96 replies to this topic

[Kartr]

IceSerpent, on 10 April 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

snip

What exactly do you mean by heat is getting radiated? Heat only exists as the transfer of energy from one system to another. A vacuum has nothing in it to transfer the energy to, so there can't be any heat. Temperature is a function of how much energy is in a atomic structure, that energy determines how much the molecule "vibrates" so at high energy states it will move around a lot which we experience as a gas, at a low energy state they barely move at all which we experience as solids. This is all dependent on the specific heats of the materials. So the only way for that energy to be "radiated" in a vacuum is for it to be converted to light by causing the electrons to jump up a level and then drop back down. Because without other molecules for the excited (hot) molecules to bump into and interact with there is no way to transfer the kinetic energy of those molecules.

[Marowi]

If it's not too late to jump on the "not the best idea for a walking sun!" conversation, I recall reading somewhere (I think) in the FedCom Civil War sourcebook that a pitched BattleMech engagement causes as much radioactive fallout and environmental damage as actually detonating an atomic bomb--minus the explosion, I assume. The comment is in-universe, and comes from some character remarking about the senselessness of a 31st century Civil War that involves urban combat.

[Mason Grimm]

Speaking as a firefighter I only know of heat transfering through

• Radiation
  
• Convection
  
• Direct Contact (Conduction)

But these two dudes below are far smarter than I

Quote

Does heat travel through a vacuum, and if so how? If not, how does the Sun heat the Earth?

Heat travels through a vacuum by infrared radiation (light with a longer wavelength than the human eye can see). The Sun (and anything warm) is constantly emitting infrared, and the Earth absorbs it and turns the energy into atomic and molecular motion, or heat.

Dr. Eric Christian

Quote

When I think of "heat," I think of the energy of atoms bouncing against each other or against a wall. The gas in space cannot be dense, so the chance of one atom bouncing against another seems to be zero, and there is no wall. How can there be heat?

Your question is a very interesting one, as it reveals a rather common misunderstanding of the meaning of "hot." First, your understanding of heat is indeed quite correct. Heat is in fact the average kinetic energy (or the energy of motion) of the individual atoms (or molecules) in a gas. The faster the atoms are on average, the higher their kinetic energy, and the hotter the gas is.
Now, there is an important distinction to be made between "a gas is hot" and "a gas contains a lot of heat." Any gas, whose atoms bounce around at high speed, is considered "hot." However, in order to contain lots of heat (i.e. lots of heat energy) the gas ALSO has to be dense, i.e. contain lots of atoms in each cm³. In this sense a gas in space, such as that of the solar corona with its 1-2 million degrees Kelvin (or 2-4 million Fahrenheit) or the solar wind, which stems from the hot solar corona, is quite "hot," when it comes into contact with a spacecraft it is not capable of transferring lots of heat energy, because it is such a thin gas. While the air we breathe contains approx. 4 * 10¹⁹ molecules/cm³, the solar wind only contains a few (typically 1-30) protons (the naked nuclei of H atoms) and a few electrons per cm³.

Dr. Eberhard Moebius

Fancy!!!

[Maester]

Hello from Ukraine folks:)

2IceSerpent
Well you are right in details, but wrong in the big picture.

Nobody ever argued with the objects having three (3) ways to loose heat: convection, conduction and irradiation. Alas how often do you in our Earthly (or any environment we hUmans can survive without major modification) things trying to loose heat via irradiation? That is because the transfer rates through matter are hundreds times more potent. Examples: mamals loose heat by convection with means to intensify it by evaporating liquids (sweat), CPUs are outfitted with convection radiators sometimes augmented by fans...
That was already mentioned by Killashnikov on page 2, but some of you never read threads back:)
So unless we have many refferences to cooked mechwarriors, the mech (even if the cockpit is somewhat isolated from the rest of machine) cannot get much hotter then a desert. The matter starts irradiating high power only when significantly overheated - like molten steels, or that wolfram thread in the old fation lamps etc. So to loose significant ammount of energy via radiation one would need to gather all heat of the mech (realtively cool) into an irradiator panel (realtively hot) which is not a small feat of technology - to fight the law of termodinamics.
What is depicted in the books is closer to those "heat sinks" on our cpus - a piece of material (woth good thermal conductivity and high heat capacity*) with fans. The means for such system to irradiate heat are nonexistant (in Earthly env.).
How the heat is carried inside a mech is relatevely unimportant, for the mentioned reasons, and frankly it was not main problem even hundred years before now - liquid coolant circulating in tubing is effective enough to be used everywhere today (the heat pipes are better, requiring less - almost nonexistant - thermal head to function, but my guess nobody new about those back when the fluff was written).

*I am not sure I have used right terms - the idea is to have that thing taking much energy to raise its temperature, and no resistance while accepting it off other stuff.

And to add a bit of laugh into our "scientific" discussion: you all might know this meme, but its never old - behold the "spherical horse in vacuum"! (the word is "вакуум" - vacuum in russian)

Or another variant - spherical cow in vacuum:

Spoiler

[IceSerpent]

Kartr, on 10 April 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

What exactly do you mean by heat is getting radiated? Heat only exists as the transfer of energy from one system to another. A vacuum has nothing in it to transfer the energy to, so there can't be any heat. Temperature is a function of how much energy is in a atomic structure, that energy determines how much the molecule "vibrates" so at high energy states it will move around a lot which we experience as a gas, at a low energy state they barely move at all which we experience as solids. This is all dependent on the specific heats of the materials. So the only way for that energy to be "radiated" in a vacuum is for it to be converted to light by causing the electrons to jump up a level and then drop back down. Because without other molecules for the excited (hot) molecules to bump into and interact with there is no way to transfer the kinetic energy of those molecules.

I mean IR radiation. You are correct that one can't transfer energy to the vacuum, but one can transfer energy through the vacuum - energy transfer from Sun to Earth is a prime example. Your "the only way for that energy to be "radiated" in a vacuum is for it to be converted to light" statement is completely wrong, as any part of the spectrum can be used for energy transfer. For example, there's nothing to stop you from using gamma radiation for that purpose...or light...or infrared.

[IceSerpent]

@Maester:

You always lose heat through radiation (that's what allows IR cameras/sensors to work by the way). On Earth (or in any atmosphere in general) you also lose heat through convection and (if you are on the surface instead of flying through that atmosphere) through conduction to that surface. In space you only lose heat through radiation, although it stands to reason that mech is probabaly not just floating in space, but stands on something (asteroid, outer hull of a warship, etc.), so conduction most likely takes place too.

To be honest, I don't remember the math behind the convection, so I can't accurately compare the effectiveness of convection vs. radiation. I do remember that heat transfer through radiation is governed by Stefan-Boltzmann law though (amount of energy radiated is directly proportional to the fourth power of temperature). But overall, you will have two important factors in play when you compare a mech operating on Earth and on the Moon for example - on Earth you lose extra heat through convection, but due to higher ambient temperature transfer of energy to the heatsink itself is slower and conduction to the ground is slower. On the Moon you won't have any convection going due to lack of atmosphere, but lower ambient temperature results in faster transfer of heat to the heatsink and faster conduction to the surface. To give a real world example of cooling through radiation, check any space station - they all generated heat (electronics inside, people inside, etc.) and the only cooling available for something orbiting the Earth is to radiate that energy out.
On a side note, it would be interesting to do the math and actually compare the effectiveness of a traditional heatsink (i.e. one on the CPU) in both environments.

[Stone Profit]

Victor Morson, on 09 April 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

I've played BTU games since Crescent Hawks Inception found it's way to my Commodore 64 many years ago. That said, over the years, I've come to accept two things: The technology, as is often said, is the 80s view of the future; you can't put real world science, ranges and concepts onto all of it and expect it to stand up.

The second, which is why I made this thread, is how incredibly logic-breaking and silly a lot of things are within the universe's own rules, that we've all come to accept. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pissed at this stuff, just get a laugh out of it and figured I'd see if anyone has any other favorites.

I don't think that works the way you think that works

Flamers - A weapon that draws the heat straight from the fusion reactor and vents it! How it should work is obvious: The hotter your reactor is running, the more potent the damage that can be fueled through your flamer is. Since it's venting heat, it should cause either no heat, or actually lower it. .. except it doesn't. It spikes your heat to dump heat out of your 'mech into the atmosphere. What?

Autocannon/20s vs Gauss Rifles - An Autocannon is a big tank canon style shell, like tanks today use. A Gauss Rifle is similar to a rail gun, taking mass amounts of energy to accelerate a solid metal slug at it's target. Which is why the Gauss Rifle doesn't use the reactor hardly at all while the Autocannon costs huge heat spikes, of course.

Pulse Lasers in no way would look like "streams of ruby darts", fluff writers!

Clearly, if it's 50 degrees or 80 degrees out will make a huge impact on the heat inside of a fusion engine. Of course if you put your heatsinks into a vacuum, they'll clearly work really, really well!

Favorite Cliches (that lack logic)

Why, yes, having a small laser mounted in the back of your 'mech is going to keep the heavy 'mechs from trying to attack you there. The threat is too great!

... if you pilot 'mechs for 20 years and don't know a Rifleman can flip it's arms until it destroys you, well, I don't know what to say. Flipping arms always surprises people!

Sure, putting the most important people in the Inner Sphere at the very front of every major battle in a brightly marked target is a totally good idea. Yeah, so, a bunch of people have gotten killed getting them out. A bunch of times. Shut up, it's still a good great idea!

Clueless 'mech fluff writers

Why yes, that SRM-2 gives "serious close range punch!"

Clearly, a 'mech with an AC/5 and an LRM/10 is designed for long range dominance.

A complete failure to realize when something is really, really bad and a refusal to write it as such. The Shadow Hawk is "extremely versatile," indeed.

Adding weapons to nerf 'mechs

Don't forget, if you've made a 'mech too powerful, add ammo weapons. Add the hell out of them! The Warhawk's LRM/10 is clearly more useful at blowing things up than some more DHS would have been. Well, as long as the thing blowing up is you!

I bet youre one of those people who goes to the movies and says "thats just wrong, it wouldnt work that way" Its called suspension of disbelief. You seem unable to do that, as do many on these forums, and for those people I have much pity.

[Sheogoraath]

man, you guys would lose your freaking minds if you ever played Warhammer 40,000....

[Karel Spaten]

Sheogoraath, on 11 April 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

man, you guys would lose your freaking minds if you ever played Warhammer 40,000....

Hush, brother. This "physics" they speak of is clearly the work of the Ruinous Powers.

[syngyne]

Stone Profit, on 11 April 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

I bet youre one of those people who goes to the movies and says "thats just wrong, it wouldnt work that way" Its called suspension of disbelief. You seem unable to do that, as do many on these forums, and for those people I have much pity.

I'm all for suspending disbelief, otherwise I wouldn't be interested in a game involving big stompy robots at all. And sometimes even though something is silly you just roll with it because the rest of the package is entertaining enough, or that even if the science behind something is off, it's at least internally consistent with the rest of the setting (which for me is the more important thing).

Handwaving everything away under the banner of suspending disbelief has its own set of problems. You end up with the market being flooded with movies like The Core and Armageddon.

[Johannes Falkner]

OP, how could you miss the simplest of the bunch?

Why do they see the lasers? Even if they were to use visible light (a very dubious assumption for weaponized lasers) you would not see the beam without having something to reflect the beam off of. A close cousin is why there is a practical range limit on lasers, just fire them at partial power (1%?) until you hit the target, then crank up the power.

Second biggest problem is one of torque. You fire your nice shiny new Gauss Rifle or AC/20. Oh, it was arm mounted, huh, guess you did not consider that firing it would induce quite the torque on your mech. Gyros you say, you mean the one on the vertical axis that allows you to stand? Sorry, the axes for your induced moment from firing are perpendicular to the axis for your main gyro. But you have more gyros, right? No? Have fun flopping on the ground every time you fire.

Third, why are there quad mechs but not 6-legged mechs? Quads have a horrible 1-1-1-1 gait that is not limb loss tolerant (not that biped is better...) while hexapods have a 3-3 gait (or 2-2-2) that can tolerate losing a limb and not need gyros to balance.

There are many others I can point out. I generally love the canon, but the science and engineering need work.

[Paladin1]

Max Grayson, on 09 April 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

+1 sir

I really hope this helps quiet down the "it must follow cannon" fanatics.

I think you'll find that most of the "it must follow cannon [sic]" fanatics have been ******** about these types of errors for decades longer than most of the video gamers have been.

Also, it's Canon, not cannon.

Calon Farstar, on 09 April 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

Or how about AC/Ultra cannons where you can be point blank roll a hit then have one of the two rounds miss??? Wiskey Tango Foxtrot!

Because even "point blank" is still 30 meters away. That, btw, is one of my pet peeves. How can you melee someone from 30 meters away?

[Maester]

Hello good sirs, again.
Had to do the digging on that reactor thing - from both directions: canon and irl:) Here are the findings...

First stop - the number of heat sinks in the reactor:
The construction rules say that you cant have less then 10 of heat sink assemblys (single, double, 2x compact, laser) and the weight of those 10 is absorbed by reactor no matter it's rating; On the other hand, the space (criticals) is absorbed by the table (posted above) so if you have rating lower then 250 you will have to place those heatsinks somewhere (as if you added heat sink, but with zero weight); Now if you have rating of 275 and more you can add heat sinks that will use weight but not the criticals.
This is the reason I forgot details - on a XL300++ mech with doubles usualy the criticals are the problem, not the tons:)

Second stop - also on canon - the reactors insides:
There is a paragraph in the book, which seems controversial to me, but as Kartr said it depicts the heat of shots as comming from the reactor; On the other hand, about the heat sink opereation, there is a paragraph that sais that reactor mounted heat sinks "scavenges excess heat for power". Those two statements contradict a bit, and I have always envisioned the mech's fusion engine operation based upon the second one - wrong or right, here is where our disagreement came from.
The most notable thing that I forgot about canon reactors are their fules - it is said to be operated on protium (H¹) - which is a totaly "normal" light hidrogen...

...It leads to the third stop - the IRL take on the hot fusion reactors:
Must admit that indepth reading of that can break your mind:) While the fission reaction seems fairly straight forward, there are dozens of proposed fusion reactions some of which are multi-staged. There is also a multitude of containment methods and energy to electricity convertion metods.
Funny thing, the possibility of protium fuel is nowhere to find:(
The things that can be readily clear out of todays take on fusion - the use of "light" fuel (as opposed to heavier isotopes of deuterium and tritium) will require crazy containment/compression levels and will yield relatevely low neutron contamination.
As for the convertion into electricity - heat turbines are way to obsolete - even for the D-T (deuterium-tritium+lithium) reaction where 80% of energy is released as neutrons/heat there are more effective ways: for example, the "target" I was referring to earlier made of lithium (funny to make note of lithium in the reactor, speaking of Trek's dilithium) will absorb neutorns to convert then to current as a termocouple.

2IceSerpent
Experiment is a good thought. But I have no access to vacuum equipement, sorry.
Also I dont think the conduction of heat through mech's feet is significant: the mech is moving - if it walks the contact is limited to one foot, if it runs the contact is brief kicks which will rather overheat feet from abrasion; feet area is limited and sure it must be somewhat both articulated and reinforced to withstand stomping:)

[Krubarax]

OMG - tha huge walls of text killed my interest in this thread.
I do not know if it was mentioned but I am sure i have read that the Heatsinks of a mech is a "closed system"
therefore they could theoreticly work in vaccum, simply because of the fact that in space, it is oftenly very cold.
The cold vaccum of space cools the whole chassis down, which in turns helps lower the overall heat.
It is not by "venting heat into space" but simply, being in a very cold enviroment, lowers the heat.
Imagine sitting in your car (without heat on) in a blizzard on the north pole. You would not have to open the windows and "vent your heat" to freeze to death.

On the subject of a Fusion Reactor being a "huge walking bomb" or whatever you said: the fusion reaction woild die in an instant as soon as power was shut down.
Any critical damage to the reactor shielding will engage safety shutdown and lower dampening fields.
Any loss off power would cause the fusion reaction to stop, almost immediately.

If it was a Fission-Reactor it would be different.

Edit: To make it a little bit more clear: a Fusion reaction can not start a chain-reaction in the same way a fission-reaction can. It has to be sustained throuh a constant input of power.
That is why an effective Fusion-Reactor does not exist today - it consumes more power than it produces.
As soon as this input of power stops - the fusion reactions stops.

Now please continue

Edited by GB_Krubarax, 18 April 2012 - 12:19 AM.

[Arctic Fox]

GB_Krubarax, on 18 April 2012 - 12:16 AM, said:

OMG - tha huge walls of text killed my interest in this thread.
I do not know if it was mentioned but I am sure i have read that the Heatsinks of a mech is a "closed system"
therefore they could theoreticly work in vaccum, simply because of the fact that in space, it is oftenly very cold.
The cold vaccum of space cools the whole chassis down, which in turns helps lower the overall heat.
It is not by "venting heat into space" but simply, being in a very cold enviroment, lowers the heat.
Imagine sitting in your car (without heat on) in a blizzard on the north pole. You would not have to open the windows and "vent your heat" to freeze to death.

Vacuum is not cold, it is nothing. While it's true that you will eventually cool to the level of local background radiation (which is fairly cold unless you're, say, in view of the local star), losing heat only by radiation is a very slow process compared to losing it by moving it into another material (such as the cold air in your blizzard). So if you're producing a large amount of heat, you're going to have a much harder time getting rid of it in a vacuum than in an atmosphere.

Edited by Arctic Fox, 18 April 2012 - 12:31 AM.

[Maester]

OMG:)
Another Pakled who thinks vacuum is cold!

Closed heat sinks are possible, and they exist today to some extent - those freezer bags charged with a block of material you put into you fridge... but such thing able to contain waste heat of a fusion plant would be a bomb in itself: imaging the energy density it would have after combat:)
"Tech" like this was in the "Edge of Chaos 2" space sim game - as an optional companion to a normal irradiating heat sink, to engage in a situation of stalking to reduce ships heat emmision. It was described as some kind of cryostructure. Still it was limited time only.

Also, the reaction stops in an instant the containment/compression power halts, but the charged particales will not dissipate their energy outright. Even if there is enough residual charge in the containment magnets (or whatever else is used) to prevent contact of plasma with the reactor walls, in the event of broken casing outside matter (atmosphere's gases, liquids if submerged) will come into contact with overheated walls and/or plasma which will result in spontanious evaporation - volume expansion akin to explosion.
Bottom line - in a catastrophic event of broken reactor's casing an explosion can occur, but it niether "atomic", nor significantly powerful:)

[Peiper]

Stone Profit, on 11 April 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

I bet youre one of those people who goes to the movies and says "thats just wrong, it wouldnt work that way" Its called suspension of disbelief. You seem unable to do that, as do many on these forums, and for those people I have much pity.

Suspension of disbelief is counteracted by something called verisimilitude, which is measuring the level of realism. Take Red Dawn, where the Russians, invading from the north, meet up with a bunch of Central Americans invading from the south, in the middle of the great plains. Now, we can all agree that an invasion from Asia is highly unlikely to succeed, most especially because of logistics. HOWEVER, most of us love that movie! So, IS it possible that the Soviets could pull that off? Yes. POSSIBLE (though unlikely). We wanted to see a movie about what would happen IF a conventional invasion happened, so we created the best POSSIBLE scenario for it to happen. (BTW, the coming Red Dawn movie was supposed to be a Chinese invasion, but because of political correctness, they CGI'ed the Chinese out of the movie...)

Now, on to the Battlemech. Is it possible that the method of creating cheap fusion reactors, using a bunch of non-ideal or substitute materials, creates a situation where if you disengage or destroy the safeties holding the power in would cause them to explode? What if the fuel they used was also super volatile? COULD it be POSSIBLE for a Battlemech's reactor to blow up under those circumstances?

Jets typically can't glide very far, because they are designed to be pushed by a chemical reaction far greater than that of the force of gravity, so great, that the aerodynamics of the vehicle have to be altered not to fall apart hitting the wall of molecules that make up atmosphere. To our mind today, tracked, hovercraft, wheeled and flying vehicles are a far better, and cheaper, method to move than creating a giant walker. However, imagine if you could put a giant engine in a vehicle so powerful that you can get it to run and jump. The engine is powerful enough to flex myomer (synthetic, very strong) muscles to counteract the gravity that would normally pull such a heavy vehicle down as soon as it's center of gravity shifted. Using the human sense of balance to augment the function of a super-powered gyro, the battlemech is able to do what our current 21st century walking robots can't do yet in the terms of speed, balance, reactions, etc...

Now, the question is not whether this is PRACTICAL. It's whether it's POSSIBLE or not? If it is possible, then the verisimilitude is at a level of realism our brains can stomach enough to put aside the probable.

So, we want a future (Battletech/Red Dawn) where (Giant Walkers/dumb high school kids) are the be-all and end-all of warfare. So, we create a future where this is possible, even if it is improbable. This keeps the verisimilitude intact and we can play the game. I would argue that highly unstable fusion reactors are better than [color=#000000][/color]Protoculture[color=#000000] as an explanation for how battlemechs work. Battletech has far more realism in it than Robotech, which is why battlemechs don't do much in the way of acrobatics - and when they try, they take a lot of damage. Acrobatics are used in desperation to avoid taking greater damage from another source.[/color]

[color=#000000]Anyway, my point is, to all those who would poo-poo this thread by arguing absolutes, that you're missing the point of the thread. The point of the thread is to consider possibilities and levels of realism in the battletech world, not to figure out if it is practical. At this point in our human understanding, the idea of walkers used as the ultimate form of ground combat is just plain silly. But we all want that to be true, and in turn, create a universe where that would be possible. Still, many of us want more realism than Robotech and Transformers. We want something we can believe in. So, we create battlemechs. [/color]

Jumpships? Whatever. I don't care how they work, because we need a way to get our battlemechs from planet to planet, because the point of the game is to play at conquering and defending planets with walkers.

However, I would agree, the idea that flamers create so much freaking heat for the flamer-equipped battlemech should be addressed and corrected in battletech canon, or at least explained to help create a higher level of verisimilitude. The only explanation I can think of is that it's safer for a battlemech to use the prevailing method of heat delivery, instead of tanks full of chemicals ignited and projected (conventional flame-throwers). I know it's a game balance issue, but it really makes no sense AT ALL. However, I won't poo-poo it completely as I'd rather push canon, than wreck it!

Edited by Peiper, 18 April 2012 - 08:22 AM.

[Rokas]

Gentlemen, I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but it must be said:

The most broken logic of all are BattleMechs themselves.

Think of it. You're going to stride onto a battlefield with a giant, 10-meter tall walking tank, and you really think you are going to be invincible? Or that enemies might miss such a big, fat, obvious target? Clearly, camoflague and firing from defilade are obsolete, antiquated ideas! What we need are giant monuments to teenage power fantasies! Sure, they cost more than a platoon of tanks, take longer to build and cannot be deployed in the same numbers as conventional forces, but they're force multipliers, man! What do you mean, "law of inertia"? "Kinetic transfer"? Pish posh, clearly you have no concept on just how awesome giant robots blowing the crap out of each other are! Surely our foes will tremble in fear!

...What do you mean they're laughing? Oh, I see, the ground pressure for even a 20-ton 'mech makes it sink into anything but bedrock... So, no go on that cross-country assault, then? What's that? All of the 'mechs were picked off by 20th Century Abrams tanks with APFSDS rounds that they aimed with their incredibly accurate and extremely lightweight (compared to BT's TC) targeting computer from 2km away? Uhm... Well, I don't care, a 'mech is still cooler.

/sarcasm

I'm just saying, guys, if you're going to pick at any illogic in the BT universe, the very first thing you need to mock is the BattleMech itself, which is a monumentally ridiculous idea for any role save support and maybe some form of hard terrain recon duty or fire support for dismounted infantry.

Don't get me wrong, I loves my Battletech and giant robots blowing the crap out of each other. But I'm just saying, the whole idea is just silly, so when you go poking at things like illogical ranges or bad weapons layouts (Seriously, LRM-5s and Medium Lasers are all you need. Ever), remember that the everything the game universe is built on is silly and illogical.

This has been your friendly killjoy announcement. Thank you for your time. You will be billed appropriately. Failure to pay may result in imprisonment, forced conscription into a Clan fan unit, or made to be a Wobbie apologist.

[flashdrive]

All posts one this forum congratulations you have all had a meaningless discussion. (no I wasn't stupid enough to read through all of them to know that your all jackasses).

[Zakatak]

DIE DIE DIE STUPID PARTS OF CANON DIE!

My contributions.

• 2 million ton spaceships armed with 2000 tons of armor? Give me a break.
  
• 2 million spaceships lasting for months on a few hundred tons of fuel? Lolno.
  
• Mechs tanking gigantic hypersonic slugs, and getting just as damaged by falling over or being hit by a tree. What?
  
• Fluff writers using tabletop ranges that are stupid and ridiculous anywhere outside of a tabletop setting.
  
• Super heavy bipedals walking on soft ground on tiny, tiny feet with no problem of sinking.
  
• Pilots wearing freaking underwear in a fusion sauna. FAIL. Coolant vest, please?
  
• Heat shouldn't even be a problem, because if your producing this much power, you are using superconductors (which shouldn't produce heat, period). If you aren't using superconductors, you aren't slowly heating up due to weapons fire, you are EXPLODING FROM THE INSIDE.
  
• Nailed it for gauss, flamers, and autocannons.
  
• The concept of mechs over 6m tall in general.

Edited by Zakatak, 31 October 2012 - 06:37 PM.