Argument Thread OOC Future Tech Only

[The Fedral Union]

My MBT's have 145 mm EMG's as a main gun that can fire over things and hold a verity of shells. They also have micro Anti armor and anti air missiles, a 25 mm coil gun (rapid fire) and depending on the model a laser emitter . They're fast, with big guns and modular.

Aka look at the LEO 2 As far as modular goes.

[Tannelorn]

My mecha which analogue to tank destroyers [on the ground, mecha in particularly variable frames] are really aggressor units designed to destroy other units. Not so good at strike roles or other roles that we use conventional units for. The mecha have a wide variety of weaponry to choose from. MY actual tanks use either 180 mm ETC cannons, or massive particle beams. In space they provide escort, space superiority and point defense roles. Variable mecha also provide marine duty and first strike landing. Regular fighters in space do strike on capital ships, while protected by mecha.

My normal fighters carry ridiculously huge payloads compared to variable fighters, tanks can mount much larger single guns. However mecha can mount FAST packs to add more firepower, fuel and the like. So though we dont really have an artillery common mecha [we still use the old monster MK II though...] we use tank chassis for artillery, mecha use missiles to do artillery when unsupported]. Also as i said earlier, mecha are much rarer then conventional units, much harder to maintain and generally reserved for at least experienced units.

The tanks are mass produced in huge quantities, and provide support with very large guns and some missiles. Only the highest end knight mecha can claim to match the single shot kill power of a VHT-4 conquerer II and thats with a fourty ton weapon armament pack that is half again as expensive as the mecha itself. [You could produce a whole company of tanks for one SERAPH pack equipped morgenstrahl. Which is also only used in any numbers by one faction.]

As for the power thing [more shameless self promoting.] My intention is to become a big eval power, so that it can prompt alot more action in FT. I play cooperatively and my intentions are never to conquer. Tannelornians don't rule over lessers, they just teach them the folly of their ways [there is a surprise that will occur! its not all as it seems]. So as a villain you never have to worry so much about me conquering you and making you my slaves, more about me coming in and wrecking the place to prove a point. Even in the big invasions, the main point will be wrecking ship yards and army bases and fleets, population centers will be tertiary targets.

[I dont like conquering people, as it takes away much of their ability to RP, though isf someone wants to be conquered or have territory occupied so they can try to liberate it I am game.]

[Risen Britannia]

i have never got the idea of hover tanks that only hover less than a few meters off the floor. Why waste the energy hovering when tracks will do just fine.

you could consider me "old fashion" with my FT as i still prefer kinetic weapons and missiles to lasers and plasma, i also prefer tracked and wheeled vehicles to legged and hover vehicles

[Tannelorn]

I use ETC [electro thermal chemical] because i like autocannons that go bang. Admittedly its more like the pulse rifle sound from aliens. Our ETC shells are normally rocket propelled unless they contain a special armour or anti air warhead. Xaser rounds have little verniers to angle themselves in mid flight towards a target, while Gras rounds [our HE] are pretty much stock shells. Shape charged fusion rounds normally dont accellerate with rockets either. Our APDSFS rounds are rocket propelled though, to speeds that match rail guns and coil guns.

I like autocannons, and gatling guns that make that beautiful buzzing sound, like a billion angry hornets.

[Zepplin Manufacturers]

Whatever else the various brands of hover tanks offer ...the speed and true all terrain capacity, missile and energy weapon bussing are certainly nice as is the concept of just dumping them out the back of a still moving transport, actual evasion of incoming fire and possible zero G maneuvering.

Power to weight is a normalish explanation for the altitude limit most hover tanks seem to suffer from buut even then you could just strap on some damn great flight booster for rapid insertion or transit say .. sure an actual gunship can actually fly but ..your a tank you carry all that collapsium/unobtanium Armour scheme. So it waddles around on a partial ground effect or AG effect.

Another one is that flying high may be bad for ones health when one is a horizon hugging LOS combatant.

Tannelorn...

on Mecha

Read this

http://z4.invisionfree.invalid/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=5347

[Vonagoon]

Taged, so I can follow the conversations.

[Xenohumanity]

Doesn't matter if it's 2250 BCor 2250 AD, wounded soldiers need bone-setters.

XenoMedical Chirurgeons with Servo-Arms are as close to angels as the average XenoMarine will ever see. Bone-breaks for them are catastrophic, since being in power armor AND having genetically enhanced skeletons would result in breaks that would warrant amputation at the hands of any other doctors.

Here's something I've been wondering a while: what type of projectiles would FT tanks fire? Is it plasma, energy bolts of some sort, or just kinetic rounds?

I usually run with either plasma balls from mortar-tanks (think of Wraiths from Halo but actually field-mobile and more Warhammer-like), coil-gun rounds, kinetic/thermal machine-gun fire, or the occasional 30 Gigatesla arc caster for if they're just being flank support.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

The Russian Military finds it easier to amputate wounded limbs and replace them with prosthetics
Many of our soldiers sit in their psuedovictorian apartments and say that they "never asked for this."

[Tannelorn]

Zeppelin, as i said before and has been said, mecha are fine in FT, however fun fact. Some mecha are designed like actual combat vehicles, armoured core's, heavy gears and the like. My own mecha are based on a body that is shaped more like a turret, for better armour protection. Second, square box. Mecha bodies can be shaped like turrets and thus be a square box. Also, those mecha dont seem to have flat armour on the torso's either. As no endorse seemed to claim all mecha have.

In this rare case [most mecha do not follow it at all] the mecha would equal the tank in armour protection. It would also have the same internal volume as a turret, with the weapons mounted off the turret on limbs. Meaning the turret has room for the generator. The Frame and myomer concept also minimizes required power and space. Freeing up internal room that would have been filled with bulky servo's and hydraulics. Also using energy weapons in gun pod mounts would reduce the recoil, and could still be fed by a generator which provides locomotive power through waste heat and not much actual power. [Myomers that flex and contract based on heat which is a waste product of fission and fusion reactors of all types.]

if you "unfolded" the armour on a well designed mecha and a tank, you would find the torso area takes equal or less space tthen a turret, and the rest of the mecha if designed in a similiar principle to a tank of front armour strongest, rear weakest, does not equal the area of the hull. Tanks do require bottom and top armour, especially in FT, as SADAR weapons would be common, they are in my armed forces.

Its a common trick to think that a tank has less armour required to cover it because it is only two locations, but thats all it is, a trick. A tanks hull is heavily armoured on the front all the way under the turret, and the area of space that makes up the forward half of the tank is easily equal to the legs of a mecha. Also no modern tank is a true cube. They are all designed with sharp angles which reduce internal space.

This being said, a tanks armour is all centered in one location, and tends to stay that way.This means that armour might mean more to a tank then to a mecha, making walking tank mecha not so good.

However the joints in a mecha are likely to be amongst the toughest parts [industrial machinery being an example, tank track wheels being another] so just taking out the leg will be alot less easy then just taking out a track or hover thruster [but alot less easy to repair.]. A gundam styled mecha will not follow the same rules. They have torso's as big as tank hulls.

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o133 ... 25/ac6.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o133 ... 25/ac1.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o133 ... M7PACK.jpg

Two of these are from the armoured core series, the other is mine. The total surface area of these mecha will not be any more then the surface area of a tank of similiar size. Armour shape is the issue in these, and in their normal modes of high speed locomotion, or fighting in built up terrain, they tend to have their limbs at 45 degree angles anyways. Also, once again, the armour is not flat on the torso, and plates seem to cover joints just fine.

As for motive systems, it's FT, you dont have to be using modern technology, battletechs system of movement and power is rather good, and the myomers over skeleton is what I use. I also fully stated that my tanks carry much bigger armament then my mecha, except in the case of an add on armour pack with a sub capital anti super heavy weapon that is not feasible against moving targets of small size.

Also the mecha tend to use alot of missiles and particle weapons, armour sublimation makes armour less important then shielding, and nothing stops a mecha [or anything else] from using shielding to get tough.

I am not defending all mecha..only "some" mecha, the ones that are actually designed like military machines. I will also say that many FT tracked tank designs would be tougher then the mecha, but the mecha [the good ones] would be somewhere in between a grav tank, a grav gunship and a fibw fighter.

Though i will say this is FT, I will defend anything someone wants to use, from cyber dragons, to animal mecha to farscape technology. People shouldn't be forced to use things they don't like just because someone wants to ban fun. I will play against anything and give it a fair shake.

Mecha are currently unfeasible because of technological limitations. If they could run at 120 kph and hover like a hover tank, moving like a figure skater like depicted in armoured core, and were designed reasonably well, then they would be feasible. Modern technology they can barely walk at this moment. In FT they can do all those wonderful things and more, just like a grav tank or fighter.

As for hover tanks that only go a few feet off the ground..mine only go up to five feet off the ground, thats why they can "lift up" like an S tank and fire over obstacles. Being able to be tall then short is a big advantage in built up terrain.

As for MASH units, so long as there is NO Alan Alda character.

[Derscon]

Oh look, Mecha again.

[Tannelorn]

Now now, dont be hasty, I am simply defending one type of mecha that actually is feasible, I even assented that tiny crewed FT tanks could likely have more armour to weight. I just wanted to point out that there is a flaw in the idea that mecha cant use the square box or be good especially in FT.

More to the point, I have said my peace on it. I am too busy planning stuffs to argue mecha any more then i already have.

[Sskiss]

Remember kids, when all else fails, there's always rule of cool!

[Of The Arch ilands]

Remember kids, when all else fails, there's always rule of cool!

Lets face it Mecha are damn cool even if some of us wont admit it!

Now now, dont be hasty, I am simply defending one type of mecha that actually is feasible, I even assented that tiny crewed FT tanks could likely have more armour to weight. I just wanted to point out that there is a flaw in the idea that mecha cant use the square box or be good especially in FT.

More to the point, I have said my peace on it. I am too busy planning stuffs to argue mecha any more then i already have.

I do enjoy Mecha for the pure fear factor something like that brings to the battle field, alot of people forget there is alot more to tactics than just hey look theres the enemy OUTFLANK OUTFLANK and my guy is being sneaky behind your lines. You also have Moral and Fear, and nothing says "RUN AWAY!" more than having a giant wooden rabbit catapulted at you A Massive Mecha bristling with guns lumbering towards your platoon of soldiers.

I how ever only Reserve Mecha for Support artillery roles, mostly I much prefer using Flying drones and other forms of UAV's and ULV's thay are capable of spewing out more death than an entire platoon.

[Zepplin Manufacturers]

Lets go through your argument shall we... and firstly ..read that thread I linked opening post again. Please. Work was put into it. If not ...

“Zeppelin, as i said before and has been said, mecha are fine in FT, however fun fact” SNIP.

I have no problem with them being “fun” I have every problem in the world with them being “fine” .

“Some mecha are designed like actual combat vehicles SNIP “

Heavy gears are upscaled PAs... there profile is too large and the armour they use would suck compaired to an equiv mass tank. Just becuase the earth forces invading new earth happen to use light hover tanks thus not makeing use of the mass advantage is just universe engineering to pander. The few monsterous heavy hover tanks the later invasion uses devastate heavy gear forces. Armoured cores bouncing overly fast insane high profile vehicles “look” good but are geometricly overly complex and by and large still suffer the same problems EVERY other mecha does but slightly mitigated and there just acting like gunships.

So you have a turret on legs. This is at minimum 5 armoured boxes and 4 joints but probably far far more. Every one of these additional boxes removes efficincy from your armour scheme at a devestating rate and increases your visible profile. Every one of those joints is a possible mission kill point. Every joint requires power or motive mass of some sort.

“Second, square box. SNIPAGAIN”

...You have to present the angular edge to the oncoming fire to get the increase in RHA equiv, further again more boxes the FAR less effective volume you have per surface area than one box. Or two boxes.

“In this rare case SNIP”

Now your speaking battle tech.

Those vehicles are the woefull produce of an engineered (thankyou comstar) technological dark age taking what was a political tool of manouver in bloodless wars taken with dire consequence for human civilization to real battlefields. They STILL suffer from the exact same volume issue and will still by entire levels not equal a tank of the same mass for toughness. They simply CANNOT because of VOLUME to surface area EVER equal a tank for armoured values if made with the same amount of material.

If you "unfolded" the armour on a well designed mecha and a tankSNIP

 

Um .. most of this is nonsense. You have less volume. This is not a claim to fame. You have a far more complex geometry and a much much larger surface area. Your skin HAS to be larger per set inclosed volume. Not because I say so but because the universe does. To have the same level of protection or even near it per VOLUME of enclosed safe space that skin has to be thicker on your primary combat axis, thicker and more of it. More armored mass. Less enclosed volume ..less oomph to move it or fight it .

“Its a common trick to think that a tank has less armour required to cover it “

Its not at trick its SURFACE AREA. Its still a BOX and this the important factor . They really can per set system volume being a box and all have far more armour for the same mass AND far more volume of equipment than your mecha..infact for a humaniod FIVE TIMES MORE. FIVE. TIMES!! Thats not a trick thats the square cube law! You cant talk your way out of it and even the BEST designed walking tank still is not as efficient as an actuall AFV.

... Drive wheels are one of the primary vunerabilities of a tank not a strength. Industrial machinery by its very nature does not take kindly to weapons fire.

Joints given there nature are a BUGGER to armour and you require FAR more than a tanks drive wheel pair.

“Two of these are from the armoured core series, the other is mine. SNIP I SAY”

Count the boxes. There are far more. Now the space inbetween the boxes. Now hang your head in lost combat volume for AFV use and rampantly weaker armour scheme shame for all that extra surface area. Incidentaly your higher profile AGAIN means its harder for you to let the ground do its job.

“ against moving targets of small size. “ SNIP

You know whats fun about an anti capital DEWs given there needed role? The traverse speeds. That is by no means “small” if its AFV size.

Also the mecha tend to use alot of missiles and particle weapons, armour sublimation makes armour less important then shielding, and nothing stops a mecha [or anything else] from using shielding to get tough.

:/ An AFV can carry 5 times more, with still less ground preasure than you.

I am not defending all mecha..only "some" mecha, the ones that are actually designed like military machines. I will also say that many FT tracked tank designs would be tougher then the mecha, but the mecha [the good ones] would be somewhere in between a grav tank, a grav gunship and a fibw fighter.

No for equivlent tech they wont be anywhere between these. PA are fine but this this is not.

“Though i will say this is FT, I will defend anything someone wants to use, from cyber dragons, to animal mecha to farscape technology. People shouldn't be forced to use things they don't like just because someone wants to ban fun. I will play against anything and give it a fair shake.”

Fair and balanced are fine for fox news and fun light RP. When it comes to mecha in combat RP...less ..good.

“Mecha are currently unfeasible because of technological limitations. If they could run at 120 kph and hover like a hover tank, moving like a figure skater like depicted in armoured core, and were designed reasonably well, then they would be feasible. Modern technology they can barely walk at this moment. In FT they can do all those wonderful things and more, just like a grav tank or fighter. “

The Grav tank should be able to pull manouvers with 5 times more systems volume. 5 times the reactor space. 5 times the maneuvering thruster volume. An Aerospace fighter is so sublimely dedicated to its role that to compair it to anything is like compairing an orange to brieze block.

Final words on surface area.

Heat and radiation.

You absorb FIVE TIMES MORE. *(for the same enclosed volume) In space this means a FIVE TIMES MORE capable thermal control system needed, and a five times increase in vunerability to going outside your operating zone. For a vehicle thats already rampantly volume inneficient this adds a new layer of horror and a new layer of environments you just cant operate in.

Post script ..for Skiss ..and the rule of cool..

How fluffy do you want your RP is a common and good question, how dominated by the rule of cool should be combat is up entirely to the writers involved. Ample room for these things existence exists in the crawling walls of our shared unreality. HOWEVER.

Mecha by and large have a cool factor but it comes with a positive mountain of awful so large that it can be seen from the next solar system over. Again PA are fine but mecha ..

I don't mean slightly I mean just awful. Five times awful . Unless they have a DEVESTATING technological edge over there opponents there just dire. This for me ruins the cool factor of what is essentially a walking gunship if in the BT/ Destroid mold and the not to be spoken of humanoid mecha.

Do not take this as an attack from someone who is not a fan I have a 300 dollar macross konigmonster model beside me and a few valks.

Buut when even slightly real combat RP comes knocking ....mecha get terrible reaall fast.

[Sskiss]

@ Zepplin Manufacturers

I generally agree with you regarding the scientific feasibility of mechs and similar constructs. You'd be surprised at how much you can learn about engineering when studying bio-mechanics, anatomy and similar subjects. Its the same reason(s) why creatures like King Kong, Godzilla and giant insects are impossible. There needs to be a certain level of 'suspension of belief' regarding all of this. The NS/FT 'universe', such that it is, would be impossible anyway. There are just to many variables in 'power' levels, with some nations possessing super beings, gods, demi gods etc...with all manner of magic spells, the force and various psionics etc...

Regarding all of this, their must be a suspension of belief for the 'universe' to function as it does.

[Huerdae]

How fluffy do you want your RP is a common and good question, how dominated by the rule of cool should be combat is up entirely to the writers involved. Ample room for these things existence exists in the crawling walls of our shared unreality. HOWEVER.

Mecha by and large have a cool factor but it comes with a positive mountain of awful so large that it can be seen from the next solar system over. Again PA are fine but mecha ..

I don't mean slightly I mean just awful. Five times awful . Unless they have a DEVESTATING technological edge over there opponents there just dire. This for me ruins the cool factor of what is essentially a walking gunship if in the BT/ Destroid mold and the not to be spoken of humanoid mecha.

Do not take this as an attack from someone who is not a fan I have a 300 dollar macross konigmonster model beside me and a few valks.

Buut when even slightly real combat RP comes knocking ....mecha get terrible reaall fast.

Okay. I'll be one of the first to admit that mecha don't really have a place in realistic.

But I do have a problem when someone says "No, you can't" or "No, you shouldn't" when it comes to RP. This is freeform. If they bring a mecha, treat it like a tank of equal armament. That's all there is to it. I don't care if your troops see it as a tank. But don't go around saying "No, this has no place" in freeform because that's worse RP than trying to bring mecha into hard sci-fi.

[Derscon]

How fluffy do you want your RP is a common and good question, how dominated by the rule of cool should be combat is up entirely to the writers involved. Ample room for these things existence exists in the crawling walls of our shared unreality. HOWEVER.

Mecha by and large have a cool factor but it comes with a positive mountain of awful so large that it can be seen from the next solar system over. Again PA are fine but mecha ..

I don't mean slightly I mean just awful. Five times awful . Unless they have a DEVESTATING technological edge over there opponents there just dire. This for me ruins the cool factor of what is essentially a walking gunship if in the BT/ Destroid mold and the not to be spoken of humanoid mecha.

Do not take this as an attack from someone who is not a fan I have a 300 dollar macross konigmonster model beside me and a few valks.

Buut when even slightly real combat RP comes knocking ....mecha get terrible reaall fast.

Okay. I'll be one of the first to admit that mecha don't really have a place in realistic.

But I do have a problem when someone says "No, you can't" or "No, you shouldn't" when it comes to RP. This is freeform. If they bring a mecha, treat it like a tank of equal armament. That's all there is to it. I don't care if your troops see it as a tank. But don't go around saying "No, this has no place" in freeform because that's worse RP than trying to bring mecha into hard sci-fi.

This is one of the reasons I get annoyed by the mecha argument. The pro-mecha side usually is perfectly happy to admit the complete and utter scientific retardation of mecha, but make this argument, "holy shit this is awesome FUCK YES I WILL DO IT!" Which is fine. The anti-mecha folk are usually making a not-entirely-unjustified assumption that, if we're talking about it in the argument thread, there's probably some level of "how scientifically feasible is this, even given this is a fictional setting?" After all, this is called the Argument Thread, not the Discuss Your Feelings Thread.

[Risen Britannia]

i would like to say that i feel that the difference between a mech and a mecha should be appreciated more

with my deffeniton of a mech being something like this

and my deffeniton of a mecha being something like this

[Saurisisia]

i would like to say that i feel that the difference between a mech and a mecha should be appreciated more

with my deffeniton of a mech being something like this
(Image)
and my deffeniton of a mecha being something like this
(Image)

I thought Mecha was plural for a Mech.

[Saurisisia]

How fluffy do you want your RP is a common and good question, how dominated by the rule of cool should be combat is up entirely to the writers involved. Ample room for these things existence exists in the crawling walls of our shared unreality. HOWEVER.

Mecha by and large have a cool factor but it comes with a positive mountain of awful so large that it can be seen from the next solar system over. Again PA are fine but mecha ..

I don't mean slightly I mean just awful. Five times awful . Unless they have a DEVESTATING technological edge over there opponents there just dire. This for me ruins the cool factor of what is essentially a walking gunship if in the BT/ Destroid mold and the not to be spoken of humanoid mecha.

Do not take this as an attack from someone who is not a fan I have a 300 dollar macross konigmonster model beside me and a few valks.

Buut when even slightly real combat RP comes knocking ....mecha get terrible reaall fast.

Okay. I'll be one of the first to admit that mecha don't really have a place in realistic.

But I do have a problem when someone says "No, you can't" or "No, you shouldn't" when it comes to RP. This is freeform. If they bring a mecha, treat it like a tank of equal armament. That's all there is to it. I don't care if your troops see it as a tank. But don't go around saying "No, this has no place" in freeform because that's worse RP than trying to bring mecha into hard sci-fi.

Personally, I have to agree with this. This is a freeform forum, after all, and you should be free to use Mechs, no matter how unfeasible they are in real-life.

After all, story and roleplaying matters, weapons and technology doesn't, at least not as much.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

i would like to say that i feel that the difference between a mech and a mecha should be appreciated more

with my deffeniton of a mech being something like this
(Image)
and my deffeniton of a mecha being something like this
(Image)

I thought Mecha was plural for a Mech.

'Mecha' is the Engrish for 'mech' due to Japanese pronunciations. They mean the same thing.

EDIT:
Also, anybody who uses the word 'unfeasible' in relation to NSFT, a galaxy full of WH40k ships, dyson spheres and star destroyers, should be shot.

[Saurisisia]

I thought Mecha was plural for a Mech.

'Mecha' is the Engrish for 'mech' due to Japanese pronunciations. They mean the same thing.

Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification.

[Tannelorn]

Doc I did read that thread. I read it, and I have read it before, same arguments, same wrongness. That thread is purely applicable to Modern technology and is based solely on Mobile suit style mecha, the mecha I am defending are not mobile suits.

The armour is the same. Five times internal volume on a grav tank. Hmmmm no not at all. It still requires just as many thrusters to move [actually more, as it requires more verniers to change direction, a mecha can move right by leaning right on its legs like a skater], it still requires crew placement internally, its shape is going to leave it with the same problem as a tank, its hull will only have more space then the mechas arms and legs cause the hull has way more surface area. [AC style mecha dont have that much surface area off the turret, sorry look at the designs.]. Lets be honest, lets look at an AC and take it apart bit by bit.

The torso contains the main power plant and thrusters. It also contains anti missile systems. The arms are actually servo weapon mounts, don't consider them space that is used internally, as quite clearly the hands let you use space outside [or simply turn the whole fore arm in to a gun.] The legs on the other hand, are not only motive systems but contain the stabilising thrusters. This means that the arms and legs do most of the job of the hull and turret does for the tank. Leaving the turret [body] to house the essential systems. So as I said, its not 5 times the internal volume, more like 1.25. [maybe 1.5 if you have only 1 crewmen.] The legs free up volume in the turret, the arms are the real winner here, they totally free up the turret from having to internally mount cannons.


Armour wise when this thing is coming at you at full speed, the legs are at a 45 degree angle, and the joints are quite plainly likely tougher then any armour on your tank. [this is true, stop arguing it, wiki and book learning is one thing, i have that..real life experience has taught me otherwise.]
Internally the only reason the mecha has less space, is its actually a smaller unit.

Mecha tend to use add on weapons thus negating the need for internal space [look at my VMF 7 for an example.] All my internal space goes to power plants and shielding, and in this case I then have enough room to match an equivalent weight tank. I am also lighter for my size then your equivalent sized tank and thus require less power to my motive systems. As I am hovering on a cushion of air [and a bit of mag lev] I am able to stay quite balanced like a skater. Computer stabilising makes up for reflexes. Destroids as i said are crappy, why we stopped using them in favour of AC style mecha equipped like destroids to do the same job [except our Monster MAC II, I hate macross, well except zero...ok and frontier..that made up for macross 7, robotech is where its at.]. Speed is life.

The problem with modern mecha is we dont have the technology to do this. In FT we do. So though your tank has more internal space, it also requires more power to lift it. The tank has more surface area, your correct. The first mecha I showed does not have any more complex geometry then your tank. Its torso is a turret, its arms are simply servo's [30 seconds later in that scene it gets an arm blown off by a particle cannon, that design I know is a light arm unit so it can mount a sub capital P beam] and its legs are relatively simply rectangles. I also stated that the tank is tougher..but this five times is crap.

How many hover tanks have massive cannons in their hulls and on their turrets. How many hover tanks have fusion reactors in both the hull and the turret. If you have engines in your hull, then engines in the legs is using the same amount of space to do the job with less volume, less mass requires less lift.

You lose nothing with that mecha design. You weigh less, your weaponry is mounted on servo's, freeing up all that space in the turret to place the things the tank cannot, thus five times is utterly flawed. Try 1.25 at best, especially if it has more then one crewmen. Considering all that space you have to armour on the tank compared to the mecha. Total surface area of a tanks hull is still WAY more then the surface area of those mecha legs. The tank has all these weapons in the turret, and all this power generation and lifting in the hull. I have the same amount, in less area and this is because we mount the weapons on pods on back mounts, as well as in the arms. The arms add the volume we need to mount weapons, shielding, armour and power generation to match the tank.

Remember as well, that the tank MUST have effective top armour in FT, gun ships and grav tanks and infantry launch SADAR will make a mockery of your tank if you do not. This means more armour weight. Because both the hull and the turret need this extra top armour, and though the front armour is essentially armoured well for the top, its never angled well.

The mecha only has to armour the top of the turret and arms. The leg armour to the front also acts as top armour. The gun ship style AC mecha, will constantly be shooting a tanks top armour, and a tank shooting back will have all these lovely 45 degree angles to fire back at. Hover tanks are even worse then tracked models and need full thick armour with complex geometries all over the tank. Only the kind we discussed that hover low can get away with less..and...if you take out the lifters in a hover tank, it crashes.

If you take out the lifters in a mecha..it can still run [or at least move to cover if possible.] Also..track wheels [not tracks] are amongst the toughest part of a tank. Thats why tanks can tend to repair track damage with ease. The wheels stay standing despite massive hits. Also, trust me the force it took to slice the akuma's [its a CnC] engine in half would have easily cut a chobham plate in two. We have seen it done at my job, and when military grade steel turns in to a hockey stick spinning at 30 000 rpm then slices through the machine..well lets just say the forces involved were more then those from a standard round from a 105 mm. Funny enough, though the engine was cut in half, the mountings [analogue to the joints] were fine.

Also..the hover tanks in HG are FAR from light. The HT-68 and 72 were big heavy killer units. [I have a model of the HT-68 and I play as PAK in HG as well as the north, I adore hover tanks] the HHT-90 was meant to kill aller rail gun tanks and LAND SHIPS. They actually werent designed to kill gears and rarely engaged them..too big to really do so. The real reason the HT's were so feared was their weaponry and speed, not their uber awesomeness. A hovering mecha has those advantages as well.

If most of the weight of an AFV is armour [true fact] and a tank has more surface area, and you don't use too complex a geometry in the mecha, then the armour a mecha will require will be 2/3 to 3/4 of a tank, meaning 2/3 to 3/4 of the armour weight.

The fact that you have to switch up this armour is meaningless as the most important part, the main body is one Square box. That is the part that you are most likely going to hit when it is moving at 120-700 kph.

The hull of this hover tank is going to contain only engines and power generation. Its also going to be much heavier then the mecha thanks to the massive hull which requires twice the armour as the arms and legs of the mecha, to be as well armoured as that location. Its complexity thats the problem, and technology. Mecha are not infeasible, we just don't have a technology that makes them so.

Also..this whole low profile thing. Don't let me argue it, let every encounter between an M-60[4,2 meters tall] and a T-72 speak for it. Soviet tanks were all designed to be super stealthy, at only 1.5 meters tall, most soviet tanks are shorter then people. Then why, why did the massive and bulky M-60 slaughter them in droves? I will tell you.

1 Being tall or short in the open is meaningless. You gain no advantage in an open field being short, in fact, if your 6 feet tall and I am 30 feet tall, the closer i get the more likely i am to hit top armour. Fun fact, the only way to be shot in the back by a man your facing is if your on your belly and he is standing. I can still see you in the open, it makes no difference.

2 Being tall in Fibw. Well once again, back to the M-60. The T-72 couldnt fire over the cover it was hiding behind, the M-60 could, leading to many dead russian tanks. Interestingly though, an M-60 cant crouch and kneel, reducing its height by more then half, it also cant go on its belly. A mecha can. So saying a mecha is always going to be super tall is bull. It can do things that a tank cannot.
In fact it can reduce its profile in defensive situations to as low as a tank. Making them more versatile, enabling them to act like turretless tank destroyers. Then your lowness advantage is moot. As well..hover tanks have a high profile as well, just by hovering.

3 the mecha tend to have sensors in the head, meaning they can not only see over cover, but the sensors will see over it. A tank hiding in a wood can kill a mecha, but a mecha can also hide in a wood and kill a tank. If that mecha gets in the wood with the tank the tank wont do so well.

4 Ground pressure, once again technology can fix it, and I never argued that. As I said its infeasible modern wise, but if we had the tech as I said that could make an AC move like an AC, then it would be just as effective as it is in the game series. My mecha weigh 60 odd tonnes, but when there generator is on and Artificial gravity goes, they wind up resting on the ground with only ten tons of pressure. Thats how I icly fix it. Its not anti grav, just a little mass compensation. I will hand to you that I dont have the ground pressure answer. But I also cant tell you how to go faster then light.


As I have said RP wise back when i didn't know as much about actual designs and engineering as I do now, we have a tech edge that makes them good. Its a tech tree we have worked on for 800 years and they are mechanically complex and expensive, generally reserved for experienced troops. Mecha are unit killers, tanks and conventional aircraft tend to a single job well. The mecha will do just as well as your high end superiority unit, I have put lots of IC rp in to them Thats all that really matters on NS. However as I said I didn't want to continue arguing it, but ancient wisdom and supposed common sense may be comforting. But when its wrong, its still wrong.

When you sit down with a well designed mecha [which by the way have only started cropping up in the last ten years] you realise the disadvantages commonly stated are not the real problem. The real problem is complexity and locomotion. Try to make a Tomahawk or Cheyenne, you will encounter problems with feasibility as a combat unit as its trying to use legs to run really fast.

The american stealth tank design was scrapped for being crappier by far then the M-1. It was scrapped because the russians proved that shorter is not better for an AFV.
Once again, Ancient wisdom and supposed common sense are comforting, but if its wrong [as this whole height thing was so drastically proven by the M-60 and m-1] its wrong. [The k-1 is being replaced by the black eagle for the same reason.]

Mecha are feasible in FT, and to say you cant use them in FT RP when people are using anti matter and C'tan and necrons and space elves with magic, and Anti gravity flying tanks, and faster then light travel, and space marines, and wookies and massive planet destroying star ships, its ridiculous. They can be good if they are said to be good.

So therefore I had to bring up the facts on this issue. I am not arguing every problem, just space vs armour. The truth is the mecha is going to be lighter, and its lack of space will not be as much of an issue if you arent trying to build a battle mech. The main cannon takes up so much room in a tanks turret as to make the turret a moot point, there is nothing in it but crew and a gun and ammo [or a capacitor] Therefore thanks to the arms, the mecha is only competing with the hull, and using the turret and legs to do so.

The tank needs motive systems too, these take up huge amounts of room. The advantage a mecha has is its legs are its motive systems. This means that the turret now matches the internal space now available on the tank. 1.25 at best. When you consider that if its tracked you need drive trains leading to two side mounts [the tracks], power generation and the ability to get that power there, you find its just as crowded in that hull as it is in those legs, and my legs need less armour then the hull to match the hulls thickness. Also, lets be blunt in FT, armour angling wont save you.

Armour in FT will likely be multi layered to stop all sorts of attacks, and would be rounded, or simply slabs of ablatives. Particle beams and high speed kinetics convert armour to energy, so thickness is not as important as material. For instance we have forcefields built in to our armour.

In some cases its just shielding with a skin. If your mecha or tank is built that way, then internal space for shielding will still be identical meaning the tank and the mecha are just as tough as they dont rely on armour. [Gundam SEED is that way, they use a force field armour which basically stops kinetics and forces everyone to use particle beams, in UC particle beams sublimated armour, making it worthless by UC 0091.]

Hover tanks are even worse as you now need one main turbine, and the ability to push thrust through to any of your verniers which have to be everywhere, the hull would be taken up with vent's and ducts. Space is still space, doesnt matter where it is. I just happen to put my motors in my legs as well as secondary engines. I put my main power plant and engine in the back of the torso, and weapons on arm servo's to the side of my turret. AC has tank designs like that as well. Put an AC torso on a tank body and place guns or arms on the side. Also MS Igloo has not only the hildolfr tank, but the assault gun tank, both lovely tank designs that take advantage of some giant robot design features to be that much more effective then a regular tank. [arms really free up space internally you know, and allow you much more maneuvarability in field of fire.]

I did not want to say it last night as its already such a touchy subject..but an AC style mecha only requires 3/4 the armour at best of a tank. ITs geometries are not all that complex compared to a veritech, gundam or flying grav tank. Also, this silly idea that shorter is better in combat is just that. Silly. If that was true no one would use air craft or helicopters or tanks. All armies would ride around in wheeled toboggans with TOW missiles and machine guns. Also if it was true no one would laugh at soviet tanks for being garbage, but its not the tank that sucks..its the design philosophy behind it.

The wonderful thing about blue prints is that its a standardised system. Figuring out these masses and volumes is the same for everything. Stop using Mobile suits as your argument. Mobile suits were originally designed as 8 foot power armours, but the show creator was forced to make them huge by his producers.

Thats why he later made Votoms. Destroids are even worse. In robotech the UEEF stopped using them by 2035 in favour of better...faster and smaller designs like the bioroid interceptor or the alpha [the very first reasonable mecha design, and it is still very flawed.] The internal skeleton and myomer system fixes the space issue by using far less then the massive assortment of widgests would.

The truth is, an Armoured core or a heavy gear is a true war machine, [more the AC really] and it would not be so outclassed by a tank. [note in AC the tank styled armoured cores could carry much larger guns, which is why i base my own mecha on lighter guns..particle beams being the matching weapons, for instance the biggest one hand kinetic gun carried on a tannelornian mecha is a semi auto 90 mm, or a 76 mm automatic, normally its AT guns are particle beams, which are quite effective.]

Also, my job has given me a new understanding of machinery, particularly industrial machinery and the process of building things and reading and making [and fixing] blue prints, blue prints that were made by college grads who NEVER get it right, it always..always needs to be fixed by machine operators who understand the reality of the systems involved. I myself have had to fix schematics on more then one occassion that were wrong, as have several of my coworkers.

So argument over with this. It doesn't matter if we were good men, or we are bad, how we lived, or how we died. All that matters is this is FT, mecha work..it was decided that they work. End of story. Don't like it, go to a different forum, or start a universe where its all hard science. Though no FTL either, all STL as thats hard science. Also doc, you do realise my best Air/space superiority units are 100 meter long ten thousand ton 1-2 man corvettes right, that the hellebarde mecha evolved in a time when Tannelorn was going to ditch variable mecha for single form to use as PDS, escort and interception, while they used the big nasty boom fighters as strike and air/space superiority. [Just like the Tirolian masters in southern cross, who used bioroids on the ground, which btw were frames, and the Roil series corvette for every duty an aircraft, artillery or strike fighter would do.]

My mecha are PDS, interception, space superiority and escort. Fighters and HMAF's are strike.
On the ground they act like tank hunters or infantry support, the variables exist as marine units, to clear air cover then get down to take objectives or support friendly.

Also..thats a knightmare from code Geas [superheroized heavy gears] those arent mecha!!!! thats a superhero!!!! an Armoured core is a mecha, a heavy gear is a mecha, a votom is a mecha, the other stuff is all..superhero robots. Votoms, patlabor, armoured core those are mecha.

[Clamparapa]

The armour is the same. Five times internal volume on a grav tank. Hmmmm no not at all. It still requires just as many thrusters to move [actually more, as it requires more verniers to change direction, a mecha can move right by leaning right on its legs like a skater], it still requires crew placement internally, its shape is going to leave it with the same problem as a tank, its hull will only have more space then the mechas arms and legs cause the hull has way more surface area. [AC style mecha dont have that much surface area off the turret, sorry look at the designs.]. Lets be honest, lets look at an AC and take it apart bit by bit.

The torso contains the main power plant and thrusters. It also contains anti missile systems. The arms are actually servo weapon mounts, don't consider them space that is used internally, as quite clearly the hands let you use space outside [or simply turn the whole fore arm in to a gun.] The legs on the other hand, are not only motive systems but contain the stabilising thrusters. This means that the arms and legs do most of the job of the hull and turret does for the tank. Leaving the turret [body] to house the essential systems. So as I said, its not 5 times the internal volume, more like 1.25. [maybe 1.5 if you have only 1 crewmen.] The legs free up volume in the turret, the arms are the real winner here, they totally free up the turret from having to internally mount cannons.


Armour wise when this thing is coming at you at full speed, the legs are at a 45 degree angle, and the joints are quite plainly likely tougher then any armour on your tank. [this is true, stop arguing it, wiki and book learning is one thing, i have that..real life experience has taught me otherwise.]
Internally the only reason the mecha has less space, is its actually a smaller unit.

Mecha tend to use add on weapons thus negating the need for internal space [look at my VMF 7 for an example.] All my internal space goes to power plants and shielding, and in this case I then have enough room to match an equivalent weight tank. I am also lighter for my size then your equivalent sized tank and thus require less power to my motive systems. As I am hovering on a cushion of air [and a bit of mag lev] I am able to stay quite balanced like a skater. Computer stabilising makes up for reflexes. Destroids as i said are crappy, why we stopped using them in favour of AC style mecha equipped like destroids to do the same job [except our Monster MAC II, I hate macross, well except zero...ok and frontier..that made up for macross 7, robotech is where its at.]. Speed is life.

The problem with modern mecha is we dont have the technology to do this. In FT we do. So though your tank has more internal space, it also requires more power to lift it. The tank has more surface area, your correct. The first mecha I showed does not have any more complex geometry then your tank. Its torso is a turret, its arms are simply servo's [30 seconds later in that scene it gets an arm blown off by a particle cannon, that design I know is a light arm unit so it can mount a sub capital P beam] and its legs are relatively simply rectangles. I also stated that the tank is tougher..but this five times is crap.

How many hover tanks have massive cannons in their hulls and on their turrets. How many hover tanks have fusion reactors in both the hull and the turret. If you have engines in your hull, then engines in the legs is using the same amount of space to do the job with less volume, less mass requires less lift.

You lose nothing with that mecha design. You weigh less, your weaponry is mounted on servo's, freeing up all that space in the turret to place the things the tank cannot, thus five times is utterly flawed. Try 1.25 at best, especially if it has more then one crewmen. Considering all that space you have to armour on the tank compared to the mecha. Total surface area of a tanks hull is still WAY more then the surface area of those mecha legs. The tank has all these weapons in the turret, and all this power generation and lifting in the hull. I have the same amount, in less area and this is because we mount the weapons on pods on back mounts, as well as in the arms. The arms add the volume we need to mount weapons, shielding, armour and power generation to match the tank.

Remember as well, that the tank MUST have effective top armour in FT, gun ships and grav tanks and infantry launch SADAR will make a mockery of your tank if you do not. This means more armour weight. Because both the hull and the turret need this extra top armour, and though the front armour is essentially armoured well for the top, its never angled well.

The mecha only has to armour the top of the turret and arms. The leg armour to the front also acts as top armour. The gun ship style AC mecha, will constantly be shooting a tanks top armour, and a tank shooting back will have all these lovely 45 degree angles to fire back at. Hover tanks are even worse then tracked models and need full thick armour with complex geometries all over the tank. Only the kind we discussed that hover low can get away with less..and...if you take out the lifters in a hover tank, it crashes.

If you take out the lifters in a mecha..it can still run [or at least move to cover if possible.] Also..track wheels [not tracks] are amongst the toughest part of a tank. Thats why tanks can tend to repair track damage with ease. The wheels stay standing despite massive hits. Also, trust me the force it took to slice the akuma's [its a CnC] engine in half would have easily cut a chobham plate in two. We have seen it done at my job, and when military grade steel turns in to a hockey stick spinning at 30 000 rpm then slices through the machine..well lets just say the forces involved were more then those from a standard round from a 105 mm. Funny enough, though the engine was cut in half, the mountings [analogue to the joints] were fine.

Also..the hover tanks in HG are FAR from light. The HT-68 and 72 were big heavy killer units. [I have a model of the HT-68 and I play as PAK in HG as well as the north, I adore hover tanks] the HHT-90 was meant to kill aller rail gun tanks and LAND SHIPS. They actually werent designed to kill gears and rarely engaged them..too big to really do so. The real reason the HT's were so feared was their weaponry and speed, not their uber awesomeness. A hovering mecha has those advantages as well.

If most of the weight of an AFV is armour [true fact] and a tank has more surface area, and you don't use too complex a geometry in the mecha, then the armour a mecha will require will be 2/3 to 3/4 of a tank, meaning 2/3 to 3/4 of the armour weight.

The fact that you have to switch up this armour is meaningless as the most important part, the main body is one Square box. That is the part that you are most likely going to hit when it is moving at 120-700 kph.

The hull of this hover tank is going to contain only engines and power generation. Its also going to be much heavier then the mecha thanks to the massive hull which requires twice the armour as the arms and legs of the mecha, to be as well armoured as that location. Its complexity thats the problem, and technology. Mecha are not infeasible, we just don't have a technology that makes them so.

Also..this whole low profile thing. Don't let me argue it, let every encounter between an M-60[4,2 meters tall] and a T-72 speak for it. Soviet tanks were all designed to be super stealthy, at only 1.5 meters tall, most soviet tanks are shorter then people. Then why, why did the massive and bulky M-60 slaughter them in droves? I will tell you.

1 Being tall or short in the open is meaningless. You gain no advantage in an open field being short, in fact, if your 6 feet tall and I am 30 feet tall, the closer i get the more likely i am to hit top armour. Fun fact, the only way to be shot in the back by a man your facing is if your on your belly and he is standing. I can still see you in the open, it makes no difference.

2 Being tall in Fibw. Well once again, back to the M-60. The T-72 couldnt fire over the cover it was hiding behind, the M-60 could, leading to many dead russian tanks. Interestingly though, an M-60 cant crouch and kneel, reducing its height by more then half, it also cant go on its belly. A mecha can. So saying a mecha is always going to be super tall is bull. It can do things that a tank cannot.
In fact it can reduce its profile in defensive situations to as low as a tank. Making them more versatile, enabling them to act like turretless tank destroyers. Then your lowness advantage is moot. As well..hover tanks have a high profile as well, just by hovering.

3 the mecha tend to have sensors in the head, meaning they can not only see over cover, but the sensors will see over it. A tank hiding in a wood can kill a mecha, but a mecha can also hide in a wood and kill a tank. If that mecha gets in the wood with the tank the tank wont do so well.

4 Ground pressure, once again technology can fix it, and I never argued that. As I said its infeasible modern wise, but if we had the tech as I said that could make an AC move like an AC, then it would be just as effective as it is in the game series. My mecha weigh 60 odd tonnes, but when there generator is on and Artificial gravity goes, they wind up resting on the ground with only ten tons of pressure. Thats how I icly fix it. Its not anti grav, just a little mass compensation. I will hand to you that I dont have the ground pressure answer. But I also cant tell you how to go faster then light.


As I have said RP wise back when i didn't know as much about actual designs and engineering as I do now, we have a tech edge that makes them good. Its a tech tree we have worked on for 800 years and they are mechanically complex and expensive, generally reserved for experienced troops. Mecha are unit killers, tanks and conventional aircraft tend to a single job well. The mecha will do just as well as your high end superiority unit, I have put lots of IC rp in to them Thats all that really matters on NS. However as I said I didn't want to continue arguing it, but ancient wisdom and supposed common sense may be comforting. But when its wrong, its still wrong.

When you sit down with a well designed mecha [which by the way have only started cropping up in the last ten years] you realise the disadvantages commonly stated are not the real problem. The real problem is complexity and locomotion. Try to make a Tomahawk or Cheyenne, you will encounter problems with feasibility as a combat unit as its trying to use legs to run really fast.

The american stealth tank design was scrapped for being crappier by far then the M-1. It was scrapped because the russians proved that shorter is not better for an AFV.
Once again, Ancient wisdom and supposed common sense are comforting, but if its wrong [as this whole height thing was so drastically proven by the M-60 and m-1] its wrong. [The k-1 is being replaced by the black eagle for the same reason.]

Mecha are feasible in FT, and to say you cant use them in FT RP when people are using anti matter and C'tan and necrons and space elves with magic, and Anti gravity flying tanks, and faster then light travel, and space marines, and wookies and massive planet destroying star ships, its ridiculous. They can be good if they are said to be good.

So therefore I had to bring up the facts on this issue. I am not arguing every problem, just space vs armour. The truth is the mecha is going to be lighter, and its lack of space will not be as much of an issue if you arent trying to build a battle mech. The main cannon takes up so much room in a tanks turret as to make the turret a moot point, there is nothing in it but crew and a gun and ammo [or a capacitor] Therefore thanks to the arms, the mecha is only competing with the hull, and using the turret and legs to do so.

The tank needs motive systems too, these take up huge amounts of room. The advantage a mecha has is its legs are its motive systems. This means that the turret now matches the internal space now available on the tank. 1.25 at best. When you consider that if its tracked you need drive trains leading to two side mounts [the tracks], power generation and the ability to get that power there, you find its just as crowded in that hull as it is in those legs, and my legs need less armour then the hull to match the hulls thickness. Also, lets be blunt in FT, armour angling wont save you.

Armour in FT will likely be multi layered to stop all sorts of attacks, and would be rounded, or simply slabs of ablatives. Particle beams and high speed kinetics convert armour to energy, so thickness is not as important as material. For instance we have forcefields built in to our armour.

In some cases its just shielding with a skin. If your mecha or tank is built that way, then internal space for shielding will still be identical meaning the tank and the mecha are just as tough as they dont rely on armour. [Gundam SEED is that way, they use a force field armour which basically stops kinetics and forces everyone to use particle beams, in UC particle beams sublimated armour, making it worthless by UC 0091.]

Hover tanks are even worse as you now need one main turbine, and the ability to push thrust through to any of your verniers which have to be everywhere, the hull would be taken up with vent's and ducts. Space is still space, doesnt matter where it is. I just happen to put my motors in my legs as well as secondary engines. I put my main power plant and engine in the back of the torso, and weapons on arm servo's to the side of my turret. AC has tank designs like that as well. Put an AC torso on a tank body and place guns or arms on the side. Also MS Igloo has not only the hildolfr tank, but the assault gun tank, both lovely tank designs that take advantage of some giant robot design features to be that much more effective then a regular tank. [arms really free up space internally you know, and allow you much more maneuvarability in field of fire.]

I did not want to say it last night as its already such a touchy subject..but an AC style mecha only requires 3/4 the armour at best of a tank. ITs geometries are not all that complex compared to a veritech, gundam or flying grav tank. Also, this silly idea that shorter is better in combat is just that. Silly. If that was true no one would use air craft or helicopters or tanks. All armies would ride around in wheeled toboggans with TOW missiles and machine guns. Also if it was true no one would laugh at soviet tanks for being garbage, but its not the tank that sucks..its the design philosophy behind it.

The wonderful thing about blue prints is that its a standardised system. Figuring out these masses and volumes is the same for everything. Stop using Mobile suits as your argument. Mobile suits were originally designed as 8 foot power armours, but the show creator was forced to make them huge by his producers.

Thats why he later made Votoms. Destroids are even worse. In robotech the UEEF stopped using them by 2035 in favour of better...faster and smaller designs like the bioroid interceptor or the alpha [the very first reasonable mecha design, and it is still very flawed.] The internal skeleton and myomer system fixes the space issue by using far less then the massive assortment of widgests would.

The truth is, an Armoured core or a heavy gear is a true war machine, [more the AC really] and it would not be so outclassed by a tank. [note in AC the tank styled armoured cores could carry much larger guns, which is why i base my own mecha on lighter guns..particle beams being the matching weapons, for instance the biggest one hand kinetic gun carried on a tannelornian mecha is a semi auto 90 mm, or a 76 mm automatic, normally its AT guns are particle beams, which are quite effective.]

Also, my job has given me a new understanding of machinery, particularly industrial machinery and the process of building things and reading and making [and fixing] blue prints, blue prints that were made by college grads who NEVER get it right, it always..always needs to be fixed by machine operators who understand the reality of the systems involved. I myself have had to fix schematics on more then one occassion that were wrong, as have several of my coworkers.

So argument over with this. It doesn't matter if we were good men, or we are bad, how we lived, or how we died. All that matters is this is FT, mecha work..it was decided that they work. End of story. Don't like it, go to a different forum, or start a universe where its all hard science. Though no FTL either, all STL as thats hard science. Also doc, you do realise my best Air/space superiority units are 100 meter long ten thousand ton 1-2 man corvettes right, that the hellebarde mecha evolved in a time when Tannelorn was going to ditch variable mecha for single form to use as PDS, escort and interception, while they used the big nasty boom fighters as strike and air/space superiority. [Just like the Tirolian masters in southern cross, who used bioroids on the ground, which btw were frames, and the Roil series corvette for every duty an aircraft, artillery or strike fighter would do.]

My mecha are PDS, interception, space superiority and escort. Fighters and HMAF's are strike.
On the ground they act like tank hunters or infantry support, the variables exist as marine units, to clear air cover then get down to take objectives or support friendly.

Also..thats a knightmare from code Geas [superheroized heavy gears] those arent mecha!!!! thats a superhero!!!! an Armoured core is a mecha, a heavy gear is a mecha, a votom is a mecha, the other stuff is all..superhero robots. Votoms, patlabor, armoured core those are mecha.

Too bad I have snowspeeders. Your argument is invalid.

[Tannelorn]

ROFL, there we go, thats the spirit. Truth is I am so sick of arguing this topic that I have literally just made one mega post argument, as I will literally never attempt to explain 1+1=2 ever again.
Its all about FT and RP, who the frack cares what it looks like, whether its a drone, or a cyborg, or a magic freaking faerie.

That being said I really am game for anything people use, Hell i have fought live dragons with mecha and fighter planes before. Its all good to me.