D8 Battletech

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
KamikazeJohnson
02/09/14 12:31 PM
50.72.218.68

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I've been playing around a bit with modifying the BT combat system slightly to use D8 instead of D6. My motivation was primarily the way +1 penalties can stack up to absurd levels very quickly (11+ to hit at Medium Range?). By using D8s, the roll range changes from 2-12 (peak 7) to 2-16 (peak 9). Default skills would need to be adjusted upward by 1-2 points to compensate, as would Heat Scale Shutdown/Ammo Explosion rolls and Consciousness rolls. The Cluster Hit Table would have to be completely altered, probably the biggest nuisance of the game.

So...would this improve the game, hurt the game, or just make it...different?
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Karagin
02/09/14 12:40 PM
70.118.139.48

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think it would be a bit different and the changes would not effect overall play.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
02/09/14 03:22 PM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Actually, it would change the game. More shots hitting would shorten it by alot. It would also throw some of the min/max people into a screaming fit. They would actually lose more units because they couldn't jump in short range against a slow moving target and not be immune to return fire. I think that jumping like this is one of the saving graces of medium mechs.

You would be the best person to say if it is good for your game. Try it out. You will see that a lot of the light long range units will not be able to flee as much as they do now.

Now the down size. Units being able to shoot now will mean you won't be able to hide as well. Instead of being 'safe' in the third set of heavy woods, units will be able to snipe at you with a chance to be hit. You will have more damage, since now 16's to hit are possible. If I use an energy weapon base, like the schrek, you bet I will take the chance and fire ever time I can.
Unless you change line of sight and stuff like that, there is not good way to hide from damage.

The above 8 movement units will now be hittable and easier to take out.

Recap. It will shorten the game.
KamikazeJohnson
02/09/14 04:01 PM
50.72.218.68

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Actually, it would change the game. More shots hitting would shorten it by alot. It would also throw some of the min/max people into a screaming fit. They would actually lose more units because they couldn't jump in short range against a slow moving target and not be immune to return fire. I think that jumping like this is one of the saving graces of medium mechs.

You would be the best person to say if it is good for your game. Try it out. You will see that a lot of the light long range units will not be able to flee as much as they do now.

Now the down size. Units being able to shoot now will mean you won't be able to hide as well. Instead of being 'safe' in the third set of heavy woods, units will be able to snipe at you with a chance to be hit. You will have more damage, since now 16's to hit are possible. If I use an energy weapon base, like the schrek, you bet I will take the chance and fire ever time I can.
Unless you change line of sight and stuff like that, there is not good way to hide from damage.

The above 8 movement units will now be hittable and easier to take out.

Recap. It will shorten the game.



Shortening the game is kinda the idea...quite often I've seen ridiculous (to me) target numbers on what should be fairly routine shots: Medium Range (6), Attacker Walked (+1), Target Moved 5 (+2), 2 Light Woods (+2) = 11, or 8.3% chance of a hit. Using D8 and an adjusted Default Gunnery of 6 and the same modifiers gives a Target Number of 13, which is a 15.6% chance of a hit...still difficult, but not unreasonably. Note that a fast 'Mech or Vehicle can still bump the target number up to 14 or 15 without unreasonable conditions being present. With the new Target Movement Table allowing modifiers of up to +6, very fast units can easily make a Medium Range shot (and sometimes even a Short-Range shot) Impossible.

D8 also makes Long-Range shots a more reasonable option, yielding target numbers of 14 or 15 (9.4% or 4.7%) instead of Impossible.

Key to not speeding up destruction too much is modifying the appropriate Skills...Short Range shots should have fairly close to the same chance of a hit.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Retry
02/09/14 04:03 PM
67.239.109.174

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
RIP hovercraft and VTOLs and light mechs with jump jets.

Hello 100 ton monsters of all types!

(How would you apply it to aerospace fighters?)
ghostrider
02/09/14 09:17 PM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
make them die a lot faster as well. But that isn't necesarily a bad thing either.

Though the medium range being 6 is based on a skill 4 gunnery. Do not let anyone talk you into allowing a gunnery of -1 or more. Neg gunners will destroy the game.

And the chance to hit higher numbers may not be that bad. The fast movement will still help avoid shots. Granted using 2d8 would make it more likely to hit. I hated the fact that a unit could not hit a 30 meter tall unit standing right in front of it. Ever had a spider try a death from above and there was nothing you could do about it?
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/10/14 03:07 PM
172.56.32.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
There is nothing you can do to stop someone from having a negative gunnery skill if they put the points towards it.

I like this D8 concept.

I would not be all that surprised if the original game used d6 out of default because it was the most common die that existed.
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!!!
ghostrider
02/10/14 03:59 PM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
maybe they did it to lure the people like craps shooters or backgammon players.

It is cheaper to buy d6 then any other dice as well.
KamikazeJohnson
02/10/14 04:29 PM
50.72.218.68

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
maybe they did it to lure the people like craps shooters or backgammon players.

It is cheaper to buy d6 then any other dice as well.



D6s are the default "dice" for most people. Games use D6 unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
02/10/14 11:21 PM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I would believe that to be true. Instead of having one chart using a d20, you can break it up into 3 or more with a d6. First you roll which chart to use, then another for the entry on the chart.

I think it is because the d6 is used so often in society, it is the accepted die for everything.

Though I'm sure people here would like to see your prototype if you would. Unless you want to patent it or copyright it first.
I will try and give you honest input, and I'm sure others here will. Might spark some disagreement, but then saying hi or high will do that.
csadn
02/15/14 04:11 AM
50.39.219.114

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The problem here isn't the dice -- it's the fact that outside of Level 2 Tech, there's no "helpful" modifiers in the game; paraphrasing Horatio Gates in _The Crossing_, the mods only go in one direction, and to score hits requires the other.

A far-simpler method of dealing with this would be to subtract 2 from all targeting mods, across the board. For ex.: The normal range-increment mods are "short = 0; medium = +2; long = +4"; the refigured version would be "short = -2; medium = 0; long = +2".

Psychologically speaking, having some more "helpful" mods might encourage even-riskier behavior -- using the above example, it might encourage players to get up-close -- which leads to more "interesting" games ("Interesting" here meaning "the gaming version of 'hold my beer and watch this'"). In the Olden Days, when the base TH was 4, and Gunnery skill was subtracted for lower (better) numbers, players took a lot of "interesting" risks to earn enough kills to get that all-important minus-sign.
CF

Oregon: The "Outworlds Alliance" of the United States of America
ghostrider
02/15/14 06:49 AM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The low end of the game isnt the issue. Its the high end. With a gunnery skill of 4, you should at short range, no movement modifiers, no terrain modifiers, hit another unit one a 4+ on 2d6. Now I don't know if you consider no move and stationary one and the same. You can dodge without moving. Buildings are definately stationary and should be an automatic hit under these conditions.

Now lets talk about a 0 gun. It is very possible at long range to not be able to hit a 30 meter tall unit and damage it in long range conditions. Even if it sat still. This should only happen if you do not have a line of sight. Ignore indirect fire for now.

Lrm Indirect fire uses the battle computers and a forward observer (which is interesting) to target a unit.
Why do they do this? Best guess is balance.
A faster unit could very well avoid all damage and still hit their target. Now coming in a straight line should negate that bonus. Don't care how faster you move towards something, it should be able to hit. Now moving at an angle is different. This causes more problems not only to hit, but to make the game runs smooth.

They need to increase the ability to hit, or make it so 12 hits anything in range in line of sight.
Drasnighta
05/16/15 08:59 PM
198.53.98.65

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yeah, all rolls needing 2D6s get +2

Other than that. I'd keep default skills as Default.

But I like my characters to suck. Makes the game last longer.
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
KamikazeJohnson
05/16/15 09:02 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
This idea has been rolling around in my head again lately...I'm thinking about crunching some number with it when I get some time.

Actually, the idea has evolved somewhat in my head to include various other changes to the familiar BT system...I'm thinking about calling it "BattleTech Reboot" or something of that nature. in my fantasies, I develop a system for myself and my local group to try, we playtest the crap out of it, then submit it to become an "official" spinoff system, possibly an alternate timeline starting fresh in 3025 again.

Basically, instead of the constant "adding on" to the existing system, take advantage of the several decades' worth of gameplay to revise the system from the ground up.

Features I intend to include:
D8 rather than D6
Modified weapon stats, particularly Autocannon-class weapons
Tweak the rules for Quads
Create more distinction between the different classes of weapons
Modify the Cluster Hit system

I had considered for a while making my own system (as opposed to a BTech system with tweaked rules) but this way I have a good solid starting point...besides, whatever I came up with would probably be similar enough to BT to get me in trouble for "derivative works" if I tried to publish it lol.

Anyway...anyone interested in contributing some ideas to this project? Comment or message me!
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Drasnighta
05/16/15 09:06 PM
198.53.98.65

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Feel free to bounce stuff this way, and both ways... I'm an Ex Games Designer after all.
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
ghostrider
05/17/15 03:01 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
kind of why the house rules thread was made, but if the thread creator here isn't concerned about 'thread jacking' there would be a lot of things that could be done to make the game a little more fun.

One suggestion is 3d6 best 2 when you technically get into the elite range, instead of going with 2 gun or something like that. But I do like the 2d8 as well.

Another would be increase the speed of mechs a little over other ground units. It would help make their 'mobility' something worth a crap. Dropping a few things for vehicles could counter it, but then you could remove some options from them as well. Set the maximum amount of weapons they can carry or something like that to avoid overkill with them.

An option for physical attacks might be grab weapons and make them unusable for that round, for mechs with hands.

I don't care if you use any of the ideas I suggest. Modify them as needed.
Hell there are alot of things that can be tweaked. I would suggest removing artillery from mechs, and keeping them on slow moving vehilces that can NOT fire them while moving. If you want mobile artillery.

Maximum armor for vehicles would be another. Some would say that is crap, but you could then remove the thru armor crits for all ground units. Maybe bump some of the armor limits for mechs, such as a little more for the legs and possibly the head. Or even made the head a possible torso crit instead of its own location. This might need something like installing the dual cockpit to have it as such.
ghostrider
05/17/15 03:11 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Hell another thought. Different style of mgs. One anti armor for dealing with mechs and such, while an infantry one that is crap against normal mech armor but rips up infantry units. Different ammos could be used as well.

To help the mobility advantage, you could allow mechs with jets to jump into a hovering dropship when retreating from a battle, as well as actually putting up the ability for them to be dropped in a battle from one that is less then 200 meters in the air. Put some excitement into an actual hot drop.
And dfa rules when being dropped like that.

Maybe add in the ability to make an advanced unit that has better mobility, so a kick can hit anywhere on the enemy's mech, but cost alot of criticals.

If you want a longer battle, maybe have all armor upgraded so it all takes half damage at least on just mechs. That would swing the king of the battlefield back to the mechs.
ghostrider
05/18/15 02:50 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
had a few more ideas go thru my mind.
Maybe set all mech to a minimum of 3 speed for assaults, 4 for heavy, 5 for medium and 6 for lights. That would be for normal actuators/myomers/whatever you are going to use to move the mechs. Upgrades to go faster would cost space/weight which ties into another thought.
Each weight class has so much room it can use for weapons/equipment. This could avoid some issues, though weight would still be a factor. This can be used to limit vehicles even moreso then mechs. Trying to get the equipment to actually point up high enough to fire about the knees of a mech next to a tank isn't really explained in battletech.

I would suggest that normal non infantry/civilian weapons not be able to affect military armor on units. The idea a simple hunting rifle could do one tenth of what a normal ppc can really doesn't make any sense. Granted specialized ammo could be used, ie explosive tipped. But the unit getting hit while carrying it should DIE from the resulting explosion from it.

You could limit the amount of engines by just changing out the movement as suggfested above, with a minimum engine/power output needed for each weight class. You could force larger engines when loaded down with things like energy weapons and gauss weapons. The ballistics would not require such a large engine, though missiles might be either way.
Same could be used for alot of electronics.
I would suggest limiting what can be placed in the legs of a mech, since a ppc in the leg is very stupid in my opinion, but that is NOT dealing with a quad.
Heat is something that I haven't really thought much with.
Another issue is detecting units, which without a neutral game master is very difficult to do. But I would suggest an optional section that goes over this when they do have one.
KamikazeJohnson
05/18/15 03:35 AM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Interesting thoughts...you're going a bit farther with the movement rules than I had planned to...it makes a fundamental change to the 'Mech design system. Although I had considered something akin to "suspension factor" for certain 'Mech designs...per weight class, or for Tripod or Quad 'Mechs for example.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
05/18/15 11:50 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Wasn't sure how far you were going to go.
If you don't use it, that's fine. Had the thought and put it up. Granted you can use something like that to a lesser effect. Like maybe have tsm make that break thru so it doesn't have to be heated.

I would still suggest the extra movement for the mechs. Even if it is a simple +1 to movement. Make the mobility actually work.
Not sure if they have it, but you could put in a lateral shift for all mechs. Not as much movement points as turning and moving into that hex then turning again, but something that costs a little less.

Another idea might be going a bit far would be the ability for mechs to 'dodge' certain amount of shots. Maybe tie it into the movement, ie a move of 3 would allow 3 chances, while a move of 6 would allow 6. Granted a maximum per round would need to be done. Maybe max it at 6. Make it an opposed roll. If mech rolls higher, they dodge, but maybe make it so they have to declare which shot they will attempt it with and roll at the same time. They might dodge a shot that misses anyways sort of thing.
Could halve that for vehicles. Make the driving skill useful. Might make the game longer, but add a bit of excitement into it.
Blackwell
05/18/15 04:32 PM
24.123.192.82

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
couldn't we simply reduce movement modifiers or negate the modifiers if they run straight at you or require a facing change every 3 hexes moved in order to gain the modifier and those facing changes have to be after each 3 hexes travelled not all at the end

I like the idea using D8 for gunnery but we could still use D6 for location hits and missile tables, no need to rewrite everything.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
05/18/15 05:04 PM
172.56.15.79

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
One change I would do is to increase the size of a hex from 30m to 45m and let two mechs occupy one hex. This would increase the speed of everything and the ranges that weapons can fire but wont really change anything.

Other changes
Energy weapons require batteries and a power plant can only recharge an X amount depending on the size of the engine.

A standard energy battery has 200 power units and takes one ton and one crit. If hit it does one point of damage per unit of power that it had when hit. Also unlike other ammo it cant be dumped but it can be turned off from being recharged.

Small laser uses 1 unit
Medium laser uses 5 units
Large laser uses 20 units
PPC uses 50 units
Gauss Rifle 20 units

Extended range doubles the power units used
Pulse weapons doubles the power used
Pulse Extended Range uses five times the power used

Any kind of power plant Fusion or ICE creates one power unit per 20 units of engine size each turn rounded down but no less than one. Hydrogen power cells can recharge energy batteries but will cost it in range it can move.

If you go from D6 to D8 that would mean you would go from 12 crits each location to 16 crits. I see that as a good thing. Some of the larger weapons would just be made to use more crits.

I would also allow Machine Guns to be installed in clusters of no more than three taking only one crit but if the cluster is hit all of the machine guns in the cluster are destroyed. I do like the anti mech machine gun and the anti personal machine gun idea.

I would drop almost all the heat that ballistic and missile weapons create and entirely bar double heat sinks from the game.

AC/2, AC/5 = 0 heat
AC/10, Gauss Rifle = 1 heat
AC/20, = 2 heat

SRM-2, SRM-4 and LRM-5 = 0 heat
SRM-6, LRM-10 = 1 heat
LRM-15, LRM-20 = 2 heat
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!!!
Retry
05/18/15 06:28 PM
76.7.238.104

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
increase the speed of mechs a little over other ground units. It would help make their 'mobility' something worth a crap. Dropping a few things for vehicles could counter it, but then you could remove some options from them as well. Set the maximum amount of weapons they can carry or something like that to avoid overkill with them.



Battlemechs already can reach higher speeds over conventional treads and even wheels. The most useful engine type, Fusion, creates a 1.5x multiplier on vehicles that doesn't carry over to mechs, meaning a battlemech can either be faster or more powerful than a similarly designed vehicle. A 50 ton 4/6 SFE tracked tank will, with maxed armor, have 16 tons to spare. A 50 ton 5/8 SFE bipedal mech with semi-maxed (10.5 tons) armor will also have 16 tons to spare.

Battlemech mobility is also superior to conventional tracks and wheels, and has it's own advantages against the hover and WiGE movement types. Mobility isn't just raw speed; terrain traversing capabilities must also be considered. Light and heavy woods can be entered by a battlemech, while the only vehicle type that can hope to enter a light woods is tracked. Hovercraft, although fast, can also skid into compromising situations, and all vehicles can have their speed lowered or destroyed through motive crits of some sort. The Battlemech's motive system, legs, are much more resilient, making it's own mobility easier to exploit. May I mention the Jump Jets?

Vehicles do have a maximum amount of carriable weapons. Their critical slots work differently than battlemechs, but one cannot simply spam thousands of machine guns on a 100 ton chassis.


Edited by Retry (05/18/15 06:28 PM)
ghostrider
05/18/15 11:57 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If I recall, tracked unit move the same amount of speed as the same weight mech with the same sized engine. Yes, you need a transmission for it, but mechs tend to be about the same speed as the tracked units. Wheeled is actually easier to go faster. That first statement seems wrong., retry. Maybe it is just how I read it.

As for any changes in the rule after the clan invasion, I could not say what they did. But frankly, something like the behemoth tank or even the ontos shows how bad a unit could be. Even the srm carrier could be included into that.

Now if they are going to change things to make the game more fun, there is no reason why 2 mechs couldn't fit into a 30 meter hex. Now unless you are going to change the entire size scaling of the hexes, I would think this is better then going to 45 meters. Granted maybe making the 2 mechs easier to hit since they don't have as much room to manuever might be interesting.
I do like the mg cluster idea, but would ask if they would have so many shots of ammo with it, or have to have a separate location. That is not including extra ammo for them.
The energy weapon usage sounds like the right track. Might need a little work, but looks decent as is.
The ac and missile heats should be bumped up just a little for the larger packs, and would ultras just double the heat?

And if you really wanted to limit vehicles, make them carry heat sinks for the missile launchers and ballistic weapons. That would solve the ICE weight problem. Make it the same, since there would be no free heat for them.
KamikazeJohnson
05/19/15 12:46 AM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:

One change I would do is to increase the size of a hex from 30m to 45m and let two mechs occupy one hex. This would increase the speed of everything and the ranges that weapons can fire but wont really change anything.

Other changes
Energy weapons require batteries and a power plant can only recharge an X amount depending on the size of the engine.

A standard energy battery has 200 power units and takes one ton and one crit. If hit it does one point of damage per unit of power that it had when hit. Also unlike other ammo it cant be dumped but it can be turned off from being recharged.

Small laser uses 1 unit
Medium laser uses 5 units
Large laser uses 20 units
PPC uses 50 units
Gauss Rifle 20 units

Extended range doubles the power units used
Pulse weapons doubles the power used
Pulse Extended Range uses five times the power used

Any kind of power plant Fusion or ICE creates one power unit per 20 units of engine size each turn rounded down but no less than one. Hydrogen power cells can recharge energy batteries but will cost it in range it can move.

If you go from D6 to D8 that would mean you would go from 12 crits each location to 16 crits. I see that as a good thing. Some of the larger weapons would just be made to use more crits.

I would also allow Machine Guns to be installed in clusters of no more than three taking only one crit but if the cluster is hit all of the machine guns in the cluster are destroyed. I do like the anti mech machine gun and the anti personal machine gun idea.

I would drop almost all the heat that ballistic and missile weapons create and entirely bar double heat sinks from the game.

AC/2, AC/5 = 0 heat
AC/10, Gauss Rifle = 1 heat
AC/20, = 2 heat

SRM-2, SRM-4 and LRM-5 = 0 heat
SRM-6, LRM-10 = 1 heat
LRM-15, LRM-20 = 2 heat



I have actually put some thought into a "Power Output Rating" system, where instead a set speed, an engine produces a certain power output, and the player chooses each turn how much power to devote to Movement, hiw much to Weapons, etc. Power use over/under a certain threshold is refkected by the Heat Scale. However, I'm worried that it might complicate the game a bit more, resulting in slower play, when I'm hoping that my rule cganges will result in a more streamlined game that plays faster and less awkwardly. One thing it would do, however, would be to eliminate the "Engine Stages" that you get during 'Mech construction...for example you would no longer be restricted to choosing between a 240 and a 320 Engine for your 80-tonner...you can choose any engine you like.

An interesting concept, but it needs a lot of study before I decide if I want to amake that dramatic a change to the game system.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
05/19/15 01:47 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You could simplify it by clustering weapons like a pod. All weapons fire at one time creating x power consumption. Maybe have preset units made out and just add them into a mech. Granted it might reduce players selection, but if you put a grouping that people use a lot of, it would eliminate some issues. Not a great thought but one that might help.
There is something you did forget with the 80 ton mech. You can choose the 80 and 160 rated engine, but I doubt many would want something that slow.
Interestingly enough, the set up donkey put out would pretty much eliminate heat all together, since you would have to charge the energy banks in order to fire anything. Granted that does seem to be countered a little lower with the ballistic and cannons.

I like the power output idea, but I don't think it will be streamlined enough to do much good. Hopefully I'm wrong, and will try to provide a way to help.
One aspect is over 'reviving' the engine which could cause it to shut down or even explode from to much abuse.
You might have to create a table that has a normal operations output for the engine, and a maximum emergency output before damage. Maybe double engine rating for normal and 3 times emergency, just for a quick thought.

As a side thought, if you run capacitors/batteries, installing a larger pack should give you some bonus to weight and space taken, so running 2 packs that store 40 energy each, would be heavier and take up more room then one 80 capacity pack. Nothing huge, but makes it easier to take out all of them in one hit instead of needing 2 hits.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
05/19/15 12:50 PM
172.56.4.63

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
My way of charging of the energy batteries was to just have an alternator that runs off the engine. I was not thinking that energy weapons would need a large portion of the engines out put. I think that is just over kill.

Basically I was trying to make energy weapons not the ultimate weapons in the game. I was trying to force people to use a mix of energy, ballistic, and missile weapons. I would love to make it if you use only one of the three types of weapon systems in a design you would get your butt majorly kicked.
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!!!
ghostrider
05/19/15 02:29 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I agree with the thought. Honestly, if the power was taken directly from the engine, and didn't have a storage device to hold most if not all of it, I could very well see the unit coming to a stop as the engine stalls from the power requirements.
I was concerned that if heat sinks and power capacitor/battery banks were needed, it might swing the problem to far against them. Just a voiced concern, nothing more.
I would also suggest to require the gauss weapons have a charge assigned to them as well.
Now would you suggest reducing the heat output of the energy weapons themselves, while having a heat output for the storage devices? That would mean there is a minimum heat output for having the charges stored. Say if they didn't have it charged, it would take that round to bring up the power so weapons the needed it could fire the next round?
I know we went over the issue of energy weapons being the top dog because as long as there it power to fire, they can.
Which also begs the question for ammo dependent weapons. Will there be an increase in ammo sizes, or eliminate the quantity, but not the position or critical for the bin?

Now if you want to use this idea for movement, it could be based on weight and speed wanted. Say a 20 ton unit movement would be like 10 power units per hex, while the 100 ton might require 50 units per hex to move. If you didn't want to fire in that round, the 100 tonner might be able to reach say 6 or 7 speed.
With any power left over dropped from the game, meaning only the current power output of the engine could be used.
Engine damage would reduce that power output, meaning the unit would have to pick and choose what they would put the power to, limiting their firepower.
Drasnighta
05/19/15 05:02 PM
198.53.98.65

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
We're getting into Earthsiege/Starsiege territory a bit with that...
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
KamikazeJohnson
05/19/15 05:29 PM
72.143.233.127

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

I agree with the thought. Honestly, if the power was taken directly from the engine, and didn't have a storage device to hold most if not all of it, I could very well see the unit coming to a stop as the engine stalls from the power requirements.
I was concerned that if heat sinks and power capacitor/battery banks were needed, it might swing the problem to far against them. Just a voiced concern, nothing more.
I would also suggest to require the gauss weapons have a charge assigned to them as well.
Now would you suggest reducing the heat output of the energy weapons themselves, while having a heat output for the storage devices? That would mean there is a minimum heat output for having the charges stored. Say if they didn't have it charged, it would take that round to bring up the power so weapons the needed it could fire the next round?
I know we went over the issue of energy weapons being the top dog because as long as there it power to fire, they can.
Which also begs the question for ammo dependent weapons. Will there be an increase in ammo sizes, or eliminate the quantity, but not the position or critical for the bin?

Now if you want to use this idea for movement, it could be based on weight and speed wanted. Say a 20 ton unit movement would be like 10 power units per hex, while the 100 ton might require 50 units per hex to move. If you didn't want to fire in that round, the 100 tonner might be able to reach say 6 or 7 speed.
With any power left over dropped from the game, meaning only the current power output of the engine could be used.
Engine damage would reduce that power output, meaning the unit would have to pick and choose what they would put the power to, limiting their firepower.



Also on my list of changes is to improve ammo weapons...in general increasing ammo supply, but at the same time making ammo explosions less destructive. I've always found it frustrating that an ammo hit...any ammo...is pretty much a death sentence to any 'Mech...a Heavy or Assault should have at least some chance of survival.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
Extra information
0 registered and 45 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: 77949


Contact Admins Sarna.net