Author Topic: Stealth the movie  (Read 8336 times)

Lazlo Falconi

  • Posts: 7143
  • Falconi?
    • View Profile
    • website
Stealth the movie
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2005, 07:03:28 pm »
Quote from: "Swiftman"
But I jstu think we should make mechs, and all problems for war will be over, cuz whoever has the most mechs, wins.

Mechs are cool, but completely impractical for actual combat. I'd rather see mechs put to use in exibition matches, just fighting to fight, rather than fighting in a war.
Soon to be a major motion picture!

qualityretro.net

NeoCalculus

  • Posts: 1306
    • View Profile
Stealth the movie
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2005, 10:13:35 pm »
ZOMG!!!  A GIANT CHICKEN WITH GATLING GUNS!!!  THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN WIN A WAR AGAINST THAT!*

*what I would actually say if a battle mech attacked me
Chainsaw hands and text based sigs for great justice.

Tiger

  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Stealth the movie
« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2005, 09:34:22 pm »
What really makes a mech impractical is armoring and fuel.  With our current technology, the most efficient way to deply heavy firepower, that is highly mobile and extremely well-armored, is the tank (I would like an M1-A1 Abrams for Christmas if anyone has a big enough paycheck... "depleted uranium shells not included" so that too).  However, in most of the media in which you come across mechs, in particular MechWarrior, the improbabilities are taken care of.  The need for an energy propulsion system capable of moving a machine that ways dozens of tons at high speeds or with limited flight is met.  A mech can hold more weapons than a tank ever could, just by sheer size if not by copious amounts of robotic articulation.  Furthermore, they have futuristic armor that makes them sturdy enough to withhold attacks from just about anything besides another mech.  You have the armor to withstand an amount of firepower tha a tank is capable of delivering, size enough to carry more weapons than a tank could, and power to do it faster and with more versasitility.  Gundams leave out inertia.  Just turning around would knock an average person out form the gravitational force, but in a MechWarrior mech such movement is realistically achieved.

All we lack is the science.

But ultimately yeah, even if we could get a machine to walk (reliably) on two legs, it'd be better to stick with the tank until we fix some of those other problems, estne?

Zaijian,
Tiger

Swiftman

  • Posts: 5679
  • Conqueror
    • View Profile
Stealth the movie
« Reply #18 on: August 09, 2005, 12:02:04 am »
And with the heavy armor comes the support form it.. If the metal around it is thick enough, you don't need to add any support trusses inside of, say, the legs. The armor alone is enough to support the weight. Now, say, in another mech-ish case, the H.A.R. from One Must Fall, the whole thing is a complicated system of megnets repelling and attracting in very complicated fashions, and it is controlled by a computer that a human psyche can literally 'jack into' and your body is left behind, and your mind controls the whole HAR like it was your own body. You can easily 'jack out' of it easily, and your back to your own human body. This has almost limitless applications. If you make an HAR small as a human, a handicapped person can jack in and leave their human body behind. (Like Cossette, if you've played One Must Fall) One in-game application of the HAR is deep space mining on moons like Ganymede, and another thing they do in the example of teh Chronos, it has a system with enough power to modify the flow of time itself, and it can cause an area-wide freeze to gain precious extra seconds in rescue missions. They don't use the Chronos functions elsewhere, since it's an area-effect thing, and they can't move the system near as effectively on a ship, so they stuck it inside of a 90-story mech.

I know that was a huge swarm of nerd-ism, but another thing I see is the jumpjets in mechs. Gundams can do it, because they're mainly in space. A Mech, however, looks to be MUCH heavier than a Gundam, so it would take incredulous amounts of thrust to make it air-born. I guess that's why the Mechwarrior games occur in 3052 (or something like that) but from what we have now, it's not possible.

And I think what the biggest obstacle in mech technology is the balance. A human can lift a foot and he can bend his body to maintain his balance, and thus not fall over. A Mech, however, has no such luxury and would fall on it's side everytime a foot was raised. They would have to make it so the mech wouldn't topple over everytime it stepped. How that would be fixed is my dunno.

Lazlo Falconi

  • Posts: 7143
  • Falconi?
    • View Profile
    • website
Stealth the movie
« Reply #19 on: August 09, 2005, 12:06:47 am »
A mech doesn't need legs. If you got rid of the wildly flapping legs and arms, then a mech would be effective, though no longer a mech.
Soon to be a major motion picture!

qualityretro.net

Tiger

  • Posts: 235
    • View Profile
Stealth the movie
« Reply #20 on: August 09, 2005, 03:04:34 am »
Functioning legs are what makes a mech more maneuverable than a tank.  The arms are superfluous though, and the legs would be as well if you could just fly around.  That'd be what... a superarmored gunship?  I'm all for that.  My only point was that what makes a mech practical is that it can carry more, go more places, and take more damage than anything land-based.  The only things it lacks are the power source and the armor, which 30 years ago was the same issue for a T-41 or an M1-A1, and a problem that isn't as fantastic as "Minovsky reactor", or "psi-linking", or "jack-up/ins", or "virtual reality skins" etc. etc.  I think MechWarrior mechs run on nuclear power anyhow.  Yeah, balance is a problem, but a mech would be just as good if not better with four legs, but regardless I mentioned the issue with robotic bipeds above, right?

Anyway, that was fun.

Zaijian,
Tiger