Retry
01/03/14 01:41 AM
67.239.109.174
|
It is supposed to follow the rules of battletech *canon* rules. So in a way yeah.
|
ghostrider
01/03/14 02:45 AM
66.74.187.127
|
does the artemis system work underwater? I thought it was laser based, and they have a limited range. Could be my mistake.
I could understand limiting the speed a sub goes underwater, though not sure if btech has done so yet. I would think that all units moving underwater would be slowed down just like a mech walking thru deep water, but not sure. Would figure the stress of making a turn that fast underwater would snap it in half.
I agree its way expensive, but if it does that job, then thats all that matters. Yes, it would be better to use cheaper units to do that job, and one problem with most clans is they dont think vehicles worth a damn to spend that kind of money.
As was mentioned before. Breaking them into smaller multiple launchers would solve some of it. More chance to breach, as well as engaging multiple targets.
Still an interesting design. The ecm might make all the difference, if it works against sonar. Cannt find it if you cannt see it.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/03/14 10:08 AM
172.56.17.225
|
Quote:
Still an interesting design. The ecm might make all the difference, if it works against sonar. Cannt find it if you cannt see it.
A lot of subs use passive sonar and if something is actively moving in water its going to make noise. Active sonar cant be avoided and if your using active sonar to look on to your target everyone and their brother is going to know exactly where you are.
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!!!
|
Retry
01/03/14 10:17 AM
67.239.109.174
|
Run on silent much?
Designed to interfere with guided weaponry, targeting computers, and communication systems, the Guardian is typically used to shield allied units from such equipment by emitting a broad-band signal meant to confuse radar, infrared, ultraviolet, magscan and sonar sensors.
Read the last line of that again, and then thrice.
And this is just the Guardian ECM Suite
Active sonar just got avoided bro?
And then to deal with subs running passive? Bloodhounds. Also I believe they can detect minefields so you don't accidentally waltz in 'em. Another plus.
Yes, the artemis V works underwater. There is torpedo Artemis V capable ammunition.
Edited by Retry (01/03/14 10:30 AM)
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/03/14 12:16 PM
172.56.17.225
|
I wander why HARM ammo has not been added to the game to track and engage Guardian broadcasting units.
I might add HARM ammo as a house rule if I ever have a chance to have the free time to play BT again.
I never understood why Guardian units would be so affective all one has to to is track the broadcasting unit and aim for where the signal is coming from.
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!!!
|
Retry
01/04/14 12:13 AM
67.239.109.174
|
What the hell is a HARM missile? Whatever it is, if it could have been developed by now it would have been, seeing the incredibly prevalent ECM of all sorts.
One does not simply lock onto a jamming device. Otherwise it's not doing it's job, is it?
|
ghostrider
01/04/14 01:41 PM
66.74.187.127
|
harm is an anti radar missle used by the militaries today. I think its high altitude radiation missle. They used them in iraq during that war.
If I recall, they can fire them, and if the enemy turns off the radar, they will fly as high as they can if a target lock is lost, and parachute down to a preset altitude. If they radar is turned back on, it locks. If the radar isnt turned back on before the preset hieght, then it goes for the last target lock it has.
As for ways around the guardian. If you have a jamming device present, it shouldnt be that hard to figure out where the jammer is. I have not seen anything stating you can change the size of the jammer, so the middle of the jamming radius hold the jammer. Shouldnt be that hard to take it out with an artillery shot if it stable. Maybe a bomber could drop something as well. They dont need target locks to blow up the area.
Yes this thought doesnt really work underwater, but does well on the surface or land.
|
Retry
01/04/14 03:27 PM
67.239.109.174
|
It jams Artemis IV, V, and sonar. It works fine.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/04/14 06:49 PM
172.56.17.124
|
HARM missiles are very popular in Car Wars do to all of the radar type of devises used in that game system.
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!!!
|
ghostrider
01/04/14 07:15 PM
66.74.187.127
|
One interesting thing about jammers. They dont block your return signals. Now if its because its set for a certain frequency, then the enemy should be able to determine what frequency they are being scanned on and change to that one. Even if its good for only one shot, you might stop the jamming.
No, retry, this is not trying to undermine your design. Just a stupid thought I have had about jammers in the game.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/27/14 11:14 PM
172.56.9.48
|
Quote:
Why not use flank speed while submerged? I think there is a rule somewhere, but I can't find them to save my life. At least in Megamek it's impossible to expend your flanking MP when submerged w/ a submarine. I don't think it's a bug though, it should be more difficult to trudge through water than mostly air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine
Propulsion:
1 MTU 16V 396 diesel-engine[1]
9 HDW/Siemens PEM fuel cells, 30–40 kW each (U31)
2 HDW/Siemens PEM fuel cells 120 kW (U32, U33, U34)[citation needed]
1 Siemens Permasyn electric motor 1700 kW,[citation needed] driving a single seven-bladed skewback propeller
Speed: 20 knots (37 km/h) submerged, 12 knots surfaced.
Range:
8,000 nautical miles (14,800 km, or 9,196 miles) at 8 knots (15 km/h)
Endurance: 3 weeks without snorkeling, 12 weeks overall
The Type 121 submarine is "FASTER" when submerged and not when it is running on the surface.
So not only do the rules not agree with you but real world submarines do not agree with you.
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!!!
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/27/14 11:30 PM
172.56.9.48
|
I had looked at almost all US and Russian current military submarines and I had not found one sub that was faster on the surface than submerged. A good many had double or more the speed under water than on the surface.
This is just a guess on my part but I would say the reason for this is that the propeller is not fully under water and is far less affective pushing the ship.
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!!!
|
Retry
01/27/14 11:47 PM
67.239.109.174
|
WWII U-Boats ran faster on the surface.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/28/14 12:03 AM
172.56.9.48
|
I think that subs that are in the 34th century are a weeeeee more advanced than WW2 technology.
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!!!
|
Retry
01/28/14 01:17 AM
72.214.204.166
|
They are also not modern day subs. If you gave a canon ICE heavy vehicle an Abrams engine it would likely be faster with more tonnage to spare.
|
Retry
01/28/14 01:44 AM
72.214.204.166
|
Oh, and you are right, they are more advanced. More advanced enough to overcome problems with turbulence and such that slows down teardrop subs on the surface. But overcoming water resistance would not be so simple as "tech up". Hence with the problems of modern subs cured they should still be slower underwater.
|