Author Topic: Official height (dimensions) of Mechs and Vehicles?  (Read 78495 times)

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5853
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Official height (dimensions) of Mechs and Vehicles?
« Reply #30 on: 14 February 2018, 03:07:57 »
Yeah. It seems to be a common attitude. I think I took up a slight OCD about it a while back when people joke or bitch about the ranges. Infantry combat - unaugmented - I could see done in short ranges that barely take up a few hundred meters/yards, simply because a guy has to eyeball his shots and things look smaller the further away they get. I don't know how far exactly it is from 2nd street to main in my small town, but that's making human targets as small as a mini right in front of my face, and I have to duck and cover and hold the shot steady enough to nail that tiny thing, while it, too, is moving?

Sure. But, in a sci-fi setting, with augmentation, range shouldn't be that big of an issue, and a standard 2x1 map set-up is a kilometer across. I've seen a kilometer and even a mile and beyond, from interesting vantage points with time to really soak it in, and while it may not seem that big, it's still pretty big.

One of the reasons about the notion of things being laughable in the game happens to be the divergent scales that the minis are supposed to have been made at versus the scale the map is played on.  Without any indicator, either mechs are insanely huge, (which happened with one fresh author to the franchise in one of the short stories written for our current Total Warfare Ruleset) or the ranges look laughably short if you know nothing about how things are scaled when people use official minis on official maps.

Knowing that, I set out one day to make my games more appropriately visual, so that people would get a better feel for the scale. I went in two directions, kitbashing DA Battle Armor into map-scale figures for use in my games, as well as planning for printed maps scaled to what the BMR had stated the minis are supposed to be scaled at: 1/285 war-game scale (or Z-scale's 1/250 as a source for easy buildings).

Watching the progress of miniature production, I can tell that the older runs of Miniatures didn't have as much discrepancy right off the bat, as a lot of Mechs were pretty close together for size. The older Ral Partha infantry was better suited for Z-scale, and fit a lot better with the older runs of Battle Armor.

I like knowing that I can sit a model or mini down next to other minis of a line and say "That's how they would look next to one another, or close enough to not really matter - like a millimeter or two."

You can tell that without any knowledge to the fact that some things are actually off, and why, a lot of people will take the sizes of figures as Wysiwyg truth. I know I've seen it written about here, and talked about in person a lot of places. As I said, the TRo '39 size chart looks like it took the current measures of BT minis and simply put them to paper as the legit scale.

I've heard all the arguments as to why scale is a difficult thing for mini manufacturers, but I would be willing to buy a legitimately scaled Maxim that looks like it would hold the platoon of guys it's stated to have the volume for. I would be willing to buy a Pegasus that looks like you can man it with a proper 3-man crew that don't require being part of the Clan Pilot phenotype. I would buy a Karnov that looks like it can actually haul troops or cargo boxes or tanks at the tonnages it's stated to have the volume for.

Keeping that scale is great for running a Q&D Infantry game that works with infantry with the very minis you'd be using for your platoons in the 'larger' armored combat game, and people wouldn't bat an eye at the transition.

And, if you can't do that, at least make a line of Mechs that match the standard map. I'm tired of having to kitbash at that scale, only because I'm using DA bits, and I run out of parts very easily. I actually enjoy painting at that scale, though, because it doesn't take much.

This has translated into other games I collect for, too. But, while there's some practicality to open tabletop gaming, I just want to use it to dispel the subconscious notions about size and range, and maybe augment the notions behind the futurness of the tech behind the game.

So, that's my mania

While I can generally be forgiving about other people not adhering to it, I sometimes can't shake the notion in a deeper part of my mind that such a lack speaks of a lack of caring about the overall franchise in general.  I know that's not true, but it still raises it's ugly little head once in a while.

It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25648
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Official height (dimensions) of Mechs and Vehicles?
« Reply #31 on: 14 February 2018, 04:09:28 »
Some rules of thumb - as mass varies as the cube of length, then overall similarly looking 'Mechs should scale height-wise as the cube root of mass.

Or in simpler terms, a humanoid 100 ton 'Mech should be 1.7 times taller than a humanoid 20 ton 'Mech. Or, if an Atlas is 14m, a Wasp would be 8.2m, and a Shadow Hawk would be about 11.5m tall.

Of course, the Fatlas Atlas would be 12m ;)
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5853
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Official height (dimensions) of Mechs and Vehicles?
« Reply #32 on: 14 February 2018, 18:32:37 »
That's assuming densities are the same, though. As I pointed out up-thread, there's room for air under the skin of some light mechs.

It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25648
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Official height (dimensions) of Mechs and Vehicles?
« Reply #33 on: 14 February 2018, 19:42:09 »
"similar" is probably good enough.

One could probably assign a rounding factor - say 0.7 - to digitigrade designs.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

Hptm. Streiger

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 968
  • 3d artist, spread sheet warrior, KTF
Re: Official height (dimensions) of Mechs and Vehicles?
« Reply #34 on: 15 February 2018, 00:06:32 »
That's assuming densities are the same, though. As I pointed out up-thread, there's room for air under the skin of some light mechs.
I think it really depends on the placement of the equipment.
Not perfect example but the Trebuchet might be less compact compared to the Hunchback with LRMs.
For the Treb the rack need to be placed inside the torso, while the racks are mounted on top for the Hunch

Kovax

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2421
  • Taking over the Universe one mapsheet at a time
Re: Official height (dimensions) of Mechs and Vehicles?
« Reply #35 on: 15 February 2018, 10:52:39 »
I once set up a game using miniatures rules where the map was scaled up to match the 'Mechs.  It basically filled up the entire room from wall to wall, with almost the entire map still in range for a Medium Laser.  The ridiculously short ranges don't look as bad, even if they're still well short of late 20th Century technology.

In my opinion, the problem isn't HITTING other 'Mechs with lasers or autocannons, it's concentrating enough damage on a single location to have an appreciable effect.  That laser may burn away armor, but if it sweeps across the target, it's carving a gash 1/16" deep, and not really doing anything worth mentioning.  If the AC fires a 3 round burst (they're described as burst fire, not single shots) and they scatter, the individual impacts are going to do trivial damage.  You don't mark off damage on the record sheet for scratching the paint.  It's only if you're able to track the target properly, and hold the weapon on target for most of the duration of the shot, that it does serious damage.

Infantry can't hit the broad side of a barn at more than 30 meters in the game, but the real world effectiveness of small arms isn't much better.  MOST shots in real life miss, particularly when you're concentrating on not being shot yourself, and sending 100 rounds down range while pinned down yourself may not even get a single hit on an enemy moving carefully through scattered light cover.  I don't recall the number anymore, but there was a statistic on WWII shooting that only 1 in something well over 100 rifle rounds fired ever hit the enemy.  Rolling for 11+ or 12 doesn't seem all that unrealistic, except that you're rolling for the entire platoon at once, not individual shooters, and then inflicting damage as if the entire platoon all hit or missed.

Garrand

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 663
  • "Nicht kleckern, klotzen!"
Re: Official height (dimensions) of Mechs and Vehicles?
« Reply #36 on: 15 February 2018, 12:35:29 »
I was under the impression that damage from infantry was mostly dictated by what sort of crew-served or support weapons they are equipped with? So blazing away with your Federated Long Rifle might not do more than scratch the paint & annoy the pilot, but the platoon's support PPCs? A little more effective...

Damon.
Book Blog: bookslikedust.blogspot.com
Minis Blog: minislikedust.blogspot.com

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25648
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Official height (dimensions) of Mechs and Vehicles?
« Reply #37 on: 15 February 2018, 12:38:27 »
Don't start me on that boondoggle ...
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5853
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Official height (dimensions) of Mechs and Vehicles?
« Reply #38 on: 17 February 2018, 01:30:58 »
"similar" is probably good enough.

One could probably assign a rounding factor - say 0.7 - to digitigrade designs.

Well, let's not forget the largest portion of a Mech's limbs is less the 'bones' and more the 'muscle' which is effectively conductive plastic, and not metal wire. There's probably a lot of different formulas that make Myomers the way they are, to the point you could justify a lighter mass of strand that has the same dimensional volume as something much heavier for a beefier machine exists, and doesn't have the same stress resistance, making for fewer damage points per ton compared to the heavier, denser formula.

And, this has precedence in some of the advanced equipment - I point you to Endo Steel, Ferro-Fibrous, and whatever makes the XL Fusion Engine bulky, but lighter, compared to the more compact structural items like Gyro and Engine which are heavier.

Clan Tech also shows in some of the weaponry a level of divergence that makes their ER Medium Laser the effectively same weapon as the old Large Laser, but for less weight and space.

If you keep that in mind, then Volume should never be a strong indicator of mass, or performance.

However, this does not mean you can make your hulls so cramped that you have to rely on a particular body build for all your war machines from a certain maker. I've just discovered, for example, that the Jilapi 27 is actually a little tight for the old Ral Partha Kurita Infantry, even looking at potential bend and different headgear.

Makes me wonder if I should reconsider what scale I thing the MASH and a few other support units should really be at, like the Long Tom. The drivers section looks right for them, but I have to wonder if function doesn't require more space. I'm still of the opinion that the MASH 'unfolds' or expands when in use.

I've also been giving some serious thought on how to do a proper mod using the Thor Artillery truck and maybe the Demon medium tank, to make a more appropriately scaled Wheeled APC from TR '25.

It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5853
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Official height (dimensions) of Mechs and Vehicles?
« Reply #39 on: 17 February 2018, 01:45:11 »
I was under the impression that damage from infantry was mostly dictated by what sort of crew-served or support weapons they are equipped with? So blazing away with your Federated Long Rifle might not do more than scratch the paint & annoy the pilot, but the platoon's support PPCs? A little more effective...

Damon.

I wish it were that way, but this thread is about size and scale. So, I suppose I'll start a new thread, though the subject of depiction of infantry in-game has come up in the past.

It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5853
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Official height (dimensions) of Mechs and Vehicles?
« Reply #40 on: 18 February 2018, 10:01:51 »
"similar" is probably good enough.

One could probably assign a rounding factor - say 0.7 - to digitigrade designs.

Sorry, I don't know why I quoted you the last time. I kinda agree with a +.07 increase in size for some of the really small mechs. And, some of the larger ones need to be shortened and broadened a bit. x.07 at the max might be good enough.

;D
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Hptm. Streiger

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 968
  • 3d artist, spread sheet warrior, KTF
Re: Official height (dimensions) of Mechs and Vehicles?
« Reply #41 on: 19 February 2018, 05:44:30 »
Makes me wonder if I should reconsider what scale I thing the MASH and a few other support units should really be at, like the Long Tom. The drivers section looks right for them, but I have to wonder if function doesn't require more space. I'm still of the opinion that the MASH 'unfolds' or expands when in use.

I've also been giving some serious thought on how to do a proper mod using the Thor Artillery truck and maybe the Demon medium tank, to make a more appropriately scaled Wheeled APC from TR '25.

For vehicle I though that a ton of vehicle cargo (Infanty) consumes 1 space. You can find other guidelines for weapons, ammunition turrets but that is only guessing and rule of thumb.
About your modding.... Demon and Thor - would be adequate vehicles for a 20t Heavy APC from the TR'58. The 10t TR'25 APC is a better minivan (I think the modern description is MRAP)

I think it is correct to consider light APCs to have the size of heavy combat tanks

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5853
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Official height (dimensions) of Mechs and Vehicles?
« Reply #42 on: 19 February 2018, 21:32:52 »
More like an extra-large van, and able to work on roads with other civilian Vehicles. That means an 8 foot cross-section if you were to use modern Earth (Terran) Road standards at the widest.

While they talk about 6 mm being the proper size for infantry, I've found I prefer the slightly larger 8-10 mm stuff that abounds. Even the old Ral Partha Infantry was actually 9mm from heal to head, making them more in line with z or 1/200 scale than 1/285 or 1/300.

Even with 8 feet being 2.4 meters, that would make an 8 foot wide truck scaled to 1/285 out to be  8 to 9 mm. See an issue there?

I've honestly looked at the Striker and Thor as Highway Semi Truck sized based on the MHQ sculpt, and the Rotunda Spy Tank Car also works well as a good indicator of civilian vehicle scale, in my opinion. So, based off that, and the preferred scale I want to use, they fit as road-worthy, if pushing the boundaries a little tightly.

The MASH, Long Tom, and J-27 cabs look appropriately scaled for civilian scale width at 1/285, because they do come out at 8 mm wide. But, when compared to even the smaller 8 mm infantry I have from Heavy Gear Armada, and especially looking at the drastic difference between them and the MHQ, Striker, Thor and Rotunda, they are either solo operator, or they're more euro/asian in vehicular scale. However, the J-27's cab is very short, as a mini, and makes me wonder where the space is for the power source that allows it to move.

I'm just talking minis, here, by the way.

It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Hythos

  • The Embiggened Man
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 503
Re: Official height (dimensions) of Mechs and Vehicles?
« Reply #43 on: 24 February 2018, 15:29:50 »
I fully reject MWO's scale-bloat.

Regarding the example from what we had years ago, it clearly represents the height of a Liao soldier at ~5' tall, vs a "2m-tall" Steiner:
More accurately:
Quote
Mechs (height)
Light => Commando (25 ton) = 26 feet tall
Medium => Enforcer (50 ton) = 33 feet tall
Heavy => Grashopper (70 ton) = 38 feet tall
Assault => Banshee (95 ton) = 42 feet tall
« Last Edit: 24 February 2018, 15:34:43 by Hythos »
Agent 722
Salt Lake City / Utah
Have 'Mech, will travel.

Koniving

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Official height (dimensions) of Mechs and Vehicles?
« Reply #44 on: 30 August 2019, 17:30:49 »
Its worth noting, that the first author of Battletech also drew this scaled image.

Which is slightly smaller than this scaled 9.63 meter tall SHK based on the Dougram's canonical height upon which the SHK was based.



So 9.55 doesn't seem like a stretch, but remember that it was a scout vehicle, and the one depicted both appears to be old (possibly even shk1), and that the SHK 5 series is 2 meters taller than the SHK 2.
SHK 3 is just a modified 2 frame so it isn't much bigger if at all.

An older model of Shadowhawk, which is a long range reconissance mech first and foremost, is hardly a judgement for scale.
However, the original blueprint of the Warhammer (google it) comes out to the 'Mech being
36.875 feet or 11.2395 meters excluding "orientation beacon lights" with the highest point being the vertical missile launcher.  (Note the 12.6 meter tall Timber Wolf of the Omnimech scale is measured to the highest point of the launcher, and all mechs on that scale are measured to the highest point regardless of what it is, short of antennae).
Note:  Despite it saying that the image is 1/20 scale, printed at 50% size (1/40) comes out to a very different thing as the pilot comes out to barely more than 4 feet, but the measuring scale provided telling us what 5 feet is happens to be the same size as the girl..  So its 1/20 scale is bullshit.  It might be to scale, but its scale is not 1/20.
Scale determined by taking a measurement of the printed measuring scale of X = 5 feet, establishing what = 5 feet, measuring the mech, and then plugging that into a ratio calculator to get the total feet.

The Wasp blueprint (after comparing the different pilot whom is the exact same height as the previous female pilot at 5 feet flat) is 37.1875 feet tall or 11.33475 meters tall.

Note that the blueprints have most of the original mechs from Macross, and that their heights vary quite a bit and appear to have not been coordinated, as the Locust towers above the Warhammer drastically and the macross height of the Warhammer towers over the Warhammer, so it isn't based on that. (in an original measurement based on the "scale", the Marauder's male pilot was 4'8" and the mech came out to over 16 meters tall which is beyond canonical heights.  Corrected it'd easily be well over 18 meters tall.. which is still non-canon.  So the original blueprints should not be considered as factual.
The remade Battlemaster blueprint, though, is at the exact same height (on printed engineering paper) as the original.  So take that as you will.

Mechs do vary in size with the Hollander's height at nearly over 14 meters if standing straight (note the legs, and the fact that it never stands straight; the legs are to absorb the recoil of the Gauss Rifle; a weapon that typically can't be handled by lights and the Hunchback falls over when using), the Wolverine around 11.5 meters, the squat-legged Catapult around 9 meters, the Stilt-legged catapult at around 11-12 meters (look up Catapult and you'll see the two variations; one is for low level terrain and the other is for mountainous and canyon terrain)., meanwhile the Hunchback is noted to being one of the shortest medium mechs to exist though the Nova at 8.3 meters is noted to be shorter than the Hunchback, while the Centurion if ever seen next to the Hunchback is usually described as around 10 to 11 meters tall.

So the SHK at 9.55, while it seems short, seems to be a modest lower-middle ground.

No mech in Battletech is as tall as a gundam from the Universal Century timeline according to the Battletech Battlemech Manual's 7 to 16 meter scale (which I think is to include the Firefly which was once described as just under the height of two semi-trailers stacked, which two 13 foot semi trailers stacked would be 7.9248 meters.  And I was told once that the Locust was described as about 7 meters in an audiobook of one of the earlier Battletech titles, which also featured the Martell model 5 medium laser as a 6cm red beam laser.)

So mechs are smaller than depicted in here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJBT74plP6A
or here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4kEuNfbTWc
(Though those Guntanks are within Battletech scale-sizes, however as far as I know, nothing was taller than the Executioner Omnimech during the Clan War, so while the Guntanks are 15.6 meters tall, the Executioner is 14.4 meters tall, and thus the tallest, scariest thing during the Clan invasion is dwarfed by one of Gundam's most pathetic mechanized mobile weapons; however in terms of firepower Battletech's mechs scary fusion reactors of similar power outputs to gundams, if the power needs of Battletech's large lasers are any indication).
and can be about 1 meter smaller than the Ingram depicted in scenes such as this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xybWsAk5oVk


Koniving

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Official height (dimensions) of Mechs and Vehicles?
« Reply #45 on: 30 August 2019, 17:41:36 »
Also worth noting since I saw it..
The Atlas so far as I have ever seen, has never been described as more than 15 meters by what FASA calls unreliable narrators in the Sommerset Companion, and at the smallest has been described as "shy of 14 meters".

The Atlas when seen in the MW3 intro is roughly but probably less than 2 meters taller than the Timber Wolf.
At exactly 2 meters taller, it'd be 14.6 meters.
in the MW2 depictions, the Atlas is closer to the high end of 13 meters.

And there are mechs that tower over the Atlas that still need to be within the max height (16 meters) established by the 2018 battletech battlemech manual.

Furthermore, the Atlas is described as "so compact that it cannot fit a proper 20 tube missile launcher" and instead has a hip mounted 5 tube rapid-reloading LRM launcher to make its LRM-20. (TRO 3025 and revised, TRO 3052 where it is referenced that they had to take out the SRM-6 in order to fit a proper 20 tube launcher split between the left and right chest).
As such, the Atlas despite having slots free has no free space, meaning this thing is small as most other 100 ton mechs lack this detail... also the Dire Wolf is only 12.3 meters tall.

So I would put the Atlas at around 13.5 to a generous 13.8