How viable are battlemechs as weapons of war?Does having legs make them too vulnerable?
>>64905146Bottom-anon, go back to your containment thread.
>>64905146When you say Battlemechs, do you mean Mechs from a specific franchise that has special technology or are asking about if Mechs would be suitable with current technology?
>>64905146Fuck off to >>>/m/
>>64905162Doesn’t matter, the answer is still no.
>>64905185cope seethe you lost tankfag
>>64905146How viable is it to make the same pointless thread forever?
>>64905146WHERE ARE MY FUSION ENGINES, GENERAL MOTORS? IT'S 2026, YOU ARE 5 YEARS LATE ALREADY
Would a normal standard infantryman qualify as mech because of two legs?
>>64906613Furrys count as quads
>>64906619How do you know about my browser history?
>>64906656Remember where you are!
>>64905146Short answer, no. Long answer is that any weapon or armor you can put on a mech can also be put on a tank. Since a tank is far more simple in concept a mech will never out-tank a tank. That being said, Excavators are very mech-like.
>>64905146Get a life you fucking loser.
>>64905146Mech is absolutely viable on a extraterrestrial environment. regolith is going to fuck up any moving mechanism, but, unlike wheel or track, you can cover the legs of a mech to protect them from regolith
>>64906996A mech's arms and hands would definitely be viable in hostile environments. You'd still get the fine manipulation of hands while not being totally screwed if something punctures said hands.
gb2 /btg/ fgt
>>64907104He's probably been chased out of /btg/.And yes, I am aware of how grim it sounds.
>>64906996>>64907076No.
>>64907104/btg/ hereWe don't want him!
>>64906796>mech will never out-tank a tank.Doesn't have to, mechs can fill other roles than that of tanks.You're argument is akin to saying helicopters are unviable as weapons because any weapon or armor you can put on a helicopter can also be put on a tank and because a tank is far more simple in concept, a helicopter will never out-tank a tank. Of course this argument is , bad because helicopters have a different role than that of a tank. Replace helicopter with IFV or SPG and the reasoning is the same.
>>64908134This would have more relevancy if you show a mech not trying to be a tank. This is basically my biggest gripe about Battletech.
>>64908160Almost no light mech is trying to be a tank, and the few that are are almost all quite bad at it and basically only good as budget options. A lot of mechs are also just platforms for indirect missile fire, and a few are true artillery units.
Engineer here. If I had to design a mech I would look at Chromehounds' designs, but that's pushing it already: any other implementation is just pants on head retarded. If engines more energy and power dense than current combustion engines (turbine included) were available I'd just make a regular tank, but smaller, lighter, and with more space for the crew and other systems. The logistic gains in making a SEPv3 at half the weight would win any war just by themselves.
Mechs in battletech was possible only because of tremendous technological advancements of Terran Hegemony made it possible and Ares Conventions made it viable, before that people nuked each other and flattened each other with tanks just fine. After that its just the golden age combined with relative peace and weaponized graft of Star League which allowed all the crazy development and prototyping. Just look at LAMs.
>>64908134Here’s the problem.None of you mechfuckers can come up with a role that a Mech would be able to accomplish that cannot already be done with existing equipment without having to dump trillions of R&D, or otherwise without being such a narrow niche that it’s not worth spending said trillions of dollars on.
>>64908561>None of you mechfuckers can come up with a role that a Mech would be able to accomplish that cannot already be done with existing equipmentHere's one, heavy fire support on terrain too rough for tracks and the airspace too contested for helicopters or planes. inb4 drones, how many drones do you think a infantry man can carry vs a vehicle because I'll bet a vehicle (such as a mech) can carry a lot more.> without having to dump trillions of R&DNew weapons programs are expensive and even then it's rare for them to be trillions of dollars expensive. There's a reason for why the F35 is infamous for having a 2 trillion dollar program cost and its not because R&D costs for new weapons regularly cost trillions of dollars.>or otherwise without being such a narrow niche that it’s not worth spending said trillions of dollars on.What do you consider too narrow a niche, or is this just a fall back argument just in case someone can answer the first part of your question?
>>64909432> heavy fire support on terrain too rough for tracks and the airspace too contested for helicopters or planeArtillery. But also things like the Wiesel or Ontos.
>>64905146>ViableIt's kind of two questions>If you have Battletech/mechwarrior mechs already and they function as they do in setting, you can maintain them etc, would they be effective at winning battles and achieving objectives against either conventional forces or other battlemechsTo which the answer is "Yes if they're as fast as they are in the games rather than the numbers on the stat sheets in the tabletop".Even relatively small mechs can withstand a substantial number of direct hits from modern tank guns and artillery. Depending on the writer, modern 120mm guns are L rifles, M rifles, or H rifles, and even H Rifles are just not relevant weapons to mech combat.the other question is >is it plausible to build Battletech mechs, and are they an ideal use of the technology used to build themto which the answer is probably no.
>>64907400yesmech is unironically the future of extraterrestrial warfare
>>64909497This anon knows. Rule of cool counts more in warfare than you guys know. Once we get out of the current paradigm we're going to see some truly wild stuff on the battlefield.
>>64905146Battlemechs exist in a setting that, in some ways, is more primitive than what we have today in terms of technology.
>>64906796Front Mission's idea was that they basically didn't replace tanks or weren't even preferable outside of specific niches like terrain tanks had issue is. Not sure it's worth the cost for those niches though.
The existence of TOW missiles IRL basically completely invalidates mechs in Battletech desu.
>>64905146Mechs are just worse helicopters.
>>64909493Battletech has relatively stagnant or grounded technology everywhere except stuff like neurohelms and myomer, the exact things you need to make a battlemech viable. It works decently within its own setting but no universe not developed specifically to make mechs viable is going to develop 'makes mechs work' tech before falling to a dark age.Arguably mechs are one of the best uses of myomer and neurohelms it's just that any society that can develop those should be able to develop different, more effective technologies.
>>64909432>heavy fire support on terrain too rough for tracksHelicopters>and the airspace too contested for helicoptersSo the helicopter hovers low to the ground.
>>64905146Are we talking frontline fighters or for logistics and the engineer corps?As frontline they may have some utility in regions that tanks are bad in.But as an engineering vehicle with the versatility that hands provide at scale, and any equipped weapons are more for holdout situations, you got something useful. Have some sorta arm movement trackers that translate pilot movement to the mech arms, and you'll have something pretty intuitive to the human mind.A lot of people point to ground pressure and that making them unviable in mud, but less of a concern than you think. It's an issue for wheeled and tracked vehicles because if they sink far enough, the belly is sitting on the mud and taking traction away from the wheels and tracks, as well as the issues of spinning out. Mechs would be more in a human walking issue, which has more to do with depth and viscosity of the mud. That ain't nothing but can easily mean that mud that can stop one doesn't neccessarily stop the other and vice versa.
>>64912760Spoken like someone who doesn't know anything about battletech
>>64913020No I know all about Battletech. Their main excuse for why the mechs don't just get taken out by long-range missiles is because of ECM, which can only be countered by TAG or by shorter range LRM missiles, but TAG gives away your location when using it and LRM isn't that long-ranged by comparison. However, TOW missiles bypass all of that since it keeps a direct connection to the controller of the missile that can't be intercepted by ECM.
>>64913102Mech armor is ablative. Damage is about how much mass you can put into the target, not whether you can penetrate. So you can fire a TOW, hell, fire a dozen. You've chipped off a piece of torso armor and now have a line and an energy signature leading back to your firing position.
>>64913169You can make TOW missiles bigger. There's a reason Arrow IV missiles exist in the setting. Big missile do big damage.
>>64913197Technically, Arrow IV isn’t really a TOW equivalent. It’s more of a guided rocket artillery systems.The TOW equivalent (minus guidance) would be a Thunderbolt missile.
>>64913229TOW just describes a method of guiding the missile after launching it. It can be any size, and mounted on any vehicle.
>>64905146Having something that can move material like construction equipment while also being heavily armed isn't that bad of an idea, imo. As we move towards infantry and small platoons again something that can be in weird places and manipulate things with big strong arms might have a place. But I don't know if it'll be worth it or not.
>>64905146Battlemechs are the special operations of the armor world. Dropped behind enemy lines to cause chaos. Used in hit and run attacks. EtcThey're larger pieces of an army that has tanks, planes, missiles, and space ships with big lasers.If you look at them from that perspective, then they'd be pretty useful. At any time a drop ship could plop down in your rear and then dispense a bunch of super mobile tanks that go around obliterating your supply lines.
>>64913420That's just a stealth plane
>>64905146A small Avatar type mech might be useful.
>>64914879
>>64914882
>>64905146>cgl Maurader FUCKING DISGUSTING
>>64913169Except that TOW's are Tandam Charged (roll critical hits) and are absolutely fuckhuge compared even SRM's? >muh exploding metal All they did with it was make missiles SMALLER. Not better, but SMALLER. A TOW would shit all over BT missiles because they wanted to cram in as many as possible because their targeting systems are legitimately bad, like 1960's but somehow worse bad.
>>64905146>this fucking thread AGAINKill yourself, retard.
>>64914928I don't see you complaining in the slav civil war threads. Which is literally the same shit 4 years now.
>>64915964>slav civil warWay to out yourself immediately, zigger. I hope your supervisor notices this and you get fired.Also: kill yourself, retard.
>>64915977There you have it, folks.Dude is pissed off that his shill thread #58623 got bumped off the catalog by a thread about mechs.
>>64914927Yeah like, an Arrow IV will absolutely fuck up a mech, hell it one-shots light and medium mechs typically IIRC
>>64916698load it with a davy crockett and it'll one tap assaults too
>>64916724And even if you need more than one, Arrow IV’s are super cheap, for the cost of one light mech you can get like a dozen Arrow IV’s and that’s for a missile that will usually one-shot them.
>>64915977>people having fun on a kiribati shirt folding enthusiast imageboard? not on my watch!
>>64914928Bumping thread
>>64919316>quad AC2 Rifleman Ballistic weapons in Battletech are so fucked over it's not funny. Fun fact, I did a experiment with Rifles, and when you remove the retarded -3 malus on their damage they actually become useful. Then I extended that logic to the rest of the ballistic weapons tree, and suddenly everything just made sense.>AC2 Becomes a AC5, and now becomes a sensible weapon in general. Mechs and vehicles using them become actually dangerous, a Blackjack or Mauler becomes really fucking good at their tonnage brackets.>AC5With damage equaling a large laser and nearing a PPC the AC8 being so widespread and being near the caliber of a Heavy Rifle while carrying more ammo and running cooler justifies it's existence and it's use in lore. A Marauder's 120mm GM Whirlwind autocannon doing 8 damage, so alternating 2-1-2 PPC's while firing the autocannon is actually viable. >AC10Doing 13 damage is fucking huge, as it becomes the first introtech weapon to be able to headcap (kill a mech on a headshot) and automatically triggering a critical roll on normal hits due to BAR10 armor. The weight, ammo, and range bracket mesh beautifully with this damage.
>>64905155It's probably not him. There aren't enough random words in all-caps.
>>64919372>and when you remove the retarded -3 malus on their damage they actually become useful.Yeah that's why the damage penalty is there, retard. They're not supposed to be useful. If they're useful that defeats the entire point of their in setting existence.
>>64919435>completely ignores how autocannons are still better How are you this fucking stupid? The fact you ignored the range, ammunition superiority and ammunition type advantage combined with the heat generation shows that you've never played a fucking game in your life. A Heavy Rifle is a 9 damage weapon with a ammunition count at 9 per ton. Meanwhile the AC5 has 20 per ton, generates 1 heat per shot while the Heavy Rifle generates 4. The Autocannon 5 has a damage potential of 100 points of damage per ton while the Heavy Rifle has 81 per ton, completely ignoring heat and the ability of specialty ammunition. Go sit the fuck down and learn basic math and reading comprehension you fucking child.
>>64919516>>64919435>>64919372The damage nerf isn't the bad thing about Rifles. The bad thing about Rifles is that their stats are fucked from the get-go. Another thing to note is that they should be carrying a lot more ammo. The Light Rifle should be packing at least 44 rounds per ton, not less than 20.
>>64905146If the rules allowed LAVs (Land-Air Vehicles), there'd probably be little need for 'mechs.
Mechs are worse tanks than tanks. What about mini mechs that are big infantry/power armour? Bigger end being votoms/heavy gear, smaller end being ma.k. type armored fighting suits. How far can you scale up infantry before it stops working/stops being infantry?>more dakka>more armor>protected against shrapnel/concussion from airburst munitions/grenades/mortar rounds>sensor package>climate control>CRBN protection
>>64919781As long as it can fit through a door or go up stairs it’s still useful. You want your infantry to be able to do infantry things so once it’s too big to fit inside of a building it’s just too big in general.
>>64919316I'd tell you to go die to Savannah Master spam, but it's a sad day when a mechspam thread is still better than the /pol/turdie spam threads.
>>64919781I'd put the max weight at about 500 lbs. Plus or minus 100. It's a decent amount of weight to play with but still not drastically more than a couple normal dudes. If the stairs can take a dozen dudes at a time then it should be able to take one power armor. Also, you'll probably want to add an ECM package. There's a lot of drones and man-portable radar these days and you'll want a countermeasure even if it's just a soft counter. Maybe point the jammers at a 45° downwards? It'll bounce the jamming off the ground so a seeker can't just follow the signal.
>>64905146They are not, Still Bbattlemech makes good argument since it includes cultural ones and power tripping humans being idiots. IRL you need magic tech to make them viable. Once you have that magic tech you probably will go into other directions than mechs. >>64908561I mean Afghanistan would be a good use case for light mechs. Roads are full of IED-s, so you need something that doesn't rely on roads. Sometimes you encounter terrain choke points like bridges that can have IED-s. Bypass them with jump jets. Lasers give you ability to stay in fight for a long time and they are still effective against infantry. You are fast and have AMS to deal with RPG-s. You need several magic-techs to do it but i will argue that fusion tech alone is worth more than trillions in R&D.
>>64921318I mean desu your use-case is basically just solved by helicopters.
>>649214774chan filter strikes again!
>>64921477Yeah as i said once you have magic tech tech you will probably go into other directions. Flying unit is probably the answer. Not a helicopter since rotor is vulnerable. Some armored maneuverable VTOL probably since fusion engines can feel even power hungry propulsion.As current tech with this mission capabilities. No Heli does not occupy that niche. It can bypass IED-s but It's somewhat vulnerable to RPG's. Your operating time does not allow you to continuously support infantry, your munitions are also limited.
The tech in BT is mainly based on a poor understanding of 80s tech. It also fell i to the trap of the time period when they thought tech cant possibly get much better!
>>64921652>magic tech tech you will probably go into other directionsOnce you have magic tech you start operating under rule of cool, and battlemech combat is totally sweet. It counts for more than you know.
>>64925012Completely inferior to Armored Core combat. It's just not cool enough.
>>64915977Bump
>>64925244Everybody has their preferences, but all mecha combat is super cool.
>>64920944Nobody outside of a very small group of people actually knows how jamming works.
>>64905146The answer is always no.
>>64919516>completely ignores how autocannons are still betteryou fucking retard, it's not enough that autocannons are "better" Rifles must struggle to damage mechs or else the setting makes no sense.Rifles are literally IN SETTING to illustrate the insufficiency of slow firing modern artillery against mech armor. It is not enough that they are "not cost effective" they must struggle to penetrate and deal damage at all, that's literally why they're in the game.
BOTH TANKS AND MECHS WOULD BE OBSOLETE IN A WORLD IN WHICH POWER ARMOR EXISTS!
>>64905146Mech would 100% work.If they ARE cheaper and super easy to maintain than any other modern vechicals.
>>64932882judging by the roid rage posting style and obsession with power armors, we have a clanner elemental here
>>64932873>slow firing artillery is bad against mechs>looks at sniper, thumper, and other artillery Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
>>64938250
>>64938250I noticed you took out the word "Modern" from the post you quoted lmao
>>64943189I want mecha combat to be real so bad bros
I wish the Quickdraw wasn't so ass. I like the look of the thing. >more firepower in the rear arch than the frontWhat a whacky little dude. >>64938250Rifles are analogous to modern weapons. Getting shot with a light rifle is like getting hit with the cannon of an Abrams or something. The whole point is that they literally bounce the fuck off of your mech unless they're heinously oversized because they're ancient and their ammo is ineffective against modern armor.
Someone explain the armor these things use. They seem to be able to take countless hits from cruise missiles of their time period not to mention other weapons. How would our weapons even affect them?
>>64945662>How would our weapons even affect them?The answer is that they probably wouldn't without massively overcommitting. Military grade armor in Battletech bounces anything that we wouldn't qualify as 'large artillery.' The U.S. or Europe could kill one - or maybe even a company of them, but it'd be a big fucking mess.But the armor is ablative - firefights revolve around sanding armor off of one spot until you can score a hit at something internal, the idea being that the armor works by absorbing large amounts of energy and then shearing off in small pieces or sublimating in cases where it gets zapped with an energy weapon.
>>64945662https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Essay:_BattleMech_Technology#ArmorStandard BattleMech armor is basically superhard but somewhat brittle on purpose, so that wacky sci-fi attacks it can't stop outright effectively break off or shatter the layered armor in an ablative fashion. It's sort of like ceramic rifle plates in that regard, or add-on composite armor on tanks. You can absolutely make better armor even in-universe, but cost, complexity, and required technology levels of these skyrocket exponentially which can be a big problem after the Inner Sphere basically bombed itself into a quasi-Stone Age in some respects. Only after the recovery of several Star League Memory Cores and the reverse-engineering of Clan tech do these armors become anything more than one-off prototype gear, and even then they're at least partially ablative.
>>64945700Ironically while single hits from even 120mm APFSDS don't do enough instantaneous kinetic energy transfer to meaningfully effect 'Mech armor (which is why Light Rifles effectively do zero damage both in-universe and in the tabletop), a good solid multi-round burst of something similar, like from an AC/10 autocannon, can definitely transfer enough energy to do serious damage. Another thing to note is that in-universe/game, machine guns of .50 caliber and up can actually inflict damage onto a 'Mech, albeit only a single point of armor damage for hundreds of API-T rounds fired/hit in about the same spot. Sort of like punching a solid wood block won't do anything appreciable to it, but high-grit sandpaper will eventually wear away the outer layers.
>>64906796engineering and logistics is the only feasable use.
>>649457132 points from a standard machine gun, sorry. I got it mixed up with the light machine gun's 1 point. Note that both do additional d6s of damage against infantry (which are represented in tabletop terms as a single "unit" like a tank or 'Mech).
>>64945713>>64945700>>64945662>>64945656There's significant disagreement in the Lore over whether 120mm modern guns are Light, Medium, or Heavy rifles. One source lists a literal, unaltered WW2 tank gun as a Medium Rifle, another gives a sample Heavy Rifle as a 150mm gun built using modern technology. The simple explanation for the armor is that it's single hit protective abilities are higher than real world materials, as if we're talking about rifle bullets hitting hardened ceramics. This is a normal thing in science fiction; you take a technology advanced for your time and you increase the scale beyond what is possible while keeping the same "logical relationship" at the fantastical scale. Now, the problem is to exploit this relative weakness to multiple impacts you need an absurd volume of fire, because you're going to need to put those projectiles extremely close together to actually punch through. This is the real reason why "Rifle" class weapons aren't very effective, is because they're single shot weapons and you're never going to hit the lottery of landing two shells almost on top of each other on a moving target like that without high volume. This effect exists to a degree with all armor, it's just exaggerated in BT. You really CAN chew through tanks with non penetrating impacts, armor, even steel armor, does in fact degrade around impact points, straining, stressing, work hardening, and cracking (sometimes cracking or shearing invisibly to the naked eye). It's extremely rare you get to take advantage of this phenomenon, but it is possible to compromise armor with one hit, then punch through it with another. >>64945713MGs (that is the class of weapons specifically called MGs can range all the way up to 30mm in setting) It is probably the case that any .50 caliber gun doing appreciable damage to a tank is probably either firing something more powerful than 50BMG, or doing it's damage through an absurd number of rounds (thousands, not hundreds)
>>64919781
>>64938250Need to get around to illustrating how visually balanced a 20 ton artillery piece would look on a 25 ton Mech.
>>64945713>>64945786>machine gunsNothing at all about machineguns is consistent with anything else in battletech. Lorewise, standard MGs are 50 cal up to 20mm machineguns/autocannons, and AC2s are 30mm up to 203mm autocannons, buuuut:A standard IS MG weighs 0.5 tonnes and can fire for 200 rounds per tonne of ammunition for 2 damage per round - so 500kg gun, does 2 damage per 5kg of ammo, or 250kg of gun, 2.5kg of ammo per damage.An IS AC2 is 6 tonnes and can fire for 45 rounds with 1 tonne of ammo for 2 damage per round - so 6000kg gun, does 2 damage per 22.22kg, or 3000kg of gun, 11.1kg of ammo per damage.>muh rangeStill doesn't make any sense. Neither kinetic nor chemical energy works that way. Also, 5kg burst mass of MG bullets ablating ONE WHOLE TONNE of bullshit future space magic non-reactive ablative armor needs some pretty whack physics NGL.Basically, the crunch damage system in BT doesn't make any sense at all or line up to lore properly, and the place where it fails most obviously and hardest is with MGs which had to be hilariously overbuffed in crunch to have any chance of being used at all, but even then were totally useless other than against infantry because of the super low range and crit risk. Needed a lot more thought put into it and it's always been kind of shit and not properly thought through.It's an area where video games have consistently done it better. MWLL having them as basically a very light AC1 (super long range, super low damage) purely for anti-BA and harrassing aeros was a pretty good and lore consistent solution. Even PGIs games where they're recast as doing near no armor damage but with the crits dialled up way past 11 was a better solution than the OG TT solution.Still needs work.
>>64948612Considering some of the images for machine guns are effectively rotary cannons, it makes sense. I can see a .50 caliber gatling roughly similar to the GAU-19 chewing through BAR 10 armor by sandblasting it with thousands of rounds per minute.
>>64949721>Also, 5kg burst mass of MG bullets ablating ONE WHOLE TONNEEither 2.5kg or TWO WHOLE DAMAGE, you get it. Ofc, the burst mass is really way less since ammo weight includes the case and propellant.IIRC it's like, 37 rounds of M2 AP 50 cal including the link (for 5kg of total mass)....That's a burst mass of only 1.7 kg (over a 10 second BT round lol - ie burst mass per second of 0.17kg). This means that even a mediocrely armed WWII fighter plane like the P51D with a burst mass of 0.54kg per second from 6x50 cals should be able to output about 6 damage over a turn to a battlemech.
>>64949724>>64948612>It is probably the case that any .50 caliber gun doing appreciable damage to a tank is probably either firing something more powerful than 50BMG, or doing it's damage through an absurd number of rounds (thousands, not hundreds)Nah, because we have their ammo weight and they only consume 5kg of ammo per turn for 2 damage. Machineguns are just a badly designed piece of crunch that have always conflicted with the lore. See >>64949721 and >>64949732
>>64948612The WW2 guns are an extreme abstraction, with smaller tank guns literally using the same rules as power armor portable recoilless rifles. The WW2 weapons are also slightly modified, mostly by improving their ranges and giving some of them extra bonuses when fired against other WW2 grade units. But at the end of the day, the game only barely has rules for early space weapons, and it applied some of those to even earlier non-space designs as an april fools joke.
>>64905146The human body is designed to be versatile, that same versatility doesn't extend to anatomically upright humanoid robots. As robots will always be infinitely less complex than the human body is, it makes sense to design them differently. It also makes sense to have dozens of smaller robots rather than one large one.
>>64948612Seems to me like HESH rounds would be effective against BT armor since they're designed to create spall.
>>64952304The single hit resistance could take many forms, if the armor is layered, HESH would be much less effective.
>>64949734>>64949732You can't hold absolutely to in game weights, then you get scenarios where an abrams could shoot it's entire ammo stores at a light mech and do no damage but instakill an Atlas by driving into it.
>>64905146Battlemechs were made obsolete when Battle Armour was introduced you dumb fucking spammer. And go back to /tg/ where they hate BAs, you cretinhttps://youtu.be/mcLBsOZa7M0?si=rPtG9hCaaPYTwxfS
>>64952614'Mech armor is described as several layers in-universe, with an outer layer of super-hard steel, behind that a layer of boron nitride ceramic, under that a layer of titanium honeycomb as a kind of weight-bearing scaffold, all over a layer of polymer sealant that makes things air/water/space tight. Basically this armor is extremely hard but also extremely brittle, because reasons.
>>64952304Yes and no. Different materials conduct vibrations at different speeds. This creates interference that messes with vibrations traveling to deeper layers. On the other hand, the super hard layers would conduct vibrations extremely well and you'd see entire layers detach even if you don't see penetrations.
>>64952645Battlemechs and power armor have different roles. I cannot wait for IRL mecha combat.
>>64945716Engineering and logistics wins wars.
>>64957440Power armor combat is more likely. As long as they fit indoors they're useful for door kicking ops. Think Infantry+. Mechs have a problem in that they don't really have a combat niche. Logistics and engineering niches, sure, but not really direct combat.
>>64952304Its supposed to be a sort of Styrofoam that is used on starships for micrometeroid strikes
>>64961773Maybe a similar principle, but that armor is extremely light and optimized only for super high velocity impacts. Conventional, slower weapons would actually be more effective.
>>>/m/>>>/v/>>>/toy/>>>/lgbt/
>>64952645>posts video of gameplay that doesn't reflect how BA actually operate in-universe
