94 replies to this topic

[BitBasher]

The literal defineion of "Missile" in the military sense is a guided munition that contains the propellant itself.

If it's not going to be guided then it is not, in any way, a missile.

Rename all unguided self propelled weapons to Rockets then they won't all be wrong.

Right now the game has Short Range Rockets. SRR's. It has no Short Range Missiles. They are named wrong.

[CCC Dober]

Yes we are all aware of several 'definitions'. As it so happens, the english definition of SRMs omits the mention of guidance completely, whereas the german novels are very specific in this regard, stating them to be unguided. This can be checked in the german version of the novel that follows.If you have access to them and can translate 'ungelenkt' properly, then you will see what I mean.

Meanwhile, here is a very informative bit for the native english speakers, which highlights the 'depth' behind the basic weapon system and its capabilities. Novel: The Dying Time by Thomas S. Gressman

Quote

Brewer shook off the damage and tried to lock his Harpoon short-range missiles onto the target. The discordant warble of the Artemis IV Fire Control System linked to the missile rack growled in his ears as the specialized infrared targeting unit struggled and failed to illuminate the War Dog.
That was when Brewer realized the other 'Mech must have an ECM suite. Dropping his reticle across the enemy machine, he triggered the missile rack. Even unguided, there was a good chance some of the half-dozen rockets would hit. A sharp buzzing report tore across the battlefield as bullets clawed most of the unguided missiles from the air. A single warhead struck the Separatist 'Mech in the left ankle.

Basic SRMs are what they are, so let them be unguided. Thank you for your attention.

[Hayashi]

CCC Dober, on 09 August 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

Basic SRMs are what they are, so let them be unguided. Thank you for your attention.

You're misreading it. That excerpt talks about using the SRMs as dumbfire rockets because the ECM suite on the target is preventing target lock, not because it cannot lock in the first place. I've never read the book it came from, but the excerpt supports a lockable SRM theory.

Also, see the "tried to lock his Harpoon short-range missiles" and "Artemis IV Fire Control system" linked to the SRMs in the excerpt. If they couldn't lock, it'd simply say "Dropping his reticle across the enemy machine, he triggered the missile rack."

Going by the novels and the previous MW game precedents, it would make sense to:

1. Have LRMs as highly trackable missiles, as long as target lock is achieved.
2. Have MRMs as somewhat trackable missiles, but which can activate only at shorter distances, thereby reducing the safety of the Fire Support Mech firing it.
3. Have SRMs as trackable missiles which can only fly in a straight line on lock, but which also take time to lock. If they overshoot the target, they should then continue on their path to hit the ground.
4. Have Streak SRMs as trackable missiles which are mostly identical to the SRMs, except it takes no time to lock - as long as the reticle is on the target, automatic lock is instantly achieved.

[CCC Dober]

Reading comprehension please. ArtemisIV equipped SRMs are negatively influenced by ECM, which in turn renders the benefit of this specific SRM upgrade useless. The SRM is down to basic functionality and that means no guidance. Can you follow?

[Hayashi]

CCC Dober, on 09 August 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

Reading comprehension please. ArtemisIV equipped SRMs are negatively influenced by ECM, which in turn renders the benefit of this specific SRM upgrade useless. The SRM is down to basic functionality and that means no guidance. Can you follow?

At this point, I can't say anything else to clarify the meaning of the text than what I've already said. I trust other readers can get the point, though. I'm not an English teacher, so perhaps someone else who is can explain it better than I can.

[CCC Dober]

You don't need to be a teacher to understand the superficial and deeper meaning of the example above. No excuses please, I'm not a native english speaker and even I understand perfectly what is described there. It is consistent throughout all the novels from #1 to #64. SRMs are very basic weapons because of the technological stone age the Succession Wars have forced on the Inner Sphere. Integrated circuits and sophisticated guidance systems are the expensive and harder to produce part of these weapons, but they are not absolutely required for SRMs to work. Some early TROs i.e. Crusader tell it how it was and still is. I'm not going to do any more digging at this point because it is clear that I'm wasting my time with teaching moderators how to read and understand information. BS 101. no, but thanks.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Frantic Pryde, on 07 November 2011 - 09:44 AM, said:

As the title says...pretty please! I always hated that! Thanks

If you don't like it then stock Streaks. SRMs are meant to dumb fire and that's the entire reason they have good weight to damage ratios. The only issue ATM is that we only have 2 size Streaks and you can't stack them due to Hardpoint restrictions. If an LRM 20 can fit a slot, then I don't see why it can't also slot more than 1 Streak SRM 2.

[Strum Wealh]

CCC Dober, on 08 August 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

Flawed argument.

So, the argument that "generic SRMs must have guidance systems in order for said guidence systems to be wholly removed (in order to create the dead-fire missiles) or replaced with more specialized packages (including but not limited to heat-seeking equipment, anti-radiation equipment, receivers for the Artemis IV's laser designatior, and so on)" is flawed... how, exactly?

Simply saying that an argument is flawed does not make it so; to make the claim without any citations or explanations to back it up shows that the claim merely one's own opinion - with the presence or lack of evidence/backing being one of the key distinguishing characteristics between an "argument" and an "opinion".

• Argument: a point of view that may be formed and expressed by evaluating and weighing up ideas while considering available evidence (articles, books, reports, statistics, etc.)
  
• Opinion: a point of view that may be formed and expressed without supporting evidence (e.g. based just on instinct or single-subject experience)

(For more on the distinction, see here and/or here.)

CCC Dober, on 08 August 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

Not all SRMs are made alike with several variations in terms of warheads and launcher upgrades available.

Given that my more-recent posts (specifically, this one and this one) have included several references (with citations and links for each) to several of the the alternate SRM munition types (specifically, the Anti-Radiation Missiles, Dead-Fire Missiles, Heat-Seeking Missiles, and Listen-Kill Missiles) as well as both the Artemis IV FCS and Narc Missile Beacon, it should be fairly obvious to all but the most oblivious that not all SRM munition options are exactly alike, yes?

CCC Dober, on 08 August 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

Generalizations FTL.

To what specific generalization(s) do you refer, and in what specific ways are my arguments undermined by said generalization(s)?

[CCC Dober]

@Strum
You can cling to whatever straws you choose, all yours. The problem is that those don't hold up to a, shall we say, more logical train of thought. What you're trying to insinuate is the following:

Because the original english definition of SRMs made no mention of guidance, but trajectory, you justify your claims of them being guided by comparing them to missile systems and assorted fluff that were revealed much later while not being the exact same thing. When I revealed to you that the german definition made specific mention of a lack of guidance, you chose to ignore it. How do you expect to be taken serious if you continue to defy reason and logic? Not only that, there are compelling reasons for basic SRMs to be unguided, as evidenced by the technological stone age and retaining a battle worthy missile system. Further there is specific mention that SRMs have various upgrades that are specifically mentioned to add/improve guidance, but those upgrades make changes to either the warheads or launchers or both of them.

SRM guidance for free ... there is no such thing, alright? Understand and accept that already. Besides, I'm kind of tired trying to explain to you specifically that apples (basic SRMs) are NOT oranges (upgrades SRMs). Read up, wise up, use logic and stop being a cheapskate. That will be all.

[Strum Wealh]

CCC Dober, on 09 August 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

@Strum
You can cling to whatever straws you choose, all yours. The problem is that those don't hold up to a, shall we say, more logical train of thought. What you're trying to insinuate is the following:

Because the original english definition of SRMs made no mention of guidance, but trajectory, you justify your claims of them being guided by comparing them to missile systems and assorted fluff that were revealed much later while not being the exact same thing. When I revealed to you that the german definition made specific mention of a lack of guidance, you chose to ignore it. How do you expect to be taken serious if you continue to defy reason and logic? Not only that, there are compelling reasons for basic SRMs to be unguided, as evidenced by the technological stone age and retaining a battle worthy missile system. Further there is specific mention that SRMs have various upgrades that are specifically mentioned to add/improve guidance, but those upgrades make changes to either the warheads or launchers or both of them.

SRM guidance for free ... there is no such thing, alright? Understand and accept that already. Besides, I'm kind of tired trying to explain to you specifically that apples (basic SRMs) are NOT oranges (upgrades SRMs). Read up, wise up, use logic and stop being a cheapskate. That will be all.

Firstly, the German sources (which also attempt - also wrongly - to advance the claim that the "LB" in the LB-X ACs stands for "large bore" rather than "Lubalin Ballistics") are not part of the BattleTech/MechWarrior canon.

Quote

Regarding the question of what is canon within the BattleTech universe, Herbert A. Beas II, the current Line Developer, provided the following official answer on the CBT Forum:

Whatever we establish for research material for the authors is canon.
Currently, that list includes:

• All sourcebooks and novels produced for BattleTech by FASA and Roc in the United States
  
• All sourcebooks and novels produced for Classic BattleTech by FanPro and Roc in the United States
  
• All sourcebooks and novels (including electronic publications, such as BattleCorps) produced by InMediaRes (and its subsidiaries, BattleCorps and Catalyst Game Labs) in the United States
  
• All material produced by WizKids for the MechWarrior: Dark Age/MechWarrior: Age of Destruction game lines

GENERAL INCLUSIVE NOTE: There are a few select instances where a story or article appearing even in these sources may be considered non-canon, but generally this is because the material was in error [...], or it was specifically published as a gag [...].

The list does not include:

• Magazines, even "official" ones such as BattleTechnology, 'Mech, and others
  
• The MechWarrior, MechCommander, and MechAssault video and computer games, as well as the various BattleTech games produced for Nintendo and Sega game systems
  
• The BattleTech cartoon series
  
• The BattleTech comic book series

GENERAL NON-INCLUSIVE NOTE: Despite their non-canonical status, we have not gone into total denial about these sources either, but have simply opted to pick and choose what elements there are "canon" and what are not.

By contrast, that standard SRMs (as well as some of the assorted alternate munitions) are guided is supported by multiple English-language sourcebooks published by FASA, FanPro, and Catalyst in the US makes them, unlike any German materials, part of the BT/MW canon.

Secondly, at what point were the German sources referenced in this thread, and which specific sources (title and page number) say that SRMs are unguided?

[Bdiddytampa]

I wonder if the developers realized the can of worms they were opening with MW purists when they went with this game lol. I agree that SRMs should be dumbfire. Not because of a TT rulebook, or some novel written in Germany, but because it just... makes... sense... no offense to anyone and their beliefs or love of the game, I've been a Battletech and D&D player since waaay back, and I love the details of role-playing don't get me wrong, but I think there is a difference between general rules and lore, and making an entertaining online game. They not only have to cater to us, the longtime Mechwarrior fans, but others who just want to blow **** up lol, and I'm sure some of us fit into both categories lol :-P SRM = dumbfire :-) Thanks!

[Astarot]

Missile: An object that is forcibly propelled at a target, by hand or mechanically.

Rocket: A cylindrical projectile that can be propelled to a great height or distance by the combustion of its contents.


Interesting...very...interesting...

[Astarot]

CCC Dober, on 09 August 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

@Strum
You can cling to whatever straws you choose, all yours. The problem is that those don't hold up to a, shall we say, more logical train of thought. What you're trying to insinuate is the following:

Because the original english definition of SRMs made no mention of guidance, but trajectory, you justify your claims of them being guided by comparing them to missile systems and assorted fluff that were revealed much later while not being the exact same thing. When I revealed to you that the german definition made specific mention of a lack of guidance, you chose to ignore it. How do you expect to be taken serious if you continue to defy reason and logic? Not only that, there are compelling reasons for basic SRMs to be unguided, as evidenced by the technological stone age and retaining a battle worthy missile system. Further there is specific mention that SRMs have various upgrades that are specifically mentioned to add/improve guidance, but those upgrades make changes to either the warheads or launchers or both of them.

SRM guidance for free ... there is no such thing, alright? Understand and accept that already. Besides, I'm kind of tired trying to explain to you specifically that apples (basic SRMs) are NOT oranges (upgrades SRMs). Read up, wise up, use logic and stop being a cheapskate. That will be all.

Sorry for the double post, but I must make this under the other post I made.

First, I will start to rip your little quote apart, cause I just LOVE doing that, cause you seem to be a little kid at heart, so lets get started.

First, you make claims that SRMS are dumb fire only? Correct? Then why was the missile connected to a infrared targeting computer in the first place? Sounds like a waste in CPU if you ask me to connect something that could easily be fired by visual at something, yet to still connect it to a locking on computer system confuses me.

Second, now seeing SRMs require dumb fire, why did the pilot attempt to lock on at all? He was clearly attempting to lock on, when his targetting computer told him he couldn't. So thus brings up the problem of ECM, why would the pilot give a **** if the war dog had ECM? Besides being an annoyance to his longer range missiles.

And third, and finally. "Even unguided" Why include that unless the missile system had a guided option.

So your logic confuses me, your post confuses me. So three possibilites exist, either the writer was a poor writer and didn't understand about being clear and cutting out parts that would create confusion. Two, you misunderstand what the writer was writing, or three, alittle mix of both one and two.