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.

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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
snip

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.

 Galas wrote:

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.