Jump to content

Why don't CAV's have hands?


Spartan6
 Share

Recommended Posts

Why don't CAV's have hands?

I'm not blind so I realize that every CAV we've seen has weapons hanging off it's torso but surely there's some kind of industrial use for CAV's or a similiar type of device. It would make battlefield salvage simpler and easier too I would think. Then there's the utility of tearing things up on the battlefield with some kind of manipulators. Although it's never really talked about in the game, engineers build all kinds of defensive stuff like wire obstacles and fallen trees to impede mobility on the modern battlefield. Wouldn't it make sense that CAV units would need some sort of obstacle breaching ability? Other than blowing them up of course.

 

Has anyone else wondered about this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes Spartan it has come up before (twice a year for three years if I remember correctly :o)) and it comes down to the fact that a CAV is a combat unit, pure and simple. It doesn't do anything but fight, and it's made by corporations to specifications provided by the military, so they don't put useless crap on there.

 

Another reason was the desired difference from the other mecha games out there, namely BattleTech and Heavy Gear when CAV was 'invented'. These games have hands on their mecha, and they have close combat which involved punching and kicking. Ed and Al at Reaper who came up with the rules wanted a more pure game which doesn't have the rediculous anime style close combat in it, and really does rely upon fighting.... afterall, a CAV is a tank with slightly different motive systems and the turrets on the side :o)

 

Yes there are similar machines for industrial and salvage work, but they aren't CAV's and they shouldn't be called CAV's. CAV itself stands for Combat Assault Vehicle, and calling an unarmed and unarmoured mining vehicle a CAV would be a tad silly :o)

 

Hope that helps. I dare say a couple of the others'll be along with some more reasons soon :o)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Leech hit most of it. I don't think hands are necessary but again the option would be sort of cool if ever it comes up. I don't mind the idea of walking tanks, the CQB rules certainly reflect the fact CAV aren't made for close combat. Of course then it begs the question, why put legs on a CAV? Some might argue they add more mobiltiy but without the hands I think the advantage is minimal at best. Heck I'd almost like to see a few tracked CAV's, I may even go so far as to modify and whip up my own tracked CAV's at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original robotic workers were called Cybots, and it is from these machines CAVs evolved. At first as crude weapons platforms built to defend their immediate area of operation, but eventually as technology progresses, fully combat designed "Cybots" appeared. These are the true CAVs just as Frank said ;Combat Assault Vehicle. thier solely designed for combat.

 

What your asking about is Cybots; sure, they would be cool, but they aren't CAVs. I can see engineer Cybots in operations supporting an element of CAVs. Recovery vehicles are probably best left as tracked, but a modern Cybot would probably be able to go anywhere a CAV should.

 

Ultimitely that is the Mecha's strength; mobility. Consider how difficult it is to move armor across a mountainous region, some vehicles stall when they hit an extreme grade, whereas the human body navigates that same terrain like walking up a flight of steps.

 

That is the where a CAV would really shine on the battlefield, the fact that the commander has the ability to position "Armor" in an area once only navigable by infantry. Now a heavy armor element can come from just about anywhere and exploit a defensive line.

 

Terrain is a key factor in preparation of a defense and CAVs, once as infantry support units, are now organized as breach and penetration units as described in the first JOR with the Imperial Wars, Thank the Terrans for that. this is probably the theory behind :Attention CAV.

 

A tracked CAV bro? If a CAV is "a walking tank", then a CAV on tracks is basically "a Tank"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A tracked CAV bro? If a CAV is "a walking tank", then a CAV on tracks is basically "a Tank"

 

Correct, but other then the mysterious fact that walking CAV can carry more firepower and armor then the far more stable tracked/wheeled platforms in the CAV galaxy there is no difference between what walks and what rolls but aesthetics so why not?

One could logically argue that the development of CAV in general is almost superfluous and certainly not an optimal war platform when compared with the cost of cheaper tracked or wheeled vehicles. Tough terrain isn't an issue in an age where most military aircraft hover anyway. What it comes down to is the coolness of science fiction and the coolness of piloting walking tanks so why not change things around a little from time to time and create a rolling CAV? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Air power pretty much would kill any preconceptions we had of Mecha. But that same question was raised about Armor in general. Why have them?

 

hovering Aircraft (specifically helicopters) do not have the prolonged fighting power Armor has. Aircraft cannot hold a ground position, you need troops for that. I remember Fort Knox running a few tests to determine whether tracked armor or wheeled armor was the way to go; last check, the Army purchased those new 6 wheelers and scrapped the Crusader project. doesn't mean armor is obsolete, just means theres a time and a place for it.

 

As for true Aircraft, if a tank (non AA) could get a shot off on a fast moving aircraft, then that crew deserves a hellified medal. The same should probably apply to a CAV Crew. not impossible.

 

It should be cheaper and easier to produce a tank; less moving parts, but your still looking at a CAV exactly like a tank, when in fact. it isn't. Its different from a tank like a helicopter is different than a Fighter jet, yet kind of simular in function.

 

I think Reaper caught the concept dead on, whereas the giant mecha is not the almighty lord of battle, as portayed in Battletech. The CAV is just one piece of a larger picture, and can be destroyed by just about every other unit in the game.

Heavy Gear at a quick glance seems to utilize mecha like oversized power armor, and thats cool. I guess in their situation hands are cool, but CAV is coming from an entirely different perspective.

 

Take a closer look at the Naginata, that might be the closest thing to what you may consider a "rolling CAV"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it about a CAV that makes it stand out from anything else? I can understand the difference between mechanized armor and Aircraft but generally speaking when weighing the cost effectiveness of units ocmpared to their performance capabilities I don't see anything like CAV becoming a reality except just because. Armored infantry and highly mobile tanks are a cheaper more effective method of combat in general then mecha will ever be The idea of a one machine walking tank company sure doesn't apply in CAV. The CAV game certainly has integrated CAV, tanks, aircraft and infantry into good combined armed forces but when it comes down to it there isn't much pracitcal reason for CAV, just science fiction whimsy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, thats always a matter of opinion.

 

I've already seen a walking robot debute at an Expo in Canada, sometime in 99-2000. So it's already possible by todays standards. How hard is it to slap a pair of 240 bravos on either "arm" and send it into a cave in Afganistan on seek and destroy orders. The cost saved in lives would be tremendous, however it is not economically feasable to create such things.

 

I do see walking robots taking the field in the future, maybe even as replacement for some of the most dangerous infantry operations where the cost in lives is too much of a risk. The human body is FAAAARRR superior in mobility than any vehicle imaginable, so it would be crazy to not work towards creating a machine than emulates the human body. So whatever the human body can do, you gotta believe science is working on either duplicating or enhancing.

 

Now AI is a different story altogether, but walking Robots are already the reality.

as a matter of fact look at this

 

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~iba/misc/p3/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a flurry of posts, Kamut hit the nail on the head in his last one.... the humanoid form is actually very stable, and it has very high mobility and is very functional - it can do most things needed.

 

So, if the best mobility and versatility is in a humanoid form, then why not emulate that in your next generation of combat vehicles? Then, if you've emulated it, why not scrap the hands cos you won't need them to grip stuff in the middle of a firefight, and your barrels can support you getting up or helping to maintain balance (that is, if the gyro and AI fails for some reason).

 

The reason tanks are used in BattleTech is the same one as they are here..... they're cheaper to produce thus you can have many more for each CAV you produce. But what you gain in terms of economy and magnitude of force, you lose in terms of the resilience and versatility.

 

Yes, I think it'd be nice to see something along the lines of a 6 track tank (bearing in mind Damage Tracks are a aggregate of several things but mainly size and resilience to damage) with the ability to have +4 armour natural (thus upgradable to +5). But I don't know if that'll happen, and to be honest, I don't have any real problem with the way tanks are protrayed in CAV.... they are hard, but they aren't as tough as CAV's, but points/DT's ratio is about the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that Red touched on , and I firmly agree however is a tracked vehicle is far more capable of carrying a heavier weapon and fire the thing with less variables than a machine in the link is capable of carrying. thue easier TL.

 

It's more of a distribution of load, which is why I thought the TL modifier for armor was fair enough. I don't think Reaper needs to make bigger tanks, but the ones out already would certainly have more accuracy, if not heavier weapons.

 

Imagine that robot, 25 to 30 feet tall and what you essentially have is a Commando Mech from Battletech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah see, now we have got into a totally different arena in my book. Robots and CAV are not the same thing. by the way KAMUT, in case you haven't seen - http://www.packbot.com/

 

 

I would agree that a Robot would be the best of both worlds, lower cost in human life and the manueverability and flexibility of a human being or more so. robots are a totally different arena in my book then walking tanks, or CAV.

 

 

So, if the best mobility and versatility is in a humanoid form, then why not emulate that in your next generation of combat vehicles? Then, if you've emulated it, why not scrap the hands cos you won't need them to grip stuff in the middle of a firefight, and your barrels can support you getting up or helping to maintain balance (that is, if the gyro and AI fails for some reason).

 

Thats essentially what we are discussing. If the human form is the optimal form (and it's not, just more so then the standard tank or vehicle) then I could go with that too. however, take away the hands and you lose an incredible amount of that advantage for one. You potentially could lose a cheaper form of plug in weaponry because now instead of just picking it up you have to plug it in. Essentially by leaving out the hands you have reduced its so called versatility.

 

But what you gain in terms of economy and magnitude of force, you lose in terms of the resilience and versatility

 

I don't get it. A less stable delivery platform in a bipedal form (The scorpion is a much better design in this regard and much more reasonable in my opinoin then bipedal CAV.) you gain no real versatility as I said before because wheeled/tracked/hover vehicles can be as modular and as flexible if not more so because of there more stable mode of transportaion, then a CAV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...