Firepower

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
ATN082268
06/09/13 06:54 PM
69.129.18.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
AeroTech 2 Vessel Technical Readout
* CUSTOM WEAPONS

Class/Model/Name: Firepower
Tech: Clan / 3075
Vessel Type: WarShip
Rules: Level 3, Custom design
Rules Set: AeroTech2

Mass: 2,500,000 tons
K-F Drive System: (Unknown)
Length: 3,000 meters
Sail Diameter: 2,000 meters
Power Plant: Standard
Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Armor Type: Lamellor Ferro-carbide

Armament:
168 Heavy NPPC
520 Large Pulse Laser
96 LAMS*

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/Model/Name: Firepower
Mass: 2,500,000 tons

Equipment: Mass
Power Plant, Drive & Control: 300,000.00
Thrust: Safe Thrust: 2
Maximum Thrust: 3
Kearny-Fuchida Hyperdrive: Compact (Integrity = 47) 1,131,250.00
Jump Sail (Detachable): (Integrity = 9) 155.00
Structural Integrity: 90 225,000.00
Total Heat Sinks: 24,620 Double 23,801.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 14,739.00
Bridge, Controls, Radar, Computer & Attitude Thrusters: 6,250.00
Fire Control Computers: 239,106.00
Food & Water: (365 days supply) 3,307.00
Hyperpulse Generator: 50.00
Armor Type: Lamellor Ferro-carbide (5,000 total armor pts) 4,496.00

Capital Scale Armor Pts
Location: L / R
Fore: 825
Fore-Left/Right: 900/900
Aft-Left/Right: 800/800
Aft: 775

Cargo:
Bay 1: Small Craft (5) with 5 doors 1,000.00

DropShip Capacity: 2 Docking Hardpoints 2,000.00
Grav Decks #1 - 5: (125-meter diameter) 500.00
Life Boats: 155 (7 tons each) 1,085.00
Escape Pods: 155 (7 tons each) 1,085.00

Crew and Passengers:
270 Officers (261 minimum) 2,700.00
1,020 Crew (275 minimum) 7,140.00
285 Gunners (271 minimum) 1,995.00
10 1st Class Passengers 100.00
200 Marine Battle Armor Troopers/Elementals 1,400.00
1 Star Admiral's Quarters 75.00
1 Star Commodore's Quarters 50.00
25 Bay Personnel .00

Weapons and Equipment Loc SRV MRV LRV ERV Heat Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Heavy NPPC Nose 60 60 60 60 900 12,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC Nose 60 60 60 60 900 12,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC Nose 60 60 60 60 900 12,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC Nose 60 60 60 60 900 12,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC Nose 60 60 60 60 900 12,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC Nose 60 60 60 60 900 12,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC Nose 60 60 60 60 900 12,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC Nose 60 60 60 60 900 12,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC Nose 60 60 60 60 900 12,000.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Nose 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Nose 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Nose 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Nose 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Nose 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Nose 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Nose 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Nose 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Nose 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Nose 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Nose 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
12 LAMS* Nose -- -- -- -- 60 12.00
4 Heavy NPPC FL/R 60 60 60 60 1800 24,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC FL/R 60 60 60 60 1800 24,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC FL/R 60 60 60 60 1800 24,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC FL/R 60 60 60 60 1800 24,000.00
10 Large Pulse Laser FL/R 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 200 120.00
10 Large Pulse Laser FL/R 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 200 120.00
10 Large Pulse Laser FL/R 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 200 120.00
10 Large Pulse Laser FL/R 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 200 120.00
10 Large Pulse Laser FL/R 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 200 120.00
12 LAMS* FL/R -- -- -- -- 120 24.00
4 Heavy NPPC L/RBS 60 60 60 60 1800 24,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC L/RBS 60 60 60 60 1800 24,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC L/RBS 60 60 60 60 1800 24,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC L/RBS 60 60 60 60 1800 24,000.00
10 Large Pulse Laser L/RBS 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 200 120.00
10 Large Pulse Laser L/RBS 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 200 120.00
10 Large Pulse Laser L/RBS 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 200 120.00
10 Large Pulse Laser L/RBS 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 200 120.00
10 Large Pulse Laser L/RBS 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 200 120.00
12 LAMS* L/RBS -- -- -- -- 120 24.00
4 Heavy NPPC AL/R 60 60 60 60 1800 24,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC AL/R 60 60 60 60 1800 24,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC AL/R 60 60 60 60 1800 24,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC AL/R 60 60 60 60 1800 24,000.00
10 Large Pulse Laser AL/R 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 200 120.00
10 Large Pulse Laser AL/R 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 200 120.00
10 Large Pulse Laser AL/R 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 200 120.00
10 Large Pulse Laser AL/R 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 200 120.00
10 Large Pulse Laser AL/R 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 200 120.00
12 LAMS* AL/R -- -- -- -- 120 24.00
4 Heavy NPPC Aft 60 60 60 60 900 12,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC Aft 60 60 60 60 900 12,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC Aft 60 60 60 60 900 12,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC Aft 60 60 60 60 900 12,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC Aft 60 60 60 60 900 12,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC Aft 60 60 60 60 900 12,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC Aft 60 60 60 60 900 12,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC Aft 60 60 60 60 900 12,000.00
4 Heavy NPPC Aft 60 60 60 60 900 12,000.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Aft 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Aft 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Aft 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Aft 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Aft 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Aft 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Aft 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Aft 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Aft 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Aft 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
10 Large Pulse Laser Aft 10(100)10(100)10(100) -- 100 60.00
12 LAMS* Aft -- -- -- -- 60 12.00
1 Lot Spare Parts (1.00%) 25,000.00
1 Large Naval Comm-scanner 500.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: Heat: 43,480 2,500,000.00
Tons Left: .00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 10,867,737,600 C-Bills
Battle Value: 376,308
Cost per BV: 28,879.9
Weapon Value: 361,508 (Ratio = .96)
Damage Factors: SRV = 28,388; MRV = 27,867; LRV = 20,704; ERV = 7,292
Maintenance: Maintenance Point Value (MPV) = 1,803,661
(243,496 Structure, 503,725 Life Support, 1,056,440 Weapons)
Support Points (SP) = 1,818,090 (101% of MPV)
BattleForce2: Not applicable
Karagin
06/09/13 10:19 PM
72.178.85.122

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Why does this design need 96 Laser AMS on it? Really what is it going to face that it will warrant needing 96 LAMS?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
06/09/13 11:44 PM
184.88.162.114

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
AMS are a lightweight means of improving a WarShip's protection. Once you hit the max armor allowed by structural integrity and thrust, AMS allows you to degrade conventional missile threats and capital missile attacks.

Frankly, I like to put scores of AMSs on a WarShip to guarantee it can block capital missile strikes and provide area point defense for allied units. Very new BSG-ish.
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
06/10/13 12:08 AM
72.178.85.122

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Great idea...meanwhile you run the price up as well as the heat. Knowing a ship has this ability would it not be smart for the other side to use it against them, by standing at range and blasting the damn thing?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ATN082268
06/10/13 12:13 PM
69.129.18.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Great idea...meanwhile you run the price up as well as the heat. Knowing a ship has this ability would it not be smart for the other side to use it against them, by standing at range and blasting the damn thing?




I'm not sure that would work that well most of the time. While I believe that AMS gives you the capability to shoot at multiple missile volleys, I don't think you are required to do so. But if I am mistaken, it still may take a while to overwhelm a target's AMS defenses with numerous missile volleys. In the case of the Firepower design, it can fire all its weapons bays (including the AMS) once and still fire the AMS another 96 times before it reaches its maximum heat dissipation. And a unit can elect not fire weapon bays of a certain arc to get more potential heat dissipation for AMS.
Karagin
06/10/13 01:45 PM
72.178.85.122

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Again knowing that your ships have the ability to take out missiles would warrant a smart commander going at you with everything but missiles, thus turning your 96 LAMS into wasted space. Point I am driving at is the game isn't about beat everything all the time or even most of the time, its about having fun. Uber weapons or Uber designs take fun out the game. Wonder why we don't see AC25 or AC30 etc? One hit would pretty much gut a lot of the light mechs. Folks when ape poop over the Gauss and the range and damage since it was hit with a solid 15 points at ranges once common to only the AC10 and LRMs and PPCs. And even with the LRMs you need to roll high to get more then an average 12 points hit for the 15s and 20s rack.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
06/10/13 05:58 PM
184.88.162.114

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Great idea...meanwhile you run the price up as well as the heat.




AMSs are quite cheap compared to the rest of a WarShip's weapons and core systems, and their heat is nearly a non-issue compared to capital weapons. One Heavy NPPC would buy you a lot of AMSs and their heat sinks.

Quote:

Knowing a ship has this ability would it not be smart for the other side to use it against them, by standing at range and blasting the damn thing?




I'm not sure I understand. The only really stand-off weapon is capital missiles, which have the "bearings only" launch option and teleoperated versions, both able to fire from beyond extreme range - and both quite vulnerable to the dense AMS batteries of this ship.

In addition, this ship design of ATN's has an overwhelming amount of extreme (capital) range weapons, which match the range of any other capital weapon in the game.

Finally, movement rules in space make it hard to keep open the range, being very different from the ground movement rules that make ATN's super-tanks such easy kills. Even a "slow" ship like this one can simply spend turn after turn accelerating toward a foe. Higher acceleration ships (of which there are many) would be forced to keep their stern aimed at this "Firepower" ship if they want to keep the range open. But that's a race many ships are likely to lose, since they don't keep their heaviest firepower or lots of extreme-ranged weapons in their sterns. The "Firepower," meanwhile, has an extreme-ranged nose battery of HNPPCs that are ideal for such a stern chase.

It'd be easy for many WarShips to disengage from the Firepower and outrun it, but there's no "stand off and pound it to dust" option as there with many of ATN's tanks.

The icing on the cake is that this WarShip is actually pretty cheap, being less expensive than many modern WarShips like the Fox-class Corvette (though using StratOps cost calculations should raise its price to equal the Fox). If it dropped its two docking collars, it'd be even cheaper (again, StratOps would add about 5 billion based on its tonnage.)

The drawback is fluff: no existing faction would build it (and most lack the ability even if they had the will). Aside from the 2- to 3 Leviathans built by Clan Ghost Bear, no one post-2787 is building ships this big.
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
06/10/13 10:35 PM
72.178.85.122

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Okay keeping mind what you are saying would it not be a good tactical move to match the ship in making the same moves firing the nose arc weapons and then bring in the broadsides as needed since sooner or later the ships will cross paths and the point here is the LAMS won't offer much of anything to the defense of the ship and the second point is why would anyone waste time tossing missiles at the ship if they know it's has that many LAMS, they wouldn't and something else we are missing here, ships aren't going to go it alone Mano a Mano they will have screening ships as well as other capital class ships there to help them take on the enemy ships. Given that BT space combat reads like a copy of Napoleon naval warfare one would think that this would be a commonly know factor that it's not ship on ship its fleet on fleet.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
06/11/13 07:46 PM
184.88.162.114

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Okay keeping mind what you are saying would it not be a good tactical move to match the ship in making the same moves firing the nose arc weapons and then bring in the broadsides as needed since sooner or later the ships will cross paths and the point here is the LAMS won't offer much of anything to the defense of the ship and the second point is why would anyone waste time tossing missiles at the ship if they know it's has that many LAMS,




I got some mental whiplash there.

First you propose attacking and destroying this thing from outside its range, which can only be accomplished by capital missiles since the Firepower's weaponry matches the range of all other naval weapons available in the game. But then in this post you ask why anyone would waste time attacking it from long range with the only weapons that could successfully do so, per your earlier suggestion.

Well, alrighty then, we're both at the point of agreeing that staying out of range won't work for one reason or another.

Now addressing your new proposal of multiple closer-ranged opponents, I'd have to say, "Look at the stats on the beast." Start with the armor, and then look to the firepower.

1) Its armor is thick enough that it won't take damage threshold crits from any legal, tournament-grade weapons bay. It has more than 3 times the armor of a McKenna-class battleship so it will take a very long time to die even when surrounded by multiple ships. Frankly, the armor alone means it could take on 3 McKennas (or most other canonical battleships other than Leviathan II), even though its firepower isn't record-setting.

2) The firepower is not record setting. but it still gets a silver medal. Only the Leviathan II outguns it (significantly, IIRC). Its capital weapons somewhat outgun the Aegis and McKenna, but its non-capital pulse lasers alone outgun a majority of canon ships at their limited ranges - and they have serious accuracy under space combat rules thanks to the "range bands." Further, ATN took the time to make sure this thing had more than enough heat sinks, so it can fire every gun in every arc on every turn and face no heating problems. (Then there's the whole "turreting" option available to WarShips thanks to aerospace movement rules.)

Even if you get three ships or ten ships close to the Firepower, and they're going to hurt.

Sticking to canonical designs in canonical numbers, I'd consider using a WarShip squadron of 4 to 6 battleships to take down a single Firepower. Its sort of the same problem as trying to kill a Leviathan II.

Quote:

something else we are missing here, ships aren't going to go it alone Mano a Mano




No, I didn't miss it. In my last post I wanted to address the issue of long range engagements since you seemed to make a big point about that approach. I thought the stats of the Firepower were self-evident for general aerospace engagements once it was understood there was no "stand off and pound it to dust" option. But since you wanted multiple opponents addressed, I did so above.

Quote:

Given that BT space combat reads like a copy of Napoleon naval warfare




The rules don't read that way. Space movement rules destroy any notion of moving like sailing ships of the line. WarShip broadside firing arcs might share a name with sailing ships' of the line weapon configurations, but they aren't used in the same fashion because vector movement of BT WarShips is so very, very different than sailing ships.

Given the behavior of vector movement, bow and aft arcs (not just nose and stern arcs, but also front and aft sides) are much more important than broadsides. As I discussed in my last post, controlling range depends on keeping your stern pointed to the enemy (if you want to keep the range open) or your bow pointed toward the enemy (if you want to close). (Stern arcs are also important for sustained orbital bombardment.)

To bring a broadside into play against someone outside broadsides' narrow arcs, your ship has to stop thrusting and pivot in place to present the broadside. Broadsides on BT WarShips are like side-mounted weapons (not even sponson-mounted weapons) on BT tanks: limited arcs used in a few circumstances when your ship ends up surrounded by multiple opponents. They're mostly a supplement to the front and aft side arc weapons. You let the secondary target get the attention of the secondary weapons in the broadsides while your main arrays deal with the primary target.

"Turreting" is also quite useful for low-acceleration ships surrounded by multiple opponents, and emphasizes that BT space movement is not like atmospheric fighter movement, either.
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
06/11/13 10:20 PM
72.178.85.122

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The rules don't reflect which I didn't said they did, I said the battles in space, from the few fleet on fleet battles we have seen in the BT Universe READ like Sailing ship fleet engagements. What you describe is similar to the old Crossing the T or a counter to such a move and shows the limits of the warships via the rules.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
06/11/13 10:30 PM
72.178.85.122

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Now you did bring up the new BSG....if that is what we are going for the a good way to stop this thing is to fling nukes at it. Or we have an arms race, with missile tech changing in that the missiles have armor on them to the since it take multiple hits from the LAMS to stop them not a single hit, which would most likely to be countered by having various types of LAMS like there are with the current standard and naval lasers, thus turning things into a race to see who can out do who which in away defeats the point of things and leaves us at the bottom line of no Power base in the BT universe would build warship like this for several factors/reason.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
06/11/13 11:51 PM
184.88.162.114

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

What you describe is similar to the old Crossing the T




I'm not sure how you see a "crossing the T" maneuver in my prior posts, especially my most recent one.

"Crossing the T" was a maneuver that depended on catching a target in a position where it was unable to present most of its firepower. The classic example was a line of sailing warships presenting their broadsides to the under-gunned bow or stern of a target.

But in BT space combat any WarShip can pivot and spin as they like. A WarShip facing someone crossing one of its vulnerable firing arcs (which ain't necessarily the bow or stern) can quickly pivot to present its own best firing arc(s) to the attacker, be that broadside or bow. Hence my use of the term, "turreting" earlier.

In the case of a single opponent facing multiple threats, sure, an attacker might get into a relatively vulnerable arc, but the "Firepower" has no such thing. It is relatively equally armed and armored in all firing arcs. There's no "crossing the T" to be done.

Quote:

or a counter to such a move and shows the limits of the warships via the rules.




Where's the vulnerable spot on the Firepower, according to the rules and ATN's stats? Please, show me the numbers and compare them to the canonical WarShips that might be able to use them.
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.


Edited by Cray (06/11/13 11:59 PM)
Karagin
06/11/13 11:58 PM
72.178.85.122

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You brought up the point of the ship accelerating thus the rules do say the ships would need to speed time slowing down or they will sail right past each other. And again no one is going to take this ship with out other ships near by nor is this ship not going to have its own ships near by so again I point out it can not, nor can any warship, handle attacks from different arcs from different weapons and in the end ships die no matter the amount of armor firepower.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
06/12/13 12:14 AM
184.88.162.114

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

You brought up the point of the ship accelerating thus the rules do say the ships would need to speed time slowing down or they will sail right past each other.




Show me the numbers. A Firepower is chasing a McKenna and 4 Lola IVs. Both sides have built up speed to 100 hexes per turn and have a separation of 45 hexes. How does one sail past the other?

Please, show me the numbers. I want to see how that's possible unless the higher acceleration ships are simply breaking contact.

Quote:

And again no one is going to take this ship with out other ships near by nor is this ship not going to have its own ships near by




Yeah, we already addressed that. You don't want to encounter the Firepower with friends. You don't want to encounter the Firepower alone.

Quote:

so again I point out it can not, nor can any warship, handle attacks from different arcs from different weapons and in the end ships die no matter the amount of armor firepower.




Well, actually, it's a question of who dies first. So, go on and show me the damage degradation of a Firepower (alone or with pals) facing a WarShip squadron of your choice (please spell out the ships), and show the armor degradation of the WarShip squadron. Let's see who runs out of armor first.

The numbers are available. It's time to stop dodging them. I'm willing to track every number on the Firepower: armor, damage delivered, SI, heat. Are you going to keep handwaving or are you going to deliver some solid numbers?
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
06/12/13 12:21 AM
72.178.85.122

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ships of my choice? Well that can be fun...I believe my Overlord ship is here on the boards, with 500 or fighters, and then Corsair has nicely given us many a find ships that can take the Firepower, and I am sure I can build an equally munchkin ship that can equal this ship. So is that what you want?

Oh I forgot one thing, nukes are amazing weapons and tossing them at this bastard of a ship would be all the more fun.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.


Edited by Karagin (06/12/13 12:22 AM)
Karagin
06/12/13 12:48 AM
72.178.85.122

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Oh I posted my force, I can add to it if you want, I have a dozen or so medium to small sized cruisers and destroyers and such that could be the screening force for the larger ones, I can post them if you like. And you have actually got me thinking could ATN's ship take on a fleet all by it's self, I mean you are so enamored with I wonder if it could take roughly 15 to 20 ships...break it down for you, 5 capital ships and 15 screening ship against ATN's Firepower.

Nukes away.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ATN082268
06/12/13 01:25 PM
69.129.18.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Oh I posted my force, I can add to it if you want, I have a dozen or so medium to small sized cruisers and destroyers and such that could be the screening force for the larger ones, I can post them if you like. And you have actually got me thinking could ATN's ship take on a fleet all by it's self, I mean you are so enamored with I wonder if it could take roughly 15 to 20 ships...break it down for you, 5 capital ships and 15 screening ship against ATN's Firepower.

Nukes away.





As a famous Babylon 5 Captain once said, "Any ship can be destroyed." If you are tailoring a fleet in larger numbers and Battle Value (BV) than Firepower for the purpose of destroying Firepower, I would hardly call that fair

First, I'd be willing to take custom design(s) against another fleet, even if that fleet was slightly larger, so long as the BV was equal. Second, I'd only take a fleet against another fleet so long as both players didn't know what the other was taking and the battlefield conditions were known or unknown to both players. Third, if you can have nukes, then so can I and if they are vulnerable to AMS, then good luck on getting one through against a ship like Firepower
Karagin
06/12/13 01:35 PM
72.178.85.122

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
There are ways through the LAMs ATN, just because you have it doesn't mean it will always be there, and I did post the ships I would use against your munchkin ship. I can match munch for munch and if you can take out over 2000 fighters then well I guess you munch beats mine and since your munch ship seems to be your ideal of what can be done with the rules and no character then I guess we will see what wins.

As an edit to the post here is the link to the ships:

http://www.sarna.net/forums/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/167089/an/0/page/0#167089

And IF your ships is so perfect why would you need nukes? You said it yourself you have your LAMS, so what do you have to fear?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.


Edited by Karagin (06/12/13 02:27 PM)
ATN082268
06/12/13 05:12 PM
69.129.18.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

There are ways through the LAMs ATN, just because you have it doesn't mean it will always be there, and I did post the ships I would use against your munchkin ship. I can match munch for munch and if you can take out over 2000 fighters then well I guess you munch beats mine and since your munch ship seems to be your ideal of what can be done with the rules and no character then I guess we will see what wins.

As an edit to the post here is the link to the ships:

http://www.sarna.net/forums/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/Number/167089/an/0/page/0#167089

And IF your ships is so perfect why would you need nukes? You said it yourself you have your LAMS, so what do you have to fear?




If you launch a big enough missile, depending upon the direction of attack against Firepower, you might technically be able to get a missile through the AMS but the modifier inflicted on it by AMS will likely make it miss. So whether the missile is destroyed or misses, it inflicts no damage to the target. And the AMS system on Firepower uses no ammunition and will always be there unless you somehow manage to critically hit it.

I saw the four ships you posted before you posted the link to them in this thread. There are numerous issues I have with those ships like substandard maintenance levels, not enough fighter doors, etc. The Battle Value (BV) of those four ships is 1,307,776 and the BV of Firepower is 376,308; if someone can't win against Firepower with those lopsided odds, then they are tactically incompetent and probably had a couple blows to the head to boot. Then on top of all that, you want to throw in the 3342 fighter compliment of those four ships and nukes and somehow call that a fair fight?

You mistakenly seem to think powerful units have no character. It also is painfully clear you are trying to smear those who design and/or use powerful designs. If you want to get beat up at gaming conventions and the like trying to spread your propaganda, fine but I just like to have fun
Karagin
06/12/13 07:14 PM
72.178.85.122

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You are the one saying your ship can take on any and all...and who said it was lop sided you wanted your own fleet as well soo nice try there. And I do find it funny that you share your designs but don't like it when folks show you that either they are munchy or have issues.

But wait it would be a fair fight, you have your LAMS on every arc, you have your long range weapons that can keep pounding away and with your choice of ships, hell use one or more the ones I posted if you want, you can counter things as well. Now are you saying that if someone actually uses stuff to counter your design they are spreading propaganda and making fun of you? Wow that is a stretch of what is being said if I have ever heard anyone tried to defend themselves.

Now here is an idea, if you don't like stuff on the four ships I posted then say so, offer ideas, which is what this place and others is for, you share them, folks will tear them apart and rework them to match their ideas on what is good or better, which could mean you don't like the changes so then you play nice, something that does take a bit of learning to do, and either get a new ship, plane, tank, mech etc...out of it or you revamp your design. And here is the catch YES I do think powerful units have no character. The ability to alpha strike all day long defeats the point of the game. ALL of the canon designs have flaws, from bad armor numbers, to crappy weapons, to slow speed, to the fluff saying that the bad acuators in the left hip caused the UpLa to seize up and lost the battle of Guball and thus caused Aurthar to die...that is character that is color, that is something gives the player a choice, hey this unit has issues do I want to use it or not, well let's try it and see if it works better for me.

You seem to think that unless it has everything going for it, it's flawed, that might indeed work for you and those you game with, but for the rest of us that isn't the case. Smearing you suggest that you have something I find I need or want to change, which is not the case, I am offering you comments and pointing out issues with your designs.

Now you built your ship to counter every kind of missiles to include the nukes and unless the rules have changed telling me not enough doors for the fighters is great...but the rules don't (unless they changed) allow for more then what is there. With expection a few designs the remainder of what you have posted is either hideious overgunned, maxed out on weapons, over priced, at the highest weight allowed for the unit you are making and normally Clan tech. So that tells me you are a power gamer and one who wants to win, but this is MY TAKE on what you have offered up on the board.

As for me getting beat up at a convention I highly doubt that, and given that I do make the local conventions as well as one or two in Michigan, work allowing of course, got to pay the bills you know, I don't think anyone would be childish enough to beat someone up at a convention. And if I was trying to smear you then how could I post ships that I have shared before on here and say yours is flawed? I know my ships have flaws because I either built them in there, the rules cause the issue or it turned out that way. I don't go for perfect with a design I go for fun and usable.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/22/13 10:48 PM
208.54.39.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Oh I forgot one thing, nukes are amazing weapons and tossing them at this bastard of a ship would be all the more fun.




Unless the nuke comes in contact with the ships haul its not going to do any damage to the ships armor there is no air to create concussion damage. Now there is one great advantage a nuke has where his LAM system would be quite useless to defend the ship from. That is the EMP. You can detonate the nuke a mile away and still do a great deal of damage to the ships electronics. Maybe even enough to shut the ship down for long enough to pound it with conventional weapon fire before it can fix what the EMP damaged. Out side the EMP that nukes create nukes are not all that affective in a vacuum unless the nuke comes in contact with the ships haul.

Now a tactic that might work is laying a nuclear mind field. The ship might not detect the mines as weapons so would not engage the LAM system expecting the mines to bounce off the haul as a harmless asteroid would. What you can do is to get Firepower to chase you and as you run away you drop nuclear mines that have stealth armor preventing them from being detected by Firepower.

Another problem with nuclear weapons in a vacuum is when they detonate on a ships haul the decompressing of the ships air supply would deflect the blast away from the haul like CHUM armor works on a modern tank. When you attack a ship in space you want the explosive decompressing of the ship to work for you and not against you.

I have thought a lot about using nuclear weapons in Battletech and when it would be helpful to me and when it would do me a great deal more damage than any damage my enemy would sustain. For an example if I am being invaded by a mech regiment that is only 128 battle mecks covering maybe hundreds of square miles. At best I would destroy what a company and I would then have to deal with nuclear fall out for years to come. All I am doing is hurting my self for no real gain. Now on the other hand if I have an enemy battleship parked in orbit I can launch a nuke that will detonate just close enough to the ship to do massive damage to the ships electronics and have no worry of any damage to my self.
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!!!
Karagin
06/22/13 10:57 PM
72.178.85.122

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I get your point on the nukes, I do wonder what would happen though if one hit the maneuvering engines though...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/22/13 11:24 PM
208.54.39.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I doubt much of anything extra than any other weapon that has a high yield warhead. fuel is not stored in the engine its self also with out oxygen the Hydrogen would not explode it would just vent out into open space
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
06/24/13 07:01 PM
184.88.162.114

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

That is the EMP. You can detonate the nuke a mile away and still do a great deal of damage to the ships electronics.




I'm reading the nuclear weapon rules and see nothing about that. What book and page are you reading? BT spacecraft are - like you said - immune to anything but a contact detonation, but the EMP effect doesn't bother them.
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.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/24/13 09:14 PM
208.54.70.225

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I did not know there was published rules for nukes. I was using that bad word in BT "Reality".
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
06/25/13 06:53 PM
184.88.162.114

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

I did not know there was published rules for nukes. I was using that bad word in BT "Reality".




The BT nuclear weapon rules were based on real world nuclear weapon performance. Among their features:

Damage drop-off from ground zero was based on real world nuke damage-vs-distance cube root functions;
There's a difference between air and ground burst damage drop-off rates based on real world nuclear weapon differences;
Cratering effects were modeled on real world yields-vs-crater depth;
EMP is rolled up into a variety of secondary effects in ground combat; and
Space nuclear attacks do little unless nearly in contact with the hull or making a penetrating hit.

Space-based EMP effects are ignored because BT spacecraft deal with them all the time. The exhaust of a BT fusion engine is an x-ray torch, and even small DropShips release those harmless x-ray death beams in terms of kilotons of energy per second. Further, radiation has never bothered BT spacecraft despite their literally foil-thin hulls.

The nuke rules were in relatively close agreement with reality, allowing for the limits of BT damage and terrain rules they had to work with. It was just BT spacecraft had some unrealistic radiation resistance established in canon long before nukes were published in JHS:3072. (Or JHS:3070, I forget which.)

Anyway, the end result is that most WarShips can survive the peewee weapons; canon battleships can shrug off the medium-sized weapons; and AMS can be very important and effective. It doesn't take many AMSs to drive up the target number of a nuclear weapon beyond its ability to hit the target.
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.
ATN082268
01/07/17 11:45 AM
69.128.58.222

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If your fleet needs a little extra firepower, who are going to call? Firepower !!!
Pages: 1
Extra information
0 registered and 22 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: 4216


Contact Admins Sarna.net