Military Mechs?
Nick Janow
> Tanks are only effective against troop transports, buildings, and other
> tanks.
Isn't that what they were always effective against? They support the infantry
against hardpoints, and the infantry supports the tanks against other infantry.
> Giant humanoid robots (if such beasts *could* be built -- I beleive that is
> *very* unlikely) would have advantages such as terrain (a walking robot can
> move across terrain that is impassable for tanks)...
A helicopter would be even more maneuverable. Otherwise, there are plenty of
other options (artillery, missiles, etc). If whoever is in the rough terrain
can shoot out, you can shoot in.
> ...more armor, more firepower,...
You haven't done your physics homework. Rolling is more efficient than
walking, so you can move more mass with less energy. Since you did make that
statement, can you support it?
> more versatility (a giant humanoid robot could be used to pick heavy things
> up and move them, i.e. construction work).
Front line commander: "Help! We need more support up here!"
Rear Line clerk: "Sorry, all the mechs are in use (moving crates of supplies)."
You could simply mount some cargo-handling equipment on tanks if absolutely
necessary.
> If you can't bring yourself to beleive that giant robots are a *possibility*,
> how can you play *any* science fiction game? FTL travel is no more unlikely
> that giant robots. Sentient robots/androids/computers are no more unlikely
> than giant robots.
You're mistaken. Theoreticians are still arguing about possible ways to
achieve "FTL" travel. Until they tie up all loose ends and show that it is
impossible, gamers and writers have some leeway as to using it.
Sentient AI is definitely not proven impossible. We don't have the hardware to
support it yet, but there's nothing to show that it isn't possible; no physical
laws or economic laws need to be broken.
Those "mechs" simply don't make sense. Technologically they are possible, but
economically and militarily they are idiotic. Their only reason for existence
in games or stories is in being "cool". If you accept that, you can enjoy your
game. However, there's no point in trying to justify their existence to
others.
--
John H Kim
>>If you can't bring yourself to beleive that giant robots are a *possibility*,
>>how can you play *any* science fiction game? FTL travel is no more unlikely
>>that giant robots. Sentient robots/androids/computers are no more unlikely
>>than giant robots.
>
>You're mistaken. Theoreticians are still arguing about possible ways to
>achieve "FTL" travel. Until they tie up all loose ends and show that it is
>impossible, gamers and writers have some leeway as to using it.
I have yet to encounter any 'loose ends'. All of the excuses I
have heard for FTL are about as theoretically impossible as one can get.
Which is not to say that someone won't find a hole in our current under-
standing and produce it, but that it is comparable to alot of other
'scientifically impossible ideas'.
>
>Those "mechs" simply don't make sense. Technologically they are possible, but
>economically and militarily they are idiotic. Their only reason for existence
>in games or stories is in being "cool". If you accept that, you can enjoy your
>game. However, there's no point in trying to justify their existence to
>others.
I don't see how you can conclude they are economically idiotic. Mechs
rely on a different type of motor than tanks do - how do you know how
expensive that will be in an interstellar economy? And if its cheap enough,
then it makes sense militarily because you can build enough of them.
Technology is extremely difficult to predict - and future
technologies can produce alot of interesting results depending on
what discoveries you postulate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "All the world will be your enemy, Prince with
jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | a Thousand Enemies. And when they catch you,
Columbia University | they will kill you." - Watership Down
Axly
>Nick_...@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>>
>>Those "mechs" simply don't make sense. Technologically they are possible, but
>>economically and militarily they are idiotic. Their only reason for existence
>>in games or stories is in being "cool". If you accept that, you can enjoy your
>>game. However, there's no point in trying to justify their existence to
>>others.
> I don't see how you can conclude they are economically idiotic. Mechs
>rely on a different type of motor than tanks do - how do you know how
>expensive that will be in an interstellar economy? And if its cheap enough,
>then it makes sense militarily because you can build enough of them.
> Technology is extremely difficult to predict - and future
>technologies can produce alot of interesting results depending on
>what discoveries you postulate.
Well, the big problem I have with future tanks being big robots is that they
would just be too damn easy to hit. Missles are already very effective if
used against modern tanks correctly. Most of the big robots in the games
can't move very fast and are as big as a house. I'd say it would be damn
easy to slam missles into those robots all day long from fast hover vehicles.
Future combat means either missles or a very good explanation why no one
uses them.
Axly
William Henry Timmins
WHY? If mech motors are better, why not build a tank using it?
This argument is getting increasingly silly.
-Me
[Pooh Bear incarnate.]
<B1 c+ f+ w g+ k+ s+ r- e+ p>
Craig Thomas Judd
>Well, the big problem I have with future tanks being big robots is that they
>would just be too damn easy to hit. Missles are already very effective if
>used against modern tanks correctly. Most of the big robots in the games
>can't move very fast and are as big as a house. I'd say it would be damn
>easy to slam missles into those robots all day long from fast hover vehicles.
>Future combat means either missles or a very good explanation why no one
>uses them.
Uh, most of the big robots in BATTLETECH can't move very fast. Granted, neither
do the Destroids from Robotech, but look how fast the Veritechs move!
Missiles are a major problem, and are the best weapons to use in Robotech. But
if you look at the Mekton II rulebook, it points out that being large doesn't
make you easier to hit, if you move fast. Mecha aren't necessarily better than
tanks in this respect; but then, what CAN stand up against a direct hit with a
cruise missile?
Didn't someone previously arrive at the conclusion that the best army would be
entirely composed of infantry? Well, it may have been a sarcastic response, but
what is a mecha other than heavily armored and armed infantry? Mecha, or at
least power suits, could be built smaller than 15m, you know :-)
Mecha are more versatile than tanks. Yes, you could use a tank to move cargo,
but a mecha already has the equipment built in.
And lastly, I agree with the person who said mecha are there to be cool. Heck,
none of my players pilot a machine if the design isn't good! It may be
interesting to look at the pros and cons of mecha, but until they go into
production, I'm happy to just sit here in my metal suit.
Yours mechanically;
--
\/\ "Abide by the contract of blood and inherit me!" Grossporina, SM2 /\/
====\/\"Shit, it's that skinhead again!" Kaneda about Col., AKIRA Book 3/\/====
=====\/\ *** WANT ANY MANGA ARTWORK DONE? Just email me! *** /\/=====
\/\ cj...@esk.compserv.utas.edu.au a.k.a. Kuroto Shiro /\/
a_co...@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
> <1992Jul25....@news.columbia.edu>
> Lines: 10
>
> Mechs rely on a different motor than tanks, which are better??
>
> WHY? If mech motors are better, why not build a tank using it?
This is one of those game kludges that BT uses to make the mechs
inherently superior to other vehicles without giving any justification.
Supposedly, a tank (for example) has to increase the mass of its reactor
by 50% to properly shield it. Does this mean that mechs have *unshielded*
reactors? Also, I completely disagree with the doubling of engine mass for an
ICE: I tried to build a tank the weight and speed of an M-1A1 -- and the
engine weighed about *10* times what it does in reality!!! Even counting
transmission, fuel, and peripherals, this is rediculous.
Also, VTOLs have *pathetic* speed.
Face it, the people at FASA did absolutley no research before putting
the system out...
Brandon Cope
jason steiner
> In article <Brxso...@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, dv5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:
> >Well, the big problem I have with future tanks being big robots is that they
> >would just be too damn easy to hit. Missles are already very effective if
> >used against modern tanks correctly. Most of the big robots in the games
> >can't move very fast and are as big as a house. I'd say it would be damn
> >easy to slam missles into those robots all day long from fast hover vehicles.
> >Future combat means either missles or a very good explanation why no one
> >uses them.
>
> But if you look at the Mekton II rulebook, it points out that being large
> doesn't make you easier to hit, if you move fast.
eh? here we've got that disregard for reality again. in a different
system but that doesn't make it any better. vehicle profile is -very-
important. the Swedes have a tank that is turretless for just this
reason. BattleTech is a very fun game, but arguing the viability
of huge, slow, complex machines that are also pumping out massive
amounts of heat is a dead end.
at least FASA isn't completely dumb. they -did- make Centurion.
sure, grav tanks are just as non-existant, but assuming that level
of technology they are a lot more believable.
jason
--
would you could you should you cross thru if i could wipe my eyes a blinding
compromise another pinky shave enlightens the brow now cow to die another day
if you prefer outside be blessed sir ostracize better bastard now forgotten
well instead of favored son of hell in hopes to open eyes - scaterd few, U
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` ste...@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
Bryan J. Maloney
> I don't see how you can conclude they are economically idiotic. Mechs
>rely on a different type of motor than tanks do - how do you know how
>expensive that will be in an interstellar economy? And if its cheap enough,
>then it makes sense militarily because you can build enough of them.
First, assuming that the "different motor" relied upon is some sort of
pseudo actino-myelin ("synthetic muscle") analog, there is no reason whatsoever
why a tank could not use the EXACT SAME MOTOR!!!!!!!!!!
After all, it is very simple to transfer linear motion into circular motion
(It's called a piston). Furthermore, if for some insane reason, one
does not want to do this then one's best bet would be to have something with
six or eight legs that scuttles along the ground with as low a profile as
possible. A humanoid shape would be too vulnerable to air attack and too
easy to knock over when compared with a multi-base shape.
che...@jetson.uh.edu
>>Mechs rely on a different type of motor than tanks do.
>
>First, assuming that the "different motor" relied upon is some sort of
>pseudo actino-myelin ("synthetic muscle") analog, there is no reason whatsoever
>why a tank could not use the EXACT SAME MOTOR!!!!!!!!!!
>
>After all, it is very simple to transfer linear motion into circular motion
>(It's called a piston).
Just to clear things up:
BattleMechs use a fusion power plant, the main purpose of which is to generate
electricity. The "synthetic muscles" contract when exposed to electric current.
Thus, the BattleMechs' fusion engines generate the energy needed for locomotion
directly. On the other hand, vehicles have to have electric motors to convert
this electricity into mechanical energy. Of course, they could just use myomer
fibers, but the myomer fibers probably don't contract fast enough to effectively
drive the pistons. Thus, vehicles which require wheels or fans to move at high
RPMs require extra drive equipment. That is why vehicles with fusion engines
require drive equipment equal in weight to half the weight of the engine --
larger fusion engines produce more electricity and therefor require larger
electric motors to convert that electricity to mechanical energy. On the other
hand, internal combustion engines produce mechanical energy directly, but they
do not produce anything like the same amount of electricity. Thus, no drive
equipment is required, but energy weapons cannot be used without power
amplifiers. Also, internal combustion engines require fuel, which _partly_
explains the fact that internal combustion engines weigh twice as much as
equivilent fusion engines. I've always assumed a rather large fuel reserve, as
battletech is not strong on logistics. If you want more realism, however, you
may want to make IC engines smaller. However, you should also make power
amplifiers MUCH larger, as lasers, PPCs, etc. use MUCH more electricity than an
IC engine will provide. In the interest of simplicity and game balance, I tend
to follow the standard rules.
Bryan J. Maloney
I may want to pick up this game after I look it over, if I read the terms
I've seen aright.
"Heka" looks to be a direct descendent of the word "Hekau", which is the
closest thing the ancient Egyptian language comes to having a word for
"magic" (as we would understand "magic").
Could Gygax have actually been doing some research to make this magic system
if not plausible, then as self-consistent as would be any "real-world"
ideas of magic?
jason steiner
>
> Just to clear things up:
> BattleMechs use a fusion power plant, the main purpose of which is to
> generate electricity. The "synthetic muscles" contract when exposed
> to electric current.
> Thus, the BattleMechs fusion engines generate the energy needed for
> locomotion directly. On the other hand, vehicles have to have electric
> motors to convert this electricity into mechanical energy. Of course,
> Thus, vehicles which require wheels or fans to move at high RPMs require
> extra drive equipment. That is why vehicles with fusion engines
> require drive equipment equal in weight to half the weight of the engine --
> larger fusion engines produce more electricity and therefor require larger
> electric motors to convert that electricity to mechanical energy.
funny how electricity-kinetic converters weigh so much on tanks & -nothing-
on mechs. oh, i forgot, we're dealing with a myomer muscle, which -must-
have zero density, or pretty close. in addition, the technology
that can produce them is incapable of building a small, efficient
electrical motor. (not very hard to do, even by today's standards.)
face it, BTECH is pure fantasy. it looks cool, it's fun to play, but
any attempt to apply logic, engineering or design to the process is
bound to show just how laughable the idea is.
jason "who, me? i play Centurion." steiner
Ninstar Cybermage - Back Again from the Mists!
>Mechs rely on a different motor than tanks, which are better??
>
>WHY? If mech motors are better, why not build a tank using it?
Mechs are generally built using a substance similar to muscle tissue, a strong
polymer which contracts when it has a current run through it. Given proper
experimentation and development, such a material could be more efficient than
A tank engine, lighter, and cheaper. If you can develop the substance such that
it requires relatively little current to operate, then you can also save on the
size, weight, and cost of the power supply.
Why this can't be used in a tank is left as an exercise for the intelligent.
As for any other equipment used in the two types of vehicles, the equipment and
materials should be fairly identical in cost, with some exceptions of course,
but none that would make mechs infeasible once they were developed. Mind you,
development would cost a bit.
Mind you, sufficiently developed mechs would be more versatile than tanks
and more maneuverable. But believe me they would never replace the tank
as a mobile gunnery platform. Like so many vehicles in the military, it would
have it's own Niche to fill.
James Shank # v131...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
AKA: Ninstar Cybermage # or sh...@acsu.buffalo.edu
###############################################################################
"Ten thousand years old...He could be trouble." -Vampire Hunter D
"Every night I say a prayer, in the hope that there's a heaven..."-Styx
"How do you make ammends for a god's sins?"-Forgotten Realms
##############################################################################
Sneaky Types,Inc.:Clandestine operations for the common man.
"Don't call us. We'll just bill you when it's done."
Craig Thomas Judd
>face it, BTECH is pure fantasy. it looks cool, it's fun to play, but
Excuse me? LOOKS cool? Sorry, we must have different design sense...
:-)
Yours stylishly;
jwad...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Hang on here. Fusion engines produce electricity directly? Since when. I
haven't read Battletech in detail but if this is an assumption then this little
garbology has to rank as one of the worst flaws in Battletech.
If you are working in comparable realities, then combustion and fusion engines
both produce heat and thus work on reasonably similar bases. It is hard to get
more detailed because it is hard to predict the evolution of both combustion
and fusion engines. Combustion engines need more weight of fuel but do not need
heavy shielding which both mechs and vehicles should use. Thus there is no
reason for a similarly rated engine to weigh differently in mech or vehicle.
If mechs run on electricity then they need two more steps than standard
vehicles.
Mech: Heat - Mechanical - Electrical - Myomer
Vechicle: Heat - Mechanical
Even if fusion engines do produce electricity directly, there is no reason why
it can't be easily converted into mechanical energy via the usual means, which
is very efficient. If vehicles have extra weight that is an electrical engine
then mechs have that weight as myomer fibres.
Mech: Heat -(magic)- Electrical - Myomer
Vechicle: Heat -(magic)- Electrical - Mechanical
Anyway a comment on energy conversion:
heat to mechanical - inefficient
mechanical to electrical - efficient
electrical to mechanical - efficient
heat to electrical - not possible as far as I know
Disclaimer: I haven't looked at this stuff for years!
There is no scientific basis on which to argue that mechs are more efficient
than normal vehicles. This applies to energy usage and weight of engines and
power sources.
I think we are getting to the heart of the thing here. This magical efficiency
of myomer and fusion engines compared to everything else appears to be a major
assumption behind the existences of 'mechs' ( Size and shape arguements put
aside ).
James Wadsley.
mil...@wharton.upenn.edu
> I may want to pick up this game after I look it over, if I read the terms
> I've seen aright.
>
> "Heka" looks to be a direct descendent of the word "Hekau", which is the
> closest thing the ancient Egyptian language comes to having a word for
> "magic" (as we would understand "magic").
That's probably what EGG based heka on, since Aerth's Aegypt is the
center of the official DJ/M accessories and campaigns.
Anyway, from the examples in the magic section and in the skill lists
it's clear that EGG knows his stuff when it comes to ceremonial magick,
even down to spelling magic with a k as thelemites would have you do.
Given the censorious atmosphere of 1992 USA I'm surprised at how clearly
he described summoning ceremonies in a game that is aimed at a high
school crowd.
Some xD&D players were upset that TSR backed away from including demons
and devils in their games. They should be happy with DJ/M.
> Could Gygax have actually been doing some research to make this magic system
> if not plausible, then as self-consistent as would be any "real-world"
> ideas of magic?
I think that EGG does the research to make his own campaign world and
the scenarios he writes plausible, but he has trouble making the game
rules plausible, as do most storyteller GMs when forced to write game
rules. And that's what EGG is, make no mistake---a storyteller.
The magic rules in the DJ/M book itself are minimal, certainly not all
encompassing. Once the Mythus Magick book comes out, we'll see how
plausible the magic rules are. I expect them to be of a similar quality
and style to the Shadowrun magick rules from the Grimoire, which is one
of the best FRP magic systems out there.
--
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller internet: MIL...@wharton.upenn.edu
The more corrupt the government, the greater the number of laws -- Tacitus
John H Kim
>Hang on here. Fusion engines produce electricity directly? Since when. I
>haven't read Battletech in detail but if this is an assumption then this
>little garbology has to rank as one of the worst flaws in Battletech.
Fusion power in general is pretty heavy garbology, yet it remains in
use as a science fiction staple. Already the mech has insufficient shielding
to protect its pilot form the neutrons produced in the fusion process. At any
rate, a sufficiently advanced technology might combine fusion power heat with
magnetohydrodynamics (using the fusion plasma as a conductor which passes
through a magnetic field, forced by its own heat expansion).
>
>Even if fusion engines do produce electricity directly, there is no reason why
>it can't be easily converted into mechanical energy via the usual means, which
>is very efficient. If vehicles have extra weight that is an electrical engine
>then mechs have that weight as myomer fibres.
>Mech: Heat -(magic)- Electrical - Myomer
>Vechicle: Heat -(magic)- Electrical - Mechanical
Myomer is supposed to be a lighter and more efficient conversion
process - which is not that tough. The efficiency of electrical motors
converting electrical energy to mechanical is no than the efficiency of
electrical generators converting mechanical to electrical.
>
>Anyway a comment on energy conversion:
> heat to mechanical - inefficient
> mechanical to electrical - efficient
> electrical to mechanical - efficient
> heat to electrical - not possible as far as I know
>
>Disclaimer: I haven't looked at this stuff for years!
>
>There is no scientific basis on which to argue that mechs are more efficient
>than normal vehicles. This applies to energy usage and weight of engines and
>power sources.
People have been trying to predict technology for years, and not
doing a terribly good job. Saying that you are out of date and then making
a blanket statement like 'There is no scientific basis...' is rather
presumptuous. MHD turbines work - the problem is that they are unable to
withstand the heat they generate. Fusion power does not (thus far). I do
not profess to know what the technology would be like to solve these
obstacles. I don't have a problem with people pointing out errors in Btech.
(Heck, given their original building and repair rules, there would be no
mechs at all in a couple of years.) However, I do have a problem with people
with simlistic assumptions about how technology will proceed.
At any rate, power seems to be easy for mechs - the real problem
seems to be heat. Mechs have greater surgace area than tanks for radiating
heat.
>
>I think we are getting to the heart of the thing here. This magical efficiency
>of myomer and fusion engines compared to everything else appears to be a major
>assumption behind the existences of 'mechs' ( Size and shape arguements put
>aside ).
Kindof like the 'magical' efficiency of superconductors compared to
everything else, or the 'magical' efficiency of fibre-optic communications
as compared to electrical lines. (A single, hair-sized fiber optic cable
can support 10^12 bits of information per second, with no need for repeaters
with present technology.)
Yes, you can invent future technologies without postulating startling
innovations or discoveries - but don't try to tell me they are more
'realistic' than others; they are just more comprehensible.
William A. Calderwood
>easy to knock over when compared with a multi-base shape.
Hey, why do you think they make us crawl around in the mud for basic
training.
Tanks:
(low profile and streamlined) harder to hit and if it is hit then the
chances are greater that a round will just rickete(spelling) off.
(more armor and heavier weapons) shure helps to have those tracks.
Humanoid Mechs:
(bad profiles) makes it easier to hit and possibly knock over.
(less armor and lighter weapons) can't support as much weight on those
legs.
Insectoid Mechs:
(low profiles, streamlined) hmm sounds like a tank to me.
(more armot and heavier weapons) more legs more weight can be
supported. But why do this when all ya have to build is a tank.
(getting a system to cordinate all those leg movements and supply
enough power to keep the whole thing moving might slow it down in the
end)
Bill,
wcal...@nmsu.edu
Ami A. Silberman
>>of myomer and fusion engines compared to everything else appears to be a major
>>assumption behind the existences of 'mechs' ( Size and shape arguements put
>>aside ).
> Kindof like the 'magical' efficiency of superconductors compared to
>everything else, or the 'magical' efficiency of fibre-optic communications
>as compared to electrical lines. (A single, hair-sized fiber optic cable
>can support 10^12 bits of information per second, with no need for repeaters
>with present technology.)
But what Battletech is trying to do is sort of like saying "fiber optics can
only be used for transmission of text". And the wiseguy in the back says
"why can't you use it to transmit pictures", and Battletech says "it can
only be used for transmission of text, pictures are two dimensional",
and the guy in the back says "why can't we encode the pictures in binary
as .gifs", and Battletech says "because binary isn't text", and the guy
in back say "We can represent binary as text", and Battletech says "but
pictures aren't text" and so on and so on and so on. Then the guy in the
back says "OK, I'll fax it on a landline", and Battletech says "Nope, no
faxes either, since in my rules you can't transmit pictures other than by
surface mail."
--
ami silberman - janitor of lunacy
sil...@cs.uiuc.edu
Corbit, Jim
ste...@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason steiner) writes...
>> [Lots of stuff about how BattleTech is supposed to work deleted]>
>[Mild flame attacking BTech technology deleted.]
>face it, BTECH is pure fantasy. it looks cool, it's fun to play, but
>any attempt to apply logic, engineering or design to the process is
>bound to show just how laughable the idea is.
I have never told anyone that BattleTech is remotely realistic, I was just
trying to clear up some of the misconceptions I've seen on how the technology
is supposed to work. Personally, I like the game simply because it's fun. If,
however, you want a bit more realism, here are some minor rules modifications
that add some realism:
1) Increase distances and timeframes by a factor of 6, i.e. hexes are 180 meters
(instead of 60) across and combat rounds take 1 minute (not 10 seconds).
This makes the ranges more reasonable.
2) Allow all weapons to fire more than once in each (longer) round, but with the
same heat restrictions. (This has the potential to make balistic weapons,
even the AC/2, MUCH more effective.) Limit the total number of shots from a
particular weapon to something like 3 or 5, double for Ultra ACs.
3) Drop the stacking rules. (Warning: This could clutter things up pretty
badly.)
4) Cut the price of IC engines to 1/3 of their current cost and reduce their
weight to the same as the comparable fusion engine (including fuel reserve
and drive equipment). Also, cut the cost of normal missiles and ballistic
weapons to 1/2 or 1/3 of their current cost.
5) Allow no energy weapons on any vehicle that uses an IC engine. This makes
sense because energy weapons use a tremendous amount of energy, and internal
combustion simply cannot burn that much gas that quickly, while fusion power
can provide a great deal more energy.
6) Assume that there is such an extensive use of (more effective versions of)
chaffe and flares that (standard) computer guidance systems are unreliable,
and all direct fire weapons and missiles must be hand guided. (I know, this
isn't very realistic, and is really just a fudge, but it IS a game...) ;)
This would explain the importance of skill over equipment.
7) Assume that the heat output of a fusion engine is so great (as it truly would
be) that a very large surface area is required radiate it. Tanks are just
too compact for this unless you flatten them so much that they can't cross
most terrain. Thus, only 'Mechs and large immobile structures (dropships,
jumpships, building power plants with cooling towers, etc.) can provide the
surface area necessary. (Note, this _takes advantage_ of the ungainly,
inefficient, tall, ugly structure of the BattleMech.) (Again, I know, this
is fudging, but it IS a game about 'Mechs.)
Overall, this pushes 'Mechs into the forefront as the most effective long-
duration weapons platform. Only 'Mechs can mount energy weapons, and these
energy weapons don't need ammo. Also, 'Mech engines don't need fuel like the
IC engines, making logistics support much easier.
This also leaves tanks in a more specialized role. They need more logistical
support and they can only fire ballistic weapons, but they are actually about
as deadly as 'Mechs and FAR cheeper. This makes them the perfect defense or
follow up force, while 'Mechs are the perfect strike/raiding force. However,
tanks DO have large loads of gas (or something similar) and large loads of ammo,
so they ARE vulnerable to heat (read infernos).
Of course, most tanks and 'Mechs would have to be completely redesigned under
these rules, but they should be playable. I don't know, because I find the game
pretty fun as it is, so I don't use them. :)
>
>jason "who, me? i play Centurion." steiner
>
Jim Corbit
William Henry Timmins
strong
>polymer which contracts when it has a current run through it. Given proper
>experimentation and development, such a material could be more efficient than
>A tank engine, lighter, and cheaper. If you can develop the substance
such >that
>it requires relatively little current to operate, then you can also
save on the
>size, weight, and cost of the power supply.
>
>Why this can't be used in a tank is left as an exercise for the intelligent.
I suppose pistons have been 'forgotten' in the ensuing centuries? I can
think of several designs for tanks which would utilize myomer muscle.
Intelligence is in the eye of the intelligent, bub.
Mind you, I agree that robotic armor and robots will be useful in
certain areas, but humanoform piloted robots more than 4 meters tall in
1 g is silly. Powered armor, exosuits, and the like (near human in size)
make sense for infantry.
Legs on robots (essentially, tanks with legs) makes sense if a high
center point is desired (lots of low cover), but leave the robot
vulnerable. In this case, however, 3+ legs would be good, so that damage
needs to be severe before immobility occurs. Tanks, or vehicles
utilizing treads, are useful for a number of other situations, where
profile is important.
The question is, do you want vehicles high off the ground or low off the
ground. True, legs let you get closer to the ground (if you have 4+),
but wheels are much more efficient.
In any case, multiton humanoid robots are silly.
-Me
che...@jane.uh.edu
>In article <27JUL199...@elroy.uh.edu>, che...@jetson.uh.edu writes:
>> In article <55...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, jac...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes...
>>>In article <1992Jul25....@news.columbia.edu> jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>
>>>>Mechs rely on a different type of motor than tanks do.
>>>
>>>First, assuming that the "different motor" relied upon is some sort of
>>>pseudo actino-myelin ("synthetic muscle") analog, there is no reason whatsoever
>>>why a tank could not use the EXACT SAME MOTOR!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>>After all, it is very simple to transfer linear motion into circular motion
>>>(It's called a piston).
>>
>> Just to clear things up:
>Hang on here. Fusion engines produce electricity directly? Since when. I
>haven't read Battletech in detail but if this is an assumption then this little
>garbology has to rank as one of the worst flaws in Battletech.
You have a point. I always assumed that an efficient method of converting heat
to electricity had been produced. After all, they produced an efficient method
of converting light to electrical energy, and that is almost as difficult. It's
really just a matter of finding the right crystalline structure with the correct
composition to cause electron migration in a given direction when heated.
Also, I am not trying to defend FASA's interpretation of technology. In my
earlier posting I was just trying to clarify how things worked _according to
FASA_. I admit the game is on weak legs technologically, but I think
the game is successful because some of its unrealistic rules put players in
certain situations that can be tactically and strategically challenging.
>If you are working in comparable realities, then combustion and fusion engines
>both produce heat and thus work on reasonably similar bases.
Sorry, but this is simply wrong. Fusion engines do create mostly heat energy,
though a good deal of light would be released as well. Internal combustion,
however, produces heat almost as a side effect. Actually, the piston
compresses an air/fuel mixture which is then ignited by a spark. The resulting
chemical reaction then breaks the fuel into several gas molecules. The extra
gas molecules, along with the added heat, cause a sudden increase in pressure
(an explosion) which drives the piston into the open position. Thus, the
engine effectively turns chemical energy into mechanical energy in a pretty
straightforward mechanism that takes advantage of entropy changes as well.
This is not very similar to a fusion engine, which uses the heat released by a
nuclear fusion reaction as heat energy.
>It is hard to get
>more detailed because it is hard to predict the evolution of both combustion
>and fusion engines.
True.
>Combustion engines need more weight of fuel but do not need
>heavy shielding which both mechs and vehicles should use. Thus there is no
>reason for a similarly rated engine to weigh differently in mech or vehicle.
This is impossible to say. Really you are talking about apples and oranges. An
internal combustion engine gets all of its energy from chemical reactions, while
a fusion reactor gets its energy from nuclear reactions. Several thousand times
as much mass is converted to energy in a nuclear fusion reaction, so a fusion
engine has a much greater potential energy output than any internal combustion
engine will ever have. There is simply never going to be a comparable amount of
energy in chemical bonds, and internal combustion engines are already
approaching the absolute limits on energy efficiency. Only new fuels with more
energetic (and probably not very stable) bonds can increase the energy output
beyond these limits, but even these will never hold amounts of energy comparable
to fusion reactions--it's simply impossible as it would cause spontaneous
nuclear reaction instead.
>If mechs run on electricity then they need two more steps than standard
>vehicles.
>Mech: Heat - Mechanical - Electrical - Myomer
?^^^^^^^^^^?
No, the 'Mech has no need of a Mechanical energy step, as the myomers _are_ the
means of converting electrical to mechanical energy. Also, it is entirely
possible that the myomers convert the electrical energy to mechanical energy at
almost 100% efficiency, but even if they don't the fusion engine can produce so
much more energy that it doesn't matter.
>Even if fusion engines do produce electricity directly, there is no reason why
>it can't be easily converted into mechanical energy via the usual means, which
>is very efficient. If vehicles have extra weight that is an electrical engine
>then mechs have that weight as myomer fibres.
Conversion of electricity to mechanical energy is not _that_ efficient, but you
do have a point. Fusion engines should work in vehicles as well as they do in
'Mechs. But the game wasn't designed to be technologically accurate, it was
designed for fun and with the game balance weighted in favor of 'Mechs to make
them the masters of the battlefield.
>Disclaimer: I haven't looked at this stuff for years!
>
>There is no scientific basis on which to argue that mechs are more efficient
>than normal vehicles. This applies to energy usage and weight of engines and
>power sources.
>
>I think we are getting to the heart of the thing here. This magical efficiency
>of myomer and fusion engines compared to everything else appears to be a major
>assumption behind the existences of 'mechs' ( Size and shape arguements put
>aside ).
I agree that there is no real basis for 'Mechs to be better than vehicles
(though I have invented a fake one, see a previous posting of mine). However,
there is NOTHING _MAGICAL_ about the ability of fusion reactions to produce
several thousand times as much energy as chemical reactions. That's just
Einstein's equation at work. IC engines probably could not produce the amount
of energy required to fire an energy weapon without requiring a power plant and
capacitor array the size of a city block, while fusion engines conceivably
could. This may be the reason FASA decided to make fusion engines so much
lighter for the same energy output, and it does make sense _IF_ the energy
output is _VERY_ high. The energy necessary for movement doesn't approach
this, but the energy required for lasers that can reduce light buildings to
rubble in two shots _WOULD_ be out of the range of a vehicle-sized IC engine,
but may not be out of the range of a vehicle-sized fusion engine.
>James Wadsley.
Jim Corbit
ni...@rs733.gsfc.nasa.gov
[much deleted...including some double talk about the efficiency of myomers
vs electric motors]
>Hang on here. Fusion engines produce electricity directly? Since
>when. I haven't read Battletech in detail but if this is an assumption
>then this little garbology has to rank as one of the worst flaws in
>Battletech.
Ummm...I think that technically the BattleTech fusion engine is a
misnomer. I think what it does is store a rapidly rotating charged
plasma or something that produces electricity. Theoretically such a
device could work...someone who remembers both the BTECH mumbo jumbo
and the real paper on theoretical device can go into further details.
I remember that FASA got the gist, named it wrong and flubbed the
technical description in some way but the thing is possible.
It doesn't use heat at all as your standard energy transfer medium.
Why they worry about the waste heat is subject to more doubletalk...
more game mechanic than anything else although shedding waste heat is
an important issue with most engines...god only knows how your hide an
IR source as bright as they make mechs out to be...you could probably
easily see the suckers from orbit...which means you could probably
target them from orbit and drop a ton of crowbars on them with 70s
vintage technology. I don't care how tough your armor is...you simply
are not going to like taking hits from objects travelling at near
orbital speeds...
>James Wadsley.
Nigel
--
Nigel Tzeng
.sig under construction
Michael Woodhams
>In article <UeQRWRi00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, wt...@andrew.cmu.edu (William Henry Timmins) writes...
>>Mechs rely on a different motor than tanks, which are better??
>>
>>WHY? If mech motors are better, why not build a tank using it?
>
>Mechs are generally built using a substance similar to muscle tissue,
>a strong
>polymer which contracts when it has a current run through it. Given proper
>
>Why this can't be used in a tank is left as an exercise for the intelligent.
>
And then the argument goes back and forth for many posts along the
lines "Can too build a tank powered by synthetic muscle!" "Can't!"
"Can!" etc. etc.
Fortunately, I have the solution to make everybody happy. Put the
mechs on bicycles.
Michael W. (author of the "horses on steam powered pogo sticks" comment.)
Michael Parks Swaim
>
>You have a point. I always assumed that an efficient method of converting heat
>to electricity had been produced. After all, they produced an efficient method
>of converting light to electrical energy, and that is almost as difficult. It's
>really just a matter of finding the right crystalline structure with the correct
>composition to cause electron migration in a given direction when heated.
transport of some sort. Solar cells depend on completely different physics
to work.
>Sorry, but this is simply wrong. Fusion engines do create mostly heat energy,
>though a good deal of light would be released as well. Internal combustion,
>however, produces heat almost as a side effect. Actually, the piston
>compresses an air/fuel mixture which is then ignited by a spark. The resulting
>chemical reaction then breaks the fuel into several gas molecules. The extra
>gas molecules, along with the added heat, cause a sudden increase in pressure
>(an explosion) which drives the piston into the open position. Thus, the
>engine effectively turns chemical energy into mechanical energy in a pretty
>straightforward mechanism that takes advantage of entropy changes as well.
I'd say that the added heat has a lot to do with the pressure increase.
It's just that internal combustion systems are relatively efficient.
>
>>If mechs run on electricity then they need two more steps than standard
>>vehicles.
>>Mech: Heat - Mechanical - Electrical - Myomer
> ?^^^^^^^^^^?
>No, the 'Mech has no need of a Mechanical energy step, as the myomers _are_ the
>means of converting electrical to mechanical energy. Also, it is entirely
>possible that the myomers convert the electrical energy to mechanical energy at
>almost 100% efficiency, but even if they don't the fusion engine can produce so
>much more energy that it doesn't matter.
No, he's saying that you need a mechanical system to convert the heat into
usable electrical energy.
>Conversion of electricity to mechanical energy is not _that_ efficient, but you
>do have a point. Fusion engines should work in vehicles as well as they do in
>'Mechs. But the game wasn't designed to be technologically accurate, it was
>designed for fun and with the game balance weighted in favor of 'Mechs to make
>them the masters of the battlefield.
Electric motors are very efficient. Much more efficient than internal
combustion. You just can't get the torque you can with IC.
--
Mike Swaim | "What izzis wunnderful thing? S' Beautiful
sw...@owlnet.rice.edu | I think I'll put my tongue on it." -Arthur
Rupp doesn't even know who I am,
much less care what I think
Carl E. Anderson
>and more maneuverable. But believe me they would never replace the tank
>as a mobile gunnery platform. Like so many vehicles in the military, it would
>have it's own Niche to fill.
Tanks in BattleTech can be pretty annoying, and the self-propelled
guns are a bitch too. I was in a game where a light Mech Lance ran into a
Lance of tanks (big mean tanks mind you) and the Mech's nearly got taken
apart. Even more recently one of the players in my Lance decided to ignore
the tank in favour of attacking the nearby Mech. Got shredded next round
by the tank ...
Of course the the GM in this campaign was also a player who worked
with tanks in the game alot and was very good at using them.
Cheers,
Carl
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Edlund Anderson "Hefi ek ok aldri sva reitt vapn
can...@isr.harvard.edu at manni at eigi hafi vidh kommit."
OR
ande...@husc.harvard.edu - Skarphedhinn Njalsson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ninstar Cybermage - Back Again from the Mists!
>I suppose pistons have been 'forgotten' in the ensuing centuries? I can
>think of several designs for tanks which would utilize myomer muscle.
>
>Intelligence is in the eye of the intelligent, bub.
OOPS, ya got me there. It doesn't make me stupid, yaknow, it just means you've
solved the exercise in a way other than that planned by the asker. Ever done
this to a teacher? It's loads of fun.
Pistons are possible, but I don't know if you'd want to do it this way. Much
like muscle, the myomer only contracts and relaxes. It does not expand. This
means that when the next piston is being pulled back it is also fighting against
the last myomer(stretching it). In a mech leg this isn't a problem and in
fact helps to increase stability in the leg. In a piston arrangement is reduces
the efficiency of the engine.
More development, more experimentation...
Hey, It could be done! But you might find yourself in a time period when it
works efficiently in mechs and not in tanks. And a muscular drive system
would be more intuitive for use in Mechs. Mind you, I point to a number
of BTECH vehicles(tanks) that use Fusion engines. They would be a boon to
tank technology.
>Mind you, I agree that robotic armor and robots will be useful in
>certain areas, but humanoform piloted robots more than 4 meters tall in
>1 g is silly. Powered armor, exosuits, and the like (near human in size)
>make sense for infantry.
I disagree about the prospect of mechs being useful or silly. But that's me.
As for anything else like Powered armor for infantry, I really like this idea,
and it is much more feasible than mechs. This does not repeat NOT mean mechs
are infeasible, it just means Powered armor would be easier.
Carl E. Anderson
>than normal vehicles. This applies to energy usage and weight of engines and
>power sources.
>
>I think we are getting to the heart of the thing here. This magical efficiency
>of myomer and fusion engines compared to everything else appears to be a major
>assumption behind the existences of 'mechs' ( Size and shape arguements put
>aside ).
Could someone with some understanding of the science involved (I
can do biology and geology, but engineering is beyond me!) try to come up
with some way that might explain and efficient Mech motor?
I'm not particularly concerned with whether there's a way to do it
from a contemporary scientific standpoint - I'm willing to accept that 800
years from now future science could well make us look pretty primative.
But I find the BattleTech universe interesting, and while I can believe
their science sucks (God knows their anthropology needs some help!) I am
sure that gamers who know what they're talking about can
"secondary-rationalize" something - I'm a great fan of secondary
rationalization in gaming :)
I think one of BattleTech's problems in the science department is
that they are using contemporary (or for fusion engines, near contemporary)
technology and projecting it 800 years into the future, where they say
"This stuff works so well now that it does all these cool things". Perhaps
they should have sat down and thought, "What technology would explain all
these cool things?"
800 years ago no one could have dreamed at what our current
technology would be like, and I think the same could go for 800 years from
now.
So if we pre-suppose the existance of Mech's etc., and are willing
to throw in some changes to game mechanics to account for truly foolish
things, can anyone dream up a vaguely plausible technology that explains
it. I'm sure someone with a bit more hard science than me can think of
something that is inventive and imaginative without being totally
unrealistic.
Jeff Tang
In converting muscle energy to "wheel" energy, consider how much more
efficient a human on a bicycle is, than a human on foot, in terms of energy
used/distance travelled. True on foot is better for squishy terrains, but
the effect is lessened between mechs/tanks. Mechs would be a lot more
stuck in mud or really soft deep terrain than tanks.
--
Jeff Tang
je...@athena.mit.edu
jwad...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
> jwad...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>>There is no scientific basis on which to argue that mechs are more efficient
>>than normal vehicles. This applies to energy usage and weight of engines and
>>power sources.
>
> People have been trying to predict technology for years, and not
> doing a terribly good job. Saying that you are out of date and then making
> a blanket statement like 'There is no scientific basis...' is rather
> presumptuous. MHD turbines work - the problem is that they are unable to
> withstand the heat they generate. Fusion power does not (thus far). I do
> not profess to know what the technology would be like to solve these
> obstacles. I don't have a problem with people pointing out errors in Btech.
> (Heck, given their original building and repair rules, there would be no
> mechs at all in a couple of years.) However, I do have a problem with people
> with simlistic assumptions about how technology will proceed.
The 'No scientific basis...' was refering to postulates that mechs could be
more efficient than wheel based vehicles. If myomers are possible then more
efficient electrical engines are just as possible. I think that it is
simplistic to assume that myomer technology will appear without similar
advances in electrical motors. You also have the fact that electric engines are
very efficient anyway, ~80% I believe (Disclaimer...). Mechs can't be much
better than that regardless of the technology, because 100% is the limit.
I was trying to avoid making assumptions about technology. I was pointing out
general rules of thumb of energy/power conversion. These rules of thumb are
very unlikely to be proved wrong in any foreseeable future. On that basis alone
I can still say that mechs would not be more efficient that wheeled vehicles
in terms of power needs. I think this is quite a reasonable conclusion.
I have played BattleTech and it was OK but a bit slow for my taste. When I
played I did not care about all this stuff. What worried me more was the lack
of sensible military innovations, such as targeting equipment and multiple
operators per mech.
James Wadsley.
Carl D. Perkins
> heat to mechanical - inefficient
> mechanical to electrical - efficient
> electrical to mechanical - efficient
> heat to electrical - not possible as far as I know
>
>Disclaimer: I haven't looked at this stuff for years!
Converting from heat directly to electricity is not only possible, it is
very easy to do. Look up the thermoelectric effect for starters. The main
problem is that (so far) it is quite inefficient.
I might add that the reason the myomer stuff is not used in tanks and such is
that the change in length is supposed to be rather small (a few percent) so
it requires rather long fibers (meters long) which are difficult to put in
a typical tank layout. At least thats the claim - silly as it may be.
--- Carl
>James Wadsley.
Nick Janow
> Anyway a comment on energy conversion:
> ....
> heat to electrical - not possible as far as I know
It's possible, and being used. Space probes usually use thermionic generators,
which use heat to directly drive a current flow. Thermal photons can be
converted by solar cells or even tiny rectennas. There are undoubtedly other
methods.
--
Nick Janow
> Fusion power in general is pretty heavy garbology, yet it remains in use as a
> science fiction staple. Already the mech has insufficient shielding to
> protect its pilot form the neutrons produced in the fusion process.
Some fusion reactions do not emit neutrons.
> At any rate, a sufficiently advanced technology might combine fusion power
> heat with magnetohydrodynamics (using the fusion plasma as a conductor which
> passes through a magnetic field, forced by its own heat expansion).
You can do it even more directly: use the expanding plasma to compress a
magnetic field, inducing a current in the magnetic coils. This assumes an
intermittent reaction, rather than a continuous one.
> Yes, you can invent future technologies without postulating startling
> innovations or discoveries - but don't try to tell me they are more
> 'realistic' than others; they are just more comprehensible.
It is valid to base future technologies on standard projections, such as for
the density of solid-state memory chips or the speed of computers. Likewise,
using standard projections for technologies necessary for fusion reactors can
also be valid.
--
FALL88
> (Ninstar Cybermage - Back Again from the Mists!) writes:
> >Mind you, sufficiently developed mechs would be more versatile than tanks
> >and more maneuverable. But believe me they would never replace the tank
> >as a mobile gunnery platform. Like so many vehicles in the military, it would
> >have it's own Niche to fill.
>
> Tanks in BattleTech can be pretty annoying, and the self-propelled
> guns are a bitch too. I was in a game where a light Mech Lance ran into a
> Lance of tanks (big mean tanks mind you) and the Mech's nearly got taken
> apart. Even more recently one of the players in my Lance decided to ignore
> the tank in favour of attacking the nearby Mech. Got shredded next round
> by the tank ...
In a mecha game that a friend of mine was putting together, Tanks were still
the mainstay military fighting vehicle. The mecha were specialized hostile
enviroment strike vehicles, and comparitively rare. However, their superior
mobility and versitility gave them a position in military units not unlike
special forces in today's militaries.
Battletech tanks annoy me a bit. For their cost, they are effective, but
they tend to be weaker than equal ton mecha, even in enviroments where they
are not considerably hampered. This makes no sense to me. It seems that
the reason for their weakness is the critical hits on them are more vicious.
Why? If anything, a tank has less vulnerability than a mecha. It has one
'limb' (the turret). However, for some reason it can become stuck. Why
can't one of a mecha's limbs become stuck? If anything, mecha should be
much more vulnerable than tanks in terms of critial hits. It has many more
moving/exposed parts than a comparitive tank.
-james
Trip
>Also, it is entirely possible that the myomers convert the electrical
>energy to mechanical energy at almost 100% efficiency, but even if they
>don't the fusion engine can produce so much more energy that it doesn't
>matter.
>Conversion of electricity to mechanical energy is not _that_
>efficient, but you do have a point.
Nothing personal, but this is an error I've seen come up several
times. *Modern* electrical motors are better than 90% efficient at
converting electrical energy to mechanical energy. I *think* current
ones are above 95%; the last number I saw was 93%, and that was in a
late 80s textbook. For comparison, muscles are about 30% efficient in
converting chemical energy to mechanical energy.
Oh, and all the other pro-mech arguments are silly too. Two years ago I
persuaded rec.arts.anime of this. I wonder why it is that r.g.frp.*
readers are so much more boneheaded?
Trip |Running for my life and never looking back
President, ECNG |In case there's someone right behind
(tr...@cobalt.cco.caltech.edu)|To shoot me down and say he always knew I'd fall
| -_Chess_
You'd better believe it!,,,
> In article <27JUL199...@elroy.uh.edu>, che...@jetson.uh.edu writes:
>> In article <55...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, jac...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes...
>>>In article <1992Jul25....@news.columbia.edu> jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>
>> require drive equipment equal in weight to half the weight of the engine --
>> larger fusion engines produce more electricity and therefor require larger
>> electric motors to convert that electricity to mechanical energy. On the other
>> hand, internal combustion engines produce mechanical energy directly, but they
>> amplifiers MUCH larger, as lasers, PPCs, etc. use MUCH more electricity than an
>> IC engine will provide. In the interest of simplicity and game balance, I tend
This argument is one of the things I like least about the battletech system
of power. The Fission and [theoretical] fusion engines would both require
nasty big systems such as those that power stations use:
i.e. convert matter to heat energy, then heat up water [or some such substance]
and use the steam to drive turbines, which produces your electricity.
Fit all of that in a locust!
Brad.
Ninstar Cybermage - Back Again from the Mists!
>In article <Bs323...@acsu.buffalo.edu> v131...@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Ninstar Cybermage - Back Again from the Mists!) writes:
> Tanks in BattleTech can be pretty annoying, and the self-propelled
>guns are a bitch too. I was in a game where a light Mech Lance ran into a
>Lance of tanks (big mean tanks mind you) and the Mech's nearly got taken
>apart. Even more recently one of the players in my Lance decided to ignore
>the tank in favour of attacking the nearby Mech. Got shredded next round
>by the tank ...
Never ignore a tank unless there's a big hill between you. And even then, well
anyway. Like I said. They both have their uses. You'll probably never get
rid of tanks, but I can see where mechs could be useful as a supplement to
tanks. All my Mech companies are usually supported by tanks. And infantry.
Lester Ward
>>Why this can't be used in a tank is left as an exercise for the intelligent.
>I suppose pistons have been 'forgotten' in the ensuing centuries? I can
>think of several designs for tanks which would utilize myomer muscle.
In the .way. beginning of BT, I remember a line about how myomer fiber
bundles had to be of a minimum length to be useable; they had to be .longer.
than, say, 2 meters. That was their explanation of tall 'mechs instead
of infantry. Hand-waving, but someone might care.
>Intelligence is in the eye of the intelligent, bub.
Fortunately, the intelligent get it into the eyes of the non-intelligent.
Like sand.
Wordman
Ninstar Cybermage - Back Again from the Mists!
>they tend to be weaker than equal ton mecha, even in enviroments where they
>are not considerably hampered. This makes no sense to me. It seems that
>the reason for their weakness is the critical hits on them are more vicious.
>Why? If anything, a tank has less vulnerability than a mecha. It has one
>'limb' (the turret). However, for some reason it can become stuck. Why
>can't one of a mecha's limbs become stuck? If anything, mecha should be
>much more vulnerable than tanks in terms of critial hits. It has many more
>moving/exposed parts than a comparitive tank.
Ummm... If your shoulder actuator gets hit then your arm is stuck. Same with
hip actuators and legs. Tanks turret junctures are apparently not armored as
effectively as Mechs Joints for some reason. Neither are the treads, though
it's fairly easy to postulate methods to solve this problem. This means that
in Battletech, a hit that doesn't penetrate the armor on a tank can often
jam the turret or the tread, whereas to a large extent this isn't possible
on a mech(torsoes being an obvious exception). If you want, you can add
Arm and leg criticals to the charts, or ignore the turret and tread effects
attached to the armor hit locations.
Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat
>>>>> said:
WAC> Insectoid Mechs:
WAC> (low profiles, streamlined) hmm sounds like a tank to me.
WAC> (more armot and heavier weapons) more legs more weight can be
WAC> supported. But why do this when all ya have to build is a tank.
WAC> (getting a system to cordinate all those leg movements and supply
WAC> enough power to keep the whole thing moving might slow it down in the
WAC> end)
Take a look at the Hexapod program funded by the US military. The ultimate
goal is to build a six legged "tank" that can walk at 35 mph and step over
tank traps. Right now the testbed framework and software has it "running"
at around 10 mph and it can climb steps with two meter risers.
A walking tank has the benefit of being able to step over obstacles that
would stop a tracked tank.
--Rat
||||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||
__ ___
Richard Pieri, Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat/ | /| / / | The Worlds
Internet: rat...@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu /__ |/ |/ / /| | Welfare Works
UUCP: ...!northeastern.edu!splinter!ratinox/ | /| / / / | | Association:
BITNET: UA_RLP@NUHUB{.BITNET} /__ |/ |/ / / | | I will solve
USNail: 14 Westdale RD Holbrook, MA 02343 / | /| / / /___| | any problem
ICBMnet: 42 deg 1 min N, 71 deg 0 min W / |/ |/ /_//_____| for you.
Axly
>can...@isr.harvard.edu writes:
>In a mecha game that a friend of mine was putting together, Tanks were still
>the mainstay military fighting vehicle. The mecha were specialized hostile
>enviroment strike vehicles, and comparitively rare. However, their superior
>mobility and versitility gave them a position in military units not unlike
>special forces in today's militaries.
*sweaty and frustrated 'Mech technician is taking a break*
"What's up Bill?" his friend asks.
"Ever try and put a green beret on a 'Mech?"
*grin* Someone had to say it..
Axly
Nick Janow
> Fortunately, I have the solution to make everybody happy. Put the mechs on
> bicycles.
Hahahahahahaha! I vote Michael as the winner of the "best comment in this
debate" award! :-)
Now his solution is an example of true SF: extrapolating the scientific
principles of that universe. :)
--
Ninstar Cybermage - Back Again from the Mists!
>would stop a tracked tank.
Few though those may be. Keep in mind that if a tank doesn't go over it it
goes THROUGH it. Still a Mech can step over those few obstacles that can stop
a tank. And can possibly climb them if necessary. Do that with a standard
tank track!
(Here it comes...The rumble of many feet of people to tell me about specially
equipped treads)
Ninstar Cybermage - Back Again from the Mists!
>wood...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Michael Woodhams) writes:
>
>> Fortunately, I have the solution to make everybody happy. Put the mechs on
>> bicycles.
>
>Hahahahahahaha! I vote Michael as the winner of the "best comment in this
>debate" award! :-)
Seconded here!
Ummmmm... Hey Mike. Do they use ten speeds or standard trail bikes?
Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat
>>>>> Cybermage - Back Again from the Mists!) said:
>A walking tank has the benefit of being able to step over obstacles that
>would stop a tracked tank.
NC> Few though those may be. Keep in mind that if a tank doesn't go over
NC> it it goes THROUGH it.
Show me a tracked tank that can get past a trench cut into the ground like
this:
_______________
|
| <---Tank
| ____________
| |
|____|
where the deep section is just wide and deep enough to really mess up a
tracked tank. Pretty standard desert anti-tank setup. The hexapod can
(hopefully) just step over it, two legs at a time so it's never unbalanced.
William Henry Timmins
>works efficiently in mechs and not in tanks. And a muscular drive system
>would be more intuitive for use in Mechs. Mind you, I point to a number
>of BTECH vehicles(tanks) that use Fusion engines. They would be a boon to
>tank technology.
I had thought about that... battletech makes sense if you assume that it
takes place during a technical hiatus, before the next generation of
vehicles utilize the myomer technology.
Of course, this period would, most likely, be on the order of 10-20
years in length. Long enough for a campaign.
Sort of like 'the old west'. The cowboys and frontier of the US depicted
in stories and Westerns really only lasted about 10 years.
-Me
[Pooh Bear incarnate.]
<B1 c+ f+ w g+ k+ s+ r- e+ p>
Axly
>Show me a tracked tank that can get past a trench cut into the ground like
>this:
> _______________
> ^^^^^^ |
> Mines | <---Tank
> | ____________
> | |
> |____|
>where the deep section is just wide and deep enough to really mess up a
>tracked tank. Pretty standard desert anti-tank setup. The hexapod can
>(hopefully) just step over it, two legs at a time so it's never unbalanced.
>--Rat
Well, if you add mines to the picture, and some tanks on overwatch to shoot
anything that comes over the berm, I'd say that the hexapod would be
just as vulnerable coming over that as a tank. The tank wouldn't make it
and the tank commander by now knows where his tank can and can't go.
The underside of the hexapod would be exposed to all kinds of nasty
explosives, guns and infantry fired anti-hexapod missles when they
play leap the ditch.
Not that I'm saying hexapods wouldn't be real neat looking doing it,
but let's not forget all the other combat arms get involved in a war.
The best way to beat a dug-in position is to sweep around it (Gee,
does that sound familiar, Norm? ) and send the Marines through the
worst area (Gee, now that REALLY sounds familiar!) to demine the area.
Axly
Ninstar Cybermage - Back Again from the Mists!
>I had thought about that... battletech makes sense if you assume that it
>takes place during a technical hiatus, before the next generation of
>vehicles utilize the myomer technology.
>
>Of course, this period would, most likely, be on the order of 10-20
>years in length. Long enough for a campaign.
Yes, and bear in mind that the game background indicates that the war has slowed
progress to a halt. Thus it may take considerably longer to get that next
generation of vehicles. Also, there's a tendency to get to a point and decide
it's good enough. Look at the reluctance of the industry to switch over to
other power supplies for vehicles. You don't see the military working on
electric tanks do you? (not that you know of...heh heh heh...) Thus
the engineering world may have decided that Fusion engines powering an
electrical engine is good enough for now. They may not WANT to use myomers
and be looking in a different direction. And without an example readily
available, and other things on their mind, they may not have gotten it yet.
Alot of things can slow down technology, dude. we should have Holograms
in the home by now, but it hasn't happenned because they don't think the
device would be PROFITABLE yet.
H++ Visser
legion, but most of the oterhs have already been brought up) is that during
periods of intense warfare, it makes little sense that technology would go
down rather than up. Sure resources go down, but the weight is disproptionally
placed on the shoulders of the civilian population.
Look at early WW2 tanks versu late-war models. Battletech would have us believe
the russions would have started with T-34s and ended with T-70s. WWI brought
us poiosn gas, tanks, and airplane combat. The US Civil War's contributions
are many indeed.
In times of crisis, the willingness of at least one of the combatant's to
try new and innovative designs goes up, and as a result, so does technology.
Battletech (and new, "improved" Traveller) would have us believe quite the
opposite. Just how does an information society lose technical data? That far
in the future, just how difficult is it to store the data to make weapon system
X or Y? Not hard at all, I imagine.
The real reason, as far as I could tell, was that the BTECH designers quickly
realized that they were years behind in weapon technology, even for today,
and instead of doing a, say, Car Wars (where every new weapon release
mandated completely new cars), they choose to protect their initial designs
by not updating the tech. Their `new dark ages' excuse is just as silly,
unfortunately. The same thing happened with vehicles (remember that they were
NOT part of the orginal rules). Suddenly it was clear that Mechs were not
useful, and so they had to come out with lame excuses and the utterly silly
Vehicle Critical Hit charts (you'd think a Mech would have more, not less,
important areas exposed -- look at the pictures). The introduction of heavier
weapons amde the fact that armor is far too efficient as well (tank combat
today is hardly the kind of attrition-kill scenerio BTECH and other games paint
-- too much DnD, maybe). BTECH should have stayed a fast, somewhat silly
board-game; the universe don't work.
William Henry Timmins
be over a meter in length (for some reason).
I just realized that ALSO fails to support mechs: use a coil.
Heres how you do a wheel assembly with myomer:
Have a shaft. Around the shaft are wrapped two myomer muscles, one
wrapped clockwise, one counter-clockwise. Attach a piston and wheel
arrangement to the shaft, and stimulate the myomer muscles alternately.
Presto! All the neat things you said about fusion power and electrical
stimulation now work for vehicles as well. (At greater efficiency, too)
If you want a realistic game, don't invent too much bullshit to support
certain ideas. The problem is, there may be LOTS of ways to get around
your bullshit, and having to make up more exceptions is annoying.
I think Occam's razor is a good tool to use with game backgrounds.
Neil Asato
>>>>>> On 28 Jul 92 18:16:51 GMT, wcal...@nmsu.edu (William A. Calderwood)
>>>>>> said:
>
>WAC> Insectoid Mechs:
>WAC> (low profiles, streamlined) hmm sounds like a tank to me.
>WAC> (more armot and heavier weapons) more legs more weight can be
>WAC> supported. But why do this when all ya have to build is a tank.
>WAC> (getting a system to cordinate all those leg movements and supply
>WAC> enough power to keep the whole thing moving might slow it down in the
>WAC> end)
>
>Take a look at the Hexapod program funded by the US military. The ultimate
>goal is to build a six legged "tank" that can walk at 35 mph and step over
>tank traps. Right now the testbed framework and software has it "running"
>at around 10 mph and it can climb steps with two meter risers.
>
>A walking tank has the benefit of being able to step over obstacles that
>would stop a tracked tank.
>
>--Rat
>
since everybody keeps saying that insect-tanks are superior, I was
wondering how they solved some nagging problems that I see.
How did they solve the shear stresses that would occur from the
knee to the body? and what about the creep effects (mechanical
engineering term) on the legs? Is the leg an exo-skeleton with the
muscles on the inside like an insect, or on the outside like an endoskeloton?
How do they perform maintenance work on the muscles (technical interest,
please do not just refference it) (do they have to rest it on platform,
if it can "sit straight down" how does it get up without ripping
up the floor of the maintenance floor and how does it get the friction
to stand up on the legs without just uselessly making furrows in the
ground) ?
How much does the tank weigh? How much armor does it have?
How much armor does it have on its various sides (the bottom seems
like an obvious target and would be better protected than a normal
tank)?
How does it distribute that weight on its legs? Does it have 1+ meter
radius disks at the end of the legs? This question deals with the problem
of the tanks legs sinking into the ground requiring the tank to pull
its stuck legs out of the ground.
How does the energy expenditure compare between the tracked tank
and the legged tank ( use the engineer's use of the term efficiency
not that salesman version of efficiency [if they say it is over 30%
energy efficient I would be amazed, it they say over 50% I would
say that they are above TL12(BTRC terminology) and got the technology
from aliens :-) .(by the way BTRC TL12 is technology from the year 2000 AD).
What type of motor system did they use? If they used hydraulics,
how did they solve the leakage problem? If they used some linear motor,
which type of linear motor did they use?
By the way I throw the above questions to anyone who believes that
a legged tank is as good as they seem to make it out to be.
I personally think any large legged vehicle (massing more than 1000 kg)
would be relatively slow in reality due to stresses (especially shear) and
creep effects if the limbs move fast (thought example: spider tank
has a race with an M-1, after going 100 meters the legs are severely
warped. After 1 kilometer, the spider tank is running on its knees...)
I am interested in what the real world (note the lack of quotation
marks around the two previous words) machines would be like, and
it seems like a lot of people around here are arguing based on solid
knowledge of what the engineering solutions are (or not).
Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat
[My modified picture deleted]
A> Well, if you add mines to the picture, and some tanks on overwatch to
A> shoot anything that comes over the berm, I'd say that the hexapod would
A> be just as vulnerable coming over that as a tank. The tank wouldn't make
A> it and the tank commander by now knows where his tank can and can't go.
A> The underside of the hexapod would be exposed to all kinds of nasty
A> explosives, guns and infantry fired anti-hexapod missles when they play
A> leap the ditch.
Not really. It first plants it forelegs on the edge of the upper bank, then
uses its middle and rear legs to raise itself. The "body" maintains a level
attitude as it brings its heaviest armor and weapons over the rise. It
might even be safer tilting a bit "nose down," protecting the underside.
BTW, that's one benefit of the walking tank--it can fire down from a height.
You seem to have neglecte the infantry support working with the hexapod.
Their job is to deal with the anti-tank infantry on the other side.
A> Not that I'm saying hexapods wouldn't be real neat looking doing it,
A> but let's not forget all the other combat arms get involved in a war.
A> The best way to beat a dug-in position is to sweep around it (Gee,
A> does that sound familiar, Norm? ) and send the Marines through the
A> worst area (Gee, now that REALLY sounds familiar!) to demine the area.
Actually, the best way to beat a dug-in position is to hit it with an air
strike of penetrating bombs (ya know, like anti-runway bombs). If you can't
get an air strike, call in the artillery. If you can't get that, then you
have to send in infantry and tanks.
Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat
>>>>> said:
[munch!]
I should point out (again) that the Hexapod is still in the experimental
stages. Much of the design work is prototypical and experimenatal.
NA> How did they solve the shear stresses that would occur from the
NA> knee to the body? and what about the creep effects (mechanical
NA> engineering term) on the legs? Is the leg an exo-skeleton with the
NA> muscles on the inside like an insect, or on the outside like an
NA> endoskeloton?
The software testbed hexapod uses an hydraulically driven endoskeleton. One
proposed design calls for linear motors around an endoskeleton and inside
an armored exoskeleton.
NA> How do they perform maintenance work on the muscles (technical
NA> interest, please do not just refference it) (do they have to rest it on
NA> platform, if it can "sit straight down" how does it get up without
NA> ripping up the floor of the maintenance floor and how does it get the
NA> friction to stand up on the legs without just uselessly making furrows
NA> in the ground) ?
The testbed model has a special carriage it sits on when not in use (a few
stacks of cinder blocks :-).
NA> How much does the tank weigh? How much armor does it have?
NA> How much armor does it have on its various sides (the bottom seems
NA> like an obvious target and would be better protected than a normal
NA> tank)?
It's not a tank, yet. It's mostly a platform with six legs and a ton of
computer equipment (and I'm not kidding about the weight :-). It's
currently walking on it's own control, without being tethered to a
supercomputer.
[other questions relevant to a working, production prototype deleted
because...]
I don't know. It isn't a tank, yet.
NA> By the way I throw the above questions to anyone who believes that
NA> a legged tank is as good as they seem to make it out to be. I
NA> personally think any large legged vehicle (massing more than 1000 kg)
NA> would be relatively slow in reality due to stresses (especially shear)
NA> and creep effects if the limbs move fast (thought example: spider tank
NA> has a race with an M-1, after going 100 meters the legs are severely
NA> warped. After 1 kilometer, the spider tank is running on its knees...)
NA> I am interested in what the real world (note the lack of quotation
NA> marks around the two previous words) machines would be like, and it
NA> seems like a lot of people around here are arguing based on solid
NA> knowledge of what the engineering solutions are (or not).
Hard to say. A lot of the answers to your questions are either "under
development" or "sorry, you don't need to know that" (classified). It is
hoped that the Hexapod will be able to reach a speed of around 30-35 mph
walking on its own.
ni...@rs733.gsfc.nasa.gov
>>>>>(Ninstar
>>>>> Cybermage - Back Again from the Mists!) said:
>A walking tank has the benefit of being able to step over obstacles that
>would stop a tracked tank.
NC> Few though those may be. Keep in mind that if a tank doesn't go over
NC> it it goes THROUGH it.
Show me a tracked tank that can get past a trench cut into the ground like
this:
_______________
|
| <---Tank
| ____________
| |
|____|
where the deep section is just wide and deep enough to really mess up a
tracked tank. Pretty standard desert anti-tank setup. The hexapod can
(hopefully) just step over it, two legs at a time so it's never unbalanced.
--Rat
Easy...a tank with a dozer blade. The rest of the platoon shoots
anything appearing above the berm and you bury the infantry hiding in
the trench...sound familiar?
Yes, there are constructs (and grades) that tanks can't traverse.
Then you need to do something else. Likewise the ground pressure from
a mech or even a hexapod will render it useless in some terrain and
obstructions...something no one has mentioned...tanks rip up roads
quickly and if you think that tanks rip up roads watch what happens
when you run a 40+ ton object suspended by stilts on the same road.
How do you get mechs through a friendly city without making the roads
useless? With every step you leave pot holes behind...I guess you do
what we do today...put them on vehicles.
Nigel
--
Nigel Tzeng
.sig under construction
Carl E. Anderson
>One thing that has always bothered me about BTECH (I mean the problems are
>legion, but most of the oterhs have already been brought up) is that during
>periods of intense warfare, it makes little sense that technology would go
>down rather than up.
>
>try new and innovative designs goes up, and as a result, so does technology.
>Battletech (and new, "improved" Traveller) would have us believe quite the
>opposite. Just how does an information society lose technical data?
>
>unfortunately.
Well, this I don't know about. The whole scenario with Star League
was clearly designed by wargamers who knew about the Roman Empire.
There is no denying that when the Roman Empire went down, tech
levels just plummeted (for better of for worse). Sure there was less tech
to lose then, but the fact remains that no one built stuff like the Romans
did for hundreds of years.
Ever read _A_Canticle_For_Leibowitz_? I had a history professor
who recommend we read this to get a good handle on the Dark Ages.
The 'new dark ages' idea is not that silly. 'Dark ages' _do_ occur
everyso often in various cultures. The collapse of BattleTech's Star
League is a classic example of the scenario which produces a 'dark age'.
Cheers,
Carl
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Edlund Anderson "Hefi ek ok aldri sva reitt vapn
can...@isr.harvard.edu at manni at eigi hafi vidh kommit."
OR
ande...@husc.harvard.edu - Skarphedhinn Njalsson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John H Kim
>jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>
>> Fusion power in general is pretty heavy garbology, yet it remains in use as
>> protect its pilot form the neutrons produced in the fusion process.
>
>Some fusion reactions do not emit neutrons.
Really? I admit I'm not 'Mr. Fusion', but how can you keep the
standard deuterium-deuterium reaction from occuring?
>
>> Yes, you can invent future technologies without postulating startling
>> innovations or discoveries - but don't try to tell me they are more
>> 'realistic' than others; they are just more comprehensible.
>
>It is valid to base future technologies on standard projections, such as for
>the density of solid-state memory chips or the speed of computers. Likewise,
>using standard projections for technologies necessary for fusion reactors can
>also be valid.
Yes, it is 'valid', but it is not more valid than a variety of
future technologies which are based on radical changes in the direction
technology and science are going.
I agree with Nick that the important point about technology is
consistency. Current technology should not be lost without a darn good
reason, and there should be reasons why we have not seen effects not
currently known to science.
However, I would encourage more imaginative twists to future
technologies than the usual impossibilities of FTL, fusion, anti-grav, etc.
Miniature black holes, proton decay inducers, nuclear dampers, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "All the world will be your enemy, Prince with
jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | a Thousand Enemies. And if they catch you,
Columbia University | they will kill you." - Watership Down
Ami A. Silberman
>I might add that the reason the myomer stuff is not used in tanks and such is
>that the change in length is supposed to be rather small (a few percent) so
>it requires rather long fibers (meters long) which are difficult to put in
>a typical tank layout. At least thats the claim - silly as it may be.
And pretty silly it is. If the myomer only contracts by a few percent, then
the limbs don't bend very much, and the mechs shuffle along.
--
ami silberman - janitor of lunacy
sil...@cs.uiuc.edu
jwad...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
> jwad...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>
>> Anyway a comment on energy conversion:
>> ....
>> heat to electrical - not possible as far as I know
>
> It's possible, and being used. Space probes usually use thermionic generators,
> which use heat to directly drive a current flow. Thermal photons can be
> converted by solar cells or even tiny rectennas. There are undoubtedly other
> methods.
I was aware of solar cells but going via photons seems very inefficient. Solar
cells are very inefficient anyway. I had a tickling at the back of my mind
which said 'They probably are possible you know...' but I replied: 'Yeh, but
they're not very efficient at all so why bother?'. I spoke to my chem engineer
father on this one and he says that heat to electricity or heat to mechanical
will always be inefficient, regardless of the process used. Thus a couple of
final comments:
Electrical motors are currently at least 90% efficient. With superconductors,
new permanent magnets and so on they are likely to get better. Thus mechs can
not be more than 10% better at the electrical to mechanical step.
Wheels are very efficient. It is effectively constant acceleration to drive a
wheel. Legs on the other hand are inefficient because you must accelerate one
way to lift the leg, stop and accelerate the other way. You are continuously
wasting the energy you already put in by reversing direction.
I like the mechs on bikes solution. I reckon ditch the trail bikes for Harleys.
Hey, look at Robotech. They had mech bikes and mech tanks. They stayed in
bike and tank form for all movement and all but close in combat. Robotech also
has more reasonably sized mechs. I don't know anything about the game mechanics
though. Transformation is probably an engineering nightmare anyway.
James Wadsley.
Veltyen
: >Show me a tracked tank that can get past a trench cut into the ground like
: >this:
:
: > _______________
: > ^^^^^^ |
: > Mines | <---Tank
: > | ____________
: > | |
: > |____|
:
: >where the deep section is just wide and deep enough to really mess up a
: >tracked tank. Pretty standard desert anti-tank setup. The hexapod can
: >(hopefully) just step over it, two legs at a time so it's never unbalanced.
:
: >--Rat
Anybody thought of jump jets??
Third type of locomotion devices, etc.?
Remember something that you should have learnt about warfare,
It is all fire and movement, Fire being much less important.
Mechs are just extremely maneouverable, especially compared
to tanks.
-Veltyen
jwad...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
> Anybody thought of jump jets??
If you know what's good for you, do not bring up jump jets. You've been
watching too much Astroboy.
a) They could work on tanks just as well as mechs
b) IMHO they are impractical anyway:
i) How do you power them? If they are remotely based on conventional jump jet
technology then the vehicle is a sitting duck whilst employing them.
ii) If they are high powered then they would be impossible to control. The
jets would rip themselves off the mech, flip the mech or just send it flying
headfirst. Compare the steam powered launching mechanisms on aircraft
carriers.
> Third type of locomotion devices, etc.
I refer you to Wylie Coyote. I'm sure he has tried everything. :-)
> -Veltyen
I wouldn't lecture about warfare if I were you.
James Wadsley.
a_co...@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
>
> 1) Increase distances and timeframes by a factor of 6, i.e. hexes are 180 meters
> (instead of 60) across and combat rounds take 1 minute (not 10 seconds).
> This makes the ranges more reasonable.
In a set of changes I posted to GMAST-L a while back. I lengthened the
range of non-mech mounted cannon (reason: they are relatively unstable
platforms). I do like this suggestion though.
>
> 4) Cut the price of IC engines to 1/3 of their current cost and reduce their
> weight to the same as the comparable fusion engine (including fuel reserve
> and drive equipment). Also, cut the cost of normal missiles and ballistic
> weapons to 1/2 or 1/3 of their current cost.
In the same changes I proposed, fusion engines for non-mechs were not
increased in mass, and ICEs were only upped by 50%.
>
> 5) Allow no energy weapons on any vehicle that uses an IC engine. This makes
> sense because energy weapons use a tremendous amount of energy, and internal
> combustion simply cannot burn that much gas that quickly, while fusion power
> can provide a great deal more energy.
I also proposed that any fusion-engined vehicle (mech or otherwise)
that fired energy weapons in a turn had a reduced maximum speed on its next
move.
>
> 6) Assume that there is such an extensive use of (more effective versions of)
> chaffe and flares that (standard) computer guidance systems are unreliable,
> and all direct fire weapons and missiles must be hand guided. (I know, this
> isn't very realistic, and is really just a fudge, but it IS a game...) ;)
> This would explain the importance of skill over equipment.
The way I look at it, the to-hit rules assume that chaffe, flares, ECM
pods, and targeting systems (for missiles, bllistic, and energy weapons) are
being used. With defense and offensive electronics effectively canceling each
other out, skill becomes more important (sidenote: If you watch a great deal
of documentaries involving aircraft, tanks, etc, you'll get the impression
that in combat, the training of the crews has more of an impact that the
quality of the vehicles; most knowledgeable experts have this opinion as well).
The other big change I remember making was to drastically increase the
speed of VTOLs (so that you can have some good 5-10 ton designs that can make
200 mph).
Brandon Cope
Alan Braggins
> News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
> In article <MeRNrcy00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, wt...@andrew.cmu.edu (William Henry Timmins) writes...
>>I suppose pistons have been 'forgotten' in the ensuing centuries? I can
>>think of several designs for tanks which would utilize myomer muscle.
>>
> Pistons are possible, but I don't know if you'd want to do it this way. Much
> like muscle, the myomer only contracts and relaxes. It does not expand. This
> means that when the next piston is being pulled back it is also fighting against
> the last myomer(stretching it).
You mean like an internal combustion engine has to fight compress the gas for the
next stroke, and only applies force on the explosion stroke? Doesn't sound like much
of a problem to me.
Look at it this way - which is more efficient - human muscle in a leg running, or
human muscle acting as a piston on a bicycle? Running has advantages on rough terrain,
but for most stuff tanks will be much more sensible.
--
Alan Braggins, Shape Data (A Division of EDS Ltd), Cambridge, UK +44-223-316673
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
"My employer does not necessarily share my views - but I'm working on it."
John H Kim
>ca...@gergo.tamu.edu (Carl D. Perkins) writes:
>And pretty silly it is. If the myomer only contracts by a few percent, then
>the limbs don't bend very much, and the mechs shuffle along.
Perhaps I am being simplistic here, but it seems to me that the total
distance over which the muscle is strung is not very different between a
bent leg and a straight one. A bent leg still has muscles going up from
foot to knee, knee to hip, right? So in order to raise your leg, you only
need a few percent contraction (I would think).
Anyone know how much *real* muscles contract?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "All the world will be your enemy, Prince with
jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | a Thousand Enemies. And when they catch you,
Ninstar Cybermage - Back Again from the Mists!
>In article <1992Jul30....@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, ins...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Veltyen) writes:
>> Anybody thought of jump jets??
>
>If you know what's good for you, do not bring up jump jets. You've been
>watching too much Astroboy.
[Impracticality problems deleted]
If you know what's good for you, you won't lecture us about technology. You
should know perfectly well that computers can make ANYTHING controllable. We
don't need to have the pilot running everything manually, you know. That's
why so many of our weapons systems are computerized to compensate for
combat at Mach 1+. Nothing is uncontrollable.
Of course jump jets WOULD work about as well on tanks as on mechs, though I
think a hexapod would make a better landing platform than a pair of tracks.
a_co...@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
(the lower the number, the better)
vehicle type mech tracked wheeled VTOL hover
speed: 5 4# 3# 1 2
cost: 5 2 1 4 3
mobility: 2 3 5 1 4
survival: * 1 2 2 2 2
power: ** 1 2 2 2 2
size limits:*** 1 1 3 5 4
------------------------------------------------------------------
totals: 15 14 16 15 17
* - this is based on the critical charts for non-mechs.
** - powerplants of non-mechs are automatically larger, so advantage:mech
*** - some vehicle types have a maximum tonnage, and thus can only be so
well-armed and armored
# - in reality, if you have two vehicles, same tonnage and same engine power,
the wheeled vehicle will be faster than the tracked one; I'm not sure if this
holds true in BT though...
It seems like mechs aren't quite so dominant after all...
ps. I won't get mad if someone disagrees with my numbers, or the areas I chose
to rate vehicles in.
Brandon Cope
Bryan J. Maloney
>I might add that the reason the myomer stuff is not used in tanks and such is
>that the change in length is supposed to be rather small (a few percent) so
>it requires rather long fibers (meters long) which are difficult to put in
>a typical tank layout. At least thats the claim - silly as it may be.
Then they shoot themselves in the foot by having myomer-based artificial limbs,
including hands. Gee, that doesn't seem to require meters long fibers.
Basically, it's all a typical FASA job: Neat basic idea, really flashy
packaging, ill-thought-through mechanics and explanations.
Nick Janow
> Nick_...@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>
>+ Some fusion reactions do not emit neutrons.
>
> Really? I admit I'm not 'Mr. Fusion', but how can you keep the standard
> deuterium-deuterium reaction from occuring?
Use an appropriate fuel, and control the reaction chamber conditions
(temperature, pressure, etc) to minimize unwanted reactions. The technique is
used in chemistry, and despite the differences, I expect that nuclear
scientists can manage similar tricks.
How about it you fusion scientists? :)
--
Veltyen
: In article <1992Jul30....@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, ins...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Veltyen) writes:
: > Anybody thought of jump jets??
:
: If you know what's good for you, do not bring up jump jets. You've been
: watching too much Astroboy.
Nahhhh , too much wylie coyote.
: a) They could work on tanks just as well as mechs
-Not, mechs have this nice built in long haul high capacitance spring
under them for landing on, why else have legs?
Tank treads aren't going to do much...
: b) IMHO they are impractical anyway:
: i) How do you power them? If they are remotely based on conventional jump jet
: technology then the vehicle is a sitting duck whilst employing them.
: ii) If they are high powered then they would be impossible to control. The
: jets would rip themselves off the mech, flip the mech or just send it flying
: headfirst. Compare the steam powered launching mechanisms on aircraft
: carriers.
Assumptions, fusion drive, massive heat buildup.
Watch carefully you may learn something..
Air pumped into cooling chamber of fusion reactor, the opening downwards
is opened, mech shoots off into the air..
: I refer you to Wylie Coyote. I'm sure he has tried everything. :-)
I see we have the same tastes in cartoons.
: I wouldn't lecture about warfare if I were you.
Warfare, lecture.... I wonder who (the _royal_) we are.
: James Wadsley.
- Veltyen .... no I won't go away
jwad...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
> jwad...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
> : In article <1992Jul30....@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, ins...@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Veltyen) writes:
> : > Anybody thought of jump jets??
>
> -Not, mechs have this nice built in long haul high capacitance spring
> under them for landing on, why else have legs?
> Tank treads aren't going to do much...
A quick blast from the jump jets on landing would negate the need for
'springs'. There is no reason why 'sprung' treads could not be developed. Tanks
are a more stable landing platform than a legged craft.
A friend brought up this point: We have the modern tanks before us -
a big heavy thing and this airy fairy concept of mechs ( from cartoons? ). You
can't compare modern tanks with future mechs. There is no reason why future
tanks can't be as light on their 'feet' as mechs. Compare the loader in aliens
II. This is the mech we can build now and can be fairly compared with modern
tanks. The loader is a pretty clunky thing. If you 'dropped' the loader a
couple of feet it would probably fall over. As for it jumping...
> - Veltyen .... no I won't go away
I will.
James Wadsley.
Chris Payne
jac...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes:
> "Heka" looks to be a direct descendent of the word "Hekau", which is the
> closest thing the ancient Egyptian language comes to having a word for
> "magic" (as we would understand "magic").
> Could Gygax have actually been doing some research to make this magic system
> if not plausible, then as self-consistent as would be any "real-world"
> ideas of magic?
Don't get your hopes up. DJ/M borrows from several 'real' cultures,
most heavily from the egyptian. Unfortunately, the level of research
involved seems to be at the level of reading Encyclopedia Britannica
articles and arabic dictionaries to find good names for things. Oh,
and to provide 'inspiration' for the art. Not recommended.
Try taking a look at Ars Magic, 3rd ed. Highly recommended.
/c (ch...@imsi.com; Chris Payne, NYC)
Tim Prestero
>Show me a tracked tank that can get past a trench cut into the ground like
>this:
>
> _______________
> |
> | ____________
> | |
> |____|
>
>where the deep section is just wide and deep enough to really mess up a
>tracked tank. Pretty standard desert anti-tank setup. The hexapod can
>(hopefully) just step over it, two legs at a time so it's never unbalanced.
>
Obviously, no single tracked tank could get over the ditch. To solve this,
you send a few tanks forward with plows on the front to construct a ramp.
Don't they have engineering tanks in the army equipped with cranes and
plows for just such a problem?
IT'd be such an incredible hassle to fiddle with balance ("Gee, these mechs
keep tipping over"), signature (big mech, big target, bit explosion),
piloting (ONE guy is going to operate ALL of the weapon systems, AND keep
track of the balance of the thing, AND keep track of where all his friends
are, etc etc), why bother? Tanks are a proven thing. Are they going to
"forget" how much more effeicient they are during some technological dark
age? Yeesh.
Ciao,
Tim Prestero
ez00...@hamlet.ucdavis.edu
Deep Six
> rat...@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu
(Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat) writes:
>>Show me a tracked tank that can get past a trench cut into the ground like
>>this:
>
>> _______________
>> ^^^^^^ |
>> Mines | <---Tank
>> | ____________
>> | |
>> |____|
>>where the deep section is just wide and deep enough to really mess up a
>>tracked tank. Pretty standard desert anti-tank setup. The hexapod can
>>(hopefully) just step over it, two legs at a time so it's never unbalanced.
> Well, if you add mines to the picture, and some tanks on overwatch to shoot
> anything that comes over the berm, I'd say that the hexapod would be
> just as vulnerable coming over that as a tank.
Why not just make the damn ditch too wide for a hexapod to walk over?
_______________
^^^^^^ |
Mines | <---Hexapod
| ____________
| |
|_______|
<------->Ditch width
<--->Hexapod legspan
That way, the machine could crawl into the ditch, but not out and over it.
+ Chadd L. VanZanten SL...@CC.USU.EDU +
+ ``You know, I thought this was a good +
+ idea but this is one weird mama-jama.'' +
+ -- TV's Frank, MST3K +
Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat
DS> Why not just make the damn ditch too wide for a hexapod to walk over?
Because if you make it too wide it would have ample room to climb back out
again. Something that would stop tanks would only slow down the hexapod. At
least this is the theory.
--Rat
||||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||
__ ___
Richard Pieri, Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat/ | /| / / | The Worlds
Internet: rat...@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu /__ |/ |/ / /| | Welfare Works
UUCP: ...!northeastern.edu!meceng!ratinox / | /| / / / | | Association:
Deep Six
>
> DS> Why not just make the damn ditch too wide for a hexapod to walk over?
>
> Because if you make it too wide it would have ample room to climb back out
> again. Something that would stop tanks would only slow down the hexapod. At
> least this is the theory.
Tank ditches aren't constructed to trap tanks, they're constructed to deny
access to an area or channel tanks into a area of concentrated fire. What
you are saying is that a dumb old tank would just plow into a tank ditch
and get broke. But a really neato Battletech thing could walk into the tank
ditch but then be able to get out. Wrong. Tanks rarely try to breach
obstacles like ditches without help from combat engineers. While a hexapod
might walk into one of these ditches (and set off all kinds of mines, anti-
armor weapons, etc.), a tank commander would just recognize the obstacle and
avoid it (although I heard from an armor captain that an M-1 Abrams can
jump a tank ditch intended for the M-60). Anyway, face it, hexapods and
combat robots are fiction, tanks are proven.
Okay,
--
Tim Prestero
>Why not just make the damn ditch too wide for a hexapod to walk over?
> _______________
> ^^^^^^ |
> Mines | <---Hexapod
> | ____________
> | |
> |_______|
> <------->Ditch width
> <--->Hexapod legspan
>
>That way, the machine could crawl into the ditch, but not out and over it.
Although this whole argument is getting kinda silly...
To stop the hexapod, why don't you just design a munition that can be
dropped from the air that works something like this: large bomb case
carries a mess of smaller bomblets. Drop the big bomb, at a given
altitude the large bomb explodes spraying the wee bombs all over the
place. Gravity gets the wee bombs pointing down. When they hit the ground,
they explode creating hexapod foot-sized holes in the ground, each hole
about 6-10' deep. Spray these bombs all over your "playing surface" and
you've made things a bit tricky for the hexapod. Tanks have no difficulty
rolling over the holes in the ground. Hexapods tend to get stuck. Much
easier than digging ditches and trenches all over the place.
Ciao,
Tim Prestero
ez00...@hamlet.ucdavis.edu