KamikazeJohnson
06/01/09 05:39 PM
199.243.74.114
|
I'm looking to throw together another JMInc. creation, but I'm feeling uninspired. Any requests as to what type of 'Mech I should do? Ranged support, Line 'Mech, Urban, Hunter-Killer, etc.?
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
KitK
06/01/09 06:36 PM
198.169.15.163
|
Here's one for you.
Facility security and patrol mech with anti-infantry, armor, battle armor, and light mech defensive capacity. Perhaps it could be role specific within a larger security force so it can specialize a little bit instead of trying to get all 4 of those (of course then you need 2 mechs so you can play 'Good Cop-Bad Cop").
KK
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/01/09 08:35 PM
24.6.150.175
|
Quote:
Here's one for you.
Facility security and patrol mech with anti-infantry, armor, battle armor, and light mech defensive capacity. Perhaps it could be role specific within a larger security force so it can specialize a little bit instead of trying to get all 4 of those (of course then you need 2 mechs so you can play 'Good Cop-Bad Cop").
KK
I would go with a medium mech with lots of MLs and two SPLs and a ERLL or a PPC. I would definitely stay away from ballistic and missile weapons because of the collateral damage they can produce.
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!!!
|
Prince_of_Darkness
06/02/09 02:43 AM
71.214.3.38
|
Quote:
Quote:
Here's one for you.
Facility security and patrol mech with anti-infantry, armor, battle armor, and light mech defensive capacity. Perhaps it could be role specific within a larger security force so it can specialize a little bit instead of trying to get all 4 of those (of course then you need 2 mechs so you can play 'Good Cop-Bad Cop").
KK
I would go with a medium mech with lots of MLs and two SPLs and a ERLL or a PPC. I would definitely stay away from ballistic and missile weapons because of the collateral damage they can produce.
That wouldn't be a bad idea; you might want to consider, however, Streak SRM's as well.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/02/09 10:54 AM
24.6.150.175
|
I did. I decides not to for two reasons.
If you can have DHS there is really no need. A mech can have 6 MLs and run with 10 DHS and not generate any heat. If you want more short range firepower after having 6 MLs I would say go for it. My self I would just keep adding DHS and MLs. I like having 13 tons for weapons on my Med mechs, 7MLs, 1 extra DHS, and a ERLL. If I had two more tons I would replace the ERLL with a ERPPC.
In game play SRM streak missiles don't create collateral damage. But in fluff and stories they do. You have shrapnel and blown off armor flying all over the place doing damage. When a laser hits most of the armor that melts off will fall to the mechs feet. Lasers don't have any kinetic energy to make things fly all over the place.
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!!!
|
Zandel_Corrin
06/02/09 07:48 PM
123.2.140.247
|
Quote:
When a laser hits most of the armor that melts off will fall to the mechs feet. Lasers don't have any kinetic energy to make things fly all over the place.
You might want to look into this one a bit more..... While a lot of the fluff describes them that way there is also a fair bit that says that lasers do cause explosions due to temperature differences when they strike... seems to be more often with terrain then on mechs tho.... so any missed hits will cause collateral damage.
Considering that the mech is intended for defending a static instillation ammo weapons would be a good idea.... you don't need to carry a lot of ammo cause supply is right there and they do tend to shred enemies a lot faster then energy weaps.... a MG or two for anti infantry and SRMs would be good i think.... with an AC 10 or PPC as the main gun..... some back up MLs are always a good idea too.
For it's purpose you probably don't want to use a lot of advanced tech cause that can be expensive and a waste on such mechs... look at the low cost urbie.... good at what it does but not much else and you can afford a lance for the price of many more advanced mechs that offer less ability to defend.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/02/09 08:51 PM
24.6.150.175
|
Quote:
Quote:
When a laser hits most of the armor that melts off will fall to the mechs feet. Lasers don't have any kinetic energy to make things fly all over the place.
You might want to look into this one a bit more..... While a lot of the fluff describes them that way there is also a fair bit that says that lasers do cause explosions due to temperature differences when they strike... seems to be more often with terrain then on mechs tho.... so any missed hits will cause collateral damage.
The reason you get explosive results is because of water in whats being hit. Armor has no water in it. As for missed shots all weapons will do that so that's not a accurate statement.
Quote:
Considering that the mech is intended for defending a static instillation ammo weapons would be a good idea.... you don't need to carry a lot of ammo cause supply is right there and they do tend to shred enemies a lot faster then energy weaps.... a MG or two for anti infantry and SRMs would be good i think.... with an AC 10 or PPC as the main gun..... some back up MLs are always a good idea too.
I don't agree. What I will agree to is to disagree.
Quote:
For it's purpose you probably don't want to use a lot of advanced tech cause that can be expensive and a waste on such mechs... look at the low cost urbie.... good at what it does but not much else and you can afford a lance for the price of many more advanced mechs that offer less ability to defend.
For the most part I agree. I would probably only use ES IS and DHS. Here is another reason that I would say away from ammo weapons, ammo is not cheep.
But if I was a company that wanted a mobal defense force, I would use tanks like
http://www.sarna.net/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/151235/an/0/page/1#151235
or
http://www.sarna.net/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/150962/an/0/page/1#150962
I can have a lance for less than the cost of one light mech.
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!!!
|
Prince_of_Darkness
06/03/09 12:33 AM
71.214.3.38
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
When a laser hits most of the armor that melts off will fall to the mechs feet. Lasers don't have any kinetic energy to make things fly all over the place.
You might want to look into this one a bit more..... While a lot of the fluff describes them that way there is also a fair bit that says that lasers do cause explosions due to temperature differences when they strike... seems to be more often with terrain then on mechs tho.... so any missed hits will cause collateral damage.
The reason you get explosive results is because of water in whats being hit. Armor has no water in it. As for missed shots all weapons will do that so that's not a accurate statement.
Remember This Thread? Cray pretty much summed up all lasers (except for PPC's, of course) and proved that wrong. To quote the lord:
"Battlefield lasers are not laser pointers - they are machines that deliver so much heat that even 99.99% reflection means enormous heating, sufficient heating to destroy the reflection properties of the target. It also means a serious surface explosion - basic undergraduate thermodynamics. Look up what happens when you deliver more than 100,000 joules per second per square centimeter to...well, pretty much any substance. "Reflection" is not the correct word. Neither is "melting" or "evaporation." Only "explosion" suffices."
Edited by Prince_of_Darkness (06/03/09 12:38 AM)
|
KamikazeJohnson
06/03/09 02:56 AM
142.161.158.183
|
That's funny, 'cause my Etruscan L2 refit fits the bill pretty well lol!
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/03/09 05:55 AM
24.6.150.175
|
Fine have your fantasy instead of reality again. I know that this will go nowhere, so there is no point continuing.
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!!!
|
Cray
06/03/09 08:17 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
In game play SRM streak missiles don't create collateral damage. But in fluff and stories they do. You have shrapnel and blown off armor flying all over the place doing damage. When a laser hits most of the armor that melts off will fall to the mechs feet. Lasers don't have any kinetic energy to make things fly all over the place.
There are several canon descriptions of lasers. While the cinematic BS version of "mega-melta heat rayz" is the norm for BT fluff, some authors (and rule books) have used more realistic descriptions of lasers in BattleTech, which do involve ferocious explosions.
At the energy delivery rates needed to destroy hundreds of kilograms of armor in one turn, melting will not occur because the process requires slow phase change (solid to liquid) mechanisms and slow conduction of heat through solids. Instead, you'll see flash evaporation of surface lasers and formation of opaque plasmas that soak most of a laser's energy, producing a superheated gas that does what hot gases love to do: expand. Violently. Explosively. (Note that the laser is not delivering kinetic energy to the target; the laser is delivering heat. The heat makes something explode, which delivers the kinetic energy.)
The process of using a laser to generate powerful explosions on the surface of a target is used in real world industry as a process known as "laser peening" or "laser shock peening."
http://www.metalimprovement.com/laser_peening.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_peening
Obviously, laser weapons would not be interested in tapping the surface of a target to work harden it, but rather would seek to blast off chunks with much more powerful pulses.
Canonically, per Tech Manual and the Blood of Kerensky Trilogy, pulse lasers are more accurate than standard and ER lasers because the strobing laser gives time for that plasma to clear away and for subsequent pulses to reach fresh armor.
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
06/03/09 03:00 PM
24.6.150.175
|
Yes, your using water coating in the proses of peening. I said with out water.
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!!!
|
Cray
06/03/09 04:08 PM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
Yes, your using water coating in the proses of peening.
Repeating the parts of my last post that did not involve water:
"There are several canon descriptions of lasers. ... some authors (and rule books) have used more realistic descriptions of lasers in BattleTech, which do involve ferocious explosions.
Canonically, per Tech Manual and the Blood of Kerensky Trilogy, pulse lasers are more accurate than standard and ER lasers because the strobing laser gives time for that plasma to clear away and for subsequent pulses to reach fresh armor."
See page 226 Tech Manual. No water is involved in lasers' ablation and explosions on targets.
Quote:
I said with out water.
So did I. This is undergraduate thermodynamics, Donkey. When you transfer enough energy into a target to ablate several hundred kilograms of steel and boron carbide in less than 10 seconds, you do so at rates too fast for melting to take place. You get severe film boiling and conversion of the ablation products to plasma (a cousin of the Leidenfrost effect), not melting. Melting caused by lasers at BT lasers' energy values is physically impossible on the given time scales, though it's canonical. Laser-generated explosions are also canonical, but are physically very plausible (unlike melting by battlefield lasers.)
Going off topic, water is not even responsible for the explosion in laser peening. The explosion happens on the metal's surface, below the laser-transparent water. The water serves as a tamper to sharpen the explosion generated by low energy (1 to 100 Joules) industrial lasers. A 200 megajoule small laser doesn't need a tamper to create a vicious explosion - it's delivering the energy of 200 sticks of dynamite. Several gigajoules from a large laser are comparable to a ton of dynamite.
The guilty party in laser-created explosions is the plasma, which is a common product in even low-powered real world laser welding (see: keyhole effect).
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
06/03/09 04:10 PM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
Fine have your fantasy instead of reality again. I know that this will go nowhere, so there is no point continuing.
Donkey, I've cited reality. I've cited real world thermodynamics and real world lasing examples. Calling that information a fantasy without providing any supporting references (which you also failed to provide in the last discussion we had about this) is doing your position a disservice.
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 (06/03/09 04:16 PM)
|
Cray
06/03/09 04:17 PM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
I'm looking to throw together another JMInc. creation, but I'm feeling uninspired. Any requests as to what type of 'Mech I should do? Ranged support, Line 'Mech, Urban, Hunter-Killer, etc.?
'Mechs only?
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
06/03/09 05:32 PM
24.6.150.175
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'm looking to throw together another JMInc. creation, but I'm feeling uninspired. Any requests as to what type of 'Mech I should do? Ranged support, Line 'Mech, Urban, Hunter-Killer, etc.?
'Mechs only?
Yes, most people don't do anything with vehicles that I have seen. I am rare that not only do I use vehicles but I like them better than mechs, because there cheaper.
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!!!
|
Prince_of_Darkness
06/05/09 02:40 AM
71.38.74.162
|
Quote:
Quote:
Fine have your fantasy instead of reality again. I know that this will go nowhere, so there is no point continuing.
Donkey, I've cited reality. I've cited real world thermodynamics and real world lasing examples. Calling that information a fantasy without providing any supporting references (which you also failed to provide in the last discussion we had about this) is doing your position a disservice.
I'm with Cray on this one; to be honest Donkey, whenever someone proves you wrong (no matter what the circumstances), you never seem to accept it, instead leaving the thread and trying to forget it. That's a real bad habit.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
06/05/09 02:42 AM
71.38.74.162
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm looking to throw together another JMInc. creation, but I'm feeling uninspired. Any requests as to what type of 'Mech I should do? Ranged support, Line 'Mech, Urban, Hunter-Killer, etc.?
'Mechs only?
Yes, most people don't do anything with vehicles that I have seen. I am rare that not only do I use vehicles but I like them better than mechs, because there cheaper.
...have you ever played in tournament matches? I have used vehicles all the time in my games, and I'm pretty certain that at Gencon most forces had a good level of vehicles, too.
|
Cray
06/05/09 07:59 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
...have you ever played in tournament matches? I have used vehicles all the time in my games, and I'm pretty certain that at Gencon most forces had a good level of vehicles, too.
Then my request would be for a light gauss rifle carrier that isn't an Ontos-LGR clone. I'd like to see if something interesting can be done with LGRs.
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.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
06/06/09 01:35 AM
71.38.74.162
|
Quote:
Quote:
...have you ever played in tournament matches? I have used vehicles all the time in my games, and I'm pretty certain that at Gencon most forces had a good level of vehicles, too.
Then my request would be for a light gauss rifle carrier that isn't an Ontos-LGR clone. I'd like to see if something interesting can be done with LGRs.
Like what? An Alacorn with LGR's, or something like a Grand Crusader II?
|
Cray
06/06/09 10:58 AM
68.205.198.74
|
Quote:
Like what? An Alacorn with LGR's, or something like a Grand Crusader II?
Hmm. Can you make a useful tank with more than one LGR (and, ideally, C3) that isn't a semi-mobile pillbox?
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
06/06/09 05:35 PM
174.144.106.79
|
Quote:
I'm with Cray on this one; to be honest Donkey, whenever someone proves you wrong (no matter what the circumstances), you never seem to accept it, instead leaving the thread and trying to forget it. That's a real bad habit.
So what do you want me to do? Keep fighting when all that will happen is the fight will go on forever? If you want that just invite newtipe back on list. You will get exactly what your asking for. At least I know when to let the subject drop. The worst part is Cray is doing exactly what he should stop, thread hijacking. I said why a laser would be better than other weapons in the scenario of the thread. He started talking about lasers and not what would be good in the type of scenario that was the subject of the thread.
Also, I am at a unrelated convention. Its slow at the con at the moment so I was catching up on all of my E mail and chat room.
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!!!
|
Cray
06/07/09 12:02 AM
173.168.112.124
|
Quote:
The worst part is Cray is doing exactly what he should stop, thread hijacking.
Guilty, but in past tense. I've been talking about the original topic and a requested design for a couple of days now.
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.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
06/07/09 01:55 AM
71.38.74.162
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'm with Cray on this one; to be honest Donkey, whenever someone proves you wrong (no matter what the circumstances), you never seem to accept it, instead leaving the thread and trying to forget it. That's a real bad habit.
So what do you want me to do? Keep fighting when all that will happen is the fight will go on forever?
No. Accept that you lost the argument.
[/thread hijack]
|
Cray
06/07/09 12:55 PM
173.168.112.124
|
Quote:
No. Accept that you lost the argument.
[/thread hijack]
Lost what? This was a matter of presenting some thermodynamics facts. If someone doesn't believe them, they don't believe them - winning or losing need not apply.
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
06/07/09 05:20 PM
142.161.158.183
|
I'd prefer 'Mech...vehicles don't have nearly the same feel for me...less artistry if you will :P
My preferences for a design? IS 'Mech, level 1 or 2
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Cray
06/07/09 06:35 PM
173.168.115.68
|
Quote:
I'd prefer 'Mech...vehicles don't have nearly the same feel for me...less artistry if you will :P
Hmm. I'm kind of meched out after 23 years. So...what can you cook up with LGRs? They're harder to make useful on a 'Mech than a vehicle.
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
06/07/09 10:43 PM
142.161.158.183
|
any particular purpose in mind?
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Cray
06/07/09 11:00 PM
173.168.115.68
|
Quote:
any particular purpose in mind?
LGRs + C3 define their own purpose: fire support.
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
06/08/09 01:10 AM
142.161.158.183
|
Ok, I think I've got something worth posting, it'll pop up in it's own thread once I throw together some fluff.
I went 50-tonner, since my Heavies kept trying to turn into Rifleman mods...lessee, 2xLGR, 2xERPPC, C3 Master...booooooring... 
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|