Re: Walkers

We've had a discussion like this during some of our gaming sesssions. 
 What we have basically come up with is a fairly simple and straight 
forward.  As far as infantry support is concerned, we felt that the 30ft

target would be very tasty for someone in, say, a tank.  Esp. the 
walker's knee joints, 'cause unless it hops (ROBL - rolling on the 
battlefield laughing) it's gotta have joints.  

The consensus then is, they are impractical, BUT on the other hand, they

are *really* cool so we keep them.

BTW, peterpig has a mini of a 15mm robot which could serve as a small 
walker in DS and adds a little variety to the tabletop.
unpainted picture here --> 
http://hexagon.freeservers.com/cgi-bin/i/gfx/peterpigrobot9-11.jpg
painted picture here --> 
http://hexagon.freeservers.com/cgi-bin/i/gfx/robot2sides.jpg

(still in the process of moving these to http://www.tablegamer.com, 
sorry 'bout the ads)

jim

Brian Bilderback wrote:

> Maybe, but I'm not ready to issue my infantry pogo sticks to make them

> more mobile.	In the long run, IF walkers ever gain usefulness as 
> combat vehicles, my guess is that the complexity of multi-leg will be 
> a more surmountable problem than instability will be for bipeds, at 
> least for larger vehicles.  While I advocated the game viability of 
> walkers, it by no means reflects any high regard for them.  IMO (for 
> what it's worth, which is ALSO an issue open to some debate), Bipeds 
> would make decent infantry support vehicles (class 1), but for 
> pseudotanks, quads probably are a better bet.  Of course, they're best

> for very specialized terrains (mountainous, rocky, forested), not as 
> general main combat vehicles.
>
> Brian
>
> "The Irish are the only race of people on Earth for which 
> psychoanalysis is of no use."
>
>				  - S. Freud
>
>
>> From: "Andrew Martin" <Al.Bri@xtra.co.nz>
>> Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>> To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
>> Subject: Re: Walkers
>> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 08:25:52 +1300
>>
>> Iain wrote:
>> > I was watching TV last night and there was a discussion on robots 
>> and how
>> to make them walk. It turned out that it was *easier to programme* a
>> 2-legged robot than a 4-legged (or more) as the complexity of 
>> multiple legs
>> was a more difficult programming task.  Not 100% convinced myself, 
>> but they
>> were demonstrating a 2-legged robot.
>>
>> Several years ago, I remember seeing on a TV Documentary a tethered
>> Pogo-stick-like hopping robot that could move around (to the limit of

>> it's
>> power and communications cable) quite easily. So I think that 
>> multiple legs
>> do add to the difficulty.
>>
>> Andrew Martin
>> ICQ: 26227169 http://valley.150m.com/
>> -><-
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 
> http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>

-- 
jim@tablegamer.com
http://www.tablegamer.com
rm -rf /* > /dev/null &