404 replies to this topic

[dervishx5]

Or could it be because you guys are reading too much into a product that obviously doesn't have artistic consensus?

[Koniving]

Solis Obscuri, on 09 September 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

Do we have any 60-ton tanks in MWO to scale off of? I've been assuming everyone in River City drives a go-cart...

In any game where RNG dice determine hits, the visual size doesn't matter much.

And in the context of MWO, what really matters is the internal consistency, the relationship between the sizes of 'mechs in teh game.

Trying to tie back to FASA fluff is dicey at best - a lot of the fluff doesn't match the mechanics, and even their art isn't consistent. You can find one line drawing that talks about how the biggest 'mechs are only as tall as a 4-story building, and the cover of the same book will show a heavy 'mech the size of the statue of liberty.

This Bushwacker isn't shorter than 24m, unless it's invading Lilliputia.



Which makes it even taller than this Mad Cat, which appears to be around 20m...



Making it a lot larger that this Locust, scaled at around 8.5m in height...



Or maybe not...



Wait, Locust, stop changing sizes!



Well, let's try scaling against tanks again...


Did the Wolverine become a light 'mech? It sure seems smaller than that Enforcer did...



Well, maybe even if the 'mechs look big, they at least scale against each other...



Geez, the Firestarter looks pretty small, it could almost pilot that huge Charger...



And this 8.7m tall 25-ton Commando sure is a lot smaller...



than 11.4m tall 20 ton Fire Moth...



...which is somehow bigger than a Nova or Storm Crow, and about the same size as an 85 ton Warhawk...

And if this Centurion's head is only about a meter in height, and it can pivot, how is there room for a pilot inside?



If the head on a Stinger is even smaller, could even a child fit in there?



But I think you could fit a whole house in the cockpit of this Battlemaster!



Seems almost like any size you picked, you could find something in a rulebook that would match up with it!

You seem to be making some pretty big jumps there on very similar sizes.

For example the timber wolf is in some distance, yet you say the Bushwhacker must be taller because the humans in the foreground are larger.

There's also issues of art done for invigoration versus art done for scale. Then differing beliefs between artists, changes in times, etc. This is why I pick the good artists from as early as possible because that gives the original vision before things changed with new blood and time.

For example visions of the future in the 70s (Alien), 80s (so many examples) 90s, 2000s and 2010+ keep changing. Thus thr need to stick to one vision if considering and debating scale. I choose the early stuff because that is when it was most inspired by realism with the rule makers basing the entire tabletop game around existing military hardware.

Example:. 180 min range based on 1980s MLRS. Catapult also based on it as a concept. 30 meter increments, pulled as the blast area for said MLRS bombardment accuracy. The list can go on and on, many initial autocannons sizes are based on that era's existing tech.

It has the most consistent scales especially with the pre-harmony gold artists and Cataclysm or catalyst or whatever is actually returning to the original pre-90s scale for Classic Battletech, so that's the scale i go to.

In that scale, things like ferro armor and endo steel enlargens the Mech's actual size.

Also the tiny mech in the last pic is a large battle armor.

Edited by Koniving, 10 September 2016 - 02:53 AM.

[DrxAbstract]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 September 2016 - 04:25 PM, said:

It's kinda funny that them Mlasers are bigger than the AC20....

Also kinda funny where they are mounted on the arms... /hint /hint PGI.

Solis Obscuri, on 09 September 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

Mmmmf. Not sure I'd be willing to declare any medium a "tank".

I do think the torso design will let this run an XL a bit more safely than most of the 55-tonners we already have, which is a plus. Has room for ballistics (not all the hardpoints in one arm), too, which is nice.

It's a statement of relative capability; It's going to be tanky compared to other IS mediums. Which is saying something, given it has to compete with the Cent in this regard.

[Koniving]

DrxAbstract, on 10 September 2016 - 05:04 AM, said:

Also kinda funny where they are mounted on the arms... /hint /hint PGI.

Looking at it... PGI got half of it.

For left arm the laser is above the first as if it were a gun held correctly.
For its right arm, it is mounted where PGI put the arm's first energy Hardpoint, on the outside of the forearm.

Side fun...
Notice where the SRM rack is? Upper shoulder.
The LRM-20 is the five tube rack down on the hip. As of 3055 there are 3 Atlases with proper 20 tubes for their lrm-20. K, C and it was either the S or S-2. Thinking S-2. The Atlas despite its size barely has room to fit anything more, it is expressly written in the TRO fluff. Not even enough room for a proper lrm-20 rack.

That second gun on the left side is actually listed on the fluff as a coolant port, which hooks to the back of a coolant truck for rapid refill of coolant, meaning whatever tube hooks to that has to fit on a Semi truck and still have a coolant tank large enough to supply a few mechs who have burnt through their heatsinks coolant or exploited the coolant flush feature a bit much.

[Koniving]

Solis Obscuri, on 09 September 2016 - 11:37 PM, said:

And this 8.7m tall 25-ton Commando sure is a lot smaller...



than 11.4m tall 20 ton Fire Moth...



...which is somehow bigger than a Nova or Storm Crow, and about the same size as an 85 ton Warhawk...

And if this Centurion's head is only about a meter in height, and it can pivot, how is there room for a pilot inside?

Wanted to touch on these specifically.

First before I begin, thank you for doing the meter chart on the size comparison, as it is part of the original scale illustrations it follows the scale i go by -- the original 80s scales -- almost perfectly.

Second... compare any two tanks of the same weight class in real life from two different countries. Are they scaled exactly the same? Pick one country and two tanks weighing approximately the same, made by two different countries. Same size? Now especially compare two vehicles of similar weight built for different purposes.

Some mechs are pretty compact and some are not. There is a perfect example in Catapults.

At some point the super short Catapult got a design. I'm calling the original the Stub-legged and the redesign the stilted leg... and both are still sold today. Something gave an explanation for it that I rather enjoyed. The stub leg is built for Highlands, plains and other areas with open terrain. It is short and squat making it difficult to hit at range. This stubby legs can move quickly allowing it to make its 64.8 kph even if you do see them running to do so. Their legs are quite thick, and the knees are especially bulky as the Catapult "sits" on them when prepping to fire indirectly as fire support and artillery. This also reduces their profile even more so that they have a better chance of being missed by would-be return fire.

In comparison... the stilted versions of otherwise identical Catapult variants have longer legs and interestingly a longer, skinnier body. The launchers also appear smaller but are not, the mech is just that much taller. The weight is the same and short of the knees the legs are stated as thinner as "the armor had to be spread thinly to cover the longer legs without adding weight". The knees are thick again, used to "sit" and to help it stand again if it falls on its back. The real reason for this change... it was required for canyon warfare. It needed to be tall to see over crests and ridges as well as to have an easier time launching missiles over these obstacles. It also has better reach for climbing over landslides and small cliffsides, as well as better melee reach. The toes were made longer to accommodate the tower of weight, yet thinner as the weight is better spread through the longer body. Though it can move its limbs as quickly as the squatter model the longer reach more than accommodated all expected speeds.

That is the kind of detail and attention I follow, and it is that sort of attention which FASA co-founder Jordan Weisman puts into his products. There have been over a hundred artists that have worked it and nearly a dozen authors across three to five companies that have owned battletech. One novel put the Locust at 11 meters tall, another that put the Atlas as not only carrying a Gatling gun shaped rotary cannon in its hands with huge modular armor knee guards... but a brand name mattress, a bedroom and a goddamn 3 ton kitchen inside the goddamn Atlas, **** you Wizkidz! So I do expect some obscenely disgusting exagerations.

...Seriously who the **** puts a fully stocked kitchen with a chef and two helpers inside a damn Atlas? I was just working in a retail store when a woman managed to make a soda bottle explode by touching it. What is that kitchen gonna look like after a 2 minute skirmish?

.....

Anyway...

I hope you see my point there.

Moving on.

The Nova has standard armor and structure and is small. It also lacks torso twist or even a pelvis.

Now that fire moth is tall. But 1) those arms are adding height. 2). It has endo steel structure, ferro armor, quite a bit of armor too, is still the skrawniest thing you ever saw... 3) needs long legs to make that 200+ kph speed it can make with the MASC, btw that adds size too.

The whole thing ties together. Drawbacks never introduced into games to date for those things that we exploit and take for granted..? Are punished with girth, height or width.

Now that Centurion. As I recall opposite of MWO they are tall and skinny.
This is where I like PGI's design better.

Edited by Koniving, 10 September 2016 - 09:16 AM.