OBT Forum

It's not just the missiles, it's the range-scales for everything in general, and it's very clearly an artifact of gameology.

LRMs having a range of only 630 meters -- and being unguided to boot -- makes me laugh, but rifles having a max range of 90 meters and that with severe penalties makes me cry.  500 meter rifle shots are a snap, even without optics. 

Add to that the minor fact that larger-bore firearms tend to have a longer range than smaller-bore weapons, whether talking about rifles, MBT guns or naval artillery, and you've got another bass-ackwards thing with the autocannon.  Lasers, sadly, got it generally right, but they're the only ones. 

All of this makes sense from a gameology standpoint (except the AC/2, which may finally make sense in RAC form, but certainly doesn't in any other), but when trying to reconcile the gameology with reality issues occur. 

But the practical lack of computer-aided targeting for so long, despite the massive computer assistance required just to get a 5 to 10 meter walking machine to function, well, that went past my suspension of disbelief long ago.  Precision guided weaponry entered service in the 1960s; fire-control computers date to the 1930s (back when they ran on punch cards). 

Quote from: MadCapellan on May 28, 2012, 03:36:14 PM

Maybe electronic warfare has just gotten really, really good?  *shrugs*

If you read the Falkenberg Legion books by Pournelle in one of the books two of the characters are discussing the lack of advanced guided weapons.  It is explained that guided weapons exist, but in response to the development of guided weapons ECM tech advanced and now it is more cost effective to use large quantities of unguided/limited guided weapons rather then super expensive precision weapons.  To a certain extent I can see that in BT- we do have at least 1 example of that with the Listen Kill Missiles which were only used by the FC for a short period of time as counter measures were developed that made them useless.

I think it might be in one of the Grey Death books too, somewhere stated that it was possible to create highly advanced items that were twice as good as those in general use but they were expensive and difficult to maintain and the states were too worried to build factories of them near the front lines for fear of losing them which was why as you get closer to the cores of each state the state of life appears to improve and why other worlds were called backwaters.

Basically that everyone makes an LRM-20 making supplies and maintenance for them cheaper.  Few people create precision weapons so harder to maintain,

I agree with Halvagor.  The lack of accuracy and range for missiles and cannons (that was my next problem topic) was obviously done strictly for game play because they don't make any sense in the real world.  But I think they could have made the rules work with PGMs.  Take the Arrow IV rules for range but use standard hit rules instead of artillery rules.  And you wouldn't be throwing 5, 10, 15, or 20 missiles in the air, just one missile that does the corresponding amount of damage.  If you miss you miss clean, but if you hit you can devestate at range.   And that takes me to my next topic.

What's the deal with ACs?  I've seen several explanations for how ACs are rated.  The one that makes the most sense is the number corresponds to the bore diameter in mms; AC/2 = 20mm, AC/5 = 50mm, etc.  The other I've seen says that all ACs have the same bore and the number corresponds to a fired busrt; AC/2 = 2 rounds, AC/5 = 5 rounds, etc. and they all hit the same body location.  The first makes sense, the second is just stupid.  Also, like Halvagor stated, what's the deal with the ranges, they make no sense ballistically.  Unless you're saying the smaller caliber ACs are firing high velocity, flat shooting rounds while the larger caliber ACs are more like low velocity, arching fire howizters or mortars, you don't have an arguement.  But you say, ACs have a saving grace; low heat.  That's great, but they also have a huge weakness; ammo dependence.  Which brings me to my next problem with ACs, they were almost completely useless in the MW computer games.  In MW3 I once took a Grand Dragon and outfitted it with an AC/5 and all the ammon it could carry.  I then setup a drone Grand Dragon with no weapons and 1-2-0 speed.  I dumped 15 or 16 tons of ammo into the drone and all I did was take its arms off.  WHAT THE CRAP!

re: missiles. It's what has already been said, that LRMs and SRMs are only limited guidance (they're not unguided. That's MRMs) for ' gameology'  and cost-effectiveness. SRMs and LRMs are generally immune to ECM and cheap enough to toss about in large amounts. You want PGMs? Btech has those: they're called Arrow IV homing missile and Streak SRMs.

What would I like to see? Missile racks that have a better internal logic. Huh? I mean, make the launchers more scalable: instead of 2,4, or 6 for SRMs, or 5,10,15,20 for LRMs, make a flat cost per missile launched. For ex. Streaks are 1.5t per 2 missiles, and regular SRMs at 1t per 2 missiles. Ok, so can I have a Streak-20, or an SRM-30 for 15t ?

I'd bet however, that 99.9% of all the original weapon types and ranges were determined strictly with game play, story in mind, and with complete focus on big, stompy robot action. Meaning, your TOW & M47 Dragon don't have a place, but a 90 meter crappy slug thrower definitely does.

I don't remember the book and page number off the top of my head, but it has been stated explicitly that the ranges, among other things, are the way they are specifically for reasons of gameplay, and don't represent in-universe reality. It never ceases to amaze me how many people forget that.

Keep in mind that technology from a thousand years in the future would seem like magic to contemporary engineers. The technology of the Star League is to us like an F-22 would seem to a 10th century Viking. Please leave Real Life at the door.

Spot what Spot ?? Here Boy Here Spot !!  Just kidding He hit the point right on the head

Ah..those crazy proto-Scandanavians (excluding the Finns of course.)