Returning to 40K a few years ago i can’t help but notice the increasing amount of “battle suits” in various armies. SOB have a new one coming, GK have one I just realised, the new primaris drednoughts and then the TAU.
Personally I find the lm hugely derivative of other sci fi works, which I know is the almost the GW mission statement, but it find these bug me somewhat more.
I mean if it was just the tau, whatever it’s an armies look, regardless of the “inspiration”. But the grey knight and the SOB I find just a bit boring and lazy. They are good models but the idea of hoping into a humanoid robot over and over again is boring.
I find the ork nobz in their mega and the kills canz ok be use they are very different to the stuff I’ve seen in other works and they are very orky.
But a humanoid robot with a big sword or gun I feel is not design to be original but to appeal to an audience of other non GW products
Automatically Appended Next Post: I should say the same wihh the first born dreadnoughts, backed up with really good fluff to make them unique enough for 40K to be interesting
Personally, I like a lot of the walker-type units in 40k and I think they appeal to a very key part of the appeal of a minature wargame and a sci-fi setting. I do not begrudge any faction a cool walker, seriously, literlaly everyone can have one and I think the sisters one is pretty dang cool.
That said, some I like a lot more than others. Ones I do not like:
-Invictor Warsuits - the appearance of it is fine, but it just shoulda been a dreadnought. The whole core cool thing about dreads, to me, is the fact that they're this expression of the grimdark-ness of the universe. Space Marines are such a precious resource that even if one is reduced to a pile of barely-living meat, the imperium of man will figure out how to suspend them in a coffin, hook them up to macabre life support and append some sort of instrument of murder to them somehow. The whole concept of just 'well...yeah, I mean we COULD just put non-dead guys in there, we've got like six dozen of those out in the back" kind of undermines all the effort they go thru to house the dreadnoughts and do the surgery and put them to sleep and awaken them and whatnot.
Same exact thoughts on the GK dreadknight except that it always has looked super doofy to me. Proportion-wise I just hate it, looks like a cheap action figure toy.
Similarly I think the eldar war walker is superfluous with the massively conceptually superior wraithlord. Theyve always just completely jacked on the wraithlord's steez and usually have been more efficient to use than wraithlords because they're all-shooting and have an invuln instead of being generalists.
Other than that, though, sisters dreads are awesome, penitent engines/mortifiers are amazing, redemptor is...OK, i think part of the appeal of the origiginal dreadnought is just how utterly nonfunctional and blunt and stupid it is and the redemptor having legs that look like they work well and more reasonable proportions removes a bit from that. Ork dreads rule, carnifexes rule, pain engines rule, battlesuits rule.
Gimme Gimme an industrial loader/industrial logger suit GSC walker now pls.
Yeah, can't say I'm keen on the more recent stuff along these lines – there's always been "big walkers" but at least previously there seemed to be a bit more thought put into distinguishing them on a thematic level (Sisters – naughty nuns put in there as punishment; Marines – wise old dead guy piloting it; Orks – nailed in there in a bid to be the biggest/stompiest; Eldar – woooo spooky ghost driver) but now everything recently is just "big armour that you can climb in and out of" – the fact you couldn't just put it on and take it off at will was a big part of what felt very "40K-y" about the other stuff, and also allowed Tau to stand out as the ones who *could* do that. I guess "battle suit" is all upside whereas with Dreads / Pen. Engines / Wraithlords etc there's a kind of "price" beyond just "build big armour", which is much more thematically-interesting and in keeping with the general vibe of 40k, imo.
I assume they sell well, or they wouldn't keep doing them for every single faction, but I'm not a fan myself of the idea, or of absolutely everyone getting one.
the_scotsman wrote: Same exact thoughts on the GK dreadknight except that it always has looked super doofy to me. Proportion-wise I just hate it, looks like a cheap action figure toy
I get the fluff reason for it existing ("the Nemesis Dreadknight was created to take on the might of Greater Daemons and Daemon Princes and destroy them utterly"), but yeah the model is derpy.
I like suits. Some are executed better than others. I personally don't like the pilot exposed in any way, whether that be space marine in a cage, or sister with arms sticking out.
I will say I was surprised to see the new SoB battle suits as they for some reason don't work for my mental picture of a sisters army. I'm not talking about the execution, I'm talking about them having suits at all. The penitent engines were so cool and the idea of them so grim, that seeing regular sisters pilot suits kinda bugs me somehow. Not enough for me to rant about how Warhammer is ruined for me, mind you. It's fine that they exist for those that like them.
Quasistellar wrote: I like suits. Some are executed better than others. I personally don't like the pilot exposed in any way, whether that be space marine in a cage, or sister with arms sticking out.
I will say I was surprised to see the new SoB battle suits as they for some reason don't work for my mental picture of a sisters army. I'm not talking about the execution, I'm talking about them having suits at all. The penitent engines were so cool and the idea of them so grim, that seeing regular sisters pilot suits kinda bugs me somehow. Not enough for me to rant about how Warhammer is ruined for me, mind you. It's fine that they exist for those that like them.
I just wish Tau could get melee battle suits.
Yeah, why is the pilot exposed, it’s like all space marines having a big hole in their power armour over the chest
the_scotsman wrote: Same exact thoughts on the GK dreadknight except that it always has looked super doofy to me. Proportion-wise I just hate it, looks like a cheap action figure toy
I get the fluff reason for it existing ("the Nemesis Dreadknight was created to take on the might of Greater Daemons and Daemon Princes and destroy them utterly"), but yeah the model is derpy.
I don’t get this, I don’t see that the best solution to take down a greater deamon is to develop a weapon to enable a single individual to enter combat with them. And the idea that it being humanoid is worse to me, there must be a more combat efficient shape
I’d prefer to see battlesuits in 40K as a tau thing. I’m fine with dreadnaughts and kills cans and whatnot, but don’t much care for the new Sisters if battle ones, or the grey knight or in victor warsuits. But the worst battlesuits for me are the space marine centurions.
I don’t get this, I don’t see that the best solution to take down a greater deamon is to develop a weapon to enable a single individual to enter combat with them. And the idea that it being humanoid is worse to me, there must be a more combat efficient shape
There is not. There is a reason why the human form is the most dominant form and most suited for war on earth. It is a perfect balance of movment and reach.
I hope that in the next codex we get a purfire NDK, a paladin NDK maybe a heavy duty quad gun NDK to represent the members that came from the ranks of the purgators, and a fast teleporting version that has pilots draw from the Interceptors, as their ability to traverse warp should make it possible for them to use the teleport pack as something else then a simple deep strike aparatus
I don’t get this, I don’t see that the best solution to take down a greater deamon is to develop a weapon to enable a single individual to enter combat with them. And the idea that it being humanoid is worse to me, there must be a more combat efficient shape
There is not. There is a reason why the human form is the most dominant form and most suited for war on earth. It is a perfect balance of movment and reach.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH oh god wait you're serious.
No man, human bodies are not the most suited for war form on earth, I'm fairly certain for at least a century the form of "a large metal rectangle with a bunch of guns sticking out of it" or "a big flat triangle that flies around and is covered in guns and missiles" have basically proven that they have better "movement and reach" than a hairless monkey with zero natural weaponry.
Also, humans are in NO WAY the most dominant form on earth. The average animal on the planet earth is a beetle. There are trillions upon trillions upon trillions of beetles compared to about seven billion humans. And unlike us, it seems like beetles can actually sustain those numbers without causing their own mass extinction like we're currently working on.
I like the idea of various combat walkers. GWs execution is... meh to poor on most of them. Limb proportions particularly, from the stumpy legs on the classic SM dreads, to the precarious balance on sentinels and war walkers and the spindly arms on wraithlords.
Ork dreads get a pass, because they're supposed to look clunky.
I don’t get this, I don’t see that the best solution to take down a greater deamon is to develop a weapon to enable a single individual to enter combat with them. And the idea that it being humanoid is worse to me, there must be a more combat efficient shape
There is not. There is a reason why the human form is the most dominant form and most suited for war on earth. It is a perfect balance of movment and reach.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH oh god wait you're serious.
No man, human bodies are not the most suited for war form on earth, I'm fairly certain for at least a century the form of "a large metal rectangle with a bunch of guns sticking out of it" or "a big flat triangle that flies around and is covered in guns and missiles" have basically proven that they have better "movement and reach" than a hairless monkey with zero natural weaponry.
Also, humans are in NO WAY the most dominant form on earth. The average animal on the planet earth is a beetle. There are trillions upon trillions upon trillions of beetles compared to about seven billion humans. And unlike us, it seems like beetles can actually sustain those numbers without causing their own mass extinction like we're currently working on.
Yes, but think about it - how many wars have beetles won against humans? Zero?
I don’t get this, I don’t see that the best solution to take down a greater deamon is to develop a weapon to enable a single individual to enter combat with them. And the idea that it being humanoid is worse to me, there must be a more combat efficient shape
There is not. There is a reason why the human form is the most dominant form and most suited for war on earth. It is a perfect balance of movment and reach.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH oh god wait you're serious.
No man, human bodies are not the most suited for war form on earth, I'm fairly certain for at least a century the form of "a large metal rectangle with a bunch of guns sticking out of it" or "a big flat triangle that flies around and is covered in guns and missiles" have basically proven that they have better "movement and reach" than a hairless monkey with zero natural weaponry.
Also, humans are in NO WAY the most dominant form on earth. The average animal on the planet earth is a beetle. There are trillions upon trillions upon trillions of beetles compared to about seven billion humans. And unlike us, it seems like beetles can actually sustain those numbers without causing their own mass extinction like we're currently working on.
Yes, but think about it - how many wars have beetles won against humans? Zero?
Yes, but think about it - how many wars have beetles won against humans? Zero?
Point proven
The only thing that makes humans good at war is our ability to make and use tools, and our ability to recognize patterns and make predictions.
None of this has anything to do with our bipedal form. Without tools, almost any weight-equivalent quadruped will gut a human in a heartbeat.
Doesn't change the fact that I generally like battle suits.
Yeah, its kind of like, the united states military research complex is run by what are effectively children given a budget the dwarfs the GDP of many fully developed nations on earth, half the stuff they come up with is just gak they saw in a movie and thought was badass and not even one time have they tried to seriously pitch any kind of humanoid walking vehicle, for the exact same reason why they've never tried to make a vehicle that presents its largest basic surface of construction in the direction of incoming enemy fire and places its smallest basic surface on the ground.
All the supposed 'advantages' of a humanoid form that are always imagined in science fiction settings that heavily feature mecha/battlesuits/power armor/whatever are pure fantasy. "oh, they can traverse any terrain" - bs. Your solution to rough terrain is "hey what if we tried to balance a tank on stilts" and not, I don't know, "really big wheels and amazing suspension" or "really robust tracks" or even "it doesn't go on the ground"?
"oh because theyre shaped like humans their pilots can perform better" you know when pilots perform really really well and super calmly? When they're safe inside a heavily armored metal box, or even better, safe inside a heavily armored metal box hundreds of miles from where the combat is taking place, controlling the vehicle like they're playing a video game.
Ironically, 40k is probably the most realistic setting to have walking vehicles feature heavily because of the only actual plus of a walking vehicle: It looks absolutely bitching and cool and badass and scary. it LOOKS like something that could really feth your gak up.
The 40k setting is essentially like if you took a whole bunch of germans or russians from the tail end of ww2 who werent the engineers or scientists or whatever just the most fanatical soldiers, and you had them try to iterate on the designs of the various propaganda weapons that were developed to try and hide the fact that the military was running low on resources and the various empires were in a state of crumbling disrepair. Like they have to fight in a new war but they don't have any of the sensible weapons, they're just trying to ride T-35 tanks with 11 turrets and 30 crewmembers into actual battles. That's what the walkers and the titans and the space marines and such from the 41st millennium would realistically be - something that was originally designed as a wasteful vanity or propaganda tool, and then a couple generations of ignorance later soldiers have to try and figure out a way to use in an actual conflict.
I don’t get this, I don’t see that the best solution to take down a greater deamon is to develop a weapon to enable a single individual to enter combat with them. And the idea that it being humanoid is worse to me, there must be a more combat efficient shape
There is not. There is a reason why the human form is the most dominant form and most suited for war on earth. It is a perfect balance of movment and reach.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH oh god wait you're serious.
No man, human bodies are not the most suited for war form on earth, I'm fairly certain for at least a century the form of "a large metal rectangle with a bunch of guns sticking out of it" or "a big flat triangle that flies around and is covered in guns and missiles" have basically proven that they have better "movement and reach" than a hairless monkey with zero natural weaponry.
Also, humans are in NO WAY the most dominant form on earth. The average animal on the planet earth is a beetle. There are trillions upon trillions upon trillions of beetles compared to about seven billion humans. And unlike us, it seems like beetles can actually sustain those numbers without causing their own mass extinction like we're currently working on.
Yes, but think about it - how many wars have beetles won against humans? Zero?
Point proven
Beetles win every war humans fight.
Damn that's a good quote.
I entirely agree with the Scotsman's first post, especially the notion of narrative cost. I actually really like the Sister battlesuits aesthetically, but it doesn't make sense in 40k. I guess we'll see what the fluff is, but the model doesn't display why the Imperium would invest in its production. Every other battle suit prior to the Dreadknight was the Imperium trying to squeeze every advantage from otherwise unusable pilots. The battle suits' power all come at a tremendous cost, so they're weapons of last resort piloted by wretches that can't be useful any other way.
Nazrak wrote: Yeah, can't say I'm keen on the more recent stuff along these lines – there's always been "big walkers" but at least previously there seemed to be a bit more thought put into distinguishing them on a thematic level (Sisters – naughty nuns put in there as punishment; Marines – wise old dead guy piloting it; Orks – nailed in there in a bid to be the biggest/stompiest; Eldar – woooo spooky ghost driver) but now everything recently is just "big armour that you can climb in and out of" – the fact you couldn't just put it on and take it off at will was a big part of what felt very "40K-y" about the other stuff, and also allowed Tau to stand out as the ones who *could* do that. I guess "battle suit" is all upside whereas with Dreads / Pen. Engines / Wraithlords etc there's a kind of "price" beyond just "build big armour", which is much more thematically-interesting and in keeping with the general vibe of 40k, imo.
I assume they sell well, or they wouldn't keep doing them for every single faction, but I'm not a fan myself of the idea, or of absolutely everyone getting one.
^This ehoes my sentiment as well. The recent incarnations are pretty boring, conceptually speaking. Seen them 1000 times by now. Ye olde Dreadnoughts and Penitent Engines are way cooler imo.
There's some statistic like the total mass of ants on earth is equal to or greater than the total mass of humans. And that's just the ants out of the entire insect population.
I don’t get this, I don’t see that the best solution to take down a greater deamon is to develop a weapon to enable a single individual to enter combat with them. And the idea that it being humanoid is worse to me, there must be a more combat efficient shape
There is not. There is a reason why the human form is the most dominant form and most suited for war on earth. It is a perfect balance of movment and reach.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH oh god wait you're serious.
No man, human bodies are not the most suited for war form on earth, I'm fairly certain for at least a century the form of "a large metal rectangle with a bunch of guns sticking out of it" or "a big flat triangle that flies around and is covered in guns and missiles" have basically proven that they have better "movement and reach" than a hairless monkey with zero natural weaponry.
Also, humans are in NO WAY the most dominant form on earth. The average animal on the planet earth is a beetle. There are trillions upon trillions upon trillions of beetles compared to about seven billion humans. And unlike us, it seems like beetles can actually sustain those numbers without causing their own mass extinction like we're currently working on.
Yes, but think about it - how many wars have beetles won against humans? Zero?
Point proven
Beetles win every war humans fight.
Damn that's a good quote.
I entirely agree with the Scotsman's first post, especially the notion of narrative cost. I actually really like the Sister battlesuits aesthetically, but it doesn't make sense in 40k. I guess we'll see what the fluff is, but the model doesn't display why the Imperium would invest in its production. Every other battle suit prior to the Dreadknight was the Imperium trying to squeeze every advantage from otherwise unusable pilots.
....I mean, not Sentinels or war walkers or crisis suits or deff dreads or pain engines.
Personally I like the sisters' battlesuits more than I like sentinels because typically the imperial guard are the branch of the human military that sometimes acts just a tiny bit closer to sensibly, because they're trying to find a way to get as many humans as capable as possible to fight way, way more threatening enemies than humans. They have some of the ridiculous propaganda weaponry, like Baneblade class tanks and Deathstrike missiles, but for the most part the anachronistic aspects of the way they fight can be explained by the degradation of various technologies and the fact that they are a conscript army rather than modern commandos.
Sisters, on the other hand, are an army of off-the-wall crazy zealots who are the exact branch of the imperium who you'd think would use the logic of
"Lady with gun good and lady with sword good. Robot suit mean lady can hold bigger sword and bigger gun, make lady even gooder! A helmet? But how would I bask in the glory of bloodshed?"
Kind of like how you'd expect to see more helmetless Black Templars and Space Wolves than Deathwatch or Ultramarines.
I don't really like walkers in military contexts, full stop.
That said, back in the day walkers WEREN'T that good at warfare in 40k. Dreadnoughts had less armor and armament and were slower than tanks. Their only redeeming quality was they could "Fight" in melee, but even that was a drawback sometimes because they could get bogged down in situations where a tank could just leave.
With the new 40k rules, there's no longer any real differences between unit types, so a tank, walker, monster, infantryman all generally work the same way. So it's much less believable than an age where a dreadnought was flat out worse than a predator in every metric except arguably CQC.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't really like walkers in military contexts, full stop.
That said, back in the day walkers WEREN'T that good at warfare in 40k. Dreadnoughts had less armor and armament and were slower than tanks. Their only redeeming quality was they could "Fight" in melee, but even that was a drawback sometimes because they could get bogged down in situations where a tank could just leave.
With the new 40k rules, there's no longer any real differences between unit types, so a tank, walker, monster, infantryman all generally work the same way. So it's much less believable than an age where a dreadnought was flat out worse than a predator in every metric except arguably CQC.
....your armies of choice are 'magic space sex demons' and 'a tank modeled off of a ridiculous propaganda tank designed for military parades in stalinist russia.'
Slightly calling the kettle black there in terms of 'walkers are unrealistic therefore they should have bad rules' to be fair.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH oh god wait you're serious.
No man, human bodies are not the most suited for war form on earth, I'm fairly certain for at least a century the form of "a large metal rectangle with a bunch of guns sticking out of it" or "a big flat triangle that flies around and is covered in guns and missiles" have basically proven that they have better "movement and reach" than a hairless monkey with zero natural weaponry.
Also, humans are in NO WAY the most dominant form on earth. The average animal on the planet earth is a beetle. There are trillions upon trillions upon trillions of beetles compared to about seven billion humans. And unlike us, it seems like beetles can actually sustain those numbers without causing their own mass extinction like we're currently working on.
You tell me when beetles get the instant ability to destroy the entire world many times over. Also don't remember any animal inventing guns, also guns the way they exist are optimized for use of humans, the biggest bugs that exist, even if they somehow developed the ability to manufacture and use guns optimized for use of things their size, would struggle vs humans, if humand decided to eradicated them.
The last time non humans threatened the existance of life on earth it was caused by oxygen producing proteoza "accidently" gassed large part of the population of the planet by producing oxygen.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH oh god wait you're serious.
No man, human bodies are not the most suited for war form on earth, I'm fairly certain for at least a century the form of "a large metal rectangle with a bunch of guns sticking out of it" or "a big flat triangle that flies around and is covered in guns and missiles" have basically proven that they have better "movement and reach" than a hairless monkey with zero natural weaponry.
Also, humans are in NO WAY the most dominant form on earth. The average animal on the planet earth is a beetle. There are trillions upon trillions upon trillions of beetles compared to about seven billion humans. And unlike us, it seems like beetles can actually sustain those numbers without causing their own mass extinction like we're currently working on.
You tell me when beetles get the instant ability to destroy the entire world many times over. Also don't remember any animal inventing guns, also guns the way they exist are optimized for use of humans, the biggest bugs that exist, even if they somehow developed the ability to manufacture and use guns optimized for use of things their size, would struggle vs humans, if humand decided to eradicated them.
The last time non humans threatened the existance of life on earth it was caused by oxygen producing proteoza "accidently" gassed large part of the population of the planet by producing oxygen.
I like the quotes around accidentally, implying that there was some sinister, intentional plan by the protozoa to gas a large part of the population of the planet.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't really like walkers in military contexts, full stop.
That said, back in the day walkers WEREN'T that good at warfare in 40k. Dreadnoughts had less armor and armament and were slower than tanks. Their only redeeming quality was they could "Fight" in melee, but even that was a drawback sometimes because they could get bogged down in situations where a tank could just leave.
With the new 40k rules, there's no longer any real differences between unit types, so a tank, walker, monster, infantryman all generally work the same way. So it's much less believable than an age where a dreadnought was flat out worse than a predator in every metric except arguably CQC.
Actually if you go waaay back in 40k Dreadnoughts were more armored than many tanks because they didn't have tracks to knock off. That and Dreads had veteran/hero "occupants" and therefore had better BS than tanks which are generally crewed by more average troopers.
In RL I think some sort of walkers are basically inevitable at this point. Not titans or battlemech sorts of things mind you, but smaller, lighter things that might serve as autonomous weapons platforms in tighter (buildings, tunnels) spaces. Basically just robots with legs (deployed in addition to flying and rolling drones).
You tell me when beetles get the instant ability to destroy the entire world many times over. Also don't remember any animal inventing guns, also guns the way they exist are optimized for use of humans, the biggest bugs that exist, even if they somehow developed the ability to manufacture and use guns optimized for use of things their size, would struggle vs humans, if humand decided to eradicated them.
The last time non humans threatened the existance of life on earth it was caused by oxygen producing proteoza "accidently" gassed large part of the population of the planet by producing oxygen.
It's got nothing to do with the human form being perfect Karol, it's to do with our brains and our use of tools. One on one, nsked, in a fight against most predators, humans are the food.
Un any case when it comes to weapons,
I'm.picturing an insect version of starship troopers.
'Sir?! Why do we train with webs? Humans can just shoot us or press a button'
*immobilises spider in silk*
'The human cannot shoot you or press a button if he cannot use his hands! Medic!'.
I'm pretty sure if the bugs decide to rise up, we're toast. Cockroaches can survive nuclear blasts a lot better than humans... and I'm pretty sure they have more bugs than we have bullets or bombs.
_____/
To answer the OP, the sister suits remind me strongly of khador men o war from wmh. They work in a steam punk fantasy setting, I'm.less good of a lot of the more recent walkers in 40k to be honest. Love the classics.Tau were my first love. Love dreads, love the invictor, love sentinels but the other stuff leaves me cold.
In general walkers/battle suits are my favorite units in the game. I just love the way they look, and their abundance in Tau armies is the only thing that makes that faction bearable to me.
That only goes for the older designs though, all of the new ones featuring an exposed pilot are beyond dumb. The Primaris scout suit, the new sisters, the Grey knight thing are all hideous and I genuinely think they cheapen the look and feel of the game.
You just need a bucketload of Alarielle's wardroth beetle from aos then.
Also the whole argument is preposterous, humans are not "the best" at war, because we lack any point of comparison. Nothing else on this planet wages wars, so congrats, we're the best at the one thing we do. Talk about participation award.
Cronch wrote: ...Also the whole argument is preposterous, humans are not "the best" at war, because we lack any point of comparison. Nothing else on this planet wages wars, so congrats, we're the best at the one thing we do. Talk about participation award.
Teeeeechnically, you're right. However, we've seen some higher primates engage in organized conflict (and I believe we've also observed similar behavior in some of the social insects as well). Give pack animals enough time and I'm sure they'll join the list (and if they're dolphins, they'll even independently discover war crimes into the bargain!).
OT: I don't mind the idea of battlesuits in 40k per se, but I'm a little concerned with the design team's apparent fondness for the babycarrier paradigm. I can see that kind of suit for Penitent Engines (due to the fluff), GSC (work vehicles), and maybe Guard (think the mechsuits from Avatar or that prospective third Matrix movie that was tragically cancelled at the last minute and certainly never saw a theatrical release). Regular Sisters or SM, though? That just seems off - you've already got powered armor, either stick with that or put in the extra effort/expense to have a full vehicle.
We brought machine guns to fight emus, and the emus won.
I don't mind walkers, 40k is already full of "rule of cool" elements. I think the "suit of power armor worn over a suit of power armor" concept of warsuits is dumber than a sack of Space Wolfs.
Hankovitch wrote: We brought machine guns to fight emus, and the emus won.
I don't mind walkers, 40k is already full of "rule of cool" elements. I think the "suit of power armor worn over a suit of power armor" concept of warsuits is dumber than a sack of Space Wolfs.
This is exactly right, except for the wolves being dumb part. Dumber than a sniper round that allows indirect fire. There, that is better.
To me, a scifi wargame has to have some sorts of mecha in it. I Blame Robotech/Macross/Battletech for it.
I have zero probs with all sorts of Walkers in 40K. If anything, I think there should be more variety in them. Back in Rogue Trader there were even rules for designing custom walkers.
Ideally, there should be a "Generic Imperial walker" kit which could make one walker, containing a shedload of different arms, legs etc for making custom walker suits.. these could be fielded by GSC for example, include industrial tools/appendages in the kit and so on. They'd be perfect for Necromunda as well.
I don't get the complaints about kits not fitting/ruining the look or feel of certain armies. You dont get to choose what GW does with their IP, but you do have full control over what you buy. You buy and field the models you like the look of, and ingore the rest. That's the beauty of it, even within a single faction, no two army needs to look exactly alike!
I don’t think these kind of suits are anything new, terminator armour used to be described as an exosuit. Dreadnoughts have almost always been a thing, as has the Imperial Guard Sentinel.
Individual models are hit and miss, the Tau suits really look great and fit so well with their aesthetic. The Invictor war suit I’m less keen on. Whereas I love the new SOB ones.
General Kroll wrote: I don’t think these kind of suits are anything new, terminator armour used to be described as an exosuit. Dreadnoughts have almost always been a thing, as has the Imperial Guard Sentinel.
Individual models are hit and miss, the Tau suits really look great and fit so well with their aesthetic. The Invictor war suit I’m less keen on. Whereas I love the new SOB ones.
It’s not so much the existence of “walkers” that I have a an issue with. It’s more the stylisation of certain battle suits that are basically a pilot inside a larger mech that is basically a big person. The SM first born dreds are big clunky units, where as the new SOB and the GK one is like a big person. GW has been trying to appeal to the Japanese market and you can easily see the that’s where the inspiration for them has come from. They just don’t feel 40K grimdark to me. As people have pint out the penitent engines are dark but a large Walker wielding a sword like an expert pugilist just doesn’t fit for me. At least not the imperium. And I know GW has had very few original ideas but this feels like genre fudging to me
And the exposed pilots are a snipers dream, but also in the choas of a 40K battle where there are bullets, laser beams, shootas, bombs and all stuff flying all over the place you would want to be exposed and make a massive target of yourself.
In a more realistic setting, mech suits would be most suited to urban combat. City fighting will 90% of the time result in two outcomes--long, costly, bloody street by street clearing or the complete destruction of the city, usually by artillery.
Of course, 40k renders this entirely moot by having power armor readily available, especially variants that can freakin' fly.
Dreadnoughts made (more) sense in fluff because they were piloted by a space marine that had been crippled, so the Chapter would have two choices--stuff him into a dreadnought if one were available or euthanize him to recover usable geneseed. You can imagine what this does for morale.
Then came the baby carriers... Do I believe that these could have come from the Dark Age of Technology where Iron Men could have been big enough to need something on that scale to fight them? Sure, Imperial Knights are pretty big, so why not. Heck, some of the recovered warsuits could have originally been iron Men chassis. Do I like it? Not particularly.
Tau I feel should get a pass on their crisis suits. It makes sense for them to develop a mobile, heavily armored suit that they can use to stand up against, among other things, Space Marines who can throw their fire warriors through concrete walls and have a fair chance of turning their tanks into swiss cheese in melee combat. Then the Ghostkeel and Riptide were introduced...
Although I guess the suits do help set the Tau apart thematically and playstyle from the Guard, so there's that at least.
Galas wrote: Are we complaining about battle suits now when literally each faction has had a dreadnought equivalent for more than 20 years?
And TBH I love all the dreadnoughts equivalents: Dreadnoughts, hellbrutes, deff dreads, wraithlords, carnifexes, etc...
Yeah, were also complaining about models lacking helmets when the other sisters of battle walker has a whole ass unarmored nearly naked pilot strapped to the front.
Do you think, maybe, the sisters might have a tad bit of an impractical fanaticism vibe going on with their gak?
I think the complaint is more when the 'suit' becomes 'stilts and backpack' which leaves the pilot entirely exposed. Just shoot them in the fething face.
Aren't those war suits equpied with force fields and the no helmet version is just there for the esthetic. Saying shot it in the face works as much as saying one shot hit the tank in the periscope.
Altima wrote: In a more realistic setting, mech suits would be most suited to urban combat. City fighting will 90% of the time result in two outcomes--long, costly, bloody street by street clearing or the complete destruction of the city, usually by artillery.
In a more realistic setting, large mechs would be ill suited to any combat. There are literally 0 advantages that a bipedal walking tank can provide over a tracked or wheeled [or theoretical hovering] tank, and it's worse in every metric.
The only use for bipedal combat vehicles is at the human scale [robots and powered armor] in order to navigate environments designed for humans [walk up stairs]. However, essentially none of these environments are designed for a giant, and a normal combat vehicle can navigate them just as well and be a more efficient and capable combat platform while it's at it.
As for the paragon warsuit, there are a couple of things I don't like about it:
1: where are her legs? Her hips are where the robot's mechanical hips are and she just doesn't have any legs. At least the baby carrier's pilot is obviously fit onboard it without having to mysteriously not have a lower half.
2: the mech's own legs and arms are very spindly, thanks to being shaped like a human leg.
3: and most importantly, I don't like the fact that it's of a unibody construction instead of a frame with armor attached. While it's technically a better design since it doesn't leave like everything exposed and may be more generally structurally stable after sustaining damage, it looks notably different from the other 'mechs in 40k.
As a side note, I also don't like the High Lord in a battlesuit.
The high lord should be legislating, and even if she takes to command an army, she's not a captain or something leading a company and making tactical scale decisions from the front. She should be in a command post where she can monitor the situation across the entire group of forces under her control and make strategic decisions for the army and let her subordinates do their job. Commanders should be in the position required to have the highest degree of awareness about their entire command and to effectively command their entire command. For a company commander, this is at the front, but for the commander in chief of a military overseeing wars on many fronts across many theaters, this isn't anywhere near any frontline.
Karol wrote: Aren't those war suits equpied with force fields and the no helmet version is just there for the esthetic. Saying shot it in the face works as much as saying one shot hit the tank in the periscope.
Actually, yes. Just like the eldar warwalkers have energy shields and most characters like marine captains have energy shields.
I'm a 100% helmts all the time guy but to have people in {PRESENT DAY} of {PRESENT YEAR} complaint about miniatures with exposed heads when most have options for helmets and bare heads is just tiresome.
We all know a tactical sargeant has no reason to not have a helmet. But for people they look cooler that way. Let them have fun.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I think the complaint is more when the 'suit' becomes 'stilts and backpack' which leaves the pilot entirely exposed. Just shoot them in the fething face.
Moms toy the styling for me, drednoughts might be bi pedal but at least some thought went into giving them specific weapons that take advantage of the the fact it’s a walking machine.
Giving a big Walker a big sword because the person piloting it would use a big sword if they weren’t in the battle suit is just a look I don’t like.
And some of them just don’t suit 40K
The penitent engines might have nearly naked pilots but that’s part of their penance isn’t it? They are meant to suffer and that is grim dark.
Altima wrote: In a more realistic setting, mech suits would be most suited to urban combat. City fighting will 90% of the time result in two outcomes--long, costly, bloody street by street clearing or the complete destruction of the city, usually by artillery.
In a more realistic setting, large mechs would be ill suited to any combat. There are literally 0 advantages that a bipedal walking tank can provide over a tracked or wheeled [or theoretical hovering] tank, and it's worse in every metric.
The only use for bipedal combat vehicles is at the human scale [robots and powered armor] in order to navigate environments designed for humans [walk up stairs]. However, essentially none of these environments are designed for a giant, and a normal combat vehicle can navigate them just as well and be a more efficient and capable combat platform while it's at it.
I don't know about zero advantages. There are probably terrain types where legs work better than treads or wheels, and having something that's not so constantly noisy as a loitering flying thing might be useful. There's probably a tactical advantage to a firing platform that can change it's elevation on the fly as well. The walking technology is getting reeeally good, AI situational awareness is getting better and AI reactions are stupid fast. Will it ever be practical enough to invest in? Seems a little niche to me . . . but I think there's room for something there.
To be clear I'm thinking ED-209ish scale. Something that can navigate tight spaces and weird terrain (rubble) but carry heavier armor and ordinance than a man-sized bot.
Galas wrote: No Insectium7! Tanks are better and bipedal structures of combat will NEVER advance enough to be better at any role!
Everybody knows chariots are the peak military weapon.
Tbf tanks, wheeled vehicles and flying systems have many, many advantages. I just think that there may be niche applications for legged things now that the technology is near-available.
40k naturally gets a pass because it's a fictional universe that has exotic technology and doctrines. That said I'm not a big fan of many of the newer walker-things, although mostly for aesthetic reasons. The Knights usually look great though.
Galas wrote: No Insectium7! Tanks are better and bipedal structures of combat will NEVER advance enough to be better at any role!
Everybody knows chariots are the peak military weapon.
This isn't a matter of "technology needs to advance". It's more of a matter of "there's nothing to be gained". It doesn't offer improvements in any measurable [like armor, mobility, or firepower] or less-measurable [like ergonomics, logistics, and volumetric efficiency]. This is a matter of physics and requirement analysis. Seriously, ask yourself "what capability would giving my tanks legs give my tank?" The answer is, in fact, none.
Talking about protection first, consider the protected area of a normally shaped combat vehicle, versus a vehicle oriented like a human. Observe that the front face of the 'mech is drastically larger for a similar volume than that of the conventional vehicle, and it's not advantaged when it comes to the sides either. This means that for the same mass of armor, the 'mech will have less thick armor, because it has to armor a greater area. This is basic math. If you invent superior armor, you can apply it to a normally formed combat vehicle for greater results.
Second, there's maneuverability, with a bunch of points:
A combat vehicle exerts a ground pressure equal to the quotient of it's weight divided by it's ground contact area. For a tracked tank, this is the area where the tracks are touching the ground, for a 'mech this is the soles of the feet [specifically, the sole of one of it's feet, because even though it has two, it supports it's entire weight on one when moving]. Ground pressure determines what terrain a vehicle can cross, higher ground pressure is bad and means you'll sink into soft ground and become bogged, this is one of the reasons tanks have tracks in the first place instead of wheels. So a 'mech would have a smaller ground contact area [or one foot would need to be the size of the entire ground contact area of both tracks of a tank], and thus a higher ground pressure, and be less capable in off-road terrain.
There's also speed. A wheeled or tracked vehicle has the capability to be a lot faster. It's fairly simple to visualize. A walker's speed is governed by it's stride length, and it needs to take discrete steps. It can't carry it's inertia, and is in a process of continously accelerating and decelerating to a stop and then reversing it's various parts to move. A wheeled or tracked vehicle spins a thing in a continuous smooth motion for a much more efficient movement. And the top speed; the whole striding thing is a drastic limiter on the speed of a 'mech, and while a tracked vehicle is also limited by the dynamics of the belt-of-links [which will experience significant stress and also absorb a lot of energy vibrating and whipping around at high speed], and wheeled vehicle is essentially limited in speed by the torque of the motor.
Obstacle crossability is the primary "reason" that is proposed for why someone would desire a large bipedal combat walker, but it's not a very good one. It's largely less proficient in slope climbing, is more limited in where it can actually put it's feet down making it less capable on uneven ground, etc. A tracked or wheeled system is a lot better at navigating rubble and broken ground than footpads due to a greater ability to shape to the ground. The supposed ability to "step up" like it's ascending a staircase in its scale is it's only theoretical advantage, but such environments only really exist in the minds of imaginative people who want giant robots to fight. They don't even occur in human-constructed environments because to the surprise of nobody, we don't generally build staircases sized for giants.
And I won't even mention mobile stability for firing.
As for noise, a 'mech is going to be as loud or louder than a tracked or wheeled tank, since it has the same engine noise but a lot more mechanical parts moving and connecting with each other, not to mention the footfalls will have much more noise than conventional propulsion. AI control can react just as fast or faster with a turret, since it's moving an object with a lower moment of inertia with better torque on a more stable platform.
As for elevating the weapons mount, while height is generally a tactical disadvantage for a war machine, if it became such that the ability to elevate the firing point of the weapon was an overriding tactical desire, an armature or elevating hydraulic track on a conventional unit would provide superior capability at reduced weight and complexity.
Walking legged things offer a meaningful advantage only essentially in environments constructed for them, like inside of human dwellings. This means that bipedal human scale robots are valuable, but unless we start building structures to be convenient staircases for the Attack of the 50' Woman, then there isn't an advantage for feet on a tank.
All of this is largely besides the point, because science fiction is motivated by "rule of cool", not "rule of practical". I don't mind 'mechs in games and media.
Deadnight wrote: It's got nothing to do with the human form being perfect Karol, it's to do with our brains and our use of tools. One on one, nsked, in a fight against most predators, humans are the food.
Nonsense. Evolution wouldn't push multiple bipedal forms for eight million years if it was anywhere near true. Add another half million when our 'tools' were basically a stick, a rock, and waving arms in the air, and if it wasn't any good we would have went extinct long ago. Our ""naked"" ancestors caused massive mass extinction all over the planet long before we invented writing or wheel.
the_scotsman wrote: Also, humans are in NO WAY the most dominant form on earth. The average animal on the planet earth is a beetle. There are trillions upon trillions upon trillions of beetles compared to about seven billion humans. And unlike us, it seems like beetles can actually sustain those numbers without causing their own mass extinction like we're currently working on.
Sustain? You might want to check again, because humans are kicking their ass without even trying (sadly):
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, its kind of like, the united states military research complex is run by what are effectively children given a budget the dwarfs the GDP of many fully developed nations on earth, half the stuff they come up with is just gak they saw in a movie and thought was badass and not even one time have they tried to seriously pitch any kind of humanoid walking vehicle, for the exact same reason why they've never tried to make a vehicle that presents its largest basic surface of construction in the direction of incoming enemy fire and places its smallest basic surface on the ground.
Deadnight wrote: It's got nothing to do with the human form being perfect Karol, it's to do with our brains and our use of tools. One on one, nsked, in a fight against most predators, humans are the food.
Nonsense. Evolution wouldn't push multiple bipedal forms for eight million years if it was anywhere near true. Add another half million when our 'tools' were basically a stick, a rock, and waving arms in the air, and if it wasn't any good we would have went extinct long ago. Our ""naked"" ancestors caused massive mass extinction all over the planet long before we invented writing or wheel.
Ugh. Evolution doesn't 'push' anything. Extinction isn't about a fight against predators. Its about finding sufficient food and popping out the next generation before dying.
Climbing and hiding are better survival tools in the odd moment when there were large predators eyeing up bipeds for dinner. And yes, they probably got some, but nowhere near enough to affect species survival. Climate, disease, drought and starvation are the failure points for species, certainly ours. Organized action (and a disregard of consequences) is what we used to cause mass extinction, something most other predators aren't capable of.
Warfare is an _entirely_ different kettle of fish, that has nothing to do surviving in the face of predatory animals. In the last couple centuries that has had less and less to do with the human form (beyond thumbs and hand manipulation)
Things as complicated as a wheel-axle system with a drive shaft won't happen by "accident" (not even with infinite monkeys bashing on infinite keyboards) within the lifespan of the universe. So it's simply not a mutation that could ever plausibly happen, not to mention surviving long enough to propagate its genes - or be sexually attractive enough to propagate its genes. After all, sexual selection probably puts more pressure on evolution than The Fight™ after a certain point.
In fact, one of the arguments against Intelligent Design is how gakky any 'designed' creature actually is compared to the deliberate designs created by humans and engineered specifically for purpose.
Second, there's maneuverability, with a bunch of points:
A combat vehicle exerts a ground pressure equal to the quotient of it's weight divided by it's ground contact area. For a tracked tank, this is the area where the tracks are touching the ground, for a 'mech this is the soles of the feet [specifically, the sole of one of it's feet, because even though it has two, it supports it's entire weight on one when moving]. Ground pressure determines what terrain a vehicle can cross, higher ground pressure is bad and means you'll sink into soft ground and become bogged, this is one of the reasons tanks have tracks in the first place instead of wheels. So a 'mech would have a smaller ground contact area [or one foot would need to be the size of the entire ground contact area of both tracks of a tank], and thus a higher ground pressure, and be less capable in off-road terrain.
Dinosaurs be like: Am I a joke to you?
Plainly big heavy things walk/walked around. Maybe not Abrams 70 ton things, but certainly Bradley 25 - 30 ton things. At that scale ground pressure doesn't seem like much of an issue.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: There's also speed. A wheeled or tracked vehicle has the capability to be a lot faster. It's fairly simple to visualize. A walker's speed is governed by it's stride length, and it needs to take discrete steps. It can't carry it's inertia, and is in a process of continously accelerating and decelerating to a stop and then reversing it's various parts to move. A wheeled or tracked vehicle spins a thing in a continuous smooth motion for a much more efficient movement. And the top speed; the whole striding thing is a drastic limiter on the speed of a 'mech, and while a tracked vehicle is also limited by the dynamics of the belt-of-links [which will experience significant stress and also absorb a lot of energy vibrating and whipping around at high speed], and wheeled vehicle is essentially limited in speed by the torque of the motor.
There are legged animals that are faster than tracked tanks. Well, maybe just one? A Cheetah can get reportedly 70-80 mph. I'm betting humans will be able to make legged robots that hit such speeds. MIT is already on the case.
Spoiler:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Obstacle crossability is the primary "reason" that is proposed for why someone would desire a large bipedal combat walker, but it's not a very good one. It's largely less proficient in slope climbing, is more limited in where it can actually put it's feet down making it less capable on uneven ground, etc. A tracked or wheeled system is a lot better at navigating rubble and broken ground than footpads due to a greater ability to shape to the ground. The supposed ability to "step up" like it's ascending a staircase in its scale is it's only theoretical advantage, but such environments only really exist in the minds of imaginative people who want giant robots to fight. They don't even occur in human-constructed environments because to the surprise of nobody, we don't generally build staircases sized for giants.
Staircase for giants:
Spoiler:
Other rough terrain that legs might work better than treads on:
And I won't even mention mobile stability for firing.
If a human can fire a recoiless rifle or missile launcher I'd think a big robot could too. Any viable weapons on them will be "learned" and recoil compensated for. The balance of AI bots is only going to get better and better. Some of them are already showing some excellent feats of balance and they're only going to keep improving.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: As for noise, a 'mech is going to be as loud or louder than a tracked or wheeled tank, since it has the same engine noise but a lot more mechanical parts moving and connecting with each other, not to mention the footfalls will have much more noise than conventional propulsion. AI control can react just as fast or faster with a turret, since it's moving an object with a lower moment of inertia with better torque on a more stable platform.
Like I said above, I really don't think stability will be a problem. Legs and "torso" and "gimbal/turret/arm" designs may offer better "rotation" times than the typical turret will because there are multiple servos working in concert to reach the distance rather than just one. If a turret has to traverse 50 degrees, it has to do the whole thing on one motor and system. If a robot with legs, "torso" and gimbal-arm is rotating the same 50 degrees it could mean something like 5+ motors effectively rotating 5-15 degrees in order to reach the full distance, each one traveling it's respective target rotation faster than the one single system. The entire motion will be more complicated, to be sure, but there's reason to believe it could be achieved faster than the traditional turret in the end.
As for noise, depends on weight, drive etc. Lot's of factors there, but electric cars are a lot quieter than gas ones. If you're dealing with an electric robot with some sort of sound dampening foot pads. . . who knows?
As for elevating the weapons mount, while height is generally a tactical disadvantage for a war machine, if it became such that the ability to elevate the firing point of the weapon was an overriding tactical desire, an armature or elevating hydraulic track on a conventional unit would provide superior capability at reduced weight and complexity.
The vertical mobility comes for free with legs. (I actually think they'd weigh less too, depending on their design.)
Walking legged things offer a meaningful advantage only essentially in environments constructed for them, like inside of human dwellings. This means that bipedal human scale robots are valuable, but unless we start building structures to be convenient staircases for the Attack of the 50' Woman, then there isn't an advantage for feet on a tank.
I agree completely that human scale robots will be valuable, but I quite disagree that human scale is the size limit for walker-viability. I think the technology will be there at some point, I think it's more a issue of whether the mission would be one that's decided to be worth pursuing. Autonomous/semi-autonomous fire support platform for use in dense/rough terrain is sorta the realm I'm thinking.
Beetles beat humanoid walkers for sure. better stability, lower profile, less frontal space to armor up, and losing one leg doesn't turn you into a fancy roadblock.
They're fine when they're not the focus of an army. Tau in particular focus way too much on their walkers, when they would fit the setting and aesthetic of 40k much more of they emphasized the "covenant" aspects of their army.
Sledgehammer wrote: They're fine when they're not the focus of an army. Tau in particular focus way too much on their walkers, when they would fit the setting and aesthetic of 40k much more of they emphasized the "covenant" aspects of their army.
But people like their suit armies. Having regular battle suits as actually valid options or even base of the army, seemed to have been an argument from tau players throught out all 8th ed.
Cronch wrote: Beetles beat humanoid walkers for sure. better stability, lower profile, less frontal space to armor up, and losing one leg doesn't turn you into a fancy roadblock.
There’s a big beetle tank thing in starship troopers, I’m suprised GW never borrowed that idea
Second, there's maneuverability, with a bunch of points:
A combat vehicle exerts a ground pressure equal to the quotient of it's weight divided by it's ground contact area. For a tracked tank, this is the area where the tracks are touching the ground, for a 'mech this is the soles of the feet [specifically, the sole of one of it's feet, because even though it has two, it supports it's entire weight on one when moving]. Ground pressure determines what terrain a vehicle can cross, higher ground pressure is bad and means you'll sink into soft ground and become bogged, this is one of the reasons tanks have tracks in the first place instead of wheels. So a 'mech would have a smaller ground contact area [or one foot would need to be the size of the entire ground contact area of both tracks of a tank], and thus a higher ground pressure, and be less capable in off-road terrain.
Dinosaurs be like: Am I a joke to you?
Plainly big heavy things walk/walked around. Maybe not Abrams 70 ton things, but certainly Bradley 25 - 30 ton things. At that scale ground pressure doesn't seem like much of an issue.
If we're acquiescing that a 'mech won't substitute for a tank and are now discussing other combat vehicle options:
A cavalry recon vehicle/scout car may be the one thing that a 'mech might be a valid selection for. Most of the areas that a 'mech is comparatively deficient next to a tracked or wheeled system aren't massively concerning to a scout vehicle, since it's not well armored anyway, is fairly light, and actually want to be somewhat taller in general [at least, height isn't a disadvantage]. The bugbear is speed, but current wheeled systems don't operate well at all in rough terrain, so it might be an alternative to tracks, since there is somewhat a minimum weight and size for tracks to start paying off over other mobility solutions.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: There's also speed. A wheeled or tracked vehicle has the capability to be a lot faster. It's fairly simple to visualize. A walker's speed is governed by it's stride length, and it needs to take discrete steps. It can't carry it's inertia, and is in a process of continously accelerating and decelerating to a stop and then reversing it's various parts to move. A wheeled or tracked vehicle spins a thing in a continuous smooth motion for a much more efficient movement. And the top speed; the whole striding thing is a drastic limiter on the speed of a 'mech, and while a tracked vehicle is also limited by the dynamics of the belt-of-links [which will experience significant stress and also absorb a lot of energy vibrating and whipping around at high speed], and wheeled vehicle is essentially limited in speed by the torque of the motor.
There are legged animals that are faster than tracked tanks. Well, maybe just one? A Cheetah can get reportedly 70-80 mph. I'm betting humans will be able to make legged robots that hit such speeds. MIT is already on the case.
Spoiler:
None of those are 30-70 ton combat vehicles. A Cheetah is approximately 150 pounds, which is in fact substantially less than a tank, and takes a lot less power to accelerate to high speeds.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Obstacle crossability is the primary "reason" that is proposed for why someone would desire a large bipedal combat walker, but it's not a very good one. It's largely less proficient in slope climbing, is more limited in where it can actually put it's feet down making it less capable on uneven ground, etc. A tracked or wheeled system is a lot better at navigating rubble and broken ground than footpads due to a greater ability to shape to the ground. The supposed ability to "step up" like it's ascending a staircase in its scale is it's only theoretical advantage, but such environments only really exist in the minds of imaginative people who want giant robots to fight. They don't even occur in human-constructed environments because to the surprise of nobody, we don't generally build staircases sized for giants.
Staircase for giants:
Spoiler:
Great, we found the staircase built for a giant. We should design and adopt a specialist "mountain rice paddy combat vehicle" for use explicitly here, because this is where WWIII will be fought.
This isn't a common type of terrain. Also it's essentially a bog, if a tank can't go there, neither can a 'mech, see exhibit A: ground pressure. Almost no heavy vehicle can go there anyway, except a boat.
Theoretically, a 'mech could have great deep wading capability. That is, it can operate in deeper water than a tank. At the very least, a tank would need to be fitted before swimming while a 'mech might walk right in, so if the rivers are very deep and have a hard bottom [Generally, hard bottom rivers are shallow, and deep rivers have soft bottoms. It has to do with hydrodynamics. But, maybe we've paved the bottom of rivers with concrete like LA in the future!], then we have another extremely specific [but a little more general than the stair steps to Giantess!Katherine's house and some rice paddies].
Other rough terrain that legs might work better than treads on:
Spoiler:
It's a not really true that rough terrain would be a good terrain for legs over tracks. The ground would have to be rough in a very specific way at a very specific scale [see, the giant's staircase] The broken slope is actually substantially better for the tracked tank, or even wheels when deflated somewhat, because of their greater ability to conform to the ground, and steep terrain also favors the conventional form factor due to a lowered center of gravity. A walker requires a smooth [ish, it can manipulate it's toes for a rock or something, but that only goes so far] surface to step on, and is limited in slope by the high center of gravity. We're still "same or worse" on this performance metric.
A tracked vehicle has better torque and powertrain flow to push trees down that a 'mech. As for trench/obstacle cross distance, a tank can cross an obstacle equal to about half it's track base length without falling into the obstacle itself, a mech can cross one equal to it's stride length. A 'mech may be able to cross a longer trench, though I'm not confident in saying that and it wouldn't be on the scale of centimeters longer, not meters longer.
And then, for the mountain goats, walkers can't do that. They have foot pads that are substantially larger than the mountain goats and can't find purchases like that; or they run into the ground pressure thing for a 50-ton war machine. A 50 ton war machine, or any war machine cannot walk on needlepoints, mountain goat sized hooves, or the area of your big toe on a mountain climbing toehold, it'll sink into the ground.
And I won't even mention mobile stability for firing.
If a human can fire a recoiless rifle or missile launcher I'd think a big robot could too. Any viable weapons on them will be "learned" and recoil compensated for. The balance of AI bots is only going to get better and better. Some of them are already showing some excellent feats of balance and they're only going to keep improving.
Really, this is just overcoming the deficiency, not an improvement over wheels or tracks. Tracked and wheeled combat vehicles also compensate for recoil, so really all of this is just going into not being comparatively deficient. Not being worse isn't a competting argument for adoption unless it's better in other ways, and it's still worse in most terrain passability and protection, that last of which is critical for MBTs, and the former for most other combat vehicles.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: As for noise, a 'mech is going to be as loud or louder than a tracked or wheeled tank, since it has the same engine noise but a lot more mechanical parts moving and connecting with each other, not to mention the footfalls will have much more noise than conventional propulsion. AI control can react just as fast or faster with a turret, since it's moving an object with a lower moment of inertia with better torque on a more stable platform.
Like I said above, I really don't think stability will be a problem. Legs and "torso" and "gimbal/turret/arm" designs may offer better "rotation" times than the typical turret will because there are multiple servos working in concert to reach the distance rather than just one. If a turret has to traverse 50 degrees, it has to do the whole thing on one motor and system. If a robot with legs, "torso" and gimbal-arm is rotating the same 50 degrees it could mean something like 5+ motors effectively rotating 5-15 degrees in order to reach the full distance, each one traveling it's respective target rotation faster than the one single system. The entire motion will be more complicated, to be sure, but there's reason to believe it could be achieved faster than the traditional turret in the end.
As for noise, depends on weight, drive etc. Lot's of factors there, but electric cars are a lot quieter than gas ones. If you're dealing with an electric robot with some sort of sound dampening foot pads. . . who knows?
Any of these technologies can be applied to a tank too. If you have an electric and silenced 'mech, you can also have an electric and silenced tank.
As for rotation:
It's a matter of torque and moment more than having 5 motors versus 1. 1 motor with more torque turning a smaller object will turn faster than 5 with collectively less torque. Turrets weigh less than torsos, obviously, because they torso has all the things that are normally in the hull of the tank that isn't turning, but are heavier than just the gun hanging from the arm with an ammo feed belt [they stand to be approximately the same weight if the ammo is included with the gun on the arm]. Tank turrets are surprisingly fast though, able to rotate 360 degrees in under 10 second right now, and will likely be faster in the future as they get lighter.
As for elevating the weapons mount, while height is generally a tactical disadvantage for a war machine, if it became such that the ability to elevate the firing point of the weapon was an overriding tactical desire, an armature or elevating hydraulic track on a conventional unit would provide superior capability at reduced weight and complexity.
The vertical mobility comes for free with legs. (I actually think they'd weigh less too, depending on their design.)
Uh.... with identical metallurgy, I doubt it. Stuff like the engine are in both and equally available. The mech has a minimum of 4 more geared motors or hydraulics, though if we assume actuators aren't heavy relative to the structure, and the volumetric comparison of the road wheels, track belt, and torsion bars to the frame and actuators would lead me to expect that the tracks should weigh less, and wheels massively less than either. Structurally, tracks and wheels don't need to be as robust either, because they're not taking the full 50-70 ton load right down on them and any sort of strange angle.
Also, as you've phrased this scenario, the vertical mobility is the objective in choosing legs over tracks, so it's not free, it's coming at the cost of picking legs, and you're trying to make sure that the other capabilities aren't worse, or are only worse to an acceptable degree.
Walking legged things offer a meaningful advantage only essentially in environments constructed for them, like inside of human dwellings. This means that bipedal human scale robots are valuable, but unless we start building structures to be convenient staircases for the Attack of the 50' Woman, then there isn't an advantage for feet on a tank.
I agree completely that human scale robots will be valuable, but I quite disagree that human scale is the size limit for walker-viability. I think the technology will be there at some point, I think it's more a issue of whether the mission would be one that's decided to be worth pursuing. Autonomous/semi-autonomous fire support platform for use in dense/rough terrain is sorta the realm I'm thinking.
That mission can be performed better by a tracked or wheeled combat vehicle. Tanks are already moving towards maybe being autonomous in the future.
A legged robot might be a good substitute for like a THEMIS UGV or other small weapons carrier, but as a battlemech to substitute for a tracked or wheeled tank, I don't see it from a realistic perspective. I can imagine it being possible to create, I just don't imagine useful, because anything it can do a tracked heavy combat vehicle can do as well, better, or more efficiently.
Personally, I think hovertank technology, when it comes about, or maybe advanced wheels, would be the next major leap for combat vehicles, not legs. A hovertank promises to offer the same-or-better capabilities but faster than any other option for any combat vehicle that can fit within whatever it's weight limits are, and if wheeled suspensions advance enough they could supersede tracks. Tracks are better in steep terrain, rough terrain, and soft terrain than wheels which are better on hard terrain, but if advanced suspensions and other stuff makes wheels catch up in steep and rough category, there's a lot more hard terrain in the world [and it stands to grow] than soft terrain.
I also feel compelled to express the reminder that while I don't think 'mechs offer compelling advantages over tracked tanks, I still think 'mechs are cool, imaginative, and fun. I like Battletech, and shows about giant fightan' robots, so like 'mechs are pretty cool and I like them.
It was more post-apoc than garden bugs, with each bug being built from mutations from a variety of species, trading off armor, speed, damage, etc.
I recall the designers have a few choice rants about Warhammer's resolution mechanics. Three rolls for a single action (hit/wound/save), struck them as absurd.
Inquistor Lord Katherine has a point, though I can understand why Space Marine Dreadnoughts are bipedal as that is probably the best way to get a pilot to not reject their new body if it at least can move in a similar fashion to their old body. It also probably reduces acclimation time and uses their already present reactions to produce results. Its when you get to things like Telemon Dreadnoughts, Imperial Knights and well, the majority of walking vehicles in 40keks that things fall apart. Never got why the Tau just didn't just make a Hammerhead variant with the Riptide's guns, fits their fluff much better.
Cronch wrote: Beetles beat humanoid walkers for sure. better stability, lower profile, less frontal space to armor up, and losing one leg doesn't turn you into a fancy roadblock.
And that is why four legged animals dominate the world. Oh no wait, we actually wiped most of them out. And until we put them on a diet of american corn, they were on a good way to be gone for ever.
It's worth noting that John Deer created a prototype 6-legged walking forestry vehicle but that it never really generated any buzz. It's more expensive than current vehicles and offers little new capacity.
Cronch wrote: Beetles beat humanoid walkers for sure. better stability, lower profile, less frontal space to armor up, and losing one leg doesn't turn you into a fancy roadblock.
And that is why four legged animals dominate the world. Oh no wait, we actually wiped most of them out. And until we put them on a diet of american corn, they were on a good way to be gone for ever.
I'm sorry what? Like...what that has to do with anything? When was the last time you saw an armed cow? I thought we were talking about walkers, not whatever incredibly bad take on biology you have...
Cronch wrote: Beetles beat humanoid walkers for sure. better stability, lower profile, less frontal space to armor up, and losing one leg doesn't turn you into a fancy roadblock.
And that is why four legged animals dominate the world. Oh no wait, we actually wiped most of them out. And until we put them on a diet of american corn, they were on a good way to be gone for ever.
Karol, do you...do you think that beetles are four-legged animals?
Sledgehammer wrote: They're fine when they're not the focus of an army. Tau in particular focus way too much on their walkers, when they would fit the setting and aesthetic of 40k much more of they emphasized the "covenant" aspects of their army.
But people like their suit armies. Having regular battle suits as actually valid options or even base of the army, seemed to have been an argument from tau players throught out all 8th ed.
I do think the suits are valid and should be a part of the Tau army, but I'm really not a fan of all suit armies. I just think they play way too much of a role in the Tau army when you can get stuff like this.
I think we might be talking past each other a bit by way of assumptions about weight class. I 100% agree that a "walking tank" in the 40+ ton range (traditional mechs) feels unreasonable, unnecessary, and inferior to other options. I'm thinking of things bigger than "man-bot" and up to the sort of 20 ton range at the high end. Even 10 might really be quite a bit larger than I'm thinking.
Ground pressure at this smaller size becomes a non-issue, a la dinosaurs, elephants, whatever.
Speed becomes much easier, I'm thinking springy ostritch-like legs allowing quicker bursts and agile movement.
Instead of having to knock over trees in a forest, it would be running between them.
Either sophisticated ankle rotation or some other adaptible foot design allowing for good behavior on slopes. Animals can do this, people can do this, walking robots will be able to do it to.
Basically I'm thinking of a thing sitting in between soldier-bot and light IFV equivalent that works as a very adaptable force multiplier carrying mostly light weaponry, 50cal-ish, grenade-launcher-ish? Or more realistically, with very modular hardpoints that can be fitted a number of ways. What for? To operate in dense and awkward terrain (jungle/urban) and carry more firepower than a soldier-bot or whatever.
I also feel compelled to express the reminder that while I don't think 'mechs offer compelling advantages over tracked tanks, I still think 'mechs are cool, imaginative, and fun. I like Battletech, and shows about giant fightan' robots, so like 'mechs are pretty cool and I like them.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have a major difference between "walkers" and "suits".
Notionally yes, a Dreadnought is a suit - but its carrying a tank of amniotic liquid - or whatever the current fluff is. Wraithlords contain ghosts. Deff Dreads had Orks permanently wired up inside them I think - they couldn't just hop out to go punch a grot. Then you have say a Sentinel which probably does have guys inside - but its just a vehicle. I never really liked Eldar War Walkers perhaps for similar reasons, but arguably that's still a vehicle.
By contrast you have say the Dread Knight - which is explicitly a guy in terminator armour in a giant suit. And I know haters gonna hate - but the concept just seems "dumb". In much the same way having the the supreme commander of the Adepta Sororitas inside a suit pulling little levers to do stuff seems "dumb".
On the whole mech versus tanks thing. If you could create a genuine mechnical man with the full range of movement then I think there are advantages. For example a mech could potentially crawl up to a ridge and then fire a gun with less exposure than a tank. But if you are stuck on two metal legs that have to stay standing (see Knights etc) its hard to see what realistic upside there would ever be.
The upside of using two legs is energy efficiency. More legs means more weight to lift, so more energy/engine-power needed. Similar reason why some vehicles have thin tracks and some wide tracks. The wide tracks make less ground pressure, but the added weight strains the engine and wears more.
Legs are also good on the softest ground, like swamps, sand and mud flats etc. In situations where wheels and tracks just digs themselves in legs can still make progress (energy draining though).
Canadian 5th wrote: It's worth noting that John Deer created a prototype 6-legged walking forestry vehicle but that it never really generated any buzz. It's more expensive than current vehicles and offers little new capacity.
Tygre wrote: The upside of using two legs is energy efficiency. More legs means more weight to lift, so more energy/engine-power needed. Similar reason why some vehicles have thin tracks and some wide tracks. The wide tracks make less ground pressure, but the added weight strains the engine and wears more.
Legs are also good on the softest ground, like swamps, sand and mud flats etc. In situations where wheels and tracks just digs themselves in legs can still make progress (energy draining though).
Except cawl has invented the hover tank which for some reason doesn’t fly backwards when it fires a round
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: I don't know about anyone else, but I have a major difference between "walkers" and "suits".
Notionally yes, a Dreadnought is a suit - but its carrying a tank of amniotic liquid - or whatever the current fluff is. Wraithlords contain ghosts. Deff Dreads had Orks permanently wired up inside them I think - they couldn't just hop out to go punch a grot. Then you have say a Sentinel which probably does have guys inside - but its just a vehicle. I never really liked Eldar War Walkers perhaps for similar reasons, but arguably that's still a vehicle.
By contrast you have say the Dread Knight - which is explicitly a guy in terminator armour in a giant suit. And I know haters gonna hate - but the concept just seems "dumb". In much the same way having the the supreme commander of the Adepta Sororitas inside a suit pulling little levers to do stuff seems "dumb".
On the whole mech versus tanks thing. If you could create a genuine mechnical man with the full range of movement then I think there are advantages. For example a mech could potentially crawl up to a ridge and then fire a gun with less exposure than a tank. But if you are stuck on two metal legs that have to stay standing (see Knights etc) its hard to see what realistic upside there would ever be.
I agree Walker are very mechanical and limited in movement but heavy in armour and weapons. But battle suits are just big people. I sought don’t feel that they really fit the whole dogmatic technological stagnation thing that the imperium is supposed to have. I don’t believe there are STC for these battle suits and the technology leap between a dreadnought and something that can mimic human movement with total accuracy but heightened strength and agility seems to indicate a significant level of technical advancement.
Canadian 5th wrote: It's worth noting that John Deer created a prototype 6-legged walking forestry vehicle but that it never really generated any buzz. It's more expensive than current vehicles and offers little new capacity.
In defense of suits, particularly for melee, I can see tremendous combat advantages when engaging large walking enemies. Something like a Warboss, Carnifex, large daemon, and many others would easily be able to overcome a tank in close combat, and these things are not uncommon foes.
If we are going to have giant bipedal Demons that parade around holding giant swords and wading into close combat, I think aesthetically that demands some sort of opponent of similar size and scale for it to duel on an even footing.
I think we might be talking past each other a bit by way of assumptions about weight class. I 100% agree that a "walking tank" in the 40+ ton range (traditional mechs) feels unreasonable, unnecessary, and inferior to other options. I'm thinking of things bigger than "man-bot" and up to the sort of 20 ton range at the high end. Even 10 might really be quite a bit larger than I'm thinking.
Ground pressure at this smaller size becomes a non-issue, a la dinosaurs, elephants, whatever.
Speed becomes much easier, I'm thinking springy ostritch-like legs allowing quicker bursts and agile movement.
Instead of having to knock over trees in a forest, it would be running between them.
Either sophisticated ankle rotation or some other adaptible foot design allowing for good behavior on slopes. Animals can do this, people can do this, walking robots will be able to do it to.
Basically I'm thinking of a thing sitting in between soldier-bot and light IFV equivalent that works as a very adaptable force multiplier carrying mostly light weaponry, 50cal-ish, grenade-launcher-ish? Or more realistically, with very modular hardpoints that can be fitted a number of ways. What for? To operate in dense and awkward terrain (jungle/urban) and carry more firepower than a soldier-bot or whatever.
Sounds a lot like the stalk-tanks from Gaunt's Ghosts.
Karol wrote: Aren't those war suits equpied with force fields and the no helmet version is just there for the esthetic. Saying shot it in the face works as much as saying one shot hit the tank in the periscope.
Actually, yes. Just like the eldar warwalkers have energy shields and most characters like marine captains have energy shields.
I'm a 100% helmts all the time guy but to have people in {PRESENT DAY} of {PRESENT YEAR} complaint about miniatures with exposed heads when most have options for helmets and bare heads is just tiresome.
We all know a tactical sargeant has no reason to not have a helmet. But for people they look cooler that way. Let them have fun.
I'm ok with it on infantry, because I get the narrative and styling element. It is also conceivable that the model has a helmet and just isn't wearing it at that particular moment (some models even have said helmet on them). For something like a large suit or mech it's different. There's visual incongruity not present with infantry models, and the force shield explanation doesn't hold up well when the model is covered in extremely thick armour plating everywhere else. What's the armour for, if the shields are that good?
NinthMusketeer wrote: In defense of suits, particularly for melee, I can see tremendous combat advantages when engaging large walking enemies. Something like a Warboss, Carnifex, large daemon, and many others would easily be able to overcome a tank in close combat, and these things are not uncommon foes.
Not really.
Legs confer no benefit to actually using a tank-sized melee weapon, and provide mobility equal to or worse on the tactical scale. In addition, they're substantially less capable of using the speed and mass of the combat vehicle as a weapon [due to A: not being able to move as quickly or as promptly, B: not being able to use as much of the mass, C: absorbing the shock with the mission-critical motive gear instead of with the hull frame, and D: doing so resulting in reduced vehicle stability from standard operating conditions at the best], and are substantially more vulnerable to shocks and loss of stability in close quarters combat. So mounting a melee weapon on an arm on a conventionally shaped combat unit would generally yield better performance of the melee weapon.
And, of course, since we're talking realism here, even if a big melee monster has charged you, you're actually better off just driving in any direction really and shooting it in the face [and an armor-piercing long rod or high explosive plastic munition are going to be vastly more deadly than any melee weapon you have on the thing]. It doesn't require a lot of clearance, and a tank gun can engage a target in a second, so unless it's literally riding on top like a rodeo [in which case, the 'mech would all ready have been incapacitated by being knocked down and sat on], it's not difficult for a tank to use it's gun in melee.
