Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:49:09 EST
In a message dated 11/20/00 10:49:53 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
> Well, this could be interpreted in a number of ways,
> eh? On the one hand, we have "multi-role"; on the
> other hand, "multi-environment." The Japanese term
> "hanyo", which is often used in mobile suit descriptions
> and usually translated as "general-purpose," seems to
> be used in the sense of "multi-environment" as opposed
> to space, ground, or amphibious mobile suits...
Seen from this point of view, who could argue... :)
> I'd originally assumed that the GM had the exact
> same range of capabilities as the Gundam, too.
> But of late I've begun to question this. The inability
> to use a beam rifle gives it inherently less midrange
> firepower than the Gundam, and makes it more
> explicitly a close-combat machine. (Whereas the
> Gundam could at least fudge this and fight at a
Never said GMs had a greater range of ability, nor that they even match the
Gundams capabilities. I said GMs filled every role the Gundam was ever used
in. Not as well, as seem in some cases, but they could do it.
The one nagging point I have kept away from is the insistence that GMs can't
use beam rifles. Why? As far as I can determine, the beam rifle is a
semi-closed system that requires external power to release its stored mega
particles, but doesn't actually require anything else external. It is
mentioned in several places that GMs need to be up-powered to use a beam
rifle, but their reactor out put is only a 130 kilowatts less than the
Gundam. Why does make so much of difference? It doesn't make any sense.
> Moreover, I've noticed a lot of print references of late
> that support the notion of the GM being more limited.
> In addition to the MSV Collection File's essay on how
> the GM is designed explicitly for mass battle, with Balls
> for fire support, I now note Tomino himself saying that
> the GM was supposed to be a less versatile machine
> than the Gundam. (Both citations carry a lot of weight
> with me - the MSV Collection File is written by Bandai's
> Hiroshi Yamaguchi, formerly one of the Streambase trio
> who penned all the MSV back story; Tomino's interview
> is from when the show was on the air, before he could
> change his mind. ;-)
The only place I've seen in print that states that GMs are superior to the
Gundam is in the novelisation, and even I don't take that as gospel.
What is the MSV Collection File, and were can I access it?
> So, there's some solid evidence that the classic GM
> is more limited than the Gundam in terms of _combat
> role_, if not in terms of environment. 08th MS Team,
> meanwhile, presents an alternate version of the GM
> (and the Gundam) that is just as flexible in terms of
> combat role, but limited in terms of _environment_.
I never argued against this at all. I'm in total agreement with you.
> To my mind, these "upgrades" constitute entirely new
> machines. Likewise, the Zaku could be modified into
> the Marine Type, Cannon Type, Recon Type, et cetera
> - but these weren't changes that could be made on the
> battlefield, and any given model of Zaku is _extremely_
> limited in terms of both combat role and environment.
Not to me. This is like saying a cherried out Mustang isn't a Mustang at all,
simply because it has been upgraded.
A Zaku is a Zaku, be it an F, J, S, B, M, C ... whatever, its still a Zaku
A GM is a General-purpose Mass-produced Mobile Suit, be it a C, G, E, L, N or
RGM-79, 80, 83 ... whatever, its still a GM.
Just because the engines is bigger or smaller, the armor is heavier or
lighter, or the weapons are numerous or few, doesn't mean the basic vehicle
has changed. Nor has its function change, even though it has a different role
than it did before.
EXO Mechanical Editor & Mecha Designer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Nov 21 2000 - 05:33:34 JST