ice engines

Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
ghostrider
02/03/14 12:59 PM
66.27.181.51

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Why is there not any sort of way to make a light or xl version of them? They should have no issues in vehicles with them. All vehicles except mechs can use mechanical linkage to power the drive train. There is no reason for the engines to be that bad.
Seriously. You can change the output of engines with the transmission. There is no reason for them not to have researched this. Ice's have been around for civillian vehicles in battletech since before battle mechs were made. There should have been some improvements. Better fuels. Lighter alloys.
It is garbage to saw it can't be done.

When using fusion, my guess would be electric being the power source to power the unit. I understand that might be the 'transmission' cost for using it.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/03/14 02:12 PM
172.56.32.222

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In reality (Yes, that bad word) a fusion power plant should weigh a great deal more than a ICE power plant.

Its how the rules are.
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
02/03/14 06:59 PM
71.47.122.85

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Why is there not any sort of way to make a light or xl version of them?



Maybe because internal combustion engines already reached their XXL version because they've had 1200 years of development time. In that case, the "standard" military ICE is a super-light engine. You can see this in civilian (support vehicle) engines, which have cruder and heavier combustion engines available, but approach the performance of combat vehicle engines at the higher tech levels.
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.
ghostrider
02/03/14 10:01 PM
66.27.181.51

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I find it hard to believe that ice tech would stop evolving.
Using the same sized engine in multiple vehicles changes power only because of things like transmissions. Slip a 460 ford into a pinto, and it does not become a mustang. The same thing with a 454 put into a chevette and it doesn't become a corvette. Put the 454 into a boat and that changes everything again. The inboard and (i believe its) a jetdrive changes specs yet again.
Transmissions change alot of the power into something useful.

Now a simple change like an aluminum block, lightens the ice by alot, and some of the new engines today are starting to come close to the power of the engines back in the 50's if they haven't passed them yet. The are smaller and lighter then the old ones.

Now. If you used something like the foamed steel that is used in the skeleton, or internal structure, of a mech, that should lighten the engine while giving it the strength to survive years or maybe centuries of normal use. This is not even talking about something like carbon fiber being used.

I know we have built tanks that are over the 100 ton mark. I doubt their engines were close to being 50 tons.
I wish I knew the stats of some of the tanks like the abrams. I think it is 60 tons and goes over 60 miles an hour. In the game, that engine should be a 360 which in fusion wieght is 33.5 meaning it should weigh 67 tons in an ice. This means the engine alone is heavier then the tank.

Now the game producers wanted to make it so fusion with its exploding problems were the thing to use in battle mechs. The lack of advancement doesn't hold water.

Now maybe this might need to change into needing to upgrade transmissions.
Retry
02/03/14 11:12 PM
67.239.109.174

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I was under the impression that ICE vehicles have most of the weight in fuel.

But yeah, the Abrams ICE engine outperforms battletech ICE engines so much that if you redesigned the Abrams to be modernized with standard armor and some sort of autocannon, though it would guzzle fuel a whole lot more, it would basically obliterate any other battletech ICE vee short of a demolisher.

It's also a turbine, so that could factor in a bit.
ghostrider
02/05/14 12:02 AM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Read up on the abrams. It uses a turbine engine alright. The article said it was a better power to weight ratio then a normal engine.
Didn't find out how much the engine weights. Even the old wwII tanks. It frustrated me to not have easy access to them, but figured that was because of limiting information to terrorists.
ghostrider
02/10/14 01:54 AM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Thinking about vehicles and engines, it is interesting that battle tech has to add on an additional weight of transmissions when using a fusion engine. It really sounds to me like they don't want vehicles to do anything but be mobile targets.

I am under the impression that myomers us electric energy to contract. This makes sense with using a fusion reactor, since that is the most probable energy put out by one.
Making a engine or transmission if that is what you want to call it to change the electric back to circular motion, I have no issues with.

It is the whole weight thing that bothers me with vehicles. The ice they use is a big step backwards from the real world. I guess they could not come up with anything that would allow mechs to rule if they did not.

Maybe they should have allowed mechs to move faster with fusion engines, but that would cause other imbalances.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/10/14 02:37 PM
172.56.32.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The problem is making something that is completely inferior in EVERY conceivable way (the battlemech) suppressor to something that should not have the slightest problem in any way defeating it, as the inferior (aka the tank).

The only thing that makes the battlemech better than a tank is that t he game is based on the battlemech being better and the rules have to written to be extremely lopsided for that to be true. The battlemech is a concept from the 1920s science fiction era that survived to when Battletech game was first published. To tell the truth I am really surprised that Battletech game survived into the 1990s as a profitable commercial enterprise.
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
02/10/14 04:14 PM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
There are ways they could have made mechs the bad asses without killing the logic of vehicles. The ability to dodge would have been a step. They could move out of the line of fire using their piloting skill.
Another step could have been to change the suspension factor for a mech to allow it to move faster then most other units with a smaller engine.
Another might be better targetting and/or tracking systems. Like using a phase radar array, since you would have sensors in multiple locations.
They could have said that vehicles using direct fire weapons could not target anything but the mechs legs when under 60 meters because they couldn't get the guns to point up that high. Yes, people would say they could design the unit to do so, but that could have added extra equipment, ie more weight.
The lack of need for heat sinks when using non energy weapons. They could have required heat sinks. Maybe do like turret weights. Make it one per 10 heat points or such.

Right now the superior mobility is what was supposed to make mechs better then vehicles.
The ability to drop a mech from orbit is a bonus.
The use of terrain like woods helps.
Mechs should not be the only unit required to take over a planet. Infantry is what controls populations, not mechs. Without vehicles, the infrastructure would fall.
Retry
02/10/14 05:24 PM
72.214.204.166

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Speaking of, fighters and VTOLs need looked at too. Any unit poses a very big threat to convfighters and ASF even if their weapons are attached to the tank's front side like a tank destroyer. Logic fail.

The only reason to have dedicated AA is to guarantee death on the first run and not the second. Really, non dedicated units should not even be able to attempt any shots in the first place.
ghostrider
02/10/14 11:26 PM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Non dedicated might, but at a very harsh penalty. Granted infantry isn't limited in the arc ranges like others, but anyone could fire anything at an aircraft.
I do agree limiting the height a vehicle could raise the weapons as closer range should make it even more difficult, there are ways around it if you know the air strike is coming.

But that is more the exception then the rule.
I say direct fire, since it seems most lrms are mounted for a higher arc launch then the ball turrets for mgs and such.

And to help demonstrate this thought, an aa guns has a very hard time targetting something on the ground close to it. Even mgs being used as aa in turrets have an issue.
Might not be a great issue, but enough.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/11/14 12:18 PM
208.54.4.162

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
The only reason to have dedicated AA is to guarantee death on the first run and not the second. Really, non dedicated units should not even be able to attempt any shots in the first place.



You would be surprised of what little it can take to bring down an air superiority fighter. With enough dumb luck a RPG hitting the fuel tank is all that it might take. There are plenty of recorded times a couple $100 RPGs brought down a $30,000,000 ASF.
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!!!
Retry
02/11/14 12:53 PM
72.214.204.166

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Idk about you, but "dumb luck" doesn't sound like taking a little.

Considering there aren't even plenty of 30 million dollar aircraft in any country today, you will have trouble holding any substance with that claim.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/11/14 02:21 PM
208.54.4.162

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I suggest looking at what is still used in the middle east.
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!!!
Retry
02/11/14 05:35 PM
72.214.204.166

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I'm looking but downed 30 million dollar fighter jets is not part of the picture at all.
ghostrider
03/16/14 04:19 PM
66.27.181.1

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I know this is labled ice engines, but did have a few questions on fusion engines. Part of it does fit ice as well.

How is it that a small fusion engine, ie 25 rated, is the same size as a 400 rated engine? Yet they are sooo different in weight.

Not to the extreme example above, but take a 300 and a 400 rated engine and put them in the same 100 ton mech. There is no difference in how much space they take up.

Now fusion engines in vehicles require 1/2 weight for transmissions. It that just saying they use electric motors to run the vehicle?
Fusion makes electricity, not motion for output. With this, the question is why can you not use a smaller ice to run a generator and use the electric motors to run the tank at a lighter engine weight?

Why does a fusion engine in a mech take 3 hits before being disabled, but a single hit in a tank wipes it out instantly?
I would assume is uses all the same items as the mech. If not, then the weight should be lighter for not having the extra materials.
ghostrider
04/04/14 06:22 AM
66.27.181.155

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
now it is my understanding that a fuel cell can move a tank at the speeds of a normal ice, being lighter and even has a single heat sink, but there is no such thing as a lighter ice.
How can this be?


And the problem with fuel for the ice. How can it be a tank uses so much fuel in such a short time, but yet it is not figured into the tanks weight?
Does that mean a tank ceases to operate after x amount of turns because it runs out of fuel?

Most tanks should run out of fuel just getting to the battlefield if this is the case.

I would like to know if the next books are going to address these issues as well as the powered armor battery/engine issue.
Karagin
04/04/14 06:47 AM
70.118.139.48

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Up until the CORE rule books, the idea of fuel was not an issue, since the theory was each ICE powered Vehicle had enough fuel for the mission/battle at hand. Later when someone felt that their idea of a super huge important detail to add to the vehicles but ONLY for support vehicles was to worry about fuel.

All the joys of two separate rule sets to make vehicles.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
TigerShark
04/04/14 06:06 PM
68.190.197.104

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

I know this is labled ice engines, but did have a few questions on fusion engines. Part of it does fit ice as well.

How is it that a small fusion engine, ie 25 rated, is the same size as a 400 rated engine? Yet they are sooo different in weight.

Not to the extreme example above, but take a 300 and a 400 rated engine and put them in the same 100 ton mech. There is no difference in how much space they take up.

Now fusion engines in vehicles require 1/2 weight for transmissions. It that just saying they use electric motors to run the vehicle?
Fusion makes electricity, not motion for output. With this, the question is why can you not use a smaller ice to run a generator and use the electric motors to run the tank at a lighter engine weight?

Why does a fusion engine in a mech take 3 hits before being disabled, but a single hit in a tank wipes it out instantly?
I would assume is uses all the same items as the mech. If not, then the weight should be lighter for not having the extra materials.




It's an artificial dampener on vehicles. Same as the out-of-universe reason for disallowing double-strength heat sinks. Vees would overpower 'Mechs. Hell, they already can in some instances.
ghostrider
04/04/14 06:19 PM
66.27.181.155

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It is also why they do not lower the weights of cannons, engines, and remove half the crits when taking fire.
It is stupid that fusion engines in vehicles explode when hit, but it takes 3 times in mechs. Also and exploding vehicle engine does not damage other units like mech engine does.

Still would like an answer on the thought processes. If electric motors can run a tank, why can't you just use power amps to run the vehicle and use a small engine to turn a generator?
Another question comes to mind.

Why is it the transmission weight drops to move the same vehicle when an xl engine is installed?


I know. To make sure vehicles are not the king of the hill.
KamikazeJohnson
04/04/14 07:36 PM
50.72.218.68

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

I know. To make sure vehicles are not the king of the hill.



I'd gladly even out a lot of the goofy restrictions and Engine/Transmissio rules, and in exchange force vehicles to use Heat Sinks for ammo weapons, same as 'Mechs. Mobility/terrain handling, motive crits, and armour locations would still give 'Mechs the advantage. Usually.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
04/04/14 08:23 PM
66.27.181.155

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
They are supposed to have mobility over vehicles.

With basically unlimited space for items, I can see why they desperately want to keep dhs from vehicles. Same thing for using something like endo steel.

And you know what kj, I agree with the using heatsinks, but maybe like 1 for 3 heat built up.
But that won't happen. Then people will ask why the engine ceases to work when it gets hit and they have 10 sinks to cover the heat. Just not fire weapons to cover the 'loss' of the sinks. It changes the whole game when vehicles can take 3 engine hits.
KamikazeJohnson
04/05/14 11:58 AM
50.72.218.68

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Another option would be to have "Vehicle" versions of weapons, which included additional tonnage for Heat Dissipation (i.e. a ML(V) would be 4 tons), although that would screw things up when using a Fusion Engine.

What I was getting at is that without "free" heat dissipation from ammo weapons, Vehicles lose their ability to dominate 'Mechs under any circumstances.

I think rather than including a bunch of BS construction rules involving "transmission", "shielding", and "power amplifiers" that are specific to Vehicles, it would have made more sense to simply have a separate chart for Vehicle Engines, and justify it by stating in the fluff that 'Mechs get the "good" engines, while Vehicles use a less efficient (but much cheaper) version. It helps establish Vehicles as a low-budget alternative to the more effective 'Mechs without going to absurd lengths to justify it.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Retry
04/05/14 09:31 PM
76.7.236.208

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Vehicles aren't always simply "low-budget alternatives". Case-in-point:Anything and everything with an XLE.

I'd rather vees not be to mechs as convfighters are to aerospace fighters.
Karagin
04/05/14 09:38 PM
70.118.139.48

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
They are already what Confighters are to aerospace. Vehicles, have no major advantages beyond being cheap and only paying heat cost for energy weapons. They die far faster then mechs, have a to hit table that is very bias against them from both movement to out right dead, they have nothing like the mechs do with the abiltiy to soak up damage and everyone some suggests they change them to be more equal the whole group of those who want to rally to the POWERS THAT BE, you know cause they can do no wrong, and will tell you how wrong you are for want to challenge the mechs position as king.

But really where is there a challenge in allowing vehicles to have similar things like the mechs? I am not seeing them changing the game, the mechs still have their advantages as well as their ability to soak up damage, hell leave the crappy to hit table, but allow Endo Steel and DHS, those two things alone would be more then enough to allow a fair fight for the vehicles. But wait, I know, I know that is dangerous talk, like saying the Jihad storyline was pure BS and poorly planned and executed and drove a big wedge in the fan community, but hey what do the fans know, after all we aren't the TPTB are we?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
04/06/14 01:11 AM
66.27.181.155

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
they cease to function when one section besides the turret is depleted even if the other areas are not damaged.
All vehicles take damage from a ram, but yet mechs take no damage when kicking or punching.
The ice is a poor engine to run because they can't lighten it, but yet fusion engines can be. The transmission to run a vehicle can be lighten if the attached fusion engine is, but no way to do that with ice.
Vehicles can not move thru all terrains like mech can.
They pay for their ability to disipate missile and ballistic heat by being so open that they are take crits so easy and half of them kill the crews.
Your right. conventional fighters have it better.
ghostrider
05/03/14 08:17 AM
24.30.142.80

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
still have not seen any suggestions as to why a transmission weight for a fusion engine would change between a normal fusion engine and a lighter version.

And a new question. If the turbine engine is sooo much more efficient, why is the innersphere not using them instead of the ice?
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
05/03/14 08:56 AM
172.56.16.135

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
A turbine engine is a internal combustion engine
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
02/01/15 02:51 AM
75.80.238.47

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In the still wondering thread, the idea that electric motors can power a vehicle from fusion engines makes me wonder about why the ICE engine has to be so big, or weigh so much again. You could power a vehicle with just electric power, so why does an ice engine need to be so large, when you could use a small engine to power a bunch of amps and run the vehicles that way.
It would save so much money on parts, since you would only need the parts for the motive system and not the full drive train on the ICE.

Another thought was why the engines can not be made of the advanced materials in that time period? The internal structure of a mech could be used to make the engine itself, lightening the engine, while having the strength and heat resistance an ice would produce. Not to mention armor could be used as well. Monofilament diamonds are used to give the armor strength, why not a lighter element such as carbor fiber or something like that?
I will allow the argument titanium is rare, so it isn't readily available.
But there are plenty of alloys that are in use that could very well be molded into a working ICE.
Hell the thruster materials used in the larger dropships that can land would be a good example. They deal with the heat of thrust, while some dropships even say the ship is lowered onto the thrusters to prevent someone from getting underneath.
Akalabeth
02/04/15 01:39 AM
96.49.50.102

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think the simple answers is that ICE engines are generally found on only vehicles, and providing additional range of engines to vehicles is perhaps counter to the mech-focused gameplay.

There are a few alternatives like Fuel Cells to be used.

Vehicles already have an advantage over mechs in that they can generally mount more weapons and handle more targets (With more crew). I think the trade offs for XL and Light Engines, if there are any, are fairly neglible. Aerospace is in the same boat I feel with numerous planes (particularly clan planes) mounting an absurd amount of weaponry simply because there is negligible trade off for more advanced components.

Vehicles were seemingly made quick and dirty back in the older rules, when they were given a little more attention it seems that their simplicity gave them more advantage than intended. Rather than given the vehicles a huge overhaul they've simply introduced limitations into the game or the fiction.

If I for example were the clans, why would I use any weaponry on a vehicle save for LRM launchers? No minimum range. Half the weight. No heat. Take a Mars XL version, throw 8 LRM-20s into the turret, 14 tons of ammo, 4 MGs fore and to the side. 160 potential damage with no minimum and for less BV and 25% more firepower than a Kraken 3. Potentially more survivability too depending on the damage spread.

Or you can drop the turret, distribute the turret armour elsewhere and give it 4 MGs plus 9 LRM-20s front mounted with 78 rounds (8.6 rounds of firing) all for 3009 BV. Meanwhile the Kraken 3 at 2941 mounts only 8 LRM-15s.

50% more damage on a tank for nearly the same BV.
Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
Extra information
1 registered and 72 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

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

Topic views: 21084


Contact Admins Sarna.net