Karagin
03/07/02 08:15 PM
63.173.170.182
|
Who here has actually uesed every mech out TR3058 and TR3060?
By using I mean you have used each one at least once, and if it is an omni mech you have used each config at least once.
I am asking because at last count we have :
TR3025 (original): 58 mechs (not counting the variants talked about in the fluff)
TR3025 (revised) 20 mechs that weren't in the original... actually downgraded TR2750 mechs...so that leads us to...
TR2750: 20 mechs...all Star League machines...
TR3050: (original) We have 16 Clan Omnis and for the IS we have:79 mechs, this includes some from TR2750, some not all. And the ones from the Dragoon's Sourcebook
TR3050: (revised) Here we have Clan mechs totaling 16 Omnis. Then we have 101 Inner Sphere mechs that combines mechs form the TR2750 and TR3025, plus the ones out of the Dragoons Sourcebook.
TR:3055 (original) For the Clans we have 17 non-Omnis (includes the IICs) plus 4 omnis...for a total of 21. The IS has 38 NEW mechs.
TR3055 (revised) Don't own it...but seeing how they pulled the IIC pictures, the numbers go down for the Clan...
TR3058: 18 mechs for the Clan, mixed on type...(Omni/Second Line) and 37 more for the IS.
Grand total BEFORE TR3060:
408 Mechs...this doesn't take into account any of the Variants OR Alternate Configs for the Omnimechs.
Then we get TR3060 which gives us 26 NEW Clan mechs again mixed on Types. And 30 NEW IS mechs...some are from the FMs some are not...
Now we have a new TR coming out...so my other question is are we ever going to get the chance to be able to get to know the other 350 plus mechs as well as we did the original 58 mechs? In other words is the mech production going to slow down enough so we can actually have a chance to USE all the mechs as well as we have the originals?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
KamikazeJohnson
03/08/02 02:47 AM
209.202.47.12
|
Did you take into account designs which were simply upgrades of pre-existing designs? I haven't really looked through any TRO past 3050, so I'm not sure how many of those designs re simply upgrades. Anyway, that should decrease the count a little, since many of the upgrades remain very true to the original design. OTOH, some of the designs get completely reworked (Charger, Banshee...)
I could see a dedicated player getting intimately familiar with the 3050 designs, IS or Clan, possibly both. Beyond that, however, I highly doubt it. I mean, off the top of my head, I could recite the tonnage, speed, weapons loadout, and possibly total armor factor for more than half the 3025 'Mechs. Consequently, given a mission, I could select the best 'Mechs for the job. However, with 300+ designs to choose from, no one could make that choice as confidently, even if they have every last config memorized.
No, I definitely don't think we'll be able know and love the majority of the post-3050 designs, at least to the same degree as my beloved Thunderbolt :-)
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Greyslayer
03/08/02 03:38 AM
63.12.141.230
|
Maybe its a case of too many bad mechs in existance. In the presence of a better weighted unit those units (such as Jagermechs in 3025) do not become used and are as such just there to waste paper. Also units that utilise auxillary systems such as Beagle Probe are not that useful so units such as the Dragonfly C are overlooked for the more battle specific Dragonfly A.
So yep there are too many mech types/versions kicking about. It still doesn't stop you guys from making your own though so it can't be that bad.
Greyslayer
|
Cray
03/08/02 06:48 AM
204.245.128.3
|
Of course mech production isn't going to slow - BT is all about designing mechs.
Personally, I think seeing all those models in production is goofy. I'm happy with about 3, not including a few variants.
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.
|
Nightmare
03/08/02 08:43 AM
194.251.240.107
|
Well, as long as we`re talking pre-3050, the Houses have troubles with modifying production lines. They just have to accept any crappy mech if they want an extra 150 per year.
There can be no other reason for building machines like the
Shadowhawk or Quickdraw.
One would expect, however, that the numbers would go down rapidly once technology becomes available again.
Why would you need more than a few models of mech?
A front-line mech in Medium, Heavy and Assault class.
A scout mech in Light and Medium class.
A fire-support mech in Medium and Heavy class.
Many of these could have the same chassis too, only being
made with different weapon load-outs.
Advice for Evil Overlords:
My legions of terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
|
Cray
03/08/02 09:01 AM
204.245.128.3
|
I agree, though I could skip on the scouts (better done by vehicles) and assault mechs all together.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
BA_Evans
03/08/02 09:52 AM
63.97.240.1
|
Just don't go into a campaign environment without those electronics. Your enemy will run circles around you.
BA Evans
|
Grizzly
03/08/02 09:55 AM
12.108.119.227
|
We don't have to use all the mechs, we have the ability to mix and match and find our favorites. There are many designs that I don't use on a regular basis, simply because I don't like them. There are some (Grasshopper/T-bolt) that I love and use over and over, till some of my friends know what I will pick in a given situation. That's when I often switch out to something new, just to make myself a little more unpredictable. The beauty of all these designs is that there we can pick which ones match our fighting style and use similar styles of mechs that may be newer, but wil still fit our individual styles and tastes.
Yeah, realistically I will never use all of the designs availble, but I like having the massive choices that are out there....
"I am but mad north-northwest, when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw" Hamlet
|
Bob_Richter
03/08/02 09:56 AM
134.121.247.162
|
Reliability?
Yes, one could rely that whenever you HIT a Sherman, you KILLED it. They didn't call them "ready-light" for nothing.
Numbers, yes. The Sherman was among the worst tanks deployed by anyone in WWII, but it was the most numerous, which ended up making the difference in the end.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
03/08/02 09:57 AM
134.121.247.162
|
>>>Yeah, realistically I will never use all of the designs availble, but I like having the massive choices that are out there.... <<<
That's what Omnimechs are for...
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Cray
03/11/02 03:02 PM
204.245.128.3
|
Pity me? My heavy and medium mechs will be sitting on a cliffside, swinging their foot actuators, munching on popcorn and watching the show as the artillery (which I bought instead of assault mechs) and aerospace (ditto) have their way with the plodding assault mech.
And, of course, any two of my heavies should be able to handle any single assault mech, again making assaults rather pointless when I can get the same results out of heavies.
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.
|
Nightmare
03/11/02 03:19 PM
194.251.240.107
|
Tanks are also cheap and plentiful
A Banshee 3S may be tough, but it`s painfully slow.
One particular fight my Po tanks and Hetzer assault guns
ripped apart most of an assault lance in a few rounds.
Those aren`t even the best vehicles you can get, hover
tanks are better.
Advice for Evil Overlords:
My legions of terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
|
Cray
03/11/02 03:21 PM
204.245.128.3
|
Yes, vehicles. Combined arms.
My arty is vehicles. The TAG drones that make the arty so useful are vehicles. The cheap-n-numerous MBT sidekicks to my mechs are vehicles. My scouts...well, they're vehicles because they're also the TAG drones.
Gimme an equal price in vehicles over an assault mech any day.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
NathanKell
03/11/02 03:28 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Let alone Regulators.
Man, I love those things...
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
KamikazeJohnson
03/11/02 03:33 PM
209.202.47.12
|
However, assault 'Mechs can be useful in moderation...when supported by lighter, faster units, they can wreak some serious havoc once the forces close to on-board weapon range...
All part of "combined arms"
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Cray
03/11/02 03:37 PM
204.245.128.3
|
Yabbut I can substitute in some guided artillery to deal out exactly the same pain (and more, for the same price!) that those assault mechs are, or use a few more heavies to get the same effects. The guided artillery (and heavy mechs) can also do things the assaults simply cannot.
In short, assault mechs are too specialized, and their specialties can be performed by other, more flexible units.
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.
|
KamikazeJohnson
03/11/02 03:52 PM
209.202.47.12
|
I can't argue with you on the cost point, unless you start factoring in repair-vs-replacement cost (assaults tend to live longer than heavies), pilot training (heavier 'Mechs means fewer pilots) and things like that...I might have a case that way...
However, artillery is basically useless in close-combat situations...you don't want to hit your own 'Mechs, and you certainly don't want to use artillery in an urban environment if you want to have any city left after the battle.
You basically have a rock-paper-scissors situation. In general:
Lights rush artillery platforms
Mediums beat up Lights
Heavies beat up mediums
Assaults beat up Heavies
Artillery pummels Assaults
Assault 'Mechs are a poor choice when the enemy fields a lot of artillery and you don't have the means to take out the arty positions, but in straight 'Mech-to-'Mech combat (no arty or arty neutralized) they can be quite effective. Its all a matter of resource management
btw...you'll never catch me fielding an all-assault force (except in a controlled, pre-arranged match), just like you'll never see a navy made up entirely of aircraft carriers or battleships...
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Cray
03/11/02 04:07 PM
204.245.128.3
|
My artillery doesn't really come out to play until I have aerospace superiority - it'd just be a waste of equipment.
> I have not seen a 'mech taken down by artillery unless it cannot move, or you are using Arrow IV with TAG, in which case it can still miss
Arrow IV and tube artillery with TAG - you have MaxTech and know about Copperheads, right?
I use a horde of TAG drones. There is no escape. I eat Clan assault trinaries for lunch with the TAG+artillery combo.
>any 2 heavies
I said nothing about just "any" 2 heavy designs. I had some specific ones in mind that could cover a good chunk of assault mech roles while not compromising mobility or cost.
>Obviously you missed the statement about a "well-designed assault".
Go for it, show me your well-designed 100-ton assault mech. Include a price tag.
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
03/11/02 04:10 PM
204.245.128.3
|
>However, artillery is basically useless in close-combat situations
Guided artillery is lovely right up to the feet of your mechs. Minimal blast radius, minimal scatter. In cities, I use my big heavies.
>Lights rush artillery platforms
And get destroyed by the TAG-guided artillery several boards short of the artillery unit.
I've been thinking about threat and counter-threat for the artillery idea quite a while. I don't bother with artillery when I don't have aerospace superiority, for example.
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
03/11/02 04:12 PM
204.245.128.3
|
By all means, name what you think assault mechs can do I can't fake with artillery and several heavy mechs.
You will see the light. Oh, yes. Even if it takes a Clockwork Orange treatment, you will see the light.
Muahahahahahahahahaahahahaha!!!!
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
03/11/02 04:14 PM
204.245.128.3
|
>unless you start factoring in repair-vs-replacement cost (assaults tend to live longer than heavies), pilot training (heavier 'Mechs means fewer pilots) and things like that...I might have a case that way...
Not unless you're talking about thousands of mechs. The heavies I was thinking of were baby assaults, 75-ton beasts with more staying power than many book assault mechs into the 85-ton range.
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.
|
KamikazeJohnson
03/11/02 04:30 PM
209.202.47.12
|
I guess I need a couple qualifyers here 
First, I'm not familiar with MaxTech rules...I play up to level 2 rules only, so I'm arguing from that perspective
Second, I'm familiar with artillery only in a general sense, since my BTech group was never organized enough to really use arty
Anyway, if I understand artillery properly, unguided artillery is somewhat erratic except against a fixed target, while TAG has a range and requires a to-hit roll, which means it can miss. So to neutralize your artillery, an enemy needs to either match your air power, or use recon/pursuit lances to take out your spotters, after which, the Assaults have few worries.
It sounds to me like you put a lot of effort into building a force which specializes in embarrassing Assault lances. However, I'm sure with a lot of thought someone could build a force (mostly fast Mediums, I bet) that could do the same to yours, and which would in turn be eaten alive by a force featuring Assault 'Mechs. Like I said before...rock-paper-scissors
I agree that, contrary to Munchkinville Rule #1, Assaults are not the be-all and end-all of warefare, but they have their uses...
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Nightward
03/11/02 04:36 PM
132.234.1.13
|
Too many 'Mechs? Heresy! Burn the apostate devil!
You can never have too many 'Mechs. I doubt that one person would ever use every variant of every 'Mech ever created, but the new 'Mechs add more options to those of us who play specific allegiances. The new 'Mechs also give us a chance to argue about new weapons mixes and design philosophies, without which this board would get very boring, very quickly.
The thing I have an issue with is not the amount of new 'Mechs, but the rate at which they are produced. For a long time, it was all manufacturers could do to meet battle losses, but these days it seems they can create a regiment in 0.000003 seconds. I mean, look at the Capellan Confederation. Hanse Davion smashed them in the Succession Wars, and captured all of their major 'Mech plants. But they managed to go from twenty-odd (I think) to sixty-odd (I think) Regiments in 30-odd years. Granted that the Federated Commonwealth faced the Clans, but with such an expanded manufacturing base the AFFC should have been a lot larger than it was.
Additionally, there is so much variance in unit composition. In modern militaries, we use a handful of weapons systems to simplify logistics. So logically, you would expect each House to have a couple of standard 'Mechs for each weight class and to use specialised designs (like the Spider or Raven) in limited numbers in the elite corps of the Successor States' Armed Forces. But what has happened is that you have up to 20 (or more) designs in the same weight class, some of which are built to do the same job. Add in individual modifications to 'Mechs and the invention of the OmniMech...let's just say I would have a longer career in the unarmoured Infantry than I would in the Quartermaster's corps.
In summation, what happens in the BattleTech universe depends not upon logic (hey, this is a game about 3-storey-tall robot combat vehicles) but upon marketing decisions. FASA (and now FanPro) had to shift their products to survive (but they didn't). They know that if one person in a gaming group buys a product with new rules or 'Mechs in it, the other players will have to also, because otherwise they are disadvantaged (lacking the nifty new stuff).
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.
|
KamikazeJohnson
03/11/02 05:13 PM
209.202.47.12
|
>>Not unless you're talking about thousands of mechs. The heavies I was thinking of were baby assaults, 75-ton beasts with more staying power than many book assault mechs into the 85-ton range. <<
Once again, this requires the "well-designed" qualifier. A good 75-tonner should stomp all over any heavier 'Mechs that tries to move 4/6...the engine just gets far too heavy (and expensive)
A slightly slower 'Mech can mount much more firepower and armor, and actually be comparable cost-wise. But most stock Assaults refuse to admit that :-\
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Cray
03/11/02 05:14 PM
12.91.128.206
|
Embarassing assault mechs is strictly a side effect. The goal was to destroy Clan units irrespective of speed, tonnage, or general bad assedness without requiring a superior tonnage in cutting edge technology Inner Sphere mechs.
All you need to know about artillery is in the BMR. MaxTech just adds guided rounds for non-Arrow IV artillery and drone tech. Drone tech is a real enabler - it lets me put a bunch of cheap, inexpensive TAG units on the battlefield without risking pilots. However, if you don't care about risking pilots, this can all be done under L2 tech.
>while TAG has a range and requires a to-hit roll, which means it can miss
I put a lot of TAGs on the target, 4 per turn. If the target numbers look bad, I just aim at the hex. A company of guided artillery shells still adds up with that 5pts of area of effect damage.
>or use recon/pursuit lances to take out your spotters
Let them. I have 4 drones per artillery vehicles (a company therefore has 48), and each drone is about 100,000 C-bills - a few tons of Artemis LRM ammo, for example. They're designed as expendable, disposable drones. They try to stay at 10 hexes from their targets, putting them in medium range of just about every weapon (including their TAG, but oh well) and move like bats out of hell, being 6-ton VTOLs. Hitting them is usually difficult even with Clan pulse large lasers and TCs though, when they are hit, they die. They have no armor.
Mediums, assaults, lights, tanks, whatever. The drones can find and catch any ground unit and I can risk them in droves to guide in that artillery.
To keep the artillery safe or for when I can't use it, I use a mixed force of medium and heavy mechs and mid-weight MBTs that can just about pace either unit.
Unfortunately, enemy aerospace superiority is a bad thing. I don't think I can give enough anti-air defense to keep heavy fighters from getting through and having their way with the artillery or worse the drone command vehicles.
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
03/11/02 05:17 PM
12.91.128.206
|
>A slightly slower 'Mech can mount much more firepower and armor, and actually be comparable cost-wise.
Yes. And in an all-mech situation, I suddenly rediscover a love for 3/5 assault mechs.
In a combined arms situation, 75-ton mechs are at a beautiful spot for non-XL 4/6/4 movement that would let them pace faster ground vehicles and medium mechs.
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.
|
KamikazeJohnson
03/11/02 05:28 PM
209.202.47.12
|
hehe...That's pretty much my attitude...average-speed heavies, a few slower Assaults for sheer firepower. IMO, the key to getting value out of Assault 'Mechs is to use them sparingly to augment close-quarter troops. The Munchkin tactic of going all-Assault is simply wasteful.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
raven
03/11/02 05:32 PM
64.12.96.206
|
I have to agree I have seen the "I've got a Spider on my Atlases back get it off, get it off" routine so many times. People in Assualt mech think they are unstoppable. But it is fun when your friends are used to you playin mediums and fast heavies, and then you thow an assualt in the mix and give them a royal smackdown.
|
Greyslayer
03/11/02 05:57 PM
63.12.141.66
|
75 tons? In Marik that is classed as an Assault mech .
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
03/11/02 06:05 PM
63.12.141.66
|
Do you ignore the level 3 rules that are not to your advantage or something? You would need super-elite drones with weapon specialisation TAG just to have a chance on alot of Lights using most of the level 3 rules. All the lights would have to do is Evade up until they get to your artillery then blast them to nothingness. Now lets see base 5 I'd say for gunnery, plus a movement modifier of say +2 (if your using vtol drone (drones BS!!!) which means +1 for cruise +1 for being a vtol) then a minimum of +4 usually +5 or +6 for movement/evading and you have a very boring scenario. Afterall once the Artillery are taken out what combat method exists for the TAG drones?
Greyslayer .... been there smited that silly ploy.
|
Greyslayer
03/11/02 06:16 PM
63.12.141.66
|
How about instead of wasting all my money on assault mechs I just field conventional aircraft? I'd control the skies, forcing you to be unable to use artillery. I'd be able to hunt down your stupid drone carrier and other units with impunity and so on. Your forces rely soooo much on a situation which should be almost impossible to arrive at. If you were an invader you would have great difficulty landing and setting up such a force considering how small a part your battlemechs actually play in it.
Seriously your plan doesn't sound any better than any other munch I have heard talk.
Greyslayer
|
Bob_Richter
03/11/02 06:29 PM
134.121.157.14
|
That's what the rear-mounted lasers are for.
Spider jumps behind Atlas. Zap. Splat.
Oh well.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Cray
03/12/02 06:58 AM
204.245.128.3
|
>You would need super-elite drones with weapon specialisation TAG just to have a chance on alot of Lights using most of the level 3 rules
Do you just ignore things I say that are not to your advantage or something?
I've already said when target numbers get too bad I just aim for the hex and let the area effect blast have its way with the target. 5pts per shot isn't much, but it adds up - especially on light mechs.
When the lights get near the artillery, they usually have go through such things as the screening force (mechs or combat vehicles), Thunder mine fields from the missile boats, and on-board unguided artillery where the area effect of artillery comes into its own.
What have I missed? Does some L3 rule I forgot make light mechs unusually resistant to 60pts of area effect damage per turn from a company of artillery dropping guided shells on its hex? Does the immobile target bonus not apply to firing at hexes with TAG or onboard weapons fire?
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
03/12/02 07:12 AM
204.245.128.3
|
>I'd control the skies, forcing you to be unable to use artillery.
Pretty much. I'd probably keep the artillery up in orbit until my aerospace fighters got done with your conventional fighters and their bases. If they couldn't, the whole invasion would be in jeopardy. Conventional fighters are a much better counter tactic than that light mech idea you had in your other post.
ASF's are even better if you can find them - they can get attacking dropships before they drop their troops.
>Your forces rely soooo much on a situation which should be almost impossible to arrive at.
What situation are you talking about? With the reach of artillery and the speed of drones, it doesn't matter where the enemy is, how scattered the enemy is, how fast the enemy is - it's very adaptable. The artillery doesn't have to move a long distance to keep contact with the enemy, set up in ambush positions, or otherwise maneuver very far to engage the enemy because of the sheer range of its weaponry.
It's the difference between aircraft carriers (artillery) and battleships (mechs). A carrier can control a 1000-mile radius of ocean, while a battleship can control a 25-mile radius. The difference in the amount of maneuvering and special "situations" needed to deal with an opponent is obvious.
Of course, fighters have all that and more in spades, with the one exception they have to risk their own hides when strafing and bombing. Those new armor threshold rules in AT2 put even the heaviest fighters in danger.
>setting up such a force considering how small a part your battlemechs actually play in it.
This is rudely presumptuous. When did you figure out I make little use of mechs?
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
03/12/02 07:13 AM
204.245.128.3
|
Now that's a sweet conventional fighter. I can see Sun Tzu thinking of something like that.
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.
|
Greyslayer
03/12/02 07:42 AM
137.172.211.9
|
'5pts per shot isn't much, but it adds up - especially on light mechs.'
I've clarified this in the past. For some reason the hex itself cannot be a target of the TAG attack. I've asked this of FASA in the past to clarify such attacks if used in the exact situation itself though no clarification was given on the exact result if the same attack was placed on what could be classed as a valid target such as a building. Next.
'When the lights get near the artillery, they usually have go through such things as the screening force (mechs or combat vehicles), Thunder mine fields from the missile boats, and on-board unguided artillery where the area effect of artillery comes into its own.'
So tell me just how much do you have to outnumber, outcost and simply just outdumb (not outsmart) your opponent? I can't seriously credit anyone who has to have everything their way, this is how the 'but I have this, that and the other' comes accross. What happened to being able to use what you have effectively?
'Does some L3 rule I forgot make light mechs unusually resistant to 60pts of area effect damage per turn from a company of artillery dropping guided shells on its hex?'
That happens if the movement of the unit that has a time delay causes the map of attack to be different from what you pre-programmed (at least in the new rules .... stupid modified rules). This can be simply caused by a player who strategically jinks (or in a more technical speak flanks) compared to their original directional attack.
It seems we agree to disagree.
Greyslayer
|
Cray
03/12/02 08:02 AM
204.245.128.3
|
>I've clarified this in the past. For some reason the hex itself cannot be a target of the TAG attack
What page of what book is this found on, or do you have some e-mail that can be shared with us? This would be a real pain in the ass.
Wait wait wait...TARGET drones! Oh, what a munchkin idea. They move into the hex of the real target (but slowly) and get TAGged. Oh, that's just munchkin.
>So tell me just how much do you have to outnumber, outcost and simply just outdumb (not outsmart) your opponent?
Do the drones count toward outnumbering? Ideally, the whole ball of wax comes in at about battalion strength, not counting drones and support units (cargo vehicles, MASH, etc.) Whether or not I outnumber the opponent and how the opponent is distributed (in one big horde, scattered across the planet) determines how I use the battalion. Bumping into a Clan galaxy (or even cluster, I think) all mustered for parade would be as effective a foil as enemy aerospace superiority.
Usually the opponent outcosts me, if numbers are approximately equal (not counting drones, which total the price of 1 medium mech). I aim to fight Clan units, which are just thick with XL engines and mechs.
As for outdumbing, the whole point of the unit was to handle the tactical masters of BT, the Clans. Let them run around where ever they want in their faster, tougher, more potent mechs. Let them feint and sneak and flank. Let them charge with their assaults and sneak after the artillery with their lights. The drones will find them and the artillery will kill them.
Or such is the theory.
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
03/12/02 02:08 PM
172.173.124.123
|
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, cause I haven't read the whole thread. (I know shame on me) But the solution to this problem is simple. In the gaming group you're in stick with one era. Or have a different person or persons specialize in different eras or weight classes with just a little knowledge of the ones they didn't specialize in. That way if they can say Mech A is like Mech B from your era when the group is playing in an era that someone isn't familiar with.
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
Greyslayer
03/12/02 06:23 PM
63.12.147.192
|
'Wait wait wait...TARGET drones! Oh, what a munchkin idea. They move into the hex of the real target (but slowly) and get TAGged. Oh, that's just munchkin.'
Ahhh yes and you would play with someone silly enough not to declare you can only fire at enemy units (ie declare Targets can only be Enemy Forces). This would be due to the fact that it at no stage uses enemy unit in any description for attacks but only target. You could substitute Enemy Unit for Target throughout that entire section (and would make it alot easier too since you have a Targetting Computer that can Target a location on a Target gaining a Targetting bonus ... *shrugs* they must get a woody from using the word Target or something). BTW under TAG you cannot TAG infantry, I believe they used this as part of their explaination as to why you couldn't TAG the hex itself. You never know ask again and you might get another different answer, it wouldn't be the first time. (I remember having an argument with Randal Bills about Artillery damaging units below and above water and their being no limit to the depth of the attack compared to artillery attacks above water which is limited to the altitude of the attack (hmmmm lets see you have a 30 metre radius disc above water and a 30 meter infinite cylinder below ... LOL).
Greyslayer
|
Cray
03/12/02 07:00 PM
12.78.125.46
|
>Ahhh yes and you would play with someone silly enough not
Question: What sort of low life insults people who aren't here to defend themselves, or has never met the people in question?
Also: never heard of friendly fire? Is imagining painting a friendly target with a laser designator so hard to imagine?
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.
|
Greyslayer
03/12/02 07:50 PM
63.12.147.192
|
' What sort of low life insults people who aren't here to defend themselves, or has never met the people in question?'
A person who get used to you painting them as such.
'never heard of friendly fire?'
Usually a part of Murphy's Law. You are in fact not using Murphy's Law which governs all things in the universe .
'Is imagining painting a friendly target with a laser designator so hard to imagine?'
Not really, imagining you playing in the spirit of the game is a bit hard to believe though. Like any boring munch you use rule 'glitches' rather than any real tactical nouse. Everytime I given a situation instead of giving a good tactical response you have gone 'but I have these units and these units' adding more and more to your forces each time. Even when I don't change the forces coming at you but the methods of getting there you still add more and more to your forces just like anyone not willing to tackle something on the tactical level, You would be hard-pressed to lose to a fairly stock Clam player using C-bills, their universe doesn't value money and as such has a money is no object mentallity to building units. You are easily setting them up for the fall, I don't see why you would need to find every single glitch in the game to defeat a force so badly outdone.
Maybe it was a good thing I stopped being a munch so long ago.
Greyslayer
|
NathanKell
03/12/02 08:10 PM
24.44.238.62
|
And how is this so different from the ancient practice (at least 2 centuries or so...) of laying distance stakes in the ground: "When they hit the white stake, they're 200 yards, fix your sights!"
This is just the next level.
Heh, Assaults already practically have "Oh shoot me now" signs painted on...we're just talking about drone aids that *quite literally* have that painted on. 
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
NathanKell
03/12/02 08:12 PM
24.44.238.62
|
I don't use arty much.
Well....sorta. You see, my FOs are naval Lieutenants, and the arty's "upstairs."
Which reminds me...I should design a warship created solely as an Orbital Fire Support barge...might as well make it useful.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Cray
03/12/02 08:13 PM
12.78.125.46
|
>A person who get used to you painting them as such.
I think you're mistaking your sheer presumtuousness for a failure on my friends' parts.
I bring up "new units" in response to your tactics *because you never asked about them.*
Do you recall how I entered this thread? Making a simple statement with a wealth of implications behind it: assault mechs are useless because I can do the same thing with artillery and heavy mechs.
When questioned about this or that point, I answered enough to (I thought) explain myself while not unduly insulting the intelligence of the questioner.
Then, with a fraction of the picture, you suddenly started telling me how you could completely trash my unit. Did you ever ask what my unit composition was? No. Did you ever ask how I responded to flankers and raiders? No. Did you ever ask how I responded to fighters? No. *You just started saying how things Would happen* even though you only had a fraction of the picture, and then called me a munchkin for explaining why they wouldn't. Fascinating.
When I explain more by mentioning what units I have to address your tactics, I mean to credit your intelligence by assuming you can figure out how those other units (the ones you never thought to ask about before) can cover the situation. I cannot talk tactics specifically (and neither can you) because neither of us knows the terrain, exactly what moves you made and what units you have, exactly what moves I made and what units I have (you need to ask these things), and how the dice rolls are turning out. I just mention the units and generalities.
And for your presumptuousness, I'm a munchkin. Fascinating.
Why don't you start again by asking some questions, rather than jumping to conclusions?
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 (03/12/02 08:42 PM)
|
Bob_Richter
03/12/02 09:58 PM
134.121.157.14
|
Were it not for the munchkin stupidity of not being able to TAG a hex, there would be no need for the munchkin stupidity of "target drones."
Cray: Would you mind posting one of your typical unit rosters?
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
NathanKell
03/12/02 10:12 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Hellooooo Faceless Horde!
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Greyslayer
03/13/02 06:40 AM
137.172.211.9
|
Don't forget I wasn't really arguing from the assault mech point of view but the Light Battlemech POV (point of view).
Also back in those days (ok a little while before the time you speak of) did not they send hundreds of peasants into combat then the Cavalry? The cavalry was expensive, well trained and at times too valuable to send into direct conflict with the enemy but they were still there and occasionally used, just like Assault mechs.
I've never been a great fan of assault mechs. Fact is until recently I never had an assault mech in my mercenary units (rarely even heavies either I'd usually prefer to skirmish like a mongul and heavies are not too good at that if you use stock mechs and limited or no 'baggage*'). I started a merc unit made purely of green assaults recently to have a bit of a lark and lost an awesome straight up in the second fight to a floating crit to the ct which doubled the gyro, you get that and I continue on in life. And no they didn't have the 'shoot me now' sign on it, I think someone put it on the Hunchback that was my Liason Officer .
Greyslayer
Baggage* is my reference to extensive specialised equipment. Early battletech history had artillery as a rare occurrance usually a part of fortifications or well defended positions as the mobility of a battlemech was alot greater than that of a current tank. This may not work in the game mechanics but things being rare could at least be treated as such .
|
Greyslayer
03/13/02 06:57 AM
137.172.211.9
|
'Why don't you start again by asking some questions, rather than jumping to conclusions?'
Hmmmmm *ponders for a second* nope. You have already shown that you have changed your forces with the idea of 'taget drones' .
Greyslayer
|
Cray
03/13/02 07:50 AM
204.245.128.3
|
I've never used target drones (just a sudden munchkin thought) - I thought you could target hexes. My units will take some rethinking - it might be time to switch to air power completely.
The current battalion roster (neglecting non-combatants like MASH, engineering, etc.):
Mech Company (regular) [1]-
8 Troopers (75 ton generic mech seen here before)
4 Trooper-Ms (missile boat variant of the Trooper)
4 "Phoenix Hawks" (50 tons; PPC/ML-based loadout)
Mechanized Infantry Company (regular) [2]-
8 laser foot squads
4 SRM foot squads
8 40-ton IFVs (similar to Myrmidons, with room for 1 squad of infantry)
4 30-ton VTOLs (ER LL gunships with room for 1 squad of infantry)
Artillery Company [2]-
4 Arrow IV units ("Paladin"; 75 tons, 2 Arrow IVs, 300 XL)
8 Long Tom units ("Cavalier"; same chassis as Arrow IV units)
4 Drone Command vehicles (based on IFV; each controls 12 drones)
48 TAG drones (VTOL, 19/29, no armor)
Aerospace--
6 heavy fighters (munchkin 100-ton PPC/ML dropship hunters)
[1] Nominal. Depending on the scenario, I've tried a lot more of the generic mediums to see what I can do with faster mechs
[2] Often the infantry get left at home or deployed from cargo shuttles against rear echelon targets while the enemy mechs are out to play.
[3] Nominal. The Long Toms have reach (which is critical for this slow battalion), but the Arrow IV units provide a heavier volume of fire
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
03/13/02 07:55 AM
204.245.128.3
|
>Early battletech history had artillery as a rare occurrance usually a part of fortifications or well defended positions as the mobility of a battlemech was alot greater than that of a current tank. This may not work in the game mechanics but things being rare could at least be treated as such .
Which is I avoided artillery for the longest time. Artillery was rare in 3025 (but CCAF and SLDF favorite in the 2700s), but in the 3050s nothing is rare anymore.
Then there was the accuracy angle, but Arrow IV and Copperheads took care of that, so suddenly even small numbers of artillery pieces could be dangerous: highly accurate AC/20s with incredible range.
And then the commonality of fusion engines and low weight of Arrow IV artillery meant tanks could be almost as mobile as mechs over land. Not light mechs, but a VSTOL shuttle or dropship could fix that for long distance movement.
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
03/13/02 01:59 PM
204.245.128.3
|
Ah, level 3, the rules that make life more convenient: TAG *drones* to avoid risking pilots on the TAG missions and Copperhead artillery shells for better reach. Nothing critical.
I don't need L3 gear to make massed artillery and TAG work. What other L3 gear do you think I use?
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
03/13/02 02:00 PM
204.245.128.3
|
TAG is not negated by ECM. Read the rules again - Artemis, C3, Narc pods, Active Probes, yes, but TAG no. And Streak no, I think.
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
03/13/02 02:05 PM
204.245.128.3
|
Aren't you just a presumptuous little flame bait today.
Answer: No other L3 combatant systems.
I use MASH (d*mn me for caring about infantry) and engineering units (bridgelayers: gotta love'em).
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
03/13/02 02:16 PM
204.245.128.3
|
>And no, I am not a flame bait today
Deriding my use of L3 gear (that I do not use) and referring to that L3 gear in a derogatory manner is not a firm beginning for a civil exchange.
>Why bother with infantry, when it says in nearly every book that infantry are used only in low-intensity warfare, and rarely anywhere near 'mechs
Excuse me, since when do I use infantry near mechs? Exactly when did you learn enough about my infantry tactics to tell me something like the preceding quote?
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
03/13/02 02:22 PM
204.245.128.3
|
Hello! That's not all you did. By implication, you said I use it.
Now: tell me more about my infantry tactics.
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.
|
Bob_Richter
03/13/02 05:12 PM
134.121.157.14
|
Um. L3 rules are there to make the game more intricate, complex, and realistic. L3 TECH is what your thinking of (and even that distinction broke down when the FMs started coming out.)
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Greyslayer
03/13/02 06:08 PM
63.12.141.49
|
Its funny that it isn't. What Perceivable difference is there between a C3 Master and a TAG if the TAG system piggy-backs the C3 signal? It an unexplainable piece of rubbish of an idea to have TAG separate from items which use the exact same methods to transmit either target data or re-alignment, TAG is in fact with a look at it would be harder to operate under a ECM field than say Artemis due to the fact the data is being sent to a far target from within the ECM.
This is a good case of a square being hammered into a round hole. You are correct though and I think I avoided arguing on that point but rather your 'drones' instead.
Greyslayer
|
NathanKell
03/13/02 06:48 PM
24.44.238.62
|
TAG is a laser designator, which can't be jammed.
C3 is a radio-frequency datanet, which can be jammed.
C3 Master simply also includes a laser designato (i.e. TAG) for some weird reason.
Note that shells / missiles don't home in on any kind of radio signal, they home in on a reflected laser beam.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Cray
03/13/02 06:52 PM
12.91.139.169
|
You're looking at this from an interesting angle.
As I always gathered that TAG was a laser designator, I had no trouble understanding why it was immune to ECM. No data transmission or anything fancy required: it just put a coded laser spot on the target and TAG-compatible munitions homed in. (To jam: use a smoke screen.)
What was baffling was how the C3 Master simulated this, particularly in light of TAG's immunity to ECM. Did the C3 master have laser communication links that could sub in for a TAG? If so, why were C3 networks vulnerable to ECM?
As for drones, that's just a matter of convenience - namely, sparing pilot lives. The TAG VTOLs are cheaper, more accurate, lighter and/or faster when they a human pilot on board. They might even have a bit of armor.
Did you find a page reference or quote from Randall indicating hexes cannot be targeted?
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
03/13/02 06:54 PM
12.91.139.169
|
>TAG is a laser designator, which can't be jammed.
That is the bleeding obvious, no-duh, why-would-you-use-anything-else assumption, but I don't recall actually seeing that stated anywhere in a rule book, or even in fluff.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
NathanKell
03/13/02 07:17 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Doesn't the bit in the TOTC arc when TFS is testing orbital bombardment (and using TAG, for some reason...) mention TAG is a laser designator?
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Greyslayer
03/13/02 07:48 PM
63.12.141.49
|
Well I do remember the time they decided to kill Ulric Kerensky off they went through the explanation of how it was a 'beam' operating outside the visible spectrum. The problem with the idea of TAG though is that the description of Artemis is similar (does it not use a corrective beam to adjust the missile trajectory so that they stick closer togother? If that is so then why is it affected? I mean it as a system is more useless than TAG so why hinder such a system?).
One thing on C3 .... has it said anywhere that the C3 system communicates by any method? Seeing as how the C3 requires LOS I couldn't see why they don't utilise similar technology to TAG since the C3 Master can 'emulate' the TAG on its own. Maybe some of the earlier books deal with exactly how it transmits data?
Greyslayer
|
Cray
03/13/02 07:59 PM
12.91.139.169
|
The Artemis system uses an IR laser and then communicates with its missiles via a microwave link to provide course updates. There is no indication of such a microwave link with TAG (or IR beam, for that matter). TAG just "designates" a target and projectiles home in.
>One thing on C3 .... has it said anywhere that the C3 system communicates by any method?
"The C3 system links up to 4 units together in a communications network." pg124, BMR-unrev. No particular method of communication mentioned.
The C3 network does not itself need line of sight to communicate target information to other units in the C3 network (they must all just be on the same board), but weapons fired must observe usual LOS rules. Hence a C3 unit close to an enemy may have hills between it and its C3 unit mates, but the unit mates do not magically gain the ability to fire lasers through the hill at the enemy.
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.
|
Greyslayer
03/13/02 08:09 PM
63.12.141.49
|
'microwave link'
Tightbeam Micorwave Link (technical correction but in many many novels they go on about how effective 'tightbeam' communication is). You would think that would have some integrity, its a poor game mechanic. You fire a spread of missiles some 600 meters away being corrected all the time by the system then just before the target they hit a ECM field and go bat faeces? There should be less chance of interference from ECM with Artemis than with TAG considering the munitions opperating off TAG may not even be coming from the same direction and so on.
Greyslayer
|
Cray
03/13/02 08:17 PM
12.91.139.169
|
....I'm not sure why a (probable) laser designator like TAG would care in the least about an ECM field, or why TAG-guided munitions would have trouble seeing a laser dot in the middle of an ECM field.
Jamming a microwave link like Artemis and causing missiles dependent on that link to go haywire I can understand. ECM can interfere with microwave links.
More baffling is why the Artemis system bothers with the microwave link in the first place and doesn't just have the missiles home in on the infrared spot on the target.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
NathanKell
03/13/02 08:20 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Except that it's well established that SRMs and LRMs are pretty much unguided. In order for AIV to work, you add a big block next to the launcher (which includes the transmitter) and a little bitty reciever onto each missile. Radio Control, in other words.
TAG and Guided Arrows are different. The Arrow is a large surface-to-surface missile with a home-on-laser tracking head--i.e. the electronics are *already in* the missile, vs. Artemis where the steering package is on the unit and the missile just has a little tiny radio control bit.
It's the difference between a TOW and a JSOW (The latter I'm not sure about, it's the GBU-(some number) with a strap-on rocket. Actually, the GBU bit is itself a converted guided artillery shell with fins, anyway.)
In sum: Artemis IV has to maintain a controlling link to its rockets (the AIV system steers them, and transmits course correction data) whereas the TAG just lights up the target and the Arrow homes *on its own.*
There is no *controlling* link between TAG and the munition.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
NathanKell
03/13/02 08:22 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Because radio (or microwave, or whatever) recievers are light (and cheap) enough to be put on throwaway unguided POS 8.33kg LRMs (and 10kg SRMs) whereas a home-on-laser guidance package is B.I.G. and is reserved for standoff 200kg (440lb) missiles.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Cray
03/13/02 08:39 PM
12.78.177.236
|
Note BT's laser guidance systems also fit onto 8.33kg semi-guided LRMs.
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
03/13/02 08:41 PM
12.78.177.236
|
>Except that it's well established that SRMs and LRMs are pretty much unguided
Though guided enough that LRMs, which have the same warhead as MRMs, are twice as big as MRMs. Apparently the stock LRM has a fairly hefty guidance package.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
NathanKell
03/13/02 09:01 PM
24.44.238.62
|
I always thought it was just 'cause MRMs were less aerodynamic and didn't need as much propellant.
TRO 3025 said it best: SL era L/S RMs were certainly guided, but modern crud isn't.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Greyslayer
03/14/02 12:55 AM
137.172.211.9
|
'whereas the TAG just lights up the target and the Arrow homes *on its own.*
There is no *controlling* link between TAG and the munition.'
Then tell me what happens to sensory equipment that enter a ECM bubble? This is in fact what you are saying are you not (that the missiles have a sensor package to detect the specific band or signature of the TAG)? Could that like the Artemis IV FCS missiles be distorted enough to cause it not to detonate or work at all?
Greyslayer
|
Cray
03/14/02 07:18 AM
204.245.128.3
|
I know about the TR:3025 - the Crusader entry is pretty explicit. However, by...I think it was Sword and the Dagger...LRMs were already guided again and making course corrections toward dodging mechs, and the fluff description in the BMR, as I recall it, is pretty clear MRMs are dumbfire missiles that are smaller than LRMs due to their lack of guidance.
Then, of course, there's the (in)famous dumbfire LRMs and SRMs of the Tactical Handbook, which blatantly gave the LRMs and SRMs bigger warheads at the expense of guidance.
But if you have a solid quote from the BMR to the contrary, I'm all ears. I don't have it handy.
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
03/14/02 07:20 AM
204.245.128.3
|
>Then tell me what happens to sensory equipment that enter a ECM bubble?
A laser-sensitive photocell won't care about an ECM field, particularly not if it's in a conductive shell to screen out RF interference.
Unlike Artemis-compatible missiles, TAG-guided munitions (presuming they are laser guided) do not have radio frequency receivers open to ECM jamming and ECM beguiling.
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.
|