483 replies to this topic

[Souske Sagara]

flyingdebris, on 31 January 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

hands allow mechs to wash themselves between missions without requiring techs to crawl all over them, thus saving time,

if your mechs has no hands to wash itself, team up with one that does as a wash buddy
this is probably critical to mission success...somehow.

also how do you think many of those decals end up on the mechs? stencils and airbrushes!? ha, not by half.
mechs with hands holding up 5 meter wide mirrors and using mechscale cosmetics

how do you intend to carry home groceries from the supermarket when your mech has no hands? protip, you can't. Have fun being hungry when the atlas hogs all the chips.

also having hands techncially means that you CAN "hug with nuclear arms," (nuclear powered anyway)

/thread
thanks FD

[Joe Davion 86]

CoffiNail, on 27 January 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

Nice one! I was working on one while you did that, Now we have two.

oh yeah def added to my background shuffle on my desktop WIN

Edit: is FD's DeviantArt account name also flying debris?

Edited by Joe Davion 86, 01 February 2012 - 01:20 AM.

[Heronimus Bosch]

Joe Davion 86, on 01 February 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

oh yeah def added to my background shuffle on my desktop WIN

Edit: is FD's DeviantArt account name also flying debris?

Yes here is the link to his gallery http://flyingdebris....t.com/gallery/.

[Paladin1]

I think everyone here is missing the obvious use for `Mechs with hands. Now, just follow the logic here.

`Mechs gain a bit of cover by hiding behind trees. Now, `Mechs can also uproot trees and use them as a weapon. Now here's where it gets fun. Instead of using that tree as a weapon, why not just use it as a form of mobile cover by holding it in front of your `Mech? Just think of it as a `Mech scaled ghillie suit.

The thoughts of an Atlas doing this and sneaking up on some poor Raven just makes me smile, in my own slightly demented kind of way.

Hey, don't look at me like that, you know you'd try this if you could.

[Alex Wolfe]

Paladin1, on 01 February 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

`Mechs gain a bit of cover by hiding behind trees. Now, `Mechs can also uproot trees and use them as a weapon.

Weapon against what, upstart deer?

Attacking a mech with a tree makes about as much sense as clubbing a human with cotton candy. Mechs run through trees without breaking stride, heck, they could feasibly walk through a building.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 01 February 2012 - 07:57 AM.

[Paladin1]

You really don't get the fact that `Mech armor is designed to be ablative against energy weapons and isn't really up to the task of absorbing a physical blow, do you?

It's the reason why otherwise useless ballistic weapons do so well against armor. The armor of the 25th Century, which is when `Mech grade armor was first truly perfected, is designed to defeat high-output energy weapons, not the physical impact from a ballistic weapon. That weakness to ballistics also translates into a weakness to physical attacks, including attacks using uprooted trees.

[Paladin1]

Alex Wolfe, on 01 February 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

Attacking a mech with a tree makes about as much sense as clubbing a human with cotton candy. Mechs run through trees without breaking stride, heck, they could feasibly walk through a building.

One other point I'd like to make, `Mechs can't run through trees without breaking stride (this is the reason why you can't run as fast through a forest as you can on clear terrain), and while they can walk through a building, it's also likely that they're going to take damage while doing it.

Seriously, you've got some incorrect ideas about Battletech that seem to be coloring your ideal of what a `Mech should be.

[Alex Wolfe]

Paladin1, on 01 February 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

You really don't get the fact that `Mech armor is designed to be ablative against energy weapons and isn't really up to the task of absorbing a physical blow, do you?

It's the reason why otherwise useless ballistic weapons do so well against armor. The armor of the 25th Century, which is when `Mech grade armor was first truly perfected, is designed to defeat high-output energy weapons, not the physical impact from a ballistic weapon. That weakness to ballistics also translates into a weakness to physical attacks, including attacks using uprooted trees.

So we're comparing the energy of a 200 mm-bore automatic cannon to an impact from a piece of wood? Seems positively destructive. I'm sure the canon is full of climactic tree-fencing duels for that sole reason. Who needs PPC's, when you can just swing a young pine around?

I really hope the CVM-4N Caveman makes it into the game.

Paladin1, on 01 February 2012 - 08:21 AM, said:

One other point I'd like to make, `Mechs can't run through trees without breaking stride (this is the reason why you can't run as fast through a forest as you can on clear terrain), and while they can walk through a building, it's also likely that they're going to take damage while doing it.

Seriously, you've got some incorrect ideas about Battletech that seem to be coloring your ideal of what a `Mech should be.

A forest is way more than just trees, it limits visibility and the terrain is hard to walk on. If there was a tree of "normal" size (not a baobab or something), a mech will just plunge right through it without trouble. If a tank can do it, a similar weight-or-heavier-with-better-armor mech can.

And I didn't say it won't take damage from plowing through a wall, only that it's possible ?

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 01 February 2012 - 08:31 AM.

[Paladin1]

See, here's the problem though. If rough terrain and a lack of visibility (hello, remember those sensors that `Mechs have? They're not just for shooting.) were all that were slowing you down, then it wouldn't matter how thick the woods were. The problem is it does matter how thick the woods are, because the thicker the woods, the more it slows you down. Try walking through a super heavy woods sometime. You can do it, but it's going to take all day long and it's not got anything to do with how rough the terrain is; it's all about the density of the woods.

As for taking damage from walking through a wall, the reason for pointing that out is that while you can do it, it's going to slow you down and more than likely damage your armor, due to the physical effort of pushing through that wall, which ties back into the whole "ablative armor doesn't like physical damage" point I made earlier.

[Alex Wolfe]

Paladin1, on 01 February 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

See, here's the problem though. If rough terrain and a lack of visibility (hello, remember those sensors that `Mechs have? They're not just for shooting.) were all that were slowing you down, then it wouldn't matter how thick the woods were. The problem is it does matter how thick the woods are, because the thicker the woods, the more it slows you down. Try walking through a super heavy woods sometime. You can do it, but it's going to take all day long and it's not got anything to do with how rough the terrain is; it's all about the density of the woods.

As for taking damage from walking through a wall, the reason for pointing that out is that while you can do it, it's going to slow you down and more than likely damage your armor, due to the physical effort of pushing through that wall, which ties back into the whole "ablative armor doesn't like physical damage" point I made earlier.

Well, now you're sort of straying away from the *root* ( ) of the discussion: the reason I mentioned trees was because - as I doubt an enemy would come at you wielding a forest - is that a singular tree, the size that is swing-able by a mech, as well as run-through-able, would be of little consequence should you be struck by it. If a mech can take a rapid hit of 200 mm cannon rounds with just some armor damage, or a gauss round to the chest and remain standing, a medium-sized tree would just shatter harmlessly on the armor with gyro compensating for whatever impact force wouldn't immediately be dissipated as the tree disintegrates.

Debating in-depth about how hard is it to traverse a certain type of terrain adds very little argument here, since I doubt you would be attacked with a portable forest, tar pit, bog or a chasm.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 01 February 2012 - 08:55 AM.

[Paladin1]

Just how large of a tree do you think a `Mech can uproot? We're not talking about trees the size of a telephone pole here, although they would leave a hell of a dent. We're talking trees that weigh multiple tons, as even the lightest of `Mechs (20 tons) can uproot a 2 ton tree and swing it like a baseball bat. An Atlas? We're talking a 10 ton tree and that's only if he's not got TSM active, which then doubles that to a 20 ton tree.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Anyone remember what the original topic was?

[Alex Wolfe]

Paladin1, on 01 February 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

Just how large of a tree do you think a `Mech can uproot? We're not talking about trees the size of a telephone pole here, although they would leave a hell of a dent. We're talking trees that weigh multiple tons, as even the lightest of `Mechs (20 tons) can uproot a 2 ton tree and swing it like a baseball bat. An Atlas? We're talking a 10 ton tree and that's only if he's not got TSM active, which then doubles that to a 20 ton tree.

So, that gives it an effective mass of 120 tons, with the upper limit of mech construction stability being 100? 120% maximum mech mass?

I sure would love to see it swinging that bad boy. Of course, provided its knees won't shatter like matchsticks, myomers unwrapping like spaghetti the moment it takes a swing. Say, wondered why human weapons don't generally weigh 20 kilo? Tip: human joints are way more flexible than mechs' too!

So yeah, I'll take "can't really uproot a tree of meaningful size and use it as a weapon", for 500. If an Atlas's superstructure could sustain 120 tons of weight, you bet they'd just make it carry an extra A/C20 and a bit more armor instead, rather than provide the "tree-wiggling room".

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 01 February 2012 - 09:06 AM.

[Paladin1]

The upper limit of `Mech construction isn't due to stability, it's due to engine rating. There are, unfortunately, canon designs weighing in excess of 100+ tons.

[Alex Wolfe]

Paladin1, on 01 February 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

The upper limit of `Mech construction isn't due to stability, it's due to engine rating. There are, unfortunately, canon designs weighing in excess of 100+ tons.

Oh, so the moment it picks up the hypothetical weapon, its engine stalls? It's still 120% of Atlas weight capacity then?

Sounds deadly. And yeah, the "excess of 100 tons" (I hate those too) needed three legs to sustain itself. I wonder if there's a connection between legs and stability.

Nik Van Rhijn, on 01 February 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

Anyone remember what the original topic was?

Wasn't it our collective sorrow for the unlikeliness of CVM-4N Caveman being picked for MWO, because of the unfeasibility of tree-based combat?

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 01 February 2012 - 09:10 AM.

[Aaron DeChavilier]

i think the root of this tree-debate was something about redesigns
but we seem to have gone down a ridiculous branch of that topic...

[Paladin1]

Actually, no the "excess of 100 tons" thing didn't need three legs. One of them had three legs later.

And no, the engine doesn't stall, the engine doesn't have anything to do with locomotion other than as a power source for the myomers. The myomers and actuators are designed for excess weight.

For example, the 100 ton AS7-D Atlas is designed as a 100 ton `Mech. That doesn't mean that it can't handle more than 100 tons of weight, it means that it is designed as a 100 ton unit. Add TSM to it's musculature and it's capable of lifting 40 tons and carrying it at normal speed.

What I'm trying to show you is called over-engineering. Nothing is ever engineered for exactly what it shows, trust me.

[Paladin1]

Aaron DeChavilier, on 01 February 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

i think the root of this tree-debate was something about redesigns
but we seem to have gone down a ridiculous branch of that topic...

*smacks Aaron with a tree*

Don't be such a little birch.

[Aaron DeChavilier]

did you spend your previous turn uprooting that tree? no?
then you can't use it in the Physical Attacks phase!

[Alex Wolfe]

Paladin1, on 01 February 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

Actually, no the "excess of 100 tons" thing didn't need three legs. One of them had three legs later.

And no, the engine doesn't stall, the engine doesn't have anything to do with locomotion other than as a power source for the myomers. The myomers and actuators are designed for excess weight.

For example, the 100 ton AS7-D Atlas is designed as a 100 ton `Mech. That doesn't mean that it can't handle more than 100 tons of weight, it means that it is designed as a 100 ton unit. Add TSM to it's musculature and it's capable of lifting 40 tons and carrying it at normal speed.

What I'm trying to show you is called over-engineering. Nothing is ever engineered for exactly what it shows, trust me.

I stand corrected, but you're still dodging the question: would it be capable of convincingly fighting with those 20 tons. There's a world of difference between lifting/carrying and swinging. Mind the shifting center of gravity.

I'd hazard: not. My original point was that it'd likely result in leg damage (its own, not the enemy's), I guess I'll stick to it.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 01 February 2012 - 09:23 AM.