Karagin
04/11/02 08:53 AM
63.173.170.184
|
a splash like effect for damage? (Hit more then one loctaion when they hit)
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
04/11/02 09:53 AM
137.172.211.9
|
Maybe Pulse Lasers would have a effect like this. I am not so sure on the more standard lasers but pulse lasers firing multiple shots would be more likely to 'impinge' on more than one location.
A more technical explaination of 'splash' for me would say that the ablative nature of armour would allow for less splash than what you seem to be asking.
Greyslayer
|
KamikazeJohnson
04/11/02 12:48 PM
209.202.47.12
|
I've often thought that weapons like missiles and LB-X Autocannons should have a "centralized" damage pattern. i.e. instead of scattering randomly, damage should be to one "primary" location with some scattered to adjacent locations. For example, an LRM 20 hitting the LT would also damage LA, LL, and CT, but would leave the rest of the target untouched. Of course, the hard part is setting up a system to determine how much damage goes to each location, accomodating every possible number of hits 
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Cray
04/11/02 01:53 PM
204.245.128.3
|
Well, to reiterate my views from CBT:
1) Splashing damage would make a nice optional rule for some weapons.
2) IMO, candidates include ACs, lasers, pulse lasers, and thunderbolt missiles.
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.
|
Karagin
04/11/02 01:59 PM
63.173.170.214
|
Why Thunderbolts?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
04/11/02 02:27 PM
137.172.211.9
|
Well I would say for the same reason as solid autocannon shells would be considered into the equation.
Greyslayer
|
Cray
04/11/02 05:54 PM
12.78.125.36
|
Thunderbolt make big boom. Boom cover large area of mech. 
In short, apply Thunderbolt damage in 5pt groups like LRMs or ATMs - IIRC, and I'm too lazy to reach for the books across the room, ATM damage is applied in 5pt groups even when using those 3pt short range HE loads, meaning the damage from even numbers of missiles can be split up across 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.
|
Gangrene
04/15/02 08:43 PM
168.150.237.132
|
Thunderbolts should not be subject to splash damage. Although they do contain a large amount of explosive, one has to assume that Battletech engineers are smart enough to figure out how to make shaped-charge warheads. Shape-charging creates a force cone, thus the area of effect would be localized and any damage inflicted by splash would be significantly smaller than that from the main blast.
Gangrene
|
Karagin
04/16/02 07:03 AM
63.173.170.168
|
Autocannons are firing a stream of projectilles...unless the current batch of authors have changed that like they have tried to change other things...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
04/16/02 07:42 AM
204.245.128.3
|
>one has to assume that Battletech engineers are smart enough to figure out how to make shaped-charge warheads.
No, one does not need to assume such, not after reading AC ammo descriptions - and Thunderbolt descriptions.
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.
|
Karagin
04/16/02 07:56 AM
63.173.170.168
|
Assuming about BT's FASAyisc is a dangerous job...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Gangrene
04/17/02 12:09 AM
168.150.237.132
|
No, one does not need to assume such, not after reading AC ammo descriptions - and Thunderbolt descriptions.
I was under the impression that you thought all Btech technology was advanced and superior to anything we have. Why then should we say that they do not have shaped-charges in their thunderbolt warheads?
Gangrene
|
Cray
04/17/02 07:35 AM
204.245.128.3
|
The FASA descriptions of the Thunderbolts' warheads cannot easily be construed to be shaped charge warheads. It's rather pointless for me to say, "The Thunderbolts have shaped charge warheads because that would be advanced and wise 31st century technology" when the canon descriptions do not necessarily support that.
Clearly, the explanation is BT's magical armor is such that a non-shaped charge warhead is best suited for destroying it.
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.
|
Karagin
04/17/02 08:49 AM
63.173.170.47
|
With that in mind one would think a BB gun would destroy it just as easily.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
04/17/02 10:15 AM
204.245.128.3
|
Naw, it just means the 31st century weapons designs have found an even BETTER explosive warhead than the shaped charge. Yeah, that's it...
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.
|
Gangrene
04/17/02 12:15 PM
168.150.237.132
|
That's whacked, Cray.
Plus, the thundebolt fluff does not mention anything particular about the warheads. Only that a number of smaller missiles were replaced with a single, large missile. If you assume LRM's have shaped charges, then you can assume that Thunderbolts do to.
Gangrene
|
Cray
04/17/02 01:48 PM
204.245.128.3
|
>That's whacked, Cray.
Sticking to the fluff?
>Plus, the thundebolt fluff does not mention anything particular about the warheads.
Which book did you read about Thunderbolts in?
Unbound, pg70, original example of TBolts (AFAIK):
"This weapon is a one-shot ground-to-ground missile. This weapon delivers a chemical blast, generating a lot of heat when fired, and an even greater amount of heat and explosive damage to its target.
"Glitch:
"Thunderbolt missiles are very dangerous in an ammo explosion, doing 10 points of damage and generating 15 points of heat."
That doesn't really sound like a shaped charge, the heat part.
>If you assume LRM's have shaped charges
I don't, since that doesn't seem applicable to other BT explosive weapons like ACs. ACs and LRMs are simply described as "high explosive" missiles. Of course, HEAT and HEDP use high explosive, but the warheads are not explicitly something as logical and reasonable as HEAT.
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 (04/17/02 05:03 PM)
|
NathanKell
04/17/02 01:52 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Optimist :P
Why assume that, after 300 years of whack'em and whack'em?
{what? You mean there's a *memory core* on Helm? Naw, not in *this* retro universe...}
-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
04/17/02 04:55 PM
12.91.120.106
|
Making fairly good explosive warheads in an era where energy weapons are possible should be refined, not...eh...crude-ified by 300 years of screaming and bleeding.
Of course, reasonable "shoulds" and "possibles" turn out to be incorrect depressingly often in BT.
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.
|
Gangrene
04/17/02 09:54 PM
168.150.237.132
|
Sticking to the fluff?
Interpreting the fluff in favor of the absurd.
That doesn't really sound like a shaped charge, the heat part.
The first mention of heat refers to the missile's launch, which wouldn't have anything to do with the warhead. The second mention is irrelevent, as by the rules Tbolts do not add heat to their target. The heat of the ammo explosion could be just as easily caused by detonation of the rocket motor as the warhead.
Simple logic would dictate that since the rules DO call for all damage to be done to the same area, that the damage is done due to a shaped charge warhead.
Assuming they don't use shaped charge technology is just ridiculous. You might as well interpret the fluff to say that AC's shots are powered by compressed air (although that would explain the crappy ranges), or that infantry units are fielding muskets.
Gangrene
|
NathanKell
04/17/02 09:59 PM
24.44.238.62
|
OK, on Skid Row muskets are high-tech!
And bleeding-edge on a good many periphery worlds, I should think! 
-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 |
Karagin
04/17/02 10:00 PM
63.173.170.88
|
In reply to:
or that infantry units are fielding muskets.
I once ran into this in really wacky BT game...mechs and vehicles vs troops with blackpower muskets and field pieces...very interesting and bloody battle.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
04/18/02 07:19 AM
204.245.128.3
|
>The second mention is irrelevent, as by the rules Tbolts do not add heat to their target.
No, it is not. PPCs and lasers also damage their targets with heat (and impact, in the case of PPCs), while not raising the heat of the target. Thunderbolts could easily fit into that same classification - inflicting damage by heat, but not raising the target's heat.
>Simple logic would dictate that since the rules DO call for all damage to be done to the same area, that the damage is done due to a shaped charge warhead.
There are other armor piercing high explosive warheads out there, you know. Like HESH.
>Assuming they don't use shaped charge technology is just ridiculous.
Really? The shaped charge, boogie man of tanks and armored vehicles for decades in the 20th century, target of billions of dollars of armor research to the extent that now a mere ton or two of ERA can protect much of a tank with protection equivalent to 700mm (28 inches) and more of RHA steel? This is the type of warhead you think will still be effective several centuries down the road?
You don't think munitions designers will think of some entirely new armor piercing architecture for high explosives, something we (without 22nd, 23rd, 24th, etc century computer modeling power and additional centuries of battlefield experience) would never even think of?
Interesting what happened to the hypervelocity, long rod KE penetrator. The gauss rifle went with a soft, low velocity nickel-iron bowling ball to do its armor busting. Perhaps other modern armor defeating munitions will likewise be abandoned in favor of entirely new warhead concepts we haven't even thought of yet.
Given the lack of explicit statements that LRM, Thunderbolt, or other explosive warheads in BT use shaped charges, just "high explosives," it is just as fair to say, "LRM warheads are shaped charges" as "LRM warheads are HESH-type warheads" (another single location damaging warhead) or "LRM warheads are super-science high explosive warheads with single location-damaging architectures we haven't conceived of in the 21st Century."
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 (04/18/02 09:17 AM)
|
Gangrene
04/18/02 12:58 PM
168.150.237.132
|
There are other armor piercing high explosive warheads out there, you know. Like HESH.
The general ideas behind breaking armor have always been the same - you want to apply the maximum amount of force to the smallest amount of area. In Battletech we are trying to destroy the armor, not bypass it or send a shock wave through it. Hence the use of shaped charges, and not HESH-like charges.
cut old, tired futuristic advances argument
So, instead of arguing in favor of your original statement (that tbolt's would do splash damage), you do a reversal and try to one-up me with an argument based on speculation of futuristic phenomenon? Whatever.
First off, current missiles with their HE shaped-charge warheads can pierce the armor of any tank on the field. Second, future armed forces might come up with another form of high explosives to use against armor, but it is unlikely IMO. The shaped-charge, while it may be iteratively improved upon, is here to stay.
The gauss rifle went with a soft, low velocity nickel-iron bowling ball to do its armor busting
Before you use any other examples of wonderful FASA logic, remember that they also say a machine gun is only good to 90 meters, bigger shells have shorter ranges, and a single 1 ton bomb cannot destroy a house.
Let's not lose focus here. To reiterate: Tbolt's would apply all damage to one area because they would use a shaped-charge warhead that focuses the force of the explosion. The should NOT do splash damage, and if you feel the need to explain the localized damage by some means other than shaped-charges then go right ahead, knock yourself out, have fun, etc.
Gangrene
|
Cray
04/18/02 01:33 PM
204.245.128.3
|
>Before you use any other examples of wonderful FASA logic, remember that they also say a machine gun is only good to 90 meters, bigger shells have shorter ranges, and a single 1 ton bomb cannot destroy a house.
Alright. In turn, please note that's a two-edged statement. Putting shaped charges on missiles would be an entirely too-logical, too common-sense, too obvious idea for FASA to necessarily use.
>The general ideas behind breaking armor have always been the same - you want to apply the maximum amount of force to the smallest amount of area. In Battletech we are trying to destroy the armor, not bypass it or send a shock wave through it. Hence the use of shaped charges, and not HESH-like charges.
Shaped charges punch small diameter holes in armor. They are extremely unsuited for, "trying to destroy the armor, not bypass it or send a shock wave through it." All they do is try to bypass it. You can see that here:
members.dencity.com/fofanov/Tanks/ARM/ammo.html
Midway down shows armor test blocks and the 800mm penetration route by a shaped charge. Most of the armor is intact. Initial opening is about 65mm and the average damage path is about 30mm wide; the armor around the penetration is untouched just millimeters from the penetration, and would be across the rest of a meters-wide mech hit location. If you want to destroy armor on mech, you'll have to do a lot better than a 65mm hole that no other shot, bolt, or missile will likely hit again.
Y'know, scratch that. LRMs do 1pt of damage. They could freakin' well put small holes in armor individually because they always take swarms to blow off all the armor in a section. I'm going to stick to my nifty new artillery idea.
>So, instead of arguing in favor of your original statement (that tbolt's would do splash damage), you do a reversal and try to one-up me with an argument based on speculation of futuristic phenomenon? Whatever.
There's no reversal there. I was attempting to point out that the only answer for 31st Century warheads need not be shaped charges. From there, it would follow that TBolt's fluff indicates it is a good candidate for optional splash damage rules based on its fluff.
And, tired as it may be, that does not invalidate the point.
Alternately, you could consider that TBolts are approximately as massive as BT's artillery shells (the TBolts are actually heavier than those artillery shells that do comparable damage), which deliver enormous, wide-area damage. Since shaped charge warheads are extremely poor explanations for 90-meter diameter explosions from 50 to 200kg projectiles, obviously BT has alternative armor-defeating explosive warheads to shaped charges. Missiles bigger than artillery shells are thus great candidates for an optional splash damage rule.
>First off, current missiles with their HE shaped-charge warheads can pierce the armor of any tank on the field
Incorrect. The performance of improved armor packages on Western tanks is putting armor ahead of shaped charges again. The newest Leopard armor package demonstrates over 1000mm RHA equivalent resistance to shaped charges, which outperforms quite a few current anti-tank missiles (which seem to hover in the 600-900mm range). Likewise, Russian "heavy ERA" research is getting ahead of Western anti-tank missiles.
>The shaped-charge, while it may be iteratively improved upon, is here to stay.
I won't dispute that. I will, however, dispute that it is the only sort of warhead for missiles, particularly ones intending to blow off large chunks of ablative armor.
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 (04/18/02 01:46 PM)
|
Cray
04/18/02 07:21 PM
12.78.124.247
|
How could I forget explosively formed projectile warheads? The warhead of choice for top-attack and anti-ERA armors, certainly a strong competitor with shaped charges, and it also utilizes high explosives.
And while you may deride HESH as being intended for bypassing armor, it is almost custom-designed for spalling off the ceramic inner layer of BT magic armor. Certainly a warhead to be considered when you want to smash up a mech's armor.
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
04/18/02 07:26 PM
134.121.247.162
|
>>>you want to apply the maximum amount of force to the smallest amount of area.<<<
Actually, you want to apply the maximum amount of energy to the same armor plate. Battletech armor is impenetrable, and the strategy you describe is for just that : penetrating.
If there's a way to apply more energy to the target than a shaped charge, that's definately the way 31st Century armies are going to go.
-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
04/18/02 07:33 PM
12.78.124.247
|
>If there's a way to apply more energy to the target than a shaped charge, that's definately the way 31st Century armies are going to go.
Yabbut nukes are all but illegal in BT. 
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
04/18/02 07:35 PM
209.202.47.12
|
hmmm....shaped nukes?
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Gangrene
04/18/02 08:32 PM
168.150.237.132
|
Battletech armor isn't impenetrable, Bob.
Gangrene
|
NathanKell
04/18/02 09:21 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Yeah, they're called bomb-pumped (x-ray) lasers!
-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 |
Gangrene
04/19/02 12:37 AM
168.150.237.132
|
Alright. In turn, please note that's a two-edged statement. Putting shaped charges on missiles would be an entirely too-logical, too common-sense, too obvious idea for FASA to necessarily use.
FASA is dead, and I feel no need to be constrained by their lack of common sense.
All they do is try to bypass it.
Bypass means to go around, Cray, not to go through. Also, a critical failure through the depth of armor is good enough to be considered locally "destroyed."
And, tired as it may be, that does not invalidate the point.
Of course there is the KISS philosophy, as well as Occam's Razor.
Gangrene
|
Nightmare
04/19/02 08:00 AM
194.251.240.107
|
One interesting idea I saw was that BT warheads utilize
a special, gelatinous explosive. This explains the low ranges,
they just can`t guarantee the load stays together if trying
for long shots. When it hits, the gel spreads out, sinking into
the smallest cracks on the surface and then detonates after
~0,1 seconds of exposure to air. The gel was developed
just for dealing with the ultra-super-heavy armor in Btech.
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.
|
NathanKell
04/19/02 11:24 AM
24.44.238.62
|
Or they just can't aim for $#!7....
And have no black-box computers to do it for 'em.
-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
04/19/02 01:58 PM
209.202.47.12
|
>>BT warheads utilize a special, gelatinous explosive. This explains the low ranges, they just can`t guarantee the load stays together if trying for long shots<<
hmmm...kinda like the Biosludge weapon in UT
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Gangrene
04/19/02 05:43 PM
168.150.237.132
|
That's interesting, but it needs some work. Since Btech missiles are just as effective in a vacuum as in air, the dependance on air for detonation has to be abandoned.
Gangrene
|
Cray
04/19/02 08:00 PM
24.165.244.231
|
>FASA is dead, and I feel no need to be constrained by their lack of common sense.
Alright, that's perfectly understandable. It is, however, a position that's rather inhibitive of discussions with others when the only common ground is FASA's setting and its absence of common sense.
>Bypass means to go around, Cray, not to go through
Which is why I agreed that shaped charge warheads were a fine explanation for LRMs' 1pt of damage: a small hole in armor, just like shaped charges make.
However, bigger missiles - like Thunderbolts - clearly have the option of using BT's other explosive warhead: those of artillery shells, whatever the heck that is. What does KISS say a BT artillery shell's warhead is?
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
04/19/02 08:04 PM
24.165.244.231
|
Be careful. Bob is playing a semantics game here.
A 700pt armor plate on a warship is demonstrably impenetrably to any attack, even from a NAC/35 weapons bay...on the first hit.
An Atlas's CT armor plate is impenetrable to any non-capital scale weapon and some capital-scale weapons...on the first hit.
By some definitions (including Bob's), that counts as impenetrable.
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
04/19/02 08:08 PM
209.202.47.12
|
Impenetrable unless, of course, you roll snake-eyes for an "armor piercing" hit :-)
This game is just chock-full of charming inconsistencies :-)
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Cray
04/19/02 08:36 PM
24.165.244.231
|
Naw, just waiting for explanations. Sure, the armor plate is impenetrable (for the first hit), but that heat sink vent is a perfect place for that infantryman's .22LR round to sneak in and triple crit the engine.
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
04/19/02 08:41 PM
209.202.47.12
|
True, but does that also apply to...um...the...uh...pebble? that finds a weak spot when the 'Mech falls on it? You'd think that internal components would be sturdy enough to withstand the jar of impact if nothing penetrates the armor...
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
novakitty
04/19/02 08:58 PM
192.195.234.26
|
Then do not use damage from falls of less than 1 level.
meow
|
Cray
04/19/02 09:50 PM
24.165.244.231
|
Clearly, when a mech falls on a pebble and suffers a crit, the pebble rebounded elastically with tremendous force after being slammed by the falling mass of the mech. It rebounded right through a vent or access panel or joint and did the Golden BB thing to the mech's internals. Yeah, that's it...
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.
|
Gangrene
04/20/02 10:51 AM
168.150.237.132
|
Don't forget AP ammo.
Gangrene
|
Gangrene
04/20/02 11:05 AM
168.150.237.132
|
It is, however, a position that's rather inhibitive of discussions with others when the only common ground is FASA's setting and its absence of common sense.
That's only true if your POV is looking merely at rules that lack common sense. They did have some good sense rules in there somewhere. The foundation for the game is not magic or bad logic (relatively speaking); it isn't Alice in Wonderland or some Japanese mecha cartoon. Taking their shortcuts or bad choices and framing them as the logic of the game is a bad choice, IMO.
However, bigger missiles - like Thunderbolts - clearly have the option of using BT's other explosive warhead:
Of course they can use other warheads, but you have to consider what's optimal for application. We were talking about concentrating damage on armored targets, not killing infantry or bunker busting.
Gangrene
Edited by Gangrene (04/20/02 11:06 AM)
|
Cray
04/20/02 11:58 AM
24.165.244.231
|
>Of course they can use other warheads, but you have to consider what's optimal for application. We were talking about concentrating damage on armored targets, not killing infantry or bunker busting
The damage-to-weight of artillery warheads makes them optimal anti-armor warheads. A single Long Tom or Arrow IV shell can affect 14 vehicular targets (stacking 2 vehicles per hex) with 10 or 20 points of damage each. That beats the heck out of the anti-armor performance of a similar weight of LRM ammo, which is lucky to do 20 points of damage to one target.
Really, whatever is in those artillery shells is worth copying on other munitions. Coming back full circle, the Thunderbolt's original fluff makes it a perfect candidate for a scaled-down version of those artillery warheads.
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.
|
Cheapbuzz
04/28/02 07:44 PM
165.76.24.118
|
Some do some dont missles and artillery do. If everything had splash damage a slow paced game would just become slower.
|
Karagin
04/28/02 07:50 PM
63.173.170.50
|
So you are saying that treating AC hits as streams of smaller shells hitting the target, which is how the fiction and older write ups discribe the rounds the ACs use, or akin to how damage is done for missiles would slow the game down?
How do you come to this conclusion? I am very interested in your thoughts on this.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cheapbuzz
04/28/02 08:05 PM
165.76.24.118
|
My point was that if you make all weapons do splash damage it would be slower. When I game there is usually about 6 of us. A typical round takes about 30 minutes or so to complete. so if you were to add slpash damage to the damage phase of every bodys turn a 30 minute round would take 35 minutes.
As far as ACs go you can allways fire cluster through an LBX autocannon. I happen to prefer a 20 point hit that can rip sh*t apart. I once buit a mech with 4 lbx 20s with cluster and it took forever to roll the 60 or so different locations. I know what the novels say and how the video games play I just prefer the way damage is done in BT.
|
Karagin
04/28/02 08:07 PM
63.173.170.50
|
Interesting, I have run games at cons with 12 players using Splash rules for ACs and the amount of time spent was about equal to not using the Splash rules.
Thanks for the input.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cheapbuzz
04/28/02 08:54 PM
165.76.24.65
|
If it works for you then cool.
|
Acolyte
04/29/02 08:51 AM
142.179.27.248
|
I think what you have here is the acid test for any optional rules set. Does it work for your gaming group.
From the way AC's are described, I would say that splash damage is justified, depending on the rate of fire. If the ROF was, say, 1800 RPM (30 RPS), and the burst consisted of 4 rounds, then no. If the ROF was much slower, then yes.
Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
|
Karagin
04/29/02 08:58 AM
63.173.170.119
|
Seeing how the older books call the ACs Vulcan like guns firing a stream of rounds and said rounds are packed in cassesets hence 1 round of ammo is actually many rounds when fired. That is were we got the idea.
Not sure of the rate of fire of the BT ACs....since none of the authors don't bother with such trivial stuff...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Acolyte
04/29/02 09:08 AM
142.179.27.248
|
Very true. It's one of those things that each group will have to decide on their own. Me, I just assume that they fire like cannons. one round is one round. That's how I play, that's part of my universe.
My thought on things like this is to add up all the money and time you've spent on the game and then ask how the heck can anyone tell me how to play my game after all that expense. As long as your the people you are gaming with are happy......
Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
|
Karagin
04/29/02 09:18 AM
63.173.170.119
|
Valid points, and I have also found that trying new rules or home rules for the game can be a lot of fun and can add to game thus making it even more of a joy to play.
So in the end it's up to you and your group on what goes or doesn't go into the game.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Acolyte
04/29/02 09:30 AM
142.179.27.248
|
I find there's a great enjoyment gained from using rules that are better than the basic bought set (for your group), and realising "I made that!".
My best experiance was when I made some rules for BT that were more realistic, and then found that the game went faster! Much faster. One lance of 'Mechs, one lance of tanks, and one plattoon of infantry devided into four squads, each man detailed as to which weapons he was using. (or she, wasn't that detailed!) That was the unit composition per side. We schedulaled 4 hours, just to test the rules to see if they worked and wound up finishing the battle in two. It was great.
Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
|
Karagin
01/17/07 12:17 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Rebouonding...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
strife
02/07/07 10:57 AM
80.76.243.67
|
Err, modern armor on today's vehicles are made to defeat HEAT and shaped-charge weapons, The armor on the abrams's for example, its just slabs of spaced, canted armor that redirects the plasma jet, molten copper mass or whatever. Shaped charge and HEAT ae largly ineffective against an Abrams's armor. It works best on solid-rolled homegenous steel armor like on older tanks. Its all about the Sabot rounds now, DU penetrators don't care if your armor is spaced or not.
Anyways, I alwasy figured BT armor was spaced-and bolted armor like an abrams, and all the shaped-charge and HEAT rounds in ACs and SRMs tend to blow off chunks and damage the armor rather then instantly penetrating it.
"caliber fifty JUSTICE!"
|
strife
02/07/07 11:16 AM
80.76.243.67
|
As for BT Autocannons, I figured they either fired a single shot, and a burst of shots that are fired in such quick succession that they have a tight shot-grouping. I'd assert that all BT armor is bulky, layered spaced armor with thin individual plates designed to mitigate HEAT rounds. That type of armor could even be theoreticly penetrated somewhat by cal .50 rounds, so BT machineguns can damage armor. Old, solid-forged steel armor is easliy penetrated, like you said, 700mm of armor, but thats a dead-on solid hit, if its hit at an angle is penetration is closer to 500mm, about 30-40% less depending on the angle of impact. Since modern tank armor is nothing but layer after layer of spaced, angled armor, penetration is not as likey as it seems it should be. If a HEAT round hits a sloid object, it projects a plasma jet , say 700mm, and it burns through air and steel just the same. So those really thin side-skirts on a tank can stop over 1200mm of penetration, because once it penetrates the skirt, it has to "penetrate" about 2 feet of air before it can penetrate the actual hull's armor.
And for lucky shots? My tank in Iraq was destroyed because a coffee-can full of Comp B blew a small hole in the fuel tank, it burned for 6 hours and all the ammo cooked off from a broken weld on a fuel tank. So I'd figure that rifle infantry use thermite grenades or satchel charges to attack armor, as a rifle round can't penetrate any surface on any vehicle at all, even the periscopes are bullet-resistant, but its perfectly realistic for a single SRM or something to completly destroy a heavlily armored vehicle, tanks all have there "Magic weak spots" (as I found out the hard way. ) Turret rings are also impossible to armor well, and thats another weak-point for direct-fire weapons on tanks.
another thing, High-explosives, like most artillery is almost useless on armored vehicles, it can't penetrate armor, at all. the most it can do is give the crew serious head-aches, and slightly dent and chip the paint of armor thicker then 10mm. Modern howiters and such are equallivate to the "Thumper" artillary in BT. High-explosives underneathe a tank, however, is another story.
"caliber fifty JUSTICE!"
|