|
Well, this has certainly been informative. It never really occurred to me that there would be a legitimate reason for tanks/mechs to have their armor distributed the way it is. It's always nice to learn something new.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:10 |
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:in real life armour isn't ablative, it tends to be 'bounces off or penetrate' I thought reactive armor was pretty standard on main battle tanks these days. Isn't that essentially an ablative layer?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
Rivensteel posted:I thought reactive armor was pretty standard on main battle tanks these days. Isn't that essentially an ablative layer? For some reason I associate reactive/ablative armor with Eastern tanks and chobham/composite armor with the West. Though wikipedia also says the US uses reactive armor as an extra upgrade for urban operations? When mobility is less important than surviving an ambush by infantry in buildings. Does TacOps have rules for bolted-on armor upgrades? I forget, but I always thought this was a thing BT was oddly lacking in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
The entire reason that BT armor is ablative is because they reached a point where stuff could punch through whatever they could armor it with or shatter whatever it couldn't. Ablative means that instead of an attack penetrating it would just bleed off all of its energy shattering/melting plates and thus do less damage. The downside, of course, is that it means that most anything will do damage now. TACs, effectively, are when the armor fails to stop a shot completely. Taerkar fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Jul 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
Rivensteel posted:I thought reactive armor was pretty standard on main battle tanks these days. Isn't that essentially an ablative layer? Sadly, reactive armor has been phased out in the west primarily due to composite armors, although some Russian tank models still use it. Ablative armor is distinct because it destructs easily to absorb energy. Reactive armor just blows the gently caress up in the opposite direction of the threat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
T.G. Xarbala posted:For some reason I associate reactive/ablative armor with Eastern tanks and chobham/composite armor with the West. Though wikipedia also says the US uses reactive armor as an extra upgrade for urban operations? When mobility is less important than surviving an ambush by infantry in buildings. There's a Banshee in XTRO: Steiner with a shitload of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
There's also the 'Zoidberg' approach to armor layout. Put all your armor on the mech's back, with rear mounted weapons or flip-arms. It's a good low-heat way to keep your snipers distanced from an enemy. I'm not sure if there are any 'Mechs or tanks in cannon that do this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
Rick_Hunter posted:Sadly, reactive armor has been phased out in the west primarily due to composite armors, although some Russian tank models still use it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 05:08
|
|
|
Scurrilous posted:There's also the 'Zoidberg' approach to armor layout. Put all your armor on the mech's back, with rear mounted weapons or flip-arms. It's a good low-heat way to keep your snipers distanced from an enemy. I'm not sure if there are any 'Mechs or tanks in cannon that do this. There aren't, and it's a pretty bad idea since the rear arc is extremely narrow compared to the front/side arcs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 05:19
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:There aren't, and it's a pretty bad idea since the rear arc is extremely narrow compared to the front/side arcs. I don't understand why anyone who knows the game would think that's an idea to be used as a non-joke, not just because of the arc issues, but because you can't run backward.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
Campaign logistics sounds fun, and aww crap that was a terrible turn. If only some of those LRMS hit we could very possibly be in crit-happy land.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
Rick_Hunter posted:Sadly, reactive armor has been phased out in the west primarily due to composite armors, although some Russian tank models still use it. Sadly? No, it's a good thing. Reactive armor is a stop-gap measure. It's useful for when you've lost confidence in the ability of your vehicle's armor to survive what you expect it to encounter. It's single use, costly, weighty, is useless if the penetrator hits directly perpendicular, and most dedicated anti-tank weapons are now designed with penetrators able to negate reactive armor. Reactive armor is nice in that it's cheaper than buying a top-of-the-line tank. It's especially effective if the armor of your usual source's latest product is not a significant improvement. If you have a bunch of out-classed vehicles and not the funding to design/buy a better one, you can slather a bunch of reactive armor on it to give it a bit more of a chance at surviving a hit. It's most common with eastern tanks because they went through more design evolutions without composite armor. Urcinius fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Oct 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
Hmm, how about a 8/12 mech with rear facing armor, LRMs and AC/2s, it could be the Btech version of the Spathi Eluder
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
Urcinius posted:Sadly? No, it's a good thing. Reactive armor is a stop-gap measure. It's useful for when you've lost confidence in the ability of your vehicle's armor to survive what you expect it to encounter. It's single use, costly, weighty, is useless if the penetrator hits directly perpendicular, and most modern, dedicated anti-tank weapons are designed with penetrators able to negate reactive armor. Well, one of the nice things about reactive armor is that the basic mindset has led on to the development of active defense (Trophy, Arena, etc.), which can greatly limit your exposure to what is probably the greatest general threat to a tank (missiles). This means that you largely limit your exposure to weaponry that's essentially "on par" with you (i.e. another tank, or at least something carrying direct fire weaponry comparable to a tank). In fact, this may have actually happened in the Battletech universe (with AMS, even though the fact that it's level 2 makes the situation a little odd), which explains the focus on so many large direct fire weapons as opposed to large missile weapons (Arrow IV and Thunderbolt missiles being the minor exceptions). DarthXaos posted:Hmm, how about a 8/12 mech with rear facing armor, LRMs and AC/2s, it could be the Btech version of the Spathi Eluder You'd have to spend too many MPs running towards the enemy and then turning around to make it very useful. The fact that you need to spend a MP for each hex facing (and possibly pilot rolls if you're running on pavement) make running towards the enemy and then turning around somewhat counterproductive (3 MP just to turn around means your 12 MP for running just became 9 hexes of movement if on flat terrain). Also, if you plan to just back into range, remember that in the standard rules, you can't change elevations while backing up. Essentially, trying to walk backwards is just generally a bad idea... kind of like in real life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
Alternatively run past and fire behind you.... like the Balius.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 07:36
|
|
|
Rivensteel posted:I thought reactive armor was pretty standard on main battle tanks these days. Isn't that essentially an ablative layer? There was about 5 billion massive simplifications to produce that statement, this is one of them, though yeah NATO doesn't it use it much. They do make use of armour skirts and space armour though, both of which degrade when they take hits. I'm sure there are other exceptions I have no considered. That said, as Urcinius outlines, extra armour, reactive armor etc tend to be refits done to existing hulls because making new hulls is difficult and expensive. It's so tricky not just in rebuilding your fleet but retooling your production lines, I think late model Bradley IFVs actually rolled off the production line with infantry firing ports that were immediately covered over with the armour upgrade kits. Amusingly, it's kinda like Battletech in that respect. Gotta wring some more years of serviceable life out of your old, old, old chassis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 07:38
|
|
|
Also note that infantry generally don't like being around reactive armor, which makes it much, much,much harder to operate in built up environments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
Defiance Industries posted:I don't understand why anyone who knows the game would think that's an idea to be used as a non-joke, not just because of the arc issues, but because you can't run backward. The idea is, you run away and get them to chase you. Or so I imagine. And no, I don't see the idea as anything other than a gimmick / joke, I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 07:59
|
|
|
I didn't think you did. I just thought your disbelief didn't go far enough.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
The idea of watching you guys run a longer campaign sounds fantastic. Reading this LP has essentially been my introduction to TT, and I love PTNs writeps. RIP Engine Joe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 09:54
|
|
|
Now you've got me thinking about a mech designed to look the same from the front or rear. 360 psychological coverage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 11:13
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:The idea of watching you guys run a longer campaign sounds fantastic. Reading this LP has essentially been my introduction to TT, and I love PTNs writeps. Welcome aboard, sit back and enjoy yourself. Cor, I remember that mission. Zaodai sure was a great Capellan agitator, he was. Still is, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 11:22
|
|
|
Zaodai's rolling with a different crew lately. A classier crew. One with... rules.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 11:27
|
|
|
I'm down for the extended campaign, although the emotional impact from losing a mechwarrior is hard enough when you've only had one game to get to know them. I can only imagine the roller-coaster of elation and despair will make *regionally appropriate theme-park* look like a kiddie pool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 12:37
|
|
|
I'm all for a mini-campaign with resource management! Just one question: Will a player get to keep control of any potential recurring characters for the duration of the campaign? (I would be in favour of that)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 14:16
|
|
|
T.G. Xarbala posted:While true, increasing back armor at the expense of front armor does not improve survivability. In fact, it does the opposite. Don't wade into the fray without support. If you have lighter allies screening for flankers and rushing ambushers, you're less likely to be surrounded and torn to pieces. MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Jul 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 15:57
|
|
|
Gimmick Account posted:Just one question: Will a player get to keep control of any potential recurring characters for the duration of the campaign? (I would be in favour of that) No, missions will work like normal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
Almost done on my entry, but also got a little something out of the way, too. This should be easier and more organized for PTN put in the art chunk of the OP, and there's a 'Mech here that wasn't seen in the Capellan/Ryuken contest proper. This is the version I put up on my dA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 17:05
|
|
|
 That's really nice looking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
I really, REALLY like that Baba Yaga. It reminds me of a big, grown up Puma.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, that Battlemaster  VVV  I'll take ten!
Malachite_Dragon fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Jul 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
Malachite_Dragon posted:Holy poo poo, that Battlemaster Not pictured: it can jump 120 meters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
Too bad only a few of those actually exist. Can't remember which ones though.  (The Mackie?) Time to check the older updates again I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
Amhazair posted:Too bad only a few of those actually exist. Can't remember which ones though. Oh, they all exist. It's just only the Mackie was actually picked for full production. The rest are one-off prototypes. Well, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it. VVVVV EDIT: http://thundergodxarbala.deviantart.com/ Runa fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Jul 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
T.G. Xarbala posted:This is the version I put up on my dA. Speaking of which, what is your DA account name? awesome work on all the art that's shown up in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
I knew my drive to use up all my ammo was worthwhile! Too bad the Bobcat helped out a bit more directly than I'd prefer. Uncertain whether my new job is "hug an ally so I can possibly kick a bastard" or "run for the Hermes". Speaking of which, I'm a bit clueless even after two matches, why didn't I get a physical attack there?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
You can't shoot with an arm and punch with it in the same turn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Uncertain whether my new job is "hug an ally so I can possibly kick a bastard" or "run for the Hermes". Hug the Hermes. You'll be his new legs, he'll be your new gun, and you'll be battle bros forever after.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
dis astranagant posted:You can't shoot with an arm and punch with it in the same turn. They should just have physical attacks resolve before shooting, then you could house rule that any punches that connected also give a free hit on that location with the arm's weapons. Explosive ammo / ppcs / etc. deal their damage to your arm as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:10 |
|
|
Mary Annette posted:Hug the Hermes. You'll be his new legs, he'll be your new gun, and you'll be battle bros forever after. For what it's worth, I like this idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 22:22
|
|