Battletech Vehicles Criticals

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-10-05 01:52pm

pwned = owned != pawned

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-10-05 02:05pm

The Joke is still valid IoM Rhino+Space Marines would chew up just about anything in Battletech, Especially if they had a Whirlwind for support...

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-10-05 02:22pm

Naturally

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-05 02:26pm

I got someone to accept a SW Juggernaught as a 200-tonner with the specs from WEG....

Let's just say the acceptance was revoked three games later.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-10-05 05:39pm

Just took a peek through my maximum tech book (it was at home), and found that it does indeed have rules for superheavy tanks. However, some of these rules are just plain stupid in my opinon. For example, the big difference between a 100 ton tank and a 101 ton tank? The latter spends 20% of its size on structural support, the former only pays 10%. For one extra ton, you have to pay twice as much internal space. So you don't start seeing a return for your investment until you start using 115 ton tanks (wow, 2 extra tons of weapon/equipment space).

Fortunately, I have a quick fix for this. Instead of using that ridiculous rule, use the following:

Internal space = (size * 0.03) * (size * 0.03) = (size * 0.03)^2

Note: using 0.03162 results in stats much closer to what was intended for 100 and 200 ton vehicles, but 0.03 is close enough. As always, remember to round.

This removes the dead zones in the previous scale where heavier tanks would have less weapon/equipment space thanks to the silly arbitrary increase in internal structures. It also gives lighter tanks more equipment space as an added side effect.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-10-05 08:37pm

The only real life tank design over 100 tons which has actually been completed has been the German Maus and it was described in a book I read which gave a bit of info on the design as being very cramped so there may be problems with the engineering behind huge tank designs which require extra structure.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-10-05 09:08pm

Kitsune wrote:The only real life tank design over 100 tons which has actually been completed has been the German Maus and it was described in a book I read which gave a bit of info on the design as being very cramped so there may be problems with the engineering behind huge tank designs which require extra structure.

Fucking refresh button, just lost a post.

Look, just do the math. Structure increases with mass, but the way FASA does it is stupid. It's a linear increase every step of the way, until you get a massive jump right after 100 tons. My way, it's 10% at 100 and 20% at 200, and there's a nice, smooth rate of change the whole way up. Personally, I don't know if that's an accurate equation as far as engineering goes, but it's a better equation for the logic they appear to be using.

Edit: Also, using my system, it would be possible to change the value so that you use 10% at the beginning of the curve rather than at the middle, meaning that 100 ton tanks use 20% and 200 ton tanks use 30%, or whatever you want. Also, it allows for an upper limit to be set by the fact that eventually something will become so huge that in order to support it, 99.9% of the mass will have to be dedicated towards the structure of the damn thing. Using my current scale, the largest effective tank you could have would be 500 tons, after that point you never get any more space for weapons, and thus renders all designs above 500tons utterly worthless.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-05 09:44pm

Kitsune wrote:The only real life tank design over 100 tons which has actually been completed has been the German Maus and it was described in a book I read which gave a bit of info on the design as being very cramped so there may be problems with the engineering behind huge tank designs which require extra structure.

The Maus was no more cramped then any other WW2 tank. Building a tank of that size isn't especially difficult, but a poor idea. The resulting vehicle might still manage to have low ground pressure by using very wide tracks, but many bridges wont be able to support that weight period. The tank will also be hard to maneuver. It will also require similar sized recovery vehicles and transporters and those will be real bitches.

And in the end, your still going to have venerable flanks, your gun will either be something that would fit on a far smaller vehicle or excessively large and slow firing.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-10-06 07:15pm

Sea Skimmer wrote: The Maus was no more cramped then any other WW2 tank. Building a tank of that size isn't especially difficult, but a poor idea. The resulting vehicle might still manage to have low ground pressure by using very wide tracks, but many bridges wont be able to support that weight period. The tank will also be hard to maneuver. It will also require similar sized recovery vehicles and transporters and those will be real bitches.

And in the end, your still going to have venerable flanks, your gun will either be something that would fit on a far smaller vehicle or excessively large and slow firing.

I did a bit of quick reserach and was able to verify that the Maus is not any more cramped than other German WW2 tanks. Problem is you could probably buy four or more Jagdtiger for one Maus.

I just kind of ignored the super heavy tanks in Maximum Tech as being a waste of materials

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-10-31 04:47pm

I noted something intersting, the engine of an abrams weighs about 1 ton yet the same performance in an ICE engine requires around 27 tons .

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-31 05:01pm

Kitsune wrote:I noted something intersting, the engine of an abrams weighs about 1 ton yet the same performance in an ICE engine requires around 27 tons .

And B-Tech laser designators weigh one ton while the US military is running around today with a 12 pound system which not only laser designates targets but also has a laser range finder, thermal imager and plug ins for a radio data link and GPS, which allows for calling in air strikes and artillery with an accuracy measured in the single digit meters.

The people who made up the Battletech rules simply had no idea in hell what they where doing.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-10-31 05:04pm

no shit.....

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2003-11-01 03:52am

OK what would Battletech look and play like if the people had knownn what the hell they were doing??? Renegade legion Centurion with mecha???

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2003-11-01 04:16am

Typhonis 1 wrote:OK what would Battletech look and play like if the people had knownn what the hell they were doing??? Renegade legion Centurion with mecha???

It would probably be mid-range sci-fi then, thus giving it a fighting chance in many sci-fi debates as well as being 3000 times cooler. Ah, a world without endless BTech bashing... I can dream.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-11-01 04:47am

Oh the target aquistion laser, that's built into the onboard sensors, the commander's suit, and every last friggin PBI's helmet for crying the fuck outloud.