Karagin
04/09/02 08:06 PM
63.173.170.90
|
I would do this up as a poll, but I would rather here the pros and cons from you folks on this one.
What do you folks think? Should vehicles be able to mount infantry support weapons such as the Recoilless Rifle etc...or not?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
04/09/02 08:15 PM
12.91.139.96
|
Gee.
I recall once almost writing a rant to FASA about why mechs should be allowed to mount personal and squad weapons for a few kilograms, not .5 tons+.
I have since mellowed and become aware of things like "game balance," plus lost all strong opinions on the matter.
Now, I don't know. I certainly wouldn't blink an eye in a MW game if some PCs declared they were welding the tripod of a squad MG or recoilless rifle to the roof an APC. I'd try to ignore it in BT because, no doubt, the munchkin b*stards (you know who you are) would want to mount 20 recoilless rifles in a fixed mount for 1 ton and demand the array do 20 points of damage. I know this, because I once wanted to do the same thing. 
I don't know. In a MW RPG campaign, yes. In BT, 1 or 2 weapons strictly for normal support weapon roles (killing infantry) yes.
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.
|
Kottos
04/09/02 10:30 PM
146.186.20.72
|
I suppose they could theoretically be mounted, but at what cost in tonnage? The raw weapons weigh much less than .5 tons, but they need to be integrated into the vehicle. You need some type of trainable mount, like a ball turret or something. This mount must also be integrated into the armor protection of the location, as all current weapons are. You need an autofeed mechanism for the ammo.(all mech weapons have autoloaders, and I am not aware of any battletech vehicles that don't have them) When locked up inside the armor and mount of the vehicle, cooling connections may be needed. All this would cost tonnage. If the end tonnage comes out to .5 tons + 1 heat per recoiless rifle, for example, I may yet prefer SRMs or other existing weapons.
If, on the other hand, you just want to weld some bucket seats and a recoiless rifle tripod onto the roof of an APC, sure. They would probably have the same shooter movement penalties as the parent vehicle, but their own gunnery skill and fire declaration. They would also count as external cargo, thus slowing the vehicle down and being the first thing to take damage from weapons fire.
|
Karagin
04/09/02 11:26 PM
63.173.170.29
|
Interesting...I do like some of your ideas/points...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
04/15/02 11:57 PM
134.121.17.95
|
An eight-hundred-pound mount for a two-hundred-pound gun makes "excessive" an understatement.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
novakitty
04/16/02 12:20 AM
192.195.234.26
|
According to the 3026 sourcebook, a support machinegun masses in at 40 kilograms, and has the same damage and range statistics as a mech machinegun. This implies that the gear to mount the weapon and link it up with a mech weighs about 460 kilograms. There may be some other differences between the two weapons, but basic stats are identical.
I would conclude that infantry scale weapons can be mounted on mechs, and weigh about half a ton for every 40 kilos of personal weapon for IS, and a quarter ton for every 40 kilos of personal weapon for Clans.
Do with it what you will, but the numbers are from FASA.
meow
|
Bob_Richter
04/16/02 12:21 AM
134.121.17.95
|
I'm just saying it's probably NOT the same thing as an HSMG
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
04/16/02 12:23 AM
134.121.17.95
|
>>>According to the 3026 sourcebook, a support machinegun masses in at 40 kilograms, and has the same damage and range statistics as a mech machinegun.<<<
This is some strange printing of the 3026 TRO that I have never seen. 3026's weapons were designed for the Mechwarrior (First Edition) RPG, and thus had
1) Ranges far in excess of those found in Btech
2) Only a CHANCE of causing ONE point of damage.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
novakitty
04/16/02 12:25 AM
192.195.234.26
|
If you look, you can find conversion ranges for mechwarrior hexes to battletech hexes. It is not a clear declaration in any book that I can remember, but a mechwarrior hex is 5 meters, and I think those ranges are in raw meters anyway.
meow
|
Bob_Richter
04/16/02 12:27 AM
134.121.17.95
|
Nope, they're in 5-meter hexes.
SIX of which make up a BT hex.
There are PISTOLS in the 3026 TRO that outrange the BT machine gun. I find it incredible that a heavy machine gun wouldn't. By all means, do post the stats. (I don't have my 3026 handy.)
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Karagin
04/16/02 07:00 AM
63.173.170.168
|
In reply to:
Anyhow, I think the standard BT MG's are the same as the Support MG's from Mechwarrior. The extra weight could be accounted for by the mount itself, heat shielding to keep it from melting, tie ins to the targetting systems, etc. Not much of a stretch for it to come out at half a ton when a M2 Browning weighs in the area of 200 pounds to begin with.
200 pounds is a far car from a .5 ton. I have a M2 mounted on the vehicle I drive for the US Army and it DOESN'T effect the vehicles preformence in any way, even with a full load of ammo. Even with the turret ring, mounting and the ammo and gun the whole thing weights in at 350 pounds...that is a lot less then a 1/2 of ton...
FASA went to lunch on the rules for how vehicles carry things and how it effects their speed etc...and never came back...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
04/16/02 07:47 AM
204.245.128.3
|
Well, Randall Bills did just lay down the law and say "No" to mounting infantry and squad weapons on mechs and vehicles.
However, if I strap a 5.56mm LMG on the arm of my mech and do no more connections than tack welding it down and rigging a firing cable to the cockpit, I would expect it to stay under 25kg unless I put a LOT of ammo with it. Targeting - I can use tracer ammo, I don't need a lot of accuracy for an anti-infantry hosing weapon. Heat shielding? It's an LMG, it's probably air cooled.
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
04/16/02 07:55 AM
63.173.170.168
|
I still think he is out to lunch on this...but then again I don't have to follow that if I don't want to...
Man I love a game that allows flexibilty and this is one such game...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
novakitty
04/16/02 01:05 PM
192.195.234.26
|
So, you could mount a few hundred personel weapons and either:
1) pay tonnage and a crit to mount it into the mech (or vehicle) systems
or
2) duct tape it to the outside and use an external gunner, making both the gun and gunner as vulnerable to nature as unarmored infantry
or
3) on a mech, weld the gun to an arm, and hook the trigger up with the main firing command cable, almost giving the pilot the ability to decide whether the little guns should fire with each salvo coming from that arm
I would not trust the third option in any mech I use, but the second might be useful depending on the nature of the vehicle.
meow
|
Cray
04/16/02 01:06 PM
204.245.128.3
|
>Problem with simply tack-welding one onto the hull is that it's in open air, unprotected by the vehicle's armor
Imagine that.
>I don't think it'd be anywhere near as effective as the classic half-ton BT MG though
Decapitating an Atlas was not the first plan I had in mind for a 5.56mm LMG tack-welded onto the roof of an APC, or the arm of a mech lacking integral MGs.
>Also, by heat shielding, I was meaning something to protect the weapon from heat other than what it generate's itself.
A square meter of fiberglass duct-taped under the LMG might add 2 kilograms to the assembly.
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
04/16/02 01:07 PM
63.173.170.216
|
I ask you to look at the M113 ACAV used in Vietnam. That is what I am trying point out as one example that doesn't hurt the vehicle's overall performance.
Once again who told the folks at FASA that slapping on gun pital mounts and the gun was a half of ton of material was on some serious medication.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
04/16/02 01:09 PM
204.245.128.3
|
>3) on a mech, weld the gun to an arm, and hook the trigger up with the main firing command cable, almost giving the pilot the ability to decide whether the little guns should fire with each salvo coming from that arm
If you're on garrison duty, don't have integral MGs on your mech, and the commander's getting pissy because you keep blowing up houses and leveling blocks every time you fire your weaponry at a sniper or menacing shadow, a quickly added MG on the hull ain't a bad idea.
If you're worried about its vulnerability to small arms fire, put a lawnchair over and slap some spare armor vests over the lawnchair. Duct tape the assembly to the mech. If someone is firing weapons that can penetrate that improvised armor, you have an excuse to use your big guns so losing the LMG won't matter.
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
04/16/02 01:10 PM
63.173.170.216
|
Even a full blowned mounting kit for M2HB BMG weighs less then 400 pounds WITH the gun....so adding on something like a M249 SAW or M60 LMG shouldn't have the vehicle OR mech lossing any movement...and see how we agree on this and can understand WHY couldn't FASA understand that and why can't FP?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
04/16/02 01:11 PM
63.173.170.216
|
No. The idea is to have no more the two or three of said weapons on a vehicle.
I don't envison anyone mounting 2000 RRs on a tank..a little common sense goes a long way.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
04/16/02 01:12 PM
204.245.128.3
|
I'm sure FASA/FanPro would say, "Dude, you are absolutely and totally correct, and we've known it for years. That would mass way under 500kg. For [say it with me] Game Balance, we're going to require you only use weapons listed on the mech-scale weapon lists."
Or something like that.
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
04/16/02 01:13 PM
63.173.170.216
|
Hell if you are that worried, take some sand bags and add them around your added on gun...over head cover can be made from plywood and sandbags or as you suggested...anything that will absorb the sharpnel is the good enough to use and IT won't slow the vehicle down...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
04/16/02 01:15 PM
63.173.170.216
|
Right I forgot about the BS generic answer to everything related to this game...man I wish the IRS would take the ones I give them yearly as true statements of fact and ignorance.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
04/16/02 01:25 PM
204.245.128.3
|
I stand by my original answer - since you're not (?) going to be hunting Atlases with these weapons but (I think) bustin' up infantry and light field fortifications (sand bag bunkers, etc.), this can be handled under Mechwarrior rules. Just treat the weapons as an appropriate amount of kilograms of cargo irrelevant to BT and use them in the MW combat system.
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
04/16/02 01:37 PM
63.173.170.216
|
IF you can cap an Atlas with one then you win no matter which system you are using. 
Either way the idea is these aren't going to be mounted in the thousands or even the hundreds. One or two mabe a couple of more at the most...so yes I agree with your original comment.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
04/16/02 05:00 PM
63.173.170.227
|
We have been looking AT smaller weapons from the start...and seeing how it's hard to believe that in the 31st century none of the vehicles have AP weapons like almost ever Armored vehicle in 20/21st centuries seem to have...and don't point to the .5 ton MG...that is always shown as fixed forward weapon on the APCs and other vehicles and never once has a picture shown a cupola with a MG being fired...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
04/16/02 05:14 PM
63.173.170.227
|
The .5 ton weight is a little high, considering that a 20mm Cannon on the French AMX-32 MBT only weighs as much as the Clan version of the MG really makes one wonder WHO gave FASA their numbers...
And sitting in a tank in this game is only slightly better then being in the infantry...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
04/16/02 05:55 PM
63.173.170.227
|
So? The only thing the minigun has over the cannon is higher rate of fire...same round so the projections of it's preformance will be the same.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
04/16/02 06:47 PM
63.173.170.4
|
The only thing the Minigun has over the cannon, beside the need to carry more ammo is an electric motor to run it...but again all of that would be taken into acount prior to building the vehicle or what not. And I have yet to see a minigun as tank commander's weapon of use...infact I don't recall a single tank that even uses one today.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
04/16/02 06:55 PM
12.91.139.102
|
>Using sand bags and other impromptu 'armor' isn't a bad idea, although the weapons protected by such are still going to be of limited utility in a standard battlefield action
And we all know that. We've been trying to nudge you into our discussion, which is about:
>so ya'll are looking for something smaller to fire only at unarmored targets
Something like that.
>(a 5.56mm LMG really isn't that effective against a Bunker, even a sandbag one).
Karagin was talking about recoilless rifles (which do a decent job against sandbags); the 5.56mm LMG was my thing.
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
04/16/02 08:39 PM
63.173.170.141
|
Actually their overall size in weight is only different by a 80 pounds. The biggest draw back is weight of the AMMO for the mini gun since it has to carry more to be effective, but in the game, the 80 pounds and the ammo weight difference is tossed out. So the two are basically the same thing.
But yet, for a tank in the game to carry a .50cal MG on the TC's cupola you have to have basically another MG for .5 tons and the loss of a spacial crit all for a 200 pounds of metal...hell my AR-50 bolt action .50in rifle only weighs 38 pounds and that without the scope and bipod, and with those two items and a round in the chamber there is no change in the weight...so I don't by the idea that putting a LMG or HMG or even a RR on vehicle is going to change anything as far as how fast it moves or what it can or can't do.
In the fluff text the words Machine gun and minigun are used like folks use the word assault rifle to talk about any magazine feed weapon that doesn't look like a single shoot rifle...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|