes.

Yet we will have them, we always have them. That's our nature.


You want to be the guy in a tank trying to drive down narrow streets in New York trying to take out invaders/insurgents? Or would you rather be the unarmored human trying to do the same?

Better yet, sufficient technology to build arms and hands that react like ours, suddenly turns a small spacecraft into a mecha. A hand is an infinitely useful tool. Fast drop/change of weapons,  No gravity in space to worry about.


Most naysayers are looking at 'now,' and thinking that things won't change.

We as a whole have been wrong before, we can and will be wrong again.

So the long answer is--its cool, so have them, and realize there are GOOD reasons they may someday be real, even if it is a version of Future/Reverse SCA, smacking each other with sticks, in giant robots.

If you want realistic reasons, just change your world's reality.

Mechs are always going to be yanking hard on the verisimilitude suspenders by the rules we know to operate, so if you're bent on including them, just insert some tech or condition in your world that makes them a good idea. For SWN, the techs are nuke snuffers and quantum ECM emitters. The former needs something big to carry them around, and the latter needs a particular configuration of emitters and elevation that just happens to map pretty well to a humanoid shape. Low-slung tank bodies can't lift the emitters high enough without losing the benefits of their profile, and a piece of heavy armor on a 32nd-century battlefield is so much scrap without its ECM going.

As for why the mechs have human pilots at all, it's again a matter of a control system that can't be shorted out remotely. It takes AI-grade computing power to cut through the static of an active emitter and handle the complex remote control of a fighting platform. And if they're going to be human-piloted, well, the neural interfaces they're able to make work best if they're mapping to some vaguely humanoid outer shell.

I justify them in the setting I'm working on, on the auspices that the broad design specs were drawn up by idiots.

More specifically they were built to spec by a species of very unprincipled and mercantile aliens for a group of primitives in the ancient past in exchange for mineral rights and labor for its' extraction.  

The natives that requested these war machines as payment were oblivious of their ability to request things like modern, much more practical war machines like choppers, jets, tanks or their super high-tech science fiction equivalent.  What they got more or less was a very high-tech version of what they considered to be "armour" and "weapons".

I don't think there is really any way to justify mecha without such a plot device.  Perhaps their use is required by tradition stronger than law, such as the banning of 'thinking machines' in Dune.  The know-how isn't completely gone, but the creation is completely verboten.  

Perhaps conventional war machines are still the best idea, but their use is considered barbaric and the mecha is simply a more civilized weapon.  
They've repulsed our first mecha assault with tanks?  Savages.

Really interesting thread, thanks. Gave me a clear idea of the current 'sate of this particular discussion'.


Let's move away from those current 'modern tech' friction points. I think removing modern artillery and assuming variable levels of metal-working from bronze age to "lost mythic skill" (i.e. steel), but having enough "magic as technology" to bring these large complicated works of art "to life" to send them crashing into threats to the town/kingdom/etc, might open up novel territory. How would such Mecha be designed?

Terms:
- Lurking 'atlantean' empire on the horizon, an 'adventurer' social class of elite specialists, sword&sorcery tropes, etc. (One 'adventurer' class might specialise in design/repair of mecha tho... ) Otherwise, assume a D&D-like world.
- Large/threatening things in the wilderness make civilization tenuous, as there aren't enough "adventurers" to really serve as a protection force.
- Maximum firepower in the setting are elemental cannons on large ships (ocean/river/air) with limited (well within line-of-sight) range. Elemental ammo is unstable and requires a trained crew to handle. Mecha have no or limited 'artillery' unless large enough to handle a crew of people (and basically count as a larger vehicle class).
- Spell-casters have the capability to summon up equivalent threats, huge shambling piles of corpses, wicker men brought to life via Illusion magic, mechanical beasts and animated statues, etc.
- Small/personal fire-arms haven't been conceived of yet, but might be, starting with fire-spears/early grenades. There exists equivalent magic (say, silver spiked alchemical "grenades" that reform if you whisper their Name after they explode), but fire-arm tech would widen the population base that could use that level of force-multiplication.
- There is a basic level of "magic as technology" among the populace.

I've been sitting on this for a while deciding where to go, design wise...

What would a Sword & Sorcery Mecha Game look like in this type of setting?

Quote from: The Traveller;554097Mecha are cool, no question there, but everyone I talk to about armour and tanks seems to think they are a stupid idea that will never happen. While I'm willing to concede that may be the case, are there any realistic justifications for mecha in the future?

Near-human size mecha (like those found in Heavy Gear) are generally pretty plausible: They're essentially infantry in power armor that enhances their capabilities.

Larger mecha are essentially inferior to equivalent tanks in every possible way.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;554529Larger mecha are essentially inferior to equivalent tanks in every possible way.

Unless you're talking about a mountainous jungle area? Premier put together a fairly comprehensive list of why tanks are better upthread, some of which I agreed with but some not so much, why do you think tanks would be better in that kind of environment?

Quote from: Silverlion;554351Lets suppose we develop limited small scale control of gravity. We can make mecha that move fast enough, human enough to dodge incoming weapons--within limits, and depending on their pilot. We have super materials to use, and ECM/ECCM has surpassed the ability of most kinetic weapons (other than dumb fire ones) to matter.  Low profile works best at range, and following the targeting parameters we understand. Yet a giant 30' multiton machine that can dance like a ballerina, plus can scramble electronics, may completely subvert that--unless you want to send some suicidal people up to use a direct targeting rocket.

But then you can also stick the same technology on a tank and have a tank that dances (well, takes pinpoint turns) like a ballerina and scrambles electronics - and in addition has its inherent advantages like lower target profile, lower armour surface / volume ratio and more internal space for system.

It's how mecha/tank arguments always end up: "Let's take a mecha with AD 2500 technology, compare that to a tank with AD 2012 technology, and declare that since the mecha is better than a tank built five hundred years earlier, mechas are a viable design."

QuoteBetter yet, sufficient technology to build arms and hands that react like ours, suddenly turns a small spacecraft into a mecha. A hand is an infinitely useful tool. Fast drop/change of weapons,  No gravity in space to worry about.

In an integrated weapon system, you have:
- some fiddly bits for the gunner to push/turn/whatever
- various parts that translate the input into actual movement (rotating a turret, firing, reloading, etc.)
- moving parts that actually perform all that (the gun/turret itself)

In a giant robot holding a giant rifle, you have:
- some fiddly bits for the gunner to manipulate
- various parts that translate the input into actual movement of the robot's arms/hands/fingers
- moving parts that perform all that (the robot's hands/fingers)
AND
- fiddly bits on the rifle for the robot to manipulate with its fingers
- parts that translate the input
- the parts of the giant rifle that actually shoot, eject the cartridge, whatever

More parts that can be jammed, damaged, hit by the enemy. And the specifics of technology are irrelevant: they might be hand-manipulated cranks, hydraulics, servomotors or positronic gravity manipulators. The principle remains the same: more components mean more things can go wrong.

QuoteMost naysayers are looking at 'now,' and thinking that things won't change.

No, naysayers are saying that while many things might and are likely going to change, the basic principles don't. "Fiddlier machines break down more often than simple ones" is equally true for medieval norias and modern-day computers. "A larger target is easier to hit" is equally true for stone-age savanna hunters with primitive javelins and Space Commodores launching antimatter missiles at interstellar battleships.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;554496Perhaps conventional war machines are still the best idea, but their use is considered barbaric and the mecha is simply a more civilized weapon.  
They've repulsed our first mecha assault with tanks?  Savages.

Ooh! Now I want a decadent, wrist-flapping Roman Empire with gladiatorial mech fights and Attila the Hun riding a T-80.

Quote from: Premier;554578Ooh! Now I want a decadent, wrist-flapping Roman Empire with gladiatorial mech fights and Attila the Hun riding a T-80.

Win!

Regarding the Mechas are unrealistic argument;

QuoteThe LDP has announced it is considering a Gundam development program, with the presumed intent of defending Japan with an army of giant robots.
On a political talk-show broadcast on NicoNico Douga, LDP parliamentarians including the LDP's vice president Tadamori Oshima and former party general secretary Bunmei Ibuki revealed the Liberal Democratic Party was "seriously considering" a "Gundam development project."
This policy would apparently incorporate both industrial promotion of the development of bipedal robots, and their military employment.
This is not the first time the fascination of Japanese with militarily ludicrous giant robots has reached into the official sphere – previously civil servants famously developed cost estimates for the construction of a Gundam unit.
Online the plan has attracted the expected ridicule (although the prospect of seeing a billion dollar titan toppled by a hundred dollar shell to the knee admittedly has a certain appeal), as well as some suspicion that it is part of a crude attempt by the censorship loving LDP to curry favour with the creepy right-wing otaku demographic – and, this being Japan, some actual support.

http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2012/06/26/ldp-we-are-planning-to-build-gundam/