yeah no

[Canuckland]

yeah no

[Mini Miehm]

This still largely glosses over the crippling weaknesses of mechs. Specifically, their lack of equivalent armor to a tracked vehicle, their relatively complex and vulnerable movement systems, their necessarily lighter weaponry, and their incredibly high profile, which makes them still incredibly vulnerable to infantry in buildings in an urban combat scenario. Also ground pressure, and a number of other more technical issues, but since the most basic issues are simple enough, I figure I may as well stop with those.

The only guide that is needed to FT mechs is this:

Mechs cannot work. Physics hates them, horribly. If you attempt to make realistic mechs, they will fail. You are better off making handwaved "cool" mechs, and having sufficient levels of handwavium to make them function. Any other course is doomed to failure and being picked to pieces by the realistic, for values thereof, community. Don't bother trying to make them work. It's simply not possible. Any system that can be incorporated into a mech to increase its effectiveness can be incorporated into a tank or aircraft depending on what it is intended to replace/oppose. You may attempt to dispute these points at your leisure. I have a body of work created by an actual engineer somewhere that I can pull out if I absolutely have to.

Now, do not confuse this as my saying that you cannot use mechs. Mechs are cool. They look cool, they act cool, and they fight cool, but invoking the rool of cool is th eonly way to make them function at all. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.

[Toishima]

I do have a problem with your discrimination between East Asian mech designs and Western ones. I have no issue with the rest of the guide, other than my agreement with MM on the impossibility of effective walking vehicles. However, I do have an issue with your apparent stereotyping that all non-Western walking vehicles are Gundam-style or unrealistic ones. There are Japanese Anime and Manga about what you all "realistic" ones, just not that popular or obscure. So please do not discriminate against races in such a guide; there should be no proclamation of "North American/European Version" or "Japanese" or anything like that. Mechs are vehicles. They have no race.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

I do have a problem with your discrimination between East Asian mech designs and Western ones. I have no issue with the rest of the guide, other than my agreement with MM on the impossibility of effective walking vehicles. However, I do have an issue with your apparent stereotyping that all non-Western walking vehicles are Gundam-style or unrealistic ones. There are Japanese Anime and Manga about what you all "realistic" ones, just not that popular or obscure. So please do not discriminate against races in such a guide; there should be no proclamation of "North American/European Version" or "Japanese" or anything like that. Mechs are vehicles. They have no race.

We've had this discussion in the advice thread before.

'Mecha' is literally the Japanese pronunciation of 'mech.' Seriously. In Japan, all 'mechs' (as Canuckland labels them) are 'mecha.'

[Canuckland]

This still largely glosses over the crippling weaknesses of mechs. Specifically, their lack of equivalent armor to a tracked vehicle, their relatively complex and vulnerable movement systems, their necessarily lighter weaponry, and their incredibly high profile, which makes them still incredibly vulnerable to infantry in buildings in an urban combat scenario. Also ground pressure, and a number of other more technical issues, but since the most basic issues are simple enough, I figure I may as well stop with those.

The only guide that is needed to FT mechs is this:

Mechs cannot work. Physics hates them, horribly. If you attempt to make realistic mechs, they will fail. You are better off making handwaved "cool" mechs, and having sufficient levels of handwavium to make them function. Any other course is doomed to failure and being picked to pieces by the realistic, for values thereof, community. Don't bother trying to make them work. It's simply not possible. Any system that can be incorporated into a mech to increase its effectiveness can be incorporated into a tank or aircraft depending on what it is intended to replace/oppose. You may attempt to dispute these points at your leisure. I have a body of work created by an actual engineer somewhere that I can pull out if I absolutely have to.

Now, do not confuse this as my saying that you cannot use mechs. Mechs are cool. They look cool, they act cool, and they fight cool, but invoking the rool of cool is th eonly way to make them function at all. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.

I honestly forgot to include all of that. I remembered I was going to put that in, and I did in earlier versions, but in this one I forgot about it. My mistake.

And I totally agree with you. I honestly do. But this isn't for realism, it's for making them as conventional as possible, nothing else. I just wanted to give newer players an insight on what a mech really would have for an armament, instead of having a 20 foot mech with a 120mm gun. I know that they're unconventional and they would never work, but I wanted to atleast make them as realistic as possible. I think I did just that.

I do have a problem with your discrimination between East Asian mech designs and Western ones. I have no issue with the rest of the guide, other than my agreement with MM on the impossibility of effective walking vehicles. However, I do have an issue with your apparent stereotyping that all non-Western walking vehicles are Gundam-style or unrealistic ones. There are Japanese Anime and Manga about what you all "realistic" ones, just not that popular or obscure. So please do not discriminate against races in such a guide; there should be no proclamation of "North American/European Version" or "Japanese" or anything like that. Mechs are vehicles. They have no race.

It's just my own description of said mechs. If we called everything a mech, then its rather confusing. So I resorted to what most Asians refer to as a 'Mecha' and what most of the rest of the world refer to as a 'Mech.' I've seen/been in arguments over this, or rather debates on real classifications. Plus, where I'm from we refer a Gundam-Like mech as a Mecha and anything else as just a Mech. I grew up with it, what can I say? Furthermore, if you would like me to write something else about it then please tell me what to write soon so I don't offend anyone. It's not my purpose to offend people, I just used what I know.

I do have a problem with your discrimination between East Asian mech designs and Western ones. I have no issue with the rest of the guide, other than my agreement with MM on the impossibility of effective walking vehicles. However, I do have an issue with your apparent stereotyping that all non-Western walking vehicles are Gundam-style or unrealistic ones. There are Japanese Anime and Manga about what you all "realistic" ones, just not that popular or obscure. So please do not discriminate against races in such a guide; there should be no proclamation of "North American/European Version" or "Japanese" or anything like that. Mechs are vehicles. They have no race.

We've had this discussion in the advice thread before.

'Mecha' is literally the Japanese pronunciation of 'mech.' Seriously. In Japan, all 'mechs' (as Canuckland labels them) are 'mecha.'

Just the Gundam-Like mechs that are several stories tall. I don't generally watch animes that include mechs, nor I think I will in the near future. So forgive me if I'm wrong when it comes to Mecha. I live in a world where everything has a classification, and I grew up with mechs and mecha being two completely different things.

[The IASM]

Real impressive.

[Canuckland]

Real impressive.

Thank you.

[Zerlos]

I'll be back to look at this when I have more time, looks awesome

[Toishima]

We've had this discussion in the advice thread before.

'Mecha' is literally the Japanese pronunciation of 'mech.' Seriously. In Japan, all 'mechs' (as Canuckland labels them) are 'mecha.'

It's just my own description of said mechs. If we called everything a mech, then its rather confusing. So I resorted to what most Asians refer to as a 'Mecha' and what most of the rest of the world refer to as a 'Mech.' I've seen/been in arguments over this, or rather debates on real classifications. Plus, where I'm from we refer a Gundam-Like mech as a Mecha and anything else as just a Mech. I grew up with it, what can I say? Furthermore, if you would like me to write something else about it then please tell me what to write soon so I don't offend anyone. It's not my purpose to offend people, I just used what I know.

My issue is not the words used. My issue is the discrimination between "Japanese-style" and "western style" mechs. I suggest all references to regions and nations be removed. I'm getting the somewhat untrue stereotype that Japanese are always responsible for ridiculous things from the intro, particularly from this sentence: "This is a Mech, the North American/European vision of walking vehicles". This implies (from my point of view) that all Japanese or even non-western mechs are "unrealistic".

I have no issue with the use of "mecha" and "mech"; I agree with the classification wholeheartedly. It is the subconscious regional stereotype that gets me. This may be a small matter and may probably be utterly meaningless in comparison to the rest of the guide, but I feel it gives a subconscious bad impression of the Japanese people.

[The Akasha Colony]

It's just my own description of said mechs. If we called everything a mech, then its rather confusing.

This is why the English language has adjectives. We get along calling all general-purpose automobiles 'cars' with no real problem, but where more specificity is needed we can use terms like 'hatchback,' 'convertible,' or 'rear-wheel drive' to further specify. When I say 'car,' I could mean anything from a small Toyota Corolla to a Ferrari to a Hummer to a light truck to a convertible to a station wagon. Yet we get along quite fine and don't need to invent artificial geographic definitions for them.

So I resorted to what most Asians refer to as a 'Mecha' and what most of the rest of the world refer to as a 'Mech.' I've seen/been in arguments over this, or rather debates on real classifications. Plus, where I'm from we refer a Gundam-Like mech as a Mecha and anything else as just a Mech. I grew up with it, what can I say? Furthermore, if you would like me to write something else about it then please tell me what to write soon so I don't offend anyone. It's not my purpose to offend people, I just used what I know.

The problem that arises here is that there is the tacit presumption that your way is the 'right' way, especially since it doesn't include qualifiers such as 'some refer to them as [name] while others as [name].' It instead simply continues as if your classification is the only proper way. Which it isn't. As OMG mentioned, in Japan, anything that you call a mech or a mecha are the same thing. The Japanese (not Asians in general, as pronunciation varies by language) do not differentiate between the two terms, as they are spoken and written the same way.

This becomes especially true when considering that both humanoid and non-humanoid walkers appear in both Western and Japanese media. For instance, the rather infamous Steel Battalion features very Battletech-like mechs. Ghost in the Shell likewise features multi-legged walkers. Even more famous, Metal Gear features the titular and decidedly non-humanoid Metal Gears themselves.

Conversely, Supreme Commander in the West features humanoid Armored Command Units. Titanfall has also demonstrated quite humanoid features.

If these references must remain, and they shouldn't have to, a qualifier such as 'for the purpose of this thread we will call them [x]' would be immensely helpful. But as others have mentioned, there should be no need to use artificial geographic segregation.



In any event, on the write up itself. Most of these can be corrected.

If you're going for two legged mechs, then a small body frame (around 9-11 feet tall, 4-5 feet wide) and machine guns to grenade launchers to small autocannons are in need.

If a four legged mech is in action here, then a fatter body frame (around 10-11 feet tall, 6-7 feet wide) and larger cannons are able.

Why these sizes? Do you have a scientific basis for having arrived at these seemingly arbitrary dimensions? Otherwise they seem like you're pulling things out of a hat, with no real foundation on which to claim that these are by any means ideal sizes.

Six legged mechs (As high as I'm going, any higher and it's just repetitive) has a lot of possibilities. Instead of having a main gun to engage enemies head on, a six legged mech can have multiple artillery guns to provide indirect support fire for mechs, tanks and soldiers. That, or you can have a couple of missile or rocket batteries to achieve the same result. You might even just want to get a single gun with a few supporting autocannons and use it as a breakthrough mech in urban environments or wherever you're putting your mechs. Whatever the case, this mech will be extremely slow. It will be lumbering, but it will be heavy hitting.

Why can't a four-legged mech have these? Three legs is the minimum needed for a stable platform while stationary, while four can be stable while moving. What specific feature does six legs provide over four-legged mechs?

Armour Piercing Sabot-Discarding Fin Stabilized

Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding-Sabot (APFSDS)

With low blow back and high damaging effects, lasers are perfect for any mech.

I think you mean recoil. Blowback and recoil are distinctly different; blowback is the trapping and use of expanding propellant gases in a firearm to cycle the reloading mechanism. Recoil is the Newtonian force that acts opposite to the expelled force. Thus, lasers have recoil, but not blowback, as they have no propellant gases.

On the one hand you call them perfect in this sentence, but then later say they have a drawback. I would not call any weapon perfect or near perfect to begin with, but there seems to be a contradiction in this paragraph. There also isn't anything that makes them particularly 'amazing' in any real way. In fact, for planetary combat, their direct line-of-sight path is a rather significant handicap, particularly in the future, where ranges are likely to only increase, not decrease, as sensor range and resolution improves.

The last kind of laser is one that would fire like a weapon, as if it were a chemical weapon but just with lasers. Not sure if there's a special name.

I have no idea what this is supposed to refer to.

Plasma weapons can be anything to green blobs of light to blue blobs of light, to super heated blobs of goo.

Plasma wouldn't look like either of these. It isn't a 'blob,' as this implies that it is a liquid of some sort. It is most similar to a gas, in fact, but different in that it responds to magnetic fields and can conduct an electrical charge.

You are likely to have canisters of plasma.

Probably not, actually. Plasma doesn't store well; it has a natural tendency to radiate its heat and return to a lower energy state (as all things do). In all likelihood, plasma will have to be generated on the spot in a reactor of some sort.

You have the choice of letting the heat just eject out of the gun through escape hole or heat sinks. If you let the heat eject out on it's own when firing, then recoil is a problem. Using smaller calibres would be appropriate here, automatic or rapid fire plasma cannons would also be pretty useful. If you're using heat sinks, then they must be placed so when they take the heat, they eject far enough so that the mech doesn't take any damage if it's shot, and close enough to where it won't kill other soldiers on it's ejection travel. Recoil is less of a problem here, but it's still present.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to describe with 'heat sinks,' but I'm pretty sure the term is not being used properly.

The coil gun is a gun that requires a series of powered coils that charges the bullet and pushes it through the barrel. With this, it requires a battery pack as well. But with a little handwavium, you can say that it's internally powered, or eschew the power pack entirely.

A coilgun (which is merely another name for a Gauss gun; they are the same thing) propels a projectile using electromagnetism, no 'charging' is involved. They will require a power source of the same size for a given power whether its externally mounted or 'internally powered,' so you don't get the ditch the power source.

Instead of the gun being covered in coils, railguns have two rails and a series of magnetic fields that launch the warhead forward. The railgun usually has more of a kickback than a coilgun, seeing as Newton's Third Law applies here as well, but the railgun has two magnetic fields instead of multiple powered coils.

Multi-stage coilguns will also have multiple magnetic fields, and neither have any effect on recoil. A coilgun and railgun of the same muzzle energy will have the same recoil force.

Missiles should be placed in Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM) boxes, at least two if you're going the small mech route.

Why two boxes? Why not one? Or three? Or four?

Rockets should be in big bulky boxes on a six legged mech, firing a hail of unguided rain of rockets unto the enemy.

Why shouldn't they be guided? IRL militaries are moving increasingly toward guided ordnance wherever possible. And why should they only be carried in big boxes on a mech with six legs? Why not one of these on a smaller mech?

All of these can be essential for a mech platform, especially for an artillery mech or a light mech.

Saying they 'can' be essential also implies they 'can not' be essential, which means they aren't actually essential. I'm not arguing that they aren't useful, but a better choice of words is needed.

Mortars on the other hand should be reserved for small mechs. Over the shoulder type weapons. Mortars should be used to provide cover fire or to assist the mech in fighting a fortified position or to flush an enemy out of a hole/piece of cover. The mortar can also be used to attack the enemy head on like any other weapon as well.

Why should they be restricted to small mechs? We've got a lot of big 120 mm mortar carriers out there. Why must only small mechs be capable of carrying mortars?

Your mech has been equipped with laser weaponry. Useful for basically anything and everything...

Not for indirect fire it's not.

When using the laser as if it were a normal autocannon or such, it would be possible to attack multiple targets in a single engagement.

It won't be used as an autocannon. And any weapon system with repeat fire capability (which is to say, almost anything except a missile or rocket launcher with a complicated reloading process) can be fired at multiple targets in a single engagement.

a laser faux-pas autocannon

What's a faux-pas autocannon? I think you meant 'faux autocannon.'

With plasma weapons, it'd be useful to destroy armour and buildings with. The super hot plasma can burn through the battle plate of a tank or the armour of a soldier, or the materials of a building. Plasma weapons would make efficient anti-tank weapons, as long as the heat isn't being ejected onto your fellow soldiers or the heat sink isn't rolling away too far and crushing your allies.

Strictly speaking, probably not. It'd impact before sufficient heat could be transferred to melt the target if moving at high velocity (which is needed for accuracy) and then disperse pretty quickly. This release of energy could burn soft targets but protected targets like tanks and fortified structures would be able to shrug it off.

With Coilguns and Railguns, it's essential that you are at a range. Why? With railguns and coil guns, the bullet is travelling so fast that a warhead won't/shouldn't even matter at the ranges you'd be engaging the enemy.

This doesn't mean you should be at range, nevermind make it essential to be at such a distance. In fact, like all other kinetic projectiles used in an atmospheric environment, railgun and coilgun slugs will still lose energy with range due to drag.

Futhermore, the rail/coilgun should be used for armour engagements, seeing as an APSDFS shell would be the most likely candidate for a gun with shells that don't contain explosives.

Technically, rounds that do not contain explosives are called 'shot.' So it would be APFSDS shot. That aside, it seems odd that you say they should be used for armor engagements, then say they should be used like a conventional weapon. A railgun/coilgun is simply a method of projectile acceleration, how it is employed is dependent on the projectile it is accelerating, its caliber, and its power.

Missiles should be used in either ATGM or AA forms, but maybe even SAM forms with a small missile to engage large enemy forces with a hail of guided munitions.

An anti-aircraft (AA) missile and a surface to air missile (SAM) are the same thing.

[Canuckland]

It's just my own description of said mechs. If we called everything a mech, then its rather confusing.

This is why the English language has adjectives. We get along calling all general-purpose automobiles 'cars' with no real problem, but where more specificity is needed we can use terms like 'hatchback,' 'convertible,' or 'rear-wheel drive' to further specify. When I say 'car,' I could mean anything from a small Toyota Corolla to a Ferrari to a Hummer to a light truck to a convertible to a station wagon. Yet we get along quite fine and don't need to invent artificial geographic definitions for them.

So I resorted to what most Asians refer to as a 'Mecha' and what most of the rest of the world refer to as a 'Mech.' I've seen/been in arguments over this, or rather debates on real classifications. Plus, where I'm from we refer a Gundam-Like mech as a Mecha and anything else as just a Mech. I grew up with it, what can I say? Furthermore, if you would like me to write something else about it then please tell me what to write soon so I don't offend anyone. It's not my purpose to offend people, I just used what I know.

The problem that arises here is that there is the tacit presumption that your way is the 'right' way, especially since it doesn't include qualifiers such as 'some refer to them as [name] while others as [name].' It instead simply continues as if your classification is the only proper way. Which it isn't. As OMG mentioned, in Japan, anything that you call a mech or a mecha are the same thing. The Japanese (not Asians in general, as pronunciation varies by language) do not differentiate between the two terms, as they are spoken and written the same way.

This becomes especially true when considering that both humanoid and non-humanoid walkers appear in both Western and Japanese media. For instance, the rather infamous Steel Battalion features very Battletech-like mechs. Ghost in the Shell likewise features multi-legged walkers. Even more famous, Metal Gear features the titular and decidedly non-humanoid Metal Gears themselves.

Conversely, Supreme Commander in the West features humanoid Armored Command Units. Titanfall has also demonstrated quite humanoid features.

If these references must remain, and they shouldn't have to, a qualifier such as 'for the purpose of this thread we will call them [x]' would be immensely helpful. But as others have mentioned, there should be no need to use artificial geographic segregation.



In any event, on the write up itself. Most of these can be corrected.

If you're going for two legged mechs, then a small body frame (around 9-11 feet tall, 4-5 feet wide) and machine guns to grenade launchers to small autocannons are in need.

If a four legged mech is in action here, then a fatter body frame (around 10-11 feet tall, 6-7 feet wide) and larger cannons are able.

Why these sizes? Do you have a scientific basis for having arrived at these seemingly arbitrary dimensions? Otherwise they seem like you're pulling things out of a hat, with no real foundation on which to claim that these are by any means ideal sizes.

Six legged mechs (As high as I'm going, any higher and it's just repetitive) has a lot of possibilities. Instead of having a main gun to engage enemies head on, a six legged mech can have multiple artillery guns to provide indirect support fire for mechs, tanks and soldiers. That, or you can have a couple of missile or rocket batteries to achieve the same result. You might even just want to get a single gun with a few supporting autocannons and use it as a breakthrough mech in urban environments or wherever you're putting your mechs. Whatever the case, this mech will be extremely slow. It will be lumbering, but it will be heavy hitting.

Why can't a four-legged mech have these? Three legs is the minimum needed for a stable platform while stationary, while four can be stable while moving. What specific feature does six legs provide over four-legged mechs?

Armour Piercing Sabot-Discarding Fin Stabilized

Armor-Piercing Fin-Stabilized Discarding-Sabot (APFSDS)

With low blow back and high damaging effects, lasers are perfect for any mech.

I think you mean recoil. Blowback and recoil are distinctly different; blowback is the trapping and use of expanding propellant gases in a firearm to cycle the reloading mechanism. Recoil is the Newtonian force that acts opposite to the expelled force. Thus, lasers have recoil, but not blowback, as they have no propellant gases.

On the one hand you call them perfect in this sentence, but then later say they have a drawback. I would not call any weapon perfect or near perfect to begin with, but there seems to be a contradiction in this paragraph. There also isn't anything that makes them particularly 'amazing' in any real way. In fact, for planetary combat, their direct line-of-sight path is a rather significant handicap, particularly in the future, where ranges are likely to only increase, not decrease, as sensor range and resolution improves.

The last kind of laser is one that would fire like a weapon, as if it were a chemical weapon but just with lasers. Not sure if there's a special name.

I have no idea what this is supposed to refer to.

Plasma weapons can be anything to green blobs of light to blue blobs of light, to super heated blobs of goo.

Plasma wouldn't look like either of these. It isn't a 'blob,' as this implies that it is a liquid of some sort. It is most similar to a gas, in fact, but different in that it responds to magnetic fields and can conduct an electrical charge.

You are likely to have canisters of plasma.

Probably not, actually. Plasma doesn't store well; it has a natural tendency to radiate its heat and return to a lower energy state (as all things do). In all likelihood, plasma will have to be generated on the spot in a reactor of some sort.

You have the choice of letting the heat just eject out of the gun through escape hole or heat sinks. If you let the heat eject out on it's own when firing, then recoil is a problem. Using smaller calibres would be appropriate here, automatic or rapid fire plasma cannons would also be pretty useful. If you're using heat sinks, then they must be placed so when they take the heat, they eject far enough so that the mech doesn't take any damage if it's shot, and close enough to where it won't kill other soldiers on it's ejection travel. Recoil is less of a problem here, but it's still present.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to describe with 'heat sinks,' but I'm pretty sure the term is not being used properly.

The coil gun is a gun that requires a series of powered coils that charges the bullet and pushes it through the barrel. With this, it requires a battery pack as well. But with a little handwavium, you can say that it's internally powered, or eschew the power pack entirely.

A coilgun (which is merely another name for a Gauss gun; they are the same thing) propels a projectile using electromagnetism, no 'charging' is involved. They will require a power source of the same size for a given power whether its externally mounted or 'internally powered,' so you don't get the ditch the power source.

Instead of the gun being covered in coils, railguns have two rails and a series of magnetic fields that launch the warhead forward. The railgun usually has more of a kickback than a coilgun, seeing as Newton's Third Law applies here as well, but the railgun has two magnetic fields instead of multiple powered coils.

Multi-stage coilguns will also have multiple magnetic fields, and neither have any effect on recoil. A coilgun and railgun of the same muzzle energy will have the same recoil force.

Missiles should be placed in Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM) boxes, at least two if you're going the small mech route.

Why two boxes? Why not one? Or three? Or four?

Rockets should be in big bulky boxes on a six legged mech, firing a hail of unguided rain of rockets unto the enemy.

Why shouldn't they be guided? IRL militaries are moving increasingly toward guided ordnance wherever possible. And why should they only be carried in big boxes on a mech with six legs? Why not one of these on a smaller mech?

All of these can be essential for a mech platform, especially for an artillery mech or a light mech.

Saying they 'can' be essential also implies they 'can not' be essential, which means they aren't actually essential. I'm not arguing that they aren't useful, but a better choice of words is needed.

Mortars on the other hand should be reserved for small mechs. Over the shoulder type weapons. Mortars should be used to provide cover fire or to assist the mech in fighting a fortified position or to flush an enemy out of a hole/piece of cover. The mortar can also be used to attack the enemy head on like any other weapon as well.

Why should they be restricted to small mechs? We've got a lot of big 120 mm mortar carriers out there. Why must only small mechs be capable of carrying mortars?

Your mech has been equipped with laser weaponry. Useful for basically anything and everything...

Not for indirect fire it's not.

When using the laser as if it were a normal autocannon or such, it would be possible to attack multiple targets in a single engagement.

It won't be used as an autocannon. And any weapon system with repeat fire capability (which is to say, almost anything except a missile or rocket launcher with a complicated reloading process) can be fired at multiple targets in a single engagement.

a laser faux-pas autocannon

What's a faux-pas autocannon? I think you meant 'faux autocannon.'

With plasma weapons, it'd be useful to destroy armour and buildings with. The super hot plasma can burn through the battle plate of a tank or the armour of a soldier, or the materials of a building. Plasma weapons would make efficient anti-tank weapons, as long as the heat isn't being ejected onto your fellow soldiers or the heat sink isn't rolling away too far and crushing your allies.

Strictly speaking, probably not. It'd impact before sufficient heat could be transferred to melt the target if moving at high velocity (which is needed for accuracy) and then disperse pretty quickly. This release of energy could burn soft targets but protected targets like tanks and fortified structures would be able to shrug it off.

With Coilguns and Railguns, it's essential that you are at a range. Why? With railguns and coil guns, the bullet is travelling so fast that a warhead won't/shouldn't even matter at the ranges you'd be engaging the enemy.

This doesn't mean you should be at range, nevermind make it essential to be at such a distance. In fact, like all other kinetic projectiles used in an atmospheric environment, railgun and coilgun slugs will still lose energy with range due to drag.

Futhermore, the rail/coilgun should be used for armour engagements, seeing as an APSDFS shell would be the most likely candidate for a gun with shells that don't contain explosives.

Technically, rounds that do not contain explosives are called 'shot.' So it would be APFSDS shot. That aside, it seems odd that you say they should be used for armor engagements, then say they should be used like a conventional weapon. A railgun/coilgun is simply a method of projectile acceleration, how it is employed is dependent on the projectile it is accelerating, its caliber, and its power.

Missiles should be used in either ATGM or AA forms, but maybe even SAM forms with a small missile to engage large enemy forces with a hail of guided munitions.

An anti-aircraft (AA) missile and a surface to air missile (SAM) are the same thing.

Whenever I have time, I shall correct myself.

I'm not an expert in anything, I just wanted to help out.

We've had this discussion in the advice thread before.

'Mecha' is literally the Japanese pronunciation of 'mech.' Seriously. In Japan, all 'mechs' (as Canuckland labels them) are 'mecha.'

It's just my own description of said mechs. If we called everything a mech, then its rather confusing. So I resorted to what most Asians refer to as a 'Mecha' and what most of the rest of the world refer to as a 'Mech.' I've seen/been in arguments over this, or rather debates on real classifications. Plus, where I'm from we refer a Gundam-Like mech as a Mecha and anything else as just a Mech. I grew up with it, what can I say? Furthermore, if you would like me to write something else about it then please tell me what to write soon so I don't offend anyone. It's not my purpose to offend people, I just used what I know.

My issue is not the words used. My issue is the discrimination between "Japanese-style" and "western style" mechs. I suggest all references to regions and nations be removed. I'm getting the somewhat untrue stereotype that Japanese are always responsible for ridiculous things from the intro, particularly from this sentence: "This is a Mech, the North American/European vision of walking vehicles". This implies (from my point of view) that all Japanese or even non-western mechs are "unrealistic".

I have no issue with the use of "mecha" and "mech"; I agree with the classification wholeheartedly. It is the subconscious regional stereotype that gets me. This may be a small matter and may probably be utterly meaningless in comparison to the rest of the guide, but I feel it gives a subconscious bad impression of the Japanese people.

Like I've said, tell me what to write and I will correct myself when I have time. I currently do not have loads of it.

[Toishima]

Remove all mentions of IRL region and nationality from the guide. That is all I am asking.

[Chinese Regions]

It should be noted that in UC, MS were developed from piloted robots that were used by civilians for doing manual labour in space, which in turn were developed from extra-vehicular-activity space suits, that is why they are called "Suits". Even though they developed from E-V-A suits, they were not the same, fair enough, powered armours are when the user has some direct control of the limbs as opposed to manipulating controls like buttons, pedals, joy-sticks etc.
But Zeon and the Earth Federation started to experiment with psycoframes, allowing the pilot to use a mobile suit like it was his own body, what category do they fall into?
What about organic mecha? Fantasy mecha? Cosmic Horror monstrosities and literal gods? Where to they fit in?

Hell, what would you call this human sized space ship?

[Chinese Regions]

We've had this discussion in the advice thread before.

'Mecha' is literally the Japanese pronunciation of 'mech.' Seriously. In Japan, all 'mechs' (as Canuckland labels them) are 'mecha.'

It's just my own description of said mechs. If we called everything a mech, then its rather confusing. So I resorted to what most Asians refer to as a 'Mecha' and what most of the rest of the world refer to as a 'Mech.' I've seen/been in arguments over this, or rather debates on real classifications. Plus, where I'm from we refer a Gundam-Like mech as a Mecha and anything else as just a Mech. I grew up with it, what can I say? Furthermore, if you would like me to write something else about it then please tell me what to write soon so I don't offend anyone. It's not my purpose to offend people, I just used what I know.

My issue is not the words used. My issue is the discrimination between "Japanese-style" and "western style" mechs. I suggest all references to regions and nations be removed. I'm getting the somewhat untrue stereotype that Japanese are always responsible for ridiculous things from the intro, particularly from this sentence: "This is a Mech, the North American/European vision of walking vehicles". This implies (from my point of view) that all Japanese or even non-western mechs are "unrealistic".

I have no issue with the use of "mecha" and "mech"; I agree with the classification wholeheartedly. It is the subconscious regional stereotype that gets me. This may be a small matter and may probably be utterly meaningless in comparison to the rest of the guide, but I feel it gives a subconscious bad impression of the Japanese people.

Agreed, the Jaegers in Pacific Rim, manned robots in a western made film, doesn't mean they are "realistic".
The first BattleTech games copied their designs from the anime Dougram by Ryosuke Takahashi who pushed realism up to the max.
I don't think you should feel bad, realistic is not always good, the Battletech cartoon was really really bad.

[Canuckland]

I am deeply sorry for any inconvieniences and offences that this guide has made to anyone that finds it so. Forgive me, for I am subjected to what I was born into.

Also, I'm no expert, and any help on anything really would help.