Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Mechs versus Tanks

2014-01-31T23:43:40+02:00

Reaper Zwei wrote:
Gerfand wrote:
prodromos wrote:can't throw objects at you( yes, don't laugh, a big stone at several kilometres per hour can be more damaging than a powerful laser).

in reality they can, the diference between both is the locomotion, Walkers use lags when tanks use tracks

He was saying tanks can't throw rocks you saying they can?

Yes, a catapult for example...
but who says that Tanks can't have hands?
is like the Tank Commander from PA: Tracked w/ 2 hands

Statistics: Posted by Gerfand — 31 Jan 2014, 23:43

Re: Mechs versus Tanks

2014-01-31T23:18:40+02:00

Gerfand wrote:
prodromos wrote:can't throw objects at you( yes, don't laugh, a big stone at several kilometres per hour can be more damaging than a powerful laser).

in reality they can, the diference between both is the locomotion, Walkers use lags when tanks use tracks

He was saying tanks can't throw rocks you saying they can?

Statistics: Posted by Reaper Zwei — 31 Jan 2014, 23:18

Re: Mechs versus Tanks

2014-01-31T23:00:17+02:00

prodromos wrote:
can't throw objects at you( yes, don't laugh, a big stone at several kilometres per hour can be more damaging than a powerful laser).

in reality they can, the diference between both is the locomotion, Walkers use lags when tanks use tracks

Statistics: Posted by Gerfand — 31 Jan 2014, 23:00

Re: Mechs versus Tanks

2014-01-31T02:49:59+02:00

I think that a machine with legs can navigate terrain that tracks can't. Anything that involves stepping - for example over a large crack, or up a large step, or over a tree trunk. This is not to say that legs are better than tracks - each is better at different things - but I'm tempted to think legs work in more situations than tracks do.

Statistics: Posted by nine2 — 31 Jan 2014, 02:49

Re: Mechs versus Tanks

2014-01-31T00:34:13+02:00

I think the answer to your question is very simple, that's why it is evasive; your question seems simple so most don't get what you ask.
Your reasoning, why build 4 mechanically complicated limbs, with possible maintenance and functionality issues and no apparent benefit in speed and manoeuvrability, is sound.
Well, supposing that the basic mechanics and energetics are solved(one could doubt that with the giant mechs), and that mechs are competitive in speed and agility(not necessarily equal) then they still have some unique advantages, especially as combat units. Our tech is still not advanced enough, so we can't even simulate on our computers their advantages(so ingame their presence is mostly cosmetic). In the real world, we ignore the rapidly advancing nanotechnology, the breakthroughs in the energy production and storage and most of all in a.i. research(the younger ones can't appreciate, and the older ones probably haven't noticed the importance of the fact that we have a working theory of brain function even if incomplete).
So without further ado:
1. Mechs are superior in close combat. A wheeled weapon can't kick your butt, can't lift you or displace you, can't duck or jump unexpectedly, can't cause you a precision damage just by passing near you, can't throw objects at you( yes, don't laugh, a big stone at several kilometres per hour can be more damaging than a powerful laser).
2.Mechs can more easily bypass anomalous terrain or even climb on surfaces, wheeled vehicles have no chance.
3. Mechs can use a multitude of weapons simply by using their "hands".
4. Mechs can build things on the go.
5.Mechs are what a human would be if he/she weren't so vulnerable to enemy fire.

Are the above points satisfying enough for you?

Statistics: Posted by prodromos — 31 Jan 2014, 00:34

Re: Mechs versus Tanks

2014-01-28T00:21:06+02:00

Interesting comparisons of the two feet shapes. Let's not forget, however, that a walker could have feet that change shape. Flat pads could easily be engineered to fold up into spikes and lay back down into pads. It could even have a range of shapes to deal with all terrain types and conditions, with sonar/ground penetrating radar/etc. sensors to anticipate how each foot should be formed before it makes contact with the ground. They also could be designed with auxiliary systems to negotiate some of the obstacles that you guys mentions, such as a blowout system to counteract suction pressure.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 28 Jan 2014, 00:21

Re: Mechs versus Tanks

2014-01-25T09:44:49+02:00

SAKO_X wrote:
on top of that, having a 4-6 legged walker actually makes is more stable than firewall may think - a 4 leg walker can lose a leg and stil be able to adjust the height of its base and things on 3 legs, but it would not be able to lift them off the ground to move

whereas a 6 legged walker can even move with just 5, or maybe even 4 legs, provided the motors are strong enough to lift the extra weigh they are receiving

also im not sure about the spikes, the pressure will be far greater and yes they will sink in and due to friction stop at some point, but they require HARD ground - as soft ground could cause them to sink way to far

more importantly, lifting a pd off the ground required minimal energy, but pulling a spike out of the ground needs you to overcome those frictional forces again using (far) more energy, but this time upwards, causing the other legs to sink in further, needing even more effort to pull out

making spike a stupid idea.
sorry but this is not the way to go, thick pads are

No it isn't stupid. There are too many unknowns to derive a definite solution. Also, the friction forces on lifting will be less than those when it is planted. Because the spike would have a tapered form. Thus forming a "Taper-lock" when standing, but lifting free when moving. It will also avoid the suction forces which can be developed should say a foot get caught in slush or mud. Some situations a pad will perform better, other situations a spike will do better. Consider the following scenarios.

Sand
You want a flat foot with low ground pressure. However sand will develop higher internal shear forces. A spike will stand without penetrating too deeply in firm sand. But it can become unstable if the sand becomes soft, or fluid. A flat foot with a lot of surface area is the best solution.

Mud
This is tricky because it depends on exactly how deep the mud is and how much ground pressure, the ground can tolerate. You also need to deal with suction forces. In this situation, where there is a harder soil layer under the mud. The best approach is to use a higher ground pressure foot to penetrate down to the hard soil layer. While at the same time not causing suction forces when you pull it out. A spike can do this. A foot cannot.

Snow and Ice
Here the spike is the only option. A low pressure foot pad will allow the walker to stand on snow. But if the conditions become icy the foot will slide. The spike is the better option here because it can dig into the ice and develop lateral traction.

Grasslands
Both systems will work. The foot pad will perform better. The spike will have more resistance, because, it is causing greater disruption to the ground surface.

Riverbeds and sea floor
These have very deep mud. So deep that a spike could bury itself entirely. In this situation a flat foot pad will do better.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 25 Jan 2014, 09:44

Re: Mechs versus Tanks

2014-01-24T19:06:22+02:00

on top of that, having a 4-6 legged walker actually makes is more stable than firewall may think - a 4 leg walker can lose a leg and stil be able to adjust the height of its base and things on 3 legs, but it would not be able to lift them off the ground to move

whereas a 6 legged walker can even move with just 5, or maybe even 4 legs, provided the motors are strong enough to lift the extra weigh they are receiving

also im not sure about the spikes, the pressure will be far greater and yes they will sink in and due to friction stop at some point, but they require HARD ground - as soft ground could cause them to sink way to far

more importantly, lifting a pd off the ground required minimal energy, but pulling a spike out of the ground needs you to overcome those frictional forces again using (far) more energy, but this time upwards, causing the other legs to sink in further, needing even more effort to pull out

making spike a stupid idea.
sorry but this is not the way to go, thick pads are

Statistics: Posted by Exotic_Retard — 24 Jan 2014, 19:06

Re: Mechs versus Tanks

2014-01-24T18:27:47+02:00

Back to the original point. A walker can tolerate higher ground pressure levels, because it will simply create a compressed footprint. Sinking into the ground slightly will not impede a walker. However, when a tracked unit sinks, it will encounter excessive rolling resistances.

As for a walker being rendered immobile should a leg be destroyed. We haven't specified the type of walker to be used. You are no doubt considering the typical humanoid Bi-pedal walker. With a tall frame and two legs extending directly beneath. While this frame is excellent for running and fast movement. It is not the best for low profile, heavy loadbearing or stability. You would probably find that a four leg or six leg walker with the legs out to the side would be better. Having legs to the side means that it can lower it's profile to avoid fire - but also elevate itself to "peep" over terrain. If it should loose a leg, it would collapse onto the base of it's abdomen. So it would be immobile, but upright.

Another aspect of design is the foot itself. You have it stuck in your mind that the walker would have a flat low ground pressure foot pad. But this may not be as effective as a spiked foot. A spike would drive into the ground, and use the compressive forces and shear forces developed to stop it sinking. A spike could possibly consume less energy when moving over soft ground.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 24 Jan 2014, 18:27

Re: Mechs versus Tanks

2014-01-24T01:51:21+02:00

IceDreamer wrote:
The vast majority of conifer trees, as shown in that screenshot used to prove that the units aren't that big, are well over 40m in height. Many approach 60m, just normal varieties in northern Europe, and their tropical brothers breach 100m.

That image SAKO_X pulled up is an official image. It showed up during the BETA, I can't remember where from, but it's actually more accurate than using the map scale, because if you use map scale then many of those trees are much too small. The ACU really IS 90m tall or so, and it certainly weighs more than 500 tonnes...

I dread to think how heavy colossus is......

Statistics: Posted by cataclysm315 — 24 Jan 2014, 01:51

Re: Mechs versus Tanks

2014-01-23T22:45:26+02:00

cataclysm315 wrote:
I do like tanks though, they are necessary in the fight when it comes to all of the sci-fi genres. Tanks provide great support either by volleying rockets, providing anti-air capabilities and even direct fire weapons to combat other enemies

so reading this i have to ask: Who has seen this awesome movie:
The Iron Giant or "Der Gigant aus dem All"?
theirongiant.jpg
AWESOME even for big kids like us

Nice put together, PlasmaWolf!

Statistics: Posted by rxnnxs — 23 Jan 2014, 22:45

Re: Mechs versus Tanks

2014-01-23T22:02:39+02:00

With me being a massive fan of all of the mechwarrior series including mechwarrior online, i have to say that I LOVE the idea of walking mechs. Although they do have their obvious disadvantages such as kneeling down to eat some dirt when they stub their toe, their is nothing more fierce and scary than seeing a huge ass chunk of metal walking towards you with 2 massive plasma cannons (titan). Come on, that shit is scary compared to an obsidian, rhino and even the pillar.
I do like tanks though, they are necessary in the fight when it comes to all of the sci-fi genres. Tanks provide great support either by volleying rockets, providing anti-air capabilities and even direct fire weapons to combat other enemies. I think that mechs and tanks make a perfect couple in any fight and an army that makes use of both should be feared.

Statistics: Posted by cataclysm315 — 23 Jan 2014, 22:02

Re: Mechs versus Tanks

2014-01-23T18:42:53+02:00

Only a few trees in my area come close to 40m. Trees that are over a hundred years old. The regular trees in the local woods near where I live go up to about 20m, not more. So as a result, trees won't tell you anything.

Take a look at this one. The three ACUs stand there near each other. You can easily copy paste the Cybran ACU's head to check how long the ACU is in terms of heads: http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/post-72635-1179078181.jpg

You can do the same for the UEF foot, although the image is a bit skewed at the feet.

Next, take a look at the Cybran intro movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQkyhrZHT0k. There you have a Cybran pilot, which we can assume to be about 1.8m tall and considering how small the capsule becomes when it is completely closed, I would not guess that that would be more than 2.5m tall.

This capsule fits in the cockpit and for the small amount of time that you can see both the head and the capsule, I'd say that the head is about 2 to 2.5 times taller than the capsule.

Add to this the fact that the Cybran ACU is 8 heads long, the ACU would be in between 40 and 50m tall. I have taken a bit of a wide interval, and even if it's a bit taller than my maximum, it's not even CLOSE to the 90m claimed in that image.

If you do the same with the UEF one, but with a foot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrFpWzjuCTY) and a human, you'd also come close to 40m.

In conclusion, the map grid is by far a more accurate system of size conversion than SAXO's image.

In terms of weight however, it is entirely conceivable to assume 500 tonnes. 3D objects increase in volume very quickly and if you fill them up with metals, they also get heavy very quickly.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 23 Jan 2014, 18:42

Re: Mechs versus Tanks

2014-01-23T18:06:42+02:00

The vast majority of conifer trees, as shown in that screenshot used to prove that the units aren't that big, are well over 40m in height. Many approach 60m, just normal varieties in northern Europe, and their tropical brothers breach 100m.

That image SAKO_X pulled up is an official image. It showed up during the BETA, I can't remember where from, but it's actually more accurate than using the map scale, because if you use map scale then many of those trees are much too small. The ACU really IS 90m tall or so, and it certainly weighs more than 500 tonnes...

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 23 Jan 2014, 18:06

Re: Mechs versus Tanks

2014-01-23T17:14:53+02:00

The biggest problem with the scaling is of course that it's impossible to make a strategy game with the right relations. You can see this in any RTS game. In real life, with the modern techniques, snipers have an effective range of 2 km. Tanks (I don't know this out of my head) probably can fire very far as well, outranging a galactic colossus.

Missiles (I don't think I have to explain why) can fire beyond any map you see in SupCom, let alone the map of any other RTS games.

However, if you were to put this in a real game, you'd have either exceptionally small tanks on a regularly sized map (500x500 km), which is impossible to work with, or normally sized tanks that all outrange the map size. The only solution to this, is a compromize in both ways: tanks that are very big and can't fire anywhere from any position.

I've recently seen a NatGeo (Not completely sure on the accuracy, but it was fairly convincing in the conclusion from the facts they had) documentary on the german tank development during WWII. Hitler seemed to think that bigger equals better. As a result, they had big tanks, but not many of them. The Soviets just tank rushed them: while the Germans could shoot one tank after another, they had to shoot two tanks at the same time in order to keep up. The tanks they had at that time were the largest ever in service and while Germany did try with an even bigger tank (named "maus" in the documentary, probably the same one as "ratte" mentioned earlier), was just plainly useless due to its size. The tanks were very strong, but you don't need very strong tanks in order to kill them. Some medium sized ones can do the job.

In Command and Conquer (the first one, not the wretched EA crap), you have the Mammoth tank, which clearly trumps any real life tank in terms of size and this thing has a long range for C&C, but it's nothing compared to SupCom. The same goes for its size. However, the sizes and ranges always feel right in that particular setting.

The tanks in any RTS are unnaturally large, but at least its workable. I don't want to work with a bunch of small meaningless critters that I can't see even if I zoomed in as much as I can.

Also, that big gun the Germans made on a train, was a weapon that would slowly but surely tear itself apart by using it. The mavor has a bigger barrel. It would be quite useless if we were to spend 250K mass on something that can fire just 100 times.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 23 Jan 2014, 17:14