Karagin
08/25/15 07:44 PM
70.118.139.48
|
While merc units in the real might not have the ability to get Stinger missile on average they do have ways of getting things that will work just as well, and that is the point, to much of the BT universe contradicts the other half. Even for this game's setting logically they would have pushed everything to the breaking point, there should better ground vehicles with the same items going into a mech that would go into combat vehicles. Keeping the high tech out of the mercs hands is great but define high tech when the planet you are attacking has a single starport or dropport, next to no air defense and the militia/police have maybe 5 armored cars and two mechs if that much and you are attacking them with 4 medium mechs and vehicles and have dropship with fighters...even if the vehicles the locals are using have SL tech, the fight isn't going to be one the attackers have to be super worried about, unless they have the worse pilots in the entire Inner Sphere.
I get the part where the game was about the mechs from day one, got it. I also understand that the fans wanted more and so vehicles and other weapons got added and shoehorned in to things and that caused issues, but seriously at no point someone at FASA didn't go, uhmm we might want to revamp things and fix some issues? That doesn't seem like it even crossed the table, instead hey no XL for vehicles, YET they release a TRO aka TRO2750 showing a SLDF tank with an XL engine.
The rush to fix the dates to make older and newer stuff mesh is great, but the current fix to vehicles is two give us two systems to make vehicles, and when you combine them, you have this whole new armor system to play with as well as hybrids that don't quite make sense for the game. So instead of fixing the vehicles and slowly advancing the tech for them we get support vehicles with some theory that hey you can make bigger vehicles of all type and some one must have thought we would be happy, well that is partly true we are happier that we can make more stuff, but the main issues are still there, where are the lighter IC engines that should have happen like oh...durning the Terran Alliance days, where is the Endosteel for the internal structure of the vehicles, again common things that should have advanced, and if the fusion engines in the vehicles are similar to the mechs ones, given the fluff, novels,and other sourcebook material talking about how they were removed to keep mechs running, why can't the vehicles use Double Heat sinks?
Having thrown caution to the win, hey I am know for that and yes I know I tick folks off when I speak my mind, my group tried a few games with vehicles vs mechs that allowed each side to build their vehicles how they wanted, endo steel, DHS etc...and prior to starting, we each offered our input, two of the group thought this would be the end of the mechs, the other 4 of us were like yeah no, but hey let's see what happens. Three games later, the results was no different then any other BT game, the crit table killed the vehicles as did the damage table seeing how vehicles have four to five hit locations and mechs eleven before you go internal, so the arguement that by allowing Endosteel and DHS doesn't seem to change anything.
My group has bounced around lighter IC engines from time to time, I am trying to find some our notes to share, but we doubt that having that as well wouldn't change anything given how the rules are favored towards the mechs.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
08/26/15 01:19 AM
76.89.121.69
|
Yeah, I can see people forgetting one big factor in the internal department. Not only the actual locations that spread damage over 8 forward locations for a mech, verse 1 possibly 2 for a tank, but the internal game as well. 10 points max internal for non super tanks. Once any location other then turret is destroyed, the vehicle is dead. No firing shots while down or anything like a legged mech.
And if they really wanted mechs to be the big boys, banning fusion engines from them, saying there was not way to fit them properly in a vehicle would have been the way to go. Make them all ICE and need power amps and heatsinks from the start. Maybe fudging the fact by saying there was no real way to turn the wheels and tracks with the power. The myomers are the only thing that can use the fusion engines out put.
But what about fighters and dropships? They are using thrust formed from the fusion core to propel them. Isn't that dangerous to all around them? A simple cracked shielding is dangerous enough, but what about the exhaust of those units? That would be spewing radioactive waste over a city they are landing at. I wonder if anyone has ever thought about that before setting it up.
I guess a fusion reactor is not a good idea, and they should have stuck with normal propellants.
And from what I have seen, the crits are the biggest factor with dealing with tanks. Most think they can walk up to them and should be able to wave a mechs hand and destroy them. And honestly, if vehicles were that useless, why invest in them at all? The resources would be better spent in like you said. Defense fighters for the planet.
An invading army is worthless if they can't reach the surface.
|
happyguy49
08/26/15 06:32 AM
98.30.242.159
|
Not to nitpick, but aerospace fusion reactors in the Battletech universe don't use radioactive isotopes for thrust. They use hydrogen, regular old H2. (that's the cool thing about Fusion, if we can ever get it to work. No uranium needed or nuclear waste to worry about.) Even if you had a Fission reactor on a spacecraft, it would be your source of POWER, not thrust.. you'd use the energy made by the reactor to expel the fuel out the back. A fusion plant could do this insanely efficiently, at a CONSTANT 1g acceleration; that's how you can use a dropship or warship to go from Earth to Pluto in a week or so.
Yes, vehicles in Battletech started out VERY nerfed, and I personally am glad this was toned down a bit in later editions. There is no logical reason a solid shell is somehow more vulnerable to lucky internal hits than a humanoid shaped thing that is covered in joints and twisty-parts.
In the game the rules for the units are different... with Battlemechs coming out slightly on top, because Giant Stompy Robots are cool, dammit!  That's the way the game should be.
For instance, vehicles can hold a greater NUMBER of big, bulky weapons, (so you can have Weapon-Carrier and artillery designs that a mech couldn't pull off). BUT, they can't mount double heat sinks cause then you could make a TC and pulse laser or PPC carrier that would WRECK two or three mechs before it is put down. It's a balance issue.
Hovers can carry the firepower of a medium mech, and move at the speed of a Locust.. but are even more vulnerable if you DO hit them, because of motive damage. WiGE, VTOL, take this speed-over-protection concept even further.
A lot of this stuff doesn't make "sense" but unless you are tired of Big Stompy Robots the rules as they are, balancing slightly in favor or mechs, work well.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/26/15 07:32 AM
71.170.162.49
|
The way I have always seen the way space craft engines work is you send your fusion power plant into meltdown. Then you pump in liquid hydrogen to supper cool the engine. The hydrogen very quickly sucks up the heat going from a liquid into a supper heated plasma.
Depending on the craft you either,
Expel that out of your ship for thrust aka Fighters or space ships in combat.
Or,
You use the electric power from the engine to power magnets that power an electromagnetic ion thruster that uses the plasma fuel as its component ions that are shoot out the thruster nozzles of the ship at the speed of light.
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
08/26/15 09:09 AM
70.118.139.48
|
The idea of the game doesn't go away if the vehicles are allowed endosteel or double heat sinks or lighter IC engines, the mechs still hold their place as top dog since they have a larger role and can go places that vehicles can't. You are not going to have a tank climb a mountain, though a mech could pull it off maybe.
Some places vehicles work better, urban areas, others they fail just as bad as mechs, again this only seems to be an issue when TPTB want to slam vehicles into ground and tote the Mechs Are the Game horn.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
08/26/15 11:55 AM
76.89.121.69
|
The easiest way I can think of to keep tanks from being so nasty is simple. Keep to the max armor for internals like mech locations. Maybe go 3 times internal to make up for a lack of moving parts. That would mean a 100 ton tank could have no more then 30 armor points in any one location. You could also increase the weapons weights saying it needs more equipment to use in a vehicle since in a mech, you can move body parts to help aim.
As for the fighters, I had always assumed the hot plasma was vented out of the thrusters from the engine. Which did make me think of flamers that use that same engine fuel for use.
If it was the coolant they use, how do they keep the coolant liquid for quick use in the units? You would need chillers running all the time to keep the temp down on it. Not something that is going to happen with regiments of mechs while there is no war going on. Too expensive to maintain.
Now if the engine isn't producing radioactive materials, why would an engine shielding failure produce radioactive waste that is so dangerous to all around them, that anyone working on one needs a suit? Even without using things like uranium, you can still have radioactive wastes from anything dealing with splitting or fusing atoms. Granted, you should not have as much without the uranium based products in the mix.
|
Karagin
08/27/15 07:18 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Where are you getting the idea that tanks can get nasty to the point of beating mechs every time? Are we even talking about the same game with the critical hit table and armor hit table for vehicles that prevents a vehicle in Battletech from ever challenging a mech for the top dog role?
Again show me how allowing a vehicle to use Endosteel, DHS and to have lighter IC engines would cause such foundation shattering changes, cause I am not seeing it.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
08/27/15 08:32 PM
76.7.232.58
|
They can... with the right alternative rules in place. If you want to make vehicles really useful, you can use those vehicle effectiveness rules that reduce the chance of motive and TAC crits. I use an unofficial rule that gives vehicles damage thresholds similar to Warships, so that damage with very low hit power won't be able to cause crits.(e.g. LB-X pebble can't OHKO your demolisher anymore)
Ghostrider, none of the isotopes relevant in the fusion process of BT are radioactive. There should not be any measurable radioactive decay or waste other than what's normal for all stable atoms.
|
Karagin
08/27/15 08:41 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Where did I suggest we change the rules Retry? I never suggested that at all, I said that giving vehicles the ability to use the same construction items as mechs aka Endo and DHS and a lighter IC Engine would NOT change the game to the point of the mechs losing their top spot.
So tell why would we need to change the rules, just because we allow them to have Endo and DHS, I am not following your illogical jump here. Vehicles are useful IF you know how to use them, if you don't well then they won't work for you.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
08/27/15 11:41 PM
76.7.232.58
|
You didn't, and I never said you did. As for "changing" the rules, only the damage threshold thing is not mentioned at all in Tactical Operations under the optional advanced combat settings.
I can use vehicles very well but without the advanced rules stuffs they'll get blown out of the water (well, land too) by well-designed mechs. It's far more fun and interesting when the vehicles don't get derped to death with LB-X and SRMs in the first couple turns too.
Edited by Retry (08/27/15 11:41 PM)
|
ghostrider
08/28/15 02:05 AM
76.89.121.69
|
Ok. So if there is no radioactive isotopes in the fusion process, why would a crack engine shielding put out anything that would require the hazmat suits other then heat? Or is that a novel/fluff concept of the game? Maybe I misread that.
If the shielding is not for radiation protection, then the whole concept of a fusion engine changes.
Now as for tanks beating mechs consistently. In some cases it should. An lrm carrier in the open should blow an urban mech away very consistently. But that is the exception.
Where are you getting the idea that tanks can get nasty to the point of beating mechs every time?
Was this directed at the statement I made about keeping tanks from being so nasty?
I think they are no where near that. It was for those people that think a mech should be able to basically wave a hand actuator and destroy every tank on the field.
I think mechs have the advantage even if you drop the amount of crits that can occur on the vehicles. It would also put some actual bite into using vehicles. A single mech, should not be able to destroy a full company of decent vehicles without take very substantial damage. It sounds like that isn't what some would like to hear.
And the damage threshold concept does a lot to change things like lbx from a crit making gun to something that just does a sand job on the armor. I agree that the pellets should not be as damaging to vehicles as it is.
But the idea of a well designed mech is subjective to the person. If you run in close encounters, a machine gun mech would be the ultimate design. No heat, plus dozens of mgs looking for the weak spot. Vehicles would die before you finish rolling the locations if even a dozen hits happen. Long range, well that changes what is good.
And I still think rolling to see if/how many crits a shot does on a tank, just like a mech is more then fair.
|
Karagin
08/28/15 06:22 AM
70.118.139.48
|
Even with the advanced rules vehicles die faster then mechs Retry, we all know this and we all know that the combat vehicles are second fiddle to the mechs, I am not seeing how your comment that the only way to use vehicles is to use the advanced rules or they die works, since as I just said they die even then.
This does not suggest or even support any of the points against allowing vehicles to use EndoSteel or DHS etc...all you are saying is vehicles are hosed by the rules, a point of fact that we have well established and all agree on.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
happyguy49
08/28/15 11:06 AM
98.30.242.159
|
If vehicles had DHS and Endo Steel you could make a heavy tank with like 5 ER PPC's.
(5*6, 30 tons.. heat is 75, engine DHS brings it down to 55, need 23 tons for more DHS.. total 53 tons for weapons/cooling)
Add hardened armor and maybe an ECM, AMS, something like that could kill any mech. Maybe Endo Steel could be put in the rules, but vehicles with DHS, considering they aren't limited by space in the way that 'Mech's are, would probably break the game.
|
ghostrider
08/28/15 11:29 AM
76.89.121.69
|
With a limit of equipment/weapons slots it is limited, though each spot could house a long tom, so you do have a point with that one. They are limited to how many, but not size of equipment.
Now with the example you gave, how fast is the unit?
Can the unit step out of a building and smash the enemy?
Or club it?
I would think you would try to get the weapons in a turret, otherwise, you are very limited in firing arc. Yes, it would be nasty, but having to turn the vehicle to target things is a pain.
Now with that being said. What is the likelyhood of it dieing being hit once?
And with what we know about stable platforms, why shouldn't a vehicle be able to hold more/better weapons then a walking robot? Most have a more stable platform as well as a stronger frame with less moving parts. Yes. Stronger frame. A simple 40 points on a non turreted 100 ton tank can carry more then most mechs. And it should be that way.
Vehicles don't need gyros, but they do have most of the rest, except myomers and actuators if they lack a turret.
The mech should be less durable then a vehicle not more. In an army, there is the regular units, and then the elite. Mechs are supposed to be elite. Movement was supposed to be why they are elite. Go anywhere, and do things vehicles can not. Without hands and arms, a vehicle can not pick up things without time consuming things like building an a frame, and then it is only pulling/dragging.
Maybe this might help. Consider mechs special forces of the army. Nothing overly special about them except then can get in and out with less support then other units. Orbital drops are much easier, and pick ups are that much easier. You can launch with them not tied down. They can hold onto grips if they have hands or be locked in quicker then any vehicle could. Speed of deployment and removal would be a factor.
But that does NOT limit the regular forces in an army.
|
Karagin
08/28/15 06:40 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Happyguy, there is NO way that tank you talk about would be moving fast enough to stop anything and given the crit table, again something you see to ignore, it would die very fast.
I never said we change everything for the vehicles, slot limits work well enough, I never said the hit table needed to be changed since that is to radical a change, I don't agree with said table, but in this case it acts as check on the vehicles and keeps the mechs in their top dog slot. I do find it odd that suggesting vehicles use Endo or DHS and all of a sudden folks want to complain vehicles will be too powerful cause you can mount 5 PPCs etc...guess what you can still mount them now, you just pay for it in slow movement, a crap ton of heat sinks and paper thin armor, yeah that makes a lot of sense.
Endo steel gives you a few more tons to play with, not massive amounts, nothing changes, it would follow the same rules as Ferro Armor does for vehicles, here is the benifit and here the drawback, oh look I managed to get a bit more ammo and some armor, oh damn, I just took a mobility critical hit and now my tank is a pillbox...boom now it's dead. Oh wait that is how things work now, just this time it took two more then normal.
DHS, let's see how is this going to be a game changer, let's see...my 300 rated fusion XL engine came with DHS when supply order it for fixing the old Highlander, but well we sold that for parts...so now all of sudden those DHS go away when we put it in my 100 Von Luncker...so far no one has really offered why this is not even TPTB.
So tell me again how having the DHS, which is 10 (20) starting would be that big of a change? You still have to have enough heat sinks for the energy weapons that stays, so really nothing has changed other then you stop wasting tonnage on heat sinks.
Maybe I am not seeing the scary dark places many of you seem to be in with this, and so far none of you have shown an argument as to why vehicles should not use EndoSteel or DHS or have lighter IC Engines given that we have a interstellar civilzation that can build mechs and dropships and aerospace fighters, but yet can't apply these things to other areas like vehicles etc...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
08/28/15 07:17 PM
76.89.121.69
|
It almost seems like they are confusing you with me. I suggested the lower the crit ability for vehicles. Dhs would have a larger effect on vehicles then alot of things would, but let's face it. Xl and even normal fusion engines did a lot to bring hard times to mechs, as well as no heat for ballistic and missile weapons. So would adding that back into the mix change how people think about other upgrades being allowed?
And I agree with your assessment of the fusion engine issue. There is no where in the rules stating anything about engines being stripped of sinks because it is going into a vehicle. Now I will admit, most logical argument here would be you can not use that engine, but there is no logic saying that you could not equip it other then the rules say no.
And now time to stir the pot.
That would also mean if you use salvage, you could not use an engine with single heatsinks standard in a unit that uses double heat sinks without removing the double sinks from the unit. To my knowledge you can NOT change the engines sinks out after the engine is built. But then alot arguing about not using them in the first place seem to avoid money as an option.
Now the interesting thing about alot of this argument is the same thing that happened when the clans upgraded items were introduced to the main game. A clan mech of lighter weight was almost assured of destroying an innsphere one in single combat. Bettter skills and equipment. They could roll across the battle field and barely get touched if they really wanted to. So the developers came out with their honor rules to prevent this. IF this was such a game changer, why release it?
|
Karagin
08/28/15 07:58 PM
70.118.139.48
|
The Clan mechs work as you say against folks who like to fight as if every battle is an arena fight, aka the run up to medium to short range then act like two WWF superstars and pretty much circle each other and trade damage back and forth till one dies of a lucky hit or three in a row or one simply wears the other down.
If you had folks who could use the terrain on the map boards even the lack luster amount of terrain on the standard BT map that came with the box set, then no the Clan mechs would not wipe them out with ease, it would be harder. The Clans at first gave into the inner munchkin for many and we all have seen the insanity of that on the enter or knew people who went hog wild with Clan tech etc...
Your idea of bring heat back for missiles and ACs for vehicles IF they were allowed the use of DHS is a valid counter point. I could see this working and then folks have to make a choice on should they use DHS or not, cost would be the same and things would then be a matter of how can a player (going with the idea that a group is running a campaign or something similar) afford this vehicle when they can get 3 non-DHS equipped ones for the cost or something like that.
The idea of trade offs come to mind and I am not seeing these doomsday tanks that Retry and Happy seem to be set on. The PTB seem to have this anti-vehicle mode and yet allowed for years the Pulse-Targ combo that was the bane of normal players and the Holy Grail of the munchkin and power gamers. IF anything hurt the game it was that, having the ability to combine the Targ and Pulse together for called shots and thus the coring of mechs became the only way many could win.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
08/29/15 12:19 AM
76.89.121.69
|
It is very similar to the doomsday mechs that are put up. Yes, there are units that would be very difficult to take down. The 5 heavy ppc tank that was mentioned would be a real pain, if it hits. And there is the key. Just like ultra 20 demolishers. If it hits with all shots fired, it is going to hurt. I understand why the developers are trying to keep the larger rotaries out of the game because of this. Set up right, and there is no real way to avoid the damage.
Honestly, I was not thinking of having the decision to have heat on vehicles with those weapons if you use dhs, I was thinking for all of them. But it does look like something that could be done. Even half heat for those weapons with the idea of having to close up the vehicles armor more then normal to make sure the air flows thru the sinks.
It would seem more of the long term players are using more mobile mechs over the brutes until they come up with the 'ultimate' combination one. But honestly, I would take a clan locust over alot of the heavier innersphere mechs if I get to design it from scratch. Granted something heavier is a little better, but I could still use the locust.
Hell, an all clan tech talon would work great. dhs with a few other things added. A few would want a large pulse, or mabye erll, but I do like the erppc to much. The min/max thing to hit with pulse/tc.
|
Retry
08/29/15 03:01 AM
76.7.232.58
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
The Clan mechs work as you say against folks who like to fight as if every battle is an arena fight, aka the run up to medium to short range then act like two WWF superstars and pretty much circle each other and trade damage back and forth till one dies of a lucky hit or three in a row or one simply wears the other down.
If you had folks who could use the terrain on the map boards even the lack luster amount of terrain on the standard BT map that came with the box set, then no the Clan mechs would not wipe them out with ease, it would be harder. The Clans at first gave into the inner munchkin for many and we all have seen the insanity of that on the enter or knew people who went hog wild with Clan tech etc...
Your idea of bring heat back for missiles and ACs for vehicles IF they were allowed the use of DHS is a valid counter point. I could see this working and then folks have to make a choice on should they use DHS or not, cost would be the same and things would then be a matter of how can a player (going with the idea that a group is running a campaign or something similar) afford this vehicle when they can get 3 non-DHS equipped ones for the cost or something like that.
The idea of trade offs come to mind and I am not seeing these doomsday tanks that Retry and Happy seem to be set on. The PTB seem to have this anti-vehicle mode and yet allowed for years the Pulse-Targ combo that was the bane of normal players and the Holy Grail of the munchkin and power gamers. IF anything hurt the game it was that, having the ability to combine the Targ and Pulse together for called shots and thus the coring of mechs became the only way many could win.
If one uses clan mechs in a tactical way, they become even deadlier and IS mechs become even worse off. It's not as though they aren't capable of it, and they'll demolish other clan mechs still abiding by the "arena" mentality. They have the better equipment, but that's not mutually exclusive with clever tactics, whose effectiveness can be further increased by the increased firepower, equipment, and mobility that often accompanies clan versions of mechs of a given weight class.
I'd prefer some rules like the no-heat stuff for autocannons (maybe not missiles) the same, to keep mechs and other vehicles more distinct. I don't have any issue whatsoever with endo-steel, but I'm on the fence with DHS.
Imagine fighting heavier Savannah Masters with three times the medium lasers and stealth armor.
With multiple energy weapons no longer taking up so much room on tanks, DHS will once again provide a disincentive to ballistic and missile based weapons as they did with battlemechs. Instead of a clan ERLL having a total weight with equipment of 16 tons, theoretical tank DHS will reduce this to 10, the weight of an unloaded clan Autocannon 10 (if its heat value isn't considered) which has the same damage value but inferior range. If you want targeting computers, the clan combination would weigh 11 tons plus a free ton for some other weapon if desired versus the AC/10 combo's 12 tons unloaded.
A Clan PPC on a vehicle currently has a total weight with equipment of 21 tons, with DHS this becomes 14 tons plus a spare heat point which can be used for e.g. one half-ton anti-infantry micro pulse laser. Still one of the heaviest weapons for a vehicle in the game, but it's far far better than it was. Comparable to a Gauss Rifle with two tons of ammo which would also weigh 14 tons if not counting heat sinks, but the ERPPC does not explode if hit, will not run out of ammo, and is easier to tie to a targeting computer. In terms of performance specs, the ERPPC has one more long range hex and one less medium range hex, and this tiny difference is not really enough to justify using a CL GR in place of a CL ERPPC on a DHS vehicle. This and other comparisons can be made to non-DHS and DHS benefitting energy weapons for vehicles, and the result will be the virtual phasing out of ballistic weapons and the reduced usage of missile weapons.
Most of the low-tech IS designs with ICE engines are already highly upgrade-able. Install a fusion engine on anything with an ICE engine. If it had energy weapons, the free SHS will give you a substantial bonus even before taking into account the inherently lighter SFE. With this you can add equipment, increase armor, maybe increase your speed, but I often simply decrease the tonnage of the tank which makes it much cheaper, sometimes even cheaper than the ICE original. DHS would make the upgrade potential on energy weapon boats like the Schreck and Ontos incredible, although anything with a large energy weapon mounted on it like the Bulldog would benefit.
For example, take a standard Bulldog with an ICE and its weapon arrangement of a machinegun, large laser and two SRM-4s. It costs 1.128 million C-bills and has a BV of 605. With a fusion engine, I could literally halve its tonnage, decrease price to about .825 million C-bills with a BV of 564. Instead, I'll use a standard fusion engine to turn it into a 35 tonner, add GECM, replace the MG with a SPL, and add a ton of armor. The cost is 1.285 million C-bills with a BV of 692, so it's not cheaper anymore though it's overall better. With DHS I can instantly upgrade this to incorporate Stealth Armor, providing it an extremely helpful, effective, and decisive advantage at long and medium ranges.
Would DHS on vehicles spell doom for mechs in this game? Probably not, but it mark the end for ballistic weapons on vehicles.
As for your strawman, I am in no way preaching about the rise of tanks and the end of mechs by merely adding endo-steel and DHS as available equipment for tanks.
|
Karagin
08/29/15 11:55 AM
70.118.139.48
|
DHS allowed mechs to get better, well some times, same with Ferro and Endo and XL engines, but there are still draw backs, something that is being over looked, the rules as written are not being suggested to be change, we still have the insane to hit table for vehicles complete with the even more insane chances to immobilize a vehicle, and having Endo and or DHS or a lighter IC engine will not change that. Nor will using the OPTIONAL advanced rules.
Yes, some vehicles will improve 10 times over with the use of DHS, but the draw back is in cost and lost of slots if it needs more then the 10, since we are keeping the rules the same like a vehicle needing to have enough heat sinks to fire things, so the more energy weapons you want to add then you need the heat sinks. Will you get a vehicle that can run rings around a mech? Sure, but that falls to the same category of the min-max level of building things in this game. We can all build mechs and vehicles that can wipe out canon units in 4 rounds of fighting, but is it worth it to play like that every time?
A way to make vehicle makers question the use of DHS as super weapon would be to raise the cost of them or treat them like the current rules treat IC engines, they would either weigh more or take up more item slots, plenty of ways to make these work without the PTB attitude that NO is the only answer. Also your points against DHS on vehicles can be applied to mechs as well. And were did anyone suggest that energy weapons would not take up less space? Let me say it again, NO RULES ARE CHANGED, the vehicles still to cover ALL heat from energy weapons, so the more you add the more you need to cover things which your OWN example follows, so how about we get it clear, no one suggesting the rules change for building vehicles beyond allowing for them to use ENDOSTEEL and DHS, and possible a lighter IC engine, does that help Retry? So the super tank of 5 ERPPC (Inner Sphere) is 75 heat, that means you still need at least 38 double heat sinks to cover it, and these things would follow the same weight as their mech counterparts and take up items slots as well, so would this be something you could buy into Retry or are you still seeing the boogie man lurking under the bed with this?
The use of the Clans and it's weapons are something each of us has different experiences with, and all the crying and gnashing of teeth over how evil or what they are isn't going to change the fact that a decent player can beat them even with 3025 tech and a good use of the terrain and tactical think, in others words play to your strengths not theirs.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
08/29/15 12:19 PM
76.89.121.69
|
From what I expeirenced, the greater range, and more power from most of the weapons means that for the innersphere to be in medium range, that would put it in or on the edge of short range for the clan weapons. Most would think a point or 2 was not that big of a deal, but when you have a mech with 6 points of armor on an arm, and the erml does 7, there is a good chance you are going to lose something in that arm. A simple mirror battle between Stingers. One clan weapons, nothing else really changes, and an innersphere one. That is why I was trying to point out.
Now from what I can see in retry's post, he does not suggest the weapons themselves become lighter, but the overall weight dedicated to keeping the weapon firing on an ice vehicle. I do agree it will make vehicles abilities more dangerous, but I think the decline in ballistic weapons on vehicle were already dropping since the limited ammunition was already making people swap out for energy weapons. The same could be said with mechs. If it is that big of a deal, then reduce or drop the heat from ballistic only weapons from mechs. Will that bring them back as a main form of offense for them?
Probably not.
And I believe this particular topic could be similar to the use of battle armor.
Did it destroy infantry? No.
Did the cost stop the IS from making it? No.
Making more efficient weapons is always a good thing for militaries. The governments fo the world are spending trillions on new vehicles to go to war with. What is the difference between an abrahms and say a company of sherman tanks?
I would think manpower and fuel. You could upgrade the shermans to hold alot of what the abrahms does, and still get a very workable tank for alot cheaper then one abrahms.
If cost was the actual factor in this whole crap about not making advanced weapons, then they would not have bothered upgrading systems since sending in a lance for the same price as one supposedly superior unit would not make sense.
|
Cray
08/29/15 12:35 PM
97.101.96.171
|
Yay! Everyone's still behaving!
It's been a while since a long debate on Sarna has been so well behaved.
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.
|
Karagin
08/29/15 03:18 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Cost is something that FASA and the rest seem to only apply to the players NOT the in-house groups.
I do agree that we have a ways to go to make a common ground on this topic, so far we have seen pros and cons and such for subjects, and we can all agree on that.
There is efficient and then there is the pipe dreams that tease just enough to get the generals and admirals all stoked up and then you never quit see any results and when you do, the item(s) need tons of upgrades and extras and end up being a bigger boondoggle then needed to be and this after hundreds of thousands built and paid for...Sgt York ADA system comes to mine or the Sheridan tank...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
08/29/15 03:57 PM
76.89.121.69
|
At the very least, I would figure the houses would equip elite units with the better weapons, and would want to do it without others knowing where the stuff came from. Buying from the clans is still like the U.S and Russia is at this time. Not something to be relied on.
And what the hell is that Cray? Are you trying to get everyone stirred up by telling us we have not been the raging bulls we normally are? For shame for trolling us.
Nothing said about anything in the thread. I would assume he should be tagged for thread jacking.
Stupid question, but is endosteel allowed in aerospace assets like warships, dropships, jumpships and stations? Even fighters would gain from it. But that is sidetracking this.
Now back to the economics of using things like dhs and endosteel in vehicles. If costs were really an issue, I would think pumping out jeeps would be the best way to deal with any invasion. From the sounds of it, the costs of a single assault tank meant to die quickly would not be worthwhile if you could use a battalion of jeeps. Yes, they tend to die with one shot, but they should do more damage then a behemoth tank does if cost is really the key. But this is getting to a point of argument.
Other then making vehicles tougher, what other logic beside trying to say costs, would there be for allowing this? Vehicles still suffer alot more then mechs do from crits and even movement.
You want to prevent vehicles from attacking a base or factory? Put in on a mesa or surround it by heavy forest so only air movement or mechs can get to it.
To be real nasty, have water jets hose the road then spray it with liquid nitrogen. The ice will make sure only hovers would be able to travel the roads. A few pillboxes and that become obsolete.
|
Akirapryde2006
08/29/15 07:16 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Look as far as anyone has been able to explain it to me, the issue with equipment and weapons in this universe being so unavailable is solely due to the authors of the universe itself.
It makes no sense that a solar system with a wealth of natural resources would not be able to support the industry of that solar system. The idea that only a handful of worlds could produce fusion engines is insane to me.
Speaking in terms of leaders, you would want more factories. This way, if you loss one, it doesn't kill your war industry as a whole.
Sure it would take effort, but you are talking again about resources in terms of hundreds of worlds. Not just the habitable ones, but even the dead rocks hold resources.
I mean the story plot makes for good reading but in terms of believably, it is sorrowfully lacking.
|
Karagin
08/29/15 11:09 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Pretty much the TPB original had not given vehicles more then a passing thought and then shoehorned them in. Other wise we would have seen them get the same treatments as mechs, better tech, more usefulness, the idea of ONE rule set for the support and combat vehicles for both use and design etc...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
08/30/15 01:11 AM
76.89.121.69
|
It could have worked, had they done it from the start. Another game uses mech units and vehicles takes care of them. They did not allow the vehicles to use any of the real high tech of the mechs for vehicles. But then they did not make the vehicles REQUIRED to survive. They are support, not the main defense so mechs were tied up in defense. Instead the mechs were mainly for the assaults.
Had they done this from the start, they would not have had to deal with this. Though technically they still aren't. They said no, so that is their answer.
I would hope those still willing to buy their products would pressure them to answer some questions, since they have already lost my business. It could be a great game again, but they need to figure out what they are doing. I would say stop all the little upgrades making dozens of books with the information that would fit in one thin one, but that means cutting into profits.
I had thought about the clans selling tech to the innersphere and came up with a question that might help remove the garbage of buying from the clans.
Can they produce the items the entire innersphere would be trying to purchase?
I thought their manufacturing base was keep small to avoid waste. With that in mind, could they keep up with just the double heat sinks the innersphere would be purchasing just for the newly built mech, and not even considering stock piles or refits? That alone should overlord the shipment lines from the clan home world. And how much of your order would you want verse known enemies?
|
happyguy49
08/30/15 03:14 AM
98.30.242.159
|
Well, this would depend on the timeline.. but as of 3150 or so, I believe there is total separation of the clans into homeworld clans and inner sphere clans. They no longer interact.. the homeworld clans consider the IS and the IS clans to be tainted. They walled themselves off from the rest of humanity during/after the Wars of Reaving.
Also, apparently ALL of the inner sphere clans can manufacture all their own kit at various facilities in their Inner Sphere holdings. Which makes sense.. they have been in the IS for close to a century now. The Bears, Falcons, Wolves, Horses, Ravens, Sea Foxes, all have new designs in the 32nd century Technical Readouts. (unless, improbably, they are trading/trialing with each other for the clan-tech items that they individually can't make.. or still using up vast stockpiles of materials brought from the homeworlds when they migrated. I think that's unlikely.)
The Sea Foxes specifically are apparently selling clan-tech to anyone who can pay; there are now mixed-tech designs in the BOOKS. Which is nice ...but what we need in the RULES are price lists that differentiate the tech, and reflect the relative desirability/scarcity of clan-tech to interested inner sphere buyers/manufacturers.
Separately, regarding Vee's, I think they are sufficiently de-nerfed with the newer rules and equipment, especially the Hardened Armor. With that, even if you get a crit roll, you now have to roll a 10 or higher to get a crit IIRC.
I am in favor of introducing Endo Steel internal-structure weight reduction for vehicles and fighters. It might need a different name and fluff, though.. carbon fiber nanotubes or something similar.
It is indeed true that vehicles in Battletech were created second-fiddle to Battlemechs from the start. (weren't they introduced in CityTech? i am nostalgia-tripping so hard now back to the 1990's lol) That is ok.. that's what this game is. They HAVE come into their own though. Vehicles are cool and effective now.
I do think DHS for vee's would break or nearly-break the game though. MAYBE some kind of "vehicular radical heat sink" system could be created. If a vehicle has that, it can now use DHS, but has to track movement heat and missile, ballistic weapon heat as a mech does. Does anyone think that could work?
Edited by happyguy49 (08/30/15 03:26 AM)
|
ghostrider
08/30/15 10:43 AM
76.89.121.69
|
Stupid thought just occured to me. The innersphere made clan tech would not be more then the clans themselves, since people would not pay for it. And I know someone will try to use that as the reason the innersphere would not produce the tech. People might be willing to risk buying clan tech for the reliability, which would keep them in the market. But I guess that would eventually bring down prices, which would stop the crap of limiting the items.
Movement heat would not work unless you require them to have heat sinks period. With ICE's they can move, fire non energy weapons, and use turrets without worries. But on the flipside, they can not over heat it what so ever. Not a single point.
Granted limiting it to units with double heat sinks might work, but I don't think so. I think it would only cause more issues without solving any. But that is just me.
Which brings up another thing mechs have going for them. A vehicle can NOT fire energy weapons above the heat sink level to dissipate them. Knock out a single heat sink in a ppc only armed vechile and it can not fire even though the weapon in perfect shape.
I personally think adding some weight to it for ducting and stuff would be acceptable depending on the weight of the system. Or maybe limiting how many you could have based on size of unit/airflow concept.
As an experiment, you could try the dhs, with an experimental idea to it. Say it is a prototype system, use it on a few vehicles. If it is that powerful, and disruptive, then say the systems exploded during combat from issues ranging from damage to leaks, to faulty construction. And remove it from the game. If it doesn't destroy the balance like people think it will, then you can slowly add it into the game.
That will also allow you to see if a limited set up might be best. Sooner or later someone will ask why it hasn't upgraded yet (ICE) with the rest of the tech.
|
ghostrider
11/19/15 05:26 PM
98.150.102.177
|
Stupid thought hit me out of the blue.
We were discussing the costs of items in the innersphere, and it dawned on me that alot of things are not as cheap as I thought. I forgot one basic thing.
1 c-bill= 5 dollars.
That means the cost of a 3025 locust isn't 1.5 million, but 7.5 million dollars. This would be a comparison to todays costs, as the house bills each have their own exchange rate.
With this being said, I have not seen much saying the price of a mech is changed from where it is purchased. If keeping on a one for one basis, the capellan confederation would be the mech sales champ hands down for the innersphere. While the lyrans would be almost equal to comstar for even price. Now that would be for buying. Selling is a different creature.
And for those that think the state doesn't control manufacturing, explain why any of the producers would both to see in the confederation. Not sell to, but in. Ship all units to say the lyrans for sale. And I seriously doubt ANYONE would sell in the confederation due to bad money exchange.
It also brought up the idea of funds. With world powers spending so much on defense, it is laughable for them to suggest they couldn't afford the costs for alot of defense forces. I guess economics not matching is getting to me.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 66 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 enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 20723
|
|
|
|
|
|
|