Register Register

Author Topic: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?  (Read 6360 times)

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 15673
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #150 on: 22 March 2020, 08:06:45 »
Because the BAR system is already part of the rules?

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #151 on: 22 March 2020, 11:46:56 »
The Tech Manual and AToW damage values are synched up (any remaining discrepancies are errata).  I think you only missed this rule from the Companion (page 169):

Those rules are for converting from AToW to TW.  The damages I posted are for AToW.  Plus Rifle Cannons don't have a variety of ordnance to average.

I used this rule on page 211.
Quote
Vehicular Weapons vs. Non-Battle Armor Infantry: Unless otherwise stated (see Vehicular Weapon Traits, pp. 212-214), any attack by vehicular weapons that directly hits a character will inflict damage with an AP of 10 and a BD equal to 6 times the weapon’s Total Warfare damage value.

Along with this rule on page 186.

Quote
any attack that delivers damage after accounting for the tactical armor’s BAR will reduce the location’s Tactical Armor value by an amount equal to the number of Standard damage points the weapon inflicts, divided by the armor’s BAR (rounding normally).


I did the numbers for both as listed, in AToW and for old ammo not being good against BAR-6 up as Herb said in this post.
Quote
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=68549.msg1591862#msg1591862

I will admit, again, that I'm not sure I did the math right. I also didn't do every weapon. The ones I did do though show a decrease in damage against modern units when accounting for the lower AP. 

The LRC in AToW does 10/18. Against BAR-5 armor it does, 3.6 damage rounding up to 4. Against BAR-10 Armor, with an AP of 7, the LRC does 1.1 damage rounding down to 1. That's better than TW!.

I also get the MRC 10/36 doing 7,2 damage against BAR-5 armor. AP7/ BD36 would do 3.3 damage against BAR-10 Armor. Better than TW, especially against lower BARs

With the HRC 10/54 It does 10.8 against BAR-5 and 7/54 which does 5.1 damage which is both better and worse than TW!  :o For kicks it does a whopping 27 points against BAR-2 armor.

So I can't help thinking that keeping the damages as they are 3/6/9 without the -3 would be okay. Think of it as abstraction and compensation for not doing increased damage against lower BARs.

I also can't help but think that if the damage reduction is kept that the LRC be reduced to a minimum of 1.

HABeas2

  • Grand Vizier
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4650
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #152 on: 22 March 2020, 13:09:59 »
The conversion from TW to AToW is for use against infantry. Would the conversion apply as it's against another vehicle? Or would it apply because Rifles can be a field gun?

Ultimately, it should, but the danger of adding a new ruleset into a combined set of rules over 25 years old is how we get oddball rules and exceptions to begin with. If I could strip the game all the way down to the studs and start over? We'd likely have a MUCH more streamlined system where all weapons scaled properly based on their AP/BAR variations. But again, we were not allowed to change extant weapons and rules.

Quote
I forgot about that added damage against units with BAR 4 or less armor.  >:D     Does that still apply to BT units with BAR-4 or less armor?   ???

When the BAR system was first ported over to BT, the simplified rule used was instead that whole "everything gets a crit chance automatically" thing. One more example of designing an ever-evolving rule system.

Quote
Makes sense, although I'm not sure why the Basic Fire Control System couldn't be used on some of them. It is also a Pre-Spaceflight System.

In essence, because Basic FCS as presented in the rules is still more sophisticated than what WWII units used. (And also there is the fact that, under the Support Vee rules that served as the basis for XTR1945, even the basic FCS tended to create weight issues I didn't want to deal with.)

Quote
I always understood that Rifle Cannons were always useless/severely inferior to BT weapons. I never had a problem with that. That other pre-spaceflight weapons remained just as effective through the ages while the Rifles didn't is bugged me. The 75mm/76.2mm Tank Cannons/Light Rifle Cannon being equivalent to an infantry support weapon that does more damage than a heavy recoiless rifle but less than 1 full point would I think have made more sense. They'd still be really bad but they'd still be used by the desperate. And you wouldn't get an infantry rifle doing more damage than a tank cannon.
 
As for how to handle inferior weapons, the Rocket Launcher (Prototype) (Early Spaceflight) still does full damage with each Rocket doing 1 point of damage. Getting all the Rockets to hit though isn't easy though. They apply a –1 roll modifier when resolving damage on the Cluster Hits Table on top of the +1 targeting modifier so the chance of all the rockets hitting is small. That's on top of the whatever modifiers for the vehicles targeting system or lack thereof. It could be even worse for Pre-Spaceflight Rockets. Additional targeting modifiers could also be applied to weapons. You could also remove the chance for extra penetrating hits against lower BAR armors if the armor was introduced after the weapons creation.  I wouldn't think a cannonball would have much chance penetrating Tech B Armor. A cannonball penetrating Tech D Armor... :toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny: Maybe it'd knock out a Rifleman's Searchlights? If it's lucky.

Oh, you definitely have a point there, but, well... it all went out of my hands after 2013, so I have nothing to sell ya here.

Quote
Don't resist! Don't resist! In fact throw in some WWI stuff for too. Like what BAR Armor would an FT-17 have? They did see service in WWII.

As of my last bout of "cannot resist doing this," I statted the following units under XTR1945 (mod) rules that never got published:
   (Bomber) Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress
   (Bomber) Heinkel He-177 Greif
   (Bomber) Avro Lancaster I
   (Bomber) Petlyakov Pe-8
   (Bomber) Piaggio P.108B
   (Bomber) Arado Ar-234 Blitz
   (Bomber-Post WWII) AC-130U Spooky II Gunship
   (Fighter-Biplane-Pre WWI) Fokker D.VII
   (Fighter-Biplane-Pre WWI) Sopwith Camel
   (Fighter-Jet) Messerschmitt Me 262A-1a Schwalbe
   (Fighter-Jet) Gloster F.8 Meteor
   (VTOL-Post WWII) Bell UH-1 Iroquois
   (VTOL-Post WWII) Mil Mi-24 Hind
   (Fighter-Jet-Post WWII) A-10 Thunderbolt II
   (Fighter-Jet-Post WWII) McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Eagle
   (Fighter-Jet-Post WWII) Mikoyan MiG-29 Fulcrum
   (Fighter-Crimson Skies) Curtiss-Wright J2 Fury
   (Fighter-Crimson Skies) Fairchild F6-II Brigand
   (Tank-Pre WWII) Medium Mk A Whippet
   (Tank-Pre WWII) Mark IV Tank
   (Tank-Pre WWII) A7V Sturmpanzerwagon
   (Tank-Late/Post WWII) M26 (T26E3) Pershing
   (Tank) M3 Lee
   (Tank) Sturmgeschutz "StuG" III
   (Tank) Panzerjager (Tiger-P) Elefant
   (Tank) Kliment Voroshilov KV-II Dreadnought
   (Tank) Katyusha Rocket Launcher (ZIS-6 Truck)
   (Tank-Post WWII) M-1A2 Abrams
   (Warship) Fletcher-class Destroyer
   (Warship) Admiral-class Battlecruiser (HMS Hood)
   (Warship) Yorktown-class Aircraft Carrier (USS Enterprise)
   (Warship) Shokaku-class Aircraft Carrier
   (Warship) Soryu-class Aircraft Carrier
   (Warship) Bismarck-class Battleship (Bismarck)
   (Warship) Iowa-class Battleship
   (Warship) Pennsylvania-class Battleship (USS Arizona)
   (Warship) Yamato-class Battleship (Yamato)
   (Warship) Type VII U-Boat Submarine
   (Warship) Gato-class Submarine
   (Warship) I-400-class Carrier Submarine
   (Warship) Vampire-class Submarine

...As you can see, I had a problem. (I would also be remiss in noting that the Support Vee rules predictably broke down on the warships.)

Quote
And for giggles more Nebula California Tech.  :D  Did anyone watching the movie"Fury" wonder when Blasters were issued during WWII? Or was it just me?

Someone on the fanfic boards looks to be making their own new material for the Nebula California; I'd only get hung up on the Syberians.

Well, if you can't get it out in the next couple weeks, there's always AFD 2021.  This is from someone who made a mini-Gundam Wing fandex for 40K, and then started on one for Lizardmen, and then a Tyranid book for Warhammer Fantasy.

These days, I just can't do any of that without a contract. When I was helming the line, it was for my own fun that I had any of the AFD/HLW products done, but now, well, I find myself more in need of funds.

- Herb

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #153 on: 22 March 2020, 15:48:44 »
Ultimately, it should, but the danger of adding a new ruleset into a combined set of rules over 25 years old is how we get oddball rules and exceptions to begin with. If I could strip the game all the way down to the studs and start over? We'd likely have a MUCH more streamlined system where all weapons scaled properly based on their AP/BAR variations. But again, we were not allowed to change extant weapons and rules.

Cool but isn't it already kind of too late since there's already so many rule sets? And aren't there always oddball rules and exceptions?


Quote
When the BAR system was first ported over to BT, the simplified rule used was instead that whole "everything gets a crit chance automatically" thing. One more example of designing an ever-evolving rule system.

That's cool. I like that not everything gets a crit chance and that some things do more damage. It's like AP and HE ammo.


Quote
In essence, because Basic FCS as presented in the rules is still more sophisticated than what WWII units used. (And also there is the fact that, under the Support Vee rules that served as the basis for XTR1945, even the basic FCS tended to create weight issues I didn't want to deal with.)

That's cool. Thanks. :) I'll mentally put Basic FCS as being introduced after WWII but before 1950. There's a few years there so it'll work. :) I can also understand not wanting to deal with weight issues if you don't have to. :) I try to avoid them when possible.


Quote
Oh, you definitely have a point there, but, well... it all went out of my hands after 2013, so I have nothing to sell ya here.

Well, that's a bummer.  :(


Quote
As of my last bout of "cannot resist doing this," I statted the following units under XTR1945 (mod) rules that never got published:
   (Bomber) Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress
   (Bomber) Heinkel He-177 Greif
   (Bomber) Avro Lancaster I
   (Bomber) Petlyakov Pe-8
   (Bomber) Piaggio P.108B
   (Bomber) Arado Ar-234 Blitz
   (Bomber-Post WWII) AC-130U Spooky II Gunship
   (Fighter-Biplane-Pre WWI) Fokker D.VII
   (Fighter-Biplane-Pre WWI) Sopwith Camel
   (Fighter-Jet) Messerschmitt Me 262A-1a Schwalbe
   (Fighter-Jet) Gloster F.8 Meteor
   (VTOL-Post WWII) Bell UH-1 Iroquois
   (VTOL-Post WWII) Mil Mi-24 Hind
   (Fighter-Jet-Post WWII) A-10 Thunderbolt II
   (Fighter-Jet-Post WWII) McDonnell-Douglas F-15 Eagle
   (Fighter-Jet-Post WWII) Mikoyan MiG-29 Fulcrum
   (Fighter-Crimson Skies) Curtiss-Wright J2 Fury
   (Fighter-Crimson Skies) Fairchild F6-II Brigand
   (Tank-Pre WWII) Medium Mk A Whippet
   (Tank-Pre WWII) Mark IV Tank
   (Tank-Pre WWII) A7V Sturmpanzerwagon
   (Tank-Late/Post WWII) M26 (T26E3) Pershing
   (Tank) M3 Lee
   (Tank) Sturmgeschutz "StuG" III
   (Tank) Panzerjager (Tiger-P) Elefant
   (Tank) Kliment Voroshilov KV-II Dreadnought
   (Tank) Katyusha Rocket Launcher (ZIS-6 Truck)
   (Tank-Post WWII) M-1A2 Abrams
   (Warship) Fletcher-class Destroyer
   (Warship) Admiral-class Battlecruiser (HMS Hood)
   (Warship) Yorktown-class Aircraft Carrier (USS Enterprise)
   (Warship) Shokaku-class Aircraft Carrier
   (Warship) Soryu-class Aircraft Carrier
   (Warship) Bismarck-class Battleship (Bismarck)
   (Warship) Iowa-class Battleship
   (Warship) Pennsylvania-class Battleship (USS Arizona)
   (Warship) Yamato-class Battleship (Yamato)
   (Warship) Type VII U-Boat Submarine
   (Warship) Gato-class Submarine
   (Warship) I-400-class Carrier Submarine
   (Warship) Vampire-class Submarine

 :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool: :smitten: :smitten:
 :clap: :clap: :clap: :beer: :beer: :beer: :bow: :bow: :bow:

Quote
...As you can see, I had a problem. (I would also be remiss in noting that the Support Vee rules predictably broke down on the warships.)

 :-\   Problem?  ???  What problem?  ;D

I can see how warships could break the Support Vehicle Rules. How about the Mobile Structure Rules?
And WWI vehicles!  :rockon:

How'd you get the turrets on the bombers and get them to fire and Spooky to fire to the side?

Why can't these be published?  ???


Quote
Someone on the fanfic boards looks to be making their own new material for the Nebula California; I'd only get hung up on the Syberians.

And that's a problem? ;D

Quote
These days, I just can't do any of that without a contract. When I was helming the line, it was for my own fun that I had any of the AFD/HLW products done, but now, well, I find myself more in need of funds.

- Herb


I hope they give you one. I'm in need of funds too. Especially after this month. :( But I'd find them to get more PDFs like XTRO:1945 and Nebula California.:) I think just about everyone who's gotten them would agree.  :thumbsup:

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 15673
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #154 on: 22 March 2020, 16:11:52 »
I'd have to see more of your math to figure out where we are in relation to each other.  I suspect we're not that far apart.

Personally, I think consistency will demand that we converge on the AP vs. BAR system, which I also think was the intent of that system to begin with.  Just like physics, the more advanced models (like relativity, both special and general) should yield the same result as the simpler ones (like Newtonian physics) within a rounding error.

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #155 on: 22 March 2020, 17:13:00 »
I'd have to see more of your math to figure out where we are in relation to each other.  I suspect we're not that far apart.

Personally, I think consistency will demand that we converge on the AP vs. BAR system, which I also think was the intent of that system to begin with.  Just like physics, the more advanced models (like relativity, both special and general) should yield the same result as the simpler ones (like Newtonian physics) within a rounding error.

Except for writing it out with all the times and divisions, its there, so I'm glad we're not far apart.

It would be nice if there was consistency. They have equivalents. They don't. they do. they don't. :(

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 15673
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #156 on: 22 March 2020, 17:20:37 »
I don't think the LRC does 10/18, though... I think it explicitly does 7/18, and that yields the 2 points of TW damage I quoted earlier.  The page 186 rule seems to yield the same thing against BAR 10 as far as I can see...

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #157 on: 22 March 2020, 18:04:44 »
I don't think the LRC does 10/18, though... I think it explicitly does 7/18, and that yields the 2 points of TW damage I quoted earlier.  The page 186 rule seems to yield the same thing against BAR 10 as far as I can see...

That's possible. The -3 really throws things off. The rules say when converting to AToW TW have an AP 10 with BD damage x 6. The -3 is also applied to damage in TW. So the LRC would be 10/18 against BAR 7 down and 10/15 against BAR 8 up. That ends up rounding to 2 points of damage against BAR-10.

Looks like I did screw up on some math. I get 2 points rounded up for AP7/18 too. The lower AP would reduce the BD and then divided by the BAR gets 1.5.


HABeas2

  • Grand Vizier
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4650
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #158 on: 22 March 2020, 19:53:37 »
Cool but isn't it already kind of too late since there's already so many rule sets? And aren't there always oddball rules and exceptions?

That was my point. Every new item is basically a set of exception rules, when the directive from above is "make them unique somehow."

Quote
Well, that's a bummer.  :(

Depends who you ask. ;)

Quote
:-\   Problem?  ???  What problem?  ;D

The "I'm not getting paid for that" problem. ;)

Quote
I can see how warships could break the Support Vehicle Rules. How about the Mobile Structure Rules?

Oh, they might work, but it would have been against the very spirit of the Support Vee ruleset to NOT use them for the kinds of things they were envisioned for. I mean, the Jormungand was in my head even before the first draft of those rules were completed back in... what was it, 2004?

Quote
How'd you get the turrets on the bombers and get them to fire and Spooky to fire to the side?

Simple. All the weapons are left wing-mounted (in direct violation of the standard "must be symmetrical" rules for aerospace design, but hey, this is pre-interplanetary tech). That's a pretty wide arc and can be said to reflect firing while the thing is in motion.

Quote
Why can't these be published?  ???

Well, I suppose they could be spilled out on the fan design forums and such, but I can't make money on them, and well, I like money.

Quote
I hope they give you one. I'm in need of funds too. Especially after this month. :( But I'd find them to get more PDFs like XTRO:1945 and Nebula California.:) I think just about everyone who's gotten them would agree.  :thumbsup:

Maybe, if someone asks. And provides a contract. (And, best of all, PAYS said contract!) Towards the end there, they were the projects I was most looking forward to every year. Money or no money, I won't write anything that's just gonna make me miserable any more.

- Herb

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #159 on: 23 March 2020, 06:30:24 »
That was my point. Every new item is basically a set of exception rules, when the directive from above is "make them unique somehow."

Yeah. I can see how that wouldn't be easy but I'm sure there's something that could be done to make it different.


Quote
Depends who you ask. ;)

I suppose:)


Quote
The "I'm not getting paid for that" problem. ;)

:) Yeah. That's a problem. :(


Quote
Oh, they might work, but it would have been against the very spirit of the Support Vee ruleset to NOT use them for the kinds of things they were envisioned for. I mean, the Jormungand was in my head even before the first draft of those rules were completed back in... what was it, 2004?

Yeah. I can see that. It would be against the spirit of the rules. On the other hand I put it down as ancient Earth tech was lostech since I could never make WWII vehicles right with the rules.


Quote
Simple. All the weapons are left wing-mounted (in direct violation of the standard "must be symmetrical" rules for aerospace design, but hey, this is pre-interplanetary tech). That's a pretty wide arc and can be said to reflect firing while the thing is in motion.

 :) Cool! Thanks!  :thumbsup: :beer: :bow: >:D


Quote
Well, I suppose they could be spilled out on the fan design forums and such, but I can't make money on them, and well, I like money.

Money does have its uses.


Quote
Maybe, if someone asks. And provides a contract. (And, best of all, PAYS said contract!) Towards the end there, they were the projects I was most looking forward to every year. Money or no money, I won't write anything that's just gonna make me miserable any more.

- Herb


I hope someone does quick! :)   Although I'm not sure why anyone would want to write something that would make them miserable.  :-\ Writing sad scenes I can see. Being miserable...there's no fun in that. :)

Thanks :)  :thumbsup: :beer: :bow:

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #160 on: 28 March 2020, 01:21:29 »
Herb

How did you handle the Nebelwerfers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebelwerfer

Especially the bigger mortars and the rocket launchers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_cm_Nebelwerfer_40
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_cm_Nebelwerfer_42


Thanks :bow: :bow: :bow:

MechWarriorFox

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 61
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #161 on: 28 March 2020, 02:21:12 »
Here's the thing, the Autocannon that we're so used to is based on the Ares autocannon series (which range from 75mm to 105mm)... based on data mining from HBS Battletech game.

Here is the post in question: Spacebattles.com BT Definite Calcs Thread.

Given that the Ares autocannons were prototyped back in the '80s, this fits with the context. The possibility exists that these autocannon are simply upgraded versions that fire higher velocity projectiles.

HABeas2

  • Grand Vizier
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4650
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #162 on: 28 March 2020, 02:40:03 »
Herb

How did you handle the Nebelwerfers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebelwerfer

Especially the bigger mortars and the rocket launchers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_cm_Nebelwerfer_40
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_cm_Nebelwerfer_42


Thanks :bow: :bow: :bow:

They never came up, but looking them over, I'm thinking they'd use artillery rules. In essence, I only ever statted the weapons used by whatever units I decided to recreate. Had I worked out the full arsenal, well, we'd have never seen that book done.

- Herb

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #163 on: 28 March 2020, 11:53:18 »
They never came up, but looking them over, I'm thinking they'd use artillery rules. In essence, I only ever statted the weapons used by whatever units I decided to recreate. Had I worked out the full arsenal, well, we'd have never seen that book done.

- Herb

I suppose its good you didn't work out a full arsenal then cause TRO:1945 is fun. :)     Making them artillery makes sense. What would their BT counterparts be?

Thanks  :beer: :bow: :bow:

Wolf72

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1042
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #164 on: 28 March 2020, 12:06:32 »
I think we need some official primitive artillery.

giant (unguided) rocket launchers for one (MLRS's?) ... AMS susceptible and such

Catapult/trebuchet -- c'mon imagine the humbling effect if someone got hit in the head and knocked out.

that's all off topic though.
War does not determine who is right, only who is left. -- said no Clanner ... ever!

KS #1357

HABeas2

  • Grand Vizier
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4650
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #165 on: 28 March 2020, 17:11:59 »
I suppose its good you didn't work out a full arsenal then cause TRO:1945 is fun. :)     Making them artillery makes sense. What would their BT counterparts be?

Hmmm. Given how I set the other naval guns/artillery weapons, it looks like the 21cm Nebelwerfer 42 would be equivalent to a Thumper Artillery Piece, putting it just above the 5.5-inch/6-inch naval guns, which I have matching the Sniper Artillery Cannon.

The 10cm Nebelwerfer 40 is down at the Medium Rifle's equivalency, which is about the same as I gave for the 3-inch naval gun.

(Yamato's 460mm main guns, incidentally, equate to Long Tom Artillery Pieces in my reckoning.)

- Herb

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3373
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #166 on: 28 March 2020, 19:34:00 »
Hmmm. Given how I set the other naval guns/artillery weapons, it looks like the 21cm Nebelwerfer 42 would be equivalent to a Thumper Artillery Piece, putting it just above the 5.5-inch/6-inch naval guns, which I have matching the Sniper Artillery Cannon.

The 10cm Nebelwerfer 40 is down at the Medium Rifle's equivalency, which is about the same as I gave for the 3-inch naval gun.

(Yamato's 460mm main guns, incidentally, equate to Long Tom Artillery Pieces in my reckoning.)

- Herb

an 18 inch bore, multi-ton projectile with almost a 20 mile range is equivalent to an 8 inch weapon firing 500 pound projectiles about 12 miles? you sure about that?

Let's get clear here, I'm not talking the explosion at the final end of that travel.  I'm talking the mass of the shell, and the distance it's thrown.  a Long Tom's entire per-round is 250 kilos.  some of that is propellant.

A naval gun of sixteen inches lobs one ton per shot, with an effective range of over 20 miles-not including propellant, the propellant adds mass.  the Long Tom in the game is much closer in practice to a 155 to 208 mm field gun, which is a bit shorter ranged than the six in. secondary battery of a 1930s era warship, and fires a lighter projectile.

we really don't HAVE an equivalent weapon to the main guns on the Yamato, Montana, etc. class battlewagons of world war two in the game.    The closest we get stat-wise are the Cruise Missiles intro'ed in TacOps with the dinner plate damage diagram and the random-walk landing pattern.
« Last Edit: 28 March 2020, 19:42:27 by Cannonshop »
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Maingunnery

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5099
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #167 on: 28 March 2020, 19:44:59 »
an 18 inch bore, multi-ton projectile with almost a 20 mile range is equivalent to an 8 inch weapon firing 500 pound projectiles about 12 miles? you sure about that?

Let's get clear here, I'm not talking the explosion at the final end of that travel.  I'm talking the mass of the shell, and the distance it's thrown.  a Long Tom's entire per-round is 250 kilos.  some of that is propellant.

A naval gun of sixteen inches lobs one ton per shot, with an effective range of over 20 miles-not including propellant, the propellant adds mass.  the Long Tom in the game is much closer in practice to a 155 to 208 mm field gun, which is a bit shorter ranged than the six in. secondary battery of a 1930s era warship, and fires a lighter projectile.

we really don't HAVE an equivalent weapon to the main guns on the Yamato, Montana, etc. class battlewagons of world war two in the game.    The closest we get stat-wise are the Cruise Missiles intro'ed in TacOps with the dinner plate damage diagram and the random-walk landing pattern.
Well one could have special primitive ammo for those guns, less shots/ton, less damage, etc.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

Fan XTRO: The Society

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 15673
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #168 on: 28 March 2020, 19:46:31 »
250 kg?  When I divide 1,000 by 5, I get 200...

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3373
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #169 on: 28 March 2020, 21:59:59 »
Well one could have special primitive ammo for those guns, less shots/ton, less damage, etc.

or you can just accept that they're completely, totally, and utterly different.  a Long Tom doesn't have the power to LIFT a shell of over a ton, period.  the MOST it can fire, is 200 kilograms

whether that's 200 kilos of waffle mix, high explosive, or concrete, it doesn't matter.  the Long Tom fires 200 kilogram packages roughly (rounding up) 12-13 miles (25 kilometers) with a built in error radius of half a kilometer.  Note: this isn't actually how much it's lifting, that's the total mass of both propellant and projectile.

1930's era naval guns loft masses exceeding one ton, and reliably throw them two to two and a half times as far as your projectile from a Long Tom, and that's whether the shell is full of high explosives, concrete, or waffle mix.  and that is NOT including the propellant or fusing.   basically twice the range and five times the mass (good catch, Daryk, on the shell weights).

as I said, we don't even have anything in rules that comes close.  a gun is a device to send a given mass from point a, to point b.  no matter how 'advanced' it is, the fact is, the amount of energy required is significantly higher to move one ton twenty miles, than it is to move a fifth of a ton twelve miles.

we don't have anything short of a Naval Autocannon that can approximate this-and even those, aren't moving one ton shells, they're moving fifth-ton shells in zero gee with no atmosphere at ridiculous velocity.

note, I said NOTHING about the explosive power at the other end, only at what it physically equates to in historical equivalents in terms of range and mass moved. 

the Devs (quite wisely) did NOT bother to create the massive rules exception necessary to equate something like the main guns of an Iowa or Yamato class battleship, because 'big gun' tech hit its zenith in the 1930s, and went into decline because you can do the same thing with a fraction of the weight, cost to maintain, bulk, and so on.  They're called "Guided Missiles", and they're the reason nobody's built an outright Battleship (with battleship guns) since the mid 1940s.
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3373
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #170 on: 28 March 2020, 22:24:12 »
"more advanced" doesn't always mean 'bigger'.  sometimes it means exactly the opposite.  an 1883 Winchester can fire a .45/70 cartridge, is it a better battle rifle than an M-4?  the fact that the M-4 throws a significantly smaller projectile at higher velocities doesn't really make it 'more deadly' except in terms of ergonomics and sustained operation-but those are frikking MAJOR factors, as is ammunition weight.  A soldier with the basic load of, say, an 1873 springfield is going to be at a significant disadvantage to a soldier in the same condition, level of training, etc. equipped with an M-16A2.

Bullet from either one, btw, will kill you within their effective range.

moving up, the Garand rifle in .30-06 has a longer effective range than an M-16, with better penetration of cover (presuming ball ammunition, not specialized rounds), but it has eight shots, is ergonomically not as user friendly, and requires more intensive maintenance to use.  does this make it more advanced? hardly.   The reason? Most decisive firearms combat occurs at distances below 300 meters, as discovered in world war one, that extended range for full-power big bore rifle cartridges turned out to be less useful than having short, handy, intermediate cartridge weapons with large capacity magazines and better user-end ergonomics.

Hence the technical revolution that was the MP-44 or 'Sturmgewehr', which has a shorter effective range, but still effective within the range decisive combat engagements occur, while also having a larger capacity and being 'lethal enough' on a per-round basis.

Militaries went to 'assault rifles' (as in actual assault rifles) because they're handier, more user friendly, and effective ENOUGH, while letting soldiers and supply trains make better use of their weight capacity.  (aka more shots per ton allowing armies to keep more men in the field for each transport truck.)

a similar direction has gone on with Artillery.  We stopped making or using 8 inch (203mm) guns because advances in explosives, fusing and materials tech let us get the same output from a 155mm (4 inch equivalent) gun as we were getting from a 203mm (8 inch) gun.  We not only phased out the 8 inch guns, we turned the barrels into bunkerbuster bomb casings.

'advanced' doesn't mean 'bigger'.  It means 'more useful with the given resources'.  an M-16 is more useful than the Garand/BAR combination, because select fire lets you issue M-16s to a rifle team without needing to give every fourth man a 16 pound magazine-fed light machine-gun.  Each of those men carry 210 rounds basic load when the basic load in WW2 was around 80 and in WW1 was around 55.  (ten stripper clips of .30-06 at five rounds each, plus five in the rifle itself vis a vis the 1903 springfield or 1917 enfield).

Garand fully loaded weighs in at 12 pounds, M-16 weighs in around 7-8 pounds depending on magazine and accessories, Springfield bolt-action weighed 13 pounds.

guess which one is more technically and technologically advanced?

The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Charistoph

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 614
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #171 on: 28 March 2020, 23:29:22 »
Yeah having an AC/5 with AP ammo would be much more attractive than a Heavy Rifle in its current iteration.

Still, I think having a ballistic weapon that could be a replacement consideration for the medium laser would be nice to have, and if it didn't have its damage debuff the Light Rifle would largely fit that bill.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 910
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #172 on: 28 March 2020, 23:38:21 »
Yeah having an AC/5 with AP ammo would be much more attractive than a Heavy Rifle in its current iteration.

Still, I think having a ballistic weapon that could be a replacement consideration for the medium laser would be nice to have, and if it didn't have its damage debuff the Light Rifle would largely fit that bill.
Gotta insert my shameless self-plug again:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=67524.0

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #173 on: 29 March 2020, 01:55:10 »
Hmmm. Given how I set the other naval guns/artillery weapons, it looks like the 21cm Nebelwerfer 42 would be equivalent to a Thumper Artillery Piece, putting it just above the 5.5-inch/6-inch naval guns, which I have matching the Sniper Artillery Cannon.

The 10cm Nebelwerfer 40 is down at the Medium Rifle's equivalency, which is about the same as I gave for the 3-inch naval gun.

(Yamato's 460mm main guns, incidentally, equate to Long Tom Artillery Pieces in my reckoning.)

- Herb

Cool! Thanks!  :beer: :beer: :bow: :bow: :bow:

With the 21cm Nebelwerfer 42 ;  that's 1 rocket equivalent to 1 Thumper round, right?

And they can be used by aerospace units?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werfer-Granate_21

Where do the others Nebelwerfers fit in?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_Nebelwerfer_41
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_cm_Nebelwerfer_42

And the Katyusha?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha_rocket_launcher

Would they also generate smoke clouds and injuries to those behind them?
Would WWII recoilless rifles still be recoilless rifles or would there be vintage versions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_Leichtgesch%C3%BCtz_40
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10.5_cm_Leichtgesch%C3%BCtz_40
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10.5_cm_Leichtgesch%C3%BCtz_42

Since the 10 cm Nebelwerfer 40 is a mortar would I use mortar rules with the Medium Rifle Cannons range and damage? Would Artillery cannons such as the M101 Howitzer function similarly? Range and damage of Rifle Cannons using firing rules for Artillery?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M101_howitzer

Would the 21cm GrW 69 be equivalent to a Heavy Rifle Cannon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_cm_GrW_69

The Sherman's 75mm gun was based on an older French 75mm gun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75mm_gun_M2%E2%80%93M6#M3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_de_75_mod%C3%A8le_1897

Would the older French gun still be equivalent to a Light Rifle Cannon or would it be more like a Heavy Recoilless Rifle? At what point going back in history do they become black powder weapons? I hadn't planned to ask until I saw the muzzle velocity of the 3 inch gun was slightly better than the 10 cm Nebelwerfer 40.  :o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-inch_Ordnance_rifle

The Nebelwerfer's Muzzle velocity is 310 m/s (1,017 ft/s)
The 3-inch Ordnance rifle's muzzle velocity is 370 m/s (1,215 ft/s)

It seems silly, even for me, but it looks like black powder weapons could still be effective in BT. At least for the first shot, fired from hidden units. Then they're dead.  xp 



Would the Wave Motion Gun be like an energy version of the Heavy Mass Driver?

Thanks. :) :beer: :beer: :bow: :bow: :bow:




I think we need some official primitive artillery.

giant (unguided) rocket launchers for one (MLRS's?) ... AMS susceptible and such

Catapult/trebuchet -- c'mon imagine the humbling effect if someone got hit in the head and knocked out.

that's all off topic though.

I have this image in my head of a Scorpion Mech downgraded to mounting a catapult on top of it.

Charistoph

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 614
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #174 on: 29 March 2020, 02:48:17 »
I have this image in my head of a Scorpion Mech downgraded to mounting a catapult on top of it.

Why not a Catapult with a catapult on each arm?
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #175 on: 29 March 2020, 04:06:41 »
Why not a Catapult with a catapult on each arm?

It's a Quad Mech.

HABeas2

  • Grand Vizier
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4650
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #176 on: 29 March 2020, 04:15:12 »
an 18 inch bore, multi-ton projectile with almost a 20 mile range is equivalent to an 8 inch weapon firing 500 pound projectiles about 12 miles? you sure about that?

Yes, because I'm not trying to model reality, but bend it to fit the BattleTech universe. I once said that I considered the XTR1945 rules to be a valid modification of the existing tabletop game rules to cover the comparative difference between WWII-era weaponry and the tech from the Age of War onward, with the caveat that said validity should be revoked if it's ever used as a crutch to force other changes to BattleTech canon. If you want a more physics-accurate system to play with WWII models or big robots, I'm certain you can find much better examples than BattleTech.

To be sure, BT artillery weapons are pretty lacking in variety.

With the 21cm Nebelwerfer 42 ;  that's 1 rocket equivalent to 1 Thumper round, right?

Yes.

Quote
And they can be used by aerospace units?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werfer-Granate_21

Looking at my notes, that would be classified as a "Heavy Rocket". I did not develop a damage equivalency for those, but I did devise a set of launchers for them.

Quote
Where do the others Nebelwerfers fit in?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_Nebelwerfer_41
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_cm_Nebelwerfer_42

And the Katyusha?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha_rocket_launcher

My primary focus on the various weapons was based on size and muzzle velocity of various weapons, and I did occasionally crowbar them to fit a more game-y progression than their real-world equivalents might have. This basically meant that most of it came down to caliber. That being said, it would put the 15cm NbW 41 on the equivalency of a Sniper Artillery Cannon (matching the 6-inch naval gun, in my reckoning), while the 30cm MbW 42 would fall around... either a Sniper or Thumper Artillery Piece.

Looking them over again, though, I may need to reconsider all of them; the Nebelwerfers are Rocket Launchers, after all, not tube artillery, and my rules for WWII-era rockets were never completed. For instance, know that "Heavy Rocket" I mentioned above? I never specified a rough damage value for them until this discussion, even though it was conceived as a catch-all for--among other things--the BM-13 Katyusha rocket.

Quote
Would they also generate smoke clouds and injuries to those behind them?

No idea. Would probably need them.

Quote
Would WWII recoilless rifles still be recoilless rifles or would there be vintage versions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_Leichtgesch%C3%BCtz_40
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10.5_cm_Leichtgesch%C3%BCtz_40
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10.5_cm_Leichtgesch%C3%BCtz_42

Probably would be equivalent to recoilless rifles, but with lower damage values to reflect their comparatively lower effectiveness on the BT armor scales. Note that some tank guns ended up with Recoilless Rifle equivalencies in XTR1945.

Quote
Since the 10 cm Nebelwerfer 40 is a mortar would I use mortar rules with the Medium Rifle Cannons range and damage? Would Artillery cannons such as the M101 Howitzer function similarly? Range and damage of Rifle Cannons using firing rules for Artillery?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M101_howitzer

The Howitzers would get treated as tube artillery, I'd say, since that's basically what they are. The Nebelwerfers, as I indicated above, would be more akin to rocket launchers, though it seems mortar rules might work as well. Again, I never fleshed out those rules.

Quote
Would the 21cm GrW 69 be equivalent to a Heavy Rifle Cannon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_cm_GrW_69

This is where I see the trouble of treating the Nebelwerfers like straight artillery, because honestly, that weapon sounds more like it would match the profile I gave the 21cm NbW, which came out to a Thumper Artillery Piece.

Quote
The Sherman's 75mm gun was based on an older French 75mm gun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75mm_gun_M2%E2%80%93M6#M3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_de_75_mod%C3%A8le_1897

As might have been noticed in the XTR1945 tables, most weapons were categorized based on their class and caliber, which meant that all 75mm tank guns were treated alike, though I would often consider variances in manufacture a reason to assign a Design Quirk to the mix.

Quote
Would the older French gun still be equivalent to a Light Rifle Cannon or would it be more like a Heavy Recoilless Rifle? At what point going back in history do they become black powder weapons? I hadn't planned to ask until I saw the muzzle velocity of the 3 inch gun was slightly better than the 10 cm Nebelwerfer 40.  :o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-inch_Ordnance_rifle

The Nebelwerfer's Muzzle velocity is 310 m/s (1,017 ft/s)
The 3-inch Ordnance rifle's muzzle velocity is 370 m/s (1,215 ft/s)

This is where you're catching me playing fast and loose, honestly; I had a spreadsheet I was using back when I made the 1945 specs, which calculated my range stats for me based on muzzle velocity, and I think I even factored damage values a bit with it as well. Unfortunately, that spreadsheet was lost in the shuffle since the product was written.

Quote
It seems silly, even for me, but it looks like black powder weapons could still be effective in BT. At least for the first shot, fired from hidden units. Then they're dead.  xp

Yeah, but let's face it; not all the conversions make sense. I think a platoon of knife-wielding infantry can actually cause BT-scale armor damage under the rules. This is the trouble with trying to squeeze every possibility into a game that originally had only about 14 weapons to play with, and didn't really consider infantry much more than something to step on.

Quote
Would the Wave Motion Gun be like an energy version of the Heavy Mass Driver?

Let's not go there, shall we?

Why not a Catapult with a catapult on each arm?

Yo, I heard you liked catapults, so I put catapults on your Catapult so you can catapult while you catapult!  xp

- Herb

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3373
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #177 on: 29 March 2020, 05:02:07 »
Yes, because I'm not trying to model reality, but bend it to fit the BattleTech universe. I once said that I considered the XTR1945 rules to be a valid modification of the existing tabletop game rules to cover the comparative difference between WWII-era weaponry and the tech from the Age of War onward, with the caveat that said validity should be revoked if it's ever used as a crutch to force other changes to BattleTech canon. If you want a more physics-accurate system to play with WWII models or big robots, I'm certain you can find much better examples than BattleTech.

To be sure, BT artillery weapons are pretty lacking in variety.

Yes.

Looking at my notes, that would be classified as a "Heavy Rocket". I did not develop a damage equivalency for those, but I did devise a set of launchers for them.

My primary focus on the various weapons was based on size and muzzle velocity of various weapons, and I did occasionally crowbar them to fit a more game-y progression than their real-world equivalents might have. This basically meant that most of it came down to caliber. That being said, it would put the 15cm NbW 41 on the equivalency of a Sniper Artillery Cannon (matching the 6-inch naval gun, in my reckoning), while the 30cm MbW 42 would fall around... either a Sniper or Thumper Artillery Piece.

Looking them over again, though, I may need to reconsider all of them; the Nebelwerfers are Rocket Launchers, after all, not tube artillery, and my rules for WWII-era rockets were never completed. For instance, know that "Heavy Rocket" I mentioned above? I never specified a rough damage value for them until this discussion, even though it was conceived as a catch-all for--among other things--the BM-13 Katyusha rocket.

No idea. Would probably need them.

Probably would be equivalent to recoilless rifles, but with lower damage values to reflect their comparatively lower effectiveness on the BT armor scales. Note that some tank guns ended up with Recoilless Rifle equivalencies in XTR1945.

The Howitzers would get treated as tube artillery, I'd say, since that's basically what they are. The Nebelwerfers, as I indicated above, would be more akin to rocket launchers, though it seems mortar rules might work as well. Again, I never fleshed out those rules.

This is where I see the trouble of treating the Nebelwerfers like straight artillery, because honestly, that weapon sounds more like it would match the profile I gave the 21cm NbW, which came out to a Thumper Artillery Piece.

As might have been noticed in the XTR1945 tables, most weapons were categorized based on their class and caliber, which meant that all 75mm tank guns were treated alike, though I would often consider variances in manufacture a reason to assign a Design Quirk to the mix.

This is where you're catching me playing fast and loose, honestly; I had a spreadsheet I was using back when I made the 1945 specs, which calculated my range stats for me based on muzzle velocity, and I think I even factored damage values a bit with it as well. Unfortunately, that spreadsheet was lost in the shuffle since the product was written.

Yeah, but let's face it; not all the conversions make sense. I think a platoon of knife-wielding infantry can actually cause BT-scale armor damage under the rules. This is the trouble with trying to squeeze every possibility into a game that originally had only about 14 weapons to play with, and didn't really consider infantry much more than something to step on.

Let's not go there, shall we?

Yo, I heard you liked catapults, so I put catapults on your Catapult so you can catapult while you catapult!  xp

- Herb

here's my counter, herb: we've GOT a weapon that is equivalent.  Cruise Missiles.  at least on the recieving end and for ammunition weight (and for the tendency to scatter absurd distances), the only issue/limitation being the need for a heavier 'launcher'.  the Long Tom is more equivalent to the performance/ammo weight and mass of the secondary batteries on something like the Yamato or Iowa class.

the 5" dual purpose guns used on many destroyers and as air defense batteries are equivalent (functionally) to thumpers, the Six inch guns used on some cruisers (Baltimore etc.) are equivalent to Snipers, the Eight Inchers on many of the lighter cruiser classes line up with Long Tom for shell weight and range, (as well as tube weight, surprisingly enough).  the big guns, the TRULY big guns, we don't have because BT is derived from post-1970s warfare and ground warfare at that...but in terms of ammunition weight and such, the 'cruise missile' stats from Tac Ops match up rather well with the down-range performance of sixteen and eighteen inch guns (ad fifteens, and fourteens).

all you'd REALLY need to do, is move over the stats for "Cruise missile" ammo, and instead of a missile launcher, you stat something in the 40-100 ton range for the gun to fire it (which would actually be pretty close to real-world stats, all things being equal.)

Battleship guns are TRULY extinct systems.  Nobody made them after the 1940s, not even for coastal defenses, but we have and do make missiles with similar range profiles and payloads (that weigh significantly less and are far more accurate) in the modern day-which lines up with the tech progression in the BTU.
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

RifleMech

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1569
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #178 on: 29 March 2020, 05:42:17 »
To be sure, BT artillery weapons are pretty lacking in variety.

True :(


Quote
Yes.

Yay! :)


Quote
Looking at my notes, that would be classified as a "Heavy Rocket". I did not develop a damage equivalency for those, but I did devise a set of launchers for them.

I would have thought it'd be Nebelwerfer 42 since it seems like a single shot unguided version.
Ooo  Do tell :)  :bow: :bow:


Quote
My primary focus on the various weapons was based on size and muzzle velocity of various weapons, and I did occasionally crowbar them to fit a more game-y progression than their real-world equivalents might have. This basically meant that most of it came down to caliber. That being said, it would put the 15cm NbW 41 on the equivalency of a Sniper Artillery Cannon (matching the 6-inch naval gun, in my reckoning), while the 30cm MbW 42 would fall around... either a Sniper or Thumper Artillery Piece.

Looking them over again, though, I may need to reconsider all of them; the Nebelwerfers are Rocket Launchers, after all, not tube artillery, and my rules for WWII-era rockets were never completed. For instance, know that "Heavy Rocket" I mentioned above? I never specified a rough damage value for them until this discussion, even though it was conceived as a catch-all for--among other things--the BM-13 Katyusha rocket.

The biggest difference that I can think of between Tube and Missile Artillery is that Missile Artillery can be used by Aerospace. I don't know why Nebelwerfers would make you want to change everything. They seem to follow that example. Going by caliber though they are bigger than a 3 inch cannon round being 158 mm (6.22 inch) but then Nebelwerfers would do area damage so it would seem to even out to me. But it would be great to have complete Rocket rules for WWII.  :bow: :bow: :bow:


Quote
No idea. Would probably need them.

Probably.  ;D


Quote
Probably would be equivalent to recoilless rifles, but with lower damage values to reflect their comparatively lower effectiveness on the BT armor scales. Note that some tank guns ended up with Recoilless Rifle equivalencies in XTR1945.

I remember. It's just that reading wiki these recoilless rifles are using ammo from field guns. I'm wondering if these recoilless rifles, and maybe of some Tank Cannons of the same size, would be equivalent to BA Recoilless Rifles?  Or maybe the BA LB-X or BA Tube Artillery? It'd give some more options besides reducing damage. They could still do some damage but with half the range. Like how the Sherman had to get close to the Tiger to have any effect. And a Howitzer would still hit at a couple map sheets?


Quote
The Howitzers would get treated as tube artillery, I'd say, since that's basically what they are. The Nebelwerfers, as I indicated above, would be more akin to rocket launchers, though it seems mortar rules might work as well. Again, I never fleshed out those rules.

Using the rules for BT weapons sounds good to me. Artillery, is artillery, mortars are mortar, Rockets are missile artillery. Nebelwerfers do complicate things though as the name is used for Mortars and Rocket Launchers.


Quote
This is where I see the trouble of treating the Nebelwerfers like straight artillery, because honestly, that weapon sounds more like it would match the profile I gave the 21cm NbW, which came out to a Thumper Artillery Piece.

Really? The round fired from the 21cm NbW is lighter, slower, and has less range than the 21 cm Nebelwerfer 42.


Quote
As might have been noticed in the XTR1945 tables, most weapons were categorized based on their class and caliber, which meant that all 75mm tank guns were treated alike, though I would often consider variances in manufacture a reason to assign a Design Quirk to the mix.

Cool!  :thumbsup:


Quote
This is where you're catching me playing fast and loose, honestly; I had a spreadsheet I was using back when I made the 1945 specs, which calculated my range stats for me based on muzzle velocity, and I think I even factored damage values a bit with it as well. Unfortunately, that spreadsheet was lost in the shuffle since the product was written.

 :'( I hate when things get lost in shuffles.  :'(


Quote
Yeah, but let's face it; not all the conversions make sense. I think a platoon of knife-wielding infantry can actually cause BT-scale armor damage under the rules. This is the trouble with trying to squeeze every possibility into a game that originally had only about 14 weapons to play with, and didn't really consider infantry much more than something to step on.

True. Somethings can be strange. Like platoons of knife-wielding infantry damaging BT-scale armor. I think part of that is because the Board Game doesn't do the AP/BD thing the RPG version does. Working withing the strangeness though it looks like black powder weapons can do damage. Of course now I'm wondering how many infantry can be stepped on at a time before a piloting roll is forced to avoid slipping.


Quote
Let's not go there, shall we?

 :toofunny: :toofunny:

Quote
Yo, I heard you liked catapults, so I put catapults on your Catapult so you can catapult while you catapult!  xp

- Herb


 :toofunny:

Thanks! :)  :thumbsup: :beer: :beer: :bow: :bow: :bow:

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 15673
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Should Vehicle/Mech Rifles be updated?
« Reply #179 on: 29 March 2020, 06:41:06 »
*snip*
True. Somethings can be strange. Like platoons of knife-wielding infantry damaging BT-scale armor. I think part of that is because the Board Game doesn't do the AP/BD thing the RPG version does. Working withing the strangeness though it looks like black powder weapons can do damage. Of course now I'm wondering how many infantry can be stepped on at a time before a piloting roll is forced to avoid slipping.
*snip*
To be clear, the odds of that happening, while non-zero, are sufficiently remote as to be reasonable.  Melee weapons have a penalty to hit at TW scale, and the cluster roll would have yield at least 25 hits to do one point of damage.  Every lower result means no damage.

In general, singularities (zeroes and infinities) should be avoided in game design.  That's the main complaint of this thread, I believe.  The Light Rifle Cannon was reduced to 0 damage, when lighter (namely, infantry) weapons can still do something (however infrequently).

And for those who don't follow the errata threads, my report about the -3 needing to be -1 was shot down with the reasoning that 0 damage for the LRC was the intent at the time, despite AToW and its Companion being newer rules.

 

Register