Edmund Chiu (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sat, 18 Nov 2000 15:36:58 -0800
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: [gundam] RX-79[G] as a continuity buster?
In a message dated 11/18/00 2:58:10 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
Actually, the Gundam is the close combatant of the Gun team, with the
Guncannon filling the long range roll. The Gundam mounts less armor than the
Guncannon, and has (in general) shorter ranges weapons, but is also faster
and more agile. The Gundam had beam sabers the Guncannon didn't, but both
carried beam rifles for medium range use. The both mounted 60 mm Vulcan
cannons in the their heads, and they both had the Core Block System. The
Guncannon could use the same shield as the Gundam (if the pilot deemed it
necessary), but couldn't support beam sabers. The bazooka was an anti-MS
weapon, and was used by the Gundam because the Gundam was intended as an
escort for the Guncannon, which was intended for anti-ship.
I thought Guncannon is for middle-long range support, while Guntank provide the long range support. Of course, Gundam filled the short-medium range support.
The GM, on the other hand, was used for both roles, with he close
combat/anti-MS role used first, then the long range/anti-ship roll later with
the GM Sniper configuration and GM Cannon variant.
If you count all these variant GMs, then why do we even having this conversation - the original Gundam was built as a test-bed for various equipment and technology that would eventually end up on the GM. GM was built with future add-on or modification in mind, so GM obvious can "adopt" to other environment, if you produce a variant for it or give it new equipment. I thought you are talking about whether a "regular" GM can do different things, more so than a Gundam...
Of course the Gundam can do everything a GM can do, even more so and better
than a GM can. In the Japanese fashion, the Gundam and Guncannon prototypes
were built with every possible option imaginable, while the mass produced GM
was built was with only the options that were know to be useful all the time.
Also, the GM frame became a standard for MS construction with the Federation,
as it was the most basic and general design based on the knowledge gained
from the Gundam and Guncannon prototypes.
Then I am really confused here - if a Gundam can do what a GM can do, then why are we argue that GM can do things a Gundam cannot do?
GM's are used in every environment the Gundam could be used in. Environmental
upgrades were introduced to the GM's used for long periods in these
environments, most likely based on knowledge gained from adapting the Gundam
and Guncannon to these environments.
How about effectiveness? I thought that the first GM produced perform much better at either space or land, but not both.
We only see the Gundams in the roles they are prepped for, not the
preparation done before hand. That is, until the side stories like 08MST,
0080, and 0083. In these, we see the preparations that would have gone on in
the original series, Zeta and ZZ, and in CCA, if those scenes had been needed
to move the story along. As it was, the time that would be normally be used
to fix, maintain, upgrade, and modify the Gundams was not needed, so
therefore was not shown.
What I am talking about is that RX-79(G), along with GP01, GP01Fb, GP02A and GP03D, are designed to be used for a specific terrain (RX-79(G) and GP01 is for land use, while GP01Fb is for space) or a specific function (GP02A for atomic, while GP03D for strategic point defense(?)).
Any examples of the pilots using the machines to do fabulous things is just
that, the pilots use, not the machines. The machines are performing as they
were designed and prepared to do.
Yes and as a general rule of thumb, a Gundam, or any top of the line unit, would out-perform most standard units at almost all terrains, except specialized units (sniper variants or marine use units), or when the Gundam is designed for a specific purpose (GP03D, and the RX-79(G) comes to mind).
I am not sure if it's just me, but it seems I almost completely misunderstood what you're trying to say at first. Can you clarify a bit more? I am sure other peoples like more clarifications...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Nov 19 2000 - 08:12:07 JST