Because it's not even in closed Beta yet

For the same reason we don't have a thread about Hawken: There's nothing to discuss yet.

Also because mechs are completely idiotic bullshit that piss me off.

>>139748304

Well... Can we still have a thread?

Here are some videos at least...

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/05/10/six-new-mechwarrior-online-videos-count-em/

LRMs look good. That's pretty much it. Waiting for beta.
Also, are rotary autocannons in?

>>139748362
>>derp derp legs derp

no fun allowed is what you are saying

>>139748362
>Also because mechs are completely idiotic bullshit
Mechs would rape wheeled or tracked vehicles in urban combat while being lightly armed (up to 30mm cannons), since they can score hits on the "roof" of the tank turret, that has the shittiest armor. That's why the A10 can destroy most tanks solely with it's autocannon.

>>139748212

>Concept art pic

...

ISHY... Not wait, fuck it

I don't see why you couldn't just fit your mech with a bunch of PPC from head to toe and just burst fire at the enemy mech's legs. Doesn't matter if you overheat for every burst, they die anyway.

somehow, i hope it ends up being like world of tanks with mechs, except without bullshit matchmaking

File: 1337242845606.jpg-(437 KB, 1037x720, 1336666217211.jpg)

>>139752054
>I don't see why you couldn't just fit your mech with a bunch of PPC from head to toe and just burst fire at the enemy mech's legs.
>aiming at legs with PPCs
>not putting a 3x PPC alpha strike directly through the cockpit

File: 1337242864108.png-(41 KB, 186x160, 1274662937615.png)

>No clan tech

Yes I know it's net one year before the Clan Invasion, but the Clans better be playable factions if and when they move ahead a year. I expect Clan Wolf, Jade Falcon, ans Smoke Panther at the very least

>>139752304
*Smoke Jaguar

MID LASERS AND HEATSINKS EVERYWHERE
PEW PEW PEW PEW
MOTHEFUCKAS DROPPING IN SECONDS
BEST GAME EVER

>>139752304

Raise enough hell and I'm sure we can get clan tech in there, F2P games depend heavily on their fanbase to succeed.

Nothing to discuss about.
All we've seen is a little bit of gameplay.

>>139752304
Draconis Combine or no buy.

I heard it enters closed beta next month. I guess we'll see more discussion then.

>>139752491
Already in, along with Steiner, Davion, Liao, Free Worlds League and Free Rasalhague Republic.

FUCK YEAH! I signed up for the beta like 9 months ago.

>>139752587
See you next month anon
Until then
I'll play some mechwarrior 4 and living legends

This looks incredible. Mechwarrior 2 made me a gamer as a child.

File: 1337243892851.gif-(725 KB, 200x197, 1337099152324.gif)

http://www.pixelhunt.com.au/2012/05/featured/mechwarrior-online-developers-chat-on-twitter/

>As to all the questions about Beta! Ready? Stay tuned for that info soon ( as in next week ) :) (Russ)
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA
>OPEN BETA

>>139752741
fuck yeah, living legends

although I dont like the Epona patch

File: 1337243969221.jpg-(47 KB, 576x432, 1336619849959.jpg)

>>139753293

>>139752741
I registered a pilot name back when the MWO site launched- do you think I'll get a referral, or will we have Tribes Ascend-like threads where people beg for keys?

>mfw I have no face when it doesn't look nearly as cool as that concept art.

Imagine if there was a game mode where you could salvage defeated mech's parts at the end.

Kind of a play for keeps kind of mode.

>>139753447

No idea, I completely forgot that I even registered a name. Don't think I've gotten any emails since.

>>139751770

...and then there's the problem that tanks are both faster and still less vulnerable than a mech.

Seriously. Urban combat? Are you shitting me? One shell to the leg, goodbye extremely expensive mech. No matter the setting. Unless it's the jungle, your motherfucking mech is in every way inferior.

Hell, send three guys with RPG's, hit the leg, goodbye fucking mech. You could probably afford to send 100 guys on motorcycles with rpgs after every single mech the enemy can muster, and destroy them every time. COST EFFECTIVENESS.

It's like German tanks in WWII. Yeah, they might have kicked the shit out of everything the Allies had, but we could send four against every one of theirs, easily, because ours were cheap as dirt in comparison. The mech doesn't even have the advantage of being better armored or better armed-it's all negatives, from cost to combat effectiveness.

>>139753896
It's cool, shut up.

Also Russian Tanks were the best of the War. German Tanks had complicated designs and were prone to breakdowns. Amerifat tanks were cost-effective, but they went up in flames easily.

File: 1337244965810.jpg-(156 KB, 1920x1080, BinaryDomain 2012-05-17 00-29-(...).jpg)

>>139748212
Mechs are shit, this game shows it well
>shoot the legs until it falls down!

and done

>>139754206
>Shoot the back of the tank until it blows up
>Shoot them in the head until they die

File: 1337245171279.jpg-(696 KB, 2048x1707, 1337214542518.jpg)

>>139754094

Russian tanks? Oh you. If they were so great they wouldn't have lost thousands to a country that had less than 50 tanks for their entire military.

I won't argue about American tanks though, that was my point: Best doesn't count for shit when the other guy has four to your one.

But why mechs though? They just don't make sense to me. Getting your mechanical legs ripped off by a single shot and being disabled doesn't sound cool, it sounds like a design flaw. Why not make it smaller, and somewhat cost effective, like baddass power armor?

>>139754206
Mechs will only be viable in combat when they mirror the ones from Gungriffon: Blaze and similar series that have Sanic Hegehog mechs.
>>139754240
At least humans and tanks have mobility.

File: 1337245382277.jpg-(391 KB, 1600x1143, 1337226580403.jpg)

Can't we just get a good single player focused Mechwarrior game, with free roaming, like Mechwarrior 1 and Mech mercenaries had? :(

I want to complete a storyline campaign, then free roam the galaxy with my awesome lances doing random missions for fun afterwards

All three mech games coming out this year , Online, tactics, tactical command for iphone are all multiplayer focused -_-

>>139754381
Russian Tanks were great, just not the Russians driving them. The T-34 was overall, the best tank of the war.

>>139753896
>...and then there's the problem that tanks are both faster and still less vulnerable than a mech.
In an open area - yes. In urban setting - no. How the fuck is a tank supposed to deal with a maneuvering mech at close range? The turret elevation angles and turret rotation speeds are not that great, you know. A tank will need to hit the mech with it's main caliber (120+ mm cannon) to kill it, while a mech can destroy a tank with a burst of depleted uranium 30mm shells to the roof.
High profile - the factor that makes mechs unusable on open terrain is what makes them imba in close quarters.

Concerning maneuverability: a tank needs to turn, before it can move in the needed direction, while a mech should be able to strafe and start moving in any direction without

>Hell, send three guys with RPG's
Modern active defense systems like the Russian Arena laugh at RPGs and most ATGMs. Make these ADSs laser based and RPGs will be obsolete, unless fired in massive volleys.

>One shell to the leg
>hitting a fast, moving target at close range with the main gun

Light mechs with jump jets and a 30mm autocannon would be ideal tank killers. What are you going to do when a mech starts to destroy tanks from the roof of a building? It would be a fucking massacre.

>>139754606
>The T-34 was overall, the best tank of the war.
Haha, no.
Let me guess, you think this because you heard somewhere that it was the first tank to have sloped armor?

>>139755024
>What are you going to do when a mech starts to destroy tanks from the roof of a building?
Air support.
Done.

>>139755236
>Air support.
So you rely on air superiority to effectively engage ground forces? This isn't some sandniggers you're fighting, a faction capable of deploying mechs would surely have the money to keep the air at least neutral.

>>139755024

And here's the problem: your light mech with the ability to 'jump' is as realistic as throwing fireballs from your hands or plasma weaponry. Complete fantasy bullshit.

Either way, how do you deal with it? Simple. Use smaller, faster vehicles to counter mechs. You can send several of them after each hideously expensive mech, outmaneuver them even in tight urban settings, and outmatch them in firepower as well.

The turret rotation speed of a Leopard 2 is about 10 seconds.

'gotta go fast' is bullshit

and in an urban environment? enjoy your enormous fucking silhouette

there is no rational explanation for how mechs could be practical

>>139755339
Sorry, kiddo, too much money spent on mechs to get air support.

Enjoy your smoldering mech.

>>139755339

I don't think so, since they've clearly been huffing gasoline in mind destroying amounts to think buying mechs was a good idea.

Different game but is there anything new known about Hawken yet? LIke beta period or something.

>>139755772

Closed beta begins 12/12/12

File: 1337246859765.jpg-(56 KB, 429x599, 429px-Franz_Joseph_of_Austria_(...).jpg)

>mfw autists still argue about whether giant robots are practical and get so enraged about a video game focusing on them that they have to shitpost

seriously guys it's fiction. did you get angry at skyrim for having dragons despite them making no biological sense?

>GUYS, IT'S NOT DEAD
Jesus Christ talk about being a slowpoke.

>>139755875

I'm only arguing because that guy believes they are actually practical. I'll play these games and bitch, to my self, about how they're completely unrealistic and I'm an asshole for liking them.

File: 1337246950381.jpg-(459 KB, 1920x1200, 1311435086114.jpg)

In the battletech universe, tanks and air units do exist, and there are some heavy tanks that can take out medium mechs in a few shots. But the video games simple focus on the mech aspect more.

Also the terran empire focused on improving mechs for colony/crowd control. Air/tank warfare was non existant until the break up.

>niggers arguing about mechs

Look.

All of you autists who hate mechs and don't know shit about Battletech can fuck right off, because mechs make sense in the context of the BT universe. They might not be very adapted to use in our era and world, but they make sense for Battletech. Go read BT's history and politics and you'll see why.

>>139755875
Uh there ain't much if any shitposting.
The person trying to argue that they could be practical is just flat out wrong.

I love Robotech, Future Cop LAPD and a bunch of other mech, but they're just inane in any possible realistic context.

>>139755946
Are you in the military? Because if not, shut the fuck up.

>>139755946
So, what'd you think of World of Tanks?

Oh wait, I don't care. It was objectively shit. Mechs are fun. Most people play videogames for fun. What are you playing for? Are you an angry engineering school dropout or something?

File: 1337247220396.png-(453 KB, 630x653, 1334338734290.png)

>BT fans get told
>FUCKING AUTISTS SHUT UP IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT FUCK OFF
>mfw

>>139752304
but the Clans better be playable factions if and when they move ahead a year

But that's the plan anyway you idiot.
Do you people even get informed about what you're talking about?

>>139756193
>BT fans get told

I just entered the thread now, and why would we care, in most other threads armchair generals are the ones who get told. Repeatedly.

>>139756106

Are you a physicist? If not fuck off. And yes, I was in the military.

They are so impractical it is ridiculous. Just powering them would bankrupt any country that tried to field them. A single shell from a much cheaper, faster, better armed vehicle could take them out. They have no advantages over other vehicles, and yet have several disadvantages. That is the very definition of impractical bullshit.

I'll never understand why people bother to argue about the plausability of giant fighting robots.

Have you never heard of the rule of cool?

>>139756392

As a fan of hard scifi, cool can go fuck itself, it's raping the entire genre.

>>139755946
>I'm only arguing because that guy believes they are actually practical.
But they are. High profile of a mech coupled with the low profile of a tank allows mechs to fire at tanks from angles where tanks are most vulnerable. Even shots at oblique angles to the roof of the utrret are deadly, since the armor there is extra thin.
A tank needs to hit a mech with its main gun during its first shot, while a mech can fire a burst 30mm autocannon nonstop, until the tank burns (which will take several seconds tops). If a tank misses - it's done for, because there won't be time for a follow up shot.
Strafing gives mechs unmatched mobility in urban combat, compared to vehicles, because they can start moving in any direction without he need to turn beforehand.

File: 1337247665028.jpg-(70 KB, 484x326, 1298702415805.jpg)

>>139756452
Yet this is videogames we are talking about.

>no SP campaign

The point where I stopped caring.

>>139756507
>High profile of a mech
Allows it to be hit much easier.
The end.
There is no upside to the high profile of a mech.

File: 1337247749800.jpg-(951 KB, 1680x1050, Mechwarrior_Wallpaper_4_by_cyb(...).jpg)

I didn't think the Mechwarrior series was popular enough to get all this hate, it's a video game set a thousand years in the future.

Do the people spewing "UNREALISTIC" think they will make the fans stop liking Mechwarrior suddenly?

Well keep trying -_-

>>139756362
>I was in the military.
Go back to scrubbing toilets, Bob.
Don't use ad hominem, unless you want it used against you

>>139756452
Hard sci fi gets outdated 10 years after it is written, usually. I love sci fi literature but it's painful reading about spaceships without computers in the year 2999 written by some guy who thought we'd be telepaths by 2000.

File: 1337247795219.jpg-(81 KB, 469x599, 469px-Franz_Joseph_of_Austria_(...).jpg)

>>139756193
But I'm not a BTfag. I'm much more into actual military history than mech stuff. I just think arguing about it is inane. Mechs don't work with today's tech. Someday they might be useful weapons - and someday humanity could evolve into sentient supergas or something. That's the point of them being so prominent in, you know, speculative fiction. "What if giant robots were weapons?" is the question often asked, but because militaryfags (me included often) are autistic and like to show off it gets a far worse reaction than "What if magic fireballs were weapons?", when they're the same thing just dressed up differently.

>>139756569
I was really bothered by it at first as well, but the focus on adding depth to the MP really interests me.

>>139756635
>Do the people spewing "UNREALISTIC" think they will make the fans stop liking Mechwarrior suddenly?
Obviously not.
But it would be nice for the mongoloids arguing for the practicality of mechs to understand that they are not and never will be practical.

>>139756362
>I was in the military
lol

We're talking about mechs in sci-fi. You can't make assumptions like " Just powering them would bankrupt any country that tried to field them". You are the very definition of a stuck-up idiot, thinking because he reads shit about military technology he knows everything. I assume you also partake in katana vs longsword threads with you highly educated opinion that you got from the internet?
Also by your logic, I'm going to say that said "faster cheaper better" vehicle could be taken out by a single shot from a new infantry weapon. What are you going to do about it? Argue that a fictional man portable weapon that can take out a fictional vehicle that can take out a fictional 2 legged vehicle can't exist?

>>139756638

I don't think you know the meaning of ad hominem.

Also, you said, if you're not in the military you can fuck off. I was. Deal with it.

The people saying that mechs can never be used in combat are like Wilbur Wright saying that people won't be able to fly in 50 years.

>>139756583
>Allows it to be hit much easier.
Only on open terrain. High profile in urban combat is an advantage, since the engagement ranges can be as small as 10m and turret elevation angles are quite limited, which may prevent the tank from targetting the part of a mech that presents the largest profile - the torso. Legs are a fast moving target that is not as easy to hit as one might think.

>>139756753
Cool story. Now tell us how that makes any of that shit you just said more plausible.

>>139756753
>Also, you said, if you're not in the military you can fuck off. I was
>accuses someone of not knowing what ad hominem is
>then uses it without even acknowledging it
Is idiocy a prerequisite to join the military?

>tfw we will most probably live to see more and more mechanized aspects of warfare when we'll be old farts

Squadrons of powered armor troops with Bigdog Attack Variants as support...
Might be terrifying as hell

>>139756738

Except I know of a handful of tanks that have been taken out recently to rockets. They are quite resistant to them. I know for a fact that big armored robot could hardly take a shot to its leg and remain upright, and I also know it takes a fuckload of energy to move a mech at anything beyond a snails pace. It also could not have extremely powerful weapons, jump, or speed about at speeds even tanks are capable of. The mech does nothing a tank cannot do better.

My being in the military has nothing to do with the argument; he said if you're not in the military fuck off. I was in the military.

>>139756676
Stop being autistic then, seriously, you can't "show off" about war and speculate about its future without having actually partaken in it.
I'm a martial artsfag, but tho only thing I comment on in discussion about martial arts is peple who don't know the difference between combat and fighting -a practical AND speculative issue- and those who think that just because they've seen/read some stuff they can automatically comment on everything and judge if an art is superior to another -a purely practical issue where people who didn't train should not make any sort of comments whatsoever-.

>>139756795
I'd like to add that, from my experience with mechwarrior:living legends, tanks barely get any advantage from high ground and are too slow/immobile/too limited FOV to be able to use low cover effectively. whereas a mech can shoot down on a tank from over a hill, crouch down before return fire, wait for the tank to crest the hill, and then put rounds in the soft underbelly before that 120mm cannon can even aim at anything other than the horizon.

>>139756949
>My being in the military has nothing to do with the argument

Then why bring it up.

>>139756949
>I know for a fact things that can exist in the future due to technological and political changes cannot exist

IT'S OVER GUYS THE DOWNSTREAMERS ARE FINISHED YOU CAN NEVER SEND PROTONS BACK IN TIME 0/10 SHIT FICTION

File: 1337248371337.jpg-(52 KB, 425x600, 425px-Franz_Joseph_Karl_Otto_o(...).jpg)

>>139756957
I wasn't saying that kind of "showing off" is a good thing. It's a bad tendency and a poor habit, the kind of logic that gets people to go WELL IF I WAS NAPOLEON I WOULD'VE DONE X AT WATERLOO, or at worst SILLY 18TH CENTURY SOLDIERS WHY DON'T YOU USE COVER? That kind of bullshit. I don't presume to know anything about fighting wars, I just like to talk about them. It's why I'm saying this whole discussion is absurd.

>>139756970
>>139756970
>I'd like to add that, from my experience with mechwarrior:living legends, tanks barely get any advantage from high ground and are too slow/immobile/too limited FOV to be able to use low cover effectively. whereas a mech can shoot down on a tank from over a hill, crouch down before return fire, wait for the tank to crest the hill, and then put rounds in the soft underbelly before that 120mm cannon can even aim at anything other than the horizon.
This. A mech can use low cover against tanks (by crouching) and negate the ability of a tank to use low cover due to its high profile. But fighting tanks on open terrain with a high profile is suicide anyway.

>>139757054

Because he said if you're not in the military you can fuck off. I was. That's why. Why jump into an argument you didn't read the linked comments to?

>>139757054
Because
>>139756106

>>139755339

In this current day and age we can engage targets with missiles and guided artillery from 10s even 100s of miles away. Unless mechs were as cost effective as MBTs they'd just be fucking pointless.

File: 1337248463451.jpg-(101 KB, 800x632, Jehuty_by_Ackguy.jpg)

>>139756792
That's not true though. Wright said that because he thought technology won't advance that fast. People say the mech thing because mechs are just inefficient. Simpler vehicles like tanks or aircrafts do anything mechs can do but better and take less materials to produce.

They're not saying it's impossible, just retarded. It's like saying we'll be having Warhammer style gothic fortress space ships in real life. Highly unlikely. That said, it's just fucking fantasy. I play mech and mecha games and watch series and movies with them because I know they are cooler than what we get in real life.

>>139757228
Fucking this.

File: 1337248525998.jpg-(28 KB, 450x356, 1336501874576.jpg)

>if you're not a soldier you can't ever talk about war!
>if you're not a senator you can't ever talk about politics!
>if you're not a published historian you can't talk about history!
cool logic /v/

File: 1337248545983.jpg-(11 KB, 250x250, 250px-Mars_Valles_Marineris..jpg)

>ITT uppity retards argue with an uppity retard jarhead about fictitious weapons of war from the future, resorting to stunning arguments to defend their points such as calling the other person stupid and telling them to fuck off

Bravo.

>>139756970
In tabletop Battletech you can field entire armies of tanks and can fuck up the side that goes vanilla. It's entirely possible, there are also some tanks that can easily destroy Heavy mechs.
The balance of arms is pretty well done in BT, but retards won't accept it.

Also, those arguing about TOTAL warfare- in no MechWarrior/COmmander game total war has been depicted. In Battletech there are rules for it, namely that at first an massive aerospace war takes place, then aero units start bombing the shit out of everything, then ground forces land in weakened areas and can get their shit done easily. When air support is used directly in BT no unit can stand against it.

>>139754590
>All three mech games coming out this year , Online, tactics, tactical command for iphone are all multiplayer focused -_-

>doesn't play multiplayer with friends
>what a nerd!

>>139756792
No.
Mechs wont be used in combat because they are redundant.

File: 1337248718481.jpg-(34 KB, 269x400, hunchback harriot.jpg)

>>139757150
Oh, OK, I understand.
Here have a picture of the Hunchback doing what it does best.

>>139757153
I still don't see the reason why you would bring it up.

You don't need to save face on an anonymous imageboard, and no personal status adds anything to your argument.

Why are you still so retarded?

because early IS tech mechs are boring

yes, the Atlas is shit. it's iconic, but it's 100 tons of overrated crap.

Show a Masakari or a Daishi and then we'll talk.

Arguing mechs vs tanks is like arguing Yurop vs Japan.

It's just...no.

It's honestly as bad as taking memes out of their original context. It doesn't work, it's just silly.

>>139757228
>it's just fucking fantasy

You don't really know anything about technology then do you?

>>139757228
>People say the mech thing because mechs are just inefficient. Simpler vehicles like tanks or aircrafts do anything mechs can do but better and take less materials to produce.

But again, that's for today. You can't talk about fucking 1000+ years in the future, ESPECIALLY knowing as any person with a brain knows that geopolitics shape the instruments of war as much as technology does.

File: 1337248898389.jpg-(30 KB, 366x488, japanese-war-criminal-hideki-t(...).jpg)

>>139757536
Obviously more than you, kiddo.

>>139757427
You underestimate humanity's desire to do what they can, not what is practical. We didn't get shit out of investing billions of dollars into that Titanic director guy's trip to the bottom of the mariana trench, but we did it anyways.

>>139757228
>Simpler vehicles like tanks or aircrafts do anything mechs can do but better and take less materials to produce.
Name me a fighting vehicle that can:
1. Effectively engage and destroy tanks in urban combat (by firing at the roof of the turret)
2. Mow down infantry by the scores by using automatic grenade launchers (something similar to the Russian AGS-30 would be perfect) that fire FROM ABOVE
3. Can deny low cover (e,g, small buildings) to any vehicle or infantry and can use low cover itself effectively by crouching
4. Is more maneuverable than a mech, that can strafe and start motion in any direction instantaneously
5. Is a universal platform for urban combat, that can carry almost any weapon, starting autocannons and ending with ATGMs

>>139757678
>take less materials to produce.
>TAKE LESS MATERIALS TO PRODUCE

>>139757648
Not really. Not if you think that something is inherently impossible. I can't imagine tribes that rode on horseback thinking about machines that move on tank treads in the past.

>>139757496
>yes, the Atlas is shit. it's iconic, but it's 100 tons of overrated crap.

I thought you were a cool guy Bern.
We'll talk about what's a pile of crap when I turn your precious cheap ass clan mechs into garbage.

inb4 freebirth scum

>>139757678
Forgot to add:
6. Effectively counter infantry rooftop ambushes without air support (due to its high profile)

>>139757738
Less materials?

Do you even know how many materials go into building a stealth bomber?

>>139757741
>Not if you think that something is inherently impossible.
Never said that.
It is fantasy.
It is fiction.
Currently.
Never said it was going to be that way forever.

>>139757765
freebirth scum

I'll see you in the battlefield with my Black Cat of Ill Omen.
It's going to be so sweet! I'll paint a Mad Cat black and blue and it'll be so cute!

>>139757741
>you think that something is inherently impossible
>not saying it's impossible, just retarded

Maybe you should try reading first.

>>139757738
>TAKE LESS MATERIALS TO PRODUCE
So you're saying that something like a 35 ton Wolfhound would take more materials to produce than a 40 ton Merkava?

>>139757838
>currently

Is this the part where you say you were pretending to be retarded or?

>>139757667
In fact in Battletech mechs started out as a that kind of experiment, the engineers went "oh hey we have the tech now, let's try making a walking war machine".
It was more effective than they thought in destroying a bunch of tanks in its first run, the Houses took an interest in the idea and because of Battletech's politics and geography mechs eventually became one of the main battle units.

And also, everyone is strecthed thin in BT. 2 of the most powerful Great Houses combined couldn't wipe out the small and relatively weak House Liao. Armies are used much more to defend rather than conquer, and if a planet needs to be conquered it's still a tedious and difficult work despite not being total warfare.

>>139757925
No, but seems like it would be the right time for you to do so.

>>139757884
Paint a massive :3 face to the front of the cockpit too

>>139757891
>>139757786
>examples are two of the biggest pieces of shit in military history
nice going

>>139758143
F22
F35
any attempt by america to make an MBT or update old tanks before the M1A1

All huge wastes. Your move.

WHY DON'T THEY JUST USE SPACEROCKS AND BOMBARD THEIR ENEMIES INTO SUBMISSION FROM ORBIT IF THEY HAVE ROBOT TECHNOLOGY?

this is a bad discussion and you should ALL feel bad.

>>139748212
Because it's waiting time. There's nothing really to discuss.

This is the only MMO i've ever been interested in and I will definitely play it.

>>139757678

A vehicle that has major weaknesses, a vehicle that by design may not have the same firepower as a tank, a vehicle that requires prohibitive amounts of fuel just to get it crawling, a vehicle that, by the nature of its movement, will always be slower than tracked or wheeled vehicles...

Nah.

Anyway, the answer is a helicopter. Kill tanks from above? Check. Take out infantry? Check. Deny low cover? Check. Can't crouch, doesn't need to. More maneuverable? Check check check, faster too, universal weapons platform, check again.

Can do it all cheaper, faster, and in this century without exotic fuel sources that would rape your wallet too.

>>139757678
Another advantage of a mech is that the cockpit is usually the highest element, which means that a pilot can safely eject without risk of death or injury, once the legs or torso are destroyed. Even if the ammunition storage is hit, the pilot will survive, because he can fucking eject.
Hitting the ammo storage on a tank or punching through the armor with a KE penetrator in general will kill the crew in many cases (although there have been efforts to reduce the risk of death or serious injury in this scenario).

File: 1337249639728.jpg-(219 KB, 600x576, 1335192693910.jpg)

if you don't like this game and the universe it's in
why are you shitting up the thread more than a tripfag?

people have been waiting for a new Mechwarrior game for years and of course they'll get hyped for this shit
and what do you do? 'hurr tanks are better aircraft are better mechs are impractical no matter how you look at it'
so go play your World of Tanks or Ace Combat Assault Horizon and stop hating video games

you're worse than the ISfags

>>139758114
hehehehehehe i will! oh boy

Do you need to sign up anywhere for open beta? I've already registered my pilot name, but that's about all I found.

>>139758404

I don't hate video games. I hate the guy who's saying they're practical.

>>139758390
>take out helicopter's tail
>GG

lol

>>139758404
Fuck off, it's retardation on both sides.
One is not worse than the other, it's
>WELL CAN IT DO THIS FANTASY FLUFF
>NAH THAT'S STUPID
>repeat

>>139758503
>take out a mech's leg
>GG

lol

>>139758390
Slow? Check.
Hard to mask radar signature? Check.
One method of locomotion that's also the most vulnerable part of the vehicle? Check.
Can't house large enough powerplant for the fuel it burns? Check.
Requires years of practice to pilot with any competence? Check.
Requires huge maintenance crews for a vehicle that spends a relatively low amount of time on the field? Check.

>>139758475
There are lots of guys here and in tg who say they're practical and others who don't.

The answer is, FOR TODAY, they are impractical, but Battletech is SCIENCE FICTION THAT TAKES PLACE 1000 TEARS LATER.

Anyone who argues that 1000 years later mechs still can't be practical BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PRACTICAL TODAY is a massive retard.

File: 1337249860733.jpg-(101 KB, 800x547, 1334287076298.jpg)

>>139758549
Yet it's still more practical than a mech.

>>139758503

>Hit the back part of a target that can move on x,y, and z axis

vs

>Hit the front of the slow moving toy in front of you

>>139758545
>humans fall over and stay immobilized if they lose 1 leg

HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>139758613
>Hit the back part of a target that can move on x,y, and z axis

Yeah because helicopters dart all around the place like flies at sanic speeds

>>139758621
welp, they do. what else are they supposed to do?

maybe the BT universe should check out having three or four legs

>>139758602
Alright, I can agree with you on that. I guess that's why combined arms warfare is so great.

>>139758621
Better get those mechanical crutches/wheelchairs for all those mechs!

>>139758390
>helicopter
>replace a mech
Can a heli hold ground? Also, the only helicopter that can survive a .50BMG round to the cockpit and 14.7mm to the body is the Russian Mi-28. Murikan helicopters with paper thin armor can be shot down by .50BMG, that's why they never engage at ranges, when these weapons could be used.

>A vehicle that has major weaknesses,
like any vehicle
>a vehicle that by design may not have the same firepower as a tank,
It doesn't need to. 30mm cannons and grenade launchers are all it needs to deal with any situation, including anti tank role.
>a vehicle that requires prohibitive amounts of fuel just to get it crawling,
>a vehicle that, by the nature of its movement, will always be slower than tracked or wheeled vehicles...
It doesn't need to go at super speeds. It's urban combat FFS, something around 30mph would be enough for urban combat.

>>139758685
No, depending on where your leg went off, you can still crawl semi-upright, and if not you can use your arms to move forward (as seen in Cyborg Commandos from Tiberian Sun).
Also 4 legged mechs exist in BT.

Also people, mechs in BT have nearly the same amount of flexibility and movement easiness a human being has.

>>139758682

I guarantee helicopters can move faster than any mech concept we will see in our lives.

I'll bet whatever hovering jet of the future 1000 years later when mechs can be made would move faster than them as well.

>>139758682
>Hit the back part of a target that can move on x,y, and z axis
Bwahaha. Name me a helicopter that can hold a 20mm round except for mi28.

what a glorious shitstorm

go look at the Geckos from MGS4 and then come back and talk about tanks blowing out your legs.

Better yet go look at youtube videos showcasing modern robotics. The tech for highly mobile mechs already exists. A mech doesn't have to be a 100ft tall hulking piece of metal with 100gigawatt jump boosters...

>>139758908
oh you mean like Orcas? yeah they're sure to be fast.

I think mechs are meant to operate in terrain not suitable for tanks, like overly rocky places, marshes, etc.

>helcioprer
>never seen action against an enemy force with similar capabilities and tech to you
Legit.

Don't forget that everyone in BT is more or less the same, even Liao. The dynamics of warfare and economics have nothing to do with the ones existing today.

>>139758948

Name to me a mech that's more cost effective than a helicopter, and the man who can shoot down the multiple helicopters you could buy instead of one mech.

>>139758991
>mfw I took up process control and automation in uni
>applicable in automating factories
but I want to make gundams!

>>139758545
I keep seeing all this talk about legging, and what people don't seem to realize is that against a pilot that knows how to not be totally exposed all of the time, or at least has a mech that can move 80+ kph, this kind of thing would never happen. Especially before you could actually do enough damage to the legs to cause the mech to limp, let alone collapse.
And even then, an collapsed mech is not a destroyed mech.

>>139758908
So what? A jet flies faster than any helicopter can ever hope to and space rockets will be even faster.

Another retarded case of "Why don't we just bomb them from orbit until they surrender".

Also unlike 40K (well, they also exist in 40K but are very rare) helicopters and VTOL units exist in BT.

>>139759004
>Name to me a mech that's more cost effective than a helicopter, and the man who can shoot down the multiple helicopters you could buy instead of one mech
Name me a helicopter that can hold ground.

>>139759004
1 Atlas is superior to multiple helicopters and can't be taken down by a guy.

>>139759127
it's funny because I shoot down helicopters in MW4: Mercenaries with two shots from two pulse lasers.

>>139758685
More legs = more weight, less agility

>COST EFFECTIVE HURR DURR

Great Houses laugh at this shit about talks of small economy. No one's having a materials shortage and no one has to balance out military spendings unlike today.

>>139759249
>it's funny because I shoot down helicopters in MW4: Mercenaries with two shots from two pulse lasers.
>comparing game mechanics to real life
Actual helicopters use ATGMs with a range of 6km+. BUT these weapons can be countered with active defense systems.

>>139759280
not always
two appendages clawing forward for a four-legged mech would have more force than just one leg.

>>139757678
These capabilities are useless when the vehicle can be disabled or destroyed by any anti-tank weapon before it can get into close enough range for it to be able to make use of them.

The glass cannon philosophy only works for helicopters and jets because they can elevate themselves tens of kilometers up in the air so that they'll be attacking from above no matter how far away they are, your mech would need to almost literally be on top of its target to shoot down on it.

>>139759249
Peregrines don't count they suck

>>139759390
>6km+
riiiiiiight so what's the actual point of doing anything with mobile ground forces, they might as well just make SAM platforms with a longer range.

>>139759412
>when the vehicle can be disabled or destroyed by any anti-tank weapon before it can get into close enough range
There are no such man-portable weapons in BT that can take out anything more than a light mech. If you're talking about artillery and all, I'm sorry, I couldn't see them because aerospace turned them into craters 2 seconds ago.

>>139759384

I'm not saying the cost would make mechs impossible in the future.

I'm saying you could send significantly more OTHER vehicles that would individually work just as good as a mech....and when you have four tanks against your one badass expensive mech, it can only end badly.

>>139759390
Or, you know, lasers that travel at the speed of light.

>>139759487
>so what's the actual point of doing anything with mobile ground forces
Because they can hold ground and defend targets, unlike helicopters, that are used purely as support glass cannons.

>>139759542
yeah, but four tanks against one mech? depending on the mech.
if those four tanks were like Myrmidons in BT, well fuck.

>>139759542
Personal experience in vidya warfare proves otherwise.

>>139759618
Or a wolfpack of hovers.

>>139759542
If those 4 tanks are against a light or possibly medium mech, then yes.

Also again, unlike Gundam where other arms are insignificant, in BT mechs are supported by tanks, infantry, BA etc. What will those 4 tanks do when 10 guys in Battle Armors come flying around the place and blow them up? Ever read Starship Troopers? Remember the part Rico talks about how easily Mobile Infantry shit over tanks?

In short, that sort of argument is idiotic because theorethically you can also make 60 trillion zergling robots that will supposedly kill everyhting ever.

>>139759626

Real world experience shows differently.

Horse archers raped the shit out of expensive, heavily armored knights.

Cheap tanks demolished Germany's extremely advanced, yet expensive tanks.

Why? Numbers. If you have the numerical advantage, it doesn't matter that the other guy can take you out if you fought one on one, hell even if he could take you all out one on one, one after the other...if you all attack at once, you stand a very, very good chance of winning.

>>139759412
>These capabilities are useless when the vehicle can be disabled or destroyed by any anti-tank weapon before it can get into close enough range for it to be able to make use of them.
>before it can get into close enough range for it to be able to make use of them.
Urban combat firing ranges are rarely greater than 300m. Mechs are suitable for urban combat ONLY, since they would get slaughtered on open terrain by tanks due to their high profile.

>your mech would need to almost literally be on top of its target to shoot down on it
>to shoot down on it
It doesn't need to. Firing 30mm DU projectiles at oblique angles to the roof of a tank turret is enough to destroy it. Do you think A10s fire directly down when engaging tanks with their GAU?

brb guys playing MW4 and MWLL :D

>>139759802
>Why? Numbers.
I doubt a future MBT would cost less than a MW light mech.

File: 1337251433037.jpg-(84 KB, 695x900, 321_large.jpg)

>>139759725

How easy would it be to just field mobile infantry and tanks? How much cheaper? Why do you need the mechs?

They do not perform any role particularly well. They're not the hardest hitting, not the heaviest armored, not the fastest. So why not use tanks for armor, mobile infantry for your swift, hard hitting attacks, and use planes for support? What role do mechs fill that something else doesn't, but better?

File: 1337251446151.jpg-(68 KB, 400x363, doom critical face.jpg)

>>139759809
>mfw GAU on a mech

>mfw mech combat

>mfw mech design

>mfw timber wolf vs anything in a real scenario

I may be in a bullet magnet but IMA DIE HAPPY!

>>139760025
URBAN COMBAT

>>139759802
And yet, numerical advantage doesn't always win.

Also if we're talking numbers, a sea of Terror Drones will be much more effective than any sort of ground vehicle. Doesn't matter if you have 100 tanks rather than 40 mechs, you won't do shit against an enemy numbering in quadrillions.

>>139760065

I seriously doubt a force of power armored mobile infantry, helicopters, and tanks would be bested by mechs in urban combat. The air negates the mechs ability to take cover, the tank has more firepower, the soldiers are more maneuverable.

Give me enough armor and heatsinks and all the lasers I can eat and I'll be happy to alpha strike anything to so much leftover slag.

I'll miss my refitted custom Annihilator to the end of my days.

>>139760025
They hit harder and are better armored than most tanks, and their mobility gives them an advantage in urban combat or in dense terrain.

Also, go read up some BT fluff, you have your answers in there. You keep talking about mechs based on our current form of warfare, yet the setting repeatedly tells you that 31st century warfare has nothing to do with today's warfare, and there are reasons for it.

If you guys want to argue the practicality of mechs, go to /tg/.

This thread is to talk about a video game. You know those things that aren't real.

>>139759078

gundams are probably centuries away but we're already very close to humanoid titans of death. 1.5x to 2x the scale of a human body, stronger and faster than a human, unmanned and remotely controlled.

Or small quadrapeds with even greater mobility, stability and a lower profile.

the human body is an imperfect machine but with our intelligence we can build a perfect one from the blue print.

>>139757079
Except some designs are just terrible to begin with. Make a mech with magical super-armor? It would be adapted to talks first, and tanks could be more heavily armored.
Make super-fast rollerblade mechs?
They'd adapt that tech to tanks first.
Jump jet mechs? Fighter jets.
Mechs occupy too much vertical space, and mechanical legs require a shitload of maintenance and are a massive weak point.

File: 1337251788777.jpg-(62 KB, 640x480, guntank.jpg)

>>139760272
Gundams defy physics and logic though.

See pic related

>>139760272
oh you mean like in IRON MAN 2?
pretty cool except where do they get power

>>139760198
By gaming logic, you do realize that one of the slowest of mechs, the Atlas weighs 100 Tons and can run at 54km/h?

Contrast an M1 Abrams tank that takes 3 people to operate, is a crunchy 60 tons and goes a pokey 71 km/h on a flat road with averaging of 30 km/h cross country?

One of the slowest mechs can outrun a tank. That's... Yeah.

>>139760335
You are stating things people said in the beginning of the thread, so I'm not going to bother responding, read the thread.
But about jump jet mechs, I think you're having problems with Battletech, air warfare still exists in BT and jumpjets are simply there to give mechs a little moving advantage for ground combat, nothing else. Bringing air to it is the most retarded shit I've seen today.

Oh wait,
>Make a mech with magical super-armor? It would be adapted to talks first, and tanks could be more heavily armored.
is also retarded, see what happens in Gundam.

>>139760198
>force of power armored mobile infantry
Would be mowed down by automatic grenade launchers, unless they can somehow survive inside the death radius of thermobaric grenades (for example, Russian 43mm thermobaric grenades would do nicely). Regular infantry would be raped by fragmentation grenades.

>helicopters
mechs can have air support too, you know.

>tanks
Mechs can take them in urban terrain.

File: 1337252025231.jpg-(8 KB, 158x152, 1329187737829.jpg)

>>139760234
This. Why do some people insist on doing this every mech thread?
>HURR MECHS DOESN'T REAL FOOLS
>0/10 WOULD NEVER EVER BUY BECAUSE NOT REALS

So, on topic discussion: Daishi is the best mech and if you disagree you're a fag.

>>139760198
>I seriously doubt a force of power armored mobile infantry, helicopters, and tanks would be bested by mechs in urban combat.

Which is why mechs are accompanied by groups of those, and in larger numbers than mechs themselves.
If you don't know shit about BT, don't barge in making retarded assumptions.

To all the idiots talking about mechs vs tanks. The mechs according to canon are power by either fusion or advanced fission reactors, even the smallest 30ton mech is much larger than a tank allowing for a lot Alot of armor. Battle mechs also use artificial tendons developed by the inner colony's that makes them very energy efficiant, strong, and fast. Even most 100ton class mechs are capable of speeds over 30mph withe lighter ones hitting over 60. Mechs also have access to larger weapons and more sophisticated computers and projectile defense systems due to there size. In fact it is a well known fact that there greatest advantage is there size and agileness they have a zero turning radius and a good pilot can use the mech as an extension of him self due to the brain computer interface they use. Tl;dr mechs are much larger alowing for much more advanced systems to be used on the on top of the massive advantage that good pilots can manuver them as well as a human can manuver themselves.

>>139759229
And the Atlas is based on broken physics, bad design (humanoid mech, seriously?) and magic technology.

>>139760025
the first introduction would have MASSIVE shock effect

other than that >>139760065

My opinions

Mech Vs missle\rockets etc
>laser defense mechanisms

VS shells
>Dick chance of hitting weak points at range
>slow reload
>fires more back

VS AT Infantry
>In a city Inf would win because of stealth and stature.
>think "saving private ryan" and their sticky bombs

>>139760608
it's too slow.
I personally think Mad Neko is the best because well, it weighs 75 tons and can go pretty fast.

>>139759085
>mech that moves at 80kmph
Sorry but that's just impossible currently. And even if it did, it'd lose all the maneuverability it had.

File: 1337252168751.jpg-(281 KB, 1280x684, mechwarrior-project-2009070804(...).jpg)

>>139760608
Atlas masterrace reporting.

>>139760728
>Sorry but that's just impossible currently

NIGGER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SPACE FICTION NOT CURRENTLY

WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE SO RETARDED

WE
ARE
TALKING
ABOUT
SPACE SCI-FI IN THE FAR FUTURE
NOT
THE
21ST CENTURY

>>139760671
>In a city Inf would win because of stealth and stature.
How can you ambush something that can see shit in 360deg and has a fuckton of sensors on it?
Low cover doesn't work, you'll get spotted from above. Rooftops also won't work, unless the building is very high.

>>139760626

I'm not arguing about BT, I'm arguing about reality. WHY MECHS. What. Do. They. Do. They seem to be a weak, inefficient middleman, not as powerful or fast as a tank, not as mobile as mobile infantry, not as capable in supporting infantry as helicopters and plains....

Also, mobile infantry, if we're still going with Heinlein idea's, would very easily get around grenades. Those guys bounce allover the place.

File: 1337252333697.jpg-(156 KB, 340x444, 1224818711315.jpg)

>>139760671
>think Saving Private Ryan
>automatically think of THAT SCENE (you know the one)

>>139760668
>broken physics
I didn't know humans could walk, sorry.
>bad design (humanoid mech, seriously?)
lol
>magic technology
there's this obscure genre in literature called science fiction, you know...

>>139760728
>mech that moves at 80kmph
That's retarded and completely unnecessary. Mobility =/= movement speed.

>>139760881
You confuse the sensors, jam the electronics, throw a nuclear hand grenade at it

My solution to any problem was to add another laser to my mech. Extended range? Laser. Short Range? Laser. ER Short? Laser. Can't hold all these lasers? Heatsink. No use for shoulder cannon? Gatling Laser. ER Medium with pivot mount.

Back side slightly under armored? Add some backwards facing lasers! For Fucks Sake! ADD A LASER!

I liked melting the competition. "You need to not destroy this mech Cpl. Derp." Fuck you! I GOT LASERS!

>>139760912
maybe you just fucking wanted a versatile unit that could do everything instead of just...
'oh how many tanks will i send to this place? oh what about that place? also how many helicopters? ok i'll send 30 tanks here and 40 tanks there... god i'm bad at math..'
mechs are versatile

>>139760226
>They hit harder and are better armored than most tanks
So why is not this magical space armor applied to tanks?

>>139760920

No, that's science fantasy. It's as possible as star wars.

File: 1337252471382.jpg-(20 KB, 205x346, Ogre_microgame.jpg)

>>139760912
you should play OGRE or GEV instead.

implying anyone even knows about those games anymore;_;

>>139760881
Stay inside the buildings and shoot from the windows.

But only some types of Inf can win against mechs in BT.

>>139761060
because they're heavy
the tank crew can't eject
the tank doesn't have a magical nuclear energy source

>>139760529
Yes, and that mech works on pure magic.

>>139761072
>Stay inside the buildings and shoot from the windows.
And get destroyed by by thermobaric or shrapnel 30mm+ grenades in return? A single shrapnel grenade would be enough to clear the whole room, lol.

>>139761060
Some of the reasoning is that it's too heavy for either structural or footprint of a tank. There are 'tank' mechs though.

In fact, the real advantage of mech is :

- it can be dropped from space
- it can adapt to every battlefield and can fight in any condition
- it can make commando attack with small number of troops ,and control territory in a small amount of time
- it can run very fast, (atlas, a 100t mech can run about 50kph, and strafe, jump, climb, throw, charge)

In bt tabletop, one turn take 30s.... And in this vg, melee seems to be forgotten...

>>139760912
>I'm not arguing about BT, I'm arguing about reality
And Mechwarrior takes place in a particular universe with particular technologies with particular dynamics and in the future.
Again, go read up some fluff or shut up. No one is advocating to create Atlases in today's world.

>>139761060
But... it is? Heavy tanks are equally or even better armored than mechs, and some of them are also better armed. Just because mechs can destroy tanks doesn't mean mechs can't also destroy each other easily and get destroyed by heavy hitting tanks.

>>139761209

And a salvo of rockets would disable the extremely expensive mech. Losing men is far less devastating than losing a mech.

>>139761025
So what will the mechs do OUTSIDE the city? It's not like they'll sprout out of the ground.
Tanks can spearhead an attack with air support. Mechs are dead caught on open ground.
Airdrops are not always available.

>>139760881
> A mech trots past a building covered in rubble
> Sees nothing
> Infantry jump out and rocket its feet from 10m

Sensors in BT didnt detect inf (at least I think)


>>139760914
either
High five!
"bootht"
>tank undamaged
>no explosion

Or the knife fight and the wimp

>>139761071
OGRE is getting a remake and is already funded, check kickstarter.

>>139761062
OK God, if you say so.

>>139761250
I think they are planning to add melee in later after release, everyone wants to play as Axeman.

>>139760394

Idk anything about fuel / energy tech, I'm just making suppositions based off my observations of current robotics.

by the time we master biped and quadraped mechanics and remote piloting, maybe there will something like a really small fuel cell

or a battery that can be charged over a period of time in preparation for an upcoming operation

Also remember that we would replace the guts and shit with things more useful for a machine. In the space of the stomach maybe we could fit a fuel tank big enough for short-term attack plan.

I think mech sci-fi is going to start changing soon. Small unmanned units are the future.

>>139761130
>because they're heavy
Mechs are really fucking heavy too, tanks spread their weight around a larger area.
>the tank crew can't eject
Tanks don't have thinly armored cockpits.
>the tank doesn't have a magical nuclear energy source
See? It's illogical.

>>139761332
>Airdrops are not always available.
But they are.

I forgot to add that the legs, cockpit, and genorator are the most heavily armored parts of a mech just FYI so good luck blowing out a leg before it nails you with a clan ultra auto cannon or ultra 3x Ppc cannon volly both of which could destroy an aircraft carrier much less a tank.

>>139761427
where would you rather put a nuclear reactor on?
a tank?
or a mech?

>>139761250
>- it can be dropped from space
Why can't fighters, tanks, IFVs, infantry etc be launched from space?
>- it can adapt to every battlefield and can fight in any condition
Enjoy your swamps, open plains, afghani mountains.
> it can run very fast, (atlas, a 100t mech can run about 50kph, and strafe, jump, climb, throw, charge)
So it just works by magic. Okay. Why are you arguing about real-world attributes if it's essentially science fantasy?

>>139761430
How? Aircraft is fairly easily intercepted if you REALLY want to bring it down.

>>139761528
A tank, because it has actual battlefield viability.

File: 1337253017353.jpg-(74 KB, 537x413, 1328577539532.jpg)

>>139761380
>original goal of $20,000
>received $923,000
>14 lb board game
gotyay i am excited to purchase

>>139761278
>And a salvo of rockets
Would get countered by active defense systems like the BT LAMS.

>>139761332
>So what will the mechs do OUTSIDE the city?
nothing, that's why tanks will always rule the fields.