ice trey, on 12 August 2015 - 08:49 AM, said:
Alright. First off, the Tech Manual is kind of a new creation. It was made in order to take all the rules that had been spread out between multiple sourcebooks for construction and put them in one place. Many bits of tech in Battletech prior to that point had been playable, but there were never construction rules made for them.
...But the honest truth is that in those earlier days, at least, if we're talking 80s and early 90s FASA, not the late 90s FASA (I'm guessing that you're talking about the stuff prior to the discontinuation of the "Unseen", since you said the 4th edition boxed set by Fasa is also out), information was actually pretty limited. Sourcebooks didn't really go into great detail fluffing things out, instead trying to keep things short and to the point for the sake of gameplay. Much of the explanation as to why things work the way they do ended up getting idle mentions in the novels and magazines, and stuck from that point on. It's for that reason why old rulebooks were usually less than 100 pages, where the modern ones are several times bigger, and with smaller print.
Thank you. I have a number of these books but going through them at random is a bit difficult. One of these days I'll need to systematically go through them and jot the information and/or where to find information on specific topics down for references.
Quote
As for the diagnostic interpretation computer? It's just sort of a junction between Myomers and the Gyro that doesn't provide any pros or cons to the boardgame mechanics, so it's not something anyone has really clamoured for detailed information on. Battletech isn't Hard Sci-fi, even if a lot of it is based on technologies that were being researched in the 70s and 80s. You've got to leave some leeway for handwavium. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that Battletech is hard sci-fi when so much of the universe has real-world or theoretical counterparts, but all it takes is a Tri-vid hologram projector, or a solar generator that generates more electricity than a gas generator of equal size to remind you that "Hey, this is an intricate and detailed setting, but it's all here because some guys thought giant robots are cool".
Yeah I know that feeling. A lot of what really jacks it up is the WizKidz stuff but even before then there were some things just made up out of the blue.
The reason I'm wanting to get so much detail is I'm working out how to go about a Battletech simulator. Not a mechwarrior game, but a BT simulation. I'm also trying to figure out how involved I can get it, what things to include and what to leave out (whether due to in-feasibility or other reasons). Also knowing every little tidbit gives me additional avenues to use.
For example the Tech Manual says that all weapons aim as easily as pointing and clicking with a single crosshair-- but it clearly doesn't take much into account in that regard and leaves it all being pretty far fetched. It only makes the exception that some mechs have a second crosshair for independent secondary target tracking. And that's pretty far fetched and conflicts with a boatload of the other weapons lore.
That is another reason for wanting to know. Without the other information, a "true to lore" system would basically require PGI's style of "all weapons can converge at any range." And that just isn't right or realistic.
In the 1987 explanation, during the 'unseen' period, it was that weapons like AC/5s, AC/2s and standard PPCs were often depicted as hand-held weapons rather than anchored on, making all their weight fulcrum on the end of an arm wherever the hand would be. Of course this leaves a bit of a vacuum to fill when mechs are an exception to this, and later when all mechs stopped being depicted as doing this.
This leads me to the calibration/convergence factor used in Spiral's source; it conflicts (nicely and realistically) with the tech manual's "just point and click" and gives me the leeway I need to make the weapons work the way that I would like them to, which would work well as an anti-boating measure by having you almost need a few weapons of 'other' ranges just to make sure you have your bases covered. More on it in my response to Spiral.
SpiralFace, on 09 August 2015 - 01:16 PM, said:
Hey Koniving, some answers for you.
There are no direct "tech manuals" from older fasa publications. Construction rules where typically thrown in with the main rulebooks. (Litterally everything up till Total war had them.) Some fiction was splashed around here and there, but I'll do my best to cite sources.
Mech cockpits:
Mechwarrior ver 1.0 source books explained the inner workings of the mech cockpit, and has not changed drastically since.
The write ups from this article are actually taken verbatim from I believe one of the FASA source materials. It is considered the best representation of the inner cockpits, and it has yet to be retconed in any major way.
I have seen implementations of that. Still it brings up a few things I haven't seen before, such as the emergency shutter. It also rather expressly states that the specific mech it is taken from to use as an example
indicates that convergence is to be set and adjusted manually! This is actually a
critical discovery! It has a switch for the
"Target Interlock Circuits" for "Adjusting" them and to "reset" them. Interlock is defined as "to fit into each other, as parts of machinery, so that all action is synchronized." A target interlock system is to synchronize the weapon systems to a determined range and adjust the reticle to reflect this.
This means that pilots have a manual means of adjusting convergence distance set behind a switch that must be thrown to 'set' convergence. It also has a quick 'reset' to cancel that convergence and restore a factory default.
This could even be the solution to PGI's "instant convergence" and problems with its "delayed convergence." Manually established and set convergence ranges. With sniper players tinkering with this, brawlers could slip in and strike much more effectively against them, requiring escort players to be set to counter them. Hit and run tactics would be largely more effective. Overall the game would require a much larger skill-based quotient in which the current metas would struggle or even fall apart.
Quote
Ballistic minimum range.
Ok, to explain this I have to remind you that it is not the "Mechwarrior" that "aims" the weapons in the battlemech. Minimum range in the BG is a very abstract and arbitrary thing, but the biggest thing to remember is that its the mech's on board TARGETING COMPUTER relayed through the sensors and configured and calibrated to each of the weapons.
They refer to it as a Targeting and Tracking (computer) Suite or T&T Suite for short. This is standard and separate from Clan "Targeting computers", which are far more than simply computers.
Quote
PPC's, ballistic, and even LRM's do not simply have minimum range because the weapons physically cannot damage mechs (except in the case of LRM's arming only after they have cleared the tubes of the mechs,) but rather, the weapons themselves are calibrated in a way that is equiped for certain roles for the weapon. So a targeting computer calibrated for long range fire on an AC 5 or 2, has trouble tracking targets and calculating trajectories for the weapons as they are mounted and meant to best track targets past a certain range (concider it a minimum convergence of the weapons.)
So as a result, AC's Gauss riles, and various other ballistic weapons don't just get a magic "don't work" box so much as the targeting computer of the mech physically has trouble calculating trajectory on targets that are within a certain distance.
I'm aware that it's an "accuracy" penalty not a "don't work" box. It didn't even take my military experience to know that, it's even called an accuracy penalty which means higher than normal risk of missing.
PGI on the other hand, well PPCs that don't work ought to tell you something.
The notion of PGI interpreting the Gauss Rifle "minimum range" as a magic don't work box also tells ya something. "It doesn't really make any sense. It isn't just going to not work under 60 meters." ~ Paul Inouye. That's right, it doesn't make any sense, because it isn't a "no go" box. It's an inaccurate range, meaning something is causing it. Paul, indirectly, found a solution to this with the charge up -- probably after reading about the "charge" rules...rather than just common sense. Either way inadvertantly they came up with a system that delays firing in such a way that targets under 60 meters and moving fast are about impossible to hit.
That said... I really like what you've said about AC/2 and AC/5 calibrations being set to high distances.
Before, I took the sources on AC/10s and AC/20s and their given accurate ranges to mean that Battletech effectively doesn't count partial hits (glancing/direct blows aside) given that BT TT is a
summary of events. This means that either they missed or didn't hit with enough firepower to do full damage, so it was inconsequential to the summarized simulation. After all who could take the Pontiac 100's "100 shots in under 2 seconds" or the King Crab Death Giver's 4 bursts of 3 shots each before it 'drops' an expended cassette? Both are AC/20s, but imagine having to do 100 'to hit' rolls each time you go to use the Pontiac 100? Even the 4 shot Chemjet Gun or the 5 Shot Tomozuduru (probably misspelled) cannon is asking a bit much for constant 'to hit' rolls.
That encompasses why the max range is so small, even when plainly stated the "actual potential range of Autocannons is several kilometers. However the actual chance of effectively hitting a target as small and as fast as a Battlemech beyond the 'rated' ranges is considered very unlikely for the average pilot." It is explained that Clanners have superior range not because of more effective weaponry, but due to better tracking systems.
Quote
I've often suggested that MWO should adopt a similar motif. Have the minimum convergence on the weapons act as if they where converging on a target at their minimum range if firing on a target within the minimum range.
So say your firing on a stalker within 50 meters with a PPC, well because that PPC is calibrated on the TC to have a minimum effective range of 90 meters, despite having a reticle right on top of a mech, the weapon discharges and attempts to converge at the same point only 90 meters away instead of 50. Making it harder to target individual components and mechs, but not impossible.
That can certainly wreck pinpoint accuracy at close range. But people would complain that you're hurting "brawling" and "wrecking already worthless weapons" (AC/2, AC/5).
PGI's counter logic would be that "Inner Sphere doesn't have targeting computers."
It makes a solid point and I like this explanation for the AC/2 and AC/5 weapons. It can be something I would use, in conjunction with the manual convergence setup. Which I may work to include a "no convergence" option to allow multiple crosshairs -- one for each system. Doing this would allow cover-based shooting and a higher eschelon of tactics and visual-based stealth gameplay (that guy poking out to shoot can't see much around himself, allowing you to disappear while he's in cover and come out when you're too close; especially since Megamek's double blind 'sensors' are really unreliable in heavily urban and forested environments; for the forest switch to thermal. For the urban areas you can kinda be screwed).
For PPCs, I've heard many explanations, such as:
- The beam doesn't focus until after 90 meters unless the "field focus controller" is turned off. "PPCs are said to need a certain distance to focus, you can circumvent that by shutting of your field focus controller wich can leed the weapon to backfire." (Japanese Battletech; unknown date and source; taken from a partially provided translation).
- PPC field inhibitors restrict the dangerous charged·particle feedback produced when PPCs are fired, but also prevent the weapons from finng accurately at targets closer than !heir minimum range. Disengaging a PPC's field inhibitor removes the minimum range modifier for the PPC. but also subjects the firing unit to particle feedback. (BT Tactical Handbook, FASA 1994).
- "A particle cannon's greatest disadvantages are its mass-- the magnetic coils, generators and cooling units consitute well over half of the 7-ton average weight of most mech-mounted PPC systems-- and the large amount of heat it generates with each use. Particle cannons per shot generate more than twice the heat of any other mech-mounted weapon system in existence, so much heat that mechs that have PPCs mounted as a primary weapon system must seek out large pools of water in which to stand in order to use their weapons to their maximum effectiveness.
- The PPC's weight adds an additional burden at short ranges. The weapon is so heavy and bulky that it is difficult for the mech to move the weapon quickly enough to align it with rapidly-moving targets at ranges less than about 90 meters. For this reason accuracy tends to decrease at about 90 meters. (1987 US Battletech; as written by William H Keith Jr. [first BT novelist] in the source BattleTechnology; a long time official canonical source until Catalyst Games removed its canonicity to distance itself from the excessive overuse of unseen mech designs and minor conflicts with newer source materials.)
- (ER PPCs are explained to have less of its weight inside the weapon system itself and it is instead spread more throughout the attached limb, reducing the burden and thus allowing more rapid aiming).
- PPCs are equipped with a field inhibitor to prevent weapon feedback. This field inhibitor also degrades performance at close range. (Sarna)
- The Particle Projection Cannon delivers both thermal and kinetic energy in an amount of force so intense that two simultaineously could knock down almost any mech. The amount of heat, energy and feedback generated from doing that, however, would be so intense it could damage electronics, overdraw the reactor, or even kill the pilot. As such many PPCs utilize a two-stage approach. The first stage, the act of which is called "Priming," is to draw a charge and use on-board amplifying generators to magnify this energy. The second stage is to filter the output through the field inhibitor in order to degrade the beam to reduce the potential for any stray feedback. Depending on the model and brand of PPC, the time from activating the weapon to firing can take anywhere between one and three seconds. Deactivating the field inhibitor can shave this time significantly at great risk to the firing unit. (Written by me, taking fluff either directly stated or implied from multiple 1990's novels).
- This interpretation also incorporates the implication given multiple times that the longer a PPC variant takes to fire, the softer and more pleasant the heat spike can be. Example includes Lord's Light PPC which is said to have taken up to 2 seconds between 'tapping the trigger' and 'discharging'. It also accounts for the ions of PPCs arriving at their targets "almost instantly."
- "The PPC releases an intense amount of energy that technicians and engineers have not found a way to directly overcome. Eventually, an effort to prevent weapon feedback, was developed in the form of a field inhibitor." "The Field Inhibitor degrades the ion particle beam by allowing the beam to burn off some energy before releasing the kinetic force for full effect." (Paraphrased from unknown source found on a Solaris discussion; the original essentially implied that the beam takes about half a second to 'super heat' the particles in the air, causing the 'lightning effect' after which the kinetic force and other visual traits (such as the Timber Wolf's double helix effect) are then released. Since TT is hit or miss, if you don't get the target with the 'full effect', you missed.)
I have a large array to choose from. Since I plan on having the potential of multiple crosshairs (no convergence), the convergence issue that you're using kinda gets killed there.
Still this weapon is immensely dangerous and I need that minimum range issue.
Especially with the way I plan on breaking down weapons fire based on the lore; PPCs and Gauss Rifles are single handedly the most powerful direct fire weapons in Battletech through the Clan invasion period. After all, AC/20s depending on their variant and caliber such as the 120mm Deathgiver (King Crab version) -- which has two definitions given, one being "3 to 4 shots per second to deal 5 damage" (
Thunder Ridge &
Wolves on the Border) and "12 shots per 'cassette' or 'round tick on the display' " (
Storms of Fate) while remembering that one 'round tick' or 'cassette' = rated damage per use -- means that most weapons are not going to be front-loaded and will be more DPS oriented.)
Quote
Sensor systems.
As part of most military campaigns in Battletech, it is often assumed that as part of a landing operation, a drop ship will deploy a series of military satellites, aeriel spotters, or Drones to act as information gatherers for most mechs.
These spotters are equipped with diagnostic material in the same way that aerial spy drones and satellites work in a modern setting.
While a mech's sensors can also function with this in mind, often times, it is the aerial satellites and spotters that will relay enemy position and designations to the friendly mech. This is why in Battletech it is assumed that information is "shared" about mechs positions and load outs. An absence of these kinds of **** is what tends to prompt "double blind" scenarios.
This is I believe explained in the "Battlespace" source book that came with the box set.
That is very well showcased in Mechwarrior 3 (one of the many reasons why I think it is one of the best mechwarriors; the MechCommanders [overall] and MW1 [for its depictions of between battle information, etc.] also being really good.
It's something I've yet to work out, but I feel it would be very useful in campaign operations. It could even be used as part of the counter-attack / defense campaign against enemy intrusion, either defending or reinforcing weapons intended to take those drones out. In such a case the longer these units are defended or the more of them that can be escorted into position, the better that invader intelligence operations can be hindered.
One tabletop / megamek group I play with has a custom set of rolls for determining how accurate to inaccurate intelligence is and numerous other factors (such as how 'aware' the defending side is -- affecting how immediate the defending forces can respond in kind or if they are caught with their pants down).
Anyway, the DI is just one element of the equation that may have some actual use in a simulation, even if it's just fluff on the board game.
--------
Thank you all for the information. I'll have more things I'd like to look into for the future.
1
