Bob_Richter
10/31/01 12:48 AM
134.121.16.133
|
I agree with your opening statement.
>>>1. for indirect fire, modifier is +6 (xlong range)+1(indirect fire)-3(imobile target - you shoot at terrain, not moving target)=+4 final modifier on gunnery roll. Once you hit target hex, standard rules apply for automatic following hits. You still need a spotter with LOS to target hex - if you don't have him, disregard the -3 immobile target modifier.
<<<
The standard modifier for extreme range is +8 (MaxTech), the standard modifier for immobile target is -4 (BMR). This would give you a +5 (which, coincidentally, is the same base number as indirect LRM fire, but at longer range.)
>>>2. direct fire (for targets that you have LOS for, within 1/3 of the max. range of that art. weapon): +4 for range, -3 for immobile target (again, you are shooting at the specific hex) for a modifier of +1 to your gunnery roll.
<<<
Again, the standard immobile target modifier is -4, but this is WAAAY too munchy. This way you get to kill locusts with an artillery gun with no modifier. I would stick to a +4, probably, or make you declare DF attacks before the movement phase.
>>>3. standard shell flight times apply - they provide enough of a handicap themselves, so hitting moving targets is still a probability game<<<
To me, the biggest problem with artillery IS the flight times....they make no sense.
>>>4. timed salvo firing: you can put up to three shells per weapon in the air, and time them to fall on target at the same time (same turn). Within 1/3 of your max. range, you can do that with 3 shells, between 1/3 and 2/3 you can do it with 2, and between 2/3 and max range, you can't do it at all - unless you use base-bleed or rocket assisted shells, which are another story altogether.<<<
I'm not sure how this would work. There are only two possible angles that will land a shot in the specified target area-- one high angle and one low angle...so it MIGHT be possible to time two shots (the low-angle shot would get there faster) together, but three doesn't seem possible.
Of course, I don't know that much about real-world artillery. It's possible there's some way to vary the power of the shot, which would invalidate my above comment.
>>>Another sidefect discovered by a munchkin friend of mine is that now you can make truly effective tanks <<<
This sounds like a BAD thing to me.
-Bob Richter
A dead primate is nobody's ancestor.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
10/31/01 01:12 AM
134.121.16.133
|
>>>The reason why we use direct fire rule (and do not consider it too be munchy) is precisely because of shell flight times - you are trying to guess where is a mech going to be in the future. It IS devastating at one-two maps range, but heck, so is real arty, if you are stupid enough to be visible for a direct shot.<<<
Shell flight time in visible range is going to be basically nonexistent. Actually, it IS nonexistent at under 17 hexes.
-Bob Richter
A dead primate is nobody's ancestor.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Cray
10/31/01 06:53 AM
204.245.128.108
|
>(or next to useless, with advanced ammo).
Geez, with guided artillery ammo I rule the battlefield, no need for house rules. No unit lacking arty or air support is safe. 8-12 Arrow IV or Long Toms and I can evaporate assault mechs in a turn or two.
I like your time-on-target (timed salvo) rule.
>Another sidefect discovered by a munchkin friend of mine is that now you can make truly effective tanks - just mount an artillery weapon as main gun
Heh. Munchkin, yes. Look up my Beast in the design forum.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
10/31/01 06:55 AM
204.245.128.108
|
>3 shells was a conservative rule of thumb - and seems to work nicely with the game...in RL I have seen far more spectacular results with different amounts of propellant and different type of shells used - all falling on the same target within a few seconds
The Paladin or Crusader (which is the new one?) is supposed to be able to drop 5 of its own shells on one target at the same time.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Bob_Richter
10/31/01 02:50 PM
134.121.16.133
|
>>>but realism is a funny word to be used in a game where cannon has an effective range of 270meters, or slightly less then AK-47 (hmm, now that I think of it, it is smaller then whan Napoleonic cannon could do, too...;)....<<<
Someone once suggested to me that we should think of the hexes as being 100 meters, rather than 30. Personally, I prefer revising the ranges to +1 increments and allowing for nine range categories.
This gets ranges pretty near real-world.
The, ah, Long-Tom Howitzer has a range of 20 mapboards=20maps*17hexes*30m or about 10.2km, which is about right....for a howitzer.
(However, the Long Tom is a truly mammoth howitzer, weighing in at 30 metric tons. Most of this seems to be reflected in its expanded damage capacity, but one could see how it could get some extra range out of it.)
The other pieces, it must be admitted, are a little short of range.
Hm. Bob wonders what a long-barreled cannnon could do.
Oh yeah. Some of the reading I've done on artillery suggests that there is a range which is considered "too short" for certain artillery pieces.
Do you have any insights on this?
-Bob Richter
A dead primate is nobody's ancestor.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Cray
10/31/01 03:02 PM
204.245.128.108
|
Actually, I think the Long Tom falls quite short in range for a howitzer. AIUI, most US field howitzers have 20-40km ranges, depending on caliber. 10.2km is pretty dang short for any modern cannon artillery piece. If I got motivated, I could probably look up the ranges on the Federation of American Scientists website.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Greyslayer
11/04/01 04:44 PM
137.172.211.9
|
What about such things as -1 for every 2 gunnery below 4 for the spotter and -1 for every single gunnery below 4 for the firing unit. Few players use inexperienced troops so the +7 modifier is quite often on a low target number to start with.
Long Range is +4 and Extreme Range is +8 (from maximum tech) only time +6 is used as a long range modifier is with stealth-type armours (null-sig and stealth armours).
Pre-designated artillery ALWAYS hit their target as well so maybe to follow reality we should totally screw with that as well.
Artillery is already a overpowerful weapon, unless of course you insist on trying to TAG-Arrow IV someone then good luck it just takes a little brainpower to use indirect artillery to be effective is all ...
High Target numbers to hit the hex you want ... big deal at least it still has a good chance of hitting something if it misses unlike any other weapon in the game (apart from swarm lrms).
Greyslayer...
PS If you direct-fire the way you reckon you do then you should suffer the AMS shotdown result if the unit has AMS since you don't have a high enough trajectory to escape the tracking and locking of the system and give the defending player the choice of firing on that or incoming missiles.
|
Greyslayer
11/04/01 09:56 PM
137.172.211.9
|
Mach 4 or 5? Where do you get those figures? A shell travels 2 mapboards a turn or roughly from my calculations up to 150 meters per second while ATM ER Ammo travels about 90 meters per second (all in gametime quantities).
BTW you ever hear of flak in btech? Fire it sometime at those pesky vtols .... they can even be on a different elevation above a unit of yours and your unit will be totally unaffected by a Arrow IV flk round going off only a couple of meters above its head yet a vtol will take the full 20 points if the round misses it still has the 1 in 6 chance of dealing 10 damage to the vtol if it only deviates 1 hex and the round will still stay on the same elevation ... that is certainly enough to quite possibly take out a vtol. But in a total opposite direction there is no limit to the depth of damage an artillery round will deal damage to units underwater even though the round is exploding on top of the water, yes I know about underwater explosions but that requires the round being set to going off at that depth of water (if indeed that ability exists in the btech universe) rather than the air-rich environment above where a majority of the explosive force will go (passage of least resistance/density).
Now tell me again why is artillery weak?
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
11/04/01 10:51 PM
137.172.211.9
|
Try the magical 18 rule ... 17 direct with 18 giving a 10 point guarantee, then you see another problem a vtol automatically adds +1 to its movement-type so even sitting still it still needs +1 +range +cover/intervening terrain +target movement bonus (if any) +its own movement.
So a regular Vtol pilot with LRMs (assuming a Warrior Attack Vtol in this case) that sits still firing at long range on a stationary Long Tom in light woods (its tracked so it can get there) would need 10s to hit its target. This is of course the person running the Artillery didn't setup a proper anti-air defence platform like a Partisan which chews then spits out the pathetic attempts by air assets against that position ;).
Now who here practices leaving their artillary pieces exposed with no support?
As another side-note Artillery within that 17 hex limit has more chance to hit a vtol than most other weapons since you only have to hit the hex on a base of 9 the same goes for a Dasher doing that dash to 15 hexes away to unload its ER Mediums (+4 move +cover + 2-4 for range for most troops + gunnery).
'I don't think this is realistic' ... neither is most of the rest of the rules ... deal with it tactically or play micro-armour instead ... the choice is yours ;P.
Greyslayer
|
Acolyte
11/04/01 11:53 PM
64.180.196.92
|
VTOLs are considered to have jumped for movement, according to The BattleTech Compendium. This gives a +1 to be hit and an automatic +3 attacker movement penalty.
Acolyte
Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for.
Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
|
Cray
11/05/01 06:44 AM
204.245.128.108
|
Ignoring how fast shells travel in BT, in reality artillery shells rarely exceed 3000fps muzzle velocity by much (corrective figures with citation welcomed). That's mach 3 at the muzzle.
Thereafter, the shells slow down. On a 45 degree arc, neglecting air friction (probably not wise), the shell will slow to mach 2 at the peak of its arc.
In BT, Greyslayer's figures for artillery shell velocities look correct. Artillery shell groundspeed is 100m/s (the shells cover 2 mapboards i.e. 1km per 10 seconds), but they follow a curving arc, so 150m/s sounds about right.
I disagree with the ATM ER velocities, though. We don't know their flight time other than that the maximum is 10 seconds (for which 90m/s is correct.)
Mike "Having Fun with Numbers" Miller
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
NathanKell
11/05/01 10:00 AM
24.44.236.103
|
And my recollection was that, in the back of BMR when it lists the changes from BTC:RoW, that's one of them (that it's *only* used as a defending modifier).
-NathanKell
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter, 10 Aug. 1787
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Cray
11/05/01 03:30 PM
204.245.128.108
|
Sure. And the rules reflect that AMS is useless against artillery. Don't they?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Greyslayer
11/05/01 04:03 PM
137.172.211.9
|
Yep but the way he went about saying how nasty direct firing was it indicated that if he was going to do it that way it was little more than a LRM-type attack thus giving a unit with AMS a chance (sort of like Thunderbolt missiles from Tactical Handbook).
There is something else in this, a shell does not seem to 'strike' the ground but 'attack' the entire hex and surrounding hexes just above the ground level.
If he wanted reality then shouldn't there be 'dud' rounds and misfires? ;)
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
11/05/01 04:20 PM
137.172.211.9
|
So why is it that bad that an artillery unit actually has a disadvantage against units beyond 17 hexes? Because those units are not GOD ... they are a support unit and should be used as such. No units like this should not been able to defend themselves better than standard combat units ... no they should not unbalance the rules further in their favour ... no they can't not suffer the exact same problems that every other weapon in the game suffers from and that is from lack of range, some weapon systems are out by up to 15 to 20 times range problems for massive increases in weight (example MGs a standard .50 cal has an effective turret range of 900-1200 meters and it weighs about 50 kilos unloaded ready for mounts).
A long tom fires 20 maps ... times that by 15 and see how far the damn thing would fire if MGs were brought up to scratch ... (510 per board x 300 maps = 153 kilometers ... I'm not sure how far big bertha could fire but this is insane on a normal artillery peice).
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
11/05/01 04:55 PM
137.172.211.9
|
You want artillery to be overpowered ... get maximum tech ... they do increase flight distance per turn ... they do increase the damage potential of artillery shells but they keep the 17 hex range in (its the first place I found a reference to exactly how big a map was under their definitions too) ... let just call it the point where a trajectory has to be introduced for effective firing compared to just hitting the hex 'flat' (though this should create an explosion similar to a bomb scatter rather than all surrounding hexes getting damaged).
The extra damage from Max Tech ... example:
Long Tom round - 20 damage in the hex 15 in all adjacent hexes, 10 in all hexes next to that and 5 in hexes out from that.... try taking light mechs in that ... now your vtol has to try to stay at 21 hexes to save themselves though a maximum of 1 damage to the rotors regardless of weapon is used in Max Tech ... you still don't want to be taking damage.....
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
11/05/01 05:18 PM
137.172.211.9
|
Actually the minimum range for such items as LRMs are more a 'chance to arm after launch', could not as well that those SRMs/LRMs that don't go off still hit the mech on the number of missiles that hit table?
We have banned artillery from all tourney and competition games here simply due to the unbalanced and time consuming nature of the rules and the equipment involved (time consuming even by battletech standards ;)).
Now the autocannons... AC2 and AC5 both have minimum ranges yet are lighter than the AC10 and AC20 so should not have a problem with a minimum range. There could be a special primer in the rounds that stop them from going off that close to the target or even just plain 'bounce off' targets, but that should be the case for any autocannon rather than the lightest that are produced. Artillery has no arming range, no minimum whatsoever... they themselves can even take damage from a round falling next to them (though the rules protect them from the shell deviating on them).
I was probably wrong with the ER LRMs example I should've said this was the minimum speed possible for the missiles whereas the 150meters per second would be the maximum for the artillery shell so not a big difference there in speed for an AMS system to detect on a directly fired artillery shell ... the AMS would not necessarily destroy or set off the round but certainly should have SOME effect (example if the shell is hitting the surface and takes several hits from AMS it might explode prematurely or if it explodes at altitude it might explode at the wrong height doing less of no damage to those armoured units on the ground.
Greyslayer
|
Cray
11/05/01 05:28 PM
12.78.131.80
|
>Er, I still don't see how AMS would attack an art. shell in flight
I can't see how a *Battletech* AMS would attack an artillery shell in flight, but real life systems are quite capable of it (it's not a 100% proposition, but this is solved by throwing a lot of lead in the air and correcting following shots based on how close the last ones got). Artillery shells are hard, radar-reflective targets on simple, calculable flight paths. Spot, track, and shoot. Guided 5" artillery shells and missiles are even better because of longer engagement ranges.
>As for duds and misfires, they seem to be about as common as in other BT ballistic weapons
BT weapons do seem to show reasonable reliability, but reliability has jumped greatly in this century alone. Another few hundred years and ballistic weapons should be highly reliable...though fluff BT text occasionally hints otherwise (see: Orion).
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
11/05/01 05:34 PM
12.78.131.80
|
>Because those units are not GOD ...
Actually, I think the Rooskies call artillery something like "the god of war."
Keep in mind the cause of most casualties in every ground war to date the US has been in: artillery. Usually 80% or more military casaulties the US inflicts is by artillery.
Now, if you want to rephrase your opinion with words like "game balance," or "keeping mechs as king of the battlefield," I can understand where you're coming from. But in RL, artillery IS god.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
11/05/01 05:38 PM
12.78.131.80
|
>(I am talking about non-arrow iv artillery)
Is something wrong with Arrow IV artillery, or is Arrow IV automatically useful compared to tube arty IYO?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
11/05/01 05:41 PM
12.78.131.80
|
Priming the fuses is not the only excuse for minimum range. Some weapons just don't bear well on targets, like the AC/2 and AC/5 - I doubt their fuses have any trouble working at short ranges. Their problem probably lies more in their targeting and tracking systems.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Greyslayer
11/05/01 06:11 PM
137.172.211.9
|
Actually from what I've heard most of those were friendly fire too ;P.
In battletech you will rarely see a regiment of artillery which is common in current military so how does the comparison match up? It doesn't. The davions with their RCT configuration I think had 1 battalion to support the entire force ... one lousy battalion and that was a revolutionary step for the forces of the IS to utilize artillery as such (later the comgaurds used something similar on the clans still nowhere near current realistic levels), but all this is showing that an artillery piece is not god ... but a battery is the devil's own. IS rarely had battery-level artillery so it shouldn't be a powerful tool (the fact that a single piece can take out multiple units while taking infantry out in buildings as though they had no cover) in the same turn just shows that a single battletech artillery piece can be more lethal than a current artillery piece that quite often needs to directly hit its target to take it out.
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
11/05/01 06:13 PM
137.172.211.9
|
Arrow IV only has a range of just over 2 kilometers so he is trying to save his butt from it coming close to the 17 hexes bit once divided by 3 ;).
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
11/05/01 07:26 PM
137.172.211.9
|
So are you seeing what I am talking about with respect to the power of artillery in the game? infantry unless in a hardened building are pretty much instantly dead, units not even in the same 30 meter hex as where the shell is going to hit can die from it ... (its sort of like a man and a grenade ... with a instant kill radius and a could kill radius than a shell that should be more like a hits man and he becomes very 'explosive' ;).
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
11/05/01 07:53 PM
137.172.211.9
|
You mean bunkers, fortresses, production facilities and barracks.... or those objects majorly removed from the face of the battletech universe during the first two succession wars ;).
How was artillery used in WW1 or even WW2? Soften a target up before you hit. There is no guarantee if you go off after the enemy during the shelling that you will come back so why should that be any different in that future where the battle shifts quicker than even a normal artillery unit these days could have for recalibrating (I mean they even allow artillery units to move and fire for a pesky +1 or +2 modifier!!)?
Quite often the best defence against a quick moving force is to have it deviate around since they can never be certain where the next round will land or hit, thats what I use often to disrupt organised attacks and defences (I prefer to play like a mongol so an organised defence or attack is not what I want my enemy to be ;), which is also why in campaigns I usually lean towards quicker units).
Vet spotters mean nothing (unless they are like a 2/4) its only for every 2 gunnery for the spotter ... still no bonuses are given for indirect spotting of LRM fire by elite troops so its a 'special' rule for artillery think yourself lucky ;P.
Artillery isn't that useful in a skirmish ... its the larger battles where it makes its mark on the battlefield (good chance of at least hitting something the way damage is dealt from them).
Oh and btw they have 25 point warheads in Max Tech as well (it does 25 damage in the hex 15 adjacent and 5 adjacent to that).
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
11/05/01 08:58 PM
137.172.211.9
|
Thats great but a in the battletech universe where a grizzled veteran that knows nearly all the tricks in the book still has almost 50% (42% actually) chance of missing his target if he didn't move his target didn't move and there is no intervening terrain if its out at long range ... and this is a direct fire shot with standard weopons!
I know about artillery, even though I was and served in Armour Corps most of the platoon I trained with in recruit training ended up in artillery and we all ended up in the same barracks our compounds were next to each other and we had the odd exercise together. You can't bring realism into the game without adjusting everything else with the same gusto or you make it worse. Players even those who started when battletech was battledroids don't always realise that when they post their rule changes. Look at the total battlefield and how it plays, see if there are already rules out there that could remedy it and then see what effects your rules would have on other elements and lets face it artillery is not what battletech is all about ... its not ARTYTECH, its about BATTLEMECHs and conventional forces on the tabletop smashing each other up. It is only a small (very small) aspect of the game that could become far more important than is necessary in the game mechanics if wholesale changes like those mentioned above are made with no regard to the overall playing level of other weapons/forces in the game.
Greyslayer
|
Cray
11/06/01 07:14 AM
204.245.128.108
|
Gee. I thought most systems had a chance of bagging artillery shells.
Tell you what. My cursory searches aren't turning up the webpages I once found discussing this, so I'm going to ask on sci.military.naval and get back to you.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
11/06/01 07:20 AM
204.245.128.108
|
>In battletech you will rarely see a regiment of artillery which is common in current military so how does the comparison match up? It doesn't.
The lack of artillery in BT is a production issue, not a lack of interest. The Cappies used regiments and brigades of artillery early in the Succession Wars. The only revolution the Davion RCT artillery battalion represented was one of industrial recovery.
>but a battery is the devil's own. IS rarely had battery-level artillery so it shouldn't be a powerful tool
IS rarely had it for lack of production. When it's present, it should be the devil's own.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cray
11/06/01 02:11 PM
204.245.128.108
|
Alright, the British Seawolf anti-missile missile (the only widely deployed naval missile intended for anti-missile roles only) apparently engaged a 114mm (4.5") naval cannon shell during its testing.
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/aj.cashmore/.weapons/uk/.sam.html
I'm having trouble finding references for other defenses' abilities to engage artillery shells. Of course, the Seawolf is a guided missile and not a BT-type AMS, but the artillery shell was shot down.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
11/06/01 03:37 PM
63.173.170.151
|
* Using the proposed rules would really make it hard to justify putting heavy AC's and GR's on things with this proposed modification.
* Let's use Arrow for an example, the shortest range artillery unit, 5-6 boards.
At 15 tons, with a range of 5 boards (say 75 hexes), one-third of this is 25 hexes. So, these rules are recommended a base target of 5+ for upto 25 hex range. That's long range for any other weapon that can reach that far, for a base 8+. So, do the math, these new artillery rules are a no brainer to get, and that disrupts the rest of the game. They need to be balanced with everything else to be viable. This unbalances them.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|