Remove ads

Project Knight [Mecha Design Bureau]

Reader mode
[X] Simplified Combat Mech [Bipedal Chassis], [+] Build Speeds & Maintenance Requirements, [-] Reduced Tactical Effectiveness
but ill also vote for this
[X] Heavy Firebase Crawler [Multi-legged Chassis], Heavy Weapons Options, Limb Redundancy adds Survivability, Reduced Agility and Flexibility, Harder to Pilot
 
Last edited:
I forgot to set a timer on voting - let's say it's open until .
 
[X] Converted Industrial Walkers [Bipedal Chassis], [+] Extra Funding, [+] Cheap and Easy to Build, [+] Strong Lift Capacity, [-] Slow Movement, [-] System Needs an Overhaul to make Combat-Ready

Cheap and easy means that we can work with it to still be on a budget I hope.
 
[X] Simplified Combat Mech [Bipedal Chassis], [+] Build Speeds & Maintenance Requirements, [-] Reduced Tactical Effectiveness

I like the bonus of build speed and maintenance requirements, I figure being quick to deploy and able to reliably stay in field are good for the defense they'll be used for.
 
Alright so I'm thinking, Budget Zaibatsu is your classic Mobile Suit/Wanzer with handheld weapons and plenty of flexibility. Simplified Combat Mech seems to hew closer to the Battletech type with fixed hardpoints and just a little flexibility if we can swing it. Heavy Firebase Crawler is your artillery quad mech with enhanced loadout and stability. Converted Industrial Walker, ironically, mirrors the origin of the humble Zaku!

I haven't decided yet, I'm torn between simplified combat mech and converted industrial walker. We're going for cheap but efficient here.
 
[X] Heavy Firebase Crawler [Multi-legged Chassis], [+] Heavy Weapons Options, [+] Limb Redundancy adds Survivability, [-] Reduced Agility and Flexibility, [-] Harder to Pilot

I'll be honest, purely going off aesthetics for this one :V
 
[X] Heavy Firebase Crawler [Multi-legged Chassis], [+] Heavy Weapons Options, [+] Limb Redundancy adds Survivability, [-] Reduced Agility and Flexibility, [-] Harder to Pilot
[X] Converted Industrial Walkers [Bipedal Chassis], [+] Extra Funding, [+] Cheap and Easy to Build, [+] Strong Lift Capacity, [-] Slow Movement, [-] System Needs an Overhaul to make Combat-Ready
 
[X] Converted Industrial Walkers [Bipedal Chassis], [+] Extra Funding, [+] Cheap and Easy to Build, [+] Strong Lift Capacity, [-] Slow Movement, [-] System Needs an Overhaul to make Combat-Ready

Strong and cheap..
hmm, I thinking somethign like a Resvant Veed might be something to aim for.
Staffs would of course be replaced with guns, handheld ones for the proper arms.
The back mounted arms being made as simple turret mechanisms, likely repurposed tank guns. Or robot sized machine guns. Or whatever the owner wants to place on them, provided they can fit the standard attachment point.
The robe is a disposable ablative armor plates, designed to be discarded as they get destroyed to improve mobility, and easily replaced once back to a base. Possibly as a simple attachment frame that can be filled/made with what armor is available.
Very defensive mecha more for holding a position or protecting something, just shrugging off normal levels of firepower long enough for it's multiple weapons to overwhelm the attacker.
 
[X] Simplified Combat Mech [Bipedal Chassis], [+] Build Speeds & Maintenance Requirements, [-] Reduced Tactical Effectiveness
 
[X] Converted Industrial Walkers [Bipedal Chassis], [+] Extra Funding, [+] Cheap and Easy to Build, [+] Strong Lift Capacity, [-] Slow Movement, [-] System Needs an Overhaul to make Combat-Ready
[X] Simplified Combat Mech [Bipedal Chassis], [+] Build Speeds & Maintenance Requirements, [-] Reduced Tactical Effectiveness
 
[X] Simplified Combat Mech [Bipedal Chassis], [+] Build Speeds & Maintenance Requirements, [-] Reduced Tactical Effectiveness
[X] Heavy Firebase Crawler
 
[X] Heavy Firebase Crawler [Multi-legged Chassis], [+] Heavy Weapons Options, [+] Limb Redundancy adds Survivability, [-] Reduced Agility and Flexibility, [-] Harder to Pilot

So are we limited to just humanoid designs? I was thinking of making a bug mech specifically of the classic beetle. Big, bulky, heavily armored, shield generators in the arms and shoulders, and a lightning generator in the horn for electrical discharges and EMPs. Vilamasta or Vilanox from Spectrobes is kinda the body shape I am going for this.

Robots can be in any shape or form. Why should we stick to a bipedal design? I also find bipedal designs to be a tad overdone. We need variety here!
 
Last edited:
Adhoc vote count started by Verisaimilitude on Jan 12, 2025 at 10:40 PM, finished with 17 posts and 12 votes.
  • [X] Converted Industrial Walkers [Bipedal Chassis], Extra Funding, Cheap and Easy to Build, Strong Lift Capacity, Slow Movement, System Needs an Overhaul to make Combat-Ready
    [X] Simplified Combat Mech [Bipedal Chassis], Build Speeds & Maintenance Requirements, Reduced Tactical Effectiveness
    [X] Heavy Firebase Crawler [Multi-legged Chassis], Heavy Weapons Options, Limb Redundancy adds Survivability, Reduced Agility and Flexibility, Harder to Pilot
    [X] Budget Zaibatsu Clone [Bipedal Chassis], Flexible Design Appeals to Many Customers, Challenging to Design
Click to expand...


The vote is currently a 3-way tie - looks like we've got a tight race to decide the design!
 
[X] Converted Industrial Walkers [Bipedal Chassis], [+] Extra Funding, [+] Cheap and Easy to Build, [+] Strong Lift Capacity, [-] Slow Movement, [-] System Needs an Overhaul to make Combat-Ready

Cheap and strong, not very fast but enough to hold the line
 
SeaTheTree said:
Cheap and strong, not very fast but enough to hold the line
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But wouldn't the firebase crawler be better? The multilimbed design is more stable due to a lower profile and an extra pair of legs, allows us to place a lot more armor on it, and is able to hold more weapon systems which matches exactly what we have been hired to make. Being harder to pilot is practically a safety feature preventing a person from jumping in the cockpit and running off with it or worse turning it against the defenders.
 
Last edited:
Andres Marrero said:
But wouldn't the firebase crawler be better? The multilimbed design is more stable due to a lower profile and an extra pair of legs, allows us to place a lot more armor on it, and it able to hold more weapon systems which matches exactly what we have been hired to make. Being harder to pilot is practically a safety feature preventing a person from jumping in the cockpit and running off with it or worse turning it against the defenders.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
but it also means higher training costs/duration per operator which adds up. Crawlers sound better for specialist units that can eat that extra training cost and time, not as mass-production workhorse mechs.
 
Last edited:
Silversun17 said:
but it also means higher training costs per operator which adds up. Crawlers sound better for specialist units that can eat that extra training cost and time, not as mass-production workhorse mechs.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
However we were hired to make cheap and reliable defensive mechs. That means that as long as the mech has a long operation time and is easy to repair it more than justifies the extra training hours, and for something being mass produced you don't want some random person jumping in one and taking control of it. That would be both a security and safety hazard. Bipedal designs aren't as good for defensive action due to having a tall profile and a vulnerability to being knocked over which would undermine the whole purpose of a defensive workhorse. Defense means little if the formation is easily broken by knocking over a few guys.
 
Last edited:
Silversun17 said:
but it also means higher training costs/duration per operator which adds up. Crawlers sound better for specialist units that can eat that extra training cost and time, not as mass-production workhorse mechs.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd argue it's the other way around: more survivable mechs means more mech pilots survive to get good, and to pass their experience on to new pilots.

Making the mech cheaper just means our buyers pays the cost in lives--and in additional training costs for replacement pilots, of course.
 
DecaffeinatedOwl said:
I'd argue it's the other way around: more survivable mechs means more mech pilots survive to get good, and to pass their experience on to new pilots.

Making the mech cheaper just means our buyers pays the cost in lives--and in additional training costs for replacement pilots, of course.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They cant afford higher tech, and i would assume they have the population to handle the cost in lives. You also will have to get better pilots to handle better tech which would take more time to train and less overall pilots that can handle a higher tech mech.

It also helps that we are basically modifiying a construction mech which is easier to use
 
SeaTheTree said:
They cant afford higher tech, and i would assume they have the population to handle the cost in lives. You also will have to get better pilots to handle better tech which would take more time to train and less overall pilots that can handle a higher tech mech.

It also helps that we are basically modifiying a construction mech which is easier to use
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
None of the options are higher tech. The "most" high tech option is trying to make the Zaibatsu but cheaper, the rest are ways to accommodate the fact that we can't equal the Zaibatsu on its own merits with the budget we have. And, frankly, from a meta standpoint, none of them would be options if our buyers for sure couldn't afford them.

Which is the other reason not to settle for up-gunning an industrial mech, actually--these are not third-world countries we're selling to, these are more like Sweden or Israel. If their own military-industrial complex produces something better than our offer, even if it's more expensive, they're going to take that and sell it to other Second Tier states that can afford it. We need to make something that is actually good, not just cheap.
 
SeaTheTree said:
They cant afford higher tech, and i would assume they have the population to handle the cost in lives. You also will have to get better pilots to handle better tech which would take more time to train and less overall pilots that can handle a higher tech mech.

It also helps that we are basically modifiying a construction mech which is easier to use
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What higher tech? The firebase crawler frame isn't high tech at all and we were hired to make cheap and reliable defensive mechs. Giving what the customer asked for is business 101 and expecting the customer to pay in lives is a very poor business strategy.
 
[X] Heavy Firebase Crawler [Multi-legged Chassis], [+] Heavy Weapons Options, [+] Limb Redundancy adds Survivability, [-] Reduced Agility and Flexibility, [-] Harder to Pilot

Do I want to pen us entirely into Multi-legged chassis? No, Do I want to Cover A Crab Mech in a veritable Carapace of missiles and guns? yes
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top