|
PoptartsNinja posted:Also, since the Kurita captain of that Jumpship left a perfectly-written note in German describing his decision to sabotage his own ship and murder his own crew. Well if the Space Japanese are anything, it is polite. Otherwise, the Captain would lose face!
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
Popy posted:I'm starting to like these Loki. I wonder if one of the Loki Operatives in this scenario is named Jack Bauer.... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 02:49
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:
Ha ha oh wow... I had to count the number of rats there, but it works so drat perfectly!
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 02:49
|
|
|
Defiance Industries posted:Hollander it is. Though I'm not sure if I should wait until the Gauss rifle is introduced? Ummmm.....HELL no. People need to see what they're missing. And if anyone, anyone, disapproves of a light mech with a giant gently caress-off gun, then they obviously haven't fought a hollander or an Urbie IIC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 03:13
|
|
|
The Hollander, Blitzkrieg and Legionnaire are some of my least favorite designs. There's just something about having a chassis dedicated solely to carrying around a single, incredibly ammo-hungry weapon with absolutely nothing for backup.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
Der Waffle Mous posted:The Hollander, Blitzkrieg and Legionnaire are some of my least favorite designs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Ontos Wikipedia claims it was more popular than expected, due in no small part to the utility of having a lightweight vehicle capable of going where tanks couldn't and yet still capable of bringing a lot of nasty firepower to bear. All six shots' worth of nasty. If the USMC could get away with sticking 6 one-shot bazookas onto a turret and calling it a day I don't see what's stopping the AFFS from putting all their eggs in a single RAC basket. Edit: Also, this is the only tank I know of that's capable of pulling off an Alpha Strike. Runa fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Apr 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 03:28
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Why does the bright moon make shooting more difficult? You would think it would be the other way around. I asked this earlier right after the special rules were posted by PTN. Makes sense once you think about it, since a moonless night would have even more penalties. As for LosTech, doesn't the fluff of BattleTech say that they developed their computer technology different from how it developed in real life? As in they went the whole mainframe route while we focused on miniaturization? That could be why computers are considered LosTech. In addition to the list of LosTech that MJ12 posted, add guided missiles, UAVs, cellular ammunition storage, and C3i/fire control/targeting computers worth a drat. There might be more, but that's all I'm remembering off the top of my head. GhostStalker fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Apr 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 03:28
|
|
|
Der Waffle Mous posted:There's just something about having a chassis dedicated solely to carrying around a single, incredibly ammo-hungry weapon with absolutely nothing for backup. That was basically pre-dreadnought thinking in naval warfare before they figured out that having a couple really big guns was way better than having a lot of pea shooters. Who cares if you have nothing for backup, if you lose that gun you're mostly useless anyway and probably got exploded!
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 03:34
|
|
|
Der Waffle Mous posted:There's just something about having a chassis dedicated solely to carrying around a single, incredibly ammo-hungry weapon with absolutely nothing for backup. Isn't that the paradigm for current tank designs and many other weapons systems now though? They do carry some secondary armaments, but the main weapon of a tank is always gonna be the huge gun that they have dominating the turret. Sure, a Mech may be different from a tank, especially in BattleTech where the Successor States focus on Mechs over much of anything else militarily or otherwise, but the principle is still valid. Also, didn't you already mention the Gauss Rifle when you did the writeup of the Excalibur, Defiance? I dunno about this Hollander, but if you've already mentioned the weapon system, I don't see what would be wrong about doing a writeup of this one. Again, I am not familiar with BattleTech, but if this design uses a lot of a weapon system we haven't seen before but you've already mentioned in another writeup, what's the problem?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 04:03
|
|
|
T.G. Xarbala posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Ontos Ontoi carried reloads, though. Recoilless rifles aren't one-shot. Interestingly, there's a Battletech Ontos, too, but it's ill-designed. Bozart posted:That was basically pre-dreadnought thinking in naval warfare before they figured out that having a couple really big guns was way better than having a lot of pea shooters. Who cares if you have nothing for backup, if you lose that gun you're mostly useless anyway and probably got exploded! Not exactly, since the maximum gun caliber between pre-Dreads and Dreadnought didn't change; it was 12" before and after. The difference was between 4 tubes and 8 (useful) tubes. A factor that made Dreadnoughts so much of a revolution stems from the tendency to slap things like 7.5"s or 9.2"s secondary to the standard 4x12"s on pre-Dreads. It became quite difficult to adjust and direct fire through all the similarly-sized splashes. Not really a problem in BTech, except when it comes to ammo. The Commando, for instance, might be a better Mech with two SRM4s and one ton of ammo, using the saved tonnage for something else. GhostStalker posted:Isn't that the paradigm for current tank designs and many other weapons systems now though? They do carry some secondary armaments, but the main weapon of a tank is always gonna be the huge gun that they have dominating the turret. Modern AFVs use threshold armor, though. If the armor is breached, the track is hosed. Mechs can have big holes blown in them (or tiny ones, when it comes to TACs), lose whole weapon systems, and yet keep fighting if they have other guns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
GhostStalker posted:Isn't that the paradigm for current tank designs and many other weapons systems now though? They do carry some secondary armaments, but the main weapon of a tank is always gonna be the huge gun that they have dominating the turret. Well, I would need to rewrite a lot of the Hollander's existing fluff. The Excalibur writeup was by ComStar and they still have the GR, but the Hollander is a homegrown Defiance Industries machine, and in this timeline, DefHes can build neither a GR or the XL engine the Hollander needs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
The Merry Marauder posted:Modern AFVs use threshold armor, though. If the armor is breached, the track is hosed. Mechs can have big holes blown in them (or tiny ones, when it comes to TACs), lose whole weapon systems, and yet keep fighting if they have other guns. That's true. Mech armor ablates if anything so much as looks at it wrong, while anything that can't penetrate modern armor in real life bounces off of it, but anything that can penetrate it will absolutely gently caress it over. Guess my comparison wasn't all that valid after all... Defiance Industries posted:Well, I would need to rewrite a lot of the Hollander's existing fluff. The Excalibur writeup was by ComStar and they still have the GR, but the Hollander is a homegrown Defiance Industries machine, and in this timeline, DefHes can build neither a GR or the XL engine the Hollander needs. I see. I did mention that I was a newbie to BattleTech so I had no way of knowing that. I dunno, guess you should wait a bit until Defiance is able to build it then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 04:54
|
|
|
The Merry Marauder posted:Ontoi carried reloads, though. Recoilless rifles aren't one-shot. Technically true, but the crew had step outside and reload each rifle by hand! And while the BT Ontos might be drat a shame, silly design never stopped the real-life Ontos. I wonder if PTN has the rules for it on hand? As to another topic, I do kind of prefer BT's ablative armor system over a more realistic threshold system like 40K's. Soft counters become valid and just a little less emphasis is placed on troop selection while a little more weight is placed on the decisions you make with what you have on the field. Which is nice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 06:09
|
|
|
Woah, when did 8 medium lasers become "a shame"? That, and the light gauss Ontos is a beast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 06:20
|
|
|
GhostStalker posted:Modern AFVs use threshold armor, though. If the armor is breached, the track is hosed. Mechs can have big holes blown in them (or tiny ones, when it comes to TACs), lose whole weapon systems, and yet keep fighting if they have other guns. Battleships make a fairer comparison, because they follow the 'ablates' and 'compartments' model a bit more closely. So, bringing this to battlech. I suspect it does make more sense to have, say, a Rifleman style mech with two Gauss rifles (one per arm) than just a single Gauss Rifle in a smaller mech. Unfortunately I don't think that is a rules legal rifleman refit, but I have no doubt you can work out something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 06:25
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:Unfortunately I don't think that is a rules legal rifleman refit, but I have no doubt you can work out something. There's FWL version I like with a light gauss rifle in each arm and a boatload of ER medium lasers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 06:37
|
|
|
T.G. Xarbala posted:Technically true, but the crew had step outside and reload each rifle by hand! And while the BT Ontos might be drat a shame, silly design never stopped the real-life Ontos. I wonder if PTN has the rules for it on hand? The rules for what, the Ontos? There's a reason we haven't seen one turn up. Ontos Heavy Tank Type: 95 ton tracked "heavy" tank Armor (structure): 8.5 tons of armor Front: 30 (10) Left/Right Side: 25/25 (10) Turret: 30 (10) Rear: 26 (10) Movement: 3/5 Armament: 8 medium lasers 2 LRM 5 For comparison: the Blackjack (45 tons) carries 8.5 tons of armor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 06:39
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:a Rifleman style mech with two Gauss rifles (one per arm) It exists. It's also a Clan design. Edit: Also, 'reply' is not 'edit'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 06:40
|
|
|
Not really. Battletech armor doesn't really make any sense when you think about it, so it's best just not to compare it with things in real life. (A big slab of metal does not gradually go from *all there* to *not there* without getting holes in it. Slugs, shells, and laser beams do not gradually sand down armor until it disappears. Real-world armor behaves differently that BT armor because the entire BT weapons and armor model has almost nothing to do with real life.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 07:01
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:A big slab of metal does not gradually go from *all there* to *not there* without getting holes in it. It does if you're firing parallel to the surface. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 07:04
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:It exists. It's also a Clan design. TRO: 3085 has the original Galahad that the Glass Spider was based off of. It's a 3/5 standard engine 60-tonner that has two Gauss rifles. Downside is that it's not a very versatile machine. Upside is that if you can convince someone to play a C-Bill game it is cheap as gently caress and takes people apart.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 07:29
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:The rules for what, the Ontos? There's a reason we haven't seen one turn up. Yeah but that's more or less entirely due to the decision to use a ICE engine. Pull that for a 285 fusion and you literally free up 19 tons, to, I don't know, triple the number of LRM-5s and give it an extra eight tons or so of armor? Also, the Ontos is a pretty solid weapon in urban combat, since it'll normally withstand at least a round of fire in 3025 from a single target and eight medium lasers can make quite a few things feel a fair bit of pain. At 2.2 million C-Bills, as well, they're not a bad purchase. There's also the Light Gauss variant, which is an unironically good tank for what it does (hide in a forest and plink people at long range).
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 07:56
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Not really. Battletech armor doesn't really make any sense when you think about it, so it's best just not to compare it with things in real life. What about ceramic armor and (to a lesser extent) reactive armor?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 08:11
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:(A big slab of metal does not gradually go from *all there* to *not there* without getting holes in it. Slugs, shells, and laser beams do not gradually sand down armor until it disappears. Real-world armor behaves differently that BT armor because the entire BT weapons and armor model has almost nothing to do with real life.) Armor that obeys the same laws of physics that you see in nature is LosTech.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 09:24
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:Battleships make a fairer comparison, because they follow the 'ablates' and 'compartments' model a bit more closely. Uhh, that wasn't me who said that. I think you misquoted someone or something. MJ12 posted:Yeah but that's more or less entirely due to the decision to use a ICE engine. Pull that for a 285 fusion and you literally free up 19 tons, Still, this may be me getting bad info or listening to people talk out of their rear end. Remember, I am not all that familiar with BattleTech or it's mech and vehicle construction rules, so I get most of my info from secondhand sources. And those sources may have their own biases for these sorts of things. GhostStalker fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Apr 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 10:12
|
|
|
Are Battletech ICE engines some kind of magic Warhammer style "throw anything combustible in and it'll go" ICE engine that'd give people a reason to use them? Are they significantly cheaper than fusion cores at least?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 10:44
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Are Battletech ICE engines some kind of magic Warhammer style "throw anything combustible in and it'll go" ICE engine that'd give people a reason to use them? Are they significantly cheaper than fusion cores at least? Fluff-wise, I've seen a few ICEs fluffed up that way, but they were called out as exceptions to the way most ICEs needed specific fuel. Frankly, ICE technology is LosTech. It only makes sense if you think that they're basically building 95-ton war machines using engines that Henry Ford would have considered quaint and outdated. And yes, the rules were completely rigged to make tanks a bad purchase. For instance, taking off the turret? Instant kill, even if only one out of three weapon systems was in that turret and the tank is fluffed as having only one pilot who's not even in the turret. Get hit on any side facing? Chance of motive system destruction. I guess they know how to armor 'mech joints, which should be fragile as all gently caress and inherently unarmorable by comparison, but not treads? It gets a lot better if you use the TacOps rules to de-pussify tanks, though. Not great, still, mind you. But better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 11:44
|
|
|
GhostStalker posted:Uhh, that wasn't me who said that. I think you misquoted someone or something. Yeah, I was editing my post and chopped it up. Sorry. quote:It exists. It's also a Clan design. Yeah, I was shooting for a 3025 tech base legal refit of a rifleman, which is not possible it appears. The galahad has a smaller engine which gives you just enough tonnage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 12:00
|
|
|
ShadowDragon8685 posted:And yes, the rules were completely rigged to make tanks a bad purchase. For instance, taking off the turret? Instant kill, even if only one out of three weapon systems was in that turret and the tank is fluffed as having only one pilot who's not even in the turret. Get hit on any side facing? Chance of motive system destruction. I guess they know how to armor 'mech joints, which should be fragile as all gently caress and inherently unarmorable by comparison, but not treads? Well, to some degree that's a game design decision. If your game is all about giant robots beating the poo poo out of each other but tanks turn out to be a better option, no one's going to want to play the giant robots (or buy all the little robot models...) and by that point we may as well go play Car Wars. (I loved Car Wars, by the way.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 12:07
|
|
|
The biggest problem with tanks is how their criticals are handled. Most criticals on mechs are done with two dice to find the "critical spot" that was effected. Tanks on the other hand get a 1d6 and several tables depending upon position with usually 2 options "crew dead" or "tank destroyed" included. edit: This means that sometimes a prefectly good tank can go boom, just like a mech, however, a tank has more chance of it, and usually higher penalitys for a critical. Such as crew stunned, or movement minuses. Axe-man fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Apr 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 14:33
|
|
|
We should stop arguing about tanks and armor and go back to speculating on a possible Steiner/Kurita lesbian merger. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 14:39
|
|
|
How the hell do you forget how to make an ICE? You literally just burn stuff. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 14:48
|
|
|
Defiance Industries posted:TRO: 3085 has the original Galahad that the Glass Spider was based off of. It's a 3/5 standard engine 60-tonner that has two Gauss rifles. Downside is that it's not a very versatile machine. Upside is that if you can convince someone to play a C-Bill game it is cheap as gently caress and takes people apart. That, to my eye, is just a plain good design. It's a simple but robust direct fire unit. I'd happily field one of those things - just set it up on the edge of the battlefield and let it control some territory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 14:55
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Are Battletech ICE engines some kind of magic Warhammer style "throw anything combustible in and it'll go" ICE engine that'd give people a reason to use them? Are they significantly cheaper than fusion cores at least? Some are, just about all of them are also retardedly rugged and maintenace friendly. And yes, ICE are a shitload cheaper. For example, take a class 240 engine on a 60-ton tank to get it up to the standard IS trooper speed of 4/6: A 240 ICE comes in at 240,000 C-Bills. Put a fusion engine in its place? 960,000 C-Bills, IE four times as expensive. On 2035 Mechs and tanks, the fusion engine will commonly be the most expensive piece of equipment on the entire thing, and with a good lead. Magni fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Apr 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 14:56
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:That, to my eye, is just a plain good design. It's a simple but robust direct fire unit. I'd happily field one of those things - just set it up on the edge of the battlefield and let it control some territory. Not even a Clanner in command of a Dire Wolf D will feel safe if there's a Galahad drawing a bead on her. That's just the Gauss Rifle way, baby.  And really, the kind of peace of mind that comes of eradicating even the Clans' peace of mind - can you put a price-tag on that? Well, yes you can. And it's not even that expensive, compared to some options.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 14:59
|
|
|
Magni posted:Some are, just about all of them are also retardedly rugged and maintenace friendly. And yes, ICE are a shitload cheaper. For example, take a class 240 engine on a 60-ton tank to get it up to the standard IS trooper speed of 4/6: A 240 ICE comes in at 240,000 C-Bills. Put a fusion engine in its place? 960,000 C-Bills, IE four times as expensive. On 2035 Mechs and tanks, the fusion engine will commonly be the most expensive piece of equipment on the entire thing, and with a good lead. To those Successor States who are considering fielding ICE powered engines, caveat emptor. One gets what one pays for, after all, and the price savings of that ICE engine will be easily negated by the fact that the ICE creates such a crap unit compared to a fusion that it'll die almost immediately. Fusion Engines. They're just worth the investment, hoss. (This message brought to you by the United Fusion Engine Manufacturers Guild of the Inner Sphere.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 15:01
|
|
|
Slaan posted:How the hell do you forget how to make an ICE? You literally just burn stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 15:54
|
|
|
I also sort of assume that myomers are actually kind of naturally tough, since they're made of weird space metal that also contracts and takes a bunch of time to burn through with a laser. Rather than plain mechanical joints I imagine that 'mechs have something closer to biological ones, wrapped in tons of packages of myomer and that an actuator hit is actually a hit that blasts away enough myomer to functionally impair the joint. It'd be like stabbing a muscle without severing it -- you'd compromise it, but you wouldn't necessarily kill its ability to move. By comparison, that would make a tank more fragile, with more jointed and geared parts, and more internal open volume dedicated to crew space. A through armour hit most places that gets to that airspace is liable to injure most of the crew, since they're generally not individually compartmentalized and protected. By all accounts, the cockpit of a 'mech is a pretty cramped affair, and insulated from the reactor and other internal spaces in most cases. Bearing in mind that we are talking space robots here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 15:57
|
|
|
If myomer was a better armor than actual armor, wouldn't they just wrap the 'mechs in bundles of myomer?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
ShadowDragon8685 posted:If myomer was a better armor than actual armor, wouldn't they just wrap the 'mechs in bundles of myomer? Why don't they make the plane out of the black box?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 16:11
|
|
