Interesting theory.
Practical engineering is all about efficiency. Legs fail the test. Legs require more material, more energy, more design and implementation time, more maintenance, and considerably more computer assistance than wheels.
Efficiency by all means, however different purposes call for different modes of use. Wheels are certainly more efficient for roads and flat, solid terrain, but legs can handle uncertain terrain better.
On that note...
Gattamelata said:
These advantages disappear when you scale up to giant robot size, because of problems of scale. Large, heavy objects are extremely prone to failure of the surface they rest on (or, in this case, move across). Super-heavy tanks in WWII saw some of this problem: they were confined to paved roads because the integrity of other surfaces couldn't support them, and even then they were very rough on the roads. A giant, bipedal robot would have to deal with serious deformation of the surface it was on even while at rest. While moving this would be even worse: the physics involved in favorable conditions would be closest to what you and I experience when running on dry sand. In unfavorable conditions it would be more like running in quicksand. This is a matter of putting a huge amount of weight on a very small surface area (a single foot).
Assuming, of course, that the robot is giant (OK, the name) and made of a heavy steel. We can use future tech (which you reference below) to change the situation quite mightily - what if the robot is constructed of a special low-density material, which makes it ideal for sandy terrain? What if the robot's feet are padded with a special shock-absorbing surface and/or mechanism that allows it to mitigate the weight it places on its feet?
Even the heavy tanks had advantages (larger armaments, thicker armor) which was enough to convince German High Command (insane though they were) that it was worth it. In the case of the robots, it is being able to pivot and handle multiple targets better, and gaining a height advantage for increased vision and a better firing arc. Tactically speaking, both would be ideal additions to a battlefield situation... especially one that was plagued by lack of air support due to enemy anti-air or perhaps air superiority.
Gattamelata said:
There are all kinds of engineering problems with giant bipedal robots(hip joints are a particular problem), but those can be explained away with future tech. Future tech isn't going to change the quality of the ground beneath the robot, though. A giant robot walks across anything but exposed stone and it gets significant sinking and deformation of the surface. If it tries to climb a mountain, it'll shear the surface it's clinging to right off.
See above. Climbing a mountain may be tricky, but a robot designed for it could do so quickly through the use of drills and hooks. The robot doesn't have to be
heavy.
Gattamelata said:
What's more, tip something huge and bipedal over, and it will need considerable assistance getting up. That's a catastrophic failure mode in battle, and that's why problems with surface integrity are such a big deal for this concept.
Possibly, if the robot doesn't have failsafes or form and structure that guard against tipping over. In any case, it is no greater a practical weakness than the helicopter's reliance on the fragile spinning blades, or a tank's reliance on its treads, or a human's reliance on his achilles tendon.
Gattamelata said:
In any event, every advantage you cite for legs over wheels is trumped by flight. Your "maximum maneuverability" is far less than, say, a helicopter's. Current technology already surpasses the benefits of giant bipedal locomotion: wheels for cheapness and reliability, flight for maneuverability (and still cheaper and more reliable than giant legs - far, far fewer moving parts), and both for speed. The only thing giant robot legs do better than either is fill a sci-fi story.
Flight! Hah, yes, possibly, however I'm sure you're aware that flying objects are simply flying "shoot at me" signs. A helicopter is a big target, and vulnerable to anti-air (which in an urban setting can come from
anywhere, especially a walker with twin gattling guns), and because flight takes much more energy than walking is limited in its weight. Read this as smaller payload and less armor.
But as cavalry they do serve the role well, but function more as harassment and ground support than the solid ground support that walkers offer. Refer back to walkers being less of a target in the scope of an entire battlefield, and I think you understand.
Gattamelata said:
"Quod erat demonstrandum" goes after a proof, not a suggestion
The proof, my all-seeing friend, is that it has been thought up at all.
Gattamelata said:
Another possibility is that you're taking my post too seriously. People asked for more substantive feedback than just "I don't like it," so I offered some. I think I may have misunderstood the tone of this discussion, though. I'm not asking you to agree with me.
Perhaps, but the function of any discussion like this is to convince. Right now, you're trying to convince me that the walker is not feasible, whereas I think there are some roles it could yet fill. The trick is thinking about what a walker can do that helicopters and tanks can't, and the astounding answer is "quite a little bit, actually." Refer to earlier across this post.
Gattamelata said:
I like how you accuse me of exaggeration and then suggest that I want Holocaust events and can't enjoy life because I don't like one element of a game. Nice turnaround! Must be those super-mobile legs you have
Just as well, I guarantee you I can turn around faster than any tank or helicopter! Nonetheless, my point is that you were speaking of playing long, grave games, which suggested to me that you would feel right at home in a dark atmosphere. The thing you have to understand is that Civilization V is not about the graveness of history - the Holocaust (quite an exaggeration, I know) does not belong here because it is the part of history Civilization in general shies away from. Civilization games are about moving into a brighter tomorrow, full of hope and wonderment and mighty impractical monuments with mighty impractical robot walkers. The Art Deco with all its "gee whillikers tomorrow's gonna be a great day" is evidence enough that the feeling cultivated here is anything but grave. If you really want a grave, grand experience, then I am sorry to say but you have been playing the wrong series.
Gattamelata said:
Wait, hang on a second! I thought you were trying to understand my point so we could each come to a greater understanding of one another! Ha ha, my mistake! Now I realize that instead you're trying to belittle me because I disagree with you. In that case, disregard what I wrote above. You win, sir. I cried myself to sleep last night, you are a smarter (and doubtlessly superior) person than I am, U R in my base, u can haz cheezburger and you won the internet. Well played.
Your grammar started to fall apart there at the end but I fail to see what cheeseburgers have to do with this discussion. And how can one win the internet? It seems illogical to me.
And sir, I never insinuated I was your intellectual superior! I'm simply providing the counterbalance to the snobbery that exists in unfortunate profusion right now regarding robots. No matter how this conversation ends, it will prove neither of us the other's better.
But if you
really want to play coy and repeat internet memes, then I won't bother anymore. I will be disappointed, but in the end...
Gattamelata said:
Regardless, enjoy the game when it comes out! I plan to.
The robots are still in the game.
Ashberry76 said:
That is just a joke unit.Make future tech based on some realism and not Metal Gear Stupid.
Exhibit 1: Snobbery.
And stating that what we see in the civs future era is representing the real future.
)
