KitK
08/26/09 01:17 PM
128.233.94.12
|
I was thinking of an alternate universe where energy weapons (and even LRM's) don't exist yet. There are just ballistics and few missiles. Actually, it might make a fun design competition if I get the time to run it. I will post my initial list of permitted weapons below for those interested. But my main question is, does including the light gauss rifle obsolete the AC10 and possibly even the AC5 and AC2?
AC-2
AC-5
AC-10
AC-20
Light AC-2
Light AC-5
Light Gauss Rifle
Light Machine Gun
Machine Gun
Heavy Machine Gun
Flamer
SRM-2
SRM-4
SRM-6
MRM-10
MRM-20
MRM-30
MRM-40
RL-10
RL-15
RL-20
Hatchet
Sword
A-Pod
B-Pod
AMS
BAP
ECM
Remote Sensor Dispenser
Searchlight
Standard Ammo
Inferno Ammo
Fragmentation Ammo
Standard Armor
Ferro-Fibrous Armor
Single Heatsinks
Fusion Engines
Standard Structure
Standard Gyro
Standard Cockpit
CASE
MASC
TSM
Biped or Quad
Standard Jump Jets
Edited by KitK (08/27/09 12:42 PM)
|
Karagin
08/26/09 01:53 PM
72.178.75.99
|
First no the the LGR doesn't make the AC10 or others obselet. It has niche role as do the ACs, plus the ACs can use the new ammo types...you may want them added in.
Not having engery weapons means you need to lighten the weights of some of the weapons...not many 1 ton guns out there...
I think you should allow all of the armor except the Stealth stuff, that is more for fighters then tanks and mechs...yes I know we have made strides in real life to have holo-cammo deal, but even then it won't be wide spread. Small cockpits and the rest of the higher tech construction items I think would be a good addition to your setting.
Overall I hope we see more of your idea and units for this setting.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
08/26/09 10:19 PM
205.202.120.216
|
Might as well not allow DHS at the same time 
Honestly, I don't understand not allowing LRM's... but to each his own.
|
Cray
08/26/09 11:01 PM
173.168.115.68
|
Quote:
Honestly, I don't understand not allowing LRM's... but to each his own.
LRMs can be extremely potent. They can ignore barriers with indirect fire and lay down may complicating munitions: smoke, mines, flares, etc. and have excellent 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.
|
Karagin
08/27/09 12:54 AM
72.178.75.99
|
Yes and given that we have missile based artillery since Congreve used rockets during the Napoleonic Wars...(possible before that if one counts the Chinese use of rockets and fireworks)....and now we have things like the MLRS or pick a Russian or Chinese version of a mobile multiply launch rocket system...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
08/27/09 01:21 AM
205.202.120.216
|
Quote:
Quote:
Honestly, I don't understand not allowing LRM's... but to each his own.
LRMs can be extremely potent. They can ignore barriers with indirect fire and lay down may complicating munitions: smoke, mines, flares, etc. and have excellent range.
... oh yesh, there's that
|
Karagin
08/27/09 05:19 PM
72.178.75.99
|
Hey those LRM carries do come in handy...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
KitK
08/27/09 05:48 PM
128.233.94.12
|
I forgot to put CASE on the list, which is an essential development in an ammo based world, so I edited and added it.
Replies
Quote:
ACs can use the new ammo types...you may want them added in
Having removed other technological advancements, the other ammo types seem reasonable. I'll edit those in soon.
Quote:
need to lighten the weights of some of the weapons...not many 1 ton guns out there...
I'm not going to invent any new guns. For lighter equipment needs there is the MG+1/2ton ammo combo, flamer, RL15, and extra SRM2s. Also, I want to leave some advancements out so that there is something to upgrade to in a future era - ie endosteel, light ff armor, main gauss rifle, rac, lbx, uac, light engine. I want the mechs to feel like level 1 but have some level 2 toys that make sense to develop if standard lasers and ppcs have not been developed.
Quote:
Might as well not allow DHS at the same time
Honestly, I don't understand not allowing LRM's... but to each his own Quote:
LRMs can be extremely potent.
DHS are already out. LRM's are too potent. I don't want them to give the ACs competition. At the same time, with SRM's already developed, the use of RLs and MRMs move toward functional LRMs in the future.
Quote:
First no the the LGR doesn't make the AC10 or others obselet
The niche argument is a good one. On the other hand, I can replace all AC10s with LGR losing 2 points of damage with a 3 hex minimum range but gaining 10 hexs range for 2 less heat, 2 less critical slots, less damage for an "ammo" type explosion (albeit a greater risk of it) for the same weight. Also the same weight as 2 AC2s. So I think the LGR looks pretty good in this setting vs the ACs, and I wouldn't want it to take over. But, at the same time it fits in.
|
KitK
08/27/09 05:50 PM
128.233.94.12
|
Max edit time expired
add to the list
AC Flechette Ammo
AC Armor Piercing Ammo
AC Precision Ammo
|
Bob_Richter
08/27/09 05:57 PM
66.191.9.99
|
Speaking only for myself, I can't see a situation where I'd prefer an AC/10 over an LGR.
-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.
:)
|
KitK
08/28/09 11:53 AM
128.233.94.12
|
Quote:
Speaking only for myself, I can't see a situation where I'd prefer an AC/10 over an LGR.
That's kind of what I was thinking, though there is short range (inside LGR minimum range) and city fighting.
|
Prince_of_Darkness
08/28/09 12:12 PM
205.202.120.216
|
There are also Special rounds, cost, and availability...
|
KitK
08/28/09 12:17 PM
128.233.94.12
|
Keep in mind these aren't intended to go against standard Battletech mechs because they are pre-energy technology. I'll try to highlight some some none-weapon changes.
Orion ON1-A
================================================================================
Equipment Type Rating Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: 114 points 7.50
Engine: Fusion Engine 300 19.00
Walking MP: 4
Running MP: 6
Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks: Single 12 2.00
Gyro: Standard Gyro 3.00
Cockpit: Standard 3.00
Actuators: L: SH+UA+LA R: SH+UA+LA
Armor: [bold]Ferro-Fibrous[/bold] AV - 215 12.00 (215)
Armor Locations: 3 LT, 2 RT, 2 LA, 3 RA, 2 LL, 2 RL
CASE Locations: 1 LT, 1 RT 1.00
Internal Armor
Structure Factor
Head 3 9
Center Torso 23 32
Center Torso (rear) 10
L/R Torso 16 22
L/R Torso (rear) 10
L/R Arm 12 22
L/R Leg 16 28
================================================================================
Equipment Location Heat Critical Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 SRM-2s RA 4 2 2.00
2 Light Machine Guns LA 0 2 1.00
Autocannon/10 RT 3 7 12.00
MRM-20 LT 6 3 7.00
@SRM-2 (50) RA - 1 1.00
@LMG (1/2) (100) LA - 1 0.50
@AC/10 (20) RT - 2 2.00
@MRM-20 (24) LT - 2 2.00
Orion ON1-A1
================================================================================
Equipment Type Rating Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: 114 points 7.50
Engine: Fusion Engine 300 19.00
Walking MP: 4
Running MP: 6
Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks: Single 12 2.00
Gyro: Standard Gyro 3.00
Cockpit: Standard 3.00
Actuators: L: SH+UA+LA R: SH+UA+LA+ H
Armor: [bold]Ferro-Fibrous[/bold] AV - 215 12.00 (215)
Armor Locations: 3 LT, 3 RT, 2 LA, 2 RA, 2 LL, 2 RL
CASE Locations: 1 LT, 1 RT 1.00
Internal Armor
Structure Factor
Head 3 9
Center Torso 23 32
Center Torso (rear) 10
L/R Torso 16 22
L/R Torso (rear) 10
L/R Arm 12 22
L/R Leg 16 28
================================================================================
Equipment Location Heat Critical Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flamer LA 3 1 1.00
Rocket Launcher 10 LA 3 1 0.50
Light Gauss Rifle RT 1 5 12.00
MRM-20 LT 6 3 7.00
SRM-4 LT 3 1 2.00
@Light Gauss Rifle (32) RT - 2 2.00
@MRM-20 (24) LT - 2 2.00
@SRM-4 (25) LT - 1 1.00
Rifleman RFL-1A
================================================================================
Equipment Type Rating Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: 99 points 6.00
Engine: Fusion Engine 180 7.00
[Bold]Walking MP: 3
Running MP: 5[/bold]
Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks: Single 10 0.00
Heat Sink Locations: 2 CT, 1 RT
Gyro: Standard Gyro 2.00
Cockpit: Standard 3.00
Actuators: L: SH+UA R: SH+UA
Armor: [bold]Ferro-Fibrous[/bold] AV - 152 8.50 (152)
Armor Locations: 3 LT, 3 RT, 2 LA, 2 RA, 2 LL, 2 RL
CASE Locations: 1 LT, 1 RT 1.00
Internal Armor
Structure Factor
Head 3 9
Center Torso 20 25
Center Torso (rear) 10
L/R Torso 14 16
L/R Torso (rear) 8
L/R Arm 10 15
L/R Leg 14 15
================================================================================
Equipment Location Heat Critical Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(changed arms loads so they aren't identical to each other
2 Light AC/2s RA 2 2 8.00
2 Autocannon/5s LA 2 8 16.00
MRM-10 RT 4 2 3.00
2 Light Machine Guns LT 0 2 1.00
@Light AC/2 (45) RA - 1 1.00
@MRM-10 (24) RT - 1 1.00
@AC/5 (20) LT - 1 1.00
@AC/5 (AP) (10) LT - 1 1.00
@LMG (1/2) (100) LT - 1 0.50
|
Cray
08/28/09 03:44 PM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
Standard Jump Jets
Incidentally, standard jump jets - as fluffed - are close cousins to energy weapons and the fusion rockets of aerospace fighters. Don't let that hold you back, though, you can fluff your way out of the issue.
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
08/28/09 04:47 PM
72.178.75.99
|
Special Ammos.....
LBX version
UAC Version
Cheaper?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
08/28/09 09:28 PM
66.191.9.99
|
Quote:
Special Ammos.....
Not a factor. Even with special ammunition, the LGR routinely outperforms the AC/10
Quote:
LBX version
Is a different weapon, and still in many ways inferior.
Quote:
UAC Version
Is a different weapon, considerably heavier when considered as a system, and while there are reasons to prefer it, they really don't come into the discussion.
Quote:
Cheaper?
Trivially. Not enough to make up the differences in performance.
-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
08/28/09 09:30 PM
66.191.9.99
|
Technically, the Flamer is an energy weapon.
Its performance is crap, so maybe you don't care, but it's an energy weapon all the same. Consider the Vehicle Flamer.
-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
08/29/09 12:18 AM
72.178.75.99
|
I disagree, I think the ammo options available to the ACs means those can out do the LGR on more occasions and they offer a wider damage spectrum for them play with. Plus they give the ACs flexibility where as the LGR does not have anything but the nickel slugs to fire.
You may not have found them to be effective, but I have seen them used one more then one occasion that have given the mech that normally would not have won the fight against a heavier mech the extra edge needed to gain the victory.
The LGR is a different weapon from the standard Gauss Rifle, so comparing it to ALL of the AC variants would be far more in line to get a good comparison and allow for a more valid statement on the merits of it being better then the AC10 series of weapons.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
KitK
08/29/09 03:08 AM
71.17.31.164
|
Jump Jets are cousins to "energy weapons?" I have to say I'd have never guessed that one. Though I suppose that makes some sense because their thrust is coming from the fusion engine like a flamer...
Yeah, I know Flamers are energy weapons. I figured someone would (quite rightly) point that out sooner or later. Mainly I am trying to eliminate the lasers and PPCs. This isn't because I don't like them. I just got to thinking it might be interesting to see what players could come up with if lasers and PPCs got taken away. (The inspiration came from that LGR Panter that was posted recently and the "Back End of Nowhere" story in TW.)
Incidently, can you put a 'vehicle' flamer on a battlemech? If so, is it only useful against vehicles?
Back to the LGR vs AC-10 discussion. Categorically the LGR belongs on the list. It's weight at least keeps it from filling every possible role. Yet it out classes a pair of AC-2s pretty badly. Without the LGR option the AC-5 and AC-2 become important for their range. LGRs give both range and damage. Maybe replacing the LGR with a regular GR on the list would be the best way to solve the problem.
|
Bob_Richter
08/29/09 07:10 AM
66.191.9.99
|
Quote:
I disagree, I think the ammo options available to the ACs means those can out do the LGR on more occasions and they offer a wider damage spectrum for them play with. Plus they give the ACs flexibility where as the LGR does not have anything but the nickel slugs to fire.
The LGR doesn't need anything but the nickel slugs to fire. It has incredible range and a highly effective punch. There are ranges where special ammunition can give you an edge, but the LGR outperforms each special munition over the majority of the LGR's range. Since most special munitions also reduce ammo quantity and the LGR has a higher basic ammo load, using special munitions also makes the weapons less comparable.
Quote:
You may not have found them to be effective, but I have seen them used one more then one occasion that have given the mech that normally would not have won the fight against a heavier mech the extra edge needed to gain the victory.
What you've seen isn't necessarily relevant. What's important here is what you can reliably reproduce. The difference is between a fluke and a phenomenon.
Quote:
The LGR is a different weapon from the standard Gauss Rifle, so comparing it to ALL of the AC variants would be far more in line to get a good comparison and allow for a more valid statement on the merits of it being better then the AC10 series of weapons.
This argument is a non-sequitur. Red is not blue, therefore red should be compared to green.
The AC/10 and only the AC/10 was being considered. My argument does not extend to Ultra or LB-X versions or to autocannons of any other calibre. Please do not move the goalposts.
-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.
:)
Edited by Bob_Richter (08/29/09 08:38 PM)
|
Bob_Richter
08/29/09 07:13 AM
66.191.9.99
|
Quote:
Incidently, can you put a 'vehicle' flamer on a battlemech? If so, is it only useful against vehicles?
I'm not aware of any limit on using them on 'Mechs. There's just no reason you would under ordinary circumstances. They function in most respects like a normal flamer, they just use ammo (and thus not power converters or heat sinks.)
-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.
:)
|
Cray
08/29/09 10:29 AM
68.205.198.74
|
Quote:
Jump Jets are cousins to "energy weapons?" I have to say I'd have never guessed that one. Though I suppose that makes some sense because their thrust is coming from the fusion engine like a flamer...
See CBT:Companion or Tech Manual. They're effectively jet engines that replace the kerosene burners with fusion-powered heaters: electron beam emitters, microwaves, something like that.
But in a home game, it's easy to re-fluff jump jets and/or flamers as non-energy items. (Of course, if you already have the ammo-using vehicle flamer, the regular flamer-turned-non-energy is a bit redundant.)
Quote:
Incidently, can you put a 'vehicle' flamer on a battlemech?
Sure.
Quote:
If so, is it only useful against vehicles?
It's a normal weapon and will damage whatever you hit (but may inflict heat if you want). See pg303 Total Warfare for stats.
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
08/29/09 10:35 AM
72.178.75.99
|
Not moving the goal post Bob, what I am saying is that you can not rule out the other versions of the weapon system and say that the LGR makes having the normal ACs pointless.
The ability of the standard ACs, in this case the AC10, to use the special ammos gives it more options that again the LGR does not have. Thus expanding their use further and allowing them to be a factor that can play into more roles of combat then the LGR. Also the AC10 does not have minimum range, the LGR does.
We are not seeing the normal weapons evolution in BT, better weapons phase out older ones. We do not put 50mm guns on tanks anymore since there are better and more powerful guns to outfit the tank with, also armor has changed and unless the 50mm cannon or gun, is firing some kind of special shell, it is not going to be effective against modern armor.
In BT we have not seen this, the same weapons that have been around for centuries, are still around as of the current date, which I believe is 3075, plus or minus 5. Nothing has become obsolete or been phased out. Maybe that is the real issue here.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
08/29/09 08:36 PM
66.191.9.99
|
Quote:
Not moving the goal post Bob, what I am saying is that you can not rule out the other versions of the weapon system and say that the LGR makes having the normal ACs pointless.
Which isn't what I said, thus you're moving the goal posts. I said I couldn't see a reason to choose the AC/10 over the LGR. I stand by that. The LGR is a superior weapon system in nearly all respects.
Quote:
The ability of the standard ACs, in this case the AC10, to use the special ammos gives it more options that again the LGR does not have. Thus expanding their use further and allowing them to be a factor that can play into more roles of combat then the LGR. Also the AC10 does not have minimum range, the LGR does.
None of which I find to be adequate reasons to choose the AC10 over the LGR (as I have explained.) Thanks for playing.
-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
08/30/09 12:39 AM
72.178.75.99
|
Sorry that you feel that way and if you want to use the LGR, then don't get upset when some one uses the ACs with the new ammo and you end up losing the LGR to a couple of hits by them.
I do understand your stance, but I happen to favor the other weapons, so each of us has our pick to play with, so all are having fun...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Zandel_Corrin
08/31/09 03:56 AM
123.2.140.247
|
LGR vs AC10.....
Reason for AC 10 is simple..... Armour Piercing Ammo! That stuff is brutal.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
KitK
08/31/09 04:48 PM
128.233.94.12
|
OK, so far I've added CASE and AC specialty ammo. I'll leave the LGR in as it sounds like the AC-10 will be unique enough to not be totally replaced by the LGR. I am concerned about its range, but there are no LRMs so that seems fair enough.
There is definately a problem in the area of lighter weight guns. I think Karagin voiced that concern. I thought I had it covered, but some design experimenting says otherwise. What I am thinking of doing is pulling the flamer and replacing it with the Clan flamer. The vehicle flamer's ammo need fits with my no-energy concept but doesn't help solve the light weapon problem.
Now to address this problem further, I am thinking of really crossing my no-energy weapons starting point and putting in the pulse lasers, in particular the small pulse, maybe the medium, and contemplating the large. Because pulse lasers increase in heat and weight while losing range, they kind of fit the bill by taking a step backwards. The -2 to hit is a concern. What think ye?
Has anyone else tried implemening this besides me? I have only tried modifying canon chasis. It is a bit of a challenge and works easier if the mech started out with ACs or LRM's to begin with.
KK
|
Karagin
09/01/09 12:13 AM
72.178.75.99
|
Sounds good. Your idea overall is interesting and something I could see happening in different parts of the Inner Sphere or out in the Periphery.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Tripod
09/01/09 12:27 AM
192.94.94.106
|
My buddies and I were contemplating a alternate timeline where a jumpship had a missjump and appeared in an unknown system. The system was inhabited by humans but they possesed an "middle age" level of technology and still functioned by a feudal monarchy type goverment. The campaign was to take place 200 years later. The influx of 3025 tech rapidly advanced this civilization to the point where they were just starting to be able to produce fusion powerplants. Most mechs were ICE, Battery, fuel cell or fission. Different factions were to have access to different weapons and construction materials. The ICE mechs worked quite well without energy weapons.
Let me find the link....
ICE mech talk...
http://www.sarna.net/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/145274/an/0/page/0#145274
ICE Designs by Sarna.net and company... (thanks again) ...
http://www.sarna.net/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/146982/an/0/page/3#146982
TBA
|
KitK
09/02/09 01:10 PM
198.169.14.204
|
I.C.E! And here I though I was being stingy on allowing enough weight to work with.
Thanks for those links Tripod. How did the campaign end up?
|
Tripod
09/03/09 06:48 AM
8.23.64.196
|
Didn't run it yet.... But I finally got a consistent game going. 3 weeks in a row! Might get the "Panther/Crusader Noob" to help me try the designs out, and make a few more maybe. He made an accout here but has yet to post.
TBA
|