J Echo, on 18 December 2011 - 02:25 AM, said:
No, based on physics. Technology changes but physics don't.
Physics of this universe then, either way this is a separate fictional universe that we don't have all the finer details about. Yes for the most part the technology is based on real life science and practical understandings of the time but we don't know that the physics in this universe is EXACTLY like ours do we? Its conceivable, and sure it requires suspension of disbelief to some degree but really almost any Science Fiction universe does.
Quote
Erm, they aren't? Why would an non-articulated mech be arbitrarily made out of a weaker metal than an articulated one, within the same fictional universe? That doesn't make any sense at all. No, within any fictional universe using real phyiscs, an articulated mech will always be much weaker than a non-articulated one made from the same materials.
Simple misunderstanding, I was under the impression you were talking about between fictional universes. Yes within a single fictional universe an articulated machine would be structurally weaker than a non-articulated machine of equal mass and material, according to real life science. However this is a fictional universe, see above about suspension of disbelief and not knowing the intricate details of how exactly said universe functions.
Quote
Which fallacy I've repeatedly debunked, although you BTTT/cartoon fans consistently ignore it.
From what I can recall and what I've recently seen on this thread, you've only managed to debunk this so called "fallacy" (Of articulation having distinct advantages over non-articulation) from a strictly military standpoint and based upon "real world" science. Unfortunately both of those reasons is why many BTTT fans disagree with you. BattleMechs, despite the name, are not built strictly for military only purposes. Yes that is the primary concern, and yes many of them are meant to be true "walking tanks" with little other uses, but there are numerous examples of 'mechs being used for things that a non-articulated 'mech just simply CANNOT do (whether some of these things are something it was designed for or simply an act of necessity that being articulated simply allowed is something else entirely). As for consistently ignoring it, I'd say it's because both sides are too stubborn to admit that the other, while not necessarily 100% true, does have good points.
Quote
They are different and have been for many years, whether you BTTT fans like it or not, and whether you admit it or not. Go watch the intros for Mechwarrior 3 and Mechwarrior 4 and the 2009 trailer by Piranha.
They are different yes I'll give you that. But they are still in the same universe, follow the same canon, use the same mechanics (obviously with minor adjustments for either gameplay or technology limits), and generally are meant to be played in a similar manner. I have watched the intros many times, and just to be sure I wasn't mistaken I watched them again just now. MechWarrior 3 portrays the 'mechs exactly as the canon describes them, and the same way they work in the TT, hmmm... Both the Summoner (Thor) and the Timber Wolf (Mad Cat) are fully articulated, they lack hands because they are Clan 'mechs (same as the Lance Leader's Mad Dog (Vulture)) and the Clan's disdain melee combat and feel a war machine should do nothing other than participate in war (kind of seems like your view as well, just saying). The Atlas, though missing an arm, has its right arm also articulated, clearly showing a hand and fingers. Sure in game they weren't useable and the video showed him doing nothing other than lifting the arm up to fire weapons on it but its still there. Why bother to build that kind of detail onto a machine if it serve a purpose? The 3 Jenners, well they've never really had articulation to begin with.
Mechwarrior 4 I suppose is closer to what you mean, yet all those 'mechs are still represented in the BTTT and the canon in the same manner. Most, if not all, are Clan 'mechs again. And many of them show articulation of the arms, even if limited. As for previous mentions (in other threads, if I recall correctly) of them using different control schemes. There's nothing to say that the helmet they had on in the cockpit wasn't a neurohelmet, granted it looks like a regular flight/combat helmet, but even in canon the newer neurohelmet's are described in that manner. Also the control scheme is very similar to many designs I've read about, joystick, throttle, and pedals plus a multitude of toggles and switches.
Now the MechWarrior 5 trailer, I can see your point, yes they are no hands or anything on the Atlas, simply gun barrels. However the arms must still be articulated in order to use those weapons. In the trailer they are almost always pointing down at the ground, unless he feels the need to completely and utterly obliterate a relatively small ground target that he could probably step on, those weapons need to be raised up if used.
According to your arguement though it would be better to simply have a 100 tonne tank (which they do have) instead of a BattleMech. Less articulation means it is stronger and would therefore win, correct? Yet if played out, whether in MW or BTTT, the tank loses virtually every time (100 tonne vs 100 tonne with equally skilled players/pilots). Why do you think that is? One word, versatility. Articulation of a war machine, done properly, makes that machine more versatile than a non-articulated one. More versatility in an otherwise even matchup (similar materials, similar firepower, similar weight class, similar armour) means the more versatile one will win almost every time.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want a Battlemech that can do ballet, most people (even the hardcore BTTT "elitist") don't want that. Yes many of us would love to see melee combat implemented and the ability to actually use the hands designed into many of the 'mechs, but I don't anyone is looking for a gundam-esque approach. The way the 'mechs are portrayed in most of the game videos is the same way that most people have probably envisioned the 'mechs behaving. They aren't overly articulated, but they definately are more than just a simply walking turret. As for the novels that describe such ridiculous movements, they generally are due to artistic license taken by the author and normally are not considered to be "canon" or are attributed to being done outside combat with meticulously programmed routines (Battlemaster doing handstand I believe) or by special individuals within the universe that far exceed the capabilities of any regular (or veteran for that matter) mechwarrior.
J Echo, on 18 December 2011 - 04:34 AM, said:
Soltenius Drake, on 18 December 2011 - 03:53 AM, said:
Example: You have your handless war machine mech with said heavy artillery and I have a Mech also armed with heavy artillery but I have the function of hands. The battle ensues and our ammo is exhausted cores close to overheat from firing particle beams and lasers. What is the heavy mech capable of in this scenario? The mech with hands can rip the pilot out of his cockpit for the victory. Now realistically there are trade offs because you are a handless warrior you are probably more heavily equipped so I would have to be the one to attempt close quarter tactics.
Wow, way to not listen. Wrong! Like I said, you'd have lost long before you ran out of ammo, due to your robot being ludicrously delicate from all of the complicated, fine machinery required to give it enough articulation to be able to grab things and do ballet and all of the other silly, pointless things that you want it to be able to do (instead of actually effectively fighting the enemy).
You seemed to have forgotten this next paragraph in your quote somehow
Soltenius Drake, on 18 December 2011 - 03:53 AM, said:
In the desert with no obstacles to hide behind I am a sitting duck and therefore dead but in a city you would still need to consider me a viable threat. No one wants a tiptoeing, lily pinching, prancing robot. They are still multiple ton Mechanized Warriors with many designs attempting to achieve maximum efficiency in their purpose. The only way to prove which is best is to show their worth out on the battlefield.
Speaking from an engineering standpoint, its not hard to articulate something to grab it, it doesnt have to be overly complicated, or fine. Secondly where in that quote does he EVER say anything about doing ballet? He doesn't want to kick you (yes I realize this is a physical attack available in the TT, but its not in the post you responded to), or breakdance on your corpse. He wants to smash in your "delicate" ferroglass cockpit and forcibly remove your pilot, or at least whats left of him after getting crushed. Also he mentioned that there are trade offs for having the hands, a 'mech without them can obviously mount potentially more weapons, a 'mech with hands
IS more susceptible to damage (damage to an actuator from critical hit locks whatever it is, hand, lower or upper arm, and shoulder. No hand, no actuator there, no damage). Finally, how is being able to grab a steel girder and physically ram that through weakened armour of an opponent in close combat (ie, city fighting around tight corners) NOT effectively engaging your enemy? True it has virtually no use from 500m away in open terrain, but up close and personal like city fighting is, that extra versatility just adds one more trick up their sleeve.
Edited by Gunman5000, 18 December 2011 - 05:40 AM.
4
- for recovering and transporting salvage) and offensive action (punching and use of melee weapons).
and when we are battling in the city I will flank you from the side of a building with a good hard push to knock your handless mechanized warrior on it's side and while you and your mech is crying I've fallen and I can't get up that Civilian pervert fresh out of prison by the name of BIG BUBBA over there that was ducking for cover decides to climb into your cockpit 
and have you do the rump shaker for him 
