Alien mecha designs

[SpaceMarine93]

Let's just say an advanced, violent non-anthromorphic alien race decides to build mechs to fight planetary wars, should they design their mechs' shapes in reference to their own non-anthromorphic bodies (much like how most mechs in Human science fiction are portrayed, bipedal and human-shaped) or are there certain shapes which should be stuck to as they convey advantages that would allow them to dominate the battlefields?

[Satori]

In before mechs vs tanks!

Honestly, animal shaped war machines don't make any sense unless that animal is a fish or bird and the resemblance is only moderate.

[Darth Tedious]

What shape are these aliens and what advantages would said shape provide?

The way the mecha is controlled may be a factor- if there's some kind of direct nervous connection between the pilot and machine, it may be easier to drive something that has the same number of limbs as you do.

EDIT: Dammit Satori! I was going to mention tanks! (and snail-inspired mechs)

[Juubi Karakuchi]

With regard to the aliens themselves, it's a question of what their bodies are actually like and what sort of environment they come from (the latter feeding into the former). Do they, for example, hail from a planet with gravity lower than that of Earth? Or perhaps higher? How many legs do they have? How many arms or hands or anaglogues thereof? Do they have mental powers?

With regard to the mechs themselves, it's as much as anything else a question of their intended role, for which a major factor is their size. If you're going for relatively small mecha (3-4 metres tall), then you have several possibilities, and also certain features that for good or for ill cannot be avoided. Assuming relative technological parity, a small mecha isn't going to be able to withstand much firepower, so no going toe-to-toe with tanks. Their relatively small size neverless means that they operate can operate in the same environments as tanks, meaning that they can cooperate. The role of small mecha would be to screen the tanks, as well as scouting ahead. If they carry anti-armour weapons, then small mecha could also launch hit-and-run attacks on enemy vehicles, their small size, speed, and (theoretical) ability to handle difficult terrain allowing them to get away if things go wrong. Small mecha could also cooperate with infantry, both in the open and in urban environments.

If mechs get much larger than this, then they start to become very noticeable on the battlefield. Whereas a 3-metre tall tank or small mech might go unnoticed at long distances (depending on the terrain and exact distances involved), an 18-metre tall Zaku is going to be easily visible at very long distances in most environments. This isn't necessarily a deal-breaker, but it raises some inescapable issues. If your mecha is so tall that it will be seen, then it will be shot-at, and quite a lot. Whereas small mecha are commended by their speed and terrain-handling, big mecha will need to be able to take and give out a lot of punishment. A big mecha is potentially large enough to carry defensive weaponry (allowing it to intercept missiles and/or bombs), but it will probably need armour as well, which is where materials science comes in. The armour of an M1 Abrams is reputedly about 120mm (12cm) thick, yet the protection it offers is equivalent to between 1 and 2 metres of battleship plate (depending on the impactor). Slap that on nice and thick and you get a high degree of protection, though the unit cost will go up. As for the heavy armament, about the only role a big mecha can perform is to stomp around blowing stuff up, so it needs a lot of weaponry in order to be worthwhile.

Big mecha attract one common criticism, namely that one can defeat them simply by shooting off or damaging the leg. To use this as a 'no mecha' argument is actually a red herring, since it ignores another common criticism of big mecha, namely the square/cube rule. For big mecha to exist (ie, without collapsing under its own weight), they must be capable of withstanding enormous forces, with the legs taking the brunt. As such, even if you could blow the leg off and make it fall over, the mecha will likely remain relatively intact, meaning you have to apply even more firepower to finish it off. If you've got that kind of firepower, then you're better off aiming for the torso and putting it down for good.

Thus far I've been operating on the assumption of a bipedal mecha, just to establish the issues. In the case of non-anthropomorphic aliens, things get a little more complicated. For example, if the aliens in question have multiple legs, then that's a good reason to copy their biology when designing their mecha. If a mecha has more than two legs (four is quite common, though there are some six-legged designs out there), then it can handle distribute weight and handle terrain more easily than if it has only two legs.

As far as weapons are concerned, directed-energy weapons would suit a taller platform, allowing for greater range, while projectile weapons might suit a multi-legged platform, the better to handle the recoil.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Let's just say an advanced, violent non-anthromorphic alien race decides to build mechs to fight planetary wars, should they design their mechs' shapes in reference to their own non-anthromorphic bodies (much like how most mechs in Human science fiction are portrayed, bipedal and human-shaped) or are there certain shapes which should be stuck to as they convey advantages that would allow them to dominate the battlefields?

They get crushed by advanced, violent non-anthropomorphic aliens driving tanks, or deploying artillery batteries, or flying jet bombers . . . you know, the certain shapes which should be stuck to as they convey advantages that would allow them to dominate mechs on the battlefield.

But, let's assume that someone discovers a new lower-energy vacuum or something quantum, causing the collective IQ of the universe to drop by twenty points, and mechs now sound like a fantastic idea. An alien that looks like a giant sea urchin is not going to build a mech that looks like a giant sea urchin. No more than an amorphous blob of sapient gray goo is going to build a mech that looks like an enormous, amorphous, armored blob of sapient gray goo. They're going to build something that is relatively stable and relatively resistant to damage. Bipedal mechs are fundamentally stupid, as they require dynamic balancing, are quite tall and exposed, would tend to damage roads and buildings and sink into soft ground (on account of the enormous ground pressure imparted by having just two feet,) and if you shoot out one of the legs, the mech stops moving. I'd envision some sort of gun platform mounted atop, or slung between, no fewer than five legs. That way, stepping on a roadside bomb won't necessarily mean instant immobilization.

[Ford Prefect]

Did a giant robot step on your dog or something? Talk about vitriol.

[Stark]

Why is what the aliens look like relevant? Humans don't look like boots or tanks or jet planes. Form will be driven by function. Planet side humanoid robits generally either have a tech advantage or some kind of sub-flight system.

[Cykeisme]

Basically the question has to be answered in two layers.

Ignoring aliens, even human-built humanoid giant combat vehicles are ridiculous to begin with. There's no way around the bad physics (and by extension, engineering) reasons for why a design that has to accomplish the dual goals of "being man-shaped" and "being a good war machine" can ever be anywhere nearly as efficient compared to a design that only has to "be a good war machine".

IF the fictional universe is soft sci-fi enough that giant mecha do exist purely for adherence to the rule of cool, try to avoid spending too much time justifying it with pseudo-scientific reasons, and simply make it entertaining and well-written enough that people just roll with it. In that case, we are ignoring realism to a sufficient degree in favour of aesthetics that we can safely say: go ahead, make the alien versions of mecha look like whatever the aliens themselves look like. Why not?

But, let's assume that someone discovers a new lower-energy vacuum or something quantum, causing the collective IQ of the universe to drop by twenty points, and mechs now sound like a fantastic idea.

After the first part of this sentence, I really expected it to lead somewhere else. The latter two thirds was awesomely hilariously unexpected

[Blayne]

Mecha generally make tactical sense in that you have something with significantly more firepower and armor than a tank but a attack helo's maneuverability, and honestly there's good reasons for having mechanic arms with opposable thumbs for manipulating objects on the battle while being much more modular so that you could change kit virtually on the fly (or while flying).

Since said Mecha generally have their small arms fire be 122mm tank rounds at 300+ rounds a minute the firepower and armor arguments make quite a bit of sense for that operational niche.

They typically have the engineering challenges handwaved, either by a magic metal, Special Super Science or Black Box technology of some kind (or the show is entirely in space and jamming is such that BVR combat is an impossibility).

Why this doesn't end at Mecha being build just to pilot even larger mecha at some point escapes me at this time.

[Stark]

If a universe is soft scifi enough to have FTL based on rule of cool, this means there is no room for any realism at all and everything should simply be totally random craziness. Why not?

Blayne, it's just not worth it. They're not interested in the emergence or use of robits; just repeating their basically irrelevant mantra. :v. I'm not familiar with many sources with primarily ground-based robits, however. I guess... Patlabor, where they're construction equipment? Gasaraki, where they're demons? GitS, where they're super infantry? Everything else has this as a secondary or adhoc role behind high performance space fighter.

Everything except shitty western dogshit like btech anyway.

But I guess Gundam having very few suits be able to fly under Earth gravity and require vehicle support to avoid wasting propellant on long deployments is stupid. Having robits means all that kind of detail, consistency, limits and design priority isn't worth thinking about because RAEG.

[Blayne]

I can see how there's a difference there, everyone and their lovingly stroked dog can see the use of FTL. But people more into hard military technothrillers are probably more along the thought process of "Why bother putting the resources into making a Mech when we can have 500 tanks for the same cost?" And their WSoDB (Willing Suspension of Disbelief) collapses because of the presumed innumerable hoops they have to hop through to justify it. Though the combat niche Mechs are supposed to fill is whats generally not commonly understood ("a walking bipedal tank???? BUT DOESNT THAT MAKE THEM WEAK TO EWOKS!?") which I was correcting.

[Stark]

It's not utility; it's the idea that of you use something unrealistic or with obvious problems, the entire setting is basically random zero-science fluff for babies that's laughable. Hard scifi fans say this about literally all scifi with FTL, and they're wrong for the same reasons - that fiction isn't about buzzwords or TEH TECHZ, it's about themes and characters. Thats why Gundam isn't reasonably hard scifi - because robits set the 'science' slider to zero and the entire corpus of fiction is this useless. Right?

Anyway, let's stay on topic. What universes have robits for primarily ground combat? Btech. 40k. What drives the adoption of robits in these settings and how does this impact their shape? Btech robits are humanoid only because they stole a bunch of Japanese designs, and their original stuff looks more like helicopter with legs. The 40k stuff just looks like their amazingly creative cathedral style with legs. Both are about heavy armour rather than agility. The guys inside could look like anything.

Sorry I meant 'hahaha robits lol just invent a daft rationale haha'.

[Connor MacLeod]

Let's just say an advanced, violent non-anthromorphic alien race decides to build mechs to fight planetary wars, should they design their mechs' shapes in reference to their own non-anthromorphic bodies (much like how most mechs in Human science fiction are portrayed, bipedal and human-shaped) or are there certain shapes which should be stuck to as they convey advantages that would allow them to dominate the battlefields?

Which do you want? If you're decided on using mecha for fighting, then how they look/operate should be a matter of personal choice and what you can make internally consistent with your setting. There really is no 'realism' aspects to this that I can think of, its just what you want and can make work for the setting.

[Stark]

You could talk about number and joint type of legs and how it impacts on load bearing and agility I guess, but most land-based robits either have awful agility or skate on wheels or rockets anyway. If some insect guys made their robits with 12 legs, you'd be able to talk about centre of gravity, lateral vs straight line agility, etc.

[Connor MacLeod]

True. A 12 legged one might be better able to take advantage of cover than a bipedal one (although that depends on how big a mech we're actually talking. really big mechs may not have many cover options unless you happen to have alot of handy mountain ranges handy or something.)

I guess I was just trying to convey the idea that 'advantages/disadvantages' really depend on how the setting is - there's no real hard and fast rules to these sorts of things so what may be capable in one setting wouldn't neccesarily be in another. It's not something that can be generalized.

[Stark]

That's true of anything though; jamming or magic materials also impact other weapon systems. For instance, in Gundam UC it's really micro-fusion and ground effect that spells the end for regular tanks, not robits. Heaps of energy and rocket-skating just means low and slow isn't that useful.

I think fruity robits could be pretty interesting; like all those daft robots in SW for climbing mountains or whatever bullshit rationale. It they're appropriate, they'll be used, just like stripped down space fighters being used on earth in double-oh seventy-nine.

[Blayne]

In Supreme Commander we have Spiderbots going about blasting things with a unstoppable microwave laser.

I can see Octopus like mechs making sense.

[Sky Captain]

How big those mechs are supposed to be? A small mech maybe little bigger than normal power armor would be useful. It could enter buildings to clear out insurgents - something that wheeled whicles can't do. It would be better protected than regular troops in body armour . If it have all round immunity to small arms fire it would be very useful in confined spaces.

[Stark]

What mechs? The robits in Supreme Commander?

[Sarevok]

Aquatic races would need some sort of power armor or small mecha (Gears sized) to fight on land - like the Orz in Star Control 2 for example who absolutely dominate ground warfare despite being fish people.

They could use small tanks/tankettes but the problem is without legged platforms they won't have any infantry that can go where vehicles cant.

[Stark]

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.

[jollyreaper]

Giant legged combat robots may always be a terrible idea but small walking bots might very well make sense. Let's look at the logic behind the Big Dog robot. It's meant to be a robotic pack mule. Well, why not have a robotic ATV instead? If you'd asked me a few years back about whether it would make sense to have wheels or legs, I'd have said wheels without question, treads in a pinch. We know how to make wheeled vehicles with compact power supplies, all we need to do is replace the driver. Well, DARPA and Boston Dynamics begs to differ. At this size, they feel legs offer greater mobility than wheels.

Of course, you get into a lot of questions concerning biomimicry. All flying animals use flapping because they have to work with the tools they have. You don't see too many axles in nature and therefore not many wheels.

Of course, one also has to remember that a viable body plan for a crab doesn't make sense when scaled up to the size of an elephant. It may well be that treads are good for the kinds of vehicles humans ride in, legs are good for man-sized bots. But it could also be a question of suiting locomotion to task. We've got snake bots designed to crawl through rubble for search and rescue. We've got a drone that looks like an RC car with a powerful spring that allows it to jump twenty feet in the air, basically tossing itself over obstacles.

Big Dog's big brother.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legged_Squ ... ort_System

[Stark]

Dear lord. I think the thread is more about high performance combat vehicles than utes. And robits being higher performance than any conventional vehicle never stops anyone endlessly repeating 'omgnlegs always bad always omg build a tank'.

Have you ever seen any media about the kind of robits being discussed?

[jollyreaper]

Yeah. Mecha. Typically assumed to be manned, anything on scale from tachikomas to battlemechs and evangelions.

I brought up the Big Dog because right now it's an example of wheels versus legs. If it's adopted by the Army, you know they're going to be thinking of ways to stick weapons on it. The original Predator drones were unarmed but we eventually stuck missiles on them.

[Stark]

It's an 'example' of 'wheels vs legs' for a non combat vehicle, and it looks nothing like a human. Can you talk about how or why it is used and how it's design influences that utility?

And man your little zero content list there is hilarious as hell. I wonder if you know why.