BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
BattleTech Player Boards => Fan Designs and Rules => Topic started by: Maingunnery on 14 August 2017, 15:03:29
-
I think that we can use some more Sub-Cap weapons, here are some of my current ideas:
Gauss: A bit more range then ballistics but more weight.
PPC: Comes in larger sizes then Lasers but can't do AA mode.
Plasma: Does damage and (because of Aerospace heat tracking) adds 30 heat in the next turn to the target.
Weapon Type Heat Dam Range Ammo/ton WT (tons) Space I/A Cost
Light SC-Gauss CAP, AE 6 2-C Extreme-C 4 250 1-C 1,5M / 15,000
Medium SC-Gauss CAP, AE 9 5-C Long-C 2 550 1-C 2M / 30,000
Heavy SC-Gauss CAP, AE 12 7-C Long-C 1 800 1-C 3M / 60,000
SC-PPC/4 CAP, AE 50 4-C Medium-C NA 350 1-C 800000
SC-PPC/5 CAP, AE 62 5-C Long-C NA 400 1-C 1,2M
SC-PPC/6 CAP, AE 80 6-C Long-C NA 450 1-C 1,8M
Medium SC-Plasma CAP, AE 60 5-C Medium-C 2 500 1-C 1M /10,000
Edit: Outdated table.
Current table see: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=58375.msg1351767#msg1351767
Also Dragon Cat has made AR-15 Multi-Purpose Sub-Capital Missile Launcher. Very nice work.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=32328.msg751569#msg751569
Any other ideas?
-
Always want more weapons for Dropships.
-
These are nice. I'd take these for my AU, but I'm starting to think I included too many wonder weapons for people to maintain suspension of disbelief.
-
These are cool, glad you liked the AR-15
Another thing I was thinking about at one point was a Point Defence Sub Capital Pulse Laser
Essentially a Sub Capital Pulse Laser that has a max range of short range but improved attack against aerospace fighters, small craft and DropShips.
It's not something I've fully explored
-
Interesting options.
Do you remember the "first occurance" of a pocket warship - the Excalibur Guardian over Kathil - this was armed with a Capital PPC but because this would violate rules - the option to switch to subcapital PPCs for example "Three Fivers" would be a great option.... although it would deal more damage at lower weight and lower heat - of course also at lower range.... maybe you should tweak there some value ?
-
Interesting options.
Do you remember the "first occurance" of a pocket warship - the Excalibur Guardian over Kathil - this was armed with a Capital PPC but because this would violate rules - the option to switch to subcapital PPCs for example "Three Fivers" would be a great option.... although it would deal more damage at lower weight and lower heat - of course also at lower range.... maybe you should tweak there some value ?
just what I was thinking
-
OK - here my "benchmark" result. As suspected your PPCs are heavy flavored with vanilla ;)
(benchmark = damage x range/propability[like HM BV calculator] / load weight[heat + weight + ammo])
the NPPCs are 12 respective 13... the NL have a slightly better benchmark of around 15. The SCLs top at 20 so they are clearly better compared to the NSLs (ok when you want to have similar ranges you need to put 4 SCL/1 in a bay vs 1 NL/35) The SCL are hotter but safe 100t
Compare this with "your" SC PPC/6 and the N PPC 7 (light) - its great to have a PPC weapon - as Subcapital Weapon mountable on a dropship.
Maybe you should just drop the numbers back to a SC PPC 5 -but increase weight and heat and decrease range
-
OK - here my "benchmark" result. As suspected your PPCs are heavy flavored with vanilla ;)
(benchmark = damage x range/propability[like HM BV calculator] / load weight[heat + weight + ammo])
the NPPCs are 12 respective 13... the NL have a slightly better benchmark of around 15. The SCLs top at 20 so they are clearly better compared to the NSLs (ok when you want to have similar ranges you need to put 4 SCL/1 in a bay vs 1 NL/35) The SCL are hotter but safe 100t
Compare this with "your" SC PPC/6 and the N PPC 7 (light) - its great to have a PPC weapon - as Subcapital Weapon mountable on a dropship.
Maybe you should just drop the numbers back to a SC PPC 5 -but increase weight and heat and decrease range
Could you post a spread sheet? I am not getting the same numbers.
But the initial review has shown that I need to, at least, change the ranges to match the SC lasers and increase the heat load a bit.
Also what naming is better: Heavy SC-PPC or SC-PPC/6?
-
as web page
sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Oo_5inc1W9MpeSuskizup_X3jGNejYwAQuJPls5QPhY/pubhtml?gid=1094383040&single=true)
otherwise look below
-
If I were going to add more subcapital weapons, I would use these to fill out the range brackets better. There is only one short range capital/subcapital weapon. There are few medium range ones.
I would make the plasma weapon a short range weapon. Battletech plasma weapons are very much heat based, and if I remember right, without insulation, the vacuum of space is gonna transfer that heat right out of the shot. In my mind, of the weapons you listed, it is the best candidate for short range weaponry. I'd adjust it's damage to make it worth it anyway.
-
Don't want to bore you but when I see something interesting I need to get behind it - no matter the costs
have mixed your weapon in the tables and added the "real" BV (calc for your custom guns was done with Heavy Metal)
I don't have an idea wich ranges they use for the range brackets - but when you look at my values I did get near ;)
And about names - well - i prefer either "Names" (Heavy Gear) for (Very Light/Light/Medium/Heavy/Very Heavy/Super Heavy), or only numbers.... for simple reading I added the numbers.
| Name | Damage | Heat | Short | Medium | Long | Extreme | Aerospace | Tonnage | Shots Ton | Load | BV/Ton | BV | BV Ammo | C BV1 /ton | CBV 1 | CBV2 |
| NPPC 7 | 70 | 105 | 11 | 22 | 33 | 44 | Long | 1400 | | 1506 | 11 | 1659 | | 12 | 1843 | 1583 |
| NPPC 9 | 90 | 135 | 12 | 24 | 36 | 48 | Extreme | 1800 | | 1936 | 12 | 2268 | | 13 | 2520 | 2400 |
| NPPC 15 | 150 | 225 | 13 | 26 | 39 | 52 | Extreme | 3000 | | 3226 | 12 | 3780 | | 13 | 4200 | 4333 |
| SCPPC 4 | 40 | 50 | 8 | 14 | 19 | 24 | Medium | 350 | | 401 | 18 | 708 | | 20 | 787 | 583 |
| SCPPC 5 | 50 | 62 | 9 | 18 | 27 | 36 | Long | 400 | | 463 | 26 | 1188 | | 28 | 1317 | 1000 |
| SCPPC 6 | 60 | 80 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | Long | 450 | | 531 | 27 | 1426 | | 30 | 1580 | 1333 |
| NSL 35 | 35 | 52 | 11 | 22 | 33 | 44 | Long | 700 | | 753 | 11 | 830 | | 12 | 922 | 856 |
| NSL 45 | 45 | 70 | 12 | 24 | 36 | 48 | Extreme | 900 | | 971 | 12 | 1134 | | 13 | 1260 | 1200 |
| NSL 55 | 55 | 85 | 13 | 26 | 39 | 52 | Extreme | 1100 | | 1186 | 12 | 1386 | | 13 | 1540 | 1589 |
| SCL 1 | 10 | 24 | 9 | 18 | 27 | 36 | Long | 150 | | 175 | 14 | 237 | | 15 | 263 | 200 |
| SCL 2 | 20 | 28 | 8 | 14 | 19 | 24 | Medium | 200 | | 229 | 15 | 354 | | 17 | 393 | 292 |
| SCL 3 | 30 | 32 | 7 | 13 | 18 | 22 | Medium | 250 | | 283 | 19 | 531 | | 21 | 590 | 405 |
| N Gauss 15 | 150 | 9 | 14 | 28 | 40 | 56 | Extreme | 4500 | 5 | 4514 | 8 | 3024 | 378 | 9 | 4200 | 4592 |
| N Gauss 25 | 250 | 15 | 13 | 26 | 39 | 52 | Extreme | 5500 | 2.5 | 5524 | 10 | 5040 | 630 | 13 | 7000 | 7222 |
| N Gauss 30 | 300 | 18 | 12 | 24 | 36 | 48 | Extreme | 7000 | 2 | 7029 | 10 | 6048 | 756 | 12 | 8400 | 8000 |
| SC Gauss 2 | 20 | 6 | 12 | 24 | 36 | 48 | Extreme | 250 | 4 | 262 | 15 | 358 | 48 | 21 | 560 | 533 |
| SC Gauss 5 | 50 | 9 | 11 | 22 | 33 | 44 | Long | 550 | 2 | 570 | 19 | 950 | 119 | 23 | 1317 | 1222 |
| SC Gauss 7 | 70 | 12 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | Long | 800 | 1 | 833 | 18 | 1331 | 166 | 22 | 1843 | 1556 |
| NAC 10 | 100 | 30 | 11 | 22 | 33 | 44 | Long | 2000 | 5 | 2035 | 10 | 1896 | 237 | 13 | 2633 | 2444 |
| NAC 20 | 200 | 60 | 11 | 21 | 31 | 42 | Long | 2500 | 2.5 | 2569 | 17 | 3792 | 474 | 21 | 5267 | 4661 |
| NAC 25 | 250 | 85 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | Long | 3000 | 1.67 | 3098 | 17 | 4740 | 593 | 21 | 6583 | 5556 |
| NAC 30 | 300 | 100 | 9 | 18 | 27 | 36 | Long | 3500 | 1.25 | 3617 | 18 | 5688 | 711 | 22 | 7900 | 6000 |
| NAC 35 | 350 | 120 | 7 | 14 | 21 | 28 | Medium | 4000 | 1 | 4141 | 13 | 4956 | 620 | 17 | 6883 | 5444 |
| NAC 40 | 400 | 135 | 6 | 12 | 18 | 24 | Medium | 4500 | 0.83 | 4660 | 14 | 5664 | 708 | 17 | 7867 | 5333 |
| SC AC 2 | 20 | 12 | 7 | 14 | 21 | 28 | Long | 200 | 2 | 223 | 19 | 379 | 47 | 24 | 527 | 311 |
| SC AC 5 | 50 | 30 | 6 | 12 | 18 | 24 | Medium | 500 | 1 | 551 | 14 | 708 | 89 | 18 | 983 | 667 |
| SC AC 7 | 70 | 42 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | Medium | 700 | 0.5 | 783 | 14 | 991 | 124 | 18 | 1377 | 778 |
| SC PR 5 | 50 | 60 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | Medium | 500 | 2 | 571 | 14 | 708 | 89 | 17 | 983 | 556 |
Does anybody remember the Ship PPC tanks from MW2 Ghost Bears Legacy? Those Sub Capital weapons should make it possible.
-
Updated the weapons.
Weapon Heat Dam Range Bench Shots/ton WT (tons)
Light SC-PPC 55 4-C Long-C 23 NA 400
Medium SC-PPC 70 5-C Medium-C 19 NA 450
Heavy SC-PPC 90 6-C Medium-C 20 NA 500
Light SC-Gauss 6 2-C Extreme-C 21 4 250
Medium SC-Gauss 9 4-C Long-C 20 2 550
Heavy SC-Gauss 12 7-C Long-C 22 1 800
Heavy SC-Plasma 60 6-C Short-C 17 1 300
And 60 heat per hit from Heavy SC-Plasma (in the next turn).
-
Streiger, how in the VOID did you manage to get such a neat chart? Everytime I try, it looks like a 100 drunken typist at 100 drunken typewriters.
Its getting much harder not to introduce these to my AU, these are great. Is anybody able to playtest these?
-
The code tags switch to a monospace font, so your columns stay where you put them.
-
These are cool, glad you liked the AR-15
Another thing I was thinking about at one point was a Point Defence Sub Capital Pulse Laser
Essentially a Sub Capital Pulse Laser that has a max range of short range but improved attack against aerospace fighters, small craft and DropShips.
It's not something I've fully explored
I've been thinking about something along similar lines, although I was first working out how to make full-capital pulse lasers -- something that my in-universe company would have started working on post-2609, but were looked down on because of their much shorter ranges.
Biggest hurdle I've had is calculating out the Battle Values of the individual weapons -- maybe it's nitpicky, but I really like to have all of my stats in order (including costs & BV). From what I can tell, the calculations for standard-scale weapons follow the rules from the HeavyMetal Pro website (http://heavymetalpro.com/bv_calc.htm (http://heavymetalpro.com/bv_calc.htm)), but they break down when you try to work with capital-scale weapons. And it's not just capital-scale lasers, it's pretty much all of them. Part of it, I think, is that instead of the detailed ranges (as found in Strategic Operations p. 442), the calculations seem to be based on the abstract range brackets used in Aerospace combat (for example, both the NL/45 & NL/55 can reach the Extreme bracket, & the BV ratio between the NL/55 and NL/45 is exactly the same as their damage ratio, 11:9; but while the damage ratio for the NL/45 and NL/35 is 9:7, their BV ratio is a weird decimal of 1.366265:1). Closest I've been able to calculate the numbers out is:
-- for capital weapons, BV = Damage (standard scale) x Weapon Modifier x Bracket multiplier
-- Weapon Modifier is x18 for energy weapons & x14.4 for ballistic or missile weapons (including gauss)
-- Bracket multipliers appear to be 7/5 for Extreme, 79/60 for Long, 59/60 for Medium, & 11/20 for Short. I say "appear", because there's at least 1 discrepancy I've found (The Piranha Sub-Capital Missile should use the standard multiplier for the Long Range bracket, but appears to use instead a multiplier of 335/216 instead; it should have a BV of 569 & 71 per missile, but the actual listed BV is much higher).
for pulse weapons, I think the Bracket multipliers change to x20/9 for Extreme, x37/18 for Long, x59/36 for Medium, & x11/12 for Short
-- Pulse weapons with a -2 modifier should change the Bracket multipliers to x29/18 for Extreme, x19/12 for Long, x17/12 for Medium, & x5/6 for Short; those are only, IMHO, some estimated WAGs on my part.
Fair warning, the original designs I came up with were a little on the short-ranged side. Oh, maybe 24 hexes for Aerospace combat isn't bad, but it gave a good reason why the SLDF High Command was less than enthusiastic about replacing their standard lasers (even with the enhanced accuracy found in pulse lasers). I wanted to also be able to have some "improved" versions, but also mostly stuck as prototypes...this time more because of the timing. To facilitate that, I used 2 standards for my conversions:
-- since, from what I can tell, the most common pulse laser used by the SLDF seems to have been the Medium Pulse Laser, I used it as the basis for the original capital pulse lasers. This gave much heavier weapons, but a lot of the weight went into better cooling systems.
-- the improved versions are based more on the Large Pulse Lasers, which don't see as much increase in damage or mass as the Medium versions. However, because they've also been pumped up to increase their range, they also run a lot hotter.
-- I also added some sub-capital laser variants. Even though they're developed after the improved capital pulse lasers, their ranges would be so shortened that I did 2 versions again: 1 based on Medium Pulse lasers as a "quickie' development, & another loosely based on the Large Pulse Lasers, again saving weight but pushing a lot of extra heat (in this case to match the range of the original sub-capital lasers)
Name Type Heat Dmg (Aero) Range (Aero) Item/Ammo (tons) To-Hit TC? Rating (Year) Item/Ammo (C-bills) Item/Ammo (BV)
NPL45 AE, CAP, P 76 45 (4.5-C) 7/15/22/30 (Med-C) 1,300/na -2 N E/F-X-F (2619) 750k/na 1,328/na
NPL55 AE, CAP, P 96 55 (5.5-C) 8/16/24/32 (Med-C) 1,600/na -2 N E/F-X-F (2619) 1.275M/na 1,623/na
NPL65 AE, CAP, P 110 65 (6.5-C) 9/17/26/34 (Med-C) 2,000/na -2 N E/F-X-F (2620) 1.875M/na 1,918/na
iNPL40 AE, CAP, P 82 40 (4-C) 9/18/27/36 (Long-C) 980/na -2 N E/X-X-F (3065) 875k/na 1,480/na
iNPL50 AE, CAP, P 110 50 (5-C) 10/20/30/40 (Long-C) 1,260/na -2 N E/X-X-F (3065) 1.4875M/na 1,850/na
iNPL60 AE, CAP, P 132 60 (6-C) 11/22/33/44 (Long-C) 1,540/na -2 N E/X-X-F (3066) 2.1875M/na 2,220/na
SCPL1 AE, CAP, P 27 10 (1-C) 6/12/18/24 (Med-C) 270/na -2 N E/X-X-F (3075) 320K/na 255/na
SCPL2 AE, CAP, P 32 20 (2-C) 4/8/12/16 (Short-C) 360/na -2 N E/X-X-F (3075) 502.5K/na 300/na
SCPl3 AE, CAP, P 36 30 (3-C) 3/6/9/12 (Short-C) 450/na -2 N E/X-X-F (3075) 675K/na 765/na
iSCP1 AE, CAP, P 40 10 (1-C) 9/18/27/36 (Long-C) 210/na -2 N E/X-X-F (3079) 385k/na 370/na
iSCP2 AE, CAP, P 47 20 (2-C) 8/14/19/24 (Med-C) 280/na -2 N E/X-X-F (3079) 586.25k/na 510/na
iSCP3 AE, CAP, P 54 30 (3-C) 7/13/18/22 (Med-C) 350/na -2 N E/X-X-F (3079) 787.5k/na 765/na
-
Streiger, how in the VOID did you manage to get such a neat chart? Everytime I try, it looks like a 100 drunken typist at 100 drunken typewriters.
Its a table - the forum ui supports tables (its the button right next to the "insert quote"
However its very time consuming to build a table - code is faster (at least it seems so)
Workaround:
- Data already in a table calculation program of your choice (excel, sheets, calc)..
- Add columns between the data
- fill the blanks with {tr]{td] for the first column, {/td]{td] for the others but the last {/td]{/tr] ( "[" instead of "{"
- add a {table] at the beginning and a {/table] at the end (extra cell or line doesn't matter)
- copy the table in a text editor (notpad, wordpad) - this step is necessary to destroy any formating
- copy the text in the post -> table
You can speed up the progress - I have prepped a sheet - i just copy my value into one sheet, copy the table from a second and copy then the text in the forum - hardly a minute afford (you need more when you add the code block)
Biggest hurdle I've had is calculating out the Battle Values of the individual weapons -- maybe it's nitpicky, but I really like to have all of my stats in order (including costs & BV). From what I can tell, the calculations for standard-scale weapons follow the rules from the HeavyMetal Pro website
the BV calculation is indeed based on the abstract ranges.
I tried to do it similar to the "normal BV" calculation
so short range is 12 hex with (a roll against 6+) and so forth but I don't get values that seem to make sense.
Ok there must be some range involved because extreme bracket is 41-50 with 6+6 - so the minimum raise of the BV make some sense.
the multiplication of energy over ballistic seem to be 1.3 and when you ignore the range brackets at all and keep the multipler fixed... but when used this calculation also doesn't get the correct values
-
Its a table - the forum ui supports tables (its the button right next to the "insert quote"
However its very time consuming to build a table - code is faster (at least it seems so)
Workaround:
- Data already in a table calculation program of your choice (excel, sheets, calc)..
- Add columns between the data
- fill the blanks with {tr]{td] for the first column, {/td]{td] for the others but the last {/td]{/tr] ( "[" instead of "{"
- add a {table] at the beginning and a {/table] at the end (extra cell or line doesn't matter)
- copy the table in a text editor (notpad, wordpad) - this step is necessary to destroy any formating
- copy the text in the post -> table
You can speed up the progress - I have prepped a sheet - i just copy my value into one sheet, copy the table from a second and copy then the text in the forum - hardly a minute afford (you need more when you add the code block)
the BV calculation is indeed based on the abstract ranges.
I tried to do it similar to the "normal BV" calculation
so short range is 12 hex with (a roll against 6+) and so forth but I don't get values that seem to make sense.
Ok there must be some range involved because extreme bracket is 41-50 with 6+6 - so the minimum raise of the BV make some sense.
the multiplication of energy over ballistic seem to be 1.3 and when you ignore the range brackets at all and keep the multipler fixed... but when used this calculation also doesn't get the correct values
Yeah, exactly. The regular BV calculations seem to assume a really green pilot (Gunnery 7), Walking (+1), firing at an immobile target (-4), so it assumes 4+ for Short, 6+ for Medium, & 8+ for Long; by extension, Extreme should be +10. But they didn't work when you plug in the values for the NL35 (which doesn't have the Extreme bracket). And I even tried experimenting on that online calculator with a modifier, just in case they were having them fired against non-capital targets, but still no go. Since I knew that the NL45, NL55, Medium N-PPC, & Heavy N-PPC also used the exact same multipliers (all energy weapons, all having the abstract Extreme bracket, & their BV ratios matched their damage ratios), I ended up working backwards to find a common multiplier that I could stick above 36 as a fraction. I then tried to find combinations from the 2D6 results that approximated those, so that I could adjust them for pulse laser accuracy.
-
Another thing I was thinking about at one point was a Point Defence Sub Capital Pulse Laser
Essentially a Sub Capital Pulse Laser that has a max range of short range but improved attack against aerospace fighters, small craft and DropShips.
It's not something I've fully explored
Well, you just inspired me: 8)
Pulse Defender Array
A large array of over 100+ micro pulse lasers. These don't target, they just sweep through the entire adjacent hex (1 space hex range) upon activation.
Neutralizes space minefields, does damage like a minefield to any units in the target hex.
Minor PD value against all missiles attacks through that hex.
Massive heatload.
And for something else...
Sub-Capital Missile - Special ammo ideas
Piranha (Probe) - This missile deploys an multi-environment sensor probe (atmosphere, in orbit or on the ground). Extends detection range/strength to/in specific locations.
Stingray (Hunter) - Deployed like a stealth mine, this missile will wait until it is armed and something has entered its attack zone.
Swordfish (Burst) - A bigger/meaner Anti-Ship Electronic Warfare Missile (TO 358)
Manta Ray (Boomer) - Smaller version of the Asset Management Weapon (IO p176)
-
Ok - there must be some "extra" BV values for "special" rules.
There was also a change between AeroTech2 and Strategic Operations.
You calculate the BV for a abstract range bracket:
Average of Standard and Capital Ranges (9 for short +9for medium +12 for long +7.5 for extreme)
You multiple those values with the probability to hit.
So 33/36for 4+ for short and so forth
Multiply with the damage factor in standard damage (100 for NAC10)
Multiple with 0.96??? Don't know were this vale comes from
1.25 for energy
example Heavy Naval Gauss
- Extreme = (7.5*6/36+12*15/36+9*26/36+9*33/36
- Damage 300
- Mutiple with 0.96
- 6048
when you add a -1 to hit modificator you would change the propability to 10/36;21/36;30/36;35/36
-
I have been thinking about Terran Alliance era weapons, which lead me to the thought of Chemical Naval Lasers.
I think that these would work on DropShips as they wouldn't require reactor power, but the toxicity would be an large drawback.
| Weapon | Heat | Damage | Range | Bench | Shots/ton | WT (tons) | Intro |
| Chemical NL30 | 52 | 3-C | Long-C | 9 | 1 | 800 | 2030 |
| Chemical NL40 | 70 | 4-C | Long-C | 10 | 1 | 1000 | 2120 |
| Chemical NL50 | 85 | 5-C | Extreme-C | 10 | 0.5 | 1200 | 2210 |
Now the question is, are these 'bad' enough to be plausible for their time?
-
I would put the CNL-40 at .8 shots per ton. Otherwise looks fine to me.
-
Nice idea - about those chemical lasers - the ammunition on warships have seldom "relevant" impact so you could even have the same shot/ton equitation for the ancestors of the naval lasers.
with abstract range brackets - what do you think about a Variable Speed Pulsed Sub Capital laser (Short -2;Medium-1;Long+/-0) Of course long range
another idea might be to put the "bracket fire" rule from Strategic operations into a single weapon bay
-
I would put the CNL-40 at .8 shots per ton. Otherwise looks fine to me.
Will do.
Nice idea - about those chemical lasers - the ammunition on warships have seldom "relevant" impact so you could even have the same shot/ton equitation for the ancestors of the naval lasers.
A part of me wants to make them even worse, like mandating a maintenance cycle after x number of shots.....
with abstract range brackets - what do you think about a Variable Speed Pulsed Sub Capital laser (Short -2;Medium-1;Long+/-0) Of course long range
another idea might be to put the "bracket fire" rule from Strategic operations into a single weapon bay
I think that an actual VSP SC laser would likely end up requiring less tonnage and heatsinks then an array of linked SC lasers.
I have also now added another set of old weapons, Primitive Capital Missiles (used some placeholder names, open for suggestions).
Because of their primitive guidance systems they have a +1 To-Hit penalty, but I don't know how to bench that.
The oldest are one-shot weapons (like RL ICBMs), the later reloading system would be an innovation to save tonnage on primitive combat JS.
Also how can we benchmark OS weapons?
| Weapon | Heat | Dam | Range | Bench | Shots/ton | WT (tons) | Intro |
| Chemical NL30 | 52 | 3-C | Long-C | 9 | 1 | 800 | 2030 |
| Chemical NL40 | 70 | 4-C | Long-C | 10 | 0.8 | 1000 | 2120 |
| Chemical NL50 | 85 | 5-C | Extreme-C | 10 | 0.5 | 1200 | 2210 |
| Thresher Miss. (OS) | 10 | 2-C | Long-C | ? | OS | 80 | ES |
| Whale Shark Miss. (OS) | 20 | 4-C | Extreme-C | ? | OS | 180 | ES |
| Thresher Launcher | 10 | 2-C | Long-C | 6 | 0,028571429 | 100 | 2125 |
| Whale Shark Launcher | 20 | 4-C | Extreme-C | 8 | 0,016666667 | 200 | 2125 |
-
I'd lower the ranges on the primitive capital missiles to medium and long, personally.
-
I'd lower the ranges on the primitive capital missiles to medium and long, personally.
What about have them both at Long? They are full sized missiles after all (35 & 60 tons respectively).
-
Thank you for all the update with the naval weapons. Always want to keep the battle in space updated and as advanced as possible.
-
What about have them both at Long? They are full sized missiles after all (35 & 60 tons respectively).
Mostly or variety. The long and extreme range brackets for capital weapons are over populated compared to the medium and short range brackets.
-
Mostly or variety. The long and extreme range brackets for capital weapons are over populated compared to the medium and short range brackets.
What about a primitive Sub-Cap missile?:
| Weapon | Heat | Dam | Range | Bench | Shots/ton | WT (tons) | Intro |
| Prim. Sub-Cap Launcher | 15 | 3-C | Medium-C | 10 | 0,05 | 200 | 2125 |
-
Subcapital launchers are already mostly medium or short range. If you are going to do primitive versions of them, I would keep them in the short range bracket.
Putting all the primitive capital missile launchers in the long range bracket makes sense, since all the normal ones are extreme range... I would just do medium and long, because I want to, not because it would be a logical reverse engineer of what we have in the game already.
-
Subcapital launchers are already mostly medium or short range. If you are going to do primitive versions of them, I would keep them in the short range bracket.
Putting all the primitive capital missile launchers in the long range bracket makes sense, since all the normal ones are extreme range... I would just do medium and long, because I want to, not because it would be a logical reverse engineer of what we have in the game already.
What about a short/medium range bracket minefield launcher? A space mine field can be pretty damaging.
-
What about a short/medium range bracket minefield launcher? A space mine field can be pretty damaging.
There are places (I'd have to go searching for exact page numbers) where it says screen launchers can fire space mines, in the books already. So someone has thought of that before. I think it is a good idea. Basically a space shotgun. Short/medium range is definitely the right place for that, in my opinion.
-
There are places (I'd have to go searching for exact page numbers) where it says screen launchers can fire space mines, in the books already. So someone has thought of that before. I think it is a good idea. Basically a space shotgun. Short/medium range is definitely the right place for that, in my opinion.
Yes, the screen launcher seems to be able at launching mines into short range. But I think it would be plausible to use a bigger system for medium range.
-
I always though they should just do thunder ammo for capital/subcapital missiles, and deliver minefields where they want them in space.
-
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=54975.0
naval railgun aka: subcapital "gauss rifle"
-
Does anyone have any guidelines about determining the C-Bill cost of Sub-Cap weapons?
-
Do you have any idea on making Light and Medium version of Sub Capital Plasma Cannon or should I just decrease weight by 50 tons, damage and heat by 20 points and multiply ammo count by 2?
-
Do you have any idea on making Light and Medium version of Sub Capital Plasma Cannon or should I just decrease weight by 50 tons, damage and heat by 20 points and multiply ammo count by 2?
What kind of damage outputs are you looking for? 2-4-6 or 4-5-6?
-
Considering the damage of SCC and SCL, 2,4,6 seems to work better.
Also, the sub capital Gauss rifle you designed seems really op, they might need to cut down their damage slightly or increase their weight by another 50 or 100
EDIT:
Actually, nevermind about the sub capital Gauss Rifle, light subcapital cannon doesn't seems any better than normal mech-sized gauss rifle already with more than ten times the weight already.
-
Considering the damage of SCC and SCL, 2,4,6 seems to work better.
Also, the sub capital Gauss rifle you designed seems really op, they might need to cut down their damage slightly or increase their weight by another 50 or 100
EDIT:
Actually, nevermind about the sub capital Gauss Rifle, light subcapital cannon doesn't seems any better than normal mech-sized gauss rifle already with more than ten times the weight already.
Giving me a poke is a good thing, I needed to review and bring everything together anyway.
The current state, with bench mark numbers:
| Weapon | Heat | Dam | Range | Bench | Shots/ton | WT (tons) | TR/Intro |
| SC-Gauss/2 | 6 | 2-C | Extreme-C | 21 | 4 | 250 | F/TBD |
| SC-Gauss/4 | 9 | 4-C | Long-C | 20 | 2 | 500 | F/TBD |
| SC-Gauss/6 | 12 | 6-C | Long-C | 20 | 1 | 750 | F/TBD |
| SC-Plasma/4 | 40 | 4-C | Short-C | 18 | 4 | 200 | E/TBD |
| SC-Plasma/5 | 50 | 5-C | Short-C | 18 | 2 | 250 | E/TBD |
| SC-Plasma/6 | 60 | 6-C | Short-C | 17 | 1 | 300 | E/TBD |
| SC-PPC/4 | 60 | 4-C | Long-C | 20 | NA | 450 | F/TBD |
| SC-PPC/5 | 60 | 5-C | Medium-C | 19 | NA | 450 | F/TBD |
| SC-PPC/6 | 90 | 6-C | Medium-C | 20 | NA | 500 | F/TBD |
| Chemical NL30 | 52 | 3-C | Long-C | 9 | 1 | 800 | C/2030 |
| Chemical NL40 | 70 | 4-C | Long-C | 10 | 0.8 | 1000 | C/2120 |
| Chemical NL50 | 85 | 5-C | Extreme-C | 10 | 0.5 | 1200 | C/2210 |
| Thresher Miss. (OS) | 10 | 2-C | Long-C | ? | OS | 80 | C/2010 |
| Whale Shark Miss. (OS) | 20 | 4-C | Extreme-C | ? | OS | 180 | C/2020 |
| Thresher Launcher | 10 | 2-C | Long-C | 7 | 1/35 | 100 | C/2125 |
| Whale Shark Launcher | 20 | 4-C | Long-C | 8 | 1/60 | 200 | C/2125 |
I do still need to finalize the costs...
-
| Thresher Launcher | 10 | 2-C | Long-C | 7 | 0,028571429 | 100 | C/2125 |
| Whale Shark Launcher | 20 | 4-C | Long-C | 8 | 0,016666667 | 200 | C/2125 |
Egads, please use fractions for the tons/shot for these. #P
-
Giving me a poke is a good thing, I needed to review and bring everything together anyway.
The current state, with bench mark numbers:
| Weapon | Heat | Dam | Range | Bench | Shots/ton | WT (tons) | TR/Intro |
| Thresher Launcher | 10 | 2-C | Long-C | 7 | 0,028571429 | 100 | C/2125 |
| Whale Shark Launcher | 20 | 4-C | Long-C | 8 | 0,016666667 | 200 | C/2125 |
Looks like the Thresher missiles are 35 tons each, while the Whale Shark missiles are 60 tons each.
The fun part is that IIRC missile launchers need to have a minimum of 10 shots of ammo per launcher, that means a single Thresher missile system will mass a minimum of 450 tons, and a Whale Shark system needs 800 tons.
-
Well, I was looking at Thunderbolt missile and thing that it could be effective as essentially a capital SRM launcher.
| Weapon | Heat | Dam | Range | Tons per Salvo | WT (tons) |
| Thunderbolt 20 MMLS | 48 | 6*2-C | Medium-C | 2 | 180 |
Except it's actually kind OP for its low weight even after I doubled it.
-
Egads, please use fractions for the tons/shot for these. #P
Will edit it in, it was a legacy from the bench calculation.
Well, I was looking at Thunderbolt missile and thing that it could be effective as essentially a capital SRM launcher.
| Weapon | Heat | Dam | Range | Tons per Salvo | WT (tons) |
| Thunderbolt 20 MMLS | 48 | 6*2-C | Medium-C | 2 | 180 |
Except it's actually kind OP for its low weight even after I doubled it.
You can get that will all std weapons, if it wasn't for the range......
Thus I wouldn't object if capital scale is ever changed from x10 to x100.
-
Will edit it in, it was a legacy from the bench calculation.
Thanks!
You can get that will all std weapons, if it wasn't for the range......
Thus I wouldn't object if capital scale is ever changed from x10 to x100.
Neither would I, in fact, I would probably laud it.
-
OK - here my "benchmark" result. As suspected your PPCs are heavy flavored with vanilla ;)
(benchmark = damage x range/propability[like HM BV calculator] / load weight[heat + weight + ammo])
the NPPCs are 12 respective 13... the NL have a slightly better benchmark of around 15. The SCLs top at 20 so they are clearly better compared to the NSLs (ok when you want to have similar ranges you need to put 4 SCL/1 in a bay vs 1 NL/35) The SCL are hotter but safe 100t
Compare this with "your" SC PPC/6 and the N PPC 7 (light) - its great to have a PPC weapon - as Subcapital Weapon mountable on a dropship.
Maybe you should just drop the numbers back to a SC PPC 5 -but increase weight and heat and decrease range
I still honestly have absolutely no idea how does this equation even work.
Which probability should I use, there's a whole list of number on the HM BV calculator page.
-
I still honestly have absolutely no idea how does this equation even work.
Which probability should I use, there's a whole list of number on the HM BV calculator page.
Heavy Metal BV uses the classic BT ranges - not the aerospace brackets - you might try to trick the "system" by using 9 as short range, 18 as medium and 30 as long range but only for "long" range weapons.
For most capital weapons you should use the "to hit propability" 4;6;8 and 10 without any "special rules" - the propability is (33/36; 26/36; 15/36 and 6/36)
Ranges are 9 for short, additional 9 for medium, 12 for long and 7.5 for extreme
So the basic aerospace weapon bv for a long range weapon would be (9*33+9*26+12*15)/36 * damage * 1.25 (if energy) * 0.96??duno but is necessary???
Attached a Open Calc file for the calc.... or if the regional stuff is destroying the the formulas
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YAR-u0jY8ev5t01tfbdOwP9uoka7XO791xQquocWo2w/edit?usp=sharing
- the "loaded weight" is a simple calc - weight+heat + 20(turns)/shots_per_ton
-
Coming back to this topic, I have been thinking on how to visualize these weapons.
For the Sub-Capital PPC, I think that peak power demand is the biggest technical problem.
More then a DropShip's powerplant can normally deliver, so I had to find an in-universe technical excuse for reduce this peak.
Currently I am thinking of having circular PPCs that slowly build up the particle load over more time to vastly reduce the peak power demand, and with some extra parts to cause the particles to exit at a specific angle, see picture:
(https://i.imgur.com/x4Qjmsh.png)
-
While I am not one to discard a pleasing train of thought; why not just a capacitor?
The technology already exists in BT, and should be able to take care of peak requirements nicely.
-
While I am not one to discard a pleasing train of thought; why not just a capacitor?
The technology already exists in BT, and should be able to take care of peak requirements nicely.
You know I never have heard how the PPC capacitor works, we know what it does, but is it an extra projection/acceleration stage or source of electricity?
Because if it is the former, then most of the circle length could be projection/acceleration stages.
-
"Capacitor" implies the latter (a source of electricity)...
-
"Capacitor" implies the latter (a source of electricity)...
Sure, but why does it have the odd heat behavior then?
Also it isn't as explosive as the capacitors in Gauss Rifles.
-
Not a good answer, but "game balance"... :)
-
Coming back to this topic, I have been thinking on how to visualize these weapons.
For the Sub-Capital PPC, I think that peak power demand is the biggest technical problem.
More then a DropShip's powerplant can normally deliver, so I had to find an in-universe technical excuse for reduce this peak.
Currently I am thinking of having circular PPCs that slowly build up the particle load over more time to vastly reduce the peak power demand, and with some extra parts to cause the particles to exit at a specific angle, see picture: https://i.imgur.com/x4Qjmsh.png
Check out circular particle accelerators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator#Circular_or_cyclic_RF_accelerators). Essentially you have a 'gate' in part if the accelerator that is designed to keep the particles traveling in a circle, but that gate can also be deactivated to let the particles out in a stream. You rotate the circular accelerator so the exit gate is pointed where you want, and just turn that little part off to let the particle stream go in that direction.
As for power demands, that may work, but you would still have the need to keep all the particles contained in the accelerator anyway, and the more particles you have inside the more energy you would still need to keep bending their path. So you may still need the overall power demand, but you are right about it being a steadier build up. However, damage to the accelerator will not only damage the emitter, but that particle stream will escape, potentially into your ship.
The fun part is when you make one of these large enough to be the circumference of the ship. So you have a 'spinal mount' particle beam weapon, but it/they can only be mounted in the LBS/RBS arcs (changing the course of the beams is really difficult), you would have to spend one thrust point to reflect aiming the ship's waist at a target, and they can only be aimed at up to 2 targets (three points define a plane, the firing ship is one point, the emission cone of the particle emitter effectively defines a plane).
You would also have to make a rule about the size is proportional to the width of the ship, since it would be installed just under the armor, but also have the gate openings as close to the surface as possible to avoid having a 'girdle' on the 'waist' on your ship (also add Docking Collar penalties by reducing the max limit?). Since a ship 8* the mass is only 2* the L/W/H of a smaller ship, that means if a 100 kton Warship has a SpNPPC that can do a max of 400 standard damage, then an 800 kton Warship mounting a SpNPPC would be able to do 800 standard damage. Since SpNPPC requires the ship to maneuver to aim, all penalties for firing at smaller targets are doubled.
Now this gives me a 'flak' idea for NPPC weaponry. If you fire the particle stream for a longer period of time, and use the magnetic aiming system to rapidly scatter the beam, you might be able to get an anti-small craft capability out of it. It would have the NPPC's range, but the damage would be lower, and it might still have a penalty. Similar to how CIWS uses a single stream of bullets but sprays them in the path of a missile.
-
Check out circular particle accelerators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator#Circular_or_cyclic_RF_accelerators). Essentially you have a 'gate' in part if the accelerator that is designed to keep the particles traveling in a circle, but that gate can also be deactivated to let the particles out in a stream. You rotate the circular accelerator so the exit gate is pointed where you want, and just turn that little part off to let the particle stream go in that direction.
As for power demands, that may work, but you would still have the need to keep all the particles contained in the accelerator anyway, and the more particles you have inside the more energy you would still need to keep bending their path. So you may still need the overall power demand, but you are right about it being a steadier build up. However, damage to the accelerator will not only damage the emitter, but that particle stream will escape, potentially into your ship.
The fun part is when you make one of these large enough to be the circumference of the ship. So you have a 'spinal mount' particle beam weapon, but it/they can only be mounted in the LBS/RBS arcs (changing the course of the beams is really difficult), you would have to spend one thrust point to reflect aiming the ship's waist at a target, and they can only be aimed at up to 2 targets (three points define a plane, the firing ship is one point, the emission cone of the particle emitter effectively defines a plane).
You would also have to make a rule about the size is proportional to the width of the ship, since it would be installed just under the armor, but also have the gate openings as close to the surface as possible to avoid having a 'girdle' on the 'waist' on your ship (also add Docking Collar penalties by reducing the max limit?). Since a ship 8* the mass is only 2* the L/W/H of a smaller ship, that means if a 100 kton Warship has a SpNPPC that can do a max of 400 standard damage, then an 800 kton Warship mounting a SpNPPC would be able to do 800 standard damage. Since SpNPPC requires the ship to maneuver to aim, all penalties for firing at smaller targets are doubled.
Now this gives me a 'flak' idea for NPPC weaponry. If you fire the particle stream for a longer period of time, and use the magnetic aiming system to rapidly scatter the beam, you might be able to get an anti-small craft capability out of it. It would have the NPPC's range, but the damage would be lower, and it might still have a penalty. Similar to how CIWS uses a single stream of bullets but sprays them in the path of a missile.
That is a lot cooler then my idea of just being a subcap weapon.