[Big Ole Robots] Robot design rules, sheet

[Valamir]

Basically Mike is saying that the underlying premise of your world history doesn't make sense.  Inother words given the factors that you've said exist there is no viable reason for MAIS to exist in the manner in which you suggest.

Military powers do not build every concievable size of ship that they are capable of building.  They build to fulfill very specific purposes.  Therefor the basic premise that you need a system to design every kind of mech from 10 tons to beyond 100 isn't really accurate.

For instance once you have control of orbit, there is virtually no need to land ground troops at all except infantry to occupy after a surrender.  If it is possible for one side to control orbit than they can completely and utterly obliterate any opponent.  There is no need to land MAIS ever.  The best the defender could hope for is to hold out in secret bunkers deep below ground...not an environment suitable for mech warfare.  That generally won't last long, since air, water, heat radiation, and waste recycling needs will eventually give away the positions of the bunkers at which time they become vulnerable.

In such a situation, there is no need for MAIS warfare at all...except perhaps to combat your giants.  Which means only the giant killer MAISes would ever be built.

If you have a situation where the ground defenders have weaponry powerful enough to drive enemy ships out of orbit so the above can't happen, then you have a situation where the shape of war will become the various ways the attacker can reliably destroy those defenses so they can acheive orbital superiority and then we're back to the above scenario.

What you'd need to do then is come up with some reason why those particular weapons can only be effectively engaged and destroyed by armored units on the ground (i.e. MAISes).  For example, if the weapons render the enemy unable to remain in orbit they probably also do a decent job of atmospheric interdiction as well.

At that point you need to get ground forces down to the planet to take out the weapons.  But how do you land large numbers of troops in the face of debilitating enemy fire?  You can't (at least not without unreasonable casualties) so you need to land as small a number of troops as possible as quickly and secretly as possible.  But yet those small numbers of troops have to be powerful enough to take out a large number of entrenched defenders.

Hense the mechs.  Heavily Armored with more firepower than a battalion of 20th century tanks (as the Battle tech text went) they can be dropped in small units capable of zipping past the weapons.  They land near a weapon emplacement, engage the defenders with the mission of destroying the weapon.  Each weapon in a region that they can destroy makes it easier to land more mechs and occupying troops and eventually make the planet safe for the attacker's fleet to orbit, at which point the planet has no choice but to surrender.


NOW you have a premise to justify why mechs exist.  It means 99% of all scenarios you come up with must be centered on the attack or destruction of one of these ground to orbit defense weapon installations.  There will rarely be any reason to attack anything else using a MAIS.  


That's just one example of how to set up a rationale for your MAISes, but I its an example of what I think Mike is saying you're missing at this point.


The ultimate problem with battle mechs, of course, is that they are ultimately highly inefficient and completely foolish designs.  There is no set of assumptions you can create that would make a bipedal walking vehicle superior to tracks, wheels, aerial, or ground effect vehicles.  So starting from the premise that regardless of that you still want them because they're cool, you at least need to attempt to come up with a rationale for them to exist.

[pilot602]

Actually, I just went back through your posts and tried to pull out the direct questions  and answer them individually. I think some of the question arise from two different views of warfare. I doubt I'll change your views/ideas on it and I doubt you'll change mine but this thread has got me thinking about things that need to be addressed, so thanks. :)

- How are MAIS transported about?

They move under their own power (walking-running) but to travel from planet to planet they a carried on Cruisers. To transport the MAIS planet side they must be carried in a drop ship (mini cruiser) or lighter MAIS may be individually deployed in "re-entry" pods. In zero-g environments lighter MAIS may "fly" under their own power and larger MAIS would need "booster packs."

- What is other transportation like in the setting?

Interstellaer, intrasolar-system, and various forms of ground and flight transportation. Lighter MAIS have limited flight capabilities (which has not been worked out yet). Larger MAIS lumber about at ever slower speeds in return for much more armor and bigger guns.

- That is, can MAIS be used in an urban setting without destroying parts of it (like infrastructure) as they move around?

Yes. Under a certain tonnage only superficial daamge will be inflicted to the environment by walking/flying. Over a certain tonnage damage from movement will most likely take place. But city sizes vary and as such different size MAIS will be able to be accomodated - as MAIS are not only war machines the civillian sector uses them as work vehicles (fix large buildings, move stuff around, etc.).

- If they can't be used in Urban settings, then what are they good for, what do they defend?

MAIS that are too large or impractical for a given urban environment – as noted above, different size cities can accomadate different size MAIS – would be generaly used for garrison duty, invasion point defense, artillery roles etc. But also, know this, urban environments aren't the only setting in which combat wil take place. I want to provide plenty of zero gravity scenarios where MAIS are used to assault and capture large inter-stellar vessels, etc.

- The best way to incorporate these things is not to have a design limit, but to have the effects built into the design. That way the players have to take this into consideration when designing how large a thing to create. Do I make it too large for all but the largest transports to carry? Do I make it slow? Or do I trade some size for tactical and strategic agility? That sort of thing.

This is covered by the current system in the form of movement penalties, etc. Also, (though not worked out yet) there will be a limit to what most cruisers can carry in terms of weight/volume limiting the size of larger MAIS. Not to mention cost of building and then (if capable) transporting the things.

And again extremely large MAIS will probably not be used very often in normal "campaigns." The option is there but the practicality limits "uber" MAIS from running around and laying waste to everyone and anything in its path.

- So any MAIS not designed to fight in an urban area will be next to worthless.

I have to disagree here because not every battle will take place in an urban setting. It's a big, big universe.

- What considerations make a particular size better for these different missions? What am I missing?

The objective of the mission (or resources) will dictate the equipment that can be used. Let's say, a squad is tasked with a insurgent drop planetside to, essentially, kidnap X Politician. Not many people are going to try and drop a 100 ton MAIS because anything over 60 tons requires an actual ship be landed. Under 60 tons a LOAD (low orbit atmospheric deployment) can be employed and the MAIS will essentialy ride down to the surface in individual, re-entry pods.

In light MAIS, their speed makes up for the fact they carry VERY light armament and even less armor. These things will fall down quick if they are so much as looked at. However in great numbers, yes, they may be able to take down a large MAIS but players and factions will generally not have access to large numbers of MAIS units for any one particular battle.

- This implies that smaller MAIS can affect larger ones. Implying that they can also fuzzy-wuzzy the larger ones. Meaning we're back to all small ones.

Yes, they could "fuzzy wuzzy" a large one but just because they can doesn't mean they'll have the resources available to pull it off. See above. Smaller MAIS may affect larger MAIS but the number of MAIS needed to do it will not be normally made availble to the player. This isn't a game of hundreds or thousands of units/infantry facing off against one another this is four or five units taking on four or five units.

- You've just opened up a whole nother can of worms. If you control space, then why do you need to land? If you have superiority in terms of intelligence, your satilites have replaced theirs, then why don't you just shoot them from orbit? Because they're in the city? Well, then, let's go down to the city.

Well, why didn't the U.S. just nuke Iraq? We had/have the capability. In fact, we control the airspace over Iraq but yet we still have soldiers dying on a daily basis. Battles and war are not black and white binary outcomes. If you control space, but you have rebel forces dug in around the planet, with the exception of turning the entire surface of the planet into glass, you have to go down and dig out the bad guys. If the "bad" guys have MAIS you can't really go after them in a Hummer.

- how will you landing in a drop ship lose surprise?

This comment was based on the idea of landing a dropship in the center of a city. Somone is going to notice an "ID4" size ship setting down on Central Park - no matter how many satelites have been nuked.

- Actually, no. That is, if the goal of the invaders is to destroy the city, they'll do it with bombs and artillery.

If they have the resources avaiable. MAIS can park several miles outside of a city and use artillery as well. They don't have to walk in and start kicking down buildings one at a time. So while a orbital ship may very well be capable of wiping out a city it doesn't neccisarily mean it has to when other options may make more sense at the moment. Just because MAIS arrived on a ship it doesn't mean that ship is going to stick around.

I completely agree with you if the goal is to simply destroy everything on the planet then the planner should send out a big ship, with even bigger guns, and play "shoot the fish in a barrell." In this scenario MAIS are not needed but they may very well be needed as "walking" artillery pieces on the surface of the ship to help fend off attackers (think Robotech and the SDF-1 here).

- So, if the bots are going somewhere, it's to take control, not to destroy it.

Most of the time, yes. But not all the time, see above.

Meaning that, in fact, using the strategic element as a shield makes a lot of sense. If they have to shoot through it to get to you, then at the worst, they won't have the strategic asset when the fight is over.

Not quite. If an adcanving force gets to the objective, with little or no argument from the other side, they'll simply sit there and play "king of the hill." Why would the invading force leave the objective area to engage the people who are supposedly defending it if the defenders are off somewhere in the woods and the invaders already, in fact, have the objective in their control? Additional patrols may be sent out but the force tasked with controlling the objective isn't going to leave.

- Then why don't the bots throw nukes? Or do they?

Yes - the larger the MAIS the more devestaing the weapon system it will be capable of carrying. Which equates to being able to reach out and touch something from quite a distance away.

why cant you burn farms from orbit

You can but again if the resources are available. If we wanted to lay waste to farms in, say, Canada would we use intercontinental missiles or send in infantry with cans of gas? Wars are generally fought with money and collateral damage in mind. Missiles may do the trick but what happens if one misses? A foot soldier with a can of gas and a match will always be more accurate than a missile.


-----------------
Any better?

[pilot602]

That's just one example of how to set up a rationale for your MAISes, but I its an example of what I think Mike is saying you're missing at this point.

Got it.

And yes there are planet side weapons capable of fending off orbiting vehicles. But lets set that aside for a moment ...

Let's say an invading force parks 15 cruisers around a planet. They blockade and bombard the major cities. The controlling force of the planet surrenders as this particular planet doesn't have orbital defense systems.

At some point you still need to send something down to the surface to take physical control. Once you have forces on the gorund and have a way of sustaining operations (i.e. take over key food, energy, logistic sites) on the planet does it then make logistical sense to keep your primary space fleet in orbit playing baby sitter?

Now, once forces are planetside and the planet has surrendered does it mean everyone is going to play nice? Just because the government surrendered it doesn't mean that all the people whom it governs agree with the surrender. At this point the entire planet is essentialy an "urban" environement as pockets of rebels will dig in and fight as best they can.

While I see your point you assume that the invading force will always have the superior force value and be able to keep those resources 100% committed to the task (invading) at hand. Or that by simply parking big ships around a planet the people who inhabit that planet are going to just say "ok you win." And this is not always, and is in fact generally not the case.

Take the Revolutionary War, for example. The Colonies were a far inferior force but because the British Government did not commit the resources needed to the fight they lost (yes I know this is a very simplified version). Just because a suprerior force exists it doesn't mean it will be used to its full potential – another example would be Vietnam.

So now we have forces planetside, essentially on their own or with minimal support, and are now tasked with the submition and control of an entire planet (from the surface of the planet). To do this you'll need a tool that will forcibly impose your will. Psycological benefits help too. And whats more terrifying than a giant robot with even bigger guns walking down your street?

I think, also, you're tied a little too much to the "reality" of the scenario and are forgetting that this is fiction and fantasy and while walking-tanks may not be practical in our universe, placed in a universe and civiliation that can travel thousands of light years in only a few seconds the technology used to bring these machines to life would be sufficient to make them usefull and or efficient.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

[Valamir]

Well, why didn't the U.S. just nuke Iraq? We had/have the capability. In fact, we control the airspace over Iraq but yet we still have soldiers dying on a daily basis. Battles and war are not black and white binary outcomes. If you control space, but you have rebel forces dug in around the planet, with the exception of turning the entire surface of the planet into glass, you have to go down and dig out the bad guys. If the "bad" guys have MAIS you can't really go after them in a Hummer.

Well, your mistake here is "dug in".

There are no rebel forces "dug in" in Iraq.  If there were they'd be immediately eliminated in short order by air attack followed by infantry occupation with armor support.

What you have in Iraq are local hostiles comingled with local population.  

There can be no such thing as guerrilla warfare with Mechs.  Its not like the mechs can hide or conceal themselves.

This is a basic tenet of modern warfare.  If you can find it, you can destroy it.

The problem with terrorists is you can't find them.  Mechs on the other hand are easy to find.  Therefor mechs are easy to destroy.  We have the capability today to target a specific automobile from a high altitude air craft and blow it up with minimal collateral damage.  

Within a few hours of obtaining air or orbit superiority there would be no Mechs left standing within 100 miles of any desired target.  They are far to easy to spot and target.

You can't hide a 100 ton bipedal warmachine.


Hense my postulation above that the only conceivable way you can justify ultra heavy armor (mecha or otherwise) is if air power is completely neutered (which btw is the same conclusion Steve Jackson came to with the Ogre universe) and orbital spy sattelites are impossible to maintain reliably (other wise you could get much the same effect with orbit guided artillery).

So you need to have weapons of some sort that can easily and quickly eliminate all aerial threats, but which, for some reason, are not effective at eliminating ground threats.  

That gives you a reason to have ground warfare.


As for occupying hostile territory.  That's what infantry do.  There is no conceivable set of circumstances where a 30 ton bipedal tank will be able to occupy a hostile city better (on an effectiveness per $ basis) than infantry.  ESPECIALLY when one factors in the the fact that the kind of tech that would make mecha even remotely possible would lead to a heck of alot better equipped infantry force then we have today.

[Valamir]

At some point you still need to send something down to the surface to take physical control. Once you have forces on the gorund and have a way of sustaining operations (i.e. take over key food, energy, logistic sites) on the planet does it then logistical sense to keep your primary space fleet in orbit playing baby sitter?

Then once forces are planetside and the planet has surrendered does it mean everyone is going to play nice? Just because the government surrendered it doesn't mean that all the people whom it governs agree with the surrender. At this point the entire planet is essentialy an "urban" environement as pockets of rebels will dig in and fight as best they can.

I'll expand here my infantry comment from the last post.

Once a planet surrenders it will of course be disarmed of all of its major military systems...its MAISes, its military aircraft, its wet navy ships, its tanks.

The only threat that the rebels would be able to pose is of the guerrilla nature with small arms.  This is not the sort of enemy that a MAIS would be designed to suppress.  It wouldn't be effective (because their are few of them relative to the number of platoons in an infantry Division that could be deployed) it would be easy for insurrgents to simply avoid them.  They are also tremendously expensive.

No, once a planet has surrendered, you need infantry and mechanized vehicles to occupy the key locations...power plants, space dock facilities, distribution and transportation centers, etc.

There is no way that the orbital defense system could be put back in place with any speed, so if the locals managed to put together some heavy weapons of the sort that are a threat to occupying infantry, its a simple matter to swing a cruiser back into orbit and wipe that threat out.


And most planets will not need to be occupied at all.  If your primary purpose is to eliminate the planets ability to engage in aggression against you simply disarming it will get the job done.  Then orbital monitoring can ensure that the defenses are not rebuilt.

If a planet has a specific resource that is needed, the only areas that need to be occupied are the locations where that resource is found so it can be taken and shipped of world.  



In any event the purpose of the ultra heavy armor would be to land, and take out key orbital defense installations.  Orbital bombardment would then eliminate any remaining enemy mechs that refuse to surrender while your own mechs are taken off world to assault somewhere else.

[pilot602]

This is a basic tenet of modern warfare. If you can find it, you can destroy it.

That's not modern, that's just a basic rule of life. ;)

You can't hide a 100 ton bipedal warmachine.

Sure you can. You can hide whole division of 'em if you're creative enough. To use Iraq as an example again they burried aircraft and we're still finding things (ironically, no WMD - but that's a topic for another board) and we're only talking about a single, relatively unpopulated country. How exactly do you search and disarm an entire planet as quickly as you are proposing? Just because you ask a "defeated" force to hand over their sticks it doesnt mean they'll give you all of them.

And most planets will not need to be occupied at all. If your primary purpose is to eliminate the planets ability to engage in aggression against you simply disarming it will get the job done. Then orbital monitoring can ensure that the defenses are not rebuilt.

Ahh like Europe did with 1930's Gernmany? If a country wants to re-arm it will find a way - especially if the folks watching are only doing so in a cursory manner. Sitting several hundred miles up in space looking down on an entire planet too see if they are rearming would be like sitting on the roof of your house and trying to find "Waldo" in one of the "Where's Waldo" books placed across the street. You might be able to see the book but you can't see the finite picture.

Orbital bombardment would then eliminate any remaining enemy mechs that refuse to surrender while your own mechs are taken off world to assault somewhere else.

But in saying this you imply another need for MAIS; the role of defending and repelling incoming MAIS. If, as you say, their only role would be to assault planets by taking out their orbital defenses why would orbital platforms be looking for and destroying enemy MAIS?

[Mike Holmes]

Ralph's points are good, but not quite what I was getting at. That is, I agree with him completely, but I also believe that rationales can be assembled that explain all of the problematic stuff. You still have a long way to go there, and you need to have all of that rationale stuff in place, really, before you can go on to creating the mech building systems.

My original point was to assume that you had a good rationale for all of this, but to point out a potential problem with the mech generation system. Which is that, essentially, from what I can see there is no reason to build large mechs. That is, there's an optimal size for them given everything that I've seen so far.


As for understanding how modern warfare works, I'd like to think that my military experience makes me, if not an expert, at least a very talented hobbiest. I'm a keen student of all things military. You've misread my analysis in a number of places, and in others you've only made my point for me. So I can only ask that, perhaps you reread my posts. I've read yours in their entirity to understand them, and I'd ask the same respect be given to my posts if you intend to challenge them.


You keep ignoring the power ratio problem for the problems of not having identified the other factors for mechs. Given your stats as they are, no govenment would ever build a mech larger than a certain size. In fact, you've got me now doing the number crunching on your system. I'm not precisely sure yet, but I think that the best power curve ratio is found at mechs of approximately 50 tonnes. Given your comments about them not needing to be landed and that I suspect that this size isn't a problem for urban areas (an M1 is heavier and works in our relatively low tech environment in cities), I'm almost positive that this is the case.

Now, perhaps there's something I'm not seeing. One thing that's not in your document is cost for things. It could be that large MAIS are cheaper to build somehow. But looking at your other formulae, I rather doubt it (if you have costs worked out at all). That is, in general the curves tend to be pretty linear. That is, power tends to increase proportionally in all areas with the size of the mech (with the exception of that "sweet spot" effect that I'm detecting above). In fact, the only "overhead" cost that I can see on the mech is the head/cockpit. What this means is that two 50 ton MAIS's are about the same effectiveness as a 100 ton MAIS (range/speed will tend to cancel). Which means that given similar costs that it makes more sense to have the two 50 ton MAIS - two vehicles are more versatile than one.

If, in fact, there's a cost break for larger MAIS, then they'll probably all end up at 100 tons. Because, though I'm not sure what the effect of the auxilliarly engines needed to move a larger MAIS, but if they take any space at all, or cost any money, then these will have a serious degradation in the power curve. That is, while a 100 ton mech will be able to take on two 50 ton mechs, a 200 ton mech will get completely trashed by two 100 ton mechs.

Now you say that the fuzzy wuzzy problem will not occur because of "resources". Is there some resource that limits the total number of mechs? Or, again, is there some cost break for larger mechs? Because if not, then the same amount of resources to build one thousand ton mech will also build 100 ten ton mechs. And the 100 ten tonners will be much more dangerous as a whole.

It can't be transport, because it takes precidely the same amount of space to transport the thousand ton mech as it does the 100 ten tonners.

So what limits the fallacy?

If it's the cost break thing, you end up with all 100 ton mechs. If it's some limiting gizmo, then you end up with the size of mechs being determined by taking the total resources available to build them, and dividing by the number of gizmos - each mech being made as large as possible (though all equal in size to avoid the diminishing returns as much as possible), in order to make the most of your gizmos.

None of this is making sense. If you get your rationalizations straight first, then we can help you get your math straight so that different size mechs do make sense. It can all be made to work, but not as is.

Mike

[Valamir]

You can't hide a 100 ton bipedal warmachine.

Sure you can. You can hide whole division of 'em if you're creative enough. To use Iraq as an example again they burried aircraft and we're still finding things (ironically, no WMD - but that's a topic for another board) and we're only talking about a single, relatively unpopulated country. How exactly do you search and disarm an entire planet as quickly as you are proposing? Just because you ask a "defeated" force to hand over their sticks it doesnt mean they'll give you all of them.

Well first, what I meant was you can't hide a functioning operating mecha.  There are many reasons for this, including heat.  Heat is an extremely easy thing to detect and a 100 ton mech will throw off alot of it.

If you want to talk about hiding deactivated warmachines underground to be recovered later, that's another issue entirely.  There may be some interesting scenario possibilities there actually.

As a general rule, the effort needed to recover and reactivate the mecha would not be likely to go unnoticed especially as cheap and inexpensive as spy sattelites will be.  Most of the expense of sattelites comes from the cost to launch them into orbit.  Any setting with trivial interstellar travel will have found ways to make that cost minimal.  Deploying a horde of planet monitoring sattelites from an orbital ship would be an obvious SoP.

Beyond orbital monitoring, is the potential for other form of intelligence, not the least of which is having some portion of the local population cooperating with the invaders and acting as informants.  Not an unlikely proposition.

Being able to recover a handful of buried mechs is one thing.  Being able to recover enough undetected to wipe out garrison forces is another.  Likely a single bombardment cruiser in orbit would be able to hold off any major assault by such an assembled force long enough to call in support if needed.  But even if the garrison force was successful and recovered the planet, its pretty pointless.  Unless the ground to orbit defense can be rebuilt extremely rapidly the planet will be vulnerable to orbital retribution for their action.

You may well have a vietnam situation on a planetary scale, with the invader having sufficient fire power to devastate any concentration of enemy force, but insufficient man power to completely pacify the populace...absolutely.  But mecha aren't going to be all that useful in such a situation.

Ahh like Europe did with 1930's Gernmany? If a country wants to re-arm it will find a way - especially if the folks watching are only doing so in a cursory manner. Sitting several hundred miles up in space looking down on an entire planet too see if they are rearming would be like sitting on the roof of your house and trying to find "Waldo" in one of the "Where's Waldo" books placed across the street. You might be able to see the book but you can't see the finite picture.

You forget that the rest of Europe was completely aware that Germany was rearming.  It was not a secret.  Europe simply lacked the will to do anything about it.  Political situations such as that can make for effective scenarios.  The presumed response would be simply to destroy industrial centers as soon as the rearming attempt was discovered, one by one until the effort ceased and the guilty parties turned over.  But if the occupiers lack the politcal will to do that...sure.  Sounds like an interesting scenario to me.

Orbital bombardment would then eliminate any remaining enemy mechs that refuse to surrender while your own mechs are taken off world to assault somewhere else.

But in saying this you imply another need for MAIS; the role of defending and repelling incoming MAIS. If, as you say, their only role would be to assault planets by taking out their orbital defenses why would orbital platforms be looking for and destroying enemy MAIS?

Sure.  Thats where your mech on mech battles would come from.  The assault and defense of the ground installations surrounding the defense system.


The order of events would go something like this.

1) Invading fleet arrives and drives off enemy fleet.

2) Invading fleet remains outside of planetary weapon range and using long range weaponry to target and wipe out all planetary sattelites.

3) "commando" groups of MAIS are fast dropped to the surface...in small numbers as stealthed as possible as fast as possible  (this is the weakest link requireing some handwaving.  If the defenses are capable of wiping out invader aircraft its a bit of a stretch to presume that MAIS would be able to land.  If MAIS are able to land, then invader aircraft/cruise missiles should also have some operating capacity that would render the MAIS on MAIS combat largely superfluous.  But since we're trying to force MAIS on MAIS combat...)

4) Part of the justification for #3 would likely be that the orbital defense systems only have a conical area of coverage which provides full coverage of orbital space but only partial coverage in the atmosphere.  No aircraft or missiles can penetrate the covered areas to target the weapons directly, but drop ships can penetrate the lesser covered areas to drop ground forces.  Thus MAISes would be dropped at some distance (but not too far) from the weapon installation.  Conventional ground forces would not be overly effective because they'd take too long to deploy in numbers great enough to matter (yes, a bit more handwaving)

5) Knowing that invaders would attack the installation with MAISes they are garrisoned by MAISes themselves.  The longer the defenders can hold off, the longer they can keep the enemy out of orbit.  If the attackers win they can destroy the installation and start opening holes in the orbital coverage.  

Of course at this point you'd have to wonder why the defenders don't use airpower to eliminate the incoming mechs...can't think of a real good reason for that.

[pilot602]

Ralph's points are good, but not quite what I was getting at. That is, I agree with him completely, but I also believe that rationales can be assembled that explain all of the problematic stuff. You still have a long way to go there, and you need to have all of that rationale stuff in place, really, before you can go on to creating the mech building systems.

My original point was to assume that you had a good rationale for all of this, but to point out a potential problem with the mech generation system. Which is that, essentially, from what I can see there is no reason to build large mechs. That is, there's an optimal size for them given everything that I've seen so far.

I guess my point is I do not, or did not prior to this post, understand your specific problem with the "power curve." I can't reply, answer, defend against a point that is not made clearly.

As for understanding how modern warfare works, I'd like to think that my military experience makes me, if not an expert, at least a very talented hobbiest. I'm a keen student of all things military. You've misread my analysis in a number of places, and in others you've only made my point for me. So I can only ask that, perhaps you reread my posts. I've read yours in their entirity to understand them, and I'd ask the same respect be given to my posts if you intend to challenge them.

I have read your posts. In fact, I went back and made a point to pull out direct questions and answer them individually.

Not to start a fight, here, but I think this paragraph is a little more than a little condescending. I'm glad you consider yourself an expert on modern warfare, that's great, but being an expert on modern warfare doesn't spell out or clarify your problem with "the power curve" and that seems to be what you want clarified and or answered primarily.

You keep ignoring the power ratio problem for the problems of not having identified the other factors for mechs. Given your stats as they are, no govenment would ever build a mech larger than a certain size.

I have given you a reason ... several in fact: light mechs are incredibly underarmed and underarmored. They're only true asset is speed. That resources (in terms of types of MAIS constructed, deployed, assigned, availble for purchase acquisition by various factions, etc.) will limit the number of MAIS availble for deployment . Then there is the "giant" factor but I'd very much like to make the core system work without bringing hte "giant" in as a "saveall."

In fact, you've got me now doing the number crunching on your system. I'm not precisely sure yet, but I think that the best power curve ratio is found at mechs of approximately 50 tonnes. Given your comments about them not needing to be landed and that I suspect that this size isn't a problem for urban areas (an M1 is heavier and works in our relatively low tech environment in cities), I'm almost positive that this is the case. Now, perhaps there's something I'm not seeing. One thing that's not in your document is cost for things. It could be that large MAIS are cheaper to build somehow. But looking at your other formulae, I rather doubt it (if you have costs worked out at all).

No, costs have not been set/determined, etc.

That is, in general the curves tend to be pretty linear. That is, power tends to increase proportionally in all areas with the size of the mech (with the exception of that "sweet spot" effect that I'm detecting above). In fact, the only "overhead" cost that I can see on the mech is the head/cockpit.

Please explain this - the cockpit phrase, I mean. Im assuming you means cost in terms of training pilots etc.

What this means is that two 50 ton MAIS's are about the same effectiveness as a 100 ton MAIS (range/speed will tend to cancel). Which means that given similar costs that it makes more sense to have the two 50 ton MAIS - two vehicles are more versatile than one.

If, in fact, there's a cost break for larger MAIS, then they'll probably all end up at 100 tons. Because, though I'm not sure what the effect of the auxilliarly engines needed to move a larger MAIS, but if they take any space at all, or cost any money, then these will have a serious degradation in the power curve. That is, while a 100 ton mech will be able to take on two 50 ton mechs, a 200 ton mech will get completely trashed by two 100 ton mechs.

Now you say that the fuzzy wuzzy problem will not occur because of "resources". Is there some resource that limits the total number of mechs? Or, again, is there some cost break for larger mechs? Because if not, then the same amount of resources to build one thousand ton mech will also build 100 ten ton mechs. And the 100 ten tonners will be much more dangerous as a whole.

It can't be transport, because it takes precidely the same amount of space to transport the thousand ton mech as it does the 100 ten tonners.

So what limits the fallacy?

If it's the cost break thing, you end up with all 100 ton mechs. If it's some limiting gizmo, then you end up with the size of mechs being determined by taking the total resources available to build them, and dividing by the number of gizmos - each mech being made as large as possible (though all equal in size to avoid the diminishing returns as much as possible), in order to make the most of your gizmos.

None of this is making sense. If you get your rationalizations straight first, then we can help you get your math straight so that different size mechs do make sense. It can all be made to work, but not as is.

Mike

Now I see the problem you're pointing at – I think. Which is exactly why I posted this stuff. Thanks.

Ok, now, what are your suggestions to fix it?

And, just out of curiosity, does Battletech share this problem?

[pilot602]

OK does this help:

A 50 ton MAIS will have a Skeleton that weighs 25 tons. This gives the MAIS 50 mounts, and if maximum armor is used (25 tons), the remaining wieght available for weapons/equipment is 25 tons.

So, a 50 ton MAIS, 50 mounts and 25 free tons, a range of 26 hexes and a total damage absorption rating of (armor points + internal points) of 500.

The maximum weapon output currently availble to fit in this MAIS would be a Supreme Heavy Ionic Canon (120 dmg, 40 mounts, 20 tons) and a Heavy Ionic Canon (32 dmg, 8 mounts, 4 tons). - note: there could possibly be other combinations but for simplicty sakes I'll stick with energy weapons as they never run out of ammunition..

So this MAIS has a damage absorption factor of 500 points, moves 26 hexes and has a total damage output of 152 (or a damage/ton rating of 3.2)

-------

A 400 ton MAIS will have a Skeleton that weighs 200 tons. This gives the MAIS 100 mounts, and if one half of maximum armor is used (100 tons), the remaining wieght available for weapons/equipment is 100 tons.

Because it uses a double skeleton (unlimiteds are required to use a 2xSkeleton) any range generated by mounted Aux Gens will be doubled. Generators weigh 4 tons and use 8 mounts. It takes one generator to move one hex. So we'll place five generators giving the MAIS a range of 8 (-1+5=4x2=8) hexes at a cost of 20 tons and 40 mounts.

So, a 400 ton MAIS, 60 mounts and 80 free tons, a range of 8 hexes and a total damage absorption rating of (armor points + internal points) of 3,000.

The maximum weapon output currently availble to fit in this MAIS would be a seven Heavy Ionic Cannons (32 dmg, 8 mounts, 4 tons) and one Medium Ionic Cannon (16 dmg, 4 mount, 2 ton).

So this MAIS has a damage absorption factor of 3,000 points, moves 8 hexes and has a total damage output of 240 (or a damage/ton rating of .6)

-------

Now if you took eight 50 tonners (equal tonnage when compared to the 400 tonner) as outfitted above, the damage output per turn would be 1,216 compared to the output of the 400 tonner at 240.

However, this is still an 8:1 ratio. Meaning while the tonnage is the same there are now 8 MAIS, 8 pilots, 8 support crews, etc. to maintain/field an "equal" amount of tons.

It would take these eight MAIS 2.46 turns to destroy the 400 tonner and it would take the 400 tonner 16.6 turns to destroy the 8, 50 tonners.

I see you point and I think if I changed the mount formula for Unlimited class MAIS (x2 or x4 instead of ÷2) the damage output of the Unlimiteds would jump through the roof and match the possible out put of several MAIS combined.

Is this the kind of stuff you want to see justified/fixed/tweaked?

[greedo1379]

Is mecha construction that vital to your game idea?  I mean if there were a number of set basic designs would the game suffer?  

Beyond balance, etc. the engineer in me is kind of curious why they are building a gazillion different kinds of MAISs.  This ignores assembly line advantages in the first place and in the second engineering costs would be huge.  Look at the auto industry.  New cars take a couple years to be designed.  

I dunno, just something to think about.

[pilot602]

No, that's a good point but also look at the auto industry a different way; how many types of four door, four-cylinder cars do 250 million (U.S. population) really need? Point is if someone is willing to buy it someone is willing to build it and in a civilization that spans multiple solar systems I think it would only be natural to see diversification.

But you did get me thinking ... if I'm trying to put focus on keeping players tied to one machine should the ability to design them be so important? I guess the strongest argument is that by having a design mechanic it serves double duty as a customization (which if you are tied to one MAIS you're probably going to want to do) mechanic.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Sorry to show up so late in this conversation. I've been working on my own mecha game for about a year now. We have several playtests under our belt, and it seems to work out OK. I've been keeping track of development sporadically in my LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/nikotesla/.

About Roroga and how I've confronted the issues you're confronting:

Playing pieces are made of Lego, so everyone's mecha are truly unique.

Here's how I've dealt with this power-curve issue (which I sensed early on, too):

1: I don't care how many tons a mecha is. The players don't either, believe it or not. What I care about it an offense/defense/move ratios are. Every little kid who comes into my workshop and builds a mecha to fight with says "It's fast" or "It shoots with this gun DOOOJJH!" or "It's heavily armored", not "It's heavy". When they tell me what kind of gun it is, it comes down to a couple of things: it goes BOOOM! or takatakatakataka! or zzzzzzzzzzkt! and then it does damage to something. The idea is to have a mediated (by the rules) drama, not to practice accounting.

2: I don't care how many bullets I have. Counting bullets is not fun and is dramatically a downer. It matters dramatically what's broken, but not in terms of gameplay. It doesn't matter whether I have a shield or an ECM pod or smoke grenades; they all do the same thing.

3: In fact, all of the bookkeeping is a downer and is viewed with circumspection throughout the rules.

4: There is a Scale for everything (this is where we get to the meat of your problem, and mine, too). There's Human scale (soldiers, for instance), Vehicle scale (tanks, jeeps, planes), Mecha Scale (mecha and other giant machines), Building Scale, and Starship Scale.

Different forms of propulsion work better or worse, depending on the terrain. Legs give you several advantages that make them the most attractive choice in most applications: it gives the ability to dodge to any model, and, in combination with hands, gives mecha one of the three martial art styles. The only advantage of wheels or tracks is that they're faster. That doesn't translate to better, necessarily. It's contextual. I've tried to balance the effectiveness of all the mechanical functions in the game: full-auto isn't inherently any better than a single, well-placed shot, but being able to do the right one at the right time is.

So what you have are a bunch of mission-related units (say, a bunch of dudes that have to get to a building, their APC, and their tank for covering fire), and then you have mecha, which are simply the best at fighting because a) other models can hide behind them like tanks in WWII, b) they carry weapons proportionate to their Scale, c) they get the credit for the win (and therefore experience points and damage quirks) in campaign games because they're the heroes of the show, d) they can dodge in several ways, e) They can climb, jump, and do Sokokunst (martial art) moves that make them powerful disproportionately to their cost in a wide, though not all-encompassing, range of missions.

Building-scale vehicles are effectively stationary. Starship-scale vehicles won't fit on your floor (and are useful therefore only in abstract starship battle, which hasn't yet been tested).

But here are some important plot-based elements: there are no long range weapons. No artillery of note, no orbital bombardment, and limited aircraft use. This is because the mecha are used for the frontal assault part of specific missions. They don't want to flatten the city. They want to get to a particular building. They want to kill the Prime Minister, or help a spy steal a file, or secure a building as headquarters in an eventual coup.

In other words, it's plot based. Maybe there's other stuff going on in wide-open flat fields where they pound each other with guns. But the mecha fight in tight quarters where their dodging ability and poweful martial arts make a difference, and where total destruction is not desirable, and maybe contrary to your goals.

Gasaraki is one of very few mecha stories where I've seen mecha make sense: they're of medium, tank-like size, but they can travel over buildings and sidestep in a way that tanks can't. They also have Kewl Powerz, like the fact that they get full integration with the pilot's body and mind, so they react at a superhuman speed. I started with the same premise the Gasaraki design team did: take the advantages of a human (which are myriad - the abilities to climb, martial arts abilities and their accompanying ki special effects, jump, pick things up, throw stuff, and so forth), and patch their vulnerabilties (squishy flesh and low speed).

My rules are a pigmess right now and are even missing some rules we've made up on the fly and want to keep, but if anyone wants an outline-form to chew on and spit out, then laugh and point at the wad on the ground, it can be found here:
http://joshua.swingpad.com/roroga0.4.pdf
Naturally, these rules are copyrighted by me, but you all can probably come up with better implementations of the fundamental ideas anyway.

[greedo1379]

I think the miniatures game Warmachine does big robots alright.  But they're steampunk setting big robots instead of tanks so maybe that doesn't help much.

What about making a certain number of chassis that can be modified with personal choice weapons?  I imagine it being something like choosing your class in D&D.  You pick the fighter class and then you add the longbow and the point blank shot feat while another guy picks the figher, sword and shield and toughness feat.  Or so on.  You would still get a lot of versatility without making your life really difficult.  Or you could just use a "counts as" type rule.  One guy may drive the Chevy Corvette and the other drives the Ford Mustang but in your game they count as the same vehicle.  This would promote some depth to the setting without making it a bookkeeping nightmare.

[pilot602]

Well I was driving to work today and had the idea, how 'bout this:

Instead of tying the Skelton to the overall weight, why not tie the overall weight to the skeleton.

Right now my internal structure is a derrivative of the proposed total weight of each MAIS. (Total tonnage ÷ four [or two]). What if, instead, I made it so that the "class" is actually arbitrarily defining the skelton (or chasis) and each class of skeleton could carry up to X weight. I think, this, then would make each class have it's own power curve and do away  with (or lessen to some degree) the diminishing return in terms of design for larger and larger machines. The limiting factor (to keep everyone from running around in 18,000 ton MAIS) would be interstellar transport, cost of production, availability, etc.

I'm also going to go in and re-do the weapons. As it is now they just don't fit.