97 replies to this topic

[Demi-Precentor Konev]

feor, on 29 December 2011 - 07:23 AM, said:

Tanks are not a fair comparison to mechs, IMHO.

1) Mechs don't sit there waiting to get shot, mechs dodge.

Nor do tanks. Firing on the move is an essential part of training and increasingly viable with modern technology.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not here to suggest that the BT universe isn't capable of producing very resilient transparent materials. The reason you don't use a lot of it is because, presumably, it is very expensive. Moreover, if we're on the assumption train we could also posit that advances in glass/plastics have coincided with advances in metallurgy. So someone could easily argue that while BT-style transparent materials are ***% stronger, the same logical path could argue that BT-style metals are also ***% stronger. If it's cheaper and provides better protection - it stands to reason that material will be the main component for protection. Looking at all the artwork I've ever seen of BattleMechs - metal armor is the predominant aspect. This tells me it is either a) cheaper, 2) stronger, or c) both.

But this is all digression. If tanks are not a good comparison to 'Mechs, what would be the more suitable parallel in real armies?

Edited by lahyenne, 29 December 2011 - 04:03 PM.

[feor]

Quote

But this is all digression. If tanks are not a good comparison to 'Mechs, what would be the more suitable parallel in real armies?

Mechs fill an odd role, not directly analogous to any modern piece of military hardware. They have elements of super-heavy infantry in the way they actually move, elements of land-bound fighter jets in the way they bring firepower to bear, and yes, even some elements of MBTs in their operation.

They are not purely "walking tanks" as previous mechwarrior games have been forced to show them due to technological constraints, but nor are they purely anything else. Probably part of the reason they became so successful in the Inner Sphere is that they are as effective as tanks, as resilient as infantry, and as low maintenance (in terms of training and crews, at least) as a fighter jet.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Battleships is really what springs to mind, only not bound to the water. Big, mobile, lots of armor, lots of guns, capable of fulfilling multiple combat roles at once. Don't know if I read the battleship comparision or my old GM said it.

Back on subject..did anyone else notice the redesign of the Hunchback..no canopy glass from the exterior, it's opaque shutters..but the cockpit view shows great exterior views as if those shutters were glass. I'm thinking I like how that's going, fitting from a mechanical standpoint with a military machine but still gives that cool feeling from sitting IN the Mech and looking out from the top of a giant walking robot of destruction.

[FACEman Peck]

Is it just me, or does a Banshee look like a power ranger?

[Datum]

Kristov Kerensky, on 29 December 2011 - 05:19 PM, said:

Battleships is really what springs to mind, only not bound to the water. Big, mobile, lots of armor, lots of guns, capable of fulfilling multiple combat roles at once. Don't know if I read the battleship comparision or my old GM said it.

Back on subject..did anyone else notice the redesign of the Hunchback..no canopy glass from the exterior, it's opaque shutters..but the cockpit view shows great exterior views as if those shutters were glass. I'm thinking I like how that's going, fitting from a mechanical standpoint with a military machine but still gives that cool feeling from sitting IN the Mech and looking out from the top of a giant walking robot of destruction.

What I wouldn't give to have shutters on my mech's windows...

[Escef]

Ok, just a note on the idea of using sensors exclusively for combat... Are you out of your mind?

Seriously, how long do you think before a camera gets covered in sand, dust, frost, dirt, missile exhaust, or molten armor running over it? How long before the extreme heat caused by weapons fire coming near it warps a lens or melts some semiconductors? Hell, the original fluff for the Rifleman talked about how Riflemen used in command positions often found that their gigantic, wing-like antennas attracted a lot of weapons fire, because even a near miss with most energy weapons (especially a PPC) would cause enough EM interference to bork your comms to hell. Further, if mechs were seriously THAT reliant on cameras, explain why we don't see the Banana Cream Pie rounds for SRMs or aerofighters dropping paint bombs. And don't say wipers, they won't work. Me, Grimlock, know all about wipers, want to hear good part of story.

Yeah, the on board computers use sensor data to target, but I'm thinking they use sensors more akin to radar and IFF transponder codes. Otherwise it would be impossible for a mech in the TT game to do anything with a double sensor crit (as is, it shuts down all ranged weapons fire).

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Unfortunately you have achieved that state of W T F when RL is tried to be applied too closely to the BTU. It's BTech magic

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 29 December 2011 - 06:17 PM.

[Xhaleon]

Escef, on 29 December 2011 - 06:07 PM, said:

snippy snippy

If you can make a large window that can resist all of those issues, you can make a camera lens that does the same, except better, because there is far less surface area to cover.

Your face will melt before anything mechanical on a mech does. Having an array of redundant cameras is far superior to any exposed cockpit design. It is better to be blind than missing a head. YOUR head, which is a wee bit more important than the mech's head.

The only reason why Battletech continues with canopy cockpits is simply because it is part of its aesthetic design. It is a unnecessarily dangerous and inferior design given the technology, but it wouldn't be recognizable to us otherwise. The Unseen only get a pass because they're originally Japanese, and even then the Reseen designs will give them the same treatment, even if they are supposed to be completely enclosed.

Mr. Crab Pilot is feeling mighty lucky today.

[Escef]

Xhaleon, on 29 December 2011 - 06:30 PM, said:

The only reason why Battletech continues with canopy cockpits is simply because it is part of its aesthetic design. It is a unnecessarily dangerous and inferior design given the technology...

Bolding for emphasis.
Didn't I already quote the page from TechManual that points out that the cockpit "glass" on mechs is not glass, but armor? Given the technology, you could make the armor over the entire mech transparent if you wanted to.

[Xhaleon]

Escef, on 29 December 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

Bolding for emphasis.
Didn't I already quote the page from TechManual that points out that the cockpit "glass" on mechs is not glass, but armor? Given the technology, you could make the armor over the entire mech transparent if you wanted to.

There is a good reason why you can only mount 9 points of armor on the "head", which I assume always means the cockpit canopy because some mechs have huge heads and no rules for extra protection. Transparency doesn't come free, and you have to sacrifice something to make it possible. In this case, ferroglass lacks all of the other layers that make standard armor strong, because those metal layers are unchangeably opaque.

If you can make a ferroglass canopy, then you can make a ferroglass camera. The latter will always be superior, and that is my point.

[Escef]

Xhaleon, on 29 December 2011 - 06:44 PM, said:

There is a good reason why you can only mount 9 points of armor on the "head", which I assume always means the cockpit canopy because some mechs have huge heads and no rules for extra protection. Transparency doesn't come free, and you have to sacrifice something to make it possible. In this case, ferroglass lacks all of the other layers that make standard armor strong, because those metal layers are unchangeably opaque.

And your argument falls apart when one realizes that the head is the only hit location that can mount THREE TIMES as much armor as it has underlying structure, whereas all other hit locations are limited to double. The limit is on the game mechanical function of the hit location, not the armor technology.

[Xhaleon]

Escef, on 29 December 2011 - 06:47 PM, said:

And your argument falls apart when one realizes that the head is the only hit location that can mount THREE TIMES as much armor as it has underlying structure, whereas all other hit locations are limited to double. The limit is on the game mechanical function of the hit location, not the armor technology.

Ratios matter? The only thing behind the cockpit canopy is the dashboard, pilot, and his chair, in that order. I don't even know why it has any more than a single point of internal structure, other than perhaps some "free" minimum glass thickness that comes with every cockpit.

And um, I don't see how it falls apart. If you can prove ferroglass is tougher than standard armor, then you just proved that an array of small cameras littered over the body would be even harder to take out. What exactly are you trying to get at?

[Rhinehart]

I said this once but let me emphasize it one more time. It isn't one or the other, it's BOTH. Some manufacturers prefer sensors only, some prefer ferroglass canopies. There is no need to adapt one or the other as standard when you have a galaxy full of different manufacturers pumping out many varied designs for the same tasks. It could very well be that only some manufacturers have the technology for sensors strong enough to overcome ecm without any visual back up. It could be that only some manufactuers have access to transparent ferroglass materials in quantity enough for line production.

More to the point though it doesn't have to be one or the other. It can clearly be both depending on what specific design and manufactuer is involved.

[Demi-Precentor Konev]

Escef, on 29 December 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

Bolding for emphasis.
Didn't I already quote the page from TechManual that points out that the cockpit "glass" on mechs is not glass, but armor? Given the technology, you could make the armor over the entire mech transparent if you wanted to.

And you would, except for 3 reasons: a) the "glass" is prohibitively expensive in either manufacture or maintenance, 2) the glass doesn't provide armor protection on par with (or exceeding) the metal, or c) both of these factors. Considering the lack of all-transparent Battle'Mechs, I would argue that metal armor is preferred exactly for one of these reasons.

[Escef]

Xhaleon, on 29 December 2011 - 06:55 PM, said:

Ratios matter? The only thing behind the cockpit canopy is the dashboard, pilot, and his chair, in that order. I don't even know why it has any more than a single point of internal structure, other than perhaps some "free" minimum glass thickness that comes with every cockpit.

A mech's head contains 6 critical slots. Two of them are reserved for sensors, two for the cockpit (which can be reduced to one once the compact cockpit becomes available), and one for life support. There's a LOT of equipment in there.

Xhaleon, on 29 December 2011 - 06:55 PM, said:

And um, I don't see how it falls apart.

You complained that the canopy materials aren't as strong, yet they must be stronger because you can have better protection on the location than anyplace else. The materials provide more protection than a 20 ton mech can support on one of its legs, despite the leg having a stronger underlying structure (amazingly, one could argue that the entire mech should be plated with this stuff).

Xhaleon, on 29 December 2011 - 06:55 PM, said:

If you can prove ferroglass is tougher than standard armor, then you just proved that an array of small cameras littered over the body would be even harder to take out. What exactly are you trying to get at?

That a cockpit canopy isn't a stupid idea is what I'm trying to get at. The setting's materials technology obviously is advanced enough to not make it a liability. However, all of the vulnerabilities of cameras I pointed out before still apply (except perhaps lens warping on near misses). Even if a cockpit canopy becomes obscured, a pilot (if he needed to) could brush against some trees (yeah, leaves!), or yank off his boxers and crack the cockpit long enough to swipe clean an area large enough to see with if his sensors are off line.

To be clear, I'm not saying that a mech doesn't mount sensors and/or cameras, nor that such devices cannot be used to circumvent what would otherwise be a blind spot (such as would be caused by a Hunchback's autocannon or a Hatamoto-Chi's shoulder baffles). I'm saying that relying on optical devices to the extent that you preclude the pilot actually laying eyes upon the battlefield is short sighted and dangerous.

[Dragon Lady]

OK, I've been lurking on this forum for a few days now. This topic has finally provoked me to register, dig out my old BT books, and provide my 2 cents worth to this conversation.

1) The artwork, literature, and fluff from FASA has consistently depicted Battlemechs as having transparent cockpit canopies. My 1990 edition of the Battletech Compendium has pictures of some very detailed models of Battlemechs, including close up pictures of the cockpit, which have canopies that range from fighter-like large canopies (on the MadCat/Timberwolf) which give the pilot a wide field of view to narrow slits (on the Thor/Summoner) that restricts the pilot to looking forward. Curiously, there isn't any decrease in protection as the amount of transparent armor increases. The 'mechs at the two extremes of visibility have nine armor points in their head.

There is no better sensor system than the Mark 1 eyeball, and even modern tanks have a narrow view-port for the driver and a periscope for the gunner, and a hatch where the tank commander sits out in the open when the tank isn't coming directly under fire. Not giving the pilot some method of seeing outside her 'Mech is just poor design.

Given how the Battlemech seems to be more like a walking jet as opposed to tanks with legs (Goliaths not withstanding) or even oversized infantry, it's not surprising to see some cockpit designs with rather large canopies. Obviously, there should be some compromise between pilot safety and field of view, but there certainly isn't in the rules. This is because...

2) The literature and fluff from FASA has also consistantly depicted Battlemechs as having a complex holographic HUD system. This translucent holographic HUD system is stated to condense a 360 degree view down to a 160 degree arc in front of the pilot. It also has multiple settings, including vis-light, starlight, infrared, and magscan modes. The cockpits also have multi-function displays and monitors as well.

This full HUD system has been depicted rarely in artwork, and the full HUD system hasn't been in any of the games, since the 360/160 display is quite disorienting for anyone who hasn't been trained throughly in its use.

If I remember correctly, it has been a plot point in several novels (especially with Morgan Kell in the Warrior trilogy) where a Mechwarrior has had to look through his canopy to fire on an enemy because the 'Mech's sensors had failed for one reason or another.

In any case, I think it's safe to say that in the Battletech Universe, the Battlemech uses both transparent canopies of various designs (that for whatever reason doesn't sacrifice durability for field of view) and a holographic HUD system, so the question of whether a Battlemech genuinely has a blind spot is pretty much moot.

But especially based on the concept artwork of a Hunchback, I have to go with Rule of Cool and state that I prefer the transparent canopy view, with a normal HUD overlayed over it. Giving each 'Mech with a unique cockpit view, complete with blindspots and methods to limit their effects, would give the game much more character than a generic one.

[Xhaleon]

Escef, on 29 December 2011 - 07:12 PM, said:

That a cockpit canopy isn't a stupid idea is what I'm trying to get at. The setting's materials technology obviously is advanced enough to not make it a liability. However, all of the vulnerabilities of cameras I pointed out before still apply (except perhaps lens warping on near misses). Even if a cockpit canopy becomes obscured, a pilot (if he needed to) could brush against some trees (yeah, leaves!), or yank off his boxers and crack the cockpit long enough to swipe clean an area large enough to see with if his sensors are off line.

Wow. The ferroglass is tougher than standard vehicle armor, and the pilot will just have to crack the thing if he wants to clean it. Unless you meant open it a bit?

I think most of them already have built in window-wipers, that's really a given considering the size and openness of those canopies. Cameras would be no different, except they are many times smaller and harder to hit, and you can have many of them for redundancy. You need a sensor of some sort for non-visible senses, such as thermal imaging, so why not just use the same display used for thermal for everything else?

I don't think you're on the same page here. I am saying that an array of cameras would always be more practical than an exposed cockpit, regardless of the technology used for armor, transparent or not. Cameras are better than open cockpits, nothing more, nothing less. The relative quality of materials and engineering is completely irrelevant to the point.

If you absolutely want a mechanical method to see out of the mech in emergencies, just install a periscope. As somebody pointed out earlier, modern "windows" reflect the view through a series of mirrors to prevent a direct shot to the interior of the vehicle. A series of mirrors is pretty much a periscope, only without the ability to move. If everything including your tiny-*** periscope is destroyed, I think you should be pulling the eject lever by then.

Edited by Xhaleon, 29 December 2011 - 07:40 PM.

[Escef]

Xhaleon, on 29 December 2011 - 07:35 PM, said:

Wow. The ferroglass is tougher than standard vehicle armor, and the pilot will just have to crack the thing if he wants to clean it. Unless you meant open it a bit?

Tell me that was supposed to be a joke. Even if you have to lie to me, tell me that was supposed to be a joke. And if not, than tell me that English is not your primary language.

[Xhaleon]

Escef, on 29 December 2011 - 07:44 PM, said:

Tell me that was supposed to be a joke. Even if you have to lie to me, tell me that was supposed to be a joke. And if not, than tell me that English is not your primary language.

English is my only language. Or at least the only one I care about.

You said "crack the cockpit open long enough to swipe it with your boxers". I think I might have misread that, but I guess you did mean to open it normally for a while to do some combat-window-washing, which is still utterly ridiculous.

[Escef]

Xhaleon, on 29 December 2011 - 08:09 PM, said:

English is my only language. Or at least the only one I care about.

You said "crack the cockpit open long enough to swipe it with your boxers". I think I might have misread that, but I guess you did mean to open it normally for a while to do some combat-window-washing, which is still utterly ridiculous.

It isn't ridiculous if your sensors are off-line and there's junk on your canopy from the face-plant you did after you took a hit in one of your leg actuators. Screwed up stuff happens.