Karagin
10/05/09 06:42 PM
72.178.75.99
|
Over on CBT, the new Battleblog says that LAMs are coming back with a new rule set...
With that in mind what changes would you folks like to see done with the LAMs and how they work and fight in the BT universe?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
LAMdriver
10/06/09 04:06 AM
68.118.31.98
|
Bring back the original artwork and design for the LAMs. I like the way they looked before they came UNSEEN (hell that is what got me playing BT in the first place), but just a general redesign of the mechs and fighter would be nice.
Now as to the fighter part, if they can transform into some of the existing aerofighter then so much the better.
As for the rules....i have no idea. I mean make them easy to understand, and balanced. I mean no 100 ton LAM. Keep them under 55 tons and make them combat effective and worth fielding in a striker lance.
" 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
|
Frabby
10/06/09 05:35 AM
87.164.228.231
|
Technical nitpick: The LAMs are not "coming back", they've always been a canonical part of the universe, only some chose to sweep their existence under the rug. Much like the unseen artwork really (and coincidentially, the known LAMs are also unseen).
What Randall announced is that LAMs will get their ruled fixed/completed/however you call it. Which is a good thing.
|
Karagin
10/06/09 06:25 AM
72.178.75.99
|
Uhmm...LAMs became Level 3 items under the rules given in the Tactical Handbook, they never got much more then that, they also went the way of the rest of the Unseen Artwork and thus fell out of use, not much has been done with them and given how poorly the whole Unseen issue was handled by Nystul, the impression that the mechs and LAMs were removed from the game when their artwork was removed, later they tried to fix that by saying no the stats were still legal and canon but not the artwork, so in a sense the LAMs are coming back into the canon since they are getting their rules revised and fixed up to be better and more up to par with everything else. If you noted, I did say they are getting their rules fix and thus would be back with new rules.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
OPER_DANG
10/07/09 05:23 PM
70.61.114.174
|
Yes LAMs fell off before the the legal issues with Harmony Gold, i.e. 3050 TR had most all the other "Unseen" Japanese designs still. The last appearence in a publication was the Tactical Handbook, 1994, and as mentioned, officialy made Level 3 rules only (still available except in official type competitions). I think there was some fluff about the Clans capturing the last of the LAM parts plants and dismantling or refitting them, essientially "sweeping them under the rug" you might say.
LAMs may have complicated the plays of turn some, but maybe the staff found, like most players in my experience, that LAMs just were not worth the loss of 5 tons of armor and/or weapons. For most if not all situations, fast and jump capable Light Mechs and/or Aerospace support could get the job done better, faster, cheaper. AS dropped bombs are, well, "'Da Bomb!" Then VTOLs and hovertanks were "commonly" available and "cheap". But maybe a LAM could be used strategically since they do tend to be the first to draw concentrated fire... 
Hey, I loved Robotech/Macross too, and the Veritechs were wowie cool. But if you try to create a balanced game play, they can't transform for "free". Even with some rule modifications, I think they won't really come back for the reasons they fell off to begin with.
Edited by OPER_DANG (10/07/09 05:26 PM)
|
CYBRN4CR
02/10/10 03:10 AM
71.236.221.45
|
I know you saw this response in my thread, Karagin, but I felt it would be good to say here. 
For me, I would simply eliminate the airmech mode entirely, give any LAM a thrust bonus of (JJets + 2 = Thrust) when in ASF mode, ignore SI and fuel, and give it standard mech hit locations and internal structure.
This essentially gives LAMs the choice between remaining a battlemech, or becoming a faster ASF without the need to worry about fuel, making them wonderful raider/harasser mechs.
FYI, the above idea is not mine: I read this somewhere but I don't remember where from. 
Edited by CYBRN4CR (02/10/10 04:39 AM)
|
Dester
02/10/10 04:24 PM
216.57.96.1
|
please... for the love of god... let LAMs die....
|
Zandel_Corrin
02/10/10 05:44 PM
123.2.140.247
|
um... why?
Just wondering why you feel that way cause from where i'm sitting LAMs are the next logical step in mech evolution.
Just cause the rules for the first LAMs were bad doesn't mean that the idea of the LAM is a bad one.
I think we should all be striving to improve on and add new elements into our games... at least the ones that are run more like rpgs and not once off battles anyway,
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
Karagin
02/10/10 11:37 PM
80.149.45.102
|
Having things as a wargame using miniatures, which is what Battletech is, and having an RPG element that supports the main game is fine, but the latter should not replace the former.
LAMs are interesting and have logical uses, scouts, raiders, quick aerospace fighter cover. The rules need to be tweaked and fixed so as not have uber mechs, so if they can balance them then they might be an interesting footnote again, and not the abyssal claptrap they are now.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Zandel_Corrin
02/11/10 12:47 AM
123.2.140.247
|
Agreed.
I can see LAMs being more tactically flexible but also far more likely to be damaged and taken out of a fight.
The current rules on movement do not really support anything that is very fast and comes in large numbers... causing vehicles to move in 'lance's of 4 or stars of 5 solves part of the problem but not all and when you look at Firemoths and other light very fast mechs you can do lots more damage with the current rules than would be likely in a real life (assuming B-Tech universe) fight.
Galaxy Commander
Zandel Corrin
Night Dragon Clan
|
CYBRN4CR
02/24/10 07:32 AM
71.236.221.45
|
Anybody know which forum the devs of Interstellar Operations are on so we players can provide our input directly?
Is it the classicbattletech.com forums? 
A link to the thread would be nice to have as well.
|
Karagin
02/24/10 12:26 PM
80.149.45.102
|
Yes it would be CBT, since they would not be soliciting outside forums for stuff like that.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
CYBRN4CR
02/24/10 06:10 PM
71.236.221.45
|
Cool. Thanks, man.
|
Almighty
05/17/10 10:56 AM
91.48.206.109
|
LAMs have been driven off for the battlemech's sake I doubt the new rules will do any good.
As to if it's possible or useful...BT has nothing to do with real physics. There are 'boxes' weigthing 100 tons flying around as good as fighters. There is no reason why mechs shouldn't be able to leap into the sky and transform and fly off. Mechanical stress has already been solved with mechs and jumpcapable mechs; no problem here either.
The possibilities of BT have always been limited by arbitrary rules. Anything could be super great or crap depending on the rules. It's wrong to blame LAMs or saying they are crap. Blame the rules!
|