181 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

InfinityBall, on 25 October 2017 - 07:42 PM, said:

That doesn't make sense. Drop 10,000 direwolves on a planet. A warship will destroy them all.

two mistakes
the first when Warship would be kings you would develop a weapon that can low orbit. A multiple staged Solid Chemical Rocket with a warhead of 1kg is around the mass of shoulder-launched missile.
Send it in the other direction and when your warship goes "left" and your missile goes "right" you end with a solid 1kg ball traveling with ~18km/s this would be roughly the impact of a Gauss Slug in terms of MWO.
1 shoulder-launched missile becomes a Gauss Slug in orbit
Consider you have a platoon or a company launching those balls from everywhere. Just open the foxhole - launch and hide.

However the second miss concept of Warships rule.... how do you want to conquer a planet, for sure you can destroy every force so stupid to move in open terrain, but hey what if they hide in a city or in the industrial park or the mech factory below the mountain - your warship can't do anything about them - you need to send Grunts.
But when you send infantry with orbital fire you end in the same situation - your infantry gets cut down by high mobile forces in spaces where you can't hit them from orbit. So you need to send heavy armored units.... to be continued

Edited by Karl Streiger, 25 October 2017 - 10:31 PM.

[Dr Hobo]

InfinityBall, on 25 October 2017 - 07:42 PM, said:

That doesn't make sense. Drop 10,000 direwolves on a planet. A warship will destroy them all.

Warships are also really rare not only due to cost,but the problem of sourcing parts.Jump drives aren't common,and are incredibly expensive,especially for warship sized ones. Well,the big ones anyway.

I think most everyone is using drop ships,destroyers and frigates,with some real light carriers. Nothing too massive.

Plus,IIRC warships are the only things you can use nukes against.

There is a warship orbital strike,but it's expensive,time consuming,and destroys everything(making salvaging difficult).

[MustrumRidcully]

InfinityBall, on 25 October 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

People in the future who write "alot" and see that red line under it and can't figure out why their computer is telling them that's not a word for year after year.

(I assume this is still a thing 1000 years from now)

I like this alot.

[Shifty McSwift]

Catten Hart, on 25 October 2017 - 04:41 PM, said:

Okay, I'll give you a non-smart-*** answer.

It's actually a LOT less resource intensive to build a mech or tank than a Starship.

In the first Succession Wars alone, Warships-of which there were hundreds-were destroyed en masse, and they were all but extinct after the Second Succession War. To that end, most Houses-when they regained the ability to make new Warships-found that they were still incredibly costly, and use them more to defend locations or provide a force multiplier on their own territory. While exceptions exist-mostly Word of Blake Examples there, post-SWs-The loss of the resources of a Warship, combined with the sheer scarcity of them, and relative 'inferiority' compared to massed Assault Dropships and Pocket Warships (Both of which are more capable of acting independently of a fleet in-system, but are also all-but-helpless when it comes to interstellar travel), means that Warships are overall just too much of a financial and political problem compared to the much cheaper and more ubiquitous dropship.

Also requiring mention is that the goal of most fights in Battletech isn't to annihilate infrastructure, at least in the more 'sensible' (Read: Pragmatic) eras post-1st and 2nd SWs. A large amount of emphasis is put onto taking and holding infrastructure, equipment, etc. etc. You see a microcosm of this in the Clans, who trial to trade/keep/maintain a military surplus among eachother, as opposed to simply leveling one another in bouts of omnicidal rage, Wars of Reaving notwithstanding. (And even then, the Society made it perfectly clear that their intent was the usurpation of the Warrior Caste, not necessarily the dissolution of all things Clan. It stands to reason that Clan Society would not be much different if they had succeeded, aside from the obvious change of Warrior Caste to either second or third rung on the ladder.)

TL;DR; They don't Warship Spam because Warships are incredibly costly (As in, several times more expensive than a full company of Dire Wolves), because you can spam Dropships that do pretty well for cheaper, and that the goal in Battletech isn't to destroy the actual infrastructure of the enemy, but to take it as your own.

EDIT; Unless you hate the enemy that much. But most people think "I'll just take this ****** IS weapon and melt it down to make my SUPERIOR CLAN AUTOCANNON", so even the Clanners partake in this. Because the Clanners are apparently all about not wasting crap.

Mrm, but then why build fusion reactor based mechs instead of weaponising the dropships that surely are mass produced in a way that warships are not or cannot be. Why waste resources on things bound to earthly combat like that, and if the technology of weapons is so amazing, why even bother with a mech at all.

I am sure you or others have lore out the wazoo to try and cover this, but essentially, the point is, do you truly think that a civilisation advanced enough to colonise the universe is going to bother with rockem sockem robots, honestly, there is no logic to it, it makes for a fun game, but it is truly ridiculous. Similarly, when the earth was first circumnavigated and navies started to grow in importance, there's a reason why ship based warfare (not necessarily always with ocean crossing ships), did not revert into on land foxy boxing matches to determine the results of warfare, the two are hugely disconnected.

Like I am saying the scenario we play out match to match in MWO, makes far more believable sense, as a game show or future sporting event type deal, no amount of lore can wash away all of the silly here.

[Trenchbird]

InfinityBall, on 25 October 2017 - 07:42 PM, said:

That doesn't make sense. Drop 10,000 direwolves on a planet. A warship will destroy them all.

I'm not sure you read the rest of the tl;dr. Or even the entire wall of text. Or any of it.

Edited by Catten Hart, 26 October 2017 - 05:34 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Shifty McSwift, on 26 October 2017 - 03:23 AM, said:

Similarly, when the earth was first circumnavigated and navies started to grow in importance, there's a reason why ship based warfare (not necessarily always with ocean crossing ships), did not revert into on land foxy boxing matches to determine the results of warfare, the two are hugely disconnected.

???
So because Nelson beat the French Navy the combat in Europe was done?
And because "The battle of Jutland" was a draw the Great War did rage on?

I think you clearly give to much credit to the navy - they might blockade see maybe even air travel somehow but in the end they are piss poor in capturing a city (intact)

Edited by Karl Streiger, 26 October 2017 - 05:38 AM.

[Dr Hobo]

Shifty McSwift, on 26 October 2017 - 03:23 AM, said:

Mrm, but then why build fusion reactor based mechs instead of weaponising the dropships that surely are mass produced in a way that warships are not or cannot be. Why waste resources on things bound to earthly combat like that, and if the technology of weapons is so amazing, why even bother with a mech at all.

I am sure you or others have lore out the wazoo to try and cover this, but essentially, the point is, do you truly think that a civilisation advanced enough to colonise the universe is going to bother with rockem sockem robots, honestly, there is no logic to it, it makes for a fun game, but it is truly ridiculous. Similarly, when the earth was first circumnavigated and navies started to grow in importance, there's a reason why ship based warfare (not necessarily always with ocean crossing ships), did not revert into on land foxy boxing matches to determine the results of warfare, the two are hugely disconnected.

Like I am saying the scenario we play out match to match in MWO, makes far more believable sense, as a game show or future sporting event type deal, no amount of lore can wash away all of the silly here.

Dropships already are weaponised remember?

It's the jump drives that make warships so expensive IIRC. Thats why only the biggest houses have them.

Its kinda like what was posted earlier in the thread about loss of technology. Sure,you have *some* warships,and those warships are REALLY powerful,but you don't wanna bring them out,because cost. If you lose say a battleship. You just lost A)the fleet flagship,and a greater majority of the fleets firepower.

Its why frigates,and various cruiser types are the most common warships. The really big ones,simply are too valuable to throw at any conflict.

[Trenchbird]

Shifty McSwift, on 26 October 2017 - 03:23 AM, said:

Mrm, but then why build fusion reactor based mechs instead of weaponising the dropships that surely are mass produced in a way that warships are not or cannot be. Why waste resources on things bound to earthly combat like that, and if the technology of weapons is so amazing, why even bother with a mech at all.

I am sure you or others have lore out the wazoo to try and cover this, but essentially, the point is, do you truly think that a civilisation advanced enough to colonise the universe is going to bother with rockem sockem robots, honestly, there is no logic to it, it makes for a fun game, but it is truly ridiculous. Similarly, when the earth was first circumnavigated and navies started to grow in importance, there's a reason why ship based warfare (not necessarily always with ocean crossing ships), did not revert into on land foxy boxing matches to determine the results of warfare, the two are hugely disconnected.

Like I am saying the scenario we play out match to match in MWO, makes far more believable sense, as a game show or future sporting event type deal, no amount of lore can wash away all of the silly here.

So let me see if I follow your logic here.

So because the US has Nuclear ICBM capability, which is without a doubt the most be-all end-all of all weapon sustems in the present day, we should use them for;

-insurgencies on foreign soil
-insurgencies on our own soil
-defenses of cities
-invasions of cities
-A myriad of other situations involving built-up and hardened defenses/a sizable civilian response and/or population.

And by extension, put the US Navy, Army, Marines, and Half of the Air Force, out of a job. And by extension destroy everything the qorld and your country needs to survive? Infrastructure, morale, the atmosphere? Cause more uprisings? A nuclear omnicaust?

If you want to poke out realism in Battletech, ponder why we don't do everything with cheap tanks that can carry more arms and armor than comparible mechs. Because only going for 'I kills it with my battleships' doesn't work. Just ask the Great Houses, post Succession Wars.

Edited by Catten Hart, 26 October 2017 - 06:31 AM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Karl Streiger, on 26 October 2017 - 05:38 AM, said:

???
So because Nelson beat the French Navy the combat in Europe was done?
And because "The battle of Jutland" was a draw the Great War did rage on?

I think you clearly give to much credit to the navy - they might blockade see maybe even air travel somehow but in the end they are piss poor in capturing a city (intact)

No, no, I didn't mean to infer that naval technologies had that kind of impact only that they added to the complexities of warfare, I am not saying there is no need for a ground force but yeah we have other means there.

Though the difference between naval warfare and space based warfare, is a whole different hog, and it is hard to imagine that anyone would revert in ways to these mechs like we see here duking it out in these kinds of scenarios. I mean I could maybe buy a sense of it, if the mechs were just the big resource miners that corporations/nations/factions/whatever dropped on as many different crazy places for collecting weird resources, and those mechs possibly being equipped in ways that could defend themselves from whatever, I mean maybe. But you'd be stretching the need for it to actually be bipedal mechwarrior things, even then.

[Shifty McSwift]

Catten Hart, on 26 October 2017 - 06:26 AM, said:

So let me see if I follow your logic here.

So because the US has Nuclear ICBM capability, which is without a doubt the most be-all end-all of all weapon sustems in the present day, we should use them for;

-insurgencies on foreign soil
-insurgencies on our own soil
-defenses of cities
-invasions of cities
-A myriad of other situations involving built-up and hardened defenses/a sizable civilian response and/or population.

And by extension, put the US Navy, Army, Marines, and Half of the Air Force, out of a job. And by extension destroy everything the qorld and your country needs to survive? Infrastructure, morale, the atmosphere? Cause more uprisings? A nuclear omnicaust?

If you want to poke out realism in Battletech, ponder why we don't do everything with cheap tanks that can carry more arms and armor than comparible mechs. Because only going for 'I kills it with my battleships' doesn't work. Just ask the Great Houses, post Succession Wars.

What? First no I guess this part of my post " did not revert into on land foxy boxing matches to determine the results of warfare" was a poor choice of words or went misunderstood? I am saying that once the utility of naval warfare was realised it in itself became incorporated heavily not the other way, people utilise technological jumps like that heavily. And secondly YES that does apply to nuclear warfare, I mean it was tested and actually used, and the very threat of it has loomed over our head since it came about. It impacts the idea of warfare still, the idea of mutually assured destruction being one of the major ties that bind our usage of it, not to mention how it is used (on cities mostly), and the actual effects of it, for example it is largely not a weapon of invasion (why poison land you need?), one particular nation using one in an attack today in another example would draw the ire of anyone not bound to them fanatically, like the whole part of planet that you did not nuke. And then what are your options? MAD?

I am oversimplifying a lot here too, but I don't want to rant too much

[Shifty McSwift]

Dr Hobo, on 26 October 2017 - 05:47 AM, said:

Dropships already are weaponised remember?

It's the jump drives that make warships so expensive IIRC. Thats why only the biggest houses have them.

Its kinda like what was posted earlier in the thread about loss of technology. Sure,you have *some* warships,and those warships are REALLY powerful,but you don't wanna bring them out,because cost. If you lose say a battleship. You just lost A)the fleet flagship,and a greater majority of the fleets firepower.

Its why frigates,and various cruiser types are the most common warships. The really big ones,simply are too valuable to throw at any conflict.

Sure and I assume that they usage is to get through a planets atmosphere and back, I mean if you have the potential of that much tonnage of however hundreds of billions of dollars in resources popping in, surely you would invest in some weapons capable of taking them out in those dropships before (or shortly after) they enter your atmosphere too?

[Shifty McSwift]

When you bring up tanks, they had a specific purpose in original designs for navigating the newly devastated terrains of warfare, with track designs originally being utilised for agricultural practices, their benefits are obvious enough with that change in scale of wartime landscape terrain.

A tank is surprising to a guy who has been hiding in a trench, just outside of grenade throwing range of his foes. I just can't picture a mechwarrior jumping out and punching a spaceship or even fortress in the face in any surprising way (more so than current methods), aka, I can't picture then being designed for usage at all in the first place. The design ideals are backwards like that.

Edited by Shifty McSwift, 26 October 2017 - 07:38 AM.

[Dr Hobo]

Shifty McSwift, on 26 October 2017 - 07:20 AM, said:

Sure and I assume that they usage is to get through a planets atmosphere and back, I mean if you have the potential of that much tonnage of however hundreds of billions of dollars in resources popping in, surely you would invest in some weapons capable of taking them out in those dropships before (or shortly after) they enter your atmosphere too?

To be fair,lots of folks had anti air weapons but combined arms warfare meant that fighters/fighter bombers were going in to deal with AA threats

But then again,a ship grade ERLL is a lot more painful than a regular ERLL.

[Gasboy]

Mechs. Battlemechs are completely unrealistic on the battlefield.

[davoodoo]

Aggravated Assault Mech, on 24 October 2017 - 04:56 PM, said:

The range of weapons is the biggest one.

You can explain it away as "muh EW" and "they dodge", but the reality is that you could probably take someone right off the street with no experience with firearms whatsoever, and teach them how to hit a mech-sized target at 300m within 5 minutes.

Mechs are not fast enough to dodge lasers, and all the EW in the world (which is conveniently never mentioned in any of the fiction) isn't going to stop someone from hitting a 15m tall target 90m away. That's total ********.

The ranges are cooked not just so that it's playable on a kitchen table, but so that melee can be incorporated into the rules as a relevant tactic as well.

Well i can buy explanation of ew, when mech without sensors cant physically pull the trigger and there have been lore instance of point blank misses because mech disappeared from sensors.

Doesnt explain why missiles explode mid air though.
or c3 system which was invented way after ranges were set.

Edited by davoodoo, 26 October 2017 - 09:17 AM.

[BattleBunny]

A mech walking on the ground.

The weight + lack of surface area would make a mech sink into most terrain.

[Vonbach]

BattleBunny, on 26 October 2017 - 09:13 AM, said:

A mech walking on the ground.

The weight + lack of surface area would make a mech sink into most terrain.

Yes theres a reason 60 ton tanks have treads to spread out their weight.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

arcana75, on 24 October 2017 - 03:26 AM, said:

how leg ammo can actually feed to shoulder mounted weaponry even in chicken walkers, etc.

It took me forever to realize ammo didn't have to be in the component that had the weapon.

I just couldn't fathom that they didn't factor in having to move the ammo.

[ApolloKaras]

arcana75, on 24 October 2017 - 03:26 AM, said:

Yeah it's the 31st Century and it's all sci-fi and what not, and the whole mech thing is pretty much sci-fi bs, and there's alot of unrealistic things in BT to choose from, but out of all of it, what's the most unrealistic thing for you in BT/MW?

For me, it's seeing a 75 ton giant robot lift off the ground with small jets. Every time I see a Timber Wolf do this, it breaks my suspension of disbelief. More so than other stuff like all the complex moving parts surviving huge barrages, all the hidden ammo and how leg ammo can actually feed to shoulder mounted weaponry even in chicken walkers, etc.

What's yours?

In Battletech - Anything in Aerotech 2 lol

[FupDup]

For the MW series, I think it's strange that there's such a huge fixation on mercenaries. MW2: Mercs. MW4: Black Knight. MW4: Mercs. MWO: Mercs (look at the website URL). MW: Tactics was about mercs, nevermind its premature death. HBS BT is gonna be about mercs. And MW5 is gonna be about mercs. Mercs this mercs that. You get a merc and YOU get a merc and EVERYONE gets a merc.

Has the private sector completely replaced standard military forces in the future? People are speculating about that in present day but that has yet to come. Has BT predicted the future?

Edited by FupDup, 29 October 2017 - 06:47 PM.