Karagin
07/07/02 10:10 AM
65.133.242.65
|
Or should those weapons be left to being used on vehicles?
I would like to hear your opinions on this.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Spartan
07/07/02 03:15 PM
172.133.223.214
|
I think Arrow is okay on a mech but otherwise, no. Unless you include a piloting skill check or modifier for firing. Arrows being rockets have relatively little recoil whereas the others would have large amounts of recoil, more so than heavy autocannons.
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
MacLeod
07/07/02 03:26 PM
166.90.47.19
|
Only Arrow IVs. I once did design a quad that had a Long Tom, but it never worked very well - it fell over when it fired the cannon. There is really no justification for putting something that big on a 'Mech...
Although the roleplaying aspects of being a 'Mech with a Thumper are kind of promising...
Cuz you might have to fire it at point-blank range...
Drugs don't kill people, pancreatic cancer kills people.
... and whoever heard of a drug that causes pancreatic cancer?
|
Nightmare
07/08/02 12:40 AM
194.251.240.106
|
Of course they should! Sometimes there`s no way of moving the artillery except by mech, why not mount it on one then?
I`ll bump my LTB-1X in the design section 
Advice for Evil Overlords:
My legions of terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
|
Greyslayer
07/08/02 04:46 AM
63.12.142.163
|
I would have to say no. Mechs essentially are not 'support' units and those weapons are purely support weapons. They made a serious mistake when they designed the Arrow IV ... something they never rectified (only made worse).
Greyslayer
|
Karagin
01/16/07 10:54 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Round two part two
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nightward
01/17/07 01:05 AM
203.206.46.176
|
Yes.
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ahem.
As Greyslayer can attest, I deployed a Naga at a tournament. It didn't end too horribly.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Karagin
01/17/07 10:58 AM
70.123.166.36
|
Okay the Naga has Arrow IVs, what about say the Long Tom? We know the Thumper and Sniper will fit so why not the Long Tom?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Toontje
01/17/07 12:24 PM
131.155.212.216
|
Just too big.
Fluffwise: greater range, greater shell --> more than a HGR, and that alrady has to do a PS roll..
Rather to blow up, then.
|
Karagin
01/17/07 12:42 PM
70.123.166.36
|
The weight and criticals should still fit, though I can see that if would fill both the arm, torso and center two criticals of a mech...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NewPharoah_Max
01/17/07 02:26 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Post deleted by Cray
Greetings to you too.
|
Karagin
01/17/07 02:55 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Right but I am talking about going beyond the Arrow IV...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Toontje
01/17/07 04:16 PM
131.155.212.216
|
LT is 30 tons, 30 crits.. maybe if you split between arm(10), torso(12), CT(8 needed).. Splitting further I would say might both needlessly complicate construction as reload mechanism, as well as reduce the integrity of the design.
Means you will need to free up 6 spots; on lvl 3, a compact engine and gyro might be able to do the trick don't know how much space would be freed.
But arty being second in the battle line, increased mobility (what a mech is for) does not give it much of an advantage over tracked arty pieces.
Rather to blow up, then.
Edited by Toontje (01/17/07 04:17 PM)
|
sdog
01/17/07 05:06 PM
139.174.165.124
|
would be nice to get arty on mountains, like in alpine war in WW1. why not design a lighter type of field arty, put it on top of a tarantula like quad mech, wich goes prone to fire, by lowering the torso to the ground. it's not included in BT yet, but it seems to be a very reasonable addition to the universe. however most likely not for the actual game.
I realised soon that the fun part of playing a military game is that we have lots of lifes and in the end knowone dies, ...
- Skaven, ArmA modding community
|
Nightward
01/17/07 05:28 PM
203.206.46.176
|
Arrow IV is pretty much the only 'Mech-mounted artillery you'll see. IIRC, the rules from BMR require that equipment be split over no more than two location, meaning the bigger weaponsare out unless you use the Artillery Cannon rules or whatever.
Arrow is kinda nonsensical because they made it a missile. If it was a guided mortar or "proper" artillery piece, a lot of the dumbness would probably go away.
I'm not a huge fan of artillery myself, especially with the plethora of new LRM ammo types.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Toontje
01/17/07 05:50 PM
131.155.212.216
|
A missile can be classified as arty. The launcher is a lot lighter, due to no need for a strong tube, just a guidance rod for the first few meters.
Now it is possible to mount thumpers and snipers on mech chassis; why it has not really been done, beats me.. Those is equipment taht actually could be usefull to be more mobile, as it's shorter ranged.
Rather to blow up, then.
|
Karagin
01/17/07 08:28 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Thumper and Sniper weapons should fit...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
01/17/07 08:29 PM
70.123.166.36
|
In Battletechnology magazine they had a mech called the Huntress, it mounted twin LRM10s and twin Thumpers.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Drasnighta
01/17/07 09:23 PM
24.70.95.203
|
Oh, I can see making people Irate with Generalisms here, but this is my Take on the Matter:
Although I can see a use for BattleMechs carrying Artillery Weapons - one must take into account the sheer cost of setting up the standard Tube formation at that point - the Battery....
A Battery of Towed Long-Toms is certainly far enough from the Battlefield to be considered fairly "safe" from all but the most determined flanking or push-through Rout, and must cost a lot less in both Maintenance and Initial Setup...
Plus there is also the aspects of Training - Artillery is Separate from Normal Gunnery, (and I'm not just talking about MechWarrior RPG rules here) - Point and Shoot and Leading is a lot different than Trajectory and Over-The-Horizon Artillery rules... Would a Potential Artillery-MechWarrior have to be both a Highly-Skilled MechWarrior, AND Artillery Gunner - or would you exploit a C&C Network, or full C3 Automated System to do his Gunnery for him...? Even in the Real World, when a decent set of Coordinates are Spotted and Read, there's still a bunch of Math done by the Artillery Boys before they send the Payload. Will the MechWarrior be considering and doing those while his head is strapped into the Neurohelmet and his Subconsious is making sure he doesn't fall over..?
There may be important Niche-Applications for Artillery mounted on BattleMechs - difficult terrain seems to be the best run yet for it - but Artillery is so long ranged its just a matter of spotting and flight-time before you're dropping on target anyway...
BattleMechs are supposed to be the most survivable, the most deadly War Machines in the BT universe - why waste that Technology on something that deliberately hides from the Front Lines?
And if you so desperately want to use a TAG system for Homing Arrow-IV munitions - use a battery of Long-Tom Pieces with Copperheads... That'll screw 'em.
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
|
Karagin
03/11/14 10:24 PM
70.118.139.48
|
So what is the voice of thought on this now?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
TigerShark
03/11/14 10:48 PM
68.190.197.104
|
You're also thinking of artillery in a 1-dimensional application. It can be used as a gigantic mortar and there are definitely examples of this in modern warfare. It doesn't need to be 3 miles away and no military doctrine is so set-in-stone that on-field artillery deployment is impossible. The closer a piece is to the target, the more accurate time-on-target becomes.
|
ghostrider
03/12/14 04:17 AM
66.27.181.33
|
I never thought mechs should carry artillery.
They should never be able to split locations for weapons.
Honestly, a biped mech is not stable enough to fire standard artillery., and a quad doesn't have enough crits.
Arrow VI might be the exception, if they are firing homing missiles.
Imagine how it would affect your aim, when the lauching tube shoots skyward because the mech went back to far and fell over.
|
Retry
03/12/14 11:24 AM
72.214.204.166
|
Arrow VI?
When did this advanced system get created?
Quads with arrow IV is as far as I would go with the arty mech concept.
|
BobTheZombie
03/12/14 11:29 AM
66.172.249.33
|
I for one think that in theory it could be a good thing, but practically they take up so much space that it seems inefficient. But then again, having that sort of highly mobile firepower, especially on a Mech, can be devastating. I've only rarely used Long Toms, and never really use Arrow missiles.
|
Retry
03/12/14 11:32 AM
72.214.204.166
|
Superheavy VTOLs with Arrow IV would be more mobile.
Arty is Arty regardless of what it is mounted with.
|
ghostrider
03/12/14 02:42 PM
66.27.181.33
|
there is a difference between the arrow and normal art. If they barrel moves while the shell is still in the barrel, then they shot would miss automatically.
The Homing missiles of the arrow, should compensate for it, but not sure by how much they would.
|
Retry
03/12/14 06:30 PM
76.7.238.202
|
Yes.
However, an Arrow IV on a vehicle is the same as an Arrow IV on a mech, and a Long Tom on a vehicle is the same as a Long Tom on a mech.
Though now that I think about it, there is one single niche for artillery on mechs. That is jungle environments, like in the Phillipines. It'd be more difficult to get a Mobile Long Tom functioning effectively in such a place as well as archipelligos compared to a Mech.
|
Cray
03/12/14 06:41 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
there is a difference between the arrow and normal art. If they barrel moves while the shell is still in the barrel, then they shot would miss automatically.
Firing on the move is an old real world technology. By the 1920s, the US Navy had mechanical fire control computers able to compensate for ships' roll, pitch, and movement; to compensate for wind, Coriolis forces; and to compensate for targets' motions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangekeeper
http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery_p1.htm
Artillery aiming systems capable of "true continuous aim" was developed in the 1930s and allowed naval artillery to maintain its aim through repeated high speed turns.
Also, there are such things - in the real world and BT - as "copperhead shells." Guided artillery is not limited to missiles. Google: Copperhead, ERGM, LRLAP, XM395 Mortar shell, etc. For the BT equivalents, look up Precision AC ammo and Copperhead artillery shells in Total Warfare and Tactical Operations.
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
03/12/14 11:25 PM
66.27.181.33
|
I would say that was true retry, if the vehicle was a motorcycle.
I had thought the guns on a ship were not artillery, but direct fire weapons. I just my definitions are off.
|
Retry
03/12/14 11:32 PM
76.7.238.202
|
On the high seas, distances are far too long to simply aim some barrel sights on an 18" cannon at your target. Gravity and other factors will take it's toll.
|