Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote from: GreatWyrmGold on February 04, 2014, 09:20:39 pm

Quote

Also, we need a main battle armor unit. Like a combat walker, like Star Wars AT-TE's or Starcraft Thors.

They have their uses...not sure if they're here. They're not especially great against swarms of infantry; they're good, but usually not ideal unless armed for that purpose.
I think? Definitely, if the UWM brings antimaterial weaponry.

So, if the UWM brings in anti-materiel weapons, we deploy things with... less armor?

I'm no military expert, but if I understand how those work, I think it's better to deploy more things that are more mobile and less armored. Infantry fare better against tank guns than tanks.

Who needs combat walkers when we have Avatars of War. A five meter tall synthflesh being, completely encased in thick slabs of shaped armor, covered in a heavy armored cloak. Main armaments are: Coilgun, Tesla Sabre, and I believe some flavor of manipulator. Also, Battlesuits. Standing three(?) meters tall, they are large suits of powered armor capable of shrugging of gauss fire like rain. They come in several different flavors, Melee, Long-Range, Hazardous Enviroment, Mobility, and probably many more.

The problem is, those are hella expensive.

1.Okay.  Sorry, but I don't understand what you want explained.
2.Well, presumably if we control the battlefield this stuff isn't as important.  But mobility is still useful in defense.  Take an instance of two squads shooting at each other in an urban area.  One sends a QC into the air, so it's effectively flanking them vertically.  Or if one area of the battlefield needs reinforcments quickly, several of these can be diverted much faster than land vehicles, unless there's a nice road system or something.  Mobility isn't always useful, but those are exceptions.
3.You still have to get the rocket to be within a foot or two of the arm, which is still a small target.  That's moving around.  I also doubt rotorstrikes would set off a rocket- they're not machetes, and rockets are usually idiot-proof, so they don't just explode under minor impacts.
4.What -exactly- am I not explaining?  I've been trying to go into as much detail as I can without hogging the whole thread (And I think I failed here).  As far as nukes... I think that's always gonna be a vulnerability.  I'm currently arguing for an infantry support drone, similar to the RT's role.
5.A rotor's speed is limited by the speed of sound, 760 MPH, at the tip of the rotor.  High-performance copters going at max speed are really the only things that will make the rotor go that fast.  For comparison, 20mm Vulcan* has a muzzle velocity of 2315 MPH, and is 102mm long.  The rotor probably occupies 5% of the space that it can occupy at any particular time.  Do the math.
*Gauss rifles fire a 20mm round and can explode the torso of their target.  I figured this is a fair equivalent.
6.Welp, it depends on exactly what it hits.  Assuming you didn't armor it so you'd have maximum speed, stuff breaks.  If it hits the CPU, you killed it.  If you just hit the gun, you disarmed it.  Note that you had to hit a thing that's two or three square feet, assuming this thing is huge, and it's moving very fast and unpredictably.  If you did armor it, well, it depends on how well you armored it.
7.Ahh, no, with pretty big quadcopters. Like, four feet wide.  And under conditions that really would screw them up, like 50 MPH winds.  :I
8.Yes.

I know you can't avoid it, but geez the lack of quoting is a bit annoying.
1. Why is it harder to hit a wide, low target than a tall, narrow one with a weapon? Or a "drop weapon," whatever that is?
2. The proposed R3's are pretty mobile. They lack vertical mobility, but their nice little tricks like "heavier armor" and "more weapons" (just try getting the electrolaser turret tail on a quadcopter) and "able to operate in strong winds" and "not an obvious target" balance that out.
3. Not that small, if it's going to be comparable in durability and power to the R3's. And if it isn't, it's not fulfilling the same purpose, so it's kinda silly to talk of one replacing the other.
4. You're making claims about how various weapons aren't going to be able to affect your quadcopters at all without explaining why. Do quadcopters create spacial distortions around themselves or something?
And I'm not saying that nukes are a vulnerability, I'm saying nukes are cheap, so you can't assume airburst and homing stuff would be rare and ineffective.
5. How many blades per rotor? And really, absolute speed matters a hell of a lot less than angular velocity for this. How big are we talking?
6. I mean the center part of the rotor.
7. Four feet wide...does that include the rotors? No way that would compare to the R3 in firepower and durability and such.

@Anti Materiel rifles would be more useful than tanks

I didn't say that, I said that the chance that the UWM would have anti-material rifles is rather high (especially since the hypothetical worker's rebellion on this heavily industrial world would probably have plenty of war machines after a year), armor* isn't really a priority.
*Armored vehicles

The irony of this statement... you realize modern "anti-materiel' rifles fire 12.7mm rounds?  Gauss rifles fire 20mm.

The armor of ER stuff is probably a lot tougher.

I have an idea for making SC2-Esqe tanks (but not so horrible) purely because transformation servos will turn a tank into a artillery piece.

Why would you need the servos? The difference between a self-propelled gun and a tank is mostly in the relative size of the vehicle and the gun.
_{And auxiliary systems and stuff, bleh.}

Depends on exactly what, I suppose.

And it might not hurt to read Shonus's bit at some point.

Kyle patpats Selina.

He gets an odd look from Will.

"YOU CAN'T USE WATER THAT'S NOT FAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

Will, annoyed, disables avatar-interaction feedback. In laymans terms...no one can feel what others do. No tickles, and sadly also no massages.
"What are you, four?"

Grate starts crying when he sees Feyri's gun.
"I don't know! I don't understand anymore! Nothing makes sense!"

"Damn you! Why did you take our children, stranger?"

1.I'm saying the opposite of that.  It's harder to hit a wide target.  A quadcopter facing you is a wide target.
2.Ability to gain a good tactical position, mostly.  Being able to take cover in impossible spots, being able to travel over much worse terrain, being faster, ect.  Also stability during movement.  Anyways, you still retain the ability to fly above them anyways.  Even if you're easier to shoot, a surprise flanking manuever is a good thing to have in your back pocket.
3.The spinning rotors are visible, but ballistic weapon practically can't hit them.  Only the center is really vulnerable to ballistic fire.
4.Yes, I said it's vulnerable to lasers.  You would have to armor the arm and rotors against lasers, or risk losing them.  Explosives... well, airburst stuff would be effective, as well as homing stuff.  But the former is rare and difficult to use in most cases, while the second would probably target thermal signatures due to the prevalence of rockets.  Also, that's rare too.  Other types of explosives would be difficult to hit with- you would have to hit things near the copter to do real damage, and it's less vulnerable to that than land-based things due to flight.

1. My bad in asking. Mind explaining that?
2. When we control the battlefield, how much of an issue is that? If we were designing them for assaulting a variety of types of areas, they might have one advantage, but for here...
3. Why not? Again, the rotors are spinning pretty fast. If nothing else, a low-velocity explosive would completely destroy a rotor AND damage the hub, if not adjacent rotors.
4. You don't seem to be explaining much of this. Especially considering that mini-nukes are dirt cheap, so what is true about the real world should be highly suspect here.

As for ballistic weapons hitting the rotors... you have no idea how fast a buller goes, do you?  I won't say it's impossible, but it is very unlikely.  It would be far easier to hit the center, regardless of erratic flight patterns and whatnot.

1 5. I know. The rotors also go fast.
6. Alright, they hit the center. What now?

The hobbyist is telling me that high wind wouldn't be an issue.  Apparently there's currently fancy gimbals mounted on some of these things that can aim cameras with no effect from wind, and that's with RL tech.

With fairly small quadcoptors. Under conditions that wouldn't completely screw them up (e.g, not combat or adverse weather).

Overall, I don't think the advantages measure up to the disadvantages.

This argument is funny.  I don't plan to build any, because Saint will be going for automated robobodies or teammates if he goes for any robotic soldiers.  And I highly doubt Anton will try it.  In general, I'm just plain opposed to custom equipment because it's so expensive- for example an RT costs as much as an Avatar, while being less useful than a battlesuit.
At best, I'll convince Simus or Miyamoto to make some for the ARMy.  And I doubt that's happening.

Still, it's fun.

We'll need our own version of a battle tank if the enemy makes ground-fall with tanks or if they get fortifed.

I'd say antimaterial rifles would be more useful.
Still...I'd say big synthflesh thingies would be pretty useful. Or maybe large battlesuits. Or Miyamoto.

No. She doesn't. Maybe if they had something sharp and strong.

Like a sword?

Quote from: RangerCado on February 04, 2014, 07:52:00 pm

"O-okay... um... n-n-not sure wh-what to do..."

Ester shrugs, "I dunno. We have internet access here at least."

"We could try TF2, but I think a few of us would have an unfair advantage. Anyone else know some fun games we could play or get?"