Mechs

[Bankuei]

Hi Marco,

Well, if tactical reasons are what you're looking for, just take a bit from real life about the hows/whys tanks or airplanes aren't effective.  Tanks are great except in mountains, deep swamps, and dense vegetation. Planes are likewise great unless there is heavy cover, really bad weather, or antiaircraft weaponry is just too strong.

So, if you wanted to keep things to one planet, you can bite off Orguss and have a crazy everlasting storm(natural, accident of science, or magical) that gives a very low atmospheric ceiling.  If not, just declare that anti-aircraft weaponry is too good to bother sending up fighters/bombers.  As far as tanks, either make the terrain too nasty, otherwise go with convention and give mecha "super armor" or "super forcefields" that can only be used by mecha, rendering tanks and fighters useless.

Chris

[greyorm]

c. The giant gaping logic holes in Return of the JEdi *did* ruin the movie for me. Lucas can say it was in genre all he wants, I was young at the time--I shoulda been impressed--I wasn't. Genre's not a defense for glaring holes in the internal logic of a story.

Marco, take this into consideration in your design for this game: what you call "giant gaping logic holes" may not even remotely exist in someone else's perception. Frex, I haven't the slightest clue what you're referring to with the above in RotJ (and please, let's not discuss it here, what those might be are irrelevant while the point is not).

You may be trying to "patch" things that others do not consider broken in any way, and patching can actually make things worse unless you're careful about it, by opening up the whole "well, see, his defense here is this, but on page 15 it says this, so..." can-of-worms.

[Marco]

Grey,

Frankly I'm perplexed with y'all. Logic holes exist whether you see them or not. Internal consistency is necessary across all GNS modes (IMO--and from what I've seen others post).  If you're not *looking* for logic holes you can still run smack into one--it's like drivin' with yer eyes closed.

Look at it this way: Mechs are prima facie absurd. Either physically (weight distribution!), technically (where's the advanced targeting!?), or tactically (What about orbital bombing!? Man, that's what I'd do!). This framework is designed to address a core absurdity that exists *Internnally* to the concept.

Magic or elves are not *internally* inconsistent. And you and Chris know that. Mechs, mostly, are (without some kind of explanation). Their internal context involves hyper-modern battlefields. There are points of reference galore. There's a long deep history of military fiction that a player might or might not draw from.

It's like this: in the fuzzyest form of gaming I can think of--No Myth, where nothing is set in stone, the description I'm giving ya is a way of setting genre expectations. So you won't have a character calling for orbital bombardment against an advancing mech-line when it's out of scope. You won't have a player trying desparately to build an air-base because he feels that if his unit can't get air-support he's gonna lose on open terrain--which would be bloody logical if he wasn't in-touch with the genre.

None of this is meant to (nor do I think will) set up hostile play. Hostile play has nothing to do with the game book--it's all about the people.

-Marco

[Mike Holmes]

First off, I'm with Marco in that either you ought to simply ignore any explanation at all other than "that's just the way it is" (which actually works), or you need to find some internal consistency. When playing Mechwarrior (and wow, that was waaay back in high school in the eighties), we often ran into inconsistencies that just made play nonsensical. Like the fact that given the speed of mechs (really slow), you could maintian an artillery bombardment long enough to destroy any amount of mechs before they got into range.

So why weren't these weapons on the mechs?

Basically if you're doing any sort of Sim that's going to give any level of detail, you're going to need BS explanations. Fortunately they can be done.


Unfortunately, Marco hasn't answered Walt's questions, or his own. Most importantly, what is it that makes Mechs less susceptible to the stingers. That is, if something can be put on a Mech that makes it invulnerable, then why can't that thing be put on a plane?

The simplest answer is weight. I'm not sure why the armor idea was jettisoned. Make the vehicles need to weigh too much to be able to fly given available propulsion, and they'll need a suspension. Given a high enough level of technology, one can argue that legs can be made as efficient as other suspensions. So, require the vehicles to have some special high-tech armor (made from my favorite substance, Unobtanium; which then limits the availability of mechs to nobles or kids with attitudes) that weighs a lot, but can stop all sorts of damage.

Thing is, we have weapons right now that are approaching atomic weapons in their magnitude of power. Basically I'm saying that in order to withstand today's weapons (which they need to in order to be "futuristic") then we're talking about being able to resist weapons that have destructive power on the order of nuclear weapons. This one's hard to get around. Now, assuming the Traveller crock of Nuclear Dampers as above, that means some other weapons have to be devised. Voila, this explains the energy weapons. Everything else bounces. This does mean that mech carried energy weapons can probably reduce a mountain to a level plain in short order, but I'm OK with that. :-)

The mech weapons you can get are all "short range" (meaning line of sight). If the FabPlants were operating at full capacity there would theoritcally be all kinds of OTH stuff--they're not.

Now this is a real problem. If this is true, then where are all the deterrent "Stingers" coming from? They sound pretty long range.

Anyhow, with the super-armor, the stingers just bounce off. And Energy weapons are line of sight anyhow. So problem solved. In fact we don't need the "Stingers" at all. Since a mech can just shoot a plane out of the air, the mechs provide all the "anti-aircraft" potency you need.

In fact if we make the energy weapons themselves heavy enough, then the planes can't even cary them, and can't hurt the mechs.

Now, one problem with all this weight talk in a sci-fi universe is that on a planet with little gravity, all bets are off. So there's a whole new issue. The usual excuse is that the light planets don't have the Unobtanium used to make the armor. And since this is what everyone's obviously fighting for, they're the only planets where battles occur.


How's that? Unobtanium: making sci-fi possible since 1889.

Mike

[Eric J.]

One of the great joys in my life is seeing people trying to make mechs practical.

In Evangelion they are just big cyborg divine clones, which is the best expanation I've heard.

In Mechwarrior my friend explains that they're used as troops.

In Gundam they're supposed to be used because they look like people or something.

In Escaflowne they're supposed to work because it's a mythic fantasy setting and they're driven by magic.

In my dead setting I felt that good justification is the fact that they were based off of human evolution, which is the product of billions of years.  But yeah.

I'm sure that there are thousands of ways to make it work.  Just make sure you tell me what it is when you're done.

[Stuart DJ Purdie]

The first thing that struck me was that there are 8 facts to swallow, to get to where you want to be.  That's quite a few - the fewer number, the better.  Of course, some may also serve other purposes, and many players will not care - but I think both of those lie outside the scope of what your looking for here.

With that in mind, to reduce the number of facts, drop the Stingers.  Go with the fact that most damage will seriously reduce the combat effetivness of an aircraft, whilst the mechs can take a hit, and still keep going.  Give the mechs an anti aircraft system (I'm thinking small missles here).  By the time you allow for the fact the the mechs are cheap, and the aircraft expensive, that's why you don't see air cover much - in any real battle, they'd get toasted too quick.  Each mech may have limited ammo, but if it's 7 aircraft to take out one mech, it's just not effective.  These are semi-automated systems - the mech detects, and locks on to an aircraft, and the user just needs to push the button.

That ends up a softer constraint, but still gets you to the same place, and side steps the stinger vs mech questions.  (Besides, if air power wasn't used, why do infantry carry anti air missles - there's a bit of a chicken-egg problem in the logic there.  If mechs have them - well, there's not way to change those designes, right?).

Also, I don't see the need for nuclear dampners, and all the attendant physics breaks there in.  Effective anti-air and antimissle deal with the big ones, and the small one's arn't going to be that disruptive.  The whole wanting to capture not destroy the Fab plants also, I think, reduces the need to remove nuclear devices.

[SwordofLux]

Frankly I'm perplexed with y'all. Logic holes exist whether you see them or not. Internal consistency is necessary across all GNS modes (IMO--and from what I've seen others post).  If you're not *looking* for logic holes you can still run smack into one--it's like drivin' with yer eyes closed.
-Marco

Interesting - I'm actually perplexed by you, Marco. Isn't the whole point of suspension of disbelief to allow us to ignore logic holes? For instance, when I see something in a work of fiction that wouldn't normally happen or exist in real life, I tend to assume that it was the most logical thing to happen at that time and place. When I was first introduced to Battletech, I just figured that, since they exist, they must be needed - that they are the most feasable choice under the circumstances.

As to what those circumstances may be, I didn't really worry about it - the point of the game was to ride around in gigantic walking tanks, blowing stuff up - not worry about whether an air attack might be a more tactically sound option. I always thought that, at least in the Battletech universe, each of the different field options (air, infantry, vehicle, mech) had its own place, or niche, that it was used for - the air was for fast pinpoint raids; the infantry for vehicle and mech support; the vehicles for transportation, long range artillery, and anti-air/infantry/mech support; and the mechs were where the real battles took place - when you needed the very best. They had the best firepower/maneuverability combination.

For me the question is quite simple: If you had a mech, why wouldn't you use it? (Although, a counterargument to that may be "Why would you have a mech in the first place?" - I would point out that when the television was first invented, it was thought that it would never be a financially viable entity. Perhaps some crazy inventor thought it up. Perhaps they were first used for some purpose other than warfare. However they came into being, once they were fitted with armor and weaponry, mechs quickly found their place at the forefront of modern warfare. Because that's where they belong.)

MJK

[b_bankhead]

Anybody with a brain can see this whole thread is silly.
Mecha work because mecha universes work on the physic of Daniel Pond's 'Wushu' game.

 In Wushu the more embellished (the 'cooler') your action the more dice you get and the greater your chance of success.

 Obviously mecha work because something as embelished (cool) as a mecha is almost a statistical certainty to work in a Wushuverse.

 Why do mecha work?  Because they're too cool NOT to work, isn't that obvious?

[Mike Holmes]

 Why do mecha work?  Because they're too cool NOT to work, isn't that obvious?

Sure, for that game.

But not for Marco's. People keep missing the point that he's interested in a BS explanation. If you don't have one for him, then he's really not going to get anything from what you say. He's fully aware of his options.

Mike

[SwordofLux]

... People keep missing the point that he's interested in a BS explanation. If you don't have one for him, then he's really not going to get anything from what you say. He's fully aware of his options.
Mike

Apologies, then. I'll try to be a bit more constructive, then. First of all, I think that you, Marco, have complicated your premises a bit. It sounds like you're trying to present too much information, then drawing too many complex conclusions from that information. I think that, as Purdie pointed out, the fewer pieces of information people have to absorb in order to "pull off" mechs, the better. Although, as I pointed out, I don't think one really has to work to pull off mechs - if people want to play a mech game, then they'll play a mech game, despite whatever logic holes it's filled with. As it is, you just come across as if you're trying to hard too convince people that mechs are a viable option in warfare, "despite" all evidence otherwise.

I would go with as simple a reason as possible - if you want to keep your PreFab idea, that's fine, and I would simply present that as the solution to all your problems. For instance, you could say that the PreFab centers are all that's left after some intergalactic holocaust, or some such. And they don't make airfighters, or ICBMs, or nuclear weaponry, or whatever. They could thus be arcane technology which people can use, but don't know how to fix, or whatever. That would be a pretty gritty universe, and I'm sure you could think up something better when it's not a spur-of-the-moment kind of thing. But I think you get my point, no? The simpler the solution, the less logic holes there can be - it's when you get so complicated that things begin to interact in unexpected ways - Occam's Razor and Chaos Theory kind of combine here, you see?

MJK

[Marco]

Interesting - I'm actually perplexed by you, Marco. Isn't the whole point of suspension of disbelief to allow us to ignore logic holes?
MJK

No--suspension of disbelief is specifically broken by logic holes (I shall cite quotes if I need to). Whatever you think of SOD--if you even believe it exists--it isn't there to let you ignore logic holes.

Logic holes are out-of-context problems (and if an out of context problem can destroy The Culture then they can certainly destroy your RPG*).

You can make the (convincing) argument that everything in a Sci-Fi world exists out of context or at very least on shaky ground (there are people I know who find Science Fiction--all of it--preposterous) but I'm not really interested in the "moral-relativism" debate.

In short, Mike's right. I want a structure that lets players and GM's extrapolate without breaking it. In other words, I want a player to no do things "the way it's done" or disagree with me about what's "kewl" and still have it work.

-Marco
* an Ian Banks joke.

[Eric J.]

Let me give you my opinion.  If the players like the Mecha genre (Yes it's a genre.  No, it shouldn't be.) they probably won't care too much about why Mechas are used.  The form a premise for the setting.

Here's your setting:  What if (most good games start with a what if) the galaxy expaned and colapsed creating another culture that used Mechas to fight eachother?

If the players are playing for that reason, they aren't going to care if they're practical or not.  Now, whethere you care or not is a whole other story.  However, if that's the issue, just create a reasonably good example and get on with it.  I felt that your initial post explained why Mechas would be used to a point where it's good enough, myself. Stressing over this issue isn't going to make or break your setting.

About the suspention of belief:  Suspention of belief is what is used to make logic holes less relavant to the point.  In Bradbury's short strory about a lost lonelly dinasour that finds a lighthouse you have this setup:  The point of the story isn't to dispute the potential of hundred ton sea creatures existing.  It's about the lonelly creature.  So, really both of you have a point.

IMHO

[Mike Holmes]

Let me give you my opinion.  If the players like the Mecha genre (Yes it's a genre.  No, it shouldn't be.) they probably won't care too much about why Mechas are used.

Um, I like to play Mecha, and I like to know why they're used. And Marco does, too. His design decision has been made. I don't see why people keep posting that it's not neccessary when he's made it clear that this is what the thread is for.

On Suspension of Disbelief: who cares. We've got whole threads on the subject. Go look those up before trying to define it here. The point is that Marco is trying to make it so that the setting is so coherent that any player except for the most disbelieving can accept the setting.

What's wrong with that? MJK got the message, Eric, why can't you? How is this a dysfunctional choice? If it creates a game that's not for you, well, then not all games are for everyone. Marco's gotta make the game that's good for him. So, I implore y'all, let him do it.

Mike

[Emmett]

I would second the idea of heavy armor, It makes the most sense. There is a limit to the mass that a tracked or wheeled vehicle can carry and it is just around 100 tons. I think that's the biggest mistake battletech made as far as technical justifications was to put so low an upper limit on Mechs.
What if the armor is something like advanced depleted uranium/chobam and is completely infeasible for aircraft.

I also liked the idea of a biological mech. Maybe they don't show up on Stinger Radar/IR. In addition, it also gives a whole host of interesting story features. (What if they needed to drink a lot of water? Maybe they can heal themselves if given several days?) It also makes the issue of reversing engineering technology and why different forms are not available less of a topic.

Perhaps different groups have different technologies and they balance somehow (i.e. biomechs and heavymechs.

Another thought is if energy weapons have a significant range but they're power curve is high up close but drops off significantly at a distance. Maybe they're powerful enough to pick off aircraft/missiles, but the aircraft using the same technology are completely ineffective against ground Mechs because of their armor. Mechs have to charge up close and duke it out to be effective against each other.

Also maybe the energy weapons can fire low energy blasts rapidly and take out a large number of light targets, but have to charge up to fire a powerful blast. This makes air power and missiles even less effective.

Those are just my two cents.