Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Since Titans are pretty much one of a kind vehicles classified by their weaponry (i.e Warlord Titans), they seem to vary in height a lot. Given that there is no definitive answer on just how tall a Titan can get, can we at least try to come to a conclusion on what the average height might be?

We really can't. On one hand we see compared silhouttes in datasheets where Titans do not seem that big, and on the other hand we have artwork like this



which is equally as official since it is from an official novel series, and the size it shows a Warlord as being makes a Jaeger from Pacific Rim look like a Gretchin.

It is a pretty large field, but I'd probably place the average height at that of a warhound. Knight Titans are the most common, seeing as they are the smallest and easiest to replicate, while Imperators are rarer than a black lotus. Reavers are slightly rarer than Warhounds, so I'd guess the numbers game would have them at, in order of size, 10:3:1: .01, or 10 Knights for every three warhounds, for every one Reaver, or a thousand for every one Imperator. Even though the imperator is beyond huge, the sheer amount of smaller titans would have the size at roughly the upper end of smaller titans. Thusly, roughly a Warhound.

Of course, how tall is a warhound? Lexicanun puts them at around fourteen meters (42 feet), while the model sets them at about 15 meters, which is roughly 45 feet.

Hopes this helps!

(Yes, that was a MTG reference up there. For those of you who don't get it, Black Lotus is a $7000 card)

Titans have various patterns, based on where they are built. Mars pattern seems to be most common, followed by Lucius pattern.
Rough numbers would be:
15 meters give or take for a warhound, based on pattern and stance.
20-25 meters for a reaver, based on carapace weapon mount
30-35 meters for a warlord, based on carapace weapon mountings.
~45 to the top of the shoulder/base of the cathedral for an Emperor titan. Probably closer to 60-65 taking the cathedral into account.

For us who can't imagine it and need a size comparison... could you please provide buildings of equal size?

Floor to floor heights of typical buildings are about 3-4m, depending on use. So Warhounds are about 4 to 5 storeys, Reavers are 5 to 7 storeys, Warlords 8 to 11 storeys and Imperators up to about 20 storeys.

Assuming a major build up city, such as London, New York, Hong Kong, etc, all of these titans would be able to hide behind buildings relatively easily. They would obviously have to demolish other buildings to be able to walk around the city though

 Flinty wrote:
Floor to floor heights of typical buildings are about 3-4m, depending on use. So Warhounds are about 4 to 5 storeys, Reavers are 5 to 7 storeys, Warlords 8 to 11 storeys and Imperators up to about 20 storeys.

Assuming a major build up city, such as London, New York, Hong Kong, etc, all of these titans would be able to hide behind buildings relatively easily. They would obviously have to demolish other buildings to be able to walk around the city though

Not necessarily, most of the streets would be more than wide enough for a Warhound or a Reaver. Which is what would be deployed to such a battle zone. Warlords and Emperors would be too vulnerable in the crowded environment, being more like mobile artillery than a battle mech. But Warhounds and Reavers would be right at home, being maneuverable enough to take advantage of the cover.

Given that titans alwaays seem to be about as wide as they are high, Reavers would definately have difficulty in London and in some places even Warhounds would need to resort to just walking through buildings rather than round them

Other cities might do better.

Well, how wide are most streets in large cities?

Usually its a 4 lane road. That's 40 feet just with the lanes. Give another 20 for sidewalks.

Definitely a tight squeeze for a Reaver but more than adequate for a warhound.


Warhounds could actually make it through even smaller gaps. The model itself has quite a range of movement(assembling one is a pain because all the leg joints are fully functional)

In the US and the Middle East it might be a 4 lane road. In my experience, large cities in Europe are dominated by 2 lane roads with the occasional wider road providing primary vehicle routes. This is especially true in the centres of cities that have been around for more than 1,000 years

On the other hand, perhaps all Imperial cities are deliberately created from STC plans requiring wide boulevards specifically to allow Titans to wander around at will.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well, how wide are most streets in large cities?

Usually its a 4 lane road. That's 40 feet just with the lanes. Give another 20 for sidewalks.

Definitely a tight squeeze for a Reaver but more than adequate for a warhound.


Warhounds could actually make it through even smaller gaps. The model itself has quite a range of movement(assembling one is a pain because all the leg joints are fully functional)

The world is not just in the USA.

Most European cities have ring roads which are the major trunk roads which are quite large on the outskirts of the city, must most the city will be small tight and quote crowded. London, Paris, Rome, Warsaw, Budapest etc all are mainly made up of quite narrow roads in the city.

Of course those streets are only narrow because they're streets that have been around for hundreds of years.

Any modern city streets will be significantly larger. Its simply more efficient city planning.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Of course those streets are only narrow because they're streets that have been around for hundreds of years.

Any modern city streets will be significantly larger. Its simply more efficient city planning.

While this is true, it doesn't necessarily mean that all Imperial cities are planned from the start. Also, given that the Imperium has been on some planets for tens of thousands of years, even if the early cities were planned they are likely to have evolved by the 41st Millenium. In my mind Imperial cities will be quite similar to the European city archetype. Mostly a random assortment of buildings and zones that have merged into each other over the years and grown organically driven more by tradition and a complex interplay of vested interests, interspersed with areas of properly planned urban infrastructure where a handy war has flattened the area allowing things to start from scratch again.

Possibly, although a Hive City would probably remain planned. The slums outside the city on the other hand would be different. But then the Titan would just crush them as it walked.

Yeah, it's important to remember that, amount of land available notwithstanding, the USA is a very modern nation compared to those of ye olde Europe, and thus its cities are also by comparison very modern.

It's also important to remember that our cities predate the industrial revolution and the age of the automobile, where roads were originally built for horse-and-carriage transport only. They've had to grow and expand in order to keep up with cars, trains, aeroplanes, etc. And we've only been at it 2-3000 years. Many worlds of the Imperium will be settled and colonised well after the existence of heavily industrialised transportation, star ships and Titans, and those which weren't have been growing and evolving for 40,000 years in order to keep up!

With this in mind, it's not surprising when you take something like a Titan and find it unsuitable for roaming London 2013.

While they may be settled after industrialised transportation, they will not necessarily still be in that state. A relatively new colony likely will be, but anything older will have to deal with the fact that in the 20,000 years since colonisation (assuming pre-imperium), the planet has possibly reverted to barbarism, had streets that follow the route the cows go to market (like Edinburgh) suffered earthquakes and had the town centre demolished with artillery and re-built (like Lisbon) had massive monuments to the ego of some planetary govener put in the most imposing and least useful place and then torn down or expanded into a cathedral that takes up all the flat land. Add in fire, orbital bombardment, overpopulation, the fact that the Imperium as a whole doesn't seem particularily interested in the automobile, re-zoning, climate change, alien invasion etc. and it would be a miracle if the city has anything that even approximates a grid layout for long. And cities, regardless of what a wargame board tells you, are virtually never going to be FLAT - there will be hills, mountains etc. which buildings and roads must go around, unless a major land flattening program is undertaken. Or maybe they are flat, built on reclaimed ground but the ground conditions are fairly rubbish below the surface (like a lot of Belfast) and your titan will just sink as roads don't tend to have piles.

Then some governor will get sick of the whole mess, flatten the bits of the city that are in the way and re-build.

Hive cities, especially, are utterly unplanned. The underhive of Necromunda is only navigable by foot, hence the use of pack slaves by the guilders. It's rumoured that the remains of the original colony ships are still down there, somewhere.

That was the bit of hive cities that I always find a bit of a contradiction. The underhive is always noted as being a random amalgamation of spaces and structures that have grown over the millenia, often subject to random and unexpected collapse. How then does this horror story of a foundation support a 10 mile high tower? I expect it all boils down to suspensors, adamantium and "plascrete" as usual

Probably because its not the major structural supports collapsing. Its all the extra crap that people built down there after the main hive was constructed.

Think of it like a basement having tons of massive pillars supporting the above building. Over the years, people have built additional smaller constructions in that massive space. Those are what occasionally collapse.

I loved the pic Gogsnik. That is the best visual representation that I have seen.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Probably because its not the major structural supports collapsing. Its all the extra crap that people built down there after the main hive was constructed.

Think of it like a basement having tons of massive pillars supporting the above building. Over the years, people have built additional smaller constructions in that massive space. Those are what occasionally collapse.

There are references to whole domes collapsing and its the domes that are references as being the fundamental building block. I just think 10 mile high towers need a bit more planning than "hey, lets just build on top of this thing".

 Flinty wrote:
That was the bit of hive cities that I always find a bit of a contradiction. The underhive is always noted as being a random amalgamation of spaces and structures that have grown over the millenia, often subject to random and unexpected collapse. How then does this horror story of a foundation support a 10 mile high tower? I expect it all boils down to suspensors, adamantium and "plascrete" as usual

SPACE MAGIC

From the original Confronation background, it was mentioned that Plascrete allowed a whole new way of building things, using a system of domes layered on top of each other (which is a fairly strong system, essentially relying on arches and compression). Of course, you won't have any flat floors, so some pillars and slabs will be in order but these won't be primary structure.

Collapsing domes is what causes a hivequake but there must be a hell of a lot of redundancy in these things. Looking at the shape of them, they seem to conform to the good 'ole middle thirds rule pretty well. Which is about the level of structural knowledge I'm willing to credit the original authors with