950 replies to this topic

[JackTD]

Elessar, on 15 August 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

It does?
Never played with Artillery much, but IIRC (at least with normal Ari, like Long Tom or Thumper) you would have to announce a hex on which the shell should land several turns beforehand and then the shell would land there or in vicinity, depending on the presence of advanced observers, several turns later (with the time of flight being dependant on the distance of the artillery to the location of battle, measured in battletech maps).
Cannot remember any rules that allowed for course correction mid flight

Well if the first round hit, the observer would be able to adjust the fire (if I remember correctly he would get a bonus) for all continous rounds, even if they are allready underway .

[SakuranoSenshi]

That's just a disconnect between the timing of player given orders and dice rolls and the 'reality' of artillery fire. Put simply, because of the way the game is structured it seems like the correction is after the fact but actually it's that the simulation is not real time.

[JackTD]

Anyway...

In our 'special' time/scale setup, we also altered the artillery rules. They will now arrive in the same round. I.e. Aiming / Shooting before movement and incoming after movement.

Yes, this will make artillery much more powerful, but artillery IS powerful in REALITY.



OMG - I did it. I tried to relate BT to reality. What is going to happen to me now???

Edited by JackTD, 15 August 2012 - 06:46 AM.

[2ane]

JackTD, on 15 August 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

Anyway...

In our 'special' time/scale setup, we also altered the artillery rules. They will now arrive in the same round. I.e. Aiming / Shooting before movement and incoming after movement.

Yes, this will make artillery much more powerful, but artillery IS powerful in REALITY.



OMG - I did it. I tried to relate BT to reality. What is going to happen to me now???

actually with Helicopters/UAVs/Cruise missiles artillery is pretty much dead.

[SakuranoSenshi]

2ane, on 15 August 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

actually with Helicopters/UAVs/Cruise missiles artillery is pretty much dead.

Yes and no. Entrenched defence can still make good use of artillery and there is still 'mobile field artillery' but with the kind of firepower that various other platforms can dish out and the scale of conflicts that have been fought recently, usually its role is limited at best.

[JackTD]

2ane, on 15 August 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

actually with Helicopters/UAVs/Cruise missiles artillery is pretty much dead.

If you are able to hit modern SPHs with a cruise missile, you have a very stupid opfor commander.

And if the opfor commander lets your helicopters and UAVs free reign, he is even more stupid.

Do not forget that the wars that we have seen in the past decade were asymetrical, with nearly no 'real' military opposition.

In a 'real' war, i.e. two equally equipped armies against each other, artillery will be very powerful, believe me.

Edited by JackTD, 15 August 2012 - 07:42 AM.

[Melcyna]

Pretty much, as a note, the coalition in the middle east right now have fired plenty of artillery shells from either self propelled artillery or fixed artillery, the baptism of fire for the german PzH-2000 SPG was in afghanistan and the US Paladin was their primary fire support for the bulk of the artillery fire to date in middle east, as well as the platform for their copperhead guided shells, they've fired enormous amount of shells.

all major military nations have sizable artillery battalion equipped with self propelled artillery, and there's a reason why they continue upgrading them constantly.

every assets have strength and weakness, rotor gunships don't go into heavy ADS zone unless it wants to commit suicide, nor can we expect UAV to survive long enough to provide telemetry on the target we want in a zone hostile to all air assets. We chuck cruise missiles in the opening stages of war on high value targets, and on targets of opportunity, but we can hardly throw them all day for every battalion that needs artillery support considering the price tag for each cruise missile.

incidentally, and back to the topic... it reminds me of the bizarre rule in BT artillery system... and their ungodly long flight time on the shells.

[Brenden]

Laser colors....
Apparently: In MW4 All the standard Lasers were Red, while the Clan versions were Green.
I have seen in alot of art that would back me up for this but also...
The SML is Red, the MDL is Green and the LL is Blue.
What the hell man?
Pick a color and stay with it.

[Elessar]

Why is that ridiculous?
The Laser colours go from longer to shorter wavelength which somehow makes sense (shorter wavelenght = more energy)
with the bigger weapons using beams of shorter wavelength.
One might reason that producing a beam of shorter wavelenght needs more equipment (in terms of weight), which is why only the larger lasers use the shotest wavelength.

It is less ridiculous than having clanners and IS use separate laser colours

(of course most realistic would be probably, to have invisible laserbeams ... with wavelength in UV range or beyond)

Edited by Elessar, 15 August 2012 - 09:59 PM.

[Theodor Kling]

Elessar, on 15 August 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

Why is that ridiculous?
The Laser colours go from longer to shorter wavelength which somehow makes sense (shorter wavelenght = more energy)
with the bigger weapons using beams of shorter wavelength.
One might reason that producing a beam of shorter wavelenght needs more equipment (in terms of weight), which is why only the larger lasers use the shotest wavelength.

It is less ridiculous than having clanners and IS use separate laser colours

(of course most realistic would be probably, to have invisible laserbeams ... with wavelength in UV range or beyond)

We had this a few times already: Lasers are either invisble ( no matter the wavelength) or, with high enough enery densities, nearly white. Different clases would then only differ in intensity, not colour.

[JackTD]

One other ridiculous fact about BT is scale again.

Let's have a look at the Planet Tikonov with a base population of roughly 5.5 billion in 3025. Tikonov is a good example because it was heavily fought over in the 4th succession war and the fedcom civil war.

If only 0.25% of the population would be part of a standing army (this army/population ratio would be only a quarter compared to the 2012 USA standing army and reserves together), this would give them 13,75 million soldiers.

If only 33% of this army would be a mechanized army (tanks, apc, artillery, etc.) and the rest would be foot militia for crowd supression, you would still have an army larger than Hitlers eastern front ever was.

These 4.5 million mechanized soldiers could be devided into roughly 900 combat brigades (5,000 men each). If each combat brigade would have only one tank battalion in average this would mean: 32.400 tanks.

All the Crucis Lanciers that invaded in 3028 (roughly 900 mechs, 2.800 tanks and 35.000 infantry) would have melted away within minutes.

My point is, invading another planet with a base population of Earth in 2012, would need a transport and logistic system that would cost so much, that it would render any victory void.

Nonetheless I am a hugh fan of BT TT. It pretty much defined me in my juvenile years, and still love thinking about it.

Edited by JackTD, 16 August 2012 - 10:40 AM.

[Theodor Kling]

Yaeah,armies are small compared to the Empires that field them. I think it is patly because of the feudal system.
Of course not all wolds are as heavily populated as tikonov. there are quite a few with populations being more a few hundred thousands. On the other hand: Most professionals serve not on their homeplanet, so it still should be possible for them to field MUCH larger armies then they do.
Sarna gives me the following for the Fed Suns:
Estimated Population (3130): 1,302,000,000,000
For the LC:
Estimated Population (3130): 955,000,000,000

both controlling some 300+ plantes. An army of your 0.01% would mean
1,302,000,00 +955,000,00= 225,700,000 soldiers for the Fed Com.
That ´s between 322428 and 376166 soldiers per planet. ( using 700, respectivly 600 planets as an estimate). But most battles are WAY below that scale.

[2ane]

Theodor Kling, on 16 August 2012 - 05:28 AM, said:

Yaeah,armies are small compared to the Empires that field them. I think it is patly because of the feudal system.
Of course not all wolds are as heavily populated as tikonov. there are quite a few with populations being more a few hundred thousands. On the other hand: Most professionals serve not on their homeplanet, so it still should be possible for them to field MUCH larger armies then they do.
Sarna gives me the following for the Fed Suns:
Estimated Population (3130): 1,302,000,000,000
For the LC:
Estimated Population (3130): 955,000,000,000

both controlling some 300+ plantes. An army of your 0.01% would mean
1,302,000,00 +955,000,00= 225,700,000 soldiers for the Fed Com.
That ´s between 322428 and 376166 soldiers per planet. ( using 700, respectivly 600 planets as an estimate). But most battles are WAY below that scale.

are there any numbers on the size of the nations military? I found it always very weird how a merc unit consisting of a couple thousand people joining a contract with a house would be treated as a major shift in power.

[JackTD]

Theodor Kling, on 16 August 2012 - 05:28 AM, said:

Yaeah,armies are small compared to the Empires that field them. I think it is patly because of the feudal system.

The problem with a feudalistic society, is that is nearly always a militaristic society (the guys with the guns control everything).

But if the militaries are so small compared to the population base, they would never be able to control their societies.

[Skylarr]

Every planet has an Infantry Garrison force. The amount would depend on the size of the population and the strategic importance of the planet. I would say a planet would have a minimum of a Regiment with a Battalion always on active Duty. Most of these Infantry Units would be Foot or Motorized. With some Mechanized Infantry and some Light or Medium Tanks. Some planets may even have Conventional Fighters.

The only reason I can think of as to why the Garrison forces are not bigger is because the material that is needed to create advance Tech is rare.

I guess a planeraty Governments could build Combat Vehicles using Primative Armor.

[Arctic Fox]

Theodor Kling, on 16 August 2012 - 05:28 AM, said:

Yaeah,armies are small compared to the Empires that field them. I think it is patly because of the feudal system.
Of course not all wolds are as heavily populated as tikonov. there are quite a few with populations being more a few hundred thousands. On the other hand: Most professionals serve not on their homeplanet, so it still should be possible for them to field MUCH larger armies then they do.
Sarna gives me the following for the Fed Suns:
Estimated Population (3130): 1,302,000,000,000
For the LC:
Estimated Population (3130): 955,000,000,000

both controlling some 300+ plantes. An army of your 0.01% would mean
1,302,000,00 +955,000,00= 225,700,000 soldiers for the Fed Com.
That ´s between 322428 and 376166 soldiers per planet. ( using 700, respectivly 600 planets as an estimate). But most battles are WAY below that scale.

It should be noted that according to Catalyst, the estimated population figures in Touring the Stars, which Sarna is using here, have been retconned and that the true number is actually way below that.

[Theodor Kling]

JackTD, on 16 August 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

The problem with a feudalistic society, is that is nearly always a militaristic society (the guys with the guns control everything).

But if the militaries are so small compared to the population base, they would never be able to control their societies.

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.

Arctic Fox, on 16 August 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

It should be noted that according to Catalyst, the estimated population figures in Touring the Stars, which Sarna is using here, have been retconned and that the true number is actually way below that.

But why should they? Sure, some mining world or one with difficult enviromental conditions might have a ealy low population. But lot´s of worlds are earth like and settled for centuries. The core worlds of each House probably scarecley touched by war.
So those should have a few billions each.Tharkad alone got 7 billions. I suspect worlds like Hesperus II, Sudeten, Coventry, Skye etc to be roughly on that level too.

[Faeron Wolf]

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

[gautrek]

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.

[Arctic Fox]

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

But why should they? Sure, some mining world or one with difficult enviromental conditions might have a ealy low population. But lot´s of worlds are earth like and settled for centuries. The core worlds of each House probably scarecley touched by war.
So those should have a few billions each.Tharkad alone got 7 billions. I suspect worlds like Hesperus II, Sudeten, Coventry, Skye etc to be roughly on that level too.

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.

Edited by Arctic Fox, 16 August 2012 - 01:26 PM.