The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Battletech Crossover Stats
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> Battletech Crossover Stats Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
garhkal wrote:
Pulse lasers, i would have as ignores shields, much like Ion cannons. BUT they would still be full damage, not "Stun"
PPCs, i would just count as turbolasers

This doesn't make sense to me. The whole reason WEG ruled that Ion Cannon ignored shields was because they determined that a ship's shields were "ray shields" as mentioned by General Dodonna in ANH. Since ion cannon and missiles were "particles", ray shields would be ineffective against them.

By definition (according to the Battletech Wiki), pulse lasers fire the same energy as regular lasers, varying only in packet strength and rate of fire (lots of little shots instead of one big one). Therefore, if lasers and pulse lasers fire the same type of energy, and shields stop lasers, then pulse lasers should be stopped by shields as well. If anything, it should be the PPCs that aren't stopped by shields, as they fire both ions and neutral particles.


I was envisioning it as the big ball part of the pulses, smack down the shields letting in the lance/small bits' of the pulse..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
I was envisioning it as the big ball part of the pulses, smack down the shields letting in the lance/small bits' of the pulse..

I suppose it depends on which universe's version of lasers take precedence. If the Mechwarrior Online game action is accurate, lasers fire a multi-second beam, much like the ball turrets on the LAAT/i's in AOTC. However, Star Wars lasers fire a single, short duration blast like a bullet. Obviously, "lance" tech exists in the SWU, but not in any coherently applied fashion. Composite-Beam Laser is quite a mouthful. I suppose Warhammer 40K's Lance is as good a name as any.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very true.

As for gauss cannons, i was thinking that similar to how Btech has it, the cannon itself cause of the magnets and other power sources are the big boom issue, while hitting the ammo is not going to do much, unlike hitting the missiles for a concussion launcher.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Very true.

As for gauss cannons, i was thinking that similar to how Btech has it, the cannon itself cause of the magnets and other power sources are the big boom issue, while hitting the ammo is not going to do much, unlike hitting the missiles for a concussion launcher.

In a lot of ways, blasters incorporate the best features of both energy and projectile weapons in BattleTech.

Needlebeamers are mentioned as a weapon in Brian Daley's Han Solo trilogy, which could conceivably be long-duration energy weapons like the lance...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

These are pretty nifty.

I'd like to take some time and compare them to average imperial walkers at some point, but I'm not sure when I'll get an opportunity to.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've got a few more in the works, as well. Any requests?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Uh, my older brother was always more in to Battletech than I was. I think even when I did create a character, it was for one of the jet-fighter type setups rather than an actual Mech pilot. This was probably close to 15 years ago too, maybe even more, so my recollection might be a bit fuzzy.

Just keep it up, even if they don't end up being used in the galaxy at large, I might design a sector of space where they use Mechs.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OKay. Just bear in mind that I'm writing the fluff as though they are in use in the galaxy at large...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Fri Mar 06, 2015 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bearing it in mind. Smile Thanks for taking the time to do these.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal, based on my read of BattleTech missile design, short range and long range missiles have the same basic size, but short range trades off range for increased damage capacity. Correct? If possible, I'd like to standardize missile launchers, just with different missile types.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is correct. Also Long range missiles deal damage in 'groups' where short range ones do damage individually.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
That is correct. Also Long range missiles deal damage in 'groups' where short range ones do damage individually.

Hmm. Considering I have seen both short and long range missiles grouped in clusters on various mechs, I think I will skip that rule and allow the launchers to combine fire using the coordination rules.

EDIT: Basically, I'd use the 6km-range missiles I've been using so far in the stats for LRM, but reduce the damage. There would also be a 3km range missile with the 8D damage from the current missile stat. Finally, the Streak Guided Missiles would use the Lock-On rule I proposed in the Advanced Starfighter COmbat, and would have only a 3km range with reduced damage, but higher Fire Control.

I'm also thinking of statting out the Longbow with very long range artillery missile launchers (30k-40k range)...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Ral_Brelt
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 05 May 2013
Posts: 221

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another big difference between SRMs and LRMs is lock on, the former are dumb fire unless they are streaks. LRMs also tend to arc over terrain, while streaks will try for the straightest approach to the intended target. As for the Longbow, it sounds like you're referring to the Arrow IV missile system for your extreme range weapon.

In MWO ranges for LRMs are standard cap of 1000m, and SRMs at 270m with streaks having the same SRM range. Granted this is for scale in map, but rather than 6/3, you might want to consider 6/1.6 km ranges and severely reduce/remove fc bonus for non streak SRMs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ral_Brelt wrote:
Another big difference between SRMs and LRMs is lock on, the former are dumb fire unless they are streaks. LRMs also tend to arc over terrain, while streaks will try for the straightest approach to the intended target.

Where is the reference for LRMs needing lock on? I looked in my books, as well as on-line, and it only mentioned that they use ballistic paths and hit in tighter groupings.

EDIT: Also, if the BattleTech Wiki is accurate, Long Range Streak Missiles did become available at some point...

Quote:
As for the Longbow, it sounds like you're referring to the Arrow IV missile system for your extreme range weapon.

Something similar, yes. It'll also bear some similarities to the Leveler Concussion Missile Launcher from the Imperial Sourcebook.

Quote:
In MWO ranges for LRMs are standard cap of 1000m, and SRMs at 270m with streaks having the same SRM range. Granted this is for scale in map, but rather than 6/3, you might want to consider 6/1.6 km ranges and severely reduce/remove fc bonus for non streak SRMs.

Per the Battletech Compendium, the difference in maximum range is 21 and 9, respectively. That breaks down to a ratio of 7/3 as opposed to 4/1, so if 6km is the max for LRMs, a more accurate max for SRMs would be around 2.5km.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
garhkal wrote:
That is correct. Also Long range missiles deal damage in 'groups' where short range ones do damage individually.

Hmm. Considering I have seen both short and long range missiles grouped in clusters on various mechs, I think I will skip that rule and allow the launchers to combine fire using the coordination rules.


I think you misunderstood me.
Say i hit you with an LRM-20 (all missiles fired). I roll to see how many hit, but then deal THAT out in brackets of 5 for damage.
SRMs though even though i still roll to see how many missiles hit, roll each HIT individually. THAT is the difference i was trying to point out.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0