Karagin
07/07/02 10:10 AM
65.133.242.65
|
Or should those weapons be left to being used on vehicles?
I would like to hear your opinions on this.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Spartan
07/07/02 03:15 PM
172.133.223.214
|
I think Arrow is okay on a mech but otherwise, no. Unless you include a piloting skill check or modifier for firing. Arrows being rockets have relatively little recoil whereas the others would have large amounts of recoil, more so than heavy autocannons.
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
MacLeod
07/07/02 03:26 PM
166.90.47.19
|
Only Arrow IVs. I once did design a quad that had a Long Tom, but it never worked very well - it fell over when it fired the cannon. There is really no justification for putting something that big on a 'Mech...
Although the roleplaying aspects of being a 'Mech with a Thumper are kind of promising...
Cuz you might have to fire it at point-blank range...
Drugs don't kill people, pancreatic cancer kills people.
... and whoever heard of a drug that causes pancreatic cancer?
|
Nightmare
07/08/02 12:40 AM
194.251.240.106
|
Of course they should! Sometimes there`s no way of moving the artillery except by mech, why not mount it on one then?
I`ll bump my LTB-1X in the design section 
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
07/08/02 04:46 AM
63.12.142.163
|
I would have to say no. Mechs essentially are not 'support' units and those weapons are purely support weapons. They made a serious mistake when they designed the Arrow IV ... something they never rectified (only made worse).
Greyslayer
|
Karagin
01/16/07 10:54 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Round two part two
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nightward
01/17/07 01:05 AM
203.206.46.176
|
Yes.
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ahem.
As Greyslayer can attest, I deployed a Naga at a tournament. It didn't end too horribly.
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
01/17/07 10:58 AM
70.123.166.36
|
Okay the Naga has Arrow IVs, what about say the Long Tom? We know the Thumper and Sniper will fit so why not the Long Tom?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Toontje
01/17/07 12:24 PM
131.155.212.216
|
Just too big.
Fluffwise: greater range, greater shell --> more than a HGR, and that alrady has to do a PS roll..
Rather to blow up, then.
|
Karagin
01/17/07 12:42 PM
70.123.166.36
|
The weight and criticals should still fit, though I can see that if would fill both the arm, torso and center two criticals of a mech...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NewPharoah_Max
01/17/07 02:26 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Post deleted by Cray
Greetings to you too.
|
Karagin
01/17/07 02:55 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Right but I am talking about going beyond the Arrow IV...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Toontje
01/17/07 04:16 PM
131.155.212.216
|
LT is 30 tons, 30 crits.. maybe if you split between arm(10), torso(12), CT(8 needed).. Splitting further I would say might both needlessly complicate construction as reload mechanism, as well as reduce the integrity of the design.
Means you will need to free up 6 spots; on lvl 3, a compact engine and gyro might be able to do the trick don't know how much space would be freed.
But arty being second in the battle line, increased mobility (what a mech is for) does not give it much of an advantage over tracked arty pieces.
Rather to blow up, then.
Edited by Toontje (01/17/07 04:17 PM)
|
sdog
01/17/07 05:06 PM
139.174.165.124
|
would be nice to get arty on mountains, like in alpine war in WW1. why not design a lighter type of field arty, put it on top of a tarantula like quad mech, wich goes prone to fire, by lowering the torso to the ground. it's not included in BT yet, but it seems to be a very reasonable addition to the universe. however most likely not for the actual game.
I realised soon that the fun part of playing a military game is that we have lots of lifes and in the end knowone dies, ...
- Skaven, ArmA modding community
|
Nightward
01/17/07 05:28 PM
203.206.46.176
|
Arrow IV is pretty much the only 'Mech-mounted artillery you'll see. IIRC, the rules from BMR require that equipment be split over no more than two location, meaning the bigger weaponsare out unless you use the Artillery Cannon rules or whatever.
Arrow is kinda nonsensical because they made it a missile. If it was a guided mortar or "proper" artillery piece, a lot of the dumbness would probably go away.
I'm not a huge fan of artillery myself, especially with the plethora of new LRM ammo types.
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.
|
Toontje
01/17/07 05:50 PM
131.155.212.216
|
A missile can be classified as arty. The launcher is a lot lighter, due to no need for a strong tube, just a guidance rod for the first few meters.
Now it is possible to mount thumpers and snipers on mech chassis; why it has not really been done, beats me.. Those is equipment taht actually could be usefull to be more mobile, as it's shorter ranged.
Rather to blow up, then.
|
Karagin
01/17/07 08:28 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Thumper and Sniper weapons should fit...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
01/17/07 08:29 PM
70.123.166.36
|
In Battletechnology magazine they had a mech called the Huntress, it mounted twin LRM10s and twin Thumpers.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Drasnighta
01/17/07 09:23 PM
24.70.95.203
|
Oh, I can see making people Irate with Generalisms here, but this is my Take on the Matter:
Although I can see a use for BattleMechs carrying Artillery Weapons - one must take into account the sheer cost of setting up the standard Tube formation at that point - the Battery....
A Battery of Towed Long-Toms is certainly far enough from the Battlefield to be considered fairly "safe" from all but the most determined flanking or push-through Rout, and must cost a lot less in both Maintenance and Initial Setup...
Plus there is also the aspects of Training - Artillery is Separate from Normal Gunnery, (and I'm not just talking about MechWarrior RPG rules here) - Point and Shoot and Leading is a lot different than Trajectory and Over-The-Horizon Artillery rules... Would a Potential Artillery-MechWarrior have to be both a Highly-Skilled MechWarrior, AND Artillery Gunner - or would you exploit a C&C Network, or full C3 Automated System to do his Gunnery for him...? Even in the Real World, when a decent set of Coordinates are Spotted and Read, there's still a bunch of Math done by the Artillery Boys before they send the Payload. Will the MechWarrior be considering and doing those while his head is strapped into the Neurohelmet and his Subconsious is making sure he doesn't fall over..?
There may be important Niche-Applications for Artillery mounted on BattleMechs - difficult terrain seems to be the best run yet for it - but Artillery is so long ranged its just a matter of spotting and flight-time before you're dropping on target anyway...
BattleMechs are supposed to be the most survivable, the most deadly War Machines in the BT universe - why waste that Technology on something that deliberately hides from the Front Lines?
And if you so desperately want to use a TAG system for Homing Arrow-IV munitions - use a battery of Long-Tom Pieces with Copperheads... That'll screw 'em.
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
|
Karagin
03/11/14 10:24 PM
70.118.139.48
|
So what is the voice of thought on this now?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
TigerShark
03/11/14 10:48 PM
68.190.197.104
|
You're also thinking of artillery in a 1-dimensional application. It can be used as a gigantic mortar and there are definitely examples of this in modern warfare. It doesn't need to be 3 miles away and no military doctrine is so set-in-stone that on-field artillery deployment is impossible. The closer a piece is to the target, the more accurate time-on-target becomes.
|
ghostrider
03/12/14 04:17 AM
66.27.181.33
|
I never thought mechs should carry artillery.
They should never be able to split locations for weapons.
Honestly, a biped mech is not stable enough to fire standard artillery., and a quad doesn't have enough crits.
Arrow VI might be the exception, if they are firing homing missiles.
Imagine how it would affect your aim, when the lauching tube shoots skyward because the mech went back to far and fell over.
|
Retry
03/12/14 11:24 AM
72.214.204.166
|
Arrow VI?
When did this advanced system get created?
Quads with arrow IV is as far as I would go with the arty mech concept.
|
BobTheZombie
03/12/14 11:29 AM
66.172.249.33
|
I for one think that in theory it could be a good thing, but practically they take up so much space that it seems inefficient. But then again, having that sort of highly mobile firepower, especially on a Mech, can be devastating. I've only rarely used Long Toms, and never really use Arrow missiles.
|
Retry
03/12/14 11:32 AM
72.214.204.166
|
Superheavy VTOLs with Arrow IV would be more mobile.
Arty is Arty regardless of what it is mounted with.
|
ghostrider
03/12/14 02:42 PM
66.27.181.33
|
there is a difference between the arrow and normal art. If they barrel moves while the shell is still in the barrel, then they shot would miss automatically.
The Homing missiles of the arrow, should compensate for it, but not sure by how much they would.
|
Retry
03/12/14 06:30 PM
76.7.238.202
|
Yes.
However, an Arrow IV on a vehicle is the same as an Arrow IV on a mech, and a Long Tom on a vehicle is the same as a Long Tom on a mech.
Though now that I think about it, there is one single niche for artillery on mechs. That is jungle environments, like in the Phillipines. It'd be more difficult to get a Mobile Long Tom functioning effectively in such a place as well as archipelligos compared to a Mech.
|
Cray
03/12/14 06:41 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
there is a difference between the arrow and normal art. If they barrel moves while the shell is still in the barrel, then they shot would miss automatically.
Firing on the move is an old real world technology. By the 1920s, the US Navy had mechanical fire control computers able to compensate for ships' roll, pitch, and movement; to compensate for wind, Coriolis forces; and to compensate for targets' motions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangekeeper
http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery_p1.htm
Artillery aiming systems capable of "true continuous aim" was developed in the 1930s and allowed naval artillery to maintain its aim through repeated high speed turns.
Also, there are such things - in the real world and BT - as "copperhead shells." Guided artillery is not limited to missiles. Google: Copperhead, ERGM, LRLAP, XM395 Mortar shell, etc. For the BT equivalents, look up Precision AC ammo and Copperhead artillery shells in Total Warfare and Tactical Operations.
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
03/12/14 11:25 PM
66.27.181.33
|
I would say that was true retry, if the vehicle was a motorcycle.
I had thought the guns on a ship were not artillery, but direct fire weapons. I just my definitions are off.
|
Retry
03/12/14 11:32 PM
76.7.238.202
|
On the high seas, distances are far too long to simply aim some barrel sights on an 18" cannon at your target. Gravity and other factors will take it's toll.
|
TigerShark
03/12/14 11:56 PM
68.190.197.104
|
There's still not much of a reason to exclude them from being mounted on BattleMechs. Self-propelled artillery has been around since WWII. The Germans' "Wespe" was only 11 tons and was armed with a 10.5cm gun. I think a 50 ton 'Mech is more than capable of hauling the same armament.
|
Retry
03/12/14 11:58 PM
76.7.238.202
|
They aren't excluded from Battlemechs
That still doesn't make it a good idea to mount one on it in a good majority of cases.
|
TigerShark
03/13/14 12:11 AM
68.190.197.104
|
I don't understand why it's a bad idea. Any time I bring arty to a game, I find I have a significant advantage.
|
Retry
03/13/14 12:15 AM
72.214.204.166
|
Because the heaviest of artillery have so many crit spaces it is impractical to attach it to a mech at all, and smaller arty can be VTOL mounted, be much cheaper and more mobile.
And chances are less BV too If you balance with that.
|
TigerShark
03/13/14 12:19 AM
68.190.197.104
|
Eh? Could you explain the "BV" part? Arty is MORE than worth its Battle Value when being lugged onto a board.
And Sniper / Arrow IV work very well on Mechs. The Helepolis, Bowman, Naga, etc. are devastating when deployed correctly. Off-board artillery is all but useless and is just as likely to hit your own units as theirs, once you get into a close fight.
|
Retry
03/13/14 12:30 AM
72.214.204.166
|
Vehicles tend to have lower BVs when they have similar equipment. I think this partially has to do with mech internal structure.
You know what an arrow would work better on? A VTOL(even if it must be made as a superheavy)
You know what a sniper would work better on? Any similarly designed vehicle ever made.
|
TigerShark
03/13/14 12:32 AM
68.190.197.104
|
Those vehicle are also more easily disabled. I don't disagree that it's useful to have a Ballista, Schiltron, etc. on the field. But a 'Mech can position itself in different terrain, change levels more quickly, maintain a field of fire while hidden by partial cover, etc.
|
Retry
03/13/14 12:35 AM
72.214.204.166
|
Which I have said that they aren't useless, but limited to less niches.
|
TigerShark
03/13/14 12:36 AM
68.190.197.104
|
Hey, we agree on something! :-D
|
Retry
03/13/14 12:42 AM
72.214.204.166
|
All right then!
|
Frabby
03/13/14 01:11 PM
87.164.159.7
|
Why should any weapon be mounted on a BattleMech?
To me, the key advantage of 'Mechs is that they can be dropped from orbit into pretty much any terrain as a fighting force, and have superior mobility as ground forces. You can either add ArtilleryMechs (be that tube or missile) to your portfolio, or accept that your supermobile cavalry is limited to orbital bombardment for artillery support.
Niche? Yes.
But that is no reason to discount the idea out-of-hand. No other vehicle can deploy like a 'Mech; and if your 'Mech force is to have organic artillery that needs to be 'Mech-mounted.
|
Retry
03/13/14 01:21 PM
72.214.204.166
|
I don't believe any of us discounted the idea.
(Partially false though; WiGEs can combat drop like a mech.)
|
ghostrider
03/13/14 04:47 PM
66.27.181.33
|
you know what works better on a vtol? bombs.
That is supposed to be the advantage of mech. Mobility.
Go anywhere they want, while vehicles can not.
Aircraft and aerofighters can not go into wood, but have to go over.
And without extra work, they can work in airless voids
And now 2 people have agreed with retry this month. What the hell is going on?
Now what is a WiGE?
Is it battle armor?
|
Retry
03/13/14 05:07 PM
72.214.204.166
|
Wing in Ground Effect. A hovercraft that removes it's vulnerable hover skirt for more vulnerable wings.
|
Cray
03/13/14 07:31 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I would say that was true retry, if the vehicle was a motorcycle.
I had thought the guns on a ship were not artillery, but direct fire weapons. I just my definitions are off.
They stopped being only direct fire weapons around 1905. The huge gain in ranges (from 5 miles to 25 miles) after the Russo-Japanese War were accomplished by firing at high angles. This presented a headache for battleship designers since they had to start armoring the decks of battleships as well as the flanks (since at short ranges battleships still fired directly), which is one of the things that drove the huge growth in battleships in the 1910 - 1940 period.
If you need a sleep aid, I recommend Friedman's "U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History." It is illustrated, but it is also filled with 463 pages of 8-point font text that details every design consideration, variation, and concern that led to a given US battleship design. Among those concerns were the ever-advancing naval artillery.
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
03/13/14 10:36 PM
66.27.181.33
|
for some reason, I had the impression that idf became just ground based units.
Yes, battleships have weapons identified as artillery, but thought it was only because they didn't have another word to use for them.
|
Retry
03/14/14 05:55 PM
76.7.238.202
|
Really, artillery is nothing more than big guns.
|
Karagin
03/14/14 06:19 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Pretty much. Nothing more then large guns that lob shells onto a target.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
LegatusDavoke
04/21/14 12:05 AM
99.101.200.202
|
I'm being a jerk and bumping again, but this is a topic i quite frankly enjoy. I've designed a few mechs(mostly on the Helepolis chassis) to mount the Sniper Artillery(not the snub-nose cannon, the actual multi-map artillery), 3-5 tons of ammo, and some lasers as backup. So far, they've performed pretty well, even unsupported. Backing them up with some spotter lights and mediums when you're using Copperhead ammo quickly turns almost disgustingly brutal.
There'll be the devil to pay mate. Better make it good, eh?
|
ghostrider
04/21/14 01:35 AM
24.30.142.80
|
how is getting up to date with older threads being a jerk?
now if you were trolling or something then that would be a different story. There is still probably more to be said, just letting it rest a little before bringing it back up. I have known a couple of people get banned for not stepping back for a few days.
|
LegatusDavoke
04/21/14 11:31 PM
99.101.200.202
|
Oh good, i'm more used to forums where bringing something back after a month is looked down upon. 
There'll be the devil to pay mate. Better make it good, eh?
|
mwam
10/02/15 07:43 PM
23.25.184.166
|
Post deleted by Cray
|
happyguy49
10/04/15 06:05 PM
98.30.242.159
|
I like your thread-necromancy 
As for a 'Mech carrying artillery, LITERALLY "carrying" it, I think you could possibly do that with the existing Hand Held weapon rules! Especially if the mech you are using has Triple Strength Myomer.
A ballistic or missile weapon on a Handheld Weapon construct needs no heat sinks.. so it weighs the weight of the weapon, its ammunition, and some armor on the weapon if you want.
A 'handheld' Thumper artillery piece, with one ton of ammunition, (20 shots, enough) weighs 16 tons. An 80 tonner with two hands and TSM could carry and use it for instant artillery support, or even use it until it is in range of its regular guns then drop it.
A 'handheld' spheroid Arrow IV with two, three or four tons of ammunition and one ton of armor would weigh 18-20 tons.. carryable by a 90-100 tonner with two hand actuators and TSM. (picture a Banshee or Berserker swinging a gigantic bazooka onto its shoulders LOL)
..you couldn't get the bigger guns to work this way though. Sniper weighs 20, Long Tom 30. TSM is illegal in SuperHeavy mechs, so the heaviest handheld weapon a 'Mech of any weight could carry is 20 tons.
|
Akirapryde2006
10/05/15 09:12 AM
71.100.132.249
|
We built a Four Legged Mech to carry a Long Tom after the 3039 War. It was pretty successful in the Campaign. The Mech could move with the rest of the Corps over even the roughest of terrain. So successful was the idea that our heavy Artillery Units were all converted over to Mech/Artillery units. By the time the Clan Invasion happened, the conversion was at 80% of our entire force. If you are running a large multi battle campaign, than this concept is very helpful in running a fast mobile battle plan. The units could move in Terrain that Tanks couldn't. Plus using a Six Legged Design, The firing platform was more stable taking away from any firing penalties that came with using only four (Home Brew Rules). During the late 3040's, we even created a four legged Ammo Carrier that backed up to the firing mech. A conveyor moved Rounds to the reload platform to ease reload times (Again Home Brew Rules)
However as a rule of thumb, this idea was terrible for small short run tactical battles and raids. The Mech was too slow for the battle and reload times were too long. Due to limited armor and minimum ranges the mech was easy pickings for any other mech out there.
Right before the Battle of Tukayyid, we wanted to build on this idea. We took a Light Naval Auto-Cannon and mounted it to two of these heavy Artillery Mechs instead of their Long Toms the two mechs carried. We really thought we were on to something. However once the unit fired, it blew itself apart from the vibrations. It was a disaster that nearly cost us our Artillery unit. The sad thing was that we under estimated the ability of the cannon and our shot went long. It completely missed the main Clan unit. We were a cannon too far lol
If the game had continued passed that, I think we would have pressed the idea of Naval Auto-Cannons mounted in such a way. Thus giving Div-arty (Or Division Artillery) a new evolution. Or maybe we would have pressed for high accuracy and greater ranges. One never knows as the Battle of Tukayyid marked the end of that group's meeting. Ah such a sad sad moment in my life lol
|
ghostrider
10/05/15 12:26 PM
98.150.102.177
|
I can understand some of the issue with a short battle, but I don't see too much being wrong with mobile artillery for raids. You can't use them to try and kill everything, but surgical strikes would work well, like taking out a bunker or cluster of units. Fast raids can be an issue, but then speed of the arty mechs shouldn't be as important as the mechs that are doing the raid.
Using a 3/5 mech for artillery vs most assault mechs doesn't make sense on being to slow. The arty mech would be used in the initial part of the raid, then head out before the rest are done. Now a really slow mech would have some issues. 5 shots might be enough to atleast damage a target, if it doesn't go down, so limited ammo isn't an issue with a raid.
Mobile battles are a pain since the delay time makes hitting moving targets a pain. You could just target the best spots for a unit to hide in and hope for the best.
As a side note, you could mix up the artillery with snipers and thumpers as well. The biggest issue I have with artillery was getting it sited. Which helps when the enemy has it and you don't.
|
Foxer
01/26/16 12:05 AM
108.44.85.230
|
I mounted a Long Tom on an Atlas. Took most every critical and about the only thing I hit was my own J Edgar spotters....consistently. Scatter sucks. Over all my opinion is depends on terrain and if you are playing an arching simulation where the only ace you have is sending a piece where the vehicles can't go. Otherwise it's for cheese giggles and nothing more if playing a one shot or pick-up game.
|
ghostrider
01/26/16 01:15 PM
98.150.102.177
|
Mission parameters.
Unless you have a static target, artillery, especially those with long flight times, can be difficult to use. You could get lucky and hit the targets if you can keep them in a section you have a volley coming in. But for the most part, they are mainly useful for pre plotted hexes or against stationary or very slow units.
The homing missiles on the arrow system is about the only really reliable shots you have with mobile targets. Other then really using tactics, such as ganging up on a unit to force it to retreat, there isn't much more you can do.
|