TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Possible justification for mecha?

Go To

ElderAtropos Since: Jan, 2012
#1: May 9th 2011 at 1:34:43 PM

Okay, this is probably going to get a little weird.

The idea is that there's these really super dense (like, REALLY dense) particles. Scientists capture some of them and put them in machines that scatter them around an area so that they'll balance out gravity's effect on an object. At the same time, a cooling system prevents them from moving out of control(and yes, the cockpit is insulated). The mecha doesn't stand up until this process has been done.

The backstory is that it was developed to make it easier for ships to launch into space.

Okay, nitpick time. *puts on armor*

edited 9th May '11 1:43:58 PM by ElderAtropos

Yej (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
#2: May 9th 2011 at 1:36:31 PM

Density =/= sheer strength. You want materials that are very light but also incredibly strong if you want to defeat the Square-Cube Law

edited 9th May '11 1:36:41 PM by Yej

nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Not war
#3: May 9th 2011 at 3:35:39 PM

Why do people keep trying to "justify" Humongous Mecha?

I mean, I assume you're trying to do this because you think they're cool. Why not just go with that, then? Why does everyone keep trying to find explanations for why these things would actually work?

I'm not trying to be insulting here. I'm just wondering why, if you want something solely because "it's cool", you feel you need any better explanation than "because it's cool"?

edited 9th May '11 3:36:06 PM by nrjxll

ElderAtropos Since: Jan, 2012
#4: May 9th 2011 at 4:07:36 PM

Hard science fiction tends to garner more respect than soft science fiction. You don't get a bunch of physicists complaining about you 'not respecting science'.(Uh, not directed at you, Yej.)

I suppose that 'because it's cool' would work as an in-story justification. For some reason, the scientists working at some research facility somewhere are mecha anime fans, and they decide to research mecha.

edited 9th May '11 4:12:14 PM by ElderAtropos

Octo Prince of Dorne from Germany Since: Mar, 2011
Prince of Dorne
#5: May 9th 2011 at 4:22:48 PM

[up][up]It helps with internal consistency. I mean, if nothing else a well done justification is a good reason why nobody in the story asks "Uh... why don't we just use tanks?".

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic
nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Not war
#6: May 9th 2011 at 4:23:08 PM

Well, I personally write hard science fiction because I really like science. And it's my view that it's better to try and find your "cool stuff" within the actual (or theoretical) boundaries of science, rather then take unscientific things you find cool and try to force them to be scientific. As an example, FTL Travel is a Necessary Weasel in space opera, hard or soft (well, mostly). However, even in its case, I try to use actual theorized methods, like Krasnikov tubes or the Alcubierre warp drive, rather than just making up something and trying to Techno Babble it into apparently hard science (cough Star Trek cough). Your mileage may vary, this is just my own opinion, but I personally think that if you want something unscientific in your science fiction because of Rule of Cool (or any other of the Rules Of X tropes), you're better off just bumping your work down the scale a little.

That all said, in-universe Rule of Cool is an awesome way to justify some tropes. Defictionalization has played a larger role in technology and science then you might imagine - after all, I'm told we have Mr. Spock to thank for the position of "science officer" on the space shuttle.

edited 9th May '11 4:25:32 PM by nrjxll

Borkless from 112365365321 Since: Jan, 2011
#7: May 9th 2011 at 6:02:54 PM

just have the meches be small, on the scale of Powered Armor. If the mechs can move in and around buildings, they can rule urban terrain. (cities are where tanks are least useful, its to easy to get behind them with RP Gs or the like)

These Mini-Mecha can provide anti-infantry cover for the tanks. as well, their natural agility, small size, and agility makes them less vulnerable to the tank's natural enemy: Attack helos. Give them wire-guided-shoulder-fired missiles (like a TOW), and they can even kill tanks, using superior agility and speed to fire from cover, then scoot.

edited 9th May '11 6:03:15 PM by Borkless

I don't always comment, but when I do, expect me to edit the crap outta it.
MattII Since: Sep, 2009
#8: May 9th 2011 at 6:41:25 PM

Mini-mechs don't work too well when they come up against power-armoured troops, they're larger (can't take cover as well), more expensive, and can't pack the sort of armour needed to survive man-portable anti-tank rockets (hells most tanks can't stand up to RPG 29s). Hells, it's doubtful they'd even be able to manage against anti-materiel weapons.

edited 9th May '11 6:50:53 PM by MattII

Evellex from Canberra Since: Oct, 2010
#9: May 9th 2011 at 7:21:36 PM

Bipedal giant mech will never be "justifiable" so don't bother.

Power Armour (esp the Starship Troopers kind) can fill that sort of niche.

AT-ST's Spider tanks and other limb mobile vehicles can be explained without softening things up too much.

Borkless from 112365365321 Since: Jan, 2011
#10: May 9th 2011 at 7:40:24 PM

well, of course they aren't going to be as tough as tanks. I was thinking about Powered Armor troops able to hid in buildings.

they would fill the role of the Tank Killer, like the WWII M18 hellcat or German jagpanzers. (particularly the Hetzer). Small and fragile, but very quick with a very big gun.

Worst case scenario, if they're completely outmatched by tanks, have them act as anti-infantry cover: walk beside the tanks killing (or at least suppressing) infantry with rockets or demo charges.

Mechs and powered infantry would also shine where tanks can't go. for example: -Tight urban environments- -Jungles -Airdrop operations. A few guys in power armor could provide some much needed heavy weapons

I don't always comment, but when I do, expect me to edit the crap outta it.
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#11: May 9th 2011 at 7:40:31 PM

So well unless your robot is going into irradiated lands, I'm not certain what purpose that density thing solves.

And I wouldn't worry about physicists bitching at you for soft science. Most physicists themselves don't write strictly hard science fiction prose. It's when you get science wrong that they don't like it and that only happens if you try to make explanations for stuff you don't need to.

MattII Since: Sep, 2009
#12: May 9th 2011 at 10:53:50 PM

well, of course they aren't going to be as tough as tanks. I was thinking about Powered Armor troops able to hid in buildings.
Powered Armour yes, mini-mechs, no.

they would fill the role of the Tank Killer, like the WWII M18 hellcat or German jagpanzers. (particularly the Hetzer). Small and fragile, but very quick with a very big gun.
A role taken over by a Humvee with a TOW, or for infantry only units, an RPG

Worst case scenario, if they're completely outmatched by tanks, have them act as anti-infantry cover: walk beside the tanks killing (or at least suppressing) infantry with rockets or demo charges.
Infantry are hard to spot, mechs are kind of obvious, and even if they can resist light anti-materiel fire, the local equivalent of 40mm grenades will get them.

Mechs and powered infantry would also shine where tanks can't go. for example: -Tight urban environments- -Jungles -Airdrop operations. A few guys in power armor could provide some much needed heavy weapons
Yep, although you still have to make the distinction between Powered Armour and Mini-Mecha, the first is generally useful, the second generally not.

TibetanFox Feels Good, Man from Death Continent Since: Oct, 2010
Feels Good, Man
#14: May 10th 2011 at 3:59:34 AM

I love hard sci-fi. Love it to death.

But honestly, more "respect"? Hard sci-fi is a tiny little niche of fantastically nerdy fandom which shall forever exist in low-overhead media like books and comics because very few people give a shit.

If you want mecha because they are Fucking Awesome then go with your heart. What matters is how entertaining a story is. Introducing bullshit like the Minovsky Particle in the hope that it will placate the hard SF crew is a great way to make sure you please nobody. The hard-SF people will feel they've been Dan Browned while everyone else is going "I find all the Techno Babble boring! When is shit going to blow up?"

Making an entertaining story should be your first priority. Choosing hard-SF as a constraint to give you a challenge is fine, but anyone who feels something else is more important can probably be safely ignored.

edited 10th May '11 3:59:57 AM by TibetanFox

MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#15: May 10th 2011 at 6:16:57 AM

Why do people keep trying to "justify" Humongous Mecha?

Because people are building the damn things today with today's technology.

We're rapidly approaching the point in engineering and technology where the "relative implausibility" of Humongous Mecha is going to run into Science Marches On.

Doubly so for bipedal ones.

edited 10th May '11 6:19:52 AM by MajorTom

LatwPIAT Since: Jan, 2001
#16: May 10th 2011 at 7:14:30 AM

Any explanation for Humongous Mecha that is not "MAGIC!" is bound to fail. MAGIC! can make for quite an interesting story, but it's definitely not hard sci-fi.

Oh, and to address the original problem, what you've suggested is, essentially, a machine that pulls itself up into the air with its own bootstraps, because for those particle to neutralize the effect of gravity, they have to not fall into the ground (as well as "not cause the Earth's orbit to shift radically" and "not cause the moon to crash into the Earth, because you've suddenly added a lot of very heavy things to the Earth; even at a meter's distance, we're still taking about particles that can collectively exert an acceleration of 10ms-2 on an object. This probably won't be an issue until you reach on the scale of 10,000 of these things present on Earth though. Let's also not forget "not rip the mecha apart with their sharp gravity-gradient".)

But ,really, the whole "pull themselves up by bootstraps"-thing really makes this rather silly. They've basically invented what could become a perpetual motion-machines, depending a bit on the physics involved, and their first use was getting spaceships off the Earth?

Things I like: Ghost In The Shell |Serial Experiments Lain |Eden: It's an Endless World! |Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri |Aeon Natum Engel
MattII Since: Sep, 2009
#17: May 10th 2011 at 12:35:13 PM

We're rapidly approaching the point in engineering and technology where the "relative implausibility" of Humongous Mecha is going to run into Science Marches On.
Only where it doesn't involve any combat, weight-lifting or running.

TibetanFox Feels Good, Man from Death Continent Since: Oct, 2010
Feels Good, Man
#18: May 10th 2011 at 12:38:10 PM

@Major Tom. I keep being told I'm a wet blanket all the time for my skepticism that bipedal mecha and projected energy weapons are one day going to be practical tools of warfare. And perhaps I will one day seem like those quaint people who looked at gunpowder weapons and said It Will Never Catch On.

But I don't work at DARPA, so until I see these things stop being Cool, but Inefficient at best, I'm going to continue assuming that they're unlikely to ever make a splash in the field of warfare.

Although I fully expect to see bipedal mechs being used in construction and heavy industry in my lifetime.

edited 10th May '11 12:38:35 PM by TibetanFox

willyolio Since: Jan, 2001
#19: May 10th 2011 at 1:55:50 PM

there's a reason why the beetle is considered one of the most successful designs to arise from evolution. Low-slung and heavily armored, it is extremely difficult to flip over to expose the unarmored underbelly. like a tank.

There's also a reason why two-footed humans keep losing fights to animals that are half our size and weight. We are slower and weaker than just about any animal of comparable size. The only advantage we have is our brains, a robot doesn't have to be human-shaped to have a human brain controlling it.

it's an inefficient design for combat. the only justification for bipedal robots would be powered armour, not mecha.

edited 10th May '11 1:56:47 PM by willyolio

MattII Since: Sep, 2009
#20: May 10th 2011 at 3:18:40 PM

I remember the last time this discussion came up it ran to 9 pages, about 6 of them being an argument between me and some idiot who thought Gundam could be made somehow realistic. The final conclusion ended up as Big-Dogs are going to be the only military application of robots.

ElderAtropos Since: Jan, 2012
#21: May 10th 2011 at 5:47:35 PM

Okay. IRL, mecha will never be feasible as machines of war. A future scientific breakthrough may change that, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

But whether or not it's practical isn't the point for some people. Remember when the iPad was announced? The Internet was wild with people pointing out it's flaws. "Too big!" people cried. "You can't carry it with you! It's just a big iPod!" Then, it was a success. And we realized what the iPad was.

It was a toy.

So yes, I think it's entirely possible that in the future, aristocrats will buy their own mecha, just as a big Transformers toy. I can even see some kind of Five Star Stories-esque ritualized combat between wealthy families using mecha.

blueharp Since: Dec, 1969
#22: May 10th 2011 at 5:49:24 PM

I've been pondering a psychic-energy based mecha system. Basically, the pilot is in a small pod, and around them they form a mental shell in the desired form.

nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Not war
#23: May 10th 2011 at 9:35:43 PM

[up][up] While I don't see society going that way, overall that's my opinion on the subject as well: the only realistic way to "justify" mecha is in-universe Rule of Cool, joined with a group that doesn't mind, for whatever reason, that mecha are also inefficient.

edited 10th May '11 9:35:58 PM by nrjxll

willyolio Since: Jan, 2001
#24: May 10th 2011 at 10:11:35 PM

yes, mecha are inefficient. Here's the point:

- any power source you can place on a mecha, you can stick into a tank. The tank, with treads, will be able to reach higher speeds and cross more terrain (thanks to spreading its weight better) given the same energy output.

- Any armour you can place on a mecha, you can use on a tank, and you can use less of it to protect the occupants due to its low-slung shape and just having less of it exposed.

- If you really, really, need to have an extra 10m in height for visibility purposes and helicopters/drones/teamwork can't be used, put a camera on a periscope. There is absolutely no reason to lift your pilot, engine, and fuel an extra 10m up in the air and away from the safety of cover just to get the camera up there.

- if you really need some kind of limb/hand/robot arm that can manipulate tools and objects, build a tank with arms.

- if you have a really interesting set of gyroscopes/accelerometers and a computer that can calculate the balance of the entire robot fast enough to keep it balanced on two legs... you can just save money and by not using it by building a tank.

seriously, there's nothing about the technology required to make mecha that can't be better applied as a tank. Powered armour, sure.

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#25: May 10th 2011 at 10:33:47 PM

@ Elder Atropos

Actually I have read that one before and I found it kinda laughable when he doesn't seem to realise the fact that hard sci-fi is a niche in literature, not the norm. He's not a physicist himself so I don't even get why he thinks he can speak for all other physicists. Heck, he's not even an engineer of any sort as far as I can tell.

You want mecha, you put in mecha.

You make them work better, move faster or whatever than today's military hardware, then you've got plenty of reason for it to exist. If it's taking a tank role, then it needs to be much more mobile and be able to go across more types of terrain at a fast speed. If it's taking a super infantry role, then it should be fairly small mecha, able to enter buildings, yet withstand damage and be at least close to as mobile as normal infantry. If it's taking a sorta mobile infantry role, then it should move from location to location quickly, deploy easily and have some kind of logistic advantage (like carrying much more supplies than normal infantry).

Then use your super magical particles to handle that somehow. Like for instance, you don't need as much supply trains for these guys because they go in with 100 tonnes of supplies each, but with your density reduction magic particles, it weighs like 10 pounds and so they can last a lot longer before requiring a resupply.

(As for the article, this is the star quote that gets me)

Imagine a historical fiction novel where Napoleon at Waterloo defeated the knights of the Round Table by using the Enola Gay to drop an atom bomb. It's OK because it is "fiction", right?

Why not? That'd be awesome... depending on execution. Physicists enjoy warhammer40k in which cybernetically enhanced super soldiers with automatic rocket launchers battle with magical demons created by the emotional desires of man. But for this guy, his head would apparently explode upon seeing it.

edited 10th May '11 10:36:33 PM by breadloaf


Total posts: 45
Top