Vehicles?

Pages: 1
Dester
01/31/08 04:48 PM
216.57.96.1

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ok, I have and use the old orignal CityTech boxed set and book for my Vehicle hit charts. After using the Maximum Tech Vehichle hit charts at Gen con last fall (2007) I just couldn't help but think that the author had it out for vehicles.

I personally have no problem with them, they are usually cheap, effective and readily available when compaired to battlemechs. When used correctly they can form a powerfull unit on the battlefield.

I think so many people disreguard vehicles along with infantry, yes the unarmored type and give the battlemech such an aura of invulnerability.

Am I wrong in my assumptions? Do you use vehicles? If so in what rolls do you like to use them?

I would also be interested to know if anyone else was at Gen Con 2007 thursday morrning at 8am when we started a really fun battle that Vehicles, though not very numerous, took a fairly important part in.

Dester
Christopher_Perkins
01/31/08 08:20 PM
67.166.179.76

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
BattleTech is a Mech Centric Game, and the original PTB made no bones about Vehicles, Artillery, Infantry, and Space Craft being Supporting Arms.

the Advanced / Experimental rules published in Maximum Tech brought a little bit more combat effectiveness to vehciles, but i am unsure if they are even close to what they could be in a much less Mech Centric Universe.
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Greyslayer
03/08/08 07:55 PM
216.14.198.50

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
MaxTech overpowered Vechiles, and bogged vehicle control down to so many pages on movement the getting to firing phase ended up being a chore (turning circles etc).

Recent rules for Tourney play for vechicles make them somewhat easier to immobilise but far more survivable. So in a campaign the rules are worse if you are running vehicles but in a tourney battle they became bunkers fairly quickly but at least you can still use them.

Under the old rules I've fielded entire vehicle/battle armour armies under the BV1 system. The firepower you can field from a relatively cheap chasis is excellent especially when you do not even have to see the enemy from your more expensive units to nail them (i.e LRM tanks).
Karagin
03/31/08 06:42 AM
24.26.220.4

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Vehicles are the red headed step children of the game. They are fragile and poorly handled in the game.

Some of the stuff out of MaxTech and newer rules do make an attempt to change things but it's a case of too little too late.

It's not that many of us are disregardful of the vehicles and the infantry, it's more of a case of been there done used them and found them lacking.

Many of us have changed the way vehicles are used, be it a new critical hit table, to allowing extra stuff that is missing from vehicles, ie smoke dischargers, to how we actually use them.

Take a look on the design board here as well other sites like Rick's Heavy Metal Pro and Mordel's website, you will see that many of us have gone to lengths to improve vehicles and even use them differently then most.

Also with the advent of the support vehicle rules, you can now build many non-military vehicles, while I think the support and combat vehicle rules should be merged into one overall rule set, along with the better to hit tables of Maxtech, many don't agree with this and others don't care since to them the bottom line is mechs are the king of the game and all else is second place or last place.

I like to use them as skirmishers, fire support, flankers and city defenses as well as hit and run type of units and if I am in a battle where it's mechs vs vehicles then I do all I can to combine their firepower one to one target in order to bring it down.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Christopher_Perkins
05/17/08 03:04 AM
24.125.201.167

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Me, i'd prefer that the Combat Vehicle rules got discarded and rolled into the SUV rules as Options for the "Combat Vehcile Chassis" option like there is an SUV Option for "Armoured Vehicle Chassis" as well as any other things that have better preformance in a CV than SUV... End result would be the same, but it woudl only need to be coded once rather than having two different design paths...

The CV rules are not detailed enough...
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/12/08 02:20 PM
72.58.171.148

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If you have seen any of my posts you would know that I am very pro vehicles
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Newtype
10/14/08 02:08 PM
75.52.182.110

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Maximum Tech did not overpower vehicles. One location destroyed on a vehicle and it's out of use. The BV system can account for multiple crew personnel negating multiple target and vehicle attacker movement modifiers. I'd prefer that the turn mode rules in Maximum Tech be included in Total Warfare to make driving skills more worthwhile. In theory indirect firing LRM tanks can be countered by staying out of range and taking out their cover (hills, woods, jungle, and/or buildings).
http://www.gp.org
http://www.VoteSwift.org
DOWN WITH CORPORATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Venom
11/01/08 04:40 AM
12.217.215.95

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I recently began using them again in a lvl 1 merc command. 4 'mechs, 2 LRM carriers, 2 saladins, two custom VTOL troop transport/inferno launchers and two platoons of infantry. If you know how to use them, vehicles and infantry can be quite deadly.
Zandel_Corrin
11/05/08 10:23 PM
123.2.140.247

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
There is a reason that combined arms tactics overpowed the clans in the cannon.....

for the same BV you can field so much more.... and they can be deadly...

LRM tanks with special ammo can lay minefields or smoke to funnel enemy movement...

at close range infantry are deadly plain and simple... even more so with double blind rules

mechs with the right vehicle and infantry support are all powerful...

mechs on there own can get trapped by combined arms forces quite easily but once again it all come down to using them effectively.... even if this means spending half the game just lying in wait
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
Kovax
11/18/08 11:00 AM
75.146.193.46

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
While a vehicle CAN compete with a Mech under the right terrain circumstances (especially if you base the comparison on cost), the Mech will be at least competitive under almost ANY circumstance. It is the unique flexibility of Mechs which make them the king of the battlefield, at least as much as their resilience and concentrated firepower.

Normally, if playing by tonnage, we figure vehicles at 80% of their actual weight, which is just enough to make them viable under the right circumstances. BV works passably well to balance the scenario between Mechs and vehicles if you don't abuse it. Basing forces on C-Bill cost gives the vehicles a considerable advantage, especially in favorable terrain, if played properly.

Skewing the gunnery skills upward definitely favors the more durable heavier Mechs, and renders lighter Mechs and vehicles far less survivable due to the lessened effectiveness of speed modifiers. Put a 2/3 Mechwarrior in a cockpit of a well-armed Heavy or Assault Mech and that fast hovertank or blazingly quick Light Mech is as good as dead. Against a Regular 4/5 pilot, it's got a chance of avoiding most of the hits.

I've faced far too many inept commanders who dismiss vehicles and infantry as "worthless garbage", and send them on pointless unsupported suicide assaults, rather than use them for their specific strengths. Those same commanders are usually the ones who also toss their recon and specialty Mechs into frontal assaults on a battle line, and then complain because their wonderful Assault Mech can't win the battle single-handedly.

I'm especially fond of sending fast recon vehicles to outflank an enemy position as my main force approaches from the front. The opposing commander is faced with the option of either reducing his main line in order to deal with the threat to his rear, or ignoring the backshots and harrassing fire while my main force holds and waits for the right opportunity to attack.

Supporting the main line with a couple of long-range support vehicles from a safe distance also works well. The opponent is again left with a poor choice, this time between taking difficult shots at a fragile but heavily armed vehicle, or easier shots at a more resilient Mech. Meanwhile, both are shooting at him.

The venerable 3026 Saracen hovertank fills both roles admirably well, especially if you mix one Saladin hovertank into a lance for the potential threat of an AC/20 shot to the back. Usually, the opponent will react aggressively to the prospect of getting his favorite oversized "ubermech" backshot, leaving my main attack free to advance against a weakened defense. Meanwhile, the speedy hovertanks have the weaponry to deliver effective fire from a safe range, enough armor to take a stray hit, and the mobility to leave their pursuers behind and out of position if outgunned.
Newtype
11/22/08 12:00 PM
207.160.205.13

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
At first I did think that Maximum Tech and later TW made conventional vehicles overpowered when I read the Driver Critical Hit (less driving ability, less BV). But then I realized it might not be so good if opponent's mapsheet has swamp hexes vehicles could get stuck in or contained on vehicle player's mapsheets.
http://www.gp.org
http://www.VoteSwift.org
DOWN WITH CORPORATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LAMdriver
06/12/09 06:49 AM
64.147.209.78

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply


Vechicles IMHO are VERY under used commodity in CBT. I use vechiles for just about anything.

A favorite tactic that i have used to great sucess is to use fast hover recon vehicles or VTOLs to lure mechs into bottle necks and then nuke them with the Main Battle Tanks (MBT) that are hidden on the other side of the bottle necks.

Some of the vehicles are as just as deadly as a mech of the same tonnage. For example, the Alcorn IV MBT with its THREE Gauss rifles can kill most light and medium mechs in the first round. Add to this the Yellowjacket VTOL and a couple LRM carriers and most assualt class mech would have troble getting out of a jam like this.

Despite the fact of weapon lay out of vehicles of being on par with some mechs, you still have the cost of the vechicles themselves. You can probably get a lance of MBT for the cost of a medium mech ( I don't have the price lists for vehicles or Mech but I am guessing here!)
" The object of war is not to die for your country. It's to make some other bastard die for his!"--Patton

""War is Hell. Combat is a motherfucker."---General Tommy Franks
Xeriv
12/29/09 02:59 AM
98.23.102.39

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I have to agree with Kovax about the skill thing. I remember the first time me and my friends tried to play a game with some vehicles. We had a very crude way of deciding forces for a balanced game. (Basically roll a die for weight, and roll another die for skill.) I ended up with a bunch of veteran light mechs, and a friend of mine ended up with a bunch of green/regular assault vehicles. As I charged in with my light mechs I practically prayed for divine intervention every time my friend made the role for something like an AC20, but I managed to stay relatively safe for a couple of turns except for a slow Panther that was torn apart on turn 1. Then I started getting those nasty critical hits that vehicles have and a couple of ammo explosions later, I had won.

However, since then I've used and had vehicles used against me with great effect, but mainly in a supporting roles. I've seen them most effectively used as light flanking forces and to a lesser extent as fire support. But I wouldn't be surprised to see someone use them for other purposes.

I might be wrong, but it seems to me like mechs are better for being shot at. Critical hits are harder to come by and usually more forgiving, and there are more areas to spread the damage to.
Karagin
12/29/09 10:15 AM
72.178.75.99

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You are right, mechs are king in Battletech, vehicles are the red headed stepchildren.

Should it be that way? No, but that is how it is. With the new Support Vehicle constrution rules out, things do get better, but given that with these rules you can build vehicles that cover a wider range of tonnages then the combat vehicle rules allow you can end up with some oddities that blur the rule sets.

I am all for having the detailed rules of the Support Vehicles, but not at the loss of combat vehicle rules. So my suggestion has been for TPTB to combine the two into one concession rule set that gives us the ability to build vehicles in a detailed fashion covering all levels without the need to have two rule sets and thus ending any and all confusion.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
OPER_DANG
01/20/10 04:26 PM
70.61.114.174

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I guess it goes without saying that the whole original pretext of Battletech is fighting the Battle Mech, vehicles were included to add depth and keep it interesting, maybe as targets that can shoot back, but people have had fun with, and been effective with vehicles in many roles and scenarios. And you might even say it would be better to be given a Bulldog tank rather than a Scorpion in 3050, but in general its a wargame fantasy for "driving" the giant robos.

Thats got me wondering, is there an effective defense or counter-attack to the dreaded Savanah Master Swarm? I'm starting to get ideas, of course sticking close to cover/elevation changes with a jump-capable mech might be helpful...
Anyone care to share experience or theories?
Prince_of_Darkness
01/21/10 09:39 PM
205.202.120.216

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Thats got me wondering, is there an effective defense or counter-attack to the dreaded Savanah Master Swarm? I'm starting to get ideas, of course sticking close to cover/elevation changes with a jump-capable mech might be helpful...
Anyone care to share experience or theories?




Pulse lasers are a key part of it, as are Targeting Computers.

If'n you don't have those, get on something that hovertanks cant reach- heavy woods and mountain tops especially- to give yourself some space while you pick em' off.

That's the best I can think of.
Zandel_Corrin
01/21/10 11:15 PM
123.2.140.247

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Inferno SSRMS..... nuff Said.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
Karagin
01/22/10 12:19 AM
80.156.183.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
SRMs and LB-Xs.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Flameblade
01/22/10 10:38 AM
65.5.60.254

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Artillery.
To hit numbers are much easier. Swarming means you'll get plenty of hits in on just one inbound shell. They SM scatter to prevent mass damage from one or two shells.

LB-X and pulse lasers for my mechs...
Pages: 1
Extra information
0 registered and 19 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 12888


Contact Admins Sarna.net