>Zeon is running out of resources >all fighting is done in space >they still keep legs on all their mechs when space fighters or mobile armors would have been a better choice and would have cost less resources
>>136153659 atleast the robot did something the base just got constantly fucked by angels and even soldier they might as well had filled it up with concrete cause there expensive defense did not do shit
>>136153647 They actually had drones in Gundam X. The concept of drones just wasn't around when 0079 was made. >>136153717 Zeon actually had MA's in IGLOO but for some retarded reason they never mass produced them and only issued them as part of Zeon's Volkssturm.
>>136153844 Reminder that the Ball had better sensor range than every Zeon MS until the Gelgoog and had really good acceleration. Unfortunately the writers kind of suck at actually realising Balls should be used as a second-line artillery barrage machines. That fight between Oggos and Balls was pretty cool.
>>136155257 I'm not a /k/omando but I'm pretty sure that a tank with dual barrel is impractical due to the large amount of space needed to make the gears fit. So goes for the ammo and loading crew that just doubled.
>Was just in the /k/ thread about muv luv >MFW they made me realize that chemical, nuclear and thermobaric weapons alone would be enough to destroy the beta.
Especially chemical. You could make something that rightly kills the shit out of BETAs while being completely harmless to carbon based life. It's as simple as studying a BETA and finding out what chemicals stop it from living.
>>136152789 The only fictional technology in anime that I see coming in the future are the long legged Spider Tanks from Sora no Woto.
No, I am aware that it is completely useless in the face of a Main Battle Tank. But you are using it wrong
Just imagine >strip it off it's entire armor and put all power on the legs. >let it climb mountains and skyscrapers Voila. You have a walking artillery that can fire 10 miles further than a normal tank and can easily jump from one building to the next.
>>136156808 Too immobile, man. If your location was pin pointed, a dumb shell will take you out immediately, together with the building. Soldiers need time to dismantle it and even more time to escape the premises.
To be fair to Muv-Luv they actually did a half-decent job at justifying their robots via stating that they exist to replace planes, not tanks, since the BETA's lasers make those all but worthless. Not perfect, but better than most settings with robots.
They sort of hand-wave that away by saying that BETA are really good at adapting to shit they don't initially know how to deal with (the lasers were developed because they couldn't fly.) Even if developing a weapon like that was possible, the probability that they'd adapt before you could use it to wipe out the BETA entirely is pretty high.
There's also the fact that any weapon that could kill one type of BETA would probably not work on any other, since the BETA don't necessarily share any sort of common biology. They're not a species that reproduces so much as a bunch of carbon-based robots.
>>136156542 Those legs and joints will sunk into mud more easily than a tank. Maintaining would be a bitch too. Tanks stuck in mud or with broken tracks are already bitch. Those legs are just a nightmare
>>136156169 There's nothing impracticable about a big blade that you can conveniently have at your side at all times. A sword is basically a pistol, not necessarily a offensive weapon, but a versatile one for personal defense on or off a battlefield. The principle reasons being that they are generally long, light, and do not require much force to be dangerous.
You lose your spear or polearm and have to defend yourself, most likely against people with spears and polearms. If you have a hatchet or knife you're in deep shit because they require you to be very close to hit something and they usually don't have anything substantial to catch an oncoming weapon on. If you have a sword you have a far higher chance of survival.
They were historically expensive at different times throughout history. For example, pre-Black Plague Europe only professional soldiers and nobility would carry them, and in many places (but not all, it was usually decided at the county level) laws permitted only the nobility to carry them off of a battlefield. Post-Black Plague, the intensification of toledo steel production and improved mercantilism resulted in almost every fucker having one.
There's also the basic and very important fact that if you want to get a sword you don't have to buy it at full price. Before they became affordable most people either got them through battlefield looting essentially for free, or bought one for a fraction of the price from a re-seller. Saying a sword is expensive is like saying a car is expensive. The average new car costs about $33,000 USD today, but a perfectly serviceable and reliable 20 year old car costs only $2000. Same rule applies to swords, so long as they are well maintained they can last a very long time. Even if they are not they can still be restored to a serviceable condition or recycled to make a new one.
>>136157638 Actually, an axe would be a better idea than a sword.
The main reason why swords are so cool is because they were used a symbol of authority and freedom. Commanders used them to show their rank, and slaves are given swords to once they have earned their freedom
>>136157885 An axe: >requires momentum to be dangerous, creating large openings >is heaviest at the furthest end, meaning it is not balanced unless gripped at least midway up the shaft thus shortening the functional length of the weapon and requiring you to initially be closer to your opponent to make use of it. >cannot have a cross-guard without inconveniencing the wielder >cannot be carried in a scabbard or other convenient weatherproof container >makes you look like a filthy fucking peasant >is heavy, but generally does not have the advantages of a pole weapon >an axe cannot be half-sworded >an axe does not have a point
A pole-axe on the other hand is an entirely different kettle of fish, however if you could afford one of those you would probably be able to afford a sword as well.
Regardless, they do not exist in the same category. A sword is generally a side-arm, but an axe can only be a primary arm due to the inefficiency of attaching it to a human body that does not get in the way of movement and is immediately available. Which is why I said hatchet before, because it is an axe that can be a side arm.
>>136158210 >More surface area = more weight distribution/less pressure >More legs = better grip that only applies if youre lugging aound heavy arnaments. which the take does in this case. But TAs only carry enlarged rpgs and machineguns lessening the need for both of your requirements.
My only complaint about "real robots" is the designs are so predictable. Like character designs, it feels like they're mainly trying to have that recognizable anime look without being 100% derivative.
Why even try to justify the existence of mecha if they aren't having the design reflect the explanation? In Muv-Luv's case, why don't they look more like GERWALK VFs? The designs look like something from Armored Core which is not a 1HK scenario. And in Gundam, the designs of suits didn't change after beam weapons became standard issue.
>>136158738 uhh...nope First off, axe need no large swing. It's called "overswingging" and it was shunned upon by every martial artist Second, battle axe and war axe exist. They are made to be lighter than the woodmans axe but no less the strength Third, it does not need to half-sword when it can just hack it's way through. In fact, the falchion sword was designed to immitate the hacking power of the axe. And lastly, axe can have points, mind you. Check out this 15th century German battle axe
Yes, axes can be as pricy as swords but axe are durable as hell and can withstand laborous torture from cutting down logs at ever season. It is so durable that it needs no scabarb
I understand why you love swords. Even I like it as it is the single most versatile weapon next to the stick and knife. But please don't say that it can be better than the axe when history showed otherwise
>>136156169 This is objectively wrong. Check out some of the weapon designs from just the last century. Swords were very effective in trained hands, though they were very expensive.
>>136157638 >>136158738 You're an idiot. Swords are incredible difficult to use properly, and if you don't use it properly one of three things WILL happen: 1. You'll fuck the blade. 2. You'll fuck yourself up. 3. A trained combatant will fuck you up.
Axes and spears were by far the more common weapons for a few reasons, primarily cost and effectiveness. Any peasant can pick up a spear and use it properly, and if he's at all skilled in maintaining distance it's pretty hard to get inside his threat range without getting skewered. Axes are less simple because over swing and alignment are still very important, but they have a lot of mass at the head of the axe, so even if the alignment is fucked or you fuck the cutting edge it's still serviceable as a mace. Maces being another example of quality weapons that were simple to use and weren't severely hindered by the advent of plate armor and quality chain mail
Thread replies: 64 Thread images: 15
Thread DB ID: 424909
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.