290 replies to this topic

[IIIuminaughty]

"Should an atlas weigh more than 100 tons?"

Does a woodchuck really chuck Wood???

[R3D OM3GA]

I love questions like this because they really make you sit there and think of possible soloutions.

[Dozer]

I must admit it does stir some interesting debate. Not a bad thing really.

However hands up those who would rather be be in Beta.

/hand up

[Melcyna]

Dozer, on 25 June 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

Sorry to disagree but having some military experience I can tell you some decisions are made for political and not logical reasons, at least not from a military perspective.

As for mixing IRL thought processes if they are not robust enough, that's purely a matter of opinion so we'll agree to disagree. I think they are to my logic, you think they aren't to yours. Mine is based on a position that they 'can' have a scientific basis because I acknowledge the inevitable advancement of science to reach the level where sci-fi become sci-fact and give credit to those - like the game designers - who seek the bridge that gap. Then again I am a bit of a 'dreamer' and therefore not bound by the constraints of cold 'hard' logic as some. Maybe it's called having a little faith and optimism

I'll concede that not all the decision made on national level of the nation's safety is entirely based on the logic that govern the military.

Political logic influenced them as well, but in either case... logic were there, one way or another.. it is HIGHLY unlikely that decisions that high up are made without some form of logic, unless of course if someone up there lost a few screw in their head.

As for optimism?

See back then we thought we'd have gigantic Tsar Tank too then if all optimism in design have actual use, or a Ratte, or a gigantic Ice ship...

There were a TON of highly illogical design, during and outside the war period that have been proposed in the past (when someone is desperate, designs tend to become farfetched as they seek for salvation), that frankly should've failed logic test in 5 minute and mostly never came true because ppl quickly realized the design have no real functionality and no actual advantage, and large bipedal machine is one of these design. Things that were sci fi and become sci facts... become so because they have a LOGIC, there was a function or use they actually fulfill and therefore ppl develop them because they can see the function. The REST? well... they are the product of imagination without a real use in the real world.

I don't have a problem with mech in Lore, but the moment someone try to bring it's discussion into IRL etc, then it needs a logic that can stand to scrutiny with real world... being a 'dreamer' without the 'logic' part doesn't work IRL i am sorry to say.

It doesn't even need to go too far into the realm of engineering, start with the SIMPLE logic (because if it can't even withstand simple logic, then don't bother trying to apply engineering into it), starting from: What is it's PURPOSE?, What is the basic mechanism by which it works, etc...

[Ergath Macfirtree]

Yes, this always bothered me too, until I discovered the truth. You see, what you're all missing is that all mechs contain large volumes of helium-filled space. This has a tripartate function:

• Increasing bouyancy to facilitate jumping
  
• acting as internal fire-retardant
  
• allowing the mechwarrior to adopt a squeaky voice as required, and to make balloon animals whenever bored.

An Atlas will contain 73m3 of helium (prime variant) and as such, despite massing many more than 100 tons, actually weighs exactly 100 tons to the nearest 1000th of a gram.

The other thing that always bothered me is why you'd bother with a 15-metre tall walking robot containing a fusion reactor when you could probably build approximately 42.3 tanks or just a big pile of cruise missiles for the same price, and furthermore, having built your giant striding bohemoth of distruction, why you would then equip it with a variety of different weapons systems, none of which are capable of hitting a target above a range of 630 metres - surely you would use e.g. one large cannon with the capability to fire a depleted uranium slug straight through practically anything?

Of course, then I realised that I was mistaking Science Fiction for Science Fantasy...

[Melcyna]

Well... at least you didn't ask why they didn't just chuck fusion reactors rigged to go critical at the enemy instead of mounting it into battlemechs..

actually that now reminds me, i forgot what was their 'LORE' explanation as to why they could have battlemech fusion reactors but no nuclear weapons manufacturing capability.

Oh dear, now it reminds me that fusion reactors are not supposed to go critical unless specifically forced to... and thus shouldn't detonate from reactor damage.

sigh... k... deep breath, SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF ENGAGED!.

[CptBob]

simply answered- this game is "Science Fiction" i.e. it has a basis in physics but lives in FICTION....

[Dozer]

Melcyna, on 26 June 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

I'll concede that not all the decision made on national level of the nation's safety is entirely based on the logic that govern the military.

Political logic influenced them as well, but in either case... logic were there, one way or another.. it is HIGHLY unlikely that decisions that high up are made without some form of logic, unless of course if someone up there lost a few screw in their head.

As for optimism?

See back then we thought we'd have gigantic Tsar Tank too then if all optimism in design have actual use, or a Ratte, or a gigantic Ice ship...

There were a TON of highly illogical design, during and outside the war period that have been proposed in the past (when someone is desperate, designs tend to become farfetched as they seek for salvation), that frankly should've failed logic test in 5 minute and mostly never came true because ppl quickly realized the design have no real functionality and no actual advantage, and large bipedal machine is one of these design. Things that were sci fi and become sci facts... become so because they have a LOGIC, there was a function or use they actually fulfill and therefore ppl develop them because they can see the function. The REST? well... they are the product of imagination without a real use in the real world.

I don't have a problem with mech in Lore, but the moment someone try to bring it's discussion into IRL etc, then it needs a logic that can stand to scrutiny with real world... being a 'dreamer' without the 'logic' part doesn't work IRL i am sorry to say.

It doesn't even need to go too far into the realm of engineering, start with the SIMPLE logic (because if it can't even withstand simple logic, then don't bother trying to apply engineering into it), starting from: What is it's PURPOSE?, What is the basic mechanism by which it works, etc...

Some good points I admit. I would suggest however that logic, very much like statistics for example, is typically a subjective tool that can be used to give you exactly the answer you are looking for because you only see what you are looking for. Our minds cannot be easily or readily detached from our biases & heuristics even if we are aware of their existence as some would suggest. And there are indeed some things whose purpose cannot (yet) be defined definitively by modern day logic and yet they still exist, either in reality or the imagination. Humans for example. When you ask what is my (our) purpose I (we) cannot truly give you a logical explanation. Yet, here I(we) exist and let's face it there are some things we do that defy logic. History is littered with events and actions we look at and go 'wth, that makes no sense' even when the rationales are explored. Sometimes emotions override logic, though I will happily conceded many times we simply don't have a clue as to what really drove a decision. We simply live in a world where their is too much information and our brain 'cannot compute' it all.

I would posit that where you see logic as an antecedent of imagination I see it can be the opposite. That doesn't discount/marganlise the first, rather expands it to the second and for me at least this is where the BT/MW creators lived. Sounds a bit like a creationist argument now that I read that But hey, I am waiting for dinner to cook and this is really a nice discussion.

arg.. need to suspend disbelif again... suspend... suspend.

Edited by Dozer, 26 June 2012 - 06:23 AM.

[Dozer]

Melcyna, on 26 June 2012 - 04:49 AM, said:

Well... at least you didn't ask why they didn't just chuck fusion reactors rigged to go critical at the enemy instead of mounting it into battlemechs..

actually that now reminds me, i forgot what was their 'LORE' explanation as to why they could have battlemech fusion reactors but no nuclear weapons manufacturing capability.

Oh dear, now it reminds me that fusion reactors are not supposed to go critical unless specifically forced to... and thus shouldn't detonate from reactor damage.

sigh... k... deep breath, SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF ENGAGED!.

Wasn't it (lore wise) because nuclear weapons were considered so counter-productive that they were unversally banned by the Great Houses? They didn't like the thought of waiting 50,000 years before they could go 'till the soil'?

[Melcyna]

Dozer, on 26 June 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

Wasn't it (lore wise) because nuclear weapons were considered so counter-productive that they were unversally banned by the Great Houses? They didn't like the thought of waiting 50,000 years before they could go 'till the soil'?

Which is still nonsensical because there are only 2 things that need to be shot with the nuclear warhead really to win a scenario of galactic warfare, neither involving a planet...

ie: the dropships and the spaceships that escort them...

it's not like battlemech can go anywhere off planet without them, or land on a planet if it's dropship and escort are vaporized en route.

Quote

Humans for example. When you ask what is my (our) purpose I (we) cannot truly give you a logical explanation.

That's where your context strayed...

A human purpose can't be given a logical explanation since that's essentially questioning someone's faith...

a WAR MACHINE on the other hand are not built based on faith, or belief (except when done as intimidation tool)..

it is built with a PURPOSE, a specific purpose that is pre calculated (which may or may not be accurate, since war is chaos) and it is designed to EXCEL at it since it has to WIN.

You are basically using a TOTALLY different context unrelated with each other..

[Dozer]

Melcyna, on 26 June 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

That's where your context strayed...

A human purpose can't be given a logical explanation since that's essentially questioning someone's faith...

a WAR MACHINE on the other hand are not built based on faith, or belief (except when done as intimidation tool)..

it is built with a PURPOSE, a specific purpose that is pre calculated (which may or may not be accurate, since war is chaos) and it is designed to EXCEL at it since it has to WIN.

You are basically using a TOTALLY different context unrelated with each other..

No, the context of the question I was actually answering was that your belief that things which serve no logical function, have no definable purpose, are products of the imagination, are not developed and of no use in the real world. I put forth the idea that people by their very undefinable nature (purpose) defy logic yet are not products of the imagination i.e we exist. I did not bring up faith per say, as frankly I don't believe in it. I simply mentioned I sounded like a creationist That was the context I replied to, so clearly we're not on the same page. It happens

Edited by Dozer, 26 June 2012 - 07:42 AM.

[Kalenn]

Frostiken, on 13 June 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

What I don't understand is how mechs function on worlds with more than 1g. Is there anything in the lore that ever describes a high-gravity world that basically causes heavier mechs to crumple under their own weight?

Also, jumpjets. Jumpjets put mechs under a lot of acceleration - I honestly can't picture a heavyweight mech activating the jumpjets and dealing with the high G-forces from acceleration and landing without breaking things.

Under a mere 2g, which you'd experience after simply falling 20 meters, your Archer weighs 140 tons o_O

Naturally there'd be some wiggle-room in the 'maximum weight' of a frame just to prevent this, but realistically why are mechs limited to x tons of weapons then? Even aircraft can overload themselves but it means they can't pull as many Gs, so wouldn't a mech on a high-gravity world have to go out missing a lot of weapons, and shouldn't they be able to overload the frame on a low-gravity world?

The mind boggles.

... which is exactly what happens. If you don't use your JJ to LAND as well as take off, you can take heavy damage to your legs, to the point of crippling your 'Mech.

[Bobfrombobtown]

After the first 3 pages I got tired of reading all the replies so if this has been said already then I apologize. The way I've rationalized it is that the "tonnage" is the amount of equipment the internal structure will support minus the amount the internal structure needs to support itself. Battlemech construction rules state that standard internal structure uses up 10% of the target tonnage, Endo-Steel uses 5%.

Or, you can just go with, "It's a game, get over it."

Edited by Bobfrombobtown, 26 June 2012 - 08:05 AM.

[Kalenn]

FactorlanP, on 13 June 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

Also, I don't believe that Mech armor isn't simply steel plate. It is more of a composite material that is designed to absorb impact and fall away. At least, from all of the novels, that is the impression of it that I get.

So whatever this armor material is, it obviously is much lighter then the steel armors that we are familiar with today.

The term is ablative. Unlike current tank armor (or say a car frame), which absorbs impact by deformation, but ultimately remains connected to the overall frame, ablative armor is actually destroyed / burned off which takes the destructive energy with it. Link here: http://www.sarna.net...hs_%26_Vehicles

[Dozer]

Bobfrombobtown, on 26 June 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

Or, you can just go with, "It's a game, get over it."

Yeah there is always that option

[Tombstoner]

Vassago Legion, on 13 June 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

I've always thought the 100 ton "limit" was absurd when the Germans had a tank, Maus, in WW2 that weighed 188 tons, and it only had one cannon. Tanks aren't solid either, Some of them have enough room for 5 or 6 people.

The original game had a limit of 400 tons, but that would mean the game developers would have to make designs in 5 tone increments.
Meaning the atlas would actually be a heavy scout. I think they made the right decision in scaling the game into something manageable.

[Melcyna]

Kalenn, on 26 June 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

The term is ablative. Unlike current tank armor (or say a car frame), which absorbs impact by deformation, but ultimately remains connected to the overall frame, ablative armor is actually destroyed / burned off which takes the destructive energy with it. Link here: http://www.sarna.net...hs_%26_Vehicles

An interesting note is that ablation method inherently require one thing in abundance to function properly which is thickness to stop the incoming energy, since it did not intend to stop the energy completely at the earliest possible moment (surface of the armor), it's ability to function requires that there is enough depth to the armor to ensure that the energy is dissipated or carried away before it reach the main structure.

Which is somewhat illogical for use as primary combat armor since while this works well for energy applied in streams or over a significant duration of time and area (hence why it's perfect for heat shields on spacecrafts), it's much less effective against most weapon projectile which are typically designed to concentrate kinetic energy in a single massive spike over a very small area (the basic of armor piercing mechanism) since it would require a much thicker layer of armor to stop the projectile in that manner.

The use of ablation technique in stopping regular kinetic projectiles or objects carrying significant kinetic energy generally are done by sacrificing volume and dimension compactness, a feasible trade off generally for a stationary object... but less desirable for a mobile one where there is limited constraint on them.

Dozer, on 26 June 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

No, the context of the question I was actually answering was that your belief that things which serve no logical function, have no definable purpose, are products of the imagination, are not developed and of no use in the real world. I put forth the idea that people by their very undefinable nature (purpose) defy logic yet are not products of the imagination i.e we exist. I did not bring up faith per say, as frankly I don't believe in it. I simply mentioned I sounded like a creationist That was the context I replied to, so clearly we're not on the same page. It happens

And if you want to go straying into that context, someone somewhere in this world will argue we don't just 'exist', but we're the product of the evolution that wiped out the rest of the design resulting from the life cocktail that failed in the field and did not work out either because it simply was incapable of competing or adapting. That human design did not exist DEFYING logic, but rather the opposite as it's template resulted from the surviving design out of the multitude that existed in the past, not all which survived or adapted to current time.

Which ironically is similar with war machines with evolutionary design where each subsequent designs are either development of working ones or based on new tech that either improve the old one or fill a role yet to be performed by the old design, and there are failed designs naturally along the way.

Edited by Melcyna, 26 June 2012 - 06:38 PM.

[Jonnara]

Boymonkey, on 13 June 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

Now I can't find any info on how tall an Atlas is but looking at the videos etc I reckon they are pretty big so it got me thinking that an atlas should weigh more than 100 tons, I mean if you look at tanks for example a Tiger that weighs 56 tons and would look small next to a Atlas so surely they should weigh much much more.
Sorry for the boring topic it's just grating on my mind Oh and typing this passes a few min's to get me closer to playing

It only weights more than 100 ton after i get into the cockpit.... Alert Alert... tonnage exceeds maximum weight limit.

[Kalenn]

Melcyna, on 26 June 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

An interesting note is that ablation method inherently require one thing in abundance to function properly which is thickness to stop the incoming energy, since it did not intend to stop the energy completely at the earliest possible moment (surface of the armor), it's ability to function requires that there is enough depth to the armor to ensure that the energy is dissipated or carried away before it reach the main structure.

Which is somewhat illogical for use as primary combat armor since while this works well for energy applied in streams or over a significant duration of time and area (hence why it's perfect for heat shields on spacecrafts), it's much less effective against most weapon projectile which are typically designed to concentrate kinetic energy in a single massive spike over a very small area (the basic of armor piercing mechanism) since it would require a much thicker layer of armor to stop the projectile in that manner.

The use of ablation technique in stopping regular kinetic projectiles or objects carrying significant kinetic energy generally are done by sacrificing volume and dimension compactness, a feasible trade off generally for a stationary object... but less desirable for a mobile one where there is limited constraint on them.


And if you want to go straying into that context, someone somewhere in this world will argue we don't just 'exist', but we're the product of the evolution that wiped out the rest of the design resulting from the life cocktail that failed in the field and did not work out either because it simply was incapable of competing or adapting. That human design did not exist DEFYING logic, but rather the opposite as it's template resulted from the surviving design out of the multitude that existed in the past, not all which survived or adapted to current time.

Which ironically is similar with war machines with evolutionary design where each subsequent designs are either development of working ones or based on new tech that either improve the old one or fill a role yet to be performed by the old design, and there are failed designs naturally along the way.

That's an interesting thought, and probably why mw4 had the option to go with ferro fibrous (normal), ablative (strong vs energy) and [forget the name], which was strong against ballistic. It was a real trade-off to take a bet whether a specific battle was going to be energy or ballistic heavy. I tended to go with FF given te low level of certainty in any given missipn as to weapons load-out.

As a side note, an interesting extension on the role warfare might be that a sufficiently upgraded mech would have the ability to detect overall load out of a competing lance, and thus allow the better iinformed lance to bias to the armpit that would be most effective.

[Dozer]

Melcyna, on 26 June 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

And if you want to go straying into that context, someone somewhere in this world will argue we don't just 'exist', but we're the product of the evolution that wiped out the rest of the design resulting from the life cocktail that failed in the field and did not work out either because it simply was incapable of competing or adapting. That human design did not exist DEFYING logic, but rather the opposite as it's template resulted from the surviving design out of the multitude that existed in the past, not all which survived or adapted to current time.

Which ironically is similar with war machines with evolutionary design where each subsequent designs are either development of working ones or based on new tech that either improve the old one or fill a role yet to be performed by the old design, and there are failed designs naturally along the way.

Arg I think I should bow to your superior logic and eloquent propositions because, well, it's starting to make my head hurt Not a bad thing if it's the product of a hangover, but not in a forum discussion That and I know people are sick of reading our intellectual musings. They just want to discuss 'pew, pew'... am I right? You have won the game good Sir. Collect your C-Bills this way ---->

Edited by Dozer, 26 June 2012 - 10:01 PM.