11-20-2018, 02:35 PM | #81 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
As I'm looking for away for well-funded TL10 armies to gain some decisive advantage on poorly-funded ones, chameleon and invisibility surfaces look like a good candidate. At TL10, night vision and possibly infrared optics are likely to be widespread, but this won't be true of the hyperspectral optics needed to defeat the best TL10 camo. Somewhat oddly, invisibility surfaces are slightly superior vs. normal and infrared vision, but lose their effectiveness entirely vs. hyperspectral vision. Chameleon surfaces degrade more gracefully against advanced optics.
|
11-20-2018, 03:12 PM | #82 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
Eh, depends on targets. The savings from smart might be eaten up by harder targets.
|
11-20-2018, 03:38 PM | #83 | |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
Quote:
Big warheads, with their big fragmentation damage, might be popular as antipersonnel weapons though, as a counter for nanoweave tacsuits. |
|
11-20-2018, 03:51 PM | #84 | |||
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
Quote:
If UT infantry adopt a practice of staying on their feet in the face of bombardment because it's actually safer, there might be an appeal to non-parachute (or rather minimal parachute, since HEAT needs it to orient) beehive-style rounds that might have trouble spreading as far but will scythe in at a lower angle. Quote:
Quote:
Are there no fixed position at all in UT combat? If so, humans will be unable to survive it psychologically for long. Also, you'll be unable to site effective anti-air, anti-space, or long-range anti-missile weapon systems, all of which require either fixed positions or large carrier vehicles.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|||
11-20-2018, 03:52 PM | #85 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
One thing that's useful to note: Ultra-Tech indicates electromagnetic armor has a certain minimum thickness. It's vague on what that thickness is, but the thinnest electromagnetic armor we have is 150/100 on the heavy battlesuit. The commando battlesuit, with DR 105/75, is apparently too thin. Based on that, I suspect a popular approach for "light armor" is going to involve ~120 DR (electromagnetic). Won't protect against a direct hit from a HEAT grenade, but will keep you safe from gyrocs and gattling lasers. Sadly, we have no examples of vehicles designed to that spec.
|
11-20-2018, 04:49 PM | #86 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
You can only have tailored anti-material chemicals for materials that possess such weaknesses. The specific chemical reactions that metal embrittlement agents use are not entirely understood, but are specific to metals.
|
11-20-2018, 05:36 PM | #87 | |
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
Quote:
Anything you can't move does indeed end up being a "fixed" position but given the 32 mile range of the Hunter missile you have to maintain probably multiple layers of mobile forces to hunt down hostiles before they can launch such weapons. There's also the "high ground" i.e. orbit to consider and it will be extremely difficult to maintain fixed ground bases after you've lost the fight for orbital control.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
11-20-2018, 06:09 PM | #88 | |||
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
Quote:
Guns firing cluster munitions, or longer-range cruise missile launchers, can be used in exactly the same place, but should deliver much more bang for the buck due to scaling benefits. Obviously the downside is that the guns themselves are larger and more valuable targets than a small missile carrier might be, but they have more standoff range. Quote:
Hunter missiles aren't terribly powerful, either. They've got less than 4 pound warheads, extrapolating from the basic hand grenade. It's plenty to kill land vehicles using HEAT and guidance smart enough to target vulnerable areas, but it's on the small side against larger targets. Quote:
(The viability of those installations depends mostly on whether they can be protected against over-the-horizon kinetic strikes.)
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|||
11-20-2018, 06:44 PM | #89 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
FTR Ultra-Tech fluff seems mixed on the role of metal at TL10. Metal seems to go away as a material for armor—even as part of laminate—but the holdout laser makes a big deal of the fact that it can get through metal detectors, which suggests weapons with no metal components are unusual (not just for slugthrowers but also lasers). Gas guns can be non-metallic for 1.5x price, which reinforces the idea that non-metallic weapons are unusual, though that's for TL9.
|
11-20-2018, 06:46 PM | #90 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Ultra-Tech] What does the TL10 battlefield look like
Question for Ulzgoroth: if fixed positions are crucial, what do they look like?
|
|
|