Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well neither game is realistic at all, 40k is unrealistic because of the fantastical setting and the near magical level of technology. Battletech is unrealistic because it forces assumptions in order to be a functioning game. Realistically a mech isn't a good combat platform, and can't actually physically have more armor than a tank. But for the sake of the game they do in CBT. They also utilize "ablative armor" which doesn't really exist, and while possible in an armor system designed to deflect directed energy attacks it wouldn't do anything to ballistic weapons.

It's a cool setting, but really there are very few interesting sci fi settings that are grounded totally in reality and actual possibilities and sense.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Yeah, but it really depends on the relationship between microsoft and the studio licensing. They can license an IP for legal purposes without actually licensing it for production or development. Basically holding it on the burner with a sideline studio so that in the event that they decide to publish they can have avoid the process of organizing and providing capitol for a development house.

Actually, no, they can't do that. Licensing implicitly authorizes the rights to development. What studio would ever pay to hold onto a license they could never actually use?

ShumaGorath wrote: They also utilize "ablative armor" which doesn't really exist, and while possible in an armor system designed to deflect directed energy attacks it wouldn't do anything to ballistic weapons.

Actually it does. It's called reactive armor. And it does indeed work on ballistic weapons.

ShumaGorath wrote:
It's a cool setting, but really there are very few interesting sci fi settings that are grounded totally in reality and actual possibilities and sense.

Then why are you debating the 'realism' of the setting?

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Yeah, but it really depends on the relationship between microsoft and the studio licensing. They can license an IP for legal purposes without actually licensing it for production or development. Basically holding it on the burner with a sideline studio so that in the event that they decide to publish they can have avoid the process of organizing and providing capitol for a development house.

Actually, no, they can't do that. Licensing implicitly authorizes the rights to development. What studio would ever pay to hold onto a license they could never actually use?

As an example interplay and the licensed agreement to develop the fallout MMO. They do not have the capitol, manpower, or really anything else required to do so. So they are essentially sitting on the license until it is released back to bethesda. Squatting a license has value. Larger companies like EA or microsoft will "assign" an IP to a development house through licensing but not ok the production of a title. They do this so that the development house can stay small and work on concepts and ideas cheaply until the big wigs decide that they want to begin development of a game.

ShumaGorath wrote:

As an example interplay and the licensed agreement to develop the fallout MMO. They do not have the capitol, manpower, or really anything else required to do so. So they are essentially sitting on the license until it is released back to bethesda. Squatting a license has value. Larger companies like EA or microsoft will "assign" an IP to a development house through licensing but not ok the production of a title. They do this so that the development house can stay small and work on concepts and ideas cheaply until the big wigs decide that they want to begin development of a game.

Shummy, that is development. Just because the product is not in active production from a coding standpoint it does not follow that no development is done.

Actually it does. It's called reactive armor. And it does indeed work on ballistic weapons.

Reactive armor is not ablative armoring. The reactive portion of the reactive armor isn't actually armor at all, its an offensive countermeasure to lesson the force of an impact or negate it entirely.

Ablative armoring is armor that essentially absorbs an impact by releasing mass and redistributing the impact throughout the armor system. Sandbags are a good example of ablative armoring, as is the ground above an underground bunker. Unfortunately it's not a functional armor system so much as it's a natural by product of dirt.

Then why are you debating the 'realism' of the setting?

I wasn't they were and I chimed in.

Shummy, that is development. Just because the product is not in active production from a coding standpoint it does not follow that no development is done.

No thats deep pre production. The term Development in the gaming industry has similar analogues to the movie industry.

And that is why "hard" Sci Fi is difficult.

I just get a big laugh out of the old Battletech LAMs.

Deleted to preserve thread.

ShumaGorath wrote:
No thats deep pre production. The term Development in the gaming industry has similar analogues to the movie industry.

Dude, development in the film industry is everything before the process of filming. The process of filming is referred to as production, and the cutting and editing that follows is post-production.

Read something and then make an argument.

JohnHwangDD wrote:And that is why "hard" Sci Fi is difficult.

I just get a big laugh out of the old Battletech LAMs.

I'm one of the biggest CBT honks and I laugh at LAMs. Those are the height of silliness.

Anyway, back on Topic.

What do you guys foresee from Catalyst Game Labs from this? I am on Battletech and ShadowRun forums all the time, but more curious as to what non-CGL people think.

While I'm on their BTech forums, I'll jump in here:

It depends how much of an initial outlay they put in. Say they get what they want, including HeroClix. HeroClix becomes their cash cow, and they use profits from that to fund other games.

If they don't get HeroClix, but get a bunch of others, suddenly they've got a whole heap of other games to support, they spent a lot of money trying to get them, and they're now over-extended.

I doubt it's as simple as that, and I'm sure that the people at CGL aren't Jervis... uhh... I mean aren't stupid, so they would have looked at what was worthwhile before jumping headfirst into a decision that could kill the company within a couple of years.

At the very least they should get ahold of the BTech and Shadowrun rights, making them the masters of their own game, rather than a company that has to check with WizKids on everything they do. HeroClix would be a great bonus as that gives them another successful income stream.

BYE

The definition of ablative armor is: "Armor which negates damage by being itself damaged or destroyed." For example, cars are designed with ablative crumple zones to protect passengers. Reactive armor is most certainly ablative as it serve to protect the vehicle encased in it, and is destroyed by the impact.

dogma

Ablative armor is armor designed to negate damage by itself being damaged or destroyed through the process of ablation. In contemporary spacecraft, ablative plating is most frequently seen as an ablative heat shield for a vehicle that must enter atmosphere from orbit, such as on nuclear warheads, or space vehicles like the Mars Pathfinder probe. The idea is also commonly encountered in science fiction.

wikipedia.com

Ablation is defined as the removal of material from the surface of an object by vaporization, chipping, or other erosive processes. The term occurs in space physics associated with atmospheric reentry, in glaciology, medicine and passive fire protection.

wikipedia.com

An element of explosive reactive armour consists of a sheet or slab of high explosive sandwiched between two plates, typically metal, called the reactive or dynamic elements. On attack by a penetrating weapon, the explosive detonates, forcibly driving the metal plates apart to damage the penetrator. Against a shaped charge, the projected plates disrupt the metallic jet penetrator, effectively providing a greater path-length of material to be penetrated. Against a long rod penetrator, the projected plates serve to deflect and break up the rod.

wikipedia.com

Ablative armoring is armor that is designed to be destroyed, but in doing so protects that which is underneath the armor. Reactive armor is armoring which upon impact destroys itself to create a forcefull blast which dampens the impact and redirects the force of energy. They appear very similar but reactive armor most certainly isn't ablative. It would have to absorb the force placed into it and in doing so be destroyed to be ablative. It doesn't do that.

By that definition all armor is ablative. Even steel plate takes its strength from that material's capacity to resist permanent distortion. Something which happens as a result of a tempering process that lends a combination of rigidity (promoting deflection), and flexibility (promoting the spread of force).

Actually by that definition steel most certainly is not ablative as it is designed to deflect shots and redirect energy throughout the reinforcement of the plating. If steel armor were ablative the plate would have to be destroyed in absorbing the energy, steel armor is designed to reflect it.

Why any of this matters, I don't know. The ablative armor in battletech isn't reactive.

Dude, development in the film industry is everything before the process of filming. The process of filming is referred to as production, and the cutting and editing that follows is post-production.

Read something and then make an argument.

Actually thats pretty close, which is why I used the analogy. I said it had similar analogues, not that it was the same thing. The pre development phase of a game that is utilised by studios assigned to squat an IP is essentially little more than a once a week meeting by a few lads on the prospective team fleshing out possible ideas for the type of game or making resolutions on possible methods of hiring when the signal to begin development is given.

If you consider that entire process to be development then cool. I don't. Especially when in a large portion of such cases no go ahead is ever given and the license ends.

Deleted to preserve thread.

The tactical affect of ablative armor is the production of a reactive force which serves to nominally dissipate incoming force.

Thats the tactical effect of all armor. Remember, you're the one bringing the terminology into the realm of absolute physics here, so technically the opposing force of the armors inertial mass is acting against the force of the incoming round.

What ablative armor is is armor that takes hits, loses a piece of itself, and keeps on trucking. Does reactive armor do that? Not really since reactive armor isn't really even armor in the barest sense, it's an offensive defensive countermeasure that is more in line with an antimissile system then it is a piece of armoring. It's more than capable of damaging the platform it rests on if it's set off by the likes of an antimaterial rifle which would normally be unable to damage the exterior of the vehicle. Reactive armor redirects the force of an oncomming blast by producing another small blast, armor doesn't work reactively except for the in barest most literal sense. It's called armor because it's a defensive measure and sure if taken literally it can be armor.

The english language breaks down under close scrutiny like this. Which is why arguing terms like this doesn't really work. It just debases the argument. Reactive armor isn't considered ablative. I'm willing to leave it at that for the same reason that I don't think that steel armor is ablative.

Steel releases mass when impacted, not much, but it does. Also, it distributes force throughout the material when impacted, not much, but it does. If you wish to regard sandbags as an example of ablative armor, an example which you provided, then this is the only definition which you could have been using. And it was clearly that definition which I was attacking.

If you're going to be that obtuse about it fine, yeah. All armor is ablative. Atomic decomposition means that all things are losing a relative amount of mass at all times so I guess my definition isn't sound. You win this round captain superliteral.

The go ahead being production. You may have used the analogy because you felt it was similar, but you were wrong. Because the analog you supplied directly contradicted your point that development is 'deep pre-production'

But it is similar. Its just not the same. An orange and a basketball are both spheres but a basketball doesn't taste good just because an orange does. And they are both orange. All analogies fail if taken the wrong way.



Anyway, I've got kind of a stomach ache and I want to go play left 4 dead so I'm just gonna give you the last point. I imagine it will be well written and scathing. I will be shooting zombies.

Deleted to preserve thread.

I forgot I still had to download the game (stupid steam X.X ).

The only people that don't consider reactive armor ablative are sci-fi writers and Ironman fans.

Also wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablative_armor

Ablative armor is distinct from the concept of reactive armor, which uses a sandwich layer of explosives to disrupt the thrust of armor piercing ammunition, and is actually in common use in modern armored vehicles.

But hey, wikipedia isn't as good a source as you are. So I'm just wrong here.

You don't get it. Not all armor is ablative. My point is that, under your ridiculous definition, that would be the case. This is called Reductio Ad Absurdum, a style of argument commonly used to expose overly specific categorical definitions.

You started the word games. Don't just quit because you can't keep up.

I gave a lose and commonly held definition. You started the word games sir.

Not at all true Shumy. Anti-missile counter-measures are defined by their reliance on active sensor acquisition systems, and point targeting. Something which reactive armor bypasses by literally coating the tank in explosive, ablative panels. Only a small number of which actually expire with each strike. Meaning that the system as whole 'keeps on trucking'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countermeasure

A countermeasure is a system (usually for a military application) designed to prevent sensor-based weapons from acquiring and/or destroying a target.

Countermeasures that alter the electromagnetic, acoustic or other signature(s) of a target thereby altering the tracking and sensing behavior of an incoming threat (e.g., guided missile) are designated softkill measures.

Measures that physically counterattack an incoming threat thereby destroying/altering its payload/warhead in such a way that the intended effect on the target is majorly impeded are designated hardkill measures.

An example of a Hardkill countermeasure is the reactive armour found on many modern armoured vehicles.

I guess its a hardkill countermeasure. Sorry for the mixup.

Also just because it bugs me shaped charges explode in all directions, but the hollow inner frame directs the lions share of the explosive towards the target through a mix of refraction and tamping. Its not a magic "only explode one way" device. Its just a conical lump of explosives with a hollow section.

I'm not arguing that video game and movie production are dissimilar enterprises. I'm arguing that your interpretation of both of those enterprises is wrong.

Not really, your arguing that I have no idea what I'm talking about and are giving an opinion to support it. You have yet to site anything except a wiki article that actually supported my analogy and then said it was wrong because two similar things are not identical. You're doing what I do which is mix up stated opinion and fact with ad hominim and prickling. But you aren't doing what I normally do which is substantiate my opinions with links and common sense and you're doing a lot more prickling then i usually manage.

You're doing well for yourself though, I'm actually a little stymied and I'm worried that your next post may actually start to state some sort of fact somewhere and counter all of my links and direct quotes. Keep at it!

Download at 43%! Soon i shall be kill zombies!

Deleted to preserve thread.

Many armor materials, when struck with a ballistic projectile, tend to dissipate much of the projectile's kinetic energy by ablating small fragments and particles from the body of the armor itself. At the same time that many of the projectile fragments continue substantially on their original trajectory, another portion of the bullet fragments, as well as a portion of the ablated armor fragments, are reflected back by the hardened component of the armor in a direction substantially opposite to the bullet's original trajectory. This shower of "splashback" fragments can be enhanced by confining the hard material in such a way that fragments ablated from the surface of the armor have no other path of travel other than substantially opposite to the bullet's original trajectory. Ablation, as used in this invention, is defined in the following paragraph. The action of these fragments serves to further erode the bullet into small fragments. Many of these splashback particles and fragments have a velocity component as high as one half of the projectile's velocity at impact. The splashback comprising bullet fragments and ablated armor fragments forms a relatively high-velocity spray of material which serves as one reactive method for incapacitating an assailant.

Ahh, finally! You actually post something worth reading. In skimming over the patent directive I passed that part and it's a pretty interesting design for personal body armor. Unfortunatly it doesn't describe reactive armor in the sense we were discussing, because it's an entirely different item built on different technology and utilising different concepts to stop a different threat. Tanks were already pretty immune to bullets. But yeah, in this sense ablative armor can exist, though those concepts don't scale well.

Ablative armor is only considered as such when the 'ablation' is used to directly oppose the force of the projectile. The 'spreading' of force has nothing to do with it.

Which flies in the face of every other definition of ablative but ok. Patent documents certainly don't have the final word on definitions.

Not really. You chose to consider sand bags as ablative armor. Which is a poor analogy at best. You also provided a definition which isn't consistent with the sources (wikipedia) you have cited. Which betrays an intent to win rather than an intent to learn.

The lose definition I gave fit with all of the wikepedia examples.

Yes, but the detonation isn't significant. The damage to vehicle is negligible to non-existent because it isn't even the explosion that does the work, but the molten metal ejected from the charge. Which only goes in one direction, away from the tank.

However the damage to the paneling and the cost of replacement as well as the shrapnel risk to escourts or civilians makes it a poor armor. There is also the chance of shrapnel damaging more vulnerable portions of the tank like lights and mounted weapons. Either way, it isn't magic one way explosion.

Pre-production. Preparations are made for the shoot, in which cast and crew are hired, locations are selected, and sets are built.
Production. The raw elements for the finished film are recorded

I think I mentioned deep pre production as the tossing around of ideas and the preparation of hires. That would include the interview process and the acceptance of resumes.

Facts? Wikipedia facts? Right.

It's about as good as your patent citation. Which I'll note mentions abative reactive armoring once in a very specific patent design which uses ablation as the form of reaction. The shrapnel from a bullets impact is not equivalent to a panel of explosive designed to detonate on impact and destroy the incoming projectile while redirecting the kinetic force. It follows a similar cause and effect, but that does not make them the same.


Anyway, Zombie killin' time! You should come play, you seem stressed.

Mattlov wrote:

BigToof wrote:

Osbad wrote:Personally I think the issue with Battletech is that it is "very popular" with some people, who love it a *lot*, but it is not "widely popular".

And those people who love the system are usually the ones who already have all the rules, models, etc. Since the game is essentially unchanged since it came out in the 80's, and that's considered to be one of it's strengths, there are no new rules, units, etc. I've heard that the new owners have added in a new faction, but most people still stick with the classics. So while it's very popular, that popularity doesn't necessarily translate into sales.

Seems to translate well enough into them being confident they have the cash and ability to acquire many of WizKids properties...

Could be, I wish them all the success in the world. CBT was my second wargame, right after SJ Games CarWars. However, I've also seen the property change hands a couple of times in recent years, and the system has remained relatively static, so I wonder what's going to drive sales. One of the advantages has always been the low buy in, ie you buy the rules once and your done. However, that doesn't translate well into a continued revenue stream for the owners.

Battletech has a big advantage over 40K and that is a more solid base of fans. 40K has simple rules so that they can get the younger kids to buy with parent money and play. Battletech relies on a constant system that hasn't invalidated itself with rule changes over the course of it's existence.

Hmmmm..... I've seen a LOT more people playing 40k in recent years than Battletech. I agree with you that the two systems have followed differing paths, with Battletech remaining simplier, while 40K has meandered all over the place, and being trimmed, pruned, and shaped from time to time by it's minders.

Battletech is an actual tactical simulation game, where 40K is just a dice game with minis. There is no flanking in 40K, just shooting from a different angle. maneuvering behind an opponent doesn't actually give you an advantage in 40K over shooting them from any other angle. Battletech uses tactics with a decent (not perfect) sense of reality to make an excellent simulation of combat. 40K has more to do with Yahtzee at times than tactical combat.

Now that's just uncalled for. Battletech has it's own share of silly rules, tactical no brainers, and unbalancing effects. I've played both systems, and there's a good deal of tactics in both, otherwise I wouldn't play them. Frankly, I think that since I play Orks 40k has a slight edge when it comes to dice rolling, since I can roll enough dice to count on a statistical mean, while a couple of good or bad rolls can ruin a mech in short order in CBT.

Well, I have lots of Battletech stuff. I have some mechs on my painting desk right now as it happens, dug out of my box of shame. Plenty of books, and I still play ocasionally. I have not bought anything Battletech related in at least 5 years and don't feel any compulsion to do so. It's basically a complete game.

Deleted to preserve thread.

Speaking of sportsclix I was the rage of the entire FLGS when I used a team to battle captain america and the avengers. I managed to beat the captain and then got to 2nd place in the tournament

Why are you two carrying on a pissing match like this in an open forum? If you two really need to see who can out-wit who, just take it to PM. I can hear the lock stomping this way. I mean hey, you folks wanna go at it hammer and tongs over these things thats fine, more power to you. There are worse uses for the internet. But how many people are going to actually read through all that gak you've posted?

Yeah, you're right. I removed everything I felt was unnecessary.

H.B.M.C. wrote:There aren't any flying robots in BattleTech.

LAMs and/or jump jets?

Setting-wise, BT probably is a significant few steps harder than 40k's universe. Unfortunately truly 'hard' settings tend to be boring, so a few deviations from reality are generally allowed. BT tries to make it's exceptions minimal, while 40k revels in them.

Neither option is 'better.'

Balance wrote:LAMs and/or jump jets?

LAMs haven't been part of BTech for well over a decade if not longer (thanks to the whole Harmony Gold issue), and Jump Jets don't make 'Mechs fly. They're just crude plasma jets that push a 'Mech in a direction and (hopefully) slow its fall enough so that it doesn't break when it lands. JJ's are described as brute force vs physics, not flying.

BYE

I, uh, actually kinda liked the LAMs, but part of my attraction to Battletech was the macross thing. Big stompy robots being stompy! Woo-hoo!

It's a good game and hope it continues. In the meantime, I'll pick up some more Mechwarrior stuff cheap to use as 10mm scale battletech (or other sci-fi).

And for people who want 'realistic' scifi gaming, Stargrunt or Dirtside are supposed to be the bee's knees in that regard.

I liked the Macross imports, too. When BT moved away from them, that is when BT became the suck.

Please God, someone make him stop talking...

BYE

Haha, HMBC, you're terrible to poor DD, but he's not all wrong. The Macross and Dougram imports did make some truly cool minis before Battletech got quite so 'hard'... I admit that my experience in Battletech really blossomed during the civil war (even tho I typically preferred being a Kuritan), but the early stuff always seemed pretty rad as well.