144 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

There's no logical reason a mech would be safer for its pilot than a tank

there is a logical reason

robots are awesomer than tanks.

[Anjian]

Mechs can be safer than tanks, if your mech allows you to deploy less people in the battlefield, e.g. one person per mech, versus five in a tank.

In one anime, the pilot mech is also the command vehicle for surrounding unmanned mechs, so you have a squad of mechs for only one pilot. In the last Armored Core game, there are remote controlled ACs that are part of the narrative lore for your missions, and you can use for your coop or even PvP games.

The experience would not be unlike in the campaigns of older Mechswarrior games where wingmen are not really live players but NPC bots. You can have like one command mech, and three unmanned mechs, and you pass basic commands to each of their AIs, like stick and protect the commander at all cost or engage the enemy at all cost.

There also needs to be more depth in the variety of mechs, more akin to Chromehounds, where you have mechs that are dedicated for command, electronic warfare, and artillery. There are going to be mechs optimized for AA, looking like Riflemen or Jager types, or like an Urbie type, call it a Phalanx CIWS with legs.

Edited by Anjian, 19 December 2017 - 11:05 PM.

[FalconerGray]

Anjian, on 19 December 2017 - 11:04 PM, said:

There also needs to be more depth in the variety of mechs, more akin to Chromehounds, where you have mechs that are dedicated for command, electronic warfare, and artillery. There are going to be mechs optimized for AA, looking like Riflemen or Jager types, or like an Urbie type, call it a Phalanx CIWS with legs.

We could have had that and so much more already within MWO and the BT universe....but MWO is not a sim.

[Karl Streiger]

In the end it boils down to different philosophies - "mechs are stupid" faction will always underline how cumbersome and big a Mech will be. and they are correct slow huge walking machines like the ATATs of Star Wars or the mountain sized Titans of W40k have issues.

But 3-4 story height mechs are big but they are not huge. in every terrain you will find spots or routes to conceal them.
i think the real power of a Mech would be speed and mobility above everything else. Everything on a Mech is moving...try to hit the legs of a moving mech - at several kilometers.

You should not forget that BT-TT is designed for a "bear and pretzel" game - in a time when there were no detailed computer simulation were available for civilians. So the game needed to be limited in scale and complexity.

Moving Points is classic turn based style - and the issue was only by converting the moving points somehow in a scale of 100 feet in 10 seconds. Could have been 10 feet in 1 second either or 50 feet in 2 seconds or - anyother scale because scale did not matter in TT.
The mistake was made to use that scale and derivative "speed" from those values, and you should not need a degree in science to see the error.
A Atlas standing in front of a 12m height and 30m long slope (40% rise) - from the cold he is able to climb that slope. only committing 3 of its 5 BPs - after wards he travels for additionals 2 BP.
Another Atlas comes charging from behind....with its full speed of 5 BP in the last round... and he climbs the same slope with 3 BPs..... wait he was already moving with topspeed why does he need as much BP as the other? What about momentum?

Tracking those stats would have increased the complexity of the game without real gain. Also the need to spend 1 BP per turn with 6 BPs per 360° turn.

So TLDR - the big mistake of BT and the TROs and in the long run PGI was to stick to the scale of the board game.
The board game should have never dictated the lore - even when it was there first.

[Khobai]

Quote

There also needs to be more depth in the variety of mechs, more akin to Chromehounds, where you have mechs that are dedicated for command, electronic warfare, and artillery. There are going to be mechs optimized for AA, looking like Riflemen or Jager types, or like an Urbie type, call it a Phalanx CIWS with legs.

yeah MWO still needs role warfare. PGI said role warfare was one of the four pillars the game was built on, but they never elivered on it.

the skill tree was a cop out for role warfare. if everyone always takes the same skills its not creating different roles...

they need to have unique skill trees for 6-7 different roles. then divide the mechs up into those roles.

Quote

In the end it boils down to different philosophies - "mechs are stupid" faction will always underline how cumbersome and big a Mech will be. and they are correct slow huge walking machines like the ATATs of Star Wars or the mountain sized Titans of W40k have issues.

yeah but battletech is very much a combined arms universe.

Mechs and tanks both have their purposes.

MWLL got it right by not just having mechs.

MWO should add vehicles... at least npc vehicles. but player controlled vehicles would be preferable.

Then the mech haters could drive around in their savannah masters or whatever

Edited by Khobai, 20 December 2017 - 03:32 AM.

[Jetset Quasar]

razenWing, on 15 December 2017 - 12:17 AM, said:

even if you have a planet of 5 cities, how do you plan on overtaking them with 100 men? Do they need bathroom breaks? Do they need to administrate? Do they need to step into their new office?

So unless your plan is to annihilate all 5 cities with dropships ferrying you (which, as mech games so far have suggested, you will need about 5 dropships of supplies in addition), you are not "conquering" anything.

That's why my earth idea is much more... realistic. If your robots can't do ninja moves at Mach 5, then it's probably more like modern combat where a MBT (your mech) is supported by squads of infantry with logistic support from CAS and other units. (which means, you will need thousands upon thousands of men for even 1 city siege)

Earth will be able to provide on an immediate basis a background with the human resource and a confined enough battle space where a Toyota Yaris speed war machine (and keep in mind, that's only the light mechs, you can reverse faster than pretty much all the assault mechs in game) is not overburdened by logistics.

If anything, I think the new setting adds more grit by painting the focus closer to the battle itself than the jumpship interstellar technobabble.

But again, that's just me.

XD you act like infantry and tanks AND aerospace AND HELAMACHOPTERS AAAAND ELEMENTAL SQUAAAAADS....arnt accompanying those 100 battlemechs to go take a few cities. To adress the OP, freindly advice, don't try to change another persons universe, make your own.

Edited by Dawn Treader, 20 December 2017 - 03:40 AM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Anjian, on 19 December 2017 - 11:04 PM, said:

Mechs can be safer than tanks, if your mech allows you to deploy less people in the battlefield, e.g. one person per mech, versus five in a tank.

But why would a tank need more crew to operate than a mech? A tank is much simpler, after all.

I know the BattleTech answer is neurohelmet, but there's no reason that couldn't work on a tank either.

Karl Streiger, on 20 December 2017 - 03:14 AM, said:

In the end it boils down to different philosophies - "mechs are stupid" faction will always underline how cumbersome and big a Mech will be. and they are correct slow huge walking machines like the ATATs of Star Wars or the mountain sized Titans of W40k have issues.

But 3-4 story height mechs are big but they are not huge. in every terrain you will find spots or routes to conceal them.
i think the real power of a Mech would be speed and mobility above everything else. Everything on a Mech is moving...try to hit the legs of a moving mech - at several kilometers.

Why would a 4 story mech be faster, more mobile, and harder to hit than an equivalent-sized tank? It's not like legs are more efficient than wheels or treads for locomotion. Sure, tanks are hindered by rough terrain, but so are mechs, if we're being honest. A mech having to slow down to negotiate terrain is an easy target.

Tanks are low-profile targets. Mechs are not. A tank can benefit from the same kind of engine that a mech can. Tanks have a smaller surface area to volume ratio, so they use armor more efficiently.

And the fact that mechs' legs move isn't a straight advantage. It adds more potential points of failure. It adds joints that immobilize a mech if they fail. And again, their large surface area means they need more armor for the same level protection than simple treads or wheels.

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 20 December 2017 - 04:37 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Kaeb Odellas, on 20 December 2017 - 04:21 AM, said:

Tanks are low-profile targets. Mechs are not. A tank can benefit from the same kind of engine that a mech can. Tanks have a smaller surface area to volume ratio, so they use armor more efficiently.

only in the BT construction lore system - a fusion plant would hardly be interchangeable from tank to mech - speaking of fuison... waste heat... the bigger surface area of a mech = better heat dissipation.

you still think of Mechs as tanks on legs.... consider them as 3-5story height humans or animals. What can you do what you car can't? You can climb over a wall, can wade through a river use the maximum cover available by the terrain, by going prone, pressing its back against the wall... popping out fire and back.

Virtually you don't need to stop when running through a parcours - heck your drill instructer will abuse you when you do. Why should a mech slow down?

[ROSS-128]

I'm pretty sure the main reason I can do most of those things is that I weigh a lot less than 20 tons. Other than wading through a river, though you don't need legs to do that either, just a reasonably waterproof hull and some way to make sure air is getting to the engines.

An 80 ton humanoid is not necessarily going to be able to move with the same agility as an 80kg humanoid. In fact it's pretty much certain that it'll resemble a piece of construction equipment more than a ninja.

You're definitely not going to be doing parkour in a 20 ton mech, much less an 80 or 100 tonner. You just won't be able to find enough surfaces that can support your weight.

Edited by ROSS-128, 20 December 2017 - 10:23 AM.

[Anjian]

Kaeb Odellas, on 20 December 2017 - 04:21 AM, said:

But why would a tank need more crew to operate than a mech? A tank is much simpler, after all.

Do you really want to debate that? Tanks require more people because they are simple. This is not a why, this is what it is.

The simplicity of the tank means that more crew needs to be added for functionality. For example:

Typically a tank has

Commander
Gunner
Loader
Driver
Machinegunner

You actually trade complexity to decrease crew.

Three crew tank
Commander/Communications/Machinegunner
Gunner
Driver

What replaced the Loader is the Autoloading mechanism that also makes the tank more complex. But many modern tanks still don't have autoloaders, particularly those in the West like the US Army. It was the Russians that preferred autoloading due to the constraints of their population.

The tank you see, cannot have someone do all three things at once. Increasing workload, for example, back in the thirties, there were tanks that had commanders that double as gunners, like the early T-34 tank. It did not prove to be more combat effective versus a tank with more crew and better distributed workload.

On the other hand, a mech is basically a robot, a manned robot. The very concept of a robot implies a high degree of automation, right to the point the mech is autonomous and could operate without a crew. The pilot only acts as its commander.

[ROSS-128]

That doesn't really change the fact that all the systems used to automate a mech can be used to automate a tank to the same degree.

If we had the technology to make a mech, then if we wanted to we could also make a tank that has all of its guns linked to a single fire-control system, give them all autoloaders, and integrate all of the tanks' controls into a single electronic control system that can resemble your choice of a controller, HOTAS, or mouse and keyboard.

We just choose not to because right now we consider having a crew to be preferable. If we wanted to design a one-man tank we could, and it would probably be easier to design than a mech. It wouldn't even require a neural interface.

[visionGT4]

If we just magic away the crippling operational limitation of ground pressure away... mechs would provide the ground commander the capability to traverse terrain that conventional forces cannot <-- that is the ONLY advantage mechs offer.

If I was in charge of procurement tanks would consume 99.99% of land force production capacity. Mech's would be non serially produced for the parade ground and occasional specialist application.

[Mole]

I don't understand what you're getting at, OP. 'Mechs have and always will be ground units, like a tank or an armor car. I don't really feel like the universe is too big at all. The problem of travel is solved in its entirety by jumpships. Each planet is going to have its own industry and population, thus production on an intergalactic scale would be far greater than anything we could muster on earth and we can do some pretty impressive stuff with just this one planet. The fact of the matter is, in intergalactic warfare where FTL travel exists, if you wish to take control of a planet by force, there will need to be a ground invasion of some sort. The only kind of hostile action you could really take from orbit would be to orbitally bombard a planet. This is great if all you want to do is exterminate a population. But it's not so great if the reason for you moving on that planet in the first place is because you want to seize control of one or more of its resources. The fact of the matter is, nobody in the Battletech universe wants a planet that has been bombarded from orbit to the point of being uninhabitable. Just about every conflict in Battletech is the various factions vying for control of various resources. As I said before, this will require a ground invasion. If you have the technology to traverse lightyears in mere seconds, then deploying a ground force on another planet becomes an almost trivial matter. So... what is the problem here...?

[ROSS-128]

You don't have to believe mechs are practical to enjoy them of course. Mechs are cool, especially if we give them a pass on a few laws of physics. It's just that being cool doesn't always necessarily translate to battlefield performance. Though ignoring laws of physics can, sometimes.

Tanks probably actually would be hilarious in MWO, especially with how out of whack its scale is. Get close enough and a lot of mechs would not be able to pitch their weapons down far enough to hit you because they're so oversized.

Tanks wouldn't be able to spread damage very well because an entire facing is a single hitbox, as is the entire turret for some reason (not sure why there's not at least a front/back split on the turret). However, only having 5 hit locations means they wouldn't really need to spread armor very much. A 50 ton tank with MWO's armor scale could easily get something like 90 front armor, 90 turret armor, 74 on each side and 30 in the rear (338 total armor that MWO allows a 50-tonnner to take). An assault-weight tank would just have loadsa armor, armor for days. Nearly 600 armor and only 5 locations to spend it on.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Anjian, on 20 December 2017 - 11:08 AM, said:

Do you really want to debate that? Tanks require more people because they are simple. This is not a why, this is what it is.

The simplicity of the tank means that more crew needs to be added for functionality. For example:

Typically a tank has

Commander
Gunner
Loader
Driver
Machinegunner

You actually trade complexity to decrease crew.

Three crew tank
Commander/Communications/Machinegunner
Gunner
Driver

What replaced the Loader is the Autoloading mechanism that also makes the tank more complex. But many modern tanks still don't have autoloaders, particularly those in the West like the US Army. It was the Russians that preferred autoloading due to the constraints of their population.

The tank you see, cannot have someone do all three things at once. Increasing workload, for example, back in the thirties, there were tanks that had commanders that double as gunners, like the early T-34 tank. It did not prove to be more combat effective versus a tank with more crew and better distributed workload.

On the other hand, a mech is basically a robot, a manned robot. The very concept of a robot implies a high degree of automation, right to the point the mech is autonomous and could operate without a crew. The pilot only acts as its commander.

You've got it all wrong. Tanks aren't simple because they lack automation. Tanks are simple because they don't need it. We've had tanks for the past century now, all manned by a small crew, with no need for automation. A mech, on the other hand, is impossible without a large degree of automation, even with a 5 man crew. When (if?) we reach the point where the sophistication and ruggedness of our automation systems makes mechs viable in combat, such advances could be just as easily applied to the far simpler tank.

Karl Streiger, on 20 December 2017 - 04:58 AM, said:

only in the BT construction lore system - a fusion plant would hardly be interchangeable from tank to mech - speaking of fuison... waste heat... the bigger surface area of a mech = better heat dissipation.

you still think of Mechs as tanks on legs.... consider them as 3-5story height humans or animals. What can you do what you car can't? You can climb over a wall, can wade through a river use the maximum cover available by the terrain, by going prone, pressing its back against the wall... popping out fire and back.

Virtually you don't need to stop when running through a parcours - heck your drill instructer will abuse you when you do. Why should a mech slow down?

BT construction rules are irrelevant to our discussion. If a giant robot can carry a fusion plant, then a tank can. Body surface area isn't a factor for heat dissipation because you're pumping the heat out through heat sinks, which are designed to have very high surface areas for heat exchange.

A mech's humanoid form comes with a litany of downsides that you're not considering. A mech has to actively maintain balance in motion and while standing, whereas a tank doesn't. A bipedal walker has a narrow base and high center of gravity, meaning it can be easily knocked over and sustain heavy damage from its own weight. While a human runner could trip and fall without being seriously injured, get up immediately, and start running again, a mech doesn't necessarily have that capability given the forces involved. A fall at high speeds would be like driving a car off the 4th story of a parking garage at full speed for the pilot.

Human parkour runners generally don't play around with surfaces that are incapable of holding their weight. That's not going to be the case with mechs. A mech would absolutely have to slow down to run through difficult terrain because it has to be sure that the terrain can support it. It has to make sure that the next step isn't going to make it fall on its face and damage itself or injure the pilot.

[Trystan Thorne]

Sure, there are quite a few illogical things in BT. Most made up SciFi worlds/universes have that really.
I wouldn't try to have everything be super realistic all the time.
The whole idea about BT is to show that humankind is always good at messing things up (and it's happening right now again with all the wrong people at power) and at the same time be cool and have giant Mechs fighting each other.
BT really is a mixture of Fall of the Roman Empire (which threw back mankind almost 1000 years) and WW2 (where people gave names to their tanks and planes).
It's quite unique therefore with a small (especially compared with some other big SciFi franchises out there) loyal fanbase.
Don't see why a reboot would be needed as I doubt it would revitalise the franchise.
Mechs just aren't that popular these days.

[Khobai]

Quote

Tanks wouldn't be able to spread damage very well because an entire facing is a single hitbox

they dont need to spread damage. they just need to die.

the whole point of adding tanks to the game is show how awesome mechs are compared to tanks

Quote

On the other hand, a mech is basically a robot, a manned robot. The very concept of a robot implies a high degree of automation, right to the point the mech is autonomous and could operate without a crew. The pilot only acts as its commander.

actually theres magic space gnomes that live in the hollow spaces of mechs and they make the arms and legs move and reload all the guns. thats how the ammo gets moved around the mech from one location to another.

miniaturization is the future. and gnomes are a miniaturized crew.

and when the mech isnt involved in combat they steal underpants and bake cookies.

its true i read it in a sourcebook. i forget which one though.

Edited by Khobai, 20 December 2017 - 10:49 PM.

[Madw0lf]

SargeantShepard, on 15 December 2017 - 09:52 AM, said:

...
If you feel this strongly about it, write a "what if?" Fanfic about this setting, or, enen better, write your own setting. But Battletech is NOT going to change just because you want it to.

I got thinking about this, and as its own universe, it sounds like it could be really cool. Different factions are on different planets/moons. The whole Kerensky Exodus/Clans type thing could be they went the the Oort Cloud, or even Alpha Centauri. Not BT, not a reboot, but its own thing with some of the similar ideas.

[kesmai]

Great!
Another razenwing brainfart.
Or is it called idearrhea?

[kesmai]

On the tech:
Lol on that cruise missile and range talk:

We saw in syria, irak and afghanistan how "precise" today's weaponry really is.
It's called collateral damage. A phrase for civilian casualties in an undeclared war. (take a look into the geneva convention treaties what it is called there).

Way too close to battletech if you ask me...