I saw someone on the Battletech forums calling it the tickle monster... now THAT is funny!
Check this link for more info about the mech... www.sarna.net/wiki/Prey_Seeker
wow this art is amazing got yourself another watch
But I prefer your custom jobs - they are better
The actual btech book for this mech was released at Gencon so I figure it is finally safe to post all the pics.
It's sad you couldn't work on more stuff this time, though. Maybe you'll have the chance in the next books?
IIRC*, in Battletech/Mechwarrior, they did it through the development of 2 technologies:
1) Very lightweight but incredibly durable and sturdy armor.
Take it all with a grain of salt. Sci-fi demands suspension of disbelief no matter how hard its science is.
But, yeah, *all* mechs are a bit of an omnishambles, in reality compared to something like a tank, they would be able to carry less armour, have much more massive maintenance requirements ( all those complicated moving parts ) and in practice have a low mission availability ( it's in the shop.. getting it's leg actuator fixed... again ) and make for an impressively large and obvious target for every gun on the battlefield - with which a single infantryman hiding in a ditch could knock out, or worse, a gunship that pops up over a hill and nails them ( these factors are nixed in mech games to make the mech viable ).
But like a lot of sci-fi tropes you just have to go with it.
However, if.. and when... technology catches up, so that maintenance issues are a non event - so you can have all those complex moving parts without them breaking every 5 minutes, and maybe if defence technologies improve, then, it's possible a mech might be feasible in limited tactical situations. Much like the tank is today ( the tank itself is already struggling to be relevant on a modern battlefield having to face smart missiles, capable gunships, and high firepower infantry ). A few things that mechs could do well would be to adjust their profile - standing up high when they needed battlefield visibility, and crouched down low when they needed to avoid detection / fire. They should also in theory be much more adaptable to terrain and environment, faster and more capable than a tracked vehicle. So quite possibly they'd make for a better armoured asset than a tank. ( Ignoring cost and material factors )
But still, they'd be an awful large target. Too large. You're probably much more likely to get an infantry sized ish power armour configuration, which has much of the advantages of infantry, combined with better intel, survivability and firepower. Small suits could hide at will, be less of a material investment ( and therefore much more expendable ), but at the same time probably provide the ultimate in protection and weaponry at the unit level. They'd certainly make clunky tanks utterly useless in any kind of urban / sub-urban environment, and would provide absolute domination of any opposing force without such suits. Out on the open field they'd be less useful, but then, airpower would be picking you off, whoever you were.
The end all solution is an Anti gravity tank. Large armored flying brick with a cannon protruding from the front. However Mechs will still be scarier because of their size.
The last Battleship to be commissioned, was by the Brits, laid down in 1941, and put to sea in 1946, by that time it had become very clear the Battleship was a dwindling power on the seas - and no more were ever built.
Heavy, big, intimidating hitters are far too easy a target in a world where weaponry vastly outmatches any defense you care to field. The problem is, if you are an obvious target, there will always be a bigger bomb/weapon to nail you into the dust.
This has been proven time and again in Naval terms, the most shocking losses occurring in the 80s during the Falkland wars, where destroyers equipped with sophisticated defenses were taken apart by a relatively weak air force.
So, for land purposes. Building yourself a land battleship, a heavy slab of big armor does you no favors. Building yourself a heavy slab of big armor thats *really obvious and waves large flags about its presence* is tantamount to suicide. Indeed similar lessons have been learnt with the tank - by the end of WW2, tanks were seen as easy prey for air power, and it was only during bad weather that the pressure relented and the Germans could actually put their superior armor to good use in the West.
Current conventional thinking is a shift towards mechanized infantry - relatively weakly armored transports that provide crucial light arms protection for infantryman as well as sophisticated vehicle mounted support weapons. The need for heavy hitters is not required for such roles - airpower, gunships can come in, do the job, and disappear again in 20 minutes.
Drones are the absolute future of warfare for the forseeable future - it won't be mechs striding across battlefields, but small expendable flying drones, easily mass produced, packing a wallop, and spreading fear and uncertainty by deploying anywhere - behind enemy lines - to do their work. The rise of fully automated drones lies around a single corner of the next hot war of desperation ( not the asymmetric warfare that is currently ongoing ).
- light weight composite armor
- anti-gravity generator so the overall weight stress on the legs are reduced
- AA weaponry and measures against rockets
- ways of being flexable meaning; fast or even able to dodge or fly-jump...
- Infantry coverage....if Gunboats or tanks are too much to handle...