2008-05-23, 18:13 | Link #261 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
|
Quote:
The Heavy Gear 1 and 2 computer games, on the other hand, seemed to me to owe more to MechWarrior 2 than to Front Mission - my recollections of HG1 are that Activision actually recycled the MechWarrior engine wholesale, with sometimes hilarious results (snub cannons as effective anti-Gear weapons? Gears still fighting with legs blown off?). |
|
2008-05-25, 10:58 | Link #264 |
Truth Martyr
Author
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 38
|
Or where fleet carriers hold, wait for it, twelve mecha.
Seriously, a Gundam vs Macross matchup leads to the gundam pratagonists being horribly, horribly, screwed. Especially a SEED Destiny vs VF-19 matchup; VF-19s and -22s use fusion reactors unaffected by N-jammers, plus they have active stealth that scrambles radar and heat sensors, AND pinpoint barriers. The only reason the Destiny cast have a snowball's chance in hell of winning is because Gundam fanboys outnumber Macross otaku.
__________________
|
2008-05-25, 11:32 | Link #265 |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Not that this isn't a silly argument (my applied phlebotinum is stronger than your applied phlebotinum!), but NJ messes with radars and sensors too, so everyone would be fighting blind. Or at least, nearsighted. And Phase Shift Armor is very resistant to missiles and bullets.
But yeah, Macross would win through sheer numbers. |
2008-05-25, 12:29 | Link #266 |
Catholic = Cat addiction?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: MURICA!!
|
Gundam's Shift Armor can be assumed to be approximately of the same construction as Macross' reactive/energy armor. Except the latter is always on, while the former is far more suspect to disruption. That and SEED Gundams have a pathetic excuse for a fuel capacity.
But never-mind that. Anh_Minh summed it up pretty correctly: "Its the economics, stupid!" Seriously, it would appear the folks in Gundam are fond of building colonies, but never settling on a planet, except for a few readily available ones in the solar system, such as the Moon and Mars. - Tak |
2008-05-25, 12:45 | Link #267 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
|
Completely forgot about that fact. That alone is probably sufficient enough to tip balance towards Macross.
The other thing to consider is the fighting styles the mecha pilots employ. In Macross, they make it very clear that at high-velocity engagements the weapons of choice are primarily long range weapons. When things slow down or the engagement occurs on the ground, then melee/close-combat tactics are viable. In Gundam, this distinction between long range vs close range is blurred during high-velocity engagements. It is not unusual to see Gundam pilots employing hand-to-hand weapons in the middle of a high velocity engagement. Personally I think Macross pilots get the upper hand because they'll control range and nature of the engagement.....but this is all just a rehash of the great mecha debates between Gundam and Macross that have been going on for the last 20+ years and I have no interest of opening up that can of worms in this forum. |
2008-05-25, 12:51 | Link #268 | |||||
Truth Martyr
Author
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 38
|
Quote:
As for PSA - yeah, it's resistant to bullets and missiles. On the other hand, I'm doubtful a battery-powered PSA-equipped unit could tank a full on M3 and not lose its PSA. That said IMO PSA is a lot better than EC armor in terms of ballistic/kinetic protection. Then again VF-19s have beam guns... and beams >> PSA. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for silliness... i'm a vetarn of silly debates in the Nanoha boards on the speeds of magical beams. It got to the point when I used the story of the bumble flying despite supposedly being aerodynamically incapable of doing so as an allegory for the silliness of these debates... and the most stubborn voiceferous debator went and explained to me how I was wrong and bumblebees can fly in accordance with aerodynamics. I've always wondered how a debate between arkangelsk and Wesley84 would look like. Definately a match made in internet hell. What would really make the VF-19 and VF-22 monsters would be to give them PSA... Hmmm on a tangent, I think probably the only reason the UN Spacy still uses solid slug gunpods is because ballistic weapons still have a higher rate of fire than energy guns.
__________________
|
|||||
2008-05-25, 12:59 | Link #269 | ||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
As for the Gundam's fuel capacity... Yeah. Except the nuclear ones who aren't Destiny. Still, that'd make it a fight of a gazillion valkyries against half a dozen Gundams? Quote:
Cerrian: why would the macross side control the range? I'd think it would be whoever is faster and more maneuverable, and how are we to determine who that is? |
||
2008-05-25, 13:02 | Link #270 | |||
Truth Martyr
Author
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2008-05-25, 13:22 | Link #271 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
|
Quote:
The reason I believe the Macross side has the ability to control the range and nature of an engagement with a Gundam is that to me it appears that the VFs and Gundams are on par in terms of speed and maneuverability (actually the VFs feel a bit more agile). Combine that with the flexibility of the VF's weapons payload, then I believe the VFs will almost always have the choice of where and when they want to engage a gundam as the gundam will never be able to cutoff a VF's retreat option nor will it force a VF to engage on Gundam's terms. |
|
2008-05-25, 18:25 | Link #272 | |||
Catholic = Cat addiction?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: MURICA!!
|
I guess its sooner or later we would have a discussion regarding the relative physics of the Gundam and Macross universes. While Macross is largely consistent regarding its own physics, Gundam is anything but. On one hand, you have Gundams in Z and ZZ doing unbelievable things, while on the other hand, you have Gundams in War in the Pocket or MS08 Team pretty much screaming WEAK SAUCE all over. Even Gundam SEED itself is terribly inconsistent, but I guess it makes good comparison since for some odd reason, we believe it to be the most relevant.
Quote:
It would appear only the UN SPACY still rely on kinetic weaponry, although energy weaponry is readily available and in large quantities. But should we even analyze those 'kinetic' weaponry using the same physical rules we apply to today's weaponry? I don't think we should. Nevertheless, during the duel between Impulse and Freedom, a well placed shot by Shinn from his pulse rifle pretty much went through the Freedom's PSA and blew its side in pieces. And we know the pulse rifle is not a very spectacular weapon. Quote:
Which is another advantage to Macross. Quote:
Moreover, VF weapons tend to have longer range than Gundams, because the former is equipped with missiles, and lots of them. In theory, VFs can engage enemies at a considerable range before they are threatened. Although I don't know why most of the named (and grunts) Gundams are never equipped with missile weapons. - Tak Last edited by Tak; 2008-05-25 at 23:26. |
|||
2008-05-25, 20:21 | Link #273 |
Truth Martyr
Author
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 38
|
I just want to point out before I run to work that PSA is the Gundarium/Luna Titanium of the 21st century, and it has been explicitly stated that while kinetic weapons - even Gundam railguns - do jack shit to PSA, beams can disrupt PSA and blast through.
It's really just an excuse to make beam sabers viable in SEED. In the original Gundam, Minovsky Particles screwed up radar and heat sensors, so people HAD to close to visual range to fight. N-jammer interferance, now that I think about it some more, may or may not interefere with the guidance packages of the missiles Ozma was packing, unless, as is always assumed, micromissiles are heatseekers (mostly because IR seeker heads are smaller than SARH or active radar seeekers). THough there is the fold induction transmission system. In an atmospheric fight VFs have the advantage; on the other hand however they can't take as much punishment as Gundam. But IMO the best part of Macross is just the fact that you don't need to be an Ace to make a difference. Though it can't hurt; that's how Max snagged Millia afterall. As for the UN Spacy still using kinetic weapons, I'm of the opinion that it's because they can't make a rapidfire laser gun yet that's practical, and gatlings still have higher rates of fire compared to NUNS beam weapons.
__________________
|
2008-05-25, 21:01 | Link #274 | |
Catholic = Cat addiction?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: MURICA!!
|
Quote:
Never-mind that Zentradi weapons are mostly energy-based, with the sole exception to homing weapons, the VF-22, itself being based on the Queadluun-Rau, is also fitted with energy based weaponry. And it is a mass production model. The Queadluun-Rea itself is equipped with twin, tri-barreled particle beam cannon, thus particle weapons in that category can be manufactured. Moreover, We can assume that Mikhail's sniper rifle is also energy based. I can only assume the kinetic weapons carry with them some special properties, which cannot be compared to weapons from Macross 1982, and thus allow their deployment en masse. - Tak Last edited by Tak; 2008-05-25 at 21:16. |
|
2008-05-25, 22:29 | Link #275 | |
Illegal Additives
Join Date: Jun 2004
|
Quote:
Looking at the performance of the Macross energy weapons against the gunpods, I'd say that the definate advantage is the penetration power of the kinetic weapons. IMO, the armour used is probably better able to protect against beam type weapons than a solid metal slug travelling at supersonic speeds.Of course, the armour used for a VB-6, Vajra red bug and a full armour VF is solid enough to shrug off anything less than a dedicated anti-armour weapon. Case in point is KK using her heavy energy cannon at zero distance and only cracking the armour. Nasty piece of work that bug. Probably explains why the VF-25 has a energy blade- for situations requiring the use of a can opener without the ensuing nuclear detonation. Another way would be to deliver an overpowering explosive payload that surpasses the defensive output of the EC armour. A QR is usually guilty of that, but even then it may not work >_< Considering that Gundams are built first as space based mecha, how about a match up against the Queadluun-Rea/Rau? The QR is also a dedicated space operations mech [next to the fact that there's usually a hot giantess inside that can tear a VF apart with her bare hands ], and I'd put my money down on Zentradi quality for the following reasons. 1. Missile spam- 120 of them. 2. 5 guns for the 'ball of death effect'. 3. High rate of turn and accelleration. Good enough to narrowly spin out of the way of a sweeping beam weapon. A QR is a close assault weapons platform. It isn't as useful in melee, nuclear delivery or shooting at range which is where a VF does better. |
|
2008-05-25, 23:14 | Link #276 | |
Catholic = Cat addiction?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: MURICA!!
|
Quote:
In addition, we do not know the physical properties of gunpod ammunition used in Macross Frontier. Although I believe it is possible for them to penetrate even PSA armor after a few well placed bursts. - Tak |
|
2008-05-26, 07:38 | Link #277 | |||||
Truth Martyr
Author
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Yes particle weapons in the gatling category can be manufactured, but kinetic weapons are still a lot more practical for uber rapid fire. All valks have had energy guns of some sort. The VF-19 and VF-22, despite having significant amounts of beam weapons, however, still use gatling gunpods as their primary weapons - the valk with the beam gunpod you're thinking of was the beam adapter used on Gamlin's VF-17S gunpod; the VF-19 and -22 use gunpods firing solid ammo (cased for the VF-19 and caseless for the VF-22). The air defense destroids we saw on docked with Quarter were also using twin gatlings instead of lasers because when you're intercepting enemy fire you want as much lead up there as you can, and the only way you can do that short of a Metal Storm system is with a gatling. As to why there weren't any shell casings flying around: caseless ammo. The VF-22 already uses it, and caseless ammo means you get a slight increase in ammo and don't have to worry about shell casings. Quote:
Quote:
Besides, comparing "pewpewpewpewpew" or "pew-pew-pew-pew-pew" and "WHHIRRRBBRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNGGGGG", most fighter pilots would rather go for the gun with the higher rate of fire. I know I would. In dogfighting, gunfights are basically planting out a crapload of lead where you hope/think/anticipate your target will be, and your chances of scoring a hit go up with the more rounds you put out. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Last edited by Wild Goose; 2008-05-26 at 07:49. |
|||||
2008-05-26, 07:58 | Link #278 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
|
If anyone open up a gun of any kind, you will find in the end, very simply designs taken to its respective max. While I understand the debate of energy weapons over kinetics. I would trust Kinetics over energy anyday. As Wild Goose said, the most complex, the more often it will break down and the more often it will fail.
Until Energy weapon have the same complexity level as your Ak-47 or M4-carbine, I will stick with Kinetic. If you look at the AirForce they need the complex stuff. They are the only group that have to live with advance equipment to do their job. Besides they are the only ones who return to base more or less after every mission. |
2008-05-26, 08:07 | Link #279 |
Truth Martyr
Author
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Doing Anzu's paperwork.
Age: 38
|
Take the M1911A1. In almost a hundred years there has been no major change to the design. It is a testament not only to Saint John Moses Browning, who got it right with the first try, but also the fact that it's simple, it works and doesn't need to be complex. Or the revolver; about the only improvements modern revolvers have over their older counterparts are better materials and ammo. In fact with guns as much as possible you want to stay away from complexity in infantry weapons; there's a reason the unsophisticated single-shot bolt action rifle is still in service even today.
More sophisticated isn't always better; I recall a senario once where a high tech networked linked force, EXFOR, went up against the lower tech members of OPFOR at the US Army's National Training Center. The OPFOR guys had less high tech toys at their disposal... and they kicked the asses of EXFOR, so much so that EXFOR was pretty much abandoned as a concept after that. Or consider the Huey. The only differences between the new USMC UH-1Y Hueys and the old Vietnam Hueys are that the USMC Huey's just have upgraded electronics and engines; everything else is still classic Huey. |
2008-05-26, 09:52 | Link #280 | ||||||
Catholic = Cat addiction?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: MURICA!!
|
Quote:
I think it largely depends on economical and design issues. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But not even that, the Queadluun Rau have demonstrated countless times in the original Macross that their twin energy blasters not only has a rapid rate of fire, but they tend to outgun Valkyrie gunpods. - Tak |
||||||
|
|