Battletech Vehicles Criticals

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-09-22 09:30am

Not another Battletech bashing thread. How many times has it been discussed that Tanks are more powerful than Mecha ? Do not you ever get tired of saying the same thing over and over again ? I mean no one ever said Mechs > Tanks here so what's the point of this debate ?

Battletech is unrealistic. It is made for your fun not technical accuracy. If you like accuracy more than fun then throw away Mechwarrior and buy Janes Combat simulations.

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2003-09-22 11:38am

I'm sorry, where is it written that it is fun having your 100 ton uber-tank taken out by a smegging machine-gun? Something which is several hundred more times likely to happen to a tank than a mech, with only a 20% reduction in BV? Which doesn't even mention the insane inferno rules.

greenmm · Post by **greenmm** » 2003-09-22 04:08pm

The Dark wrote:I'm using the BMR here, the last (as far as I know) set of rules published by FASA.
greenmm wrote:IIRC, they claimed the extra weight for the engines was due to the additional shielding needed to protect the crews. Of course, this doesn't explain why mechs didn't need the extra shielding, given that they didn't have any extra space to protect the pilot from his engine. Nor why said shielding would work against radiation, but not against heat.
The extra mass was for "shielding and transmission equipment." The really stupid thing, though, was that an Internal Combustion Engine weighed twice as much as a fusion reactor.

Exactly. And why a vehicle would need transmission equipment, but not a Mech (hmm, let's see: steam-rotated turbine translates better to ICE-based driveshafts than humanoid movement)...

Which brings up the other point: overheating. It was actually somewhat realistic to have to account for the heat your weapons produce. But Mechs were able to pile on the weapons while shortchanging themselves on heat sinks... and could even stow some heat sinks in the engine itself. Vehicles, OTOH, could have the same exact engine model, but all heat sinks had to be external to the engine [WTF!],
Not quite true. They got the 10 heat sinks integral to all fusion reactors. Page 120, under Energy Weapons, has a line "Remember that all fusion plants are designed with 10 integral heat sinks."

They had the heat sinks, but I thought they had to still install them in the vehicle outside the engine.

If I'm wrong, then that's a point actually in a vehicle's favor. Although I never understood for Mechs how a fusion engine could have free heat sinks when smaller engines couldn't fit them internally...

and IIRC all heat produced by energy weapons had to be accounted for (the only saving grace being that projectile and missile weapons didn't need heat sinks, but FASA gave those weapons weaknesses in comparison to energy weapons). And unlike with Mechs (who would first experience speed reductions, then sensor/targeting penalties, and then shutdown), vehicles couldn't even be overheated, or you'd have the same situation as the "vehicle exploded by an Inferno missile".
Does it? Page 46 says "a vehicle can automatically shed heat built up from movement or from firing non-energy weapons." I would interpret that to mean that any overheat prevents energy weapons fire but otherwise has no effect, since that's the only reference to vehicles and heat in the chapter on heat effects (unless there's something in Maximum Tech). Just about the only advantage a vehicle has is the turret, allowing it to fire its main weapon in any direction.

I'm pretty sure that it says energy weapons need enough heat sinks to account for their heat. It might be in the section where they talk about power amplifiers for ICE engine vehicles, but IIRC the heat sink requirement is for all vehicles.

And then the whole "Battle Value" thing. Forget that they semi-crippled vehicles already (heat sinks, engine mass, space limitations, etc.), but not only did the base BV multipliers end up being smaller than those used on Mechs, they then stuck a final multiplier on the front that completely crippled them.
Uhm...that's good. It makes vehicles cheaper for their ability. A tank with the same layout as a Mech only costs 80% as much in BV.

BV is separate from cost, though. Also, the multiplier is for the final BV> But when Mechs get twice their armor points for their base BV, and vehicles don't, that further penalizes vehicles.

Do this as an experiment:

Take a 100 ton tank. Give it a fusion engine. Then give it identical armament and ammo to that found on an Atlas (Lvl 1 or Lvl 2 tech is fine).

For vehicle A, give it the same tonnage of armor that the Atlas has, and use the additional mass for additional ammunition for the onboard weapons.

For vehicle B, use the remaining tonnage for armor.

For both vehicles A and B, then, calculate both the cost and the BV. Then, figure out the Cost and BV ratio for both in comparison to an Atlas.

I suspect you'll find that, in comparison to the Atlas, the final BV for both vehicles will be lower than 80% (the multiplier for tracked vehicles). The only saving grace may be the cost factor, which could also end up being less than 80%... but I doubt it will be very significant.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-09-22 05:58pm

greenmm wrote:
The Dark wrote:The extra mass was for "shielding and transmission equipment." The really stupid thing, though, was that an Internal Combustion Engine weighed twice as much as a fusion reactor.
Exactly. And why a vehicle would need transmission equipment, but not a Mech (hmm, let's see: steam-rotated turbine translates better to ICE-based driveshafts than humanoid movement)...

I'm in total agreement here. It's a definite pro-Mech bias.

Not quite true. They got the 10 heat sinks integral to all fusion reactors. Page 120, under Energy Weapons, has a line "Remember that all fusion plants are designed with 10 integral heat sinks."
They had the heat sinks, but I thought they had to still install them in the vehicle outside the engine.

If I'm wrong, then that's a point actually in a vehicle's favor. Although I never understood for Mechs how a fusion engine could have free heat sinks when smaller engines couldn't fit them internally...

They get 10 free heat sinks, but have to install the rest (though they don't use item slots, just tonnage).

Does it? Page 46 says "a vehicle can automatically shed heat built up from movement or from firing non-energy weapons." I would interpret that to mean that any overheat prevents energy weapons fire but otherwise has no effect, since that's the only reference to vehicles and heat in the chapter on heat effects (unless there's something in Maximum Tech). Just about the only advantage a vehicle has is the turret, allowing it to fire its main weapon in any direction.
I'm pretty sure that it says energy weapons need enough heat sinks to account for their heat. It might be in the section where they talk about power amplifiers for ICE engine vehicles, but IIRC the heat sink requirement is for all vehicles.

I wrote that poorly...I meant that while Page 120 of the BMR states that the heat from all energy weapons must be accounted for, there's no rules for a vehicle overheating (probably because there are no reactor hits, which I had missed when I wrote that). My bad writing (and research) in action

.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-09-23 09:37am

consequences wrote:I'm sorry, where is it written that it is fun having your 100 ton uber-tank taken out by a smegging machine-gun? Something which is several hundred more times likely to happen to a tank than a mech, with only a 20% reduction in BV? Which doesn't even mention the insane inferno rules.

That depends on your point of view. Given the choice I would engage a star of clan Mechs in Mechwarrior instead of fighting T-72s in my M1 tank in Armoured Fist 3.

Yeah I enjoy AF3 but I like Battletech even more. It is a matter of personal preference. Of course that does not change the fact that tanks will annihalate any mecha.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-10-01 06:30pm

evilcat4000 wrote:Not another Battletech bashing thread. How many times has it been discussed that Tanks are more powerful than Mecha ? Do not you ever get tired of saying the same thing over and over again ? I mean no one ever said Mechs > Tanks here so what's the point of this debate ?

Battletech is unrealistic. It is made for your fun not technical accuracy. If you like accuracy more than fun then throw away Mechwarrior and buy Janes Combat simulations.

I am not trying to bash but looking for some alternative rules, I plan to work on some experimental rules otherwise myself. I lke the idea of a "sfi-fi" ground combat game and I personally really like hover tanks.

I created a 3025 base tech 50 ton hovertank with an 8 / 12 movement and armed with a PPC, an LRM-15, and 11 tons of armor at a cost of 1,653,000. Combat value is 2348

Compare this to a 55 to Griffon witha similar armament of a ppc and an LRM 10 with a movement rate of 5/8/5 and 9.5 tons of armor at a cost of 4,616,106. Combat value is 2721

Can buy almost three of the hover tanks for the cost of one Griffon.

A LCT-1E locust with the same movement (8/12) costs 1,574,200 and that hovertank will eat it for breakfast.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-10-02 08:38am

Exactly. And why a vehicle would need transmission equipment, but not a Mech (hmm, let's see: steam-rotated turbine translates better to ICE-based driveshafts than humanoid movement)...

Mynomer actuators found on Battlmechs are more efficient than drive trains used in veichles

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-02 12:51pm

Kitsune wrote:I am not trying to bash but looking for some alternative rules, I plan to work on some experimental rules otherwise myself. I lke the idea of a "sfi-fi" ground combat game and I personally really like hover tanks.

I don't know what game systems you're familiar with, but I'm working on converting Palladium Books, BattleTech, and WotC D20 over to DP9's Silhouette system (currently the old one, since I don't have the new Silhouette CORE system). My website (which only has Robotech mecha so far) is at www.geocities.com/crossmanfsc/jovian_chronicles.html

Just as a quick idea of what the stats would be like for, say, an SDR-5V Spider, it would be:

Maneuver: -1 (I'm being generous right now until I can extrapolate some mass/maneuver ratios)
Armor: 17/34/51 (equivalent 289mm armor)
Movement: 11/22 (combat speed 66 kmh, top speed 132 kmh)
Armament: 2x Medium Laser (DM x13 [169mm penetration], BR 2, Ammo INF, Arc Fixed Forward, Accuracy +1)

For missile systems, I use the AT2 method of using an average damage roll, so each missile launcher fires a single missile rather than salvos, since one thing Sil doesn't handle well is launches of, say, 6 missiles (4 or 8 works fine, but 6 falls right between two rates of fire).

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2003-10-02 02:19pm

evilcat4000 [/quote]

Mynomer actuators found on Battlmechs are more efficient than drive trains used in veichles[/quote]

______________________________________________________________________

yeah rifght now then how many actuators does it take for a mech to walk one step ?

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-10-03 07:11pm

I got maximum metal today and have to say that the rules are much better for vehicles although I consider 100+ ton tanks to be a waste of resources. I also like the idea that they put more detailed descriptions of criticals.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-03 07:22pm

Kitsune wrote:I got maximum metal today and have to say that the rules are much better for vehicles although I consider 100+ ton tanks to be a waste of resources. I also like the idea that they put more detailed descriptions of criticals.

Make sure to check out this page for corrections to the book. I don't play Cyberpunk, but I've heard it's an interesting system. I just wish I could find a copy of Mekton or Mekton Zeta.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-10-03 07:31pm

Cyberpunk 2020 is a fun system, but I'm not overly fond of the base Interlok rules. A kick to the head is more lethal than a police special to the head. There is no opposed test for attacks, it's all based on relative ranges, which can get pretty silly beyond a certain point. Combat is often a fairly complicated affair, and with all the special ammo types running around, plus all the various armor types, things can get nutty. I especially love how a high explosive 40mm grenade can hit someone square in the GUT and do nothing more than knock them back a little bit.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-03 07:38pm

Hotfoot wrote:I especially love how a high explosive 40mm grenade can hit someone square in the GUT and do nothing more than knock them back a little bit.

Reminds of the Palladium Books' problem with characters jumping on grenades to save people. There were actually characters who could easily take four or five grenades (under a literal interpretation of the rules) and still be able to fight. they eventually ruled it was at least an automatic critical hit, if not damage direct to Hit Points (which causes a roll on a Wound Table, which can be nasty), or an automatic kill (GM's discretion).

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-10-03 08:10pm

The Dark wrote:Make sure to check out this page for corrections to the book. I don't play Cyberpunk, but I've heard it's an interesting system. I just wish I could find a copy of Mekton or Mekton Zeta.

Sorry, I mean Maximum Tech for battletech

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2003-10-03 08:14pm

Actually, the most recent ruling I've seen states that a character who jumps on a grenade capable of injuring them is straight up dead, no questions asked.

Which means youto can trip Zeus onto a 2d6 M.D.C. frag grenade, and intstantly kill the head of a pantheon. Old Ones a problem? Just Judo throw them onto a 1d4 M.D.C. explosive shell. Some of Siembieda's blanket rules assumptions really piss me off.

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2003-10-04 01:19am

I got rid of my Rifts stuf save for Undersea

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-04 04:59pm

Kitsune wrote:
The Dark wrote:Make sure to check out this page for corrections to the book. I don't play Cyberpunk, but I've heard it's an interesting system. I just wish I could find a copy of Mekton or Mekton Zeta.
Sorry, I mean Maximum Tech for battletech

You suck...I've been looking for that book for months. My friend had it, and it's probably one of the few books worth it. IIRC, it has the 200-ton supertanks.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-10-04 05:02pm

The Dark wrote:
Kitsune wrote:Sorry, I mean Maximum Tech for battletech
You suck...I've been looking for that book for months. My friend had it, and it's probably one of the few books worth it. IIRC, it has the 200-ton supertanks.

Huh? I have Maximum Tech, and I don't remember any supertanks...

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-04 05:52pm

Hotfoot wrote:
The Dark wrote:
Kitsune wrote:Sorry, I mean Maximum Tech for battletech
You suck...I've been looking for that book for months. My friend had it, and it's probably one of the few books worth it. IIRC, it has the 200-ton supertanks.
Huh? I have Maximum Tech, and I don't remember any supertanks...

I thought it included the rules allowing tanks to be built up to 200 tons...maybe I'm just having one of those days again where my memory decides to play practical jokes on me.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-10-04 06:02pm

The Dark wrote:I thought it included the rules allowing tanks to be built up to 200 tons...maybe I'm just having one of those days again where my memory decides to play practical jokes on me.

Oh, rules for supertanks. You're probably right. I'll check tomorrow when I can go back and take a look.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-10-04 10:24pm

The Dark wrote: You suck...I've been looking for that book for months. My friend had it, and it's probably one of the few books worth it. IIRC, it has the 200-ton supertanks.

Try Half.com, that is where I went to get the book.
I like the rules but consider a 200 ton tank to be a waste of metal. It did not work for Hitler and is not too useful for battletech either.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-10-05 07:20am

What is the most dangerous tank in Battletech ?

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-10-05 09:51am

I had a nasty time of it fighting a few dozen gabriels - 5 ton beasties with a medium laser and move of 210kph.

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2003-10-05 11:04am

By itself? Probably the Alacorn Mk VIII, three Gauss Rifles have a habit of ruining anyones day. Schrek and Burke PPC carriers are also very mean. For a unit operation, you would want to support wih a number of Gabriels for quick strikes, and Rhinos, for well armored heavy LRM support.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-10-05 01:31pm

Do the Rhino's some with their own space marines?

and if so how did the clan elementals feel after being pawned by the imperium of man?