| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Karagin
Imperial Karagin Army
Imperial General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 4120
Location: United States
|
 Posted: 04-Feb-2004 07:30 Post subject: Heavier Hovertanks...in BT. |
  |
|
Okay I was wonder what you guys thought of the idea of allowing heavier hovercraft into BT...say max tonnage of 80 tons to start with but not limited to that for the discussion over all.
I know many of you have read or know of the Hammer's Slammers novels by David Drake and seeing how I can see a lot uses for Hovertanks and such over here in Iraq, it got me to thinking...
So let's here some ideas and such on this topic...what would limit the HTs to only 50 tons (beyond the rules saying so) and what would push to allow them to go higher, by this I mean what event would cause the military of the BT universe to look into this etc...Also either tech level (Clan or IS) is welcome as part of the discussion.
Looking forward to the comments and ideas on how this could be done etc...
_________________
Karagin
Only the dead have seen the end of war. - Plato
"Wasted trip Man. Nobody said nuthin' about lockin' horns with no tigers." Oddball
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
Vampire
Free Worlds League
Lieutenant Colonel
Joined: 05-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 915
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: 04-Feb-2004 09:38 Post subject: RE: Heavier Hovertanks...in BT. |
|
|
Veto.
Hovercrafts are already badly overrated in Battletech, they are more like gravtanks that true hover. They shouldn't be allowed to mount autocannons, and their mobility is restricted to calm water or flat ground.
I can accept them moving over ground, if it's smooth ground like snow, or sand or a grass plain, but I think they are abused, so I tend to stick to tracks and wheels as the most common vehicles.
And larger hovercrafts can be built, sure, for transport purposes. Problem is that those machines are very visible from the air and very vulnerable.
_________________
Memento audare semper
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oafman
Draconis Combine
Tai-sho
Joined: 18-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1657
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 04-Feb-2004 09:57 Post subject: RE: Heavier Hovertanks...in BT. |
|
|
I usually like the idea of going heavier, but there is another problem to add to what Vampire has already stated. In order make the heavier tanks to get moving, you may be forced to start using the fusion engines in them to get the power, or else use multiple ICE engines. Basically you end up with a lumbering giant that is still vulnerable. I would prefer to see hovercraft left in the fast attack/high mobility role or else create some traditional cargo transports like the Army/Marines use now. Making an 80 ton attack hovercraft would just not be cost effective.
_________________
Festina Lente!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Jade_Dragon
8th Sword of Light
Sho-sho
Joined: 05-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 1326
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 04-Feb-2004 10:08 Post subject: RE: Heavier Hovertanks...in BT. |
|
|
I have a feeling they would be abused as combat craft. Designing one as a lumbing transport on heavy water world would be interesting though.
_________________
The JadeDragon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
DarkAdder
Clan Star Adder
Star Commander
Joined: 10-Jan-2004 00:00
Posts: 604
|
| Posted: 04-Feb-2004 12:05 Post subject: RE: Heavier Hovertanks...in BT. |
|
|
Making superheavy hovercraft would be an abuse of the rules. The thing would be absolutely huge, making it an easy target. The lift equipment would be massive, and thus suck up alot of space. Not only that, but the thing would be so massive that it would be very slow and very hard to maneuver. The Savana Masters are fast because they weight next to nothing, but to budge and 80 ton tank with massive ammounts of interta is just this side of impossible. Yes, i know that since the tank doesnt techincally touch the ground its not as tough as, say, moving a treaded tank using fan propultion, but its still going to take forever to start moving or stop. And all that time, its going to be the biggest target on the field.
_________________
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Nightmare
Lyran Alliance
Kommandant-General
Joined: 03-May-2002 00:00
Posts: 2214
|
| Posted: 04-Feb-2004 23:13 Post subject: RE: Heavier Hovertanks...in BT. |
|
|
A super-heavy hovertank body might be useful, but I agree with the others: it would be too slow to make a good combat vehicle.
I could see them used as heavy transports on worlds suited for them, though. And why not build a hover-mounted Long Tom? It's not like a huge tracked vehicle can go anywhere it wants in reality, you know. A hovertank would be easier to move around if there's lots of swamps, for example. It has to stop in order to use the Long Tom, so it's not that different from the original.
_________________
A tree fall in the forest, and no one is around, and it hits a mime. Does anyone care?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Rarich
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 05-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 991
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 05-Feb-2004 10:43 Post subject: RE: Heavier Hovertanks...in BT. |
|
|
A hammers Slammer tank is 140 tons according to the books. The book also adresses the fact that they prefer to stay moving, due to the diffuculty in starting and stoping them. Chamges in direction are diffucult too, emphasized by the way he constantly talks about the driver. It is also mentioned that fusion engines and their massive power are what made these tanks possible. The traction/Maneuverability is the show stopper here, when you have mechs that can accelerate/ dodge and otherwise move like a huge human.
I would say no. Given the fusion engine is the primary cost in the vehicles that use them. That vehicles are supposed to be a cheap, defensive alternative to mechs. I would guess that in another 100 years or so when someone figures out some sort of "AntiGravity" these beasts would become feasible.
_________________
Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side & a dark side, and strings also lie under it all.
Life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Rarich
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 05-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 991
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 05-Feb-2004 10:53 Post subject: RE: Heavier Hovertanks...in BT. |
|
|
I like the powerguns tho'
Add a ton to an AC, 2 tons to a Gaussrifle, and increase their heat use by 5. Since mass and inertia are not an issue ranges are increased by 1/3 this range limit is due to firecontrol and stabilization issues. If those issues are resolved (say they are connected to a target computer) the range becomes the horizon and low orbit. The energy packet detonates on contact with ANY object, so w wire screen will make the packet detonate. This causes fragment damage in a radius of 1 hex per 10 points of damage rounded up, due to fragments and energy discharge. Damage for a fragment is 1/4 that of the weapon that fired.
those were the rules we used when experimenting with stuff from other science fiction in battletech.
_________________
Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side & a dark side, and strings also lie under it all.
Life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
AWAD
Draconis Combine
Chu-sa
Joined: 06-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 766
|
| Posted: 07-Feb-2004 20:30 Post subject: RE: Heavier Hovertanks...in BT. |
|
|
No 50tons is enough for game balance. They can be abused as is already. I have put the Max Tech optional turn rules on hover craft. It still keeps speed and good maneuver but prevents the sit and spin maneuvers that tick people off.
Vamp, as for the autocannon, Why not? I do not think they would really make that much of a difference in the stability, or movement of the hover tank. Hell maybe you can say the AC has dome baffles that vent the recoil after firing to prevent some of the issues. And as for targeting from a vehicle on air, tell me why VTOL, or Mech should not receive a penalty also? Just trying to preempt some of your retorts.
Finally if you want to play with some bad ass tanks. It is called Renegade Legion. As I have said before, still the best game FASA ever put out. With some minor mods and new equipment you can do a true Hammers Slammers world.
AWAD- MDCs just ruled
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Karagin
Imperial Karagin Army
Imperial General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 4120
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 08-Feb-2004 10:04 Post subject: RE: Heavier Hovertanks...in BT. |
|
|
Play RenLeg would require folks other then you and Jon...not too many have even heard of that game.
I have taken some time to convert things from it to BT...sigh...I miss the days when you could find gamers almost anywhere.
If you could or get the chance could you email some ideas to convert RL to a Hammer's like universe?
Thanks.
_________________
Karagin
Only the dead have seen the end of war. - Plato
"Wasted trip Man. Nobody said nuthin' about lockin' horns with no tigers." Oddball
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Old Dog
Capellan Confederation
Sang-wei
Joined: 24-May-2002 00:00
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: 08-Feb-2004 13:49 Post subject: RE: Heavier Hovertanks...in BT. |
|
|
I'm still remembering a goober locally when we first went to Battle Value, who realized that he could make 50 ton Hovertanks with a 10-15 movement, heavy armor, and no guns at all, spend virtually no BV points for each, and just ram teh legs out of every mech that moved.
He was about 6-0 in teh tourney scene before he drew my name.
I saw it coming, and hopped into teh woods.
I then shot him lots until he lost.
Still, it left a bad taste in my mouth, and made me really start casting a crabby eye on home designs. I've seen some pretty terrible things out there (And am guilty of one! I'll put the Vampire against Gausszilla any time, any place, for any stakes).
But, really, keeping Hovertanks maxed at 50 tons is a good idea. Any larger and you wouldn't need treads anymore!
-- Old Dog, tread-lovin' terrier
|
|
| Back to top |
|
DarkAdder
Clan Star Adder
Star Commander
Joined: 10-Jan-2004 00:00
Posts: 604
|
| Posted: 08-Feb-2004 14:23 Post subject: RE: Heavier Hovertanks...in BT. |
|
|
Abusing hovertanks would be the next 'big thing' if 80 ton hovertanks were possible. Immagine an 80 ton hovertank that rams a mech, then cuts loose with a heavy guass rifle, or UAC 20.
_________________
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
DarkAdder
Clan Star Adder
Star Commander
Joined: 10-Jan-2004 00:00
Posts: 604
|
| Posted: 08-Feb-2004 14:23 Post subject: RE: Heavier Hovertanks...in BT. |
|
|
Abusing hovertanks would be the next 'big thing' if 80 ton hovertanks were possible. Immagine an 80 ton hovertank that rams a mech, then cuts loose with a heavy guass rifle, or UAC 20.
_________________
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Nightmare
Lyran Alliance
Kommandant-General
Joined: 03-May-2002 00:00
Posts: 2214
|
| Posted: 08-Feb-2004 14:56 Post subject: RE: Heavier Hovertanks...in BT. |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-02-08 10:04, Karagin wrote:
Play RenLeg would require folks other then you and Jon...not too many have even heard of that game.
|
|
I've not only heard about it but played it as well. The RPG, the ground combat, the fighters and the battleships. We used to play it quite a lot some ten years ago.
There's a lot of good ideas that could make BattleTech better, IMO. I really liked the damage flow chart on the fighters, for example.
_________________
A tree fall in the forest, and no one is around, and it hits a mime. Does anyone care?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 08-Feb-2004 19:47 Post subject: RE: Heavier Hovertanks...in BT. |
|
|
| I think abusing hover tanks is already fairly common. Generally, I think vehicles should stick to I.C.E. engines. Why buy a Rommel or Patton when you can get a Po.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
