Ok.. ready? Zombie Apocalypse: Which Mech or Battle Armor do you take?
#181
Posted 04 May 2012 - 06:20 PM
#182
Posted 04 May 2012 - 07:05 PM
madcatfan, on 04 May 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:
Do you seriously think zombies could chew through armor that can soak a direct hit from a medium laser? That's like having zombies chew through a tank. Any decently designed power armor has no real exposed joints or anything.
Honestly I'd rather have a CBT tank than a 'mech if power armor is off the table, because at least they have room for supplies and another person or two, while still having features like unlimited ammo and fusion reactors. You just can't spend your entire life in a 'mech cockpit and almost anything you'd need to do would require you to leave your 'mech. A Pegasus Hovertank would be an interesting option - just hang out on the water most of the time and raid coastal towns with your medium pulse laser from time to time.
Still, power armor = you only need to leave it when you are entirely safe and literally need to never take it off when there's even a remote chance of a problem. Again unless we upgrade this to Resident Evil styled zombies that sport rocket launchers and can capsize freighters, power armor is pretty much zombie apocalypse God mode.
Darconis, on 04 May 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:
That's really a pretty hilarious thought. Your standard zombie wouldn't be smart enough to operate the guns in any manner except accidentally I wouldn't think (and definitely not good with aim even if it was intuitive enough for them to figure out), but the biggest problem is they can't bite targets in the armor.
So if you were killed by a power armored zombie, what would probably happen is you'd literally have the head piece of the armor smashed into you over and over. Ouch. At least you wouldn't turn.
Edited by Victor Morson, 04 May 2012 - 07:16 PM.
#183
Posted 04 May 2012 - 07:59 PM
Snotling, on 04 May 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:
Zombies feel no pain, dont need their skinn.
Now instead of Zombies, you have Burning zombies.
+With the flamers you are guaranteed to destroy everythin worth looting in the area.
You seem to be under the impression that BattleTech Flamers are like modern flamethrowers, but that's not the case. BattleTech Flamethrowers vent plasma from the reactor as their "ammo" so:
A. They have unlimited ammo.
B. They function at temperatures in the thousands of degrees.
If you hit a zombie with a flamer, it wouldn't be a matter of it "not having skin." Your flamer would literally reduce it to ash in a matter of seconds. Less like "lighting them on fire and watching them burn" more like "exposing them to the same sort of temperatures that are on the surface of the sun." Secondary fires would still be a concern, but a mech with 1-2 flamers could literally burn a near-infinite amount of zombies, and would put them down far faster than any other comparable weapon.
The one legitimate concern you bring up is the matter of looting. Flamers do cause a lot of collateral damage, but (nifty thing) zombies are dumb. All you'd need to do in your firestarter is meander back and forth outside a town, making noise till most of the horde came out to greet you. Then just lay on the triggers for a while til you've reduced them all to ash.
Elementals give you perfect protection, and would probably be the safest option for one person by themselves. Funny thing though, although you're perfectly safe in your elemental, your family, friends etc. are getting torn to pieces by the horde as you kill a couple handful of zombies a minute. In the meantime, the person in the firestarter has eradicated an entire zombie horde, and can now worry about putting out any secondary fires that might have been caused. (although by choosing the right location/building for your settlement, you could mitigate that problem completely)
As far as defending a fortified location from a horde, you'd be hard pressed to find a better choice than a firestarter.
#184
Posted 04 May 2012 - 08:05 PM
#185
Posted 04 May 2012 - 08:49 PM
LackofCertainty, on 04 May 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:
You seem to be under the impression that BattleTech Flamers are like modern flamethrowers, but that's not the case. BattleTech Flamethrowers vent plasma from the reactor as their "ammo" so:
A. They have unlimited ammo.
B. They function at temperatures in the
Millions. Tens of millions.
It doesn't matter if it is flesh, or rock, or steel, or a solid mass of tungsten and iridium. Technically, whatever is in front of a flamer should melt like wax in a blowtorch. Which is why the description of the flamer seems so wrong to me. It should be one of the best weapons of Battletech, but it isn't. Not to mention the difficulty of bringing the plasma from the reactor to the gun without having it touch any walls.
#186
Posted 05 May 2012 - 12:10 AM
#188
Posted 05 May 2012 - 12:36 AM
Edited by Serevn, 05 May 2012 - 01:29 AM.
#189
Posted 05 May 2012 - 01:08 AM
#190
Posted 09 May 2012 - 06:59 PM
#191
Posted 17 May 2012 - 12:57 PM
#192
Posted 17 May 2012 - 01:36 PM
Serevn, on 05 May 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:
... you're forgetting how useful a light mech with hand actuators can be in the event of societal collapse...
#193
Posted 17 May 2012 - 01:43 PM
#194
Posted 17 May 2012 - 01:51 PM
#195
Posted 17 May 2012 - 01:51 PM
#196
Posted 17 May 2012 - 02:01 PM
#197
Posted 17 May 2012 - 02:15 PM
#198
Posted 17 May 2012 - 02:20 PM
Edited by Vectoron, 17 May 2012 - 02:22 PM.
#199
Posted 17 May 2012 - 04:34 PM
24 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 24 guests, 0 anonymous users