Forums of the Megaverse®

SRoss wrote:

taalismn wrote:In Robotech, Beware Anything with a Bra Size Measured in Terms of Caliber.

I'm suddenly flashing back to a scene in one of the Macross animes where two children were playing in a full-sized Maltrendi bra cup.

It was only the one kid, actually... but the scene you're thinking of is from the short movie/long episode Macross 7: the Galaxy is Calling Me!. The undergarment in question belonged to Emilia Jenius, one of the older Jenius sisters.

ShadowLogan wrote:I don't think they are a one-size fits all, but the main reactor is a factor in the power the beam weapon can use unless it uses some type of energy storage system, which requires more space (might be a wash).

Using capacitor systems to store energy for beam weaponry is a thing in Macross, that crops up both very early and very late in the main Macross universe. Supposedly, the VF-0 used a capacitor system for its laser weapons (I have heard this from a reliable fellow translator, but have not independently confirmed it yet), and it's confirmed that at one of the variants had a separate capacitor that allowed it to temporarily operate its energy conversion armor system in fighter mode. The VF-25's Armored Pack (formal spec APS-25A/MF25 for those who care) also incorporated its own high-energy capacitor which is shared between the pack's built-in beam weaponry and its energy conversion armor.

Based on that established precedent, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the destroids equipped with beam weaponry (the Tomahawk series) used some kind of high-energy capacitor to store energy for its particle beam cannons.

ShadowLogan wrote:While the individual platforms are less versatile compared to the Valk, they would do aspects better. So that in a mixed force you end up with a force that is more capable and effective than a group of just Valks and cheap non-VFs.

Ordinarily, that would be the case... but while the known varieties of destroid* are generally good at performing a specific role, often better than a Valkyrie, they don't do so hot when asked to operate outside that narrowly defined scheme. The question of mobility aside, the Valkyrie's chief advantage over the destroids its is operational versatility. It might not excel when asked to fill in for a mission-specific destroid, but it'll do that job OK and many others as well. Barring jobs which are impossible for a Valkyrie or normal-sized destroid to carry off (the Monster's heavy artillery functions), it's cheaper to have one all-around unit that does many jobs well than a half-dozen different units that do one job extremely well and all others poorly.

Yes, there's probably an element of politics in it, but most of it is sound decisionmaking based on advances in technology and changes in operational requirements that definitively left the destroids in the dust until recently (in-universe). Once technological advances could be easily applied to destroids and enhance their performance to the point where they were assets again, their star went back on the rise. That's how we got the Cheyenne II and the Super Defender, which have tech taken from later-gen VFs stuffed in 'em, to improve their capabilities to or beyond what the line VFs can do in some circumstances.

Seto Kaiba wrote:Based on that established precedent, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the destroids equipped with beam weaponry (the Tomahawk series) used some kind of high-energy capacitor to store energy for its particle beam cannons.

But an energy storage system still takes up space. Depending on the requirements set foth for the design, it may be better to go with a smaller storage system and larger engine than the other way around.

Seto Kaiba wrote:Ordinarily, that would be the case... but while the known varieties of destroid* are generally good at performing a specific role, often better than a Valkyrie, they don't do so hot when asked to operate outside that narrowly defined scheme. The question of mobility aside, the Valkyrie's chief advantage over the destroids its is operational versatility.

It would be the case even here. While existing destroids are geared toward a specific role, they don't necessarily have to be w/a clean sheet design. If the main unit needs to be more versatile it should be possible to make a non-transforming competitor to the Valk if given access to the same technology base.

If a Destroid* can be made to have ~90% of a Valks overall capabilities at a significantly lower cost (more than capability difference) the people in charge are proably going to be asking themselves if that extra capability a Valk brings is worth more than ~10% added cost.

*Destroid or non-transformable Battloid or cousin to the AGA-1JA Gerwalk-only

ShadowLogan wrote:But an energy storage system still takes up space. Depending on the requirements set foth for the design, it may be better to go with a smaller storage system and larger engine than the other way around.

Well, if the remark I'm still trying to confirm about the VF-0's laser machinegun is true, then they have the technology to make a capacitor small enough to fit in a Valkyrie's head that's also capacious enough for it to feed a multi-megawatt high-energy laser weapon for something like half a minute of sustained fire with no input from the generators.

(Considering that a VF-1's laser weaponry consumes more power per shot than a Destroid's main reactor can even generate, I think a similar capacitor system would probably do nicely.)

ShadowLogan wrote:It would be the case even here. While existing destroids are geared toward a specific role, they don't necessarily have to be w/a clean sheet design. If the main unit needs to be more versatile it should be possible to make a non-transforming competitor to the Valk if given access to the same technology base.

But then, if you're drawing on the same technological base, you're going to run into largely the same cost issues the Valkyrie does... while simultaneously making a less versatile and maneuverable platform. That transformation system lets a Valkyrie fill a number of roles that simply can't be filled by a non-transforming walker.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

ShadowLogan wrote:It would be the case even here. While existing destroids are geared toward a specific role, they don't necessarily have to be w/a clean sheet design. If the main unit needs to be more versatile it should be possible to make a non-transforming competitor to the Valk if given access to the same technology base.

But then, if you're drawing on the same technological base, you're going to run into largely the same cost issues the Valkyrie does... while simultaneously making a less versatile and maneuverable platform. That transformation system lets a Valkyrie fill a number of roles that simply can't be filled by a non-transforming walker.

While the cost is more than normally expected for a Destroid it would still be cheaper than a Valk. Given a design that has a lot of Valk capabilities, only cheaper than one. It means the Valks could loose production numbers (which would drive up the cost making a non-valk all the more attractive).

I beg to differ on a non-transformer being unable to fill all the Valks roles. It really depends on how the mecha is designed. Existing ones are done in such a way to give the Valk the edge and not compete with it directly. That means a clean sheet design is really required. Most likely a Gerwalk configuration (AGA-1JA), though a Battloid may also work.

ShadowLogan wrote:While the cost is more than normally expected for a Destroid it would still be cheaper than a Valk. Given a design that has a lot of Valk capabilities, only cheaper than one.

But once again, we've ended up smack in the middle of "why bother" territory when it comes down to building what is essentially a Valkyrie that doesn't transform. (Or maybe we oughta just cut out the middle man and call that a Gundam, yes?) If you're using the same OTM as Valkyries do, in a similar design, and trying to factor in as many of the Valkyrie's operational capabilities as possible, then you're going to run the cost right up until you're in around the same price range as a Valkyrie... at which point, you're trying to sell a new and completely untested system that might be slightly cheaper than a Valkyrie, but is also slightly less able and lacks the virtue of being tried and tested.

ShadowLogan wrote:It means the Valks could loose production numbers (which would drive up the cost making a non-valk all the more attractive).

Only if the government can be persuaded to pass on the tried-and-tested Valkyrie concept that's done so well for them in the past in favor of a new, untested platform that can't do everything a Valkyrie can.

ShadowLogan wrote:I beg to differ on a non-transformer being unable to fill all the Valks roles. It really depends on how the mecha is designed. Existing ones are done in such a way to give the Valk the edge and not compete with it directly. That means a clean sheet design is really required. Most likely a Gerwalk configuration (AGA-1JA), though a Battloid may also work.

There are issues there too... a battroid (or mobile suit) is not the most aerodynamic thing in the world, so it's going to be worse off in any flight situation compared to the Valkyries, that can turn into a properly aerodynamic fighter aircraft. Likewise, a GERWALK-form unit will be suffering from the inherent movement limitations of the GERWALK mode, including a distinct weakness in close combat.

Gryphon wrote:But if I attempt to build a cheaper Corvette, but want to use all of the advanced techniques and materials used in the Corvette, then you end up with a vehicle that isn't much cheaper than a Corvette, and isn't as effective either.

Great analogy.

But once again, we've ended up smack in the middle of "why bother" territory when it comes down to building what is essentially a Valkyrie that doesn't transform. (Or maybe we oughta just cut out the middle man and call that a Gundam, yes?) If you're using the same OTM as Valkyries do, in a similar design, and trying to factor in as many of the Valkyrie's operational capabilities as possible, then you're going to run the cost right up until you're in around the same price range as a Valkyrie... at which point, you're trying to sell a new and completely untested system that might be slightly cheaper than a Valkyrie, but is also slightly less able and lacks the virtue of being tried and tested.

Gundam has it's variable units to, though the bulk are non-variable.

The Destroid in this case doesn't have the costly and complex transformation system and flight control sofware for 3 modes (plus transition phases) that Valk does.

If you can get basically a Valk that doesn't transform and is cheaper and you need to ask "why bother"? If the unit has a cheaper cost in resources that means you can build more of them. Or divert the resources to other projects.

Only if the government can be persuaded to pass on the tried-and-tested Valkyrie concept that's done so well for them in the past in favor of a new, untested platform that can't do everything a Valkyrie can.

Obviously there is some risk involved and dependent if it can get past the Valk. lobbiests. It might only be tried small scale first before moving into mainstream.

There are issues there too... a battroid (or mobile suit) is not the most aerodynamic thing in the world, so it's going to be worse off in any flight situation compared to the Valkyries, that can turn into a properly aerodynamic fighter aircraft. Likewise, a GERWALK-form unit will be suffering from the inherent movement limitations of the GERWALK mode, including a distinct weakness in close combat

Gerwalk: It should be possible to get most (if not all) of the fighter mode capabilities out of a Gerwalk. The legs have to sweep back (as did in Ep2 when Rick had Minmei in the mecha's hand) and more aerodynamic arms (and assuming a proper position) could move and act like it was in fighter mode w/o being in fighter mode. It can also do pretty much most of what a Battloid can do already. A valid question would be if the those Battloid capabilities are critical. That though is something that can change with time (and about the only thing to come to mind that a B can do that a G can't is play dressup effectivly and deliver melee kicks).

Battloid: While I agree it isn't portrayed as the most aerodynamic thing, it may come down to the approach and mindset of the designers to make them uncompetitive w/actual aircraft. Some if it is ground in reality, but some of it can be countered with the right design. Some variable geometry features would probably help. Here I don't mean the Veritech level transformation, more like what we see in real aircraft (wings that fold for storage or alter their position for better aerodynamics, retractable landing gear, the nose on the Concord, etc).

In flight it would probably have to look something like the following to get the best performance:
-legs in a standing position
-possibly tilt the head back
-arms stretch above the head (forming a "nose like section)
-variable geometry wings (or wings positioned like the Decepticon seekers in G1).
-Throw in aerodynamic shaping

You get a flight capable destroid w/o the over complex and costly Valk transformation system.

Gryphon wrote:But if I attempt to build a cheaper Corvette, but want to use all of the advanced techniques and materials used in the Corvette, then you end up with a vehicle that isn't much cheaper than a Corvette, and isn't as effective either.

He's not trying to build a cheaper Corvette. He's trying to build Corvettes and SUVs and Sedans instead of a Sportscar-SUV-Sedan.

ShadowLogan wrote:Gundam has it's variable units to, though the bulk are non-variable.

True, but the vast majority of mobile suits (Gundams included) are non-transformable and are also incapable of independent flight, which leaves them in essentially the same boat as those destroids.

ShadowLogan wrote:The Destroid in this case doesn't have the costly and complex transformation system and flight control sofware for 3 modes (plus transition phases) that Valk does.

Complex... yes. But by its very nature, it also allows the Valkyrie to cover a wide variety of operational roles that would otherwise be the business of a host of other craft. Costly... all signs point to "Not so much, really." According to several official Macross sources, incl. Macross Chronicle, the AI avionics suite in a Valkyrie isn't that dissimilar from the ones which are used in Destroids. So similar, in fact, that it's supposedly quite easy for a pilot who can operate a Battroid to back and forth between a Valkyrie and a Destroid. (A feat that we've seen Hikaru do in the original Macross series).

ShadowLogan wrote:If you can get basically a Valk that doesn't transform and is cheaper and you need to ask "why bother"? If the unit has a cheaper cost in resources that means you can build more of them. Or divert the resources to other projects.

If the cheaper unit can't do everything a Valkyrie can do, or can do those things but not as well, then we do have cause to ask "Why bother?". As it stands, there is one type of craft that can cover an enormous number of operational roles extremely well with a minimal level of modification. Swapping that out for something less versatile means that they'll be needing to fill the gap with other, non-transformable planes that are more specialized. The overall costs will increase, not decrease, because then you're factoring in maintenance for your new super-destroid AND a half-dozen or more non-transformable platforms as well.

ShadowLogan wrote:Obviously there is some risk involved and dependent if it can get past the Valk. lobbiests. It might only be tried small scale first before moving into mainstream.

What makes you so sure it's defense industry lobbyists keeping the Unity government from making an ersatz-Gundam? It might have rather more to do with every serious attempt to improve destroids as an operational platform ending in mediocrity or failure.

ShadowLogan wrote:In flight it would probably have to look something like the following to get the best performance:
-legs in a standing position
-possibly tilt the head back
-arms stretch above the head (forming a "nose like section)
-variable geometry wings (or wings positioned like the Decepticon seekers in G1).
-Throw in aerodynamic shaping

You realize that what you've just described is a fairly basic transformation, or something very close to it, right? With that, we're firmly into the Department of Redundancy Department's business.

In-universe it is set up that one warmachine to rule them all is a viable option. The setting is very good at using anime/sci-fi style technical fictions and spectacular doses of rule of cool to construct an exemplary degree of verisimilitude.

In the real world, though, there are IFVs, and tanks, and self propelled artillery. Specialized helicopters filling myriad roles. Even something like the cargo aircraft isn't a one-size fits all proposition, but the demesne of a host of machines, even resticting yourself to just the US military.

There are those who like that sort of panoply as regards warmachines. And there are those who have been bitten by "one-size-fits-all", and so aren't enthused by that approach and prefer something based more on the roles of military vehicles which work in the real world.

Now applying that to the setting is taking it away from what it is actively set up to be; the stance, however, hardly flies in the face of all logic and reason.

everloss wrote:

Ravenwing wrote:Before I started playing Robotech(Actually before I knew there was a robotech RPG) I played Mechwarrior(Battletech).
well when I found Robotech I soooooo wanted to play and I rolled up a Destroid pilot running a WHR-7K Warhammer...er...Excalibur!
lol, anyway I lasted about three rounds against a squad of female zents when the Gladiators took off running leaving me in the dust. The only ones that stuck around were me in my Excalibur, and the Rifleman...er...Defender. the Defender couldn't hit the broadside of a barn despite his bonuses, and while I took out two with my ER PPC's..er...PBC's, I missed with all my missiles, and got smoked when the Zents blasted me with their lasers and boobie cannons.

I nominate this post as my favorite Robotech/Battletech related post of all time!

Bah... you'd nominate it for your favorite post of all time if all it said was boobie cannons. I'm just kidding.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

ShadowLogan wrote:I assumed the reflex furnace was behind the missile pod in the centerline section behind the TZ-IV guncluster in the cutaway.

Kinda-sorta, it's actually closer to the mecha's back... there's a medium-ish door that looks to be a good foot or so thick right about where that hard-to-scratch spot would be on a human's back that's labeled "engine cover" in the line art. It's visible (w/ caption) in the top row, far left, of this line art selection on the Mecha Manual.

ShadowLogan wrote:I think there are other advantages of the larger power output engine. ECA isn't the only area, they could use it for more powerful servos (it may look bulky, but it moves a lot faster than expected) or more powerful beam weapons.

Granted, it's possible there could've been other advantages... though they come with disadvantages of their own. By way of example, the Spartan's more powerful limbs created difficulties with the power transmission system. More powerful beam weapons is kind of a dubious thing, since they were calibrated their expectations for the armor those beam weapons would need to defeat based on their captured tech... too much power and you risk shooting clean through the target, and being prone to overpenetration isn't an endearing feature in ANY firearm.

ShadowLogan wrote:The question is did they try to take full advantage of the technologies available when they did this? Did they consider utilizing design approaches the VFs use like putting the engines in the legs instead of the torso?

All things considered, since the main goal of the Spartas was to make a melee destroid as robust as possible against all of the bludgeoning attacks that might occur in a brawl with a giant, I'd guess that sticking the engine(s) in a place with that many joints probably wasn't a consideration they wanted to entertain.

ShadowLogan wrote:Examining the M2 flying destroid AGA-1JF (RPG name) you mention later. It doesn't look like it took full adavantage of technology to compete with a VF outside of G-mode.

True enough, but taking full advantage of the technology currently in use in Valkyries would've run the cost right up... and like so many other destroids, being comparatively inexpensive was a fairly major bullet point in its design process. (It's not joking even a little when we refer to it as a "Poor Man's Valkyrie". That's literally how it's referred to in the official material for the destroids in Entertainment Bible 51.)

ShadowLogan wrote:The top thrusters seem to follow the under-sized VF approach when in G-mode, when it doesn't have to.

It may be necessary to recalibrate your expectations for engine size there a little... if the Valkyrie II is anything to go by, those smallish dorsal engine mounts likely have a net thrust comparable to a VF-1 Valkyrie.

ShadowLogan wrote:As far as operational range goes, there are several approaches to giving Destroids the needed range. They could have "buddy" vehicle to handle long range deployments

Like the VTOL jets used to deploy the "Giant Monster" destroids in Macross II? The whole point of things like rollers in the feet (seen in Macross II, Zero, Frontier) is so the destroids can redeploy themselves more quickly than they would if they had to walk.

Zer0 Kay wrote:Dang I was hoping that was good I haven't seen it and I love Gundam. That makes me sad.

I'm not a huge fan of Gundam, but I went into G-Saviour thinking "there is no way it can possibly deserve all of the bile that gets directed at it". About twenty minutes in, I was thoroughly convinced that, if anything, all the reviewers who'd crucified it had been too generous. It's bad. So bad, that Bandai/Sunrise seems to want to forget they ever approved its production.

(It reuses props from that godawful Starship Troopers movie too...)

In good Gundam-related news for fans of the ground-pounding variety, there's a 128pg+ second installment of the Mobile Suit Master Archive series out now... this time it's the RX-78 Gundam series. (The previous book was for mass-production suits in the GM series, thru the GM III.)

Zer0 Kay wrote:So... your saying the Koenig like the A-10 is the UPS of flying guns? "If you absolutely possitively have to have it destroyed overnight..."

Pretty much, yes... it's the only craft left in the UN/New UN forces that routinely carries thermonuclear reaction warheads for anti-ship and anti-formation use.

Zer0 Kay wrote:What mod are you talking about? Was the Koenig seriously a field mod!?

The VB-6 flown by S.M.S. 1st Lt. Canaria Berstein in the Macross Frontier series (and movies) was EXTENSIVELY modified using tech developed for the next-generation advanced variable fighters (the VF-25) that S.M.S. was testing on the military's behalf. Canaria's customized "Rabbit-1" used EX-Gear for its cockpit system, reducing the crew requirement from 3 to 1; its standard armor material and its ECA were replaced with the more advanced and prohibitively expensive composite armor and Advanced SWGA system off the VF-25's Armored Pack, making it slightly lighter and faster while significantly boosting its armor strength; and giving it its own pinpoint barrier system for that doubly-defensive bullet-proof goodness.

PB so needs to get rites back for the Macross series. I bet there is some restriction though from HG.

@Zer0 Kay

PB Never really had the license to Super Dimensional Fortress Macross. They just had a General Robotech License. The Freedom they had with the Origional License for the 1st Edition of the Robotech RPG is something that PB will never be able to get back. PB Should not have dropped the 1e license which gave them quite a bit of creative freedom. This creative freedom allowed them to give us the likes of Strikeforce and RoTM Revised as well as other indiependant stuff of which we will never again see.

Seto Kaiba wrote:ShadowLogan wrote:
Gundam has it's variable units to, though the bulk are non-variable.
True, but the vast majority of mobile suits (Gundams included) are non-transformable and are also incapable of independent flight, which leaves them in essentially the same boat as those destroids.

Still there are ones depending on what part of the multi-verse you look at that do transform and are capable of flight. That puts them in a seperate boat from Destroids.

Seto Kaiba wrote:If the cheaper unit can't do everything a Valkyrie can do, or can do those things but not as well, then we do have cause to ask "Why bother?".

One also has to ask if the loss of capability is critical? The loss of hand-hand capability is probably not critical (otherwise Destroids would have it more). The loss of being able to "dressup" the Battloid probably isn't critical either. Otherwise I really don't see much a Battloid form has over a Gerwalk.

Seto Kaiba wrote:What makes you so sure it's defense industry lobbyists keeping the Unity government from making an ersatz-Gundam? It might have rather more to do with every serious attempt to improve destroids as an operational platform ending in mediocrity or failure.

That attempts have been made to improve the Destroids as you have said point to people in power willing to attempt something like this. And ou can bet the Valks lobbyists get involved when positive results are being delivered and they might have real compitition.

Seto Kaiba wrote:You realize that what you've just described is a fairly basic transformation, or something very close to it, right? With that, we're firmly into the Department of Redundancy Department's business.

Not really. The limbs are more about posture of the humanoid form than reconfiguration.

The Valks (SDF:M/M2/M+/0) have something like 7 specialized points of transformation to go from fighter to battloid (not counting the wing/tails which are reused in F-mode). If all the mecha is doing is altering its posture, it doesn't need any of them. What remains is something you could see in any aircraft.

Sgt Anjay wrote:In-universe it is set up that one warmachine to rule them all is a viable option.

Except that, as a point of fact, it actually isn't.

(I'd welcome your explanation for the ongoing presence of destroids, IFVs, non-transforming aircraft, helicopters, and the like if Macross is operating under "one war machine to rule them all". I'm sure it will make for highly amusing reading.)

Zer0 Kay wrote:Bah... you'd nominate it for your favorite post of all time if all it said was boobie cannons. I'm just kidding.

Now that left me thinking of Godannar... where that's actually a thing, and on quite a few of the mecha. (Think the fembots from Austin Powers, nightmarishly scaled-up and done as a super robot, and you won't be far off.)

Zer0 Kay wrote:PB so needs to get rites back for the Macross series. I bet there is some restriction though from HG.

Well, like FreelancerMar pretty much hit the nail on the head there... PB never really had the rights to any part of Macross 'cept the Macross II OVA, which was done separately. Harmony Gold has screwed the pooch on that front SO thoroughly that there's essentially zero chance of PB ever acquiring rights to the rest of Macross.

ShadowLogan wrote:Still there are ones depending on what part of the multi-verse you look at that do transform and are capable of flight. That puts them in a seperate boat from Destroids.

*sigh* I think you've rather missed the point...

ShadowLogan wrote:One also has to ask if the loss of capability is critical? The loss of hand-hand capability is probably not critical (otherwise Destroids would have it more). The loss of being able to "dressup" the Battloid probably isn't critical either. Otherwise I really don't see much a Battloid form has over a Gerwalk.

Well, hand-to-hand combat was a stated (and significant) consideration in the development plans for next-gen VFs in both Macross universes... so I'd have to throw out the idea that it's not critical, on the grounds that it most definitely and explicitly is. Option packs in Macross go in and out of fashion over time (for various technical reasons, primarily relating to changes in operational conditions and the efficacy of stealth technology), but there's definitely a significant advantage in having them both defensively and offensively.

ShadowLogan wrote:That attempts have been made to improve the Destroids as you have said point to people in power willing to attempt something like this. And ou can bet the Valks lobbyists get involved when positive results are being delivered and they might have real compitition.

Yes, in the main Macross universe there have been attempts to improve the capabilities of destroids. It appears you might have overlooked the parts about that having been largely to improve their capabilities to fill battlefield roles that Valkyrie's can't... like that of a heavy artillery platform, high-mobility anti-fortification units, or dedicated air defense platforms. In practice, the enhancements continue the design philosophy that destroids COMPLIMENT the operations of Valkyries, not compete with them. The ultra-high mobility afforded by having that expensive transformation system is, more than any other feature, what keeps the VFs operating as the mainstay of the Unity gov't forces.

Seto Kaiba wrote:Well, hand-to-hand combat was a stated (and significant) consideration in the development plans for next-gen VFs in both Macross universes... so I'd have to throw out the idea that it's not critical, on the grounds that it most definitely and explicitly is. Option packs in Macross go in and out of fashion over time (for various technical reasons, primarily relating to changes in operational conditions and the efficacy of stealth technology), but there's definitely a significant advantage in having them both defensively and offensively.

Is there any reason that a Destroid could not also have option packs designed for it?

With a Gerwalk you don't lose hand to hand completely, but you do lose some options on one hand, but that could be offset by HTH techniques developed for Gerwalk that a giant would not be ready for (unlike a battloid). In SDF:M/RT:TMS Rick seems to do better in melee via Gerwalk than he did in Battloid. Max did a bit better in Battloid. I don't think the other VF Battloids had much better luck than Rick in melee. Been to long since I've watch M+/M2 to comment on melee combat incidents.

A flying Battloid approach wouldn't lose any hand-to-hand options either.

Seto Kaiba wrote:ShadowLogan wrote:
Still there are ones depending on what part of the multi-verse you look at that do transform and are capable of flight. That puts them in a seperate boat from Destroids.
*sigh* I think you've rather missed the point...

I think we both missed the others point. Gundam in this case isn't the best comparision because MS's can refer to units w/differing capabilities. Some of which are Destroid-ish, others Valk-ish, and others are Zent. PA-ish. In which case the MS OVERALL is not in the same boat as the Destroid is OVERALL.

And a flight capable Destroid is probably more akin (in universe) to Zentreadi Power Armor. If they can get the FPA up above Mach 1 in atmosphere w/a multi-ton pilot, a micronian piloted mecha should be able to match that or better it.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Sgt Anjay wrote:In-universe it is set up that one warmachine to rule them all is a viable option.

Except that, as a point of fact, it actually isn't.

(I'd welcome your explanation for the ongoing presence of destroids, IFVs, non-transforming aircraft, helicopters, and the like if Macross is operating under "one war machine to rule them all". I'm sure it will make for highly amusing reading.)

The Valkyries aren't the only warmachines in existence, but dominate as war machinery in a way no modern war machinery does or could. The setting, as a whole, revolves around them. Sorry if that makes you unhappy enough to launch into such an inherently mocking tone.

ShadowLogan wrote:Is there any reason that a Destroid could not also have option packs designed for it?

In theory? No, I don't see any reason that a Destroid couldn't have option packs tailored for its use.

In practice, that's another matter entirely. The highly modular nature of the common families of Destroid means that using option packs to change their operating characteristics would be inherently counterproductive. It'd be much easier to simply swap one set of modular combat equipment for another, as demonstrated on the Series 03 Cheyenne in Macross Zero or the entirety of Series 04 wherever they appear. Also, with destroids confined to specialized battlefield roles, most of the types of existing option pack would be pointless anyway.

ShadowLogan wrote:In SDF:M/RT:TMS Rick seems to do better in melee via Gerwalk than he did in Battloid.

Considering that the vast majority of his melee tactics in GERWALK seem to consist of "crash into the thing", that isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the idea.

ShadowLogan wrote:A flying Battloid approach wouldn't lose any hand-to-hand options either.

But it would lose most of the advantages possessed by the Valkyrie's fighter mode.

Ultimately, where this line of inquiry falls apart is that "if it's so advantageous, why did they never pursue it in Macross or Robotech?" Non-transformables are always second string, and in the former case that's largely down to their lower versatility and mobility.

Seto Kaiba wrote:And a flight capable Destroid is probably more akin (in universe) to Zentreadi Power Armor. If they can get the FPA up above Mach 1 in atmosphere w/a multi-ton pilot, a micronian piloted mecha should be able to match that or better it.

Assuming, of course, that human overtechnology can successfully replicate and surpass the overtechnology of the Zentradi. At least within Macross, this is a very tall order.

Sgt Anjay wrote:The Valkyries aren't the only warmachines in existence, but dominate as war machinery in a way no modern war machinery does or could. The setting, as a whole, revolves around them.

Less so than you'd think, considering certain areas like Macross Zero, Macross M3, Macross VF-X2, Macross: Eternal Love Song, Macross II: Lovers Again, etc., where it's shown that Valkyries aren't all that and a bag of potato chips, and that there are other arenas of combat where other options reign supreme. (Boarding actions w/ Tomahawk destroids FTW)

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Sgt Anjay wrote:The Valkyries aren't the only warmachines in existence, but dominate as war machinery in a way no modern war machinery does or could. The setting, as a whole, revolves around them.

Less so than you'd think, considering certain areas like Macross Zero, Macross M3, Macross VF-X2, Macross: Eternal Love Song, Macross II: Lovers Again, etc., where it's shown that Valkyries aren't all that and a bag of potato chips, and that there are other arenas of combat where other options reign supreme. (Boarding actions w/ Tomahawk destroids FTW)

On the contrary. The spotlight moments given to other warmachines stand in contrast to the ubiquity of the Valkyries.

Macross Zero shows Roy having to save the ships after the enemy variable fighters eliminate the destroids defending them. The destroids look cool as hell, and give a showing to justify their existence, but the star of the show and decisive action is the realm of the variable fighter.

Macross M3 lets you play as none other than Max and Miria flying a Valkyrie. Hey look, its game footage!

VF-X2 is another game where you pilot Valks, more and more as you go. There's no doubt what kind of warmachine is the star, and they went the extra step of turning a destroid design into a variable fighter; good redemption for it after that very destroid's showing in Macross Plus, hmm? I've played this one, and there's likewise plenty of footage out there.

Macross II has spiffy destroids get mowed by the enemy along with everything else; the destroids pop up at the end of the thing, while Valks are featured throughout and Valk pilots are media darlings.

Have no experience of Eternal Love Song, but I somehow doubt it manages to overturn the entire feel of the setting solo.

Seto Kaiba wrote:Ultimately, where this line of inquiry falls apart is that "if it's so advantageous, why did they never pursue it in Macross or Robotech?" Non-transformables are always second string, and in the former case that's largely down to their lower versatility and mobility.

On multiple levels (in-universe doctrine, story focus, creator bias, etc) they are made to be second string. What is seen here is more the "rule of cool" than reality.

If the alien technology (in general) is supposed to be more advanced, shouldn't they also have hit upon the idea that "variable = better" and used it? Yet they don't appear to use it as extensively as humans do if at all even w/some prior contact with humans. (In the case of the Masters, they are humans themselves...)

If humans really think that variables are better why haven't variable mecha appeared to handle the specialist roles to replace non-variables to give them more flexibility? Even in RT that has yet to happen, and they have ground veritechs that are lacking in Macross AFAIK.

Seto Kaiba wrote:But it would lose most of the advantages possessed by the Valkyrie's fighter mode.

It really depends on how they make the flying Battloid behave while in flight. IIRC Battloids (and similiar) when in atmospheric flight in RT/M+/M2 mostly tend to adopt the most unaerdoynamic posture possible (standing errect as opposed to prone) IIRC.

I think the Invid mecha are the only flying non-variable robotic mecha in RT that seem to consider aerodynamics for flight. And most of their mecha are more Gerwalk-ish than Battloid-ish in layout. The RCB seems to use better posture depending on the situation, and it shows in the top speed (~650kph, much faster than Macross and RT VTs in Battloid IINM).

The RCB doesn't seem to suffer from it either when engaging the Alphas (who stayed in fighter mode). While the Alpha may/may not be the best dog fighter, they are in fighter mode. So whatever advantages a fighter mode is supposed to have, it looks like it can be compensated for w/the right designs.

Seto Kaiba wrote:Assuming, of course, that human overtechnology can successfully replicate and surpass the overtechnology of the Zentradi. At least within Macross, this is a very tall order.

They already have the proper pieces IMO, they just have yet to put it together. Considering humans have access to a Factory Satellite and working examples of the technology, reverse engineering it should be possible.

Sgt Anjay wrote:On the contrary. The spotlight moments given to other warmachines stand in contrast to the ubiquity of the Valkyries.

Well, what did you expect? The ongoing setting's premise isn't exactly what you'd call "ground mecha friendly", what with the conspicuous absence of ground in deep space...

Sgt Anjay wrote:The destroids look cool as hell, and give a showing to justify their existence, but the star of the show and decisive action is the realm of the variable fighter.

But, as I've told often, there is invariably more to the official setting and story than merely what's shown in the series. In the Unification Wars, for example, the early models of destroid were the game breakers of ground warfare. Likewise, there are many other areas in Macross where destroids played a decisive role in things. I've mentioned a few of the scene stealing destroid incidents, but you seem keen to gloss over them. Ultimately, Macross is never going to be all about the destroids, because they're background mecha through and through, and there's not much for them to stand on out in deep space.

Sgt Anjay wrote:Macross M3 lets you play as none other than Max and Miria flying a Valkyrie. Hey look, its game footage!

*heavy, long-suffering sigh*

Let me just throw this out there... did you read any of the previous posts before you chimed in? If you had, you would've noticed that the reason Macross M3 got a mention here is that the HWR-00-Mk.II gets a scene-stealing magnificent bastard moment when the player has to take a lightly-armored Valkyrie up against Monster destroids armed with AA ammo and barrier systems.

Sgt Anjay wrote:VF-X2 is another game where you pilot Valks, more and more as you go. There's no doubt what kind of warmachine is the star, and they went the extra step of turning a destroid design into a variable fighter; good redemption for it after that very destroid's showing in Macross Plus, hmm? I've played this one, and there's likewise plenty of footage out there.

Again, you're kinda overlooking the specific example that was cited earlier... the aforementioned custom destroid boss in Mission 6. Mission 4 also has a destroid for its boss battle. But yes, the definite glory-hog for destroids there (that got more than it bargained for when it was also adopted in Macross Frontier and its movies) is the VB-6, which is still a destroid under its official classification.

Sgt Anjay wrote:Macross II has spiffy destroids get mowed by the enemy along with everything else; the destroids pop up at the end of the thing, while Valks are featured throughout and Valk pilots are media darlings.

But worth citing for three reasons:

The first reason is that the "DYRLverse" is the one part of the greater Macross whole where the destroid doesn't just continue existing, but flat-out thrives and continues to develop and see widespread service.

The second reason is that Macross II is the ONLY occasion on which destroids are indisputably used by multiple branches of the armed forces on a large scale... the UN Spacy, and the UN Army. (Based on uniform colors, they are also used by the UN Marines.)

The third reason, which ties back into the first, is that the DYRLverse's destroids don't hit that period of stagnation in their development and fade out of common service. They continue to enjoy the benefits of the same technological advances in the state-of-the-art Variable Fighters used by the UN Spacy... such as enhanced generator outputs, ubiquitous and often extremely high-powered railguns, etc.

(As to their performance, you're hosed no matter how good you are when you're facing a technologically superior enemy in battle whose forces outnumber you dozens or hundreds to one and are immune to trifles like fear, indiscipline, etc. and will cheerfully commit suicide when ordered to.)

Sgt Anjay wrote:Have no experience of Eternal Love Song, but I somehow doubt it manages to overturn the entire feel of the setting solo.

There's another "heck yes!" moment for destroid fans near the end of Macross: Eternal Love Song where the assault carrier Prometheus II rams Quamzin's flagship and disgorges a (sizable) boarding party of upgraded Tomahawks.

ShadowLogan wrote:On multiple levels (in-universe doctrine, story focus, creator bias, etc) they are made to be second string. What is seen here is more the "rule of cool" than reality.

I dunno, I'd call "you don't send a walker to do a fighter jet's job" pretty realistic.

ShadowLogan wrote:If the alien technology (in general) is supposed to be more advanced, shouldn't they also have hit upon the idea that "variable = better" and used it?

*cough* Um, they did... the most advanced aliens in the DYRLverse, the Mardook, do have variable mecha. Admittedly, Zentradi tech is made to be brutally effective, robust, and essentially maintenance-free... not uber-high performance or even the best protected. The performance of the powered suits comes at a greater cost of power, as one would expect, and they draw that power from the ultracompact thermonuclear reaction converters that feed their engines. Duplicating that technology was (explicitly) a tall order that took a LONG time. In both Macross universes, getting it right was something that took a decade or so of work and the capture of an INTACT factory satellite that made the bloody things.

(As a side note as to the Mardook's level of advancement, it's explicitly stated in creator interviews that their tech is SO advanced they can improve Zentradi tech, whereas humans are still improving their own tech by adopting Zentradi tech. It's also strongly hinted at that the Mardook are the descendants of the Protoculture, which would explain why.)

Zentradi renegades in the main Macross universe aren't slouches either. They were looking at the Valkyries with an envious eye from a very early point, and by adapting their own technology to similar pursuits on at least three occasions, including the Variable Glaug, the Feios Valkyrie, and most recently the Queadluun-Alma, the latter two of which exceed the performance of the latest 4th Generation Advanced Variable Fighters, and the Alma can easily go toe-to-toe with a 5th Gen AVF. (A brick-sh*tting moment for the UN Spacy)

ShadowLogan wrote:If humans really think that variables are better why haven't variable mecha appeared to handle the specialist roles to replace non-variables to give them more flexibility? Even in RT that has yet to happen, and they have ground veritechs that are lacking in Macross AFAIK.

Obviously, because variable mecha offer advantages in certain battlefield roles but not in others. They HAVE been adapted to a wide variety of circumstances, including strike fighters, attack planes, bombers, electronic warfare craft, recon planes, VIP transport aircraft, natural resource management vehicles, search and rescue craft, submarines, mechanized police, and even deep-space construction craft.

There are, however, certain roles where variable technology would be counter to purpose... like an APC, whose goal is to carry as many troops as quickly and safely as possible over land, etc.

ShadowLogan wrote:It really depends on how they make the flying Battloid behave while in flight. IIRC Battloids (and similiar) when in atmospheric flight in RT/M+/M2 mostly tend to adopt the most unaerdoynamic posture possible (standing errect as opposed to prone) IIRC.

Since a humanoid form isn't exactly suited to generating lift, pointing the engines down to keep the mecha from plummeting to the ground is kind of a must. We're not talking a setting with the Minovsky craft system, they need to generate lift for flight purposes, or at least point enough thrust downward to keep them up. Flying prone with a humanoid body, you aren't generating much lift at all, and your engines aren't positioned to use raw thrust to stay aloft.

ShadowLogan wrote:I think the Invid mecha are the only flying non-variable robotic mecha in RT that seem to consider aerodynamics for flight. And most of their mecha are more Gerwalk-ish than Battloid-ish in layout. The RCB seems to use better posture depending on the situation, and it shows in the top speed (~650kph, much faster than Macross and RT VTs in Battloid IINM).

Most of 'em are actually slower than a GERWALK-mode VF-1, though GERWALK mode isn't meant for high-speed flight, it's meant for hovering, quick turns, and agility. Interestingly, those higher speeds (on the RCB) are qualified with "a low altitudes only". Using the Alpha as a point of comparison is kinda wonky, since the Alpha's performance is lower across the board compared to a VF-1.

ShadowLogan wrote:They already have the proper pieces IMO, they just have yet to put it together. Considering humans have access to a Factory Satellite and working examples of the technology, reverse engineering it should be possible.

Access to a factory satellite... as a point of fact, factory satellites don't produce EVERYTHING at one location. They generally produce one type of mecha from start to finish. The one captured in the original Macross series produced Regult battle pods. The advancement didn't come until they'd captured factory satellites that made powered suits.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Sgt Anjay wrote:On the contrary. The spotlight moments given to other warmachines stand in contrast to the ubiquity of the Valkyries.

Well, what did you expect? The ongoing setting's premise isn't exactly what you'd call "ground mecha friendly", what with the conspicuous absence of ground in deep space...

I expect exactly what we see: a setting in which the Valkyrie is far and aware the most dominant warmachine in a way that no modern warmachine ever could be. If destroids require Eigen plots to compete, or worse, This Looks Like a Job for Aquaman, it only further demonstrates this.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Sgt Anjay wrote:The destroids look cool as hell, and give a showing to justify their existence, but the star of the show and decisive action is the realm of the variable fighter.

But, as I've told often, there is invariably more to the official setting and story than merely what's shown in the series. In the Unification Wars, for example, the early models of destroid were the game breakers of ground warfare. Likewise, there are many other areas in Macross where destroids played a decisive role in things. I've mentioned a few of the scene stealing destroid incidents, but you seem keen to gloss over them. Ultimately, Macross is never going to be all about the destroids, because they're background mecha through and through, and there's not much for them to stand on out in deep space.

If destroids are only cool and/or dominant when off-screen, and are relegated to the background role by dint of creative direction, it sort of proves that the setting is built around the dominance of the variable fighter, rather than the variable fighter having to be dominant due to realistic factors.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Sgt Anjay wrote:Macross M3 lets you play as none other than Max and Miria flying a Valkyrie. Hey look, its game footage!

*heavy, long-suffering sigh*

Awww, poor Seto.

Seto Kaiba wrote:Let me just throw this out there... did you read any of the previous posts before you chimed in? If you had, you would've noticed that the reason Macross M3 got a mention here is that the HWR-00-Mk.II gets a scene-stealing magnificent bastard moment when the player has to take a lightly-armored Valkyrie up against Monster destroids armed with AA ammo and barrier systems.

Heh. Or, looked at from a game design point of view, the game requires the player to prove he can use a lightly-armored Valkyrie to defeat Monster destroids armed with AA ammo and barrier systems in order to beat the level and progress in the game. Explain to me again how that proves that the Valkykrie isn't considered an overwhelmingly superior warmachine?

But again...the fact that entire game revolves around the legendary best Valkyrie pilots and the gameplay is about flying Valkyries, while destroids get "a moment" in the game, furthers my point.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Sgt Anjay wrote:VF-X2 is another game where you pilot Valks, more and more as you go. There's no doubt what kind of warmachine is the star, and they went the extra step of turning a destroid design into a variable fighter; good redemption for it after that very destroid's showing in Macross Plus, hmm? I've played this one, and there's likewise plenty of footage out there.

Again, you're kinda overlooking the specific example that was cited earlier... the aforementioned custom destroid boss in Mission 6. Mission 4 also has a destroid for its boss battle. But yes, the definite glory-hog for destroids there (that got more than it bargained for when it was also adopted in Macross Frontier and its movies) is the VB-6, which is still a destroid under its official classification.

As above, boss destroids require that the player prove that tricked-out destroids go down when up against Valkyries. And the official classification could be 8-passenger Van, it doesn't change that to redeem a destroid they turned it into a transforming aircraft.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Sgt Anjay wrote:Macross II has spiffy destroids get mowed by the enemy along with everything else; the destroids pop up at the end of the thing, while Valks are featured throughout and Valk pilots are media darlings.

But worth citing for three reasons:

The first reason is that the "DYRLverse" is the one part of the greater Macross whole where the destroid doesn't just continue existing, but flat-out thrives and continues to develop and see widespread service.

I'll repeat my earlier statement that the existence of other warmachines doesn't change the the fact that variable fighters dominate the Macross setting in a way no real warmachine does or could. How comparitively minimal role of the destroids is in the series despite "thriving" shows that the setting sets up the Valkyrie's dominance consciously as a plot element.

Seto Kaiba wrote:The second reason is that Macross II is the ONLY occasion on which destroids are indisputably used by multiple branches of the armed forces on a large scale... the UN Spacy, and the UN Army. (Based on uniform colors, they are also used by the UN Marines.)

Which doesn't discredit their obvious subservience to the Valkyrie as a weapon of war, plotwise.

Seto Kaiba wrote:The third reason, which ties back into the first, is that the DYRLverse's destroids don't hit that period of stagnation in their development and fade out of common service. They continue to enjoy the benefits of the same technological advances in the state-of-the-art Variable Fighters used by the UN Spacy... such as enhanced generator outputs, ubiquitous and often extremely high-powered railguns, etc.

And despite all that are treated as third string by setting and plot, while Valkyrie IIs and their pilots are stars. This isn't even This Looks Like a Job for Aquaman; at least Aquaman got to help save the day. The destroids have all the story impact of Sylvie's car, and probably less screen-time.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Sgt Anjay wrote:Have no experience of Eternal Love Song, but I somehow doubt it manages to overturn the entire feel of the setting solo.

There's another "heck yes!" moment for destroid fans near the end of Macross: Eternal Love Song where the assault carrier Prometheus II rams Quamzin's flagship and disgorges a (sizable) boarding party of upgraded Tomahawks.

Now that sounds like a very pro-destroid moment. Is it, however, another "moment" awash in the sea of clear Valkyrie domination?

I'd also kind of like to enter into evidence the fact that its clear the more you speak from an in-universe viewpoint, the more insistent you are a bevy of specialized machines cannot be a viable alternative to machines designed for wildly disparate mission profiles (and we're not talking attack/fighter/light bomber, we're talking infantry/combat chopper/jet fighter). This, despite the fact that a bevy of specialized machines is what one would approach the situation from if one uses reality as their basis.

Sgt Anjay wrote:I expect exactly what we see: [...]

Well, that's it for rationality here... TVTropes has gotten involved. Now everyone's gonna be lost wiki-browsing for the next week.

Sgt Anjay wrote:If destroids are only cool and/or dominant when off-screen, and are relegated to the background role by dint of creative direction, it sort of proves that the setting is built around the dominance of the variable fighter, rather than the variable fighter having to be dominant due to realistic factors.

Once more, with feeling:

There's more to the Macross universe than just what's animated!

I'm not just talking about development histories and backstory elements, I'm also speaking of all manner of other narrative materials such as short stories, serialized novels, some of those canon manga titles, and other things besides.

Sgt Anjay wrote:Awww, poor Seto.

♫ Nobody knows the troubles I've seen... ♫

Sgt Anjay wrote:Heh. Or, looked at from a game design point of view, the game requires the player to prove he can use a lightly-armored Valkyrie to defeat Monster destroids armed with AA ammo and barrier systems in order to beat the level and progress in the game. Explain to me again how that proves that the Valkykrie isn't considered an overwhelmingly superior warmachine?

Considering the fact that, in all three of the main Macross universe's canon video games, the player is assuming the role of an ace special forces pilot from one of the UN Spacy's most elite SpecOps units, and it's an oft-demonstrated principle that the quality of the pilot means far more than the specs of his machine, that a bunch of terrorists using a hand-me-down like the Mk.II Monster managed to hold the regular military at bay and tangibly threaten the best of the best operating the latest Valkyries, that's not nearly as scathing a condemnation you paint it as.

Seto Kaiba wrote:As above, boss destroids require that the player prove that tricked-out destroids go down when up against Valkyries.

Or, to look at it another way, that those destroids are bosses at all instead of grunts shows that tricked-out destroids are enough of a threat to justify sending for the elite.

Sgt Anjay wrote:And the official classification could be 8-passenger Van, it doesn't change that to redeem a destroid they turned it into a transforming aircraft.

Don't knock it if it works... it sure as hell solved the Monster's mobility problem and the issue with insufficient generator output for railguns.

Sgt Anjay wrote:Now that sounds like a very pro-destroid moment. Is it, however, another "moment" awash in the sea of clear Valkyrie domination?

It's a fairly major moment in the game's plot, tho admittedly part of the reason for doing that was to pave the way for a full fleet assault on the Zentradi fleet's mobile fortress. All things considered, destroids are background mecha. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Still don't see how "they exist! and sometimes they get destroyed by the elite instead of just mooks in games revolving around Valkyries!" disproves that Valkyries are set up by the setting as the dominant warmachine.

Sgt Anjay wrote:Still don't see how "they exist! and sometimes they get destroyed by the elite instead of just mooks in games revolving around Valkyries!" disproves that Valkyries are set up by the setting as the dominant warmachine.

Really, the focus of what's being said here isn't that Valkyries don't dominate the battlefield, it's that destroids do get their share of opportunities to shine. The focus of this thread is, after all, the profound lack of love for destroids.

If we can briefly be realistic, complaining that the destroids don't dominate the battlefield the way a Valkyrie can feels like you're setting the bar way too high. Most destroids out there are just walking versions of highly specialized self-propelled defensive artillery: the Cheyenne's basically a Phalanx CIWS turret, the Defender's a scaled-up Flakpanzer IV, the Phalanx could be called a walking Naval VLS array, and so on. The only ones that don't really fit the paradigm there are the HWR destroids, which are self-propelled battleship turrets, and the Tomahawk and Spartan, whose capabilities make them best suited for close-range defense work on a ship's hull or on the ground. As specialized as they are, it's not a surprise that something that can simultaneously fill the roles of a strike fighter, an attack helicopter, and a highly agile light anti-armor walker would be the favorite... especially when the goal was to beat the enemy in space so you wouldn't need to fight planetside and worry about civilians. (Sound practice, at least once they had the technology and the experience they'd needed to make it workable.)

Uh, what?

What I've been saying is that the inherent superiority of the variable fighter as a weapon of war is a function of setting and story. They're better, first and foremost, because that's what the creative staff want, and so they tailor the universe to make it so.

If instead, one wanted to use an approach on other principles, such as the panoplies of specialized machines which proflagate in the real world, it does require ignoring the mass of in-universe materials designed to justify Valkyrie superiority. It doesnt make that approach unrealistic and certainly not absurd.

Zer0 Kay wrote:

everloss wrote:

Ravenwing wrote:Before I started playing Robotech(Actually before I knew there was a robotech RPG) I played Mechwarrior(Battletech).
well when I found Robotech I soooooo wanted to play and I rolled up a Destroid pilot running a WHR-7K Warhammer...er...Excalibur!
lol, anyway I lasted about three rounds against a squad of female zents when the Gladiators took off running leaving me in the dust. The only ones that stuck around were me in my Excalibur, and the Rifleman...er...Defender. the Defender couldn't hit the broadside of a barn despite his bonuses, and while I took out two with my ER PPC's..er...PBC's, I missed with all my missiles, and got smoked when the Zents blasted me with their lasers and boobie cannons.

I nominate this post as my favorite Robotech/Battletech related post of all time!

Bah... you'd nominate it for your favorite post of all time if all it said was boobie cannons. I'm just kidding.

Haha, the "boobie cannons was the tipping point for the nomination!

But c'mon, the original post was SO much more entertaining than the last two dozen posts arguing about the realism of a cartoon set in a fictional universe where the power of pop music and love wins intergalactic wars. That's why it's a winner!

Most of 'em are actually slower than a GERWALK-mode VF-1, though GERWALK mode isn't meant for high-speed flight, it's meant for hovering, quick turns, and agility. Interestingly, those higher speeds (on the RCB) are qualified with "a low altitudes only". Using the Alpha as a point of comparison is kinda wonky, since the Alpha's performance is lower across the board compared to a VF-1.

The layout of their Scouts/Troopers/Enforcers is Gerwalk-ish, where the RCB is Battloid-ish, their lack of speed probably has more to do with an under-powered engine compared to human mecha.

I noticed the low altitude, but that is fairly vague when compared to other entries that have altitude breakdowns for top speed. Depending on what one compares it to, "low altitude" could be justified as 1k, 10k, 20k, or even 50k feet.

The Alpha was noted purely because it actually interacts with the RCB in fighter mode and is shown to do poorly on screen. If fighter mode is supposed to be so great, the opposite would have been true. Even in TMS the ZFPA appears to be better than a F mode VF-1 (Roy got 3 FPA, Miryia and others took out 5 F-mode VF-1s on screen). Don't have totals for the TRM era w/mode break down (could do it for non-variables, and the Logan but for some reason I did not note it for the AGACs).

I dunno, I'd call "you don't send a walker to do a fighter jet's job" pretty realistic.

At the same time they have the fighter jet doing the job of a walker, which really isn't very realistic.

All the technology that goes into making the VF appear great, if applied to non-variable designs (realistically) would produce superior non-variable platforms. That means a non-variable fighter would realistically take over 2/3rds of the Valks job and do it far better and lower cost. The remaining 1/3rd would be handled by other non-variable units. Rolling them all into one platform does not give you 1 great design, it gives you 1 design that does those things moderatly well (being generous).

Re: Alien Variable Tech
I know the Marduk had 1 design, but it is portrayed as a minor player (humans it is the opposite) in their force structure. They may have the technology, but they do not make extensive use of it like humans (as I said previously w/re to the this question). So if the technology is so great, why don't they make extensive use of it?

The Zentreadi and Proto-Devlin both developed the technology AFTER their encounter with humans for Macross, not before. In RT a similiar thing occurs w/only the Invid (Overlord). If this really is supposed to be a great idea they should have come up with the idea on their own is what I am getting at.

Re: Humanoid shape while flying
As I said it depends on the design. A flight capable battloid really would be made to have wings and other aerodynamic features (canards, lifting body, etc) instead of relying on raw thrust alone for flight.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Sgt Anjay wrote:On the contrary. The spotlight moments given to other warmachines stand in contrast to the ubiquity of the Valkyries.

Well, what did you expect? The ongoing setting's premise isn't exactly what you'd call "ground mecha friendly", what with the conspicuous absence of ground in deep space....

But at the same time you don't need aerodynamics in space ether. In deep space you can put maneuvering jets and thrusters on any Destriod and it would be move just as good as a VT.

Sgt Anjay wrote:What I've been saying is that the inherent superiority of the variable fighter as a weapon of war is a function of setting and story. They're better, first and foremost, because that's what the creative staff want,

So... basically, your complaint/argument is that the highly specialized defensive support platforms don't grab center stage because the creators have biased the setting against them, and that their being predominantly defense-oriented and with armament that would make them generally unsuitable for front-line battle by any standard has nothing to do with it, yes?

Honestly, I'm not sure what to tell you here. Even under 100% realistic military operational standards, none of the armored fighting vehicles that the destroid types are modeled on would be anything like a front-line unit... whereas the roles which Valkyries fill ARE front-line units (Strike fighters, attack helicopters, light AFVs).

ShadowLogan wrote:The layout of their Scouts/Troopers/Enforcers is Gerwalk-ish, where the RCB is Battloid-ish, their lack of speed probably has more to do with an under-powered engine compared to human mecha.

As (comparatively) aerodynamic as the Inbit mecha are, it's probably less a case of the engine being underpowered as it is a case of the engine's power system being thoroughly unconventional and their having not been designed to be used in roles other than "mechanized infantry". In terms of how they're applied, it's more like a mobile suit that's been fitted with a Minovsky craft system (e.g. the Victory Gundam) rather than a GERWALK-mode Valkyrie.

ShadowLogan wrote:I noticed the low altitude, but that is fairly vague when compared to other entries that have altitude breakdowns for top speed. Depending on what one compares it to, "low altitude" could be justified as 1k, 10k, 20k, or even 50k feet.

Considering the visuals in the series, "low altitude" would appear to be AGGRESSIVELY low... like most Inbit mecha, they do seem to have an affinity for the sort of low altitudes that most fighter pilots would consider NOE.

ShadowLogan wrote:Don't have totals for the TRM era w/mode break down (could do it for non-variables, and the Logan but for some reason I did not note it for the AGACs).

We're back to this now? I know you don't like it, and you feel it does an injustice to certain mecha (and I agree with you), but the on-screen performance of mecha may not be representative of the entire picture.

ShadowLogan wrote:I know the Marduk had 1 design, but it is portrayed as a minor player (humans it is the opposite) in their force structure. They may have the technology, but they do not make extensive use of it like humans (as I said previously w/re to the this question). So if the technology is so great, why don't they make extensive use of it?

Logically, because it's explicitly given that building a variable mecha is a bit on the pricey side (though advances in tech in the late Macross II and main Macross universes cut the complexity by a good deal), and the general mindset of (pre-contact) Zentradi, Meltrandi, and Mardook tactics is that the soldiery and the vast majority of their equipment would be an expendable (and cheap!) commodity in warfare. The designs of Zentradi mecha tend to reflect this philosophy, that the great virtues of their equipment are being simple, robust, essentially maintenance-free, and being the kind of thing an automated factory can churn out millions of.

Based on what little is emphatically reliable in the Robotech series, the idea that the common soldiery is generally an expendable commodity seems pretty universal among the alien species encountered by humanity.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Sgt Anjay wrote:What I've been saying is that the inherent superiority of the variable fighter as a weapon of war is a function of setting and story. They're better, first and foremost, because that's what the creative staff want,

So... basically, your complaint/argument is that the highly specialized defensive support platforms don't grab center stage because the creators have biased the setting against them, and that their being predominantly defense-oriented and with armament that would make them generally unsuitable for front-line battle by any standard has nothing to do with it, yes?

Unsurprisingly...no.

I'm pointing out the creative staff could create a non-transforming warmachine of unsurpassed power, or a series of them, at any time they wanted. Its their setting, they make it up, they dictate to it; not the other way around. There's no non-story reason for giant non-transforming machines to be inferior to giant transforming robots.

Seto Kaiba wrote:Honestly, I'm not sure what to tell you here. Even under 100% realistic military operational standards, none of the armored fighting vehicles that the destroid types are modeled on would be anything like a front-line unit... whereas the roles which Valkyries fill ARE front-line units (Strike fighters, attack helicopters, light AFVs).

I'll point out that light AFV's better not be on the front line if the enemy front line is composed of main battle tanks. The fact that no destroid, or destroid combo, has ever been designed to match or surpass Valkyries is part and parcel of what I'm saying, because it is not impossible to come up with designs to do it, especially for the creative staff who have total control over the rules under which things operate in-universe.

Sgt Anjay wrote:I'm pointing out the creative staff could create a non-transforming war machine of unsurpassed power, or a series of them, at any time they wanted.

Well, if your only stipulation is that the design has to be non-transformable, then there have been examples of mecha that are non-transformable and clearly trump the power available in Valkyries at the time. In particular, I'm thinking of the Migg Pitt, the custom mobile suit-style mecha that Quamzin had in Macross 2036. The Mardook Gigamesh mobile suit type mecha are also strong contenders for that role, as it's canonically the most technologically advanced and best armored of the Mardook's offerings and boasts a missile armament almost twice that of a Valkyrie II.

(As you might expect, the "unsurpassed power" aspect doesn't come without a cost. The design either has to be made a fair amount larger, like the Migg Pitt, or has to sacrifice some operational versatility to beef up its performance in a few of the most common combat roles, like the Gigamesh. The Valkyrie is very much a "jack of all trades" type, able to do many things well, but it's not the undisputed master of any one regime... as we've seen its dominance threatened by a couple alternatives like the unmanned fighters, next-gen mobile weapons, etc.)

Sgt Anjay wrote:Its their setting, they make it up, they dictate to it; not the other way around. There's no non-story reason for giant non-transforming machines to be inferior to giant transforming robots.

Except, as I've said, the question of versatility. There are many things that a non-transforming robot simply cannot do as well as a transforming mecha, or at all. Flight is a good example.

Sgt Anjay wrote:The fact that no destroid, or destroid combo, has ever been designed to match or surpass Valkyries is part and parcel of what I'm saying, because it is not impossible to come up with designs to do it, especially for the creative staff who have total control over the rules under which things operate in-universe.

Putting a rather misleading gloss on it, aren't you? Remember, in both the original Macross and Robotech, those were concurrent developments. In Macross, the Valkyrie early design phase borrowed a lot from advances that were made on destroids. Recently, in titles like Macross the Ride, the borrowing is now going the other way.

The problem with your complaint/argument is that it's based on a false assumption. Specifically, that there would be some reason to develop a destroid or group of destroids to do the same job as the Valkyrie. Destroids and Valkyrie designs were targeted toward different battlefield roles. Valkyries are predominantly offense-oriented, while destroids (with the notable exception of the Monster series) are defense-oriented. Destroids are designed to repulse enemy attacks on the ground or bolster the defenses of a ship, whereas Valkyries are designed to take the fight to the enemy's ships. In theory, it would have been possible to just slap a rocket on a destroid and call it a day, but it wouldn't enjoy anywhere near the excessive levels of maneuverability that a transformable Valkyrie gains by the very nature of its transformation system. The mobility issue is what ultimately killed the destroids in Macross, not their armor or armament. Zentradi mecha are very mobile and not terribly well-armored, so the heavily armored and less mobile destroids were at a disadvantage. The lighter armor and higher mobility of the Valkyrie made them a better match for the enemy's capabilities.

In-universe justifications, which you won't let go of but which are completely irrelevant, because they're made up fictions. It's not real. Macross is not real. In fact, each and every piece of in-universe information you feed is more and more proof of my point. The creative staff who invented it could just as easily go with non-transforming designs of any of an infinite variety if they felt like it. There's no dearth of them in sci-fi. And they could justify them just as thoroughly as they currently justify transforming designs. The fact is, the choice of going with transforming aircraft as inherently superior is solely a creative choice of the setting, and not based on reality or any sort of realism.

everloss wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

everloss wrote:

Ravenwing wrote:Before I started playing Robotech(Actually before I knew there was a robotech RPG) I played Mechwarrior(Battletech).
well when I found Robotech I soooooo wanted to play and I rolled up a Destroid pilot running a WHR-7K Warhammer...er...Excalibur!
lol, anyway I lasted about three rounds against a squad of female zents when the Gladiators took off running leaving me in the dust. The only ones that stuck around were me in my Excalibur, and the Rifleman...er...Defender. the Defender couldn't hit the broadside of a barn despite his bonuses, and while I took out two with my ER PPC's..er...PBC's, I missed with all my missiles, and got smoked when the Zents blasted me with their lasers and boobie cannons.

I nominate this post as my favorite Robotech/Battletech related post of all time!

Bah... you'd nominate it for your favorite post of all time if all it said was boobie cannons. I'm just kidding.

Haha, the "boobie cannons was the tipping point for the nomination!

But c'mon, the original post was SO much more entertaining than the last two dozen posts arguing about the realism of a cartoon set in a fictional universe where the power of pop music and love wins intergalactic wars. That's why it's a winner!

Yeah I guess so... so the tip ping point eh?

FreelancerMar wrote:@Zer0 Kay

PB Never really had the license to Super Dimensional Fortress Macross. They just had a General Robotech License. The Freedom they had with the Origional License for the 1st Edition of the Robotech RPG is something that PB will never be able to get back. PB Should not have dropped the 1e license which gave them quite a bit of creative freedom. This creative freedom allowed them to give us the likes of Strikeforce and RoTM Revised as well as other indiependant stuff of which we will never again see.

That is sad... but my comment on the Macross series was derived from the short lived Macross II liscense they had which I had assumed was from the makers of Macross not from HG.

Sgt Anjay wrote:In-universe justifications, which you won't let go of but which are completely irrelevant, [...]

Um... if you don't mind my asking, you do know that both the thread in general and the discussion that was going on were/are both about a particular aspect of that fictional universe, right? I'm not sure if you're trying to move the bar here, or you missed the whole thrust of the discussion.

(Incidentally, since "unrealistic" is a point you're leveling at it... a number of the technologies involved in Macross VFs, like energy conversion armor and thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, are fairly close to defictionalization right now. The walker concept, well, that's actually pretty old...)

Zer0 Kay wrote:That is sad... but my comment on the Macross series was derived from the short lived Macross II license they had which I had assumed was from the makers of Macross not from HG.

Well, you're half-correct in your assumption. Palladium didn't get the Macross II license thru Harmony Gold, but they didn't get it (directly) from Big West either. They got the rights through a licensing agreement with the distributor on the American side who had the rights to the OVA, a little outfit called US Renditions, who got their rights from Big West. It's never stopped fans from home-brewing their own stats for the rest of Macross, a situation helped along by the way Macross's fandom in the west subsists on the translations, scans, and fansubs made by devoted fans. Sadly, there are rules against posting that stuff here... the RPG-playing fans lavished a fair bit of love on the obscure destroids, like the Octos (both AUN and UN Spec), the new destroids from the 2050s, and the mobile weapons from the canon games. (Heck, I'm GMstaff on a MUSH that has a bunch of destroid drivers on it.)

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Sgt Anjay wrote:In-universe justifications, which you won't let go of but which are completely irrelevant, [...]

Um... if you don't mind my asking, you do know that both the thread in general and the discussion that was going on were/are both about a particular aspect of that fictional universe, right? I'm not sure if you're trying to move the bar here, or you missed the whole thrust of the discussion.

My point is really not that complicated. Maybe if you tried snipping out the important parts instead of random bits.

To be as blunt as possible, giant robots in all forms as dominant weapons of war are an aspect of rule of cool, not realism. There is, therefore, no real-world reason for non-transformers to be less capable. You may as well declare the bandersnatch inherently superior to the jubjub bird as a weapon of war, or 777 as the number of angels that could dance on a pin.

Destroid inferiority exists as an aspect of the setting; the creative staff chose for destroids to be less capable. So while creating a viable group of non-variable designs on par with or supassing variable fighters requires ignoring the in-universe sources propounding that as impossibility, it isn't an absurdist notion, especially when it is tethered to how war machine roles are divided out in real life.

Seto Kaiba wrote:(Incidentally, since "unrealistic" is a point you're leveling at it... a number of the technologies involved in Macross VFs, like energy conversion armor and thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, are fairly close to defictionalization right now. The walker concept, well, that's actually pretty old...)

Science-fiction settings possess plausible or near-future or currently conceptualized concepts; that's what sci-fi is. That doesn't make a sci-fi setting inherently realistic, it just makes it part of the sci-fi genre. Or, to use the genre's terminology, just because it is sf doesn't make it hard sf. As a setting in the sci-fi milleu, Macross is very clearly on the soft side of things.

Also? As you're so fond of pointing out, Macross thermonuclear reaction is entirely fiction and not real-world nuclear power, so their engines are hardly close to "defictionalization".

Pretty much the last few posts/pages have mostly been this:

Opinion 1) There is no realistic reason that Destroids should be inferior to Veritechs other than some sort of fictional writer's construct.

Opinion 2) This is a fictional writer's construct so Destroids will be inferior to Veritechs.


Neither opinion really disagrees with the other, but since we don't seem to be moving on, I'm locking the thread and hoping that we will go on to discussions in which new points can be made.