Three fixes for things that mildly annoy me

[Mechanis]

Your estimates here are fundamentally flawed, because BattleTech missiles don't have propellent, or rather, the warhead, propellent and missile body are all the same thing; a mostly solid brick of a metallic explosive compound which acts as both the actual explosive payload and the propellent.

No, we have no idea how that's supposed to work, but that's the lore.

[Sir Chaos]

Your estimates here are fundamentally flawed, because BattleTech missiles don't have propellent, or rather, the warhead, propellent and missile body are all the same thing; a mostly solid brick of a metallic explosive compound which acts as both the actual explosive payload and the propellent.

No, we have no idea how that's supposed to work, but that's the lore.

Do you perhaps happen to have a source for all those nuggets of BattleTech wisdom you have been bestowing on us?

[VanVelding]

Disregarding the obvious problems halving damage potential would cause with SRM viability and overall game balance, this would also imply fuel on Battletech missile weapons has negative mass.  Amusing, but I don't think the overall BTU is that advanced.

Have you ever crunched warhead/fuel masses with MRMs in there? Something is already running negative.

Personally, I think ammo efficiency should follow from game system functions. A short-ranged weapon that is less accurate over 21 hexes (that is, it has 0% accuracy from 10-21 hexes) and deals about the same damage per shot has every right to slightly greater ammunition longevity (more damage/ton for the same damage/shot).

Even though ammunition is a liability, the ability to bank weapons sharing a bin or to carry less ammo for entirely reasonable "everyone in universe knows this ammunition is a powder keg and they don't need all of it" reasons mitigates that liability somewhat.

I've tried reconciling missile tonnages and ammo capacities and I've got a spreadsheet that's 98% consistent on the introtech missiles, but it rebuilds missile systems from the ground up and has knock-on effects for MMLs, ELRMs, NLRMs, and MRMs (it spits Thunderbolts out; those missiles ain't right).

Tweaking missiles is pretty easy for some basic consistency, but revamping missiles according to some kind of originalist philosophy--when obviously the strength of Battletech's design is in balancing systems like BV and not construction rules--seems like a strange rock upon which to build your church.

But hell, it's your church and you should have fun with it.

[Cannonshop]

My nitpick here is that the bombs are not actually 1 ton each... like a single arrow takes up 5 bomb slots, so 40kgper slot, while a RL10 takes up 1 slot but is a .5 ton item, ect.  Bombs are what they are purely as a gameplay conceit for balanced gameplay.  As for artillery, well artillery damage is comically too high.  A 200kg AC20 does 20, but a long tom has that same shell size yet does 25 ae, 15 ae, 5 ae, for like 380 potential damage with 1 attack?  Its a joke.  Artillery is grossly overpowered, so comparing something like bombs which were balanced for gameplay isn't fair when artillery was buffed far beyond what is sensical.

Part of that, is what was used as a measuring stick when aerial bombing was moved from Aerotech to Total Warfare-it was balanced against the artillery that had been removed from 'the basic rules' and was still (at that time) only available via BMR(r).

When artillery was intro'ed in TacOps, they had to look at what MWDA was doing, and that year, MWDA's artillery was absurdly overpowered stuff-because damage in that game could be arbitrary, and, largely, was...but they were also the IP owners and if you want to stay in your IP owner's good books, you follow his lead.

it didn't help, that the persons tasked with developing the artillery rules went hawg wild and didn't really reference any experiences players had had for years using the stuff-like how complicated it was and how many people complained aobut the massive drag it imposed-far more than complained that arty damage was anemic, because they didn't want to use it due to the time issue and complexity.  First printing Tac Ops had two optional scatter calculation diagrams-one was perfect for people who find tax accounting to be a joy, and the other had an inherent flaw that made it more dangerous to the side using the stuff, than the opponents they faced.

We didn't get until a later product entirely before artillery scatter was addressed with something that cut that extra calculation down to a dull roar. (We DID get excuses about how bombs are bulky, though, despite the obvious move of using the same streamlining algorithms you'd use for an artillery shell, which would eliminate the bulk of that bulk.  Air drop ordnance in Battletech must be cubes, with concave-scooped sides to catch wind resistance and slow them down while tumbling them off the target...)

but we're stuck with the dinner-plate damage diagram because while air-dropped bombs were balanced against baseline BMR(r) artillery shots, (and Aerotech 2 bombs, which were also balanced against those), they can't be updated without massive upset to match the MWDA/Maxtech inspired artillery damages.

It destabilizes a game balance that's already got problems, and threatens battlemech supremacy^tm.   Upshot being, this is a dissonance that you just, as a player, either live with, or house rule away. It's not something the dev team has the manpower, time, resources or permissions to address, even if the will existed.

[DevianID]

I mean, artillery can be fixed in 2 seconds.  Just errata the damage to 5/10/20 on the guns, and fix the BV as its too low.  Bam, problem solved.  Artillery being poorly implemented 10+ years ago is no excuse not to fix what is an identifiably error via errata.  They already changed how many rules in artillery work via errata, so its not like they dont have the power to errata things.

My complaint with the game currently is that the BV system is actually quite good: it is a calculation, and it does a good job of balance.  But, as a calculation, it also shows us what is wrong in the game and in need of errata.  Artillery is incorrect--BV provides an irrefutable proof of this, as it is math that anyone can do if they feel inclined (and I felt inclined).  I know the team is over worked, but someone with the formulas (it doesnt have to be me) can go through the game with a fine tooth comb and fix all this broken stuff.

And if the designers word of god stated they want to keep artillery at 15/20/25 damage for what I consider no good reason?  Well its stupid, but its easy to model in BV.  Thus the thumper would go up to a bit more then 4x the BV it costs now, and while silly in lore versus the identical thumper cannon, the artillery shell would be at least BV balanced with no glaring error.

[Cannonshop]

I mean, artillery can be fixed in 2 seconds.  Just errata the damage to 5/10/20 on the guns, and fix the BV as its too low.  Bam, problem solved.  Artillery being poorly implemented 10+ years ago is no excuse not to fix what is an identifiably error via errata.  They already changed how many rules in artillery work via errata, so its not like they dont have the power to errata things.

My complaint with the game currently is that the BV system is actually quite good: it is a calculation, and it does a good job of balance.  But, as a calculation, it also shows us what is wrong in the game and in need of errata.  Artillery is incorrect--BV provides an irrefutable proof of this, as it is math that anyone can do if they feel inclined (and I felt inclined).  I know the team is over worked, but someone with the formulas (it doesnt have to be me) can go through the game with a fine tooth comb and fix all this broken stuff.

And if the designers word of god stated they want to keep artillery at 15/20/25 damage for what I consider no good reason?  Well its stupid, but its easy to model in BV.  Thus the thumper would go up to a bit more then 4x the BV it costs now, and while silly in lore versus the identical thumper cannon, the artillery shell would be at least BV balanced with no glaring error.

I cannot fault your logic. 

[Demiurge]

Have you ever crunched warhead/fuel masses with MRMs in there? Something is already running negative.

Personally, I think ammo efficiency should follow from game system functions. A short-ranged weapon that is less accurate over 21 hexes (that is, it has 0% accuracy from 10-21 hexes) and deals about the same damage per shot has every right to slightly greater ammunition longevity (more damage/ton for the same damage/shot).

Even though ammunition is a liability, the ability to bank weapons sharing a bin or to carry less ammo for entirely reasonable "everyone in universe knows this ammunition is a powder keg and they don't need all of it" reasons mitigates that liability somewhat.

I've tried reconciling missile tonnages and ammo capacities and I've got a spreadsheet that's 98% consistent on the introtech missiles, but it rebuilds missile systems from the ground up and has knock-on effects for MMLs, ELRMs, NLRMs, and MRMs (it spits Thunderbolts out; those missiles ain't right).

Tweaking missiles is pretty easy for some basic consistency, but revamping missiles according to some kind of originalist philosophy--when obviously the strength of Battletech's design is in balancing systems like BV and not construction rules--seems like a strange rock upon which to build your church.

But hell, it's your church and you should have fun with it.

Is there any way to make the damage/ton of ammo of missiles work out if we assume that missile damage doesn't track linearly with warhead mass?  That might explain how MRMs are so efficient and why Thunderbolts are so bad.  Furthermore, if missile range scales with missile burnout velocity, then we have a pretty good out on things like ELRMs and long-range ATMs since the real-life Tsiolkovsky Equation is exponential with respect to fuel fraction for linear increases in delta-V.

See?  It can all be reconciled.

Unless you compare missile damage to autocannon damage.  Then everything I just said completely falls apart and make no sense whatsoever again.  Or machine guns.  Just pretend those don't exist either.

[VanVelding]

I ran them through a Python program to reverse engineer the relationships. I forget the mathematical term. Regression? It works when you give gross numbers--damage per weapon, tonnage, etc--but it gives irrational results when trying to construct missile stats from individual components. Even when using exponential variables.

Fooling with the linearity of it doesn't work intuitively either. If MRMs had tiny explosive masses that could deal the same damage as an equal number of LRMs, then the LRMs would use that same tiny explosive mass. Possibly less if accuracy is a factor in damage effectiveness.

They're just nonsense.

If I had my druthers, I'd have missile classes, let a 'mech mount any number of racks for them, and then give each class a series of compatible ammo types with varying damages and ranges. Big, big tables. Everything from close-in flechette-like missiles to Sidewinder analogs (Thunderbolt 6?).

[Hellraiser]

For SRMs, how about 120 missiles per ton?  This changes the shots/ton of ammo to be:

(120 is not just the number of missiles per ton for LRMs, but is also an anti-prime)

I've been advocating for fixing all ammo at 120 points total for all weapons for a long time now.

It would get rid of a bit of MG ammo but for most other things they would get a bit of a boost.

Divisible by 1-2-3-4-5-6-8-10-12-15-20-30-40, it works for most anything except a couple of ATM/MML options and even those the rounding would be minimal.

It would be less of an issue with a "tech advancement/standardization" that left all missile launchers to fit into the new "Variable Missile Launcher / VML" weapons that come in the same 4 sizes as ACs at 2-5-10-20 & combine the effects of ATM/MML type missiles where range/damage will be decided on ammo type & not launcher type.

[Retry]

Have you ever crunched warhead/fuel masses with MRMs in there? Something is already running negative.

Not with MRMs, no.

Did your reverse engineering consider guidance systems for SRMs/LRMs?  Electronics are rather heavy in the Battletech universe, and MRMs don't have 'em, so a fairly heavy guidance component could help rationalize the differences between SRMs, LRMs, and MRMs.

I think the Thunderbolt missiles are beyond saving, though.

I've been advocating for fixing all ammo at 120 points total for all weapons for a long time now.

120 SRMs/ton would be 240 points of damage, not 120.

And I gotta be honest, I've tried this a bit and it's a hard pass for me; it creates just as many problems as it solves.

[Daryk]

I think he meant 60 SRMs per ton (120 DAMAGE points)... ?

[Charistoph]

I think he meant 60 SRMs per ton (120 DAMAGE points)... ?

That makes ATM loads... interesting.  Are the 3 Damage Types the model so each one has a different load (120 for ER, 60 for Standard, and 40 for HE), or just go based on the Standard Damage's Damage option?

At times I wonder if the ATM would have been better off as a Variable Damage Missile system, but FASA wasn't really in to doing that in those days.

[Daryk]

I think your first example is the way to go...  ATM launchers are special because they can handle missiles of different dimensions/weights...

[Retry]

I think he meant 60 SRMs per ton (120 DAMAGE points)... ?

Maybe?  IW did specifically call out 120 as being an anti-prime, so I think 120 was intended to be the number of missiles.

At times I wonder if the ATM would have been better off as a Variable Damage Missile system, but FASA wasn't really in to doing that in those days.

I don't wonder at all; ATMs absolutely would have been better off as a variable damage missile system.

[VanVelding]

Not with MRMs, no.

Did your reverse engineering consider guidance systems for SRMs/LRMs?  Electronics are rather heavy in the Battletech universe, and MRMs don't have 'em, so a fairly heavy guidance component could help rationalize the differences between SRMs, LRMs, and MRMs.

MRMs get waaay too much damage per ton for their drop in range and accuracy. It annihilates the whole set of linear relationships.

The linear regression included tonnage, damage per missile, missiles per shot, crits, heat, ammunition/ton, average damage per shot, cluster size, and average to-hit over 34 hexes. All of which were game attributes.

When doing linear regression with things like fuel weight, explosive weight, guidance system weights, and other, fluffier, qualities, it doesn't work. Shit like "more damage creates less weight" happens because of little inconsistencies with the weapon stats. The removal of guidance systems from LRMs to make MRMs tends to double their explosive power. It pushes it up past SRMs. The guidance system takes up 50% of an LRM's size, but when you double the explosive warhead, it only gets 20% heavier.

The more weapons you include in the (successful) regression, the less accuracy the equations yield. You can approximate many things or specify a few things, but I don't have a computer powerful enough to create some 12th-order polynomials which would make everything work under one set of equations. Actually, if I did, it would probably be a set of equations powerful enough to create all equipment that already exists exactly, but make an LRM 6 weigh 2,103 tons.

[Hellraiser]

120 SRMs/ton would be 240 points of damage, not 120.

And I gotta be honest, I've tried this a bit and it's a hard pass for me; it creates just as many problems as it solves.

In the case of SRM/LRM, I was referring to # of Missiles, which in the case of SRM/HE/ATM is an exception to the rule of damage.

What sort of problems does it create?

Most ammo is already at 120 (damage or missiles) or close to it (Gauss/LtGR/LRM/ATM)
You have AC/SRM set at 100 (90) which would get a small bump.
I'm not seeing too many issues here.

I think he meant 60 SRMs per ton (120 DAMAGE points)... ?

I mean Missiles themselves, which for LRM/ERATM is also damage.
For everything else I mean damage.
Missiles are a "self explained" exception since they are part Damage & part Range so sort of auto correct for each type.
SRM/LRM a mix of 1-2 parts damage & 1-2 parts range (9/21).
ATMs take it a step further w/ 4 parts of Range/Damage.

Maybe?  IW did specifically call out 120 as being an anti-prime, so I think 120 was intended to be the number of missiles.

Yes, its # of Missiles for Missiles (and MG shots), but raw damage for those systems that divide damage into shots.

I just think 120 is a solid figure to simplify for everything so we don't have this variable figure ranging from 60-400 or whatever the current totals are.


MGs = 120 Shots   (Range/Damage varies like missiles so its the same for all MGs)
Missiles = 120 Missiles  (7/9 shot launchers would be exceptions currently)

AC/Gauss/T-Bolt = 120 Damage/Ton = Shots ranging from 6-60/Ton based on # Damage/Shot.  (HGR goes by Medium-20 figure)
iHGR would like 7/9 shot launchers be an exception at 110/22 = 5 shots and I'm fine w/ that for cheesy "new tech" experimental guns :)


I'm not worried about real world math explaining how every ounce of a "ton" is made up, its a game, I just think 120 is a nice round # that is divisible by "almost" every weapon that could be a nice standard to build around.

No one would ever have to look up ammo tables again because they are all 120 as their base stat for shots/damage.

[Retry]

In the case of SRM/LRM, I was referring to # of Missiles, which in the case of SRM/HE/ATM is an exception to the rule of damage.

What sort of problems does it create?

Most ammo is already at 120 (damage or missiles) or close to it (Gauss/LtGR/LRM/ATM)
You have AC/SRM set at 100 (90) which would get a small bump.
I'm not seeing too many issues here.

Well, one of the problems was SRM becoming dramatically worse so as to become unviable without going ham on special ammo like smoke and infernos, but with the carveout for SRMs that point is moot.

There's some other problems too though:
-120 dmg/ton MRMs loses half of their damage capacity and become more pointless than usual.
-XLRMs partially lose one of their main balancing measures (90 damage/ton).  While that series of weapons is kinda weird they're actually really good for IS weapons, especially in company-sized and larger contexts, so while they could use some, ahem, rationalization in other stats I strongly recommend the reduced damage/ton remain.
-Narc (especially Clan) and iNarc become weirdly credible to use as regular weapons at 120 damage/ton rather than explosive shots being more of a last-ditch backup.  Sure they're not weight efficient launchers but they produce no heat.
-Mech Mortars become much better.  More of a lore problem than an actual game problem though since they're still a bit weird to use compared to LRMs.
-Plasma Rifles become a bit better, which is not world-ending but honestly they don't need any buffs.
-Plasma Cannons become...???  (They'd probably stay 10, or 12 following the neo Plasma Rifle.)
-Small and Medium Chemical Lasers become mostly pointless as losing their high damage capacity costs them the one reasonable niche they had.  The improvement to the large one is fine though, since it kinda sucks.
To tell you the truth I do approve of buffing the ACs to 120.

I'm not against adjusting damage/ton counts but I'm strongly for having it done on a case-by-case basis; In my experience making it a blanket 120 across the entire board regardless of context robs us of a useful balancing mechanism.

[Charistoph]

I think your first example is the way to go...  ATM launchers are special because they can handle missiles of different dimensions/weights...

On the other hand, are they really different dimensions and weights and just set up so that the Ammo is constructed so they are all in the same body, just with different fuel:explosive power ratios altered, such as what people are trying to do here with the SRM, MRM, and LRM?

The number of shots currently stay the same between the Ammo Types, so it appears to be the case, or, at least, close enough not to change around like MML loads do between Long and Short Ranged Missiles.

Maybe?  IW did specifically call out 120 as being an anti-prime, so I think 120 was intended to be the number of missiles.I don't wonder at all; ATMs absolutely would have been better off as a variable damage missile system.

The only reason I wonder is because requiring to have 3 Ammo Bins to use all 3 Range bands is a good balancing point.


At this point, I wonder if the Inner Sphere would make a Variable Range/Damage Missile System, and if so, who would do it?

The Commonwealth is too shattered and broken.  The Combine has the resources.  The Confederation and FedSuns have the will.  If the League ever got their act together long enough, they could probably do it.  Of the Periphery, it might be the Concordat or Magistry.

[Daryk]

In the case of SRM/LRM, I was referring to # of Missiles...
*snip*

I stand corrected!

[DevianID]

So on the point of MRMs being too efficient.

If the warhead is the same on LRMs and MRMs with no kinetic component as both deal 1 damage, then only the propellent, guidance, and housing matters for the relationship.

The LRM is an indirect capable weapon, so it's range is greater than 21 as it travels in an arc up and over intervening terrain.  The MRM on the other hand is a slow weapon, slower then cannons, as it takes an accuracy penalty, and the propellant appears to have a long burn time as range increases over time.

So if a 2 kg warhead was responsible for the lrm and mrm damage, that leaves about 6kg of stuff for the lrm and 2kg of stuff for the mrm.  That puts MRMs in the RPG territory for rocket propellent and LRMs in a staged hydra70 territory to go up then come down.  That feels consistent with how they operate, the MRMs famous inaccuracy acting like a bunch of RPGs fired together in a wave.

[Demiurge]

I ran them through a Python program to reverse engineer the relationships. I forget the mathematical term. Regression? It works when you give gross numbers--damage per weapon, tonnage, etc--but it gives irrational results when trying to construct missile stats from individual components. Even when using exponential variables.

Fooling with the linearity of it doesn't work intuitively either. If MRMs had tiny explosive masses that could deal the same damage as an equal number of LRMs, then the LRMs would use that same tiny explosive mass. Possibly less if accuracy is a factor in damage effectiveness.

They're just nonsense.

You might be able to make sense of it if the warhead is a truly tiny percentage of the mass of an LRM, and the guidance and fuel is a comparatively high percentage.  But this is probably not a worthwhile exercise at that point.  The damage/ton of ammo in CBT is utter nonsense, probably cannot be made sense of in a general sense, and aren't well balanced either.

Don't believe me?  I have two words for you.

A-pods.

A-pods are apparently filled with confetti and spring-loaded plastic snakes.  If you work out the damage they do vs a much lighter artillery shell of any flavor, you will realize that this is all silly.

If I had my druthers, I'd have missile classes, let a 'mech mount any number of racks for them, and then give each class a series of compatible ammo types with varying damages and ranges. Big, big tables. Everything from close-in flechette-like missiles to Sidewinder analogs (Thunderbolt 6?).

I heartily agree.  The missile racks would be like the VLS on a destroyer; compatible with a wide range of various sorts of explosive goodness to ruin the enemy's day.

I'm not against adjusting damage/ton counts but I'm strongly for having it done on a case-by-case basis; In my experience making it a blanket 120 across the entire board regardless of context robs us of a useful balancing mechanism.

Yeah, at the point that you make everything a flat 120 across the board, why even bother tracking ammo bins as separate criticals?  At that point just say that each weapon has a more-or-less standard amount of ammo and feed systems "built in" to the mass of the weapon and that extra can be added if needed for a small weight fee.  You know, like how BA does it.

I don't mind streamlining superfluous rules and I don't mind rationalizing nonsensical ones but partly streamlining nonsensical rules leaves the system needlessly complex and still nonsensical.

[VanVelding]

So if a 2 kg warhead was responsible for the lrm and mrm damage, that leaves about 6kg of stuff for the lrm and 2kg of stuff for the mrm.

If an LRM weighs 8 kg and an MRM weighs 4 kg, then an SRM weighs 9.6 kg.

If 1 damage weighs 2 kg, then 2 damage weighs 4 kg.

Then that means an SRM has 9.6 kg - 4 kg = 5.6 kg of propellant, guidance, and housing. An LRM--by that same math--has 6 kg of propellant, guidance, and housing. A difference of 0.4 kg.

Which means a range of 9 versus a range of 21, a guidance system which creates single-missile clusters instead of 5-damage clusters, and housing for 120 missiles versus 100 missiles only has a mass difference of 0.4 kg.

An MRM's 2 kg of propellant, guidance, and housing could be significantly improved by adding 0.4kg of propellant, guidance, and housing to each missile. That's what turns an SRM into an LRM.

MRM mk 2, with 233% of the range and a (speculative) guidance bump equal to that from an SRM to an LRM.
1/msl C1, (6)7/18/35 218 shots/ton +1 to-hit penalty

That seems intuitively insane. To me.

But you don't have to do all of that math to look at a 4 kg MRM and 4 kg (2 damage) of combat-grade explosives:
MRM mk 3, with duct tape
3/msl C5, 3/8/15, 120 shots/ton, +1 to-hit penalty.

If we assume very small explosive weights, then there's no reason weapons couldn't get a lot deadlier for the range or rangier for the dead.

We can break out more algebra (like the page or two I deleted in draft), or some fancy calculus with rocket equations and volumetric efficiency of missile housings and guidance versus flight distance and guidance versus effective damage, but I don't think any of them would support reasonable relationships between specific missile qualities and MRM, SRM, LRM, and MRM stats.

Eventually, you have to offload differences onto the launcher itself and begin breaking down LRM 5's as if they're completely different animals compared to an LRM 10 with an ammunition efficiency derived from its load out.

That puts MRMs in the RPG territory for rocket propellent and LRMs in a staged hydra70 territory to go up then come down.  That feels consistent with how they operate, the MRMs famous inaccuracy acting like a bunch of RPGs fired together in a wave.

Right, but we canonically have those in the form of Rocket Launchers. And they have different ranges, different range profiles, and ranges that diminish with proximity to each other and we're back to attributing missile performance to launcher characteristics.

[DevianID]

I never divided MRMs and rocket launchers in my head.  To me, MRMs are just autoloading rocket launchers built at scale to create a consistent product.  The difference in 3 rocket launcher ranges and characteristics feels in line with not providing proper tube spacing and clearance, while the MRM has a consistent tube and launch spacing.

On the specifics, the MRM rocket motor is different from the SRM motor which is different from the LRM motor.  So if 2kg of explosives was the value, then the fast burning SRM motor is designed to burn fast and at point blank range, while LRMs have much slower launches with that massive minimum range, unless you hot load the rack making them hazardous to the firing unit.  Both SRMs and LRMs have guidance, so we cant say guidance is .4 kg, nor can we say .4 kg of propellent gives LRMs a longer range, when the motors operate so differently to start, with LRMs having an indirect launch trajectory that takes more time versus the instant straight path of SRMs.

So the idea that adding .4kg to an MRM increases the range by 20 on those mk2s is pulling some very bad numbers... The difference between an SRM and LRM is only 12 to begin with, if we ignore the very different flight characteristics.

As for the mk3, you double the missile weight, adding 4kg, but have the same range... So the same rocket motor is pushing double the weight but you didn't adjust range at all.

If you look at deadfire SRMs and LRMs, they do a better job describing what you are talking about.  They strip guidance and propellent and have a reduced range with a +1 to hit, and a mallus to cluster rolls, but they do +1 damage.  So range goes down for damage to go up.

As a final note, one of the reasons MRMs dont have guidance was to make a very cheap weapon to shoot a lot of.  So if you could add guidance to the missile, it was decided in fluff not worth it compared to existing guided missiles.  Indeed, the MRM has just enough range to make LOS attacks, making it perfect as an anti structure saturation weapon.  It also pairs well with C3.  But in terms of raw potential, the SRM6 outperforms the MRM already, outside of cost and range.

[VanVelding]

This conversation has sidetracked into a discussion about whether individual missiles from LRMs, SRMs, & MRMs are created with a consistent set of physical rules based on masses, fuel, and explosive warheads.


I've said that using simple algebra does not bear that out because the relationships are wrong. This is the "algebra approach" and it does not work. 100%.

I've said that using linear, quadratic, exponential, and a few other regressions largely contradict this premise. I call this the "calculus approach," and it largely does not work. That inability to absolutely rule it out is due to lack of both computational resources/knowledge and interest on my part. If had those, maybe I could find a solution. If you have a solution, share it.

I don't know enough about rocket propulsion systems, explosive warhead configurations, or rocket fuel efficiencies to really say. This is the "rocket equations approach." My amateurish looks at the issue have yielded much the same answer as above and my understanding of those relationships is that they would largely look like the equations the regressions ruled out.


It could be. I can't say it's absolutely not. That's been my position.

If you think LRM, SRM, and MRM missiles were created by game designers with an internally consistent set of rules relating fuel masses, fuel efficiencies, explosive masses, propulsion designs, flight characteristics, and unique sets of guidance, stabilization, and proximity detonation systems based on an intelligent layperson's understanding of technology from the 80's and 90's, I'm not here to say you are 100% full-stop wrong.

If you want to say there's a simple linear relationship between any two of those missile types, because one of those missile types is a radically different system, then yes. There absolutely is that linear relationship.

If you want to say all of this is nonsense and it's a game made by jackasses to be played by other jackasses so we can joyfully relax and engage our jackass selves during our downtime, you are right.

If you want to give me numbers for all three of those systems and say they're not nonsense, you're wrong and the numbers are nonsense.

The only way to get the numbers to work is to say that "integral flight process X, Y, Z is handled by the this launcher type, while the other launcher type only handles X." That works just fine. No argument there.

[Daryk]

The trick is that missile velocity affects the damage, so the fuel/warhead relationship is... complicated.  It probably takes differential equations to sort it out, and I haven't had to do that in over 30 years at this point.  And I don't intend to get back into it either.

The jackass point is spot on, but I value consistency in rules for games I play.  Hence why I'm following this thread... :)

[DevianID]

VanVelding, I mostly just saw your example of adding .4 KG to an MRM, the MRM mark 2 you called it, with a range of 35!, and had to speak up because however you came up with those conclusions they seemed so wrong as to be worth weighing in on.  Since the regression series you ran seemed to color your perception that MRMs are so flawed, I thought I was helping by pointing out that your math went off track somewhere along the way.  Ill stay out of it going forward.

There was a cool thread a while back listing actual missiles in the real world, and their weight.  It was interesting to put scale to what mechs are shooting, as to call the 'missiles' of battletech missiles at all is more just for convention sake.  An MRM round is very tiny, only 4ish KG.

The art and models dont do us favors here either.  They show these massive missile bays, like on the catapult, with tubes many many times too big because scale is hard.  Same with all the cannons, the AC10 on some mechs is insanely wide.  You can fit all 20 LRM launch ports in the space taken up by 1 LRM on a Timberwolves shoulder.  And the art for the rocket launcher mechs is especially hilarious.  I wont mention the Yeoman other than to say its name haha.

This started with an idea to make missile numbers consistent BTW, with 120 per bay, and how that doesnt work, referring to OP vs Off topic.

I think a different approach, if you did away with the concept of missile ammo entirely, would be to treat each visual missile on a mech as a single launch cell.  So an SRM6 would be 6 missiles, each SRM doing 20 damage in clusters.  Each LRM would do 7 damage, ect.  Obviously the weapon weight and ammo would be combined and not 2 seperate items, so an SRM6 would be 4 tons, 2/3rd tons per tube, an LRM10 would be 6 tons, 9 for a LRM15, .6 tons per tube.  You'd just increase heat so that you dont fire an SRM every turn out of your SRM6, but 1 missile every 2-3 turns, so the average damage done matches the SRM6+ ammo dealing 8 damage at 4 heat currently.

[Demiurge]

CBT missiles are really small.  SRMs, which are fairly chonky by BT missile standards, weigh only 10kg each.  That's about a kilogram lighter than the M222 missile fired by the M47 Dragon missile launcher, and that's a little baby man-portable system:



So, basically, battlemechs are firing clouds of shoulder-fired missile equivalents.

... Unless you're talking Thunderbolts, and then the size of each missile balloons massively.  Thunderbolt-5s are 83kg a piece, which is about the same mass as an AIM-9 Sidewinder, and Thunderbolt-20s are 333kg each, which is a little bit more than an AGM-65 Maverick.


You know, that missile which has been used to blow up 140 ton displacement patrol boats.

And T-bolt 5s are fully five times heavier than ATMs on a per-missile basis, and yet do only 66% more damage than the flavor with comparable range.  You have to come up with a fairly complex model to explain this.

The thing is, the ammo weight mechanic in CBT is nearly vestigial.  Games don't usually run past 20 turns, and most weapons don't have any sort of rapid-fire rules that allow them to burn surplus ammo faster to do more damage (and those that do have fairly inefficient ammo to begin with and modest damage/weight ratios).  Having more tons of ammo total allows the use of additional munitions types, if they exist and the rules aren't optional/a pain, and if they're even worth using in the first place.  Oh, and the critical locations of the ammo are tracked in the event that they get struck in order to invoke the outrageously punishing ammunition explosion rules.  It's just one of those things that's left in the rules because the rules have never really gotten a second edition which adds a lot of housekeeping but affects the game very little.

[Charistoph]

CBT missiles are really small.  SRMs, which are fairly chonky by BT missile standards, weigh only 10kg each.  That's about a kilogram lighter than the M222 missile fired by the M47 Dragon missile launcher, and that's a little baby man-portable system:

Less, actually.  The weight of one ton for an Ammo Bin also includes storage and feeding systems.

So, basically, battlemechs are firing clouds of shoulder-fired missile equivalents.

And their shoulder-fired Missiles are even smaller when you take in to account the relative lack of range that ConvInf SRMs have.  Of course, that could be angle of attack combined with a relative lack of electronic assistance, too.  The LRMs are even worse, having a 57% reduction in range over the Heavy LRMs mounted in Mechs and Combat Vehicles.

... Unless you're talking Thunderbolts, and then the size of each missile balloons massively.  Thunderbolt-5s are 83kg a piece, which is about the same mass as an AIM-9 Sidewinder, and Thunderbolt-20s are 333kg each, which is a little bit more than an AGM-65 Maverick.

Well, yeah (aside from the specific weights).  We're dealing with a single missile versus a missile array.  Which makes logistics one more reason for the BT universe to change using multiple missile racks instead of single missile launchers.  1 ton of LRMs have 120 missiles.  Other than linking them up to fire in the 5, 10, 15, or 20 batches, you can basically use the same Ammo to stretch across all bands of your unit.

[Demiurge]

Which makes logistics one more reason for the BT universe to change using multiple missile racks instead of single missile launchers.  1 ton of LRMs have 120 missiles.  Other than linking them up to fire in the 5, 10, 15, or 20 batches, you can basically use the same Ammo to stretch across all bands of your unit.

I don't buy this last point.  All LRMs are materially the same weapon system.  The in-game effects of 4X LRM-5 vs 1X LRM-20 are negligible and the tubes are practically fungible in increments of 5.  Level 1 play has exactly two missile weapons in it, to several decimal places of rounding error.  I've had people argue otherwise, but they're wrong and the math proves it.

Nobody is going to be pleased at the logistical streamlining of using one caliber of LRM for various sizes of launchers; they're going to be annoyed at the proliferation of different launcher sizes.

Whereas different sizes of thunderbolts are materially different weapons.  2X T-bolt-5s are most certainly not fungible with 1X T-bolt-10.

[Charistoph]

I don't buy this last point.  All LRMs are materially the same weapon system.  The in-game effects of 4X LRM-5 vs 1X LRM-20 are negligible and the tubes are practically fungible in increments of 5.  Level 1 play has exactly two missile weapons in it, to several decimal places of rounding error.  I've had people argue otherwise, but they're wrong and the math proves it.

Nobody is going to be pleased at the logistical streamlining of using one caliber of LRM for various sizes of launchers; they're going to be annoyed at the proliferation of different launcher sizes.

Whereas different sizes of thunderbolts are materially different weapons.  2X T-bolt-5s are most certainly not fungible with 1X T-bolt-10.

Okay, look at it this way.  You can either carry 15 tons of Ammo for the 3 LRM launcher types your unit is bringing, or you can bring 27 tons of Ammo for the 3 Thunderbolt Launchers that you have.

Yes, you need to account for replacements of the Launchers, but with LRMs, you can reconfigure the LRM-10 Ammo Bays that the Centurion was using to supply the LRM-15 for the Catapult or LRM-20 for the Archer.

With the Thunderbolts, once you're out of Thunderbolt-15s, you can't just switch to using Thunderbolt-10s.

And if you don't think someone would be pleased with such streamlining, you've never had to work supply for any situation or understand basic government purchasing.  It's a Quartermaster's and Logistician's dream.  While the Pilot may not like it when firing these Missiles that won't head-cap, he WILL like having Missiles to fire at all.

Originally my main theory was because AMS made Thunderbolt-type missiles too much an all or nothing, but this adds another feature because the government purchaser doesn't always thinks what the pilot likes, but what how they can manage their budgets.