Cray
07/22/02 08:26 PM
12.91.127.71
|
>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?
I just showed why you should not have small lasers or MGs, just medium lasers. In other words, why overlapping i.e. redundant weapons are wasteful (for the SL/MG + ML case).
>Each is there to support the other and increase your chances of getting that hit that kills the other guy...
The small lasers or MGs offer no support to the medium lasers. They're a waste of tonnage that can be better used by more medium lasers. Getting weapons with overlapping roles is a case of redundancy, i.e. wastefulness, not supporting each other.
Pick an example of a mech you think has weapons that support each other at medium range and I'll show you how you can get more firepower out of it by giving it an either-or 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.
Edited by Cray (07/22/02 08:39 PM)
|
Karagin
07/22/02 09:02 PM
63.173.170.203
|
S-Hawk Sagittire B-Master Mad Cat
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Tron
07/23/02 06:33 AM
63.210.213.201
|
I stumbled upon one good thing about machine guns in another forum. With machine guns you can do only two points of damage to buildings but still do 2D6 damage to the infantry.
This is important if you are a defender and you get penalized for damaging your own buildings.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."-Kosh
We are a race that has the ability of going beyond the boundries placed on us. The question we should ask ourselves then is whether or not we should go beyond those boundries?
|
Cray
07/23/02 08:21 AM
64.83.29.242
|
S-Hawk. Presuming you mean the standard SHD-2H with AC/5, LRM 5, SRM 2, Medium Laser. This one is easy to improve even sticking to L1.
1) Replace AC/5 with PPC. Spare tonnage from AC & ammo go to 2 Extra SHS.
2) Ditch LRM 5. Replace with 3 more MLs.
3) SRM 2 - load up with infernos to cook vehicles. If you don't play that game, replace with 1 SHS and 1 ML.
4) ML - leave it. It now has 3 or 4 siblings.
Results:
1) A mech with 14-15 SHS, 1 PPC, 4-5 MLs, and 0-1 SRM 2-Infernos.
2) The PPC has identical ranges to the AC/5. With identical target numbers, damage is cleanly doubled at each hex of range.
3) Removing the LRM took away a ~3pt attack; the PPC more than compensates for the lost damage up to 18 hexes, even at 7, 13, and 14 hexes where the LRM had a better target number. The only irreplaceable loss is a ~3pt IDF attack, which is not much of a loss.
4) With the superior range and target numbers of the PPC, you can't get a clean switch from PPC to ML usage. Use 1-2 MLs together with the PPC at 4-6 hexes, where total damage is higher than the SHD-2H's total array could muster.
5) At 1-3 hexes, worsening PPC target numbers and improving ML target numbers dictate you cease using the PPC and go ML-only. Damage is now much higher than the SHD-2H could ever muster at short range.
Battlemaster. Presuming you mean the BLR-1G. This one is also easy, even at L1 technology.
1) Ditch the SRM 6 and MGs, freeing 7 tons. Mount another PPC.
2) Remount the rear firing MLs forward.
3) Lust after DHS, but we're keeping this L1.
Results:
1) Losing the SRM and MGs let you double your damage from 7 to 18 hexes with minor (for L1) heat build up. 18 SHS, 20-22 heat. The MAD-3R is jealous.
2) For 4-6 hexes...actually, you still don't want to mix weapons, unlike my SHD refit. You can trade 1 PPC for 3 MLs, but 50% higher damage of the MLs doesn't quite offset the MLs' worse target numbers.
3) For 1-3 damage, use the MLs alone. You'll do more damage than with the PPCs. 6 MLs is neck-and-neck with BLR-1G's 4 MLs & SRM 6, but the gain in firepower at 7-18 hexes by streamlining the BLR's weapons has been huge.
Sagittaire
This is shooting fish in a barrel - it's stuffed with IS pulse lasers.
1) Remove the Pulse Small Laser with extreme predjudice.
2) Ditch the pulse large lasers. Replace with...ooo...this will take some thought. PPCs or ER PPCs? No, 2 ER LLs, and I'll tell you why in a second.
3) Remove the 5 pulse medium lasers.
4) Add 6 ER medium lasers in the place of the MPLs and SPL, all forward firing.
5) You've saved 8 tons of direct-fire weaponry, so reduce the TC by 2 tons and 2 crits. 10 tons are free. Replace the XL with a standard 285, burning 8 tons and freeing 6 crits. Use the remaining 2 tons to fill in the XL's side torso space with 2 more DHS, for 38 heat capacity.
Results:
1) You just saved a dumptruck load of cash.
2) This ain't a field variant, but it shares an engine with the old Banshee-S.
3) I am so going to have to post this variant.
4) With 19 DHS, you can fire 2 ER LLs and an ER PPC together until the cows come home. Not perfect, but the range breaks are identical for ER PPCs and ER LLs - the ER PPC just has 4 extra hexes of range in the long range bracket.
4a) Anyway, damage is increased 160% in the 11-19 hex range bracket and is only 2 points lower in the 4-10 hex range bracket (where the ER LLs and ER PPC have the same target number as the PLLs). Damage is unchanged at 20-23 hexes.
5) At 4 hexes, the ER MLs have the same target numbers as the ER PPC and ER LLs, but are more heat efficient, plus you've probably picked up a few heat points from long range fire and want to jump now. Max damage increases from 24 to 30 points by switching from long to short range weaponry. Versus the original Sagittaire, the ER MLs have better target numbers than its PLLs and PMLs, while the PSL can't shoot 4 hexes. Potential damage is 30 at a target number 2 lower than the 36 potential damage the original Sagittaire has.
6) At 3 hexes, the situation is the same but the PSL can now be fired and the PLLs' target numbers drop to that of the ER LLs. The original Sagittaire is finally starting to shine after being outgunned for 16 hexes.
7) At 1-2 hexes, the original Sagittaire's target numbers drop for all of its weapons but the PLLs. It now completely outguns my version and has mostly better target numbers.
Mad Cat...primary configuration? This is a nightmare of unnecessary redundancy. With 15 integral heat sinks and 27.5 tons of pod space, it is screaming for Clan pulse lasers.
1) Mount 4 Clan pulse large lasers.
2) Mount 3 extra DHS.
3) Mount a 0.5-ton ABR in the cockpit because you can stay in the field a long, long time.
Results:
Dramatically improved accuracy and damage vs the primary configuration. Clans should use nothing but Arrow IVs and pulse 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.
|
Spartan
07/23/02 10:58 AM
172.174.92.132
|
Okay I'm starting to to follow you, I've still got a mental block to overcome but I'm starting to see the logic better. But there is something that doesn't jibe with me; I don't, purposefully, engage a target at anything less than about 6 hexes unless I can get a faster mech in behind them and you're talking about engaging as short as hex to hex. Is there something flawed in my thinking that you can logic me around or am I going in the right direction? You see, I think in terms of manuever warfare: supporting units(long range fire or just bruisers) keeping the enemy busy while my lighter faster mechs get around on his flanks and rear. Consequently I don't think about the short ranges much.
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
Cray
07/23/02 11:57 AM
64.83.29.242
|
>I don't, purposefully, engage a target at anything less than about 6 hexes unless I can get a faster mech in behind them and you're talking about engaging as short as hex to hex
I talk about them because short range battles happen, and they have their benefits depending on the battle. They're also easy to design for, as I note below.
>You see, I think in terms of manuever warfare: supporting units(long range fire or just bruisers) keeping the enemy busy while my lighter faster mechs get around on his flanks and rear. Consequently I don't think about the short ranges much.
That's fine then. Design your mechs for a single range of engagement: long range. It's even easier to optimize them: 2-3 ER PPCs or ER LLs or a mess of LRMs. You'll have low target numbers at your ideal engagement ranges. You don't need much else if you stay over 6 hexes from your target. If you play Clan, you'd be wise to fight like that and don't need anything but pulse large lasers.
But note it's easy to spare a few tons for short range weapons that do a lot of damage (6-7 tons = a nasty medium laser broadside), perhaps more than your long range salvo. (Long range weapons are either heavy or high in heat for their damage - look at the BLR refit I did in my last post: 14 tons for 20 points of long range damage, 6 tons for 30 points of short range damage). For those times when your light flankers lose initiative and get caught by a bunch of big, mean enemies or lose their legs to fields of Thunder mines, a few spare tons on a short range battery is a good idea.
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.
|
NathanKell
07/23/02 12:23 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Very nice.
Also, a neat little fact I stumbled upon in some message board (a long time ago in a galaxy, well...) was the the Battlemaster fits *perfectly* as a 75-tonner, neatly saving a (pickup) truck-load of cash.
-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
Edited by NathanKell (07/23/02 12:37 PM)
|
Cray
07/23/02 12:31 PM
64.83.29.242
|
>Though you can go the other way with the S-Hawk, replacing all the LR direct fire weapons with LRM-5s (i.e. Bob's Tiger Hawk).
Yes, you could, but I'd prefer to make my point not reawaken the Tigerhawk flame wars. The last I heard from Karagin on the topic was "speak no more of it to me," so I won't.
>Also, a neat little fact I stumbled upon in some message board (a long time ago in a galaxy, well...) was the the Battlemaster fits *perfectly* as a 75-tonner, neatly saving a (pickup) truck-load of cash.
Yes, I recall that, and I just posted a 75-ton, L2 version of the BLR variant I suggested in this thread over on CBT. (See: Design forum, thread: "Why you don't need omnimechs.")
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 (07/23/02 12:36 PM)
|
NathanKell
07/23/02 12:38 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Yep, and I'll have to check that out.
-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 |
Spartan
07/23/02 01:33 PM
172.130.67.231
|
I think I'm going to have to rethink my entire tactical doctrine. I need more practical experience, less theory.
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
Cray
07/23/02 03:31 PM
64.83.29.242
|
The tactics you described was peachy (particularly for small opposing units or isolated mechs). It sounds like all you need to do is tweak your weapons a bit.
Wherever you're shooting from, try to get the lowest target numbers possible. That usually means long-ranged weaponry if those flankers of yours are shooting from 6-10 hexes at the rear of other mechs. A PPC, GR, or UAC/10 will have lower target numbers than a "medium" ranged weapon like a large laser or RAC/5.
And, hey, those same weapons are great for your long-ranged mechs, too. Keep your unit's inventory simple.
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.
|
NathanKell
07/23/02 04:38 PM
24.44.238.62
|
There are two basic paradigms (dare I use the word?) in BT that differ from real life:
1. Long range weapons are more accurate at short range than short range weapons.
2. In one "weapon cycle" (i.e. turn) a mech can move farther than many weapons' ranges.
While the first is to a certain extent true in real life, the advantage of a LR weapon at SR is not nearly as large as in BT. The second, however, is the real kicker: To give a real world example: consider a duel between IFVs (M-2 Bradleys, say). Using BT's range-movement paradigm, if one takes a shot, the other could be out of range before the former can shoot off another burst. Or, conversely, the range difference between a quick-firing or gatling cannon and a tank's main gun matters far less; the Bradley can get *into* range before its tank adversary can get off another shot. Figure a speed of, say, 400-500m/s, or 1,800km/h!
-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 |
Durango
07/30/02 02:37 PM
65.212.106.131
|
"Deadlined" OMG, I haven't heard that word in years...
BTW, seems to me that a system which was so intricate would be easier to repair, not more difficult.
Figure: over hundreds of years, they'd have identified the most vulnerable parts, and designed some modularity in...
Feed Jam? Replace entire loader. (Even ammo is held in cassettes, in most cases. )
Though I've never had the pleasure of working with an M1A1, even your laser range finder had to have some degree of modularity. The worst part after replacing the module would be calibration, and even that (at a decent depot) could be simplified.
|
MadWolf
07/30/02 06:32 PM
134.53.144.73
|
The Nova has a saying that always goes with it.
Its not great at any objective, but its not bad at any objective.
Its all around AVERAGE.
If that mech is cheap and easy to work on then you have a deal. 
Nothing is Impossible, It is only Improbable.
|
KamikazeJohnson
07/30/02 07:30 PM
142.161.40.146
|
In addition to the many good points presented already, I'd strongly recommend (mostly) medium 'Mechs. For the most part, militias are used for three purposes:
1) Defense
2) Internal peacekeeping/policing
3) Show
Admittedly, Assault 'Mechs are extremely good at #3, but so are large numbers...
A defensive stance generally requires less mobility than an attacking position (what good is a flanking movement when your enemies entire purpose is to get past you?), so speedy light 'Mechs are needed in only small numbers. Mediums with average speed can field much more firepower (at any range) than an equal cost in Heavies, and with the defender's advantage of terrain knowledge and defensive installations, the militia's mediums ought to be able to counter a force of heavier 'Mechs.
For #2, the mere presence of any 'Mech (plus a suitable vehicle/infantry force) should be able to keep the rabble in line, so the 'Mechs do not need to be particularly spectacular (large and expensive)
Also, mediums save a lot of tonnage over heavies when employing jump jets, which are very useful for conserving expensive resources via emergency bailouts.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Greyslayer
07/30/02 07:44 PM
216.14.192.226
|
Mediums are a good option for c-bills as well. As most should know the cost of a mech is the summ of its parts x (1+ tonnage/100) which indicates the heavier the mech the more parts in it and the more expensive it will be just in the formulae (it basically compounds). It does compound when you realise the same rating engine in a mech (say the Hunchback) is wayyyy cheaper than the same engine in a Annihilator (due to in effect its formulae for calculating the price of the engine, same mass and same gyro weight just different price).
Greyslayer
|
Nightward
07/31/02 05:18 PM
132.234.251.211
|
But the Nova is a Clan Front-Line OmniMech. We were talking about Inner Sphere House Militias. Hmmm. Nova versus Watchman...
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.
|
Greyslayer
07/31/02 07:56 PM
216.14.192.226
|
Yes well the Nova is expensive. It might be someone's favourite mech but I doubt that because of its price that it deserves a mention here as a good militia mech.
Omni-mechs in general would be excessive for the needs of a militia. Most militias would not have the luxury of extra pods available nor have trained their pilots to go beyond specialising in certain weapons (its like how the group I play battletech with professional soldiers... they might know how to fire all weapons but they lack the skills to pilot multiple classes of mechs unless they spend points on it, now just think of militia as one level lower than that).... plus the extra expense on being an omni-mech .... (value of weapons and exquipment + (mech tonnage/100).
Greyslayer
|
novakitty
07/31/02 09:16 PM
209.242.100.230
|
His point was not that it is an Omni-mech that makes it good, but that the design (probably prime, just guessing here) is reasonably capable for all goals, not specialized.
meow
|
Greyslayer
07/31/02 10:34 PM
216.14.192.226
|
It is specialised. Though the second least fun one to fight (that being left to the Nova (Black Hawk) S) against in my opinion. When talking about militias you are talking limited budget and limited maintenence, using the old system of weekly servicing the black hawk is very expensive to maintain (due to XL engine, lots of double heat sinks and so on) so not only is it expensive to get but hard to keep running as well. The style of mech is fine but not very plausible to the poor militia.
Greyslayer
|
KamikazeJohnson
08/01/02 12:25 PM
142.161.40.146
|
The Nova itself is a poor example due to cost...Clan, Omni, excessively large XL Engine, but the design idea isd a good one for a militia 'Mech. It wouldn't be hard to build a similar 'Mech for a greatly reduced price.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
BA_Evans
08/02/02 10:30 AM
65.194.182.3
|
That's one of the things I have been disappointed about BTech. They don't have detailed maintenance cost tables. They have quite a bit of information salvage, which is nice, but general wear and tear during normal usage (not battle damage) is very sketchy.
I would prefer to see low tech equipment having low maintenance costs while high tech equipment gets more expensive the more complecated it gets.
This would add another element to the decision making process when upgrading technology levels. Your techs would need to get additional training for new equipment types, you would need to get new tools and diagnostics equipment for your maintenance bays, maintenance schedules would need to be increased for equipment which is more fragile and increasing the amount of spare parts on hand for fragile items. All of these things could be considered when assigning a maintenance cost for equipment.
BA Evans
|
|
|
Extra information
|
2 registered and 123 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 16046
|
|
|
|
|
|
|