 |
 |
||||
|
|
||||
Edmund Chiu (edf91@worldnet.att.net)
Sat, 18 Nov 2000 17:30:11 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: Chaos025@aol.com
To: gundam@aeug.org
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [gundam] RX-79[G] as a continuity buster?
In a message dated 11/18/00 4:29:02 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
edf91@worldnet.att.net writes:
I never said that GM's were better, or that they could do more. I only
questioned the idea that the original Gundam was a general-purpose unit and
that GM's are specialized units. My point was that the Gundam wasn't designed
to do a bit of everything, it was designed to be really good at one thing. On
the other hand, GM's are designed to a bit of everything, and are modified to
fill dedicated roles because of their inherent general-purpose nature.
I think you are wrong - Gundam is really the first MS ever produced by the Fed, so in order to make better MS later on, it would make sense to make the Gundam "workable" in all terrain, so the data can be used to make a mass production type MS (taking cost/performance into account). The general purpose of the Gundam is supposed to mean that without any special equipment or add-on, the Gundam can work and fight in all types of terrains, while GM is designed to be specialized (since GM is much cheaper to produce, its performance isn't as good as Gundam, so in order to make it "stand out" against other "better" MS, it make sense to make the GM specialized in various different terrains, or specific function), be it GM cannon, command and what not.
I feel that GM's are great at most roles they fill. I also feel that GM's
were designed to do what Gundam was designed to do, only cheaper and with
more adaptability.
But other than the original GM, which seems to be able to out perform the original Gundam, all other MS that seems to "come from" Gundam have lower general performance stats than the Gundam. Other than mass production MS that come much later in the timeline, all mass production MS perform much worse than top-of-the-line MS like Gundams, simply because of the cost-cutting.
I feel that a what is referred to as a "Gundam" is in fact the prototype of
the next generation in MS technology. The RX-78 series introduced the GM. The
Alex introduced the GM Custom. The GP series introduced technology used in
the MkII. The MkII introduced movable frame technology as well as the
technology gain from the GP series. The Zeta introduced transformation
technology as well as new weapons technology. The Nu introduced Beam shield
and Funnel technology. The F91 introduced the VSBR. The Victory paved the way
for all hero suits to be know as "Gundam" for all time there after.
But in the real world, all top-of-the-line units will produce something that can be used to produce mass production units, or that mass production units will come from top-of-the-line unit simply because it became cheaper to produce. Also, Gundam are produced to be unique, with a few exceptions (like V Gundam) - their parts and equipment are usually unique and not found in other MS (like Bio computer, bio sensor, Hyper Mega Launcher, etc.) - in order to test out various components and how is their effectiveness in battle, and how much it cost to put it on mass production unit.
It does in fact look like you misunderstood my original post. I wasn't
arguing, nor was I trying to point out some obscure plot twist to the list. I
was only disagreeing and stating my point of view.
Which is: Gundams are not general-purpose Mobile Suits, GM's are.
I think you completely miss the meaning of "general-purpose" MS - I thought by definition, "general purpose" meaning that a MS, just by giving it standard equipment, can perform almost all aspect of MS function and usable in all terrains. GM cannot really do that - we all know that by making an unit usable in more than 1 terrain it is designed for takes a lot of money and much harder to maintain (marine and land use boats or cars), and since GM, by definition, is supposed to be mass production unit, which means as little cost as possible, so I don't think it can perform that great in all terrains. Not only that, it was supposed to perform at least at "average" on all terrains, something I seriously doubt a standard GM can do at all possible terrain.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Nov 19 2000 - 10:05:13 JST