[Malorn]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

They are graphical assets. The only 'role' is what is given to them, which can be anything at all. Cool is the only reason to have any graphics whatsoever. What does the graphical representation of treads or tires or infantry legs bring to the game? Gameplay would be just as functional with featureless bounding boxes of various sizes fighting.

I see what you are trying to argue, but this is a steaming pile of false. The reason it is a steaming pile of false is because...

SIZE AND SHAPE MATTER

That statement is true for many things in life, but also very true for Tanks. In another thread where the Prowler is discussed the higher profile of the prowler was an issue in PS1 because it made it easier to hit. A mech is far worse.

A tank is an efficient vehicle that is little more than artillery mounted on wheels and given thick armor. It serves as a shield for infantry and a heavy weapon platform to support them.

If you give a tank a mech chassis you make it an inefficient vehicle and you rob it of its design benefits. Mechs must sit higher off the ground, and they have legs. The higher profile means they're going to take more damage because they are easier to hit. In order for them to have the same effective survivability as a tank, mechs must be given more survivability. This is where the mech design goes wrong. Once you start giving them significantly more survivability than tanks (because you have to) they become super vehicles and in large numbers they throw the game balance all out of whack.

Additionally, mechs lose out on the tank's ability to shield infantry from their most deadly of adversaries - bullets. Tanks were engineered as armor for infantry to have protection against machineguns. The added heavy weapons platforms allow them to take out machinegun nests and increase the effectiveness of the infantry overall by giving them mobile light artillery.

And for the same reason the mechs lose out on the ability for infantry to protect THEM. If you've played any recent battlefield game you'll know that one common strategy is for engineers to cram up behind a tank and repair it while the tank shields them from enemy fire. The engineers keep the tank healthy and the tank batters the enemy positions and slowly moves up. This is great synergy with infantry & tanks. Tanks support infantry; infantry support tanks. Even the huge mechs of Planetside didn't have big enough ankles to properly shield infantry. Smaller mechs would just leave them exposed more.

(On a side note, I believe this is why BFRs had shields - they were not efficient to repair by infantry since would-be engineers were exposed while attempting to repair them...shields solved the problem and made the survivaiblity issue far worse putting them even more out of balance with the game.)

You dont' get either of those with mechs, because the size and shape of the chassis matters. It isn't just a "graphical asset" - that's ridiculous. You're changing the very design and function of the vehicle with that "graphical asset" which changes its its role and imposes vulnerabilities that are only rectified by making it a super weapon.

If you don't correct for those vulnerabilities you have a useless vehicle. If you DO correct for those vulnerabilities you have an overpowered vehicle. There doesn't really exist a sweet spot. Either they are more effective than tanks or they aren't.

MAX on the other hand are well balanced mini-mechs. They are infantry-sized and can perform the role of bullet-shield and engineers can stand behind them and rep them, and infantry can work around them. They are more like tanks than they are mechs because they have efficient design that is as small as it can be, but large enough to provide protection to infantry and heavy weapons support. Effectively MAX are squad-sized tanks and perform the same role indoors as tanks do in the open field.

Cool is the only reason to have them(and "I don't think they are cool" the only valid argument against them), because what something looks like has absolutely zero impact on how it functions in a game, and is completely arbitrary.

As I established above, their very design has non-zero impact on the game and is inferior to tanks, poor for combined arms, and most of all it is prone to being overpowered because it has to be due to its size and shape.

And as you say "cool" is the only reason to have them. They are not practical vehicles, nor are they good for game balance. Mechs make for neat science fiction but they are fundamentally flawed as a military asset. Much like anti-tank dogs. The concept is neat, but it just doesn't end well.