general weapons discussions

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
ghostrider
02/10/14 11:27 PM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I am making this thread so we can talk about weapons and issues dealing with other threads to avoid threadjacking them anymore. Doubt it will do much to stop it, but it's worth a try.
ghostrider
02/16/14 03:20 PM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
this would be a good area to start the infantry supporting mechs or the other way around arguement. or clans ideas on fighting or anything else of that nature. either that or nic needs to rename designs to designs and arguements about the uses of anything in there.
Karagin
02/16/14 03:34 PM
70.118.139.48

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Discussions will swing in all directions in the topics, no telling where they will go and until they do it is hard to say hey only this or that can be talked about in the design threads.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
02/16/14 05:26 PM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
that is why I put this one up. So there is no threadjacking. Talk about your cats funny faces without going off topic here. or maybe I should have called it no thread jacking possible, all topics covered?
Karagin
02/16/14 07:47 PM
70.118.139.48

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Thread jacking happens whether or not it was point or purpose. The point I am going for is that many of the side convos that happen are going to happen for one reason or another and to those talking about them they are important or have become important.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
02/24/14 08:30 PM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
KF cores don't work very well in a gravity field. In fact, the jump automatically fails. See DropShips & JumpShips (pub. 1988) or Strategic Operations p. 86-88.
This was in another thread, but I would like to know more about some issues with it, and not want to threadjack.

With this statement, this would mean that there are no pirate points inside a system.
There have been numerous times that forces used a pirate point close to a planet that was used in raids. I believe the kell hounds used it in the original scenario pack to jump to harrows sun to rescue prince Ian davion.
Damn. Im gonna have to pull the books out of storage, since I believe in the wolfs dragoons they used a pirate point to hit the capellans in one of their strikes.
I think they used an in system pirate point to hit the mac during the invasion of sarna. I believe that is in the 4th succession war books. Not the novels, but the actual book that explains the war and has a few scenarios in it.
Karagin
02/24/14 09:37 PM
70.118.139.48

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Pirate points have long been part of the BT norm...as for the rules changing the fiction well that is a bit harder to go with, but if the PTB want to do so they will.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
02/25/14 12:05 AM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I am under the impression that alot of the battle tech history comes from the staff actually fighting some of the battles wiether during beta testing or other times. I would like to have some of the impossible for players to do things to be eliminated from the game.
Seeing some information on the partial wings is annoying.
The extra movement for a mech flying in the air, makes it harder to hit then a strafing aerof fighter? How does that work?
The aerofighter moves a full maps worth for a single thrust point. How can a mech moving less then that be harder to hit? Yeah, I understand striaght lines being a possible solution, but based on speed, this should not be possible.
CrayModerator
02/25/14 06:54 PM
71.47.122.85

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Quote:
KF cores don't work very well in a gravity field. In fact, the jump automatically fails. See DropShips & JumpShips (pub. 1988) or Strategic Operations p. 86-88.



This was in another thread, but I would like to know more about some issues with it, and not want to threadjack.

With this statement, this would mean that there are no pirate points inside a system.



Good catch, but not correct. The pirate points inside a system are near to Lagrange-1 points, where the gravity of two bodies sufficiently cancel each other to create a small, valid jump point.

I say pirate points are "near" L1 jump points because true Lagrange points are creations of centripetal force and gravity. Only a place near the L1 point actually sees gravity cancelled by two bodies when you deduct centripetal force. Meanwhile, L2 through L5 add up gravity in the same or non-canceling directions and are only stable for orbits because of centripetal force. Hyperspace fields ignore centripetal force, and L2 and L5 don't have any purely gravity-cancelled spots nearby, so they don't have valid jump points.

Transient points, meanwhile, are pirate points where a third (or more) bodies occasionally raise the gravity of a pirate point to the level where it isn't a valid jump point anymore. For example, Ganymede and Jupiter might form a valid jump point near the Jovian-Ganymede L1 point, but when Europa or Callisto blunder past the gravity levels would raise too high to be a jump point.

See Explorer Corps, AT2R, and most recently Strategic Operations p. 86, 88, 133-135 for discussions on finding pirate points as related to Lagrange points.
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 (02/25/14 07:06 PM)
CrayModerator
02/25/14 06:57 PM
71.47.122.85

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Pirate points have long been part of the BT norm...as for the rules changing the fiction well that is a bit harder to go with, but if the PTB want to do so they will.



Nope, pirate points didn't go away and their description hasn't changed since FASA. FASA's Explorer Corps introduced the notion that they were at Lagrange points, which fits DropShips & JumpShip's description of jump points as being regions with sufficiently low gravity for hyperspace fields to form correctly. AT2R and Strategic Operations stuck very carefully by those descriptions of jump points (and pirate points).
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.
ghostrider
03/02/14 11:39 PM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
still didn't get an answer about when they change damage to infantry.
When did they change weapon damage to them to one point for any weapon besides mgs/flamers??
Karagin
03/02/14 11:44 PM
70.118.139.48

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
When the need CORE rule books came out.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
03/02/14 11:46 PM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
is that new core rule books?
Is that the last set to come out?
Karagin
03/02/14 11:49 PM
70.118.139.48

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The CORE books are series of rule books that is trying to put every rule for BT in to these books to prevent things like additions rules from popping up (for the most part) in other sourcebooks etc...last count was at 5.

As far as I know this is the ONLY rule set that is out with the normal errata changes to fix things etc...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
03/03/14 06:21 PM
71.47.122.85

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
When did they change weapon damage to them to one point for any weapon besides mgs/flamers??



Its not 1 point per weapon. It depends on the weapon, as listed in Total Warfare p. 216, "Non-Infantry Weapon Damage Against Infantry Table."

Direct fire (ballistic or energy) does damage / 10, rounded up.
Cluster-firing ballistic weapons do (damage /10), rounded up, +1.
Cluster (missile) does damage/5, rounded up.
Area effect does Damage / 0.5, rounded up (i.e., doubled).
Burst fire and heat effect weapons are handled separately.
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.
ghostrider
03/03/14 07:27 PM
66.27.181.33

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
so an ac 10 does 1 point while a 20 does 2?

To me the old way that a weapon does its normal damage to unarmored infantry on a successful hit makes more sense.

This new formula doesn't seem to make sense.
Retry
03/03/14 07:51 PM
67.239.109.174

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The old way?

When AC/2s, the massively overtonnaged machineguns, killed a handful out of time, while the AC/20, the new low RoF essentially main gun, kills infantry in droves?

Let's not forget how the old system made the Machine Gun one of the worst infantry killers in the game.


Edited by Retry (03/03/14 07:53 PM)
ghostrider
03/03/14 08:25 PM
66.27.181.33

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
not really. It still did the 2d6. It just wasn't a ranged weapon.
And remember, that was on a successful hit. Just hitting the hex didn't do it for anything but artillery.
Since the introduction of the ultras, it has become more difficult to survive as an assault infantry. Same with the newer energy weapons.
The return of armored infantry would push that back the other way. Not talking elemental armor here, which really pushed back the damage infantry can take.
Armored infantry could cut the casualties down, but it does mean spending money and resources to do so. Even the battle armor has went that direction.

Does the definition of an autocannon still say it fires a burst of rounds at a target?
Would sweeping a laser across an infantry pack mean the beam meant to destory hardened steel would not cut through a person with ease?
It is very stupid to say that is no longer does the same thing it did because we need infantry to live longer to make money off the novels, that aren't canon, but yet we get royalties from it?
ghostrider
03/03/14 08:30 PM
66.27.181.33

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
thinking about it, they could have kept the damage, but just made hitting infantry that much harder.
Retry
03/03/14 08:35 PM
67.239.109.174

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Same goes to you, a successful hit. Even the lowly AC/20 didn't have to be nearly point blank to hit an infantry platoon. The MG is only accurate at range 1 and rapidly deteriorates from there so it still sucked. While everything from the ML to the LL to the... well, everything outperformed a MG at anti-infantry.

The definition of an autocannon still says it fires bursts of rounds. But the bigger autocannons fire less rounds, the smaller ones fire more, in general. So how would it make sense for the larger autocannons to deal more damage to infantry.

One does not simply multi-hit infantry with a laser. Mechwarrior:Living Legends is a FPS/sim that shows that well. Though the targets are BA, it's difficult to hit not just a jumpjetting BA, but even a running/walking one, and standing ones take a couple seconds to focus your crosshairs over it because it is SMALL!
ghostrider
03/03/14 09:45 PM
66.27.181.33

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
mg has a short range of 2.. in real life, yeah the it isn't as accurate at 60 meters as it is at 30...

Now. Do ac rounds have explosive tips causing them to go boom?
I would think more explosives in the larger rounds. More shrapnel spread.

Why do you need to do much focusing of a laser on something as soft as a person? I can see burning steel at 4000 degrees plus. You can boil human much faster. And the beam for even a small laser is not as small as a laser pointer.
Now without official ruling, I would think it was as large as your forearm is around.

Does the mechwarrior living legend show how you can miss a 30 foot unit standing 30 meters away from you? I wont even bother asking if its canon.
A simple sweep of the laser across the fleshy targets should be enough to wipe them out.
Really. How long do you have to hold a laser pistol or rifle on a person to kill them?
A small vehicle laser is much more intense.
ghostrider
03/03/14 09:58 PM
66.27.181.33

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Did they change the rules of having only 2 friendly units in a single zone unless in buildings?
KamikazeJohnson
03/03/14 10:01 PM
50.72.218.68

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Did they change the rules of having only 2 friendly units in a single zone unless in buildings?



I believe that is the same: up to 2 units per side, no more than 1 can be a 'Mech
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
03/03/14 10:20 PM
66.27.181.33

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
was thinking more along platoons of infantry.

I know the mech thing has exceptions, but that isnt important. Just wondering about a regiment of infantry.
KamikazeJohnson
03/03/14 10:24 PM
50.72.218.68

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
was thinking more along platoons of infantry.

I know the mech thing has exceptions, but that isnt important. Just wondering about a regiment of infantry.



Rule still holds...2 platoons per side.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
03/03/14 10:26 PM
66.27.181.33

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
thanks for the info. It solves an issue that has been bugging me since I seen a scenario about it.
ghostrider
03/04/14 06:40 AM
66.27.181.33

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Damn answer has now brought up another question about infantry and limits.

Did they change the way infantry is structured?
a squad of 7 infantry is supposed to be the equivalent of a vehicle or mech in the structure of a unit. But damage from infantry is set up from a platoon standpoint, ie equal to a lance.
Would this not violate the 2 unit stacking rule, since a platoon is equal to 4 squads?
CrayModerator
03/04/14 06:50 PM
71.47.122.85

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
so an ac 10 does 1 point while a 20 does 2?

To me the old way that a weapon does its normal damage to unarmored infantry on a successful hit makes more sense.

This new formula doesn't seem to make sense.



BattleTech infantry units aren't a little cluster of dudes standing shield-to-shield like Roman infantry or shoulder-to-shoulder like continental-style musketeers. They're soldiers who have about 1100 to 1200 years of warfare with machine guns and artillery. So, they spread out across the entirety of a hex 100 feet across and covering a quarter acre.

Autocannons, meanwhile, mostly fire inert, hyper-velocity penetrators that don't make huge blasts. Weapons like the MechBuster's AC/20 only fire 4 or 5 depleted uranium darts.
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.
ghostrider
03/04/14 07:03 PM
66.27.181.33

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I understand that with the gauss rifle slug. A single non explosive piece of metal.

Now I don't know if its hollywood, but most of the time I see soldiers doing anything they are within 10 meters or so, if that far. I would also expect them to be semi close, otherwise you start running into the not concentrated enough to damage something.

And when you start talking about platoons of 28 men to companies, this means more compact or they are way over a single hex.

As I said, changing the rules now, would mean the entire history of warfare would be different then it is. A lance of mechs would not be able to clear a town of infantry without destroying it under these rules. That changes the outcome of sooo many campaigns.

I would like to know if they consider a platoon of infantry one unit, or is it 4 squads in it.
CrayModerator
03/04/14 07:12 PM
71.47.122.85

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
I understand that with the gauss rifle slug. A single non explosive piece of metal.

Now I don't know if its hollywood, but most of the time I see soldiers doing anything they are within 10 meters or so, if that far.



Its Hollywood. In BT, the rules (p. 215 TW) explicitly state, "Unlike other units, conventional infantry are spread across a hex, with each man finding maximum protection using the terrain. This means that damage from a single weapon does not magically transfer from one trooper to the next; that is, the infantry unit does not simply take damage equal to the weapon’s damage value."
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.
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
Extra information
0 registered and 71 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 enabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 48348


Contact Admins Sarna.net