Jump to content

should mechs go nuclear when reactor melts down.


314 replies to this topic

Poll: should mechs go nuclear when reactor melts down. (846 member(s) have cast votes)

should mechs be able go nuclear

  1. yes (474 votes [54.61%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 54.61%

  2. no (394 votes [45.39%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 45.39%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#221 Glythe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,566 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 07:55 AM

View PostHorizon, on 22 June 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

Did no one play Mech Assault in this thread?


I did.... IMHO mechs can't explode massively when they die or the tactic becomes Al Qaeda bombing. I fight until my scout mech is 80% dead then I hug you until I die.... you die when I die because your mech is so big and fat he can't get out of the way of the explosion. Kinda ruined the game a bit..... except that no one really played lights (maybe 1% of people could play them well).

#222 PLOG

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts
  • LocationMaryland, USA

Posted 25 June 2012 - 08:01 AM

for the game, no. Massive area damaging explosions from defeating and opponent shouldn't be used. Even if it's random there are those who would abuse it, or at least try to.

Think on it like this, if a car exploded everytime it was in an accident, how long before we no longer used them? or at least changed them? It not a 100% analogy, but i'm sure you get the drift.

That said, i think it'd be great if any ammo on the mech would tear itself to pieces when it when down. In a non-damaging glorious light show sort of way.

mattPLOG

#223 Steven Dixon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 621 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 08:14 AM

I voted no, as some have already stated, fusion reactors don't blow up when they shut down (nuclear reactors can do this but not fusion), its one of the advantages that fusion reactors have. However I'm willing to ignore the fact that in the BT world the larger your cannon gets the shorter its range is, so I have no problem with fusion reactors going supernova for good gameplay. But I don't really think it makes for that compelling of gameplay, if it's only once in a blue moon then it's fine (adds tension), but if it's like MW4 where every mech blows up when you destroy it then I vote no.

#224 Rainrix

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • LocationEngland

Posted 25 June 2012 - 08:15 AM

I'm sick and tired of the Michael Bay 'splosion fanboys etc etc... Sometimes it's just more dramatic and awesome if the mech shudders from internal ammo explosions, pilot visibly ejects, mech stumbles in a random direction and then collapses. Maybe have some minor external explosions... An arm flies off, torso blows open,... Etc. But nuclear explosions all the time will just be idiotic and lame.

I usually found that battles were fought just as much for salvage as they were for the actual objective (Or maybe that's just me)

Only time I really remember making a mech go "nuclear" that made sense is when I switched off the auto heat shutdown and pushed my mech faaaaaar beyond it's safety limits. Even then that isn't actually a nuclear explosion...

#225 409

    Member

  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 08:16 AM

It's a fusion reaction. They don't explode per sa. From my limited understanding of such, if the containment weakened you would get a stream of plamas shooting out from the weakest point,briefly then the reaction would shut itself down. Of course if it went thru the ammo you would get a big boom.

#226 Hikaru

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationSan Francisco, CA

Posted 25 June 2012 - 11:28 AM

Again with lore, most mechs are hundreds of years old and pass down from generation to generation. They obviously don't all nuke upon death, otherwise there would be virtually no mechs left. Yet another valid reason why "big assplishunz ftw" fails.

#227 Tincan Nightmare

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,069 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 10:59 PM

View PostKhushrenada, on 25 June 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:


and as many have put out already, its canon, it happened in every other battletech game, it looks awesome and it doesn`t wipe out the whole team as if someone dropped a nuclear bomb on the battlefield...
so i suggest you get used to it and enjoy the lightshow (and keep your distance :) )


Well since it isn't in the game and theres been nothing from the devs saying they are putting it in, NOPE guess I won't have to get used to it and enjoy the lightshow. Guess I can just get up in my enemies face and dance on the charred remains of there mech when they go down, while all the michaelbaywarriors scream that they want a NUKE.

#228 Werewolf486 ScorpS

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,271 posts
  • LocationSinsinnati Ohio

Posted 27 June 2012 - 12:36 PM

YES!

All members of the 12thVR depend on Crits for final retribution against the enemy, so YES make them go NUKE!!

#229 PewPew

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 403 posts
  • LocationUS - East

Posted 27 June 2012 - 12:49 PM

Look, people. It's simple. Who cares if fission reactors can go nuclear. Saying Stackpole "ruined BT" for the sake of cool is stupid. Being "cool" is the heart and soul of a sci-fi series about giant robots fighting.

We want big explosions, dammit. We don't even have to call it a nuclear explosion. We can call it a really big explosion.

#230 aRottenKomquat

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 69 posts
  • LocationOn a DropShip over an undisclosed planet

Posted 27 June 2012 - 12:50 PM

I think there should be a decent explosion which can damage nearby mechs and structures. I don't think it should be "nuclear" however, to me that implies an explosion that would wipe out just about everyone on the battlefield.

#231 Werewolf486 ScorpS

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,271 posts
  • LocationSinsinnati Ohio

Posted 27 June 2012 - 05:43 PM

View PostaRottenKomquat, on 27 June 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

I think there should be a decent explosion which can damage nearby mechs and structures. I don't think it should be "nuclear" however, to me that implies an explosion that would wipe out just about everyone on the battlefield.


It should be comparable to the one in MWLL, it does splash damage in a certain radius and if your there and don't have enough armor then you die and might crit yourself.

#232 Hikaru

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationSan Francisco, CA

Posted 27 June 2012 - 05:51 PM

View PostSteven Dixon, on 25 June 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

[...]However I'm willing to ignore the fact that in the BT world the larger your cannon gets the shorter its range is, so I have no problem with fusion reactors going supernova for good gameplay.

It's not that they ave smaller ranges. It's that the larger the ammunition, the less accurate it becomes.

The range of an AC/2 projectile is several kilometers. The effective range -- the range where you say, I want to hit this, and actually hit it -- is much shorter. Battlemechs have really big guns, but no high tech targeting computers. So when you figure in larger caliber ammunition, weight becomes a significant issue.

I think the core idea is this: it's easier to hit the side of a car 20' away with a tennis ball than with a bowling ball. 3' away, both should hit just fine.

#233 Harabeck

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 520 posts

Posted 27 June 2012 - 05:55 PM

Such explosions would ruin any build that involves short range brawling. Not only is it not realistic, it would produce bad gameplay. This is just an all 'round NO.

#234 Bobfrombobtown

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 344 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 05:32 AM

Taken directly from the BattleTech Tech Manual on P. 36. Ok, I increased the size an bolded the most important part.

Quote

Fusion engine explosions: an urban legend that won’t die. Let’s
see if I can kill it on this planet, at least. Where to start?
All right. First of all, when I said earlier that the magnetic
fields of a fusion engine keep the plasma from melting the
engine, I was already anticipating this question. In fact, the
issue is actually kind of the opposite and counter-intuitive,
so I didn’t bring it up. The magnetic fields do provide some
protection to the reactor walls from the plasma, but primarily
they protect the plasma from the cold, cold walls of the reactor
chamber.
The fusion reactions in a BattleMech’s fusion engine occur
only under very narrow conditions of temperature and pressure.
Generally, the hotter and higher the pressure, the faster the
reactions, and below a certain minimum, fusion simply ceases.
If you remember your ideal gas laws from chemistry…eh…the
condensed version is that when you heat up a gas, it wants to
expand. If it can’t expand, its pressure increases. When a gas expands,
its temperature drops. Remember those rules of thumb
and if you have trouble remembering them, hit the ‘net when this
lecture is over.
When a BattleMech’s fusion reactions spike a bit, the plasma
gets hotter. More fusion reactions mean more heat means hotter
plasma. But the magnetic confi nement fi elds are not rigid.
In fact, an ancient fusion engineering description that dates to
the twentieth century says that, “Trying to hold onto plasma with
magnetic fi elds is like trying to contain a roll of jelly with rubber
bands.” When the plasma gets hotter, it pushes against the
magnetic fi elds because its pressure is rising, and the magnetic
fi elds give a bit. The expansion cools the plasma, and the reactions
drop. There’s some elbow room in the reactor chamber for
just this purpose.
Now, I said the fusion reactions drop when they get cooler.
There are ways for the plasma to cool other than expansion.
One way is when the plasma touches the relatively frigid walls of
the reaction chamber. If they do, the plasma will chill so rapidly
that fusion ceases instantly. That only leaves you with a puff of
hot gas, with no continuing source to damage the reactor walls.
When confi nement fails so badly that the plasma hits the walls,
the walls are usually only scuff ed.
Surprising, isn’t it? But remember, all the heat energy comes
from the fusion reactions. It’s not stored as latent heat in the
plasma. In fact, there’s so little plasma mass to store heat that the
“dead” plasma is barely able to warm up a multi-ton reactor—
even if the cooling system completely fails. You might scorch your
hand if you touched the outer casing, but it’s not enough to melt
the shielding or damage critical components.
And, no, you can’t just keep powering the fusion reaction while
it gnaws through the reactor walls. Evaporating the lining of the
reactor will mix kilograms of cold, heavy, non-fusible elements
into the plasma, which is much lighter. The eff ect would be like
dumping a ton of wet sand on a welding torch. So, the short version
of all that is that when a fusion reactor gets out of hand, it
usually shuts itself down and is unable to do more than warm up
the reactor a bit.
And you protest, “But I saw a ’Mech explode on the news in
a blinding fl ash of light! It had to be a nuke!” Or is it, “Well, what
about that MechWarrior that buried a bunch of Clanners in a canyon
with his exploding reactor?” Or would you ask, “Well, what
about Tharkad City?” Okay…
Fusion reactors do occasionally die in spectacular manners. But
most of the time, the fi reworks are not actually from an exploding
reactor. What typically happens is that some heavy weapon
manages to puncture the reactor itself. Since the reactor interior
is a vacuum, air would get sucked in and mix with the plasma,
stopping the fusion reaction. Kilograms of cold air mixing with
a tiny mass of plasma…well, that’s the wet-sand-and-torch analogy
again. And, no, there’s not enough hydrogen in the reactor to
really explode with the oxygen.


Edit: Can we squash this ridiculous practice now? Kthanxbai.

Edited by Bobfrombobtown, 30 June 2012 - 05:34 AM.


#235 Aegic

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • LocationHouston

Posted 30 June 2012 - 05:38 AM

View PostHarabec Weathers, on 22 June 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

Oh Stackpole you annoying, mediocre writer, look what you've done to battletech in the name of "Cool".


Just FYI he did NOT introduce the reactors going critical and exploding thing. So just relax and back off of the obviously less mediocre than most writer. Sold a ton of books. How many have you sold?

View PostBobfrombobtown, on 30 June 2012 - 05:32 AM, said:

Fusion reactors do occasionally die in spectacular manners.


Your words say that it can sometimes happen. Just sayin.

Edited by Aegic, 30 June 2012 - 05:38 AM.


#236 Krubarax

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 329 posts
  • LocationGBG, Sweden

Posted 30 June 2012 - 05:45 AM

spectacular manners = nuke

that's why I never go to a circus :)

#237 Bongo TauKat

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 559 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationPain, Inner Perpihery, Lyran Commonwealth.

Posted 30 June 2012 - 05:47 AM

If you go by the techno babble from the Mechwarrior Companion, mech powerplants cannot go nuke. The most they can do is roach the engine and supporting frame work if a large of hole is punched through all at once. It goes on to say it is due to rapid oxidization of the reactor interior (?), and is no more violent than a steam engine explosion. Bad in other words, but not mushroom cloud bad.

#238 Bobfrombobtown

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 344 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 05:48 AM

View PostAegic, on 30 June 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

Your words say that it can sometimes happen. Just sayin.


It says "spectacular manners" not OMGWTFBBQZ 20-Megaton Thermonuclear explosion.

#239 Bongo TauKat

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 559 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationPain, Inner Perpihery, Lyran Commonwealth.

Posted 30 June 2012 - 05:49 AM

View PostPewPew, on 27 June 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Look, people. It's simple. Who cares if fission reactors can go nuclear. Saying Stackpole "ruined BT" for the sake of cool is stupid. Being "cool" is the heart and soul of a sci-fi series about giant robots fighting.

We want big explosions, dammit. We don't even have to call it a nuclear explosion. We can call it a really big explosion.


True but bejesus, that man thought thumb tacks would explode if you hit them hard enough. Every fives seconds in the book it was "lowered the dampening fields in time (what the hell that means I have no idea), or "BOOM, rattling armor off of (insert the hero of your choice)'s cockpit".

#240 NotNewHere

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 99 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 05:57 AM

Realisticly the rupturing of a fusion reactor would cause a localised EMP and an explosion of superheated air. The Battletech Wiki says the explosion caused by the death of a mech is the rapid expansion (explosion) of air that has been superheated by the reactor. So their is an explosion, but NOT a nuclear one. The power of the explosio would depend on the size of the engine and the ammount of ammo still left inside the mech.

But since AC's UAC's and RAC's use 'Uranium' for bullets all bets are off





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users