So that...why walkers?

I picked this somewhere on arkangl blog and kept me thinking through the days.

I mean, don´t get me wrong, I love them allright, even more the upcoming LAW, but...what is the background for walkers in DUST?

In other universes, mechas/walkers are humanoid "battle" versions of transformable vehicles, but they are wheeled for transportation purposes.

This DUST walkers even have regular WWII weapons mounted in them, what´s the real advantage over conventional weapons?

It´d be interesting to hear what everyone thinks of, and any tips actually coming form the real comics would be nice for the ones, like me, who haven´t read them.

its alt history ww2 , and while it is unique in a great many ways . the WW2 walkers idea is not one of them .

there are other games that also present alt history WW2 with walkers .

you have to understand that the game universe is paulo parentes baby , he is an italian artist , and got his big start doing fashon illustration in the fasion industry , as opposed to so many other mecha illustrators , that focused on japanime as their style and focus . the influences are obvious in his illustration style .

games like battle tech , mechton , robotech , heavy gear , etc ........ all come from anime influences .

parente's designs are more along the lines of taking a tank , and evolving it into a walker based on WW2 aestetics and sensabilities of the 1940's , as opposed to building transformers based around movies from the 1970 on up .

The comics don't give anything away and if anything confuse me anymore, eg. "We are doomed the Axis have the mother of all walkers armed with 2x 30mm cannon" or words to that effect. WTF, wouldn't even be a match for a Sherman! No, there are no clues as to why giving a tank a pair of legs makes them better than a tank with tracks.

Although I don't play Dust Tacts I do use their walkers within our own Weird WWII games and below is my take on the armored mechanical walker in reguards to a more detailed and realistic approch to what they would be like on a more detailed battlefield.

The armored mechanical walker is a main stay for most WWWII rules and games but I find them almost completely useless. They are usually slow in comparison to other vehicles, have light armor, light weapons, tall profiles, unbalanced and seem to just become smoking wrecks on the battlefield to easily. Walkers are less maneuverable then most vehicles and are quite cumbersome on uneven ground or built up areas. They are prone to tipping over when hit by enemy fire or even when firing from uneven ground and unless they have axillary appendages they won't be getting up if they do topple over. The small size of most walkers tend to make them lightly armored and armed with only small arms. Large caliber weapons that are found on walkers tend to be limited in that they only have a small amount of ammo on board. Most walkers will carry this type of ammo in magazines affixed directly to the weapon which are prone to jamming, have limited ammo capacity and won't be able to be reloaded on the battlefield by the crew. Most walkers have a small crew so they are usually overworked so this makes for some tough restrictions when engaging enemy. Walkers tower in height and that tends to prevent them from using terrain to their advantage so they are often exposed and receive allot of fire where other vehicles can use it to their advantage. With all the above faults it does have one advantage, a super "COOL" factor. Most walkers look cool on the tabletop so most gamers look past their shortcomings and field them anyway, like myself. I only have a couple but they do look cool next to real WWII vehicles and troops but I usually choose to leave them in the motor pool if I want to win.

Brian

Games aside, in the real world, a vehicle with legs is actually a very versatile and mobile platform. There are many kinds of terrain that will stumble a tracked or a wheeled vehicle. These terrains are probably only accessible by infantry. But a vehicle with legs behave just like infantry and they can traverse the same kind of terrain only infantry can pass. I've seen a video on Youtube of a prototype walker kind of robot that is meant to carry the heavy load of an infantry squad and it is supposed to accompany the squad over any terrain that the squad goes. So for me, give me a walker any time.

See these 2 videos of this walker in action:

javascript:void(0);/*1306940764453*/

Do you guys read fiction? Enjoy a sci fi movie, or even TV show?

They are works of fiction, based on (more or less...) science. And one knows what to expect: it will have plot points or elements that tie the story back to reality, to things the viewer can relate to (i.e. Knight Rider = a black sports car) and then adds some foreign elements, the twist that make the sci, 'fi' (i.e. Knight Rider, the car has name, a voice and is capable of free will).

To me, this thread reads like: "Why does the black sport car HAS to talk? Makes no sense at all!"

My two cents.

I agree, it's discussions like this that gave us those three krappy Star Wars prequels, i.e. what is the force, why is Darth such a ******, etc.

Just enjoy the art and try not to over analyze.

traderghost said:

Thats actually quite impressive, but I fear that a tank would get over a pile of bricks a bit easier than the robot, won't stop to pee up a tree either

Giant Robots , Walkers or Mechs . Call them what you will, there is only 1 real thing to remember . . . Chicks dig giant robot cars! . Unobtanium back pack mounted nuclear reactors , zombies, Intellegent Apes , female soldiers who show more clevage than 3 strip clubs on a monday morning ,it all relates to suspension of disbelief. The hard science doesnt matter you really just want to believe a man can fly ,Invisible jets really exist and a man in black body armor with a yellow target in the middle of his chest really does have a mansion with a bunch of cool toys in the basement. If thats not good enough there is always the old standby Super Science ,because we all know that a technology that is significantly advanced will appear as magic to ignorant savages.

I think limitations to super tech gives it more validity on the battlefield. Ok so laser weaponry on the battlefield is desvestating but due to the cost and bulk of the weapon itself it is only issued in small numbers thus making it more rare and causing the commander that is lucky enough to have it under his command make sure his plans are laid out soundly less he waste such a rare and effective asset. I tend to only use walkers in airborne units as this would give some validity to there use. We theroize that a Luther can be transported by a FA223 Dragon via harness or a a couple inside the belly of a ME 232. Because of these factors you would have more walkers with these types of units because of their air transportability then say a Panzer Division where their tracked and wheeled vehicles would be a better choice with that unit. The paras wold be more apt to using such weaponry on the sole reason that it is about the best vehicle they would be able to bring along with them so what the Hell. Sure its only a game but doesn't the designer write up his Why, Who and How so whos to say someone else shouldn't come up their own rational of the units at hand? Its always fun for me to see how others play and why. Some say, that M2 on the Mickey is usless because where the Hell is the gunner going to stand to use it or how the Hell does the driver of a Luther use the IR when he can't drive and look through the imager on the AAMG on the coupla at the same time? Other would say, what is an IR imager or M2 anyways so who cares and lets just play.

Sometimes its just fun to talk geek,

Brian

Because they look cool.

theguildllc said:

Bingo!

Same reason the AT-AT and AT-ST were in Star Wars. They looked cool. I imagine an AT-AT would be a terrible APC, it still looked cool.

-Jeff

Hey, I noticed that the repeated threads accidentally posted by the thread starter have been deleted! This is good news. That means FFG moderators are actually reading this forum! Hi, moderators!

theguildllc said:

**** Straight! It's that simple.

If you apply real-life physics on sci-fi, fantasy, weird ww2 worlds most definitely you'll get a head ache; for the simple reason that most of them just don't work. But I guess what most of us players need is good fluff to explain why things like walkers, intelligent apes, zombies exist in the world of Dust and how they came to be....most players of older games had tech readouts, codices and other reading materials brimming with tech that didn't work or didn't exist at all, but those materials made the players understand what the world was like in those games which in turn fueled the interest of players. So far what we have in Dust are the description of some units at the last few pages of O:BT and a comic book. Maybe in the future we'll get our own tech readout or whatever,but until then I guess discussions like this would really help in keeping the interest of players in the game.

Now for the geeky stuff,,,Walkers...lets just say somehow they had acquired the tech to make them so how would they be more superior than tanks? Its world war 2 so i would assume that tanks wouldn't have advanced targeting systems, so targets are tracked manually, their turrets turn slower than modern tanks, and have no way of tracking hidden units. If a walker approaches a tank in a zigzag pattern, I think the gunner in the tank would find it hard to hit the walker; assuming of course that the walkers are able to side-step and are a bit faster than tanks. Some walkers have high target profiles which make them easy to hit, but they could also shoot tanks on their vulnerable top armor, and they could always crouch (btw, can they?) and wait in ambush.

Regarding the design of the walkers, it would have been better if they had head-mounted cameras. and their pintle-mounted MGs were like those found on the Hetzer. Oh and Sigrid showing so much cleavage, I couldn't even imagine how she could stand it in Antartica.

Just for a bit of info on the Hetzer's RC MG, below is a drawing of it at work. Nothing as complex as a camera rather a persicope and a manual means of rotating and elevating it within the hull.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc178/kampfgruppecottrell/WWII/fig3_panzer_mg_interior.jpg

Pretty crafty,

Brian

PS

We play where the walkers can squat and the idea of it being able to side step would truly make it a ***** to hit on a WWII battlefield. Good call, I never thought of that.

Good idea about the Hetzers mechanism but I would assume it could not be fired at aircraft, which is the main purpose for pintle mounted MG's, and lack of visibility. Good discussuion this.

Yeah, no AA use but it acted more like a co-aux MG since the Hetzers didn't have one in the hull.

Brian

I believe Hetzer's "remote" machine gun system serves to protect the gunner, much like the way current remote weapons systems (RWS) like the CROWS and the Stryker RWS. The gunner is safely buttoned down inside the armored hull, while still given satisfactory visibility to fire at infantry and other soft targets. Of course, the visibility and situational awareness advantages afforded to someone who's actually outside the turret is definitely better (he has better visibility, and can better hear/feel things). But it comes with the cost of being more vulnerable to enemy fire.

During the MiddleEast tank wars many tank crew casualties involve Tank commanders because they're always out of the cupola, watching the fight, while their arab counterparts are hunkered/buttoned down inside the turret. But the results showed it. Having better situational awareness did spell the difference between life and death for the tank.