You sure piloting a humanoid suit is easier than driving a tank, provided that tank has computer support to deal with the nitty gritty (like how the suit's computer also handles a lot in the background)? And even if that's so, we're designing these mostly for use by either trained sods, or ourselves, so easier isn't all that important (though admittedly it might matter a little when supplying rebels. Even then, I doubt that issue will be very important with VR training and such).
I don't think anyone is likely to use tanks in a mission. Could be used in an assault mission, I guess, but then we'd be more likely to get some APC that can get us to the target and then provide support. I actually have a configurable chassis idea about an APC like that I'd like to try in tinker sometime.
And yes, using a suit is easier. Humans find moving like humans easier. Plus, a tank would require crew to use effectively. Even assuming all functions are automated, you need a driver and a gunner to use effectively (driving and shooting is harder than running and shooting) and a commander/spotter to direct them if you can spare him (assuming human drivers. If you make it fully automated, you could get a highly specialized sod brain or wetware/hardware AI combo to pilot it like some sort of giant robobody).
Both these are largely untrue. We've has this discussion at length in the past. A vehicle should have better top speed and mobility for same weight, and it has a lower profile. It cannot dodge to the side, true, but doing so to avoid a hit is a very dubious prospect in its own right (and even then, small booster rockets on the underside could help to get that,if really wanted).
Perhaps, but for an actual military, almost every role they can fill, a vehicle can do better. Except maybe for us, Sword peeps with our missions (since we have such a wide variety of missions) a battlesuit will be more convenient more of the time, but not for an army whose job it is to fight and defeat enemies almost exclusively.
You did not have this discussion with me.
It's like comparing a motorcycle to a car. A battlesuit has greater acceleration and can thus change direction more quickly. It also presents a smaller target, which is a greater advantage in urban combat than a low profile. Urban combat is multilevel combat, it does not happen solely on ground level. Furthermore, a battlesuit is more versatile and can more easily adapt to changing situations or situations it was not designed for. I can think of many situations where a battlesuit outperforms a tank.
For example: A team is moving in towards the centre of an urban area. Say their goal is to capture a bunker so that they can send the shutdown command to automated defences or better yet turn them against the defenders (although the goal doesn't really matter, one could come up with many reasons for not just annihilating a city from orbit). One team is supported by a tank, while another is supported by two battlesuits. Now let's see various challenges they could face:
An enemy soldier equipped with an anti-armour weapon they have failed to spot is hiding in or on a building (say the building has large amount of metal in it or maybe he is simply cloaked). When the enemy soldier gets out of cover to fire on our armour, he gets spotted, and the driver of the armour is notified.
In the case of the tank, its (probably, judging from most tanks in history) under-armoured top is exposed. It is much slower to accelerate away (or at least as slow as a battlesuit in the best case scenario). It is a much bigger target than a battlesuit from this angle, so even if it starts moving out of the way, it will still get hit. Most tanks are not designed to fire upwards since that either reduces their armour and/or makes them much heavier, so it is probably unable to retaliate.
A battlesuit can just jump sideways, into the building and immediately attain cover. Even if the enemy fired through the building, their aim and penetration would be hampered. The only advantage a tank has over a battlesuit in this situation is that it is more likely to survive a hit. And if it doesn't survive the hit, if a sensitive piece of equipment is hit, like ammo or fuel storage, there is a chance the resulting explosion will cause more damage to nearby infantry and kills the (probably greater than 1) crew of the vehicle. On the other hand, being less expensive, if a battlesuit is hit, the second one can take its place and retaliate. And the fact that it has (almost) the same amount of armour everywhere means that a battlesuit is less likely to be flanked and hit in a weakspot.
Now, let's say that during the ambush, a squadmate was trapped under debris. Say it's someone important, like a tech they might need to finish the objective. A battlesuit can use its strength to just dig him out. A tank would not have the same advantage. It would be forced to either stay there while the infantry dig him out or leave without him. Both battlesuit and tank should be able to carry the injured teammate, as has been demonstrated in the past. The only advantage for vehicles is that an APC could carry medical equipment that could heal the teammate, but an APC is not a tank.
Continuing on, say that the team is ambushed by an enemy tank. All the enemy tank has to do is hit our tank's track as it rounds the corner and it is immediately put out of action or at least in a severe disadvantage, since spotting and shooting the enemy armour through the building would be harder. Even demolishing the offending building would not help since the debris are very likely to fall on our tank and team. Furthermore, as a stationary target, it is easily flanked or targeted by artillery. You could say that the tank has legs, but at that point what difference does it have from a battlesuit with wheels? It's simply a battlesuit by a different name. Even if the tank is able to move, the battle then becomes a contest of who has the thickest armour, the biggest gun and the best infantry support. No side has a distinct advantage, assuming roughly equal teams and tech-level. And since they are in their home turf, it's more likely that this will not be the case, that they will actually have more troops and better equipment.
On the other hand, the battlesuit, being a smaller target, will have completely left the obstruction of the building the moment it becomes a target. So the moment it is shot, if it survives, it can retaliate, especially if it's one of those battlesuits with integrated anti-armour weapons. Even if it is severely damaged or looses a limb, it can still move and potentially attack. For sufficiently sturdy buildings, the ambush might not even work or the tables could be turned easily, since one battlesuit could use the roofs to advance while remaining in cover and thus flank the tank from its less armoured side quickly. Furthermore, the two battlesuits should be able to defeat the tank easily, depending on what type they are. All a mobility or a melee one has to do is use buildings as cover to outflank or fly above it and go in for a melee strike. A pair of battlesuits with integrated anti-tank weapons could work as a team, one holding the tank off, forcing it to keep its frontal armour facing it, while the other flanks it to attack its weaker side. There are examples in history where much weaker tanks has been able to destroy a much stronger one simply by being able to outmanoeuvre it and work well in teams. Plus, navigating in a battlesuit is more intuitive, since humans are used to walking and dodging with legs, meaning it's easier to outmanoeuvre the tank. On the other hand, the driver of the tank has to get used to its size, its unresponsiveness and the fact that you have to turn the entire tank to change direction of movement and reposition your frontal armour, thus meaning you have to pay even greater attention to your surroundings and the position of enemies, making the role of the commander of the vehicle very important.
Reaching the bunker, the battlesuit might be able to make its way further inside it, to some sort of loading area, or even climb above boxes or similar in the storage area. It will be able to rearrange things, push them out of the way, hold them in front of infantry to create cover, etc. A tank would either be stuck at the entrance or after crashing into a sufficiently large number of metal boxes. Thus a battlesuit would be able to retain its usability for a while longer. It could even create holes with kinamp-punches, break doors or put its weapon-arms inside holes to help clear corridors and destroy doors.
Let's see another environment: A megacity, with tall, interconnected arcology-like buildings. A wheeled vehicle would be utterly useless in such an environment, since such environments are not built with vehicles in mind, while vehicles that are constantly flying would be easy targets. Therefore, a legged vehicle is the best option. It can navigate the buildings more easily, both their inside and their outside, bringing mobile heavy armour and weapons where it's needed. A great tactic would be using melee/mobility types to approach buildings at high speed then fly/climb up its wall until the roof is reached, thus remaining in cover the entire time. The suit can then sow chaos, draw enemy fire and engage enemy armour while the rest of the troops move in with rocket pods, with greater chance of reaching the designated position unmolested.
So, I just demonstrated a bunch of situations where a battlesuit is better in those aspects than a tank. Therefore, the statement that vehicles are always better in those aspects is invalid. Therefore, there is use for battlesuits alongside tanks in our military.
We can also do an analogy: Who would be more likely to win in a fight inside a building? An armoured drone with a gun attached controlled by 3 different people or two soldiers with similar but lesser level of weapons and armour?
That's basically just saying things don't make sense, so we should keep them that way instead of going for a more internally consistent and more logical alternative now that the possibility presents itself. Besides, even if the integrated laser in a 'heavy laser battlesuit' is stronger than a cutting laser, that doesn't undermine the original point: that integrating a laser doesn't give benefits toward power or efficiency, only perhaps protection from damage to the gun. or generator
You are twisting my words. I said it doesn't have to make sense, not that it doesn't make sense. Big difference.
I said that it makes sense from a game-play perspective and considered that enough, because I thought that was enough and because I thought the reason for that making sense from an in-game perspective was obvious. But I'll explain.
The weapon can share the same power-source as the battlesuit, it has lesser cost, it can be better supported and maintained and can thus be larger and more powerful, it can be better protected, it does not create weakpoints in the armour (unlike attachments), it is easier to move, aim and store, it can't get lost and there is little reason for a military suit to change its main weapon in the middle of a fight (although its ability to swap secondary weapons is great).
They totally are. We face missions with vastly different objectives and parameters than a regular army meant for war. Do you really think our sod forces are gonna have to start investigating an alien dimension in search of spess magick shinies? As compared to engaging and defeating enemies in a variety of circumstances?
No, but our combat needs are largely similar. The only thing we are unlikely to participate is large scale combat, where the lines are drawn and relatively stable. And now that I think about it, modern war tends to not include large scale combat. When was the last large scale combat in this universe? Altered wars? When was the last large scale combat in the modern world? World war 2, certainly, but after that, I'm not sure. Vietnam war, perhaps? What are the chances that we'll have two large armies on opposite sides of the field, charging against each other? Can't we just airdrop army units where they're needed instead of having them drive there? Aren't tanks moved around in trains or trucks most of the time anyway? Would the UWM had been better off dropping tanks at us during the defence of Hephaestus? What advantage would they have given them? They were dropping troops right next to us, so top speed is irrelevant. Any weapon that could harm a battlesuit could also harm a tank, so that's irrelevant. Battlesuits could destroy bunkers, so firepower is irrelevant. Tanks are larger, more expensive and are thus going to be fewer of them. So the only advantage they would have had is that sods can hide behind or inside them slightly better.
I agree we should make the variants we need. So the question becomes, which ones do we really need? I think we don't need all of the ones that currently exist, not for our army, and probably not for us inmates.
Maybe not. But if you are fine with creating things you won't personally use, that are likely to only ever be used by other people then why not take that argument further and say you design battlesuits for civilian police use or civilian scientific use? After all, much of the miscellaneous equipment we have in the armoury that almost nobody uses is stuff used by civilians or other military/scientific/law enforcement agencies. Our allies would certainly appreciate the upgrade. It could even end up saving us from trouble or giving us support if we ever come upon a mission where we have to crush a rebellion.
Does it protect from ampers? I never heard that it did. Do you know how it does that? Because I know a few ways that could be achieved, but I'd be surprised if it used any of these.
You misunderstood. I'm talking about upgrading that suit so that it plays that role. I don't think it can protect from ampers, I'm saying it could be upgraded to protect from ampers and thus make it indispensable for non-combat missions and not-dead-weight in combat missions.
But the original point still stands. The current extreme environment battlesuit can protect from external effects better. If we had that suit in the sharkmist mission or the AP mission, it could had made some circumstances a lot easier. Anton would still have his arms, we could had investigated the source of the blueraditite, we could had investigated the magma sea, we could had found what was being built by sharkmist, etc.
And by upgrading the suit to have an anti-mindfuck and anti-space-magic role, we can make it even better. Because even if we do something extremely simple like put various one time use shield automanipulators on it, it will give the user a single chance to escape and an understanding of what is going on, what is attacking him. For example, did the gravity automanip just trigger? Then you take a step back and start checking for gravity anomalies, because you know they are there and because you know that next time you encounter one you won't have a second chance. Not to mention what you could do if you put more attention to the mater and made something better, with better sensors and equipment.
Now, I suppose that, if it could have protected from those, it might have helped. Or it would have been one of those situations where "it can't block it anyways" making it useless. Either way, I suppose that, for some Sword missions, a suit purely and solely build around survival and insulation could work, but then the problem is that such a suit would be inferior to a regular suit for actual combat, or other situations (eg favoring mobility). And we have combat missions as well. So again, I suspect a suit such as this would be used sooner as mission specific equipment, rather than something people often actually buy. But if there is indeed a demand for something like this, sure, I could see why we'd want one.
Has there been any need for shooting things in the eater of cold mission? Soundworm mission? In many of our more "anomalous", less combat-based missions, the suit would still be useful in combat because it could either help find the source of trouble or give people an idea of what's going on or it could just provide the standard protection against small arms all battlesuits provide. Again, sharkmist mission, the worst thing we encountered that could harm a battlesuit were rocket launchers and mining lasers, and those were only encountered once each. So the armour of the battlesuit would only matter in those two cases. Assuming we keep getting those kinds of missions with limited or no combat, then a suit like that, a suit built for science and exploration would be very useful.
And in the same vein, wouldn't there be a bigger demand for a rounded battlesuit, compared to an extremely specific one? I might be wrong here, of curse, I can't predict the markets with 100% accuracy.
Each player has their playstyle, the kind of equipment they like to use, the kind of missions they want to go on. I would not assume that every player just wants to do the same things or play the same way. And I know for a fact that each player has a very different set of skills and stats. If someone is more interested in exploration, they take the
sci-ex-battlesuit. If they feel they need to kill everything in their way, they take one with an integrated weapon. If they feel the need to make cinematic battles with them slashing things in half with their sword (or if they have *surprised gasp* not invested in con weapons but have instead invested in dexterity and uncon weapons) they get the melee suit. Much the same like selecting a car, really. Would you prefer to drive a Smart, a Prius, a Mustang, an F1 or an Abrams Tank? Depends on who you are and the circumstances you're in.
See, blanket statements like 'less useful' are hard to counter. Less useful how? If we're talking a suit specifically designed to deal with exploring anomalies and whatnot, then a purpose-build drone would still be better, I suspect. Things like 'durable' and 'harder to use' also depend on how you actually design it, so I wouldn't say these are necessarily true.
Sorry. Busy and writing quickly so I don't have time to write everything. I've been writing this on and off since yesterday.
Anyway, I meant long term usability and versatility. QEC fluid runs out. You can't use a drone made for anomaly exploration for combat, not as easily as a battlesuit, even a sci-ex one. A drone does not provide you with armour if you need to attack or if stuff starts collapsing or attacking you. A drone can not lift heavy things. A drone can not shield teammates. A drone does not protect you in case of mobile or intermittent anomalies that could approach your location. The pilot of a drone can not get out of the drone because he is not in the drone. The system for piloting the drone would be more expensive, meaning you'd have to cut down on armour to get a similar price, hence less durable.
All of these things a drone can have/do as well, if designed correctly. The last part though... that's a more difficult one. Balanced, as in, not being OP? Having more universal usability?
But it will be more expensive and less useful in circumstances other than the ones it was designed for.
And by balance I meant that from a gameplay perspective, you are giving up something (armour, firepower, perhaps even mobility) for something else (survivability and knowledge in anomalous or extreme conditions).
And that piecewise does not like remote control. Piecewise likes people being there so that they can die.
[joking]If people are not there to die when they are killed, then they do not die, and that makes piecewise sad.[/joking]
Author
Topic: Hephaestus OOC (Read 164227 times)