950 replies to this topic

[Theodor Kling]

gautrek, on 16 August 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

My major BT issue is the whole "I can drive,look to the side,shoot ****,use radio"while not falling over the uneven ground at the feet of my massive battlemech.Any modern vehicle that is used in warfare is multi manned.At the least a driver and a gunner( attack helicopters) or a driver,loader,gunner,commander( tank).Yet we are expected to believe that a single person can control an unsteady bipedal upright object fitted with weapons that can independently target multiple objects and be efficent at it?
And that mechs are going to stand head to head and blast away at each other till one falls over like old time gun slingers.The sooner mech games move away from the TT ideas and start using more RL tactics the better(and add in the much longer ranges).
I would bet any current MBT against any mech on any day.

Don´t forget the Neuro Helmet.. miracle tech saves your day And I don´t know what you call efficient... but not beeing able to each out further then 1km, and average fighting anges of some 300-600m sounds not very efficient to me.

Arctic Fox, on 16 August 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

While a lot of worlds are 'earthlike' in that they can support life, the vast majority of them aren't nearly as hospitable as Terra. Major worlds like Tharkad and Skye have populations in the billions, but quite a few of the other worlds we have figures for show that the average planet in the Inner Sphere, and even some of the very important but less hospitable worlds, like Hesperus II, do not have more than a few dozen or hundred million people each. According to Touring the Stars' figures, the average planet in the Inner Sphere would have to have to be several billion people, which does not fit too well with established figures or with BattleTech's usual aesthetics which suggest lower populations.

I don´t diasgree with you on the population density of the IS.. but I ask myself why it is as it is. Despite outstanding masakres like Turtle bay or Kentares IV, civilains don´t die that much in those wars. I mean, sure there ARE civilian deaths, especiallywhen fighting in an urban enviroment, but compared to the fact that whole planets change ownership in those fights, these fights ae pretty.. local. And so are the civilan victims.
Even granting that not all planetes got acces to cuttign edge tech, none of them is below our current tech levek, which is able to sutain a pretty big population. And not just in the "nice"areas of the planet.
Furthermore:there are hundreds of worlds not even toched by war for centuies. It´s not all borderworlds getting a raid on a regular basis ( Exept for Capellans of course... after the last war they are basicly nothign but borderworlds.)
So populations should be big. But they are not.

[Arctic Fox]

Theodor Kling, on 16 August 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

I don´t diasgree with you on the population density of the IS.. but I ask myself why it is as it is. Despite outstanding masakres like Turtle bay or Kentares IV, civilains don´t die that much in those wars. I mean, sure there ARE civilian deaths, especiallywhen fighting in an urban enviroment, but compared to the fact that whole planets change ownership in those fights, these fights ae pretty.. local. And so are the civilan victims.
Even granting that not all planetes got acces to cuttign edge tech, none of them is below our current tech levek, which is able to sutain a pretty big population. And not just in the "nice"areas of the planet.
Furthermore:there are hundreds of worlds not even toched by war for centuies. It´s not all borderworlds getting a raid on a regular basis ( Exept for Capellans of course... after the last war they are basicly nothign but borderworlds.)
So populations should be big. But they are not.

First of all, Kentares IV and Turtle Bay are not outstanding massacres. The former is infamous because of the method used to kill the population and the latter because such actions haven't been seen in the Inner Sphere for hundreds of years. Kentares IV, which had the higher death toll of these, did not see more than about 52 million civilian deaths. Meanwhile, the First and Second Succession War as a whole were marked by unprecendented total warfare; the number of worlds which disappear from the maps because of orbital bombardment, weapons of mass destruction, loss of infrastructure and other reasons over the course of the Succession Wars is apparently around 750, and many others, like Solaris VII, are noted as having been scoured from orbit over the course of them. So, yes, many civilians die in these wars.

But that's not the reason most worlds don't have billions of people, as I assume most of the worlds that are still populated haven't been that badly damaged since the Star League era. It is simply that while habitable, most worlds are not exactly hospitable, and with the exception of major worlds and industrial centers, none have any real significance that would cause people to actually live in them. Well, maybe in reality these would still eventually have billions of citizens, but it's not completely unjustified in-universe in my opinion.

Edited by Arctic Fox, 16 August 2012 - 03:43 PM.

[Skylarr]

Faeron Wolf, on 16 August 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

There are thirty mechs totaling out at over 2000 tons, but aircraft just don't exist

There is not a single Mech weighing 2000 Tons. The heaviest in canon is the Omega, 150 tons. The factory was destroyed during Operation SCOUR. The 30 that were made only saw servive on Terra.

Conventional Aircraft do exist?

[Skylarr]

gautrek, on 16 August 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

My major BT issue is the whole "I can drive,look to the side,shoot ****,use radio"while not falling over the uneven ground at the feet of my massive battlemech.Any modern vehicle that is used in warfare is multi manned.At the least a driver and a gunner( attack helicopters) or a driver,loader,gunner,commander( tank).Yet we are expected to believe that a single person can control an unsteady bipedal upright object fitted with weapons that can independently target multiple objects and be efficent at it?
And that mechs are going to stand head to head and blast away at each other till one falls over like old time gun slingers.The sooner mech games move away from the TT ideas and start using more RL tactics the better(and add in the much longer ranges).

Quote

The neurohelmet reads the brainwaves of the pilot. The basic model of neurohelmet focuses on the human sense of balance. With a multi-ton gyroscope and powerful myomers in the limbs, BattleMechs can stand upright and remain balanced on their own, but the limited intelligence of BattleMechs and natural conservatism of their control computers means they often need to be told when it is acceptable to be off balance, which may be helpful in battle as MechWarriors push their machines. The neurohelmet also provides feedback to the MechWarrior, helping them retain their own sense of balance as they sit 10 to 12 meters in the air atop a swaying, weaving bipedal giant robot.

Mechs are not suppose to follow 17th century tactics were everyone marches out to open terran and line up the wait for the signa to fire. They are suppose to use current day Armor tactics.

Quote

I would bet any current MBT against any mech on any day.

Current day MBTs use Primative Armor. Battlemechs use what is called BattleMech Armor. The Mackie was the first BattleMech ever made. In its trail run it took on 4 remotely operated Merkava tanks that were more advance than todays tanks.

"Four remote-controlled Merkavas were destroyed in such a fashion as to shock the observers, sealing the BattleMech's rise to the position of king of the battlefield."

[Melcyna]

Skylarr, on 16 August 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Mechs are not suppose to follow 17th century tactics were everyone marches out to open terran and line up the wait for the signa to fire. They are suppose to use current day Armor tactics.

Which ironically makes it even more odd that they are single crewed, since modern armor tactics often require at least 2 ppl to work properly... ie: driver and gunner, one for focusing on maneuvering to the pre planned position, one for gunnery while performing the maneuver (contrary to what some ppl think, humans are not actually capable of focusing on 2 high concentration task simultaneously with reasonable performance on both in general).

in practice tanks normally need at least 3 because humans have limited situational awareness and multi tasking capability, 1 driver, 1 gunner, 1 commander... with the commander normally focusing on being aware of what's going on with his sensor suite and instructing the gunner and driver on what course of action to take. This is how modern tanks are capable of hitting targets on the move rapidly on the field while sprinting at combat speed ... well that and they naturally had gun and sight stabilizer to allow the crew to actually aim while on the move.

So instead of this, they condense it to 1 guy... and expect him to follow armor tactics?

ROFL

The Mackie trial run was most amusing in particular because from the weapon loadout of 4 Merkava and a single Mackie, it's already difficult to see how exactly that trial was supposed to work out the way described, and this naturally without breaking their stated technical detail convention (which technically makes no sense).

Edited by Melcyna, 16 August 2012 - 05:11 PM.

[Elessar]

Melcyna, on 16 August 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Which ironically makes it even more odd that they are single crewed, since modern armor tactics often require at least 2 ppl to work properly... ie: driver and gunner, one for focusing on maneuvering to the pre planned position, one for gunnery while performing the maneuver (contrary to what some ppl think, humans are not actually capable of focusing on 2 high concentration task simultaneously with reasonable performance on both in general).

...

In fact there was (a sa rare occurence however) the "Dual Cockpit" ... with the Battlemaster as one of its most prominent users,
which had exactly this distinction between gunner and pilot

[Skylarr]

The game was 1st designed for TT. A single person controlling a single Mech. Within 2 years they added Mechwarrior. AN RPG aspect to the game. Maybe they had this RPG mindset the whole time and did not want to complicate the game with a Mech being controlled by a crew.

[Skylarr]

Elessar, on 16 August 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

In fact there was (a sa rare occurence however) the "Dual Cockpit" ... with the Battlemaster as one of its most prominent users,
which had exactly this distinction between gunner and pilot

All Mech that have a Dual Cockpits were installed after the factory. They are considered non-canon. Several Mechs can have a Command Console. But, these are regulated to training duties.

[Melcyna]

Skylarr, on 16 August 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

The game was 1st designed for TT. A single person controlling a single Mech. Within 2 years they added Mechwarrior. AN RPG aspect to the game. Maybe they had this RPG mindset the whole time and did not want to complicate the game with a Mech being controlled by a crew.

Entirely possible, and we are aware of course that they probably had gameplay in mind first.

Which is why writing the Lore is so difficult, and why we get to poke on it...

it's still amusing however because in cases like these, the Lore itself is supposed to explain something else but tripped on itself with other aspects (like single vs multi crew)

so one has to wonder if perhaps it's better in some cases to not try and explain them in the first place and avoid potentially setting off a cascading chain of nonsensical convention, where we end up with one lore covering another lore's mistake, covering YET ANOTHER lore's mistake... and so on and so forth to infinitum.

as a side note, in practice the mech rarely if ever actually use armor tactics because aside of the fact that mech are not actually suited for them, most sci fi writers are not familiar on what armor tactics are either nor are they actually entertaining or easy to digest for soft scifi entertainment material.

[JackTD]

Theodor Kling, on 16 August 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Well. History shows that it can work..if the general population is busy enough working theri *** off. And medival armies were pretty small. Especially compared to those fielded by ancient Rome, Greece, Persia.. or European armies in the18th century.

Yes medival armies were pretty small, but not in ratio compared to their base population.

Another problem in comparing medival armies with nowadays or BT is, that back then you needed a much higher population percentage for farming etc. in order to support the standing armies.

[Brenden]

Erm... What about... The Pulse Laser? In most images I have seen, it is a bolt or flying beam, but I heard it was a regular laser, just blinking on and off.

[Theodor Kling]

Brenden, on 16 August 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Erm... What about... The Pulse Laser? In most images I have seen, it is a bolt or flying beam, but I heard it was a regular laser, just blinking on and off.

Todays powerfull lasers are often pulse lasers. Allows for higher energy densities, and more power ( per pulse) with the same power input as a continous beam.
But pulse lasers as bolts or, like in MW4 , a series of bolts, is far from that. real world pulse lasers wok with nano/pico and sometimes femtosecond pulses, so to the naked eye it looks like a contiouos beam ( if the energy densities are high enough that you see anything at all that is).

[gautrek]

Skylarr, on 16 August 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

Mechs are not suppose to follow 17th century tactics were everyone marches out to open terran and line up the wait for the signa to fire. They are suppose to use current day Armor tactics.



Current day MBTs use Primative Armor. Battlemechs use what is called BattleMech Armor. The Mackie was the first BattleMech ever made. In its trail run it took on 4 remotely operated Merkava tanks that were more advance than todays tanks.

"Four remote-controlled Merkavas were destroyed in such a fashion as to shock the observers, sealing the BattleMech's rise to the position of king of the battlefield."

I couldn't agree more about the not using 17th century tactics.But due to the stupid short weapon ranges in battle tech and the fact that is near impossible to get hull down due to the great height of a mech every game video of a mech game ends up with mechs standing toe to toe and blasting away.If the guns shot as far as modern day weapons then the idea of mechs hiding away and taking ot shots at each other would work.
But due to the speed of the smaller mechs and the short ranges the game is no where near RL in any respect(and yes i do understand its a made up world).
WOT suffers the same issues.Even while playing it(which i have now stopped due to it ******* me off too much)the stupid short range combat makes a mockery of the tanks.The Tiger1 is an absolute joke in that game.Where in RL it should have been one of the most feared on the field.

But i stand by what i said a modern day MBT would rip a mech apart.It would be firing at the mech from miles away as it lumbered along looking for a place to hide.While the MBT would be in and out of the hollows and depressions while firing on the move.All the time the crew would be working to keep the mech in view while the mech pilot would be trying to watch where he was walking while at the same time trying to keep the tank in view.
Also a 60 ton MBT is more heavily armoured than a 60 mech and is a much smaller target to hit.So yet again the mech loses out.

The whole idea of battle tech makes no sense in the real world.But i can suspend my disbelief and accept it for what it is in the name of games.Just as i can suspend the idea of hit points in many other games.

[Shiney]

- You cannot build a mech heavier than 100 tons.

[Arctic Fox]

Shiney, on 18 August 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

- You cannot build a mech heavier than 100 tons.

Yes, you can.

[Lazer Blazer]

despite massive amouts of fuel and power needed to lift a mech off of the ground. Mechs never seem to need to refuel thier jumpjets.

[wendlebum]

and my 2 c-bills which may close the post forever, Battlemechs are not fitted with windscreen wipers.

[Skylarr]

wendlebum, on 19 August 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

and my 2 c-bills which may close the post forever, Battlemechs are not fitted with windscreen wipers.

LOSTEC

[Arctic Fox]

Lazer Blazer, on 19 August 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

despite massive amouts of fuel and power needed to lift a mech off of the ground. Mechs never seem to need to refuel thier jumpjets.

Jump Jets are powered by the 'Mechs fusion reactor and use (mostly) air as reaction mass; unless you are operating in a vacuum, they don't require any fuel.

[Theodor Kling]

wendlebum, on 19 August 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

and my 2 c-bills which may close the post forever, Battlemechs are not fitted with windscreen wipers.

They might have invisible ones. Seriously:
One can get the water off, by just directing a jet of air it in a near zero angle to the screen. This kind would be all but invisble but does the job, and if it breakes at least you got no mechanical parts of the wiper stuck in your field of view
And mechs got hot air in abundance due to their infamous heat management..even better for that.

On the other hand... LosTech is probably the right explanation agian