Giant Death Robot in Civ !?

[Schuesseled]

you know ground doesn't really tend to crumble around you. And if it did, if it was unstable little rocks you were standing on, then if you were also a 180 giant metal man, then the ground shifting wouldnt really matter to you.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Guys, you could also mention Armoured Trains from the first half of XX century. That would be fun unit

 

[cr0ws]

Guys, you could also mention Armoured Trains from the first half of XX century. That would be fun unit

Yes I've had a mini-mod unit in mind for civ 4, an flavor unit for Germany.The giant artillery "Big Birtha" that can only move on plots with railroad on them. But devastating to any city defenses.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yes I've had a mini-mod unit in mind for civ 4, an flavor unit for Germany.The giant artillery "Big Birtha" that can only move on plots with railroad on them. But devastating to any city defenses.

Actually they were used in Russia from World War I to Chechenian War. Pretty cool unit

 

[bernlin2000]

As someone who really enjoyed Alpha Centauri (in fact, my first 4X game) I think this is a potentially fun addition to the game. I'm thinking it should possibly be an option you can uncheck in a custom game, but it seems odd to have an option to disable a specific unit, just because it's feels too "futuristic". I also was a big fan of the Mechwarrior series (I was playing Mechwarrior 2 while most of you probably were on Civilization I), so I wouldn't turn it off regardless. From what I've heard, it's going to require a major investment in hammers, resources, etc. so you're unlikely to see a bunch of them roaming around late-game.

 

[12agnar0k]

If there is an enemy on a mountain cliff, why make a robot climb the mountain to get them, better off doing some bombing runs and going in with troops after.

No thats not true.. Its better to send in the bombers, and then send in your android/mecha army equipped with miniguns and flamethrowers. Why risk manned troops in mountaneous terrain with god knows how many cubby holes.

 

[cr0ws]

Actually they were used in Russia from World War I to Chechenian War. Pretty cool unit

Great to know, first time I'm hearing of this.

 

[bernlin2000]

Just be prepared to find yourself outmatched in many end-game wars verse enemies that DID build them.

I would be much happier without the gdr's, so I voted for the option to turn them off. I'm a big science fiction fan, but not when it comes to Civ. I always wished the game ended in the modern era, and the space race victory was when the first civ sent a human to the moon instead.

I didn't even like discovering the "future tech" techs in civ4!

Doesn't seem like an issue, unless you're playing a Time victory. It's going to be a very late game unit, if you hate the idea, crush your opponents with swarms of Calvary and Cannons early on!

 

[Kikaider]

Just give us an option to build space colonies in outer space and call the "death robot" a Gundam. ;x

On a serious note; I'd love to see something like this used:

It's basically a "one-man walking tank". It's from one of my favorite television shows, and the most realistic depiction of war robots I've seen.

Um, buddy, lay off the Gundam cartoons. We do not have the technology to build a giant death mech. Not by a long stretch. Modern robotics are too slow and even a slow, lumbering version of this improbable weapon system would have power requirements far beyond anything in production today.

When I think of cartoons, I think of funny stuff. I don't know how much (If any of any) of the Gundam franchise you've watched, but there are a few of the series that make it quite insulting to call it a "cartoon". Animation might be the proper term, or anime as it seems to be labeled. But series such as Victory and Zeta Gundam go down as masterpieces in my book, with drama unparalleled, even by those silly American television shows that people seem to consider so amazing or epic.

 

[cr0ws]

Just give us an option to build space colonies in outer space and call the "death robot" a Gundam. ;x

On a serious note; I'd love to see something like this used:

It's basically a "one-man walking tank". It's from one of my favorite television shows, and the most realistic depiction of war robots I've seen.



When I think of cartoons, I think of funny stuff. I don't know how much (If any of any) of the Gundam franchise you've watched, but there are a few of the series that make it quite insulting to call it a "cartoon". Animation might be the proper term, or anime as it seems to be labeled. But series such as Victory and Zeta Gundam go down as masterpieces in my book, with drama unparalleled, even by those silly American television shows that people seem to consider so amazing or epic.

Thats a nice GDR but these OWN!

 

[12agnar0k]

Gundam is correctly called Anime yes, however the difference to cartoons is slight at best. It would be hard to argue its not one.

Even Anime "for grown ups" shall we put it, can be called Adult Cartoons, Cartoon doesn't just mean fluffy bunny stuff like bugs bunny .

Oh and to repeat against that quote, we actually can make mech's, so saying "We do not have the technology to build a giant death mech" is not correct at all.

..

Oh and as for the above pictures, yeah the 4 legged mech would be more preferable to develop, it would be much more stable one would think.

 

[Arkangelus]

Ultimately, they are developing a game, and have to put gameplay considerations first and foremost.

From a design perspective, there is already a Tank unit reprsenting WW2 tech, and a Modern Armor unit representing modern tech. Even that is undesirable, really - units should be instantly distinct, but for historical reasons, really we have no option but to go for tank, better tank. Adding a THIRD tank to be future armor would make things even worse - an ideal unit should be recognisable at a glance, so for there to be three different types of tank running around would be definately less than optimal.

In terms of the popular view of "the future of war", battle mechs feature heavily within our culture as being the 'next step'. Nit pickers can find holes in the practical applications all they want, but its still an image that is extremely recognisable at a glance and conveys everything that its supposed to, from a design perspective its absolutely ideal.

If you are unhappy with its realisticness, then thats what the mods are for! There were 'realism' mods for Civ 4 fine and there will be for Civ 5, just swap the skin for another more realistic tank along with changing the Modern Armor name to an M1 Abrams, and altering the feather on the musketeer's cap for 'realism'. Its totally your perogative. But Firaxis are first and foremost shipping a game that deals in abstract concepts, and for the main, release version, they're absolutely right and justified in making the future combat unit's representative avatar a mech, along with the civlopedia entry that acknowledges its abstracted and fanciful nature.

To many people, having the units go into intense detail with supply and realistic operational specifications might be heaven, where you could choose between Tiger, Sherman and T34 tanks based on their fuel economy and suchlike... but the vast majority of the gaming public would find it tedious, and while it might be your personal idea of bliss within a Civ title, it would be a poor design decision to include it. They give you the option to mod it all in, as they do with the simplest of solutions for altering the GDR. But they have to cater to the centre to provide the best overall framework and accessable game.

I know that many will say that reviewers at IGN and Gamespot cant be trusted and so on, but think about how one of them would be perceived if he put in his review that the integrity of the series was compromised by a single unit being 'unrealistic'. Civ is ultimately as big a franchise as it is because the game is mainstream, its why it sells ever so slightly better than the more hardcore, in depth simulators, and thats where they have to cater to. Complaining about it without realising that your specific wants and desires dont translate to everyone is a bit lacking in awareness.

 

[adam_grif]

It's basically a "one-man walking tank". It's from one of my favorite television shows, and the most realistic depiction of war robots I've seen.

They had to invent a fictional particle and it's associated physics, then try to pretend that limbs were the only way of altering your angular momentum in space without expelling remass in order to justify having the giant robots. Even then, the justification is pretty half assed.

Go watch Ghost In The Shell for a "more realistic" (but still not very realistic) depiction of mechs. They're small, 4 limbed and have wheels for fast transit.

 

[aziantuntija]

No thats not true.. Its better to send in the bombers, and then send in your android/mecha army equipped with miniguns and flamethrowers. Why risk manned troops in mountaneous terrain with god knows how many cubby holes.

That is not true No army wouldn waste expencive technology over soldiers

 

[12agnar0k]

Yeah that is so correct, we already have old tank & modern tank,
having a "future tank" which looks only slightly better than the other two with some better stats would be lame.

To really show "the next big step" comparable to moving from spears to muskets or cavalry to tanks, you really need to push the boat out as far as what would be possible with technology.

What options really did they have, I would of preffered more than simply a new tank like unit, I would have preffered future versions of planes/ships/subs/infantry e.t.c, but hopefully a mod will achieve this.

As far as "the next big upgrade" what will trump tanks in future combat, well their is only so many options and I can gaurentee one of them is not "just more tanks, no technology will ever trump a tank"

Personally the options they could have gone with in my opinion is

- Androids/Cyborgs, man sized combat robots or combat chasis for an infantry soldier, heavy support infantry if you will, who needs large tanks when a man sized robot with a mini-gun/cannon/rocket launcher can do it all.

- Walkers, e.g the GDR these beomoths will be capable of great firepower, from bi-pedal mechs to tripod walkers to insect like 8 legged beasts, perhaps the future will be on large legs to cover ground quickly as apposed to wheels.

- Hover Technology, while some may argue wheels are better than legs, why go back to legs, I can assure you hover technology will be better than both, why touch the ground at all when your infantry/tanks can float off the ground allowing them to travel over any terrain at the speed. Hover Tanks would be a good replacement for the modern tank, however current technology makes flubber like flying cars a bit hard to achieve .

So what would you go with, the very sci-fi hover technology, the heavy infantry support of man sized "death robots" to replace larger heavily armoured tanks, or the heavily armoured walker.
Both android and hover units would be less armoured, the android because of size and the hover because of weight limitations to be able to hover, a walker however can be armoured heavily. Which makes it a very good tank replacement if walkers can achieve speeds like a tank can, and can be as efficient in combat.

 

[r_rolo1]

Spoiler brevity :

Yeah that is so correct, we already have old tank & modern tank,
having a "future tank" which looks only slightly better than the other two with some better stats would be lame.

To really show "the next big step" comparable to moving from spears to muskets or cavalry to tanks, you really need to push the boat out as far as what would be possible with technology.

What options really did they have, I would of preffered more than simply a new tank like unit, I would have preffered future versions of planes/ships/subs/infantry e.t.c, but hopefully a mod will achieve this.

As far as "the next big upgrade" what will trump tanks in future combat, well their is only so many options and I can gaurentee one of them is not "just more tanks, no technology will ever trump a tank"

Personally the options they could have gone with in my opinion is

- Androids/Cyborgs, man sized combat robots or combat chasis for an infantry soldier, heavy support infantry if you will, who needs large tanks when a man sized robot with a mini-gun/cannon/rocket launcher can do it all.

- Walkers, e.g the GDR these beomoths will be capable of great firepower, from bi-pedal mechs to tripod walkers to insect like 8 legged beasts, perhaps the future will be on large legs to cover ground quickly as apposed to wheels.

- Hover Technology, while some may argue wheels are better than legs, why go back to legs, I can assure you hover technology will be better than both, why touch the ground at all when your infantry/tanks can float off the ground allowing them to travel over any terrain at the speed. Hover Tanks would be a good replacement for the modern tank, however current technology makes flubber like flying cars a bit hard to achieve .

So what would you go with, the very sci-fi hover technology, the heavy infantry support of man sized "death robots" to replace larger heavily armoured tanks, or the heavily armoured walker.

Both android and hover units would be less armoured, the android because of size and the hover because of weight limitations to be able to hover, a walker however can be armoured heavily. Which makes it a very good tank replacement if walkers can achieve speeds like a tank can, and can be as efficient in combat.

Well,armour does not have to be necessarily heavy, and , in fact, the material used by NASA to pick comet dust ( given the speed of it compared with the probe in question, it is comparable to a shelling by a tank ) is actually almost as light as air ( google for aerogel ... ok, alone it does not have the physicals for a combat armour , but weaved with some other already existing stuff ... ). Second, armouring is favoured by gigantism ( ratio between surface to protect and volume to protect favours one big thing against a lot of small things ), so a natural evolution for hovertanks would be to get bigger , maybe to the point of becoming a fac simile of those Next war gigantic tanks.

But the big hurdle of leg using veicules in combat will be simply the fact that the locomotion means are meant to be in a highly dificult to shield area and to have areas of it that are simply impossible to shield ( knee joints, leg to foot articulations ... ) ... and worse, you don't even need to actually breach the armour to make one of those unable to move ( just use one of this ). To add, legs are anti gigantism mechanisms ( they will perform worse with increase of scale ) and simply having a material with enough tensile strength cheap enough to make the legs of one of those guys that appear in Civ V will probably put us solidly in the realms of hand waving ( and the guy that discovers a way of doing that will most likely win a Nobel of Chemistry ).

In resume, IMHO , if they really wanted a somewhat futuristic unit, a gigantic hovertank would probably be more realistical in the time fram we are talking and the techs is question, even if still out of our reach ATM

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well,armour does not have to be necessarily heavy, and , in fact, the material used by NASA to pick comet dust ( given the speed of it compared with the probe in question, it is comparable to a shelling by a tank ) is actually almost as light as air ( google for aerogel ... ok, alone it does not have the physicals for a combat armour , but weaved with some other already existing stuff ... ). Second, armouring is favoured by gigantism ( ratio between surface to protect and volume to protect favours one big thing against a lot of small things ), so a natural evolution for hovertanks would be to get bigger , maybe to the point of becoming a fac simile of those Next war gigantic tanks.

But the big hurdle of leg using veicules in combat will be simply the fact that the locomotion means are meant to be in a highly dificult to shield area and to have areas of it that are simply impossible to shield ( knee joints, leg to foot articulations ... ) ... and worse, you don't even need to actually breach the armour to make one of those unable to move ( just use one of this ). To add, legs are anti gigantism mechanisms ( they will perform worse with increase of scale ) and simply having a material with enough tensile strength cheap enough to make the legs of one of those guys that appear in Civ V will probably put us solidly in the realms of hand waving ( and the guy that discovers a way of doing that will most likely win a Nobel of Chemistry ).

In resume, IMHO , if they really wanted a somewhat futuristic unit, a gigantic hovertank would probably be more realistical in the time fram we are talking and the techs is question, even if still out of our reach ATM

That would be nice, a GDR that looks like the Dreadnaught and moves like a Helicopter

 

[Disgustipated]

In the future any point on earth will be able to be destroyed by satellites. Having any unit on the ground is suicide.

A satellite will be able to pinpoint and destroy any target on the face of the planet. Satellites will also have to be built to protect each other from satellites built to destroy other satellites, or ground based attacks.

 

[r_rolo1]

Nice dream, but that is probably 2200 stuff

Attacking satellites with other satellites is not a trivial business by any means ( this is not Star Wars ) and would probably not worth the trouble of having a debris field out there near your own satellite orbit anyway. The military payload of satellites is also not infinite and it is still extremely expensive to put stuff up there, so either you build the payload up there ( hand waving on the materials barring capturing asteroids ) of you will have to be very picky on the targets to make them pay the effort. Even if you use a laser-like device, the atmosphere of Earth is not transparent to all wavelengths, a thing that limits strongly the stuff to use if you want to make a military attack with it especially with cloulds involved ( not mentioning the issues with targetting ).

To be honest, i think I'll see GDR being a effective military weapon way before satellites even having a chance.

 

[cr0ws]

In the future any point on earth will be able to be destroyed by satellites. Having any unit on the ground is suicide.

A satellite will be able to pinpoint and destroy any target on the face of the planet. Satellites will also have to be built to protect each other from satellites built to destroy other satellites, or ground based attacks.

That's a pretty fascinating future but I predict there will be very little satellites , at least man made.