Artillery; Better Tubes and Bigger guns.

[beachhead1985]

I meant take the real world range and divide to get battletech range.

Wasn't my goal; I wanted to directly port real-world weapons into BT rules in order to gauge how realistic BT arty ranges were compared to what I judged were equivalent weapons.

As light and capable as the guns are I still wonder why they'd need such range, unless range is just a bonus. And then I would think that those troops would be more trained in how to use it for direct fire than artillery. But I'm just guessing here.

Range is always good, especially in a world with highly-mobile mechs.

Less propellant also leads to less range and less damage.

Which is why the range is shorter, but no less damage; we're not going for KE transfer here, but raw blast and fragmentation, which wold be unaffected. For some of the improved thumpers though; I added to the direct hit damage for the higher velocity. But I wasn't going to take direct-hit damaged below splash damage.

That might be true for real life but in Battletech?  :-\

I do what I can without tugging that thread too far.

[FedComGirl]

No problem but I still use the BT ranges.

Range is good. Not always the most important but good.

Makes sense. Wouldn't direct damage affect all artillery?

That's all anyone can do. :)

[beachhead1985]

I don't really think the NACs and NGR, let alone Mass-Drivers would be very usable in a surface role.

I think you could maybe put a NAC or an NGR on a rail carriage or a coast defence platform, but I've always figured NGRs for throwing their weight around at a significant fraction of C and I have seen it written on this forum, even if nowhere else that NAC's use atomic explosions for propellant. So both are going to have very, very flat trajectories. I'm open to other ideas here, but my perception is that you would have a hard time keeping Naval AC and Gauss rifle shots in atmo; or rather getting them around the horizon, vice over it is going to be tricky,

Though maybe there is some physics in play here that would help.

Mass Drivers? I can see them as PTS defences, but not artillery; sorry, no. Not even me and Dr. Bull He's more interested in using them to launch space ships. The man is a lunatic.

As for the space/ground turn thing; it's an interesting conundrum. I'd handle it by making PTS fire take longer to make happen, even for follow-up shots. So that is still 1/every 10 turns. but I'd make surface to surface, surface to air and air to surface fire occur naturally. It's not like a strafing dropship can only fire it's other weapons every 10 turns, right?

[idea weenie]

I don't really think the NACs and NGR, let alone Mass-Drivers would be very usable in a surface role.

I think you could maybe put a NAC or an NGR on a rail carriage or a coast defence platform, but I've always figured NGRs for throwing their weight around at a significant fraction of C and I have seen it written on this forum, even if nowhere else that NAC's use atomic explosions for propellant. So both are going to have very, very flat trajectories. I'm open to other ideas here, but my perception is that you would have a hard time keeping Naval AC and Gauss rifle shots in atmo; or rather getting them around the horizon, vice over it is going to be tricky,

Though maybe there is some physics in play here that would help.

Mass Drivers? I can see them as PTS defences, but not artillery; sorry, no. Not even me and Dr. Bull He's more interested in using them to launch space ships. The man is a lunatic.

As for the space/ground turn thing; it's an interesting conundrum. I'd handle it by making PTS fire take longer to make happen, even for follow-up shots. So that is still 1/every 10 turns. but I'd make surface to surface, surface to air and air to surface fire occur naturally. It's not like a strafing dropship can only fire it's other weapons every 10 turns, right?

One thing about NAC if it uses mini-nukes to fire, is that there would be a minimum flight time.  If the target gets closer, the barrel simply moves closer and closer to vertical (until the target is within line of sight, and the barrel can be moved back to horizontal for direct-fire, turning a Naval autocannon into a Naval Cannon).

For Mass Drivers, simply use less power to launch the round.  Instead of firing a round so it has a minimum range of 20 map sheets, halve the power so it has a minimum range of 10 map sheets.  The launcher is still the same mass, so you still need the same amount of equipment to turn it to a new bearing/elevation.  A smaller launcher would have more tonnage available for support and turning, meaning it is faster to respond to different threats.

Make the rate for PTS fire equal to 1/6 turns, that way the defense gun fires once every Aerotech turn.

The other option with sub-orbital physical rounds is their flight time.  If the target is too close for regular fire, just turn the gun 180 degrees, and have it shoot around the planet.   :D  Hope you time the shots correctly so they arrive at the same time the enemy does.

Of course, putting Copperhead modifications in NAC round means that an infantry platoon with a TAG just got really dangerous.   >:D

For Naval Lasers, would you set them up with multiple surface turrets so they could be used for ground defense as well as anti-orbit?  The fun part is with mirrors and rapid switching, you could have a single NL underground, with multiple turrets on the surface.  If a turret is pointed at one target, the others are scanning for other targets.  Check out the Airborne laser project for an example of a laser using only a single turret setup, and how the beam doesn't destroy the interior of the turret as it rotates.

A NPPC would have the fun of aiming a stream of atomic particles, so it wouldn't have as wide an arc of fire as a laser.  The more you divert the particles from the beam path, the more massive a structure with more energy needed/heat produced, until it would have been easier to build a second gun.

[Nebfer]

Well I have at times dabbed in modifying artillery a bit

So First off range is upped by 4 for all ballistic artillery weapons, 5 for missile based weapons

So the canon list of weapons will have the following ranges

BA Tube Artillery 500kg, range 8 maps (4km) 3 dmg
Thumper 15 tons, range 64 maps (32km)      15 dmg
Sniper 20 tons, range 72 maps (36km)         20 dmg
Arrow IV 15 tons, 40 maps (20km)               20 dmg
Arrow IV (Clan) 12 tons, 45 maps (22.5km)  20 dmg
Longtom 30 tons, 120 maps (60km)             30 dmg
Cruise Missile/50 55 tons, 250 maps (125km) 50 dmg
Cruise Missile/70 80 tons, 450 maps  (225km) 70 dmg
Cruise Missile/90 100 tons, 600 maps  (300km) 90 dmg
Cruise Missile/120 135 tons, 750 maps (375km) 120 dmg


All ballistic weapons will now have a new ammo type known as ER ammo, it adds 25% more range (round down), at the cost of 10 damage to a minimum of 1, and perhaps -20% in ammo per ton.

As such
BA Tube Artillery 500kg, range 10 maps (5km) 1 dmg
Thumper 15 tons, range 80 maps (40km)      5 dmg
Sniper 20 tons, range 90 maps (45km)         10 dmg
Longtom 30 tons, 150 maps (75km)             20 dmg

Furthermore two new Arrow Variants are to be introduced, the first is simpley known as Arrow III, and is a low tech model, it deals 15 damage and has a range of 35 maps (17.5km) the launcher stats are other wise identical to the A-IV system which replaced it, it also only gets 4 rounds per ton (but is 80% of the cost of an A-IV). (Basically it's a "new" round for the A-IV), due to it's less advanced tech it's unable to use any specialty ammo out side of cluster rounds.

The fluff idea is that this is an older round used in the early days, that got replaced by the better A-IV, but was brought back during the succession wars when the higher tech A-IV proved difficult to replace, once again it was largely replaced once the arrow IV was reintroduced.

The 2nd is the Arrow Longbow this is an ER Arrow missile, it's got 4 rounds per ton and deals 15 damage per missile and costs twice as much, but it's range is 56 maps for the IS and 60 maps for the clan models. Im not sure if I want to have a new launcher or have it as a ammo type.


A further modification is the flight time of the rounds is 10 maps per turn.

Lastly personally I would cut the ammo weight of the Cruise missiles to between 2 and 5 tons (CM 50 2 tons per shot, CM 70 3 tons, CM 90 4 tons and CM 120 5 tons per shot).

Never liked the stupidly high mass of these things
Though, the fluff of the polaris dropship mentions that these rival small nukes in yield.

[I am Belch II]

I always thought the ranges for artillery was still short. The cruise missiles were really short.

In a seperate question?  Where would sub-capital weapons fit in. I know they are really heavy but a Sub-cap autocannon would be good for some long range artillery.

[Khymerion]

I always thought the ranges for artillery was still short. The cruise missiles were really short.

In a seperate question?  Where would sub-capital weapons fit in. I know they are really heavy but a Sub-cap autocannon would be good for some long range artillery.

It would be definitely be an interesting long ranged artillery weapon if they allowed for surface to surface fire of sub-cap weapons.   Current rules from on high dictate that they do not work in this fashion.   Now, allow them to fire in an indirect fire range of 1.5x the range of each of the guns and you have a great candidate for the big railway guns of old that also have the ability to fire up into space for an interdiction role.   Not too bad an idea honestly.

[beachhead1985]

For Naval Lasers, would you set them up with multiple surface turrets so they could be used for ground defense as well as anti-orbit?  The fun part is with mirrors and rapid switching, you could have a single NL underground, with multiple turrets on the surface.  If a turret is pointed at one target, the others are scanning for other targets.  Check out the Airborne laser project for an example of a laser using only a single turret setup, and how the beam doesn't destroy the interior of the turret as it rotates.

You, Sir are sounding like you have thought about this a little ;)

Well I have at times dabbed in modifying artillery a bit

So First off range is upped by 4 for all ballistic artillery weapons, 5 for missile based weapons

So the canon list of weapons will have the following ranges

BA Tube Artillery 500kg, range 8 maps (4km) 3 dmg
Thumper 15 tons, range 64 maps (32km)      15 dmg
Sniper 20 tons, range 72 maps (36km)         20 dmg
Arrow IV 15 tons, 40 maps (20km)               20 dmg
Arrow IV (Clan) 12 tons, 45 maps (22.5km)  20 dmg
Longtom 30 tons, 120 maps (60km)             30 dmg
Cruise Missile/50 55 tons, 250 maps (125km) 50 dmg
Cruise Missile/70 80 tons, 450 maps  (225km) 70 dmg
Cruise Missile/90 100 tons, 600 maps  (300km) 90 dmg
Cruise Missile/120 135 tons, 750 maps (375km) 120 dmg


All ballistic weapons will now have a new ammo type known as ER ammo, it adds 25% more range (round down), at the cost of 10 damage to a minimum of 1, and perhaps -20% in ammo per ton.

As such
BA Tube Artillery 500kg, range 10 maps (5km) 1 dmg
Thumper 15 tons, range 80 maps (40km)      5 dmg
Sniper 20 tons, range 90 maps (45km)         10 dmg
Longtom 30 tons, 150 maps (75km)             20 dmg

Furthermore two new Arrow Variants are to be introduced, the first is simpley known as Arrow III, and is a low tech model, it deals 15 damage and has a range of 35 maps (17.5km) the launcher stats are other wise identical to the A-IV system which replaced it, it also only gets 4 rounds per ton (but is 80% of the cost of an A-IV). (Basically it's a "new" round for the A-IV), due to it's less advanced tech it's unable to use any specialty ammo out side of cluster rounds.

The fluff idea is that this is an older round used in the early days, that got replaced by the better A-IV, but was brought back during the succession wars when the higher tech A-IV proved difficult to replace, once again it was largely replaced once the arrow IV was reintroduced.

The 2nd is the Arrow Longbow this is an ER Arrow missile, it's got 4 rounds per ton and deals 15 damage per missile and costs twice as much, but it's range is 56 maps for the IS and 60 maps for the clan models. Im not sure if I want to have a new launcher or have it as a ammo type.


A further modification is the flight time of the rounds is 10 maps per turn.

Lastly personally I would cut the ammo weight of the Cruise missiles to between 2 and 5 tons (CM 50 2 tons per shot, CM 70 3 tons, CM 90 4 tons and CM 120 5 tons per shot).

Never liked the stupidly high mass of these things
Though, the fluff of the polaris dropship mentions that these rival small nukes in yield.

I really like your ideas; they are different than mine, but still really cool!

One thing that occurred to me; in most common play, does the range of artillery matter at all?

With the speed of most units, I wonder if practically, even short-ranged artillery may as well be on the moon. Has anyone ever had a game featuring an artillery duel, even as a plot point in a campaign?

That Arrow-III brings back memories for me. Back in the glory days of BT fan sites; primitive and more advanced missile artillery systems were commonplace as custom weapons.

[beachhead1985]

It would be definitely be an interesting long ranged artillery weapon if they allowed for surface to surface fire of sub-cap weapons.   Current rules from on high dictate that they do not work in this fashion.   Now, allow them to fire in an indirect fire range of 1.5x the range of each of the guns and you have a great candidate for the big railway guns of old that also have the ability to fire up into space for an interdiction role.   Not too bad an idea honestly.

Speaking as a non-expert in math and physics; is there a concrete reason why the ranges should be 1.5x as long? I'm not against the idea, I just wondered if there is a reason for it besides the feel of what you're trying to create (which I support).

[beachhead1985]

One thing about NAC if it uses mini-nukes to fire, is that there would be a minimum flight time.  If the target gets closer, the barrel simply moves closer and closer to vertical (until the target is within line of sight, and the barrel can be moved back to horizontal for direct-fire, turning a Naval autocannon into a Naval Cannon).

For Mass Drivers, simply use less power to launch the round.  Instead of firing a round so it has a minimum range of 20 map sheets, halve the power so it has a minimum range of 10 map sheets.  The launcher is still the same mass, so you still need the same amount of equipment to turn it to a new bearing/elevation.  A smaller launcher would have more tonnage available for support and turning, meaning it is faster to respond to different threats.

So...shall we gin some up and see what we're left with?

Granted, we should likely deduct damage for the loss in muzzle velocity.

Any of this going to have a deleterious effect on the local area of the firing unit, or the planet's bio/atmosphere, even?

[Khymerion]

Speaking as a non-expert in math and physics; is there a concrete reason why the ranges should be 1.5x as long? I'm not against the idea, I just wondered if there is a reason for it besides the feel of what you're trying to create (which I support).

I am speaking only from the idea that if you take the surface to surface rules for capital ship missiles and their sub-cap brethren of 1 space range = 1 map board, you end up with massive weight artillery pieces that actually have shorter ranges than the tiny artillery tubes currently used on the surface.

You would have the monster hvy sub-cap cannon with all it's 70 pts of damage glory (7 capital) with the ability to only chuck that shell...  20 boards since it's capital extreme range is 20.

Mediums are able to chuck a 50 pt shell 24 boards and the light is chucking a tiny 20 pt shell a glorious 28 boards.

Not exactly spectacular there.   Especially for 200 tons, 500 tons, and 700 tons of gun without ammo to be trucking about.   You can squeeze a light sub-cap into a really big railway car (speed 7/11 railway cars are fun!) and pull it around with a monster locomotive but it gets kinda tricky from there on out to get an effective gun transporter short of a dropship.

Was figuring that if you were going to put the effort in to putting a sub-cap artillery piece onto something big enough and decided that firing a shell that instead of going in to low earth orbit to smack something unsuspecting floating about in the void was to instead decide to be fired in ballistic manner, it might scratch out a bit more extra range.   Didn't want to completely invalidate current artillery platforms with the range increase so went with 1.5x range instead of x2 or higher to allow for some form of counter battery fun to take place without needing to have a second sub-cap battery firing in return.    Thus, we would get 42 board range light sub-cap (eclipsing Long Tom by a tiny bit, might be useful for sieges), 36 for the medium, and 30 for the heavy.

Nothing terrifying in range with no counter (see Cruise Missiles/Capital/Sub-Cap Missiles) but nothing so short ranged that you are practically watching them roll up to shoot.

Numbers can easily be bounced about and massaged into what is desired to be brutally honest.

[beachhead1985]

I am speaking only from the idea that if you take the surface to surface rules for capital ship missiles and their sub-cap brethren of 1 space range = 1 map board, you end up with massive weight artillery pieces that actually have shorter ranges than the tiny artillery tubes currently used on the surface.

You would have the monster hvy sub-cap cannon with all it's 70 pts of damage glory (7 capital) with the ability to only chuck that shell...  20 boards since it's capital extreme range is 20.

Mediums are able to chuck a 50 pt shell 24 boards and the light is chucking a tiny 20 pt shell a glorious 28 boards.

Not exactly spectacular there.   Especially for 200 tons, 500 tons, and 700 tons of gun without ammo to be trucking about.   You can squeeze a light sub-cap into a really big railway car (speed 7/11 railway cars are fun!) and pull it around with a monster locomotive but it gets kinda tricky from there on out to get an effective gun transporter short of a dropship.

Was figuring that if you were going to put the effort in to putting a sub-cap artillery piece onto something big enough and decided that firing a shell that instead of going in to low earth orbit to smack something unsuspecting floating about in the void was to instead decide to be fired in ballistic manner, it might scratch out a bit more extra range.   Didn't want to completely invalidate current artillery platforms with the range increase so went with 1.5x range instead of x2 or higher to allow for some form of counter battery fun to take place without needing to have a second sub-cap battery firing in return.    Thus, we would get 42 board range light sub-cap (eclipsing Long Tom by a tiny bit, might be useful for sieges), 36 for the medium, and 30 for the heavy.

Nothing terrifying in range with no counter (see Cruise Missiles/Capital/Sub-Cap Missiles) but nothing so short ranged that you are practically watching them roll up to shoot.

Numbers can easily be bounced about and massaged into what is desired to be brutally honest.

Huh. You make me wonder what I was thinking when I ranged mine. I'm sure I had a reason for the ranges I provided. But basically I agree; a special purpose weapon is what we want here, nothing game-breaking

[idea weenie]

You, Sir are sounding like you have thought about this a little ;)

Not really, I just read Atomic Rockets.  Just reroute the beam via mirrors through one turret when you want to destroy, and let the others keep scanning for targets.  The opponent doesn't know which turret will be firing from one turn to the next, so has to take out all the turrets (including the decoys).

Granted, we should likely deduct damage for the loss in muzzle velocity.

Any of this going to have a deleterious effect on the local area of the firing unit, or the planet's bio/atmosphere, even?

For NGauss, you would lose a bit of damage by reducing the firing speed, but you would gain faster reaction to engage enemy targets (shorter flight times by firing a flatter arc vs firing full speed at near-vertical).  The other idea would be to use the NGauss to fire explosive warheads instead of kinetic penetrators.  This will allow for wider radii damage compared to a sharper spike of damage in the impact hex (think a bell curve vs a 2d6 curve).

But there would be 'side effects' to the local terrain when firing.  You could set it up where the surrounding terrain needs X amount of armor or the hex takes damage.  This would be reflecting the local facility is a Fortified structure, with likely hardened armor as well.

Game effect:
For example, a NGauss planetary artillery battery fires a shot.  The NGauss does 100 pts of damage to every hex adjacent to it when it fires.  This means every unit in each of those hexes has a potential 100 pt hit coming in, if their armor is less than 100 pts.  So Mechs will die (head armor is only 9 pts).  A vehicle with a 100 pt forward armor, and an 80 pt armor on the turret will take 20 pts of damage to the turret (front armor is thick enough to survive, turret armor isn't).

This also makes for a good reason to fire artillery at a planetary Naval weapon facility.  If you damage part of the structure so it has less armor than what will protect vs a shot, that facility will steadily destroy itself, one shot at a time.  Even reducing the armor from 100 pts to 99 pts will cause the location to fail in 7 shots (99, 98, 96, 92, 84, 68, 36, gone).

[FedComGirl]

Not really, I just read Atomic Rockets.  Just reroute the beam via mirrors through one turret when you want to destroy, and let the others keep scanning for targets.  The opponent doesn't know which turret will be firing from one turn to the next, so has to take out all the turrets (including the decoys).

For NGauss, you would lose a bit of damage by reducing the firing speed, but you would gain faster reaction to engage enemy targets (shorter flight times by firing a flatter arc vs firing full speed at near-vertical).  The other idea would be to use the NGauss to fire explosive warheads instead of kinetic penetrators.  This will allow for wider radii damage compared to a sharper spike of damage in the impact hex (think a bell curve vs a 2d6 curve).

But there would be 'side effects' to the local terrain when firing.  You could set it up where the surrounding terrain needs X amount of armor or the hex takes damage.  This would be reflecting the local facility is a Fortified structure, with likely hardened armor as well.

Game effect:
For example, a NGauss planetary artillery battery fires a shot.  The NGauss does 100 pts of damage to every hex adjacent to it when it fires.  This means every unit in each of those hexes has a potential 100 pt hit coming in, if their armor is less than 100 pts.  So Mechs will die (head armor is only 9 pts).  A vehicle with a 100 pt forward armor, and an 80 pt armor on the turret will take 20 pts of damage to the turret (front armor is thick enough to survive, turret armor isn't).

This also makes for a good reason to fire artillery at a planetary Naval weapon facility.  If you damage part of the structure so it has less armor than what will protect vs a shot, that facility will steadily destroy itself, one shot at a time.  Even reducing the armor from 100 pts to 99 pts will cause the location to fail in 7 shots (99, 98, 96, 92, 84, 68, 36, gone).

Why would there be environmental effects? Beyond deafening any unprotected persons?

[I am Belch II]

I like the idea of a "BA" sized Artillery tube. Just don't know what it would really do.

[beachhead1985]

I like the idea of a "BA" sized Artillery tube. Just don't know what it would really do.

It's stated. Check out the...Tac Ops quick-ref cards?

Why would there be environmental effects? Beyond deafening any unprotected persons?

Massive over-pressure/shockwave from NGR/Mass Drivers and the NACs use nuclear explosions as propellant.

We're in BOLO country here.

[Khymerion]

It's stated. Check out the...Tac Ops quick-ref cards?

Massive over-pressure/shockwave from NGR/Mass Drivers and the NACs use nuclear explosions as propellant.

We're in BOLO country here.

I think we are playing the wrong game when we are starting to deal with BOLOs, OGREs, and ShiVas as viable and almost reasonable weapons platforms.   Or just merely the wrong scale.

Now I am just imagining Atlases trying to attach nuclear limpet mines to BOLOs.

[FedComGirl]

It's stated. Check out the...Tac Ops quick-ref cards?

Massive over-pressure/shockwave from NGR/Mass Drivers and the NACs use nuclear explosions as propellant.

We're in BOLO country here.

It has a short couple of mapsheet range and only 2? points damage. I think of BA Artillery as BA carrying a Howitzer.

They do?  :o I don't remember reading that. Where's that at?

[I am Belch II]

It's stated. Check out the...Tac Ops quick-ref cards?

Massive over-pressure/shockwave from NGR/Mass Drivers and the NACs use nuclear explosions as propellant.

We're in BOLO country here.

No prob. I just didn't even think of it.

[bblaney]

Well from reading this, and being former US Army Artilleryman, I can tell you that when artillery is used correctly, it will totally obliterate anything it hits, period.

I got to see an Artillery demonstration on Ft Bragg many many years ago when they used an Battalion of the following 105mm Artillery, even being the smallest guy on the block, it was amazing, shook the ground and did an impressive display of firepower. Next up we had the 155mm, which did the same, but of course in greater volume and power. The 8inch SP Arty was unreal, you could actually see the shells hit the ground and watch the explosion pan out under the ground before erupting up and taking anything and everything out by the impact. Finally we had the MLRS, and words can not describe what it did. You saw a number of explosions in the sky, which were meh, well until the bomblets hit the ground and well the ground disappeared, well it is the only way to describe it. Nothing short of amazing and the reason it is called the 'King of Battle'.

Love Artillery

[Vehrec]

Here's an idea-PPC artillery.  Nothing says that there can't be an angle to the guide-path of your man-made lightning after all.  And it might be a bit of a stretch to twist that confinment field into an arc, but it's hardly worse for breaking physics than a traditional PPC blast.

Pros-

• Infinite (not really) ammo.
• Good range-range is controlled by deflection angle of particle stream, not by gravity and velocity of shell.

Cons-

• Low damage, except on a direct hit.
• Extreme heat
• Danger of explosion.
• No benefit from TAG or other guidance systems.

[beachhead1985]

Well from reading this, and being former US Army Artilleryman, I can tell you that when artillery is used correctly, it will totally obliterate anything it hits, period.

I got to see an Artillery demonstration on Ft Bragg many many years ago when they used an Battalion of the following 105mm Artillery, even being the smallest guy on the block, it was amazing, shook the ground and did an impressive display of firepower. Next up we had the 155mm, which did the same, but of course in greater volume and power. The 8inch SP Arty was unreal, you could actually see the shells hit the ground and watch the explosion pan out under the ground before erupting up and taking anything and everything out by the impact. Finally we had the MLRS, and words can not describe what it did. You saw a number of explosions in the sky, which were meh, well until the bomblets hit the ground and well the ground disappeared, well it is the only way to describe it. Nothing short of amazing and the reason it is called the 'King of Battle'.

Love Artillery

Do you then, hve any idea how to model MRL Artillery in Battletech? I'm still stumped.

[Khymerion]

Perhaps the idea of having the same amount of damage across all the hexes that the standard A4 would cover instead of the center hex and then reduced damage with the splash to help represent the idea of what was described?

[idea weenie]

Perhaps the idea of having the same amount of damage across all the hexes that the standard A4 would cover instead of the center hex and then reduced damage with the splash to help represent the idea of what was described?

So if the damage was 20/10/5 for center/radius 1/radius 2 (total of 140 pts of damage across 19 hexes), it would be 7 pts per hex (133 pts across 19 hexes)?

[beachhead1985]

So if the damage was 20/10/5 for center/radius 1/radius 2 (total of 140 pts of damage across 19 hexes), it would be 7 pts per hex (133 pts across 19 hexes)?

I think that makes sense, but is that like how MRLs work, or do they scatter all over a grid square?

[bblaney]

Do you then, hve any idea how to model MRL Artillery in Battletech? I'm still stumped.

MLRS is easy, use an Arrow IV, as an MLRS ripple fires, as they can;t fire all tubes at once, there is a small delay between shots.

Now for MRL's like they used in WW2, I too am not sure how to do that one.

[bblaney]

Perhaps the idea of having the same amount of damage across all the hexes that the standard A4 would cover instead of the center hex and then reduced damage with the splash to help represent the idea of what was described?

Normal artillery always has that effect, especially IRL, I have seen the effects, as the burst radius gets larger the effects diminish.

Now there are weapons that you have an all or nothing, I believe Fuel Air Explosives covers that, as do shaped charges. I have stood only a few feet from a shaped charge and only felt the concussion, and it was mild at best

[Khymerion]

Okay!   Thank you for clarifying that!

[Vehrec]

A thought on Gauss Artillery in general:  Propellant charges aren't as heavy as the shells they throw in big iron guns, but they still take up significant space and weight.  You wouldn't get anything like a doubling of ammo, but you could probably squeeze an extra round into a Gauss Tom's ton of ammo, and more like half a dozen into Gauss knockoffs of the Thumper and Sniper.  Drawback of course is that you need to charge the capacitors, both the ammo and the gun can explode, and it's probably even bigger and heavier than a traditional gauss rifle in even the smallest scale.

[idea weenie]

A thought on Gauss Artillery in general:  Propellant charges aren't as heavy as the shells they throw in big iron guns, but they still take up significant space and weight.  You wouldn't get anything like a doubling of ammo, but you could probably squeeze an extra round into a Gauss Tom's ton of ammo, and more like half a dozen into Gauss knockoffs of the Thumper and Sniper.  Drawback of course is that you need to charge the capacitors, both the ammo and the gun can explode, and it's probably even bigger and heavier than a traditional gauss rifle in even the smallest scale.

Excellent catch.  I just looked up 155mm artillery, and found the following reference data:
M4A1 propellant bag - Masses 6.31 kg
M107 Projectile - projectile alone masses 43.2 kg.

So of the complete package of 49.51 kg, 12.75% of it is taken up by the propellant.  Assuming it was modified to be fired via Gauss, that means the same ammunition would mass 87.25% less, or it would be able to carry 14.6% more ammo, or about 8/7.

Using the data from Sarna.net, this changes the ammo counts for the following Artillery:
Long Tom - from 5 to 6 (gotta increase by a minimum of 1)
Thumper - from 10 to 12 (had to increase it by a little more than Long Tom)
Sniper - from 20 to 23 (had to increase it by a little more than Sniper)

Minor tweak, rather than massive increase.  Still would need Power Amplifiers, a fusion plant, or external power (to a larger power plant).