Requiem
03/10/21 05:49 AM
1.158.229.22
|
Considering the movement points of LAMS / aerospace fighters / drop-ships / Jump-ships and Warships
Given the distance from a planet in system to the Nadir / Zenith say 150,000,000 Km, and say it takes 9 days, the speed is 694,500 Km/h (rounded up) for a drop-ship / jump-ship / warship;
Then when you consider the speed of a fighter craft would have to be 2 to 3 times this to intercept the drop-ship / jump-ship / warship;
Should fighters have two engines? A normal atmospheric engine (where the speed now for basic fighter is 2,000 km/h) with a massive booster to reach a speed of 30,000 km/h to enable the craft to ascend into space.
Then there should be a second engine whilst in zero-G that allows the fighter to reach 1,400,000 to 2,100,000 km/h in order to catch any fleeing jump-ship / warship travelling at a max speed of 700,000 km/h
Then when converting this to MP velocity becomes a very interesting question?
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Requiem
03/10/21 06:22 AM
1.158.229.22
|
Also given the speed warships etc. are travelling at wouldn’t this require 100% energy weapons given the velocity of all normal munitions?
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Frabby
03/10/21 08:57 AM
79.212.148.120
|
You can't intercept spacecraft in in-system transit. They'd be out of your weapons range again within seconds of being in range.
Remember that they aren't traveling at a set velocity. They are accelerating at 1g (1 meter per second, per second) for days on end until flipover in mid-flight, when they start braking at 1g to arrive at the target world with little or no relative velocity.
In mid-flight the magical BT engines rack up extremely high speeds.
|
ghostrider
03/10/21 12:46 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Normal standard movement from a world or jump point is burn 1/4 of the way, flip and coast, then burn the other quarter, slowing down. If time is of the essence, then 1/2 to flip, then 1/2 to slow down.
As Frabby pointed out, once they get to a certain speed, engagement isn't very likely, with only a possible single shot coming from head on crossing flight paths, or a faster speed to catch up to the other ship. Lasers might be about the only thing that can be used, as the acceleration of the ships would make time on target beyond the ability of other weapons to compensate. It should be possible to fire ballistic and missile weapons ahead of the target ship, and hope you can time it so the shot hits, but given the fact that a straight on shot in space in the game is so hard to do, this would be near impossible. Not completely but 12s on the best shot concept.
This is why ships are not engaged between those two points.
Fighters can only go as fast as their engines will let them, so suggesting they go 2 to 3 times the speed of their target is inaccurate.
A 4/6 fighter chasing a 4/6 dropship has the same speed, if the dropship decides to go full out. The fighter will run out of fuel long before the dropship will. This is the deciding factor, as a fighter pilot is more likely to be set up to endure the top speeds longer then a dropship, as the crew of the dropship are normally not in a seat designed to help deal with the stress.
To be 2 times faster, the fighter would have to be an 8/12 speed.
A two engine space fighter besides violating the no two engine rule, would be that much heavier, meaning less weapons, armor and ordinance.
If you really want something to perform this feature, a house rule making some sort of booster for the fighter that has the engine/fuel capacity to at least attempt such a trick. The issue is if you survive, you probably won't have the fuel to get back home. It is unlikely to have a carrier or fuel tanker close enough to stop this.
And trying to fight at this speed creates another issue. No turns. To even try would require so much thrust to even move a little away from each other, or even towards each other. Speeding up or slowing down would be an issue as well.
This scenario is where mines might work. Lay it in the general path and hope the incoming ships run into the field. It isn't like they can dodge them, even if they can find them.
|
Requiem
03/10/21 04:09 PM
1.158.229.22
|
Quote:
You can't intercept spacecraft in in-system transit. They'd be out of your weapons range again within seconds of being in range.
Physics – The concept of Relative velocity on a position-time graph in relative velocity would say otherwise.
Object A and Object B will be able to establish a position of meeting at a time of meeting – from then on a constant velocity where Va =Vb can ensure the two objects are able to move parallel to one another due to their relative velocity.
In all reality any military naval computer should be able to calculate the trajectory (and if not any officer rating should be able to do so) and thus the physics to enable the ships to convene at a particular point as long as the trailing ship has the capacity to increase their velocity then reduce it once within range the two ships will obtain relative velocity. The only factor then is the distance separating the two ships with respect to the range of their weapons – utilizing any energy weapons (moving at the speed of light) the two vessels WILL BE able to engage one other.
This also applies to all aerospace fighter attacks – if they have the velocity / then they have the capacity to intercept, obtain relative velocity and engage.
Also the idea of flipping mid flight is not required as long as the ship has the ability to have engines fore and aft to make micro adjustments to their velocity in order to obtain relative velocity – alignment with the planet is only required at the end of the journey not mid way given the absence of gravity in space.
Quote:
A two engine space fighter besides violating the no two engine rule, would be that much heavier, meaning less weapons, armor and ordinance.
And rewriting the entire construction rules would not be difficult to so that armour and weapons are not sacrificed – this is supposed to be a science fiction game after all!
As for fuel capacity – ditch that – all engines are fusion in the future – the idea that petroleum / chemical engines still exist is a little hard to believe even with a decline in technology – once technology rebounds every major corp will be manufacturing fusion given the profit incentive to do so – and as stated previously when decreasing mass you will also decrease size! (as demonstrated by almost every technological advancement)
Quote:
And trying to fight at this speed creates another issue. No turns. To even try would require so much thrust to even move a little away from each other, or even towards each other. Speeding up or slowing down would be an issue as well.
Any onboard computer will be able to make this calculation to obtain relative velocity – once obtained all energy weapons and missiles with the same micronized engine that has a greater velocity than both ship and fighter will be able to strike given its targeting computer is able to lock onto the ship.
As for mines – doubtful unless they have stealth tech and also have an engine / targeting computer to obtain relative velocity to strike at the ship once detected. Otherwise their ability to be not detected and destroyed by the fore battery on the ship or just dodged by a small course correction would be achieved. It all comes down to how powerful the detection (active probe) equipment is relative to their velocity.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/10/21 05:20 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Seems like the initial engagement is alluding you, so let me try to make this simple. You chase after a ship that is just as fast as you are, how do you catch up to it, in order to fire on it? For them to strike back, they could simple drop something in your path, unless you are able to dodge it, which means slowing down in order to move away from it?
For scifi, they use side thrusters, but it still affects your speed. In the game, it requires actual turning the ship.
Now this is suggesting that you started out in the same area with the same facing. Trying to angle in on a ship means one shot maybe 2 at the most before your angles takes you out of range, unless you ram the ship.
The only time the ship you are after might slow down is when it needs to in order to flip for their slow down phase.
Not sure what game you are playing, but no ship in the Battletech has engines in the front of the ship to slow it down.
I am going to assume that you would think the ship you are trying to engage did not go full out on the way in, so therefore has some extra thrust to stop it at the destination. Otherwise, you will overshoot your target until you can, and then have to burn back to it.
I believe you are assuming that both sides of this engagement want to stop and fight. Not something a raider is likely to do. They want to get their forces onworld before you can get reinforcements there. This is true for those trying to get out of system as well.
Now 'fixing' it so a ship can hold two engines and not worry about weight counters the entire concept of having a max weight, or that engines require so much of it to operate. There is no zero mass engines in Battletech. No gravity lens to lighten the ship. Might as well use magic to power the ship since reality isn't part of this topic at this point.
Now the statement of forgetting fuel is funny. The fuel is use to propel ships. The engine runs fine without expending any, but to actually move the ship, requires that fuel to be expelled. Again, magic comes to mind. Or may a full rereading of the rules as to WHY things are like they are. Even Ion or nuclear rockets expend mass to move the objects. Or do you believe fans moving air will allow space flight?
Again, overestimating what a ship can spot while flying at speeds and thinking you can just blow them out of the sky. To make a world in say 9 days flying from a point about Pluto to earth means going faster then a car doing 60. By the time you detect an item say the size of a desk, then try to target it, you are more then likely going to be past it before you get the chance. The mines don't have to move, but do have to be in your path.
As a suggestion, you might want to look over some physics on changing direction with a multi ton ship in space at speeds. It is not the same thing as trying to change your direction while at a full run.
This is talking a few thousand KMs a second. And as stated before, the thrusters are NOT able to just push the ship on an instant. Even fighters don't dodge that quickly in space, much less even 3000 ton ship.
|
Requiem
03/10/21 06:27 PM
1.158.229.22
|
Quote:
You chase after a ship that is just as fast as you are
As shown within the game velocity is relative – so when the chasing ship has a higher velocity this statement becomes …..?
Quote:
they could simple drop something in your path, unless you are able to dodge it, which means slowing down in order to move away from it?
First, what happens to anything thrown of a ship moving at extreme velocity? Ans. ripped to pieces so unless you have built this mine with a massive structural integrity as well as heat resistance due to reducing in speed ……. Then there is the question of remaining on course as it is decreasing in velocity …. So good luck on that idea …..second forward batteries …. third even a small change in direction will put a vast distance between whatever was dropped off without even decreasing velocity!!!
Quote:
In the game, it requires actual turning the ship.
Unless you actually use engineering to redesign the ship’s super structure. This is again basic engineering where the rules of the game make no sense whatsoever …. If you can envision it you can build it.
Quote:
Trying to angle in on a ship means one shot maybe 2 at the most before your angles takes you out of range, unless you ram the ship.
So how do fighters able to strike at another fighter – same principle!!!!!!!
Quote:
fuel
The fuel is water – and a mech can run for how many YEARS on a tank of water – so how many years can a fighter / warship run on the same principle? Thus making the entire issue of fuel a waste of time.
Quote:
overestimating what a ship can spot while flying at speeds and thinking you can just blow them out of the sky
Question – how advanced will a simple laptop be in 1000 years – so how advanced would a military computer be at the same time? Also how advanced would the sensor equipment be? consider a patriot missle battery if it can work against incomining missles now then in the future it is also able to achieve the same result.
Quote:
As a suggestion, you might want to look over some physics on changing direction with a multi ton ship in space at speeds.
Again one super computer + one engineering system that enables the ship to move at speed – so again not a problem.
Quote:
the thrusters are NOT able to just push the ship on an instant.
This is a science fiction story so the “thrusters” or whatever do whatever you say they do!
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
Edited by Requiem (03/10/21 09:08 PM)
|
ghostrider
03/10/21 11:38 PM
66.74.60.165
|
You chase after a ship that is just as fast as you are, how do you catch up to it, in order to fire on it?
so when the chasing ship has a higher velocity this statement becomes
So where did the question change from just as fast to faster? This sounds like you didn't bother reading the question in the first place.
Where is the friction in space you are talking about to rip apart anything dropped from a moving ship?
The initial idea was that someone could have placed mines in the main path of ships going from jump point to world or back again. But the leading ship could very well jettison the items behind it, so it moves at a slower speed, and you run into it. It doesn't even have to be explosively fired off the ship, just air pressure or even springs loaded.
With the idea you present, lifeboats would rip apart as soon as they are launched from a ship at speed. They don't.
And it seems you are forgetting we are talking in space. An object dropped should not lose speed, but you are accelerating in order to keep up with the ship you are chasing. You continue to increase speed, while the dropped object stays the speed it was dropped at. You will eventually pass the object dropped unless it has a thrust to keep it accelerating.
The super structure has very little to do with the fact that in order to move off in another direction, you need to turn the ship so the only engines can be used to push you off in a new direction. The stress of when you do so, is where the super structure comes into play. Any change in direction means the ship heading straight forward will move further in that time, as you are now off course, even if ever so slightly.
Dog fighting differs, as they are trying to exchange fire, not simple run past each other. Interception of something that does not slow to turn and fight is very difficult to engage properly. So basically, you make a single pass then turn to try and catch up.
Go read up on fuel used by ships in space. They use it as a means of propulsion. It is not running the engine, but being used as a reactionary force in order to propel the ship forward. That includes flying in space as well as launching and landing on a gravity world.
Game wise, laptops are worse then what they are today. But the battle computers used to fire the ships weapons are horrible. In real life, I would think they are able to process that data as fast as the sensors can give them information on speed and direction of the object verse the ship. But I will say that when you are doing several thousand miles a second, as the ship would be moving towards a world from a jump point after the initial burn from the jump point, seeing such objects is the key. Most ships use energy shields to move micro meteors and such out of their way, or have an object that is sacrificed to avoid damage to the main ship. This is not just at speeds approaching light, but even slower. The U.S. shuttles had cracked windows from hitting debris while orbiting earth. Imagine moving 10 times that speed.
Changing direction in space is not the same as it is with resistance, such as air or dirt. You slide for a ways before you do any real sort of movement off your course. Look at the course correction burns for going to the moon, then realize how slow you are actually going compared to making it to earth from pluto in a little over a week. And if you can detect something while slowing down, which the ship's burn tends to get in the way, it is even more unlikely to avoid the issue.
The speed of the ship moving as well as size and wieght determines how much thrust it requires to turn to move into another hex. Again. You argue with your magic physics when discussing a game that does not support magic. The game says thrusters do NOT do that at any time friendly speed. The slide of a ship is why it requires so much thrust to change direction. It is based on actual real life physics with dealing with space. To gain more ability to move faster in changing direction means increasing the size and power of those very side and front thrusters. That requires more weight as they need to be enlarged as well as powered properly.
|
Requiem
03/11/21 03:04 AM
1.158.229.22
|
Quote:
Where is the friction in space you are talking about to rip apart anything dropped from a moving ship?
There is not actually zero friction – trace amounts of dust, hydrogen, and radiation – and this will cause significant drag when you are moving really fast relative to the dust.
Consider the Bussard Ramjet - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet
Hydrogen from the interstellar medium etc.
What happens when you throw anything of a very fast moving object and there is the interstellar medium? Newton’s laws still applies. Or are you going to put an energy shield around it?
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150809-how-fast-could-humans-travel-safely-through-space
And in the final paragraph “The kind of technologies that could enable unforeseeable new transit speeds, if future physics finds out that such technology is possible,” Millis says, “would also give us new, unforeseen possibilities for protecting crews.”
Quote:
The stress of when you do so, is where the super structure comes into play.
If the vehicle can survive the stress of moving at this extreme velocity then it can most certainly handle a course correction on an elliptical plan – if the ship was unable to bear these forces it would just rip itself apart due to the drive.
Quote:
dog fighting differs, as they are trying to exchange fire, not simple run past each other.
This is why the ships are obtaining relative velocities in order to engage one another – in effect you are matching their speed …
Quote:
Game wise, laptops are worse then what they are today.
Subjective at best ….. Star League era or 3025 era or 3150 era ……
Quote:
Again. You argue with your magic physics when discussing a game that does not support magic.
Science and magic are the same thing; magic is only science that hasn’t been explained yet – Arthur C. Clarke – and any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic …. And When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
Remember we are 1000 years into the future within an empire of thousand of worlds with millions of ships of one type or another – with how many wars fought to hold onto these empires?
It would be ludicrous to believe that once a ship achieves a certain velocity is is now beyond the reach of any weapon system – if so why not make a weapon that can use this speed to crash into a world killing everyone on it thus ending the need for any other weapon system – you could effectively just send out a fleet and genocide off your enemy in one hit!
In the space of a couple of years you could easily kill off every world your enemy holds with such weapons.
So how are any houses going to fight against an enemy using a weapon such as this if they can never get near it once it starts moving – especially if you are not using the nadir / zenith point to launch your weapon – somewhere far from it ?
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/11/21 12:49 PM
66.74.60.165
|
It is very possible to build a ship that can handle speeds when it travels in a straight line, yet tear itself apart when trying to turn at that speed. That is why Structural Integrity is part of the game. As most ships reinforce the forward/backward style movement, to handle the engines thrust to move the ship, they tends to be weaker on the side to side or up and down movement. Weight savings to allow the ship to haul more, or use less fuel is two reasons why they do so. Economics plays a major part in this, as people plainly cheap out. A simple aluminum can should work for an example. It crushes easily when the sides are pressed, but takes more pressure to smash from top to bottom.
Not comprehending the part of the statement that the lead ship is moving on it's own target and does not want to engage? Dropships engage in dog fighting as well as fighters, but when one side is trying to ignore the other and has the same speed and distance, you don't get the fight you want.
Doesn't matter the era in the game. A lap top is not as powerful as it is today. A game super computer is nerfed as well. They can't figure out most things that deal with combat, yet some how, an AMS can shoot down missiles coming in. I am not suggesting mgs can fire at a klick and do damage to armor with this. But even during WWII normal tanks could hit others at a distance further then the game can.
An old computer game, I think it is called Mantis, does space battles more realistically. Normal games have you turn like you are in the atmosphere. Mantis has you having to counter the direction slide with every little turn you make, so you have to overshoot your desired direction until the ships momentum changes properly. It was a huge pain to do anything, including lining up to dock with something else.
Time to clue you in. Making a weapon that you can use high speeds to destroy worlds is called a mass driver. Asteroids are used for such a purpose. It is also possible to use, I want to say tungsten rods, though that is probably the wrong metal, to drop from orbit and it hits with a huge kinetic energy, like nukes but without the radiation. This is why gauss rifles are so dangerous and the fact better rail guns probably will never be used in the game.
|
Requiem
03/11/21 05:26 PM
1.158.229.22
|
Quote:
It is very possible to build a ship that can handle speeds when it travels in a straight line
Question – you are at max speed by the mid-point and at that point you are expected to roll the ship over to enable you to begin slowing down – how incredible would the strain of that one event alone put on the superstructure of the craft? Is you are able to roll a ship at extreme velocities how is it that it is unable to make course corrections.
Then all I need do is to have a faster drop-ship than the one you are fleeing on – plot your straight line course – get in front of your drop-ship and I will be able to not only capture your Jump-ship but also be ready to engage your ship once you come out of accelerated speed.
Then there is also the problem of what happens if there is anything in front of our ship as you are on your straight line path? You can’t evade – your moving too fast to fire your guns, so you just hit whatever is in your path and at these velocities it would be like a mosquito hitting a vehicle …… also due to the limited detection equipment you would not even know you are going to hit something until your ship just explodes around you … yes, this is great way to travel …. Completely unaware of your surroundings until you his something!!!!!!
Quote:
Economics plays a major part in this
How? when drop-ships are the main ships moving at these accelerated speeds between their jump-ship and the planet in question.
Quote:
but when one side is trying to ignore the other and has the same speed and distance, you don't get the fight you want.
It is not a matter of getting the fight you want – if you can maintain relative velocity with relative distance – which an onboard navi comp should be able to do all the minor course corrections - then you are stuck fighting it out, at relative velocity and relative directionality, until both parties separate from one another ….
Quote:
Doesn't matter the era in the game. A lap top is not as powerful as it is today.
Even during the Star League? Sorry but this cannot be considered factual - especially when you factor in Drop-ship navi computing – travelling at vast speeds for exact location egress - Jump-ship computing power to make a single jump / the department of Mega engineering / even getting a Mech to walk utilizing a person interface helmet …. Etc
The ability to compute all of these events is beyond every computer on the planet !
Quote:
But even during WWII normal tanks could hit others at a distance further then the game can.
Rule Input to enable the game’s simplicity – if correct distance are utilized then the maps would be massive or the game pieces would be 5mm high – game play would be incredibly slow to work out distance / line of sight – and everyone would reject such a system due to being too complex …. Ranges reduced on purpose in order to keep the game quick and fun ….
Quote:
Mantis
How popular is the 1992 game today due to its complexity? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XF5700_Mantis_Experimental_Fighter
Two stars out of five ……
There are other systems
Star Wars X-wing – Warhammer 40K Battle-fleet Gothic armada ii for example
What is required is a set of rules … otherwise given the facts as they stand any house could quite easily kill off another house in a matter of months …
So what’s the point of even having a navy is you are limited to fighting those at the jump point and surrounding a world / naval yard?
You know they are on the way due to energy signal detected from the jump point (or are travelling back to the jump point) so you then have multiple days to prepare ( or you can just get to the jump point first) your navy forces and you can then scan for their presence / single line trajectory so that you know exactly where they will decelerate to a point where your ships can just line up and open fire first – or you can even create a massive mine filed in front of them whist travelling at speed that they will crash into as they have absolutely no means of manoeuvring around the mine field as all they are allowed to do is go in a straight line.
Every fleet within the game is now incredibly useless – including every drop-ship as all you need is half a dozen picket ships with many mines who can effectively lay a mine field in front of any incoming ship as you know exact what straight line trajectory they are coming on (as you have many days warning) and all you need to do is place a few mines in front on them and they are now scrap ….. and they will not be able to move in any direction or even know until they are a fireball in space!
Quote:
Making a weapon that you can use high speeds to destroy worlds is called a mass driver.
Using a single drop-ship packed with a massive amount of very nasty nuclear waste / nuclear isotopes that hits the planet at an extreme velocity is called a fire-ship / kamikaze turning the entire atmosphere into ….. without the ability to put a mine field in front of the ship … there is not one weapon that can stop it once it is shot off from the Jump-point …..
In all reality this is the perfect weapon for the 1st Succession War -one drop-ship per world you want dead – very cost effective and gets the point across very quickly ….. that is unless minefields are allowed to stop the incoming ships ….
Either way the entire game has a problem …. Unless you can manoeuvre at high speeds and you can engage at high speeds
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/11/21 06:43 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Really don't understand the difference between a turn and a flip over I see.
A turn requires full thrust in order to change the direction of movement from straight forward to a new direction. Flipping a ship does not change the movement of the ship, just the orientation of the ship. Much like being on skates or a skateboard. You do a 180 turn and do not even attempt to deviate from the original movement. Do a turn that is say even 30 degrees, and you are likely to be thrown in the direction you were originally headed. The thrust starts in as perfect as you can get it direction away from the original direction of movement. Hence accelerating in the opposite direction. Not at some angle.
Not sure why you think a jumpship would be moving quickly to avoid a fight, as they are more likely to jump out if they have a charge. Now having a faster ship removes this entire concept. As stated, both ships would be same speed.
Once a ship flipped you would gain on it, but you would need to slow down in order to maintain your optimal distance. Once you do so, you will slowly begin to fall behind again as you don't have reverse power to speed back up to the other ship.
How does economics play a part in ships moving between jump point and worlds? You can't figure that out? A ship can only carry so much weight. In order to move more product or equipment, people tend to remove and go with inferior equipment on their ships, such as some removing some or all the weapons on the ship. They use that weight to carry more cargo. Or by a lesser grade structure or armor and they are not expecting to have to push the ship to it's limit. This is standard economics today, and won't change in the future. Even military ships aren't as well maintained as they should be. Hence saving money.
Not thinking about how the game works? Those computers doing the calculations are NOT laptops but MULTI TON systems. If they were simply laptops, then you could install a few extra to gain better targeting on firing solutions. A targeting computer that is extra is 1 ton for every 5 tons of weapons that use it. 1 ton. Not 20 pounds.
The to hit numbers is what slows down the game. The shorter ranges is what causes more issues. That is not saying this isn't forced from the objects on the field, that rarely give you distance with a good line of sight. Realistically, the only time you should get into physical combat is if you are ambushed or out of weapons. Guided weapons can hit targets that you can't see, yet can detect. This is removed from the game to make it more fun, as stumping on each other with physical attacks.
|
ghostrider
03/11/21 06:54 PM
66.74.60.165
|
What is the point of a navy? You really have to ask that?
The navy is there to try and stop the enemy from landing on your world as best you can. If you don't understand this, then just give up, as the enemy will almost always stomp on you. Plus this also means that you don't get to attack the enemy at their homes, and you can't even get into another system. Why I have to even say this is beyond understanding at this moment.
The example of the game is the real way things would go down in space. It was horrible to even try to play.
The jump detection thing is retconned into the game as they did NOT have such things in the earlier game to prevent worlds from sudden invasions. First off, you would need to be the ONLY target in the system to even begin with the example you have started. Having something at the jump points or even pirate points to make sure the ships are not just moving thru the system to get to another one. Then comes the fun part.
Do you think the enemy is soooo stupid as to not plot a curved course to their destination that will avoid any direct lines to the target? Only one encounter would stop the enemy from doing so again. And it does not have to be of a major speed either. Hell, the idea of mining the direct path would be something an invader would do in order to catch you trying that tactic. This is dangerous, as trying to remove such debris so commercial vessels don't get destroyed is a problem.
Why waste the money on destroying a dropship? You can do so with something far less expensive. There are things you can load up and destroy the world without wasting the dropship. Long range shuttles can be used as well as just dropping normal bombs with the materials from fighters would do the trick. Also, the fighter way would make it so you can limit the destruction, so you can take over anything you want to, providing the enemy doesn't just camp out in the target. Then you might have to destroy it.
|
Briarthorne
03/11/21 08:26 PM
76.216.164.102
|
Hi Ghostrider, I remember Mantis... A game that painfully introduced us to the concept that actual space combat isn't even close to what we were expecting.
Your debate with Requiem is a bit of asymmetrical warfare.
You remind me of someone from the old Star Destroyer BBS, and as much as I want to participate in this debate you have nailed all the points.
|
Requiem
03/12/21 12:36 AM
1.158.229.22
|
Your moving at 700,000Km/h and you are going to flip the ship – consider centre of mass to centre of thrust - especially when it is off centre.
Consider newtons 2nd law the net external force to the ship
Also consider harmonics along the hull of the ship
Quote:
Not sure why you think a jumpship would be moving quickly to avoid a fight, as they are more likely to jump out if they have a charge.
Dropships !
Quote:
Once a ship flipped you would gain on it,
And if you hit a ship attempting to complete roll then the energy forced on hull will send the ship into a massive spin whilst moving at 700,000Km/h
Quote:
A ship can only carry so much weight.
How much nuclear isotopes are required to permanently poison an atmosphere upon a drop-ship striking the surface – especially when during the Jihad only a few nukes were used to kill off entire planets !
This is how economy of scale comes into it - with 100 drop-ships all packed to gills can quite littery kill off any House’s main C-in-C world and military …. If you use the same tactic Hanse Davion used you could quite literally do it in a single day if you use non populated jump ponts when travelling between worlds to your destination.
So how much would this cost compared to the cost of an entire army?
Quote:
A targeting computer that is extra is 1 ton for every 5 tons of weapons that use it
And once again this is where the game falls over where most computers are getting smaller with larger computing output – what we have here are massive computers thus their ability to compute would be on par with super computers within governments and large organizations.
So why does a a simple targeting computer need to be this massive – is there a radar unit attached or something else that was never discussed?
Quote:
Do you think the enemy is soooo stupid as to not plot a curved course to their destination
Problem is yesterday – they could only travel in a straight line and today they can complete course corrections at 700,000km/h
Please chose one and stick with it – either they can manoeuvre at high speeds or they can’t which is it?
Quote:
What is the point of a navy? You really have to ask that?
The navy is there to try and stop the enemy from landing on your world as best you can.
Please advise – if I shoot off an unmanned drone drop-ship packed with massive amounts of nuclear material within the hold - it can reach a velocity of 700,000Km/h in transit – it does not slow down or brake or flip it is sent on a one way mission to strike the planet at max velocity and in so poisoning the atmosphere killing everything on-world.
Which naval weapon is able to strike the drop-ship travelling at 700,000Km/h prior to striking the planet when the range of your weapons is only about 1,000km? this gives you how many seconds to come within range, detect and fire – and hit it?
So how good is the navy now?
So can I have energy shields around all my planets now?
Quote:
Long range shuttles can be used as well
Can they reach the same speed as that of a drop-ship – and do they have the same cargo capacity as a drop-ship?
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Cray
03/12/21 01:54 AM
71.47.193.139
|
Quote:
How much nuclear isotopes are required to permanently poison an atmosphere
To permanently poison an atmosphere, you'd need an infinite amount of isotopes. BattleTech follows basic science details like radioactive decay, so any dangerous, short-lived isotopes would decay away in weeks, months, or a few years. Jihad Hotspot was careful to name the isotopes selected for salted weapons used in the Jihad. Terra, for example, had quite a few salted nuclear weapons detonated on it. Per JHS:Terra, this didn't kill everyone but rather inconvenienced agriculture and prompted a clean up program to get the fields clean faster than a few years that natural decay required.
Quote:
especially when during the Jihad only a few nukes were used to kill off entire planets !
The only true nuclear exterminations of planets in the Jihad involved thousands of nuclear weapons. I know, I wrote those bits.
Quote:
And once again this is where the game falls over where most computers are getting smaller with larger computing output – what we have here are massive computers
Targeting computers in BattleTech canonically include the massive servos required to aim and coordinate weapons. Obviously, the computers themselves are only a small part of that mass.
Quote:
Please advise – if I shoot off an unmanned drone drop-ship packed with massive amounts of nuclear material within the hold - it can reach a velocity of 700,000Km/h in transit – it does not slow down or brake or flip it is sent on a one way mission to strike the planet at max velocity and in so poisoning the atmosphere killing everything on-world.
Contrary to the fevered nightmares of anti-nuclear activists, nuclear waste isn't inclined to stay in the air. The millions of tons of fallout lofted by Cold War aboveground nuclear testing didn't linger inthe atmosphere to exterminate all human life. It quickly settled out of the air and became local problems, not global. And then faded quickly, which is why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never evacuated, and why Fukushima is a thriving agricultural district today, and why the Trinity test site is now a tourist destination.
Slamming a fast DropShip into a planet's atmosphere with some thousands of tons of nuclear waste is an inconvenience for the survivors at ground zero and a rallying cry for the rest of the planet to repel the invaders.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Requiem
03/12/21 03:10 AM
1.158.229.22
|
Quote:
To permanently poison an atmosphere, you'd need an infinite amount of isotopes.
Infinite is a very strong word …..
https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Circinus
To ensure the destruction of The Master and any remaining senior members of the Word of Blake the Regulan flotilla spent several days subjecting Circinus to a systematic nuclear bombardment, using cobalt-laced weapons to ensure the highest possible level of destruction and ultimately the complete sterilization of Circinus.
So, what happens if the ship and its entire cargo bay is one huge cobalt bomb, where upon striking the world causes a massive detonation?
There is a point where the number of bombs utilized to destroy Circinus is equal to the amount within the cargo etc. - and if so which ships or ships - Hercules – just cargo alone – 1,381 tons or will it take two ? massive cobalt bombs?
Either way the planet and everything on it will have a problem ….
Fukushima: 10 years after Nuclear Disaster – US Today Show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdwGshdfBOU
Ghost town - Where only animals live today – still abandoned …..
Also …. How may ships did it take Circinus (as the report only had a few ships as seen by the only witness) and how many nukes and where were they made and by whom and how long did it take to make all of them and where did the technology come from to enable these weapons to be built and were did the raw materials come from and which mining company dug them up and processed them and on which planet?
No matter how you look at it this tactic utilizing the correct payload will cause massive problems – question utilizing an antimatter weapon (theoretically possible) – would it be able to be manufactured en mass …?
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/12/21 03:19 AM
66.74.60.165
|
As with the Viper issue in BSG, the ship itself can flip in any direction it wants. The stress comes from inertia once you fire the engines to change direction. The lack of friction in space allows even aerodynes to do this.
As for a curved route to a world, no one said it had to be moving at full speed. Not sure why this had to be said. And there are a few stories in the game where the invaders did not head directly in or out. The Black Thorns had this in it as well as one of the fights for Defiance as well. They came in slow to avoid detection.
The rotation may well be done in hours, not the instantaneous flip most think of. I really don't know that part. I just know you can do so, maybe with something of just lessening one side of the thrust for an instant, then reigniting it when you are flipped. It might also be the thrust only on the side that the ship came from.
The issue Cray brought up with the targeting computers is a bit flawed. If the weight contains servos and such to help aim, then the system would have to be where the weapon is at, IE an arm mounted weapon would have to have the TC in that arm. But again, this illogical concept shows flaws in the design. Possible to have it, but not logical in physics.
Also, if it controls multiple weapons such as 5 mls, or 10 mgs, each one has to have their own servos attached to them.
With firing off the unmanned dropship, angle of descent plays a huge part on weither the ship enters the atmosphere or bounces off. Straight in, would probably destroy the ship before it got far. It is possible to burn up the isotopes before they can spread in the atmosphere. To shallow of a descent and you head back into space. Cray has more information about the amount needed to destroy a world, so will refer to his post for that one.
Size is a factor with your example. Finding something the size of a small car verse something the size of even the smallest dropship is a far different affair. Not saying Battletech sensors will be completely reliable, but the dropship is more likely to be found.
Circumstances come into play with this as well. Barring the above concept of the ship blowing up before it gets that far into the atmosphere, it would come down to if anything was in the area before the ship got within range. Capital weapons being the only thing that might stop it before it hits. Normal weapons wouldn't do it.
Without pulling anything, the Leopard dropship has a total of 5 tons of cargo. The shuttle can haul more.
Briarthorne. I have never been on the Star Destroyers BBS. I try to keep things to the facts, but I don't always succeed. I also fail at keeping it civil at times. The only way to bring up facts is by using the game mechanics, but real life situations do have some bearing in this. As stated before, the BMR rule set is the last one I got, so I don't know exactly what was changed or added. It is ironic that something over 20 year old still has an impact now.
|
ghostrider
03/12/21 03:24 AM
66.74.60.165
|
As I posted about the same time as you did, I have to add in some more.
One bomb does NOT equal multiple bombs spread across a world. Your one impact site could well not spread to all corners of a world. This is not saying you won't do damage, but it would be more localized.
Also the huge explosion may well work against you. If powerful enough, you could end up sending the very isotopes off world. Also, the last post about burning up the isotopes is also possible.
|
Reiter
03/12/21 03:50 AM
107.185.100.70
|
Quote:
tl;dr - interception in space is not going to happen, some of the better sci-fi I read which uses basic physics on fuel burned like the BT universe, you got 2 shots...one on approach to catch up and a second just as you pass it; only a fraction of a second. Simply put, you can't catch up, maintain speed, or intercept a target dropship which can just futz with its engines to reduce speed which the fighters can't control or counter momentum fast enough.
Strategic Operations offered "high speed closing engagements" for interceptions near a planet. It summarizes how battles that basically occur in milliseconds plays out, giving players a simplified, single chance to stop invaders.
The high speed closing engagement rules address several oddities of BT's aerospace combat:
BattleTech sensors are mostly quite short-ranged. Drive plume sensors only work at tens of millions of kilometers, and radar and infrared are even short-ranged. This means you're NOT going to track enemies through the depths of interplanetary space, such as between a jump point and target planet. Defenders on or near a planet will only see invaders on final approach.
Further, weapons are short ranged. Most capital weapons cannot fire at more than 900 kilometers range.
The flip side to this is that interceptions become somewhat possible because the invaders are going to a small volume of space (a planet) and the defenders are waiting for them. The first steps of High Speed Closing Engagements are for defenders to abstractly maneuver into the path of the approaching invaders, while the invaders may try to dodge. This pits thrust points versus thrust points, and is basically a game of Pong - the defenders try to move their "paddle" into the path of the enemy, who tries to dodge sideways (or not - maybe they want the fight).
If one side succeeds in forcing the engagement, then there's a preliminary firing phase that can happen at very long range (capital missiles), then the "meeting engagement" that plays out in milliseconds, and a possible volley of "chaser" fire (stern weapons) after the two groups pass.
High Speed Closing Engagements does provide a multiplier for ballistic and missile weapon damage based on speed, far short of your example of the iron nugget hitting a ship. It comments, however:
"Realistically, the damage might be increased by a great
deal more than quadrupling (especially if anyone starts citing
kinetic energy equations), but since it would be awkward for
a battleship to be destroyed by a machine gun, a simple linear
increase was selected for playability.
Players who want more realism from Units crossing each
other at substantial percentages of light-speed (as might happen
mid-transit in systems with large stars) are encouraged
to resolve combat by dropping record sheets into cross-cut
shredders simultaneously. The record sheet that is shredded
the slowest wins the engagement though, obviously, it is destroyed
in the process."
But, ultimately, you're unlikely to intercept BattleTech ships in the middle of a star system or transit from a jump point. The ships simply can't be seen, never mind the thrust requirements for interception. Interceptions can occur in smaller, lower velocity situations where maneuvering is constrained: at final approach to a planet, or close to a jump point.
Edited by Cray (03/12/21 10:28 AM)
|
Requiem
03/12/21 04:58 AM
1.158.229.22
|
Quote:
The lack of friction in space allows even aerodynes to do this.
As stated previously it is a complete misnomer that there is no friction is space.
Travelling at advanced speeds will incur friction (interstellar medium) also rolling a ship, even over hours, will incur some stress and strain and may even cause harmonics along the hull of the ship.
However for argument sake if I agree that within the game the ships are allowed to flip and at the same time reduce their speed – then why can’t aerospace fighters do the same thing?
Also I would also like to ask why everyone says the trailing ship will just over shot the ship it is per-suing ?
Considering that the ship has a massive navi computer – why can’t it make micro adjustments to its velocity - whist reading its advanced detection systems at the same time - as it proceeds and also to its trajectory so that it can achieve relative velocity and relative trajectory? So that it is virtually sitting behind the fleeing craft – also if you use laser weapons (movement at the speed of light – and why you should not have a projectile cannon on a star-ship to begin with) you will inflict damage on the ship you are after if in range – also what happens when you inflict damage to a ships propulsion system (killing a few of the trajectory nozzles for example when travelling at 700,000km/h? you will cause the ship to flip end over end in an uncontrolled medium when you consider Newtons Laws and considering centre of mass and centre of thrust that is until you can slow down and once more get control of the ship.
Everyone seems to believe that only the worst can occur 100% of the time - that there is no way for the ships to come into relative proximity – however all this is a massive mathematical problem for the navi to work out whist making micro adjustments to its own ship – it is after all just an AI logic problem to be solved by the computer after all. Thus the whole exercise revolves around which navi computer is superior and who does have the highest velocity in space ….
Also there is an energy field on the front of the craft - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150809-how-fast-could-humans-travel-safely-through-space (as noted above) otherwise travelling at these speeds would be impossible due to the interstellar medium.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Cray
03/12/21 10:06 AM
71.47.193.139
|
Quote:
However for argument sake if I agree that within the game the ships are allowed to flip and at the same time reduce their speed – then why can’t aerospace fighters do the same thing?
??? That is exactly how aerospace movement works using AT2R and Strategic Operations' vector-based movement. Flip-and-brake is standard for any ship, including aerospace fighters.
Requiem, you're doing that thing again where you make up unsupported accusations against the game and then treat them as facts in your discussion.
Quote:
Travelling at advanced speeds will incur friction (interstellar medium) also rolling a ship, even over hours, will incur some stress and strain and may even cause harmonics along the hull of the ship.
The stress of rolling a ship depends on how many Gs you put on it. Remember the game rules and stats: you only make structural integrity checks if you exceed the SI of the vessel, and 2 thrust points equals 1G. For example, a DropShip with SI 20 isn't significantly stressed until it accelerates or flips at more than 10Gs. Most DropShips and WarShips are incapable of maneuvering hard enough to stress their frames.
Quote:
Quote:
The lack of friction in space allows even aerodynes to do this.
As stated previously it is a complete misnomer that there is no friction is space.
Yes, but the only friction/heating you encounter is at significant fractions of light speed. The wattages per square meter from colliding with gas and dust during high velocity flight can be found here. For comparison, sunlight is 1400 watts per square meter at Earth orbit. This is outside the velocity of most BattleTech sublight flights.
https://www.orionsarm.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4803&pid=60484#pid60484
Hence BT aerodynes often use a belly-mounted transit drive to fly dorsal-side up (outside of combat) and provide simulated gravity without two deck orientations. There are numerous BT publications that describe this, starting with "DropShips & JumpShips" and continuing through the current Strategic Operations. There's no significant drag in interplanetary space at BattleTech's transit speeds, so orientations don't need to be aerodynamic.
Edited by Cray (03/12/21 10:09 AM)
|
Requiem
03/12/21 01:28 PM
1.158.229.22
|
question - how am I supposed to understand if I do not have AT2R and Strategic Operations?
Thus unsupported accusations are just enquires by myself to understand issue at hand - as all the information presented so far suggests otherwise and I just do not understand.
Is there a site on sara that I can read where your rules?
also from my point of view - am I allowed to discuss my thoughts as to the creation of new house rules?
as I have given this situtaion a lot of thought and I have come to the conclusion that by allowing the navi comp - together with a mssive detection equipment with a vast range - to take over a drop-ship / war-ship in order to run down another would manke for an interesting scenario if you can work out how long it takes for a ship to achieve max velocity (0- 100,000km/h in 2.1 sec or 2.1 days) - you could also have battles at max thust out in the depths of space - use fighters at max thrust and this situtaion could also be used to describe how pirates could hunt down commercial dropships by engaging them in system, at max thrust - causing their prey to go out of control they then swoop in - blow the air locks and board the ship ...
also why do ships only have short ranged sensors when, as discussed previously, one small rock at 700,000km/h would put a hole completely through your ship if it does not have some kind of shield or an I to assume for game scenario that they do not exist (where in reality they do)? any space ship given the vast distaces required must by their very nature alone have vast detection equipment - especially if you are prospecting for new planets and new resources - otherwise every ship will need a geologist to go down to the planet to investigate rock formations - sorry but from a science fiction standpoint I cannot wrap my head around this.
I guess this is why I need to create my own rule(s) so that it just makes sense (from my point of view).
This is why I have been toying with the concept of Mp-l (land and VTOL craft); Mp-a (aerospace fighters) and Mp-s (space craft) - then having multiple maps - one for divisional location (scale into the hundreds of km) - one for close quarter combat (normal hex sheet) - one for aerospace fighters in atmosphere ( however this limits the idea of altitude) and one for space battles (that enable ships to engae at high velocity anywhere in system) - then using a plastic circle to work out specific ranges of radar / Ecm - Missle batteries that have ranges in the hundreds of km etc etc - as is most fighters today have a radar range fron over 120km and at least half that to the rear and the concept of supersonic flight .... etc
The idea that ships (dropships) can move at such extreme velocities and can be used as weapons platforms - as fire ships - is a reality. The questin then is can it be used for mass planetary devistation or even just local - removing an entire city? can the ship include an ejection pod that could contain who knows what or a person for spy work - very clandestine operations manner of getting on planet ..... the use of which could be interesting form any game play idea.
also the site posted above for me to look at ......
You are either not logged in or do not have permission to view this page. This could be because one of the following reasons:
You are not logged in or registered. Please use the form at the bottom of this page to login.
You do not have permission to access this page. Are you trying to access administrative pages or a resource that you shouldn't be? Check in the forum rules that you are allowed to perform this action.
Your account may have been disabled by an administrator, or it may be awaiting account activation.
You have accessed this page directly rather than using appropriate forms or links.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Requiem
03/12/21 01:42 PM
1.158.229.22
|
from a science fiction standpoint I cannot wrap my head around this.
There are wonders created by the Department of Mega Engineering - and yet I cant get a decent radar system for my Mech, fighter or ship?
sorry but I cant understand this shouldnt there be a massively scientific universe with massive number of gadgets ets even during the Star League era?
for the most part 21st Century tech is far more advanced than that of even the Star League from many points of view - so why not create a universe that is exactly this - massive technology - massive ranges - massive damage - massive army on every side - also massive ships as stated previously a mass migration to the stars using the ships as is would require millions of them -and in a very short period of time - so where were they all buit and where did the resources come from to build them?
I love the idea of the Mechs etc but sorry I need to tinker with everything else to make it somewhere I would like to call a science fiction home for mass technology - even if it was only during the star league era - but I cannot wrap my mind aound a universe wide perge of information - it cannot be done!
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/12/21 03:56 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Without a gravity field, objects in space don't slow down. Friction would cause them to. Objects in space is not the same thing.
I don't remember seeing anyone say fighters could not flip in space. I did say that they can flip facing any direction, but they can no stop quickly while facing the direction they are flying. No reverse thrust of any great power.
And changing directions means stress on the ships structure. Stress is not necessarily the end of the ship. It is turning that provides the main stress on a ship outside of combat.
I said you would overshoot a ship. The fact that you have to flip the ship back over to provide thrust in the opposite direction to slow down is why you would. No retro thrusters powerful enough to slow the ship down quick enough. Maneuvering thrusters don't provide much thrust, so time is the issue.
Define micro adjustments. Is that 10 meters? .000001 meters? Changing speeds from say 20,000 kph to 3,000 kph? Ratio changes what is considered micro adjustments, where the ships thrusters are a set amount. I don't know the exact amount, but they are not there to shove the ship to one side like you can do in a race car. Docking procedures is a large reason why the maneuvering thrusters exists. Altering the facing of the ship so the main engines can be used is another.
The parameter set is the limit of closing the gap was two ships of same speed. If you have a faster ship, you can close more easily, though you will have to do a lot of flipping to keep the distance you want. Focus on what is written, not what you think is there. Comprehensive reading requires knowing what is said.
So the person that has stated time and again, doesn't have the AT2 or Ops understand a lot of reality, but the researcher doesn't? Most of the game does have some basis in reality. The game messes with things to make it playable and keep it moving most of the time. I don't agree with it at times, but that isn't something that will stop me from playing it.
The issue is you continue to argue canon is wrong because your view is the only thing that can exist. That has been mentioned time and time again.
As I stated before, I do not disagree with some of the concepts. I do bring up in game issues and that seems to be considered a personal attack on things. Then comes the unsupported concepts. I am not saying I am correct on everything. If I was better at getting a point across, it might not be so bad.
You want to argue canon is wrong, then keep to canon facts.
If you want a ship to be able to reverse main thrust, then build a ship that has some thrusters facing forward. I don't know if the game can handle something like this, but logically applying some weight to set it up shouldn't be that difficult.
|
ghostrider
03/12/21 04:20 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Humans have intuition, while comps can cover things that are programmed into it. You want to exceed safety limits then overriding the computers programming is required. The comp is more likely to be able to do a few things most human pilots can't. The issue is the game does not have any sort of ability to override such safety features outside of the mechs override for fusion core shut down.
Is flank speed max for a unit? I wouldn't think so. Otherwise, you would be riding the engines at max operations for long periods of time. The game doesn't have this concept so it isn't addressed. Much like redlining a normal car engine. You stop when it is at maximum safety. You can push it beyond, but it is almost certain to fail with bad results.
The thrust accelerates a ship at a specific speed per second. Use that to figure out 'max' speed. In BT, the game does not have an absolute maximum speed. Fuel reserves is about it, as you can keep accelerating as max power. This defies normal physics, but it is how the game sets it up.
In the game, you can go from 0 speed on up to 12 in a single turn with an achilles. Then the next round, 12 to 24 using 12 thrust. Then 36 with another 12 added. Not sure the distances of each thrust point, as they changed it from the book I have. But remember. Each space round is a minute, unless they changed that. So 6 ground rounds is 1 space round. Unless they changed that as well.
Ships do run into things every so often. That is part of maintenance. Not sure where you got 700,000 kph from, but I am going to assume that is normal speed as you approach the flip over point, but you are correct in assuming the game does not really deal with possible debris on a standard run thru a system. Special scenarios can be done, such as flying thru an asteroid field, but for the most part, ships don't deal with debris often. Even combat doesn't suggest that the chunk of armor blown off another ship can hurt you as you fly into it. Slows down the game.
And now you are stating what is known. The game is not as futuristic as it could be. ICBMs existed before the game started. ABMs existed before the game started. But in order to get your physical stomping mechs into range, this had to be discarded. A simple ICBM non nuke, should be able to take out a dropship with ease. So say 10mil c-bills taking out an Overlord with full crew being over 200 mil c-bills. And stops the ground fight from happening. So logic is left out of the game.
The view of a farmer using oxen to pull a plow in a field while a Battlemech strolls by shows the reality of the game. A lot is left out to make it a ground game. Reality would be that fleets of star craft would be required to prevent landings, and allow invasions of the enemy's worlds. As said, this is a ground game. Star Wars is more of the fleet attack/defense game but even they have ground units, as ships can not really hold a world unless the rely on off world items.
Destroying a world is easier then invading and holding it. The nuke concept will always come up with talking about wiping out worlds. But that does you no good if you need the resources.
Again. You want to argue canon is wrong, then use canon facts.
Sensors that work, destroys the ability to sneak attack a world. Raids becomes a thing of the past.
Space defenses that work, destroys the ability to invade a world without large amounts of attackers to overwhelm the defenses. Which comes down to how much are you willing to commit to holding the line? Worlds would be using their own family to pull the plow if you really had the space defenses to stop invasions. Almost everything to everything made in the world would be going to such a defense. The game has it's own physics and reasons. If you want to understand it, you need to remove all other games physics that counter BT.
Maybe this might help. D&D has it's own mechanics. You ignore most reality to play it. You do not say that someone can pull items out of thin air in a normal city building game. Yet spells and items allow you to do so. BT has to be thought in the same way. Not ideal, but it is made that way.
Edited by ghostrider (03/12/21 04:23 PM)
|
Cray
03/12/21 10:25 PM
71.47.193.139
|
Quote:
Ships do run into things every so often. That is part of maintenance. Not sure where you got 700,000 kph from, but I am going to assume that is normal speed as you approach the flip over point,
A typical 1-week transit from jump point to planet will see a flip over velocity of 3 million meters per second after 3.5 days at 1G acceleration, or about 1% of light-speed. That's 10.7 million kilometers per hour.
Quote:
but you are correct in assuming the game does not really deal with possible debris on a standard run thru a system.
Strategic Operations mentions anti-debris systems.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
ghostrider
03/12/21 10:54 PM
66.74.60.165
|
The Invader jumpship from the old dropship and jump ship book talks about the lasers being used for anti asteroid duty. As for Strategic Operations, I don't have that book, so never read thru it. How deep does it get into dealing with things in flight paths or just normal debris?
Does it give damage and effects if you hit something and at what speed?
Or is it just to deal with things someone put in the path of your invasion fleet, and leave it at that point?
It is good to know the speed is something that isn't just pulled out of thin air. Never did the math, so was ignorant of it.
I am going to assume that is just 1g thrust. It would make sense as that is the most common thrust used in the game.
|
Requiem
03/13/21 01:20 AM
1.158.229.22
|
Quote:
No reverse thrust of any great power.
Engineering - Thermodynamics – and the Harrier jet.
Why would any engineer create a space vessel whereby they need to ‘flip’ in order to change direction?
Quote:
I said you would overshoot a ship.
Again why? An advanced navi computer and an advanced active probe whereby ships have thrusters over the hull and with thermodynamics you can direct thrust to any set of thrusters over the hull of the ship - which will enable any space vessel to move in any direction and with the principle of relative velocity any ship (Jump / Drop / War ship) built with this principle in mind will be far more deadly than anything created – as they will not need to flip to change direction they can change direction and utilize their batteries as a ship should.
Micro adjustments are any time frame the navi computer says they are in order to move the ship in any direction required.
So from now on all my “Home Rule Ships” will be built with this in mind thus giving them the ability to move in any set of three dimensional movements. As I disagree completely with this principle of flipping and not being able to strike whist at hyper velocity –
Question what happens when you take the engine from a bug-eye put it in a massive nuclear weapon - give it an A.I. so that it can use an advanced navi computer / active probe to find its target? Thus turning the weapon into a massive cruise missile – what you now have is weapon that can-not be stopped and will obliterate any target – be it warship, space station or city.
Given pre-Star League era Technology this missile should be able to be constructed as it is just utilizing existing tech by ships used in the exodus to expand mankind to the stars.
Quote:
The issue is you continue to argue canon is wrong because your view is the only thing that can exist. That has been mentioned time and time again.
The problem is am I allowed to even make a query? Or is any query seen as heresy against canon law? – thus am I free to be allowed freedom of speech or freedom of thought? Or am I only allowed to do is accept the will of others imposing the rule that only Canon history and Canon rules are allowed?
Quote:
The view of a farmer using oxen to pull a plough in a field while a Battlemech strolls by shows the reality of the game.
When and where and for how long? – if you are in the Star League era - highly unlikely - and even by 3025 this concept is incredibly difficult to consider and as technology increases how long until this is removed for good on all planets …
Quote:
As said, this is a ground game.
Then find a way to remove all aerospace / VTOL and all navy …. Then create a game where only Mechs and power armour exist ….
Problem is the game this is not just a ground game – it is a science fiction war involving ALL aspects of the military and as such ALL weapons systems must be included – and they must also include all velocities all active probes all weapons of normal ranges missiles in hundreds of km radar in the hundreds of km
So logic is left out of the game …..?
Or can it be brought back into the game? Can individuals create their own home rules to bring everything back into the game and bring into the game advanced science fiction ? set it in the most advanced era (Star League) and let it run?
This is why I am creating my own realms – new DC – new Outwolds Alliance and New Canoupus so far – with massive beta testing rules to see what does and does not work (such as the idea of altitude on an aerospace fighter when the map is on on the table).
Quote:
The nuke concept will always come up with talking about wiping out worlds. But that does you no good if you need the resources.
Short lived 100% fatal bio-weapon that is targeted at killing all human life – if it can survive the crash or can be ejected from the craft just prior to the cash you now have a means of winning the war – and is achievable given the technology within the game.
Quote:
Sensors that work, destroys the ability to sneak attack a world.
If sensors work then why don’t ECMs work at the same time? Raids are still available ….
Quote:
Space defences that work, destroys the ability to invade a world without large amounts of attackers to overwhelm the defences.
Problem is – if the sword works then so too does the shield – if you can use a super weapon to attack the world then there too must be a super way to defend the world.
And there will be all business and societies upon every world – universities, hospitals, manufacturing centres –everything we have now will be on every world and more – this is the true reality of space colonization – every world will be near to 100% self sufficient with exception of only those items that you would see on highly industrialized or highly agricultural worlds – this is the reality I see – I cannot rationalize the universe as is – it just does not make any sense – and this is why I am rebuilding the universe one sate at a time and the rules to create a new universe …. Does everything within an economy go to the military now? Same in the future GDP is assigned to each segment ….. just on a grander scale ….
This is the point D&D and BattleTech can have similar mechanics – all it takes is a lot of work to re-write the history, the Houses and the rules to enable individuals to create their own realm …. And this is what I am doing taking the existing Battletech universe and creating my own universe – I am going to continue beta testing everything until I am satisfied with my approximation of a scientific society ….. and from time to time I may place questions up or provide new realms ……
Case in point –
LAM–A2 Invader
(Multirole – Special Mission)
Mass 50,000kg
MP
Mech 86.4km/h … Mp-land 9
Jump (minimum) 90m … Mp 9 (maximum) – flight mode
Fighter 1,440km/h … Mp-land 144 Mp-aerospace 29
Altitude (max) 20km
Radar search range – fighter size target, head-on position – 200Km (4,000hexes)
Radar search range – fighter size target, tail-on position – 100Km (2,000hexes)
Ascent Booster (max.) 36,000km/h Mp-booster 720
Zero-G (max.) 1,440,000km/h Mp-space 29
Armament - ER Lg Laser, Sm Pulse Laser, ECM, SAP, Bomb Bay (Capacity: 2.5 tons max – 12 missile slots max)
Nt. Hex size is vastly different – land – aerospace – space due to velocity.
Nt. SAP – Space Active probe – allows for normal ground radar to be increased by a factor of 4 whist in space only (does not work on land – the system cannot comprehend all the information and crashes requiring a re-boot.)
Missile Ammo:
Air-to-Air Missile – 1 missile slot ¬– (Mass: 200kg – Range: 22 km (- hexes) – Speed MP: 4,940km/h Mp-a 99 – Warhead: High Explosive Penetrating (5))
Air-to-Air Missile – 2 missile slots ¬– (Mass: 400kg – Range: 44 km (- hexes) – Speed MP: 4,940km/h Mp-a 99 – Warhead: High Explosive Penetrating (10))
Anti-Star-Ship Missile – 5 missile slots ¬– (Mass: 1,000kg – Range: 200km (- hexes) – Zero-G (max.): 864,360km/h – Mp-s 17 Warhead: Capital Explosive Penetrating 5 (Capital) 50 (Standard))
Anti-Star-Ship Missile – 10 missile slots ¬– (Mass: 2,000kg – Range: 200km (- hexes) – Zero-G (max.): 864,360km/h – Mp-s 17 Warhead: Capital Explosive Penetrating 10 (Capital) 100 (Standard))
Guidance Systems:
- Active radar homing
- Semi-active radar homing
- Infrared homing
Quote:
Strategic Operations mentions anti-debris systems.
And if you do not have this book?
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/13/21 03:56 AM
66.74.60.165
|
Almost every ship in sci fi should have to turn the ship and use the rear thrusters as they don't have large or enough thrusters to do otherwise. The show the Expanse brings out that point very well. Look at the ship designs for all the big and small space ships. Large engines in the back, nothing in the front, and doesn't look like much on the sides.
Also, what sort of course correction did the lunar lander use? Oh yeah. Turn the ship and use the only engines it had in the rear. So I would think necessity causes this.
The harrier only diverts power to the down position. The main engine points towards the back. And it does so at the cost of a lot of weight.
Again, you do not understand the GAMES principle of movement. You are arguing something that is outside of the game to say the game is wrong. We all know the game has major flaws in it, but keeping to the game mechanics, is why I say you would over shoot. Changing speed is not fast in the game. As the lack of significant thrust in any direction besides forward is why the ship has to rotate to turn or slow. And you can only spend so much thrust to affect the ship. your 700,000 kph is affects by what per turn? 4/6 ship can only slow down as much as the 6 thrust can do.
The game removes a lot of things that work, in order to keep it a ground game. You want to fix that, then BT is not the game for you. I hate the fact that you can't really set up a realistic defense, but if you want to play the game, you have to do just that.
Maybe phrasing the questions as questions, not saying things are wrong and when responses explain what is going on, don't say it is absolutely wrong because it doesn't fit your concept of it.
Tech and availability as well as affordability isn't fairly distributed to all. Why is it that in the U.S, there are cars all over the place, but in some countries only the government has those vehicles? Or the fact that a lot of countries don't even have running water standard? Being part of the SL does NOT automatically mean you have the ability, much less the access to build a mech in your front yard. Some world keep low tech as that is all the can afford.
Why do you think backwater worlds exist? They did so in the SL era as well as 3025.
The changes proposed to the game completely changes it so you are no longer playing BT. Not sure why this is such an issue comprehending. Damn, this sounds like a broken record. This is not a proposal to give an alternative, but to change it from what it really is.
The changes that have happened since the game first came out, has shown logic just doesn't work right. The jump detection was not in the original game. Then when Terra was being attacked by the Dragoons, the CLAN ECM didn't stop the SDS from working perfectly.
Problem is – if the sword works then so too does the shield – if you can use a super weapon to attack the world then there too must be a super way to defend the world.
This concept is false. Must have a way to defeat the super weapon does not happen as much as you would like. For the most part, the death star showing up and destroying a world can't be defended. The weak point was not known to anyone, so using what ever little forces you had to attack it and the fleet that accompanies it, would not stop it. It did destroy the world that the plans were store on in Rogue One. An imperial world to boot. What sort of defense can stop the crap of destroying a sun? Oh yeah. It doesn't exist.
I cannot rationalize the universe as is
That statement is why people say you have it wrong for the game. There are multiple reasons why worlds can not be self sufficient. For an oppressive society, you will NEVER give a colony the chance to be self sufficient. You will force them to rely on you, even if it means the die when you can't get to them. The colony does what it can to negate this, but the fact remains, that you suppress all colonies the best you can. Otherwise you create a rival for your power.
It is the nature of human kind. The Terran Hegemony did just that. But the rich found a way to make money by helping the colonies get out from under the Terran government.
Speed and detection range is the problem with debris. Even if you have a full 10 seconds, it may not be enough to do anything. Flying is space, weapon systems tend to be powered down to avoid issues like a short firing off a weapon. Right now, NASA is having issues with space junk. Paint chips damaging the shuttle to the point where EVA is needed to fix things like the heat shield. They can't get any detection on that. Not everything is made of metal. And not everything can be found on radar.
|
Requiem
03/13/21 06:23 AM
1.158.229.22
|
Question – when was the lunar lander built and when is the Battletch series set – and what is the difference in the two ships technological base?
Engineering needs to be updated as technology upgrades.
Being hidebound to a particular design just because everyone else considers this the way to do it is counterproductive, in my opinion.
The Harrier was chosen to demonstrate how easy it is to divert thrust, being a VTOL fighter craft it is expected that it would be in down position – within an aerospace fighter it would have multiple thrust vectoring systems attached to the nozzles over the ship - allowing the exhaust to be deflected in any direction and therefore directing the fighter to dance in space.
Quote:
Again, you do not understand the GAMES principle of movement. You are arguing something that is outside of the game to say the game is wrong
How? Because I dream to see a different way of creating a ship? Again, is this due to me defying the status quo? … why do I feel like Galileo right now?
Quote:
You want to fix that, then BT is not the game for you I hate the fact that you can't really set up a realistic defence
Can we please keep this respectful – as this is coming close to a personal attack.
Why can’t I create my own version of the Battletech Universe?
Why can’t I say I believe that maybe a house or a periphery state may approve an aesthetically designed ship where there are nozzles all over the ship to NOT allow it to flip – to just fly straight and true?
Quote:
Changing speed is not fast in the game
I agree, however, as Cray noted above that “velocity of 3 million meters per second after 3.5 days at 1G acceleration, or about 1% of light-speed. That's 10.7 million kilometres per hour.”
At this velocity if you cannot change speed quickly one wrong move and you are going to hit something or end up spinning off to who knows where.
The computers must be spot on 100% of the time.
Quote:
Tech and availability as well as affordability isn't fairly distributed to all.
Initially this is quite true … however considering international business and how companies and countries are now utilizing the advantages offered by lower socio-economic countries this in turn is also promoting an economic resurgence to many countries – and considering the timeline is over hundreds of years you would begin to believe most of the worlds would have pulled their economic development together and over time established a viable and productive colony to that of an economic viable state …. Which has been seen in the majority of countries throughout the world.
Economic development is retarded by war, a lack of stable government and constant natural disasters …. in a period of peace, with a stable and good government, the economic development of the majority of worlds should improve.
Quote:
you will NEVER give a colony the chance to be self-sufficient. You will force them to rely on you, even if it means the die when you can-not get to them
1. Ethics;
2. It is an effective way to save over the long term by ensuring the world becomes self-sufficient – maybe even become an exporter to assist with GDP and technological development;
3. It removes illegal behaviour as when you increase wealth you decrease crime – as well as those who desire independence through a lack of assistance – dissidents vs loyalists – hence the need to station an increased military force on the world to keep it under control;
4. It promotes a belief in belonging to a government beyond the world you are on – hence loyalty to the state (which is a long-term objective);
5. Demonstrates to the wider community your commitment to look after all the people within your state – thus more people are willing to trust the wider government and the lord of the realm.
6. History – what happens when the people are tyrannized by a government far far away? Boston Tea Party … etc?
Quote:
Even if you have a full 10 seconds, it may not be enough to do anything.
Sorry, but I disagree – if the Navi computer is fast enough given the speed one small push to the side should put you a couple of hundred (plus) km away from the problem
Quote:
And not everything can be found on radar.
As noted above – Strategic Operations mentions anti-debris systems.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Cray
03/13/21 10:25 AM
71.47.193.139
|
Quote:
The Invader jumpship from the old dropship and jump ship book talks about the lasers being used for anti asteroid duty. As for Strategic Operations, I don't have that book, so never read thru it. How deep does it get into dealing with things in flight paths or just normal debris?
It mentions in passing how seemingly "unarmed" ships deal with debris using lightweight lasers that could hardly scorch a spacesuit. The Invader's weapons are only "anti-debris" as a euphemism for anti-pirate weapons likely to get the ship attacked rather than drive anything off (another point made in StratOps.)
Quote:
It is good to know the speed is something that isn't just pulled out of thin air. Never did the math, so was ignorant of it.
Velocity is very easy if you ever want to try it:
Velocity (in meters per second) equals acceleration (in meters per second per second) multiplied by time (in seconds)
V = A x t
Where 1G = 9.8m/s/s. Then it's all about conversions to put it in more familiar terms. There are plenty of online converters that help you turn meters per second into km/hr or miles per hour. One space hex per space turn is 300m/s.
Both ye olde DropShips & JumpShips and Strategic Operations provide the slightly heavier math for interplanetary flight. Distance incorporates a square function, which is easy enough with a calculator at hand.
Distance (in meters) = 0.5 x acceleration (m/s/s) x time (seconds) x time (seconds)
It gets a little trickier when you're doing an accelerate half-way / flip / brake half-way, but StratOps spells that math out.
Quote:
I am going to assume that is just 1g thrust. It would make sense as that is the most common thrust used in the game.
Yep. 1G is default. DropShips & JumpShips provides a table of alternate accelerations for system transit, but it's not too useful. People can't handle much more than 1.5Gs for days on end.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
ghostrider
03/13/21 12:27 PM
66.74.60.165
|
The space shuttle that was used as well as all other craft that return to earth use the turn and fire the main engine to reenter the atmosphere. This is also true for the craft bringing the rovers to Mars. It is not likely to change as it is the most efficient way of doing things, in order to keep cargo weight high. An example of something close to this is some race cars do not have reverse in them. Loses some weight doing so.
The issue is to play the game the way you envision, BT is changed so dramatically, it becomes something eles. Other game systems are easier to work with. Robotech is more likely, as well as others. GURPS is probably more set up to deal with the vision.
Now that might be why the comps don't work as well as they should. To work 100% of the time, they are probably running programs that are hundreds to maybe even thousands of years old. To make something new, requires changing said programs, so even with trials, it may still not work right.
Companies do things like 'offer' to help other countries only when it comes time for taxes or to gain resources. As the world evolves, this is not happening as much. The rich just pay off the leaders to gain the resources, and the rest of the citizens of those countries lose out on the tech advances. Given the feelings of some that they should rule, they are likely to take such tech and use it against the others. Simple electric means power plants. Once people get used to using power, it is difficult for them to do it by hand.
You gain the colony's resources by charging them a higher price to import what they need. Most go to far with such tactics, as the over charge because they personally gain funds. Done right, the idea of using water purifiers and making sure the 'locals' can't work on them by retain your tech services is one way you can do this. This also means banning other ways of doing so, in order to maintain a monopoly. Same thing with shipping items to and from the colony. The morality comes from when someone gets greedy.
Also, if you do not have a way to ship items, you are reliant on things like mega corps, which are probably in league with the government, or sponsors of the colony.
There is a long history of other companies working against rivals to bring in supplies to make colonies resistant to such actions, so it isn't impossible. That is why troops get sent in, as well as companies becoming smugglers. Even those within the company that runs the colony will resort to smuggling as it tends to be more profitable then running normal supply runs.
Math might solve the dodging things issue. At 700,000 kph, that equates to over to over 11,000 kp minute. Even at 10,000 km range on your sensors, you have less then a minute to change the direction of your ship. Now this is even if the sensors or operator correctly identifies the object. This will definitely cause issues, as a single maneuvering thruster firing at the wrong milisecond will send you tumbling. Stupid, but it is a major risk. And this is saying that only one object is in the path. Maybe the developers think the front/top armor of dropships is good enough to handle it. I really don't know.
And as the game has limited speeds on how fast a ship can be moved, 100s of km is not going to happen with most ships. To turn, you have to provide enough thrust to over come the momentum.
Something sounds off with having anti debris lasers that could hardly scorch a spacesuit would suggest they don't work against things like say armor chunks or other things that isn't wood.
The Dropships and Jumpships book uses 2 (Large Lasers or PPCs) as the anti asteroid defense. A far cry from something like micro lasers. Now it may be that they are thinking the personnel are using elemental style equipment when on EVA, but a normal space suit doesn't sound like it should be a defense against them.
|
Wick
03/13/21 05:14 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Quote:
Should fighters have two engines? A normal atmospheric engine (where the speed now for basic fighter is 2,000 km/h) with a massive booster to reach a speed of 30,000 km/h to enable the craft to ascend into space.
Then there should be a second engine whilst in zero-G that allows the fighter to reach 1,400,000 to 2,100,000 km/h in order to catch any fleeing jump-ship / warship travelling at a max speed of 700,000 km/h
Atmosphere restricts ability for same engines to reach the speeds it can in outer space. The weight of air creates a tremendous amount of pressure and friction that the ship must overcome. This is analogous to trying to run while standing in the deep end of your neighborhood pool - you've got the same legs but the surrounding weight and pressure of the water is so great that you can't run as quickly.
Quote:
Physics – The concept of Relative velocity on a position-time graph in relative velocity would say otherwise.
Object A and Object B will be able to establish a position of meeting at a time of meeting – from then on a constant velocity where Va =Vb can ensure the two objects are able to move parallel to one another due to their relative velocity.
If object A has a head start, then object B has to accelerate faster to catch up. Within engagement range, object B has very little time to shoot before they zoom past object A. If object B then tries to slow down, object A will zoom past them. Either way, one of the two is blazing past the other, just as ghostrider said.
You are technically correct that there is a small window of time that they can engage, but it is exceptionally short. At 1G burn, after 3 days a craft is moving about 2.5 million meters per second (over 9 million kilometers per hour.) With an Aerotech hex size of 18,000m, that puts maximum range around 450 kilometers. So without just the right conditions (such as object B knowing object A's velocity and vector to very high precision) you'd have only 1/6th of a second to shoot. Possible? Yes. Practical? Not at all. You'd be far better off zooming ahead to the destination and waiting for the other to arrive and then engage at speeds closer to zero. Therefore, all Battletech space battle that isn't magic must take place where craft are moving relatively slowly - typically at jump points or within planetary and moon gravity wells. Any deep space combat where both craft are moving at millions of kph just isn't feasible.
Quote:
First, what happens to anything thrown of a ship moving at extreme velocity? Ans. ripped to pieces so unless you have built this mine with a massive structural integrity as well as heat resistance due to reducing in speed
Ripped to pieces from what? Heated up from what? Space is such a near vacuum that anything shot out of a craft will move almost the same speed, and there is no air friction to cause it to burn up as its velocity very, very slowly decreases. There are motes of dust and various particles (hydrogen atoms mostly) which may cause some pitting on the mine's exterior, but would take many years to eat through a sheet of metal. Battletech combat doesn't last long enough for this to play a factor.
Shooting a mine isn't the problem. Having it hit anything is the issue as the mine is exceptionally small compared to the volume of space.
Quote:
Unless you actually use engineering to redesign the ship’s super structure. This is again basic engineering where the rules of the game make no sense whatsoever …. If you can envision it you can build it.
Quote:
Why would any engineer create a space vessel whereby they need to ‘flip’ in order to change direction?
So you're going to devote weight to a spacecraft to mount redundant engages to produce a specific thrust strong enough to counteract the 1G+ main engines at the rear? Small course corrections may be possible with side mounted thrusters, but you aren't moving greatly off your vector without some mighty powerful secondary engines. It is much more cost effective to use your main engines for any significant course correction. (Only weirdos like WOB might build a ship with engines at both ends or on the sides, but that would mean its both more expensive and mounts less weaponry, less cargo space, etc. so it probably wouldn't be that popular.)
Quote:
Again one super computer + one engineering system that enables the ship to move at speed – so again not a problem.
So in addition to more engines we're also adding a super computer...
Quote:
The fuel is water
Unlikely. First because fiction indicates its a refined substance, and second because water has such a narrow operating range - only 100 C. It's too likely to either freeze (and burst its tank) or boil off.
The fusion engine may run on water but the thrust propellent is something else. Likely a hypergol.
Most automobiles have a similar two phase setup. The electrical system (battery) starts the combustion engine which is what provides motion. If the car runs out of fuel, the electrical system could still power the stereo (for a while) but short of ending on a slope the car isn't going anywhere.
Quote:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150809-how-fast-could-humans-travel-safely-through-space
And in the final paragraph “The kind of technologies that could enable unforeseeable new transit speeds, if future physics finds out that such technology is possible,” Millis says, “would also give us new, unforeseen possibilities for protecting crews.”
This article specifically says "several hundreds of millions of kilometers per hour" - in the range of 10% speed of light or higher. At 1G burn it takes 33 days of travel to reach each hundred million kph threshold. As this is far longer than most half-transit times, Battletech craft are not as prone to highly energetic micro-impacts. At Battletech speeds (no more than 2% c) these impacts will indeed cause wear on the hull, but they won't be punching through or causing the hull to heat up to the point of melting.
Quote:
if you can work out how long it takes for a ship to achieve max velocity
I think this is your problem. You're thinking in terms of velocity, not acceleration. It is very difficult to catch up to someone accelerating away from you, and when you do, your velocity is greater than theirs so you pass them. In an automobile you can throttle up or down or let air resistance slow you to match another car, but in space this is much more difficult. Take the Gemini 6 and 7 mission for example: to rendezvous, engineers realized that it wasn't possible if both craft were in the same orbital plane: one craft had to drop to a lower altitude so its orbital energy produced greater velocity (without additional thrust) such that it could rise to meet the other craft that had built up a greater velocity over time. You're arguing for the same effect, but without the benefit of a large gravitational body to provide a slingshot action - in other words, force applied out of nowhere. (I.e., magic.)
But to answer your question requires knowing how much time has elapsed, and that gives you the velocity using the V = A x t formula Cray provided, with 9.8 meters per second per second in place of A if 1G.
|
Requiem
03/13/21 05:14 PM
1.158.229.22
|
Quote:
It is not likely to change as it is the most efficient way of doing things
As I do not have Strategic operations I do not know the rules – however would be fair to assume that …
The main issue is that all of these craft are all civilian transport carriers – What happens when the enemy holds the upper atmosphere to the re-entry vector required in order to land at a specific location and the ships need to blitzkrieg through? – what are these forces going to do turn around to break – expose their rear (with the least amount of armour and the most vulnerable part of a ship) so that they can break in order to achieve optimum velocity – so that they do not skip off the upper atmosphere like a stone thrown over the top of pond to see how many times it can skip?
At the very least there needs to be break jets along the sides in order to keep them facing forward whilst attacking through.
Then there is the issue of going through the atmosphere.
What happens if the enemy has long range surface-to- air missiles, or aerospace fighters on an attack vector bosting their way through the atmosphere on an intercept course - whist your ships are attempting to land through the atmosphere – again rear first - One good explosion damaging the vector nozzles to the rear spheroid engine and the dropship is going to be a smear on the landscape.
Quote:
they are probably running programs that are hundreds to maybe even thousands of years old.
Really ????? even during the star league? even during the darkest days as-long-as there is a computer there will also be someone who can program with it or who can hack with it … Comstar at the very least …. Then there is the issue of whole military units who are dedicated to electronic warfare now … sorry but again this is stretching reality a little too far (just with the whole loss of all technology stick) … What about basic repair of a mech / aerospace fighter / dropship / jump-ship onboard computer what about commerce – communication – the IT and entertainment industry etc?
Sorry but again I cannot see this as even a remote possibility within the universe, it is just taking things a little too far …if this was a universe wide issue then Comstar had already won and would have sent their ComGuard out to re-establish the Star League under a Blakean Theocracy - as all of the Houses would have already fallen due to technological decay.
Quote:
Companies do things like 'offer' to help other countries only when it comes time for taxes or to gain resources.
Sorry but no – International business has evolved way beyond this point – taking advantage of strategic locations, access to local markets, access to local industries / labour / tax concessions and the list goes on and on.
Many corporations now are establishing new ventures in many different countries in order to meet their long-term strategic goals ….
https://online.norwich.edu/academic-prog...obalizing-world
Business Degrees include subjects on the whole issue of Globalization - - international trade – strategies etc.
Quote:
gain the colony's resources
In my opinion this will only lead to insurrection – revolt and civil war in no time at all – and will result in either the overthrow of any legitimate government or a foreign government will use the animosity for their own nefarious ends.
Again, I would refer to my list (as noted above) as to why there needs to be a positive government long term.
Quote:
the game has limited speeds on how fast a ship can be moved
Please refer to Cray’s post – 03/12/21 - A typical 1-week transit from jump point to planet will see a flip over velocity of 3 million meters per second after 3.5 days at 1G acceleration, or about 1% of light-speed. That's 10.7 million km/h.
So what happens on the Terra run when the transit time is 9 days and theoretically some ships even go at 2G acceleration as per the books (however in reality this will just kill everyone)? and this is for ALL Dropships and Warships …. Every single ship that can relocate in system.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
Edited by Requiem (03/13/21 05:51 PM)
|
Requiem
03/13/21 05:47 PM
1.158.229.22
|
Quote:
If object A has a head start, then object B has to accelerate faster to catch up. Within engagement range, object B has very little time to shoot before they zoom past object A
Two vehicles on the road – car A and B – if we use the same theory above and where there is only one lane B will rear end A. This is why we have breaks on vehicles – and this is why if you design a ship with a front break system and a means of judging the distance between two objects – in this case a low intensity laser range finder that is attached to a master computer in control of the vehicle then yes you can achieve relative velocity even at these very vast speeds and with parity of speed you can engage each other (if within range) and with laser weapons who move at the speed of light.
Or can we now go back to Greek and Roman antiquity era ships with the naval ram on the front or even a massive blade that can ram the ship in front and allow for either boarding actions or slicing the front ship in two or even causing an uncontrolled spin or destroying their entire engine area which will do what to a ship travelling at massive velocity?
Can I please have a rule for a kick to the rear of a spaceship with a ship ram whist in hypervelocity.
Thus making the issue feasible.
Quote:
There are motes of dust and various particles (hydrogen atoms mostly) which may cause some pitting on the mine's exterior
And at extreme velocity what does these particles do?
Quote:
but that would mean its both more expensive and mounts less weaponry, less cargo space, etc. so it probably wouldn't be that popular.
And would allow me to achieve relative velocity and would allow me time to continue firing whist the enemy ship is engaged in a roll to reduce speed – thus providing my ship with a tactical advantage.
Quote:
So in addition to more engines we're also adding a super computer...
Yes.
Quote:
the thrust propellent
https://www.sarna.net/wiki/DropShip
The plasma exhaust is created as a by-product of nuclear fusion and requires a constant supply of fuel in the form of liquid H2
Quote:
Gemini 6 and 7
1965 Vs. how far in the future are we looking at – and how vastly different is the technology in question and how vastly different is the training and expertise of the crew?
This is science fiction set 1000 years into the future.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/13/21 06:32 PM
66.74.60.165
|
If you are serious about invading the world, then a fight would take place in order to allow the ship(s) to enter the atmosphere, unless you are set on HALO dropping the units. Raids take place by landing/dropping while the space superiority battle is taking place. Now the issue comes down to forces on each side. Contesting the entry may well be a single fighter, or could be an entire regiment of fighters with dropship back up.
The thrusters used for steering is maneuvering thrusters. Breaking thrusters would suggest the can stop a ship. Given enough time it is possible for them to do so, but not any reasonable time. The maneuvering thrusters turn the ship, not stop it from going on in the direction it was in a quick time.
Now sarcasm. What if the planet has the legendary Grand Cannon from Robotech?
What do you do when they have defenses in the normal game? You either run with the drop and risk the damage, or you abort the run. When you are at a planet, your relative speed is close to zero.
And how often would be the ROM in a computer? How many times would they be replacing the hard wired coding with upgrades? There are programs run in BIOS that has not changed since computers were first built. Once an upgrade does come out, it is very unlikely that the developer will allow access to an upgrade without charging for it, as it may well become a very important part of the computer system. And with new updates, more then a few will refuse to use it as they are normally bugged. Figuring out how to steer a ship probably does not improve after a certain point.
The controls to say the laser in a CD/DVD rom will probably not change unless they get larger discs, and even then, just add to the basic program if necessary.
The 2000 bug for older systems is a good example of this. Computers made in the 80s and earlier were not programmed to deal with the year 2000. Hell. Some items made in the late 90's were not set up for 2000 and beyond.
Read the statements.
Companies do things like 'offer' to help other countries only when it comes time for taxes or to gain resources.
Sorry but no – International business has evolved way beyond this point – taking advantage of strategic locations, access to local markets, access to local industries / labour / tax concessions and the list goes on and on.
Does both of these statements not say the same thing?
How long did monarchies and such last? They had rebellions, but yet it was only mass communications that allowed such rebellions to finally throw off the ability for self sustaining colonies. When you control the ability to get necessary items to a place, they are NOT going to revolt unless there is an alternative. Only when you get greedy do they really push.
Actually, you may want to check out Spell Jammers from D&D for the rear ram of a ship. Speed is the key to how much damage you could do to another.
But you will take damage yourself for doing the ram, and the thrust of the ship you are trying to hit, will not be in the damage returned to the ramming ship.
What does the dust motes do to the ship as it flies thru them? I could very well suggest that most of those motes are removed from the dropships passage, if the items are shoved out of the rear of the ship. Engine thrust would be the main threat at that point.
What good is matching speeds with another ship, when you don't have the weapons and armor to beat it? You just wasted the funds on a ship that would be destroyed by others. This is why deep space interception isn't feasible.
And yet the game specifically states that flipping a ship is the normal means of steering it at speeds. Again, canon logic needs to beat canon material.
Presenting facts that are not in the game, is removing the game from being the game. You want breaks, but don't want the ships to slide anytime they turn. Cherrypicking things so you don't have to deal with the full issues? Spend your weight and money creating a system that can do what you want, but remember. You will have to change the way and how much damage your ship receives for the sudden thrust on the internal structure. Apply force to one location will cause the black hole effect on it. It changes the inertial force at the point of the thrusters, but have to fight the inertia at all the rest of the ship. More weight for reinforcing the structure comes to mind, but that does not eliminate it.
|
Requiem
03/13/21 07:46 PM
1.158.229.22
|
Quote:
then a fight would take place in order to allow the ship(s) to enter the atmosphere
I did make appoint this was a blitzkrieg action to a specific location upon a planet – ie. reinforcements required upon a battlefield and its time sensitive …
Thus, you have no real option but to flip and make a run for it … remember both sides have naval personnel who understand when and where these forces will need to flip so they can pretty much anticipate any action by a fellow naval commander.
This is just an extension of an area denial tactic and all sarcasm aside missiles have been used since the Napoleonic Wars … with interception missiles since the cold war … so there is a real threat that it can be used.
Quote:
And how often would be the ROM in a computer?
How often are computers within military and civilian craft upgraded? Every 5,10, 20, 30 years and then there are expert technicians for the job who have run the new equipment so there are no bugs.
Also how often is new personal computer hardware / software be upgraded now? Every six- moths or so and 1000 years into the future?
Also CD/DVD rom would be obsolete …
I would also like to point out that during the Y2K incident nothing at all occurred to any computer where I was at the time, the issue was non-existent …
As for Globalization – I would suggest you should take a business course to understand the massive number of positives for corporations when entering into business arrangements within foreign countries.
As for revolts – the setting is 1,000 years in the future – so yes they do have communications – yes they do have access to advanced weapon systems from either arms merchants or foreign governments wanting to stir up trouble.
Quote:
Spell Jammers from D&D
Have a look at some of the ships within the anime Glass Fleet – those with massive knives on the prow as well as the main ship in the series – the ram itself comes back to construction materials and engineering techniques as well as its overall design.
Thus it is quite realistic to say that given a decent engineer as well as a decent manufacturer there will be nil damage to the ramming ship.
Though the real question is what is the damage inflicted – if you can destroy the complete vector nozzles on the rear our ability to move reduces to nil. Thus turning the ship in question into an easy target – especially if you take out the whole engine area – only battery power left to run the ship once captured.
Thus I have now created a new class of warship the Interceptor class designed specifically for extreme velocity combat
All that is required now is to add new rules to the construction rules … re. front and rear drive plumes / battering ram knives / advanced sensors / advanced computer attack systems
Then there needs to be rules re physical attacks at hyper velocity – difference in vessel mass ie warship to dropship / damage location / capital damage and critical damage / what happens to a ship due to the damage inflicted.
A greyhound with Twin drive plumes front and rear – massive ram knife – with a massive number of large naval lasers on turrets as well a massive number of fighters and marines with shuttles for boarding action.
Fist to use this will have a massive tactical advantage over all other fleets – this is a new Dreadnaught Class Warship Moment within the Battletech universe!
A ship specifically designed to hunt down other ships whist travelling at hyper velocity – a new greyhound warship!
Thus you do have the weapons and armour to beat it – it all comes down to construction rules when implemented.
Quote:
And yet the game specifically states that flipping a ship is the normal means of steering it at speeds. Again, canon logic needs to beat canon material.
Just because the rules state it does not mean it have to be followed forever – with new technology comes new rules of war.
Quote:
Presenting facts that are not in the game, is removing the game from being the game.
What happens when new weapons are introduced does this automatically change the game – when the omni was first introduced did this kill the game – when warships were re-introduced into the game did this kill the game?
Sorry but changing the specifics does not change / kill off the game – it enhances and improves the game or do you only fight with pre 3050 mechs and weapon systems and completely ignore every other advanced weapon system because they were not in the first edition box.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Wick
03/13/21 07:49 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Space brakes? First of all, that's physically ridiculous. As has already been pointed out, a car slows down because less throttle is put into forward motion, while friction from the road against tires and atmosphere against shape causes drag. While you can throttle down your space engine, there's not an appreciable amount of drag to slow down in space. The Voyager spacecraft are moving much, much slower than Battletech spacecraft and won't slow down to near stationary relative velocity for millennia.
Secondly, space brakes aren't needed because a deep space ram is next to impossible. If two craft are heading toward or away from a planet, regardless of speed, unless they leave at practically the same time they won't have even close to the same vector to destination. If craft B leaves Earth's orbit an hour after craft A, B is starting 108,000 kilometers further along in Earth's orbit. This is 240 times the maximum weapon range. So assuming both craft are taking straight lines to jump point, they aren't coming within weapon range again until the final 0.4% of the trip, or the final 55 minutes of a 9.12 day trip.
And I'm sure you're thinking, well craft B will just burn quickly to object A's origin, and then burn fast enough to catch up to it along the same vector. With no suitable point of reference It's virtually impossible they'll line up perfectly to ram the other ship in transit due to the vast volume of space, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt on getting close enough to fire. At 1G this would take craft B three hours of time to reach craft A's origin so craft A is now four hours ahead; i.e. Craft A has 215 hours remaining to reach jump point at 1G and while craft B still has the full 219 and is at zero velocity. To reach joint point in the same period of time craft B must burn at 1.0186G (219 divided by 215). Certainly possible. In deep space, Craft B would pass craft A two hours after A flipped over, or with 107.5 hours (or 387,000s) remaining in burn time for both craft. Craft A is therefore moving 3,792,600 m/s and craft B is moving 3,863,160 m/s - both are decelerating but at different rates. In other words, craft B is moving 70 kilometers per second faster, giving about 6.3 seconds of the two craft being within 450 kilometers and able to fire at each other. That's a terribly small window of time. If craft B is burning greater than 1.0186G then they'll blow past craft A at an even faster velocity with even less of a window to fire. If craft B decelerates to less than 1.0186G as they near craft A, then they might open the window for a second or two longer, before craft A zooms out of range and then craft B is playing catch up again - an act that requires flipping over a second time, accelerating up, then flipping over a third time to slow down to engage the continually decelerating craft A again.
I'm sure your next option is for craft B to decelerate harder to better match craft A's velocity, which is possible, but what stops craft A from decelerating harder itself, or flipping over to accelerate up, or even changing vector a fraction of a degree? This cat and mouse game could continue until both craft were forced to slow down and meet as they got nearer and nearer the jump point, ultimately becoming a slow speed engagement at a specific location, not a deep space transit battle.
So face it, physics combined with the relatively short weaponry range in Battletech combines to make it impractical to hunt down another ship and have a deep space battle during transit because the window for opportunity only lasts for a few seconds. To make deep space battle viable, Battletech needs weapons with much greater range than 450km or craft that can magically perform banking maneuvers without atmosphere (ala Star Wars and Star Trek) to change vector without loss of acceleration. The only certainty in the whole concept is that both craft must end up at the same location (jump point or planet), regardless of vector(s) taken or acceleration rate(s). So the proper plan is for craft B to race to the destination, be there when craft A arrives and then blast it at leisure when both are moving at only a few hundred or thousand kph rather than several million.
Physics from 1965 are going to be the same as physics in the 31st century and the mathematics illustrating these points will not change.
If you want to design funny assault dropships with multiple engines to open that few seconds window up to a minute or longer, you can do that, but it adds cost and reduces weapon/armor capacity compared to similar weight single engines designs that just burn faster and wait for you at the destination. The standard form of warship and dropship (assault or not) with main engines at the stern performing a flip-over at the midpoint is both the most cost effective and battle-worthy design.
|
ghostrider
03/13/21 09:52 PM
66.74.60.165
|
BIOS in the chip that runs the computer. It uses most of the coding used in the first computer. There have been updates to it, as systems got faster, larger memory, as well as dealing with more peripheries. But some of the basic coding has not changed.
How much do you know about hard drives in a computer? They use the same principle as the CD rom does to access information within it. Multiple small disks are there that store information. That is yet another set of coding that doesn't change all that much. How to rotate a radar dish is not going to be upgraded. The coding to tell a nuke reactor to open or close a cooling valve is not going to change. The coding for figuring out coords you need to jump to isn't going to change. But this seems to be something that won't connect in your thoughts.
If 1000 people live in a city, and 999 of them like the conditions going on, one person tries to change this is going to get nailed to the wall. Even 50 would be nailed to the wall. Global business right now is not as nice as you believe. They don't do a lot of their nice deeds because the want to be nice. They do it because they have so much competition, and the laws of nations will take them out if they don't. But that is in the free market. In something like supplying a colony, you get very limited in what you can buy, and whom you can purchase from. And with this, you tend to sign a contract with the sponsor that locks this in. Until something horrible happens, like people start to starve, you do anything to violate that, and you get sued. The illusion that you can do otherwise comes crashing down when you step on the toes of the big boys.
I don't bother with anime. The ships you are referring to are not known to me. But if you want to try the melee style ships, that is your choice. Don't try and call it BT. It isn't.
The idea of ships trying a charge, which mechs do but the attacker takes damage as well as the defender, is going to happen with the ships. You can not hope to crash a ship into another and receive no damage. To try and make it otherwise, is creating a logic hole.
And with the physical only combat ships, you would hope the enemy can't take you out before you can strike or is faster.
Until you become one of the staff that develops the game, house rules are NOT canon. By demanding they are, is where disagreements come into effect. Trying to hide behind the 'presenting an alternative view' doesn't change this fact. Arguing they have to change it to that vision negates the dodge.
Wick, if you read the initial response, which seems Requiem has ignored, this all started with two ships with the same speed. I guess not stating both ships would be flying at max speed makes the idea of catching someone seem possible. Thinking the front one is just going on a sunday drive seems to be the concept for another to catch up and match the speed.
As for further information, it seems that magical items like energy shields and turbo thrust will allow ships to do things that they don't do now is the defense coming up.
Interesting thought just came up. The argument suggests anything fires or released at this speed would burn up, yet ballistic and missiles would fall into this category, meaning the idea of fire exchanges would not be able to include them. I know they don't burn up as the lack of friction doesn't allow it, but being hit by some micro debris is possible. Jettisoning things out the back side should be clear of anything in the path of direction the ship is flying.
This statement ends the funny design thing: What good is matching speeds with another ship, when you don't have the weapons and armor to beat it? You just wasted the funds on a ship that would be destroyed by others. This is why deep space interception isn't feasible.
|
Requiem
03/14/21 12:56 AM
1.158.229.22
|
When the driver presses down on the accelerator pedal the car accelerates
When the driver presses down on the brake pedal the car decelerates
When the computer uses the rear engine only the ship accelerates
When the computer turns off the rear engine, engaging the front engine the ship decelerates.
Why is this so physically ridiculous – that you do not have to flip the ship any more to decelerate.
For me flipping the ship is the act of being ridiculous.
Quote:
a deep space ram is next to impossible. If two craft are heading toward or away from a planet, regardless of speed, unless they leave at practically the same time they won't have even close to the same vector to destination.
Please explain the Strategic Defence Initiative – aka star wars Extended Range Interceptor (ERINIT) – Homing Overlay Experiment (HOE) – Brilliant Pebbles and who knows what else
Even 500 years into the future who knows what is and what is not viable.
If patriot missiles work now then why cant two ships meet in space over greater distances and greater speeds?
If one has a greater acceleration than the other I do not see the problem as long as the craft has the active probe hardware and software necessary to complete the task. Given the velocity Cray has noted then the idea that any drop-ship has the capability to move at such speed and with such precision there is little to no doubt that it is possible. And given the fact that everyone keeps stating that the rear ship will overtake the front ship, firing off a shot if its lucky, then the idea that the two can strike each other is also a certainty.
Question – during some planetary invasions you could end up with dozens of dropships correct? – so how does all of these ships stay together over vast distances from the Nadir / Zenith point all the way to the planet in question without bumping into each other - they all stay in their own spot.
So how hard is it when you take this into account that a ship cannot intercept this group?
Quote:
And I'm sure you're thinking, well craft B will just burn quickly to object A's origin
The phase – plotting an intercept course? Same here the computer should be able to predict an adequate intercept course given all the variables and should be able to amend them if they change – if a patriot can do it not then in 500-1000 years time this should also not pose a problem.
Quote:
So face it, physics combined with the relatively short weaponry range in Battletech combines to make it impractical to hunt down another ship and have a deep space battle during transit because the window for opportunity only lasts for a few seconds.
Who has the fastest F-1 race car? This is what is all about who has the fastest ship equipped with a battering ram.
Remember many ships travel in packs so the guns to finish it off once its engine have been destroyed could be on another ship – the whole idea is to cripple the ship forcing it out of extreme velocity and in so doing make it a target for the bigger guns that are on the way with a secondary intercept course.
Quote:
So the proper plan is for craft B to race to the destination, be there when craft A arrives
WW2 bombers – how would that plan work – be there for Berlin or London and do not even care for them whist they are on their way? This means that their racks are full and they can drop their bombs whilst the forces are trying to defeat them over the city – damage still done.
Dropships still released – orbital bombardment still under way – damage still being done if you allow them close to the planet!
If a weapon can be built that can kick them out of extreme velocity – you initiate area deniability to the enemy – you keep them a great distance from their objective – you shift the battle to a place and time of your choosing not the enemies!
Quote:
If you want to design funny assault dropships
Mass is not there as well as speed – think frigate with the largest supercharged engine available! You will need the mass behind you when you impale the enemy to cause maximum damage! Plus all dropship classes would virtually rip in two.
Plus the engine now does not need to be in the stern – it can be in the centre!
Quote:
If 1000 people live in a city, and 999 of them like the conditions going on, one person tries to change this is going to get nailed to the wall.
Galileo in 1633 – heresy - Still does not change the fact he was correct!
How many other individuals have been pointed out they were wrong only to be validated in the future?
Quote:
I don't bother with anime. The ships you are referring to are not known to me. But if you want to try the melee style ships, that is your choice. Don't try and call it BT. It isn't.
The show the Expanse brings out that point very well.
unless you are set on HALO dropping the units
check out Spell Jammers from D&D
Quote:
By demanding they are, is where disagreements come into effect.
This ship is for me and those like me who want to create such a vessel …
Quote:
Thinking the front one is just going on a Sunday drive seems to be the concept for another to catch up and match the speed.
This is why I suggested building a F-1 ship that enables it with the ability to determine a viable intercept course and attack; if not it can always send a warning as well as an eta …
Quote:
You can not hope to crash a ship into another and receive no damage.
A couple of years back during an earthquake buildings would topple to the ground – today they are built in such a way as they sway with the earthquake ….
Also the height of buildings has increased vastly with the introduction of methods to keep the building from swaying
What was once impossible is now possible – case in point the Pyramids …. Humanity has a way of crating the possible from the impossible.
Throwing things out the back at high velocity – will they stay on course or will they travel in an undetermined path? Also can a ship proceed to intercept another ship an oblique angle ie proceed up to the ship in a parallel course and at the last moment change direction to “stab” the enemies ship engine causing a massive tare through the rear superstructure and engine?
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/14/21 03:04 AM
66.74.60.165
|
The problem, as said before, is the game of Battletech, does NOT have powerful thrusters in the front to slow the ship down at any real speed. The maneuvering thrusters don't exert that much force, which is why it takes so long to dock.
We are not arguing what is possible in the future, we are tell you what the game says is possible. Some how, that fact is not registering. BT has their rule set and until the developers change it, which might be in 5 minutes on up to never, saying it has to be your way, will not work. You want BT, but don't want BT. Alt rules is fine for home games, but the consistent saying canon has to follow home rules is the issue here. It has been for a long while. Again. BT facts verse BT facts. Saying this or that is done in other games doesn't cut it.
Who has the fastest F-1 race car? This is what is all about who has the fastest ship equipped with a battering ram.
Remember many ships travel in packs so the guns to finish it off once its engine have been destroyed could be on another ship – the whole idea is to cripple the ship forcing it out of extreme velocity and in so doing make it a target for the bigger guns that are on the way with a secondary intercept course.
So now friction in space is soo great that you can draft another ship then pull around it? The second part is suggesting you can just shoot an engine or something and stop a ship from continuing on at it's current speed from inertia? And you suggest realism? The ship without power will eventually leave the star system at the speed equal to it's last speed, unless it hits something or is affected by a gravity field. And that gravity field may actually increase the speed, not stop it. Slingshot around worlds is a reality. The probes sent out from earth have done so in the past.
The WWII example doesn't work. To find incoming aircraft you needed radar, which was only invented during that time. The normal way of finding them is having them spotted on the coast and called in to command to scramble the fighters. SO engaging them over water wasn't likely at all. It is possible a ship was able to call it in, but that would be very rare.
Super chargers do not work in space. The thrust put out of a ship only allows so much push on the ship. This is why there is a top accelerator speed on ships. The thrust can not go above that. Now having a ship that the engine revolves around the ship sounds like it would work, but the stress created would mean every single point on the ship would have to be reinforced instead of the main way a normal single plane thrust ship does. So lose weight for weapons, armor and other things.
If it was worth having side thrust on things, missiles today would have some to fire just as the missile gets near it's target. No chance for the target to dodge. But the extra weight isn't worth the costs for the most part.
How many got the city to follow them with their right answers? If the masses don't object to conditions, then the revolution doesn't happen. A mob takes out the troublemaker. Right or wrong, that is how it was done. The future will continue that sentiment.
The show the Expanse brings out that point very well.
unless you are set on HALO dropping the units
check out Spell Jammers from D&D
It was never said these are BT. They are used to provide context to what is being said. The D&D reference was made to give you some sort of basis if you really wanted to figure out damage done rear ending a ship with the speed difference. The Expanse is to show why BT has an issue with stopping quickly. The idea that you can stop on a dime without reverse thrust seems to run very high, yet the game itself does not say it can be done.
Still not getting the idea that demanding your house rules become canon for everyone else to have to follow is where the issue is at?
The only real way to intercept a moving ship and get to match speed is by using a faster ship. The argument was set up that two ships with the same speed could not do so if one was trying to avoid combat. It is a simple statement. The implied concept was a second ship being slower would never catch the first, and a faster ship would catch it. Not sure why this is so hard to conceive.
An Achilles would be able to catch an Overlord without too much problems, unless it is already at the turn around point. Two Overlords would mean a stalemate.
And saying that you can intercept an Overlord with an Overlord and match it, doesn't work. The first one would have the speed going, while the other one would have to lose ground trying to get close enough, then burn to match the direction of the first. You are just not going to be able to provide the thrust to do that. Same speed.
|
ghostrider
03/14/21 04:43 AM
66.74.60.165
|
I should have figured this out earlier about why it is highly stupid to NOT flip over for the long burn to slow down.
The term Red Out in fighter jets will explain it.
I will explain it tomarrow, but want to see if anyone can figure it out before then.
|
Requiem
03/14/21 04:52 AM
1.158.229.22
|
Quote:
we are telling you what the game says is possible … saying it has to be your way …
Problem is … as I wrote above … this ship is for me and those like me who want to create such a vessel.
This is clearly stating it is for my home rules and for others who may want to adopt such rules, it IN NO WAY endorses that fact that BT should immediately endorse my idea as canon.
Quote:
So now friction in space is soo great that you can draft another ship then pull around it
A Naval squadron / fleet does include more than one warship – each with its own role to play.
The interceptors are designed to kill an enemies’ drive plume – hence kicking them out of extreme velocity – the ship will then communicate its location whereby the remaining ‘normal’ warships will be able to congregate and either destroy or capture the hulk – and any remnants of the crew / salvage.
ie. Normal SOP.
Quote:
The ship without power will eventually leave the star system at the speed equal to its last speed
Isn’t this obvious?
Unless my interceptor forces the ship to slow down by either impaling it a second time and slowing it down with their breaking-system or it is impaled from the first strike – killing the engine – and thus they slow the ship down with their engines. Or they calculate the trajectory of the ship and allow it to strike into the nearby uninhabited world – that could even be thought of a navigational error by anyone looking for their lost ship, not realizing that their enemy has a new warship class.
Quote:
The WWII example does not work
Research would have helped here – Robert Watson-Watt and other British scientists invented radar in the years leading up to WWII.
Refer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castles_in_the_Sky_(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_in_World_War_II
Have a look at the map within for the Chain Home Coverage for September 1939 and 1940.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-sea_rescue#Britain_2
which included the quote, “… by the end of 1943 Coastal Command has rescued 1,684 aircrew out of 5,466 presumed to have ditched in the sea …”
so how many battles were fought over the sea – thus proving the strategy of area deniability to the enemy – to keep them at a great distance from their objective – they shifted the battle and in so doing reduced the damage to their airfields and their cities – and to a place and time of their choosing.
And in so doing the German Luftwaffe changed tactics to night bombing …
Quote:
Supercharges do not work in space
This is a home rule project.
Quote:
it was never said these are BT. They were used to provide context to what is being said
And Glass fleet is not context?
Quote:
Still not getting the idea that demanding your house rules become canon for everyone else to have to follow is where the issue is at?
As stated previously – this is for those who want to adopt it into their game.
Quote:
It is a simple statement
Ship classes have different velocity / acceleration - even when operating at an extreme velocity - thus one ship will have the edge over the other, this will be based upon their current MP to indicate the overall efficiency of each vessel.
The point is I am not using an existing design as they do not have twin drive plumes – comparison can only be made with something new … and as stated before I will be using in likelihood a frigate type design – yet with an even larger engine and with a booster system, more efficient active probe, and AI computer system etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Cray
03/14/21 09:42 AM
71.47.193.139
|
Quote:
Should fighters have two engines? A normal atmospheric engine (where the speed now for basic fighter is 2,000 km/h) with a massive booster to reach a speed of 30,000 km/h to enable the craft to ascend into space.
BattleTech's aerospace fighters already have "massive boosters" in the form of their normal fusion engine. A "sluggish" 5/8 aerospace fighter can accelerate at 4Gs, which is higher acceleration than any operating crewed, spacecraft in the 21st Century. The shuttle got off the ground at 1.2Gs and peaked at 3Gs before booster separation and main engine cut off. Aerospace fighters also have vastly better fuel efficiency than chemical rockets so, per the Total Warfare rules, it only takes a ton of fuel to reach orbit (and that's wasting a lot of fuel considering that orbital velocity is about 26 hexes per turn).
Also, you don't need to be moving 30,000km/hr to "ascend into space." The V-2 was the first manmade object into space (1944, 176km altitude) and it was traveling far slower than orbital velocity. You need to be moving at 28,000 km/hr to enter a stable, low orbit over Earth rather than, say, falling on London. Orbital velocity will vary depending on the local planet's mass and your distance from its core. BattleTech's low orbit gravity rules cover the need for sufficient velocity to stay in orbit.
Quote:
Then when converting this to MP velocity becomes a very interesting question?
1 space hex (18km) per space turn (60 seconds) is 300m/s.
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
03/14/21 09:47 AM
71.47.193.139
|
Quote:
Changing speed is not fast in the game. As the lack of significant thrust in any direction besides forward is why the ship has to rotate to turn or slow. And you can only spend so much thrust to affect the ship. your 700,000 kph is affects by what per turn? 4/6 ship can only slow down as much as the 6 thrust can do.
6 thrust is a credible 3G, more than any real fighter plane can pull in straight line acceleration. 3Gs allows a 1-kilometer WarShip to flip end-over-end (3 thrust points) in less than a turn and then shed 700,000 km/hr (194,444m/s) in 1.8 hours.
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
03/14/21 09:57 AM
71.47.193.139
|
Quote:
Space brakes? First of all, that's physically ridiculous. As has already been pointed out, a car slows down because less throttle is put into forward motion, while friction from the road against tires and atmosphere against shape causes drag. While you can throttle down your space engine, there's not an appreciable amount of drag to slow down in space.
Yep. In BattleTech, which follows Newtonian mechanics in space, you have to use your main engines to slow down.
Quote:
The Voyager spacecraft are moving much, much slower than Battletech spacecraft and won't slow down to near stationary relative velocity for millennia.
They won't slow down much at all. They're above Sol's escape velocity.
Quote:
To make deep space battle viable, Battletech needs weapons with much greater range than 450km or craft that can magically perform banking maneuvers without atmosphere (ala Star Wars and Star Trek) to change vector without loss of acceleration.
BattleTech's spacecraft don't slow down when they change their vectors unless they deliberately thrust against their original heading. See: advanced aerospace movement rules in Strategic Operations. If you're using those movement rules then the behavior is very realistic.
Quote:
If you want to design funny assault dropships with multiple engines to open that few seconds window up to a minute or longer
Just flip and burn to slow down and open the attack window a fraction of a second. A good assault DropShip has thrust points to spare. The Expanse has numerous excellent examples of BattleTech-style combat maneuvering.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RptEkwG86v0
Also, the high speed closing engagements rules in Strategic Operations addresses all these issues - it summarizes maneuvers and counter-maneuvers for interception and avoiding it, and then plays out milli-seconds of combat in one set of rolls.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
ghostrider
03/14/21 01:50 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Taking out the engines on a vehicle going 700,000 kph means the craft can not continue to accelerate. It seems you forget space is not touching ground or in atmospheres where friction slows you down. I said it before and will repeat it. The ship will stay at the speed, extreme in this case, until it hits something or gets caught up in a gravity well. Getting in front of it and slowing it down is possible as well. But on it's own, taking out the engines WILL NOT stop it.
This statement suggested you didn't understand that: Isn’t this obvious?
As this discussion is still running the two ships at the same speed, the idea of squadrons isn't in it. The whole argument is that two ships with the same speed can not have the rear one catch up and pace the front one if they are both moving full out. This is a fact of life.
The numbers of those ditching their planes at sea include those damaged in battle and trying to get home, only to find out they won't make it. Also those that ran out of fuel. So the numbers are much lower then you want them to sound like.
Now it is time to shut down the reverse thruster issue.
The term Red Out for those that don't know it, means the exact opposite of a pilot black out. Outside turns can cause this, meaning the pilots head is on the outer edge of the turn, instead of their feet. The blood, instead of going to the feet of the pilot, rushing into the head. This stress is far more dangerous then a black out and requires less g-force to activate. There are no bladders to fill with air to squeeze the blood back out like the feet and legs of a flight suit.
Ships are designed so down is towards gravity on a planet. This means the transit drive on ships. When flying, your feet and butt are set so down in towards the engines. This is something discussed in the bridge thread. It is true even outside of that thread. This is for long range transportation, fighter craft don't follow this, since their thrust is set to push you back into a seat.
Corridors of a craft are larger then normal, meaning at least 8 foot tall with some bridges being 12 or more.
In flight, not everyone is belted into their seats. But being belted doesn't mean you are out of danger.
When you stop thrust from below your feet, you tend to experience a lack of gravity, even though you are traveling the 700,000 kph. Now you fire the reverse thrusters and what happens? Those not belted in impact on the ceiling, which is now the floor as the thrust is from the bow of the ship.
The Red Out effect comes into play as those belted in, now have the blood rush to their heads.
Now with this, you are suggesting that for the next 3plus days, you will have this happening to everyone belted in. This is why flipping the ship is not going to change without artificial gravity.
And now for more issues. As those belted in are now actually upsidedown on the ceiling, the ability to get in and out of the chairs becomes an issue, much less trying to do anything like work with the controls. And no matter what you think, you are NOT going to be seated the entire 3 plus days upside down. Simple things like eating and drinking, as well as using the bathroom will happen, become a major issue. The main one is the blood flow into your skull.
And not all crew would be belted in, as some things have to be done while the ship is moving. Any thing that needs to be repaired, has to be done, no matter if the ship is on a flat course or dodging shot.
So the concept of keeping the main thrust at your 'feet' is going to stay like that.
|
Wick
03/14/21 02:16 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Quote:
Please explain the Strategic Defence Initiative – aka star wars Extended Range Interceptor (ERINIT) – Homing Overlay Experiment (HOE) – Brilliant Pebbles and who knows what else
Quote:
if a patriot can do it
Quote:
the fastest F-1 race car
Quote:
WW2 bombers
None of these are moving millions of kph. Stop referencing slow-speed interceptions that have absolutely no bearing on high-speed encounters. You sound like a fool when you keep saying things that are possible at a few hundred kph and distances of a few hundred or thousand kilometers are just as possible at several million kph and hundreds of millions of kilometers. I'll give you good odds to hit a dartboard with a dart from ten feet away, taking one step to the side as you do it. I wouldn't give you any odds to hit a dartboard ten million miles away while moving a million kph in any direction even if you could throw it that distance. Stop saying you can based on the closer, slower example.
Quote:
When the computer turns off the rear engine, engaging the front engine the ship decelerates.
Why is this so physically ridiculous – that you do not have to flip the ship any more to decelerate.
For me flipping the ship is the act of being ridiculous.
If you have similar engine ratings in both front and back and your center of mass is directly between the two engines, then you're right. Why you'd invest the money in it and take up valuable space in your ship is the problem. Not to mention with engines on either end the craft is no longer aerodynamic or bottom-heavy so landing on planets becomes more difficult, but if it was a space-only dropship (like the Argo) this wouldn't matter. No one's saying it can't be made; we're saying that 99% of the time its not as practical as a conventional rear-engined dropship. Pocket warships are about the only practical application I can think of where the added cost, dismissal of routine landing capability, and warfare benefits outweigh other factors. If I was operating a cargo or transport dropship (which are the vast majority), I'd want cheapest base cost, cheapest operating cost, the largest cargo/transport capacity available, with beds, chairs, and tables affixed to one bulkhead and not two, and the ability to land more easily - all of which come with the models in which engines are mounted on one end with an aerodyne or egg/sphere shape. Yes I have to flipover halfway between each cruise, but I'm getting there just as fast with more cargo or mechs in tow at cheaper cost. If two engines was the way to go, we'd have designed Vostok, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Soyuz, the Space Shuttle, Dragon, and all interplanetary missions that way, and be designing Orion that way now. (Just watch the Apollo 13 movie if you want to see how difficult using a second engine with an off-center balance point can be if you think its still the better idea.)
To be honest, if you want maximum battle capability, you'd mount six identical engines, one to each side of a cube, like Larry Niven describes in Ringworld's Children. Those craft can move in any direction and can always be facing their enemy without the need to reorient to point engines in a certain direction to adjust their heading. Aside from the very high cost of mounting six engines, a cubic dropship or fighter probably wouldn't appeal to Battletech players so I doubt we'll be seeing it anytime soon.
Quote:
Question – during some planetary invasions you could end up with dozens of dropships correct? – so how does all of these ships stay together over vast distances from the Nadir / Zenith point all the way to the planet in question without bumping into each other - they all stay in their own spot.
Space is many times greater in volume than the combined dropship fleet. And given these are friendly craft to each other, if another was getting too close maneuvering jets could be used to adjust heading by a tiny fraction of degree to avoid a collision (though they are generally in parallel and shouldn't need to.) Could an enemy craft ram another? Sure. At slow speeds (jump points and gravity wells) this shouldn't be too difficult. But in deep space its akin to hitting a bullet with another bullet fired a second later from an inch to the side: the chance the second bullet hits the first is very remote. Now scale it up to sizes and volumes a couple of million times larger and the chance is effectively zero.
Quote:
The Expanse has numerous excellent examples of BattleTech-style combat maneuvering.
Yeah I've seen Expanse. It has great realism in its space battles, but I don't think they ever do combat at speeds attained after constant 1G burns of several days. They are having relatively slow speed battles in which the two craft are moving relative to each other by a difference of a few hundred or thousand kph. I'm not sure they ever reach millions of kph in the show - as I recall they'd typically burn up for a few hours then coast, and do a flipover and reverse burn to slow down, but they aren't carrying enough fuel to burn continuously like in Battletech.
Expanse says a normal transit from Earth to Saturn is several weeks, but a Battletech dropship can do it in about 6 days at 1G, so clearly most craft in Expanse universe are not burning 1G continuously. Furthermore, Rocinante spent 11 hours burning at 5G to escape the Donnager - probably its maximum thrust for maximum intended duration (or even a little past recommended endurance.) This put its velocity at end of burn at 388,080 m/s or about 1.4 million kph - only about 1/7th the speed of a Battletech dropship at 1G at flipover from Earth.
But Expanse closely matches what Battletech would do near jump points or planets.
Quote:
Just flip and burn to slow down and open the attack window a fraction of a second. A good assault DropShip has thrust points to spare.
But as I've said this is surprisingly hard when you're moving that fast. Let's say you need about 9 turns to complete a battle. With a 450km range window, that means you have to match the other ship's speed to within 50kph. If the target craft is moving 10 million kph, this means nailing a velocity range that is 0.0005% wide. Are your engines sensitive enough to get it right the first time, every time? Don't know about you, but I'm taking the sure thing and waiting for them to arrive at the jump point or planet rather than that 1 in 200,000 chance of matching speeds perfectly enough for a proper battle.
And all that assumes counting on the other ship to not slow down further, flipover and speed up, or adjust its heading a small amount. Ensuring a 450km lateral distance in ten minutes at 10 million kph is less than a five millionths of a degree change ( tan(450km/1000000kph * 10min/60min/hr) ) - which should be well within the capabilities of orientation jets. It doesn't matter if the assault dropship has thrust to spare, at these speeds the target has too many tricks up its sleeve and can employ delaying tactics to counter the persuer - at least until it gets nearer the jump point and they've both decelerated to the point that the fox can overcome the rabbit's tricks.
|
Requiem
03/14/21 06:24 PM
1.158.229.22
|
Quote:
This statement suggested you didn't understand that: Isn’t this obvious?
As stated above – impale the ship then use the engines to arrest the speed of the now damaged ship – comprehension: is clear using one ship to decelerate the’ falling’ mass to zero velocity.
Quote:
the idea of squadrons isn't in it.
Really?
Quote:
So the numbers are much lower then you want them to sound like.
Still does not change the fact that area deniability via the use of Radar was occurring to preserve bases / cities from attack.
Proving the soundness of the strategy – whereby you use a ship to hunt down invading forces within extreme velocity - to ensure fleet does not reach the target word is sound.
Plus it sound like it would be fun!
And if these ships had existed for centuries then pirates could have them – thus creating a whole new possible story arc to the game.
Quote:
Red out
Occur when the body experiences a negative g-force. Question – in space within the central point (axis)?
Plus wouldn’t every ship have an internal ‘chairs’ that acts like a gyroscope to that the people do not feel the effects of negative g-forces? Remember these ships have been flipping for centuries wouldn’t someone come up with a means to ensure this does not happen otherwise the death toll could be very high for every roll – also some families have existed in space for a very long time how do they survive?
Quote:
This is why flipping the ship is not going to change without artificial gravity.
If the ship was being attacked wouldn’t everyone be at their ready reaction points or safe muster points – which would be belted down at a console / gun platform / or within one of the life rafts?
As for military ships – they are attacking a military ship – so the point is? We cant attack because we might hurt someone? Ships have been flipping etc for centuries and no one has come up with a means of combating this?
As for the attacking ship they too would have a means of combating any negative effects ….
One more point if these negative effects had never been fixed then there would never have been a first exodus form Terra to begin with – or if there was the rate of expansion would be way lower than that given as the time to reach any world from the Nadir / zenith is now in months / years – not days. Which would also put a crimp in the whole idea of invading another world.
Quote:
None of these are moving millions of kph.
Extrapolation is the only way anyone can – we went from the first rocket used in war during the Napoleonic War to WW2 to cold war ….. then to space flight then to the moon then to mars …. Then extrapolated to?
It is just logical to extrapolate that if we can use a patriot battery to fling one rocket to hit another whist travelling at velocity through the atmosphere then by 1,000 years in the future can we say that we can fling one warship at another warship whist both are travelling at extreme velocity.
Quote:
Stop saying you can based on the closer, slower example.
Ok then … how about the use of a Particle Accelerator – The LHC 18 miles – vacuum – gravity fields – an atom smasher! This is about the closest we have to an example.
Or is there any other example that you can provide that would demonstrate this principle?
How about a bullet can we use that as a slow way to understand how one bullet could be used to hit another bullet? Or animals are also good an example?
Quote:
Why you'd invest the money in it and take up valuable space in your ship is the problem.
Except for the fact that this ship is in space thus the aesthetics can be whatever you want them to be.
This is after all a warship and not a cargo carrier.
This ship was built for one specific task to kill and capture enemy ships and dropships within extreme velocity -it is in no way designed to be a cargo carrier!
This is why it would have a small fleet with it who’s job is to take if from when the ship comes to a stop!
Also how many warships have sacrificed crew comfort for more ammunition space?
Thus why not extrapolate that to sacrifice crew comfort for more engine space?
In addition engineers have a sneaky way of improving upon the current design due to either changing materials or a new power plant or incorporating new design methods to improve structural integrity etc …
And this is exactly what we have here a completely new and revolutionary design – in which it incorporates the largest of engine – twin drive plumes – a massive ram to cut your enemies engine in two with the ability to then latch onto your prey so that you can reel them into normal space so the plundering can begin.
If a ship can travel at extreme velocities and it can remain within formation within extreme velocities then it stands to reason that a ship can intercept another at extreme velocities!
This is science fiction and it is 1,000 years into the future!
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Karagin
03/14/21 07:51 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Quote:
This is science fiction and it is 1,000 years into the future!
Yes, it is science fiction, and yes it's set a 1000 plus years down the road, but on the same token, they didn't throw out all the laws of physics and again you are missing a few points, the stories are written to keep folks entertained with action and adventure, NOT textbook reading about Newtonian laws or any of the others, what they use handwavium to cover are things that slow the story down or not really needed to keep the story moving.
Very few scifi shows go deep into real-world space physics, we saw some in BABYLON 5 with the Star Furies, we have seen some in the new version of BATTLESTAR, and the EXPANSE does it to death, but noting in all of those things we don't super detailed reasons why, we get an overview and the story moves on.
Sure BT space flight has some craziness, but that doesn't take away from the story, in all reality every single space battle shown reads like either the author took their ideas from Napolean Era sea battles or WW2 sea and air battles and ran with that. IF those things bore you or stop your enjoyment then ignore them or write your own stuff and just move forward.
Also, Home Rules only go so far before folks point out that you are no longer play Battletech.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
03/14/21 07:54 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Have we taken the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation into account yet?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
03/14/21 08:50 PM
66.74.60.165
|
The discussion did not have squadrons in it from the start. It was about two ships. Not sure why this is such a problem to understand.
Now, time to hit the issue of super large fleets around every jump point. The lack of resources such as MONEY to build and keep them there. If you own a single system, then it requires less ships then multiple systems. But that alone doesn't mean you have the funds or resources to guard the two. But I forget. Your system has unlimited everything. The game is set up so you are trying to rebuild, while others are raiding you to keep you down. Even in the best governments, someone decides they should rule and take out the leader.
And to think. You answered your own argument with the WWII example. You send up fighters to block the enemy, and they leave a force to deal with the fighters, while the bombers continue on to hit their targets. You fighters can either engage the incoming fighters, or open their rear to those very fighters, in order to try and down the bombers. This is a bit off from two ships, but it shows that engaging someone that doesn't want to engage can be difficult.
Also, the numbers of fighters pulled from the ocean includes those that are sea base, IE fights that took place outside of defending the home country.
I see you still don't understand the issue with just sending out forces without intel. You send out your fast ships and find out the enemy just chews them up. Without the BS of having 1000s of ships parked around a planet, it is almost certain, you have limited ships. Fast ships are less armed and armored then slower ones of the same general weight. You engage and they just plain outgun you. You gain intel, but now are without those ships you sent. And replacing them is not as easy as snapping your fingers.... well without the BS of having unlimited resources.
Have you even seen a mention of chairs that can flip head over heels? The swivel along the gravity lines at best. And more weight would be required to even attempt this. There is also a major issue that the locks are likely to fail before the rest of the internal structure that would hold normal ones in their place. And yet, this does not answer the question of how to control the ship once flipped. A full redesign of the ship is required, causing even more issues. Reinforcement of structure with the main focus of down verses trying to deal with even just up is a huge problem.
The means was in place from the start of space travel. You flip the ship over and use the main engines to slow down. This is a fact. Physics is not going to bend just from saying so.
A ship under attack does NOT have everyone strapped down. Replacement personnel are required for multiple positions, and they do NOT have extra seats on the bridge for them to be there. This also includes all around the ship. Maybe you forgot that ships run multiple shifts, meaning people work 8-12 hours, then get time off. When an attack happens, all shifts are active. That means people are going to be moving or in position to deal with damage as it happens. How many sea ships have their engineering crews strapped in while running the boilers? Checking issues that come up, like a simple glitch that comes up? Space is even worse, as you have to make sure any sort of breach gets sealed as quick as possible.
The fix to prevent brain damage from people having their blood rush to their heads, is by NOT doing it in the first place. Just a split second can cause permanent damage. Not everyone is physically fit to be in that situation. Some older officers would be able to had 2 g turns, much less the Red Out situations. Hell, some younger recruits are the same way. So you want to destroy your crews by doing so, then this goes back to the first time the situation of everyone being expendable comes up. You would be removed from command very quickly.
Also, there is a limit to just how much you can accelerate. The power required to move faster does not exist at this point. Hence the reason why normal propulsion can not reach light speed no matter how long they try.
Example of a bullet being used to hit another bullet is easy to shut down. Bullets do not all fly as the same speed. Muzzle velocity shows this. Some are faster then others. This is more in depth then the general population deals with.
A warship needs specific specs to work. There is a required number of crew to run it. They need supplies and everything on the ship is figured out to make the best use of what they have (hopefully). The balance of speed, armor, weapons, crew needs (like food, water, air, a place to sleep) is needed.
It does not carry cargo for merchant purposes, but does carry things required to operate. Fuel and ammo being big ones, with personnel requirements being just as important.
Putting in garbage like extra weight and taking up space to fit it, isn't one of those. A warship needs to be able to work properly. The cost of building warships is bad enough without having to put in things that are not necessary and even have to be custom made. Which the entire decking set up would have to be custom in order to deal with a ship that doesn't flip, but the command deck does. This also changes everything else on the ship as well. Your storage for your ammo is now being pressed in the opposite direction. That means everything from the loaded to the breach has to be custom to work in two different positions. The costs alone would destroy the ability to field many.
There are quite a few ships that take away from crew comforts to store additional ammo. Hot Loading racks is the first step in doing this.
There is some expectations that military personnel will not have the comforts of home, but they do expect a few things. Might suggest you actually check out REAL sea vessels, such as a sub or aircraft carrier from before 1980.
Again. Sci fi is futuristic, but the games mechanics isn't. The things you want don't work in BT. Until the rules get changed, they will never work in BT. Slamming in house rules means you are telling everyone they have to use your rules in order to play. How is this not saying they have to play your vision?
As I don't know what Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is, I will say that I have not taken it into account. Unless that is that anything to do with rocketry will explode at one point is the equation.
|
Karagin
03/14/21 11:24 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Ghostrider, give the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation a Google it will cover the part of things about ships and motion and speed and all that.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Requiem
03/15/21 12:11 AM
1.158.229.22
|
Quote:
The discussion did not have squadrons in it from the start. It was about two ships. Not sure why this is such a problem to understand.
And then when it was pointed out that I would not be allowed any energy weapons upon my new ship only physical attacks, and I stated that a secondary ship could be used to incorporate their weapons packages then …. As they do in most navies …. Not sure why this is such a problem.
Quote:
Economics
Problem is no one can actually provide anyone with a figure as to the amount a forward ram knife would cost as well as a secondary drive plume would cost (though there should be a discount when purchasing in bulk.)
There is no way to actually cost a ship like this thus the discussion of cost becomes very difficult to consider !
Still let us consider opportunity cost forgone then shall we.
If you allow a fleet to reach to an inhabited planet and they open up with either an orbital bombardment or a nuclear strike or just drop a couple of RCTs onto the world - would you have preferred the expense of building a ship that could have keep this fleet who knows how far away or would you rather want to give up on such a cost and allow the fleet to reach its destination all because this is what is expected in a conventional warfare – insurance premiums are going to rise if you allow the enemy to reach the door than keep them a couple of blocks away ?
Quote:
You answered your own argument with the WWII example.
Please study this in more detail.
The two were not separate groups – the German fighters were there to protect the bombers! And at that range they only had a very limited time (range) before they had return – they could not protect the bombers all the way and back.
Also realizing which craft are primary targets and which are secondary targets does factor into this.
Quote:
I see you still don't understand the issue with just sending out forces without intel.
Really? … since when did we enter the realm of G2 / S2. Even with normal fleet operations there is a degree of risk.
Quote:
Maybe you forgot that ships run multiple shifts
Really? … this is just normal SOP on every ship.
Quote:
Not everyone is physically fit to be in that situation.
Just like pilots they would go through a medical test?
Quote:
The things you want don't work in BT
Dropships in formation – work
Velocities as given – work
The idea of a twin drive plume is a rule breaker – but not a biggie as the construction rules are just engineering rules
The ability to build the ram is not really a problem given the feats of DoME.
The only real issue is the ability to find the opposing ship within extreme velocity- however given the fact that everyday dropships seem to go back and forward with no issues the idea that that is no detection equipment seems ridiculous given the velocity of the ships and the time it would take to run into planets / asteroids / other ships etc.
Still do not see any issues with not brining this into my Home Game.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Requiem
03/15/21 03:13 AM
1.158.229.22
|
Question – why is this being debated to such an extent when it is a Home Rules Vehicle that will only be used in my games and perhaps by others who may consider this vessel to be interesting for their home games?
May I suggest we (including me) all tone it down.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/15/21 04:05 AM
66.74.60.165
|
I don't remember someone saying you couldn't fire energy weapons. I do remember them saying you would have a high to hit number and a very limited time to do so. So comprehension abilities are in decline it seems.
The issue that seems to be most ignored is the games rules do NOT work with the suggestions that are there. In order to put them in, you have to basically destroy the rule set, and add in a bunch of house rules.
Now you say all your posts are to try to present an alternative to the game, yet have not really answered how this is possible without changing the entire rule base? The suggestions that keep coming up destroys the game rules. Try to put in something that doesn't change the rules, but gives them other options. This is where most of the problems seem to lay. Have to house rule everything in order for it to work.
I personally would prefer to have a large fleet of smaller ships, and be able to have a great defense by a great offense. You keep the enemy pinned into their systems or so afraid of you, they don't bother you. A few expensive ships doesn't bring this about. Warships kind of destroyed the ability for dropships to defend systems. I would prefer defenses that can be used without the need for keeping fuel reserves high, meaning stationary units that can strike the enemy before they can fire. Yes, stationary units, once found, become hard to defend. They can be on stations like the Bastion, and be semi mobile, but doesn't have to fly around the system. The game does not support this concept, so I deal with things the way I can.
This is especially true when you have multiple systems they can strike from.
One sided thinking is a downfall to arguments. The Allies also sent in bombers with fighters against the Axis. The bombers kept going as best they could, while fighters engaged to try and stop the enemy. Which also explains why fighters were ditch in the ocean. The ran out of fuel while over the enemy lands, not in the oceans.
Now comes the big question. Do you risk the enemy on your 6, in order to shoot down the bombers? Or do you try and take out the enemy fighters then go after the bombers? Knowing their likely destination and target helps solve this question. But in the end, losing your fighters opens you up to not being able to defend against the next wave.
This is why deep space interdiction is foolish. You send out your fastest ship to engage the enemy, only to find out they wipe out your ships. Now, instead of dealing with the fleet with as many ships as you can, you now have to face them down those ships you sent out. Leaving fighter recon out of this, it is better to engage the ships closer to the world, but not right on top of it. The enemy will have to slow down in order to get their ships in orbit. This is why the game has the history of doing just that. Maybe as close as the moon for striking range. Trying the deep space one may well result in the enemy having taken a different approach path. Might take a little longer, but you don't have to worry so much about the enemy meeting up with you. And what do you know. Your ships are still heading to the jump point looking to engage the incoming fleet, and you missed it by a few hundred thousand klicks. Also, as pointed out, normal 1 g burns happen. Going a little further out and doing a 1.5 g burn for a short while will let you get up to speed. This could be true for flying straight in as well.
The multiple shift shows why not everyone will be belted in when in combat or extreme maneuvers. They will all be at emergency status, and will react to damage to help keep the ship alive. Tiedowns would be use, but not all the time.
Just like the military today, they allow people in that have health problems, but to get people in the military, they over look some. Also, people develop problems and they are covered up. The game runs with the premise that you fill spots as you can. If the best tech you have, can't handle high g turns, then you have to risk it, but you will not be leaving them behind.
Question – why is this being debated to such an extent when it is a Home Rules Vehicle that will only be used in my games and perhaps by others who may consider this vessel to be interesting for their home games?
This statement nullifies everything you say about the posts being for all that want an alternative.
As stated earlier in this response, to be an alternative, it has to come without the need for massive house rules. This is not BT.
And your question stands at this. Present something that can't exist in the game, then defend it against people that tell you with canon logic and rules why it can't exist, then the out of game logic is used to say it can. Why try to force house rules on others with a supposed alternative view of things? The original question was answered, then more was packed in.
|
Requiem
03/15/21 06:27 AM
1.158.229.22
|
Quote:
basically destroy the rule set, and add in a bunch of house rules
Why?
Just need rules
Consider MP for new ship and old ship – even a booster system
Start with a basic test and go from there such as 1st Test - Just need to add in a few modifiers …
the Piloting Skill Roll Table
and the
Attack Modifiers Table
And the
Hit Location Table
And they are not as bad as everyone might think as they are computer assisted.
You could even treat the attack as something similar to one aerospace fighter chasing a second in order to be in an adjacent hex to initiate a physical attack to strike at the engine – whist at the same time both are utilizing their laser weapons against each other. As a first experiment to see if it is possible ….
From there if tweaking is required if it does not work as predicted … see what works and what doesn’t and go from there…
Then there is only the construction rules for a second drive plume and the ram (% of the weight of the ship?) / extra computer power / extra active probes – only laser weapons
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Karagin
03/15/21 09:07 AM
70.118.172.64
|
When you add in house rules you are normally adding in things that are either 1) Missing from the game, 2) that try to speed up the game or cut back on dice rolls, or 3) change them to meet what you and your group want something to be, for example, Small Pulse Lasers engaging incoming missile fire or AMS firing on missiles that have engaged another target.
What you keep tossing at all of here basically re-writes large chunks of the game. Not all of us want that, and not all of us can agree on what needs to be changed, and given that we have at least two books with what amounts to house rules for actual gameplay, ie: MaxTech and THB, many will say we don't need more house rules.
I know my own group has our own quirk rules like we allow homemade weapons and other tech items, but even those have to be reasonable and all still have to agree. What you, keep doing, is offering home rules as if we all have played your take on things before and that we all agree with your take on what needs to be changed or tossed out, etc..., which clearly based on the number of comments back to you is not the case. Everyone who has commented has offered logical and reasonable counters to your ideas or tried to temper your ideas so as not to make a whole new game that is no longer Battletech.
Dig through the forum, you will see that all of us have offered our own home rules/tech and all of us have done what you are doing, defend it will passion and ego, and over time we have all also seen and learned that no one here is tossing ideas, they are tossing ideas to keep things ground in the reality of the game.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
03/15/21 01:07 PM
66.74.60.165
|
With all the threads offered for things like this change, most of the changes offered go way to far. Adding in a second engine destroys the entire construction process and would allow craft to have 10 free heatsinks for almost nothing. I can argue the .5 fusion engine is needed to provide extra boost of power. SO 9.5 tons of sinks would be free.
The thruster system for reverse is possible, but as said before. It would cause so many problems that your desire for logic in the game would be destroyed. Every deck would have to be redesigned as this would cause everything to be upside down, as well as have everyone hanging upside down. Your hands would not rest on the table or console, but start lifting above your head, with blood basically pooling in your head. Flipping the deck means space and weight wasted for the entire thing to pivot. This again violates the construction and operations of the game. Not to mention those trying to fly the ship, as in combat, you would have to swap between forward and backward motion.
The introduction of energy shields is yet another thing that removes the rule set.
You might as well play something akin to Stargate, and allow your shielded ships to jump into orbit around worlds and open fire the moment they exist hyperspace.
These suggestions are NOT suggestions as they all rely on using house rules. No one can just take the concept and plug it into their games. It would require them to change a whole lot more then just the rules. This would include complete redesign of all their units, as the question would come, how all this tech was done and no one else had any of it?
I don't disagree with everything. I don't see why fighters, which operated in space, and thru hurricanes, could not do a very slow landing and operate underwater. The pressure on the hull isn't an issue, as the air resistance and the fact it resists things like canon and gauss rifle fire means is should be able to handle at least level 2 underwater. I can see the counter that water will get into the mechanisms from constant water pressure while in water, that flying in a hurricane wouldn't do, so it could damage the controls.
As stated, the game relies on things not being the best. Great detection gear removes the need of a lot of things, like even patrols. So you remove the ability of an inferior number unit taking on a large number of defenders and winning thru hit and runs. It does screw up the concept of finding debris in your path doing the transit runs. Range being one of my pet peeves. Can't hit at a klick on the ground. But I am not demanding it be changed. Having range means no caving in the had of a mech or watching one fall as the leg snaps off from a good kick. There is no reason beyond ambush to engage in physical attacks with range. Then it becomes what the clans wanted. Stay at range as much as you can. Yeah, the to hit numbers bite, but I would rather fire off 11's with energy weapons then allow the enemy to be able to return fire. Yes, I know this tends to devolve into artillery battles at that point.
|
Wick
03/15/21 04:07 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Quote:
Ok then … how about the use of a Particle Accelerator – The LHC 18 miles – vacuum – gravity fields – an atom smasher! This is about the closest we have to an example.
The Good: Now you're talking high-speed collisions.
The Bad: CERN pumps trillions of times more energy put into the system to ramp up particles to near light speed than what is produced by each collision. Dropships don't have trillions of engines to add extra power to help them navigate to a specific point in space. They have only their internally provided force and perhaps a very small amount of additional external force through gravitational slingslots.
The Ugly: Trillions upon trillions of particles are being slung around the accelerator, with almost all of them missing their target. The LHC is designed to capture those one in a billion collisions and track the collided particle's movement and energy. It is not a one-on-one system. If you put trillions of dropships along the transit path (even several million) then I'll grant a collision with any one of them is likely. But we're talking a one on one collision. If the LHC was running just two particles around the accelerator they could run it for billions of years and never see an event because they'd miss practically every time despite all the externally added energy. Your own example proves how hard it is for one tiny object in a volume of space trillions of times larger to collide with one other specific object of same size.
Quote:
This is after all a warship
The CF drive, control components, lithium fusion battery, and maximum armor for a warship add up to 48.5% of mass. Engines take up 6%. As yours will have two engines you must dedicate 12%.
This means a normal warship of this size has 45.5% of its mass available for crew quarters, grav decks, docking hardpoints, aerofighter and small craft bays, fuel, optional add-ons like an HPG, and of course weaponry, fire control systems, and heat sinks. Yours has only 39.5% of mass to dedicate to same, or 86.8% as much as a standard warship. Less if you're adding a gigantic reinforced ram as well.
You could potentially make up some of that 13% gap by scrimping on crew comforts like grav decks (though you'd need at least one for a healthy crew) and doing without things like an HPG, docking hard points, or craft bays. But offhand, if the two ships are built to similar performance, a classical warship is likely to outgun a duel-engined model by 13%, will be just as fast, will generally have a happier, healthier crew, may be able to haul some extra cargo or dropships to increase its non-combat usefulness, and will probably be cheaper to build (your second engine costs 48 million c-bills.)
The sole advantage a dual-engined model has is a quicker deceleration and acceleration into the opposite direction, because it no longer has to flipover. Since rules define that flipover can happen in as little as one minute (one turn), I'm doubtful its worth a 13% reduction in firepower, comforts, and general functionality. You can certainly build it, but its not going to come into battle and be sliced bread. If its fighting another warship of similar size, its likely to lose because it's outgunned, though thanks to a small edge in maneuverability it may be a little more adept and hunting smaller craft like fighters and dropships. (As this is normally the role of assault dropships, that's what I thought you were building. I don't think dual engines would help much, but I see them as more useful on an assault dropship than a warship.)
Nobody has a problem with a house rule to design and build such a warship. We have a problem that since the fifth post of this thread, you've been arguing that your house rule is better than real world physics and better than existing Battletech construction rules. The physics are not really lining up in your favor except for the lack of flipover to decelerate (a minor issue in terms of game combat rules since it occurs same turn), and the construction rules say you're at a 13% deficit on the things that matter to game rules (combat or roleplay.) Your craft has a niche, but only house rules that are way off base from existing physics or Battletech rules can make it significantly better than what we've already got. With a ram its obviously geared toward exceptionally close combat on the order of a few kilometer or less, where its second engine might make the difference between a successful ram and a miss - but most of the time a similiar weight warship is going to blow it away before it got that close. It's like a Hatchetman vs a Vindicator in open terrain. Similar weight and movement profiles, but the Vindicator's weaponry and range is probably going to stop the Hatchetman almost every time. You've built a Hatchetman, when one-on-one in open terrain the Vindicator is the better mech. A Hatchetman has use, but not in a role similar to the one you're describing. Redefining its profile (as an assualt dropship) or its role (close combat craft rather than hunter-killer) would help fill its niche better, but as a general purpose warship its just not attractive. All the mass for the second set of engine and the ram would be better served as normal weaponry. (I have the same complaint on swords and hatchets for mechs that try to pass themselves off as general purpose mechs instead of close range brawlers.)
Quote:
A ship under attack does NOT have everyone strapped down.
They best well better be, or at least have something to hold on to. At straight line thrust they can walk around, but flipovers to change direction in under a minute is going to need everyone prepared or bodies might be flying around the cabin. If standing then I'd hope they at least have a rail or something to hold on to. During combat, everyone takes battlestations which should involve some kind of safe position, a chair with straps or rails to grip. A helmet or hard hat would be ideal for anyone not strapped down.
A transit flipover is probably performed much slower than a combat manuever - probably taking many minutes to fully rotate around. Nobody needs to be strapped down at that rate but there's probably an intercom alert to warn everyone aboard that its about to happen so they a can be ready for it.
Sea ships don't need people strapped in because the Earth's gravity greatly outweighs most other g-forces encountered (and people's legs perform good shock absorbtion.) But if a ship gets hit hard enough people can be thrown aside, though the force of water against the hull (usually) prevents the ship from toppling over. There is no counteracting force in space.
Quote:
If you allow a fleet to reach to an inhabited planet and they open up with either an orbital bombardment or a nuclear strike or just drop a couple of RCTs onto the world - would you have preferred the expense of building a ship that could have keep this fleet who knows how far away or would you rather want to give up on such a cost and allow the fleet to reach its destination
I haven't seen you address the point of why you think its easier to engage the invasion fleet during transit, rather than at jump point or planetary orbit.
Invasion dropships are going to be most vulnerable when preparing to enter atmosphere for landing. And at the same time, defenders have airfields to provide the maximum number of sorties. This is when the the invasion fleet gets attacked by the defenders. Its leveraged risk: lowest for defenders while greatest for attackers. To engage at any other time is riskier for the defenders, because the invaders are less exposed earlier in the trip and the defenders can't muster the full might of their aerospace defense (such as land-based fighters), only deep space craft (dropships with whatever fighters they carry.) Like ghostrider said, its wasteful to try to stop an invasion fleet before they reach orbit because you might be wasting a resource that could have been better used at the opportune moment.
I will grant that a warship, assault dropships, or an aerospace fighter screen help reduce this risk to the attackers, but only if they can overwhelm the aerospace defense. And if the aerospace defense isn't strong enough to stop the invasion fleet when most vulnerable, then they sure aren't beating them during transit when the leverage is less in their favor. I don't understand why you'd argue to engage the enemy during transit when you'd have greater advantage at planetary orbit. The better argument for a transit engagement is that you're the attacker, you've just won the planet (or at least the aerospace phase), and are now trying to track down an escaping dropship before they can flee to the jump point. But this is pre-radio thinking where you've got to head off another ship before it can make port and report to authorities. With radio (and HPGs) an escapee has little bearing on the future course of events.
Your nuclear tipped missiles are the one exception, but there really isn't much defense against them once launched, and except for the Jihad and First Succession War, these don't come into play. In the event of nukes, you need to take out the warships or dropships carrying them ASAP and not wait for the dropships to began landing. (WOB really messed up the invasion protocol that had been standard for two and a half centuries.)
|
Requiem
03/15/21 04:31 PM
1.158.229.22
|
Quote:
the entire construction process and would allow craft to have 10 free heatsinks for almost nothing
Construction rules should be different for that of double plume drive to a single drive.
Quote:
Every deck would have to be redesigned as this would cause everything to be upside down
Sorry but no, as the ship resides permanently in space the deck plan would be the same as every other warship.
Quote:
The introduction of energy shields is yet another thing that removes the rule set.
Problem is every ship out there already has an energy shield otherwise every spec of dust etc would put a hole through the hull of the ship when travelling at extreme velocity.
Quote:
basically re-writes large chunks of the game.
Isn’t that the point, and considering this is going to be used in a home game … ?
Quote:
not to make a whole new game that is no longer Battletech.
What makes battletech? The nil range, the BattleMechs, the history? What is the reality of the game? Please define.
The Mechs are still there – the possibility of outrunning or out foxing my ship will be built in – it will not be every ship is caught scenario – thus the warships and the dropships are still there – in addition because this is a new ship it would be incredibly rare … thus the chance of encountering what is effectively a prototype weapon system will have little to real effect on the overall wars – unless it has proven herself in other battles and will be sent to a more important theatre based upon past experience - or other houses take note of its success and begin designing and manufacturing their own.
Quote:
No one can just take the concept and plug it into their games. It would require them to change a whole lot more then just the rules. This would include complete redesign of all their units, as the question would come, how all this tech was done and no one else had any of it?
Problem is this has occurred how many times in the game with virtually every new weapon system – as well as the clans themselves with their weapons and their omnis and their elementals – and this has also occurred how many time within the IS with re to new technology being developed from when the Helm memory Computer core discovered ….
It could be in there or it could be part of the Star League …. The Clans could even have a variant of the ship to fight the new IS variant
As for construction rules – every new technological improvement will violate the rules of past engineering concepts – buildings were once built solid for earthquakes – now they are built to sway. So these new swaying buildings violate the rules of the past and should all be torn down because they violate building regulations from the 1930’s?
Case in point – my PT dropship craft – absolutely makes sense – it is absolutely possible to manufacture given the time frame and yet will never see the light of day in the canon universe because they have the possibility of killing off every Clan warship and we can’t have that.
Quote:
Great detection gear removes the need of a lot of things
How about great communication equipment?
How about the Clans or the WOB improvements?
Did these kill the game?
Sorry but either the game improves, or it will cease to exist – so what will improve the game and keep it alive – what is required to make more people play the game?
Also, if you find this scenario fun why would anyone want to squash it? If you want a more realistic game where ranges of everything are increased 30-50X, add in massive missiles etch the current distances it just requires a new thought process or perhaps a new weapon … all that really matters is having fun after all.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/15/21 06:21 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Had some thoughts about how to do some of what you want without destroying construction rules and other things.
First off, I would suggest the vehicle construction of a transmission to divert your thrust to other locations on the ship. 1/2 of the engine weight for all ways, to MAYBE 1/4 of the weight for a single direction.
The big down side would be the heat generated as the thruster is used, from the conduits to send the thrust to the front.
The blade could well be set up like the sword melee weapon for mechs. Just increase the size, weight, and damage to that of the ship being used that way.
One negative concept is if the blade doesn't hit straight on. It could possibly snap, especially if it is a sword. Hitting with the thinner side could cause this.
The ability to flip the entire ship, as not just the bridge, but everywhere on the ship would need to have that happen. This is just not worth the effort in my opinion. The engine room, which has issues with trying to work on it requires certain areas being open, and rotation of the room would not match up. The space required for all critical components would take up too much space.
Seating should be no more movement then forward/backward to the controls. Anything else would cause the operator to lose contact with their controls. Not something you want, especially the pilots doing so.
The issue with ships being built in space, is they are all designed to be flipped, not having a second set of thrusters change their direction quickly. So the entire ship would have to be redesigned to deal with that. And trying to train the crew to use the ship would be difficult at best. Don't even think you will be taken other ships, as they would not be set up the way you are trained for.
Show me in the rules where every ship in the game has an energy shield preventing damage to the front. Even Star Trek doesn't keep up shields at they are flying at impulse speed. Pressure wave, like breaking the sound barrier wouldn't exist in space.
Being used for home games, yet stated that it is to provide others with an alternative is contradictory in nature. With that being said, this is looking more like you have to play by my rules, not the ones provided by the game. Hence, not an alternative, but trying to force others to use your rule set.
This statement is why there is so many problems: What makes battletech? The nil range, the BattleMechs, the history? What is the reality of the game? Please define.
If you need to ask, then you don't understand the game at all. Again, this explains why the alt views have issues with those playing the actual game. Battle tech is using the rules provided by the company that owns the rights.
Not sure how the new weapons systems from the SL and clans broke the rules. They were more powerful, less weight, with greater range. They did not fire at kilometers, with the exception of the arrow system. The did not fire without producing heat. The new weapons did not weigh less then the other weapons that they replaced with the exception of the missile launchers. They went a bit far with those, yet they were not spammed on every unit found.
The XL engine weighed the same as the IS version, though didn't take up as much space.
The only real thing they did screw up is the streak system. The auto hit, that can't be used on other weapon systems.
The entire WOB line has done a lot of damage to the game.
If you want a more realistic game where ranges of everything are increased 30-50X, add in massive missiles etc
This is not Battletech. This is something far beyond what the game is set up to be. Again, it seems like you want a space battle game, not the ground battle game. Even Robotech's weapons for most units don't go past about 2-3 klicks on ground battles.
The entire history of the alt is to suggest that one persons vision is the only viable solution. Again, make your own game then present it. That is basically what seems to be presented here with the alt posts.
|
Requiem
03/16/21 02:14 AM
1.158.229.22
|
Quote:
1/2 of the engine weight … MAYBE 1/4 of the weight for a single direction
I was thinking 1/5 to 1/10th of the overall engine weight.
I agree additional heat sinks will be required for those near the engine plume only as the engine itself it not changing per say.
Quote:
the blade
Weight will be determined if it is a blade (1/5th the total weight of the ship) or an axe (1/10th the total weight of the ship)
Rues will have to be thought about re: positive and negatives.
Quote:
Flipping
This would be a non-issue as existing warships who have the same internal structure suffer nil effects so the same for this ship.
Quote:
this is looking more like you have to play by my rules
This is why you have massive number of beta tests where each member of the group is allowed to bring their ideas to the table until a consensus by the group is reached or it is killed off as a bad joke – becomes a detriment to the game. However, you will not know until it is tested a couple of times with different rules …
Quote:
Battletech is using the rules provided by the company that own the rights
No wonder we have issues.
Battletech, for me, is more than just the rules – it is the vehicles themselves – the idea of great Houses the concept of planetary invasions upon massive number of worlds – the ability to travel to different worlds – see new things – all the people and places and units that can be created – all the different worlds that can be thought up – all the different scenarios that can be thought up – reading a tactics book and putting it to work – the massive discussions that can be had regarding what is happening in the game but most of all it is the fun that can be had.
And yes, I agree the WOB line has inflicted a massive wound on the game that has yet to heal.
Quote:
If you want a more realistic game with ranges of everything are increased 30-50x … this is not Battletech
Sorry to say but I disagree … using the same machines etc – it is just with such a system communications and electronics will play a greater part in the game – though artillery will have to remain with their current ranges (for the most part) - this is where multiple maps will be required with different scales (like playing battleforce and Battletech at the same time) as far as I can see so far. Also aerospace assets and VTOL will play a greater role than given – that is unless you design a weapon that makes them and everything in the air obsolete.
But for me this is one of the thinks I really enjoy coming up with new scenarios and rule and seeing how they work within the game. This to me is part of the fun in the game.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/16/21 03:03 AM
66.74.60.165
|
Given there will be no swing, but just a stab, an axe wouldn't work. This is why I suggested a sword. Piercing damage.
So with those few suggestions, you get pretty much what you want without gutting the entire construction rules. This is more likely to be used in other games, but not a given. Most would suggest just leaving it to ranged weapondry.
The idea of the weight for the extra thrusters is just using the rule of vehicle construction. It doesn't really do much besides shift the vehicle rules into a dropship/warship.
The risk of having great detection and longer range missiles is that the missiles can idf. So instead of having units come in with short range, direct fire weapons, you run into the artillery matches most of the time. Fire walls of missiles at the enemy, with some chance of something hitting. Things like MGs will only be used for defense of infantry.
I have always thought it is best to destroy an enemy away from your worlds. No damage means no needing to fix or rebuild things. This is how you avoid losing the ability to do things. But I am also used to play all sorts of games that you do not have all materials on hand at all times. Budgeting things, like what gets built first, and what is needed don't always match.
Example is playing a game in the middle ages. You should build a lumber camp/sawmill combination to increase the production of wood that you need to build with. Yet, you have to have some sort of defense up to prevent the hostile creatures from coming in and wiping out your town. If you can survive long enough, the sawmill combo will make the tower production that much easier. But it all dies if they destroy what little you have with you.
Old RTS games like the original warcraft, which was a lot like starcraft, not like the world of warcraft.
Interception of ships outside of the slowest points, IE jump point and near the world, is just too difficult to be risked. Given that a lot of systems have more the one potential target in them, it becomes more risky. Defiance is a huge target in it's system, but not the only world that has something worth hitting.
It is easier to strip mine a moon then the high deposit on a world, due to people protesting and causing issues in their area. No matter what some think, martial law doesn't hold up well, especially when the government is anything but a dictatorship. Even then, they have issues.
That means the mine on the moon is a prime target, as you are relying on that to get your ores, instead of the more expensive underground mines. Yes, you should still have some working, but hopefully this gets the point across.
|
Wick
03/17/21 01:10 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Quote:
Sorry but no, as the ship resides permanently in space the deck plan would be the same as every other warship.
Sorry but yes. Down (direction of gravity) is always toward the set of engines being used as their thrust is what provides the acceleration or deceleration which in turn provides a gravitational effect. For a single engine with flipover, this means people and furniture can have feet consistently facing a single direction (though loose items like people can float around during flipover or other near zero acceleration maneuvers like docking and jumping.) With two engines, gravity can operate both from "floor" and from "ceiling" of the same room, depending on which engine is being used. You must supply a second set of furniture, or allow the furniture itself to be flipped over to compensate or half the journey will be very uncomfortable for the crew and passengers.
So when the rest of us say its a second set of furniture (and possibly ship controls) for most habitable rooms on the ship, and potentially double cost for all of these things, this is what we meant.
(And this is just in reference to furniture. Your ship has even bigger problems when it comes to things like fighter and small craft bays. It would seem very difficult to launch, recover, and service craft if they didn't also get flipped around inside to match the new direction of gravity. And spacecraft are much larger, more sensitive objects to rotate than chairs, tables, and beds.)
|
ghostrider
03/17/21 02:28 PM
66.74.60.165
|
The only ship that talks about having different thrust systems is the Avenger dropship. It states the furniture and such need to be changed from rear to bottom settings as they enter a gravitational field in which they intend to land on. As warships and jumpship would never land on a planet (they would crash), It isn't necessary to change how the furniture is set up.
As a side note, the Monarch dropship says the transit drive is at the bottom of the ship, so there is no need to change the furniture placement on basically a civilian transport.
With Wick's information, this basically suggests having a ship with double the internal features, further reducing things such as weapons, armor, fuel, and everything else needed to run a ship. You would have so much space wasted on having to have the double sets it isn't worth it.
I hadn't really considered fighter bays, as just dealing with control of the ship was as far as I thought into this.
Another effect is when you are thrusting in reverse, the concept of up and down changes so much that any sort of commands would take a moment or longer to figure out where the person means. Normally the bow is the top side of the craft. Reverse thrusters would cause people to think top, which would be the aft at that point. Even trained crew would run into issues like this, and those not even trained would have a lot of problems.
There would would have to be a lot of research to even attempt this, as anyone trying to fly the ship would have some issues with delicate maneuvers, such as docking.
A prime example would be a remote controlled car or plane. When moving away from you, the vehicles works fine. When coming towards you, the perception changes, so when the car turns right as commanded, it turns left from your point of view.
And with all of this, the costs skyrocket as well as the materials required to build it.
I can see having a special set just for emergency maneuvers, but not any long term use. Still think it would be too many things wasted for it.
Might suggest something like one time use of attached rockets, that come off like external tanks, if you really want to go this route.
|
Requiem
03/17/21 04:06 PM
1.158.229.22
|
Question: when driving a vehicle what is the percentage of the time spent driving forward – and what is the time spent breaking?
So 99% of the time the ship moves forward with the ram at the front – then for short periods of time it uses the front drive – post successful ramming (capturing the now powerless ship) to arrest its acceleration so that it can capture the ship.
As there is only one engine (which has a valve to allow energy to be diverted from one drive plume to the other at the other end of the ship) which is in the centre of the ship – thus for argument’s sake - couldn’t you arrange the furniture for one side of the ship and another way (depending on which engine is being operated) for the other with the bridge also in the centre?
Also all weapons on the ship are energy based – and if there are any fighters on board wouldn’t the be strapped to the bulkhead so no movement whatsoever or they could be strapped to a special gantry that moves them outside the ship – similar to the Expanse’s Rocinante – so that they can take off from there – or like the Macross saga’s ships.
Though I really can’t see the point as, like a vehicle, any breaking manoeuvre is for a short period of time – except when taking the ship that you have caught from extreme velocity to a dead stop.
Also training – isn’t this why all pilots sit is simulators for so long – how difficult could it be to use a simulator to get the crew adjusted to such a manoeuvre – as stated above for only short periods of time.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/17/21 07:03 PM
66.74.60.165
|
There is no standard time frame for vehicles in motion or stopping. Give a specific type of vehicle, and conditions. A semi or train can go hours on end without hitting the brakes, while something like a bus could well stop every 200 feet or so.
Going for an estimate with every type of vehicle is difficult to even begin to figure out.
Not sure why it is assumed that a successful hit will destroy all power on a ship. Even if you hit it directly in the rear, some ships are not going to be immobilized from such a strike. The Mammoth being one that the thrusters are in pods on the sides, not in the rear. Some ships have multiple thrusters as well, which you are not going to be taking out with a single strike.
Now it is possible to hit the fusion engine, but with the critical damage tables, it isn't guaranteed.
The issue with multiple sets of furniture comes down to weight and space. It is just not feasible to do so.
The strapping down of units should be done, but if the stories say the unit can free itself, then the securing devices are questionable. The issue isn't so much the fighters moving, but if you need to launch them or get anyone inside of them, at the time of using the reverse thrust.
Depending on how they are released, would depend on if they can be released with reverse thrust. I would think holding the ship from above and just letting them go would be normal, as they 'drop' away from the ship, while going in reverse, the fighter would smash into the mechanism holding it for launch. It is possible to set it up so they don't, but this prevents using other ships that don't do this by trained crew. I know it should be researched before you do so, but that times time and money. It is just more economical to flip the ship, then reverse thrust.
And yes. The ship that is designed to ram should NOT be carrying fighters, or have launched them before you needed the reverse thrust.
Now there is an assumption with thinking you will stop a ship that has been rammed. First off, is if the power was taken out. Second is did your ramming lock the enemy ship. Third is if the opposite pulls from both ships will cause separation.
Now you were saying about other ships using this reverse thrust to try and pace another ship with. In order to catch the other ship, you will be doing a much faster speed. You may well need to reverse thrust for more then a few seconds in order to match the speed, ie slow down.
The issue with trying to train crews into using the system is the fact that there is no real data on how to use it. It would require a lot of testing to get any sort of standard on how to do the reverse thrust. And anyone hired would have to go thru a long training process, even once you get the guidelines set up.
As a side note, the ramming concept might be a good way to get boarders onto the enemy ship. Wether thru some internal means in the ram, or some special doors by the ram to allow them to get across.
Locking to the other ship would be necessary in this and your bringing the enemy ship to a stop.
|
Wick
03/17/21 07:50 PM
173.247.25.195
|
The better question is how much force is required to stop an object that is in motion. It's not clear if you really meant "moving" forward or "accelerating" forward. If you accelerated at 1G for 1% of the time, coasted for 98% of the time and then rammed a stationary target and decelerated to zero the remaining 1% of the time, you're going to inject a -1G during the ram to your occupants over that period of time. That's fine. But if you accelerate at 1G for 99% of the time and then hit your target, your occupants are effectively subjected to a -99G force. That's going to be fatal.
.
I was considering certain things like bridge controls being operable whether standing (or sitting) on the "floor" or upside down on the "ceiling". A trained crew could get used to that, just as RC car drivers can get used to changing left and right whether car is approaching or receding. I also realized that crews could reorient their cabins, mess halls, and such. Doors extending from "floor" to "ceiling" would operate identically. So I was left thinking what would be the hardest thing to flip upside down on a dropship or warship and arrived at the fighter/small craft bays.
If you want an external gantry or mount your aerospace externally, that's fine I guess but its a very fragile setup for a warship, especially one that's considering ramming another. And while you might be able to refuel and give your pilots a way to enter/egress, it doesn't really give your crew a chance to maintain aerofighters such as repairing armor or replacing weapons. And please don't ask the red shirts to have to put on pressure suits and service craft outside the ship while moving many millions of kilometers per hour. The armor of a warship and dropship can withstand the impact of dust particles and micrometeorites in space at this velocity, and perhaps fighters can as well, but not individual pressure suits. Bay doors with a dedicated internal service area is definitely the better way to go.
Conceptionally, I'm thinking each bay would be some kind of cylinder, with door to space on one end and airlock doors to interior of warship on the other end, and can roll around 180 degrees to service either orientation via gears that rotate teeth on the cylinder's rim. I see no technical reason why this couldn't be done, but its added cost and weight so you'll need to penalize yourself in the construction rules - maybe double cost and 50% more mass for each fighter/small craft bay seems fair to me. A -1 penalty to structural integrity might also be fair, since this is a less robust setup than normal.
|
Requiem
03/17/21 09:02 PM
1.158.229.22
|
suggest we all have a read of the following
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4026/contents.html
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/17/21 11:09 PM
66.74.60.165
|
The thought came up with the different gravity plane of things like cargo stored. Liquids tend to have to be stored pouring spout up. A flip of gravity will destroy that concept, as well as anything stored, that has to be accessed when the gravity is in the opposite direction. Such things as ammo stored with the tip up, would definitely have some issues especially when it has to be removed from a storage facility.
The launch boom was just an example. I would figure most launch bays were similar, though not exactly like the old Battlestar Galactica style, but much shorter. But an older post made me question that. If the bay is for launch and recovery, then something has to be different about it. The Leopard example shows this. There isn't room for anything like a landing bay for it. So fighters would have to land directly into the 150 ton bay, which it would have to launch from. Then the idea of a boom to release and clamp onto a fighter came thru my mind. This doesn't mean this is how it is done, as there are other ways to do this.
And come on. Red shirts know they are expected to die all the time. Get out with your thruster pack and fix that leaky fuel line while the warships are firing their full compliments. You're to small to target. 
|
Requiem
03/18/21 01:05 AM
1.158.229.22
|
As all Ships are utilizing a main exhaust nozzle to propel the ship forward at a steady acceleration, I have come to a personal realization that the idea of up/down – flipping a ship or not – allowing combat at extreme velocity has created many issues I did not even consider (the way furniture is facing – can it all just flip over due to the design at the same time) due to the physics etc and is become difficult to determine.
The real issue is, however, can a ship utilizing an exhaust nozzle system actually propel the ship whereby …
“A typical 1-week transit from jump point to planet will see a flip over velocity of 3 million meters per second after 3.5 days at 1G acceleration, or about 1% of light-speed. That's 10.7 million kilometers per hour.” (Cray’s post 03/12/21)
NASA - Project Orion – nuclear pulse drive - 19 to 31 Km/s ?
Should not there be two propulsion systems already – a chemical rocket that have a high specific impulse to achieve escape velocity – however this cannot be sustained over a long period of time – thus the need for an ion rocket that has a low specific impulse propulsion.
If you can maintain craft at such high speeds and at the same time say that technology has ‘devolved’ it sounds difficult to believe!
Is it time to consider an anti-gravity drive or some other such drive – it may be science fiction but this is sounding a little too implausible?
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
03/18/21 03:03 AM
66.74.60.165
|
The chemical rocket is not necessary, as the game says any ship with more then 3 speed can escape earth's gravity. Wether that works out in the actual numbers or not, I have left that up to those that deal with the numbers.
As the thrust from the fusion engine seems adequate to move the ships as is, I don't really see why it couldn't do the launch. Other worlds, that have higher or lower gravity, seem to be missing from the standard worlds colonized.
For the game, and the ability to plug things into other peoples universes, other drives is a bit much.
With that said, the problem with the high tech/low tech comes from real life. A person can own a simple cd player, yet never be able to make any of the components, especially the laser. The ability to form a jump field is way beyond anything we have today, yet that is older then most of the other things in the game. The armor for one is a 'newer' invention, as it is beyond the stuff used in the 80's. It was never upgraded with all the other armor until much later in the games development. And even that is limited.
The fluff in the Avenger dropship tells of the ship personnel having to release the clamps holding the furniture, and manually moving the stuff into the new position to clamp it back down. What was once a long corridor, has rungs on one side, so it becomes a ladder when the other drive/gravity is superior. The fact is, to keep things functional, you would have to redesign everything, and possibly have the table legs in the way when gravity is in 'reverse'.
And the last thing you want to have, is your command deck flipping over at the wrong time.
|
Requiem
03/21/21 08:01 PM
1.158.229.22
|
Just another article on the issue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_travel_using_constant_acceleration
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Requiem
03/28/21 06:11 AM
1.158.229.22
|
Question?
Given the acceleration of a drop-ship and a warship – if a ship decides to run from a fight how can the battle continue?
Also if a ship is able to do small acceleration ‘jumps’ around a planet does any ship have the detection equipment available to even find them quickly within the system - and if they commit to such a strategy, and if given chase can’t they just accelerate ‘jump’ back.
With the acceleration and velocity available to any ship – all normal ordinance weaponry becomes absolutely-useless even at an extremely close range they could just accelerate out of the way – the only weapons that can engage such a vessel is one that has all energy weapons.
Thus the idea of normal naval engagements are now something completely different - who has the greatest range in detection equipment and who has the ability to speed up and slow down on a dime has the greatest advantage in any naval battle
Thoughts?
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
l0rDn0o8sKiLlZ
03/28/21 09:27 AM
73.216.131.208
|
- Wouldn't that speed be imparted to the ballistics as well? If my ship is moving 1,000 m/s across the Z plane and I fire my guns with a muzzle velocity of 1,000 m/s across the Y plane than my ballistic's velocity would be 1,000 m/s across the Z plane AND 1,000 m/s across the Y plane.
- How do they when you are shooting at them? Or where you are aiming to? What about a spread? Shouldn't any competent FCS be able to predict the enemies based on their demonstrated acceleration? And why around a planet? Gravity makes you go slower, if anything you'd want to be well away from a gravity well to do such a thing.
"Woad Raider, kill things today."
|
ghostrider
03/28/21 02:30 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Distance is the initial key for fleeing a combat if the other side wants to maintain it. Speed them becomes the over all factor. As ships do run from combat, it isn't the death matches most want to believe. Not only in the novels, but in the game scenarios, there are more then a few that say just that. A ship was successful fleeing a battle, and was trying to repair what it could.
The detection gear may well be a large part of why ships are able to flee from combat, especially when they are on the losing side.
The ordinance idea just depends on the speed of the vessels. Going 24 hexes a turn, may well be too great for ballistics, and maybe even missiles to hit another ship, especially at range. This is reflected in the to hit numbers of space battles. It is very rare to get a to hit number of even 4, as that requires high gunnery skill and a stationary object. SO there is some built in physics to this issue.
The issue of slowing down has been discussed, without artificial gravity, it isn't something that will evolve without turning the entire ship.
Detection would be a good jumping off point to a space battle, but not the end all. The speed and firepower is the major point, but not the only one. Skills and luck do come into the equation.
Let's see if I can explain the thing about ballistics in space. The shot would continue on it's trajectory at speed, but the enemy ship would be accelerating away from where it was, and this doesn't even consider any sort of turn. So the shot would look like it curved, even though it was still heading out straight from the point it left the barrel. Aiming in front of the ship is then the next argument, but depending on the speed, it still might not be enough, or bounce off the armor without doing damage.
Around a planet does not necessarily mean in the gravity well. But to be honest, having the attacker basically stationary as it tries to do anything benefits the defenders.
The key to this idea comes from speed itself. Even in space, shots only have a maximum speed they can travel, but will not slow down due to friction. So a muzzle speed of say 1000 fps will travel at that speed until gravity or impact changes it. Getting into sling shot effects is beyond the topic for this.
So your 18 k hex will cause lag time. This increases for each hex they are away from you. Lasers being the 'instant' flight weapon, yet trying to keep the focus on a single spot is the issue.
|
Requiem
04/10/21 08:45 PM
1.158.229.22
|
I have given up on the idea of having a ship with two drive plumes – one front and back and I now endorse a new theory.
Given that BattleMechs can move similar to a human – why not warships?
Why not design the ship so that the entire drive area is modular – it can move in an arc so that the engine etc can move through a 180 degree arc thereby slowing the ship down without the need to conduct a roll.
Also providing a ship with a moveable drive enables it to move at angles undreamt of by current warships – 1st to create such a ship will thus have a competitive advantage upon all others.
Also why not give them arms so that they can grapple with enemy ships – allow boarding actions etc
Why limit the design to a single modular form when the possibilities are expanded with the concept of arms and legs that a battleMech can employ.
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
ghostrider
04/10/21 09:34 PM
66.74.60.165
|
The big issue with the drives is ships interiors are not set up to handle the dramatic shifts in direction. The structure does have some issues, but nothing like the crew. Having the engine shift is much like having vector thrusters.
Otherwise, you might get more for less with just increasing the thrust of maneuvering thrusters. A full combat ship that doesn't have anything that has to be locked down is possible, but not realistic in the BT universe. Ammo being one main concept issue for almost any combat ship. Yes, all energy could fix this.
Supplies would be second.
For the grapple arms, it might be an idea to check out the Octopus tug. They do have the very thing you are suggesting, though it is a dropship. As the game does not really get into the process of grappling to board, there isn't a whole lot that can be said about it. Shuttles seem to be the main thing they want you to use. But getting a ship like the Octopus that can hold itself to a ship should not mean this way of boarding is impossible. It would be a good way to insure your transport doesn't leave if you have everyone on board try to take the enemy craft.
In the description, the Octopus, and the SL version, suggest they might well be used as such, as they fluff points out the lack of need for the large lasers they carry. I want to say 8 of them, but too lazy to look it up right now.
|
Wick
04/12/21 05:41 PM
173.247.25.195
|
I don't see any reason why grappling arms wouldn't work to "grab on to" another warship to help with boarding actions, but I question practicality. Are marines going to exit the boarding craft and enter the boarded craft through such a limb? That sounds risky and requires an overengineered grappling arm. Or will they still board by using small craft like the Shuttle or Bus or by attaching a dropship and walking through the airlock? Using a boarding craft or dropship kind of defeats the purpose of grappling arms.
It works in marine warfare because waves can toss two craft around and your boarding vessel may be a plank between the two, but I'm not sure it's as applicable to space combat.
Rather than to grab hold or provide a boarding entry method I find a better use for "arms" for a boarding dropship to be maneuverable enough to block the bay doors for aerospace craft to prevent escape or retaliation. Something like the Octopus, that used its arms to barricade the bay doors could be practical. It doesn't have to attach to anything, just float out there a few meters off the hull - nothing could launch or land without damage. The arm could be expendable, but an escapee wouldn't take the chance. And as close to the bay door that it was, it couldn't really be blown up without damaging the door and ruining the usefulness of the bay until repaired.
|
ghostrider
04/12/21 07:45 PM
66.74.60.165
|
The Octopus tells how they would do so. There is a docking collar on the ship that allows them to form a seal in the area it touches. As the ship is 'promoted' for rescue operations, this ability is stated so they can rescue people when the normal doors are an issue. What does get me with the fluff is the ship supposedly 'tows' another ship, though the nose of the Octopus is supposed to attach, with the arms being at the nose, and the engines are at the rear of the ship. Reverse, as towing would be, isn't possible if you look at the issues of thruster position, but that is a different thread.
So the boarders basically seal a spot on the hull of a ship, cut their way in, and do what they intend to do.
One potential use of a ship with arms, may well be to slow a ship, or cause it to constantly be moved out of position to fire properly, as shoving the nose in a direction would do. Much like the Hammerhead Corvette in Rogue One did to the Star Destroyer. The thrust for the Octopus is said to be very powerful in the fluff. I would think it is better then some of the side thrusters on most ships.
One more note, the fluff and novels tend to have people aboard ships out of space suits, so a nasty but effective way to remove resistance is to vent the air out, while invading with suited marines, such as power armor would allow. Boarding a ship that has a cargo door destroyed would not be a problem if done right. If forced to retreat, you simple break the sealed lock and vent those in the bay chasing your troops out of the ship.
|
Starhound
08/04/21 02:19 PM
78.80.114.39
|
Hello guys, and sorry for the thread necromancy
Quote:
I have given up on the idea of having a ship with two drive plumes – one front and back and I now endorse a new theory.
Given that BattleMechs can move similar to a human – why not warships?
Why not design the ship so that the entire drive area is modular – it can move in an arc so that the engine etc can move through a 180 degree arc thereby slowing the ship down without the need to conduct a roll.
Also providing a ship with a moveable drive enables it to move at angles undreamt of by current warships – 1st to create such a ship will thus have a competitive advantage upon all others.
Also why not give them arms so that they can grapple with enemy ships – allow boarding actions etc
Why limit the design to a single modular form when the possibilities are expanded with the concept of arms and legs that a battleMech can employ.
with the moveable drives you have exactly same problem as with two drives at the opposite sides of the ships. Your "UP" and "DOWN" directions switches. So your crew strapped into the chairs suddenly finds their chairs hainging from the ceiling, crewmembers not strapped find themselves falling down.
To put it short: Quote:
Down is parallel to thrust axis, in the direction the exhaust is traveling.
In theory, your idea of the moveable engine isn't impossible, but you'd also need to flip the bridge, engine room, living quarters... every room and corridor, or you'd need every station twice, mirrored on the floor and ceiling, and let the crew to change while engine is off for moving. It is doable, yes, but it is complicated, and it takes precisous space and weight you'd otherwise use for the cargo, propellant, weapon systems, supplies, whatever... Flipping the ship midway is just better.
P.S. I'd like to recommend you reading through excellent "Atomic Rockets" website, more specifically parts dealing with the torchships
|
|
|
Extra information
|
2 registered and 130 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: 16665
|
|
|
|
|
|
|