40 replies to this topic

[pyrocomp]

Kaeb Odellas, on 29 February 2016 - 03:01 PM, said:

You're probably thinking of volume. Weight is a function of the gravitational force between an object and the planet it's on, which is in turn a function of the two objects' masses and the distance between them. For our purposes, mass is equal to weight.

Ahem.
To be precise. Weight is a force with which the body pushes its support or pulls its suspension. And it might be not equal to the gravity force affecting that body (there can be another on on top of it pushing it down with it's own weight). So yes, mass is not equal to weight in fixed gravity field in general. But, and this is a strong but, the definition and meaning of words mass and weight are actually language dependent.
Anyway, we have listed mech masses in the game. And those masses make no sense for 'dry' mechs. But swithching to payloads they stop making sence in drop limits (other than Clan honor rules for bids and etc.).

[Y E O N N E]

Idealsuspect, on 29 February 2016 - 03:08 PM, said:

An atlas should weight like 350tonns in this case ...
Look a abrams weight 70 tonns and its same size than a jenner' main structure without leggs.

And?

It is capable of carrying a properly shielded fusion reactor (mmm, neutrons!), the necessary plumbing to turn the heat into work and electricity, an 8-inch naval-grade gun, the equivalent of hundreds of HVARs, at least multi-megawatt-grade lasers, the cooling capacity and plumbing to keep all of this stuff operational, a fully sealed life-support system capable of sustaining a pilot in vacuum, armor capable of shrugging off hits from its own weapons, synthetic muscle dense enough to make it run faster than a human can...

100 tons seems super light, tbqh.

[Soldier91]

I haven't piloted a light in a while, only sold off heavy and mediums recently, lights were gone a long time ago. Stripped of everything those classes weighed in at 3.5 endo, 5 standard. Lights and assaults could be different.

[SuomiWarder]

A 'Mechs mass is fully loaded with ammo. technically including the pilot but that was never a factor in the table top game. So a 100 ton Atlas stripped of weapons and ammo would technically weigh less if say it was salvage and you were using transport rules based on tonnage capacity of a DropShip but if you start up the engine it still acted as a 100 ton mech for engine rules and such even if it was empty of ammo or had an arm shot off.

[Bishop Steiner]

Kaeb Odellas, on 29 February 2016 - 02:28 PM, said:

Or is it only a measure of how much stuff it can hold? I ask this because if it's the former, Battlemechs are just way too big for their actual mass. An Atlas's entire internal structure, actuators, myomers, and electrical system would only weigh 5 tons with ES. That's less than the weight of an up-armored Humvee. That's kind of silly!

It's total payload/combat weight.

A couple things to remember.

1) MWO Mechs, are on average too big. The Tallest mech, which is NOT the Atlas. Banshee and Executioner are traditionally considered the tallest. Atlas is rather broad and stout, thus of necessity cannot be as tall. Even it's like description says it's not the tallest. It's actually 4-5 meters taker than it should be.

2) Humanoid mechs are supposed to range between 8-14 meters.

3) future materials may be lighter, but not necessarily less bulky. Industrial steel used in a Cat D9 dozer is a heck of a lot denser than foamed titanium. This more compact per ton.

4) battlemechs payloads are all internal stores, environmentally sealed to protect from vacuum, ocean, etc. This the overall size is a constant, as opposed to what might happen with modular external stores.

5). It's a sci-fi game developed by nerds in the 80s, pre internet. Researching and knowledge of these details was time consuming, expensive and not just a Google click away. Not one designed by engineers with reams of info at their fingertips.

6) as a game, simplicity needs to be a feature. One could get into technical, engineering designs, but then to make mechs in the lab, this need to take a class in engineering. So generalizations and abstracts are used to convey basic ideas without making it even clunkier than it already is. ( I designed house rules once, taking away or adding ruins fit actuators, etc. It was more accurate, but also a ton more effort.)

[Wintersdark]

Of course it's ridiculous. Tons in battletech are purely arbitrary points used to determine how much a Mech can hold, and called tons because it sounds badassed.

Anyways, indulging in the silliness:

The m1 Abrams tank is a freaking brick. It's big, solid, and as compact as can be because that's how war machines are in real life: mechs are ultimately extremely stupid.

But comparing length is very misleading. Much of the AS7's height is due to its legs: it'll have way less mass:height/in it's legs than its torso, while the Abrams is pretty even all the way across. Firm factor is important here: take a person, fold them up, and they fit into a really small box.

Finally, the AS7 is not constructed from our materials. It's made to be as light as possible as it needs to be delivered to and from orbit (and beyond).

So, yeah. Comparing it to an M1 Abrams is ridiculous. That's like comparing the Abrams to a really big wooden chariot.

[Triordinant]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 February 2016 - 02:41 PM, said:

It would be 100x cooler if it were re-imagined from the ground up, incorporating knowledge from today into its fabric.

It would be cooler, but unless doing so translates into short term profits it's not gonna happen. Of course, if someone volunteered to do it for free...

[Y E O N N E]

Triordinant, on 29 February 2016 - 03:40 PM, said:

It would be cooler, but unless doing so translates into short term profits it's not gonna happen. Of course, if someone volunteered to do it for free...

I'd be more than happy to do it for free, but there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of it ever being adopted officially...

[Afuldan McKronik]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 February 2016 - 03:25 PM, said:

...

3) future materials may be lighter, but not necessarily less bulky. Industrial steel used in a Cat D9 dozer is a heck of a lot denser than foamed titanium. This more compact per ton....

Standard BattleMech armor is composed of several layers providing various degrees of protection and support. The first layer is extremely strong Titanium alloyed with steel, the result of crystal alignment and radiation treatment, which is also very brittle. The second layer is a ceramic, cubic boron nitride, which combined with a web of artificial diamond fibers acts as a backstop to the steel layer. These two layers rest atop a titanium alloy honeycomb structure which provides support, and a layer of self-sealing polymer sealant which allows for space and underwater operations.

Maybe someone smarter than I am can convert these to real weight/mass per meter of coverage. But the process does sound like it minimizes weight/mass.

Plus '80s geek stuff. Phllllllbt.

[Triordinant]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 February 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

I'd be more than happy to do it for free, but there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of it ever being adopted officially...

After 2 minutes of theorycrafting I thought maybe hovertanks would be the kings of the future battlefield. They'd have a much lower silhouette than a battlemech and move twice as fast, both of which make them harder to hit. They'd also be unhindered by terrain and able to cross rivers and lakes at full speed. They could also make pop-up attacks like helicopter gunships.

Edited by Triordinant, 29 February 2016 - 04:00 PM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Afuldan McKronik, on 29 February 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

Its a size of gyro and supporting structure thing. It can pick it up, if it isnt obscenely massive. Tree/car/pilot, not bad, the pilot and gyro can compensate. But an atlas picking up a flea would over tax the system. If it had an extra heavy/large gyro, maybe.

It just throws the gyro out too far. Stick a piece of gum on a top and spin it.

If this is the case, why can't we overload our mechs a little bit? I'm sure an Atlas could support an extra ton of ammo for an appropriate performance penalty, especially since that ammo will be gone within a minute of enemy contact.

For that matter, why don't we go faster once we use up our ammo? Or lose armor?

[Y E O N N E]

Triordinant, on 29 February 2016 - 03:59 PM, said:

After 2 minutes of theorycrafting I thought maybe hovertanks would be the kings of the future battlefield. They'd have a much lower silhouette than a battlemech and move twice as fast, both of which make them harder to hit. They'd also be unhindered by terrain and able to cross rivers and lakes at full speed. They could also make pop-up attacks like helicopter gunships.

But how are you getting them to hover?

[Khobai]

Quote

After 2 minutes of theorycrafting I thought maybe hovertanks would be the kings of the future battlefield.

nope unmanned drones/vehicles are the kings of the future battlefield.

humans are expensive. you have to train them, feed them, pay their salary/benefits, pay pensions/benefits, etc... youre talking at least a million dollars a soldier.

if you can buy an drone/robot for a million dollars that has a lifetime of greater than 4 years youre already getting a better deal than a human soldier.

Quote

The Atlas is freaking huge

yes but an abrams tank is like 60 tons. And thats roughly the same size as a light mech.

realistically theres just no way an atlas would only weigh 100 tons

maybe 300 tons. but 100 tons is a bit low.

Quote

future materials may be lighter

we know what battlemechs are made of though. the armor is titanium/steel with a layer of ceramic boron nitride and artificial diamond fibers. internal structure is basically the same thing but with a foamed aluminum core.

its not like theyre made of magic space metal like mithril or something.

the weight of an atlas just doesnt make sense. even if it was made out of a relatively lightweight material like wood it would weigh more than 100 tons.

But its science fiction so it doesnt really matter

Edited by Khobai, 29 February 2016 - 04:27 PM.

[Afuldan McKronik]

This goes back to volume. At 100 tons youve maxxed out the volume available. And the second part, has already been covered. 100 ton atlas may weigh/mass much less once its stripped for salvage, but fire it up and it behaves like its 100 tons. The battle computer doesnt recognize that its missing all that mass. It behaves like its still 100 tons, because it doesnt "know" its not 100 tons. Again, 80's logic also. It cant go faster because it doesnt know how to go faster.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Afuldan McKronik, on 29 February 2016 - 04:13 PM, said:

This goes back to volume. At 100 tons youve maxxed out the volume available. And the second part, has already been covered. 100 ton atlas may weigh/mass much less once its stripped for salvage, but fire it up and it behaves like its 100 tons. The battle computer doesnt recognize that its missing all that mass. It behaves like its still 100 tons, because it doesnt "know" its not 100 tons. Again, 80's logic also. It cant go faster because it doesnt know how to go faster.

A mech's internal volume is represented by crit slots, not tonnage. If you have crit slots available, then you should have space to fit more stuff.


It feels like if they just doubled each mech's listed mass, it would make far more sense. Leave all the equipment alone, just make an empty Atlas weigh (or mass, technically) 100 tons.

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 29 February 2016 - 04:18 PM.

[Bilbo]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 February 2016 - 04:09 PM, said:

But how are you getting them to hover?

Space magic?

[Triordinant]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 February 2016 - 04:09 PM, said:

But how are you getting them to hover?

As far as I can tell, BattleTech hovertanks use fans like today's hover vehicles -only they're fusion-powered. For the price of a single Locust, you could get a dozen Gabriel hover tanks and swarm enemy 'mechs 12 vs 1 at 243 kph.

Khobai, on 29 February 2016 - 04:12 PM, said:

nope unmanned drones are the kings of the future battlefield.

Drone hover tanks!

[Khobai]

Quote

It feels like if they just doubled each mech's listed mass, it would make far more sense. Leave all the equipment alone, just make an empty Atlas weigh (or mass, technically) 100 tons.

triple would be closer to realistic. atlas fully loaded would be about 300 tons.

[Afuldan McKronik]

80's nerd logic. Phlllllbt. You want something more realistic that allows this kinda customization to a players game style than go make it. While your at it, build us a cold fusion engine thats realistic and works.

[Idealsuspect]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 February 2016 - 03:16 PM, said:

And? It is capable of carrying a properly shielded fusion reactor (mmm, neutrons!), the necessary plumbing to turn the heat into work and electricity, an 8-inch naval-grade gun, the equivalent of hundreds of HVARs, at least multi-megawatt-grade lasers, the cooling capacity and plumbing to keep all of this stuff operational, a fully sealed life-support system capable of sustaining a pilot in vacuum, armor capable of shrugging off hits from its own weapons, synthetic muscle dense enough to make it run faster than a human can... 100 tons seems super light, tbqh.

what?

Khobai, on 29 February 2016 - 04:30 PM, said:

triple would be closer to realistic. atlas fully loaded would be about 300 tons.

Yea minimal, in fact i would bet on 350-400 tonns and in fact maybe more.
A simple jenner should be 70 tonns minimal ... maybe 90-100 for real and an atlas legg is bigger than a jenner xD