Register Register

Author Topic: Capital Weapon Analysis  (Read 4401 times)

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9328
  • Don't look into the nozzle...
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #60 on: 21 May 2018, 00:41:06 »
I've actually found the NL-35 surprisingly useful to fill in gaps in fire power and coverage, especially on smaller vessels, enough so that the weight difference of the NL-45 was just enough that I'd have to give up a weapon there completely.

As such I've never considered the NL-45 to completely render the NL-35 pointless, but I do grant it comes damn close.

Daryk

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6037
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #61 on: 21 May 2018, 04:39:19 »
Makes sense!

Lagrange

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 375
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #62 on: 07 August 2018, 20:01:17 »
The screen launcher seems to also at least merit a mention.  The area effect damage means that it essentially always hits targets in short range and since stacking is unlimited in space hexes the damage that it inflicts is potentially unlimited.  That's a rather unique effect which could potentially be heavily exploited against fighter swarms.

editing:
Oops: Naval C3 changed in the errata, so I agree Light Naval Gauss seems born obsolete.
« Last Edit: 09 August 2018, 18:30:18 by Lagrange »

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9328
  • Don't look into the nozzle...
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #63 on: 15 November 2018, 17:24:03 »
I just saw that xotl answered the question but the wording of his answer still sounds like my interpretation is correct, that weapons 1-(bay limit for the unit) are not charged fire control but weapons (bay limit for the unit+1)-2x(bay limit for the unit) are penalized.

But checking the updated StratOps does clear up the wording, thus indicating I am wrong.

Well I was prepared for that outcome as it does make the fire control rules consistent across all unit types.

So in the end it actually changes little as the numbers may have been wrong but the conclusions we both drew agreed in principle, that the break even points for the NACs versus SCCs was a little uncomfortable for the NACs.
« Last Edit: 15 November 2018, 17:31:56 by monbvol »

Alsadius

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 739
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #64 on: 19 November 2018, 12:41:50 »
The break-even works out to "small ships use small guns, big ships use big guns", more or less. Consider the following:

20x NAC/40 = 800 capital damage, 90,000 tons weapons, no fire control = 90,000 tons total.
vs
160x Medium Sub-Cap cannon = 800 capital damage, 80,000 tons weapons, 64,000 tons fire control = 144,000 tons total.

But yes, it does say bad things about medium-sized ships (that don't saturate their fire control) using full-size guns. Which is a bit silly, but the rules are a bit wonky in places, and this is one of those places.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9328
  • Don't look into the nozzle...
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #65 on: 19 November 2018, 13:32:01 »
*nod*

Though there is one other factor that helps the MSCC or even the LSCC versus the big guns even on big ships, they can bracket fire much more effectively.

Something the NAC-40 can never do and the NAC-35 can only barely do.

beachhead1985

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2904
  • 1st SOG; SLDF. "McKenna's Marauders"
    • Kilroy's Wall
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #66 on: 19 November 2018, 20:26:35 »
I know that you're ignoring the Tele-op variants of the standard Capital missiles, but I have to ask why don't we see them more often?

Looking at the rules, I've never gotten why they were not more popular.

Only shows up post 3050, but not a big deal made, either.
Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries

These, in the day when heaven was falling,      Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
The hour when earth's foundations fled,         They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
Followed their mercenary calling,               What God abandoned, these defended,
And took their wages, and are dead.             And saved the sum of things for pay.
     
A.E. Housman

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4173
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #67 on: 20 November 2018, 16:32:36 »
Heavier and a pain in the neck to use.

They tie up your missile bay until you relinquish control of the missile. That can be 4 or 5 turns at long ranges. Also it is surprisingly hard to direct a missile onto a target that doesn't want to be hit.

In comparison a conventional missile using way points is fired and forgotten and just needs to get near a target before it's own radar takes over.

I find -T missiles easiest to use at very short ranges where you can direct it in in a single turn to two.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 31340
  • That which has been seen can NEVER be unseen...
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #68 on: 20 November 2018, 18:22:21 »
I agree with all of that, though i do like the ability to fine-tune the missile's speed when sending it off on bearings only launches. Sometimes fifty hexes per turn is a bit much, especially if you want the chance for a second attack if the first misses, or to spook the other guy into predictable movement by presenting him with an attack he can evade.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
There's no shame in designing customs, so long as you keep them private and wash your hands afterwards.

beachhead1985

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2904
  • 1st SOG; SLDF. "McKenna's Marauders"
    • Kilroy's Wall
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #69 on: 21 November 2018, 16:29:13 »
Heavier and a pain in the neck to use.

They tie up your missile bay until you relinquish control of the missile. That can be 4 or 5 turns at long ranges. Also it is surprisingly hard to direct a missile onto a target that doesn't want to be hit.

In comparison a conventional missile using way points is fired and forgotten and just needs to get near a target before it's own radar takes over.

I find -T missiles easiest to use at very short ranges where you can direct it in in a single turn to two.

That was very clear, thank you.

So, a specialist weapon, if that, in the meta?
Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries

These, in the day when heaven was falling,      Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
The hour when earth's foundations fled,         They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
Followed their mercenary calling,               What God abandoned, these defended,
And took their wages, and are dead.             And saved the sum of things for pay.
     
A.E. Housman

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4173
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #70 on: 21 November 2018, 19:55:39 »
They are a good idea that ran head first into the reality of vectored thrust.

They are niche but a useful niche. I know Weirdo likes them as a standoff weapon under certain conditions but I don't usually get maps that big.

There is an old WWII MBT tactic that involved rolling a depth charge under a passing ship/boat and that is how I tend to use -T missiles.

Charge in with something like a Taihou. Get to about 12 hexes. Put a salvo of guided missiles in the void beside me. Move in to 6 hexes next turn. Release the first salvo to direct themselves in, and fire a second salvo to be guided in. Hilarity follows.


Stay away from Barracudas.  -T just misses the point of them. Bigger the missile the better. You have to put in a lot of effort to get -T missiles to connect so you might as well get something for it.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 31340
  • That which has been seen can NEVER be unseen...
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #71 on: 21 November 2018, 23:09:24 »
They are niche but a useful niche. I know Weirdo likes them as a standoff weapon under certain conditions but I don't usually get maps that big.

Big maps are nice, but they're not needed to enjoy bearings launches. My favorite time to use them is when my target is at long or extreme range, at which point the travel time is short enough and most large ship's movement predictable enough that I can launch the missiles with their radar set for medium or short range and be near certain of catching my target in the sensor zone, making for very easy to-hit rolls.

 Interestingly enough, I've noticed that a good counter to this is to go full throttle and pull a Marko Ramius. Point into the missiles and max burn, there's a good chance that a cocky opponent will have put his activation hex too close to you and you can fly right past the missiles before they go active.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
There's no shame in designing customs, so long as you keep them private and wash your hands afterwards.

HobbesHurlbut

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2681
  • Live Free or Die Hard
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #72 on: 22 November 2018, 10:36:58 »
Marko Ramius Maneuver heh I have to remember that.
Clan Blood Spirit - So Bad Ass as to require Orbital Bombardments to wipe us out....it is the only way to be sure!

Wolf72

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 488
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #73 on: 23 November 2018, 12:20:13 »
(going off of memory)

Capt: How'd you know he'd turn that way?

Jack: I didn't, I guessed.  I had a 50/50 shot and needed a lucky break.
War does not determine who is right, only who is left. -- said no Clanner ... ever!

mikecj

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1547
  • Veteran of Galahad 3028
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #74 on: 24 November 2018, 02:19:50 »
You mean the "Crazy Ivan"?
There are no fish in my pond.
"First, one brief announcement. I just want to mention, for those who have asked, that absolutely nothing what so ever happened today in sector 83x9x12. I repeat, nothing happened. Please remain calm." Susan Ivanova
"Solve a man's problems with violence, help him for a day. Teach a man to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime." - Belkar Bitterleaf
Romo Lampkin could have gotten Stefan Amaris off with a warning.

Icerose20

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 95
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #75 on: 24 November 2018, 03:20:24 »
Crazy Ivan, was every so often, turn hard 90 degrees to hear if anyone is in you wake.

Ramius maneuver is play chicken with a torpedo in hopes you get under its arming time or distance. 

Kidd

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2792
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #76 on: 24 November 2018, 04:54:55 »
You mean the "Crazy Ivan"?
the "Crazy Ivan" in the Tom Clancy-verse (Tom Clancy is not the most authoritative of IRL subject matter) is a 360-degree* turn made by a Russian submarine to check what's behind the sub using the bow sonar, which can't see directly behind as well as it can see in front. Think like you're driving in the middle of the night and you want to see what's behind you, not just with mirrors, but with your headlights.

*assuming no course change is being made at the same time

HobbesHurlbut

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2681
  • Live Free or Die Hard
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #77 on: 24 November 2018, 09:32:23 »
the "Crazy Ivan" in the Tom Clancy-verse (Tom Clancy is not the most authoritative of IRL subject matter) is a 360-degree* turn made by a Russian submarine to check what's behind the sub using the bow sonar, which can't see directly behind as well as it can see in front. Think like you're driving in the middle of the night and you want to see what's behind you, not just with mirrors, but with your headlights.

*assuming no course change is being made at the same time
Icerose20 has it right though, the blind spot for the sonar is right behind the sub. So usually it just need to turn about 45 degrees at most, to "sweep" over the blind spot.
Clan Blood Spirit - So Bad Ass as to require Orbital Bombardments to wipe us out....it is the only way to be sure!

Wolf72

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 488
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #78 on: 24 November 2018, 09:50:44 »
Crazy Ivan, was every so often, turn hard 90 degrees to hear if anyone is in you wake.

Ramius maneuver is play chicken with a torpedo in hopes you get under its arming time or distance.

Now, just to invent a time machine and change that post before I hit send! 
War does not determine who is right, only who is left. -- said no Clanner ... ever!

Kidd

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2792
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #79 on: 24 November 2018, 12:30:26 »
Icerose20 has it right though, the blind spot for the sonar is right behind the sub. So usually it just need to turn about 45 degrees at most, to "sweep" over the blind spot.

Just describing the alleged tactic in its original context and meaning :) I don't know how true it is.

Icerose20

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 95
Re: Capital Weapon Analysis
« Reply #80 on: 24 November 2018, 16:23:06 »
As in the Case of the Dallas following the Red October, doing the Crazy Ivan also may cause the trailing sub cavate in its own wake, signalling its presence.