Battletech Vs. Star Trek

[Straha]

The thing is RANGE DOESN'T MATTER here, they aare going to be fighting in orbit of a planet and are not going to have the chance to go to xmillion km ranges.

For everyone I have begun writing it and will probably post it in the Fan Fics section in about a month or two.

[Vejut]

Yogi, I could go with 3, as an explaination, but the crew still wouldn't be right: In contex, they clearly talk about the range to their enemy, indicate where he is, and generally are very clear they are NOT talking about theoretical range, they're talking about the range from them, to the taget, in this instance. (or else torp ranges change every few weeks)

BT ships don't gererally use ECM, because it takes too much power to project it well enough to do any good at the ranges involved (or at least thats FASA's explanation for no ECM and Beagles on fighters...) This might allow you to potshot at longer ranges--or maybe not. IIRC, non-warp drive ships are quite hard for ST ships to spot, especially at sublight, radiation of the week screws it up, and even electric storms. The sheildless, warpless Warships might actually be rather hard to spot, which turns it into a game of blind-mans-bluff--assuming neither side has any other equiptment for sensing...

Range would still matter Straha, unless the Starbase was at a pirate point and the Ravens jump in right on top of them...

[Yogi]

Star Trek senses and targets asteroids and other things just fine, and they aren't giving off any warp power either. Same thing with direlect vessles, 21st Century space probes, and life signs on technologically primitive planets. If you try to use Radiation of the Week to say the sensors won't work, I'll have to counter with Tecnobabble Solution of the Week

[Darth Wong]

Star Trek senses and targets asteroids and other things just fine, and they aren't giving off any warp power either.

It's not hard to see an asteroid field, arbitrarily pick one rock on optical, and carefully line up your shot. That doesn't necessarily mean they can target starships at that range.

Same thing with direlect vessles, 21st Century space probes, and life signs on technologically primitive planets.

Actually, they've stumbled almost on top of derelict vessels before without picking them up. Same for approaching sublight craft. And life signs on technologically primitive planets don't mean anything; the planet is obviously there, so they know to point their scanning beams at it. This is different from a ship attacking from any arbitrary direction.

However, I'll say this against Battletech; their Mechs are too easy to pick up. Not only are they huge and easily targeted from long range with anti-tank weapons (not that redshirts have any), but you can always hear heavy metal music start whenever one of them comes into range

[Vejut]

We are the clans. Heavy metal music is for those freebirth surats in the Inner Sphere....

The radiation of the week was uncalled for. (Though both it and the Technobabble solution of the week show just how much ST relies on dramatic providence....one wonders if they're from the Discworld, not the Earth...)

[Rubberanvil]

Well Battletech does benefit from having a larger home turf then the SF side. SF's general reluctance to use means to rapidly depopulate oppositing planets.

[Vejut]

Uhh...Btech generally doesn't "depopulate planets" either...conquer them, yes, but WMD's are generally a no-no (as in, everyone in the universe lining up to assrape you and then commit horrible mutilations....) As for home turf, I'm not sure about that...I recall seeing a map where the Feds extened to a planet I ID as a core world of the Federated Suns, but I can't remember it, and I don't get that impression from the shows/books. In any case, they have a larger home range, but they don't have nearly as many ships (at least, not FTL capable warships....)

[Slartibartfast]

Battletech armies are afraid to use too much force on the enemy, because that might damage factories and equipment, and they no longer remember how to build those

In fact I remember that usually mech-to-mech battles aren't done to the point of mech destruction, they'd rather leave the mech alive because it's so difficult to build them without factories (which they don't know how to build).

[Vejut]

Used to. They have improved since 3050, and the clans never lost it. Nowadays, they could fight total war and get away with it...but they're still in the conservation habit, at least in social outlook--no need to scrounge too hard, but still, wanton blowing up of factories is discouraged.

[Sarevok]

Used to. They have improved since 3050, and the clans never lost it. Nowadays, they could fight total war and get away with it...but they're still in the conservation habit, at least in social outlook--no need to scrounge too hard, but still, wanton blowing up of factories is discouraged.

The star league battleships were capable orbital bombardment hundreds of years ago. This capability existed since the days terran hegemony but saw little use since no total wars were fought at the time.
Centuries later it was totaly banned after the war between the capellan confederation and free worlds league resulted in billions of civilian deaths.
As a result the ares convention was enacted setting specific rules of warfare that prohibited the use of weopens of mass destruction.

Later the star league collapsed and the succesion wars devasted civilization. The wars resulted in the loss of the most advanced technologies and industrial base needed to manufacture them. In fact by the early 30th century there were entire star systems that could not produce battlemechs. Starships became so scarce that it was against the law to destroy them. As a result by the time of the fourth succesion war warfare resembled petty warlords fighting for local influence than full scale interstellar warfare. Enemy Battlemechs would be salvaged than destroyed. Industrial plants were captured and never destroyed as it was
very difficult to build new ones.

When the clans invaded they wanted to conquer the inner sphere not destroy it. As a result they never resorted to weopens of mass destructions though one smoke jaguar star colonel tried to obtain star league weopenry after his clan was losing the war against the inner sphere

Weopens in mass destruction do exist in battletech and they would use them in a war against the federation. The exact nature of nuclear yield weopenry in battletech remains unknown but they are definitely very powerful. One ancient star league space port on the abandoned planet of cermak had enough weopens to render all the planets in the innersphere uninhabitable. Though what they exactly are is not known it is likely that these weopens were some sort very high yield nuclear devices and particle beams. Given the fact that the federation regularly uses kiloton level torpedoes it is likely the inner sphere and the clans would start arming their capital ship missiles with such warheads.

[HRogge]

BT ships don't gererally use ECM, because it takes too much power to project it well enough to do any good at the ranges involved (or at least thats FASA's explanation for no ECM and Beagles on fighters...)

If I remember the BT-Stories right ALL BT warships use ECM. There is no additional ECM equipment in the construction rules for warships, but the stories describe that the they used electronic warfare during ship-to-ship combat.

[kheegster]

However, I'll say this against Battletech; their Mechs are too easy to pick up. Not only are they huge and easily targeted from long range with anti-tank weapons (not that redshirts have any), but you can always hear heavy metal music start whenever one of them comes into range

Tanks and other armoured vehicles are Mech-fodder. If you consider the amount of punishment a typical combat mech can take, you need a whole load of AT weaponry to take one out. I haven't played any of the games for some time...anyone bother to calculate some data?

[Darth Wong]

Tanks and other armoured vehicles are Mech-fodder. If you consider the amount of punishment a typical combat mech can take, you need a whole load of AT weaponry to take one out. I haven't played any of the games for some time...anyone bother to calculate some data?

It's the other way around: mechs are tank-fodder. A tank is a small target with a large gun. Its ratios of firepower to size, weight, cost, target profile, etc. are all superior to those of the mech.

In the absence of some absolutely monstrous technology gap (eg- from T-80 to AT-AT), a tank will always annihilate a mech.

[kheegster]

Tanks and other armoured vehicles are Mech-fodder. If you consider the amount of punishment a typical combat mech can take, you need a whole load of AT weaponry to take one out. I haven't played any of the games for some time...anyone bother to calculate some data?

It's the other way around: mechs are tank-fodder. A tank is a small target with a large gun. Its ratios of firepower to size, weight, cost, target profile, etc. are all superior to those of the mech.

In the absence of some absolutely monstrous technology gap (eg- from T-80 to AT-AT), a tank will always annihilate a mech.

I was just quoting my experience of the Mechwarrior games.... Tracked vehicles are little more than nuisances for combat mechs. One of the most effective weapons in the game is the Gauss Rifle...propels a heavy slug through hypersonic speeds via EM fields, and heavy Mechs can usually capable of taking a couple of hits at the same spot before being killed. A tank gun (probably the most effective AT weapon around) can propel a APDSFS shell through Mach 3-4, which isn't quite hypersonic, yet it is virtually certain death for another tank.

Another point: modern MBTs are usually pure anti-weapons...the only anti-personnel weapons are the machine guns, they don't carry HE shells anymore. A Mech can carry a variety of loadouts ranging from MGs, various missiles, lasers to flamethrowers. Versatility-wise I think Mechs win hands down.

[Darth Wong]

I was just quoting my experience of the Mechwarrior games.... Tracked vehicles are little more than nuisances for combat mechs. One of the most effective weapons in the game is the Gauss Rifle...propels a heavy slug through hypersonic speeds via EM fields, and heavy Mechs can usually capable of taking a couple of hits at the same spot before being killed. A tank gun (probably the most effective AT weapon around) can propel a APDSFS shell through Mach 3-4, which isn't quite hypersonic, yet it is virtually certain death for another tank.

Ummm, the fact that a gun accelerates its projectile via EM fields instead of gas pressure does not necessarily mean that its rounds are hypersonic. In playing a Mech game, I've never noticed that those rounds are that much more dangerous than conventional rounds.

Another point: modern MBTs are usually pure anti-weapons...the only anti-personnel weapons are the machine guns, they don't carry HE shells anymore.

A Mech can carry a variety of loadouts ranging from MGs, various missiles, lasers to flamethrowers. Versatility-wise I think Mechs win hands down.

And that mech would get killed by an infantryman with an anti-tank weapon, since it lacks shields and in a shieldless sci-fi universe, size is your enemy, not your friend. They've got man-portable anti-tank weapons that will punch through three feet of steel. Mechs don't have anywhere near such armour, especially since they have to be light enough to fly, even if only for brief jumps.

Also, for the cost of that mech, you could easily build several tanks, plus recon vehicles, plus some artillery pieces. Now that is versatility, and it's not all bound up in a single target.

[Sea Skimmer]

Tanks and other armoured vehicles are Mech-fodder. If you consider the amount of punishment a typical combat mech can take, you need a whole load of AT weaponry to take one out. I haven't played any of the games for some time...anyone bother to calculate some data?

It's the other way around: mechs are tank-fodder. A tank is a small target with a large gun. Its ratios of firepower to size, weight, cost, target profile, etc. are all superior to those of the mech.

In the absence of some absolutely monstrous technology gap (eg- from T-80 to AT-AT), a tank will always annihilate a mech.

I was just quoting my experience of the Mechwarrior games.... Tracked vehicles are little more than nuisances for combat mechs. One of the most effective weapons in the game is the Gauss Rifle...propels a heavy slug through hypersonic speeds via EM fields, and heavy Mechs can usually capable of taking a couple of hits at the same spot before being killed. A tank gun (probably the most effective AT weapon around) can propel a APDSFS shell through Mach 3-4, which isn't quite hypersonic, yet it is virtually certain death for another tank.

Another point: modern MBTs are usually pure anti-weapons...the only anti-personnel weapons are the machine guns, they don't carry HE shells anymore. A Mech can carry a variety of loadouts ranging from MGs, various missiles, lasers to flamethrowers. Versatility-wise I think Mechs win hands down.

Actually the vast vast majority of the worlds tanks do carry HE rounds, in the case of Russia's 25,000 unit fleet is makes up about 45% of the basic load. There are also HESH, ATGM and HEAT rounds which a great many tanks embark. There are maybe 18,000 Western tanks that don't have HE shells. The world has had a couple hundred thousand tanks built or in service in the last 30 years.

But its really a non issue, designers try to get the bets out of the fewest weapons and shells. The HEAT round used by the M1A2 for example has anti armor, anti infantry and in its latest form anti helicopter effect with a proximity fuse.

Needing many different weapons on one mount to be effective is a sign of poor design and a very poor force composition. It's nothing to be proud of foolish one.

[The_Nice_Guy]

All other things considered equal, tanks do win out over mechs in manmy situations. Same armor, weaponry, etc.

However, due to the need to justify mechs as the king of the battlefield, BT game designers gave tanks some penalties on their rolls and construction rules. Simply put, tanks were made weaker than they would be in real life.

As for the prickly issue of BT armor(since mechs and tanks share the same armor), it is often said that it's the armor that's the only rationale for combat ranges dropping to knife range. Anti-tank rounds equivalent/superior to modern day AT technology can only scratch the armor in the canon material(RPG and BT).

The only possible explanation is that the mechs(and tanks) mount superior protection, some type of advanced lightweight layered armor that renders most 21st century weaponry obsolete and reduces range down to those levels due to targeting, tracking problems etc.

As for jump jets, well, let's just say that those jets are powerful enough to propel up to 100 tons of mech into the air, regardless of armor. It's the overall weight that counts, not the armor. Still, a mech can only carry up to 20 tons of armor. Doesn't seem a lot unless the armor is a few steps beyond modern day armor. We don't have any real scientific justification for why jump jets work the way they do, but this is sci-fi, after all.

I have to say that I didn't like the way Microsoft made tanks so much weaker in relation to the mechs in the computer games. They aren't that weak even in the board game!

As for cost, Wong is completely right. A cutting edge mech can be replaced by several tanks for the same cost. However, the problems with this is
1). More expensive to train several crews than 1 mechwarrior.
2). Upkeep might be higher. You need to pay several tankers instead of 1 mechwarrior.
3). More transport assets required to shift tanks. In light of the limited transportation in BT, this is a very real factor.

Some people might forgo these problems completely and use mechs.

The Nice Guy

[kheegster]

I was just quoting my experience of the Mechwarrior games.... Tracked vehicles are little more than nuisances for combat mechs. One of the most effective weapons in the game is the Gauss Rifle...propels a heavy slug through hypersonic speeds via EM fields, and heavy Mechs can usually capable of taking a couple of hits at the same spot before being killed. A tank gun (probably the most effective AT weapon around) can propel a APDSFS shell through Mach 3-4, which isn't quite hypersonic, yet it is virtually certain death for another tank.

Ummm, the fact that a gun accelerates its projectile via EM fields instead of gas pressure does not necessarily mean that its rounds are hypersonic. In playing a Mech game, I've never noticed that those rounds are that much more dangerous than conventional rounds.

Touche on your other points, but I read somewhere in the game manuals or novels that the rounds ARE hypersonic. In any case, in the games the travel time of the rounds are not perceptible (you don't have to lead your target), whereas when I played Steel Beasts (hailed as the most realistic tank sim around), the flight time of the shells are easily perceived, and you obviously need ballistic computers to get the right targeting solutions...

[HRogge]

Tanks and other armoured vehicles are Mech-fodder. If you consider the amount of punishment a typical combat mech can take, you need a whole load of AT weaponry to take one out. I haven't played any of the games for some time...anyone bother to calculate some data?

It's the other way around: mechs are tank-fodder. A tank is a small target with a large gun. Its ratios of firepower to size, weight, cost, target profile, etc. are all superior to those of the mech.

In the absence of some absolutely monstrous technology gap (eg- from T-80 to AT-AT), a tank will always annihilate a mech.

I have played battletech a lot and I have to say TANKS ARE KILLERS... if you ever meet a good tank player you are in deep ship. But most players don't play tanks so they think they are weak in BTech. Especially the Clans have some really dangerous tanks.

[Darth Wong]

All other things considered equal, tanks do win out over mechs in manmy situations. Same armor, weaponry, etc.

However, due to the need to justify mechs as the king of the battlefield, BT game designers gave tanks some penalties on their rolls and construction rules. Simply put, tanks were made weaker than they would be in real life.

Mechs have the coolness factor, so they must win

As for the prickly issue of BT armor(since mechs and tanks share the same armor), it is often said that it's the armor that's the only rationale for combat ranges dropping to knife range. Anti-tank rounds equivalent/superior to modern day AT technology can only scratch the armor in the canon material(RPG and BT).

That doesn't work as a rationalization. If the armour is extremely strong, that doesn't change the fact that the destructive power of a tank gun at 1 km is not much different than it is at 500 metres, so there is still no good reason for mechs to fight only at point-blank range.

The only possible explanation is that the mechs(and tanks) mount superior protection, some type of advanced lightweight layered armor that renders most 21st century weaponry obsolete and reduces range down to those levels due to targeting, tracking problems etc.

Targeting problems are the only valid explanation, but they still don't wash. Even if everything else doesn't work, an optical system should still get the job done.

As for jump jets, well, let's just say that those jets are powerful enough to propel up to 100 tons of mech into the air, regardless of armor. It's the overall weight that counts, not the armor. Still, a mech can only carry up to 20 tons of armor. Doesn't seem a lot unless the armor is a few steps beyond modern day armor. We don't have any real scientific justification for why jump jets work the way they do, but this is sci-fi, after all.

I have to say that I didn't like the way Microsoft made tanks so much weaker in relation to the mechs in the computer games. They aren't that weak even in the board game!

It's Microsoft. What more need we say?

As for cost, Wong is completely right. A cutting edge mech can be replaced by several tanks for the same cost. However, the problems with this is
1). More expensive to train several crews than 1 mechwarrior.
2). Upkeep might be higher. You need to pay several tankers instead of 1 mechwarrior.
3). More transport assets required to shift tanks. In light of the limited transportation in BT, this is a very real factor.

Actually, I'd rather take care of maintenance on 5 tanks than 1 mech. The mech is far more complex, with far more moving parts which take far more of a pounding. The physical shock and uneven movement are going to be murder on the components. Think about the constant shock loading on the bearings in its ankles, for example. A mech is VASTLY more complex than a tank, far more difficult to keep running, etc. Also, it's easier to transport 5 small things than 1 big thing. It's true that a diversified force would require more personnel, but it would also be a lot more effective, flexible, and it wouldn't have "all its eggs in one basket".

[Uraniun235]

Besides, those several tanks could be in several places at once, whereas a mech is only a mech, and can only be in one place at once.

Also, with the comparatively simple mechanics of a tank, I'd imagine it would be easier for a colony to set up shop to make their own parts for the tank, or even make their own tanks, rather than a big honkin' battlemech.

[The_Nice_Guy]

A point often made by several ex-military people for Battletech is that even when considering the maximum force-effective unit(mech) that can be transported for an invasion, how the heck are one regiment(about a hundred) of these units going to control a world with population in the tens of millions?!?

Let's say a relatively industralized world can produce cars and tractors. Going from these to tanks is an extremely simple step. So a world with about 150 million people can produce a hefty lot of tanks for defense, which basically makes any invasion by a mere hundred mechs suicide!

That said, we often try to justify it with feudalism based society reasons etc, but most of the time we just ignore it and get on with the game.

The Nice Guy

[Vympel]

Touche on your other points, but I read somewhere in the game manuals or novels that the rounds ARE hypersonic. In any case, in the games the travel time of the rounds are not perceptible (you don't have to lead your target), whereas when I played Steel Beasts (hailed as the most realistic tank sim around), the flight time of the shells are easily perceived, and you obviously need ballistic computers to get the right targeting solutions...

Doesn't matter. A tank of equal technology can be equipped with such weaponry as well, once again making the mech merely more expensive, bigger fodder for tanks, and the fact that the rounds are hypersonic doesn't necessarily mean much. There's also the issue of how big the rounds are, and how thick the armor is on the targets they're being used on.

[Lt. Nebfer]

Well the guys who made b-tech where not vary military inclined so the stats are kind mesed up(ie an AC-20 is a 80/120mm wepon and only has a range of 400mwhere as a AC2 30/40mm has a range of 1000m)so we have to take the wepons ranges with a grain of salt(i read some where in the RPG vetion the range where like 2 to 3 times the regular game )

in speking of the numbers the clans took over like 100 planets with less than 1 million Men

[Straha]

in speking of the numbers the clans took over like 100 planets with less than 1 million Men

Because they hit the rim worlds. Honnestly no one suspected an attack from out there. Thats like us putting troops around Kansas. Or the interior of Hawaii.