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.

But yeah, manufactured reasons such as societal constraints make more sense than trying to justify mecha equality or superiority to lower profile designs.

Justifying mecha isn't particularly difficult. Just posit that a technological advance has occurred that allows muscle-like movement on a very large scale, but doesn't translate to tracked or wheeled or hover movement.

So, this 'artificial musculature' technology is perfect for building very large walking forms, but useless for building anything else. Want a really big weapons platform? It's got to walk - track and hover systems can't scale up, aren't light enough.

As for why spider-mechs don't predominate: They exist, but the muscle doesn't contract/expand quickly enough to make 'skittering' work very well. Most agile forms are bipedal, quadrupedal+ is rarer. Plus, gyroscopic technology easily keeps the bipedal forms up.

This is how it works in the Battletech universe. Mechs don't have gears, they have 'muscles' in the form of an electroactive polymer called 'myomer'.

edit: Thinking about other 'mech' fictions, I'm getting the general impression that the primary advantage of the mech is that it is so much more agile than a tank. Most of what I'm looking at doesn't have slow, plodding mechs. They jump, jet around, roll, duck, etc. While carrying as much offensive weaponry as a tank, often combined with full or limited flight capabilities. Another advantage is control systems. A mech can be designed to simply repeat the motions of a human body on a large scale, thus, (ficto-theoretically) allowing intuitive, natural movements that a tank simply can't match.

I suppose what I'm saying is that to justify mecha, you need to add in a technological breakthrough that makes mecha viable. Basically, work backwards from the old science fiction standard of 'posit a technical advance, and extrapolate its effects'. Instead, you have your result, mecha, and you work backwards - what technological advance would result in their use?

Quote from: Kaldric;556244Justifying mecha isn't particularly difficult. Just posit that a technological advance has occurred that allows muscle-like movement on a very large scale, but doesn't translate to tracked or wheeled or hover movement.

Only problem is, there's no such thing. Not with any semblance of realism and logic.

Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with spurious bullshit. If you want to have a game where mecha are justified by spurious BS, then go ahead and make one - as long as you stay honest about it and don't try to present it as anything other than a spurious BS justification. A perfectly valid game design choice.

But don't make up a spurious BS justification and then try to present it as a serious, realistic argument - like you're doing it here. Because if'n'when you do, people with a basic understanding of engineering and common logic are going to descend like vultures and rip the argument apart.

Quoteedit: Thinking about other 'mech' fictions, I'm getting the general impression that the primary advantage of the mech is that it is so much more agile than a tank. Most of what I'm looking at doesn't have slow, plodding mechs. They jump, jet around, roll, duck, etc. While carrying as much offensive weaponry as a tank, often combined with full or limited flight capabilities.

Well, this has been sort of touched upon, but it's the typical "let's compare superfuture supermecha supertech with 20th century tanks and announce it superiour" mindset. Outside the realm of spurious BS, those mech fictions would have tanks with the same mobility and flight.


EDIT: You mention Battletech. I'm not up to date on my Battletech lore, but IIRC the whole foundation of the setting was that they've deliberately developed impractical and expensive vehicles (mechs) to reduce wars by making them more expensive. In fact, this was still reflected in the early versions of the game, where a force of mechs was typically ripped apart by a group of hovertanks of the same total value. So, even your own example shows the exact opposite of what you're trying to achieve.

Quote from: Premier;557111Only problem is, there's no such thing. Not with any semblance of realism and logic.

Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with spurious bullshit. If you want to have a game where mecha are justified by spurious BS, then go ahead and make one - as long as you stay honest about it and don't try to present it as anything other than a spurious BS justification. A perfectly valid game design choice.

But don't make up a spurious BS justification and then try to present it as a serious, realistic argument - like you're doing it here. Because if'n'when you do, people with a basic understanding of engineering and common logic are going to descend like vultures and rip the argument apart.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12844-invention-metal-muscles.html

QuoteExposing the surface to air causes the methanol to be oxidised, which heats the alloy and makes it bend in a pre-determined way. Cutting off the methanol supply lets the alloy cool and causes the alloy to its original shape.

Baughman says the device can generate stresses 500 times greater than human muscle and believes further significant improvements should be possible.

Note how it mentions micro-scale aerial vehicles and prosthetic limbs as possible uses, but not multi-dozen ton warmachines. There's probably a reason for the omission.

Quote from: Premier;557116Note how it mentions micro-scale aerial vehicles and prosthetic limbs as possible uses, but not multi-dozen ton warmachines. There's probably a reason for the omission.

Note how its only just been invented and, for example, it took about a century odd to move from puttering metal tins to sleek fully electric cars.

I'll coin a new law here; the more heavy handedly someone swings into a conversation citing "science" and "engineering", the more likely it is that they have no clue what they're talking about.

The anti-mecha brigade isn't looking so well thought out to be honest. And I'm not particularly a mecha fan.

Quote from: The Traveller;557126Note how its only just been invented and, for example, it took about a century odd to move from puttering metal tins to sleek fully electric cars.

And in the century it will take to get from this new technology to a mech that's as good as a present-day tank, tanks will also have advanved by, guess what? A century.

QuoteI'll coin a new law here; the more heavy handedly someone swings into a conversation citing "science" and "engineering", the more likely it is that they have no clue what they're talking about.

The anti-mecha brigade isn't looking so well thought out to be honest. And I'm not particularly a mecha fan.

I'll also coin a new law: When someone pretends to be some sort of judge or arbiter over an internet debate, that means they don't have an actual argument to present.

But just to humour you: the "anti-mecha brigade" has already presented the biggest problems with mecha several pages ago: larger target, poorer firing arc/cover ratio (if weapon=arms), worse volume/armour ratio, less stability, more expensive. The "pro-mecha brigade" has not presented any counter-arguments against these. And when you don't address the other side's point at all, that means you concede the point.

What we're arguing about now are just the minor points. The "pros" have already conceded the major ones to the "antis" by not addressing them. The anti-mecha brigade is looking just fine.

Quote from: Premier;557136And in the century it will take to get from this new technology to a mech that's as good as a present-day tank, tanks will also have advanved by, guess what? A century.

Lets do a quick recheck shall we. Regarding muscle metal, you had this to say:

Quote from: Premier;557136Only problem is, there's no such thing. Not with any semblance of realism and logic.

Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with spurious bullshit. If you want to have a game where mecha are justified by spurious BS, then go ahead and make one - as long as you stay honest about it and don't try to present it as anything other than a spurious BS justification. A perfectly valid game design choice.

But don't make up a spurious BS justification and then try to present it as a serious, realistic argument - like you're doing it here. Because if'n'when you do, people with a basic understanding of engineering and common logic are going to descend like vultures and rip the argument apart.

When presented with evidence that such technology already existed, you had this to say:

Quote from: Premier;557136Note how it mentions micro-scale aerial vehicles and prosthetic limbs as possible uses, but not multi-dozen ton warmachines. There's probably a reason for the omission.

Weak doesn't even begin to cover it. I get it, you don't like mecha. But for a self proclaimed veteran of many such discussions, perhaps you might want to review the difference between reality and your opinion before you try to hand out a half assed kerb kicking, so it doesn't blow up in your face.

Just a thought.

u know people who keep saying the problem is high profile bipedal legs u people watch to much tv they can tracks jets or even propellers.

Quote from: The Traveller;557144Lets do a quick recheck shall we. Regarding muscle metal, you had this to say:

Quote*Paraphrased*: There's nothing wrong with bullshit explanations as long as they're clearly marked as such.

When presented with evidence that such technology already existed, you had this to say:

Quote*Paraphrased*: That explanation falls in the bullshit category.

Yeah, and? I don't see the contradiction. All I was saying the second time is that the explanation is spurious - for a "serious" justification. If someone wants a BS justification, it's great for that. If that's not how it came across, my bad.

But I do maintain that "we have it as fine-scaled experimental medical technology today therefore it's going to be heavy-duty military technology in a hundred years" is BS (as far as "serious" arguments go). Why? Because, as a general principle, technology does NOT necessarily carry over between entirely different areas of utility. It does sometimes, but it's not a universal law.

If you wish to challenge that statement on general grounds, here's a specific example before you waste your time: obsidian. Even today, obsidian is preferred over steel - for certain types of surgical scalpels. However, it just doesn't carry over: we'll never have rifles or helicopters made of obsidian. As far as real life technological speculation goes, it very well might be the case with these artifical muscles.

Also, kind of a moot point because it has nothing to do with the bit you first quoted about how (and if) by the time this stuff turns into viable walking vehicle tech tank technology will have already advanced from its present state. Which, again, is a point you have not addressed.

QuoteWeak doesn't even begin to cover it. I get it, you don't like mecha. But for a self proclaimed veteran of many such discussions, perhaps you might want to review the difference between reality and your opinion before you try to hand out a half assed kerb kicking, so it doesn't blow up in your face.

Just a thought.

More ad hominems instead of actual argument, you're being really classy today. I'll ask you one last time before writing you off as a troll in this thread:

I have listed in my previous post the main arguments why I maintain that mechas have inherent and unfixable design problems compared to tanks which cannot be solved by assumed future materials or new technologies. If you think any of those claims are false (or CAN be solved by new tech), then provide counterarguments. Or concede the point.*

*Just to clarify: I'm talking "what would be genuinely realistic", not "what would make a good soft sci-fi justification".

Quoteu know people who keep saying the problem is high profile bipedal legs u people watch to much tv they can tracks jets or even propellers.

Sorry slide, but your English is so bad I can't even understand what you're trying to say. Is it that certain mecha-themed shows have jet- or prop-based mechs? Or that real-life tanks (or something else, perhaps?) can hit aircraft? And what the hell does that have to do with tall ground vehicles (or watching TV)? Please, put some effort into your writing to make it understandable, because right now it isn't.

Quote from: Premier;557220I'll ask you one last time before writing you off as a troll in this thread

Please, write me off as a troll if it will spare us any more flailing handbags.

Having worked on bomb disposal robots for Remotec, I will bring up one major consideration that works against mecha - maintenance. A giant robot is going to be a hanger queen because the legged suspension system will require a lot of work and so will the stabilization system to allow it to walk.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love mecha in anime and manga. Macross and Gundam being two of my favorite anime franchises. But like Mike Pondsmith said in Mekton Zeta on p122, "Mecha exist because of one thing: they look cool."

Now with that out of the way, how big are thinking for this mecha, The Traveller? Once we nail that down, we can start getting the rest of the arguements against it handwaved.

Biomechs are sort of cool, especially for pre-tank-tech settings. Giant piles of undead with a necromancer in the middle, living trees pruned and twisted into hominid form and animated, or hollowed out gods all work.

I should post pics of some strange mech designs I like the idea of, at some point.

Quote from: jeff37923;557319Now with that out of the way, how big are thinking for this mecha, The Traveller? Once we nail that down, we can start getting the rest of the arguements against it handwaved.

Well what I was looking for really were environments where all else being equal mechaform machines from WH40k dreadnought size and up would offer advantages over tanks, flying or otherwise, and as far as I can tell jungle or forest in steeply sloped mountainous areas with lots of fast flowing rivers would seem to be it, plus that practically requires you to bolt a giant circular saw/chainsword/grappler arm on there somewhere.

Urban pacification might be another area where they would be useful, to a small size.

Quote from: beejazz;557330Biomechs are sort of cool, especially for pre-tank-tech settings. Giant piles of undead with a necromancer in the middle, living trees pruned and twisted into hominid form and animated, or hollowed out gods all work.

I should post pics of some strange mech designs I like the idea of, at some point.

Awesome sauce, love to see them!

Quote from: The Traveller;557423Well what I was looking for really were environments where all else being equal mechaform machines from WH40k dreadnought size and up would offer advantages over tanks, flying or otherwise, and as far as I can tell jungle or forest in steeply sloped mountainous areas with lots of fast flowing rivers would seem to be it, plus that practically requires you to bolt a giant circular saw/chainsword/grappler arm on there somewhere.

Urban pacification might be another area where they would be useful, to a small size.

So, something like the AFL-98 Lhada from the anime movie Patlabor 2 would be about the right size. It was a walking/wheeled command unit used by the UN in jungle terrain against insurgant units.



The team that was being commanded by this unit were AL-97B-var Hannibals, a heavy walker unit.