Search Results
7/22/2025, 1:07:52 AM
>>96149893
I prefer the opposite, I view mechs as being a post-war phenomenon. As a weapon of war mechs don't really make much sense, they're too fragile, yet expensive, too big, too inefficient. The mech is not a weapon of a nation trying to take war seriously and end a conflict as quickly as possible in their favor.
Where mechs DO make sense is as an honorable tool of resolving duels. Mechs aren't efficient, but they are majestic. They aren't durable, but they are majestic. A tank or a plane can win a war on the battlefield, but they can't truly 'duel' like a mech can. A mech has a face for people to identify with, and since it's crewed by one man, a duel between mechs comes down entirely to skill.
Thus, mechs make the most sense in a society which has risen above the concept of war.
I prefer the opposite, I view mechs as being a post-war phenomenon. As a weapon of war mechs don't really make much sense, they're too fragile, yet expensive, too big, too inefficient. The mech is not a weapon of a nation trying to take war seriously and end a conflict as quickly as possible in their favor.
Where mechs DO make sense is as an honorable tool of resolving duels. Mechs aren't efficient, but they are majestic. They aren't durable, but they are majestic. A tank or a plane can win a war on the battlefield, but they can't truly 'duel' like a mech can. A mech has a face for people to identify with, and since it's crewed by one man, a duel between mechs comes down entirely to skill.
Thus, mechs make the most sense in a society which has risen above the concept of war.
Page 1