8 replies to this topic

[Koniving]

Why are there all these tanks with no turrets?

Some ridiculously effective tanks actually have no functional turret.

Some of these turret-less tanks are smaller than similar turreted tanks. Some carry guns that couldn't be mounted on a turret. The list goes on.

In Battletech, often the shortest mechs are those without torso twist. Cauldron Born aka Ebon Jaguar for instance is a very squat, short 'Mech...because it doesn't have a pelvis.

If you really think about it, removing torso twist abilities also allow for mechs to be easier to maintain balance for as their operation is much less complex.

So these are just some thoughts as to why.

Also many of the mechs that can't torso twist can still flip their arms a full 180 to shoot behind them and UNLIKE MWO, they can still aim left and right with the arms. Who needs torso twist when you can meet almost that whole range of motions with your arms?

Kitfox and Adder, both long range mechs with low profiles, both lack torso twist as well. As does the Urbanmech.

Vindicator, too.

I would also imagine that they would be easier to repair and maintain, too, especially important in battles of attrition. After all most IS mechs are hundreds of years old.

[Karl Streiger]

First of all - the BattleMech is the weapon of the cavalry it's preferred role is to use the range of his engine to break through a point in the enemy defence and rush for the back up area.
For classic line holding you have tanks and infantry

The view is not limited, quite the opposite. The battlemech is full of sensors - while MWO paint the picture that we need eye balls - a 'Mechs sensor not only see you when you are cowering in a bush, they also "hear" when you are puking and the "know" what you did eat ten hours ago. (Ok maybe not that good) So the MWO Sensors are crippled because they are not able to "see" a chunk of moving metal 300m away

The problem is what you "play" in MWO or in your "fathers Mechwarrior" - for example MW3 is not what BT warfare is supposed to be.
But MW3 had Mechs without torso twist and i loved to run them. As Koniving said you were able to shoot into your sides - and you were not able to twist the torso as fast as the arms. So without torso twisting you always had the "fast" target aquirng of the arms without bring the torso around.

Of course you would not play a Mech without torso twist like one with a twistable torso - would be more a kind of a strafing run.
The second thing is - a twist gives a Mech momentum. So or two GaussRifle might be able to reel your torso and interfere with your aim - (wasn't it MW4 were your torso was moving when hit by a big weapon?) - without twist the force is equally spend over the whole Mech - and your aim is true.

[Koniving]

In some games and animations -- and this also stands to reason in real life -- joints are weak spots where the armor is sacrificed for mobility. The more the joint can move, the less armor that can be in the way. This is even the case with knights in medieval ages using platemail. Sacrificing torso twist ensures that this weak point will not exist.

This sort of compares a one man to a multi-person turret. The merits of a one-man turret sound really good though there's a few fatal flaws of the time that wouldn't exist today with things such as auto-loaders, remote targeting, and so on. With Battletech sensor tech, it also would be even less of an issue which is why many BT tanks only require a single gunner.


Now, despite the efficiency advantages of multi-person turrets back then, notice the facts that it required the turret to be larger, to spread the armor thinner or more weight to get the same amount of armor coverage at any point in the mech. The more compact it can be, the tougher it really can be built for a certain weight of armor. And if you don't have to work around intentionally putting in weak points like unnecessary joints not only do you reduce repair difficulty but you also reduce maintenance difficulty, you reduce piloting difficulty.

(Yes, NeuroHelms and Diagonistic Interpretation Computer register whether or not the pilot wants to be off balance and when, but it is the Gyro that handles the balance and when the Gyro itself is also in a moving part that does complicate things. While BT tabletop doesn't really account for it, many references exist where mechs without torso twist generally seem harder to knock over with weapons fire alone.)

Consider this. Mechs typically have a single pilot who also serves as the gunner. How well -- in real life -- can you drive a car while looking off at the scenery to your left or right? I've personally found it kind of difficult as I tend to veer left or right. Granted, the mech tries not to turn unless you press on the foot pedal. But also consider that mechs didn't torso twist by the joystick, there's separate buttons for torso twist typically on the right console, which means you have to let go of your weapons control stick, press the button to twist to the right angle, grab the stick and rock until you need to twist back. So while doing this you need to constantly stop looking at your target and look off to the right or left of your viewport on most 'newer' mechs and make sure you're not about to hit a tree because in Battletech you can damage your mech by collision with trees... and nevermind what happens if you run into a building strong enough to support your weight. And what happens if you slip?

There's a short story of guys talking in a bar about how Locust pilots are nutjobs ("weird"), where one Locust was trying to dodge a group of enemy infantry and took a corner too hard, fell on its rear and skid until its feet slammed into a building breaking the mech's ankle ("foot actuator"). Being swarmed, the pilot slammed on the eject sequence and in the process of ejecting from a prone position his right arm and leg were both torn off. On the way out he said "Whoop whoop whoop!" Imagine how much worse that could be if he's too busy torso twisting instead of using his torso turret?

Virtually all of the fastest mechs have no torso twist functionality in BT and I believe there's a reason for this. In the words of Barret in Team Four Star's FF7 abridged, "It's simple, don't **** up!" This helps you keep your eyes on the road you're traversing by making sure it is always in your field of vision.
And who needs torso twist, when most non-twisting mechs can aim left/right by 45-60 degrees each way with their arms and flip them 180 to get another 45-60 degrees?
That's a minimum of 180 degree firing arc without torso twisting or turning, and a maximum of 240 degrees in a firing arc again without torso twisting or turning.

The typical torso twist-equipped mech? 45 to 60, sure. Often with lower arm actuators. So that's 90 to 120 degree arm-arc + the BT standard of 45 degree twist is an additional 90 (so 90 + 120 OR 90 = 210 or 180) ... or with extended twist which is extremely rare, you get 90 degrees of twist in either direction in which case you might have (180 + 90 OR 120 = 270 or 390) for your firing arc.

Thus... the design of mechs typically lacking torso twist have firing arc superiority over mechs that have it.... but are inferior to mechs with extended torso twist in terms of firing arc.

Now torso twist + lack of lower arm actuators does allow superiority over non-twisting mechs... but this comes with another flaw... You have to pilot a machine whose legs might be one way, your torso might be another way, and finally you might be aiming in yet a third direction. Holy. ****. Is it any wonder mechs are typically slow so you're not prone to crashing into things?

Don't get me wrong, there's great advantages to lower arm actuators (better melee, ability to pick up things, better ability to get back up)... and some mechs that lack torso twist and lower arm actuators have visible things for helping them stand back up. Ever noticed how BT-drawn Catapults have these insanely thick legs with pads just below the knees? This is for both kneeling and if you look at the long-legged versions just right, these appear like they could pivot out to help the mech stand if it fell in an awkward angle.

The Marauder which also lacks torso twist, quite frankly has no need for it. Missiles can be sent around corners. The AC is on a turret. The arms are extremely flexible despite having lower arm actuators. And finally the long legs are supposed to be particularly good at making large rotations per step.

[Karl Streiger]

Well now you are mixing up.

What we are talking about? MWO? CBT? Lore? Reasons?

1) why are there only 1 pilot?
2) again you are mistaken its role of a Mech - a 360° is necessary when you are surrounded - but in this case you are dead no matter if you have 360° 180° or no torso twist at all

I want to mention your statement about turret mounted gun vs non-turret mounted guns. The reason you don't have non-turret mounts today is the battlefield dynamic. A turret allow your tank to move and fire while moving - when you need to stop to turn and fire your gun or to fight from a stationary fortification you are dead. All it needs is a single man with a Laser and some 155mm will do the rest

in CBT you have tanks without turrets - they are a liability while fighting a field battle - maybe Mechs without torso twist would be an equal liability. But with artillery almost useless to dig in might be an option. the Hetzer (not only in WoT a great vehicle ) or the Saladin or SM1 Tankdestroyer) both don't use turrets - and they don't need them because of their combat roll
No turret allows you to use the same armor at fewer locations saving weight.
Its a pity that this is not reflected within CBT 'Mech rules - but there are not Mechs that can't twist their torso in classic cbt rounds. (the design system - 1:1 copyed by MWO - is wanting. - consider a quad leged mech - would be the perfect chassis for a Sniper Artillery Piece - but it doesn't fit. No instead you have the less stable two-legged Helepolis for the Sniper.

Of course you can create your own house rules

[Koniving]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 19 October 2016 - 03:08 PM, said:

The problem is that since their is no torso twist it also makes it easier to know the mech down from the front and back, because it doesn't distribute the weight or force nearly as well. Nova for example does not have ball socket leg joints because it has no pelvis which can move independently. Everything is locked together meaning that you could easily know these mechs to the ground (especially from behind). At least realistically. The only way it has to distribute weight would be in the feet (probably why they are so enormous), but even then it still doesn't help.

Will reply to the rest later, but...
Even torso twisting mechs don't really have an upward/downward pivot, so the balance argument is really difficult to use. They don't have the range of motion that we do. It is literally just rotate left and rotate right,the tilts upward and downward are done the pelvis by way of the leg muscles. As such balancing against frontal and rear-ward collisions rely entirely on the legs and perhaps some arm motions. Ultimately it doesn't really matter if the mech can twist since twisting isn't part of the mech's automatic reactions, just the gyro, arms and legs. And Arms are assumed, as only gyro and legs are actually mentioned.

In general all mechs appear to be easiest to knock over from the side if you go by the art, as many of them can't possibly side-step.
The only one I would imagine that would be the easiest to knock over forwards would be the Jenner, because the 'balance' of the original mech is horrifically conceived. There's no rearward counterbalance.