55 replies to this topic

[MeiSooHaityu]

Could say the same for the Axman I want added to the game. Kind of crap (without melee anyway), but it was Adam Steiner's ride so it is awesome!

[LordNothing]

so you want an is gargoyle.

[General Taskeen]

A Charger has hand actuators. Its utility, especially that variant, is far different in BT than the simpleton use of Mechs in this game. 80 Tons + Fists does decent damage.

[stjobe]

HlynkaCG, on 07 October 2015 - 10:13 AM, said:

At the scales we're talking about the tyranny of the square/cube law is firmly in effect. Thanks to p = m*v any sort of conventional weapons fire would be ridiculously weak compared to the kinetic energy involved.

Sir Issac Newton is the deadliest SOB in space for a reason.

Yep.

0.5 kg @ 2000 m/s = 1,000,000 J Kinetic energy
80,000 kg @ 22.2 m/s = 19,713,600 J Kinetic energy

BT charge rules:
(Attacker's tonnage / 10) * hexes moved
Attacker takes defender's tonnage / 10

So a Charger making a straight-line charge at its full speed would be:
(80 / 10) * 8 = 8 * 8 = 64 damage, split in 5-damage groups.

Not something to sneeze at.

Edited by stjobe, 07 October 2015 - 12:41 PM.

[Mazzyplz]

MeiSooHaityu, on 07 October 2015 - 12:07 PM, said:

Could say the same for the Axman I want added to the game. Kind of crap (without melee anyway), but it was Adam Steiner's ride so it is awesome!

adam steiner then switches to an awesome;

but that debunks every hope for a decent axeman cause the awesome is so bad you can tell pgi doesn't care;
adam who?

[Jaeger Gonzo]

General Taskeen, on 07 October 2015 - 12:11 PM, said:

A Charger has hand actuators. Its utility, especially that variant, is far different in BT than the simpleton use of Mechs in this game. 80 Tons + Fists does decent damage.

Actually Charger is missing one hand. Must be something in fluff about it. Still kicking light and mediums legs off with Charger was most fun I had in BT.
Later Charger designs they do sport weapons.

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 07 October 2015 - 01:57 PM.

[Repasy Cooper]

Jazzbandit1313, on 07 October 2015 - 05:51 AM, said:

Charger

80 Tons
86.4KPH
5 Small Lasers

Wat.

PGI pls. You gave us the Urban Mech, now do more fan service and give us this 80 tonner with nothing but 5 small lasers. It's classified as an assault class scout mech lol.

Oh what you can find in the dark corners of Sarna.....

Lol nice.

Actually, that mech is pretty awesome, but only w/ physical attacks coming into play TT. Here it's an ugly mess of a mech.

[Darlith]

stjobe, on 07 October 2015 - 12:40 PM, said:

Yep.

0.5 kg @ 2000 m/s = 1,000,000 J Kinetic energy
80,000 kg @ 22.2 m/s = 19,713,600 J Kinetic energy

BT charge rules:
(Attacker's tonnage / 10) * hexes moved
Attacker takes defender's tonnage / 10

So a Charger making a straight-line charge at its full speed would be:
(80 / 10) * 8 = 8 * 8 = 64 damage, split in 5-damage groups.

Not something to sneeze at.

Yeah now do the kinetic energy for some weapons in the battletech universe.
AC/20 for example even if I use MWO numbers 129.6 KG per AC/20 shell, Velocity of 650m/s KE of shell 27,378,000J, so unless a massive amount of the ac/20 shot is the propellant+casing a charger charging should be less damaging than an ac/20 slug hitting a mech. Unless I totally messed up the math in there. Note, numbers would be higher for tabletop as I used the 7shots/ton and mwo's laughable slow projectile velocity.

[Bishop Steiner]

Jazzbandit1313, on 07 October 2015 - 05:51 AM, said:

Charger

80 Tons
86.4KPH
5 Small Lasers

Wat.

PGI pls. You gave us the Urban Mech, now do more fan service and give us this 80 tonner with nothing but 5 small lasers. It's classified as an assault class scout mech lol.

Oh what you can find in the dark corners of Sarna.....

what's so "dark corners of Sarna"?

It's one of the best known mechs in the game. And yeah, it is really bad, lol.

[TELEFORCE]

Oh you Charger haters! I think it only really has two bad variants, those being the CGR-1A1 and the CGR-1L.

[wanderer]

The funny thing is, the Charger gets some winning stuff outside the original.

The Challenger variant drops the engine down and turns into a 4xLL beamspammer, and can be built straight up from the original in MWO. Drop the engine weight down to a 240 and pew pew pew.

There's a decent number of 3025-era variants that are actually pretty good.

In 3050, it gets a 400XL version with jump jets and a big missile hardpoint + pulse lasers.

[Bishop Steiner]

wanderer, on 07 October 2015 - 02:19 PM, said:

The funny thing is, the Charger gets some winning stuff outside the original.

The Challenger variant drops the engine down and turns into a 4xLL beamspammer, and can be built straight up from the original in MWO. Drop the engine weight down to a 240 and pew pew pew.

There's a decent number of 3025-era variants that are actually pretty good.

In 3050, it gets a 400XL version with jump jets and a big missile hardpoint + pulse lasers.

CGR-1A5
[color=#000000] [/color]

always rather liked this version

[zagibu]

Darlith, on 07 October 2015 - 02:12 PM, said:

Yeah now do the kinetic energy for some weapons in the battletech universe.
AC/20 for example even if I use MWO numbers 129.6 KG per AC/20 shell, Velocity of 650m/s KE of shell 27,378,000J, so unless a massive amount of the ac/20 shot is the propellant+casing a charger charging should be less damaging than an ac/20 slug hitting a mech. Unless I totally messed up the math in there. Note, numbers would be higher for tabletop as I used the 7shots/ton and mwo's laughable slow projectile velocity.

Also, AC projectiles are actually HEAP, so the kinetic energy doesn't even matter that much.

[wanderer]

Yep. The Charger at it's basic form is overengined to the maximum- which in part actually likely ensured it's survival because honestly, it wasn't a priority target for early Succession Wars WMD's for production-go-boom.

This would lead first to the various 320-rated downengined variants (which are on par with most 3025 80-tonners), then a 240-rated engine version (which is the laser equivalent to the Awesome), and the re-engineering that would be first the 400XL refit and then the entire Hatamoto series.

It's a horrible 'Mech to start, but it really gets love even from 3025-era onwards.

Edited by wanderer, 07 October 2015 - 02:38 PM.

[Darlith]

zagibu, on 07 October 2015 - 02:36 PM, said:

Also, AC projectiles are actually HEAP, so the kinetic energy doesn't even matter that much.

Yeah, was more for an example there. If we want to get into realities an M1A1 has as much or more kinetic energy than its armor piercing rounds, but you don't see them ramming other tanks. There is far more to weapon effectiveness and damage models than simple kinetic energy.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

TELEFORCE, on 07 October 2015 - 02:15 PM, said:

Oh you Charger haters! I think it only really has two bad variants, those being the CGR-1A1 and the CGR-1L.

1A1 is a best variant.

[Bloody]

if it has firestarter jesus hitboxes it will be fine

[oldradagast]

Darlith, on 07 October 2015 - 02:43 PM, said:

Yeah, was more for an example there. If we want to get into realities an M1A1 has as much or more kinetic energy than its armor piercing rounds, but you don't see them ramming other tanks. There is far more to weapon effectiveness and damage models than simple kinetic energy.

There's also the fact that damage wouldn't magically and nicely be only applied to the target the tank / mech rammed - both of them would be wrecked. Or, you can just fire a projectile that, while having less energy, still gets the job done and doesn't cost you your tank as well.

As for the Charger, it started as a mess but got better, though I'm not sure if has a real point in MWO with the rather open-ended Mechlab.

[Madcap72]

Paigan, on 07 October 2015 - 07:01 AM, said:

You know, inconsistent BT-rules aside: With an armor technology that can withstand tons of intense punishment from lasers, missiles, gauss and ACs (GIANT thermal and/or kinetic energy at tiny spots there), a Mech ramming (or boxing or kicking or melee weapons and all that from TT rules) would make absolutely NO damage at all. The kinetic energy and hit area are just ridiculously weak compared to that of weapon fire.

Sad but true: most Sci-Fi authors (in include the BT creators in that) don't have the slightest idea about science or even physics. They just write romanticised naive stuff of how they in their childish mind picture science and physics to be.
It doesn't have to be perfectly accurate, but a SLIGHT talent for consistency common sense can be demanded.

Your statement is pretty far off base.

lasers - Lasers cutting metal lose penetration due do the metal subliming into vapor and decreasing the beam taking away what you call "massive" amounts of thermal energy.

missiles- light construction, damage through chemical explosions much of which is wasted on air, once again, not that massive of amount of energy.

Gauss - high velocity solid projectile that does actually have a giant amount of kinetic energy, but being solid, can pass through parts without doing much damage which means that the kinetic energy doesn't have much effect unless striking solid enough components to transfer that energy. Look at tanks knocked out by SABOT rounds for an example. They have slightly less velocity than a Gauss rifle in MWO, probably less projectile weight, but have a WAY better sectional density than the Gauss rifles proposed sphere which means better retention of velocity, and better penetration.

ACs Once again, low velocity cannon rounds that waste a lot of their energy in open air unless HEAT rounds.

(GIANT thermal and/or kinetic energy at tiny spots there) So no, not that giant, everything you listed has real world similarities to effects.

"a Mech ramming (or boxing or kicking or melee weapons and all that from TT rules) would make absolutely NO damage at all."

That is ABSURD.

Not only is the mech going to have an actual massive amount of kinetic energy, it's going to have a massive amount of momentum as well.

An analogy of what you've stated is that because some bullets bounce off of cars, crashing a car into the same car will do no damage. It's the same think with military weapons. A 60 ton tank can deflect other tank rounds, but crash another 60 ton tank into it, and things are going to break.


It's really, really, basic physics.

[zagibu]

oldradagast, on 07 October 2015 - 03:15 PM, said:

An analogy of what you've stated is that because some bullets bounce off of cars, crashing a car into the same car will do no damage.

That's a really bad comparison. Bullets only bounce off cars at extreme angles, which is something that is not even taken into account here. People are talking about perfect impacts. And no, structural deformation calculations are not "basic physics". In reality, a lot of different factors matter, so you are both wrong actually, and it can't be determined whether melee impacts would be damaging or not, because we don't have the necessary material properties to make the simulations.