Author Topic: Abandoned and dead-end tech  (Read 29829 times)

Shatara

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 338
  • Your flank belongs to the Star League
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #150 on: 29 October 2014, 15:49:36 »
'Rifles' are what we've got now AFAIK but the big thing with an AC is that its not a single shot weapon like a modern tank weapon.  AC's in the B-tech universe are often described as firing a burst so one squeeze of the trigger and one shot in the board game actually can equal a burst of anywhere between 3 - 10 rounds going off at once.

But I know that trying to equate weapons to their modern equivalents is utterly pointless when you encounter the range issue  of almost all weapons in game (for example the reverse ranges of ACs, the heavier ACs should have the longer ranges by todays standards).
I'm not sure what autocannons firing in bursts has to do with the inability of the Rifle to fire HE or Flak or Incendiary or Canister. Also, Rifles' ranges are just as truncated as everything else. (Also, short-barreled, large bore, low-velocity 'derp' guns tend to have less range than long-barreled, high velocity, small caliber guns, even in the real world.)

Rocket Launchers aren't dead, their still inexpensive easy to mount on any unit.  No one going think their dead end and abandoned since the Periphery are actively using them.

One-Shot SRMs on other hand due to their bad weight, are properly more dead end unless someone stuffs one into one.  There Improved version of them, but I'm not sure if their as effective.
iOS works just like the old one-shots. Honestly, they should have just retconned the 'improved' stats on the old launchers. Thanks to Tech Manual, they wouldn't even have to invalidate or retcon anything else...

rlbell

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 929
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #151 on: 29 October 2014, 20:47:07 »
Ah, come on. There are uses for Compact Heat Sinks.
None come to mind, but I bet somebody can find something (after enough necrosia, that is).

You can put eight compact heat sinks into the legs for a mech that, when wading, dissipates sixteen heat from four crit slots.  Swamp based quad mech with large numbers of energy weapons in the torsos that do not weigh much and twenty-four tons of CHS in the legs.  Niche application, but a demon in its element.  If such abominations as mixed tech are allowed, a quad with clan heavy lasers, coolant pods, and compact heatsinks in a mangrove swamp (lots of trees to suppress long range fire and knee-deep water, everywhere) would be the stuff of nightmares for more conventional mechs.
Q: Why are children so cute?
A: So parents do not kill them.

That joke usually divides the room into two groups:  those that are mortally offended, and parents

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 26176
  • Need a hand?
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #152 on: 29 October 2014, 20:54:36 »
I think that borders on absurdly overspecialized.  Especially with 24 tons devoted to heat sinks.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12088
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #153 on: 29 October 2014, 21:00:55 »
You can put eight compact heat sinks into the legs for a mech that, when wading, dissipates sixteen heat from four crit slots.  Swamp based quad mech with large numbers of energy weapons in the torsos that do not weigh much and twenty-four tons of CHS in the legs.  Niche application, but a demon in its element.  If such abominations as mixed tech are allowed, a quad with clan heavy lasers, coolant pods, and compact heatsinks in a mangrove swamp (lots of trees to suppress long range fire and knee-deep water, everywhere) would be the stuff of nightmares for more conventional mechs.
there is a limit to how much extra dissipation you can get from water. your stuck with a max of +6 heat dissipated a turn. something that got added for game balance reasons, to deal with that exact type of situation. but also to deal with fully submerged mechs, given the massively sinked energy boats you see post-3050..
« Last Edit: 29 October 2014, 21:19:19 by glitterboy2098 »

Railan Sradac

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 211
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #154 on: 29 October 2014, 22:52:01 »
A slow mech that doesn't need 20 points of sink capacity can use the Compacts if it wants the crits, either for extra weight-saving tech like Endo/Ferro or more guns. I've actually used this on a Hammerhands that was totally packed with crits because I just could not find the crits to fit the last out-of-engine sink.

Auren

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 892
  • Well.
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #155 on: 30 October 2014, 01:06:51 »
I'm not sure what autocannons firing in bursts has to do with the inability of the Rifle to fire HE or Flak or Incendiary or Canister. Also, Rifles' ranges are just as truncated as everything else. (Also, short-barreled, large bore, low-velocity 'derp' guns tend to have less range than long-barreled, high velocity, small caliber guns, even in the real world.)
Because penetrators we used today are laughably poor against BT's armor. Think of BT's armor as the Wipple shields or whatever they're called on the space shuttle. Which goes on to say that the rest of those ammunition would be godawful as well. Except maybe cannister against mobs.

Shatara

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 338
  • Your flank belongs to the Star League
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #156 on: 30 October 2014, 03:41:31 »
Because penetrators we used today are laughably poor against BT's armor. Think of BT's armor as the Wipple shields or whatever they're called on the space shuttle. Which goes on to say that the rest of those ammunition would be godawful as well. Except maybe cannister against mobs.
Not one of the munitions I described include any form of penetrator. HE is a can of explodey stuff. Flak is a can of explodey stuff with a fuse that makes it explode in the air. Incendiary is a can of burny stuff, like White Phosphorus. Cannister is a can of oversized shotgun pellets. All of these things have tactical uses beyond chewing through battlemech armor.

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8392
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #157 on: 30 October 2014, 04:27:13 »
@Shatara, I don't think you quite get it, whatever current guns are firing, be HE, penetrators or something else entirely DO NOT perform very well against BT armor, in fact it's stated as such in TRO1945, page 31, too whit:

Weapon Damage
The damage values for each weapon given in the 1945 Gameplay Weapons Table reflects the effectiveness of these weapons against other 1945 units with an armor BAR of 5. When used against vehicles with a BAR of less than 5, add 1 point of damage to each hit for every point of BAR the target has below 5. Thus, an attack that would deliver 3 points of damage to a BAR 5 target would deliver 4 points against a BAR 4 target, and 5 points against a BAR 3 target. Armor stronger than BAR 5 simply did not exist in the World War II era.

Against any target with a BAR of 6 or greater, treat the damage effects of these weapons as equivalent to their BattleTech Equivalent Weapon as noted in the construction tables.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25216
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #158 on: 30 October 2014, 06:30:33 »
@Shatara, I don't think you quite get it, whatever current guns are firing, be HE, penetrators or something else entirely DO NOT perform very well against BT armor, in fact it's stated as such in TRO1945, page 31, too whit:

Weapon Damage
The damage values for each weapon given in the 1945 Gameplay Weapons Table reflects the effectiveness of these weapons against other 1945 units with an armor BAR of 5. When used against vehicles with a BAR of less than 5, add 1 point of damage to each hit for every point of BAR the target has below 5. Thus, an attack that would deliver 3 points of damage to a BAR 5 target would deliver 4 points against a BAR 4 target, and 5 points against a BAR 3 target. Armor stronger than BAR 5 simply did not exist in the World War II era.

Against any target with a BAR of 6 or greater, treat the damage effects of these weapons as equivalent to their BattleTech Equivalent Weapon as noted in the construction tables.

I just thought of something.  That doesn't work against Naval Ships, such as Battleships. They had layers of armor more than any Panzer tank, never mind a thin skinned Sherman. I think that's part of reason ships weren't shown in XTRO:1945.  Its breaks rules set they established.

Also bunkers is another factor, the CF are going heck a lot tougher than BAR 5. 

"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

Carbon Elasmobranch

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 307
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #159 on: 30 October 2014, 08:30:59 »
I just thought of something.  That doesn't work against Naval Ships, such as Battleships. They had layers of armor more than any Panzer tank, never mind a thin skinned Sherman. I think that's part of reason ships weren't shown in XTRO:1945.  Its breaks rules set they established.

Also bunkers is another factor, the CF are going heck a lot tougher than BAR 5.

You can make the armor as thick as you like, but it's still only going to be BAR 5.  Then you'll be stuck with the embarassment of a battleship that got cored by a single shot from a large laser.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25216
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #160 on: 30 October 2014, 08:33:18 »
You can make the armor as thick as you like, but it's still only going to be BAR 5.  Then you'll be stuck with the embarassment of a battleship that got cored by a single shot from a large laser.

I was referring to modern Inner Sphere weapons verse WWII, I was talking about period weapons.  Larger caliber weapons employed by World War I warships were quite powerful for their day.  I'd hate thread getting dragged into the XTRO 1945 vs BattleTech again.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

Kovax

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2421
  • Taking over the Universe one mapsheet at a time
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #161 on: 30 October 2014, 09:02:56 »
I just thought of something.  That doesn't work against Naval Ships, such as Battleships. They had layers of armor more than any Panzer tank, never mind a thin skinned Sherman.
Actually.....
The M4 Sherman had surprisingly thick frontal hull armor, compared to the supposedly "better armored" Panzers.  The main difference was that the Panzer V "Panther" had a long-barrel high-velocity 75mm (L70) gun that would frequently punch through the Sherman's armor, while the Sherman's medium-length gun didn't have the penetrating power to return the favor against the Panther's slightly thinner but sloped armor.  The later British "Firefly" variant and later US M4A3E8 "Easy 8" utilized a long-barrel 76mm gun, and were quite capable of engaging a Panther on roughly even terms.  The Panzer VI "Tiger" had a fairly long and generally excellent 88mm gun on what might best be described as a mediocre heavy slab-sided slug of a tank (effective on the wide open plains of Russia, less great in a "knife fight" in urban or forested terrain).  Compared to the "standard" mid or late-war Panzer IV with a medium-length 75mm gun (L43, L48), which Germany used extensively right up to the end of the war, a Sherman is a pretty even match, if not better in some respects.

Earlier, the Panzer II (20mm main gun) and III (37mm gun, later upgraded to 50mm), along with a few early version Panzer IV "support" tanks (originally with a short-barrel 75mm (L24?) for lobbing HE) that Germany used to overrun France were actually less powerful than several of the French tank designs, and France had about as many or more tanks than Germany, just badly deployed.  The myth about massive waves of German "super-tanks" overrunning France is highly exaggerated, when it's not totally false.  The real "miracle" is that they were able to do as much as they did with what they had, which would probably have been rudely halted if France had been able to redirect the main body of its army into the path of the advance in time.

Carbon Elasmobranch

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 307
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #162 on: 30 October 2014, 09:54:11 »
I was referring to modern Inner Sphere weapons verse WWII, I was talking about period weapons.  Larger caliber weapons employed by World War I warships were quite powerful for their day.  I'd hate thread getting dragged into the XTRO 1945 vs BattleTech again.

Perhaps you'd have to work off a weird-scale capital damage system, as to WarShips as the special Thrust rules are for the period planes.  If most of the damage is getting kept below an effective 5 points, it should grant slightly more longevity against period heavy weapons.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 26176
  • Need a hand?
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #163 on: 30 October 2014, 10:56:06 »
Earlier, the Panzer II (20mm main gun) and III (37mm gun, later upgraded to 50mm), along with a few early version Panzer IV "support" tanks (originally with a short-barrel 75mm (L24?) for lobbing HE) that Germany used to overrun France were actually less powerful than several of the French tank designs, and France had about as many or more tanks than Germany, just badly deployed.  The myth about massive waves of German "super-tanks" overrunning France is highly exaggerated, when it's not totally false.  The real "miracle" is that they were able to do as much as they did with what they had, which would probably have been rudely halted if France had been able to redirect the main body of its army into the path of the advance in time.

Didn't a Char B1-Bis get in a fight with a column of Panzer IIIs and IVs and take something like 140 confirmed hits from them without getting destroyed?
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Istal_Devalis

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4153
  • Baka! I didnt change my avatar because I like you!
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #164 on: 30 October 2014, 14:12:53 »
Actually.....
The M4 Sherman had surprisingly thick frontal hull armor, compared to the supposedly "better armored" Panzers. 
Nevermind the Sherman Jumbos...

Shatara

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 338
  • Your flank belongs to the Star League
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #165 on: 30 October 2014, 16:57:14 »
@Shatara, I don't think you quite get it, whatever current guns are firing, be HE, penetrators or something else entirely DO NOT perform very well against BT armor, in fact it's stated as such in TRO1945, page 31, too whit:

Weapon Damage
The damage values for each weapon given in the 1945 Gameplay Weapons Table reflects the effectiveness of these weapons against other 1945 units with an armor BAR of 5. When used against vehicles with a BAR of less than 5, add 1 point of damage to each hit for every point of BAR the target has below 5. Thus, an attack that would deliver 3 points of damage to a BAR 5 target would deliver 4 points against a BAR 4 target, and 5 points against a BAR 3 target. Armor stronger than BAR 5 simply did not exist in the World War II era.

Against any target with a BAR of 6 or greater, treat the damage effects of these weapons as equivalent to their BattleTech Equivalent Weapon as noted in the construction tables.
*sigh*...you're going to make me look up and apply every one of those rules, aren't you?

The rules in XTRO1945 only apply to units in XTRO1945. The rules for Rifles are in Tac Ops, page 338.

HE: A can of explody stuff, such as TNT, CompB, C4, RDX, or even some fancy 31st century stuff. Intended for anti-infantry use, as well as clearing buildings and such. Would behave most closely to Flechette AC ammo, which works as follows:
Quote from: Total Warfare pg 141
Apply the standard damage value...to conventional infantry as though the attack were from an infantry unit; half damage to all other units (round down).
Therefore, a heavy rifle would do 9 damage to an infantry platoon, 18 if they're in the open. Against a battlemech, however, the base damage would be halved to 4, and than reduced further by the -3 penalty due to having greater than BAR8 armor to 1.

Flak: A can of explodey stuff, as above, but this time with a fuse to set it off in the air. Typically assumed to be proximity, which was fitted to guns as small as 3" during WWII, though when paired with a laser or radar rangefinder, timed fuses probably work well enough for our purposes. What does our rules say about them?
Quote from: Tactical Operations pg 352(w/Errata)
Flak Ammunition... is treated as a cluster (ballistic) weapon that deals its damage in 5-point clusters. Against eligible targets, it counts as a Flak attack
Since Rifles can't be used against aerospace, we only need concern ourselves with VTOLs. Upon hitting thanks to that nice -2 modifier, the damage of our Heavy Rifle is split into a 5-point cluster and a 4-point cluster. But since this is a modern bird with modern armor, each gets reduced by 3, to 2 and 1. Not a lot, but still two chances to slap the rotor, and VTOLs don't usually have much armor anyway.

Incendiary: A can of burny stuff. A bit tougher, since it looks like Incendiary ACs didn't make it to Tac Ops. Incendiaray missiles, however, get a nice +4 modifier to starting fires. Can't show exacts for damage, but I'd assume anti-infantry would be higher, and anti-armor would be lower.

Cannister: A can of oversized shotgun pellets. Would function like LBX Cluster, so our heavy rifle would roll on the '9' table to determine the number of 1-point hits. Of course, this would do 0 damage to any heavy armor of BAR8 or greater, due to the -3 modifier.

Apologies for the bit of a hijack, but getting the book thrown at me as if it's actually relevant to my argument is annoying.

SteelRaven

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9651
  • Fight for something or Die for nothing
    • The Steel-Raven at DeviantArt
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #166 on: 30 October 2014, 19:46:00 »
Think the Heavy Laser series and X-Pulse Laser series will go the way of the Blazer.

I'm a fan of the X-Pules Laser but now we have the proliferation of Clan based Tech, it's days are numbered. It's a stepping stone and it's time to take the next logical step.

I just don't see a future for the Heavy Laser itself outside of it being a possible stepping stone.

As for the Narc Beacon; I'm a fan, it's still useful against ECM and Stealth Tech but with so many other targeting systems flooding the game, it's a very niche weapon. We have Streak SRMs and LRMs, defeats the whole purpose of the Narc. 

AC/2; it's been on borrowed time for while now, the LB-X and Ultra versions are almost comical. 
Battletech Art and Commissions
http://steel-raven.deviantart.com

Arkansas Warrior

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9239
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #167 on: 30 October 2014, 20:28:22 »
Think the Heavy Laser series and X-Pulse Laser series will go the way of the Blazer.

I'm a fan of the X-Pules Laser but now we have the proliferation of Clan based Tech, it's days are numbered. It's a stepping stone and it's time to take the next logical step.

I just don't see a future for the Heavy Laser itself outside of it being a possible stepping stone.

As for the Narc Beacon; I'm a fan, it's still useful against ECM and Stealth Tech but with so many other targeting systems flooding the game, it's a very niche weapon. We have Streak SRMs and LRMs, defeats the whole purpose of the Narc. 

AC/2; it's been on borrowed time for while now, the LB-X and Ultra versions are almost comical. 
You think XPLs are dead ends, but not regular PLs?  Also, the LBX2 is not that bad of a weapon for what it is.  It does what AC2s do well: hits things from so far away that they can't hit back.  Does it better than any other AC2, as a matter of fact.
Sunrise is Coming.

All Hail First Prince Melissa Davion, the Patron Saint of the Regimental Combat Team, who cowed Dainmar Liao, created the Model Army, and rescued Robinson!  May her light ever guide the sons of the Suns, May our daughters ever endeavour to emulate her!

SteelRaven

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9651
  • Fight for something or Die for nothing
    • The Steel-Raven at DeviantArt
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #168 on: 30 October 2014, 22:43:30 »
You think XPLs are dead ends, but not regular PLs?
Why I said stepping stone. The XPL was made to get IS PLs closer to Clan PL and now the IS is making Clan Spec weapons. Mission accomplished.
Also, the LBX2 is not that bad of a weapon for what it is.  It does what AC2s do well: hits things from so far away that they can't hit back.  Does it better than any other AC2, as a matter of fact.
I still have a hard time using that much tonnage for 2 point of damage regardless of the range. And the LBX2 Cluster shot... sorry but that's just funny.
Battletech Art and Commissions
http://steel-raven.deviantart.com

Arkansas Warrior

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9239
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #169 on: 31 October 2014, 00:58:09 »
Why I said stepping stone. The XPL was made to get IS PLs closer to Clan PL and now the IS is making Clan Spec weapons. Mission accomplished.
Not really.  A few places in the IS can make a small quantity of clanspec PLs.  A small quantity more can probably be purchased from the Foxes.  But there's still a huge supply vs demand bottleneck.  Thus the reason mechs are still being built with IS PLs of all stripes.



I still have a hard time using that much tonnage for 2 point of damage regardless of the range. And the LBX2 Cluster shot... sorry but that's just funny.

When the slug is only worth 2, you aren't taking AC2s for damage.  You're taking them to generate hits, for things like the lucky crit once in a while or forcing control rolls vs ASF.  The damage doesn't matter, so always take cluster, it's like having an in-built TC for nothing but the (possible) loss of 1 damage.
« Last Edit: 31 October 2014, 01:00:41 by Arkansas Warrior »
Sunrise is Coming.

All Hail First Prince Melissa Davion, the Patron Saint of the Regimental Combat Team, who cowed Dainmar Liao, created the Model Army, and rescued Robinson!  May her light ever guide the sons of the Suns, May our daughters ever endeavour to emulate her!

Istal_Devalis

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4153
  • Baka! I didnt change my avatar because I like you!
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #170 on: 31 October 2014, 06:27:37 »
There's a reason the Aegis Aesir AA vehicle has 4 LB2X AC's. They make really REALLY effective AA weapons.
« Last Edit: 31 October 2014, 14:11:10 by Istal_Devalis »

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #171 on: 31 October 2014, 06:40:56 »

That also only applies to against other WWII or older vehicles in historical games. That increased damage is not applied to modern units even if they have BAR armors of 5 or less.






I would think the -3 reduction would come off first before reducing damage for flechette rounds by half? 9-3=6x.5=3? It's a Rifle Cannon Round first. Flechette round second. Either way, why are you firing Flechette rounds at Battlemechs?  ???

Also infantry handle damage differently under Total Warfare rules. The damage of the cannon isn't the damage the platoon takes.

Rifle Cannons can not be operated in space because of the ranges involved. They may be used in atmosphere by aerospace units and ground units.  So they can be used in anti-aircraft attacks against airborne units. And again, wouldn't the reduction in damage come first? 9-3=6? That's a 5 point and a 1 point cluster against airborn units for a Heavy Rifle Cannon round.

We have the damage for incendiary rounds for light tank cannons. I've just been dividing damage in half for larger cannons as the math is easy. And again I would think the -3 would come first and then reduce by half. The same for Canister rounds. Also, don't LB-X cluster rounds do 2 point cluster hits?

Shatara

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 338
  • Your flank belongs to the Star League
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #172 on: 31 October 2014, 15:55:25 »
I would think the -3 reduction would come off first before reducing damage for flechette rounds by half? 9-3=6x.5=3? It's a Rifle Cannon Round first. Flechette round second. Either way, why are you firing Flechette rounds at Battlemechs?  ???
Possibly. I honestly just threw it down as I thought of it, wasn't looking to optimize it. I'm throwing them at Battlemechs because a) it's tactically possible to run out of AP and have nothing else left and b) if I didn't I'd get a third poster telling me "But -3 against battlemechs!"

Quote
Also infantry handle damage differently under Total Warfare rules. The damage of the cannon isn't the damage the platoon takes.
...Infantry handle damage differently under Total Warfare than they do in Total Warfare? Because that's where I pulled the rules for Flechette ammo.

Quote
Rifle Cannons can not be operated in space because of the ranges involved. They may be used in atmosphere by aerospace units and ground units.  So they can be used in anti-aircraft attacks against airborne units. And again, wouldn't the reduction in damage come first? 9-3=6? That's a 5 point and a 1 point cluster against airborn units for a Heavy Rifle Cannon round.
The way flak works, it makes more sense that it 'splits' when it bursts near the target, then gets reduced on impact with the armor. I could probably argue that it's shouldn't be reduced at all, but that's pushing the 'better than autocannons' and 'fan rules' cans of worms that I'd rather not.

Quote
We have the damage for incendiary rounds for light tank cannons. I've just been dividing damage in half for larger cannons as the math is easy. And again I would think the -3 would come first and then reduce by half. The same for Canister rounds. Also, don't LB-X cluster rounds do 2 point cluster hits?
LBX has always been 1 point.

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Abandoned and dead-end tech
« Reply #173 on: 31 October 2014, 22:24:33 »


No problem.
My apologies. I thought you were referring to HE rounds. I think they'd do the regular damage/10 against infantry. 
I suppose they could work like that but it changes the final damage values and makes the medium rifle ineffective with alternative munitions. Subtracting the -3 first allows them to still do 1 point of damage.
I have mixed feelings about the -3. In a way it makes sense that an older gun isn't going to be as effective against modern armor. Then again it's using a whole lot more propellant and heavier shells to do the same job as lots of smaller rounds. And then there's the light Rifle Cannon. If an infantry autorifle can do 1 point of damage a light rifle cannon should do some damage.
I'll have to reread it again. For some reason I've got 2 point clusters in my head. :(

 

Register