Why mechs and not insect like machines?

You assume that one leg of the 6 = one leg of the 2.

More legs = smaller legs = cheaper legs.

Maybe the 6 legs cost as much as the 2 bigger ones?

 

Your logic is flawed, just becuse you have more legs doesnt mean they can be smaller. Unless you have a drastic amount like a centipede or something. If we had 6 legs for the most part theyd be the same size maybe slightly smaller but not much becuase our legs in the end have to be a certain size just to be able to function properly. Think about it if we had 6 legs from your logic that would mean each of our legs could be 1/6 of the size that they are now. That basically means we get the foot and ankle which will make us way less manuevrable than we are now.

 

The thing you neglect to realize is that when a 4+ legged mech is walking, the legs on each side move forward in a near-linear pattern. That means that once you place the front leg on each side in a "safe spot," then all of the legs behind it will land in roughly the same spot as the front legs. When you drive, you do not have to think about where the rear tires are going to be, they will follow the track of the front tires, so you only have to look ahead and judge how to get around obstacles in front of you.

Although your "more legs, more moving parts" argument is good, you take it to the extreme. When does an 18-wheeler simultaneously get 18 flat tires?

In the United States Air Force, we do not have just one plane that is made to fight planes, tanks, helicopters, ships, etc. We have different planes which are suited to different needs for different environments and situations. This also extends to our armored division. One tank doesn't carry troops, fight tanks, work as anti-infantry, act as an anti-aircraft unit, and siege enemy positions.

Now let us extend this analogy to Mechs. Developing ONLY a two-legged mech or ONLY a six-legged mech would be much the same thing; trying to have one unit do everything. Let's just imagine that mechs have been available in every major modern conflict of our time.

If I was a policing force in Baghdad, would I want a giant, 6-legged mech that emphasizes stability? No, that would be ridiculous, Baghdad is a modern city with an infrastructure, and having 6 legs would make it hard to move along city streets and unnecessary. Guerilla fighters could just wait until the mech passed their building, then launch 15 RPGs at its ass, and all it would be able to do would be to move forward and keep taking RPGs to the ass. I would want a small, 2-legged mech that can move quickly down roads and can turn quickly to face fire and resistance from any direction.

Similarly, if I was being deployed on patrol in Vietnam, would I want a two-legged mech? No, I would want something that could deal with the irregular and often totally foreign terrain in which I was located. Or fighting in the mountains in Afghanistan in the 80s as Russia against the Taleban - a two legged mech would slip down the side of the mountain, or trip up on a rock, or get its foot caught in a crevasse or any other multitude of possibilities.

If I was fighting in the desert, or in the tundra, chasing enemy forces or wanting maneuverability, would I want a 6-legged mech? No, a two legged mech, like the AT-ST Chickenwalker from Empire Strikes Back would be faster and more agile on the relatively uniform terrain. Same situation, but this time I want to carry lots of supplies; a 6-legged mech would spread out its weight over a larger area and not sink into the sand/snow. This assumes, though, that both types of mechs are using wide feet to distribute their weight better.

Now take it to space. Multiply the possible configurations of terrain by the number of planets on which you may have to fight. Factor in other variables such as heat, pressure, corrosive gases, gravity, and the other sorts of stress or space-phenonmena that a mech might come under that we don't even know about. Now try to argue for either a 2- or 6-legged mech.

I started this post out as arguing for 6-legged mechs, but I think as you can see I have changed my mind. Different situations call for different tactics and units. I think the good thing about a goliath, however, is that it is so small in relation to the size of other mechs in movies and games, that it has a lower center of gravity, and therefore is not as vulnerable to tripping. It's more like a slightly scaled- and beefed-up marine in a power suit than a giant mech-walker-thing.

*phew*

 

well i guess it would be too complex to make them and we're just lazy to find out an easy way . there are also more things that can go wrong with having more legs, and well, it just doesn't suit the terrans style.

 

Lazy? If anything, sticking with more legs than 2 is lazy. Why do you think trucks have so many wheels? Not because we couldn't solve it with 4 wheels, it's because the cost of the 4 strengthened wheels would be more than the advantage gained (considering the technology at our disposal)
While I agree that both forms have their advantages and disadvantages, I still think the multi-legged form has more. The only reason terrans will have bipedals is because it's more humanoid and easier to accept.

 

Im firm on the fact that the reason Terrans have bipedal machines is that it's a computer game.

 

Ah ha! You raise an interesting point.. touche Judicator... Touche.

 

Out of all the arguements I believe this is the truest of all.

 

Way to ruin the topic...

WtF are u tinking 6 legs > 2 legs and all that jazz, pls continue the discussion

I still think, that 4-6 legged units will be more stable at taking enemy fire, or just digging in when shooting.

And you can have a small 4 legged mech in Baghdad. Think the little spider drone from Red Alert.

 

If I was going to have a 6 legged mech I would just turn it into a hover tank or treads, personally.

 

whoa whoa whoa

don't go changing the subject once we have 3 good pages of discussion going on...don't bringi in hover tanks and sh*t, we're talking about mechs

@ DKutrovsky - I don't think a spider drone qualifies though, because it is not piloted by a human being

 

They very well might be, i mean cmon, humans control all sorts of wierd machines, i doubt a spider like machine will be such a problem.

Think airplanes, submarines, cranes etc

 

no i mean since there is no pilot in the spider drone, it is not considered a mech

and that part about the mechs in Baghdad was an example to prove a point, not a firm statement of my beliefs about the ins and outs and different strategies of mech deployment in modern conflicts

 

I am saying if I was argusing about 6 legged mechs - why not go with mechs without legs and have a hover tank chassis? Basically its a 6 legged mech without the legs?

For me, its the hip that gives me problems with 6 legged mechs. 6 legs is allot of leg space and would require a large hip, I would imagine. If the hip was increased so large why not give it a tank chassis and hover or tread capabilities. Then think of the mechanics nightmare when a pilot reports, "Hey sarge I need you to look at my 6 legged mecha. I believe one of the legs are malfunctioning and i am not sure which one. Can you check all of them?" Now imagine the two legged mecha pilot, "Hey sarge I need you to look at my 2 legged mecha. I believe one of the legs are malfunctioning and i am not sure which one. Can you check all of them?"

Which one would you like to look at first? The 6 legged or two legged mech?

 

I would guess the reason you wouldnt use some kind of hover porpulsion is that it probally couldnt take as much wheight as legs which would be less armor for a tank.......
and the reason not to go the tread route is they probaly arnt as manucerable as legs.

As to the actual topic while i can see why 2 legs wouldnt be a very good idea because of balance 6 legs seems like to much almost to the point of overkil why have 6 big expensive metal legs when 3-4 would do the job just as well?


EDIT: On another note the way humans walk is sorta a controlled fall as we move forward until we need to stop then we gain balance i cant possibly imagine how that would be a good idea for any sort of machine.

 

The thing about 3-6 legged mechs is they have two key weaknesses....

1. If at least 1-4 legs are hit they are down on the ground and basically is destroyed.
2. 3-6 legs also allows for attacks to avoid there attacks and get into the "Belly of the Beast" and launch attacks unhindered from underneath. This would be crippling.

Now 2 legged mechs have the same chance to fall over as a 3 legged mech, but, since two legs can support something why not? I mean if the same effect comes from 3-6 legs without the susceptibility to attacks from underneath would you take that advantage if your fighting an enemy that consist largely of melee units?A Psi Blade rammed up your crack is not something I want to imagine for anyone...

3-6 Legs Pros: +Stability +Firepower Capability +Movement over obstacles +Armor +Expansion Capability
3-6 Legs Cons: -Underbelly -Stability(In case of losing a leg) -Size -Turning Capabilities -Weight -Transport

2 Legs Pros: +Stability +Firepower Capability +Size +Movement through cramped spaces +Weight +Transport +Expansion Capability
2 Legs Cons: -Stability -Firepower Capability -Movement over obstacles -Armor

I think I would choose 2 over 3-6 imo

 

^^3-6 legs are more stable than 2
the only Pro that 2 has that 2-6 doesn't is transport...how can 3-6 not also transport stuff?

It's not a question of one or the other, it's a question of what would be more suited to the environment and the needs you have in the conflict

 

the reason why terran dont have 2+ legged machines is because Protoss already have like 3 of them!
Making more 3-6 legged machines would be boring.
IAM more surprized they only have ONE tank in the entire game. Siege Tank. thats it.
Really strange, Terran should have another tank too

 

I meant transport as in the abilty to be transported off the battlefield by say a dropship or to the likes. As something say like a Dragoon/Goliath take up 4/2 spots in a Dropship/Shuttle/Overlord. This factor included a six legged mech would most likely be too large to fit in a transport. That is discluding the Thor as its just too big anyway. The point is six legged mechs would be too much hassle. Thats why I included transport in the cons. The whole point of my Pros on Cons for each was to show that even if both mechs were to be chosen between I would rather have the 2 legged than 6, unless, I was going to be a Fortress of Doom that could not be penetrated by any psi, claw, or artillery barrage and would ravage my enemies in one blow from my
cannons of death. Just saying.

 

i guess the terrans like to model their machines on themelves