Western Mechs vs Eastern Mecha

What do you like better? Western Mechs or Eastern Mecha?

  • Total voters
    58
I thought the third option was worded like that on purpose! Either way they're different things in different atmospheres. The westies seem more realistic but Gundam > all.
 
Tbh, I like tanks.

Anything that has two legs and walks around is infantry.


If I had to choose though, I like the western styles way better than Japanese style mechs, because seriously, what is the point in having advanced technology if you have to hack your opponent into pieces in melee instead of blowing them up from a few thousand yards away?
 
15357 said:
Tbh, I like tanks.

Anything that has two legs and walks around is infantry.


If I had to choose though, I like the western styles way better than Japanese style mechs, because seriously, what is the point in having advanced technology if you have to hack your opponent into pieces in melee instead of blowing them up from a few thousand yards away?
Click to expand...

A 50 foot or taller monstrosity with more firepower than a tank platoon walking around on two legs would be infantry to you?
 
Raziaar said:
A 50 foot or taller monstrosity with more firepower than a tank platoon walking around on two legs would be infantry to you?
Click to expand...

I mean, *should be*. I don't even like that powered armor crap, much less titanic humanoid war walkers. :p
 
DEATHMASTER said:
I thought the third option was worded like that on purpose!
Click to expand...

To be fair, it still makes sense. If the question asks "Which do you like better?", "I don't either of them" would still be a valid response, even though it sounds funny.

Also, Numbers has a point about tanks being awesome. I have to say, I prefer machine stuff that has wheels/tracks to that which has legs. Tanks > Walkers, IMO.
 
Stylo said:
Tanks > Walkers, IMO.
Click to expand...
No doubt, Walkers just seem more vulnerable to me since with a tank, even if both tracks get destroyed, it still remains upright.

Whereas with a (two-legged) walker, if you destroy one leg, the whole machine will most likely topple over, not only disorienting the driver but potentially rendering him unconscious/killing him from the impact as the machine hits the ground.

Then again, I guess a walker would most likely have systems for that kind of toppling, perhaps with some sort of airbag system or such.
 
Gargantou said:
No doubt, Walkers just seem more vulnerable to me since with a tank, even if both tracks get destroyed, it still remains upright.

Whereas with a (two-legged) walker, if you destroy one leg, the whole machine will most likely topple over, not only disorienting the driver but potentially rendering him unconscious/killing him from the impact as the machine hits the ground.

Then again, I guess a walker would most likely have systems for that kind of toppling, perhaps with some sort of airbag system or such.
Click to expand...

I think the theoretical manueverability of a walker is much cooler than a tank. It'd be able to traverse terrain that a tank would struggle with.
 
Also, artillery walkers are like the coolest thing ever.
 
What if the third option meant "Neither. I don't own either of them."?

HL2.net is well armed.
 
I am not a expert but one thing about the design of tanks is that they are literally made to be flat as possible to use elevations like mounds or hills as cover to peak the gun over it

so yeah a tall walking mecha would be a very easy target unless it have such a powerfull and precise weapons that no one would dare to peak at

I think the most practicall design would be literrally a tank whit a spider like legs but still having threads,so it can use the legs for terrain hard to tresspas and the threads for flat terrain,but dont know if the threads are already very terrain crosser so it would have to be very rough terrain to use legs,and who know if is practical since they can use some lift helicopter well escorted to lift the tank over the terrain

so yeah I dont see giants mechas in the future any time soon

only kind of legged robots I see is small fast ones kinda like the metal gear solid4 geckos,or just the big dog robot that everyone know but whit mounted guns on it
 
Raziaar said:
I think the theoretical manueverability of a walker is much cooler than a tank. It'd be able to traverse terrain that a tank would struggle with.
Click to expand...

That still doesn't adress the issues that I mentioned, the vulnerability of joints and entire mech toppling over and potentially being rendered unable to fire if just one of the legs is taken out.

And, as RJMC points out, BattleTech-type Mech's would make for extremely easy to hit targets for aircraft bombs and such.
 
Raziaar said:
I think the theoretical manueverability of a walker is much cooler than a tank. It'd be able to traverse terrain that a tank would struggle with.
Click to expand...

Not really, as much as I love biped walkers, they are totally unrealistic. A tank would be able to get over more terrain and quicker than a walker. A walker would have to move very slow (making precisely placed footsteps) and would likely topple over on anything not completely flat. I think small quadruped walkers might have a place in our future though. Like, it would be useful if it was a small armed carrier (little bigger than a horse) to move through jungle/ narrow areas a tank wouldn't fit.
 
ríomhaire said:
Also, artillery walkers are like the coolest thing ever.
Click to expand...

juggernaut_papercraft.jpg
 
<RJMC> said:
I am not a expert but one thing about the design of tanks is that they are literally made to be flat as possible to use elevations like mounds or hills as cover to peak the gun over it

so yeah a tall walking mecha would be a very easy target unless it have such a powerfull and precise weapons that no one would dare to peak at

I think the most practicall design would be literrally a tank whit a spider like legs but still having threads,so it can use the legs for terrain hard to tresspas and the threads for flat terrain,but dont know if the threads are already very terrain crosser so it would have to be very rough terrain to use legs,and who know if is practical since they can use some lift helicopter well escorted to lift the tank over the terrain

so yeah I dont see giants mechas in the future any time soon

only kind of legged robots I see is small fast ones kinda like the metal gear solid4 geckos,or just the big dog robot that everyone know but whit mounted guns on it
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right about the tank concealment. Trust me though, from playing mechwarrior games people still use the same style concealment under terrain that tanks do even though they're tremendously tall. Though for most mechs, stealth isn't the plan... it's all out brute force.

ríomhaire said:
Also, artillery walkers are like the coolest thing ever.
Click to expand...

Yes! Mmm.

ZT said:
Not really, as much as I love biped walkers, they are totally unrealistic. A tank would be able to get over more terrain and quicker than a walker. A walker would have to move very slow (making precisely placed footsteps) and would likely topple over on anything not completely flat. I think small quadruped walkers might have a place in our future though. Like, it would be useful if it was a small armed carrier (little bigger than a horse) to move through jungle/ narrow areas a tank wouldn't fit.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you're so quick to throw theoretical maneuverability out the window. If the stability issues could be addressed and technology advanced I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to make them as stable as they are depicted.... including some of the fast ones. I mean come on, you can't ****ing throw that shit out the window and chalk it up as impossible physics wise. Humans do it, other animals do it... a mechanical construction could be made to do it. Just look at the advances in modern robotics. Our machines build things and operate on incredibly precise levels extremely fast. It's a technological feat that I'm sure could be overcome.

Gargantou said:
That still doesn't adress the issues that I mentioned, the vulnerability of joints and entire mech toppling over and potentially being rendered unable to fire if just one of the legs is taken out.

And, as RJMC points out, BattleTech-type Mech's would make for extremely easy to hit targets for aircraft bombs and such.
Click to expand...

There are aircraft and tanks in the mechwarrior universe. They're depicted as incredibly rugged and powerful, especially with the fact that they typically implement shielding. Obviously in real life especially right now, bombs and tank shells and missiles are going to do far more damage to them than depicted in games.

And leg vulnerability and joints is entirely valid... that's why they're modeled in the games because it's an aspect involved in combat that is particularly unique to them.


Don't treat me like I'm trying to justify and champion their viability in real life combat because I'm not.
 
Raziaar said:
Don't treat me like I'm trying to justify and champion their viability in real life combat because I'm not.
Click to expand...

Then what is the point of this argument?

Anyway, the way I see it a mech would be a viable war machine in real life if some requirements were met:
-Fast, and agile. Making it hard to hit.
-High armor protection (otherwise what's the point)
-Regeneration/self repair capability
-Various defenses that can neutralise incoming missiles, rockets and cannon fire.
-High engine/power source efficiency. So it doesn't need to refuel/recharge too often.

However the biggest problem with a high tech machine like this is cost and maintenance.
 
That is not a tank. It's a light armored remote controlled weapons platform...
 
Hey, you guys are forgetting psuedo-science.

Deploying Minovski Particles

/runs
 
Viperidae said:
Why not have ridiculously big and tank?

<snip>
Click to expand...

Logistics & bridges. heavy things require lots of fuel and big things are essentially a massive "shoot me now" sign for enemy artillery and airpower.

Seriously - AFVs ain't no good if they can't go where they're needed. Which they can't if they're too heavy for roads/bridges. Like a 1,000 ton cruiser with tracks.

Speaking of tracks, as previously mentioned if the vehicle is on legs you end up with much higher ground pressure (sinking in most ground and breaking up roads) and a much higer profile (which means adopting a hull down position is hard. Which is bad. Because more of the AFV is exposed to enemy fire). The potential gain in mobility over tracks is confined to very specific terrain.

'Mechs (especially Battletech mechs, owing to thier absurdly short range due to game mechanics) are totally impractical IRL. They are, on the other hand awesome.
 
I wonder if we did deploy giant walkers like the titans in Warhammer40k the opposing forces would experience "walker shock" like "tank shock".

Speaking of which, I have a soft spot for Imperial Guard Sentinels... and perhaps the Titans of the Adeptus Mechanicus, despite the fact that it would attract the vast majority of the enemy's firepower even more than a tank would.

That said, now I want to see mass tanks vs giant mechs. I have no doubt that tanks would win, of course, but it would be awesome. I mean, come to think of it, mechs really are awesome, but I suppose the absolute retardity of what is known as "eastern mecha" has made me hate them in general. Mechs should be giant, lumbering behemoths with super heavy armor and insanely large calibre weapons instead of - god forbid - giant melee weapons and more maneuverability than a helicopter.
 
Vaguely relevant:

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udEAEARD-Fo[/video]

An indie game written by six people.
 
I like how you have people here who are shouting "western cuz its moar reelistic" while they go drop money on the avengers to see iron man who is way more unrealistic than most Japanese Mechs, that goes with most "tech" from the avengers like those small towns that fly somehow or floating masses of land.


Anyway, I don't get how american mechs are more "realistic" is it because their designs are basically a thick bubble with two clunky legs? Where it takes 20 minutes to turn around? One good Japanese mech could wipe the floar against a squad of western mechs. You don't jump into the realm of fantasy and imagination and then try to use "realism" as the main consensus of your argument. Da'fuk outta here.

Also, I will add... The only reason why there's "realistic western" mechs is solely from Japanese influence.

main-qimg-500dfc50b48c03c8ff1b52c13f1ddb58


Japan already had these types of bots. They covered most tactical ideas and approaches. It's just the fancier ones have more special connection with the user, and isn't solely about grit and ermagerd a ternk!
 
Last edited:
I think much of the debate is about aesthetics rather than realism, which is personal preference really.

With the dawn of consumer VR I really want some Mech piloting games. We're getting a variety of cockpit flight games, but a proper Mechwarrior would be amazeballs.
 
The victory will be decided when one "side" actually builds a functioning mech.

My bet is on The West. The US military budget is ridiculous... and I would not put it past them to waste time, labor, and money on a mech if it meant more killing power national security.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
3K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
The leaked maps of the Half-Life 2 episodes - Part 2
Replies
0
Views
10K
Barnz
B
Vincent Pride
  • Poll Poll
Half-Life 3 - analysis and expectations
Replies
3
Views
2K
FoB_Ed
FoB_Ed
T
My Half-Life "book"
Replies
2
Views
1K
Sam Raven
Sam Raven
deathlemon637
My own theoretical plot layout
Replies
1
Views
2K
Mindshifter
M
Back
Top