In a mecha setting where the mechs are ~5 meters tall...

In a mecha setting where the mechs are ~5 meters tall, what would be some of the pros and cons of having a big blocky mech vs a skinny fast mech vs a medium-sized well-balanced mech besides the obvious HP/Armor vs Speed?

Attached: aaliyah.jpg (500x625, 74K)

Mecha can more or less stand-in for any sort of classic units, like heavy infantry, cavalry, artillery etc. Light mech could be a sort of light cavalry to tank's heavy cavalry, heavy mechs would most likely be just more mobile artillery.

It depends a lot on the tech available. You can have a "heavy" that sacrifices armor and firepower for more speed, make a rammer. You can have a light be a big gun with legs. Any one of them could have a better or worse time finding cover and being stealthy depending on what you load hem with. Lights would likely have an easier time climbing.

Tons of possibilities.

Light mech have superior rocket boosting ability and can jump onto big building. It has inferior armor and can't really carry the best mecha class weapons though

Medium sized has the same weaponry as the heavy size, but lacks the armor.

The heavy class will tank mecha class weaponry unless you get real uncomfortably close.

A lighter mech can climb and stand on top of buildings without making the floor collapse, for example. It may also be able to jump higher.
A heavier mech has enough mass to destroy walls by charging at them.
The rest of the weight advantages and disadvantages are those found in actual combat vehicles, like crossing bridges, ease of transportation and repair, fuel consumption, etc.

Fire power is an obvious factor. Heavier mechs typically come with heavier weapons.

Endurance, both in terms of ammunition stowage and fuel, is another. Heavier mechs typically carry more ammo, but require more fuel. Light mechs don't last as long in a fire fight, but they have a longer operational time overall. This makes Heavy mechs preferable for combat, particularly defense of established positions, while light mechs are good for recon because they can spend more time in the field. Medium mechs become the raiders, as they have more hitting power than light mechs while being more mobile than heavy mechs.

Maintenance might be another issue. Typically the more mass you are moving around the faster your motive systems wear out, so lighter mechs would require less maintenance.

You probably want to take a look a bit at Heavy Gear, it uses the same scale (for shows, VOTOMS does too and was much of its inspiration).

A ~5m mech, with the right technologies can be the equivalent of a fire-team in a Humvee with a TOW or the like mounted on top of it, and all their gear. It'll have varying amounts of different equipment that can be fit within the frame.

>Armor
While one might expect a skinnier, faster model to be more fragile, this implies identical frames and equipment. The smaller the volume and surface-area, the cheaper and lighter it's going to be for the same thickness and protection. Barring a new technology ('next gen' style improvements) a higher % of the unit's total mass might be pure plating in exchange for equipment; you're either not armoring or not installing those multi-cell missile launchers on there.

>Detection
One of the big ones: A smaller radar/sensor cross-section means you have to be proportionally closer before having the same chance at detection or tracking/lock resolution. If 'thin' mech is standing next to 'big bulky' and is half as wide and 30cm shorter, you might need to be a kilometer or two closer before your radar picks it up. Easier to take cover too of course

>Speed
Not as clear-cut as some think at first. Sure, higher inertia and rapidly increasing energy requirements for acceleration are a thing... But like armor it depends on what proportion of the unit's mass is being used for that. Propulsion vs Mass is the deal here: 2500kg thrust, is going to give a fuckton more delta-v to a 1000kg load than 50 000kg's of thrust will give a 30 000kg vehicle. The larger unit MAY be faster especially when the lighter unit gets overloaded with too much added crap.

Attached: Jerboa-Fist.jpg (394x426, 51K)

cont.

So the general rules are:

The following increase in along with weight:

1. Armor/HP
2. Firepower
3. Ammo
4. Maintenance costs

The following decrease with weight:

1. Speed
2. Operational range

Obviously you could have specific mech designs which subvert some of these, but there should be trade offs. For example, a "sniper" variant might mount a heavy mech killing weapon on a light frame, but it should have limited ammo and higher maintenance costs.

Attached: tiger_mecha_by_avitus12-d6sgzen.jpg (3000x2140, 1.67M)

Raw power output (though its not a proportional increase) letting it.. "bully" smaller mechs.

Besides that and the point you made yourself it's all downsides.

>>Heavy Gear

I live in the city it is made, and know the developpers of the game. The lore is super interesting, and to add on what was already said:

The heavy gear is a versatile unit designed to fight in a rocky wasteland of a planet (which has a few other biomes but is mostly bad lands). They are also gasoline powered using V-Engines, and are semi light armored.

In this universe they are used as a result of the terrain, and their adaptability, but have no displaced the traditional Main Battle Tank.

>my dad works at nintendo
Seriously though, if you do know them, tell them to stop making everyone have gearstriders. The neutral zone was so much cooler before north and south got them.

I gotta agree with that.
Also I want more Jovian Chronicles, I miss them old lancer squadrons.

Thanks everyone.

Could you elaborate more on this please?

How do I get into Heavy Gear? There seem to be a lot of editions and it's kind of confusing coming into it blindly. I don't want to use it for wargaming, I'd run it as an RPG if I ever used it.

It's best used as an RPG with the wargaming rules used for the mech combat anyways (the warmachine RPG's similar in that sense). Personally I thought the old edition had more loving detail in the lore and descriptions, but it's true the newer rules like blitz are more streamlined (but blitz is just combat IIRC).

Use Silcore for the rules, and try to grab pdfs of the old HG 1/2nd edition RPG for the fluff and lore and goodies like the Perseus Hover-gear.

>You probably want to take a look a bit at Heavy Gear, it uses the same scale (for shows, VOTOMS does too and was much of its inspiration).
Also Code Geass, at least until the point when flight systems are introduced. Up until then it's a pretty cool urban combat with mecha thing. Afterwards it's got all the same problems that Gundam has with fight scenes.

>heavy infantry
Heavily armed and armored forces intended to mount frontal assaults on enemy postions or anchor a defensive line. These would be heavy mechs capable of walking through withering fire and smashing flat anything which came within range of their guns.

>cavalry
Highly mobile forces intend to defeat the foe via battles of maneuver or with rapid assault tactics. Also useful for reconnaissance. These would be light and medium mechs.

>artillery
Mobile gun platforms with anti-armor, anti-fortification, or anti-aircraft roles. Lightly armored but armed with long range weaponry. Typically capable of indirect fire and intended to destroy enemy units and fortifications from beyond their range of the enemies own guns. Medium mechs for heavy artillery. Light mechs for anti-aircraft.

heavily armed and armored mechs form the backbone advancing where the enemy is strongest
they act like MBTs pummeling the enemy into submission and destroying enemy armor and hardpoints
if they are MBT like, they will be the primary vehicle employed and do both flanking and assault, but would be extremely difficult to transport
a more traditional heavy vehicle would be used mostly for assault and anti vehicle work, and leave flanking to light mechs

lighter mechs with less armor presumably weigh less and cost less to maintain
if heavy mechs are MBT-like, then they act as fast response, heading out to meet sudden unexpected threats, or reinforcing far away or difficult to supply areas
if heavy mechs are more like heavy cavalry, then light mechs are deployed as flankers to run down fleeing enemies or exploit gaps in enemy defences

Unless you're an interceptor, you want a heavy chassis for anti-air, moreso than artillery. The weapons need long range, guidance or massive traverse angles, and either a very high rate of fire or they need to be a stack of several missiles. They'll also require good tracking capability in case of signal loss or jamming with their main radar/sensor hub.

If speed and armor aren't a consideration, you may easily be able to get away with a light mech for an artillery platform, especially if it's designed to be used in tandem with other forces that will spot for it. At that point all it needs is good comms and the big gun, and may be even lighter than some melee duelist model though unlikely to be shaped the same way (more likely some quadruped or tracked model and not in the least bit humanoid).

The point I was trying to make is that mecha are basically capable of filling every single role humans filled, because they cover an incredibly wide range of things.

Like, compare to "tank". Tanks can be heavy and light and things like that, but they all got threads, a main cannon, etc. Meanwhile, two mechs may have entirely different set of weapons, armor, and mobility options. You could use them as a stand-in for just about anything in the history of warfare.

Bigger chassis can fit a longer guns, so they have more range. So long-range fire support would be heavy mechs. Longer legs mean it runs fast, but uses tons of energy and if it has armor, it will be a logistical nightmare to fuel.

Light
>fragile, fast and and worthless in a battle
Heavy
>can carry the biggest boom, tough, slow, most probably hard to produce
Medium
>can carry considerable firepower, fast enough, effective enough armor

Patlabor

>Light
>fragile, fast and and worthless in a battle
So why would you spend the money and effort to make them?

same reason strykers exist
fast response

while a tank has better armor, weapons, and off-road speed than a stryker
the stryker is cheaper, lighter, easier to maintain, and versatile
sending an M1 abrams to put down every threat is gonna be impossible, because of their great weight, by the time it arrives, it will be too late

so while the M1 abrams goes blowing things up, the lighter stryker is sent to far-off areas, or to respond to sudden immediate crisis
the lighter weight allows smaller transports, lower maintenance infrastructure means that you can send them off at a moments notice, and lower price means that you arend hemorrhaging cash to fight off lesser threats