OBT Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

AU Developers - Please PM Knightmare or MechRat if you need board or permission changes

Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: What is the fewest number of engines you can build a viable military with?  (Read 1674 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Abele

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,093
  • A Man in a Tin Suit
Re: What is the fewest number of engines you can build a viable military with?
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2015, 08:04:11 AM »
Personally, I would go with just the 240 and the 300. Where they overlap go with the smaller engine and sacrifice a bit of speed and go for armor and weapons. This will still get you a solid number of chassis to use (8, using the 240 in the 30 tonner and either engine in the 60 tonner. Don't even bother building the 20 or 25 ton mech. ) if you only go for one engine per weight class. The 30 and 40 ton mech fill your scout mech role, the 50 and 60 your trooper role. 75 and 80 tons would fire support slow assault. The one hundred tonner would be the gatecrasher. If I'm going super light, I'd build the twenty-tonner with the 240, not the 300 and ignore the 25 ton class altogether. This gives you two mechs in each of the weight categories
Logged
The Honor of Men cannot be bound by the words of Fools- Marco Hietala
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. - Confucius
May God defend me from my friends; I can defend myself from my enemies. - Voltaire
Chaos doesn't need a recipe, just a list of ingredients. - Drakensis
Kachi ni Fushigi no Kachi Ari. Make ni Fushigi no Make Nashi
Wielder of the Ferro-Carbide Bat of Doom™®©

Abele

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,093
  • A Man in a Tin Suit
Re: What is the fewest number of engines you can build a viable military with?
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2015, 08:05:42 AM »
Quote from: Takiro on January 17, 2015, 07:32:46 AM
Bottom line is right now we can power 13 weight classes with 4 engines. You add in the other 4 Fives or Prime or what ever you want to call them (55, 65, 85, 95) and for 17 weight classes you need 8 different engines minimum.

This is good for Mechs and Fighters but Vehicles could change the equation with their suspension factors.
Vehicles are easy, just build tracks across the board and throw in a few hovers where you can overlap engines
Logged
The Honor of Men cannot be bound by the words of Fools- Marco Hietala
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. - Confucius
May God defend me from my friends; I can defend myself from my enemies. - Voltaire
Chaos doesn't need a recipe, just a list of ingredients. - Drakensis
Kachi ni Fushigi no Kachi Ari. Make ni Fushigi no Make Nashi
Wielder of the Ferro-Carbide Bat of Doom™®©

Ice Hellion

  • Protector of the Taurian Concordat
  • KU Player
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,481
  • Beware of the all-seeing eye: Ice Hellion
Re: What is the fewest number of engines you can build a viable military with?
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2015, 08:18:38 AM »
And don't forget you can compensate the higher price of the XL Engines by using only ICE Engines on your vehicles.
Logged


"In turn they tested each Clan namesake
in trial against the Ice Hellion's mettle.
Each chased the Ice Hellion, hunting it down.
All failed to match the predator's speed and grace.
Khan Cage smiled and said, "And that is how we shall be."

The Remembrance (Clan Ice Hellion) Passage 5, Verse 3, Lines 1 - 5

Takiro

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,175
  • For the Last Cameron!
Re: What is the fewest number of engines you can build a viable military with?
« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2015, 09:12:22 AM »
That is true ICE Hellion. ;)

I was actually thinking this effort would be a good way to rapidly upgrade the InnerSphere forces by using the fewest number of XL Engines possible especially in light of the ComGuard's use of 300XL on Tukayyid fielding Clanbusters. Haven't decided if it is going to be a ComStar, FedCom, or FWL effort.

After all it is all about motivations. I mean are we a small Periphery realm who just discovered Fusion Engines and want to develop a new military around as few as possible. My example takes an InnerSphere faction who wants to rapidly upgrade to Star League tech using XL Engines to level the playing field against the Clans (smaller 270s and 280s to maximize firepower rather than speed may be the order of the day here). Quicksilver and Master Arminas look at it from a Clan perspective were larger more expensive XL Engines are more readily available to these high end Clan tech users (350s and 360s might be better fits here).
Logged

Takiro

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,175
  • For the Last Cameron!
Re: What is the fewest number of engines you can build a viable military with?
« Reply #19 on: January 17, 2015, 10:31:01 AM »
Quote from: Takiro on January 17, 2015, 07:32:46 AM
Bottom line is right now we can power 13 weight classes with 4 engines. You add in the other 4 Fives or Prime or what ever you want to call them (55, 65, 85, 95) and for 17 weight classes you need 8 different engines minimum.

My quick research -

Four Fives or Prime Design Weights
55 tons: 220 (4/6), 275 (5/8), 330 (6/9), 385 (7/11)
65 tons: 260 (4/6), 325 (5/8), 390 (6/9)
85 tons: 255 (3/5), 340 (4/6)
95 tons: 285 (3/5), 380 (4/6)

Engine Analysis
220 Engine (2): 20 (11/17), 55 (4/6)
255 Engine (1): 85 (3/5)
260 Engine (2): 20 (13/?), 65 (4/6)
275 Engine (2): 25 (11/17), 55 (5/8)
285 Engine (1): 95 (3/5)
325 Engine (2): 25 (13/?), 65 (5/8)
330 Engine (2): 30 (11/17), 330 (6/9)
340 Engine (2): 20 (17/?), 85 (4/6)
385 Engine (2): 35 (11/17), 55 (7/11)
380 Engine (2): 20 (19/?), 95 (4/6)
390 Engine (2): 30 (13/?), 65 (6/9)

Not much usefulness outside the single design class they will serve as you can see. Some engines theoretically fit with 20, 25, or 30 tonners as well as their own design (55, 65, 85, or 95 tons) but realistically many are not practical matches.

As such these would likely be the last designs built that could fill holes and specialized roles. In other words if my assault mechs plod along at 3/5 (300 for 100, 270 for 90, and 240 for 80) maybe I would want a couple of fast movers (4/6) to complement their brute force (340 for 85 and 380 for 95). As you can see we are journeying outside the 240 to 300 rating with that. Just one example.
Logged

JPArbiter

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,725
  • Host of Arbitration. Your last word in Battletech
Re: What is the fewest number of engines you can build a viable military with?
« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2015, 05:09:21 PM »
Through exhaustive research (Math) I have calculated the tonnages of all vehicles that can use a 300 XL Fusion engine.  it will be up to the end user to determine what is effective and what is not.

Tracked Matches Mech

Hovercraft- 41 tons

Wheeled: 80, 79, 64, 53, 40, 32, 29

VTOL- 23 (and not very well)

WiGE- 73, 55, 27

Hydrofoils- 97, 46, 33, 28, and 25

Displacement Hulls- 165, 110, 82, 66, 55, 47, 41, 33, 30, 22

Sub Marines- 82, 66, 55, 47, 41, 33, 30, 22
« Last Edit: January 22, 2015, 05:15:16 PM by JPArbiter »
Logged
BattleTech products aren't Pokemon Cards. You don't have to catch, or collect them all.

WHAT NO ONE EVER TOLD ME THAT!

drakensis

  • Duke of Avalon
  • KU Player
  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,299
Re: What is the fewest number of engines you can build a viable military with?
« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2015, 08:31:41 AM »
For the new Periphery Lords game over on spacebattles.com (link) I've built the entire MAF on the principle of using the 300XL and 140 SFE only (except warships and other spacecraft, obviously).

The 140 SFE powers the Raider series (20 ton APC, 23 ton helicopter transport) and the Hunter series (28 ton attack helicopter, 35 ton secondline aerospace fighter, 35 ton light tank, 35 ton secondline light 'Mech, 39 ton hovertank, 40 ton armored car)

The 300XL powers the Dasher series (30 ton light 'Mech, 30 ton light tank, 30 ton interceptor), Crusader series (50 ton medium 'Mech, 50 ton medium aerospace fighter, 50 ton medium tank), Grasshopper series (60 ton heavy cavalry 'Mech, 60 ton heavy tank, 60 ton heavy aerospace fighter), Stalker series (75 ton heavy 'Mech, 75 ton main battle tank, 75 ton heavy aerospace fighter) and Marauder series (100 ton assault 'Mech, 100 ton attack aerospace fighter, 100 ton assault tank).

Each series has a high degree of compatibility with similar weapons, armour and so forth. The result leaves a very streamlined logistics chain.
Logged

Takiro

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,175
  • For the Last Cameron!
Re: What is the fewest number of engines you can build a viable military with?
« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2015, 09:21:36 AM »
Very nice drak! Gets me back to thinking about the Stellar Concordium and Periphery Nations of old I created.
Logged

masterarminas

  • General
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,515
Re: What is the fewest number of engines you can build a viable military with?
« Reply #23 on: March 28, 2015, 12:34:55 AM »
Working on an update list . . . I have managed to narrow things down to two engines:  350XL and 360XL.  The 350XL allows for a 50-ton 7/11/x OmniMech, a 70-ton 5/8/x OmniMech, a 70-ton 5/8/0 Artillery BattleMech, and a 50-ton 7/11 tracked OmniVehicle.  The 360XL includes a 40-ton 9/14/x OmniMech, a 45-ton 8/12/x OmniMech, a 60-ton 6/9/x OmniMech, a 90-ton 4/6/x OmniMech, a 40-ton 11/17 OmniFighter, a 60-ton 8/12 OmniFighter, and a 90-ton 6/9 OmniFighter.

6 OmniMechs, 1 BattleMech, 1 OmniVehicle, and 3 OmniFighters . . . all built around two engines.  They aren't the most efficient designs in the world, but . . . it does streamline logistics.

MA
« Last Edit: March 28, 2015, 12:50:52 AM by masterarminas »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »