Karagin
07/21/02 01:25 PM
65.129.164.24
|
Looking for ideas from you folks on what makes a good milita mech...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NathanKell
07/21/02 02:46 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Cheap. Easily Maintained.
Effective. Works well in concert with other forces.
Multirole.
Easily used by the pilot / needs very little training / is "training-friendly."
These therefore point towards:
Uses only DHS as modern equipment (everything else is expensive, tough to maintain, or both), and similarly with modern weapons. NO XLs.
Uses as many energy weapons as possible to minimize maintainence costs and ease training (you can power them down, shoot them for free, etc.).
Must move relatively quickly (at least 60kph; 80+ preferable) to keep up with friendly forces and raiders.
Multirole: Should mount both long and short range weapons. Ability to carry infernoes a plus. Indirect fire a plus.
-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 |
Cray
07/21/02 03:05 PM
12.91.126.203
|
Two things:
1) Cheap
2) Low Tech
3) Cheap
(You know militia types can't count.)
Cost is the tricky part. The Blood Spirits attempted cheap mechs by skimping on XLs, but got the likes of the Blood Kite - which is a missile boat that spews per capita average annual incomes from its launchers in seconds. Think energy weapons. Even a PPC will be cheaper than an LRM 20 after a few days of target practice. A well-designed militia mech will be an energy boat that can fire for days and give you good, experienced gunners without spending more than techs' and mechwarrior's salaries...which you'll spend whether a mech is shooting or sitting in a hangar.
Tech is easier. Any non-ER energy weapon shouldn't be any more advanced than the mech's fusion engine, so don't feel guilty about using them. One or two L2 items will be harmless - I've put a good spin on FF armor and DHS for a militia mech before. Heck, I'm going to bump it up if I can find it.
The bane of militia mechs are XLs and munition-dependent weapons, with a possible exception on Narc-compatible ammo. XLs make mechs EXPENSIVE, 2-3x a standard engine mech. Artemis-compatible ammo or even standard, non-MG, non-MRM/RL ammo is very, very pricey.
Narc/I-Narc is interesting for militias because it can turn a unit of old, L1 missile boats into some mean mechs with L2 accuracy with a change in ammo. Imagine a company of Archers loaded with I-Narc compatible ammo - instant L2 Archers.
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
07/21/02 08:31 PM
65.129.167.13
|
So would endo steel and pulse lasers be to high tech for them?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
07/21/02 08:32 PM
65.129.167.13
|
Could you give a price range that you consider cheap enough for most planet's to keep up etc...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Spartan
07/21/02 08:52 PM
172.161.206.216
|
Don't forget heat sinks. If the pilot isn't training all the time then he may not be used to regulating heat, especially with a primarily energy weapon mech. So, I would max the armor, stick with standard engines and internal but keep the speed as high as I can, and not put on weapons that my heat sinks can't handle very well. So no more than one major weapon(maybe 2). PPC's and LL basically, then use mediums to back those up. Throw on the occasional SRM for infernos and a few LRMs throughout the force for the Thunders and Narc ammo.
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
Greyslayer
07/22/02 12:35 AM
216.14.192.226
|
Look at what makes a mech like the Vindicator good and you would have your answer, also a good militia mech would be a whitworth as well.
Greyslayer
|
NathanKell
07/22/02 01:14 AM
24.44.238.62
|
Hmm...5 million, I'd say...maybe a couple command / assault mechs in the ~10 range.
-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
07/22/02 01:16 AM
24.44.238.62
|
Well, ES is (sadly) pretty much out of the question, unless your world has very developed space industry (the OA or TC, maybe...or a core House world--but that would negate the whole question, really, if it's a core world).
And Pulse Lasers?
Why would you want them *anyway*!?
-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
07/22/02 01:17 AM
24.44.238.62
|
I'd make an exception for classic "either-or" loadouts (Penetrator, Hydaspes, um...6R Whammer, etc.). As long as, in any range bracket, you at least break even in heat, you're fine. But designing mechs for an alpha-strike mentality is just *soooo* wasteful...
-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 |
Cray
07/22/02 07:16 AM
64.83.29.242
|
Endosteel might be on the upper end - don't expect the typical IS planet to be able to replace endosteel because of the need for zero-G smelting facilities.
Pulse lasers, I've read, are not wonders of high tech - personal pulse lasers were common enough in 3026. They'd be fine for militia mechs, just shorter ranged and barely more accurate than normal or ER lasers.
The one high tech item you want is DHS, particularly if you follow the militia energy boat concept.
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
07/22/02 07:18 AM
64.83.29.242
|
One or two medium pulse lasers would have their moments as anti-infantry weapons. The large and small pulse lasers are pretty much non-options...for IS militia mechs.
A Clan second-line mech should use almost nothing but pulse lasers. Clan pulse mediums and larges...[drool]
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.
|
Spartan
07/22/02 11:07 AM
172.148.80.251
|
I'd never thought about the break even in the range idea before. Never heard it before. Makes sense. But why wouldn't you want to be able to use your heavier weapons at closer range along with your lighter shorter range weapons? I wasn't really looking so much at alpha strikes so much as just being able to use your weapons without overheating. I dont' see the point in having weapons you can't use. Going over the heat scale a little I can see but having so many hot running weapons makes no sense to me. The Masakari is a great example of what I'm talking about. It's got 4 ERPPC's and an LRM10 but it can't fire them without going to at least 24 on the heat scale and that's not counting movement. What's the point?
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
Cray
07/22/02 11:25 AM
64.83.29.242
|
>I dont' see the point in having weapons you can't use. The Masakari is a great example of what I'm talking about
The Masakari is actually a bad example of what I want to talk about: mechs with either-or weapons arrays.
Do consider how many mechs carry short range weapons they can't use with their long range ones, like the Warhammer, Atlas, or Penetrator. The SRMs, medium lasers, and pulse lasers of those mechs are useless while those mechs are plugging away with their PPCs, ER LLs, and LRMs, but they sure come in handy when you get close, right?
You need to look at potential damage. For example, if I had a mech with 29 tons of equipment, I could:
Make an Alpha Striker: 2 ER PPCs, 4 medium lasers, 21 DHS. This lets me do 20 damage at long range and 40 at short.
Make an mech that stops using its ER PPCs at short range: 2 ER PPCs, 10 medium lasers, 15 DHS. This lets me do the same 20 damage at long range and 50 at short.
By making the ER PPCs useless, I get to do more damage for the same tonnage of equipment.
The Penetrator is an outstanding book example of this logic. If it tried to come up with a weapons combo that allowed it to use its ER LLs in concert with its pulse medium lasers, it'd have to take out big chunks of its weapons array to fire everything together (because it has 24 heat capacity and 48 weapons heat). By abandoning the ER LLs at short range in favor of just the pulse medium lasers, it can do more damage at short range than if it had an "all usable" weapons array.
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
07/22/02 01:03 PM
65.129.165.203
|
All nice and good, but battle are fought at medium range thus ALL the weapons come into play for the most part.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
07/22/02 02:06 PM
64.83.29.242
|
If the weapons all fired together will melt down the mech, then the disciplined mechwarrior will continue firing either the short- or long-range array, but not start firing both just because they now have overlapping ranges. Firing both together will clearly lose the battle when you overheat the mech and gain you nothing. The Penetrator is a choice example of this problem - there's nothing to gain and everything to lose by firing the ER LLs and pulse lasers together.
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
07/22/02 03:53 PM
65.129.166.24
|
That proves how silly the Alpha Strike idea is...just cause it works in a video game don't mean it works in the board game.
The weapons should cover each other...the idea here is to allow the pilot to add weapons into the firing order as his target get's closer, while still watching the heat levels and ammo rate.
I think a good balance is a mech with two long range weapons and at least four medium range secondary weapons.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
07/22/02 04:15 PM
64.83.29.242
|
>That proves how silly the Alpha Strike idea is...just cause it works in a video game don't mean it works in the board game.
Hmm. It doesn't even work for me in the video game - I always explode when I alpha strike. 
>The weapons should cover each other...the idea here is to allow the pilot to add weapons into the firing order as his target get's closer, while still watching the heat levels and ammo rate.
Why is that the idea? Or maybe I should ask, "What do you mean? Could you expand and clarify a bit?"
Your "good balance" for a mech looks a lot like my personally favored Trooper (2 ER PPCs, 6 Medium Lasers, 17 DHS: fires ER PPCs at long and medium ranges, fires 1 ER PPC and 6 ML at short range), but what you describe sounds like you're striving for unnecessary overlap in weapons performance.
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.
|
BA_Evans
07/22/02 04:36 PM
65.194.182.3
|
Hi,
Are there maintenance costs for weapon systems? It seems like it would be harder to keep an energy weapon functioning than it would be for a ballistic or missile weapon.
|
Cray
07/22/02 05:08 PM
12.78.124.123
|
>Are there maintenance costs for weapon systems?
For mechs as a whole, but not individual weapons. It's like 200 C-bills every 2 weeks. There are prices for weapon repairs if they take a critical hit (same as replacement, I think).
>It seems like it would be harder to keep an energy weapon functioning than it would be for a ballistic or missile weapon
That depends. A laser may have no moving parts and, noting the ~400 C-bills/month of upkeep for mechs with even a dozen lasers, it's much cheaper to maintain than an AC/5 (which can burn 81000 C-bills of ammo in an hour, or about 7 times the average annual income of a Capellan).
Further, there's no sign that the metallurgy and mechanical engineering behind a typical AC is any lower tech than the energy control in a laser. A 120mm AC that spews 10 rounds in a minute is no small technological achievement.
Finally, as a rule of thumb, I tend to figure that a planet that can maintain a fusion engine can maintain energy weapons. The ignition systems for fusion engines probably bear a resemblance to PPCs and/or lasers.
You can argue to the contrary, of course. Ballistic and missile weapons turn up in places where you find no energy weapons or fusion engines. But I find my first and last points fairly solid. For the price of several tons of missile ammo, you can afford to send techs on interstellar journeys to good universities and learn how to maintain energy weapons. Further, if you're maintaining a mech force (i.e. fusion-powered vehicles), your technology should be up to the task of maintaining energy weapons.
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.
|
Nightward
07/22/02 05:46 PM
132.234.251.211
|
Mmmm...
I don't know. Similar points have been raised in Heavy Gear, which is why they came up with the rules for maintaining Gears. Under the DP9 rules, Energy weapons are really tough to maintain, but produce excellent results in the field. Ballistic and missile weapons, in contrast, require almost no maintenance (OK, so you have to check that nobody welded the exhaust ports shut) but only produce mediocre results in the field.
For mine, I imagine that lasers, being somewhat more fragile than ballistic weapons (several TR entries, most notably the Behemoth/Stone Rhino note the damage that can be done to energy weapons through physical attacks etc) would be more prone to breakdown and malfunction. And considering the amount of dust that can be kicked up by hovercraft and general battle, you'd want to make real sure your focussing lenses were clean.
In short, I'd imagine that it is more difficult (not necessarily harder, just more time consuming and requiring a higher level of technical expertise) to maintain energy weapons than an7 other type. Obviously, there are going to be exceptions- Rotary Cannons and Heavy Gauss Cannon to me seem moderately complicated- but you get the gist.
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
07/22/02 05:55 PM
132.234.251.211
|
Plus, of course, most Periphery pilots would be unable to hit the broad side of a barn even using a Clan-Tech Targeting Computer. They don't have the training facilities the rest of the Inner Sphere (particularly the Draconis Combine) has access to. That -2 modifier could be all-important. I think they'd proabably stick to Mediums, though. Larges produce too much heat; smalls don't have enough range or damage...
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.
|
Cray
07/22/02 06:04 PM
12.78.124.123
|
I'm going to stand by the cost issue. Maintaining a laser costs a pittance according to BT rules - a small fraction of the cost of the whole unit. Ballistic and missile weapons burn through tens of thousands of C-bills of ammo in minutes.
For a militia mech on any planet capable of maintain fusion powered units (IIRC, Heavy Gears use IC engines, right?) energy weapons shouldn't be an overwhelming problem, and BT rules indicate they'll pay for themselves.
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
07/22/02 06:07 PM
12.78.124.123
|
Keep in mind that -2 to-hit for IS pulse lasers is largely an illusionary bonus. What good is a -2 to-hit on a pulse medium laser when an ER ML has the same target numbers for 3-6 hexes and unmatchable target numbers at 7-12?
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
07/22/02 07:10 PM
63.173.170.214
|
Overlapping fire is a good thing, it brings a target faster and allows a commader to put his firepower WHERE it is needed to ensure that the threat is no longer a threat.
Thus each mech can support it's buddies and thus no one is left out of the zone of fire.
Medium range is where IS weapons are at their best and yes Clan weapons are even better at this range.
How do you see overlapping fire as wasteful or unnecessary?
I don't follow your line of thinking here...the idea is to bring as much firepower as you can on to the target to ensure you live and it dies.
For example a tank unit manuevering out on the battlefield will be setup so as at least two to three of the tanks in the troop can bring their weapons to bear on a target and that has worked well since WW2.
Plus it allows you to keep better control over your forces, something that will be very very important to a milita commader during an attack.
Could you give an example of your reason why you don't follow this please?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
07/22/02 07:24 PM
12.91.129.245
|
>How do you see overlapping fire as wasteful or unnecessary?
Miscommunication! Not overlapping fire, overlapping weapon roles. Like having 2 small lasers and 2 medium lasers - dumb. Just mount 3 medium lasers.
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
07/22/02 07:33 PM
12.91.129.245
|
>On the otherhand, there's probably a local manufacturer capable of producing ammunition
As I said, if a planet can support fusion-powered vehicles on its own, it can probably produce parts for energy weapons, too. If it has to import engine parts, then I can see the value of ballistic or missile weapons for the planet.
>so ammunition carrying mechs pour money right back into the local economy instead of just out to some offworld mech factory
That only goes so far. You have to pry the money out of taxpayers first, and convince politicians to risk their careers getting the money out of taxpayers. The differences between militaries with plenty of money for training munitions and those that don't are well-established (US vs Spain in Spanish-American War, frex, or Britain vs France in the Age of Sail.) From this perspective, energy weapons are damned attractive. No officer of an energy boat lance has to shudder at the paperwork they must fill out for their lance to have 1 minute of live-fire training (i.e. burn 60,000 C-bills of ammo).
The Blood Spirits cannot find ammo that easy to make. They pay the same as anyone else for that ammo, even if it doesn't come out of a budget in C-bills. The price of ammo is representative of how much industrial effort and labor it takes to put that stuff together. At 30,000 C-bills a ton, Clan LRM ammo is no cheaper than Inner Sphere ammo.
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
07/22/02 07:36 PM
63.173.170.214
|
Counter to your idea...small lasers are for infantry and the mediums are for vehicles and mechs...
Following your idea why have MGs on a mech when MLs can do the same thing?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
07/22/02 07:52 PM
12.91.129.245
|
>small lasers are for infantry and the mediums are for vehicles and mechs...
Medium lasers do even better than small lasers against infantry in L2 rules...or L3 for that matter. Medium lasers can fire at infantry 3x as long, can engage most infantry types outside the infantry's range, are more accurate (incredible range advantage again), and need fewer hits (note accuracy advantage) to put down battle armor. The advantages small lasers have in equal tonnages (1 more damage, 1 less heat) do not even begin to conquer the huge advantages of medium lasers.
>Following your idea why have MGs on a mech when MLs can do the same thing?
Depends. In L2 rules, there's not much cause for MGs, though they rule in L3.
In L2 rules, medium lasers have a consistent damage against infantry (5pts) that's lower than MG's average (7pts), but all the above advantages medium lasers have over small lasers apply to medium lasers vs MGs, too. Why wait until you're in infantry's range to shoot back with somewhat better average damage when you can hose away with better accuracy, for longer, outside of possible retaliation with medium lasers?
I'll take medium lasers over small lasers or MGs anyday in an L2 game. They're simply superior and can do anything the MGs and small lasers can, but better.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Edited by Cray (07/22/02 07:56 PM)
|
Karagin
07/22/02 08:16 PM
63.173.170.203
|
If that is the case then why are you pointing out to me that having the weapons overlap at medium range is a bad thing?
Each is there to support the other and increase your chances of getting that hit that kills the other guy...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|