Hmm. The less efficient and less practical designs from the wars of history do seem to be the most interesting. (it is probably because we know conventional designs work and are practical, we take them for granted.)
That is awesome looking artillery. (you may want to do a take 2 picture to make it a little more efficient. You say that inefficiency is one of that army's main themes is inefficiency. That has sparked my curiosity. What are the other main themes? (the artillery still looks sweet though.)
Gasmasks +awesome! The insperations were mostly WW1 , Franco Prussian war and Napolionic with a big dollop of Miyazaki and 'Cannon Fodder' by Katsuhiro Otomo.
The themes. .not so sure. I'm interested in less eficient weapon from history as they often give me ideas or shapes that you don't see anywhere else. The more successful design solutions are so recognisable now that it can be hard to see the form beyond the meaning of the shape. For instance , an AK47 is so iconic that this is all we see when we look at one. We don't evaluate the lines of the form, merely register it as an object because we've seen that shape so many times. It has become more like a word than a designed object.
More obscure forms (such as the retractable turret of the Maginot line) or the multi turreted land ships of the 1930s) are of far greater interest to me.I kind of wanted to capture this spirit in these designs-the other approach to war machines. Tanks without Christy suspension, infantry in great coats and body armour-evolution of war but in a different direction to our own world.
i like everything except for those wheels. they are sloppily rendered and don't look like they would work. also, i noticed that in nearly every turret or mounted gun that you draw, there is no apparent means to change elevation in the gun. there are no channels, no ball joints, and no pivots. the guns seem physically incapable of changing the angle.
That's true! Although one of the main themes of this army was ineficency I guess being unable to move your guns is taking it too far. Maybe it changes elevation using its legs (although this would cause all the crew to tumble out the back).