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.
|
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
|