ghostrider
11/29/15 01:33 PM
98.150.102.177
|
I said I would put this in a new thread.
The idea of tungsten being used in bullets makes sense, since DU would not be available in all areas, and frankly, shipping ammo to some colonies would prevent other items from being sent there.
Can you use the alternative metals in a cannon without destroying the insides of it?
Side note, I thought DU was a decayed form of uranium, that was basically a harder version of lead, but I am probably wrong on this.
The idea of using chemicals to produce a laser does sound interesting, with limited use instead of just keeping them powered.
I would think the damage or range might be lesser to the standard, as the weapons of war should probably be the best they can think of, as well as being durable.
Though it might be they are better at damaging mech armor, but the lack of stamina from them prevent their use.
I think this alternative weapons idea has a lot of potential. It would fill out the universe a little more as people can use other things for defense.
I don't know about others, but the idea of a bandit camp was nothing more then standard units in various states of repair with no real innovative ideas for weapons beside the standard weapons of war.
|
Karagin
11/29/15 09:19 PM
72.176.187.91
|
Tungsten was used in WW2 by the Germans for the AP rounds, but the catch is tungsten is also used in several other applications like precision equipment and calibration devices.
The penetrator can be made out of anything that can withstand the force of the travel and still do the job on the other end, a steel girder could work if can handle the stress.
Chemical lasers are in use today, so the idea is not crazy and I do believe they are in the game already, could be wrong on that, and if we are going for the real world to BT, and the rabbit hole grows bigger, why not X-Ray lasers or meson beams?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
11/30/15 02:46 AM
98.150.102.177
|
I thought x-pulse lasers were x-ray driven, but I guess not.
Not sure of meson beams being effective enough for doing damage to a moving target, though I do think flesh would suffer from a grazing hit. Maybe they would work better as an anti ship weapon, kind of like the power generators used in the novels when Davion was defending I believe Kathil from Liao forces in the 4th war.
|
Akirapryde2006
12/01/15 08:33 AM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
Tungsten was used in WW2 by the Germans for the AP rounds, but the catch is tungsten is also used in several other applications like precision equipment and calibration devices.
Karagin, you are correct in your statement about Tungsten Carbide.
Quote:
Karagin writes:
Chemical lasers are in use today, so the idea is not crazy and I do believe they are in the game already, could be wrong on that, and if we are going for the real world to BT, and the rabbit hole grows bigger, why not X-Ray lasers or meson beams?
Lasers have always been a topic of conversation at our gaming table since we first started playing BT. But the issue we had was weight and space taken up by these weapons. While today our lasers are generally very large and very heavy, there are examples of lasers that are not as large or heavy. Take the Boeing YAL-1 test craft. It carries a electrically powered solid state laser that is mounted in a turret attached to the aircraft nose.
There are those in our group who stood true to the belief that space and weight are for game balancing and mechanical means. However you had those in our group, and I was one of them, who expected more than just game balancing. We wanted/expected more from the authors than just mechanical balancing. Throughout history, the march of technology had always been a driving force behind conflict and the birth and death of nations.
Our own modern history can be put to the test in the BT universe. Take the Federated Suns. Throughout the history of the Inner Sphere, the Federated Sun could (arguably) be considered one of the most technological states (second to the Terran Hegemony, itself) in the Inner Sphere. Now take the Capellan Confederation which by nature is not as technological advanced as the Federated Suns. However in the game, this is not expressed by the system.
You can't imagine how understanding where technology comes from is as important as understanding whats next for the game. Sometimes many people forget that the Inner Sphere is of our future, not some galaxy "far far away".
It was our belief that while the authors of the game can't possible predict the march of technology after their books are written, they did include safe guards to ensure that their work wont be trampled by that march. That safe guard is a large number of conflicts that were of such destruction that some technology could (reasonably) be considered lost to history.
It is of my opinion that we, the Fan Base, and conversations such as this one are very important to the future of the game and its growth. We as players must remember that the authors are in this because beyond their love for their creation, they have to make money to continue. The game system has to grow if it is to survive.
Akirapryde
|
ghostrider
12/01/15 02:21 PM
98.150.102.177
|
In one of the books, it suggested the confederation to have been electronics then the combine. I want to say it was a novel.
There are ways of getting some good things into the game, but not causing all the rest to go out of whack. Something simple like a star league cache of experimental weapons that survived the facilities nuking. Maybe 30 weapons survived, and no way to fix them. All research on them were destroyed, so unless you pull them apart to research them, there is no way to do anything more then use them. And then add some to hit penalties for a while until you learn some quirks about them. Example: a more powerful laser, but takes a second after pulling the trigger to actually fire the weapon. or the barrel is off center.
Same thing could be done with ammunition. Maybe only 40 tons survived. They do more damage and have a better range, but current targeting comps can't deal with them properly.
In both cases, they might involve something like metal that has been in the gravity field of a black hole as were some how dislodged from it. Might have been in orbit, then had a companion star explode. Or even a new material from the star itself. Crystalized metal or some garbage.
On that thought, it might be current research that someone found out about and destroyed it, since they couldn't get it themselves.
Side effects could be: Cannon barrels need to be replaced after so many rounds used. Jams. Heat spikes. Having to shut down energy weapons do to glitches, such as over powering chambers or uncontrolled output. Having to replace focusing equipment. Targeting and tracking glitches. Malicious coding in weapon to avoid enemy from using it if stolen.
And this does not have to be weapons but other things like armor, structure, battle computers, engines, gyros, and anything else. Maybe a lighter set of ICEs made from the better materials. The process to do it went up with the facility, but there are a few samples done.
One more idea would be a deposit of the material was found on the planet, and its gone now. Finding another source would be an adventure and also limit how much is out there. You find more or spend a lifetime looking to find nothing. Spots might have enough for 1 or 2 more, or maybe 30. Up to you.
|
ghostrider
12/01/15 02:24 PM
98.150.102.177
|
Had a real interesting thought. A dark matter engine. Might be used in powering a warships or station, or even fusion engines for vehicles. It may be the key for anti matter drives, but who knows.
|
Akirapryde2006
12/01/15 06:28 PM
71.100.132.249
|
One thing that struck me as odd was the fact that direct fire weapons of the Capital and Sub-Capital Classes were not able to fire in a surface to surface mode.
So somehow, a large Sub-Capital Cannon can shot at a fighter twisting and turning in the air but not at a vessel on the water. This rule simply doesn't make any sense to me. This is like saying that the German 88 can't fire on tanks cause it was originally designed as a anti-fighter weapon. Or that Large naval rifles like the 16" can't fire on land targets but it can only fire on sea targets.
Anyone care to chime in on this?
Akirapryde
Edited by Akirapryde2006 (12/01/15 06:29 PM)
|
Karagin
12/01/15 08:01 PM
72.176.187.91
|
I hate to say this but FASA set the bar for not taking into account real world uses of things in BT, what is stopping someone from using (space) naval weapons on the ground? Nothing, but for some reason the designers felt that this wouldn't happen so they never covered it. Then realized they wanted the SDS stuff so we have gray areas.
Come up with some rules or ways to make it work, we can talk about that.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
12/01/15 08:04 PM
72.176.187.91
|
The old House Laio Sourcebook had the Raven mech carrying a 7.5 ton ECM suite, YET we all know that rules for the use of EW are not well done in BT, yet someone tried back in the days of 3025 tech to give it to us. Then fumbled the ball, seeing how ECM only was talked about in BATTLEFORCE till TRO2750 came out.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
12/01/15 09:48 PM
98.150.102.177
|
I think their is references to ecm type things in the game before that. Reflective paint such as used on the crusader on page 48 of the original mechwarrior role playing book is one that I could find again. Another example if the sensor baffling materials used in bunkers and pillboxes in the scenario packs, which would only allow a unit to detect it if within los or once it fired. Explain that one.
And honestly, with the tech back in the 80's when the game was created, they had ecm in militaries across the world. Now they have radar baffling materials and designs.
Akira, I have suggested a few times about putting a naval gun in a canyon and having it just point out of the area it is protecting. A canyon narrow enough were only phasing would allow you to avoid being splattered by the shot. Though I do agree that it is garbage that certain weapons can only be fired at certain targets. That would mean all anti air weapons could not fire on anything else.
And what is the difference between a robotic drop ship, and several dozen armored missiles? Cost.
And I agree. If you can shoot anything on the ground, that means you can shoot EVERYTHING on the ground. Might take a long time and waste alot of firepower, but it can be done. Cruise missiles aren't in the game, but they can hit a pitchers mound from over 3000 miles away.
And I still have not seen even optional rules for detecting units making sensor operations skills and even normal ecm worthless for sneaking up on things. How do you deal with a raven trying to get in for a tag shot? Why bother with a ostscout, when you can't detect anything that something else couldn't detect? Completely worthless, especially when they removed the weapons system from it.
|
Akirapryde2006
12/01/15 10:10 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
I hate to say this but FASA set the bar for not taking into account real world uses of things in BT, what is stopping someone from using (space) naval weapons on the ground? Nothing, but for some reason the designers felt that this wouldn't happen so they never covered it. Then realized they wanted the SDS stuff so we have gray areas.
Come up with some rules or ways to make it work, we can talk about that.
If you think about it, its not that complicated to make them work. In fact, the rules for them already exist.
Capital and Sub-Capital Missiles don't need any special rules for they can already fire at any target from Fighter (or Mech) sized target to a warship size target. These weapons could fire both direct fire or in-direct fire methods (much like the Arrow IV system, yes treat this like a smart artillery weapon)
Capital and Sub-Cap Energy base weapons would follow their current rules in term of size of targets. Capital Energy weapons would only be able to fire at any dropship size target (200 tons up and above, as per the classifications of what a dropships is). Sub-Cap Energy Weapons would follow their current rules, being able to fire at any fighter (or mech) sized target. Both weapon system would be direct fire only. Now the speed and actions of the target could be used to argue that direct fire weapons like these would not be able to or make it harder for direct fire weapons like this to target the smaller faster units like a 100 ton or less sized vessels.
Capital and Sub-Cap Ballistic Weapons where these weapons would really shine. Like their Missile cousins, the ballistic weapons would be able to fire in direct fire mode and in in-direct fire mode.
Picture a naval battleship of WWII with massive 16" naval rifles. It could be able to engage other sea going ships of any size. Then after that battle turn its massive guns towards the shore and drop rounds on ground targets. If you dig in to accounts of naval engagements during WWII.
Most notably, the battle between the Bismarck and the Hood during the Battle of the Denmark Strait. Naval warships don't fire on where a target is at that moment but where they are going to be when the shell hits the water. During this historical engagement, the shells were not fired directly at the target, but in an arc. While this is still considered direct fire in terms of naval combat, its not true direct fire like firing a combat rifle using LOS.
During operation Overlord, the Battleship Texas, was tasked with conducting support roles for our troops hitting the beach. The Texas used her guns in direct fire mode hitting pile boxes and machine gun nests along the cliff faces. She also used her 15" guns to hammer Nazi positions far behind lines. In this case, I would say that Capital and Sub-Cap Cannons should be able to fire directly at any target (based on their nature and how they target) AND in In-Direct Fire Modes (like Artillery)
Damage could easily be calculated like this. Long Tom's do a total of 80 points of damage. 20/10. Where a NAC/40 does 400, or in terms of Artillery 136/44
"Come up with some rules or ways to make it work, we can talk about that."
Okay, I put forward my best idea. The balls in your court.
Quote:
Karagin writes:
The old House Laio Sourcebook had the Raven mech carrying a 7.5 ton ECM suite, YET we all know that rules for the use of EW are not well done in BT, yet someone tried back in the days of 3025 tech to give it to us. Then fumbled the ball, seeing how ECM only was talked about in BATTLEFORCE till TRO2750 came out.
You know what, you are right. I completely forgot about the Raven. I don't know why I forgot about it, we had a player that loved that stupid mech. Used it all the time and was really good with it as a scout.
I was speaking in terms of the NAIS and Team Bonzi (or dare I mention the name, lol)
Akirapryde
|
Akirapryde2006
12/01/15 10:40 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Corrections:
The USS Texas had 10 × 14 inch/45 caliber (356 mm) Naval Rifles
Sorry about the mistake
Akirapryde
|
Karagin
12/02/15 06:33 AM
72.176.187.91
|
I agree that they would work, just need a rule set and go from there.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Akirapryde2006
12/02/15 10:32 AM
71.100.132.249
|
I think the existing rules would work fine for the weapons.
Here lets look at the NAC/40
There are already rules that govern Direct fire and In-Direct fire. So nothing needs to be changed there.
If the ship can see the target it can fire in direct fire mode. If the ship can get spotters on the target, than it can fire in In-direct Fire Mode.
Based off of the Long Tom's damage. The primary damage is right around 34% with the remaining being divided between the six hexs around the center.
Take the the NAC/40 and calculate its damage like this. In direct fire mode, it does 400 points of damage to its target. In in-direct mode it will do 136/44 (using the same formula as above). We would even recalculate the damage to begin in the center, then expand to the next set of hexs around it. And then move outward once more to spread its damage out to two hexs away (though I don't think that this would work very well, even the largest of Rail Guns in WWI and WWII didn't have a blast radius of 150 meters across)
No new rules needed.
So lets build it from here. What do you think?
Akirapryde
|
Cray
12/02/15 08:44 PM
72.189.109.30
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I thought x-pulse lasers were x-ray driven, but I guess not.
More like "extended pulse lasers" or "extreme pulse lasers." They're the Inner Sphere's half-assed attempts to catch up with Clan pulses.
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
12/02/15 09:42 PM
98.150.102.177
|
How do you deal damage with that? In groups of 5?
How large is the shell? If coming from orbit, the head of the mech is more likely to be hit them the legs from the initial shot. And the explosion?
I love the direction this conversation is going, as it does solve the issue of why bother with ground forces if you can prevent the enemy from even landing.
This also goes to the extent of why invade when you can blow up a military base from orbit. But that kills the idea of using mechs to fight it out.
Logic seems to kill the whole concept of using 12 to 18 meter tall units to take objectives. If nothing else, you move to cover ops to take a factory or destroy the orbital defenses. So battle armor is more likely to be used then mechs at this point.
One question did come to mind.
How large is a fusion bombs explosion?
A simple missile/bomb that is a fusion engine sent in to explode at the target, might be the best way to destroy enemy strongholds without using nukes.
Some suggested the fusion explosion did not put out the radiation of a nuke, so it would be a clean bomb to use.
|
Akirapryde2006
12/02/15 10:03 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
How do you deal damage with that? In groups of 5?
How large is the shell? If coming from orbit, the head of the mech is more likely to be hit them the legs from the initial shot. And the explosion?
I love the direction this conversation is going, as it does solve the issue of why bother with ground forces if you can prevent the enemy from even landing.
This also goes to the extent of why invade when you can blow up a military base from orbit. But that kills the idea of using mechs to fight it out.
Logic seems to kill the whole concept of using 12 to 18 meter tall units to take objectives. If nothing else, you move to cover ops to take a factory or destroy the orbital defenses. So battle armor is more likely to be used then mechs at this point.
Please keep in mind, that Karagin and I are talking about Naval (sea fairing) weapons. In this case we are talking about taking Naval (capital or sub-capital) weapons and placing them on sea going ships. Using these weapons to fire on all targets. Or using these weapons within a fixed land base position.
The rules for Orbital bombardment have been well established and are not being questioned.
We are questioning if any kind of rules can be created to make these weapons work on a boarder scale.
Akirapryde
|
ghostrider
12/03/15 01:41 AM
98.150.102.177
|
I was thinking of things like artillery use of those weapons, as well as mounted in things like mountain sides or towers. But the original thought was orbital shoots on sea vessels.
And with your sea naval vessels, it would stand to be used on coasts to protect against those very sea vessels as well.
And basically pre plotted fire lanes, like a road going thru a canyon, straight out from the gun. Damage for vessels is straight forward, but how would you handle something else? I assume fighters take it all to the side it hits on, like a vehicle would, though turrets might throw in a wrench. Even a sea vessel might have that issue.
Might be coming in from an odd angle with my thoughts.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
1 registered and 96 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: 6772
|
|
|
|
|
|
|