[OT] BattleTech vs. Star Trek/ Star Wars
RayCav
My guess:
vs. Star Trek: BattleTech. Let's examine the facts; a professional
army equipped with 100 ton walking robots vs. naval security troopers
equipped with pathetic low-yeild phasers and pajamas.
vs. Star Wars: Star Wars. One professional army vs. another, except
one is armed with two-legged 100 ton walking tanks and the other one
has four-legged 2500 ton walking bringers of death:)
Sir Nitram
I've converted AT-AT's to Battletech.
Of course, if I bring one fully loaded, my opponent can bring his entire force.
It tends to be a long, nasty battle as he tries to catch me in non-flat
terrain, as I outrange everything but LongToms.
--
SirNitram
ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius
The most powerful attack of them all...
DALTONDOKEN!
Brought to you by cheese.
Phong Nguyen
news:20020606150848...@mb-cg.aol.com:
>>who wins?
>>
>>My guess:
>>
>>vs. Star Trek: BattleTech. Let's examine the facts; a professional
>>army equipped with 100 ton walking robots vs. naval security troopers
>>equipped with pathetic low-yeild phasers and pajamas.
>>
>>vs. Star Wars: Star Wars. One professional army vs. another, except
>>one is armed with two-legged 100 ton walking tanks and the other one
>>has four-legged 2500 ton walking bringers of death:)
>>
>
> I've converted AT-AT's to Battletech.
>
> Of course, if I bring one fully loaded, my opponent can bring his
> entire force. It tends to be a long, nasty battle as he tries to catch
> me in non-flat terrain, as I outrange everything but LongToms.
>
You should see the BTech vs. Real World threads on SB :)
Kayla
news:20020606150848...@mb-cg.aol.com:
> I've converted AT-AT's to Battletech.
>
> Of course, if I bring one fully loaded, my opponent can bring his entire
> force. It tends to be a long, nasty battle as he tries to catch me in
> non-flat terrain, as I outrange everything but LongToms.
This place here claims Long Toms have an extreme range of "26."
http://www.mrlovesphere.com/equipment.html
Looking about some more, I learned this means 26 hexes, with a hex being
thirty meters. These things are at the extremes of their range at *780
meters?!*
Phong Nguyen
Kayla
news:Xns9225BD133A4A6...@130.133.1.4:
> Yes.
>
What are they using for a propellant, clam chowder? That'd better be a great
bloody huge explosion or I've just lost all respect for the series (show?).
Graeme Dice
That's a long tom snubnose cannon. A true long tom has a range of 30
map boards.
Graeme Dice
--
"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to
be unpopular."
-- Adlai E. Stevenson
Kayla
news:3CFFF7E5...@sk.sympatico.ca:
> That's a long tom snubnose cannon. A true long tom has a range of 30
> map boards.
>
> Graeme Dice
I have *no idea* what that means. Thirty kilometers?
Phong Nguyen
news:Xns9225CAB...@65.96.0.178:
Unlikely to be a particularly large explosion.
From what I've heard, BTech is an excellent game, but was written and
designed in a manner that'd let modern forces whomp on them.
Technically speaking, humvees can outgun Gauss Rifle-armed mechs ;)
Kayla
> Unlikely to be a particularly large explosion.
>
> From what I've heard, BTech is an excellent game, but was written and
> designed in a manner that'd let modern forces whomp on them.
>
> Technically speaking, humvees can outgun Gauss Rifle-armed mechs ;)
I ought to investigate this. Another scratching post for the Irken Armada!
Pablo
"Phong Nguyen" <phong....@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9225907864441...@130.133.1.4...
A platoon of T72s crewed by North Korean conscripts could beat up most BTech
forces.
Phong Nguyen
news:Xns9225CE4...@65.96.0.178:
I should be more specific though:
The Gauss Rifle in BTech shoots projectiles with a KE of 24MJ. The Humvee
can carry antitank missiles called LOSAT with a KE of ~40MJ. So yes, they
can outgun them, though they'd be easily damaged. Range is some 133 hexes
in BTech terms, too :)
Kayla
> I should be more specific though:
>
> The Gauss Rifle in BTech shoots projectiles with a KE of 24MJ. The Humvee
> can carry antitank missiles called LOSAT with a KE of ~40MJ. So yes, they
> can outgun them, though they'd be easily damaged. Range is some 133 hexes
> in BTech terms, too :)
The kinetic energy doesn't tell us much, though. What shape is the gauss
projectile, what's its frontal area, etc. That's at least as important.
Graeme Dice
<snip>
> Unlikely to be a particularly large explosion.
>
> From what I've heard, BTech is an excellent game, but was written and
> designed in a manner that'd let modern forces whomp on them.
>
> Technically speaking, humvees can outgun Gauss Rifle-armed mechs ;)
Only if you treat the falling damage as typical. The main gun on a M1A2
is much closer to 5 points of damage than anything else going by all
avaialble evidence.
Graeme Dice
It's a 250lb ball of metal.
Graeme Dice
--
"No one should approach the temple of science with the soul of a
money changer." — Thomas Browne (1605-82), English physician
and writer.
Graeme Dice
Around 15 km.
Peter Smith
<< vs. Star Trek: BattleTech. >>
BTech vs. STrek? In space, Star Trek. On the ground, probably Star Trek as
well, as long as the ground forces have support from things like
Runabout-class shuttles.
<< vs. Star Wars: Star Wars. >>
Agreed.
Peter Smith
Administrator
Classic BattleTech Message Board
www.classicbattletech.com
Peter Smith
<< I've converted AT-AT's to Battletech. >>
I'd like to see the stats for that, including the weapons.
Peter Smith
<< This place here claims Long Toms have an extreme range of "26." >>
Long Tom Cannon. Snub-nose version of the big gun.
Peter Smith
<< What are they using for a propellant, clam chowder? >>
Manhattan-style, actually. ;-)
<< That'd better be a great bloody huge explosion or I've just lost all
respect for the series (show?). >>
It's a game. Tabletop wargame, specifically. The reason for the short
ranges are game balance. Instead of having combat being "Push the red
button when your RADAR says you have locked onto your target, before you can
even see it" style, the game has horrendously-short ranges to make it
personal. In your face, slugging it out (physically if you wish), nasty
combat.
Peter Smith
<< The kinetic energy doesn't tell us much, though. What shape is the gauss
projectile, what's its frontal area, etc. >>
Watermelon shape and size, 125 kilograms is the upper limit of the weight
(eight shots per ton (metric), an undetermined amount of that ton goes into
loading equipment).
Graeme Dice
>
> "Sir Nitram" <nitramt...@aol.comAntiSpam> wrote
>
> << I've converted AT-AT's to Battletech. >>
>
> I'd like to see the stats for that, including the weapons.
Here are my two versions. One following almost level three rules,
except for cargo in a mech, and one with completely made up technology.
BattleMech Technical Readout
Type/Model: Armored Transport At-AT
Tech: Mixed Tech / 3025
Config: Quad BattleMech
Rules: Level 3, Standard design
Mass: 100 tons
Chassis: Composite (IS)
Power Plant: 300 XL Fusion (C)
Walking Speed: 32.4 km/h
Maximum Speed: 43.2 km/h
Jump Jets: None
Jump Capacity: 0 meters
Armor Type: Hardened
Armament:
2 Large Pulse Lasers (C)
2 Medium Pulse Lasers (C)
Manufacturer: (Unknown)
Location: (Unknown)
Communications System: (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System: (Unknown)
--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Armored Transport At-AT
Mass: 100 tons
Equipment: Crits Mass
Int. Struct.: 160 pts Composite (IS) 0 5.00
Engine: 300 XL 10 9.50
Walking MP: 3
Running MP: 4
Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks: 18 Double (C) [36] 12 8.00
(Heat Sink Loc: 1 LFL, 1 RFL, 2 LT, 1 LRL, 1 RRL)
XL Gyro: 6 1.50
Command Console, Life Supt.: 6 6.00
Leg Act: Hip + UpLeg + LowLeg + Foot 16 .00
Armor Factor: 323 (C) 0 40.50
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Head: 3 9
Center Torso: 31 46
Center Torso (Rear): 16
L/R Side Torso: 21 32/32
L/R Side Torso (Rear): 10/10
L/R Front Leg: 21 42/42
L/R Rear Leg: 21 42/42
Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Crits Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Large Pulse Laser (C) RT 10 2 6.00
1 Medium Pulse Laser (C) RT 4 1 2.00
1 Large Pulse Laser (C) LT 10 2 6.00
1 Medium Pulse Laser (C) LT 4 1 2.00
1 Targeting Computer (C)RT 4 4.00
1 Cargo Bay LT 6 9.5
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 28 60 90.50
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 23,153,000 C-Bills
Battle Value: 2,298
Cost per BV: 10,075.28
Weapon Value: 8,506 / 8,506 (Ratio = 3.70 / 3.70)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 36; MRDmg = 28; LRDmg = 14
BattleForce2: MP: 3, Armor/Structure: 8/4
Damage PB/M/L: 6/4/2, Overheat: 0
Class: MA; Point Value: 23
And the 2000 ton monster.
AT-AT Armoured Transport
Chassis: 2000 ton.
Power Plant: KDY X^7L 6000
Cruising Speed: 32.25 kph
Maximum Speed: 54 kph
Jump Jets: none
Jump Capacity: none
Armor: Takes half damage from energy weapons.
Armament:
Manufacturer: Kuat Drive Yards
Primary Factory: Carida
Communications System:
Targeting and Tracking System: Targetting Computer
AT-AT Armoured Transport
Technology Base: - Imperial
Equipment Mass
Internal Structure: Composite 100
Engine: 6000 X^7L 696
Walking MP: 3
Running MP: 4
Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks: 10(20) - Double 0
Gyro: 120
Cockpit: Command Console 6
Armor Factor: 5976 Hardened 746
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Head 90 180
Center Torso 629 944
Center Torso(rear) 315
R/L Torso 393 500
R/L Torso(rear) 286
R/L Arm 339 678
R/L Leg 400 800
Weapons and Ammo Location Critical Tonnage
Cargo Space CT 200
(IMP) ER Large Pulse Laser H(Turret) 40
(IMP) ER Large Pulse Laser H(Turret) 40
(IMP) ER Medium Pulse Laser H(Turret) 15
(IMP) ER Medium Pulse Laser H(Turret) 15
Targetting Computer RT 22
(IMP) ER Large Laser
300 damage
(IMP) ER Large Laser
150 damage
Or, if you want to mount real BTech weapons on it, they should be ER
large and medium pulse lasers. With 94 tons of weapon space, it would
definetly be a critmonster.
Graeme Dice
--
"After a year's research, one realizes it could have been done in a
week."
-Sir William Henry Bragg
Peter Smith
<< snip interesting designs >>
Well, if you're going to go with a 2000-ton 'Mech, why not just mount a
whole helluva lot of Glazed armor?
Peter Smith
Phong Nguyen
I was going by the 40MJ LOSAT versus the 20MJ Guass Rifle round. I tend to
ignore LordChaos's falling damage. I generally use the KE <-> DP conversion
that you worked out awhile ago based on tank armor and the armor
penetration capabilities of the M829 round.
Graeme Dice
>
> Graeme Dice <grd...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in
> news:3D000AD2...@sk.sympatico.ca:
>
> > Phong Nguyen wrote:
<snip>
> > Only if you treat the falling damage as typical. The main gun on a M1A2
> > is much closer to 5 points of damage than anything else going by all
> > avaialble evidence.
> >
> I was going by the 40MJ LOSAT versus the 20MJ Guass Rifle round. I tend to
> ignore LordChaos's falling damage. I generally use the KE <-> DP conversion
> that you worked out awhile ago based on tank armor and the armor
> penetration capabilities of the M829 round.
I didn't realize you were using that one. That missile is a lot like a
thunderbolt 20. Single missile, causes somewhere around 24 damage to a
single location. Very vulnerable to AMS.
Graeme Dice
--
MIPS: Meaningless Indicator of Processor Speed.
Graeme Dice
I didn't know about it when I created the design. Glazed is anti-energy
right? If so, then it fits with their performance at Hoth.
Graeme Dice
--
"The way to win an atomic war is to make certain it never
starts." — Omar Nelson Bradley (1893-1981), US general.
RayCav
Ummm, what are these threads like in nature?
RayCav
> You should see the BTech vs. Real World threads on SB :)
1.) Ignore the last post I posted under this post
2.) Opening argument: Why BATTLETECH OWNS THE REAL WORLD
2a) Space/Air superiority
Aerofighters would own real world air forces, mainly in superior
performance and space capability rather than weaponry.
http://www.badkarma.net/teams/battletech/aerotech/is/aerospace/25-cheetah.shtml
The Cheetah aerospace fighter is able to evade interception
http://www.badkarma.net/teams/battletech/aerotech/is/aircraft/20-guardian.shtml
A Guardian VSTOL (similar to a Harrier) is shot down by a Rifleman
with ballistic weaponry. This indicates that BTech sensors can
accurately track fast moving craft.
If a craft with performances similar to modern craft can be shot down
with ease, and if an aerospace fighter can avoid such defenses with
ease, then one would figure that Aerospace fighters would evade modern
defenses that usually have difficulty shooting down modern craft.
Therefore, Aerospace fighters can avoid air-to-air missiles fired by
modern craft, close in with missiles, lasers and guns and blow them to
pieces. And air superiority is the first step to ownership
2b.) Orbital bombardment
nuff said
2c.) Ground superiority
Nature of armor:
http://www.classicbattletech.com/BattleMech.html
"ARMOR
Two separate layers of armor provide BattleMechs with protection
against energy and projectile weapons. Aligned-crystal steel is
usually used for the outer layer of 'Mech armor. The aligned-crystal
steel has excellent heat-conducting properties, and so it provides
excellent protection against lasers and particle-beam weapons. An
inner layer of boron nitride impregnated with diamond monofilament
stops high-explosive armor piercing (HEAP) rounds and fast neutrons.
This second layer of armor also prevents any armor fragments from
damaging a BattleMech's internal systems.
There are two different types of armor in general use, each of which
is outlined below.
FERRO-FIBROUS
Ferro-fibrous armor is an improved version of ordinary BattleMech
armor that uses woven fibers of ferro-steel and ferro-titanium to
greatly increase its tensile strength. However, ferro-fibrous armor is
bulkier than standard armor plating of equivalent weight.
STEALTH ARMOR
Stealth armor is a very recent technology and is currently exclusive
to the Capellan Confederation. Using the shape and composition of the
'Mech's armor as the corner stone of the system, as well as tied to a
Guardian ECM Suite, the system makes the unit more difficult to target
at longer ranges, effectively given the 'Mech a 'stealth' ability. "
BattleMechs have multiple armor layers and can have stealth armor
Nature of weapons:
"WEAPONS
BattleMechs can mount a wide variety of weaponry. Because energy
weapons can be powered virtually indefinitely by a 'Mech's onboard
fusion reactor and do not require ammunition reloads, BattleMechs
usually carry charged-particle-beam weapons or lasers as their primary
armaments. Additionally, many BattleMechs carry launching racks for
short- or long-range, non-nuclear missiles. Still other 'Mechs mount
rapid-fire autocannons or machine-guns for use against infantry,
aircraft and other BattleMechs. Below is a basic overview of each
weapon type.
AUTOCANNONS
An autocannon is a rapid-firing, auto-loading weapon that fires
high-speed streams of high explosive, armor-piercing shells.
'Standard' autocannons may utilize numerous submunitions-such as armor
piercing, flechette, incendiary and precision. Additionally, there are
three types of autocannon that incorporate advanced effects: LB-X,
Rotary and Ultra autocannons
Autocannon ammunition can explode inside a 'Mech, either due to
critical damage or the effects of a 'Mech overheating and cooking the
ammo off.
FLAMERS
The typical flamethrower carried by 'Mechs taps into the heat
generated by the fusion reactor to create a powerful but short-ranged
burst of fire. These weapons are rarely mounted on 'Mechs due to their
poor heat-to-damage ratio, but they can be useful incendiary weapons.
GAUSS RIFLES
The Gauss rifle uses a series of magnets to propel a projectile
through the rifle barrel toward a target. While it requires a great
deal of power to operate, this weapon generates very little heat and
can achieve a muzzle velocity twice that of any conventional weapon.
There are Heavy, standard and Light gauss rifles.
Unlike autocannons, Gauss rifle ammunition does not explode, but if
the weapon itself is damaged, it will explode.
HATCHET
Some Inner Sphere BattleMechs come equipped with a hatchet, which
mounts a depleted uranium edge for cutting into armor. The hatchet
stays attached to the 'Mech and must be swung at the target to inflict
damage. A variant on the Hatchet weapon is a sword.
LASERS
A Laser damages its target by concentrating extreme heat on a small
area. BattleMech lasers are designated micro, small, medium and large,
which corresponds to their range and damage. There are also Extended
Range, Heavy and Pulse class lasers.
Lasers do not explode when damaged and require no ammunition but they
cause a significant amount of heat.
MACHINE GUN
Though rarely carried by BattleMechs, the high rate of fire produced
by machine guns makes them excellent anti-infantry weapons. There are
Heavy and Light machine guns.
MISSILES LAUNCHERS
Missile launchers are devices used to deliver self-propelled and
self-guided munitions to inflict damage on a target. There is a
plethora of missile launchers: from long-range, to medium-range, to
short-range to advanced missile types such as the Clan's Advanced
Tactical Missile System or Streak short-range missiles. Additionally,
'standard' long-range missile launchers can accommodate numerous
submunitions-such as Flare, Fragmentation, Incendiary and Semi-guided,
to mine-laying Thunder munitions.
Like autocannons, missile launcher ammunition can explode due to
damage or excessive heat.
PARTICLE PROJECTOR CANNON (PPC)
A PPC consists of a magnetic accelerator firing high-energy proton or
ion bolts that cause damage through both impact and high temperature.
PPCs are among the most effective weapons available to BattleMechs.
Standard and Extended-Range PPCs exist.
PPCs do not have any ammunition, but like Gauss rifles, can explode if
damaged.
ELECTRONICS
In addition to Armor and weaponry, 'Mechs can mount several electronic
systems that act either offensively or defensively to defeat the
enemy. These are outlined below; the Anti-Missile System and
Anti-Personnel Pods are not 'electronics,' but they are best described
in this section.
ACTIVE PROBE
Capable of detecting and identifying even shutdown and camouflaged
units at a distance much greater than standard issue electronic
warfare (EW) suites, the active probe makes a valuable addition to any
recon unit.
ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM
The anti-missile system (AMS) is a rapid-fire, point-defense machine
gun capable of tracking, engaging, and destroying incoming missiles.
While very effective, the system's primary drawback is its high
ammunition consumption.
ANTI-PERSONNEL PODS
Anti-Personnel pods (A-pods) consist of directional mines installed on
the lower legs of a BattleMech-which is precisely where infantry must
attack if they plan to plant explosives on the sensitive actuator
mechanisms. When
ARTEMIS IV FCS
The Artemis IV fire-control system improves the accuracy of standard
missile launchers.
C3 COMPUTER
The Command/Control/Communications (C3) computer system is an Inner
Sphere only system that allows multiple units-to a maximum of
twelve-to share targeting data, thus making accurate fire resolution
much more precise. The system has sever drawbacks, however, in that
parts of the network can be 'lost' due to the destruction or damage of
the 'primary master computers' or due to the interference of an enemy
electronic counter measure suite.
An Improved C3 Computer exists that eliminates the problems of losing
the network due to the lose of the 'master computers' but it can only
tie in six total units.
CASE
CASE is a damage-control technology that mitigates the effects of
internal ammunition explosions. When ammo explodes in a location
prot3ected by CASE, the force of the explosion blows out through
specially designed panels and armor, directing the main force of the
explosion away from the BattleMech's vital component, such as the
cockpit or the engine.
ECM SUITE
The Guardian ECM suite is a broad-spectrum jamming and electronic
countermeasure device designed to reduce the effectiveness of enemy
long-range scanning and surveillance equipment.
MYOMER ACCELERATOR SIGNAL CIRCUITRY (MASC)
MASC allows a BattleMech to put on a short burst of speed, at some
risk to its fragile leg actuators. It works by boosting the signals to
the myomer leg musculature, causing those muscles to contract and
relax at a quicker rate than is usually possible. This increases
speed, but the stress to actuators and myomer can cause a catastrophic
failure especially after prolonged MASC use.
NARC MISSILE BEACON
The Narc missile beacon is a heavily modified missile launcher that
fires special missiles, called pods, made up of powerful homing
beacons mounted behind a magnetic head. If the missile hits the
target, the pod broadcasts a homing signal for any friendly missile
systems equipped to receive Narc transmissions. Like the Artemis IV
system, Narc pods potentially increase the number of missiles that hit
a target. It can also fire an explosive pod.
An Improved Narc launcher has been developed that not only increases
the range of the standard model but can also fire the following
special submunitions: Homing, Explosive, ECM, Haywire and Nemesis.
TARGET ACQUISITION GEAR (TAG)
A spotter uses target acquisition gear to designate a target for
attack by a homing missile fired from an Arrow IV Missile Artillery
System or semi-guided missiles fired from an LRM launcher.
The Clans also employ a light version of the TAG, which weighs less
but has less range.
TARGETING COMPUTER
In addition to the various special targeting systems developed for
missiles, the Clans developed an advanced targeting system, only
recently matched by the Inner Sphere, that can enhance the performance
of the following types of direct-fire weapons: lasers, PPCs, Gauss
rifles, and autocannon."
http://freespace.virgin.net/david.mcculloch/battletech/warbook/warbook_starleague_battlemech.htm
Modern Merkava tanks, often recognized to be the best in the world,
are blown apart by the first BattleMech ever. Note that this is taken
directly from one of the books, and I think its even one of the
sourcebooks.
Phong Nguyen
OTOH, doesn't it travel fast enough to ignore the AMS system? AMS can't
intercept artillery (IIRC), and it goes faster than that.
Phong Nguyen
news:aa319b42.02060...@posting.google.com:
> Phong Nguyen <phong....@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9225907864441...@130.133.1.4>...
>
>> You should see the BTech vs. Real World threads on SB :)
>
> 2a) Space/Air superiority
>
> 2b.) Orbital bombardment
>
I do not argue air and space superiority.
Most of the following is virtually meaningless, anyways. The majority is
snipped unless I have commentary.
> ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM
>
> The anti-missile system (AMS) is a rapid-fire, point-defense machine
> gun capable of tracking, engaging, and destroying incoming missiles.
> While very effective, the system's primary drawback is its high
> ammunition consumption.
>
It carries approximately 1000 rounds of ammunition. Engagement envelope
is unknown, but if its comperable to Phalanx I, it may not be that
effective against high-speed missiles.
> The Command/Control/Communications (C3) computer system is an Inner
> Sphere only system that allows multiple units-to a maximum of
> twelve-to share targeting data, thus making accurate fire resolution
> much more precise. The system has sever drawbacks, however, in that
> parts of the network can be 'lost' due to the destruction or damage of
> the 'primary master computers' or due to the interference of an enemy
> electronic counter measure suite.
>
This is nothing special. The modern Army already has datanets.
> Modern Merkava tanks, often recognized to be the best in the world,
> are blown apart by the first BattleMech ever. Note that this is taken
> directly from one of the books, and I think its even one of the
> sourcebooks.
>
Also consider that they were remote controlled and their shells had a
pathetic armor penetration of 33cm RHA. They also closed the range rather
than keeping it open, which would be the intelligent method. I would not
consider their performance indicative of what'd actually happen,
especially as modern penetrators may have capabilities in the 100cm RHA
range.
It isn't firepower that hurts BTech ground forces, its the fact that
they're horridly outranged. Using Graeme's comparative method (rather
than LordChaos's), a modern force can simply stand off and pound them
without fear of retaliation. If we assume that LordChaos's falling damage
analysis is indicative of KE resistance, then they don't stand a chance
even if they did close the range.
Graeme Dice
<snip>
> > The Command/Control/Communications (C3) computer system is an Inner
> > Sphere only system that allows multiple units-to a maximum of
> > twelve-to share targeting data, thus making accurate fire resolution
> > much more precise. The system has sever drawbacks, however, in that
> > parts of the network can be 'lost' due to the destruction or damage of
> > the 'primary master computers' or due to the interference of an enemy
> > electronic counter measure suite.
> >
> This is nothing special. The modern Army already has datanets.
Do they allow a tank a kilometre away to have the same targetting
acuracy as one twenty metres away? That's what the C3 network allows.
> It isn't firepower that hurts BTech ground forces, its the fact that
> they're horridly outranged. Using Graeme's comparative method (rather
> than LordChaos's), a modern force can simply stand off and pound them
> without fear of retaliation.
Take this with the qualification that faster mechs are capable of speeds
well over 100 km/hr through almost any terrain.
>If we assume that LordChaos's falling damage
> analysis is indicative of KE resistance, then they don't stand a chance
> even if they did close the range.
--
NOTE: The Most Fundamental Particles in This Product Are Held Together
by a "Gluing" Force About Which Little is Currently Known and Whose
Adhesive Power Can Therefore Not Be Permanently Guaranteed.
Phong Nguyen
> Phong Nguyen wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> > The Command/Control/Communications (C3) computer system is an Inner
>> > Sphere only system that allows multiple units-to a maximum of
>> > twelve-to share targeting data, thus making accurate fire
>> > resolution much more precise. The system has sever drawbacks,
>> > however, in that parts of the network can be 'lost' due to the
>> > destruction or damage of the 'primary master computers' or due to
>> > the interference of an enemy electronic counter measure suite.
>> >
>> This is nothing special. The modern Army already has datanets.
>
> Do they allow a tank a kilometre away to have the same targetting
> acuracy as one twenty metres away? That's what the C3 network allows.
>
No, it doesn't datalink like the Navy's CEC does. Just information sharing,
with the individual units doing independant fire control, which is quite
accurate anyways.
>> It isn't firepower that hurts BTech ground forces, its the fact that
>> they're horridly outranged. Using Graeme's comparative method (rather
>> than LordChaos's), a modern force can simply stand off and pound them
>> without fear of retaliation.
>
> Take this with the qualification that faster mechs are capable of
> speeds well over 100 km/hr through almost any terrain.
>
OTOH, the faster mechs would have less armor and therefore be more
vulnerable to a modern force?
Graeme Dice
<snip>
> >> This is nothing special. The modern Army already has datanets.
> >
> > Do they allow a tank a kilometre away to have the same targetting
> > acuracy as one twenty metres away? That's what the C3 network allows.
> >
> No, it doesn't datalink like the Navy's CEC does. Just information sharing,
> with the individual units doing independant fire control, which is quite
> accurate anyways.
I see.
> >> It isn't firepower that hurts BTech ground forces, its the fact that
> >> they're horridly outranged. Using Graeme's comparative method (rather
> >> than LordChaos's), a modern force can simply stand off and pound them
> >> without fear of retaliation.
> >
> > Take this with the qualification that faster mechs are capable of
> > speeds well over 100 km/hr through almost any terrain.
> >
> OTOH, the faster mechs would have less armor and therefore be more
> vulnerable to a modern force?
Very, very few mechs have less than five points of armour on any of the
front facings. Modern weapons would have to hit it at least twice in
one section to destroy that section, multiple times to kill the whole
thing. For example, a Jenner IIC runs at 151 km/hr, can fly at 76
km/hr, and has enough armour to take a maximum of 11 hits from the 120mm
before it's armour is penetrated in any one location. It has weapons
ranging from a S-SRM 4's and two SRM-6' (2 damage per missile), to an ER
large laser (10 damage) and LRM-5.
Another good one is the Savannah Master Hovercraft. Cruise = 183.6 kph,
flank = 280.8 kph. One MLAS, can survive single hits on any one facing.
You can go to real extremes, and make a XXL engine 14/21/0 mech that
carries 3 CERMLAS, and a CERSLAS. That's 26 damage per round at a top
speed of 226 km/hr, walking at 152 km/hr. Just how fast can turrets
traverse, because these can all attack fairly effectively while moving
at top speed.
For the salvation of battletech of the real battlefield, don't look at
the big monsters, look at the tiny ones. They start to move freakishly
fast when they get small.
Graeme Dice
--
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
-- Albert Einstein
Kazuaki Shimazaki
news:adov23$12s6r$1...@ID-35195.news.dfncis.de...
<snip>
> A platoon of T72s crewed by North Korean conscripts could beat up most
BTech
> forces.
Proof? Provide full solutions :-)
Kazuaki Shimazaki
news:6uTL8.24455$d7.67...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> "Kayla" <dark...@attbi.com> wrote
>
> << What are they using for a propellant, clam chowder? >>
>
> Manhattan-style, actually. ;-)
>
> << That'd better be a great bloody huge explosion or I've just lost
all
> respect for the series (show?). >>
>
> It's a game. Tabletop wargame, specifically. The reason for the
short
> ranges are game balance. Instead of having combat being "Push the red
> button when your RADAR says you have locked onto your target, before
you can
> even see it" style, the game has horrendously-short ranges to make it
> personal. In your face, slugging it out (physically if you wish),
nasty
> combat.
Maybe, but when you go to doing _crossovers_ versus with other people,
suddenly it is all suspension of disbelief (the standard procedure).
Factors like this mean nothing, and that leaves you hanging in the air
:-)
Barbarossa
>
> "RayCav" <mikewo...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> << vs. Star Trek: BattleTech. >>
>
> BTech vs. STrek? In space, Star Trek. On the ground, probably Star Trek as
> well, as long as the ground forces have support from things like
> Runabout-class shuttles.
Armed shuttles for aerospace superiority and ground support, but
Starfleet does not have any mechanized ground forces. The missing of
tanks and other armored ground vehicles in any Fleet of the Star Trek
Universe (due the fact that the majority of battles are won in space) is
a great set back. The best support weapon used by ground forces in Star
Trek are the Photon Grenade Launchers.
> << vs. Star Wars: Star Wars. >>
>
> Agreed.
Disagreed. A friend of mine is wrtiting a fanfic there imperial ground
forces stumble across a Clan Cluster and are destroyed. An AT-ST is no
match for an light or medium 'mech (remember ROTJ how easily the Ewoks
destroyed them) and the AT-AT (he gave it a tonnage of 200t) is too slow
and has a very small field of attack (ca 60 degrees) although it has a
heavy armor. I believe I cloud destroy a AT-AT with a standard
Artillery-Lance constisting of Archers, Catapults and similar 'mechs.
Barbarossa
Colin "The Yosemite Bear" Witz
objects based on Force. The translations against our present day tech are
rather bad.
20mm Vulcan=3-5 pnts/round that hits
30mm Vulcan=4-7poinys/rounds that hit
and anything bigger will just rip one into pieces.
Kazuaki Shimazaki
news:gp_L8.563$Kl1.11...@news.inreach.com...
Crossover. 1 Warsaw Pact style BMP-1 battalion with Arty support versus
1 standard B-tech battalion :-)
Colin "The Yosemite Bear" Witz
news:adpurp$19vov$1...@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de...
Exactly considering that an Earth heavy rifle round can do damage to a battle
mech, (but not most small arms fire) and how many bullets can you pump into an
object the size of an assault mech, in 6 seconds.
Kayla
Watermelon shape and size, 125 kilograms is the upper limit of the
> weight (eight shots per ton (metric), an undetermined amount of that ton
> goes into loading equipment).
>
A watermelon? Yuck.
Is their armor by any chance exceedingly weird? I can possibly, vaguely see
one situation where a terrible shape like that would come into play, and
that's brittle yet penetration-resistant armor. Even that might not work,
but at least it makes a level of sense rather than assuming all of ballistics
science ceases to exist when you step into the realm of Battletech...
RayCav
> > news:20020606150848...@mb-cg.aol.com:
> >
> > >>who wins?
> > >>
> > >>My guess:
> > >>
> > >>vs. Star Trek: BattleTech. Let's examine the facts; a professional
> > >>army equipped with 100 ton walking robots vs. naval security troopers
> > >>equipped with pathetic low-yeild phasers and pajamas.
> > >>
> > >>vs. Star Wars: Star Wars. One professional army vs. another, except
> > >>one is armed with two-legged 100 ton walking tanks and the other one
> > >>has four-legged 2500 ton walking bringers of death:)
> > >>
> > >
> > > I've converted AT-AT's to Battletech.
> > >
> > > Of course, if I bring one fully loaded, my opponent can bring his
> > > entire force. It tends to be a long, nasty battle as he tries to catch
> > > me in non-flat terrain, as I outrange everything but LongToms.
> > >
>
> forces.
What the goddamned fucking hell is with your hatred of BTech?
RayCav
Proof?
RayCav
> mikewo...@hotmail.com (RayCav) wrote in
> news:aa319b42.02060...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Phong Nguyen <phong....@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns9225907864441...@130.133.1.4>...
> >
> >> You should see the BTech vs. Real World threads on SB :)
> >
> > 2a) Space/Air superiority
> >
> > 2b.) Orbital bombardment
> >
> I do not argue air and space superiority.
You argued modern forces vs. BTech. That includes air assets in my
book
>
> Most of the following is virtually meaningless, anyways. The majority is
> snipped unless I have commentary.
>
> > ANTI-MISSILE SYSTEM
> >
> > The anti-missile system (AMS) is a rapid-fire, point-defense machine
> > gun capable of tracking, engaging, and destroying incoming missiles.
> > While very effective, the system's primary drawback is its high
> > ammunition consumption.
> >
> It carries approximately 1000 rounds of ammunition. Engagement envelope
> is unknown, but if its comperable to Phalanx I, it may not be that
> effective against high-speed missiles.
It's not comparable to Phalanx. If modern high-speed fighters can be
shot down with relative ease than one figures that anti-missile
tracking systems may be improved.
>
> > The Command/Control/Communications (C3) computer system is an Inner
> > Sphere only system that allows multiple units-to a maximum of
> > twelve-to share targeting data, thus making accurate fire resolution
> > much more precise. The system has sever drawbacks, however, in that
> > parts of the network can be 'lost' due to the destruction or damage of
> > the 'primary master computers' or due to the interference of an enemy
> > electronic counter measure suite.
> >
> This is nothing special. The modern Army already has datanets.
>
> > Modern Merkava tanks, often recognized to be the best in the world,
> > are blown apart by the first BattleMech ever. Note that this is taken
> > directly from one of the books, and I think its even one of the
> > sourcebooks.
> >
> Also consider that they were remote controlled and their shells had a
> pathetic armor penetration of 33cm RHA. They also closed the range rather
> than keeping it open, which would be the intelligent method. I would not
> consider their performance indicative of what'd actually happen,
> especially as modern penetrators may have capabilities in the 100cm RHA
> range.
So? This was meant as a demonstration of armor strength, not tactics.
And where did you get figures for the 33cm RHA?
>
> It isn't firepower that hurts BTech ground forces, its the fact that
> they're horridly outranged. Using Graeme's comparative method (rather
> than LordChaos's), a modern force can simply stand off and pound them
> without fear of retaliation. If we assume that LordChaos's falling damage
> analysis is indicative of KE resistance, then they don't stand a chance
> even if they did close the range.
They may be horribly outranged but BTech is able to shrug off hits
from even a Merkava as demonstrated above. Range advantage means shit
if it can't hurt them.
RayCav
Graeme Dice
>
<snip>
> > It isn't firepower that hurts BTech ground forces, its the fact that
> > they're horridly outranged. Using Graeme's comparative method (rather
> > than LordChaos's), a modern force can simply stand off and pound them
> > without fear of retaliation. If we assume that LordChaos's falling damage
> > analysis is indicative of KE resistance, then they don't stand a chance
> > even if they did close the range.
>
> They may be horribly outranged but BTech is able to shrug off hits
> from even a Merkava as demonstrated above. Range advantage means shit
> if it can't hurt them.
Those aren't modern Merkavas. Those are Merkavas designed in the year
2398.
Graeme Dice
--
Latin Course To Be Canceled--No Interest Among Students, Et Al.
Phong Nguyen
Phong Nguyen
> Phong Nguyen <phong....@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns9226A164753Dp...@130.133.1.4>...
>> mikewo...@hotmail.com (RayCav) wrote in
>> news:aa319b42.02060...@posting.google.com:
>>
>> > Phong Nguyen <phong....@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>> > news:<Xns9225907864441...@130.133.1.4>...
>> >
>> >> You should see the BTech vs. Real World threads on SB :)
>> >
>> > 2a) Space/Air superiority
>> >
>> > 2b.) Orbital bombardment
>> >
>> I do not argue air and space superiority.
>
> You argued modern forces vs. BTech. That includes air assets in my
> book
>
That is AeroTech, is it not?
>> > The anti-missile system (AMS) is a rapid-fire, point-defense
>> > machine gun capable of tracking, engaging, and destroying incoming
>> > missiles. While very effective, the system's primary drawback is
>> > its high ammunition consumption.
>> >
>> It carries approximately 1000 rounds of ammunition. Engagement
>> envelope is unknown, but if its comperable to Phalanx I, it may not
>> be that effective against high-speed missiles.
>
> It's not comparable to Phalanx. If modern high-speed fighters can be
> shot down with relative ease than one figures that anti-missile
> tracking systems may be improved.
>
That's not proof.
How many rounds does AMS have? What calibre? Fire control capabilities?
Rounds/salvo? All I see is a modernised CIWS mount on a 'mech. It isn't
even that impressive, because modern tanks are beginning to carry active
defenses (ARENA).
>> > Modern Merkava tanks, often recognized to be the best in the world,
>> > are blown apart by the first BattleMech ever. Note that this is
>> > taken directly from one of the books, and I think its even one of
>> > the sourcebooks.
>> >
>> Also consider that they were remote controlled and their shells had a
>> pathetic armor penetration of 33cm RHA. They also closed the range
>> rather than keeping it open, which would be the intelligent method. I
>> would not consider their performance indicative of what'd actually
>> happen, especially as modern penetrators may have capabilities in the
>> 100cm RHA range.
>
> So? This was meant as a demonstration of armor strength, not tactics.
> And where did you get figures for the 33cm RHA?
>
Another BTech source noted that a couple centimeters or so of BTech's new
armor scheme was capable of resisting a round that could penetrate a
third of a meter of steel.
That kind of armor is indeed impressive, but the armor penetration on
that shell is horrid. If the Israelis had that in their various wars,
they would've lost since their rounds would bounce of enemy armor.
>> It isn't firepower that hurts BTech ground forces, its the fact that
>> they're horridly outranged. Using Graeme's comparative method (rather
>> than LordChaos's), a modern force can simply stand off and pound them
>> without fear of retaliation. If we assume that LordChaos's falling
>> damage analysis is indicative of KE resistance, then they don't stand
>> a chance even if they did close the range.
>
> They may be horribly outranged but BTech is able to shrug off hits
> from even a Merkava as demonstrated above. Range advantage means shit
> if it can't hurt them.
>
See above. The performance of a Merkava is not indicative.
Phong Nguyen
> BTW, a 20 Autocannon fires multiple rounds of 120 mm DU shot
>
At what velocity, how is the shell shaped, how effective is the fire
control, the range, etc?
Phong Nguyen
>> >> It isn't firepower that hurts BTech ground forces, its the fact
>> >> that they're horridly outranged. Using Graeme's comparative method
>> >> (rather than LordChaos's), a modern force can simply stand off and
>> >> pound them without fear of retaliation.
>> >
>> > Take this with the qualification that faster mechs are capable of
>> > speeds well over 100 km/hr through almost any terrain.
>> >
>> OTOH, the faster mechs would have less armor and therefore be more
>> vulnerable to a modern force?
>
> Very, very few mechs have less than five points of armour on any of
> the front facings. Modern weapons would have to hit it at least twice
> in one section to destroy that section, multiple times to kill the
> whole thing. For example, a Jenner IIC runs at 151 km/hr, can fly at
> 76 km/hr, and has enough armour to take a maximum of 11 hits from the
> 120mm before it's armour is penetrated in any one location. It has
> weapons ranging from a S-SRM 4's and two SRM-6' (2 damage per
> missile), to an ER large laser (10 damage) and LRM-5.
>
Any idea of the effectiveness of a laser on the composite/DU/ERA armor
scheme used on most modern tanks? Or the attack profile of an LRM-5 (and
warhead, for that matter)?
> Another good one is the Savannah Master Hovercraft. Cruise = 183.6
> kph, flank = 280.8 kph. One MLAS, can survive single hits on any one
> facing.
>
Hrmm...wonder if there's enough time for the loader to get a new shell in
and fire. That's rather fast...
> You can go to real extremes, and make a XXL engine 14/21/0 mech that
> carries 3 CERMLAS, and a CERSLAS. That's 26 damage per round at a top
> speed of 226 km/hr, walking at 152 km/hr. Just how fast can turrets
> traverse, because these can all attack fairly effectively while moving
> at top speed.
>
I have no idea how fast it can turn. Probably decently fast - the M1A2
was designed to take on the Soviet Hordes.
Iceberg
wrote:
>> << vs. Star Wars: Star Wars. >>
>>
>> Agreed.
>
>Disagreed. A friend of mine is wrtiting a fanfic there imperial ground
>forces stumble across a Clan Cluster and are destroyed. An AT-ST is no
>match for an light or medium 'mech (remember ROTJ how easily the Ewoks
>destroyed them)
With traps consisting of multi-ton logs smashing into them from both
sides (which collapsed the AT-ST's structure without damaging its
armor, which it would do equally well to a battlemech) or from
underfoot which would trip the AT-ST to the ground and causing the
cookoff of its volatile concussion grenades.
>and the AT-AT (he gave it a tonnage of 200t)
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/walkers.html
The AT-AT is ten meters taller than any battlemech and has a far
longer firing range (17.28 km, equivalent to 172.8 hexes). It will
annihilate the Battlemech forces before they ever come into range.
>is too slow
>and has a very small field of attack (ca 60 degrees) although it has a
>heavy armor.
That is an understatement. The stopping power of an AT-AT's
superconducting armor is almost certainly greater than the firepower
of any conceivable battlemech.
-- Ice
Jedi Knight of the Order of the BMF
Student of Master Mace Windu
Steve Garrett Jr.
Which is why, for a certain work I am doing, I am still torn between
ignoring the ranges and making my own or using the Extreme Range rules
from Level 3 to my advantage and just saying that beyond the IG ranges
accuracy suffers.
--
Sorry, it's a character trait: I can't respect idiots.
"The weak shall inherit the earth - about ten cubic meters of it over
their coffins!" - Pirate phrase, BattleTech Field Manual: Periphery
Stephen Garrett Jr.
a.k.a. "Big" Steve, Spacebattles regular, and Slayer of Fools
I AM THE MECHWARRIOR. I PILOTS THE MECHS THAT MAKES ALL OF THE TANKS AND
PEOPLES FALL DOWN AND GO SQUISH!
RayCav
You give no supporting evidence whatsoever for your claims (aside from
LOSAT figures carried over from another thread) and it seems to me
like you're just pulling figures from your asses. You seem to be
acting like SB'ers now.
BTW, if this post seems offensive its probably the medication I'm on
from the oral surgery I just got back on
RayCav
> OTOH, doesn't it travel fast enough to ignore the AMS system? AMS can't
> intercept artillery (IIRC), and it goes faster than that.
Pulling figures out of your ass? Where the hell did you get this?
RayCav
> Kayla <dark...@attbi.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9225CAB...@65.96.0.178:
> > news:Xns9225BD133A4A6...@130.133.1.4:
> >
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >
> > What are they using for a propellant, clam chowder? That'd better be
> > a great bloody huge explosion or I've just lost all respect for the
> > series (show?).
> >
Long Toms have a very large blast radius. Sounds like your still
pulling figures from your ass again
speaking, humvees can outgun Gauss Rifle-armed mechs ;)
RayCav
TIE fighter and X-Wing combat has been observed to be a close range
from the films. According to your logic, modern aircraft should have
no trouble against a fully sheilded TIE Defender.
Phong Nguyen
> Phong Nguyen <phong....@deadspam.com> wrote in message
Considering that a LOSAT-armed humvee has more firepower than a Guass Rifle
and its shape is *far* better suited to armor piercing, I do believe it
could outgun one.
Phong Nguyen
> Phong Nguyen <phong....@deadspam.com> wrote in message
Quote off SB:
"Ummm....
the LOSAT, per the specs you gave, has a range of OVER 133 hexs, which is
far greater then any mech's gauss riffle. It also has a filght time (using
the speed you provied) of less then 4 seconds, or not even 1/2 of 1 Btech
turn. Considering Btech ARTILIERY can't shoot that far that fast (they can
shoot that far, but it would take almost a minute for the rounds' flight
time) and AMS can't shoot down artilier (even Arrow IVs), it's a dead
mech."
Phong Nguyen
> "Kazuaki Shimazaki" <kras...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
Wrong. Combat seen generally took place in high ECM enviornments, forcing
them to close to short range. Furthermore, no modern weapon can hope to
break the shields of a TIE Defender.
Pablo
I like BTech, actually. But the rules and designs for their mechs compare
very unfavorably to real life.
Barking Mad MKSheppard
>What the goddamned fucking hell is with your hatred of BTech?
Same thing I have against most of Jap Anime
FUCK YOUR GIANT 50 FOOT TALL MECHA!
FUCK THEM!
FUCK THEM ALL!
<begins foaming at mouth>
<goes away to watch Cowboy Bebop to calm himself down>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The real heroes of the EU are the poor TIE pilots who have been
shot down at the hands of KJA and his filthy bag-man, Stackpole.
- Col. Falkenhorst
Pablo
Hahah. The BMPs dismount the infantry and close to engagement range, to
hammer away with their pumpkin-lobber cannons and AT-1 missiles. These are
generally capable of crippling or killing even a Daishi in one shot.
Meanwhile, the infantry attack with their own ATGMs, and after they've
destroyed shitloads of mechs, they avoid contact. If the Mechs are silly
enough to close range, RPG fire on their legs will force their retreat.
The BMPs and Infantry will take some losses, but prevails.
Pablo
Assuming my MW4 is close enough to BTech to be used as a source:
The maximum range of the Autocannon 5 is listed as 600 meters, and the
Autocannon 10 rates as a laughable 400 meters. I believe the range of the
AC-20 would be reduced further, to around 200-300 meters. The projectiles
in game take some time to reach their maximum range, I'd estimate them as
moving at 700 m/s, max.
Realism note: The low velocity makes quite a bit of sense, actually. The
Mechs are almost invariably bipedal, so their ability to cope with recoil
can't be very good. Even the heavy mechs have a hard limit on how much
"push" they can put on their kinetic weaponry--so in order to increase the
size of a projectile, they must have a lower velocity and therefore shorter
range. Sort of like the .45 ACP cartridge, versus 9mm parabellum.
The illustrations in have the 10 and 5 Autocannon with /flat-nosed/
projectiles. Like shotgun slugs! The illustration for the ultra-autocannon
2 and 5 (they fire twice as many shells as the regular AC) has a sharp-nosed
bullet.
I read some posts below, and I realised that the reason for the strange
'slug' shape may be that BTech armor is very resistent to penetration. The
flat nose would ensure maximum transfer of momentum, and could damage
components through the armor.
The firecontrol in MW4 is best described as perfect. All your weapons
always strike the crosshairs, exactly.
This is all drawn from Mechwarrior 4, so I don't know how germaine it is to
BTech. Since it's based on BTech, is must be fairly close, right?
Pablo
""Barking Mad" MKSheppard" <rrc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d011172...@news.md.comcast.giganews.com...
> On 7 Jun 2002 07:38:45 -0700, mikewo...@hotmail.com (RayCav) wrote:
>
> >What the goddamned fucking hell is with your hatred of BTech?
>
> Same thing I have against most of Jap Anime
>
> FUCK YOUR GIANT 50 FOOT TALL MECHA!
>
> FUCK THEM!
>
> FUCK THEM ALL!
>
> <begins foaming at mouth>
>
> <goes away to watch Cowboy Bebop to calm himself down>
That show calms you down? That show gets me fired up. It rocks.
Peter Smith
Well, first off, thanks for citing the site. A plethora of information
there. However, there are a few errors in here that I feel the need to
correct, or statements that need to be clarified.
<< There are two different types of armor in general use, each of which is
outlined below. >>
Three, if you count standard armor. As it is the most common type of armor
used, not mentioning it would be in error. In addition, the armor is
ablative.
<< BattleMechs have multiple armor layers and can have stealth armor >>
But only one type. Standard, Ferro-Fibrous and Stealth. And while each is
comprised of different layers, the layers themselves do not come into play
during the game. Simply the overall type of armor is what matters.
<< Autocannon ammunition can explode inside a 'Mech, either due to critical
damage >>
In this case, critical damage indicates the ammo bin itself suffered
catostrophic damage, usually by getting hit by an opponent.
<< Though rarely carried by BattleMechs, the high rate of fire produced by
machine guns makes them excellent anti-infantry weapons. There are Heavy and
Light machine guns. >>
As well as the standard Machine Gun.
<< PPCs do not have any ammunition, but like Gauss rifles, can explode if
damaged. >>
Actually, PPCs do not explode if they get hit. There is a piece of Level 3
(a designation of rules and equipment) equipment called a PPC Capacator,
however, that will cause damage under the proper circumstances.
<< Anti-Personnel pods (A-pods) consist of directional mines installed on
the lower legs of a BattleMech-which is precisely where infantry must attack
if they plan to plant explosives on the sensitive actuator mechanisms. When
>>
Missing is the fact they're single-use, and not designed to inflict harm to
anything with armor. This includes Battle Armor (think Starship
Troopers-book, not movie) as well as vehicles and BattleMechs.
<< C3 COMPUTER >>
<< TARGETING COMPUTER >>
All units mount standard targeting and tracking systems, as well as
communications systems. These are seperate, more advanced systems.
<< Modern Merkava tanks, often recognized to be the best in the world, are
blown apart by the first BattleMech ever. Note that this is taken directly
from one of the books, and I think its even one of the sourcebooks. >>
The source is the Star League Sourcebook, from the description of the
first-ever designed BattleMech. That unit was called the Mackie, it was
developed in 2443 (current game time is 3067). It's not a direct cite,
however it is accurate.
Peter Smith
Enigma
"Iceberg" <ice...@crius.net> wrote in message
news:ffo1guckufumtjudo...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 07 Jun 2002 09:48:47 +0200, Barbarossa <MC.B...@tu-bs.de>
> wrote:
>
> >> << vs. Star Wars: Star Wars. >>
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >
> >Disagreed. A friend of mine is wrtiting a fanfic there imperial ground
> >forces stumble across a Clan Cluster and are destroyed. An AT-ST is no
> >match for an light or medium 'mech (remember ROTJ how easily the Ewoks
> >destroyed them)
>
> With traps consisting of multi-ton logs smashing into them from both
> sides (which collapsed the AT-ST's structure without damaging its
> armor, which it would do equally well to a battlemech) or from
> underfoot which would trip the AT-ST to the ground and causing the
> cookoff of its volatile concussion grenades.
>
> >and the AT-AT (he gave it a tonnage of 200t)
>
> http://www.theforce.net/swtc/walkers.html
>
> The AT-AT is ten meters taller than any battlemech and has a far
> longer firing range (17.28 km, equivalent to 172.8 hexes). It will
> annihilate the Battlemech forces before they ever come into range.
>
If using the game is allowed, the tallest Mech I can think of is the Atlas
(the one that has a skull shaped head) at 100 ft\m? tall.
Kazuaki Shimazaki
news:3D00EFBA...@cfl.rr.com...
<snip>
> > Maybe, but when you go to doing _crossovers_ versus with other
people,
> > suddenly it is all suspension of disbelief (the standard procedure).
> > Factors like this mean nothing, and that leaves you hanging in the
air
> > :-)
>
> Which is why, for a certain work I am doing, I am still torn between
> ignoring the ranges and making my own or using the Extreme Range rules
> from Level 3 to my advantage and just saying that beyond the IG ranges
> accuracy suffers.
The old dilemna - Technical Accuracy versus the need for a good battle
so your story doesn't look like SDR II (I can see you having violent
reactions to the allusion now, Steve). One that comes whenever a
disparity in a certain area (or in ALL areas) is too large :-)
Kazuaki Shimazaki
<snip>
> >> Maybe, but when you go to doing _crossovers_ versus with other
> >> people, suddenly it is all suspension of disbelief (the standard
> >> procedure). Factors like this mean nothing, and that leaves you
> >> hanging in the air
> >> :-)
> >
> >
> > TIE fighter and X-Wing combat has been observed to be a close range
> > from the films. According to your logic, modern aircraft should have
> > no trouble against a fully sheilded TIE Defender.
> >
> Wrong. Combat seen generally took place in high ECM enviornments,
forcing
> them to close to short range. Furthermore, no modern weapon can hope
to
> break the shields of a TIE Defender.
Bingo! HOWEVER, since we aren't absolutely sure of that, if you want to
argue Earth versus Empire, the idea of outranging the TIEs with AMRAAM
and Phoenix fire WILL be a valid argument, and it will be up to the
pro-Empire side to suggest how the missiles would never lock on with the
ECM the Empire put out.
Graeme Dice
<snip>
> > Very, very few mechs have less than five points of armour on any of
> > the front facings. Modern weapons would have to hit it at least twice
> > in one section to destroy that section, multiple times to kill the
> > whole thing. For example, a Jenner IIC runs at 151 km/hr, can fly at
> > 76 km/hr, and has enough armour to take a maximum of 11 hits from the
> > 120mm before it's armour is penetrated in any one location. It has
> > weapons ranging from a S-SRM 4's and two SRM-6' (2 damage per
> > missile), to an ER large laser (10 damage) and LRM-5.
> >
> Any idea of the effectiveness of a laser on the composite/DU/ERA armor
> scheme used on most modern tanks? Or the attack profile of an LRM-5 (and
> warhead, for that matter)?
CERMLAS cause 7 damage, IS MLAS and ERMLAS cause 5 damage. Clan ERSLAS
cause 5 damage, IS 3 damage. CERLLAS causes 10 damage for 12 heat.
Clan LRM's have a range profile of 7/14/21. Each missile causes a
damage, on average, about 3-4 missiles will hit.
> > Another good one is the Savannah Master Hovercraft. Cruise = 183.6
> > kph, flank = 280.8 kph. One MLAS, can survive single hits on any one
> > facing.
> >
> Hrmm...wonder if there's enough time for the loader to get a new shell in
> and fire. That's rather fast...
Not only are the mechs fast, but it takes them one movement point to
turn one hex face. For a mech with a run of 21, that's a 180 degree
turn in 1.4 seconds.
> > You can go to real extremes, and make a XXL engine 14/21/0 mech that
> > carries 3 CERMLAS, and a CERSLAS. That's 26 damage per round at a top
> > speed of 226 km/hr, walking at 152 km/hr. Just how fast can turrets
> > traverse, because these can all attack fairly effectively while moving
> > at top speed.
> >
> I have no idea how fast it can turn. Probably decently fast - the M1A2
> was designed to take on the Soviet Hordes.
Still, it could be overwhelmed by mechs that have that kind of speed.
Who needs infantry to get in close when you can run as fast as a
prop-driven plane.
Graeme Dice
--
When I am working on a problem I never think about beauty.
I only think about how to solve the problem. But when
I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I
know it is wrong.
-- Buckminster Fuller
Graeme Dice
>
> mikewo...@hotmail.com (RayCav) wrote in
> news:aa319b42.02060...@posting.google.com:
<snip>
> > You argued modern forces vs. BTech. That includes air assets in my
> > book
> >
> That is AeroTech, is it not?
Yep, but they fit in perfectly with the rules for mechs.
> > It's not comparable to Phalanx. If modern high-speed fighters can be
> > shot down with relative ease than one figures that anti-missile
> > tracking systems may be improved.
> >
> That's not proof.
>
> How many rounds does AMS have?
12 "rounds" per ton of ammo. Each firing shoots down a number of
missiles, and uses slightly more ammo.
>What calibre? Fire control capabilities?
> Rounds/salvo? All I see is a modernised CIWS mount on a 'mech. It isn't
> even that impressive, because modern tanks are beginning to carry active
> defenses (ARENA).
The newer clan mechs mount a laser AMS, so it has effectively unlimited
ammo.
> > They may be horribly outranged but BTech is able to shrug off hits
> > from even a Merkava as demonstrated above. Range advantage means shit
> > if it can't hurt them.
> >
> See above. The performance of a Merkava is not indicative.
Especially since those aren't Israeli Merkava's.
Graeme Dice
--
This may come as a shock to that gelatinous mass of decaying
rodent droppings that you call a brain, but I'm not the only
person in the entire world with the first name "Mike".
-- Mike Wong
Graeme Dice
>
> mikewo...@hotmail.com (RayCav) wrote in
> news:aa319b42.02060...@posting.google.com:
<snip>
> > Long Toms have a very large blast radius. Sounds like your still
> > pulling figures from your ass again
> > speaking, humvees can outgun Gauss Rifle-armed mechs ;)
> >
> Considering that a LOSAT-armed humvee has more firepower than a Guass Rifle
> and its shape is *far* better suited to armor piercing, I do believe it
> could outgun one.
An interesting fact to note is that armour piercing autocannon rounds
rather than having a different shape weigh twice as much as normal
rounds.
Graeme Dice
--
"Who is Mos Eisley?"
--Elim Garak
Peter Smith
<< Assuming my MW4 is close enough to BTech to be used as a source: >>
Well, there's your mistake. While the storyline is canon, the gameplay is
balanced to PC games (and as such changes around things to play better), and
therefor is not canonical.
<< The maximum range of the Autocannon 5 is listed as 600 meters >>
540 meters.
<< and the Autocannon 10 rates as a laughable 400 meters. >>
450 meters.
<< I believe the range of the AC-20 would be reduced further, to around
200-300 meters. >>
270 meters.
However, those ranges are the max effective ranges. If you switch over to
the role playing system, which uses a completely different combat engine,
those ranges become 1800 meters, 1500 meters, and 900 meters.
<< The illustrations in have the 10 and 5 Autocannon with /flat-nosed/
projectiles. Like shotgun slugs! >>
Those would be the cluster-load for the LB-X class of autocannons. They
are, in fact, 'Mech-class shotgun rounds.
<< The illustration for the ultra-autocannon 2 and 5 (they fire twice as
many shells as the regular AC) has a sharp-nosed bullet. >>
This is how standard autocannon ammo looks as well.
<< The firecontrol in MW4 is best described as perfect. All your weapons
always strike the crosshairs, exactly. >>
However, in BattleTech, you declare your intended target and make a to-hit
roll against a variable target number (based on range, movement for both
units, and what lies between the two). Then you take whichever weapons hit
the target and roll on a chart to see which part of the 'Mech gets hit.
<< This is all drawn from Mechwarrior 4, so I don't know how germaine it is
to BTech. Since it's based on BTech, is must be fairly close, right? >>
Not as such.
Peter Smith
Peter Smith
<< Is their armor by any chance exceedingly weird? >>
Not really. As I mentioned in another post, it is ablative.
<< Even that might not work, but at least it makes a level of sense rather
than assuming all of ballistics science ceases to exist when you step into
the realm of Battletech... >>
Well, first and foremost, it is a game. As such, there needs to be balance,
else it'll be one-sided and therefore boring. That aside, the Gauss Rifle
was not part of the original release of the game. It was added later. And
if my memory serves, the lead designer was ill when he signed-off on the
Gauss Rifle. I believe that when the book featuring the weapon came back
from the printers, his words were: "I signed off on what?!?"
Peter Smith
Peter Smith
<< OTOH, doesn't it travel fast enough to ignore the AMS system? AMS can't
intercept artillery (IIRC), and it goes faster than that. >>
Well, AMS's inability to intercept artillery is more of an approach angle
issue. That's why you cannot shoot down Arrow IV rounds (essentially
oversized missiles). However, Thunderbolt rounds are classified as standard
missiles. As such, they can be shot down by AMS systems. And unlike other
missile systems, which will fire anywhere between two and forty individual
missiles (depending on the size and class of launcher), Thunderbolt systems
only fire one missile, no matter what the size. So if it's launched at a
'Mech mounting AMS, it's going to get shot down if there's any ammo.
Peter Smith
Peter Smith
<< Which is why, for a certain work I am doing, I am still torn between
ignoring the ranges and making my own or using the Extreme Range rules from
Level 3 to my advantage and just saying that beyond the IG ranges accuracy
suffers. >>
Go with Door #3. MechWarrior Third Edition. Each point of range for
'Mech-class weapons reaches out 100 meters. So that standard Medium Laser
has a range profile of 0-300/301-600/601-900 meters. It also means that my
Clan LB 2-X can smack you at 3KM, and that a Long Tom can now rain damage
out to 51km (100 meters per hex * 17 hexes per mapsheet [established
standard] * 30 mapsheets).
Peter Smith
Kayla
> Not really. As I mentioned in another post, it is ablative.
>
What good will ablative armor do against a kinetic impact? Lasers, sure, but
a slug? The point of ablative armor is that it vaporizes and the resultant
gas carries away much of the beam's energy while dispersing the remainder of
the beam. I can't think of a way for that to apply to a chunk of metal
approaching at Mach five. Would you be willing to elaborate furhter?
> Well, first and foremost, it is a game. As such, there needs to be
> balance, else it'll be one-sided and therefore boring. That aside, the
> Gauss Rifle was not part of the original release of the game. It was
> added later. And if my memory serves, the lead designer was ill when he
> signed-off on the Gauss Rifle. I believe that when the book featuring
> the weapon came back from the printers, his words were: "I signed off on
> what?!?"
>
You gotta be kidding me. ...Though I can trump you on stupid game decisions.
The 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons handbook lists the damage on an
antimatter machine gun as, I recall, 3d20 - meaning that there are numerous
normal human characters out there who could shrug off a full-damage strike.
Compared to that, a badly-shaped piece of ammunition is *nothing.*
Peter Smith
<< Maybe, but when you go to doing _crossovers_ versus with other people,
suddenly it is all suspension of disbelief (the standard procedure). >>
Suspension of disbelief is part of BattleTech. We have interstellar
transportation that uses point-to-point travel (think Event Horizon) and
fusion reactors that explode instead of just shutting down if there is
enough damage.
<< Factors like this mean nothing, and that leaves you hanging in the air >>
My above post was simply an explanation of BattleTech for those not familiar
with the system. Had I decided to get involved in a BattleTech vs. Star
Trek/Star Wars discussion, first I would shoot myself for getting sucked
into another one. Then I would look at the people who would say BattleTech
and ask them what they were smoking and who their dealer was. Without a
doubt, the equipment seen in Star Wars outclasses pretty much anything seen
on the BattleTech battlefield. And if you want to shift it to interstellar
combat it's even more one-sided, with shields being the definitive reason.
Swap in Trek for Wars, and it's still not looking good for BattleTech.
Unfortunately I'm coming up on blanks for examples of Star Trek ground
combat on a larger scale, so I can't think of any examples. But again, if
you shift it up to space, shields are the main reason I go against BTech.
Peter Smith
Peter Smith
<< I didn't know about it when I created the design. Glazed is anti-energy
right? If so, then it fits with their performance at Hoth. >>
Yeah, it's the L3 "half-damage from energy weapons but double physical
attacks damage" armor. HeavyMetal Pro lists it as "Laser Reflec." in the
armor list (once you set the tech level to 3).
Peter Smith
Peter Smith
<< The AT-AT is ten meters taller than any battlemech and has a far longer
firing range (17.28 km, equivalent to 172.8 hexes). It will annihilate the
Battlemech forces before they ever come into range. >>
Actually, a hex is 30 meters across. Those weapons have a range of 576
meters, longer than a Long Tom's in the tabletop game.
Peter Smith
Peter Smith
<< If using the game is allowed, the tallest Mech I can think of is the
Atlas (the one that has a skull shaped head) at 100 ft\m? tall. >>
Twelve meters. The stats from the PC game are not considered canon.
Peter Smith
Sir Nitram
This is so cruel it's not funny.
--
SirNitram
ASVS Small Gods Keeper and Amateur Genius
The most powerful attack of them all...
DALTONDOKEN!
Brought to you by cheese.
Peter Smith
<< What good will ablative armor do against a kinetic impact?...Would you be
willing to elaborate furhter? >>
This is why I dislike getting into arguements about BTech vs other Sci-Fi
settings. In BattleTech, we tend to ignore some of the simple questions for
the sake of gameplay. But to answer your question, I have no idea what good
(if any) ablative armor has against a kinetic penetrator.
<< You gotta be kidding me. ...Though I can trump you on stupid game
decisions. >>
That's how I remember the story. I guess I could ask the designer when I
see him this August.
<< The 3rd Edition Dungeons and Dragons handbook lists the damage on an
antimatter machine gun as, I recall, 3d20 - meaning that there are numerous
normal human characters out there who could shrug off a full-damage strike.
>>
Yeah, that's up there on the humor scale. Thanks for the chuckle. :-)
Peter Smith
Kayla
> This is why I dislike getting into arguements about BTech vs other
> Sci-Fi settings. In BattleTech, we tend to ignore some of the simple
> questions for the sake of gameplay. But to answer your question, I have
> no idea what good (if any) ablative armor has against a kinetic
> penetrator.
>
I can see that being a problem. We can just shove OUR embarrassing game
glitches under the mat as non-canon, tee hee.
> That's how I remember the story. I guess I could ask the designer when
> I see him this August.
>
Don't go to any trouble on my account. Spend time doing useful things like
convincing him to rewrite the shape of that thing.
> Yeah, that's up there on the humor scale. Thanks for the chuckle. :-)
>
My pleasure.
Kayla
> Swap in Trek for Wars, and it's still not looking good for BattleTech.
> Unfortunately I'm coming up on blanks for examples of Star Trek ground
> combat on a larger scale, so I can't think of any examples. But again, if
> you shift it up to space, shields are the main reason I go against BTech.
>
You can't think of any because there aren't any. The best examples are the
Deep Space Nine Invaded! scenarios, which invariably pit Mindless Goons With
Swords against Emasculated Slobs In Pajamas. As far as we can tell, Star
Trek has forgotten the vital concepts of "armor" and "air support."
RayCav
The Atlas is only about 13 meters tall and weighs a hundred tons. Curt
Saxton calculated the AT-AT's height as anywhere from 15 to 25 meters
tall and our good friend Wayne Poe calculated its weight at a
staggering 2500 tons, the same as a WWII destroyer. Needless to say,
the AT-AT could just squash an Atlas.
RayCav
> Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > "RayCav" <mikewo...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > << vs. Star Trek: BattleTech. >>
> >
> > BTech vs. STrek? In space, Star Trek. On the ground, probably Star Trek as
> > well, as long as the ground forces have support from things like
> > Runabout-class shuttles.
>
> Armed shuttles for aerospace superiority and ground support, but
> Starfleet does not have any mechanized ground forces. The missing of
> tanks and other armored ground vehicles in any Fleet of the Star Trek
> Universe (due the fact that the majority of battles are won in space) is
> a great set back. The best support weapon used by ground forces in Star
> Trek are the Photon Grenade Launchers.
> > << vs. Star Wars: Star Wars. >>
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> Disagreed. A friend of mine is wrtiting a fanfic there imperial ground
> forces stumble across a Clan Cluster and are destroyed. An AT-ST is no
> match for an light or medium 'mech (remember ROTJ how easily the Ewoks
> and has a very small field of attack (ca 60 degrees) although it has a
> heavy armor. I believe I cloud destroy a AT-AT with a standard
> Artillery-Lance constisting of Archers, Catapults and similar 'mechs.
>
> Barbarossa
Oh, and *PLONK!*
Peter Smith
<< I can understand the game mechanics stuff. If you understand that you
really can't use these as shields when debating another sci-fi group >>
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't one of the ground rules of debating in
this forum that you have to stick with established canon? If that's the
case, then the game itself *is* the canon. How is that using the mechanics
as a shield?
Peter Smith
Kazuaki Shimazaki
news:E%aM8.24637$d7.68...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> "Kazuaki Shimazaki" <kras...@netvigator.com> wrote
<snip>
> << Factors like this mean nothing, and that leaves you hanging in the
air >>
>
> My above post was simply an explanation of BattleTech for those not
familiar
> with the system. Had I decided to get involved in a BattleTech vs.
Star
> Trek/Star Wars discussion, first I would shoot myself for getting
sucked
> into another one. Then I would look at the people who would say
BattleTech
> and ask them what they were smoking and who their dealer was. Without
a
> doubt, the equipment seen in Star Wars outclasses pretty much anything
seen
> on the BattleTech battlefield. And if you want to shift it to
interstellar
> combat it's even more one-sided, with shields being the definitive
reason.
> Swap in Trek for Wars, and it's still not looking good for BattleTech.
> Unfortunately I'm coming up on blanks for examples of Star Trek ground
> combat on a larger scale, so I can't think of any examples. But
again, if
> you shift it up to space, shields are the main reason I go against
BTech.
Thank you. I can understand the game mechanics stuff. If you understand
that you really can't use these as shields when debating another sci-fi
group, then there is no more problem, and my message becomes superfluous
to you.
Cmdrwilkens
news:3D014015...@sk.sympatico.ca...
Yes but that is why you have minefields and aritllery fire. I think that a
goo barrage of 155, 203, and MLRS fire would slow down an advancing Mech
column rather quickly and I can't recall BT having any arty to do counter
battery.
--
Lcpl Burnett, G.R.
USMCR
BridgeCo B 6th EngSptBN 4th FSSG
"Weapons do not penetrate armour based on force and pressure"
- IXJac(taken from SB.com and SD.net)
Cmdrwilkens
news:aa319b42.02060...@posting.google.com...
> What the fuck is your problem?
Dude you replied to yourself...
Barking Mad MKSheppard
>That show calms you down? That show gets me fired up. It rocks.
It's anime, with out the FUCKING BULLSHIT ANIME CONVENTIONS LIKE:
-Doe eyed bitches
-Stupid Magical BS
-Stupid fight scenes that are showed 5 times in a row from different angles
and with swirly light backgrounds
-GODDAMN FUCKING MECHA
-stupid as fuck asswipes who wave their arms around and go WAAA!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The real heroes of the EU are the poor TIE pilots who have been
shot down at the hands of KJA and his filthy bag-man, Stackpole.
- Col. Falkenhorst
Colin "The Yosemite Bear" Witz
points of damage for every 10 tons of the mech damage dispursed throught the
whole of the mech - Btech Core rules. Lord Chaos at space battles thus did the
minmum amount of KE in the form of pressure needed to damage a battle mech. The
basic rule was that any thing with more force then a 10mm round will actually do
damage to a Battlemech. Furthermore based on the pitiful range of B-tech
weapons most any AT weapon presently used on earth will do about 30points of
damage to a battlemech, outside of the effective range most assult mech weapons
(Exceptions being ER LRMs, Arrows, Long Toms, ER PPC's and AC/2's.
--
"Complaining about someone using the F--word in ASVS is like handing out
speeding Tickets at the Indy 500"
-Modified Apacalypse Now quote
"I love the Smell of Burning Troll in the Morning, it smells of "Concession
Accepted"."
Steve Garrett Jr.
> "Steve Garrett Jr." <wolfp...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in
> news:3D016D8E...@cfl.rr.com:
>>Wow, thanks. I'll remember this, Mr. Smith. :-)
>>
>>As for the work in question:
>>http://sbsteve1.tripod.com/btse/teaser.html
>>
>>Three teasers for the first novel, and some cut material from the
>>first novel, removed when I realized the thing was just going to get
>>too big.
>> I stopped working on it about a month ago, I needed a change of
>>material to freshen my creativity, away from the darkness of a
>>desperate war against an inhuman foe to a more, how should I say,
>>bright setting. :-)
>>
>>
> So you open up with a Civil War in the UFP??
>
No, that developed as time went on in the SD. :-)
--
Sorry, it's a character trait: I can't respect idiots.
"The weak shall inherit the earth - about ten cubic meters of it over
their coffins!" - Pirate phrase, BattleTech Field Manual: Periphery
Stephen Garrett Jr.
a.k.a. "Big" Steve, Spacebattles regular, and Slayer of Fools
I AM THE MECHWARRIOR. I PILOTS THE MECHS THAT MAKES ALL OF THE TANKS AND
PEOPLES FALL DOWN AND GO SQUISH!
Steve Garrett Jr.
> "Phong Nguyen" <phong....@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns922673F01CD01...@130.133.1.4...
>
>>mikewo...@hotmail.com (RayCav) wrote in
>>news:aa319b42.02060...@posting.google.com:
>>
>>
>>>BTW, a 20 Autocannon fires multiple rounds of 120 mm DU shot
>>>
>>>
>>At what velocity, how is the shell shaped, how effective is the fire
>>control, the range, etc?
>>
>
> Assuming my MW4 is close enough to BTech to be used as a source:
>
> The maximum range of the Autocannon 5 is listed as 600 meters, and the
> Autocannon 10 rates as a laughable 400 meters. I believe the range of the
> AC-20 would be reduced further, to around 200-300 meters. The projectiles
> in game take some time to reach their maximum range, I'd estimate them as
> moving at 700 m/s, max.
>
> Realism note: The low velocity makes quite a bit of sense, actually. The
> Mechs are almost invariably bipedal, so their ability to cope with recoil
> can't be very good. Even the heavy mechs have a hard limit on how much
> "push" they can put on their kinetic weaponry--so in order to increase the
> size of a projectile, they must have a lower velocity and therefore shorter
> range. Sort of like the .45 ACP cartridge, versus 9mm parabellum.
>
> The illustrations in have the 10 and 5 Autocannon with /flat-nosed/
> projectiles. Like shotgun slugs! The illustration for the ultra-autocannon
> 2 and 5 (they fire twice as many shells as the regular AC) has a sharp-nosed
> bullet.
>
> I read some posts below, and I realised that the reason for the strange
> 'slug' shape may be that BTech armor is very resistent to penetration. The
> flat nose would ensure maximum transfer of momentum, and could damage
> components through the armor.
>
> The firecontrol in MW4 is best described as perfect. All your weapons
> always strike the crosshairs, exactly.
>
> This is all drawn from Mechwarrior 4, so I don't know how germaine it is to
> BTech. Since it's based on BTech, is must be fairly close, right?
>
>
>
BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THOU SHALT NOT USE THAT HERETICAL MICROSHIT
PIECE OF CRAP MECHWARRIOR 4 IN MY PRESENCE!
MechWarrior 4 sucks ass, it has nothing in relation with BattleTech,
those that think so are misguided, and after being informed if they
still think so, they are heretics and must be purged!
MechWarrior 3 ownz that piece of shit QuakeWarrior 4 (the only thing MW4
even has on MW3 is the music, unlike MW3, with just two music tracks,
Duane Decker composed a 32 track music score for MW4 that Varese
Sarabande, a record company that has posted many soundtracks and scores
such as Terminator 2 and Starship Troopers, published the game
soundtrack seperately).
Now desist in this blasphemy!
Peter Smith
<< Don't go to any trouble on my account. >>
Bah. It'll be at GenCon, four days to get a single question in. No
problem.
<< Spend time doing useful things like convincing him to rewrite the shape
of that thing. >>
Different guy in charge now. But we're also talking about something that's
ten years or so old, already established in the novels. Unfortunately, I do
not see a change in the future, and frankly, it works for us. No real need
to change it, this newsgroup aside. ;-)
Peter Smith
erincss
interesting is that the Battle techers have also had civilization (space
faring) for thousands of years.
Peter Smith
<< Namely, only SW even comes close to the rich complexity and detail of the
BattleTech universe. :-) >>
Amen to that.
Peter Smith
Steve Garrett Jr.
> ""Barking Mad" MKSheppard" <rrc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3d011172...@news.md.comcast.giganews.com...
>
>>On 7 Jun 2002 07:38:45 -0700, mikewo...@hotmail.com (RayCav) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What the goddamned fucking hell is with your hatred of BTech?
>>>
>>Same thing I have against most of Jap Anime
>>
>>FUCK YOUR GIANT 50 FOOT TALL MECHA!
>>
>>FUCK THEM!
>>
>>FUCK THEM ALL!
>>
>><begins foaming at mouth>
>>
>><goes away to watch Cowboy Bebop to calm himself down>
>>
>
> That show calms you down? That show gets me fired up. It rocks.
>
>
>
Spike's Swordfish ROCKS! :-) That's one bitchin' aerospace fighter!
Peter Smith
<< This is so cruel it's not funny. >>
Warning lights should have gone off when the guy who heads up the official
site's message board votes against his team. ;-)
Peter Smith
Peter Smith
<< Battle Tech technology seems to be less advanced than Star Wars >>
Yup.
<< and what is interesting is that the Battle techers have also had
civilization (space faring) for thousands of years. >>
Not really. The game's currently in the year 3067. As the game is set in
our "future", they've had people in space for just over a thousand years.
However, assuming that we all of the sudden find ourselves in the BattleTech
storyline, two guys named Kearney and Fuchita won't make their physics
discovery for another fifty years or so. They'll get scorned for coming up
something so non-Einsteinian soon after. It won't be for another hundred
and fifty years or so until somebody will smack their forehead and say "Oh
my god, they were right". Another couple of years and the first JumpShip
will be built. This'll be about eight hundred years or so before where
BattleTech is at right now.
Peter Smith
Dalton
>
> ""Barking Mad" MKSheppard" <rrc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3d011172...@news.md.comcast.giganews.com...
> > On 7 Jun 2002 07:38:45 -0700, mikewo...@hotmail.com (RayCav) wrote:
> >
> > >What the goddamned fucking hell is with your hatred of BTech?
> >
> > Same thing I have against most of Jap Anime
> >
> > FUCK YOUR GIANT 50 FOOT TALL MECHA!
> >
> > FUCK THEM!
> >
> > FUCK THEM ALL!
> >
> > <begins foaming at mouth>
> >
> > <goes away to watch Cowboy Bebop to calm himself down>
>
> That show calms you down? That show gets me fired up. It rocks.
Goddamn greatest anime I've ever seen.
--
Rob "Roby" Dalton
r...@daltonator.net
"Look," said Arthur, "would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up
and went mad now?" --Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy