luck and vehicle deaths.

Pages: 1
ghostrider
06/04/16 11:21 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
To avoid jacking the cohort thread any more, gonna start this one.

It was suggested vehicles don't die often in one hit, but I have seen that isn't quite true.

One game we played, we had a full company of tanks guarding our lz, when the game master had a lance of light mechs hit. They were some odd configurations but nothing that isn't unknown. 2 Locust with lrm 5s, a panther, and I want to say a valkyrie.
We had a full lance of schreks, a pair of demolishers, and some lrm units with others mixed in.
We lost the schreks in 2 rounds to just the locust. Single hit, and they went up. This is back when 1/2 of the critical hits were kills. And that they did. Within 6 rounds we gave it up. Half the tanks were dead, while the others were so screwed up, it wasn't even funny. And they never even got into laser range.
We had made up characters for each tank, and found it was pointless to continue with them.

Now I have seen one vehicle survive almost a full stripping of armor before dying, but that was the exception.

And yes. We replayed that battle a second time and though the tanks didn't die as quick, it showed the crits were beyond easy. We switched over to the mech crit rolls. 8+ for a crit and it was actually fun to play them. No instant death on half the hits.
Akalabeth
06/06/16 03:18 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Your group played it wrong.

Even in the BMR set and all rule set preceding it, vehicles only take a critical hit on an 8+. Your "House rule" is the REAL rule.
ghostrider
06/06/16 03:36 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
There are people that bought the original citytech and played it before the newer rule sets came out. Even compendium doesn't have that in there.
The original has instant crits on 2 or 12. There is no roll to see if it happens. Then again, making assumptions does come easy.

As a side note. not everything discussed here is last weeks gaming session.
The game in question was played in 1986/87. From the sounds of it, before you started playing.
We had just gotten the original mechwarrior rpg, and rolled up characters. Went into combat to find out how badly stacked against tanks the game was. The Locust become varients at a later time, but it wasn't our invention.
Akalabeth
06/06/16 03:50 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

There are people that bought the original citytech and played it before the newer rule sets came out. Even compendium doesn't have that in there. The original has instant crits on 2 or 12. There is no roll to see if it happens.



Just because you played citytech doesn't mean you played it right. The 8+ roll always existed.
ghostrider
06/06/16 03:55 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Better go get the book and read it. There is no where in the vehicle section that says that. I looked up mine before I responded. There was no reference to the mech tables as there is in bmr. And that was when 1/2 of the crits were instant kills.
Akalabeth
06/06/16 04:08 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Battletech Manual vehicle tables

2 Armour pierced (Roll for Critical Hit)

Roll FOR critical. Not Roll Critical.

This came out one year after City tech
So yeah, I've read the book.
ghostrider
06/06/16 05:42 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
read city tech. Not after city tech. There is no place that says roll for.
As said before. Read the statements before jumping on things.
This is why there is an issue.
Quit trying to start arguments, and read the statements.
Again. Another outburst from not understanding the concept of the statement.

It was BEFORE the newer rules came out. Sheesh.
CrayModerator
06/06/16 05:53 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Akalabeth writes:

Even in the BMR set and all rule set preceding it, vehicles only take a critical hit on an 8+. Your "House rule" is the REAL rule.



CityTech, original edition, p. 30 simply says, "Roll Critical" for hit location results of 2 and 12. Of course, crits only result from 1-in-18 hits on those charts. The change to "roll for criticals" happened later.

Also, please knock off this back and forth in every thread. Both you and ghostrider might want to investigate the "Ignore User" function before you get hit with bans.
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
06/06/16 10:53 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Page 29 of CItytech does also say "Damage is taken the same way as with a 'Mech" though it then goes on to talk about armour and internals.

Either way, if that is the case then it does give credence to the idea that the game has changed dramatically over the years, even back then. Though it was changed just a short time later, in the Battletech Manual, which itself pre-dates TRO 3026.

Also the original post arguing that vehicles are too vulnerable by drawing upon a 25-year old example using out-dated rules is suspect at best. The rules were outdated when the game was played and have been superceded in full by TW.
ghostrider
06/10/16 01:23 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Now that is not saying there hasn't been issues killing some vehicles, as when you are fighting against them and you just can't seem to get them dead before stripping off all their armor and have one internal left. That has happened as well.

I know luck has alot to do with it.
Had to check the gm's dice to make sure he wasn't using loaded dice. He was just lucky as hell with rolling boxcars.

I will address the statement of vehicles taking damage like mechs. The one issue that destroys vehicles that mechs don't deal with is the movement hits. But that is one of the things mechs has over vehicles and is part of WHY it is better. Maneuvering.
It is part of the game.
I don't really like it, but oh well.
JamesGoldfinch
06/15/16 11:08 AM
90.200.166.48

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I like that vehicles explode in glorious technicolour... you want something that dies fast in the game. it is designed to be mech centric. I had never encountered the need for an 8+ roll on a vehicle crit either. Getting 2 crits at once would be pretty fatal when 50% of the crit table is so fatal.
I loved the way they had so many drive hits as well. It was the great penalty.
Nothing about realism of course... but great for game mechanics.
If you want realism Battletech was never the right game to play.
JamesGoldfinch
06/15/16 11:25 AM
90.200.166.48

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Tanks exploding quickly is one of the few realistic things in Battletech. The life expectancy of a tank crewman in an American WW2 tank was 40-50 minutes of battle time... in 1980's Europe the life expectancy of a tank (and probably the crew inside as well) was 7 minutes.
In the far future I am willing to think it will be as low as 3 or 4 battletech rounds.. 30 to 40 seconds....
ghostrider
06/15/16 01:03 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The realism issues comes from people saying it isn't realistic for some things to happen, then turn around and say it is to make other things happen. Endo steel is a good example. Lighter weight internal structure for a mech, but vehicles can not use it. Why?

I will compromise on double sinks outside an engine thinking it requires more space and equipment then unlimited space a tank can use for sinks. The fusion engine hiding sinks is the issue there, but that was another thread.

Then the idea of an xl or light fusion engine, but yet nothing for ice. Again, holes in the argument.
I know the focus is on mech for the game, at least where players are concerned, but the fact most defense forces are supposed to be infantry and vehicles, yet no real research done to get a better unit in place sounds completely off for a war game.
But I do see that if you make the standard defense harder, it means mechs start losing their appeal.
I get so annoyed from the we can do it, but you can't logic.

I could be wrong, but my understanding of tanks exploding was the ammo going off, as it was hit. Breaches were not completely necessary. I know that wasn't the only way they would explode, but one of the easiest ways to. Better storage for the shells lessened that.
And with the time of life expectancy for tanks, I would think that was due to the threat level they represented. Following that, mechs would be the target for everything on the field when they showed up. Atleast for the side that didn't have any.
And yes, tactics would change due to other threats. Artillery being one thing you would want to be rid of before going after mechs. Or the command van seen fleeing the scene.
happyguy49
06/16/16 05:51 PM
98.30.242.159

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I support the idea of light structure for fighters and vees. Double heat sinks would result in some game-breaking tanks, like a 6 ERPPC carrier that could kill an entire lance of heavy/assault mechs. There is this bit of tech which can actually help vehicles a fair amount.. the "laser insulator"

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Laser_Insulator

Weighs .5 tons, but does the work of an entire heat sink (reduces heat by 1). So, in certain use cases, it is mathematically the same as a DHS.

I spitballed a variant of a Zibler with FIVE ER Medium Lasers, 25 damage, 35 if you have clan ones. The insulated lasers weigh 7.5, but you only need 10 extra heat sinks (5*4 heat) for total of 17.5 (Zibler pod maximum is 18)

As for engines, again, a light ice exists. FUEL CELL. Also, we do not need YET ANOTHER engine type. (there are already EIGHT engine types by my count.) I will cut and paste this post I made last August to illustrate my point:

"I think it comes down to the math of the game itself. A "light ICE" would have nowhere to fit in the existing tonnage list of engine types. (the number and variety of which have proliferated with the game's updates of the last decade or so)


Say, the ubiquitous 300 rated engine, your typical 3/5 movement 100 tonner's engine, or 4/6 movement 75 tonner's, etc. On a Battlemech (so therefore absent the shielding required on Vee's for the fusion types) the weights are as follows:


38 tons if ICE (no heat sinks)
33.5 tons if Fission (5 heat sinks)
28.5 tons if Compact Fusion (10 heat sinks)
23 tons if Fuel Cell (1 heat sink)
19 tons if Fusion (10 heat sinks)
14.5 tons if Light Fusion (10 heat sinks)
9.5 tons if XL Fusion (10 heat sinks)
6.5 tons if XXL Fusion (10 heat sinks, but higher movement heat)

...so, where would a "light ICE" fit in there? Maybe it could weigh as much as a fission or compact fusion engine, and weigh more and cost less than a fuel cell, but would have the same drawbacks as regular ICE? (i.e, no built-in heat sinks, requires power amplifiers for energy weapons, unusable in vacuum, Heavy Gauss Rifles prohibited, etc.) But that really seems like the Fuel Cell engine. Do we need ANOTHER type of engine?

(an aside, the program I was using showed a Fission-powered engine machine to be MORE expensive that a similarly rated Fusion plant.. that doesn't seem right; fission is heavier, lower-tech, and easier for poorer, backward worlds to make than fusion.) "
Akalabeth
06/16/16 07:17 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If you reject the realistic portrayal of one thing on the basis that another thing isn't portrayed realistically then it's not a discussion about realism it's a discussion about what you agree with and don't agree. Because that's the only common factor.

And as HappyGuy demonstrates there's not really space for "ICE XL". Fuel Cell is the equivalent of ICE XL as it approaches half the weight and comes with only a single heat sink. If you make an ICE XL at half the weight it makes the Fuel Cell pointless. At the end of the day this is just a game, so where does the ICE XL fit into the game? How does it create an interesting choice for the player? Every new piece of equipment should have a purpose which distinguishes it from what is already in the game. For example, an ER ML or a Medium Pulse or a Medium X-Pulse are all very different from both each other and the standard ML.

So the question is how does the ICE XL fit into the game? What options does it give? What distinguishes it from the other engine types?
ghostrider
06/17/16 03:46 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
At half weight, the ice would be the same weight as a fusion engine, minus the heat sinks. Granted, the transmission equipment would make the fusion weigh more total. Increasing the price like a fusion engine does would raise costs, but we all see costs aren't an issue with the game.

Now it appears there is an assumption that there is a push for a huge weight loss. Nothing was said by how much weight would be adequate. Yes, half weight would be nice.
With the push for better arms, armor and everything else, the lack of ice improvements in weight of ice is completely inconsistent with the rest of the game. And if fuel cells were better, why even produce ice for military units anymore?

The issue with the fuel cell was brought up a while ago, when it was asked how the drive train actually functioned. Fusion is energy, not motive force. So that would mean the transmission would be energy to motive force converter. From the sounds of it, the fuel cell does the same thing. Produces energy that needs to be converted into motive force.
It was asked why a smaller ice with power amps would not provide the same power as the fusion engine does. And the inconsistent transmission weight being based on the engine weight creates more issues.
In the end, why would the lighter transmission provide more power because the engine is lighter?
Then add in, why not use the lighter transmissions in all units, not just the lighter engine versions?

So the question is how does the ICE XL fit into the game? What options does it give? What distinguishes it from the other engine types?
These question has been one of the main sources against a lighter ice. Most say it would cause mechs to lose their dominance.

The idea that either everything is one way, or nothing is that way is the basis for rules and balance.
Akalabeth
06/17/16 04:06 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The point is, you say ICE engines should have an improved version. What version? If you're an advocate for an improved ICE engine how do you imagine that improved ICE behaving? What are the advantages? The disadvantages?
ghostrider
06/17/16 09:25 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
What was the advantage of light, xl and xxl fusion engines?
What were the disadvantages?

Weight being the primary advantage for any engine.
Disadvantages could run the same way. Take up an extra slot for equipment. Costs more. Even needing a higher tech to build one. But that last 2 don't really come into play as most don't bother with such things unless they are dealing with economics.

I would suggest things like actually adding fuel tanks and a crew compartment to the weight of the tank to bring it on par with aerofighters and mechs, but as it was said, that would involved updating the older units to fit the newer rules.

Saying there is no room for such an engine, goes to asking why so many different fusion and fission engines?

Saying there is no materials that can be used to make such an engine, yet the highly lightened internal structure (composite endosteel) for mechs exists, and would very well make a good material shows the inconsistency holes. Even the normal materials would work. The thruster materials for dropships could work as well. Some dropship supposedly sit on the thrusters, if you go be the fluff of the units.
You can jump a 100 ton mech without jets, and even with jets, land on the framework and not break the material. It is supposed to handle heat as well, but even needing a sleeve to run the piston in, like the aluminum cadilac 4100 engine would work. There are race engines that is all aluminum except the steel inserts.

But answer the other questions before trying to change to other ones. The ones about energy coming from fusion engines and being converted over to motive force is a prime focus. There is no reason why a smaller or lighter ice with more power amps could not run a vehicle. Changing over to straight transmission equipment would mean the ice would not have to be solid neutronium or black hole material the current system has. The ice would only power the power amps, and not even have to be used for anything else. That would mean less physical power needed.
But that would also mean answering why they don't just use the lighter transmission equipment to run all vehicles and drop the heavier stuff. Same power being run threw it, so strength is not the issue.
happyguy49
07/01/16 08:25 AM
98.30.242.159

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

At half weight, the ice would be the same weight as a fusion engine, minus the heat sinks. Granted, the transmission equipment would make the fusion weigh more total. Increasing the price like a fusion engine does would raise costs, but we all see costs aren't an issue with the game.



...Ok. You think your "light ICE" should have the same power rating per ton as a NUCLEAR FUSION ENGINE? This is just nonsense. An engine running off of burning fossils has the same power-to-weight ratio as FUSION? Come on man, that doesn't pass the smell test. Fuel cell is enough of a compromise. Look at the more recent tech manuals, they are starting to proliferate even.

After this, I won't post anymore about your "light ICE" concept. It basically exists already, in the Fuel Cell, and it is absurd to expect a light ICE to have the same power as an equivalent-mass Fusion engine. I will leave it at that.
ghostrider
07/01/16 11:42 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The power outputs of an aluminum block engine is the same as the cast iron block engine of the same size. It just weighs less.

With the statement of power rating you just posted happy, you seem to suggest all ICE should not put out the same power as, as you put it, nuclear fusion engine.
The fuel cell engine sounds more like the electric engines now in use. Using chemicals to produce the electric to run the system.
It sounds like the same set up the fusion engine uses.
Using power amps on a smaller ICE should produce the same power for that type of system.

The nonsense is suggesting a nuclear engine can weigh 1000 pounds and still work properly. Even at the highest weight of 50 tons, this still remains unlikely especially to say it will fit inside a moving unit. But that is part of the game. I bring this up because it seems people are not following thru on the logic they used to prevent something from happening, as it counters what is in use now.
They removed the radiation aspect of it, so now you don't require the 3 foot concrete casing to prevent alot of the radiation. And the pumps and everything else for the cooling systems, magnetic fields and everything else needed to run the reactor in a safe limit seem to be missing in the lower end weights. And the heat sink issue was already stated.
Pages: 1
Extra information
2 registered and 29 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: 8338


Contact Admins Sarna.net