Wick
02/14/21 05:02 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Quote:
Wick.
The suggestion of the fighters and such being inside of the K-F boom was a response to Frabby's idea that fusion engines inside units might affect the jump field.
Frabby: The fusion power plant of a dropships would presumably still be running to provide power. I suppose they could shut down and run off of jumpship power during jumps though. I'm not aware of this ever being explained though.
However, the Partisan Hull Defense tank's existence seems to imply that smaller fusion engines have no negative impact to jumpship operation, even if larger, dropship-sized fusion engines do.
Quote:
The oval shape is why I think stacking some dropships should be ok. Nothing would be outside the field, such as an ice asteroid being moved by Ryan's Iceships would have.
There's an inconsistency in how this has been explained. Dropships & Jumpships says multiple jumpships would line up around an asteroid and create multiple overlapping fields that would jump through space together. Later material says overlapping fields disrupt all jumpships involved.
The retcon is that a single jumpship with a gigantic jump core would move the entire icy asteroid on its own. This implies large dropships, KF booms, and anything else within a few hundred meters of the jumpship (probably even a few kilometers) are safely transmitted through hyperspace. (However, anything not firmly attached to the jumpship may arrive with different momentum and any pilots aboard would likely suffer greater affects of jump nausea, if not severe G-force injuries from dropping to near zero velocity. Fighter pilots throwing up in their helmets or dropship crews being thrown against their bulkheads is not wise, so fighters, shuttles, and dropships should always dock before jumping.)
|
ghostrider
02/14/21 07:29 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Reread Frabby's post. He did not say it was canon to even think about fusion engines having anything to do with K-F drives. It was a thought that the engines might have some odd side effect that could be used in the future. My response was trying to come up with things that would have to be worked on, in order for this to be even remotely acceptable. And in the statement, he said even shut down engines could produce the effect. It wasn't even suggested it could affect a jumpdrive, but just had some properties related to it.
The issues with Jumps and such have always had conflicting information. There have been stories of people not being belted in, being unaffected by the jump. While others seem to suggest that there is some sort of physical 'catapult' effect. As you noted, the abilities seem to change whenever TPTB need it to.
The Ice ships I tend to put into the category like the Steiner Arena. BS fluff put in to make it more futuristic. As the Iceships computers and jump cores can not be replicated, as it would destroy some of the game mechanics, it had to be 'lost'. Then out came the compact cores for warships, which really screwed up the concepts of jump cores. Compact to me has a side effect of being smaller and using less materials. Yet it has not even been applied to jumpships, saving costs, or allowing a larger jumpship using say the Monolith core.
Now I had thought the K-F boom was like the outside edge of a jumpfield at one time. Anything that went beyond it would be left behind. Yet somehow that was not the case, but there are instances that this is true. Having a sail deployed when forcing an emergency jump has left them according to a few stories. Sheared the cables at a certain point.
One example is the Behemoth. The scout says it can not have one attached because of it's size. But yet they claim the docking collar it the reason, not the jump field. So this causes even more questions.
|
ghostrider
02/16/21 08:45 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Will an EM Pulse stop a jump drive from working for a short while?
Such as trying to stop a ship from fleeing?
The idea of this came up in a discussion and the thought of it was interesting.
|
Wick
02/17/21 07:06 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Probably. Its controlled by a computer and the EM pulse could shutdown/reboot the drive computer. However its likely this stuff is shielded from radiation.
If the EM pulse happened as the jump field was forming, it would probably cancel the jump and the charge would be lost as the field collapses. The ship is probably physically undamaged (but may have electrical damage inside), as the field never pushed the craft into hyperspace. So I think it could be used to stop a ship from fleeing, but only if the electronics are not shielded. Since mechs can apparently absorb an EMP and keep ticking, I'd assume jumpships could too so it seems unlikely the rules actually allow it.
If the EM pulse occurred while in transit, I'd anticipate the result is a misjump and the loss of all hands. Its my understanding that the jump core doesn't just push you into hyperspace as viewed by a passenger, but to an outside observer it instantly disintegrates the atoms of the craft and reintegrates them at the target site. Without the core operating properly, the ship couldn't reintegrate so it is lost to real space. I could anticipate some kind of limpet mine attached to a jumpship that fires off in hyperspace, but it faces the same shielding problem and since it would destroy the jumpship, its use would be greatly frowned upon.
|
ghostrider
02/17/21 09:48 PM
66.74.60.165
|
I was thinking of the Tsemp, but it was made during the RoTS times, so wouldn't be around even during the invasion.
But mechs aren't immune to EM pulses. And they would have to be shielded, as PPCs tend to short out things that aren't.
The idea of using such a device is not destruction of the jumpship in my eyes, but to capture it. Might be to arrest a leader, on up to actually taking the jumpship from an enemy. This would also lead to the idea of using something like this to shut down a warship, given a larger sized munition to do so.
Such a time might be if they are trying an orbital bombardment, or moving past a gravity well. Shut down any sort of thrust and hopefully, it will only restart once the ship is too far into a gravity well to get out.
The concept comes from the group trying to make new weapons for the game.
When you are stuck behind enemy lines, and the only way to get anything new to fight with, taking it from the enemy in the field, while they are on patrol is about the only way to even attempt it. Supplies can be done with a hit and run, but we have it set so trying to steal a mech from a base is almost impossible without major effort and supplies. We don't normally carry the 'ideal' equipment with us on every mission. Too risky.
|
ghostrider
02/22/21 01:07 AM
66.74.60.165
|
As I have still not seen the definitive answer to this, I will ask again.
What is used to move tracked and wheeled vehicles, powered by fusion engines?
Is it actual electric motors?
The description of transmission does not really cover it entirely. The shielding should be removed from the description as there is no real need for it, since a fusion engine does not give off radiation, as it was originally implied to.
The motor question came up again, as the question as to why fusion engines output of power, can fire off any amount of energy weapons, yet the speed of a unit is tied to the size of the engine. I know the rules say it is, but the question still seems to have bite to it.
We have tried to use the fact that amplifiers (with ICE) are only 10 percent of a ton per ton of weapon it powers, but this can be used to suggest the power requirements don't match up properly.
|
Wick
02/24/21 05:15 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Its my understanding that fusion engines wouldn't work much differently than fission (or coal), in that the heat byproduct is used to convert water to steam, which turns a turbine before being cooled down and recirculated. This is supported by the fact that damaged engines create more waste heat because the water circulation parts have been damaged and it is no longer cooling as effectively. If it were the fusion components themselves damaged, it would no longer align properly to efficiently ram hydrogen atoms together and would produce less heat (and less power) as fewer atoms are being fused. So we can be reasonably sure there is a steam-cycle turbine involved.
A turbine spins, and to create electrical power all you need is a spinning magnet. Hydroelectric dams have been doing this for over a century. A larger fusion engine creates more reactions, and therefore more heat, which means you can have a larger magnet, more magnets on multiple turbines, or more RPMs for existing magnets, any of which produces more electrical current. More electrical current means myomers act with more strength, meaning faster mechs. More electrical current means stronger fans in hovercraft, meaning more speed. What it means for wheeled and tracked tanks is a little less clear.
Wheeled and tracked tanks would presumably use the same concept to power their weapons, but their motive systems could operate in two different ways: They could use electrical engines on each axle or have a drivetrain directly connected to the spinning turbine through a transmission (like what a modern car's engine provides.) Given the numerous examples in canon of fusion-powered tanks having their engines replaced by internal combustion, I'm inclined to say they use a transmission and drive train, since if ICEs can't generate enough power to fire energy weapons then they're likely not powerful enough to generate enough power for electrical motors to propel a tank forward, at least not as efficiently as a drive train would. (But since ICEs can also power mechs, it seems myomers need less electrical power than electrical wheel motors.) I presume the tanks could conceivably have both motor types (i.e., a hybrid vehicle), but this is added weight, added complexity, and added cost - not ideal for 'disposable' military hardware.
The shielding is for thermal radiation, not gamma particles. Gamma is fission byproduct but both fission and fusion create a large amount of heat byproduct. Without the shielding, a tank (or mech) would operate like an oven and cook the soldier(s) inside. The shielding is most likely a water-cooled shell, maybe with thermal reflective blankets separating pilots/soldiers from the engine compartment. Heat sinks are typically placed between engine and humans for similar reason.
Exceptions to full shielding would be mech flamers and jump jets. These presumably have some kind of valve to vent the fusion heat out of the engine core.
Theoretically you're right that the number of energy weapons to be used per turn should be limited to engine size. I think its just a simplification of the game rules that there is no limit.
|
ghostrider
02/24/21 06:40 PM
66.74.60.165
|
The fact that you don't run out of 'water' when using fusion engines, would suggest that steam driven turbines, would not be the way power is made. The water that it does need is to cause the fusion to happen. Oddly enough, the concept I thought was used is the plasma is circulated around coils, which then create the power, but that sounds a bit off.
The heatsinks seems to be to cool the plasma, so it doesn't over heat, instead of cooling the liquid needed to turn to steam.
The concept of an ICE not being able to produce the power the move the unit and fire off the weapons is a bit inaccurate. They use amplifiers to charge up the energy weapons, but the engine itself does not change in size to do both. The addition of the amps doesn't slow or labor the engine in the game. ICE does use the actual engine to drive the 'wheels' for movement, like a normal car.
The Myomers suggests some sort of electrical power being made, as kinetic energy does not cause them to contract on it's own.
The extra shielding for vehicles seems off, as the engine itself has the shielding to prevent heat from escaping, as the fusion engine in all uses requires the heat sinks they come with. The fact that any engine damage in a vehicle shuts it completely down, would suggest this is already covered. Also, vehicles can not 'store' heat as per the rules. Otherwise, the need for exact heatsinks to match heat from weapons would not be in effect, like a mech doesn't need them.
Also, vehicles crews would be required to use coolant vests and have their compartment sealed like a mechs if heat bleed was a big deal.
Given what you said, it does open up a few more questions.
I keep going back to the idea that the drive train is electric motors turning the motive system.
The main reason for this question comes down to an old question. Why could an ICE not just add extra amps to power the drive train, with a smaller engine?
|
Karagin
02/24/21 09:41 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Why don't we have turbine engines for vehicles in the game or smaller weighted ICE? The list is endless as to what could be fixed or allowed, but the counterargument will always be that any changes to vehicles will upset the mechs as the king of the battlefield. And I am sure some of you will point to the cool new stuff like Fuel Cells (pretty much just a Light Fusion Engine) and the other things that came with the updated rules, and I will still counter with those items don't correct the issue of better engines for vehicles, they are still not allowing vehicles to follow the same level of advancement as the mechs, which makes no reasonable amount of sense, even for Battletech.
The funny part about that argument is that it's false. My group has run battles, with vehicles that had DHS, endo, and other cool toys. We made no other changes to the rules, same asinine roll to show hit-table, same asinine critical table for vehicles and guess what the vehicles maybe stuck around a turn or two longer than if they didn't have improvements. Keep in mind at one point, brief though it was, vehicles could not use XL engines.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Wick
02/25/21 05:40 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Quote:
The fact that you don't run out of 'water' when using fusion engines, would suggest that steam driven turbines, would not be the way power is made. The water that it does need is to cause the fusion to happen. Oddly enough, the concept I thought was used is the plasma is circulated around coils, which then create the power, but that sounds a bit off.
The heatsinks seems to be to cool the plasma, so it doesn't over heat, instead of cooling the liquid needed to turn to steam.
Nothing I said discounts the possibility of plasma (which is in fact likely within the reactor vessel)
Nothing you've said discounts the possibility of heated steam turning a turbine to generate electricity.
The problem is converting thermal energy into electrical (or in the case of vehicles, kinetic) energy. Plasma is a hot, ionized gas, which could be used to turn a turbine, too, but channeling plasma into a vortex to spin a turbine while at the same time channeling it into a funnel to force a confined fusion reaction seems overly complicated. Magnetic fields generally force things only in one direction.
Direct energy conversion is a better option, but if you're going to complain that the water could run out then its fair for me to complain of fatigue on photoelectric plates. Maintenance and cost would be greater by using photovoltaics, but so too would energy transfer, so I'll grant that its quite possibly the option used in Battletech as it would allow smaller, lighter engines to generate more power compared to steam-cycle counterparts. Steam-cycle seems more effective for low-cost options like tanks though, and especially for any non-military equipment. It would also make for a good in-universe explanation for regular vs XL engines: steam-cycle could be physically smaller but heavier due to the extra coolant mass, pumps, condensers, and turbine(s) while direct energy conversion would be lighter with less coolant and no extra equipment but the comparatively expensive but mostly empty collector tubes are arranged around the reactor core in such a way that its size would be larger.
I said water, but that's probably not what is used if a steam-cycle is employed. Canon specifically mentions a toxic "coolant" involved. Coolant may not boil off or be expended as quickly, and probably handles temperate extremes better (especially cold, should the mech be stored for a long time in a cold environment, as ice expands when it freezes while most materials shrink instead.) Much more like antifreeze than water. Whether coolant or water, it probably acts a bit like gas and oil in a combustion engine - with a large enough fuel tank you could run the unit for several hundred hours before needing replenishment.
Still, I'll concede that direct energy conversion is what Battletech uses, rather than steam turbines based on greater energy output (more power captured by the collectors and less lost as waste heat.) It seems a lot more expensive and terribly fragile in my opinion, but they've got a few hundred years of advancement to solve the problems humans in 2021 haven't yet figured out. And this doesn't answer your question at all, since it would make sense for electric motors to have power amps to provide extra speed, even if it was electrical power stored up and discharged quickly for a brief speed boost (rules-wise, similar to MASC.) A turbine-powered drive train better explains the maximum speed tied to engine output.
|
ghostrider
03/05/21 08:54 PM
66.74.60.165
|
An odd thing came up talking about the Scorpion mech in the wiki section that needs to be addressed.
How is it, the developers suggest that armor can be welded onto the mechs head, yet it isn't really possible to do so with other units.
I do know there is 1 point of armor that can legally be put on the head, as the scorpion mech only has 8 points, but it sounds like the put on more.
This also runs along the idea of a cyclops having armor welded around the cockpit, and as the fluff says, 'gives it a look like it is wearing a helmet'.
This was done before the modular armor concept came out, so that doesn't count here.
|
feedtalefive
03/06/21 10:54 AM
49.15.241.117
|
I did know the arrow IV had tag guided missiles, but they did have tag guided aircraft and Aerofighter bombs? Ok. Good to know.
|
Karagin
03/06/21 11:27 AM
70.118.172.64
|
Quote:
I did know the arrow IV had tag guided missiles, but they did have tag guided aircraft and Aerofighter bombs? Ok. Good to know.
TAG can guide in ARROW IV, the TAG is nothing more than a glorified targeting laser that allows special munitions to be guided in. Yes, there are TAG-guided bombs and missiles for both mechs, vehicles, and aerospace fighters.
MAXIMUM TECH and I am sure the newer rules books have what all TAG can be used with. Here is the Wiki info to aid you:
https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Target_Acquisition_Gear
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
03/06/21 12:12 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Another question came up.
Do water bound naval vessels gain the additional cooling bonus that mechs do for standing in water?
This is saying they are in the water, not beached from low tide.
It should as it would be surrounded by the water at all times.
I could see restricting hydrofoils to just allowing it when they are not using the foils, as the water contact should not be enough to allow the bonus.
As for the TAG unit with guided munitions, the bombs came into the game after the clan invasion. Much like incendiary LRMs were not originally part of the game, they were added in when the logic suggesting they should be came up. The Fire Control system for guided missiles would appear to be a downgrade of it, though not sure about this. It is odd that it serves the same function, but on a more limited scale.
|
Wick
03/06/21 05:27 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Quote:
An odd thing came up talking about the Scorpion mech in the wiki section that needs to be addressed.
How is it, the developers suggest that armor can be welded onto the mechs head, yet it isn't really possible to do so with other units.
I do know there is 1 point of armor that can legally be put on the head, as the scorpion mech only has 8 points, but it sounds like the put on more.
This also runs along the idea of a cyclops having armor welded around the cockpit, and as the fluff says, 'gives it a look like it is wearing a helmet'.
This was done before the modular armor concept came out, so that doesn't count here.
Fiction doesn't always strictly agree with rules.
You could also interpret it that over the course of several centuries some mechs are more susceptible to metal fatigue or structural problems than others and need ad-hoc fixes, such as welding on more plates of armor to heads to bring the armor integrity back up to 8 or 9 points to help withstand a PPC or AC/10 shot. Without such fixes the armor may only provide 6 or 7 points of defense after being worn out in a few hundred years of combat use.
Cyclops has extremely delicate (and expensive) control and communication electronics in the head. Giving it a curve shaped helmet may deflect some shots and save the techs some repair effort. (Or at least the impression of providing that extra bit of defense even if it doesn't actually do so.)
.
Quote:
Do water bound naval vessels gain the additional cooling bonus that mechs do for standing in water?
Yes. The rule books are clear that heat sinks operating underwater provide double cooling. The examples it gives are always for Battlemech's walking into or underwater, but when describing the heat sink devices themselves it merely talks in terms in heat.
But as the construction rules for vehicles demand single heat sinks and enough to cool all energy weapons aboard, its a moot point. Say a submarine packed two Large Lasers and a fusion engine. Despite gaining the ability to sink 20 heat per turn, it still requires 6 additional heat sinks to cover the 16 total normally produced by the large lasers. In a radical rules explanation, if such a sub rested on the bottom of a lake bed and lake bed was then drained (i.e. dam destroyed) then it would still have to mount enough heat sink capacity to fire both large lasers when no longer submerged. (Of course, it can no longer move but can still fire.)
|
ghostrider
03/06/21 10:06 PM
66.74.60.165
|
The issue with the deflection of some shots for the extra armor on the cyclops is the fact that by adding on armor, it violates the maximum armor value it can have. The cyclops already has 9 points before adding on more. It is something the game does more often then it should. It violates their own rules in the TROs.
The scorpion mech not having armor on the bottom side for the cockpit area is violating their own rules, but it is not in the main area for it, so it isn't that big, but it suggests yet again, the game does not follow it's own rules. 0 armor in any location, IE under a mech, should mean 0 armor on the head. There is no separate hit location coming from the bottom of a unit, as even land mines hit leg armor on mechs and normal armor on tanks.
As the open frame of a vehicle, which is used to explain why heat build up from missiles and ballistics, should mean land mines should automatically do critical damage from land mines, as it would be 'bypassing' the normal armor, given the scorpion concept. Even soldiers that are in foxholes that a vehicle goes over would result in the same thing.
Or at least it would seem in my logic.
I wasn't trying to get around the need for the extra single sinks in a waterborne unit for the necessary sinks. Not sure when they added in the fact they can benefit from the sinks in water was the key. But thinking about it now, it is logical to think it was asked for that very reason.
And feedtalefive, the c3 master also functions as a TAG, in case you didn't know. Only the master does.
|
Karagin
03/07/21 10:48 AM
70.118.172.64
|
There are Cowling Rules in the old MechForce UK magazines and all it really did was add a couple of points. The head is the weakest point on a mech vs crap for armor that some of the mechs have.
Bottom Armor for vehicles/aerospace fighter and quad mechs is an area of contention that has been brought up since oh...1987 in an issue of StarDate magazine and the answer given was that the sides/rear armor includes the bottom and the center torso armor the quads did the same. Does it really address things? No, but adding bottom armor would be forcing them to re-write the vehicle's damage system and we have all seen how they are against giving vehicles anything that would really improve them.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
03/07/21 11:24 AM
66.74.60.165
|
For those of us that don't search the internet for every last rule change, thank you for letting us know about the MechForce concept. I don't think the main rules have reflected this, but the 9 max armor points on the head seems to make sure you have some chance to take one down if lucky, besides the thru armor crit.
I can understand why the bottom armor isn't really dealt with on ground vehicles, as it should be rather rare to be able to hit it without the vehicle turned over.
TOG (Terran Overlord Government) game deals with bottom armor as they have anti grav tanks that do expose the bottom on a pretty regular basis.
It would seem that a note in the main rules should be done in order to deal with vehicles bottom armor. It was proven in real life what land mines would do to vehicles, as they did have to reinforce and shape the bottom armor in order to deal with such things.
But then the game isn't set up to provide more realistic playing, as a single piece of armor on a mech limb needs to be destroyed before you get an internal crit on the limb. I do understand the need to keep it simple.
|
Karagin
03/07/21 11:45 AM
70.118.172.64
|
The TOG game is called RENEGADE LEGION.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
03/07/21 06:21 PM
66.74.60.165
|
It is very interesting that FASA made Renegade Legion.
I was under the impression that Renegade was part of the TOG story line, like the clan invasion was part of the battle tech story line.
The space combat has a few differences then land combat, but they do deal with needing bottom armor.
Which to be honest, front armor might not be considered the top armor in battle tech, if you really want to get picky.
Now one thing I had always thought about quads, was the cockpit was on TOP of the center torso, so in order to hit it, you would need to go thru the center torso armor and engine compartment to hit it. So it can be logged as just ignorance on my part for thinking that.
|
Karagin
03/07/21 08:06 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Not to go off the topic, but the RenLeg story is very complex and the setting is one that had massive potential but alas not the appeal that other games did have. I still play CENTURION and do enjoy the backstory of the game system.
Like our chat about the bridge, the cockpit is in the "head" and again it's going to be the point that is the weakest since the pilot or Mechwarrior (depending on what we are going with) is that weakness.
Look at what the game was based on, the mecha all had humanoid chassis and thus spot that was the head or something close to that at the upper top part of the chassis. Or in the case of mecha like the Locust or Marauder, the highest point of the torso.
The mech has to be vulnerable to some extent that a single "headshot" can take out the machine akin to the sniper taking out the gunner etc,...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
03/08/21 03:48 AM
66.74.60.165
|
I guess to avoid more lawsuits from Harmony, they put the cockpit in the head and not the torso like Robotech did.
But there are exceptions to this, such as the Thunderbolt. Sadly, the T-bolt's head isn't better protected, like you would think.
Renegade Legion was fun to play. I think FASA didn't do much to advertise it, like they should have. The damage templates were an interesting concept. Sadly, I didn't get to play it long, as the person that had the game moved away, and at the time, money for anything besides food was non existent for me. I guess I could see if they have it online.
As for Battletech, the concept of the cockpit location is like I said before. I would figure the center torso would be beneath it, even in the quad configuration. SO having an 'open' spot from below is hard to imagine.
But then I didn't design the game.
|
ghostrider
03/09/21 12:38 PM
66.74.60.165
|
The question of hitting a specific spot on a warship has brought up a question.
Given the fact that in battle, you want to take out the enemy as fast as possible, and the difficulty of the targeting of enemy craft, why couldn't guided missiles be used to hit the same spot on a ship? Weak points like weapons ports or cargo doors could be blown open, and allow further shots to bypass the armor by hitting those weak points with multiple shots?
Bunker buster(armor piercing) style missiles would absolutely be in the game, Even at say 10 million c-bills a pop, it would be worth firing off a few of them to take out a multi billion c-bill item like a dropship and cargo, much less a warship.
I do understand the reason of not making things like this, as it stops the game from being able to attack worlds that do have this sort of defense protecting them, without a major commitment of forces.
Maybe the concept of aimed shots in space warfare might be what I am looking for, It looks like that might resolve this conflict without being the super overpowered solution, if done right.
|
ghostrider
03/18/21 12:29 AM
66.74.60.165
|
Something is bothering me with the amount of time it takes to get up to normal cruising speed of a dropship going to/from jumppoint/world.
A Monarch dropship being used for normal people moving between stars, would try to keep a 1 g burn throughout most of the trip, with the exception of the flip over, doesn't keep with the speed at which dropships normally move between those points. It was suggested that 1.8 hours is possible to get up to the normal cruising speed of 700,000 kph speed. I don't know if that is 1g/3 thrust, or something else, but this sounds like the rest of the 3.5 days heading out from Terra would be without any thrust.
What am I missing in this equation?
Does the commercial/non military ships burn at a lower thrust keeping closer to the .2 g of a jumpship?
Do they get there even sooner, as they would burn for longer times?
It is doubtful they would burn more then 1 g, as normal people would have problems with it, and some would be higher ranking people that didn't have private ships.
|
Wick
03/18/21 07:25 PM
173.247.25.195
|
If velocity is is 700,000 kph, or 194,444 m/s, and time is 1.8 hours, or 6,480 s, then the V = a * t formula tells us the acceleration must be 30 meters per second. 1g is 9.8, so this is a little over 3g (3.06)
Dropships (at least military) burn the entire way. Another common physics formula is d = 1/2 a t², which tells you how far you go at constant acceleration for a given amount of time. Since Battletech trips usually involve burning up half the time, flipping for a mostly inconsequential amount of time, then burning down the remainder, we can use this this formula for either half of the trip. Using Terra as as example, which has a 9.12 day transit time, that means 4.56 days (~394,000 seconds) to the flipover. At 1g (9.8 m/s) that gives us a distance of 760.6 billion meters. Doubling that for the full trip gives 1.52 billion kilometers (10.17au), which is exactly the proximity limit for a G2 type star like Terra's Sol. (https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Jump_Point). Thus the dropships are accelerating and decelerating at 1g for practically the entire distance, and not going into a 'cruise' phase.
The concept of 'cruising speed' doesn't really apply to spacecraft that can accelerate the entire time. The reason cars and planes have a maximum or cruising speed is because there's a limit to how fast they can go (mostly due to wind resistance) to which the engines can't overcome (maximum) or become less efficient to try to overcome (cruising.) In reality spacecraft would have a cruising and maximum limit as well due to compression of microscopic particles ahead of the craft, but its only when you get to speeds approaching several percent the speed of light that the particles become dense enough or impact with enough force to have an appreciable effect - basically a non-factor in Battletech terms. (Though the mathematics indicate large dropships can attain such speeds with a long enough burn. The Overlord can theoretically reach 0.47c at maximum thrust of 2.5G for 66.5 days, if its not coming back from such a trip.)
However, if a dropship accelerated faster than 1g, then it could cruise for a good portion and get there in the same 9.12 days. Although the purpose of burning above 1g is to get there faster, not accelerate up and then cruise so as to arrive at same time. So if accelerating at 3g the entire trip to/from Earth and jump point, turning the formula around gives us a time to flipover of only 2.63 days, or total trip of 5.26 days. So if a dropship left orbit 3 days ago at 1g, and you had a 3g ship at your disposal, you could still beat them to the jump point (with almost a full day to spare)
My assumption is that non-military craft also continuously burn at 1g between planet and jump points. Most are probably less capable of much faster speeds though. 1.5g might be their max - potentially 2 under dire circumstances. The only reason to not be burning is to save fuel, but the trip takes longer. About the only logical reason I see for doing this would be if your jumpship wouldn't be fully charged if you arrived under constant 1g thrust, so you either accelerate/decelerate at less than 1g or burn at 1g for less time and coast part of the way rather than showing up to the party early. Most non-military craft probably only go above 1g when they are under attack or they are running late to meet up with a jumpship.
Because of the slower transit drives, a jumpship built in orbit of a planet or needing to return to a planet's orbit for maintenance takes quite a long time. If a jumpship at 0.1g had to return to Earth's orbit, it would be a nearly 29 day trip.
|
ghostrider
03/18/21 08:09 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Ok. So the 1.8 hours is not 1 g, but higher for thrust. That explains a lot. It is in the best interest of a civilian passenger transport to keep 1 g as much as possible, as normal people don't handle the lack of comfort, ie gravity, for very long.
I was also under the impression with the 700,000 kph being the standard for maximum speed.
As this was commonly used in another thread, I was ignorant on why it was used. I thought that was standard max speed with a 1g burn for half the travel, then used to slow down.
Thanks for clearing this up.
|
ghostrider
03/22/21 01:49 AM
66.74.60.165
|
Was playing HBS Battletech, and something very odd was noticed. The Argo has what looks to be a gravity deck. At least it looks like one, as it spins around the axis of the ship when it is not under thrust.
Is it something they added in to the newer rules, that a dropship can have a gravity deck?
I am assuming it is yet another non canon feature with it, but thought I would ask.
|
Wick
03/22/21 11:24 AM
173.247.25.195
|
I'd expect civilian transports would not exceed 1.2g except under special circumstances. Anything more would be uncomfortable to the passengers who are ultimately paying the upkeep on your craft. Cargo ships carrying non-human live cargo can maybe do 1.5g and likely would still be more worried about the effects on their human crew than the animal cargo. Though either could do more acceleration for short periods of time (10-15 minutes) without upsetting anyone too much - its the matter of doing it over the course of days that it would be terribly uncomfortable. Only military ships should burn > 1.5g for days. However, I admit don't have the medical knowledge to know the impacts of long-term high g forces so I'm taking a stab in the dark here on what seems reasonable. But since Battletech is mostly involved with military craft, we can assume its crews are trained to support whatever its max thrust is, and assume non-military stuff is going to travel at around 1g almost all of the time. Anything else is theoretical and falls in gamemaster's discretion.
700,000kph can't be the maximum velocity. We know the distance to Earth's jump points are 1520 million km and the standard time it takes is 9.12 days (218.88 hours), which makes the average velocity 6.94 million kph - ten times as fast. 700,000 kph max or average speed might be a trip to a planet's moon though; maybe nearby planets orbiting a red dwarf.
.
In HBS Battletech the three habitation pods spin around just like a gravity deck. This provides some gravity while in orbit but as I understand it its less than 1g because they mention a low-grav swimming pool.
The pods have to fold back in for transit, because they would otherwise provide a force perpendicular to the thrust of the main engines. By folding in, the exterior ends of the habitation pods reorient 'downward' to the engines, such that the rooms inside of the habitation pods always have the direction of gravity coming from their floors - they don't need to have tables, chairs, beds, etc reoriented like we discussed in the other thread.
The Argo has a few rules oddities like this and the Leopard docking collar. It think its rather explainable though based on its huge size and intended purpose (long-term deep space exploration.) I have a bigger problem in that it burns at 2g all the time after a few upgrades and that jumpships are readily available at the jump points despite being in the Periphery (even most worlds in House space wouldn't have a jumpship primed for jump almost immediately upon arrival of a dropship.) I think I pointed this out elsewhere that jumpship-poor areas of the Periphery (like the MoC which has something like 50 jumpships in total) only gets a jumpship to visit every few weeks on average, with more important worlds getting the lion's share and less important, backwater worlds perhaps going a few months between visits. You can't just board a dropship, travel to jump point and be ready to jump to the next system at your leisure. Instead of it being a two week turnaround in the Periphery to go from Planet A to planet B, it may be closer to two or three months (in which case, stay on Planet A for a few more weeks), and this assumes the jumpship is going where you want it and has an open collar (or two for the Argo), as it may already be obligated to jump to a different system or already be full. I realize HBS had to bend the rules to keep the game moving with less downtime, but realistically mercs operating in the Periphery have a lot less freedom of movement.
|
ghostrider
03/22/21 06:24 PM
66.74.60.165
|
First, the idea of a tube being a fighter cubical sounds weird, as I seem to see it meaning a round structure, not something like a cereal box.
It would have to be square/rectangular, as to fit any sort of fighter into it.
Which gave me pause, as the suggestion about having a set of arms come out to at least retrieve the fighter would be necessary, as the fighter should probably have the nose pointed out, and I seriously don't think the cubical would allow a turn table in order to rotate the fighter. The size of it, verse the size of the ship's space dedicated to it sounds like the issue. Doesn't mean this is correct, it just means it is a concern. One main reason I think of the loading arms, is that the fighters can be loaded/unloaded while the ship is grounded.
Now, while pondering this, the concept of aerodynes and their cargo came to mind.
As military aerodynes seem to be set up so they can load and unload on the ground, yet the main thrust seems to be aft orientated, how does this work?
Are the units stored with their feet/bottoms towards the bottom? This would suggest they 'hang' from the walls when the rear thrust is working. The opposite is suggested if they are orientated towards the aft of the ship, which makes loading and unloading that much more difficult. The old Triumph fluff suggested they have ramps to allow movement of units while in flight. This would suggest a bottom drive. Yet this would seem counter to unloading on the ground, as the ramps would be sideways.
Maybe someone can shed some light to this.
|
ghostrider
03/24/21 02:14 AM
66.74.60.165
|
Another question comes to mind about aerodynes and their transit flight concepts deals with weapon arcs among others.
It would appear that all weapons can fire straight up/down as well as their standard arcs on the ships. If not, then they could not use the transit drives in combat, as their top would be forward, with the bottom being the rear of the ship.
As there is nothing saying that anything besides the Avenger, can change the orientation of the internal items.
Which runs counter to the concept of the Avenger using the rear drive to get into fights in space.
The weapons came to mind as I watched a video of another game where the ships passing over one another, fired straight up/down on each other.
If they can't, then this is a MAJOR flaw in the combat system, but it would explain why 3d fighting is kept out of the game. Being directly above a ship, with your bow facing straight down in comparison to the enemy comes to mind.
The arc issue is a bit odd, as a nose mounted weapon can only fire 45 degrees to either side, making a 90 degree arc. The up/down would be 180 degrees total. This causes the question about why they are limited in the left/right arcs, but not up/down.
The rear would be the only other arc that would come to question, as the sides would be limited to obstructions, such as the wing placement, position on the fuselage, and such to limit where then can fire.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 50 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 170043
|
|
|
|
|
|
|