20517 replies to this topic

[Alaskan Nobody]

MonkeyDCecil, on 20 May 2014 - 07:35 PM, said:

Is the Treb really as tall as a Atlas and a Banchee? I know it was tall, but wft. For me the size should be 1 foot for every ton. So a 20 ton mech is 20 feet tall.

Used to be the size height of an Atlas yes- Koniving says it is now about as short as the Kintaro
(I have not been able to log in to confirm myself - my gaming rig is sitting in a box in another room currently)

[ShadowbaneX]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 May 2014 - 07:21 PM, said:

lil more speed, armor and ammo, lil less JJ, but yeah, pretty much. I love the Dervish though.

I took a good long, hard look at the Dervish-7D when getting ready for a 3050 campaign. You can move things around a bit and load some Artemis on there, drop the Streaks for MLs or just regular SRM2s and add a bit of extra LRM ammo and it's a pretty solid ride.

Oddly, I ended up getting another 55-ton mech the Osprey. It has an LRM10, LB-10/X and a pair of Medium Pulse Lasers. Not your standard load out, but the set-up for the campaign had us salvaging a lance of 'prototype' (read: GM creation) Star League Era Mechs. Firebee (with an ER PPC and 4 SRM2s w/standard & inferno ammo), Wyvern (LRM10+A, SRM6+A, LL, ML & SL), and a Hammerhands (pair of uAC/5s, a pair of MLs & an SRM6).

[Bishop Steiner]

MonkeyDCecil, on 20 May 2014 - 07:35 PM, said:

Is the Treb really as tall as a Atlas and a Banchee? I know it was tall, but wft. For me the size should be 1 foot for every ton. So a 20 ton mech is 20 feet tall.

you realize that they also get proportionately wider and deeper? Real world size on heavy military gear doesn¡t fluctuate that much. CGL has it right with the shortest Biped Mech at 8 meters, and the tallest at 14. And the Atlas is actually only 12-13 because its so stocky.

[Alaskan Nobody]

MonkeyDCecil, on 20 May 2014 - 07:35 PM, said:

For me the size should be 1 foot for every ton. So a 20 ton mech is 20 feet tall.

There are several charts floating around about the actual heights of battlemechs - with a great deal many contradictions.

IE: there is one that puts the scale similar to what we have here (a 25 ton mech being about a quarter the size of a 100 ton)
There is another that puts them all almost the same heights (IE the 20 ton Firemoth being less than a meter shorter than the 100 ton DireWolf)

In the end - it is as much a game mechanic as anything else - and will be adjusted as such.
(IE: in the original table top game - all the mechs were about the same height to make the maths for cover work)

[Bishop Steiner]

Shar Wolf, on 20 May 2014 - 07:41 PM, said:

There are several charts floating around about the actual heights of battlemechs - with a great deal many contradictions.

IE: there is one that puts the scale similar to what we have here (a 25 ton mech being about a quarter the size of a 100 ton)
There is another that puts them all almost the same heights (IE the 20 ton Firemoth being less than a meter shorter than the 100 ton DireWolf)

In the end - it is as much a game mechanic as anything else - and will be adjusted as such.
(IE: in the original table top game - all the mechs were about the same height to make the maths for cover work)

shame the MWO one makes zero engineering sense. As 1/4 the size, 3 dimensionally, is significantly less than 1/4 the mass, if densities can be assumed comparable. And since they share most of the same basic systems and architecture, that woudl be a fair assumption, in general.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 May 2014 - 07:45 PM, said:

shame the MWO one makes zero engineering sense.

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on that - especially since there is a lot more to engineering and building designs than just the size of things.

Otherwise all the different trucks/cars/other vehicles out there would all be identical bulk wise.

IE: my dad drives a variety of trucks for his work - some of which have lots of space around the engine - others you have to nearly dismantle the whole truck to change the oil.

[Koniving]

MonkeyDCecil, on 20 May 2014 - 07:35 PM, said:

Is the Treb really as tall as a Atlas and a Banchee? I know it was tall, but wft. For me the size should be 1 foot for every ton. So a 20 ton mech is 20 feet tall.

Banshee is taller than the Atlas (it is a simple fact. Reasonably skinnier, but taller).
Note the last picture is an OLD one from 2013.

[Bishop Steiner]

Shar Wolf, on 20 May 2014 - 07:48 PM, said:

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on that - especially since there is a lot more to engineering and building designs than just the size of things.

Otherwise all the different trucks/cars/other vehicles out there would all be identical bulk wise.

IE: my dad drives a variety of trucks for his work - some of which have lots of space around the engine - others you have to nearly dismantle the whole truck to change the oil.

I drove heavy equipment for years. Do the model. Military machinery is a different beast. There is no "dead space" as PGI wants to claim for the Catapult Ears. Because that makes for a bigger target. Hence the basic similarity in density in most military vehicles.

An M551 Sheridan Light tank is: 20.6' L, 9.1' W, 7.5' H
An M1A1 Abrams MBT tank is: 26' L, 12' W, 8' H

yet the Sheridan, weighed 15.2 tons, the Abrams, 61 tons.

Hence, it's 4 times the mass, and yet scarcely larger. And Tanks have not had near the advances in "lightweight materials" other combat units have.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 20 May 2014 - 07:57 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 May 2014 - 07:51 PM, said:

Hence, it's 4 times the mass, and yet scarcely larger. And Tanks have not had near the advances in "lightweight materials" other combat units have.

True - and for military work that is the way it works.

And Mechwarrior being military you would think that would be the way it works there as well.

And yet - between the fact that Mechs make fairly lousy military vehicles in the first place (a topic that gets discussed to death every few months in off-topic....about time for it to show up again actually....)

The amount of political meddling in the mech designs.....(see the Clan Totem mechs such as the Kodiak or Shrike)

And that almost non of the designs have any real military basis in the first place (see the original Catapult designs)...

That would be one of those places that it is (somewhat) better not to put to much thought into.

[Bishop Steiner]

Shar Wolf, on 20 May 2014 - 08:00 PM, said:

True - and for military work that is the way it works.

And Mechwarrior being military you would think that would be the way it works there as well.

And yet - between the fact that Mechs make fairly lousy military vehicles in the first place (a topic that gets discussed to death every few months in off-topic....about time for it to show up again actually....)

The amount of political meddling in the mech designs.....(see the Clan Totem mechs such as the Kodiak or Shrike)

And that almost non of the designs have any real military basis in the first place (see the original Catapult designs)...

That would be one of those places that it is (somewhat) better not to put to much thought into.

sad but true, but as an Aspie, I can't. You really should let us run the world. It would make a LOT more sense, lol.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 May 2014 - 08:02 PM, said:

Sad but true, but as an Aspie, I can't, easily, or reliably. You really should let us run the world. It would make a LOT more "sense", lol.

Fixed that for you some.

After all, one man's sense is another's lunacy.
(sorry for the link - but he makes such a good example of that concept )

...perhaps the Clans would be a more appropriate example.....

[Koniving]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 May 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:

you realize that they also get proportionately wider and deeper? Real world size on heavy military gear doesn¡t fluctuate that much. CGL has it right with the shortest Biped Mech at 8 meters, and the tallest at 14. And the Atlas is actually only 12-13 because its so stocky.

While the case in Battletech, the MWO Atlas is supposedly 17 meters tall. Proportions of mechs seem to go from 8-ish meters to 17 for this game.
Now, certain mechs made a tidbit of sense. For example the size of the Awesome, while somewhat wider than the concept art (Centurion had this issue too and at the time it was mainly due to the 'splash mechanic' and working around it before PGI finally tried to remove it), could be partly due to the multiple tons of extra armor versus a Victor.

However, since max armors are universal across weight classes... all intelligent thought behind that has inevitably been obliterated.

Other cases, the mech's size should not be completely indicative as the real source of their weight is almost entirely in what is slapped on them.

For example, if we take a Hunchback and a Trebuchet, the two are hugely different in sizes. If PGI had its weapons universally sized, and the hunchback's hunch extends with certain sized weaponry or additions of items, and the Trebuchet's body expands when adding equipment... then the size thing makes quite a bit more sense.

Lets take a Hunchback. What is its primary function? Urban Combat. Would you want to be tall? No. You'd want to be as squat as possible, but narrow enough to slip between buildings. Short legs, small arms. Big gun. But even for as small as they are, lots of dense structure and armor there, isn't it? Now while it doesn't always have a huge gun, in the two main cases (G and H) it has a 12 to 14 ton weapon in the right shoulder. The weapon itself consumes most of its tonnage.

In the case of the P its 6 medium lasers and extra tonnage in heatsinks. For the J its 2 missile launchers; the 4SP shrinks quite a bit with only twin SRM-6s. But in the end, what consumes all the weight? What's inside the mech.

Now lets take the Trebuchet. What is its primary function? Long range missile-based artillery. What do you need to help you fire over hills? Some height. The original art depicts the Trebuchet as very tall and very skinny (though its arms are unusually thick at the bicep on the left arm only; this suggests an armored 'feeding line' to the missile launchers which are missing from MWO. On the original art the laser is a side-wing attachment and the missile launcher takes up most of the top/front of the forearm above the fist. Of course it'd make more sense of the launchers were on the shoulders, but given their 'flexibility' in Battletech, they probably raise the left arm up to the air.
Though the legs are much taller, the arms longer, etc., the armor is much thinner across them (no extra armor for being bigger, longer; no extra structure health either; sure the mech is taller but it's not denser in any way).

Now this isn't to say that solves everything. No matter how 'thin' you make the metal or stretch out the armor so that it doesn't cover as well to make one 80 ton mech identical to another, there still isn't a real excuse for the size differential between the Awesome and the Victor, especially when the Awesome is depicted as very tall, not very squat.




This is a combination of speculation and a tinge of understanding. Though I have to say, the Awesome seems to be the only mech in MWO that not only has a good grasp on the size a PPC should be but also on that an ER PPC and PPC should have marginally different barrel sizes and shapes.

<.<

[Strum Wealh]

Shar Wolf, on 20 May 2014 - 08:04 PM, said:

Fixed that for you some.

After all, one man's sense is another's lunacy.
(sorry for the link - but he makes such a good example of that concept )

...perhaps the Clans would be a more appropriate example.....

Well, Nicky K. would make a fairly good example of the concept (as would his father, arguably), and is a lot less controversial.

[Bishop Steiner]

Koniving, on 20 May 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

While the case in Battletech, the MWO Atlas is supposedly 17 meters tall. Proportions of mechs seem to go from 8-ish meters to 17 for this game.
Now, certain mechs made a tidbit of sense. For example the size of the Awesome, while somewhat wider than the concept art (Centurion had this issue too and at the time it was mainly due to the 'splash mechanic' and working around it before PGI finally tried to remove it), could be partly due to the multiple tons of extra armor versus a Victor.

However, since max armors are universal across weight classes... all intelligent thought behind that has inevitably been obliterated.

Other cases, the mech's size should not be completely indicative as the real source of their weight is almost entirely in what is slapped on them.

For example, if we take a Hunchback and a Trebuchet, the two are hugely different in sizes. If PGI had its weapons universally sized, and the hunchback's hunch extends with certain sized weaponry or additions of items, and the Trebuchet's body expands when adding equipment... then the size thing makes quite a bit more sense.

Lets take a Hunchback. What is its primary function? Urban Combat. Would you want to be tall? No. You'd want to be as squat as possible, but narrow enough to slip between buildings. Short legs, small arms. Big gun. But even for as small as they are, lots of dense structure and armor there, isn't it? Now while it doesn't always have a huge gun, in the two main cases (G and H) it has a 12 to 14 ton weapon in the right shoulder. The weapon itself consumes most of its tonnage.

In the case of the P its 6 medium lasers and extra tonnage in heatsinks. For the J its 2 missile launchers; the 4SP shrinks quite a bit with only twin SRM-6s. But in the end, what consumes all the weight? What's inside the mech.

Now lets take the Trebuchet. What is its primary function? Long range missile-based artillery. What do you need to help you fire over hills? Some height. The original art depicts the Trebuchet as very tall and very skinny (though its arms are unusually thick at the bicep on the left arm only; this suggests an armored 'feeding line' to the missile launchers which are missing from MWO. On the original art the laser is a side-wing attachment and the missile launcher takes up most of the top/front of the forearm above the fist. Of course it'd make more sense of the launchers were on the shoulders, but given their 'flexibility' in Battletech, they probably raise the left arm up to the air.
Though the legs are much taller, the arms longer, etc., the armor is much thinner across them (no extra armor for being bigger, longer; no extra structure health either; sure the mech is taller but it's not denser in any way).

Now this isn't to say that solves everything. No matter how 'thin' you make the metal or stretch out the armor so that it doesn't cover as well to make one 80 ton mech identical to another, there still isn't a real excuse for the size differential between the Awesome and the Victor, especially when the Awesome is depicted as very tall, not very squat.




This is a combination of speculation and a tinge of understanding. Though I have to say, the Awesome seems to be the only mech in MWO that not only has a good grasp on the size a PPC should be but also on that an ER PPC and PPC should have marginally different barrel sizes and shapes.

<.<

While I agree in principle the thing with Battlemechs, and the reason they are "all environment" (and hot) is because they are conceived as total weapon systems, with everything internalized. As opposed to walking skeletons to be armored and armed. (though Omnis more likely fit that profile) Of course, the reality is, it was done to simplify the mechanics, but whatever, it is what it is. Even PGI's attempts at explaining it though, have been universally ...... laughable?

[Alaskan Nobody]

Strum Wealh, on 20 May 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

Well, Nicky K. would make a fairly good example of the concept (as would his father, arguably), and is a lot less controversial.

No idea who Nicky K. is

[Bishop Steiner]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 May 2014 - 08:33 PM, said:

While I agree in principle the thing with Battlemechs, and the reason they are "all environment" (and hot) is because they are conceived as total weapon systems, with everything internalized. As opposed to walking skeletons to be armored and armed. (though Omnis more likely fit that profile) Of course, the reality is, it was done to simplify the mechanics, but whatever, it is what it is. Even PGI's attempts at explaining it though, have been universally ...... laughable?

Totally agree with the Awesome. TBH, there are a few "hallmark" mechs, I feel should have been used as the benchmarks for sizing those around them. The Jenner, Hunchback, Dragon and Awesome are actually all pretty reasonably scaled to each other. But good gosh, the differences between a HBK, Trebbie and CN9?!?!?!

Shar Wolf, on 20 May 2014 - 08:34 PM, said:

No idea who Nicky K. is

Nicholas Kerensky, the founder of the Clans and son of Aleksandr Kerensky, the saviour of the SLDF. Nicky K also happened to be batcrap insane.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 May 2014 - 08:36 PM, said:

Nicholas Kerensky, the founder of the Clans and son of Aleksandr Kerensky, the saviour of the SLDF. Nicky K also happened to be batcrap insane.

Doh >.<


I am going to bed now - mayhaps my cranial structure will be in superior working condition with the prescribed time asleep.

[Koniving]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 May 2014 - 08:36 PM, said:

CN9's reason was purely due to the splash damage mechanic. It's an entire set of side torsos wider than the concept art. The only feasible reason is that.

Now once I figure out how to get the textures onto the 3D mechs, I'm gonna 'narrow' the side torsos on the Centurion a bit for my personal model.

[CDLord HHGD]

Resurrecting thread of page 3 exile.

[MonkeyDCecil]

+1 bump, and I hate the splash damage mechanic. There is no need for it. Just have missiles do direct damage. 1 point per missile for lrms and 2 for srms.