Why do we need Mechs?

[garrowolf]

I'm working on my Nexus D20 system and I am trying to create a baseline set of vehicles for every tech level. Now I am running into the problem of mechs. I love the idea and the visuals of it but it really doesn't make sense. Exoarmors such as the one from the Matrix and Avatar are not too bad but I want to include Macross sized Mecha and I can't figure out what their niche would be (beyond the fact that they would be good at moving things around for construction in space).
If you have a fighter with the same weapons but you don't include the transformation modes then you have a lighter and cheaper fighter. You have less systems to break down. So why would anyone build it? Especially once you get to a tech level with contragravity so there is no reason for anything to walk around. Why do it?
See I'm trying to figure out a system justification of where they would be better then some other kind of craft at a certain kind of job.
I am trying to balance the fun with some realism - not total realism and hard scifi but some.
Anything thoughts?

 

[Tuft]

Mech seriously are majorly impractical. It feels like lots of complex mechanical parts and and excess of joints would make them fragile, jam-prone, easily impaired by debris, as well as exhibit excessive wear and tear, all compared to traditional vehicles.

Actually, the best use of Mechs I've seen is in fantasy settings - building on the knight's plate armor, especially the elaborate and ceremonial one. Just scale it up, add magical powering and strengthening, and you can go one-on-one on ogres, trolls and giants....

 

[Umbran]

If you have a fighter with the same weapons but you don't include the transformation modes then you have a lighter and cheaper fighter.

Well, not all mechs transform. The standard Mechwarrior-type mechs do not, for example. They're really big tanks with legs.

Especially once you get to a tech level with contragravity so there is no reason for anything to walk around. Why do it?

Momentum transfer. Contragravity means a thing can float, yes. But when struck with major (and often exploding) ordinance, such a thing will be apt to slide around the battlefield like a puck on an air-hockey-table. If the mech is on the ground, it has someplace to put momentum so that it can stand and deliver, so to speak.

Also, "contragravity" does not necessarily mean "infinite energy for systems". If contragravity chews fuel, then maybe you'd prefer to use more basic propulsion systems that allow you to carry more ordinance into the field.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I like TexMechs, especially fajitabots.

Serioously, Mechs beyond powered body armor- say...up to 15' tall man-amplification suits- are purely sci-fantasy.

 

[Asmor]

Humanoid robots are cool, but entirely impractical in a combat situation. The humanoid form factor adds a lot of overhead and vulnerability, but gains you almost nothing. A tank is a superior weapons platform, it's simpler (meaning cheaper to create and operate), and in terms for both firing ballistic weaponry and absorbing hits, it can handle many times more inertia than would knock over a humanoid platform. The only real advantage of the humanoid platform over a treaded platform is the types of terrain it could potentially handle, but a treaded platform is going to be a lot faster and is entirely sufficient for the vast majority of battlefields. If the terrain is poor for tanks, bomb the enemy from afar and force them to come to you.

So yeah, there's not really any good reason to use humanoid robots in a combat role. Suit-style things, like Iron Man, are about the limit to that idea.

But the most important thing is the Rule of Cool: Who cares that they're impractical in the real world? Just do it!

 

[Treebore]

You may have contra gravity, but the tech may not be small enough yet, especially to allow you to fly AND deal with recoil as well as deal with the kinetic energy of hits from the weapons of others. Going from a proto type, that may very well be the size of a building or three, due to energy requirements and who knows what else, to models small and powerful enough to deal with the demands of the battle field can take decades. Providing a window where things like Mechs may dominate.

So if that is the case, what is the best way to traverse a battlefield? On foot. If those feet are attached to legs 30 foot tall you move even faster, jumping streams or rivers, going over walls or even buildings. Plus they can deal with the recoil, and transfers of kinetic energy.

The beginnings of a Pilot and Mech interface are already in the works in our real world, Mech frameworks have already been built and tested, and under going further refinement.

So it is not that big of a jump to having Mechs. Now will they ever be real big? Don't know. If some kind of propulsion system that can be used to allow them to jump rivers, walls, buildings, etc... better than the pure mechanics of human walking on a giant sized scale can be developed, then they will stay relatively small. Otherwise they may get big, just to deal with the terrain easier, with the side benefit of carrying more powerful weaponry.

 

[Derren]

Mechs are not very practical as too much of space is wasted on propulsion. Whatever mechs can do, tanks can do it a lot cheaper.

Their only upside is that they could do rather well in mountains, an area where other vehicles have a lot of trouble in.

 

[Stormonu]

A quick look at some real-world mechs

And a logging mech

Walking Dog, a semi-autonomus pack mule being tested for the military. The question becomes, how hard is it to scale it up?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww"]Boston Dynamics Big Dog (new video March 2008) - YouTube[/ame]

Prototype walking robot. Again, the issue is scaling it up.

TRANSLOGIC 98: MABEL Walking Robot - Translogic



A working two-legged mech (though I wouldn't take it into the woods)

LAND WALKER -Japanese Robot suit- - YouTube!

While we might not get valkeries or battletech-like mechs, we've apparently had mech-like creations since the 60's.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A tank is a superior weapons platform, it's simpler (meaning cheaper to create and operate), and in terms for both firing ballistic weaponry and absorbing hits, it can handle many times more inertia than would knock over a humanoid platform.

A tank is also always in a "prone" firing position, as stable as can be.

It also distributes its mass over a treads with a proportionately larger surface area than a pair of feet, which means it's better for traversing loose or mucky terrain.

 

[garrowolf]

Yeah that's what I thought. They work at some moderate tech levels mostly as exoarmor (just beyond power armor) but not at higher tech levels.
Alright I will include them at low levels and as construction exoarmor but transforming ones are out!

Thanks for the help!