Hello, /sci/
/agdg/ here. I'm developing a mech game and want to see what sort of technology would be somewhat realistic within the next 50-100 years. I have almost no experience with robotics, so maybe you all can lend a hand.
What sort of technology can I add in my game to add believability/plausability?
For example: Say we achieve a room-temperature superconductor. What impact would this have and can it be applied to a large mech?
>>7697377
hi there aggydaggy
you're a programmer with no robotics experience? what are you 17?
>i am not a robot
>>7697380
I have a rudimentary understanding of servos, actuation, etc. But not much beyond that.
I'm in need of information in topics like weaponry, jet propulsion, materials engineering (alloys, etc)
Mechs will never be realistic because the concept is massively impractical.
If you want a semi realistic 'what if we did just cause lol' you probably dont have to do much, just stay away from 'energy weapons', set some limits that allow you to still have the robots about how much metal the relevant robotic bits can move with how much ease in your world, and keep in mind weight and volume concerns for decently realistic weapons on top of a big humanoid robot.
>I'm developing a mech game
Sure you are, kid
Any more input?
>>7697444
I just came here, but I'm hoping more people tell you you're stupid :^)
>>7697395
Are energy weapons really that unrealistic? We already have some laser weapons today, they will be far more advanced by 2100 or so.
>>7697551
We are more likely to use particle weapons as opposed to actual lasers. Solid projectile weapons will always have a role until defense can render themselves immune to them.
This is as ambitions as you're going to see, and even then it's doubtful.
Basically a highly agile squad support platform for navigating dense urban environments. Kind like a tank but better suited to traversing obstacles and tight spaces.
>>7697377
Well according to augustine's law the price of advanced military hardware is increasing exponentially. Whatever it is, we won't be able to afford it.
By 2054, the entire defense budget of the USA will only be able to afford 1 aircraft.
>>7698076
> exponentially
What is inflation?
I suggest you focus on cool gameplay mechanics and make up some technobabble to justify it. being able to levitate objects or something would be nice and not having it just because its unrealistic would suck
>>7698099
that takes into account inflation.
Lasers, lasers are practical as air defense weapons right now.
Also some kind of low energy fusion since its a service you could buy today. As in you rent a fusion powerplant and you pay money and they provide power.
>>7697395
Bullshit. Scaled up powersuits will be practical until we reach Jetson hovering discoballs of death. And even then the doomballs might scrape across the ground in an attempt to stay low.
Can mods start banning this stupid copypasta. It gets posted so often with people just changing book to game about some really retarded concept asking for scientific advice.
Robotic swarms. Robotic swarms could end up being very disruptive weapon. You take a bunch of tiny robots have them crawl, fly, or swim on whatever your target is en mass and have them detonate all at once. Or even, better, crawl into nooks and crannies in the target then detonate.
The nooks and crannies approach is interesting because if you are sufficiently clever enough, you can take out something like an Abrams tank(or a mech) for about the cost of a couple hand grenades. IE thermite the power pack, thermite the barrel, or detonate inside the crew cabin.
Things are getting smaller and smarter, how this changes conventional warfare we don't quite know yet. But munitions smart enough to burrow into a tank and murder the crew are a possibility
>>7698128
what exactly makes scaled up powersuits practical?
>>7698106
More restrictive and/or simulatory sets of mechanics are a perfectly valid and enjoyable artistic goal for a game to strive for.
Stimulationist design, whether simulating weakly or strongly, actual reality or imaginary reality, is a perfectly good way to go.
>>7698196
wat.
>>7698212
>I suggest you focus on cool gameplay mechanics and make up some technobabble to justify it. being able to levitate objects or something would be nice and not having it just because its unrealistic would suck
Is bad advice because games that try to simulate some real or imaginary system are also good.
In contrast to a game that only tries to construct an engaging system to play with, and whatever fiction justifies it isnt important to that.
Formalism a shit.
>>7698183
It's a walking guard tower/elevated turret. More for asymmetrical or security operations than armored cavalry.
