4

There are lots of great questions and answers on this site about how and why bipedal mecha are near useless on earth, and why spiderlike mecha could perhaps have some niche uses which are unlikely to justify the costs necessary to develop them. Reasons include square cube law, movement and balance issues, repair issues, and lots of other things which basically boil down to “they are more expensive and far less useful tanks.”

But what if we take planet Earth out of the equation? I’m not necessarily talking about using handwavey “alien technology” to make mecha good, but more about how different resource availability, dominant terrain types, weather patterns, settlement types, and even factors like gravity could influence the effectiveness of mecha in contrast to modern combat vehicles and weapons.

EDIT: To clarify further, I am talking large mecha, Titanfall or Metal Gear size, ideally piloted, but not melee combat mecha with swords and things like that - more like “what changes to physical and planetary conditions would make legged armoured combat vehicles more viable than wheeled or treaded armoured combat vehicles?”

Gristly
  • 101
  • 4
  • This might be closed as opinion based, but I'm not certain if it will be. Perhaps consider something like "What's the minimum change to Earth needed to achieve [rest of your question goes here]." Interesting question. Looking forward to answers. – Ranger Jun 20 '19 at 17:18
  • Do you want regular, house-size mecha, or small, dog-sized mecha would be Ok? – Alexander Jun 20 '19 at 17:28
  • I would propose hilly/rocky and wooded terrain. Tanks have hard time in it with their wide bodies. Upright walker can squeeze through narrow openings, climb slopes, pop up from behind cover, etc. – Bald Bear Jun 20 '19 at 17:55
  • 1
    This is a good example of our Judging when a question is a duplicate discussion. I consider this a fundamental duplicate of this question (and I'm voting as such) because there's nothing you can do to the planet, mecha will never make sense anywhere but in fiction. If you think my vote is unreasonable, go to that Meta link and participate. I believe this is a 1+3=4=2+2 duplicate. – JBH Jun 20 '19 at 19:04
  • 2
    Possible duplicate of Advantages of "Spider Mechs" over Tanks? – JBH Jun 20 '19 at 19:04
  • @JBH “There’s nothing you could do to the planet” I disagree - just off the top of my head, imagine a planet with extremely rare metal deposits worth fighting for, but which are only located in large, shifting chunks of rocklike material which shift and move in huge magma pits on a highly volcanic planet. Thick volcanic ash rules out helicopters / planes, and the liquid nature of much of the terrain (but at a temperature too hot for vehicles to go through this liquid) rules out boats, tanks, and wheeled vehicles. Seems like a planetary use case for mecha to me. – Gristly Jun 20 '19 at 20:14
  • @JBH This example is pretty extreme, sure, but I think it shows that I don’t disagree with your discussion in that meta post, just that I don’t think it applies here. Based on the example I posted, I don’t feel like 4 is the answer to the “spider mecha” question and this question both. – Gristly Jun 20 '19 at 20:17
  • 1
    Just because that question incidentally answers this one, does not make the questions the same. A person with this question can not reasonably be expected to look up 'Advantages of "Spider Mechs" over Tanks?'. You and I only know to find the answer there because we participated in that discussion ourselves. – Nosajimiki Jun 20 '19 at 20:29
  • @Gristly go look at the answers to the other question. It isn't an issue of "what can I do to the planet," it's an issue of mechas are simply the most horrible way to design a combat vehicle in the universe. Too many joints, too much complexity, too much instability.... If you can drop a mecha on a planet, you can drop the much more useful tanks.. – JBH Jun 20 '19 at 20:54
  • @JBH As per your second answers in that meta link: I'd say this question falls under the realm of Corollary 3.2 by expanding on the spider mech question by not restricting it to any particular type of mech and Axiom 4: in that the conditions of the OP's question here is to construct an environment for mechs to be optimal whereas the other question has more to do with determining if a design of mech is optimal independent of its environment. – Nosajimiki Jun 20 '19 at 20:54
  • @Nosajimiki Axiom 4 declares this to be a duplicate (the design of mechas is fundamentally flawed, so the details of the planet are irrelevant). Corollary 3.2 requires this question to expand on that question, but it doesn't address the fundamental flaws of mechas, so it's not applicable. – JBH Jun 20 '19 at 20:57
  • It does address the fundamental flaws. Different atmospheric composition allowed for absolutely gigantic insects to be viable species for a long time on earth. The question “can I have giant insects” should be answered with “no, square cube law, they can’t breathe” for the setting of modern Earth. That doesn’t mean that they are always unviable anywhere. This question exists because I am curious if the same could be said for mecha. The question is about the planet, not the mecha itself. – Gristly Jun 20 '19 at 21:05
  • Very, very, few things are fundamentally flawed in every scenario. Sickle cell anemia may be considered a fundamental flaw in the West, but in Africa it increases life spans by giving people resistance to malaria. Asking "if sickle cell anemia extends life expectancy", and "when sickle cell anemia extends life expectancy" yields two very different sets of answers. – Nosajimiki Jun 20 '19 at 21:33
  • Reduce the gravity to what you might find on an asteroid. Create large caves with tunnels big enough for your mecha to crawl through. Put giant metal eating worms in there to fight with. Bikini clad women, oh wait that's an anime. – Muuski Jun 20 '19 at 23:05
  • The only use case a mech has would be in an urban jungle. Enough terrain and debris to make a tank not very effective, and enough tall buildings and obstructions in the sky to make drones and planes useless. The only issue, is that a pack of C4 could easily take out the leg of a mech. Thats a couple thousand dollars taking out a multi billion dollar machine.... I'll make a small list below to address the issues you raised. – Shadowzee Jun 21 '19 at 00:52
  • More Gravity: Tanks are better, Wheels are more effective, No need to lift leg, just slide it. Less Gravity: Wheels are better, no upwards force causing them to lift up unexpectantly. Weather: Tanks are better, Less moving parts means less things exposed to the weather and less things that fail, break and leak. Resources: Doesn't matter, No mech can take a raw resource and use it, they are there to secure it. Terrain: Mechas are better than tanks, but a squad of soldiers is even more effective. – Shadowzee Jun 21 '19 at 01:02

0 Answers0