Infantry Walkers

Hey, I've been lurking on the list for some time and finally have a question.
I am writing a vehicle design program, mostly as an exercise, and have some
questions about Infantry Walkers.

1. Do they have to use FGPs?

2. What does their Mobility Type cost? (ie. Combat Walker is 100% * BVP)

Any help would be appreciated.

> At 04:28 PM 8/18/98 -0500, you wrote:

yes.

> 2. What does their Mobility Type cost?

Undefined in the rules. Jon? Considering their substancially reduced movement,
it should be less.

> Any help would be appreciated.
     **********************************

> Christopher K Smith <smithck@auburn.campus.mci.net> wrote:
That's really nice! Be sure to let us know the URL, thanks!

> 1. Do they have to use FGPs?
Yes. All BattleTech and most manga 'Mechs have Fusion power plants. However,
player's forces could differ. And I do know that the US has been experimenting
with diesel engined walking vehicles. So it would be best to default to FGP,
but allow changing to other types.

> 2. What does their Mobility Type cost?
Depends on the purpose of the infantry walker. Combat or transport. Infantry
walker mobility type is just like regular (size 5) walkers. By the way, all
sizes of walker should be available from size 1, size 2,... size 5 and right
up to size 7 or 8. The size 7 or 8 'Mechs give about
the right feel when you compare mech minis to 1/300 tanks minis.

I'd add the caveat that, like VTOLs and Aerospace fighters you PAY for the FGP
equivalent powerplant, but in your background, call it whatever
you want. Diesel, Diesel-Electric (that'd be a hoot), nuke-cell, fusion,
Heavy Gear Style Impossible Two-stroke..... Whatever.

> ----------

> 1. Do they have to use FGPs?
However,
> player's forces could differ. And I do know that the US has been

Some people have been actually *designing* walking vehicles? Silly...

> On the fine day of 18/8/98 10:28 pm acc@questercorp.com wrote:

> 2. What does their Mobility Type cost?

Well they're not exactly V8's they're some bizzaro two-stroke V shaped
deal that is a first year engineering-student's fantasy. The whole thing
makes my head hurt. But the mini's looked cool....

> ----------

> Andrew Martin wrote:
However,
> player's forces could differ. And I do know that the US has been
I know the Heavy Gear universe uses V8 petrol powered walkers. Low tech stuff!
The costs reflect the specialised mechanical & electrical required, not
necessarily that it's powered by FGPs (although with the armament I mount on
'em, anything less wouldn't work).

'Neath Southern Skies

> Chen-song Qin <cqin@ee.ualberta.ca> wrote:

Yes! Really! Munch Publishing's Military Technology magazine published a
DOD/DARPA conceptual drawing of a four legged walking machine in a
recent
issue and described DOD/DARPA efforts at studying and making it.
There are also several university groups studying walking machines of
various types, including a one-legged hopping machine!

I a have been hashing around a mecha - specific DSII/SGII varient,and I
too feel that other plants could be used for walkers and aeorspace. (after
all, in Evangelon and Patlabor, batteries seem to be poison of choice, and
industrail labors are desil.)

My answer: a new addition to power plants: endurence. A power plant has a set
number of endurence points, depending on type: CFE low, HMT mediumand Fusion
unlimited.

Optimisation can be bought for certianactions:movement, close combat, weapon
combat et al.

Depending on the action, the vehical makes (and is not optamised for that
action),it expends endurence. Once all used up,must be refueled, recharged
etc.

This also allows low tech vtols and aerospace vehicals (their life on the
battlefieldis now limited, just like real life "We are on bingo fuel, but can
do one more straiff beforewe boogie").

Darryl

> Brendan wrote:

> Andrew Martin wrote:
However,
> > player's forces could differ. And I do know that the US has been

> Andrew Martin wrote:

> Yes! Really! Munch Publishing's Military Technology magazine published

     Ah yes, the dreaded pogo stick of doom.   The main problem with
this device is that the main cannon can only be fired when the shock struts
are almost completely compressed to provide more 'virtual
mass' the the unit.   (Add to that, the fact that the drivers have a
very difficult time completing the training, compression back injury is the
most common complaint.)

Bye for now,

Now, University robotics studies I'll believe... but military-style
walking machines? They better be small, or they won't find a
pilot/driver
dumb enough to operate it.

> At 20:05 20/08/98 -0600, you wrote:

"New Scientist" a few weeks ago had a photo of a humanoid robot, built by
Honda, which can walk and climb stairs. Scale it up and call it a Patlabor...

Rob

Heh, scale it up and call it a "deathtrap on legs that no one would want to
drive in a war".

> At 18:57 21/08/98 -0600, you wrote:

I couldn't agree more, but as a giant civilian toy, it would be rather fun.

Rob

I personally like walkers (so I am anime fan). Personally I feel that they are
usefull  in bad terain and forrest/jungles.

My favorite design is the Helldiver from Patlaborthat was an airborne deployed
mecha (I use them as orbitally insert). Garenteed to inspire fear in a SGII
game (and attrack fire so other units can do their thing).

> Rob Paul wrote:

> At 18:57 21/08/98 -0600, you wrote:

Yea, a big walker might be a good sight-seeing vehicle.  Let's the
tourists see cities/landscapes from a height.

I don't know about the mobility part. Two legs are fundamentally unstable
(even humans, much more intricately designed, can stumble in bad terrain) and
need to be much more complex than other mobility types to traverse the same
kind of terrain. Heh, I'd rather have an airborne tank, which would carry much
heavier weapons and armor for its size than a walker.

While I agree that traditional mecha/walkers have severe combat
limitations (to the point of uselesness), I can see a place for Infantry
walkers, given a few assumptions. Within the framework & style of the GZG
universe, these don't seem to outrageous:

Infantry walkers are at least as mobile and dextrous as Powered Armor.
 They would not have to accomodate human limbs inside their limbs - this

would allow a great range of motion. I envision most IWs as roughly humanoid,
with the pilot sitting in the torso, probably very cramped. An IW should be
able to walk, jog, run, crawl, kneel, jump, everything a human can do, or at
least a human in PA. It would need to be of strong enough

material to withstand this kind of punishment as well (I envision my IWs as
being very beat-up looking).  In the game, this would be represented by
an evade capability while moving (run only, probably), and an elimination of
the signature penalty when the IW is not in motion. They would drop prone and
take cover, like infantry. They would be inherently unstable, as all
2-legged vehicles are; yes, they would trip occasionally, but they
should
be of a small enough size (3-5 m?) and tough construction that they
would not be severely damaged by the fall. They would be equipped with soem of
the best defensive suites for their size; APFCs, excellent stealth & ECM

(GMSs is their nemesis), APSWs/SAWs for anti-infantry work, etc.  They
may even be able to participate in close assault more like PA than vehicles.

IW, with the above-mentioned alterations, become a more viable unit.
They are also very expensive for their size and capability, but their mission

would not necessarily be one of front-line combat.  I see them as
support
for aerospace-dropped infantry, or for other light forces.  They would
be effective & mobile in most forms of terrain. They would also be pretty
intimidating to civilian populations, as well.

A few design ideas - points included, for those who use them
Standard IW Size 1, Armor 1R, FGP Power, Combat Walker mobility 11 pts APSW
free
MDC/1                                                   10 pts
SUP Firecon 6 pts
GMS/L/SUP                                               40 pts
APFC 5 pts Stealth 1 20 pts
                                                        92 pts total

Tank Hunter Type 1 Size 1, Armor 1R, FGP Power, Combat Walker mobility 11 pts
APSW free
MDC/2                                                   20 pts
SUP Firecon 12 pts APFC 5 pts Stealth 1 20 pts
                                                        68 pts total

Tank Hunter Type 2 Size 1, Armor 1R, FGP Power, Combat Walker mobility 11 pts
APSW free
GMS/H/SUP                                               60 pts
APFC 5 pts Stealth 1 20 pts
                                                        96 pts total

> Noah Doyle wrote:

Is that the one that traces the development of the 'fighting suit' from
construction origins to super-tech planet-killers?  If it is, yes, I did

read it.  Some of it's super-tech ideas are really neat - no arms or
legs,
just liquid-metal (a la Terminator 2) nubs that extrude any shape
desired, with any articulation. Good conceptual use of remote sensors, and
some neat little artworks.
But as far as GZG-era IWs are concerned, I think they might be viable,
just expensive. In reference to a previous posting, I would keep the mobility
cost of IWs at 100% to compensate for their new mobility (evade when running,
no
walker-sig penalty when not moving).  Without those, IWs probably should

not be costed that high.

Noah

[quoted original message omitted]

> On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, Noah Doyle wrote:

> Infantry walkers are at least as mobile and dextrous as Powered Armor.

> They would not have to accomodate human limbs inside their limbs -
An
> IW should be able to walk, jog, run, crawl, kneel, jump, everything a

Hmmm... do you know how many muscles it takes to perform these actions well
with humans? If you want to do this with some kind of vehicle, there's going
to be a *lot* of moving joints. All of them have to be *very* tough to
withstand the strain, and also have to be very small to fit into the walker.
This is also going to wind up being a mechanical nightmare to maintain and
repair.

> can do, or at least a human in PA. It would need to be of strong

See, if you have some kind of super tough material, why not use it in
large quantities to armor tanks/starships?  That would be much more
effective than the necessarily thin layers you have to put on a walker.

> being very beat-up looking). In the game, this would be represented

I don't see why walkers should get an evade capability. They are in no way
faster or more maneuverable than any other kind of vehicle. (and probably less
so than most) If walkers have an evade capability, other vehicles should have
it too.

> the signature penalty when the IW is not in motion. They would drop

That's going to be another problem. If the walkers can take up prone
positions, that means they have to be able to survive the fall. It's actually
not hard to build a machine that can survive a fall like that. But it's very
hard to find a human pilot who can! The force of the impact will be
transferred into the cockpit, with unpleasant results (especially
when you're in a steel box falling from 3-5 meters).  Unless the pilot
sits in a water tank, he's going to have problems staying intact... The
comment about the "small size" brings another problem. This is a
"small" walker and it's still 3-5 meters, which is as tall or taller
than the largest tanks. I still think the walker signature increase of 1 in
the rules is not nearly enough.

> the best defensive suites for their size; APFCs, excellent stealth &

Given how walkers are arranged in an upright form when they are moving, they
would need far lighter weapons than their squatter counterparts such
as tanks/APCs, for obvious reasons.

> for aerospace-dropped infantry, or for other light forces. They would

Heh, heh, that's one way to use these, riot control against people who've
watched to many anime movies... Until they figure out that these
super-expensive machines can be destroyed with ridiculously low-tech
methods, like rolling logs, tripwires, potholes, etc.

I know this is all supposed to be just fun, but I guess it's the engineer in
me that has to point out all these obvious fatal flaws in design...

Did I mention that one of the US universities has developed several small
insectoid walkers? They look a lot like the ones on the movie "Runaway"?
starring Tom Selleck, some years back. Apparently they are capable of
independent movement without the aid of a computer network tether. A picture
of one of the developers in the Scientific American magazine shows several of
the robots climbing over him. The software they wrote is called subsumption
architecture and was featured in a computing magazine some years back.

By the way, to get right back on topic, is GZG going to make any 1/300
scale insectoid walker vehicles?

> By the way, to get right back on topic, is GZG going to make any 1/300

 I know that C-in-C miniatures makes a 6-legged walker in their sci-fi
line that may be what you are looking for.

> Chen-Song Qin wrote:

I remember reading somewhere of materials that contracted when electric
current ran through them, and relaxed when the current was shut off. I also
remember that they weren't very reliable or strong, but it is conceivable that
these are 'merely' problems of engineering, and not of the actual physics.

I guess my POV is that, if the physics makes it possible, or even probable,
and the only problems are 'engineering' ones, we can let the
science-fiction
take care of that. (So what if we only need to generate a black hole and
drop it into the sun?  Mere engineering trifles.  (8-) )

J.
(Who was bred as a mathematician, so has no concept of reality.)

> At 10:51 24/08/98 -0400, you wrote:
Not necessarily. The human body is a very vertatile mechanical system -
it can crawl, run etc.. If you build a machine to a specific mode of travel it
doesn't need to be as complex. It's entirely possible, I would suggest, to
build something like what Ripley piloted in Aliens if not now, then very soon.
Admittedly it won't be any use for Ballet, but you could stick a big frackin'
gun on it and it'd do as a miltary vehicle. Of course, wjat the distinction
between one of these and power armour is I'm not sure..

> I remember reading somewhere of materials that contracted when electric
Not necessarily. There are some phenomena (like LCD's) which we sort of
understand how they work but as far as being able to generalise their
properties we're at a complete loss about.

> I guess my POV is that, if the physics makes it possible, or even
Typical matchmetician. What's the phrase? 'This would be considered an
undergraduate problem'. I'm instinctively more inclined to believe in a
universe where simply because we think something /might/ be possible
doesn't necessaily mean it is. Scientists can be wrong. As it is I'm more
inclined to believe a walker might use a super-efficient standard
hydraulic system with very fast FBW controls to keep it going rather than some
new miracle polymer.

                                TTFN
                                        Jon

> On Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:51:24 -0400, Jerry Han writes:

I forget what its called, but I've actually built some robots with this stuff.

They were 6 legged insect like things, about an inch long. The legs were made
of piano wire, with the actuators (contracting wire) connected to the front.
Each actuator was then pulsed with electricity, causing the wire to shrink,
and pull the leg forward. As the wire cooled off, it extended back, with the
leg pushing the robot forward.

The robots were VERY slow (inchs an hour) and very light. But this was like 4
years ago.

I think that the first time we see powered armor it will be in a police SWAT
team role. When you have a need for an armored vehicle on the 12th floor of an
apartment complex. for example.

It might not even have an independant power source, getting its power from a
long heavy duty cable.

Because the power requirements are such a hassle, I think the military will be
fairly late in getting power armor. Walkers may prove useful in various rescue
situations, pulling people out of burning or collapsed buildings.

Powered Infantry probably wouldn't have anywhere near the endurance of human
infantry. You can land infantry with a couple of weeks of supplies and not
have to send
helicopters into areas infested with anti-air missiles
every few hours to resupply them. Powered infantry end up looking like the Tin
Woodsmen or Tik Tok after their power source runs down.

> Jonathan White wrote:

Oh, granted. I didn't mean to imply it was always possible, but that it was
conceivable. (The one sure thing about science and technology is that it
always manages to surprise us.)

> >I guess my POV is that, if the physics makes it possible, or even

Actually, the one I heard most often was "It's trivial...", to which I
usually retorted with a shotgun filled with rock salt.  (8-)

> I'm instinctively more inclined to believe in a

Once again, granted. Scientists are, after all, only human.

I guess I take the opposite coin; if a scientist discovers something, then
more than half the time, there's a technical application waiting for it. We in
the present may have no clue what that useful technical application might be,
nor am I making a moral judgement as to the 'value' of that application. But I
think there's a good chance that somebody will find something useful to do
with the discovery.

The example of the wave equation (and PDEs in general) comes to mind.

Okay, I'm waxing WAY to philosophical here.  (8-)

J.

I've got to jump in here: are you guys saying grav technology (not yet
available) is superior to walker technology (using some sort of
electro-motivated fiber tech like in Battletech and some anime)  Both of
them are not available.

Why don't you guys argue who has the best baseball team in the year 2225
;-)

Come on, everyone knows electro-motivated fibers are far more efficient
than grav engines, it's a known fact!

> -----Original Message-----

Chen-Song spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Heh, heh, that's one way to use these, riot control against people

I agree (for similar reasons) that walkers are somewhat unviable vis a vis
effective efficient grav vehicles. Too much weight and space
devoted to locomotion, balance, etc. - whereas a grav tank can devote
that space to armour, ECM, and weapons if grav systems are efficient enough.

Seeing your above comments about logs and tripwires brings back visions of
small furry aboriginal peoples on a green Forest Moon attacking the All
Terrain Combat Walkers of an Evil Empire.... (and
yes, that was played for humor, but most of the tactics would work -
do you remember the one with the two logs, one from each side, that worked
like a nut cracker?). The infantry walker probably appeals to the japanese
anime fans, the BT crowd, and some others. But as a serious combat vehicle,
I'm not sure it will ever fly... or in this case walk.... although I do have
to admit they make cool minis.....

Tom.
/************************************************

In a message dated 98-08-24 16:19:52 EDT, you write:

<< Why don't you guys argue who has the best baseball team in the year 2225
;-) >>

I think the El Centro "Wombats" could win it all that year:)

Mark

> At 03:32 PM 8/24/98 -0500, you wrote:

<blink> <blink>

Of course, current technology is able to work on walker vehicles, but grav
vehicles are something no one has ever been able to demonstrate, so who can
say which is more *efficient*?

[snip]
> The infantry walker probably appeals to

The Heavy Gear crowd. <grin>

> But as a

Actually, I do like Heavy Gear's use of the walkers. It assumes a
reasonably efficient and compact power supply (energy-hungry weapons
have their own batteries, and are scarce anyway) plus the computational power
to figure balance, the "macro" moves, etc, so the pilot isn't doing everything
by hand -- fly-by-electron, or something like that.  (I forget, is
fly-by-wire where you're actually moving the tail flap or whatever, or
is it something else?)

Anyway, Heavy Gear does *not* make Gears the end-all, be-all of weapons
systems, unlike (saaay) Battletech. *In certain conditions* (fairly rough
terrain, heavy jungle, swamp, etc.) where tanks and other
wheeled/tracked
vehicles have trouble operating, Gears allow heavier weapons than just
infantry can carry around. In the open, gears get their butts kicked by tanks.
(Assuming equal points values, of course, and sometimes even when the gears
outnumber the tanks....) Of course, someone may have done the
ritual abuse of the HG construction system to create a super-beastie,
but there are very definitely ways around 'em. I recall hearing of one
super-hovertank that, in the end, lost to an infantry horde because it
didn't have enough anti-infantry ammo... anyway.

Later,

> At 10:29 AM 8/24/98 -0600, you wrote:
[snip]

Well, Jerry's description could be pizeoelectric materials, but your
description (especially the wire part) makes it pretty obvious you're both
talking about a shape/phase memory alloy, most likely Nitinol.  (Or
NiTiNOL, but whatever.) I studied the stuff in a lab at school; pretty
incredible. It's not the electricity that causes the change (aka a hysteresis
loop), though, it's the residual heat. The wire also doesn't fully stretch
back on it's own, but requires an applied force. I don't remember the numbers
that we got exactly, but we were working with 100
micron wire, which needed a mass of about 150-200 grams on the end to
force it to stretch back to it's full length. (That's not the maximum weight
the wire held; I don't remember what that is.) Using a bundle of the things
would do a very good simulation of a muscle while also providing redundancy in
case a few snap. The counter force could, as in the human body, be provided by
a second bundle on the other side of the joint. If anyone wants my lab report
on the topic I could probably dig it up and send it to
you... not sure how enlightening it would be, but you could look. ^_^;

Later,

John spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> I've got to jump in here: are you guys saying grav technology (not

Well, even toss the Grav tech and insert ACV. But I think the GZG universe has
quite clearly demonstrated the presence (and I think the quality) of its Grav
equipment.

> Why don't you guys argue who has the best baseball team in the year

Why, everyone knows, it's the Cubs.....

> Come on, everyone knows electro-motivated fibers are far more

I think the point is, for whatever technology you decide to emplace in walkers
for power plants, your tanks can harness the same power
plant. If you have some sort of fusion or anti-matter plant (a
requirement for energy weapons I'd guess), then they can both use that
technology. But the walker needs complex motors, gyros, control filaments,
etc. in order to accomodate its many times more complex
range of motion (it does have to walk - no mean feat - and stay on
its feet when firing, fired upon, and when experiencing rough terrain during
transit). Whereas the tank doesn't have to perform such mechanically complex
feats. And it doesn't have to donate power, weight, and space to the hardware
to make this work.

But if you like the idea of walking machines, and want to ignore the many ways
they can be killed (more than tanks even!) and their potential engineering
difficulties and associated cost factors, then by all means use them.

Most of these discussion will boil down to "I like this" or "I don't like
this" with some sugar coated reasoning to back up the prejudices
of the people involved. It's a game - that's what its all about.....

Tom.

> At 11:33 PM 8/23/98 -0600, Chen-Song Qin wrote:

Here, I agree with you; walkers that can pull off "everything a human can"
will be very hard to develop.  Variable-speed walkers (walk/jog/run),
jumping, and crawling shouldn't be too hard, though. I'd guess the trickiest
would be crawling, though regaining balance after a jump would be a trick,
too.

> can do, or at least a human in PA. It would need to be of strong

Yeah, but can a tank walk up 15 floors of an office building? Or manuever
around meter-thick trees through heavy underbrush?  How about the rubble
of buildings? Climb a sheer slope? Okay, walkers might not be able to
accomplish all of the above (the office building would probably be too small
anyway, and the climbing may require extra equipment) but a tank doesn't stand
a chance.

> being very beat-up looking). In the game, this would be represented

Can tanks sidestep? Hop from one tread to the other? Stick a gun around a
corner without exposing any other part of itself? (Well, okay, the walker may
lose the arm....)

> That's going to be another problem. If the walkers can take up prone

<blink> Arms? Knees? You don't need to *bellyflop* to a prone position,
y'know.

[snip]
> The comment about the "small size" brings another problem. This is a

Eh. Depends on your view. Using current (1990s) tech, yeah, you're probably
right. Hydraulics are too slow to do much. But later...? Who knows? (See my
other post on Nitinol; it might not be the future for
simulating fast-twitch muscle groups, but something better may come
along.) Anyway, crouching, dodging, etc, should allow a decrease in the
signature.

> the best defensive suites for their size; APFCs, excellent stealth &
They may
> even be able to participate in close assault more like PA than

Humans can run at a crouch; if you want a walker to, you can probably design
one that will.

> they would need far lighter weapons than their squatter counterparts

Yes, but they'll have heavier weapons than infantry... which is why you use
'em in places where tanks can't go, so they don't have to face tanks. (See
other earlier post on Heavy Gear. ^_- )  Of course, this doesn't mean I
won't take advantage of DSII's system, which is (I think) a bit nicer to
walkers than HG is, but....

> for aerospace-dropped infantry, or for other light forces. They

Like rolling logs are easy to find in a city? The others may be a bit easier,
but then a smart commander wouldn't be using the IWs on their own in an urban
environment... ya still need regular gropos as well.

> I know this is all supposed to be just fun, but I guess it's the

Using current tech, sure. Using more advanced materials, who knows? (And for
the record, I'm a materials engineer, currently working on turbine
blades... not robots, but what the heck. ^_- )

Later,

> Aaron Teske wrote:

> At 11:33 PM 8/23/98 -0600, Chen-Song Qin wrote:

Once again you are limiting yourself to current technology. If you can
postulate

mini fusion plants, it shouldn't be a great leap to extrapolate
Superconducting joints that allow micrometer control combined with large
amounts of torque.
All the units could be solid-state with frictionless bearings.  With
that much power you can generate joints, limbs and extenders that move under
magnetic influences driven by superconducting magenets. Using computers to
control the direction and size of the force vector you could achieve a huge
amount of flexibility with
fewer parts - i.e. the rod that makes up the arm would be driven up and
down by magnets, but also could be rotated within its sheath by magnets, thus
eliminating one rotating joint. Since Superconducting magnets can be
fricitonless and
hard-wired into materials, your standard limb might consist of a
titanium rod covered in superconducting material that fits within an armored
sleeve lined with super conducting material. No grease, no tiny electric
motors, few parts to wear out...

> Using current tech, sure. Using more advanced materials, who knows?
(And
> for the record, I'm a materials engineer, currently working on turbine

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998 18:39:34 -0500, Thomas Barclay
<Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> wrote:

> I question this somewhat. Let's take swamp. I'm assuming an armoured

Not only that, could you imagine the noise made by one of these things
traipsing through a forest? You can forget about any kind of stealth. One of
those things running (tripping? falling over logs isn't a problem that tankers
usually worry about) through a forest is just begging any team with a
man-portable anti armour weapon to "come and get it."

Speaking of swamp, swamps are notorious for having soft, porous ground under
all that water (and, of course, a bog is even worse). I'd be willing to bet
that the walker would get into the swamp but not out. Funny enough, this is
how Jon models it in SG2. Walkers can't enter swamps.

> And as for the 'rough terrain' component - if it is craggy or

I'd imagine anti-armour mines would be more of a problem for walkers
than tanks. In fact, I think they'd be problematic for Power Armour, too. I'd
imagine you could build plastic explosive based pressure mines that are
triggered by walker and PA ground pressure. (This brings up the point that
mine detectors might have to be chemical sniffers as opposed to metal
detectors.)

> And apparently the infantry weren't using morale rules either.....

Or they kept under cover until they noticed the darned thing wasn't firing
anymore... :-)

On Mon, 24 Aug 1998 18:52:41 -0500, Thomas Barclay
<Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> wrote:

> I'd like to see something with a big metalic foot like some of the

This happens in the first Robocop movie. The walker bot chasing Robocop ends
up on its back trying to go down a flight of stairs. Thanks, Tom, you got me
chuckling with that image...

> How do these things avoid getting entangled, tripped, wrapped up,

Bingo!

> Of course, current technology is able to work on walker vehicles, but

I suppose you have a point. I'm assuming a certain amount of grav tech
efficiency based on vehicle minis, and rules present in the various FMA
systems. If you didn't have at least a decent efficiency, then they'd not
field grav vehicles. But you are right in the sense that there is some
speculation here.

> Anyway, Heavy Gear does *not* make Gears the end-all, be-all of

I question this somewhat. Let's take swamp. I'm assuming an armoured walker
with heavy weapons would weigh quite a few hundred kilos anyway.... I'd think
that would be problematic in many swamps. Heavy
jungle - I've been in bush way to dense for any walker to pass here
in Canada - and that isn't jungle! There are places that give MEN
problems. I'm assuming in light forest, you might have more mobility than a
tank, but in really tough forest, you'd be SOL just like the
tanks. And as for the 'rough terrain' component - if it is craggy or
boulder strewn or the equivalent, I think your simple act of moving about
becomes far more problematic in a walker. So, whereas I see your point about
heavier weapons for infantry, I don't think a walker has the same range of
operations as infantry alone. I think it could
be good as light airdropped support - giving heavier firepower and
exploitation capability - but only if the power supply lasts a long
long time without refueling. I guess the niche these things could occupy would
not be terribly huge, but their could be places they'd be very useful. I can
see them being deployed for things like base security (extra firepower,
maintenance readily at hand), exploitation manoevres and raids, and in support
of regular infantry who also have tank and air support (just another combined
arm). But I really don't think they want to try operating in a swamp (lots of
moving parts, a
fair amount of weight/surface pressure) or in thickest jungle.

I recall hearing of one
> super-hovertank that, in the end, lost to an infantry horde because it

And apparently the infantry weren't using morale rules either.....

/************************************************

Aaron spake thusly upon matters weighty:

> Here, I agree with you; walkers that can pull off "everything a human

Too right that crawling and ending a jump in anything but a heap would be some
kind of feat.

> Yeah, but can a tank walk up 15 floors of an office building?

I'd like to see something with a big metalic foot like some of the
walker designs use the stairs...or height-wise...and stairwell I've
ever seen.... I'd build buildings just so this WASN'T an issue if I was
building military fortifications.

  Or manuever
> around meter-thick trees through heavy underbrush?

How do these things avoid getting entangled, tripped, wrapped up, etc. in this
thick underbrush?

How about the rubble of
> buildings? Climb a sheer slope? Okay, walkers might not be able to

But if (as you point out) the IW doesn't have much of a chance
either... ???

And if you have grav tech enough to fly, your grav tank can 1. scale the cliff
2. scale the office building 3. fly over the underbrush

> Can tanks sidestep?

Can a walker sidestep energy weapons or fast enough to dodge a GMS? Can they
realistically dodge modern fire control?

Hop from one tread to the other? Stick a gun around a
> corner without exposing any other part of itself? (Well, okay, the

This is one kind of neat idea.... but it would mean a lot of
one-armed IWs....

> Humans can run at a crouch; if you want a walker to, you can probably

Sure. But each extra capability or feature brings with it complexity. And
complexity in this sort of movement (a kinesthetic complexity) translates to
more complex hardware and software which means possibly more weight of
equipment (hence a less efficient design) or more fragile equipment (its doing
more on a pound for pound basis) therefore more succeptible to damage.

> >Heh, heh, that's one way to use these, riot control against people

How about concrete sewer pipe? How about just boulders from a construction
zone or rubbled building? There are plenty of amalgams.
The urban environment would be full of hazards - weakened ground,
manholes, things dropped from buildings or collapsing buildings themselves,
steel cable across the alley, etc. etc.

The others may be a bit
> easier, but then a smart commander wouldn't be using the IWs on their

This I think is sensible.

> Using current tech, sure. Using more advanced materials, who knows?
(And
> for the record, I'm a materials engineer, currently working on turbine

As someone pointed out on the military side, experience in the military does
not grant one an oracular ability to predict what future war will be like
(note that such predictions based on such experience have lead to several
disasters over the course of history). Nor presumably does any of our
engineering backgrounds give us more than some informed speculative power vis
a vis what things will "really" be like in the future. But hey, its all fun to
guess!

Tom.

> On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Jonathan White wrote:

> Not necessarily. The human body is a very vertatile mechanical system

I certainly hope that's not what power armor is like! The walker from Aliens
would be almost useless as a military vehicle... except in
hand-to-hand combat against alien mothers of course :)

> On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:

> Most of these discussion will boil down to "I like this" or "I don't

Well, there we go:)

> You wrote:

> Yeah, but can a tank walk up 15 floors of an office building?

Neither can a walker. Hell, Power Armor may have some difficulty dealing with
small buildings.

Or manuever >around meter-thick trees through heavy underbrush?

Ever since delightful Camp Blanding, FL, my definition of heavy underbrush
includes terrain MEN can't get in or out of. Somehow I
doubt a 4-meter walker will deal with this much better than a
tank--which at least can crush some stuff.

How about the rubble of >buildings? Climb a sheer slope? Okay,

Grav can fly over the rubble, and you can't run a walker up the slope either.

> Can tanks sidestep? Hop from one tread to the other? Stick a gun

Nothing can sidestep an MDC round... And I fail to see how hopping
from one tread to the other is useful--it's supposed to kill people,
not do the hokey-pokey.

> Humans can run at a crouch; if you want a walker to, you can probably

Yeah. And fire weapons?

> Yes, but they'll have heavier weapons than infantry... which is why

My walker design uses GMS/Hs for just this reason--more anti-armor
punch than an infantryman can carry, minimal recoil issues (compared to
something where you can't just vent the backblast).

you use >'em in places where tanks can't go, so they don't have to face
tanks.  (See >other earlier post on Heavy Gear. ^_- )  Of course, this

Except for the NAC, who's infamous Field Marshal *mumble-mumble*
dropped three divisions plus a Polish brigade into the assembly area of a tank
corps. Doh!

But most other generals have a clue.

Note, however that now the Infantry Walkers are restricted to the light
infantry heavy weapons companies. Which means they are competing with
TOW-Hummers (or the future equivelant thereof).  Which cost 67 points
apiece for the GMS/H Superior version.  60 points of which are tied up
in the weapons system. And they've got a small signature without stealthing.
To get the same thing with stealthing costs 141 points. So now the argument
turns to basically restricting these guys to Mountain and Interface (the
orbital version of Airborne) units, right? 'Coz in most terrain HiMob Wheeled
is faster AND cheaper.

> Like rolling logs are easy to find in a city? The others may be a bit

I'm sure we could find something. How about VW Bugs?:)

Here's my bit of "sugar coating."

I see Infantry Walkers as a precursor to Powered Armor. At some point someone
decided the "poor bloody infantry" needed extra protection or heavier weapons
or whatever & was a big comic book or anime fan and so proposed Powered Armor.
Unfortunately, the tech at the time only allowed Infantry Walkers. (I'm
thinking of something like the Combat Walkers from Traveller 2300.) They were
at least as fast as infantry (for short periods), but were better protected &
could carry either heavier weapons or much more ammunition (gatling
machineguns for infantry not in fixed positions becomes feasible.) While they
were vulnerable to IAVRs, they were generally proof against SAWs, APSWs, and
grenades. This made them useful in assaulting fixed positions where infantry
generally got chewed up. This is not to say they didn't take losses, but it
was cheaper to lose an Infantry Walker than it was to lose one of the latest &
greatest IFVs. Walkers also found utility in Urban assaults for the same
reason.

Someone also discovered that Walkers gave your side an edge in boarding
actions. Most ship's crews were hesitant to use weapons that could take out a
Walker, because they usually also made a mess of their ship at the same time.
This niche kept the Infantry Walker program alive, and provided justification
for later Powered Armor development projects.

Here are my 2 cents to add to the pile,

The graphic novel "Appleseed" had a pretty good rationale for large
powered armor/inf. walkers.

A group of terrorist have taken the Honda building and threaten to blow
the whole thing up unless 10,000 what-nots are delivered in one hour.
Unable to sneak anything of large caliber past security they only have small
arms and grenades. Seeing as our brand new Powered assault Suit. Virtually
immune to small arms fire and able to navigate through door, stairs and
hallways and then walk through the occasional wall the terrorist are in for a
rude surprise. Of course things started to change when the terrorist groups
started to get the bigger weapons into the city and when they showed up with a
powered suit of their own the local cops got the snot beaten out of them
before the heavy troops could show up and put the guy down. So now the urban
scene occasionally gets real ugly as individuals weilding tank guns and
wearing armor immune to the local law enforcments weaponry try to take each
other out.

Granted for DSII this does not have much relevance but could make for really
good SG2 games. your Police SWAT team has to put down a couple of class 1
walkesr in a city without causing to much collateral damage. Have to pull out
my old Robotech models and see what I can come up with.

OK, to address a few points brought up about IWs:

1) Technology
We have already postulated mini-fusion plants, so power shouldn't be a
problem. They will be cramped and uncomfortable, especially for any length
of time.  As for musculature/actuators/whatever, I would have to assume
that this problem is overcome to construct walkers of any sort. These would be
as nimble as technology allows. On this point, it's a judgement
call, up to each individual world-builder.  Materials: IWs would need a
very strong structural component to survive the abuse I see them getting. This
may or may not be appropriate for armor. I would also assume that

this material is used in other similar applications (AFVs, aerospacecraft,
whatever). Manuverability: IWs would have to have a full virtual reality
suite, like PA - otherwise, neither would work.  It's hard to survive
the 2185 battlefield looking out a little vision slit. Again, these
technologies would be in use in other places, as well. Their weapons are
lighter than that carried by a tank - note the designs - heaviest weapon

was either a GMS/H or an MDC/2.  Not exactly MBT level firepower.

2) Tactics/Employment
IWs would be almost exclusively infantry support forces; therefore, they

would be operating with infantry at all times. In this they would be similar
to tanks, relying on the extra sensors that each infantryman carries (eyes,
ears, etc). They are not stealthy, in the auditory sense. They would need to
be in the EW (Electronic Warfare) sense. They wouldn't get the same 'duck &
cover' benefits of infantry in cover, but assuming they are as nimble as noted
earlier, they could at least compensate for the walker signature penalty. As
for going into buildings, if the building is large enough, they might, but
that's mostly an infantry job, no matter what. They would do better in a
tractor factory than in a standard office
building (how many sub-basements did you say this had?).  Underbrush - A

few options on dealing with this one: bull on through, assuming the IW is
powerful enough; step on it; or use a big machete. Again, really thick
underbrush is an infantry-only terrain.  Swamps: You've got to be
kidding.
 This is an AFV, no matter how small or nimble.  Swamp + AFV = lots of
work for the recovery teams. It's still got a hefty ground pressure to deal
with. As for simple traps to foil them in an urban environment, some do

apply, some don't. I wouldn't want to be the infantryman who gets rolled over
by the Concrete Sewer Pipe of Doom. That kind of thing puts a dent in anything
short of an MBT. Tripwires across streets, mines, pie tins, etc: this is what
infantry is for. Potholes: If an IW can dash across a street, drop prone &
fire around a corner, a pothole won't trip it up. The Ankle
compensates - that's what all those joints, muscle-analogs & software
for which I'm paying through the nose are for. Yes, you can drop a bunch of

infantry into an area with a few weeks worth of rations, water & ammo, and
expect them to perform reasonably well with little support. There's no vehicle
that I can think of that would do the same. Especially not PA. And not IWs.
Iws would most certainly stick their weapons around a corner and fire. And
probably not lose their arm. Does every infantryman who
does this lose his arm?  Does every tank that fires from a hull-down
position get its turret blown off? IWs would get an evade capability, like
fast GEV or Grav vehicles, while running, because of above-noted agility

while doing so. This is only a d8 secondary die, and only while running. The
downside is that while running, they can't fire. It could be worse. I could
see an argurment that in Urban, Rough or Mountain terrain be counted as 'hull
down', giving a d10 secondary die.

I'm not proposing that IWs replace infantry or tanks, just augment them.

Like other combat arms, they don't work real well on their own. You can't
ask them to do what a tank does - they're not tanks.  They are (in my
vision - that's the qualifier to all this) a light, agile infantry
support
system, that is capable of being aerospace-dropped.  They have good
mobility, within certain limitations. They have crew comfort
limitations -
the pilot will need to get out at least occasionally. If we can expect PA
troops to be in their suits for 24-48 hours, as implied by the
descriptions, then we could expect the same out of the IW pilots. Or we

could just rip out their brains and implant them in the IWs directly. Saves on
food, blankets, all sorts of menial things.

In a message dated 98-08-24 23:48:34 EDT, you write:

<< Ever since delightful Camp Blanding, FL, my definition of heavy underbrush
includes terrain MEN can't get in or out of. >>

John,

When were u at CBTS? I've spent many, many miserable nights there.

and you're right..there are areas on the north post that are far worse than
jungle.

Mark

There was a mention of Heavy Gears. They're obviously not size class 1, but
they pack a lot of FP for their size. So how to balance them? Adrian J came up
with some good ideas for how to handle external weapons (not protected by
armour) on such Infantry Walkers as we termed them. If there is general
interest, I'm sure I can convince Adrian to post them. They let you build a
Gear style heavy support PA unit without overbalancing it wrt to the other
systems in the game.

I would love to see those rules posted. Or, if that's
not an option, if Adrian would be so kind to e-mail
them to me I would like to give them a look.

> --- "Thomas.Barclay" <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca> wrote:

G'day Tom,

Tom you're a tease! So to forestall anymore "me too"s lets go on record and
say

THERE"S GENERAL INTEREST!!

Now please post them or I'll be forced to come and hunt you down! <OK we all
know you'll be safe because I'll roll a 1 at the critical moment, which is
probably my equivalent of twisting an ankle, but it was a
threat! ;)>

Cheers

Beth

Count me in too please!

> At 03:29 PM 1/27/00 -0500, you wrote:

> If there is general

Consider me generally interested.