 October 25, 2007 - 11:21am | This thread has been transformed. It is now for discussing Nevada politics and decisions and whatever else. If you still wish to discuss Delta Dawn, Mecha, or invasions, here's a list of new threads I made in the Delta Dawn forum to continue the discussion: Assault Walkers (Mecha) Squadron and Fleet Construction Tracking Fleets on a Planet Tracking Fleets in Space Invasion Actions |
October 25, 2007 - 11:33am | I think only a KH size 3 with Atomic drives is able to land and take off on a planet. See http://starfrontiers.us/node/1271#comment-1309 Now if it was disposable landing transport you could just land your craft and deploy. What is the definition of a "mecha"? I'm opposed to any type of mecha in SF outside personal power assult armor as pictured in Zeb's guide. |
October 25, 2007 - 11:57am | I said "disposable". It's not meant to take off. Also, there have been exceptions to the rule. Not only that, Alpha Dawn specifically says that the rules are a guideline and can be adjusted as one feels necessary. In this instance, the ship is large, but disposable. It doesn't have a complicated operation or any complement of personnel to make it work beyond a single pilot. It is essentially a shell holding ships. Its engines would be minimal, not meant to escape gravity, but only meant to guide its direction and landing. Well, the way I use the term "mecha", and the way I think Will meant it (as he set them apart from vehicles in general), is flexible walkers. Machines that traverse any terrain or environment with relative ease. As I said, not like anime mecha and not like Star Wars walkers, but unique. Your opposition to such machines is noted, and others would also be opposed. You don't have to use them if you don't want to. But remember, Alpha Dawn didn't cover everything that can be. It didn't significantly cover cybernetics or even suggest cybernetics were any large part of the Frontier, but we're doing Beta Dawn. Alpha Dawn doesn't cover mutations at all, but we're doing Gamma Dawn. Neither Alpha Dawn nor Knight Hawks covers rules for large scale battles, but there's no one here who would be opposed to such. So the introduction of mecha would be nothing new. This is a supplement like Zeb's or Gamma Dawn I'm talking about, not a primary rulebook like the Alpha Dawn Expanded Rules. |
 October 25, 2007 - 11:47am | I visualized the mecha as closely resembling those from the Battlefield 2140 PC game...basically a John Deere combine on legs with armor plating, missiles and guns. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
October 25, 2007 - 11:49am | Also note that the presence of mecha do not make the entire supplement a mecha book. Mecha would merely be a portion of the book, though granted specific mecha rules would have to be provided. |
October 25, 2007 - 12:02pm | I visualized the mecha as closely resembling those from the Battlefield 2140 PC game...basically a John Deere combine on legs with armor plating, missiles and guns. I really like your take on it. Definitely doable and very Star Frontiersish.
I've designed a Mobile Suit that is about 2.5-3m tall that looks very Star Frontiersish. I will use it as a base for other designs for mecha. I'll see about producing something similar to what you're talking about. Perhaps you can show me a rough sketch or published example that I can work from. (Delta Dawn. What's that flower you have on? Could it be a faded rose from a days gone by? And did I hear you say? He was a meeting you here today. To take you to his Sathar Juggernaut in the skyyy....) I got chills. Let's use that. |
October 25, 2007 - 12:01pm | I looked at some images from Battlefield 2140 and it looks just fine. I do question the power useage between a groundtank, hovertank and mecha. It seems a mecha would require more power and a lot more mechanics to move.... But I guess you would get faster reaction/shooting since it's torso can typically rotate and maybe they can transvers ground other vehicles can't. |
October 25, 2007 - 12:08pm | I looked at some images from Battlefield 2140 and it looks just fine. Actually, the power requirements aren't has significant as you think. One company and a private individual have both produced working mecha. The company produced a two-legged walker and the individual created a mobile suit. Both are clunky right now, but the power requirements for both are relatively low and their future power requirements as they become more flexible and sturdy won't significantly increase.I do question the power useage between a groundtank, hovertank and mecha. It seems a mecha would require more power and a lot more mechanics to move.... But I guess you would get faster reaction/shooting since it's torso can typically rotate and maybe they can transvers ground other vehicles can't. As for cost, it has always been speculated that the costs would be astronomical, but as demonstrated by the company and the individual is that their costs are no more than that of the development of any other type of vehicle. However, you do have a chance for a lot more variety in quality and function than normal vehicles and air craft, which will probably provide a significant range of prices from easily affordable to astronomical. And the applications are endless. These will surely be the weapon of choice in 50 years. |
October 25, 2007 - 12:12pm | Another benefit of mecha is their durability. They can take a hit, fall down and get back up. If they take a hit, it will blow of an arm or a leg, but the vehicle can still opperate if design for such expectations (which surely they would, as the legs make it vulnerable). A mecha would be designed in such a way that if a leg gets blown off, it can still move and be effective. So either secondary legs acting as prosthetics can be dropped in, or they have enough legs to withstand losing one or two, or they have an alternative movement system if the leg movement gets crippled. |
October 25, 2007 - 12:19pm | I like this one for Star Frontiers. It's not too complicated and looks effective as a small walker, but the larger ones would have to have more options for overcoming attacks to their legs as I described a few moments ago: This particular one can stay grounded if it loses a leg and act as a stationary artillery turret. |
October 25, 2007 - 12:22pm | This one is pretty good, too: |
October 25, 2007 - 12:30pm | Here's one that demonstrates the versatility I mentioned: |
October 25, 2007 - 12:35pm | Though this one isn't very safe because of its open cockpit (probably more industrial application in that repsect), it demonstrates how arms can come in handy on a walker: |
October 25, 2007 - 12:43pm | Walkers aside, now, there's the discussion of executing field strategies for all vehicles, which large scale battles will be the primary focus of Delta Dawn. This would include fleet movements, flanking strategies, field communication, command bases, space fleet coordination, and coordination of all fields of battle. Should each battle be handled independently? Or can all the battles be carried on at once? |
October 26, 2007 - 3:43am | I'd like to discuss how to go about statting platoons, squads, detachments, cavalries, falanx', squadrons, and wings with stats that are changeable on the fly for deplinishments, replinishments, and transfers. I've never played any massive battle strategy board games and don't have money for purchasing any. If anyone is familiar with these, or at least have ideas, let's hear them. If you have any pdf rules for such games, I'd like to get a copy from you. |
 October 26, 2007 - 5:09am | I've been lurking but want to chime in. I think keeping the mecha looking vehicle-like should be a focus. In order to prevent it from turning into a battletech conversion (to keep the SF flavor), I think they should be presented AS vehicles. Currently, vehicles have wheels, hover, rocket, and treaded modes of travel. I think a "mecha" (I prefer not to even use the term to be honest) has a strong place in any discussion of future artilliary... but we should present them as just another mode of vehicle mechanics. Hover tanks... treaded tanks... walker tanks... etc. If we don't use the word "mecha" and try to keep it in the same rules as a vehicle (even if we have to expand vehicle rules a bit to accommodate), that keeps it from bothering my flavor bone. BTW - I program robots for a living. Using a teach-pendant, I can make a robotic arm move around and do pretty much as I please. But it's taken me a long time to get to this level of comfort, and if I pick up a controller from another manufacturer I have that curve all over again. The StarFrontiers version of controlled robotics would undoubtedly have a more effective interface, but I can easily see with the flexibility of a few robotic legs well-programmed, a vehicle could be quite effective and versitile. Flip a tread/track-tank over and it's useless for anything other than hard cover. Flip a walker-tank over, it will use its legs to leverage itself over, or might even kick at a nearby building, shoving the tank in the opposite direction towards its attacker to trip up the enemey walker tank before it can bring its tank gun to bear on him. Lots of options! Dropships don't need to be disposable. The victor of the battlefield after deployment would own them. After wall-dropping rapid deployment as you describe (a la Starship Troopers), they should be able to be recovered and assembled/re-used later, shuttled back up to orbit for whoever needs them. In fact, they should be able to be moved around on the ground and assembled to serve as a drop command center, with comm gear and connectivity to satelite or relayed tactical imagery. Private or corporate planetary defense forces could have swat-like teams that actually live in orbit on platforms or low-orbit bases, with dropships used to rapidly deploy their tactical forces to handle domestic needs. Regarding "Delta Dawn" - are you planning on a separate boardgame (with all the strategy/tactics of Axis & Allies etc.) or one with RPG integrations like Knight Hawks has? Both ideas have merit, and I'd enjoy either. 3. We wear sungoggles during the day. Not because the sun affects our
vision, but when you're cool like us the sun shines all the time. |
October 26, 2007 - 8:42am | I've been lurking but want to chime in. Excellent ideas, all. I want to give it the cross-over effect, using A&A-style grand-scale battle, but require the need of roleplaying specific aspects, such as special ops assignments in midst of battle, and command center drama. There may also be pivotal battle areas where you have to go down to the KH/AD boardgame level. I want to make it all dynamic, easily flowing or isolating what you need when you need it.I think keeping the mecha looking vehicle-like should be a focus. In order to prevent it from turning into a battletech conversion (to keep the SF flavor), I think they should be presented AS vehicles. Currently, vehicles have wheels, hover, rocket, and treaded modes of travel. I think a "mecha" (I prefer not to even use the term to be honest) has a strong place in any discussion of future artilliary... but we should present them as just another mode of vehicle mechanics. Hover tanks... treaded tanks... walker tanks... etc. If we don't use the word "mecha" and try to keep it in the same rules as a vehicle (even if we have to expand vehicle rules a bit to accommodate), that keeps it from bothering my flavor bone. BTW - I program robots for a living. Using a teach-pendant, I can make a robotic arm move around and do pretty much as I please. But it's taken me a long time to get to this level of comfort, and if I pick up a controller from another manufacturer I have that curve all over again. The StarFrontiers version of controlled robotics would undoubtedly have a more effective interface, but I can easily see with the flexibility of a few robotic legs well-programmed, a vehicle could be quite effective and versitile. Flip a tread/track-tank over and it's useless for anything other than hard cover. Flip a walker-tank over, it will use its legs to leverage itself over, or might even kick at a nearby building, shoving the tank in the opposite direction towards its attacker to trip up the enemey walker tank before it can bring its tank gun to bear on him. Lots of options! Dropships don't need to be disposable. The victor of the battlefield after deployment would own them. After wall-dropping rapid deployment as you describe (a la Starship Troopers), they should be able to be recovered and assembled/re-used later, shuttled back up to orbit for whoever needs them. In fact, they should be able to be moved around on the ground and assembled to serve as a drop command center, with comm gear and connectivity to satelite or relayed tactical imagery. Private or corporate planetary defense forces could have swat-like teams that actually live in orbit on platforms or low-orbit bases, with dropships used to rapidly deploy their tactical forces to handle domestic needs. Regarding "Delta Dawn" - are you planning on a separate boardgame (with all the strategy/tactics of Axis & Allies etc.) or one with RPG integrations like Knight Hawks has? Both ideas have merit, and I'd enjoy either. |
October 26, 2007 - 8:43am | Regarding "Delta Dawn" - are you planning on a separate boardgame (with all the strategy/tactics of Axis & Allies etc.) or one with RPG integrations like Knight Hawks has? Both ideas have merit, and I'd enjoy either. What about "Delta Hawks" for LandFleet and Orbital stuff? |
October 26, 2007 - 8:55am | Regarding "Delta Dawn" - are you planning on a separate boardgame (with all the strategy/tactics of Axis & Allies etc.) or one with RPG integrations like Knight Hawks has? Both ideas have merit, and I'd enjoy either. What about "Delta Hawks" for LandFleet and Orbital stuff? |
October 26, 2007 - 9:16am | How do you all like these terms instead of "mecha": Prosthetic Vehicle Shanks, Armored Shanks* Shanx, Armored Shanx* Mobile Armor MV (Multiple Versatility Vehicle) AV (Advanced Versatility Vehicle)* Endopod Ambulator Perambulator Rambler* |
October 26, 2007 - 9:37am | How do you all like these terms instead of "mecha": Prosthetic Vehicle Shanks, Armored Shanks* Shanx, Armored Shanx* Mobile Armor MV (Multiple Versatility Vehicle) AV (Advanced Versatility Vehicle)* Endopod Ambulator Perambulator Rambler* MVV (Mobile Versatility Vehicle) MHUM (Mobile Hostile Urban Militia) HAWC (Heavy Armor Weapons Chassis) |
October 26, 2007 - 9:40am | I've been lurking but want to chime in. I think keeping the mecha looking vehicle-like should be a focus. In order to prevent it from turning into a battletech conversion (to keep the SF flavor), I think they should be presented AS vehicles. Currently, vehicles have wheels, hover, rocket, and treaded modes of travel. I think a "mecha" (I prefer not to even use the term to be honest) has a strong place in any discussion of future artilliary... but we should present them as just another mode of vehicle mechanics. Hover tanks... treaded tanks... walker tanks... etc. If we don't use the word "mecha" and try to keep it in the same rules as a vehicle (even if we have to expand vehicle rules a bit to accommodate), that keeps it from bothering my flavor bone. BTW - I program robots for a living. Using a teach-pendant, I can make a robotic arm move around and do pretty much as I please. But it's taken me a long time to get to this level of comfort, and if I pick up a controller from another manufacturer I have that curve all over again. The StarFrontiers version of controlled robotics would undoubtedly have a more effective interface, but I can easily see with the flexibility of a few robotic legs well-programmed, a vehicle could be quite effective and versitile. Flip a tread/track-tank over and it's useless for anything other than hard cover. Flip a walker-tank over, it will use its legs to leverage itself over, or might even kick at a nearby building, shoving the tank in the opposite direction towards its attacker to trip up the enemey walker tank before it can bring its tank gun to bear on him. Lots of options! Dropships don't need to be disposable. The victor of the battlefield after deployment would own them. After wall-dropping rapid deployment as you describe (a la Starship Troopers), they should be able to be recovered and assembled/re-used later, shuttled back up to orbit for whoever needs them. In fact, they should be able to be moved around on the ground and assembled to serve as a drop command center, with comm gear and connectivity to satelite or relayed tactical imagery. Private or corporate planetary defense forces could have swat-like teams that actually live in orbit on platforms or low-orbit bases, with dropships used to rapidly deploy their tactical forces to handle domestic needs. Regarding "Delta Dawn" - are you planning on a separate boardgame (with all the strategy/tactics of Axis & Allies etc.) or one with RPG integrations like Knight Hawks has? Both ideas have merit, and I'd enjoy either. Walker tanks is good...for a couple of unpublished(and as yet unpublishable) fiction pieces I've done, I've also used the terms "heavy infantry combat suit," "heavy suit," or "articulated combat vehicle," which can be shortened to "ARCV" or "ark-vee." The latter, I think, would go well with the SF feel. As for dropships, I was thinking more along the lines of the dropships from the cartoon "Roughnecks:The Starship Trooper Chronicles," or the ISSAPCs from "Space;Above and Beyond." A HS 3 or 4 can, if stripped out, can hold at least a battalion of gropos and or a company's worth of vehicles. Since my take of the Spacefleet's ground combat forces is going to be largely infantry in powered armor(leaning more towards a Land Warrior-type system than the suits from Heinlein's and Haldemann's ficton)aerodynes and ARCVs, this should work. It should also still leave enough room for at least missile launcher systems, allowing them to be used as close-in air support and field artillery pieces, especially if equipped with VTOL maneuver jet nozzles. Robotics can reduce the crew requirments to about two or three(one to fly, one to shoot, one to load and fix things). As for the name, the only one I can think of that no one else is using is "FRONTIER MARINES." "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
October 26, 2007 - 9:40am | I've been lurking but want to chime in. I think keeping the mecha looking vehicle-like should be a focus. In order to prevent it from turning into a battletech conversion (to keep the SF flavor), I think they should be presented AS vehicles. Currently, vehicles have wheels, hover, rocket, and treaded modes of travel. I think a "mecha" (I prefer not to even use the term to be honest) has a strong place in any discussion of future artilliary... but we should present them as just another mode of vehicle mechanics. Hover tanks... treaded tanks... walker tanks... etc. If we don't use the word "mecha" and try to keep it in the same rules as a vehicle (even if we have to expand vehicle rules a bit to accommodate), that keeps it from bothering my flavor bone. BTW - I program robots for a living. Using a teach-pendant, I can make a robotic arm move around and do pretty much as I please. But it's taken me a long time to get to this level of comfort, and if I pick up a controller from another manufacturer I have that curve all over again. The StarFrontiers version of controlled robotics would undoubtedly have a more effective interface, but I can easily see with the flexibility of a few robotic legs well-programmed, a vehicle could be quite effective and versitile. Flip a tread/track-tank over and it's useless for anything other than hard cover. Flip a walker-tank over, it will use its legs to leverage itself over, or might even kick at a nearby building, shoving the tank in the opposite direction towards its attacker to trip up the enemey walker tank before it can bring its tank gun to bear on him. Lots of options! Dropships don't need to be disposable. The victor of the battlefield after deployment would own them. After wall-dropping rapid deployment as you describe (a la Starship Troopers), they should be able to be recovered and assembled/re-used later, shuttled back up to orbit for whoever needs them. In fact, they should be able to be moved around on the ground and assembled to serve as a drop command center, with comm gear and connectivity to satelite or relayed tactical imagery. Private or corporate planetary defense forces could have swat-like teams that actually live in orbit on platforms or low-orbit bases, with dropships used to rapidly deploy their tactical forces to handle domestic needs. Regarding "Delta Dawn" - are you planning on a separate boardgame (with all the strategy/tactics of Axis & Allies etc.) or one with RPG integrations like Knight Hawks has? Both ideas have merit, and I'd enjoy either. Walker tanks is good...for a couple of unpublished(and as yet unpublishable) fiction pieces I've done, I've also used the terms "heavy infantry combat suit," "heavy suit," or "articulated combat vehicle," which can be shortened to "ARCV" or "ark-vee." The latter, I think, would go well with the SF feel. As for dropships, I was thinking more along the lines of the dropships from the cartoon "Roughnecks:The Starship Trooper Chronicles," or the ISSAPCs from "Space;Above and Beyond." A HS 3 or 4 can, if stripped out, can hold at least a battalion of gropos and or a company's worth of vehicles. Since my take of the Spacefleet's ground combat forces is going to be largely infantry in powered armor(leaning more towards a Land Warrior-type system than the suits from Heinlein's and Haldemann's ficton)aerodynes and ARCVs, this should work. It should also still leave enough room for at least missile launcher systems, allowing them to be used as close-in air support and field artillery pieces, especially if equipped with VTOL maneuver jet nozzles. Robotics can reduce the crew requirments to about two or three(one to fly, one to shoot, one to load and fix things). As for the name, the only one I can think of that no one else is using is "FRONTIER MARINES." "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
October 26, 2007 - 9:45am | As I look over the names, I'm getting pretty partial to "Rambler". It's kind of Star Frontiersish. Until the Rafflur article and Zeb's there were no initials for any kind of vehicle, weapon, or equipment that I know of, so a full name is more fitting, I think. |
October 26, 2007 - 9:50am | Beep, beep. Beep, beep. The car went beep, beep, beep.... The Ramber articulated combat vehicle, manufactured with pride by the Nash Corporation.... Sorry, Corjay, couldn't resist. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
October 26, 2007 - 9:58am | That's "Rambler", with an "L". :P |
October 26, 2007 - 10:12am | LOL. What I get for typing with my glasses off. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
 October 27, 2007 - 2:41am | Well, if you want to use walkers - keep them small if you want to have a shred of realism. I can see their use - particularly in crossing water obstacles. But huge robot-gundam dudes will just get blown up. Imagine the rocket launcher magnet that those big things like in mechwarrior would be. Or, in Star Frontiers, how about a squad of mook Sathar vanilla infantry with their rifles set to 20 SEU each? Even if the thing had mad albedo protection, its huge size would make it so easy to spot and hit that it would get fried within seconds of showing up on the battlefield. I have always felt that way about the whole mech thing. Plus, and this is very important - remember that as the mass of the thing increases, it becomes LESS usuable on the battlefield in a practical sense. Remember the German WWII King Tiger - 70 tons of death. But it was very slow, sluggish to manuver, and many of the bridges and terrain in the battle area would not permit it to operate. It got bogged down in mud and soft ground - paralyzed without firing a shot. Granted, Star Frontiers technology is much better, and can mitigate some of these problems, but by how much? You can't magically make a large target into a smaller one. You can save weight, but how much? What about mud, rubble, snow, or small bridges or rock ledges that can only uphold a limited weight? And, of course, if you want to have any kind of rocket propulsion, large size would be absolutely impossible. Look around today - weapons are getting SMALLER, not bigger. I think any kind of effective walker would have to be not much bigger than a man, and would need to be flexible enough to take advantage of cover. Otherwise, they will be destroyed in great numbers and at tremendous expense. They would probably just be big, armored combat robots, I guess. I have played a tactical battle game, called Warzone, with these kinds of concepts. The big walkers in the game, and there are many (and they are nasty), are most effective, like everything else, from ambush. Headlong rushes by these kinds of vehicles will kill some of your enemies, but severe damage is often taken. Their huge size makes them easy to hit. All have armor - but we all know that since the invention of the crossbow, projectiles always seem to be able to be designed to penetrate the armor faster than new armor can be designed. Therefore, it gets penetrated, especially when the infantry is equipped with armor piercing weapons. Again - the laser rifles on 20 SEU would be very effective. Big tall things in WarZone in open parts of battlefield get destroyed quickly. I think that is a realistic assessment of walker units. They would have to have limited mass and target size. Certain walkers could have heavier armor, but then would carry lighter weapons and/or less ammo to compensate for the weight. Then you could have lightly armored walkers with more or heavier weapons and more ammunition. In all cases, there would be terrain difficulties, as the dream of a walker that "just smashes through terrain" would be too big, expensive, sluggish and would draw fire from every enemy unit. Every kilogram of weight and meter of size lowers the sustainability, deployability and survivablility of walker-type units. And every kilogram of weight and meter of size also increases the energy consumption of the vehicle, which eventually causes the need for a larger parabattery, which then requires an increase in size, etc. All the while the expense of the vehicle is also increasing. I don't think they should be ruled out, but need to be realistic and definitely would not dominate the Star Frontiers battlefield. |
October 27, 2007 - 2:48am | And yes, "Rambler" does have a strange charm to it, I must admit. But it should be a nickname for something more formal, such as: RMBLR - Reticulated Motorized Ballistic Launcher Robot... Just an idea... |
October 27, 2007 - 4:29am | Because of the show of interest, I went ahead and added all the information I wanted to to the Delta Dawn document in my personal files and moved it to its own project. View it here: Delta Dawn You need to be a member to view the documents. |
 October 27, 2007 - 3:52am | I think only a KH size 3 with Atomic drives is able to land and take off on a planet. See http://starfrontiers.us/node/1271#comment-1309 According to the rules...yes only up to HS:3 starships may land. However, there's an arguable glitch within the same rulebook: it states that a system ship up to HS:5 may land. I fail to see why a chemical drive HS:5 craft can be atmospheric-capable but an atomic powered HS:5 craft can't. Since the atomic drive is more powerful than the chem drive, there's no reason why a HS:5 starship with a streamlined hull couldn't make planetfall and take off as well. |
