the future Age

And a ground weapon could never move as fast as a jet. Ground weapon platforms will never be able to fill the role of airpower, no matter how much hardware they can carry. Or else they would be now.

The speed of a jet could not compare with the speed of a laser. In this sense, a jet's speed is irrelevant. You just need a tracking device to lock onto the jet, and, perhaps for an early laser, perhaps 3 second of burn time.

Same with a rail gun, track the jet, lock on, and fire... instantaneous hit. A nuke-tech in the Navy once told me he has seen one fired off a ship. If people in college are attempting to build one, I am sure the Navy alreaedy has.
 
Well mechs don't have to be used for Military uses only:

We Could use it in engineering tasks such as mining and building Improvements and repairing other units
 
True, in fact in Germany, one of the largest machines built ever moves incredibly slowly on four legs, it is a digging wheel.
 
The mechs wouldn't have to be only 2 legged or four legged either. They could have any number of legs and then could handle any terrain, better than any tank. Since it would be able to hop across open areas (Like large holes). With more legs it could remain closer to the ground or rise up if it needed to. Thus not being such an open target.
I agree about speed not an issue when things like lasers move at light speed anyway. Nothing can outrun that speed or have time to dodge.
Can I beat a dead horse anymore than that? :spank:
 
No, but your arguement could have been more convincing.
 
At the end of the day Mechs would only be a viable weapons (and i said viable not useful) if:

- You could 100% secure the skies (unlikely in future conflicts)

- Have a low profile (bipedal Mechs Would not have one)

- Have foot soldiers in support to hinder other soldiers from planting bombs on the mechs

- Have Artillery to counteract other Artillery taking potshots at the mechs since you wouldn't often be able to spot the guns before they fire

Problems arise when:

- In cities troops could get very close and could major damage with close range Anti-Tank weapons, Grenades even TNT :(

- The ground isn't 100% secure so mechs could easily lose their footing (Anti- Tank Ditches would be a pain in the ass)

- You couldn't load the mechs down with too much firepower because their is a (IMO) chance that you would lose balance

Feel Free to argue any of the points above

:D
 
Originally posted by Autobahn

- You could 100% secure the skies (unlikely in future conflicts)

- Have a low profile (bipedal Mechs Would not have one)

- Have foot soldiers in support to hinder other soldiers from planting bombs on the mechs

- Have Artillery to counteract other Artillery taking potshots at the mechs since you wouldn't often be able to spot the guns before they fire

- In cities troops could get very close and could major damage with close range Anti-Tank weapons, Grenades even TNT :(

- The ground isn't 100% secure so mechs could easily lose their footing (Anti- Tank Ditches would be a pain in the ass)

- You couldn't load the mechs down with too much firepower because their is a (IMO) chance that you would lose balance


1) this problem is the same with any armored vehicle, the skies must be secured, or airpower severely limited, for any style of armored vehicle to survive. That said, mechs would have much more agility to attempt to dodge missile, perhaps by quickly sliding behind a berm or rubble.

2) "chicken leg" mechs could crouch with little difficulty.

3) Like a tank, a heavy calibre machine gun mounted somehwere could provide good anti-personnel defense.

4) Artillery is much less of a problem for a mech than a tank. Tanks have trouble switching course, once again a mechs agility could become it's friend with respect to artillery.

5) Infantry is the best defender of a city. Just like tanks, mechs would be extrememly vulnerable in cities.

6 & 7) technological challenges of mechs would be
a) powersource: probably have to be a small nuclear engine. The amount of energy required to make a machine walk is much more than to make it "drive", and
b) balance: The "chicken leg" style is much more stable than the "human" style, but still, a balance mechanism would have to be in place. But overall, running over tank ditches and such should be easier for a mech, as it wouldn't be much of a problem for a person.
 
It seems someone else made my argument more convincing for me.
BTW: I think CtP2 had great ideas on future tech like genetic engineering. [plasma] :tank:
 
Looks like my arguement is out the window :crazyeye:

Still how complex and expensive would a machine like that be to mass-produce?

And how big do you envison these mechs will be?
 
i think were are going off topic, we want to add a future era that has some realism, there is no way for mech to become true before 50 years, but nanotechnology is expected in 20-30 years. Besides it is easier to build a super-mega-huge-nuclear -missle than a whole army of mechs.
 
Originally posted by Neomega


1) this problem is the same with any armored vehicle, the skies must be secured, or airpower severely limited, for any style of armored vehicle to survive. That said, mechs would have much more agility to attempt to dodge missile, perhaps by quickly sliding behind a berm or rubble.

2) "chicken leg" mechs could crouch with little difficulty.

3) Like a tank, a heavy calibre machine gun mounted somehwere could provide good anti-personnel defense.

4) Artillery is much less of a problem for a mech than a tank. Tanks have trouble switching course, once again a mechs agility could become it's friend with respect to artillery.

5) Infantry is the best defender of a city. Just like tanks, mechs would be extrememly vulnerable in cities.

6 & 7) technological challenges of mechs would be
a) powersource: probably have to be a small nuclear engine. The amount of energy required to make a machine walk is much more than to make it "drive", and
b) balance: The "chicken leg" style is much more stable than the "human" style, but still, a balance mechanism would have to be in place. But overall, running over tank ditches and such should be easier for a mech, as it wouldn't be much of a problem for a person.

I for one doupt mechs of todays RPG's and anime series ever become reality but automated mechanised units probably will.

About laser bean as a weapon : I would expect it to be quite impractical for military purposes for many reasons.

Power consumption would be quite large and range limited as laser bean dissipates in the air(sp? correct word, spreads out, does not stay together). Todays missiles and other conventional weapons provide much larger range than laser can ever provide. (With the upcoming fusion power in next 10 years the power requirements MAY be solved. MAYBE.)

Laser bean can be deflected with simple mirror thus if needed, laser deflecting coating can quite easily be developed for military purposes.

Targeting and hitting with laser would be quite hard not to mention waving red laser bean around to hit something would be 'bomb here' request for the enemy. Laser cant certainly be more accurate than heat seeking guided missile, can it?

(laser may or may not be usefull weapon in space depending how well our radars and guiding systems will function in space. But that is out of the scope of Civ3)

1. You expect a 10+ ton benemoth to be agile and fast enought to dodge a guided missile when jet has hard time with it?

2. I would expect multilegged unit to be more practical in extreme rough terrain. (even then usefull mostly in rocky terrain of moon or mars).

4.) Higly doupt agility of a 10+ ton 2 legged robot/mech and mobile (moving) tank IS quite agile.

6.) Nuclear engine would, how would I say this?, be quite impractical, not to say extremely dangerous to friend and foe alike. (radiation, cost, limited resource, volatile - nuclear EXLOSION). Fusion power research may bring solution in next 10 or so years tought.
b.) again I highly doupt the agility and stability of a 2 legged benemoth in earth gravity and terrain. Multi legged 4+ would be usefull in extreme terrain conditions and maybe in less gravity (where speed may actually hurt more than do good, tanks were not designed to make jumps or fly ;) .)

Back to the topic :)
Age could not be of information as its happening right now, maybe fusion age (humanitys power shortage solved) or maybe prestellar era.
Fusion power probably replaces nuclear in near (10+ years) future - Fusion power plant : no mealtdown change, does not need plutonium
ISS - International space station - Science bonuses or related
National Space station - Required for colonisation of moon and mars (and beyond - would probably require orbital space ship consturction facility or assembly yard) and maybe mars mission (ISS most likely used in RL. Needed for game)
Human genome project - even if cloning human stays banned (It has/will be done bans or no. Ban may only hope to slow down research and reduce use) it will help humanity to find cures for and causes of many inherited disieses and maybe help curing defects/anomolies in infants/unborn children. - Hapiness or scientifice effect
First contact - we dont know when it'll happen if at all. It may be tomorrow or ten thousand years from now or never. Unsure about this.
EMP bombs - no radiation, little casualties but destroys most of non protected electircal/computer systems (planes drop, radars and ships rendered useless and so on).
Terrorists as todays barbarians - need special forces to find and eliminate training camps. Could be established with some sort of unit or with money or something, maybe (or random, or caused by discontent).

have to continue later... teacher is forcing me out of class...
 
We also have to keep in mind that we don't know what technological constraints we will overcome. For example - the problem of a power source - I think it's reasonable to expect that we will eventually be able to produce a suitable sized nuclear engine. Now, the stability of said engine would be a huge stumbling block - who is going to want to pilot a wallking nuke?

The reasons I am skeptical of mechs are these - one, they are at an extreme disadvantage on open ground, due to a high profile, large size, and relative slowness. Second, the cost of producing an effective one would be unprecedented. Finally, combat in adverse terrain or urban areas seems to be best suited for foot soldiers. Small, smart, quick, and hard to hit, and they can wield tremendously destructive, very cheap, weapons.

I also think that anything relying on legged transport is at a huge disadvantage. Take a leg out, it's done. A rocket to the knee could theoretically disable even the largest mech, barring some amazing advance in armor.

I will say that as a mobile missile platform behind the lines, they could have promise. But honestly, what chance would a 31st century Battlemech from any of the games have against even one 21st century F-22?
 
I agree partly with you guys on the negatives of mechs but I will not bother to argue them as I do agree they are not even possible in any near future. I didn't imagine them as 10+tons either. More like a tank, which a rocket to the treads makes a wheeled unit pretty immobile as well.
 
Originally posted by tjedge1
I agree partly with you guys on the negatives of mechs but I will not bother to argue them as I do agree they are not even possible in any near future. I didn't imagine them as 10+tons either. More like a tank, which a rocket to the treads makes a wheeled unit pretty immobile as well.

Ofcource, but I would imagine repairs would be easier and cheaper to for the tank than to the mech, not to mention that mech would probably take additional damage as it falls down. Plus, even immobilised, tank is still combat capable, where immobilized mech is not.

And as said, who would want to pilot a mobile nuclear bomb? :p Not to mention fighting alongside one :lol:
 
You never know what the future will bring. A new power source like Fusion? Stronger metals and lighter metals to cause less stress. And who says a swiveling cannon on the back of a multi legged mech couldn't still fire if it falls down? I never spoke of any bipedal upright mechs in the first place.
 
Originally posted by tjedge1
You never know what the future will bring. A new power source like Fusion? Stronger metals and lighter metals to cause less stress. And who says a swiveling cannon on the back of a multi legged mech couldn't still fire if it falls down? I never spoke of any bipedal upright mechs in the first place.

okey okey :D We wont know what future brings before its allready here. Can we at least agree that mech type units wont be viable, at least in nearby future.

Oh and when speaking of mech its better be precise what kind it is at most of us think mech's as the ones in Mechwarrior/earthsiege or anime.

So any other ideas for near future techs/innovations/materials/machines etc.?
 
Yeah yeah yeah, we'll have wonderful technology, but don't forget that anything that can be applied to a mech can be applied to a tank.
 
Back
Top Bottom