general information

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | >> (show all)
ghostrider
01/21/15 07:04 PM
75.80.239.165

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Just letting people that are new here know. Don't be discouraged by people putting up their opinions on units.
Do not worry about what we say, unless it is something major like the weight is wrong, or something of that nature.
Your games and your campaigns are not to be discouraged. I am not in any part official battletech, and I don't think anyone is.

Do not think you can not use your designs in your own game, or that you should stop making them because someone here doesn't like them.
I know I would like something close to reasonable, but that is just me. I am not the lord of battletech, so take what I say as a suggestion or even bad advice.

I don't want to keep others from having fun.
ghostrider
03/31/15 03:10 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Where can you find any information on the actual maximum height you can drop a mech from?
What is the closest a warship can get into a 1g world?
When does a warship have issues with an atmosphere?

I wondered about this back when the Draconis Combine made a warship that could drop mechs from orbit. One threat said warships crash when in a planets atmosphere, but this made me think of a conflict in the design vs rules aspect on this.
Any ideas on what I missed?

With all the information available, I don't see why a dropship has to be in orbit to drop scouts.
They could move to where they need to be from where they land. It should allow them to avoid detection, as they are just another meteor dropping on a planet.
CrayModerator
03/31/15 06:30 PM
67.8.171.23

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Where can you find any information on the actual maximum height you can drop a mech from?



Well, per Total Warfare, 'Mechs take falling damage based on the number of levels they fall. Even 1 level (6 meters, give or take) generates damage. To avoid that you need to fall less than 1 level, which would be around 3-4 meters, tops.

Note that 'Mechs with jump jets may deliberately "fall" any height safely, presuming they use their jump jets to brake (and drop cocoons if they're going to perform atmospheric entries). 'Mechs without jump jets performing a combat drop from a DropShip are equipped with one-shot "drop packs" of parachutes and single-use jump jets (for use after their drop cocoon pops).

Quote:
What is the closest a warship can get into a 1g world?
When does a warship have issues with an atmosphere?



Per AT2R and Total Warfare, they take damage based on the number of hexes per turn they move in the atmosphere of a planet. (The way to avoid damage: don't move. 1 hex per turn = 100 standard points of damage to a WarShip or JumpShip.) So, look up the high altitude map in Total Warfare. I think there's 5 atmosphere and interface rows on the map, each 18km across, which would make the closest 90km without experiencing damage.

Note that each thrust point equals 0.5G, so a WarShip able to muster 2 thrust points could hover in place on the edge of the atmosphere instead of orbiting. Doing so is discussed in Strategic Operations - it lets you bombard one map for a lot longer than a WarShip in orbit.

Quote:
I wondered about this back when the Draconis Combine made a warship that could drop mechs from orbit. One threat said warships crash when in a planets atmosphere, but this made me think of a conflict in the design vs rules aspect on this.



You can drop 'Mechs further away from a planet than the edge of the atmosphere. Dropping near the edge of the atmosphere just minimizes the time the 'Mechs are trapped in their entry cocoons and vulnerable to defending fighters and anti-aircraft guns. See Tactical Operations (I think) or BattleTech Master Rules for combat drop rules.

Quote:
With all the information available, I don't see why a dropship has to be in orbit to drop scouts.



Yep. They can be dropped from inside the atmosphere, or from a passing DropShip that didn't enter orbit but just swung by. Well, I guess that'd be a "hyperbolic orbit," so your transport will be in form or another.

Quote:
They could move to where they need to be from where they land. It should allow them to avoid detection, as they are just another meteor dropping on a planet.



Meteors usually don't drop from DropShips and WarShips. The detection range of sensors is such that your DropShip or WarShip could be easily spotted tens of millions of kilometers from a planet (engine drive plume detectors) or around a million kilometers (radar), not to mention the jump wave detectors that spotted your arrival at the jump point several AU away. Also, unless you're REALLY patient, BattleTech's 'Mech transport tend to move much faster than any meteor when they're in deep, like small percentages of light speed. They stand out from natural space objects. See Strategic Operations for sensor rules.

It's not a question of being undetected - you will be seen. It's a question of landing before the defenders get to you (hence the value of a pirate point). Or knocking down the defenders and then landing where ever you want. Or finding an opponent with poor sensor coverage, in which case the stealth efforts aren't really important. Or pretending to be a merchant and landing in full view.
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
04/01/15 01:09 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The question of a mech being dropped was from orbit, not an uncontrolled fall. Sorry if I didn't specify that. I know they take damage from falling off cliffs and buildings.

The meteor comment was just suggesting that anyone watching the radar and other sensors, should think a dropped unit from further out would not be a hostile unit. This also was to cover spec ops style insertion on a planet, ie released from a normal ship so the ground crew doesn't realize it was dropped.
CrayModerator
04/01/15 06:10 PM
67.8.171.23

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

The meteor comment was just suggesting that anyone watching the radar and other sensors, should think a dropped unit from further out would not be a hostile unit. This also was to cover spec ops style insertion on a planet, ie released from a normal ship so the ground crew doesn't realize it was dropped.



I understood the goal. I just don't think it'd work on a well-developed planet because of sensor ranges - 'Mechs are dropped from low orbit at most, while ships may be seen at much longer ranges. So the visible "meteors" would be released from a visible ship.

There are, however, planets where it'd work: the ones with imperfect sensor coverage, the average worlds, the backwater worlds. For those worlds you're on to something.
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
04/02/15 07:17 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
On a different note.
With tanks having the bad time with crits, and half of the crits basically killing the crews, (barring case for ammo explosion), how to tank crews get even close to being elite if they actually get hit in combat?
ghostrider
04/04/15 10:45 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Don't remember if this was brought up or not but I'm gonna ask anyways.

A vehicle using an ice engine.
Should it require power amps when using gauss style equipment?

I would think so, since it requires alot more power to charge and fire then anything other then energy weapons. Even the description of the weapon says it uses alot of power.
I can forgive the first firing, since you can charge it for a while, but every round sounds like more power then just the normal alternator should be able to put out.
CrayModerator
04/04/15 11:42 AM
97.101.96.171

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Don't remember if this was brought up or not but I'm gonna ask anyways.

A vehicle using an ice engine.
Should it require power amps when using gauss style equipment?



Power amplifiers are only applied to energy weapons, which include lasers, PPCs, and plasma weapons. Despite their prodigious electrical appetite, Gauss rifles are not counted as energy weapons. If it helps you rationalize it, assume that those great, big, explosive capacitors in Gauss weapons count as integral power amplifiers - the Tech Manual description of power amplifiers is a capacitor bank. Unlike a laser, they come with their own power amplifier.

Note that Heavy Gauss rifles may only be mounted on fusion-powered vehicles.
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
04/05/15 09:01 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Did some thinking about the capacitors. I could accept that for the first shot, as I said. But if you start firing fast, it doesn't hold up like it should. Otherwise it opens the door for other arguments.
The first thought comes to mind about using small laser.
Or using a smaller engine with the electric motors used as the motive system on fusion engines.
Most ice engines have the alternators large enough to power most electrical systems, but that normally doesn't cover sensor suits like radar, along with some comms, turrets, life support, as you really don't want to have dirty outside air coming inside causing your units to choke.

Granted, there should be something to equal out the fact the ICE's are too damn heavy. But this doesn't seem right. Otherwise you should be able to charge a capacitor bank to use energy weapons. I know power amps are light enough, but I just don't see being able to fire a gauss every round without some extra power supply to them.
CrayModerator
04/06/15 06:43 PM
67.8.171.23

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Did some thinking about the capacitors. I could accept that for the first shot, as I said. But if you start firing fast, it doesn't hold up like it should.



It does hold up if you look at the length of a turn versus the power consumption of an energy weapon versus the power generation of a fusion engine and ICE engine.

A turn is 10 seconds long. An energy weapon fires only for a fraction of a second. That leaves you have over 9 seconds to recharge an energy weapon.

The problem is, energy weapons don't have capacitor banks adequate to hold the charge that can be delivered in 9+ seconds.

Fusion engines get around this because they can deliver enough juice quick enough to meet energy weapons' needs, no capacitor bank required.

IC engines can't deliver electricity that fast on their own, so you need a separate capacitor bank to build up that juice over the 9 spare seconds in a turn. Hence, the power amplifier.
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
04/06/15 06:53 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I guess not knowing the energy output of a normal alternator/generator on the engine and what the capacitors need is messing with me.

It makes me wonder about the fusion reactors and how they came up with the rating a unit needs, with output verses weapons and movement. It is nice and easy that movement for mechs is speed times weight equals engine, but when you add in weapons it goes into the toilet. Vehicles is even worse.

Without major modifications to the ice and it's charging system, generating the power needed to charge the capacitors would throw engine size or rating out the window for moving the vehicle. For some reason I would believe the gauss rifle needs more power then moving a light vehicle quickly.

It also makes me wonder why they don't have large batteries that are charged in order for energy weapons use
Maybe this might help. Does the fuel cell need power amps for energy weapons?
Ok, they do require amps. Checked the wiki after posting this.


Edited by ghostrider (04/06/15 06:56 PM)
ghostrider
05/12/15 03:35 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Is there some reason why the developers didn't go with keeping ice engines the same weight as fusion, but force vehicles that use ice to mount a small fusion engine like a turret needs for energy weapons and just to power electronics?
Ie. the rating is based on power needed?


Also. Did they limit tanks even more by forcing fuel limits on vehicles, instead of just ruling that certain items could not be on a vehicle?
Fusion engines would have been a good start.
Maybe limit the weight a turret could handle?
Or even the amount of weapons it could effectively use.
CrayModerator
05/12/15 06:40 PM
67.8.171.23

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Is there some reason why the developers didn't go with keeping ice engines the same weight as fusion, but force vehicles that use ice to mount a small fusion engine like a turret needs for energy weapons and just to power electronics?



By the time vehicles were added to the game, it was canonical that the universe was extremely starved of fusion engines due to technological collapse so they wouldn't be placed in vehicles all that often. Further, combustion engines were supposed to be the cruder, heavier alternative to fusion engines. Hence, they were heavier.

Quote:
Ie. the rating is based on power needed?



The rating is only abstraction linked to movement. It was a quick-and-simple means of determining engine size for fusion-powered 'Mechs that predated the idea of combustion engines.

Quote:
Also. Did they limit tanks even more by forcing fuel limits on vehicles, instead of just ruling that certain items could not be on a vehicle?



The fuel / range of combustion engines is a fairly recent introduction. The original vehicle rules didn't bother with those fine details of logistics.
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
05/12/15 10:06 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The fuel thing does seem like an oversight. I have yet to see how much fuel or even how often a fusion engine needs to replace the fuel/top it off.

I guess asking why they did not have people add in a larger engine depending on power consumption do to weapons, electronics and even movement on non vehicle units is beyond the scope of an answer. I can understand this was made before anyone thought it would become as popular as it did.

The KISS principle. Keep It Simple Stupid.
It was weird they wanted to round up to the nearest half ton, but didn't have make a simple table for vehicle controls.

And I would still like to know how engines get assigned a rating. I would assume it was power output, but some of the things that have been done doesn't add up to that. IE, a 300 rated engine only pushes a 100 ton at 3 move, yet a 75 ton unit at 4. That should be myomers making the difference, not the engine itself.
I am assuming the increased power output is how MASC works on mechs.
Not sure how the supercharger does anything, though.
Retry
05/12/15 10:53 PM
76.7.238.104

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I wouldn't say it was an oversight as much as it was a lack of caring for a factor that would not affect any conceivable tactical situations.

I presume the Myomers, having access to a higher power engine, are able to work at a faster rate, thus speeding up the mech itself.

The Battletech supercharger, for ICE vehicles anyways, functions more like a War Emergency Power setting for an engine, exceeding the safety limit for a burst of power, and with it speed.
Karagin
05/12/15 11:21 PM
70.118.139.48

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
They have had plenty of chances to correct the oversight and allow for lighter conventional engines as they did for Fusion engines, unless some how some way the folks in the Inner Sphere can't seem to apply the same concepts of lighter internal structure and double heat sink and lighter engine technology and advancements to vehicles...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
GiovanniBlasini
05/12/15 11:56 PM
75.80.176.62

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I wasn't aware that fusion reactors and internal combustion engines were so similar. I bet that must make all those universities studying fusion power here in the real world real sheepish that they just can't look at car engines for ideas.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
ghostrider
05/13/15 01:25 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That is a problem with how the engines provide power. The ICE uses the reciprocating motion to produce power, while my understanding is the fusion engine produces electricity for use. The ICE can use lighter alloys and still work, while the fusion engine should have issues with the shielding needed to keep it cool and prevent all the radiation from escaping. And to be honest, you could very well use alloys found in simple things like mech armor to produce a lighter, and stronger ICE. I seriously doubt the ICE temps would get anywhere near even a small lasers heat output or damage. And the cooling circuit should avoid it getting that high, even if it did.

Now I understand the concept of more power causing the myomers to contract with more force, but the engine puts out x amount of power. Increasing say the voltage to get it to pull harder does work. But all the power in the world won't drive a unit faster without a good motive system. This ties in with the pricing of the engines. They should not be what decides the speed of a mech. Stronger myomers should. The MASC system shows the hole in that theory. Technically the triple strength myomers are another hole in that theory. Heat slows down the motive system in a mech, yet the tsm increases it once hot? And not just up to normal speed. but even faster. I would think you could have a capacitor bank that would charge and allow you bursts of speed when charged. Even just a larger generator if such is used. And yes, they should be maxed out, but I would think they went the cheap road, because there is nothing in the game about how the MASC sends an increased charge. No recharge time. No extra power needed. If it is just a different transformer, then that blows the largest power source in use to hell.
ghostrider
05/13/15 01:40 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
A thought came up after I logged out.
The fact you can burn out myomers says something as well.
Also myomers are based on the tonnage of the mech, but doesn't even involve the speed they are used.
How would a myomer for something that is 30 tons have a stronger contraction pull then a heavier one?
And the fact you can get faster ones for any size mech, or even using the same ones by changing out an engine has some major flaws in it. And honestly, a smaller engine should cause some issues with them as well, since running say 6 volts through an item made to run 12 volts causes problems. Not as bad as 12 volts thru a 6 volt system, but that is another side of that problem.
To my knowledge you can take the myomers from an Awesome and stick them into a normal Charger. Only length of them would need to be changed. Now we are talking leg myomers, not arms. Which should mean the bigger engine should allow them to carry more weight in the arms. Not hands since they are actuators, but the arms themselves. Handless mechs should be the example with this one.
Karagin
05/13/15 06:45 AM
70.118.139.48

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So if that is the case, the HOW does an IC powered mech even move let alone function?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
05/13/15 12:15 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If it doesn't require power amps, the only other way I can think of is using hydraulic pumps. I don't think they are completely geared.
Basically think of the ICE as a normal car engine. Crank shaft changed back and forth motion of the pistons into a circular motion to attach to something. A transmission is normal for a car, but a generator has a 'magneto' for the lack of the correct term to produce electricity.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
05/13/15 02:14 PM
172.56.6.51

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
And so the house of cards falls that mechs could ever be.

Its a game it does not have to have any logic and so it does not.
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
05/13/15 02:37 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I understand that there are going to be things that are not full logic, but using things to argue why some thing like an ICE engine weighs 2 times as much as a fusion engine, just because they don't want mechs being overpriced targets, yet argue why a fusion reactor should be inside a shaking unstable housing without any problems does annoy me for some stupid reason. And let's face it. A half ton fusion engine WILL NOT be protected from things like simple falls as they do not have anything to protect them.
My understanding of a fusion reactor is that it conforms to fission (commonly nuclear) reactors. Having the hot fuel slooshing around inside the reactor should melt an material they can use to sheild it. I know magnetic fields are supposed to suspend the fluids, but really. Something simple like the unit shutting down should disrupt the fields and destroy the engine shielding at the least.
I know without some give reality destroy the fun of the game.
And this is not going into the really bad ideas, like a jumpcore bomb. Drop it on a city and take the whole area completely out. It would have solved the issues of the house leaders resisting wob. Who really wouldn't care, since they would write history.
CrayModerator
05/13/15 06:01 PM
67.8.171.23

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

The fuel thing does seem like an oversight. I have yet to see how much fuel or even how often a fusion engine needs to replace the fuel/top it off.



That's addressed in Strategic Operations for combat vehicles, and in Tech Manual for support vehicles.
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
05/14/15 11:47 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Had a question come up reading one of the tank designs and wondered what the difference was between a mech and a tank, that restricts the use of double heat sinks in a vehicle. (besides the developers said so)

At the very least, you should be able to run a fusion engine with double heat sinks that the engine hides if air flow is an issue, which it shouldn't be.
This would go along the idea that part of the engine shielding is part of the heat sink design in the unit.

The more open design should mean better airflow for any heat sinks in a vehicle, over the ones stuck inside a tighter enclosure of a mech. And having fans on them should NOT be the excuse, since they should be on ALL heat sinks no matter what land based unit they are in.
ghostrider
05/25/15 12:53 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
had another question come up.

If jump jets push a mech along at the same speed, why would a 3 hex jump take as long as an 8 hex jump?

Yeah, it might be picky, and the best answer is probably to keep the game flowing easily.


Also, if weapons fire happens simultaneously, how can the fluff and novels come up with stopping return fire from an enemy mech by shooting it in the same round it should fire in?
Is there an optional rule that says you can do that?
I would think initiative should allow something like that. Losing person fires last, while the winner goes first. If the result is the weapons is destroyed, like blowing off the arm it is attached to, then the weapon shouldn't be allowed to fire.

Just stupid things that come up once in a while.
Drasnighta
05/25/15 12:57 PM
198.53.98.65

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The Second part of your statement was solved with Duelling Rules somewhat...


Again, Fluff =/= Rules, overall.
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
ghostrider
06/06/15 08:36 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Had another thought about space in a mech and the size of the mech.
How could a 12 meter tall locust be able to house the same amont of things like heat sinks that an 18 meter tall atlas can?
We had a discussion about engines, and how a 400 engine takes the same volume of space as a 10 rated engine does. Nothing said really satisfies that question yet.
I do understand it is to keep the game simple.
ghostrider
06/13/15 11:19 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
was going over a post and realized something.
To my knowledge the clans have had case in arms to aviid ammo explosions from entering the torsos meaning they could have no damage done to a torso location from that arm, but even with the latest incantations of the rules, the innersphere STILL does not have this ability, despite having access to clan technology.
It there some reason for this?
Or did they just make it so only torso case prevents further damage?
ghostrider
07/19/15 02:51 PM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Not sure if anyone has brought up this or not, but here it goes.
I know the game is made to be relatively easy to play, but shouldn't there be a penalty for a unit that is force to make a piloting roll in the next round?
Almost every time I read anything about a pilot having to wrestle his machine to keep from falling, they throw out an arm to help balance, or take a few steps to the side or even bash into a wall.
For me, that sounds like alot of movement to be doing in 10 seconds, then you think you will be able to aim? Some of this sounds like it may well take you 20 to 30 seconds to regain the balance.
Also, I would think you might actually come out of it facing the wrong direction.

Yes this put the poor pilot that was force to make a roll in a bad position,

Also wouldn't a vehicle moving out have the same issues with getting hit with that much damage as well.
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | >> (show all)
Extra information
1 registered and 82 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: 71006


Contact Admins Sarna.net