41 replies to this topic

[Johnny Z]

This whole weapon scale thing makes me wonder. It sure makes some of the mechs look alot worse. It doesnt hold true to how powerfull some of the weapons are also and the new scale doesnt seem to make sense in alot of cases.

Will the mechs themselves get a scale pass also?

Why do this and not have sized hard points?????

Edited by Johnny Z, 01 May 2015 - 09:50 AM.

[Telmasa]

I was actually pretty happy with the appearance of all the mechs in this new pack.

[Kristov Kerensky]

I can't actually find any faults with the concept art that Alex did for the R2 pack, and I think the Mauler arms look quite appropriate for the Mech's size and what they contain. Some of that old artwork is really rather stupid looking, and I've actually liked everything Alex has done to date, even the Timberwolf which I can't stand due to it's not being the iconic Timberwolf from the TRO, Alex's rework is an excellent piece.

[Alex Morgaine]

LordBraxton, on 01 May 2015 - 07:22 AM, said:

Ask the catapults what they think about the matter. I agree with them.

Fixed, vcrs for the mauler >

[Ragtag soldier]

the staff at PGI felt threatened by the mauler's unrealistically long and strong laser barrels.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Joseph Mallan, on 01 May 2015 - 06:45 AM, said:

The original art work looked like this...


Pretty thick Mech yes Long barrels but do Lasers need long barrels?

THey sure as a mother flo dont need to be all stubby and pitiful looking like what we have now...

IDK why PGI is on this shrink all the guns kick....its making the game both aesthetically and content unappealing.


And where is the PGI Mauler concept art? I have seen that one image, but I thought it was a playermade mashup.

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 01 May 2015 - 08:34 PM.

[LordBraxton]

Strum Wealh, on 01 May 2015 - 09:12 AM, said:

You have all of your post quite backwards, Braxton.

My post answers Joe's question, and provides context for why the answer is the way it is.

Part of BattleTech's appeal is that it is "harder science fiction", built on some foundation in logic and real science - thus, why it is not Escaflowne (mecha + dragons & sorcery) or Star Wars (telekinesis & "universal oneness" granted by souped-up mitochondria ) or WH40K (which should be largely self-explanatory), all of which are examples of "softer science fiction".

Realistically-scaled weaponry looks cool in large part because it makes sense for a harder SF setting (like BT/MW); dramatically overscaled weaponry (e.g. 16-inch (406mm) battleship guns to represent what should be 50-80mm (2-3 inch) cannons on a JagerMech) looks silly in the same context.

Battletech is hard sci-fi? slow ass giant mechs shooting autocannons at point blank range and beating each other with hatchets??

One of us is on an island, Im not sure who. I see battletech as awesome, but rather silly and extravagant.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

LordBraxton, on 01 May 2015 - 08:45 PM, said:

Battletech is hard sci-fi? slow ass giant mechs shooting autocannons at point blank range and beating each other with hatchets??

One of us is on an island, Im not sure who. I see battletech as awesome, but rather silly and extravagant.

IMHO, Battletech, at the very least, is on the harder side of the scale when compared to others works of fiction.

Remember before the Inner Sphere resorted to using sticks, stones and duct tape, the multiple Succession Wars had devastated many, many worlds and their technological advancements. And it took them a while, some blind luck (Helm Memory Core, for example) and the Clan Invasion to accelerate R&D.

Hard Science Fiction versus Soft Science Fiction

[Tor6]

Praetor Knight, on 01 May 2015 - 09:28 PM, said:

IMHO, Battletech, at the very least, is on the harder side of the scale when compared to others works of fiction.

Remember before the Inner Sphere resorted to using sticks, stones and duct tape, the multiple Succession Wars had devastated many, many worlds and their technological advancements. And it took them a while, some blind luck (Helm Memory Core, for example) and the Clan Invasion to accelerate R&D.

Hard Science Fiction versus Soft Science Fiction

It's also a universe where the bigger and more powerful a projectile weapon becomes, the -shorter- its range gets to the point where a Roman-era BALLISTA has a longer range. Because... science?

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Tor6, on 01 May 2015 - 10:35 PM, said:

It's also a universe where the bigger and more powerful a projectile weapon becomes, the -shorter- its range gets to the point where a Roman-era BALLISTA has a longer range. Because... science?

No.

P&P rules for accuracy rolls against Battlemechs actually; to simplify factors such as natural cone of fire from autocannon recoil, with high volumes of fire and so on. AC/2 fires less lead down range than what an AC/20 can pump out for example.

And there's matters of accuracy and precision for hitting moving targets while also being on the move that are over-simplified for the P&P game.

One specific weapon example, many Victors carry the Pontiac 100 autocannon, which is said to fire a cassette of 100 rounds inside of a 10 second or so window. So one ton of ammo would be enough for five cassettes.

Another, the AC/20 of the Hunchback is supposed to fire 4 rounds on each cassette / clip, I guess like a contemporary revolver autocannon.

And there are a bunch of other examples for weapons and tons of other variety with even lasers as well.



Edit:

Something else that I think is neat are reading on details like armor and internals, which are also rather simplified too, for the P&P game (and we don't have any through armor criticals as another related tangent).

So, there are some more complex elements such as the BAR rating that the gamemaster / game manager can utilize aside from other optional and/or house rules for items and equipment outside of Battlemechs, Tanks and so on that exist in the BT lore, which I assume could be comparable to World of Tanks with how weapons could work over there.

The main thing is, as a game, using what is best for the engine limitations to achieve your intended design. P&P was made to be as quick as possible for battles of mixed armies and so on, so the balance elements are set for its needs.

But MWO is now 12 v 12 fights where players control the piloting and gunnery of the mechs. So there certainly are more things that the devs could do depending on what they envision for their game, such as making weapons and armor function closer to the lore and use the cryengine to have more realistic weapon ranges in the process, but such stuff goes into game design and often runs deep into personal opinions too!

Edited by Praetor Knight, 01 May 2015 - 11:07 PM.

[Ragtag soldier]

Tor6, on 01 May 2015 - 10:35 PM, said:

It's also a universe where the bigger and more powerful a projectile weapon becomes, the -shorter- its range gets to the point where a Roman-era BALLISTA has a longer range. Because... science?

exactly because science! the larger the shells being fired are, the longer the barrel needs to be to provide accuarcy along the same range and the larger it needs to be to withstand the shells being fired rapidly, not to mention the larger the recoil compensators, ect.... to fit larger cannons on battlemchs, they sacrifice the length of the cannon for the sake of making it reliable so as the damage rating of the gun goes up, the range goes down to keep the mass manageable!

i mean, really. i'd like my AC/20 to match an AC/2s range, but not if it's also ten times heavier or more.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Go big or go home indeed!

What the Planetary Gun in CW should be modeled after: the Naval Gauss Rifle. that or one of these big boys.

[Strum Wealh]

LordBraxton, on 01 May 2015 - 08:45 PM, said:

Battletech is hard sci-fi? slow ass giant mechs shooting autocannons at point blank range and beating each other with hatchets??

One of us is on an island, Im not sure who. I see battletech as awesome, but rather silly and extravagant.

BattleTech is arguably on the "harder" end of the scale, as far as mecha go - it's much less "hard" than, say, Heavy Gear (which is arguably more scientifically-realistic in how its mecha are designed), but it's much "harder" than, say, Gurren Lagann.

[TELEFORCE]

I think the Mauler's laser barrels need to be longer. It's part of the character of the 'mech that it always had.

Here's an updated TRO pic, from TRO: 3050 Upgrade:



With that being said, I think the same for the Mad Dog, Warhawk, and JagerMech.

[Joseph Mallan]

LordKnightFandragon, on 01 May 2015 - 08:34 PM, said:

THey sure as a mother flo dont need to be all stubby and pitiful looking like what we have now...

IDK why PGI is on this shrink all the guns kick....its making the game both aesthetically and content unappealing.


And where is the PGI Mauler concept art? I have seen that one image, but I thought it was a playermade mashup.

They don't NEED to be anything Sir. You are confusing want and need. We WANT big honking guns. But Energy weapons don't need to be. I'm not disagreeing that the laser arms are small, I'm just saying that they don't HAVE to be long arms.

[Wild Hamster]

If ur Mauler arms are bigger, how are we to hit ur ST from the side?

[LordKnightFandragon]

Wild Hamster, on 02 May 2015 - 04:37 AM, said:

If ur Mauler arms are bigger, how are we to hit ur ST from the side?

LOL, maybe that was half the point of the arms being that big. Warhawk should have the same thing. Arms short anough yet big enough to cover the ST from the side.

[Tor6]

Praetor Knight, on 01 May 2015 - 10:45 PM, said:

</p>I can completely understand where you're coming from, and I agree that for gameplay and actually making the game playable, the rules make total sense. However, the physics (and logic) of battletech don't really work when it comes to the way and reason mechs (and in many cases weapons) work.Why create a giant walking target whose armor would (if you actually looked at a mech's surface area vs say a tank) have a thickness of basically nothing? It's grossly inefficient and it makes a million times more sense to press the same tech that makes battlemechs work into tanks, which would be far more practical. But it would also be way less awesome. Battletech kinda breaks logic and physics over its knee and it doesn't care. And that's why we like it.

Ragtag soldier, on 01 May 2015 - 11:04 PM, said:

exactly because science! the larger the shells being fired are, the longer the barrel needs to be to provide accuarcy along the same range and the larger it needs to be to withstand the shells being fired rapidly, not to mention the larger the recoil compensators, ect.... to fit larger cannons on battlemchs, they sacrifice the length of the cannon for the sake of making it reliable so as the damage rating of the gun goes up, the range goes down to keep the mass manageable!

i mean, really. i'd like my AC/20 to match an AC/2s range, but not if it's also ten times heavier or more.

I can see that argument. But if you're saying that the guns they're squeezing into a battlemech are so large that they've had to sacrifice the gun actually -working- properly (ie the round is keyholing essentially right out of the barrel), then that's silly. I mean, that could (maybe, if you use your imagination) explain the way that BT autocannons work, but it would mean that no one in the BT universe knows how to design a functional and not-stupid ballistic weapon, and I find that a bit silly since we as a species have been using these principles since the invention of rifled firearms centuries ago.

Edited by Tor6, 02 May 2015 - 10:14 AM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Tor6, on 02 May 2015 - 10:07 AM, said:

</p>I can completely understand where you're coming from, and I agree that for gameplay and actually making the game playable, the rules make total sense. However, the physics (and logic) of battletech don't really work when it comes to the way and reason mechs (and in many cases weapons) work.Why create a giant walking target whose armor would (if you actually looked at a mech's surface area vs say a tank) have a thickness of basically nothing? It's grossly inefficient and it makes a million times more sense to press the same tech that makes battlemechs work into tanks, which would be far more practical. But it would also be way less awesome. Battletech kinda breaks logic and physics over its knee and it doesn't care. And that's why we like it.

Well, mechs are supposed to range between 12 to ~16/18 meters in height, with only a few mechs like the Atlas pushing that height to intimidate better.

So, something I've been curious about, with the tallest mechs being around ~16 or so meters, with the average for other tall mechs being around ~12 or so meters on average, what humanoid examples currently exist to get a better frame of reference? So to get a better feel for that sense of scale I took to googling statues!

Spoiler

And I found the Brownhills Miner, which stands 12 meters tall and weights 5.5 short tons.



Another neat one is the Willow Man also standing 12 meters tall and weighing at least 3 tonnes.



So in terms of realistic height scaling, BattleMechs can be plausible to see with the right sorts of tech available.

And I can see why the Atlas can be described as being so imposing with its increased height and likely width, closer to 16 meters tall, and for any curious, here is a list of other small statues.

And if you take a look at the first Battlemech, the Mackie, one of the main reasons to even bother with such a design was basically to manifest the ultimate weapon of their military might just for the hell of it, by the Terran Hegemony.

And there is the benefit of having them be force multipliers, since you only really need one person per mech, compared to crews of at least two for other types of vehicles, when you have the proper tech and equipment to have everything working.

But the rise of the Terran Hegemony with its end in the Amaris Civil War and the Succession Wars tore up the Inner Sphere allowing the relics of the past, such as surviving and functioning Battlemechs and their Mechwarriors to attain a special social status until the Clan Invasion, that brought in other sweeping changes for the various factions involved.

So logic is sorta all over the place, but if you are a student of history, you'd know that it comes with the territory when we look at how humans with power behave, and at the very least BT physics tries hard to be internally consistent, with enough real world parallels to remain in the realm of plausibility.

Quote

I can see that argument. But if you're saying that the guns they're squeezing into a battlemech are so large that they've had to sacrifice the gun actually -working- properly (ie the round is keyholing essentially right out of the barrel), then that's silly. I mean, that could (maybe, if you use your imagination) explain the way that BT autocannons work, but it would mean that no one in the BT universe knows how to design a functional and not-stupid ballistic weapon, and I find that a bit silly since we as a species have been using these principles since the invention of rifled firearms centuries ago.

I'm not exactly following here, but BT does leave some room for interpreting how weapons function and damage per round, rate of fire and projectile velocities should be tweaked some, IMHO.

As I mentioned with revolver style autocannons, here are two examples:

Spoiler

And here's a chain gun:

[Weeny Machine]

Joseph Mallan, on 01 May 2015 - 06:45 AM, said:

The original art work looked like this...


Pretty thick Mech yes Long barrels but do Lasers need long barrels?

Size DOES matter