05-25-2015, 05:58 PM
(05-25-2015, 05:54 PM)Surge Wrote:(05-25-2015, 05:52 PM)Gonzogonz Wrote: i would also argue that the legs need more armor.The front guns are too low to be practical, the tail is a good place for a gun if it weren't such a structural weakness, additionally the front guns lack the traverse range to be useful.
i dunno what you people are talking about in terms of the redundancy. while the two miniguns on the side could be removed for something else, what is redundant about it? too many legs? don't they provide stability? the scorpion tail minigun? that gun is way up in the air, it would be able to shoot at foes behind cover just because it's up higher, wouldn't it?
if anything, it could use more weapon diversity and armor.
now i'm no tactician, nor mech designer, but we see this mech in a dense urban environment, not exactly a place for a tank or heavy vehicle, you'd probably be fighting mostly infantry. it has the big laser/possibly railgun on the side for heavy infantry or the odd mechanized opponent.
now for the mech designers of the thread to tear my argument apart.
However the chassis itself seems sound from an armor perspective.
the front guns can bend up and down, it has small joints, while it probably couldn't aim far upwards, and if you stood below it it wouldn't be able to do much. that and as i mentioned, the legs could do with more armor, as well as the tail.