|
Breetai posted:That's only because you're using the 10 'free' heatsinks that come with the engine. Right, because you always get those (well, you can design an ICE mech but those are real rarities). And since you always get free heat dissipation, the scale is always weighted towards energy weapons which have heat as their main drawback. quote:Put it another way: say you have 20 tons to play with. You could mount 2 standard PPCs and 6 medium lasers. The only thing you lose is crit-seeking ability at long range (which you'll lose after 10 shots anyway): otherwise, you'd match and surpass the average performance of LBX autocannon. No ammo dependency, no worries of a freak crit taking out half your firepower. 2 ERLL and 8 mediums with a couple heat sinks would allow you to outrange the opposition and overwhelm him at close range, if you want to go that route.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 12:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
Affi posted:What it really comes down to though is that any mech with ammunition is worthless if you factor in flavour. Battles that last for days? Counterpoint: Try making an Inner Sphere 'Mech that can continuously fire 4 ERPPCs without overheating. Using the basic construction rules, it's literally impossible. You can, however, build 'Mechs with the same damage output (i.e. 40 points of damage) or greater at long range using a mix of ballistics and energy weapons. Space constraints due to the massive size of Inner Sphere Double heatsinks is a very real reason to use ballistics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 12:39
|
|
|
As a Inner Sphere house lord I would never comission a mech with ballistic weapons, imagine how much money you would save never having to purchase ammunition? After a few years of warfare you'd be able to buy loads more energybased mechs for the money saved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 13:04
|
|
|
Affi posted:What it really comes down to though is that any mech with ammunition is worthless if you factor in flavour. Battles that last for days? From an game-mechanical perspective, the ammunition weapons would be a lot more competitive if anyone ever used availability and monetary prices. Working AC/5 now is a lot better than PPC ten weeks from today. Some of the weapons (PPC comes to mind) are supposed to be real rarities. This would create interesting dilemmas: would you rather buy a PPC or a 25-ton tank? If you factor in flavour, some of the stock designs become monsters. Shadow Hawk is probably the best example. On tabletop it's undergunned, has a weird movement profile (5/8/3) and has no niche where something else couldn't perform better. But let's consider what it could do as a guerrilla fighter let loose to wreak havoc. It can carry Thunder and Swarm ammo for LRM, meaning no supply convoys or ammo dumps are safe. You can fit Inferno ammunition for the SRM launcher, meaning flash fires in the fields, forests and everywhere else that can catch fire. It has exactly one energy weapon, meaning that as long as the unit still runs it's a threat to unarmed targets. Even the strange movement profile doesn't matter as much since real life doesn't run in 10-second turns. One mech with a dedicated pilot, map with targets and some imagination can cause an ungodly amount of terror and trouble.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 13:07
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:It can carry Thunder and Swarm ammo for LRM, meaning no supply convoys or ammo dumps are safe. You can fit Inferno ammunition for the SRM launcher, meaning flash fires in the fields, forests and everywhere else that can catch fire. It has exactly one energy weapon, meaning that as long as the unit still runs it's a threat to unarmed targets. Even the strange movement profile doesn't matter as much since real life doesn't run in 10-second turns. One mech with a dedicated pilot, map with targets and some imagination can cause an ungodly amount of terror and trouble. Exactly, and that mech has only one weapon with infinite ammunition. Cost efficiency. Lasers can start brushfires too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 13:23
|
|
|
Affi posted:What it really comes down to though is that any mech with ammunition is worthless if you factor in flavour. Battles that last for days? This point's another one of those bits where the fluff and the mechanics are in ridiculous conflict. A turn of combat lasts (if my memory's right) 10 seconds. Your average mech with an ammo-based weapon has one, maybe two tons of ammo for it. An Archer? Two minutes of sustained fire. Jagermech? Out in three. Hunchback? Can't even last two minutes before running dry. Nobody in their right mind would field a weapon that's got so little longevity in battles that last for hours, let alone days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:10
|
|
|
A very important thing abotu the LBX class ACs is the amount of chances to roll headshots or TAC. There are very few energy weapons which can kill a pilot without breaking the armour on the location *without* a TAC, but an LBX will have a good chance of it. Fluffwise... Battletech is loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:15
|
|
|
WW2 fighters commonly went into the air with enough ammo for under a minutes sustained firing. I think the Spitfire originally only carried about 15 seconds worth of machine gun rounds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:15
|
|
|
goatface posted:WW2 fighters commonly went into the air with enough ammo for under a minutes sustained firing. I think the Spitfire originally only carried about 15 seconds worth of machine gun rounds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
this is why the mechanics for ballistics in mechwarrior video games are so skewed. really Gauss is the exception but most of the IS standards like the AC 5 and the AC 10 are completely underpowered or don't have enough ammo to make a difference in most of the video games. Of course this maybe a model of real life. Airplanes for example can only really fire in short bursts a burst of minutes would completely deplete their ammo, and also with automatic weapons on vehicles. This is what I suppose the AC is trying to represent since they do have "primitive" weapons which are supposed to be what we have today scaled up, while ACs are supposed to be like automatic assault cannons. Only in this respect they would be shockingly realistic. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Heavy_Rifle MW4 did make the lbxs and the Ac10's pretty well in the patch, but they still are rather underpowered compared to just a few large lasers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:21
|
|
|
Well, the A-10 can dump the entire ammo load of it's main gun in ~18 seconds (if memory serves), but with aircraft it is assumed that you're going to only be firing in short bursts and that you'll end up back at base to refuel and rearm in fairly short order, or be shot down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:26
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Yeah but a glancing hit by one bullet was enough to gently caress you. Not really unless it was a 20mm+ autocannon firing HE shells. And those commonly had even less ammo. Pretty much every modern AFV or plane only has ammo for a few minutes (at best) of sustained fire. Thing is that you aren't ever going to expend ammo at such a rate during a real combat situation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:26
|
|
|
goatface posted:WW2 fighters commonly went into the air with enough ammo for under a minutes sustained firing. I think the Spitfire originally only carried about 15 seconds worth of machine gun rounds. It made sense then, though. You only needed to hit with a round or two to seriously damage your opponent. Mechs, though, need to be hit with significant volumes of sustained fire to have any real effect, barring lucky TACs or headshots with a big gun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:30
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:This point's another one of those bits where the fluff and the mechanics are in ridiculous conflict. Having played some fairly large games (36 vs. 36), it's been my experience that both forces have usually bludgeoned themselves out of existence long before the two minute mark passes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:33
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Yeah but a glancing hit by one bullet was enough to gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:36
|
|
|
PajamaSutra posted:Having played some fairly large games (36 vs. 36), it's been my experience that both forces have usually bludgeoned themselves out of existence long before the two minute mark passes. Which is another point of fluff that doesn't mesh with actual play. What I'm trying to say is: factoring in the fluff on the effectiveness of equipment on the board is silly, because the two are laughably opposed to each other in so many ways that there's no reconciling it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:38
|
|
|
One thing we can say about Mechs is that they appear to have developed better armour than they have weapons. A modern main battle tank is probably hosed if it gets hit once by the main gun of an enemy, mechs take multiple hits from primary weapons and keep going. Someone lost an arms race there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
for reference once you put a mech as a walking tank it kinda falters the modern M1A1 is kinda killed in one shot normally but carries FORTY TWO cannon rounds and 900 rounds for machine guns (which is only really a few minutes of sustained fire) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1A1_Abrams either way, mechs seem to act more like heavily armored aircraft seemed to be geared toward 1 mission then a resupply, and to kill the enemy within the first few minutes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:45
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:....by that you mean 4,500 right? Cause that's how many rounds it took a spitfire to down a German bomber. If so, it was a miracle that the RAF shot any down, since a Spitfire carried 2,400 rounds for its eight guns. If you mean number of bullets expended per German bomber brought down during the Battle of Britain, color me surprised; I would have thought it'd be a much higher number. Tempest_56 posted:What I'm trying to say is: factoring in the fluff on the effectiveness of equipment on the board is silly, because the two are laughably opposed to each other in so many ways that there's no reconciling it. Yes, it's best not to think about it too much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:51
|
|
|
PajamaSutra posted:If so, it was a miracle that the RAF shot any down, since a Spitfire carried 2,400 rounds for its eight guns. If you mean number of bullets expended per German bomber brought down during the Battle of Britain, color me surprised; I would have thought it'd be a much higher number. I grabbed that number from Wiki.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:54
|
|
|
Magni posted:Not really unless it was a 20mm+ autocannon firing HE shells. And those commonly had even less ammo. bunnyofdoom posted:....by that you mean 4,500 right? Cause that's how many rounds it took a spitfire to down a German bomber. Also the "Rifle" guns are bullshit. They do nine damage but can't damage mechs or vehicles with BAR of 8+ (IE: everything but infantry....). It's a loving pisstake weapon invented to shut people up about the M1A2 Abrahms and the 120 mil Rheinmetall. PajamaSutra posted:If so, it was a miracle that the RAF shot any down, since a Spitfire carried 2,400 rounds for its eight guns. If you mean number of bullets expended per German bomber brought down during the Battle of Britain, color me surprised; I would have thought it'd be a much higher number. Arquinsiel fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Feb 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Also the "Rifle" guns are bullshit. They do nine damage but can't damage mechs or vehicles with BAR of 8+ (IE: everything but infantry....). It's a loving pisstake weapon invented to shut people up about the M1A2 Abrahms and the 120 mil Rheinmetall. Yeah it totally is, the Fluff is trying to save itself... isn't that a dark age development? Yes it was released from a book very recently! http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Experimental_Technical_Readout:_Corporations it gets even stranger when the fluff says that an autocannon can be 30 mm to 203 mm. a 30mm is an AC 2?  VVVVV Axe-man fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Feb 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Also the "Rifle" guns are bullshit. They do nine damage but can't damage mechs or vehicles with BAR of 8+ (IE: everything but infantry....). It's a loving pisstake weapon invented to shut people up about the M1A2 Abrahms and the 120 mil Rheinmetall. Personally, I've always seen autocannons as being single-fire cannons like the main guns on modern MBTs. Frankly, unless the things are motherfucking Metal Storm weapons, there's no loving way in hell they're holding a "stream of explosive shells" on target long enough to do any damage whatsoever to any 'mech location. I also assumed that frankly, the people of the Inner Sphere were idiots and co-opted the word "autocannon" because they've never seen a loving real autocannon and use it because the cannon automatically reloads itself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 16:07
|
|
|
ShadowDragon8685 posted:Personally, I've always seen autocannons as being single-fire cannons like the main guns on modern MBTs. Frankly, unless the things are motherfucking Metal Storm weapons, there's no loving way in hell they're holding a "stream of explosive shells" on target long enough to do any damage whatsoever to any 'mech location. Museum Technica posted:...consider both weapons would to be "class 20" autocannons as they both fire 200 kilograms of ammunition in a 10-second period at an effective range of just under 300 meters. Yeah.....
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:In Era Report: 3052 they explain that AC classes are defined by the amount of ammunition sent downrange in a specified time frame. Specifically: If the tracking technology exists to keep an autocannon on target, pounding one facet of the target mech for ten seconds, factoring in the amazing recoil that mother's going to be generating, the fact that the target is bucking and moving, and the platform is also bucking and moving, then laser weapons should have about a -4 BTH.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
ShadowDragon8685 posted:If the tracking technology exists to keep an autocannon on target, pounding one facet of the target mech for ten seconds, factoring in the amazing recoil that mother's going to be generating, the fact that the target is bucking and moving, and the platform is also bucking and moving, then laser weapons should have about a -4 BTH.  Srsly... fukken Battletech. Arquinsiel fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Feb 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 17:24
|
|
|
ShadowDragon8685 posted:If the tracking technology exists to keep an autocannon on target, pounding one facet of the target mech for ten seconds, factoring in the amazing recoil that mother's going to be generating, the fact that the target is bucking and moving, and the platform is also bucking and moving, then laser weapons should have about a -4 BTH. Conversely, as Inner Sphere armour is ablative it might just be that despite only a small percentage of rounds from a 'rapid fire' auto-cannon hitting the target, that's enough to strip enough armour off to compare with a 'single large round' approach. That would be obviously totally non functional when looking at traditional composite sloped armour, but none of the mech designs incorporate slopes or armor belts, so Armour Works Differently (TM)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 17:27
|
|
|
And what's the DEAL with the short range on all those guided missiles?  Really, yeah, BTech is so utterly fuckadaisical when it comes to consistency with 'actual science' or 'its own fiction' that all the comparisons are completely pointless. They did what they did for game balance and fun; that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to. I really like the word 'fuckadaisical'
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 17:34
|
|
|
The important part about all this is seeing the Death commandos strip a few tons off the mechs before they call in the artillery hidden 7 maps away!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 17:36
|
|
|
Axe-man posted:The important part about all this is seeing the Death commandos strip a few tons off the mechs before they call in the artillery hidden 7 maps away! Y'know, we voted for you guys when you were playing. I guess it just proves that Kell Hounds really are utterly without loyalty. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 17:38
|
|
|
Mukaikubo posted:And what's the DEAL with the short range on all those guided missiles? I feel it's an appropriate time to quote Hodgson's law: "If you're wondering how he eats and breathes / And other science facts [la la la] / Then repeat to yourself 'It's just a show, / I should really just relax.'"
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 17:40
|
|
|
Polaron posted:Y'know, we voted for you guys when you were playing. You guys are gonna win, your the PCs nothing bad could ever go wrong to the PCs! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 17:42
|
|
|
Axe-man posted:The important part about all this is seeing the Death commandos strip a few tons off the mechs before they call in the artillery hidden 7 maps away!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
ShadowDragon8685 posted:Personally, I've always seen autocannons as being single-fire cannons like the main guns on modern MBTs. Nope. An autocannon 'round' is actually a revolver-style cluster of five shots (thank you for spelling this out in great detail, stupid Gray Death Legion books). The autocannon spins its ammo up to firing speed, spits 'em out in half-a-second, then dumps the old shell casing and takes a half hour to load and spin up another 'round'. Which is why rotary autocannons are silly, since they're caseless but jam like their mechanisms are polished with sand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 17:55
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:It takes the shells a turn per mapsheet to arrive. Chances are the artillery is either one map away or only going to nail you once you free the hostages.  they don't know that!really I want them to be all  about the map like we were about the hussar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 17:58
|
|
|
Meanwhile... There are only two days left on the Hell's Horses Totem Mech contest! Entries close Saturday evening at 5 PM EST. So if you'd like a shot at a free Forums Upgrade, hop to it!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
Agent Interrobang posted:Meanwhile... Have your "Artiebitches" come up with something fun yet?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 18:08
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:My personal favoured variant has ERPPC, 4 ERML, SRM6, 2MG, 2MedPulse(r). The rear lasers being pulses ends up being hillariously successful against light-medium backstabbers, negating the secondary target/rear arc penalties pretty well while the arms do some punchin' up front. I've been sticking to L1 tech in my discussions - no need to confuse the newbies with the full range of available weapons. And Inner Sphere medium pulses are terrible anti-backstab weapons - the pulse bonus is negated by the fact that the enemy is likely to engage you at three hexes or more. Assuming you're playing in an era where they are available, ERMLs are much better choices. PajamaSutra posted:Having played some fairly large games (36 vs. 36), it's been my experience that both forces have usually bludgeoned themselves out of existence long before the two minute mark passes. We spent a summer in high school doing a full on 4th Succession War planetary invasion game, and what I found was that after the first few fights, we all got a lot better at knowing when to break off and preserve forces. As the massively outnumbered Capellan defenders, if I'd stayed and fought to the end in every fight I would have lost quite quickly. As long as you retain sufficient force to severely punish an enemy for coming after you, disengaging is generally possible. (Having conventional forces available to sacrifice while your 'mechs pull back, or having sufficient aerospace assets to pound them if they attempt to pursue can be very helpful.) More than anything else, it depends on the players - fighting a successful campaign game is very different from one off scenarios, and takes some adapting to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
Kenlon posted:I've been sticking to L1 tech in my discussions - no need to confuse the newbies with the full range of available weapons. And Inner Sphere medium pulses are terrible anti-backstab weapons - the pulse bonus is negated by the fact that the enemy is likely to engage you at three hexes or more. Assuming you're playing in an era where they are available, ERMLs are much better choices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
PTN, did you get my moves? I though I sent em off last night.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 18:48
|
|