"Why Use Walkers?" Topic

Im working on a near future, east v.s. west, low tech sci-fi skirmish campaign (28mm) and would like to use some Walkers, more or less due to their "cool" factor. (and that I have a few models Im dying to fight with)

Trouble is, Im having difficulty imagining why the things are there and therefore how to interpret them rules wise. (ie. speed, armor, armaments, handling terrain etc.)

For example: on one hand I can imagine the walker conveyance being used for urban units, maneuvering in the otherwise difficult ruin sprawl, navigating debris piles and such.. but then, once I think about it, a walker would have a terrible time in such terrain, stumbling all over the place.

Walking would seem to be far slower than rolling or treading though, so… why would you want one? It seems they would be pretty vulnerable to fire, exposed gears and such, no matter who you armored them.

Somebody help me out. What role would a combat walker have on the battlefield of 2060?

How about game terms? Should they be able to use Cover? (Peering around corners, ducking behind rubble) unlike other vehicles? How about firing on the move?

Im trying to build stats and need a concept to work from.

About the only way I see them as being viable, in in really rough terrain, with lots of big boulders, which would stop wheeled, or tracked vehicles.

Of course, they too will have difficulties in such terrain, unless they have 6+ legs.

Also a lot depends on how big the walkers are. Remember that the US military are already experimenting with powered frames that are a bit bigger than man sized for load carrying & logistics support.

It would not take much to slap some armour on one, specially if it is being used at a base camp where there is occasional incoming fire – then there will be the inevitable desire to 'upgrade' and add a bit of self defence – say an M4 and an XM25 AGL. Think of how the HumVee has seen up armouring and up gunning while deployed in various hot spots.

I have had the same problem. I see it as a reactions thing. The mechs can react far faster. In my background it was a progression from powered armour. As one side put more armour and bigger weapons on their power armour the other side built bigger (think WW2 German tanks from the start of the war to the end). As the pilot has his brain wired into the suit he reacts far faster than any vehicle and can move as easily as a man. That's how I had to deal with it to allow them. Hope that helps.

The mech isminferiormto rups or grav… It is more expensive and has higher maintenaince costs. …. Simple…

I have some SF3D suits for this kind of game, to me they are a heavy weapon platform that can handle rubble and rough terrain, think of them as super-powered infantry carrying bigger guns, not walking vehicles. The development path is from cargo-lifting exoskeleton to 'hey, I can hand carry a supertank killer with this' to 'we'll need some armor to protect him.'

So to field these the battlefield must NEED a weapon that only walkers can deliver, or must be too deadly for unarmored humans. Maybe one side has autonomous hunter-killer robots, so you build walkers that can carry enough armor to survive until they kill the HK.

Quads are my preferred idea for walker mobility as a viable option for manouvre – low as a high conventional vehicle but able to clear obstacles by striding over them and able to go sideways if required. In the 1950s, the US Army estimated that 67% of the land area of Earth was inaccessible to wheeled vehicles and some 45% to tracked ones. Which explains why, although animals have rotors and propellers, they don't have wheels.

Rudi, if you can cost out the details of a grav vehicle I'll take that argument seriously :) The amount of energy required to 'float' an object in a gravity field is stupendous compared to resting it on legs, tracks or wheels: Imagine how big a target THAT would make on a detector.

I did a piece on powered armour and small to medium sized mechs for the Hammer's Slammers: The Crucible rules PDF link

They're not 'canonical' as the systems don't appear within the Slammerverse (leaving aside the story The Voyage which is – for want of a better phrase – 'Slammers ajacent') but I do personally have trouble with why one would pick them in the first place, but I guess it depends on personal choice and what one is trying to portray.

The way I have them laid out in the rules supplement, the heavier power armour is a cross between a vehicle and infantry with some of the advantages and disadvantages of both but the larger mechs are very much vehicles.

As infantry have much reduced retrictions for movement in terrain (compared to vehicles) – and since both Powered Armour and Mechs use the same movement as infantry (albeit usually faster) – they do have advantages as regards terrain over vehicles. The smaller armoured suits can also hide in terrain rather like true infantry but the larger, multi crewed mechs cannot and are dealt with, cover wise, no differently to vehicles.

John T

I have a few walkers in my 6mm Hammers type 'universe' it they are mega expensive and restricted to the flatter areas……great heavy weapon platforms for the spaceport……big flat area and a system that can move and engage big stuff too……..like an SPG/AAA unit all in one…..built in sensors etc too and low crew complement…….also handy for 'pop-up' attacks over boundary walls etc…….I also have a 'droid' or robot type army, scale wise they stand about 8/10 feet high in comparison to infantry, their go us is the relentless advance and immense firepower…….of course a big muddy trench will hinder them!?

In 28 mm skirmish type stuff I've always envisaged them as a 'heavy weapons' carrier…….like in Battle for LA – the aliens had a couple in support of their infantry as well their flyers………

Height advantage? In suitable terrain that restrict tracked or wheeled vehicles, there would be fewer places for their opponents to hide behind. Sure, it makes them a target, but hopefully/supposedly they can carry the armor or shields to protect them from lighter infantry weapons in the absence of heavier vehicles. Again, how big are these walkers?

Just had an 'image' pop into the ol' skull of walkers hiding in woods with tree trunk camo'ed legs….the 'body' lost in the foliage……

There is no reason to use walkers other than the rule of cool.

For every advantage we can give to a walker, we can counter it with a conventional vehicle of some kind.

I have always thought that the rule of cool was easily good enough to include walkers in any force :)

In my universe, mechs originated as a police vehicle for crowd control during periods of civil unrest. The first mechs were only equipped with non-lethal weapons and power-claws. The intimidation factor of the mech and the ability of the claws to dismantle barricades and road-blocks were seen as their chief advantage.

The various armed-forces took a different track with limited use of power-armor. The mechs became militarized when the civil unrest in urban areas escalated into full-blown insurgency. Then the mechs were armed with guns and rockets and found useful in clearing the upper floors of buildings, laying down fire by reaching an arm around a corner without exposing the vehicle, and so forth.

The above explanation is no more convincing than any other, so the Iron Rule of Cool still applies.

Ive got power armor but when I mention walkers Im talking about 20' high walking tanks. As our games are usually in urban areas its a 'tactical fit' to have them negotiate the terrain better (fits nicely into the rules as an advantage) and claim cover where the other vehicles are hindered and cannot, but Id like it to make a certain sense. I thought about giving them a higher Tactical Move, essentially allowing them to Move a bit further and still fire to represent the "reaction" benefit someone mentioned above. Close combat seemed like another advantage, having a better chance fending off scrambling infantry than say your typical APC.

In an urban environment, maybe they would be best as troop movers.

Need to get that squad to the top of that roof quick sharp?
Worried about climbing all those stairs inside?
Worried about booby traps inside?

The walker sticks its hand out, the lads jump in and a few seconds later they are on the roof.
Blammo!

Need to move that burnt out tank out the way and the jeep simply can't push it?
Pick it up with your giant hand and move it, better still… pick it up and lob it at the enemy!
Ka-splatt!

They have hands for a reason!

;)

The best two justifications I've come up for are these…

1) Variable geometry, which covers many of the strong points listed above, from being able to move and fight relatively well in broken terrain to being able to lift troops to rooftops in urban environments. They can also use this to their advantage in taking cover: basically, they can do anything a human body can do. I've also decided that it means they are slightly more easily configured to star mobility than tanks, as they can hunker down into a compact box-like shape. Or whatever.

This would just make them more specialized and expensive tanks, issued to specialist units – engineers and maybe urban assault units. It wouldn't give them any better combat capacities than tanks, however.

So I added a completely spurious bit of handwavium…

2) Neural nets. This allows one pilot to actually BECOME the vehicle, allowing walkers to move and react faster and with greater precision than tanks. Of course, you COULD put a neural net in a tank, but – surprise, surprise – it's easier to wetwire someone's reflexes into a machine that more-or-less does what their body already does.

So walkers are really cyborgs. This makes them fast, maneuverable, excellent in broken terrain (both negotiating it and using it for cover) and highly reactive.

Walkers are cool, rule of cool wins every time, plus who as child didn't watch Thunderbirds and the Sidewinder jungle mecha in the episode The Pit of Peril and go awesome?

YouTube link

link

Then there is size. Smaller equals more plausible, larger less plausible. You makes your choice and run with it.

They are more expensive than tanks, however, and not quite as efficient, in terms of bang for the buck. They will thus never replace tanks.

But probably the REAL reason they may eventually be used is the Rule of Cool: human beings just intrinsically like the notion of BEING a war machine that can stomp around and kick the snot out of lesser mortals. So are they REALLY needed on the battlefield? Not in the slightest. Would a rich country like the U.S. use them anyhow, given the two modifications above? Sure, why not?

You can't tell me drones are cost effective, absent cultural values (Americans extreme reluctance to see their own soldiers come home in body bags). A fanatical young man with TNT strapped to his chest is much cheaper and, dollar per dollar, probably as effective in many ways. As dumb as humans are, they're still going to be better than robots for a long time at many thing.

The U.S. is investing in robots principally for cultural reasons. Sure, they get the job done and maybe even do it better in some ways. But using the old mk.I human brain, cheaply produced, en masse, is probably still a more cost-effective solution… if you have no problem with dead soldiers and collateral damage, that is.

If they move in scale as fast and wall as a man can (run jump craw roll take cover and act just like a man without a mech around him) about 12' tall, they would be 100% better then a tank or other AFV. You guys all ways have the big slow moving lumbering around standing up straight walking a round making a target of it self mind set of a mech locked into your head.

Well. Think of it this way. You are a walker. Do you stumble around in the countryside or dense terrain? (I mean when you are NOT drunk, Smokey).

Speed over distance is where Walkers fail imo. Tactically, if they are 2 stories tall or so they could be good choices for a variety of purposes. Strategically, less so.

I agree with the rule of cool, too. But remember that in order to deal with difficult terrain, a mech needs arms and hands. A lot of mech designs lack both items; if one of their legs fail just once, they will slip, fall, and they cant get up again!
I would treat them like tanks. Depending of size, i would make them bigger (so easiest targets) targets when walking, if they can hit the ground. I would give them cover advantages in urban terrain, as they can fit in smaller spaces than a tank, and use cover around corners more easy than a tank.

Not matter that you use neural links, i would allow a vehicle with a multiman crew more combat awarness (by example, allowing more effective spotting and firing when moving), than a single man crewed vehicle. I probably wouldnt allow a mech to fire when moving as good as a tank. Jus treat them like oversized infantryman

I wrote them up as no penalty to cross linear obstacles (they can just step over them), can wade through deeper water with no preparation and can enter obstructed ground (which normal vehicles can't).

And also easier to hit for being tall.

First, they are cool. Second, they (if the tech worked) are very flexible in combat and are able to bring heavy fire into obstructed terrain where normal AFVs cannot go. In the Gear Krieg universe, they are light-medium AFVs that can transform from travel mode (tracks/wheels) to walking mode. So they are able to keep up with or spearhead an advance, transition into walking mode to go through woods and other blocking terrain to scout or flank an enemy, etc. And imagine being able to bring direct fire support into an environment like Stalingrad where the rubble was too heavy for AFVs. So a walking SPG would be pretty handy! '

Its interesting that BAE has a "future weapons" program that includes some transformable mech designs. as BAE said in an article:

"We have a couple of concepts of walking systems, simply because it's much easier to walk rather than drive over hard terrain. You can walk up Mount Everest but you certainly can't drive up it. Apply that logic to an armoured vehicle, and there are certainly ideas that could justify walker vehicles."

link

Plus did I mention that they are cool!??

I'm not really a big fan of any kind of walkers in my 6mm Sci-fi … save for robots of course. But I do have some … link Things like Mechs, Titans/Knights, etc. it would seem to me, would not dominate the battlefield. Bigger Titan/Mech types would be like Naval CVs or BB … few and far between. Not to mention the fact that anything that BIG would be nothing but a target … a very big target. Remember the scene from the end of Tom Cruise's WotW. Those Grunts from the 10th MTN with man packed AT weapons [IIRC AT-4s ?] made short order of those big Martian Tripods once their shields were gone … Think about it, if the Nazis made a Ratte Super Heavy Land Battleship, it would have been nothing but a target from the air, like a naval BB … And the IJN Super Heavy BBs, the Yamato and Mushashi, did really prove NOT to be a game changer and the Yamato ended up doing an ineffective suicide run in the end. And the German BB Tripitz spent most of the war hiding in a fjord trying not to be sunk by aircraft or subs … So IMO, even in the future big combat walkers would probably rare if at all … But that being said, I have to generally agree with Insomniac … The "cool factor" [for some] far outweights anything else …

You obviously aren't a fan of Battletech or Robotech, or 40K Titans. Fans of giant bipedal walkers (mechs) do not see them as impractical or vulnerable in any way. We assume that they have no (or few) limits and weaknesses with only advantages. Not only do they look cool, they are powerful, fearsome and destructive striders in any future battlefield.

Okay, now I must go back to playing 'Titanfall.'

I concur with BAE, walkers provide armor support in terrain that has traditionally been denied to armor. That could be a significant tactical advantage in many geographies particularly for non-arid equatorial regions.

Lost Pict

When playing NUTS War Without End, Weird War 2, combat walkers can be pretty effective if used properly. In one game a US player used his combat walker to shoot and scoot around the bocage. He could stand his walker up to look over a hedgerow, take German units under fire while getting a cover bonus, then retract back down to track mode and then scoot to another firing position. Provided great fire support for infantry advancing through bocage country.

I think they could have small advantages. The battletech mechs are too big but something about 12 feet tall with a human inside and some modest heavy weapons has plenty of uses over a tank but only in urban areas. lower profile and more viability would be distinct advantages. I imagine scanning roof tops is hard from inside a tank without popping the top and exposing the commander.

I kinda envision them as a combo with IFVs. So you APC moves in and has some sort of dock or holds for one or two larger support mechs. The APC pulls up to the suspect building and the mechs dismount to off cover and security while the troops jump out and enter the building to clear it. If things get crazy then they cover the escape and get the guys back inside the APC. Mechs and power armor can't clear buildings so troops will always be needed but I think they are a better option for combined arms then say sending in a tank or even several IFVs.

Guys, I've played many, many, many games with Titans[or Mechs if you prefer] … my experiences seems different than yours. We/I see them as large heavy mobile weapons platforms. Kind of like Naval BB support. Their biggest job is to kill the enemy Titans/Mechs and gain "superiority", likened to air superiority. So the other more numerous ground forces can fire and maneuver and do their jobs. Our games alway start with the Titans trying to blow each other up and the many of the ground force joining in. Along with CAS, Off Board FA and orbital assets as well, if available. Using the big target for what it is … a big target. Shields are rapidly depleted. And firepower from all assets start blowing pieces off them. So within a few turns one side's are burning wrecks and the other side's are literally on their last leg. Then the ground forces can continue to do their jobs unimpeded. Titans generally always take shots at other titans. To shot at anything else, we consider a waste. Unless there is no other shot. Never mount a close combat weapon on a titan hard point, only ranged weapons. Anyone dumb enough to try and run into close combat, is dropped along the way. Like that guy with a sword going after Indiana Jones who is packing a pistol in Raiders … Range weapons and fire power … not chain and/or power fists. Even infantry with a number of AT weapons can rapidly deplete shields/fields. Add all the fire support for the Grunts and/or Armor with other titans, FA, CAS, etc. as I said, … smoking wrecks … As the crew on Tac Cmd said, that is a page for L4's SoTR …

HEY SBminiguy, I may be wrong, but didn't you say awhile back you or you knew of a company that was going to make a 6mm Ratte ? [I might want one ?] AND we believe, "combat walkers can be pretty effective if used properly … " … is like the way we use them …

davesimpson – "You can't tell me drones are cost effective, absent cultural values (Americans extreme reluctance to see their own soldiers come home in body bags)." Being a former US Grunt, I'm glad Americans feel that way … so would my Mom … And I agree, Walkers will probably never replace tanks and possibly support them …

Hi Legion, yep, that was me, actually. Been trying to get my business partner to commit to that. It's all scoped out from a cost and production standpoint, but he's got other things going. Heck, I've mastered a whole line up of 6mm Gear Krieg walkers…just sitting on the shelf right now

Here's the initial version of the Ratte on Shapeways. There's a remastered version, but I haven't printed one in a while:

link

Good to know SB ! Hopefully you'll get your's made … I'd rather get them from a distributor then Shapeways … Thanks !

I would see them being very useful in heavy wooded areas or underground bunkers / tunnels.
Do they have to be big weapon platforms like battletech or more heavy anti personnel like the avatar or last matrix film smaller walkers?

Well, most of the WW2 Combat Walkers are light to medium AFVs like in this game pic:

~20ft tall walkers are actually at my upper limit for height in 'realistic' SF.

I normally assume that walkers are ~4m tall, give or take a half meter. I figure they'll be no lighter than 8x a combat-loaded infantryman, call it 1000kg on the light end and 10 tons on the heavy end, with a probable weight closer to 1500-2000kg. They're generally armed and armored as well as a Bradley, not an Abrams. The human pilot/operator is stuffed into the chest in a near-fetal position to minimize the bulk of the chest (and therefore minimize the armor mass), and uses a helmet-mounted display to look around (no windows or even a display on the inside of the armor).

Active Defense Systems like Trophy or Quick Kill make it even better protected, but there are still some weak points due to the articulation. The inside of the groin and the underarms/armpit are particularly vulnerable, but since the pilot is entirely inside an armored bathtub, chances of crew injury from a peripheral hit are minimal.

Being twice human-sized gives them a normal marching pace of at least 10kph, a double-time pace of at least 20kph, and a run significantly above that (easily 50kph), and that's just from doubling the equivalent human movement speeds.

I've seen a simple human 'extender' leg exoskeleton frame that allowed a runner to cruise along at a 35kph pace for the same calorie expense as an 10kph pace, courtesy of better springs in the exo's "Achilles Tendon," so the jog and run speeds could be a whole lot faster. Assuming hydraulic power to the limbs, it would definitely need a dedicated hydraulic fluid cooler as well as whatever engine cooling was required.

You'd need a relatively small engine for this, too. Human peak power delivery is all of about 2.5hp (and sustained is ~0.2hp) for an Olympic-class sprinter, so something twice the size of a human and about the same density would only need about 20hp for the same power-to-weight ratio. Naturally, I'd expect to see more like 200hp in a military mecha, which would give a power-to-weight ratio more like a wild animal than an Olympic athlete.

As I mentioned, I expect most mecha to be armed about like a Bradley, with a 20-40mm cannon and a couple ATGMs. Might even see SAMs as a standard armament, since I think you can put a trio or quadpack of Stinger equivalents into the same volume as a TOW equivalent missile.

You MIGHT even see bigger guns like a 57mm or 60mm, maybe bigger guns like a 75mm ARES automatic smoothbore or even the Rhinemetall 120mm, but that would be VERY dependent on controlling the recoil enough to allow a 4-ton mech to survive it! The lightest vehicle I've seen armed with a Rhinemetall 120mm was ~18 tons, but articulation like a human body might allow a lighter frame to handle it.

Whether weapons are mounted to the arm or not is another argument. If the mecha is more like a suit that you wear, then I'd expect the mecha to be armed with hand-carried "rifles" instead of fixed weapons, simply because that reduces operator retraining. If it's driven/piloted instead, then I'd expect to see more fixed weapons.

In either event, I'd expect a couple "pistols" in the form of autoGLs or MGs (maybe both), though these would most likely be fixed to the forearm regardless of how the main gun was dealt with. Those would be for close protection against infantry.

Anti-grav would, perversely, make walkers possible.

Full anti-grav vehicles are a pain, as they cannot be braked effectively. This is the reason hovercraft are so wildly unmanageable -- without friction they continue to move in the same direction forever. It would be a disaster to have a Star Wars vehicle with only rear propulsion (how do they stop?).

Legs would get round this. They would give decent manouevre to what is effectively a low weight body. Wheels and tracks would be worse, as they don't allow turning when there's no weight on them and are very dependent on the vehicle remaining the same distance to the ground.

So anti-grav walkers would be stealthier than the full anti-grav alternatives. They would be more mobile than wheeled alternatives because they could do things like leap rivers and walls and cross rubble, etc.

All this is doubly true if the anti-grav was unreliable, so that the vehicle needed to be able to cope with fluctuating levels. Flying vehicles would need helicopter rotors to hold them, with all the difficulties that brings. Wheels would hold them up, but without the ability to leap etc.

The most obvious reason (beyond coolness): The company that makes them is in the right district(s). Once they got funded and later fielded…

This one is for covert walrus
link

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Cook

Greetings and have fun

"Careful, Walker Blue Three. The hostiles have littered the ground ahead with giant banana peels…"

Has anyone ever worked out what sort of structure you'd need in the feet/ankles of a mech to survive the impact of it running about or leaping over a hedge? Presumably something with the sort of durability/shock absorbers of a helicopter's landing gear…?

In the case of size, I prefer the more plausible vehicles like Rebel Miniatures' VIPER or HAMR suits:

The sky-scraper sized models are best in Giant Monster gaming

Why use walkers? Because it's sci-fi and it allows for it. We don't question very much at least the improbabilities of sci-fi for FTL, clones, anti-grav drives, etc… So why do walkers always get questioned?

It's your game, play it your way.

Nice paint jobs there … and yes, those are reasonable sizes … not 60 ft tall … And yes, always do what works for you not me … So if you want to play a game with 60ft circus colored Titans/Mechs, etc. … go for it … But it won't stop me from making fun of you !

The pictures are very similar to the walkers in my game. Close to 20' tall as stated.

1. Bigger, stronger
2. Faster
3. Climbs in n out of ditches
4. more manuverable
5. Carry heavy weapon than infantry
6. more cool

Weapon inter changeability.

They can change weapons as easily as a person.
Not many tanks can change their guns mid battle.

Has anyone ever worked out what sort of structure you'd need in the feet/ankles of a mech to survive the impact of it running about or leaping over a hedge? Presumably something with the sort of durability/shock absorbers of a helicopter's landing gear…?

Only in general terms. Turns out that you need to design the legs for loads of at least 10x the runner's weight, and that multiplier increases faster than the weight increase of the runner.

So I assume that we're talking about up to 50x the vehicle weight for a small walker in the ~1-10 ton range. It doesn't look like the legs will need much armor except over the flexible parts!

I didn't paint those, I took the photos from Rebel's site. In fact, I just received my HAMR and VIPERs the day before yesterday.

I confess that prior to becoming addicted to anime, I was not much of a fan of walkers. The combination of high center of gravity and high profile turned me off, but after watching the brilliant Sci Fi/horror series Blue Gender I had to have giant armored suits!

YouTube link

And now I've become entranced by Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex and have to find a place for spider-like AI
'think tanks.'

YouTube link

So now I have a few Darkest Star not-Tachikomas to build.