Howitzers and balance

[Suralin]

So I've been statting out some World War II stuff. And I've been getting to the point where lots of howitzers are showing up.

They're a lot lighter than BT artillery, but with the same range. Been wracking my brain trying to come up with damage levels -- versus both BT-grade equipment and the 1945-level stuff -- that would be fairly balanced without obsoleting anything.

What I have so far is this:

Code: [Select]

105mm Howitzer

Type: Ballistic (Artillery)
Tech Base: Inner Sphere (IS)
Available: Pre-spaceflight

Heat: 2
Damage: 7 + 2 splash (radius 1)
Range: 17 mapsheets
Other: Reduce damage and splash damage to target by 1 (min 0), for every BAR above 6 its armor has.
Tons: 2
Crits: 3
Ammo/ton: 66

I'm sure you can see how this would be problematic, tho. Even for something that is comparably ineffective against modern armor, it's only about two tons (the real-life mass of the M101 and leFH18), and thus would be fairly easy to spam in BT. I'm hoping for some ideas on solving this one.

[RifleMech]

Well, going by XTROI'd:1945 I'd increase the weight to 5 or 6 tons since the 8.8cm is listed at 4 tons. I'd also reduce the range to a couple mapsheets. As for damage, the splash I would think they splash would only be effective against infantry, BA, and vehicles with BAR8 and lower armor.

[boilerman]

 For a WWII era 105 I'd go with damage of 4 (at most) + 1 splash. Just my opinion.

You must have posted just as I was writing my thread about the BA tube artillery.  ;D

[Suralin]

Well, going by XTROI'd:1945 I'd increase the weight to 5 or 6 tons since the 8.8cm is listed at 4 tons.

Thing is, the 88 actually was 4 tons. Or at least the PAK 43 was. I chose 2 tons for the 105 because that's close to the actual weight of the German 105s that got mounted on the Wespe, and not that much less than our own M101.

I'd also reduce the range to a couple mapsheets.

Again, both the M101 and the leFH18 IRL could reach targets at a range of 10 kilometers. (Not always reliably, mind, given the targeting of the era, but it was doable.)

As for damage, the splash I would think they splash would only be effective against infantry, BA, and vehicles with BAR8 and lower armor.

I'm in full agreement with you on that one.

For a WWII era 105 I'd go with damage of 4 (at most) + 1 splash. Just my opinion.

You must have posted just as I was writing my thread about the BA tube artillery.  ;D

I was thinking of low-balling it at first, too, but 105s *could* punch through hulls. One of the other options I was mulling over on Discord was having the damage be 5/1 but with bonuses against BARs below 8.

And timing is everything, apparently :D

[RifleMech]

For a WWII era 105 I'd go with damage of 4 (at most) + 1 splash. Just my opinion.

You must have posted just as I was writing my thread about the BA tube artillery.  ;D

The damage reduction for BAR would bring the 7 down to 4.

Thing is, the 88 actually was 4 tons. Or at least the PAK 43 was. I chose 2 tons for the 105 because that's close to the actual weight of the German 105s that got mounted on the Wespe, and not that much less than our own M101.

Again, both the M101 and the leFH18 IRL could reach targets at a range of 10 kilometers. (Not always reliably, mind, given the targeting of the era, but it was doable.)

Yeah, not sure how to do that. You could keep the weight I guess but give it a penalty for direct fire.

Battletech ranges are real life ranges though. The 8.8cm goes from an extreme range of 130 hexes in 1945 to 20 hexes against BT units. Giving the same reduction puts it at a max range of 3 mapsheets if you round up.

[Suralin]

Thing about that is, tho, it's howitzers. Like the missiles and mortars of the later BT era, they deal damage through explosion, not penetration as the AT guns or ablation like BT's autocannons. Reducing the effective range doesn't make sense with that the way it does with, say, Rifled Cannons.

I think I'm gonna use my original idea and modify it slightly if needed. Maybe have the penalties start to kick in above BAR 4, rather than 6.

[Daryk]

You might also consider reducing the radius to zero.  The smaller artillery should have smaller area of effect.  And don't forget BT weapons are assumed to incorporate the weight of the stabilization, recoil compensation, auto-loader, and aiming servos.  That's a good way to head canon any weight increases.

EDIT: Added auto-loaders to the tonnage increase list.

[RifleMech]

Another thing to consider is how it compares to BT tube artillery. As pre-spaceflight weapons they're contemporaries of the Howitzer. It could have a similar or greater range than the Thumper. It'd do less damage though. So why not just 4 damage with 2 to surrounding hexes. That would leave you room for larger howitzer until you get to BTs Artillery.

[HobbesHurlbut]

Battletech ranges are real life ranges though. The 8.8cm goes from an extreme range of 130 hexes in 1945 to 20 hexes against BT units. Giving the same reduction puts it at a max range of 3 mapsheets if you round up.

I would point out that this only matter against weapons that rely on velocity/armor piercing to do damage, not pure explosion damage like the BT artillery use.

[RifleMech]

That should read

Battletech ranges aren't Real Life ranges.

hate typing on phones :(

 ???
Not all BT rounds are armor piercing. Many explode.

[Hptm. Streiger]

Nice idea, but you have some abstraction errors.
Drop ranges by factor 6 - those are battle force ranges. Although I admit that I don't know if the tube artillery got an update (have to because LRMs could shoot 6 map sheets)

Area effect - AE only for the target hex. Of course you can calculate the theoretical rate of fire when crew served -or autoloaded although crew should be part of the weight.

Your fire mission committed by a battery of guns aimed at a hex might hit a larger area and as such deal  "splash".

Keep in mind that W2 propellant and explosives are shity already to hat is available today multiply the same effect by factor 4 to get an idea what might be possible in 2300.
To use those better prop charges would increase weight again and so on.

But still like your idea - sounds like the ideal addition to some back-worlders that don't have the resources and tech to create modern weapons but have materials and blueprints for some old W2 stuff. It would be deadly enough against 90% of the targets they might ever face.

[RifleMech]

But still like your idea - sounds like the ideal addition to some back-worlders that don't have the resources and tech to create modern weapons but have materials and blueprints for some old W2 stuff. It would be deadly enough against 90% of the targets they might ever face.

I like it too. WWII weapons are ideal for back-worlds. I wish XTRO:1945 were legal and that it included more weapons.

[I am Belch II]

I like the ideas.
It would be really easy.....to make the weapons to powerful or too weak.

[RifleMech]

I like the ideas.
It would be really easy.....to make the weapons to powerful or too weak.

That's true. I wish I knew what sizes BT Artillery were so we'd know where WWII artillery fits in. The 105 doesn't look as big as the Thumper in TRO2750 but art changes so that doesn't help much. If smaller though. I don't think it should do more damage than the thumper.

[Hptm. Streiger]

That's true. I wish I knew what sizes BT Artillery were so we'd know where WWII artillery fits in. The 105 doesn't look as big as the Thumper in TRO2750 but art changes so that doesn't help much. If smaller though. I don't think it should do more damage than the thumper.

You can always use the rule of thumb.... the Thumper can fire 50kg ammunition in 10seconds - so lets say we are looking at something like the 5"/62 - maybe with less but more powerful propellant (maybe ignited by ECT technology) - lower weight costs for cartridge - you might end in 2-3 rounds per 10seconds - and each 127mm Thumper round might be more effective then a today's 155mm shell.
Of course a Thumper can have a bigger or smaller caliber with changes in RoF.

So when you really would like to use a a 105mm WW2 Tech - maybe you should use the TimeOfWar Ordnance table as guideline.
For example the Ordnance Class E HE weights around 4kg - the M101s shell weights 14kg with 2kg explosives it feels right. (considering better material science and explosive energy of "BT" stuff)

So in TimeOfWar stats the M101 would fire Ordance C or E shells - in tactical BattleTech as Anti-Vehicle rounds you would deal 3 / 2 damage.
So I would also apply 3/2 damage AE to the target hex. (no splash damage to adjacent hex)

 

[I am Belch II]

I always thought that the "Long Tom" was the equivalent to a 203mm howitzer. I know its supposed to be a larger weapon, but I think it fits for damage.

[Hptm. Streiger]

203mm seems to be correct looking at the weight, but effect might be similar to a 16".

[RifleMech]

You can always use the rule of thumb.... the Thumper can fire 50kg ammunition in 10seconds - so lets say we are looking at something like the 5"/62 - maybe with less but more powerful propellant (maybe ignited by ECT technology) - lower weight costs for cartridge - you might end in 2-3 rounds per 10seconds - and each 127mm Thumper round might be more effective then a today's 155mm shell.
Of course a Thumper can have a bigger or smaller caliber with changes in RoF.

So when you really would like to use a a 105mm WW2 Tech - maybe you should use the TimeOfWar Ordnance table as guideline.
For example the Ordnance Class E HE weights around 4kg - the M101s shell weights 14kg with 2kg explosives it feels right. (considering better material science and explosive energy of "BT" stuff)

So in TimeOfWar stats the M101 would fire Ordance C or E shells - in tactical BattleTech as Anti-Vehicle rounds you would deal 3 / 2 damage.
So I would also apply 3/2 damage AE to the target hex. (no splash damage to adjacent hex)

The Thumper's propellant wouldn't be that more advanced than WWII ordnance since it was introduced pre-spaceflight which is 1950 or earlier.

According to Wiki the heaviest round of M101 ammo weighs 20.09 kg. Same ratio and rounding I'd put the damage at 3/1AE with no damage reduction for age.

[Hptm. Streiger]

The Thumper's propellant wouldn't be that more advanced than WWII ordnance since it was introduced pre-spaceflight which is 1950 or earlier.

According to Wiki the heaviest round of M101 ammo weighs 20.09 kg. Same ratio and rounding I'd put the damage at 3/1AE with no damage reduction for age.

So the M795 155mm shell is the same as the M107 155mm shell? I don't think so.
So even when the basic principle was "developed" in early the 1950s its not the same gun anymore. 

[RifleMech]

So the M795 155mm shell is the same as the M107 155mm shell? I don't think so.
So even when the basic principle was "developed" in early the 1950s its not the same gun anymore.

Changing ammo doesn't change the gun, just it's performance. The latter ammo gives the weapon greater range and does more damage, but the weapon itself is still a 155mm howitzer.

I would guess that the
M102 155mm shell would do 4/2 damage at 2 mapsheets
M107 155mm shell would do 5/2 damage at 3 mapsheets
M795 155mm shell would do 7/3 damage at 4 mapsheets


Battletech doesn't really deal with improving ammo though. BT Tube Artillery would be in use for 1300 years by 3250. If there's new ammo every few years... we'd need a book just to cover ammo for just one tube of artillery.

[Daryk]

The M102 only had a range of 1 km?  ???

[Hptm. Streiger]

The M102 only had a range of 1 km?  ???

only in BattleTech scale - you could not use "realistic" ranges and put them into BattleTech ranges. First you need to drop the ranges on "real" guns as well.
So a 120mm Smoothbore might not have effective range of 4km/4 mapsheets but might only be similar to a Light Rifle (in damage as well)

Battletech doesn't really deal with improving ammo though. BT Tube Artillery would be in use for 1300 years by 3250. If there's new ammo every few years... we'd need a book just to cover ammo for just one tube of artillery.

no of course not its not necessary because for gameplay it doesn't matter if mentioned Light Rifle - fires 3 x120mm APFSDS, 2x 130mm or 1x140mm - the effect counts.

its only necessary to do the thinking when you want to "create" a new weapon.

[RifleMech]

6
no of course not its not necessary because for gameplay it doesn't matter if mentioned Light Rifle - fires 3 x120mm APFSDS, 2x 130mm or 1x140mm - the effect counts.

its only necessary to do the thinking when you want to "create" a new weapon.

Rate of fire does matter. There's to hit rolls, multiple targets, walking fire. There's also range and damage to consiDee.

There's no reason there couldn't be a variety of ammo types. Many BT weapons have alternative rounds.  The M107 is still used as a training round so it could be classed as that. The M795 as a standard round. But what about the M102? Classify it as a vintage round?

I don't mind but what about other weapons? Shouldn't Rifle Cannons and tube artillery have vintage rounds? Also at what point do standard rounds cease to be upfated? Or updated ins way that has a measurable game impact?

[Cannonshop]

So I've been statting out some World War II stuff. And I've been getting to the point where lots of howitzers are showing up.

They're a lot lighter than BT artillery, but with the same range. Been wracking my brain trying to come up with damage levels -- versus both BT-grade equipment and the 1945-level stuff -- that would be fairly balanced without obsoleting anything.

What I have so far is this:

Code: [Select]

105mm Howitzer

Type: Ballistic (Artillery)
Tech Base: Inner Sphere (IS)
Available: Pre-spaceflight

Heat: 2
Damage: 7 + 2 splash (radius 1)
Range: 17 mapsheets
Other: Reduce damage and splash damage to target by 1 (min 0), for every BAR above 6 its armor has.
Tons: 2
Crits: 3
Ammo/ton: 66

I'm sure you can see how this would be problematic, tho. Even for something that is comparably ineffective against modern armor, it's only about two tons (the real-life mass of the M101 and leFH18), and thus would be fairly easy to spam in BT. I'm hoping for some ideas on solving this one.

What's your firing rate?  consider that a BT thumper can fire calculated, spotted fires once every 10 seconds, all day long, with a single operator.  a 105mm gun circa wwII can fire that rapidly, but not that accurately, or it can fire that accurately while taking about six times as long to load and fire.

with a significant drift, and without specialty munitions beyond flares.

Ther's also your logistical tail to consider-these were not systems that (when land-based) could emplace in an instant (well, less than a minute) after movement, and especially the pre-cold war stuff needs to be sighted in each time it moves, lacks targeting aids, and (again) has a much slower rate of ACCURATE fire.

keeping in mind that BTs artillery isn't exactly a precision instrument here.

so your effective range is fine, even your damage is fine, the problem comes from being able to actually put up the volume of fire and have it land anywhere close to your target.

[RifleMech]

field gun rules apply when tank cannons are used by infantry. Why wouldn't field artillery rules apply to WWII artillery? especially since we don't know for sure that BT artillery isn't WWII vintage?

[Cannonshop]

field gun rules apply when tank cannons are used by infantry. Why wouldn't field artillery rules apply to WWII artillery? especially since we don't know for sure that BT artillery isn't WWII vintage?

field gun rules apply when tank cannons are used by infantry. Why wouldn't field artillery rules apply to WWII artillery? especially since we don't know for sure that BT artillery isn't WWII vintage?

two things: we can be pretty sure BT artillery isn't WWII vintage, because of two things:

1. WWII artillery doesn't autoload.
2. WWII vintage guns can be destructive as hell, but the accuracy and rate of fire just between circa 1940 and circa 1990 off the scale, as well as effective range (the range at which your rounds will hit a designated target).

unless military development took a break from 2000 to the founding of the Star League, the gun barrel might be similar/following a basic design concept, but it's not going to be more similar than, say, an M-16 is similar to a Remington Rolling Block rifle.  both will kill you with one shot, but one of them is going to repeat the feat a lot more quickly and more reliably than the other, even using the same caliber and cartridge.  (Yes, you can build a Rolling Block copy using modern steels and it will digest modern ammo just fine, just...why?)

Presumably you'er going to see differences in gun-laying speed, (The setup), accuracy, and repeatability being the primary drivers.  A "Tank rifle" or 'Cannon' is just one part of a weapons-system, basically if your rifled bore is consistently well made and the breech is strong enough, it comes down to the carriage, mountings, and associated hardware, because your main damage is contained in a shell that is designed to handle the temperature, shock and pressure of your propellant charge, with a fuse that is also designed to do that AND ignite your payload of whatever explosive you're filling it with, (or secondary systems like scatterable sensors, minefields, flares...whatever).

so going to era differences, it really comes down to how technology tightens your radius of error, and speed of getting the gun up between shots.  You're still throwing a bullet with the same external dimensions and weight, the same distance, over the same time-the basic principles don't necessarily change, but how accurately you throw that package changes with technology, as does the time it takes to throw that package accurately.  Unlike direct-fire guns, with howitzers you're firing indirectly, which means MATH.  (Trigonometry and calculus mostly, to account for wind shifts and atmospheric conditions, target distance, intervening terrain, desired angle of splash..)

whereas with direct-fire guns it's speed and windage along a mostly-low-angle-arc (as close to straight as your velocity allows.)

which is  a LOT simpler to mechanic out than plotting a bombardment pattern on a target hidden on the far side of the trees over there, behind a hill, based on what some nineteen year old with a radio is telling you.

that you probably can't see.

twenty miles away.

thus, my suggestion: takes longer to lay in the gun, and longer between shots.  because if you just compare a 105 from 1942 to a 105 from production runs in the eighties, those are MAJOR differences.

[RifleMech]

Unless it's been changed intheblatest edition of TacOps Battletech tube artillery, Thumper, Sniper, Long Tom, all have an Introduction Date of PS.
The definition of PS is;

   
A listing of “PS” or “Pre-Spacefl ight” for an introduction date indicates an item that existed up to around 1950, before human-kind first left Terra in the Classic BattleTech universe.

I don't know if BT artillery is WWII vintage or not, but if it isnt, its sure close.

Rules for artillery are in TacOps. I believe the cover things like drift.  They also include rules for spotters. The only targeting penalties for era that I know of is the reduced ranges for XTRO1945 Tech and targeting modifiers for units with little or no fire control systems. I haven't heard of that being applied to Infanty though.

I will ask if this also applies to infantry, field guns, and field artillery based on era and report back.

[Suralin]

Maybe i was overthinking this.You know how the tank guns get downgraded to BT equivalents against BAR 6 and above? Let's just have the howitzers act like Mortar 1's below 120mm, and Mortar 2's above that, and call it a day.

I'll probably need to come up with some special stats for the short-barreled guns (e.g. IG33), but that's a bit more doable than messing around with the artillery rules.

[Cannonshop]

Maybe i was overthinking this.You know how the tank guns get downgraded to BT equivalents against BAR 6 and above? Let's just have the howitzers act like Mortar 1's below 120mm, and Mortar 2's above that, and call it a day.

I'll probably need to come up with some special stats for the short-barreled guns (e.g. IG33), but that's a bit more doable than messing around with the artillery rules.

you probably were...or are. 

[RifleMech]

Wish artillery had been included with XTRO:1945    :(

Maybe i was overthinking this.You know how the tank guns get downgraded to BT equivalents against BAR 6 and above? Let's just have the howitzers act like Mortar 1's below 120mm, and Mortar 2's above that, and call it a day.

I'll probably need to come up with some special stats for the short-barreled guns (e.g. IG33), but that's a bit more doable than messing around with the artillery rules.

Wiki lists howitzers from 70mm - 420mm. At what point does damage cease to be area effect for everything but infantry?  And at what point do we run into BT artillery?

[Daryk]

If you have the AToW Companion, there are rules for converting damage to TW scale.  I tried using them as a factor for mortars a while back down in fan rules.