Anti Grav Dilemma

[atpollard]

Yes, a classic blunder in CT/Striker and MT design sequences is you can only make belly and deck flat so it takes a tremendous amount of armour to protect those faces of your grav vehicle from weapons like proximity mines or remote-controlled mines (aka IEDs) which can attack grav vehicles over-flying them. Likewise for speeders at altitude that may be engaged from far below.

If you want all sides, top and bottom sloped, then just design the vehicle as a rectangle and fly it leaning 45 degrees to the side.

Or design a shell half the actual height with sloped sides and no bottom and mirror it (double the cost, weight and spaces).

 

[Icosahedron]

With the new (T5) fusion PP/MD able to run for a year on it's internal fuel supply, actually landing (and skids) becomes optional.

Hmm. This may or may not be realistic, but IMO there comes a point when playability takes precedence over realism.

I'm happy for nuclear subs to lurk about for a year or more without coming home, but it's not something I'd want to play out for my tanks!

Anyway, the occupants would need various types of relief after a few hours, so it would have to land fairly frequently - unless it's big enough to have fresher and bunks aboard?

 

[fredofmars]

Hmm. This may or may not be realistic, but IMO there comes a point when playability takes precedence over realism.

I'm happy for nuclear subs to lurk about for a year or more without coming home, but it's not something I'd want to play out for my tanks!

Anyway, the occupants would need various types of relief after a few hours, so it would have to land fairly frequently - unless it's big enough to have fresher and bunks aboard?

I'm guessing what was meant is that the vehicle wouldn't "land" but instead come to a hover an inch or two above the ground and stay there until moved. That way, they won't need any skids or other landing gear. The crew would get to "land" and hop out to use their regular base housing &c.