Battletech

Lord Skimper wrote:Ranges are still too short.

Doesn't really matter, just think of it as being in 'units' rather than ft/m

Lord Skimper wrote:Mechs are also too tall for their weight.

How so? Yea, my first thought when I started playing (much longer ago than I'll admit here) was that height should be a factor of tonnage, but it's ok, makes things simple.
As far a 'to tall' in general, a semi-truck generally weighs in around 20 tons and are around 50-60' long. The M1 Abrams is 60-70 tons and only 8m long. when you consider that the legs would take up just under half the overall height (and thus less bulk) it makes sense (especially if you consider light alloys).

Given that the Maus WWII Tanks were only 9 metres in length by 5.6+ metres by 5.6 metres. It had very basic armour and weighed 188 tons.

Lord Skimper wrote:Given that the Maus WWII Tanks were only 9 metres in length by 5.6+ metres by 5.6 metres. It had very basic armour and weighed 188 tons.

They were never actually produced and;
"10.2m"
Had very heavy armor -
"220 mm (8.7 in) (turret front)[1]
200 mm (7.9 in) (turret side and rear)[1]
200 mm (7.9 in) (hull front)[1]
180 mm (7.1 in) (hull side)[1]
150 mm (5.9 in) (hull rear)[1]"
(of heavy WWII Krupp Steel not modern alloys)
and carried a 75 mm tank gun with 100 rounds as it co-ax!

It would have been all heavy mass in a compact box, no modern alloys, no gaps between legs no open spacing between section. no large (but relatively light) HeatSinks (which would be mostly aluminum alloy, copper tubes and alcohol - or other similar substances).
Yes a Mech has a reactor and requisite shielding but they are small fusion reactors and there's no real way to say how big they are or how much the shielding weighs (some SL alloy may make the shielding lighter - which is why the 300 is only 19tn instead of 58tn for example)
as for Mechs like the Locus at 20tn - it has really long legs. So it's realy impossible to say what the 'right' dimensions should be, as I pointed out, a 20-40tn truck is over 15 meters long.

Take a 20 ton very tall Mech and see how much taller a 100 ton Mech is. Double the size increase weight eight times. A 90 ton Cyclops should be about 44% taller than a 30 ton Urbanmech. Given same armour densities etc... A 90 ton Mech 44% taller with 10 tons of Armour would have thinner Armour than a 30 ton Urbanmech with 6 tons of Armour. Also smaller Mechs shouldn't have the same number of critical slots as larger Mechs.

As for the Maus 10.2 metres was with the gun tub length of the 150 mm gun. The 5.6 metres was height to top of periscopes including the 0.54 metre ground clearance.

Size of turret is 2/3 size of the hull and still 44% heavier than the heaviest Mech. Mechs are too big.

Also Chobam armour is heavier than RH Armour. It uses heavy metal plates and very hard ceramics. Neither of which alone make good armour. From everything written in the Mech books the armour is not light weight but heavy metal armours.

Again making a Mech taller makes the armour thinner. A Short 20 ton Mech would have thicker armour than a taller 20 ton Mech at the same weight.

Lord Skimper wrote:Also Chobham armor is heavier than RH Armor. It uses heavy metal plates and very hard ceramics.

You mean our antiquated, pre-KF drive, 1st gen composite armor?

Lord Skimper wrote:... the armor is not light weight.

By there (SL) standards & for the same squar ft of coverage - not for the same volume - it is much thicker per pound than cold rolled steel and much lighter per cubic foot. you seem to think in 2 dimensions only, is you real name Kahn? (jk)

Lord Skimper wrote:Also Chobham armor is heavier than RH Armor. It uses heavy metal plates and very hard ceramics. Neither of which alone make good armor. From everything written in the Mech books the armor is not light weight but heavy metal armors.

No, if that were so then it would not be ablative. In-fact the Mech design diagrams always show composite:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Armor_-_BattleMechs_%26_Vehicles (image too big for posting)

Yes they call it names like 'Durallex Heavy' but they aren't cold rolled steel like from an Iowa class battleship (or King Tiger). It is:

The first layer is extremely strong Titanium alloyed with steel, the result of crystal alignment and radiation treatment, which is also very brittle. The second layer is a ceramic, cubic boron nitride, which combined with a web of artificial diamond fibers acts as a backstop to the steel layer. These two layers rest atop a titanium alloy honeycomb structure which provides support, and a layer of self-sealing polymer sealant which allows for space and underwater operations

mostly titanium and ceramic with only a little steel(Iron) in the first layer

Lord Skimper wrote:A 90 ton Cyclops should be about 44% taller than a 30 ton Urbanmech.

no, it will have more volume, it doesn't have to be 'taller'. look at the drawings, they are wider and thicker, and there extremities (arms/legs) have more girth. most of the extra weight is for more weapons and armor and heavier support structure to hold up those heaver weapons and armor. the cockpits the same, the gyro is a small item and most of what's left of the extra weigh is in the (usually) larger engine (in these extreme examples).
most Mechs (30-100tn) have roughly the same engine (240-300)

[100tn@3/5=300, 85tn@3/5=255, 75@4/6=300, 70@4/6=280, 65@4/6=260, 60@5/8=300, 60@4/6=240, 55@5/8=275, 50@5/8=250, 45@6/9=270, 40@6/9=240, 35@8/12=280, 30@8/12=240]

So much of the weight difference is in the weapons, armor and supports for them.
As to increasing the size for more support structures: When the British built the Courageous class BCs they were built as light as they thought they could be. When they went out on trials they nearly shook themselves apart before reaching max speed. So both were sent back to the yards and large amounts (far more than 100tn) of new supports were added to the ships to give them more support structure. No additional height (or length were added for the increased weight).

Lord Skimper wrote:Given same armour densities etc... A 90 ton Mech 44% taller with 10 tons of Armour would have thinner Armour than a 30 ton Urbanmech with 6 tons of Armor.

No, it's not 44% taller - that is taken into account by the 16pt/ton - if the lighter Mechs were significantly smaller then they should get more points/ton than a physically 'larger' Mech.

Lord Skimper wrote:Also smaller Mechs shouldn't have the same number of critical slots as larger Mechs.

That is a level 3+ optional rull (which tends to invalidate a lot of the designs) and the FF/Endo should take up fewer crit slots for a smaller Mech as-well. By your logic the Cyclops's 360pt engine should take up far more crit slots than the Stingers 120pt (and far lighter) engine (or even the Stinger itself - which is lighter than the 360 engine by itself), as would it's larger/heavier gyro and actuators, too much to worry about.

Lord Skimper wrote:A Short 20 ton Mech would have thicker armour than a taller 20 ton Mech at the same weight.

Again, your equating Mass and Volume which are 2 different stats, which take up more room, a ton of led bars or a ton of fluffy feathers?

Imagine a box (would draw it but can't post plain pics)

the box is 6' x 6' x 6' that's 216 squ ft volume.
the box is made of 12 x 1/2" diameter x 6' long hallow aluminum poles (like thin tent poles) and plated with 6x sheets of thin aluminum foil.

now make another box with the exact same dimensions
this one is made of 12 x 2" square solid titanium rods 5' 10" long and 6x sheets of 1" cold rolled steel armor plates.

do they weigh the same? no, is the heavier one larger? no its the exact same size (by definition). do they have the same amount of empty internal volume? no the lighter one has a lot more volume empty.

The Cyclops is heavier not because its so much taller but because it has more of the general volume contained (no spindly tent-pole legs) and because its internal volume is full of more stuff.

Found "OBT" Battletech site

http://www.ourbattletech.com/forum/

It also has RL.

I found another BT website and posted my full TO&E on it;
http://www.ourbattletech.com/forum/general-discussion/table-of-organization-and-equipment/msg41390/#msg41390

My biggest problem with Battletech was that under the 3025 rules, medium lasers were ridiculously overpowered. You could build a medium mech with decent speed and equip it with nothing else but medium lasers and heat sinks. It would be able to run through the long range of a mech equipped with LRMs or PPCs. And once it closes, the medium lasers are so much more efficient that kind of design will dominate. And if you don't believe me, consider the classic 3025 design of a Hunchback. Stock, they come with an AC/20 and 2 tons of ammo. Which only equals 10 shots. Every battletech engagement I ever had under 3025 rules, my Hunchbacks ran out of ammo. EARLY. The A/20 does 20 points of damage, produces 7 heat points, and the AC+ammo weigh 16 tons. If you take the exact same mech, strip off the AC/20 and the ammo you could give it 6 medium lasers and 10 heat sinks. You will have the exact same range, you'll do 30 points of damage per round (instead of 20), and you will build 8 points of heat a round (up 1 from the 7 points of an AC/20). But most importantly: in addition to doing more damage per round, the medium laser version of the Hunchback won't run out of ammo after 10 rounds. Basically, medium lasers rule under 3025 rules.

Basically, medium lasers rule under 3025 rules.

Yup, that tends to be true. However, it´s not quite that clear even with canon rules, something i was showed quite blatantly by a very good player once after noting pretty much the same.
In short, he demonstrated how to use all the "bad" weapons optimally.

Essentially, MLAS are based on belonging to the weapon group that does the most damage reliably, which means they tend to be easy to use well.

Crit seekers, like AC2s and SRMs are less effective compared to weight, but get a LOT of critical hit chances.

The big problem comes when you look at the group causing big damage chunks, because the game designers overcompensated for how valuable this is, in part because they often used low armour mech designs for canon.

Then there´s the additional issue that exaggerates this, how all mechs get 10 free heatsinks, which for "high heat" weapons essentially means they get a freebie, and because MLAS compared to their damage are at the lower end of those weapons, it can become very notable.
(try comparing weapons as if you made a few mechs with zero free heatsinks, the difference isn´t huge, but will usually still be clearly there, for example, an AC20 goes from 15t to 22t minimal weight(zero heat caused) while those 6 MLAS goes from 14t to 24t)

Then they UNDERcompensated for the issues of both amounts of ammo and the risks with it to skew things even more.

Henry Brown wrote:you'll do 30 points of damage per round (instead of 20)...

Well, yes and no, assuming all else equal and discounting hit probabilities, you do a total of 30pt but that is 6x5pt hits instead of 1x20pt blast, so particularly against very high, or very low armor mechs there is a huge difference between plinking all over the mech with 5pt pops and blowing a hole strait through.

Henry Brown wrote:My biggest problem with Battletech was that under the 3025 rules, medium lasers were ridiculously overpowered ... the medium laser version of the Hunchback [swayback] won't run out of ammo after 10 rounds. Basically, medium lasers rule under 3025 rules.

Tenshinai wrote:Yup, that tends to be true...
The big problem comes when you look at the group causing big damage chunks, because the game designers overcompensated for how valuable this is, in part because they often used low armour mech designs for canon.

Then they UNDERcompensated for the issues of both amounts of ammo and the risks with it to skew things even more.

I don't think MLs are 'overpowered', I think the opposite is true, it's that ACs are overweight - A loaded AC-20 weighs more than an entire Panzer I and Panzer II combined!!! I could see that if it had decent range, but 3-6-9? In the campaign I ran (along time ago) I had house rules that basically halved the weights of all the ACs (1/2+1 - 8tn - for the AC-20) and they worked well.
PPCs are still powerful weapons because they can cover more of the filed. Ok you run one of your SR mechs up-to one of my mechs but his lance mates (who are more than 3 hexes away) plaster you with concentrated 10pt blasts that rip into his internals.

Tenshinai wrote:(try comparing weapons as if you made a few mechs with zero free heatsinks, the difference isn´t huge, but will usually still be clearly there, for example, an AC20 goes from 15t to 22t minimal weight(zero heat caused) while those 6 MLAS goes from 14t to 24t)

yes, but you do, unless your using a tank with an ICE engine (and then you have more problems than HS) and can use the AC-20 with 0 heat.

I normally break weapons down by basic range/use. A PPC/ER-PPC/LL is a LR weapon while the ML is a SR weapon. I design my mechs with heat capabilities based on these criteria, the basic heat use for one set of weapons and (if possible) basic planed maneuvering. So a Spider with just ML need enough HS to full-jump and fire all (or most of) his ML at a time. any more and you can't use them consistently. A WHM with 2 PPCs and MLs needs enough HS to fire either his PPCs or his MLs (whichevers greater ) and (at-least)walk. (so 2xPPC=20 and 5xML=15) is 20+1=21HS minimum 20+2=22Max HS. the PPCs would be used at LR and the MLs at short.

of-course when you introduce UG tech (SL/Clan) then the argument goes right out the window. the (SL) MLP weighs twice as much but only does +1pt at +1ht with much shorter range but the -2TH makes it supreme in close quarters. on the Clan front, the (C) LPL reigns supreme against any other weapon bar none. It serves as 10pt of LR FP with an (effective) Med-Range of 20 hexes, an effective Short-Range of an unprecedented 14 hexes and a -2TH can't miss close (rip-you-a-new-one) Quarters of 7 hexes. add in TC and a mech can jump and fire 10pt at a target 7 hexes away with the same TH that a 3025 WHM would get standing still at 6 hexes. (that's why they made that arbitrary rule disallowing PLs from using TCs to aim)

I was in an interesting game (before that rule) where we could fit out our Omnis how we wanted. I had a 90tn (GM created) mech with 4LPLs TC and 21DHS. on one particular turn, I declared no movement. A light mech jumped behind me. I was nice and pointed out the fact, that I had not moved, to the player. He insisted on not taking the move back. So... I flip-armed and aimed all 4 at his right leg! Next turn, 40pt CT auto-hits