32 replies to this topic

[theginganinja]

Going through the forums, I've seen lots of people complaining about the arbitrarily-short ranges of the weapons in the Battletech universe. And, yes, it does make sense from a realism perspective. However, little mention is made about what these ranges would be, and how this would affect combat. So, I decided to find out what would happen if the game was made with realistic weapon ranges, based on my best guesses of the weapons' real life analogues and the ranges and accuracy of those modern weapons. Keep in mind that this assumes that there are no advances in explosives, fuel, gunpowder, or targeting in the next 1000 years - everything went into designing lasers, spaceships, communication technology, and the 'Mechs themselves

Lasers: Technically, lasers should have an effective range somewhere in the vicinity of the horizon. With the sort of targeting tech that already exists, it is possible to hit targets over the horizon, so (barring urban combat) you will primarily be shooting at targets too far away to actually see - you'll just be firing by radar. In fact, your skill won't even matter - the computer will have to do all the targeting for you to score a hit. Again, you can't see the target, so there's no way you could aim for yourself.

Missiles: SRMs are roughly analogous to modern TOW anti-tank missiles, as far as explosive power and size go. Assuming they have the same fuel capacity of a TOW (reasonable, considering the fact that 'Mechs - much larger than most modern TOW-equipped vehicles - should have no problem carrying plenty of missiles of that size - although, again, this assumes that the 31st century has brought no advancements in fuel efficiency). So, their effective range should be about 3.75 kilometers - probably outside visual range, unless you have some very good magnification systems. LRMs, meanwhile, seem to be analogous to the modern AIM-120 AMRAAM - a missile specifically designated as being intended for use on targets beyond visual range, carrying less explosives but a lot more fuel than the TOW. Assuming that LRMs are of the same size and explosive power, and that neither explosives nor fuel have become more compact/efficient by the 31st century, the maximum effective range should be around 70 kilometers (at which range it can at least hit near enough an 18x13x5 meter airplane [using the F-22 Raptor's specs] traveling at supersonic speed to crush the jet with the shock wave and riddle it with shrapnel - assuming the missile doesn't hit directly. Since 'Mechs are much slower than a jet fighter, odds are that the missile would be able to score a direct hit). So, yeah, have fun shooting targets that aren't even on your side of the horizon. This is an even more obvious case where the computer would do all the aiming - the pilot would just sit there and wait for the "fire now" message. LRMs would most likely be the most effective and widely-used weapon around, due to their over-the-horizon capabilities and their guided nature (allowing them to adjust for course changes on the target's part)

Autocannons: These would be the shortest range weapons in the universe, if they are anything like their modern counterparts. The 25 mm Bushmaster autocannon (about the same as the smallest Battletech autocannon would be) has a maximum effective range of about 3 kilometers - yet another weapon firing far beyond visual range (barring the use of the highly sophisticated magnifiers that would probably exist in the 31st century). The 8"/55 caliber (203 mm) naval gun (the newest direct fire weapon I could find in the 200-250 mm caliber range), which would be about the high end of caliber as far as a 'Mech-borne autocannon goes, has a maximum effective range of about 27 kilometers.

Gauss Rifle: The U.S. Navy, as of 2008, has a working prototype of a railgun (basically a gauss rifle). Predictions for its final performance have it accurate within 5 meters (about half a 'Mech's size) at around 370 kilometers. Granted this would be reduced against a moving target, but the potential is there - and keep in mind, despite what we are assuming for the purposes of this post, there would probably be highly advanced (and compact) ballistic targeting devices in the future that put modern supercomputers to shame - the only possible problem would be if the target decided to change course for some reason. Of course, that's what LRMs are for.

PPCs: Yeah, for obvious reasons, I could not find a real life analogue for these. Nor could I find any mention in the canon about what their theoretical range should be without the horrible targeting systems used to explain the very short weapons-ranges. So, I can't tell you what they'd be like in a game incorporating them as realistically as possible - sorry.

Now, the ballistic weapons (gauss rifle and autocannon) do have one major issue - time-to-target. Their effective ranges may be dozens of kilometers, but that's only going to be ideal for stationary or slow moving targets (probably most assault 'Mechs), since a fast target would be out of danger by the time the projectile hit. Of course, even modern targeting systems can calculate ballistics in real time, adjusting for gravity, changes of angle in the firer, velocity of both target and shooter, and so on - just look at the systems used on jet fighters to help aim their guns. So, it's entirely possible that hits could be scored at beyond-visual ranges even on fast moving targets, assuming no change in course. Then again, even the smallest of the ballistic weapons mentioned here have a fair amount of splash when they hit a target - and let's not even get into the 5-inch and the railgun. So, even if the target changes their course, they are by no means guaranteed to be safe.

So, basically, aside from urban combat, we should realistically not even be able to see who we're shooting at. In the cities, we would of course be able to see the enemy, allowing us to have the exciting, brawling combat we see in the TT game and other video games. But do we really want a game which consists entirely of urban combat, nullifying most (if not all) of the lighter weight classes' speed advantage? Or a game where we can't even see who we are shooting at? I think not. So, let us keep the absurdly short ranges that will allow all types of maps to be fun.

If I made any errors, or if you feel like weighing in on the issue, please feel free I'm not perfect and probably made some mistakes here, and I'm sure plenty of people have some opinion on this.

Edited by irishwarrior, 14 November 2011 - 05:12 PM.

[VYCanis]

Good post, but there would be effective ways to counter a lot of this. it just would no longer involve hanging out beyond wpn range of someone even though they are within clear LOS, like in the old games.

Lasers, just because they can go to the horizon, doesn't mean they have to have consistent damage out to the horizon. You can easily have some sort of damage drop off with range with the small ones having drastically strong damage dropoff inside relatively short range, and the larger ones less so. Also, significant amounts of smoke would diminish the power to some extent.

Missiles. SRMs can stay direct fire and would still be balanced. As any cover would protect you. LRMs would still be useful because they can function as rocket artillery when used in conjunction with spotters to saturate areas with indirect fire.

Autocannons can still retain balance with extreme ranges, even if they can all hit across a map. So long as you keep the relative relationship between the cannons consistent. For example, ac2 can have relatively fast velocities, low recoil, high rates of fire, very little ballistic drop, and as you get to the 20s, you get slower projectiles, higher recoil, slower rates of fire, and much more pronounced ballistic drop. Though both would be able to hit across a map with, the smaller ones would be far more effective at scoring consistent hits.

Gauss Rifle. Much like lasers, SRMs, and ACs it'd still be limited by line of sight, and yeah you'd be able to hit just about anything you could get a clear shot at. However this could be balanced by having very slow recycle times, and having some sort of charging delay between trigger pull and firing.

PPCs are more or less weaponized particle accelerators, but i'd lump em in with lasers in terms of having damage drop off, but have it farther out, as well as at point blank range, though this would vary with the different types of PPC. They'd also have some degree of travel time.

If maps are just huge wide open fields, yeah, that will be lousy for gameplay. But if there is lots of cover, different elevations, hills, valleys, walls, etc then that would do well to mitigate any extreme range issues.

Also, as for shooting at targets beyond visual range, one of the things that can be assumed is that mechs at their most basic do possess some limited amount of ecm that does a fair enough job of making that a difficult job to do without direct visuals or having a teammate spot. So some dude with a gauss rifle or LRMs won't be sniping anyone without a friendly feeding him a target first. which can make for some interesting gameplay, and makes effective spotters all the more useful. And even with all that, with effective use of countermeasures like AMS, ECM, chaff, flares, smoke launchers, decoy targets, and other assorted stuff that already exist in the advanced rules, it can really make things really interesting without turning into a snipefest. And provided the maps have a good layout, you'd still have your brawls.

[CaveMan]

irishwarrior, on 14 November 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:

Lasers: Technically, lasers should have an effective range somewhere in the vicinity of the horizon. With the sort of targeting tech that already exists, it is possible to hit targets over the horizon

Not with lasers. The horizon, by definition, is the point where you can no longer see around the curvature of the planet. Lasers don't follow the curvature of the earth.

Quote

LRMs, meanwhile, seem to be analogous to the modern AIM-120 AMRAAM - a missile specifically designated as being intended for use on targets beyond visual range, carrying less explosives but a lot more fuel than the TOW. Assuming that LRMs are of the same size and explosive power

Not even close. BT LRMs are 8kg each and presumably <1m long in order to match the dimensions show in artwork. The AMRAAM is around 150kg and 3.5m long.

Quote

around 70 kilometers (at which range it can at least hit near enough an 18x13x5 meter airplane [using the F-22 Raptor's specs] traveling at supersonic speed to crush the jet with the shock wave and riddle it with shrapnel - assuming the missile doesn't hit directly.

Nope. Those missile kinematics are based on a launch at 25,000-40,000 feet ASL at speeds of at least 250 knots. Launched from the ground, the range shrinks to about 25km. Furthermore, BT LRMs are about 5% the size of an AMRAAM (they're much more comparable to Stinger missiles, which have a range of 10km air-launched or 5km ground-launched for the versions that were available when BattleDroids was developed back in the early 80s), so their kinematics are going to be much less impressive. I could work out the actual numbers given modern-day propellants but I don't feel like posting a wall of text on it.

Quote

Since 'Mechs are much slower than a jet fighter, odds are that the missile would be able to score a direct hit). So, yeah, have fun shooting targets that aren't even on your side of the horizon. This is an even more obvious case where the computer would do all the aiming - the pilot would just sit there and wait for the "fire now" message. LRMs would most likely be the most effective and widely-used weapon around, due to their over-the-horizon capabilities and their guided nature (allowing them to adjust for course changes on the target's part)

You are, of course, completely ignoring the effect that ground clutter has on radar targeting. There's a reason that most ground-launched anti-tank missiles are optically guided.

Quote

The 25 mm Bushmaster autocannon (about the same as the smallest Battletech autocannon would be)

Based on what? a Bushmaster 25mm certainly doesn't weigh 6 tons, and the books mention AC/2s up to 75mm.

Quote

has a maximum effective range of about 3 kilometers - yet another weapon firing far beyond visual range

Horizon distance on level ground on Earth is about 30km, just FYI. A 12-meter tall BattleMech subtends an angle of 15 minutes of arc at 3km, that's about half the size of the full moon. Plenty big enough to see and identify.

Quote

Gauss Rifle: The U.S. Navy, as of 2008, has a working prototype of a railgun (basically a gauss rifle). Predictions for its final performance have it accurate within 5 meters (about half a 'Mech's size) at around 370 kilometers. Granted this would be reduced against a moving target, but the potential is there - and keep in mind, despite what we are assuming for the purposes of this post, there would probably be highly advanced (and compact) ballistic targeting devices in the future that put modern supercomputers to shame - the only possible problem would be if the target decided to change course for some reason. Of course, that's what LRMs are for.

The railgun is a prototype for a shipboard weapon that'd be bigger than an entire BattleMech. Second, don't assume Moore's Law is an actual law. It doesn't have to carry on infinitely into the future. Computers in 1000 years might be only twice as fast as they are today.

Quote

PPCs: Yeah, for obvious reasons, I could not find a real life analogue for these. Nor could I find any mention in the canon about what their theoretical range should be without the horrible targeting systems used to explain the very short weapons-ranges. So, I can't tell you what they'd be like in a game incorporating them as realistically as possible - sorry.

Probably about like a laser.

Quote

So, basically, aside from urban combat, we should realistically not even be able to see who we're shooting at. In the cities, we would of course be able to see the enemy, allowing us to have the exciting, brawling combat we see in the TT game and other video games. But do we really want a game which consists entirely of urban combat, nullifying most (if not all) of the lighter weight classes' speed advantage? Or a game where we can't even see who we are shooting at? I think not. So, let us keep the absurdly short ranges that will allow all types of maps to be fun.

If I made any errors, or if you feel like weighing in on the issue, please feel free I'm not perfect and probably made some mistakes here, and I'm sure plenty of people have some opinion on this.

If things were really, really realistic air/space power would be so totally dominant BattleMechs would never even be invented. Two modest-sized WarShips could pacify an entire planet in a few days. Also you've totally ignored the fact that the BT universe has been repeatedly bombed into the Stone Age, and their technology is sporadic at best until fairly late in the storyline.

Just my two cents.

[theginganinja]

CaveMan, on 14 November 2011 - 05:23 PM, said:

Not with lasers. The horizon, by definition, is the point where you can no longer see around the curvature of the planet. Lasers don't follow the curvature of the earth.

I meant that since current targeting systems can track targets beyond the horizon, we should be able to use lasers to hit targets at the horizon without a problem - I didn't mean to imply we'd be curving lasers.

Quote

Not even close. BT LRMs are 8kg each and presumably <1m long in order to match the dimensions show in artwork. The AMRAAM is around 150kg and 3.5m long.

Fair enough - I didn't think to compare sizes... Whoops. I can't find anything to find out how much of each LRM's weight is devoted to fuel, so I can't figure what the range would be based on the AMRAAM's range.

Quote

Nope. Those missile kinematics are based on a launch at 25,000-40,000 feet ASL at speeds of at least 250 knots. Launched from the ground, the range shrinks to about 25km. Furthermore, BT LRMs are about 5% the size of an AMRAAM (they're much more comparable to Stinger missiles, which have a range of 10km air-launched or 5km ground-launched for the versions that were available when BattleDroids was developed back in the early 80s), so their kinematics are going to be much less impressive. I could work out the actual numbers given modern-day propellants but I don't feel like posting a wall of text on it.

Okay, I can go with a 5 km maximum range. Either way, that's likely beyond easy visual range without constantly using magnification, and so doubtfully much fun. And, again, you'd need some sort of auto-targeting to land hits at that range unless you are standing stock-still and not taking any fire - taking away the fun and rush of being able to land hits through pure skill

Quote

You are, of course, completely ignoring the effect that ground clutter has on radar targeting. There's a reason that most ground-launched anti-tank missiles are optically guided.

Again, my bad here. I'm not a big expert on anti-armor weapons (more into small arms myself), so didn't think to take that into account. However, you also forget that 'Mechs are at least 20 tons each, around 10 meters tall - ground clutter makes targeting relatively short tanks difficult, but when your target is bigger than a house getting a radar lock is a lot easier. Not as easy as getting one on a jet in the sky, sure, but it could be worse.

Quote

Based on what? a Bushmaster 25mm certainly doesn't weigh 6 tons, and the books mention AC/2s up to 75mm.

No, but the smallest size autocannon is stated to be around 20mm. The M242 is definitely smaller, but at least part of that AC/2's weight goes to more advanced targeting systems, stabilizers, recoil dampeners, cooling sleeves, a larger reloading mechanism (the ammunition must travel farther), and so on. it doesn't completely explain away the weight difference... But that extra weight is most likely going towards a longer barrel than what is found on the M242, adding even more accuracy and range. So, the 'Mech based AC/2 could reach out even further than what I suggested

Quote

Horizon distance on level ground on Earth is about 30km, just FYI. A 12-meter tall BattleMech subtends an angle of 15 minutes of arc at 3km, that's about half the size of the full moon. Plenty big enough to see and identify.

Okay, I can deal with that. Be a bit difficult to manually target that from an at-least-20-ton, moving war machine though. And if you're not moving, odds are you're getting knocked around by the hits you aren't dodging. So, that leaves it up to automatic targeting systems... Which, while they would be great in a real war, would suck for gameplay purposes - unless you like sitting there waiting for the "fire now" indicator.

Quote

The railgun is a prototype for a shipboard weapon that'd be bigger than an entire BattleMech. Second, don't assume Moore's Law is an actual law. It doesn't have to carry on infinitely into the future. Computers in 1000 years might be only twice as fast as they are today.

The 32MJ weapon being tested by the Navy is 6 meters long. The size issues come from the capacitors - which would presumably be smaller in 1000 years. Granted, they might not be tiny, but A: Capacitor technology will most likely be much more advanced by the 31st century, allowing smaller capacitors to hold more energy; and B: The fluff seems to say that the capacitors are built into and around the barrel of the weapon itself, allowing them to have a more compact design (as far as length goes, at least). Of course, they are still extremely bulky, but they are saving space where they can.

Quote

Probably about like a laser.

Sounds fine to me, as long as they give it a different visual effect and some sort of effect on the target's computer systems

Quote

If things were really, really realistic air/space power would be so totally dominant BattleMechs would never even be invented. Two modest-sized WarShips could pacify an entire planet in a few days. Also you've totally ignored the fact that the BT universe has been repeatedly bombed into the Stone Age, and their technology is sporadic at best until fairly late in the storyline.

They've been bombed into the relative Stone Age, yes. They lost all of the advanced weapons and equipment that the Clans brought back, and could no longer make Kearny-Fuchida drives. However, the Inner Sphere, despite all of the bombings, was entirely capable of producing, and even designing new methods of implementing, the technology they had. There is no mention made of the lost technology promoting better targeting (without the Advanced Targeting Computer, which not even all Clan 'Mechs have.), so presumably they lost none of the ordinary targeting technology that the previous 1000 years of this alternate universe's timeline allowed them to develop.

As far as the supremacy of air and space forces go... Yeah, you're right on that. The only reason 'Mechs would be the dominant military weapon would be if all military leaders and weapons scientists were operating under the Rule of Cool. Luckily for us, the Battletech timeline's people were

Quote

Just my two cents.

And thank you for it - like I said, any and all input is welcome

Edited by irishwarrior, 14 November 2011 - 06:48 PM.

[Aaron DeChavilier]

can we stop with the realism in MW already?
you talk about weapons realism...in a game of giant robots, fusion engines, FTL communications, and Feudal Space Societies...
priorities man, priorities.

as far as game mechanics goes; the weapons short ranges encourage close-quarter fights where you are face-to-face with your foe. This helps make the game exciting, a huge part of MW is the knight-style dueling.

So please check your physics at the door, thank you

[CaveMan]

irishwarrior, on 14 November 2011 - 06:46 PM, said:

They've been bombed into the relative Stone Age, yes.

Literal Stone Age in the case of some planets. There are a few mentioned in sourcebooks that have regressed to neolithic subsistence-farming communities and never see anything more advanced than a bow and arrow until the occasional dropship shows up looking for fresh water.
But you're right, they do have a few places where they can produce advanced technology--unfortunately it's generally only partly-functioning and they don't understand how it works. They do actually mention in several of the books that the targeting systems for LRMs are basically gone (in one of the MechWarrior novels a Centurion pilot is firing dumbfire missiles from his LRM-10 even though the 'Mech's electronics are still passing information to guided missiles that no longer exist), or at least functioning at a fraction of their Star League capabilities.
If anything, it's a huge surprise that the Clans are as little ahead of the IS as they are. Their tech ought to be doing everything you described in your initial post while the IS are piddling away with iron sights at 300 meters.

[Pariah Devalis]

I thought that I should point out that lasers are funny things. They generally require the light to be focused at a point. Any closer or farther from said focal point (within a certain amount of wiggle room depending entirely on the intensity of the light-source) and the light is just that: light. Photons. Individual photons moving parallel to each other but not hitting the same location. In order to be effective as anything besides a light show, it would require the computer to calculate, on the fly, the focal point with a rangefinder.

This means the laser's range is limited, effectively, by the range of the targeting system's rangefinder. The damage output is in turn effected by particulates in the medium the beam is passing through, as well as how close to actual focus the beam is. Smog, dirt, dust, air density can all effect how much light makes it to the focal point, after all.

All in all, the max effective range of a laser ends up depending on a combination of environmental variables and the limits of the targeting system. The farther out it shoots, the more particulates it encounters, the weaker the weapon's output becomes assuming it can focus at a certain range. The closer it shoots, the fewer particulates it encounters, but too close and the targeting system might demand the laser's physical componants focus at a point it is physically incapable of doing so.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 14 November 2011 - 09:05 PM.

[Hodo]

I remember thinking about this way back in like 6th grade... around 1988 or 89.

Its simple...

LRMs= multiple semi-guided RPGs.
Seeing as some of the descriptions of them are 60mm warheads, and SRMs having a larger 90mm warhead on the same body, thus a shorter range.

PPC=Partical Projectile Cannon, basicly a Electron gun. Its just a theoretical Tesla Coil gun, or lightning gun. Not impossible, just impractical.

LASERs= Light Amplified through Stimulated Emissions of Radiation, we have them today, they are bulky but can be made smaller over the span of a 1000 years. Hell the first mech in the canon lore, the Mackie had 3 weapons on it and weighed as much as a Atlas. Because all of the weapon systems were twice the size they end up being because they are all prototypes.

Autocannons= The AC10 is roughly 90-120mm in bore, but it is a low velocity high rate of fire cannon. Like ALL Autocannons in game. This accounts for the range. They use a low powder charge that is lighter, and can be rapidly fed through a hopper like a chain gun. The 25mm Bushmaster would be a large MG, or a small AC2. Think more along the lines of WWII cannon technology. The StuG IIIC used a 75mm L24 cannon, it was a short barrel howitzer with a REAL short range for accurate fire. And it had a even shorter range for penetration with any solid AP shot. Granted the typical ammo in a AC in Battletech would be a APHE round, but it doesnt matter.

Machine Guns= are 12.7mm to 20mm in bore. They have low to high rates of fire depending on the model. Like the MGs on the Warhammer were 20mm cannons with a relatively low rate of fire. But the MGs on the Locust were smaller 12.7mm guns with a high rate of fire.

Then you have the larger weapon systems.

Arrow IV= closer to your TOW or Javelin ATGM systems. Or more accurately the HOT missiles.

Sniper Artillery= Your 120-155mm howitzer gun.

Long Tom = your 185-255mm Howitzer

Thumper = your 90-105mm Howitzer

When you think about it, the systems used in Battletech make more sense in a dollar per shot idea than the current AIM-120 "Slammer" which is more expensive than some of the aircraft it is fired at.

Then you factor in the armor weight of each mech. A LCT-1V which only weighs 20tons has 4 tons of armor. Hell a M2A3 Bradley is 28 tons (rounded up) and only goes 4/6 if you do the math conversion to Battletech speeds. It has a Arrow IV launcher and a AC2. But has a capacity of 1 squad foot infantry. So you figure it also has about a ton maybe two of armor with the room left over. Which is about right, if it is hit by a 120mm M256 cannon from a M1A1 Abrams it would destroy the M2A3 out right. In Battletech terms this would be, AC10 hitting front armor of a tank with only 2 tons of armor... which if spread evenly would be 6pts on all sides and 6 on the turret (2 pts left over so say 7 front 7 turret) AC10 = 10 damage vs 7 front armor + 3 IS (rounded up) = Vehicle Destroyed.

[Bansheedragon75]

I dont have anything to add to the discussion here, but I still feel the need to say something thats on my mind related to this thread.
And please dont let me derail the thread, this is just a quick sidestep nothing else.

I have been reading through it with great interest, and and I must say its very refreshing to see how people here discuss the subject in a friendly manner, and accept other peoples opinions and viewpoints even if they dont agree on them, especially in regards to CaveMan and irishwarrior's posts (post number 3 and 4 respectively).
Makes it so much easier to follow the discussion and absorb the information that are being posted, and in some way its somewhat relaxing for me as well, I actually learned something new here today which is rare at best on a game forum like this.

I have seen too many discussions on other game forums where posts like the above mentioned have degenerated into name calling and flamewars because someone didnt agree with what someone else said, so keep up the good vibe you have going here.
I just wish everyone could do it like this.

Now back to the topic at hand guys, I'm sure you guys have plenty more to offer.

[VYCanis]

the following is copy pasted from one of Nebfer's posts on the MWLL forums. The guy breaks BT down into proper physics like a pro...
_
_
_

Ranges...

I mentioned this a bit earlier on but here's a little more on that.

B-tech ranges are hard to figure out, the rules are canon making the ranges canon. However they are very short range and do not make much sense, particularly when one considers the velocity these weapons are doing, and some other things (including a few rules that hit at other ranges), to say little about real world stuff...

Now Total Warfare says this about B-tech ranges
Quote from: Total Warfare page 36-37
Weapons ranges provide another example. Players will quickly realize that the longest-range standard weapon in the game can only hit targets out to thirty hexes (900m) from the attacker. Real-world primary main battle tank weapons have an operational targeting ranges in excess of 4,000 meters. Because Battletech map sheets are only seventeen hexes long, requiring more than seven map sheets laid end to end, for a playing space greater than 12 feet in length. Not many people have that type of table space, nor would it provide players with any tactical maneuvering room. Anywhere a player might move a unit on the map, an attacker could hit that unit.
Finally, the abstractions of real world factors such as firing distances can enhance of the game universe. Battletech has always been about "in your face" combat which works best with closer ranges...
Clearly the ranges are an abstraction of reality, and reduced for game play purposes.

That said their are rules and some fluff that indicate B-tech weapons have a longer range than it seems.

Rules that indicate that the ranges are longer than what they seem
AA Shooting: Per the rules any weapon with a range of 16 can reach an altitude of 8 when dealing with aircraft, this is between 1,000 and 2,000 meters. This means that weapons like the PPC can hit things that is 2,000 meters away, almost 4 times it's supposed ground range of 540m. Another related rule is with elevations, Battletech dose not factor the height a unit may be at for ground units. An elevation is only 6m tall (this is where one gets the fact that mechs are roughly 12m tall from as a mech can hide behind a elevation two hill -i.e. a 12m tall hill), thus a unit at elevation zero can attack a unit two hexes away with machineguns even though the target is standing on a Elevation 100 hex... That's over 600m by the way.
Extreme range: Found in Tactical ops this rule allows units to hit targets out past "long" range, it is effectively twice it's medium range scale (a medium laser has a max medium range of six hexes (180m), thus it's max Extreme range is 12 hexes -360m).
Line of sight range: This a further expansion of weapons range, and picks up where Extreme range ends. It's has no defined range limit, effectively saying if you can see it you can try to shot it, no mater how big the playing area is. Meaning anything a unit can see can be shot at, now naturally the limit here is at the horizon which would be the limit of a units line of sight, and for a mech thats some 12km away (if facing another mech it's some 24km away...). This allows for some reasonably impressive ranges. Though not all weapons can use this range scale (energy requires a range of at lest seven hexes, and ballistic weapons require at lest 13 hexes to use LOS rules).
Ground units in space rules Ground units in space suck, but they can be used here, but their only allowed to target units in their own hex. This results in a "effective" range of between 9 and 18 kilometers (depending on where you view the firing unit is in that hex, at the center? Or is it at an edge firing to the other side...).

Fighter and Capital scale rules.
A Dropship or other Aerospace unit on the ground have a range no different than a ground vehicle, but once it lifts off thy quickly gain a lot longer range, fighter scale uses 500 meter long hexes (and the same 10 second turns as on the ground) this results in many weapon to have decent ranges, up to 13-22 kilometers. Capital scale has truly impressive ranges at lest for regular weapons the max range for regular weapons in capital scale is 25 hexes (it uses a some what different range system where all weapons have a standard range bracket) thats 450 kilometers with each hex being 18km in size. Though most weapons do not have that range, the ranges are split in to groups, some reaching out to short range (108km -AC-20s, small lasers, ect) medium range (216km, large lasers, PPCs), long range (360km, Gauss rifles, LRMs) and Extreme range (450km, Clan ER large lasers, and IS light Gauss rifles). Further more their is little difference between a Large Laser on a Fighter and one on a mech, in fact some have the same brand names.

Infantry Weapons
In the RPG, infantry weapons have ranges listed, when not coordinating their fire on armored targets, a infantry weapon has a considerably longer range. For instance a Mauser IIC laser rifle has a effective range of 1,400 meters, and Infantry LRMs with a 2.1km range. This is considerably longer than their vehicle scale counter parts. It is highly odd for infantry weapons to out range the weapons on a tank.

An indirect method of figuring out ranges
In Tactical operations a weapon called the Rifle cannon (fluffed as having smothbore versions) is fluffed as being not to dissimilar from weapons that we are currently using. These weapons where developed for some 300 years before the advent of the Autocannon in 2250 (which is why it's not a very smart idea to make the Heavy the equivalent to a 120mm gun). If these weapons are smiler to today's weapons and as they have a range smiler to B-tech weapons then one could use them to get an idea of how much the ranges have been reduced for game play. The Light Rifle has a range of 12 hexes, the Heavy 18 hexes with real life targeting ranges between 3,000 and 5,000 meters this results in a factor of 5.5 and 14 times.

And their are a few references in the novels, but most of the time they just use the ranges used in game, or smiler to them.

In short, Fighter scale, line of sight and ground units in space rules, all seem to indicate a effective range of 9 to 18km for B-tech ground units, which would indicate a ~16x decrees in range.

Their is a few other options however if one wants to use them.
The AA ranges is roughly 4.166 times longer than their ground range, applying this a large laser with Extreme range rules would have a range of roughly 2,500 meters, an AC-20 1,500m, a Gauss Rifle 3,500m and so on.

Using the Rifle cannon method, one can get a wide range of values between 5.5 and 14 times (close to the fighter, LOS, space numbers) but lets use a 10x factor (about in the middle of two values) this is a simple one, just simply add a zero to all the ranges used in game. As such a AC-20 (with Extreme range rules) would have a range of 3,600m, a Large laser 6,000m and the Gauss Rifle 8,400m.

[Tsen Shang]

Dragonlord, on 14 November 2011 - 10:01 PM, said:

I have been reading through it with great interest, and and I must say its very refreshing to see how people here discuss the subject in a friendly manner, and accept other peoples opinions and viewpoints even if they dont agree on them, especially in regards to CaveMan and irishwarrior's posts (post number 3 and 4 respectively).
Makes it so much easier to follow the discussion and absorb the information that are being posted, and in some way its somewhat relaxing for me as well, I actually learned something new here today which is rare at best on a game forum like this.

I have seen too many discussions on other game forums where posts like the above mentioned have degenerated into name calling and flamewars because someone didnt agree with what someone else said, so keep up the good vibe you have going here.
I just wish everyone could do it like this.

If you build it, trolls will come. Give it a day or two.

That said, this is fairly interesting.

[Kevin Kirov]

This seems like a more appropriate PPC in 'todays' terms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleforce

[wolf on the tide]

if the combat was "realistic" you wouldn't be driving your mech in a urban environment.

not unless you like having your mech destroyed by infanty, mines, fire, explosions, tanks and other vehicles (aerospace fighters) and artillery....oh and occasionally being buried alive when the infantry decide to blow up the tower blocks around you, and entrap you there...thats if they dont set fire to your mech as well.

seriously, what person thinks that mechs ( or tanks for that matter) in city/urban environments is anything other than bad tactical doctorine?
you only put them in there IF you have no infantry or other assets to deploy there.
it is , pure and simple, a way to lose your mechs fast.

you show me someone who thinks mechs in city's is a good thing, and i'll show you a civilian thats never been within 100 miles of a frontline combat situation and has no concept of military strategy, tactics, or doctrine

Edited by wolf on the tide, 15 November 2011 - 05:53 AM.

[Creel]

wolf on the tide, on 15 November 2011 - 05:52 AM, said:

if the combat was "realistic" you wouldn't be driving your mech in a urban environment.

not unless you like having your mech destroyed by infanty, mines, fire, explosions, tanks and other vehicles (aerospace fighters) and artillery....oh and occasionally being buried alive when the infantry decide to blow up the tower blocks around you, and entrap you there...thats if they dont set fire to your mech as well.

seriously, what person thinks that mechs ( or tanks for that matter) in city/urban environments is anything other than bad tactical doctorine?
you only put them in there IF you have no infantry or other assets to deploy there.
it is , pure and simple, a way to lose your mechs fast.

you show me someone who thinks mechs in city's is a good thing, and i'll show you a civilian thats never been within 100 miles of a frontline combat situation and has no concept of military strategy, tactics, or doctrine

This is all true, but I'd recommend the removal of all references to specific environments. Like so...


"if the combat was "realistic" you wouldn't be driving your mech."

[Nill Zenath]

Just to add to Wolf on the Tide: If Mechwarrior were realistic Battlemechs would be toasted by tanks, which could more easily spot battlemechs at the horizon and thus initiate the engagement. Even within the setting tanks are simpler and would thus realisitically be more numerous and cheaper to produce, due to having less surface area thus requiring in total less armor for the same degree of protection and having simplier drive systems. Any weapon mountable by battlemech would be mounted in greater quantities on tanks.

Battlemechs seemingly main advantage in real life would be the ability to traverse terrain otherwise impassible to a tank.

[Aaron DeChavilier]

did I not cover this earlier? lol
Battletech as a universe/game system exists for the express purpose
of jumping into massive walking tanks, and beating the scrap out of
each other...nothing to do with actual realism.

You talk about weapon ranges not being real in a world of giant robots
priorities

[SquareSphere]

^ so true, if we go the "realistic" route, mechs would be dominated by aero/space fighter/bombers since they'd have guide missiles and bomb which they could fire if far excess of 2km.

[TheRulesLawyer]

In general if you use realistic modern weapon ranges in games you reduce movement to be something inconsequential. It mainly becomes an EW/detection sort of affair where the first to get spotted dies. This makes for a not very fun games. Seen it many many times in various TT games that try and model ground scale in a realistic way.

[Catamount]

A lot of points here have been discussed pretty thoroughly, but there is one big limit to lasers that hasn't been. Lasers become less concentrated with distance, and, as I understand it, it follows a relationship similar to that of non-laser light (inverse square law), namely that their dispersal will increase with the square of the distance.


It's not as bad as it is for, say, a light bulb, because lasers are highly columnated and have almost no dispersion to start with (and a "perfect" laser wouldn't disperse at all, but those don't exist), which is to say that if you take a laser and shine it at your hand 2 feet away, and then a wall 8 feet away, your laser won't be 16 times less concentrated (in fact, over such small distances, they disperse so little that the beam even appears to remain constant), but the effect is notable over larger distances.

Today's air-to-ground lasers, like the Advanced Tactical Laser, while effective, have this limitation. Power falls off with distance, and while it stays effective at roughly ~20km (depending on how soft the target is and how much exposure is given), the power falloff gets very sharp very fast. This problem might even be further compounded by atmospheric scattering (I'm hardly an expert), but the bottom line is that whatever loss of concentration there is at a given distance, as it travels, that concentration loss increases by the square of the distance, which gets huge long before you start reaching the horizon.


That's why the ATL, even if it's fired from high in the air, can't be shot at some target 500km away and be as effective as it is at 20km. At that point, you might as well be trying to kill something with a flashlight.


Now, that's still quite a long range, but it is limited, and even inside of a range like that, there's probably a considerable difference between, say, 5km, 10km, and 20km, so even if you could fire a large laser at something 20km away, it might only act like a medium laser (or a small laser?) would from 5km away.

[torgian]

Wow this again... If I had a nickle for everytime I saw this topic come up over the years... hehe