Battletech in World War I

[Beowulf]

Actually, no, they're named "Heavy Machine Guns", which puts them within the 12.7mm to 14.5mm range.

Last I checked, HMG don't come in 500kg weight and don't expend 20mm rounds at a rate of 24 rounds per sec.(upper limit)

Couple points:

• A MAC-11 SMG has a rate of fire of 1600 rpm, versus the quoted 1440 RPM max. A M240 has a rof of 950-1000 rpm
  
  Most HMGs aren't mounted in limited transverse Remote Weapons Stations
  
  An excessively high rate of fire is not desirable in an HMG due to controllability issues.
  
  Even a GAU-8 (the main gun of the A-10) doesn't weigh 500kg and it well exceeds the quoted caliber and ROF requirements.

[Graeme Dice]

[quote="Gunhead"]Aerotech ranges mean jack. They're purely game mechanics. When fighters are brought to normal BT maps, normal ranges apply.['quote]

I see, so the weapons magically lose their ability to fire at longer ranges.

[Batman]

Aerotech ranges mean jack. They're purely game mechanics. When fighters are brought to normal BT maps, normal ranges apply.

I see, so the weapons magically lose their ability to fire at longer ranges.

Apparently so. Unless, of course, you have examples of those longer ranges being evidenced in ground combat.
And sorry, for lightspeed/hypersonic weapons the 'engagement time' argument doesn't hack it.

[consequences]

Your stance that in-game fluff is more consistent loses a great deal of weight when you actually look at the tech redouts, and realise that the writers can't be bothered to look up the numbers for the mechs inside. When you see three different weights given for the 400XL engine, and one mech that has been claimed as 80 tons with only 75 tons of weight allocated to it.

You are almost certainly going to going to claim that this is a mechanics issue. I'm going to counter with "If they can't be bothered to add up numbers pre-provided correctly and consistently, why the hell should we expect their made up garbage to be consistent either?"

Mind giving examples? Or are you referring to the mechsheets itself, which had been corrected in Erratas?

Furthermore, they still remain infinitely more consistent than say the Jade Falcon trilogy, which can't decide whether Dawn is piloting a Hellbringer or a Warhawk in the same chapter. Or say Grave Covenant which has Wolcott being a Nova-Cat world. Or maybe one would like the idiocy of how Hanse Davion and his clique can take an obstacle course and engage in markmanship training with a pistol against targets at over 100m and achieve groupings that should be frankly impossible to be canon instead?

3055 Tech Readout:

Phoenix Hawk IIC: Engine 400 XL Mass 25.25 Comes out at 79 tons, so I may have hallucinated on the 80 tonner weighing 75 tons.

Grand Titan, Engine 400 XL Mass 27 Also, its mass in the tech readout comes out to 107.25 tons now that I look at it.

Berserker, Engine 400 XL, Mass 26.25

Three mechs, same engine, none of them come out with the same engine weight. Two of these mechs were a flip of a page apart, its how I noticed in the first place.


Never mention the abomination that is Thurston's writing again. If I have to read one more piece of Jade Falcon Summoner wank, I'm going to hunt that twat down and make him eat his words(literally, seven different novels I will forcefeed to him, without salt). Likewise, Michael, 'the Game Mechanics Hack' Stackpole should never be mentioned lest I remind you that in two different trilogies he has accursed your favored universe with kilojoule large lasers(See? In-Universe Consistency ). Good thing I always liked William H. Keith's writing more anyway, he at least goes for megajoules when he tries to make numbers sound big.

[The Dark]

Aerotech ranges mean jack. They're purely game mechanics. When fighters are brought to normal BT maps, normal ranges apply.

I see, so the weapons magically lose their ability to fire at longer ranges.

Apparently so. Unless, of course, you have examples of those longer ranges being evidenced in ground combat.
And sorry, for lightspeed/hypersonic weapons the 'engagement time' argument doesn't hack it.

Aerotech 2, pg. 24. Any aerospace fighter within three altitude levels of the ground may make strafing attacks against one to five consecutive hexes anywhere on the map. Pg. 26 states that they may make precision strikes against any unit on the map from altitude level 5 or less.

A BT map is considered ONE HEX for an aerospace fighter, according to the atmospheric combat rules.

[Nephtys]

Well, where to start.

The point doesn't seem to be getting through to you, Batman. You're trying to apply real world fusion info to this same game that you're trying to claim has bullets that travel three times slower than a pistol slug based on GAME mechanics. Is it that hard just to swallow your own pride and stop acting like a YEC ignoring your own hypocrisy? It's absolutely ludicrous to assume that this machine gun's bullets drop to the ground after 90 meters. A MUCH MORE LOGICAL explaination, which you seem to pay no heed to, is that hey.. the ranges are arbitary for a game, and we can assume the range meets or exceeds a real life weapon of the same type. But no, every time you've lost an argument, you've conveniently ignored it and moved on to yet another pointless reinteration of viewing some game mechanics, ignoring reality and other game mechanics that don't fit with your view. Sheesh. Maybe, because a turn is 10 seconds, you're going to suggest the laser beam takes 10 seconds to reach it's target 200 meters away.

@Frank Hipper
Let me explain. I meant a huge cannon shell, if it struck a tank, it would probably be quite powerful even if it was ancient. But my point however, was that with the technology of the time, they would not be able to produce a shell that was /EFFECTIVE/ against a tank. Having a 15 inch naval gun to defend against a tank is overkill and probably won't hit, given your various downsides.

@FOG3
You're now trying to take a mech built for show combat made out of spare parts and scrap metal, firing what now... 10 seperate 20mm MGs at other scrap metal mechs in a tongue-in-cheek adaption of the game to try and make a point? 10 MGs even in battletech is hardly effective for actually destroying the mech, it's more useful for critical hit rules that are there for playability's sake. It's not like there's a hole in the center torso of the mech, that you can shoot at 3 percent of the time. *rolleye*

Seriously, this thread is becoming repetative. Stop stonewalling and stop ignoring basic consistancy for use of game mechanics/reality.

[Batman]

The point doesn't seem to be getting through to you, Batman. You're trying to apply real world fusion info to this same game that you're trying to claim has bullets that travel three times slower than a pistol slug based on GAME mechanics.

Don't blame me for that game making no sense. You have information overriding said game mechanics? Information that is consistent with all the other controversial stuff BT has? Present it! Painrack is at least making an effort.

Is it that hard just to swallow your own pride and stop acting like a YEC ignoring your own hypocrisy? It's absolutely ludicrous to assume that this machine gun's bullets drop to the ground after 90 meters. A MUCH MORE LOGICAL explaination, which you seem to pay no heed to, is that hey.. the ranges are arbitary for a game,

Which is utterly and completely irrelevant thanks to this being a vs.

and we can assume the range meets or exceeds a real life weapon of the same type.

No we can't thanks to there not being information to that effect. You do not get to assume. Either there is such information in BT canon or there isn't. So far, the best attempt has been PR's bringing in AT ranges.

But no, every time you've lost an argument, you've conveniently ignored it and moved on to yet another pointless reinteration of viewing some game mechanics, ignoring reality and other game mechanics that don't fit with your view.

Really. YOU are arguing in favour of BT and I am the one ignoring reality.
DO tell me how Mech maneuverabilty matters against lightspeed weapons at hundreds of meter ranges.

Sheesh. Maybe, because a turn is 10 seconds, you're going to suggest the laser beam takes 10 seconds to reach it's target 200 meters away.

I was under the assumption that a turn is one second. If it's ten that reduces the MV of projectile weapons even more.
As there are novel examples of Mechs ducking out of the way of lasers after they've been fired, leave alone of lasers being visible...

[Nephtys]

The point doesn't seem to be getting through to you, Batman. You're trying to apply real world fusion info to this same game that you're trying to claim has bullets that travel three times slower than a pistol slug based on GAME mechanics.

Don't blame me for that game making no sense. You have information overriding said game mechanics? Information that is consistent with all the other controversial stuff BT has? Present it! Painrack is at least making an effort.

Info overriding game mechanics? OTHER GAME MECHANICS. Realistic assessment of weapons descrptions versus game performance. You're again, assuming in Battletech, that bullets travel far slower when not fired by airplanes.

Which is utterly and completely irrelevant thanks to this being a vs. No we can't thanks to there not being information to that effect. You do not get to assume. Either there is such information in BT canon or there isn't. So far, the best attempt has been PR's bringing in AT ranges.

Let's see. Machine gun. It's described in books as firing like a real life machine gun. We see them in the Mechwarrior games FMV to be firing like a real machine gun. Why aren't they like firing a stream of beanbags, dropping after 90 meters, or 60 in the case of the 'Clan Heavy Machine Gun'. Again, GAME MECHANICS that you are quoting conflict with reality and other mechanics.

Really. YOU are arguing in favour of BT and I am the one ignoring reality.
DO tell me how Mech maneuverabilty matters against lightspeed weapons at hundreds of meter ranges.

I see, because I'm arguing that the BT game ranges cannot be representative of reality and the univ, you're saying I'm ignoring reality. Simple. Because mech maneuvering simply is to throw off someone's aim. Using the 'omg lightspeed weapons can't miss!' stuff is bogus. Hell, if you've played the 2 most recent Mechwarrior GAMES you can pretty much see an example of why a laser, despite being very accurate and lightspeed, can be avoided. It doesn't matter how fast the beam is if your aim is off, which is what mech maneuvering does.

I was under the assumption that a turn is one second. If it's ten that reduces the MV of projectile weapons even more.
As there are novel examples of Mechs ducking out of the way of lasers after they've been fired, leave alone of lasers being visible...

Lasers being visible? That's attributable to being of course, the same deal with sound in space. Or the fact that for things like the FMVs before MechCommander that we see a fully visible dropship in space, instead of one with a shadow cast across half of it. It's a stylistic choice. Mechs ducking out of the way in novels... after they've been fired? Quote it. And check the books themselves. Is this a 'retelling', or what? Sheesh. I see that you're reducing the MV of projectile weapons because the turn is 10 seconds. Way to prove my point, you're not looking at it rationally. A mech is not constantly firing, taking 10 seconds each time.

[Graeme Dice]

No we can't thanks to there not being information to that effect. You do not get to assume.

Then neither do you dipshit. You've made several assumptions about Btech fusion reactors, so I'll quiite happily accept the concession of a hypocrite.

YOU are arguing in favour of BT and I am the one ignoring reality.
DO tell me how Mech maneuverabilty matters against lightspeed weapons at hundreds of meter ranges.

This should be obvious even to somebody of your idiocy. Even a lightspeed weapon must be aimed.

[SirNitram]

Aerotech ranges mean jack. They're purely game mechanics. When fighters are brought to normal BT maps, normal ranges apply.

I see, so the weapons magically lose their ability to fire at longer ranges.

Apparently so. Unless, of course, you have examples of those longer ranges being evidenced in ground combat.
And sorry, for lightspeed/hypersonic weapons the 'engagement time' argument doesn't hack it.

This is the most fucking dishonest argument I've seen in a while. You want to apply BT ranges as gospel truth but throw out Aero ranges instead of realizing that there's a rational way to work it out(Hint: Jamming can explain it).

[Batman]

Nephtys? The computer games have, to my knowledge, no canonicity whatsoever.
I'm not assuming bullets travel far slower when not fired by airplanes. Battletech is.
BT has Mechs being killed by bombs lobbed at them by propeller-driven airplanes. BT has Aerospace fighters killed by the in-universe equivalent of Sidewinders.
As for maneuverability, no you do NOT avoid lightspeed weapons that way.
In fact as long as you're on the same planet as the firer you CAN'T avoid lightspeed weapon fire even with FTL sensors.

[SirNitram]

Nephtys? The computer games have, to my knowledge, no canonicity whatsoever.
I'm not assuming bullets travel far slower when not fired by airplanes. Battletech is.
BT has Mechs being killed by bombs lobbed at them by propeller-driven airplanes. BT has Aerospace fighters killed by the in-universe equivalent of Sidewinders.
As for maneuverability, no you do NOT avoid lightspeed weapons that way.
In fact as long as you're on the same planet as the firer you CAN'T avoid lightspeed weapon fire even with FTL sensors.

............

Batman. Desist from your argument. You are demonstrating you have never, ever fired a weapon before, nor understood the principles of avoiding fire.

Dodging lightspeed fire while having STL speeds is identical to avoiding being shot by a pistol while not moving at mach speeds. You avoid where the enemy is aiming.

You've made enough of a fool of yourself for one day, blatantly making game mechanic argumets.

[consequences]

YOU are arguing in favour of BT and I am the one ignoring reality.
DO tell me how Mech maneuverabilty matters against lightspeed weapons at hundreds of meter ranges.

This should be obvious even to somebody of your idiocy. Even a lightspeed weapon must be aimed.

If the mech can move faster at range than the actuator can adjust, then a good portion of the reason for supposed Mech superiority just went down the tubes.

Presumably, there would also be a minimum range penalty for lasers if this were the case, as the problem would become worse at closer range. There might also be some mention of it in the copious volumes of ingame fluff. As far as I know, no corroborating evidence exists.

[SirNitram]

YOU are arguing in favour of BT and I am the one ignoring reality.
DO tell me how Mech maneuverabilty matters against lightspeed weapons at hundreds of meter ranges.

This should be obvious even to somebody of your idiocy. Even a lightspeed weapon must be aimed.

If the mech can move faster at range than the actuator can adjust, then a good portion of the reason for supposed Mech superiority just went down the tubes.

Well, it's not like the Battletech forces have been holding any major awards. But laser weapons don't get free, auto-hit, in any conception of reality.

[consequences]

If the mech can move faster at range than the actuator can adjust, then a good portion of the reason for supposed Mech superiority just went down the tubes.

Well, it's not like the Battletech forces have been holding any major awards. But laser weapons don't get free, auto-hit, in any conception of reality.

Understood, but if they aren't at least comparable to a modern tank's ability to adjust on the fly, then I'm going to have to chalk up another point for the 'rules of warfare universally enforced by elitist assholes theory'.

[SirNitram]

If the mech can move faster at range than the actuator can adjust, then a good portion of the reason for supposed Mech superiority just went down the tubes.

Well, it's not like the Battletech forces have been holding any major awards. But laser weapons don't get free, auto-hit, in any conception of reality.

Understood, but if they aren't at least comparable to a modern tank's ability to adjust on the fly, then I'm going to have to chalk up another point for the 'rules of warfare universally enforced by elitist assholes theory'.

That's not theory, that's canon, I beleive. This is a universe where alot of sane things are not done.

On the plus side, you can make two hundred ton tanks, fit them with dozer blades, and just plow into the legged things to make them fall down, go boom.

[Batman]

Dodging lightspeed fire while having STL speeds is identical to avoiding being shot by a pistol while not moving at mach speeds. You avoid where the enemy is aiming.

Which is a hell of a lot more difficult when the bullet is moving at c as opposed to 400 mps. I WILL admit that the absurdly low engagement ranges of BT might actually work in favour of the defendant.
Besides, I'm talking about dodging the bullet after it's been fired.

You've made enough of a fool of yourself for one day, blatantly making game mechanic argumets.

BT game mechanics are at least moderately consistant. I'll happily conceed to novel/game fluff overriding it.

[SirNitram]

Dodging lightspeed fire while having STL speeds is identical to avoiding being shot by a pistol while not moving at mach speeds. You avoid where the enemy is aiming.

Which is a hell of a lot more difficult when the bullet is moving at c as opposed to 400 mps. I WILL admit that the absurdly low engagement ranges of BT might actually work in favour of the defendant.

Thanks for dodging the point entirely. Even I, a pacifist, have enough experience with guns to know it's not that fucking simple.

Besides, I'm talking about dodging the bullet after it's been fired.

Give me the quote.

You've made enough of a fool of yourself for one day, blatantly making game mechanic argumets.

BT game mechanics are at least moderately consistant. I'll happily conceed to novel/game fluff overriding it.

How about you just stop being a moron, hrm? Aerotech rules clearly show longer ranges are possible outside of close in mech combat, but you blithely throw these out for no reason. You are debating dishonestly. Cease and desist.

[consequences]

Understood, but if they aren't at least comparable to a modern tank's ability to adjust on the fly, then I'm going to have to chalk up another point for the 'rules of warfare universally enforced by elitist assholes theory'.

That's not theory, that's canon, I beleive. This is a universe where alot of sane things are not done.

On the plus side, you can make two hundred ton tanks, fit them with dozer blades, and just plow into the legged things to make them fall down, go boom.

Yes, but what sick bastards make a tank carry around 20 tons of fuel just to make sure that it blows up easier?

It is a rather fun universe to play in, though, isn't it.

[SirNitram]

Yes, but what sick bastards make a tank carry around 20 tons of fuel just to make sure that it blows up easier?

It is a rather fun universe to play in, though, isn't it.

That'd be me with the self-destructing mechs/tanks. The few folks I've BT'd with HATED when I found out about self-destruction via overheat. 'I'll remove all the weapons and heat sinks, stuff it full of explosives, and run at you!'

[Batman]

Thanks for dodging the point entirely. Even I, a pacifist, have enough experience with guns to know it's not that fucking simple.

Actually yes it is. If the bullet can get to where you are faster than you can get out of the way then yes it'll hit.

Besides, I'm talking about dodging the bullet after it's been fired.

Give me the quote.

Fair enough. At least one example is from the 4th Succession War trilogy involving the Kell Hounds but I'll get back to you.

You've made enough of a fool of yourself for one day, blatantly making game mechanic argumets.

BT game mechanics are at least moderately consistant. I'll happily conceed to novel/game fluff overriding it.

How about you just stop being a moron, hrm? Aerotech rules clearly show longer ranges are possible outside of close in mech combat, but you blithely throw these out for no reason. You are debating dishonestly. Cease and desist.

Gunhead seems to disagree.
Besides, the range isn't what concerns me the most. It's the firepower issue that I'm concerned with.

[Nephtys]

Nephtys? The computer games have, to my knowledge, no canonicity whatsoever.
I'm not assuming bullets travel far slower when not fired by airplanes. Battletech is.
BT has Mechs being killed by bombs lobbed at them by propeller-driven airplanes. BT has Aerospace fighters killed by the in-universe equivalent of Sidewinders.
As for maneuverability, no you do NOT avoid lightspeed weapons that way.
In fact as long as you're on the same planet as the firer you CAN'T avoid lightspeed weapon fire even with FTL sensors.

To your knowledge. They they depict at times things in universe that are canon. The events of MW2: Ghost Bear's Legacy did happen after all, and in the way the game shows it. MW3 describes the fate of a Smoke Jaguar Galaxy Commander and his followers immediately preceeding the IS victory at Strana Mechty. Their events are canon. Plus, I'm not even talking about events. You're nitpicking about why lasers are visible for Goddess' sake.

The delivery platform for a bomb is not the issue. If it's a big ol' bomb, it does what a bomb does. Again, as for Aerospace fighters, it's the 'in-theme' equivilent? What was that now? And again, yet again. It's possible to miss with a laser. Very possible. Stop being a weasel.

[SirNitram]

Thanks for dodging the point entirely. Even I, a pacifist, have enough experience with guns to know it's not that fucking simple.

Actually yes it is. If the bullet can get to where you are faster than you can get out of the way then yes it'll hit.

So it's physically impossible for someone to avoid getting shot, because people can't move at Mach+ speeds.

You, sir, are on crack.

Besides, I'm talking about dodging the bullet after it's been fired.

Give me the quote.

Fair enough. At least one example is from the 4th Succession War trilogy involving the Kell Hounds but I'll get back to you.

Do you comprehend the irony of a man whose debate has been THIS EXISTS AND I WON'T BACK DOWN FOR ANYTHING BUT QUOTES!!!! then saying 'Uhhh..... I'll get back to you!'?

BT game mechanics are at least moderately consistant. I'll happily conceed to novel/game fluff overriding it.

How about you just stop being a moron, hrm? Aerotech rules clearly show longer ranges are possible outside of close in mech combat, but you blithely throw these out for no reason. You are debating dishonestly. Cease and desist.

Gunhead seems to disagree.
Besides, the range isn't what concerns me the most. It's the firepower issue that I'm concerned with.

And when someone challenges you to back your shit up, showing you're lying through your teeth and flatly wrong, the issue changes.

[Nephtys]

Batman, anything regarding the OOLLLD Kell Hounds fluff is suspect, especially with Morgan Kell's 'ghost' powers, which seem totally magical. That he, through some unexplained force, can disappear off targetting computers and become unhittable by any weapon, including 'blind-fired'.

Range is not an issue now? Glad to hear those last 3 pages of debate mattered. I'll accept the concession on SirNitram's behalf.

[Batman]

To your knowledge. They they depict at times things in universe that are canon. The events of MW2: Ghost Bear's Legacy did happen after all, and in the way the game shows it. MW3 describes the fate of a Smoke Jaguar Galaxy Commander and his followers immediately preceeding the IS victory at Strana Mechty. Their events are canon.

Those events are canon because they're canon. NOT because they appear in a computer game cutscene. IF the events of a CG cutscene are backed up by canon I'll gladly accept them. If they aren't I'll ignore them.

Plus, I'm not even talking about events. You're nitpicking about why lasers are visible for Goddess' sake.

As that is in violation of real-world physics I fail to see how it is a nitpick.

The delivery platform for a bomb is not the issue. If it's a big ol' bomb, it does what a bomb does.

Without getting the delivery platform shot down, despite 'Mechs supposedly having multi-km ranges against Aerospace fighers (leave alone prop planes).

Again, as for Aerospace fighters, it's the 'in-theme' equivilent? What was that now? And again, yet again. It's possible to miss with a laser. Very possible. Stop being a weasel.

It's technically possible to miss with a laser. At those ranges, against a target of that size? Oh please.
Targeted shots I'll give you. But a simple centre of mass attack?