What practical purpose do mechs/titans serve in a sci-fi setting, especially for those settings focused solely on mechs...

For most settings, mechs would offer a different balance of mobility to the battlefield. Please see Armored Core, where they're often an annoying, highly mobile, highly armored menance. Mechs should be treated as "tanks that move fast."

Mechs offer versatility not quite seen in the things OP mentioned. Aircraft are way faster than mechs. But, mechs can hold positions/objectives. Tanks can defend/siege, but mechs can swtich between different positions to defend/siege.

In Gundam specifically, the one by product of the Minovsky particle is long range targetting goes to shit. So what the fuck so they do? Make mechs to fight at medium to close range.

Tl;dr mechs are just very mobile tanks, and are able to fill the role of mobile armor/tank/artillery, but mobile.

The same role Big Zam is for.

>You can't punch Daemons in the face with a tank.
You can run'em over, though. They do a satisfying squish sound if you do.

Mobile weapons platforms

I always liked them being moderately-sized, definitely not the size of Imperial Titans/Gundams/etc.

I like to see them as being something like Super/Ultra-Heavy Infantry. Not replacing tanks or any armored vehicle really, just something more suited for urban warfare or mountainous/forested/rocky terrain. More or less a force multiplier for infantry, but should never be deployed out in the open where aircraft or actual tanks would dominate them

Did that on the tabletop once. Ran over a Great Unclean One with a Leman Russ.

There is not enough Oxi Clean in the Imperium to scrub that shit off the hull...

The reason most setting use mechs is because every time the technology that goes into them is a couple of generations ahead of whatever goes into the rest of the setting.

For some reason the advancements in material science, robotics, propulsion, energy, AI and whatever else never makes it out of mechs and into more reasonable weapon platforms.

>I like to see them as being something like Super/Ultra-Heavy Infantry. Not replacing tanks or any armored vehicle really
Heavy Gear did very well with its mechs in that regard. Still one of my favorite mech incarnations.

Ghost in the Shell also did very well with their mechs, they make a lot of sense.

An argument for it is that they have adaptability to situations in a way specialized equipment doesn't. Humans aren't all that good at anything other than making the best of a situation. A humanoid mech can take cover, it can pick up weapons and use them rather than needing them built in, likewise it can drop a weapon that doesn't function anymore. it can use cover, create cover or be cover. A mech could pick up cargo and carry it faster than a truck, crew and maybe crane that would otherwise be needed.

A human shaped mech could also (depending on how it's piloting works) be far more natural for a pilot to use. Hitting something accurately with a tank is very difficult, it requires careful measurement, lots of calculations, and plenty of trial and error. But the human body understands the fundamentals of getting point object A into distant target B on an instinctual level. Between a mech and a tank with different functionally equivalent weapons (tanks main cannon compared to the mech's rifle), I would bet that a humanoid mech could move, aim and shoot far more efficiently than a tank could.

Of course tanks would be cheaper and ultimately the number of tanks you could make for one mech would probably be more effective. But if quantity always outweighs quality, then why would we bother training navy seals when we could just be churning out more grunts? I can't imagine that a mech wouldn't have some tactical usage. Though the variables are beyond me and anyone in this thread

>What practical purpose do mechs/titans serve in a sci-fi setting, especially for those settings focused solely on mechs?

That mechs are the monument, or rather, the flag bearer to signify and demand that suspension of disbelief.

The way I see it? Because otherwise, or anything else less outrageous would tempt nerd autism over nitty gritty stuff about the setting that's wholly unnecessary.

>A humanoid mech can take cover, it can pick up weapons and use them rather than needing them built in, likewise it can drop a weapon that doesn't function anymore. it can use cover, create cover or be cover. A mech could pick up cargo and carry it faster than a truck, crew and maybe crane that would otherwise be needed.
The thing is, when you have the technology to build a humanoid mech, you can also build a much better weapon platform that has all of those advantages and none of the disadvantages of a humanoid mech.

That's the thing with mechs, people who want to justify them with plausibility always forget that technology that would make mechs possible will also be applied to other things as well.

More concretely, if you have the technology to build a humanoid mech, you're better off taking that technology and building a spider tank with a modular weapon system.

>Hitting something accurately with a tank is very difficult, it requires careful measurement, lots of calculations, and plenty of trial and error.

This isn't 1918. The M1A2 Abrams is equipped with a bevy of advanced targeting computers. They can accurately hit targets kilometers away.

>More concretely, if you have the technology to build a humanoid mech, you're better off taking that technology and building a spider tank with a modular weapon system.

Then you run into a few problems. A Spider Tank would not be able to move anywhere near as fast as a treaded tank out in the open, and there is no way you can armor the individual legs as much as the hull is.

These are problems with any walker/mech really, but I tend to find spider tanks a harder pill to swallow than twenty-foot infantry mechs

>A Spider Tank would not be able to move anywhere near as fast as a treaded tank out in the open
Add wheels/threads to the legs. Alternatively, add a "travel mode" where the tank can fold and drive around like a normal tank.

If you have the technology to build a humanoid mech, you have more than enough technology to come up with a better spider tank because a multiped is an inherently better design than a biped.

>demand that suspension of disbelief
Suspension of disbelief is not something you demand, it's something you carefully build and maintain throughout your story.

The most important tool to building and maintaining suspension of disbelief is internal consistency and plausibility (not physical realism but realism of the thought).

Look, they're just there because they look cool. Same reason gunfights in movies happen at about two meters engagement distance - because it looks cooler if both shooter and shotee are in-frame. Same reason ramming things with cars works, instead of the car crumpling like they're designed to do for the safety of the occupants. And a whole host of other similar shit.

All people want is a bit of justification to hang their suspension of disbelief from. Give that, and nobody is going to care except for the most autismal of nerds.

>Add wheels/threads to the legs. Alternatively, add a "travel mode" where the tank can fold and drive around like a normal tank.

I dunno.That will just up the production cost and introduce a shitton more moving parts that could get damaged and you are now stuck without a tread or a leg(s).You wouldn't really be able to transition in the pitch of battle (or ambushes), and the legs would only really be a situational step-up over the treads.

>If you have the technology to build a humanoid mech, you have more than enough technology to come up with a better spider tank because a multiped is an inherently better design than a biped.

I'm still not entirely sold on the spider tank idea. They still have the same exact limitations that a regular tank has, except they are now being thrown into environments that a tank shouldn't go to under any circumstance.

Like, if you are assaulting a mountain with a lot of caves and tunnels the enemy is striking out from. At least a more humanoid mech would be able to react faster, aiming their guns with their arms at caves from which an enemy rocket squad are held up in. Meanwhile, a Spider Tank has to rotate its turret, bring down the barrel, and adjust the legs to get a proper shot off. If I was an infantry-man, I'd rather have the mech there offering fire support for the outside portion of the attack.

>At least a more humanoid mech would be able to react faster, aiming their guns with their arms at caves from which an enemy rocket squad are held up in.
You're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions here. You have a certain image of tank, spider-tank, and humanoid mech in your mind and you're working off of that, and it's really apparent that they're on different technological levels and the humanoid mech is atleast 3 or 4 generations of technology above the other machines.

I encourage you to think differently: come up with some available technologies, come up with a task or mission that your platform needs to perform and then answer this question: "What kind of machine would be the best at that task with the available technology." I guarantee you that with any reasonable task you come up with and at any technology level, the humanoid mech will not be the best design, the only time a humanoid design makes sense is at human scale (powered armor).

Because I know it's going to come up, use reasonable battlefield tasks, of course a humanoid mech is going to be the best at looking like a human or whatever.

As it stands, you're trying to justify humanoid mechs. Work from the other end.

I'm trying to envision your spider tank, but I'm still not seeing how much better it is over the standard treads. Too many design sacrifices to justify the legs on it.

You say have a travel mode for wheels and tanks, but then why would they swap it out for the walker mode when it doesn't really improve stability of the gun? And the situations where the legs would be justified are the same situations where the weaknesses of tanks become apparent.

>I'm still not seeing how much better it is over the standard treads. Too many design sacrifices to justify the legs on it.
Except you need to compare it to a humanoid mech, not to a real tank.

I have nothing against real tanks and I'm not talking about them. This thread is about mechs, and I specifically am arguing against humanoid mechs. You can even forget about the spider tank if you want.

My specific point is this: If you have the technology to build a working humanoid mech, you can take that same technology and build something that is way better than a humanoid mech, because the humanoid form introduces too many constraints and problems and has few advantages.

have we forgotten about these little memes

they obviously have wheels unsuited for anywhere outside of a city but that could be modified

besides that their distribution of several rotating turrets solves the issue reacting faster as the proper shot is much more feasible

fuck forgot the pic of the little bastard

human legs are one of the single most efficient methods of locomotion assuming terrain is too rough for wheels or treads. I know you're incapable of "thinking differently" about humanoid form being worthless, but it's not. The human body is quite good at many things, and it's good at them all at once. We can climb, run, balance, jump, navigate treacherous terrain of many different kinds without needing to change anything.

Don't be condescending, you've offered not a single reason why humanoid mechs won't work other than "it won't be, I guarantee you". Fuck your assurance, you don't know anything more than anyone else in this thread and you've offered far less than anyone as well. If you think humanoid form is bad then give actual examples don't just reply to every legitimate reason with "nuh uh, wouldn't work because I said so".

Give us a single reason why humanoid form is completely useless and you'll at least have a fucking starting point, as it is now you're just trying to talk down to us as if you're an expert on the subject. The subject being shit that doesn't exist, which I suppose you would be an expert on seeing as your stance is built on fucking nothing.

oh and i guess i should add that this would require the eyes of the machine to be all or partially replaced with these rotating turrets

>human legs are one of the single most efficient methods of locomotion assuming terrain is too rough for wheels or treads
I'd like you to back that up with some sources.

Humans are good at running long distances over flat terrain. Four legged creatures are best at rough terrain, just look at fucking mountain goats, and look at the way insects navigate what is rough terrain for them.

You accuse me of lacking imagination and being incapable of thinking differently, however you're the one that's stuck on the humanoid form and is incapable of coming up with anything better.

Honestly, I can't come up with any reason for a large mech (say, above 3 meters) or a small robot (below 1 meter) to be humanoid.

Instead of throwing around insults and feeling attacked, why don't you try to come up with something where a humanoid mech would be the absolute best solution?

In general, to look really fucking cool. I think suspension of disbelief is basically required to believe that a mech would make it to the battlefield. Tanks and other tracked/wheeled vehicles will be able to outrun it, fixed or mobile artillery will be able to reach out further, aircraft will get a much better view of the battlefield, infantry can fit into smaller spaces and therefor take and hold territory more effectively. Plus if infantry can carry weapons systems that could kill a tank or APC, they could also carry weapons that would handily kill a mech. The most I could imagine without any suspension of disbelief is something like the Power Loader from Aliens, and even that's closer to powered armor than it is to a mech. But it makes sense, it's smaller than a forklift, it seems to be able to lift and move just as much shit, and it's intuitive to use due to it's shape.

Best explanation I've seen

I find it funny that a few fags are arguing back and forth about spider tanks and dumb crap when quadruped mechs are a thing.

Theres justification for them getting bigger for bigger attatchments, say backhoe tractor size, or crane size. See

Because they are cool, and that's the only reason you will ever need.

a mountain that hates me
its a single target with shots coming from a single direction
its pretty much just for coolness they are absolutely impracticle

>Distraction for your armor to attack without fear of reprisal.
>The enemy has enough AA or AT to hold off an advance and you need something to give you a needed edge
>One-piece armies, with a reduced need for logistical and fire support.
>Weapons literally to big to be used on anything smaller than a starship.

Practically? Absolutely none. I imagine Mechs to be like Nazi Uberweapons - they're impressively huge and amazing and inspiring and intimidating, but entirely impractical when compared to how many more tanks and aircraft could be made with the same resources.

I definitely think it's a suspension of disbelief thing. But then again, sometimes there's a reason for it taht enriches the setting.

Zoids originally had their mechs as something of duelling sportsbots; not really supposed to be actual war machines, but an entertaining way to settle disputes. Over time more people poured more money into making their zoid better than the others (so they could win battles) when it became the ONLY way to solve disputes, making stupidly insane zoids. Then when the conventional and then nuclear war finally did break out, all that were left were the really good zoids. The survivors, over time, began to put moore stock into the really good zoids, believing them better than conventional forces, resulting in entire armies of the things. And then when they actually needed conventional weapons, they had 'mini' zoids that could fulfil the same role.

Or, alternatively, the Evangelions in Neon Genesis - they are the way they are because they are literal lobotimised gods that are the key to ending the world. Trying to make them any different would fuck up whatever the Plan was supposed to be - we never really find out.

Ultimately, it depends.

>practical purpose
Chicks dig giant robots

I like to bullshit an explanation the Sisters of Battle way.

Briefly put: after some conflict, it was decided the church wasn't allowed to have 'men at arms' anymore. One smartass later, the church started building an all-female army.

It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to come up with a story why some institution isn't allowed to field vehicles with weapons, yet is allowed to use mechs due to some loophole in the wording.

okay, let's take this step by step.

>why mechs instead of tanks.
better question: why would you put wheels on your tank instead of legs? Legs are far more mobile than even the best caterpillar tracks. You also get an advantage in height, which is helpful for the good old sneak-and-peak (which is what a lot of combat is)

>why not more legs? why humanoid?
more legs = more weight. A quadruped design might have an advantage in stability, and a slight advantage in dealing with some types very rough terrain (although their advantage on broken ground would be countered by their disadvantage in closed-in environments like cities or forests), but the difference between biped and quadruped isn't anywhere near the difference between tracks and biped. You still sometimes see quad-mechs, but generally they aren't worth the reduction in speed and mobility. Spider mechs would be even more over-sized and over-weight relative to their power source

>why mechs instead of aircraft
aircraft don't make anywhere near as much sense in settings with lasers and lock-on missiles. They will always have to carry less armour than a ground-based asset, and there's nothing to hide behind at 20000ft. They still have a huge advantage in speed, but a lot of mech combat relies on the ability to take cover behind a convenient hill or building and not only can an aircraft not do that to avoid getting hit, when hit they will explode like a fiery mechanical pinata from shots that would merely leave a few dents in a mech's armour.

>why not artillery?
again, mobility

this all comes with the caveat that mechs are simply part of a well-rounded combined arms approach. They can be used in conjunction with tanks, aircraft, artillery and infantry, and each type of military asset has its own role and its own place on the battlefield.

>yes, but why humanoid? It offends my autism.
not all bipedal mechs are exactly humanoid. Take one of my personal favourite mechs, the Jagermech (see pic), for example. In order to gain maximum height, and allow the pilot to peek and shoot while exposing as little of the mech as possible, the arms are raised above the cockpit instead of having them in the more traditional humanoid position.

However, as any Jagermech pilot knows, while this is very useful in the Jagermech's intended role as fire-support, sniping from a distance, it comes with drawbacks. Because the arms are the first things to be exposed they're the first things to get shot off. This is good in a sniper mech which might not have as much torso armour and can simply withdraw to a more favourable position if it loses a weapon. On the other hand, it is not so good in a brawler which is designed to take hits to the torso and needs all its weapon arms to deliver a knock-out blow as quickly as possible.

The Jagermech's central cockpit position also gives it more limited visibility than mechs which locate the cockpit in the more traditional 'head'. This is why mechs like the iconic Atlas (see pic above), which was designed to brawl with high-damage, short-range weapons, come with lower arms and a head, giving it that distinctive humanoid appearance.

Regarding point 3: space problems. In universe justification stuff.

>3. Why not just put the void shields on tanks?
void shields are generally fucking massive. They're meant to mounted on space-ships, after all.

also, the original point is that you don't need the advantages a tank gives you if you have void shields.

>Artillery and aircraft negate the need for "height advantage".
Given that 40k Titans use beam weapons a lot of the time (in general, too large and with targeting needs that make using aircraft impractical), height advantage is needed (the only weapons that titans have that they perhaps shouldn't is missiles, but there's still the advantage of making those missiles very well protected and yet still mobile)

What shock and awe?
The only thing more awe-inspiring that a Titan is direct intervention be void craft, and even that's only a maybe.

The only vehicles big enough for void shields have the same problems as Titans, though often lack the manoeuvrability and close-in capabilities (which do matter, courtesy of giant xenos and demons)

This guy knows what's up

Good ground pressure for tanks is 0,5 kg per square centimetre. If walker in question would have mass of 100 tonnes, then it's legs must be 4m*2,5m each. It's just to not sink knee deep into soil.

Ground pressure

You presume the spider tank doesn't exist as well

Do crisis suits count as mechs? They're large enough for a tau to pilot without it being considered power armor.

Tl;dr

Yes all mech settings require suspension of disbelief. They're badass but impractical.

/Thread

I would say yes. If you're considered a pilot rather than a wearer, it's a mech.

Powered armor makes sense even if not in pure pragmatic way there is also strong drive to develop personal protection cause dead soldiers cost dolars AND votes. On the other hand 50ft tall mechwarrior is bullshit. If you can see it you can kill it. There is no such thing as inpenetrable armor. Crossbow and musket pierced plate armor. Naval guns pierced naval armor. Tank guns and atgm pierce tank armor. It was always protection up to the cerain point when enemy brings counter. Lets say you develop uber armor. Put in on your beloved mech. In 5 years every weapon platform even portable systems for infatrny will be able to destroy your "armored" mech. Again if you can see it you can kill it.

The Square Cube Law was a mistake.

Depends on what kind of mechas are we talking about.

Comparing a mecha to a tank or mobile artillery with identical armaments, the tank would be more compact and a more difficult target in general and would be much simplier to produce. The mecha? Maybe the height could be benefical in terms of line of sight and angle of fire. It would also be able to move more unpredictably, and possibly to adapt to many different terrains and/or take advantage of cover if there's any suitable for its size. Additionally, it would be able to smash things in melee, which may prove a good extra.

Then again, it depends of what size and technology we're talking about and what it is supposed to face in its setting. For examples, Jaegers make sense in Pacific Rim because they can physically engage the kaijus, 'holding' them from leveling cities while they beat them down.

>0,5 kg per square centimetre

Say what? That's the ground pressure of a non-widetrack MT-LB, not a tank. The Chieftain's ground pressure is 0.9kg/cm^2, the T-80's 0.92, one of the Leo 2s was 0.83.

And ground pressure itself doesn't mean anything. There were Centurions banging about in Vietnam without sinking.

Because they'd take a role more akin to heavy infantry. You'd be retarded to have them be main line units. They'd need to be shock-n-awe units.

and yet we still have tanks and warships. Why would something have to be completely invulnerable before it becomes practical on the battlefield?

>Again if you can see it you can kill it.
which is why if you're optimised for sniping you hide behind a hill a kilometer away, and if you're a optimised for close-quarters fighting you fight in a city where there are plenty of convenient buildings to block line of sight.

Also, you seem to have forgotten one extremely important point: if you can see it, chances are it can see you. You can't kill it if you're already dead.

Because they're capable of carrying heavy weapons while still being mobile, more mobile than an equivalent tank or technical.

Wouldn't mechs in an urban setting fall prey to the same old "ATGM-outta-fuckin-nowhere" thing that tanks do? Except they're bigger targets and all.

And not to mention armour in a city is dead armour.

i can put void shields on HQs in HH

they can certainly be attached to tanks

No tactical advantage. The only possible advantage they may have would be hands, which aren't terribly useful on their own without weapons to hold, especially when you can bypass the hand entirely and just put a gun in its place. Being able to switch out guns on the go would be a whole lot more useful if there wasn't already room in the mech to fit tons of other weapons, like chest cannons or kneecap rockets.

In terms of actually piloting the thing, body morphism. Imagine a world where you can plug a cable directly into your brain and drive or pilot a vehicle with your mind. The more humanlike the machine is, the easier it is for your brain to operate it using processes it already has, and consequently the less training the pilots need. Mass-produced mechs (even if not giant) would allow soldiers to deploy as large vehicles with artillery-class weaponry without much additional training.

Anime uses mechs because they're just human enough for the audience to relate to while still being inhuman enough to slaughter gleefully, and allow for all kinds of implausible weaponry that would supposedly be good against other mechs (giant pneumatic scissors, for instance). Realism was never a part of it.

Mechs have no practical purpose, they exist only for the rule of cool.

Anything a mech can do a tank will do better for cheaper.

Well, the Gundam series explained, that the first mobil suits were invented to have an all-round weapon plattform, which can be also used in space.
Also, Mechs (at least, the japanese ones) could be also used for building of fortifications...

>spidertank

Why not both?

Don't forget: serving as the coolest clothesline ever.

Why? Also that makes most sci-fi settings shit by your defanition

see

Ehh. Heavy Gear/Terranova does it pretty well. "Mechs" (gears) are, at their largest, just over five meters tall, and were developed so some form of armored system could support infantry in the massively rugged and built-up terrain of Terra Nova. The habitable zones are too rocky and inclined for traditional armor to be used effectively, so combat walkers, based on construction models, were developed.

And Nine times out of ten, if a Heavy Gear takes a tank on head to head, the gear will lose horribly. Traditional armor has greater firepower, armored protection, and even straight-on speed. Mechs/Gears are meant to serve as specialized support.

More to the point, even the markedly less accurate cannon 9when compared to it's western competitors) on Russian T-series tanks can bullseye helicopters in flight, with a well trained crew. And I don't mean at hover, I mean full on swooping-in-to-strafe.

A reason I've liked, is they come from construction and emergency rescue situations.

Think small scale, but bigger than power armor. The thing from Aliens, the power armor Ripley uses to fight the alien queen. They use that for loading and moving things in a small space, smaller than maybe what a forklift could fit (but probably couldn't lift as high). You could use that machine to help with disasters and demolished buildings, to shove aside rubble to get to people trapped. It's a multi purpose tool, not the greatest at everything but able to perform many roles. I could imagine if colonists suddenly had to defend themselves from large creatures, outside of a defendable space (so no luring monsters into a canyon) but didn't bring tanks, they could rig up a mech with a large machine gun and try to take it on. It would definitely be a desperate measure though, like old time farmers beating their plows into swords to go fight.

A moot point if those shots are spread out from the size of a mountain and the cannons are the sizes of apartment buildings.

In 40k: Holy Human Form serves as inspiration and everything is ridiculously over the top.

In any other setting: Because giant robots.

Setting humanoids aside, are chicken walkers like Metal Gear Rex, Ray, Or the like any more or less practical?

They're cool.

>Think small scale, but bigger than power armor

You want the combat walkers from 2300AD. If my scanner wasn't U/S I could scan better pictures, but those two in the pic are a bit taller than a man (the German Kz-7, top, has the pilot's feet above the walker's knees). It weighs 455kg, runs for 18 hours on internal batteries, and has a 3.5-megajoule laser gun in the right arm plus a 30-megawatt plasma cannon on the right shoulder. It can be yours for the low price of 33,000 French livres.

Below is the French BH-21, an older but war-proven model, weighing in at 380kg but armed only with a 20-megawatt plasma cannon. However, it's also cheaper at only 17,000 livres.

Both can eat a shot from 30mm HEAT grenades and still keep the pilot ticking.

Sports. A combat-based mecha-sport. Every sport improves with mechs.

But does WH40k have a giant robot that has a skull for a face because the design specs literally said: "I want a giant robot that looks so nasty the enemy pisses themselves"?

I wish zoids had more like that, a food ball or soccer episode, shit like that

Not outright stated but skull designs are a common head option for imperial knights

>Thinks the Jagermech is good.
Found the Davion.

Well, not on the robots face or heads, but there are lots of skulls everywhere else.

See what? Height is not an advantage.
All other arguments fall to the same bullshit pro mech arguments have to relly on. They come up with bullshit technology to justify how their weebshit is the best ever, but completely disregard that the same tech can also be applied to any other weapon.
Anything a mech can do, an aircraft, tank, artilery, missiles or infantry can do better and cheaper. The supposed multipurposness of a mech is completely negated by simply using combined arms, fielding more effective, cheaper and more numerous weaponry in tandem. For the very few, very specific and most of the time complete bullshit scenarios where a mech would actually perform better you can always just throw more men and equipment at the problem. Said scenarios do not justify the expenses in researching, designing, producing, training and fielding subpar mechs.

>wanting to throw men at the problem like a fucking meat grinder

>Anything a mech can do, an aircraft, tank, artilery, missiles or infantry can do better and cheaper
They can't make thump thump sounds when they walk towards you. Also psychology. Seeing a giant monster towering over you is going to scare you at least a little bit.

There is no point in arguing since you are going conclusion first in your argument that mechs are gay

>For the very few, very specific and most of the time complete bullshit scenarios where a mech would actually perform better you can always just throw more artillery at the problem

Fixed that for you.

Psychological warfare is bullshit, and if It wasn't it would still be cheaper to just gas them with lsd or some shit

Not when I know I can knock it out with an ATGM to the knee. I'd be more scared of rocket strikes in all honesty.

t. Idiot

>Psychological warfare is bullshit
Sure it is. That's why it always does so poorly.

>and if It wasn't it would still be cheaper to just gas them with lsd or some shit
Gas them with LSD? What would that accomplish? If we're going to be practical why not just lob thermobaric bombs at them?

Get your practicality out of my giant mecha.

Why must people fellaciate conventional warfare so much that the idea of a mech activly offends them?

larger weapons platform

all terrain capacity suited for unknown planets

and then I'm out; they're silly

>mech settings just automatically require suspension of disbelie
This.

Even space station repair is better done with human hands using tools, rather than by remote operation.