D8 Battletech

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
ghostrider
04/07/16 11:35 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Haven't heard anything about this system in a while.
Still working on it, or did you give it up?

And update on if it has improved play or not would be nice to know.
KamikazeJohnson
04/07/16 03:18 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Haven't heard anything about this system in a while.
Still working on it, or did you give it up?

And update on if it has improved play or not would be nice to know.



Still working on it, just been to busy with work and such to devote a serious amount of time to it.

I decided to abandon the Energy Level system; I think it's a good system, but trying to shoehorn it into an existing system just didn't work. If I ever decide to create and entirely new game system I might use it.

Put some work into Arm Types and Firing/Damage arcs. A few tweaks to Construction rules. Weapon stars are mostly good to go I think, might need some fine tuning once I get in enough playtesting.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
05/08/16 06:05 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Found a few minutes to do a bit of tweaking. Adjusted Autocannon masses, added Anti-Infantry to AC shots (1D8 vs Inf per size class), all Autocannon receive a -1 accuracy bonus vs non-Infantry targets.

Next mission: revised Punch and Kick hit tables. Keep Head Hits rare, even for Punches. If done properly, I might return to something like the old Partial Cover rules...I find it distasteful that an elite gunner firing on an immobile target will still "waste" over 20% of shots firing at the cover. Maybe keep the current PC system for LRM shots, although with the new combined table for LRMs, there might not be much difference.

Considering building additional Hit Location tables for dealing with elevation changes; eg. firing at a 'Mech in an adjacent hex with an elevation difference of more than 2 levels will have an effect similar to firing from the side vs from front/back; better odds of hitting upper vs lower half of the target.

Thoughts?
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
05/08/16 07:04 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Might really scare those people from letting things attack from above and have them roll on the strafe tables. If you want to apply the limited head shots with that table, remove the second head shot and put a leg shot in there.

Thought struck me while replying to this, maybe add a +1 per experience level to gunnery against an immobile target. So an elite pilot would be +3 on top of other bonuses. Veteran +2 and regular, +1. Or just go with +1 for veteran/elite.

Did you include lbx cannon shot with the 1d8?
Or will you just add x amount to the cluster shot?
I would think range would be your friend with cluster shots against infantry, ie spread out a little more in distances. But just a thought.

Another thought. Might add a bonus to units firing from below a mech, to do movement crits. Have to be directly below or idea with the higher elevations. The idea here would be more likely to cause jamming of hip/leg joints with shrapnel or even partial melting of rings. Might suggest pilot roll to remove that particular penalty. Ie snap/break obstruction.
A little much, but a thought.
KamikazeJohnson
05/08/16 09:17 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Might really scare those people from letting things attack from above and have them roll on the strafe tables. If you want to apply the limited head shots with that table, remove the second head shot and put a leg shot in there.




Was actually going to pull out the Strafing tables as a starting point for my Punch table.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
05/27/16 05:03 PM
72.143.228.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Played around a bit more with construction rules. Changed the rules for the "free" Heat Sinks. Now Free Heat Sinks = Heat Sinks Hidden in Engine. Eg. a Marauder with a 300 Engine has 12 Heat Sinks without spending crits OR tonnage. An UrbanMech only gets 2...

Allowing Gyros, Armour, and Ammo to use 0.25-ton increments. Might do the same with the Engine table.

Cockpits vary from 2-4 tons depending on the tonnage of the 'Mech

Messing with Jump Jet sizes...thinking about:
Light 'Mech: 0.25 ton
Medium 'Mech: 0.5 ton
Heavy 'Mech: 1 ton
Assault 'Mech: 2 tons

Redefined the 'Mech weight classes slightly:
5-20: Ultra-Light
25-40: Light
45-60: Medium
65-80: Heavy
85-100: Assault

Weight Class will affect things like Cockpit Tonnage, Jump Jet tonnage, limitations on Arm-mounted weapons, possibly Crit space in Arms and Torso.

Time to put out some redesigns and see how they work out.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
05/27/16 05:31 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The sink situation does solve some problems with larger engines having some advantage over the small ones, and does solve some of the issues of lighter ones with a huge advantage of free weight.

Not sure how a gyro would get a .25 increment, so I will have to see what that will do.

Now with the redefine and the jet issue, does that mean the ultra lights use .25 jets?
Or will they have some other weight/advantage? Maybe 2 hex jump with the power of one jet?

And this is extreme thinking, but will the smaller engines have less criticals they take up?
Say the 300-400 range uses normal, while the 200-295 uses 1 less spot?
100-195 2 spots while the under 100 might have 3 spots less.
Might be too much to deal with, but a thought.
KamikazeJohnson
05/27/16 08:09 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

The sink situation does solve some problems with larger engines having some advantage over the small ones, and does solve some of the issues of lighter ones with a huge advantage of free weight.



That's kind if the idea. It also has the interesting effect of encouraging ACs rather than PPCs/Large Lasers on slow smaller 'Mechs

Quote:
Not sure how a gyro would get a .25 increment, so I will have to see what that will do.



Gyro Tonnage = Engine Rating/100, round up. Under current rules, a 325 Engine requires a 4 ton gyro. Under my rules, it would be 3.25 tons.

Quote:
Now with the redefine and the jet issue, does that mean the ultra lights use .25 jets?
Or will they have some other weight/advantage? Maybe 2 hex jump with the power of one jet?



At the moment, jets are minimum of 0.25 tons each, mainly for practicality purposes. I don't expect to see many 'Mechs in that category anyway.

Quote:
And this is extreme thinking, but will the smaller engines have less criticals they take up?
Say the 300-400 range uses normal, while the 200-295 uses 1 less spot?
100-195 2 spots while the under 100 might have 3 spots less.
Might be too much to deal with, but a thought.



Interesting thought...might have to look into that.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson


Edited by KamikazeJohnson (05/27/16 08:41 PM)
ghostrider
05/28/16 09:51 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Had a few ideas about extra stuff.
First, the possible addition of a crit on the number of crits table for mechs. Thought maybe a roll of 2 would allow one crit but no reroll. This would mean an empty, already hit, or slot that does nothing when hit, would not allow a reroll.

Second was an optional table.
If you are bumping up the criticals to say 8 or 16, one spot could be support items, such as ammo feeds for weapons, no explosion but destroys feed. Coolant lines, which when hit might restrict coolant causing extra heat from items on that location if limb, or side if torso. Power lines, which might cause weapons malfunction on up to power loss in that side/area if torso/limb.
The power loss one might be bad if the leg shuts down... Piloting roll to avoid a fall.
But as I said. Optional table thoughts.

And a little more thought with engine slots. Might base it on weight of engine, not just rating. Forgot the lighter ones might actually be the same or close to the same weight.
KamikazeJohnson
06/07/16 06:35 PM
24.114.23.250

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Getting ready for the next round of playtesting. Tules have been streamlined a bit, all the original TRO:3025 'Mechs have been converted. Not sure how they will perform, but the look good on paper.

Still need to do Tanks and Infantry, and figure out how I want to handle Physical attacks.

Updates will be posted after the playtesting session.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
06/07/16 08:31 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Might be too much, but maybe opposed skill checks for physicals might be in order. Or just bonus/penalty depending on each skills. Ie, defender higher, penalty. Attacker higher, bonus to hit.
Depending on if you want something close to fair, I would suggest rams for tanks, once that is taken care of.
Maybe allow good pilots a roll (say 10+) to see if they can do 2 physicals.
Blocks might be too much as well, though if you do, might allow successful block to put attacker off balance, ie piloting roll.


We talked about arms before, and thought it might come into play here. Less actuators is harder to remain standing sort of thing. Same with standing. Again, may be too much.

Also might be too far, but added critical effect for tanks. On side or roll over. Similar to side slipping for vtols and hovers. Not as common though. Maybe kick to side of tank might add to chance.

Infantry might be good to have normal and non powered armor for normal soldiers. Normal is normal damage, while non powered armor might be 2 hits per soldier to kill.
Normal grenades might be dealt with for damage to units as well. New type. Sticky grenades for planting or throwing on mechs, vehicles, powered armored, even other infantry, but only one soldier for normal infantry.

Yeah. More things to say no to.
KamikazeJohnson
06/10/16 06:41 PM
24.114.42.43

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
My plan for tanks/infantry is to abstract them, which will allow a more realistic ratio of tank to 'Mechs while keeping the game primarily about 'Mechs. Something similar to the Alpha Strike system, such that a Lance of tanks requires about as much attention as a single 'Mech. Optional "full rules" for tanks, but ideally without as many "fiddly" rules.

Factors I intend to work into Physical Attacks (not all factors will necessarily apply to all types of Physical Attacks):
Attacker movement
Target movement
Target Engagement vs Avoidance
Rated speed
Initiative
Size Class
Piloting skill (Attacker and Target)
Arm types

Still a work in progress, lots to do before I get to that.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
06/11/16 01:07 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If you want some more ideas, just ask.
I know not everything is worth a second thought, but I do hope to get others to build on things.

With the d8's, are you going to allow something like blind fire?
Like idf fire on targets you can see on sensor, but no los?
Even direct fire might have a chance to damage something in 3+ heavy wood sort of idea. Like +10 to hit or something like it.
Lrms kind of deal with idf...

And thinking of los.. how would penalizing a units targeting lock against ecm units sound?
Maybe penalize it by 1 for low/all ecm gear?
Maybe allow advanced probes a bonus when in range.
Not the best ideas, but might be optional or help get other ideas going.
KamikazeJohnson
08/22/16 11:27 PM
72.143.226.2

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Finally had another playtesting session. The new Archer is a nightmare with twin LRM-30s, even after adding a "reload" round between shots. Surprisingly, the weapon changes turned the Shadow Hawk into a highly effective machine.

Still lots of work to do, but the system is evolving rapidly, and it looks like it will actually become a nice, balanced, fun system by the time I'm finished.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
08/23/16 11:21 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Now does that include the upgraded versions of the weapons, such as the er variants?
I know that sounds bad, but they did seem to have a little more advantage then disadvantages. The clans made it even worse.

I am guessing you will put up the 'new' mechs once you get the system finished. It will be interesting how the catapult/crusader lines will change with their current lrm 15 packs.

And for the normal shadow hawk to be effective?
Is that even possible?
KamikazeJohnson
08/23/16 05:10 PM
24.114.38.215

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Now does that include the upgraded versions of the weapons, such as the er variants?
I know that sounds bad, but they did seem to have a little more advantage then disadvantages. The clans made it even worse.


That's kinda the idea of "upgraded" weapons. Haven't done up the enhanced equipment list, but I have a few ideas...I expect some equipment to become flatly obsolete...and there's nothing wrong with that.

Quote:
I am guessing you will put up the 'new' mechs once you get the system finished. It will be interesting how the catapult/crusader lines will change with their current lrm 15 packs.


I might do that, although the designs won't make much sense without an understanding of how the game system and construction rules are different.

Quote:
And for the normal shadow hawk to be effective?
Is that even possible?



A second Medium Laser, more armour, SRM range boosted to 4/8/12 with improved accuracy from combining the To-Hit and Cluster Table rolls, a -1 accuracy bonus on the AC/5, and a vastly improved LRM 5. Overall, a tough customer now.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
08/23/16 08:06 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Honestly, there are a few weapons that were obsolete when the game was made. The small laser being one of them. It was an after thought weapon in my opinion. Something you put on, since you have half a ton.
Now before everyone goes nuts, this is based on the initial infantry damage. Afterwards it didn't improve much, but better then wasting the heat of a ppc or some other weapon.
The range/damage needed a little tweaking.
I really thought ranges for the lasers should have been further or even the same.
Example would be they all reached out to 15 like a large laser, but the size/damage/heat should have changed.
But that is a bit radical for most.
KamikazeJohnson
08/24/16 06:17 PM
72.143.232.157

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Honestly, there are a few weapons that were obsolete when the game was made. The small laser being one of them. It was an after thought weapon in my opinion. Something you put on, since you have half a ton.
Now before everyone goes nuts, this is based on the initial infantry damage. Afterwards it didn't improve much, but better then wasting the heat of a ppc or some other weapon.
The range/damage needed a little tweaking.
I really thought ranges for the lasers should have been further or even the same.
Example would be they all reached out to 15 like a large laser, but the size/damage/heat should have changed.
But that is a bit radical for most.



Not a bad idea...I would think have laser damage decrease with range. Might be a bit too radical a change to work into the existing system.

I did tweak the SL slightly. Small Lasers (and MGs) can fire into the same hex with no penalties, so range is 0-1, 2, 3. Might tweak it to 0-1, 2-3, 4 or 0-1, 2, 3-4.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
08/29/16 01:07 AM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Made a major change to Construction Rules: increased Armour from 16/ton to 20/ton. Torso Armour allocation rules have been altered as well, allowing Front Torso locations to mount 2pts/Internal, and Rear Torso can mount an additional 1pt/Internal. Every tonnage now mounts almost exactly the same Max Armour in terms of tonnage, so none of the designs need to be changed aside from Armour allocation, which hasn't been finalized yet anyway.

The reason for this change (aside from a general increase in the offensive capacity of LRMs, SRMs, and Autocannons) is the change to Damage Arcs...in general, it will be MUCH easier to hit the Rear torso, but just allocating more armour to the Rear Torso would leave the Front Torso underarmoured. An overall boost seemed warranted.

Edit: the torso allocation change was mentioned earlier in this thread, but I actually finalized it now, along with the armour/ton increase.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson


Edited by KamikazeJohnson (08/29/16 01:09 AM)
KamikazeJohnson
09/03/16 02:27 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
One of my more controversial proposed rules: firing arcs for different weapon locations.

Always seemed in classic BT that weapon location is mostly meaningless. Sure, arms had different firing arcs, legs had their own issues, but mostly the only difference it made was in the Critical Hit lottery.

My proposal makes weapon location a much more significant factor, making tactical maneuvering a more important part of the game; a skilled player will try to keep the enemy in his prime firing arc while avoiding the firing arcs of the enemy's most dangerous weapons.

I've already described the various firing arcs for the different types of arms; I'm proposing limiting the torso firing arcs even further; Center Torso front/rear has a firing arc similar to the current Rear firing arc (or Front arc for vehicles). Left/Right torso each have half the current firing arc...Left Torso weapons cannot fire to the Right of the "center line" in front/behind the 'Mech. Rear torso weapons have the same firing arcs as Front Torso weapons, only to the rear. Quads will be able to mount a Turret to make up for the lack of Torso-Twist, which will be even more of as handicap under this system...I might rework Quads somewhat to include a Turret location, making them even more unique, although that may require a separate hit Location Table for Quads. Hmmm...
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
09/03/16 03:49 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I can agree with firing arcs having limitations. The rifleman should not be able to fire the arms into some of the normal arks for arm weapons, while something like the marauder has enough 'joints' to almost fire into the flank of the opposite side.
Hand held weapons would be close if not the same as the marauder.

I can also support the torso issues, and most mechs seem to have the center torso sticking out, while weapons in the side seem to be flat or even inside the torso. The hunchback would be a funny example of a torso mounted weapon that should NOT be able to fire into the extreme left hexes. Technically, it would blow the head off the mech with the 20.

Now would this be considered optional, or part of the main rules?
I ask, as simplicity is destroyed by this. Though that is not a bad thing.
KamikazeJohnson
09/03/16 04:29 PM
72.143.231.149

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

I can agree with firing arcs having limitations. The rifleman should not be able to fire the arms into some of the normal arks for arm weapons, while something like the marauder has enough 'joints' to almost fire into the flank of the opposite side.
Hand held weapons would be close if not the same as the marauder.

I can also support the torso issues, and most mechs seem to have the center torso sticking out, while weapons in the side seem to be flat or even inside the torso. The hunchback would be a funny example of a torso mounted weapon that should NOT be able to fire into the extreme left hexes. Technically, it would blow the head off the mech with the 20.

Now would this be considered optional, or part of the main rules?
I ask, as simplicity is destroyed by this. Though that is not a bad thing.



I would want it as a full rule...firing arcs need to be taken into consideration when designing a 'Mech...2 'Mechs with identical weapins but in different locations could get used very much differently, and would therefore be distinctly different 'Mechs.

Definitely adds more complexity, as you need to be aware of each individual weapon's firing arcs. I could see that consideration causing increases Analysis Paralysis in players prone to it. Playtesting required.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
11/26/16 10:44 PM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Haven't added to this thread in a while, so I guess it's time for an update.

Game is a playable system now, still waiting on some details to be filled in, like Falling and Physical Attacks, not to mention things like Infantry and Tanks. Redesigned all the original TRO:3025 'Mechs to comply with the modified weapon stats and construction rules. Once the record sheets are complete (8 down, 47 to go!) I'll be ready for some serious playtesting.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
12/19/16 06:33 PM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Wow...I completely underestimated the long and teduious process of manually filling in the record sheets for all 55 of the original TRO:3025 designs. 32/55 complete as if this post. I might also add a few extras to fill out some less popular tonnages, as well as add a couple more in the Ultra-Light (5-20 tons) range, currently occupied only by the Locust and Wasp.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
01/04/17 03:31 PM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
KamikazeJohnson writes:

One of my more controversial proposed rules: firing arcs for different weapon locations.

Always seemed in classic BT that weapon location is mostly meaningless. Sure, arms had different firing arcs, legs had their own issues, but mostly the only difference it made was in the Critical Hit lottery.

My proposal makes weapon location a much more significant factor, making tactical maneuvering a more important part of the game; a skilled player will try to keep the enemy in his prime firing arc while avoiding the firing arcs of the enemy's most dangerous weapons.

I've already described the various firing arcs for the different types of arms; I'm proposing limiting the torso firing arcs even further; Center Torso front/rear has a firing arc similar to the current Rear firing arc (or Front arc for vehicles). Left/Right torso each have half the current firing arc...Left Torso weapons cannot fire to the Right of the "center line" in front/behind the 'Mech. Rear torso weapons have the same firing arcs as Front Torso weapons, only to the rear. Quads will be able to mount a Turret to make up for the lack of Torso-Twist, which will be even more of as handicap under this system...I might rework Quads somewhat to include a Turret location, making them even more unique, although that may require a separate hit Location Table for Quads. Hmmm...



Designed a new Quad Record Sheet format, which includes a Turret location. Reduced Leg and Torso Internal to compensate for the Unternal in the new location...Quads still have slightly more Max Armour than Bipeds, but only by a few points.

To compensate for the Turret tonnage and the limited firing arcs from other locations, I allowed a small Suspension Factor for Quads:
Ultra-Light (5-20 Tons): 5
Light (25-40 Tons): 10
Medium (45-60 Tons): 15
Heavy (65-80 Tons): 20
Assault (85-100 Tons): 25

To justify the additional rules and tables, I'm also adding more Quads to the 3025 lineup; Firestarter is now a Quad, and I'm thinking of converting one of the Ost 'Mechs to make the two nearly-identical 'Mechs significantly different on the battlefield.

My favourite: the Charger is now a Quad. The 25-point Suspension Factor allows 5/8 movement at 85 Tons, which not only increases Charge damage even more, but also restores the Charger's lost status as an Assault 'Mech, which confers various advantages when it comes to Physical attacks...a Charger landing a Charge on Hunchbach now gets a -3 To-Hit modifier, deals 68 Damage, and forces a Piloting check at +5!!! You don't want to see what it can do to an UrbanMech...
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
01/12/17 02:00 PM
72.143.216.37

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I just realized it's been almost THREE YEARS since I first started on this project. Wow. A lot has happened in that time, and the system is finally coming together. I wanted to take a minute to send out a huge THANK YOU to everyone who has taken the time to read and comment on this thread...while I may have largely ignored the suggestions made, the very fact of having this thread and getting feedback has helped clarify many ideas in my own mind, and has also helped keep me commited to completing the project.

The biggest issue for me now will be playtesting...hopefully the system will stand up under extensive play without needing any major changes to things I've already incorporated. After that, I still need to hammer out Physical Attack rules, modify a few tables, and find some way of abstracting Tanks and Infantry to allow them to be used in canon-realistic numbers without taking the focus of the game off 'Mechs.

Again, thank you so much for nearly 3 years of encouragement!
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
01/12/17 07:15 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Damn slow ****. Should have been done 2 years ago

Not surprising it took that long as there seems to be alot of stuff that was done. And since I doubt it was something you could work on all day long, that takes even more time.

A suggestion for the tanks and infantry issue. Defensive forces have tanks mixed into each unit. Maybe like having a mech control a full company of tanks and infantry. Also, garrison units having more lighter tanks except for important targets, like mech factories.

On the offensive side, having the heavier units backing up mech forces would be an idea.
Yeah sounds like the way things should be done, but some how isn't.
One more thing it the terrain compatibility issues. If you don't have the long los, lrms are NOT something to be used unless you can guarantee idf fire. Even then, shorter ranged weapons should prevail.

Physicals, I would think allowing hand actuators the ability to grab the other mech. A piloting roll vs each other might allow the winning unit to prevent the losing one from firing on them with some or maybe all weapons. Depends on how you want to go. Or maybe pulling the mech to the ground might work. Bonus for more weight, not weight groups. IE 20 verses 25 ton mech are both light, but the 25 ton mech should have some advantage. Providing each has all actuators needed.
Units with more joints in the arms might be able to hit the side of the enemy as the joints would allow a slap verse a straight on punch.
But these are just suggestions.
ghostrider
01/12/17 07:19 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Damn. Looking at the old statement, and thought maybe a quad might be able to hit 2 units with a charge if they are in line with the charge itself. Piloting roll to see if they can keep the momentum up to ram the second unit.
Cut the speed dramatically when they plow thru the first unit. Just more to keep you up at night.
KamikazeJohnson
01/14/17 09:47 PM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In an effort to keep the various weapon systems balanced against each other while at the same time distinct from each other, I have introduced a few edits to various weapons.

PPC: Inflicts 2 Heat damage on the target, contributes 5 points toward thr threshold to force a damage-related Piloting Roll.

Large Laser: Like all lasers, since there is no physical impact from the shot, they do not contribute toward a damage-related Piloting Roll. In order to balance it vs the PPC's improvements, Heat generation has been reduced to 7 instead of 8.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
01/15/17 06:20 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I thought the damage thresh hold roll was for losing armor, not an actual force, ie over 1 ton dropping off.
That is unless you added a penalty to it with things like cannons, gauss rifles and missiles.

Oh yeah. Better not throw out any more ideas. I don't think you have the patience to deal with another possible rework. So just ignore me.
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
Extra information
0 registered and 21 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: 77952


Contact Admins Sarna.net