XX Sulla XX, on 16 October 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:
I wounder if we are not getting to worried about exact size of mechs. Yes it would be nice if Medium mechs were really small. But if you look at tanks tonnage and size to not always correlate like you would think.
http://fc03.devianta...by_Sanity_X.jpg
Hi, I just had to answer to your post.
I think that comment you are making about tanks is accurate but irrelevant, IMO. I don't design tanks for a living, but limiting factors for tank size are: primarily crew space (including space to load the gun in western tanks that use human loaders as compared with, for example, automated loaders in some russian tanks that allows for smaller/different turret designs), then engine, then space for ammo rounds (I think this actually takes less space than the engine, from what I've seen online about the M1A1), computer and environmental systems, etc. I don't think that cannon weight/size factors in, because it is tracked, low and long (it would matter if it stood high and narrow like a mech does, because to torque effects from its weight would significantly hinder balance). And I don't know much about terrain, so I am not sure how much the track pressure limits the all-terrain capabilities. For this discussion, though, I will assume it doesn't, or that it can be offset by increasing the tread width by 25%. If you want to argue against this, I can only say that if it mattered that much, this whole discussion would also be irrelevant (something along the lines that all mechs would sink into the ground, well over their ankles, in most terrains, with each step they took).
Take this theoretical tank and, say, double the armor thickness, the tank would go from ~50 tons to ~100 tons. You would need to increase the engine and power-train for the thing to move properly, increase the suspension to hold the weight, and tread width. If you're going that far, you'll probably also fit in additional systems and weapons - and fitting those in would make the tank grow in size. Say it grows 10% linearly in all dimensions to fit in the extra systems. The surface area will grow by 1.21 (1.1 squared, you'll get the same with a rectangle formula), or 21%, which means weight will go up to 121 tons. Say the actual systems take another ton - or two, and we're up to 122-123 tons. More than twice the weight difference with less than 10% size (linear) increase. The engine is responsible for 1.1 tons in the original, say 1.5 in the new tank. The gun is 3.3 Tons in the original, say 4 in the new tank (a more powerful gun). The original carries ~1.7 tons of fuel, say the new one carries 3 tons of fuel. The original carries ~.75 tons of ammo (main gun), say the new one carries 1.2 tons of ammo. Say that the original carries another ton of misc stuff, and the new tank 1.3 tons of misc stuff. That means that the original's weight is approximately 87% armor, and the new tank's is (guesstimate) about 90% armor. You could even swap out a (STD) Diesel engine and swap in a (XL) Gas Turbine - in real life they're not much different in size, only in gas consumption. Yep, these are tanks. And some unfortunate people in war-zones get to experience the business end of one.
If you were to apply the same logic to Mechs, you would have to start with their armor rating in each of their areas (thickness), and multiply that by their surface area. So, if the Shadow Hawk, which has the same armor thickness as the Kintaro, weighs as much as the Kintaro, it should have the same size as the Kintaro. If the Shadow Hawk has 30% more surface area (due to it's bigger size) than the Kingato, and the same armor thickness as the Kintaro (they both have 52 points of armor in the R&L Torsos, and 74 in the center torso), it will weigh around 30% more than the Kintaro (there can variation depending differing internal components, but let's set them up with same engine size, same weapon loadout, even if some weapon slots lie empty, and same accessories [BAP, AMS, etc.]). Also, the crew space is practically the same in a Kintaro, a SHAWK, a Locust, or an Highlander: 1 person, so the size of the mech is not driven primarily by crew space. So this contradicts completely what we see in the hangar (were you can have zero armor and your mech is still pretty heavy) - in the hangar, armor is a small fraction of mech weight - about 19% of my shadowhawk's config, and 21% at max armor.
And that leads me to the point I actually mean to make (let me preface by saying, I've never played the tabletop and don't have access to the wealth of technical data some of the people here quote; my sources are the MW novels I read as a teen): I remember that the mechs always have sweaty cockpits in all the novels I read. There is no reason for mech cockpits in year 3XXX to be hot (hasn't anyone heard of/discovered air conditioning and heat shielding in the 3rd millennium? Yes, there is NO engineering reason why a 500F-hot mech can't have a 65F cabin [or 50F if you're a wookie and don't want to break a sweat, OK that's another universe], it's not even hard, or costly, even with today's technology. I'm surprised it's not included in the Abram's tank (although the overpressure seems to help quite a bit). If it were hard, astronauts would burn in re-entry (and so would mechwarriors when their mechs drop through the atmosphere) and we wouldn't be able to cool things to near absolute zero, etc. Another consideration: the M1A1 Abram's main gun barrel weighs 1.2 tons, while the whole gun+mount weighs 3.3 tons. This gun "rocks" the whole 60 ton tank when it's fired. It would flip a 60-ton mech if fired, unless the mech went prone to fire it. Now, how does an autocannon 20 weigh in at 12 tonnes? How does a 65-ton mech like the JJ fire two of them at the same time with barely any recoil? I could understand 20 tonnes if the gun included the propellant for the rounds, but this is not the case and it's hard (impossible?) to explain any relationship between physics, gun weight, gun size, recoil, etc.
What if we try to apply some logic to MWO? Well, the 180 XL engine size would not be the same size as the 400 XL engine, for one. At least, I can't see how this would be with any basis on any known or theorized technology. And even if a 400 XL engine did have the same size as a 180 XL (let's say, for the sake of argument, that a totally new power source that is density-driven has been developed, and there is a size limitation for the magnetic containment bottle - we can't make them less than 12 units big with game-year technology), it CERTAINLY would not have the room for 4 extra heat sinks, when the 180 did not have that room. Alas, I don't think a spider would be able to power, or contain, the same TWO identical ER LL that the Atlas uses (maybe a baby laser?). One more: mechs (and heat sinks) as described would have enormous IR signatures (detectable from space, my best guess; as a point of reference, see the size of the cooling ponds for nuclear reactors), not to mention other EM signatures from their engines, not to mention the ground shake and noise generated by their footsteps. How would a mech ever be "stealthy" or sneak up on anything?
This game has NO basis on physics.
The creators of this game thought that hot, dirty cockpits fit their concept better than sterile, comfortable cockpits with effete warriors sipping champagne and griping about the lack of live classical music in the mining colony. This gave the author of one of my favorite mechwarrior novels the perfect excuse to capture the heroine in her undies, when her mech was captured, which I really appreciated at 16. They were trying to make a balanced, interesting game, and whenever Mr. Physics wanted to get in the way (even politely try to get a toe in the door), he got the door jammed in his face and "the bird" through the window. While it's possible to create a fun, balanced game that has some basis in physics (and a lot of guesswork as to 1K year's worth of developments in science and tech), MW is not that game.
My proposal, for better suspense of unbelief, for a better game, for aesthetics, for less flames, for the building I used to hide behind in my other medium mech not to seem to have shrunk (OK, ignore this one, it's merely a personal preference), for ...better digestion...you get the picture. How's this:
Light mechs = small
Medium mechs = medium
Heavy mechs = large
Assault mechs = x-large (or big, fat, and menacing)
Small, medium, large, extra-large? How hard can it be? Does this mean that PGI employees couldn't meet the requirements to work at McDonald's? Maybe they need to attend McD's university, it may help them to learn the four basic sizes AND with customer satisfaction (smile, smile always smile).
Attempted humor aside, for sizing within mech categories, use volume and constant density for your primary guidelines, or surface area x armor thickness - your choice, just apply the same standard to all mechs. Have two 'rulers': one for humanoid mechs, another for avian mechs (i.e. catapult). Get a mechanical engineer to help out, if making those rulers gets difficult. I'm sure you can find one that read the novels or played the tabletop and will give you good input.
Another sizing guideline:
Light mechs = older kids/pre-teens
Medium mechs = teens & young adults
Heavy mechs = regular adults
Assault mechs = iconic football tackles / hulk's brothers & cousins
And, to reply to other posts I've seen, while comments that the "Shadowhawk is playable" (or even, "it gains benefits from it's size") are pertinent and relevant (yes, it is playable, and yes, in -some- situations the size is helpful [while in others it hinders]), I don't think that either argument is correct the basis on which a mech should be dimensioned.
I propose that a more correct argument would be, how does it compare to 50-ton mechs in terms of size and handling (it's first-degree cousins), how does it compare to 55-ton brothers, and 60-ton cousins (assuming they're sized correctly). Yes, PGI should just buckle down and re size most mechs, incorporate some feedback in the public test and in-house tests, and get this over with. Do it big-bang, or phased approach, I don't care. Easier said than done, I agree, and probably not their priority, but I would vote for fixing the SH (and Spider and Comando) first. There's probably other high-priority mechs that I haven't listed that guys with more experience want to add to the priority list. Save all the effort to fix hit-boxes with the spider, until AFTER you've re-sized it.
Come on, if the SH weighs 55 tons, for the Spider weighs 30 tons it must be made of something denser than uranium - maybe if it was armored with iridium, AND a little bigger?
Also, I agree with the posts that say that (at least some) mediums need to be a little more maneuverable. I haven't played all that many mediums, I'm still buying new mechs and mech bays, and mastering them, but the impression I have with the Shadowhawk is that it reminds more of a 65-ton HVY than what I've seen of a Kintaro (assuming they're all mastered).
Edited by Shadow 1, 07 November 2013 - 02:48 AM.
8
