[Big Ole Robots] Robot design rules, sheet

[pilot602]

Ok ... how's this for rationalization (the need for these machines):

Mobile Armored Invasion Suits, as they exist in 1001 a.e., arose from exactly what the name implies: armored exo-skeletal suits used to augment infantry soldiers – particularly when fighting in harsh environments. Their use gradually spread to all facets of infantry work.

After the United Earth Empire discovered the Elder warship the idea of planetary defense was tackled. Several people proposed a satelite of planetary based systems with which to shoot at orbiting ships. And while these were developed and effective to some extent, these systems could be easily defeated by obrital bombardment.

One solar system, that happened to be a leading producer of infantry MAIS suits fell into rebellion against the United Earth Empire. Recognizing the problems with stationary planetary defense systems several of the leading MAIS manufacturers formed a consortium believing the idea of augmenting soldiers and deploying them to the shell of a space vessel could be an effective ofr of offense. At first shuttles were tested, delivering MAIS suited infantry to the hull of a ship. Once there they found they had an extraordinaly hard time penetrating the hull of even a light, intrasolar cargo ship. So a hull, penetrating wepaon needed to be developed. Various forms of hand-held cutters and explosive devices were designed and tested but one problem kept reappearing – hand-held weapons did not provide enough punch to create a breech fast enough for soldiers to enter the ship.
Then, one of the more prolific MAIS deisgners had the idea of landing a walking forklift fitted with powerful weapons on the hull, using it to create a breech and thereby allow the shock troops to enter.
Walking forklifts had been in use throughout the UEE for generations and after several modifications and trials a hybrid was born. A MAIsuit wrapped inside a walking, armored and armed, forklift. Fitted with articulated hands it was the perfect hull-breeching system. It could punch a hole into the hull with it's weapons and then use its hands to place a pod of MAIsuit equipped shock troops at the opening allowing the troops to enter and storm the ship. Ideally the perfect placement of these troops would be on or near the bridge so as to effectively take control of the ship with as few troop as possible.

Thus the walking, robotic tank was evolved from a combination of the exo-xkeletal MAIsuit and a civillian tool.

The UEE incensed that a system had rebelled – the system responsible for 60-percent of infantry MAIsuit production, no less – sent the flagship fleet to retake the system.

Upon arriving in the system the Iso Solar government deployed their intrasystem fleet, and while pathetically out gunned, the fleet managed to get close enough to deploy fighter cover to mask and help deliver their new, secret weapon – the Mobile Armored Invasion Suit.

The MAIS sped across the intervening space, under fighter cover, and landed firmly on the outer shell of the flag ship of the fleet carrying pods of shock troops. Once attached to the hull the MAIS, using their weapons and articulated hands, ripped holes in the hull large enough to fit the shock troop pods into and thus allow shock troops storm the ship. While the shock troops worked on capturing the ship internally the MAIS simply walked down the hull destroying anti-fighter weapons and eventually working their way to the engine sheaths where they simply laid waste to the external portions of the engine slowing the ship to a crawl.

Watching the flag ship, of the flagship fleet, get ripped apart the remaining portion of the fleet fled the system to theorize a way to counter this new threat.

A secondary planetary defense system had been developed and it was frightengly effective.

With a primary purpose for existence the MAIS other uses were explored The units were tested in varying environments and found to be effective as all around assault vehicles and especially planetary assault vehicles. They especially shined at  destroying planetary based anti-orbital emplacements once the problem of deplyoying them planet-side was overcome.

A weakness was discovered once the machines were used planetside – they were particularly vunerable to aircraft. This problem was solved by fittign the machines with an automatic anti-aircraft system. Then, once combined with infantry the machines were nearly unstoppable. As their mobility and range of use (water, land, space) far outshone other armor systems.

The Free Worlds of Iso System managed to stave off the United Earth Empire for several generations before finally falling into line as political moods changed.

The nice thing about this background is the one of the adavantages to bigger machines is that you can carry more weapons and shock troops. And in space the larger the machine is the fewer you have to send and land on the hull of an invading ship.

[Mike Holmes]

Sorry to sound consescending, and apologies if my point was hard to come up with from my posts. But you've managed to decipher it after all, so on we go....

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.

Bingo, power curve. Your math is starting to look right.

What you didn't account for, however is the diminishing firepower of the smaller mechs as they are destroyed. This makes then take considerably longer to destroy the large mech, likely, but it too will suffer damage in the short run and overall, the calculations favor the smaller mechs.

In brief, overhead refers to costs that are the same for every unit, no matter the size. I erroneously read the cost in terms of tons for the head as the same for every mech (it's actually included in the skelletal cost, which is completely proportional). This would have meant that very small mechs have a disadvantage that decreases as they get larger (less percentage of their hull could be used for weapons or armor). But, as it is, there is no overhead, or disadvantage to smaller size that I can see. Whereas there is a disadvantage to larger mechs for sure, as you've surmized.

Again, what happens the is that the damage to mass ratio makes the larger weapons less potent, and so, in order to gain the range advantage that will be needed to counter the smaller mechs speed advantage, they have to take these weapons, and become inefficient (or take more smaller weapons to be more efficient, and lose the speed/range war). Given that this seems constant, right now, your best bet is likely the ten ton mech, or something slightly higher that makes some equipment breakpoint. For combined arms, possibly larger to accomodate the different types of systems or to have more ammo for "endurance" units. I'm thinking that nothing above 30 tons at most would be built with the current rules.

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.

Thats a potential solution, but it's sorta kludgy. That is, I think that there are probably ways to fix the overall system that will simplify everything at the same time.

By kludgey I mean that there are more rules being stuck in to fix the problem that is, in this case predicated on a 100 ton drop off point which is artificial and seems to be based on Battletech ideas. That is, what is it about your world that makes mechs suddenly lose efficiency at this point. From what I can see, it's the fact that the engines available don't seem to be designed to support that size. Which just makes anything over 100 tons less likely again.

Given ablative armor for giants (that is armor like the mechs that is chipped off bit at a time), then there's no reason to go with large mechs if they're not efficient somehow. In real life, the need to build a larger canon for a tank is based on the fact that armor isn't ablative. That is, you don't "whittle down" your opponent in real life. If you could, then infantry would beat tanks with enough men. But the fact is that weapons either do, or do not penetrate the armor of the target at which they are shooting as a generalization.

So, if you really want to make "giants" a reason to have larger mechs, then you'll have to institute some reason to need to mount larger weapons than the smaller mechs can mount. Like a penetration rule, for instance. Penetration rules are no fun because, generally armor is a resource in these games and fun to monitor for damage. But that's the tradeoff.

It would be possible to have both, but I'm not sure that's a complication that you want to add. But, basically, with a penetration rule, mechs can only affect mechs X larger than themselves. Making the need to have different sizes to combat the larger ones, much more compelling. Basically, the power drop off on the larger weapons would be compensated by making them capable of defeating better armor at all.

But to get back to your overall problem, the simple way to fix the power curve is just to have damage proportional to mass. This is boring, I know. Another way to fix this is to make larger mechs move at variable rates. That is, instead of having the one fixed power plant, have it be variable. That way, a mech with a proportional sized engine would would move just as fast, and suddenly the weapon ranges for the larger weapons become significant again, giving a reason for the power drop off to exist.

Or, another solution is to make an overhead cost for the engine. This seems to make sense - apparently the same DPU that powers the smaller mechs powers the larger mechs, hence the speed drop off. But if that's true, then its mass shouldn't be part of the infrastructure cost, but be calculated separately. What this would mean is that the larger mechs, while slower, would have more space for weapons and armor, making them more powerful overall.

That might be the best solution. Make the DPU 5 tons, and infrastructure 20%. So, on a ten ton mech, 70% is taken up with power and infrastructure, wheras on a 100 ton mech, only 25% is taken up on these things. That gives a rather strong incentive to go large that could well counter the power drop. That said, it would definitely create a sweet spot effect again given the weapon power curve.

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.

Lets say that a ground crew is ten guys - probably unrealisitcally high given automation in a high tech society, but it's a fun number. Heck, let's say that given beaurocracy that there are 100 people behind each mech, just for the sake of argument.

A "typical battle" as you put it is five on five. As opposed to the typical battle today in which thousands of men might be involved. So for the big mechs you'd have a total need for something like 100 guys. And I'd have a need for 800 guys with the smaller mechs. That's nothing. Unless armies or populations are miniscule compared to today's standards, the number of men involved is just not worth comparing in terms of manpower. And this all assumes that it takes the same amount of people to service the larger mech as the smaller - which wouldn't match reality well.

So that leaves another possible rout - I assume that there's only one pilot? (keeps things thematically interesting as the mech becomes an extension of the pilot). Training for pilots or for techs could be very hard to come by, or be very difficult for technical reasons - trained pilots were often the limiting factor to air power in WWII. This usually has more to do with pilot attrition, and teaching taking longer than vehicle creation, so it's probably not a prewar consideration. But if fighting has been going on for some time as the game begins, they could be building larger mechs to get more oomph out of each pilot.

Usually with real machines larger equipment requires more operators, but if mechs are a special case (and again, they probably should be), then you may see larger mechs for the best pilots. This increases both their protection for the pilot, and achieves the overall goal of providing a need for larger mechs.

(BTW, this creates an opportunity to create your "kobold" mechs. Basically, the rationale for mechs has to include that pilots are a neccessary component for all of this to be true. But it's hard to imagine that automated mechs couldn't be created. So the argument could be that these well trained pilots are always far superior than the automated versions. If the automated versions are small because of a power curve making them more efficient, then you get small dumb mechs for PCs to kill).

So, overall, you have a few options here - and perhaps you can come up with some on your own. Careful about selecting combinations of options to make sure that the combinations themselves don't cancel out or create new problems.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

I'm going to follow up my post directly above with this one on the rationale so far.

After the United Earth Empire discovered the Elder warship the idea of planetary defense was tackled. Several people proposed a satelite of planetary based systems with which to shoot at orbiting ships. And while these were developed and effective to some extent, these systems could be easily defeated by obrital bombardment.

OK, just to get this straight, Orbital superiority is possible to gain from orbit. That can work for it's own part, but has some implications.

Thus the walking, robotic tank was evolved from a combination of the exo-xkeletal MAIsuit and a civillian tool.

This part itself makes sense, but the tactic overall needs explaining.

Upon arriving in the system the Iso Solar government deployed their intrasystem fleet, and while pathetically out gunned, the fleet managed to get close enough to deploy fighter cover to mask and help deliver their new, secret weapon – the Mobile Armored Invasion Suit.

The MAIS sped across the intervening space, under fighter cover, and landed firmly on the outer shell of the flag ship of the fleet carrying pods of shock troops. Once attached to the hull the MAIS, using their weapons and articulated hands, ripped holes in the hull large enough to fit the shock troop pods into and thus allow shock troops storm the ship. While the shock troops worked on capturing the ship internally the MAIS simply walked down the hull destroying anti-fighter weapons and eventually working their way to the engine sheaths where they simply laid waste to the external portions of the engine slowing the ship to a crawl.

Watching the flag ship, of the flagship fleet, get ripped apart the remaining portion of the fleet fled the system to theorize a way to counter this new threat.

So, if the fighters themselves, or the ships from which the fighters and shuttles were launched weren't enough to kill the opposing fleet, then why didn't the opposing fleet shoot the shuttles? If it was surprise, then how come the tactic still works after the initial surprise? I mean, some of the power of the fleet launching such an attack would be comsumed by the launchers of the shuttles (or do the shuttles operate independently)? So, if that lost power wasn't enough to kill the opposing fleet, then how could the carried power be enough to kill the fleet?

This is, again, the "fighter fallacy" from SFB. There has to be some rationale why smaller things that fit into larger things can carry more effective power than the larger thing.

For example, you could say that the power that the MAIS have come from the DPUs or something. These cannot be used in conjunction with each other for some reason, so they can't be used to power a starship. So, since they can only be used in small suits, this makes the small suits relatively potent for their size (and if the shape has something to do with being able to access the power of the source - maybe the pilot psychically links with it to power something that has a shape similar to his body). Something like that might be believable.

A secondary planetary defense system had been developed and it was frightengly effective.

Not sure what this means. What's the implication?

With a primary purpose for existence the MAIS other uses were explored The units were tested in varying environments and found to be effective as all around assault vehicles and especially planetary assault vehicles. They especially shined at  destroying planetary based anti-orbital emplacements once the problem of deplyoying them planet-side was overcome.

What is the "problem" in question here? How was it overcome?

A weakness was discovered once the machines were used planetside – they were particularly vunerable to aircraft. This problem was solved by fittign the machines with an automatic anti-aircraft system. Then, once combined with infantry the machines were nearly unstoppable. As their mobility and range of use (water, land, space) far outshone other armor systems.

OK, why aren't the planes as tough as the MAIS? That is, if I can make a MAIS fly, then how is that not something that can be shaped like a plane? And if so, how can that not be just as hard to defeat as a MAIS? If it's a matter of even MAIS not being able to sustain flight for long, then I could see planes not being able to direcly engage MAIS.

But that leads to a whole nother can of worms. How large is one hex? How long is one turn? More to the point, how fast do MAIS go, and how far away can they engage enemies? Basically, why can't a cruise missile be fired from hundreds of miles away to dispatch one of these things (there are rules for this in OGRE)? Or a missile from a plane that's out of range? If they can shoot down cruise missiles and ones from planes with their anti-aircraft devices, then why can't they shoot down the missiles that other mechs fire at them?

If the missiles are "special" that mechs fire, then why can't these special missiles be put on planes, or fired by infantry for that matter (or from vehicles like the pershing missile launcher or MLRS if they're too large)?

Battletech was horrible this way. Basically, as described, mechs had barely any more firepower than modern day vehicles do, much, much less range, and moved much more slowly. Made it very hard to believe.

The robotech rationale is that mechs are planes - or rather have all of the abilities of planes, so planes have no advantages. This of course leaves one wondering why they ever "transform" into ground units for fights, but...

The nice thing about this background is the one of the adavantages to bigger machines is that you can carry more weapons and shock troops. And in space the larger the machine is the fewer you have to send and land on the hull of an invading ship.

How are these advantages? Mass is mass. Several small ones, few large ones, it doesn't matter as long as everything gets where it's going. In fact, if targeting these is difficult a good argument could be made for lots of smaller ones being more effective at delivering their payload.

Mike

[pilot602]

First, thanks for the post previous (power curve) ... I'm working on several different approaches to fix the problem. I hope to post the ideas in short order ...

Second, the use of MAIS against larger ships.

It comes back to what you called me on before. Sure, if you want to destroy the ship you'd use fighters or other, big ships. But if you want to raid one and capture it you need to get troops on board.

So the first thing you try is sending over a shuttle with 10, 20, 40 troops on board, land on the hull, have them get out and then try to penetrate the hull (a hull designed to withstand attack from fighters and big ships) with hand-held devices. Yes they may be able to breach it but it's going to take a long time and time – while standing in deep space, on the hull of a hostile warship – is one commodity that runs out quickly.

So, now you need something that has more punch but can apply that punch precisely and at the same time defend/protect the troops that are being deployed.

In comes the MAIS. If you can land four or five MAIS on the hull of a ship use their more powerful weapons(as comparedto hand held weapons), in a much more precise manner (as opposed to deploying those weapons from  from a moving platform, i.e. fighter) you've defeated the ships defenses because there are no defenses for what you're doing. At this point (inthe game-universe) there are no defenses against this kind of attack as it's a new tactic.

Thus the flag ship falls and the UEE retreats for a time.

Time marches on and ships are retrofitted, and then designed, with anti-MAIS turrets/defenses but these are now vulnerable to fighters and big-ship weapons.

Inter-stellar warfaring ships are expensive and a relatively rare commodity, and in this universe, humanity has a habit of recycling as much technology as possible (i.e. they found and revrese engineered the Elder's tech to start them on their "Great Expansion). So capturing a warship is of much higher value than simply destroying it. Especially to the Free Words who lack any kind of large warship to begin with.

It's a microcosm of planetary assault. If small, or fast, or small and fast potent things can get past the primary defenses designed to take out big, slow moving things – those defenses can now be nullified by the small, fast, relatively potent things. I.E. MAIS are landed outside  a city [note: I'm changing it to all MAIS may be deployed via LOAD or some variation of it, ie. no drop ship] and used to go in and take out the big guns so larger ships can land and storm the city with infantry, etc. The idea with landing MAIS on the hull of a ship is this same idea.

This is, again, the "fighter fallacy" from SFB. There has to be some rationale why smaller things that fit into larger things can carry more effective power than the larger thing.

It's not so much that a MAIS carries with it more power than a comparably sized fighter it's that the MAIS can apply that power much more precisely – when placed in the context of storming/capturing an enemy vessel. Plus the MAIS is augmenting the natural abilities of a human .. a shuttle with a bomb mght be able to blow a hole in a hull but a MAIS can use it's opposable thumbs and pry, twist, manipulate things in such a way as to facilitate inserting a pod of shock troops.

If you want to destroy it the ship (just like a city), yeah you're right, send fighters out with nukes, or use big, ship-borne "artillery."

But, if you have an inferior fleet with fewer fighters you either need to lure the superior fleet within range of your planetary defenses or disable/capture a few of their ships. Disabling and capturing means you now have an asset you didn't have before and an asset you desperately need.

What is the "problem" in question here? How was it overcome?

The problem was; how does an isolated system, with an inferior space fleet, fend off or defeat the superior fleet?

The answer was; the inferior fleet did not have access to building larger/better warships and as such they were limited in how many fighters could be deployed. But, they were well versed in infantry tactics and the construction of suits that helped to augment soldiers. Thus the MAIS evolved out of a need to apply a decent amount of power at a very precise point (we're taking within tens of feet) and then help to facilitate the deployment of shock troops into the enemey vessel with the express goal of capturing said vessel.

Reading back I didn't really lay that idea out so well.

If MAIS can fly ...

In space MAIS can "fly" but in a gravity field/atmosphere they can't. They may be able to hover a little bit but that's about the extent of "flight" capabilities in gravity.

If they can shoot down cruise missiles and ones from planes with their anti-aircraft devices, then why can't they shoot down the missiles that other mechs fire at them?

For the most part they can shoot down both curise missiles and missiles from other MAIS, using the wepaon rules I currently have.

But, I'm scrapping the current weapon rules. They don't make sense on two fronts. One, my current rules shadow Battletech's ideas on how to arm a big walking robot and they suck as you've pointed out. They basically just made tanks walk and do not take advantage of what a robot is (a bit hard human as the other guy osted pointed out). Two, the rules I've come up with have a funky curve (thanks for that, btw) which I'm not happy with after looking at them.

In the new rules, with regards to missiles, I'm leaning towards the "Robotech" approach where hundreds/thousands of smaller missiles are fired from MAIS at other MAIS.

Airborne/spaceborne fighters wouldn't carry the same number of missiles a MAIS can because fighters still have to operate within the realm of aerodyanmics (anti-grav tech hasn't been developed to the point of using to actually fly).

MAIS, being big walking "ammo dumps," could carry much more ammunition. So essentially it would be a matter of overwhelming the built in anti-aircraft systems a MAIS carries by firing lots and lots of missiles.

The trade off to that system is, yes one could be designed to taget, track and dispatch 1,000s of incoming missiles but not much space would be left for offensive weapons. So you put on a system that takes car of cruise missiles and aircraft and leave the offensive weapons take care of othe MAIS.

Yes, ground installations could be fitted with these same types of missile systems but that's where you hope you send enough MAIS in to overwhelm that system. Or use aircraft to take out the installations. Or design a special weapon that while impractical against other MAIS could be used in an assault ona ground facility and then be ejected (i.e. a MAIS-handheld anti-missile pod which after the MAIS destroyes the installation could then be jettisoned).

How are these advantages? Mass is mass. Several small ones, few large ones, it doesn't matter as long as everything gets where it's going. In fact, if targeting these is difficult a good argument could be made for lots of smaller ones being more effective at delivering their payload.

Let me try explaining it this way. Say you send out 100 fighters and in that jumbled mess of machines you have 30 MAIS carrying shock troops. The enemy now has a, roughly speaking, 30% chance of hitting one of those MAIS. If you take those same 100 fighters but mix in only 15 MAIS the enemy now has a 50% less chance of hitting a MAIS. Granted the 15 individual MAIS are larger than the individual 30 but mass doesn't always define volume. That is to say, a 50 ton mais isn't necessarily going to be 50% bigger (volume wise) than a 25 ton MAIS.

The idea is the fewer "key" targets you place in a big, target-rich environment that harder you make the enemy work in targeting those key elements.

Thats my thinking there ... does that solve/answer any of your questions on the rationale I'm now leaning towards?

And I do appreciate your time/feedback ... it's got me thinking and that's what I needed/wanted.

[greedo1379]

Granted the 15 individual MAIS are larger than the individual 30 but mass doesn't always define volume. That is to say, a 50 ton mais isn't necessarily going to be 50% bigger (volume wise) than a 25 ton MAIS.

Errrr... if the two MAISs are made out of the same materials then yeah, actually the volume of the 50 ton should be twice the volume of the 25 ton.  This is density (mass/volume) and its constant for a given material.  If for some reason the smaller MAIS has large empty spaces it will be larger but why would that be done?  It makes no sense to make yourself a larger target than necessary and enclosing large empty spaces adds weight and cost unnecessarily.

[pilot602]

Who said they were made from the same material? ;)

But I have a few new ideas that I think mght really take me away from the "walking tank" model of Battletech and in, at least, a different way if not slightly unique.

I'll get the new mechanics up ASAP.

[Mike Holmes]

Actually, given that the volume isn't dispersed evenly and designs may vary, different size MAIS might have somewhat different densities (this in addition to the idea that they're made of different materials which, while possible, seems pretty dubious). And we're already assuming that silhouette size isn't that important, or there would have to be some really strong arguments for the walking model (which is about as easy a target as one can imagine for a given density - humans didn't evolve to avoid missile fire). Further, overhead for transport can be large. That is, again, if the crew for each is the same size, they have to be transported, the same tool kit is the same size, the hanger mechanisms may be different...

But that's all fairly irrellevant. The ability of a space transport to transport something is pretty much independent of volume. This is because the things transported don't actually have to be inside the transport. They can be "racked" outside of the transport if you like. It's only mass that determines what the transport can propell. The difference in an atmosphere is less than a 10% variance for volume.

Of course, if your sci-fi propulsion system ignores some particular law of physics (they often do) then this might not be true.

It comes back to what you called me on before. Sure, if you want to destroy the ship you'd use fighters or other, big ships. But if you want to raid one and capture it you need to get troops on board.

OK, I buy that this worked in this suprise situation:

"Captain, there are numerous shuttles coming towards us!"
"Do they scan for antimatter bombs?"
"No, sir, they do not."
"Then ignore them and fire on the capital ships!"

The thing is that you seem to be assuming that either the transports, or the MAIS themselves can travel fast enough that they can't be fired upon. Such that once people understand the threat, they can't use the same weapons designed to fire on ships to fire on the shuttles. Why is this true? It can't be true of the MAIS themselves - let's analyze that. Right now, the Russians have a plane that masses 660 tons (heck an F-14 can be over 36 tons at take-off). Which means that the propulsion on that plane is more than the propulsion system on any MAIS, since no MAIS is capable of long term flight. Presumably this is because the power systems used on MAIS aren't strong enough to provide the power for such propulsion. As such, this means that since MAIS propulsion is weaker than propulsion units that we can create now for aircraft (much less the actual propulsion units created for spacecraft now), that every spacecraft will have a greater accelleration in space than every MAIS.

Now, accelleration isn't speed, but this means that if MAIS are detected approaching, if the fleet in question can't create an escape vector from the MAIS, they'll at least be able to make the relative velocities at impact somewhat slow which means that shooting MAIS should be pretty easy. Depends on detection ranges, but given sci-fi propulsion and detection systems better than today's, it's hard to believe that the MAIS wouldn't be detected at a range that would make this true (barring some sort of "cloaking" - that is, ECM that's undetectable).

Shuttles would have the same potential for accelleration that ships have. In fact, given overheads, usually in systems that are about space combat, larger ships are actually faster than smaller ships (in SFB, the fighters start out ridiculously slow as compared to the ships themselves). Given this, even if the MAIS are shuttled to the ship in question the same effect occurs - they'll still be shot out of space.

Again, size doesn't matter, because, again, if you can put the weaponry on MAIS that can damage a spacecraft's hull, then you could put it on the spacecraft launching them itself. I'm not saying that MAIS wouldn't be more potent in delivering that firepower locally, but pointing out that the ships in question don't have to be all that much larger than the MAIS themselves. Meaning that the ships being attacked should be able to target MAIS with their normal anti-ship weaponry. If you posit the cloaking ECM, then you have to posit that it could be used on the ships themselves, which is yet another can of worms.

Let me try explaining it this way. Say you send out 100 fighters and in that jumbled mess of machines you have 30 MAIS carrying shock troops. The enemy now has a, roughly speaking, 30% chance of hitting one of those MAIS. If you take those same 100 fighters but mix in only 15 MAIS the enemy now has a 50% less chance of hitting a MAIS. Granted the 15 individual MAIS are larger than the individual 30 but mass doesn't always define volume. That is to say, a 50 ton mais isn't necessarily going to be 50% bigger (volume wise) than a 25 ton MAIS.

This assumes that you can afford to lose the fighters. Why not send out decoys instead? That is, if the ship targeted can't tell a MAIS, from a fighter, then it won't be able to tell a decoy from a MAIS either. So why waste the fighters?

Fighters in space being an absurdity anyhow. That is, this presupposes that fighters exist before hand. But the idea of fighters in space makes no sense at all. Again, why not put the weapons of the fighters on the larger ship? What's the advantage to fighters?

Even if you come up with a rationale for this, then why is it that the advanced technology present can't differentiate between the two types of targets?


Yes, it's always better to capture a ship than to destroy one if you can. There are problems with this, however, in principle. First, if you have are the underdog, and have a choice between boarding parties, and weapons, you'll take the weapons every time. Because boarding is generally less easy than killing other ships (unless you can explain the approach problem above). Meaning that you reduce your chances of winning overall if you take boarding parties instead of weapons. Basically, only a fleet with superiority would consider using MAIS in the first place (barring the surprise scenario that you posit).

Second, what about self-destruct? Won't captains be informed that they're supposed to destroy their ship before letting it fall into enemy hands? This is SOP today (scuttling). SFB gives boarding parties a chance to capture before self-destruct goes off - but they don't say how this occurs. I can't think of a reasonable rationale that wouldn't involve the security of the ship having been previously breached.

Again, and again, it seems that there has to be something about MAIS that gives them an advantage over other arms of the day to make this all viable. If the technology is generally available, then the question becomes why it can't be used with other platforms that make more tactical sense. In Battletech, and other mech games, there is usually either some sort of advanced technology involved that's only usable in this form for some reason, or there's some advantage to the pilot/mech symbiosis that allows them to be inherently superior.

Yes, they're new technology, and as such may have some superiority for a while as things convert to account for that. But that means that over the course of the game, that they'll become obsolete as the tech superiority succumbs to the problems inherent in the design over time.


I think that you're avoiding the nuclear weapon problem. First, given conflict in space, where there will be no collateral damage from nuke use, why not use them (they are in most space games, almost always with some rationalization for why they aren't as devastating as you might think)? So, are these the weapon of choice in space? Further, if open-field battles are also fought, then are nukes used in these operations?

They are in Ogre. This is a projection of warfare in the upcoming century, and the weapons used are tacnukes. Are MAIS resistant to that sort of force?

In the new rules, with regards to missiles, I'm leaning towards the "Robotech" approach where hundreds/thousands of smaller missiles are fired from MAIS at other MAIS.

I'm not sure why this makes more sense. Is the idea that they can't all be shot down?

Let's say that each shot fires 100 missiles for argument's sake. If each of these weighs just five pounds, that's a quarter ton of ordinace being fired with each shot. Problem is that five pounds is less than the weight of some 30MM autocannon rounds. The smallest "missile" rockets that are fired right now, the 2.75 inch sort that we're all familiar with from Vietnam (Hydra 70: http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hydra-70.htm), are at least 20 lbs each. This means if you fire 100 of these that you'd be launcing a ton of ammo each shot. These are small enough that they can't penetrate heavy armor at all today. The smallest guided missiles are much heavier. Even with advancements, to have a missile that was both guided and capable of damaging armor, I'm guessing that you'd need a munition that was heavier than 20 lbs. Meaning that you're firing more than a ton with the minimum 100 missiles, every shot fired. To say nothing of range - one would assume that if these are to be the long range weapons, that they'd have to be even larger.

In general, why would you do this when a canon of the same mass, with a non-interceptable round could be created? This is why tanks use cannons today - in your world this would seem even more likely to be the case.

Have you read the robotech rules? IIRC, their rationalizations were pretty good.

How about Mekton Zeta? Heavy Gear? Warzone? Warhammer: 40K? Big Eyes, Small Mouth (BESM)? These all have lots to say about how to make these things make sense.

Airborne/spaceborne fighters wouldn't carry the same number of missiles a MAIS can because fighters still have to operate within the realm of aerodyanmics (anti-grav tech hasn't been developed to the point of using to actually fly).

You mean they don't have enough thrust, right? The missiles wouldn't make them non-aerodynamic. The thing is that  a plane can carry thousands of pounds of missiles today. If what's neccessary to get a mech is 100 twenty pound missiles, then an F14 can carry three shots worth.

I have an idea that might make this all more viable. Start MAIS out at about 200 tons minimum. That makes them larger than any agile plane currently in existence. To make them really out of the range of speculation, make them start at about 2000 tons. Then make the missiles the size of cruise missiles or something. Then they're just too big for planes to affect.

Mike

[pilot602]

OK, I buy that this worked in this suprise situation:

I'm getting a little closer. ;)

The thing is that you seem to be assuming that either the transports, or the MAIS themselves can travel fast enough that they can't be fired upon.

Ok, let's assume this. But let's also assume that MAIS can "absorb/deflect/stop/whatever" more damage than a fighter or decoy and still remain at nearly fully operational capabilities. Part of the idea of using a MAIS to rip into a ship was/is predicated on their ability to take a punishment. So, now we have speed and damage capacity helping to get our MAIS across the void (or through the atmosphere).

Which means that the propulsion on that plane is more than the propulsion system on any MAIS, since no MAIS is capable of long term flight. Presumably this is because the power systems used on MAIS aren't strong enough to provide the power for such propulsion.

I see where you're leading this – the MAIS have to, in order to make sense, be the "epitomy" or shining example of the thrust/power:weight ratio within the game universe. They also have to be powered by some source that is inaccessible to, or "impractical" to use in, other mechanical designs. So let's assume they are; which now means they have sustained flight capabilities. This means they can "fly" in any environment but at a slightlye reduced rate/mobility in gravity/atmospheres when compared to zero-g operations.

I'm not saying that MAIS wouldn't be more potent in delivering that firepower locally, but pointing out that the ships in question don't have to be all that much larger than the MAIS themselves.

OK, but if we change this so that the MAIS are the fastest (non -interstellar travel speaking) things in the universe and can take a beating to boot we now have a reason/method of landing them on an enemy ship to deliver troops that make them more attractive than say shuttles.

This assumes that you can afford to lose the fighters. Why not send out decoys instead? That is, if the ship targeted can't tell a MAIS, from a fighter, then it won't be able to tell a decoy from a MAIS either. So why waste the fighters?

It's not a matter of not being able to tell the difference, it's a matter of shooting down enough decoys/fighters to get them out of the way so as to pyshically hit the key targets with whatever weapon system you're using.

I suppose you could send out a nuke and wipe out the whole cluster (assuming nukes are in this universe ... and let's say they are) and just be done with it. But lets assume MAIS can withstand a few nukes (via the use of some super dense "shield" that only MAIS are capable of weilding) and let's consider resource management from the POV of the ship captain. There's the matter of "do we use our precious resources" (nukes have to be limited in some way ... you don't carry around unlimted supplies of anything) or try and take out each individual target "one at a time" with AAA? That is something each ship captain would decide – even if there is a doctorine in place because "even the best plans go to hell inside the first 15 minutes of executing them;" to say that war is a chaotic and fillied if infinte variables.

Fighters in space being an absurdity anyhow. That is, this presupposes that fighters exist before hand. But the idea of fighters in space makes no sense at all. Again, why not put the weapons of the fighters on the larger ship? What's the advantage to fighters?

Advantage to fighters is remote operations. You can send a bunch of fighters out and away from your ship to hit/harass the other guy.

Again, and again, it seems that there has to be something about MAIS that gives them an advantage over other arms of the day to make this all viable. If the technology is generally available, then the question becomes why it can't be used with other platforms that make more tactical sense. In Battletech, and other mech games, there is usually either some sort of advanced technology involved that's only usable in this form for some reason, or there's some advantage to the pilot/mech symbiosis that allows them to be inherently superior.

Ok we say that the DPU/BNRS are only usable in MAIS ... now I gotta come up with the "why."

Are MAIS resistant to that sort of force?

Let's assume they are capable of carrying a shield of some kind – and because of their unique power source, are the only things capable of carrying this sheild – that can withstand "x" number of nuke blasts.

The smallest guided missiles are much heavier. Even with advancements, to have a missile that was both guided and capable of damaging armor, I'm guessing that you'd need a munition that was heavier than 20 lbs. Meaning that you're firing more than a ton with the minimum 100 missiles, every shot fired. To say nothing of range - one would assume that if these are to be the long range weapons, that they'd have to be even larger.

But you're assuming some kind of conventional warhead is being used in these 20lb missiles. Lets say they're packed with some kind of ultra dense tip and as such they can only be weilded by MAIS (similar to the nuke-shield) and only the powersource found in a MIAS can muster the punch to accelerate these things out of a launcher.

You mean they don't have enough thrust, right? The missiles wouldn't make them non-aerodynamic. The thing is that a plane can carry thousands of pounds of missiles today. If what's neccessary to get a mech is 100 twenty pound missiles, then an F14 can carry three shots worth.

No, I mean aerodynamics. Yes, as the old saying goes, you "can make a barn-door fly with enough Horespower/thrust" but there's a tradeoff. The more aerodynamic an aircraft is designed to be the less thrust is needed to keep it in the air/make it go fast. Yes an F-14 may be capable of carrying lots of missiles but it can't fly at it's top speed or pull many Gs (i.e. engage in a turning fight) is it's loaded down. So, I'm assuming aircraft haven't changed much because regardless of the powersource there will always be some limit to what the aircraft can carry and still remain effective in terms of manuevering/tops speed. Plus, if they are to be piloted we have pilot G-Force limitations that limit how manueverable (how many gs the thing can pull). So we find that magic balance between raw thrust (aircraft cant use DPUs) and aerodynamics and as with all aircraft the lighter the better and soon there is a limit to what they can haul.

The basic assumption is that MAIS will always be ably to carry MUCH more than what a fighter or even a small space/naval ship would be able to haul around.

So I think the idea of your tonnage works well. Besides 10 or 20 tons, for a walking, piloted machine is really, really light. Hell, armored cars weigh almost 10 tons.


OH one last thing:

Yes, they're new technology, and as such may have some superiority for a while as things convert to account for that. But that means that over the course of the game, that they'll become obsolete as the tech superiority succumbs to the problems inherent in the design over time.

This can be said for any game out there. D&D rules would become obsolete as people developed guns, etc. I can't really "model" some system that never would become obsolete.

And some of this stuff has to just be taken on faith. Not that anything I've written so far is "good" enough for that but we're talking about giant, walking robots walking around with "centers of planets" in their guts. If you  "believe" that then there's a little room for fudging on other aspects of the universe. ;)

But I still have a ways to go ...

[Mike Holmes]

I see where you're leading this – the MAIS have to, in order to make sense, be the "epitomy" or shining example of the thrust/power:weight ratio within the game universe. They also have to be powered by some source that is inaccessible to, or "impractical" to use in, other mechanical designs. So let's assume they are; which now means they have sustained flight capabilities. This means they can "fly" in any environment but at a slightlye reduced rate/mobility in gravity/atmospheres when compared to zero-g operations.

Yes, that's it.

Now comes the hard part of making the explanation of why MAIS are so much better, and why the technology isn't avaialable for other systems.

It's not a matter of not being able to tell the difference, it's a matter of shooting down enough decoys/fighters to get them out of the way so as to pyshically hit the key targets with whatever weapon system you're using.

They hide behind the fighters (space is big, ya know). Then why not just put more armor on the MAIS? About a fighter's worth?

But lets assume MAIS can withstand a few nukes (via the use of some super dense "shield" that only MAIS are capable of weilding) and let's consider resource management from the POV of the ship captain.

All you had to say was shield.

I sense the unobtanium solution coming.

I have to admit at this point that Ralph, myself and others have been through this exercise more than once before. :-)

[quote}There's the matter of "do we use our precious resources" (nukes have to be limited in some way ... you don't carry around unlimted supplies of anything)[/quote]Well, the limit on transport is mass. And nukes have a very efficient mass to damage ratio. You've heard the phrase Suitcase Bomb? If you can carry one MAIS you can carry many, many nukes. More than you'll need.

In fact, generally, nukes are smaller than conventional large munitions.

Advantage to fighters is remote operations. You can send a bunch of fighters out and away from your ship to hit/harass the other guy.

This doesn't make any sense. Why split up your firepower? If you have to do so, then why not just have smaller ships. If you need for some unfathomable reason to split up a lot, then why have the larger ships at all?

But you're assuming some kind of conventional warhead is being used in these 20lb missiles. Lets say they're packed with some kind of ultra dense tip

Which would make them weigh more...

But, otherwise, sure.

No, I mean aerodynamics. Yes, as the old saying goes, you "can make a barn-door fly with enough Horespower/thrust" but there's a tradeoff. The more aerodynamic an aircraft is designed to be the less thrust is needed to keep it in the air/make it go fast. Yes an F-14 may be capable of carrying lots of missiles but it can't fly at it's top speed or pull many Gs (i.e. engage in a turning fight) is it's loaded down.

Non-sequitur. First, nothing about mass makes it have to be shaped like a barn door. That is, my point is that anything can be made aerodynamic. And F-14s are, in fact, designed to be able to fight fully loaded. Would be a bad design error to make them otherwise, now wouldn't it?

So I think the idea of your tonnage works well. Besides 10 or 20 tons, for a walking, piloted machine is really, really light. Hell, armored cars weigh almost 10 tons.

But then we're back to the urban question.

Maybe urban envoronments are tougher and larger in the future, and can take big mechs roving about?

This can be said for any game out there. D&D rules would become obsolete as people developed guns, etc. I can't really "model" some system that never would become obsolete.

Uh, no. In D&D there's in fact an assumption that guns can't be created. In Battletech, the technology is from an ancient race and won't be repicated, much less beaten, for hundreds of years (though why this technology is inferior to that of today, I'll never understand).

The point is that you can make a BS reason that makes the technology in question long lasting in terms of superiority. Social reasons, even.

[quoite]And some of this stuff has to just be taken on faith.[/quote]Most games don't bother even as far as you have, actually. Basically there are two approaches: make it somewhat plausible all over, or just don't bother to explain it at all. Can't go half way, however.

Mike

[pilot602]

Non-sequitur. First, nothing about mass makes it have to be shaped like a barn door. That is, my point is that anything can be made aerodynamic. And F-14s are, in fact, designed to be able to fight fully loaded. Would be a bad design error to make them otherwise, now wouldn't it?

Bah ... your making me go into flight instructor mode – i have other boards to post on for this. ;)

But, there are two tpye of drag (aerodyanmicaly speaking) Parasitic and Induced.

Parasitic drag is a function of anything (atennae, wires, static wicks, smooth, jagged, the mircrscop irregularities of the skin surface, etc.) protruding "from" the airframe.

Induced drag is a function of lift (the more lift you produce the more drag you produce). This increases at a rate that is equal to the inverse square of the airpseed (i.e. if airspeed doubles, induced drag quadruples).

At some point your thrust can not over come the drag the airframe (and everything stuck to it) is producing. So, whether something is, in itself aerodynamic, is pointless because when that "something" is now attached to another body it's the whole that must be looked at and not the individual "something."

Which is why the F-14 fully loaded, can fly, but it can not fly as well as an F-14 loaded with only 20mm rounds and 1/2 gas.

So, you hang a bunch of missiles off a wing and yes that wing can fly but it doesnt fly nearly as well as if that wing were "clean." So no matter how much "thrust" you produce at some point drag will equal thrust and therein lies you airspeed limit. All four forces on an aircraft will be in equillibrium during normal, unaccelerated level flight (gravity=lift, thrust=drag).

So the point of all that is is if you hang 300 missiles off a wing the drag they produce will limit the airpseed of the aircraft. Slow fighter = dead fighters. ;)

But I've got the weekend to play around with some ideas and I'll throw 'em back up here afte I think of 'em!

John

[Mike Holmes]

So the point of all that is is if you hang 300 missiles off a wing the drag they produce will limit the airpseed of the aircraft. Slow fighter = dead fighters. ;)

Compared to other comparable fighters, sure. I don't deny that.

But we're talking about whether these can engage MAIS.

Which leads me to the other question you've evaded, which is how large are hexes, and how long is a turn. IOW, what's the maximum speed of a MAIS? Fully loaded, the F-14 is still pretty durned fast compared to most land vehicles. Can MAIS break the speed of sound?

Consider the F-15's capabilities. Again, that's with current technology (twenty years old, actually). Now consider what aerospace technology will be like when the game is set? When is that, anyhow?

Mike

[Ben O'Neal]

If these MAIS things can break the sound barrier we would be talking MASSIVE somic booms.... they don't exaclty sound aerodynamic to me. Also, those speeds wouldn't be too nice in terms of heat. But goddamn it would look cool exiting a cloud at that speed with something shaped like a MAIS.

But barring some obscure reason why the weapons of a MAIS can't be used on other craft, I really doubt the economic/tactical viability of using them in any situation. In the air they would be inferior to jets, on land they would be too large and heavy to even attempt stealth and would be way too easy to target, underwater their shape and weight would render them essentially useless, and in space they would be equal to everything else in combat but less flexible in terms of using them to transport shit.

But despite all that, they do sound cool, and I'd like to see you pull it off well. Do you have any concept art of what they look like? If so, can I see it?

-Ben

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

You're retrofitting a rationale to a use, so you've got to think about it from that perspective. You want them to be human-shaped, so what are the advantages of a human form? In Roroga I assume that a humanoid body gives you Super Monkey Climbing Power, Kung Fu Action, and a hero everyone on the battlefield can cheer for.

If you want them to fly at supersonic speeds without catastrophe you have to think about what that means for the humanoid shape. Do they carry heat shields? Do they supercavitate the air? Do they use their mad Kung Fu Skills?

I'd vote for the last one. Otherwise you'll have to answer more very uncomfortable questions like the ones that have already been brought up.

[pilot602]

- How large is a hex?

I'm thinking about 1/10th of a mile (roughly 500 feet across).

-How fast can a MAIS go?

Under the stuff I've posted I actually haven't really calculated it. :(

- Can MAIS break the speed of sound?

Under the rules I posted thus far, no. But as far as heat goes, if these things are capable of entering atmospheres (from space) without shriveling up into molten masses of metal any heat generated by breaking the speed of sound (which is roughly only about 700mph at sea level and it gets slow the higher you go) wouldn't be much of a problem.

- When is the game set?

I haven't really "tallied it up" in earth years but I think it's roughly around 3,000 a.d. After about 2223 a.d. the game uses "A.E." or After Expansion.

- Concept art?

Check here


- Rationale ...

Yeah I think I've come up with a different approach to the whole system actually. I'm getting ready to post it . ;)

[Ben O'Neal]

Ummm, I can't see the pic... perhaps if you posted a link to it?

Cheers,
-Ben