46 replies to this topic

[HIemfire]

Zynk, on 11 June 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

Binary Laser Cannon Heat 16 Damage 12 Tons 9 Critical Slots 4

Large Laser Heat 8 Damage 8 Tons 5 Critical Slots 2

2X Large Lasers gets you 16 heat for 16 damage

IMO the 1 ton armor saved mounting BLC is not worth it.

Would an additional heatsink (single or double) be worth it? Another ton of ammunition far an autocannon or missile launcher that you have on the mech as well? Maybe a Medium Laser (hardpoints permitting, though with the 2 large lasers in your example I could safely assume the mech would have atleast 2 energy hardpoints)? Aside from that, the damage of the 2 large lasers is spread a bit and might not hit the same area, the Blazer's damage is focused on one spot (AC/20 vs. 4 medium lasers is another example of this).

[Tterrag]

Aethon, on 11 June 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

I still don't understand...but it's not really meant to be fired by battlemechs in close combat; it's a long-range artillery piece, and in tabletop, it can't even be fired during the normal maneuvering/firing of standard weaponry. It can even be fired from off the map.

That said, if you're talking about its MW4 implementation, yeah...it wasn't artillery in that game; it was a gigantic grenade launcher. It did feel pretty stupid. That didn't stop me from mounting one on a Hunchback and giving busy assault mechs the hyperatomic suppository, though.

Lol I mean basically that if you get a compressed air tube cut it in half set it up on a stand and put a bowling ball in it you got a mortar which is basically what a long tom is cept for the boom

[Major Bill Curtis]

evil713, on 11 June 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

as near as i can tell, timeline wise, there should be some access to this weapon.

http://www.sarna.net...ry_Laser_Cannon

im just kinda pointing it out waiting for sombody more knowledgeable to point out why i would not see this in 3049.

You would not see it because it's not in wide-scale production. The technology exists, but that doesn't mean it's produced: the guys running the factories know that 2 large lasers is a better load out than a single blazer cannon. Let's compare:

1 Blazer Cannon = 9 tons; 4 spaces; 16 heat; 12 damage; range 450 meters
2 large lasers (non ER) = 10 tons; 4 spaces; 16 heat; 16 damage; range 450 meters

in 2012, car companies could put a steam engine in your Lexus, but they don't

Zynk, on 11 June 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

Binary Laser Cannon Heat 16 Damage 12 Tons 9 Critical Slots 4

Large Laser Heat 8 Damage 8 Tons 5 Critical Slots 2

2X Large Lasers gets you 16 heat for 16 damage

IMO the 1 ton armor saved mounting BLC is not worth it.

Beat me to the punch: kudos

[NARCoMAN]

I'm up to hexadecimal lasers already, binary is so passe.

[HIemfire]

Aethon, on 11 June 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

I still don't understand...but it's not really meant to be fired by battlemechs in close combat; it's a long-range artillery piece, and in tabletop, it can't even be fired during the normal maneuvering/firing of standard weaponry. It can even be fired from off the map.

That said, if you're talking about its MW4 implementation, yeah...it wasn't artillery in that game; it was a gigantic grenade launcher. It did feel pretty stupid. That didn't stop me from mounting one on a Hunchback and giving busy assault mechs the hyperatomic suppository, though.

I think what Tterrag is going for is low tech, which in my opinion is correct.

Lt muffins, on 11 June 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

I normally take a satirical method when expressing displeasure, I very much don't like its inefficiencies with damage to heat generation.
But I am not against adding it because there will be the rare situation where you have extra crits and heat capacity but not enough extra weight to mount 2 large laser but enough to mount the Blaser, only because of that small possibility that i approve of it despite my displeasure of its performance.

Or you have the mass for 2 large lasers but only 1 energy hardpoint and you want to hit harder than a PPC/ER PPC. Toss in a Blazer and a heatsink (if the Binary Laser Cannon (Blazer) gets put in of course).

[HIemfire]

Major Bill Curtis, on 11 June 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

You would not see it because it's not in wide-scale production. The technology exists, but that doesn't mean it's produced: the guys running the factories know that 2 large lasers is a better load out than a single blazer cannon. Let's compare:

1 Blazer Cannon = 9 tons; 4 spaces; 16 heat; 12 damage; range 450 meters
2 large lasers (non ER) = 10 tons; 4 spaces; 16 heat; 16 damage; range 450 meters

in 2012, car companies could put a steam engine in your Lexus, but they don't

Might not be the best comparison to use. You are more closely looking at the difference between running a pair of 4 cylinders on a vehicle and a V8.

[Major Bill Curtis]

HIemfire, on 11 June 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

Might not be the best comparison to use. You are more closely looking at the difference between running a pair of 4 cylinders on a vehicle and a V8.

Ah yes, I like yours much better: reminds me of one of the worst F1 racing engines ever devised, the H-16. It was two flat eights joined together: heavy; complicated; unreliable; with a terrible power curve.

[Lt muffins]

Major Bill Curtis, on 11 June 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

Ah yes, I like yours much better: reminds me of one of the worst F1 racing engines ever devised, the H-16. It was two flat eights joined together: heavy; complicated; unreliable; with a terrible power curve.

there is another 16 cylinder engine out, this one more reliable

The WIKI

[Aethon]

Tterrag, on 11 June 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

Lol I mean basically that if you get a compressed air tube cut it in half set it up on a stand and put a bowling ball in it you got a mortar which is basically what a long tom is cept for the boom

Not trying to derail the thread, but...do you also feel that autocannons are stupid? I mean, they function in the same manner.

That said, I like the idea of the Blazer cannon being added...especially if it's a special weapon, not widely available.

[Lt muffins]

Aethon, on 11 June 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

Not trying to derail the thread, but...do you also feel that autocannons are stupid? I mean, they function in the same manner.

That said, I like the idea of the Blazer cannon being added...especially if it's a special weapon, not widely available.

some mech designs are not well suited for laser boating, also if they don't have auto-cannons and ammo how do I make them go POP with my flamers

[LordDeathStrike]

HIemfire, on 11 June 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

My chief curiosity is why they didn't, once double heatsinks became available again, apply the system to the smaller laser types. While it does not have the range of the ER large laser (a measly 120 meters shorter) the Binary Laser Cannon does do half again the damage for only a third more heat (and admittedly %80 more mass).



The artillery piece was developed before humanity began colonizing in BattleTech, Pre-Spaceflight per Tactical Operations pg. 284 . The artillery cannon was put into the prototype phase in 3012 (again per Tactical Operations this time pg. 285)

for 100% more mass you can have 2 large lasers and do double the dmg of 1 large laser instead of 80% mass for 50% more dmg. 2 lasers > 1 double laser all day every day to the end of time * infinity / 0.

[frostfly]

The advantage of the blazer is it's a Head capper. 12 points of damage to the face kills any mech in the game. 2 LLs might be better use of tonnage....but then 2 LLs is better then an AC/20 in my book as well. Anything that can kill a mech in one shot is a big threat.

[Strisk]

LordDeathStrike, on 11 June 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

for 100% more mass you can have 2 large lasers and do double the dmg of 1 large laser instead of 80% mass for 50% more dmg. 2 lasers > 1 double laser all day every day to the end of time * infinity / 0.

This is an argument for why you should or should not equip this weapon on your mech, not for whether or not it could be included in the game.

Edited by Strisk, 11 June 2012 - 11:13 PM.

[HIemfire]

Aethon, on 11 June 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

Not trying to derail the thread, but...do you also feel that autocannons are stupid? I mean, they function in the same manner.

That said, I like the idea of the Blazer cannon being added...especially if it's a special weapon, not widely available.

Tterrag means low tech, not stupid.

[HIemfire]

LordDeathStrike, on 11 June 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

for 100% more mass you can have 2 large lasers and do double the dmg of 1 large laser instead of 80% mass for 50% more dmg. 2 lasers > 1 double laser all day every day to the end of time * infinity / 0.

With out hardpoint limitations yes, sortof (the 16 damage is spread in to two 8 damage hits instead of the one 12 damage hit of the Blazer). With the hardpoint limitations there is a good chance that a Blazer would look awfully attractive. I suggest reading Dev Blog 6 - MechLab, it should help.

[Aethon]

HIemfire, on 12 June 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

Tterrag means low tech, not stupid.

Ah, gotcha...yeah, they're pretty low-tech...but, again, so are autocannons, machineguns, melee weapons, etc. That said, today's artillery pieces require an entire vehicle to perform the same function, require a long set-up and take-down time before firing (at least a minute or two, depending on the vehicle), typically need to tow a trailer with their ammunition/half their crew on board, and take a lot longer to dial-in a shot. So...imagine going from that, to a mech that can move into position, fire within 6 seconds, then immediately move before it's nailed with counter-battery fire. While it's not really uber-high-tech like a PPC, it's still a massive improvement in mobility, size, and ease of use, as compared to present-day artillery.

But, as far as the topic of the thread goes, I don't see any reason that the Blazer should NOT be added; sure, a lot of people would never use it, or try it and ditch it shortly thereafter, but having options is never a bad thing, as long as said options are balanced, and fit within the game.

Edited by Aethon, 12 June 2012 - 03:30 AM.

[CCC Dober]

Shiver me sideways, if that isn't a Clan Heavy Large Laser in disguise, then it must be its predecessor. Reminds me of a puzzle, sort of =)

I'll vote in favor of course.

[Sychodemus]

This is just my take on why the BLC even exists.

The Binary Laser Cannon can be considered an interim weapon somewhere between Inner Sphere large lasers and Clan Heavy Large Lasers in terms of technological development.

LL 8 8 5 2
2xLL 16 16 10 4
BLC 16 12 9 4
HLL 18 16 4 3

Allowing for Clan superiority in weight saving materials, the BLC is the IS equivalent of the CHLL - and like the Clan weapon, it is far from being efficient in any way, shape or form.

The BLC will probably end up being the cited source for how comparable IS heavy lasers are developed or why they will look something like:

IS HLL 16 12 8 3
IS HML 6 8 1.5 2
IS HSL 2 5 .75 1

Basically, IS HL would be less efficient in heat/damage ratio, but because they aren't designed the same way as CHL, they won't have the feedback limit (later corrected.) Thus, heavier, comparable size, less efficient. This method would retain the overall superiority of IS standard/ER versions, be more potent than the IS pulse/X-pulse lasers and as always, leave the medium version the most effective.

(This is all back of the napkin calculations, btw and the weights/crits would be adjusted depending on if they are supposed to be high- or low- end efficient. If balance is an issue, then reviving the feedback limit or restricting its use with TCs is possible.)

That's my take on it anyway. The BLC is just a sort of parallel development to Clan Heavy Lasers.

[HIemfire]

CCC Dober, on 12 June 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

Shiver me sideways, if that isn't a Clan Heavy Large Laser in disguise, then it must be its predecessor. Reminds me of a puzzle, sort of =)

I'll vote in favor of course.

Predecessor? Maybe. Kerensky's exodus happened in 2784, the Binary Laser Cannon entered the develpoment phase w/ the Lyrans in 2801 and in 2812 the FWL put out the prototype. The heavy large laser was introduce by the Star Adders in 3059 (they were not part of the invasion). There is a slim chance one of the invading Clans may have gotten ahold of a copy of either the blueprints or a working weapon and allowed it to filter back to the Star Adders, very slim. More likely it was a bit of parallel development, a bit off at the start points to be honest but parallel.

Edited by HIemfire, 12 June 2012 - 04:55 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Skylarr, on 11 June 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

Nicknamed the Blazer, the Binary Laser Cannon is widely considered a dead-end technology. Taking two large laser cores and fusing them together, the Blazer was designed to fire both cores at the same time, increasing damage penetration. In practice, damage yield proved low compared to the lasers firing separately, and the high heat generated by the Blazer severely taxed available heat sink technology of the time.
While research on the Blazer started in the Lyran Commonwealth in 2801, actual prototype models first showed up in the Free Worlds League in 2812.
With the re-introduction of double heat sinks, the Blazer cannon is now a viable weapon.

Earlier runs of Tactical Operations contained an error that switched the heat and damage values of the Binary Laser Cannon and gave a wrong Battle Value 2 rating. The correct stats are: Damage (12), Heat (16)

Had it been 16 damage and 12 heat, it would have been a stellar weapon. Overpowered, really. What a difference a typo can make!