Project Knight [Mecha Design Bureau]

[Lohjak]

Spinal Mount, Front Hull. Yes that is exactly what that combination says. You are quite literally doing just that, and it will take an idiot to not want to shoot at it.

Congratulations the pilot lives but the mech failed to do its job. With the engine out in front one doesn't need to shoot a hole into the mech which also means that nice ejection system won't activate because it doesn't have power. Congratulations you just trapped the pilot in a metal coffin.

Click to shrink...

Where did I vote for spinal mount? Did I not explicitly mention Internal mount multiple times? Internal mount is 14 to spinal mounts 5, why would you even consider the possibility of anything other than interior?

And what kind of godawful ejection system relies on the mech's power plant?

A front mounted engine leaves the center hull free for other systems and improves pilot survival rates. Any shot that can destroy the engine would be able to turn the pilot into people juice. There's just no good reason not to do it, aside from a central mount being easier to engineer. Which isn't nothing, but it's clearly a much less useful bonus than our mech having better pilot protection.

 

[TerrisH]

Eh, It depends on your logistical situation. f the pilot survives, they can catch a ride back to base, Hop in a new mech and get out to sthe frontline again without breaking a sweat. That was part of teh reason why the Sherman tanks and western tanks in general put so much into crew survivability, Because if you have the crew and the tank suffers a failure, and teh crew is alive, they can be back on teh frontline in a matter of hours, compared to trying to fix a Mech up and get a new pilot.

If the Engines fucked and the pilots alive, The pilot can get a new mech and the old one head sto the shop, If the engine is fine and the pilot is dead, You still need to recover and wash out the old pilot and fix the damage, and then wait for a new pilot.

Of course, this philosophy of design requires you have a steady supply of tanks, like allied powers did in ww2, but considering the price tag and simplicity, its not unreasonable for our wealthier customers to manage something similar.
Once you hit Battletech levels of "This is fucking expensive to fix" Then you Let the squishy meat bite it, but in general the pilot is the more combat important part for a war.

of course, For tanks its an entire well trained crew with teamwork, For mechs i'm not sure if we are working in crews or if the quad is single pilot, so that might change the math.

Click to shrink...

Honestly, I would much rather just use the space in the frount to hold armor instead of the engine. which will do the job better and not mission kill the tank if hit.

 

[Lohjak]

Honestly, I would much rather just use the space in the frount to hold armor instead of the engine. which will do the job better and not mission kill the tank if hit.

Click to shrink...

Would an internal engine mount conflict with external armor plates? I'd expect the turret to be the problem if anything.

Is internal armor mounting an option?

 

[Jalinth]

Spinal Mount, Front Hull. Yes that is exactly what that combination says. You are quite literally doing just that, and it will take an idiot to not want to shoot at it.

Congratulations the pilot lives but the mech failed to do its job. With the engine out in front one doesn't need to shoot a hole into the mech which also means that nice ejection system won't activate because it doesn't have power. Congratulations you just trapped the pilot in a metal coffin.

Click to shrink...

I'm the one going for Spinal Mount, Front Hull. Your fixation on how the front engine will mean the mech is more dead then if it wasn't giving the pilot extra ablative mass is baffling. I really don't understand it. If the more expensive pilot ends up dead... the mech ALSO failed to do it's job. In a more serious way then if it just lost the engine. The bloody engine is still going to be behind a great deal of armour. In the front that is where the heaviest armour is on pretty much all armoured vehicles.

There are plenty of examples of front mounted engines in the real world. They have their trade offs but real world militaries with plenty of combat experience have elected to choose the front mount. I am being careful of going into detail because I don't want to get dinged for talking about some ongoing conflicts.

If we selected the Micro-Fission Reactor with the [Volatile] disadvantage then I'd be suggesting something else. But since literally one person voted for it that isn't a concern now, is it?

If you are dumb enough to not put in backup power for critical things like an ejection seat then well... I don't know how you made a mech in the first place. There are these things called batteries that you can put next to important things to provide stand alone backup power. Furthermore most ejection seats are mechanical devices that use explosives to blow off the top and send the pilot out on rockets. They work just fine without power.

 

[DecaffeinatedOwl]

Is internal armor mounting an option?

Click to shrink...

As a more all-or-nothing scheme?

Maybe? We don't have to access any of the components from the inside--the guns have autoloaders and everything else can be accessed through maintenance hatches on the outside.

RE: ejection seats, Brushfire doesn't need them anyway--it's never going to be so far off the ground the pilot needs a parachute (we're not exactly putting jump jets on this thing), and nothing on it is so explosive it can't be handled with blowout panels and extinguishers.

 

[Lohjak]

As a more all-or-nothing scheme?

Maybe? We don't have to access any of the components from the inside--the guns have autoloaders and everything else can be accessed through maintenance hatches on the outside.

Click to shrink...

I was asking because someone was suggesting using space that could've been an engine in the front for armor instead, which only works if we're allowed to put armor there.

Personally I favor sticking an engine there and strapping as much armor to the front as is practical, since if the enemy isn't in our frontal arc the mech is helpless anyways. The turret might interfere with armor, I guess?

The description for the mount doesn't mention armor though. What it does mention is that it'll be difficult to mount the cockpit there:

[Nose Mounted]
A turret placed on the Mech's nose will be optimally positioned for accurate fire on the forward arc. Additionally, it should have the greatest arc of fire both vertically and horizontally of our options, and allow for greater air cooling. On the flipside, it will take up the most space in the frontal hull, which may become problematic if we decide to place the cockpit there later.[+0.33] Rate of Fire, [+0.33] Weapons Control, [+0.33] Heat Management
[-1] Penalty on rolls for building cockpit in frontal hull.

Click to shrink...

If this vote is anything to go by the rear is an even worse place to put any additional systems, so we'll probably end up with a central cockpit.

 

[CuriousRaptor]

[X] [Engine Tech] Model 1 Power-Cell Engine (In-House Build)
[X] [Engine Tech] YT-22 Petchem Engine (Eurasian Khanate)

Other engines all torpedo heat, and most of them torpedo tech and material too and in general. Can't really afford that.
[X] [Engine Mounting] Spine Mount
[X] [Engine Mounting] Interior Mount

Spine boost Power control and heat management, which we want for the SCC. Interior gives us a minor hit build and repair speed in exchange for making this engine a really pain in the ass to hit and thus giving the design added longevity in conflict. Either one is good imo.

[X] [Engine Placement] Central Hull
[X] [Engine Placement] Rear Hull

Central boost power control in exchange for heat. As long as we add something to deal with heat build up in the accessories category? Not a big deal.

Rear is congested and might be an issue with fitting it all, but if we manage we consolidate all the weak points into one area, which means we can defend accordingly. Either is fine imo, though i prefer central.

 

[Andres Marrero]

Where did I vote for spinal mount? Did I not explicitly mention Internal mount multiple times? Internal mount is 14 to spinal mounts 5, why would you even consider the possibility of anything other than interior?

And what kind of godawful ejection system relies on the mech's power plant?

A front mounted engine leaves the center hull free for other systems and improves pilot survival rates. Any shot that can destroy the engine would be able to turn the pilot into people juice. There's just no good reason not to do it, aside from a central mount being easier to engineer. Which isn't nothing, but it's clearly a much less useful bonus than our mech having better pilot protection.

Click to shrink...

The other other one voted for that combination. Internally it isn't much better because you are still putting the engine to the front where it is most likely to be shot and in turn destroyed. Now putting the engine in the center hull with a spinal mount moves the engine away from the expected danger zone while increasing the efficiency of the system. It is a lot better than the front or rear.

Nearly every injection system, just like every system requires power. The engine is the source of that power, without it the ejection system will not function. You really don't want the power to go dark before the pilot is ejected.

The center hull will still be largely free because there isn't much in that area. If the engine goes down so down so does all the systems so you aren't protecting the pilot. If you want to protect the pilot put armor and shock absorbers there instead. They will do a much better job at absorbing the impact then something vital like the engine.

 

[Lohjak]

The other other one voted for that combination. Internally it isn't much better because you are still putting the engine to the front where it is most likely to be shot and in turn destroyed. Now putting the engine in the center hull with a spinal mount moves the engine away from the expected danger zone while increasing the efficiency of the system. It is a lot better than the front or rear.

Nearly every injection system, just like every system requires power. The engine is the source of that power, without it the ejection system will not function. You really don't want the power to go dark before the pilot is ejected.

The center hull will still be largely free because there isn't much in that area. If the engine goes down so down so does all the systems so you aren't protecting the pilot. If you want to protect the pilot put armor and shock absorbers there instead. They will do a much better job at absorbing the impact then something vital like the engine.

Click to shrink...

This mech is not especially large, and we have no reason to expect that it'll survive a penetrating hit. The only reason to centrally place the engine is that it's the easiest option to engineer. Internal explicitly gives a bonus to component protection, and none of our systems should be especially hot or power hungry.

And how do you think ejection systems or any failsafe system works? An ejection system that only functions when connected to the power plant of the mech it's ejecting from is worthless.

The only convincing argument against a front mounted engine, particularly an internally mounted one, is that it's harder to engineer. A big, dense engine block is a great bit of secondary armor to keep the pilot alive in the event of a penetrating hit, which is why it provides a mechanical bonus to pilot protection. The bonus to component protection from an internal mount counteracts the vulnerability of a front mounted engine.

And then we leave a giant chunk of space in the center for pilot systems or whatever else we want. I think the mech will probably be fine with a center mount, but front mount has way more benefits.

 

[frostgiant]

Honestly, I would much rather just use the space in the frount to hold armor instead of the engine. which will do the job better and not mission kill the tank if hit.

Click to shrink...

That only works if we have just the engine and cockpit to put in the tank, Given the mention of subsystems, That is probably not true. The basic problem with Vehicle design is that you kinda have a limited amount of space, so you have to arrange the stuff in that space to cover as many diffrent use cases as possible. SHOULD a engine be what is tanking the shots? no, Would you rather have more internal armour for that? Yes.

but the problem is that the engine taking the hit is better then the crew, and the internal armour which can tank the hit better then the armour unfortunately can't run the tank.

 

[TerrisH]

Why do you want to use the engine as armor, when we can use ACTUAL ARMOR instead, protecting both the pilot and the engine, and do a MUCH better job at it.
Which we won't be able to do if we use up all the space in the front putting the engine there.
You're voting to make our engine worse (the most critical system in the mecha besides the cockpit), for a very minor improvement to pilot protection that can easily be done much better at a later stage when we're allocating armor.

 

[Lohjak]

Why do you want to use the engine as armor, when we can use ACTUAL ARMOR instead, protecting both the pilot and the engine, and do a MUCH better job at it.
Which we won't be able to do if we use up all the space in the front putting the engine there.
You're voting to make our engine worse (the most critical system in the mecha besides the cockpit), for a very minor improvement to pilot protection that can easily be done much better at a later stage when we're allocating armor.

Click to shrink...

Has there been any mention of internal armor? All I've seen is external armor, which won't be affected regardless.

And how does this make the engine worse, anyhow? We've put in zero energy weapons, jump jets, or any system that seems even remotely high power.

Engines are giant, dense blocks of metal. Putting them between our cockpit and our enemies is just good sense. It's not like the mech will function without either, but a pilot is a lot harder to produce than an engine.

 

[TerrisH]

Has there been any mention of internal armor? All I've seen is external armor, which won't be affected regardless.

And how does this make the engine worse, anyhow? We've put in zero energy weapons, jump jets, or any system that seems even remotely high power.

Engines are giant, dense blocks of metal. Putting them between our cockpit and our enemies is just good sense. It's not like the mech will function without either, but a pilot is a lot harder to produce than an engine.

Click to shrink...

[Tight] -1 to all dice rolls to install the engine due to existing components in this location. -2 if Engine Type is Bulky.

Click to shrink...

Yes, the front mount will make our engines worse. it's outright stated in the update. rear mount is twice as bad. a 5% higher chance (10% if the engine is bulky) of getting a worse result is not a small thing. It's just not worth a slightly better pilot portection when we can get it
(and don't make the excuse of internally mount offsetting that, the penalty is still there. Without it, we would have a better chance of a better engine)

Yes, protecting the pilot is more important then protecting the engine. that's no excuse for deliberately exposing the engine to damage and making it work worse. Especially when there are much better alternatives to accomplishing the task or protecting the pilot (IE, add armor, be it internal or external).

Internal armor:
It's armor. what reason could prevent us from installing layers of solid metal in internal voids of the mecha, for better protection?(might not be the best armor, but it's still armor) Outside of arbitrary game mechanics that the GM has not even hinted at so far? Even if we cant, more external armor on the frount is STILL better then putting the engine in the frount section.

 

[Redhead222]

[X] [Engine Tech] Model 1 Power-Cell Engine (In-House Build)
[X] [Engine Mounting] Interior Mount
[X] [Engine Placement] Frontal Hull

More of this kiss stuff tnx. Looking forward too armor and the end product

 

[Lohjak]

Yes, the front mount will make our engines worse. it's outright stated in the update. rear mount is twice as bad. a 5% higher chance (10% if the engine is bulky) of getting a worse result is not a small thing. It's just not worth a slightly better pilot portection when we can get it
(and don't make the excuse of internally mount offsetting that, the penalty is still there. Without it, we would have a better chance of a better engine)

Click to shrink...

It's a 0% chance because internal is going to win. It's literally the same as if we just had no malus, so it's fine, and in return for a marginally harder engineering roll we get improved pilot and component protection. I mean, I think we probably shouldn't get component protection since the engine is a critical component, but mechanically speaking it's a bonus.

Yes, protecting the pilot is more important then protecting the engine. that's no excuse for deliberately exposing the engine to damage and making it work worse. Especially when there are much better alternatives to accomplishing the task or protecting the pilot (IE, add armor, be it internal or external).

Click to shrink...

How is it being "deliberately exposed"? Internal mounting is basically guaranteed to win. The engine will sit behind armor no matter where we put it.

Internal armor:
It's armor. what reason could prevent us from installing layers of solid metal in internal voids of the mecha, for better protection?(might not be the best armor, but it's still armor) Outside of arbitrary game mechanics that the GM has not even hinted at so far? Even if we cant, more external armor on the frount is STILL better then putting the engine in the frount section.

Click to shrink...

We took the small chassis, and we already know that one system in one location is enough to make it hard to fit more things there. Why would you assume that we can fit the engine, cockpit, other miscellaneous systems and a meaningful amount of armor in?

 

[Andres Marrero]

Why do you want to use the engine as armor, when we can use ACTUAL ARMOR instead, protecting both the pilot and the engine, and do a MUCH better job at it.
Which we won't be able to do if we use up all the space in the front putting the engine there.
You're voting to make our engine worse (the most critical system in the mecha besides the cockpit), for a very minor improvement to pilot protection that can easily be done much better at a later stage when we're allocating armor.

Click to shrink...

That's what I have been trying to tell them but I have had zero success in convincing them that the mech needs to be able to take hits and still function not just protect the pilot. No one wants to buy a mech that can't do its primary job even if it ensures pilot survivability.

 

[Lohjak]

That's what I have been trying to tell them but I have had zero success in convincing them that the mech needs to be able to take hits and still function not just protect the pilot. No one wants to buy a mech that can't do its primary job even if it ensures pilot survivability.

Click to shrink...

Expecting the mech to survive taking hits to the internals doesn't make any sense. Unless we have like, battletech reinforced structure tier internals (we have a E+ in skeleton durability, we don't have that) any weapon that goes internal is going to cause catastrophic damage to important systems. You seem to be arguing for a central mounting on the premise that somehow, the engine will survive for longer if there's other systems like the cockpit or other miscellaneous systems between it and weapons fire, but I can't imagine any other system will have the durability of an engine block, and the mech can't fight without sensors or computers or a pilot anyways.

So like, are you voting for central and hoping that we'll be able to fill our precious internal volume with armor? That's the only way an internally mounted engine could be better protected.

 

[DecaffeinatedOwl]

Why do you want to use the engine as armor, when we can use ACTUAL ARMOR instead, protecting both the pilot and the engine, and do a MUCH better job at it.

Click to shrink...

That's what I have been trying to tell them but I have had zero success in convincing them that the mech needs to be able to take hits and still function not just protect the pilot. No one wants to buy a mech that can't do its primary job even if it ensures pilot survivability.

Click to shrink...

Where the engine ends up is entirely incidental to where the armor is going to end up. We're not going to weaken the armor on the frontal aspect just because the engine's there--we expect to be taking fire from the front and we want the mech to survive to fight back.

When that armor is inevitably penetrated--and it will happen eventually--that's when the placement of the engine is going to tell, because the choice then is that either the engine is destroyed and the mech is mission-killed, or the pilot is killed and the mech is mission-killed. And also the engine, because the pilot is not a solid chunk of metal that would stop the round that penetrated the armor.

EDIT: Like, I just don't understand where the idea is coming from that the engine being up front is making it and the mech more vulnerable, when it's going to be mounted internally behind the main armor belt and is itself the most solidly constructed internal component we're likely to use.

 

[QuarkBeast]

-sigh- at the risk of talking past each other.

How is the Engine going to take damage until the armor is breached?

The heaviest armor is going to go on the front as that is the most likely spot to be shot at, doesn't matter where any internal are placed.

Armour fails catastrophically, either it works and protects the internals or it fails and whatever internal are behind it get hit.

So an enemy armour penetrating shot is most likely to come from the front, puncture the armour, then destroy the 1st internal (prob the turrets internal mechanisms), then second internal (either engine or cockpit), then third internal (either cockpit or engine).

By putting the engine in front HOPEFULLY the AP round will have spent its energy on the heavy lump of metal that is the engine rather than the pilot who... probably wouldn't save the engine if it was behind them anyway.

 

[Andres Marrero]

Expecting the mech to survive taking hits to the internals doesn't make any sense. Unless we have like, battletech reinforced structure tier internals (we have a E+ in skeleton durability, we don't have that) any weapon that goes internal is going to cause catastrophic damage to important systems. You seem to be arguing for a central mounting on the premise that somehow, the engine will survive for longer if there's other systems like the cockpit or other miscellaneous systems between it and weapons fire, but I can't imagine any other system will have the durability of an engine block, and the mech can't fight without sensors or computers or a pilot anyways.

So like, are you voting for central and hoping that we'll be able to fill our precious internal volume with armor? That's the only way an internally mounted engine could be better protected.

Click to shrink...

Its called redundant systems and yes I do expect a mech intended as a defender to take hits and continue to operate once the outer armor is stripped away. By having the engine in the center hull it removes one of the most valuable peices of a mech away from direct line of fire and that same space we can put shock absorbers which will do the job of safeguarding the pilot much better. A measly +1 to pilot protection isn't worth the maluses of putting the engine there due to being too cramped (a poorly implemented engine is just straight up a bad engine system), higher chances of the mech being mission killed before it can fully do its job, and potential feedback frying the pilot's brain.

If you want to protect the pilot choose something else that is better able to do that and is responsible for making the device able to function.

By putting the engine in front HOPEFULLY the AP round will have spent its energy on the heavy lump of metal that is the engine rather than the pilot who... probably wouldn't save the engine if it was behind them anyway.

Click to shrink...

Its really simple. Why put something so valuable in the area expected to be taking the most damage and where we will suffer constant penalties to its implementation when we can put redundant safety systems instead? Stuff like shock absorbers and redundant backups or slanted internal plates would do a much better job at absorbing that hit than an engine. We have an area that practically gives us no downsides and is outside the expected damage area so there isn't a reason to put it in the front for a minor gain when something else can do a better job.

 

[IndustrialVice2]

[X] [Engine Tech] Model 1 Power-Cell Engine (In-House Build)
[X] [Engine Tech] YT-22 Petchem Engine (Eurasian Khanate)
[X] [Engine Mounting] Interior Mount
[X] [Engine Placement] Frontal Hull

 

[QuarkBeast]

Its really simple. Why put something so valuable in the area expected to be taking the most damage and where we will suffer constant penalties to its implementation when we can put redundant safety systems instead? Stuff like shock absorbers and redundant backups or slanted internal plates would do a much better job at absorbing that hit than an engine. We have an area that practically gives us no downsides and is outside the expected damage area so there isn't a reason to put it in the front for a minor gain when something else can do a better job.

Click to shrink...

Ahh assumptions, you are assuming that the internal volume of the mech is large enough that there is enough room for the energy of incoming fire to disperse before it reaches another section of the mech.

I dont.

I think anything that breaches the mechs armor will kill the mech, unless specifically armored against it.

you could invest tonnage armoring the firewalls that divide the sections of the mech but that begs the question of why haven't you put that armor on the outside of the mech where it can do the most good and then just put more stuff in between the pilot and the most common attack vector the front?

 

[Amperstand]

[X] [Engine Tech] SI-2 Petchem XL Engine (Worker's Union of Bharat)
[X] [Engine Mounting] Spine Mount
[X] [Engine Placement] Frontal Hull

 

[Lohjak]

Its called redundant systems and yes I do expect a mech intended as a defender to take hits and continue to operate once the outer armor is stripped away. By having the engine in the center hull it removes one of the most valuable peices of a mech away from direct line of fire and that same space we can put shock absorbers which will do the job of safeguarding the pilot much better. A measly +1 to pilot protection isn't worth the maluses of putting the engine there due to being too cramped (a poorly implemented engine is just straight up a bad engine system), higher chances of the mech being mission killed before it can fully do its job, and potential feedback frying the pilot's brain.

If you want to protect the pilot choose something else that is better able to do that and is responsible for making the device able to function.

Click to shrink...

What do you mean, outer armor? We're not building a pacific rim jaeger here. This entire mech will probably fit into a modern-day semitruck trailer if it's crouching. In fact, if you strip the weapons and maybe the turret you can probably fit two of them in. This thing is going to be smaller than even a modern day MBT. We're not going to fit multiple armored citadels in this thing.

Like, for reference:

Vehicle	Height	Width	Length
Project Bushfire	4.21 (Standing)	2.96	8.46
M1 Abrams	2.44	3.66	9.77
Ford F150	2	2	6

It's a miracle that we've even managed to stick a 152mm cannon on this thing. There's no room for redundant systems (leaving aside what you expect to be redundant--we can hardly fit a second cockpit), we're already cutting it close with our ammo storage. Any penetrating hit is absolutely going to shred the internals, unless it encounters the giant block of metal that is an engine.

 

[DecaffeinatedOwl]

Ahh assumptions, you are assuming that the internal volume of the mech is large enough that there is enough room for the energy of incoming fire to disperse before it reaches another section of the mech.

I dont.

Click to shrink...

To add to this, sea ships are big enough that this can be true, because they need the extra volume to stay buoyant anyway. Ground vehicles don't get that--every bit of empty air is paid for with more armor stretched over that space, more weight that must be borne on bigger suspensions and moved with stronger engines through stronger transmissions. Space is very dear.