Vanguard Tank not very useful

[MaitreBouh]

I maintain what I said for the walker vs laser tank. The artillery capabilities of the walker are a lot better with lower cool down, stagger and aoe. A laser tank shooting a kir'ko formation will not do much. A walker will remove the defense mode and leave them unable to close the distance.

Again, the tank is a wonderful attacking unit that will make a spearhead like very few others, but the walker is a far better defensive and position warfare tool, and it also recycle all the technologies of the troopers.

As for the mecha relevance in warfare, they can be a lot more nimble. Indeed large mecha designed for resilience are inferior to tanks, but more nimble ones can go in forests or cities (in ruins or not) or inside buildings. They are also more adapted to a human environment, because as humans we design things for our humanoid shape and hands. A mecha would be able to do as we do and hence would be better suited to go in humanoid environments. Of course they wouldn't compete in open fields with tanks.

 

[BloodyBattleBrain]

Yes I think working towards a dovetailing of Tanks and Walkers makes sense imho.


Specifically, it makes gameplay sense.

I don't know nearly enough to reflect on the "realism" of things, except in so far as it relates to the internal consistency of the game.


And in the game there are walkers.

And the Vanguard Walker needs some love.

So within the parameters of the game, giving it something the Tank can't do makes sense.

And for me the tank is an awesome damage dealer.

With mods I've got the overwatch shot to be consistently 60 plus damage.

So make the Walker more utility.

Perhaps also look to further increase synergy with other troops.

If the Walker acts as a quasi spotter for troopers, that could boost their accuracy as a passive, that's a potential synergy. So tanks to smash, walkers to be almost support?

 

[Rubidium]

And you know what those all have in common?
Not the Primary, Culture creating, research doing species on the planet!

There are 3 important things you need to manage to become such a species:
Tool use
Fire Control
Agriculture

If we want to continue this tangent (and I would certainly respect a request not to, it's wandered way away from the OP), that's because they have brains and opposable thumbs, neither of which requires you to be bipedal, it merely requires you to have a pair of forearms with hands. Again, it's very difficult to evolve an extra set of limbs, so our ancestors' forelegs were converted to arms because that was more evolutionarily efficient. If you were doing it from scratch, you'd absolutely do it by creating a new set of arms rather than sacrificing the advantage of an extra pair of legs. It's just one of many examples of massive inefficiencies due to evolutionary history. Another big one: why do we breathe and eat through the same hole? That's a massive risk of choking, that kills countless people. It's because it is again easier to adapt an existing orifice than to evolve a new one; it's another thing where if we were designing humans, they would look very different.

I have no idea whether or not two-legs or four-legs in general would be more or less energy efficient (it has so much to do with a host of other metabolic/weight/etc. factors that just looking at existing species which are all evolutionarily suited for specific niches doesn't really capture), but I do know that wheels/tracks will stomp either one flat on that score without even trying. The only terrain where legs have any advantage is especially nasty/rugged terrain (think mountains), and for that terrain, quadrapeds are absolutely better. Two-legs are inherently unstable, and it becomes even worse if you have uncertain footing. There's a reason that one of the standard safety instructions for things like boarding a boat or the like is "maintain three points of contact at all times." And all of that ignores the obvious issue of, for a military vehicle, people shooting at you/IEDs, etc.

 

[MaitreBouh]

If we want to continue this tangent (and I would certainly respect a request not to, it's wandered way away from the OP), that's because they have brains and opposable thumbs, neither of which requires you to be bipedal, it merely requires you to have a pair of forearms with hands. Again, it's very difficult to evolve an extra set of limbs, so our ancestors' forelegs were converted to arms because that was more evolutionarily efficient. If you were doing it from scratch, you'd absolutely do it by creating a new set of arms rather than sacrificing the advantage of an extra pair of legs. It's just one of many examples of massive inefficiencies due to evolutionary history. Another big one: why do we breathe and eat through the same hole? That's a massive risk of choking, that kills countless people. It's because it is again easier to adapt an existing orifice than to evolve a new one; it's another thing where if we were designing humans, they would look very different.

I have no idea whether or not two-legs or four-legs in general would be more or less energy efficient (it has so much to do with a host of other metabolic/weight/etc. factors that just looking at existing species which are all evolutionarily suited for specific niches doesn't really capture), but I do know that wheels/tracks will stomp either one flat on that score without even trying. The only terrain where legs have any advantage is especially nasty/rugged terrain (think mountains), and for that terrain, quadrapeds are absolutely better. Two-legs are inherently unstable, and it becomes even worse if you have uncertain footing. There's a reason that one of the standard safety instructions for things like boarding a boat or the like is "maintain three points of contact at all times." And all of that ignores the obvious issue of, for a military vehicle, people shooting at you/IEDs, etc.

Difficult terrain is the norm in a natural landscape. A forest is not suited to anything with wheels. Neither is a crop. Tanks have a hard time moving in some crops actually if the weather is not good. Wheels are more efficient on terrains that have been prepared by men or on sufficiently dry lands. A rover works on Mars because it is a dry desert for millions of years now. But even there some places are inaccessible to them. Legs are superior in most natural situations actually,that's why the army is researching walking robots.

As for the efficiency of bipedal walk, someone mentioned the height,which may be a good reason. Speed might be another. Many dinosaurs where biped after all. For human specifically I think the ability to climb trees was useful too.

As for the vanguard walker, can someone tell me why all the advantages I talked about are not enough compared to the laser tank? Namely:
- overwatch
-kinetic damage and research tree
-same damage channel as the trooper and engineer
-aoe, low cooldown, massive impact missiles

One is a heavy sniper, the other is a real artillery. But overall they both have a use IMO.

 

[The Founder]

Difficult terrain is the norm in a natural landscape. A forest is not suited to anything with wheels. Neither is a crop. Tanks have a hard time moving in some crops actually if the weather is not good. Wheels are more efficient on terrains that have been prepared by men or on sufficiently dry lands. A rover works on Mars because it is a dry desert for millions of years now. But even there some places are inaccessible to them. Legs are superior in most natural situations actually,that's why the army is researching walking robots.

Originally we invented tracks, to deal with poor terrain. Particulary the issue of sinking into soft ground - mud, snow, that sort of thing.
Of course it can still happen to tanks. Just given their weight, it is a whole lot less likely.

There is also a good reason to go 2 rateher then 4 legged walkers:
The more legs you got the easier it is to hit a snag while moving. Especially moving fast. And if we add any form of kinistetic feedback, a human can pretty much directly control the 2 legs, as well as his own (give or take).

As for the vanguard walker, can someone tell me why all the advantages I talked about are not enough compared to the laser tank? Namely:
- overwatch
-kinetic damage and research tree
-same damage channel as the trooper and engineer
-aoe, low cooldown, massive impact missiles

One is a heavy sniper, the other is a real artillery. But overall they both have a use IMO.

It took me some time to realize those roles, but since then I have been asking the same question.

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

you can buy an engineer and a trooper for the cost of a walker which do all of that except they are better at it

and not 24 speed

and can use cover

 

[The Founder]

you can buy an engineer and a trooper for the cost of a walker which do all of that except they are better at it

and not 24 speed

and can use cover

They cost 2 slots in the stack and got nothing close to the range or AoE.
No idea where you thought they are equal.

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

launcher turrets range 9, 15 damage, massive impact, no cooldown

 

[The Founder]

launcher turrets range 9, 15 damage, massive impact, no cooldown

It is 15 damage with +33% vs Air and Massive Impact. It is immobile and affected by line of sight. It only takes over the "compatible" mods from the engiener, wich will need one mod to even build it.

The walker is 20 Damage, Massive Impact, Demolisher. It is mobile and can be properly modded (even if just for pure damage bonus).

Turret and walker are defintely close-ish, but not a perfect match.

 

[Draxynnic]

Difficult terrain is the norm in a natural landscape. A forest is not suited to anything with wheels. Neither is a crop. Tanks have a hard time moving in some crops actually if the weather is not good. Wheels are more efficient on terrains that have been prepared by men or on sufficiently dry lands. A rover works on Mars because it is a dry desert for millions of years now. But even there some places are inaccessible to them. Legs are superior in most natural situations actually,that's why the army is researching walking robots.

As for the efficiency of bipedal walk, someone mentioned the height,which may be a good reason. Speed might be another. Many dinosaurs where biped after all. For human specifically I think the ability to climb trees was useful too.

As for the vanguard walker, can someone tell me why all the advantages I talked about are not enough compared to the laser tank? Namely:
- overwatch
-kinetic damage and research tree
-same damage channel as the trooper and engineer
-aoe, low cooldown, massive impact missiles

One is a heavy sniper, the other is a real artillery. But overall they both have a use IMO.

Legs versus tracks are something of a "depends on the situation" thing. Tracks are surprisingly good at crossing some obstacles (tanks were originally designed for going over trenches, after all), but there is going to be a point at which treads just aren't going to cope and a walker might be able to get around more easily. Ground pressure, however, is a significant advantage for tracks: a tank would be able to cross much softer ground than a walker without getting bogged down.

When it comes to human evolution - true upright pose is believed to have been developed after human ancestors left the forests and entered the savannah. The upright pose gave a height advantage for seeing over tall grass.