Science talk: Let's talk about those quadrupedal mechs.

#11PutFlamePosted 5/2/2012 3:20:28 AM
Metal Gear?
---
One does not simply transverse the white the fog- Dark Souls
#12LFCKINGSPosted 5/2/2012 3:42:54 AM

From: Soul_On_Display | #001
The setting is the near future (probably)


2025
---
http://g.bf3stats.com/360/qvJvFKXL/Len%20lfc.png
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/soldier/Len%20lfc/stats/179515709/xbox/
#13KillingHarderPosted 5/2/2012 3:49:15 AM
....It's completely feasible! Necessary? Who knows, but imagine if you could have something much larger than a tank. It's called escalation. No one NEEDS it, but if the other side has it and it's effective. Like the entire concept of (I know this is a bit out of place) Mobile Suits from the Gundam Universe. They are just essentially large soldiers that cost millions to build. Why have them? Because it's a leg up that the other side has.
---
If you have the term "Official ___ of the __ board" in your signature, you probably hate yourself and don't realize you can't cosplay on boards. GTFO!
#14Soul_On_Display(Topic Creator)Posted 5/2/2012 7:46:11 AM
PainoGamer posted...
Yeah I did read it, and its ridiculous, why wouldn't the army want to develop unmanned min-tanks? I feel like I'm talking to a 5 year old, nothing's perfect, everything has a weakness hur dur. Soldiers can die from a single bullet, does that make them useless? Hell no. Also, there are defense mechanisms today, in use by the military, that can stop a missile in its tracks. As for having legs? Easily maneuverable. The advantage of being maneuverable comes with the cost of limited armor obviously. But you're not an expert in robotics or vehicular technology and I'm not either, so stop wasting your time.

If I'm 5 then you must be 3. I never said anything against unmanned technology, first off. We're talking about putting legs on tanks. Second, soldiers are expected to only take a few bullets. Tanks, on the other hand, are supposed to take full on fire from heavy weapons and survive, for the most part. Having tanks with a weakness such as those legs will make them far more weaker, making their purpose less significant as well. Third, forums are meant to discuss things. I am not criticizing the game, I was creating a calm conversation with people about the possibility of tanks with legs in the future. We're not a board of scientists at some military projects division so we don't need to be "experts in robotic technology." Especially not to just have a calm chat about it. Do what the other people in this topic have done and post a calm comment on what you think with more explanation and less rant. You might even make a lot of sense like the other guys have already. How's about you just take your aggression and leave my topic.

KillingHarder posted...
....It's completely feasible! Necessary? Who knows, but imagine if you could have something much larger than a tank. It's called escalation. No one NEEDS it, but if the other side has it and it's effective. Like the entire concept of (I know this is a bit out of place) Mobile Suits from the Gundam Universe. They are just essentially large soldiers that cost millions to build. Why have them? Because it's a leg up that the other side has.

That's where we meet the issue with our military. Our military easily scraps projects they know don't pose enough true value. Like *sobs* those cool lasers on airplanes.
---
Xbox Live: Parallel Walker
PSN: Echo_Resonance