I'm trying very hard not to be upset. >:( You've gone from seemingly obvious weapons technologies to "transitional" weapons and now you're talking about preferences in upgrades and which size of new technological weapon innovation should have been introduced first in an alternative universe. And then you insult me. Pardon me for not knowing where you're going or being very happy at the moment.
"Obvious" is a very subjective thing, and for me it includes the idea of some ER weapons being engineered to sacrifice a bit of damage for range instead of generating gobs more heat to get it, so that they can swap in for older lasers and PPC in a "drop-in" manner rather than requiring a rebuild or redesign. You seemed to misinterpret my intent as a fluff-only item which is statistically identical to the canon item, (as with the Clan Prototype ERML) or slightly but unambiguously inferior,(as with the Clan Interim ERML) so I gave examples of canon weapon swaps to illustrate the sort of thing I was going for, and I think I was abundantly clear about why I was talking about them:
"Such drop-in components for upgrading or otherwise reconfiguring machines are common IRL, being the intended point of a lot of aftermarket replacement parts, so it kinda bugs me when new tech in BT looks like it should be able to take such a form but doesn't: the TR weapons are to be read as "real" ER tech, not immature prototype suff, but engineered/calibrated/whatever for a slightly different balance between performance and energy efficiency, for the specific purpose of being more suitable as a field refit, because stuff like the "upgraded" Panther 10K is just masochistic. For another example, a Trans-Pulse ML could be 1 ton, 1 crit and 3 heat to swap in for older ML and have reduced performance compared to a full-size MPL: less damage and/or only getting a -1 TN bonus instead of the full -2 bonus." As for the Alternate Universe, that was another attempt to help your not knowing where I was going, and again I was being very clear[/color] about that:
"As for long-term viability, nowhere did I say that transitional weapons are supposed to be "not as good as," and in fact clarified that the idea is NOT an immature version of later equipment, it's just the models and configurations that make the most sense to develop first. I'll try illustrating with an analogy. Would you have the same objection if, hypothetically, the Streak-4 were not canon but the Streak-6 were, and I were suggesting the smaller launcher as a transitional Streak weapon? That's the entire idea behind transitional weapons; slightly different implementations that happen to be more interchangeable with existing popular equipment."If by "insulting," you are referring to my stoopid joke, I apologise for that. I meant to come off as playful, not cruel, and my intent was to very conspicuously call attention to my use of the term, "transitioning," because I was getting desperate to help you know where I was going with that subthread.
When did a different weapon being abandoned come into this? I thought you wanted first introduced weapons? The AC/5 was the first autocannon introduced.
It "came into this" when you brought up the AC/5, asking me whether it might be an example of what I am talking about. Such an example pooped into my head, so I gave it, and when I did so I explicitly specified that the fact that the Heavy Rifle becomes obsolete makes the example different from what I was going for, and that said difference was not relevant to what I was explaining.
TAG isn't a laser weapon as a laser pointer. And what Laser generates -2 heat? Are you referring to the Laser Heat Sinks? Those aren't a weapon. Unless you consider the light show distracting.
My wording is very clear about the fact that I was giving the number -2 for the group "any laser item," which I think is easy to imagine including laser items which are not weapons, especially for some one able to guess (correctly) that I was referring to the Laser Heat Sink. You said, and your exact words were, "1 is the lowest amount of heat a laser can generate," which is incorrect unless I take some liberties by interpreting your words as something unambigously different from what you literally said, so I pointed that out in order to let you clarify what you meant. I have no firm semantic position on whether a device whose sole purpose by both design and use is to light up targets for various destructive warheads is a weapon, a part of a weapon, not a weapon or whatever, but I do have a headcanon position that TAG is an awful lot more than a laser pointer. It weighs a ton, provides functionality that most 'mechs lack, and is higher-tech than many weapons, and requires special versions of ammo unable to also fit standard guidance mechanisms, so it probably has at least a pair of laser pointers, for both rangefinding and its ultimate purpose of target illumination, as well as redundant other means like a radar suite capable of the same functions so it can function with either subsystem compromised, and probably has its own dedicated computational and communications faculties in order to securely negotiate illumination signal parameters so that spoofing the system requires sophisticated means like a Nemesis pod rather than being a trivial thing achievable by any enemy with another TAG system, without any privileged access.
How is that a precedent for bypassing an obstacle? The Mercury has always been fluffed as modular and being the basis of OMNI Technology.
Yes, the Mercury and its laser is fluffed as a precursor to Omni tech, which does not give the Mercury the full functionality of Omni tech, at least in the aspects modeled by the rules. It's a clear precedent for bypassing the retcon-aversion obstacle you brought up, since it's the same situation as with the Hermes and its laser as a precursor to your hypothetical Streak lasers; it enjoys some benefits like reducing collateral damage from stray shots, but no benefits which are modeled by the rules. You can insist that the Hermes' ML "really" builds up one point of heat when it misses, in contradiction to the rules, and you have every right to choose that interpretation, but not to pretend it wouldn't be at least as easy to interpret the fluff as agreeing with both the canon rules for the Hermes and any house rules for Streak lasers.
It can be. Or it could lead you to no where or even backwards. Why would the weight of Clan Launchers go down? Any weight lost is because of the reduction in tubes which is partially made up by firing more than one size missile and the doubling of the weapons bulk. How is that superior than the ATM? If they stay the same weight but with more tubes and double the heat and bulk (Which is the only way I could see the Clans using them.) how is that any different from using standard Clan launchers? At least using standard launchers doesn't mean your entire weapon is lost when it gets a critical hit. You'd still have the other launcher type to use.
What I was talking about "could be" a step in the particular direction I clearly specified for a hypothetical step when I said that clan MML could be half the weight of I.S. MML, because clan SRM and LRM are half the weight of their I.S. precursors, so that [clan MML] : [I.S. MML] :: [clan SRM and LRM] : [I.S. SRM and LRM] and, maybe to a lesser extent, [clan MML] : [clan SRM and LRM] :: [I.S. MML] : [I.S. SRM and LRM]. I don't know why clan launchers are half the weight of I.S. launchers and more compact if possible, but since they are I think that's the default assumption for MML unless a particular reason exists for MML to not follow the clearly-established pattern.
FWIW, I think the "obvious" thing is for clan MML to be a tradeoff that's often desirable when you want both SRMs and LRMs in a somewhat SRM-heavy mix, and not so often desirable when you don't want that particular thing, just like I.S. MML. Yes, separate launchers for each ammo type are harder to disable with crit hits, which is part of the tradeoff for ATM as well.
Ah. No worries on my end, about this, but I think you might have missed something. ATMs weigh more because they do more. The standard ATM has the range of MRM with twice the damage. HE ATMs have 50% more damage than SRMs and ER ATMs have a longer range than LRMs. The extra explosives and fuel translates into increased weight.
When I say the ammo is too heavy, I don't mean that I expect them to weigh the same on a per-missile basis as the cheaper, retrotech-fluffed weapons that are launched in much larger volleys from lighter launchers, and of a different tech base which is supposed to be less potent and not directly comparable to clan tech in terms of potency per ton. I mean exactly what I said, which is that they're too heavy for what they do when compared to other clan missile weapons, which is the reason I gave for inflating their capabilities, including shrinking their weight to 2/3. They look distinctly less impressive than the older clan Artemis-IV SRM and LRM munitions, which I'll clarify below since apparently my perspective isn't as obvious as I thought. The launchers are small and light enough to just barely make up for the ammo's inefficiency, so that ATM are an awkward option but can be made to work alright if you enjoy their character. IMHO, what they do look like is a technologically crude (by clan standards, at least) industrial and logistical stepping stone toward the very superior, overpowered even, iATM. I'd like to remind you that this whole subtopic spawned from my suggesting ATM ammo to offer a bit more MML-like functionality, as a possible interpretation of "clan MML." That was done because I see people comparing ATM to MML so often, while IMO the former doesn't come anywhere close to offering what I like the latter for. If any one else is interested in that line of thought, I think Narc is one of the more powerful options which ATM tech is lacking vs. MML, after Inferno/Incendiary and Thunder/FASCAM.
To me, ATM HE and Standard ammo look like a technological step backward, when compared to older Artemis-IV munitions, and ATM ER like a poor imitation of I.S. Extended LRM technology. ATM HE just matches SRM-6 (Artemis IV) ammo in range and raw damage per ton, while the SRM-4 and SRM-2 versions offer a ninth more damage per ton. ATM HE delivers fewer, bigger warheads, losing about a third of its critseeking power. How is this "superior?" Next, ATM Standard ammo just matches the damage per ton of LRMs, has only 5/7 the range, and reintroduces most of the minimum range limitation which clan LRMs lost. Last, ATM ER boasts an impressive 9/7 that of LRM ammo, but again with a minimum range and now the damage per ton is half that of LRM. None of those come in Inferno, Narc, Smoke, Frag, Artemis-V or anything other than standard warheads with Artemis-IV guidance.
As for launchers, I think clan MML would look just fine considering that they'd be using older ammo options with their "diminished capabilities," like better SRM critseeking, much better mid-long range damage with only one more ammo type needed, with options for augmenting both types with Narc guidance, or adding powerful capabilities like Inferno or FASCAM. Here are the stats for hypothetical clan MML launchers, both the
half-weight versions of I.S. launcher sizes and
double-tube-count versions, with the canon ATM launchers for comparison. Following the convention for clan half-weight SRM and LRM racks, everything is smaller by one crit slot than its I.S. counterpart unless said counterpart is already one crit, which I interpret least generously for the double-size ones by not doubling the savings. Heat cost is doubled for double-size launchers.
Tons----Crit----Heat----Name-
1.5 2 2 ATM-3
3.5 3 4 ATM-6
5 4 6 ATM-9
7 5 8 ATM-12
-----------------------------
.75 1 2 MML-3
1.5 2 3 MML-5
1.5 2 4 MML-6
2.25 3 4 MML-7
3 4 5 MML-9
3 5 6 MML-10
4.5 7 8 MML-14
6 9 10 MML-18
-----------------------------
1.75 2 2 MML-3 Artemis-IV
2.5 3 3 MML-5 Artemis-IV
2.5 3 4 MML-6 Artemis-IV
3.25 4 4 MML-7 Artemis-IV
4 5 5 MML-9 Artemis-IV
4 6 6 MML-10 Artemis-IV
5.5 8 8 MML-14 Artemis-IV
7 10 10 MML-18 Artemis-IV
-----------------------------I'm not a fan of Artemis myself, except on non-'mech vehicles, but those are included because ATM includes Artemis-IV.
I'm actually leaning more toward something
explicitly described as working the way almost all missile weapons do in my headcanon: a single large projectile efficiently carries the payload to just outside typical countermeasures' engagement range, whereupon it dispenses multiple submunitions in manner similar to LB-X Autocannon so that it's harder to shoot down or avoid the attack. This is why different-sized weapons of same type can't share ammo bins, nor can MML share with SRM or LRM launchers, and why Thunder/FASCAM isn't a hideously difficult and expensive development from standard LRM payloads. Hm... "Monolithic-Missile Launcher?" >:)
That could be just purely fluff, but it could also have rules consequences: this fiction model lends itself to incorporating Narc or iNARC technology similarly to how ATM and iATM incorporate Artemis technology. It sounds like a terrible pain to find balanced stats for, as its extreme "Swiss Army Knife" nature just screams "unintended consequences" to me, but it's also a huge benefit to me because Narc is my favourite missile guidance upgrade. Maybe it could kinda mirror the GR and SBGR, having two variants identical in stats except that one fires just Narc Homing Beacons and Narc-homing warheads, while the other fires just the other, special payloads like Inferno, Thunder, and all the wacky new iNarc pods...
I meant in game terms. There aren't any rules to differentiate between them. It'd be nice if a multiple barreled standard AC could unjam itself. A Pepperbox AC could elect not to fire all of its rounds per turn reducing damage but saving ammo and so on. Nothing that would change things in tournament games. Just optional things to bring more differences and flavor to ACs.
I'm not sure, but I think that kind of variety is by default assumed to be canon by BT convention, and I like it. O0
I would think the range would get shorter than longer. There's also the possibility of getting hit by some of the plasma that gets out from the rotating barrels. That's why I suggested pepperbox. Everything's contained in the barrel until you need to reload.
Are you talking about the cylinder gap for a revolver or revolver cannon? If so, that's only an issue if you want it to be. Otherwise, just position it so it doesn't spray the user, use a simple protective cover and/or, my favourite on "rule of cool" grounds, say the barrel and chamber engage via a socket instead of just floating near each other, opening for rotation and closing for firing with a short sliding motion of either part along the bore axis. This is not a futuristic fantasy solution I made up, BTW, it's something done by a few handheld revolvers that are old today, for the purpose of making them compatible with sound suppressors... Back on-topic, I'm vaguely picturing R/PR as being more like a bizarre radial arrangement since PR would need possibly-bulky heating systems around the chamber but would not have any problem with pointing cylinders in arbitrary directions since the munitions are totally inert. The power connection to the heater is completed by the locking of the barrel to the chamber. Rules-wise, I have a mild preference for a new weapon to offer some reach unless there's a particular reason otherwise, since close-combat has more diverse weapons options right now than longer-range fire has, but Rotaries aren't my thing so I'm not gonna be the one using it... Fiction-wise, though, since it's kinda backwards how BT guns decrease in range with size, I rather like "fixing" it by having these guns behave in a more intuitive way. How much shorter are you thinking, and for what mass and bulk of weapon?
So? We know what those things are because we've seen them in use and have been told how they work. It doesn't matter that it's realistic or not. They've been said to work this way so they do. Some versions of weapons do the same thing but actually work that way.
Okay, where can I see them in use and/or otherwise get an idea of how they canonically function, so that I can have an idea of how they might translate to BT? (Or are they native BT items I just don't know by those names?) If no such canon exists for these items, then I maintain that it's entirely up to you what BT's incarnation is and how they work, so asking how they would work is meaningless if it's
your fiction.
True but there are partial cannons now. They're just close ended and miles long. But we can get creative and make them smaller. I'm also not sure why I'd need to look up speeds or list them either. All I need is weight of weapon, how many crits it takes, its range, damage, heat, and any ammo it requires, and some creative fluff. Eventually, I'm going to have to write down my House Rules for these weapons. A lot of it's already in the fluff or existing rules but I'm still weighing balance issues. If I have time I'll try an work on them this weekend.
Yeah, "we can get creative and make" anything happen in fiction that you want, but some people are into "suspension of disbelief," and I try to be respectful of that. FWIW, what seems "creative" and "clever" to me is fiction which is solidly consistent under "fridge logic," or shows humour which jumps out at me when I've let my guard down, or in any other way shows that loving thought went into it. I suggested looking into some velocity numbers to get a feel for what such weapons might look like because you told me you preferred specifying unnecessary details for some autocannon because it makes the item more, to use your exact word, "real." I like to imagine such details too, as I've demonstrated, but I usually (but not always) try to adhere to what little I know about physical properties and limits, in part because it makes the fiction more accessible to people who are into the "suspension of disbelief" thing.
I mean, that's part of why I lean toward vagueness outside BT, and part of why I like BT: here I feel like I can get away with a lot more detail than usual, because this setting tolerates a lot of my ignorant unrealism which is almost certainly laughably demonstrative of
"anything is possible when I don't know what the heck I'm talking about" to most scientists, engineers and even science fiction writers. It means I can be more liberal with fantastic imagery, but trying to avoid inconsistencies is a "never too much" thing; any extra thought or research is unlikely to cause regrets while not bothering might be likely to. It's like the cliché about ammo, I guess; "Nobody ever complained in a gunfight, 'Oh, no, why did I bring so much ammo?!,' so the right amount is however much you can bring." If you prefer to load light, go ahead and skip the next paragraph.
I think what you were trying to refer to are titanic research accelerators, which are very unlikely to be the basis for weaponised accelerators because the design challenges are very different. For pushing physics research, the main goals are probably highest possible velocity and beam quality. It doesn't matter how portable or efficient the equipment is, as long as you can operate it safely at all. For a weapon, the main goals are probably just total beam energy, in proportion to how difficult it is to wield the weapon. You also now have the challenges, just as with laser weapons, of getting through all the air between your emitter and target, and of producing a beam capable of destroying whatever armor technology you're facing, but not destroying the weapon handling that energy. For example, a laser will probably use a conical beam so that luminous flux at the user's end is handleable but flux on-target is not. A kinetic beam might be much harder to spatially manipulate like that, so instead I find it easier to imagine it being manipulated temporally by starting at maximum mass flow and minimum specific impulse and gradually trading current for voltage during the discharge cycle in order to compress milliseconds of safe output power at the user end of the beam into microseconds of unsafe power at the target end. (or whatever time scales are realistic)
They sound cool. I'm not really sure how they work though or how balanced they are but they sound cool.
Hehe,
sound cool. Thanks! O0 It's just the idea behind SRT and LRT, applied to AC; copy all the stats for AC, change the name, and say that it works in water rather than in air. If by "how they work," you mean something more fluffy, they use an explosive charge and perhaps other consumable supplies to perturb the water violently enough to damage even military-hardened machinery. The wave is focused into a form with relatively little spatial dispersion, maybe but probably not like
this. (Imagine the segment is filmed underwater, and those cups are made of ultra-dense supermaterials, weighing 9/16 of a megagram each.)
I'm rather liking how "Pulse PPC" looks like an "obvious" thing for Kurita to make, so hope I can do something similar for other great houses. It's based on Light PPC because I like it smaller, and because it's not called "Lord's Heavy." The farther-reaching version imitates ER Pulse rather than X-Pulse by losing half of the Pulse bonus, partly because I think the Combine might be the most clan-like Successor State, but mostly because I like having them differ that way.
The stats are starting to gel for me, so this might be where I decide to call it good. The main changes are that damage effect invokes the two cluster columns which I suspect a Kurita player is most likely to know by heart first. For clarification, C6 for 1-damage hits and C4 for heat, using one roll of 2d6 for both cluster lookups rather than making two separate rolls. IOW, an LB-6 hit and an Incendiary LRM-6 LRM-4 [derp] hit, sharing a cluster roll. Ah-tchoo! [nerfed 12 Jun]Dragon's Knees type: P tons: 5 7 crit: 2 3 heat: 8 10 range: [2] 4-8-12 other: -2, flak, no Tarcomp damage: 1 * C6 + 1H * C4 (roll once for both results) common models: Donal Quicksilver Magna MorningStar MMM Venus Fire DOI Light Bringer VMI Prometheus SDI Pepper Spray
| | SuperDragon's Knees type: DE tons: 5 7 crit: 2 3 heat: 12 15 range: [3] 6-12-18 other: -1, flak, no Tarcomp damage: 1 * C6 + 1H * C4 (roll once for both results) common models: Donal Apollo Magna ShootingStar MMM Venus DSR DOI Lucifer VMI Ignifer SDI Hotsnot |