Walkers

Donald Hosford schrieb:
> Actually the biggest "nail", is the fact that the walker

Which is why most sensible animals have more than 2 legs ;-)

In fact, I think multi-legged walkers are a more viable proposition
than two-legged ones. Especially if they can fold their legs to lie
low.

Greetings

True...

In that case, it would just be a tank with legs. Probably able to climb
over terrain that would stop a tank...:-)

Donald Hosford

> KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:

I was watching TV last night and there was a discussion on robots and how to
make them walk. It turned out that it was *easier to programme* a
2-legged
robot than a 4-legged (or more) as the complexity of multiple legs was a
more difficult programming task. Not 100% convinced myself, but they were
demonstrating a 2-legged robot.

Cheers,
  Iain

[quoted original message omitted]

> Iain wrote:

Several years ago, I remember seeing on a TV Documentary a tethered
Pogo-stick-like hopping robot that could move around (to the limit of
it's power and communications cable) quite easily. So I think that multiple
legs do add to the difficulty.

In message <004f01c1751d$d50599e0$b16e60cb@your1ji53vwc26>
> "Andrew Martin" <Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

> Iain wrote:
Yes, I remember that, it was one of a number of highly agile robots (or
rather robot legs - IIRC the control computer was separate and
controlled the bot through a cable).

I'm not sure about the feasability of a giant battlemech pogo-hopping
accross the battlefield though (and I really wouldn't wan't to crew
one) :-)

OTOH, when first use, it could immobalise an entire enemy army, as they
stand there, paralysed in disbelief! ;-)

At smaller sizes, it could prove quite practical.

From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: Walkers

> In message <004f01c1751d$d50599e0$b16e60cb@your1ji53vwc26>
SNIP
> > Several years ago, I remember seeing on a TV Documentary a tethered

To an alien species of hopping monopedes, it might seem to be the "natural"
way to build a mech.

Aargh! Invasion of the Mecha-Dufflepuds!

(Sorry, I'm under the influence of small Narnia-fan nephews)

Maybe, but I'm not ready to issue my infantry pogo sticks to make them more
mobile. In the long run, IF walkers ever gain usefulness as combat
vehicles, my guess is that the complexity of multi-leg will be a more
surmountable problem than instability will be for bipeds, at least for larger
vehicles. While I advocated the game viability of walkers, it by no means
reflects any high regard for them. IMO (for what it's worth, which is ALSO an
issue open to some debate), Bipeds would make decent infantry support vehicles
(class 1), but for pseudotanks, quads probably are a better bet. Of course,
they're best for very specialized terrains (mountainous, rocky, forested), not
as general main combat vehicles.

Brian

"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."

                                 - S. Freud

> From: "Andrew Martin" <Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz>

> Robin Paul wrote:

> To an alien species of hopping monopedes, it might seem to be the

Ah, yes, water. Powerful wet stuff.

We've had a discussion like this during some of our gaming sesssions. What we
have basically come up with is a fairly simple and straight forward. As far as
infantry support is concerned, we felt that the 30ft

target would be very tasty for someone in, say, a tank. Esp. the
walker's knee joints, 'cause unless it hops (ROBL - rolling on the
battlefield laughing) it's gotta have joints.

The consensus then is, they are impractical, BUT on the other hand, they

are *really* cool so we keep them.

BTW, peterpig has a mini of a 15mm robot which could serve as a small walker
in DS and adds a little variety to the tabletop.
unpainted picture here -->
http://hexagon.freeservers.com/cgi-bin/i/gfx/peterpigrobot9-11.jpg
painted picture here -->
http://hexagon.freeservers.com/cgi-bin/i/gfx/robot2sides.jpg

(still in the process of moving these to http://www.tablegamer.com,
sorry 'bout the ads)

jim

> Brian Bilderback wrote:

> Maybe, but I'm not ready to issue my infantry pogo sticks to make them

> more mobile. In the long run, IF walkers ever gain usefulness as

> for very specialized terrains (mountainous, rocky, forested), not as

> it's

Andrew,

That clip was included again in the program I watched, so I guess they haven't
made much progress over the years...

... or they have classified it ;-)

Cheers, Iain.

[quoted original message omitted]

Charles,

<SNIP>

Yes, I remember that, it was one of a number of highly agile robots (or
rather robot legs - IIRC the control computer was separate and
controlled the bot through a cable).

I'm not sure about the feasability of a giant battlemech pogo-hopping
accross the battlefield though (and I really wouldn't wan't to crew
one) :-)
<SNIP OFF>

Correct, that clip was shown again.

re Pogoing Battlemechs - we have anti-grav technology so it shouldn't
affect
you ;-)

Cheers,

Hi

A few days ago I saw in TV a programme about animal and floral inspiration in
modern engineering. As one of the example was shown Mars mission ground
vehicle, which has being developed. Mars enviroment is not suitable for
wheeled vehicles, cause of big boulders density. So the other type of chassis
is needed. scientiscs took lobster as a base cause his legs can be twisted in
almost every position. It is very helpful for them in life (lobsters of
course). Engineers have made mechanical lobster (I don`t remember number of
legs, but it was a lot of them). Next they put lobster in one aquarium and
model in second one. They put on real lobster receptors of leg movement and
was sending a signals to the mechanical, so it copied movement. Model gets
knowledge by experience. Scientists put in a basin obstacles, so mechanical
lobster was getting knowledge about crossing them. They has been gathering
informations about perception of real lobster, so (i think) mechanical lobster
can predict way of crossing visible obstacles.

Movement of mechanism was pretty good, but whole thing was put in a water, so
it could be easier to move.

So, maybe use of walkers can be justified on some planets.

Bye

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 00:14:37 -0000 "Robin Paul" <Robin.Paul@tesco.net>
writes:
> From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
Or manned by Kangaroos (Two manufactureres make such things in 25/28mm
scale, IIRC.)

Gracias,

> Iain wrote:

I do not have first hand experience with robots, but from the articles I
have read over the years, it is easier to do multi-legged ones. It may
depend on the approach taken, but both neural networks and hierarchical
program structures seem to be able to handle the job. Indeed, for
straight-ahead movement on flat ground, a simple mechanical system will
do.

Greetings

> "K.H.Ranitzsch" wrote:

The big difference between dealing with most multileg robots and singe and
bipedal robots is not so much the number of limbs, but the type of movement
they use. Robots with 4 or more legs can use what is termed static balance,
where the act of having 3 or more supports touching at any one time keeps the
unit in balance. When you have fewer limbs you have to use dynamic balance
where the unit has to continuously adjust the limb positions to keep if from
tumbling over. Static balance is easier to deal with for walking robots but
much much much slower then a dynamic system.

The US navy is also working with a new walking minesweeper, designed after a
ctrab. The sideways shuffling mition gives it greater stability, and allows it
to cover the seabed more thoroughly. In addition, it is designed to mork
when flipped upside down by surf - it simply rotates it's legs and keeps

going.

Brian

"The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which psychoanalysis is of
no use."

                                 - S. Freud

> From: "Tommy" <chuczek@wp.pl>

> wheeled vehicles, cause of big boulders density. So the other type of

> obstacles, so mechanical lobster was getting knowledge about crossing

I think the solution to the +1 size problem is to:
1. Limit it to medium range or less. 2. It should work both ways. A mech that
is tall
enough to warrent the +1 size should also be viewing
the top of standard vehicles, not the front of them.
This is a much larger cross-section. So normal
vehicles should be +1 size to the walker.
3. Walkers should either count any attack that normally hits top armor as
hitting front armor (as the actual top armor would be so hard to hit since
it has a small cross-section).

But as the other Brian stated, this should only apply to humanoid walkers and
tripod walkers, not to walkers with a longer horizontal axis than a
verticle axis (4-legged, 6-legged, etc.).

-Brian Bell

[quoted original message omitted]

I have always ignored the size limitations. I simply took the Btech mass and
divided by 20 (round up) to get size.

Michael Brown

[quoted original message omitted]

> --- Brian Bell <bbell1@insight.rr.com> wrote:

Not really. Do the verdammt math.

At 2km, even a 20m height advantage is how many degrees off of horizontal?.9
degrees? It's been a long time since high school trig.

However, a mech 15m tall and 4m wide has 5x the target
area relative to a 4m wide and 3m tall tank.   This
does not change over range.

> --- Brian Bell <bbell1@insight.rr.com> wrote:

The thing is, I only think it is a problem for certain types of walkers....

> 1. Limit it to medium range or less.

Makes sense.

> 2. It should work both ways. A mech that is tall

I'm not sure I agree, because I think the +1
represents more than just the cross-section of the
mech or vehicle: It represents how high above the surrounding terrain and the
horizon a walker stands. A silhouetted target is going to be much easier to
hit than one seen against a cluttered backdrop. A mech looking down at a
vehicle may see a different
cross-section than regular vehicles, but it's not that
much bigger - especially for smaller vehicles.  And
the vehicle still has the advantage of having the terrain around him
cluttering the mech's view.

I would agree that short-ranged attacks from mechs
count against normal vehicle's top armor (except for VTOL's)

> 3. Walkers should either count any attack that

Rather than arbitrarily saying front armor, I'd say applied to appropriate
side. And a gain, only on bipods and possibly tripods.

[quoted original message omitted]

> John Atkinson wrote:

~.573 degrees

On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 19:18:30 -0500 Ray Forsythe <erf2@wombatzone.com>
writes:
> John Atkinson wrote:

Show off <grin>

Gracias,

> Brian Bell wrote:

> 2. It should work both ways. A mech that is tall enough to warrent the

Um, Brian? Calculate the angle at which a line-of-sight shot from a
range of, say, 500 meters and an altitude of 10 meters strikes an MBT.

Do you find this angle to be significantly different from that of a shot

fired from the same altitude as the target?

That 10 meter tall walker needs to be pretty close to the target in order
to be able to get roof shots - close enough that DS2 considers the
engagement a "close assault".

However, the enemy of the 10 meter tall walker don't need to be particularly
close to see the walker above low houses, trees or hills...

Regards,