A thought: (in reply to stuff Mr.Brian Bell said)
Your comments about a mech in city.... can't agree with em. (Not like that was
a requirement
anyway...).
Here's some thoughts: You can fit down a narrower alley than a tank. Does that
make this a good idea? Sandwiched between two buildings... sounds like a
wonderful spot for infantry to engage you with IAVRs, limpet mines, and
perhaps even deadfall traps and cable trips and using demo to knock buildings
onto you. Also a great little spot for a tank to pull up to the alley mouth
and you in your poor mech with nowhere to go.....
Now, you say that tanks are vulnerable from the top. True today, not so likely
to be true (see how armour is distributed in the SG construction rules and DS)
in a world where top, bottom, side etc. attack missiles are common and where
any weakpoint will be hit by AI driven weapons. So uniform armour is the order
of the day.
There are two real reasons a tank is better in most situations, even urban
(though the margin is far less). It can take some liberties with thinning the
bottom armour a wee bit and its ration of exterior space to interior space is
probably greater than the walker which means the walker has to defend more
square inches and has really no place it can afford not to defend.
Additionally, it has been demonstrated that getting a bot to walk is a swine
(there is one now, but it goes very slowly) and that this kind of suspension
system sucks power and is
inefficient mass-wise. So the tank (at least as of
now....) gets the nod and if we assume common rates of progress, then it
probably still will in the future.
Also, tank design nowadays is headed for small crews, casement remote turrets
(very small) and very low fat profiles. This makes for a very hard target and
a good ability to attack from
hull-down. Now, a mech is about the opposite -
stands tall, and even if it runs 60 mph, it is till easy meat for a laser
guided fire control system driven by and AI and very high velocity (HKP, HEL,
DFFG, MDC) weaponry.
I'm not saying walkers can't serve a purpose. One place would be in broken
terrain (rubble, boulder fields, badlands, perhaps in some mountainous
terrain) where tanks just can't go. And in urban situations, small walkers
(size 1) might serve as good backup to infantry. But big walkers a la Star
Wars AT AT require the magic of unobtainium armour or shields to give them any
chance to survive the mass swarm of
GMS/H and MDC/5 rounds they'll be sucking.
Do what's fun. But if you're playing BT, admit that you're doing it because
you like anime and big mecha, not because mecha are equally viable as tanks.
Whereas I may not know the future, if we extrapolate common rates of
technology growth (but postulate that we don't move to small robotic warriors
which are expendable, small targets, and more than capable of delivering the
weapons), then I suggest the tank still will be the king of the battlefield
(until, at high TL, it becomes indistinguishable from a VTOL or small
spaceship).
Although, I must admit one thing BT had that DS2 misses: Ripping a limb off
one of these mecha and bludgeoning the remainder of the
mech into pulp with it. Now _THAT_ was
entertainment....!
Tomb.
Tomb. said;
I'm not saying walkers can't serve a purpose. One place would be in broken
terrain (rubble, boulder fields, badlands, perhaps in some mountainous
terrain) where tanks just can't go. And in urban situations, small walkers
(size 1) might serve as good backup to infantry. But big walkers a la Star
Wars AT AT require the magic of unobtainium armour or shields to give them any
chance to survive the mass swarm of
GMS/H and MDC/5 rounds they'll be sucking.
This is largely the way I use them in my NSL urban assault unit. Have a few
size 1 walkers backed up by infantry, armor, and artillery. All are done up in
urban camo and act as a specialized unit.There are also four size 2 walkers as
general support in this
MTO&E.I generally like the look of gears/walkers/mechs but do agree
that militarily they are of limited use except in very specialized
circumstances. But
they are Sci-fi
cool if a bit far fetched.
> Don M wrote:
> This is largely the way I use them in my NSL urban assault unit. Have
And you can never underestimate the coolness factor. All my historical stuff
is painfully correct, but when you build something sci fi you do want
something that has a little pazaz to it.
As much as you know that walkers would only have a limited use that doesn't
mean you can't make them fairly usefull in game terms. My SG force has almost
exclusively gears as IFVs. The bulk are class 1 with a couple of class 3 and
one class 3 (mammoth). The gears look cool but as a class 1 vehicle small arms
fire can kill them. They're just neat platforms that I can put weapons on and
use an infantry support. In just about everyway a class 1 conventional vehicle
would be better but it's wouldn't have that anime look to it and around here
it's easier to get a gear then a tank.
> --- Jaime Tiampo <fugu@spikyfishthing.com> wrote:
> couple of class 3 and one class 3 (mammoth). The
I don't think anyone has argued against size 1 walkers as infantry support.
Even I use them in orbital assault units (Varangians, mostly). It's the big
ones that seem more silly than useful.
In message <3BFB0FC8.28061.1CC82D@localhost>
> "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
[snip]
> I'm not saying walkers can't serve a purpose.
[snip]
Well, I don't play DS2 very often, but thinking about it, I think the most
likely design for a 'walker' vehicle in the conceivable future would be a 4 or
more legged version, designed, as mentioned above for traversing broken
terrain (IIRC I remember a Tomorrows' World piece many years ago on a
quadropedal logging vehicle).
Military walkers would likely tend to be smaller scout/reconnaissance
vehicles, rather than heavy tank-equivalents.
To represent such a walker (4+ legs) in DS2, I suggest that they ignore
the special rules for walkers on p.14 (ie. all weapons are costed as
fixed mount, special fire arc rules, +1 signature) but still use the
'walker' mobility rules.
Just my own 2p.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> I don't think anyone has argued against size 1 walkers
You did. That or you poorly worded your post. When you say "walker" that bring
in the entire range of design. If you say giant battletechlike mecha that's
different. I think there's a communication problem here.
So if you field a BT Mecha (Say, a commando - which I have along with a
Piranha and some spider looking thing bought strictly on impulse) and I field
them in DS 2 versus or in support of a more conventional force are
they "oversized" or 'Bolo' sized vehicles?
Gracias,
> At 9:08 PM -0500 11/26/01, Glenn M Wilson wrote:
I have a few mechs that occasionally get fielded in DSII. I run them as Size 5
walkers (some as Size 4 and 3). They work out as apparent size 7, 6 and 5 due
to being walkers. A Demolisher that I have gets run as a size 5 tank.