issues with perceived holes

Pages: 1
ghostrider
04/05/16 02:58 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
There are a few areas the game seems to have issue with, and a few ideas seem to fix some issues, but doesn't do a full balance of these issues. This whole concept would mean a total revamp of the game, so I know it will not be liked. IT IS a suggestion.

So let's start with some basic heat issues.
First. Every unit should require heat sinks. Fusion engines can hide the sink criticals, but should not offer free ones with it. That should cost the unit 1 ton for each sink.
This would mean the only advantage a fusion engine would give is weight savings. It would also stop the magic of having 10 tons of free weight given to a unit for having a half ton fusion engine. As an alternative, the engine comes with 1 free sink for each sink it normally hides, up to a max of 10. Bump the starting weight of engines to 1.5, then once it reaches that normally, then advance the weight.
This may swing energy weapons back to a more neutral position of use on units. Maybe not.

Along with this, ballistic and missile weapons should produce heat for all units or none.
It is highly questionable having an lrm 20 pack in the body of a vehicle, not produce heat for said unit, while the hand held ac 5 on a wolverine does. This limits the amount of weapons all units can have.

There is more to come. But for now, it is something to argue about.
ghostrider
04/05/16 03:02 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Another issue I think it there is engine costs.
I think engines should have a standard cost, as the myomers is what allows the unit different speeds depending on the engine size. The example I love to use is the 300 vlar. Atlas, Marauder, as well as a few others including tanks, yet the price is different as weight and speed of the unit comes into effect. Quick and easy, yeah, engines are the best place to figure that out.
Myomers would be more difficult to figure this out. Vehicle transmissions are even more difficult to sort out. Maybe a standard cost for speed and weight separate from the engine might be the way to go, but only those that really use money as a brake on the acquisition of units would be affected by this.

Since you use engines in pill boxes and such, I do not see a difference then using them in a mobile unit. And figuring the cost. Using the construction factor for a building is a little harsh as the 150 cf buildings throws this horribly off compare to others. I can understand wiring in such a building, but that is not something that should be tied to the engine.

A few have stated no one would buy an engine without being installed in a unit. The newer rules expanded repairs more, but there are times when having spares around is a good thing. Having to build a new base is one such thing. Waiting for one to be shipped is not always available. Units do have theirs stripped as the engine can be repaired, but time will not allow them to move the unit itself.
Akalabeth
04/05/16 03:06 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Taking away the free heat sinks would require 2000 or so units to be re-designed. It will never happen.
ghostrider
04/05/16 03:23 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I will agree to that.
This is more to see if the actual concepts would balance the issues that were created with things like xl engines, double heat sinks, the free heat allowed to vehicles yet they are not affected by it. Even the weight issue of the fusion plants under 10 tons. It would also drop the amount of damage that could be done in a turn as you would have to do more thinking about a design. But that might be too far the opposite direction. I know I have said that about a few things.

Another thought would be have vehicles pay extra weight based on weapons tonnage for brackets, servo motors and such to help aim their weapons. Mechs are considered to have turned their torso, or some such ideas to get a better shot off. Vehicle weapons outside of the main turret (if any) are not as easy to do so. It can be done, but not likely when moving full out.

A quick thought that came up with this might be limiting the space on tanks to the type, ie light, medium, heavy and assault would have different amounts of space weapons and equipment can be used on. No idea yet how to set it up, but something that could 'limit' the ability for a tank to have massive weapons, ie long tom, and not worry that it doesn't have enough space like a fighter or mech to use it.
Akalabeth
04/05/16 03:49 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
No major change to the construction rules will ever happen. The game has far too much baggage.

If you don't like the way that game makes vehicles then you should probably either play a new game or make your own
ghostrider
04/09/16 06:34 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Another issue is the lack of a sensor concept.
Yes, this is another thing that would cause major changes in the construction, but I feel it is 30 years over due.

Even if an optional rule, it would be helpful to keep everyone on the same general page for dealing with it.

Scenario: 2 archers, a raven and some infantry are assigned to destroy units inside a city. Collateral damage including full destruction of the city is authorized. The archers and raven park behind a hill keeping direct los from happening. The raven has ecm going. The infantry it used to spot idf fire from the archers.

How do you determine if the infantry which is doing all the can to avoid being spotted are found?
With no los, how would you be able to counter fire against the mechs outside the city?
The advanced probe helps, but for most units, other then following the contrails of the missiles, how would you find the mechs?

Standard rules (without a gm) suggest all units see each other no matter what once engagements start.
There is no way to really ambush other units, nor is it possible to do the fire a shot, and move so the enemy can not fire back on the line of fire, as is sooo over done in the novels and even some of the adventure packs.
Even doing patrols, with units trying to hide from them to sneak into a base before opening fire, is not possible without house rules.
It also makes the idea of having a neon yellow/green mech standing in the open to be found as easily as a camoflagued mech in 3 light woods from just normal mk I eyeballs.
And the packs/novels suggest trying to find units inside cities is difficult at best with the mad and other sensors, that are implied only mechs tend to us. Radar in a city environment doesn't work. The buildings block the scanner for almost all tanks, and higher buildings would stop mech radar.
Akalabeth
04/09/16 08:15 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Battletech has had double-blind rules and hidden-unit rules for years.
Double Blind is in Tactical Handbook.
ghostrider
04/09/16 09:34 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
There is so much more the can and should have been done with this. Sensor operations skill, as well other things such as sensor baffles could have been done.

Is the sensor baffling materials out in 3025 the basis for stealth armor?
Does it cost more then normal building materials?
If a unit is inside a baffled building, is it considered undetectable?

And with the double blind, it suggests a half blind 5 year old can spot one of Retry's almost cloaking mechs with the same frequency as a person with all the latest detection gear that has been specialize in the field for 20 years.
The hidden unit rule isn't much after combat starts. You can not become hidden again so to speak once you are spotted, even though the unit was 'lost' in the battle field.

Double blind is both sides see each other at the same time. With ecm and such, it becomes more complicated then just los. Hell even better sensors in units should be able to see others before they are seen. Maybe even set up an ambush and get off a shot before the others can return fire. Hell, even los as the example of a camoflagued unit in woods is seen as easily as the flashing lights unit in the middle of an open field.
Items like phosperous flares and smoke grenades with metal flakes would make some things like advanced probes more effective and useful beyond spotting shut down units.
I can understand that would cause even more issues with overpowered units, as they might get hit without being able to find where the shots came from.
It might even cause said units to jump into the middle of a trap and *gasp* the unit take damage maybe even destroy it as it jumps into some srms that were hidden after the game started.
I can see that being an issue, though there is no reason why it can't be done back.
Akalabeth
04/09/16 10:20 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Battletech is game of a manoeuvre and shooting, it's not a game of hide and seek. The rules express that.
Probably better to play a game like Harpoon not battletech if you want sensors to play a larger role
Karagin
04/09/16 10:39 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Well Akalabeth you might want to tell that to folks who like to play it as if it is two knights fighting. Since a lot of folks seem to play as if they are in arenas on Solaris and run right into medium range and blast each other to bits. No maneuvering, no tactics and many can't play if they have more then two mechs without getting lost in what mech is taking damage or what they did etc...

Having the extra stuff is not an issue, having rules that reflect it enough to be believable is the issue.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akalabeth
04/09/16 11:40 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Battletech as a game is actually pretty low on tactics.
There's very little means for units to co-operate. Spotting. Narcing. C3spotting. TAGing. That's about it. You can lay smoke for other guys, etcetera, but most units are pretty much the same. They move, have different armour and different weapons.

Compare it to a game like Flames of War.

In that game, there are recce units to both remove cover and prevent ambushes.
There is artillery to pin enemy units and allow them to be charged more easily.
There are tank units.
Anti-tank units.
And infantry all with specific roles.


But back to battletech, people playing 1 on 1 duels isn't just about tactics, it's also because frankly the game takes a long time to play. Battletech was meant for lance on lance combat as a default, company at most. Lance on lance probably takes 2-4 hours. People who just have a league and play in the evening don't have time for big games.

My group has big games but we play for 6-8 hours with a supper break and we use modified initiative rules to speed movement. That's not something that everyone can do.
ghostrider
04/10/16 01:43 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
This issue with the game is people found the weaknesses and exploited the hell out of them.
Speed and jump means you don't get hit. But I do wonder. Do you jump back out of range when you lose initiative?
Or do you jump where they can get off a good shot?
I would assume the first, as it allows you to hopefully get the better shot next time you win initiative.
So a cat and mouse sort of game.
How brave would you be if you lost track of where the enemy was for a few turns. Or how much better shot could you get if the enemy had no clue about you?

The length of time is because no one is willing to give the enemy the advantage. So with it taking so long, does that mean they should slow down all the units? Maybe make it easier to hit?
I would say no to the first, and with the D8 idea, the second would make the game quicker.

The game you describe sounds more like a campaign for battle tech, then a single battle. But then few want to play a continuing battle where you are not fully fixed and fight something like a real war. You are ordered to keep going, though you may not have the ammunition to return to your lines to get more for the next push.
Tactics is supposed to be what the game is about. But too many made it into the edge of power gaming, and losing isn't an option. Yes, you are out to win.
But it sounds like a close game is not fun. Only beating the others without risk of losing seems to be the tone. Outside of arenas and some trails, plodding across a field destroying everything in your way with little chance to lose isn't fun for some people.

I am putting up things I see could use major improvement. I do not expect much to be done about it, except others to suggest what might help. I doubt I am the only one that thinks this way. I don't think others would openly suggest things because too many, including myself, would be willing to jump on ideas.
Now is there some particular issue you have with the ideas so far?
Or do you think the lack of ideas or not questioning some things is the better way to go?
ghostrider
04/10/16 03:39 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Interesting that maneuvering is not considered tactics. Avoiding being hit while setting up the enemy for a devastating return fire is the basis of tactics.
The game checkers is a tactics game in the very basic form.

I think the aspect of ego is why cooperation in the game isn't there. It may be why you don't think their isn't a way for units to assist each other.
Something as simple as positioning a second unit to take advantage of the enemy trying to jump on a flank, or using 2 units to fire on one is a very easy and valid way to assist each other.
It does explain why the over powered units show up so much. One person needs to kill the entire lance of enemy mechs without help.

And from the sounds of it, most have never dealt with a devious games master. Having the enemy drop in force on your 'home' planet and make your factories the main target.
Spread out your forces along with the other planetary garrison, then send in the assault force to destroy your factories. No stopping to engage anything you have left to defend with, except any shots of opportunity. They are there to fire on the buildings and that's it. So to avoid that, you don't get to jump around all over the place but use your units to try and block shots from hitting your buildings.
Anything that hits could very well destroy the building along with anything inside. Then park near those very buildings to make sure you have to avoid firing on them or risk destroying your own base.
Try that from both sides. Even being the attacker, you don't have time to mess with the defenders as they have forces moving up to engage you.
CrayModerator
04/10/16 03:39 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Akalabeth writes:

Battletech is game of a manoeuvre and shooting, it's not a game of hide and seek. The rules express that.
Probably better to play a game like Harpoon not battletech if you want sensors to play a larger role



There have been a variety of double-blind rules and sensor rules published in the past for BT.
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.
Akalabeth
04/10/16 03:42 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Cray writes:

Quote:
Akalabeth writes:

Battletech is game of a manoeuvre and shooting, it's not a game of hide and seek. The rules express that.
Probably better to play a game like Harpoon not battletech if you want sensors to play a larger role



There have been a variety of double-blind rules and sensor rules published in the past for BT.



Yes, as I stated two posts prior to the one you quoted. But according to Ghost Rider those rules "aren't enough".
Akalabeth
04/10/16 03:56 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

This issue with the game is people found the weaknesses and exploited the hell out of them.
Speed and jump means you don't get hit. But I do wonder. Do you jump back out of range when you lose initiative?
Or do you jump where they can get off a good shot?



The issue with your problem here is not power gaming. The issue is that the only game you are playing is "kill the other guy". A simple scenario, like a breakthrough where one opponent tries to reach the opposite map edge would prevent a player from jumping away when they lose initiative because they cannot afford to.

Quote:

I would assume the first, as it allows you to hopefully get the better shot next time you win initiative.
So a cat and mouse sort of game.
How brave would you be if you lost track of where the enemy was for a few turns. Or how much better shot could you get if the enemy had no clue about you?



How would you implement this? Double-blind rules? Have a third player get his "Fun" by sitting out and doing the book keeping? Fake chit counters? Increase the number of stuff the player needs to keep track of and slow the game down?

What are your actual solutions?


Quote:

The length of time is because no one is willing to give the enemy the advantage.



No the length of time is the nature of the game. Battletech has a certain level of detail which requires a certain level of book-keeping and looking-up of rules.


Quote:

The game you describe sounds more like a campaign for battle tech, then a single battle. But then few want to play a continuing battle where you are not fully fixed and fight something like a real war. You are ordered to keep going, though you may not have the ammunition to return to your lines to get more for the next push.
Tactics is supposed to be what the game is about. But too many made it into the edge of power gaming, and losing isn't an option. Yes, you are out to win.



Power gamers and cheaters are the minority, if they weren't, they wouldn't have their own nickname.

Quote:

I am putting up things I see could use major improvement. I do not expect much to be done about it, except others to suggest what might help. I doubt I am the only one that thinks this way. I don't think others would openly suggest things because too many, including myself, would be willing to jump on ideas.
Now is there some particular issue you have with the ideas so far?
Or do you think the lack of ideas or not questioning some things is the better way to go?



Two things:
1. It's not your game. Nothing you suggest is going to be adopted by Catalyst. Particularly when you're suggesting them on sarna and not on CBT. So understand that anything you present is for the fun of it not to actually create change. If you want the game a certain way, you need to stop trying to fix someone else's game and create your own. Or become involved with Catalyst on a design-side.
2. So far, I've seen you present a lot of things you perceive as problems without presenting actual solutions. How do your ideas actually translate into game rules? The sensor idea for example. How do you have two players lose contact with each other without use of a third moderating player and what player would want to be that third wheel who doesn't get to play?

Fog of War is easy for computer games. But not for boardgames. People have been trying for decades. What rules do you propose to change it?
ghostrider
04/10/16 04:06 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Another thing that might make the game more interesting is the chance an ambushing unit will not be fired on in the turn it popped up and fired.

Stick with arena fights if you don't want to use sensors and such, or ignore the rules if they come out with them.
Does the idea of being hit that scary?
Can't use the 12 max to hit limit to make sure the enemy can't fire on you, make you nervous?
Or that you might move next to a demolisher tank and it can fire as you are in range make people want to vomit from fear?

Fog of war is very much part of war games. The concept of a real war game seems to be something alot don't like, so as it has been said many times, stick with your arena's and blood trials.

I said they could have developed this idea into something better. I would think the idea of not all can see each other at the same time would expand the playing experience. But it seems to circle back around to one person wanting to kill everything and not take a scratch to the paint job of the mech.
Try playing that a 12 hits anything in range of the unit. That would speed up you games. No more of the impossible hits preventing units 5 hexes apart from being hit. How about limiting the max penalties to be hit?
Then the 8/12/12 units stop being needed. It also makes running the slower units more likely as well. NO more no fires from needing 13s.
ghostrider
04/10/16 04:23 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If you are having problems with suggestions and such, why have you not ignored what is posted here?
This thread alone should indicate issues I have come to question in the game and holes that could be filled or at least have some of it fixed.
I do not think the admins on the official sites want to here they still have not answered questions that have been going on since the game started. Some are not possible to fix without major changes, and I understand that.
Now are you suggestion no one question things?
Isn't that the basis for getting things changed?
Or even looked at?

I have made a few suggestions on how to change it, but this is more of a question to see if others share the same ideas, or maybe get input on ways to fix it.

The jumping issue I spoke of, I asked if you did it. This is trying to find out styles of play.
From most of what has been posted here, arena battles is the main combat form that is played. Breakthroughs doesn't seem to be one that is played often, and yes. You can jump back when you lose initiative and still play the game. Time limits are in effect most of the time, but only a very few units, ie the 2/3 and 3/5 mechs tend to have issues making it. Depending on terrain, some vehicles will never make it.
ghostrider
04/10/16 05:49 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Let's see.
Free sinks. Problem was produced, and alternatives offered. Solution was offered and shot down by the person saying no alternatives provided.

All units should retain heat from ballistic weapons or none should.
Problem said and solution offered. Person thinks alternative not provided.

I don't think vehicles over powered, but yet offered some alternatives on limiting their weapon loads. Obviously not alternatives provided there.

Engine costs should be on engine, not movement of unit installed it. Self explanitory but I guess it was not as simple as I thought it was. My mistake.

Sensors. I have seen others use some ideas for this, so can not offer an idea as it would infringe upon their work, though they based it on units of 4 hexes, while most of battle techs ranges are in groups of 3 for the most part. 3 for anti infantry, ie mgs, flamers, and small lasers. 6 seems to be an odd one with less things dependent on it. 9 is the long range for medium weapons such as mls, srms, and ac 20. 12 was clan techs medium range for weapons. 15 is large laser/ac 10. 18 ppc/ac 5. 21 lrms. 24 ac 2. I would think using that as a basis, units of 3 hexes might be a good place to start sensor information on. Open fields, 3 hexes should be automatic detection. 6 might require a penalty of say 1. and go from there with things such as woods, building and such add the same penalty to sightiing as it does to hit. Ecm and other things like that would require more effort. this would allow camoflague and such to influence the game as sensor operator should.
Unit types would have their own modifiers, such as infantry being harder to spot then armored infantry, while mechs would be pretty hard to miss at certain ranges. It would also allow expansion of infantry gear to detect units and require certain ones to really find units.

I would like others to chime in and suggest if the issues I see are shared, and if they have any ideas/concerns.
Being told not to suggest any fixes to another persons game and nothing will be done is another instance of trying to tell others what they can or can't do.
If suggestions are never used, that is fine. People here can take what is offered and see if it works for them. If not, that's fine.
Akalabeth
04/10/16 07:55 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Let's see.
Free sinks. Problem was produced, and alternatives offered. Solution was offered and shot down by the person saying no alternatives provided.

All units should retain heat from ballistic weapons or none should.
Problem said and solution offered. Person thinks alternative not provided.



Right. Let's say that your "solutions" to these perceived "problems" are put into effect.

Now you have a new problem, 3000+ vehicles, mechs and aerospace fighters need to be re-designed. Re-creating these unit sheets will take thousands of man hours. Old units will be invalidated until re-released, and future publications will be delayed while work goes towards updating every unit in the game.

How do you address this NEW problem that your solution created?

Furthermore, thousands of Battletech fans are now pissed off because all of the units they've played with for the last thirty-six or so years are going to be re-designed, along with probably tens or hundreds of thousand of fan-made designs. What measures do you take to placate their anger and retain them as fans?

And how do you explain to them that these change are not only NECESSARY but BENEFICIAL and will improve their battletech experience more than the changes will hinder it?

Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Sensors. I have seen others use some ideas for this, so can not offer an idea as it would infringe upon their work, though they based it on units of 4 hexes, while most of battle techs ranges are in groups of 3 for the most part. 3 for anti infantry, ie mgs, flamers, and small lasers. 6 seems to be an odd one with less things dependent on it. 9 is the long range for medium weapons such as mls, srms, and ac 20. 12 was clan techs medium range for weapons. 15 is large laser/ac 10. 18 ppc/ac 5. 21 lrms. 24 ac 2. I would think using that as a basis, units of 3 hexes might be a good place to start sensor information on. Open fields, 3 hexes should be automatic detection. 6 might require a penalty of say 1. and go from there with things such as woods, building and such add the same penalty to sightiing as it does to hit. Ecm and other things like that would require more effort. this would allow camoflague and such to influence the game as sensor operator should.
Unit types would have their own modifiers, such as infantry being harder to spot then armored infantry, while mechs would be pretty hard to miss at certain ranges. It would also allow expansion of infantry gear to detect units and require certain ones to really find units.




Is this detection to place on map, or detection to fire at?
If to place on map, how does a more granular detection system benefit the game? How many scenario types use hidden units. It's still a case of hidden or not hidden. It's not a case of hidden, visible, then hidden again.

There are very few times when a force will want to remain hidden and not want to simply ambush whoever gets close enough.

Akalabeth
04/10/16 10:13 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

The jumping issue I spoke of, I asked if you did it. This is trying to find out styles of play.
From most of what has been posted here, arena battles is the main combat form that is played. Breakthroughs doesn't seem to be one that is played often, and yes. You can jump back when you lose initiative and still play the game. Time limits are in effect most of the time, but only a very few units, ie the 2/3 and 3/5 mechs tend to have issues making it. Depending on terrain, some vehicles will never make it.



Every battle our group plays has 7-20+ units each side, with specific mission objectives including but not limited to breakthroughs, scanning, capturing builldings, keeping your force alive, etcetera. The only time we've played arena battles is during a clan trial of position or bloodname. Player units are acquired, repaired and carry over from one mission to another.

Currently I'm running an AU clan campaign where the players are participating in operation revival as warriors within Clan Fire Mandrill. They fought in the clan homeworlds in civil wars, wars of absorptions, and now they're invading Rasalhague.

No one takes 2/3s on a breakthrough. Because guess what, the Annihilator is a defensive unit not an assault. Players if they're smart wont take 3/5s either because the board is 100" long and it'll take a 3/5 12 turns going in a straight line to reach the other side.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:

I do not think the admins on the official sites want to here they still have not answered questions that have been going on since the game started. Some are not possible to fix without major changes, and I understand that.
Now are you suggestion no one question things?
Isn't that the basis for getting things changed?
Or even looked at?




I've questioned tons of things in the past, it doesn't change anything because ultimately it isn't your or my game, it's their game and they're going to do with it what they will. Suggesting a change which will fundamentally invalidate thousands of units will never be accepted. Ever. That ship sailed decades ago and no amount of petitioning will bring the ship back into port. If I'm suggesting you don't do it, it's because I feel it's fundamentally a waste of your time to explore it not because it's inherently wrong.

The best way to influence the rules is probably to get involved with a ruleset that is still developing, like Alpha Strike or involved with newer technologies like those found in 3145. And to provide suggestions based on play experience not based on theory.
ghostrider
04/11/16 01:01 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Changing perameters again when questions are answered, and they are not liked.
Beneficial is point of view. Making it all even and follow some set of rules that all deal with, not each unit itself gets bonuses or penalties because it comes from one set of units is beneficial. But the heat sink issue kills most units that use fusion.
Yet requiring all weapons that produce heat be served the same further limits the invincible vehicles.
So what is the real argument against these 2 issues?

Forget redesigning units, as we all know unless the redo the entire rule set, it will not happen. Is it that scary that no more 8 lpls or 8 hex jumpers can fire in the same round as weight would be needed for heat sinks that should not be free weight?
This will kill the idea of the laser boats jumping into the back side of other units and wipe them out and not overheat enough to shut down?


The sensor issue you wanted a suggestion and got it. I would think sensors would be to detect a unit. Firing at it is a whole different beast. And unless using real artillery or lrm mine fields, shooting a hex should result is almost automatic missing the unit. But you could say a 12 might do damage to a unit in the hex.
You brought up the fact there is very few times a unit would not want to fire at something near it when hidden. Only time you get to do that is when they are hidden from the start. No where in the middle of a game can you try and hide from the enemy. Game doesn't allow it. In fact the game allows you to know if the tank with an engine hit is manned and ready to fire if you move into their shots. The same game that allows you to know there are infantry in an iron mine and know exactly where they are at. There is no chance to do any sort of maneuver like spot for other units by sitting in one spot, as you are instantaneously detected. If you don't want the extra issues in the game, then you don't use it.

And as for rules not being changed, there are people working on side projects that parallel that game. It would be nice to see them not make mistakes made by others.

With your suggestions about your clan invasion game, it seems like your pilots change mechs types, not just loadouts to suit the mission needs. It almost sounds like you do not use the same mechs in more then one battle, and swap out for each mission. That makes me think you are telling those that use the same units in their campaigns that they have to follow that play style.
With the 2/3 units I was not thinking about the annhilator, but the imp, and some vehicles. Picking the savannha masters to run a break thru is not really showing anything but the power gaming concepts. Try random mechs some time. Run your assault units in the breakthru scenario. the 5/8/8 units be left out. Move your supplies and such as well. Oh wait. That goes counter to playing a war game. Only combat units are important. And anyone that plays different should not bother.

One last thing. Suggesting things put on the board are not based on play experience, shows just how limited some games are. We have tried some of the suggestions, and came up with some very wild experiences. Vehicles do not become the unkillable gods of the game, and power units are pretty well neutered when they have to pay for their sinks.
And by the way, the sinks are only for those with fusion engines under 10.5 tons. Half a ton to house a fusion engine is highly unlikely, but oh well. It is fine, until a vehicle uses it.
Akalabeth
04/11/16 02:53 AM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Changing perameters again when questions are answered, and they are not liked.
Beneficial is point of view. Making it all even and follow some set of rules that all deal with, not each unit itself gets bonuses or penalties because it comes from one set of units is beneficial. But the heat sink issue kills most units that use fusion.
Yet requiring all weapons that produce heat be served the same further limits the invincible vehicles.
So what is the real argument against these 2 issues?



What is the argument? It's called reality.
I'm not changing the parametres I'm making clear the full implication of the suggested change. You want to change something that you perceive as a problem and in doing so will create a different problem infinitely larger and more complicated and with wider-reaching negative effects.

These are valid considerations that Catalyst or whoever is designing a game would need to consider.


Quote:
Forget redesigning units, as we all know unless the redo the entire rule set, it will not happen. Is it that scary that no more 8 lpls or 8 hex jumpers can fire in the same round as weight would be needed for heat sinks that should not be free weight?
This will kill the idea of the laser boats jumping into the back side of other units and wipe them out and not overheat enough to shut down?



Play a different mission besides "kill 'em all"
There are dozens of scenario books. And now many Warchest-based campaign books. Use them.

Quote:

The same game that allows you to know there are infantry in an iron mine and know exactly where they are at.




Nope. Even with a beagle probe, a unit cannot detect hidden infantry.

Quote:

With your suggestions about your clan invasion game, it seems like your pilots change mechs types, not just loadouts to suit the mission needs. It almost sounds like you do not use the same mechs in more then one battle, and swap out for each mission. That makes me think you are telling those that use the same units in their campaigns that they have to follow that play style.



It sounds like you're making up a bunch of nonsense.
You don't know anything about the campaign beyond what I told you. I said that units carry over from mission to mission. What does this tell you?

Did I tell you that players buy new mechs every mission? No.

Quote:
Akalabeth said quite plainly:
Player units are acquired, repaired and carry over from one mission to another.



Not sure what part of "carry over" is confusing.

Here are the details, as plain as can be.
In our campaign, people have X amount to build a force.
They buy units and buy pilots for those units.
The "overall campaign" is broken up into a series of campaigns usually three to six missions long
Each mission, they get more money/salvage to buy units (if they accomplish their objectives). This money is used to repair their machines, or buy salvaged machines.
After each campaign, they usually get the opportunity to buy new units from a pre-determined list of units dependent on their political or geographical circumstances.
Typically, players will run with the same machine for several campaigns (10+ games) or until it is lost in combat. The same is true of all the units under their command, unless some good salvage or acquisition comes that they chose to buy.

Missions are chosen by the GM and are appropriate for the force the player has created. Though players have the option to pick which units are most appropriate for a given from their pool of units as each mission is typically smaller than their full roster after a dozen or so missions.

Quote:

With the 2/3 units I was not thinking about the annhilator, but the imp, and some vehicles.



The Imp isn't 2/3

Quote:

Picking the savannha masters to run a break thru is not really showing anything but the power gaming concepts.



Played battletech for 20+ years. I've never used nor fought against a Savannah master.
So not sure what sort of battletech player am I. Just because I defended a person's right to be a munchkin doesn't make me a munchkin player just fyi.

Quote:
Try random mechs some time. Run your assault units in the breakthru scenario. the 5/8/8 units be left out. Move your supplies and such as well. Oh wait. That goes counter to playing a war game. Only combat units are important. And anyone that plays different should not bother.



We run campaigns. We don't have "random mechs".
And hitting supplies, or being low on supplies is sometimes an issue in the campaign depending on the story.

Quote:

One last thing. Suggesting things put on the board are not based on play experience, shows just how limited some games are. We have tried some of the suggestions, and came up with some very wild experiences. Vehicles do not become the unkillable gods of the game, and power units are pretty well neutered when they have to pay for their sinks.



One game is not statistically relevant. New rules need to be playtested dozens of times to truly judge their impact. Proper game companies employ groups of playtesters who each play a dozen or more times as well as many internal playtests.
ghostrider
04/11/16 12:37 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The reality seems to be not liking the fact others call into question the loopholes in the game. Ask about some things and get the 'real' world answers, but then get told not to worry about the real world. The accusation I changed perameters has been stated, and the changes have been done backwards. That is reality.

Again the accusations that the games I play are known, and don't play anything is assumption, yet from reading game references, it seems the reverse is more likely.
Now with this accusation, it seems like the few times you play other scenarios, must if not all units are changed out. Tailor made units for that mission. And i believe that might be why the issues are not readily seen.

Now according to past posts, the group does not used vehicles often. It is no shock that something that can avoid your fire and land shots would not be used against the group. Now go ahead and suggest I need to play other games besides kill them all.
Now it borders on telling you how to play the game, but try running a campaign where you don't have full access to an instantaneous market and the only 'new' units you have is anything you fix. No having the archers for the siege, then switch to a fire moth for break thrus. But again, that is doing the same thing like telling others they are not playing the game right, so I do expect a warning.

One game is not statistically relevant. New rules need to be playtested dozens of times to truly judge their impact. Proper game companies employ groups of playtesters who each play a dozen or more times as well as many internal playtests.
I love this assumption. One game. The 20+ years of playing and never seen a savanha master on the field. Given the statement vehicles aren't used often says why, so using the accusation back. One game is not statistically relevant.
Some rules are put into effect without fully testing how they will be perverted, or even develop loop holes.
And before you try to say they don't, how many rules were changed to complete stops issues that should have been caught years ago?
Infantry.
Strafes.
Vehicle damage.
Xl engines.
Warships.
And the list goes on and on.
Even the removal of hand and actuators for more critical space changed from the first construction rules.
Why? To give mechs more room. Even being able to split locations for the larger weapons is questionable.
Real world. Yes. Ammo is normally not stored at the sight of the large weapons, and the feeds come from another location. But this sounds like the breach is in a different location as more then one critical can be else where.

Another MAJOR rule change that went into effect was the number of sinks an engine could hide. That forced alot of units to be redesigned, though it was only to add sinks into the critical lists.


Edited by ghostrider (04/11/16 12:59 PM)
Akalabeth
04/11/16 01:00 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Dude, first off, learn how to quote.

Fact is I gave a solution to your problematic Battletech arena-style gaming by suggesting that those players try other scenarios besides stand-up fights, and rather than explore that you just came up with some other problem for why that won't work. You're looking for problems not solutions.

And who said we don't use vehicles? We use vehicles ALL the time. We use infantry all the time. Various players have played as tank commanders instead of Mechwarriors, or Aerospace fighters. The current group has one guy running a bunch of vehicles in addition to his medium & scout mechs.

But guess what, clans running vehicles on the front lines is ahistorical so technically we shouldn't have any vehicles but we do.

And frankly I don't care if a 5 ton engines gives 10 free heat sinks. Because it doesn't affect the game beyond differentiating ICE from Fusion units.
ghostrider
04/11/16 04:18 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Again lumping everything into one sum.
Hells horses have historically used vehicles in combat. And other clans do use them, but grudgingly.

Now the idea 5 ton engines give 10 free tons of heat sinks, IS one of the issues with the game. The unit would be totally different if it was required to put the weight into the sinks instead of other things. Or drop down to 4 sinks, as the entire engine can not be a sink. Oh wait. The savanaha master along with a few other vehicles would not exist like that? Spiders would not exist? Jump jets would be a luxury or no weapons on mech? Wait a second. That does not change the entire outlook of the game?
You do have one advantage here as the game does not do such things. But telling me it is not a hole in the game is idiotic.
Which would also mean xl engine are even worse. More powerful engine weighing less giving free tonnage up. Maybe playing robotech is something for your group. No heat. mecha are king by full design. But then there is no customizing units.
Akalabeth
04/11/16 04:49 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Again lumping everything into one sum.




Again, your only purpose is to disagree with anything that the other person says.

I tell you we run campaigns with units that carry-over.
You assume my players use new machines every time.
I tell you to try different scenarios to avoid arena-style combat.
You pick an outlier unit to break the purpose of playing the scenario.
You assume we don't use vehicles.
I tell you we do, even though its ahistorical for the clans to use vehicles on the FRONT LINE.
You start talking about Hell's Horses, even though I clearly said our campaign is Fire Mandrill, and even though beyond HH's almost no clan uses vehicles in anything other than second-line roles.

Yeah. It's pretty clear that further discussion with you is a complete waste of time. As I said you're just going to disagree with whatever the other persons says.

And I don't give two **** about free heat sinks in a fusion engine. It's a Fusion Engine, that's why it gets free heat sinks. It's been that way since at least 2nd edition. If you thought it was that big of a problem maybe you should have looked for a different game 30 years ago, but since you've continued to live and breath the game even well after you stopped buying books it's pretty clear that you're going to play this game regardless of how many problems you think there are. In fact if the game didn't have any problems, you would probably stop playing it and go look for one that did because if there weren't any problems there would be nothing for you to talk about.
CrayModerator
04/11/16 05:47 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Alright, kiddies, time for a cool down period.
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.
Pages: 1
Extra information
0 registered and 16 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: 12477


Contact Admins Sarna.net