Retry
02/06/14 11:18 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Short-version:I got thinking and experimenting in Megamek with sub-optimal conditions with relatively primitive designs. I am already at the conclusion that they simply suck awfully at anything other than pristeen conditions.
This can probably be extended to aerospace fighters operating inside an atmosphere.
How would you make an excellent nightmech or nightfighter? I'd assume you'd rely more on electronic warfare, so BAPs and BHPs and ECM is probably a must. On a mech you could stuff a searchlight on it's head crit spot, it's not very likely to get hit.
|
ghostrider
02/06/14 11:36 PM
24.30.128.72
|
I think there is a scenario in one of the packs that deals with nighttime operations. Not sure if it was rolling thunder or the original black widow company. I had in there about spotlights, and was using 7+ roll to destroy the light when the location it was in got hit.
As for mechs biting, it depends on the mech. The short range monsters would love it, since they wouldn't have to worry much about getting into range.
Vehicles, on the other hand are definately screwed. Most dont have spot lights, just head lights.
|
Retry
02/06/14 11:47 PM
67.239.109.174
|
How about short ranged vehicles like Demolishers?
Also, ASF?
|
Retry
02/06/14 11:52 PM
67.239.109.174
|
The reason I'm asking is because I plan to make a nightfighting variant of the Puredeta, some WWII tanks, and ASF and conventional fighters.
|
Karagin
02/07/14 06:29 AM
70.118.139.48
|
A lot of the old scenario books/packs had night fighting as well as other things that added to the over all scope of the event. Too bad they can scenario packs cause some marketing genius claimed they didn't sell as well as other books.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
02/07/14 03:35 PM
24.30.128.72
|
asf? my brain doesn't always work right. Probably something so simple I'm gonna be upset when I find out.
Since it is experimental, you could come out with a non canon experimental system for night fighting. Maybe a new varient of infrared, that is useless when the sun is up.
Also, atleast in the video games, they had enhanced imaging. It made a vector graph of the battle field and mechs. You relied totally on the battle computers. It does question on why they have problems in the night if that is the case. Ecm would be the bane.
Another thought would be a targetting laser. If you want to be nice, it is a simple replacement option for the search lights. If not, replace a medium laser to such.
The demolisher crews love this type of fight. Srm carriers that same thing. Stuff is in medium to short range.
Just a quick question. It this version of WWII fought with future tech beyond the mechs? Because I'm not sure tanks had radar back then. I think everything used eyeballs mk I for ground units.
|
Retry
02/07/14 05:51 PM
67.239.109.174
|
AeroSpace Fighter.
Okay, in this version of WWII, technology advances at a ludicrous pace. Back in WWI the very first autocannons, AC/2s, were created to pummel infantry to hell with flechette shells. Later the first tanks come into play armed with MGs and AC/2s. Autocannon sizes get bigger to compensate for the armor of tanks.
Experimental laser systems like the large laser is developed as early as 1935 but doesn't become very widespread until 1942. The autocannon will get more use than the laser system because they are so difficult to make and autocannons and their munitions are much, much more common.
1943ish the 3025 tech use decreases for the use of more star league tech(allies) and clan tech(axis, mostly Germany, because german engineering FTW). Some factions develop new techs that mostly they use(Germany creates the first Aerospace fighter in the form of a Me262, for example, and Japan has mechs and hovercraft, U.S. makes VTOLs and ferro-lamellor armor. Someone will eventually make protomechs and battle armor at some point as well...)
Basically, it crams all of battletech tech-wise in 5 years instead of 1000.
|
Cray
02/07/14 06:16 PM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
How would you make an excellent nightmech or nightfighter?
I home rule it to ignore night penalties.  They're not logical, given the sensor technology of the setting.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Retry
02/07/14 11:42 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Apparently as long as a mech's torso gets hit you have to roll for searchlights getting damaged? Even if said search light isn't on said torso but, say, on the head location?
The damn thing is fragile already, how does it need more help? More importantly, how does that make ANY sense?
|
ghostrider
02/08/14 03:16 PM
24.30.128.72
|
The cannons on tanks are very close if not autocannons. I think the difference is the automated loader. So that isnt the far off of the real world.
As for the question, that means everyone has the tech working, not some thing like a super weapon just developed during the war.
Anywhere a spotlight is at rolls. This might be part of the reason they are expensive to operate. Having to replace that every time you go into combat? Or other small stupid things like that.
The penalties make a little sense. But only if you anywhere that contains trees or buildings. Something that might take the hit for the unit being fired at, and not be readily seen like day light would.
I do agree it is kinda stupid, since you are using the sensor technology for targetting. That is the whole basis behind battle tech. Otherwise a sensor hit would not affect targetting.
And I do think its garbage. The lights on an archer are better protected then on a warhammer. Maybe the penalties come from them not being replaced?
|
Retry
02/09/14 11:49 AM
67.239.109.174
|
I think there must be some human part involved in the targeting and tracking, else gunnery and maybe piloting skills wouldn't exist and/or differ much at all.
Currently, in MM you can mount a half ton one crit mounted searchlight in the head location, only to have it shortly be destroyed... by a hit to the torso.
Needless to say, it's annoying and nonsensical.
|
ghostrider
02/09/14 03:26 PM
24.30.128.72
|
There is always the human factor. Simple timing is a big one. You fire a shot as your bounce off something like a tree, and probably bump the target hairs just enough.
Trying for that shot to take out the enemies leg, and it moves it just as you fire on them.
The example of a head mounted search light being destroyed by a torso hit sounds like they have a bug. The biggest thing I could think of how that would happen is an artillery strike on the unit. And even then that is pushing it.
|
Retry
02/09/14 04:01 PM
67.239.109.174
|
I did post it under bugs, but I received this reply:
TacOps pg 57:
Each time such a designated, searchlight-equipped ’Mech
takes a hit in any torso location (Front or Rear), or when a
searchlight-equipped Combat Vehicle takes a hit to the Front
or Side, the player must roll 2D6 to determine if the searchlight
is destroyed. A result of 7+ means the searchlight is destroyed,
in addition to the normal effects of the attack.
Which probably is about units with the searchlight quirk, where it's not an actual item with an actual location.
What annoys me is that the item IS an actual item with an actual location.
I don't even think that quirk should exist, if you want a searchlight you should add it to the base design.
|
ghostrider
02/09/14 09:12 PM
24.30.128.72
|
only thing I can get from that is searchlights can only be torso mounted. I agree its garbage.
You can always house rule it. wouldn't be the first time a company put out something and didn't want to fix/edit it in future publications.
|
Retry
02/09/14 09:16 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Can't houserule with MM lol
|
ghostrider
02/09/14 09:43 PM
24.30.128.72
|
might ask them if the torso is the only place to put a searchlight on, since they rules say it is the only area that takes one out. Doubt they will bother with it, since that means they would have to patch rewrite the program to fix it
|