ghostrider
05/01/14 08:26 AM
24.30.142.80
|
Could a vehicle use endosteel or something like it for their frame?
Would it lighten it up by half like a mech?
And as much as I dislike putting vehicles in a bad spot but...
If you use hardened armor, would that mean missiles and ballistic weapons would build some heat in the vehicle, since it closes the supposed open spaces in the tanks armor that would help bleed the heat from them?
|
Karagin
05/01/14 11:06 AM
70.118.139.48
|
They should be able to...BUT TPTB claim they can not.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
05/01/14 07:06 PM
71.47.91.0
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
If you use hardened armor, would that mean missiles and ballistic weapons would build some heat in the vehicle, since it closes the supposed open spaces in the tanks armor that would help bleed the heat from them?
Hardened armor is available for combat vehicles (see TacOps for the slots required), and does not alter heat rules for vehicles. That's not true of vehicular stealth armor, which does require 10 heat sinks on vehicles.
As for endosteel, IF it was available for vehicles, then you could argue for halved internal structure weight. But - as for TPTB's ebil conspiracies keepin' the vehicles oppressed - that's just a game balance decision, like excluding DHS from vehicles. If it works for your game then, sure, halve the internal structure weight with vehicular endosteel.
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.
Edited by Cray (05/01/14 07:11 PM)
|
Retry
05/01/14 07:21 PM
76.7.236.208
|
...Vehicle Composite Structure, anyone?
|
Karagin
05/01/14 07:38 PM
70.118.139.48
|
No Cray there is no game balance argument for not allowing advances for the vehicles to use Endo steel or DHS. The is NOT logical reason beyond wanting the game focused on mechs as the prime fighting units and vehicles as the secondary and trinary units.
Please explain logically HOW a universe as advanced as the BT one is, given they can build jumpships, mechs, warships, and have mastered the ability to use use all of this, yet can't seem to figure out how to make the internal structure of a vehicle for military or even civilian, use as light or lighter then a mechs? Or how they can't figure out how to allow for double capacity heat sinks in these same units...please I would love to hear your reasons as to why this is not possible verse the given one from TPTB that the game is focused on the mechs as the king of the battlefield not the vehicles.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
05/01/14 07:52 PM
76.7.236.208
|
I assume all the engineers and military contractors just couldn't care less about tanks, and so don't bother.
And yes, it is a game balance issue. Due to the unique way they handle crits(or normal, if you consider the mechs the unique ones), a decently sized tank would have no problem fitting an endo-steel chassis, heavy ferro-fibrous, XLEs, and DHS to make a very capable, very scary superschreck that will best any and every Awesome thrown at it.
(In the IS tech base, if you were to try to combine all these technologies on a Mech... you simply would not have enough space to add anything at all. Not quite the case with vees.)
Edited by Retry (05/01/14 07:53 PM)
|
Cray
05/01/14 08:04 PM
71.47.91.0
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
No Cray there is no game balance argument for not allowing advances for the vehicles to use Endo steel or DHS. The is NOT logical reason beyond wanting the game focused on mechs as the prime fighting units and vehicles as the secondary and trinary units.
I'll make an argument on a point of semantics: how "game balance" is defined.
"Game balance" doesn't always mean, "everything is boringly balanced toward the center where everyone in class gets an A for showing up," the way MMORPGs try to provide equal balance between different classes or BT tries to balance new equipment with the old.
There's also "game balance" where the balance is far off center. BT's game balance is firmly against vehicles. Like you said, the rules are rigged to keep 'Mechs king of the battlefield and vehicles as secondary and tertiary units. That's what they wrote on the cover of BattleTech books in the mid-1980s, and the rules are written to keep the game balanced that way.
It's an off-center game balance, but very much a form of game balance. 
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.
|
ghostrider
05/01/14 10:38 PM
24.30.142.80
|
there is a point of balance. If vehicles were not crippled like they are, mechs would die from them alot more. I think it is bs.
Mech are supposed to have maneuvering over vehicles. They can run into buildings and forests and such were most vehicles can't do more then one at a time. Vehicles can not be droppped from orbit.
I do not recall seeing they were supposed to be invincible from fire.
One on one the changes to vehilces isn't that big. When you talk about a mech company taking on a vehicle regiment, then it starts showing the problem.
Maybe the game designers should have taken it a different way, such as mechs being faster, or are the only ones that could use fusion engines. Only one vehicle I know of uses jump jets, and it is not that great.
Maybe they could have made it so all mechs could use jets to allow it to jump up to a dropship and load that much easier.
|
KamikazeJohnson
05/01/14 11:22 PM
50.72.218.68
|
The "no heat for ammo weapons" creates a major imbalance, giving a major advantage (on its own) to vehicles. Limited mobility and the Vehicle Motive System Critical Table give 'Mechs an inherent advantage, but the other limitations were needed to keep 'Mechs on top, where they belong as per the theme of the game.
High tech gear screws up that balance. The Space system gives vehicle room to mount more stuff than a 'Mech can...for example, you can build an advanced Shreck with 30 DHS, which won't fit on any IS 'Mech ever designed. This meant more artificial limitations to keep Vehicles from getting too powerful.
Require vehicles to use Heat Sinks for ALL weapons, and you can drop rules like the arbitrary 50% Fusion Engine Weight for Shielding. And allow Endo Steel and a lot of other currently "forbidden" items. Unfortunately, that kind of change would make nearly every existing vehicle design illegal...
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
ghostrider
05/02/14 01:29 AM
24.30.142.80
|
They could have made it so mechs could carry more things then what they did.
interesting thought. a submarine does not need heatsinks to fire lrt/srt. but yet it would have to be sealed to go underwater, but yet does not need heat sinks for it. Guessing that screws up their well planned ideas with vehicles. Same with ac deck guns.
They could have made weapons weigh more in vehicles due to things like needed motors to raise the barrels and fine tuning it that mechs could lean or twist for. I could see some heavy duty motors needed to raise the cannons on a demolisher.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
05/02/14 11:29 AM
172.56.7.217
|
The rules are the rules for tournament and other official game play. If you don't like the rules for you home game change them.
Some house rules I have are
The 20% rule on hover craft is set for ICE engines. You can have a non ICE engine that is lighter than the 20% as long as the same rating ICE engine falls within the 20% for that hovercraft weight.
All naval non hovercraft gets the benefit of their heat sinks being in water.
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!!!
|
Karagin
05/08/14 10:07 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Excellent answers and always the same ones. Game balance is not going out the window but hey it is the party line I guess so it must be the one true answer every time this set of questions come up.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|