Comments: 17
Colourbrand [2012-12-20 18:30:20 +0000 UTC]
I love this ship!
Hmmm....
Excellent detailing as usual - like th details on the turret technology.
Am curious about pumping fusion energy through conduits to the turbines....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Colourbrand In reply to TheCentipede [2012-12-21 20:00:51 +0000 UTC]
Shame this is not mentioned well in details about such craft - and it makes sense.
Just stupid that fusion systems like this need "heatsinks" - Saw a program on the shuttle - and look at the heat those engines generate and the cooling systems they need.
I also wish if this system has any bearing on performance....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TheCentipede In reply to Colourbrand [2012-12-21 20:24:23 +0000 UTC]
That's why a lot of real-world nuclear rocket designs are open-cycle: dump heat into the fuel then eject it and that's how you get rid of waste heat. The other way is through radiators, which are all heat sinks are. There's no way that one can mount space radiators big enough on aerospace fighters, though, so those radiators are probably more heat exchangers with the cryogenic fuel and it goes back to being an open-cycle system.
That makes BattleMechs operating in vacuum more interesting to deal with (since their normal radiators won't work without a medium to dump heat into), but one solution would be to open-cycle the coolant; their operating endurance would be determined by the necessary rate of coolant loss.
All this isn't something Battletech fluff writers would readily think about if they weren't engineers.
Arguably, a one-core-two-distant-heater systems like this bomber would be less efficient due to pipe losses heading out to the nacelles. Whether those losses are big enough to matter are a different matter; Battletech fusion engine outputs are so great that such things would be relatively negligible. Distant-nacelle systems might also have superior yaw turn speeds through differential thrust, though if one of the nacelles goes down then adverse yaw will make it almost impossible to control in powered flight. Putting that much weight out in the wings also stabilizes it in roll because it increases the moment of inertia like an ice skater sticking her arms out, and it can paradoxically reduce wing weight by reducing flutter and the structure necessary to combat it (the nacelle weights act as dampers in the spring system).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Colourbrand In reply to TheCentipede [2012-12-27 19:24:07 +0000 UTC]
Sorry for the lateness of my reply - it warrants a good response.
This is an excellent reply and the BT writers should take note - it always makes me laugh that you can install any equipment into anything as long as its in the weight limit; so volume and shape doesn't count?
You are so right on this - I wish they had you on their staff - your factfiles on the mechs, vehicles, and aircraft are brilliant and engaging.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TheCentipede In reply to Colourbrand [2012-12-28 02:17:07 +0000 UTC]
I'm not really so harsh on the canon guys.
They do sort of take volumetrics into account with BattleMechs and Support Vehicles (slot restrictions). Still, as an engineer, it's all about intent and their intent is playable rules with an easily grasped construction system. There's going to be (over-)simplifications involved compared to reality to reflect this. After all, it's about giant robots, so the square-cube law is pretty much ignored. The fuel mass-ratios for DropShips, aerospace fighters, and WarShips are completely broken (last time I threw together a calculation the specific impulse was in the trillions of seconds, which is physically impossible).
Meanwhile, hyper-realistic wargames like Harpoon aren't fun. They also don't include design rules as they're intended to simulate existing reality. Short of adding in house rules on how, say, VOX engines run hot and Omni engines are 10% less massive, "reality" simply can't be achieved through Battletech's relatively simple rules--and I'd argue this is a feature, not a bug. Think about Warhammer 40K 2nd Edition or D&D 3rd Edition where not only were there an infinity of niggling little special case rules, but they were all effectively mandatory if someone could pull out the proper Codex or sub-manual.
So the 'realism' (ignoring the rules that are obviously broken) should be left to fluff text, else the game would be unplayable. The quality of technical fluff text depends on the capability of the writer both as a writer (for it to be entertaining) and their technical skill (for accuracy and verisimilitude). These don't intersect very often; it's actually harder to write off-the-cuff fluff text than describe existing systems because off-the-cuff requires extrapolation and understanding beyond what immediately exists.
For example, I can steal buffeting problems from the P-60 Black Widow's dorsal turret to throw in as fluff for TME aerial turrets--along with their rough solution--but there's nothing that would describe fusion engine mechanics and extensions such as the Befriare here. Going back a bit, the Dravec's jamming problems were inspired by the live-safety jamming on the M61A0 Vulcan cannon but the mechanism involved was different based on what I drew. I'll readily admit that I've got the technical skill required to extrapolate--that's what my day job pays me for, among other things--and apparently I've got writing skill as well, so that's good.
I've also properly studied and worked for a decade to build up that skill, and I doubt that FASA/Wizkids/FanPro/Topps will have a professional aerospace engineer (or any-engineer) on hand to do that sort of thing. Then again, it wouldn't be a bad side racket if I could pull it, neh?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TheCentipede In reply to Colourbrand [2012-12-29 16:47:39 +0000 UTC]
Giving it some thought, I suppose it indeed has grown into something more--a fully fleshed out setting with its own fandom and whatnot. I'd argue that's due to the canon writers' skills at characterization, future history, and society building rather than their technical skill: get people in with the giant robots, get them to stay with the epic story.
The design ruleset could be tweaked by adding differences between equipment manufacturers, though the fact that all Inner Sphere or Clan factions have effectively the same kit made game balance much simpler so I'd leave that as house rules. The optional Quirk rules are a good start (especially since they're optional). The only design rules I'd really like to see changed are those for DropShips and WarShips; the "fire control" limitations are understandable but needlessly arbitrary. How'd I'd do it if I had my way is that tonnage limitations are as they always are but weapon/surface equipment (like bay door) limitations scale as the squared-inverse-cube of tonnage.
To illustrate, let's say a two-ton thing would have one slot. It's a medium laser satellite or something. An eight ton thing would have four slots; as the tonnage cubes, the slots square. A 512-ton thing (8^3) would have sixteen slots (4^2). There'd be be a bit of futzing to get the design curve exactly where it was desired, but it would prevent 2.5 million ton superbattleships having aleph-sub-zero infinity guns compared to a corvette's three, more or less preventing the weaponry bloat that happened in the Battlespace era comparing SLDF WarShips to new-build Clan Invasion-to-Jihad WarShips.
An old TME design that isn't going to be resurrected in this iteration was the Grendel, which was effectively just an LRM boat that used the extra fire-control rules to design an 750,000 ton cruiser that if anything got within standard scale weapons range it'd be instantly flayed.
On an unrelated note, I have to thank you for the praise. It's nice to know my fluff text isn't too dry. ^_^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Colourbrand In reply to TheCentipede [2012-12-31 09:54:12 +0000 UTC]
Hey your writing is on par with the vehicle manual of BT which is my fave book of the series. As for what you have said, they should evolve it; you have pointed out neat factors but it has evolved so much. Your theorem on the slot/tonnage ratio is sound - providing if all play by the rules; as you know in business, business makes products to outclass their rivals. Same would be for weapons, sensors etc. What you have said makes sense, but business leaders don't have that much sense - if they did, firms would not be in debt, the economy would not be in crisis, and the world would be a better place. Don't get me wrong, there are great business leaders - just not enough.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TheCentipede In reply to Colourbrand [2013-01-01 00:17:49 +0000 UTC]
The issue in game terms is that then the 'better' manufacturers always get used, at least in the design rules. It's roughly equivalent to how most anyone can design a 'better' WarShip than those that appear in canon, and how late-canon WarShips always outgun early-canon SLDF WarShips despite having much smaller industrial bases. Battletech has mostly avoided the player factional whining that exemplifies WH40k because the factions, in tactical game terms, are practically identical. That changed with the introduction of the Clans and subsequent imbalances, but twenty years later that's been put to bed both in-universe and IRL.
Sure, more could certainly be done with it, but I figure that would be best done on a house-rule (or highly optional rule) basis that doesn't affect tournament play mechanics at all, like Quirks. Battletech is unique among tabletop franchises in that whatever parts of it that are broken (like ranges and identical kit) are more or less intentionally broken and accepted since they don't actually harm gameplay. Games Workshop has made a ton of coin off of perpetually broken rulesets in WH40k (and associated churn in its customer base) and it appears that Dungeons & Dragons is heading off in that direction as well. Battletech's market strength is that its static and simple core ruleset has created an extremely strong and consistent customer base that's kept it alive through thick-and-thin for over a quarter of a century. Since that's its market model, any fundamental changes that would damage that are inherently bad things. See Mechwarrior: Dark Age for a case in point: a sleeker, more efficient, more modern game with a lot of money behind it; and note which one of the two rule-sets in the franchise survived.
Ineptitude in engineering, business, and politics is best left to fluff text rather than in-game. Even in, say, WW2 historical simulation, slower German tank turret tracking or poorer Soviet quality control or more unreliable German transmissions aren't modeled because they aren't fun. Arguably Battletech construction rules are a different matter except that, were they instituted universally, Liao units would be in game mechanics less effective than comparable Davion or Marik units due to tonnage losses from worse manufacturers and game balance would be inherently affected. As it stands, the Davion-autocannon, Marik-missile, Combine-PPC in-game differences are acceptable because there's nothing keeping players from ignoring them if they want to.
Fluff text quality is an entirely different matter, but that narrows back down to that people who are simultaneously good engineers and good writers are rare and Battletech's technical fluff text isn't appreciably worse than most science fiction.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Colourbrand In reply to TheCentipede [2013-01-04 12:58:24 +0000 UTC]
Sorry for the lateness but this great reply deserves a great answer. You are right on many fronts - just now that I suppose (and fear) that it may end up evolving into a series or film. You are right about the tech stuff which then makes the Omni concept of vehicles rather laughable; if I read it right, Omnis are suppose to be machines with easy swap out weaponry bays. However, many mechs and vehicles can do this - the amount of swap and changes that can be done on say a Manticore, or a Von Luckner is swift and easy. Mechs in general can do this too. SO it makes the issue on Mechs a tad pointless - please come back with a reason that makes what I say wrong - I like the way you think! And yer right about warships - then again the average RPG or similar thing, people go for the easy fan base nonsense; take Star Wars - the average player is either a Mandalorian, a Jedi, or a Sith; all down to reputation despite the rareness of these beings.... Your last comment - hear hear; having said that I heard a radio broadcast that many Hollywood writers, producers, and directos try to work with scientist to make the overall project more "convincing..."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TheCentipede In reply to Colourbrand [2013-01-04 13:31:29 +0000 UTC]
I'm not too worried if Battletech evolves into film/TV franchises. It's happened more than once already (computer game plot lines count) and as long as they keep a good writing staff and keep more towards MS Team 08 territory, they'll do fine. They already have all the politics and general world-building that a visual franchise could want, with the advantage that it's already survived over a quarter of a century so it's far more self-consistent than most throw-it-together-for-the-deadline TV or film worldbuilds are. Structurally, you're right. Anything with box launchers can be swapped for anything else looking for cat-ear mounts, given enough finagling with steel welding. This being said, I gather the strength of Omni design lies in interface standardization both structurally and in terms of support (electrical power, coolant, data bus). This would require Omni technology to both work 'Mech/vehicle side and individual equipment side in terms of standardized connectors and attach points. Let's take a Manticore for an example, stripping out the PPC for oh, an AC/2 for grins and giggles. The PPC not only has a structural housing that needs to be adapted (shimmed, broken down and rebuilt, whatever) for the new autocannon, but also fire control hardware connections, command data busses, and a whole lot of power connectors. These would have to be replaced or jury-rigged to work with the new weapon. Then there's the issue that the AC/2 requires room for a flexible ammo feed that the party gun didn't, so that has to be redneck-engineered in as well. This definitely isn't a field change since it'll need at least a fully stocked depot to do the work (and a proper engineering staff to make it stick). With a theoretically identical but much more expensive OmniManticore, they pull out the OmniPPC and put in an OmniAC/2. All the connectors and interfaces are standardized and 'modification' is done automatically either by variable pin counts in connectors (if you only need 3 pins of power but you have 6 available, only put 3 pins in the connector and leave the other 3 blank) or by onboard software (like modern overclocking suites or plug-and-play drivers). That's a field refit doable so long as there's enough local lift capability to hoist things into place. The Omni divide, therefore, is best described as the difference between old computer peripherals (printers with infinitypin serial ports or cartridge ports; game controllers with serial ports; mice and keyboards with PS/2 ports; sound hardware with audio jacks) and modern ones all standardized to USB hardware architecture and plug-and-play software architecture. Even if a given machine is comparatively modular (like the Mercury) it still doesn't have the interface standardization necessary for true rapid field-tactical swapping between not only different systems but between different classes of systems. Comparison can be made with how most IRL "fighters" nowadays are actually "fighter-bombers;" the external ordnance hardpoints are the structural and umbilical part of their Omni system and the fire-control software, were it properly standardized and universalized to work with /everything/ that could fit on the pylon, would be the control part of their Omni system. This is how an F-16 can sortie in the morning as an interceptor coated in AMRAAMs then sortie at noon as an e-dub platform with ECM pods then sortie at night as a night bomber with a LANTIRN and JDAMs. If you think of the bog-standard F-16 as an OmniFighter, then all the external ordnance pylons are the Omni slots for Omni tonnage, and the M61A1 20mm cannon in the wing root is a fixed weapon common to all variants.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
TheCentipede In reply to Colourbrand [2013-01-06 15:11:52 +0000 UTC]
I remember reading something like it in TRO:3058 where Inner Sphere OmniMechs were introduced, but it didn't go into much detail beside "standardization." Which covers a lot, to be honest; further detail without technical background would start stumbling into scientifically incoherent territory. For example, back in the Citytech 1st Edition days "armor" was probably just rolled homogenous [steel] armor (RHA) or the equivalent because fluff text had 'Mechs being repaired with found materials like layers of steel siding stolen off of truck trailers or bits of building. It was wonderful for storytelling, but it had two problems: first, RHA doesn't work anything like Battletech armor; second, redneck applique armor worked in WW2 for tanks coated in RHA to begin with and light vehicles now whose thin skins are basically RHA, but modern armor is a metallic composite, like Chobham armor.
Of course, when Battletech first came out, Chobham armor was both classified in detail and esoteric in general. Modern fluff-text specifies that Battletech armor is a composite with diamondoid layers and everything.
So it's not so much that they think the audience is daft; it's probably more along the lines that the writers are often just as daft as the audience but have been smart and lucky enough to write what they know and fudge the rest.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TheCentipede In reply to TheCentipede [2013-01-04 13:36:50 +0000 UTC]
Thanks, dA, for killing my paragraph formatting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0