#1
Posted 04 November 2016 - 11:30 AM
#2
Posted 04 November 2016 - 11:39 AM
#3
Posted 04 November 2016 - 11:42 AM
#4
Posted 04 November 2016 - 11:50 AM
Also, how much heat do you suppose it generates to have multiple rocket engines firing inside your mech? Welcome to missile launches, whooooosh!
#5
Posted 04 November 2016 - 11:53 AM
Escef, on 04 November 2016 - 11:50 AM, said:
Also, how much heat do you suppose it generates to have multiple rocket engines firing inside your mech? Welcome to missile launches, whooooosh!
Which is why all vehicle in today's military either ejects the missile first or have the back blast away to the rear.
Edited by Blue Boutique, 04 November 2016 - 11:53 AM.
#6
Posted 04 November 2016 - 11:53 AM
#7
Posted 04 November 2016 - 12:05 PM
#8
Posted 04 November 2016 - 12:32 PM
1. Why do fusion engines explode in Battletech?
2. Why can female Mech warriors park their mechs in cramped bays properly...all the time!
(sorry for no. 2)
Edited by Bush Hopper, 04 November 2016 - 12:43 PM.
#9
Posted 04 November 2016 - 12:34 PM
#10
Posted 04 November 2016 - 03:21 PM
Bush Hopper, on 04 November 2016 - 12:32 PM, said:
1. Why do fusion engines explode in Battletech?
2. Why can female Mech warriors park their mechs in cramped bays properly...all the time!
(sorry for no. 2)
I'd really wish the Combine pilots would use their mechs turn signal before cutting me off right when I am about to fire my Alpha.
Jokes aside, I can see a fusion reactor exploding as it acts like a pressure cooker to put it in the most simplistic terms but it's not going to do a nuclear explosion as described by Stockpole.
Edited by Coralld, 07 November 2016 - 03:23 PM.
#11
Posted 04 November 2016 - 03:38 PM
real guns:
range gets longer with size
run very hot
battletech:
range gets shorter with size
runs cool
missiles also usually throw their heat out the back of the launcher where as with guns all that hot gas stays in the barrel with nowhere to go but into the metal. missiles also leave the tube with much less energy, which it picks up in flight as its rocket motor burns. bullets get all their energy while its in the barrel and half that energy goes back into the gun (as heat).
its neccisary for gameplay reasons. if weapons of war were simulated properly, games would be very very boring. gatling guns go from death stream emmitters to pea shooters, missiles go from being able to fly down a vent shaft on a bunker, while in games its hard to get them to hit a 12 meter battlemech. and most engagements occur beyond visual range. so you push a button wait 20 seconds and the game is over. lasers are still more or less clunky with a select few applications, but were getting there.
Edited by LordNothing, 04 November 2016 - 03:45 PM.
#12
Posted 04 November 2016 - 04:06 PM
#13
Posted 04 November 2016 - 04:56 PM
#14
Posted 05 November 2016 - 02:04 PM
#15
Posted 05 November 2016 - 02:20 PM
#16
Posted 05 November 2016 - 02:55 PM
Magnus Santini, on 04 November 2016 - 11:30 AM, said:
Because in exchange for being precision weapons with a much higher range-to-damage ratio and generally running cooler, they take up a ****ton more criticals and tonnage.
That isn't why they're popular, though. They produce far less heat than Lasers while having comparable effective ranges with them, and seeing as how your options with Missiles are LRMs(Shite) and SRMs(Extremely short effective range)... The fact Missiles in MWO have 0(Zero) medium range representation and terrible long range capability, making the short-ranged ones the only viable option, is why Ballistics(And Energy) are king; Their effective ranges overlap with average engagement distances.
So Missiles themselves would be more common if we had a medium-ranged option and the long-ranged ones werent shite.
#17
Posted 05 November 2016 - 06:48 PM
#18
Posted 06 November 2016 - 02:35 AM
p.s. By opening YET ANOTHER 'real world/science vs battletech' debate the OP has lost all rights to be treated like an adult for the next 3 weeks. Repeated offences will exponentially increase the duration of the sentence
>This raises a far more interesting and in-depth theory. What would Battletech be
>if based off of real world science, or as close to it as possible?
You too!
Edited by Dogstar, 06 November 2016 - 02:42 AM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users