I'm getting more and more annoyed with the bad and impossible design of vehicles in 40 k. One of the worst examples is the IG Chimera. If it were real it would become immovable once it had sunk 2 inches into to the ground. Even WW1 tanks were better designed. Don't even get me started on the Russ. The size of the guns and shape of the body means it would hold about two rounds and hardly any crew. Bane blades etc seem to have thought in them but the smaller stuff: is just crappy and once you start to think about it, it only gets worse. Come on GW time to upgrade the realism to is what otherwise a great game and great fluff. There I feel better.
I really do not care about that.
You can imagine chimera having a badass engine, pushing the thing through whatever.
You can imagine that the LRBT cannon shells have especially compact casing.
One thing I am not that happy about though, is the fact that the warp portal generator in every rhino is very well hidden.
Yeah, warp portal. How else could you put 10 MARINES AND ALL THEIR GEAR in this tiny shoecase with tracks.
The tanks for this game are not to scale with the rest of the models. Even the space marines are not to scale with other armies, look at a SM and an IG model. Pretty much the same size...If you don't like the model, you can always fix it yourself by modeling it how you wish. If GW made the tanks to scale with the rest of the model line, a land raider would be huge! And so would a russ.
Seb wrote:I really do not care about that.
You can imagine chimera having a badass engine, pushing the thing through whatever.
You can imagine that the LRBT cannon shells have especially compact casing.
One thing I am not that happy about though, is the fact that the warp portal generator in every rhino is very well hidden.
Yeah, warp portal. How else could you put 10 MARINES AND ALL THEIR GEAR in this tiny shoecase with tracks.
No engine in the world can push a grounded vehicle through the ground!!! Warp portal is spot on. Really frustrating. Rhinos should be bigger the marines don't even fit in the hatch. Lol.
You are talking about a game with space elves, half animal-half plant warrior aliens who can make guns work by their collective psychic presence, Genetically engineered super-human warriors and alien robots armed with tesla coils, and you're worried about the fact that the unrealistic shape of the tanks.
Sci-fi mini games sell minis by 'rule of cool', it's more important that the Russ/Chimera look bad-ass than look like they would actually work.
However, that's not to say that if you so choose, you can model your tanks to be as feasibly realistic as you like, so long as they are about the same height, width and depth as a Russ/Chimera your opponents aren't really going to complain.
EmperorsChampion wrote:The tanks for this game are not to scale with the rest of the models. Even the space marines are not to scale with other armies, look at a SM and an IG model. Pretty much the same size...If you don't like the model, you can always fix it yourself by modeling it how you wish. If GW made the tanks to scale with the rest of the model line, a land raider would be huge! And so would a russ.
I agree about the size but its basic physics I'm talking about. Its just lazy to trow out bad designs. Forge world don't.
Leigen_Zero wrote:I think I would agree with the two above posts.
You are talking about a game with space elves, half animal-half plant warrior aliens who can make guns work by their collective psychic presence, Genetically engineered super-human warriors and alien robots armed with tesla coils, and you're worried about the fact that the unrealistic shape of the tanks.
Sci-fi mini games sell minis by 'rule of cool', it's more important that the Russ/Chimera look bad-ass than look like they would actually work.
However, that's not to say that if you so choose, you can model your tanks to be as feasibly realistic as you like, so long as they are about the same height, width and depth as a Russ/Chimera your opponents aren't really going to complain.
If you want realism you are playing the wrong game dude lol
How can you rant about realism? You want a rhino so to scale to fit 10 marines? Games would suck, your models would be 50% of the damn table. This is a sci-fi fantasy space aged game 40,000 years in the future. Realism cannot even be approached, for all you know the metal the chimera is made of is paper thin, weightless because the atoms in the metallic structure were re-arranged by mechanicists of old. But then again this is dakkadakka, where its 80/20 split of ranting, and actual discussion.
Leigen_Zero wrote:I think I would agree with the two above posts.
You are talking about a game with space elves, half animal-half plant warrior aliens who can make guns work by their collective psychic presence, Genetically engineered super-human warriors and alien robots armed with tesla coils, and you're worried about the fact that the unrealistic shape of the tanks.
Sci-fi mini games sell minis by 'rule of cool', it's more important that the Russ/Chimera look bad-ass than look like they would actually work.
However, that's not to say that if you so choose, you can model your tanks to be as feasibly realistic as you like, so long as they are about the same height, width and depth as a Russ/Chimera your opponents aren't really going to complain.
Thx for your points but I really don't get the ' its sci fi' so it ain't gottalook right argument. The models they are bringing out go through a design stage. At this point it would be good if someone said hold on that's not going to work. If you read the forge world armour collection the vehicles are really well thought out and are 'badass' but realistic. But your right I'm going to convert my own vehicles and the Ill be happy. I may even start a blog about it.
40k has always been heroic scale. It's a conscious decision on behalf of the game designers. Vehicles are too small relatively (so they don't take up the whole board), Guardsmen and Space Marines are approximately the same height, model's heads and hands are exaggerated in size, weapons are exaggerated in size etc etc.
As for the design of the vehicles, they're designed to look cool, not be practical. Just look at the barrel size on the Leman Russ. There's no way that wouldn't just blow the turret clean off with the recoil!
If you want realism you are playing the wrong game dude lol
How can you rant about realism? You want a rhino so to scale to fit 10 marines? Games would suck, your models would be 50% of the damn table. This is a sci-fi fantasy space aged game 40,000 years in the future. Realism cannot even be approached, for all you know the metal the chimera is made of is paper thin, weightless because the atoms in the metallic structure were re-arranged by mechanicists of old. But then again this is dakkadakka, where its 80/20 split of ranting, and actual discussion.
The use of the word Rant in the title was tongue in cheek and yes you can have realistic looking vehicles. Just because its sci fi does not mean it has to look crap. Someone else mention the rhino, size is not my main concern bad design is.
Leigen_Zero wrote:I think I would agree with the two above posts.
You are talking about a game with space elves, half animal-half plant warrior aliens who can make guns work by their collective psychic presence, Genetically engineered super-human warriors and alien robots armed with tesla coils, and you're worried about the fact that the unrealistic shape of the tanks.
Sci-fi mini games sell minis by 'rule of cool', it's more important that the Russ/Chimera look bad-ass than look like they would actually work.
However, that's not to say that if you so choose, you can model your tanks to be as feasibly realistic as you like, so long as they are about the same height, width and depth as a Russ/Chimera your opponents aren't really going to complain.
Just because it is a sci fi game doesn't mean that all conventional thought into physics and at least some semblance of realism should be ignored. Even so, I don't care honeslty.
I have always said the cannon on a LM was a little to big. But I have very few issues with scale. It would be nice if Marines did look bigger next to IG, but then Bolters in the fluff are these huge monsters of a gun, fit for a Marine..but when I started playing IG you could pass them off to Sgts and even the Sisters have Bolters, which are all the same size as the Marine ones.
My old school Rhinos are like soup cans next to every other tank (even the transports that holod smaller "men") and when next to newer Rhinos look even more out of place. Just like the guns are them look way out of line, LOL But then I like the older Rhinos more anyway, just because it confuses some people.
The tanks aren't to scale. You try getting ten marine models inside of a rhino or sixteen into a landraider.
Also, when playing a game with superhuman giants carrying what are effectivly rapid fire grenade launchers and shooting them at giant space lizards from another galaxy, realism arguments are invalid.
The tanks aren't to scale. You try getting ten marine models inside of a rhino or sixteen into a landraider.
Also, when playing a game with superhuman giants carrying what are effectivly rapid fire grenade launchers and shooting them at giant space lizards from another galaxy, realism arguments are invalid.
Sure. I am willing to bet 99.9% of everyone on here knows it's a game, and it's SiFi. Doesnt change the fact all good SiFi has some sort of base in being real. Star Trek came up with some lame reason why the transporter works, and doest scatter you all over the place. I know watching Rambo, that there is no way he has the M60 belt tossed over his arm and fires it with one hand...but when he takes a bullet, he bleeds, and he is not getting into a Ford Pinto and playing chicken with a tank.
It's fine you dont care about the little things that give it a little more touch of being real, and make it a little more fun for other people...and I am sure there are a lot of people who never read the fluff, and just go off of the rules, because they care less about the fluff. Some people like the backstory and the way things fit together.
O.K. so for someone who enjoys the fluff almost as much as I enjoy the game, actually I enjoy the fluff more than the game since I started reading the books and that's what got me into playing, I have to say I also get what the OP is stating but I also get that if you make all the models to scale your playing space would be a floor mat about 16' X 24' or even 30' cause the models would be huge. Also for the realism aspect I think that GW does a pretty good job of getting a lot of detail into their models and yes the Tanks look a bit squatish but overall I like the look of them.
Ciaphas wrote:I'm getting more and more annoyed with the bad and impossible design of vehicles in 40 k. One of the worst examples is the IG Chimera. If it were real it would become immovable once it had sunk 2 inches into to the ground.
I disagree, ground pressure is based on force over area right? Well actually the ground pressure of a modern 60 ton MBT is hell of a lot less than a woman in stilleto heels. Seriously that's why tracked vehicles are great across country, even on chewed up or sodden ground (not marsh land). Just to illustrate ground pressures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_pressure
Note: Pressures for Man and Horse are for standing still. A walking human will exert more than double his standing pressure. A galloping horse will exert up to 3.5 MPa (500 psi). The ground pressure for a pneumatic tire is roughly equal to its inflation pressure.
Anyway it's all mute, because this is 40k, where Daemons pop out of nowhere and rape you. So actually what the hell does realism have to do with it?
You want more realism play "Flames of War", it's a great game.
All vehicles in 40k have a warp portal inside that holds all the stuff.
Problem solved.
mwnciboo wrote:
Anyway it's all mute, because this is 40k, where Daemons pop out of nowhere and rape you. So actually what the hell does realism have to do with it?
Yeah, the Chimera is perhaps a direct translation of most modern IFVs in all respects(except the multi-laser of course)
LRBT models are out of scale with themselves. In artwork you will notice the turret is large in comparison to the barrel and the entire tank hull is longer and wider.
Are you serious?
The chimera has overlaid tracks. The outsider armoured body of the vehicle is almost the same depth as the track. The tank you show has normal running gear and something called ' ground clearance' which means it can sink into.the ground and not ground itself. Something that was fixed in 1915 at the tank trials before actually using tanks in 1918. And would everyone stop saying because its a game and its SCI FI it does not have to be realistic! Listen I'm not trying to change peoples minds or have a go at GW but I was intrested in peoples thoughts as to why the vehicals are so poorly thought out. Not so much the scale issue which I get, but the fact that the physics of the vehicals looks do wrong. And yeas I love the fluff and the realism of the books most of which I've read. The fluff and modelling is to me the best part of the hobby.
I think the old GW "rule of cool" is what is the driving force in their miniatures and vehicle designs. I understand that for some, like Ciaphas, that odd or inefficient vehicle designs aren't cool to them. For the rest of us, a design that would work poorly in reality is fine by us in the sci-fi setting that the game is based. Besides, the GW vehicles do look cool.
Have people who complain about 40k tanks being too small actually done any calculations? They're bigger than most real tanks if you assume the scale of inch = 5'. Rhino and Chimera would be about seven metres long.
Also, I've seen a picture of ten Rogue Trader marines modelled inside an old rhino. I think you might be able to similarly squeeze ten current marines in the new rhino.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Addendum: what skews peoples perceptions is the fact that the heroic scale miniatures are way bulkier for their height than real people.
Wait wait wait stop hold the phone for a second i just want to make sure i got this right.
So the thing that makes you mad about realism is the shape of the tanks right?
not the fact that we have genetically enhanced space marines with 2 hearts 4 lungs can keep fighting after loosing an arm and run around with armor that would weigh as much as a VW bug
how about bolters? they are shooting rounds that are the size of a base ball, that would rip your arm off even if you where a SM
or the fact that we have a dead dude sitting on a throne thats kept alive by 1000 souls a day
or that SM can survive an orbital drop in a drop pod with out turning into paste when they hit the ground.
Its a game just enjoy the non realism of the game could you image how lame star wars would have been if they tried to be realistic?
A. It's heroic scale... no realism whatsoever, artistic value and rules are why things are the way they are.
B. It's a game. Never has it made the claim to being realistic. There are alien elves, zombie robots with feelings and 9 foot high super soldiers who worship a dead man. Why is it that you want realism at all?
Even in 40k fluff, the rule of cool will always win. In the Gaunt's Ghosts series (one of my all time favorites, even after I left 40k) "regular" guardsmen hip-fire twinlinked autocannons which are later in the series described as individually the size of a howitzer. Never once have I seen a man lift a single howitzer, let alone two, not to mention firing something like that on full auto. Do I have a problem with it? Hell No! It's fiction, by definition you have to suspend realism.
Squidmanlolz wrote:
B. It's a game. Never has it made the claim to being realistic. There are alien elves, zombie robots with feelings and 9 foot high super soldiers who worship a dead man. Why is it that you want realism at all?
.
Just because they have that doesn't mean basic physics don't apply, its a dumb argument, really.
Squidmanlolz wrote:
B. It's a game. Never has it made the claim to being realistic. There are alien elves, zombie robots with feelings and 9 foot high super soldiers who worship a dead man. Why is it that you want realism at all?
.
Just because they have that doesn't mean basic physics don't apply, its a dumb argument, really.
While that's true, I think the Squid Man is trying to convey the feeling that NOTHING in the game is a realistic scale. The heads, hands and weapons are all over-sized, the poses unworkable, etc. The design aesthetic cares very little for practicality, and only concerns itself with looking cool.
mwnciboo wrote:Moot = Mute both work , as it's quiet time Never really understood Moot because it's entymology means "meeting". It's a Meeting point?
Sorry, but 'mute point' is an barbarism to be avoided at all costs. The etymology (note spelling - 'entomology' is the study of insects) of 'moot point' comes from the UK's historical moot courts, where lawyers in training would argue hypothetical cases, i.e. 'moot points'. The lack of any substantive outcome from these theoretical cases has led to the 'unimportant/not worth discussing' meaning of 'moot point', which has spread beyond the legal profession.
DarknessEternal wrote:They aren't poorly thought out. They're designed for something entirely different than what you assume they are designed for.
Namely, product recognition. They've succeeded quite handily in that department, so that makes them well designed.
Bingo!
It's worth pointing out that in a 'realistic' Warhammer 40,000, weapon ranges would be multiplied by at least 10. (Early editions of Warhammer indeed included a note to this effect, explaining that even at 25mm scale, a realistic longbow would fire all the way across the room, which would be tactically rather uninteresting.)
Bobthehero wrote:
Just because they have that doesn't mean basic physics don't apply, its a dumb argument, really.
If you want to complain about physics then this whole game would be scrubbed,
Drop pods would be removed, None of the flying crafts would even be able to re enter a planets atmosphere with out being ripped apart.
No obe would would be able to fire a Bolter not even space marines unless they are mounted.
No laser guns would exists and if they did they would be the best weapon in the game from a physics stand point.
The plasma cannon would be work at all.
Orks would never be able to travel in space in their 'space crafts'
Necrons and all other types of robots would become inactive after they are hit by one bolter round.
if they applyed basic physics the game would suck. just play it as is and just be a kid again and pretend
What I'm upset about is that a tank moving at highway speeds is easier to assault than grots are, and poses no danger to the attackers, and as soon as something dings the armor 3 times it falls apart like a bad cartoon parody.
The track mounts are thick enough I decided there's probably an engine in each side. Those little rectangular vents would thus be the exhaust.
As far as I'm concerned, realism arguments for 40k have to start at chainswords. That is the most ridiculous piece of equipment ever conceived. Of course, I also think arguing 40k realism is idiotic, but seriously, start with the chainswords if you want to do it right.
Bobthehero wrote:
Just because they have that doesn't mean basic physics don't apply, its a dumb argument, really.
that argument falls down the second the phrase "the warp/c'tan did it" gets mentioned.
40k and realism? honestly? they should never be put into the same sentence together. its a wargame. not a warsim.
and for the record, 40k is not sci-fi. thats Infinity. 40k is a Fantasy setting, merely a dressed up one thats wearing a spacesuit. Pete Haines described it as "the dark ages with lasers". Nope, no science here bud.
Fantasy doesn't exclude a bit of science, otherwise, why would tank have or wheels or a barrel, or hell, why use tanks and weapon at all? Just have a chunk of rock, lift it up and you can now destroy everyone else things, because ''fantasy!/C'tan!/Warp Power!''.
Bobthehero wrote:Fantasy doesn't exclude a bit of science, otherwise, why would tank have or wheels or a barrel, just have a chunk of rock, lift it up and you can now destroy everyone else things, because ''fantasy!/C'tan/Warp Power''.
It's all done so GW can sell models, it's been that way from day one. Leman Russ' will sell more than a rock...
Deadnight wrote: And for the record, 40k is not sci-fi. thats Infinity. 40k is a Fantasy setting, merely a dressed up one thats wearing a spacesuit. Pete Haines described it as "the dark ages with lasers". Nope, no science here bud.
Just to toss my two cents in here, I agree. 40k is Science Fantasy, not science fiction.
Bobthehero wrote:Fantasy doesn't exclude a bit of science, otherwise, why would tank have or wheels or a barrel, or hell, why use tanks and weapon at all? Just have a chunk of rock, lift it up and you can now destroy everyone else things, because ''fantasy!/C'tan!/Warp Power!''.
but "because a wizard did it" sounds better
seriously mate, you're picking hairs and putting words in my mouth. i'll agree with you, but only to an extent - science has its place, but ultimately, "rule of cool" trumps both physics and realism in these settings. if you or others dont like it, then there is nothing for it other than not getting involved in make-believe.
Deadnight wrote:
And for the record, 40k is not sci-fi. thats Infinity. 40k is a Fantasy setting, merely a dressed up one thats wearing a spacesuit. Pete Haines described it as "the dark ages with lasers". Nope, no science here bud.
Just to toss my two cents in here, I agree. 40k is Science Fantasy, not science fiction.
But yet there is the word Science...not "Magic Fiction Fantasy" There should be some Science, in the Science Fiction...or it's just another Elves and Dragon story.
mwnciboo wrote:Oh come on.... Tell me this isn't cool.
realism doesn't matter, if the concept is kewl, it's probably in 40k.
Sign me up for one of those! On second thought, I'll take two!
Spoiler:
I'll take eight!
RicBlasko wrote:
infinite_array wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
And for the record, 40k is not sci-fi. thats Infinity. 40k is a Fantasy setting, merely a dressed up one thats wearing a spacesuit. Pete Haines described it as "the dark ages with lasers". Nope, no science here bud.
Just to toss my two cents in here, I agree. 40k is Science Fantasy, not science fiction.
But yet there is the word Science...not "Magic Fiction Fantasy" There should be some Science, in the Science Fiction...or it's just another Elves and Dragon story.
But that's exactly what it already is, it's just in space...
Wow thx for the replies I really wasn't expecting much interest. I find the whole rule of cool thing is just a clever way to say nothing at all, clever marketing. Really. I think loads of things in 40k are cool and that's s good thing, but, and this is the whole point that some of you are missing, if a vehical is designed in such a way as to look stupid and unrealistic then thats what it is. Simple and that's lazy. There is nothing cool about a transport tank that has 7 guns, no engines, and the maneuverability of a dead walrus. And call the setting what you like I love it. Its set in the future and is fictional. It seems that there are so many people who leap to GWs defence at any critisim and swamp genuine discussion with statements like ' if you don't like it etc etc. I find this kinda funny. I don't know whether to believe those who say these forums are full GW staff blindly defending their product or not, but for me rule of cool doesn't mean a vehical can look stupid and none should question it. I have been involved in this hobby since the 1980s and ' dude your in the wrong hobby doesn't really apply.' Its topics like this over the years that have kept the hobby advancing and growing. Once all figures shared the same pose and some people were fine with this. Many of us wanted more and the results today are evident. As for realism, of course I want my vehicals to look realistic, why shouldn't I. Just the fact that its SCI FI don't mean it can't be realistic looking. Everything is SCI FI until it be comes reality.
While I agree with you on 40K AFVs not being very realistic, I should point out that when most people pick up a Chimera model they dont flip it over and start picking out all the unrealistic parts about it.
Really only a person with extensive knowledge about modern AFV engineering can even see all those fine points you pointed out in the previous page. This is quite different from being able to tell one figure from another, which most people can do.
Also, I dont believe IG vehicle designs were suppose to be incredibly realistic. They are realistic enough that most people can draw some parallel to real life vehicles, yet look crude and weird enough to give people a sense that this is an age where technology is going backwards.
And I know where I can find some incredibly realistic AFV models, they are across the room in my FLGS.
At the end of the day, when you look at even basic information about the universe you shouldn't expect any realism. 40k models are meant to look cool and put forward certain "themes" for its army. Not much else. It's an over-the-top sci-fi world where people fight with swords and airpower is negligible.
It's also a good point to say that imperium vehicles and tanks are mostly just up-gunned, up-armored tractors and farm vehicles. They are made to be very simple to repair and use, and to be easily replaced. Also, just because you notice all the so-called glaring flaws in the design does not mean most people do. I know that a lot of 40k players have military backgrounds, and thus notice these things, but a lot of use don't, and would never even notice that the front of a Russ is a huge bullet trap, or that there is no place on the chimera for an engine, or that most of the turrets in the game would break off the first time they fired. We look and see a tank that looks different from modern tanks, with cool guns and a WW1 feel. And that's good enough for us.
Ciaphas wrote:One of the worst examples is the IG Chimera. If it were real it would become immovable once it had sunk 2 inches into to the ground. Even WW1 tanks were better designed.
Same side profile as Chimera and Leman Russ, still managed to cross No Man's Land.
As for the LRBT it seems to be based like the WW2 KV series, loads of armor and the over track that they have assist with vehical climb (aka trenches overly large hills ext) . The primary gun on a LRBT had huge muzzle break and that will counter blast so in the end they look fine
Seb wrote:I really do not care about that.
You can imagine chimera having a badass engine, pushing the thing through whatever.
You can imagine that the LRBT cannon shells have especially compact casing.
One thing I am not that happy about though, is the fact that the warp portal generator in every rhino is very well hidden.
Yeah, warp portal. How else could you put 10 MARINES AND ALL THEIR GEAR in this tiny shoecase with tracks.
No engine in the world can push a grounded vehicle through the ground!!! Warp portal is spot on. Really frustrating. Rhinos should be bigger the marines don't even fit in the hatch. Lol.
How would it sink? We have so little knowledge on the stats that there is no way we could calculate say the ground pressure of a chimera.
The market for this stuff is huge, compared even to GW. GW happens to hog the "cinematic" niche where people punch Tanks to death and where 5 guys with automatic guns will never ever beat the "mean-guy-with-the-cool-scar-and-his-custom-knife".
It's what they do. They do it well. Why should GW try to twist itself into a "realistic" model-kit provider when there's already so many out there?
Ciaphas wrote:One of the worst examples is the IG Chimera. If it were real it would become immovable once it had sunk 2 inches into to the ground. Even WW1 tanks were better designed.
Same side profile as Chimera and Leman Russ, still managed to cross No Man's Land.
The great war Big Willie Male tank was awesome for its time. Good ground clearance and its overlaid tracks are wider than its side armour so no grounding issues. Oh and its size for a crew of ten. Its as close to a Chimera and a Russ as polished turd is to the crown jewels.....
Still I get what some of you are saying. I will build my own variations then we will all be happy. Thx for the comments incedently this one was captured by the Germans.
Ciaphas wrote:
The great war Big Willie Male tank was awesome for its time. Good ground clearance and its overlaid tracks are wider than its side armour so no grounding issues. Oh and its size for a crew of ten. Its as close to a Chimera and a Russ as polished turd is to the crown jewels.....
Stick a turret on that and It's Leman Russ. And it is about same size than imperial tanks. Imperial tanks are just slightly shorter and wider.
For the sake of argument, let's say for a second that GW decided to make all the tanks to scale with the minis. All if vehicles in 40k would be so large that they would be cumbersome to use.
Further, if they made tanks as tough as they are in the real world NO ONE would take anything but mech lists. It would be like 5th ed. x12.
Talking about realism, what about tanks that can only shoot a few hundred feet when tanks today can reliably hit targets miles away?
Some of what GW did was make the game playable without a TT that was several hundred (or thousand) square feet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As long as we are talking about scales that would suck for the TT. I'll take one of these though... At least this was a tank that was designed for the real world.
UrgThraka wrote:For the sake of argument, let's say for a second that GW decided to make all the tanks to scale with the minis. All if vehicles in 40k would be so large that they would be cumbersome to use.
I think they're scaled with the minis. Leman Russ is about seven metres long, about 4 and half tall and almost five metres wide. It's by no means a small tank*. In fact, Chimera is huge, and this makes LR look small. With over seven metres of length Chimera is way bigger than most real APCs.
* (I still enlarged mine to make it look more imposing next to the Chimera.)
UrgThraka wrote:For the sake of argument, let's say for a second that GW decided to make all the tanks to scale with the minis. All if vehicles in 40k would be so large that they would be cumbersome to use.
Further, if they made tanks as tough as they are in the real world NO ONE would take anything but mech lists. It would be like 5th ed. x12.
Talking about realism, what about tanks that can only shoot a few hundred feet when tanks today can reliably hit targets miles away?
Some of what GW did was make the game playable without a TT that was several hundred (or thousand) square feet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As long as we are talking about scales that would suck for the TT. I'll take one of these though... At least this was a tank that was designed for the real world.
[/quote
That's more like it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote:
UrgThraka wrote:For the sake of argument, let's say for a second that GW decided to make all the tanks to scale with the minis. All if vehicles in 40k would be so large that they would be cumbersome to use.
I think they're scaled with the minis. Leman Russ is about seven metres long, about 4 and half tall and almost five metres wide. It's by no means a small tank*. In fact, Chimera is huge, and this makes LR look small. With over seven metres of length Chimera is way bigger than most real APCs.
* (I still enlarged mine to make it look more imposing next to the Chimera.)
I think you've got metres and feet mixed up. Lol. Don't do any DIY
I think Zweischneid has it right. There is no shortage of third party suppliers or alternative games with realistic vehicles, designed around and for the realistic military market. Personally, I dig more on the cinematic angle. Once you set the game in a science fiction setting, realism kind of goes out the window, and as long as something vaguely conforms to accepted rules (Imperial tanks all look vaguely tank-y) then I am willing to shrug and say "sure, why not?"
Ciaphas wrote:
I think you've got metres and feet mixed up. Lol. Don't do any DIY
Lets assume 30mm IG soldier is about 6 feet tall in real life. This gives us 1 inch = five feet. Chimera is about 12 cm or 4,7 inches long. So 'real' Chimera is about 23 and half feet long. That's about 7,2 metres.
Ciaphas wrote:
I think you've got metres and feet mixed up. Lol. Don't do any DIY
Lets assume 30mm IG soldier is about 6 feet tall in real life. This gives us 1 inch = five feet. Chimera is about 12 cm or 4,7 inches long. So 'real' Chimera is about 23 and half feet long. That's about 7,2 metres.
They are completely out of scale. If you measure the tank from tip to tip you are correct. Measure a Ferrari from tip to tip and forget volume and angles and you could probably put 10 soldiers in that to. Lol.
Ciaphas wrote:
They are completely out of scale. If you measure the tank from tip to tip you are correct. Measure a Ferrari from tip to tip and forget volume and angles and you could probably put 10 soldiers in that to. Lol.
And you're basing this on what exactly? Are you claiming that those twelve IG soldiers wouldn't fit in the Chimera? It is pretty much a box, there are no angles, and it is much bigger than average real life APC. Those 12 guys can have a pool table with them in there to pass time.
Ciaphas wrote:
They are comple ely out of scale. If you measure the tank from tip to tip you are correct. Measure a Ferrari from tip to tip and forget volume and angles and you could probably put 10 soldiers in that to. Lol.
And you're basing this on what exactly? Are you claiming that those twelve IG soldiers wouldn't fit in the Chimera? It is pretty much a box, there are no angles, and it is much bigger than average real life APC. Those 12 guys can have a pool table with them in there to pass time.
Really ? Where's the engine, driver, gunner, ammo, fuel, the rear of the six guns in the back, the 12 IG and all there kit? Yeah and a pool table.
I've spent a lot of time in a warrior and believe me there wasn't
Not enough room for a cat never mind swing one but im fine with that. Scale was never am ossue with me if you read back tjough the posts it was the look znd feel of the vehicals. its just my personal opinion and like i said ill probably convert my own Nyway. Should be fun.
Another important factor in the out of whack scaling is that it makes it much harder for a player to buy other miniature companies products and use them as counts as in their army withou it looking really out of place. They want their product to be so unique you can't mix and match with others.
Dannyevilguy wrote:Another important factor in the out of whack scaling is that it makes it much harder for a player to buy other miniature companies products and use them as counts as in their army withou it looking really out of place. They want their product to be so unique you can't mix and match with others.
That's spot on. That's why the vehicals are 3/4 scale.
Are you serious?
The chimera has overlaid tracks. The outsider armoured body of the vehicle is almost the same depth as the track. The tank you show has normal running gear and something called ' ground clearance' which means it can sink into.the ground and not ground itself. Something that was fixed in 1915 at the tank trials before actually using tanks in 1918. And would everyone stop saying because its a game and its SCI FI it does not have to be realistic! Listen I'm not trying to change peoples minds or have a go at GW but I was intrested in peoples thoughts as to why the vehicals are so poorly thought out. Not so much the scale issue which I get, but the fact that the physics of the vehicals looks do wrong. And yeas I love the fluff and the realism of the books most of which I've read. The fluff and modelling is to me the best part of the hobby.
The tank shown has exactly the same ground clearance as the chimera.
Are you serious?
The chimera has overlaid tracks. The outsider armoured body of the vehicle is almost the same depth as the track. The tank you show has normal running gear and something called ' ground clearance' which means it can sink into.the ground and not ground itself. Something that was fixed in 1915 at the tank trials before actually using tanks in 1918. And would everyone stop saying because its a game and its SCI FI it does not have to be realistic! Listen I'm not trying to change peoples minds or have a go at GW but I was intrested in peoples thoughts as to why the vehicals are so poorly thought out. Not so much the scale issue which I get, but the fact that the physics of the vehicals looks do wrong. And yeas I love the fluff and the realism of the books most of which I've read. The fluff and modelling is to me the best part of the hobby.
The tank shown has exactly the same ground clearance as the chimera.
Tanks were used prior to 1918.
I really don't see what you are getting at.[/quote
Tanks were developed and trialed in 1915. They were rushed into production and a hundred were produced for the battle of the Somme 1916 with disastrous result. Most suffered mechanical failure and many of the ones that made it to the battle quickly bogged down and were abandoned. After extensive reworking the biggest attack with tanks took place at Cambria in 1918 with fantastic results.
The tank shown has much more ground clearance and better angled stomach armour and most importantly its side track armour does not stick out further than the tracks.you like GW s designs I don't. So I'm making my own version. Everyone's happy.
Honestly I think the problem here is you, no offense intended. You seem very into tanks and design and that's great my brother is too. He used to drive them in the military, but your kind being that guy in the science fiction movie theater talking during the movie constantly about how this or that isn't possible or realistic in any way. It's great that you know so much but your ruining the experience for others. He whole point is to suspend belief and enjoy the setting the director/author/game designer gives us. It doesn't make your opinion not valid, but they do make other model games that are as realistic as you want, just not this one.
Your basically walking into a red lobster and asking for a steak. If you wanted a steak why go to a sea food place? Just go to a steak house.
As for the engines, it's 38,000 years into the future. Do you think that scientists would not have created an inline 4 cylinder engine that could be bolted into the space between the top and bottom of the track. A pair of engines the size for a Ford Focus could provide all the power needed to move a 15 ton tracked vehicle about 25 mph or more.
The IoM doesn't have scientists. They have people praying to machines and consider their advanced technology ancient and divine. Science is all but considered heresy.
wowsmash wrote:Honestly I think the problem here is you, no offense intended. You seem very into tanks and design and that's great my brother is too. He used to drive them in the military, but your kind being that guy in the science fiction movie theater talking during the movie constantly about how this or that isn't possible or realistic in any way. It's great that you know so much but your ruining the experience for others. He whole point is to suspend belief and enjoy the setting the director/author/game designer gives us. It doesn't make your opinion not valid, but they do make other model games that are as realistic as you want, just not this one.
Your basically walking into a red lobster and asking for a steak. If you wanted a steak why go to a sea food place? Just go to a steak house.
Excellent lol.
If you actually read my posts you would see that I have been trying to end this argument by constantly saying I see your points of view and I'm going to make my own conversions. Can't say fairer than that. Now why don't you sell steak?
Humanity had scientists who were so damn smart they could make machines that could make practically anything out of garbage they had laying around.
The Imperium doesn't have those machines anymore, but they do have the things that the machines built. And those include such things as ludicrously powered engines that take up a fraction of the space we'd imagine they'd need.
UrgThraka wrote:For the sake of argument, let's say for a second that GW decided to make all the tanks to scale with the minis. All if vehicles in 40k would be so large that they would be cumbersome to use.
Further, if they made tanks as tough as they are in the real world NO ONE would take anything but mech lists. It would be like 5th ed. x12.
Talking about realism, what about tanks that can only shoot a few hundred feet when tanks today can reliably hit targets miles away?
1)I gotta disagree about all of the vehicles being to large. For the most part, chimeras, wave serpents, devil fish, raides and necron arks are close enough to not really matter. If you take your infantry models off of their bases, model them to where the arms are not in a dynamic pose and have one of these transport models bui;lt to where you can remove the Top, you will find that they come pretty close to holding their liusted transport capacity,
Now Land Raiders, Rhinos and Ork trukks are out of proportion. Even then, they would fit on the board pretty easily if they were brought in line with the sie of their infantry models.
2)5th ed 40k Tanks were Tougher than what we have in reality. I can't say for 6th ed, just have not had enough games. But in 5th, they were way to strong against the available anti-tank shooting(except melta)
3) Absolutely agree here. The range of shooting weapons is way too far off. Not to say that this could not be somewhat fixed with a tiny fluff blurb. Something like, "In the grim dark future of warfare, vehicle armour has developed to the point that it can only be damaged at close range by the mightest of guns."
wowsmash wrote:Honestly I think the problem here is you, no offense intended. You seem very into tanks and design and that's great my brother is too. He used to drive them in the military, but your kind being that guy in the science fiction movie theater talking during the movie constantly about how this or that isn't possible or realistic in any way. It's great that you know so much but your ruining the experience for others. He whole point is to suspend belief and enjoy the setting the director/author/game designer gives us. It doesn't make your opinion not valid, but they do make other model games that are as realistic as you want, just not this one.
Your basically walking into a red lobster and asking for a steak. If you wanted a steak why go to a sea food place? Just go to a steak house.
Maybe GW is the Problem.
GW wants to "Forge a Narrative" and make the game more "Cinematic".
Thing is that when you are going for such things there is an unforgivable sin called "Suspension of Disbelief" This is where something is so outrageous or out of proportion with the rest of the setting that the audience suddenly becomes intensely aware that they are watching a movie(Or in our case, playing a game with over-priced toys)
IMO, If GW wants to make the game more cinematic then, we the players should hold them to the standard. Also, Its not just the tanks, there are many other problems with the setting.
Things like:
SM's whose thighs are smaller in power armour than their scouts who are not in power armour
Terminators whose head is dislodged from their spine by on a scale basis, would be a good 6-12 inches
Tau Missile pods are S7 AP4 yet the seeker missiles(basically a cruise missile) is only S8 AP3 yet is many times larger and is supposed to be much more powerful.
Gun ranges that in no way match what is seen in our current "low tech" reality.
Infantry that can easily keep up with a vehicle moving flat-out.
Artillery barrage weapons on the front-lines
Individuals riding a motorcycle being good in cc and not suffering a penalty or being on the bike while trying to swing a weapon.
Any model that uses a melta weapon without being fully enclosed in armour.
Flamers not hurting models in open-topped transports
cumbersome game mechanics and rules that force the players to stop("suspend') the "narrative" in order to roll one by one or to look up conflicting rules.
Just to name a few
As I said before, maybe instead of the individual being at fault for expecting higher standards, it is GW's fault for sorta coasting with an its "good enough" attitude while trying to extract a premium price.
Humanity had scientists who were so damn smart they could make machines that could make practically anything out of garbage they had laying around.
The Imperium doesn't have those machines anymore, but they do have the things that the machines built. And those include such things as ludicrously powered engines that take up a fraction of the space we'd imagine they'd need.
Yup, and those would not go to the imperial guard, but the space marine chapters first. Judging from the huge exhausts, I doubt that engines like you described exist.
I think it's a good balance myself. The only fix would be to shrink the troops or larger tanks. That causes problems in a gaming standpoint. The standard game board becomes either to small or to large. I still say your being overly picky. I also don't see how it's GW fault, as far as I can tell they have never claimed that all there range is true to scale.
Ciaphas wrote:One of the worst examples is the IG Chimera. If it were real it would become immovable once it had sunk 2 inches into to the ground. Even WW1 tanks were better designed.
Same side profile as Chimera and Leman Russ, still managed to cross No Man's Land.
The OP is actually correct, you're not. The MK4's tracks are wide enough to cover the part of the chassis it is sitting on. The chimera has tracks which are shorter than that width, meaning as soon as it dug into the ground an inch or so (which a tank will do easily) it would sit there, tracks spinning.
Also, while that is a point in favour of the OP I'd like to mention I don't care anywhere near as much about realism in 40k.
DarknessEternal wrote: And those include such things as ludicrously powered engines that take up a fraction of the space we'd imagine they'd need.
Yup, and those would not go to the imperial guard, but the space marine chapters first. Judging from the huge exhausts, I doubt that engines like you described exist.
You may want to research the backpack on Space Marine power armour then.
As I keep saying scale is not the issue for me. If I look at something and it looks like it would not work then that's what itlooks like. I believe good gaming and a sense of this could happen go hand in hand. Why should we be expected to put up with poor design. I love games workshop models and concept but some of there vehicals are crap. Tanks that would ground, guns so big that the round would not fit in the turret and if if actually fired the turret would fly off! Its a shame when you see the thought behind a Bane blade to then see the Leman Russ.
Rule of cool is copout for lazy design and for those of you that think I should be in another more realistic setting, why? Because I want better more realistic vehicals? I can understand some people who see s vehical as bad ass, but in all honesty all I see is dumb ass.
To wheel out the rather good explanation for their appearance from WD when Spearhead came out, to show that they're meant to look like that. They are supposed to be an utterly backwards looking design.
...Take the Imperial Guard tanks. In truth they share more in common with a tank from the interwar period of the 20th Century than they do a modern battle tank or anything "futuristic". They have curiously misshapen hulls, riveted armour plates and absolutley no aesthetic concession to the technological advances we have nowadays.
IG tanks don't have the proper sloped armour and that is quite deliberate. Their design spawns from the thought process of what a fundamentally "backwards" tank would look like 38,000 years in the future in a place where technological understanding has collapsed and innovation is outlawed.
The Imperium is archaic and backwards, clinging to the remnants of incredible technologies such as Plasma Cannons and Las weapons. The image is so exciting and unusual because these misunderstood innovations are embedded in fighting vehicles that make a modern tank look like a technical marvel.
As far as scale goes, IG models are almost the exact same size as Space Marines, who are supposed to tower over normal men, observe:
With this in mind, if you were to keep the IG model the same you would need to increase the size of the SM considerably, and then increase the size of the Rhino by about 30% or so, the Land Raider would also need a size increase of around 20% (rough numbers, obviously)
So yeah, the scale is completely off, which bothers me...but other than that, the physics really don't...this is a universe where a man's body has been wired into a machine that uses his consciousness to power an astral relay and allow for literally millions of ships to travel through warp space every single day...a man that is apparently an anti-type of every major religious figure of today's world (or something)...his mind does all of this through the use of a machine that is powered by the energy of thousands of sacrificed people every day...and you've got a problem with the ground clearance of a tank? lulz
It's not just the "ground clearance" and I am sure we all agree that scall is not the issue, which people seem to ignore and frag back into this.
Some of us have issues with the fact that the tanks gun would not work. I have from the start hated the LM tank, and when I got one for a gift, I made the tank from the old SW codex with the auto cannons...which then drifted out, and I was stuck with a worthless tank untill lately. The cannon was to big and silly looking for me to even want to use.
Maybe bolters should be smaller foIG models. But I can over look that.
It's the fact that an Ork Trukk is a pickup truck, but the size of a tank, and the tank has guns on it that overly large, the tank sits to low, has no place to a motor, has another gun sticking out of it's hull, two more on the sides, and no room for ammo. It's an all or nothing thing, it just adds up after awile.
And people say "play another game" well whe nI play AD&D and we got dragons and people casting spells...no one says anything until the Elf tries to use his arrow to shoot around three trees, and pass into a small crack in the wall of a castle to kill someone...play Starwars, and someone jumps on a bomb...then why even try to make a save...playing Vampire the Rquiem...sure you got a 200 year old vampire, who on the rules doesnt know the first thing about the time frame he came from because you didnt take History..but no one cares about that, until you leap off of 100 story building and hit the ground, and want to roll to soak the damage. It's the little things that keep games rooted in the real world.
Some people *gasp* dont play these games for a chance to show off the new rule they found, and table someone. They play it for the story the game came from. They like to keep to fluff, they like to use what is writen, not "well my army is what would have happened if the Emp of Mankind was really an Ork"
They play it for the story the game came from. They like to keep to fluff, they like to use what is writen
Right... and what is written is that the Leman Russ is one of the most popular tanks the Imperium has ever had, kicks ass from one end of the galaxy to the other, and has problems with neither its gun being too big (pro-tip: in the IoM, your gun can never be too big) nor being too low to the ground.
There is also plenty of space in a LM for an Engine, the entire arse end is where the engine is. The Battle cannon is just a big ass, short barrel howitzer. Who says it works like a conventional gun now? Wjo says it fires ammunition that looks like it was designed today?
Russian Tanks during the Cold war were super cramped, to the point where Soviet Tankers were always 5 ft 8 or shorter because bigger guys wouldn't fit.
On the subject of realism, it's really down to the word "FANTASY", to play fantasy games and complain about a lack of realism is like jumping in the Sea and then Complain ing that the Sea is too Wet.
Well of course it has to have some sense, but you cant be to nit picky about it. When ever I get into a sifi story be it aliens star wars, star trek or what ever. the first thing i throw out the window is any notion that physics even exists, its the best thing to do.
Seb wrote:I really do not care about that.
You can imagine chimera having a badass engine, pushing the thing through whatever.
You can imagine that the LRBT cannon shells have especially compact casing.
One thing I am not that happy about though, is the fact that the warp portal generator in every rhino is very well hidden.
Yeah, warp portal. How else could you put 10 MARINES AND ALL THEIR GEAR in this tiny shoecase with tracks.
You can actually. If you took of the bases there should be enough space to fit a few in
RicBlasko wrote:It's not just the "ground clearance" and I am sure we all agree that scall is not the issue, which people seem to ignore and frag back into this.
Some of us have issues with the fact that the tanks gun would not work. I have from the start hated the LM tank, and when I got one for a gift, I made the tank from the old SW codex with the auto cannons...which then drifted out, and I was stuck with a worthless tank untill lately. The cannon was to big and silly looking for me to even want to use.
Maybe bolters should be smaller foIG models. But I can over look that.
It's the fact that an Ork Trukk is a pickup truck, but the size of a tank, and the tank has guns on it that overly large, the tank sits to low, has no place to a motor, has another gun sticking out of it's hull, two more on the sides, and no room for ammo. It's an all or nothing thing, it just adds up after awile.
And people say "play another game" well whe nI play AD&D and we got dragons and people casting spells...no one says anything until the Elf tries to use his arrow to shoot around three trees, and pass into a small crack in the wall of a castle to kill someone...play Starwars, and someone jumps on a bomb...then why even try to make a save...playing Vampire the Rquiem...sure you got a 200 year old vampire, who on the rules doesnt know the first thing about the time frame he came from because you didnt take History..but no one cares about that, until you leap off of 100 story building and hit the ground, and want to roll to soak the damage. It's the little things that keep games rooted in the real world.
Some people *gasp* dont play these games for a chance to show off the new rule they found, and table someone. They play it for the story the game came from. They like to keep to fluff, they like to use what is writen, not "well my army is what would have happened if the Emp of Mankind was really an Ork"
Ork vehicles don't need engines. They work because the ork's want them too.
Bobthehero wrote:From what I read, Ork vehicle work better when driven by Orks, but anyone can man them.
It depends on the piece of ork equiptment. The codex doesn't specify which peices work for who, mearly stating that ork weapons are more efficiant in the hands of an ork, and many pieces of ork equiptment captured by imperial forces fails to work at all when used by something besides an ork. The only weapon specifically stated to only work when held by an ork is the SAG, but i'm sure there are plenty of others. Can't say anything about ork vehicles.
Fun Fact: If the specs for the Land Raider from the Lexicanum (which are canon) are correct, a minigun would chew through one in seconds (especially because its fueltank, engine, and treads are exposed, and it has no angling).
chrisrawr wrote:Fun Fact: If the specs for the Land Raider from the Lexicanum (which are canon) are correct, a minigun would chew through one in seconds (especially because its fueltank, engine, and treads are exposed, and it has no angling).
Oh really? I was unaware we knew enough about the properties of ceramite, plasteel and adamantium to understand how various weapons would effect them.
chrisrawr wrote:Fun Fact: If the specs for the Land Raider from the Lexicanum (which are canon) are correct, a minigun would chew through one in seconds (especially because its fueltank, engine, and treads are exposed, and it has no angling).
Oh really? I was unaware we knew enough about the properties of ceramite, plasteel and adamantium to understand how various weapons would effect them.
IIRC cermaite is just a special type of ceramic plate, and we currently put a type ceramic armor know as Chobham( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armor) in the M1A2 Arbams. Several other countries have a similar armor system in their modern main battle tanks.
chrisrawr wrote:Fun Fact: If the specs for the Land Raider from the Lexicanum (which are canon) are correct, a minigun would chew through one in seconds (especially because its fueltank, engine, and treads are exposed, and it has no angling).
Oh really? I was unaware we knew enough about the properties of ceramite, plasteel and adamantium to understand how various weapons would effect them.
It lists a 365mm steel equivalent comparison. This is canon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GamzaTheChaos wrote:
treads severely exposed, side armour has no angling. This thing is asking to be hit by an RPG.
chrisrawr wrote:Fun Fact: If the specs for the Land Raider from the Lexicanum (which are canon) are correct, a minigun would chew through one in seconds (especially because its fueltank, engine, and treads are exposed, and it has no angling).
Oh really? I was unaware we knew enough about the properties of ceramite, plasteel and adamantium to understand how various weapons would effect them.
It lists a 365mm steel equivalent comparison. This is canon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GamzaTheChaos wrote:
treads severely exposed, side armour has no angling. This thing is asking to be hit by an RPG.
Its called an M113, they were designed in the late 50s IIRC. They weren't designed with RPGs in mind.
Well then there you go. A tank not designed with antitank weaponry in mind is like sunscreen not designed with the sun in mind.
edit in response to above: And then if you look at modern tanks, with actual physical and simulation-assisted engineering put into them...
Massively angled, much lower tread profile, much less open tread... I understand entirely that the Rhino and Land Raider are used for transporting shock troopers - I also understand entirely that with the canon stats we have for them, some hillbillies with dynamite would have no problem making sure they ran over something that gave them a case of exploded.
chrisrawr wrote:Well then there you go. A tank not designed with antitank weaponry in mind is like sunscreen not designed with the sun in mind.
Its not a tank. Its an APC, it isn't designed to for direct combat. Its designed to transport troops. If you want an IFV, or an MBT then go look at the Bradly or the Abrams respectively.
chrisrawr wrote:It lists a 365mm steel equivalent comparison. This is canon.
Firstly, Lexicanum is not canon. Some of the sources it draws from are cannon. No source is given for your 365mm steel comparison.
Further, how is that 365mm steel comparison intended? Pure kinetic resistance? Resistance to melta weaponry? Las weaponry?
Adamantium is noted (again, in the NON-canon Lexicanum) as being "impenetrable to most commonplace weapons". And we know nothing about the properties of ceramite or plasteel.
Leigen_Zero wrote:I think I would agree with the two above posts.
You are talking about a game with space elves, half animal-half plant warrior aliens who can make guns work by their collective psychic presence, Genetically engineered super-human warriors and alien robots armed with tesla coils, and you're worried about the fact that the unrealistic shape of the tanks.
Sci-fi mini games sell minis by 'rule of cool', it's more important that the Russ/Chimera look bad-ass than look like they would actually work.
However, that's not to say that if you so choose, you can model your tanks to be as feasibly realistic as you like, so long as they are about the same height, width and depth as a Russ/Chimera your opponents aren't really going to complain.
Mass Effect had aliens and space magic, and managed to promote realism and a sense that this could happen, even going so far as to explain how the stuff would work. Stargate had aliens, space ships, hyperspace, alien symbiotes, and ethereal beings that had ascended into another plane of existence, yet they managed to make it all believable. Lords of the Rings was purely a fantasy, yet somehow it was believable.
The point is that what you said is dumb. The setting makes those aliens work, it allows them to believable, like they could actually exist in the 40k galaxy. They don't feel contrived or out of place. The stupid a hell tank designs, however, do. The terrible science also does. At least Stargate, Mass Effect, and JRR Tolkien did their damn homework before throwing half-baked fluff into the wind. It is also extremely difficult to find the chimera or Leman Russ badass when you realize the designs are terrible. In every way. Nothing about them is good.
Anyone who tries to cover GWs stupid fluff or vehicle designs (not all of them are dumb, but the human ones that we can actually compare real-life stuff to and know exactly why they don't work) by saying that "its just a game with space elves and psychic plant people" needs to realize that every single sci-fi or fantasy universe has something dumb in it. Pointing out that one of the many thousands of sci-fi universes has something dumb in it does not add anything to any conversation, unless you're having a conversation about dumb things in sci-fi universes.
A rant like this over a science fiction game is rather amusing.
I feel like the chimera is one of the most likely vehicles in the 40k universe, but i agree that the leman russ and all of the sponson mounted weapons in 40k are rediculous. thats why you dont see that kind of stuff on modern tanks anymore. But taken from the almost steam punk esque era of WW1 tanks, they are fantastic.
BrotherVord wrote:As far as scale goes, IG models are almost the exact same size as Space Marines, who are supposed to tower over normal men, observe:
With this in mind, if you were to keep the IG model the same you would need to increase the size of the SM considerably, and then increase the size of the Rhino by about 30% or so, the Land Raider would also need a size increase of around 20% (rough numbers, obviously)
Actually the Chimera is a bit bigger then the Rhino, so they'd both have to get bigger, or stay the same size.
People aren't realising what the Rhino, Chimera, Land Raider and Leman Russ were designed for.
No, I don't mean "They're converted tractors" or "We wanted them to look a bit WWI-ish"
They were designed by people who knew what a tank looked like from photos, but not necessarily how it worked.
They designed it in the 1980s/1990s, when plastic model technology was nowhere near as good as it is now and they wanted the thing to fit on as few sprues as possible.
They designed it to have few bits, and covered the road wheels, return rollers and drive wheels with a big 'ol chunk of armour plate. Or they originally designed it for 1/300 scale, where putting such details on a metal cast would be awkward.
They designed them to be in scale with human models that aren't in scale. Everything in 40k is too fat and chunky. This means that even if the tanks aren't too long, they're certainly too wide.
If they were to design a Leman Russ now, for instance, they'd produce something substantially more "forge-world-y", with bits that look like they might actually work. But then it wouldn't look like a Leman Russ.
Maybe they'll eventually produce "alternate forge world track units", with more ground clearance or bigger turret rings. Who knows?
Automatically Appended Next Post: As an example, look at the tracks on the much newer (and in background less advanced) Ork battlewagon. Those might actually work.
Simple answer to the ammo storage problem.... they teleport the ammo straight into the gun from the armoury allllllll the way back behind the front lines.... (yeah I know the logistics of this are actually worse but you get what I mean right) and those aren't tracks they are living organisms called sracks that sprout millions of tiny legs when bogged down in mud and 'swim' through it... lol
But seriously it's the 41st millenium, technology is sooooo much more advanced who knows what wonderful contraptions they have designed to fulfill these roles
I do actually felt a little sarcastic when I said that...
chrisrawr wrote:Massively angled, much lower tread profile, much less open tread... I understand entirely that the Rhino and Land Raider are used for transporting shock troopers - I also understand entirely that with the canon stats we have for them, some hillbillies with dynamite would have no problem making sure they ran over something that gave them a case of exploded.
Massively angled front hull and turret, yes - the sides are just as flat on those as on the GW tanks. There's probably a good reason for it, such as designers needing to keep the things within certain size limits for transporting and entering built-up areas. We also keep forgetting that actual tanks are designed to work with infantry support covering their flanks. Just as you try to do in the game itself seeing how most tanks have crappier side/rear armor.
chrisrawr wrote:It lists a 365mm steel equivalent comparison. This is canon.
Firstly, Lexicanum is not canon. Some of the sources it draws from are cannon. No source is given for your 365mm steel comparison.
Further, how is that 365mm steel comparison intended? Pure kinetic resistance? Resistance to melta weaponry? Las weaponry?
Adamantium is noted (again, in the NON-canon Lexicanum) as being "impenetrable to most commonplace weapons". And we know nothing about the properties of ceramite or plasteel.
The armour values are from one of the early Imperial Armour books. If they mean contemporary steel then imperial vehicles would'nt be particularly durable, no matter if it is measured against meltas, lascanons or missiles.
Of course, one can assume that the "steel" is some kind of strange scifi steel which is much harder and more durable than any modern day steel.
CuddlySquig wrote:I think the OP is really just trying to show off how much he knows about the physics in tank design.
I think your just trying to post something, anything , just as long as your involved.
My trying to post something, anything, just as long as my involved?
To repeat, as it appears to have got lost or ignored in this morass of a thread, this is what word of god says WRTIG tanks:
...Take the Imperial Guard tanks. In truth they share more in common with a tank from the interwar period of the 20th Century than they do a modern battle tank or anything "futuristic". They have curiously misshapen hulls, riveted armour plates and absolutley no aesthetic concession to the technological advances we have nowadays.
IG tanks don't have the proper sloped armour and that is quite deliberate. Their design spawns from the thought process of what a fundamentally "backwards" tank would look like 38,000 years in the future in a place where technological understanding has collapsed and innovation is outlawed.
The Imperium is archaic and backwards, clinging to the remnants of incredible technologies such as Plasma Cannons and Las weapons. The image is so exciting and unusual because these misunderstood innovations are embedded in fighting vehicles that make a modern tank look like a technical marvel.
Thanks for all the replies. Some of the comments were well thought out points on both sides.
I think ultimately all players and modellers will get from the game what they want. To me it seems such a shame that with all the sculpting and design talent out there that we are stuck with vehicals that even when well painted still look like toys from the pound shop. But cost like toys from Harrods.
When I made my bane blade I could hear the throb of the engine and the squeal of the tracks. I could smell the exhaust and felt the ground shake.
In short it transported me 38000 years into a dark future where there is only war, if only for a brief period. It looks right, it feels right, it helps immerse you in atmosphere. When I step back from the table and look at all the troops, buildings, aliens and vehicles I like to see a snapshot of this grim future.
Bring on a leman Russ and I'm back in the bargain bucket of the pound shop with a rather silly looking toy.
Ciaphas wrote:
When I made my bane blade I could hear the throb of the engine and the squeal of the tracks. I could smell the exhaust and felt the ground shake... Bring on a leman Russ and I'm back in the bargain bucket of the pound shop with a rather silly looking toy.
Wait, wait wait wait, wait wait, wait.
The Leman Russ is a 'toy' and yet the Baneblade isn't?!
Ciaphas wrote:
When I made my bane blade I could hear the throb of the engine and the squeal of the tracks. I could smell the exhaust and felt the ground shake... Bring on a leman Russ and I'm back in the bargain bucket of the pound shop with a rather silly looking toy.
Wait, wait wait wait, wait wait, wait.
The Leman Russ is a 'toy' and yet the Baneblade isn't?!
Sigh.... do I really have to explain again after 5 pages of good debate. If you actually read what I said.....the bane blade is well thought out and when painted and made looks like the real thing. It looks and feels right. The Russ ' looks ' like a silly toy for all of the reasons people have said before which im not going to go over again so you can just skip to the last post and put up a witty picture.
The Baneblade is a giant hulking mobile-fortress. IRL it wouldn't even be able to drive on roads and would constantly get stuck in just about everything. Would require too much fuel to move 10 feet and airpower would turn it into swiss cheese. The Germans learned the hard lesson of why you shouldn't tanks so big they're basically pillboxes.
So no, the Baneblade really isn't realistic at all. The closest you get to "realism" in 40k, in terms of accurate depictions of futuristic tactics/weapons/strategy/so on, is the Tau. And even that stretches it very far.
Except the Baneblade isn't as big as the Maus tank. its only about three times the size of other vehicles in 40k.
Not to mention that treads reduce the ground pressure significantly. A regular car exerts more ground pressure then a MBT because the weight is spread out.
Its the same reason why womens restrooms get the floor replaced more often then the mens. Women are lighter, but their heels magnify the pressure to be several magnitudes greater then a regular shoe to cause more wear.
A baneblade would only have an issue with being slow. the ground isn't going to swallow it up.
Harriticus wrote:The Baneblade is a giant hulking mobile-fortress. IRL it wouldn't even be able to drive on roads and would constantly get stuck in just about everything. Would require too much fuel to move 10 feet and airpower would turn it into swiss cheese. The Germans learned the hard lesson of why you shouldn't tanks so big they're basically pillboxes.
So no, the Baneblade really isn't realistic at all. The closest you get to "realism" in 40k, in terms of accurate depictions of futuristic tactics/weapons/strategy/so on, is the Tau. And even that stretches it very far.
As Grey Templar points out, you think the Bane blade is massive because of the 2 CV sized other vehicals in 40k.
Also haven't all the supporters of these small strange vehicals constantly mentioned futuristic engine, super light materials etc or does that only apply to vehicals that look ww1?
The bane blade is a beast of a tank but looks like it could exsist in the future. Anyway your point rather fails when you see the size increase of tanks since conception to modern times.
It is amazing how people get the wrong end of the stick. I have to say I concur with the original poster. Being labelled Science fiction does not excuse poor work, either in the models or the rules and background. Look at the lengths the likes of Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke went to as science fiction authors to produce quality, believable and probable work.
Examples of lazy science fiction are the likes of Stargate not having any p90 pouches anywhere on characters despite the fact they'd cost a few quid to buy and yet the characters are always somehow pulling spare mags out of thin air or the octopus thingy in Prometheus growing to something the size of a small car despite having nothing to feed on. ¬¬
There are no excuses for such laziness. Not for the money we as fans pay. Why would you possibly settle for second rate?
Frenchie wrote:It is amazing how people get the wrong end of the stick. I have to say I concur with the original poster. Being labelled Science fiction does not excuse poor work, either in the models or the rules and background. Look at the lengths the likes of Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke went to as science fiction authors to produce quality, believable and probable work.
Examples of lazy science fiction are the likes of Stargate not having any p90 pouches anywhere on characters despite the fact they'd cost a few quid to buy and yet the characters are always somehow pulling spare mags out of thin air or the octopus thingy in Prometheus growing to something the size of a small car despite having nothing to feed on. ¬¬
There are no excuses for such laziness. Not for the money we as fans pay. Why would you possibly settle for second rate?
Though I don't disagree with you, it would be fair to point out that Clarke and Asimov are both writers of hard sci-fi, not a subgenre which has much influenced 40k, which draws principally upon pulpier stuff: space opera (particularly Frank Herbert) and military sci-fi (particularly Robert Heinlein.
When assessing the (exceedingly limited) literary merits of GW's output, however, I can't help but agree that for the money we pay, they should be capable of better.
Frenchie wrote:It is amazing how people get the wrong end of the stick. I have to say I concur with the original poster. Being labelled Science fiction does not excuse poor work, either in the models or the rules and background. Look at the lengths the likes of Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke went to as science fiction authors to produce quality, believable and probable work.
Examples of lazy science fiction are the likes of Stargate not having any p90 pouches anywhere on characters despite the fact they'd cost a few quid to buy and yet the characters are always somehow pulling spare mags out of thin air or the octopus thingy in Prometheus growing to something the size of a small car despite having nothing to feed on. ¬¬
There are no excuses for such laziness. Not for the money we as fans pay. Why would you possibly settle for second rate?
Frenchie
I have seen plenty of SG1 episodes where they have p90 pouches and Prometheus proto facehugger grew because it grew... who said it needed food anyway..its and alien lol
OP I agree for the most part, when is come to the survivability of the armour the 40k tanks have..well we can never know, but everything else about them we can work out, for example the LR profile is so high any reall antitank unit would be able to pick it off at long range, cant hide that thing very well lol.
The usual explanation for fast-growing xenos is that they carry ultradense CHON and their biology is usually very pourous and... uh... the word for the opposite of dense. I forgot it :I
chrisrawr wrote:The usual explanation for fast-growing xenos is that they carry ultradense CHON and their biology is usually very pourous and... uh... the word for the opposite of dense. I forgot it :I
A tank the size of a Baneblade/Maus's biggest concern would be how much of a target for airstrikes it would make. Of course the same has been true for all tanks since airpower became a factor so its really a non-issue.
And power source concerns would actually be less then a smaller tank. At that size you can put a Nuclear reactor in the vehicle to power it.
I agree on the tracks on the IG stuff (and Land Raiders)
I ws trying to put together a model for the Golden Demon - but abandoned it as the track structure is so stupid it cant work. There is no suspension. The Rhino is fine, but the others the armour pretty much reaches the ground. Great on road. Useless on things like , well, grass.
True, but I think most bridges could support a Baneblade. You just probably couldn't have a Baneblade and a full armored column at the same time. Its the same problem people will have with normal tanks. A giant mega-tank will just be however many normal tanks it weighs.
Grey Templar wrote:True, but I think most bridges could support a Baneblade. You just probably couldn't have a Baneblade and a full armored column at the same time. Its the same problem people will have with normal tanks. A giant mega-tank will just be however many normal tanks it weighs.
318 tons? Hah, no. Most major bridges cap out at 10-15 tons, with smaller, "country road" bridges having a listed safety maximum of 5 tons.
dracostandard wrote:I agree on the tracks on the IG stuff (and Land Raiders)
I ws trying to put together a model for the Golden Demon - but abandoned it as the track structure is so stupid it cant work. There is no suspension. The Rhino is fine, but the others the armour pretty much reaches the ground. Great on road. Useless on things like , well, grass.
I know what you mean. You sound like a serious modelers so perhaps the realistic/possible look only effects us like this as quite a few posters on here don't care if its badly designed or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Psienesis wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:True, but I think most bridges could support a Baneblade. You just probably couldn't have a Baneblade and a full armored column at the same time. Its the same problem people will have with normal tanks. A giant mega-tank will just be however many normal tanks it weighs.
318 tons? Hah, no. Most major bridges cap out at 10-15 tons, with smaller, "country road" bridges having a listed safety maximum of 5 tons.
Completely wrong im afraid. These weight limits are working limits and have a safty factor of 5.0 minimum built in.
Some of the older bridges much more. What this means in layman's terms is a 15 ton bridge will easily handle 45 tons. 15 x 5.0. But this is civilian safety, who worry about being sued and bridge longevity etc. Military safety is cross the bridge if possible. Also your weight estimate s' for most major bridges '
Is ludicrously out. Not to mention futuristic bridging materiels. And to finish with banblades would almost exclusively be used to attack major targets and strong points and these would have main bridges over any waterways. For instance the Golden gate bridge could hold 170000 people!
All major highways have such bridges. That's why the allies attempted operation Market Garden and tried to capture the bridges of eindhoven , nejmargen, and Arnhem.
Valkyrie, no flaps or slats or Ailerons, those little nozels on the wings are also supposed to make it hover? It cannot fly, it litterally can not get airborne, even if it did it wouldn't achieve anything beyond crashing. I do not think anything other than the Ork Bomber looks like it could ever achieve flight.
Is it important? No, Does it impact the game in any way? Nope, does it bother me when I fork out up to £200 for a poorly designed model that looks like a child created it? Yeah, I must admit it does.
Valkyrie, no flaps or slats or Ailerons, those little nozels on the wings are also supposed to make it hover? It cannot fly, it litterally can not get airborne, even if it did it wouldn't achieve anything beyond crashing. I do not think anything other than the Ork Bomber looks like it could ever achieve flight.
Is it important? No, Does it impact the game in any way? Nope, does it bother me when I fork out up to £200 for a poorly designed model that looks like a child created it? Yeah, I must admit it does.
That's all this thread was about. If people aren't bothered that'sfine but I can't understand why GW have designed so badly and can do so well else where. They need lessons from the other manufactureres out there like FW. The orc bomber ' mig15' and the necron and elder flyers etc are all pretty cool and look like theyhave plausible character. The space marine thing is a joke IMO. Its a badly designed uglybrick which many player are already trying to convert. The IG stuff I'm OK with at
least they look functional. The Valkyrie should be able to hover,the harriers hover nozzles wernt that big and the Valkyrie would have much lighter and better materials than the
harrier, not to mention gravitational compensators and more thrust than a thusty thing.
Rae Ruen wrote:Wait... Forgeworld makes realistic designs that might work in the real world? Clearly you've not seen the Hierophant.
They do, unfortunately they work in the real world Circa the 41st Millennium where all vehicles are built to the specifications of the STC, so we will likely not get to see them in action.
The models were not designed to be "Modern day real world" logical.
The models give us an idea of what the vehicles are like in the year 40,000 in a fictional universe.
What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the vehicles of the 41st Millenium, or the movement of those vehicles in simulations of battles fought 38,000 years from now.
They work Perfectly fine in the fiction, implying that the Land Raider would get stuck on grass in the real world is like saying that A Stargate could never work like that because the gravity of the wormhole would crush the people that went through it.
We really do not know if the vehicle are a bad design in the 41st Millennium, maybe wait and see how well they work then?
Grimtuff wrote:To repeat, as it appears to have got lost or ignored in this morass of a thread, this is what word of god says WRTIG tanks:
...Take the Imperial Guard tanks. In truth they share more in common with a tank from the interwar period of the 20th Century than they do a modern battle tank or anything "futuristic". They have curiously misshapen hulls, riveted armour plates and absolutley no aesthetic concession to the technological advances we have nowadays.
IG tanks don't have the proper sloped armour and that is quite deliberate. Their design spawns from the thought process of what a fundamentally "backwards" tank would look like 38,000 years in the future in a place where technological understanding has collapsed and innovation is outlawed.
The Imperium is archaic and backwards, clinging to the remnants of incredible technologies such as Plasma Cannons and Las weapons. The image is so exciting and unusual because these misunderstood innovations are embedded in fighting vehicles that make a modern tank look like a technical marvel.
This. I used to be upset about the design themselves myself, until this subtlety was pointed out to me. The Imperium of Man is not a glorious futuristic empire. Technology and Science are chalked up to Magic. Ignorance reigns supreme. IIRC, the Leman Russ was based on a tractor design (the Land Crawler) that was cheap to manufacture en mass. It isn't designed to be a proper main battle tank, that's just the role its given because there is a need for one and the Leman Russ is all they have. The Imperium just needed a lot of cheap tanks is all.
And realize a scale Rhino would be close to Land Raider actual size. Flyers are annoyingly large enough, I wouldn't want to deal with a ton of to-scale Rhino chassis for my Space Wolves when I decide to hitch a ride...
In all honesty, I'm of the opinion of if you're gonna nit-pick about a single part of a fictional universe that may be unrealistic, you might as well throw out everything else that's unrealistic in that universe. To repeat as others have said, this is a universe centered around magical space demons, super genetically modified super soldiers who worship a corpse on a throne, space elves, and fungal space ape creatures that make things work by simply willing it to work with their latent psychic abilities- regardless of physics.
Things like ground clearance on tanks aren't exactly on my list of things that need to make sense in a universe of things that don't really make sense. Then again I'm primarily a 'nid player so... that may be why I don't care as much about realism.
What amazes me is the constant its in the future and has demons and monsters so its okay to design crap vehicals argument. A crap vehicle is a crap vehicle. Or its fantasy sci fi so its OK to be crap. Its not and no amount of cop out arguments about the future or the setting gets around the fact that lazy design is lazy design. When you have anything that has no possiblity of actually working due to basic physics then thats lazy and no amount of its not important dont worry about it arguments change that. It is clearly important to some people on here especially when they charge top money for sloppy work. If a tank or ATV can't cross a damp field because of simple design flaws then that's nothing to do with backward or outlawed technology, so the Russ was designed of a tractor, because the imperium needed cheap tanks? Presumably the tractors could cross fields? These are not arguments they are apologetic excuses for poorly thought out policies on vehical design.
You know, I am totally with the OP on this thread. Not only that, it's been my beef for decades. If you want to put something on the ground with treads and call it a "Tank," even if it's modeled after a "Tractor" your designs fall apart by housing it the way other vehicles use wheels. Treads need to be a lot more dominant to give that strong tank feeling that Rhinos and LR units just don't give. The Leman Russ more than anything is designed to feel like an early 20th c. tank, but the skinny treads and illogical housing leave it in the category of old mounted WFB units with horses that looked like your knights were charging Skaven on a team of Shetland ponies.
However, I have a bone to pick over this statement about the Stormtalon: "The space marine thing is a joke IMO. Its a badly designed uglybrick which many player are already trying to convert." Personally I think it's gorgeous. It's The Pivotal Reason I finally scrapped my Necron Army and am building an IG/Marine army now. It so harkens to the Ridley Scott James Cameron vision of clunky angular space opera. It screams Heinlein like nothing SM has since the Drop Pod. Plus, if we could put a F-117 in the air in 1981, some Imperium Mechanic can rig enough autostabilizers to make a Stormtalon fly any way she wants to. The Stormtalon for me is the ultimate combination of fantasy hi tech piled all together in a semi-plausible way that totally fits with the same suspension of disbelief that throws up all over the board every time I dump 12 nobs out of this bad boy:
Ciaphas wrote:What amazes me is the constant its in the future and has demons and monsters so its okay to design crap vehicals argument. A crap vehicle is a crap vehicle. Or its fantasy sci fi so its OK to be crap. Its not and no amount of cop out arguments about the future or the setting gets around the fact that lazy design is lazy design. When you have anything that has no possiblity of actually working due to basic physics then thats lazy and no amount of its not important dont worry about it arguments change that. It is clearly important to some people on here especially when they charge top money for sloppy work. If a tank or ATV can't cross a damp field because of simple design flaws then that's nothing to do with backward or outlawed technology, so the Russ was designed of a tractor, because the imperium needed cheap tanks? Presumably the tractors could cross fields? These are not arguments they are apologetic excuses for poorly thought out policies on vehical design.
you're sidestepping. nothing more.
Now, fair enough. you dislike what you see as badly designed vehicles - you want them to re real/true to life/to scale. fair enough. But why are you focusing solely on tanks? Why are you getting so hung up on one small area, when to be perfectly frank, its not all that relevant? Personally, i have far more of a beef with 7foot tall genetically engineered space marines that are the same height, width, and bulk as a 5 and a half foot tall guardsman. I have even more of an issue with the fact that a marines head is about the size of his torso, and that his hands are the size of his head. or bigger, especially old marines! Or the fact that the shoulder pads would prevent any and all peripheral vision, as well as restricting most arm movements - they're not very clever designs. i would go further and point out my dislike of the scale of the bolter- because apparently, bolt shells fires by marines must have a radius of about three inches! basic biological laws of how we gain energy from food (how much energy we put in to digestion, versus what we get out) basically invalidate tyranids as an entire concept, as simply, there is no way they should be able to do what they do. and then there are orks. Who make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
I dont get why you're ridiculing what others have said. frankly, i think its more than a bit sdtonishing and amusing that someone is going off on the unrealistic design of tanks, with a lack of ground clearance and ignorance of basic physics when, essentially, everything about this whole damned game/universe can fall into that category! to be fair, he'd have a point, if everything else was done "right and proper", and was designed along the lines of reality. but thats not the case.
And at the end of the day, i dont have a beef with it, because i get "why" its done this way. its the design aestrhetic of the game. the scale is "heroic". its not meant to be "real". its a representation. key word, that. its "fun", and "escapism". hence the big hands, huge heads, oversized weapon barrels, and all that jazz. GW didnt go into this business, and decide to take short cuts and "not bother" with things. their work is not "sloppy". its not that they dont give a damn. |its a design aesthetic, and frankly, its nothing more than that. they did not go into this business to make things real, and therefore to fail spectacularly at everything. No, they went into the business to make cool, heroic figures. As i said, if you're getting so hung up with one small aspect of the game that is out of whack with reality, how can you accept the rest of it.
variable wrote:You know, I am totally with the OP on this thread. Not only that, it's been my beef for decades. If you want to put something on the ground with treads and call it a "Tank," even if it's modeled after a "Tractor" your designs fall apart by housing it the way other vehicles use wheels. Treads need to be a lot more dominant to give that strong tank feeling that Rhinos and LR units just don't give. The Leman Russ more than anything is designed to feel like an early 20th c. tank, but the skinny treads and illogical housing leave it in the category of old mounted WFB units with horses that looked like your knights were charging Skaven on a team of Shetland ponies.
However, I have a bone to pick over this statement about the Stormtalon: "The space marine thing is a joke IMO. Its a badly designed uglybrick which many player are already trying to convert." Personally I think it's gorgeous. It's The Pivotal Reason I finally scrapped my Necron Army and am building an IG/Marine army now. It so harkens to the Ridley Scott James Cameron vision of clunky angular space opera. It screams Heinlein like nothing SM has since the Drop Pod. Plus, if we could put a F-117 in the air in 1981, some Imperium Mechanic can rig enough autostabilizers to make a Stormtalon fly any way she wants to. The Stormtalon for me is the ultimate combination of fantasy hi tech piled all together in a semi-plausible way that totally fits with the same suspension of disbelief that throws up all over the board every time I dump 12 nobs out of this bad boy:
Lol, I see what your getting at, enjoy it and keeping dropping them nobs. I havent really got a big issue with the flyers at least some thouht has gone into them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote:
Ciaphas wrote:What amazes me is the constant its in the future and has demons and monsters so its okay to design crap vehicals argument. A crap vehicle is a crap vehicle. Or its fantasy sci fi so its OK to be crap. Its not and no amount of cop out arguments about the future or the setting gets around the fact that lazy design is lazy design. When you have anything that has no possiblity of actually working due to basic physics then thats lazy and no amount of its not important dont worry about it arguments change that. It is clearly important to some people on here especially when they charge top money for sloppy work. If a tank or ATV can't cross a damp field because of simple design flaws then that's nothing to do with backward or outlawed technology, so the Russ was designed of a tractor, because the imperium needed cheap tanks? Presumably the tractors could cross fields? These are not arguments they are apologetic excuses for poorly thought out policies on vehical design.
you're sidestepping. nothing more.
Now, fair enough. you dislike what you see as badly designed vehicles - you want them to re real/true to life/to scale. fair enough. But why are you focusing solely on tanks? Why are you getting so hung up on one small area, when to be perfectly frank, its not all that relevant? Personally, i have far more of a beef with 7foot tall genetically engineered space marines that are the same height, width, and bulk as a 5 and a half foot tall guardsman. I have even more of an issue with the fact that a marines head is about the size of his torso, and that his hands are the size of his head. or bigger, especially old marines! Or the fact that the shoulder pads would prevent any and all peripheral vision, as well as restricting most arm movements - they're not very clever designs. i would go further and point out my dislike of the scale of the bolter- because apparently, bolt shells fires by marines must have a radius of about three inches! basic biological laws of how we gain energy from food (how much energy we put in to digestion, versus what we get out) basically invalidate tyranids as an entire concept, as simply, there is no way they should be able to do what they do. and then there are orks. Who make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
I dont get why you're ridiculing what others have said. frankly, i think its more than a bit sdtonishing and amusing that someone is going off on the unrealistic design of tanks, with a lack of ground clearance and ignorance of basic physics when, essentially, everything about this whole damned game/universe can fall into that category! to be fair, he'd have a point, if everything else was done "right and proper", and was designed along the lines of reality. but thats not the case.
And at the end of the day, i dont have a beef with it, because i get "why" its done this way. its the design aestrhetic of the game. the scale is "heroic". its not meant to be "real". its a representation. key word, that. its "fun", and "escapism". hence the big hands, huge heads, oversized weapon barrels, and all that jazz. GW didnt go into this business, and decide to take short cuts and "not bother" with things. their work is not "sloppy". its not that they dont give a damn. |its a design aesthetic, and frankly, its nothing more than that. they did not go into this business to make things real, and therefore to fail spectacularly at everything. No, they went into the business to make cool, heroic figures. As i said, if you're getting so hung up with one small aspect of the game that is out of whack with reality, how can you accept the rest of it.
Your rambling. Nothing more.
Your post lacks any direction or focus. You complain about everything and then say you 'get it' so its OK. And because many of us don't ' get it' we are somehow hung up with one small aspect of the game. If you 'get it ' well done, some of us id say about half the posters, don't. And this is a discussion that I started about some of the vehicals, not the whole GW range.
What always happens on here when someone questions something they don't like about GW is the grabbing of pitchforks to get the heretic. We pay our money, we make the models, some of us play the game. We have the right to criticsize an aspect of the behemoth that is GW if we want to. Even if we don't all ' get it'.
Ciaphas wrote:When you have anything that has no possiblity of actually working due to basic physics.
Modern day real life Physics have no bearing on it.
If they did bolters and lasguns would be able to kill things more than 24 inches away, drop pods would not work at all, Warp travel would be impossible, Gigantic Space Hulks would not exist, Thunderhawk gunships would not exist, Plasma Cannons, Lascannons, Meltaguns, and fusion blasters would not exist, models would not be able to ascend ruins that do not have ladders on them, Jump packs would not exist, and units would never miss a vehicle in close combat if it was moving slower than a normal trooper can walk.
These are all things that we need to suspend our disbelief just a bit to view the world as something that could be their (Not our) reality.
They actually do. Sci-Fi is an expansion upon what we think we can do. With the exception of the warp and melta weapons, we know how to do pretty much everything the Imperium can, we just need better energy sources. Hell, Michio Kaku created a means of destroying planets; we just need fusion reactors and laser beams.
Bolters would work. I don't see how they'd suddenly become implausible when you add in real-world physics. And hitting slow-moving things is normal. You move slow, you get hit. The only reason that you can't hit every slow-moving vehicle automatically is balance. It's the same reason why a Ravager that has not moved in 3 game turns cannot hit a Fortification. Is it dumb? Yup. Really dumb. But until they create a system that doesn't rely on dice (i.e. they make an actual combat simulator, sort of like the Dawn of War games but bigger and better in every way), that's how it is.
The physics, however, are still required. This isn't Narnia we're playing in, this is supposed to be the future. Our future. Our dystopian, ugly as the dickens future. The same physics still apply.
I did not say bolters wound not work, their range is extremely short for what we know of modern day ballistics, and we also do not know what the physics are like in the Sci-Fantasy universe that is 40K
It does not have to work on the same physics that we have come to know, things can change a lot in 38,000 years. There are not records of what happened 38,000 years ago, but just 2000 years ago they thought that the earth was the center of everything, and was flat.
In fact things like Stormravens, Thunderhawks, and Landspeeders would not be able to fly and Drop Pods would not be able to land safely when dropped from orbit under what we know as Physics yes somehow they do just fine in our simulations.
DeathReaper wrote:Modern day real life Physics have no bearing on it.
Plasma Cannons would not exist.
Aye, plasma is a very unstable molecular state. In order to shoot it at someone you'd either use it as a flame thrower or have incredibly powerful magnetic containment fields to keep a sort of "plasma bolt" together. So if you shoot it at longer range why don't enemies use the same containment fields to protect themself? Or better yet, use the incredibly powerful containment field itself as a weapon and skip the unstable plasma in the first place?
Plasma is a staple weapon in Science Fantasy (or Space Opera) and that's what the rest of WH40K is too. People applaud Star Trek for making kids want to learn science but the show has nothing to do with it, it's mostly just techno babble where real terms are used to make something sound plausible if you have no idea about what the terms mean. If you want hard scifi look somewhere else than a GrimDark miniature game set in the Far Future where there's only war...
If you want hard scifi look somewhere else than a GrimDark miniature game set in the Far Future where there's only war...
There it is again. WHY does it have to be hard sci fi for some simple physics to apply? The posters who come on here saying it does not bother them, I respect. But the ones who say its silly to want any realism because its just a game or its 38000 Years in the future so we shouldnt want or expect it to be realistic I find hard to understand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeathReaper wrote:
In fact things like Stormravens, Thunderhawks, and Landspeeders would not be able to fly and Drop Pods would not be able to land safely when dropped from orbit under what we know as Physics yes somehow they do just fine in our simulations.
Physics includes gravity. The military have been fooling with anti gravitational theories for years. Some anti magnentic testing have already trialed. Thrusters have allowed aircraft to take of vertically for years ( ww2 tests began it all) so Stormravens, Thunderhawks and Land speeders.....38000 years from now. No problem.
So who is to say what kind of gravity the planets 38,000 years in the future have?
The IG Chimera could be barely touching the ground because the gravity is so low on all of these worlds.
You find Stormravens "No problem" even though the wingspan would not even come close to providing enough lift for a craft even half its size, let along a full sized one carrying 12 troopers in power armor, and a ten tonne dreadnought on the back in the magna-grapple, but the design of the IG Chimera makes you all bent out of shape about realism?
Ciaphas wrote: One of the worst examples is the IG Chimera. If it were real it would become immovable once it had sunk 2 inches into to the ground. Even WW1 tanks were better designed.
Ciaphas wrote:The tank you show has normal running gear and something called ' ground clearance' which means it can sink into.the ground and not ground itself. Something that was fixed in 1915 at the tank trials before actually using tanks in 1918.
Minor historical error, Tanks were first used in 1916 during the Somme fighting, and more extensively in 1917.
I had a good look around for my chimera model, but unforunately couldn't find it. However, I don't remember it having a particulary bad ground clearance, probably about the same as the ww1 designs they are vaguely based on.
According to one site the ground clearance of a chimera is 0.45 meters. This is actually pretty decent, most tanks, past and present, have something around that. The MkIV british tank of WW1 (the main version used during the war) had a slightly lower ground clearance than that. The German first attempt at a tank had far less than that, and a modern M1 is just greater than that.
I'm not sure of the scale of the models, the vehicles always seem out of scale to the troops. But a 28mm/heroic scale would mean that ground clearance on the chimera model should be around 8mm give or take a tiny bit.
mwnciboo wrote:M1 Abrams tank: 103 kPa (15 psi)
That would make the M1 exert more psi than the ww1 MkIV, The one source I coud find showing ground pressure listed it as 13psi fully loaded.
My main gripe with awkward vehicles are the new storm talon I think it's called that marines get. What the hell is up with the front/rear size imbalance? The thing looks like a goddamn pelican with the xbox hueg front half, and then the rear is thin like a proper plane and has the wings.... That thing would be constantly tipped forward, it's nose dragging on the ground.
God, I HATE THAT MODEL NOW! Just thinking about it is like making me cringe with how bad it is.
I stand by my assertion that 40k models are not proper fluff representations. All vehicles are too small and wrongly proportioned.
The LRBT would be wider and longer if it was true scale. and by extension its tracks would be as well. The gun would be smaller relative to the turret and such.
The models themselves are not realistic representations of the 'real' thing.
I wish GW would bring their models into true scale with each other. Guardsmen should be smaller and tanks need to be scaled up. base it all around the current Marine models.
I think when discussing particularly IG is that GW is leveraging our real world expectations to sell the line. IG has always been about playing off of popular ideas of contemporary Earth armies and I think it's pretty fair to call BS when they model a tank design and sell it using nostalgia and popular familiarity with IRL tank designs but they fudge something so basic as tread design.
It's all well and good to say "It's the Future" about alien tech, but IG ground transport don't get hover tech, they depend of big treads and wheels much the same way we do, which implies Earth like gravity and 20thc like tech. If they've got some kind of antigrav to get poorly designed tread through difficult terrain, why don't they have Eldar grav tanks instead? The reason is that GW designers wanted to play off the look and feel of old earth vehicles, which were built for old earth physics--so it's a non-starter to defend the Leman Russ by chanting "Space Opera." The very appeal of the LR tank depends on its resemblance to the tanks we used around WWI.
variable wrote:so it's a non-starter to defend the Leman Russ by chanting "Space Opera." The very appeal of the LR tank depends on its resemblance to the tanks we used around WWI.
The game is space opera(ish), and the tanks do 'resemble' the tanks we used around ww1. The 2 are not mutually exclusive, space opera can take stuff we are used to and fudge it to be out of proportion, but that is not the same as saying it no longer 'resembles' . The very fact that many people keep referring to ww1 tanks demonstrates that we immediatley see the resemblance. If you are getting hung up on tread design (i.e minutae) then space opera/fantasy is probably not the thing for you, but something more 'hardcore sci-sfi', based on real physics/mechanics.
Your rambling. Nothing more.
Your post lacks any direction or focus. You complain about everything and then say you 'get it' so its OK. And because many of us don't ' get it' we are somehow hung up with one small aspect of the game. If you 'get it ' well done, some of us id say about half the posters, don't. And this is a discussion that I started about some of the vehicals, not the whole GW range.
What always happens on here when someone questions something they don't like about GW is the grabbing of pitchforks to get the heretic. We pay our money, we make the models, some of us play the game. We have the right to criticsize an aspect of the behemoth that is GW if we want to. Even if we don't all ' get it'.
Rambling? meh. No, not really. there is plenty focus and direction. firstly, im not "complaining". Nor am i grabbing a pitchfork. Im simply pointing out that personally, i can see plenty things that dont make sense in this game. its an observation. frankly though, at the end of the day, these things dont bother me. Pick your reasons. Its a game. fictional universe. "rule of cool". heroic scale. I just think its odd that you have so many issues with what you see as badly designed, unrealistic vehicles, when there is so much else about the game that is badly designed and unrealistc.
As i asked, how is it that you can get over everything else, but not that? Indeed, criticise all you want-youve got every right to have your POV and your say, but in my mind, some criticisms (price, company direction, balance etc) bear more weight than others. This? Well, it just seems a bit pointless, really. As i said, you've got issues with unrealistc vehicles, but somehow, you dont have issues with the rest of the unrealism that permeates the 40kiverse... Personally, id put all the unrealism together and not bother about it, rather than picking and choosing whats OK to be unrealistic, and whats not, and you know my take on it already. Meh, YMMV.
Ciaphas wrote: One of the worst examples is the IG Chimera. If it were real it would become immovable once it had sunk 2 inches into to the ground. Even WW1 tanks were better designed.
Ciaphas wrote:The tank you show has normal running gear and something called ' ground clearance' which means it can sink into.the ground and not ground itself. Something that was fixed in 1915 at the tank trials before actually using tanks in 1918.
Minor historical error, Tanks were first used in 1916 during the Somme fighting, and more extensively in 1917.
I had a good look around for my chimera model, but unforunately couldn't find it. However, I don't remember it having a particulary bad ground clearance, probably about the same as the ww1 designs they are vaguely based on.
According to one site the ground clearance of a chimera is 0.45 meters. This is actually pretty decent, most tanks, past and present, have something around that. The MkIV british tank of WW1 (the main version used during the war) had a slightly lower ground clearance than that. The German first attempt at a tank had far less than that, and a modern M1 is just greater than that.
I'm not sure of the scale of the models, the vehicles always seem out of scale to the troops. But a 28mm/heroic scale would mean that ground clearance on the chimera model should be around 8mm give or take a tiny bit.
mwnciboo wrote:M1 Abrams tank: 103 kPa (15 psi)
That would make the M1 exert more psi than the ww1 MkIV, The one source I coud find showing ground pressure listed it as 13psi fully loaded.
It would probably be closer to 6" on a Chimera, its side skirting / armour, is almost level with the ground, only a few inch of track is visable beneath the side armour, the moment it went offroad, the side skirting would dig in and stop the thing dead. It would even scrape over a sleeping policeman (speedhump).
I have a suspicion your thinking of a Landraider, the 2nd edition ones were carbon copies of WW1 tanks. The Chimera is an APC.
That has a few feet clearance, the Chimera's armour goes all the way down to the track, it wouldn't mount a kerb in reality
I actually want to add some Bradleys to my IG, just need to find the right scale, don't get me wrong, I like Chimera's, but I have 9 already. A few Bradleys would mix it up a little.
hashrat wrote:
I have a suspicion your thinking of a Landraider, the 2nd edition ones were carbon copies of WW1 tanks. the Chimera's armour goes all the way down to the track, it wouldn't mount a kerb in reality
No I was thinking about the chimera, is still has the obvious ww1 feel to it. But I do remember seeing the first landraiders released and thinking WTF!, first world war tanks in a futuristic game (I had never played or read 40k stuff at that point, so knew nothing of the setting).
Admittedly, I had forgotten about the side skirts, but that doesn't really look that much different to something like a matilda, which had very low down almost to ground skirts.
The clearance on matildas was about the same as any other tank, give or take an of inch or 2 (varied by model).
The ground clearance on a bradley, by the way, is less than a 'few feet', its about 18".
I think people have some what mistaken views on tank/armor ground clearnces, they assume it is higher than it is. ~18" is about normal, most tanks past and present have been within an inch or 2 of that. Tanks on the whole seek to be as low to the ground as they can get away with (smaller target), and rely on very low ground pressure to avoid grounding issues.
If you are getting hung up on tread design (i.e minutae) then space opera/fantasy is probably not the thing for you,
Nobody is "hung up on tread design" that's a red herring a lot of people are using to dismiss the very real and explicitly detailed point that there are many things about the LRBT that distract people who enjoy the hyper realism of IG armies in particular, and other armies not so particular. Perhaps if you are getting so hung up on discussions of minutiae about space opera/fantasy then perhaps an online forum focused around 40k is not for you.
variable wrote: the hyper realism of IG armies in particular,
That's a new one to me. I'm really not sure what you mean by that?
Nobody is "hung up on tread design" that's a red herring a lot of people are using to dismiss the very real and explicitly detailed point that there are many things about the LRBT
All of which are minutae though (or the ones I've seen mentioned, size of gun, how do the men fit inside, tread, ground clearance etc). They may be explicitly detailed points, but this isn't a realistic/detailed game, it is gothic/space-opera/fantasy. I would have said it was the opposite of hyper realistic. Exagerated/bizarre proprtions of many models etc are part and parcel of the whole setting.
It's designed to look cool, not actually be build. This game is not real. Considering that there are daemons and witches in it, you are clearly overreacting or trolling.
And it's not like this exact same argument hasn't been made literally hundreds of times before.
*sits at the bar with the other regulars and watches the fireworks*
Grey Templar wrote:True, but I think most bridges could support a Baneblade. You just probably couldn't have a Baneblade and a full armored column at the same time. Its the same problem people will have with normal tanks. A giant mega-tank will just be however many normal tanks it weighs.
318 tons? Hah, no. Most major bridges cap out at 10-15 tons, with smaller, "country road" bridges having a listed safety maximum of 5 tons.
Not interested in the dicussion really but bridge sizes, feth yeah.
Tower Bridge has a weight limit of 18 tonnes per car. Pretty sure it can take 318.
The Clifton Suspension Bridge couldn't, obviously In most temperate areas though, the kind of places where you'd want armour - wide open grassland, anything with a bridge could be easily forded anyway. And with the baneblade's size a small nuclear reactor is actually viable. And if you allow a huge amount of energy generation, it becomes a lot more believable.
That's a new one to me. I'm really not sure what you mean by that?
The IG reflects modern warfare in the 20th century. Most, if not all distinct guard armies reflect a historical army or war that can be pretty clearly identified, Russian front in WWII, WWIcentral europe, US Army in vietnam (Rambo style), etc. with a peppering of lasguns and melta, but with a familiar foundation exaggerated to play off archetypes. These ideas are heavily inspired by writers like Heinlein and Herbert who both wrote Hard Science Fiction that involved regular humans going up against some pretty fantastic stuff, but the Human base was always very hard sci fi in a fantastic universe.
They may be explicitly detailed points, but this isn't a realistic/detailed game, it is gothic/space-opera/fantasy.
So what? Really? Why does being G/S-O/F have any bearing on a reality where I think the LRBT would look better with some big old fat treads instead of some skinny , pencil thin strips that wouldn't get a tricycle out of a sand box?
Exagerated/bizarre proprtions of many models etc are part and parcel of the whole setting.
Again, so what? I agree with you, but that has no bearing on anything argued by me at least. If GW made a new Guardsman Marbo fig wearing crocs with a multi-melta in each hand we'd all agree that crocs were probably not what a guard would find practical in a battle setting. We might even agree that those multi-meltas are a bit much. Your argument would have to be that the character modeled after John Rambo can wear whatever he wants because it's sci-gothic-fantasy. There's no reason it's not fair game to argue that maybe, Guardsman Marbo ought to be wearing Combat Boots, and there's no reason it's not fair game to argue that the LRBT should be equipped with more tread than the equivalent of Ice Skates on a polar bear.
DeathReaper wrote:So who is to say what kind of gravity the planets 38,000 years in the future have?
The IG Chimera could be barely touching the ground because the gravity is so low on all of these worlds.
You find Stormravens "No problem" even though the wingspan would not even come close to providing enough lift for a craft even half its size, let along a full sized one carrying 12 troopers in power armor, and a ten tonne dreadnought on the back in the magna-grapple, but the design of the IG Chimera makes you all bent out of shape about realism?
Interesting take on it.
Im not even going to comment on the gravity statement.
Aircraft lift is based on wingspan and more importantly POWER. You could have a aircraft with a 200ft wingspan and it wont fly without power. Aircraft design has developed at an alarming rate, from a 300ft flight in 1903 to supersonic jets flying around the world all in a hundred years. Wing span decreases with more power. However that is forward velocity flight. Add directional thrusters and you got a hummimg bird. The strom raven resembles no known aircraft to date and is assumed to have awesome power and directional thrusters, so no problem. This thread was about vehicals that could not work because of bad design flaws that could not overcome basic physics. In short the chimera chasis with bottomed out side armour is poorly designed and the crazy looking LR with its silly turrets and guns all defy, undefiable physics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
puree wrote:
Ciaphas wrote: One of the worst examples is the IG Chimera. If it were real it would become immovable once it had sunk 2 inches into to the ground. Even WW1 tanks were better designed.
Ciaphas wrote:The tank you show has normal running gear and something called ' ground clearance' which means it can sink into.the ground and not ground itself. Something that was fixed in 1915 at the tank trials before actually using tanks in 1918.
Minor historical error, Tanks were first used in 1916 during the Somme fighting, and more extensively in 1917.
I had a good look around for my chimera model, but unforunately couldn't find it. However, I don't remember it having a particulary bad ground clearance, probably about the same as the ww1 designs they are vaguely based on.
According to one site the ground clearance of a chimera is 0.45 meters. This is actually pretty decent, most tanks, past and present, have something around that. The MkIV british tank of WW1 (the main version used during the war) had a slightly lower ground clearance than that. The German first attempt at a tank had far less than that, and a modern M1 is just greater than that.
I'm not sure of the scale of the models, the vehicles always seem out of scale to the troops. But a 28mm/heroic scale would mean that ground clearance on the chimera model should be around 8mm give or take a tiny bit.
mwnciboo wrote:M1 Abrams tank: 103 kPa (15 psi)
That would make the M1 exert more psi than the ww1 MkIV, The one source I coud find showing ground pressure listed it as 13psi fully loaded.
As for the historical error, Tanks trials were held in 1915 and many glaring design flaws change before tanks were rushed into production for the Somme in 1916 with distarious results. grounding, breakdowns, etc. They were used on mass and successfully at Cambrai in 1918.
The male M4 tank in WW1 had a psi of 13. and weighed 29 ton.
The M1 Abrams had a Psi of 15 and weighed 68 ton.
The tracks on the Abrams is 1.5 times wider than the M4.
Using a model and scaleing up the side armour ground clearance, of the chimera chassis, is approx 2 and a half inches. The width of its tracks is just enough to hold a child with two ice creams and a lollypop.
hashrat wrote:
I have a suspicion your thinking of a Landraider, the 2nd edition ones were carbon copies of WW1 tanks. the Chimera's armour goes all the way down to the track, it wouldn't mount a kerb in reality
Admittedly, I had forgotten about the side skirts, but that doesn't really look that much different to something like a matilda, which had very low down almost to ground skirts.
The clearance on matildas was about the same as any other tank, give or take an of inch or 2 (varied by model).
The ground clearance on a bradley, by the way, is less than a 'few feet', its about 18".
I think people have some what mistaken views on tank/armor ground clearnces, they assume it is higher than it is. ~18" is about normal, most tanks past and present have been within an inch or 2 of that. Tanks on the whole seek to be as low to the ground as they can get away with (smaller target), and rely on very low ground pressure to avoid grounding issues.
Yeah i think theres a difference lol. One has no ground clearence and tiny tracks. The other is a tank,
ciaphas wrote:As for the historical error, Tanks trials were held in 1915 and many glaring design flaws change before tanks were rushed into production for the Somme in 1916 with distarious results. grounding, breakdowns, etc. They were used on mass and successfully at Cambrai in 1918.
hashrat wrote:
I have a suspicion your thinking of a Landraider, the 2nd edition ones were carbon copies of WW1 tanks. the Chimera's armour goes all the way down to the track, it wouldn't mount a kerb in reality
Admittedly, I had forgotten about the side skirts, but that doesn't really look that much different to something like a matilda, which had very low down almost to ground skirts.
The clearance on matildas was about the same as any other tank, give or take an of inch or 2 (varied by model).
The ground clearance on a bradley, by the way, is less than a 'few feet', its about 18".
I think people have some what mistaken views on tank/armor ground clearnces, they assume it is higher than it is. ~18" is about normal, most tanks past and present have been within an inch or 2 of that. Tanks on the whole seek to be as low to the ground as they can get away with (smaller target), and rely on very low ground pressure to avoid grounding issues.
Yeah i think theres a difference lol. One has no ground clearence and tiny tracks. The other is a tank,
However, this is the only real flaw the Chimera and LRBT have in their design. The other supposed flaws go away when you realize the models are not properly proportioned from Turret to Gun and Turret to Body.
The LR seems to be based on a combination of the char b and a british ww1 tank.
Both have full on sides, the 40k ones are certainly not as well designed. But as noted elsewhere this isn't a realistic game, the IOM vehicles in particular are meant to look archaic and almost non-functionable without the help of the tech preists and machine spirits.
As to the matilda, remember this tank is most famous for fighting in the desert, not a place reknowned for solid ground. Yet those low skirts didn't stop it dead. The matilda also had (visually) narrow tracks. It is not narrowness that counts though, it is ground pressure. I suspect that the chimera tracks are not really as bad as some are making out either, but without finding my model to measure I can't check it out.
Basically the ground clearance on the chimera between the tracks looks spot on, the tracks themselves look fine and the side skirts look, well , mmm. But I love how they look.
McNinja wrote:They actually do. Sci-Fi is an expansion upon what we think we can do. With the exception of the warp and melta weapons, we know how to do pretty much everything the Imperium can, we just need better energy sources. Hell, Michio Kaku created a means of destroying planets; we just need fusion reactors and laser beams.
Bolters would work. I don't see how they'd suddenly become implausible when you add in real-world physics. And hitting slow-moving things is normal. You move slow, you get hit. The only reason that you can't hit every slow-moving vehicle automatically is balance. It's the same reason why a Ravager that has not moved in 3 game turns cannot hit a Fortification. Is it dumb? Yup. Really dumb. But until they create a system that doesn't rely on dice (i.e. they make an actual combat simulator, sort of like the Dawn of War games but bigger and better in every way), that's how it is.
The physics, however, are still required. This isn't Narnia we're playing in, this is supposed to be the future. Our future. Our dystopian, ugly as the dickens future. The same physics still apply.
There is no Imperium without the Emperor is he within the current understanding of physics?.
Cant say I have ever looked at any units and thought if they would work in our current time
puree wrote:The LR seems to be based on a combination of the char b and a british ww1 tank.
Both have full on sides, the 40k ones are certainly not as well designed. But as noted elsewhere this isn't a realistic game, the IOM vehicles in particular are meant to look archaic and almost non-functionable without the help of the tech preists and machine spirits.
As to the matilda, remember this tank is most famous for fighting in the desert, not a place reknowned for solid ground. Yet those low skirts didn't stop it dead. The matilda also had (visually) narrow tracks. It is not narrowness that counts though, it is ground pressure. I suspect that the chimera tracks are not really as bad as some are making out either, but without finding my model to measure I can't check it out.
Basically the ground clearance on the chimera between the tracks looks spot on, the tracks themselves look fine and the side skirts look, well , mmm. But I love how they look.
Its a simple thing the sides need to be no wider than the tracks, as above shows clearly. The chimera tracks and indeed Rhino etc are very narrow. But I like your post because you explain that you love the look. I respect that. This is a discussion about how we can improve things for all of us. Not a fight over or a bashing of GW just things that people would like to see improved or indeed not. Personally it grinds on me so asiI've said before I may custom my own vehicals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MarkyMark wrote:
McNinja wrote:They actually do. Sci-Fi is an expansion upon what we think we can do. With the exception of the warp and melta weapons, we know how to do pretty much everything the Imperium can, we just need better energy sources. Hell, Michio Kaku created a means of destroying planets; we just need fusion reactors and laser beams.
Bolters would work. I don't see how they'd suddenly become implausible when you add in real-world physics. And hitting slow-moving things is normal. You move slow, you get hit. The only reason that you can't hit every slow-moving vehicle automatically is balance. It's the same reason why a Ravager that has not moved in 3 game turns cannot hit a Fortification. Is it dumb? Yup. Really dumb. But until they create a system that doesn't rely on dice (i.e. they make an actual combat simulator, sort of like the Dawn of War games but bigger and better in every way), that's how it is.
The physics, however, are still required. This isn't Narnia we're playing in, this is supposed to be the future. Our future. Our dystopian, ugly as the dickens future. The same physics still apply.
There is no Imperium without the Emperor is he within the current understanding of physics?.
Cant say I have ever looked at any units and thought if they would work in our current time
seriously? O.o youre arguing about the depth of the track of the model? the thing thats made of plastic? the model thats part of a GAME? last time i checked they didnt need to be 100% realistic, to scale, and completely functional in order to enjoy the game. for heavens sake why worry about this when you could be thinking of all the people who died during the second construction of the death star! THINK OF THEIR FAMILIES AND HOW MUCH THEYVE LOST!!!
And you came here and took time out of your busy schedule to post that pointless nonsense dufus? Who said they "needed" to be 100% realistic? Can you read? Do you even grasp the nature of the topic?
I would tell you to grow up, but I assume you are mentally deficient and therfore unable.
Comming here and posting that stupid backwards reply, is all you have to worry about it would seem.
As for the Matilda, notice that its side skirts end above the tracks, not next to them.
I think dufus was trying to inject a little humour into the thread, chill.
We could discuss the impracticalities and impossibilities of Tactical Dreadnought Armour all day but it still won't bring back all those construction workers and loyal clones....
McNinja wrote:They actually do. Sci-Fi is an expansion upon what we think we can do. With the exception of the warp and melta weapons, we know how to do pretty much everything the Imperium can, we just need better energy sources. Hell, Michio Kaku created a means of destroying planets; we just need fusion reactors and laser beams.
Bolters would work. I don't see how they'd suddenly become implausible when you add in real-world physics. And hitting slow-moving things is normal. You move slow, you get hit. The only reason that you can't hit every slow-moving vehicle automatically is balance. It's the same reason why a Ravager that has not moved in 3 game turns cannot hit a Fortification. Is it dumb? Yup. Really dumb. But until they create a system that doesn't rely on dice (i.e. they make an actual combat simulator, sort of like the Dawn of War games but bigger and better in every way), that's how it is.
The physics, however, are still required. This isn't Narnia we're playing in, this is supposed to be the future. Our future. Our dystopian, ugly as the dickens future. The same physics still apply.
There is no Imperium without the Emperor is he within the current understanding of physics?.
Cant say I have ever looked at any units and thought if they would work in our current time
Clearly not. He is the FI part of Sci-Fi, made plausible by the fluff, the same way Mass Effect made Mass Relays and Biotics plausible in their universe.
It isn't just that they would work in our current time. Sure, they'd work, but the designs are so inefficient, so dumb, that you can't help but notice. There are reasons why no tank has huge flat sides or massive exposed treads, we've learned lessons throughout history that have taught us certain things about physics and vehicles that makes those designs obsolete.
dufus0001 wrote:seriously? O.o youre arguing about the depth of the track of the model? the thing thats made of plastic? the model thats part of a GAME? last time i checked they didnt need to be 100% realistic, to scale, and completely functional in order to enjoy the game. for heavens sake why worry about this when you could be thinking of all the people who died during the second construction of the death star! THINK OF THEIR FAMILIES AND HOW MUCH THEYVE LOST!!!
i wish this is all i had to worry about...
Typical skip poster. Read the last two posts on a 7 page topic and make a pointless statement before moving on. Thx for that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hashrat wrote:And you came here and took time out of your busy schedule to post that pointless nonsense dufus? Who said they "needed" to be 100% realistic? Can you read? Do you even grasp the nature of the topic?
I would tell you to grow up, but I assume you are mentally deficient and therfore unable.
Comming here and posting that stupid backwards reply, is all you have to worry about it would seem.
As for the Matilda, notice that its side skirts end above the tracks, not next to them.
If you don't like the official designs there are plenty of good historical kits on the market. I bought Tamiya 1/35 scale armoured car and tank kits for my armies.
If it's all suppose to be scale, then a Forge World Titan would have to be like four or five feet tall. The feet on these are suppose to be able to smash entire platoons.
Oh well I stand corrected then. I'll admit that I don't really know. But, still, we can compare a marine to a human. A hoomee will usually stand between 5 - 6 ft. A marine is often considered, in some text, as being 3 meters tall. Which makes them almost 9 feet tall. This is acceptible within the confines of what the fluff says. Though some times this varries, I've read books where Hive Tyrants were only 6 feet tall, when they should really be double that.
So anyway. If a marine is 9 ft. Give or take. Then a trygon should be almost ten times that. To fit within the scale, that assume tehy can eat a marine whole. That would mean the model, being about 7" inch tall, versus the 3" marine model, means the Trygon should be more like 30" tall, versus the marine. So then about the size of titan.
I might have gone off the reservation on that one, just slap me and tell me i' wrong lol.
Ciaphas wrote:This is a discussion about how we can improve things for all of us.
I think I have to disagree with that. The look of the minis and the whacky proportions, 'that woud never work' feel of the IOM is part of what makes 40k the one mini game I like (I'm mainly in to board wargaming, old avalon hill style stuff etc). Having IG tanks that were actually in scale, or looking 'realistic' would detract a lot from the game IMO. Obvioulsy that is subjective, but I don't think you can say that making the tanks realistic would improve things for all of us.
McNinja wrote:It isn't just that they would work in our current time. Sure, they'd work, but the designs are so inefficient, so dumb, that you can't help but notice. There are reasons why no tank has huge flat sides or massive exposed treads, we've learned lessons throughout history that have taught us certain things about physics and vehicles that makes those designs obsolete.
That of course is the point of the IOM, they are using what are 'obsolete' designs, holy designs that cannot be changed, that require priests and machine spirits to function. The problem is how do you portray 10,000 years of obsolesance when that is still 1000s of years in our future. The imagery requires that we instantly identify with obsolete, and going back to tanks that look like they are straight out ww1 or the inter war years is how you do that. Any attempt to change that would seriously impact on the games imagery and what it is trying to portray.
Yar, well the truth is that, the game has no scale. If the models were to scale then the marines would be tiny or the tanks would be huge. I dont wanna paint or haul around something that big.
Ciaphas wrote:Im not even going to comment on the gravity statement.
Ciaphas wrote:Physics includes gravity.
Why not comment about the gravity?
It is clear you think that the Physics has to take the gravity of the world into account.
Ciaphas wrote:Aircraft lift is based on wingspan and more importantly POWER. You could have a aircraft with a 200ft wingspan and it wont fly without power. Aircraft design has developed at an alarming rate, from a 300ft flight in 1903 to supersonic jets flying around the world all in a hundred years. Wing span decreases with more power. However that is forward velocity flight. Add directional thrusters and you got a hummimg bird. The strom raven resembles no known aircraft to date and is assumed to have awesome power and directional thrusters, so no problem. This thread was about vehicals that could not work because of bad design flaws that could not overcome basic physics. In short the chimera chasis with bottomed out side armour is poorly designed and the crazy looking LR with its silly turrets and guns all defy, undefiable physics.
The SR could not fly.
The wings are not even the right shape to provide lift.
The turbulence would tear the aircraft apart, Yet you have no problem with that (Or the Stormraven or Thunderhawk which have the same problems?)
I do not get the difference between what is wrong with the flyers, and the Chimera.
I actually don't have a problem with scale tweaking. It really only shows when you are mixing armies (in the came of SM & IG units) or using old models mixed with new (like my 1/2 Rogue trader Ork army and 1/2 5th ed), and frankly most of the Heroic Scale proportions are about making a 25mm fig look good to a 6' dude who's standing 3' away. I have painted a lot of wonderful models that were brilliantly proportioned and subtle, but from more than a few feet away my GW Gandalf looked more compelling than the infinitely better crafted Mithril Miniatures Gandalf.
My real hang up (and yes, it's a hang up, not something that will ever affect anyone else) is things that resemble Modern Earth Norm enough to be recognizable but have something wrong with them (like every halfling/runtling/hobbit figure ever modeled by GW), or for that matter things that are completely alien but unnecessarily anthropomorphized into a human like posture. I mean, why does a Necron have a completely artificial body and not have integrated weaponry? Why can they make a destroyer but not build a Command Barge that's sentient like a Cylon Raider or at least Integrated like Pilot/Moya? I mean, if you can turn my ass into a hoverjet, why do you need two human shaped guys to chauffer around an overlord? I mean, I like the argument that the human form helps a Necron keep a sense of hope for some form of salvation, but there were plenty of completely alien functionaries in the Necron arsenal that are at least effective enough to be the brains driving a Resurrection Barge.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I do not get the difference between what is wrong with the flyers, and the Chimera.
You know, I don't get why one has to have a consistent beef with Every improbable thing in a fantastic universe in order to have a beef with One such thing. No one is telling you what to think, why are you dictating what I and others can think?
I do not get the difference between what is wrong with the flyers, and the Chimera.
You know, I don't get why one has to have a consistent beef with Every improbable thing in a fantastic universe in order to have a beef with One such thing. No one is telling you what to think, why are you dictating what I and others can think?
Because he said this:
Ciaphas wrote:I'm getting more and more annoyed with the bad and impossible design of vehicles in 40 k.
If you have an issue with the "bad and impossible design" aspect of the models, then why not have an issue with the "bad and impossible design" aspect of the models?
To single out one issue with one vehicle and say the other impossibilities are "No problem" is hypocritical.
i think i would take the IG chimera version over riding in that one again. the chimera isn't an impossible design. tanks need a low clearance profile to avoid rollover. (its alot easier to do than one would think)
Kilkrazy wrote:If you don't like the official designs there are plenty of good historical kits on the market. I bought Tamiya 1/35 scale armoured car and tank kits for my armies.
I've been looking at a Taimya Flakpanzer Gepard in 1/35 for a conversion, how do the Tamiya kits scale to Imperial Guard?
Ciaphas wrote:Im not even going to comment on the gravity statement.
Ciaphas wrote:Physics includes gravity.
Why not comment about the gravity?
It is clear you think that the Physics has to take the gravity of the world into account.
Ciaphas wrote:Aircraft lift is based on wingspan and more importantly POWER. You could have a aircraft with a 200ft wingspan and it wont fly without power. Aircraft design has developed at an alarming rate, from a 300ft flight in 1903 to supersonic jets flying around the world all in a hundred years. Wing span decreases with more power. However that is forward velocity flight. Add directional thrusters and you got a hummimg bird. The strom raven resembles no known aircraft to date and is assumed to have awesome power and directional thrusters, so no problem. This thread was about vehicals that could not work because of bad design flaws that could not overcome basic physics. In short the chimera chasis with bottomed out side armour is poorly designed and the crazy looking LR with its silly turrets and guns all defy, undefiable physics.
The SR could not fly.
The wings are not even the right shape to provide lift.
The turbulence would tear the aircraft apart, Yet you have no problem with that (Or the Stormraven or Thunderhawk which have the same problems?)
I do not get the difference between what is wrong with the flyers, and the Chimera.
I was not going to comment on your riduclus gravity comment that how do we know what gravity on planets will be like in 38000 years time? You know what I'm still not its to dumb a statement.
And thruster lift has nothing to do with wing shape or even wings at all. Look at rockets. If your going toake a point once fine. If yout going to make the same point again at least get it right
Ciaphas wrote:Im not even going to comment on the gravity statement.
Ciaphas wrote:Physics includes gravity.
Why not comment about the gravity?
It is clear you think that the Physics has to take the gravity of the world into account.
Ciaphas wrote:Aircraft lift is based on wingspan and more importantly POWER. You could have a aircraft with a 200ft wingspan and it wont fly without power. Aircraft design has developed at an alarming rate, from a 300ft flight in 1903 to supersonic jets flying around the world all in a hundred years. Wing span decreases with more power. However that is forward velocity flight. Add directional thrusters and you got a hummimg bird. The strom raven resembles no known aircraft to date and is assumed to have awesome power and directional thrusters, so no problem. This thread was about vehicals that could not work because of bad design flaws that could not overcome basic physics. In short the chimera chasis with bottomed out side armour is poorly designed and the crazy looking LR with its silly turrets and guns all defy, undefiable physics.
The SR could not fly.
The wings are not even the right shape to provide lift.
The turbulence would tear the aircraft apart, Yet you have no problem with that (Or the Stormraven or Thunderhawk which have the same problems?)
I do not get the difference between what is wrong with the flyers, and the Chimera.
I was not going to comment on your riduclus gravity comment that how do we know what gravity on planets will be like in 38000 years time? You know what I'm still not its to dumb a statement.
And thruster lift has nothing to do with wing shape or even wings at all. Look at rockets. If your going to make a point once fine. If your going to make the same point again at least try and get it right
DeathReaper wrote:
So who is to say what kind of gravity the planets 38,000 years in the future have?
The IG Chimera could be barely touching the ground because the gravity is so low on all of these worlds.
And if I wish to start a thread about what I believe are bad and impossible vehical designs in 40 k I will. Its not up to you to tell me that I have to include other vehicals you have a problem with. That's your own view, not mine. You can't just throw out genalisations as facts, like your ill thought out non fact based flyer comments. You obviously have no idea about velocity, thrust and lift or gravity. If you actually knew anything about them you would quickly find that simple, physics based explanations allow them to function (and that does not include all planets gravity becoming so light that they float above the ground in 38000 years time) damn it I couldn't help but mention your gravity question.
DeathReaper wrote:Rockets still have functioning wings.
The SR is supposed to be VTOL, but its design prevents this.
The thrust needed to carry a squad full of marines and a dreadnought would need to be off the charts.
The fuel it would consume would give it a flight time of about 21 seconds.
If it were made more like a helicopter, you might have a point, but it is supposed to be a jet powered aircraft.
The fuselage is not designed for high speed travel, or even atmospheric entry and exit.
OK so let's see what you base your statements on.
What's the SR fuel/Power/lift ratio? What is the energy conversion of the fuel it uses?
What material is the fuselarge made from? What power allows it to be VTOL? What gravitational stabilizers is it using? What heat resistant properties does the skin of the craft have.
You know none of these. Yet you make statements like they are facts. The flyers can all be reasonably explained. The ground vehicals are lazy and badly designed, so much so they could not work. They are also based on things we know NOW. But remember this is just my own opinion.
So you don't think that it's lazy design to make a flier that looks utterly absurd by modern knowledge, and then just explain it away by saying "Oh, it has super-duper engines from the future that make it work?"
I personally have no beef with the stormraven. Or the chimera. When you play the game, it requires a little suspension of disbelief. Some abandonment of verisimilitude. Everything is made to be visually appeasing, and if that means pissing off some guy who knows enough about tanks to get put off by the treads on a chimera, then so be it.
loota boy wrote:So you don't think that it's lazy design to make a flier that looks utterly absurd by modern knowledge, and then just explain it away by saying "Oh, it has super-duper engines from the future that make it work?"
I personally have no beef with the stormraven. Or the chimera. When you play the game, it requires a little suspension of disbelief. Some abandonment of verisimilitude. Everything is made to be visually appeasing, and if that means pissing off some guy who knows enough about tanks to get put off by the treads on a chimera, then so be it.
I did not say they weren't lazy. If you read earlier posts I bemoan the ST for looking like a brick. I never said they had super duper engines I just gave reasonable explanations as to how they may work for those that do not like them of which many have posted.
But on one thing you are right if you know anything about tanks it does piss you off.
loota boy wrote:So you don't think that it's lazy design to make a flier that looks utterly absurd by modern knowledge, and then just explain it away by saying "Oh, it has super-duper engines from the future that make it work?"
I personally have no beef with the stormraven. Or the chimera. When you play the game, it requires a little suspension of disbelief. Some abandonment of verisimilitude. Everything is made to be visually appeasing, and if that means pissing off some guy who knows enough about tanks to get put off by the treads on a chimera, then so be it.
Your right if you know anything about tanks it does piss you off.
So, just tell yourself that the chimera has some super-duper tread design that moves the treads up and down when it starts to sink into the mud. The imperial forces designed the tank so that the armor could always protect the highly fragile tracks, so they cover as much of it as possible. When the tank starts to sink, the tracks push down and away from the tank, allowing the necessary amount to sink while still being covered by the armor.
Seems a whole lot more plausible to me than stormravens having super-duper engines that would require massive amounts of power to run, rather than just making the wingspan an appropriate length..
Forgive me but i think all realism was removed when it was decided it would be set in the 41st millenium, the idea is it's fictional. After 40,000 years of development, a tank may well be able to work in mud i feel.
You know, if the stormraven's wings can't provide lift, those 4 verticle thrusters sure look like they can. Jet VTOL something we get in the 21st century, which is why I personally can swallow the idea of those VTOL jets providing enough stabilizing force to balance the ship during high speed flight against gravity. It couches neatly into my personal ideas of HSWit40M. I mean, as we learn more about tech some older SciFi ideas start to seem silly (gamma radiation crating all those Marvel supes, for example), but the Marine flyers are playing with the current state of jet hovering and bloating them out. It's the jets that keep those flyers up, not wingspan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Forgive me but i think all realism was removed when it was decided it would be set in the 41st millenium,
You would be wrong, but this was already covered a few times in this topic so I won't belabor the point any more than you have.
loota boy wrote:So you don't think that it's lazy design to make a flier that looks utterly absurd by modern knowledge, and then just explain it away by saying "Oh, it has super-duper engines from the future that make it work?"
I personally have no beef with the stormraven. Or the chimera. When you play the game, it requires a little suspension of disbelief. Some abandonment of verisimilitude. Everything is made to be visually appeasing, and if that means pissing off some guy who knows enough about tanks to get put off by the treads on a chimera, then so be it.
Your right if you know anything about tanks it does piss you off.
So, just tell yourself that the chimera has some super-duper tread design that moves the treads up and down when it starts to sink into the mud. The imperial forces designed the tank so that the armor could always protect the highly fragile tracks, so they cover as much of it as possible. When the tank starts to sink, the tracks push down and away from the tank, allowing the necessary amount to sink while still being covered by the armor.
Seems a whole lot more plausible to me than stormravens having super-duper engines that would require massive amounts of power to run, rather than just making the wingspan an appropriate length..
It gets to hard to keep trying to explain aerodynamics and VTOL to someone who obviously has no idea wat any of it means. But anyway thanks for showing us your explanation of how tanks in 38000 years time overcome grounding issues. Me I think its better to simply allow room for the tracks to work aka the normal way and maybe widen them a little. But then I dont have your insight.
You would be wrong, but this was already covered a few times in this topic so I won't belabor the point any more than you have.
Surely it's an opinion rather than simply right or wrong, considering the uncountable variants of time and space, with a time span of over 40,000 years into the future, in my opinion there can be no way to compare that to the present day's physical laws.
Surely it's an opinion rather than simply right or wrong,
Do the rules of gravity apply unless explained away with hover tech, flying, lump-jets, etc? Yes. Are 40k units for the most part humanoid? Yes. Has the physical universe changed fundamentally from the previous 40,000 years? No. Is pretty much every planet the armies in the 40k universe fight on an Earth-like planet? Yes. Are the rules written with the assumption implicit that we play in earth like environs? Yes. Plus many good points that were made before I started posting under this topic.
Earth-based "Realism" is the basis of every form of space opera, in fact much more so than in hard science fiction. If Joe Haldeman wrote 40k there would be a different vehicle for every conceivable terrain and grav type or at least one planet's Power Armor would turn into another planets bare min Survival Gear with Terrible Consequences for Falling Down. Without the assumption that we are playing on M type planets (which is a huge suspension of disbelief buoyed by 100 years of science fiction canon) then absolutely NONE of the units in 40k make sense except maybe the pre-reimagined Necrons. Once you start explaining away obvious mistakes with silly midichlorian-like explanations you open up a huge can of worms. I mean, if the G on the planets is low enough that a Chimera would not sink low enough to ground out, what it to keep it from hitting a pebble at high speed and launching 20' into the air and landing on its top?
Obviously we make restrictions for game playability, limiting weapon range, impossible turning radii for vehicles moving at speed, etc., but the tread size on a chimera is purely an aesthetic choice. For the same reason, having a little Necron dude punching buttons like he's Sulu at the Helm instead of being part of the ship he's controlling doesn't make sense within the story they established around Necrons. If you build a narrative you need to be logically consistent within it. It may look cool to those who think hippos could logically be transported on a skateboard, but it doesn't make sense within the assumptions that provide the foundation for the game we're all playing.
Surely it's an opinion rather than simply right or wrong,
I mean, if the G on the planets is low enough that a Chimera would not sink low enough to ground out, what it to keep it from hitting a pebble at high speed and launching 20' into the air and landing on its top?
It may look cool to those who think hippos could logically be transported on a skateboard, but it doesn't make sense within the assumptions that provide the foundation for the game we're all playing.
loota boy wrote:So you don't think that it's lazy design to make a flier that looks utterly absurd by modern knowledge, and then just explain it away by saying "Oh, it has super-duper engines from the future that make it work?"
I personally have no beef with the stormraven. Or the chimera. When you play the game, it requires a little suspension of disbelief. Some abandonment of verisimilitude. Everything is made to be visually appeasing, and if that means pissing off some guy who knows enough about tanks to get put off by the treads on a chimera, then so be it.
Your right if you know anything about tanks it does piss you off.
So, just tell yourself that the chimera has some super-duper tread design that moves the treads up and down when it starts to sink into the mud. The imperial forces designed the tank so that the armor could always protect the highly fragile tracks, so they cover as much of it as possible. When the tank starts to sink, the tracks push down and away from the tank, allowing the necessary amount to sink while still being covered by the armor.
Seems a whole lot more plausible to me than stormravens having super-duper engines that would require massive amounts of power to run, rather than just making the wingspan an appropriate length..
It gets to hard to keep trying to explain aerodynamics and VTOL to someone who obviously has no idea what any of it means. But anyway thanks for showing us your explanation of how tanks in 38000 years time overcome grounding issues. Me I think its better to simply allow room for the tracks to work aka the normal way and maybe widen them a little. But then I dont have your insight.
Sir, please don't insult me. If i've appeared to be rude to you, then forgive me, for that was not my intention. We can talk about this in friendly matter.
OT:
Ciaphas wrote:Me I think its better to simply allow room for the tracks to work aka the normal way and maybe widen them a little.
And i think it'd probably be a lot simpler to give the stormraven an appropriate wingspan and balance the craft a little so that it wasn't so front heavy, rather than just relying on super-duper engines to keep it in the air. Even if these future engines can keep it off the ground, why not use the future engines AND give it a sensible wingspan and balance? If i need to chop some meat with a knife, and i use a dull knife and just swing the knife at the meat really hard, then yes, i cut the meat. But why not just use a nice, sharp knife to cut the meat, without having to expend so much energy to cut it? (The knife being the design and the force being, well, the force)
It was designed as such, so scale would be out of the question. To the same effect, production value
is taken into consideration as scale models = larger models = more plastic = more $$.
Also in regards to design, it was meant to be aesthetically appealing. The main purpose of designing it to
be appealing is for immersion purposes.
The SciFi side of things:
Warhammer 40k is set in THE YEAR 41,000 - thats 38,988 or thirty eight thousand, nine hundred eighty eight years into the future
Have you any concept of the progression of modern technology just in the past mere one hundred years alone??
The realistic side of things:
You're bringing into question similarities between the physical aspects of two completely irrelevant technologies; pieces of equipment
from the future that far succeed anything modern technology could ever aspire to compete with, making this argument utterly moot and
illogical.
Can you honestly tell me that it makes sense to directly compare a 742 year old fire lance to a M82 .50 and then come back and tell me the fire lance doesn't
make sense/isn't realistically on par with modern guns because it doesn't have an auto-gas loading mechanism or detachable box magazine?????
It was designed as such, so scale would be out of the question. To the same effect, production value
is taken into consideration as scale models = larger models = more plastic = more $$.
Also in regards to design, it was meant to be aesthetically appealing. The main purpose of designing it to
be appealing is for immersion purposes.
The SciFi side of things:
Warhammer 40k is set in THE YEAR 41,000 - thats 38,988 or thirty eight thousand, nine hundred eighty eight years into the future
Have you any concept of the progression of modern technology just in the past mere one hundred years alone??
The realistic side of things:
You're bringing into question similarities between the physical aspects of two completely irrelevant technologies; pieces of equipment
from the future that far succeed anything modern technology could ever aspire to compete with, making this argument utterly moot and
illogical.
Can you honestly tell me that it makes sense to directly compare a 742 year old fire lance to a M82 .50 and then come back and tell me the fire lance doesn't
make sense/isn't realistically on par with modern guns because it doesn't have an auto-gas loading mechanism or detachable box magazine?????
It doesn't matter if it's set a billion years into the future. That is not the point.
The point is that the tech is very similar to ours. Granted, there are far superior materials involved, but that does not change the fact that certain designs have become obsolete for very good reasons and certain laws of physics don't change, no matter what year it is. A gun is a gun, a tank is a tank, and flying vehicles still have to obey the laws of aerodynamics and physics.
I agree. There is no reason people should not be able to kvetch about things that irk them about certain 40k models. I should be able to complain all I want over how illogical the new Necron codex is.
You're bringing into question similarities between the physical aspects of two completely irrelevant technologies; pieces of equipment
from the future that far succeed anything modern technology could ever aspire to compete with, making this argument utterly moot and
illogical.
Nonsense. This is Space Opera we're talking about. If we were looking at this scientifically the differences would be so far off the charts as to be incomprehensible. The vision of the future put forth by GW is a couple hundred years of tech advances at the absolute max! Then 38 millenia of stagnation and a bunch of anthropomorphized alien races that have been balanced to basically fight and tech out where the humans do. Any argument that we are actually conceptualizing life 40k in the future needs to be stopped dead in its tracks.
Can you honestly tell me that it makes sense to directly compare a 742 year old fire lance to a M82 .50 and then come back and tell me the fire lance doesn't
make sense/
No, but no one is doing that. It's a strong man because you don't understand the tiny insignificant thing people are kvetching over. In this case if someone made a model holding a gun that looked and acted just like the M82.50 but gave it a blunderbuss barrel, yes, I would say that doesn't make sense. If someone made a figure with a shoulder mounted fire-lance, I could see the argument for the change based on our better understanding that small arms are easily adaptable to being carried.
loota boy wrote:So you don't think that it's lazy design to make a flier that looks utterly absurd by modern knowledge, and then just explain it away by saying "Oh, it has super-duper engines from the future that make it work?"
I personally have no beef with the stormraven. Or the chimera. When you play the game, it requires a little suspension of disbelief. Some abandonment of verisimilitude. Everything is made to be visually appeasing, and if that means pissing off some guy who knows enough about tanks to get put off by the treads on a chimera, then so be it.
Your right if you know anything about tanks it does piss you off.
So, just tell yourself that the chimera has some super-duper tread design that moves the treads up and down when it starts to sink into the mud. The imperial forces designed the tank so that the armor could always protect the highly fragile tracks, so they cover as much of it as possible. When the tank starts to sink, the tracks push down and away from the tank, allowing the necessary amount to sink while still being covered by the armor.
Seems a whole lot more plausible to me than stormravens having super-duper engines that would require massive amounts of power to run, rather than just making the wingspan an appropriate length..
It gets to hard to keep trying to explain aerodynamics and VTOL to someone who obviously has no idea what any of it means. But anyway thanks for showing us your explanation of how tanks in 38000 years time overcome grounding issues. Me I think its better to simply allow room for the tracks to work aka the normal way and maybe widen them a little. But then I dont have your insight.
Sir, please don't insult me. If i've appeared to be rude to you, then forgive me, for that was not my intention. We can talk about this in friendly matter.
OT:
Ciaphas wrote:Me I think its better to simply allow room for the tracks to work aka the normal way and maybe widen them a little.
And i think it'd probably be a lot simpler to give the stormraven an appropriate wingspan and balance the craft a little so that it wasn't so front heavy, rather than just relying on super-duper engines to keep it in the air. Even if these future engines can keep it off the ground, why not use the future engines AND give it a sensible wingspan and balance? If i need to chop some meat with a knife, and i use a dull knife and just swing the knife at the meat really hard, then yes, i cut the meat. But why not just use a nice, sharp knife to cut the meat, without having to expend so much energy to cut it? (The knife being the design and the force being, well, the force)
No insult intended.
But seriously you have a problem with the flyers OK. I don't. I have a problem with the design of guard vehicals being based on unworkable designs. IE not possible. You don't. I do not have to have a problem with everything in order to not like the vehicals. No matter how you paint it the vehical designs of the IG are not workable. Period. Its not me its unchangeable physics. I cannot help it if GW have made something that is unable to function in the real world as so spoils the asthehetics of the game for me and it seems many others. Now you canmake a brick fly with everything myself and others have said and you can not make the IG vehicals work.
You can shout all day and night that a piece of lead is gold. But when morning comes its still plain old lead.
It was designed as such, so scale would be out of the question. To the same effect, production value
is taken into consideration as scale models = larger models = more plastic = more $$.
Also in regards to design, it was meant to be aesthetically appealing. The main purpose of designing it to
be appealing is for immersion purposes.
The SciFi side of things:
Warhammer 40k is set in THE YEAR 41,000 - thats 38,988 or thirty eight thousand, nine hundred eighty eight years into the future
Have you any concept of the progression of modern technology just in the past mere one hundred years alone??
The realistic side of things:
You're bringing into question similarities between the physical aspects of two completely irrelevant technologies; pieces of equipment
from the future that far succeed anything modern technology could ever aspire to compete with, making this argument utterly moot and
illogical.
Can you honestly tell me that it makes sense to directly compare a 742 year old fire lance to a M82 .50 and then come back and tell me the fire lance doesn't
make sense/isn't realistically on par with modern guns because it doesn't have an auto-gas loading mechanism or detachable box magazine?????
Have you not read any of the previous 8 pages ALL your points have been covered.
IE just because its a game it doesn't have to be realistic.
Its set in the future it doesn't have to be realistic.
Its fantasy it doesn't have to be realistic.
Its cheaper to make smaller models.
Its aesthetically appealing, it doesn't have to e realistic.
Its got aliens and monsters, it doesn't have to be realistic.
Etc etc etc.
All the above have been well covered. And the fact remains its all smoke screen for poor vision and planning and design of the game and vehicals. For some of you your arguments are so apologetic and sickofantic that if GW released a turd and called it a tank you would all stand up and bark reasons why the rest of us should ignore its just a turd and understand that its just a heroic scale SciFi game.
I always thought that the engines on Imperial vehicles were powerful enough, and the tracks durable enough, that they could literally buzzsaw through any obstacle by putting immense force into it.
Like the mounting-a-curb example for the Chimera - I can see it bumping up against the curb, then the engine roaring, and then either the Chimera sliding up on top of it (because there's a fuckload of traction still on the ground) or tearing the curb to smithereens and moving on (because of sheer engine power and durability).
EDIT:
Or the mud example:
The chimera sinks in up to its ears. The engine roars. Upon gunning the engine, the Chimera's tracks bite hard into the mud and grind the tank out through sheer brutal force. Sort of like how the entire Imperium operates.
DeathReaper wrote:Rockets still have functioning wings.
The SR is supposed to be VTOL, but its design prevents this.
The thrust needed to carry a squad full of marines and a dreadnought would need to be off the charts.
The fuel it would consume would give it a flight time of about 21 seconds.
If it were made more like a helicopter, you might have a point, but it is supposed to be a jet powered aircraft.
The fuselage is not designed for high speed travel, or even atmospheric entry and exit.
Landspeeders.
That is all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
McNinja wrote:It isn't just that they would work in our current time. Sure, they'd work, but the designs are so inefficient, so dumb, that you can't help but notice. There are reasons why no tank has huge flat sides or massive exposed treads, we've learned lessons throughout history that have taught us certain things about physics and vehicles that makes those designs obsolete.
If we ignore the toy-like dimensions such as the treads not covering the side skirt armour, or the turret being too small to house the breach of that massive weapon, then the Leman Russ works fine. While it may have massive flat sides, it is deployed in such numbers that anyone in a position to take a shot at the side armour will be coming under fire from other Leman Russ tanks. Unlike modern tanks that have to operate in small numbers, a Leman Russ would be deployed as part of a line of thousands of tanks stretching over kilometers in every direction.
That isn't all, there's also servo skulls, shield drones, Land Speeders, etc. which all look like they could be built now from a physical looks perspective, but the tech isn't remotely comparable to current tech.
That isn't all, there's also servo skulls, shield drones, Land Speeders, etc. which all look like they could be built now from a physical looks perspective, but the tech isn't remotely comparable to current tech.
An ionocraft or ion-propelled aircraft, commonly known as a lifter or hexalifter, is an electrohydrodynamic (EHD) device (utilizing an electrical phenomenon known as the Biefeld–Brown effect) to produce thrust in the air, without requiring any combustion or moving parts. The term "Ionocraft" dates back to the 1960s, an era in which EHD experiments were at their peak. In its basic form, it simply consists of two parallel conductive electrodes, one in the form of a fine wire and another which may be formed of either a wire grid, tubes or foil skirts with a smooth round surface. When such an arrangement is powered up by high voltage in the range of a few kilovolts, it produces thrust. The ionocraft forms part of the EHD thruster family, but is a special case in which the ionisation and accelerating stages are combined into a single stage.
The device is a popular science fair project for students. It is also popular among anti-gravity or so-called "electrogravitics" proponents, especially on the Internet, where it is commonly referred to as a lifter.
The term "lifter" is an accurate description because it is not an anti-gravity device, but produces lift in the same sense as a rocket from the reaction force from driving the ionized air downward. Much like a rocket or a jet engine, the force that an ionocraft generates is oriented consistently along its own axis, regardless of the surrounding gravitational field. Claims of the device working in a vacuum also have been disproved.[1]
Ionocraft require many safety precautions due to the high voltage required for their operation, and also the risk of premature death from heart or lung disease due to the inhalation of their ionised air product, ozone. A large subculture has grown up around this simple EHD thrusting device and its physics are now known to a much better extent.
Never really understood Moot because it's entymology means "meeting". It's a Meeting point?
That has a few feet clearance, the Chimera's armour goes all the way down to the track, it wouldn't mount a kerb in reality 
