His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
10/06/15 04:30 AM
71.170.162.49
|
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:
Quote:
Ironnerd writes:
Granted, Battlemechs don't make much sense in the real world, but if vehicles are on par with them, they stop making any sense in Battletech.
I would really like to know why you feel Battlemechs don't make much sense in the real world?
Mechs versus tanks...
Mech has a very large surface area to target. A tank has as small as a surface area as possible which is determined mostly by the crew and the quantity of ammunition that is on board than the weapon systems them self's or other systems that the tank might carry. The same goes with the thickness of the armor plating. The more surface area the thinner the armor plating is per ton of armor protection over the entire machine. If you have ten times the surface area to protect your armor protection will be one tenth of the thickness. An armor piercing .50 cal machine gun round could penetrate a mechs armor plating
Mechs have large numbers of areas that have little to no armor protection do to joints that must be able to move. Tanks only have a very small area where their treads cant be protected by armor plating every where else tanks are well protected by armor plating.
Then there is the center of gravity. Mechs center of gravity is very high on a very small area in which to maintain balance that balance which makes them very unstable for firing any weapon that creates a recoil or when ever they take hits. Tanks are very low to the ground and are quite wide which makes them almost impossible to cause them to flip over.
The only thing that is in battletech for the most part that has not been created in the real world already is battlearmor and that might be seen on the battlefield in decades to come. In the real world the true breakthroughs that we will see will be in unmanned weapons systems and the way to counter them that is unless the use of armed drone are outlawed in combat. I can see that the Geneva Convention might be updated to outlaw the use of unmanned drones as weapon carrying platforms.
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!!!
|
Ironnerd
10/09/15 09:13 PM
68.184.124.238
|
^^^^^^^
All of the above.
Battlemechs don't make much real-world sense to me because they are amazingly expensive and difficult to build. And that's only the initial cost it would be cripplingly expensive to move, supply, and maintain these things. They are so tall that they would be impossible to hide or camouflage.
For a game, however, they are AWESOME! On par with Dragons and Starships.
|
Akirapryde2006
10/12/15 10:06 AM
71.100.132.249
|
Donkey, you have my appologies for the delay in replying. Last week was a very busy week for me.
Okay I am going to look at your comments one para at a time. But before we move forward, I want to express how much I love the original concepts of Battletech and how the original creators drew on lessons of history to create a game that was so easily addictive. The novels were well written and followed a very surprising set of standards. It is through these standards that the world can really come alive.
I want to you understand that I do no think that Battlemechs today are possible. However as a point of consideration and imagination, I think that given enough advances in technology I think that the concept of the Battlemech could be realized in some fashion. This argument/conversation is not meant to prove that today Battlemechs could walk the world. But to prove that as a concept they could become a reality at some point in our future.
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
Mechs versus tanks...
Mech has a very large surface area to target. A tank has as small as a surface area as possible which is determined mostly by the crew and the quantity of ammunition that is on board than the weapon systems them self's or other systems that the tank might carry. The same goes with the thickness of the armor plating. The more surface area the thinner the armor plating is per ton of armor protection over the entire machine. If you have ten times the surface area to protect your armor protection will be one tenth of the thickness. An armor piercing .50 cal machine gun round could penetrate a mechs armor plating
WWII taught us as a historical fact that armor thickness is only part of the equation when it comes to protection vs penetration. Take the T-34, arguably one of the best tanks of its time. German Field Marshal Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist commented that this little tank was the "finest tank in the world." While the T-34 had good armor thickness, this was greatly enhanced by slopping the armor. Thus increasing the overall thickness of the armor without increasing the weight of the over all armor. I know that you will offer up a number of Battlemech designs where it shows the mechs with flat armors compared to slopped armor of Tanks. I concede this points, but only bring this up to show that weight of armor is only one factor in protection.
Also using different alloys, armor weight and protection could differ greatly. Throughout the novels, it is always mentioned that Battlemech armor is somehow much more dense and offers more protection than its normal counterparts. This references lead the readers and fans to realize that Battlemech Armor is superior to armor used on Tanks. take Titanium (used on most attack helicopters and some attack air craft), Uranium (in a depleted version used on the Abrams) and Plastic Armor (yes, Plastic Armor. Developed by the British during WWII for their merchant ships) have all superior qualities of protection than their Iron counterparts. Who is to say that Battlemechs have their own style of armor that is much denser than their tank counterparts. But then the question can be offered that why can't tanks have the same kind of armor. I am sure that they can, which would place both units on equal footing in terms of armor/protection.
So as an argument, we stand at the very least both units are equal in armor. Yes yes I know that the mechanics of the game don't lean this way. But lets look at this only from a logical perspective.
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
Mechs have large numbers of areas that have little to no armor protection do to joints that must be able to move. Tanks only have a very small area where their treads cant be protected by armor plating every where else tanks are well protected by armor plating.
Actually this is very misleading. If you look back to history and Full Plate Armor you will see how joints can easily be protected. By using layers of metal/armor like you see in medieval Plate Armor you can still protect these joints. These joints can be protected and still move with relative ease when properly maintained (This issue will be addressed in a moment). However throughout the novels, joints have always been a place heavily targeted during combat because despite best efforts, they are weak spots. Such is the nature of the beast in the designs.
However should a Battlemech take a critical in the joint that doesn't kill the unit. A damaged joint only limits that limb. Even a leg joint critical makes piloting the unit harder, not impossible. It doesn't even cause the mech to fall. However, a tank that takes a critical in the track (even on critical) kills the tank's ability to move. A critical in tank's turret limits the tank's field of fire. This ability to soak damage even after the majority of its armor is gone has been reflected in the mechanics of the game and throughout the novels. Battlemechs have been known for taking incredible amounts of damage and still continue to fight. While once a tank losses its armor, the tank is often destroyed.
There are vast areas of the Battlemech that a Critical hit could land and not cause the Battlemech to loose combat effectiveness. The Tank also has the same benefit, however the Battlemech can take many more of these hits before falling in battle than the Tank can. We can see this in both the mechanics of the game and in terms of the complex tight spaces of the tank. Should a round penetrate a tank, there isn't much places to go then to hit something critical. Battlemechs have voids between the armor and internal structure. These voids are not critical for operation of the unit.
There is one place where the Battlemech is (and has always been vulnerable) the Cockpit. There had been countless references of critical hits to the cockpit (thus killing to the pilot) without major damage to the Battlemech. The cockpit is a known weakness for the battlemech. The Tank has a similar weakness, a crew critical. Any penetration of the Tank's armor risks killing the crew. Lets look at this mechanically in terms of the rules of the game and within logic of the real world.
A hit on the cockpit must hit the head of the mech. Either penetrate the armor or remove the armor completely. Then hit the cockpit or destroy the head completely. While not an impossible task, it is difficult. Any hit on the tank could risk hitting the crew. Either the hit penetrates the armor (either by armor piercing rounds or a lucky crit) or by shredding the armor, the hit on the crew is much more likely.
So in terms of survivability the battlemech can protect itself and its pilot more than the Tank can. Because of this durability the Battlemech as a concept is superior to the Tank, much like the tank was superior to the mount cavalry.
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
Then there is the center of gravity. Mechs center of gravity is very high on a very small area in which to maintain balance that balance which makes them very unstable for firing any weapon that creates a recoil or when ever they take hits. Tanks are very low to the ground and are quite wide which makes them almost impossible to cause them to flip over.
While you are right, the Battlemech does have a high center of gravity and its ratio of height to stance is lopsided compared to the tank. However this has been corrected by use of the Nero-helmet and the Gryo of the Battlemech. Yes I concede that I have never read of a Tank Falling over. Though I have read once where a Battlemech kicked a tank over. I don't recall the book now, and if you want I can try to find the passage. But I don't think that this is your point, so I wont distract us.
It is this combination of the Nero-Helmet/Gyroscope that gives the Battlemech its edge over the tank. Tanks are limited by the terrain in which they operate. Battlemechs can walk over nearly every terrain with ease (some require minor piloting skills but generally these are effortless). In reading the novels, you see the Battlemechs making motions during combat to fire. It will move a leg back to brace itself much like we as being move to brace just before firing a rifle. To the skilled pilot, these motions are keys to knowing what the enemy is going to do right before he does it. You can see these as you follow Justin Allard and his life on Solaris.
Battlemechs bring to the battlefield something that we as humans have sought since the dawn of conflict. A prefect unity of mind and machine. The Battlemech can reach down and pick up objects and use them during the heat of combat. Even other mech parts like legs can become clubs. A tank lacks this versatility. Once its weapons are spent the tank is a armored observation point on the battlefield. A battlemech could continue to fight by simply kicking or punching other units. A mech could even pick up an object and hurl it at an enemy (While I am pressed to support this claim, I can't imagine that its not the case).
No matter how good a tank crew is, they will never have the same level of unity with their tank that comes from the Nero-Helmet and Battlemech. This alone makes the Battlemech vastly superior to the tank in my opinion. Because of this, I can't imagine that something like the Battlemech wont come to pass at one point in time. Can we have it today? That's a good question.
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
The only thing that is in battletech for the most part that has not been created in the real world already is battlearmor and that might be seen on the battlefield in decades to come. In the real world the true breakthroughs that we will see will be in unmanned weapons systems and the way to counter them that is unless the use of armed drone are outlawed in combat. I can see that the Geneva Convention might be updated to outlaw the use of unmanned drones as weapon carrying platforms.
What I love about humanity is our imagination. Even in this conversation, we are talking about what could be tomorrow. We as a race are remarkable about taking things from our imagination to reality. In the next ten, fifteen twenty years who knows what we will create. Maybe we would see Battlemechs on the battlefield. But you bring up the idea of battle armor. I found this this YouTube Video that expresses why I love humanity so much. A guy created a real world version of batman's body armor.
Think of the Cell Phone, inspired by Star Trek and today I bet no one can imagine a world without them. Our minds and future is limited only by our imagination. So who knows what tomorrow will bring.
Quote:
Ironnerd:
Battlemechs don't make much real-world sense to me because they are amazingly expensive and difficult to build. And that's only the initial cost it would be cripplingly expensive to move, supply, and maintain these things. They are so tall that they would be impossible to hide or camouflage.
Ironnerd, I concede the points that Battlemechs are insanely expensive to build AND (more importantly) maintain. However their supply and transport would not be any different than any other high tech weapon system on the battlefield. As they fire the same ammo as tanks do. Use similar fusion engines as some tanks do.
The true weakness of the Battlemech would be in maintaining them. It is in this that their greatest downfall shows up. While the Battlemech might survive a battle, the skills needed to repair them and the time that that would take would limit their role in the next battle. In this longer turn around means that a commander might not want to deploy them right away. Saving his mech units for the knockout punch while Armor and Infantry fight the main battles. This is where the Tank would be superior. Tanks have been proven to be easier to maintain and repair than their Mech counter parts.
As for hiding battlemechs. I will say its hard but not impossible. There are a number of ways a mech can be camouflaged. Even in open terrain or in woods. Burring defending mechs on a battlefield has been a favorite tactic, as is hanging metal strips in forests to mask a mechs location. Still, it is harder to hide a mech than a tank. And a infantry scout unit could easily spot a hidden mech or tank before the main unit arrives.
Please take a moment to check out my sited sources. I hope you find my comments enlightening and compelling.
Akira
Sited Sources:
T-34
Sloped Armour
Vehicle Armour
Components of Plate Armor
Justin Allard
Batman's Body Armor
|
ghostrider
10/12/15 11:53 AM
98.150.102.177
|
Well in the battle for twycross, Kai was said to have thrown the hatchet on his hatcheman in one of the battles. So if you are looking for an example, that is it.
Now with armor effectiveness, sloping does help by channeling the force away from the unit instead of directly into the armor. Mech graphics are the problem at times, as they do not show what it should really look verses what looks cool. That is more visual then it should be.
And the use of smaller plates sliding over each other in the full and field platemails are a good example of how armor does cover a lot of joints. It is the ring joints that are the hardest to protect, like the hip joints in the locust, and the entire hip assembly for the marauder.
The surface area you can target does make you wonder if there should be a penalty for shooting at the tank, since it is a smaller target, but that is a different thing. As for a tank falling down, that is physics. Since there is not actual standing up, you have all four corners of the tank on the ground (exception with hover and flying units), it is difficult to fall like that. Which makes me wonder if quads take the same damage being much shorter then standard mechs.
Now one of the biggest sci fi things that became real is lasers. They don't blow up worlds at this time. And another big thing most would never have thought of. Flight itself.
Oh, incase you didn't see it, they do have mechs on the market today. The one that I seen didn't walk so much as had tracks on the feet to move it, but it was humanoid and have bb guns so you could actually fire it without worrying so much about killing someone a few thousand feet on the other side of your target, weither paper or tree.
And a scary thought. Some kid put a hand gun on a drone that works correctly. Just food for thought there.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
11/02/15 11:09 PM
172.56.20.46
|
Akirapryde2006 You keep jumping from real world physics to make believe game physics aka pretend physics. My entire arguments is baced on real world physics. Vast majority of your argument is based on what someone made up to make a good story and has little bearing on real science and as such I cant take it serious for real world applications.
One of your agrments is that there is a gyro to help keep a mechs balance. Something that your leaving out is size of scale. The bigger something becomes the harder it is to start to move or to stop moving. Yes you can throw your leg or arm out to regane your balance this does not work the bigger something becomes. Remember when you double the size of something the weight goes up by eight fold and not double. Its easy to move and to stop an arm that weighs what, ten-fifteen or so pounds? To do the same act with a mechs arm that weighs a couple metric tons is out right impossible.
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
11/03/15 11:57 AM
98.150.102.177
|
Donkey is correct and without getting into more advance things like the fact some mech don't have arms, they just have a weapon like a small laser on a turret makes that even harder to 'throw out' to try and balance a mech. Stalkers are even worse. This could be said of other mechs like rifleman.
Now it does help some, but there is a limit.
Another thing that bugs me about falls and even moving to avoid charges and such is if you use all of a mechs movement getting into one spot, where does this extra movement come from? Yes, I know, the stop/go situation of the game does not allow for a fluid movement which would explain some of it, but you still run into the 'extra' movement to avoid a fall. And speaking of which, a jumping mech should have more penalty trying to right itself, with distance creating more issues.
|
Akirapryde2006
11/03/15 06:26 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
Akirapryde2006 You keep jumping from real world physics to make believe game physics aka pretend physics. My entire arguments is baced on real world physics. Vast majority of your argument is based on what someone made up to make a good story and has little bearing on real science and as such I cant take it serious for real world applications.
One of your agrments is that there is a gyro to help keep a mechs balance. Something that your leaving out is size of scale. The bigger something becomes the harder it is to start to move or to stop moving. Yes you can throw your leg or arm out to regane your balance this does not work the bigger something becomes. Remember when you double the size of something the weight goes up by eight fold and not double. Its easy to move and to stop an arm that weighs what, ten-fifteen or so pounds? To do the same act with a mechs arm that weighs a couple metric tons is out right impossible.
Guilty as charged, yes I do jump between a fictional game physics and real world physics. But I think you mistake my stance in this conversation.
I am not saying that someone...anyone could build a battlemech today. I mean seriously there are more than just technological issues that would make this task nearly impossible. The cost of such technology would be prohibitive. What I am saying, given the technology would a battlemech be an effective unit on the battlefield? Yes, I believe that a battlemech could serve on a modern battlefield. Would it be the king of the battlefield that the game makes it out to be? No, hardly. The pace of technology (as seen with the tank) would force designers to improve the battlemech driving up the costs even higher.
The march of technology would keep other units on pace with the battlemech. It was true with the mounted cavalry, as it is with the airplane, as it is with the tank and so will it be with anything else that is created for the field of war.
With all that said, a friend of mine pointed this out to me. Its worth viewing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVJTGLL2SnI
Look technology is advancing exponentially. Robots are moving through conditions that were once thought impossible for them a few years ago. I mean just think five years ago, a robot couldn't walk across ice, up a snowy hill, resist falling over after being shoved or kicked. No one would have ever thought that it would be able to leap.
Check this video out, and note the date it was done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww
Akira
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
11/03/15 10:58 PM
172.56.21.122
|
There is a would of a difference between a toy gun as that thing is in the video and a real weapon of war. No one other than some scifi geek would ever take that thing serious.
The days of main battle tank are long over because they are to costly and vulnerable to attack. You cant take them anywhere with out a large screening of infantry to pertect it from an enemies infantry attack. A battlemech would be even more vulnerable to such an attack because there is only so fast that you can make legs move with out tripping.
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
11/04/15 03:09 AM
98.150.102.177
|
I think the problem with battlemechs use is they should be the elite forces sent in, not the main units.
This is something I think the game gets wrong. They suggest they are so rare and try to make it sound like they are supposed to be unbeatable, but they aren't. And to make them so superior, they are cutting the abilities of other units to try and force that on people.
Mechs are the first deployed in landings as you can drop them from the ships. I want to say the new rules say tanks can be done like that now, but haven't seen the rules.
Even if they are, they can not compete with a mech for the ability to get up and move to where no tank can go. Aircraft can follow, but they tend to die one on one. Aerofighters can be used, but tend to be kept for keeping other aerofighters from attacking the base. Mechs are supposed to be able to get in, do the job and get out.
Yet they are outnumbered by vehicles by so much, and yet, those very vehicles seem to be more expensive to build in order to keep up with the mechs.
Why?
They are supposed to be cheap so you send hordes after mechs, Yet without the higher tech, it seemed alot of tanks were close to, if not more expensive then the mechs. Fusion engines seem to be the main costs. And for some reason, tanks don't seem to match the planets conditions. Lrm carriers on a heavy forested planet?
Lots of srm carriers on a farming planet with lots of open fields?
Maybe put mechs back to being the elite forces and you can shut down the crap that seems to pervade the thought of the game. Too many seem to think mechs are the only front line combat unit, which seems to be the issue with alot of the rules and changes.
Armored infantry is seems to be better then mechs, since they are cheaper, easier to build and looks like more effective in the field. Used properly, they can very well take out mechs and suvived. No small damage instant kills on them like every other unit in the field. The can be halo dropped and can get out of trouble quickly.
Maybe the stories is the issue with this. It always seems the main characters can hide an assault mech from everyone, yet they can find everything else except for the one person in another assault mech until the ambush.
This also includes mechs on guard duty around facilities constantly not being able to see the raiders coming in. It is inconsistencies like this that make you question the whole concept of the game.
|
Akirapryde2006
11/04/15 10:08 AM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:
There is a would of a difference between a toy gun as that thing is in the video and a real weapon of war. No one other than some scifi geek would ever take that thing serious.
The days of main battle tank are long over because they are to costly and vulnerable to attack. You cant take them anywhere with out a large screening of infantry to pertect it from an enemies infantry attack. A battlemech would be even more vulnerable to such an attack because there is only so fast that you can make legs move with out tripping.
It has gotten to the point that I am not sure what your argument is. That Battlemechs could not ever exist in regards to physics? That given the current technology that Battlemechs are impossible? Do you mind restating your stance in this conversation?
The first video as stated was just something worth watching. It was cool to see how the unit moves and operates. The upcoming duel was be pretty cool to watch. The second video however was more on topic than the first one. The Big Dog proves my point that as the march of technology goes, one day we might see massive Battlemecchs as weapon platforms on the battlefield.
The Big Dog features technology that the authors of this universe only imagined back in the 80's. Such technologies like Laser Gyroscopes and stereo vision (as seen in our own eyes).
The fact that this piece of equipment is fully autonomous. Locomotion is controlled by an onboard computer that receives input from the robot's various sensors. Navigation and balance are also managed by the control system.
Sure Battlemechs are a thing of fiction, but back in the 70's so were Cell Phones. But the inventor of the Cell Phone were inspired by the TV show Star Trek. It completely wouldn't surprise me that at least one of the members of the development team of this robot was not inspired in some degree by the game/universe of Battletech.
As for your comments about the Main Battle Tank. While I don't think they are still the kings of the battlefield as they were during WWII. But their usefulness on the battlefield is still far from over. Sure the development of the Attack Helicopter has given the tank a run for its money, but the Attack Helicopter has to withdraw from the battlefield to refuel/rearm at one point. While you can bring fuel and ammunition to a tank in the field.
Since their first deployment during WWI, the Tank has given birth to a range of combat weapon platforms that have made the modern battlefield a very dangerous place. Take the Striker, an armored personal carrier with some degree of fighting ability meant to replace the aging Bradly Infantry Fighting Vehicle. But I am reluctant to dive in to this conversation as it would take us away from the original topic.
But I have to ask, can you please restate your position on this topic?
Akira
Cited Sources:
Wikipedia: Striker
Wikipedia: Big Dog Project
Wikipedia: Ring Laser Gyroscope
Edited by Akirapryde2006 (11/04/15 10:10 AM)
|
ghostrider
11/04/15 12:07 PM
98.150.102.177
|
Sorry about last post. Didn't have thoughts together. I still haven't learned to avoid posting without thinking things thru.
Points still valid, just hard to determine.
|
Akirapryde2006
11/04/15 12:49 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Sorry about last post. Didn't have thoughts together. I still haven't learned to avoid posting without thinking things thru.
Points still valid, just hard to determine.
Valid points, yes. But it was really hard for me to figure out where you were going with it. LOL
No worries. We all have off days.
Though I have to admit, I love debating with you. You have this way of bringing up out of the box logic and force me to better my own argument to stay on the same level with you. lol
Akira
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
11/10/15 06:01 PM
71.170.162.49
|
Quote:
pontificateAkirapryde2006 writes:
It has gotten to the point that I am not sure what your argument is. That Battlemechs could not ever exist in regards to physics?
My point is that battlemechs will never be a viable combat platform.
Quote:
That given the current technology that Battlemechs are impossible?
No matter what level that technology obtains there is just no way to change the fact that mechs are just to big and clumsy. That are just a massive slow moving target.
Braking things down,
They cant have any real amount of protective armor do to the large amount of surface area that needs protecting.
Large amounts of joints that have vulnerable areas that the armor can be bypassed.
Large mass that is just hard to keep under control and even more so at any real speed.
Very high center of gravity.
Quote:
Do you mind restating your stance in this conversation?
I don't mind at all.
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!!!
Edited by His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey (11/10/15 06:02 PM)
|
Wrangler
05/26/17 09:08 AM
131.239.31.200
|
Quote:
Mumm-Ra writes:
Ancient Spirits of Evil,
Transform this decayed Forum Thread,
to a ACTIVE Thread!!
Sorry for resurrecting this.
For RPG purposes, aside from what system your using: A Time of War, MW1-3 RPG, Shadowrun (Yes that works very well, more fun throwing more dice keep your vehicle alive in rpg setting)
I think you can have rpg themed Battletech game. Depending on the system your using, i heavily recommend using Vehicle Effective Rules in TacOps should you play the tank tactical combat using that while the roleplaying is done in MW/ATOW. A group i once went with (recently) used Shadowrun rules and it handled thing beautifully. They just had to add couple extra skill sets related directly to Battletech such as Battletechnology (skill, like fixing mechs) Tanks thou are in that universe, the vehicle combat system is pretty good. Additional weapons stats would be needed to handle the Battletech's scale weapons since their sometimes a step above normal shadowtech equipment. Like say a Large laser does alot damage vs a large caliber weapon. So there adjustments needed.
Shadowrun 5 rules need to ignore the magical and some of the hyper tech related things such as Maxtrix. Cybernetics do exist in Battletech but not on the scale SR does them, of course the other meta races (elves, ogres etc) don't exist either.
Role playing is pretty good and polished as well.
When it hits the fan, make sure your locked, loaded, and ready to go!
Edited by Wrangler (05/26/17 09:08 AM)
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 22 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: 10113
|
|
|
|
|
|
|