Venom
08/15/09 03:43 AM
207.191.200.101
|
So are there rules for their design, construction and use in CBT? From the stats I have seen they seem pretty lame, but I think it would be fun to beat the heck out of one with one of its three legs.
|
Cray
08/15/09 11:07 AM
68.205.198.74
|
Quote:
So are there rules for their design, construction and use in CBT? From the stats I have seen they seem pretty lame, but I think it would be fun to beat the heck out of one with one of its three legs.
No, there are no canon rules for 'Mechs over 100 tons. They were a product of MWDA without any supporting CBT construction rules.
There have been plenty of fan interpretations:
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,3082.0.html
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.
|
ix
07/01/10 07:40 PM
81.6.219.90
|
I've only recently started following Battletech on the internet (but have had the game for a long time) and this is one of the weird 'issues' people seem to have. Why do over 100 ton mechs have such an odd reputation? That it's the first thing everyone asks about just demonstrates it's something people want. Over 100 ton mechs would even start to reach sizes reflecting the mechs depicted in artwork (real mechs wouldn't be that big at that mass, even allowing for futuristic lower density materials). I don't see how they represent a threat to the game as they're balance-able and less silly than the rather weak 'beyond structural limits' explanation provided.
|
Karagin
07/02/10 12:09 AM
80.149.45.147
|
Do we really need another avenue for power gamers, munchkins and the gamer type who must win not matter what?
100 tons is big enough and works well for the game as a limit. Using your same argument, why have a weight cap at all...
One thing, if you want a 200 ton or heavier mech, then the dropships and jumpships etc...need to be heavier and larger so they can carry it.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ix
07/02/10 01:06 AM
81.6.219.90
|
"Do we really need another avenue for power gamers, munchkins and the gamer type who must win not matter what?"
That would only be a demonstration of poor rule design, it's not inherent in the concept. It's easy for me to point out disadvantages- higher cost for what you get in relative terms, eggs in one basket over-concentration, can't use most bridges and less mobile. Individually of course it would be the strongest mech but would it really be overpowered compared to 2 100 ton or 4 50 ton mechs?
Slippery slope is not an argument, there's no argument for stopping at 100 tons over 200 given both give sane machine sizes for a walking tank. Why go beyond 100 tons? Because there's no reason why mechs couldn't be bigger than this, the largest tank in reality was 200 tons (and only 33 feet long by 12 feet wide), one would think Battlemechs could match this, even if you make some kind of structural argument a 200 ton mech could surely support itself as a quad mech if a 100 ton mech can support itself as a biped. It'd be fun with lots of potential flavour, something to put Artillery Cannons on with room to spare.
Your last point has some merit, especially thematically that such machines might be limited to defence on worlds that produce them but realistically you'd just unscrew the legs and arms in transit or merge two bays, Superheavy vehicle bays already exist in any case.
Edited by ix (07/02/10 01:08 AM)
|
Almighty
07/02/10 08:09 AM
91.48.227.249
|
Quote:
Because there's no reason why mechs couldn't be bigger than this, the largest tank in reality was 200 tons (and only 33 feet long by 12 feet wide), one would think Battlemechs could match this, even if you make some kind of structural argument a 200 ton mech could surely support itself as a quad mech if a 100 ton mech can support itself as a biped.
I agree on the limitation. This is a game so there is no reason for limits except put by rules.
Structural integrity is secondary for a mecha. The concerns rest on screws, hinges and the like. For example under circumstances a mech's total mass could rest on one single hinge. Imagine 200 tons of pressure resting on the small area of such a component. Not to mention the additional torque forces when moving. There is a reason why robots cannot be build out of wood. 
Anyway, mobile fortress mecha/vehicle ideas don't exist in BT yet so this could be seen as the first step toward them. Dropships actually have been serving as such. We also have seen Word of Black using light dropships as gunships. This is probably makes more sense. On the other side the BT universe does have mobile orbital defense cannons. There is no reason why these cannot be converted.
|
Karagin
07/02/10 04:11 PM
80.149.45.147
|
So while you build the uber Colossal mech and the other sides builds hundreds of cheaper mass produced 50 ton mechs let us know how your new language program is going...
Quantity will beat quality.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Almighty
07/03/10 06:41 AM
91.48.198.184
|
It depends on how you design. For a certain weight there is an optimal balance of firepower, defense and mobility. On a higher level of deisgn there is an optimum of those plus size.
A well balanced system will always beat a more powerful but less balanced system even if outnumbered or surpast in many areas.
And it's quantity with quality that wins the most. Quantity of flies are worthless. :P
Btw. this is similar to the discussion over carriers and battleships. In this case the fighters could be mechs or drones. This is another proof of practicallity: Just because there disadvantage doesn't mean there is no application for it.
Edited by Almighty (07/03/10 06:51 AM)
|
Karagin
07/03/10 10:50 AM
80.149.45.147
|
Okay then if that is the case, then there should be NO limits on any of units as far weight goes. Or size, so we should 12 mile long warships and planet size space stations and vehicles that weigh in 100,000 tons. Maybe for you that is fun and exciting and does something for your game, but for a lot of us these things are not Battletech. The mile long warships are something that belong to Renegade Legion or Star Wars, same with the planet size space stations. And the over the top weighted mechs are things that belong in anime and there only. Hell even Robotech stuff with the exception of the Monster doesn't even come close to 80 tons for any of the Veritechs or Destroids. So I don't see a need for mechs that come in over 100 tons for the basic game, you seem to think other wise and that is fine.
And no quantizes of flies are not worthless if they bug you enough that you head else were then you are reacting to the issue, which is want a lance of 50 ton mechs could do a single 200 ton mech.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Almighty
07/03/10 10:52 PM
91.48.176.15
|
Quote:
The mile long warships are something that belong to Renegade Legion or Star Wars
Hell even Robotech stuff with the exception of the Monster doesn't even come close to 80 tons for any of the Veritechs or Destroids.
And no quantizes of flies are not worthless if they bug you enough that you head else were then you are reacting to the issue, which is want a lance of 50 ton mechs could do a single 200 ton mech.
Star Wars is fantasy not scifi.
Blame the weight problem on the crappy BT construction rule. And size is not the absolute measure of power but energy density itself.
You seem to think that a colossal mech has no escort or always being alone.
But even so a 200t should be able to mount about 240 LRMs with plenty of ammo and a bunch of support guns or several light ship railguns or more heavy PPCs. You will need at least two lances of medium mechs lasting about 3-5 rounds to have a winning chance.
Also there is no reasson either why a big mech has only one pilot or just two arms. It could just have turrets.
Dismissing some possibility just because you don't like it won't always work on the battlefield.
|
Karagin
07/04/10 06:49 AM
80.149.45.147
|
Okay so the damn thing has 240 rounds of LRMs big deal. It won't have time to use them since it has to deal with the numbers the attacker can through at them.
Cool larger heavy machines look great on paper but don't work in this game. You field it or a lance of them and folks tend to gang up on these things.
Even better you now want to place ship-based weapons on these things. Go look through the game called OGRE, by Steve Jackson, they even a GURPS version, and you will that the super tanks doesn't always win. So on average your 105 ton plus mech will move 2 walk 3 running, which means that the ability of the other mechs to move faster will allow them to get with in their own firing ranges faster, thus making them harder to hit by your super mech, unless of course you have that uber pilot who is a 0/0 with the natural gunner ability etc...(in case you missed it was a sarcastic comment), thus these uber mechs lose the ability to react quickly and even if they win the a round or two of going second on moving they still won't be able to counter the other sides movement.
Also be realistic in terms of the game setting, the cost of these mechs won't make them common sights on the battlefield and thus that makes them even less likely to see combat.
Really they don't need to be in this game. As I said leave them for stuff like RIFTS or one of the anime GURPS like games.
As for the weights, well if you build these mechs in this game you have work with the stuff that is there, if it is crappy well then your finial product will be crappy.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Frabby
07/04/10 12:40 PM
79.224.191.79
|
It has been theorized (on the CBT forum iirc, although I cannot find the thread) that the 100-ton mass limit is because in-universe, the myomer muscles cannot sustain heavier masses, at least not on two legs.
(Sidenote, a collossal quad probably would not make much sense because of the very limited number of critical slots on the frame.)
Game-rules wise, keep in mind that the (canonical) examples of collossal 'Mechs are arguably not true BattleMechs, as they violate at least three tenets: They are over-sized; they are piloted by a team of three instead of a single MechWarrior; and they are tripodal with arms. I cannot see them sharing the advantages of 'Mechs such as maneuverability, easy space transport, or orbital drop capability.
Finally, there's the law of diminishing returns on fusion reactors of increasing sizes. The speed (lack of) simply cripples collossal 'Mechs. You can actually neutralize them with conventional artillery reasonably easy.
The most efficient frames appear to be the 55-ton and 75-ton 'Mechs, movement-wise. Most assault 'Mechs already creep along at 3/5 - you don't have to defeat them, you can simply walk away from them. In strategic terms, these 'Mechs cannot enforce combat against an inferior foe. A yet bigger and yet slower platform only aggravates this problem.
I am interested in the game mechanics simply for the reason that there are canonical 'Mechs in this class. Yet I remain convinced that they suck hard; I wouldn't want to run one and believe they will invaraibly be pwned by an ostensibly weaker force of lighter, faster 'Mechs.
So ultimately, what's the point?
Edited by Frabby (07/04/10 12:44 PM)
|
Karagin
07/04/10 04:47 PM
80.149.45.147
|
There are NO canon mechs above 100 tons. We have seen NO BATTLETECH stats for these things and until those appear then they are not canon.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Frabby
07/04/10 04:52 PM
79.224.191.79
|
The BattleTech Line Developer, Herbert A. Beas II, disagrees with you:
"All material produced by WizKids for the MechWarrior: Dark Age/MechWarrior: Age of Destruction game lines" is canon.
|
Karagin
07/05/10 12:28 AM
80.149.45.147
|
And we still don't have stats for the mechs, so until they put them out, they are not legal playable units now are they?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
07/05/10 02:08 AM
71.214.4.99
|
Quote:
Frabby said:
It has been theorized (on the CBT forum iirc, although I cannot find the thread) that the 100-ton mass limit is because in-universe, the myomer muscles cannot sustain heavier masses, at least not on two legs.
(Sidenote, a collossal quad probably would not make much sense because of the very limited number of critical slots on the frame.)
Game-rules wise, keep in mind that the (canonical) examples of collossal 'Mechs are arguably not true BattleMechs, as they violate at least three tenets: They are over-sized; they are piloted by a team of three instead of a single MechWarrior; and they are tripodal with arms. I cannot see them sharing the advantages of 'Mechs such as maneuverability, easy space transport, or orbital drop capability.
Finally, there's the law of diminishing returns on fusion reactors of increasing sizes. The speed (lack of) simply cripples collossal 'Mechs. You can actually neutralize them with conventional artillery reasonably easy.
The most efficient frames appear to be the 55-ton and 75-ton 'Mechs, movement-wise. Most assault 'Mechs already creep along at 3/5 - you don't have to defeat them, you can simply walk away from them. In strategic terms, these 'Mechs cannot enforce combat against an inferior foe. A yet bigger and yet slower platform only aggravates this problem.
I am interested in the game mechanics simply for the reason that there are canonical 'Mechs in this class. Yet I remain convinced that they suck hard; I wouldn't want to run one and believe they will invaraibly be pwned by an ostensibly weaker force of lighter, faster 'Mechs.
So ultimately, what's the point?
At present, I believe that the colossus 'Battlemechs would be good for two things- being a mobile turret and acting like a 'mech with a dual cockpit/command console.
My reasons? First off, Giving it three legs, but still standing upright and with a pair of arms- would make a colossus the best city-defense 'mech ever. Not only would it be able to carry a horde of weapons, but it would also be capable of moving like a quad 'mech, being able to sidestep while keeping it's front towards it's opponent. This would be made more obvious by the addition of jump jets.
The other reason is simple- with the pilots having single jobs (understandable, considering the prototypical nature of the technology and THREE FRIGGIN' LEGS) they could focus on those jobs alone. You know how dual cockpits gain massive benefits for their pilots in a fight, since they get to focus on a few single tasks? A Colossus would (or could) be the same way, except we also have a 3rd wheel (the engineer) who's abilities we don't know yet. If this is the case, any Colossus would not only have a massive number of technologies put into it- it would also have the best pilots.
And besides, they would probably be like their actual tabletop board pieces. In MW: DA, they are tough, but they aren't unbeatable and the ammount of damage they can cause is far more than what is shown on the back of their boxes.
Quote:
Karagin Said:
There are NO canon mechs above 100 tons. We have seen NO BATTLETECH stats for these things and until those appear then they are not canon.
Even with that quote from herb posted: so? Logically there is no real reason for a 'mech to not weigh more than 100 tons (do you really think their internal structure is pushed to it's absolute limit each time it goes into a fight?) and we all know how much easier it gets to shoot something the slower it becomes, so why bother? If you're going to get bent out of shape about that, then get mad at the superheavy tanks- at least those lazy, shiftless bastards on treads have rules, the jerks!
Edited by Prince_of_Darkness (07/05/10 02:09 AM)
|
Zandel_Corrin
07/05/10 03:56 AM
123.2.140.247
|
I always found the size and weight of mechs strange.... the smallest 20 tonners being called 12 meters tall and then the 100 tonners being called the same..... but all canon pics say otherwise... the atlas could pick up and throw smaller mechs one handed FFS... and a locust wasn't even knee height on one, So this was always an issue with me.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
ix
07/05/10 08:51 AM
81.6.219.90
|
I think some of you have a very distorted idea of what a 200 ton machine looks like, the real thing is much smaller than the Battletech art for 100 ton tanks for example. This is a 200 ton tank:
http://www.mark-1-tank.co.uk/jpgs/kubinka-71-maus-420b.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus
It's just a game and 200 ton mechs would only be an optional rule, the amount of knicker-twisting the idea seems to cause is somewhat amusing.
|
Frabby
07/05/10 11:53 AM
79.224.180.36
|
Quote:
I think some of you have a very distorted idea of what a 200 ton machine looks like, the real thing is much smaller than the Battletech art for 100 ton tanks for example.
[...]
It's just a game and 200 ton mechs would only be an optional rule, the amount of knicker-twisting the idea seems to cause is somewhat amusing.
Well BattleMechs aren't solid slabs of metal - they are actually quite lightweight for their size, and I reckon they have to be in order to function as bipedal vehicles. From an engineering standpoint, tracked vehicles can be designed to be much more "dense" (and should be able to mount superior armor accordingly, which is why in real life we have tanks and no 'Mechs).
As for colossal 'Mechs (i.e. 'Mechs over 100 tons), we're apparently going to get rules for them for (Classic) BattleTech boardgame. Of course, we already have rules for them under DA Clix rules...
When not aiming at tripodal, 3-pilot monstrosities, however, it seems to be fairly easy to extend the existing tables for fusion engines and internal structure. Numerous people have published their house rules in the past. However, as I wrote above: The decline in overall efficiency gets really bad, so colossal 'Mechs don't generally seem to be worth their cost.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
07/05/10 12:08 PM
71.214.4.99
|
Quote:
I always found the size and weight of mechs strange.... the smallest 20 tonners being called 12 meters tall and then the 100 tonners being called the same..... but all canon pics say otherwise... the atlas could pick up and throw smaller mechs one handed FFS... and a locust wasn't even knee height on one, So this was always an issue with me.
Actually, it is stated that many 20 tonners are only 6-7 meters tall, and that there are some 100 tonners that push 15-16.
Quote:
ix said:
It's just a game and 200 ton mechs would only be an optional rule, the amount of knicker-twisting the idea seems to cause is somewhat amusing.
I know. It's absolutely hilarious how bent out of shape some of us get when we hear about this kind of stuff.
Personally, I just let it ride.
|
Karagin
07/05/10 12:17 PM
80.149.45.147
|
And when are these rules being added? I don't see anything on CBT say they are coming.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Zandel_Corrin
07/05/10 07:37 PM
123.2.140.247
|
Quote:
Actually, it is stated that many 20 tonners are only 6-7 meters tall, and that there are some 100 tonners that push 15-16.
Where did you find reference to mechs being anything smaller to 10 meters high? I have looked over and over and apart from 6-7 meter Protomechs i have found nothing.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Prince_of_Darkness
07/09/10 01:03 AM
71.215.34.38
|
Quote:
And when are these rules being added? I don't see anything on CBT say they are coming.
They probably won't come until we get into the age of destruction.
Quote:
Quote:
Actually, it is stated that many 20 tonners are only 6-7 meters tall, and that there are some 100 tonners that push 15-16.
Where did you find reference to mechs being anything smaller to 10 meters high? I have looked over and over and apart from 6-7 meter Protomechs i have found nothing.
Protomechs could never be 6-7 meters. In order for them to be able to enter buildings and the like, the talled they could go is around 4 meters at most. Besides, many of the later TRO images (especially 3075) give some sense of scale. I'm pretty sure a more recent book about getting into the game has a size chart, but I am not sure which one- but the Mechwarrior 4 guide also gives accurate displays of size.
|
Zandel_Corrin
07/09/10 01:55 AM
123.2.140.247
|
Quote:
Protomechs could never be 6-7 meters.
From this site's wiki and the 3060 Book
Quote:
ProtoMechs weigh two to nine tons and stand on two legs anywhere from four to six meters in height.
Ok so i was close.... also says:
Quote:
Standing only half the height of a BattleMech
Suggesting that Battlemechs are only 8 - 12 meters tall....
Tho we can tell that this is false cause an Atlas stands 3 times the height (at least) of a Locust
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
CreeDakota
01/12/11 06:05 PM
165.151.103.84
|
applying too much logic or scientific knowledge to this debate is pointless. Battletech is sci-fi. The game mechanics quicky breakdown if compared rigidly to real physics and war.
The game has a sufficent diveristy of mechs sizes with pluses and minuses to create diversity, fun, and balance. The game doesn't really need bigger mechs. However if anyone wanted to make house rules for them and they stayed true to the design and construction methods outlined currently these bigger and bigger mechs would become more and more immobile and inefficent.
I personally could immagine some fun campaigns were based around some weapons designer trying to make a Collosus though.
|
Cray
01/12/11 09:21 PM
173.168.112.109
|
Quote:
applying too much logic or scientific knowledge to this debate is pointless. Battletech is sci-fi. The game mechanics quicky breakdown if compared rigidly to real physics and war.
Coincidentally, a poll on exactly that topic:
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=76818.0
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.
|
Christopher_Perkins
01/13/11 09:37 AM
138.162.128.54
|
===poll?===
Quote:
Quote:
applying too much logic or scientific knowledge to this debate is pointless. Battletech is sci-fi. The game mechanics quicky breakdown if compared rigidly to real physics and war.
Coincidentally, a poll on exactly that topic:
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=76818.0
A poll on what topic, Science in BattleTech (apparant from context)
or mineratures scale
cannot get in to see it right now, and from home i could not participate any way...
===Minerature Scale===
Not that it matters much, but the original Timberwolf mini was scaler for 1/285th to the 1/20th scale BluePrint (or as close as i could figure with a ruler)
The same could be said to all of the original RalPartha BattleTech minis for the other Blue Print mechs (with the possible exception of the Medium Omni Art posters)
Of course this went away with the mineratures enthusiasts complaining that the better equipment was smaller in size in comparison with the InnerSphere crap... (umm, Mineraturization of technology being a hallmark of the current era, why would it not follow in the future?) So when the mineratures enthusiasts entered the ranks of the official Sculpters at IWM, they redid a lot of the mini's that were "too small", course, by then the rest of the Blue print mechs were no Longer usable... :::shrug:::
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
|
Karagin
01/13/11 01:40 PM
178.76.138.173
|
Meanwhile behind the innocent facade of the local game store lurks a group of that is planing on the end of gaming, by introducing REALISM into the games...(cue for evil music and bad lighting)
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Christopher_Perkins
01/13/11 03:15 PM
138.162.128.54
|
you forgot the cue for evil manaiacal laughter...
nm, I provided my own, Mu Ha Ha Ha Ha
(actually, the size of the minis is a wash (no effect) on game play )
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
Edited by Christopher_Perkins (01/13/11 03:16 PM)
|
Rotwang
01/13/11 09:54 PM
81.164.86.181
|
I'm not against anything bigger than 100 ton. It's just an arbitrary leftover from the days when BT was a plain boardgame with a bunch of weird rules that had no basis in reality, but were designed to make the game a bit more interesting than having regular big robots shooting each other.
After TR3050 it became standard to tack a big disadvantage or trade-off to most new pieces of equipment. Most benefits you gain from a piece of equipment or weapon is usually offset by high heat, a certain vulnerability, malfunction etc ...
Had these rules been in place at the time of the TR2750, Gauss Rifles would explode half the time when fired ...
And I'm willing to bet that Colossal mechs will have a bunch of limitations above and beyond the huge inefficient engine and being a big target.
Colossal mechs could have a place in Battletech as specialized mechs, and we'll see the MW-DA version pop up in the next TR and every house will scramble to develop their own design to go alongside it.
Bring the Colossals ! My Atlas is ready to take them on !!!
|
Christopher_Perkins
01/14/11 09:33 AM
138.162.128.54
|
could be that the limit to 100 tons for battlemechs was a nod to the inverse square law?
or was that already covered by what is (nominally) the same length having to increase the weight/integrity of the skeleton to reach that size...
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
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/14/11 11:40 AM
108.126.15.75
|
I see no reason why anyone could not have them in there own game. I don't know if I would out law them. There big slow targets that can be easily avoided which an Atlas could out run by going at a walking speed.
All it would be good for is point defense and an attacker would just move the battle away from it or target it with artillery or an air strike before the battle really starts.
I don't see them at the bogyman that people are making them out to be.
If you don't like that just don't allow them in your game.
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!!!
|
ix
01/19/11 10:36 AM
81.6.219.90
|
It's just an arbitrary limit. People's attempts to justify it in fluff terms are painful. It's also a bit off given the visual size of mechs, they'd be far heavier (even with the lightweight future materials a fluff defense would appeal to).
|
Christopher_Perkins
01/19/11 11:52 AM
138.162.128.55
|
Appears that you can judge scale visually (ability i lack)
Considering:
appx 1 mm per armor point per each location for standard armor
height taken from the 1/20th scale Blueprints
The requirement for technical personnel to actually fit inside the mech to do repairs... so a significant portion of the BattleMech is empty space.
Waist of sitting mechwarrior inside the upper center torso, and the torso up of the mechwarrior inside the actual "Head" of the BattleMech
Does this change anything?
Remember, the "visual size" of the mechs is scaled to 3 map hexes being 30 meters while the "visual size" of the hexes is scaled to 1 map hex being 30 meters.
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
|
wolfcannon
01/20/11 01:40 PM
67.14.211.229
|
well i will use the 200 ton mech produced in the April Fool special and modify it.
Clan Wolf in Exile
328th Assault Cluster(the Lion Hearted)
Bravo Trinary
Alpha Star
Star Captain James Sword
|
Karagin
01/20/11 03:49 PM
178.76.138.173
|
How so?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
fearfactory
01/22/11 02:45 PM
76.16.22.30
|
Colossals will probably have a lot of downfalls... but given that I rarely use Assaults I'll probably never use them at all.
"The infection has been removed... the soul of this machine has improved!"
|
Protege
03/05/12 11:50 PM
65.87.39.230
|
Long ago, a German CBT magazine I saw put in the stats for a 200 ton mech with 4 Clan Gauss Rifles, 4 Clan ER Large Lasers, and 4 Clan ER PPC's. This thing moved 1/2 and had a pretty good picture to go with it. It was fandom, but the guy who made it went through the Construction Rules in MaximumTech and simply extrapolated the stats for weight, movement, etc. Useful as an exercise in making the nastiest AA Mech in existance, but not much else.
The 100 ton limit works well. I'd just leave it at that.
I've stopped being nice? When the hell did I ever START being nice?
|
Hythos
03/06/12 03:27 PM
137.78.94.42
|
Quote:
I think some of you have a very distorted idea of what a 200 ton machine looks like, the real thing is much smaller than the Battletech art for 100 ton tanks for example. This is a 200 ton tank:
http://www.mark-1-tank.co.uk/jpgs/kubinka-71-maus-420b.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus
It's just a game and 200 ton mechs would only be an optional rule, the amount of knicker-twisting the idea seems to cause is somewhat amusing.
In relative terms, to perforate armor using conventional munitions, a shell diameter should be larger than the thickness of armor you're lobbing it at. A 75mm cannon SHOULD penetrate 75mm armor. Even a 60mm shell might just bounce off, depending on where it struck.
That Maus was purdy groovy, having over 100 TONS of armor - with the heaviest area being 18" in thickness. This means a 105mm, heck even a 255mm cannon wouldn't penetrate it. However, a BATTLESHIP using an 18" gun would knock a 200t tank into the next block due to the inertia carried by a shell that size... LOL However, that's just the most heavily armored, as most other locations were between 8 and 9" thick. Modern AP and Sabot munitions would still have a tough time, especially if it were hardened steel 50+ Rockwell, for example.
The Nazi's sure did like things big back then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte (there was also a 1500t version - but both were scrapped). With the armor it could support, nothing mobile the Allies had would have been able to damage the hull.
Could they have been possible? Yes, however, likely impractical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagger_288
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-transporter
These engineering feats were possible due to advancements in design and material sciences, though I believe the Germans COULD have built those Super Heavies (much like the Russians could have built their Flying Fortress).
Now for Battlemechs:
1ton standard armor = 16pts/ton
2000lb/16 = 125lb/point
Assume an Awesome (since it's like shooting the broad-side of a barn) has ~100 sq feet of surface area on its CT. Assume the armor was cool 40pts FrontCT (2.5tons / 5,000lb).
100sqft / 40pts = .4pts / sqft
or
5000lb / 100sqft = 50lb/sqft
Density of Steel ~.28lb/sqin
Armor plating thickness: ~.35" = ~8.8mm
Battletech is nice on a board-game, but real robotic combat will be different... Heavy slugs will tear holes through 'em, but they will be difficult to be hit.
|
scheinlen
05/22/12 10:00 PM
204.111.103.100
|
The main problem I see would be in the maintance, Just think of the Repiar and ordance train that would support a 200+ mech in the field. restricked to hard terrain, pilot would be afriad of mud and swamps.
It is not my job to judge my Enemies, that is there God's job. It is only my duty to arrange the meeting!
|
scheinlen
05/25/12 04:12 PM
204.111.95.14
|
What about the scare of soft terrian, IE swamp and marsh lands, try to pull that big mother out...lol
ANd the hours of maintiance would be harder than a regular lance.
It is not my job to judge my Enemies, that is there God's job. It is only my duty to arrange the meeting!
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/10/13 03:46 PM
208.54.5.139
|
Quote:
Star Wars is fantasy not scifi.
Yes, I just cant stay out of the morgue. Someone has to make sure that dead subjects don't go walking off and get lost.
Aaaa Star Wars is SciFi. Scifi is Science fiction has to do with advanced technology, space travel, and such things. Fantasy is things like dragons, unicorns, and other such things. Fiction is real world stuff that never really happened.
I wanted to add some humors suggestions under some of the categories but I don't want another nasty message about behaving my self from Cray.
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!!!
|
ghostrider
08/31/13 01:34 AM
66.74.188.151
|
Havent seen the new stuff out there, so this may be in error.
If they havent removed the random torso crits on a roll of 2 on the location table, why would you risk so much in one mech? A simple fast mech, aero strafing run, or even a simple infantry man could destroy it. Also, a simple 9 armor and 3 internal on the head would mean a quick destruction of the mech as well with a good hit.
Also, how do you overcome the lack of criticals in the mech? To carry alot of weapons and cool it somewhat, you dont have the space for it. Yes you could load up on things like guass rifles, and some ammo, but what you seem to be talking about with a 200 ton mech is a moble tower.
Making it a quad mech limits the critical spaces even more, since the arms now become legs with just 2 spots per limb.
I agree that the 100 ton limit is fine. If you want uber damage and such, play robotech.
|
Karagin
08/31/13 12:02 PM
64.134.154.172
|
The idea of the larger mechs, while cool, is kind of like the 120 ton and larger size super tanks they end up being range targets.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|