Giant Death Robot in Civ !?

[Lord Tirian]

Satellites will also have to be built to protect each other from satellites built to destroy other satellites, or ground based attacks.

Or somebody will, in retaliation, shoot a bag of sand and loose ball bearings into the orbit and ruin Earth orbit forever[1] (sans idiotically thick armour).

[1]Google "Kessler Syndrome".

Cheers, LT.

 

[Snoopaloop]

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!

I can see you've read back a few pages to gain context on the debate, and do respect that. But you can't win every game in the early stages, at the higher difficulties lots of games just have to just go the distance (i.e. upto future tech) ,especially space races. Your point is just not valid.


After seeing all these GDR pictures, for a second, I wasn't sure if I was posting in the "No GDR option" poll thread, or on an advertisement for a Toys R' Us magazine!

 

[Disgustipated]

Or somebody will, in retaliation, shoot a bag of sand and loose ball bearings into the orbit and ruin Earth orbit forever[1] (sans idiotically thick armour).

[1]Google "Kessler Syndrome".

Cheers, LT.

awww, my brilliant idea thwarted by ball bearings.

It shows how even the most sophisticated machines can be thwarted. Just like a 2 legged giant robot can be thwarted by certain terrain defenses that neutralize the legs.

I'm sure there is the perfect weapon out there, I just haven't found it. When I do, I will patent, and become very rich.

 

[cr0ws]

Or somebody will, in retaliation, shoot a bag of sand and loose ball bearings into the orbit and ruin Earth orbit forever[1] (sans idiotically thick armour).

[1]Google "Kessler Syndrome".

Cheers, LT.

This!

Good idea! I now have a project for next summer!

 

[sagelnarg]

It's the difference between someone saying we could build a rocket to take a probe Alpha Centari and someone saying we could build a hyperdrive to take us there. One of those is possible even if we can't do it today, and the other is completely ridiculous.

Thank you, now you have hurt my feelings.

 

[Kikaider]

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.

I have a difficult time considering stuff like this close to "cartoons". I'll grant that there is quite a bit of quirky anime out there that would have a similar mindset of that of "cartoons". Even the 80s Gundam has better animation that pretty much the majority of modern American animation. Even the more "serious" oriented stuff. It wasn't until the latest Gundam series, was a series capable of actually surpassing the animation of 1985's Zeta Gundam.

For me, mecha is mecha, anime might be the proper term, but in the end, mecha; especially that of the 80s tends to be unmatched for me in terms of plot and even animation. Amazing comparing stuff like the early 80s Spider-Man and series like Armored Trooper VOTOMS that came out at around the same time period. Mecha animation; especially during this time was in a league of its own.

 

[StittsvilleJame]

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.

 

[Duo]

I'd want that. But I would prefer that they just not include it in the game to begin with...

 

[Disgustipated]

I would like a more developed future game. I don't mind GDR too much, just give us more units. I'm not asking for the number of units and techs in SMAC, but I still feel they can draw some ideas from that game.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Obviously I'll have to learn how to mod, so I can make a four legged walker.

 

[Disgustipated]

Keep in Imperial At-At Walker's in star wars were easily disabled too. By a farm-boy named Luke even.

 

[adam_grif]

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.

Anything you put into space that can shoot the ground can also be shot at by things on the ground. Anti-satellite rockets already exist (see: Chinese & American ASAT tests a few years back), and in the future, large laser arrays will be able to kill them dead.

Laser satellites vs ground based laser installations put the ground at an advantage, because in space there's no atmosphere to cool you down, so you have to use expensive (and limited) specialized coolant to keep firing, or you have to wait for hours with big radiators exposed to enemy fire in order to passively cool down. Additionally, something on the ground didn't have to be launched into space, so it's innately cheaper, and for the same price, you can get a significantly larger and more powerful array. Things on the ground that are mobile can preserve uncertainty of location. One good platform for this is a submarine the size of one of the large SSBN's, but with it's guts replaced with a big solid state laser. Satellites can never know where it is, but it can simply surface and fire it's own weapons at them, then retreat underwater to evade counter-fire.

The ground is swarming with things that aren't military targets, making identifying the enemy somewhat challenging depending on its exact location. In space not-so, the ONLY things in earth-orbit are the moon (easy to pick...) and man-made satellites. You have a database of the positions of friendly satellites, so you know which ones are valid targets. Satellites are easily predictable because they move in orbits, so...

In conclusion, YES, orbital weapons are viable, however ground-based ASAT weapons are at an advantage, and military assets on the ground are not going to be "obsoleted" by them.

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

Naw, Satellites are expensive but at least feasible, whereas GDR is something that has no meaningful advantages over the competition, is VERY expensive and is a significantly larger target.

Rods From Gods is a low-tech way to get orbital bombardment down-pat, and would be quite terrifying for whatever is being targeted by it. Essentially, it's a multi-tonne tungsten rod the size of a telephone pole that simply reenters the atmosphere and crashes into your target.

E(k) = 1/2 m v^2, so they deliver a LOT of energy.

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"

It's not that current tanks are the best thing ever, it's that tank chassis are the optimal shape for armored fighting vehicles. Their armor and weapon will change in the future, but their general form will not, ergo they will still be considered "Tanks", even if they're shooting lasers and railguns.

The attack helicopter has already "trumped the tank", as far back as the 1970's. But tanks are still highly effective once you have gained air superiority, because enemy infantry and light vehicles cannot easily deal with them.

- 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.

Rocket launchers can and are already carried by infantry, but that didn't make the tank useless. Androids / Cyborgs are going to step out into the open and get plastered by the 120mm smoothbore gun or any one of the three machineguns that an M1 Abrams mounts.

Man-sized robots are not intrinstically a bad idea, they just aren't tank-killers. They are good for killing INFANTRY, since they are in the same role as infantry but have superior arms and armor.

- 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.

Have you been reading this thread?

- 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

You're trying to propose plausible future alternatives to GDR and you come out with hover-tanks, something that have no grounding in science what-so-ever?

 

[12agnar0k]

You're trying to propose plausible future alternatives to GDR and you come out with hover-tanks, something that have no grounding in science what-so-ever?

No I said that the GDR was chosen over a Hover-tank one of several possible choices for the "next big step" in warfare over conventional tanks.
GDR was chosen, Hover-Tank would be more effective one would think but it is also completely sci-fi so It's not exactly the better choice. I was trying to show thier reasoning for choosing the GDR as apposed to "flying tanks" or "man-sized robots", their is probably some other alternatives too. Remember it would be a replacement for a tank, so think likewise.

 

[Lyoncet]

I don't think I've ever seen a thread stray this far into the absurd while somehow remaining on topic before. This thread should be preserved for anthropological purposes.

 

[The Leviathan]

Honestly I would have no problem with the GDR, if it wasn't so freaking goofy and out of place.

If the future technology was actually stretched out a little I wouldn't mind the departure into sci fi territory (lazers, robots, etc) but as it stands there is absolutely no reason to have the giant death robot in the game. He simply doesn't belong.

I really wish Firaxis would stop being obsessed with mechs (looking at you BTS cover) and actually give us some plausible future technology, warfare, and units.

 

[aziantuntija]

Rocket launchers can and are already carried by infantry, but that didn't make the tank useless. Androids / Cyborgs are going to step out into the open and get plastered by the 120mm smoothbore gun or any one of the three machineguns that an M1 Abrams mounts.

I agree

Man-sized robots are not intrinstically a bad idea, they just aren't tank-killers. They are good for killing INFANTRY, since they are in the same role as infantry but have superior arms and armor.

While they wouldnt 'intrinsically' be a bad idea they sure would be expensive and that naturally makes the (human) infantry a better choice. Also, how are they controlled? Would they have AI of their own? If they have their own AI then it would have to be good if they want to stand a change against human infantry. Also they would need a great movement speed and balance. So lets sum it up: Great movement speed and balance + Uber great AI = Cost a lot of money. Why not just concentrate on protecting human soldiers much better?

Honestly I would have no problem with the GDR, if it wasn't so freaking goofy and out of place.

If the future technology was actually stretched out a little I wouldn't mind the departure into sci fi territory (lazers, robots, etc) but as it stands there is absolutely no reason to have the giant death robot in the game. He simply doesn't belong.

I really wish Firaxis would stop being obsessed with mechs (looking at you BTS cover) and actually give us some plausible future technology, warfare, and units.

I agree

 

[adam_grif]

While they wouldnt 'intrinsically' be a bad idea they sure would be expensive and that naturally makes the (human) infantry a better choice. Also, how are they controlled? Would they have AI of their own? If they have their own AI then it would have to be good if they want to stand a change against human infantry. Also they would need a great movement speed and balance. So lets sum it up: Great movement speed and balance + Uber great AI = Cost a lot of money. Why not just concentrate on protecting human soldiers much better?

Remote piloting, dudebro.

A lot of attention has been payed to exoskeletons as an enhancement for the ground pounders, but that too is quite expensive. However, if an exoskeleton is in mainstream service, then humanoid robots can't be far behind them, because they are essentially just an exoskeleton without a person taking up space inside it (which means more space for power cells, ammunition etc).

They could be piloted exactly like a human would pilot an exoskeleton, except with the "pilot" sitting inside a secure bunker thirty kilometers away from the battle, or even on the other side of the world (although you get latency issues when you're that far away).

Of course, exosuits are by no means guaranteed to be cheap enough to warrent widescale deployment. I personally hope they are, but it wouldn't be the first time I was let down by real life.

 

[cr0ws]

Keep in Imperial At-At Walker's in star wars were easily disabled too. By a farm-boy named Luke even.

Wasn't Hitler a painter at some point?

 

[tom2050]

The Defense against the GDR...the GDF (Giant Death Fortress),complete with a pretty maiden inside to rescue

Nazi Germany was working on Huge Tanks as such, and they weren't used or even considered by other countries due to the tremendous downsides they bring into the equation.

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.

Star Wars may have gone as far as you are going with this statement. Just as a reminder, we are talking about reality here.

Honestly I would have no problem with the GDR, if it wasn't so freaking goofy and out of place.

If the future technology was actually stretched out a little I wouldn't mind the departure into sci fi territory (lazers, robots, etc) but as it stands there is absolutely no reason to have the giant death robot in the game. He simply doesn't belong.

I really wish Firaxis would stop being obsessed with mechs (looking at you BTS cover) and actually give us some plausible future technology, warfare, and units.

Agreed, there are more than enough plausible realistic units on the drawing boards they could have used instead of complete Sci-fi units.

I think it's because Firaxis has turned into one of the those 'need attention' companies. Or perhaps they were worried that the smaller amount of new compared to the larger amount of 'taken out', they needed something else to boost up the game or garner attention.

Bottom line, everyone should know that mech's are bad for direct combat. The only reason one might not know this is if they just got done watching transformers or something and their imagination is spinning wildly out of control.

 

[cr0ws]

Nazi Germany was working on Huge Tanks as such, and they weren't used or even considered by other countries due to the tremendous downsides they bring into the equation.

I doubt such huge tanks were designed mainly for combat but to demoralize the opponent. Psychological warfare is a powerful weapon in itself. And a demoralized opponent is a halfway conquered one.