neven
01/14/04 12:37 AM
64.12.96.206
|
Look at the tech advances of today, yesterday we used computers, today, we have labtops, and the new mini computers, and what's with the jumpships, they too should be more advanced,
Q: Why do we still use missiles in the 31st century?
Q: Whats with fusion power, some dudes in the US already managed to create a fusion reactor.
Q: Why do they still use fuel?
Q: why do the producers of btech use real alloys and materials, rather than inventing ones?
try to answer that...
-***"ADAPT TO SURVIVE"***-
|
phoenix
01/14/04 12:56 AM
67.37.132.99
|
Quote:
Look at the tech advances of today, yesterday we used computers, today, we have labtops, and the new mini computers, and what's with the jumpships, they too should be more advanced
A lot of this is usually attributed to the loss of technology during the Succession Wars. The other thing is supposedly that the weaponry we have now would barely scratch the armor used in the 31st century. You need high powered short ranged weapons to punch through it.
Quote:
Q: Whats with fusion power, some dudes in the US already managed to create a fusion reactor.
The only man-made fusion I can think of is at the center of a large H-Bomb. Cold fusion has not yet been achieved by man. There was a group that said they had done it, but it ended up being a hoax.
Phoenix
|
neven
01/14/04 01:04 AM
64.12.96.206
|
come on, this stuff is 31st century tech, we even should have better technology than those assfaced wussies in "star trek", get what i say?
btech is one of the most futuristic-based sci-fi thrillers, (except warhammer, that crap is based in 40 000 ad, how my friend sez), so we should have better tech than all those other wuss-crap sci-fi franchises, and a shot from a main gun than comes from an m1-a2 abrams tank, has the strength of an Autocannon 20, well, just one shell, i know a lot of crap about global military, and those tanks carry a 120mm supergun, mechs carry a 120mm autocannon, still better! 
-***"ADAPT TO SURVIVE"***-
|
Nightward
01/14/04 03:33 AM
203.134.104.66
|
It could, but remember how BattleTech works. Sure, you could alter how afr weapon ranges reach...but then movement would have no effect. You could change how much damage weapons do...but then everyone would die in one hit. You could change the odds of hitting your opponent...but then you'd never miss.
Really, you might as well be playing Draughts in those circumstances.
The rules might not make all that much sense, but BT is still a fun game any way. With the suspension of disbelief reuired to believe that the govenments of the future would rather have one 'Mech than a bazillion infantrymen armed with machine guns, the extra little bit of effort required to say "Hey. It makes no sense, but what do I care? EAT GUASS RIFLE! BWAHAHA!" really isn't all that great.
And JumpShips aren't really "tech'. The operate in ways that no-one understands, by ripping a hole in reality and instantaneously hurling you 30 light years away. Personally, I'd be happy I got there in one piece rather than complain about the "low tech" of the ship...
And in any case, during the Succession Wars, the Great Houses beat each other almost back to the stone age. ComStar waged a hidden war that assassinated many of the IS' best and brightest scientists. Only recent advances from the Gray Death Memory Core have allowed for the kind of gear they do have.
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
01/14/04 06:30 AM
68.200.106.169
|
Let's run a fairly realistic extrapolation of modern weaponry into the 23rd century; let's not bother with the 31st just yet:
1) Missiles are useless because point defense lasers not only shoot down them in an instant, but also destroy most primitive bullets and projectiles
2) Lasers and other energy weapons are effective for tens of kilometers in the atmosphere, and have pinpoint accuracy out to thousands of kilometers in space. If you're seen, you die.
3) Kinetic kill weapons (railguns, mostly) are only useful against targets that cannot retaliate (orbital bombardment of civilians/low tech guerillas), or as short range space area denial - pump out clouds of tungsten BBs to ruin a fighter's day
4) Sensors see through anything
5) AIs run all battlefield issues - human reflexes are too slow
6) etc etc. Read GURPS Transhuman Space and extrapolate another 2 centuries.
This is how a typical planetary invasion works:
1) Hostile jumpships jump in system
2) They die
Sometimes, if they're sneaky and use pirate points and avoid fixed defenses, it goes like this:
1) Hostile Jumpships jump in system, very near a planet
2) Dropships deploy
3) They die
During rebellions and civil wars, where both sides are already deployed on the ground, games could be run like this:
1) Mechs leave bunkers
2) They die
Woo, that's some fun. I want to play that game. 
Anyone care to imagine battlefields with out-of-control "gray goo" nanotech and hyper-advanced technology?
*************************************************
The reasons BT is so "primitive" are manifold
1) It's a playable game. Do you want to imagine a mapboard with 30m hexes and modern weapon ranges (3000m autocannons, 5000m missiles, 40000m artillery, etc.)? The ranges might be short and weapon accuracy laughable by 20th century standards, but you're not going to have high profile, thin-skinned giant robots on a realistic battlefield, not unless you don't mind wasting money on vulnerable units easily killed by conventional tanks. The original BT writers shortened ranges deliberately - IIRC, there were supposed to be 2 more range bands beyond "long range," which were cut for space and playability reasons.
2) It's the future as partly envisioned in the 1980s, when the composition of Chobham armor was unknown and when the examples of tank cannon accuracy were limited. See "Traveller" for other failed extrapolations of technology; as I understand it, ship's computers with performance comparable to RL desktops approach a ton or more.
3) It's supposed to be a future where technology has been lost. Unfortunately, that theory makes it kind of hard to explain why Star League and Clan tech is so sad, but...
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
01/14/04 06:44 AM
68.200.106.169
|
Quote:
Q: Why do we still use missiles in the 31st century?
See my last post.
Quote:
Q: Whats with fusion power, some dudes in the US already managed to create a fusion reactor.
No. There are literally dozens of fusion reactors in the world, either in test labs or on the scrap heap. NOT ONE of them has produced more electrical power than they consumed. ONE has released more heat than was pumped into them. The ITER project (google for ITER) is the "next to last step" before creating a power generating fusion reactor, which should take place in the 2030s. I'll be in the nursing home when, somewhere, sometime, a light bulb is powered by a fusion reactor. In the mean time, no, there are no power-producing fusion reactors. It took about two decades to go from the discovery of the neutron to fission bombs and fission power plants; it'll take about a century to do the same with fusion power.
Quote:
Q: Why do they still use fuel?
Because most of the factories that build fusion power plants got blowed to hell in the Succession Wars. Fusion reactors use rare knowledge, rare spare parts, and come from rare factories. On the other hand, anyone with a 19th Century knowledge of mechanical engineering can build a piston engine - and there's a lot more primitives like that than there are fusion reactor techs. You know the basic premise of BT has been technology loss during warfare, right? Or it was before 3030.
Quote:
Q: why do the producers of btech use real alloys and materials, rather than inventing ones?
try to answer that...
What real alloys and materials? I wrote the latest description of mechs in the CBT:Companion, and I used no real materials.
Consider the armor of a battlemech: "radiation treated steel over diamond-reinforced boron nitride." The 1-centimeter (0.4 inches) of armor on an Atlas's or Daishi's center torso can stop two bursts from a Hetzer's AC/20. The Hetzer's AC/20 is a 150mm weapon (what's the Abrams' main gun? That's right: 120mm). The Hetzer's AC/20 fires 10 rounds with each "shot." The Atlas's and Daishi's CT armor can stop that twice and still have armor to spare, even though their CT armor is about a centimeter thick. Do you know of ANY real world material 1cm thick that can stop twenty rounds from an Abram's main gun, let alone a bigger gun?
Look at the components of 'mech armor:
1) You cannot produce diamond reinforced boron nitride today, let alone the diamond fibers to do the reinforcing.
2) You cannot produce steel of the effectiveness in battlemech armor today. In foil gages, it takes more punishment than the thick DU and maraging steel and ceramics of Chobham armor.
So, no, battlemechs do not use "real" materials. They might as well be "duralloy" or "tritanium" or some other make believe sci-fi material. However, rather than resorting to cheesy Star Trekkian made-up material names, BT uses realistic material names, even if the materials are not at all realistic.
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 (01/14/04 06:46 AM)
|
Diablo
01/14/04 10:31 AM
66.207.113.110
|
Wouldn't advances in weaponry be countered by advances in armour and defensive measures? (shields)
|
Cray
01/14/04 11:43 AM
147.160.1.5
|
Quote:
Wouldn't advances in weaponry be countered by advances in armour and defensive measures? (shields)
Force fields? No basis for them in BT or RL physics, unless you're going to wave gravity control into existance.
As a rule, armor has a hard time keeping up with weaponry. Note for how many centuries that Western armies basically did without body armor after the introduction of firearms. It doesn't take much of an advance in weaponry to render an uber-armor obsolete, or so heavy as to be impractical. Western tanks are butting heads with this problem now, despite the wonders of laminate armors and ERA.
So, no, I don't think armor will do much for vehicles in the future. Sure, it'll help'em survive guerillas and rebels with $7 RPGs, but that only goes so far. Given realistic targeting equipment, lasers in space will not miss. It would also be easy to scale them to the point where they will evaporate any target; just put a set of big fusion-powered lasers in orbit and evaporate jumpships from 100000km away. Put them around primary jump points and zap the jumpships as they appear in system. The question of who wins a space battle is "who brought more lasers, and who started firing first." Then count the seconds until one side or the other is ashes. I suppose armor matters in that situation, it just won't be much fun to play.
Alternately, realistic particle beams would give the crews lethal doses of radiation in quick bursts unless many meters of massive shielding were used (emphasis on mass - armor composition matters little to high energy protons and neutrons, just the areal density, tons per square meter). It's feasible for spaceships to mount that kind of armor (especially on one location, like the front), but it won't matter to a battlemech, fighter, or tank. Aw, don't have 100 tons of armor on the cockpit? Well, your mechwarrior or pilot just got a 100,000 rad dose. He doesn't know that because that dose was actually also enough energy to boil his blood, and about 100 times the lethal minimum dose. All the hardened optical computers that measured radiation are also garbage, their nanometer-scale circuits look like swiss cheese from holes blown in them by the protons or neutrons.
Infantry are SOL. Even BT lasers pump out the equivalent of hundreds of kilograms of TNT in energy releases. Even if the infantryman's body armor could survive that, the surface explosion probably pulped him.
And then there's nanites and all that fun.
Wee, realistic future warfare.
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.
|
marlin
01/14/04 12:46 PM
62.104.208.76
|
Neven: please take this mantra and tell it to you everytime you think about logic in Battletech:
"Battletech is not logitech.." again and again.
Then you will one day be free of trying to get logic in Battletech. 
And the universe developed from a tabletop game.
No one of those inventors (cool guys) could imagine, that some fans would ask about the bore of ACs ore the range of missiles or the inhabitants of some planets in the Periphery.
So i think.
Frederic Walden
driver of "Sir Scan-a-L.o.T." (A Savannah Master, for neven <img src="http://www.sarna.net/w3t/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> )
with the "Lords of Thunder"
and proud of it.
watch out for www.clanwatch.com |
Diablo
01/14/04 05:07 PM
24.114.50.190
|
u keep talking about lasers. which can be bounced by simple refration if my last physics class tought me right.
|
Hellbringer
01/14/04 06:16 PM
192.195.234.26
|
Quote:
Only recent advances from the Gray Death Memory Core have allowed for the kind of gear they do have.
Don't forget the return of the Clans. They brought a lot of stuff with them. It would have taken a lot longer for the IS to make advances with the Memory Core if it hadn't been for the Clans and help from the Wolf's Dragoons.
"But it SHOULD be a spectacle! It should be grand and exciting to us all! I'd hate to think that we've become so jaded that we find even our greatest tiumph, resurrecting the Star League, simply one more obligation."
-General Victor Steiner-Davion (First Prince and Archon in exile) 3064
|
neven
01/14/04 08:53 PM
205.188.209.103
|
jumpships tear a hole in the fabric of space, but before that they phase out of, space, time, everything, and then hurl themselves toward a point.
and herez my point, i still would say, mech technology is still way more advanced, i hate star trek, its all clean, mechwarrior, is gritty, its my style of scifi, and what the hell is with jumpships, i think they should all all have atleast 2 fusion-lithium cores, and an hpg link, without using those damn solar sails, those suk!
-***"ADAPT TO SURVIVE"***-
|
Nightward
01/15/04 03:08 AM
211.26.66.18
|
Solar Sails are great, IMO. Cheap, renewable source of energy. Yeah, you're screwed if you get attacked whilst the Jump Sail is unfurled, but then, that's what Batchalls and the Ares Conventions are for.
LF batteries are quite heavy and insanely expensive. They're reserved for WarShips and Fleet Flag vesself for exactly those reasons.
And finally, the secrets of HPG manufacture and usage are solely in the hands of the Word of Blake and ComStar. ComStar won't allow their monopoly to be broken, and the WoB see it as their sacred, mystical charge to keep it to themselves.
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
01/15/04 06:46 AM
68.200.106.169
|
Quote:
which can be bounced by simple refration if my last physics class tought me right.
Simple refraction does not move a gigajoule energy beam. The refractor deviates a bit of the energy, absorbs a small percentage, with a small percentage equalling many megawatts, and thus it evaporates, and the beam continues along its original path.
Trying to refract and reflect weapon grade lasers is like trying to take a drink from a fire hose.
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
01/15/04 06:53 AM
68.200.106.169
|
Quote:
jumpships tear a hole in the fabric of space, but before that they phase out of, space, time, everything, and then hurl themselves toward a point.
There's no hurling, except among passengers with Transit Disorientation Syndrome. The jumpship phases out of one spot and phases into another.
Quote:
what the hell is with jumpships, i think they should all all have atleast 2 fusion-lithium cores, and an hpg link, without using those damn solar sails, those suk!
Solar sails, slow recharge times, and limited numbers of jumps were what helped make Battletech different from all the other zip-zoom super-warp sci-fi space settings like Star Trek. In Battletech, you do not simply skip across the galaxy at warp 9. FTL travel in BT is cheap and possible, but it takes time. The jumpships are big, magestic, and ponderous. They take long times to recharge; they don't just turn on the fusion engines and make three jumps just like that.
Personally, I always found jumpships to be one of the key factors in making BT so "gritty." They did not offer fast, reliable, easy travel to the stars like Star Trek, Star Wars, and so many other settings. Jumpships demanded thought and consideration for proper use; you could only jump once (or twice, with Li-F batteries) per week, and recharging required a delicate, majestic sail. Cool stuff, IMO.
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
01/15/04 06:56 AM
68.200.106.169
|
The Ares Conventions say nothing about jumpships. The Conventions were written (c2400) when jumpships were a dime a dozen and easily replaceable. Heck, the Ares Conventions say it's acceptable to use nukes against space targets, if the target is over 75000km from an inhabitable planet.
It was peace treaties and armastices (sp) that ended the Second Succession War that introduced the notion of not attacking jumpships. The Clans independently developed the idea for different reasons.
(The Clans can also manufacture HPGs but, like WoB and Comstar, they aren't sharing.)
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
01/16/04 03:21 AM
202.138.42.39
|
"The Ares Conventions say nothing about jumpships. The Conventions were written (c2400) when jumpships were a dime a dozen and easily replaceable. Heck, the Ares Conventions say it's acceptable to use nukes against space targets, if the target is over 75000km from an inhabitable planet."
Ah. I've never actually seen a copy of the Ares Conventions. All the novels talk about not attacking JumpShips as though it was enshrined in law, so...
"It was peace treaties and armastices (sp) that ended the Second Succession War that introduced the notion of not attacking jumpships. The Clans independently developed the idea for different reasons."
Batchall, batchall, batchall! Although, things like the Odysseus-Class (I believe i is the Odysseus that carries the ASF Cluster) muddy the waters a bit 
"The Clans can also manufacture HPGs but, like WoB and Comstar, they aren't sharing."
Another thought also occurs: ComStar/WoB controls all the HPGs in Inner Sphere space. The Clans control their own. Even groups like the Wolf Dragoons that can manufacture and use HPG technology...have no-one but themselves to talk to with it!
It'd only really be of use to the military, but the cost of manufacturing your own HPGs wouldbe exorbitant. Probably almost as much as WarShips, and that's assuming ComStar/WoB ROM don't simply assassinate everyone working on the program, their family, friends, pets, and anyone bearing a faint physical resemblance...
Oh, wait. This is ROM, not SAFE
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.
|
Gangrene
01/19/04 09:59 PM
24.6.228.14
|
Quote:
Look at the tech advances of today, yesterday we used computers, today, we have labtops, and the new mini computers, and what's with the jumpships, they too should be more advanced,
try to answer that...
The technology level of Btech is pretty pathetic. It was made so for playability reasons, because making more realistic would result in a game far from what Battletech is.
Quote:
Q: Why do we still use missiles in the 31st century?
And added to that should be why do the missiles usck so bad? Missiles as delivery vehicles are here to stay, IMO. They will surely evolve, but I don't think they are going away.
Quote:
Q: Whats with fusion power, some dudes in the US already managed to create a fusion reactor.
"What's with . . . ?" is sort of an open-ended question. There are also fusion reactors in Europe, yet they cannot produce nearly the power of a hydro-electric dam or a nuclear reactor. Fusion has a ways to go before it takes the spot of best energy source.
Quote:
Q: Why do they still use fuel?
Because energy does not come from nowhere. Fuel of some sort will always be required (no, I don't buy into ZPE).
Quote:
Q: why do the producers of btech use real alloys and materials, rather than inventing ones?
I am not sure how real the materials are. I have always thought that mech armor and such was fictitious in its chemical description.
Gangrene
|
neven
01/22/04 11:54 AM
142.22.16.52
|
First: There is logic in everything, combat, politics, etc.
Second: Fusion will be one of the most plentiful power sources, but like whatever that dude sed, i think it was cray, or gangrene, that fusion is already in europe.
Third: i know everything requires somethin', but still, WHY DO WE STILL USE FUEL!
I mean what the hell! We should have coll tech in the 31st century, or 32nd, whatever, its all the same to me!
-***"ADAPT TO SURVIVE"***-
|
Cray
01/22/04 12:48 PM
147.160.1.5
|
Quote:
Second: Fusion will be one of the most plentiful power sources, but like whatever that dude sed, i think it was cray, or gangrene, that fusion is already in europe.
Hold it, now. There's fusion reactors everywhere, several dozen of them in universities and other research establishments. However, they are not fusion power plants. Not one single watt of electricity flowing anywhere on Earth comes from manmade fusion power plants. Please understand, the only manmade fusion reactors are research reactors that do not generate electricity. Only one of them has generated more power (in the form of heat) than has been put into it, and it was completely incapable of generating electricity or sustaining its fusion reactions for more than a few seconds. The ITER project figures we'll have fusion power plants in another 25-50 years.
Here's two of the fusion reactors in Europe:
ITER, which has not been built yet
JET, one of ITER's predecessors
Neither are true power plants, they're just test reactors.
The only fusion power plant used by man to generate electricity is the Sun, and power is harnessed from it by solar cells (directly), and quite a few indirect methods (wind, waves, coal, oil, etc.)
Quote:
Third: i know everything requires somethin', but still, WHY DO WE STILL USE FUEL!
Because most of the factories that build fusion power plants got blowed to hell in the Succession Wars. Fusion reactors use rare knowledge, rare spare parts, and come from rare factories. On the other hand, anyone with a 19th Century knowledge of mechanical engineering can build a piston engine - and there's a lot more primitives like that than there are fusion reactor techs. You know the basic premise of BT has been technology loss during warfare, right? Or it was before 3030.
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
01/22/04 01:00 PM
67.64.144.115
|
You still need fuel to provide propulsion. Even a nuclear propulsion system needs some kind of fuel to expel from the ship. It's just physics. If you want to accelerate your vessel you have to apply a force to it. F=ma is the governing equation. If you want a ship with mass m, to have acceleration a, then you must apply force F. To apply said force you expel something out the back of it, i.e. fuel.
If nothing else you would use a fuel of some kind to make course changes much like the shuttle would today (if it were operating) and just like the capsules did before the shuttle. A small burst of gas is released from a nozzle and the ship changes it's facing.
And at any rate how many civilians or, more relevantly, militias would have the knowhow or even the money to spend to repair and operate a nuclear reactor? For a battlemech, fighter craft or tank? They wouldn't and it would be far cheaper in material, construction and training costs to provide them with ICE engines.
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
Silenced_Sonix
01/23/04 04:53 PM
168.209.97.34
|
Yeah, nothing like cooking off a few thousand gallons of diesel when you revv that 35-ton IndustrialMech...
Evolve or Die
|
Spartan
01/23/04 04:56 PM
67.64.144.115
|
To say nothing of the transport or recovery trucks. Why would you want to put a fusion engine in one of those?
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
Silenced_Sonix
01/24/04 04:42 AM
168.209.97.34
|
To show you can 
I see your point, although the obvious use for fusion engines (and I am talking CBT now) would be for units that utilize energy weapons, and that do not have the tonnage available for an ICE and the power magnifiers that go with it. ICE's are cheaper, granted, but also much, much more bulky than a fusion engine of comparitive size.
Evolve or Die
|
neven
01/25/04 02:48 AM
64.12.96.206
|
Wht can't fuel cells be self sustaining,
get it "to be or not to be, that is the question" 
-***"ADAPT TO SURVIVE"***-
|
Spartan
01/25/04 08:43 AM
66.142.175.138
|
Because when you eject something out the back of the ship that piece of material goes away forever. You can't throw a piece of material out the back of the ship for propulsion and expect not to lose it. Even the most efficient propulsion system like a fuel cell would at somepoint need 'recharging.'
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
Cray
01/25/04 09:07 AM
68.200.106.169
|
Quote:
Wht can't fuel cells be self sustaining
Because fuel cells need fuel. Typically, they combine hydrogen with oxygen, producing water and electricity. When you're out of hydrogen and oxygen, the reaction stops.
Variants can use methanol and certain other fuels.
A discussion of methanol fuel cells
"[These] Fuel cells work by converting hydrogen found in methanol into electricity through an electro-chemical reaction. No recharging is needed, just a refill of fuel."
The space shuttle's endurance in orbit is limited by how much hydrogen and oxygen it carries for its fuel cells, among other consumables.
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.
|
tgsofgc
01/25/04 04:05 PM
67.4.201.251
|
Hehe it'd be nice to see some specialized 'mechs with atmosphic intake vents (ment to operate in particularly rich: read as hazardous atmospheres) namely they run off of converting some organic gas into methan or such, something that doesn't blow them up.
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
|
Cray
01/25/04 04:19 PM
68.200.106.169
|
tgsofgc, You're on HMPro forums. Read my Aethra setting. Many of the ICE's there actually run very fuel rich on Aethra. Rather than carrying fuel, vehicles carry oxidizers.
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.
|
Silenced_Sonix
01/26/04 01:39 PM
168.209.97.34
|
Correct me if I am wrong here, but would fighting in a methane-rich enviroment not be potentailly dangerous the moment someone fires off a weapon that generates a flame or excessive heat? Sort of a Double Boom effect - first the autocannon goes "Boom", and then the atmosphere goes "Boom"... along with everything in it, right?
Evolve or Die
|
|
|
Extra information
|
1 registered and 79 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: 21638
|
|
|
|
|
|
|