This is at least partially off-set by the fact that mechs have large gyroscopes to stabilize them. Damage the gyro and they do suffer stability penalties.
The US started installing stabilizers on their tank guns as far back as WWII. I've seen gun-cam footage of modern MBT that are able to hold a point of aim while the chassie of the tank is bouncing all over in rough terrain. It does not seem unlikely that Mechs have similar systems to off set some of the issues with their system of locomotion while on the move.
Despite having "limbs and muscles" mechs are still mechanical constructs, not flesh and blood, so its not unreasonable that they could more stable platforms for weapons than a human being. They don't generally suffer fatigue from holding a rifle in the firing position or standing for long periods of time. They don't get the shakes from too much coffee or not enough sleep or other issues that humans have.
Now, from a real-life persective you are perfectly correct, given equal tech there are likely very few advantages to an upright, humanoid fighting vehicle as opposed to a low slung tank-like format. However, people play BattleTech becuase they want to play with big stompy robots. If they want "realistic" there are any number of other historical and SF games they could chose. ;)
Its funny, I actually consider the 3050 Clan OmniMechs some of my least favorite looking designs. Strickly on looks, I much prefer the the old SLDF or contemporary IS designs over the first generation Clan stuff. Now, some of the latter developments of the original Clan designs (Vulture IV or Mad Cat II) are much better looking, IMO at least! ;)
Yes they have gyros and likely stabilization systems to allow them to achieve an acceptable degree of accuracy. It doesn't change the fact that the walking gait adds a great deal of side to side movement as well as up and down. A tank doesn't have the swaying motion to compensate for and a large portion of the up and down motion is already damped by the suspension which means less work for the stabilizers. The tank is still inherently a more stable firing platform.
The muscle issue isn't really a matter of fatigue or to much coffee. When you're shooting prone the bones in your body line up behind the gun and the recoil forces are transferred directly down the ridged structure into the ground with minimal movement due to recoil. When you're standing you don't have that ridged structure to absorb the recoil and have to rely on muscles to counter the recoil. You can't apply the force to counter the recoil before the shot because that would push the shot off target. Which means you have to react and apply the force after the weapon goes off, which wouldn't be too difficult if using a computer to time the counter force when the weapon is fired. That doesn't change the fact that muscles still have more give than a ridged bone structure, the fact you are firing from a high center of gravity on a body that has a large number of flex points and low surface contact area. The ridged, low set, inflexible tank body with its higher surface contact handles recoil much much better than a 'Mech can.
We can still have 'Mechs and make it semi believable. I mean we're playing BattleTech The Game of
Armored Combat! :D Hanse uses tanks and if it's good enough for him and the Horses it's good enough for me! Vehicles are heavily penalized in what's supposed to be a game of armored combat, why can't they get a bone or two thrown their way? Tracked and wheeled vehicles get -1 to all ballistic weapon attacks or something.
The problem here is you're mixing reality with a game about robots.
In this game hovers can't go through woods. Mechs go right through them.
Wheeled vehicles can't go through water. Mechs move right through it.
Mechs can have double heat sinks, vehicles can't.
A mech takes a crits to the leg it slows down. Vehicles do too but it's highly more likely that they'll just stop moving.
Mechs have gyros and use the inner ear of the pilot for stability.
Yes I know vehicles are hampered by a number of illogical and a few logical restrictions to ensure 'Mechs are "the best." However I don't think that mixing a little reality is a problem. It's more work perhaps, but it also creates a more believable and richer setting.
For example: Why would tracked vehicles be restricted from heavy woods? In 1940 the German army blitzed through the Ardennes, in 1944 the Battle of the Bulge took place in the Ardennes. That ancient and Heavy forest didn't prevent tanks from moving through it.
'Mechs are slowed by trees because they're pushing through the branches and can't see their feet, much like if you were to push through tall bushes. Tanks on the other hand are low enough to actually be under the bottom branches while moving through woods. The tank would only have to slow down to navigate about the boles in a heavy forest, +0 movement modifier for light woods, +1 for heavy.
Obviously tanks can't ford depth 1 or greater water as depth 1 would cover them entirely. That's one of the logical restrictions and one of the in game advantages of 'Mechs, along with pushing heat, lack of exposed motive systems, jump jets, DHS, and more available tonnage.
It's a game of armored combat, giving tanks and other vees some actual advantages not shared by 'Mechs makes for a more interesting and dynamic game. A good example being hovercraft: you can easily make a hover with more speed, firepower and armour than a scout 'Mech. But the 'Mech can move through terrain that the hover can't, and it can have jump jets allowing it to ignore terrain, and it can make melee attacks. It also didn't have to worry about getting it's motive system destroyed by non penetrating hits.
Hovers have some serious advantages and disadvantages compared to 'Mechs. Non hovers, especially tracked vehicles, don't. They will always carry slightly less firepower, be more vulnerable, and suffer greater movement restrictions. Letting them move through woods faster and be more accurate, doesn't just make more sense from a realism point, but also creates more interesting gameplay.
If they weren't the toughest, most stable and best option for a weapons platform in this game we wouldn't be using them. It would be a game with only tanks, infantry,BA and protos.
Illogical. If the military only used what was the absolute best than the US would have never adopted the 9mm parabellum and .223 would have been replaced by something with more stopping power.
We use 'Mechs in the game because the rules discriminate against vehicles. However that doesn't have to be the case. I pointed out a couple of things above that could be done to create a more balanced game where vees have their uses on the table top like they do in the fluff. Without removing 'Mechs as the most versatile war machine, with the most raw firepower.
The funny thing is that the fluff treats tanks much better than the rules do. Even all the "'Mechs are kings of the battlefield" is mostly just cultural bias and the "proof" is situations horribly stacked against vees. Its very much a late middle ages knights vs yeoman situation. The Davion RCTs and later LCTs, the Republic's descison to create a vee heavy army, just prove that the complete superiority of the 'Mech is a carefully cultivated cultural bias. The Mackie v Merkava VI is the perfect example of this bias.
The Mackie v Merkava VI test is frequently held up as the "proof" that battlemechs are overwhelmingly superior to vehicles. And that test followed by several early engagements created the myth of 'Mech superiority. A myth carefully cultivated by the nobility to help ensure their power. Much like knighthood was carefully built up and exaggerated to preserve the medieval power structure.
However the Mackie v Merkava VI test and the other early engagements aren't really proof that 'Mechs are the inherently superior war machine. The Mackie had a third more mass over the Merkava VI (already obsolete before the test) 100 tons v 75 tons. The Merkava had a significantly heavier ICE engine vs the lightweight fusion engine of the Mackie. The Mackie had 4x the armor (20 tons vs 5 tons) and three main guns vs one. The Mackies three weapons all were as or more powerful than those carried by the Merkava. On top of that the Merkavas used in the "test" had their longest range and arguably most powerful weapon (LRM10 launcher) removed! Furthermore the tanks weren't crewed but rather drone controlled reducing their already obsolete, defanged and underpowered abilities even further. It's no wonder the Mackie was able to crush them so savagely, or that in other engagements similar results were achieved against similarly underpowered targets. And thus the battlemech myth was born.
We're finally starting to see tanks getting their proper respect and power in a lot of the new fluff. It's a refreshingly honest change as we see tanks like the Behemoth II crushing 'Mech forces. I can only hope as we move into a fluff where combined arms and tanks are more prominent and powerful that we see player mentalities and game rules shift from "this is a 'Mech game" to "this is a game of armored combat."
Back on the topic of the thread, I just got all my father in laws BattleTech stuff for Christmas! Flipped through the Phoenix TRO and I actually liked quite a few of the designs. Really looking forward to painting the reseen Shadow Hawk he had. Going to finish removing paint off all the 'Mechs tonight so I can get started on the painting.
Tempted to paint the plastic 'Mechs from the Third Edition box he gave me, but that decision can wait cause I've suddenly got: two Battle Masters, two T-bolts, an Archer, a Rifleman, a Shadow Hawk, a Wolverine, a Wolfhound, a Demolisher II, two Von Luckner's, two... Pegasus', a Long Tom, two MASH trucks, a Mobile HQ and a Sedlyitz to paint first :P
