Register Register

Author Topic: Artillery Cannon vs Arrow IV  (Read 1978 times)

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 36366
  • Carpe Arcanum Cibum
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Artillery Cannon vs Arrow IV
« Reply #30 on: 05 March 2021, 11:29:26 »
They don't get any TacOps ammos. IntOps is explicit in giving them access to FAEs. The BV ain't cheap, though.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Kerfuffin(925)

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1087
Re: Artillery Cannon vs Arrow IV
« Reply #31 on: 05 March 2021, 13:55:31 »
Snubs get no special ammos.

They get no special ammo from TW/Tac Ops. It specifically mentions other sources that may provide them later. IO did that, and explicitly called out that snub noses can use Fuel Air/Thermobaric munitions.

I thought the same till that was brought up.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19533
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Artillery Cannon vs Arrow IV
« Reply #32 on: 05 March 2021, 20:01:25 »
The only thing I haven't seen mentioned here is that Thumper Artillery Cannons are only 10 tons.  You can have three of them for the weight of two Arrow-IV launchers, and they get 20 shots per ton instead of 5.

Aside from that, FAEs FTW!  :thumbsup:

DevianID

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 254
Re: Artillery Cannon vs Arrow IV
« Reply #33 on: 05 March 2021, 20:08:03 »
Snubs get 1 special ammo, the wmd rules fuel air munition from IO

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1141
Re: Artillery Cannon vs Arrow IV
« Reply #34 on: 06 March 2021, 00:33:08 »
Snubs get 1 special ammo, the wmd rules fuel air munition from IO

It is on Thermobaric, not mass destruction which is next. It is important because fuel-air bombs are not the WMD at all and is actually weaker than normal explosive in the real worlds as well. Thermobaric weapons in Battletech games are ridiculously powerful against armored units, than it should in the reality.

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5475
Re: Artillery Cannon vs Arrow IV
« Reply #35 on: 07 March 2021, 13:58:18 »
It is on Thermobaric, not mass destruction which is next. It is important because fuel-air bombs are not the WMD at all and is actually weaker than normal explosive in the real worlds as well. Thermobaric weapons in Battletech games are ridiculously powerful against armored units, than it should in the reality.
Looking too closely at reality puts everything down a rabbit hole, Puppy.  The naked-man ranges in BT/CBT for a machine gun would embarrass your average shotgun user in the real world.

'naked man' range is the distance at which a weapon can theoretically harm a man wearing no body armor, standing in the open, on flat terrain.  A RL M-16 has an effective naked man range of 600 Meters.  a Browning .50 can reach out and kill you at around 5000.

a battletech 'mech mount machine-gun has an effective range of 180 meters, including naked man distance.

there are a LOT of things in the game that don't line up with reality.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."-Samuel Adams

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19533
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Artillery Cannon vs Arrow IV
« Reply #36 on: 07 March 2021, 14:08:40 »
The first Extreme Range rules (from BattleTechnology) weren't quite that bad, and I think the TacOps LOS rules aren't quite there either.  No body armor doubles the damage regular infantry take, in addition to other doublings (like being in the open).

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1141
Re: Artillery Cannon vs Arrow IV
« Reply #37 on: 07 March 2021, 20:54:05 »
Looking too closely at reality puts everything down a rabbit hole, Puppy.  The naked-man ranges in BT/CBT for a machine gun would embarrass your average shotgun user in the real world.

'naked man' range is the distance at which a weapon can theoretically harm a man wearing no body armor, standing in the open, on flat terrain.  A RL M-16 has an effective naked man range of 600 Meters.  a Browning .50 can reach out and kill you at around 5000.

a battletech 'mech mount machine-gun has an effective range of 180 meters, including naked man distance.

there are a LOT of things in the game that don't line up with reality.

Sure many things in Battletech games are actually unrealistic, especially for ACs with high damage that is usually(but not always) have high caliber and should fly longer. The whole range part of the ballistics is not about the physics.

But at least, I think that they can made it weaker against typical armors. I do think that because the description in IO suggests that they are already aware of this.

Also, while fuel-air ammunition requires sufficient atmosphere to be functional, but it is simply the better option as well, that is not the concept of Battletech games. It is too good compared by basic rounds, for it has the better damage, range, and has the chance to kill the infantry outright(and they don't have to be within the fireball, although the chance is reduced based on the diatance), BA included. It is true that wider area of effect is a double edged blade, but it is usually better anyways.

And I wonder that, is 'ineffective on the faint or no atmosphere' really a flaw. How often do you fight on the planet like that? Most valuable planets are the planets with sufficient air to breathe. Also you don't need a tool to dispatch the enemy infantry on the planet without atmosphere(at least not so common).


Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2492
Re: Artillery Cannon vs Arrow IV
« Reply #38 on: 27 March 2021, 07:47:28 »
Mechanically Arrow  Clearly.  Logistically  depends where used. Major powers Arrow IV    Periphery Artillery Cannon .

Shin Ji

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 401
Re: Artillery Cannon vs Arrow IV
« Reply #39 on: 28 March 2021, 16:43:37 »
One major factor that hasn't been brought up is heat. Arrow IVs only generate 10 per shot, while Long Tom Artillery Cannons make a whopping 20 heat per shot! So if you're mounting on a mech, Arrow IVs are going to be better pretty much every time.

Also, weight. Arrow IVs are 15 tons for the IS, whereas the LTC are 20!

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19533
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Artillery Cannon vs Arrow IV
« Reply #40 on: 28 March 2021, 16:45:10 »
With DHS, LTACs are just fine.  On vehicles, they're rather nice.  And available in 3025, unlike Arrow IVs...

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2492
Re: Artillery Cannon vs Arrow IV
« Reply #41 on: 29 March 2021, 01:19:56 »
Crit spaces and heat is rarely an issue as most artillery is fielded by combat vehicles not mechs and this thread appears indicate combat vehicle use . Stand by my logistics point is the faction is capable of making the ammo in house Arrow IV if not any faction can make Cannon ammo . No military wants to be dependent on imported ammo .

mbear

  • Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4248
    • Tower of Jade
Re: Artillery Cannon vs Arrow IV
« Reply #42 on: 29 March 2021, 08:18:33 »
Eg. Would a Naga make a good bodyguard when fighting a Mongol force.

I'd think it'd be easier for a Naga to shoot the cannon at the Mongol infantry/armor units than the Arrow, just because the range is closer. In fact that seems to be the point of the artillery cannon: Act as the "derringer/hold-out pistol" of artillery units. Or maybe think of it as a 'Mech-scale blunderbuss.

Be the Loremaster:

Battletech transport rules take a very feline approach to moving troops in a combat zone: If they fits, they ships.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your BT experience. Now what? (Thanks Sartis!)

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19533
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Artillery Cannon vs Arrow IV
« Reply #43 on: 29 March 2021, 17:02:36 »
Those would be the TAC or SnAC... the LTAC has a 20 hex range...  8)

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5475
Re: Artillery Cannon vs Arrow IV
« Reply #44 on: 29 March 2021, 23:03:54 »
Sure many things in Battletech games are actually unrealistic, especially for ACs with high damage that is usually(but not always) have high caliber and should fly longer. The whole range part of the ballistics is not about the physics.

But at least, I think that they can made it weaker against typical armors. I do think that because the description in IO suggests that they are already aware of this.

Also, while fuel-air ammunition requires sufficient atmosphere to be functional, but it is simply the better option as well, that is not the concept of Battletech games. It is too good compared by basic rounds, for it has the better damage, range, and has the chance to kill the infantry outright(and they don't have to be within the fireball, although the chance is reduced based on the diatance), BA included. It is true that wider area of effect is a double edged blade, but it is usually better anyways.

And I wonder that, is 'ineffective on the faint or no atmosphere' really a flaw. How often do you fight on the planet like that? Most valuable planets are the planets with sufficient air to breathe. Also you don't need a tool to dispatch the enemy infantry on the planet without atmosphere(at least not so common).

There's a way to 'get around' the range curve for Autocannons and still stick with physics.  It's called "Velocity".  If you've got a standard shell length that everyone uses for ALL autocannons (maybe because of how much space you can have through a shoulder joint), then the larger diameter shells are going to fly slower.  (think .50 Beowulf vs. .223, they both feed through a standard width/length magazine, but the .50 Beo is a hot pistol round while the .223 is a high velocity rifle round.)

but in general, there's enough handwaving and such involved that Battletech is, at its root, a fantasy universe where physics works...differently.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."-Samuel Adams

truetanker

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7986
  • Clan Hells Horses 666th Mech. Assualt Cluster
Re: Artillery Cannon vs Arrow IV
« Reply #45 on: 01 April 2021, 23:05:18 »
Eg. Would a Naga make a good bodyguard when fighting a Mongol force.

A Bowman might be better at that.

TT
Khan, Clan Iron Dolphin
Azeroth Pocketverse
That is, if true tanker doesn't beat me to it. He makes truly evil units.Col.Hengist on 31 May 2013
TT, we know you are the master of nasty  O0 ~ Fletch on 22 June 2013
If I'm attacking you, conventional wisom says to bring 3x your force.  I want extra insurance, so I'll bring 4 for every 1 of what you have :D ~ Tai Dai Cultist on 21 April 2016
Me: Would you rather fight my Epithymía Thanátou from the Whispers of Blake?
Nav_Alpha: That THING... that is horrid
~ Nav_Alpha on 10 October 2016

 

Register