209 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Strum Wealh, on 11 November 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

There were no RAC/10s (or RAC/20s) in CBT; both the Clans & the IS only had RAC/2s & RC/5s.
(Though, the CRAC/10 & CRAC/20 were made up by MekTek & put into their MW4 Mek Paks - however, they were never part of BattleTech proper or put into an "official" MW game release.)

They are from MF:UK

[stjobe]

Nathan Foxbane, on 11 November 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

The Chemjet 185mm Cannons used by Demolisher tanks fires a single shot.

It does not:


(Era Report 3052, p. 98, sidebar)

"[...] the Crusher SH Cannon Autocannon (the only useful part of a Hetzer wheeled assault gun) is a completely different sort of weapon than 185mm ChemJet Guns of the fearsome Demolisher tank, because the former is a 150mm autocannon designed to fire a cassette of 10 shells while the latter is a 185mm weapon that fires a four-round cassette."

So it fires four-round bursts, according to canon lore.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 11 November 2014 - 11:52 AM, said:

It does not:


(Era Report 3052, p. 98, sidebar)

"[...] the Crusher SH Cannon Autocannon (the only useful part of a Hetzer wheeled assault gun) is a completely different sort of weapon than 185mm ChemJet Guns of the fearsome Demolisher tank, because the former is a 150mm autocannon designed to fire a cassette of 10 shells while the latter is a 185mm weapon that fires a four-round cassette."

So it fires four-round bursts, according to canon lore.

And as Fluff means nothing when you were shot by one or the other.

[Nathan Foxbane]

stjobe, on 11 November 2014 - 11:52 AM, said:

It does not:


(Era Report 3052, p. 98, sidebar)

"[...] the Crusher SH Cannon Autocannon (the only useful part of a Hetzer wheeled assault gun) is a completely different sort of weapon than 185mm ChemJet Guns of the fearsome Demolisher tank, because the former is a 150mm autocannon designed to fire a cassette of 10 shells while the latter is a 185mm weapon that fires a four-round cassette."

So it fires four-round bursts, according to canon lore.

That's what I get for going off of memory on specific models.

[Strum Wealh]

Nathan Foxbane, on 11 November 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

The Chemjet 185mm Cannons used by Demolisher tanks fires a single shot. And if you want to go with lore the weapons can vary vastly. Specifically, many standard and some Ultras simply had a RoF and burst length was entirely controlled by the pilots. Ultras simply had a means to double that RoF at the risk of jamming (very rare at a 2.78% chance over ten seconds). Others were burs fire in nature, some Ultras took this to the logical extreme and used cassettes with the Ultra mode loading and firing a second cassette in less than a second and the jamming issue was the cassette loading mechanism. Only LB-X Autocannons are the only ACs lore wise which were almost exclusively single shot, and even then a few models were burst fire.

"The existence of weapon classes is an old point of contention among purists and the pragmatic. An engineer or armchair general might hold forth that the Crusher SH Cannon Autocannon (the only useful part of a Hetzer wheeled assault gun) is a completely different sort of weapon than 185mm ChemJet Guns of the fearsome Demolisher tank, because the former is a 150mm autocannon designed to fire a cassette of 10 shells while the latter is a 185mm weapon that fires a four-round cassette. However, not everyone can afford the luxury of such nitpicking, and so militaries long ago adopted a scheme of rough classes to judge weapon systems. In the case of the aforementioned autocannons, military personnel and casual observers would consider both weapons to be 'class 20' autocannons as they both fire 200 kilograms of ammunition in a 10-second period at an effective range of just under 300 meters." - Era Report: 3052, pg. 98

The 185mm ChemJet Guns on the Demolisher Heavy Tank fire four-shell bursts (that's right, four-shell bursts of 185mm shells), NOT a single shell per salvo.

[stjobe]

Nathan Foxbane, on 11 November 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

That's what I get for going off of memory on specific models.

You're forgiven

The important point here is that ACs in the BattleTech universe are burst- or continuous-fire weapons. Each and every single one described thus far has been described as burst- or continuous-fire. Not one has been described as firing a single shot.

And if you look at the text from Era Report 3052 above, you see why: It would need to fire a 200 kg shell - as a point of reference, contemporary 203mm shells weigh roughly 100 kg.

Edited by stjobe, 11 November 2014 - 12:09 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

They are from MF:UK

MechForce United Kingdom is a fan organization, and any publications printed by them are included in the list of things that are not canon.

"Whatever we [CGL] establish for research material for the authors is canon... The list does not include... Magazines, even "official" ones such as BattleTechnology, 'Mech, and others..."

"While everything that is not clearly canonical technically falls under non-canon, that term is typically used to describe either of two distinct situations... The latter category encompasses the vast majority of non-canonical items. Notable examples include the magazines published by fan organizations... Even the work of people who normally contribute canonical material is considered non-canon if it is done outside of a (canonical) product."

[Joseph Mallan]

Strum Wealh, on 11 November 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

MechForce United Kingdom is a fan organization, and any publications printed by them are included in the list of things that are not canon.

"Whatever we [CGL] establish for research material for the authors is canon... The list does not include... Magazines, even "official" ones such as BattleTechnology, 'Mech, and others..."

"While everything that is not clearly canonical technically falls under non-canon, that term is typically used to describe either of two distinct situations... The latter category encompasses the vast majority of non-canonical items. Notable examples include the magazines published by fan organizations... Even the work of people who normally contribute canonical material is considered non-canon if it is done outside of a (canonical) product."

Until such a time as it becomes Canon. I have been in this game long enough to have seen Many things become canon that were only Fan made house rules. Super Heavy Mechs (House rules), Tripod Mechs(House rules), Giant Fish operating BattleMechs Waging War... Still house rules thankfully! All from the same Writer Dave MacCulloch.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 November 2014 - 12:18 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

Until such a time as it becomes Canon. I have been in this game long enough to have seen Many things become canon that were only Fan made house rules. Super Heavy Mechs (House rules), Tripod Mechs(House rules), Giant Fish operating BattleMechs Waging War... Still house rules thankfully! All from the same Writer Dave MacCulloch.

Considering that the organization ceased to exist in 2001, it seems rather unlikely that their magazine would make the jump to becoming fully canonical.

"Bob Nicolls effective ran MFUK single handed, although other members did contribute. MFUK was in talks with Wizkids when FASA closed to continue its licence. Unfortunately due to declining member numbers and Bob's deteriorating health MFUK folded in 2001."

"The Comnet magazine does not fall under the current definition of Canon for the BattleTech universe.
The MechForce UK organisation was officially sanctioned by FASA, therefore Comnet can arguably be regarded as an official (apocryphal) BattleTech publication. However, its content was not checked for continuity whatsoever by FASA."

At best, some of the ideas they'd presented could later be incorporated into properly-canonical works.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 11 November 2014 - 12:29 PM.

[stjobe]

What would you say if I told you there's a fully canon Urbie that fires nuclear Arrow-IV missiles, and it was one of them that killed the Kell Hounds?

Apparently Herb Beas loves nukes and Urbies...

There's a lot of weird and wonderful stuff that's canon, lots that doesn't make sense (and some - like Tetatae - that are canon but officially ignored and never to be revisited).

But going from that to ignoring what the Tech Manual have to say about ACs is rather a long step and cannot be justified by "there's weird stuff in canon".

[Nathan Foxbane]

stjobe, on 11 November 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

You're forgiven

The important point here is that ACs in the BattleTech universe are burst- or continuous-fire weapons. Each and every single one described thus far has been described as burst- or continuous-fire. Not one has been described as firing a single shot.

And if you look at the text from Era Report 3052 above, you see why: It would need to fire a 200 kg shell - as a point of reference, contemporary 203mm shells weigh roughly 100 kg.

Went digging through my old TROs wondering why I though otherwise and stumbled across this:

TRO:3060 - Ku Wheeled Assault Tank said:

... a Type 9 75mm autocannon. The clip reload system allows the gunner to select a one or two-round burst, giving the tank a devastating volley-fire capability.

The Type 9 is a Clan Ultra AC/10 class weapon.
Given the ambiguous definition of round, it could refer to a pair of bursts, but the phrasing and later use of the word volley suggest individual shells.

Edited by Nathan Foxbane, 11 November 2014 - 12:32 PM.

[Nightmare1]

WarHippy, on 11 November 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

Except all of the books and literary fluff are based off the board game. To dismiss the TT game in favor of fluff is backward thinking. You sir are nuts!

And you, sir, don't read. If you had bothered to do so, you would have seen that I acknowledged the board game as the source of the series in other posts, and you would have seen me explain why I believe the books make better source material for this game.

[Escef]

So, 9 pages of arguing definitions, and very, very little about what is better for the game play.

[Strum Wealh]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

And as Fluff means nothing when you were shot by one or the other.

Because, again, the basic gameplay rules are heavily abstracted in order to drastically reduce the time & space requirements for an average play session.

Take, for example, the four-round burst from the Demolisher's ChemJet Guns:

• two shells hit an opposing BattleMech's left thigh, and the remaining two shells strike the same BattleMech's left shin
  
• two shells hit an opposing BattleMech's left thigh, one shell strikes the same BattleMech's left knee joint, and the remaining shell strikes the same BattleMech's left ankle joint
  
• two shells hit an opposing BattleMech's right elbow joint, and the remaining two shells strike the same BattleMech's right hand
  
• all four shells hit an opposing BattleMech's right bicep

In each of those cases, the damage is abstracted to "20 points of damage to the Left Leg" or "20 points of damage to the Right Arm", despite the point that they should have substantially different effects (e.g. hitting the thick armor around major components versus striking at the relatively-vulnerable joints, or the damage being spread across (rather large) (sets of) components).

[Nightmare1]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

I liked hos writing also, Can't say I liked the man himself though. And he gave us the most Fluff that needed to be added to the game of any other writer.

Nuclear Engine explosions
Glancing blows
Ghost Mechs (Jedi Mind trick)


Son Rotary ACs are a whole nother beast in CBT! An RAC 10 fires between 1 and 6 AC bursts per trigger pull! Yup 60 point burst and up to 6 times the heat. The crying that would occur would be legendary

I never dug into Stackpole as a person; I'm one of those who prefers not to do that unless it's an author I really, really like. Sometimes you learn things that you wish you didn't know.

Yeah, I know those three things were fluff, as well as some of his other content, but I still enjoyed reading about them. Out of all the authors, I liked his weapon descriptions the most. I suppose that's more because of my notion of what this should be though; a game with powerful weaponry that will wreck careless pilots, rather than an anime style mecha where we stand around and pound at each other all day until the timer runs down (excluding the occasional ROFLStomp of course). Never been an anime fan, but I have watched a few episodes of some to understand the mecha stuff. Man, they really like to whale on those machines!

Yeah, but it would totally be worth it! I would equip a few on my Mechs and deal with the heat just for the chance to live it up the Stackpole way with my ACs.

[stjobe]

Nathan Foxbane, on 11 November 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

Went digging through my old TROs wondering why I though otherwise and stumbled across this:

The Type 9 is a Clan Ultra AC/10 class weapon.
Given the ambiguous definition of round, it could refer to a pair of bursts, but the phrasing and later use of the word volley suggest individual shells.

That's also a wording from 1998, and it doesn't fit with the definition in Era Report 3052 about the classification of autocannons. A contemporary 75mm shell weighs roughly 6.5 kg, and to be an AC/10 the weapon needs to deliver 100 kg of ammo down-range in 10 seconds - or 15 such shells.

Two 6.5 kg shells just simply isn't enough throw-weight to even be an AC/2.

Escef, on 11 November 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

So, 9 pages of arguing definitions, and very, very little about what is better for the game play.

When I saw "MWO" I thought it was Merriam-Webster Online - you mean I'm in the wrong place?

[Nathan Foxbane]

stjobe, on 11 November 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

That's also a wording from 1998, and it doesn't fit with the definition in Era Report 3052 about the classification of autocannons. A contemporary 75mm shell weighs roughly 6.5 kg, and to be an AC/10 the weapon needs to deliver 100 kg of ammo down-range in 10 seconds - or 15 such shells.

Two 6.5 kg shells just simply isn't enough throw-weight to even be an AC/2.

Mmm fair enough, like I said the definition of round is ambiguous as it can refer to a single shot or volley. New material does supersede older. I do wish in the fluff they would give proper ammo counts or phrase it as "bursts of X".

stjobe, on 11 November 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

When I saw "MWO" I thought it was Merriam-Webster Online - you mean I'm in the wrong place?

That sums up most of the livelier arguments on the forums rather well. XD

[Strum Wealh]

Nathan Foxbane, on 11 November 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

Went digging through my old TROs wondering why I though otherwise and stumbled across this:

The Type 9 is a Clan Ultra AC/10 class weapon.
Given the ambiguous definition of round, it could refer to a pair of bursts, but the phrasing and later use of the word volley suggest individual shells.

Already covered in my previous post...

"Rather than firing at a single target, any type of autocannon can be “walked” across two targets close to one another. An LB-X autocannon firing a cluster shot and Ultra and Rotary autocannons firing at multiple targets are a special case." - Tactical Operations, pg. 100

"The Ultra & Rotary ACs have alternate firing modes (the UACs have their 1x & 2x firing modes, while the RACs have their 1x, 2x, 4x, and 6x firing modes), where the 'rapid-fire' modes (2x and above) allow them to strike each target with a number of shells; 'If only one shot hit, it will strike one of the targets - determined at random - with a single shot that does full damage. If two, four or six shots hit, one, two or three shots will strike each target at full damage. If three or five shots hit, one or two shots will strike each target; randomly determine where the other shot lands'."

"So, to recap:

• Standard ACs (AC/2, AC/5, AC/10, AC/20): burst-fire weapons (multiple individual shells per salvo)
  
• LB-X ACs (LB 2-X, LB 5-X, LB 10-X, LB 20-X, both tech bases): burst-fire weapons in "slug-mode", single-shell-salvo weapons in "cluster-mode"
  
• Ultra ACs (UAC/2, UAC/5, UAC/10, UAC/20, both tech bases): single-shell-salvo weapons (fires one large shell in "normal mode" & two large shells in "ultra mode")
  
• Light ACs (LAC/2, LAC/5): burst-fire weapons
  
• Rotary ACs (RAC/2, RAC/5, both tech bases): single-shell-salvo weapons (fires one large shell in "normal mode", two large shells in "double mode", four large shells in "quad mode", and six large shells in "hex mode")
  
• Hyper-Velocity ACs (HVAC/2, HVAC/5, HVAC/10): burst-fire weapons"

That is, the BattleTech lore & the TT gameplay rules already indicate that UACs should fire a single large shell with each salvo (including firing two large shells in quick succession when fired in "ultra mode"), in contrast to Standard ACs (which are always described as firing a burst of multiple individual shells in each salvo).

[WarHippy]

Nightmare1, on 11 November 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

And you, sir, don't read. If you had bothered to do so, you would have seen that I acknowledged the board game as the source of the series in other posts, and you would have seen me explain why I believe the books make better source material for this game.

I read just fine thanks. My statement to you was based off of what you said to me, anything you said later was not directed at me and something I was not commenting on. Pretty simple concept. That being said there is a difference between the canon provided by the books and the fluff used in the books to describe a scene. What is canon are the events that took place and the people taking part. Fluff on the other hand is any time the author was trying to paint a pretty picture in your mind by describing a scene. It sounds better to say "I savaged the enemy Centurion with a stream of fire from my AC rocking him backwards" then it does to say "I shot the guy with my big gun, and it looks like it hurt".

[WarHippy]

Nightmare1, on 11 November 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

Yeah, I know those three things were fluff, as well as some of his other content, but I still enjoyed reading about them. Out of all the authors, I liked his weapon descriptions the most. I suppose that's more because of my notion of what this should be though; a game with powerful weaponry that will wreck careless pilots, rather than an anime style mecha where we stand around and pound at each other all day until the timer runs down (excluding the occasional ROFLStomp of course). Never been an anime fan, but I have watched a few episodes of some to understand the mecha stuff. Man, they really like to whale on those machines!

Almost every anime I have seen with mecha have them getting one shot in mass, and I always thought it was strange compared to Battletech/MechWarrior where they seemed to be able to take a great deal more fire. In fact we seem to see things almost the exact opposite in that regard. Lets take an example of Stackpole's writing in the Warrior trilogy where he had a Victor and Awesome pounding each other for awhile before the Victor came out on top. When compared to things in some of the various Gundum related anime where a single laser blast takes out multiple enemy mecha I just don't see where you are coming from.