General Weapons topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)
Karagin
05/22/16 05:19 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Okay opening round of the fight, your Caesar gets hit with enough damage to crit the Gauss rifle, now since the weapon has not fire, does it still blow up and give the damage to the mech? Question being is the weapon charge and ready to fire the round or not?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akalabeth
05/22/16 05:46 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Gauss Rifles always explode unless they're specifically powered down, which is an optional rule (TO) and declared in the end phase of a turn.
ghostrider
05/22/16 08:02 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I would think it would be, the weapon just fired, meaning all charge is out of the weapon.
That removes the chance it was 'holding a charge' for the next round.

There were a few story lines suggesting the pilot has to charge weapons to fire, but nothing said about that in older rules.
I would think it would be determined by the declaration of fire. You pick your target and specify what is to be fired. If you are not firing the gauss rifle that round, I would say the weapon is not powered.
Depending on how strict you are with that rule, that would also mean no firing off other weapons as you realize you are dead.
I know my group tends to gloss over that at times.

So my vote would be if you don't declare you are using the weapon, then it should be powered down.
Akalabeth
05/22/16 09:47 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
"If a gauss rifle takes a critical hit, treat the result as a 20-point ammunition explosion in the location containing the rifle".

This is the rule. Verbatim.
There is no mention of whether it has fired or not. It does not say "If a charged gauss rifle takes a critical hit" nor does it say "If a gauss rifle which has not fired this turn takes a critical hit". Which means that whether the weapon has fired or not is irrelevant.

Further the existence of the Tactical Operations rule confirms that the weapon is always powered unless specifically powered down. Any other interpretation is a house rule. A house rule created without precedence and without support from the rulebook itself.

Here are two examples of text,

#1 "If a Gauss rifle takes a critical hit, treat the result as a 20-point ammunition explosion"

#2 "If a Gauss rifle takes a critical hit, treat the result as a 20-point ammunition explosion regardless of whether the weapon has fired or not this turn"

#1 is the rule. #2 is the rule expanded. Both pieces of text can co-exist, they do not contradict the other. #2 does not change or invalidate #1.

And now another piece of text:

#3 "If a Gauss rifle takes a critical hit on a turn it hasn't fired, treat the result as a 20-point ammunition explosion"

In this case, #1 and #3 cannot co-exist. Example #3 adds critical information which makes rule #1 incomplete. People characterize #3 as their "interpretation" of the rule, but ultimately an interpretation is how you read a text. Example #3 is not an interpretation, it is an addition. The rule is fundamentally being re-written.

So the best way to test "your interpretation" of a rule is to write out your rule and compare it to the original, and if your rule has more information and makes the original incomplete then you are adding rules and the interpretation is wrong.



Further ghostrider, since you yourself just admitted that Gauss Rifles explode in the previous thread:

Quote:
Not worried about ammo explosions, only 20 points if the weapon gets hit.



It's fairly apparent that you're just being contrary to the rules for the sake of it. You know the rule, you've stated the rule, and yet here when asked, you choose to interpret the rule contrary to how its written. Seriously, quit trolling, and stop wasting everyone's time.
happyguy49
05/22/16 11:13 PM
98.30.242.159

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think you are right Akalabeth, but this raises the question though, of whether that should be the case. I only feel I should step up and voice my two cents here because, if I were a mechwarrior and my Gauss rifle was out of ammunition, or if the ammunition bins had been hit and rendered inoperable, YOU BET YOUR **** I would power that thing down. Why risk a big explosion from the Gauss being critted? A rule allowing voluntary charge-down of any Gauss weapon is needed, in my humble opinion.

I do know the rules, and I know they generally don't have exceptions. A gauss taking a crit does damage from the explosion of the capacitors, with different damage depending on the gauss in question. That said, I am unclear on how much damage each class does???? With some it is clearly stated in Tech Manual, etc. Others I am having a hard time finding how much damage it does when critted. I will list what I know below:

Regular Gauss Crit = 20 damage
Silver Bullet Gauss Crit = 20 damage
Improved Heavy Gauss Crit = 30 damage (ouch)
Magshot Gauss Crit = 3 damage

but then...

Light Gauss Crit = ?????
regular Heavy Gauss Rifle Crit = ?????
AP Gauss Crit = ?????

if others can find and cite the damage for critting the 3 above Gauss types, I'd be thankful.

EDIT: found some of the remaining damages.

Light Gauss Crit = 16 damage
Heavy Gauss Crit = 25 damage
HAG Gauss = (forgot about those above) HAG 20 = 10, HAG 30 = 15, HAG 40 = 20

still looking for AP gauss crit damage.


Edited by happyguy49 (05/22/16 11:45 PM)
ghostrider
05/22/16 11:26 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Might want to reread what you posted before suggesting rule 1 and 3 can not coexist as they same the same thing.
No where in any of that suggest the weapon isn't charge.

And as you have seemed to miss the point in most of these discussions, I guess it should be pointed out, this is meant to promote discussion without suggesting the rules are at fault or need to be changed. This is simple hyperthetical conversation.

Again you contradict yourself and accuse others of trolling without knowing this is not meant to replace the written rules, but to question what you would do in this situation. You stated you can keep the weapon shut down as an alternate rule, but on the first round, there is no previous round.

Again. Read the question and study it before going off with a personal attack on someone since they have shown you do not understand the rules like you think you do. And I can see this thread getting shut down for this reason like the others that were shut down.

Now taking things out of context. Gauss rifles being less of a danger to the carrying unit then normal ac's was the point of that one. As well as skewering the range, heat and damage over the other acs.
I don't have an issue with adding in things like no explosion if the weapon is hit as long as the rifle isn't charged.
I do suggest you reread your statements before hitting continue.
As I have to keep erasing other comments that would be considered continuing the inflamitory comments, I will end this here.
Akalabeth
05/23/16 01:33 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
happyguy49 writes:

I think you are right Akalabeth, but this raises the question though, of whether that should be the case. I only feel I should step up and voice my two cents here because, if I were a mechwarrior and my Gauss rifle was out of ammunition, or if the ammunition bins had been hit and rendered inoperable, YOU BET YOUR **** I would power that thing down. Why risk a big explosion from the Gauss being critted? A rule allowing voluntary charge-down of any Gauss weapon is needed, in my humble opinion.




The rules for voluntary shutdown of a gauss rifle are in Tactical Operations (page 102). Though if dumping ammo is a tournament legal rule in Total Warfare, then I would think shutting down weapons like Gauss Weapons and Improved Heavy Lasers should be standard as well.

The rule also specifically says Gauss Rifles, not for instance AP Gauss, or Hyper Assault Gauss (which don't have "Rifle"). Though maybe the errata for Tac Ops has since changed that to include all such weapons that explode

Not 100% sure but I think Magshot Gauss = AP Gauss.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Gauss rifles being less of a danger to the carrying unit then normal ac's was the point of that one.



The first point of damage to a standard Thunderhawk's internal side torso has a 35% chance to kill the mech. Odds say the third internal hit should put it completely out of action. This is not true for any mech that mounts an autocannon in a similar set-up
ghostrider
05/23/16 02:16 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I will assume you mean the first point of critical damage.
Using 3 gauss rifles on one unit does modify some of the argument, but they can have ammo without worries. It is most likely the thunderhawk will take down its target long before penetration to hit the rifles. Running an 3025 atlas, you are more likley to lose the ac ammo to a hit before you get to even discharge a single round as the range bites. One ammo hit and there is no chance of survival. Now having a unit with 3 ac 20's would be more comparable. A single rifle against a single cannon is comparable.
the old jagermech, is about the only 3 plus cannon I can think of off hand that isn't a clan mech.
Since the rifle has more range then anything but the 2, and does 7 times the damage, with the same heat, I would think it would survive more then an ac 2. The 5 and 10 start showing more power, but a single ammo hit before they fire is wow.. 100 points per tons as well. You can take a single 20 point shot, without an xl. So the range/power/weight is out of sync with the rest of the cannons.
So there is less danger of losing your mech with a gauss rifle. then having an full ton of ac ammo.

A weapons hit on the cannon isn't the issue. The amounts of crits needed does say the cannon is more likely to be hit then the ammo. The rifle itself is, but I still say 20 points is nothing compared to a full ton of ac ammo.

Ok. the lb5x has a hex range on the gauss as well.
Akalabeth
05/23/16 04:06 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

I will assume you mean the first point of critical damage.



No, I mean the first internal hit.
My math was a bit off the first time around, it's actually 29% chance of the mech going boom with the first internal.

Chances of a critical
1 Critical Hit = 25% (58.3% chance of hitting the Gauss)
2 Critical Hits = 13.8% (84.8% chance of hitting the Gauss)
3 Critical Hits = 2.7% (97.2% chance of hitting the Gauss)

Which when you add them all together, accounting for the probabilty of each result, is 29% chance the Gauss will get hit and destroy the mech for ANY internal damage.

This is true for any IS mech with a Gauss mounted alongside an XL Engine.
Marauder 5S
Atlas K (3050)
Cestus 6Y
Thunderhawk 7Y
Banshee 5S
Pillager 3Z
Goliath 3M
Orion MB
Hollander

Along with many others.
Many mechs wise mount their gauss rifles in their arms, but even then for lighter machines when a Gauss is destroyed and the arm is already heavily damaged there's a good chance the explosion will gut the side torso as well.

The Gauss Rifle takes up 7 crits. Which means that even a single crit on a full table has a 58% chance of hitting it.

Heavy Gauss are even worse. Something like a Fafnir has a 41% chance (chance of a crit) of losing half the mech on the first side torso internal.

By the fourth internal hit, the odds of the Fafnir having taken at least one critical are 89.5%

Quote:
Ghostrider writes:
So there is less danger of losing your mech with a gauss rifle. then having an full ton of ac ammo.



If you have a Gauss rifle, you have more Battle Value than you would if you had an Autocannon which means you're facing more dangerous opponents which can hit you for more damage.

A gauss rifle is basically 7 ammo bins. A heavy gauss is 11. Even a Light gauss is 5 or 6.
ghostrider
05/23/16 11:17 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Realized after I went to bed last night a good ac unit that is comparable to the thunderhawk would be the annihilator. Don't know why I forgot it.

Looking at the damage done was the basis for that. The criticals taken up that could be hit was not accounted for as much. So I do concede it is more likely to be hit then ammo for an ac unit.
CrayModerator
05/24/16 05:43 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

Okay opening round of the fight, your Caesar gets hit with enough damage to crit the Gauss rifle, now since the weapon has not fire, does it still blow up and give the damage to the mech? Question being is the weapon charge and ready to fire the round or not?



The default is that Gauss rifles are powered because they're ready for use. There are two conditions where Gauss rifle capacitors are not powered:

1) Per Total Warfare p. 135, after a Gauss rifle has taken a critical hit, it is powered down and will generate no further explosions. (Go figure, the capacitors blew up when they discharged.)

2) You invoke the non-tournament rule in Tactical Operations (p. 102) to power down the Gauss rifle. You declare this in the End Phase of a turn and it takes place then; next turn the weapons' capacitors are unpowered and safe. (Similarly, you can declare you're powering up in the End Phase of another turn.) This rule also mandates marking the Gauss rifle powered down on the 'Mech sheet.

Since option 2 is only triggered at the End Phase of a turn - after damage resolution - in your turn 1 scenario you're stuck with an exploding Gauss rifle. Unless the other players at the board allowed you to enter the field with your Gauss rifle powered down, but that'd mean you couldn't fire it on turn 1.
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
05/24/16 08:22 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Okay now say the Gauss jams, and the weapon is declared powered down or is it still charged since it has a jam?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
05/25/16 05:58 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The same round or the next?
Using the rules, it states the next round the weapon is powered down.
CrayModerator
05/26/16 05:52 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

Okay now say the Gauss jams, and the weapon is declared powered down or is it still charged since it has a jam?



The weapon will not be powered down unless it takes a critical hit or you use the Tactical Operations optional power-down rule. Since by itself a jam fits neither of those conditions, the Gauss rifle will not be powered down automatically.

However, a jam is a great time to invoke the Tactical Operations power-down rule. Have the MechWarrior punch the jammed weapon's off button during the End Phase. Otherwise, it's a live, useless bomb.
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
06/03/16 08:35 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Weapons feed systems are they belts of the ammo linked together as is done for small arms like machine guns or are they large magazines that had built into the weapon which doesn't seem to be the case at all since an ammo bay or bin can be on the other side of the mech from the launcher or gun. Or is it a conveyor system that moves up as the missiles fire or the autocannon fires?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
06/03/16 10:20 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The fluff and novels suggest cannons use clips, since most of the time they say they can hear the clunk of a new clip loading into the cannon. Take that for what you want.
And I never liked the idea that you can store ammo in a mechs leg, but have the weapon in the opposite sides arm. But that is just me.

As for missiles, the only info that I have seen that deals with the feed is the Wyverns missiles. Supposedly the bin is above the launcher, and they suggest you can hop the mech up and down to unjam the feed. Other then that, nothing much about them.
Though a companion thought to this. If lrms don't arm until they are in the launcher, (minimum range issues), does that mean they should not explode in the bins?
I guess it would be like a sidewinder on a fighter today. If it gets hit before launching, do they explode?
Drasnighta
06/04/16 11:07 PM
173.183.129.245

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The Warhead might not be armed... But they still contain Fuel, which, y'know, is generally explosive.
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
ghostrider
06/23/16 11:37 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Another off the wall thought about weapons.

The idea that a laser can not remain focused on a unit long enough to do damage past certain ranges, lead to ask if you use a c3 system, why could this continue to be true?

I am unaware if the c3 system has a range, and understand object would stop this, but in an open field or even in space, you should be able to gain enough information from the system to damage something further out.
That is not saying you could burn a ship in orbit around earth from the jump points, but you should be able to target something from the moon to lagrange 1 or 2. Jump stations would be even more vulnerable, as they don't move.
happyguy49
07/01/16 08:39 AM
98.30.242.159

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Weapons whose damage varies by range do not get to do short-range damage even if they have C3. They DO get targeting bonuses however. For instance, a c3 networked unit with a Heavy Gauss Rifle firing at an enemy 20 hexes away, with a c3 ally 4 hexes away from the target, would use short-range target numbers, but would only do 10 damage, not 25.

Does that make sense? Same would be true of other weapons that vary damage by range, variable speed pulse lasers come to mind, but that's even more complicated.. as their pulse laser modifiers are also variable by range. In such a case, a Large Variable Speed Pulse Laser unit with c3 firing at an enemy unit 15 hexes away, with a c3 ally 3 hexes away from the target, uses short range modifiers, but only gets a -1 bonus to hit from the laser being a VSP, and can only do 7 damage. (cause its at the laser's long range). Complex, I know :/
ghostrider
07/01/16 11:56 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That is an interesting point.
As everything dealing with the c3 suggest the range be set at the closest unit that is still communicating, ie not in ecm.
I was unaware of weapons doing different damage at ranges, except for missiles.
Definitely a change from the older standards of weapons.

Is this stated in the rules for c3 with those weapons?
Or did they leave it vague for people to decide for themselves?
I don't remember seeing it last time I looked up c3 on the wiki, though newer stuff may not be on line due to copyright issues.

And with the addition of extreme ranges for weapons, it suggests they can hit beyond their normal 'max'.
I was thinking of the old weapons like the standard large laser which should have horizon be the limit, though reduced damage would be logical.
Akalabeth
07/01/16 10:29 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

I was unaware of weapons doing different damage at ranges, except for missiles.
Definitely a change from the older standards of weapons.




No? Pretty sure the Heavy Gauss was around before you stopped buying books.
Either way, the Hyper Assault Gauss and Snub Nose PPC are newer weapons that fit the bill.
ghostrider
07/02/16 12:16 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I have the tro 3067. No rules for it, just the mechs and loadouts of them. Was more interested in the warships of the fedcom civil war then anything else at the time. I know the Fafnir has a pair of them, but not what it does.
They aslo have the rac systems, but no information on how they work.

It is interesting they are finally getting away from the idea a weapon does x damage over the entire range it fires at. For ballistic weapons, that didn't seem right. Granted the short ranges they fired at made even less sense, but oh well.

The idea of a large laser not doing damage beyond 15 hexes didn't make sense, as it did not just drop off the face of the battle field. I can understand the length of focus issues to deal the damage, but a c3 should be able to correct that to a point. This is why I asked about it. Any of the lasers should have more range with a c3 helping to focus the beam on target better.

Sorry. Misspoke on the ballistic weapons. Kinetic ballistic weapons should lose power over distance. Explosive tipped would not.


Edited by ghostrider (07/02/16 12:29 AM)
CrayModerator
07/02/16 10:03 AM
67.8.237.126

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

I have the tro 3067. No rules for it, just the mechs and loadouts of them. Was more interested in the warships of the fedcom civil war then anything else at the time. I know the Fafnir has a pair of them, but not what it does.
They aslo have the rac systems, but no information on how they work.



RACs were published in the House Davion Handbook and HGRs in the House Steiner Handbook. Both predate TR:3067 and were in the last version of BattleTech Master Rules. That makes them almost 20 years old.

Weapons with variable damage by range are rare. HGRs have it, which annoyed the crap out of me because it was illogical over normal BT ranges or in aerospace combat. (Improved HGRs do not, but they're bigger, bulkier, and have a lower peak damage, 22 vs 25 points.) Snub Nosed PPCs also have damage drop with range. I'm drawing a blank on others, but I might be forgetting one or two.
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
07/02/16 12:33 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Are those house books the originals or revised/newer releases? I don't remember seeing racs in either one.
House Steiner #1621 printed 1987
House Davion #1623 printed 1988

If I remember right, there is no reference to gauss weapons at all in the Stiener one, much less the heavy version.

I can agree weapons in space, not going thru atmosphere, should not lose velocity. But this also sets up the ability to target stationary units from further out. Even things like satilites in orbit with known orbits can be targeted.
And unless the slug is like a brick, it should not lose that much power in the short ranges the game deals with in atmospheres.

I would think the plasma cannon should drop with range, as the cooling of the materials would account for that, especially in space, as it is not supposed to have a great muzzle velocity. Which bring to question the 18 range on it.
And before the argument of this starts, the kinetic force of the material is what I am basing the velocity on.

Even though this does not answer the c3 question, it is interesting to deal with this information.
Karagin
07/02/16 08:54 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So even with the game growing we still can not seem to advance the tech base enough to fix issues with in the game universe.

Missile Bays...are the missiles on a conveyor belt or linked like the AC ammo? Or are they in some kind of carousel type thing set up the cycles loads to the launcher?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
07/02/16 08:56 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Also why doesn't the PPC when it hit the target cause electronics to be messed up since the PPC is written about as being a charged collection of particles that are shot out...so would it not be similar to the idea of an Ion Cannon?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
07/02/16 09:11 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The novels have suggested the ppc sending a charge across the unit, as well as suggesting the electronics have shunts to avoid the charge for damaging them, but with the description of alot of mechs being in sad shape, that those very issues should be real.
Yet I have not seen anything in the rule books to cover this. As with the computer games, some of them scrambled the screen a little to simulate this.
But if the unit is properly grounded from the ppc, why would things like the tsemp work? Or the emp mines?

The ion cannon may well be a good idea for a new weapon.
As is using new munitions for ammo weapons that do the same thing. Use an emp charge on the unit they hit.

The only look I have seen on the missile loader was the madcat. It looks like it is similar to a gun clip that pushes the rounds to the proper position then loads it, but that is more implied then factual.
As for the fluff for the wyvern, it suggests the missiles feed from above the launcher, but suggesting if it jams, you hop up and down to get the missiles to load.
So like the way the ac loads it's ammo, it seems dependent on the launcher itself.

But that does lead me to ask if the er lasers are just added focusing lenses, or a whole new design.
If just focusing lenses, they should be able to refit normal lasers with the equipment.
Yes they build up more heat. But is that like a ppc capacitor issue, or the entire unit is changed?

Side question as well. When the developers came out with the ppc capacitor, did they stop anywhere to have the ppc explode? I have not seen anywhere, that they suggest the ppc itself is upgraded to handle the extra charge.
Akalabeth
07/03/16 05:11 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Are those house books the originals or revised/newer releases? I don't remember seeing racs in either one.
House Steiner #1621 printed 1987
House Davion #1623 printed 1988




Cray has his nomenclature wrong.
He means the Field Manuals.
Field Manual Federated Suns
Field Manual Lyran Alliance

Printed in 2000

Just FYI, each house has now at least three books.

There are the House Books from the 80s. House Liao

The Field Manuals from late 90s early 2000s

And now the Handbooks from the last few years. ie Handbook House Kurita
ghostrider
07/03/16 09:50 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Never got any of them. Fist finding them was an issue. Second was not looking in them. I was under the assumption they were just additional information, not a redo of history for them.
With the 20 year update disappointment, I avoided alot of those at that time.

I understand changing them as new things came up, like the whole star league weapons and warships. They were very important to the history, but like most times, money income could not exceed money outgoing. And by the time I got something to spend on them, I couldn't find them.
Akalabeth
07/03/16 09:29 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
As Cray also said, those weapons are in Battletech Master Rules.
Weapons like Heavy Lasers, ATMs, Light Gauss, etcetera.
ghostrider
07/04/16 02:15 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The heavy lasers, micro lasers and light gauss are in the bmr, but not heavy gauss, variable pulse lasers, atms snub nose ppc, or capacitors and so on.

Even the ecm system listed just says suite. And no racs in the one I got.
It is possible they added them into the newer printings. Wouldn't be the first time they changed the books.
Akalabeth
07/04/16 04:10 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yeah looking at my pdf of the original BMR, it only has the weapons from the first few Field Manuals. The rest were likely added to the revised edition.

Both FASA and now Catalyst like to shove new technology into the Field Manuals. I much prefer the original TRO 2750 or 3050 approach where the new technology for the new units was alongside those machines in the actual TRO. I have a bunch of Field Manuals, mostly bought after the fact, but even now I find them of extremely limited value and the tech is thrown in there simply to make the consumer buy more products.

The recent 3145 set of books was a prime example. Where first, they released about 7 PDF-only TROs, on for each of the five houses, the clans and the Republic. Then on top of that they released a print-only PDF which had about half the units from each of the PDFs but not all. Then they got Era Report 3145 and Field Manual 3145, the latter of which has all of the rules for the new units in the various TROs. The Era Report, not sure if it had rules but it does have some information on the new unit as well. So all told you're potentially buying 7 PDFs, and 3 books to get everything. This isn't of course even counting the Record Sheets, which if you don't use some free software you'll need to print off the units.

Which when you actually think about it, is beyond absurd. Compare it to a boardgame, like say Munchkin or Carcassone where if you buy an expansion, that expansion has everything you need to add that to the game. Or another game like Flames of War, you got the main rulebook, then buy say a book on North Africa campaign and it has the unit formations, the stats for the new units, any special rules to use those units, etcetera. These expansions don't have inter-dependencies, where at minimum for the 3145 example you'd need to buy three books to use it, that being Tactical Operations, Field Manual 3145 and the TRO itself. Actually technically you need 4 books. If you assume the new player has the boxed game to start with, then they need to buy Total Warfare as well.

I would argue that, this sort of thing makes the game less accessible to newer players. The current timeline is set in the dark ages, but in order for a new player to get into the current timeline they have to invest so much time and money to acquaint themselves with how to play.

Alpha Strike I think was a good move to make the game more accessible, though at the same time, the last time I played the game someone showed me the errata for the thing and it was as long as the rulebook.
ghostrider
07/04/16 06:20 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That was one thing I liked about the adventure packs. They did have the info needed to run any new units they had in them.

And I can see the spreading out the information thru several books as something that could put off alot of new players. The boxed set should have everything you need to play in it, and not have to buy several other books.

The rule books should have it all, with the tro's having pertinent information when something new comes out. The field manuals are nice to highlight new tech for that house. Giving a back ground to what it is, and how it came about, like the triple strength myomers. But having to get all three just to use the new tech is pushing the money grab.
Akalabeth
07/04/16 07:32 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Field Manuals are only nice if you care about the formations. If you don't, you're buying a 40-50 dollar, 150-200 page book for 10 pages worth of content.
happyguy49
07/05/16 08:08 AM
98.30.242.159

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Well, I understand putting a grab bag of stuff in every new book, including a couple new designs and maybe even 1-2 new tech items. Cause THAT'S HOW THEY GET YA! It sells books, at least to completionists who have to know all the rules to all the equipment.

I must confess I bought Field Manual 3145 really only to get the rules for Tripods (superheavy and regular) and Colossal mechs. (radical heat sink was a nice plus) Not that the rest of the content wasn't interesting in its own right.

This isn't necessarily bad, everything eventually makes it to the wiki, and it doesn't turn off new players who are rational enough to realize that a NEW player doesn't need to know everything. (in this case optional rules for rare/experimental equipment/units) All you need to get started is one product, Total Warfare.
ghostrider
07/05/16 11:52 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Without someone telling you what you need, a group just starting to play buys a boxed set.
Now that in itself will allow them to play the game, until they read anything that has new equipment in it.
Not knowing the rule books in the newest editions of the boxed set, I am making an assumption that they do NOT include the new rules. And going on ebay and such, you are likely to get the original rules.

Now without knowing anything about the game or the time line, and people don't always get online to research what books to get, you grab something like the 3025/3026 books. And find they don't contain the new stuff. After a while, it gets frustrating.
Even the sheer amount of products could put people off. Granted, you don't need the old rule books, but if you don't get the newest one first, you tend to get annoyed buying them all.

Not sure if the company recalled the old unsold rule books, but doubt it. And that is just what is in hobby stores. Hell, they still sell them online for the collectionist people, though not sure if current makers are. I find the fluff interesting in most of the house books I have, but as some have said, it is not as useful to someone wanting all the new stuff, as you have to buy so many to get what you want or need.

And I know that's how they get you. But without something new, they end up losing even more buyers as the perfectly good thought of 'why buy this, since it's the same old crap as before' sets in.

And just to be picky, you still need the boards and symbols for the units.
But I understand the total warfare being everything you need besides the pieces.
Akalabeth
07/05/16 02:46 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The boxed set has suggestions for what new players buy next. They don't need to do any research initially.
CrayModerator
07/05/16 05:35 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Are those house books the originals or revised/newer releases? I don't remember seeing racs in either one.
House Steiner #1621 printed 1987
House Davion #1623 printed 1988



I said Handbook, not Sourcebook. I was off in the year of publication; they were 2004-2007 products, I misremembered which convention I picked up the Steiner Handbook at.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Handbook:_House_Steiner
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Handbook:_House_Davion

Quote:
I would think the plasma cannon should drop with range, as the cooling of the materials would account for that, especially in space, as it is not supposed to have a great muzzle velocity. Which bring to question the 18 range on it.



Plasma cannons have high muzzle velocities. It's quite easy to accelerate plasma, with demonstrated, real world hardware achieving 200,000m/s. As for cooling, that's why plasma weapons (cannons and rifles) use a massive slug of ammo: to have enough mass to reach their target. Weapons like flamers that attempt to use the air or a bit of fusion engine plasma simply don't have the raw mass of plasma to reach a long distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_railgun
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
07/05/16 09:24 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The Plasma Cannon does not have a significant kinetic energy component, that is to say the projectile is not launched with enough force to cause secondary impact damage.

So that comes from the wikii here on sarna.

And that idea of 200,000 m/s makes you have to ask how is it that it only goes to 18 hexes?
I guess it is just another example of the game not following reality again. And the game information on sarna's wiki seems to be in direct opposition of this. So another mark for game not dealing in reality.

Now handbook and source book are unknown if you are not aware of multiple books that are out. It is why I asked it if was the same books I had or something that came out afterwards. It appears there is 3 versions of the house books out now. I knew of the field manuals, but not the handbooks.


Edited by ghostrider (07/05/16 09:31 PM)
ghostrider
08/02/16 12:20 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The question about wasteful ideas and tech came up in another thread, and leads me to ask about clan philosophy for the invasion.

Why would some tech items like ecm be wide spread in clan forces, as it would be almost against a warriors creed to 'hide' from the enemy. I thought they had the notion to be bold and open about their skills, and only took to diversionary tactics as a last resort. The test of skills was the name of the game.
To a smaller extent this might also include the targeting computer as well. Why would the egotistical warriors want someone claiming they lacked the skills to fight by using something like that?
Maybe the cowardly freebirths would use such equipment, but not a trueborn. You might as well just opened fire while the people were entering the battle ground.

While thinking about it even the proliferation of the streak systems would call into question their abilities to fire weapons accurately.
Granted it sounded great when they came out, but with their own presentation of the clans, isn't this a bit backwards to that?
KamikazeJohnson
08/02/16 12:39 PM
24.114.22.50

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

The question about wasteful ideas and tech came up in another thread, and leads me to ask about clan philosophy for the invasion.

Why would some tech items like ecm be wide spread in clan forces, as it would be almost against a warriors creed to 'hide' from the enemy. I thought they had the notion to be bold and open about their skills, and only took to diversionary tactics as a last resort. The test of skills was the name of the game.
To a smaller extent this might also include the targeting computer as well. Why would the egotistical warriors want someone claiming they lacked the skills to fight by using something like that?
Maybe the cowardly freebirths would use such equipment, but not a trueborn. You might as well just opened fire while the people were entering the battle ground.

While thinking about it even the proliferation of the streak systems would call into question their abilities to fire weapons accurately.
Granted it sounded great when they came out, but with their own presentation of the clans, isn't this a bit backwards to that?



OTOH, an elite warrior deserves weapons worthy of his skill. Fine line in regards to where that becomes "cheating".
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
08/02/16 11:45 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I agree that weapons being worthy of the warriors skill being accepted. But the streak system for instance has very little to do with hitting with all missiles, just have to achieve a lock on. I know the game doesn't get into skill being considered as part of how many missiles hit to keep it simple, but it should.

Some weapons require skill in aiming to keep the weapon on target to do the damage. I honestly believe that is why they stayed at range as much as possible. Hitting the target at long range requires more skill then short. The better the skill, the more likely of making the shot.

Those that assist in achieving a hit, might be called cowardly by those that win without them. I don't deny some would not use them, as the end results is a little more effective then how it is achieved, but then ambushes and more forces being used by the attacker in a batchall would be more likely then it was.

In a few thoughts, even a pulse laser would be considered assistance to a warriors aim, and might be shunned.
A clan warrior hates losing, but if it to a superior skilled opponent isn't as bad as one that might be considered lucky. Granted that might be because the fluff and novels portrayed it as such. Phelan Wards bloodright trials had that undertone to it.
ghostrider
08/23/16 08:10 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Major radical thought I had with responding to the d8 thread.

A laser system that you can dial up the damage, but lose effective range,
Based on the large laser for example. Does 8 points to the range of 15. But if you set it for range 9, like a medium laser range it does say 10 damage but heats up a little more.
Range 3 might be 12 damage with extra heat.
If you want er ranges, it stays at 8 heat, but drops some damage, like maybe 6 at range 20.
This is all just numbers for an example.
Just to see if it has any traction to be hashed out.
ghostrider
09/01/16 10:23 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Any one know how it is physically possible to have the same amount of shots for the sniper and the ac 10, yet one goes a hell of alot further and does more damage, as the sniper round damages everything in the hex and those around it?

Did they use faerie dust in it?
Or is it dark matter?


I want the sniper rounds for the ac 10. Just the area of effect damage would make it worth a little more weight.
happyguy49
09/02/16 12:08 AM
98.30.242.159

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
AC-10 is a direct fire weapon, like a present-day tank gun.

Sniper is a howitzer; indirect over-the-horizon fire.

They are different animals. There's 120 mm tank guns that can direct fire for a couple miles, and 120 mm artillery pieces that can fire an artillery shell for a DOZEN or more miles, because they are different. The guns are different, so is the ammunition. Someone with military experience could weigh in much more informatively that I, also google (and wikipedia) is your friend.
ghostrider
09/02/16 11:26 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I was asking as my understanding is the sniper ammo does more damage and goes further without being any larger then the short ranged ac 10.
Normally more propellant in a casing means it has to be larger.
The shell itself has to have something extra in it to damage the entire hex and those around it.
With that said, unless the actual 'bullet' is nothing more then a thin shell, something is wrong with 10 shots of artillery ammo fitting in the same space 10 shots of the ac ammo, as well as weighing the same.

And the issue with the thin shell holding the explosives is, it would warp when fired. That would mean no accuracy at all, as they would not warp the same with each shot.
It is my understanding that a flaw in the shell cause the flight path to be changed. Over distance, that would become exaggerated.

And the artillery shells do not have an outside propellant set up, so that could not be sited as why it can go further. It is all self contained or so the rules would suggest.
happyguy49
09/02/16 05:21 PM
98.30.242.159

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It is my understanding that the AUTO in autocannon means it is a burst-fire weapon. The 100 kilos for a 10 second AC/10 burst versus 100 kilos for one Sniper shell doesn't really defy logic I think. I'm not sure where your problem is/

That said, I'm in favor of a high explosive (HE) ammo type variant for AC's, that maybe does half damage, but that would affect all units in a target hex. Like, an AC/20 with this HE ammo would do 10 points to all units in a hex, in 5 point groups, as per normal artillery rules.
ghostrider
09/03/16 03:39 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The autocannon suggests a 3 to 5 shell burst. A 10 second burst would mean the ultra cannon would not work as a round is supposed to be 10 seconds.

Though I see where part of your response is partially correct. The ac shot is several smaller rounds in the burst. So that is correct that round for round, the ac 10 shot is less room.
That might be what I missed. I was thinking damage, not the individual shell.
Karagin
09/04/16 07:02 AM
210.101.133.50

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The autocannons are either autoloaded cannons using cassette magazines or they are similar to chain guns like the 25mm to 30mm guns found on many military vehicles today.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
09/06/16 12:23 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So how does the alternative ammo for ac's work?
The precision and armor piercing and things like it?
You get half the shots in a normal cannon, yet nothing about the cannon has been changed to accept the odd ammo.
I could understand the clips, if they use it, being smaller, but the actual ammo is different.
The cluster rounds for the lbx needs a special cannon, as well as the silver bullet gauss rifle. Even the elrms and streak systems require a different launcher.

And with the lbx, it uses standard munitions but can't use the other rounds.
I understand the designers wanting to come up with some reason to use older cannons, but this sounds wrong.
I guess real life physics don't belong in the game.
happyguy49
09/11/16 05:16 AM
98.30.242.159

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I guess real life physics don't belong in the game.



You just now figuring this out? The really neato AC alternative ammunition, such as armor piercing (automatic crit chance) and Precision (-2 to target movement modifiers) have half as many rounds per ton for GAME BALANCE. No other reason. A real-life alternative ammunition might indeed be heavier than a standard HEAP round, but I agree it probably wouldn't weigh TWICE as much. (depleted uranium is however almost twice as heavy as lead though.. a DU AP round would indeed likely be far heavier than a regular explosive round.)

The other special munitions have enough drawbacks that the designers didn't see fit to nerf their shots-per-ton. (Flak, flechette, incendiary, tracer, etc.)
ghostrider
09/18/16 06:09 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Not really a weapon, but how does the c3 system actually work as a tag unit?
I couldn't find any information in the wiki about this.
The main question that came up was does something like an incoming arrow IV missile need to be linked to the c3 system of those in the area, or does it just lock onto any one, such as 2 companies of units using 2 separate networks could target incoming missiles?
Or does the launcher have to be part of the network doing the targeting?
VanVelding
09/20/16 03:10 PM
75.1.89.127

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Pg 131 of TW says the Master unit can be used as a TAG. Weird but true.
I write stuff, make podcasts, and say curse words on the internet. Pretty original stuff if you've never seen the internet before.
ghostrider
09/21/16 11:18 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That is why the question came up. The c3 system is supposed to work within the set units.
Even if a unit outside that given network has a c3, it is not supposed to be able to connect with it. Now they have newer c3 stuff out there, and I don't know the rules with it, so this may not be the issue anymore, but for the original system, this question was asked.

How would a c3 master provide TAG service to an Arrow IV inbound missile if it is not in the original network?

I guess a prequestion to that, might be, does the c3 use laser communications to the network, or radio waves?
If it uses laser comms, that might be enough to suggest the TAG function. Though I am under the assumption that a single unit without los to any other unit in the network would still work as a designator. Such as in a heavy groove of trees, while the rest of the unit has clear los to the target.
ghostrider
10/03/16 11:41 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Is there any rule saying you can not mix clan double heat sinks with innersphere double sinks?

I know they have to be all double or all single, but nothing about mixing the doubles that I have found.
This would be especially true with omni mechs as they just have the hook ups for things, not caring what they are.

No, this is not trying to suggest an omni could use single and doubles together.

I do understand why you can't use clan endosteel or ferrous fiber armor with innersphere ones.

And the question of if you can mount omni limbs on a standard mech just came to mind when typing this.
If you can, does the equipment have to be permanently mounted?
Or can you swap like normal?
I would figure without upgrading the battle computer it would not recognize anything in 'pods' in the limbs.
Drasnighta
10/03/16 05:44 PM
173.183.129.245

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
No, and its For the same reason why you can't use a mix of Clan Ferro Fibrous with Inner-Sphere Ferro Fibrous.

They are considered one "System". "Heat Sinks" are one system. "Armour" is one system. "Structure" is one system.


Now, as far as I know, that only exists for *designing* a BattleMech. When it came to repairing and jury-rigging damaged 'mechs with those optional rules, you could certainly replace them, but there was a further major penalty (-4 I believe) for the Clan/Inner Sphere compatibility... Wether it was replacing a single External heat Sink with a Clan version or not.

If anything, it may have just been shorthanded because of the "null space" taht they occupy in the Engine. To claim having 13 Double Heat Sinks, 10 of them Inner Sphere (and in the Engine), with 3 of them External and Clan, is just one of things avoided by having them all form under the same "system".

From what i understand again, about the equipment, is the Equipment is physically placed in pods which are then mounted to the OmniMech Limb.

For limb Replacement? I don't know, I can't recall... If the OmniMech limb can't just be bolted straight to the standard chassis, it could just because the technology is fundamentally different... (Man, Stupid Limb uses CAT5 and this old Centurion only has COAX cables!)

But that being said, Jury-Rigging Designs was always open to some rules interpretation even when the rules were presented... because we're well in the realm of Custom-Custom-Custom designs at that point...

Equipment can of course, be completely removed from the pods and then hard-mounted separately.
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
ghostrider
10/08/16 08:55 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Is there anywhere that says a unit inside a prepared position to start with, could be hooked up to coolant lines or maybe ammo feeds to allow the unit extra supplies while it is still hooked up?

The turret tank made me think of this question.

This would not allowing a tank to be able to carry a laser if it doesn't have the sinks to do so otherwise, but having a mech in one, like a warhawk with the primary configuration, allow it to bleed off some of the extra heat it would generate firing off all 4 erppcs?

These lines would break away once the unit moves out, and could not be reconnected during the current battle.
CarcerKango
10/09/16 01:32 PM
73.4.87.73

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Is there anywhere that says a unit inside a prepared position to start with, could be hooked up to coolant lines or maybe ammo feeds to allow the unit extra supplies while it is still hooked up?

The turret tank made me think of this question.

This would not allowing a tank to be able to carry a laser if it doesn't have the sinks to do so otherwise, but having a mech in one, like a warhawk with the primary configuration, allow it to bleed off some of the extra heat it would generate firing off all 4 erppcs?

These lines would break away once the unit moves out, and could not be reconnected during the current battle.


Could do some awesome defensive tactics with that. I dub it the Castle Brian of **** Off--a bunch of Hellstars all hooked up, blazing away....
ghostrider
10/30/16 01:14 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So I take it there is nothing to support or reject making a prepared position that has hook ups for mechs to use an outside cooling assistance in any of the newer books from the lack of any other input.

Might make an interesting home rule, though it may be a bit to powerful if not limited.

Which also leads me to another thought. Could you use a prepared position field to used as a c3 set up?
As they would be land lines, a ecm suite would not affect it, and with prepared sensors in place, would really make this another devastating defensive idea.
ghostrider
03/01/17 02:56 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ok. The situation about and AES equipped mech with streak systems in it came up in another thread.

I know the AES system is supposed to help all weapons in that arm with better aim.
But if I recall, the streak system is not able to use other assistance to lock on. Granted this might be implied, not written, so this next question might be off.

Isn't this a catch 22? All weapons are assisted, yet the weapon in question can not use other assistance to work.

I am curious on if I missed something in any of the rules, or if this is a hole in the game.

Not saying it is false about using it, just seem to be in a circular logic hole on this.
MJB
03/01/17 08:28 PM
172.58.33.135

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The ability of lasers to effectively focus is heavily compromised by particulate matter.

We used to carefully track line-of-effect between units so that we could account for smoke, haze, blown off armor bits, ICE exhaust (diesel was worse than gasoline), all that kind of stuff in order to keep our games scientifically accurate.

Calculating the effects of different types of stars and their predominate light spectra was the hardest, but worth it for true realism.
MJB
03/01/17 08:31 PM
172.58.33.135

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
We had to adjust the BV of those diesel-powered Capellan Galleon refits just because they were had such a huge impact on laser-dependent units.
MJB
03/14/17 01:27 AM
107.199.74.86

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
We also had a chart for projectile weapons and missiles to adjust for local gravity.

BT is so Earth-centric, but science is universal !
MJB
03/16/17 12:34 AM
107.199.74.86

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Not to mention that in both rules and fiction, missiles operate normally in vacuum. Without atmosphere (or oxygen) how does that work, scientifically?
ghostrider
03/19/17 02:08 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It would figure they would be like normal rocket fuel and have oxygen suspended in the fuel mixture. But that is assuming.

Did you allow projectiles to go further in a vacuum or lack of atmosphere? Since there is no air resistance to slow it down?
I believe there was some rules that dealt with jump jets and such but don't remember any penalties for missiles targeting anything. I guess the implication here was fins on the missiles that allowed some turning, but would need air flow to do so. Also, the lack of should allow them to move further, faster. The arrow shot from a bow comes to mind.
And to remove the definition issue, I was thinking rockets are straight fire projectiles, while missiles have some turning abilities, though it may not be much.
CrayModerator
03/19/17 12:58 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Not to mention that in both rules and fiction, missiles operate normally in vacuum. Without atmosphere (or oxygen) how does that work, scientifically?



The same way as with real world missiles: they carry their own oxygen. It's unlikely that missiles are liquid fueled, since those are a pain to store, so BT missiles will be solid fueled. Solid rocket fuel is a mix of fuel and oxidizer. The shuttle's solid rocket boosters used aluminum powder (fuel, 16% by weight) mixed with a rubber binder (fuel, 12% by weight) and a lot of ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer, 70% by weight). There were also traces of epoxy and iron oxide for other purposes.

During the lull in shuttle operations following the Challenger disaster, one of the manufacturers of the shuttle booster oxidizer continued production of ammonium perchlorate since no one told them to stop. This led to the 1988 PEPCON disaster, one of the largest non-nuclear, manmade explosions in history. That was the oxidizer getting excited, not the fuel or explosive.

At the smaller scale missiles like the Hellfire use solid fuel rockets, too. The Hellfire's TX-657 motor is another rubber-and-ammonium perchlorate solid fueled motor. It avoids aluminum to avoid generating prodigious amounts of smoke since military users don't like smoke trails leading back to their launch position. The motor would burn just fine in a vacuum, though it wouldn't have a means of steering.

Note that firearms also have their own oxidizer in their gunpowder. Even ye olde black powder was mostly oxygen by weight. That magical mix of sulfur, charcoal, and salt peter (potassium nitrate) was mostly oxygen in the form of nitrates. Modern smokeless powders have focused on nitrate-based compounds to pack in as much oxygen as possible. After all, when you start an explosion there's no way for fresh oxygen to reach the unburned explosive in the center of the explosion. Likewise, a pistol's bullet cartridge would need 1 to 2 liters of air to burn the gunpowder in the cartridge, and that's obviously not present in the cartridge or gun barrel. It has to be in the gunpowder itself.

Steering without air would be accomplished by thrust vectoring (which was used in rockets long before it was used in jet aircraft) or smaller thrusters.
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 (03/19/17 01:09 PM)
ghostrider
03/19/17 02:03 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The vector thrust is known, though I seriously doubt they have it on the normal stock of missiles used by the ground forces. I can see it being used in the aerotech industry, though there is no statement that I have seen from the developers to suggest you can not use normal non capital missiles in the space contingency.

I had not really thought about the liquid portion of rocket fuel for ground launched rockets. I was thinking more of the model rocket base of thrust, which is used by explosive ordinance.
CrayModerator
03/19/17 02:37 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
The vector thrust is known, though I seriously doubt they have it on the normal stock of missiles used by the ground forces.



The stock missiles of BattleTech - LRMs and SRMs - are used by BattleMechs, aerospace fighters, battle armor, WarShips, DropShips, and everything else. They're used in vacuum and they're used in an atmosphere. If they don't use the simple solution of a thrust-vectoring nozzle, then they need the manufacturing complication of a reaction control system (smaller rocket motors.)

Ghostrider, I work for a company that builds military missiles now, and I work on those missile programs. Solid fuel with a vectoring nozzle is the easiest solution for an all-environment missile like BT's SRMs and LRMs.
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
03/20/17 12:55 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I was thinking cost verses unneeded additions for ground forces.
Basically cheap out for ground missiles. I may be the only one here to think like this since their range and guidance systems suck compared to what we have today. Even back when the game was made, missiles used by the military were better then the ones in the game.

As the 120 lrm missiles in a ton for the game runs about 137,000 dollars using the 27000 cbill cost times 5 for the cbill value at that time, I would not think they have any advanced things like vector thrusting in them.
It may be wrong, but I had figured they were similar to the gyroscope on a side winder to keep costs down. Which still has more range and better tracking then the game has.

And I was not attacking your or your information, which I get the feeling you thought I was. I was trying to say they don't use the advanced systems to keep the ammunition as cheap as they can.
This is for the normal stock. The streak ones probably do use the other system.
It appears the designers did the same ammo to avoid having to worry about different ammo loads needed. According to these same rules the ammunition for clan weapons are the same as IS, since they do not use a different listing for ammo.

Game balance and logic do not mix in the game. Otherwise the clan munitions would have alot greater range and ability to hit. But this would be getting off the missile issue some.
ghostrider
03/26/17 12:53 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Rheinmetall 120 mm gun. 1,190 kg (2,620 lb) for the gun, the mount is 3.317 kg (7,313 lb).

One type of ammo used by the Rheinmetall. the DM33 has a three-part aluminum sabot and a two-part tungsten penetrator, and is said to be able to penetrate 560 millimeters (22 in) of steel armor at a range of 2,000 meters (2,200 yd).
The upgraded version of that ammo is the DM53 with the projectile including sabot weighing in at 8.35 kilograms with a 38:1 length to diameter ratio and with a muzzle velocity of 1,750 meters per second (5,700 ft/s), the DM53 has an effective engagement range of up to 4,000 meters (4,400 yd).

According to the internet's wiki, this is the main gun used on the M1A1 Abrams, as well as a few other tanks.
Now with this, I find the acs in the game dramatically overweight and underpowered.
I will grant you the original version was made in 1974, but not the current version. I seems to have been redesigned in 1990.

Interesting that the ammunition has a 'silver bullet' among the names. Wonder if that is where the inspiration for the gauss shotgun came from. The types of ammo really are interesting.
ghostrider
08/06/17 03:55 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Random thought came up, and it made me realize just how crappy missiles are in the game.
Figured out roughly, you get 3 points of armor per ton for building material, and an LRM does one point of damage.
So 30 missiles are needed to take down a 30 cf one hex building.
So a single missile could not destroy a house in the game.
Even a single srm couldn't do it. Hell the 12 points from a full 6 pack on up to 18 points for the 3 point missiles still could not do so in a single volley.

Now the standard armor protects about 5 times better. Which still makes me wonder just how poorly the weapons are, and that is without the ability to target the damned house from a kilometer away.

Now I see why infantry survived things like a missile volley. There really isn't much more then home made rockets with a pipe bomb on them.
Guess I need to stop thinking, as this comes out as very sad. Ironically funny at the same time.
ghostrider
09/20/17 11:59 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Another question came up.
It is said that the short ranges in the game is because of poor targeting computers.
So how is it, you slap an er mod on a unit, and suddenly, it can target something further out?
This is also clear as nothing was ever said about omnis needing any sort of program to account for it when using different weapons systems.
I have yet seen anywhere in the clan invasion talk about having to reprogram or increase the battle computers size to accomidate captured clan weapons for this feat.
I would think for energy weapons atleast, one that has an erll on it, should be able to focus the shorter ranged weapons at a longer range. It already has to account for everything to allow it to focus on the target at that range.

And after the clans initial civil war, nothing was ever done to fix this?
The star league never had any systems that could target something accurately over a half a klick? Besides naval weapons.
Which ground based ones don't seem to have an issue firing the full distance out of an atmosphere.
I would assume they can hit a grounded dropship as long as the curve of the planet does not prevent a straight shot.

So I guess the question that needs to be asked is if each weapon has it's own programs to hit and damage anything?
Retry
09/20/17 11:52 PM
64.189.132.158

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Random thought came up, and it made me realize just how crappy missiles are in the game.
Figured out roughly, you get 3 points of armor per ton for building material, and an LRM does one point of damage.
So 30 missiles are needed to take down a 30 cf one hex building.
So a single missile could not destroy a house in the game.
Even a single srm couldn't do it. Hell the 12 points from a full 6 pack on up to 18 points for the 3 point missiles still could not do so in a single volley.

Now the standard armor protects about 5 times better. Which still makes me wonder just how poorly the weapons are, and that is without the ability to target the damned house from a kilometer away.

Now I see why infantry survived things like a missile volley. There really isn't much more then home made rockets with a pipe bomb on them.
Guess I need to stop thinking, as this comes out as very sad. Ironically funny at the same time.


Would a single missile be able to destroy a house in real life?

There's 50 rounds in a SRM-2, so 100 missiles total for one ton, so about 10kg per. That's not a 50kg Hellfire missile (you'd want a Thunderbolt warhead then), it's closer to the 11kg 9M14 Malyutka with a 125mm diameter and a ~2.5-3.5kg warhead. RL anti-tank missiles are HEAT based (except for one historical oddball that went with HESH), which are good for penetrating armor but not so great at general mass destruction against unarmored targets until structural failure like High Explosive rounds would be.

The LRM is even smaller than the SRM at about 8kg and has half the warhead.

The base missiles are fluffed as fielding a "special armor piercing explosive" and is probably optimized for ablating armor off of a Battlemech instead of killing infantry and blowing up bunkers. Otherwise ammunition types like frag missiles would be superfluous.

Hitting a normal single-story house with a Malyutka or MILAN size missile would seriously mess it up and give its occupants a bad day, but it's hard to see that one missile by itself causing critical structural failure unless it somehow found its thermal exhaust port.
MJB
11/12/17 10:27 PM
107.199.74.86

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Still no thoughts regarding fumes, particulate matter, or gravity?

I am disappointed!
ghostrider
11/14/17 03:47 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That is kind of sad.
2750 has energy weapons, including partical projection cannons, but yet have not found a way to get more boom out of missiles. Granted, I shouldn't be surprised, as they can not hit much on the ground at distances over a kilometer, but yet in space, they can hit for a few hundred kilometers.
Given the distance of some long range shots, I find it hard to believe the computers can hit in space, as the size of the target should be smaller at the long range in space, then a tank in the field.
And using the same ammunition to boot. Well lrms, mrms, and srms.

Maybe I have watched too many movies dealing with things like this.

I can understand hardened, or even just heavy construction, but a light constructed building?
Maybe I didn't realize the missiles are probably going thru the house, and exploding when it head out the back. Much like an armor piercing bullet would do.

Fumes could be said to light the building on fire, as unspent fuel comes to mind.
Particulate matter could well be used as an IED, as a few novels suggested.
Gravity could drop the building if you hit the supporting structure.
Is there something you had in mind?
ghostrider
03/14/18 01:31 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Does the newer rule sets let c3's work with artemis systems?
Or do you have to shut the artemis off to use the c3 part?

Seen a couple of mechs use this combination.
Retry
03/15/18 02:50 PM
64.189.130.11

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yes, C3 works with Artemis.
AmaroqStarwind
03/28/18 06:42 PM
174.235.19.144

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I noticed that there was an Artemis IV and an Artemis V, but there isn't an Artemis I, Artemis II or Artemis III.
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus

The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable.
ghostrider
03/29/18 04:20 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
More issues with the way some things turned out. 2750 could have used those as early models to the current systems, but the developers failed to make a back story for it. You don't see anything about some of the older models of say the pulse lasers. The large bulky way more heat and less damage that is normal for experiments. And some of the fluff says some systems were experimental when the league started using them.
AmaroqStarwind
03/29/18 07:25 PM
174.235.19.144

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Perhaps the Artemis III is what comes built-in to LRM and SRM launchers?
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus

The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable.
TigerShark
03/30/18 01:44 PM
12.130.166.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
More issues with the way some things turned out. 2750 could have used those as early models to the current systems, but the developers failed to make a back story for it. You don't see anything about some of the older models of say the pulse lasers. The large bulky way more heat and less damage that is normal for experiments. And some of the fluff says some systems were experimental when the league started using them.



Prototype rules have been published for all of these weapons.
AmaroqStarwind
04/01/18 01:43 AM
174.235.15.250

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Unless otherwise noted, the following rules apply:
- Prototype energy weapons produce 50% more heat.
- Prototype projectile weapons have 20% less ammunition per ton, and will frequently jam.

I forgot the rule for prototype missile launchers.
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus

The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable.
TigerShark
04/02/18 01:34 PM
12.130.166.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Prototype rockets suffer a penalty to their cluster rolls.

EDIT: I don't recall even seeing rules for primitive missile racks. Even the Primitive missile carriers have "modern" LRM/SRM racks attached.


Edited by TigerShark (04/02/18 01:47 PM)
AmaroqStarwind
04/16/18 06:58 PM
174.235.17.105

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So, I learned the rule for Primitive Missile Launchers (excluding Rocket Launchers).

They function the same, except they carry 25% less ammo per ton, cannot use advanced guidance systems such as Artemis or NARC, and have a -3 penalty on the cluster hits table. It says nothing about special munitions however, and I therefore imagine that many Primitive LRMs and Primitive SRMs would be using either Heat Seeking, Laser Guided or Dead Fire munitions.

Speaking of missiles, I am really confused about Artemis systems.

If you have four LRM-5 systems in one location, do you need to mount a separate Artemis for each of them, or do you only need to do that if 1) each launcher is in a different location or 2) the launchers are mismatched, such as LRM-5 and LRM-15?
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus

The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable.
Retry
04/16/18 08:13 PM
64.189.130.11

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Primitive prototype missile launchers have a -2 penalty on the cluster hits table, not -3.

Every launcher needs an Artemis if you're going to install Artemis.
AmaroqStarwind
04/16/18 09:19 PM
174.235.17.105

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Lame. MegaMek gets Artemis completely wrong; it lets you use only a single Artemis system for every missile launcher regardless of their location, only requiring a separate module for different types of launcher.
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus

The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable.
bestdrones
04/18/18 01:07 PM
207.244.77.13

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
i read all stuff and i appreciate the knowledge you have shared. keep up the good work!
TigerShark
04/19/18 02:14 PM
12.130.166.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
According to the rules as written, if Artemis is installed at all, on any launcher, it needs to be installed for EVERY launcher. Exempting those that are Streak launchers, of course.

i.e.: If you have two LRM-10s and two SRM-4s, you can't just install it on the LRMs. It needs to be on the SRMs as well.

Errata:

Artemis IV Fire-Control System (p. 207)
Under “Construction Rules”, replace the first and second paragraphs with the following:

“The Artemis IV FCS is only applicable to standard LRM, SRM and MML launchers (including any one-shot or torpedo versions). If Artemis IV is added to an applicable launcher, every applicable launcher on the unit must have Artemis IV (non-applicable launchers, such as Streak SRMs, may still be installed). For example, if a unit has one Artemis IV-equipped LRM launcher, then every single standard LRM, SRM and MML launcher on the unit must have Artemis IV. Note that while Clan ATM launchers have Artemis IV integrated as part of their design, ATM launchers do not count as an applicable launcher type, meaning you can have ATMs on the same unit as LRM, SRM or MML launchers without Artemis IV.

Artemis IV must be placed in the same location as the launcher it is added to. If a launcher that must receive an Artemis enhancement is set in a location with no space remaining for the Artemis, then Artemis IV may not be mounted on that unit at all, because one of its launchers cannot receive the required upgrade. For OmniMechs with one or more fixed (i.e. non-pod-mounted) missile launchers, whether or not the fixed launchers have Artemis determines the ’Mech’s usage of Artemis. This cannot be modified through alternate configurations. For example, for an OmniMech with fixed launchers without Artemis, no launcher on the ’Mech, fixed or not, may have Artemis. Conversely, for an OmniMech with Artemis-equipped fixed launchers, all its applicable launchers must be equipped with Artemis.”
AmaroqStarwind
04/19/18 03:24 PM
174.235.17.105

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Jeeze, that's way too strict... May as well require that the player fires all of their missile launchers at once with a single attack roll and cluster roll on top of that (or a separate roll for SRMs versus LRMs), since they really seem to be heading in that direction. And also ban Artemis launchers from using special munitions.

Like, really... That's just maddening.
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus

The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable.
ghostrider
04/19/18 04:10 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Idea came up for the possibility for something like a sabot round for acs. This would allow smaller rounds to be used in the larger cannons, like an ac 20 could use a sabot round of an ac 5. It would be an ac 5 shot in all aspects, but fired from a 20.
The damage, range, even minimum would be of the ac 5. The number of shots would have to be changed, but using the 5, it would definitely be more then 5 shots, but less then the full 20 of normal shots.

Sabot might not be a good name for it. Necked down I believe is the term.
Though I can see some arguments for more power as you are using more charge in the shell.
AmaroqStarwind
04/19/18 04:37 PM
174.235.17.105

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Sounds good in theory (and also seems relatively balanced), but give me enough time and I can probably find ways it could go catastrophically wrong (from a scientific/technical standpoint).

But this is BattleTech, so the science isn't always 100% accurate.
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus

The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable.
ghostrider
05/02/18 04:01 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
While not a weapon, the question has been brought up about the clans.
They have the better, lighters, less crit having items except gyros, seems to have never been upgraded by them.
Any one know why the gyro was never updated before the clan invasion?

Normal weapons were lightened, and less crits. Less crits for ferrous fiber. Even the engines were lighter with less crits for the xl, though the didn't have any other engines at that time.
AmaroqStarwind
05/02/18 04:48 AM
108.255.82.176

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The Clans never had any variants of the Gyro to experiment with. Alternate Gyro types were a post-Star League invention.

If they weren't, then the Clans would have improved upon them by now.
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus

The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable.
Retry
05/02/18 09:33 AM
64.189.130.11

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The Angel ECM Suite was a post-SL invention as well, yet Goliath Scorpion copied the invention pretty quick and it spread to the rest of the Clans. They could easily the gyros by 3145 if they wanted, but clearly they're not interested in alternate gyros.
ghostrider
05/02/18 07:08 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The clans never had any variants to experiment with?
Why does that sound weird?
The heavy laser was not from star league era, but they have them.
They built omni mechs, and didn't have much besides the fluff for the mongoose to go with.
The lack of having something tends to promote trying to make something.
Having a lighter, less bulky gyro, or maybe one that has more crits before affecting the pilot would be a good thing. Even just having it armored at the same weight and crits would have been something.

Oh yeah. One more thing about not having something in league time, but the clans have. Regeneration of body parts.
ghostrider
05/24/18 02:16 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Another thought came to mind about general weapons tech.

In the books, the shoulder mounted infantry srms had a rare version of it that could be used to alter the missiles in flight. Isn't this the basic tech for streaks?
AmaroqStarwind
05/24/18 09:54 PM
13.84.155.127

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I wasn't saying that the Clans couldn't invent new things. I was saying that after the Inner Sphere invented alternate gyro types, the Clans just didn't see any need to copy them. However, using mixed-tech rules, it is possible to use alternate gyro types on Clan mechs, and I'm sure an improved gyro exists somewhere in fanon.

Also, Retro Streak SRMs are a thing too. However, they were nowhere near as effective as AMS, were only useful against Streak Missiles, weighed twice as much as normal missiles, etc.
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus

The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable.
ghostrider
05/24/18 11:18 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Not retro. In the original mechwarrior book, they had the controlled srm launchers for infantry. It was rare, but that would be the basis for the streaks. I find it odd, they did not research that into streaks before the helm core.
The weights of the missiles make is sound like you could use standard mech srms in the infantry launcher.
And that in itself would suggest they had the ability still in the missiles as there was no need for specialized ammunition.
ghostrider
06/05/18 11:12 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
This may have been asked before, but I am going to ask it anyways.

Why did the lrms have a minimum range?
Not arming the missiles is actually very stupid, as srms seem to be armed when leaving the tubes.

Well other then the developers said so?
Requiem
06/06/18 12:25 AM
58.175.193.140

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Hot-Loading Rules ….

The actual rules are contained within the Battletech Technical Handbook Pg. 48 and The Battletech Compendium Pg. 36, and they are as follows…

“The minimum range of LRMs under standard rules reflects the time required for the missiles’ internal guidance systems to lock on their targets and for their explosive payloads to arm. Hot-loading rules enable a player to arm the warheads of the LRMs before the missiles are fired, and so hot-loaded LRMs have no minimum range modifier.

However, hot-loaded LRMs are usually not as accurate as standard LRMs. When resolving damage from a flight of hot-loaded LRMs, the attacking player rolls 3D6. Use the two lowest results to determine hits on the standard Missile Hits Table.
Hot-loaded LRMs are fully armed in their launcher, and so any hit on the launcher triggers a missile explosion and destroys all of the launcher’s critical slots. Also, the body location of the launcher takes damage equal to the maximum potential damage of the missile flight.

Example, an exploding hot-loaded LRM-10 launcher would cause 10 Damage points. Any time a hot-loaded missile launcher explodes, the player must roll 2D6. On a result of 1-5, the explosion triggers ammunition explosions in the ‘Mech ammo bays”.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)
Extra information
1 registered and 69 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: 46504


Contact Admins Sarna.net