Karagin
03/04/02 11:16 PM
63.173.170.227
|
According to the lastest form the BT universe, it seems that the FedSuns and Lyrans are no longer building warships since their fleets got mauled in the fight of the civil war. And to them this shows they are not effective enough to warrant their price tag.
Now how do you folks feel about this? Are they ineffective as the authors claim or do they have a place in the game?
My take on this is simple, as written they are just there for flavor. They can't be used as they should because of the game fact called the Ares Convention...which to me is something is all nice and fine, but if they (the Inner Sphere) can toss it out the window in the 1st and 2nd Succession Wars, then why all of a sudden worry about it about now?
The simple idea on this Battlespace didn't sell all that well, and so they (the writers etc...) are getting rid of dead weight...
Let's hear your thoughts on this matter...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Edited by Karagin (03/04/02 11:37 PM)
|
Bob_Richter
03/04/02 11:25 PM
134.121.247.162
|
Absolutely ineffective.
Look at their price tag. You could buy a legion of fighters or military small craft at that price!
Meanwhile, Warships are totally incapable of anything but an assault on another Warship (or orbital bombardment of a planet, which is widely frowned on and never practiced.)
There are better ways of carrying troops to battle. Cheaper ways.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
TenakaFurey
03/04/02 11:36 PM
195.92.168.174
|
In many ways, they are ineffective.
However, the FS and LC may regret that decison the next time their transports have to run a blockade......
EJL
|
Karagin
03/04/02 11:38 PM
63.173.170.227
|
I agree with you on that...but it seems the writers and such at FP don't...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
03/04/02 11:38 PM
63.12.147.29
|
I agree, purely useless. The army so reduces their military budget by putting such a specialised unit in their forces instead of regiments of aerospace fighters, jumpships and dropships. Also if you are building a Warship that takes years to make and a war breaks out you have nothing to show for it. Producing smaller military assets are easier to replace and close enough to 'instant' to allow for immediate military acction.
Greyslayer
|
Bob_Richter
03/04/02 11:42 PM
134.121.247.162
|
If they simply step up production on fighters, fighter-carriers, and assault ships, they should have no trouble "running a blockade", as if blockades were effective when your entry point into the system consists of a volume of several trillion cubic kilometers.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
NathanKell
03/04/02 11:51 PM
24.44.238.62
|
First part yes, second part no.
Remember, you don't have to interdict interstellar travel, just the tiny bit of space around the planet through which anything going in or out would have to travel.
So, while blockades can well be effective, warships aren't (as created).
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Karagin
03/04/02 11:54 PM
63.173.170.227
|
The price tag of the mechs don't prevent the houses from buying them when they can get twice the number of vehicles for the same cost...
I think it is more of a sales issue...and the idea that the MWDA storyline doesn't have them so now is a good time to pull them from the scene...that's my opinion.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
03/04/02 11:58 PM
134.121.247.162
|
>>>Remember, you don't have to interdict interstellar travel, just the tiny bit of space around the planet through which anything going in or out would have to travel. <<<
Even the orbital space around a planet is so large that a Warship could never cover it effectively.
Some of the older source material (was it the House Steiner sourcebook?) makes some mention of the impossibility of enforcing a Warship blockade...and that was back when they HAD Warships.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 12:00 AM
134.121.247.162
|
What was that quote from that Mekton book?
It's in my room. Go look it up.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Karagin
03/05/02 12:01 AM
63.173.170.227
|
Rigth and we all wish that the mechs could be Transformers...
The warships I think got handled wrong as far as how they were shown in the fiction, and in the rules. Maybe if they writters had done the battles between them better there wouldn't be as bad as they are...and then the rules might not have been so well silly...but that's water over the bridge now...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NathanKell
03/05/02 12:02 AM
24.44.238.62
|
Warships, as created by FASA, are junk. Period.
Warships, as outlined by Battlespace, have potential (like, for example, a 2,500kt munchtub (tm) that carries 200,000 cER Small Lasers. And 1100pts of armor per facing. ). Anything within 6 hexes is toast, plain and simple.
Also, warships as Cray has redefined them (with 0 docking collars, the main source of the exorbitant price) are nice as merchies.
And also carriers.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 12:03 AM
134.121.247.162
|
>>>Rigth and we all wish that the mechs could be Transformers... <<<
Um. LAMs.
And he was talking about the SDF-1/Macross Cannon, in case you couldn't tell.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Karagin
03/05/02 12:04 AM
63.173.170.227
|
I agree they are junk as given to us by FASA, and hence they are being tossed out...
To bad really, since they could have been done as to give them an important role and place in the game...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NathanKell
03/05/02 12:05 AM
24.44.238.62
|
You, sir, hit the nail on the head.
It'd be bad enough if warship rules were really crippling.
But they're irrationally really crippling.
And the blame for that, despite the really cool warship art, gets laid at the feet of "we don't need no steenking construction rules, let's pull numbers out of our *(#&$$es" TRO 2750.
Eh.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 12:05 AM
134.121.247.162
|
>>>The warships I think got handled wrong as far as how they were shown in the fiction, and in the rules.<<<
The FICTION got them right, according to the rules, but the rules were pretty far wrong. The sheer mass of both them and their weapons was outright ridiculous. The lack of dependency on tonnage for K-F Core cost was a real problem too, if you ask me...
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Karagin
03/05/02 12:08 AM
63.173.170.227
|
The ships in TR2750 were a start at adding in the warship...and I do agree it was not the best way to go about it, but they could have salavaged something, but instead we got Battlespace, or as a friend of mine called it Leviathan: The ship to ship game for Battletech...that usally brought a few chuckles...
And you are correct they pull the numbers out of thin air...or at least that is how it looks...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NathanKell
03/05/02 12:10 AM
24.44.238.62
|
[whines]at least they coulda kept the really cool template system[/whines]
Hmm....LeviaSpace?
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Karagin
03/05/02 12:14 AM
63.173.170.227
|
LOL! I agree...but hey Battlespace was a better system remember it's new it must be better. 
And to answer your question, check the credits of the BS (no pun intented) Sourcebook, they list Leviathan as one of their helpful things....
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NathanKell
03/05/02 12:18 AM
24.44.238.62
|
I know, that's why I was making the pun.
Makes you feel sorry for Chris Hartford, though 
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Karagin
03/05/02 12:24 AM
63.173.170.178
|
Maybe.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nightmare
03/05/02 12:55 AM
194.251.240.107
|
I`ve played Leviathan, and it wasn`t so hot either. Your high
and mighty Warship was almost defenseless against swarm
attacks by fighter squadrons, and the fighters were able to
aim for specific hit locations...BLAST as several sqadrons all
fire at your left-aft sector, row seven all the way down to
Ship Destroyed.
Advice for Evil Overlords:
My legions of terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
|
Karagin
03/05/02 03:45 AM
63.173.170.151
|
And guess what the same is true in Battlespace, wonder where that simulairity came from...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
03/05/02 07:40 AM
204.245.128.3
|
Are warships ineffective?
I was looking at the role of Clan and IS warships in an alternate history. It looks feasible enough to destroy almost any book warship with a regiment or two of fighters in just one pass. So, as space superiority platforms, warships are of dubious value. Just bring along more fighters. I mean, as tempting as it is to imagine warships evaporating fleets of dropships...really, it seems warships are at that point of vulnerability that surface gunboats reached in WWII to fighters.
On the other hand, the bombardment value of warships is enormous. Dropships simply cannot deliver naval fire support against ground targets - the only capital weapons they can carry (missiles) are not (according to AT2) usuable against ground targets. A warship overhead with batteries of naval lasers and PPCs can evaporate mech regiments without endangering its precious hide or friendly ground forces. The ability to evaporate ground targets without sending vulnerable fighters or ground units through enemy defenses is wonderful. (I was thinking about this while imagining assaults on Clan home worlds. Why send your mechs to fight their way through a garrison galaxy to blow up a Clan mech factory when a few zots from a warship overhead can do the job?)
Further, a bargain-basement warship (no dropship hard points, no lithium-fusion battery) is just 2-3 billion C-bills. That's less expensive than legions of mechs it would take to defeat an equal cost in Clan mechs. Heck, a warship is a good fighter carrier - much better armored than a dropship carrier.
This pretty much relegates warships to their modern oceanic roles: carriers and shore bombardment, leaving space superiority to fighters, but they remain (IMO) effective in some roles.
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.
|
Lance_Hawkins
03/05/02 09:26 AM
80.232.16.43
|
I think that your idea that warships/aerospace didn't sell well is why FanPro are reducing them in the universe are off. If so, why would they include new aerofighters and dropships in the Technical Readout 3067, why announce you're going to publish a recordsheet book filled with only all things aero?
The reason why neither the FedSuns or LyrAll are making warships is simple, the same reason Germany didn't make any new battleships after WWII started. The resources are needed elsewhere. Also with heavy fighting going on at the most important shipyards (like Kathil), it makes no sense to try to make ships there, when the enemy can own the shipyard next week. Better to redirect the resources to a mech plant you control, and churn out an extra regiment of Mechs or vehicles.
Also that warships can't take and hold factories and land is just as true in the Btech universe as it is in todays world. Orbital bombardment only goes so far, you need alot of warship to effectively cover a full planet. One thing is hitting fixed facilities, and helping a friendly unit in a fight (like on Huntress), but when you don't have that ground unit because you made a Fox corvette, it's no good.
Øystein
I have seen the best of men go past, I do not want to be the last.
|
Cray
03/05/02 09:52 AM
204.245.128.3
|
You can design a nice "bargain basement" warship for 2-3 billion C-bills.
Admittedly, that's still a fighter regiment or three, but warships can do things no fighter regiment can, like:
1) Carry fighters into battle
2) Bombard planets with impunity from orbit
3) Jump (they're great at hopscotch)
You will be unavoidably laying out some cash for fighter carriers, which aren't cheap (notice how pricey a Mammoth or Behemoth gets - fast, small dropship carriers are quite expensive, too). I'd prefer my fighter regiment to be in a ship that can survive a few NAC hits.
Dropships are at that awful middle ground where they carry inadequate amounts of firepower with thin armor and high pricetags. Sometimes, a bargain basement warship can look pretty attractive.
And there remains orbital bombardment. I would much prefer a 2 billion C-bill warship dropping pain and hellfire on a target rather than sending 2 billion C-bills of 2 regiments of L2 mechs after the target through ground defenses.
I should repost my Everyman's warship.
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.
|
Cray
03/05/02 10:24 AM
204.245.128.3
|
Sorry, man, I disagree. A warship has the sensors necessary to detect approaching targets up to a million kilometers away and a handful of dropships can really extend this observed volume.
Combined with the simple ability to MOVE, the warship can intercept vehicles approaching a planet. You don't have to throw up a chainlink fence around a planet to blockade it.
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.
|
Cray
03/05/02 10:27 AM
204.245.128.3
|
Of course, if you have the cash and your fighter/mech/whatever factories are backlogged with orders...go ahead, buy the warship.
If its a bargain basement warship. Don't bother with the 16 billion C-bill piles o' cr@p FASA designed.
And I'd prefer to have my legions of fighters on a cheap warship carrier than a dropship carrier any day - more mobile and better protected than the dropship.
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.
|
Greyslayer
03/05/02 10:29 AM
137.172.211.9
|
Have you ever played a game called Full Thrust?
In it they had a ship called a System Defence Destroyer or something like that. The funny thing was that they lacked a jump drive but carried a weapon array of capital ships a couple of classes heavier than it. They were also alot cheaper.
To get the ship to move systems they had cheap Tug Boats that would transport these and salvaged ships between systems. This would free up Warships to be a real combat threat with impressive speed and firepower.
In the Star League Sourcebook they had information of Jumpships that lock around the target (In this case massive asteriods of ice) and jumped them and the target to a new system. Well at least I thought it was the Star League Sourcebook might be the Periphery Sourcebook.
This could allow a newer breed of Warships that more fit into the 'super-dropship' category. Of course the ships defending Terran Hegemony when General Kerensky liberated that area were of this type already (hard for a AI controlled in a particular system to jump off to another system now isn't it? ).
Greyslayer
|
Cray
03/05/02 10:36 AM
204.245.128.3
|
The Ryan Ice Cartel "ice ships" used several jumpships working together to form up around a block of ice and jump with it using their overlapping drive fields. They didn't actually latch on. Given the effects of drive fields on nearby objects during a jump, it's probably a good thing only ice was transported. It wouldn't mind all the warping and crushing and rending.
However, "monitors" (what I always called driveless warships) always struck me as a good idea. I figured you could do something like the Behemoth dropship - take up more than one docking collar on a jumpship, like 1 collar per 50,000 tons of monitor. That caps the monitors at 450ktons, but they should be much more cost-effective means of delivering capital weapons onto the battlefield than current warships.
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.
|
Greyslayer
03/05/02 10:57 AM
137.172.211.9
|
'It wouldn't mind all the warping and crushing and rending.'
I was more respresenting the full power of the jumpship. Effectively the Tug need only be a jumpship with a modified collar for capital ships (I would say that there would be a difinite difference for warships and dropships for the docking collar). In this case as well I would say the warship would not allow dropships as such to dock with it since it isn't carrying troops to jump with.
Greyslayer
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 11:33 AM
134.121.157.14
|
Presumably, an incoming target can move every bit as well as the Warship can, making interception basically impossible.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 11:34 AM
134.121.157.14
|
Actually, I don't. I just have a sourcebook. Don't ask.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Cray
03/05/02 11:41 AM
204.245.128.3
|
No on several counts.
Consider the warship like a goalie - goalies don't have to move very far or fast to position themselves between the goal and the incoming ball. (The fast lunge for the ball, of course, is represented by weapons fire not warship movement).
Further, a 3/5 warship can match most troop transport dropships, and a 4/6-5/8 warship (the things are a dime a dozen these days) can outpace them.
Finally, even if a blockade runner does reach a planet, it takes very little for even a sluggish (2/3) warship to change their path and pass over the much-slowed, re-entering (or even grounded) blockade runner and zap the bugger. It's not like blockade running dropships can drop mechs (or re-enter the atmosphere) at their interplanetary speeds - mechs are dropped from "low orbit", while warships are under no such limits.
This is an advantage of warships over dropships and fighters. Dropships and fighters would have to enter the atmosphere after a blockade runner that got past them, while the warship can just zap the dropship as it re-enters or lands.
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.
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 11:57 AM
134.121.157.14
|
>>>This is an advantage of warships over dropships and fighters. Dropships and fighters would have to
enter the atmosphere after a blockade runner that got past them, while the warship can just zap the
dropship as it re-enters or lands. <<<
Technically? Yes. Practically? No. No power that now deploys Warships would be willing to risk the civillian casualties involved in, say, bombarding their own space port. Even Warship weapons aren't terribly accurate across the interface, and bombarding your own cities....or even the other guy's...is not considered kosher these days.
Even directing fire in the direction of a planet is a no-no. That means you have to catch him, from underneath, before he hits the interface (since, unlike a fighter or dropship, you can't cross it.)
There is official fluff reputing Warship interception to be ineffective, and I agree. A single Warship can't blockade a planet. It only has roughly a 50/50 chance of intercepting a single dropship, and its chances go down with multiples.
And that's assuming noone decides to just up and kill your fragile eggshell of an oversized gun-platform.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Cray
03/05/02 12:04 PM
204.245.128.3
|
Piffle. Just hit the blockade runner as he moves over uninhabited land, or provinces with high numbers of political malcontents.
I was thinking of shooting blockade runners more in terms of planetary defense I suppose - the "blockade runners" were more like invaders who wouldn't be landing in the middle of a city, or even a starport. When they land outside a city or factory, THEN you zap them. If they're more than a map board or three away from the factory, you shouldn't need to worry about stray shots ruining anything other than the scenery.
>A single Warship can't blockade a planet
Still thinking in terms of planetary defense, a single warship can be a real pain for an invading fleet. If it gets among the transports, it doesn't take a lot of NAC/30 hits (2-3) to ruin the day of any published dropship design.
>And that's assuming noone decides to just up and kill your fragile eggshell of an oversized gun-platform.
With what? In the normal BT setting, I mean, the place where no one has a reasonable number of fighters and invaders (let alone blockade runners) rarely bring along fighter carrier dropships (which are even more fragile than warships).
Personally, I'm still willing to shell out 2-3 billion C-bills for my fighter carriers. Then I don't have to worry about a single NAC/30 shell destroying all my fighters (whether they're deployed or not).
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
03/05/02 12:14 PM
63.173.170.56
|
Let's see ever time we have seen warships in the novels they either do so well against other warships that the battles don't make any sense or are glossed over. Now that could be the writters fault but it is there.
IF Battlespace sold so well, how come they didn't come out with Battlespace 2? Building new dropships and fighters is not on the same level as building new warships. Sales dictate what happens in this game, note over on the CBT board the majority of the folks didn't want anything in the FCCW Sourcebook dealing with Battleforce 2, again a system that did not sell well and is not supported by the majority of the fans.
That is what has happen with the warships, they are not well written as rules go, Leviathan rules imposes to the Battletech setting for the most part. On top of that they can not be used for much since anytime anyone tries to do something with them, some screams that they are violating the Ares Convention...funny thing is in war the rules go out the window tell there is a winner, then the losing side catches the blame for not following the rules. To bad that idea isn't followed in Battletech.
And as many have said a single warship can be taken out by fighters, so why would the houese waste money and reasources on warships if a few fighters can render them neutered in a matter of minutes?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
03/05/02 12:16 PM
204.245.128.3
|
>IF Battlespace sold so well, how come they didn't come out with Battlespace 2?
They did, and called it Aerotech 2.
>so why would the houese waste money and reasources on warships if a few fighters can render them neutered in a matter of minutes?
I subscribe to the Labrogini (sp?) theory forwarded elsewhere in the thread.
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
03/05/02 12:17 PM
63.173.170.56
|
Funny, I didn't see warships in Aerotech 2...so did your copy have them in there?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
03/05/02 12:19 PM
204.245.128.3
|
?? Yes. I just built the "Monolith IIC" with AT2 rules. I also built the "Everyman's Warship" (in the AT forum now) with my AT2 rule set. I've got an orbital bombardment platform sitting on my desk designed with AT2 warship rules.
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
03/05/02 12:32 PM
63.173.170.56
|
What pages were these rules on?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
03/05/02 12:40 PM
204.245.128.3
|
The construction rules? I want to say in the 30s. I'll give you a hard page number when I get home.
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
03/05/02 12:42 PM
63.173.170.56
|
Ok. (Darn cat)
They called the new version Aerotech 2, NOT Battlespace 2, to me that says the latter of the two above did not sell and folks had a lot of problems with it as far as the rules go and understanding the mechcanics of the game.
Given that a good junk of the rules for BS came from RL's Leviathan, I think they had in mind to pull the RL players over to BT, not as if most of us didn't already to some extent play both.
Again Aerotech 2 focused more on the fighters over the other ships, hence showing were the demand was when you look at the overall picture.
I agree warships are flashy and have awesome firepower, but with the rules they are working under cripple them as far as usage goes, and as you pointed out the need for them to carry dropships makes them cost more then some planets are worth, it leaves a lot to be desired. Then you toss in the much talked about Ares Convention, and all you are left with is glorified troop transports.
If they wanted the warships around, then why didn't Aerotech 2 have them in there as far as new stats or cleaned up stats and new rules?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
03/05/02 12:45 PM
204.245.128.3
|
Page numbers are a while away, but in the meantime you can read the official errata on AT2, which mentions warships including the latest Lyran warship, the Mjolner.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/AT2FAQ.html
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.
|
Cray
03/05/02 12:46 PM
204.245.128.3
|
Warship (and fighter, and small craft, and dropship, and jumpship) construction rules are on pgs. 42-50
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.
|
Cray
03/05/02 12:56 PM
204.245.128.3
|
>Again Aerotech 2 focused more on the fighters over the other ships
Fighters just required a bunch of new rules that hadn't been in BS. I'm not sure adding a bunch of rules (and fighters are complicated critters - so many areas to cover) constitutes "focusing more on the fighters over the ships."
>If they wanted the warships around, then why didn't Aerotech 2 have them in there as far as new stats or cleaned up stats and new rules?
Because the rules were adequate (in their opinion)?
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.
|
Cray
03/05/02 12:58 PM
204.245.128.3
|
>They called the new version Aerotech 2, NOT Battlespace 2,
Do you even have AT2? Dwelling on the name of the game doesn't strike me as a firm argument someone would use if they had AT2. That and you thought warships weren't even in AT2.
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.
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 01:08 PM
134.121.157.14
|
>>>Piffle. Just hit the blockade runner as he moves over uninhabited land, or provinces with high numbers
of political malcontents. <<<
I assume you were just being facetious with that second bit.
But why should he move over uninhabited land? He's got a WARSHIP with the ability to shoot at him, and a thruster system with the ability to laugh at local gravity. Inhabited land is a good defense. I expect he'll stick over or near it.
>>>I was thinking of shooting blockade runners more in terms of planetary defense I suppose - the
"blockade runners" were more like invaders who wouldn't be landing in the middle of a city, or even a
starport.<<<
At least you're thinking intelligently about defense. Most people want to try to blockade jump-points or make deep-space intercepts. Yes, the planet and its nearby space is your only battleground.
>>>When they land outside a city or factory, THEN you zap them. If they're more than a map
board or three away from the factory, you shouldn't need to worry about stray shots ruining anything
other than the scenery. <<<
Scenery like...small country cottages?
But, seriously, why land more than a map board or three away from your forces, when
1) There's a Warship in position to bombard him.
2) He can more easily overwhelm the defenders if he hits them sooner rather than later.
>>>Still thinking in terms of planetary defense, a single warship can be a real pain for an invading fleet.<<<
Only if it outclasses the attacking warships, as with Alshain, and the fleet isn't smart enough to come in at multiple vectors (again, battle of Alshain.)
These circumstances should be very unusual...pretty much they should only occur at the battle of Alshain (since hopefully even the Combine military learned from that disaster.)
>>>With what? <<<
What else?
Considering that they can't hold ground, can't blockade, and can't survive a determined assault by enemy fighter craft, what use is a Warship except in destroying OTHER Warships?
Or how about a lone Vengeance fighter carrier, which will never even have to come into contact with your Warship to destroy it.
>>>Personally, I'm still willing to shell out 2-3 billion C-bills for my fighter carriers.<<<
I can see that. Unlike a conventional Warship, they can make multiple intercepts, attack multiple targets, and never need to come under threat of enemy fire. Of course, you can do the same thing with Dropship/Warship combinations...but thanks to FASA's lame-brained cost tables, it'd probably be more expensive.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Cray
03/05/02 01:21 PM
204.245.128.3
|
>Inhabited land is a good defense. I expect he'll stick over or near it.
Assuming orbital mechanics give him the option, I can see that. But braking from orbital velocity (Earth, LEO) takes over 6000km of stopping distance at 1G deceleration.
>But, seriously, why land more than a map board or three away from your forces
1) Give your disembarking troops time to form up before the ground defenders hit them
2) Take away the opportunity of the ground defenders at the target to shoot, stab, artillery, pillory, or otherwise maim your troops and dropships
After all, if you land right in/beside the target - a factory complex frex - and then fight over it in the complex itself, you're going to damage your target. Which may be your intent, but you wouldn't need to land to destroy things - just send some fighters overhead and drop bombs.
This last issue is a real "rock and hard place" if you have a warship overhead. Unless you want to destroy the target (why did you land?), you can't land and fight too close to it. But if there's a warship overhead, you can't land too far away.
>Or how about a lone Vengeance fighter carrier, which will never even have to come into contact with your Warship to destroy it.
That works both ways, though I'd note warships can usually outrun fighters based on fuel endurance, with an adequate headstart. It takes some careful thought to launch the fighters close enough to the warship that they can catch it, but it can't catch the Vengeance.
As for other warships...well, if you're stuck with them, yes, they're good for blowing up other warships. And orbital fire support when you sweep aside the defenders' aerospace forces.
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.
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 01:41 PM
134.121.157.14
|
>>>Assuming orbital mechanics give him the option, I can see that. But braking from orbital velocity
(Earth, LEO) takes over 6000km of stopping distance at 1G deceleration. <<<
And if he never orbited the planet?
>>>1) Give your disembarking troops time to form up before the ground defenders hit them <<<
They're trained to orbital drop into combat situations. I think they can handle a contested drop zone.
>>>After all, if you land right in/beside the target - a factory complex frex - and then fight over it in the
complex itself, you're going to damage your target. <<<
And why would the defenders give you any other option?
>>>Which may be your intent, but you wouldn't need
to land to destroy things - just send some fighters overhead and drop bombs. <<<
Now...don't go there. We all like our 'Mechs. Pointing out their uselessness doesn't help in the least.
Seriously, though. Capturing a damaged factory is infinitely better than just razing it. And (as an Inner Sphere commander) I have a lifetime of conditioning to tell me this.
>>>That works both ways, though I'd note warships can usually outrun fighters based on fuel endurance,
with an adequate headstart.<<<
Depending on the fighters you're using, that headstart can be quite difficult to achieve. Certainly even a heavy fighter can overrun your average Warship in minimal time from just outside its weapons envelope.
>>>It takes some careful thought to launch the fighters close enough to the
warship that they can catch it, but it can't catch the Vengeance. <<<
Careful thought being why the Dropship has a crew...:)
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Cray
03/05/02 01:51 PM
204.245.128.3
|
>And if he never orbited the planet?
That has little to do with a blockade runner/invader at one point being at orbital velocity before landing. Even a "slow" invader that appeared at a pirate point (Earth's L5 point, frex) will peak at ~63km/s halfway between L5 and Earth. The invader had better slow down past orbital velocity before he lands, or the only thing the warship needs to do is send down a work party to fill in the crater.
Now that I'm starting to think about the price of transport jumpships, budget warships are starting to sound fairly useful. My Everyman's Warship can deliver a mech battalion and fighter regiment to the battlefield (the mechs have big jump jets to return to the warship...yeah...that's it), and it's no more expensive than a Monolith with a lithium-fusion battery.
Come on, Bob. You know you want warships. You need to apply some of that brainpower to finding uses for them.
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.
|
Greyslayer
03/05/02 02:13 PM
137.172.211.9
|
'Just hit the blockade runner as he moves over uninhabited land, or provinces with high numbers of political malcontents.'
I didn't think the rules were that easy for picking off dropships and aerospace at lower altitudes and then there is cloud cover .
'With what? In the normal BT setting, I mean, the place where no one has a reasonable number of fighters and invaders'
Well situations such as the Great Lee Turkey Shoot give you a good example of where mass combat at that level and that was 30th century! Now after midway through the 31st century production lines seem to be pumping out more units than crew/pilots can be trained. Such a level of conflict would be easy enough in the current level of things in the battletech universe. Well at least I seem to think it points that way.
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
03/05/02 02:31 PM
137.172.211.9
|
'This last issue is a real "rock and hard place" if you have a warship overhead.'
And what happens if you win? Could not the warship just bomb you anyway? Sounds more like a Rock, Hardplace and a bloody hardplace type mission there.
'That works both ways, though I'd note warships can usually outrun fighters based on fuel endurance, with an adequate headstart. It takes some careful thought to launch the fighters close enough to the warship that they can catch it, but it can't catch the Vengeance.'
That is true all relative to whether the fighters expend any thrust to catch the warship to start with. The dropship can give the fighters the initial velocity they need to catch the warship with minimal expenditure of fuel.
In the above example though certain problems occur:
- the dropship has to pass enough velocity onto the fighters without closing too much on the warship
- the warship has fighter cover of its own
- the planet the warship is defending has aerospace assets at its disposal
- the warship wasn't built by the lowest bidder but your equipment was (sorry had to throw that in).
Greyslayer
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 03:26 PM
134.121.157.14
|
Actually, no. I don't want Warships. Not the way they are now.
I want Warships maybe 10% of the mass with design rules and cost tables that make sense.
Even then, I want them to be only a small part of the action.
In short, I'm in this thing for the giant robot combat.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 03:37 PM
134.121.157.14
|
>>>Most planets just don't field enough fighters to combat it's complement. <<<
Nor most successor states enough to supply it.
I like the Thera, too, it's just not practical considering how many fighters and pilots the FWL doesn't have.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Karagin
03/05/02 03:48 PM
63.173.170.110
|
Yes I have AT2...and again if Battlespace was so successful why redo it and change the name?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
03/05/02 03:48 PM
204.245.128.3
|
Feh. I LIKE the big warships of BT. The only thing they need is a ten-fold increase in the firepower of their capital weapons (and maybe armor). That would just about give the guns a decent damage-to-weight ratio.
That's something I could respect in a warship, too. A 1500pt shot from a 3000-ton weapon sounds good.
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
03/05/02 03:50 PM
63.173.170.110
|
Have you compared Leviathan to Battlespace?
Have you really tried to play a game of Battlespace?
I have done both and rules SUCK. Warships as given to use are useful for ONE role only sitting in orbit and being used as artillery as written. And then if you do chose to use it that way you have folks telling you that you can not since you would be violating the Ares Convention.
The rules in AT2 are written from a fighter stand point, thus it is clear that the warships are taking a back seat to the fighters.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
03/05/02 03:50 PM
204.245.128.3
|
Because when something is successful, you always make a sequel, or a new edition. Geez, how long have you been playing FA$A games?
BS was noticeably lacking in the fighter department. It had none of the air-ground integration that the original AT had and since, apparently, the BMR wasn't going to carry those rules, they needed a new AT.
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
03/05/02 03:51 PM
63.173.170.110
|
That's nice.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
03/05/02 03:51 PM
204.245.128.3
|
>The rules in AT2 are written from a fighter stand point, thus it is clear that the warships are taking a back seat to the fighters.
How do you figure they're written from a fighter stand point?
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.
|
Cray
03/05/02 03:52 PM
204.245.128.3
|
And you wonder why people "attack" you all the time.
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
03/05/02 03:53 PM
63.173.170.110
|
A sequal...yes...right, but that normally means it keeps the same name and get's a 2 put behind it or 3 or what ever not a renaming.
BS needs a major overhaul, and comparing AT2 to BS shows that BS is going out the window....but this is taking away from the discussion as stated in the main thread so let's go back on to the topic please.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
03/05/02 03:54 PM
63.173.170.110
|
Ok...telling him that it's nice that he saw them is wrong? Right ok will keep that in mind...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
03/05/02 03:55 PM
204.245.128.3
|
So, basically you don't have any evidence that AT2 is written from a fighter's standpoint and are falling back on "let's get back to the main topic[1]"?
[1] Which I do at length elsewhere further in the thread.
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
03/05/02 03:56 PM
63.173.170.110
|
Let's see 80% of the book covers how fighters work in the game and in battle, I don't see much in the book covering warships PLUS I don't even see the stats for the warships anywhere in there.
I can see that you don't agree with this and so seeing how we are going in circles may I suggest we either drop it or go back to the main topic instead?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
03/05/02 03:57 PM
204.245.128.3
|
Sarcastic replies like "that's nice" are wrong, yes. Even if you were actually thanking him, you could've chosen more appropriate words, like something involving "thank you."
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
03/05/02 03:58 PM
63.173.170.110
|
No sorry, I have the evidence as given in the book since it deals with fighters and their role in game. YOU don't want to see this or will not take it as proof, so as to avoid an endless arguement with you over this I am asking we go back to the topic and let this go.
So it's up to you...I am done on this part of the discussion.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
03/05/02 03:59 PM
63.173.170.110
|
Thank you I will file that input away for future use, now moving back to the orignial topic...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 04:08 PM
134.121.157.14
|
They're simply too massive. Consider the density of a kilometer-long Warship that masses 800,000 metric tons.
But you said *I* wanted Warships, and as a matter of fact I don't. It is therefore in my best interests to apply my mental abilities to proving their utter worthlessness.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Nightward
03/05/02 04:15 PM
132.234.1.13
|
I think that the sales theory is about right.
But in answer to the other question, I think WarShips are great. It's the way that they are used that is ineffectual. As I discussed with Bob on CBT, the power of a WarShip is not its physical presence (although that is good, too) but the *THREAT* of having a WarShip. If you lob up to a planet, demand its surrender, and give them the ultrimation 'or we smash one major city each hour from orbit', enemy forces will come to heel very quickly. As long as you don't carry out the treat (although smacking down an unihabited mountain range or two just to prove intent wouldn't hurt) you are covered by the Ares Conventions.
The next bit I discuss relies a bit of Terry Pratchett. In 'The 5th Elephant', they talk about the Marquis of Fantailler Rules- a code for boxing. This code mostly consisted ofg a listr of places people weren't allowed to hit him, and was regarded as a great work. Given that the Ares Conventions were cooked up by a Liao...well, I'm sure you're all bright enough to pick the similarities.
WarShips are expensive, yes, but if they were handled by a half-decent commander (shall we say, someone like Aral Vorkosigan from Lois McMaster Bujold's series) they would be the ultimate weapon. Idiot commanders will loose and look stupid no matter what forces they are given.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 04:15 PM
134.121.157.14
|
As a matter of fact, the rules were simplified ("dumbed down"?) specifically to make it easier to play Warships.
Let's face it: a fighter game with the same complexity and Battletech would be perfectly okay. A WARSHIP game on that level would be....um....well let's just say I don't enjoy rolling dice THAT much.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 04:22 PM
134.121.157.14
|
As I've told you before, you become the laughing stock of the galaxy when the defenders say "Unh uh" and you can't carry out your threat. Which could very well happen a lot, no matter HOW many mountain ranges you smash.
Warships are also intensely vulnerable, and far too expensive to justify for the minimal gain they provide.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Nightward
03/05/02 04:27 PM
132.234.1.13
|
Karagin, quit being so damned aggressive. The easiest way to prove you are right is not to say 'I'm right, I'm right, and I won't listen to your arguments', but to supply supporting evidence. A la:
There are several points the support the idsea that AT2 was written mainly to deal with Fighters. First off, most of the book is given over to integrating Fighters with a BattleTech game; more material in that book deals with Fighter combat than any other naval type (eg DropShip or WarShip.). Secondly, the rules dealing with Fighters are much more detailed, logical, and well-written than any of the others, which leave large gaps between 'reality' and the rules. Finally, they included stats on every fighter type in existence in the back of the book, as well as heaps of counters for them. No WarShips, or DropShips appeared, and the rules of AT2 in fact made several existing vessels illegal.
This shows that either they believe most players are not interested in WarShip or DropShip combat and want to play with AeroSpace fighters, or that in the future FanPro/FASA/Wiz Kidz will discontinue support for other naval vehicles.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Nightward
03/05/02 04:34 PM
132.234.1.13
|
Maybe. But if I were a planetary government official, I would not like to take the chance that the person with whom I'm dealing would not carry out their threat. If you said 'no' and the planet was bombarded...you would have the blood of thousands, if not millions, upon your hands.
As I mentioned on CBT, the value of a WarShip lies not in the physical domain, but in the realm of projected power.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 04:41 PM
134.121.157.14
|
presenting evidence leaves you vulnerable to reasonable counter-arguments.
>>>First off, most of the book is given over to integrating Fighters with a BattleTech game; more material in
that book deals with Fighter combat than any other naval type (eg DropShip or WarShip.).<<<
Actually, most of the matierial deals with all craft generally, and the simplification of the rules makes fighter craft intensely less interesting or detailed than they were in Aerotech.
>>>Secondly,
the rules dealing with Fighters are much more detailed, logical, and well-written than any of the
others, which leave large gaps between 'reality' and the rules.<<<
I beg to differ. NONE of the rules in AT2 are detailed, logical, or well-written to any meaningful degree.
>>>Finally, they included stats on every
fighter type in existence in the back of the book, as well as heaps of counters for them. No WarShips,
or DropShips appeared, and the rules of AT2 in fact made several existing vessels illegal. <<<
On the other hand, fighter stats underwent the most significant changes, and all Warship and Dropship types were grandfathered in under the conversions section.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Nightward
03/05/02 04:44 PM
132.234.1.13
|
"I beg to differ. NONE of the rules in AT2 are detailed, logical, or well-written to any meaningful degree."
Got it in one. I bought the book so I could use WaRShips (muhahahaha) and was royally dismayed by the ungodly mess the rules were in. I could have done a better job.
The conversion tables were hideos. I obtained a copy of TR: 2750 and had a go; I gave up very quickly.
But Fighters are the "'Mechs" of AT2. Everything else is written to be poor by conbtrast-including WarShips, which should be the ultimate.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 04:48 PM
134.121.157.14
|
So you surrender.
How does the Warship enforce your surrender?
Answer: It can't.
So it's a good old-fashioned Battlemech fight after all, since you don't really think your military commander (who was dispatched by the central government and couldn't frankly care less about your little cities) is going to give up that easily, do you?
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 04:54 PM
134.121.157.14
|
>>>But Fighters are the "'Mechs" of AT2. Everything else is written to be poor by conbtrast-including
WarShips, which should be the ultimate. <<<
There you go looking at this from the wrong perspective again.
Warships SHOULDN'T be the ultimate. They should be big, flashy, impressive, posessed of massive firepower, but should be ABSOLUTELY vulnerable to attacks by fighters.
Actually, I was most annoyed by the loss of the "boarding actions" rules.
Battlespace was REALLY Aerotech 2. It just took the wrong course in oversimplifying fighters, reducing them to squadrons and stars. That always annoyed me. Made them the infantry of space, when they're supposed to be the ultimate determiners of aerospace superiority.
And so we have Aerotech 2 (Aerotech 3) which went the right direction, but not far enough.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Cray
03/05/02 05:10 PM
12.78.128.202
|
Now there you go. That's an argument I can listen to.
I disagree, though, and think the only reason warships might be phased out is due to the post-AT2 decision to do this Dark Age Clicktech thing.
Simplification of warship rules in AT2 would be just to make them more playable, even if it didn't please some players (*cough*Bob*cough*).
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.
|
Cray
03/05/02 05:14 PM
12.78.128.202
|
Hmm. A kilometer-long warship with a length-to-beam ratio of 10:1 that is also 800,000 tons...it's density is about 20% of the density of modern ocean-going warships.
Clearly, the tonnage needs to go WAY up, or the dimensions need to be approximately halved.
I like that. Halve the dimensions.
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.
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 05:15 PM
134.121.157.14
|
I don't mind Warship rules being simplified, it's the simplification of the FIGHTER rules that bugs me.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Cray
03/05/02 05:17 PM
12.78.128.202
|
>They should be big, flashy, impressive, posessed of massive firepower, but should be ABSOLUTELY vulnerable to attacks by fighters.
No point to them then, not even for carrier or bombardment duties. Even surface warships today aren't "absolutely" vulnerable to fighters. In fact, they can be quite threatening to fighters.
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.
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 05:20 PM
134.121.157.14
|
>>>In fact, they can be quite threatening to fighters. <<<
I didn't say they weren't, just that the fighters were threatening (deadly, in fact) to them.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Cray
03/05/02 05:22 PM
12.78.128.202
|
Oooohhh....
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.
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 05:33 PM
134.121.157.14
|
depending on its exact dimensions, of course. I just figured the density for a 1000m/100m/100m rectangular object massing 800,000 metric tons...it came to .08 gram/cubic centimeter.
I must have mis-figured it the last time I calculated it. Odd how that happens some times. Get thinking about Battlespace on a late night, forget to cube your conversion factors, and there ya are...
...but I still don't like the idea of ships (or guns) that big. It's too much of a leap for me.
(especially when the guns do so little damage, but can't do any more, or even that much, for game balance reasons)
I mean...we have 100 ton 'Mechs (perhaps a 50% increase over modern tanks) and 2.5 million ton warships (Over a 1000% increase over modern surface warships.)
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Nightward
03/05/02 06:06 PM
132.234.1.13
|
Civilians.
One word that says it all. If the planetary government surrenders and the WarShip sends in ground forces to accept the surrender, which are then attacked, the WarShip in orbit has the ability to strike at the cities. By and large, the MIliatary are patriotic, so getting their civilians killed will not be on the top of their 'to do' list.
Whoever holds the WarShip holds all the cards, simpy because of the fact that they can initiate a slaughter without fear of retaliation.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Nightward
03/05/02 06:09 PM
132.234.1.13
|
Yeah, the other reason I bought AT2 was because of Michael Ryan and company. I was really hoping to have the rules for those, but they weren't in there.
Nobody is going to agree 100% on any set of rules; I would have liked to see more attention to WarShips and DropShips, because of their massive firepower. *GUNS!*
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Nightward
03/05/02 06:13 PM
132.234.1.13
|
The only limit to the size of a WarShip is budget. If I wanted to build a 4.5 trillion ton WarShip, it could be done. Not under the rules, but it is feasable. Unfortunately, I then have to pay for it, something that would bankrupt even the Diamond Sharks.
The 2.5 million ton cap is just there for the sake of sanity and playibility. A 4.5 trillion tonner would just be a mess. Youl'd need more dice than exist on this planet just for its Point Defence batteries...
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Nightward
03/05/02 06:30 PM
132.234.1.13
|
We discussed this on CBT, too. You do not have to blockade an entire system, only the Jump Points. A couple of Ships over the Nadir and Zenith points, and a few in orbit will do the trikc. And even if they get through the blockade, they still have to get out...
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 06:42 PM
134.121.157.14
|
Um. yes. I have that now. It was my older calculation that was incorrect.
OTOH, Warships are full of light things like hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 06:58 PM
134.121.157.14
|
>>>The 2.5 million ton cap is just there for the sake of sanity and playibility.<<<
And thus fails miserably. Have you seen the kind of sick, bizarre monstrosities you can contruct at that tonnage level?
>>>The only limit to the size of a WarShip is budget. If I wanted to build a 4.5 trillion ton WarShip, it could
be done. Not under the rules, but it is feasable.<<<
I'm not sure that's true. You wouldn't even dream of saying such a thing if we were in a terrestrial environment. Why would you think this when talking about an accelerating frame of reference with possibly more than three times Earth's gravity?
Besides, the economics in Battletech are unrealistic. Why not everything else, too?
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Nightward
03/05/02 07:04 PM
132.234.1.13
|
'And thus fails miserably. Have you seen the kind of sick, bizarre monstrosities you can contruct at that tonnage level? '
Yes. You've seen my Apocalypse.
'I'm not sure that's true. You wouldn't even dream of saying such a thing if we were in a terrestrial environment. Why would you think this when talking about an accelerating frame of reference with possibly more than three times Earth's gravity? '
We are operating in what is essentially a zero-gravity, zero-friction environment. Now the hypothetical 4.5 trillion tonner would have a heap of inertia and would require weeks of thrust just to get up to 1 G of acceleration (an exaggeration, but I am a Biologist and not a physicist and have difficulty with Volume of Rotation, not to mention kinetc theory). So it would require massive engines and massive fuel bunkers to provide for them. The only limit to scale in space is economics. There is really no point to building vessels over 1 million tons, which is why most WarShips are Cruiser- or Destroyer-Class.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 07:11 PM
134.121.157.14
|
>>>
We are operating in what is essentially a zero-gravity, zero-friction environment.<<<
There's your error. No, we're not.
We are operating in an environment with extreme gravity (from acceleration), and while friction isn't a concern, micrometerorites and things even smaller and nastier are.
>>>Now the hypothetical
4.5 trillion tonner would have a heap of inertia and would require weeks of thrust just to get up to 1 G
of acceleration<<<
Thrust/Inertia = Acceleration.
High School physics.
(You don't build up acceleration. That's not how it works.)
>>>There is really no point
to building vessels over 1 million tons, which is why most WarShips are Cruiser- or Destroyer-Class. <<<
No point in building vessels over 100,000 tons or so. One naval weapon is all you need to wipe out a population center, after all.
Of course, thanks to FASA's cost tables, there is little difference in cost between a Warship at one extreme and one at the other.
(In other words, according to FASA, economics does not limit Warship size in any meaningful way.)
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
NathanKell
03/05/02 07:59 PM
24.44.238.62
|
In short, I'm in this thing for the giant robot combat.
And I'm in it for squishing 'em with capital fire.
Just think, the scale's about right...the 1/285th mechs are there, and the foot's a NAC round
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
NathanKell
03/05/02 08:07 PM
24.44.238.62
|
15x increase in capital weapon effectiveness, and switch the tonnage of SI : armor ratio from 50:1 to 2:1 (or even better 1:1).
And, of course, ditch the imbecilic fire control limits.
And, as Bob is fond of re-mentioning, go back to BT style ranges, and use the 2750 ones (doubled, thanks to AT2) for capital weapons. Turns out the NAC-40 was only meant to have the range of a large laser
Anyway, x15 gives the NACs about the right efficiency, and properly penalizes the energy (and gauss) weapons for extreme range.
Though the NL-35 and Lgt. NPPC really need to mass less. And the missiles are still way ineffective (x20, maybe?) especially considering PDWs can chew them up.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
NathanKell
03/05/02 08:08 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Clearly, the tonnage needs to go WAY up
You betcha!
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 08:36 PM
134.121.157.14
|
>>>And I'm in it for squishing 'em with capital fire. <<<
Then kindly go play a wargame that IS about gargantuan star-cruisers. Or make your own.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
NathanKell
03/05/02 09:23 PM
24.44.238.62
|
It's called Battlespace.
Although my opinion of it borders on yours of MW3
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Bob_Richter
03/05/02 11:02 PM
134.121.157.14
|
So, um, make your own, as I said.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Greyslayer
03/05/02 11:55 PM
63.12.142.44
|
Until of course the Warship comes under fire from planetary defence systems. Suddenly your 'power' is stripped away as Planetary Defence Lasers and Missiles lay the smack down on your 'overconfident' ship. Considering the low orbit the ship is in to be prepared to lay the smack down on the planet it has little chance to dodge and is now just an expensive piece of space wreckage about to enter the atmosphere.
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
03/06/02 12:10 AM
63.12.142.44
|
Or simply have 3025 where your jumpship is protected from destruction and your dropships are to get your 'mechs to combat. Simple.
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
03/06/02 12:24 AM
63.12.142.44
|
'We are operating in an environment with extreme gravity (from acceleration), and while friction isn't a concern, micrometerorites and things even smaller and nastier are.'
Well something that size would probably not even notice micrometeorites (example of the moon ... despite the power of the hits on its surface few hits could ever crack the crust). Now watching a series called 'the planets' the other day dealt with magnetic fields and atmosphere and so on being able to deflect most objects or cause a slowing down of objects. If a race had the ability to build such a large ship they should also in theory have the technology to build a large but simple magnetic field generator. This though is not Fasa-physics so it would fail miserably as a ship of the line.
Then again this is only hypothetical,
Greyslayer
|
Nightward
03/06/02 05:47 PM
132.234.1.13
|
But such reagan Defence Systems are rare. If they were all that common, Katherine never would have been able to take New Avalon...
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Bob_Richter
03/06/02 05:57 PM
134.121.247.162
|
Naval weapons are cheaper than Warships, and overall a better investment for your average planet.
Now that they're available in large quantities, you can expect to start seeing systems seeded with Battlesats and ground-naval-weapon installations, which will make a hostile dropship landing nearly impossible.
Great...
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Nightward
03/06/02 06:07 PM
132.234.1.13
|
So far, Luthien is the only Inner Sphere world aside from Terra that has a functional Reagan system. The Inner Sphere simply has not needed them, because there were no WarShips around to use them against. Neccessity doth innovation create. Or something like that
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Nightward
03/06/02 08:06 PM
132.234.1.13
|
Luthien's system space is clogged with hundreds of BattleSat SDSes. Cheap, easy to use, and nasty in numbers. Earth has (had, perhaps, since the Com Guard didn't use it) a Reagan network consisting of automated nuke ships, ground-based capital PPC and laser installations, and in-system defence stations. I'm at a loss as to how the Blakists made it past those, but I guess it can be summed up in a word: the Author said so.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Karagin
03/06/02 08:29 PM
63.173.170.105
|
When did the Luithen star system get the SDS style defenses?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nightward
03/06/02 08:35 PM
132.234.1.13
|
They have had the SDSes for a while. They are described in one of the Black Thorn books, but the Dracos kept them hidden and out of the way because they were too valuable.
Not that Luthien ever got invaded prior to the Clans...
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Karagin
03/06/02 09:33 PM
63.173.170.97
|
IF they had them then why weren't they used against the the Nova Cats and Smoke Jaguars when they attack Luithen?
When did they get the system? And Luithen has been invaded once before, well a minior kind of invasion, but a Comstar hired Merc unit was ready to drop on to the Imperial Palace, all taken from the House Kurtia Sourcebook, so if they had it befor the invasion why wasn't it used to take the merc dropships? (Yes I know the latest idea of new material counters older material line of reasoning from the NOW defunked FASA)
I will look the through the Black Throns book, but this seems to be a case of locking the barn door after the horse thieves have run off with the horses IMVHO.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nightward
03/07/02 12:19 AM
132.234.1.13
|
Yes, well. James D. Long just decided that Luthien should have them, I think. The BattleSat systems werer put up just after the Clan invasion of Luthien, so iot is, as you say, a case of closing the barn doors far too late.
At the time of the Com Guard raid to free Necess (I think it was) Kurita, the systems (at least according to Long) were hidden and unused because of their value. In case of a full-scale invasion of the Dragon's Lair, the Kuritans wanted them fully functional, so they kept them away from enemy raids.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
TenakaFurey
03/07/02 12:44 AM
195.92.168.174
|
Mostly covered below, but....
Production capacity may not be up to such increased production. Not to mention pilots for the fighter swarms.
With fighters, fighter carriers are a weak point on offensive missions. Destroy it, and the fighters become much less of a threat - the WarShip can then engage them if it wants to.
Blockades should be conducetd in planetary space sinc ethe number of jump points render entry point interdiction ineffective.
And so on.
To a large part, I agree with you. WarShips, in the BT universe are largely ineffective. The trouble is, they do have some uses and advatages over DropShips which keepes them from being a total waste - at least, while someone else has the things.
EJL
|
TenakaFurey
03/07/02 12:48 AM
195.92.168.174
|
And where will the FWL get all the pilots and fighetrs it needs to crew them?
What happens when/if a Thera is lost? It automatically takes four regiments of fighters and their pilots down with it. And in the BT universe, ASFs are rare.
So while its difficult to withstand, it has its own problems. Plus, it doesn't really solev the baisc problem the FC noted with WarShips - they can't hold the land. Ground troops, and Mechs will still be needed.
EJL
|
Nightmare
03/07/02 01:05 AM
194.251.240.107
|
The Warship will act just like an Aircraft carrier or old Battleship: it`s the Big Gun waiting out there. Those ships
should never be moving about without a massive fleet of
lesser craft as support units. As for fighters and pilots, the
machines are probably more of a problem than the men.
The US has lots of Reserve Status pilots, but losing too
many fighters would cripple the AF for years to come.
Advice for Evil Overlords:
My legions of terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
|
Karagin
03/07/02 11:52 AM
63.173.170.224
|
Right okay...again that clearly shows that someone made a mistake...and added in something that was never there to start with...oh well...let us hope that things like that DON'T happen anymore...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NathanKell
03/07/02 12:23 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Love that scene.
Also, (says Mr. Nit Pick) the word is "sanitizing" IIRC.
And I'd say it would rather be the converse in BT, with carriers sanitizing for the big (and vulnerable to fighters, but good at bombardment) warships.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Nightward
03/11/02 04:17 PM
132.234.1.13
|
Calm down. We sorted that one out already; don't start the problem over again.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Nightward
03/11/02 04:18 PM
132.234.1.13
|
Don't antagonise Karagin. You are doing now exactly what you were yelling at him for.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Nightward
03/11/02 04:19 PM
132.234.1.13
|
Yep. We got more information about rules than about any 3 WarShips put together. Trust FASA, eh?
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
NathanKell
03/11/02 04:47 PM
24.44.238.62
|
The wobblies impersonated the mercenary unit (21st Centauri Lancers?) that was relieving the current one on Earth (since ComStar contracted Earth's defense to mercenaries as well as ComGuard). Specifically to get around the SDS, IIRC.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Greyslayer
03/11/02 05:23 PM
63.12.141.66
|
The level of technology needed for a SDI is wayyyyyyy lower than that needed for a warship. Concievably they should be alot more common than they are now though of course this probably has something to do with recent poor universe planning.
Greyslayer
|
Karagin
03/11/02 09:42 PM
63.173.170.217
|
Thank you for sharing your concern...but we have covered this, and bring it back up is not needed.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nightward
03/11/02 10:21 PM
132.234.1.13
|
Hahaha. 'Recent' poor universe planning. Oh, it is to laugh. FASA have never been good at looking after their fiction. Discontinuities in Shadow Run fiction, this recent goof up concerning Geaorge Hasek-DFavion (supposedly married in the Twighlight of the Clans) but unmarried in Imminent Crisis (Apparently this effects a lot of the storeyline, but us poor Aussies won't have Immenant Crisis for at least another 6 months). I could go on, but you get the point
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Karagin
03/11/02 10:57 PM
63.173.170.217
|
The marriage must have been one of thise six month deals...or was that someone else....
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nightmare
03/12/02 04:51 AM
194.251.240.107
|
Wouldn`t it be nice though, marriage contracts with a
certain time-of-marriage on them? Renewal optional,
and only if both parties agree.
Advice for Evil Overlords:
My legions of terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
|
Greyslayer
03/12/02 04:56 AM
137.172.211.9
|
I remember seeing a article once on Pagan Marriage Rituals where you could stipulate how long you are going to be married. Kind of weird but then again almost all things religious are .
Greyslayer
|
Nightward
03/12/02 04:20 PM
132.234.1.13
|
Read 'A Civil Campaign' by Lois McMasters Bujold. Lord Mark Vorkosigan and Kareen Koudelka get yearly options on each other instead of being engaged...
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Karagin
03/12/02 09:39 PM
65.129.167.208
|
That is called a Hand Fasting, as my girlfriend keeps yelling at me as I read the message to her.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
03/13/02 05:53 PM
63.12.141.49
|
Lol ... just like assault mechs are rare, Warships are rare, agromechs are rare and so on. It doesn't take much for rare to become 'common' in their updating universe.
Greyslayer
|
Nightward
03/13/02 11:11 PM
203.134.12.8
|
Reagan systems *ARE* rare. Currently, only Luthien, Terra, and Black Earth have them. Outreach would probably have one, too.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Nightward
03/13/02 11:12 PM
203.134.12.8
|
He and I had a private message discussion. In effect, he agreed to be civil to people as long as they were to him. So, be nice.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Karagin
03/14/02 09:07 AM
65.133.242.110
|
Get the hint, you are covering ground that has been covered...it's old news.
No one cares about it anymore. Move on.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
03/14/02 09:08 AM
65.133.242.110
|
Thank you for showing us that it is not always me who starts things around here...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|