Requiem
04/13/19 05:54 PM
1.158.130.13
|
A Naval Laser 55 has an Extreme Range of 54 – how far is that in meters?
Just wondering when it comes to Orbital Bombardment …..
Terra alone you would need well over 100Km from warship to surface - and I would assume this distance would increase upon different worlds.
Then we have Capital Missiles – 5,000Km range and 10,000Km range in atmosphere – so therefore in space there should be an increase in range to, what?
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Cray
04/13/19 10:59 PM
71.47.193.139
|
Quote:
A Naval Laser 55 has an Extreme Range of 54 – how far is that in meters?
A high altitude/space hex is 18,000 meters.
Quote:
Terra alone you would need well over 100Km from warship to surface - and I would assume this distance would increase upon different worlds.
You need about 90-108km range (5-6 hexes). WarShips can readily skim along in the upper fringes of the atmosphere at 108km. Note that each full hex of atmosphere counts as 5 hexes of space for weapons fire, so weapons must have "long" or better range to hit the ground.
Tactical Operations covers the effects of differing atmospheric thicknesses.
Quote:
Then we have Capital Missiles – 5,000Km range and 10,000Km range in atmosphere – so therefore in space there should be an increase in range to, what?
Teleoperated missiles can have unlimited range if you let them coast.
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.
|
Requiem
04/14/19 02:05 AM
1.158.130.13
|
Then can I ask how an aerospace fighters / Dropship weapons work in comparison - do they then need to be almost on top of their target to engage it in battle? or do we flip to another map?
Thus the need for small "caliber" weaponry as their point defense - as it were? .... In S___ Wars terms their small fighters are evading the "turbo lasers" thus the need to send out fighters to deal with them?
Plus - a hypothetical question regarding preference - do you believe it would be better to place say one Naval Laser 55 upon a smaller (less tonnage) / faster ship - thus costs decrease for this new type of pocket warship thus you can purchase a more larger carrier class warships with a large number of squadrons attached?
what gave me the idea was Gundam - were some had many small laser weapons that could attack independently of the main body - so now we have many small ships that could attack from multiple directions at once - hard to strike at when you are being attacked from three / four directions at once as it were.
ie. preference regarding - one carrier with many small escort ships or many destroyer / cruiser class - and very few carrier class as a basis for a designing a fleet?
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
04/14/19 04:42 PM
66.74.60.165
|
I think looking into one of those books is necessary.
Normal weapons (non capital) have their ranges set in space. I want to say 3 is max, but been a while. 1 comes to mind.
In atmoshere, the ranges change for dropships and fighters. Normally, capital weapons aren't much of an issue. Dropships seem to be within range no matter what.
As for point blank weapons, warships do have them. Not all do, but during the Invasion, the clans seemed to be putting on anti fighter weapons as the IS sent hordes after them. Even using AMS on some.
Capital weapons can not target fighters with the exception of some of the missiles. So a horde of fighters is not going to stop a capital weapon from firing on any dropship or larger unit.
There is something that is missing from this.
Set up right, a large warship with fighter carrier dropships might be a good set up. Not saying a Potemkin, here, but there are a few ships that would work. The old McKenna comes to mind.
The hordes of smaller craft run into problems with extra costs to keep them going, as well as people to work on them. Also, unless they are in the system they are being used, moving them is an issue. 20 pocket warships (without jump core), is going to take a small fleet of jumpships.
hard to strike at when you are being attacked from three / four directions at once as it were.
This is the issue designers have to deal with, when making ships. Part of why you have weapons in all arcs. The issue is a single ship can always be overwhelmed by a fleet.
|
Cray
04/15/19 06:15 AM
97.101.136.19
|
Quote:
Then can I ask how an aerospace fighters / Dropship weapons work in comparison - do they then need to be almost on top of their target to engage it in battle? or do we flip to another map?
Non-capital weapons have half the range of the capital weapons. Check the range charts. Extreme range for capitals is 50 hexes; it's 25 for standard weapons.
Quote:
Thus the need for small "caliber" weaponry as their point defense - as it were? .... In S___ Wars terms their small fighters are evading the "turbo lasers" thus the need to send out fighters to deal with them?
Non-capital (standard) weaponry is useful because capital weapons (except missiles) have +5 to hit small targets like fighters.
Point defense weapons like an AMS are useful for shooting down capital missiles. You can try to fake it with small lasers and machine guns, but any AMS has superior anti-missile performance.
Quote:
Plus - a hypothetical question regarding preference - do you believe it would be better to place say one Naval Laser 55 upon a smaller (less tonnage) / faster ship - thus costs decrease for this new type of pocket warship thus you can purchase a more larger carrier class warships with a large number of squadrons attached?
Any assault DropShip is going to be very expensive because of DropShips' high cost multipliers. Engines and capital weapons have high costs.
If I was going to fit a DropShip with bombardment weapons then I'd look into TacOps' "sub-capital" weapons. A few of those are able to perform orbital bombardment.
Quote:
what gave me the idea was Gundam - were some had many small laser weapons that could attack independently of the main body - so now we have many small ships that could attack from multiple directions at once - hard to strike at when you are being attacked from three / four directions at once as it were.
WarShips and DropShips don't have penalties for engaging multiple targets per turn. They can easily use all their firing arcs and split up a firing arc against multiple targets. Multiple targets thus aren't really a complication. Fighters are useful because they gain a +5 to-hit penalty from a WarShip's capital weapons and can deliver enough firepower to sting.
Quote:
ie. preference regarding - one carrier with many small escort ships or many destroyer / cruiser class - and very few carrier class as a basis for a designing a fleet?
If I was designing a BattleTech fleet, I'd have:
*Some troop transport WarShips with orbital bombardment capabilities and few docking collars
*A smaller number of fighter carrier WarShips based on the same frame
*Some combat WarShips based on the same frame, but with a bunch of capital missiles added for long-ranged engagements and to provide anti-fighter defenses
*A high acceleration (5/8) WarShip to engage threats at a distance from the fleet, or to achieve space superiority before the troop transports enter the star system
Whether I'd call those cruisers, destroyers, battleships, or carriers depends on the whims of the faction I'm designing them for.
Unlike ground combat, thrust ratings don't matter for to-hit penalties. They just decide whether you can engage or break away from combat. 2/3 and 3/5 WarShips are thus fine in most circumstances and I'd build the fleet around a common hull and engine set to simplify manufacturing. Tonnage would depend on the faction's capabilities.
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.
|
Requiem
01/18/21 11:46 PM
1.158.234.73
|
Question:
Is it possible for one Naval Warship to stand-off just outside the extreme limit of its opponent’s maximum extreme range?
Especially when you arm your warship with either
Naval-Gauss-Light Extreme Range 1008Km
NL-55 Extreme Range 972Km
NPPC-Heavy Extreme Range 936Km
Naval-Gauss-Medium Extreme Range 936Km
And you opponent’s weapon systems do not include these systems …. as the extreme range is then reduced to 864Km …. for the next primary group of naval weapons ….
Then when you consider that the jump point distance is in days then you could conceivably stand-off most warships with energy weapons and just pound them into submission during their exodus- especially if you have multiple NL-55 …….
Thoughts?
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Cray
01/19/21 06:25 AM
71.47.151.234
|
Quote:
Question:
Is it possible for one Naval Warship to stand-off just outside the extreme limit of its opponent’s maximum extreme range?
Not easily. Things in space don't stand still, so the "stand off" WarShip would need equal or better overthrust to the target, and the extreme ranged weapons would need to be in the attacker's stern. (Presumably, the target would be trying to close range. You generally don't want to try to run away from a higher acceleration ship. You get more engine crits that way.)
Also, per your ranges you'd need to use optional rules. Standard rules give equal range (50 hexes) to all extreme-ranged weapons other than teleoperated capital missiles.
Finally, you'd be shooting at terrible target numbers. Between extreme range penalties and bow aspect penalty, a target number of 12 would be reasonable. It'd be a very tedious battle.
It's not impossible to pull off what you're suggesting but it wouldn't be a typical situation and hinges on both players agreeing to use optional weapon range rules.
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.
|
Requiem
01/19/21 02:17 PM
1.158.234.73
|
If muzzle velocity is taken into account …..
Why should the Peacemaker have a time to target modifier if all other ballistic weapons don’t?
Bullets shot in space wouldn’t travel any faster than they would on Earth thus time to target at extreme range (say 792Km), depending on muzzle velocity, is anywhere between 220 seconds (3,600 m/sec) to 880 sec (900m/sec) ….
Thus all bullets would go on infinitely unless they are captured within gravity well / strike something – shouldn’t all ballistic weapons have a self detonation switch if they do not strike their target within a set time – plus all battle shrapnel would go on infinitely?
given the time to target / superior radar technology etc shouldn’t it be easy for a ship to just move out of the way of any ballistic weapon unless the projectile is fired from a very short distance with a massive velocity given the distances between ships? Or shouldn’t all ships have massive anti-missile systems of different ranges given the time to target – thus making them way more difficult to hit with projectiles than given if you take into account time to target?
Also on a side note if your enemy is close to a planet your ships computers should be able to calculate a shot whereby you can use the gravity of the planet to shoot around the planet, similar to a ship sling shotting around the planet to increase its velocity – thus the projectile can (over time) arrive at the ship from a different direction than that of incoming warship.
Thus given the limitations of projectiles wouldn’t every navy over time mothball projectile weapons as the range / accuracy / function of energy weapons increases over time? (something that you would expect naval R&D to be working on) given speed of light energy weapons
RE: Function (above) - Primary weapon; pulse with its own radar system – anti aerospace / missile of different ranges, say the Extreme Range is somewhere between 200 to 400 km.
Thus the warship now has more bite to it …..
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Wick
01/19/21 05:29 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Things in space don't stand still within a volume of space, but can appear to stand still in relation to each other. This is how rendezvous works. Both moving but with the similar enough velocity and vector to meet. So the question is somewhat valid.
A 150 kilometer advantage in weapon range isn't much. At 1G burn that can be covered in just two naval turns of 60 seconds each, not counting the time it would take for the fleeing ship to flip over before initiating such a burn. (9.8 m/ss * 120 s * 120 s = 141,120 m.) Its thus harder than you think to maintain the exact range unless both craft are moving along the same trajectory and both are effectively maxing out their speed such that neither can gain advantage. I guess two turns is enough to seriously damage the opposing ship, but if you're talking 10, 20, or more turns then I'd suspect something would be done by the target ship to try to avoid the "slow death". If you can't escape, flipping over and meeting your pursuer head-on is preferable to being outranged.
Space is generally empty enough that missed shots will clear well out of the path of any other object or orbit in a very short amount of time. The risk is low unless there was some object almost right behind it. Detonating missed shots is worse: instead of one rather large object travelling in a straight line that you can realistically track with radar and potentially avoid, you've got lots of tiny shrapnel flying along the same trajectory at practically the same velocity, but separating into a cone shaped impact zone that grows over time and becomes much more difficult to detect by radar. I guess against armored units like Dropships shrapnel is less dangerous than a heavy mass but why bother with the extra cost and greater likelihood of striking an unarmored object?
Bullets shot in space will actually travel faster in space due to lack of friction with an atmosphere. Deep space can provide such little friction that bullets will travel almost the velocity from which they were fired out of the muzzle all the way to target. Theoretically the shots fired in an aerospace battle far from a strong gravity well will effectively travel forever until they hit something. The to-hit calculation is more a matter of the targeting and tracking system being able to calculate a firing solution at extreme range, extreme velocity, or both. Being able to shoot a projectile through atmosphere seems incredibly difficult to calculate except at relatively short ranges. Trying to fire a projectile through a planet's atmosphere and counting on gravity bending it's trajectory to hit a target on the far side is ludicrously impossible. It requires a stunning amount of calculations for spacecraft to do it with the benefit of thrusters. A projectile with no way to correct its course or deal with atmospheric drag has practically zero chance of hitting a desired target.
Frankly I don't see projectile weapons being useful in a naval contest, and missiles only slightly better, because of the amount of travel time required to target. You are correct that lasers are the clear choice of weapon in reality, but they make for a dull game. Some kind of relativistic projectile is an alternative but not only is that mostly spoken for in the concept of Star Trek's photon torpedoes, Battletech takes a hard science fiction approach that nothing can be accelerated to near or over light speed, so the option is out. It instead just turns a blind eye to the fact that the slow moving weapons aren't realistic for naval warfare (though neither are a lot of aspects about the ground weapons or naval lasers either.)
|
Karagin
01/19/21 05:47 PM
70.118.172.64
|
The original Battletech novel The SWORD AND DAGGER has a space battle in the first chapter that explains all of this quite well in detail both from a third-person viewpoint and from the pilot viewpoint. SUggest Requiem if you can find a copy of it, give it a read through.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Requiem
01/19/21 07:48 PM
1.158.234.73
|
Quote:
Bullets shot in space will actually travel faster in space due to lack of friction with an atmosphere.
Please read ….
https://astroquizzical.com/astroquizzical/is-the-speed-of-a-fired-bullet-the-same-in-space
Quote:
Trying to fire a projectile through a planet's atmosphere and counting on gravity bending it's trajectory to hit a target on the far side is ludicrously impossible.
Plus have you noticed that the Navy Ballistic capital weapons ranges decreases in the game as they go from light to heavy – if they keep going infinitum how can you have an effective range? Is it not just a question of velocity and time to target and if the defending ship can either get out of the way or destroy it with AA fire– thus you need an effective computer working out firing solutions in a 3D game of Battleship where the pieces are constantly on the move to know when to fire …. Or are they used in an attempt to bracket the movement of an enemy ship in order to obtain an optimum firing solution to destroy the enemy ship?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s6_4qX-u2o
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/basics/primer/
Actually it is not all that difficult to calculate - why else would NASA be using it for satellites now when sending a satellite out to investigate the outer / inner planets etc? - as it is not going into the planet’s atmosphere it is just utilizing gravity. Thus given the computers of the future if you know their exact position it should not be that difficult to work backwards to determine where, when and with what velocity to send a missile off to slingshot around in order to strike them in the rear.
Though the missiles would have to be stealth as radar should pick them up well in advance of reaching their target …..
Suggest a house rule to allow this type of manoeuvre in the future or even a new type of stealth missile?
Plus it may make for an interesting twist to a story where a crusty old Admiral is able to take advantage of a young captain due to their inexperience in void combat ….
Plus if you are in a system with many wandering asteroids you could use one as a shield for your ship to slip in close?
And unfortunately I do not have sword and dagger ……. Plus have the rules changed since this book was published to now?
So my outtake …..
Create a warship with the highest possible velocity / manoeuvrability – reasonable armour – though with multiple laser weapons on turrets that operate at the most extreme range + mass AA batteries / missile launchers and your fleet will be very hard to defeat unless your enemy has mass fighters with an even greater velocity etc – though with an upgraded AA batteries this may also pose to be a reduced problem if their range is extensive also …. So, ballistic weapons are now reduced to a secondary weapon platform – ie. only for the event of close quarter engagements when your ships are ambushed and the time to target is practically nil.
Plus all defensive screen satellites must also be laser that also operate at the most extreme range so as to keep any attacking force at a distance …. And yet if you have stealth missiles these platforms are so much scrap ….
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Karagin
01/19/21 09:59 PM
70.118.172.64
|
If you want house rules for your group then hey go for it. Not everyone is going to want your house rules.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
01/19/21 11:07 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Actually, the path of the shot would determine if it hits something, as gravity fields are the only thing besides something solid, that would deflect or absorb a shot. So it is very possible to fire off a solid projectile, and hit an orbiting space station around a world with some degree of accuracy. You would have the speed of it, and the speed of your shot, to line it up. So taking shots from the jump point is very possible. Something that is moving 'randomly' would be far harder.
I will bring up the point that a projectile shot out of a barrel at say 200 f/s should not travel any faster in space then in atmosphere, but it would not LOSE any speed. Well, not without any added propellant, like a mini rocket.
Missiles are supposed to track, so it shouldn't have that big of a problem, unless fuel verse range is the issue. Except for extremely fast fighters, I just don't see ships having the speed to outrun them. It is possible for smaller ships, such as fighters to move enough out of the way that the missile's turning power isn't enough though.
But in the end, the targeting computers stink in the game, which is why you can't do certain things.
This also goes for detection gear. The only time it works well is when TPTB need it to. Otherwise, you might as well throw ice or something. It would have the same chances.
One possible way to 'stealth' a missile using game mechanics is to actually put stealth materials into the construction. Stealth armor on mechs should do it. The propulsion would be the biggest issue.
If you ever played Wing Commander, and dealt with the skipper missiles, that might give you a way to go about it. No cloak, but the stealth armor should go a long ways.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 7 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 disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 8000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|