Rotwang
03/29/16 04:18 AM
94.226.248.136
|
The more you look at the weird bits in BT the more I feel my solution is the easiest. Just treat the board game as simply that, an abstract game that doesn't accurately reflect the various modern technologies in use somewhere in the 4th millennium.
Games like World of Tanks assign their designs with a number of arbitrary features like hit points that don't accurately reflect how tank armour really works and if you apply this to BT the whole ablative armour, every PPC is the same, mechs move inefficiently because of hex-based movement etc, makes sense in the game and in real life the Warhammer's Donal PPC's may be a little bit more effective in spreading their heat spikes than the Hellstars of a Marauder, who pack a better punch etc.
So my guess is that "real life BT" is probably a lot more complex than the game may suggest and certain things are glossed over for the sake of having a working background for the boardgame.
|
ghostrider
04/07/16 12:19 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Actually, I do understand why they went in certain directions.
To avoid being closer to another game that deals with the same concept.
The issues come about when it is suggested that something the tpb don't like things they try and use logic to explain why, but when that very logic is used to try and explain why other things are allowed, it drive me nuts. I would like some other reason besides I told you so for things.
But the game works, so in the end, that is what counts.
I hope to get some answers, but it seems answers tend to curl back to that's the way tpb wants it.
|
ghostrider
04/07/16 12:45 AM
66.74.61.223
|
The question of fusion engines in hover crafts need to be clarified.
The weight minimum for the engine.
Would that include the transmission?
Or just the engine weight itself?
I don't remember seeing that in any of the books, and would like to know it that was addressed.
|
ghostrider
04/07/16 11:08 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Did the developers modify the battlespace hit locations like they did the vehicle location tables?
I would figure warships, aerodyne drop ships and fighters would all need to have the sides of the unit be open for damage on top of normal locations. At least for actually fought battles.
That was one issue that did come to mind a long time ago. Wings that stuck out, not just ran along the edge, could be hit, though it would be much rarer then the nose.
|
ghostrider
04/09/16 09:58 PM
66.74.61.223
|
What happened to sensor baffles?
The subject came up with another thread, and it made me realize, there seemed to be NO reference to this material during the clan invasion. I can understand the advanced probe being an issue with it, but not all units have it. Also, I doubt the IS would have rebuilt all their bunkers and such that use it just because the probe was re released into military production.
The IS seems to have alot of issues upgrading their main units, much less defensive buildings built before the clans were known.
Is there a canon explanation to this, or is it another useful idea at the time only to be forgotten later?
|
Cray
04/10/16 03:38 PM
72.189.109.30
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
What happened to sensor baffles?
The subject came up with another thread, and it made me realize, there seemed to be NO reference to this material during the clan invasion. I can understand the advanced probe being an issue with it, but not all units have it. Also, I doubt the IS would have rebuilt all their bunkers and such that use it just because the probe was re released into military production.
Sensor baffles? A lot of proto-ECM and stealthy technology in the IS was standardized as the Guardian ECM suite and stealth armor.
Quote:
The IS seems to have alot of issues upgrading their main units, much less defensive buildings built before the clans were known.
Explanation: the Inner Sphere's military industry in 3050 was ****. It was less shitty than in 3025 or 3005, but it was still waking up from a 250-year nightmare of the Succession Wars. Production of new tech equipment was at a very immature state in 3050. The Inner Sphere really wouldn't hit its stride until about 3070, by which time the FedCom Civil War had ruined that nation's military again.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
ghostrider
04/10/16 03:52 PM
66.74.61.223
|
The materials used in combat buildings in a few adventure pacts said they were made with sensor baffles so units could not detect them until they were spotted or fired. Macarrons armored calvalry was good about pushing that during the raid on marlette if I remember right. As this pack had the star league devastator in it, it was not as old as I thought it was in the time line. During the ring of death campaign. They also introduced the fire walls that are basically case for buildings. 1992 copyrighted. Page 38-39 has several buildings that use the sensor baffles in them.
Might be before you joined the team, or copyrights might not have transferred. Even just slipping notice is possible.
I would like to know about what happened.
I find it odd something as useful as this would slip out of the books unless it was deemed to powerful for taking out mechs.
It does describe a few useful buildings for defenses, including the mech trap, and several options to make them even more dangerous.
|
ghostrider
04/10/16 05:28 PM
66.74.61.223
|
I asked about double sinks and if they limit the amount of sinks an engine can hide.
A though along with line came up that it would be interesting to hear.
Does an xl engine, having the extra critical spots taken up, hide more sinks then the engine normally does?
|
Akalabeth
04/11/16 05:17 AM
108.180.183.124
|
How many heat sinks fit in the engine is solely dependent upon the engine's rating and nothing else
|
Drasnighta
04/11/16 12:42 PM
198.53.98.65
|
Yes, it is solely dependant upon the engine's rating.
Its probably (somewhat) justified that they don't hide more, because the actual components of the XL Engine are said to be lighter, but bulkier, in order to provide its weight savings...
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
|
ghostrider
04/11/16 12:57 PM
66.74.61.223
|
So any information on why a half ton engine can carry ten tons of sinks with no weight?
Should any fusion engine be able to carry the same amount of double heat sinks?
Lighter and bulkier materials sounds like more room for sinks to be installed. The idea that a fusion engine can be half a ton, sounds unlikely to begin with. And yet the larger engines jump in weight so much more. From .5 tons of the smallest normal fusion engine up the 52.5 tons for the largest.
Yet they take up the same space as all the rest.
Also, it was suggested a while back, that part of the engine components were the sinks themselves. Even the definition of the double sinks follows the lighter and bulkier concept.
I agree it should not, but this is a question that should have been answered when the new rules came out.
It comes down to balance. Which in the original game, but later changed in updates, the number of sinks was 10 for all engines.
|
Akalabeth
04/11/16 01:20 PM
64.251.81.66
|
There's a forum for these questions, suggest you use it:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?board=34.0
Asking people who didn't design the game why the game is designed that way is a lot like barking up the wrong tree. And while Cray may or may not be a designer, not sure, there are more people on the official forums to answer.
|
Cray
04/11/16 05:46 PM
72.189.109.30
|
Quote:
Drasnighta writes:
Its probably (somewhat) justified that they don't hide more, because the actual components of the XL Engine are said to be lighter, but bulkier, in order to provide its weight savings...
Unlike heat sinks elsewhere in a 'Mech (which are generic heat pumps and radiators), heat sinks in the engine are regenerative systems scavenging waste heat, like the cogeneration systems of modern gas turbine power plants. There's only so much waste heat to scavenge based on an engine rating.
DHS in the engine use more modern materials and topping cycles to extend the amount of scavenging they can accomplish, so you can fit twice the heat capacity of DHS into an engine than with SHS. But, again, the total waste heat is limited by the engine rating. After a while you just have to put conventional heat sinks in the rest of the 'Mech.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
ghostrider
04/11/16 07:29 PM
66.74.61.223
|
You have said this before.
Now to clarify this.
The total waste heat is determined by the sinks and type installed, or is it limited by the amount it can move like sinks in water?
The enclosed and probably sealed environment that the torso would have to be in order to avoid issues submerging, would suggest only so much heat can be moved in the torso.
Now the next part of the question. Was the idea of 10 free tons of heat sinks in the unit something that was overlooked and just not addressed?
Or did that lead to not being able to do much with the unit once the sinks were dealt with?
I would think the engine weight should determine the number of free sinks. I was going to say up to the normal max, but the costs start getting heavy in the higher end, so I would think all that can be hidden.
And with the heavier weights, why not make the max amount free with the engine?
So the 400 should come with 16 no weight free sinks. It would follow the logic given for under 10.
|
ghostrider
04/12/16 01:19 AM
66.74.61.223
|
The question comes to mind, that if the engine can hide only so many sinks, and the rest are put to pumps and radiators, wouldn't that mean those outside the hidden engine parts have to have weight?
Example.
The omni 25 in the savanha master would hide 1 sink. So how the other 9 free sinks with the engine could not be passed off as in the engine, but require the radiator/pumps. So some how the materials used for the sink hidden in the engine are no longer valid, yet there is no additional weight applied to them?
And with that, the new materials used for the xl is the same heat conductive/dissipative materials used in normal engines?
Since the entire engine is made of this material, not just part of it, something doesn't add up right.
Such material is useful to both normal sinks as well as double sinks, or so goes the explanation. Does this mean you could incorporate that same material directly into the weapons and keep them cooler? I would think a ppc with no heat is worth a ton or 2 extra weight.
|
ghostrider
04/20/16 01:18 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Had a question come up about the minimum weights for the hovers again.
If the developers were that concerned about having these heavy armored hovers moving around at high speeds with little engines, why did they give them the high suspension factors?
This one thing could have made sure the fast, heavy armored hovers would not exist.
|
Akalabeth
04/20/16 06:51 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
Cray writes:
It is 20%.
This is a feature that dates to the 1986 Citytech construction rules, the first rule set for vehicles. The idea was purely out-of-character: hover vehicles had high suspension factors, which meant they could be very fast with a modest engine size. However, since hover vehicles were envisaged as light, thin-skinned vehicles that lived by their speed, it wouldn't do to let the vehicles be floating 5/8 slabs of armor with 10-rated engines.
The quick-and-dirty kludge to force that vision of hovercraft was to set a minimum 20% of hovercraft tonnage as engine weight.
There's not an in-character reason for it, no handy engineering to explain minimum engine weights. Like a lot of vehicle rules, it was just there to enforce certain notions about combat vehicle performance and roles.
|
ghostrider
04/20/16 07:23 PM
66.74.61.223
|
That is why I asked if there was a reason they stuck with the high suspension factor.
The first update could have resolved that issue buy dropping the suspension factor or by just adding in that was ICE only.
Then they could have done something with the release of the xl engines.
I would think test playing it would have shown the issue but I guess it was something they didn't want to deal with at the time.
|
Akalabeth
04/20/16 07:29 PM
64.251.81.66
|
This is the relevant portion:
Quote:
Cray writes:
However, since hover vehicles were envisaged as light, thin-skinned vehicles that lived by their speed, it wouldn't do to let the vehicles be floating 5/8 slabs of armor with 10-rated engines.
(emphasis mine)
The devs wanted hovercraft fast foremost of all.
The Suspension factor and minimum weight requirement facilitates that.
Whether it's fast with heavy armour or fast with weak armour is less relevant. 3026 has both heavily armoured and lightly armoured hovercraft.
People only started caring about hovercraft armour when the Regulator came out. But its armour profile isn't far removed from the 3026 Drillson
|
ghostrider
04/22/16 01:22 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Did they think of limiting the armor on hovers?
Like'due to the constructional limitations for hover craft', there is a max limit of say 4 or 5 armor points per internal structure max. Cite things like keeping the main fans unrestricted air flow or keep control surfaces/vents clear. Things like that.
Maybe it was just my experience, but hovers tended to die quickly when hit, since just about any hit was -1 move. So getting hit with even 3 missiles tended to almost ground the hover. Yes, the newer rules have lessened that.
I guess the advanced items threw the balance off the game as people started focusing on certain items. Happens with all games.
|
Akalabeth
04/22/16 02:33 AM
108.180.183.124
|
Swapping out the engine restriction in favour of limiting armour on hovercraft wouldn't have prevented slow, heavily-armed platforms.
And imposing a limit while also imposing the engine tonnage requirement would have been a lot of fiddly restrictions for what is intended to be a simple unit.
Vehicles are supposed to be less complicated than battlemechs in both design and play. Creating a lot of rules by which to design them would have defeated that purpose.
|
ghostrider
04/22/16 10:44 AM
66.74.61.223
|
It was concerned that hovers would be heavily armored, not armed.
And they did the armor restrictions with the rotors of vtols, so it wouldn't have been out of place.
I would think you would want speed in a unit that could be brought down with a single large laser or ac 10 shot. Hard to hit over taking damage. At that time, vehicles did not have the staying power of mechs. The crits alone tended to kill them without full armor breach.
A slow hover would be a dead hover. Open areas is where hovers go. No real cover, unless you park on the other side of woods or mountains. Can't go in them at all.
With building a hover, knowing the max armor that could be put on it, would give you advanced notice you had x amount of weight to begin with. And that is IF you max out armor.
And honestly, they should have stuck with armored limits for vehicles as they did mechs.
Now if some people made the maxed out 2/3 move hovers, it is just like saying over powered mechs are up to the players. Same thing here. Most that play hovers know that is a unit that will die rather quickly. Decently skilled, it can do some damage, but it will be grounded very quickly.
|
Akalabeth
04/22/16 01:54 PM
64.251.81.66
|
The idea is that hovercraft are supposed to be FAST.
Only the minimum engine weight combined with the lift factor create this dynamic.
|
ghostrider
04/22/16 10:31 PM
66.74.61.223
|
Without such a high lift factor, people would have to use a larger (heavier) engine to move the vehicle. The weight minimum looks more like it was to prevent fusion engines from being used.
The example of a hover craft design in the master rules (page 119) says a 25 ton hovercraft going 10 mp, needs an engine of 120. Even the ICE for that engine is 4 tons. The fusion is 2. Only one place, and not the example says about the 20%, and that is the suspension factor table. So the example given suggest something lighter then the 5 tons needed to meet it.
I don't know when they clarified the extra shielding is part of this weight, but in the earlier game, it was not stated.
So the engine minus shielding was implied for the 20% rule. This along insured faster craft. Once they stated shielding was part of the weight, it opened up door for lighter weights, as did the lighter fusion engines made it even more likely to have the buff hovers.
Now with the introduction of xl fusions, it allowed faster hovers. Granted once you hit 8+ movement, you max out the bonuses to be hit, so their comes a point when faster speeds is beyond needed.
Given most of the factory maps, a hover craft can not really go more then 15 or so hexes in a straight line. Some of them is impassible to hover craft. They have light woods across a section of it.
The lighter engines is part of why the old rules need further updating.
But when they came out, the higher suspension factor kind of worked against them.
I asked if the developers were so concerned with small, fast heavy armored hovers, why keep the high suspension factor?
Envisioning fast craft and looking like they sabotagued their own construct seemed to be the outcome.
|
Akalabeth
04/22/16 11:49 PM
108.180.183.124
|
Who says the developers had a problem with armoured hovercraft?
They could have easily prohibited XL engines from hovercraft as they did double heat sinks.
The Fulcrum was designed on FASA's watch, not FanPro's or Catalysts and it has both an XLE and some 10 tonnes of armour.
|
ghostrider
04/23/16 12:41 AM
66.74.61.223
|
The implication of fast, thin skinned units that lived by their speed pretty much means heavy armor on hovers was frowned upon.
Granted, weither that is canon information or just someone that deals with the company on a regular basis, suggesting this, could change the entire scope of this particular issue.
Now I may have misread that, but it sounds like they were looking at hovers as fast hit and run units, not mbts.
It also looks like they wanted to avoid small engines allowing a vehicle to mount more weapons and armor then a mech while moving faster then a mech.
And honestly, if it wasn't a problem, why make the 20% rule in the first place?
I do understand limiting them some, but when the other companies took over, they could have revamped the design rules, not only for this, but a few other things as well.
It is nice they finally clarified some issues, such as the shielding being part of engine weight limits, but other rules could have been updated as well. But that is a separate issue at this point.
I wanted to know if they looked at other possible solutions to the problem since fusion engines seemed to throw alot of the work out the window.
|
Akalabeth
04/23/16 01:58 AM
108.180.183.124
|
The 20% minimum is to induce a minimum speed for hovercraft. A 50 ton hovercraft for example with the 20% minimum has a minimum speed of 8/12.
And who said they didn't want armoured hovercraft? In the original Citytech, there are two 50 ton tanks. The Condor and the Vedette. One hover, one tracked. Which tank do you think has more armour? Which do you think can deal more damage?
If your assumptions about their design decisions were true, wouldn't they be evident from the start? It's fairly apparent that they wanted hovercraft to go fast and little else.
|
ghostrider
04/23/16 02:43 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Quote:
Akalabeth writes:
This is the relevant portion:
Quote:
Cray writes:
However, since hover vehicles were envisaged as light, thin-skinned vehicles that lived by their speed, it wouldn't do to let the vehicles be floating 5/8 slabs of armor with 10-rated engines.
(emphasis mine)
You quoted Cray twice with this being the emphasis.
So that is the answer to your question about armored hovers.
|
ghostrider
04/23/16 02:57 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Gotta love the tros. 3026 has the condor listed as a 7/11 move unit, with the same weight and engine maxim listed at 8/12.
The drillson being the same weight has a 4 ton ice moving at 6/9. The engine being rated at 65.
Even the canon books didn't follow their own rules.
The wiki has the drillson with a fusion engine of a larger size then the tro.
I may have to break out the old city tech and check to see if they used the same stats as the 3026.
|
Akalabeth
04/23/16 03:00 AM
108.180.183.124
|
What do you define as a slab of armour and what hovercraft violates this?
No hovercraft violates the 5/8 movement speed in that quote which to me is the more relevant portion.
|