Should weapons have...

Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)
NathanKell
04/18/02 09:21 PM
24.44.238.62

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yeah, they're called bomb-pumped (x-ray) lasers!
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson
Gangrene
04/19/02 12:37 AM
168.150.237.132

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Alright. In turn, please note that's a two-edged statement. Putting shaped charges on missiles would be an entirely too-logical, too common-sense, too obvious idea for FASA to necessarily use.

FASA is dead, and I feel no need to be constrained by their lack of common sense.

All they do is try to bypass it.

Bypass means to go around, Cray, not to go through. Also, a critical failure through the depth of armor is good enough to be considered locally "destroyed."

And, tired as it may be, that does not invalidate the point.

Of course there is the KISS philosophy, as well as Occam's Razor.
Gangrene
Nightmare
04/19/02 08:00 AM
194.251.240.107

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
One interesting idea I saw was that BT warheads utilize
a special, gelatinous explosive. This explains the low ranges,
they just can`t guarantee the load stays together if trying
for long shots. When it hits, the gel spreads out, sinking into
the smallest cracks on the surface and then detonates after
~0,1 seconds of exposure to air. The gel was developed
just for dealing with the ultra-super-heavy armor in Btech.
Advice for Evil Overlords:
My legions of terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
NathanKell
04/19/02 11:24 AM
24.44.238.62

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Or they just can't aim for $#!7....
And have no black-box computers to do it for 'em.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
04/19/02 01:58 PM
209.202.47.12

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>>BT warheads utilize a special, gelatinous explosive. This explains the low ranges, they just can`t guarantee the load stays together if trying for long shots<<

hmmm...kinda like the Biosludge weapon in UT
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Gangrene
04/19/02 05:43 PM
168.150.237.132

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That's interesting, but it needs some work. Since Btech missiles are just as effective in a vacuum as in air, the dependance on air for detonation has to be abandoned.
Gangrene
CrayModerator
04/19/02 08:00 PM
24.165.244.231

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>FASA is dead, and I feel no need to be constrained by their lack of common sense.

Alright, that's perfectly understandable. It is, however, a position that's rather inhibitive of discussions with others when the only common ground is FASA's setting and its absence of common sense.

>Bypass means to go around, Cray, not to go through

Which is why I agreed that shaped charge warheads were a fine explanation for LRMs' 1pt of damage: a small hole in armor, just like shaped charges make.

However, bigger missiles - like Thunderbolts - clearly have the option of using BT's other explosive warhead: those of artillery shells, whatever the heck that is. What does KISS say a BT artillery shell's warhead is?
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.
CrayModerator
04/19/02 08:04 PM
24.165.244.231

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Be careful. Bob is playing a semantics game here.

A 700pt armor plate on a warship is demonstrably impenetrably to any attack, even from a NAC/35 weapons bay...on the first hit.

An Atlas's CT armor plate is impenetrable to any non-capital scale weapon and some capital-scale weapons...on the first hit.

By some definitions (including Bob's), that counts as impenetrable.
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.
KamikazeJohnson
04/19/02 08:08 PM
209.202.47.12

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Impenetrable unless, of course, you roll snake-eyes for an "armor piercing" hit :-)

This game is just chock-full of charming inconsistencies :-)
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
CrayModerator
04/19/02 08:36 PM
24.165.244.231

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Naw, just waiting for explanations. Sure, the armor plate is impenetrable (for the first hit), but that heat sink vent is a perfect place for that infantryman's .22LR round to sneak in and triple crit the engine.
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.
KamikazeJohnson
04/19/02 08:41 PM
209.202.47.12

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
True, but does that also apply to...um...the...uh...pebble? that finds a weak spot when the 'Mech falls on it? You'd think that internal components would be sturdy enough to withstand the jar of impact if nothing penetrates the armor...
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
novakitty
04/19/02 08:58 PM
192.195.234.26

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Then do not use damage from falls of less than 1 level.
meow
CrayModerator
04/19/02 09:50 PM
24.165.244.231

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Clearly, when a mech falls on a pebble and suffers a crit, the pebble rebounded elastically with tremendous force after being slammed by the falling mass of the mech. It rebounded right through a vent or access panel or joint and did the Golden BB thing to the mech's internals. Yeah, that's it...
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.
Gangrene
04/20/02 10:51 AM
168.150.237.132

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Don't forget AP ammo.
Gangrene
Gangrene
04/20/02 11:05 AM
168.150.237.132

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It is, however, a position that's rather inhibitive of discussions with others when the only common ground is FASA's setting and its absence of common sense.

That's only true if your POV is looking merely at rules that lack common sense. They did have some good sense rules in there somewhere. The foundation for the game is not magic or bad logic (relatively speaking); it isn't Alice in Wonderland or some Japanese mecha cartoon. Taking their shortcuts or bad choices and framing them as the logic of the game is a bad choice, IMO.

However, bigger missiles - like Thunderbolts - clearly have the option of using BT's other explosive warhead:

Of course they can use other warheads, but you have to consider what's optimal for application. We were talking about concentrating damage on armored targets, not killing infantry or bunker busting.
Gangrene


Edited by Gangrene (04/20/02 11:06 AM)
CrayModerator
04/20/02 11:58 AM
24.165.244.231

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
>Of course they can use other warheads, but you have to consider what's optimal for application. We were talking about concentrating damage on armored targets, not killing infantry or bunker busting

The damage-to-weight of artillery warheads makes them optimal anti-armor warheads. A single Long Tom or Arrow IV shell can affect 14 vehicular targets (stacking 2 vehicles per hex) with 10 or 20 points of damage each. That beats the heck out of the anti-armor performance of a similar weight of LRM ammo, which is lucky to do 20 points of damage to one target.

Really, whatever is in those artillery shells is worth copying on other munitions. Coming back full circle, the Thunderbolt's original fluff makes it a perfect candidate for a scaled-down version of those artillery warheads.
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.
Cheapbuzz
04/28/02 07:44 PM
165.76.24.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Some do some dont missles and artillery do. If everything had splash damage a slow paced game would just become slower.
Karagin
04/28/02 07:50 PM
63.173.170.50

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So you are saying that treating AC hits as streams of smaller shells hitting the target, which is how the fiction and older write ups discribe the rounds the ACs use, or akin to how damage is done for missiles would slow the game down?

How do you come to this conclusion? I am very interested in your thoughts on this.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Cheapbuzz
04/28/02 08:05 PM
165.76.24.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
My point was that if you make all weapons do splash damage it would be slower. When I game there is usually about 6 of us. A typical round takes about 30 minutes or so to complete. so if you were to add slpash damage to the damage phase of every bodys turn a 30 minute round would take 35 minutes.
As far as ACs go you can allways fire cluster through an LBX autocannon. I happen to prefer a 20 point hit that can rip sh*t apart. I once buit a mech with 4 lbx 20s with cluster and it took forever to roll the 60 or so different locations. I know what the novels say and how the video games play I just prefer the way damage is done in BT.
Karagin
04/28/02 08:07 PM
63.173.170.50

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Interesting, I have run games at cons with 12 players using Splash rules for ACs and the amount of time spent was about equal to not using the Splash rules.

Thanks for the input.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Cheapbuzz
04/28/02 08:54 PM
165.76.24.65

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If it works for you then cool.
Acolyte
04/29/02 08:51 AM
142.179.27.248

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think what you have here is the acid test for any optional rules set. Does it work for your gaming group.

From the way AC's are described, I would say that splash damage is justified, depending on the rate of fire. If the ROF was, say, 1800 RPM (30 RPS), and the burst consisted of 4 rounds, then no. If the ROF was much slower, then yes.

Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
Karagin
04/29/02 08:58 AM
63.173.170.119

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Seeing how the older books call the ACs Vulcan like guns firing a stream of rounds and said rounds are packed in cassesets hence 1 round of ammo is actually many rounds when fired. That is were we got the idea.

Not sure of the rate of fire of the BT ACs....since none of the authors don't bother with such trivial stuff...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Acolyte
04/29/02 09:08 AM
142.179.27.248

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Very true. It's one of those things that each group will have to decide on their own. Me, I just assume that they fire like cannons. one round is one round. That's how I play, that's part of my universe.

My thought on things like this is to add up all the money and time you've spent on the game and then ask how the heck can anyone tell me how to play my game after all that expense. As long as your the people you are gaming with are happy......

Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
Karagin
04/29/02 09:18 AM
63.173.170.119

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Valid points, and I have also found that trying new rules or home rules for the game can be a lot of fun and can add to game thus making it even more of a joy to play.

So in the end it's up to you and your group on what goes or doesn't go into the game.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Acolyte
04/29/02 09:30 AM
142.179.27.248

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I find there's a great enjoyment gained from using rules that are better than the basic bought set (for your group), and realising "I made that!".

My best experiance was when I made some rules for BT that were more realistic, and then found that the game went faster! Much faster. One lance of 'Mechs, one lance of tanks, and one plattoon of infantry devided into four squads, each man detailed as to which weapons he was using. (or she, wasn't that detailed!) That was the unit composition per side. We schedulaled 4 hours, just to test the rules to see if they worked and wound up finishing the battle in two. It was great.

Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
Karagin
01/17/07 12:17 PM
70.123.166.36

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Rebouonding...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
strife
02/07/07 10:57 AM
80.76.243.67

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Err, modern armor on today's vehicles are made to defeat HEAT and shaped-charge weapons, The armor on the abrams's for example, its just slabs of spaced, canted armor that redirects the plasma jet, molten copper mass or whatever. Shaped charge and HEAT ae largly ineffective against an Abrams's armor. It works best on solid-rolled homegenous steel armor like on older tanks. Its all about the Sabot rounds now, DU penetrators don't care if your armor is spaced or not.

Anyways, I alwasy figured BT armor was spaced-and bolted armor like an abrams, and all the shaped-charge and HEAT rounds in ACs and SRMs tend to blow off chunks and damage the armor rather then instantly penetrating it.
"caliber fifty JUSTICE!"
strife
02/07/07 11:16 AM
80.76.243.67

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
As for BT Autocannons, I figured they either fired a single shot, and a burst of shots that are fired in such quick succession that they have a tight shot-grouping. I'd assert that all BT armor is bulky, layered spaced armor with thin individual plates designed to mitigate HEAT rounds. That type of armor could even be theoreticly penetrated somewhat by cal .50 rounds, so BT machineguns can damage armor. Old, solid-forged steel armor is easliy penetrated, like you said, 700mm of armor, but thats a dead-on solid hit, if its hit at an angle is penetration is closer to 500mm, about 30-40% less depending on the angle of impact. Since modern tank armor is nothing but layer after layer of spaced, angled armor, penetration is not as likey as it seems it should be. If a HEAT round hits a sloid object, it projects a plasma jet , say 700mm, and it burns through air and steel just the same. So those really thin side-skirts on a tank can stop over 1200mm of penetration, because once it penetrates the skirt, it has to "penetrate" about 2 feet of air before it can penetrate the actual hull's armor.

And for lucky shots? My tank in Iraq was destroyed because a coffee-can full of Comp B blew a small hole in the fuel tank, it burned for 6 hours and all the ammo cooked off from a broken weld on a fuel tank. So I'd figure that rifle infantry use thermite grenades or satchel charges to attack armor, as a rifle round can't penetrate any surface on any vehicle at all, even the periscopes are bullet-resistant, but its perfectly realistic for a single SRM or something to completly destroy a heavlily armored vehicle, tanks all have there "Magic weak spots" (as I found out the hard way. ) Turret rings are also impossible to armor well, and thats another weak-point for direct-fire weapons on tanks.

another thing, High-explosives, like most artillery is almost useless on armored vehicles, it can't penetrate armor, at all. the most it can do is give the crew serious head-aches, and slightly dent and chip the paint of armor thicker then 10mm. Modern howiters and such are equallivate to the "Thumper" artillary in BT. High-explosives underneathe a tank, however, is another story.
"caliber fifty JUSTICE!"
Pages: 1 | 2 | (show all)
Extra information
0 registered and 53 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: 23298


Contact Admins Sarna.net