Light Arrow Launcher, Arrow X? and other alternative artillery systems

Pages: 1
Shadrak
08/30/16 12:46 AM
98.101.165.111

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So, with the dearth of artillery systems in the game, wouldn't it make sense to have some lighter alternatives?

Something between a BA Tube Artillery Piece and Marksman/Arrow? 15 tons for the lightest artillery piece? Or an ELRM?\

Is there a canon system for lighter artillery?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrow X...utilizing munitions similar to Light A2A munitions:

Weight: 8 tons
Critical: 8
Heat: 7
Damage: 10/5
Range: 3 mapsheets
Ammo/Ton: 12
Cost (Unloaded): 250,000
Ammo Cost: 6,500
BV: 120

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrow IV (external launch systems):
Single-shot Arrow Launcher:
Weight: 1 ton for launcher, 1 ton for Arrow IV pod

Arrow X (external launch systems):
Single-shot Arrow X Launcher:
Weight: .5 ton for launcher, .5 ton for Arrow X pod

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jager Artillery Piece
Weight: 4 tons
Critical: 4
Heat: 2
Damage: 6/3
Range: 10 mapsheets
Ammo/Ton: 45
Cost (Unloaded): 78,000
Ammo Cost: 3,500
BV: 12

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranger Artillery Piece
Weight: 9 tons
Critical: 9
Heat: 4
Damage: 10/5
Ammo/Ton: 30
Cost (Unloaded): 101,000
Ammo Cost: 4,000
BV: 21
ghostrider
08/30/16 01:08 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Isn't mortars supposed to be light artillery?
Though I can agree something lighter then a thumper with some decent damage would be a good idea. Less range with the damage.
But where would auto cannons stop and artillery start?

And gauss rifles would start coming into play as well.
Maybe get something based on that technology. Alter the power in the coils for changing range, though might have to remove explosive tips to avoid detonation on firing it.

One missing piece on the ranger unit. How far does it shoot?

Thought came up after I posted this.
What about alternative ammo for the standard pieces? Say a shell that fits the long tom, but does less damage but goes farther? Or vis versa. Less range/more damage?


Edited by ghostrider (08/30/16 01:10 AM)
Shadrak
08/31/16 01:38 AM
98.101.165.111

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Artillery and direct fire weapons are easily differentiated by firing mechanism and area effect...mortars are about the most ineffective pieces of junk per rules that the designers could have established...they don't make sense at all. They are high-arc, inefficient LRMs with reduced range and accuracy.



LRMs are closer to artillery per the rules than autocannon.

With regard to the ranger's range, between 10 and 15 mapsheets



Gauss Artillery is workable, but more advanced than what I am looking for.
There are lots of alternative ammos for artillery, and I think there might even be Copperhead-type ammo.


I am actually hoping someone can put me in touch with the developers...I would like to see if they can publish a product that would cannonize light artillery pieces and incorporate more primitive products for the Age of War time period.
CrayModerator
08/31/16 05:19 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Shadrak writes:

I am actually hoping someone can put me in touch with the developers...I would like to see if they can publish a product that would cannonize light artillery pieces and incorporate more primitive products for the Age of War time period.



You can ask them directly on the "Ask the Developers" forum at the official BT site:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?board=34.0

However, I can partly answer that: BattleTech has recently released "Interstellar Operations," which provides tech for all eras, like identifying introduction dates of weaponry and supporting primitive gear. Tech Manual and Tactical Operations also provide introduction dates for gear such as artillery.

A lot of "modern" BT artillery was available in the Age of War.

There's also the option to apply "prototype" or "primitive" modifiers that make them bigger, bulkier, and likely to fail.
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.
Shadrak
08/31/16 06:22 PM
98.101.165.111

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Cray writes:

Quote:
Shadrak writes:

I am actually hoping someone can put me in touch with the developers...I would like to see if they can publish a product that would cannonize light artillery pieces and incorporate more primitive products for the Age of War time period.



You can ask them directly on the "Ask the Developers" forum at the official BT site:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?board=34.0

However, I can partly answer that: BattleTech has recently released "Interstellar Operations," which provides tech for all eras, like identifying introduction dates of weaponry and supporting primitive gear. Tech Manual and Tactical Operations also provide introduction dates for gear such as artillery.

A lot of "modern" BT artillery was available in the Age of War.

There's also the option to apply "prototype" or "primitive" modifiers that make them bigger, bulkier, and likely to fail.




Yeah...I bought Interstellar Ops three or four weeks ago and I was hoping for more primitive weapons...not to be found!

They have the Sniper Artillery as pre-dating spaceflight...got it...but if a heavy rifle has damage reduction, there should be primitive sniper rounds that do less damage up to year 2500...

Also, the other artillery pieces mostly mimic Arrow IV, Capital Missiles, and Cruise Missiles...all of which go bigger when you need to go smaller.
ghostrider
08/31/16 11:20 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Maybe go the route of a 'light' Thumper. Lighter unit with alot less range. Different ammo as well, to compensate for the less propellant needed to fire it.
Might even allow it direct fire with penalties.
Keep the 5/2 damage, though even going with a 2/1 or 3/1 might work as well. Not great artillery damage, but the area of effect is still there.

And with the named variants, wouldn't an obsolete section be something to look into?
Weapons that were stopped as newer ones made making them almost useless, but still be used as the more 'advanced' weapons became harder to make due to things like upgrades in metallurgy or targeting. An iron barreled cannon would fit this category.
I would even suggest getting as nuts as using catapults (rock throwing, not mechs) but that is a little too obsolete, and a little more then what is needed.
Though explosive munitions like a cannon ball might make it easier to think about using.

Now one variant of the arrow IV might be the thunderbolt missile system with better range. Or even look into making the I, II, and III variants. Lighter, with a few oddities making the IV system the best choice. Might be range, costs, ammunition loads, or even targeting might be why they went with the IV. No tag ability comes to mind here.
Shadrak
09/01/16 12:55 AM
98.101.165.111

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Except that, at a reduced weight, those options would not be obsolete especially considering the relative damage of artillery.

A Thumper is 15 tons...

This means that the lightest you can really make a standard combat vehicle that can carry a Thumper is a 30-ton vehicle...and even this isn't really smart...

Previously, a Thumper did 10/5 damage. Now it does 15/5 damage...why not put something in between that will allow you to create a 20 or 30 ton SPA?

Also, using a Thumper Field Artillery Piece is dumb, but a BA Tube is too-light.
ghostrider
09/01/16 11:54 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Slightly increase in weight is acceptable for something you can guide.
It is also possible the materials used to make it more durable is the cause. Copper swords verses iron verses steel.
The game states normal armor in battletech has the monofilament of diamonds in it. Does that mean there is a version that didn't have that, that might give more points but less effective resisting damage? Maybe even to the point of being around half the damage absorbing abilities.

I agree there is room for more artillery pieces in the game.
But as it was pointed out, the game is more about mechs fighting it out in close (ideally under 20 hexes), not sitting boards away pounding each other with artillery.
Yes, in the real world that is preferable then losing million dollar units.
And on the flip side, increases the ability of fortifications to flatten incoming armies before they get into range.

As I said. There is still room to put more in.
Also suggested some with shorter range to allow for a lighter unit. They came out with a snub nosed ppc. Why not a shortened barrel artillery for 1-2 map ranges?
Or something like a multi barreled system or an ultra version of the artillery piece?
I would think the designers answer would be too dangerous to mobile units attacking the one thing that could handle them. Fortifications.

Now this might be an answer to mobile artillery. Make a unit that mechs can pull behind them, to be set up and fired.
Or distort the carrying rules for mechs and create a disposable backpack like piece. Doesn't solve the lack of variety, but does allow you some support before the main fight.
Retry
09/03/16 03:18 PM
129.237.108.67

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
BT is currently missing real Mortars (not the tiny sub-1km ranged stuff) and Multiple-Launch Rocket Launchers.

The former would be far lighter and cheaper, but shorter ranged (probably 2-5 hexsheets) and not as powerful (probably not exceeding the firepower of a Thumper). They're the type of things that you'd slap onto spare 20 ton Heavy APCs to transport some integral artillery-style fire-support to your light motorized or airborne divisions.

The latter could vary wildly from lightweight, low-yield weapons that can be mounted on trucks (think Katyusha) to seriously heavy and devastating versions whose weight would be more around a Long Tom (think Smerch, or Buratino). These weapons should work differently than Mortars and Artillery Pieces in that they fire multiple explosives at a target hex instead of 1, but they'd be extremely inaccurate and more useful to saturate a field than to actually concentrate on any one opponent or hex. They could have some different ammunition, such as HE (normal artillery), AP bomblet submunitions (extra damage to mechs and tanks, no damage to infantry), and, of course, Infernos.

Arrow IV, despite being a missile, behaves more like tube artillery than MLRS. It's probably more along the lines of an ATACMS that can also fire at aircraft somehow.

In fact, having both the direct-fire mechanism AND anti-aircraft flak capability for free on all current SP artillery pieces should go. Not all artillery pieces had the capacity to direct-fire on extremely close hostiles, and most certainly didn't have the capacity to switch from smashing cities to flacking fighters at the turn on a dime. If the user wants these capacities, they should have to pay for it with tonnage, crit slots, BV, or C-Bills. Such one-size-fits-all function on *all* of the existing pieces severely limits possibilities for the diversification of artillery pieces and the units that carry them. For instance, why bother designing a surface-to-air missile carrier when a Chaparral with an Arrow IV can do the same job while still retaining the capacity to engage ground targets?

Having something other than the current Thumper-Sniper-LT dynamic would make Artillery more interesting and more likely to be used, or at least considered. With more types of artillery weapons would come more types of artillery vehicles that aren't virtually clones of one another, and more roles would be available to fill, for instance a MLRS Corvette or Monitor-type for coastal and river fire-support, or a Catapult with twin MLRS replacing the LRM packs, would be entirely feasible.


Edited by Retry (09/03/16 03:25 PM)
ghostrider
09/03/16 04:08 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I could see the heavier artillery not being able to fire at aircraft as quick movement of the barrels accurately seems out of place. With myomers in effect, this might not be an issue.

Adding some ideas to this, maybe having mortars do damage to everything in the hex but none in surrounding ones might be an alternative.
Another suggestion is anti infantry shots for any on infantry carriers or lighter units. They could have ammo that would allow them to damage armor, but only the unit hit, not anything else in the hex or beyond.
Ones that fire just smoke rounds would be smaller and easier to target something as they would be hex targeted, not the unit itself.
And that brings up the ideas again for some things like covering the mech hit with something that shows up better on radar/mad sensors, maybe allowing some bonus to hit. Might even counter the 'cloaks' that use stealth armor combinations with ecm. Phosphorus for any heat seeking items to neon paint for visual, to metallic shrapnel for the mad units to help detect the enemy units. This is spot coverage, so it doesn't have to be a large 'shell'.

Now the issue with missiles is how the game deals with a weapons lock on them. You obtain a lock with normal launchers but they don't all hit most of the time. That seems out of place. Now streaks hit will all. I would figure integrating the streak technology into normal launchers would be a priority. And the idea that the missiles are no larger for the streaks then the normal ones still bugs me a little.

The bomblets sound more like mines, which should be another option for mortars. Might be a single point or 2, but may cause piloting roll as the unit moving over one would throw off the path of the unit. Granted tanks would have a great advantage avoiding loss of control for ground units. Hovers may or may not set them off. Up to the people making this up.
Shadrak
09/03/16 06:22 PM
104.230.151.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Slightly increase in weight is acceptable for something you can guide.
It is also possible the materials used to make it more durable is the cause. Copper swords verses iron verses steel.
The game states normal armor in battletech has the monofilament of diamonds in it. Does that mean there is a version that didn't have that, that might give more points but less effective resisting damage? Maybe even to the point of being around half the damage absorbing abilities.

I agree there is room for more artillery pieces in the game.
But as it was pointed out, the game is more about mechs fighting it out in close (ideally under 20 hexes), not sitting boards away pounding each other with artillery.
Yes, in the real world that is preferable then losing million dollar units.
And on the flip side, increases the ability of fortifications to flatten incoming armies before they get into range.

As I said. There is still room to put more in.
Also suggested some with shorter range to allow for a lighter unit. They came out with a snub nosed ppc. Why not a shortened barrel artillery for 1-2 map ranges?
Or something like a multi barreled system or an ultra version of the artillery piece?
I would think the designers answer would be too dangerous to mobile units attacking the one thing that could handle them. Fortifications.

Now this might be an answer to mobile artillery. Make a unit that mechs can pull behind them, to be set up and fired.
Or distort the carrying rules for mechs and create a disposable backpack like piece. Doesn't solve the lack of variety, but does allow you some support before the main fight.



Got a few good options in there...we should see if the devs would accept some of them
Requiemking
09/07/16 05:55 PM
70.77.94.142

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Retry writes:

In fact, having both the direct-fire mechanism AND anti-aircraft flak capability for free on all current SP artillery pieces should go. Not all artillery pieces had the capacity to direct-fire on extremely close hostiles, and most certainly didn't have the capacity to switch from smashing cities to flacking fighters at the turn on a dime. If the user wants these capacities, they should have to pay for it with tonnage, crit slots, BV, or C-Bills. Such one-size-fits-all function on *all* of the existing pieces severely limits possibilities for the diversification of artillery pieces and the units that carry them. For instance, why bother designing a surface-to-air missile carrier when a Chaparral with an Arrow IV can do the same job while still retaining the capacity to engage ground targets?




Arrow IV was always a weird system. However, as far as I'm aware, in order to direct-fire with an artillery piece (I'm assuming you mean to use it like an enormous AC20 or a Gauss rifle) You need a certain T&T system, the O/P GRD059, which only the Marksman Artillery Tank mounts.
Shadrak
09/13/16 07:44 AM
98.101.165.111

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
My thought is that pre-2500 all artillery does damage to armor <BAR8 in full 5 point increments.

With the advent of BAR8+ armor, damage by primitive forms of ammunition was only applied two points at a time on BAR 8+ armor until new, advanced munitions were developed in the 2500's. These munitions and sub-munitions were effective in Thumper and larger artillery pieces, but the submunitions proved to be less effective in smaller systems.

By the close of the Age of War and the advent of the Star League, however, newer, smaller, and more advanced small caliber artillery munitions were available to combatants but the limited effectiveness of these systems against the heavy battlemech and vehicle forces fielded by Star League member states meant they were not seen very often on the battlefields of the day. They were, however, common among militia units and in the periphery and did see action against bandits and pirates.

By 2700, Star League directives and the general peace established by the Star League meant that member states avoided using these systems in their frontline forces. Star League caps on munitions and weapons tonnage were better circumvented by larger artillery delivery systems.

In the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Star League, these systems were avoided in favor of the Arrow IV and Long Tom Systems that were readily available. By the time the Arrow IV technology was lost and the Long Tom became a rarity on the battlefields of the 2800's, most Successor States had lost the technologies that made these smaller caliber artillery pieces effective against Battlemech armor. They would continue to be used throughout the Succession Wars by militia forces and were effective against un-armored targets, but it wouldn't be until the 3030's that munitions technologies would return to the levels required to make these effective against Battlemechs and Combat Vehicles. Before they could enter mainstream production, the Clan War redirected manufacturing efforts towards the newer weapon systems of the day.

During the Word of Blake Jihad and its aftermath, however, the relative ease at which the artillery systems could be produced ensured that local militia forces would once again look to make these weapon systems more effective.

New and Re-Newed Systems that emerged included the:
Jager Ultra-Light Artillery Piece (5/0 damage AP; 4 tons)

Ranger Light Artillery Piece (10/0 damage AP; 8 tons)

Arrow X Launcher (8 tons)

Arrow X One-Shot Launcher (.5 tons including round-not mountable on a Battlemech and treat as external weapons linkage-Max Launchers is 1/10 tons Combat Vehicle, 1/20 tons Support Vehicle)

Arrow IV One-Shot Launcher (1.5 tons including round-not mountable on a Battlemech and treat as external weapon linkage-Max Launchers is 1/25 tons Combat Vehicle, 1/50 tons Support Vehicle)

Gauss Mortar System: Similar to a Mech Mortar but with greater range, the Gauss mortar systems at the one and two tube level have internal power amplifiers that allow them to be used on systems that mount ICE and Fuel Cell powersources. These systems weigh the same as their equivilent mech mortar systems but cost five times as much and can launch a mortar round twice as far. Gauss Mortars use special munitions that have the same effect as normal mech mortars, but they are not interchangable. Range for the Gauss Mortars are (Min/Short/Med/Long) 12/12/32/48. Gauss Mortars cannot be used as a direct fire weapon but can be used as a direct-lay weapon.

A prototype 4-shot Gauss Mortar has emerged more recently but it requires a nuclear powersource or an external power amplifier as well as heat sinks in zero-net-heat systems making it less appealing as a system. It also suffers from the possibility of explosions of capacitors similar to a light Gauss rifle.
ghostrider
09/13/16 11:37 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I like the idea. To damage the 30 meter wide hex is still a decent punch for a round.
Now one major thing missing from the descriptions that I think is needed for most of them. What is the ranges on them? Only the gauss mortar has any of that.
Some minor things like heat build up, as someone is bound to put them in mechs would be nice.

Nice touch putting the limits on the arrow systems. But there is one thing I would like to know. Can they be mounted in towers or stationary artillery bunkers? I guess maybe even defense buildings like guarding a pass would be a question as well.

The arrow x. How much damage does it do?

Another form of munitions might be heavy damage to the target hex, and that's it. Like a long tom shell that only goes 5 maps or some thing like that.
Shadrak
09/13/16 07:06 PM
98.101.165.111

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The suggested ranges are posted above...

10 and 10-15 mapsheets on the Ranger and Jaeger...

Arrow X would be the Light Arrow munitions that are carried by Aerospace, Conventional, and Fixed Wing Support Fighters on external hardpoints...suggested range for ground based systems would be 3 mapsheets...

Again, I am not throwing these out as a design per se, just as a suggestion for a CANON design...and how it could be worked into the game narrative without requiring a RETCON.
ghostrider
09/13/16 11:09 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Top of the thread. Sorry. Didn't realize they were part of that. Had thought they would be with the upgraded information.
Not the first time for me doing that.

Not sure if going from iron/steel barrels to say, titanium, or kevlar would lighten a barrel enough and still be able to use it, but there has to be some alloys to do so. They came out with endo steel and then composite endosteel, why not something for artillery barrels? Though I can see someone suggesting that could be the same for autocannons as well.
Pages: 1
Extra information
0 registered and 25 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 disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 7659


Contact Admins Sarna.net