Just another future defense project I've discovered that it is close to the tanks on the game. It doesn't look like a HWP but its specifications are quite familiar.

RAAS

Hey thems looking pretty nifty Over twice the length of a HWP though... I don't know. Something that Microprose got right ten years ago still can't be perfected by the military... What is going on!

See also: Fire Ant and TALON Robots

as examples of man-portable small-footprint military-suitable robots.

Opposed to, say, the remote-controlled giant armored D-9 Caterpillar bulldozers Israel is using to knock down Palestine settlements.

Whenever I see stuff like this I think it's an accident waiting to happen.
"Anti-Tank Robot Destroys Red Cross Convoy-Hundreds Of Refugees Dead." These sort of headlines spring to mind. We get enough so-called friendly-fire incidents as it is.

Be sure not to use a Microsoft OS.

DOS would be the best bet

Or a closed source version or Linux.

"Warning. Error 363 has occurred. Windows will now shut down."
I can't see that being convenient during the midst of a battle. Lol.

I don't think, that WinDos or Linux would be suitable for such task. Instead, something like QNX, cause it's a realtime and quite reliable OS.

Excuse me JellyFish...a few notes:

1. The D-9s are'nt Robots.
2. The D-9s do not "knock down" "settlements".

Ever been to an abandoned building?
How long did it stay there?
Why was it flattened?

3. The way you see things can be understood.
The way you claim to understand them cannot be.
You don't live here.

(I already said "excuse me").

Apologies first to M. Hoz who does in fact live in Israel and would have more to say on the issues than I do. I was just looking for military remote control and/or robot information and found the link. Some of the information is biased, but I'll put one link here anyway.

War 'Beast' Goes High Tech - referring to development of remote control via cameras instead of a driver in the D-9 bulldozers supplied by Caterpillar.

I won't engage in a political discussion here, but feel free to PM me.

JFG

Yes,it is interesting,but do note the note at the top,and...
remember what you're reading (it was obviously put there as Propaganda).
As a matter of fact...
::Goes to Yahoo::
::Realizes his mistake::
::Goes to Walla instead::
::Realizes his real mistake::
::Goes to Yahoo again::
::Admits Failure::
Too bad they never translated it.

Bah! Robot tanks!

I think the idea is that these vehicles or specs are controlled by people outside it, much like the UAV drones of today.

I think the closest thing to a HWP is the Bradley armored vehicle, it's 25mm cannon is similar to the one used in the HWP. I'd prefer it if the X-Com HWPs were bigger, took more punishment and fired explosive anti-vehicle cannon rounds rather than solid shot.

Yeah,just too bad the Bradly's manned...
The Bradley was made as an infantry fighting vehicle (IFV).
The whole idea is to let soldiers move and fight under armor.
Kind of like a mobile Bunker.It would be quite a waste of resources
to make the Bradly a Robot,and,would you really like your security
to depend on a bunch of ROBOTIC BUNKERS?

<<That was fun>>

More good stuff on the TALON:
http://www.rdecom.army.mil/rdemagazine/200...med_robots.html
Now that it's 2004, we don't need 4 square meters of Skyranger deck to carry one of these along. Of course, that's not including armor.

Actually I don't think the battle grid is divided into meters. I'm going to use the american version of distance measurement for a bit since it should be a bit easier to explain and detail out.

Since the up/down levels leaves you standing just a few inches above the head of someone one level down, this means that the 1 square movement equals approximately six feet of movement. Now a flying suit changing levels usually costs 8 TUs. Moving forward 1 square on a clear no-debris square costs 4 TUs. Meanwhile walking 1 square diagonally costs 6 TUs which is consistent with the time & a half required to go the extra distance Thus I'd guess that we are moving forward three feet if its consistent that way, or alternatively six feet if you consider movement to be equal but time costs not in the factoring. So thus each square is either 3 or 6 feet when measured from one side to the other, or either 4 & 1/2 or 9 feet when measured from one corner to the other.

Now since a soldier's body pretty much fills the entire square I'm leaning more towards the halved sizes (3 feet from side to side, 4 & 1/2 diagonally).

In other words the X-Com tanks using my figures would range from either being 6 ft long and 6 ft wide to being twice as much in each direction. The smaller number sounds just about right for a robotic computer tank while the larger would just about be what I'd expect for a futuristic human-crewed tank I think. Personally though I'm still leaning towards the smaller set of numbers.

Anyway it goes 3 ft does not quite equal to one English meter if I am rememberring my conversions right, but it definitely does not equal one square meter.

ED, I'm going to hold to the 1m-per-square convention, as it's "close enough" and makes for nice round numbers. Also NATO uses the metric system.
- the "squares" are roughly the volume required to enclose a standing person, and I interpret the volume as taller (maybe 2m tall) than it is wide (1m on a side).
- the tanks are two squares wide by two long; this could be, say, 1.5 m wide instead of the full 2m. The game effects still apply - it can't pass a Squaddie on the 2m landing ramp and it can't fit through the 1m wide UFO door.
- the diagonal movement should be valued as sqrt(2) of the horizontal - which works out to 6.2something but 6 is the obvious round number (integer) to subtract from TUs.
Anyway I'll shut up now as this isn't the "Formula" thread