The Theoretical Role/position of mechs on the battlefield

[Chimura]

Mods, please delete this thread, no serious interest has been seen

[Modo44]

Re: The Theoretical Role/position of mechs on the battlefield

Originally posted by Chimura
Note: serious discussion please, this is not flame bait

Here is your serious answer: Wrong forum.

[Chimura]

delete

[Wise Ass]

Well, if you need discussion that badly-

First off, you mention a 2 legged mech, that would not be probable since if you take out one leg it would be paralized, or even a powerful shot to the highest point would put it on its back. SO you would be more likely to see at least a 4 legged mech or something similar to the spider in wild wild west.

Secondly a mech would replace a tank because a 2-4 maybe even a 8 legged mech could move with greated speed over open land than a tank. Even in open ground combat it would be more effective than a tank would be.

The problem with useing them in civ is that it doesn't proceed too much into the future, though I believe I've seen mech graphics for mods or scenarios. Also, if you like the idea of mech units than I would suggest CTP1&2 because they had the 6 legged war walker as well as a more efficient levitan which is like a tank only it hovers over the ground giving it speed advantages.

[Grumbold]

Mechs will never replace tanks. Legs are an overcomplicated and inefficient engineering solution compared to wheels and tracks. Raising the profile is also tantamount to suicide.

At best you might get something like Heinleins' starship troopers (book version, not verhovens idiotic film.) Super infantry, not super tanks.

[vulture]

There isn't a viable role for mech-type machines. Tanks already spend a good deal of time out of combat readiness due to mechanical maintenance issues, and with legs that is going to be far worse. Legs are inherently a weak spot - hard to armour, exposed and very vulnerable both to weapons and general wear and tear. A mech would be generally suffer from less armour, less firepower, and far lower speed than a tracked tank (for a given quantity of raw materials being used). (And incidentally, tanks simple don't fire while moving if they have even the slightest intention of hitting something besides a random piece of terrain).

In terrain accessible to tanks, tanks do better in every regard (except intelligence gathering, but that's the job of entirely different units anyway, and wouldn't be the role of a mech).

In terrain that tanks have trouble with, the big question is, why in the name of sanity would you want to get a tank there anyway? The kind of terrain that tanks don't like is precisely the kind of terrain that infantry love. If you design a mech that can walk into that terrain, all that happens is that it wanders too close to well concealed enemy infantry and is toast before it does anything.

Armoured Fighting Vehicles are at their best when they can stand off at safe distance and throw MG and HE fire at enemy positions. And that only really happens in tank-friendly terrain. I just don't see any sensible combat role for a mech in the real world.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Chimura
if a single jack-assed remark is all im going to get, then will a mod please delete this thread to make room for more mindless argument over what fraxis could/should put into civ 4?

No need to go bananas after so little time. Calm down.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Grumbold
Mechs will never replace tanks. Legs are an overcomplicated and inefficient engineering solution compared to wheels and tracks. Raising the profile is also tantamount to suicide.

And if you actually apply physics, the foot size would have to be enormous to carry any reasonable weight.

I think mechs are fun, been playing a Battletech campaign a while ago (stopped due to RL ). This is nothing for Civ, though — too far from reality, and too far into the future. Might be interesting as a fan-based mod, but nothing more.

Want some more jack-assed comments?

[Shogun Gunner]

he got wise ass comments not jack ass comments. I know, old joke, but it applies this time.

As stated above, civ doesn't go that far into the future. By the time scientific advances bring us to a point where one these cartoon like mechs could be built, then we will have warp capability, photon torpedoes and scotty beaming everyone up.

Speaking of which, could they introduce a Star Trek wonder where the Enterprise is built and you go searching for new frontiers? Or perhaps the Stargate wonder...that would be cool.

[Trifna]

Then, maybe they could inspire themselves of WarHammer and include some of its units?

I think that for a Civ game we are a bit too much in the future now. I know that the US army has some little thingies which do not have a human attached to it (or otherwise the human is controlling from afar) but it is quite minor and/or experimental. And it's nothing like a bunch of robots forming an army (so bye-bye mech units/icons).

[Max Sinister]

Hmmm, one idea: What about a tank with lots of short legs (about half a metre, ot two feet)? You could defend them with an armor on all sides of it, and even if the enemy manages to destroy some of them, there would be still enough...

[PJayTycy]

You could defend them with an armor on all sides of it,

Then you lose the sole purpose : being able to "walk" across difficult terrain.

[lord of the mark]

how about a unit that come move fast, can at least move if not maneuver in rough terrain, and is armored and is available to civs that dont yet have treads, or engines - we could call it a "knight"

oops, i think that was a wise assed remark

[Shogun Gunner]

yes it was. perfect for this thread

[Wise Ass]

It gets the wise ass seal of approval