Originally Posted by Sirisian
I don't think he was arguing against mechs in the game. He was arguing that in the real world they wouldn't work. You'd be hard pressed to resort to bringing realism into a debate about sci-fi vehicles. 
Then again I addressed those concerns by making it weak on its light components and more compact. It's also been addressed that there can only be a 20% max difference so this is a balancing act for all vehicles. The shield could protect friendlies momentarily or if it crouched down, but honestly that would be a huge sacrifice since a few tank shells would severely damage everything. Bullets even would do a lot depending on the component hit. |
Why in the game does a bolt-driver have a longer barrel than a cycler, why does a Main-battle tank exist, or an APC exist. Or an air superiority fighter exist. Clearly it takes quite a bit of inspiration from real life, tanks have tracks and a traversable turret, they aren't like armored vehicles from WW1 which had a gun stuck to the front and semi-traversable. Even the Vanguard, Prowler and Magrider despite being very different to modern tanks resemble them in the basics. They have a mostly low profile with a thin profile but a longer depth, they have a turret more or less central with a low height and a main heavy cannon.
I am just using logic, there's no reason why we can't reject an idea simple because it doesn't make any real sense in the physical world. These are the same reasons we don't have an assault rifle that points out at a 90 degree angle or that the vehicles resemble real life counterparts. Everything to some extent obeys logic, it's hardly a 'realism' argument and more of a 'why the hell would you have this' argument.