Author Topic: "Next Generation" weapons  (Read 10895 times)

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3531
Re: "Next Generation" weapons
« Reply #60 on: 01 April 2018, 22:55:52 »
The one thing you can't ever justify getting rid of based on improvements to armor is the concept of designing two missiles of the same weight and shape with different proportions of propellant and warhead.  If you want to not have the ATM and MML you have to go AU before their invention. 

Not if the warhead is part of the propellant ala MWO version of ATMs.  Imagine the missile has the full range of ER with no minimum.  Damage is listed as 3/2/1 per missile.  If you hit in its short range bracket, the missile does 3 damage, medium does 2, and long does 1.

While I don't think anything like that exists in CBT, it would not be a stretch for it to be developed.

Well, actually, that isn't the only thing.  Kinetic energy transfer is kinetic energy transfer.  If your new armor is impervious to old gauss rifles it's also impervious to any nonexplosive projectile.  On the bright side you no longer have to worry about making sure ballistic weapons have a niche because the magic armor you're using to wipe the slate clean is impervious to them. 

Not necessarily.  Deflecting a ball is different then deflecting a cone, which is different from deflecting a spike.  Yes, you might be dealing with the same mass and speed, resulting in the same level of kinetic energy, but the shape of the contact point determines the pressures involved as much, if not more, then the amount of kinetic energy involved.

And that doesn't even consider things like materials which may have another affect, such as the differences between lead and depleted uranium in the American army.

Anyway, most of this is pure abstraction, as is the level of the military offensive and defensive power in Battletech.  The numbers will be whatever the author wants them to be, but hopefully they will be balanced in coordination with other factors such as ammunition, heat, and destroyability (ex. crit slot size).
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9096
Re: "Next Generation" weapons
« Reply #61 on: 02 April 2018, 01:00:06 »
The one thing you can't ever justify getting rid of based on improvements to armor is the concept of designing two missiles of the same weight and shape with different proportions of propellant and warhead.  If you want to not have the ATM and MML you have to go AU before their invention. 

I was thinking a war begins before they get those figured out. And it slows down coming up with new tech, sorta (war doesn't automatically speed up weapons development, sometimes requirement for mass production means no changes can be implemented because effective production is more useful than limited improvements).

There is some justification for having massive tech jump once certain conditions are met: The Clan technology was such. The development period from Star League to Clan tech was just few years, and while total adoption took a little while longer, new tech completely displaced the old. Unfortunately, the Clans didn't actually abandon any stuff beyond actually useful things like CLPS and NSS... but then again, Clan upgrades, while massive, didn't really do total reinvention of things, such as new armor material that is nigh impervious to previous things.

In any case, i'm thinking that bunch of tech gets successors in form of non-standard advanced/experimental tech. Stuff that is in limited production or just prototypes, mostly for customization. So, maybe ATM-equivalents exist, i just wouldn't have them among standard equipment, for reasons of redundancy, and because i find them very boring in their effective ability to replace other missiles.
Standard technology list is for, well, standard games. Much more concise list, with less redundancies. Indeed, i probably wouldn't object the current technology list if the standard tournament level rules didn't have so much shit on them.

But, fluff is completely secondary to gameplay balance and effects. It sets the stage, but that's all. Doesn't help that BT is already full of all kinds of nonsense, some much worse than explaining weapons.
I don't care if there are no new explanations for equipment whatsoever. Sometimes fluff is worse than not having it properly actually, such as ER2750 describing Inner Sphere lasers as gamma ray lasers, which causes such a massive amount of problems if that is taken at face value (personally i ignore that tidbit existing in canon at all).
Incidentally, super armor could be made from the same stuff that covers Warship fusion thruster reaction chambers, since they don't seem to be magnetic fields only in BT, where-as in real world there are no known or even theoretical materials that could withstand fusion torches, so concepts tend to be magnetic fields and gigantic in size. Of course, using this explanation opens a can of worms: Why wasn't this done before? As i said, sometimes no fluff makes more sense than having it...


As for AUs, i don't particularly like the whole concept. Hence i'd prefer a timeskip and getting rules and equipment lists overhauled at that point. OK, old stuff is still there, but that's legacy stuff. (What makes my timeskip ideas "not AU"? The fact i am extremely doubtful BattleTech will ever get on to the next era. Maybe we'll get IlClan but that's all i'm expecting...)

That said, redoing all tech is an option. In some ways, it would be even better actually, since it would allow moving some tech to places where they actually make sense (eg Rocket Launchers should be Succession Wars-era stuff), it would allow getting rid of massive amount of utterly redundant and just plain bad 'Mech and vehicle variants, it would allow redoing Clan tech so that it isn't so overpowered (merely having more compact and lighter weapons and equipment would actually grant Clanners quite a bit of advantage), it would allow skipping invention all sorts of troublesome and stupid tech in the first place...
The issue with this option is that it is much, much more work. Just plain easier to start from empty table.
« Last Edit: 02 April 2018, 01:02:03 by Empyrus »

phoenixalpha

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 595
  • For God, Prince Davion & the Federated Suns
Re: "Next Generation" weapons
« Reply #62 on: 02 April 2018, 07:12:55 »
Not really a fair comparison.  We've seen several mech lines go from Primitive to Intro to Advanced, and even some go to 2C models (Wolverine, for example).  Meanwhile, we've seen a few mech lines never get out of the Primitive status (Mackie), or not survived long after the Intro upgrade (Swordsman).

Part of that is that unless 'Mechs get a completely different motive system, they can still be designed around the same principles.  A sopwith camel could be built along modern design materials, but it would stop being a proper biplane as soon as you put a turbine engine in it.

True but you could never fire a (semi) modern missile from a sopwith camel - one the electronics wouldn't be installed, and even if they were, there would be no power plant for it, and even if you could install a power plant for it, the stress of firing a missile from a camel would break the entire structure of the plane. So in 100 years we've gone from sopwith camel to f35. Even if a Sopwith Camel got within shooting distance of an F35 their guns would be pretty inconsequential damage wise, so that's the kind of tech jump we should have.

It doesn't invalidate what has gone before - just that tech before the NewTech would be ineffective. The weapons of OldTech wouldn't be ineffective against other targets  - ie a sopwith camel fighting a sopwith camel would be effective or sopwith camel v infantry would be just as effective as it was 100 years ago - just completely ineffective against an F35 (or even something like a Phantom - which is like 50 years old..)

Red Pins

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3970
  • Inspiration+Creativity=Insanity
Re: "Next Generation" weapons
« Reply #63 on: 02 April 2018, 10:29:23 »
True but you could never fire a (semi) modern missile from a sopwith camel - one the electronics wouldn't be installed, and even if they were, there would be no power plant for it, and even if you could install a power plant for it, the stress of firing a missile from a camel would break the entire structure of the plane. So in 100 years we've gone from sopwith camel to f35. Even if a Sopwith Camel got within shooting distance of an F35 their guns would be pretty inconsequential damage wise, so that's the kind of tech jump we should have.

It doesn't invalidate what has gone before - just that tech before the NewTech would be ineffective. The weapons of OldTech wouldn't be ineffective against other targets  - ie a sopwith camel fighting a sopwith camel would be effective or sopwith camel v infantry would be just as effective as it was 100 years ago - just completely ineffective against an F35 (or even something like a Phantom - which is like 50 years old..)

I guess.  You may as well make a prospective time jump big enough to completely remove the current situation of bloat - a new 'Medium laser' might include aspects of Pulse and ER tech, removing them from the equation and making the weapon list a little smaller, for instance.  Mind you, I see new rules on the horizon.  More bloat.

I never thought I'd say it, but a comprehensive reboot that does it's job and smooths away all the retcons is becoming more attractive.
...Visit the Legacy Cluster...
The New Clans:Volume One
Clan Devil Wasp * Clan Carnoraptor * Clan Frost Ape * Clan Surf Dragon * Clan Tundra Leopard
Work-in-progress; The Blake Threat File
Now with MORE GROGNARD!  ...I think I'm done.  I've played long enough to earn a pension, fer cryin' out loud!  IlClan and out in <REDACTED>!
TRO: 3176 Hegemony Refits - the 30-day wonder

phoenixalpha

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 595
  • For God, Prince Davion & the Federated Suns
Re: "Next Generation" weapons
« Reply #64 on: 02 April 2018, 10:38:31 »
You could have a laser which can have pulse settings - a -2 TH is double the heat. Have it being "one laser" which you can have combined with 1 or 3 more lasers to do double or quad damage.

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3531
Re: "Next Generation" weapons
« Reply #65 on: 02 April 2018, 13:53:56 »
True but you could never fire a (semi) modern missile from a sopwith camel - one the electronics wouldn't be installed, and even if they were, there would be no power plant for it, and even if you could install a power plant for it, the stress of firing a missile from a camel would break the entire structure of the plane. So in 100 years we've gone from sopwith camel to f35. Even if a Sopwith Camel got within shooting distance of an F35 their guns would be pretty inconsequential damage wise, so that's the kind of tech jump we should have.

It doesn't invalidate what has gone before - just that tech before the NewTech would be ineffective. The weapons of OldTech wouldn't be ineffective against other targets  - ie a sopwith camel fighting a sopwith camel would be effective or sopwith camel v infantry would be just as effective as it was 100 years ago - just completely ineffective against an F35 (or even something like a Phantom - which is like 50 years old..)

Which is why the sopwith camel reference isn't a fair comparison.  A true sopwith camel is not built with anything resembling modern materials nor is its engine built with anything resembling modern engine techniques. 

If one wanted to, I suppose you could design a modern sopwith camel with a titanium skeleton and hull, and include a fuel-injected radial engine, but it would still be a prop plane.  It would also be able to carry more weapons as well due to its stronger body.  Radar would be the only difficulty in the electronics suite, but I'm sure a good aeronautical engineer could figure it out.  But it still wouldn't compete with any modern fighter because its motive system is drastically different, even with all the above mentioned upgrades, and speed is life to a fighter.

Every battlemech created uses a strong alloy skeleton, a fusion power plant, myomer muscle, electronics suite and alloy armor.  The Armor and skeleton are all ablative and able to be rebuilt with materials at hand.  Furthermore, the newer materials all can be combined in the same configuration as the old materials while offering no loss of performance, so recreating classic designs with the new materials was not an issue and allowed for the Wolverine to go from the Mackie era to the clan invasion (albeit, not as an Omni).

I guess.  You may as well make a prospective time jump big enough to completely remove the current situation of bloat - a new 'Medium laser' might include aspects of Pulse and ER tech, removing them from the equation and making the weapon list a little smaller, for instance.  Mind you, I see new rules on the horizon.  More bloat.

I never thought I'd say it, but a comprehensive reboot that does it's job and smooths away all the retcons is becoming more attractive.

If the objective of the next edition is to basically make everything old, new again, a time skip or AU is the best proposition.  That is why Wizards and Catalyst went that route.  Admittedly, they weren't large skips, but in order to justify such a stat and equipment squish, we'd be looking at a good 150+ year skip, though 300 would make it easier.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10424
Re: "Next Generation" weapons
« Reply #66 on: 02 April 2018, 23:07:33 »
Which is why the sopwith camel reference isn't a fair comparison.  A true sopwith camel is not built with anything resembling modern materials nor is its engine built with anything resembling modern engine techniques. 

If one wanted to, I suppose you could design a modern sopwith camel with a titanium skeleton and hull, and include a fuel-injected radial engine, but it would still be a prop plane.  It would also be able to carry more weapons as well due to its stronger body.  Radar would be the only difficulty in the electronics suite, but I'm sure a good aeronautical engineer could figure it out.  But it still wouldn't compete with any modern fighter because its motive system is drastically different, even with all the above mentioned upgrades, and speed is life to a fighter.

Every battlemech created uses a strong alloy skeleton, a fusion power plant, myomer muscle, electronics suite and alloy armor.  The Armor and skeleton are all ablative and able to be rebuilt with materials at hand.  Furthermore, the newer materials all can be combined in the same configuration as the old materials while offering no loss of performance, so recreating classic designs with the new materials was not an issue and allowed for the Wolverine to go from the Mackie era to the clan invasion (albeit, not as an Omni).

If the objective of the next edition is to basically make everything old, new again, a time skip or AU is the best proposition.  That is why Wizards and Catalyst went that route.  Admittedly, they weren't large skips, but in order to justify such a stat and equipment squish, we'd be looking at a good 150+ year skip, though 300 would make it easier.

I'm not arguing with you, but instead, expanding on your point.

I think a better, closer comparison would be comparing an F-5A to an F-35, just in terms of 'coming from the same technology base, early vs. recent" except that the F-35 is unreliable, sluggish, under-armed, has no gas, warload or manueverability, and no internal gun, and requires many times the number of maintenance hours between sorties.

Y'see, the problem isnt' time, it's how fast the technology matured.  an Eight inch howitzer from 1918 is roughly  equal to a 203mm Howitzer from 1980, because the tech matured before they made the first one, the only real difference in performance comes from improvements in tactics and materials, ammunition, and transport chassis.

the base, root principles were already known in 1918.  Same with 'mechs.  The basic principles were known in 2450, they didn't fundamentally change by 3135, that's a sign of a matured tech base.

what changed, is what  you're bolting on-and that really didn't materially change that much.

The sopwith Camel, is an aircraft from the dawn of aircraft, turbines at that time were used to power ships, because anything smaller was too difficult to fit one in, 'air screws' (propellors) were still in THEIR infancy, and aviation was a new thing. Hell, they didn't even start puttting guns on airplanes at all until 1915.  The tech tree was not matured to the point it is in the 1960 to 1990 range, which is why Mig-21's and F-5A's are still viable combat aircraft fifty plus years after their introduction.

Battlemech technology matured before the first succession war-the Clans didn't even start looking at alternative technology choices until post-3050, and their 'technology advantage' was evolutionary, not revolutionary-refinements to existing systems rather than radical technological changes (basically turbofans instead of turbojets, rather than Turbofan vs. piston-engine-turned propeller).

consider that the introduction of the Flintlock resulted in armies being equipped with flintlock muskets for over two hundred years, and that the bulk of firearms technology didn't shift until the percussion era-and when it did, the curve changed radically, that front-stuffing guns were still in use with major armies until the 1860's, and that breechloading rifles didn't really proliferate until the Austrian-prussian war, and then, that manually operated repeaters served reliably from 1860 (the Henry rifle) until the present (bolt action sniper rifles), but in that time, self loading rifles really didn't until the 1940's, and now, consider we're using a fifty-something year old design in most of the world (the two big 'Assault rifle' patterns m ost common worldwide: the AK-47 and the M-16).

notably, the tech's matured sufficiently that replacements for either have been outlived by both.

so, in essence, a 'revamp' with a time jump should probably include obsoleteing some of the current list, and introducing branching, different solutions to similar problems, as a tech tree would be likely to do at maturation.
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3531
Re: "Next Generation" weapons
« Reply #67 on: 03 April 2018, 00:35:38 »
so, in essence, a 'revamp' with a time jump should probably include obsoleteing some of the current list, and introducing branching, different solutions to similar problems, as a tech tree would be likely to do at maturation.

Undoubtedly.  The Mackie didn't survive long, and the Swordsman barely longer.  The Rifles didn't really survive, and the Thunderbolt missile has been hit and miss, with AMS being a killer to it.  The Rockets are more of a joke than a serious weapon system when compared to the RM sets, but they are an ancient weapon that fits alongside the Rifles and Thunderbolt missiles in concept era (if not earlier).

That's rather the point that Empyrus is trying to put in to play, and something we see often.  The technology of war doesn't always advance smoothly, it often goes through leaps, while puddling along for decades or even centuries evening out the playing field.

Empyrus and I were discussing the concepts of the laser along those lines.  He wants them to become a pure system which doesn't have any modifiers.  Realistically speaking, that's not a far off concept, as laser systems will find a happy medium between Heavy, ER, Pulse, and Reengineered until something comes along to turn it on its head, such as a desire to have an energy weapon that spreads its damage across the target rather trying to drill it.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9096
Re: "Next Generation" weapons
« Reply #68 on: 03 April 2018, 13:02:14 »
Re: Tech advancement
There are good many historical examples of technology being unevenly developed.
During the WWII, Allies didn't really focus on jet planes or missiles. Once it was clear they were winning, there was no need for "super weapons", and before turning points, getting more material to front lines tended to be more important than having the latest and newest stuff. Nazi Germany did concentrate resources on such things, in hopes of them turning the tide, but ultimately they were of little use.
The WWII tanks are a good example. The Sherman and T-34 were both mass produced, and arguably outdated in late to the war, but both were kept on production because having easily produced tanks was more important than having better high tech tanks.
But afterwards, those innovations started spreading and rapidly changed things. Mostly during PEACE time. Jet planes rapidly replaced propeller driven planes, tanks classes were consolidated into MBTs, missiles became a thing. These new things could wipe the floor with what was used during WWII.

BattleTech has seen nearly no peace times, at least none beyond few decades at most, since the Star League. The few times since have been mostly about rearming, rather than doing new things. Post-Jihad peace was more about societal rebuilding, along with downsizing armies rather than weapons development. It did offer some time to finally start incorporating more Clan-based advances to things though, but these are not revolutionary things.
The arrival of the Clans did lead to considerable amount of new technology, but at the same time a lot of the things done afterwards are mostly refinements of old, rather than new concepts, and it helps a lot of the stuff was reverse engineered from Clan technology (which itself was based on the old concepts). Ultimately there has been no fundamental changes to things.
Consider, after the WWII we've seen a lot of improvements: old steel armor was eventually replaced with composite armor, rifled cannons are replaced with smoothbore cannons firing saboted armor penetrators, missiles have largely replaced unguided rockets, simple radios have been replaced with all forces being heavily networked (well, this is still in progress for most armies), along with other things.
I do not think the changes prompted by the arrival of the Clans are really the same thing, instead they're more like "if WWII had gone longer but there had been a break, we'd see more improvements". Modern innovations change some things radically.

So, i'm thinking that if there were a longer peace period, say 100 to 150 years, we might see radical technological (because BT doesn't seem to have much societal change) changes to appear. Things that really invalidate old ones. But if this process is cut at right point, not everything will have been converted yet, and there might be space for new war-time style innovations.

Empyrus and I were discussing the concepts of the laser along those lines.  He wants them to become a pure system which doesn't have any modifiers.  Realistically speaking, that's not a far off concept, as laser systems will find a happy medium between Heavy, ER, Pulse, and Reengineered until something comes along to turn it on its head, such as a desire to have an energy weapon that spreads its damage across the target rather trying to drill it.
I did want an accuracy modifier for them. Because lasers are lightspeed weapons, and because we copy whatever targeting mechanism pulse lasers have with weight cut down.

That said, I do remember i had an idea for a beam laser once, one that would hit multiple locations... in a line. I believe i got the idea from a videogame called FTL, which has beam lasers that were aimed by selecting two points and the laser did damage to all places between those points.
But converting that idea to BT didn't work very well. For one thing, figuring out the parts it hits was slow because it needed multiple rolls. Secondly, it causes some logical problems in that different 'Mechs have different body styles (eg a hit from arm to arm on a Nova should damage legs as well). Finally, the concept is largely nonsensical unless the beam lasers is extremely powerful, it is more useful to focus the laser to single point rather than spread it around*.

*This is my objection to cluster pulse lasers really. I figure that a pulse laser breaks, say, 0.5 second beam (like a normal laser has) to several pulses (say, five 0.1 second pulses), with small break (0.05 seconds) between them, in order to let vapors to dissipate and scatter a bit, meaning there is less wasted energy and this accountsfor increased damage. Their shorter range and increased weight come from more complex capacitor system, along with advanced optics that allow keeping the pulses trained to the same location constantly.

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3531
Re: "Next Generation" weapons
« Reply #69 on: 03 April 2018, 17:58:55 »
But afterwards, those innovations started spreading and rapidly changed things. Mostly during PEACE time. Jet planes rapidly replaced propeller driven planes, tanks classes were consolidated into MBTs, missiles became a thing. These new things could wipe the floor with what was used during WWII.

You need to review your history.  There hasn't been a single decade since WW2 in which the US hasn't been involved in a conflict of one kind or another, and that's not even considering the Cold War (most of those conflicts were proxies, but that's another story).  In terms of major conflicts, only the 80s really qualify as not really having a major deployment of the military (though, there were a few minor deployments such as Grenada and Panama).  The 90s saw the Gulf War (though that wasn't a major conflict, it was a major deployment), and several small deployments near Asia Minor. 

Development still happened during all that time, but it had the impetus of the Cold War to encourage it.  Of course, materiel loss wasn't nearly as rampant in those conflicts as it WW2.  Part of it was a disparity in technology and practices didn't require the same level of 1:1 deployment (though Korea was the closest of these) that WW2 required.  North Korea was using a lot of Chinese and Russian materiel, but wasn't really developing them to fit their style of war.

*This is my objection to cluster pulse lasers really. I figure that a pulse laser breaks, say, 0.5 second beam (like a normal laser has) to several pulses (say, five 0.1 second pulses), with small break (0.05 seconds) between them, in order to let vapors to dissipate and scatter a bit, meaning there is less wasted energy and this accountsfor increased damage. Their shorter range and increased weight come from more complex capacitor system, along with advanced optics that allow keeping the pulses trained to the same location constantly.

That's why I phrased it as a deliberate attempt to have a laser's damage spread across a target rather than lucky happenstance (the why is up to the developer, both in-universe and out).  If you can do it for an Autocannon firing solid shot, then one can surely do it for a laser system.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9096
Re: "Next Generation" weapons
« Reply #70 on: 03 April 2018, 18:44:31 »
You need to review your history.  There hasn't been a single decade since WW2 in which the US hasn't been involved in a conflict of one kind or another, and that's not even considering the Cold War (most of those conflicts were proxies, but that's another story).  In terms of major conflicts, only the 80s really qualify as not really having a major deployment of the military (though, there were a few minor deployments such as Grenada and Panama).  The 90s saw the Gulf War (though that wasn't a major conflict, it was a major deployment), and several small deployments near Asia Minor. 

Development still happened during all that time, but it had the impetus of the Cold War to encourage it.  Of course, materiel loss wasn't nearly as rampant in those conflicts as it WW2.  Part of it was a disparity in technology and practices didn't require the same level of 1:1 deployment (though Korea was the closest of these) that WW2 required.  North Korea was using a lot of Chinese and Russian materiel, but wasn't really developing them to fit their style of war.
Not talking about the US only. And there has been nothing like WWII. Obviously the Cold War did mean there was constant drive to upgrade to stuff, even ignoring that there were actual conflicts. But that doesn't change that there have been radical changes in technology everywhere, with massive changes compared to how things were around the WWII. In comparison, BattleTech's technology has never taken such radical steps after 'Mechs were invented, i think.

I don't think threat of war would vanish from BT universe even during a long-term peace time... but minor or limited conflicts at best would mean things develop differently, BTU has seen nearly constant warfare on very large scale overall for so long by the Dark Age.
That said, post-WWII world is not a perfect analogy. BT universe seems to have largely plateau'd around the Star League's times, though that has partially been due to its beliefs and nature. But perhaps another Star League-like period could cause it to move on a bit.


That's why I phrased it as a deliberate attempt to have a laser's damage spread across a target rather than lucky happenstance (the why is up to the developer, both in-universe and out).  If you can do it for an Autocannon firing solid shot, then one can surely do it for a laser system.

I'm thinking that autocannon spread more because the projectiles are much, much slower than than speed of light. Chemical propellants are limited to somewhere around 2 klicks per second when it comes to muzzle velocities. Presumably BT's ACs don't really push this limit. Then we include recoil, attacker movement, target movement, and BattleTech's utterly incompetent targeting systems that can't deal with targets that aren't within a kilometer or so... Yeah, i wouldn't be surprised if AC burst lands across multiple locations.
(Besides, since BT already has some strangeness like ridiculously short ranges for large-caliber/high power ACs, my ACs spreading things across large area at longer range is no less strange. Amusingly this is arguably even believable, either consider existing ACs that fire double-shots with multiple shots optional rule, or imagine how inaccurate that AC/20 becomes if we force it fire at longer range and more shots...)
EDIT Also, it occurs to me that my ACs could be sort of development from Ultras and Rotaries, fluff-wise, perhaps. So firing multiple shots would sorta follow from those.

And there's my real reason as well: That we are talking about autocannons. They don't feel very autocannony with single shots, even accounting for abstraction.
If they had been called "cannons" from the very beginning, we wouldn't be having this conversation...

Maybe i'll make autocannons a separate weapon system, more akin to machine guns with longer range (so that conventional fighters can be armed with proper weapons, along with allowing proper BMBs and M2 Bradley analogues can exist!) and replace 'Mech scale autocannons with "Cannons".

...
This gave me an idea for "Pirates with 'Mechs". A wooden 'Mech, with 17th to 18th century cannons...
« Last Edit: 03 April 2018, 18:46:35 by Empyrus »

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3531
Re: "Next Generation" weapons
« Reply #71 on: 03 April 2018, 19:45:14 »
Not talking about the US only. And there has been nothing like WWII. Obviously the Cold War did mean there was constant drive to upgrade to stuff, even ignoring that there were actual conflicts. But that doesn't change that there have been radical changes in technology everywhere, with massive changes compared to how things were around the WWII. In comparison, BattleTech's technology has never taken such radical steps after 'Mechs were invented, i think.

I don't think threat of war would vanish from BT universe even during a long-term peace time... but minor or limited conflicts at best would mean things develop differently, BTU has seen nearly constant warfare on very large scale overall for so long by the Dark Age.
That said, post-WWII world is not a perfect analogy. BT universe seems to have largely plateau'd around the Star League's times, though that has partially been due to its beliefs and nature. But perhaps another Star League-like period could cause it to move on a bit.

You were the one talking about peace time, I was simply pointing out that the time after WW2 was anything besides peaceful.  That it didn't match the scale of deployment and carnage wasn't stated, just that it wasn't peaceful.

There were 3 types of nations after WW2: those with the will and economies to improve, those with the will to improve despite their governments, and those who never really developed anything on their own and spent more time screwing themselves and their neighbors over.

The latter type is what the Inner Sphere saw for the first 2 Succession Wars.  They finally realized what happened when they couldn't screw their neighbors properly anymore like they used to and ended up being in any category but low level conflict in the 3rd while they tried to rebuild their civilizations, with some brief points of light here and there with the second category at times with situations like the Hatchetman.

I'm thinking that autocannon spread more because the projectiles are much, much slower than than speed of light. Chemical propellants are limited to somewhere around 2 klicks per second when it comes to muzzle velocities. Presumably BT's ACs don't really push this limit. Then we include recoil, attacker movement, target movement, and BattleTech's utterly incompetent targeting systems that can't deal with targets that aren't within a kilometer or so... Yeah, i wouldn't be surprised if AC burst lands across multiple locations.
(Besides, since BT already has some strangeness like ridiculously short ranges for large-caliber/high power ACs, my ACs spreading things across large area at longer range is no less strange. Amusingly this is arguably even believable, either consider existing ACs that fire double-shots with multiple shots optional rule, or imagine how inaccurate that AC/20 becomes if we force it fire at longer range and more shots...)
EDIT Also, it occurs to me that my ACs could be sort of development from Ultras and Rotaries, fluff-wise, perhaps. So firing multiple shots would sorta follow from those.

Again you missed the point, if one deliberately set up a laser system to do cluster damage, it is entirely possible.  If you can do it for an autocannon, you can do it for a laser.  Increasing the time between pulses is just as possible as factoring in the reload time of a shell.  The electronics makes it so you randomly hit the target per shot, so that level of drift is there, especially if the heat is altering the focusing lens.  So, it is entirely possible if deliberately set up to do so.  That's all I was saying.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9096
Re: "Next Generation" weapons
« Reply #72 on: 03 April 2018, 21:15:19 »
Again you missed the point, if one deliberately set up a laser system to do cluster damage, it is entirely possible.  If you can do it for an autocannon, you can do it for a laser.  Increasing the time between pulses is just as possible as factoring in the reload time of a shell.  The electronics makes it so you randomly hit the target per shot, so that level of drift is there, especially if the heat is altering the focusing lens.  So, it is entirely possible if deliberately set up to do so.  That's all I was saying.
Ah, but i'm not doing it based on what i see being deliberate but simply something that follows from function and its limitations, combined with game balance and function. EDIT In case of ACs, how i feel they should function, and how that would allow compressing and adding to the game's weapon variety at once.

So, game balance and function first:
-Autocannons should feel distinct from PPCs in the "big gun" role while offering competitive damage and range. Simplest solution, they spread their damage a bit instead of focusing it on one place (for contrast, missiles spread far more and deal less damage per shot, distinct enough), both to keep them distinct and prevent them from being overpowered.
-Likewise, lasers, being direct fire weapons even if they aren't "big guns", should feel distinct, thus they gain increased accuracy but short duration pulse keeps them hitting only single points (again, missiles tend to dominate multi-hit role at multiple range bands).
-Plasma weapons' unique catch is their heat generation in the target while requiring (non-explosive) ammo despite being energy weapons
-Gauss weapons have extreme range at the expense of the weapon being explosive instead of its ammo.

Then, some basic idea why this is so (but not quite actual fluff for the weapons):
-PPCs fire bolts of particles at target at very high speed, this accounts for single point damage.
-Autocannons fire a burst of chemically propelled shells, given all the limitations this implies, they spread around though since the bursts are relatively fast, there is only little spread.
-Lasers are lightspeed weapons, thus they have excellent accuracy, accounting for single point damage and to-hit modifier.
-Plasma weapons are similar to PPCs in function but fire different kind of particles and use ammo.
-Gauss weapons fire hypervelocity slugs requiring their capacitors to be extremely high powered, and cannot be armored properly without excessive weight.
(Actual fluff could be more like "modern laser combines previous ER, heavy and pulse technologies".)

Short beam duration is because i feel that is both realistic, functional, and "looks nice".
Long duration beams are a bit silly IMO for several reasons: they're potentially dangerous to wrong people (seen people manage to damage their entire own team with a single Clan Large Laser beam in MechWarrior Online), it is better to dump less energy quickly to where you aim it than waste energy spreading it around, heat should be more manageable with shorter duration system, and long duration beams just look weird as weapons for universe with somewhat hard scifi aesthetic. While you have been suggesting a pulse laser, i regard pulse and beam lasers largely identical in function in practice, with minor visual difference.
EDIT And increasing time between pulses is equally weird. Extremely risky too, if the target manages to run behind cover or something. I tend to imagine ACs firing one short burst per round, a burst that scatters, not something that fires for long time and scatters because of that.

There's also that i don't see much need for another cluster weapon in the standard, relatively simple weapon set. A weapon set, that i'd prefer to be in size somewhere between current Introductory and Tournament Legal (circa 3075) weapon sets, leaning toward the former.

I will admit that looking at my "big gun" options, there are more point damage weapons than otherwise. As such turning one more of them into cluster weapon could be an option, even though i don't see much need for that (i do kinda intend to have more weapon than needed after all anyway), and this could be an opening for non-cluster missile weapon. But i disagree with the choice being the lasers, or a laser variant.

That said... as i've been typing this, i recalled that i have drawn some inspiration during my prototyping from an old PC mecha game called Titans of Steel (which may be based on BattleTech). Most of those ideas were cut, with exception of laser accuracy which partially owes it to TOS lasers, but larger reason was that i compressed multiple laser types to single laser type. TOS turned lasers and pulse laser (just one type) around in that lasers gained accuracy bonus and pulse laser didn't. Strictly speaking those might have functioned as "ignore enemy movement modifier" rather than having accuracy bonus per se. Incidentally, this might be actually be better, more balanced bonus than straight up accuracy bonus, any thoughts?

Anyway, there could be perhaps place for another laser type in a standard set rather than just placing those into advanced/experimental category. Suppose there is a single additional laser, with single size only, that takes the place "Pulse Laser".
If it were to be a "cluster laser", it should still be somewhat distinct from autocannons (very few clusters, high damage, medium to long range), SRMs (low damage, many clusters, short to medium range) and LRMs (few clusters, low to medium damage, long to extreme range). Having a pulse laser fire many clusters would step into SRM toes easily. Plus a laser that "appears", even if by design, to be inaccurate looks even sillier than long duration beam (pulsed or not).
It could perhaps replace SRMs, with SRMs being turned to high-power short range non-cluster missiles (eg SRM-6 would become actually six different launchers, each firing short-range Thunderbolt-style missile). This would look damn weird though. Even Fallout Gatling laser, as stupid as it was, was relatively accurate, to the point it was arguably way too good thanks to plentiful ammo...
Also need some basic reason why it functions as it does, and then some kind of idea as to what its actual fluff would be (provided weapons are given actual fluff, as i noted before, sometimes it might better not to have that).
« Last Edit: 03 April 2018, 21:30:04 by Empyrus »

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9096
Re: "Next Generation" weapons
« Reply #73 on: 03 April 2018, 22:27:14 »
Ah, hell. You win the pulse laser argument. You see, original source for the pulse lasers, TRO 2750, describes them as "machine gun-like". Also notes tha SPL functions as automatic weapon in Battle Troops. Now, if the PLs were pulsed beams, they wouldn't be good anti-infantry weapons. Turned around, larger PLs' single location hit is actually somewhat weird. ACs still can't be as accurate as lasers, so i'm inclined to keep them cluster weapons. But this very definitely opens up slot for cluster energy weapon.

It seems Tech Manual also describes them as MG-like. Something i've missed but then again, I don't really open that book ever.
« Last Edit: 03 April 2018, 22:35:53 by Empyrus »

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3531
Re: "Next Generation" weapons
« Reply #74 on: 03 April 2018, 22:53:43 »
Ah, but i'm not doing it based on what i see being deliberate but simply something that follows from function and its limitations, combined with game balance and function. EDIT In case of ACs, how i feel they should function, and how that would allow compressing and adding to the game's weapon variety at once.

I know you are not doing that, and deliberately so.  That wasn't in question because you've repeated yourself so much on it.

All I was stating, earlier, and that you seemed to have completely missed, was that your system would deliberately avoid the situation until there is a developmental reason to include them, such as Snub-Nose PPC or the MML. 

It's your system, that's your choice.  You think it is silly, I do not.  I think it has a place, and you do not want it to have that place.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9096
Re: "Next Generation" weapons
« Reply #75 on: 04 April 2018, 08:24:08 »
Ignoring game function and actual fluff...

How high tech would new tech be? How high tech it should be?
BattleTech began with "used-future" setting with mix of high and low tech. 'Mechs were high tech, but implicitly even lasers or PPCs weren't particularly high tech for the universe itself. The Succession Wars enforced "low tech".
But the fact is later BattleTech is influenced by modern developments and trends (in reality or scifi). So, should next generation weapons also modernize feel of BattleTech to some extent?

Like, that Third League Turning Points April Fools product had Gauss Cannons replacing ACs. Its lasers were "Grazers" (Gamma ray lasers), with normal, pulse and ER modes. Its missiles were ATMs but don't seem to be be cluster weapons but given some mistakes in the record sheets, this doesn't count.
(I would argue ATMs are not so high tech missiles per se, rather being complex way of combining long and short range missiles via rocket staging. But perhaps this feat is outside Spheroid capabilities, and the Clans did bake Artemis system into the missiles.)

My thinking so far has been relatively conservative, with intent on recreating something similar to the original "low-tech" setting but with better gameplay balance and more variety. Any high tech would be nominal only (new armor is much better than old, new weapons were designed to defeat it), rather than "real", with few exceptions like having advanced version of the Plasma Rifle but within my ideas that wouldn't be particularly high tech.

Would Gauss weapons, via AP Gauss and Hyper Assault Gauss replace autocannons entirely? While current Gauss weapons fire solid slugs, strictly speaking creating Gauss shells should be possible, so ammo options can be moved around.
Should PPCs perhaps be replaced with Plasma weapons entirely? Should there be new, high tech weapons like "Neutron beams" or something else?
Would 'Mech cockpit systems be replaced entirely with Interface Cockpits or at least Enhanced Imaging or VDNI systems? For simplicity, any negatives could be removed and skill adjustments can be baked into default skill values, eg new "Veteran" would be just "Regular enhanced by systems".

Gameplay-wise this stuff might not have actual effect much really. Numerical values are relative after all. If old tech were to do only half damage against new tech, and new tech were to do double damage against old tech, we might as well write things by doubling armor and damage values for new tech rather than use modifiers, the end result would be the same but for new tech only games it would be easier to use smaller damage values.

Just pondering about style and feel.