05-25-2015, 05:54 PM
(05-25-2015, 05:52 PM)Gonzogonz Wrote: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.(05-25-2015, 05:45 PM)Surge Wrote: Lies. Every leg needs 4 different sets of hydraulic cylinders in case one gets shot. They also need armor plating.
i would also argue that the legs need more armor.
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.
http://ask.fm/Surge753
I answer questions. snark provided free of charge.
Most hated member of the nexus, irritation and/or ragequit guaranteed or your money back.
"IF I DO NOT RETURN INFORM MY HUMAN COHABITANTS THAT I FEEL STRONGLY FOR THEM"
I answer questions. snark provided free of charge.
Most hated member of the nexus, irritation and/or ragequit guaranteed or your money back.
"IF I DO NOT RETURN INFORM MY HUMAN COHABITANTS THAT I FEEL STRONGLY FOR THEM"