Alien mecha designs

[jollyreaper]

And aircraft were non-combat vehicles until someone went up with a gun and horseless carriages were non-combat vehicles until someone stuck a gun on one.

As for not being humanoid, the original question was about aliens. Not all mecha are humanoid to begin with and four legs is the next most popular configuration.

As for what you find hilarious, I wouldn't care to venture a guess.

[Sarevok]

They don't absolutely dominate anything but boarding other ships, by being the only people that do it. Indeed, in space the appearance of their boarding pods is irrelevant. I don't think they're shown using AMBAC to manoeuvre. :v

Guys from other dimensions or environments could just as easily use drones or robots. Mobile suits not required, and people would just a argue non-leg vehicles will always be better anyways.

Well when you investigate the Androsynth homeworld you discover signs of massive land warfare. The Orz mainly do boarding action but they certainly are the most powerful soldiers in Star Control universe.

[Stark]

The OP asked about effective designs and design elements in combat, and not a potted history of the US Army's robots. You haven't just not contributed, when asked you've AVOIDED it. Can you talk about how the wiki page you read had anything about design elements and role?

And Sazzo, even if it was relevant I'm not sure your two data points actually lead to your preferred conclusion.

[Blayne]

It occurs to me that we as Humans have generally assumed that being bipedal with 2 hands and opposable thumbs is the most efficient and advantagous form evolution has given us in which to with our brains develop complex society and manipulate tools to advance our own development.

From this perspective it I think becomes a natural step in logic to presume that any other advance alien species who have developed space travel, but by some quirk did not evolve the same way we did and do not have 2 legs and 2 arms may also think along similar lines.

Choosing to develop combat robits that reflect their own chauvinistic perceptions as to what the ideal form is. So an Octopi race will make octopi mecha and so on. An Avian race may actually come to see the need for combat exoskeletons aka "armor" fairly early on to increase survivability in air warfare, emphasising flight.

[Stark]

I don't think that's true at all. I can't think of any vehicles or construction equipment that looks humanoid. Its actually kind of racist and definitely lazy to make that assumption.

All the worst scifi has things like octopus themed planes and bird themed tanks. I could just as easily 'assume' equipment and vehicles would be made to offset physical characteristics instead, but it'd be just as invalid and lame. Robits are generally humanoid because it helps in some way (agility, made from demons, whatever) or its totally irrelevant (in space, skater, whatever). Regardless, I don't think the motives for shapes affect the results of shapes; quad legs will always be more complex but perhaps less facing-sensitive, multiple hips will always be more complex and affect directional agility, etc. Being tall and being short will always have an impact on performance, and the OP wants to talk about effective designs to dominate battlefields.

[Jub]

The real question isn't what the mech creators look like, but what niche the design ends up being used to fill. Echoing Stark I'll point out that a bulldozer doesn't look like a person any more than a car or a motorcycle does, so why should a war machine look like the race that created it?

[Stark]

I'm curious if the OP is looking for military walkers, or military walkers that totally rule everything. Because (say) Patlabor uses robits, but they also use tanks and helicopters etc, and the robits have pretty strong limitations (especially around running time vs maintenance time). Even in stuff like Gundam non-skate mobile suits aren't really worth a similar volume in tanks.

[Connor MacLeod]

The only reasons I can really come up with at the moment for why we might go with a bipedal form are:

1.) being able to do a little bit of everything like we can do. It wouldn't do them all well, and its not the only form that would neccesarily be 'general purpose', which could cover military and nonmilitary uses.

2.) If you have a pretty intuitive and simple means, it might simplify operation or training (at least to a point, since there's still going to be a number of things that will be different - size, performance, etc.)

I have this weird idea of bipedal mechs as some sort of multipurpose tool/vehicle/whatever the appropriate term is for colonies and settlements (Space is at a premium for vehicles, but the sorts of tasks you might do are various.) and for whatever reason robots or the type are not an option (contrivance, yes, but contrived has hardly stopped sci fi before.)

I'm sure there are probably other reasons, so this isn't exhaustive, and I might be overstating the value, but *shrugs*

a multi-legged mech (quadraped) would have some advantages over a bipedal form though. Some of the 'objections' to mech that always get brought up are recoil related (position and placement of gun can be a problem) but something that resembles (for example) an AT-TE from Star Wars might overcome those flaws and be better suited to ranged fighting than a bipedal robot assuming you didn't use an AT-AT as your model that is. Low to the ground and multiple legs to help with stability and ground pressure would be assets there. Of course that form might not be good in other cases. Other situations might call for a different 'specialized' design if available (climbing spider walkers as mentioned already.)

That doesn't mean a bipedal form wouldn't be useful depending on your circumstances. If for some reason you needed/wanted hand to hand combat for example (cue contrived reasons in 40K why melee weapons are so prominent).

and maybe you could have a bipedal mech that can deploy tank treads on either side of its feet or from the soles. For some reason the idea of a rollerskating mech is interesting/hilarious.

Again it would help to know more about the setting the mechs in question are supposed to operate in, but I admit its kind of fun to see if I can actually figure out answers even if they aren't super-realistic or logical. The possibilities implied in the tradeoffs alone is kind of fascinating (if you can't super-armour your mech as well as a tank, how does that impact how you fight for a combat mech, for example?)

[Stark]

The different types of quad legs address different things, I think; erect quads (like a horse) change gait, increase balance and weight distribution etc but probably reduce lateral agility. Supporting quads (like a spider) are probably about stability and broad footprint more than anything else. They're also probably good for hybrid wheel/feet.

What you say about use cases is pretty much what's shown in many sources. Once robits of whatever sort become common due to a war or magic or demons or whatever, the production base means civilians start using them and they're just another type of vehicle rather than a super tech stretch goal of dubious utility. In Gundam civilian suits are even used for sport flying etc. If a war built 100,000 giant robits, I bet they'd end up being used in all manner of roles that would never have developed the technology on purpose. Indeed, civilian use of giant robits is the core of Patlabor and the main reason the police use them, so it can go both ways.

If aliens had a mining boom the drove the adoption of piloted legged vehicles for mining, they probably wouldn't be bipedal.

And, uh, robits have been skating for thirty years. :v

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm curious if the OP is looking for military walkers, or military walkers that totally rule everything. Because (say) Patlabor uses robits, but they also use tanks and helicopters etc, and the robits have pretty strong limitations (especially around running time vs maintenance time). Even in stuff like Gundam non-skate mobile suits aren't really worth a similar volume in tanks.

Good point. I've been (re-) playing xenogears lately and one of the things that got me thinking was how alot of the gears in that game are basically excavated relics from a time before they inhabited the planet they're on. I imagine in such a setting you could have tanks and copters and shit that are still effective, and yet don't totally curbstomp the mechs because of the tech disparity (depending on how you handle it.

In such a scenario above though, I'd envision the mechs as being more like living machines than anything - self aware, symbiotic with the 'pilot' and probably capable of repairing and maintaining themselves quite a bit ontheir own.

[Connor MacLeod]

Also you touched on 'civilian' and 'common' use... the cultural/human elements can be a huge driving force on mech usage and operation and even why they exist. Hell sometimes I think 'human' factors can override even almighty logic when it comes to plausibility.

Another (crazy) idea I had was something more reminiscient of dune. Except instead of guys fighting with swords in holtzman shields, you have robots (or guys inside robots) fighting inside the invisible shields with swords. It could at least be one way you have bipedal fighting robots (particularily if you want a melee aspect to it) at least.

[Stark]

It sounds like you haven't seen much robit stuff (no offense) but if you do I'd be interested to see how you feel about the robit hostility. Almost nothing I've seen has less-than-magical robots replacing conventional military stuff, so the common refrain of OMG BUILD TANKS seems to be driven entirely by slow boring Battletech instead.

And melee itself (where appropriate to setting) is a big driver for robits. Tanks cant swordfight.

[Connor MacLeod]

It sounds like you haven't seen much robit stuff (no offense) but if you do I'd be interested to see how you feel about the robit hostility.

Almost nothing I've seen has less-than-magical robots replacing conventional military stuff, so the common refrain of OMG BUILD TANKS seems to be driven entirely by slow boring Battletech instead.

Nope you're right. I'm VERY limited in the robot department as far as seeing stuff. I think I've watched a bit of Gundam when it was on Adult Swim when I was younger, Macross and Voltron when I was a kid, a few video games, and Megas XLR. Oh and I watched NGE when I first got into watching anime. Clearly I've seen enough to be an authority on giant robots

As for the hostility, are we talking about (for example) the attitude like 'tanks vs mechs?' on this board (and in this thread?) Just want to make sure before I respond lol.

And melee itself (where appropriate to setting) is a big driver for robits. Tanks cant swordfight.

I bet you could build a tank that jousts though. Cavalry tanks!

[Stark]

If you made a Ferrari tank like Hildolfr it'd be great at jousting!

And yeah, I mean the fan hostility toward the very concept of robits, which almost never seems to actually address specific examples rather than general stuff like 'be more stable if lower' and 'needs more armour' etc. like on the first page, for example.

In games legs types have consistent characeritisics but I'm not sure if they're based in anything or are just gamey classes. Reverse joints being better at rotating and jumping at least SOUNDS plausible.

[Connor MacLeod]

If you made a Ferrari tank like Hildolfr it'd be great at jousting!

Maybe the cannon could double as a lance. Just stick a bayonet in the end.

And yeah, I mean the fan hostility toward the very concept of robits, which almost never seems to actually address specific examples rather than general stuff like 'be more stable if lower' and 'needs more armour' etc. like on the first page, for example.

Well one thing I've noticed is that when it comes to 'logic', people tend to have different... ideas I guess? I mean you have 'practical' logic which is what drives alot of the adversarial tank vs mech threads and causes all that hostility. On the other hand, not everyone bitches about, say, how often mechs are used in STar Wars or 40K - that sort of logic is 'well its there, I can't ignore it, so I have to find some way to make sense of it.' This is the same sort of logic that drives any effort with 40K mind (Tyranids, space Marines, etc.)

Another possibility may stem from how people view sci fi. I mean Sci fi has broken down into alot of subsets since the early days of sci fi. Sometimes it seems (at least when it comes to fans) you see segregation between the subsets. Or maybe its bias? But its like 'don't get your fantasy in my sci fi' or 'get your sci fi in my fantasy' sort of thing, as if blending the two would somehow contamiate it and ruin the purity, instead of creating something that might be new and different and interesting, or give you some options to explore. I certainly have my own biases mind, but I think it matters how willing you are to have your ideas questioned or criticized, or to look beyond what you view as 'properly' sci fi, if that makes sense.

Those are what I've noticed as problems, at least. I hope that at least answers your question. lol

Edit: also, I'm clealry not immune to suffering from some of those same errors/mistakes others make. I'm clearly one of those biggaton-loving, logic hugging types after all Nobody's perfect, and I certainly can't claim to be.

In games legs types have consistent characeritisics but I'm not sure if they're based in anything or are just gamey classes. Reverse joints being better at rotating and jumping at least SOUNDS plausible.

Yeah. Like I said, making sense of 'Mech' in sci fi is similar to trying to make organic tech plausible in sci fi (or organic mechs, such as the case may be. There are bio titans after all!)

[Stark]

Dude, you can actually talk about the ideas and way you think about stuff, sink don't think anyone can be offended or bothered by that. I think it's great when you can look at something new and speculate instead of shutting down behind the MECHZ R BAD ROFFLE curtain.

Then again when I started watching Gundami was surprised that everything I'd heard about suits dominating everything was so wrong so both sides are to blame.

In the Patlabor intro theres a six leg robit that has some kind of VTOL or WIG thing going on; obviously that makes the legs deadweight but the creators put a lot more thought into designs than some people think.

[jollyreaper]

If you made a Ferrari tank like Hildolfr it'd be great at jousting!

And yeah, I mean the fan hostility toward the very concept of robits, which almost never seems to actually address specific examples rather than general stuff like 'be more stable if lower' and 'needs more armour' etc. like on the first page, for example.

I'm not hostile to the idea of giant mecha, I just know they don't make any sort of sense. Any setting with giant mecha is rule of cool, not practical. Just like starfighters. If you have mecha, great, but trying to rationalize them like they make sense is like trying to explain zombies like it's a virus or something. No, there's not conceivable way the dead can be reanimated by a virus. Rage virus where it's a crazy, still-living person gone rabid, yes. Bits could even go gangrenous and start rotting off. Walking corpse? No. I can still enjoy a good zombie story.

So whenever people talk about it, there's the question of a) is there any possible way to rationalize x b) given that we accept the premise of x makes sense in the setting, how does it follow or c) forget making sense, you know what would be fucking awesome? My mecha transforms from a robot into a jet!

Discussions on these things can go back and forth. For example, the humanoid robot was considered to be a classic sign of Golden Age scifi zeerust. Your robot vacuum cleaner is not going to be Rosie the Robot, it's going to be purpose-built to the task. Look, a Roomba! Oversized hockey puck. Then again, there's talk of how robots meant to interact in a human environment may well have some justification in being humanoid. A robotic helperbot might easier to transport if it could sit in a human-sized seat in vehicles, manipulate other human objects in a human environment. Your robotic chauffeur would still be built into the car, not a humanoid robot with hands turning a steering wheel.

As for the original question about whether aliens would build combat mecha shaped like their own bodies, it all comes down to how much rule of cool the universe runs with or if there's an attempt made at justifying it. Evangelion actually did a neat bit of that with their robots. First, AT fields. You have to neutralize one with another AT field before you can seriously destroy the target. Only rare weapons like the positron gun could actually punch through. Second, the EVA's were giant humanoids to begin with, not robots, and the organic bodies were simply armored over. You want to argue with someone about EVA's and Angels being what they are, you have to go find the aliens that created the White and Black Eggs they came out of in the first place.

Mecha could actually be justified if there's a religious and ceremonial element to the combat. You can't justify Klingons beaming into battle with the Federation carrying melee weapons but you can justify such traditional weapons in ceremonial honor duels. It might actually make for an interesting setting where factions settled disputes with that kind of ceremonial combat and then some bright guy gets the idea that if he doesn't like the outcome of the fight, he can dispute it with a proper army. If the ceremonial fighting had been going on for a very long time, people might not even fully appreciate just what kind of damage a modern weapon could do. If a modern total war breaks out, the mecha pilots could find themselves going from the elite of the military to useless dinosaurs. Mecha charging tanks could be like the myth about the Polish cavalry charging German tanks in the beginning of WWII.

[Stark]

I wasn't talking about you, but thanks for the great example. The difference between people who don't know and are open or closed is pretty profound, and I think it goes for a lot of subjective art stuff. Probably why most people just want the same thin over and over; they're closed to other things or differet things.

[jollyreaper]

Some people just like to figure out the "right" side of an argument and repeat talking points that they haven't yet internalized or completely understand.

I find the most interesting ideas come from when someone understands fully why something can't be done and then discovers and interesting way to make it possible. It might take a very special case to justify everything but it could still work.

Unsatisfying science fiction is where the writer says "Yes, I know this doesn't make any sense but it's all really fun so please just don't scrutinize anything." My favorite kind of science fiction is where it seems like it's rule of cool but further examination has you half-convinced it's completely viable, you're not finding holes in the idea, you're finding more support!

Case in point, the whole Star Trek model of a ship exploring new worlds just doesn't make any kind of sense if you're trying to keep it hard SF. Just no way for it to pan out. What sort of special case could make it possible? Charlie Stross thought about it long and hard and wrote Missile Gap.

[Simon_Jester]

I'd argue that a lot of satisfying science fiction comes from character, not from equipment. The idea of people doing things that are themselves interesting makes the story worthwhile, even if the equipment presumes a lot about what future science will make possible.

That's why some of the old Golden Age SF is still good- you can pick it apart for flawed assumptions all day long, but to do so is to entirely miss the point.

[Connor MacLeod]

Some people just like to figure out the "right" side of an argument and repeat talking points that they haven't yet internalized or completely understand.

This was a big problem in vs debating in the past. Hell I had a period where I was just like that. Once you realize how silly it is, its easier to move past that.

I find the most interesting ideas come from when someone understands fully why something can't be done and then discovers and interesting way to make it possible. It might take a very special case to justify everything but it could still work.

I don't think you need to understand it fully, you just need to make it internally consistent and plausible seeming. For that all you really need is someone else who can act as an adivsor on whatever the topic is (science advisor!), but even then its not something you have to put a huge deal of thought into. People generally won't care if you screwed up your complex acceleration or delta vee calcs, but they might care if you make humans do something intuitively 'wrong' like walk on ceilings instead of floors without a proper reason (EG artificial gravity or whatever.)

It's one of the downsides I personally find about 'hard' sci fi.. the idea of 'consistency' is good, but the idea that you need to drown yourself or your reader in math and technical details to achieve it is.. less pleasant. A good example of this is David Weber.

Unsatisfying science fiction is where the writer says "Yes, I know this doesn't make any sense but it's all really fun so please just don't scrutinize anything." My favorite kind of science fiction is where it seems like it's rule of cool but further examination has you half-convinced it's completely viable, you're not finding holes in the idea, you're finding more support!

Another thing to realize here is that people's Suspension of Disbelief threshholds are not always going to be the same. Some people will have greater tolerance for certain kinds of 'illogic' than others will. Or they may care about aspects of the story that have nothing to do with technical (characters, theme, etc.) and there's nothing wrong with that. As long as people are willing to tolerate an opposing viewpoint without getting combative about it, it's all good. Its when it gets combative (like page one in this thread) that problems start.

Case in point, the whole Star Trek model of a ship exploring new worlds just doesn't make any kind of sense if you're trying to keep it hard SF. Just no way for it to pan out. What sort of special case could make it possible? Charlie Stross thought about it long and hard and wrote Missile Gap.

Doesn't that depend on the kind of sense you're talking about? Maybe it doesnt make sense in a hard sci fi perspective, but not everyone is going to care about that. I'm sure those who care could come up with whatever rationalizations for why ST does things the way it does if it really matters to them.

ST (or rather the ST vs SW debate historically) is also a good way to look at how the combative side of things can create problems when you're disucssing or debating different ideas in sci fi. I know I look back on that period and think I may have done more damage than good in my involvement, and it lead me to more recent attempts to try to see things from a trekkie's pov rather than do what I used to do.

Simon: I'd say that its possible to enjoy sci fi on many differnet levels depend on the sort of person you are. Well like anything really. I was always struck by a comment VF5SS made once. I remember reading that and being struck by how something one person might write off as irrelevant, another person might find meaningful. Even if I don't see it, I can understand and apperciate the sentiment behind it.

[Stark]

Exactly. Drama and art is about people and themes. This stuff is just a sideline, even if a neat one with lots of milwank detail. Discarding whole swathes of scifi because you just don't like the conceit is to miss out on the content. I used to hate robit stuff ... Back when I'd never seen any. Now I think it's some of the best scifi out there, with messages and shit instead of monster of the week shovel bullshit and soft scifi baby crap like FTL.

I havent seen much lower-end 'modern' stuff as opposed to futuristic 'scifi' stuff, though. Like I said Patlabor is largely informed by the limitations of robits (right down to having a robit unt wiped out by bein employed in roles they are not suited for) and gasaraki where they're absurdly high performance but semi-magical. I'm curious about what the more 'real robit' genre says about different designs.

[Connor MacLeod]

Dude, you can actually talk about the ideas and way you think about stuff, sink don't think anyone can be offended or bothered by that.

Yeah well *points to page one* This is an interesting discussion, and I dont want to contribute to a combative atmosphere in it and ruin that. Yeah I overreact on these things. lol.

I think it's great when you can look at something new and speculate instead of shutting down behind the MECHZ R BAD ROFFLE curtain.

Liking or not liking something should not really preclude understanding it or tolerating it, and just because something isn't 'practical' does not mean it can't have value or internal consistency. Just because I may not find it practical does not mean it can't have value (to others if not me.) Besides, I like 40K (which has mechs.) Glass houses and all that. LOL.

Then again when I started watching Gundami was surprised that everything I'd heard about suits dominating everything was so wrong so both sides are to blame.

Yeah. I've learned the hard way that its better to do things firsthand than rely completely on what other people say or think or whatever. Yet another reason for that 'reason to test myself and expand boundaries' thing.

In the Patlabor intro theres a six leg robit that has some kind of VTOL or WIG thing going on; obviously that makes the legs deadweight but the creators put a lot more thought into designs than some people think.

In any anime I have watched, I have been impressed by the level of internal consistency that often gets put into it. It may not always be 'realistic' but stuff like NGE and LOGH have a breathtaking put of thought and detail put into them, and rarely do the 'techy' bits ever seem to compromise the writing or characterizations (LOGH especially impresses me with this. If you look at LOGH and contrast it with say, the Honorverse, you just can't compare the two. LOGH is waht the Honorverse WANTS to be, and I'm saying this as someone who can still read David Weber without throwing up. )

NGE is a good example too. Its not anywhere near the PRACTICAL side of things by a huge margin (organic AND mecha), but the way that the universe was set up, the reasons (official and the actual) WHY there are giant organic robots here make an internal sense. And there are lots of different bits where you pay attention, you can see and say 'wow, someone gave that some thought'.

BTW I'd heard about Patlabor in the past but had never gotten around to watching. Now that you've brought it up, I'm thinking of giving it a look.

[jollyreaper]

I'd argue that a lot of satisfying science fiction comes from character, not from equipment. The idea of people doing things that are themselves interesting makes the story worthwhile, even if the equipment presumes a lot about what future science will make possible.

That's why some of the old Golden Age SF is still good- you can pick it apart for flawed assumptions all day long, but to do so is to entirely miss the point.

I hear you. The 'verse in Firefly doesn't make a lick of sense from a sciency point of view but the characters and story are so good I just can't even be bothered to nitpick. And given the alleged layout of that solar system, this is saying a lot!

The funny thing is that scifi stories usually either work by being incredible world-building exercises with excusably cardboard characters or fully-realized and compelling characters with an excusably cardboard world. I'd prefer neither of them be cardboard but that's rarely the case.

[Ford Prefect]

In the Patlabor intro theres a six leg robit that has some kind of VTOL or WIG thing going on; obviously that makes the legs deadweight but the creators put a lot more thought into designs than some people think.

I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the Lhada in Patlabor 2, which has six legs with wheels. The Road Runner and Roadmobile also have something similar going on, but don't have the Lhada's articulation.

e: actually maybe you're thinking of the X-10 from the first movie lol