Why mechs and not insect like machines?

[DKutrovsky]

I always thought that spider like units with 4-6-8 legs are superior to 2 legged machines. I think they move bettter, they are sturdier and more balanced, and could potentially hold more weapons, and protect their pilots better.

I guess protoss has copywright over dragoon like units but i still think the terrans should invent one of their own.

[ninerman13]

Humans are an arrogant species and what they build is a reflection of that - i.e. two-legged, bipedal machines. At least that's how I explain the lack of such a spider-like machine.

[JudicatorPrime]

Go play SupCom >.<

it's a video game, in real life they wouldn't use bipedals at all, especially with hover technology. Bipedal happens to be the most pwnage form of robot

[DontHate]

i think it's just impractical. I mean the legs can be taken out so easily and there are no real special things with having the 4 legs. Sure it might move better, but there are so many more drawbacks. first of all, it's definatly not sturdier than a 2 legged machine. How can insect legs be more sturdy? look at the collosus. it's legs are wimpy. And what do you mean more balanced? like it won't tip over? Not really, i mean mechs are pretty heavy all around, other than the 4 legged insect machines that are way too topheavy. Also it's not always the case that it holds more weapons. Most of the 2 legged mechs have many weapons. The goliath has more than the collosus. And the 4 legged striders do not protect the pilots that much better. first of all, there ussually arn't any pilots in most of the striders i know, except maybe the war of worlds one. Anyways, the strider designs look silly. The terrans are more serious looking, i guess u can say.

[WuHT]

Terrans are supposed to be the most "familiar" of the races. Treaded weaponry is where it's at. If you need more firepower, drop a nuke on them or a yamato blast.

[JudicatorPrime]

If the crap series "Robot Wars" is any indication quadpedal is much more practical than bipedal. Generally though, quadpedal machines are much larger than bipedal, but in the case of the Thor it's just odd. Quadpedal design almost elminates the need to balance the machine, which you need a lot of if you were to use bipedal. The most efficient form of bipedal design is the inversed one, like the AT-ST in Star Wars.

If you want a picture of what he means by the insect like quad pedal design I suggest you take a look at the monkey-lord in SupCom before anything else. The War of Worlds machine things were Tripods, doesn't really fit in this discussion.


Terrans are supposed to be the most "familiar" of the races. Treaded weaponry is where it's at. If you need more firepower, drop a nuke on them or a yamato blast.


I agree with this, never really knew what blizzard was thinking when putting legs on the Thor, perhaps a korean influence? Goliath was okay because it was speedey, a slow moving bipedal with such an obvious weakness is impractical, not to mention the advantage of being bipedal is the ease in traversing uneven terrain, which as far as I know isn't available to the Thor... Then again, realism isn't a big thing with SC.

It also makes more sense story wise if the Terrans adopted a quadpedal design similar to a dragoon, after all I assume thats where they got their combat efficient hover technology, god knows they couldn't have made that up themselves.

[Ghost]

What about a psychological factor? I find an iron giant more intimidating than an iron ant...

[JudicatorPrime]

It'll probably resemble more of a Spider, and spiders are terrifying... when Giants are for the most part mythical beings you can't argue the grotesque nature of an arachnid... Not to mention arachnaphobia is probably pretty high up on the list of most common critter fears.

[Ghost]

True, another reason why they might be bipedal is economy, save reasource and/or walker system fluids (assuming they use hydraulcs to move though i doubt it)

[JudicatorPrime]

And it looks cool?

[Ghost]

yes, yes it does.

[Lemmy]

I dont think spiders look cool, and they dont fit the terrans. Bersides, weve got immortals, colossi and striders for that. Another 4 legged unit would be too much.

[capthavic]

Because bipedal robots kick ass ^_^

[Ghost]

The thing is, maybe insead of having 8 lightly armored legs the bipedal robots have 2 heavily armored legs.

[DontHate]

yea and in so many games the weakness of the strider type design is the legs. I can think of like 10 games where u first cripple the legs and then go up to kill it.

[Ghost]

The only problem with bipedals really is the terrain manuverability (which in this case is overcome by the ability to turn into a plain (viking) and the ability to fire from extremely long range (Thor)). Also balance, which is just overcome by taking a proper grappling stance even if the robot is not designed to engage in melee combat.

[BoydofZINJ]

I always thought that spider like units with 4-6-8 legs are superior to 2 legged machines. I think they move bettter, they are sturdier and more balanced, and could potentially hold more weapons, and protect their pilots better.

I guess protoss has copywright over dragoon like units but i still think the terrans should invent one of their own.



If 6 legged creatures are superior why are humans a dominate species?

Think of it in a different terms. The more parts that move the more parts that can break. Ever had a flat tire? Imagine if you had 8 flat tires. How about this? While 4 legs are probably more stable a person would need to coordinate all 4 legs to a "safe" spot. Imagine you are a "mecha" pilot and you had to concentrate on enemy fire, your own attacks, and movement. With 2 legs you need to worry where to put both legs for maximum movement and maximum stability. As a human you have your own instincts on how to walk, stand, where to use your legs to gain that extra stability and/or movement. In other words, it is more natural for you to gain an equalibrium to your suroundings since you are used to walking with 2 legs. The physics for 4 legs would be different. How would you arrange your body and legs to do a sprint or a crouch or to evade better?

Lastly, if you stand up right now and decide to walk. You already know where your foot will land before you move. Imagine we had to calculate +4 more legs. It would drive us insane since we are not used to thinking in odd terms like that.

Is it possible? Sure! However, if you wanted maximum stability a hover vehicle or a tread or wheel vehicle would be better than 2 foot mecha. If you wanted maximum flexibility you would want a 2 foot/legged mecha since the pilot can easily think naturally.

[PowerkickasS]

humanoid robots are awesome because mechas and gundams are pwnage

[GuiMontag]

I agree with all your points BoydofZINJ, especially about the human drivers. :powerup:

[JudicatorPrime]

Gah... Humans are the in the top of the food chain because of intelligence, we got whomped by quadrapedal creatures for millenia before we developed guns. Spears and short range weaponry dont count because we could still get bum raped even with sharp sticks.

As for it being more natural, its a machine, it will do it for you... its hardly natural walking in a giant tin can with no apparent advantage except extra weaponry and armor, you might as well develope an Iron-Man suit and parade that onto the battlefield. In terms of bipedal designs I always though armored suits and not full blown mecha were the way to go. Like the ACU's in the Matrix Movies... back to the quadrapedal thing, I doubt you would have to as much as control every leg on the machine, I mean you don't see someone in a bipedal mecha going "Ok here we get, left foot, right foot, left foot, right foot" As long as the machine knows not to get its legs crossed its fine.

Not to mention they're probably trained, its not like they got on it the first time and then head over to Starcraft Iraq. I still remember how unnatural it felt the first time I got on a bus... not most part because I fell and bashed my head, but still I got over it... even the smallest thing, well not literally but the smallest thing messes with your equilibrium... which is exactly what pilots are trained for. And I doubt the military would sacrifice efficiency for comfort.

[DKutrovsky]

I didnt think ppl would get so interested in this topic but thats good :)

Now for a little more explanation on my side.

You say that you can damage the legs and the flat tire example:

Ok, well thats just silly if you have 2 legs and you damage one you're toast. If you have 6-8 and you damage one you can still move.

As for sturdiness: Think of it this way.

A siege tank. Same idea fora quad, or a 6 pad (lol?) they dig in with the back legs and shoot the big gun without having to siege unsiege the wheels.

As for the better protected pilot, if there is a pilot, you can make a iron ball for the cockpit, and not have an actual cockpit thats usually more vulnerable.

Also for movement:
8 legs = 8 little movements, meaning one little mistake wont tip it. Whereas if you make a wrong move with one of the 2 legs that might spell dissaster.

Also, i think that with 4-6-8 legs there is an option to climb walls and cliffs much easier.

What i thought of originally making the post is the robot from The Incredibles:
http://www.vatsaas.org/rtv/misc/notrocs/robot.jpg

Also, the protoss, a highly technologycal race, has only 4 legged robots and the colossus( a machie Purely for destruction)

And insects have been around for a lot more than us, and their evolution is millions of years ahead of ours. The only reason humans ar eat the top of the food chain is the hands we have and more specifically the fingers.

[Ghost]

If 6 legged creatures are superior why are humans a dominate species?


1. Opposable thumbs.
2. Intelligence.

And about the pilots confort whilst piloting... The 6 legs can be automated with a spiders AI, think of it, this way the pilot only has to chose which direction to move in.

[DKutrovsky]

Yeah, i agree that 6 legs should not be a problem to move around. I mean cmon, protoss are pretty much like humans. 2 legs 2 arms etc. They have no problem with moving 4 legged things around. And you can program its AI like Ghost says, so that should be the least of your problems.

[kuvasz]

BoydofZINJ: Do you honestly think that our phisical characteristics made us dominant? Ever since we started using our brains our phisique started degrading drastically. We are slow, weak, can barely smell or see, I don't think I need to go on.

I very much like the multi-legged robot idea though. I imagine the operation could easily be solved, something along the lines of what can be seen in Robot Jox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Jox). The operator is basically fitted by his waist and he walks on a touch sensitive pad which inputs the procedure of walking. The robot could easily mimic the moves with its legs.

[Fenix]

People keep failing to mention a major point. Quadrupedal and beyond can't hold swords. Can you imagine a Mega-Zord with ten legs? I think not!!

*Props and :powerup: to anyone who gets that*

[JudicatorPrime]

Power rangers? What?

[10-Neon]

Here's a thought: humans are not dominant. We are dominated by, and at complete mercy to microbes and insects. It isn't even from a population standpoint, the actual mass of insects globally, and the mass of the environment directly affected by them, is much, much larger than the impact humans have. If it came down to a battle between Humans and insects, for the survival of one, the insects would win, probably almost instantly. If it were between humans and microbes, you lose the 'almost' and just have 'instant loss.'

At any rate...
6 legs are better than two in pretty much every area, as has been noted, that does mean that they have more things to lose, but it also means that if they do lose one, or even a few, they can still function. They just adjust their gait and keep on going They might wobble, slow down or something, but they are otherwise fully functional. they may even be able to fully regrow the leg at their leisure, since it is probably a simpler structure, having to only support a 4th or 6th of the creature's weight instead of a full half. If a human loses a leg, just a one, they are screwed. Having two legs means that much more brain function is dedicated to balance, and that kind of coordination is, I imagine, more difficult than coordinating some legs. I mean, millipedes coordinate over a hundred and they have brains the size of specks of dust. If the locomotion is hardwired into the organism, it requires no real effort for it to move. Bipedal creatures cannot move nearly as fast as quadrupedal creatures (on land, after all the fastest animal in the world is bipedal), although they typically have more agility.
The only reason humans are limited to two legs at all is the fact that their ancestors needed to give up a couple in order to gain the advantage of manipulating the environment.

In StarCraft: Terran units are made bipedal as part of their character. Have you ever noticed that the Protoss have absolutly no wheeled units? They resort to creating units that crawl along their bellies, like a slug, before going to wheels. Think that's an accident? No. The designers chose to do that specifically to make the Protoss distinct. The same is with the Terrans (and the Zerg): their method of travel has to be distinct and characteristic for that race. A four-legged walker is something the other races would do (and notice that they do) and is therefore something that the Terrans don't do, in order to set them apart.

Fenix: The number of legs a creature has has no bearing on its ability to hold a sword- that would go to the number of arms. Picture an Immortal with, instead of guns, two big, long swords, like some sort of mounted knight, or a Centaur. It could happen. I imagine a ten-legged Megazord wouldn' get knocked down as often either, as, and I admit I haven't seen any recent Power Rangers, their Zords typically do.

[DKutrovsky]

Well said 10-Neon.

I just had think that multi legged creatures > 2 legged creatures so, one would wonder why humans being so creative dont invent one.

As for that speed aspect you talked about, the fastest animal might be a mamal but only due to their size, imagine a dog sized roach, man that thing will be fast :)

And yeah, 4 legged things belong to protoss and zerg not terran,still a intersting idea imo. I really envision the new siege tank on 4 legs...Idk if you guys have seen a manga show called "Ghost in the Shell" but in the end the main char "fights" a tank, and the tank has 6 legs and massive guns...pretty sweet.

[JudicatorPrime]

Thats helpful, because Ghost in the Shell doesn't have like 50 thousand episodes and 20 movies... >.< and then 50 Move-Episodes.

[GuiMontag]

realistically, we wont see terran vehicles with more than two legs because this has been done by the protoss; stalkers, immortals, collosus.

also, if you are going to have an AI drive the mech for you than you may aswell let it do everything else, military vehicles will always be fully under control of the pilot because AI will always be dumber than the pilot.

[BoydofZINJ]

You can debate whether or not we are truely dominate or not. You are also right there is more to our legs than what made us dominate. However, you can not deny the people that are piloting the vehicles are humans since they are part of the terran forces and probably easier to use 2 feet/legs than 6+

I was hit by a basketball today. I almost fell down. I just adjusted my legs a bit and I remained standing. (There was no head injuries)

Bipedal animals
Bipedal movement has evolved a number of times other than in humans, mostly among the vertebrates. The most obvious example of bipedal movement is among the birds and their ancestors the theropod dinosaurs. All dinosaurs are believed to be descended from a fully bipedal ancestor, perhaps similar to Eoraptor. Indeed, among their descendants, the larger flightless birds, the ratites, such as the ostrich, perhaps epitomise the capacity to move bipedally, able to reach speeds of up to 65 km/h. Likewise many theropod dinosaurs, especially the maniraptors, are believed to have been able to move at similar speeds. Bipedal movement also re-evolved in a number of other dinosaur lineages such as the iguanodons. Some extinct members of the crocodilian line, a sister group to the dinosaurs and birds, have also evolved bipedal forms - a crocodile relative from the triassic, Effigia okeeffeae, was believed to be bipedal [1]. Larger birds tend to walk with alternating legs, whereas smaller birds will often hop. Penguins are interesting birds with regard to bipedality as they tend to hold their bodies upright, rather than horizontal as in other birds.

Bipedal movement is less common among mammals, most being quadrupedal. Some animals can also be trained to walk on their front limbs. Humans can learn to walk using solely their arms, it is called handstand and hand walking.

I found this using google - Advantages:

Bipedalism and associated traits can offer a species several advantages:

Improved perception. Some evolutionary biologists have suggested that a crucial stage in the evolution of some or all bipeds was the ability to stand, which generally improves the ability to see (and perhaps otherwise detect) distant dangers or resources.

Free forelimbs. In vertebrate species, for whom evolution of additional limbs would be an enormous genetic change, it can serve to free the front limbs for such other functions as manipulation (in primates), flight (in birds), digging (giant pangolin), or combat (bears).

Wading. Raccoons and some primates may adopt a bipedal position in water, allowing them to stand or walk in deeper water while still breathing air.

Faster movement. In animals without a flexible backbone, such as lizards or cockroaches, bipedalism may increase running speed. However the maximum bipedal speed appears less fast than the maximum speed of quadrapedal movement with a flexible backbone - compare the fastest bipeds the ostrich (65 km/h) or the red kangaroo (70 km/h) with the fastest quadruped, the cheetah (103 km/h).

Greater reach. Gerunuk antelope adopt a bipedal position to browse the leaves from trees.

Camouflage. It has been speculated that bipedalism in octopuses allows them to move while keeping the rest of their bodies still for camouflage.


Face attacker while directing anal glands. The defense posture of the spotted skunk, which involves walking on its forelimbs, allows the skunk to face the attacker while simultaneously directing its anal glands at them. The anal glands can squirt an offensive smelling oil.

Biomechanics:
Engineers who study bipedal walking or running describe it as a repeatedly interrupted fall. The phenomenon of "tripping" is informative with regards to the "controlled falling" concept of walking and running. The common way to think of tripping is as pulling a leg out from under a walker or runner. In fact, however, merely stopping the movement of one leg of a walker, and merely slowing one leg of a runner, is sufficient to amount to tripping them. They were already "falling", and preventing the tripped leg from aborting that fall is sufficient to cause bipeds to collapse to the ground.

Standing:
Energy-efficient means of standing bipedally involve constant adjustment of balance, and of course these must avoid overcorrection.

Walking:
Efficient walking is more complicated than standing. It entails tipping slightly off-balance forward and to the side, and correcting balance with the right timing. In humans, walking is composed of several separate processes:

rocking back and forth between feet
pushing with the toe to maintain speed
combined interruption in rocking and ankle twist to turn
shortening and extending the knees to prolong the "forward fall"

---------------------

In the same article I did find this as well:

Bipedal robots

ASIMO - a bipedal robot. For nearly the whole of the 20th century, bipedal robots were very difficult to construct. Robots which could move usually did so using wheels, treads, or multiple legs (see robot locomotion). Increasingly cheap and compact computing power, however, has made two-legged robots more feasible. Some notable biped robots are ASIMO, developed by Honda, HUBO and Albert Einstein HUBO developed by KAIST and QRIO, developed by Sony.


---------------------------

I have always agreed that wheeled vehicles, treading vehicles, and hover vehicles are much easier to navigate. Besides most of us do know how to drive a 2 wheel vehicle or a 4 wheel vehicle. On this subject, why are cars built with 4 wheels and not 6?

[Fenix]

Cars have four wheels and not six because, for the size, it would make it impossible to turn.

Also, for the bipedal thing, if those legs are digigrade, then it's almost infinitely better then more.

[BoydofZINJ]

Cars have four wheels and not six because, for the size, it would make it impossible to turn.

Also, for the bipedal thing, if those legs are digigrade, then it's almost infinitely better then more.


I will agree. size = more money spent. A 2 wheel motorcycle is cheaper because it requires less parts to make and a smaller frame since it only needs 2 wheels. A 4 wheel car would be smaller than a 6 wheel car and as a result it would require less parts and less money to make.

In terms of a mecha, I would imagine every extra leg added would cost more money and more parts to add the extra leg. Not just the leg itself but also the enhanced and larger hip. Plus you have to remember the KISS method. (Keep It Simple Sir) I would also imagine the part that wears out the most in a mecha would be the knee joints. Since they do the most work. Have more knee joints and you would increase the cost of the mecha, I would imagine.

I will conceed that a 6 legged mecha would probably be as efficient if not better than a 4 legged mecha. However, I would imagine it would cost more and take longer to build. Is that extra cost and time worth it? If a leg cost 50 minerals and 25 gas and 3 seconds in game time to produce; would you want to add 4 extra legs? Would it be worth the extra stability to justify the cost and time to add the extra parts? I would imagine 2 "legs" would mean a smaller hip and smallre means it requires less metal and armor. And then each leg probably has a set cost (in terms of metal used for the parts and the added electronics and the armor). Economics is also a factor in Starcraft 2.

As for the evolution part. Has anyone ever had knee injuries? They are one of the worse injuries you can get. Imagine having 6 knee injuries.... talk about pain and treatment. Or worse imagine having 5 knee injuries and 1 "good" knee.

[brc9210]

For whoever said If you have 6 legs and 1 messes up your ok try taking a leg off an ant and watch what happens. It certainlly doesn't just keep walking.

[JudicatorPrime]

You realize he was talking INSECT like, not animal... no use bringing up the evolutionary traits of mammals. I for one stand that the Spider who bit Peter Parker was hella badass, and if you could simulate arachnid movement in a machine it certainly destroy any bipedal or quadrapedal design. Im pretty sure I don't need to elaborate on how fast a spider can be, in fact even roaches are hella fast, now if that size to speed ratio was applied to a machine it'd be devastatingly fast. I only suggest an arachnid design because roach mecha would be hella ugly. Insects dont suffer from knee injures unless you completely remove its leg, a knee injury is most commonly attained when falling forwards, not a threat to an insect.

About costs, I doubt anything in SC has its efficiency and practicallity emanated in its cost. The Thor would have to be the same amount or resources as a command center with a planetary fortress.

Plus, how are octopuses bipedal if

A. They live in the ocean
B. They have 8 legs/tentacles??

[BoydofZINJ]

I am not an octopuss expert - i got it from a website. So we can research that but i dont feel like it.

Let us think economics and build time. In Broodwar, a Goliath takes 40 seconds and 100 minerals and 50 gas. Let us assume each leg is worth 10% of that. In other words, the two legs of the Goliath would mean it takes 8 seconds to build and 20 minerals and 10 gas to use to construct it (10 mineral and 5 gas per leg). What advantage would it be to have 4 more legs? The disadvantage would be it would take an additional 16 seconds to produce and an additional 40 minerals and 20 gas to make. What would justify Goliath with 2 legs which is being made 16 seconds faster and costing 40 minerals less and 20 gas less versus the 6 legged Goliath that cost more and takes more time to produce?

Let us assume it moves faster? Let us assume it can crawl over walls? On a map like BGH how does that help me?

There are vehicles that have more than 4 wheels. 18 Wheelers have 18. They are used for transport and are much more expensive and bulkier to use than a standard 4 wheel truck, for instance. Ever replace tires for your vehicles? Imagine the maintaince on 14 additional wheels.

[Ghost]

You have a point and I think that it is decided that bipedal mechs are better for a variety of reason but mainly because they are cheaper.

[kuvasz]

BoydofZINJ: If there are more legs, they can be weaker to hold the same hull, which means each leg would be cheaper to produce, simple as that. The overall cost might be higher but even that would pay off if we could target certain parts of a unit and make it topple over/render it useless. Imagine it was implemented in SC2, which unit would be easier to deal with? A 2 legged robot or a 6 legged one?
"Let us assume it moves faster? Let us assume it can crawl over walls? On a map like BGH how does that help me?" I don't know that map you're referring to but it's obvious that units have different values in different environments/battles.

[DKutrovsky]

2 > 1..duh?

What if each of the 2 costs 1/2 of the 1?

Number of legs doesnt decide the final cost...

And yes, taking away one of the 6 legs will make it more difficult to move but not impossible. Now take away one of the 2 legs and try walking in a mech.

Cost is not really the issue, its the efficiency that matters, even if costs is in, there are ways to get around it.

[BoydofZINJ]

let us put it in terms of wheels. Having an 18 wheeler does that make the wheels cheaper if you had to replace all 18 wheels?

I do believe cost IS the issue. If you had Goliath A that is 2 legged and cost less than Goliath B with 6 legs - why would I want a more expensive Goliath? What advantage would a more costly Goliath do versus a cheaper unit? If building 10 Golaiths with 6 legs cost as much as building 14 Goliaths with 2 legs... why I not want the 14 Goliaths, for example?

Order and buying in bulk can reduce costs; however, there is still more overhead. I put the legs at 10% of the cost of a goliath and thus two legs are 20% of the mass/cost- which is pretty low IMHO - for an object that is roughly 33% of the mass of the goliath itself (I assume).


BGH = Big Game Hunters map. It is a roughly flat map with water.

[DKutrovsky]

You assume that one leg of the 6 = one leg of the 2.

More legs = smaller legs = cheaper legs.

Maybe the 6 legs cost as much as the 2 bigger ones?

[brc9210]

Your logic is flawed, just becuse you have more legs doesnt mean they can be smaller. Unless you have a drastic amount like a centipede or something. If we had 6 legs for the most part theyd be the same size maybe slightly smaller but not much becuase our legs in the end have to be a certain size just to be able to function properly. Think about it if we had 6 legs from your logic that would mean each of our legs could be 1/6 of the size that they are now. That basically means we get the foot and ankle which will make us way less manuevrable than we are now.

[Nikzad]

Ever had a flat tire? Imagine if you had 8 flat tires. How about this? While 4 legs are probably more stable a person would need to coordinate all 4 legs to a "safe" spot.

The thing you neglect to realize is that when a 4+ legged mech is walking, the legs on each side move forward in a near-linear pattern. That means that once you place the front leg on each side in a "safe spot," then all of the legs behind it will land in roughly the same spot as the front legs. When you drive, you do not have to think about where the rear tires are going to be, they will follow the track of the front tires, so you only have to look ahead and judge how to get around obstacles in front of you.

Although your "more legs, more moving parts" argument is good, you take it to the extreme. When does an 18-wheeler simultaneously get 18 flat tires?


If you had Goliath A that is 2 legged and cost less than Goliath B with 6 legs - why would I want a more expensive Goliath? What advantage would a more costly Goliath do versus a cheaper unit? If building 10 Golaiths with 6 legs cost as much as building 14 Goliaths with 2 legs... why I not want the 14 Goliaths, for example?

In the United States Air Force, we do not have just one plane that is made to fight planes, tanks, helicopters, ships, etc. We have different planes which are suited to different needs for different environments and situations. This also extends to our armored division. One tank doesn't carry troops, fight tanks, work as anti-infantry, act as an anti-aircraft unit, and siege enemy positions.

Now let us extend this analogy to Mechs. Developing ONLY a two-legged mech or ONLY a six-legged mech would be much the same thing; trying to have one unit do everything. Let's just imagine that mechs have been available in every major modern conflict of our time.

If I was a policing force in Baghdad, would I want a giant, 6-legged mech that emphasizes stability? No, that would be ridiculous, Baghdad is a modern city with an infrastructure, and having 6 legs would make it hard to move along city streets and unnecessary. Guerilla fighters could just wait until the mech passed their building, then launch 15 RPGs at its ass, and all it would be able to do would be to move forward and keep taking RPGs to the ass. I would want a small, 2-legged mech that can move quickly down roads and can turn quickly to face fire and resistance from any direction.

Similarly, if I was being deployed on patrol in Vietnam, would I want a two-legged mech? No, I would want something that could deal with the irregular and often totally foreign terrain in which I was located. Or fighting in the mountains in Afghanistan in the 80s as Russia against the Taleban - a two legged mech would slip down the side of the mountain, or trip up on a rock, or get its foot caught in a crevasse or any other multitude of possibilities.

If I was fighting in the desert, or in the tundra, chasing enemy forces or wanting maneuverability, would I want a 6-legged mech? No, a two legged mech, like the AT-ST Chickenwalker from Empire Strikes Back would be faster and more agile on the relatively uniform terrain. Same situation, but this time I want to carry lots of supplies; a 6-legged mech would spread out its weight over a larger area and not sink into the sand/snow. This assumes, though, that both types of mechs are using wide feet to distribute their weight better.

Now take it to space. Multiply the possible configurations of terrain by the number of planets on which you may have to fight. Factor in other variables such as heat, pressure, corrosive gases, gravity, and the other sorts of stress or space-phenonmena that a mech might come under that we don't even know about. Now try to argue for either a 2- or 6-legged mech.

I started this post out as arguing for 6-legged mechs, but I think as you can see I have changed my mind. Different situations call for different tactics and units. I think the good thing about a goliath, however, is that it is so small in relation to the size of other mechs in movies and games, that it has a lower center of gravity, and therefore is not as vulnerable to tripping. It's more like a slightly scaled- and beefed-up marine in a power suit than a giant mech-walker-thing.

*phew*

[DontHate]

well i guess it would be too complex to make them and we're just lazy to find out an easy way :D. there are also more things that can go wrong with having more legs, and well, it just doesn't suit the terrans style.

[kuvasz]

Lazy? If anything, sticking with more legs than 2 is lazy. Why do you think trucks have so many wheels? Not because we couldn't solve it with 4 wheels, it's because the cost of the 4 strengthened wheels would be more than the advantage gained (considering the technology at our disposal)
While I agree that both forms have their advantages and disadvantages, I still think the multi-legged form has more. The only reason terrans will have bipedals is because it's more humanoid and easier to accept.

[JudicatorPrime]

Im firm on the fact that the reason Terrans have bipedal machines is that it's a computer game.

[Ghost]

Ah ha! You raise an interesting point.. touche Judicator... Touche.

[BoydofZINJ]

Im firm on the fact that the reason Terrans have bipedal machines is that it's a computer game.


Out of all the arguements I believe this is the truest of all.

[DKutrovsky]

Way to ruin the topic...

WtF are u tinking 6 legs > 2 legs and all that jazz, pls continue the discussion :)

I still think, that 4-6 legged units will be more stable at taking enemy fire, or just digging in when shooting.

And you can have a small 4 legged mech in Baghdad. Think the little spider drone from Red Alert.

[BoydofZINJ]

If I was going to have a 6 legged mech I would just turn it into a hover tank or treads, personally.

[Nikzad]

whoa whoa whoa

don't go changing the subject once we have 3 good pages of discussion going on...don't bringi in hover tanks and sh*t, we're talking about mechs

@ DKutrovsky - I don't think a spider drone qualifies though, because it is not piloted by a human being

[DKutrovsky]

They very well might be, i mean cmon, humans control all sorts of wierd machines, i doubt a spider like machine will be such a problem.

Think airplanes, submarines, cranes etc

[Nikzad]

no i mean since there is no pilot in the spider drone, it is not considered a mech

and that part about the mechs in Baghdad was an example to prove a point, not a firm statement of my beliefs about the ins and outs and different strategies of mech deployment in modern conflicts

[BoydofZINJ]

whoa whoa whoa

don't go changing the subject once we have 3 good pages of discussion going on...don't bringi in hover tanks and sh*t, we're talking about mechs

@ DKutrovsky - I don't think a spider drone qualifies though, because it is not piloted by a human being


I am saying if I was argusing about 6 legged mechs - why not go with mechs without legs and have a hover tank chassis? Basically its a 6 legged mech without the legs?

For me, its the hip that gives me problems with 6 legged mechs. 6 legs is allot of leg space and would require a large hip, I would imagine. If the hip was increased so large why not give it a tank chassis and hover or tread capabilities. Then think of the mechanics nightmare when a pilot reports, "Hey sarge I need you to look at my 6 legged mecha. I believe one of the legs are malfunctioning and i am not sure which one. Can you check all of them?" Now imagine the two legged mecha pilot, "Hey sarge I need you to look at my 2 legged mecha. I believe one of the legs are malfunctioning and i am not sure which one. Can you check all of them?"

Which one would you like to look at first? The 6 legged or two legged mech?

[LordKerwyn]

I would guess the reason you wouldnt use some kind of hover porpulsion is that it probally couldnt take as much wheight as legs which would be less armor for a tank.......
and the reason not to go the tread route is they probaly arnt as manucerable as legs.

As to the actual topic while i can see why 2 legs wouldnt be a very good idea because of balance 6 legs seems like to much almost to the point of overkil why have 6 big expensive metal legs when 3-4 would do the job just as well?


EDIT: On another note the way humans walk is sorta a controlled fall as we move forward until we need to stop then we gain balance i cant possibly imagine how that would be a good idea for any sort of machine.

[ShdwyTemplar]

The thing about 3-6 legged mechs is they have two key weaknesses....

1. If at least 1-4 legs are hit they are down on the ground and basically is destroyed.
2. 3-6 legs also allows for attacks to avoid there attacks and get into the "Belly of the Beast" and launch attacks unhindered from underneath. This would be crippling.

Now 2 legged mechs have the same chance to fall over as a 3 legged mech, but, since two legs can support something why not? I mean if the same effect comes from 3-6 legs without the susceptibility to attacks from underneath would you take that advantage if your fighting an enemy that consist largely of melee units?A Psi Blade rammed up your crack is not something I want to imagine for anyone...

3-6 Legs Pros: +Stability +Firepower Capability +Movement over obstacles +Armor +Expansion Capability
3-6 Legs Cons: -Underbelly -Stability(In case of losing a leg) -Size -Turning Capabilities -Weight -Transport

2 Legs Pros: +Stability +Firepower Capability +Size +Movement through cramped spaces +Weight +Transport +Expansion Capability
2 Legs Cons: -Stability -Firepower Capability -Movement over obstacles -Armor

I think I would choose 2 over 3-6 imo :P

[Nikzad]

^^3-6 legs are more stable than 2
the only Pro that 2 has that 2-6 doesn't is transport...how can 3-6 not also transport stuff?

It's not a question of one or the other, it's a question of what would be more suited to the environment and the needs you have in the conflict

[Gasmaskguy]

the reason why terran dont have 2+ legged machines is because Protoss already have like 3 of them!
Making more 3-6 legged machines would be boring.
IAM more surprized they only have ONE tank in the entire game. Siege Tank. thats it.
Really strange, Terran should have another tank too

[ShdwyTemplar]

I meant transport as in the abilty to be transported off the battlefield by say a dropship or to the likes. As something say like a Dragoon/Goliath take up 4/2 spots in a Dropship/Shuttle/Overlord. This factor included a six legged mech would most likely be too large to fit in a transport. That is discluding the Thor as its just too big anyway. The point is six legged mechs would be too much hassle. Thats why I included transport in the cons. The whole point of my Pros on Cons for each was to show that even if both mechs were to be chosen between I would rather have the 2 legged than 6, unless, I was going to be a Fortress of Doom that could not be penetrated by any psi, claw, or artillery barrage and would ravage my enemies in one blow from my
cannons of death. Just saying.

[BnechbReaker]

i guess the terrans like to model their machines on themelves

[Gasmaskguy]

yeah, maybe their mechs are mechs just because they should resemble the human species, with two legs and all.

[Nikzad]

^^^oooh ok i gotcha ShdwyTemplar
that's a good analogy with the Thors
I think if they had six legged mechs, they would do what I think will be a common Terran strategy once SC2 comes out (depending on build time), which is that Terran players will probably build their Thors closer to the battle or base they are intending to siege
this also is based on the fact that I don't think Thors will fit into dropships