362 replies to this topic

[Smooth Melody]

If we start getting mechs that are just bigger and bigger and bigger, we're going to end up playing Warhammer 40k: Titan Warfare.

I don't want to see the day we're pilotting -walking castles- http://images.wikia....rator_Titan.jpg

[Captain Nice HD]

Smooth Melody, on 30 July 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

I don't want to see the day we're piloting -walking castles-

Well, if you take Mobile Structures and Star League Mega-Engineering into account, you could theoretically have mobile Castles Brian (although not a walking one).

More seriously, walking castles are not likely to happen because of rapidly diminishing returns on engine power to weight ratios as the reactor rating rises. Even if the rules permitted Super-Heavy BattleMechs to be constructed in excess of 200 tons, it would not be long before it would take an engine heavier than the 'Mech itself to move it at a mere walking speed of 1 MP - even with an XXL Engine.

[Deceptor]

Gmac, on 05 June 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

http://mechassault.w...m/wiki/Ragnarok

this could work

A lava cannon? Seriously?

If ever a thing above 100+ tons was ever to exist in the game ever, well, I say, maybe it would make some NPC boss battle cool. Other than that flush all this down the toilet.

[Joseph Mallan]

Skylarr, on 28 July 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

The Omega was not added to Sarna until July 17, 2012 That is why I could not find any info about it.

Must own this Mini!!!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 30 July 2012 - 07:26 PM.

[Captain Nice HD]

Deceptor, on 30 July 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

A lava cannon? Seriously?

Ah, MechAssault. Now that is apocryphal to official canon, and thank heavens for that.

Although I honestly like to mentally substitute 'Lava Cannon' with 'Prototype Star League Plasma Rifle', if only for the sake of my sanity.

[Natasha Kerensky]

Gendou, on 05 June 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

I guess you haven't seen the Omega, a 150 ton Word of Blake Design from the Jihad.

That kinda looks like a suped up Stone Rhino.

[CCC Dober]

@Neb
Agreed. It's one thing to give preference to a certain time period of BT. That's perfectly okay as long as it doesn't come with demands or outright denial of the rest of the universe. I have a feeling that some gents in here are going to have a rude awakening when they finally realize that time and progress of this game won't just stop at an invisible barrier because they wish it so. I'll be sure to stock up on popcorn when that day arrives

[Arthwys IronHand]

Super-heavy Mechs are similar to the super-heavy tanks idea; an interesting idea, a poor reality. Too damn heavy, too damn slow, too expensive in costs of production and maintenance vs returns earned on the battlefiled. The Bigger it is the better of a target you have.

[Volomon]

Arthwys IronHand, on 01 August 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

Super-heavy Mechs are similar to the super-heavy tanks idea; an interesting idea, a poor reality. Too damn heavy, too damn slow, too expensive in costs of production and maintenance vs returns earned on the battlefiled. The Bigger it is the better of a target you have.

I'm not sure about that in WW2 the most feared tanks were the largest tanks. http://worldwar2aces.com

Though to point out no tank was ever mobile enough not to have mechanized infantry to support it, except the attempted blitzkrieg. I suspect if Battletech was more realistic, they would have issues with infantry in city zones. Being able to grapple on to a mech and plant a mini nuke on the **** pit would prove a problem. So the costs of production/maintenance/returns is kind of moot considering it's not being THAT realistic.

What would be cool is if there was some sort of match where one player would pilot the Super-Assault and downing this would win you the match.

[Melcyna]

Not exactly...

The reason the allies fear the tank was NOT because it's the largest, but simply because it was both difficult to penetrate at least frontally, and it carries the long 88mm which was capable of penetrating any allied tank in use at the time from way beyond their own range with at virtually any angle, the tank actually wasn't that reliable because of it's engine and transmission design wasn't exactly up to the job for such weight.

And KonigsTiger wasn't even the largest... Maus is even larger than that, but Maus crossed the limit of the the engine power and design at the time available to them and had practically no strategic mobility AT ALL.

KonigsTiger therefore represent one of the largest (but NOT the largest) tank in WW2 that still retained sufficient mobility to be of use as a heavy armor vehicle.

That was the key, the tank still retained a semblance of mobility (both tactically and strategically) that it has a USE as an asset, the size is irrelevant. This is the same reason why the russian abandoned heavy tanks after WW2, WW2 proved that the more strategically mobile T-34 was simply a superior asset compared to the larger and heavier IS tanks that were incapable of following the rapid pace of battle as it flows during the WW2.

[jklazy]

150 ton Blakist design
http://www.sarna.net...ega_(BattleMech)
Totally canon

[Dr Killinger]

Nebfer, on 30 July 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Theirs a lot of morons in this thread.

1: Dark age is canon GET OVER IT. You are not in charge of what is and what is not battletech that is the guys who make the game, do not like it? to bad.

Edited by Dr Killinger, 18 August 2012 - 04:29 AM.

[Raledon]

Just a couple of notes regarding physics and tanks:
The German Panzers were superior to the American tanks. According to the History Channel, a single Panzer took multiple (I believe they said 9?) American M3 tanks. The problem was, for each Panzer there were 10 enemy tanks.
Heavy tanks has a mobility issue. The Merkava Mark IV is one of the largest tanks being used, but transportation is costly. Due to the small amount of land Israel possess, it's a small issue. The US can afford the logistics involving moving large tanks such as the Abrams due to its sheer economical power. We saw this happen in WW2, with the German supply lines lagging behind the tanks.
Nowadays, life is more important than money, so making a large tank is better than 3 small ones. In WW3, I believe we will see a return to smaller tanks due to them being cheaper to produce.

Physics: engine wise, in the year 3000, making a mech move that weighs over 200ton should be easy. The Abrams moves at 40km/h and Merkava at 55km/h on road, both weighting ~65 tons. The difference in speed comes from roughly 20 years of improved tech between designs, so 1000 years should make quite a change.
Size/weight- the Atlas seem to be roughly 10 meters high, 3 meters wide, 2 meters in depth +2*2*6*2(2 hands), or roughly 110 meter^3, including the cockpit. (measured from: http://www.sarna.net...ted_Atlas_D.jpg)
Using Merkava Mark IV (being newer to Abrams), based on Wikipedia is 7.6*3.7*2.66= roughly 75 meter^3, including the interior.
In terms of rough weight, the atlas should weigh as much as he does, taking into account most of it is in actual use, and a big chunk of the tank is "free" space (used for the soldiers. Usually not-so-empty, but not taken into account regarding weight), so weight/size is the same, just a bigger engine is needed.

Now, just for fun: can we make a walking castle? The answer (without regard to price), seem to be yes. according to autoblog, they move a 171000 ton ship (note- yes, I am aware that it's in the sea instead of land) at 57KM/h.
Comparing to land, 109,000 horsepower is 72 times horsepower than the current engine used in Merkava Mark IV (1500 HP), meaning it should be possible to move a 20 meter (The engine is 13 meters tall), 4,600 (2,300 of which is the engine itself) ton mech at a 55KM/h speed.
Now remember, we are talking about the year 3000 here.

The issue is not with 100+ mechs, but with balance.

Edited by Raledon, 18 August 2012 - 05:54 AM.

[Undercover Brother]

The Aries seems to have been built for people who cannot multitask... That's why it takes three to pilot it.

If you look at the weapons loadout, you'll see that its underarmed compared to MOST Assault mechs, though it DOES have a slight increase in armor.

The Aries is obviously designed by a man who has a serious inferiority complex due to a small *****.

[Rorik Thrumsalr]

Diminishing returns when it comes to the hardware, especially the engine. To move at the same speed, a 125 ton mech would require an engine twice as heavy to match an atlas (about 38.5 tons vs 19 tons) That is 19.5 tons of it's 25 ton lead lost. Add another 2.5 tons to the internal structure and you've got at best only a 3 ton increase in maximum payload/armor/whatever. Combine with the other drawbacks such as upkeep and construction, there's no real reason. Same basic reason we have limits on aircraft. It eventually gets stuck in a uphill spiral of weight vs performance vs payload.

[Capt Sternn]

Agame of Giant Robot war machines and you guys are talking about reality. Silly nerds.

[Jmb]

Even if they use that 135 ton mech, Ares, I'm less than impressed by the loadout, and the fact it needs 3 pilots to operate would only work if they are a well-coordinated team.

[JFlash49]

Lol...there is a mech over 100 tons. smh..well everyone has already provided the links so just read up

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

GL balancing the game with yet another weight class. I also fail to see the point of even bigger Mechs. At that point you may as well just have a huge jet or dropship nuke the planet. It would also be too big a target, too slow to get anywhere, and probably have huge problems just trying to walk over hills without falling down. You've got physics to consider here; and you can only get so big or so heavy with walking legs still being logical or viable for the purposes of a Mech. Over 100 tons it probably makes more sense to just have a tank with rolling treads or some kind of artillery cannon you will fire from miles away. Mech sizes are like Human sizes; notice how things heavier than us have 4 legs due to all the weight and the added difficulty of balancing that much weight. An Atlas is pretty much to Mechs what the biggest Humans are to us. That's basically as big as you can get without having huge health or function problems. If you had a 200 ton Mech with still only 2 legs he would fall over incredibly easily and probably struggle to get back up. This is on top of being a huge target that can barely even move at any kind of useful pace.

Edited by Bluten, 18 August 2012 - 06:58 AM.

[Zakatak]

From a realism point of view, 100 tons is already extremely high. A mech that weighs more then that would probably just sink into the ground and fall if it stepped on anything that isn't pavement.

Tripod mechs are stupid.