PRE-Zentraedi arrival Destroid action

[Sundown]

Good point there, ewilen. Was a fan of Steel Beasts myself... and while all of the tasks could and were done automatically by simulated crewmembers, they were sometimes better done than they'd be in real life. Mainly because the computer already had all the answers and complete data available to it. It just needed to "fake" the process and delays involved in a human calculating and performing actions based on uncertain data and limited situational awareness. Other things you might actually do better yourself. But in either case, trying to do it all on your own was just overwhelming.

Yet, in more simplistic games where the targetting data was laid out conveniently in pretty icons for you, where you have a perfect view of the battlefield and aren't required to expose yourself to incoming fire just to see-- and all that was left for you to do was move and shoot, you could certainly operate your "tank" as a single person.

I hypothesize that's what OT would do, improve sensor technology and improve the presentation of combat data, abstracting away some of the complexity involved. And it'd apply to tanks as well. The use of multiple crew members then becomes reserved for even more difficult tasks, like moving while attempting longer ranged shots, or operating several cannons and engaging several targets at once, destroid or otherwise.

-Al

[promethuem5]

Well the combat group I was thinking about was a small detatchment for jungle warfare. As for Destroids, I had a Tomahawk as point man, a Gladiator for support, and 2 Defenders for anti-infantry and AA purposes... you guys raise alot of interesting points tho.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

I believe his point is that in an OT world we'd also have single pilot tanks, which takes away the argument that "tanks must be multi-crewed" and are thus at an inherent disadvantage. And the argument remains that if OT was available, we would probably be better off implementing it in tank or close-to-tank form.

whups sorry I misread: yeah there probably would be single piloted tanks. I was talking about the conventional ones.

In the tv series it shows that tanks are still around, but no indication that OT was applied to them at the time which is why the reliance on valks. If OT was aplied to them (and I don't think it was) they could be more useful against destroids on an open plain with no assistance from support, but the tanks wouldn't be any more useful imo against zentradi flying around in space and hopping around attacking at various angles. I'm not convinced an armoured bot with various anti-air and ground-to-ground weapons to fight with as well as the use of close combat (spartan) ability would be any less useful, so why bother changing? You get all the advantages of the tank but less crew, and faster respones for up close attacks. The zentradi are giants and have giant hand carried weapons that would eat the tanks so its not like a tank is going to provide any extra protection that a robot wouldnt. The advantages you gain by being level with them outweigh any advantages of being low to the ground. And as I mentioned now that the zentradi are micronised with us humans, they have all the advantages of being small like us with antitank/antimecha weaponry. Even if they weren't, thier regult and glaug would outclass the tanks as would the Qrau.

The monster isn't seen moving around that much and just sits there in one spot while other destroids may stand with thier body behind a protected armoured area of the ship to avoid exposure. In some cases being in tank form would be less useful in situations where your vehicle had been tipped onto its side and the pilot was stuck like that until people arrived to help. As ammunition ran low in the tv series you see zentradi fighting hand to hand against mechs after the holocaust, so I'm thinking the UN knew they might run low on resources one day and would rely on robots for more than taking down vehicles, but also as physical guards from giant men. In a situation like this where unarmed giants are present and thier sheer size itself is a threat, a machine that couldn't change into a robot form would be as helpless as shin was against the underwater octos if he didn't change forms from fighter to prevent being grabbed and crushed to death. The sheer height of the robot has a psycological effect too. The crushing weight from a robot smashing its fist would be enough to floor a single giant.

If UN spacy needed tanks they could have easily brought the existing ones on earth with them but I think they were focusing more on anti-air and space fighter superiority imo. The valks, then being so successful made the destroids (which are more like "extra guns with legs" for ship defence) and any ground vehicles almost obsolete because they were multipurpose in thier method of attacks. Mass producing these would be enough. By the time consideration for upgraded tanks came along, tactics for using valks got advanced enough that it was probably better to rely on transforming fighters for thier speed in getting to a location in time than tanks or other ground vehicles because a majoty of fighting would be in enviroments where the soldiers are floating around in space alot of the time. You would waste so much time transporting it all that just using what already worked, sufficed.

If the battles *only* ever took place on ground and humans took the offensive rather than just defending areas of a ship, then maybe we might have seen OT tanks and stuff but my guess is that UN spacy expected to be attacked by the aliens who wanted thier ship back. And these aliens would force them to fight in space with the soldiers defending the ship using fighters and robots rather than invading enemy territory by bringing tanks to thier homeworld. I stick to the idea that having a robot would suit a close combat defensive advantage versus a vehicle that is helpless up close. Range shouldn't be an issue since we have stuff like the monster on the ship which isn't going to be moving around that much anyway due to its sheer weight disadvantage in exchange for power and strong armor.

When you have destroid that can transform (koenig) and even hover in gerwalk mode, you got to question the reason for thier use anymore when all your fights are going to be space-based. Especially when you consider the speed of some of the enemy mecha like the Qrau which can get in extemely close with its quick speed, dodge fire by fly-strafing, punch the crap out of the armour enough to make a hole in the mech, and shoot the pilot within. All this costs money but I would say is worth spending it on if the robot mode really works as a detterent in close range.

Edited April 8, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[JB0]

Just thoughts about mech VS tank...

The Monster, Defender, and Phalanx aren't front-line units.

And the Monster is basically one giant shock absorber.

The Phalanx was jury-rigged for the sole purpose of adding missiles to the Prometheus and Daedalus in space.

So I guess the ability to walk across the ship's skin is good enough reason to not be wheeled. That or they just didn't have many tank parts to work with aboard the Macross.

Anyways, these three get greater terrain-handling capabilities with no real penalty, aside from increased repair costs due to the more complex mechanics of legs VS wheels(which is trivial next to the maintainence costs of variable fighters).

...

Well, I'm not sure about how much the Monster can step over, but the other 2 almost certainly can.

The Monster and Defender actually BENEFIT from their higher profile, given their intended rolls. Gives them a mildly greater range.

The Tomahawk seems to be a jack-of-all-trades device. Big guns, anti-infantry weapons, missiles, everything all in one unit. Not the best at anything, but a good general-purpose unit.

Primary advantage over tanks: ability to fire cannons in 2 directions while unleashing everything else in a third.

Suspiciously similar to Gundam's guntank, only with legs.

Legs make everything better. Rule of animation #1.

Spartan... Aside from corp of engineers, I don't see much pre-zentradi use.

It's primarily designed for melee combat(and is shown doing it a few times), though it has a few missiles and weapons(Tomahawk - cannons + anti-aircraft lasers + hands).

Demolitions may be a reasonable alternative use. Would make a really cool bunker buster.

[Mislovrit]

Have any one here ever considered the problems associated with things like maintenance, field repairs, refueling and reloading an armor vehicle [track, and wheel] crew have to do on their own?

Dumb question on destroid armor, do the Cheyenne, and Monster use the same type as the Tomahawk, Defender, Phalanx annd Spartan? Something to think about as the Cheyennes were blown to bits from 55mm fire from the SV-51.

[JB0]

Have any one here ever considered the problems associated with things like maintenance, field repairs, refueling and reloading an armor vehicle [track, and wheel] crew have to do on their own?

Dumb question on destroid armor, do the Cheyenne, and Monster use the same type as the Tomahawk, Defender, Phalanx annd Spartan? Something to think about as the Cheyennes were blown to bits from 55mm fire from the SV-51.

I believe the Monster uses much more armor than the others.

I know it was tough enough to be considered a good test subject for the YF-19's beam cannon in Macross Plus. But not tough enough to be spared instant immolation.

*cries*

Dunno how original series destroids compare to Zero's Cheyenne. I assume favorably, at least for the Tomahawk and Spartan.

Cheyenne has a Defender-style role. Priamry task is as an anti-aircraft emplacement.

As those are more useful if they shoot things down BEFORE they fire than if they hit 'em after the attack run, I wouldn't be surprised if armor was sacrificed for deployment speed, size, or even just cost.

[ewilen]

Oh, yes, if I understand what you're getting at Mislovrit, that is a very good point. The "pilot" of a single-man tank would really have his hands full trying to maintain it in the field. Of course, one can posit improved field maintainability through advanced technology, but--whatever. At least in real life, I'd expect a platoon of one-man tanks to have to be followed around by a mechanized maintenance group.

(Of course, the same would apply to mecha.)

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

I have a question to ask:

Could the Qrau actually punch a big hole into the monster the way milia did it to the SDF1's armor in the tv series when she delivered the spies? I thought that this whole "let's punch holes into things rather than shoot them" was a little overused. I think Milia could have been a Knight Saber reject from Bubble Gum Crisis and this was not a normal technique.

Edit: just looked at it then, it was in the side of one of the carriers. She even went to all of the trouble to bend it back in place. Oh well..Maybe it was a weak spot being targeted. Nevermind.

Edited April 8, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Guest Bromgrev]

Little biddy bits of knuckle armour vs. great big slabs of Monster armour. I know where my money would be. And I would have lost, too.

Anime magic! Suspend that disbelief!

[Final Vegeta]

It's called SWAG armor, moron.

And SWAG stands for...?

AWAG/RA 105 SWAG energy converting armor which uses Overtechnology [...] to triple the Fighter mode's armor strength in Battroid mode.

It doesn't mention anything like energy shields. Energy is converted in armor, not in shield, more like shape memory alloy. On the other hand the PPB is portrayed as an energy shield even in the first Macross.

Probable cultural inference. I read an article that mentions that in a war news are often belied. Germans and Australians though accept the refutation and readily correct in their minds the news, while Americans don't do it (for istance, the case of Jessica Lynch). It is not a matter of intelligence, but Americans are more keen to believe only what they think should be true.

Do you think it has to be energy shield because this is how you see this kind of things?

FV

[azrael]

wouldn't be surprised if armor was sacrificed for deployment speed, size, or even just cost.

They're also dealing with people who are using anti-armor ammo.....

It doesn't mention anything like energy shields. Energy is converted in armor, not in shield, more like shape memory alloy. On the other hand the PPB is portrayed as an energy shield even in the first Macross.

...

Do you think it has to be energy shield because this is how you see this kind of things

I think there's confusion in the air on this issue.

Edited April 8, 2005 by azrael

[Mislovrit]

The "pilot" of a single-man tank would really have his hands full trying to maintain it in the field.

It is easier just to build an armored drone then trying to figure out not to overwhelmed the driver with everything needed to to do in and out of combat.

Of course, one can posit improved field maintainability through advanced technology, but--whatever.

Yo're a bit behind the times as this subject have been a continuing work in progress for over 50 years.

At least in real life, I'd expect a platoon of one-man tanks

Scout and APCs, HAPCs, and some support vehicles it may be possible. But for tanks and other combat oriented vehicles three men and four men crews are the smallest number realisticly possible.

[ewilen]

Of course, one can posit improved field maintainability through advanced technology, but--whatever.

Yo're a bit behind the times as this subject have been a continuing work in progress for over 50 years.

No, if it's a WIP, then I'm ahead of the times.

At least in real life, I'd expect a platoon of one-man tanks

Scout and APCs, HAPCs, and some support vehicles it may be possible. But for tanks and other combat oriented vehicles three men and four men crews are the smallest number realisticly possible.

At least some of the combat vehicles posited for the FCS are supposed to have two-man crews. Whether this is realistically possible remains to be seen, in my opinion.

[promethuem5]

Not to be a dick, but I think you guys have kinda missed the point of my question...

Oh well, still an interesting discussion.

[azrael]

Not to be a dick, but I think you guys have kinda missed the point of my question...

Oh well, still an interesting discussion.

No. Besides M0, there is not real footage of their use pre-2009. But we did tell you what their roles are so you can adjust the details accordingly.

Now hush. The grown-ups are talking.

[ewilen]

Not to be a dick, but I think you guys have kinda missed the point of my question...

Oh well, still an interesting discussion.

Okay, I think the answer coming out of the chatter is, there's no real info on destroid employment prior to SW1, except for the Mayan incident.

The Tomahawk entry at the Compendium states:

The MBR-04 series were the first combat-ready Destroids. By the time the Type 01 through 03 had completed trial production and the Type 04 of the Destroid ambulatory weapons was finally developed (from Overtechnology from the fallen Macross), the United Nations War was nearly over. Development began in 2001 May and trial production begain in 2003 December. The decision was made to formally introduce the MBR-04 series of Destroids 2006 June and mass production began. The MBR-04-Mk I's rollout occurred in 2007 February. (The Mk I's original designation was the Destroid. After its systems became the basis for other models, this first model became to be called Mark One.) The MBR-04-Mk I's weaponry consisted of rocket launchers and two arms for use in close-quarters combat. The Mk VI (Tomahawk)'s and Mk X (Defender)'s rollouts were in 2007 November and 2009 March respectively.

So, note that the first production models available were Mark Ones, a type which probably hasn't ever been depicted in any canonical graphics. If you look at the Chronology, you'll see:

2007

January 20

    Conclusion of U.N. Wars.

[...]

February

[...]

    Rollout of MBR-04-Mk I.

March

    Stationing of Destroids aboard the SLV-111 Daedalus begins.

[...]

November

    Decision made to formally adopt the VF-X1.[...]

    Rollout of MBR-04-Mk VI Tomahawk.

No other conflicts noted until the Mayan incident in Sept. 2008 and then the start of SW1 in Feb. 2009. So, pretty much no destroid action prior to SW1. I suppose you could speculate that the mysterious "Earth Trekker" mecha got some use in the UN Wars, but we really don't know anything about them; the pictures from the Macross Hobby Handbook are just fan customs of dubious canonicity at best.

Edited April 8, 2005 by ewilen

[promethuem5]

Hmmm.... thanks for that bit. I guess there wouldn't have been too much Destroid usage onn the ground worth mentioning... I suppose I could make up some non-cannon fluff about jungle located insurgents being fought during SWI on Earth. It's not like there is alot of info about what happened on Earth during all that time... mostly just the tidbits we get when they interact with the SDF-1 and the Grand Cannon stuff. There could have been some militiant cells of teh anti-UN that still existed and re-appeared after the Macross vanished.

[Sundown]

Probable cultural inference. I read an article that mentions that in a war news are often belied. Germans and Australians though accept the refutation and readily correct in their minds the news, while Americans don't do it (for istance, the case of Jessica Lynch). It is not a matter of intelligence, but Americans are more keen to believe only what they think should be true.

Lay off the American stereotyping, please. There's just as much "cultural inference" here with these constant assumptions about American stubbornness and gullibility that certain people seem to embrace at every opportunity.

Ie. one that's really as critical and discerning about truth as they'd like to believe would also be also be a lot less willing to accept the common image of Americans as propaganda eating dullards at large. It would certainly be a nice guesture for those who levy criticism against the United States to practice some of the restraint and discernment they accuse Americans of lacking wholesale.

This American, for one, realizes that the Lynch stunt was likely a big production done mainly for show. Propaganda exists both within the States and without--the latter often aims to paint Americans at large in some unflattering way or other at every opportunity. Everything, Lynch, Commie Phobia, and Terrorist Phobia becomes to them another reason to say, "Oh, poo poo, look at those silly Americans and their silly beliefs. It's a wonder they haven't blown themselves up already." There's hardly ever any pause to consider that perhaps their own ideas about Americans might be altogether silly and simplistic as well. The actual issues and the Americans involved are very often much more complex than that.

Although it was the BBC that broke the story about the Lynch case not being what it seemed, American journalists also continued to probe into what had actually happened, their own willingness to accept the intitial story, and how the Army was using the story for its own gain.

This quote says it best: it is "the story of how a modern war icon is made and perhaps how easily journalists with different agendas accepted contradictory self-serving versions of what happened to her."

If Americans were so truly gullible, and quick to accept the official line, Michael Moore would not be the hit he is here. Of course most of his "facts" are tenuous connections and accusations with a gigantic leftist bent-- propaganda all its own.

-Al

Edited April 9, 2005 by Sundown

[ewilen]

There could have been some militiant cells of teh anti-UN that still existed and re-appeared after the Macross vanished.

That's at least plausible, since the United Earth Government put out a story blaming anti-UN remnants for the SDF-1's disappearance.

[promethuem5]

Well, now they not only created the group but made a special task force to beat them up!

[JB0]

It's called SWAG armor, moron.

And SWAG stands for...?

AWAG/RA 105 SWAG energy converting armor which uses Overtechnology [...] to triple the Fighter mode's armor strength in Battroid mode.

It doesn't mention anything like energy shields. Energy is converted in armor, not in shield, more like shape memory alloy. On the other hand the PPB is portrayed as an energy shield even in the first Macross.

*inane rambling deleted*

It uses energy from the reactor to shield the equipped vehicle from damage.

Hence energy shield.

*sigh*

I know I really shouldn't do this, but...

Probable cultural inference. I read an article that mentions that in a war news are often belied. Germans and Australians though accept the refutation and readily correct in their minds the news, while Americans don't do it. It is not a matter of intelligence, but Americans are more keen to believe only what they think should be true.

How do germans and australians "correct" the news? By combining the information from one news outlet with another? Most Americans use more than one source of news.

And don't EVEN try the "all news outlets are the same" argument. You can flip between news programs on the TV, get one article talking about how great the war is going, and another talking about how horrible it's going. On the same night, discussing the same event. Of course, TV news exists primarily to entertain, not to inform, but that's another story.

Or do they just make up information to fix what they think is wrong with news in general? That's not correcting the news, it's, well, making crap up.

It's still believing what you think should be true, it's just a belief that requires you to manufacture evidence. Which I've learned from many political debates is something americans are VERY good at.

Checkmate.

Edited April 11, 2005 by JB0

[Hurin]

Probable cultural inference. I read an article that mentions that in a war news are often belied. Germans and Australians though accept the refutation and readily correct in their minds the news, while Americans don't do it (for istance, the case of Jessica Lynch). It is not a matter of intelligence, but Americans are more keen to believe only what they think should be true.

Lay off the American stereotyping, please. There's just as much "cultural inference" here with these constant assumptions about American stubbornness and gullibility that certain people seem to embrace at every opportunity.

Ie. one that's really as critical and discerning about truth as they'd like to believe would also be also be a lot less willing to accept the common image of Americans as propaganda eating dullards at large. It would certainly be a nice guesture for those who levy criticism against the United States to practice some of the restraint and discernment they accuse Americans of lacking wholesale.

This American, for one, realizes that the Lynch stunt was likely a big production done mainly for show. Propaganda exists both within the States and without--the latter often aims to paint Americans at large in some unflattering way or other at every opportunity. Everything, Lynch, Commie Phobia, and Terrorist Phobia becomes to them another reason to say, "Oh, poo poo, look at those silly Americans and their silly beliefs. It's a wonder they haven't blown themselves up already." There's hardly ever any pause to consider that perhaps their own ideas about Americans might be altogether silly and simplistic as well. The actual issues and the Americans involved are very often much more complex than that.

Although it was the BBC that broke the story about the Lynch case not being what it seemed, American journalists also continued to probe into what had actually happened, their own willingness to accept the intitial story, and how the Army was using the story for its own gain.

This quote says it best: it is "the story of how a modern war icon is made and perhaps how easily journalists with different agendas accepted contradictory self-serving versions of what happened to her."

If Americans were so truly gullible, and quick to accept the official line, Michael Moore would not be the hit he is here. Of course most of his "facts" are tenuous connections and accusations with a gigantic leftist bent-- propaganda all its own.

-Al

Perfectly said. But a shorter version would be: "Those who would decry uncritical acceptance of propoganda should not blindly accept --or disseminate-- propoganda themselves."

Or even more brief: "Pipe down! Commie!"

How many more times will this guy get to only obliquely address an anime/Macross topic, and then swerve directly into far-Left political rants that are expressly forbidden by the rules of this board?

H

[Culverin]

whoa. prometheum, i just noticed that you post here too

[ewilen]

It uses energy from the reactor to shield the equipped vehicle from damage.

Hence energy shield.

I have to agree with FV on this point.

http://www.anime.net/macross/feedback/

[...]Shoji Kawamori said that variable fighters in general employ surplus energy to strengthen armor in Battroid mode. The designation SWAG was specified for Macross Zero's VF-0, although Mr. Kawamori publicly described the general technology of energy converting armor before Macross Zero and actually conceived it longer before.

Not described as a "shield" but as a method of strengthening the armor.

http://www.anime.net/macross/mecha/united_...s/variable/vf0/

Due to AWAG/RA 105 SWAG energy converting armor which uses Overtechnology, the VF-0 can employ surplus power to triple the Fighter mode's armor strength in Battroid mode.

Ditto.

Based on the scanty information, I envision SWAG as a method of using energy to boost the strength of the molecular bonds in the armor, thus increasing its resistance to damage.

[azrael]

It uses energy from the reactor to shield the equipped vehicle from damage.

Hence energy shield.

I think that term can easily be mistaken in this case. It's not wrong technically, but can be easily mistaken for energy shielding ala Star Trek/Star Wars. A better term would be electric armor (and there is such a thing as electric armor, Google it to read up on it).

[promethuem5]

Or even more brief: "Pipe down! Commie!"

haha...owww...ha...owwey...

Goddammit Hurin! You made me laugh so hard.... it hurts bc/ i strained all of my body muscles puking yesterday... dammit.... ow it hurts soooo much but it's soooo funny...

Culvey, yeah mate, I think it's your fault in the first place! Look what you did, I heard the word Macross form one of your posts on LotB and look where I am now.... hoplessly addiceted and out thousands of dollars....

[azrael]

It uses energy from the reactor to shield the equipped vehicle from damage.

Hence energy shield.

I have to agree with FV on this point.

...

Ditto.

Based on the scanty information, I envision SWAG as a method of using energy to boost the strength of the molecular bonds in the armor, thus increasing its resistance to damage.

FV's point is correct but energy is not converted into armor, per se.

Energy is converted in armor, not in shield, more like shape memory alloy

The start of the sentence doesn't quite help the end of the sentence. It strengthens the bonds of the existing armor not become armor. This is why a VF is like a tank, but without the weight problems. If a VF was covered in tank armor, it would have a hell of a time getting off the ground. But it has to be armored like a tank but light enough to get off the ground. Energy shielding wasn't quite realized at that time. And fighter-size PPB systems weren't developed until late 2030s/2040, so it's not quite energy shielding. So it's somewhere in between which would be electric armor. SWAG probably works great against small arms and RPGs/shaped charge explosives, but when we get to using anti-armor, anti-air missiles, etc, then we have a problem. When we get to beam weapons, then we need energy shielding.

edit: grammar.

Edited April 11, 2005 by azrael

[Hurin]

Goddammit Hurin!  You made me laugh so hard.... it hurts bc/ i strained all of my body muscles puking yesterday... dammit.... ow it hurts soooo much but it's soooo funny...

You just made my day.

[promethuem5]

Well at least somebody is enjoying it...

[ewilen]

So it's somewhere in between which would be electric armor.

Electric armor definitely isn't the same as what I'm suggesting for SWAG. I'm saying that that SWAG uses energy to strengthen the molecular bonds in the armor, thus increasing its resistance to penetration and deformation. Electric armor by contrast disrupts the jet of a shaped-charge weapon by zapping it with an electrical charge.

While I could be wrong, it's commonly asserted that SWAG is why Valkyries are able to smash through buildings without being damaged. The description of SWAG which I'm advancing is consistent with this; electric armor isn't.

[azrael]

So it's somewhere in between which would be electric armor.

Electric armor definitely isn't the same as what I'm suggesting for SWAG. I'm saying that that SWAG uses energy to strengthen the molecular bonds in the armor, thus increasing its resistance to penetration and deformation. Electric armor by contrast disrupts the jet of a shaped-charge weapon by zapping it with an electrical charge.

While I could be wrong, it's commonly asserted that SWAG is why Valkyries are able to smash through buildings without being damaged. The description of SWAG which I'm advancing is consistent with this; electric armor isn't.

I left it out of my earlier post since it didn't fit into the context of my post. One could say that SWAG is a Macross-version of electric armor (and yes I am well aware of the real-world function of electric armor). Although, it's function is quite different from the real-world implementation, the term "electric armor" is a little more appropriate than "energy shield" (You could call it "electrified armor" because it does run a electric current through the armor to strengthen it, and it is sorta is a better term, but then that might imply other things which SWAG ain't).

[ewilen]

Okay, I see what you're saying.

I don't think we know if it entails running an electric current through the armor or employs some other means.

Anyway, I like the existing English version of the jargon, "energy converting armor".

[Sundown]

But a shorter version would be: "Those who would decry uncritical acceptance of propoganda should not blindly accept --or disseminate-- propoganda themselves."

Wow. Brevity is not my strong suit. Brevity is the soul of wit. Draw your own conclusions.

-Al

[nathan]

I haven't read all of this thread so this may have been mentioned but then again maybe not. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else.

The Destroids and Battlemechs and other Robots hight is usually seen as a disadvantage against tanks. In a sense that's true however it also provides them with many advantages. Greater visability, greater firing range, they would be firing at the vulnerable tops of tanks not the heavily armored fronts, and you have the fear factor which has been mentioned. Mecha (Robots) also have manueverability in thier favor. They can dodge more easily in more ways than a tank. So yes tanks may see them coming but they're a lot more vunerable.

Oh and the SWAG was to make the VF's armor comparable to the destroids when in battloid mode meening with out it the destroids had at least 3 times the armor strength of the VFs. If the destroids also had SWAG that would make thier armor 9 times stronger and VF's would be ruled our for ground combat. So the destroids dont have SWAG they didnt need it.

And trial producction of destroids started in 2003 but mass production wasnt started until 2006 and then the MBR-04 Mk I rolled out in 2007. Since the Cheyenne is a production model it had to come after the MBR-04 Mk I. But there were still a few trial production models and prototypes about. And since SW-1 was 2 years away it's possible that some destroids convention unit action was seen even if only in training excersises so just have fun playing with your models.

Edited April 13, 2005 by nathan

[promethuem5]

so just have fun playing with your models.

I intend to.