MrEd
01/06/04 09:11 PM
67.82.166.51
|
I have been mulling over this for awhile as i am getting back into battletech purely for the warship end.
For Arguement's Sake that an ER-Laser is a 5-MegaWatt Laser that does said appropriate damage yada yada
( I use this number as an example--one of my wifes favorite movies is "real genius" which is a cute movie about science wiz kids undergrads trying to get a 5 mega watt laser to fire-- the origin of the original large laser ??)
Then how can a 700 ton probably 5 GigaWatt Laser Fired in Space do 3.5 worth of damage--shouldn't that be 35 and since your firing a high powered beam of light in space the ranges should be greatly enhanced
I use as an example the canon's on the Earth Alliance Cruiser's From the Babylon 5 Tv Show.
There naval guns were primarily Giant Laser's and Particle cannon's with Large ranges.
A more effective comparison in the auto cannon area would be a 120 mm m1a tank shell weight 2-pound and a range of 2 miles ??
Vs a 18 inch battleship gun with a range of 60miles ?? and a shell the equivalant of a Volvo
I am a bit of numbers guy and there feels like an order of magnitude difference is floating about here somwhere.
If my Laser comparison is accurate then a 5-TerraWatt laser is what the shadow's ship's were packing
Ouch--no wonder it chopped you in half
Regards
|
Diablo
01/06/04 09:45 PM
24.114.50.190
|
ok, I've never played AT/2. ever. but i think your conversions fail to take into account the size of a warship. these warships will generaly take a lot more punishment than your average battlemech. also, 1000X the power on a laser doesn't nessassarily make it more effective. my previous post of pulse lasers proves this. when u flashboil armour, there is that cloud of vapour that obstructs the rest of the lasers energy. the more you flashboil in one shot, the more vapour you will get. so this laser would flashboil tons more armour but creat a bigger vapour cloud that would obstruct further damage. so the rest of ur 1000X power is wasted.
I know someone's going to prove me wrong on this one. but this is my attempt at it.
|
Cray
01/07/04 08:01 AM
147.160.1.5
|
Quote:
For Arguement's Sake that an ER-Laser is a 5-MegaWatt Laser that does said appropriate damage yada yada
Way too low, but the number isn't necessary for this discussion.
Quote:
Then how can a 700 ton probably 5 GigaWatt Laser Fired in Space do 3.5 worth of damage--shouldn't that be 35 and since your firing a high powered beam of light in space the ranges should be greatly enhanced
The NL/35 *DOES* do 35 points of damage. There's two damage scales used in AT2: standard and capital scale. Capital scale damage uses damage points that are equal to 10 mech-scale damage points. So that "3.5 points" of capital scale damage is 35 points of mech-scale damage.
Ranges ARE greatly enhanced in space. First, the hexes are 18000m across, not 30m like on the ground. Second, capital weapons use range increments twice the size of mech-scale weapons *in Aerotech-2 rules.* If I recall correctly, "short range" *for standard scale weapons* in AT2 is 6 hexes, "medium" range is 12 hexes, "long" range is 20 hexes; "extreme" range is 25 hexes. For capital weapons, double those: short is 12 hexes, medium is 24, long is 40, extreme is 50.
An Inner Sphere ER LL has a "long" range (I think). It therefore has a 20-hex range (360km).
A Clan ER LL has an "extreme" range. It therefore has a 25-hex range.
A Naval Laser/35 has a "long" range. It therefore has a 40-hex range (720km).
A Naval Laser/45 has an "extreme" range. It therefore has a 50-hex range.
Capital weapons with "long" and "extreme" ranges can be used for orbital bombardment of ground targets - broadsides of NAC/30 shells (30 capital points of damage, 300 mech scale points of damage) will wreck a regiment of assault mechs in short order. The blast radius of capital weapons (including naval lasers) is something like 10 hexes across. Even salvos of "light" naval weapons like the NL/35 are good for quickly wrecking ground units. Standard weapons like the ER LL cannot be used for orbital bombardment.
Quote:
A more effective comparison in the auto cannon area would be a 120 mm m1a tank shell weight 2-pound and a range of 2 miles ??
One notes that 120mm shells (typical of AC/10s and lower caliber, higher rate of fire AC/20s) have a range of 270 to 450 METERS in Battletech. Battletech ranges were meant to fit on a reasonable-sized map sheet, not mimic reality. You'd need 5 to 10 maps in a row to model the full range of an Abram's main gun.
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.
|
Diablo
01/07/04 05:08 PM
24.114.50.190
|
ok, u confirmed all I wanted to know. AT uses a different damage scale. by the way, cept for the time lag between barrle to target, you'd think any weapons fired in a vacume with micro gravity would have almost infinite range (until some gravitational body sucks them in... like a warship!). but thats getting off topic.
|
MrEd
01/07/04 09:04 PM
67.82.166.51
|
I Thank You for the Clarification's and will figure out quote system presently. Wjhat I Meant was that the NL/35 should do 35 Capital point's or 350 mech damage point's ie Order of Magnitude as i was saying.
I wil also confess that i am trying to bring the real world into a Rpg system's math.
There have been a number a ships posted that were primarily regular weapons instead of naval weapon's and arguments about weapon effectiveness.
I have always thought that any type of weapon that could be mounted in a vechicle or Mech would be Short Range in Space ie everything i have seen and read over the last 35 years ( serious Science fiction was required reading in my fathers house )
The Sinking of the Battleship Bismark Comes to Mind as most of the engagement was long range cannon work and way beyond any basic weaponry of lesser caliber
That was the range variation that comes to mind
Again Thank you for the Clarification's
regard's Mr-Ed
|
Cray
01/08/04 07:05 AM
68.200.106.169
|
Quoting can be done by typing [quote ] and [ /quote] around some copy-and-pasted text. Note my [quote ] and [ /quote] have a space in them. Remove the space to make them actually work. For example,
Quote:
I Thank You for the Clarification's and will figure out quote system presently. Wjhat I Meant was that the NL/35 should do 35 Capital point's or 350 mech damage point's ie Order of Magnitude as i was saying.
Why should naval lasers be so powerful compared to every other weapon? At 35 capital points of damage, the 700-ton light naval laser would have the firepower of and more range than the 4000-ton NAC/35.
Also, I believe weapons actually mounted on mechs have very little range in space, but you'll have to wait for AT2-Revised to confirm that.
Finally, I'd point out that the weapons mounted on the Bismarck were not significantly heavier than battlemech weaponry. The 16-inch guns of the Iowa-class, sans turret, were about 100 tons each - only 3 times that of the Long Toms. The 5-inch guns, out of their turrets, are not significantly heavier than the 120mm cannons carried by tanks. Ships just lavish tonnage on large turrets, high angle mountings, and extensive ammo feed systems. In space, the ability to aim at high angles are mooted, so if a fighter carried an autocannon, it might well have a range of 20 hexes in space, as much as half that of a big naval gun. (While, again, a battlemech's autocannon would be nearly useless in space.)
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.
|
Cray
01/08/04 07:13 AM
68.200.106.169
|
Warships have no gravitational field. Well, they do, but you need a lot of decimals to represent it, like .0000001G, like a very, very tiny asteroid. Warships are very, very light bodies compared to notable sources of gravity. A 1km-diameter comet (made of ice and enough gravel to raise the comet to liquid water density) is 209 times as heavy as a 2.5-megaton warship, and has about one tenth of a millionth of a G of gravity.
Quote:
by the way, cept for the time lag between barrle to target, you'd think any weapons fired in a vacume with micro gravity would have almost infinite range
Time lag, platform jitter, and targeting computers that are built on the same technology that limits 185mm autocannons to 270m ranges on the ground... 
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.
|
MrEd
01/08/04 10:21 PM
67.82.166.51
|
quote
Why should naval lasers be so powerful compared to every other weapon? At 35 capital points of damage, the 700-ton light naval laser would have the firepower of and more range than the 4000-ton NAC/35.
I was thinking that most of the range limitataions of laser have to do with atmosphere and interference and disappation and degradation of beam. In space a high powered beam of light would automaticlly be your longest ranged weapon naturally ie speed of light.
Here you have the single most basic space weapon that to get better performance all you have to do is ramp up the power and yet it is the wimpiest one on the block-- as a science buff have always found this confusing as a laser is probably your chaepest and lightest and easiest space weapon
quote
Also, I believe weapons actually mounted on mechs have very little range in space, but you'll have to wait for AT2-Revised to confirm that.
When i was mentioning mech weapons i meant as a general classification, not specifically weapons mounted on mech's but the same weapons mounted as anti-fighter ship gun's.
I used the bismark as an example of how long range naval gunnery, was the main decider in most pre wwii small naval incidents--a better example would be that of the graff spee engagements prior to her scuttling--again all long range weaponry-- I was trying to convey an image that the big ships high powered long range weaponry was the factor untill the plane came into use.
My vision of two space behemoths dueling from medium range all naval gunnery. Like the finally of BattleStar Galatica the Cylon base stars send in fighters for close work and pound from distance.
I have enjoyed this discussion and appreciate your time and input
in regards mr-ed
Edited by MrEd (01/08/04 10:29 PM)
|
Cray
01/09/04 08:04 AM
147.160.1.5
|
Quote:
I have enjoyed this discussion and appreciate your time and input
Hmm. That kind of sounds like, "I'm done with the conversation now," but I'm gonna toss in a couple more pence...
Quote:
Here you have the single most basic space weapon that to get better performance all you have to do is ramp up the power and yet it is the wimpiest one on the block-- as a science buff have always found this confusing as a laser is probably your chaepest and lightest and easiest space weapon
Ah, well, that's the problem isn't it? Just "ramping up the power" may result in large mass gains.
For example, the Airborne Laser's "core" consists of six, 1.5-ton modules (not counting turret, targeting and tracking systems, ammunition/fuel for the laser, and structural modifications to the 747). With all this, the laser manages to deliver 1 megajoule per second (i.e., 1 megawatt).
In comparison, the ~2-ton 120mm cannon on the Abrams (not counting turret mechanism mass or ammo mass) delivers 9 megajoules of kinetic energy over the course of...about 0.0003 seconds (the time it takes for the full length of an APFSDSDU penetrator to pass through the target, assuming a 20-inch long penetrator moving at 1600m/s). That's 9 times the energy delivery and 30,000 times the power.
Lasers have advantages in range and accuracy in space (represented by their longer ranges in AT2), but they aren't going to be lighter for the damage delivered. Trying to "ramp up" the power to match the energy deliver of a kinetic kill weapon will probably result in a very large energy weapon, much larger than the comparable missile or AC. Just look at the ABL: to deliver 9 megajoules (per second), it would need about 54 lasing modules totaling 81 tons, heavier than an entire Abrams. The ABL will be able to shoot at targets quite a bit further away more accurately than the Abrams, but the damage-to-mass ratio is poor.
As an aside, if you want to represent larger naval lasers than what's listed, the AT2 "weapon's bay" rules provide a means of doing so. Weapon bays are fired as a single weapon, hitting on a single role, and applying damage to a single location. A pair of NAC/35s in a bay might as well be one NAC/70; 4 Heavy NPPCs are effectively one 60-point NPPC. Therefore, if you wanted a super-sized laser more powerful than any existing one, all you have to do is say a weapons bay with 12 NL/55s is, in fact, a single giant 66-point laser. The only change is in the descriptive text; the rules already treat a weapons bay as one laser.
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.
|
MrEd
01/09/04 12:05 PM
208.251.165.162
|
Quote:
Quote:
I have enjoyed this discussion and appreciate your time and input
Hmm. That kind of sounds like, "I'm done with the conversation now," but I'm gonna toss in a couple more pence...
Quote:
My apologies and oh my no !
I just felt that the Laser's were being short changed When you graduated to the Naval Weapon Category.
I have been enjoying this dicussion and wanted to express this that is all--I have not yet begun to reply!
Regards Mr-Ed
|
Cray
01/09/04 01:55 PM
147.160.1.5
|
Quote:
I just felt that the Laser's were being short changed When you graduated to the Naval Weapon Category.
All weapons are kinda short changed in the naval weapon categories. Usually you can mount far more firepower in an equal tonnage of standard weapons, though at a shorter range.
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.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 27 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: 9111
|
|
|
|
|
|
|