My tank design prosses

BattleTech : Designs Previous Index Next Threaded
Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/28/09 01:55 AM
24.5.141.133

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Just take a current tank design and drop all of the wasteful weight.

Most tank designs in the game are heavy just to be heavy and for no other reason.

Most of my tank designs where not that creative on my part. I just picked some random tank and cut away the wasteful weight. Just getting rid of the ICE engine for Fusion that helps a great deal. Then swapping out a AC for lasers get rid of even more weigh. Of course with the engine and weapons being lighter you can drop the weight of the IS and control system.

For example I took the 60 ton Bulldog and dropped it to 20 tons. Most of that weight was the ICE engine. The IS, Control system, and heat sinks helped also but mostly it was dumping the ICE engine. I went from a 23 ton 240 ICE to a 4.5 ton 100 fusion.

I took the 80 ton Demolisher and dropped it to 50 tons. Dropping the ICE engine swapping out a AC20 for a PPC and swapping out the other AC20 for a GR then with the lighter tank I saved weight on the IS and Control system again.

My system is easy start with swapping out the ICE engine for a fusion engine and keep dropping the weight of the tank and fusion engine until you cant drop the weight of the tank anymore with out making it slower. With swapping out the ACs for lasers or dropping the extra heat sinks that are no longer needed with the fusion engine you can drop the size of the tank and engine even more.

For example I will play with the Neptune submarine. Just swapping out the ICE for a fusion engine and dropping unneeded heat sinks and power amp. and leaving all of the weapons and armor alone I can dropped it to 65 tons with 1 ton extra for what ever is wanted to be added. A 29 ton 270 ICE to a 9 ton 165 fusion. I also save 8.75 tons in IS control and dive.

Playing with it even more. I would swap out the front firing two SRM 6 (torp) and the LRM 20 (torp) for 4 front and one rear firing LRM 5 (torp) with 2 tons of ammo. I would also swap out the LL for a PPC. That would save me 4 tons. {I like the LRM torp because the LRM torp can fire farther than any other weapon can under water. I can keep the sub safe from return fire.}

Using that weight savings I would drop the weight of the sub down to 55 tons using the 135 fusion. Using the extra ton left over I will add one ton of LRM 5 torp ammo.

I could drop it even farther with dropping armor. With the unlikely hood of return fire I feel that much armor is not really justified. So lets drop the sub to 40 tons.

tech level 2 IS
chassis Submarine

tank weight 40
engine 90 fusion 4.5
cruse speed 3
Flank speed 5
Lift/rotor/other 4
control 2
IS 4

Armor 88 5.5

Front 35
LT/RT 21
Back 11
Turret

Weapons/ammo
4 front LRM 5 torpedo 8
1 front PPC 7
1 rear LRM 5 torpeto 2
3 LRM torpedo ammo 3

Yes, it is not as powerful. But it is 40% the weight of the original and 34% the cost to buy. It does have its own advantages.

What is really different in combat. I have a PPC and 5 LRM 5 (14.4 shots each). Replacing a LL a LRM20 (6 shots) and two SRM 6s (15 shots each)

Replacing 14.5 tons of armor for 5.5 tons of armor.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
GundamMerc
04/28/09 06:42 AM
216.48.130.13

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I found that enlightening to say the least. I would have kept the armor just to be safe, but thats just me, and you would probably use it differently than I. Keep it up.
CrayModerator
04/28/09 09:05 AM
147.160.136.10

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Sure, fusion makes everything better (and I like your demo of a vehicle that was cheaper with fusion), but fusion engines have been scarce for most of the game - most Houses would promptly scrap a tank to get its fusion engine for a 'Mech during the 2820 - 3055 period. TR:3025-Original and TR:3026-Original are good reads to see how remarkable most people considered fusion-powered tanks at that time.

So, when you can't get fusion engines for your combat vehicles, how do you improve them?

And do you have a similar process for modifying combat vehicle when you replace their fusion engine with an ICE?
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.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/28/09 11:31 AM
24.5.141.133

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You seem to conveniently forget that after the finding of the Gray Death Memory Core in 3028 that lost technology was being used again. That was well over thirty years before the current BT date. Battlemech advances where not the only technology that was being rediscovered with a vengeance. The major houses armies consist of 75% vehicles and other smaller houses being even grater. Then there are all of the other smaller powers like mercenaries, corporations, bandit kings, city and plaint militias, and others that cant afford or don't want to spend the money for expensive battlemechs. They would be looking to improve the fighting ability of vehicular components including the use of fusion engines in vehicles. That is the basses of the creation of my Assinine Industries company. When someone sees a market there going to fill it.

The fonder of Assinine Industries was a very young tech with the Gray Death. After leaving Helm he got his hands on a copy of the memory core and sold what ever anyone was willing to buy. With that money and a substantial loan from the Federated Sun he hired a mercenary force and captured a system in the Purgatory just out side of the Federated Sun's territory. With the GDMC and the money from the Federated Sun he built some fusion engine factories and started building fusion powered combat vehicles. When the Federated Sun fingered out what was going on they tried to invade the system to absorb the system into the Federated Sun. The force that was sent could easily block all space traffic but could not invade with out talking great losses of expensive battlemechs. After some negotiations the system became a independent protectorate of the Federated Sun.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
CrayModerator
04/28/09 12:05 PM
147.160.136.10

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

You seem to conveniently forget that after the finding of the Gray Death Memory Core in 3028




There's a reason why I specified the "2820 - 3055 period." Lost technology didn't just suddenly shoot out of factories in 3029. As you can see in TR:3039, TR:3050, Historicals: War of 3039, 20-Year Update, and various novels, recovering lost technology and improving production rates was a long, slow process lasting over two decades. By 3050, even BattleMechs were usually only sparsely equipped with advanced technology and the explosion of advanced vehicle designs - per TR:3058 - did not occur until the late 3050s when the Clan invasion spurred new efforts in that direction.

I highly recommend reading the Combat Vehicles chapter introduction page in TR:3058 (pg. 52 in TR:3058-Upgrades), where this development and fielding history of recovered technology is discussed. TR:3039 and Historicals: War of 3039 also have rules for the prototype, half-functional recovered technology in use a decade after the Core was distributed.

Quote:

that lost technology was being used again. That was well over thirty years before the current BT date.




Not everyone plays in the current era, so I was genuinely curious about your methodology for other eras, such as when fusion engines were rare in combat vehicles. Do you have any upgrade treatise for those periods, or do you focus on the 3060s-3070s?
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.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/28/09 01:36 PM
24.5.141.133

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Quote:

You seem to conveniently forget that after the finding of the Gray Death Memory Core in 3028




There's a reason why I specified the "2820 - 3055 period." Lost technology didn't just suddenly shoot out of factories in 3029. As you can see in TR:3039, TR:3050, Historicals: War of 3039, 20-Year Update, and various novels, recovering lost technology and improving production rates was a long, slow process lasting over two decades. By 3050, even BattleMechs were usually only sparsely equipped with advanced technology and the explosion of advanced vehicle designs - per TR:3058 - did not occur until the late 3050s when the Clan invasion spurred new efforts in that direction.

I highly recommend reading the Combat Vehicles chapter introduction page in TR:3058 (pg. 52 in TR:3058-Upgrades), where this development and fielding history of recovered technology is discussed. TR:3039 and Historicals: War of 3039 also have rules for the prototype, half-functional recovered technology in use a decade after the Core was distributed.




Just because the Inner Sphere as a whole was not trying to improve vehicles that does not mean individual corporations where not. That kept Assinine Industries under the Federated Sun's radar. Also they where not marketing there weapons to the major houses. There market was militias and corporations for the longest time. That is how Assinine Industries was able to stay out of the Federated Sun's notest for long enough to be able to build up a ground defense that could turn back the attack when it finely came.

Quote:

Quote:

that lost technology was being used again. That was well over thirty years before the current BT date.




Not everyone plays in the current era, so I was genuinely curious about your methodology for other eras, such as when fusion engines were rare in combat vehicles. Do you have any upgrade treatise for those periods, or do you focus on the 3060s-3070s?




Yes, I design ICE vehicles. For the most part there in the light category. The ones that I made in the medium weight category are either artillery pieces or have a GR. No matter the era for the most part all of my vehicles have one main weapon and one secondary weapon. I don't really like batteries of weapons. All that does is greatly increase the weight of the vehicle for smaller and smaller gains in firepower. When there are more than one main weapon its almost always three medium lasers.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Prince_of_Darkness
04/29/09 06:24 PM
205.202.120.216

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Just because the Inner Sphere as a whole was not trying to improve vehicles that does not mean individual corporations where not. That kept Assinine Industries under the Federated Sun's radar. Also they where not marketing there weapons to the major houses. There market was militias and corporations for the longest time. That is how Assinine Industries was able to stay out of the Federated Sun's notest for long enough to be able to build up a ground defense that could turn back the attack when it finely came.





Attack? What attack? Like, the Fedcom Civil war, or pirates? Or Word?

Quote:

Yes, I design ICE vehicles. For the most part there in the light category. The ones that I made in the medium weight category are either artillery pieces or have a GR. No matter the era for the most part all of my vehicles have one main weapon and one secondary weapon. I don't really like batteries of weapons. All that does is greatly increase the weight of the vehicle for smaller and smaller gains in firepower. When there are more than one main weapon its almost always three medium lasers.




It's hard to say if you are correct on the part of the "batteries" of weapons. In Succession wars play, an Ontos with it's eight medium lasers is a terrible sight, especially when double-blind rules are in effect. Some are just specialized- the Pike and Partisan are really used as an anti-air and harassment units, not to mention that those long-range guns are great for picking off VTOLS.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/29/09 11:44 PM
24.5.141.133

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Quote:

Just because the Inner Sphere as a whole was not trying to improve vehicles that does not mean individual corporations where not. That kept Assinine Industries under the Federated Sun's radar. Also they where not marketing there weapons to the major houses. There market was militias and corporations for the longest time. That is how Assinine Industries was able to stay out of the Federated Sun's notest for long enough to be able to build up a ground defense that could turn back the attack when it finely came.





Attack? What attack? Like, the Fedcom Civil war, or pirates? Or Word?



The attack from Federated Sun. That I said in the same sentence.

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, I design ICE vehicles. For the most part there in the light category. The ones that I made in the medium weight category are either artillery pieces or have a GR. No matter the era for the most part all of my vehicles have one main weapon and one secondary weapon. I don't really like batteries of weapons. All that does is greatly increase the weight of the vehicle for smaller and smaller gains in firepower. When there are more than one main weapon its almost always three medium lasers.




It's hard to say if you are correct on the part of the "batteries" of weapons. In Succession wars play, an Ontos with it's eight medium lasers is a terrible sight, especially when double-blind rules are in effect. Some are just specialized- the Pike and Partisan are really used as an anti-air and harassment units, not to mention that those long-range guns are great for picking off VTOLS.




The Ontos is a slow big target that is not worth its cost. All you have to do is stay out of its range and wear it down. It does not have the speed to really take advantage of medium lasers. The Cbills would be better spent on a battlemech. 2,267,363 Cbills will buy a powerful Light or week medium mech.

As for the pike and Partisan, I would put each gun in a separate lighter vehicle. I don't need to design it, it already exists. Its the Scorpion tank. Just replace the AC5 with the AC2 for the pike.

Four Scorpions cost 1,290,834 Cbills where one Partisan costs 1,863,900 Cbills

three AC2 Scorpions cost 902,500 Cbills where one Pike costs 1,033,600 Cbills
I added a SRM2 and with a ton of ammo, for the extra weight that was left over on the AC2 Scorpion.

Giving the Scorpion 2 med lasers adding 1 ton of armor and a 2nd MG, to compete with the Ontos.
four of them would cost 1,183,333 Cbills versus the 2,267,363 for one Ontos. I would have pointed out the Savannah Master at the cost of 88,917 Cbills each or 711,334 Cbills for eight, but I wanted to keep it down to only ICE tanks.

The Scorpion has a speed of 4 where the others have a speed of 3.

The scorpions have 4 tons of armor each, where the Pike has 9 tons, Ontos has 8.5 tons, and the Partisan only has 6 tons.

If I have not proved that mutable light tanks with one main weapon is not superior than one heavy tank with batteries of weapons, please show me where I am in error.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Zandel_Corrin
04/30/09 12:46 AM
123.2.140.247

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think you missed "double Blind rules" That makes things more realistic and makes that tank a Killer....

Love the DBR.... they make it all so much more exiting.

Of course you really need three people to play them effectively.... 2 players and a GM but is great fun.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/30/09 01:19 AM
24.5.141.133

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yes, I know what "double Blind rules" mean, but when you can see the enemy tank a mile away its right there in front of you to see. Not every battle is in heavy woods.

About light woods is the only place where you have to get close and personal is it that affective. With the speed of 3-5 they are not going anywhere fast in woods. You can just go around them and let the artillery or aerospace fighters pick them off.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Prince_of_Darkness
04/30/09 12:25 PM
205.202.120.216

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Quote:

Attack? What attack? Like, the Fedcom Civil war, or pirates? Or Word?



The attack from Federated Sun. That I said in the same sentence.




No, you only said "repel the attack when it finally came", which can really mean anything.

Quote:

Quote:

It's hard to say if you are correct on the part of the "batteries" of weapons. In Succession wars play, an Ontos with it's eight medium lasers is a terrible sight, especially when double-blind rules are in effect. Some are just specialized- the Pike and Partisan are really used as an anti-air and harassment units, not to mention that those long-range guns are great for picking off VTOLS.




The Ontos is a slow big target that is not worth its cost. All you have to do is stay out of its range and wear it down. It does not have the speed to really take advantage of medium lasers. The Cbills would be better spent on a battlemech. 2,267,363 Cbills will buy a powerful Light or week medium mech.




Yes, but neither 'mech can achieve the Ontos's firepower. Not to mention that not every militia can keep a 'mech up and running over the progress of time. While it would not be a bad idea to create an energy-less variant, the one big advantage of Tanks is that they are just not as complicated as 'mechs.

Quote:


As for the pike and Partisan, I would put each gun in a separate lighter vehicle. I don't need to design it, it already exists. Its the Scorpion tank. Just replace the AC5 with the AC2 for the pike.

Four Scorpions cost 1,290,834 Cbills where one Partisan costs 1,863,900 Cbills

three AC2 Scorpions cost 902,500 Cbills where one Pike costs 1,033,600 Cbills




Yes, but what if you needed to transport those tanks? Would you rather use a couple hundred tons in a dropship for a single vehicle, or nearly 1,000 for four smaller ones? Remember; even planetary militia, no matter how small, still need to be able to move across their own planet.

Quote:


Giving the Scorpion 2 med lasers adding 1 ton of armor and a 2nd MG, to compete with the Ontos.
four of them would cost 1,183,333 Cbills versus the 2,267,363 for one Ontos. I would have pointed out the Savannah Master at the cost of 88,917 Cbills each or 711,334 Cbills for eight, but I wanted to keep it down to only ICE tanks.




I have to get this out of the way first- I hate the "why have one X when you can have four Y" arguments, simply because it makes nearly every other tank and vehicle obsolete aside from a simple few. In this case, while your idea holds a lot of merit, those two tanks cannot equal the armor protection of the Ontos, and not to mention other things happening that you did not expect (i.e. lack of crew, ect.).

Quote:


The Scorpion has a speed of 4 where the others have a speed of 3.

The scorpions have 4 tons of armor each, where the Pike has 9 tons, Ontos has 8.5 tons, and the Partisan only has 6 tons.

If I have not proved that mutable light tanks with one main weapon is not superior than one heavy tank with batteries of weapons, please show me where I am in error.




Read my earlier posts, and also Ontos in double-blind games.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/30/09 01:36 PM
24.5.141.133

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quantity over quality is a valid strategy. Just because you "hate it" that does not make it an invalid strategy. It has been proven a very successful strategy thou out history.

I agree that one Ontos has more armor than one Scorpion. But when your one Ontos is destroyed you are out of the fight. When one of my Scorpions is destroyed I still have three scorpions in the fight. Thou you can target more than one tank at a time it hurts your chances of hitting when you do. Also I can out flank your one tank with my four. Or I could pin down your one tank with just one of mine and continue to the objective with the other three.

I can put more smaller tanks in the space that one larger tank takes up in a drop ship. Another advantage of having large quantities of light tanks over few heavy tanks is I can put them in more places. Four tanks can defend four areas, where one can only defend one place. Yes, your one tank can defeat one of my tanks. I might be able to bring in the other three before you can defeat my tank depending how far the other tanks are.

If you have four places to defend and only have one tank I can locate your one tank and retreat and attack the other three places that are undefended.

I like the more flexibility that large quantities of light vehicles gives me.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Prince_of_Darkness
04/30/09 03:56 PM
205.202.120.216

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Quantity over quality is a valid strategy. Just because you "hate it" that does not make it an invalid strategy. It has been proven a very successful strategy thou out history.




Not really. In Battletech fluff the best example is in the fluff of the Blackjack, the "infamous Kuritan Captain Mercer Ravannion" who tried to swamp Davion garrisons with hordes of cheap light's when he was largely facing Blackack's and other mediums- which pummeled him. In real life, you could say the same for the Tet offensive in the Vietnam War, in which over 80,000 members of the vietcong attacked nearly 100 cities and towns in south vietnam during their New year- mind you that, while there were many more american troops in South Vietnam, they took them completely by surprise and were sent into a defensive state for the part of nearly a full day- in which the Americans still won the offensive.

As a tactic, swarming is hard to pull off. There needs to be a lot of coordination between groups, and not to mention a steady influx of fresh and uninjured troops to continue "pulsing" your foe. All successful military swarms also make prodigious use of escape points- swarms, if performed poorly, end violently with too few troops/supplies ect. to mount any other form of attack for some time; the failure of the Tet offensive gave the americans several weeks to consolidate.

Besides- swarming is converging upon a single foe at once; something that an AC/2 or AC/5 carrying tank would be ill-advised to do. I also never said I "hated it"; I just said I didn't like it.

Quote:

I agree that one Ontos has more armor than one Scorpion. But when your one Ontos is destroyed you are out of the fight. When one of my Scorpions is destroyed I still have three scorpions in the fight. Thou you can target more than one tank at a time it hurts your chances of hitting when you do. Also I can out flank your one tank with my four. Or I could pin down your one tank with just one of mine and continue to the objective with the other three.




Aside from the fact that the Scorpion and the Ontos tanks have completely different advantages, disadvantages, and uses, one point you are missing altogether is just how much armor these guys have, amongst other things. The Ontos has 8 tons; it's light, bit the darn thing was meant as a close-in ambusher. The Scorpion is, however, barely an MBT with 4 tons of armor. The two LRM 5 on my Ontos would be more than enough to ward it off, and with it's max speed capped at 4/6 it wouldn't be too hard. While it would be able to outflank me, yes, I doubt that I would let my Ontos out of it's city- not to mention I could really just ignore that AC/5 until I decide to finish it off; even with only 8 tons of armor, that light AC doesn't look too threatening.

Quote:

I can put more smaller tanks in the space that one larger tank takes up in a drop ship. Another advantage of having large quantities of light tanks over few heavy tanks is I can put them in more places. Four tanks can defend four areas, where one can only defend one place. Yes, your one tank can defeat one of my tanks. I might be able to bring in the other three before you can defeat my tank depending how far the other tanks are.




No, you cannot. The rules have two (well, three, if you play with the superheavy ones) different types of tank cubicles- light ones at or under 50 tons, and heavy for those over 50 tons. You either go one or the other with your tank- and you cannot stack in a larger cubicle.

While you have more vehicles to be put into places, you also have more easily destroyed vehicles guarding your key points- I, personally, would much rather have my one Ontos that I know can slag off a potential 40 points of armor in one shot than 4 Scorpions with guns not suited for the city.

Quote:


If you have four places to defend and only have one tank I can locate your one tank and retreat and attack the other three places that are undefended.





That's a gross underestimation. I would hate to know what would happen to your four light tanks if you were wrong.

Quote:

I like the more flexibility that large quantities of light vehicles gives me.




Not a lot of flexibility when you realize what you have to give up for the more serious firepower, however.
Zandel_Corrin
04/30/09 05:32 PM
123.2.140.247

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
While i agree that some heavy tanks like the ontos would fail in clear terrain.... there is a reason for that.... If you misuse your tanks (or mechs... that fluff about the urbies on open terrain outside the city) then you will fail and fail hard against most no matter what they're rolling.

I do like some light tank designs and under the current main stream rules you can do very well with them vs single mechs / tanks.......... it's just that they don't have the psychological edge that bigger tanks with bigger guns have.....

Wars have been won on psychology alone and i can tell you now that if i see a horde of light tanks start attacking my few heavy tanks i'm not all that afraid and my armour and weapons will carry the day in the end....

But if i see 4-5 heavy / assault tanks vs my 2 lances or light / medium MECHS.... i'm looking to get the hell out of there!
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/30/09 05:34 PM
24.5.141.133

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
There are a great deal of examples of a larger forces overwhelming smaller forces in real history.

There was the Chinese attack in Korea that overwhelmed the US in North Korea. There was the Russians that overwhelmed the Germans in the latter part of WWll. In both of those examples the larger force had inferior technology. In the case of the Chinese the troops in the back of the attack had to pick up weapons from the dead because they where not given any weapons. I could go on and on pointing out cases of larger forces defeating smaller ones if I pulled out a history book, both modern and ancient.

There are not that many examples or the other way being true. The only examples that I can think of is where the tiny force defeated a huge force. The smaller force had greatly superior technology like machine guns verses spears. Or the larger army had to filter into a small space.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Zandel_Corrin
04/30/09 05:38 PM
123.2.140.247

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
While that may be true for infantry and OUR history.... there are multiple accounts of heavy vehicles and / or mech forces beating lighter but more numerous opponents in BTech history...
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/30/09 05:43 PM
24.5.141.133

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Wars have been won on psychology alone.




That can not be denied. There are plenty of times that a war was won without a single shot fired.

As for seeing large hordes charging your position and you not panicking. That takes some bravery. There has been lots of times where the other force saw a large horde coming at them and they just turned and ran. Green troops would turn and run where the veterans would stay and fight.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/30/09 06:02 PM
24.5.141.133

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

While that may be true for infantry and OUR history.... there are multiple accounts of heavy vehicles and / or mech forces beating lighter but more numerous opponents in BTech history...




The problem with BT history is the side won that the author wanted to win. I can write a story where a 5 year old defeated a million combat veterans in assault battlemechs with just a spoon. Of course the stories in the BT books are a great deal more realistic than that but I am sure you get the point.

If you want to make a point about fighting abilities of armies, try to keep your examples to real history as much as you possibly can. I understand that somethings are not possible but try your best. It does make things a lot easier to compare facts when the facts are not made up.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Zandel_Corrin
04/30/09 07:09 PM
123.2.140.247

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Quote:

Wars have been won on psychology alone.




That can not be denied. There are plenty of times that a war was won without a single shot fired.

As for seeing large hordes charging your position and you not panicking. That takes some bravery. There has been lots of times where the other force saw a large horde coming at them and they just turned and ran. Green troops would turn and run where the veterans would stay and fight.




once again your trying to use real world examples to validate the way you design vehicles for the BTech game and universe.... BTech does not follow the same rules as Real Life... granted it comes close but not close enough to use examples of infantry vs infantry....

Remember that a mech pilot gains MASSIVE amounts of courage when not fighting other mechs cause mechs are 'the kings of the battlefield' in BTech.

The same can be said about an assault tank crew facing meds and lights... they KNOW that they will win b4 the fight starts... at least with 4 to 1 odds or better.... after that sheer weight of numbers starts to have an effect.... and of course there is the one lucky shot that kills the crew.... but that's not enought to dispel that sense of immortality.

But i will go with your thinking for the next reply.....
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
Zandel_Corrin
04/30/09 07:19 PM
123.2.140.247

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Quote:

While that may be true for infantry and OUR history.... there are multiple accounts of heavy vehicles and / or mech forces beating lighter but more numerous opponents in BTech history...




The problem with BT history is the side won that the author wanted to win. I can write a story where a 5 year old defeated a million combat veterans in assault battlemechs with just a spoon. Of course the stories in the BT books are a great deal more realistic than that but I am sure you get the point.

If you want to make a point about fighting abilities of armies, try to keep your examples to real history as much as you possibly can. I understand that somethings are not possible but try your best. It does make things a lot easier to compare facts when the facts are not made up.




Consider..... Masses of foot soldiers vs Much fewer knights.... in almost every historical situation a much smaller force of heavy knights would break and destroy infantry blocks many many times larger then them.

Or heavy knights vs light riders.... same result in most cases against much higher numbers. The sheer armour alone allowed them to succeed.

Or a WWI tank vs masses of troops...... once again smaller better unit defeats larger force.... tho this didn't last as long but still good example.

And possibly the best example is from japan.... in feudal japan the units of samurai were much smaller then regular troops but in almost all cases till guns were introduced they would defeat numerically superior but otherwise inferior troops.



But i still say basing designs for BTech on RL History is not a brilliant idea if you do not also change them to suit BTech play.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/30/09 07:31 PM
24.5.141.133

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
What is the point? With you arguing with fantasy facts. There is no end to where you can go with made up facts. All you have to do is make anything up and claim that it will work. I am feeling that I am trying to talk to newtype.

This is why I did not want to post more of my vehicles. I try to use as much logic as the game will allow but I keep being undermined with even more fantasy facts.

The only solution is to say you win and just give up.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Zandel_Corrin
04/30/09 08:56 PM
123.2.140.247

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Your missing the point entirely....

It's nothing to do with what i can make up... It has everything to do with what has already been made up by the game designers.

There stories... there fluff.... that is where you find the differences between RL and BTech.... and that is where you get your base 'how the world works' rules.

I'm a Roleplaying fan and DM from way back.. and one of the first things you learn as a DM when it comes to creating something new for your setting is that it must either follow the rules of everything else that came before it... OR you need a good reason why it doesn't.

Consider..... In RL large numbers of inferior tanks can take out smaller numbers of better tanks just through sheer numbers. In BTech one Mech can take out can take out many many much lighter mechs.... (AS7-D Atlas can take out 35 locusts (or was it stingers?) in 2 hours... from the fluff ..... "Somone once calculated that if an Atlas was to go up against a full battalion of locusts. The atlas would retire for repairs 2 hours later leaving only one locust able to move").


The big point is that your talking about a fantasy game so YOU should be using 'fantasy facts' OR boardgame experience as your basis not RL facts that don't follow the same rules as BTech.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
Prince_of_Darkness
04/30/09 09:50 PM
205.202.120.216

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

The problem with BT history is the side won that the author wanted to win. I can write a story where a 5 year old defeated a million combat veterans in assault battlemechs with just a spoon. Of course the stories in the BT books are a great deal more realistic than that but I am sure you get the point.




(*blinks*)
What?
Do you even realize how much factchecking must be done by the authors? Or all the time, re-reading, and time that has to go into each tale? The outcome of a story isn't based on what the author wishes- it is what the producers and leaders of the project need.

I suggest you check your facts before posting something that might be offensive. Or dumb.

Quote:

What is the point? With you arguing with fantasy facts. There is no end to where you can go with made up facts. All you have to do is make anything up and claim that it will work. I am feeling that I am trying to talk to newtype.




Oh yeah, but it will lead you to being ridiculed by most of the Classic Battletech players.

Quote:

This is why I did not want to post more of my vehicles. I try to use as much logic as the game will allow but I keep being undermined with even more fantasy facts.




Honestly, Donkey, for someone who always says "its like talking to newtype" you certainly want to bend rules for your gain. Lie I said- it's for game balance. Without that engine cap, hovercraft would be far too powerful at their weight and speed- if you have TRO: 3075, imagine the Jes 1 Tactical Missile Carrier without that cap and more SRMs.
CrayModerator
05/01/09 05:41 AM
147.160.136.10

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Quote:

The problem with BT history is the side won that the author wanted to win. I can write a story where a 5 year old defeated a million combat veterans in assault battlemechs with just a spoon. Of course the stories in the BT books are a great deal more realistic than that but I am sure you get the point.




(*blinks*)
What?
Do you even realize how much factchecking must be done by the authors? Or all the time, re-reading, and time that has to go into each tale? The outcome of a story isn't based on what the author wishes- it is what the producers and leaders of the project need.




To an extent, but novel authors have a lot of leeway during review that source book and rule book authors don't get. If the way a novel author wants to execute their writing assignment is to have a plucky band of heros defeat a much larger force, the novel author might get away with it.
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.
Lefric
05/01/09 06:13 AM
216.120.184.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

There are a great deal of examples of a larger forces overwhelming smaller forces in real history.

There was the Chinese attack in Korea that overwhelmed the US in North Korea. There was the Russians that overwhelmed the Germans in the latter part of WWll. In both of those examples the larger force had inferior technology. In the case of the Chinese the troops in the back of the attack had to pick up weapons from the dead because they where not given any weapons. I could go on and on pointing out cases of larger forces defeating smaller ones if I pulled out a history book, both modern and ancient.

There are not that many examples or the other way being true. The only examples that I can think of is where the tiny force defeated a huge force. The smaller force had greatly superior technology like machine guns verses spears. Or the larger army had to filter into a small space.




These are two examples that fail to various dergrees.

I deal with the Russian example first, as it fails much more obviously. Late war Soviet equipment was in NO WAY inferior to German equipment. The T-34 was the best tank in the war, bar none. You may say the Panther comes close / is better, but the Panther is negated by the facts that it was 1) mechanically unreliable, especially at first, and 2) So complex that German manufacturing could never produce enough. Beyond that, the T-34 has equivalent armor, firepower, and was better in off-road operations, etc. And the fact that your average Russian could keep a T-34 going, where as the Germans required advanced machine shops for the Panthers.... case closed.

The anology fails even more when you look at other areas. By 1944, the Germans where still using the obsolete pre-war Stuka for ground support, where as the Soviets had hoardes of Shturmoviks (sp) and lots of other lend-lease toys from the Americans. In terms of artillery, the Soviets problem was never the guns, but rather the command and control. And the Soviets made up for this by massing tubes. I could go on amd discuss, oh, say tank destroyers, tactics, etc. But you get my point.

The Chinese example fails as well. The Chinese force having a lack of weapons does not mean they were inferior, just lacking in them. The Chinese problem was a lack of a munitions industry, so they were reliant on the Soviets - and captured goodies from all that aid we gave Chaing Kai Shek's (sp?) Nationalists for over a decade. Tactically, the Chinese were every bit as good as the Americans - or better, especially in terms of night infiltration and stealth.

More importantly, your example fails becuase the Chinese DIDN'T overwhelm the Americans. Rather, the Americans fell back, reducing massivly over-extended supply lines and reinforcing, and drove the Chi-coms back, inflicting punishing losses the following Spring, after which the front stabalized becuase the UN had decided to limit the war, and was far from willing to take the casualties that would have resulted from conquering NK - which was very, very possible, albeit at a high and punishing price.

While you are correct in theory (a larger force can be stopped by a smaller one) in general the larger force does win. As Stalin said "Quantity has a quality all its own." Unless the smaller force is much, much superior in terms of weapons, tactics, or terrain (and the last is a fleeting and tactical only advantage), the smaller force will usually lose - espeicially in modern, mechanized war, which is at heart all about numbers ad attrition.

*Steps off military historian soap box*
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm." -George Orwell
Prince_of_Darkness
05/01/09 08:07 AM
205.202.120.216

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
LEFRIC HAS SPOKEN
Lefric
05/01/09 08:23 AM
216.120.184.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

LEFRIC HAS SPOKEN




Testy, testy, arn't we?
"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm." -George Orwell
Prince_of_Darkness
05/01/09 08:51 AM
205.202.120.216

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Quote:

LEFRIC HAS SPOKEN




Testy, testy, arn't we?




Hey; I thought I was being funny
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
05/01/09 06:25 PM
173.116.75.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ever since the end of WWll there has been arguments about which of the two tanks where better between the Panther and T-34. It was in the production and maintenance where the T-34 ran circles around the Panther not combat.

As for Korea I suggest you look back at your facts. The Chines routed the US troops. A lot of Americans abandoned there weapons and ran. If the US did so well why did the war end at the 34th parallel and not at the Chines border where the US got to before the Chines got into the war? The Chines fought the Americans back to the 34th parallel and beyond. The Americans bet them back to the 34th patallel and held the Chines there.

As for a smaller force beating a greatly larger force. It has happened. The best example is the war between the Zulu and the British army. I think it was 34 British troops held off an attack of like 10,000 Zulu warriors.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Christopher_Perkins
05/02/09 09:26 AM
24.127.68.31

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

As for a smaller force beating a greatly larger force. It has happened. The best example is the war between the Zulu and the British army. I think it was 34 British troops held off an attack of like 10,000 Zulu warriors.




As he said vastly superior Technology...

Ma Bess vs Spears...

but then again, that was more of a triumph of man than machine... were there not other outposts in that were overwhealmed while that farm held out?

To so earn the respect of a warrior people...


humm... definately a topic for another thread that i would be interested in...
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)

Extra information
0 registered and 9 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, mattbuck, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 3305


Contact Admins Sarna.net