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.

Let me start this off.
I zoggin love real robots.
From armored trooper votoms to james cameron's avatar, i can't get enough of these mecha.

But let me preface my coming arguments and thoughts with what i consider “real robot” as the term is very broad and not everyone understands the concept.

Real robots are robots that are based more on realism (robotech,battletech,gundam,pacific rim 1,escaflowne,titanfall) compared to super robots that focus less on realism and more on super hero physics (mazinger z,big o,power rangers,g gundam,pacific rim 2). Real robot media sometimes also focuses on the logistics and repair of mecha as well as the war and mechas use in war, while super robots often go into “monster of the week” type plots and fantastical called out attacks and physics defying stunts.

Everyone will have a different idea about what fits into the real robot genre. For me this genre ranges from power armor all the way to piloted mecha and even drones. Also while realism is important in the genre it can have technologies that aren't required to be explained by science,but has to have a veneer of following science or making sense within the setting (even if that setting is a fantasy one,like the anime escaflowne).

everyone has their own opinions on what are good real robot settings. Personally i prefer real robots that don't exceed the 30ft(10 meters) range and can be scaled down all the way to the height of a man (whether it be a drone or power armor). And i have a preference for settings that have more sensical movement for these warmachines. I hate the trope of mecha that are pretty much “jet fighters and spaceships with legs”, i much prefer the mech to actually use its legs with occasional jump jetting (like battlemechs) or skating (like heavy gears).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whew,that was a lot to just start this post,but not everyone knows the terms,and many who do have different preferences than me.
My love of the real robot genre is only frustrated by the rarity of examples (even though japan pretty much started the real rtobot genre, the current anime trend is filled to the brim with isekai and shonen) and those settings that don't follow the trope very well (the setting of gundam pretty much started the real robot genre but many series have progressively become more and more super robot in nature).
The only media format outside of anime that has any significant amount of real robot tropes is the wargaming scene. From battletech to 40k we have a plethora of more western concepts of real robots.

I have my own flaws in viewing the real robot genre. I'm picky and im stubborn. I'm stubborn that i think the real robot genre can be based in science despite many who say “tanks will always be better” or “the square cube law disagrees with you”. But Im picky in that i still have issues with the “hand waving” of many real robot settings where many might say to turn my brain off since the mechs are using “the rule of cool”.

But what i plan to do is honor the “good” examples of real robots (sprinkled with some critique). If there's an example of a real robot that i didn't cover then feel free to tell me and i'll cover it,whether i think it's a good example or not and why i think so based on my picky and stubborn point of view

-------------------------------------------to honor the machine------------------------------------------------
In the following posts i will cover good and bad examples of real robots and their settings. Go ahead and ask for me to review any mechs i haven't covered yet or want to discuss my opinion of ones i've already covered (that is if you find my opinion worth any salt). For now i'll cover 3 wargame settings’ mechs (also to justify putting this in the dakka discussion).

40k is filled with many examples of real robots and even examples of super robots. To try to shorten my 1st post i will only cover my favorite examples from this setting.

The imperium of man has many good examples but while the slow ponderous titans are “real” in that they aren't super fast or agile and that they can justify their existence since they have shield technology that allows them to exist without being insta gibbed by any tank or fighter jet, but in all practicality the same shield tech on massive tanks will create the same level of battlefield usefulness, if not more.
i was thinking of using the space marine dreadnought as the best of mankind's real robots, and i have much respect for the box on legs (i especially have a soft spot for cyborgs),but many of these boxes on legs aren't very practical. Their cost to mke doesn't jive well with their slow ponderous nature and the tendency to be used in melee combat (even in the wargame itself the only good versions are those who dropped their power fists and are loaded with guns). Nope,the best real robot of the imperium is the lowly imperial guard sentinel.
The sentinel is a lightly armoured mech that focuses on speed and being an all terrain scout vehicle, and when it fights it uses very efficient long ranged weapons that compliment its scout role and use in hit and run tactics. It's upgradeable to allow many battlefield rolls from being light with an open canopy to max its speed, or extra armor to help protect the pilot when a laser brawl is most needed. The only issue i have with this machine is how its piloted. Basic pedal or joystick controls isn't enough to explain how a sentinel is able to move fluidly over terrain (if anyone knows more advanced lore then feel free with letting me know).

Gears=the universe of heavy gear is a great example of real robot and combined warfare. the eponymous gears are not the end all be all of conflicts, playing the roll of armored combat vehicles instead of main battle tanks, in fact there are tanks and hovercraft in the setting and about any type of unit for warfare and the gears just fit nicely in a specific battlefield roll. Their ability to "skate" is reserved for the terrain that is smooth enough for it, and they come in multiple sizes and weight classes that make for varied mecha within that size sweet spot that i think mecha should be in (around 30ft/10 meters tall).
Heavy Gear has many similarities to the armored trooper votoms anime (seeing as that heavy gear was inspired by it), and both settings have very grounded conflicts and action and makes for a good argument to strive to have mechs in our current military.

protomech=in a galaxy full of massive giant warmachines the clans created one of my favorite types of real robots that left an impression on me when i would read my brothers battletech technical readouts when i was young.
these warmachines were an answer to the issue of clan smoke jaguar having a resource scarcity in the midst of the war with the inner sphere. even if you had enough protomechs to equal the tonnage of a light mech the protos would still be cheaper and with equivalent firepower in smaller harder to hit packages.
one of the best things about the protomechs development was figuring out their pilot system. such a small mech was difficult to get a traditional cockpit in there and even specially bred clan warriors, to be small, couldn't fit in the cramped cockpit. The answer to this crucial design flaw was the enhanced imaging system. pretty much lacing the skin of failed clan bred aerospace pilots with nerve connected cybernetics. now the pilots could be put in fetal positions in the small cockpit and their neural interface would give them unparalleled control of their new mechs (the mech becoming a second body to the pilots).
the pilots would be teamed up to work in tight nit lances to take down much larger battlemechs. and even massive assault mechs would be hard pressed when they fight speedy protomechs taking full use of cover rich environments.
while many fans of battletech aren't fans of the protos (to be fair, their designs, based on mythical creatures, could look pretty goofy), but i see these real robots as the pinnacle of what military mecha should strive to be.

Have any settings you want me to cover or specific mechs then just ask in this thread and ill answer and we can discuss. Real robots need to be praised (but also critiqued). Let's get a discussion started. (any new reviews will be added to this post under a spoiler)(i will even talk about power armors and drones).

--------------------------------------common critiques of real robots-----------------------------------------
My answer to these critiques helps mold my opinions on real robots. Feel free to ask or discuss me on any of these points.



--------------------------------links to images of discussed or mentioned real robots---------------------

Love the topic - the post could have maybe been organized a bit better, but I read "most" of it. While I've never had the money or source to follow as much anime as I like, I have noted a serious drop in mecha related animes...at least ones that aren't overly cute or "too anime" if that makes sense (God bless 'em they know how to make animation...but the stories in 80% of the anime I watch are...awful).

I grew up a Robotech fan (oddly via the RPG books picked up at my local used book store). It's probably my favourite IP. It's old enough now though that most people I run into haven't even heard of it. I occasionally caught the show on sci-fi channels, and even went so far as to spend some of my high school paycheck on VHS copies of the tapes when I could (paying $20 for a two-episode tape is a lot to ask when it has 86 episodes...). Later in college I managed to finally get the full series on DVD.

As a kid, I found Battletech more available, and also just spent ages pouring over the 3025 and 3050 technical readouts. I was amused at the number of borrowed mechs (the now "unseen" or whatever), but I wasn't complaining. I read a crap ton of Battletech novels, and I enjoyed the vast difference between the two IPs. The Battletech stuff spoke more to my military history side - the grittier, slower, crappier tech...it was far more believable than Robotech's setting. I appreciated that. So Battletech and Robotech were probably my two main squeezes.
______________________________

Curious to see where this discussion goes.

Practical combat mecha need to be small enough to go where most cars could, because most of our infrastructure is built for cars. This puts the practical limit somewhere near 4 meters in height, to negotiate things like parking garages and factory loading docks.

At 10 meters, units will struggle to get effective cover from residential buildings, especially on the move. That really restricts your effective combat area for your mecha. You could probably get away with 5-6m mecha in those areas.

Personally I feel you could have a look at Supreme Commander for some utterly wonderful mech designs. While technically all drones (except for the ACUs obviously) they are large enough to be able to incorporate crew with little issue.

A monkeylord deviates from the human form rather nicely, while having powerful firepower and being a pretty interesting warmachine in a lot of battlefields. The Aeon Colossus is in effect a 40K titan, slow, powerful with plenty of firepower.

But perhaps the most interesting to my mind is the ACU itself, not made for doing all that much fighting like the other mechs listed but the capacity to salvage and build it's own drones, factories and defensive fortifications is something fairly interesting in the context of a war spanning countries, worlds and galaxies. Send a single dude in, a couple hours later he has a beachhead. A little later he has superweapons. Kinda awesome if placed in the universes you have mentioned previously.

Sorry, but no. The square cube law is just one part of the problem, they would also have massive ground pressure issues and paper-thin armor compared to a tank of similar mass. Add in crippling stability issues, a high and easily targeted profile, etc, and there is no justification for anything larger than power armor (which works despite its flaws because of the need to interact with a human-scale and human-shaped world).

 John Prins wrote:
Practical combat mecha need to be small enough to go where most cars could, because most of our infrastructure is built for cars. This puts the practical limit somewhere near 4 meters in height, to negotiate things like parking garages and factory loading docks.

At 10 meters, units will struggle to get effective cover from residential buildings, especially on the move. That really restricts your effective combat area for your mecha. You could probably get away with 5-6m mecha in those areas.

understandable. my 30ft/10meter range is a guideline for the largest a mech should be. plenty of mechs are much shorter in science fiction. votoms are around the 15ft area,and landmates (appleseed) are even smaller and are types of pseudo power armors and would work great in urban warfare and be able to fit in parking garages and fit in between some alleys.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sorry, but no. The square cube law is just one part of the problem, they would also have massive ground pressure issues and paper-thin armor compared to a tank of similar mass. Add in crippling stability issues, a high and easily targeted profile, etc, and there is no justification for anything larger than power armor (which works despite its flaws because of the need to interact with a human-scale and human-shaped world).

i figured it wouldn't take long for a detractor like his to come in.
maybe you didn't read my "critiques of mechs" section, or maybe i didn't explain it well enough.
1.squar cube law works with mechs i have explained in the size range below 30ft/10meters as many real world counterparts work in this limit (elephants/tall construction vehicles/heck dinosaurs existing kinda prove my point unless we accept the hand waving paleontologists use)
2.ground pressure. the smaller mech is able to better handle ground pressure better than a behemoth and can be purposefully designed work with its weight. urban environments and mountains have harder ground and surfaces that work fairly well with my proposed real robots (they aren't designed to fight in the desert dunes or soft soil or mud,they are urban/dense cover fighters).
3.armor would be equivalent of combat vehicles of similar mass. the bradley fighting vehicle is not as armored or survivable as a tank,but it has to be fast to work with its battlefield role. a mech has enough armor to fight in an urban environment and can use local coverage to compensate for anything stronger.
4.stability will be solved with neural link. a pilot will need some getting used to the new weight and balance,but will acclimate better than a pilot trying to control an advanced computer system. it will be his 2nd skin, and thus easier to keep balance and stand back up after falling down/going prone.
5.the higher profile of the mech is not much a concern in the right environment. vertical profile isn't such a disadvantage in urban warfare and in fact the low profile of tanks can actively hamper their usefulness (in urban warfare height advantage is often crucial).
6.power armor is a great future war wpn and if it's not too heavy it can be used in cqc environments. the mech is the infantry support vehicle hidden in the alley with a heavy machine gun that can pound the enemy in a motel.

i hope this clears up any ground i didn't cover.

I grew up on Robotech and Battletech, so that's the sort of mechs I expect in my sci-fi.

Currently, we're seeing lumber walkers, which are just metal frames, industrial cutters and a cockpit, and I expect the first "mechs" of that caliber we'll see will 6-legged or 4-legged machines up to the size of the walkers from the clone wars. Military wise, used for building infrastructure in wierdly accessible places, then transports and into use as mobile artillery.

I don't think we'll see military mechs much larger than amp suits and are more likely to see the exoskeleton frames (with perhaps more armor) of Edge of Tomorrow come into use in combat situations.

geargutz wrote:
1.squar cube law works with mechs i have explained in the size range below 30ft/10meters as many real world counterparts work in this limit (elephants/tall construction vehicles/heck dinosaurs existing kinda prove my point unless we accept the hand waving paleontologists use)

There is a great deal of difference between fairly static construction equipment and a walking armored vehicle. The square cube law doesn't put an upper limit on the size of any constructed object, it limits the ability to use certain shapes as you scale up in size. And the average bipedal walking gun platform is guilty of using those shapes.

2.ground pressure. the smaller mech is able to better handle ground pressure better than a behemoth and can be purposefully designed work with its weight. urban environments and mountains have harder ground and surfaces that work fairly well with my proposed real robots (they aren't designed to fight in the desert dunes or soft soil or mud,they are urban/dense cover fighters).

Urban areas also have basements/sewers/etc underneath the surface that can be potential hazards if you step too hard and break through the roof. And I don't think you appreciate how much excessive ground pressure can break through even paved surfaces. Granted, this is much less of a problem for something like a 40k Sentinel where it's essentially a small car with legs and not trying to be a full-size tank, but for something like titans it's a huge issue.

3.armor would be equivalent of combat vehicles of similar mass. the bradley fighting vehicle is not as armored or survivable as a tank,but it has to be fast to work with its battlefield role. a mech has enough armor to fight in an urban environment and can use local coverage to compensate for anything stronger.

Armor absolutely would NOT be equivalent because the geometry is not equivalent. A tank of similar mass has a much smaller total surface area to cover in armor, which means the same mass of armor will be much thicker. A walker has to spread its armor mass across a much larger surface area, giving it much weaker protection than the tank.

4.stability will be solved with neural link. a pilot will need some getting used to the new weight and balance,but will acclimate better than a pilot trying to control an advanced computer system. it will be his 2nd skin, and thus easier to keep balance and stand back up after falling down/going prone.

Stability is not just a matter of control, it's a matter of being able to keep the walker upright at all. A typical walker design has a high center of gravity and a small footprint, so it doesn't take much angular displacement for its center of gravity to move outside its footprint and for gravity to suddenly start pulling it even farther off balance until it falls over. For example, what if the walker gets hit by enemy fire and knocked backwards? A tank isn't going to tip over, a walker may or may not have sufficient leg strength and reaction speed to avoid falling over and being destroyed. Even something as simple as having a foot punch through a weak spot in the ground and cause the walker to stumble could be a fatal event.

5.the higher profile of the mech is not much a concern in the right environment. vertical profile isn't such a disadvantage in urban warfare and in fact the low profile of tanks can actively hamper their usefulness (in urban warfare height advantage is often crucial).

Height absolutely is a concern. Larger frontal profile means being easier to shoot, and the best defense when anti-tank weapons are effective is to not get shot at in the first place. I have no idea why you'd think that this is not the case.

 Peregrine wrote:

There is a great deal of difference between fairly static construction equipment and a walking armored vehicle. The square cube law doesn't put an upper limit on the size of any constructed object, it limits the ability to use certain shapes as you scale up in size. And the average bipedal walking gun platform is guilty of using those shapes.
Urban areas also have basements/sewers/etc underneath the surface that can be potential hazards if you step too hard and break through the roof. And I don't think you appreciate how much excessive ground pressure can break through even paved surfaces. Granted, this is much less of a problem for something like a 40k Sentinel where it's essentially a small car with legs and not trying to be a full-size tank, but for something like titans it's a huge issue.
Armor absolutely would NOT be equivalent because the geometry is not equivalent. A tank of similar mass has a much smaller total surface area to cover in armor, which means the same mass of armor will be much thicker. A walker has to spread its armor mass across a much larger surface area, giving it much weaker protection than the tank.
Stability is not just a matter of control, it's a matter of being able to keep the walker upright at all. A typical walker design has a high center of gravity and a small footprint, so it doesn't take much angular displacement for its center of gravity to move outside its footprint and for gravity to suddenly start pulling it even farther off balance until it falls over. For example, what if the walker gets hit by enemy fire and knocked backwards? A tank isn't going to tip over, a walker may or may not have sufficient leg strength and reaction speed to avoid falling over and being destroyed. Even something as simple as having a foot punch through a weak spot in the ground and cause the walker to stumble could be a fatal event.
Height absolutely is a concern. Larger frontal profile means being easier to shoot, and the best defense when anti-tank weapons are effective is to not get shot at in the first place. I have no idea why you'd think that this is not the case.

Yep,now i know you haven't been practicing any reading comprehension. Every issue you bring up has been addressed.
You've actively ignored my explanations as to what types of mecha are good designs and their role in combat.
I don't expect walking tanks, i expect walking infantry support vehicles. Heck i even talked about 40k titans and sentinels in my original post as bad and good examples of real robots.
take this discussion seriously instead of spewing the same types of arguments that pop up in every “are mechs practical” discussion. Ive have addressed the main issues that come up in those discussions and you have gone right to “your wrong” instead of “maybe i should see if he has a point”.

Then again, as someone mentioned, mechs would likely not be purely bipedal but instead have 4 or even 6 legs. Depending on the size of the mech, the shape of the legs and the resulting surface area having more legs could assist with the possibility of becoming mired or breaking a weaker surface. Much like a tank spreads it's weight across wider treads. It also would assist with the balance issue mentioned, granting more stability.

A spiderlike configuration may not have the pure style points of these massive bipedal walkers, but I think we can all agree that Zoids were freaken awesome.

geargutz wrote:
Every issue you bring up has been addressed.

And your explanations don't work. Sorry, but mechs are never going to be a good idea.

cody.d. wrote:
Then again, as someone mentioned, mechs would likely not be purely bipedal but instead have 4 or even 6 legs. Depending on the size of the mech, the shape of the legs and the resulting surface area having more legs could assist with the possibility of becoming mired or breaking a weaker surface. Much like a tank spreads it's weight across wider treads. It also would assist with the balance issue mentioned, granting more stability.

A spiderlike configuration may not have the pure style points of these massive bipedal walkers, but I think we can all agree that Zoids were freaken awesome.

Zoids are cool.spider robots are cool (ghost in the shell have many great real robot examples)
But i firmly believe neural linked pilots to humanoid mecha is the quickest way to produce skilled combat mecha (a unique 4 legged or 6 legged mech takes intense programming,though boston dynamics have made great strides in this field https://www.google.com/search?q=boston+dynamics&client=firefox-b-1-d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizlPSdgMDiAhXtoFsKHbT4DGoQ_AUIECgD&biw=1062&bih=662), but the issue will always be ai drone verses piloted humanoid in that the soldier pilot is more efficient in combat than any type of programmed machine (until the point we reach super programming and get past our ai robot phobias and produce combat ai that is more skilled then humans).
But i wonder if it would be possible to make a system like the “robot jocks” russian bot that uses 4 synchronized forward facing legs (maybe program when the soldier moves one inner leg the opposite side outer leg will move as well,creating a unique gate that soldiers would have to get used to,but not impossible)
Robot jocks 4 legged russian bot (obviously too massive for a good real robot,but a smaller 20ft tall version with wider feet with neural linked pilot could be pretty good)
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ja51IYJlbws/SedRT9bw4BI/AAAAAAAABXQ/EcfMHzz2C_U/s400/robot3.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/9e/82/0f/9e820f1e41486d123a86ea969d78a846--robot-factory-robot-art.jpg

 Peregrine wrote:


And your explanations don't work. Sorry, but mechs are never going to be a good idea.

Well im sorry your not willing to use imagination to see my vision. But we will have to agree to disagree.

To an extent. A trained soldier vs an AI is a long discussion in it's own right. Balancing a lot of different variables of humanity vs hard coded response, fatigue of the mind vs the in-adaptability of programming.

The sad fact is, the bipedal human form is pretty inefficient. Our claim to fame in the animal Kingdom is our intelligence and our ability to walk long distances due to the structure of our hips. Besides those two factors other animals beat us in almost every way, meaning an upsized robot or drone would likely have a host of benefits as a fighting vehicle.

cody.d. wrote:
To an extent. A trained soldier vs an AI is a long discussion in it's own right. Balancing a lot of different variables of humanity vs hard coded response, fatigue of the mind vs the in-adaptability of programming.

The sad fact is, the bipedal human form is pretty inefficient. Our claim to fame in the animal Kingdom is our intelligence and our ability to walk long distances due to the structure of our hips. Besides those two factors other animals beat us in almost every way, meaning an upsized robot or drone would likely have a host of benefits as a fighting vehicle.

True,humans are rarely perfect. Soldiers have to go through a lot,but as of now we are nowhere close to having combat efficient computers or ais (though further research and development will improve this over time to eventually be better then a soldier,unless we unlock the potential to upgrade our minds with cybernetics).
Also,the biggest issue will always be trust and public opinion. Hackers will become sought after resources to hack machines that are only loyal when it's programing says to follows orders. Switch the “owner” in the programming and you have machines that switched sides.
Also ,like i've pointed out, there is a social stigma against combat ai (blame terminator/battlestar galactica/etc for this). This isn't only just the common populace but also generals who will most likely prefer their trained soldiers in charge of these machines rather than an advanced program that can be corrupted/hacked.

In all likelihood the first mechs or combat robots will be small dog sized things or tanks who are dropped into an area and programmed to shoot every human heat signature/silhouette in a predetermined area then either shut down or self destruct. Like fire and forget missiles that leave infrastructure in tact.

Humans are trying to move further and further away from having soldiers in combat with each passing year. Though we may end up with something like Mechanicus Kastelans.

 Peregrine wrote:

geargutz wrote:
Every issue you bring up has been addressed.

And your explanations don't work. Sorry, but mechs are never going to be a good idea.

It's the usual ignorance.

The real problem is that any technology that would allow a mecha design to overcome the physical limitations that make them physically impossible, would be even better served in improving designs and performance of existing armored vehicles. It's the problem of the whole Battletech handwave. Myomer only being useful in robots is what allows the mechs to dominate the field, with armored vehicles and the like being relegated to minor roles. But if you were looking at it as actual technology, the actual uses it could be put to improving existing military design would again, leave the awesome big robots impractical and uncompetitive.

 Bookwrack wrote:

The real problem is that any technology that would allow a mecha design to overcome the physical limitations that make them physically impossible, would be even better served in improving designs and performance of existing armored vehicles. It's the problem of the whole Battletech handwave. Myomer only being useful in robots is what allows the mechs to dominate the field, with armored vehicles and the like being relegated to minor roles. But if you were looking at it as actual technology, the actual uses it could be put to improving existing military design would again, leave the awesome big robots impractical and uncompetitive.

Let me be very clear here.
I'm not advocating replacing a tank, i'm advocating producing urban infantry support vehicles. Tanks are not good in these roles.
Also the tech i have brought up in neurals links is not at all useful for anything that isn't a humanoid form. Our minds are adapted to our physical form and will more quickly adapt to a neural interface with a bipedal machine.
I have not suggested mechs that beat out tanks. If your going to go the same way as Peregrine
And ignore all my points then i'll have to agree to disagree with you as well.

cody.d. wrote:
In all likelihood the first mechs or combat robots will be small dog sized things or tanks who are dropped into an area and programmed to shoot every human heat signature/silhouette in a predetermined area then either shut down or self destruct. Like fire and forget missiles that leave infrastructure in tact.

Humans are trying to move further and further away from having soldiers in combat with each passing year. Though we may end up with something like Mechanicus Kastelans.

i see one very big problem with that type of machine. as soon as it shoots up a house filled with non combatants then it will be questioned if it would've been better to send in humans.
if a dog robot is going to be an indiscriminate killing machine that explodes then we might as well use missiles and artillery. many soldiers are getting trained for cqc and urban combat because indiscriminate destruction is not as viable as it used to be.

Try and 'disgree' all you want. It doesn't make you any less wrong on a fundamental level.

Like blabbing about neural links. Nobody cares what in-game justification you give for made up technology. that has no correlation to actual real world tech.

 Bookwrack wrote:
Try and 'disgree' all you want. It doesn't make you any less wrong on a fundamental level.

Like blabbing about neural links. Nobody cares what in-game justification you give for made up technology. that has no correlation to actual real world tech.

I'm only going to respond to you this last time unless you want to have an actual productive discussion.
But science is quickly improving. The people of ww2 can barely believe how far we came in all out technology. It's only a matter of time till mechs are a reality despite your disbelief and lack of imagination.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171127135811.htm
http://news.mit.edu/2017/brain-controlled-robots-0306

Part of the problem may be the OP makes a lot of assumptions about the reader's familiarity with certain concepts and mech designs/backgrounds while simultaneously being quite hard to read, which probably isn't helping in guiding the discussion.

The bigger problem is that mechs are a really cool sci-fi concept but ultimately really bad in practice and there's just not a lot you can do to fix that. The problems are fundamental to the design and concept and, as already pointed out, any near-future technological advancement that might aid in the design and production of mechs is likely to offer much greater advantages to non-mech combat units too. Issues like your combat silhouette are literally of life-or-death importance in combat so mechs simply don't work on that basis alone.

Any military that can develop a mech is a military with enough logistical and financial support to deploy combined arms forces where required. So you don't need to worry about dealing with heavily entrenched forces in an urban environment when you can just send in the choppers or cruise missiles to deal with them. Or you can simply invest much less money in developing man-portable weapon systems that can deal with those sorts of battlefield problems if they become a real-world problem. I think what we'll most likely see is some attempts to design powered armour because there the advantages are quite clear - increased combat load, improved protection for the soldier, better integration of targeting and surveillance systems and so on. The problem at the moment is we still don't have efficient and light enough power supplies for these suits and we haven't quite figured out the engineering problems required to make a set of powered armour sufficiently easy to use and mobile.

What universe do things like the MadCat and Thor
live in?
I loved the early Mechwarrior games especially #3.

A mech or robot doesn't need to be the best solution to be applied. 1st world armies place a ton of restrictions on military weapons use for a variety of reasons- avoiding civilian casualties usually.
Cluster bombs and unguided weapons are much cheaper to produce than million dollar guided smart missiles but are politically undeployable, because heaven forbid the civilians in the nation you are invading (for liberty) get blown up.

Now we are seeing that drones are less effective- there is a psychological component to war. Enemy combatants getting killed by drone strikes at weddings reinforces that the superpower at play is a coward and galvanises resistance.

If said superpower instead a deployed a massive bipedal manned robot with a flamethrowing chainsaw and a flag on it's back which totally crushed the enemy training camps while playing heavy metal, it's harder to argue they didn't win that one with military force and strength of arms.

If the enemy can be persuaded to surrender, it mimimises total casualties (on both sides) and demoralises other enemy forces in a way that simply blowing them up won't do.

Slipspace wrote:
Part of the problem may be the OP makes a lot of assumptions about the reader's familiarity with certain concepts and mech designs/backgrounds while simultaneously being quite hard to read, which probably isn't helping in guiding the discussion.
.

my apologies if how i write is hard to understand. i often fall victim to "word vomit".
as long as those who participate want to have a nuanced discussion then im willing to listen to them. but from my perspective i've seen so many threads where peeps just brush off the concept of combat mecha. they are so hard headed and unable to think outside the box (thinking outside the tank in this case lol).

tech is always advancing. i'm thinking tech possible within the next few decades. i'm not gonna go right to thinking we can do shields and anti grav systems, but thinking of what we will potentially have.
-improved batteries for power sources.
-neural interfaces for advanced control
-cheaper and better hydraulics or even reactive metals for the mechs muscles
-and better anti rpg countermeasures

ill acknowledged this will all benefit every other combat vehicle (maybe except the metal muscles and neural link), but this whole time ive been arguing for a unique battlefield role that compensate for what we are unable to deal with currently (i mean we can deal with it, we just have to risk the lives of many soldiers to do it). power armored infantry to help deal with cqc and the mech for streetside infantry support that is flexible and able to move more or less like a soldier (using buildings/vehicles/brick fences as cover).

this is my vision. i love real robots and i think that it's definitely a possibility. it's just there are so many hard headed "tank be best" nuts out there who just shoot down hopefuls like me all the time.

also part of the purpose of this thread (besides combat mech discussion) is to honor and talk about our favorite real robots.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratius wrote:
What universe do things like the MadCat and Thor
live in?
I loved the early Mechwarrior games especially #3.

That will be battletech.
It's the same universe where I talked about protomechs.

geargutz wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Part of the problem may be the OP makes a lot of assumptions about the reader's familiarity with certain concepts and mech designs/backgrounds while simultaneously being quite hard to read, which probably isn't helping in guiding the discussion.
.

my apologies if how i write is hard to understand. i often fall victim to "word vomit".
as long as those who participate want to have a nuanced discussion then im willing to listen to them. but from my perspective i've seen so many threads where peeps just brush off the concept of combat mecha. they are so hard headed and unable to think outside the box (thinking outside the tank in this case lol).
.

In the interests of avoiding future disappointment, I'll just point out here that most of the resistance you're experiencing isn't about people not being able to "think outside the box" but it's about people who've given this at least as much thought as you have and concluded that your core proposal is simply not workable. That's how the real world works - sometimes cool ideas fall down due to lacking an actual application or because of a fundamental flaw in their design. It's not about being hard-headed, it's about understanding some basic principles of how engineering and physics work alongside how combat works now and is likely to evolve in the future.

For example, you still haven't adequately explained what the purpose of a combat mech would be and why a mech is the best solution to fulfil that purpose over other existing technologies. For example, why is a mech superior to both a tank and a squad of soldiers in an urban combat environment? In a more general sense, how do you overcome the relative lack of armour compared to a tank, or alternatively why is that lack of armour not relevant (planes have less armour than tanks of the same size but it's not a problem for them, but that's because of how they're used)? If the technology to build working combat mechs exists why build them over other things, most obviously powered armour for infantry?

Personally I like the idea that Titans, essentially being cyborgs and totemic personifications of Man's oneness with the Machine, are built despite all of the disadvantages. In other words, religious and moral sensibilities trump technical advantage, particularly when science is at an end-state like it is in 40k when everything that has been discovered and figured out has been, and research is as much archeology as it is library science.

geargutz wrote:
Well im sorry your not willing to use imagination to see my vision. But we will have to agree to disagree.

If I need to use my imagination to see your "vision" then you have failed. Arguments from good engineering don't support your ideas so all you have left is demanding that we suspend disbelief and imagine how cool your fictional mechs would be.

(And, of course, dismissing anyone who doesn't agree with you as "not constructive".)

I'm sorry. You lost me with:

"Real robots are robots that are based more on realism … pacific rim 1..."

Ah, excellent. Another thread where Peregrine comes in to gak all over peoples enthusiasm...as usual. Stellar.

 Elbows wrote:
Ah, excellent. Another thread where Peregrine comes in to gak all over peoples enthusiasm...as usual. Stellar.

Sorry, I thought this was a discussion forum, not a place for ego fluffing anyone who wants to pretend their ideas are "realistic".

 Elbows wrote:
Ah, excellent. Another thread where Peregrine comes in to gak all over peoples enthusiasm...as usual. Stellar.

I think you need to reread the thread. We all like to be down on Peregrine, but this time she wasn't the one sharting the thread.