950 replies to this topic

[Melcyna]

KalebFenoir, on 03 October 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

I think there's a balance for the whole 'mech head has almost no armour' and 'pilot is paramount' thing.

You gotta remember that the mech's head, wherever it is located, is relatively small and extremely hard to nail, not because it has its own armour on it, but because it's surrounded by parts of the torso that shield it from direct attacks, even point blank shots.

Take the Zeus for example; the cockpit looks like it has two nice big windowpanes one on top of another. Easy to hit? Nope. For one, the Zeus moves not just with its feet, but rotating its torso, and bringing its arms up and into the line of fire to block. In addition, the construction of the Left and Right torsos (though you don't feel it in the TT, it shows in the artwork), has these collar-like panels of armour that actually rise up and surround the left, right, and rear sections of the head, making it even harder to hit when moving.

Most mechs have defenses like this. Mechs like the Catapult and its kin, though the cockpit is somewhat on the nose of the mech, because the mech can swing that nose away FAST, and the nose itself is a heavily armoured piece of the CT, as well as the section above the 'head' is part of the CT, contributes to its survivability.

The Atlas has a unique one, if you look at MWO's design of it; the head is fully there and visible, smooshed between two big Space Marine-y shoulders, but the actual cockpit is buried somewhere behind the left or right eye (I'm not sure which, and it could probably be either) and that might not even BE the real cockpit, as some variants of the Atlas show light coming from the nose-slit. THAT could be where the real cockpit hides, and if that's the case, look how much armour surrounds that nose. Try imagining yourself in a rival mech, running at-speed, and trying to target that little spot with your big gun. Chances are, it'll splash all over the rest of the head.

One thing BT and Mechwarrior in general don't tend to show (because it's hard), is just how deeply into the mech's head the pilot is actually buried. I don't believe they're just behind a windscreen looking out; I think they're as deep in the head as you can get, surrounded by layers of armour and all the gear that makes up the cockpit and support machinery, looking at a screen where multiple minicams on the head have created an image to be seen. You shoot the head, and you might knock out some cams, but others would take over, and you wouldn't lose screen viability for a while (though in time, enough hits might do that anyway).

I don't take the artwork on the books as canon, or else it'd look like you could take out a Mad Cat with a machinegun by shooting the windows out. But I think there's a little bit of truth there too.

I used to think that they were buried deep inside and they were looking at screens...

but unfortunately the novel quickly disprove that, along with all the other materials on battletech...

in nearly EVERY battletech novel, cases of 'poor mechwarrior cockpit got slugged by lucky gauss rifle through the canopy' happens either in detail or mentioned in passing as one of the casualties...

when it's mentioned in passing it's often the ONLY casualties on the lance of mech in what's otherwise a one sided battle just to FURTHER drive up the point of the author that the mechwarrior that got slugged was REALLY UNLUCKY. (pretty ********, no sane military works on that assumption because common sense tells that's something that is supposed to be avoided in design).

and in every mechwarrior game, you can see clearly that you are IN FACT looking at a canopy, not a screen because when you shut your mech down ALL your instrument goes down with no power but you can still see everything happening outside fine and dandy.

THEN in every video or cutscene involving battlemech you LITERALLY SEE the mechwarrior seated in a cockpit with the canopy being the only thing separating them from the outside world.

I am sorry, i REALLY do used to think that... they can't be THAT CRAZY and have a ground vehicle pilot seated with wide canopy looking right at the enemy can they?


unfortunately the answer is... yes.. they are THAT crazy...

either rule of cool or rule of stupid applies here.

[Kaziganthi]

Melcyna, on 03 October 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

I used to think that they were buried deep inside and they were looking at screens...

but unfortunately the novel quickly disprove that, along with all the other materials on battletech...

in nearly EVERY battletech novel, cases of 'poor mechwarrior cockpit got slugged by lucky gauss rifle through the canopy' happens either in detail or mentioned in passing as one of the casualties...

when it's mentioned in passing it's often the ONLY casualties on the lance of mech in what's otherwise a one sided battle just to FURTHER drive up the point of the author that the mechwarrior that got slugged was REALLY UNLUCKY. (pretty ********, no sane military works on that assumption because common sense tells that's something that is supposed to be avoided in design).

and in every mechwarrior game, you can see clearly that you are IN FACT looking at a canopy, not a screen because when you shut your mech down ALL your instrument goes down with no power but you can still see everything happening outside fine and dandy.

THEN in every video or cutscene involving battlemech you LITERALLY SEE the mechwarrior seated in a cockpit with the canopy being the only thing separating them from the outside world.

I am sorry, i REALLY do used to think that... they can't be THAT CRAZY and have a ground vehicle pilot seated with wide canopy looking right at the enemy can they?


unfortunately the answer is... yes.. they are THAT crazy...

either rule of cool or rule of stupid applies here.

Its part of the human factor like robots..the brain must go in the head, therefor the pilot must go in the head.

[KalebFenoir]

Time for some more crazy battletech facts

At no point (barring Far Country), has an alien race ever been discovered in the BT universe. Mankind has spread through most of the galaxy, finding alien species of animals and plants... but not a single intelligent alien race.

WTF. Empty universe eh? Makes it easy to keep the game straight if it's person vs person not person vs alien... but still very empty.

[Malis A Novacat]

Okami Ryu, on 31 July 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

rail guns are more costly and unwieldy than Gauss rifles

Just curious, but what make a Gauss Rifle different from a Rail Gun? more than just the name, I mean. Would it actually just be the size?

GC

[Melcyna]

If we're talking about the REAL one,

Spoiler

then strictly speaking from the inner mechanism point of view they are both electromagnetic propulsion/accelerator device, there's a whole argument several pages long i made about it with others in this very thread a while back.

the method in which the electromagnetic propulsion is applied however differ drastically, in the case of gauss rifle the magnetic force generated by the coils on the gauss rifle barrel are sequentially switched on and off (generating a moving electromagnet essentially just ahead of the projectile) to drag the projectile out of the barrel...

a railgun on the other hand utilizes force on moving charge that is exhibited when you have moving charge or current through an electromagnetic field. So unlike the gauss rifle, railgun has a flowing current through the armature (projectile or part of it) and the force it experience is directly related to it.

A coil gun or gauss gun has the advantage in that it's projectile is very simple... it has to be ferromagnetic (or at least it's sabot needs to be ferromagnetic) so that the electromagnet on the gauss gun barrel can drag it along but that's about it, it doesn't need current flowing through the projectile, or for it to touch the barrel even which gives it one of it's primary strength: ie: the ability to propel just about ANYTHING ferromagnetic as long as it fits within the barrel chamber and length.

this in fact is the reason why mass reactive propulsion for future space design considered using coil gun system for the propulsion.

The downside to coil gun/gauss gun is that you have to switch the electromagnet along the barrel very rapidly necessitating some sort of time sensitive switch and you must know where exactly the projectile is along the barrel at all time to know when to switch the electromagnet at the right time for maximum acceleration. Failure to do so results in the system slowing itself down which is counterproductive.

Railgun is the opposite in that it does not need a special time sensitive switch, the projectile forms part of the running circuit of the system but other than that the system is very straightforward... current flows through the system (and the projectile) electromagnetic field are formed and the moving current in the projectile experiences force as it is subjected to the electromagnetic field based on the right hand rule and voila you get the force that moves and accelerate the projectile.

no need to time it, and the system automatically cuts itself off the moment the projectile leaves the barrel since the projectile itself is part of the circuit.

The downside to railgun is that since the massive current that forms the circuit has to go through the projectile (it's main propulsion unlike gauss gun is not magnetic force but force on moving charge) it creates several difficult challenge in itself (using it as propulsion like gauss gun is obviously out of the question as it would be impractical).

As far as battletech is concerned however, the actual weapon they specifically called 'RAILGUN' is basically just a massively enlarged gauss rifle... ie: projectile based weapon, VERY heavy, takes more slot, does more damage per slug than a gauss rifle etc... but otherwise very similar.

they don't particularly touch, care, or even KNOW in all likelihood of the difference between the two.

Kaziganthi, on 04 October 2012 - 01:51 AM, said:

Its part of the human factor like robots..the brain must go in the head, therefor the pilot must go in the head.

Neither which makes sense,

i mean human form factor for robot of such scale makes no sense for military purpose to start with and we know that, but of course they do look kinda cool which is why we like the game.

but even considering it from the IN GAME battletech point of view... it doesn't make sense either because the pilots are not controlling the battlemech movement with his brain, he is controlling it using OLD FASHIONED STICK AND RUDDER like a traditional vehicle.

not that it makes sense to put him in some sort of artificial head mind you even if he does control it with his mind, since we do NOT actually feel the presence of our brain (unless it actually hurts) nor does it matter strictly where it's located for the purpose of the brain functioning and governing the body (it just happens that we're designed that way).

Edited by Melcyna, 07 October 2012 - 05:11 AM.

[Gun Bear]

In 3050, technology sucks.

[Kaziganthi]

Melcyna, on 06 October 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

If we're talking about the REAL one,

Spoiler

then strictly speaking from the inner mechanism point of view they are both electromagnetic propulsion/accelerator device, there's a whole argument several pages long i made about it with others in this very thread a while back.

the method in which the electromagnetic propulsion is applied however differ drastically, in the case of gauss rifle the magnetic force generated by the coils on the gauss rifle barrel are sequentially switched on and off (generating a moving electromagnet essentially just ahead of the projectile) to drag the projectile out of the barrel...

a railgun on the other hand utilizes force on moving charge that is exhibited when you have moving charge or current through an electromagnetic field. So unlike the gauss rifle, railgun has a flowing current through the armature (projectile or part of it) and the force it experience is directly related to it.

A coil gun or gauss gun has the advantage in that it's projectile is very simple... it has to be ferromagnetic (or at least it's sabot needs to be ferromagnetic) so that the electromagnet on the gauss gun barrel can drag it along but that's about it, it doesn't need current flowing through the projectile, or for it to touch the barrel even which gives it one of it's primary strength: ie: the ability to propel just about ANYTHING ferromagnetic as long as it fits within the barrel chamber and length.

this in fact is the reason why mass reactive propulsion for future space design considered using coil gun system for the propulsion.

The downside to coil gun/gauss gun is that you have to switch the electromagnet along the barrel very rapidly necessitating some sort of time sensitive switch and you must know where exactly the projectile is along the barrel at all time to know when to switch the electromagnet at the right time for maximum acceleration. Failure to do so results in the system slowing itself down which is counterproductive.

Railgun is the opposite in that it does not need a special time sensitive switch, the projectile forms part of the running circuit of the system but other than that the system is very straightforward... current flows through the system (and the projectile) electromagnetic field are formed and the moving current in the projectile experiences force as it is subjected to the electromagnetic field based on the right hand rule and voila you get the force that moves and accelerate the projectile.

no need to time it, and the system automatically cuts itself off the moment the projectile leaves the barrel since the projectile itself is part of the circuit.

The downside to railgun is that since the massive current that forms the circuit has to go through the projectile (it's main propulsion unlike gauss gun is not magnetic force but force on moving charge) it creates several difficult challenge in itself (using it as propulsion like gauss gun is obviously out of the question as it would be impractical).

As far as battletech is concerned however, the actual weapon they specifically called 'RAILGUN' is basically just a massively enlarged gauss rifle... ie: projectile based weapon, VERY heavy, takes more slot, does more damage per slug than a gauss rifle etc... but otherwise very similar.

they don't particularly touch, care, or even KNOW in all likelihood of the difference between the two.


Neither which makes sense,

i mean human form factor for robot of such scale makes no sense for military purpose to start with and we know that, but of course they do look kinda cool which is why we like the game.

but even considering it from the IN GAME battletech point of view... it doesn't make sense either because the pilots are not controlling the battlemech movement with his brain, he is controlling it using OLD FASHIONED STICK AND RUDDER like a traditional vehicle.

not that it makes sense to put him in some sort of artificial head mind you even if he does control it with his mind, since we do NOT actually feel the presence of our brain (unless it actually hurts) nor does it matter strictly where it's located for the purpose of the brain functioning and governing the body (it just happens that we're designed that way).

Actually they control it via a few means,

Throttle for speed
Joystick for direction of upper body and weapons control
Rudders for direction of lower body

Neuralhelmet for balance

Edited by Kaziganthi, 07 October 2012 - 11:32 AM.

[Melcyna]

Kaziganthi, on 07 October 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

Actually they control it via a few means,

Throttle for speed
Joystick for direction of upper body and weapons control
Rudders for direction of lower body

Neuralhelmet for balance

The mech actually has a gyroscope for balance control, the pilot only assist with the balance through his neurohelmet

and the rest ie:
Throttle, Joystick, Rudders?

those are all the controls used by 'Stick and Rudder' pilots, the expression 'Stick and Rudder' guy essentially refer to the pilots who controlled the aircraft using the 3 main input (joystick, rudder, throttle) in addition to the other instruments.

it's an old practice coming from the age where a pilot must essentially be good at 'stick and rudder' to actually fly at all since back then aircraft didn't have automated system and computer regulated input, ie: a stick and rudder pilot is an expression that indicates that he is a good pilot essentially for being well versed with his primary input tools on an aircraft.

a mech input device, is THAT primitive... they are using a control mechanism aside of the instruments that are IDENTICAL to 50s aircraft (with some touch of HOTAS, but they never fully understood what HOTAS controller are supposed to have so this was never expanded properly). There's little sense to support putting the pilot on a HEAD of all things when the input device is essentially the same old 'stick and rudder'

Edited by Melcyna, 07 October 2012 - 05:09 PM.

[XxSaberxX]

Ridiculous? Well, I'd say the Neurohelmet itself.

When you're in a 25-100 ton mech running, falling, jumping, getting hit by gauss slugs, PPCs and whatnot, what kind of balance do you have? What kind of balance do you sense?

Okay, we can argue that the pilot is seated and thus he would have a good sense of balance. If that's the case, wouldn't it be the PERFECT sense of balance then? You're in the 2nd most stable position (only lying down is more stable) and yet your Mech is still able to fall over?

And anyway, how does your brain's 'sense of balance' HELP a 100 ton mech anyway? Your body is nowhere near that weight. Heck - your brain wouldn't even be able to 'help' a 20-25 ton mech because it does not / never had the experience of working with that kinda weight?

[Skylarr]

KalebFenoir, on 06 October 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

Time for some more crazy battletech facts

At no point (barring Far Country), has an alien race ever been discovered in the BT universe. Mankind has spread through most of the galaxy, finding alien species of animals and plants... but not a single intelligent alien race.

WTF. Empty universe eh? Makes it easy to keep the game straight if it's person vs person not person vs alien... but still very empty.

You are forgetting about the Neopithecantropus.

[Undercover Brother]

Tussock, on 31 July 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

True... A fusion reactor just stops if the containment fields collapse.

Even a fission plant is just a steam engine... There's not nearly enough fissile material to reach critical mass and create a nuclear explosion. The excitement comes from the boiler exploding... BANG! radioactive steam everywhere! Exciting!
A nuclear fission steam powered mech = Ork Gargant = DAKKA DAKKA WAAAGH!!!

Channeling the energy to power a 100kg+ gauss rifle slug up to mach 6 generates no heat!

PPC's actually work in the absence of a vacuum!

A 500kg machine gun only has an effective range of 90m

The mutiple warhead missile launcher was fielded before the anti missile system!

As far as the 500kg machine gun: http://en.wikipedia....i/GAU-8_Avenger

The GAU 8/A Avenger 30mm cannon in the A-10 "Warthog", which grinds tanks into Swiss Cheese, only weighs 281kg, fires at 4,200 RPM, has a range of 1,220 meters, and fires a larger round than an AC/5... It was invented in 1977... So, somehow, they ended up with a 500kg, .30 carbine. WTF?!

[Solkar]

SakuranoSenshi, on 03 August 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

He may have scoffed and been wrong but there won't be bipedal war machines weighing in at a hundred tonnes, I can assure you. :-)

For a variety of hard physics reasons, we won't see an Atlas, ever.

Go to http://www.facebook....Inc/54126174095

There is a group building a real Mech, I have personally seen part of it and talked with some of the machinists, and one of the programmers. No neural helmets, no fusion reactors or PPCs, but there will be Mechs... just not replacing tanks and fighters and bombers.

[Kattahn]

Any Battletech veteran knows that every time you question Battletech physics God kills a catgirl...

And no, never the one talking to you at GenCon

Kattahn

[Melcyna]

That's ok then, doggirl > catgirl

so onto the next question!

[Zakatak]

How come it's explicitly stated that the ridiculously ranges in the Tabletop exist for the purpose of gameplay only? Why does it carry over to the books?

I bet if we brought BTech to life, mechs would be smashing eachother at 3000m or so.

[Melcyna]

The problem with that is that most writers and your common average man don't really know how combat at such range typically turns like...

most ppl don't even know the basic concept of warfare, nevermind warfare with realistic range... it's much easier (and dramatic) for writers when they are all just fighting at close range, where things can be exaggerated and the fighting occurs in small localized space (which has the added bonus for writers in that they only have to remember and keep track of small number of actors on the field of the story).

aside of that, once the range increases to nominal combat range, many of the battlemech design basis becomes worthless...

which incidentally is why oversized bipedal design will NEVER enter military use.

Edited by Melcyna, 07 October 2012 - 06:51 PM.

[Zakatak]

Brenden, on 31 July 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

-They use metric still

What the hell is wrong with the metric system? It's flawless.

Anyway, I calc'd weaponry to be 50MJ (megajoules) per point of damage, based on the composition of armor. Nerds on Spacebattles agree. Here are some amusing facts:

• An AC/20 strikes with the energy of 1000MJ, or 25 times the energy of the gun of an Abrams main cannon using HEAT rounds.
  
• A Heavy Gauss Rifle has 1250MJ of kinetic energy, 35 times the energy of an Abrams using APFSDS rounds.
  
• Many people think Battletech weaponry is super weak and would lose to our own military.

If proper physics and make-sense ranges, as oppose to tabletop rules, were applied to Battletech? A Fafnir standing on the coastline could sink an aircraft carrier several miles from shore. That is pretty damn awesome.

[Melcyna]

Which technically makes no sense because if their firepower produces such overwhelming energy then a direct hit from the slug to a ground would produce the equivalent blast and shockwave of several bunker buster, and it would punch through any building structure like paper.

said fafnir unfortunately also for some reason can't detect (battletech sensor... heh) or hit said aircraft carrier despite the immense size of it...

Said weaponries also LOSES it's energy so rapidly within mere dozens of meters that they are basically implying that MULTI HUNDRED MEGAJOULES of energy dissipates into the ******* AIR.

yeah battletech numerical value is about as reliable as Star Wars...

ie: they made up their numbers to whatever the hell they please till it makes no sense...

it IS a game after all..

[FD Wulfette]

I have been reading this thread for a good while now and I just have to say a few things
1.) Gauss Rifle slugs are not the size of VW bugs but the size of medicine balls. Ammo is 8 rounds per ton 2000/8=250 So each slug is 250 Lbs of ferrous nickel-iron. Do to density of each of the metals the math adds up and you find that it comes out to be roughly 11 inches in diameter per round.
2.) Gauss rifles explode because of the capacitors wich holds a heavy charge. The rifle explodes due to the massive amounts of energy being released from aforementioned capacitors is no longer contained and violently released.
3.) Battlemech armor is of a higher density but also much lighter than conventional armor used on todays most modern tanks. The armor of a battlemech can withstand a direct shot from a HEAP round fired from the 120mm housed on the abrams main battle tank. This shot would lack the energy needed to penetrate the armor and it would just flatten out upon impact. If it was lucky it would cause 1 point of damage to a mechs armor. although the bore on the abrams's main gun is roughly the size of a single barrel of a AC/10 wich is a multi barrel weapon so it would take 10 abrams firing at the same time to equal the damage of 1 AC/10 although the powder charge on the abrams 120mm main gun would still be insufficient.
4.) The neurohelmet is a direct interface and uses the pilots balance (From the inner-ear and cerebellum) to make slight adjustments to the mechs gyro this keeps it upright and biped.
5.) The pilot does sit in the mechs head. Yes they sit shallow in the head. However they really are protected the "viewscreen" is in itself armor. It is Ferro-Glass wich is comprised of transparent ferro-fibrous. In other words it the mech version of lexan. The ferroglass is a part of the mechs head armor and it is factored into the head armor.
6.) The GAU-8 of the A-10 warthog is a 30mm cannon. Hummmm... 30mm canon in battletech that would put it of the same caliber and class of an AC/2, typical AC's in battletech range from 25mm to 203mm. The AC/2 wich is a long range weapon on TT play. In fact the AC/2 is the longest ranged weapon in the game not even LRM's have the range of AC/2. Two points of damage for the GAU-8 and that is if all seven rounds from the muzzle actually hit. Again our most modern weapons can just barely scratch a battlemech.
I have more but I will let this information soak in before I post some more rebuttals.

Edited by FD Wulfette, 07 October 2012 - 09:00 PM.

[Nighpher]

Helbourne, on 04 August 2012 - 06:24 AM, said:

Yeah Battletech technology has always made me wonder and chuckle a bit. I mean the main cannon on the M1A2 Abrams tank has an effective range of what 4000m. That is 2.5 miles. In game table top game terms you need at least 8 maps, 9 if you want the tank to be on a map. I would think that 4000m would be medium range for it, cause what ammo they use would determine max range (like laser guided rounds). Plus why are the targeting computers so stupid in battletech? I mean why does a computer take so much weight and space? clan TC = 1 ton and 1 crit slot for every 5 tons of equipment (rounded up), Inner Sphere is 1 ton and 1 crit for every 4 tons of equipment (rounded up). I mean come on now, how big are these computers and what do they use to make them?

One of these babys!