Jazzyamx
08/05/20 03:34 AM
96.42.48.89
|
I've been looking at the ship artwork, and most of the vessels seem to have either a section that looks like windows on the front of the hull or some sort of tower.
I know that real world wet navy ships have an exposed and high up bridge for good views of combat and a Combat Information Center, which is located deep within the hull. Would BattleTech ships follow this same pattern? Are the sections that look like windows and the towers the 'flight bridge' of the vessel, with a central command center deeper within and protected from weapons fire?
I am particularly curious about the M-5 Casper, with the truncated version of the Lola III's starboard tower and an added tower on the port side. From where would the ferry crew fly the drone ship for the jump with it's AI shut down--does the truncated tower have the control systems for manual flight, or are they located elsewhere in the hull?
Thanks in advance for any assistance.
Richard
|
Frabby
08/05/20 10:47 AM
80.187.102.243
|
Remember that
a) the main engines are "down" and BT starships are essentially scyscrapers;
b) there is no need for an elevated or exposed bridge so we’re probably technically looking at a CIC only, even when it’s called bridge;
c) said bridge is however still exposed enough to be rammed by kamikaze aerospace fighters, as demonstrated by Tyra Miraborg. (Tough given that WarShips apparently have a density like styrofoam, maybe their main "armor" is redundancy and empty spaces, and there is no truly safe place aboard.)
|
Karagin
08/05/20 01:42 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Based on the art, the "nose" of the starships/warships seems to be were the "bridge" is. Some, not all.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Wrangler
08/27/20 01:01 PM
12.151.138.194
|
I think that the location is mainly fluff. Most of the time the bridge/control room/CIC is located at the center of the ship. There is possibility that bow, (top of the WarShip) is navigational bridge.
When it hits the fan, make sure your locked, loaded, and ready to go!
|
flisterfive
01/14/21 03:58 AM
47.8.237.140
|
The bridge is the main control centre of a vessel, from where the captain and officers are able to man the entire operations of the vessel. It is generally located in a position with an unrestricted view and immediate access to the essential areas of a ship
|
Briarthorne
03/03/21 05:03 PM
209.129.119.10
|
Unless your warship design is an experiment in insanity, it would of course be built like a skyscraper with the drive-section being the base of the structure. I think Battletech artists and writers need to get a memo that this isn't Star Trek, and the bridge isn't going to have a big window looking out on the front of the ship.
Not only is this impossible as it would be above the deck, and not out the side, it is also a bad idea as it allow high-speed debris (such a aerofighters) to destroy a critical part of the vessel by striking it. The bridge should be deep within the ship, with armor plating and several bulkheads between the brain-center of the ship and the unforgiving void of space.
Jumpships though...they might be able to break the rule.
With only a 0.1G acceleration and with no real place to go, the rotating grav-decks are your real focus as that is where your crew and passengers are going to spend their time. Otherwise you could design your Jumpships other decks with really any configuration as they will be mostly designed for Zero-G operations. You could even have that Star Trek bridge, everyone would be floating around weightless and having no shared 'down'.
Edited by Briarthorne (03/03/21 05:05 PM)
|
Karagin
03/03/21 06:10 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Quote:
Unless your warship design is an experiment in insanity, it would of course be built like a skyscraper with the drive-section being the base of the structure. I think Battletech artists and writers need to get a memo that this isn't Star Trek, and the bridge isn't going to have a big window looking out on the front of the ship.
Not only is this impossible as it would be above the deck, and not out the side, it is also a bad idea as it allow high-speed debris (such a aerofighters) to destroy a critical part of the vessel by striking it. The bridge should be deep within the ship, with armor plating and several bulkheads between the brain-center of the ship and the unforgiving void of space.
Where is this written at? The bridge could be in the center of the ship with cameras and other sensors giving them the "big window" look or it could be that a certain class of starship had the bridge and the very front of the ship in the nose, again design is going to differ, this is Battletech, not Warhammer 40K. Also, events drive the story, if things call for a ship to crash into the bridge then that is what's going to happen regardless of where that is at.
Your comment about a tower or similar for a bridge is doing nothing but making it a target, if anything the writers need to be putting the bridge deeper inside the ship. However, they go for easy and simple to keep folks reading not digging out a TRO to look at a picture and get lost down other rabbit holes.
Gravity on these ships could be more of magnetic boots or similar or they could have mastered some kind of artificial gravity, recall this is a fictional setting that has us moving multi-ton mechs around the size of small buildings and has warships fighting in space, it has more fiction than hard science since we are not playing Traveller or other systems things do not need to be perfect.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
03/03/21 10:57 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Star Trek does NOT have a huge window in the front of the bridge. It is a view screen. Now the top of the bridge has a transparent piece on it, or at least the original does.
The idea of a bridge in the front of the craft is possible, but it would be more like what happens on a rocket ship, such as the space shuttle. Thrust would push you into the back of the seat, but you would face out. It would be entirely stupid for a bridge to be on the outside edge of a ship, as explained by others. If you watch Star Trek the next generation, the battle bridge would be more likely to be the main bridge. Deep inside more protected areas. And as a side note, shields can be used to 'cover' holes in the ship or weak points.
But as for ships that never see the atmosphere, the idea of wings is bad, as it doesn't to much besides cause you to spread out armor to cover them, as most of the functions are based on something other then aerodynamics. Yes, having something a little further from the body allows for a wider firing arc, but if you design the ship right, then it isn't a real problem. Think the Achilles dropship verses the Avenger dropship. The Avenger does go into atmosphere, so the wings are useful, but the Achilles does not. But do read the description of the decks and ladders used in the Avenger, as it does say it uses the two types due to the change of direction of 'gravity' when in space transit or trying to land.
Karagin is completely correct in the illusion of looking out glass windows. Cameras would be the better, safer way to go. But stories have an issue with a small fighter penetrating dozens of feed of armor and then decks to hit a bridge buried deep in a ship.
Though in game rules, it could be considered a Thru armor critical hit, which causes internal damage.
And I do know it was TPTB that made it happen, without a die roll.
|
Wick
03/04/21 10:59 AM
173.247.25.195
|
Regarding Star Trek, I'm not entirely sure TOS had a transparent dome on top of the bridge. I don't think we ever see the ceiling in the TV show or movies and I had a poster when I was younger than indicated it was some kind of sensory dome. TNG on the other hand absolutely does have a transparent dome, because Encounter at Farpoint shows a wide span of the bridge when Picard first enters that clearly shows it at top of screen (though I'm unsure if they ever showed it again.)
Bridges in Star Trek are explicitly put near the edge of the ship for two reasons. First, the defensive capability of starships is due to the strength of their shields, not their structural integrity like Battletech. When the shields go down a ship is effectively defenseless to the point that phasers, disruptors, and photo torpedoes blast right through the hull and potentially out the other side (Wrath of Khan), and detonating photon torpedoes can mostly destroy a craft in a single hit (The Undiscovered Country and Generations.) Second, the bridge crew is expected to hold their position until the remainder of crew has evacuated - this demands that the bridge crew have the quickest egress, with escape pods very near the bridge (as seen in Star Trek Beyond). For the record, the battle bridge of the Enterprise D sits atop of the separated secondary hull neck and is as equally exposed as the main bridge when the saucer section is removed. There are emergency bridges (TOS Enterprise had at least one) that are more centrally contained though.
Bridges in Star Trek, Star Wars, and most other scifi stem from surface naval tradition, where the bridge needed to be high and provide clear visuals to the surrounding terrain. In a technological world, this is completely worthless (especially with a view screen rather than window). Battletech should be more like Battlestar Galactica (at least the remake), which draws its inspiration from submarines, with a bridge centrally contained within the the primary hull, mostly electronic data to provide navigation and battle awareness, with little visual data (periscope or monitor). The fiction and art work indicate that in Battletech at least some warship bridges are on the edge when logically they should be more centrally located as in Galactica and submarines. Standard jumpship and dropship bridges seem to be more properly located a few decks into the superstructure, though prevented from being centrally located due to the jump core in jumpships and the cargo areas of dropships.
Also, the concept of windows in space craft battles at the ranges of Aerotech are optically ridiculous anyway. If each aerospace hex in 18,000 meters, a weapon with a range of 21 hexes gives it a 378km meter distance. The light reflecting off an object about 1km in length or its fusion drive plumes at a distance of 378km (or greater!) may completely disappear into the background star field (mostly distinguishable only by its apparent movement). You need a telescopic lense or radar to reliably track it.
|
ghostrider
03/04/21 12:21 PM
66.74.60.165
|
With the original technical guide of the Enterprise, it shows the transparent dome over the bridge. I will have to find the book to confirm, but if I remember right, there is a rest room on the other side of the view screen.
The bridge is also off set from straight forward as well.
The point of not being able to visually see anything past a space hex or two is very interesting. The only reason I could see the 'glass' windows would be for landing, or possibly take off, so you can see what is around you. Sensor hits would cause major issues with these actions. Armored plates that cover then once spaceborne would be likely.
Though a question of jumpships seats comes up. Do they have down towards the sails, or the 'bottom' of the ship? Technically, there is no real bottom, as they don't go into gravity, so they could be located in different 'directions' when built. A whim might say up is the down on the next one built. I know they would be cookie cutter made, but just rotating it several degrees would throw off anyone that doesn't know that particular ships layout.
The idea of having a view while commanding the ship is very appealing, which makes the idea of making it a weak point is very strong. But in the end, the submarine example would be the best place to put a bridge. The quick exit point makes this a little more difficult to agree with, but in most circumstances, I don't think evacuating will be an option here. By the time it comes to it, the time to escape would be long gone. As most examples of ships does NOT have their crews in space suits all the time, the likelihood of a breach would kill you before you got far. And an exposed bridge would be a primary target, that even a hit near it might be enough to take it out without actually hitting it. Bulkhead doors sealing would help, but the actual oxygen vents and even power may well be taken out without backups being able to do much.
Blast shields of armor would go far to help push the idea of the exposed bridge though. Cover the windows when going into combat.
|
Briarthorne
03/04/21 01:58 PM
209.129.119.10
|
I think we are all basically on the same page here.
A window to space from a typical bridge is a bad idea that really doesn't serve any useful function. While STTNG's bridge with the 'skylight' isn't ideal, the 'Flying Bridge' seen on an Imperial Star Destroyer is worse. In the latter case we saw an example of a ISD crew having a really bad day in ESB when an asteroid decided to make a close encounter with the bridge, and in RoTJ when an A-Wing pilot got a lucky(?) collision with the Executor's bridge when it's shields had failed. In the case of Battletech, we have the Tira Miraborg incident where the slammed into the Dire Wolf's bridge...a point that Sarna itself references as 'the weakest point' of the warship.
Good examples that have been mentioned here, which come from universes that bear a similarity to Battletech are the new BSG and The Expanse. The Donnager class ship from the Expanse doesn't just have 'a' bridge, it has several self-supported command bunkers deep within the ship, during battle these bunkers are fully isolated and don't even share the same air as the rest of the ship.
But honestly, except for a great view of your own ship, what is the point? It is about as useful as having windows on a submarine, you might see something 'neat' from time to time but that is the end of it. As mentioned by Wick, radar is going to be the way you keep track of baddies, along with looking at other bands in the non-visible spectrum like IR.
As far as the jumpships go, I would be placing the bridge there in the rotating habitation rings. These people are in deep space for very long duration and they more time they spend in at least low-gravity the better. Jumpships are made of tinfoil and prayers anyway.
|
Karagin
03/04/21 06:11 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Again, Battletech isn't hard science fiction. It's more of the 80s cassette futurism science fiction, aka cool and style over realistic function.
Each class of ship built-in or by the powers of the Inner Sphere or Clans will be built for looks and weapons, not where the bridge is. Given that nothing in the rules says the bridge is in the front of the ship or the middle or rear, then it's up to players to fill in that detail. Now comes the artwork; a larger majority of the artwork shows the ships with windows in the front of the ship, and logically folks will say that's the bridge, and they would be right if that's how the ship was built.
A tower-bridge setup could work, but not one that is as high as the ISD from Star Wars or the ones from WH40K, but one that isn't that much higher than the other structures on the ship. It all comes down to the fluff and how that sells the ship layout. Personally, I can live with the bridge in the front or in the middle of the ship, but until we have hard and fast rules, it going to come down to personal likes or dislikes for the location.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
csadn
03/04/21 08:23 PM
50.53.22.4
|
In my files, I have a sketch of a 1-docking-collar WarShip.
The main body is a cylinder. One of the ends has the drive engines; the opposite end has the one docking collar and the spin-habitat. The "bridge" is located halfway along the cylinder. On the opposite "side" of the bridge are the doors for the hangars. (It confuses observers, as the nose profile changes depending on what DropShip is being carried.)
CF
Oregon: The "Outworlds Alliance" of the United States of America
|
Wick
03/05/21 05:26 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Quote:
... the 'Flying Bridge' seen on an Imperial Star Destroyer is worse. In the latter case we saw an example of a ISD crew having a really bad day in ESB when an asteroid decided to make a close encounter with the bridge, and in RoTJ when an A-Wing pilot got a lucky(?) collision with the Executor's bridge when it's shields had failed. In the case of Battletech, we have the Tira Miraborg incident where the slammed into the Dire Wolf's bridge...a point that Sarna itself references as 'the weakest point' of the warship.
Actually its not such a bad idea for the Star Destroyers, because combat in Star Wars is made at very close range - typically on the range of few kilometers or less. The bridge crew can actually see other craft and fighters outside the windows (or at least the captain can as most of the bridge crew are manning stations in the pits.) And the fact it has shields gives it sufficient protection to be exterior and normally not in any real danger. In Battletech the distance is so vast that windows serve little purpose except for close range actions like the aforementioned docking.
Quote:
The Donnager class ship from the Expanse doesn't just have 'a' bridge, it has several self-supported command bunkers deep within the ship, during battle these bunkers are fully isolated and don't even share the same air as the rest of the ship.
Expanse is a somewhat different example than Galactica with the distributed control concept. But this is explained by the fact that a single hit could take out any one control center, so multiple are needed by practice. (One of the rail gun shots punches a quarter-sized hole all the way through the ship.) Galactica has a single CIC because no enemy attack is expected to get that deeply into the craft (and if one did, it would utterly destroy the ship away.) Donnager is designed to take heavy damage and keep going through distribution because no armor can sufficiently defend against the weaponry employed (rail guns). Galactica on the other hand is designed to be a tank, with heavy armor that withstands nuclear blasts. (Galactica is ultimately undone by interior metal fatigue, not by damage to its external armor.) The difference in how they can approach battle leads to a difference in how they can a manage a bridge/control concept - just as the shields in Star Trek and Star Wars gives them the capability to put bridges externally with less risk than harder science fiction. Conceptually the craft in Battletech operate more like Galactica than Expanse, Star Trek, or Star Wars: they have a single command center, no magic shields, can operate many hundreds (or thousands) of kilometers from the enemy, and for the most part weaponry does not immediately penetrate the armor.
Quote:
Though a question of jumpships seats comes up. Do they have down towards the sails, or the 'bottom' of the ship? Technically, there is no real bottom, as they don't go into gravity, so they could be located in different 'directions' when built.
Jumpships can produce 0.1 to 0.2G of thrust from stern-mounted engines, so the proper orientation should be seating such that feet are toward stern (sail/engines) and headrest toward bow. Thus, under thrust any occupant will be "pushed down" in the chair. Any other orientation and they are "pushed up" out of the chair, or pushed to the side, either of which may ram them into a bulkhead if they aren't strapped down. This is equivalent to rollercoasters, where on downslopes you are lifted out of your chair (because you are more buoyant then the cart), and on upslopes pushed back down (because the cart has risen to meet you as if imparting "thrust" against your butt.) Seats to the side may be mildly uncomfortable like a rollercoaster going into a turn.
Though I'm not sure it makes much of a difference at 0.1G or 0.2G - most rollercoasters impart far more force than this. But its probably more comfortable in the correct orientation. For dropships and warships it would become critically important to be in the proper orientation because 1G or greater is enough to throw someone completely out of a chair and break bones when colliding with a bulkhead. Bedding should be in the same orientation for similar reasons. Chairs should have a belt or straps to keep the occupant in place if the thrust vector changes and bedding be sleeping bag style with a zip-up pocket for the same reason.
|
ghostrider
03/07/21 11:45 AM
66.74.60.165
|
The idea of the seats was not meant to be set up like the troop transport versions in games and movies, but the cockpit style seating in the space shuttle that was being used by NASA. The back was towards the stern.
Some of the information given, would mean that any seat would have to have some sort of side guards to keep the person from being tossed sideways during turns and such.
For some stupid reason, I didn't really think about a warship needing them, as they are so large, but the g forces produced as even the 1 g turn for the slowest, would still cause a problem.
A side note on the Galactica, which annoys me. They survive a nuke, but simple explosives destroys the bulkhead when the sabotage to vent the water, breaches the same area, without massive internal damage, IE the bulkhead deflecting the damage as it should.
Back to the seating. It is odd that almost all bridges of ships seems to be set up so down is the standard 90 degrees from the direction of the engine. And it seems all the seats are set up like the bar stool types used in star trek for all the bridge stations, with the captains chair being the only different one.
This makes the entire concept of how the ship operates more confused.
But with this being said, it should mean that an exterior faced bridge would gain you no benefits of seeing in front of you without artificial gravity. You would not spend your time looking up during thrust in order to see where you are going. So you are going to pretty much use cameras and such to see.
As a side note, it would take some getting used to, looking at a the 'forward' view, which thrust would be pushing at the 90 degree axis. IE towards your feet.
|
Karagin
03/07/21 11:47 AM
70.118.172.64
|
Guys, keep in mind that story plot devices are there for moving the story forward.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Wick
03/07/21 04:22 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Quote:
The idea of the seats was not meant to be set up like the troop transport versions in games and movies, but the cockpit style seating in the space shuttle that was being used by NASA. The back was towards the stern.
But if the seats in the space shuttle were feet toward stern, the crew would be facing up, down, or sideways during landing, instead of ahead. That would make landing (which last much longer than launch) far more uncomfortable than launching on one's back, as well as being rather unintuitive to the pilots who had training landing aircraft in a sitting facing-forward position.
When you see troop transports in movies and such its usually based on 20th century transport aircraft, most of which don't have thrust comparable to 1G. People can sit sideways or backwards in these because the acceleration is not damaging, perhaps only mildly uncomfortable. (Airline stewardess's often sit in these positions so it clearly safe for most "slow" aircraft.) If someone was sitting sideways or backwards in a space launch vehicle, which needs acceleration many times greater than 20th century transport aircraft, they'd probably suffer numerous G-force injuries - a broken neck being the most likely.
.
Quote:
You would not spend your time looking up during thrust in order to see where you are going.
Depends how much and for how long. If its only used rarely, as in certain short encounters like docking, then it might well be possible and beneficial to have a viewport above the head. Apollo astronauts were generally looking down when landing on the moon (as do balloonists on Earth) - but they only needed to do so for a short time. Dropship and jumpship crews aren't going to be looking out the windows the whole time (because usually there's not much to see) - we're talking a few critical minutes when a viewport may be of benefit.
|
ghostrider
03/07/21 06:13 PM
66.74.60.165
|
I understand the need for destroying physics to keep a story going, as the alternative is on the verge of impossible to do anything.
I don't agree that things are prevented that follow logic, because it follows logic.
Granted, this is supposed to be about battle tech, but this concept applies to a LOT of other games, and even movies. The design of a 'perfect' combat ship comes to mind. I would think that battletech would use a 'fake' bridge for the commanders to have their viewing pleasure, but since orders are relayed, I would think a true CIC format being closer to the middle of the ship where it is 'supposed' to be safer.
If I recall properly, one story in one book has the pilot of the warship standing at a joystick style control unit for the ship. Much like Battlestar Galactica's Celeste ship. This is where Phelan has to slowly lower himself to the deck to avoid breaking bones from a sudden drop. I could be mixing this up with another story, so take this with a grain of salt.
The concept to get around the issue of which why down is with thrust might be to have the pilots command console set to pivot 90 degrees and lock into that position when doing something like docking with a ship that had down towards the main thrusters. This would make them on their backs as the thrust is applied, but allow them to look out the 'window' for the delicate maneuvers, then return to normal once done. It still doesn't protect the bridge very well, but would solve the issue of the extra viewing area, if the screens to not wrap around the pilot so they can see the area in 3d.
|
Karagin
03/07/21 08:01 PM
70.118.172.64
|
The idea that putting the bridge in a spot on a ship that is a) common to how humans think things should be and b) makes sense in that a reader will make the conclusion that the bridge in the front of the ship since that is how things have been in scifi for the last 70 years or so, means that most are going to not worry about.
Now others will look at the examples pointed out where the bridge is more center of the ship or on a tower similar to how naval vessels are set up, and thing is that is fine as well because it's a logical placement.
Each nation is going to be building its warships differently than its neighbors. The CapCon ships should not look the same as the FedSuns ships, similar but not the same.
I will note that we aren't arguing about the placement of the engines yet...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
03/08/21 03:38 AM
66.74.60.165
|
You mean the fact that a ship stops just as fast as it goes forward with almost no engines in the front to do the work?
Nah. That is a given in almost every game/story.
As for the bridge set up, I would hope that human nature would move it to a safer location, as it is not necessary anymore to have the open windowed views. I don't think it will though. Most don't really think that having 'surround' windows with cameras showing the sides and such would be feasible. Yes, it has issues if the cameras are taken out, but back ups would be better, as just the cameras were taken out, not the entire bridge.
I will say that having a fake bridge out in the open like most want is ok, but the actual operations should be safer.
As for looks, I will totally agree that each state, hell each successor leader, would have a different view on things. Then engineering comes into play, as having the main guns on a small rod, with no way to feed ammo to a ballistic weapon kind of negates that concept.
|
Wick
03/08/21 07:43 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Quote:
I will note that we aren't arguing about the placement of the engines yet...
Maybe because most of the art and fiction has them in the right place? Stern, aligned fairly close to center of mass. Do you have an example of spacecraft that doesn't follow this example? (York is maybe the worst example I can think of as being noticeably unbalanced.)
Mech jump jets operating in space aside of course. Mechs would somersault hilariously trying to jump without atmosphere to mitigate control issues. Mechs aren't made for spaceflight so they get pass on 'thrusting engine' placement.
.
Quote:
You mean the fact that a ship stops just as fast as it goes forward with almost no engines in the front to do the work?
Nah. That is a given in almost every game/story.
This is actually something Battletech explains quite well compared to almost all others. Dropships, warships, etc perform a flipover halfway through the cruise between planet and jump point then burn the same amount in the opposite direction to slow down to near zero velocity at destination. This is exactly as physics demands it should work. (In truth its the deep space combat that is silly, as two craft would likely zoom right past each other at several hundred thousand kph and be lucky to get off a shot - Aerotech battles should realistically happen only at jump points or planetary gravity wells where craft would be moving comparatively slow enough to manage hitting anything.)
Most science fiction is "Ensign Crusher, slow to half impulse" and it magically happens within seconds. No time expended to slow down (which should take as long it took to speed up) and no need to flip the ship over so the engines thrust opposite the vector the spacecraft is travelling.
|
Cray
03/08/21 08:54 PM
71.47.151.234
|
Quote:
This is actually something Battletech explains quite well compared to almost all others. Dropships, warships, etc perform a flipover halfway through the cruise between planet and jump point then burn the same amount in the opposite direction to slow down to near zero velocity at destination.
The advanced movement rules of Strategic Operations and AT2R also are pretty good implementations of 2-dimensional Newtonian physics. You add and subtract vectors as you thrust in different directions, adding up to a single resulting heading. If you want to stop, flip 180 and burn until that vector is 0.
The basic movement rules disguise that sort of behavior under high turning costs, but are still fairly Newtonian.
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
03/08/21 09:21 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Think about combat Wick. The warships can slow or stop, and reverse their course without flipping over to use the main engines to thrust the other way. Same thing with fighters. They come in at speed, yet can slow down without the 180 turn to fire their thrusters.
This is done in most games and movies.
Heading to a planet is not the same exact thing.
Now unless they change it in the newer rules, fighters can not flip around and coast backwards while firing at ships that were following it. Let me add in that this is space battles, not atmospheric ones. Wings tend to skewer the flight characteristics.
So for a ship to use superior range against an enemy, it would have to try and maintain a specific distance. That means reversing to speed, or having the weapons in the rear arc, which could lead to the enemy turning and fleeing, forcing you to try and close distance after a flip, which may well remove the range advantage when it slows or comes at you.
And last I knew of, there was nothing to say the logical terms that a ship can NOT move backwards as fast or accelerate to, speed.
|
Karagin
03/08/21 09:32 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Again, do we want a fun space combat game that is easy to play, or do we want to have our slide rulers out and a computer to do the double-checking? IMVHO the space combat of Battletech has gone for fairly simple to need for a degree in space flight, it's lost the fun. I am waiting for it to reach the level of STAR FLEET BATTLES, the binders' worth of rules, mine still gather dust or cobwebs in storage, and that is NOT a good way to go.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
03/08/21 09:41 PM
66.74.60.165
|
There lies the issue with rules at times. No where in the entire rules, does it say you can specifically target the bridge of a warship and ram a fighter into it. And in the book it does say Tyra specifically targeted the bridge for her run. If you could do this, then simply dropping bombs should suffice in trying to destroy warships. Or did the introduction of the SDS change this?
Now, with that said, I do agree that simple rules makes the game go much smoother. Aerotech still had issues with fighting near gravity wells, as a simple fighter coming up from the surface of a world could not effectively engage ships as the gravity would yank it around too much. 18 plus thrust points from a launching fighter is just too much for even the speediest fighters. So yeah. Space battles away from gravity is fine.
|
Briarthorne
03/08/21 11:20 PM
76.216.164.102
|
Quote:
Aerotech still had issues with fighting near gravity wells, as a simple fighter coming up from the surface of a world could not effectively engage ships as the gravity would yank it around too much. 18 plus thrust points from a launching fighter is just too much for even the speediest fighters. So yeah. Space battles away from gravity is fine.
Aerotech had a lot of issues to be perfectly honest.
Not sure why drop tanks weren't a thing to get aerofighters from the surface into orbit.
But the entire Tyra Miraborg incident just played hell with warship design and the rules alike. We had to accept a vulnerable bridge with a pointless window, and a damaged aerofighter whose pilot had never seen a warship before could have struck it and disabled the ship.
I feel like we should just say that the Smoke Jaguar ilKhan demanded a highly impractical bridge be setup on the Dire Wolf for his benefit. After the destruction of this new 'bridge', which was a surprise to exactly no shipboard engineers, Clan Wolf restored the area back to its original function a recreational deck and returned the CIC to it's normal place deep within the ship. Thereby making ramming the bridge no longer a thing to have to worry about.
|
ghostrider
03/09/21 01:07 AM
66.74.60.165
|
The problem is the warship was designed and built in the SL era. I do agree that the engineers should have done something to fix the issue, but given they were trained by the same rules of building the SL people that built it in the first place, it shouldn't be a shock.
Thanks for saying what I didn't about the fact that Tyra rammed her fighter into the bridge of a ship she would probably have never seen the design on, to hit the bridge without a problem.
As Battle Master Rules is the last rule book I got, I don't know if they fixed the gravity issues with space battles.
Given the fact that space ships have been around for more then 700 years in the future, no one has learned that the operations bridge should NOT be on the 'surface' of a ship seems to go with humanity being stupid.
Now I do understand that the story needed something to set up further events, but it is one of those Death Star exhaust port shots. The torpedos make a 90 degree turn into a port that would have been pushing OUTWARDS as the one youtube person Dorkly posted in a cartoon type post. The impossible scenario just seems pushed at this point.
One more issue with Tyra and the fleet she was with. They were running from pursuit, so the concept of their batteries being fully charged so they could jump out again is another impossible scenario.
Given the fact that armor provides more protection then any sort of glass, makes the idea of a bridge on the surface of a ship even more foolish. But it isn't like the stories for Battletech are any different from others, so this is just to vent on the 'perfect' ship designs.
|
Karagin
03/09/21 10:33 AM
70.118.172.64
|
Guys, remember the story doesn't need to follow game rules. It's there to keep you entertained, not rehash a battle fought from the tabletop. We get enough of that when they talk about X weapon removing half of ton of armor, we can all do the math and know that the hit did 8 points of damage give or take, but that makes for boring reading and in my opinion, shows that the author was going for that word count to get more money at the end of the day.
The Miabrog Incident was not different than the AWing the slammed into the bridge of the EXECUTOR in ROTJ, it was there for a dramatic moment and for story progression as well as a turning point. Just as in Jedi, the destruction of the bridge caused the Clans, as did for the Empire, a major setback. That was all it was for. No one is going to asking for rules to have a ship flying through other ships while engaging its JumpDrive ala The Last Jedi silliness, so a single moment that even as was said in the novels a one in a million event, doesn't get repeated at all, unless a Jihad era silliness story has it happening on daily bases.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
03/09/21 12:29 PM
66.74.60.165
|
The likelihood of the A Wing pilot knowing where the bridge is on a star destroyer is most likely as the Rebel Alliance was fighting them and would have known where the bridge was. Tyra would have been almost ignorant on where the bridge was on the Dire Wolf. Intel on ship design is a huge issue.
As a side note, someone did bring up the light speed jump ripping apart the First orders wing. They suggested it should have been possible with the Death Star. And given this idea, Rogue One had one ship bounce off the Star Destroyer that started the hyperdrive jump.
To be honest, the high powered weapons use in most games should be able to remove armor faster then it does. Even with the diamond filament in Battletech armor, the ability to stop something like a bolt of lightning isn't going to be easy.
Yes, the entire series of events is made to cause drama so the story is more interesting. But the fact does remain that allowing a ship to specifically target, and that is the key word specifically, is not allowed otherwise. We know the novelists do things to make the story interesting, as well as allow 'evil' to be beaten at times.
I enjoyed the story of the suicide run when I read it years ago.
As said, the issue is someone KNOWING the design could never have done this, and having a full regiment of fighters on a suicide run, could not repeat it. Might well be why they don't want remote drones, but yet the SDS is that very idea incarnate.
Imagine how useless some warships would be if you could target say a cargo bay with several explosive filled drones, with enough time between to make sure the first drone didn't explode and push out those following it.
|
Karagin
03/09/21 03:34 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Drones are great, they can do all kinds of things, except take over and control that planet you just attacked.
Warships are two-fold in Battletech, their existence is more of do you really want to fight and face that kind of firepower, and the second part is they force each side to build them so as not to get caught without. Think of them as more of a fleet in being concept, in that you know you need them, you don't need a lot of them but enough to keep the other side from trying too hard to press matters.
Remember your warship is still built by the lowest bidder...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
1 registered and 164 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: 5105
|
|
|
|
|
|
|