Firestarter
07/18/15 06:02 PM
67.251.72.165
|
If you dont mind I think I'm going to try JUST the D8 rule today.
I haven't played in a while so might as well see how much it speeds up the game.
Its just the 3rd edition. So not too many rules, but if its ok I'm going to try it.
|
ghostrider
07/19/15 02:17 AM
76.89.121.69
|
I don't remember seeing anything that says you can not pick and choose the parts you want to play. But since you brought it up, I don't think you can use just the d8 for playing with. 
Just let us know you experience with it, since it may show some needed tweaks.
Granted the location rolls could have been left with the standard table.
Then again maybe opening up 2 more spots per location might come up with some other interesting designs. Hmmm..
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/19/15 08:36 AM
71.170.164.190
|
I am assuming that your not getting free weight of armor on the torsos but have to account for each and every point of armor for the amount of weight the mech carries in armor.
I have never liked that the mech had to split its torso armor between the front and back. I do like the idea that you can have three points of armor for the torso two going to the front and one going to the back for each point of internal structure.
Now I have a question. Does one have to equalize the armor placement or can one max out the front or back and not its opposite location?
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
07/19/15 11:27 AM
76.89.121.69
|
That would depend on how you see an armor point spread out. For legs and arms the point goes completely around the limb, verses the torso that forms a sheet on only one side.
Yes, the argument could be said surface area of the torso is greater, so it can not cover the rear and still provide the normal protection it should.
The suggestion I was suggesting would be strict that it would have to be 2 front 1 back.
But as with all suggestions here, it is up to you to pick and modify any ideas you want to use.
Technically the head already uses the 3 for 1 internal, so it isn't really that far fetched.
Who knows, maybe creating another armor type that allows for more armor per ton then normal, though going this route is bordering bad since that would be the normal after it is started being used. It also means the enemy units will ALL have it.
|
Firestarter
07/19/15 01:09 PM
67.251.72.165
|
I was planning on keeping the standard tables and using the D8 for to-hit rolls.
|
KamikazeJohnson
07/20/15 12:00 AM
207.161.146.219
|
Quote:
Firestarter writes:
I was planning on keeping the standard tables and using the D8 for to-hit rolls.
If you're going to use the D8s for To-Hit roll, make sure to modify the Gunnery Skills accordingly. Gunnery of 6 instead of 4 gives you roughly the same base odds, but will lessen the effects of the modifiers, for a net better chance to hit. 2D8 with Gunnery 4 will be roughly equivalent to a Gunnery 1 under standard rules.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/20/15 08:23 AM
71.170.164.190
|
If someone wanted to do it it would be interesting to see all of the 3025 mechs redone with d8 crits, the 2-1 torso armor, and the the modified weapon crits that where suggested in this thread.
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
07/20/15 12:04 PM
76.89.121.69
|
The 3025 mechs would be interesting, but I don't see them gaining much, though the 2/1 torso armor might give them some weight depending on if they do the armor points like a limb. Even without the armor, some weapons packages would be changed. A few having alot of weight, but not alot of criticals for smaller weapons and heat sinks might change, like the atlas. We did discuss the removal of the 20 for lasers and others lighter weapons. Imagine what you could do with the room for heatsinks to use them.
The more advanced tech mechs could benefit alot from it. Room for some extra heatsinks, or maybe another ton of ammo. For a few, the extra crits might open up better possibilities, like having a full ac 20 in the arms and not split in a torso.
But the main person that might even try is the one that is doing the play testing.
|
KamikazeJohnson
07/20/15 12:39 PM
207.161.146.219
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
The 3025 mechs would be interesting, but I don't see them gaining much, though the 2/1 torso armor might give them some weight depending on if they do the armor points like a limb. Even without the armor, some weapons packages would be changed. A few having alot of weight, but not alot of criticals for smaller weapons and heat sinks might change, like the atlas. We did discuss the removal of the 20 for lasers and others lighter weapons. Imagine what you could do with the room for heatsinks to use them.
The more advanced tech mechs could benefit alot from it. Room for some extra heatsinks, or maybe another ton of ammo. For a few, the extra crits might open up better possibilities, like having a full ac 20 in the arms and not split in a torso.
But the main person that might even try is the one that is doing the play testing.
I'm absolutely planning on redesigning the 3025 'Mechs once I have the new rules sorted out...since I'm tweaking a lot of the weapon specs, none of the existing designs will be "legal" under the new system. However, I'l try to keep the same general concept, so the 'Mechs are familiar to experienced BT players.
The Archer is the one I'm thinking about the most...if the numbers work out, it will carry a pair of the new LRM 30s, able to sustain firing one each round while the other loads.
The Warhammer is another that could see some interesting growth...with my new Engine rules for energy weapons, I could see it working out well...sacrifice speed to maintain fire with the PPCs at range, but maintain full mobility while skirmishing with the close-range weapons. Awesome will pretty much have the option of Move or Fire. That will probably be the hardest part...once I get the rules set for the weapons, getting them all balanced will probably take a lot of tweaking.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Retry
07/20/15 12:54 PM
76.7.237.17
|
Yeesh, these rules sound quirky.
|
KamikazeJohnson
07/20/15 03:11 PM
24.114.43.187
|
Quote:
Retry writes:
Yeesh, these rules sound quirky.
It's actually not as complicated as it sounds from that little blurb. Basically, your standard 300-rated engine generates 300 units of energy per turn. So a Thunderbolt with a 300-rated engine (ignore the weight variance for now) would use 260 points to use movement rate 4/6, leaving 40 points to power energy weapons. Moving at 3/5 rate uses only 195 points, leaving 105 for energy weapons.
It's a rough rule right now...not sure if I will allow overspending at a cost of heat or some other effect, or if it will he a "hard cap".
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
ghostrider
07/20/15 04:15 PM
76.89.121.69
|
That does bring up the question about overheated mechs. Will the heat scale limit power output?
Thought came up when thinking a unit could devote power to running away from a battle that is was redlining on the heat.
Since 5 on the scale reduces walking in normal mechs, this would make sense the power levels would drop. Overheating semi's going up a grade lose power, so it would have physical reality backing it.
Not sure if you thought about it.
I wonder if we can get our own subject on the forums for this, or should this go in the off topic area?
(yes, I want my own subject forum  )
|
ghostrider
07/21/15 01:40 AM
76.89.121.69
|
A point was brought up in another thread about AA units not being more effective against air units then others. If you didn't see the response, or want to keep it here, I was thinking dedicated AA units might have radar that would allow +1 against air units, and maybe suffer a penalty for engaging ground targets since the weapons would be mounted in an upwardly fashion, but thinking about it, might not work with mechs like the Rifleman.
Mabye make that penalty at a range of 1 for those mechs. Could say air sensors mess with ground sensors.
|
KamikazeJohnson
07/30/15 02:05 AM
207.161.146.219
|
New rule tweak...I now included definitions of 4 different Arm types, each with different firing arcs and capabilities. Arm type is defined by the type/number of Actuators present in the Arm. Thinking of assigning the Unarticulated Arm (a.k.a. "Rifleman style" Arm) a bonus for Anti-Aircraft fire.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
ghostrider
07/30/15 09:22 AM
76.89.121.69
|
Technically it has the shoulder and upper arm actuators, but then maybe that would be a good way to distinguish an AA mech verse any thing just titled anti air. And now that I think about it, that might be the disadvantage of making a mech anti air. The penalties for no lower or hand actuators should counter it.
So you looked at the rifleman/galahad arms then looked that the marauder/timberwolf arms and seen just what each one should be able to do then realized a warhammer is in between them?
You could also add a special roll when torso or head hit to see if radar unit is damages, like some of the scenario packs did with spotlights mounted on mechs. Think it was 7+ to avoid losing it.
Just a thought, but would advance rules maybe limit what a mech like the marauder could put in the arms, since that ball joint configuration can not be that strong?
Edited by ghostrider (07/30/15 09:24 AM)
|
KamikazeJohnson
07/30/15 09:44 PM
207.161.146.219
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Technically it has the shoulder and upper arm actuators, but then maybe that would be a good way to distinguish an AA mech verse any thing just titled anti air. And now that I think about it, that might be the disadvantage of making a mech anti air. The penalties for no lower or hand actuators should counter it.
So you looked at the rifleman/galahad arms then looked that the marauder/timberwolf arms and seen just what each one should be able to do then realized a warhammer is in between them?
You could also add a special roll when torso or head hit to see if radar unit is damages, like some of the scenario packs did with spotlights mounted on mechs. Think it was 7+ to avoid losing it.
Just a thought, but would advance rules maybe limit what a mech like the marauder could put in the arms, since that ball joint configuration can not be that strong?
I defined 5 different types of Arms, including 1 completely new type.
1) Fixed-mount. Shoulder only, no Actuators. No Punch or Push attacks. Same firing arc as Torso weapons. Weapons over a certain size (dependent on weight class of 'Mech) must be mounted this way if arm-mounted. (e.g. the AC/10 on the UrbanMech)
2) Unarticulated Arm. Shoulder and Upper Arm Actuator. Arm dies not bend. No Punch or Push attacks. Weapons have 180-degree firing arc, from direct front to direct rear. Bonus to Ant-Aircraft fire. (e.g. Rifleman)
3) Articulated Arm. Shoulder, Upper Arm and Lower Arm Actuators. Normal Arm firing arc. Penalties for Punch or Push attacks. (e.g. Warhammer)
4) Full Arm. Same as Articulated Arm, no penaties for Punch or Push attacks. (e.g. Atlas)
5) Ball Mount. Shoulder and Ball Actuator. Firing arc includes full Front arc all the way to direct rear. Most weapons may fire into same hex. Lower half of arm is completely removed, so crit space is limited. Ball Actuator uses 2 crit spaces. (e.g. Locust)
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
ghostrider
07/31/15 03:34 AM
76.89.121.69
|
Nice. That definitely adds more realism to the game. Have you actually tried it out?
Gonna be interesting seeing things like the stalker mech try firing to the sides and it looks like the fixed mount type.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/31/15 05:01 AM
71.170.162.49
|
I would make 2 have the ability to fire into the full front ark and ditch 5. There is making it more realistic then there is making it complicated for the sake of being complicated.
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
07/31/15 11:59 AM
76.89.121.69
|
You want complicated?
Look at some of the engines out on the markets today.
There are more then a few that have several different brackets holding the alternator and such. Sometimes they change them in mid year on car models.
And that isn't even discussing the 151 pontiac heads. There is 5 different versions of it on the older engines. Casting numbers are supposed to take care of that, but the morons used the same one on 3 of the models. And there is a big difference in them. One has a shorter head bolt then the other 2, and intake/water ports are different on the other 2.
But as with everything else suggested here, use what you like. Modify it to your tastes.
I do realize it looks like it is getting more complicated, but in the end, it does make the game more challenging to use some mechs. The Thorn comes to mind. The ball mount lrm it uses in the right arm, it a good example of this.
And one more suggestion for the unarticulated arm. I would suggest a penalty for trying to stand up, since you have nothing to use to get up with.
And if you want to get a little deeper, I would suggest leg types as well. I would think the legs of a locust or warhawk should have a larger penalty for piloting rolls as catching your foot on something as you try to move forward, does not have a knee to land on. But this is just a complicated suggestion.
|
KamikazeJohnson
07/31/15 08:18 PM
207.161.146.219
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
But as with everything else suggested here, use what you like. Modify it to your tastes.
I do realize it looks like it is getting more complicated, but in the end, it does make the game more challenging to use some mechs. The Thorn comes to mind. The ball mount lrm it uses in the right arm, it a good example of this.
And one more suggestion for the unarticulated arm. I would suggest a penalty for trying to stand up, since you have nothing to use to get up with.
And if you want to get a little deeper, I would suggest leg types as well. I would think the legs of a locust or warhawk should have a larger penalty for piloting rolls as catching your foot on something as you try to move forward, does not have a knee to land on. But this is just a complicated suggestion.
Standing Up modifiers could probably be lumped in with the modifiers for Damaged Actuators. Not sure what to do about that right now, but I've had a couple thoughts on it.
Never thought about Leg types...really only 2 types, determined by the direction the knee bends. I suppose they could be differentiated in-game by giving the "reverse-bend" actuators a different name...exchange a Suspension Factor for a Piloting penalty? Or I might just leave that alone...for now at least.
Solo Playtesting session tonight, I'll let ya know how it goes. Might try to build a couple 'Mechs in accordance with the modified construction rules, so I can try out the Power Rating system for energy weapons, and see how well balanced the game is with different sized 'Mechs designed according to the new system.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
ghostrider
07/31/15 10:32 PM
76.89.121.69
|
The leg thought was only for walking/running penalties to piloting. Had thought about it afterwards and realized, the mechs that hunker down with backwards knees would actually be a little easier to get up, but only in this instance.
I would leave it for now, but it is something that might be good for advanced rules.
The engine power will require mechs being changed, as currently some are horribly inefficient with their current weapons loads. I really don't see to much difference in a locust, but something like a falcon or other laser boat might be a problem.
Also, any thoughts on jump jets and how they will affect power usage.
|
KamikazeJohnson
08/01/15 12:37 AM
207.161.146.219
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
The leg thought was only for walking/running penalties to piloting. Had thought about it afterwards and realized, the mechs that hunker down with backwards knees would actually be a little easier to get up, but only in this instance.
I would leave it for now, but it is something that might be good for advanced rules.
The engine power will require mechs being changed, as currently some are horribly inefficient with their current weapons loads. I really don't see to much difference in a locust, but something like a falcon or other laser boat might be a problem.
Also, any thoughts on jump jets and how they will affect power usage.
Let's see if I can get a clear explanation in one try...
A 300 Engine puts out 300 Power Points.
If we assume a 60-ton 'Mech, the pilot can choose Movement Rate 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. If using Movement Rate 4, 240 Power Points are allocated to the Movement systems...essentially, treat Movement that turn as if the 'Mech has a 240 Engine. Walk 4, Run 6, Jump 4 (assuming at least 4 Jump Jets installed). The remaining 60 Power Points could power, for example, 2 PPCs (30 Power each). So a 60-ton 'Mech sacrifices 1 level of speed whenever it fires its PPCs.
Still balancing Engine Tonnage (currently 75% of Standard), Power Consumption, and Heat.
So far, the Archer and Thunderbolt worked out pretty well...possibly more efficient than the originals. Warhammer and Marauder will be a real test, as will a lot of the Mediums, I expect.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
ghostrider
08/01/15 01:17 AM
76.89.121.69
|
So jump jets are not using power?
Or are they equal to the walk power?
Also, this means a mech doesn't have a run factor anymore. It just uses so much power to go that much faster. For instance the 75 ton marauder would top out at 4 speed due to being a 300 engine. I am assuming that is 75 (weight of mech) tmes 4 speed (power is 75 times speed).
If this is true, it would slow down mechs since they could max out engine just by walking. The 60 ton example using a dragon mech. Normal 5/8 move, would now max at 5 from power available.
If this is true, is there anything planned to allow faster movements for a short distance?
And I am not talking masc. Something like an overdrive on the system?
Also will gunnery be based on firing units movement if this is true as well?
Edited by ghostrider (08/01/15 01:19 AM)
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/01/15 07:55 AM
71.170.162.49
|
A mech would need to have a battery reserve of power for running or for energy weapon fire.
One should have a battery within the engine so one can run for at least a few turns. Say at least minimum equal to the engines size so it can run full out for four turns. If one wants more of a power reserve for running or energy weapon fire they would need external batteries that take weight and crits.
Your example of the 60 ton mech with the 300 engine would have an internal battery reserve of 300 power units. Each unit of speed above its walk speed would use an extra 50%. So your example of the 60 ton mech to run at the speed of 7 it would use 60 power units from its reserve batteries.
Now mechs that round up their running speed aka 5/8 would not be able to run full out for the full two turns but that would help even things out for mechs that dont round up their speed.
To recharge the batteries for every power unit not used each turn it recharges the battery reserve by that amount.
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
08/01/15 11:44 AM
76.89.121.69
|
I agree with most of this, donkey, but there is a small issue with the math. If they power used is weight times speed, you use 60 power at speed one, 120 at speed 2...
With a 300 engine, it would move 5 for the cost of 300.
Even without the extra 50%, which is a good thought, it would use 420 power to move at speed 7, ie 360 at speed 6. With the extra 50%, it would use 390 at speed 6 and 480 at speed 7.
I would limit recharging rate to about 1/4th power available to avoid the run in, fire everything, run out to cool and recharge idea. It would probably slow the game down some as people wait to recharge, which is almost counter to what it seems this idea is going for.
And I didn't mean gunnery being based on speed of unit. I meant the to hit number for shooting from the moving mech. Sorry for not being clear on this.
Now the external batteries sounds interesting, but I can see an issue with it. Someone will try and say the mech can carry so much weight, therefore you would not need to allocate criticals for the external packs. Though the extra weight would be easier to deal with on the move, as it would require more power to move the mech, ie a 60 ton mech carrying 4 tons would be considered 64 tons for power consumption for moving.
Damn you kj. You are making me think and it hurts.
Edited by ghostrider (08/01/15 11:45 AM)
|
KamikazeJohnson
08/01/15 12:55 PM
207.161.146.219
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Damn you kj. You are making me think and it hurts.
Actually, you're overthinking...
At Power Level 4, the 'Mech can Walk 4, Run 6, or Jump 4. Think of Power Level as having a governor on the engine, ans Walk/Run being Low Gear/High Gear. Run gives you a higher top speed, but it costs you Heat and Accuracy.
So in a given turn, you decide how much you want to reserve for Energy Weapons (most 'Mechs will have "leftover" power so it's not really a choice, eg a 330 Engine on a 60-tonner...use 30 Power for a Large Laser and 2 Mediums), then choose Walk or Run with the remaining Power.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
ghostrider
08/01/15 02:13 PM
76.89.121.69
|
So you set the power of say the Rifleman at walk 4. Is that set or is it a throttle system so the next round you only walk 3?
It looks like it is set so a Marauder, is set for walk level of 4 with a standard 300 engine. How would it move (run) at six if the power is 300, and to walk 4 requires all of it?
I'm sorry if this sounds like asking the same thing, but this is something I want to know. I might have missed the information on how the engine works and movement.
But this sounds like running requires no extra energy if this is the way it is set up.
Also, there is no information on if jets are requiring energy to use or not.
A simple yes or no, that no extra energy is needed for a run would solve that part of it.
Yes or no for jets using power.
My brain is slipping more and more every month.
|
ghostrider
08/01/15 02:16 PM
76.89.121.69
|
And how do you determine the max speed of a unit if it doesn't require extra energy to move them?
Since you will be changing engine sizes, how will you determine max speed? the 330 engine example will throw off figures especially if a mech uses an engine that will allow it to fire everything at it's 'set speed' but may actually allow it an extra move point if it doesn't fire?
Yeah, too many questions, but they pop up from time to time.
|
KamikazeJohnson
08/02/15 12:44 AM
207.161.146.219
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
And how do you determine the max speed of a unit if it doesn't require extra energy to move them?
The Game Rules explanation: take the highest Full Multiple of the 'Mech's tonnage equal to or less than the Engine Rating to determine the maximum Power that can be allocated to movement. Using that as your Maximum Movement Rating, determine movement speed as you would under Classic rules.
e.g. 65-ton Thunderbolt carries a 295 Engine. Power Level 4 requires 260 Power. Maximum Rated Speed is Walk 4, Run 6 (so technically Max Speed is 64 km/h, i.e Run speed at Power Level 4).
Fluff explanation: Run vs Walk does not require extra Power from the Engine, it simply activates the movement system differently...greater speed at the cost of decreased stability and poorer target-tracking ability. Power is robbed from those systems to allow the slight increase required for the faster movement style.
The "extra" engine power can be fluff-explained by declaring that the Myomers activate in ""Stages", similar to Wave Harmonics, so you can only activate them in multiples of the base power level (explains why you can't walk 3.5 hexes). Advanced "hexless" rules could allow movement without that restriction.
I hope I'm making sense here lol. The Hex restrictions make movement speeds counterintuitive already, so don't try too hard to "real-world" movement rules.
Quote:
Since you will be changing engine sizes, how will you determine max speed? the 330 engine example will throw off figures especially if a mech uses an engine that will allow it to fire everything at it's 'set speed' but may actually allow it an extra move point if it doesn't fire?
Yeah, too many questions, but they pop up from time to time.
As above...as long as the Engine Rating is a full multiple of Tonnage, you can determine Max Speed as always. If not full multiple, just Round Down, or use unrounded numbers for Hexless Miniature play.
If that's still not clear, feel free to PM me with additional questions so I can formulate a rules explanation to avoid any confusion. Unambiguous rules explanations aren't always my strong point...my explanations always make perfect sense to me...
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
ghostrider
08/30/15 01:18 AM
76.89.121.69
|
A thought came up with the inertia idea. You wanted to keep track of it, well would it help if a unit gained an 'extra' movement point if it continued at the same speed without turning in the next turn?
It would keep at the walk/run of the turn before it, but just move 1 open/clear space more?
And if you wanted to throw it in, penalize a unit that reverses their course by reducing their movement by 1.
Of course jets would not apply to this. Flying in itself is a different beast entirely.
|