Retry
03/19/14 11:26 PM
76.7.236.208
|
The Trenchrunner is designed to work in conditions where artillery is common, and is designed to have the least chance of breaking down at inopportune moments. To this effect the Trenchrunner uses an Armored Motive System, so it is more likely to be able to run even after taking an arty hit. It can survive more arty hits as well due to it's reactive armor proving to be especially effective against such hits.
----
Trenchrunner APC
Clan advanced
50 tons
BV: 948
Cost: 2,266,250 C-bills
Movement: 5/8 (Tracked)
Engine: 250 Fuel Cell
Internal: 20
Armor: 176 (Reactive)
Internal Armor
Front 5 50
Right 5 45
Left 5 45
Rear 5 36
Weapons Loc Heat
Micro Pulse Laser FR 1
Equipment Loc
Armored Motive System BD
Armored Chassis BD
Carrying Capacity:
Troops - 10.0 tons
|
Karagin
03/19/14 11:36 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Can you explain how reactive armor works against artillery hits in Battletech? Which rule books covers this?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
03/19/14 11:39 PM
76.7.236.208
|
Like reflective armor, it halves damage of it's respective damage type, rounded down. In this case, it's respective damage type is explosives, which includes many mines, missiles, and artillery weaponry.
Plus additional side-effects, but you could probably find them on the wiki easily... I can't explain them too well.
|
Karagin
03/19/14 11:46 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I know what reactive armor does in real life, not what I asked. I asked where are the rules for reactive armor working to stop or reduce the damage from an artillery hit, which page in the Core Rule books is this found on. Maybe Cray can point me to the page possibly.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/20/14 12:04 AM
172.56.14.94
|
The down side is that with a lucky hit you can have a chain reaction and all armor at one location is destroyed entirely leaving that location with out any armor protection.
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
03/20/14 12:19 AM
76.7.236.208
|
Reactive armor halves damage from explosions rounded down IRL?
And yeah, that is a downside, but IIRC the lucky hit must be a critical hit on a tank, and after that crit there is only a 1 in 36 chance of a complete armor blowout.
|
ghostrider
03/20/14 12:35 AM
66.27.181.1
|
wait? this is coming from someone that had an inferno launcher kill 3 vehicles out of his unit about a week ago?
Someone that loves hardened armor to avoid getting crits?
did I log into the right forums?
Honestly, unless its preplotted spot, I don't think artillery is the main concern of the vehicle. It can run to its drop off point, and move out before artillery should be able to target it. Now if you try to load up the entire load, then maybe.
|
Retry
03/20/14 12:37 AM
76.7.236.208
|
Getting hit by many infernos is not quite a mere 1/36 chance of catastrophic failure.
|
Cray
03/20/14 06:14 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
I know what reactive armor does in real life, not what I asked. I asked where are the rules for reactive armor working to stop or reduce the damage from an artillery hit, which page in the Core Rule books is this found on. Maybe Cray can point me to the page possibly.
Reactive Armor has appeared in both Max Tech and Tactical Operations.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
03/20/14 09:23 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Yes I know about it in Max Tech, didn't see the part that it can an effect on artillery though.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
03/20/14 09:27 PM
76.7.236.208
|
Anyways, APC.
|
Karagin
03/20/14 09:52 PM
70.118.139.48
|
See just not seeing Artillery strikes being affected by the reactive armor, it doesn't makes since. And given that reactive armor is nothing more then blocks of armor reacts in some way to the impact of a weapon to reduce the damage done to the vehicle being protected. It is most effective in protecting against shaped charges and specially hardened long rod penetrators. Not seeing how artillery even falls into this kind of hit unless used in a direct fire mode similar to normal ACs, Gauss rifles etc...
And using said armor on an APC might be very deadly to the infantry or BA using said vehicle for their ride into the fight. Not so good for morale when you see your buddies get killed by the armor on their own vehicles.
Now my question also is how is Battletech portraying Reactive Armor? It explosive reactive armor (ERA) or self-limiting explosive reactive armor (SLERA), non-energetic reactive armor (NERA), non-explosive reactive armor (NxRA), and electric reactive armor? Or something totally different?
Does it come in blocks or composite pre-formed shapes to go around the turret(s) on vehicles or is the entire armor just that reactive armor with nothing but the frame of the vehicle holding it there?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Edited by Karagin (03/20/14 09:55 PM)
|
Retry
03/20/14 09:59 PM
76.7.236.208
|
Chances are you're not seeing because you're not looking at page 282 of Tactical Operations.
Along with TC warheads an AP autocannons not causing crits, all explosive type damage is reduced by half.
I hardly believe the reactive armor is going to hurt the infantry at all, except if some crap goes seriously wrong like a lucky TAC also achieving it's 1 of 36 chance of ripping off the armor, which is more than low enough to work out well.
You know what's gotta be bad on morale? Being in an immobile transport while artillery keeps falling on the now defenseless transport. Or getting directly hit by a long tom on open grounds. Though, that may not be too bad on morale; no one will be alive to be shellshocked by the occassion.
|
Karagin
03/20/14 10:06 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Just not seeing how the armor is going to react to the artillery hit given that it's very hard to hit a tank or APC with artillery when you are firing at a hex to start with and by the time the round hits the vehicle is more then likely gone.
So the bad morale moment will be to the guys in the other squads there Retry when they see their buddies killed by the reactive armor going off. And if the number is so low then why aren't ALL vehicles using reactive armor more often?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
03/20/14 10:21 PM
76.7.236.208
|
Doesn't matter what you are having trouble seeing it. It reduces explosive damage. Artillery is explosive damage. Please, I have already given the page number, please just look at the rules for reactive armor yourself...
There are no rules that taking *any* hit of a reactive armor vehicle will result in damaged cargo. Only *critical* hits, and even then there's only a 1 in 36 chance per crit hit.
A TAC that happens to hit it's cargo could and would happen to anyone regardless of armor types. In fact, the reactive armor in this case only helps further by negating AP AC ammo and TC SRM ammo critical hitting abilities that could otherwise disable the transport or hurt the infantry inside.
Why don't canon designs use it more, or why don't customs use it more? Not sure about the canon designs. By my account, the original Small Laser equipped Charger shouldn't exist other than as an awfully failed prototype myself. Reasoning can only be taken so far with those.
Availability could be a concern. I'd imagine reactive armor would be less common than standard ferro-fibrous armor, as that's been around longer in BT. Otherwise I have no idea, it's really a nice type of armor.
|
Karagin
03/20/14 10:38 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I did look it up Retry.
You are missing what I am talking about, the infantry squad dismounts the vehicle, the vehicle takes a hit, the reactive armor blows up, going with the idea it's explosive reactive armor (ERA) style the blast can still kill the dismount infantry. Not taking about the bay inside the vehicle. Now apply that to the part were I said the other dismounted infantry sees this happen, how do you think morale is going to be?
Again given how artillery works in this game, it's chances of getting to hit a vehicle that is going to be moving is not a forgone conclusion.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
03/20/14 10:47 PM
76.7.236.208
|
Irrelevant. There is nowhere in the rules that state that infantry dismounting or in the same hex as a vehicle which just lost it's armor due to a reactive armor blowout take damage of any sort. Thus it can be assumed that the situation that you are talking about just doesn't happen.
This is beginning to resemble your arguement of resentment of the Void Signature System...
|
ghostrider
03/20/14 11:19 PM
66.27.181.1
|
Isn't that like saying a naval laser is the same as a large laser so it isn't effective against reflective armor?
And that a ppc is an energy weapon so the same armor designed to stop lasers would work against the ppc as well?
I would think after the first shot deflective the armor would lose it's ability to deflect incoming damage, but like the power supply of ba, the game doesn't take that into account.
Hadn't thought about the armors exlosive content killing their own infantry when hit. Good point for an apc.
There is a question. Is this armor experimental?
If it is, there is your reason canon units don't use it yet.
|
Retry
03/20/14 11:29 PM
76.7.236.208
|
I don't see why it would lose it's ability, seeing as hits won't always hit the same spot.
Reflective armor halves energy weapons, as it's designed. Seeing as the PPC is an energy weapon, you are out of luck.
Though I wonder if naval lasers can be halved by the armor as well... Probably, since it is an energy weapon, but people may just assume that if you get hit by a capital scale weapon you're not making it alive anyways.
The "exploding armor" is a small, internal, controlled explosion which redirects some of the force of weapons, in this case the applicable types would be explosions. It's not like the armor all the sudden explodes like it's been hiding an AC/20 under it's skin.
And the armor explosive content does NOT kill infantry, unless said armor is lost by a lucky roll after a lucky crit which removes the armor and later results in the APC's death.
I think the armor is advanced, not standard yet not experimental.
|
ghostrider
03/20/14 11:48 PM
66.27.181.1
|
The reactive armor is probably based on the choam armor used on tanks a few years back.
Where as you are correct in assuming that shots would hit the same spot on the armor, you are talking about a wide area explosive.
A good way to deal with armor is used in the game Terrain overlord government. Each weapon has a different pattern of damage and it is possible to blow up a unit without taking out all the armor in a location. Granted, it is copyrighted so its beyond useless here.
This crap of 'look I've get a single half a foot patch of armor on my 10 foot wide area. I'm safe from the next mg hit' is crap. A high explosive hitting it should mean the blast expands as it enters the area that is no longer protected. But that is the game issues, not you.
The explosion from the armor should be more then enough force to hurt any infantry around the armor, including ba, if for no other reason then to knock them off their feet.
But since elementals don't have consciouness rolls like mech pilots do, it is useless to even think about it.
|
Retry
03/20/14 11:50 PM
76.7.236.208
|
The way you say reactive armor should work would make it beyond useless compared to standard armor.
|
ghostrider
03/20/14 11:54 PM
66.27.181.1
|
I may be missing something. I'm not sure. The sounds of how it works, makes me think it explodes outward from what it is protecting, meaning a great deal of force. It doesn't have nanolathing to remake the explosives once used.
The choam armor was similar to a shaped charge. It was used once, and tended to use the adjacent ones as well as the one hit.
I would need an explanation of how it works before I would say it's useless. It could be nothing more then shaped charges on normal armor giving it a 'second' chance.
|
ghostrider
03/21/14 12:12 AM
66.27.181.1
|
Ok. The name of the armor does not appear to be called choam. It was the armor on the tanks used to invade Iraq after they had taken kuwait. I don't remember the name anymore, but it was supposed to be explosive reactive armor.
|
Karagin
03/21/14 12:18 AM
70.118.139.48
|
Retry use Google, look up the videos of tanks with ERA on, and look what happens when they are hit.
The US uses Chobham armor which is a composite armor since the draw backs of ERA weren't what the US military wanted to deal with.
It is not useless to think about Retry, the stuff explodes, the blast has to go some place and the infantry in the same hex is going to take the blast, that is common sense. Using your logic then the mech that blows up for what ever reason should not cause the mech one hex away to take any damage since the blast would not hit it, yet there are rules for that to happen.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/21/14 12:34 AM
172.56.14.54
|
Karagin you are getting real world reactive armor mixed up with make believe armor of BT where a 30 foot tall thing has a chance of surviving being hit by a Gauss rifle salvo that is moving so fast that it can brake planetary orbit but cant fly farther than 2,000 feet.
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!!!
|
Reiter
03/21/14 11:14 AM
142.11.67.185
|
Lasers are not exactly energy weapon...directed energy weapons, but not energy....they just focus light like a magnifying glass and heat the armor to the boiling point. Only point I am trying to make which has no relevance what so ever to the topic at hand would be something like "energy bolt" vs "energy beam" so a PPC would be a directed energy weapon (heat a mass to critical point, then accelerate it it) while the energy beam is more like getting a really bad sun burn.
As for it being useful against naval weapons...I think they are like 10x more powerful but when using naval rules and game boards...its just faster to tick off a circle = 10 points vs wasting an extra 30 minutes per game sheet as you roll dice and calculate critical hits. Target is toast anyway, most mechs won't survice even the lowly NL/35 (assuming it hits the intended target) unless your in the assault class but then again its talking about 30 foot robots and spaceships. I just see mechs being toasted no matter what level of tech rule you want to use to protect your ground forces, Naval weapons are just fricking huge! to begin with unless you are putting some ground/mountain between you.
|
Cray
03/21/14 07:23 PM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
You are missing what I am talking about, the infantry squad dismounts the vehicle, the vehicle takes a hit, the reactive armor blows up, going with the idea it's explosive reactive armor (ERA) style the blast can still kill the dismount infantry. Not taking about the bay inside the vehicle. Now apply that to the part were I said the other dismounted infantry sees this happen, how do you think morale is going to be?
Would you please quote the lines in TacOps that shows BattleTech's reactive armor injures nearby infantry?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
03/21/14 07:44 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Was not a rules question Cray.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
03/21/14 08:00 PM
108.214.144.84
|
It doesn't happen in the rules, it doesn't work that way in the game or in-universe. So the point is irrelevant. Is armor really your sole issue of the vee?
|
Karagin
03/21/14 08:03 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Actually Retry it can happen if the author of a story wants it to happen, just like the jump jets being the thing that killed Natasha Kerensky, up until that was written I doubt any even though of using Jump Jets as a weapon.
The idea of Reactive armor on an APC doesn't make sense given that it's role of infantry transport, not infantry killer. I would suggest dropping the Reactive and going with HFF or LFF.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|