Questions about Battletech
George
I have owned a copy of battletech ever since the first boxed set came
out about 5 years ago. Ever since I bought it, I have had some questions
about it's design that have plagued me because I have never found an
answer:
1) Why is heat such a major concern? Do modern tanks overheat? I cannot
believe that one of the prime concerns for a pilot of the most advanced
fighting vehicle ever devised, is overheating. The very concept is
absurd.
2) Why are mechs such clunky, unwieldy monstrosities? All people would
have to do is what they did in the Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back -
tie a line around their legs, and they would topple to the ground! If
mechs turned out to be that way - noone would have ever used them! Just
use tanks instead!
3) Why is the back of EVERY mech a weak spot? Why can't they put a plate
of armour on it? DUH! That's like building a tank with a hole in the
back!
4) Why is pilot placed in such a vulnerable and exposed position?
Wouldn't the pilot be placed like BEHIND SOME ARMOUR, not just glass? (I
know, it's probably armoured plastic or whatever, but in BTECH, you can
have ONLY 9 points of armour on the head). DUH AGAIN! This is too stupid
for words! It's like building a tank, and putting the pilot in a wicker
chair strapped to the top! Are modern tanks built like that? Of course
not.
5) Why is the defensive technology (mainly armour) so vastly superior to
offensive technology (weapons)? A heavily armoured mech needs to be
plugged at for ages to gradually chip away all that armour.
6) Why are missiles/rockets PATHETICALLY WEAK??? In either real life, or
any other Sci-fi genre I know about, missiles and rockets always pack a
mean punch. In battletech, you spew vast quantities of them to ping off
the opponent's armour.
7) Ranges of weapons. Need I say more?
If the answer to any of these questions is "that rule/concept was
designed for game balance" then the designers of battletech must be
pretty shoddy game designers. There would have to be dozens of simpler,
easier, more realistic ways to balance the game without creating such
absurdities as "all mechas must have weak backs".
It seems to me that Battletech is NOT meant to simulate anime mecha in
ANY way, shape or form. You only need to watch about 10 minutes of
robotech, with those veritech fighers running, jumping, spinning and
performing martial arts, to see that Battletech, with it's *clunk*
*whirr* *clunk* style mechs is a LONG WAY from anime.
In Robotech, it is a common occurrence to see a mech blown away with one
shot or missile - in battletech, there is no way this can happen (except
via lucky head shots - even though the head of a mech is so big it would
be child's play to blow it away any time you liked if you had HALF
decent targetting systems).
"That's right", you may say, "Battletech _isn't_ meant to simulate
anime." But then why has battletech got all those robotech mechs in it??
The exact same designs, etc. I think the Btech "phoenix" is a veritech
fighter, and the "marauder" is a zentraedi battle pod. There are
numerous others.
It appears to me that battletech has many unrealistic features in it.
The way mechas work, the overheating, missiles being really weak, armour
being really tough, not to mention the mindless clan mentality and
"mechwarrior code of honour" crap - yeah right! Like they're gonna send
out millions of dollars worth of machinery to be blown into scrap metal
and not care about it! All it would take is one clan WITH A BRAIN and
some military savvy to wipe out the rest of clans put together.
"So what?" you may say, "Battletech isn't meant to be realistic! It's
just meant to be fun!". Well I say that's not true: Battletech _IS_
meant to be realistic - it is based on realistic premises and purports
to be in a realistic future universe. It attempts to explain their
technology with pseudo-scientific jargon. Battletech is written and
presented and designed in a way that is supposed to be realistic.
Battletech is inconsistent: it attempts to be realistic, but has grossly
unrealistic concepts in it. Ask the designers if they were trying to
create a "realistic" game and I'm certain they would say yes.
So - Battletech doesn't simulate reality, nor does it simulate the anime
genre. What the hell is it trying to do? Simulate it's own bizarre
universe where FTL travel is common, but people duke it out in clunky
behemoths that overheat?
Before you think that I am making a personal attack on all battletech
players, I will say again: Battletech is the _only_ mecha game I have -
and I have had it for a long time and played it for a long time. I don't
have mechton, heavy gear, robot warriors or any others that might be
around. Battletech seems to be riddled with so many unrealistic
features, inconsistencies and plain silly-ness that I am in no mood to
go out and buy any more of these mecha games, in fact it's made me want
to give up the genre, or design my own game.
But before I do give up the genre or whatever, I would like to know the
answers to my questions if there are any - I want to know why the
designers of a mecha game came up with that design. And don't say
"because it made money". Of _course_ it made money - for a long time it
was the _only_ mecha game around. I loved robotech so much that I would
have bought any mecha game that came out - hence I did. Heck I probably
would have bought it if they were charging $250!!
--
==============================
George
mailto:nob...@iap.net.au
mailto:geo...@microbase.com.au
==============================
sla...@magi.com
-=> Quoting Geo...@microbase.com.au to Unknown <=-
Ge> I have owned a copy of battletech ever since the first boxed set came
Ge> out about 5 years ago. Ever since I bought it, I have had some
Ge> questions about it's design that have plagued me because I have never
Ge> found an answer:
Ge> 1) Why is heat such a major concern? Do modern tanks overheat? I
Ge> cannot believe that one of the prime concerns for a pilot of the most
Ge> advanced fighting vehicle ever devised, is overheating. The very
Ge> concept is absurd.
Greetings...
Nope... On a fusion-powered machine using energy weapons, it's a
very real concern.(And tanks do get uncomfortably hot...)
Ge> 2) Why are mechs such clunky, unwieldy monstrosities? All people would
Ge> have to do is what they did in the Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
Ge> Just use tanks instead!
Just try it... You'll find out that even with a minimum range a PPC
shot point blank is very bad for your health (-8
(Actually, that's a nod to realism...)
Ge> 3) Why is the back of EVERY mech a weak spot? Why can't they put a
Ge> plate of armour on it? DUH! That's like building a tank with a hole in
Ge> the back!
Tanks are always weaker in the back and on top...
You can have a 'Mech more armored in the back than in front...
It just won't last long next time it faces anything...
Ge> 4) Why is pilot placed in such a vulnerable and exposed position?
Ge> Wouldn't the pilot be placed like BEHIND SOME ARMOUR, not just glass?
That could be discussed, but it's a balance thing.
Ge> 5) Why is the defensive technology (mainly armour) so vastly superior
Ge> to offensive technology (weapons)? A heavily armoured mech needs to be
Ge> plugged at for ages to gradually chip away all that armour.
Because 1 shot 1 kill makes for an incredibly boring game.
Ge> 6) Why are missiles/rockets PATHETICALLY WEAK??? In either real life,
Ge> or any other Sci-fi genre I know about, missiles and rockets always
Ge> pack a mean punch. In battletech, you spew vast quantities of them to
Ge> ping off the opponent's armour.
Because Real Life rockets are a hell of a lot bigger (proportionnally)
than the BTech ones... (Try an Arrow IV on for size...)
The SRM's and LRM's are fairly small, originally unguided weapons.
Ge> 7) Ranges of weapons. Need I say more?
Effective ranges... Seems that real life matches...
Further away, you just can't aim reliably...
Ge> If the answer to any of these questions is "that rule/concept was
Ge> designed for game balance" then the designers of battletech must be
Ge> pretty shoddy game designers. There would have to be dozens of
Ge> simpler, easier, more realistic ways to balance the game without
Ge> creating such absurdities as "all mechas must have weak backs".
They're an excellent bunch...
Give any example of those... Go ahead, I dare ya (-8
Ge> It seems to me that Battletech is NOT meant to simulate anime mecha in
Ge> ANY way, shape or form. You only need to watch about 10 minutes of
Ge> robotech, with those veritech fighers running, jumping, spinning and
Ge> performing martial arts, to see that Battletech, with it's *clunk*
Ge> *whirr* *clunk* style mechs is a LONG WAY from anime.
Soo ??
Ge> In Robotech, it is a common occurrence to see a mech blown away with
Ge> one shot or missile - in battletech, there is no way this can happen
Ge> (except via lucky head shots - even though the head of a mech is so big
Ge> it would be child's play to blow it away any time you liked if you had
Ge> HALF decent targetting systems).
Soooo ??
Ge> "That's right", you may say, "Battletech _isn't_ meant to simulate
Ge> anime." But then why has battletech got all those robotech mechs in
Ge> it?? The exact same designs, etc. I think the Btech "phoenix" is a
Ge> veritech fighter, and the "marauder" is a zentraedi battle pod. There
Ge> are numerous others.
Because they made very nice pictures.
Ge> So - Battletech doesn't simulate reality, nor does it simulate the
Ge> anime genre. What the hell is it trying to do? Simulate it's own
Ge> bizarre universe where FTL travel is common, but people duke it out in
Ge> clunky behemoths that overheat?
Exactly... A universe where centuries of warfare trashed the ressources
required to re-build those...
It's not much sillier than many a premise...
And far les ridiculous than an FBI agent that can't be killed in a
non-suspicious manner.
Slarty
... "I'm sorry, but reality is not in service at this time....."
---
ş Blue Wave/QWK v2.11 ş
>> Slipstream Jet - The QWK solution for Usenets #UNREGISTERED
John M Atkinson
Regarding Pilot vulnerability, check a reputable history of the Israeli
Defense Forces, the world's premier armored warriors. Notice then, that
the vast majority of their casualties are Tank Commanders who fight
unbuttoned (with 1/2 their body exposed out the top hatch). Humans need
to see what they fight, and the solution of just surrounding the pilot
with armor and letting the "sensors" provide all his information is
neither psychologically nor tactically sound.
As far as back armor goes, if you knew as much about modern warfare as the
frequent references to it would lead us to believe, you'd know that the
rear of a tank is always much weaker than the glacis plate (front, for all
you whiners about reality that wouldn't know a tank if one parked in your
yard.)
Bill McHale
George (geo...@microbase.com.au) wrote:
: I have owned a copy of battletech ever since the first boxed set came
: out about 5 years ago. Ever since I bought it, I have had some questions
: about it's design that have plagued me because I have never found an
: answer:
Well it actually has been out for about 10 or twelve years.
: 1) Why is heat such a major concern? Do modern tanks overheat? I cannot
: believe that one of the prime concerns for a pilot of the most advanced
: fighting vehicle ever devised, is overheating. The very concept is
: absurd.
Modern tanks are not powered by fusion reactors (BTW fusion requires
tempatures in excess of 2 million degrees c) are are firing massive
barages of energy weapons that are not available now, and that would
certainly generate enormous amounts of waste heat. The mechs won't
overheat if they are used as originally designed (i.e. just because the
Warhammer has two PPC's does not mean that it needs to fire both every
round.). further mechs with all projectile weapons have a much better
time with heat.
: 2) Why are mechs such clunky, unwieldy monstrosities? All people would
: have to do is what they did in the Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back -
: tie a line around their legs, and they would topple to the ground! If
: mechs turned out to be that way - noone would have ever used them! Just
: use tanks instead!
Well actually they are better balanced than that, that is what the neuro
helmets are for. Sure they look klunky but any mech with jumpjets is
going to have to be pretty agile.
: 3) Why is the back of EVERY mech a weak spot? Why can't they put a plate
: of armour on it? DUH! That's like building a tank with a hole in the
: back!
Actually the back of most tanks is a weak spot as well. You can only add
so many tons of armor to a vehicle, where you gonna put it, the front
where the vehicle will be hit when it is advancing and fighting the enemy
or the rear where it will be exposed while the mech is in full retreat.
: 4) Why is pilot placed in such a vulnerable and exposed position?
: Wouldn't the pilot be placed like BEHIND SOME ARMOUR, not just glass? (I
: know, it's probably armoured plastic or whatever, but in BTECH, you can
: have ONLY 9 points of armour on the head). DUH AGAIN! This is too stupid
: for words! It's like building a tank, and putting the pilot in a wicker
: chair strapped to the top! Are modern tanks built like that? Of course
: not.
Can't really answer that one, except to say that if we accept BT's
advocates for the power of their weapons then the head is better armored
than most modern tanks.
: 5) Why is the defensive technology (mainly armour) so vastly superior to
: offensive technology (weapons)? A heavily armoured mech needs to be
: plugged at for ages to gradually chip away all that armour.
Well that is a design decision, and it is possible that ablative armor
will be as effective as they say it is. Though on the other hand, giving
it the ability to resist gauss rifles also made it vulnerable to machine
guns so you decide how advanced it is.
: 6) Why are missiles/rockets PATHETICALLY WEAK??? In either real life, or
: any other Sci-fi genre I know about, missiles and rockets always pack a
: mean punch. In battletech, you spew vast quantities of them to ping off
: the opponent's armour.
Well you have me there.
: 7) Ranges of weapons. Need I say more?
Again you have me.
: If the answer to any of these questions is "that rule/concept was
: designed for game balance" then the designers of battletech must be
: pretty shoddy game designers. There would have to be dozens of simpler,
: easier, more realistic ways to balance the game without creating such
: absurdities as "all mechas must have weak backs".
They do not have to have weak backs. As far as I know there are no
eforced limits on rear armor. Sure the sheets don't give you that many
spaces, but that is because it is assumed that most mech designers are
going to put most of their armor in the front of the mech.
: It seems to me that Battletech is NOT meant to simulate anime mecha in
: ANY way, shape or form. You only need to watch about 10 minutes of
: robotech, with those veritech fighers running, jumping, spinning and
: performing martial arts, to see that Battletech, with it's *clunk*
: *whirr* *clunk* style mechs is a LONG WAY from anime.
No it was not intended to be an anime mecha game, though note the mechs
can run and jump.
: In Robotech, it is a common occurrence to see a mech blown away with one
: shot or missile - in battletech, there is no way this can happen (except
: via lucky head shots - even though the head of a mech is so big it would
: be child's play to blow it away any time you liked if you had HALF
: decent targetting systems).
Well there is critical shots. Besides ever see Palladium's Robotech, even
the zentradi battlepods usually need to be hit two to three times to be
destroyed.
: "That's right", you may say, "Battletech _isn't_ meant to simulate
: anime." But then why has battletech got all those robotech mechs in it??
: The exact same designs, etc. I think the Btech "phoenix" is a veritech
: fighter, and the "marauder" is a zentraedi battle pod. There are
: numerous others.
Simple, it was cheaper when the game came out to liscence the designs that
to make their own. After that they became so popular and well entrenched
that it was only recently that FASA removed them from the standard mechs.
: "So what?" you may say, "Battletech isn't meant to be realistic! It's
: just meant to be fun!". Well I say that's not true: Battletech _IS_
: meant to be realistic - it is based on realistic premises and purports
: to be in a realistic future universe. It attempts to explain their
: technology with pseudo-scientific jargon. Battletech is written and
: presented and designed in a way that is supposed to be realistic.
: Battletech is inconsistent: it attempts to be realistic, but has grossly
: unrealistic concepts in it. Ask the designers if they were trying to
: create a "realistic" game and I'm certain they would say yes.
Yes BT does fall into the wide spectrum of Science Fiction, but that does
not by any means mean that the game is meant to be realistic. If you knew
any engineering or physics you would know that 12 meter tall hundred ton
battlemechs are completely and totally unfeasible. Ground pressure alone
would ensure that as soon as they stepped onto anything less hard than
reinforced concrete that they would sink into the ground. As for the
Jargon, while any game requires a certain suspension of disbelief, it is
important that the designers come up with coherent theories, whether they
be pseudo-scientific or fantasy to help the suspension hold up.
: So - Battletech doesn't simulate reality, nor does it simulate the anime
: genre. What the hell is it trying to do? Simulate it's own bizarre
: universe where FTL travel is common, but people duke it out in clunky
: behemoths that overheat?
You have a problem with this?
: Before you think that I am making a personal attack on all battletech
: players, I will say again: Battletech is the _only_ mecha game I have -
: and I have had it for a long time and played it for a long time. I don't
: have mechton, heavy gear, robot warriors or any others that might be
: around. Battletech seems to be riddled with so many unrealistic
: features, inconsistencies and plain silly-ness that I am in no mood to
: go out and buy any more of these mecha games, in fact it's made me want
: to give up the genre, or design my own game.
Ok, it seems that you still like the whole idea of mecha, just not BT's
particular implementation. So why should one implementation automatically
suggest that every other one is also the same.
A really cheap way to check out some of the others would be to go to a
game shop and sit in on a session. You could also contact dream pod 9
about HG and ask them where you can get their example game (I think it
costs about $3.00. You could also check out the home pages for the
various games.
I will tell you this though, many of your concerns are addressed to some
degree or another in HG. Gears can be destroyed by a single hit, provided
it is the right weapon, or the gun is good or lucky.
: But before I do give up the genre or whatever, I would like to know the
: answers to my questions if there are any - I want to know why the
: designers of a mecha game came up with that design. And don't say
: "because it made money". Of _course_ it made money - for a long time it
: was the _only_ mecha game around. I loved robotech so much that I would
: have bought any mecha game that came out - hence I did. Heck I probably
: would have bought it if they were charging $250!!
Actually if you are like most BT players (myself included) you probably
have spent that much already.
--
Bill
***************************************************************************
The above are probably only my opinions and not those of UCS or UMBC.
"A definite maybe is better than a tentative definite anyday"
Bill McHale -Assistant Systems Administrator
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home page - http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~wmchal1
***************************************************************************
nobwit
sla...@magi.com wrote:
>
>
> Greetings...
Hi.
> Nope... On a fusion-powered machine using energy weapons, it's a
> very real concern.(And tanks do get uncomfortably hot...)
Hmmm. It seems a vast inconsistency in technology to be able to have a
fusion reactor in a mech, be able to shield the pilot from any harmful
radiations, but not be able to dissipate heat so that it is not a
concern. How advanced is a heat sink?
OK, what about projectile weapons - surely an _advanced_ weapon would
generate negligible heat? Sure, a tank gun would heat up with frequent
use, but could the resulting heat buildup cause the tank to shutdown or
trigger and ammo explosion? No.
> Ge> 2) Why are mechs such clunky, unwieldy monstrosities? All people would
> Ge> have to do is what they did in the Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
> Ge> Just use tanks instead!
>
> Just try it... You'll find out that even with a minimum range a PPC
> shot point blank is very bad for your health (-8
> (Actually, that's a nod to realism...)
The clunky mech would probably not be able to bring it's weapons to bear
on a small, fast moving target around it's feet. If it could, it would
probably just blow it's own legs off.
> Ge> 3) Why is the back of EVERY mech a weak spot? Why can't they put a
> Ge> plate of armour on it? DUH! That's like building a tank with a hole in
> Ge> the back!
> Tanks are always weaker in the back and on top...
A fifth as weak? I don't think so.
> You can have a 'Mech more armored in the back than in front...
> It just won't last long next time it faces anything...
IMHO - that is illogical and silly. There is no reason why a mech should
not be able to have strong armour all around.
> Ge> 4) Why is pilot placed in such a vulnerable and exposed position?
> Ge> Wouldn't the pilot be placed like BEHIND SOME ARMOUR, not just glass?
>
> That could be discussed, but it's a balance thing.
What you really mean is that there is no valid reason for it. If there
was, surely you would have mentioned it?
> Ge> 5) Why is the defensive technology (mainly armour) so vastly superior
> Ge> to offensive technology (weapons)? A heavily armoured mech needs to be
> Ge> plugged at for ages to gradually chip away all that armour.
>
> Because 1 shot 1 kill makes for an incredibly boring game.
Ah, so are you saying there is no "realistic" or "logical" reason for
it? And that it was made so purely for "game balance"? Then that is poor
game design.
And besides, shoot back and forth continually until someone's armour is
finally chipped away makes for an incredibly boring game.
> Ge> 6) Why are missiles/rockets PATHETICALLY WEAK??? In either real life,
> Ge> or any other Sci-fi genre I know about, missiles and rockets always
> Ge> pack a mean punch. In battletech, you spew vast quantities of them to
> Ge> ping off the opponent's armour.
>
> Because Real Life rockets are a hell of a lot bigger (proportionnally)
> than the BTech ones... (Try an Arrow IV on for size...)
> The SRM's and LRM's are fairly small, originally unguided weapons.
And...? Why _aren't_ there larger missiles in this _realistic_ game?
> Ge> 7) Ranges of weapons. Need I say more?
>
> Effective ranges... Seems that real life matches...
> Further away, you just can't aim reliably...
I take it these high tech mechs only have crosshairs then...no such
things as computer aided targetting and so forth?
> Ge> If the answer to any of these questions is "that rule/concept was
> Ge> designed for game balance" then the designers of battletech must be
> Ge> pretty shoddy game designers. There would have to be dozens of
> Ge> simpler, easier, more realistic ways to balance the game without
> Ge> creating such absurdities as "all mechas must have weak backs".
>
> They're an excellent bunch...
> Give any example of those... Go ahead, I dare ya (-8
As soon as you answer my questions (including the ones you didn't
quote), I will. Go ahead, I dare ya :)
> Ge> In Robotech, it is a common occurrence to see a mech blown away with
> Ge> one shot or missile - in battletech, there is no way this can happen
> Ge> (except via lucky head shots - even though the head of a mech is so big
> Ge> it would be child's play to blow it away any time you liked if you had
> Ge> HALF decent targetting systems).
>
> Soooo ??
Soooo, why was such an obvious flaw put into the game?
>
> Ge> "That's right", you may say, "Battletech _isn't_ meant to simulate
> Ge> anime." But then why has battletech got all those robotech mechs in
> Ge> it?? The exact same designs, etc. I think the Btech "phoenix" is a
> Ge> veritech fighter, and the "marauder" is a zentraedi battle pod. There
> Ge> are numerous others.
>
> Because they made very nice pictures.
Fair enough. They do make very nice pictures (I love robotech :)
> Ge> So - Battletech doesn't simulate reality, nor does it simulate the
> Ge> anime genre. What the hell is it trying to do? Simulate it's own
> Ge> bizarre universe where FTL travel is common, but people duke it out in
> Ge> clunky behemoths that overheat?
>
> Exactly... A universe where centuries of warfare trashed the ressources
> required to re-build those...
> It's not much sillier than many a premise...
Well, IMHO, it IS a very silly premise. Especially since the game is
supposed to be realistic. Besides, if the BTech universe has such a lack
of resources, why are clans so willing to destroy mechs? All that trial
by combat stuff where they weed out their OWN mechwarriors and mechs.
Strangely though, the BTech universe has _plenty_ of resources for
interstellar travel - something that has to be orders of magnitude more
resource hungry than a some walking tanks.
> And far les ridiculous than an FBI agent that can't be killed in a
> non-suspicious manner.
I might agree with this if I knew what you were referring to. Is it the
X-files?
--
------------------------------------------------------
George
mailto:nob...@iap.net.au
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
and this is what annoys me."
------------------------------------------------------
nobwit
Bill McHale wrote:
>
>
> Well it actually has been out for about 10 or twelve years.
You're right - it _has_ been out that long! Jeeze I am old! :)
> : 1) Why is heat such a major concern? Do modern tanks overheat? I cannot
> : believe that one of the prime concerns for a pilot of the most advanced
> : fighting vehicle ever devised, is overheating. The very concept is
> : absurd.
>
> Modern tanks are not powered by fusion reactors (BTW fusion requires
> tempatures in excess of 2 million degrees c) are are firing massive
> barages of energy weapons that are not available now, and that would
> certainly generate enormous amounts of waste heat. The mechs won't
> overheat if they are used as originally designed (i.e. just because the
> Warhammer has two PPC's does not mean that it needs to fire both every
> round.). further mechs with all projectile weapons have a much better
> time with heat.
If they have the technology for fusion reactors and advanced energy
weapons, they would surely have the technology to handle heat buildup?
Also look at it from a "feel" point of view. Does it _sound_ good that
your towering hi-tech battle machine overheats?? It sounds kinda crappy
to me. To me, it is as silly as having, say, an "ignition" roll, where
you must roll a certain number or better or the darn thing won't start!
> : 2) Why are mechs such clunky, unwieldy monstrosities? All people would
> : have to do is what they did in the Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back -
> : tie a line around their legs, and they would topple to the ground! If
> : mechs turned out to be that way - noone would have ever used them! Just
> : use tanks instead!
>
> Well actually they are better balanced than that, that is what the neuro
> helmets are for. Sure they look klunky but any mech with jumpjets is
> going to have to be pretty agile.
Hmmm. They kind of come across as really slow, unwieldy mostrosities.
> Actually the back of most tanks is a weak spot as well. You can only add
> so many tons of armor to a vehicle, where you gonna put it, the front
> where the vehicle will be hit when it is advancing and fighting the enemy
> or the rear where it will be exposed while the mech is in full retreat.
Fair enough, but I don't believe tank armour on the back is a fifth as
strong as on the front - which is the case with many of the mech
designs.
> : 4) Why is pilot placed in such a vulnerable and exposed position?
> : Wouldn't the pilot be placed like BEHIND SOME ARMOUR, not just glass? (I
> : know, it's probably armoured plastic or whatever, but in BTECH, you can
> : have ONLY 9 points of armour on the head). DUH AGAIN! This is too stupid
> : for words! It's like building a tank, and putting the pilot in a wicker
> : chair strapped to the top! Are modern tanks built like that? Of course
> : not.
>
> Can't really answer that one, except to say that if we accept BT's
> advocates for the power of their weapons then the head is better armored
> than most modern tanks.
Yeah...but it still doesn't answer the question as to why the pilots
aren't behind some proper armour. In the battletech universe, the pilots
are incredibly vulnerable and exposed.
> : 5) Why is the defensive technology (mainly armour) so vastly superior to
> : offensive technology (weapons)? A heavily armoured mech needs to be
> : plugged at for ages to gradually chip away all that armour.
>
> Well that is a design decision, and it is possible that ablative armor
> will be as effective as they say it is. Though on the other hand, giving
> it the ability to resist gauss rifles also made it vulnerable to machine
> guns so you decide how advanced it is.
In any realistic sense, defensive technology has never been so superior
to offensive technology. As to whether it will be that way....it seems
highly unlikely to say the least. A weapon can concentrate all it's
energy on one single point. Armour has to protect an entire area.
> : 6) Why are missiles/rockets PATHETICALLY WEAK??? In either real life, or
> : any other Sci-fi genre I know about, missiles and rockets always pack a
> : mean punch. In battletech, you spew vast quantities of them to ping off
> : the opponent's armour.
>
> Well you have me there.
At least you are honest enough to say so, rather than defending every
aspect of battletech to your dying breath (which is not what you have
been doing at all, but some other people do). I respect that.
> : 7) Ranges of weapons. Need I say more?
>
> Again you have me.
It seems strange, because it's one of those things that could have been
changed so easily. They obviously wanted a high movement/range ratio.
> : If the answer to any of these questions is "that rule/concept was
> : designed for game balance" then the designers of battletech must be
> : pretty shoddy game designers. There would have to be dozens of simpler,
> : easier, more realistic ways to balance the game without creating such
> : absurdities as "all mechas must have weak backs".
>
> They do not have to have weak backs. As far as I know there are no
> eforced limits on rear armor. Sure the sheets don't give you that many
> spaces, but that is because it is assumed that most mech designers are
> going to put most of their armor in the front of the mech.
But all the mech designs they give you _do_ have weak backs!!
> : In Robotech, it is a common occurrence to see a mech blown away with one
> : shot or missile - in battletech, there is no way this can happen (except
> : via lucky head shots - even though the head of a mech is so big it would
> : be child's play to blow it away any time you liked if you had HALF
> : decent targetting systems).
>
> Well there is critical shots.
This relies on the fact that all mechs are built with an extremely
vulnerable cockpit.
> Besides ever see Palladium's Robotech, even
> the zentradi battlepods usually need to be hit two to three times to be
> destroyed.
I can't say about the RPG, but in the cartoons, they can get toasted
with one hit.
> : "That's right", you may say, "Battletech _isn't_ meant to simulate
> : anime." But then why has battletech got all those robotech mechs in it??
> : The exact same designs, etc. I think the Btech "phoenix" is a veritech
> : fighter, and the "marauder" is a zentraedi battle pod. There are
> : numerous others.
>
> Simple, it was cheaper when the game came out to liscence the designs that
> to make their own. After that they became so popular and well entrenched
> that it was only recently that FASA removed them from the standard mechs.
It's a pity they had to take the robotech mecha designs into a game that
doesn't give them any of the abilities they should have.
> Yes BT does fall into the wide spectrum of Science Fiction, but that does
> not by any means mean that the game is meant to be realistic.
I have to disagree. I believe the game _was_ designed and meant to be
realistic.
> If you knew
> any engineering or physics you would know that 12 meter tall hundred ton
> battlemechs are completely and totally unfeasible. Ground pressure alone
> would ensure that as soon as they stepped onto anything less hard than
> reinforced concrete that they would sink into the ground.
Fair enough, but I don't believe that the original robotech mecha would
have weighed _anywhere_ near 100 tons. The veritechs would have weighed
about as much as a fighter plane, which is what, 5-10 tons? Having 100
ton mechs is another one of Battletech's ideas. The really large mecha
in robotech (like the "monster") had absolutely enormous feet, I suppose
to spread the weight around. Anyway, robotech follows the anime mecha
genre, which does not have as many ties to hard-core sci-fi realism as
battletech is supposed to.
> As for the
> Jargon, while any game requires a certain suspension of disbelief, it is
> important that the designers come up with coherent theories, whether they
> be pseudo-scientific or fantasy to help the suspension hold up.
I have no problem with the jargon, I was just pointing out that the
designers _were_ attempting to make a realistic, sci-fi game.
> : So - Battletech doesn't simulate reality, nor does it simulate the anime
> : genre. What the hell is it trying to do? Simulate it's own bizarre
> : universe where FTL travel is common, but people duke it out in clunky
> : behemoths that overheat?
>
> You have a problem with this?
Yes. "Then don't play the game." you may say? Fair enough - I won't. I
would still like to know WHY they made the game that way.
> Ok, it seems that you still like the whole idea of mecha, just not BT's
> particular implementation.
*nod*
> So why should one implementation automatically
> suggest that every other one is also the same.
You're right - it shouldn't. I just got a bit frustrated with battletech
and sort of "gave up" hope on the anime genre for games. Battletech
seems to be the most popular and long-lived mecha game around - and if
it is _that_ bad, I assumed the others would be worse.
> A really cheap way to check out some of the others would be to go to a
> game shop and sit in on a session. You could also contact dream pod 9
> about HG and ask them where you can get their example game (I think it
> costs about $3.00. You could also check out the home pages for the
> various games.
Good ideas - thanks :)
> I will tell you this though, many of your concerns are addressed to some
> degree or another in HG. Gears can be destroyed by a single hit, provided
> it is the right weapon, or the gun is good or lucky.
Interesting...
> Actually if you are like most BT players (myself included) you probably
> have spent that much already.
Let's see, battletech, citytech, aerotech, compendiums, hex maps,
minatures...
Yep, you're spot on there, I _have_ spent a load of money on it :)
John M Atkinson
Honor? You don't understand the honor deal. Mideveal Europe, Japan of the
Samurai. Japan of WW2. Ever heard of them. The armor and, especially the
horses bred to carry it, represented a massive investment of resources.
Yet all three societies were run by warrior castes with more testosterone
than brains.
Just another Perif Pirate.
Samuel Fang
>Hmmm. It seems a vast inconsistency in technology to be able to have a
>fusion reactor in a mech, be able to shield the pilot from any harmful
>radiations, but not be able to dissipate heat so that it is not a
>concern. How advanced is a heat sink?
Well, if Mr. Bill McHale is right, then a fusion reator would require
a temp of 2 million degrees (hell if I know). Dissipate that with
your box fan.
>OK, what about projectile weapons - surely an _advanced_ weapon would
>generate negligible heat? Sure, a tank gun would heat up with frequent
>use, but could the resulting heat buildup cause the tank to shutdown or
>trigger and ammo explosion? No.
One word: friction.
YOU get a big ass projectile moving down a tight barrell with a
(presumably) smokeless powder. For Lord's sake, an M60 (the machine
gun) runs damn hot, and it's only a 7.62mm!! What about your big
guns? If you run by Solaris rules (speeded up time, smaller hexes)
you have some cannon firing 24 shots a minute!!! That's a wee bit
faster than any tank cannon _I've_ heard of.
>> Ge> 2) Why are mechs such clunky, unwieldy monstrosities? All people would
>> Ge> have to do is what they did in the Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
>> Ge> Just use tanks instead!
>>
>> Just try it... You'll find out that even with a minimum range a PPC
>> shot point blank is very bad for your health (-8
>> (Actually, that's a nod to realism...)
>The clunky mech would probably not be able to bring it's weapons to bear
>on a small, fast moving target around it's feet. If it could, it would
>probably just blow it's own legs off.
Ok. They're ugly. Deal with it. They are _military equipment_!!!
Name me a sexy war machine (no planes). There are several (a lot,
depending on your taste), but they were not designed with that in
mind. Work first. Look pretty is _way_ down the list.
>> Ge> 3) Why is the back of EVERY mech a weak spot? Why can't they put a
>> Ge> plate of armour on it? DUH! That's like building a tank with a hole in
>> Ge> the back!
>> Tanks are always weaker in the back and on top...
>A fifth as weak? I don't think so.
>> You can have a 'Mech more armored in the back than in front...
>> It just won't last long next time it faces anything...
>IMHO - that is illogical and silly. There is no reason why a mech should
>not be able to have strong armour all around.
Ok. If you don't like a game with some inherent limits, go play
something like HG (ok, it has limits, they just need to be enforced by
a GM or something...). 'Mech armor limited to 2x their internal
structure in a given location. This is simply how they are built.
Deal with it. If _you_ want to put only 31 points of armor on the
front CT of a 100 tonner... go for it.
>> Ge> 4) Why is pilot placed in such a vulnerable and exposed position?
>> Ge> Wouldn't the pilot be placed like BEHIND SOME ARMOUR, not just glass?
>>
>> That could be discussed, but it's a balance thing.
>What you really mean is that there is no valid reason for it. If there
>was, surely you would have mentioned it?
It gives your little light 'Mech a snowballs chance to kill a 100 ton
Atlas. Also, there was a little thing in one Mechwarrior adventure
where you could get a cockpit installed in the CT. (behind your 31
pts. of armor) Problem as I see it is that with the pilot hits rule,
your pilot is likely to die from several MG hits to the CT. Not cool.
Besides, I think that making the head so f&*king hard to hit is some
sort of compensation.
>> Ge> 5) Why is the defensive technology (mainly armour) so vastly superior
>> Ge> to offensive technology (weapons)? A heavily armoured mech needs to be
>> Ge> plugged at for ages to gradually chip away all that armour.
>>
>> Because 1 shot 1 kill makes for an incredibly boring game.
>Ah, so are you saying there is no "realistic" or "logical" reason for
>it? And that it was made so purely for "game balance"? Then that is poor
>game design.
>And besides, shoot back and forth continually until someone's armour is
>finally chipped away makes for an incredibly boring game.
Excuse me. I realize you may not read this comment due to your
apparently short attention span...
Ever play chess? Football? Baseball? Any game that takes longer to
play than to set up? I've played HG. That sounds like what you want.
Fine. I've spent hours figuring out the rules, discussing it with my
friends, copying the gear sheets, and setting up the map. And played
the game during a commercial break of Friends. Get the picture?
<snip range rant>
I agree, sort of, with you. Read some of the other threads around
here. I know it doesn't make sense, but neither do a lot of other
things. If you want really long ranges, then just say that each hex
is 100 or even 1000 meters. Happy? Ok, your 'Mechs are _really_
fast, but doesn't that satisfy your craving for more "advanced"
supertechnology?
>> Ge> In Robotech, it is a common occurrence to see a mech blown away with
>> Ge> one shot or missile - in battletech, there is no way this can happen
>> Ge> (except via lucky head shots - even though the head of a mech is so big
>> Ge> it would be child's play to blow it away any time you liked if you had
>> Ge> HALF decent targetting systems).
I thought you didn't like having the pilot so vulnerable?
>> Ge> So - Battletech doesn't simulate reality, nor does it simulate the
>> Ge> anime genre. What the hell is it trying to do? Simulate it's own
>> Ge> bizarre universe where FTL travel is common, but people duke it out in
>> Ge> clunky behemoths that overheat?
>>
>> Exactly... A universe where centuries of warfare trashed the ressources
>> required to re-build those...
>> It's not much sillier than many a premise...
>Well, IMHO, it IS a very silly premise. Especially since the game is
>supposed to be realistic. Besides, if the BTech universe has such a lack
>of resources, why are clans so willing to destroy mechs? All that trial
>by combat stuff where they weed out their OWN mechwarriors and mechs.
>Strangely though, the BTech universe has _plenty_ of resources for
>interstellar travel - something that has to be orders of magnitude more
>resource hungry than a some walking tanks.
Clans are _not_, repeat NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT!, the inner sphere. (Sorry
about that). They are essentially a different culture. Read into it,
they are _not_ the group of people who have beaten the shit out of
each other for 250 years. They've gone on to build a society where it
is more important to get better genes than keep a rusty old 'Mech
around. And check up on that "interstellar travel" thing. If you
read carefully, before the current "Renaissance" in the Inner Sphere,
the vast (read, almost all) majority of Jumpships were of Star League
manufacture. As in over 250 years old. They haven't been destroyed
because they are vital to the continuity of the empires of each of the
Successor States, so they (generally) surivived. If not for the
Renaissance, the IS eventually might have fallen apart with the slow
decay of their fleets.
>> And far les ridiculous than an FBI agent that can't be killed in a
>> non-suspicious manner.
>I might agree with this if I knew what you were referring to. Is it the
>X-files?
>--
>------------------------------------------------------
>George
>mailto:nob...@iap.net.au
>"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
>But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
>and this is what annoys me."
>------------------------------------------------------
None of this is meant personally, george. I just get really annoyed
when people apparently overlook some of the rules and information
availible to them. You've been (apparently) playing the game for over
5 years. I've been playing for less than 2. If all you've got is the
basic set, then either be willing to expand to the rest of the
universe or quit bitching about stuff that you don't understand.
Samuel Fang
sf...@mail.vt.edu
Ogle
In article <548cau$7...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu says...
I agree that this one has annoyed me too. When I play BattleTech,
I like to play with all weapons doing double damage and rolling for
critical hits on a natural to-hit roll of 12. This makes the games a
little quicker and allows for larger battles without creating
One-shot-one-kill scenarios.
>: 6) Why are missiles/rockets PATHETICALLY WEAK??? In either real life,
or
>: any other Sci-fi genre I know about, missiles and rockets always pack a
>: mean punch. In battletech, you spew vast quantities of them to ping off
>: the opponent's armour.
>
>Well you have me there.
Also agreed, but realize that BT "missiles" are more like little rockets.
Take a look at the number you get per ton. SRM's come with about a hundred
"missles" per ton, and they're the more powerfull ones. (A whole two
poitns!) Real missles in BattleTech (Arrow IV's or Thunderbolt missiles
from Unbound or the Tactical Handbook) are far bigger and dish out a lot
more damage.
Paul Brown
: > 6) Why are missiles/rockets PATHETICALLY WEAK??? In either real life, or
: > any other Sci-fi genre I know about, missiles and rockets always pack a
: > mean punch. In battletech, you spew vast quantities of them to ping off
: > the opponent's armour.
: I thoroughly agree, the missiles are too weak and idea of launching 20 missiles
: at one target while more realistically it should be a single missile with a
: proximity detonator. i think they just took the anime approach to missiles,
: think robotech.
When you think about it, a LRM20 has 6 rounds to the ton. Thats
120 missles/tonn not including loading mechanisms and the wieght of the bay
itself. If you divide 2000 by 120 that equals to around 16.5 (I think). So
16.5 pounds per long range missle. This includes the propellant, guidance
and warheads. (Not to mention the casing)
So what more can you expect from a 17 pound missle?
: > In Robotech, it is a common occurrence to see a mech blown away with one
: > shot or missile - in battletech, there is no way this can happen (except
: > via lucky head shots - even though the head of a mech is so big it would
: > be child's play to blow it away any time you liked if you had HALF
: > decent targetting systems).
: ya and?
Besides, the enemy could counter your half decent targetting
system with a half decent ECM system. (or jamming, whatever)
Ogle
In article <326847...@iap.net.au>, nob...@iap.net.au says...
Actually, it seems to me to be pretty good game design. You would prefer
that the designers make something realistic that made the game suck?
>And besides, shoot back and forth continually until someone's armour is
>finally chipped away makes for an incredibly boring game.
>
>> Ge> 6) Why are missiles/rockets PATHETICALLY WEAK??? In either real
life,
>> Ge> or any other Sci-fi genre I know about, missiles and rockets
always
>> Ge> pack a mean punch. In battletech, you spew vast quantities of them
to
>> Ge> ping off the opponent's armour.
>>
>> Because Real Life rockets are a hell of a lot bigger (proportionnally)
>> than the BTech ones... (Try an Arrow IV on for size...)
>> The SRM's and LRM's are fairly small, originally unguided weapons.
>
>And...? Why _aren't_ there larger missiles in this _realistic_ game?
>
>> Ge> 7) Ranges of weapons. Need I say more?
>>
>> Effective ranges... Seems that real life matches...
>> Further away, you just can't aim reliably...
>
>I take it these high tech mechs only have crosshairs then...no such
>things as computer aided targetting and so forth?
Exactly. Read *any* of the source material. Due to decline of man, second
Dark Age and all that, computers were long stripped out of 'Mechs or
replaced by really crappy ones that they can maintain and understand.
"Combat is now strictly a line of sight affair," says the book. There's
even evidence that there's no crosshair at all. Artemis IV FCS description
says that it puts a crosshair where the missles are going to go and guides
them to that point, accounting for its "accuracy". I think the Clan
Targeting computer also gives them crosshairs.
Yeah, come on, guys. At least read the source materials. According to it,
the leaders long ago agreed not to destroy each other's FTL ships out of
simple neccesity. They realized that without them, they couldn't even
fight a war, and so took steps to protect what was being destroyed.
Casey Stout
In article <326744...@microbase.com.au>, George <geo...@microbase.com.au> writes:
> I have owned a copy of battletech ever since the first boxed set came
> out about 5 years ago. Ever since I bought it, I have had some questions
> about it's design that have plagued me because I have never found an
> answer:
>
> 1) Why is heat such a major concern? Do modern tanks overheat? I cannot
> believe that one of the prime concerns for a pilot of the most advanced
> fighting vehicle ever devised, is overheating. The very concept is
> absurd.
i agree, power levels and such would have been a little more realistic but
even then, the Fusion Capable engine can produce 'so' much power so why
would it matter?
>
> 2) Why are mechs such clunky, unwieldy monstrosities? All people would
> have to do is what they did in the Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back -
> tie a line around their legs, and they would topple to the ground! If
> mechs turned out to be that way - noone would have ever used them! Just
> use tanks instead!
despite what you just said, Mechs are still more mobile, if overly too large.
>
> 3) Why is the back of EVERY mech a weak spot? Why can't they put a plate
> of armour on it? DUH! That's like building a tank with a hole in the
> back!
actually, tanks also have weak back spots. and you can add more armor
to rear section of a battlemech, even have it equal to the frontal armor.
>
> 4) Why is pilot placed in such a vulnerable and exposed position?
> Wouldn't the pilot be placed like BEHIND SOME ARMOUR, not just glass? (I
> know, it's probably armoured plastic or whatever, but in BTECH, you can
> have ONLY 9 points of armour on the head). DUH AGAIN! This is too stupid
> for words! It's like building a tank, and putting the pilot in a wicker
> chair strapped to the top! Are modern tanks built like that? Of course
> not.
tanks and mechs are two different things.
>
> 5) Why is the defensive technology (mainly armour) so vastly superior to
> offensive technology (weapons)? A heavily armoured mech needs to be
> plugged at for ages to gradually chip away all that armour.
duh, i dunno
> 6) Why are missiles/rockets PATHETICALLY WEAK??? In either real life, or
> any other Sci-fi genre I know about, missiles and rockets always pack a
> mean punch. In battletech, you spew vast quantities of them to ping off
> the opponent's armour.
I thoroughly agree, the missiles are too weak and idea of launching 20 missiles
at one target while more realistically it should be a single missile with a
proximity detonator. i think they just took the anime approach to missiles,
think robotech.
> 7) Ranges of weapons. Need I say more?
ya, actually, what do you think the ranges should 'actually' be. not that
i'm for or against the current weapon reanges, just want an idea on what
they should be.
> If the answer to any of these questions is "that rule/concept was
> designed for game balance" then the designers of battletech must be
> pretty shoddy game designers. There would have to be dozens of simpler,
> easier, more realistic ways to balance the game without creating such
> absurdities as "all mechas must have weak backs".
tactically, i would keep my back against the wall if i were you. i've heard
about those FA$A men in black...
> It seems to me that Battletech is NOT meant to simulate anime mecha in
> ANY way, shape or form. You only need to watch about 10 minutes of
> robotech, with those veritech fighers running, jumping, spinning and
> performing martial arts, to see that Battletech, with it's *clunk*
> *whirr* *clunk* style mechs is a LONG WAY from anime.
ya and?
> In Robotech, it is a common occurrence to see a mech blown away with one
> shot or missile - in battletech, there is no way this can happen (except
> via lucky head shots - even though the head of a mech is so big it would
> be child's play to blow it away any time you liked if you had HALF
> decent targetting systems).
ya and?
> "That's right", you may say, "Battletech _isn't_ meant to simulate
> anime." But then why has battletech got all those robotech mechs in it??
> The exact same designs, etc. I think the Btech "phoenix" is a veritech
> fighter, and the "marauder" is a zentraedi battle pod. There are
> numerous others.
so FASA's cheap and cant draw worth shit. so?
> It appears to me that battletech has many unrealistic features in it.
> The way mechas work, the overheating, missiles being really weak, armour
> being really tough, not to mention the mindless clan mentality and
> "mechwarrior code of honour" crap - yeah right! Like they're gonna send
> out millions of dollars worth of machinery to be blown into scrap metal
> and not care about it! All it would take is one clan WITH A BRAIN and
> some military savvy to wipe out the rest of clans put together.
nice conclusion. let's all cheer for Clan Wolverine!
> "So what?" you may say, "Battletech isn't meant to be realistic! It's
> just meant to be fun!". Well I say that's not true: Battletech _IS_
> meant to be realistic - it is based on realistic premises and purports
> to be in a realistic future universe. It attempts to explain their
> technology with pseudo-scientific jargon. Battletech is written and
> presented and designed in a way that is supposed to be realistic.
> Battletech is inconsistent: it attempts to be realistic, but has grossly
> unrealistic concepts in it. Ask the designers if they were trying to
> create a "realistic" game and I'm certain they would say yes.
no comment
babyface duncer
Bill McHale
nobwit (nob...@iap.net.au) wrote:
: If they have the technology for fusion reactors and advanced energy
: weapons, they would surely have the technology to handle heat buildup?
: Also look at it from a "feel" point of view. Does it _sound_ good that
: your towering hi-tech battle machine overheats?? It sounds kinda crappy
: to me. To me, it is as silly as having, say, an "ignition" roll, where
: you must roll a certain number or better or the darn thing won't start!
Ah, but they do have technology to handle the heat buildup, it just can't
keep up when a mech is pushed beyond its design limits. Remeber the heat
the reactor and the weapons have to disapate is enormous. Heck even
modern tanks can overheat if pushed too far. Try taking the govenor off
the M1, running it at 65-70mph and firing the main gun as fast as it can
be loaded. I but it will get hotter than hadies in the crew compartments,
and the engine will overheat as well. If you think about it modern
reactors are made up of a little bit of fissionable material and then a
whole lot of additional items to control the heat buildup and they even
they fail sometimes (can anyone say Chernobyl of Three Mile Island?).
But with out the reactor the mech would have to use inefficient ICE
engines (which I have a bone to pick with, but hey thats why I currently
play Heavy Gear) which weigh twice as much (four times as much if you
compare them to xl engines) and then need capacitors for any energy
weapons.
So while you may not like it, I don't think that it is an unjustifiable
design decision.
: > Well actually they are better balanced than that, that is what the neuro
: > helmets are for. Sure they look klunky but any mech with jumpjets is
: > going to have to be pretty agile.
: Hmmm. They kind of come across as really slow, unwieldy mostrosities.
Well even a 3025 Atlas could make 52 kph, as much as many tanks, and newer
or smaller mechs can move considerably faster.
: Fair enough, but I don't believe tank armour on the back is a fifth as
: strong as on the front - which is the case with many of the mech
: designs.
Depends on the tank and its use. With the DU inserts on the M1 (which
only cover the front and front flanks iirc) I would argue that its rear
armor might be close to 1/5 of its front.
: Yeah...but it still doesn't answer the question as to why the pilots
: aren't behind some proper armour. In the battletech universe, the pilots
: are incredibly vulnerable and exposed.
Actually it is not all that bad. I was doing some calculations on that
and a head hit will occur roughly 1/36 hits, compared to the center torse
which I believe gets hit about 1/6 times, so in other words while the 9
armor makes the head the weakest part on most heavy mechs, the pilot is as
safe there as he would be in the chest provided that area has less than 54
armor on the front.
: In any realistic sense, defensive technology has never been so superior
: to offensive technology. As to whether it will be that way....it seems
: highly unlikely to say the least. A weapon can concentrate all it's
: energy on one single point. Armour has to protect an entire area.
Actually during the 13th century before the invention of gunpowder seige
guns, castles (a decidedly defensive device) were far more effective than
any of the weapons that can be turned against them. Further during the
13th-15th centuries the armor of Knights developed to the point where it
was almost impossible to kill a knight in combat unless the knight was
knoked down and a stilleto pushed through a joint in his armor or visor.
The five and six hour long battles described in Mallory's Le Morte
d'Arthur are not exageration but literal descriptions of what might be
expected at the time.
: At least you are honest enough to say so, rather than defending every
: aspect of battletech to your dying breath (which is not what you have
: been doing at all, but some other people do). I respect that.
Well that is probably because I switched to Heavy Gear.
: > They do not have to have weak backs. As far as I know there are no
: > eforced limits on rear armor. Sure the sheets don't give you that many
: > spaces, but that is because it is assumed that most mech designers are
: > going to put most of their armor in the front of the mech.
: But all the mech designs they give you _do_ have weak backs!!
Yeah, but no is stopping you from designing your own versions.
: >
: > Well there is critical shots.
: This relies on the fact that all mechs are built with an extremely
: vulnerable cockpit.
Actually the critical shot I was thinking about was in the center torso.
: It's a pity they had to take the robotech mecha designs into a game that
: doesn't give them any of the abilities they should have.
: > Yes BT does fall into the wide spectrum of Science Fiction, but that does
: > not by any means mean that the game is meant to be realistic.
: I have to disagree. I believe the game _was_ designed and meant to be
: realistic.
No if it was meant to be realistic they would have done a lot of research
and determined how much damage modern weapons are capable of dishing out,
not to mention missles, the physics of ground pressure...
: Fair enough, but I don't believe that the original robotech mecha would
: have weighed _anywhere_ near 100 tons. The veritechs would have weighed
: about as much as a fighter plane, which is what, 5-10 tons? Having 100
: ton mechs is another one of Battletech's ideas. The really large mecha
: in robotech (like the "monster") had absolutely enormous feet, I suppose
: to spread the weight around. Anyway, robotech follows the anime mecha
: genre, which does not have as many ties to hard-core sci-fi realism as
: battletech is supposed to.
Actually the Veritechs ran close to 15 tons and the destroids up to thirty
or forty tons, at least that is were Palladium puts them.
: *nod*
: > So why should one implementation automatically
: > suggest that every other one is also the same.
: You're right - it shouldn't. I just got a bit frustrated with battletech
: and sort of "gave up" hope on the anime genre for games. Battletech
: seems to be the most popular and long-lived mecha game around - and if
: it is _that_ bad, I assumed the others would be worse.
: > A really cheap way to check out some of the others would be to go to a
: > game shop and sit in on a session. You could also contact dream pod 9
: > about HG and ask them where you can get their example game (I think it
: > costs about $3.00. You could also check out the home pages for the
: > various games.
: Good ideas - thanks :)
No Prob'.
: > I will tell you this though, many of your concerns are addressed to some
: > degree or another in HG. Gears can be destroyed by a single hit, provided
: > it is the right weapon, or the gun is good or lucky.
: Interesting...
: > Actually if you are like most BT players (myself included) you probably
: > have spent that much already.
: Let's see, battletech, citytech, aerotech, compendiums, hex maps,
: minatures...
: Yep, you're spot on there, I _have_ spent a load of money on it :)
--
Casey Stout
> Hmmm. It seems a vast inconsistency in technology to be able to have a
> fusion reactor in a mech, be able to shield the pilot from any harmful
> radiations, but not be able to dissipate heat so that it is not a
> concern. How advanced is a heat sink?
one thing about Fusion reactions is that they give off no radiation
as we know caused by Fission reactions. protection from heat on the
other hand....
>
> And...? Why _aren't_ there larger missiles in this _realistic_ game?
to give it that anime look
babyface duncer
Ken
On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, nobwit wrote:
> Bill McHale wrote:
> >
> >
> > : 2) Why are mechs such clunky, unwieldy monstrosities? All people would
> > : have to do is what they did in the Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back -
> > : tie a line around their legs, and they would topple to the ground! If
> > : mechs turned out to be that way - noone would have ever used them! Just
> > : use tanks instead!
> >
> > Well actually they are better balanced than that, that is what the neuro
> > helmets are for. Sure they look klunky but any mech with jumpjets is
> > going to have to be pretty agile.
>
> Hmmm. They kind of come across as really slow, unwieldy mostrosities.
>
Considering that some get up around 200kph over the ground, they aren't
that slow.
> > Actually the back of most tanks is a weak spot as well. You can only add
> > so many tons of armor to a vehicle, where you gonna put it, the front
> > where the vehicle will be hit when it is advancing and fighting the enemy
> > or the rear where it will be exposed while the mech is in full retreat.
>
> Fair enough, but I don't believe tank armour on the back is a fifth as
> strong as on the front - which is the case with many of the mech
> designs.
>
Then design your own. Make the armor more even. You'll find its easier
to keep your back away from your enemy than to take the pounding on your
front with limited armor.
> > : 4) Why is pilot placed in such a vulnerable and exposed position?
> > : Wouldn't the pilot be placed like BEHIND SOME ARMOUR, not just glass? (I
> > : know, it's probably armoured plastic or whatever, but in BTECH, you can
> > : have ONLY 9 points of armour on the head). DUH AGAIN! This is too stupid
> > : for words! It's like building a tank, and putting the pilot in a wicker
> > : chair strapped to the top! Are modern tanks built like that? Of course
> > : not.
> >
> > Can't really answer that one, except to say that if we accept BT's
> > advocates for the power of their weapons then the head is better armored
> > than most modern tanks.
>
> Yeah...but it still doesn't answer the question as to why the pilots
> aren't behind some proper armour. In the battletech universe, the pilots
> are incredibly vulnerable and exposed.
>
See the note about the Israeli tank commanders someone posted. In
addition, you could use the CT cockpit rules from unbound.
> > : 5) Why is the defensive technology (mainly armour) so vastly superior to
> > : offensive technology (weapons)? A heavily armoured mech needs to be
> > : plugged at for ages to gradually chip away all that armour.
> >
> > Well that is a design decision, and it is possible that ablative armor
> > will be as effective as they say it is. Though on the other hand, giving
> > it the ability to resist gauss rifles also made it vulnerable to machine
> > guns so you decide how advanced it is.
>
> In any realistic sense, defensive technology has never been so superior
> to offensive technology. As to whether it will be that way....it seems
> highly unlikely to say the least. A weapon can concentrate all it's
> energy on one single point. Armour has to protect an entire area.
>
For a while, it was impossible to take out a US tank with out using a
nuclear weapon. Even today, M1a's are tough to kill, even with the best
weapons.
> > : 6) Why are missiles/rockets PATHETICALLY WEAK??? In either real life, or
> > : any other Sci-fi genre I know about, missiles and rockets always pack a
> > : mean punch. In battletech, you spew vast quantities of them to ping off
> > : the opponent's armour.
> >
> > Well you have me there.
>
> At least you are honest enough to say so, rather than defending every
> aspect of battletech to your dying breath (which is not what you have
> been doing at all, but some other people do). I respect that.
>
They are unguided rockets and are very small. SRMs weigh somewhere around
20lbs each. How much can you do with a 20lb rocket? You want something
like the Thunderbolt missle, which does 10 tons and weighs...uhhh...two
tons?
> > : 7) Ranges of weapons. Need I say more?
> >
> > Again you have me.
>
> It seems strange, because it's one of those things that could have been
> changed so easily. They obviously wanted a high movement/range ratio.
>
One for game balance, two so that you have a chance to have physical
combat and three they are effective weapon ranges that were inherited from
the battledroids game in which technology was _really_ going downhill
fast.
> > : If the answer to any of these questions is "that rule/concept was
> > : designed for game balance" then the designers of battletech must be
> > : pretty shoddy game designers. There would have to be dozens of simpler,
> > : easier, more realistic ways to balance the game without creating such
> > : absurdities as "all mechas must have weak backs".
> >
> > They do not have to have weak backs. As far as I know there are no
> > eforced limits on rear armor. Sure the sheets don't give you that many
> > spaces, but that is because it is assumed that most mech designers are
> > going to put most of their armor in the front of the mech.
>
> But all the mech designs they give you _do_ have weak backs!!
>
Try playing with a mech with more even front/back armor.
> > : In Robotech, it is a common occurrence to see a mech blown away with one
> > : shot or missile - in battletech, there is no way this can happen (except
> > : via lucky head shots - even though the head of a mech is so big it would
> > : be child's play to blow it away any time you liked if you had HALF
> > : decent targetting systems).
> >
> > Well there is critical shots.
>
> This relies on the fact that all mechs are built with an extremely
> vulnerable cockpit.
>
No, he's talking about CT criticals, when you roll a two allow you to roll
for critical effects, which could end up taking out weapons, gyros,
engine, or ammo.
> > Besides ever see Palladium's Robotech, even
> > the zentradi battlepods usually need to be hit two to three times to be
> > destroyed.
>
> I can't say about the RPG, but in the cartoons, they can get toasted
> with one hit.
>
Well what fun is it if combat lasts three turns? If you go through mech
pilots like toliet paper? Doesn't make for a very fun roll-playing game.
> > : "That's right", you may say, "Battletech _isn't_ meant to simulate
> > : anime." But then why has battletech got all those robotech mechs in it??
> > : The exact same designs, etc. I think the Btech "phoenix" is a veritech
> > : fighter, and the "marauder" is a zentraedi battle pod. There are
> > : numerous others.
> >
> > Simple, it was cheaper when the game came out to liscence the designs that
> > to make their own. After that they became so popular and well entrenched
> > that it was only recently that FASA removed them from the standard mechs.
>
> It's a pity they had to take the robotech mecha designs into a game that
> doesn't give them any of the abilities they should have.
>
> > Yes BT does fall into the wide spectrum of Science Fiction, but that does
> > not by any means mean that the game is meant to be realistic.
>
> I have to disagree. I believe the game _was_ designed and meant to be
> realistic.
>
But your not dealing with the origional game any more.
> > As for the
> > Jargon, while any game requires a certain suspension of disbelief, it is
> > important that the designers come up with coherent theories, whether they
> > be pseudo-scientific or fantasy to help the suspension hold up.
>
> I have no problem with the jargon, I was just pointing out that the
> designers _were_ attempting to make a realistic, sci-fi game.
>
*Sigh* See Battledroids. Everything was patched ogether with bubblegum
and bailing wire. This is even evident in the early B-tech campaigns,
where every mech started off with armor damage that could not be repared.
You were somebody special if your mech was "in perfect working condition".
Ken'
John M Atkinson
regarding modern tanks, an M-1A1 was stuck in wadi in Iraq, and they had
to destroy it in place using another tank. I don't recall the exact
details, but I believe they fired three rounds into the front, didn't
penetrate, then put one through the side of the turret, and the fire
supression system prevented it from doing catastrophic damage. Eventually
they gave up, got several recovery vehicles, and pulled it out rather than
keep trying to destroy it.
Bill McHale
Casey Stout (cs1...@nyssa.swt.edu) wrote:
: one thing about Fusion reactions is that they give off no radiation
: as we know caused by Fission reactions. protection from heat on the
: other hand....
Sorry, fusion reactors do in fact give off radiation (light and heat are
just different forms of radiation mind you) its just that the most
dangerous types of radiation, are either absent or greatly reduced in
fusion reactors.
I thing what you are referring to was radioactive waste, and that is
mostly true.
: >
: > And...? Why _aren't_ there larger missiles in this _realistic_ game?
: to give it that anime look
: babyface duncer
--
Solarmech
In article <54b5k8$3...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale)
writes:
>: Fair enough, but I don't believe that the original robotech mecha would
>: have weighed _anywhere_ near 100 tons. The veritechs would have weighed
>: about as much as a fighter plane, which is what, 5-10 tons? Having 100
>: ton mechs is another one of Battletech's ideas. The really large mecha
>: in robotech (like the "monster") had absolutely enormous feet, I
suppose
>: to spread the weight around. Anyway, robotech follows the anime mecha
>: genre, which does not have as many ties to hard-core sci-fi realism as
>: battletech is supposed to.
>
>Actually the Veritechs ran close to 15 tons and the destroids up to
thirty
>or forty tons, at least that is were Palladium puts them.
>
>: *nod*
>
>
Check out the states for the Mac II thay thign is around 200 tons!! sm
There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
Solarmech
>sla...@magi.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> Greetings...
>
>Hi.
>
>> Nope... On a fusion-powered machine using energy weapons, it's a
>> very real concern.(And tanks do get uncomfortably hot...)
>
>Hmmm. It seems a vast inconsistency in technology to be able to have a
>fusion reactor in a mech, be able to shield the pilot from any harmful
>radiations, but not be able to dissipate heat so that it is not a
>concern. How advanced is a heat sink?
>
>OK, what about projectile weapons - surely an _advanced_ weapon would
>generate negligible heat? Sure, a tank gun would heat up with frequent
>use, but could the resulting heat buildup cause the tank to shutdown or
>trigger and ammo explosion? No.
No, but the weapon CAN blow up, or the barrel could start to melt down.
>
>> Ge> 2) Why are mechs such clunky, unwieldy monstrosities? All people
would
>> Ge> have to do is what they did in the Star Wars: The Empire Strikes
Back
>> Ge> Just use tanks instead!
>>
It has been proven a tank in BT can have a real short life compered to a
mech. Mechs can take more damage and are much more mobile.
>> Just try it... You'll find out that even with a minimum range a PPC
>> shot point blank is very bad for your health (-8
>> (Actually, that's a nod to realism...)
>
>The clunky mech would probably not be able to bring it's weapons to bear
>on a small, fast moving target around it's feet. If it could, it would
>probably just blow it's own legs off.
Mechs can not shoot a targets in the same hex. But thats why it has feet
so it can step on things.
>
>> Ge> 3) Why is the back of EVERY mech a weak spot? Why can't they put a
>> Ge> plate of armour on it? DUH! That's like building a tank with a
hole in
>> Ge> the back!
>> Tanks are always weaker in the back and on top...
>
>A fifth as weak? I don't think so.
You may not THINK so, but the truth is a modern battletank has most of its
armor on the front, where most of the attacks come from. If a modern tank
hade equall armor on all sides it would be 1: to heavy to move faster than
2 miles per hour or 2: so thinly armored that most weapons would kill it.
>
>> You can have a 'Mech more armored in the back than in front...
>> It just won't last long next time it faces anything...
>
>IMHO - that is illogical and silly. There is no reason why a mech should
>not be able to have strong armour all around.
There certainly IS a reason why you cannot have equall armor all around,
as stated above weight, also mechs have a limit on how much armor they can
carry, and most people put the armor to the front where the enemy is. (or
should be)
>
>> Ge> 4) Why is pilot placed in such a vulnerable and exposed position?
>> Ge> Wouldn't the pilot be placed like BEHIND SOME ARMOUR, not just
glass?
>>
>> That could be discussed, but it's a balance thing.
>
>What you really mean is that there is no valid reason for it. If there
>was, surely you would have mentioned it?
>
>> Ge> 5) Why is the defensive technology (mainly armour) so vastly
superior
>> Ge> to offensive technology (weapons)? A heavily armoured mech needs
to be
>> Ge> plugged at for ages to gradually chip away all that armour.
>>
>> Because 1 shot 1 kill makes for an incredibly boring game.
>
>Ah, so are you saying there is no "realistic" or "logical" reason for
>it? And that it was made so purely for "game balance"? Then that is poor
>game design.
That is an opionion. Not a fact. Fact is if this where a realist game no
one would live very long and THAT would be a poor game design.
>
>And besides, shoot back and forth continually until someone's armour is
>finally chipped away makes for an incredibly boring game.
That sounds like an opinion of someone who has not played the game.
>
>> Ge> 6) Why are missiles/rockets PATHETICALLY WEAK??? In either real
life,
>> Ge> or any other Sci-fi genre I know about, missiles and rockets
always
>> Ge> pack a mean punch. In battletech, you spew vast quantities of them
to
>> Ge> ping off the opponent's armour.
>>
>> Because Real Life rockets are a hell of a lot bigger (proportionnally)
>> than the BTech ones... (Try an Arrow IV on for size...)
>> The SRM's and LRM's are fairly small, originally unguided weapons.
>
>And...? Why _aren't_ there larger missiles in this _realistic_ game?
Ever hear of antimissle systems? 1 large missile can be shot down. 20
missles are difficult to stop.
Who said that is a flaw? This is not realism this is a game. You want
realisim go to Bosnia and see what happens in a real war.
>
>>
>> Ge> "That's right", you may say, "Battletech _isn't_ meant to simulate
>> Ge> anime." But then why has battletech got all those robotech mechs
in
>> Ge> it?? The exact same designs, etc. I think the Btech "phoenix" is a
>> Ge> veritech fighter, and the "marauder" is a zentraedi battle pod.
There
>> Ge> are numerous others.
>>
>> Because they made very nice pictures.
>
>Fair enough. They do make very nice pictures (I love robotech :)
>
>> Ge> So - Battletech doesn't simulate reality, nor does it simulate the
>> Ge> anime genre. What the hell is it trying to do? Simulate it's own
>> Ge> bizarre universe where FTL travel is common, but people duke it
out in
>> Ge> clunky behemoths that overheat>>
Why cannot some one make something new? Why dose the game have to BE
anything else but what it is? Copying is easy. Trying to do something new
is harder.
>> Exactly... A universe where centuries of warfare trashed the
ressources
>> required to re-build those...
>> It's not much sillier than many a premise...
>
>Well, IMHO, it IS a very silly premise. Especially since the game is
>supposed to be realistic. Besides, if the BTech universe has such a lack
>of resources, why are clans so willing to destroy mechs? All that trial
>by combat stuff where they weed out their OWN mechwarriors and mechs.
>Strangely though, the BTech universe has _plenty_ of resources for
>interstellar travel - something that has to be orders of magnitude more
>resource hungry than a some walking tanks.
Who said that intersteler travel was common in the BT universe? It is not,
most people NEVER leave their homeworlds. Only the military, and big
buisness have "easy" intersteller transport. The situation is rather
similar to the 1880's (that history to you) And jumpships (befor the tech
revival) where many times 200 years old, the IS produced maybe 20 a year
in TOTAL.
As for the Clans they are NOT from the IS, and do not follow its rules as
they do not have any problems with prodouction. As for Clan society read
the books and find out WHY they are the way they are. sm
>> And far les ridiculous than an FBI agent that can't be killed in a
>> non-suspicious manner.
>
>I might agree with this if I knew what you were referring to. Is it the
>X-files?
>
>
There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
Ken
On 19 Oct 1996, Casey Stout wrote:
> > Hmmm. It seems a vast inconsistency in technology to be able to have a
> > fusion reactor in a mech, be able to shield the pilot from any harmful
> > radiations, but not be able to dissipate heat so that it is not a
> > concern. How advanced is a heat sink?
>
> one thing about Fusion reactions is that they give off no radiation
> as we know caused by Fission reactions. protection from heat on the
> other hand....
>
There is some minimal(relatively) from incidental fission that takes
place...but your correct, nothing like a fission reactor.
Ken'
Jonathan R Bezeau
nobwit (nob...@iap.net.au) wrote:
: sla...@magi.com wrote:
: >
: >
: > Greetings...
: Hi.
: > Nope... On a fusion-powered machine using energy weapons, it's a
: > very real concern.(And tanks do get uncomfortably hot...)
: Hmmm. It seems a vast inconsistency in technology to be able to have a
: fusion reactor in a mech, be able to shield the pilot from any harmful
: radiations, but not be able to dissipate heat so that it is not a
: concern. How advanced is a heat sink?
: OK, what about projectile weapons - surely an _advanced_ weapon would
: generate negligible heat? Sure, a tank gun would heat up with frequent
: use, but could the resulting heat buildup cause the tank to shutdown or
: trigger and ammo explosion? No.
In BT's defence, the mecha are supposedly hurling 1000's of 120mm shells
in each AC/10 burst. I'm really surprised how little this affects a .2
ton elemental :)
: > Just try it... You'll find out that even with a minimum range a PPC
: > shot point blank is very bad for your health (-8
: > (Actually, that's a nod to realism...)
: The clunky mech would probably not be able to bring it's weapons to bear
: on a small, fast moving target around it's feet. If it could, it would
: probably just blow it's own legs off.
Also depends on the sixe of the weapon. LB-20X cluster is a great way to
rack up leg crits on yourself if trying to shoot an elemental between
your feet.
: > Ge> 3) Why is the back of EVERY mech a weak spot? Why can't they put a
: > Ge> plate of armour on it? DUH! That's like building a tank with a hole in
: > Ge> the back!
: > Tanks are always weaker in the back and on top...
: A fifth as weak? I don't think so.
More to the point, is is strong enough to keep out a good shot? Usually
no. It can bounce most weapons once, and that's just about all it takes
to get you turned around and fighting the more dire enemy. Of course,
where backshots are so common (unlike tank warfare) it's probably Not a
Good Thing to expect only one back hit per battle.
: > You can have a 'Mech more armored in the back than in front...
: > It just won't last long next time it faces anything...
: IMHO - that is illogical and silly. There is no reason why a mech should
: not be able to have strong armour all around.
Put strong armor all around. If it's not strong enough make the mech
heavier. If that still doesn't work, invest in Heavy Gear (mecha version
of nirvana) or Mekton.
: > Ge> 4) Why is pilot placed in such a vulnerable and exposed position?
: > Ge> Wouldn't the pilot be placed like BEHIND SOME ARMOUR, not just glass?
: >
: > That could be discussed, but it's a balance thing.
: What you really mean is that there is no valid reason for it. If there
: was, surely you would have mentioned it?
The guy still needs a window. That's the story. You can only slap 9
points of armor glass in there before you can't see through the window
anymore.
: > Because 1 shot 1 kill makes for an incredibly boring game.
: Ah, so are you saying there is no "realistic" or "logical" reason for
: it? And that it was made so purely for "game balance"? Then that is poor
: game design.
: And besides, shoot back and forth continually until someone's armour is
: finally chipped away makes for an incredibly boring game.
You sound ready for Heavy Gear. Sure it doesn't look like Robotech, but
it can fight a WHOLE LOT like it.
: > Because Real Life rockets are a hell of a lot bigger (proportionnally)
: > than the BTech ones... (Try an Arrow IV on for size...)
: > The SRM's and LRM's are fairly small, originally unguided weapons.
: And...? Why _aren't_ there larger missiles in this _realistic_ game?
Try Thunderbolt missiles (20 points, baby!) or Arrow (5 maps range, baby!)
: I take it these high tech mechs only have crosshairs then...no such
: things as computer aided targetting and so forth?
All their barrels are warped with the heat, you see... (try HG)
: > They're an excellent bunch...
: > Give any example of those... Go ahead, I dare ya (-8
: As soon as you answer my questions (including the ones you didn't
: quote), I will. Go ahead, I dare ya :)
*whistles for ref* Is turnabout fair play?
: > Soooo ??
: Soooo, why was such an obvious flaw put into the game?
This ISN'T a flaw. Just because something isn't exactly like Robotech
doesn't make it total crap (there are lots of OTHER reasons for that)...
Not getting killed in a single shot is fairly normal for armored combat
nowadays, at least until they come up with something that can crack the
hide of a M1A1 tank. Those can't even kill EACHOTHER!@
: > Because they made very nice pictures.
: Fair enough. They do make very nice pictures (I love robotech :)
Perhaps too much. But just in case: I'm Roy Fokker. No, really.
: Well, IMHO, it IS a very silly premise. Especially since the game is
: supposed to be realistic.
Actually, I found the premise the nicest thing about the game. Sure it's
not totally realistic, but it sure made GREAT atmosphere. That's gone though.
: > And far les ridiculous than an FBI agent that can't be killed in a
: > non-suspicious manner.
: I might agree with this if I knew what you were referring to. Is it the
: X-files?
??
--
Jonboy: the Signature -- collect all 35!
These opinions are not those of the University of Guelph.
In the extremely unlikely event that they are, I'd like to congradulate
myself beforehand and thank all the little people that made it possible.
nobwit
John M Atkinson wrote:
>
> Regarding Pilot vulnerability, check a reputable history of the Israeli
> Defense Forces, the world's premier armored warriors. Notice then, that
> the vast majority of their casualties are Tank Commanders who fight
> unbuttoned (with 1/2 their body exposed out the top hatch).
In other words, it's not the tank's design that exposes the pilot, but
the pilot's own doing.
> Humans need
> to see what they fight, and the solution of just surrounding the pilot
> with armor and letting the "sensors" provide all his information is
> neither psychologically nor tactically sound.
It is perfectly sound - a camera (or lots of them) can easily provide
visual information about the surroundings. It is quite reasonable (IMHO)
to assume that in the future, sensors can provide us with the input we
need, while we remain (more or less) safely protected.
> As far as back armor goes, if you knew as much about modern warfare as the
> frequent references to it would lead us to believe
No need to get personal. I have never claimed to know anything about
modern warfare - in fact my gripes are with battletech which is warfare
in the 32nd century.
> , you'd know that the
> rear of a tank is always much weaker than the glacis plate (front, for all
> you whiners about reality that wouldn't know a tank if one parked in your
> yard.)
Don't have a yard :)
BTW - I'm not "whining" about reality. I'm "whining" about the game
design of battletech, which is something very far removed from reality.
Forgive me for daring to question your favourite game.
nobwit
Bill McHale wrote:
>
> Ah, but they do have technology to handle the heat buildup, it just can't
> keep up when a mech is pushed beyond its design limits. Remeber the heat
So a mech is not designed to conduct sustained fire from it's weapons
for more than a few seconds? I've lost track of how many mech designs
I've seen that would blow up due to overheating in about 3 rounds if
they fired all their weapons. A weapon is an isolated unit - if it
overheats it should not cause the mech to shutdown. A modern car that is
functioning properly will not overheat even after hours of sustained
use. Mount some weapons on that car and it still will not overheat -
though it's possible an individual weapon will.
Anyway - my point is not that weapons and such would NOT generate heat,
it is that advanced technology would easily be able to deal with heat
buildup - to the point where heat is not a consideration.
> the reactor and the weapons have to disapate is enormous. Heck even
> modern tanks can overheat if pushed too far. Try taking the govenor off
> the M1, running it at 65-70mph and firing the main gun as fast as it can
> be loaded. I but it will get hotter than hadies in the crew compartments,
> and the engine will overheat as well.
Would it? And this would be after operating at maximum for how long?
> If you think about it modern
> reactors are made up of a little bit of fissionable material and then a
> whole lot of additional items to control the heat buildup and they even
> they fail sometimes (can anyone say Chernobyl of Three Mile Island?).
Battletech is supposed to be in the 32nd century.
> So while you may not like it, I don't think that it is an unjustifiable
> design decision.
Fair enough.
> : Hmmm. They kind of come across as really slow, unwieldy mostrosities.
>
> Well even a 3025 Atlas could make 52 kph, as much as many tanks, and newer
> or smaller mechs can move considerably faster.
Yeah, but their manoeuvrability stinks.
> : Fair enough, but I don't believe tank armour on the back is a fifth as
> : strong as on the front - which is the case with many of the mech
> : designs.
>
> Depends on the tank and its use. With the DU inserts on the M1 (which
> only cover the front and front flanks iirc) I would argue that its rear
> armor might be close to 1/5 of its front.
It is? Hmmm, surprising. I'm sure that if a vehicle was likely to be
subjected to attacks from the rear, then rear armour would be made up to
scratch.
> : Yeah...but it still doesn't answer the question as to why the pilots
> : aren't behind some proper armour. In the battletech universe, the pilots
> : are incredibly vulnerable and exposed.
>
> Actually it is not all that bad. I was doing some calculations on that
> and a head hit will occur roughly 1/36 hits, compared to the center torse
> which I believe gets hit about 1/6 times, so in other words while the 9
> armor makes the head the weakest part on most heavy mechs, the pilot is as
> safe there as he would be in the chest provided that area has less than 54
> armor on the front.
The fact that head hits are so rare in Battletech is just another silly
rule - given the apparent size and location of a mech's head. A
childishly simply targetting system, or even plain _aim_ would be able
to pop those mech's heads off in an instant.
> : In any realistic sense, defensive technology has never been so superior
> : to offensive technology. As to whether it will be that way....it seems
> : highly unlikely to say the least. A weapon can concentrate all it's
> : energy on one single point. Armour has to protect an entire area.
>
> Actually during the 13th century before the invention of gunpowder seige
> guns, castles (a decidedly defensive device) were far more effective than
> any of the weapons that can be turned against them. Further during the
> 13th-15th centuries the armor of Knights developed to the point where it
> was almost impossible to kill a knight in combat unless the knight was
> knoked down and a stilleto pushed through a joint in his armor or visor.
> The five and six hour long battles described in Mallory's Le Morte
> d'Arthur are not exageration but literal descriptions of what might be
> expected at the time.
Valid points, but I was really comparing offensive and defensive
technology for modern and/or futuristic weapons. Once gunpowder came
into being, armoured knights were phased out.
> : But all the mech designs they give you _do_ have weak backs!!
>
> Yeah, but no is stopping you from designing your own versions.
That's true, but I shouldn't have to throw away all the mech designs
that came with the game and use only home-brew designs.
> : I have to disagree. I believe the game _was_ designed and meant to be
> : realistic.
>
> No if it was meant to be realistic they would have done a lot of research
> and determined how much damage modern weapons are capable of dishing out,
> not to mention missles, the physics of ground pressure...
A "realistic" game doesn't have to be scientifically perfect, it is
science fiction after all, so there has to be at least some technology
that is unachievable by today's standards. Battletech has had a _lot_ of
effort put into it to make it seem "realistic", but has too many
inconsistencies and silly ideas that just don't make sense.
> : Fair enough, but I don't believe that the original robotech mecha would
> : have weighed _anywhere_ near 100 tons. The veritechs would have weighed
> : about as much as a fighter plane, which is what, 5-10 tons? Having 100
> : ton mechs is another one of Battletech's ideas. The really large mecha
> : in robotech (like the "monster") had absolutely enormous feet, I suppose
> : to spread the weight around. Anyway, robotech follows the anime mecha
> : genre, which does not have as many ties to hard-core sci-fi realism as
> : battletech is supposed to.
>
> Actually the Veritechs ran close to 15 tons and the destroids up to thirty
> or forty tons, at least that is were Palladium puts them.
Do palladium's mecha stats correspond exactly to the anime series? Or
does it just decide on it's own stats (like Battletech) which may be
close of course, but not necessarily spot on.
nobwit
Jonathan R Bezeau wrote:
>
> nobwit (nob...@iap.net.au) wrote:
> : > Ge> 4) Why is pilot placed in such a vulnerable and exposed position?
> : > Ge> Wouldn't the pilot be placed like BEHIND SOME ARMOUR, not just glass?
> : >
> : > That could be discussed, but it's a balance thing.
>
> : What you really mean is that there is no valid reason for it. If there
> : was, surely you would have mentioned it?
>
> The guy still needs a window. That's the story. You can only slap 9
> points of armor glass in there before you can't see through the window
> anymore.
Yeah, but my point was, the pilot _shouldn't_ be behind glass, he should
be behind _armour_. In a tank you do not sit behind glass - neither
should you in a mech.
> : And...? Why _aren't_ there larger missiles in this _realistic_ game?
>
> Try Thunderbolt missiles (20 points, baby!) or Arrow (5 maps range, baby!)
Don't know about them - must be in some book I haven't bought.
Is 20 points that much anyway? For a large missile?
> : As soon as you answer my questions (including the ones you didn't
> : quote), I will. Go ahead, I dare ya :)
>
> *whistles for ref* Is turnabout fair play?
heh :)
>
> Actually, I found the premise the nicest thing about the game. Sure it's
> not totally realistic, but it sure made GREAT atmosphere. That's gone though.
I like atmosphere - but BTech's premise was silly - and sillyness can
really wreck atmosphere.
John M Atkinson
I see some people's idea of Armored Warfare was developed by playing
arcade games. See my other posts regarding Israeli Tank Commanders. To
elaborate, no electronics system is good enough to substitute for a Mk I
eyeball looking for lunatics with shoulder-fired missles. Therefor,
doctrine in the Israeli Army, and many others, is to ALWAYS have the TC
unbuttoned. That's one of the factors the Israelis credit for the edge
their tanks have, as opposed to the Arabs who, following Soviet doctrine
ALWAYS keep their TCs under armor. So he can't see out the pissy little
vision blocks (and I've driven an M-60 buttoned-up, they are no substitue
for hanging out the hatch) and gets killed by an Israeli who sees him
first. The US, as I understand (this is where I get tenative, I'm not a
tanker, I'm an engineer) has taken the middle ground by saying it's METT-T
dependant which is a fancy way of saying "we'll do what we feel like doing
when the time comes to do it." I vote people who've never seen a tank
refrain from making noise about how "real tanks today" operate.
T Jordan
Paul Brown (ac...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca) wrote: : : > 6) Why are
: When you think about it, a LRM20 has 6 rounds to the ton. Thats
: 120 missles/tonn not including loading mechanisms and the wieght of the bay
: itself. If you divide 2000 by 120 that equals to around 16.5 (I think). So
: and warheads. (Not to mention the casing)
: So what more can you expect from a 17 pound missle?
Actually, Btech uses METRIC tons.. it DOES help expalin somw of the
weights better, when that 75 ton Timberwolf is really about 90 standard
tons.. really, I expect most of the weight of loading systems, power
feeds, and targeting and such to be integral to the weapon. so with a 1
metric ton ammo bay, you're looking at 120 missiles of 8.3 kilo each, or
for SRMs, 10 kilo each.. tiny.. compare this to ArrowIV missiles.. 5 per
ton (I think, might be 6) 200 kilos per missile, or a good match for a
Maverick AGM. AGM.
: Besides, the enemy could counter your half decent targetting
: system with a half decent ECM system. (or jamming, whatever)
This is actually how I explain the shortshor tcombat ranges in Btech.. the
battlefiled's such an ECM-active enviornment, that anything useful is
basically limited to LOS at best.
Darwin
John M Atkinson
I'd like to clear up one point. BattleTech is not my favorite game. I
was driven to it in desperation, and found I enjoyed it. It is a good,
old, beer-and-pretzels style wargame in which the physics of Autocannons
is less important than having a good time. That's all.
My favorite game is Avalon Hill's Advanced Squad Leader. It is a
gloriously detailed simulation of tactical combat of World War II.
However, it has a manual which, for the basic module, is a notebook about
as thick as the BTC, 5 books of Mechsheets, BattleTroops, etc. combined.
I'm not including the various modules that covered, say the Western
Allies, the Pacific, Airborne operations, the Balkans, etc. Suffice it to
say that one cannot find opponents in a public high school for that, much
less junior high. And most wargame groups want nothing to do with anyone
under, say, 30. So, to get my fix of simulated mayhem, I learned to play
what my peers were playing, AD&D and BattleTech. I found them pleasant
ways to kill an afternoon having fun. Pleasant enough that now, in
college, I still enjoy dinking around with 100-ton war machines that
don't sink into the ground, and have transparent aluminum cockpits,
and auto cannons with less range than my M-16. This is the on-line
version of that experience. I know I've just offended someone, so I'll
shut up now and wait for the flames.
Tired of the Bitching.
Student
Nobwit wrote concerning mechs week back armor
> A fifth as weak? I don't think so.
Well, a LEO IIA5 will shrugh of a grenade from the new Panzerfaust III (120mm HEAT)
taken on it's front armor and recieve not much more than a dent in the side.
The same bugger on his back an boom goes the tin can.
And the good ole Leopard is still one of the best armored MBT's one can have (many
thing LeoIIA5 is the best)
To it might come down to 1/5. And remember, you can! give the back as much armor
as the front on a mech.
Michael Brinkhues
P.S. Wars will always be one by man with puny little rifles and dirty boots.
(Patton, I thing)
William E. Ward
In article <54dkea$r...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) writes:
> Casey Stout (cs1...@nyssa.swt.edu) wrote:
>
> : one thing about Fusion reactions is that they give off no radiation
> : as we know caused by Fission reactions. protection from heat on the
> : other hand....
>
> just different forms of radiation mind you) its just that the most
> dangerous types of radiation, are either absent or greatly reduced in
> fusion reactors.
>
> I thing what you are referring to was radioactive waste, and that is
> mostly true.
No, actually it's STILL not true. I worked in the Nuclear Field on the
dirty side (radioactively) long enough to know. A Fusion reaction would
give off huge amounts of Alpha radiation. But that's fine, we can handle
Alpha easily enough (Alpha is a bare Helium Nucleus at high energy). It will
give off limited Beta Radiation. Fine. It'll give off a good amount of
X radiation. Bad, but only while it's operating. X-rays don't cause lingering
problems to materials, and we CAN shield X-rays. If that's all you had to
worry about with a fusion reaction, it would be "clean" in that you could
easily build a shield of lead around the darn thing to block the X-rays, and
there would be no radioactive debris when you turn it off... give it an hour
and you have a nice clean (radioactively) environment. But!!!! One of the
inherent problems with ANY nuclear reaction is that you WILL release Neutron
radiation. Neutrons are given off BY DESIGN in a Fission reaction...
they help the reaction go in the core (if fact, they MAKE the fission
go in the core) but once outside the core, they have the nasty habit
of being absorbed by the material around the core. And, doing what
Alchemists of ancient times dreamed of, it transmutes the atoms of
those materials, frequently into unstable isotopes. That's FACT. When
the first Fission reactors were being built, no one thought of this.
The first Commercial Reactor was at Chalk River, and when this sludge
was found, it was called Chalk River Unknown Deposits (CRUD) (no joke!)
because it was highly radioactive, and nobody knew where it was coming
from for a while. This is the BIGGEST piece of the material we call
Radioactive Waste. Fusion will create free neutrons, it's attempting to
slam hydrogen nuclei with additional neutrons together to form Helium.
The most likely technique will be to use H2+H2->He3+Neutron (He4 would be
cleaner, but only at a MUCH higher density/temperature threshold). So where
will the neutron's go? Into activating the construction materials, ie.,
the equipment that you use to do the reaction. It's dirtier, short term,
but most of that decays in weeks. Co60 is the biggest problem, and that
is considered "gone" in about 26 years. That's still a long time for
a person, but it's "Clean" for nuclear (BTW, the criteria is 5 half
lives, and the half live for Co60 is 5.27 years). Just setting the
record STRAIGHT!
--
William Ward
The Rare Mech Times
http://www.cs.odu.edu/~ward_w/btech.html
John M Atkinson
If only physicists were allowed to argue about the physics of the game,
this world would be a better place.
History major that almost flunked high school physics.
Paul Brown
T Jordan (ent...@phish.nether.net) wrote:
: Paul Brown (ac...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca) wrote: : : > 6) Why are
: Actually, Btech uses METRIC tons.. it DOES help expalin somw of the
: weights better, when that 75 ton Timberwolf is really about 90 standard
: tons.. really, I expect most of the weight of loading systems, power
: feeds, and targeting and such to be integral to the weapon. so with a 1
: metric ton ammo bay, you're looking at 120 missiles of 8.3 kilo each, or
: for SRMs, 10 kilo each.. tiny.. compare this to ArrowIV missiles.. 5 per
: ton (I think, might be 6) 200 kilos per missile, or a good match for a
: Maverick AGM. AGM.
Well, whatever (the tonnes I mentioned are the only ones I knew)
Anyway, when you think about it... a 120th of tonne, doing the equivelant
of 16th of a tonne of damage is a pretty fair ratio. (120 being an LRM
and 16 being armour)
------------------][-----------------][------------------][------------------
"One of your recon lancemates bit the big one? Why buy a shovel when you can
use a Highlander?" -Promotional slogan for revived production of Star
League Designs.... Browner Industries, BrownerLand......
"http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ac719/index.html"
CEO of Browner Industries.... Paul Brown "ac...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca"
-----------------][------------------][------------------][------------------
Paul Brown
: > : And...? Why _aren't_ there larger missiles in this _realistic_ game?
: >
: > Try Thunderbolt missiles (20 points, baby!) or Arrow (5 maps range, baby!)
: Don't know about them - must be in some book I haven't bought.
: Is 20 points that much anyway? For a large missile?
Their in the cheese book (tactical handbook.)
Is 20 points a lot? Its the single greatest damage that any one
shot can do.... (an ultra ac/20 can do more damage but then its two shots!)
That guy in the corner
> > : 5) Why is the defensive technology (mainly armour) so vastly superior to
> > : offensive technology (weapons)? A heavily armoured mech needs to be
> >
> > Well that is a design decision, and it is possible that ablative armor
> > will be as effective as they say it is. Though on the other hand, giving
> > it the ability to resist gauss rifles also made it vulnerable to machine
> > guns so you decide how advanced it is.
>
> to offensive technology. As to whether it will be that way....it seems
> highly unlikely to say the least. A weapon can concentrate all it's
> energy on one single point. Armour has to protect an entire area.
Well, a section doesn't HAVE to be heavily armored. Any section can from
0 to double the area's internal value. It's just that designers wanted
heavy armor. The trade-off is that with less armor tonnage, you can pick
up heavier weapons. Think Jagermech; to max out it's armor you would
have to entirely remove an AC/2 or remove an AC/5 and replace it with
only 2 tons of equipment. Keeping its armor low was one way to get it
the desired(?) weapons complement. An Atlas could add an LRM-15 plus 2
tons ammo by dropping 9 tons of armor. Or add a PPC for only 7, giving
it stil 12 tons of armor.
> > They do not have to have weak backs. As far as I know there are no
> > eforced limits on rear armor. Sure the sheets don't give you that many
> > spaces, but that is because it is assumed that most mech designers are
> > going to put most of their armor in the front of the mech.
>
> But all the mech designs they give you _do_ have weak backs!!
Because it's assumed that most of your fighting will take place in the
front. Also, if you're going to make a mod that loses some armor, where
would you rather take it? In an area where there shouldn't be many shots
hitting; and if you're getting hit in ther back, change your strategy.
> > : In Robotech, it is a common occurrence to see a mech blown away with one
> > : shot or missile - in battletech, there is no way this can happen (except
> > : via lucky head shots - even though the head of a mech is so big it would
> > : be child's play to blow it away any time you liked if you had HALF
> > : decent targetting systems).
It looks like the head is huge, but how much of that is actual Head
armor, and how much is torso? Look at the Archer and Marauder.
According to Btech, the head of the Archer is that little panel in
front. Everything else is CT. On the MAD, again that little nodule in
the front is head. The rest is supposed to be CT. It's hard to tell
sometimes where one area stops and another begins.
> Fair enough, but I don't believe that the original robotech mecha would
> have weighed _anywhere_ near 100 tons. The veritechs would have weighed
> about as much as a fighter plane, which is what, 5-10 tons? Having 100
> ton mechs is another one of Battletech's ideas. The really large mecha
> in robotech (like the "monster") had absolutely enormous feet, I suppose
> to spread the weight around. Anyway, robotech follows the anime mecha
> genre, which does not have as many ties to hard-core sci-fi realism as
> battletech is supposed to.
The last time I piloted a Veritech, it weighed in thre area of 23 tons.
That's more than they're rated for in Btech. Of course, the Gladiator
weighed 27 tons, much lower than the Btech equivalent.
That guy in the corner
dusting off the old
Palladium books
Student
George wrote
>3) Why is the back of EVERY mech a weak spot? Why can't they put a plate
>of armour on it? DUH! That's like building a tank with a hole in the
>back!
Well, a lot of tanks have!! a hole in the back. It is commonly known as an exhaust grill.
All modern tanks are most heavyly armored in the front, weaker at the sides and their
weakest armor is in the back, due to the engine placement and the idea of a tank as a
giant cavalry horse.
Oh, and don't get hit on your top side. The armor there isn't much more than
shrappnel proof
>4) Why is pilot placed in such a vulnerable and exposed position?
>Wouldn't the pilot be placed like BEHIND SOME ARMOUR, not just glass? (I
>know, it's probably armoured plastic or whatever, but in BTECH, you can
>have ONLY 9 points of armour on the head). DUH AGAIN! This is too stupid
>for words! It's like building a tank, and putting the pilot in a wicker
>chair strapped to the top! Are modern tanks built like that? Of course
>not.
Well, the pilot er. driver has one of the best armored working places in the tank. But
the commander sits in the turret, which is lighter in armor than the tanks body, due
to the need of a low center of mass. And the periscopes on a modern tank (LeoII, M1A2)
can't withstand a snipers bullet, while the periscope tupes can. And snipers can hit
them as an experiment at the german KTS Munster prooved. Plus the riochetting bullet can
kill personel inside the tank.
>6) Why are missiles/rockets PATHETICALLY WEAK??? In either real life, or
>any other Sci-fi genre I know about, missiles and rockets always pack a
>mean punch. In battletech, you spew vast quantities of them to ping off
>the opponent's armour.
Modern MBT's can withstand their own main gun across their front. Same is due for most
anti tank rockets with the exception of Hellfire or Maveric. Plus BattleTech states
that target and stabilisation systems are down because of the technological decline. So
mechs settle on a huge volume of fire to achive at least some hits. Same idea was used
by most tanks in WWII, fire as quick as you can and hope you hit the enemy first.
See some reports on early tank battles (1941/42) on the eastern front.
To achive and hold up this volume of fire, you have to use small missiles. As an average
LRM weights less than 9kg (a TOW ATGM weights 16), including the rather primitive
guidance (most ATGM of today have their guidance system in the launcher and are controlled
by wire). So the BT missiles aren't that weak.
>1) Why is heat such a major concern? Do modern tanks overheat? I cannot
>believe that one of the prime concerns for a pilot of the most advanced
>fighting vehicle ever devised, is overheating. The very concept is
>absurd.
Three things to remember:
a) Modern tanks do get warm, when they keep their engine running and their hatches closed.
This is why they mostly drive with hatches open and switch of the main engine when
possible. If you ever get the chance look at a modern MBT, expecially an Abrahms, through
an IR-scope. I've done so. Looks like a torch
b) Unlike modern tanks who use diesel engines or gas turbines, a mech uses a fusion!!
reactor. And these things produce a lot of heat. This is one of the problems that
currently hampers the development of fusion reactors. And heat is energy and energy
must go somewhere.
c) A mech is a completly sealed system, strong enough to withstand vakuum and high pressure
(they can dive at least 50 Meters deep). That means, there will be far less heat
exchange than with current vehicles.
>2) Why are mechs such clunky, unwieldy monstrosities? All people would
>have to do is what they did in the Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back -
>tie a line around their legs, and they would topple to the ground! If
>mechs turned out to be that way - noone would have ever used them! Just
>use tanks instead!
All you have to do to stop a tank is flooding a field (as the dutch did in WWII). Or drop
a few buildings in its path. Or take it into a swamp. a heavily wooded area, an area with
a lot of small canals...
As a trained infantry man (German Bundeswehr) I know at least half a dozend environments
that can stop or slow down a tank. And all of them can easily be found no farther then
100 km from my home in Westfalia. So modern tanks aren't that good either.
Sure some of these buggers can dive (M1A2 can't) but they need a ramp to get down.
They can drop trees, but it slows them down. A mech could just walk down a channel (its
only about 3 meters deep), still capabel of fighting (a tank can't, his gun's submerged)
And they have a neural link. So if a man can keep on his feet while entangled, they can too. And as a last point, imagine a cabel strong enough to hold/entangle a 20--100 to walker.
In the very end:
This is a game!!
Its rules and ideas are there to make it easy and funny to play
Michael Brinkhues
John M Atkinson
Finally, an intelligent comment on tanks. Although I'll nominate the
latest Merkva version as the most heavily armored. Not the best, (I
prefer the M1A2 digitized version as fielded by the 4th Infantry) but
certaintly heavily armored.
Jonathan R Bezeau
nobwit (nob...@iap.net.au) wrote:
: So a mech is not designed to conduct sustained fire from it's weapons
: for more than a few seconds? I've lost track of how many mech designs
: I've seen that would blow up due to overheating in about 3 rounds if
: they fired all their weapons. A weapon is an isolated unit - if it
: overheats it should not cause the mech to shutdown. A modern car that is
: functioning properly will not overheat even after hours of sustained
: use. Mount some weapons on that car and it still will not overheat -
: though it's possible an individual weapon will.
Think of it this way: when you fire a weapon forever and ever in BT, the
entire coolant system heats the mech up gradually (and can STILL overheat
and blow up etc...) rather than the weapon suffering all the effects of
its own heat. I think the typical BT weapon would blow itself sky-high if
not hooked up to some coolant system. This isn't necessarily a good
thing, but it makes a passing attempt at explaining the world.
: Anyway - my point is not that weapons and such would NOT generate heat,
: it is that advanced technology would easily be able to deal with heat
: buildup - to the point where heat is not a consideration.
Try installing a proper number of heatsinks on a mech. That does it...
But most mechs trade off that 100% heatsinking capability for enough
sinks to USUALLY handle the expected firing and then just trust the
pilot. Saves money, frees up tonnage, etc etc. Basically (like a tank)
you can fire your main guns until you turn blue. It won't matter. If you
over-tax your system though, you call the forces of hell upon your mech.
Not plesant. Especially rifleman ammo booms.
: Would it? And this would be after operating at maximum for how long?
Do you know?
: > Well even a 3025 Atlas could make 52 kph, as much as many tanks, and newer
: > or smaller mechs can move considerably faster.
: Yeah, but their manoeuvrability stinks.
Well, YOU try weighing 100 tons, only having a rudimentary second-hand
sense of balance and a 225mm autocanon spitting a couple thousand rounds
a minute off of your left hip. There's not a lot of maneuverability no
matter how good you are.
(this explains it nicely for the Atlas... not the Stinger. I know that.)
: It is? Hmmm, surprising. I'm sure that if a vehicle was likely to be
: subjected to attacks from the rear, then rear armour would be made up to
: scratch.
Well, mechs are hit from behind far more often than tanks. Fair
criticism, though in the interests of armor concentration, I'm happy
enough with armor on my back that can stop any single attack and let me
turn around and deal with it...
: The fact that head hits are so rare in Battletech is just another silly
: rule - given the apparent size and location of a mech's head. A
: childishly simply targetting system, or even plain _aim_ would be able
: to pop those mech's heads off in an instant.
Yeah. The Mechwarrior computer game proved that :)
: Valid points, but I was really comparing offensive and defensive
: technology for modern and/or futuristic weapons. Once gunpowder came
: into being, armoured knights were phased out.
But look at the M1 tanks, that won't be seriously (if at all) hurt by
just about any weapon (barring battleship-type guns) that nail it in the
frontal plates. However, the back is a different issue. Strangely enough,
that's a lot like a mech...
: That's true, but I shouldn't have to throw away all the mech designs
: that came with the game and use only home-brew designs.
Valid.
: A "realistic" game doesn't have to be scientifically perfect, it is
: science fiction after all, so there has to be at least some technology
: that is unachievable by today's standards. Battletech has had a _lot_ of
: effort put into it to make it seem "realistic", but has too many
: inconsistencies and silly ideas that just don't make sense.
:)
If you think THAT's bad, look at the cartoon series. Suspension of
disbelief? No way...
: Do palladium's mecha stats correspond exactly to the anime series? Or
: does it just decide on it's own stats (like Battletech) which may be
: close of course, but not necessarily spot on.
Do you have stats for the Anime series vehicles? And remember that a
Tomcat fighter is 20 tons too.
--
Jonboy: the Signature -- collect all 35!
In unrelated news today, a University of Guelph student gnawed off his own
leg in order to avoid starving to death in the cafeteria line up.
Run run, wherever you may be/"I am the Lord of the Flies" said he/...
Ken
On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, nobwit wrote:
> Jonathan R Bezeau wrote:
> >
> > nobwit (nob...@iap.net.au) wrote:
> > : > Ge> 4) Why is pilot placed in such a vulnerable and exposed position?
> > : > Ge> Wouldn't the pilot be placed like BEHIND SOME ARMOUR, not just glass?
> > : >
> > : > That could be discussed, but it's a balance thing.
> >
> > : What you really mean is that there is no valid reason for it. If there
> > : was, surely you would have mentioned it?
> >
> > The guy still needs a window. That's the story. You can only slap 9
> > points of armor glass in there before you can't see through the window
> > anymore.
>
> Yeah, but my point was, the pilot _shouldn't_ be behind glass, he should
> be behind _armour_. In a tank you do not sit behind glass - neither
> should you in a mech.
>
Tank commanders can't see much, they just have a little hole in the armor
to look out of. I think the gunner had a screen to see where he's firing,
but that's the only direction he can fire.
> > : And...? Why _aren't_ there larger missiles in this _realistic_ game?
> >
> > Try Thunderbolt missiles (20 points, baby!) or Arrow (5 maps range, baby!)
>
> Don't know about them - must be in some book I haven't bought.
> Is 20 points that much anyway? For a large missile?
>
That'll just about take out a light mech no matter where it hits.
Ken'
Ken
On 21 Oct 1996, William E. Ward wrote:
> In article <54dkea$r...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) writes:
> > Casey Stout (cs1...@nyssa.swt.edu) wrote:
> >
> > : one thing about Fusion reactions is that they give off no radiation
> > : as we know caused by Fission reactions. protection from heat on the
> > : other hand....
> >
> > Sorry, fusion reactors do in fact give off radiation (light and heat are
> > just different forms of radiation mind you) its just that the most
> > dangerous types of radiation, are either absent or greatly reduced in
> > fusion reactors.
> >
> > I thing what you are referring to was radioactive waste, and that is
> > mostly true.
>
> No, actually it's STILL not true. I worked in the Nuclear Field on the
> dirty side (radioactively) long enough to know. A Fusion reaction would
> give off huge amounts of Alpha radiation. But that's fine, we can handle
> Alpha easily enough (Alpha is a bare Helium Nucleus at high energy). It will
Heh, unless you've snorted Pu dust and it's decaying inside of you. :)
Yeah, alpha doesn't penerate much, but I can't remember if a fusion rxn
gives off much gamma radiation. Isn't it minimal? That stuff goes
through just about anything.
Ken'
Dave RoaE Mescher
nobwit (nob...@iap.net.au) wrote:
: So a mech is not designed to conduct sustained fire from it's weapons
: for more than a few seconds? I've lost track of how many mech designs
: I've seen that would blow up due to overheating in about 3 rounds if
: they fired all their weapons. A weapon is an isolated unit - if it
: overheats it should not cause the mech to shutdown. A modern car that is
- heat dizziness of the pilot.
- targeting callibration ssytems expanding and getting off target
-extra resistance in electronics systems, possibly making some
of them act funny.
Heat buildup is caused by the heat sinks becoming overloaded. The sinks
can only dissipate so much heat. The heat sinks are needed, because
the weapons themselves can't dissipate enough heat as it is.
: functioning properly will not overheat even after hours of sustained
: use. Mount some weapons on that car and it still will not overheat -
: though it's possible an individual weapon will.
Heat sinks are to prevent the individual weapons from overheating, so they
can be fired more rapidly.
And to help dissipate the heat from the reactor when it's heat buildup
increase when more power is required.
: Anyway - my point is not that weapons and such would NOT generate heat,
: it is that advanced technology would easily be able to deal with heat
: buildup - to the point where heat is not a consideration.
: > the reactor and the weapons have to disapate is enormous. Heck even
: > modern tanks can overheat if pushed too far. Try taking the govenor off
: > the M1, running it at 65-70mph and firing the main gun as fast as it can
: > be loaded. I but it will get hotter than hadies in the crew compartments,
: > and the engine will overheat as well.
: Would it? And this would be after operating at maximum for how long?
: > If you think about it modern
: > reactors are made up of a little bit of fissionable material and then a
: > whole lot of additional items to control the heat buildup and they even
: > they fail sometimes (can anyone say Chernobyl of Three Mile Island?).
: Battletech is supposed to be in the 32nd century.
And they are using fusion reactors with magnetic containment. However,
fusion reactors are ungodly hot.
: > So while you may not like it, I don't think that it is an unjustifiable
: > design decision.
: Fair enough.
--
Dave Mescher dmes...@csugrad.cs.vt.edu
COMMERCIAL SOLICITATIONS ARE NOT WELCOME AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. ANY
COMMERCIAL SOLICITATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED HARRASSMENT.
Student
>Valid points, but I was really comparing offensive and defensive
>technology for modern and/or futuristic weapons. Once gunpowder came
>into being, armoured knights were phased out.
They were not phased out because gun powder made them obsolete. The
plate armor of late was capabel of withstanding musket bullets. It even
was tested against this by hanging it from a wooden puppet and firing
on it (thats harder for the armor than the real thing, as humans can be
compressed and help disipating energy). The main reason knights were
phased out was the move towards mass armees (Swiss Helebardiers et all)
who could be raised chaeply and defeat the knight. Read about the Maltese
Knights. They defended Malta against attacks by cannon armed Muslim troops
and won!
Michael Brinkhues
John M Atkinson
And, dammit the view from the vision block is not good enough to fight the
vehicle in any real sense. I'm speaking as someone who's trained on the
Combat Engineer Vehicle (tank with the fighting compartment rebuilt, main
gun replaced, crane added, etc.) and the AVLB (Tank chassis with the
turret removed that carries a bridge).
nobwit
Student wrote:
>
> Modern MBT's can withstand their own main gun across their front. Same is due for most
> anti tank rockets with the exception of Hellfire or Maveric.
Interesting. I have been talking to a friend of mine who was driving
tanks in the army for a number of years. He says one direct hit from a
tank gun will knock out another tank - the main elements of tank battles
are tactics, ambushes, etc. so that you don't get hit first. He also
says that the tanks targetting systems were deadly - keeping the turret
pointed precisely at the target no matter how the tank itself bobbed up
and down or turned.
> All you have to do to stop a tank is flooding a field (as the dutch did in WWII). Or drop
> a few buildings in its path. Or take it into a swamp. a heavily wooded area, an area with
> a lot of small canals...
Fair enough. What about hovertanks? Would they be as restricted?
Probably wooded areas would still stuff them up. What if they had jump
jets?
> In the very end:
>
> This is a game!!
Indeed it is.
> Its rules and ideas are there to make it easy and funny to play
Fair enough.
nobwit
Paul Brown wrote:
>
> When you think about it, a LRM20 has 6 rounds to the ton. Thats
> 120 missles/tonn not including loading mechanisms and the wieght of the bay
> itself. If you divide 2000 by 120 that equals to around 16.5 (I think). So
> 16.5 pounds per long range missle. This includes the propellant, guidance
> and warheads. (Not to mention the casing)
> So what more can you expect from a 17 pound missle?
That was my point: why are the missiles so small? I agree that a 17
pound missile cannot be expected to do much - the question is why are
they using 17 pound missiles?? I would expect they would use missiles
that are large in proportion to the things they are designed to hit, ie.
mechs.
> Besides, the enemy could counter your half decent targetting
> system with a half decent ECM system. (or jamming, whatever)
For example, take a plain old howitzer style gun. A computer could
calculate the range to the target, the target's movement, and knowing
the weapon's ballistic stats, etc. could either paint a crosshair on
your HUD to say where to fire, or point the mech's arm in the exact
direction required. Of course nothing can predict with 100% certainty
just what your opponent will do next, so there is no guaranteed hit.
To me, when I look at pictures of mechs, alot of them seem to have VERY
large heads - much larger than a 1 in 36 chance would seem to imply. The
1 in 36 also seems to imply it is not possible to target any specific
part of a mech. Just my thoughts - nothing more.
nobwit
Jonathan R Bezeau wrote:
>
> Think of it this way: when you fire a weapon forever and ever in BT, the
> entire coolant system heats the mech up gradually (and can STILL overheat
> and blow up etc...) rather than the weapon suffering all the effects of
> its own heat. I think the typical BT weapon would blow itself sky-high if
> not hooked up to some coolant system. This isn't necessarily a good
> thing, but it makes a passing attempt at explaining the world.
That sounds like a good explanation - if only the game had said
something like that!
> : Anyway - my point is not that weapons and such would NOT generate heat,
> : it is that advanced technology would easily be able to deal with heat
> : buildup - to the point where heat is not a consideration.
>
> Try installing a proper number of heatsinks on a mech. That does it...
Yes - you CAN optimise mech designs, but an awful lot of them will
overheat _very_ quickly if used at full output (which is what they will
do in a battle situation).
> But most mechs trade off that 100% heatsinking capability for enough
> sinks to USUALLY handle the expected firing and then just trust the
> pilot. Saves money, frees up tonnage, etc etc. Basically (like a tank)
> you can fire your main guns until you turn blue. It won't matter. If you
> over-tax your system though, you call the forces of hell upon your mech.
> Not plesant. Especially rifleman ammo booms.
I agree with what you are saying - but in a battle situation you will
always use your maximum potential, and in doing so will invariably
overheat very very quickly.
> : Would it? And this would be after operating at maximum for how long?
>
> Do you know?
>
Nope. I was asking you.
> Well, YOU try weighing 100 tons, only having a rudimentary second-hand
> sense of balance and a 225mm autocanon spitting a couple thousand rounds
> a minute off of your left hip. There's not a lot of maneuverability no
> matter how good you are.
I agree with what you are saying. To me this would imply that such a
mech would not be used due to the very points you mention. And if it
were used, there would be simple ways to deal with such a monster. Then
I guess you could say that you should have smaller, faster mechs to
protect the big guns from being tripped up or whatever - that would be
fair enough. However in battletech, those big mechs are not at all more
vulnerable despite their bulk and clunkyness.
> : It is? Hmmm, surprising. I'm sure that if a vehicle was likely to be
> : subjected to attacks from the rear, then rear armour would be made up to
> : scratch.
>
> Well, mechs are hit from behind far more often than tanks. Fair
> criticism, though in the interests of armor concentration, I'm happy
> enough with armor on my back that can stop any single attack and let me
> turn around and deal with it...
Fair enough. I'm glad you see my point: that it _is_ a valid design to
have weaker armour on your back, but mechs would not be designed that
way if they were subjected to attacks from the rear with any great
frequency. And to ME, it seems that an atlas would be so slow and clunky
that it would be TOO EASY to hit it from behind (regardless of whether
or not the BTech rules make it like that).
> : The fact that head hits are so rare in Battletech is just another silly
> : rule - given the apparent size and location of a mech's head. A
> : childishly simply targetting system, or even plain _aim_ would be able
> : to pop those mech's heads off in an instant.
>
> Yeah. The Mechwarrior computer game proved that :)
That's exactly what I mean! Have you seen those mechs in the starting
sequence?? You know the one that comes to the rescue of that other one
with a damaged hip joint? You couldn't hit anything ELSE other than
their cockpit! It was practically the size of the whole torso!!
Did you also see how easily the mechs destroyed each other in that start
sequence?
BTW, I absolutely LOVE mechwarrior II - one of my favourite games.
(really!) But it does point out some inconsistencies of battletech.
> But look at the M1 tanks, that won't be seriously (if at all) hurt by
> just about any weapon (barring battleship-type guns) that nail it in the
> frontal plates.
Well quite honestly, that's news to me. I have been told by a friend who
used to drive tanks in the army, that one direct hit and it's game over.
They must have used different tanks.
> : That's true, but I shouldn't have to throw away all the mech designs
> : that came with the game and use only home-brew designs.
>
> Valid.
>
> : A "realistic" game doesn't have to be scientifically perfect, it is
> : science fiction after all, so there has to be at least some technology
> : that is unachievable by today's standards. Battletech has had a _lot_ of
> : effort put into it to make it seem "realistic", but has too many
> : inconsistencies and silly ideas that just don't make sense.
>
> :)
> If you think THAT's bad, look at the cartoon series. Suspension of
> disbelief? No way...
Heh heh :) I like the battle sequences - I think they LOOK great! They
seem to miss an awful lot though....:)
> Do you have stats for the Anime series vehicles? And remember that a
> Tomcat fighter is 20 tons too.
Is it really? I didn't know that. At a guess I would have said around
5-10 tons.
nobwit
Samuel Fang wrote:
>
> >Hmmm. It seems a vast inconsistency in technology to be able to have a
> >fusion reactor in a mech, be able to shield the pilot from any harmful
> >radiations, but not be able to dissipate heat so that it is not a
> >concern. How advanced is a heat sink?
>
> a temp of 2 million degrees (hell if I know). Dissipate that with
> your box fan.
The point is not that a fusion reactor does NOT produce heat - but that
if you have the technology to HAVE a fusion reactor in a mech in the
first place, you would expect (well, _I_ would) that they would be able
to deal with the heat buildup.
> >OK, what about projectile weapons - surely an _advanced_ weapon would
> >generate negligible heat? Sure, a tank gun would heat up with frequent
> >use, but could the resulting heat buildup cause the tank to shutdown or
> >trigger and ammo explosion? No.
>
> One word: friction.
> YOU get a big ass projectile moving down a tight barrell with a
> (presumably) smokeless powder. For Lord's sake, an M60 (the machine
> gun) runs damn hot, and it's only a 7.62mm!! What about your big
> guns? If you run by Solaris rules (speeded up time, smaller hexes)
> you have some cannon firing 24 shots a minute!!! That's a wee bit
> faster than any tank cannon _I've_ heard of.
I agree with what you are saying. Once again: I am not claiming weapons
do not make heat. I have been told by people in the army that a squad
will always carry a couple of extra barrels for the m60 machine gun -
because the barrels get so hot they can melt! The point is that a
hi-tech mech should (IMHO) be able to HANDLE the heat - to the point
where heat buildup is not a concern.
> >The clunky mech would probably not be able to bring it's weapons to bear
> >on a small, fast moving target around it's feet. If it could, it would
> >probably just blow it's own legs off.
>
> Ok. They're ugly. Deal with it. They are _military equipment_!!!
> Name me a sexy war machine (no planes). There are several (a lot,
> depending on your taste), but they were not designed with that in
> mind. Work first. Look pretty is _way_ down the list.
Sure they're ugly. But that's not what I was getting at. I was talking
about it's lack of manouuvrability and general clunky-ness.
> >And besides, shoot back and forth continually until someone's armour is
> >finally chipped away makes for an incredibly boring game.
>
> Excuse me. I realize you may not read this comment due to your
> apparently short attention span...
*sigh* was that necessary? Cmon Samuel, I'm sure you handle a mere
difference of opinion.
> Ever play chess? Football? Baseball? Any game that takes longer to
> play than to set up? I've played HG. That sounds like what you want.
> Fine. I've spent hours figuring out the rules, discussing it with my
> friends, copying the gear sheets, and setting up the map. And played
> the game during a commercial break of Friends. Get the picture?
You don't like HG? And battletech is better? Fair enough. You're
entitled to your opinion just like anyone else.
> If you want really long ranges, then just say that each hex
> is 100 or even 1000 meters.
Good idea! Now my question is: WHY didn't the game designers do that?
> Happy? Ok, your 'Mechs are _really_
> fast, but doesn't that satisfy your craving for more "advanced"
> supertechnology?
Actually I have a craving more a more consistent game.
> >> Ge> it would be child's play to blow it away any time you liked if you had
> >> Ge> HALF decent targetting systems).
>
> I thought you didn't like having the pilot so vulnerable?
That's the point - the pilot shouldn't be made so vulnerable (I know, I
know, in battletech there's only 1 in 36 chance of a head shot, but look
at the size of the heads on those mechs, just LOOK at them!)
> None of this is meant personally, george. I just get really annoyed
> when people apparently overlook some of the rules and information
> availible to them. You've been (apparently) playing the game for over
> 5 years. I've been playing for less than 2. If all you've got is the
> basic set, then either be willing to expand to the rest of the
> universe or quit bitching about stuff that you don't understand.
Get stuffed! Why do I have to buy every book before I am allowed to
comment on the game? Jeeze!
None of this is meant personally, Samual. I just get really annoyed when
people seem to think other people are "bitching about stuff that" they
"don't understand" just because they haven't bought every single mech
book and supplement know to man.
nobwit
Solarmech wrote:
>
> In article <326847...@iap.net.au>, nobwit <nob...@iap.net.au> writes:
>
> >OK, what about projectile weapons - surely an _advanced_ weapon would
> >generate negligible heat? Sure, a tank gun would heat up with frequent
> >use, but could the resulting heat buildup cause the tank to shutdown or
> >trigger and ammo explosion? No.
>
Agreed.
> >> Ge> Just use tanks instead!
> >>
>
> It has been proven a tank in BT can have a real short life compered to a
> mech. Mechs can take more damage and are much more mobile.
Yes. However, just imagine how advanced a tank _could_ be if you had the
technology to make a mech? Forget whatever battletech stats say a tank
is for the moment, just consider...
> >Ah, so are you saying there is no "realistic" or "logical" reason for
> >it? And that it was made so purely for "game balance"? Then that is poor
> >game design.
>
> That is an opionion. Not a fact. Fact is if this where a realist game no
> one would live very long and THAT would be a poor game design.
I agree with that first statement right there - what I said WAS an
opinion. So is what you say about a "realist" game design.
> >And besides, shoot back and forth continually until someone's armour is
> >finally chipped away makes for an incredibly boring game.
>
> That sounds like an opinion of someone who has not played the game.
Interesting. I've been playing for at least 5 years. I found that the
best battles were ones that involved only small mechs - say 40 tons or
less. The games were much more exciting and action packed to me. I
honestly found that using 100 tons mechs made the game more boring -
because of the back and forth, gradually chip away the armour thing.
> >> Because Real Life rockets are a hell of a lot bigger (proportionnally)
> >> than the BTech ones... (Try an Arrow IV on for size...)
> >> The SRM's and LRM's are fairly small, originally unguided weapons.
I agree that rockets as small as that would be weak. I guess my real
question is then: why are they so small?
> Ever hear of antimissle systems? 1 large missile can be shot down. 20
> missles are difficult to stop.
Good point.
> Who said that is a flaw? This is not realism this is a game.
> You want
> realisim go to Bosnia and see what happens in a real war.
I agree it is not real life - it is a game. However, it is a game that
is attempting to be realistic.
nobwit
John M Atkinson wrote:
>
> I see some people's idea of Armored Warfare was developed by playing
> arcade games. See my other posts regarding Israeli Tank Commanders. To
> elaborate, no electronics system is good enough to substitute for a Mk I
> eyeball looking for lunatics with shoulder-fired missles.
That's true now, but will it always be true? Is it so ridiculous to
assume that in a thousand years from now there will be no technology
capable of substituting for looking out the hatch? That's my gripe with
battletech: they have fusion reactors in their mechs, gyro stablizers
that allow a giant robot to walk, high energy weapons, all these
wonderful advances in technology, but the pilot _still has to look out
of a window to see properly_ !!! To me, it is inconsistent.
> I vote people who've never seen a tank
> refrain from making noise about how "real tanks today" operate.
By that token, do all people that haven't seen a mech refrain from
making noise about how "real mechs" operate?? This is a discussion about
a science fiction game - that's all.
Larkid Deerhorn
Jonathan R Bezeau (jbe...@uoguelph.ca) wrote:
: nobwit (nob...@iap.net.au) wrote:
: Do you know?
: Valid.
--
I've noticed that they dont do this anymore, but when Btech first came out
(What's that gramma?) we had this question to ask:
If the gun is in the Stinger's HAND, then why doesnt it have its own
heat sinks and its own crits?
I mean, I almost never hear of a soldier shutting down from firing his
AK-47 too much. Them gun's got themselves adequate cooling capabilities to be
fired. It would be (and IS) stupid to make a gun that overheats. That's like
making a camera that breaks every time you take a picture. It just would not
be done.
And even with today's mech designs of the weapons being a part of the
whole machine, I find it hard to believe that designers, engineers,
Mechwarriors, their commanders and the techs (God save the techs!) would all
agree to field a mech where they look at it and say:
"Good thing we put on that extra PPC. Too bad you boys will never be
able to fire it, otherwise your LRM ammo will blow up."
Sorry. Any engineer worthy of building mechs would say something like:
"Well, since this extra PPC can't be fired safely, we'll rip it off
and tack on some extra armor and heat sinks. Maybe even make it jump capable
with the weight savings."
Sure, heat is a nice way of limiting the amount of weapons allowed to
be fired in a round, but so is a -1 modifier on each addition weapon (Oh, you
mean someone thought of that? Wow....)
-Lleyrew
Larkid Deerhorn
An interesting note, the M1 turret and cupola (with the anti-infantry
MG on the pintle) can both rotate 360 degrees. If anything started hitting
that tank from behind it would have about 2 seconds before the main gun was
facing its general direction (even less if someone had the balls to pop the
hatch and man the MG). Sad fact is, Mech's simply cannot do this (a problem
you'd think would be rectified after that many years of mech-building), nor
can they even shoot behind them without turning (excluding arm-flippers)
Also, most battles involve one side charging the other side, then
stopping when they get within a decent firing range. Seldom do tanks try to
manouvre behind one another to get that all-important back shot. They usually
sit behind a rock and slug it out. Add the infantry, air support and smaller
mechanized units and there is no way anything will ever get behind a tank.
Except an ambush, but that's what sensors are for.
-Lleyrew
William E. Ward
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.961021...@dale.ucdavis.edu>, Ken <ez05...@peseta.ucdavis.edu> writes:
> On 21 Oct 1996, William E. Ward wrote:
> > No, actually it's STILL not true. I worked in the Nuclear Field on the
> > dirty side (radioactively) long enough to know. A Fusion reaction would
> > give off huge amounts of Alpha radiation. But that's fine, we can handle
> > Alpha easily enough (Alpha is a bare Helium Nucleus at high energy). It
>
> Heh, unless you've snorted Pu dust and it's decaying inside of you. :)
Nope, no snorting, and I passed through the whole body monitors to prove it.
<sniff>
> Yeah, alpha doesn't penerate much, but I can't remember if a fusion rxn
> gives off much gamma radiation. Isn't it minimal? That stuff goes
> through just about anything.
No, but Gamma can be shielded easily enough using the standard techniques.
And the Gamma OUTSIDE THE REACTOR would tend to be in smaller doses (after
all, Gamma IS the energy released to all intents and purposes. For those
who don't know, Gamma IS the X-rays I mentioned before. The difference is
in how they are produced, not what they are in particular. Gamma radiation
is where the actual released energy is, and is absorbed and released at
lower energy, absorbed and released again, etc., by other atoms on the
way. The absorbtion and release at lower energy gives the absorbing atoms
more energy, which translates into HEAT in the most basic, and final,
form... which we use for making steam to turn turbines, or through more
direct thermo electric means, although steam is by far the most common...
and just because I say steam doesn't mean VAPOR either, super hot compressed
steam is a stream of water in "solid" reactors... the energy is there, but
you don't get the steam hiss). Gamma in the reaction would hopefully be
much higher, but more quickly absorbed... but there are no guarentees.
Neutron is the radiation to worry about though, and there will be LOTS of
neutron... for that matter, back when they "discovered" cold fusion, all
the tests were CHECKING for neutron radiation, to "prove" that fusion was
indeed taking place... with out the neutrons, no fusion was occuring.
Besides, Cold Fusion isn't fusion at all, it turned out to be a chemical
reaction only.
John M Atkinson
That's because generally the attackers in modern warfare can slag a tank
with another tank or an ATGM right through the glacis plate. No need to
set up a 6 o'clock shot. If I've got a 105mm L7 (the most common Western
Tank Gun, and the best one until Rheinmetall came up with that sweet
little 120) I'll scrap any Ruskie, up to and including the T-72 (It's
never been tested against a T-80 in combat situations.) You'll find in
the Eastern Front that there was a lot of manuvering to get a flank or
rear shot on the KV and JS series tanks, because nothing could kill them
short of a point blank 88 shot. I just finished reading Panzer
Battles, by Generalmajor F.W. von Mellenthin (at one point he was Von
Manstein's chief of staff, and also a1, or what the US calls G-3,
operations officer, for Rommel during Crusader. He ended the war in
command of a Corps.), and he remarks about the subject frequently. Ditto
when the US faced the Panther and Tigers. If anything in this post
confused you, DON'T PONTIFICATE ON ARMORED WARFARE!
Student
Mr Derrhorn wrote:
> I mean, I almost never hear of a soldier shutting down from firing his
> AK-47 too much. Them gun's got themselves adequate cooling capabilities to be
> fired. It would be (and IS) stupid to make a gun that overheats. That's like
> making a camera that breaks every time you take a picture. It just would not
> be done.
During my tour in the Bundeswehr I used both a G3 Battle Rifle and an MG3 maschine gun.
If you fire the latter one in long bursts the barrel tends to get so hot, that you
have to use a asbestos handkerchief (supplyed by the weapons producers!) to change
the barrel. As for the Battle Rifle, firing a few dozend round in semi-automatik mode
makes the barrel hot enough to feel the heat, even through a heavy plastik handshield
seperated from it by neraly a centimeter of air. When using the system with long bursts
(there is a special 100 round banana magazine), the barrel gets too hot to keep in hand
(at least we've been told so). So in a way your rifle can shut you down.
Michael Brinkhues
P.S. I hate the new G36 rifle - I no longer can shoot through walls with it
John M Atkinson
nobwit <nob...@iap.net.au> wrote:
>Student wrote:
>>
>> Modern MBT's can withstand their own main gun across their front. Same is due for most
>> anti tank rockets with the exception of Hellfire or Maveric.
>
>Interesting. I have been talking to a friend of mine who was driving
>tanks in the army for a number of years. He says one direct hit from a
>tank gun will knock out another tank - the main elements of tank battles
>are tactics, ambushes, etc. so that you don't get hit first. He also
>says that the tanks targetting systems were deadly - keeping the turret
>pointed precisely at the target no matter how the tank itself bobbed up
>and down or turned.
This is generally true. However, when Student and I refer to "moderm
tanks" we are referring to the M1 varients with the DU plate, the
Challenger, the latest Leopard and Merkva varients, and that's about it.
It is documented that a 120mm FSDSAP DU round will not penetrate the
glacis plate. Noone knew how capable these were on the battlefield until
Storm proved it. Besides, one never trains a tank crew to trust their
armor, since eventually someone will think of a way to penetrate. Also,
if the shot is slightly off to an angle, and hits the flank, you have
penetration. Regarding stabilization, yes in modern tanks that's about
the size of it.
>
>> All you have to do to stop a tank is flooding a field (as the dutch did in WWII). Or drop
>> a few buildings in its path. Or take it into a swamp. a heavily wooded area, an area with
>> a lot of small canals...
>
>Fair enough. What about hovertanks? Would they be as restricted?
>Probably wooded areas would still stuff them up. What if they had jump
>jets?
Is all their infantry support simillarly mobile? what about their
Artillery, etc. Ask any infantry type how easy it is to kill an
unescorted tank. As the USMC says "hunting tanks is fun and easy"
>
>> In the very end:
>>
>> This is a game!!
>
>Indeed it is.
>
>> Its rules and ideas are there to make it easy and funny to play
>
>Fair enough.
>
We didn't start this thread, you did.
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------
>George
>mailto:nob...@iap.net.au
>
>"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
>But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
>and this is what annoys me."
>------------------------------------------------------
John Atkinson
Michael Kelly
In article <Dzo8...@rci.ripco.com>,
cba...@ripco.com (Larkid Deerhorn) wrote:
> An interesting note, the M1 turret and cupola (with the anti-infantry
>MG on the pintle) can both rotate 360 degrees. If anything started hitting
>that tank from behind it would have about 2 seconds before the main gun was
>facing its general direction
If anything hit that tank from behind the crew would have a lot less than 2
seconds to live. It's rear armour isn't the greatest.
Mike Kelly.
John M Atkinson
Having been burnt when my M-16 tossed brass in my face (a perennial
problem for left-handed shooters), and having been a dumb basic trainee
who put his hand on the barell after shooting of a couple of magazines, I
can say that yes, the M-16, at least, could use a heat sink. And ask a
tanker about barrel droop due to overheating on tank main guns. That's
why they invented thermal sleeves (anscestor of the heatsink????).
PS I'm told that Civil War reenactors often decide they are dead when
their rifle becomes to hot to hold.
Paul Brown
nobwit (nob...@iap.net.au) wrote:
: That was my point: why are the missiles so small? I agree that a 17
: pound missile cannot be expected to do much - the question is why are
: they using 17 pound missiles?? I would expect they would use missiles
: that are large in proportion to the things they are designed to hit, ie.
: mechs.
Might be just the swarm aspect.... (an anti-missle system might
be able to shoot down say four 5damage missles, but then can it shoot down
twenty smaller ones? )
: To me, when I look at pictures of mechs, alot of them seem to have VERY
: large heads - much larger than a 1 in 36 chance would seem to imply. The
: 1 in 36 also seems to imply it is not possible to target any specific
: part of a mech. Just my thoughts - nothing more.
True.... but I think its just because of game playability.... If
you had a one in six chance or something of potentially taking the mech
out of action in one shot, what fun would it be? (ie ha ha! I got my 100
tonne SOB, and its got 20 tonnes of armour on it! I'd like to see your
gauss rifle get past that!' 'I roll.... a 6! Your Dead!' 'Dang...')
YOu see my point
Josh Martin
In article <326C8A...@iap.net.au>, nob...@iap.net.au says...
(snip)
>
>
>The point is not that a fusion reactor does NOT produce heat - but that
>if you have the technology to HAVE a fusion reactor in a mech in the
>first place, you would expect (well, _I_ would) that they would be able
>to deal with the heat buildup.
(snip)
>I agree with what you are saying. Once again: I am not claiming weapons
>do not make heat. I have been told by people in the army that a squad
>will always carry a couple of extra barrels for the m60 machine gun -
>because the barrels get so hot they can melt! The point is that a
>hi-tech mech should (IMHO) be able to HANDLE the heat - to the point
>where heat buildup is not a concern.
(snip)
From theses two paragraphs, it seems that you missed the all important theme
behind Battletech. In the current game year, technology, on the whole, is not a
whole lot more advanced than now. Almost all the high-technology items are hand
-me-downs from the Star League. After the 300 years of warfare, the I.S. has
lost the knowledge of how to build any of this. This is why, in all the
original scenario packs, all the mechs are held together with 'spit and bailing
wire'. No one knew how to repair them, let alone build new ones. Almost all the
factories producing mechs were fully automated, but no one knew how to fix them
if they broke down. The Battletech universe is not the pinnacle of human
technological advancement, but leftovers from an earlier era. FASA has
completely changed the basis for the game with the introduction of the GDL
memory core and the Clans. I'm not saying that it is better or worse, just
different from the original premise.
But to expect, just because Battlemechs exist in this game, that all the
technology is as advanced as some of the weapons are shows that you haven't
read the background material. If, after a nuclear war here that destroyed
everything, you had a tank that was 200 years old, and no one who knew how to
build a new one or fix it if it broke down, would you assume that everything
else must be as advanced as the most advanced systems on the tank? No. You need
the context of the game universe before you can complain about what is missing.
Josh
Rich Adams
This is why I always thought about how cool coal burning 'Mechs would be
:)
( ( ( ( ( )
( ( ( ( ( )
( ( ( ( )
( ( ( ( ( )
( ( )( ( )
( ) ( )
vvv vvv
| | __ | |
|_|/||\|_|
/ \__/ |
____/ /| oo| |
()____/ | oo|\ \_
| oo| \ \\
/ \__/ \ \ \\
/ / \ \ \Oo
| | | |
| | | |
/ \ / \
/_||_\ /_||_\
William E. Ward (w...@magician.larc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: In article <54dkea$r...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale) writes:
: > Casey Stout (cs1...@nyssa.swt.edu) wrote:
: >
: > : one thing about Fusion reactions is that they give off no radiation
: > : as we know caused by Fission reactions. protection from heat on the
: > : other hand....
: >
: > Sorry, fusion reactors do in fact give off radiation (light and heat are
: > just different forms of radiation mind you) its just that the most
: > dangerous types of radiation, are either absent or greatly reduced in
: > fusion reactors.
: >
: > I thing what you are referring to was radioactive waste, and that is
: > mostly true.
:
: No, actually it's STILL not true. I worked in the Nuclear Field on the
: dirty side (radioactively) long enough to know. A Fusion reaction would
: give off huge amounts of Alpha radiation. But that's fine, we can handle
: Alpha easily enough (Alpha is a bare Helium Nucleus at high energy). It will
: give off limited Beta Radiation. Fine. It'll give off a good amount of
: X radiation. Bad, but only while it's operating. X-rays don't cause lingering
: problems to materials, and we CAN shield X-rays. If that's all you had to
: worry about with a fusion reaction, it would be "clean" in that you could
: easily build a shield of lead around the darn thing to block the X-rays, and
: there would be no radioactive debris when you turn it off... give it an hour
: and you have a nice clean (radioactively) environment. But!!!! One of the
: inherent problems with ANY nuclear reaction is that you WILL release Neutron
: radiation. Neutrons are given off BY DESIGN in a Fission reaction...
: they help the reaction go in the core (if fact, they MAKE the fission
: go in the core) but once outside the core, they have the nasty habit
: of being absorbed by the material around the core. And, doing what
: Alchemists of ancient times dreamed of, it transmutes the atoms of
: those materials, frequently into unstable isotopes. That's FACT. When
: the first Fission reactors were being built, no one thought of this.
: The first Commercial Reactor was at Chalk River, and when this sludge
: was found, it was called Chalk River Unknown Deposits (CRUD) (no joke!)
: because it was highly radioactive, and nobody knew where it was coming
: from for a while. This is the BIGGEST piece of the material we call
: Radioactive Waste. Fusion will create free neutrons, it's attempting to
: slam hydrogen nuclei with additional neutrons together to form Helium.
: The most likely technique will be to use H2+H2->He3+Neutron (He4 would be
: cleaner, but only at a MUCH higher density/temperature threshold). So where
: will the neutron's go? Into activating the construction materials, ie.,
: the equipment that you use to do the reaction. It's dirtier, short term,
: but most of that decays in weeks. Co60 is the biggest problem, and that
: is considered "gone" in about 26 years. That's still a long time for
: a person, but it's "Clean" for nuclear (BTW, the criteria is 5 half
: lives, and the half live for Co60 is 5.27 years). Just setting the
: record STRAIGHT!
: --
: William Ward
: The Rare Mech Times
: http://www.cs.odu.edu/~ward_w/btech.html
--
~ Rich Adams [DNRC] Women move in strange and mysterious ways.
~ ri...@alpha.delta.edu I can never find any of my stuff after
~ sp...@genie.geis.com they have moved it.
That guy in the corner
> > If you want really long ranges, then just say that each hex
> > is 100 or even 1000 meters.
>
> Good idea! Now my question is: WHY didn't the game designers do that?
There had to be a starting point somewhere. How else are they supposed
to make money if they can't sell us rules supplements, updates, 2nd, 3rd,
4th and so on edition stuff, as well as rules for stuff that they didn't
cover in the supplements, just because they got it right for us the first
time around? Geez, you want to run them into the ground? :)
> people seem to think other people are "bitching about stuff that" they
> "don't understand" just because they haven't bought every single mech
> book and supplement know to man.
No! Not buying is bad! Buying is good! That's the business' slogan.
The fact for me is, they had it fine until they came out with rules
supplements, found out that they were poorly done, and came out with new
rules that were still poorly done. That question of why a missile did so
little damage would never have made sense to me before picking up
TR3050. The way we had the rules interpreted, all the missiles hit a
single location on a mech. There were no groups of five for LRM's or
single locations for SRM's. It made mechs like the Archer and Crusader
rather deadly. And there were other things, like dividing engine by 25
to get the number of HS it could hide, and club-like weapons and such.
And I've been playing in one form or another for around 8 or 9 years,
though most of it was pre-3050. Hell, when I got TR3050 I thought that
the cluser ammo would hit like LRM's in 5 point groups. It might be that
I'm just slow to read between the lines, but they were moving things
around on us pretty fast, I feel. But hey, they gotta make a living off
us somehow, right? ;)
That guy in the corner
>We're at 30 WHAT?!?<
Jonathan R Bezeau
Paul Brown (ac...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca) wrote:
: T Jordan (ent...@phish.nether.net) wrote:
: : Paul Brown (ac...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca) wrote: : : > 6) Why are
: Well, whatever (the tonnes I mentioned are the only ones I knew)
: Anyway, when you think about it... a 120th of tonne, doing the equivelant
: of 16th of a tonne of damage is a pretty fair ratio. (120 being an LRM
: and 16 being armour)
Actually it's 1/6th of a ton, and 1 ton of armor (1/6th of a ton being an
LRM-20 salvo, 16 being the damage it does)... but that's nothing compared
to 1/10th of a pound and fifty tons (a lighter vs. 50 tons of kindling-based
armor)
George
Paul Brown wrote:
>
> nobwit (nob...@iap.net.au) wrote:
> : That was my point: why are the missiles so small? I agree that a 17
> : pound missile cannot be expected to do much - the question is why are
> : they using 17 pound missiles?? I would expect they would use missiles
> : that are large in proportion to the things they are designed to hit, ie.
> : mechs.
>
> Might be just the swarm aspect.... (an anti-missle system might
> be able to shoot down say four 5damage missles, but then can it shoot down
> twenty smaller ones? )
That sounds reasonable.
> : To me, when I look at pictures of mechs, alot of them seem to have VERY
> : large heads - much larger than a 1 in 36 chance would seem to imply. The
> : 1 in 36 also seems to imply it is not possible to target any specific
> : part of a mech. Just my thoughts - nothing more.
>
> True.... but I think its just because of game playability.... If
> you had a one in six chance or something of potentially taking the mech
> out of action in one shot, what fun would it be? (ie ha ha! I got my 100
> tonne SOB, and its got 20 tonnes of armour on it! I'd like to see your
> gauss rifle get past that!' 'I roll.... a 6! Your Dead!' 'Dang...')
> YOu see my point
I do see your point. That is why I say that mechs would not be designed
with such a huge, exposed cockpit. I know that the battletech rules
reflect a very small, unexposed cockpit (hence 1 in 36), but the actual
mechs themselves are shown to have giant heads/cockpits that would
logically (IMHO) be easy to hit.
--
==============================
George
mailto:nob...@iap.net.au
mailto:geo...@microbase.com.au
==============================
George
Larkid Deerhorn wrote:
>
> I've noticed that they dont do this anymore, but when Btech first came out
> (What's that gramma?) we had this question to ask:
>
> If the gun is in the Stinger's HAND, then why doesnt it have its own
> heat sinks and its own crits?
Good question. I think they just used the robotech picture, while their
concept of mech designs did not really incorporate robotech style mechs.
> I mean, I almost never hear of a soldier shutting down from firing his
> AK-47 too much. Them gun's got themselves adequate cooling capabilities to be
> fired. It would be (and IS) stupid to make a gun that overheats. That's like
> making a camera that breaks every time you take a picture. It just would not
> be done.
I agree. While certainly guns can get hot, it is not a major concern
about infantry that their rifles will overheat. I also believe it is
more than reasonable to expect that in a thousand years from now, heat
will be even less of a concern.
> And even with today's mech designs of the weapons being a part of the
> whole machine, I find it hard to believe that designers, engineers,
> Mechwarriors, their commanders and the techs (God save the techs!) would all
> agree to field a mech where they look at it and say:
> "Good thing we put on that extra PPC. Too bad you boys will never be
> able to fire it, otherwise your LRM ammo will blow up."
Heh :)
> Sorry. Any engineer worthy of building mechs would say something like:
> "Well, since this extra PPC can't be fired safely, we'll rip it off
> and tack on some extra armor and heat sinks. Maybe even make it jump capable
> with the weight savings."
Absolutely.
> Sure, heat is a nice way of limiting the amount of weapons allowed to
> be fired in a round, but so is a -1 modifier on each addition weapon (Oh, you
> mean someone thought of that? Wow....)
Good idea!
George
John M Atkinson wrote:
>
> nobwit <nob...@iap.net.au> wrote:
> >Student wrote:
> >>
> >> Modern MBT's can withstand their own main gun across their front. Same is due for most
> >> anti tank rockets with the exception of Hellfire or Maveric.
> >
> >Interesting. I have been talking to a friend of mine who was driving
> >tanks in the army for a number of years. He says one direct hit from a
> >tank gun will knock out another tank - the main elements of tank battles
> >are tactics, ambushes, etc. so that you don't get hit first. He also
> >says that the tanks targetting systems were deadly - keeping the turret
> >pointed precisely at the target no matter how the tank itself bobbed up
> >and down or turned.
>
> This is generally true. However, when Student and I refer to "moderm
> tanks" we are referring to the M1 varients with the DU plate, the
> Challenger, the latest Leopard and Merkva varients, and that's about it.
> It is documented that a 120mm FSDSAP DU round will not penetrate the
> glacis plate. Noone knew how capable these were on the battlefield until
> Storm proved it. Besides, one never trains a tank crew to trust their
> armor, since eventually someone will think of a way to penetrate. Also,
> if the shot is slightly off to an angle, and hits the flank, you have
> penetration. Regarding stabilization, yes in modern tanks that's about
> the size of it.
That's very interesting. I must admit, I didn't know that modern tanks
were so tough!
> >Fair enough. What about hovertanks? Would they be as restricted?
> >Probably wooded areas would still stuff them up. What if they had jump
> >jets?
> Is all their infantry support simillarly mobile? what about their
> Artillery, etc. Ask any infantry type how easy it is to kill an
> unescorted tank. As the USMC says "hunting tanks is fun and easy"
Therefore is it logical to say that an unescorted mech would be easy to
kill? _I_ imagine an unescorted mech would be easy to kill - just like
tanks as you point out. The rules of battletech certainly do not imply
this at all.
> >> Its rules and ideas are there to make it easy and funny to play
> >
> >Fair enough.
> >
> We didn't start this thread, you did.
That's true - I did.
FASA TomD
In article <54g4g3$g...@news.cic.net>, ent...@phish.nether.net (T Jordan)
writes:
>This is actually how I explain the shortshor tcombat ranges in Btech..
the
>battlefiled's such an ECM-active enviornment, that anything useful is
>basically limited to LOS at best.
That's the explanation we use as well, and it removes the crazyness of
trying to model ECM-ECCM-ECCCM systems, ad nauseum.
Tom Dowd
FASA Interactive
George
Josh Martin wrote:
>
> From theses two paragraphs, it seems that you missed the all important theme
> behind Battletech. In the current game year, technology, on the whole, is not a
> whole lot more advanced than now. Almost all the high-technology items are hand
> -me-downs from the Star League. After the 300 years of warfare, the I.S. has
> lost the knowledge of how to build any of this. This is why, in all the
> original scenario packs, all the mechs are held together with 'spit and bailing
> wire'. No one knew how to repair them, let alone build new ones. Almost all the
> factories producing mechs were fully automated, but no one knew how to fix them
> if they broke down. The Battletech universe is not the pinnacle of human
> technological advancement, but leftovers from an earlier era. FASA has
> completely changed the basis for the game with the introduction of the GDL
> memory core and the Clans. I'm not saying that it is better or worse, just
> different from the original premise.
>
> But to expect, just because Battlemechs exist in this game, that all the
> technology is as advanced as some of the weapons are shows that you haven't
> read the background material. If, after a nuclear war here that destroyed
> everything, you had a tank that was 200 years old, and no one who knew how to
> build a new one or fix it if it broke down, would you assume that everything
> else must be as advanced as the most advanced systems on the tank? No.
Everything else in the tank itself, yes. The tank would still have all
of the technology that it was originally built with. Of course some
individual components may have broken down.
Are you saying that mechs were designed with superior technology but
strangely those components in EVERY single mech have broken down? Thus
all mechs are actually lugging around other advanced equipment but it
just doesn't work? The rules certainly didn't mention that.
Or are you saying that these factories that churn out mechs build them
incorrectly? And that the factories are supposed to be putting more
advanced features in them but it's not happening for some reason? The
rules certainly didn't mention that either.
If neither of these two scenarios is the case, then I can only assume
that the mechs that exist were originally designed and built that way -
which is with inconsistent technology levels.
BTW, I did not know that mechs were churned out of mech-making factories
that noone understood. The fact that the rules allow for mech design
_implies_ (not necessarily meaning it is true) that there exists the
capability for mech-making and tweaking. I was certainly under the
impression that mechs could _at least_ be repaired.
> You need
> the context of the game universe before you can complain about what is missing.
I have only the context of the game universe that my rulebook and my
gaming experience with battletech has given me. What other context
should I have?
Solarmech
In article <54gb0p$r...@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>, dmes...@csugrad.cs.vt.edu
(Dave "RoaE" Mescher) writes:
>: Do palladium's mecha stats correspond exactly to the anime series? Or
>: does it just decide on it's own stats (like Battletech) which may be
>: close of course, but not necessarily spot on.
>
>
Palladium's stats are very much based on the states given by the Japanese
(matter of fact, direct copies) Most of the times the manufacture names
are even the same. sm
There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
William E. Ward
In article <54j8aj$p...@alpha.delta.edu>, ri...@alpha.delta.edu (Rich Adams) writes:
> This is why I always thought about how cool coal burning 'Mechs would be
> :)
>
> ( ( ( ( ( )
> ( ( ( ( ( )
> ( ( ( ( )
> ( ( ( ( ( )
> ( ( )( ( )
> ( ) ( )
> vvv vvv
> | | __ | |
> |_|/||\|_|
> / \__/ |
> ____/ /| oo| |
> ()____/ | oo|\ \_
> | oo| \ \\
> / \__/ \ \ \\
> / / \ \ \Oo
> | | | |
> | | | |
> / \ / \
> /_||_\ /_||_\
>
Hmmm... kinda looks like a Grand Crusader.... makes ya wonder!!!!
Jonathan A Goff
Solarmech wrote:
>
> In article <54b5k8$3...@news.umbc.edu>, wmc...@umbc.edu (Bill McHale)
> writes:
>
> >: Fair enough, but I don't believe that the original robotech mecha would
> >: have weighed _anywhere_ near 100 tons. The veritechs would have weighed
> >: about as much as a fighter plane, which is what, 5-10 tons? Having 100
> >: ton mechs is another one of Battletech's ideas. The really large mecha
> >: in robotech (like the "monster") had absolutely enormous feet, I
> suppose
> >: to spread the weight around. Anyway, robotech follows the anime mecha
> >: genre, which does not have as many ties to hard-core sci-fi realism as
> >: battletech is supposed to.
> >
> >Actually the Veritechs ran close to 15 tons and the destroids up to
> thirty
> >or forty tons, at least that is were Palladium puts them.
> >
> >: *nod*
> >
> >
>
> Check out the states for the Mac II thay thign is around 200 tons!! sm
>
> There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
Guys sorry to spoil your robotechish fun (full body shiver at the
blasphemous anime), but a F-14 weighs 75 tons. An aardvark wieghs over
100 when fully loaded. Battlemechs are rediculously light. A slab of
steel the size of an elemental is only 20 tons. :)
George
Larkid Deerhorn wrote:
>
> An interesting note, the M1 turret and cupola (with the anti-infantry
> MG on the pintle) can both rotate 360 degrees. If anything started hitting
> that tank from behind it would have about 2 seconds before the main gun was
> hatch and man the MG). Sad fact is, Mech's simply cannot do this (a problem
> you'd think would be rectified after that many years of mech-building), nor
> can they even shoot behind them without turning (excluding arm-flippers)
Very good point.
> Also, most battles involve one side charging the other side, then
> stopping when they get within a decent firing range. Seldom do tanks try to
> manouvre behind one another to get that all-important back shot. They usually
> sit behind a rock and slug it out. Add the infantry, air support and smaller
> mechanized units and there is no way anything will ever get behind a tank.
> Except an ambush, but that's what sensors are for.
Some more excellent points.
Just though I'd voice my agreement :)
Student
>Sure they're ugly. But that's not what I was getting at. I was talking
>about it's lack of manouuvrability and general clunky-ness.
They are not that maneuverable either. Sure, they can turn on a spot (so
can mech) while standing still but when they turn on the move, they still
make big circles (ask the citizens of HAMM (westf), they have to repair
a traffic isle after each big maneuver :)
Besides, I always thought a vehicle capable of accelerating from 0 to
100 kph in about 10 second quick and nimble (my 1.1 to car sure can't)
And a 100to vehicle with a turning radius of about 15 meters isn't
clunky. Plus, it is very difficult to let a mech fall. Even an average
pilot has a sixty plus percent chance of keeping upright unless his gyros
or legs are damaged. And this is about the same as a tank with a damaged
track (he only can run in circles) or a damaged engine (he runs no more)
An finally, there are some good looking tanks. Try the britisch Challenger.
It's sleek, low slung (and slow).
Michael Brinkhues
P.S. An old military saying goes: The worser the food, the better the armee.
If that one is true, the Bundeswehr is the best armee in the world -- Our
food easily qualifies as a biological weapon :)
Samuel Fang
std...@et.FH-Osnabrueck.DE (Student) wrote:
<snip>
>An finally, there are some good looking tanks. Try the britisch Challenger.
>It's sleek, low slung (and slow).
>Michael Brinkhues
>P.S. An old military saying goes: The worser the food, the better the armee.
> If that one is true, the Bundeswehr is the best armee in the world -- Our
> food easily qualifies as a biological weapon :)
Ahhhhhh, the Brits have always been as concerned with the "look" of
their weapons systems as the functionality. Compare, for instance,
the Broadsword class of frigates to the American Perry class. As an
American, I am somewhat embarrassed by the sheer lack of beauty with
our warship fleet. Don't get me started on the Ticonderoga class
(ugh!).
Still, would rather be on board a Tico than almost anything else...
Samuel Fang
sf...@mail.vt.edu
That guy in the corner
> Are you saying that mechs were designed with superior technology but
> strangely those components in EVERY single mech have broken down? Thus
> all mechs are actually lugging around other advanced equipment but it
> just doesn't work? The rules certainly didn't mention that.
They didn't mention the clans either, until the event of them coming back
took place. In the beginning, there was no special tech to speak of;
hell, in my first ed. boxed set of BT, the AC/5 is the only cannon.
They've been coming out with stuff ever since then at irregular
intervals. Stuff like advanced ECM over and above the first ECM; just
because the rules haven't mentioned it doesn't mean they won't in the future.
> Or are you saying that these factories that churn out mechs build them
> incorrectly? And that the factories are supposed to be putting more
> advanced features in them but it's not happening for some reason? The
> rules certainly didn't mention that either.
They said in some of the manuals that it was one of the reasons for
certain mechs not being produced at all. In TR3050, the Guillotine was
said to have been taken totally out of prod. just because they couldn't
figure out a way to find a weight replacement for ES and CASE.
> BTW, I did not know that mechs were churned out of mech-making factories
> that noone understood. The fact that the rules allow for mech design
> _implies_ (not necessarily meaning it is true) that there exists the
> capability for mech-making and tweaking. I was certainly under the
> impression that mechs could _at least_ be repaired.
Mechs can be repaired, modified, and you can swap all sorts of stuff in
and out of them. But most of us, when we come up with a tweaked design,
like to think that we can just mass produce it. It's not easy. Mainly,
the design rules are for single mech purposes or for building mechs in
keeping with the structure the already exists. True, if you can find
enough of the parts you need and can find a supplier for the rest, you
can set up a bunch of tech sheds where all they do all day is assemble
those pieces into mechs. But the parts, hard to come by in small
amounts, are what you need in large amounts.
> > You need
> > the context of the game universe before you can complain about what
> > is missing.
>
> I have only the context of the game universe that my rulebook and my
> gaming experience with battletech has given me. What other context
> should I have?
Depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If you're trying to play
and have a fun time, you're in good shape. If you plan to design a whole
new successor house with its own history and a feasible basis, complete
with theology, philosophies, military structure, attitudes toward other
houses, economic system in keeping with what the IS has to offer, and a
really great cup of tea, then maybe you should pick up a few more books.
That guy in the corner
>The really great
cup of tea is the
very hard part<
Jonathan R Bezeau
nobwit (nob...@iap.net.au) wrote:
: Yes - you CAN optimise mech designs, but an awful lot of them will
: overheat _very_ quickly if used at full output (which is what they will
: do in a battle situation).
Not necessarily. Look at some military equipment... it'll get ripped to
shreds if not used properly. No joke. Ditto with mechs... some have only
enough heatsinkage for their long range weapons, and use extra tonnage for
short range weapons as an afterthought. Look at the Archer... fire the
LRMs for days, OR the MLs fr days, but don't do both. If you have to
engage either one guy with both short and long range weapons, or you have
to fend off someone at both ranges at once, you're using the mech wrong.
And to reiterate, military stuff is usually very unforgiving if used
wrongly, even nowadays, though it is more a question of speed and armor
for curret vehicles than heat buildup. Most mechs have enough armor to
take a brief beating, and still be able to run away. Don't try that with
a modern IFV versus a main battle tank...
: I agree with what you are saying - but in a battle situation you will
: always use your maximum potential, and in doing so will invariably
: overheat very very quickly.
Military equipment designers are not always realists. Besides, the heat
aspect makes the game more strategic to play than:
"Move, alpha, move, alpha, move. alpha... alpha... alpha with remaining
weapons... die"
: > : Would it? And this would be after operating at maximum for how long?
: >
: > Do you know?
: >
: Nope. I was asking you.
Doh. But I'm pretty sure a tank's governor is there for a reason...
: I agree with what you are saying. To me this would imply that such a
: mech would not be used due to the very points you mention. And if it
: were used, there would be simple ways to deal with such a monster. Then
: I guess you could say that you should have smaller, faster mechs to
: protect the big guns from being tripped up or whatever - that would be
: fair enough. However in battletech, those big mechs are not at all more
: vulnerable despite their bulk and clunkyness.
Which COULD be construed to say something positive about their design or
technology, or could be used to mock the targeting systems of other
machines. But it's pretty clear to me that mechs are designed for
stability uber alles.
: Fair enough. I'm glad you see my point: that it _is_ a valid design to
: have weaker armour on your back, but mechs would not be designed that
: way if they were subjected to attacks from the rear with any great
: frequency. And to ME, it seems that an atlas would be so slow and clunky
: that it would be TOO EASY to hit it from behind (regardless of whether
: or not the BTech rules make it like that).
Proper strategy: have a second mech, say a Marauder or a Warhammer follow
the Atlas. They can concentrate on the same target (the Atlas with MLs
and AC, the WHM with PPCs), and the Warhammer poses a very serious threat
to any ideas of running behind the Atlas... all those SRMs, lasers, and
machineguns. Ow.
: Did you also see how easily the mechs destroyed each other in that start
: sequence?
: BTW, I absolutely LOVE mechwarrior II - one of my favourite games.
: (really!) But it does point out some inconsistencies of battletech.
Yeah. They portray combat in an entirely different light...
: Well quite honestly, that's news to me. I have been told by a friend who
: used to drive tanks in the army, that one direct hit and it's game over.
: They must have used different tanks.
Quite probably. One direct hit from above or behind and it's good night.
The sides too, possibly, but not the front, which is where you're trying
to get hit...
: > :)
: > If you think THAT's bad, look at the cartoon series. Suspension of
: > disbelief? No way...
: Heh heh :) I like the battle sequences - I think they LOOK great! They
: seem to miss an awful lot though....:)
TWO UAC/20s to the Axeman's back? He lived through that? That's the kind
of rear armor you look for, nay? :)
: > Do you have stats for the Anime series vehicles? And remember that a
: > Tomcat fighter is 20 tons too.
: Is it really? I didn't know that. At a guess I would have said around
: 5-10 tons.
I heard specs a while ago, and the Tomcat IS a big bird, but 20 tons
loaded is what I heard.
--
Jonboy: the Signature -- collect all 35!
I'd like to feel like I accomplished something today... hence the new .sig
"If I was a carpenter, I'd hammer on my piglet. I'd collect the $7, buy
a big prosthetic forehead and wear it on my real head..." TMBG - We want a rock
Paul Silverstein
>
> That's true now, but will it always be true? Is it so ridiculous to
> assume that in a thousand years from now there will be no technology
> capable of substituting for looking out the hatch? That's my gripe with
> battletech: they have fusion reactors in their mechs, gyro stablizers
> that allow a giant robot to walk, high energy weapons, all these
> wonderful advances in technology, but the pilot _still has to look out
> of a window to see properly_ !!! To me, it is inconsistent.
Remember the BT universe is off-kilter because of the war and destruction
of technology. Some things in the universe are way ahead...PPCs, fusion
reactors, some things are still lagging behind...(viewable, non-windowed
tanks).
Brian Nolen
George wrote:
>
> Jonathan A Goff wrote:
> >
> > Guys sorry to spoil your robotechish fun (full body shiver at the
> > blasphemous anime), but a F-14 weighs 75 tons.
>
> I was so amazed at this statement that I immediately went web crawling
> to find technical specs of the f-14 tomcat.
>
> The maximum takeoff weight of an f-14 is 72,900 pounds (32,805 kg/32
> metric tons).
> When empty (of fuel and weapons) it weighs 41,780 pounds (18,800kg/18
> metric tons).
> (note that these stats seem to assume that there is 2.2222 recurring lbs
> per kg - I thought it was just 2.2 lbs per kg)
>
> > An aardvark wieghs over
> > 100 when fully loaded.
>
> a military vehicle of that name).
IIRC, the Aardvark is a nickname given to the F-111 fighter bomber.
Acording to my copy of Encyclopedia of World Aircraft, the F-111A has an
empty weight of 46,172 lbs.(20,943 kg.) and a maximum loaded take off
weight of 91,500 lbs.(41,504 kg.) The F-111F has respective weights of
47,175 lbs(21,398 kg) and loaded at 100,000 lb(45,359 kg.)
>
> > Battlemechs are rediculously light. A slab of
> > steel the size of an elemental is only 20 tons. :)--
>
> So, taking into account the real weight of an f-14, and the assumption
> that during the previous 1000 years (BTech is in the 32nd century) they
> invented stronger, yet lighter materials, a mech isn't that light after
> all.
>
> ==============================
> George
> mailto:nob...@iap.net.au
> mailto:geo...@microbase.com.au
> ==============================
Just adding my weight to this thread.
Brian Nolen
Karl Falk
John M Atkinson (jatk...@gmu.edu) wrote:
: I see some people's idea of Armored Warfare was developed by playing
: arcade games. See my other posts regarding Israeli Tank Commanders. To
: elaborate, no electronics system is good enough to substitute for a Mk I
: eyeball looking for lunatics with shoulder-fired missles. Therefor,
: doctrine in the Israeli Army, and many others, is to ALWAYS have the TC
: unbuttoned. That's one of the factors the Israelis credit for the edge
: their tanks have, as opposed to the Arabs who, following Soviet doctrine
: ALWAYS keep their TCs under armor. So he can't see out the pissy little
: vision blocks (and I've driven an M-60 buttoned-up, they are no substitue
: for hanging out the hatch) and gets killed by an Israeli who sees him
: first. The US, as I understand (this is where I get tenative, I'm not a
: tanker, I'm an engineer) has taken the middle ground by saying it's METT-T
: dependant which is a fancy way of saying "we'll do what we feel like doing
: when the time comes to do it." I vote people who've never seen a tank
: refrain from making noise about how "real tanks today" operate.
That's two votes.
Like I said, the cockpit/head allows the MechWarrior to SEE. Btech
technical levels do not support the complex sensor arrays that many anime
systems have, such as Rtech, such a system is not feasable or practical.
And as you say, there's no substitute for the naked eye. Why did WWII era
fighters move from [slightly] more protective "cage" type canopies to
less protective, "bubble" canopies which had vastly improved visability
(especailly rearward)? Because if you can "See and Avoid", that's worth
more protection than any amount of armor can provide.
--Karl
Karl Falk
nobwit (nob...@iap.net.au) wrote:
: Samuel Fang wrote:
I think you missed some key points here...
: The point is not that a fusion reactor does NOT produce heat - but that
: if you have the technology to HAVE a fusion reactor in a mech in the
: first place, you would expect (well, _I_ would) that they would be able
: to deal with the heat buildup.
They do, thier called heat sinks. Source info will tell you how they work.
: I agree with what you are saying. Once again: I am not claiming weapons
: do not make heat. I have been told by people in the army that a squad
: will always carry a couple of extra barrels for the m60 machine gun -
: because the barrels get so hot they can melt! The point is that a
: hi-tech mech should (IMHO) be able to HANDLE the heat - to the point
: where heat buildup is not a concern.
Again, heat sinks and how they work: Source info.
: > >> Ge> it would be child's play to blow it away any time you liked if you had
: > >> Ge> HALF decent targetting systems).
: >
: > I thought you didn't like having the pilot so vulnerable?
: That's the point - the pilot shouldn't be made so vulnerable (I know, I
: know, in battletech there's only 1 in 36 chance of a head shot, but look
: at the size of the heads on those mechs, just LOOK at them!)
I think there's a commuinications break down here. Didn't you say you
didn't like the "slugfest" feel of Btech, and compared it to anime
systems where units were destroyed by one or two shots?
Here you have contradicted yourself. It is irrelevant whether the
pilot died due to a head shot or the complete obliteration of his vehicle
(accept the complete obliteration is more spectacular). The Pilot is just
as dead, and if all it takes is one or two shots to kill him in the other
vehicle, chances are that he's much more likely to survive a direct hit
in a 'Mech. In short, the anime pilot is more "vulnerable."
: > None of this is meant personally, george. I just get really annoyed
: > when people apparently overlook some of the rules and information
: > availible to them. You've been (apparently) playing the game for over
: > 5 years. I've been playing for less than 2. If all you've got is the
: > basic set, then either be willing to expand to the rest of the
: > universe or quit bitching about stuff that you don't understand.
: Get stuffed! Why do I have to buy every book before I am allowed to
: comment on the game? Jeeze!
Here's why: You are jumping to conclusions of Btech's lack of realism,
without knowing or understanding the information which has been provided by
FASA which helps to legitamize certain aspects of the game.
For example, you have already concluded that Btech's handling of heat
is unrealistic, without first knowing how heat is handled, and what
technologies (sci-fi or 'legit') are employed to do so. You have
concluded that the Btech missle sytstems are unrealistic and that there
is no conceivable justification for such a system other than poor game
design, when in fact, you have been given two good answers (deffence
against AMS and increased hit probablility when poor guidence systems are
employed). I could go on to cite virtually every question (or rather,
hasty conclusion) you have stated on this thread, but you get the point,
and I'm tired anyway.
I'm not insistant that you rush out and buy every source book
available, but I do think it would be a good idea to give the genre a
chance before concluding that since <you> didn't see it or read it, that
there must not be any explainations for the way the system is designed,
and that it just wasn't well thought out.
BTW this wasn't intended as a flame, it just ended up sounding like
one. :)
It was intended to help clear up some miscomunication.
: --
: ------------------------------------------------------
: George
: mailto:nob...@iap.net.au
: "We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
: But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
: and this is what annoys me."
: ------------------------------------------------------
--Karl
Karl Falk
nobwit (nob...@iap.net.au) wrote:
: That was my point: why are the missiles so small? I agree that a 17
: pound missile cannot be expected to do much - the question is why are
: they using 17 pound missiles?? I would expect they would use missiles
: that are large in proportion to the things they are designed to hit, ie.
: mechs.
The IS rationalization is simple: To increase chances of a hit. If
you're missle guidence systems are very poor, would you rather invest one
missle doing 20 pts, which misses completely, or 20, 1pt missles, half of
which hit? 10 pts is better than 0 pts.
: For example, take a plain old howitzer style gun. A computer could
: calculate the range to the target, the target's movement, and knowing
: the weapon's ballistic stats, etc. could either paint a crosshair on
: your HUD to say where to fire, or point the mech's arm in the exact
: direction required. Of course nothing can predict with 100% certainty
: just what your opponent will do next, so there is no guaranteed hit.
What sort of auto-targeting systems do 'mechs have anyway? Probably a
very limited system, if any. For that matter, I don't recall any info on
Rtech (a genre you seem to like to try to draw parallels to) AI gun
guidence systems for, say the GU-11 gun pod on the VFs in the rule books.
I think the afore mentioned 'standard' ECM-rich environment is also an
excelent explaination of reduced effective range and targeting abilities.
Karl Falk
nobwit (nob...@iap.net.au) wrote:
: Jonathan R Bezeau wrote:
My, I'm responding to so many of these, I must have something
inmportant to say! <g>
: >
: > Think of it this way: when you fire a weapon forever and ever in BT, the
: > entire coolant system heats the mech up gradually (and can STILL overheat
: > and blow up etc...) rather than the weapon suffering all the effects of
: > its own heat. I think the typical BT weapon would blow itself sky-high if
: > not hooked up to some coolant system. This isn't necessarily a good
: > thing, but it makes a passing attempt at explaining the world.
: That sounds like a good explanation - if only the game had said
: something like that!
Isn't that how it's explained? ...now where did I read that... (could
be in the 3050 compenduim, I know it's in many other places)
: Yes - you CAN optimise mech designs, but an awful lot of them will
: overheat _very_ quickly if used at full output (which is what they will
: do in a battle situation).
: > But most mechs trade off that 100% heatsinking capability for enough
: > sinks to USUALLY handle the expected firing and then just trust the
: > pilot. Saves money, frees up tonnage, etc etc. Basically (like a tank)
: > you can fire your main guns until you turn blue. It won't matter. If you
: > over-tax your system though, you call the forces of hell upon your mech.
: > Not plesant. Especially rifleman ammo booms.
: I agree with what you are saying - but in a battle situation you will
: always use your maximum potential, and in doing so will invariably
: overheat very very quickly.
That's part of the strategy of the game: Fire Control.
It is unrealistic to assume that any but the smallest or most lightly
armed 'mech is capable of sustained fire from all it's weapons systems
simutaniously, at least an IS 'mech.
Assume you have a medium mech with one long range weapon (um...an
LRM/5), one mid range weapon (an AC/5) and one short range weapon (an
SRM/2)...hay, I just made a Shadow Hawk, cool!. Anyway, what is the
purpose of this set up? Certainly not to maximise firepower within a
certain range, which would be the desired effect of firing everything you
have all the time, but to have a wide useful range for the 'Mech. The
LRM/5 reaches out, then supports the AC/5 as the combatants close, then
there comes a point where the LRM/5 is less effective, and the SRM/2
comes into play. The AC/5 can be considered the "main gun" in this case,
it's capable of the widest range effectiveness. However, the SRM/2 CAN'T
fire where the LRM/5 can, and the LRM/5 is at a severe disadvantage at
very close range, where the SRM/2 is right at home.
In this case, firing all of your weapons all of the time makes no
sense, and it was not what the 'mech was designed to do. As a result, if
you try that tactic, you WILL over heat, as most 'mech designs only have
'just' enough heatsinks to do what the designer thinks it should be
doing, they take up valuable space and weight which could be used for
additional weapons, ammo, or armor. You'll probably run out of ammo
pretty quick too with this design.
: I agree with what you are saying. To me this would imply that such a
: mech would not be used due to the very points you mention. And if it
: were used, there would be simple ways to deal with such a monster. Then
: I guess you could say that you should have smaller, faster mechs to
: protect the big guns from being tripped up or whatever - that would be
: fair enough. However in battletech, those big mechs are not at all more
: vulnerable despite their bulk and clunkyness.
They are. When I was still reletively "green" (now I'm "rusty" which
is probably just as bad) I made the mistake of following a medium mech
into a muddy plowed field (-1MP) in an Atlas. The medium 'mech was part
of a heavy recon patrol, which I didn't see until I was already mired in
the field. It was like a wolf pack circling the doomed Moose (ok, an
Alaska refference...hope you get it anyway). The moose made a few valiant
efforts to fight back, but through short, quick attacks, the moose is
hamstringed and then devoured. The Heavy Recon lance absolutely cored my
rear torso armor, and suffered only one loss, an AC/20 which blew the a
side torso (forget which) of a Comando, and subsequently the the ammo in
that location. At least the Atlas went out with a 'bang'
(huyuk...sheesh...that wasn't intentional, it just came out, I apologize).
So yes, very heavy 'mechs do suffer from thier lack of mobility,
especially when confronting smaller 'mechs. They make up for this by
fielding larger weapons. Not many 'mechs that are capable of litterally
running circles around the Atlas are also capable of sustaning a direct
hit from it's AC/20.
: > Yeah. The Mechwarrior computer game proved that :)
: That's exactly what I mean! Have you seen those mechs in the starting
: sequence?? You know the one that comes to the rescue of that other one
: with a damaged hip joint? You couldn't hit anything ELSE other than
: their cockpit! It was practically the size of the whole torso!!
I think he meant MWI? Where head hits were too easy. In MW2 head hits
are a great deal more difficult.
Well, take a look at the Sumoner's head/cockpit. It's very small in
comparison. We could aproach this one of two ways. We could have a
standard, simple hit table, or we could have all sorts of complex rules
designed to "customise" the hit table for each 'mech. That sounds like a
mess to me. Besides, the Timber Wolf's cockpit isn't really all that big
from certain angles, in fact, it's not big at all in ther MW2 sim it's
self, and that graphic representation of the Timber Wolf seems just as
legitamate as any other to me.
: Did you also see how easily the mechs destroyed each other in that start
: sequence?
A beat up 'mech hit by a gauss cannon, a Sumoner of unknown condition
with a direct hit by FOUR linked ERPPCs, probably to the same location
(60 pts damage for those keaping score). And a direct hit to the head by
I forget what sort of weapon, but likely a large one (does the Sumoner
primary have an LB10x AND a gauss rifle?). I don't think it's an
improbable scenario, as far as the time the battle took.
: BTW, I absolutely LOVE mechwarrior II - one of my favourite games.
: (really!) But it does point out some inconsistencies of battletech.
Well, sorta. Some aspects of the board/map turn based game did not
translate well to a real time based sim. Also, there were some
limitations such as the lack of arm control, which would have been
exceedingly difficult to implement. On the Whole though, I enjoy the Sim
a great deal.
: Well quite honestly, that's news to me. I have been told by a friend who
: used to drive tanks in the army, that one direct hit and it's game over.
: They must have used different tanks.
That depends on where it's hit and which what type of ordinance. A
solid hit to the treads will probably stop an M1 pretty quick, but a
glancing blow on the front probably won't do much except rattle the
tank's occupants.
: Heh heh :) I like the battle sequences - I think they LOOK great! They
: seem to miss an awful lot though....:)
Ugh, Ick...[urp!]
: > Do you have stats for the Anime series vehicles? And remember that a
: > Tomcat fighter is 20 tons too.
: Is it really? I didn't know that. At a guess I would have said around
: 5-10 tons.
Yup, 20 tons sound just about right to me (see earier thread
responce) the F-14 is a big plane. The A-10 (my personal fave in the
Current U.S. lineup, really Ugly SOB!) weighs 25 tons BEFORE any ordinance
is mounted! It'll still turn inside ANYTHING else in the U.S. military
(non-VTOL, hover/pivot doesn't count)...of course, other pilots chide the
"Hog Drivers"..."The A-10 is the only Aircraft in the U.S. Air Force that
will encounter bird strikes from behind." :)
Jonathan R Bezeau
George (geo...@microbase.com.au) wrote:
: Therefore is it logical to say that an unescorted mech would be easy to
: kill? _I_ imagine an unescorted mech would be easy to kill - just like
: tanks as you point out. The rules of battletech certainly do not imply
: this at all.
An unescorted mech IS easy to kill. With a numerical advantage, you can
get behind it, reducing even Assaults to hoping that they don't take two
hits on a rear torso. Easy indeed.
Karl Falk
Samuel Fang (sf...@mail.vt.edu) wrote:
: Name me a sexy war machine (no planes). There are several (a lot,
: depending on your taste), but they were not designed with that in
: mind. Work first. Look pretty is _way_ down the list.
Is "look pretty" even on the list?
: >IMHO - that is illogical and silly. There is no reason why a mech should
: >not be able to have strong armour all around.
Yes there is, a 'mech can only carry so much armor. The engineer
descides where that limited amount of armor will be most effective.
: It gives your little light 'Mech a snowballs chance to kill a 100 ton
: Atlas. Also, there was a little thing in one Mechwarrior adventure
: where you could get a cockpit installed in the CT. (behind your 31
: pts. of armor) Problem as I see it is that with the pilot hits rule,
: your pilot is likely to die from several MG hits to the CT. Not cool.
: Besides, I think that making the head so f&*king hard to hit is some
: sort of compensation.
Also, there's a lot to be said for being able to SEE OUT THE FLIPPING
WINDOW! Show me any instance where having a pilot totally shielded to the
outside world is more advantagous to being able to acctually SEE what's
going on instead of relying on sensor reports. Submarine crews only do so
because they have no choice.
: >> Ge> 5) Why is the defensive technology (mainly armour) so vastly superior
: >> Ge> to offensive technology (weapons)? A heavily armoured mech needs to be
: >> Ge> plugged at for ages to gradually chip away all that armour.
: >>
: >> Because 1 shot 1 kill makes for an incredibly boring game.
: >Ah, so are you saying there is no "realistic" or "logical" reason for
: >it? And that it was made so purely for "game balance"? Then that is poor
: >game design.
: >And besides, shoot back and forth continually until someone's armour is
: >finally chipped away makes for an incredibly boring game.
: Excuse me. I realize you may not read this comment due to your
: apparently short attention span...
: Ever play chess? Football? Baseball? Any game that takes longer to
: play than to set up? I've played HG. That sounds like what you want.
: Fine. I've spent hours figuring out the rules, discussing it with my
: friends, copying the gear sheets, and setting up the map. And played
: the game during a commercial break of Friends. Get the picture?
Such an advance in ablative armor technology is plausable. In Fact, the
Star League SB has a lot of source info on the first 'Mech, and the
technologies required to make it work. A good techno-babble section
describes how modern Btech ablative armor is made.
: >> Ge> So - Battletech doesn't simulate reality, nor does it simulate the
: >> Ge> anime genre. What the hell is it trying to do? Simulate it's own
: >> Ge> bizarre universe where FTL travel is common, but people duke it out in
: >> Ge> clunky behemoths that overheat?
: >>
: >> Exactly... A universe where centuries of warfare trashed the ressources
: >> required to re-build those...
: >> It's not much sillier than many a premise...
I LIKE the clunky feel. If I want something else, I'll go and play it
(like Robotech, even there, the RDF destroids may be slightly more
refined, but they're still pretty clunky).
: >--
: >------------------------------------------------------
: >George
: >mailto:nob...@iap.net.au
: >"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
: >But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
: >and this is what annoys me."
: >------------------------------------------------------
: None of this is meant personally, george. I just get really annoyed
: when people apparently overlook some of the rules and information
: availible to them. You've been (apparently) playing the game for over
: 5 years. I've been playing for less than 2. If all you've got is the
: basic set, then either be willing to expand to the rest of the
: universe or quit bitching about stuff that you don't understand.
: Samuel Fang
: sf...@mail.vt.edu
Well said, I wish I'd thought of it. :)
The "first boxed set" only came out 5 years ago? Wasn't Citytech a
"boxed set"? I forget...anyway, I've been dabbling in Btech for a plenty
long time, but probably not as long or as seriously as some other people
around here...I do agree, questions are fine, assertions and conclusions
based on incomplete or misunderstood information, are not.
--Karl
Richard Yael Knight
--
No offense to anyone activley posting or lurking, but I think everyone has missed a big point. Allow me to lead up to it: Btech lasers suck. They
are not as efficient as the lasers we build in Physics class. And I can give
you a reason. Imagine getting hit by a laser...where does most of the damage
come from? Assume it was a very high-powered laser....Hydroshock. Sure,
you do get some flesh cooked well-done, but you're gonna have major problems
when all the water in that flesh was flash-boiled. Boom, cells exploding
everywhere. Now, what happens when a laser hits a 'mech. Well, I'll assume
that some armor was vaporized by the sudden influx of energy, that part of
the beam made some penetration. But the biggest part, probably, is energy
transfer. All the armor gets hotter. I'm assuming that 'mechs are made out
of some sort of dense metal....and most dense metals transfer heat well. Do
you want a lot of that heat transfered inside? No, you want to shield it...
which requires insulation. Which works both ways. And that insulation is
invariably going to be pretty good at keeping a 'mech very hot. A 'mech may
not be a closed system, but it's pretty close to it. Where will all this heat
go? Some will go into the atmosphere (more if the 'mech had a lot of surface
area (ie skinny and tall)), some will go into the ground, some will be stored
in heat sinks and given off at a constant rate...Unfortunatly, you cannot
shield reactors too well, unless you have 99.9% efficiency, they are going to
give off a lot of heat. As are the weapons. And what happens when you
introduce heat into a closed system? Exactly--entropy. Is it a wonder that
their electronics don't work well, that 'mechs have 'orrible efficiency?
After all, it is kinda hard to shield a star...Then, 'mechs are rather large.
And two-legged. Have you guys ever walked for a long time? Hiked? Your
feet start hurting. That's because your (my) 190 lbs is pounding on each foot
for each step. Granted, a 'mech has a stronger skeleton, but vibration (a
grosser form of heat) is still threatening to shake everything apart. If you
were a 'mech with an AC/10 (say a FN-FAL, or something bulky and automatic)
do you think that you could hit anything if you were running a fever, running,
and carrying some major body armor? Say around 40 lbs of body armor
(100 tons has 20 tons armor, 200 lb person would carry 40 lbs?) that wasn't
too flexible??? Yes, no? Maybe? Well, I'd be glad to try to refute any
other complaints anyone has, just please don't quote anybody...I have a
program or three due and while I read fast, I don't read that fast....
-Rich
George
Jonathan A Goff wrote:
>
> Guys sorry to spoil your robotechish fun (full body shiver at the
> blasphemous anime), but a F-14 weighs 75 tons.
Woah there nelly!
I was so amazed at this statement that I immediately went web crawling
to find technical specs of the f-14 tomcat.
The maximum takeoff weight of an f-14 is 72,900 pounds (32,805 kg/32
metric tons).
When empty (of fuel and weapons) it weighs 41,780 pounds (18,800kg/18
metric tons).
(note that these stats seem to assume that there is 2.2222 recurring lbs
per kg - I thought it was just 2.2 lbs per kg)
> An aardvark wieghs over
> 100 when fully loaded.
I don't know what an aardvark is (well, I know about the animal, but not
a military vehicle of that name).
> Battlemechs are rediculously light. A slab of
John M Atkinson
Don't get this Virginia Militiaman (Check legal Definition of the National
Guard) started on the typical result of British passion for style in
warfare.
No, I'm not still gloating over Yorktown.
(WARNING, THIS IS IN JEST)
It seems this is the only way that some people realize it's a joke.
Richard V Hoffman
Actually, I wanted to make some responses, first about the British
Broadsword Class frigate ... British ships, to me, were always ugly,
boxy affars (compare King George V, 1941, to the German Tirpitz or the
USS Missouri Class). Heh, if you looked at a photo of the HMS Vanguard
(1946), you'd think on first site it was some kind of destroyer, with
the huge box bridge and the tiny-looking guns (1918 vintage, I think).
If it came down to "nice"-looking ships, I'd settle for the German
capital ships of WWII, or the USS Missouri class; Italian ships just
plain looked too frail. Of course, when it comes down to it, the Brits
kicked the hell out of the Germans and Italians, but it's nice that a
ship as beautiful as the Missouri can still be pretty deadly (or was).
But I'd like to stick with part of this post's subject.
With Battletech, I'd always heard that there was a major shortage of
technology after the first few Succession Wars, and so I sort of wonder
how cost-effective it would be to put guidance packages on BTech missiles
(which are already so small). Personally, I always compared them to the
fletchet-bursting unguided rockets carried by modern gunships, which I
would think would be cheap to make compared to Arrow IV.
Now, of course you have NARC pods and Artemis FCS, which sort of puts
them halfway between missiles and rockets. With Swarm LRMs, well, it
would be nice if we had something like that today (do we?). Hmmm,
thinking of Swarms reminds me of Clancy's Red Storm Rising, and all those
damned Backfire-launched missiles; a few lost their locks (ECM jamming
and chaff), but then right-away reacquired on a nearby target. Of course,
a few plunged strait into the ocean.
With heating in Battletech, it's taken for granted that the engine has
sufficient shielding (hence engine criticals), but I thought the major
heat problem came from weapons. If a large laser shoots off, it's making
lots of subsidiary heat that, for all practical purposes, can't be
shielded the same as a self-contained fusion reactor; some might be
conducted through the armour (can ferro-cerramics do that?). Other waste
heat might be propagated through the mounting and internal structure.
With missiles, there's a hell of a lot of burning propellant, and I know
with most modern machines missiles and rockets are mounted outside the
war machine before firing. With some of the torso-mounted LRM and SRM
cages, I wonder how they handle it; do some 'mechs have rear-torso blast
vents? Good thing that there are safeguards (there must be, right?)
against the blast rushing up the ammunition feed.
Personally, I prefer that it takes a hell of a long time to kill some
'mechs. If I bought an 11-million C-bill Atlas, I'd sure as hell like to
have it come back in more or less one piece. Suppose that everything
became one-shot one-kill; most Merc outfits would be reeling under the
losses, and BTech vehicles might then be something to look at. Hell,
imagine a 30-ton VTOL flying around taking out 'mechs like flies!
(They're already annoying enough as arty spotters.)
Anyway, it's great to be in an Atlas, take the better part of an SRM
barrage from a Commando right up front, and then grin, "Are you finished? My
turn." Another thing: with slower damage, you can savour the combat as
you wreck the other guy's mech, actuator by blinking actuator. With, say,
a handy Tomahawk, there wouldn't be much left to toy with (or salvage).
With weapon ranges, well, you could just take them as guidelines and make
up your own. But a lot of IS 'mechs had shoddy targeting systems to begin
with, with large lasers reaching out to less than 500 metres (I think).
If you take into account visibility, jittering from walking, maybe even
micro-currents making the myomers twitch a little, and poor computers,
then targeting doesn't seem so easy. Anyway, who knows how far a laser
can go and still remain coherent enough to hurt something? I've heard
nasty rumours about some laser SDI testing by some foreign nations, but
apparently it hasn't panned out yet, or they'd be building them like
crazy. With an autocannon, it's for some reason inferior in range to our
120mm on M1A2s, and probably not even as terrifying as the good old
German 88mm Flugabwehrkannone. That might just be for game balance; could
you imagine an AC/20 hitting out to the 1 km marker? Damn, all those
Atlases and other close-support cannon 'mechs would rule the field (not
very healthy for medium or light 'mechs, huh?). Anyway, does anyone have
an idea on the muzzle length of some of those ACs? A short muzzle length
(like the original 75mm on the Panzerkampfwagen IV) is lousy for range
and penetrating power, but substantially lighter. And, hey, maybe in the
Inner Sphere they were so screwed by the Succession Wars that ever since
they couldn't make a good, high-velocity AC propellant. (Or maybe the
SLDF got cheap earlier on the way, and decided that lousy propellant
would be cheaper in bulk ammo and, admittedly, not as dangerous; even
Clan ACs don't cut it compared to a lot of modern cannons).
By the way, what would be the closest AC-rating to an 88mm FlaK? It would
be nice to make a showcase 55-ton "Tiger" tank, with maybe accompanying
Panther and King Tiger chassises. At least, I'm sure anyone could design
something better than the Patton or Rommel.
Sorry for the length, but I really had nothing else to do. Pathetic.
Richard Von Hoffman
r...@sas.upenn.edu
"When the attackers approached the house they were not sure
whether Gunnar was at home, and wanted someone to go right up to the
house to find out. They sat down on the ground, while Thorgrim the
Easterner climbed on to the roof. Gunnar caught sight of a red tunic at
the window. He lunged out with his halberd and struck Thorgrim in the
belly. Thorgrim dropped his shield, lost his footing, and toppled down
from the roof. He strode over to where Gizur and the others were sitting.
"Gizur looked up at him and asked, 'Is Gunnar at home?'
"'That's for you to find out,' replied Thorgrim. 'But I know that
his halberd certainly is.'
"And with that he fell dead.
----Njal's Saga
John M Atkinson
fs...@aurora.alaska.edu (Karl Falk) wrote:
>nobwit (nob...@iap.net.au) wrote:
>: John M Atkinson wrote:
>: >
>: > I see some people's idea of Armored Warfare was developed by playing
>: > arcade games. See my other posts regarding Israeli Tank Commanders. To
>: > elaborate, no electronics system is good enough to substitute for a Mk I
>: > eyeball looking for lunatics with shoulder-fired missles.
>
>: assume that in a thousand years from now there will be no technology
>: capable of substituting for looking out the hatch? That's my gripe with
>: battletech: they have fusion reactors in their mechs, gyro stablizers
>: that allow a giant robot to walk, high energy weapons, all these
>: wonderful advances in technology, but the pilot _still has to look out
>: of a window to see properly_ !!! To me, it is inconsistent.
>
> and decay]
>
> Because can figure out complicated moyamer bundles, fusion reactors,
>and gyro systems does not mean that they have developed advanced sensor
>equipment. The technologies are not related.
> Why is it so often assumed, that if one technological idea has been
>developed, then there must be a whole "package" that comes a long with
>it? I don't get it. The Mig-29 is perhaps one of the most aerodynamically
>advanced jet fighters in the world. It has cockpit instrumentation right
>out of what you would expect in a Yak-9 (WWII Soviet fighter). Advanced
>fighters with advanced electronic suites are not nessiseraly the norm, as
>many people assume. Just as advanced war machines (i.e. 'mechs) with
>advanced sensor suites are not nessiserily the norm.
As a matter of fact, while several aviation classics have been produced in
the /spit/ Soviet Union /spit/ along with some fine tank guns and ATGMs,
commies for some reason can't build electronics worth the silicon it takes
to produce them. Which is one of the thinks that permitted Western forces
to kick butt on much larger WarPac-armed forces. Consistently.
>
>: --
>: ------------------------------------------------------
>: George
>: mailto:nob...@iap.net.au
>
>: "We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients.
>: But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces,
>: and this is what annoys me."
>: ------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --Karl
>
Larkid Deerhorn
: The "first boxed set" only came out 5 years ago? Wasn't Citytech a
: long time, but probably not as long or as seriously as some other people
: around here...I do agree, questions are fine, assertions and conclusions
: based on incomplete or misunderstood information, are not.
: --Karl
Just to set the record semi-straight (without actually digging out my box for
the date), I bought my first Battletech box in 1988, and a year before that I
found a plastic model kit of a small Wolverine and Goliath, which makes
Battletech at least 9 years old... probably 10.
My box had this picture on the back of a Mech and a tank slugging it
out in a swamp with this yellow sticker slapped on bearing the phrase 'In the
31st century, human life is cheap. Battlemechs aren't.'
Took me 2 years to even find someone to play against.
-Lleyrew
Larkid Deerhorn
: IIRC, the Aardvark is a nickname given to the F-111 fighter bomber.
: Acording to my copy of Encyclopedia of World Aircraft, the F-111A has an
: empty weight of 46,172 lbs.(20,943 kg.) and a maximum loaded take off
: weight of 91,500 lbs.(41,504 kg.) The F-111F has respective weights of
: 47,175 lbs(21,398 kg) and loaded at 100,000 lb(45,359 kg.)
: >
: > > Battlemechs are rediculously light. A slab of
: > > steel the size of an elemental is only 20 tons. :)--
: >
: > So, taking into account the real weight of an f-14, and the assumption
: > that during the previous 1000 years (BTech is in the 32nd century) they
: > invented stronger, yet lighter materials, a mech isn't that light after
: > all.
I always assumed Battletech, since developed here in the US, was based
on the US ton (2000 pounds, last time I cared) and not the Metric Ton.
Or you could assume since the Star League records were all lost, so
was the start of weights and measurements, and 1 Btech ton is equivalent to
the weight of General Kerensky's great-grandmother's burial garment.
-Lleyrew
Casey Stout
> If the gun is in the Stinger's HAND, then why doesnt it have its own
> heat sinks and its own crits?
? cuz fasa didnt make rules concerning 'hand' weapons?
>
> I mean, I almost never hear of a soldier shutting down from firing his
> AK-47 too much. Them gun's got themselves adequate cooling capabilities to be
> fired. It would be (and IS) stupid to make a gun that overheats. That's like
> making a camera that breaks every time you take a picture. It just would not
> be done.
a camera and a gun are two different things, one produces heat and the other
doesnt.
>
> And even with today's mech designs of the weapons being a part of the
> whole machine, I find it hard to believe that designers, engineers,
> Mechwarriors, their commanders and the techs (God save the techs!) would all
> agree to field a mech where they look at it and say:
> "Good thing we put on that extra PPC. Too bad you boys will never be
> able to fire it, otherwise your LRM ammo will blow up."
good thing we put on that extra PPC, you're out of LRM ammo
babyface duncer
Michael Kelly
In article <54lgkm$3...@news.alaska.edu>,
fs...@aurora.alaska.edu (Karl Falk) wrote:
>John M Atkinson (jatk...@gmu.edu) wrote:
> That's two votes.
> Like I said, the cockpit/head allows the MechWarrior to SEE. Btech
>technical levels do not support the complex sensor arrays that many anime
>systems have, such as Rtech, such a system is not feasable or practical.
Not feasable in BT I presume? In reality if I were to stick on twin armoured
cameras (about the same distance apart as human eyes) on a tank and route the
feed directly to the TC's helmet like in a VR system I would say that it would
be both feasable and practical. If the worse came to the worse and the cameras
got blown away you could pop the lid and stick your head out... but I wouldn't
advise it. ;)
>And as you say, there's no substitute for the naked eye. Why did WWII era
>fighters move from [slightly] more protective "cage" type canopies to
>less protective, "bubble" canopies which had vastly improved visability
>(especailly rearward)? Because if you can "See and Avoid", that's worth
>more protection than any amount of armor can provide.
True, but such a system could be emulated very well inside an armoured
vehicle, using VR technology. With the proper "smart" controlling computers
both bogies and friendlies could be highlighted right in the TC's helmet, it
could implement IR, Lowlight, thermal and so on. A MBT could have several sets
scanning the surrounding terrain, calling the TC's attention when it's needed.
Like having eyes on the back of your head.
Granted this is perhaps a bit more Cyberpunky than regular Mecha games it is a
great idea.
Mike Kelly.
Gonna go wash out my mouth for mentioning VR twice in the same post, three
times actually, YUCK! And I "enthusised" about it's uses. Double YUCK!
jim jun pai
Michael Kelly (Michae...@isocor.ie) wrote:
: True, but such a system could be emulated very well inside an armoured
: both bogies and friendlies could be highlighted right in the TC's helmet,it
: scanning the surrounding terrain,calling the TC's attention when it's
: needed.
Well, you touched upon the reason in the first part of your post, but
I snipped it to save some space. Probably the main reason is that if you
_EVER_ lose your sensors, you are just so screwed. I mean, there you are, in
a big, not too hard to miss 'mech, and you can not see a single durned thing!
It would not be too hard to take you out at that point. The fact that most
'mechs still have a canopy of some sort is probably as a backup, in case you
do lose your sensors. True, they probably should not be quite as *BIG* as
they are, but you should have some sort of way to look out.
Also, consider the sheer number of ways you could lose those sensors.
Battle damage is one, and fairly likely, especially if they know that you
would be blind without them. Poor maintenance is another, and pretty likely
in the original 3025 setting (Damn! That sensor keeps fritzing out on me...
I wish I could find some decent electronics to fix it with...). Also, there
are a lot of random things that could happen, such as having them get covered
by mud, smacked by tree branches or boulders, etc. The fact is, a vehicle
relying solely on electronic sensors is frighteningly vulnerable to losing
those sensors... be it through enemy attack, jamming, or simple lack of good
maintenance.
J.J.P.
Eric R. Garbos
> > From theses two paragraphs, it seems that you missed the all important theme
> > behind Battletech. In the current game year, technology, on the whole, is not a
> > whole lot more advanced than now. Almost all the high-technology items are hand
> > -me-downs from the Star League. After the 300 years of warfare, the I.S. has
> > lost the knowledge of how to build any of this. This is why, in all the
> > original scenario packs, all the mechs are held together with 'spit and bailing
> > wire'. No one knew how to repair them, let alone build new ones. Almost all the
> > factories producing mechs were fully automated, but no one knew how to fix them
> > if they broke down. The Battletech universe is not the pinnacle of human
> > technological advancement, but leftovers from an earlier era. FASA has
> > completely changed the basis for the game with the introduction of the GDL
> > memory core and the Clans. I'm not saying that it is better or worse, just
> > different from the original premise.
I would have to agree with you, and chuck in my $0.02 that I think this
was
a BAD move for FASA. When half the weapons started being able to take
out heads
in single shots, and the weird tech started to get to be too big an
issue, I
wasn't too happy. I'm just a hardcore 3025 fan, I guess...
> > But to expect, just because Battlemechs exist in this game, that all the
> > technology is as advanced as some of the weapons are shows that you haven't
> > read the background material. If, after a nuclear war here that destroyed
> > everything, you had a tank that was 200 years old, and no one who knew how to
> > build a new one or fix it if it broke down, would you assume that everything
> > else must be as advanced as the most advanced systems on the tank? No.
> Everything else in the tank itself, yes. The tank would still have all
> of the technology that it was originally built with. Of course some
> individual components may have broken down.
Ah, but to make use of such a tank in such a scenario, one would have to
jerryrig some very different (and lower tech) systems into the design in
order to stay functional.
> Are you saying that mechs were designed with superior technology but
> strangely those components in EVERY single mech have broken down? Thus
> all mechs are actually lugging around other advanced equipment but it
> just doesn't work? The rules certainly didn't mention that.
I believe that fully functional high-tech mechs are still out there.
The point is that the Inner Sphere has battered itself so badly that
such
mechs are few and far between.
> Or are you saying that these factories that churn out mechs build them
> incorrectly? And that the factories are supposed to be putting more
> advanced features in them but it's not happening for some reason? The
> rules certainly didn't mention that either.
I think the people in the IS have learned to make do with lower tech
wherever
they could work it in. Keep in mind that there IS some higher tech still
out
there and in use - the advanced aerospace targetting on the Rifleman,
the
advanced gyros in the Scorpion, the advanced ejection system on the
Hatchetman, etc. Where such things CAN be produced, they ARE. Where they
CAN'T, the techs make do with what they can.
> If neither of these two scenarios is the case, then I can only assume
> that the mechs that exist were originally designed and built that way -
> which is with inconsistent technology levels.
This might actually be reasonable. Here's a scenario question for ya:
when
did the people in the IS lose track of the production technology (ie,
when
were the current mech designs set)? If they were already on a slide into
lower tech, the designs as intended may very well be inconsistent, with
some components being more modern than others at the time. So the
current
IS folk may have inherited some cludgy designs before they themselves
had
to start making them even more cludgy with current tech. Just an idea...
> BTW, I did not know that mechs were churned out of mech-making factories
> that noone understood. The fact that the rules allow for mech design
> _implies_ (not necessarily meaning it is true) that there exists the
> capability for mech-making and tweaking. I was certainly under the
> impression that mechs could _at least_ be repaired.
I think the production process isn't a total mystery. I know this is
true for the jumpship/dropship factories, but I think people have a
half-way decent grip on mech production. The big question there is the
tech going into the designs itself.
> > You need
> > the context of the game universe before you can complain about what is missing.
> I have only the context of the game universe that my rulebook and my
> gaming experience with battletech has given me. What other context
> should I have?
Honestly, I don't think anyone should be trashing on you for your
understanding of things, but I might suggest one additional source for
you to learn about the BTech setting: the novels. They tend to be
excellent
reading (in my opinion) simply as sci-fi stories, and there's no better
way to learn about what the BTech universe is like. Ditto for Shadowrun,
by the way.
Ciao...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ NAME: Eric R. Garbos ] [ Sir Aeryk Valjeusaren, 6th
Earl and ]
[ HOME PHONE: (603)673-9944 ] [ Heir to Blackwood, Bashar
of ]
[ WORK PHONE: (603)885-8533 ] [ Blackwood, Marquis of
Hemenshire, ]
[ EMAIL: ega...@sanders.com ] [ Knight of
Blackwood ]
[ WWW: <http://rassp.sanders.com/erg> ] [ Drakken, Feather,
Ta-Tonka ]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/
_/_/ _/_/
_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/
_/_/ _/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/
_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/
_/_/ _/_/
-=-=-=-=-=Prince of Lies, Lord of Hell, Incarnation of Evil (Retir
That guy in the corner
> Just to set the record semi-straight (without actually digging out my box for
> the date), I bought my first Battletech box in 1988, and a year before that I
> found a plastic model kit of a small Wolverine and Goliath, which makes
> Battletech at least 9 years old... probably 10.
> My box had this picture on the back of a Mech and a tank slugging it
> out in a swamp with this yellow sticker slapped on bearing the phrase 'In the
> 31st century, human life is cheap. Battlemechs aren't.'
>
exist? :) It porbably goes back even further, as I still have an
'authentic' FASA catalog dated 1986-87, and it already had stuff like
Citytech and Aerotech inside, as well as a few of the scenario books.
jim jun pai
Richard V Hoffman (r...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: Actually, I wanted to make some responses, first about the British
: boxy affars (compare King George V, 1941, to the German Tirpitz or the
: USS Missouri Class). Heh, if you looked at a photo of the HMS Vanguard
: (1946), you'd think on first site it was some kind of destroyer, with
: the huge box bridge and the tiny-looking guns (1918 vintage, I think).
: If it came down to "nice"-looking ships, I'd settle for the German
: capital ships of WWII, or the USS Missouri class; Italian ships just
: plain looked too frail. Of course, when it comes down to it, the Brits
: kicked the hell out of the Germans and Italians, but it's nice that a
: ship as beautiful as the Missouri can still be pretty deadly (or was).
I believe he was comparing modern ships, rather than ships from all
time periods. But yeah, there is still a lot of beauty in the ships you
mentioned. However, I still really like the look of a lot of the Russian
ships, especially the Kirov and Kiev class cruisers. Talk about sleek... :)
: Now, of course you have NARC pods and Artemis FCS, which sort of puts
: them halfway between missiles and rockets. With Swarm LRMs, well, it
: would be nice if we had something like that today (do we?). Hmmm,
We have something similar... we call them cluster bombs. :) I have
also heard that there is a version of the tomahawk that can drop submunitions,
although this may just have been the dream of the author of some techno-
thriller.
: very healthy for medium or light 'mechs, huh?). Anyway, does anyone have
: an idea on the muzzle length of some of those ACs? A short muzzle length
: (like the original 75mm on the Panzerkampfwagen IV) is lousy for range
: and penetrating power, but substantially lighter. And, hey, maybe in the
Well, most of the AC/20s I have seen pictures of have really short
muzzles. The most common examples of this would be the Hunchback and the
Atlas... the length of the entire gun is only about the length of the torso
from front to back... which is probably something like maybe ten feet all
told? The lighter cannon with greater range seem to have longer barrels,
although this breaks down somewhat at the AC/2 level. Note the long barrel
of the AC/5 mounted on the Maurader and the Shadowhawk. Most of the AC/2s
I have seen also involved long barrels, but notable exceptions are the
Mauler and the 3025 Warrior helicopter. As for the ammo questions, who
knows? I have always thought that the AC/20s were probably something more
like bazzooka rounds rather than true cannons... note the huge hole in the
back of the Hunchback... looks like it was made for the backblast from the
launched round...
J.J.P.
Rich Adams
Richard Yael Knight (rkn...@runner.utsa.edu) wrote:
:
: --
: No offense to anyone activley posting or lurking, but I think everyone has missed a big point. Allow me to lead up to it: Btech lasers suck. They
: are not as efficient as the lasers we build in Physics class. And I can give
: you a reason. Imagine getting hit by a laser...where does most of the damage
: come from? Assume it was a very high-powered laser....Hydroshock. Sure,
: you do get some flesh cooked well-done, but you're gonna have major problems
: when all the water in that flesh was flash-boiled. Boom, cells exploding
Have you actually fired a laser at a piece of meat to try this?
: everywhere. Now, what happens when a laser hits a 'mech. Well, I'll assume
: that some armor was vaporized by the sudden influx of energy, that part of
: the beam made some penetration. But the biggest part, probably, is energy
: transfer. All the armor gets hotter. I'm assuming that 'mechs are made out
: of some sort of dense metal....and most dense metals transfer heat well. Do
Actaully Mech armor is supposed to be varieties of ceramics. Strong ionic
bond high temp kinda stuff.
: you want a lot of that heat transfered inside? No, you want to shield it...
: which requires insulation. Which works both ways. And that insulation is
: invariably going to be pretty good at keeping a 'mech very hot. A 'mech may
: not be a closed system, but it's pretty close to it. Where will all this heat
: go? Some will go into the atmosphere (more if the 'mech had a lot of surface
: area (ie skinny and tall)), some will go into the ground, some will be stored
: in heat sinks and given off at a constant rate...Unfortunatly, you cannot
: shield reactors too well, unless you have 99.9% efficiency, they are going to
: give off a lot of heat. As are the weapons. And what happens when you
: introduce heat into a closed system? Exactly--entropy. Is it a wonder that
: their electronics don't work well, that 'mechs have 'orrible efficiency?
Well, I've always assumed they weren't tight beams, which would slice,
rather broad beams which melt. I suppose a hit from these _should_ heat
up the mech on the receiving end, but it's just a game and needs some
things accepted just to be playable.
: After all, it is kinda hard to shield a star...Then, 'mechs are rather large.
: And two-legged. Have you guys ever walked for a long time? Hiked? Your
: feet start hurting. That's because your (my) 190 lbs is pounding on each foot
: for each step. Granted, a 'mech has a stronger skeleton, but vibration (a
: grosser form of heat) is still threatening to shake everything apart. If you
'Actuators' and myomer bundles are assumed to work as well as cartilage
and muscle in absorbing shock.
: were a 'mech with an AC/10 (say a FN-FAL, or something bulky and automatic)
: do you think that you could hit anything if you were running a fever, running,
: and carrying some major body armor? Say around 40 lbs of body armor
This is what the gyro is for. Managed stability for balance and
targetting.
: (100 tons has 20 tons armor, 200 lb person would carry 40 lbs?) that wasn't
: too flexible??? Yes, no? Maybe? Well, I'd be glad to try to refute any
: other complaints anyone has, just please don't quote anybody...I have a
: program or three due and while I read fast, I don't read that fast....
Bigger mechs, bigger gyros, i think it all fits into the critical hit
system well enough.
Let's face it, the realism of BattleTech has been beaten to death enough
times. On today's battle fields they wouldn't stand a chance against the
kinds of weapons hurled around in the gulfwar. Mechs, for all their
speed, still approximate a static defense compared to air-to-ground
missiles and stuff, which we have seen enough tapes of blasting the snot
out of concrete reinforced bunkers. Even if such missiles didn't blow
appart the target, the transfer of kinetic energy would rupture most of a
Mech pilots body and he'd die of internal bleeding.
Just accept it and play the game, ok?
--
~ Rich Adams [DNRC] Women move in strange and mysterious ways.
~ ri...@alpha.delta.edu I can never find any of my stuff after
~ sp...@genie.geis.com they have moved it.
Casey Stout
>
> Guys sorry to spoil your robotechish fun (full body shiver at the
> 100 when fully loaded. Battlemechs are rediculously light. A slab of
> steel the size of an elemental is only 20 tons. :)
there is no way in hell will you ever convince me that an F-14 Tomcat
weight 150,000 pounds (more in metric).
babyface duncer
John M Atkinson
Michae...@isocor.ie (Michael Kelly) wrote:
>In article <54lgkm$3...@news.alaska.edu>,
> fs...@aurora.alaska.edu (Karl Falk) wrote:
>>John M Atkinson (jatk...@gmu.edu) wrote:
>> That's two votes.
>> Like I said, the cockpit/head allows the MechWarrior to SEE. Btech
>>technical levels do not support the complex sensor arrays that many anime
>>systems have, such as Rtech, such a system is not feasable or practical.
>
>Not feasable in BT I presume? In reality if I were to stick on twin armoured
>cameras (about the same distance apart as human eyes) on a tank and route the
>feed directly to the TC's helmet like in a VR system I would say that it would
>be both feasable and practical. If the worse came to the worse and the cameras
>got blown away you could pop the lid and stick your head out... but I wouldn't
>advise it. ;)
So then you have an MBT that is taken out by a fella with a 9mm pistol
right through the lenses. Brilliant. I wonder why the US hasn't adopted
that already.
>
>>And as you say, there's no substitute for the naked eye. Why did WWII era
>>fighters move from [slightly] more protective "cage" type canopies to
>>less protective, "bubble" canopies which had vastly improved visability
>>(especailly rearward)? Because if you can "See and Avoid", that's worth
>>more protection than any amount of armor can provide.
>
>True, but such a system could be emulated very well inside an armoured
>vehicle, using VR technology. With the proper "smart" controlling computers
>both bogies and friendlies could be highlighted right in the TC's helmet, it
>could implement IR, Lowlight, thermal and so on. A MBT could have several sets
>scanning the surrounding terrain, calling the TC's attention when it's needed.
>Like having eyes on the back of your head.
If such a system existed in the SL, it would have broken down. Long ago.
Along with the Ultra cannons, Gauss rifles, Guardian ECM suites. Need I
say more?
Joe Kirby
In article <DzsrH...@rci.ripco.com>,
cba...@ripco.com (Larkid Deerhorn) wrote:
>
>
>Just to set the record semi-straight (without actually digging out my box for
>the date), I bought my first Battletech box in 1988, and a year before that I
>found a plastic model kit of a small Wolverine and Goliath, which makes
>Battletech at least 9 years old... probably 10.
> My box had this picture on the back of a Mech and a tank slugging it
>out in a swamp with this yellow sticker slapped on bearing the phrase 'In the
>31st century, human life is cheap. Battlemechs aren't.'
>
>
>-Lleyrew
Errr. I don't have Exact dates. But I believe the first incarnation of BT
was BD (BattleDroids) that came out mid to late 1984 and the first BT boxed
set came out late 1984 to early 1985 City tech then came out after that. The
little plastic models (255th scale) came out late 85. They were the Locust,
Shadowhawk, Wolverine, Madrauder, Stinger, PheonixHawk, ThunderBolt, and I
believe the Archer. Each model came out with a "Fluff" readout that explained
what the mech was and any "Special" traits it had. One of the more interesting
is the example of the "First" modular (Read Omni) design. The Shadow Hawk's
AC and Jump jets were built on a BackPack and was removible. There might have
been other Models, but I never saw or got them. We used them for Figurines
untill they started making Lead ones. You could actually set Battle poses and
remove parts as they were destroyed.
\ / /\ |'''\ | /'''\ |'''\ |''\
\ /\ / /__\ |___| | ( ) |___| | )
\/ \/ / \ | \ |___ \___/ | \ |__/
When you can't Conquer them DESTROY them.
war...@emerado.polaristel.net
George
Jonathan R Bezeau wrote:
>
> nobwit (nob...@iap.net.au) wrote:
>
> : Yes - you CAN optimise mech designs, but an awful lot of them will
> : overheat _very_ quickly if used at full output (which is what they will
> : do in a battle situation).
>
> shreds if not used properly. No joke. Ditto with mechs... some have only
> enough heatsinkage for their long range weapons, and use extra tonnage for
> short range weapons as an afterthought. Look at the Archer... fire the
> LRMs for days, OR the MLs fr days, but don't do both. If you have to
> engage either one guy with both short and long range weapons, or you have
> to fend off someone at both ranges at once, you're using the mech wrong.
That is a fair comment. I suppose equipment (and people :) will always
be pushed beyond their limits, no matter what the design. However, I
feel that a mech is a bit too limited, especially by heat.
> And to reiterate, military stuff is usually very unforgiving if used
> wrongly, even nowadays, though it is more a question of speed and armor
> for curret vehicles than heat buildup. Most mechs have enough armor to
> take a brief beating, and still be able to run away. Don't try that with
> a modern IFV versus a main battle tank...
*nod*
> : I agree with what you are saying - but in a battle situation you will
> : always use your maximum potential, and in doing so will invariably
> : overheat very very quickly.
>
> Military equipment designers are not always realists. Besides, the heat
> aspect makes the game more strategic to play than:
>
> "Move, alpha, move, alpha, move. alpha... alpha... alpha with remaining
> weapons... die"
Yes, but I think that heat buildup is a lousy way to introduce strategy.
> : > : Would it? And this would be after operating at maximum for how long?
> : >
> : > Do you know?
> : >
> : Nope. I was asking you.
>
> Doh. But I'm pretty sure a tank's governor is there for a reason...
heh :)
> : I agree with what you are saying. To me this would imply that such a
> : mech would not be used due to the very points you mention. And if it
> : were used, there would be simple ways to deal with such a monster. Then
> : I guess you could say that you should have smaller, faster mechs to
> : protect the big guns from being tripped up or whatever - that would be
> : fair enough. However in battletech, those big mechs are not at all more
> : vulnerable despite their bulk and clunkyness.
>
> Which COULD be construed to say something positive about their design or
> technology, or could be used to mock the targeting systems of other
> machines. But it's pretty clear to me that mechs are designed for
> stability uber alles.
Fair enough.
> Proper strategy: have a second mech, say a Marauder or a Warhammer follow
> the Atlas. They can concentrate on the same target (the Atlas with MLs
> and AC, the WHM with PPCs), and the Warhammer poses a very serious threat
> to any ideas of running behind the Atlas... all those SRMs, lasers, and
> machineguns. Ow.
Very good points.
> : Well quite honestly, that's news to me. I have been told by a friend who
> : used to drive tanks in the army, that one direct hit and it's game over.
> : They must have used different tanks.
>
> Quite probably. One direct hit from above or behind and it's good night.
> The sides too, possibly, but not the front, which is where you're trying
> to get hit...
I've heard from a number of other people that some tanks are REALLY
tough on their front (or glacis - see, I DO listen :).
> : Heh heh :) I like the battle sequences - I think they LOOK great! They
> : seem to miss an awful lot though....:)
>
> TWO UAC/20s to the Axeman's back? He lived through that? That's the kind
> of rear armor you look for, nay? :)
Heh :)
> I heard specs a while ago, and the Tomcat IS a big bird, but 20 tons
> loaded is what I heard.
The maximum takeoff weight for a tomcat is approximately 32 tons. Empty
of fuel and weapons, it weighs approximately 18 tons.
--
George
Karl Falk wrote:
>
> I think you missed some key points here...
>
> : The point is not that a fusion reactor does NOT produce heat - but that
> : if you have the technology to HAVE a fusion reactor in a mech in the
> : first place, you would expect (well, _I_ would) that they would be able
> : to deal with the heat buildup.
>
> They do, thier called heat sinks. Source info will tell you how they work.
I am aware of heat sinks. I am also aware of how they do not adequately
deal with heat buildup - otherwise how is it possible for a mech to
overheat in a few rounds? When I said "be able to deal with the heat
buildup", I meant: heat should not be a problem - at all (except
possibly if something was damaged). This is of course IMHO.
> : I agree with what you are saying. Once again: I am not claiming weapons
> : do not make heat. I have been told by people in the army that a squad
> : will always carry a couple of extra barrels for the m60 machine gun -
> : because the barrels get so hot they can melt! The point is that a
> : hi-tech mech should (IMHO) be able to HANDLE the heat - to the point
> : where heat buildup is not a concern.
>
> Again, heat sinks and how they work: Source info.
Did you read what I said? I said: "be able to handle the heat - to the
point where HEAT BUILDUP IS NOT A CONCERN." Heat sinks do handle heat -
but heat buildup IS still a concern. So mechs and their heat sinks
cannot do what _I believe_ a mech should be able to do, and that is: not
worry about heat AT ALL. ie. I DO NOT THINK HEAT SHOULD BE A PART OF THE
GAME. Do you understand what I am saying now? Once again, just to be
sure, I will say that this is all IMHO.
You must surely have known that I was aware of heat sinks. So I wonder
why did you mention them as though I had no idea that they existed?
> : That's the point - the pilot shouldn't be made so vulnerable (I know, I
> : know, in battletech there's only 1 in 36 chance of a head shot, but look
> : at the size of the heads on those mechs, just LOOK at them!)
>
> I think there's a commuinications break down here. Didn't you say you
> didn't like the "slugfest" feel of Btech, and compared it to anime
> systems where units were destroyed by one or two shots?
Yes I did do that.
> Here you have contradicted yourself. It is irrelevant whether the
> pilot died due to a head shot or the complete obliteration of his vehicle
> (accept the complete obliteration is more spectacular). The Pilot is just
> as dead, and if all it takes is one or two shots to kill him in the other
> vehicle, chances are that he's much more likely to survive a direct hit
> in a 'Mech. In short, the anime pilot is more "vulnerable."
I understand what you are saying - but you must have misinterpreted what
I was saying.
I have not constradicted myself. All along I have been discussing what I
believe to be inconsistencies in Battletech. One of these
inconsistencies is the the way that mechs are built: incredibly rugged
with armour that can easily withstand multiple hits, yet the pilot is
(almost) unprotected - and thus the huge, tough mech can be taken out
with a lucky shot to the head. In anime mechs there are no gaping
weaknesses or inconsistencies in the them - they are simply weak
(relative to their weapons) all over.
> : Get stuffed! Why do I have to buy every book before I am allowed to
> : comment on the game? Jeeze!
>
> Here's why: You are jumping to conclusions of Btech's lack of realism,
> without knowing or understanding the information which has been provided by
> FASA which helps to legitamize certain aspects of the game.
It is quite valid to ask questions based on the knowledge gained from
owning just the basic rules. If the answer is given in some other book,
then just say so. But don't say I shouldn't have asked the question in
the first place.
> For example, you have already concluded that Btech's handling of heat
> is unrealistic, without first knowing how heat is handled, and what
> technologies (sci-fi or 'legit') are employed to do so. You have
> concluded that the Btech missle sytstems are unrealistic and that there
> is no conceivable justification for such a system other than poor game
> design, when in fact, you have been given two good answers (deffence
> against AMS and increased hit probablility when poor guidence systems are
> employed).
You are referring to my comments on poor game design that I made BEFORE
I got any answers.
And "no concievable justification" ???? YOUR words, not mine.
IF you had read the responses to those points brought up that answered
my queries, you would have seen me respond: "Fair enough", or "valid
point". In other words, I asked questions, and then received and
accepted the answers. In particular, those two answers you mention
above, I agree that they are good answers.
> I could go on to cite virtually every question (or rather,
> hasty conclusion) you have stated on this thread, but you get the point,
> and I'm tired anyway.
No, I don't really get the point, except that you are responding as
though I have made a personal attack on you. This is unfortunate,
because I made a point of saying how I am not making a personal attack
on anyone, especially since I am a Battletech player myself.
> I'm not insistant that you rush out and buy every source book
> available, but I do think it would be a good idea to give the genre a
> chance before concluding that since <you> didn't see it or read it, that
> there must not be any explainations for the way the system is designed,
> and that it just wasn't well thought out.
So by your logic, If I EVER conclude that something was not well thought
out, then I haven't given the genre a chance? No - here you are wrong. I
HAVE given Battletech a chance, and I believe that parts of it are
poorly thought out. Note: less parts than I used to think, because of
the good answers I have received.
BTW I have never concluded that there "must not be any explanations for
the way the system is designed" (Once again, YOUR words, not mine). If I
had concluded such a thing, I would never have asked any questions.
> BTW this wasn't intended as a flame, it just ended up sounding like
> one. :)
And you said that with a smile, too.
> It was intended to help clear up some miscomunication.
It seems to me that it was intended to defend battletech. I personally
have no qualms about question a game's design, even if I like that game.