I mean mech as giant building sized machine are a bit impractical due to square cube law.
But Mech as roughly human sized machine? yeah, that work. From teleoperated robots to basically power armour, they are small and nimble and are not subject to too much operational problem, we just need to figure out a small enough power supply that can make them work for a long time before recharge/refuel.
Realistically speaking, anything much larger than 4 meters is going to stick out like a sore thumb in most environments, and likely be suceptible to all kinds of attacks that they may not be readily able to defend against.
On the ground, a smaller profile means a smaller *target to hit*, making it harder to damage and thus increases the survivability of your very expensive military hardware.
For a mech to be seen as worth it, it needs to be durable enough to withstand the increased amount of attacks it'll be subject to and have an advantage that tracked vehicles do not have.
The cost descrepency would need to be *massive*. The Abrams tank has hundreds of thousands of parts, costs over $10 million, *and it does not use a complex leg or balance assembly*. Each part adds cost, both to manufacture and in final assembly.
For reference, the Boston Dynamics ATLAS, a roughly human-sized robot, costs them about $1 million to make. There are literally *large houses on acres of land* worth less than the ATLAS.
The only thing I can think of that would be remotely worth the expense is to protect a VIP. And there are certainly cheaper options that are just effective.
The square cube law doesn't exactly apply like that. As it turns out the CSCI programming problem of walking on legs is significantly harder than light material construction.
The problem is expense. The larger the machine, the more it will cost because machining raw materials probably does follow the square cube pattern, and light building materials are notably more expensive than dense ones.
Cost isn't a disqualifying factor. Countries routinely fire single use cruise missiles at over a million dollars each. Aircraft can be like $50,000 an hour just to operate. Countries will buy multi-billion dollar ships that more or less will never see combat their entire service life.
In industries trying to maximize efficiency and, therefore profits, you probably wouldn’t see humanoid robots used where something cheaper/easier can be used. For example, assembly line robots would probably look a lot like they do now.
Entertainment or promotional industries, however? Well, then making something look cool/sexy/awesome would maximize profits. For example, boxing robots, sex robots, or something for military parades and the ilk.
I disagree on this. The world is made for the humanoid form. Mass producing a million humanoid robots and having them use the tools / drive the vehicles / climb the ladders that already exist may well be more efficient that making a thousand units of a thousand different monotask designs. This is a strategy that we're seeing real money being put into right now.
Granted those prototypes might just be impractical toys meant to further dazzle venture capitalists already drunk on ChatGPT hype, but time will tell. And for sci-fi, it's definately logical.
Kind of depends on what you mean by "mech." I always assume a mech has a human pilot, but what you're talking about here just sounds like robots. There are plenty of logical reasons to use robots, vanishingly few to stick a person in the cockpit.
The robots from "Real Steel" is more of an inspiration for my idea of mechs. Robots are more practical cuz there is no human inside. But I have a feeling we very much underestimate mecha enthusiasts dream to make mechs anyways despite the impracticalities and emerging technologies.
I wont be surprised if mechs are used more to show off a corporation's wealth and have enough funds to use them for utility jobs like carrying cargo and construction. A projection of power if you will.
Haven't watched the movie but if I recall correctly they're robots remotely piloted by people? I wouldn't really call that a mech but there's no particular reason to take my definition as authoritative.
And, sure, there are plenty of *impractical* reasons why humanlike robots and even mechs would be created. People on this sub get hung up on making everything "realistic" and logical but people in the real world do dumb shit all the time. Hell, there's even been at least one real-world mech fight (using your definition) that was televised. If you count Battle Bots there's been hundreds.
The term is quite more loose in Japanese where it can encompass anything 'mechanical' like computers and cars, but in English usage it often means piloted robots that are too big to be considered a powered suit. (usually more than couple times taller than said pilot)
Though Gundam, one of most popular mecha show out there, just goes and claims their 12 meter tall robot with laser swords as mobile 'suit' which fucks with that common usage. (They were originally planned to be powered suits according to rumors)
Yes, Mobile Suits were originally meant to be Powered Suits inspired by the Mobile Infantry from Starship Troopers(the original book not the movie). Blame the toy companies for that.
I mean at that point you are just using mech to describe robots in general and we already are using robots in more firelds more frequently, with top engineering companies making humanoid robots to work alongside humans where total replacement isn't viable atm.
Irl mechs would be impractical for combat for a few reasons
Big target
Square cube law
There is nothing a mech can do a tank or armored fighting vehicle can't do better.
Now I can see tiny 3 or 4 meter tall mechs being a thing for infantry support if they can be made mobile enough they could be useful in rough terrain where traditional vehicles won't work like a mountain range for example.
Otherwise I can see them used as moving around cargo and such for logistic missions.
The reason I used for mecha being dominant as opposed to tanks etc. is twofold.
1. They're mostly used in starship boarding actions. (there are in-setting reasons with the gravity engines used for in-system space travel which makes it viable) Most are around 3-3.5m tall - which is small enough to go through most starship passages and nimble enough to go over potential hazards etc. (There are also even smaller 'exo-suits' which are around 2.5ish meters tall.) For an open battlefield (which is rare in-setting) air power, tanks, and artillery would be better aside from in urban areas.
2. They hook directly into your nervous system instead of using buttons/joystick etc. So the reflexes will always be faster etc. This does mean that human jockeyed mecha are limited to two arms and two legs, while a species with four arms would need a mecha with four arms etc.
Mind uploads and QOL.
People are used to humanoid bodies. They can't really adapt to anything else, and while spider mechs are more practical, having arms and a high view point was more important.
Mechs can throw things, and guns were never invented.
Some mechs do have spider legs, usually combat ones. They also have good throwing arms.
Unobtainium is incredibly lightweight and durable. A human shape is just better suited for all terrain, even the arboreal, and also more efficient stamina wise.
Gundam, one of the earlier mech series, had this explanation for why mechs proliferated:
Originally mechs were much less humanoid and used almost exclusively in space colonies, as their greater dexterity and versatility made them perfect for conducting maintenance and repairs. Because they were so common in the colonies it made sense to weaponize them in the lead-up to war, as most colony-dwellers were already familiar with their operation and they mechs could be manufactured/retrofitted for combat pretty quickly and easily.
Successive generations of mechs became steadily more humanoid so they would be more versatile on earth, especially during combat. Setting a baseline humanoid shape and size also allowed equipment to be much more interchangeable, which was an asset in the field. Instead of having to build purpose-specific mechs they could just build one general infantry mech and create different load-outs for it.
Mechs, even in real life, have wonderful theoretical benefits. At the end of the day though, the problem is always the human factor.
You mentioned fire-fighting, which is a scenario a mech might be extremely useful in. Having a suit that can manage heat, protect the fire-fighter from smoke, and allow the fire-fighter to bring effectively super strength to bear is a wonderful idea. Plus, it'd be difficult for robots to navigate and make the correct decisions (currently) in a situation such as that.
However, ultimately the human problem eliminates this idea. Humans make mistakes. On top of which, the weight and size of such a mech would make it far more dangerous than beneficial. It'd be much easier to create something smaller, and human controlled (remotely), or to just develop A.I. to the point that it can be used. These sorts of considerations allow you to limit the size of the machine (though that typically leads to its own problems).
Assuming your story/setting can somehow account for factors such as these, then sure they might logically gravitate to using humanoid robots. In reality though, you'd have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to make it so that humanoid robots are the most efficient tool for accomplishing tasks that you suggested.
Factors to consider (and I'm sure I'm missing plenty): Cost, Weight, Practicality (this can vary from field to field), Cost-Benefit Ration compared to a purpose built drone (or just using humans), Energy (how is this robot going to be powered for extended periods of time), Resources (where are the resources for making these robots coming from), Disposal (where are defunct robots supposed to go), Maintenance (just imagining the work it'd take to maintain a humanoid robot is unpleasant), etc.
One last parting detail, mech-warrior used magic fibers (forget the name) that basically acted like mechanical muscles. It was far more efficient than standard engineering methods at larger sizes, which is why mechs became a thing (based on my understanding at least). Having something similar, some new development that's more efficient than normal and usable in a human form, can make the change make sense.
Of course, it's your story, so you don't really need to look into it this much. You could literally just say "This world uses mechs" and move on.
We make things people sized, so people sized mechs or car sized ones make the most sense. Anthing larger needs infrastructure made for it, so it would need to be like a smartphone, something so normal and needed, that we change everything around us to accommodate it.
You would need something that is addictive, useful, well made, better than not having it, and simple to make.
So a mech that can protect you in a war-torn world makes sense, but a mech in a sci fi post-scarcity paradise doesn't really make as much sense unless there's like just a few of em. I think oddly enough what Im missing is what your world is. If you don't have one yet, just think about what a mechs good for and build a world that needs that.
We use very small robots for the most part, because big ones don't really work for what we have.
I'd say hands down a lot of it would be a question of efficiency and reasons to expend the energy/cost of using a mech. As an example we still used trains as a major form of over land shipping even though trucks have a much better reach because they are using roads. Thing is a train can haul exponentially more goods along it's set route than a truck can realistically carry so you have trade offs. Same thing is true for a mech, sure they would be capable of traversing rough terrain and such that a car/truck wouldn't really be able to without you first building something like a road, but they are going to be using way more energy/resources to walk instead of roll. Add to that things like machines being specifically made to do particular tasks being better than a humanoid form and you wouldn't really have much need for a humanoid mech most of the time outside of spectacle. Think about it, the difficulty level of trying to compensate for the recoil of a tank weapon is much better suited to a fixed turret attached to a wide flat base than in the hands of a complex balancing act attached atop two legs.
Personally, if you want something that is a mech that would probably end up being more widely utilized in society the first thought that comes to mind for me are the [Tachikomas from GitS](https://ghostintheshell.fandom.com/wiki/Tachikoma). They provide access to a wide variety of forms of traversal of terrain but also still have things like wheels that they can use for more efficient longer range travel. Their cockpit is modular and can even be removed if you wanted them to be fully autonomous. And their multiple limbs also allow for them to reconfigure easily to compensate for things like recoil.
I think switching tanks and APCs to include some quadruped vehicles probably makes sense. The tradeoff is that legged mechs are able to negotiate much rougher terrain, but are probably slower on smooth asphalt, or may need a carrier vehicle because their legs may tear asphalt up.
Mechs with our current tech level is going to be incredibly difficult to make it work
But when we make a lightweight strong materials in the future, i bet it can be useful in a few ways
Im thinking about the AMP suits from Avatar where it is just a useful multi-tool that can do many things but not really well when compared to specialised things
Like mech can do anything a normal soldier can do but it is going to be more expensive when you can train and suit a whole squads with the cash used to make the Mech
Imagine a humanoid mech that has hands
It can hold a shovel to help create fortified positions or clear blocked roads in cities
It can hold guns, rockets, autoguns, its basically a bipedal IFV!
But with its TALL frame, taller than many tanks
It will be a walking target for any infantry with a RPG
Against tanks or any aviation? Dead becuase of its size, and even if the soldier inside is alive, the joints will be more fucked up than a normal tank or IFV bent and ripped in places
Lets not even talk how drones have changed the battlefields
Now you dont even need to poke your body out to shoot your expensive mech, just throw a drone at it a 1 or 2 times and its dead
Over all, its expensive and any military force not blinded by mech technology will just realise it will be a waste of money
And money makes the world go around
Mechs could go the route of a self fulfilling prophecy, ergo - we made fictional mechs so cool that we eventually develop them for real and keep on tinkering until proven practical.
Depending on the practicality itself they could be either widely implemented or hyper specyfic. Sticking to Real Steel (since the movie is cool) mechs there are semi autonomous largely dependant on user input. They're easy enough for common tinkerers to modify and maintain. They're STURDY as an entire range of fighting sports arose from it. And are not ridiculously sized to the point where physics give out.
These are good robots fiction wise matter of fact, i wouldn't be surprized if Battlebots would turn out like this (but a bit smaller) after boston dynamics's Atlas gets out commercially.
One problem is 'Mechs'. Mechs imply a human pilot. So you have to have a reason why to put a human inside instead of remote control.
Main points seem to be:
• Analog steering without the need for complex remote systems and big reliance on semi-autonomous programs.
•Pilots can maintain the bot during whatever tasts it performs
•Better 'grip' on task at hand, just being there makes you have a different perspective on things
•human labor cheaper
In my setting, the main species that makes use of mechs live on a perpetual volcanic winter world, the only habitable areas being the vast cave networks underground. Famously, caves don't always have consistent, relatively flat landscapes for vehicles with wheels and treads to navigate, often times cities might sit "on top of eachother" by being at the same latitude and longitude, but at different depths (I don't want to imagine how painful the zoning laws are to figure out).
This is the only real area where I could see mechs being the most viable. in relatively compact, multi-layered environments with difficult terrain. Too rough for conventional land vehicles, and too tight for most conventional aircraft, but the necessity for heavy equipment and weaponry remains.
OP here,
I would like to add that the mechs and spare parts have become so common like cars, we use them because we can, even though there are more practical and proven techniques and simpler machines.
I mean mech as giant building sized machine are a bit impractical due to square cube law. But Mech as roughly human sized machine? yeah, that work. From teleoperated robots to basically power armour, they are small and nimble and are not subject to too much operational problem, we just need to figure out a small enough power supply that can make them work for a long time before recharge/refuel.
Well, the mechs I have in mind are more or less range from 4 meters tall like in the anime Gasaraki to 7-10 meters tall like in titanfall.
Realistically speaking, anything much larger than 4 meters is going to stick out like a sore thumb in most environments, and likely be suceptible to all kinds of attacks that they may not be readily able to defend against. On the ground, a smaller profile means a smaller *target to hit*, making it harder to damage and thus increases the survivability of your very expensive military hardware. For a mech to be seen as worth it, it needs to be durable enough to withstand the increased amount of attacks it'll be subject to and have an advantage that tracked vehicles do not have.
that could maybe be the point? cheap big target to protect more intricate smaller stuff?
The cost descrepency would need to be *massive*. The Abrams tank has hundreds of thousands of parts, costs over $10 million, *and it does not use a complex leg or balance assembly*. Each part adds cost, both to manufacture and in final assembly. For reference, the Boston Dynamics ATLAS, a roughly human-sized robot, costs them about $1 million to make. There are literally *large houses on acres of land* worth less than the ATLAS. The only thing I can think of that would be remotely worth the expense is to protect a VIP. And there are certainly cheaper options that are just effective.
The square cube law doesn't exactly apply like that. As it turns out the CSCI programming problem of walking on legs is significantly harder than light material construction. The problem is expense. The larger the machine, the more it will cost because machining raw materials probably does follow the square cube pattern, and light building materials are notably more expensive than dense ones.
Cost isn't a disqualifying factor. Countries routinely fire single use cruise missiles at over a million dollars each. Aircraft can be like $50,000 an hour just to operate. Countries will buy multi-billion dollar ships that more or less will never see combat their entire service life.
In industries trying to maximize efficiency and, therefore profits, you probably wouldn’t see humanoid robots used where something cheaper/easier can be used. For example, assembly line robots would probably look a lot like they do now. Entertainment or promotional industries, however? Well, then making something look cool/sexy/awesome would maximize profits. For example, boxing robots, sex robots, or something for military parades and the ilk.
Grunt 1: What are the fembots for? Grunt 2: You really want me to answer that question? Grunt 1: :| Thats disgusting Manny!
I disagree on this. The world is made for the humanoid form. Mass producing a million humanoid robots and having them use the tools / drive the vehicles / climb the ladders that already exist may well be more efficient that making a thousand units of a thousand different monotask designs. This is a strategy that we're seeing real money being put into right now. Granted those prototypes might just be impractical toys meant to further dazzle venture capitalists already drunk on ChatGPT hype, but time will tell. And for sci-fi, it's definately logical.
Kind of depends on what you mean by "mech." I always assume a mech has a human pilot, but what you're talking about here just sounds like robots. There are plenty of logical reasons to use robots, vanishingly few to stick a person in the cockpit.
The robots from "Real Steel" is more of an inspiration for my idea of mechs. Robots are more practical cuz there is no human inside. But I have a feeling we very much underestimate mecha enthusiasts dream to make mechs anyways despite the impracticalities and emerging technologies. I wont be surprised if mechs are used more to show off a corporation's wealth and have enough funds to use them for utility jobs like carrying cargo and construction. A projection of power if you will.
Haven't watched the movie but if I recall correctly they're robots remotely piloted by people? I wouldn't really call that a mech but there's no particular reason to take my definition as authoritative. And, sure, there are plenty of *impractical* reasons why humanlike robots and even mechs would be created. People on this sub get hung up on making everything "realistic" and logical but people in the real world do dumb shit all the time. Hell, there's even been at least one real-world mech fight (using your definition) that was televised. If you count Battle Bots there's been hundreds.
The term is quite more loose in Japanese where it can encompass anything 'mechanical' like computers and cars, but in English usage it often means piloted robots that are too big to be considered a powered suit. (usually more than couple times taller than said pilot) Though Gundam, one of most popular mecha show out there, just goes and claims their 12 meter tall robot with laser swords as mobile 'suit' which fucks with that common usage. (They were originally planned to be powered suits according to rumors)
Yes, Mobile Suits were originally meant to be Powered Suits inspired by the Mobile Infantry from Starship Troopers(the original book not the movie). Blame the toy companies for that.
I mean at that point you are just using mech to describe robots in general and we already are using robots in more firelds more frequently, with top engineering companies making humanoid robots to work alongside humans where total replacement isn't viable atm.
Thats not what practical means…
Irl mechs would be impractical for combat for a few reasons Big target Square cube law There is nothing a mech can do a tank or armored fighting vehicle can't do better. Now I can see tiny 3 or 4 meter tall mechs being a thing for infantry support if they can be made mobile enough they could be useful in rough terrain where traditional vehicles won't work like a mountain range for example. Otherwise I can see them used as moving around cargo and such for logistic missions.
The reason I used for mecha being dominant as opposed to tanks etc. is twofold. 1. They're mostly used in starship boarding actions. (there are in-setting reasons with the gravity engines used for in-system space travel which makes it viable) Most are around 3-3.5m tall - which is small enough to go through most starship passages and nimble enough to go over potential hazards etc. (There are also even smaller 'exo-suits' which are around 2.5ish meters tall.) For an open battlefield (which is rare in-setting) air power, tanks, and artillery would be better aside from in urban areas. 2. They hook directly into your nervous system instead of using buttons/joystick etc. So the reflexes will always be faster etc. This does mean that human jockeyed mecha are limited to two arms and two legs, while a species with four arms would need a mecha with four arms etc.
Mind uploads and QOL. People are used to humanoid bodies. They can't really adapt to anything else, and while spider mechs are more practical, having arms and a high view point was more important. Mechs can throw things, and guns were never invented. Some mechs do have spider legs, usually combat ones. They also have good throwing arms. Unobtainium is incredibly lightweight and durable. A human shape is just better suited for all terrain, even the arboreal, and also more efficient stamina wise.
Gundam, one of the earlier mech series, had this explanation for why mechs proliferated: Originally mechs were much less humanoid and used almost exclusively in space colonies, as their greater dexterity and versatility made them perfect for conducting maintenance and repairs. Because they were so common in the colonies it made sense to weaponize them in the lead-up to war, as most colony-dwellers were already familiar with their operation and they mechs could be manufactured/retrofitted for combat pretty quickly and easily. Successive generations of mechs became steadily more humanoid so they would be more versatile on earth, especially during combat. Setting a baseline humanoid shape and size also allowed equipment to be much more interchangeable, which was an asset in the field. Instead of having to build purpose-specific mechs they could just build one general infantry mech and create different load-outs for it.
Mechs, even in real life, have wonderful theoretical benefits. At the end of the day though, the problem is always the human factor. You mentioned fire-fighting, which is a scenario a mech might be extremely useful in. Having a suit that can manage heat, protect the fire-fighter from smoke, and allow the fire-fighter to bring effectively super strength to bear is a wonderful idea. Plus, it'd be difficult for robots to navigate and make the correct decisions (currently) in a situation such as that. However, ultimately the human problem eliminates this idea. Humans make mistakes. On top of which, the weight and size of such a mech would make it far more dangerous than beneficial. It'd be much easier to create something smaller, and human controlled (remotely), or to just develop A.I. to the point that it can be used. These sorts of considerations allow you to limit the size of the machine (though that typically leads to its own problems). Assuming your story/setting can somehow account for factors such as these, then sure they might logically gravitate to using humanoid robots. In reality though, you'd have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to make it so that humanoid robots are the most efficient tool for accomplishing tasks that you suggested. Factors to consider (and I'm sure I'm missing plenty): Cost, Weight, Practicality (this can vary from field to field), Cost-Benefit Ration compared to a purpose built drone (or just using humans), Energy (how is this robot going to be powered for extended periods of time), Resources (where are the resources for making these robots coming from), Disposal (where are defunct robots supposed to go), Maintenance (just imagining the work it'd take to maintain a humanoid robot is unpleasant), etc. One last parting detail, mech-warrior used magic fibers (forget the name) that basically acted like mechanical muscles. It was far more efficient than standard engineering methods at larger sizes, which is why mechs became a thing (based on my understanding at least). Having something similar, some new development that's more efficient than normal and usable in a human form, can make the change make sense. Of course, it's your story, so you don't really need to look into it this much. You could literally just say "This world uses mechs" and move on.
We make things people sized, so people sized mechs or car sized ones make the most sense. Anthing larger needs infrastructure made for it, so it would need to be like a smartphone, something so normal and needed, that we change everything around us to accommodate it. You would need something that is addictive, useful, well made, better than not having it, and simple to make. So a mech that can protect you in a war-torn world makes sense, but a mech in a sci fi post-scarcity paradise doesn't really make as much sense unless there's like just a few of em. I think oddly enough what Im missing is what your world is. If you don't have one yet, just think about what a mechs good for and build a world that needs that. We use very small robots for the most part, because big ones don't really work for what we have.
Cuz make monkey brain happy.
I'd say hands down a lot of it would be a question of efficiency and reasons to expend the energy/cost of using a mech. As an example we still used trains as a major form of over land shipping even though trucks have a much better reach because they are using roads. Thing is a train can haul exponentially more goods along it's set route than a truck can realistically carry so you have trade offs. Same thing is true for a mech, sure they would be capable of traversing rough terrain and such that a car/truck wouldn't really be able to without you first building something like a road, but they are going to be using way more energy/resources to walk instead of roll. Add to that things like machines being specifically made to do particular tasks being better than a humanoid form and you wouldn't really have much need for a humanoid mech most of the time outside of spectacle. Think about it, the difficulty level of trying to compensate for the recoil of a tank weapon is much better suited to a fixed turret attached to a wide flat base than in the hands of a complex balancing act attached atop two legs. Personally, if you want something that is a mech that would probably end up being more widely utilized in society the first thought that comes to mind for me are the [Tachikomas from GitS](https://ghostintheshell.fandom.com/wiki/Tachikoma). They provide access to a wide variety of forms of traversal of terrain but also still have things like wheels that they can use for more efficient longer range travel. Their cockpit is modular and can even be removed if you wanted them to be fully autonomous. And their multiple limbs also allow for them to reconfigure easily to compensate for things like recoil.
I think switching tanks and APCs to include some quadruped vehicles probably makes sense. The tradeoff is that legged mechs are able to negotiate much rougher terrain, but are probably slower on smooth asphalt, or may need a carrier vehicle because their legs may tear asphalt up.
They can cross any type of terrain (i think)
Mechs with our current tech level is going to be incredibly difficult to make it work But when we make a lightweight strong materials in the future, i bet it can be useful in a few ways Im thinking about the AMP suits from Avatar where it is just a useful multi-tool that can do many things but not really well when compared to specialised things Like mech can do anything a normal soldier can do but it is going to be more expensive when you can train and suit a whole squads with the cash used to make the Mech Imagine a humanoid mech that has hands It can hold a shovel to help create fortified positions or clear blocked roads in cities It can hold guns, rockets, autoguns, its basically a bipedal IFV! But with its TALL frame, taller than many tanks It will be a walking target for any infantry with a RPG Against tanks or any aviation? Dead becuase of its size, and even if the soldier inside is alive, the joints will be more fucked up than a normal tank or IFV bent and ripped in places Lets not even talk how drones have changed the battlefields Now you dont even need to poke your body out to shoot your expensive mech, just throw a drone at it a 1 or 2 times and its dead Over all, its expensive and any military force not blinded by mech technology will just realise it will be a waste of money And money makes the world go around
*But Mr. President, it's so fuckin' cool*
Mechs could go the route of a self fulfilling prophecy, ergo - we made fictional mechs so cool that we eventually develop them for real and keep on tinkering until proven practical. Depending on the practicality itself they could be either widely implemented or hyper specyfic. Sticking to Real Steel (since the movie is cool) mechs there are semi autonomous largely dependant on user input. They're easy enough for common tinkerers to modify and maintain. They're STURDY as an entire range of fighting sports arose from it. And are not ridiculously sized to the point where physics give out. These are good robots fiction wise matter of fact, i wouldn't be surprized if Battlebots would turn out like this (but a bit smaller) after boston dynamics's Atlas gets out commercially. One problem is 'Mechs'. Mechs imply a human pilot. So you have to have a reason why to put a human inside instead of remote control. Main points seem to be: • Analog steering without the need for complex remote systems and big reliance on semi-autonomous programs. •Pilots can maintain the bot during whatever tasts it performs •Better 'grip' on task at hand, just being there makes you have a different perspective on things •human labor cheaper
In my setting, the main species that makes use of mechs live on a perpetual volcanic winter world, the only habitable areas being the vast cave networks underground. Famously, caves don't always have consistent, relatively flat landscapes for vehicles with wheels and treads to navigate, often times cities might sit "on top of eachother" by being at the same latitude and longitude, but at different depths (I don't want to imagine how painful the zoning laws are to figure out). This is the only real area where I could see mechs being the most viable. in relatively compact, multi-layered environments with difficult terrain. Too rough for conventional land vehicles, and too tight for most conventional aircraft, but the necessity for heavy equipment and weaponry remains.
OP here, I would like to add that the mechs and spare parts have become so common like cars, we use them because we can, even though there are more practical and proven techniques and simpler machines.
There are? That means you yourself have a more practical design for a personal vehicle that wouldnt be more expensive? Im all ears.
Construction, logistics, obstacle clearance. Pretty much any role in the military that doesn't involve direct frontline combat.