I am under the impression that if you have the tech, the vehicle just sort of get materialized under you, borderlands style. I'm not sure if that is the case with the general community, though. Is there already a consensus as to how they operate, or not yet?
Neither see major use for different reasons. Jeeps and cars aren't really used ICly because they take up excessive amounts of space in a ship for transport and most colonies are just a single city that can easily be traversed while walking. Outskirts of the colony usually feature terrain that a jeep wouldn't fare well on. Mechs on the other hand don't see widespread use because ICly it takes a lot of resources to build one, and only the largest of factions could hope to even attempt such a thing. Mechs as we know them in the vanilla experience have by and large been ICly replaced by their smaller cousins the exosuits/skeletons and power armor, as both options are much easier to produce and much cheaper as well; but even then, they still take a considerable amount of resources to manufacture, test and equip. There's a reason you only see the USCM boys and the Holy Fleet using power armor and the RA using exosuits - they're the only ones that can afford such a thing. Think of mechs as the 2414 equivalent of really really powerful, really really expensive tanks, and that's why you never see them around. We haven't had any need to field such behemoths as of yet. Not to mention they can't be customized to faction colors, use faction weapons, etc.
Well, Thornblade has a car because he enjoys driving, but he doesn't drive it much because there generally isn't a need to and not many roads to begin with. As far as getting it on planet I say he just beams it down to his location. Otherwise it just takes up space on his ship.
I'm never said they're explicitly better than tanks, I meant that in terms of cost analysis and what they bring to the table. Mechs would arguably have an easier time traversing rough terrain due to their bipedal nature and could bring heavier armaments to bear due to their larger profile. However, if used properly, a tank would almost certainly win a fight against a mech as they exist in Starbound. Smaller profile and less weak spots. Fire at the legs and the entire mech just got owned. This is on top of a mech almost certainly being more expensive due to more complicated systems - the way they move, the systems required to get them to move and not just fall over, etc. The server takes place in the year 2414 (2415 now? idk) and that means tanks have been around for a long time. Their systems would have been improved and streamlined over the years, and there almost certainly would have been advances in counter-measures and anti-vehicle weaponry. Hell, tanks might even be better in terms of terrain mobility now that I think about it; they might not even use conventional tracks. If we can get a spaceship to go faster than light, we can almost certainly get a tank to hover. *shrug*
I get that mechs have weaknessess, but I don't see them as lumbering targets. I imagine they can move organically, for example, like the ones in the Metal Gear games.
That doesn't change the fact that if they get a leg blown off by a goddamn tank shell, they're out of commission. I imagine that being able to move organically would also mean the mechs have some pretty complex systems that would cost a lot to develop, install and test. Much more so than conventional tank treads and maybe even more than a basic hover propulsion system.
from asking how they work to a battle between vehicles and mechs. VS ARGUMENT ESCALATED TO NEW HEIGHTS.
Making these comparisons could be eternal. You could compare same tank to a mere Sentinel of the Imperial Guard of WH 40k, and the biped is the lame one. Plain and easy, bipeds can be more versatile in weapons/movement (few take into account bipeds must take care of balance), while tanks will usually have more plating since bipeds have probably a lot of extra wires/connections (foot/hands must move somehow) and can have a main weapon larger than a biped can unless the biped itself kills his own mobility to have such installed. In the end it comes to concepts and what people prefer when it comes to sci-fi, since nowadays there's not such bipeds to compare with. And as M-Bot said, yes, mechs will be much harder to develop/maintain since they have the mentioned complicated wiring, plating it is different, etc. About weapon armaments. That, again, depends on size. Small tanks did exist and their main cannon wasn't spectacular, the same way a biped can be small and have a standard weapon, or be super heavy, killing mobility to have a balance like a tank has, and install monster weapons, too. In the end, both simply are mobile weapons platforms. Also, read the comment making hover tanks. Sure, unconventional and new ways to move, but they bring other issues, like how the system works to keep it hovering and plating around it. A lot of models during 1940-1960 were duped simply because their mechanics weren't reliable or some particular gear could be broken very easily, only by moving the vehicle. btw. A tank is also very expensive to build and maintain, specially if it has big weapons and size, plus a lot of plating. Seriously, they aren't cheap and can have a insane weight, +50t. Without forgetting they have custom-made gears, in fact, in WWII there was trouble keeping certain models up and running because some gears kept breaking or didn't have enough spares, among others. Just saying. PS: That Warhammer 40k tank has a bipod under the cannon to minimize vibrations so in a long-term usage it doesn't deviate and keeps aim correct. Yes, they have to keep an eye even on that (though bipods are only meant while travelling, not in combat unless it has 0º rotation and depression, which is a lame design).
wh40k tanks are total trash look at those exposed tank tracks it's just asking for someone to immobilize it
I am not suprised that it has a bipod, seeing it is designed to hunt down bloody Titans. It must be a big ass gun. As for this what you said: This sort of concept is used in Planetary Annihilation. The Vehicles/Tanks are slow moving base destroyers, designed to take heavier hits and dish out damage. The Bots on the other hand are much faster, have lighter weaponry, and can turn their torso much faster than the tank can turn its main gun, making them much like a raider based unit. These are only the basic tier 1 units though: Later on in the game the differences become more varied for the bots as slow moving Sniper and Tactical Warhead bots are thrown into the mix, whereas the Vehicles pump out heavier versions of tthe tier 1 vehicles. The concept here seems to be that tanks are raw firepower as mechs (I wish not to use the term bipeds as I have see mechs with more than 2 legs before) are more on a versatile adaptive side, being easily modable. But as you also said, this is EASILY very debatable a subject and both have flaws that are more apparent than others. For one thing, does anyone remember these? These fit in buildings because of their relatively small size, where as usually tanks need entire crews to operate. MAY NOT BE THE CASE NOW IN THE FUTURE BUT Y'KNOW.
lolno physics dictate that tanks are a vastly superior design to mechs in every single aspect (except climbing stairs) for starters: - tanks spread their weight over a large area (tank tracks), so their ground pressure is not high and they do not sink into the ground - mechs have all their weight concentrated into the footprint of one leg, so their ground pressure is absurdly high and they will sink into the ground
I am not a fan of hammerspace IC'ly. I only hop into a jeep if it's actually parked there and I have the keys.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammerspace Basically hammerspace allows for a character to pull things out of thin air.
