Retry
05/16/14 11:59 PM
76.7.236.208
|
I remember seeing a piece of fluff that said something about vehicles being able to have Vehicular Amphibious Equipment, either Limited or Fully amphibious. It also said something about such vehicles only being able to operate effectively with something like a fuel cell or a fusion engine or something like that, and I.C.E.s are less effective. Does this have anything to do with the actual rules of such vehicles? A quick internet scan turned up nothing useful.
|
Karagin
05/17/14 12:01 AM
70.118.139.48
|
It was original found in Max Tech, not sure what was changed with it during the massive jump to the Core Rule books.
Amphibious Drive Equipment if I recall weights in at 10% of the total tonnage of the vehicle.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/17/14 02:34 AM
66.74.185.193
|
Isn't that like eviromentally sealing a unit?
|
Cray
05/17/14 09:47 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
It was original found in Max Tech, not sure what was changed with it during the massive jump to the Core Rule books.
Amphibious Drive Equipment if I recall weights in at 10% of the total tonnage of the vehicle.
The 10% version was preserved in TacOps and allows high-speed movement across water. There's a lighter version that allows very limited speeds in water.
The "fully amphibious" option is 10% of the wheeled or tracked vehicle's weight, rounding up to the nearest half ton. The vehicle retains its normal movement, but any water hex requires 2MP to cross. This is akin to the high-performance amphibious systems of the cancelled Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle that the marines wanted.
The new "limited amphibious" gear has a weight equal to the wheeled or tracked vehicle's weight divided by 25, rounded up to the nearest half ton. The vehicle has a maximum of 2MP (always treated as "flank" movement for combat purposes) or its maximum movement, whichever is lower. (So one of ATN's designs might be limited to 1MP.) Again, each water hex requires 2MP to cross. This is akin to a bare minimum duplex drive and the vehicle wallows like a pig in water.
For combat purposes, when in water the vehicle is treated as a displacement hull.
Another TacOps options is the flotation hull, which is for hovercraft, VTOLs, fighters, and WiGEs. This allows hovercraft to sit in water with their engine off (previously, they sank if they lost engines over water), and allows flying vehicles to land and takeoff from water. This option gives no in-water movement except for takeoff and landing and no separate propulsion system; it just allows the vehicles to float. It has no weight modification, but does alter the cost.
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.
|
Retry
05/17/14 07:05 PM
76.7.236.208
|
Okay, but are there any rules about ICEs not working as well underwater compared to fuel cells or fusion engines?
|
Cray
05/18/14 12:27 PM
67.8.171.23
|
Quote:
Retry writes:
Okay, but are there any rules about ICEs not working as well underwater compared to fuel cells or fusion engines?
Nope. Also, the amphibious systems don't address moving underwater.
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
05/18/14 05:49 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Wouldn't those rules be found with submarines?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/19/14 05:13 PM
66.27.180.83
|
I thought amphibious non dedicated units were surface vessels.
This is why mechs are supposed to be superior. No need for extra equipment to walk underwater.
|
Karagin
05/19/14 08:33 PM
70.118.139.48
|
No they are vehicles that can cross water with things like snokerels on their mufflers or water-tight engine compartments. Some would have special skirts that go around them at the extreme edge of the technology others would be purpose built vehicles like US Marine Corps's AAV7 series of vehicles or the old WW2 like the Terripin or the Alligator vehicles used by the Marines and the Brits for water crossing. Some Russian IFVs and APCs have limited amphibious abilities as do tanks the the PT-76.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
05/19/14 09:00 PM
67.8.171.23
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I thought amphibious non dedicated units were surface vessels.
This is why mechs are supposed to be superior. No need for extra equipment to walk underwater.
Right. In BattleTech, the amphibious vehicle option is applied to wheeled and tracked vehicles which then move across the surface of the water. The amphibious option does not make them submarines. And 'Mechs don't need extra equipment to walk underwater.
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.
|
Retry
05/24/14 01:01 AM
76.7.236.208
|
Thanks for the information
|