35 replies to this topic

[Metus regem]

Snowbluff, on 13 July 2016 - 08:29 AM, said:

Yeah!
North America!


Yeah, what the heck?

I know right? I'd like to put a motion forward for Parliament to go about changing from the beaver to the polar bear, but so far I'm having issues getting it out of comity...

[Snowbluff]

Lily from animove, on 13 July 2016 - 08:31 AM, said:

9, aircrafts cna have multiple seats as well, and mechs too. so this is also just not true.

Actually factual. Even at one or two seats, a single or two seater mech is more similiar to a fighter than a 3-4 crew tank.

Even then, a second seat is considered a waste of space and weight in higher tech planes than manage radar and naviagation and weapons more easily. The Air Force doesn't want a second seat in their airplanes for the same reasons you don't want a command console in your mech.

[Lily from animove]

Metus regem, on 13 July 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

I know right? I'd like to put a motion forward for Parliament to go about changing from the beaver to the polar bear, but so far I'm having issues getting it out of comity...

not sure with climate change a brown bear may be a better idea, because polar bears are said to mix with brownbears lernign fishign brownbear style and the white will probably vanish with time.

Edited by Lily from animove, 13 July 2016 - 08:35 AM.

[SpiralFace]

Even within Battletech, Mechs are typically more frail then tanks.

Tanks can pack a heap of solid armor in single directions while mechs armor by comparison is thinner and has to protect a bunch of vital equipment that is needed just to keep them upright. While at the same time tanks can mount much more armaments then mechs, provided they also carry the needed provisions to shield the weapons from the crew.

There are reasons why mechs are still more common in Battletech:

- Mobility wise, mechs are more versitile and can navigate much more difficult terrain.
- Wars in the innersphere are on an intergalactic level. While tanks can work well on one world, the next system over, they might not be as viable an option. Mechs are more universally viable across the many intergalactic worlds within the innersphere.

There are many more nuanced reasons, but those typically tend to be the major ones.

Tanks are more practical for planetary militia's and more "local" entities where the vehicles are cheaper to produce, and you can customize your force to the type of world you live on, but on the intergalactic level where you are invading multiple systems, Mechs are just more universally reliable to carry out what is needed of them on an intergalactic scale.

[Snowbluff]

A nice analysis! Thanks, Spiralface!

[Johnny Z]

Lily from animove, on 13 July 2016 - 08:31 AM, said:

in a lot of things at all. you were tlakign about 8+ wepaons, yet most IS mechs don't even have 8+ wepepons either. nor tdo all airplanes have laods of wepaons, nor do tanks have one.

Further mechs have armor similar to tanks. Ablative armor, or however that is correctly written. So that won't be something you will find on airplanes.

and 7 8 9 and 10 are also just rather taken, mechs have windows, tnaks have also areas to look through. an airplane may have windows yet most pilots in a jetplane won't use the windows to fly. They fly by instruments mostly.

AC's are like gatlings? well its more UAC's ar elike gatlings and AC's more like regular cannons or big machine guns. so there is both of them, not just the "airplane" variant.

9, aircrafts cna have multiple seats as well, and mechs too. so this is also just not true.

10. engines thrust to weight? thrust this term isn't even used in MWO/BT iiRC and engien power to weight always had soemthign to do with performance, thats not airplane exclusive.
so that is a rating at all
"Fusion engines, like other engines, are defined by their "engine rating". For 'Mechs, the engine rating is the mathematical product of the mass of the vehicle and its desired maximum walking or cruising velocity."


In the end mechs aren't more like tanks or aircrafts, they are mechs, especially when you include the lore of how they are able to climb, crawl, kick and punch and use stuff (if they have hands) it gets obvious that they are none of both and indeed a very own thing. The mechwarrior game series just never had these features as controlling this would probably be too unfeasable to control.
Maybe in 20 years when we get such helmets in RL we can control mechs in games as the lore descripes.




now thats an autocannon right there

Yep that one is mostly for missile defense between when ams missiles are in range and phalanx kicks in. AMS at 3 ranges.

Edited by Johnny Z, 13 July 2016 - 08:49 AM.

[Lily from animove]

SpiralFace, on 13 July 2016 - 08:41 AM, said:

Even within Battletech, Mechs are typically more frail then tanks.

Tanks can pack a heap of solid armor in single directions while mechs armor by comparison is thinner and has to protect a bunch of vital equipment that is needed just to keep them upright. While at the same time tanks can mount much more armaments then mechs, provided they also carry the needed provisions to shield the weapons from the crew.

There are reasons why mechs are still more common in Battletech:

- Mobility wise, mechs are more versitile and can navigate much more difficult terrain.
- Wars in the innersphere are on an intergalactic level. While tanks can work well on one world, the next system over, they might not be as viable an option. Mechs are more universally viable across the many intergalactic worlds within the innersphere.

There are many more nuanced reasons, but those typically tend to be the major ones.

Tanks are more practical for planetary militia's and more "local" entities where the vehicles are cheaper to produce, and you can customize your force to the type of world you live on, but on the intergalactic level where you are invading multiple systems, Mechs are just more universally reliable to carry out what is needed of them on an intergalactic scale.

more common? weren't they just more preffered due to the things you said, yet more rare than tanks because of costs and availablity?

[Hit the Deck]

SpiralFace, on 13 July 2016 - 08:41 AM, said:

...
There are reasons why mechs are still more common in Battletech:

- Mobility wise, mechs are more versitile and can navigate much more difficult terrain.
- Wars in the innersphere are on an intergalactic level. While tanks can work well on one world, the next system over, they might not be as viable an option. Mechs are more universally viable across the many intergalactic worlds within the innersphere.

There are many more nuanced reasons, but those typically tend to be the major ones.

So it's just like I said earlier:

Hit the Deck, on 13 July 2016 - 08:13 AM, said:

They actually combined the good characteristics of all modern warmachines to create super dangerous weapons of destruction which "incidentally" resemble a human being. They will tell you the reasoning behind the design is for moving over rough terrain

[Johnny Z]

The only way mechs would work is the myomer muscles in the fiction and stasis fields on the feet, which I'm not sure is in the fiction.

If they could have machines like Battletech in real life, they most likely would build them. Just like the Star Ship Enterprise or Millenium Falcon.

A Raven going 140 clicks over any terrain, with elevated view, that much armor, packing that much sci-fi firepower would be really mean, and hard to take down considering its profile.

Edited by Johnny Z, 13 July 2016 - 09:10 AM.

[Littlerift]

No, not remotely. The defining feature of an aircraft is the fact it can move in any axis; mechs are confined to the ground (JJs don't really count).

And as for how realistic mechs are: they aren't, not at all. There's almost no situation where a vehicle with legs is superior to one with another, much simpler method of propulsion. Legs are complicated and easy to break/destroyer, and the same goes for any balancing systems.

Edited by Littlerift, 13 July 2016 - 09:15 AM.

[Koniving]

Nightshade24, on 13 July 2016 - 08:12 AM, said:

8) I remember reading up on battletech cannons and how they perform nearly identical to quite a lot of naval guns.

It's a bit of both.
Depends on the manufacturer, the caliber, the category, and some other things.

Lighter calibers with low categories tend to be akin to the Gau-38 on an A-10, which is 30mm. (Machine guns get that big and the Gain is several tons when encompassing the entire mechanism.)

High caliber, low category such as an AC/2 are horrifically slow firing cannons. 90mm is about as front loaded as you get and it's still not really one shot for 2 damage.

Low caliber, high category like a Pontiac (any as they all seem to be ammo eating Gatling guns but in this case an AC/20) will chew through a 100 cassette (magazine) in incredibly short order and at the risk of high risk of jamming can cram a second cassette out. That's the limit in Battletech tabletop but lore-wise you could jam a third through before 8 seconds but the barrels themselves would melt if they haven't already.

High caliber, high category weapons like the Chemist Gun and Tomodzuru cram everything into 4-5 heavy shells to net their 20.

Meanwhile the typical, near universal caliber is 120mm, which (with few exceptions in some authors) is usually described akin to an A1 Abrams with varying degrees of rapid fire.. thus, pretty much a naval gun.

Side note:
AMS is a Gatling gun on a turret. Laser AMS is a small laser on a turret.

And the only sample of a Heavy Rifle so far (which is said to be based on tanks from the 20th century) is sporting a 190mm round, which by itself does 9 damage to structure or anything with a Barrier Armor Rating of 7 or less. Against mech armor, tank armor, or anything with a B.A.R. of 10, it does 6 damage to.

That's the power of a single shell at 190mm, 6 damage. So a Chemjet Gun AC/20 dealing 5 damage per shell with 4 shells with 185mm ammo? Seems to fit quite well. Range, as Battletech points out time and time again is accurate range of expectancy, "we expect a gunner of even green quality to nail this shot with no undue difficulty. Then each bit of skill allows you to extend that range as your skill counter acts the penalty of "difficulty", your potential is practically amazing since all ACs have a real range of 1 to 2 kilometers. Difficulty keeps it in check.

Side note:. Long Tom has a shell of somewhat under 200 lbs. It does 30 damage in 6 lots of 5 in 30 meters of impact. At 60 meters from impact it does 20 in split lots. At 90 meters it does 10 damage.

PGI has Gauss Slugs at about the same weight (10 per ton), it only does 15. BT only gives 8 per ton, making them over 200 lbs.
PGI has IS AC/20 at 7 per ton. Only does 20 damage. Battletech has the same weapon system with 5 rounds, noting that in multiple sources that "rounds" is the ammo storage monitor display for Cassettes or Reloads, which can have lots of in the case of autocannons caps off at "up to 100 shots per ton".

Pretty much, MWO's given us a Long Tom to dual wield on our Jagermech with the damage just short of an Arrow IV. Pretty disappointing for a dakka lover like me.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

in the begin of the board Game , it gave the (transform fightermode from the Macross fighters) Mechs to transform in Flying units (Wasp,Phoenixhawk)

[MeiSooHaityu]

BTW, when it comes to big guns, tanks and ships aren't the only war machines that can participate. Aircraft can join in the fun too ...

[Snowbluff]

MeiSooHaityu, on 13 July 2016 - 09:43 AM, said:

BTW, when it comes to big guns, tanks and ships aren't the only war machines that can participate. Aircraft can join in the fun too ...

Man that's so... spooky.


I'm going to assume it's a spooky becuase I can't see the third gun placement.

Edited by Snowbluff, 13 July 2016 - 09:50 AM.

[SpiralFace]

Lily from animove, on 13 July 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

more common? weren't they just more preffered due to the things you said, yet more rare than tanks because of costs and availablity?

Even during the succession wars, they where more common as far as the house's standing armies that wage intergalactic war.

Conventional vehicles universe wide are still more common then mechs, (even after the succession wars.) But the House armies, the ones that will go out to wage intergalactic war, have always been mostly centered around Battlemechs because of their ability to adapt to the diverse environments of the innersphere. VERY few house units are conventional or infantry focused. (At least compared to the mech battalions.) Although nearly all planetary militia's are more conventional vehicle / infantry focused (as its cheaper, and they can build their vehicle forces to fit their world's environmental conditions.

[Moldur]

I've always thought of mechs more like aircraft. Whenever my brother or I would go "Man, why can't we have giant mechs already. That's all I want to do." My dad would tell us that being a fighter pilot is about as close as you can get to being a mech pilot right now. Himself being a scifi nerd and fighter pilot.

I don't know guys, that's about as close from the horse's mouth as we can get. It's the internet though, so hey maybe I'm full of b.s.