OBT Forum

Time for fun with Math

Missile Size	5		10		15		20	Common Denominator	70
Missile Size Tons	2		5		7		10	# of systems	35		12		10		7
Average Roll 7 Damage	3		6		9		12	Total Damage	105		72		90		84
Average Roll 7 with NARC Damage	4		8		12		16	Total Damage w/NARC	140		96		120		112
Missile Size	2		4		6			Common Denominator	6
Missile Size Tons	1		2		3			# of systems	6		3		2
Average Roll 7 Damage	1		2		4			Total Damage	6		6		8
Average Roll 7 with NARC Damage	2		3		5			Total Damage w/NARC	12		9		10

So based off this analysis the 5 and 15 are both very good for the NARC or Artemis the 10 and 20 kinda suck. Though they are all consistently 33% more effective with NARC then without.

For SRM 2 is best but not so bad with 6 and the 4 sucks and for improvements its a remarkable decline for the SRMs 200% more damage for the 2 50% more for the 4 and only 25% better with the 6.

Math? Ugh.

Some quick and dirty work on the wheeled BA trailer is leading to this;

• Must be a Quad
• Trailers should be a multiple of the BA mass, but doesn't have to be.
• Movement penalty is -1 MP per suit mass.
• Armor as vehicles, by the 1/2 ton, as vees, for 4 facings.
• Space (slots) as vees (one is the hitch).
• Heavy weapons or BA weapons.  (This may change to heavy only.)
• Must be heat neutral (Energy weapons require enough HS to fire - hard to find space.).
• Wheeled transmission figured into the Internal Structure for now.
• Jump jets translate as +1 movement for each trailer mass of JJ.  The primary reason to do this is to climb hills.  Note it moves downhill for free, maybe.

Ex. A 750 kg suit with 5 ground movement can pull a 2.5 ton trailer at ground speed of 2 hexes.(5-(2500/750) =5-3 (rounding down)=2 Ground speed.
     They suit has 4 jj;  (suit mass x jump = 750 kg x 4=3000).  The suit can pull a 2.5 ton trailer at a ground speed of 3 hexes if it uses both movement types to 'Sprint'.

Note; without the trailer, this BA could 'Sprint' at a top speed of 9 hexes

I have an idea for a 'Mule' that could raise that, basically a pair of puller wheels added between BA and trailer.  A separate vehicle, it would have a fuel cell if vees can use them.

Thanks for the LRM numbers Bradshaw, let's see what Ice has to say before drawing conclusions.

For some real rough sledding and logistics augmentation I am surprised you didn't scale up Mech wagons. Would certainly help keep a unit supplied in battle if you could carry X amount of tons of supplies this way.

Combat landers is certainly interesting Red Pins and Boilerman has some real good ideas.  I have to post my Small Craft ideas but doing the same with aerospace frames is a neat concept.

If anyone knows how to easily export from a spreadsheet file to here, I would be glad to hear it.

Salient Horizons Level 3 Tech
   Thanks to our optimization contests and general discussions I’ve thought of a few new weapon systems which could be in development throughout the InnerSphere. Bare in mind that these are EXPERIMENTAL (Level 3) and should not be used in our contests unless otherwise noted.

Small Blazers
      Product Information
Type: Energy (Direct-Fire)
Tech Base: InnerSphere Level 3
Year Availability: 3053 (Free Worlds League)
      Tech Specs
Heat: 2
Damage: 5
Minimum: n/a
Short Range: 1
Medium Range: 2
Long Range: 3
Tons: 1
Critical Slots: 2
Ammo Per Ton: n/a
Cost (unloaded): 22,500 C-bills
Ammo Cost (per Ton): n/a
Battle Value: 15?
      Details
Binary Laser Cannons continued to develop throughout the 3rd Marik Civil War where the original Large Blazers were eventually joined by their smaller brethern. Firepower matches the Clan ER Small but it is twice as large and only can hit at very close ranges.

Medium Blazers
      Product Information
Type: Energy (Direct-Fire)
Tech Base: InnerSphere Level 3
Year Availability: 3053 (Free Worlds League)
      Tech Specs
Heat: 6
Damage: 8
Minimum: n/a
Short Range: 1-3
Medium Range: 4-6
Long Range: 7-9
Tons: 1.5
Critical Slots: 2
Ammo Per Ton: n/a
Cost (unloaded): 80,000 C-bills
Ammo Cost (per Ton): n/a
Battle Value: 90?
      Details
Large Blazers were first unleashed during the 3rd Marik Civil War after the lostech renaissance which swept the InnerSphere supplied an abundant amount of Double Heat Sinks to the FWLM. Their deployment sparked the development of lesser binary laser cannons in line with existing laser weaponry. Several factions within the Free Worlds League have begun to test Medium Blazers which outperforms the Clan ER Medium Laser in terms of firepower. The drawbacks are a weapon that produces more heat, has less range, is twice as bulky, and weights slightly more than the advanced Clan weapon.

I'd make the second one at least 2 tons . . . maybe even 3.

Nah, I'm with Takiro on the original 1.5t for the "Medium Blazer".  I get that it's effectively a shorter-ranged large laser with less heat, but conversely it's a less efficient linked-fire medium laser.  And at the range bracket, it's always going to be competing with the medium laser, not with the large.  Compare 3xML with 2xMedBlazer at 1.5 tons each --> 9 heat and 15 damage, vs 12 heat and 16 damage.  That's comparable but the classic Medium Lasers are still more efficient, even though the "Medium Blazers" might deal sliiiiightly more damage.  But if you up the weight of the "Medium Blazers" to 2t each, they become CLEARLY inferior (same heat, -2 damage compared to pair of ML, +1 crit more than pair of ML) and no military worth their salt would waste their time.

I would also drop the "Small Blazer" to just one crit (as opposed to reducing the weight to 3/4 ton or some other fraction).  That would make it an interesting choice among the 1ton, 1crit options: you could take a SPL (anti-infantry), or a medium laser, or a flamer (for war crimes), or a TAG... or the Small Blazer for some medium laser punch at slightly lower heat...but much shorter range.

As for battle value, at a first approximation the Blazer is x1.8 the battle value of the regular energy weapon.  So the "medium blazer" could be 76 BV, and the "small blazer" is 16 BV.  That makes them comparable in cost to clan heavy lasers, despite being clearly less effective, so is 'fair' without being obviously under-costed.