general weapons discussions

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
ghostrider
03/04/14 11:48 PM
66.27.181.33

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
axes, but only on canon mechs. I don't play solaris. The battles I have played were always more then one person, and more then one unit per side.
Karagin
03/04/14 11:59 PM
70.118.139.48

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Never gotten much use out of the axes, hatches etc...every now and then but they don't seem worth the weight etc...then again as I said before kicking seems to be better.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
03/05/14 05:54 PM
71.47.122.85

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Do they still take double damage in the open?



Yes.

Quote:
And why would cluster rounds do double the weapon size of damage, when is it scattered shots in a confined area.



It is a confined area, but a larger area than APDSFSDU darts. And cluster pellets are explicitly explosive.
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
03/06/14 03:03 PM
66.27.181.33

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Cray writes:

It is a confined area, but a larger area than APDSFSDU darts. And cluster pellets are explicitly explosive.



Is this the rounds used for cluster shot from the lbx cannons?
If so, when did they make them explosive?
ghostrider
03/21/14 12:51 AM
66.27.181.1

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
had another thought on weapons and infantry damage.
why would an a-pod on a mech do alot of damage to infantry in a hex if they are not swarming the mech?

Is this not the same as using fragmentation ammo?
Retry
03/21/14 05:15 PM
76.7.236.208

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I thought you could only activate A-Pods before infantry tries to swarm.

Not that 1D6 is a lot anyways.
ghostrider
03/21/14 06:00 PM
66.27.181.1

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I was thinking someone would try to walk into a zone with infantry and set it off. Or try to. Hell, a single person could take the hit for the team to do so.

But it had popped into my head, and thought an answer would be nice.
ghostrider
11/24/15 03:06 AM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Revived this thread since something new came up, and this is probably a better thread then the design thread.

Cray brought up the point that a weapon used in space battles have an extremely fast speed of munitions in order to be useful in space battles.

With that being said, it makes you wonder how the same lrm/srm ammo is used in both space and land battles, has such an horrendous range in a gravity atmosphere. The sheer speeds would mean they would be at the 630 meters (for lrms) before anyone realized they had fired.
I have not seen anywhere the launchers or ammunition is any different for the standard launchers. This is could be extended to ac's as well.
Which brings up another question/point.
How can the ams do anything with missiles going that speed? By the time it even registered, the missiles should be way past the unit with the ams.
There would be no time to choose to engage or not.

And before you say it, I understand friction of the atmosphere would slow them down some, but this would be a little much.
ghostrider
03/24/16 12:38 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
had the question come up.
Does the targeting comp work with cluster rounds on an lbx cannon?
If so, why?
Doesn't that mean missiles would work with it, as you are firing projectiles that spread out as they splinter into the cluster shot?

Are missiles that wild when fired? They have streak technology which means they can be controlled in flight as well as the fcs equipment.
I know the missiles have their own enchancements, but this is more for the lbx shots.
This combination is more to see if they can come even close to the pulse/comp pairing.
Karagin
03/24/16 05:45 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If I recall correctly, the targeting computer doesn't work with the cluster rounds for the LBX, unless they changed it with in the Core Rule books and I missed it, will need to double check.

The comparison I have seen given to BT missiles is saying they are effective as Congrave's missiles during the Napoleon Wars, take what you want from that. And this came from one of the authors' in an article they wrote about improving weapons for magazine called Far and Away. Good article too, called Hi-Tech Battletech.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
03/24/16 07:30 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So the 'missiles' used in battle tech are semi guided rockets? As they are limited to point and shoot as opposed to tracking a target like missiles do?

But I guess definitions would destroy the basis for missiles and mrm/rockets.

I was just trying to figure out why pulse lasers were so accurate and can use the tc.
It looks like the specifically made this loop hole. Nothing else comes close then.

And the thought of the gyroscopic ammo for cannons should not use the tc bonus either. Or do they?
Karagin
03/24/16 08:40 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You can do the indirect fire, how it's handled well that is not the best way of doing it IN MY OPINION...they are written up as being semi guided but the way they are treated in the game they are more or less direct fire needing line of site and not on the same level as some the smart missiles we have as in the real world.

The pulse lasers maybe more accurate due to how they fire, there is a pause between each burst, now this could be applied to the ACs as well and would make the Ultra versions interesting.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
03/24/16 11:37 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
As the original pulse set up stated, they use a servo motor that adjusted the aiming of the entire laser while it pulsed. That is what was supposed to give it the better accuracy. Yet wouldn't the 2 systems conflict with each other? The tc and the pulse..

The idea of ultras being able to use the tc for both shots was the basis for one of the questions I had asked earlier. The fact that is was supposed to keep the shots on target like a pulse laser was the basis, but the more violent kickback of the cannon does bring into question if it could or not.

It is unusual for the developers to allow such a powerful change to come up and continue like the pulse, especially with the tc added to it.
If the cluster shot can not be used with the tc, or even improve the number of munitions that hit, wouldn't this be considered something that unbalances the weapons?
Anyways, the thought came up and I wanted some input on the idea.
ghostrider
03/29/16 08:11 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
How does a pulse laser perform a strafe?

It is my understanding that the bursts are fine tuned to hit a target, yet a strafe means multiple targets with the laser moving quickly over the battle field.
Would that not overwhelm the system doing the fine targeting?
If not, would that mean the targeting systems should be able to handle multiple or even better focus on a single target?

And this should shut down the focusing time needed to do damage that was suggested on why ranges are so short. You can target dozens, maybe even a hundred targets with a single strafe. There is NO WAY you can keep the laser focused on them all to damage them all.
And PPCs are even worse.


Edited by ghostrider (03/29/16 08:11 PM)
Karagin
03/29/16 08:38 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
How do lasers strafe?

Look at ground attack footage from WW2 and the more current stuff, for examples of how a strafing attack happens.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akirapryde2006
03/29/16 09:02 PM
208.54.70.237

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If you think about it, it is not hard to picture about.

The normal laser would rack targets with a single beam of energy during a straff. Everything in the path of the fighter would be hit by the beam.

A pulse laser would work under a similar principle. However instead of a solid single beam, there would be a rapid fire set of beams, like a machine gun.
ghostrider
03/30/16 01:49 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I understand the principle. but the way damage from them is described, you need a few seconds of focus time on target to do the full damage.
This came up in a discussion about sweeping a laser across the field to kill infantry. It was suggested that an unarmored infatnry man would not be vaporized or hurt badly having a mech calibur laser sweep across them as it requires time to burn them. This would be even more true with armored infantry and moreso with vehicles and mechs.
That is just not possible in a strafe.

The only difference in the laser fire is the beam lasts the entire length of the run, and the airflow over the sinks prevent heat build up beyond a normal shot from it.
This makes it sound like you do not need even a second of focus on armor to damage it.

The speed of the fighter combined with the amount of targets just doesn't add up. I know it doesn't damage all targets, but you could hit more then a dozen in less then 200 meters. 3 hexes wide with multiple units in a hex.

Speaking of which, to infantry take damage under the new rules or the old ones for a strafe?
Ie, they only take 1 point of damage for normal lasers, instead of full damage the laser normally does?
TigerShark
03/30/16 07:28 PM
12.130.166.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Strafing, FYI, is an extremely over-powered ability. Not so much in 3050+ Inner Sphere, but in Intro Tech and Clan games, that +4 is mitigated by 3 pilots and pulse (Clan) and sluggish movement (Intro Tech).

A fighter with, say, (4) Medium Pulse Lasers (IS) could attack two hexes of vehicles with 2 vees/hex (4 units). That's a potential for (6 + 6 + 6 + 6) * 4 = 96 damage. This is NOT factored into a unit's BV. At all.

It really should be 1/2 damage, or double heat for each weapon fired. I really suggest that as a permanent change, after play-testing this quite a bit.


Edited by TigerShark (03/30/16 07:31 PM)
ghostrider
03/31/16 12:13 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
They reduced the width of the strafe?
I thought it was 3 hexes wide, not 2.
And they do the whole board for length, unless they changed that as well.

But I was suggesting the strafe could not do the damage to all units it 'hits', as there is not enough time to focus the beam on any one target.
I didn't really consider the potential damage it does when it hits multiple targets.

Interesting to finally see just how overpowered it can be.
And again the pulse laser shows just how overpowered it is with the -2 to hit. Even with a tc, nothing comes close to it.
I guess it really gets worse the more units that are hit by a strafe.
Drasnighta
03/31/16 12:30 AM
198.53.98.65

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I'm left wondering...

What happened to the days where a Strafing Run was 1 Hex Wide and 5 Consecutive Hexes in a straight line, stopped only by a "shadow" zone of elevation changes?
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
ghostrider
03/31/16 01:32 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The original aerotech book has the 3 hex wide, full map strafes list.
It also had a scenario set out that both sides start with 250 heat sinks to make a force to play with.

The situation you describe, I have not heard of, so I would venture the guesses of they were house rules, another game, or maybe the earlier version of battle tech, battle droids I believe.

Scary to think some of the books I have are 30 years old. Not in the best of shape, but still usable. Hell, the D&D books I got are older then that.

Damn I feel old.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/31/16 01:53 AM
70.122.160.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The only rules on strafing that I had ever known was one hex wide and five hexes long.
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!!!
TigerShark
03/31/16 03:34 AM
104.49.175.97

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Drasnighta writes:

I'm left wondering...

What happened to the days where a Strafing Run was 1 Hex Wide and 5 Consecutive Hexes in a straight line, stopped only by a "shadow" zone of elevation changes?



That didn't change. I'm only giving a scenario where there are two hexes which have any units out of that 5-hex line. I could have said "1 mech in every hex of a 5-hex line", I guess.
ghostrider
03/31/16 12:37 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
page 21 of the original aerotech book states
"When a fighter ends its turn on a battlefield hex, he may announce a strafing attack during the combat phase. This is the only attack he may make during the turn. After all ground forces have completed their movement, the fighter chooses a three-hex-wide row of hexes as his strafe row. This set of hexrows must run parrallel to the fighters direction of atmospheric flight."
The diagram provide with the entry, which I can't put up as I have no scanner working at this time to copy it, shows the examples of a strafing run and it uses a battle tech board all the way across in a straight line as the strafing area. It does say all targets, enemy and friendly, are targets.

Now this may have been changed in other books, which I do not own. If you could tell me which books, as the wiki seems to avoid putting up rules of the game, unless I have typed in something wrong. Strafing, strafing rules, even trying to get rules from battlespace and even aerotech fails to show the rules.
TigerShark
03/31/16 03:50 PM
104.49.175.97

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Total Warfare has been the standard for over a decade. ;-) Gotta upgrade.
Akalabeth
03/31/16 04:22 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
ghost,
It's honestly baffling that you participate so heavily in the discussions and yet at the same time have such an out-dated understanding of the game. Even when discussing designs featuring new technology, you go at great lengths to deliver a lengthy post while being unabashedly "too lazy" to look up and understand the new equipment on the design despite the relevant information being available on sarna. Aerotech 1 is 30 years old. At best the strafing rules have been different for the last 12 years, maybe even before that if the change pre-date Aerotech 2. The Aerotech 1 rules are so old that most players no longer know how they differ.

Total Warfare is only 15 bucks on RPGNow. Go buy it
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/24642/Batt...cturers_id=2216
ghostrider
03/31/16 07:33 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
that book came out after mechwarrior 3 rpg book.
That is why I never bought it. Once the 3rd edition said the 4th edition soon to be out would negate all the 3rd edition rules, I stopped buy the rule books for the game.
It made it sound like money grabs and that told me the game was headed for problems in the future. It was also AFTER the clans came out.

The compendium said the same thing aerotech one did, though master rules doesn't have the information for aerotech in it. I thought it would have been in battlespace.

So they changed another major component, like they did infantry damage.
The explains why a few things seem screwed up.

But you are close. Total warfare came out in 2006, so only ten years. Close enough.
Karagin
03/31/16 07:51 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The old rules work and while not perfect they are still able to allow the game to be run. For laughs and grins my group ran a game using the old BATTLEDROID rules and the 2nd Edition Rules. It was a good fun return to the basics and we had a blast. I say use which ever rule set works for your group.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akalabeth
03/31/16 08:02 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
As I already said above, I'm fairly sure the new strafing rules were in Aerotech 2 which came out in 2004.
12 years. Not 10.
Drasnighta
03/31/16 08:36 PM
198.53.98.65

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

I say use which ever rule set works for your group.



I do to.

But that being said, its hard to have a sane, rational discussion in regards to rules when people are not even on the same page...

... or book.

... Or Edition...

... Or Era of Publication....


I think that's the hardest part about it - and not to anyone in particular - Its just that if there *is* going to be a discussion, that variable has to be part of the discussion, or at least defined... "From the perspective of", for example...
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
Extra information
0 registered and 35 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: 48349


Contact Admins Sarna.net