KamikazeJohnson
01/15/17 08:41 PM
142.160.216.118
|
Quote:
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.
I went on the assumption that is was the force of impact that makes the Piloting Skill Check necessary. The Piloting Roll Threshold is the minimum amount of damage a unit can take in a single phase to require a Piloting Roll. IIn Classic BT, that threshold is 20 for all units; I decided to vary it by weight class so heavier 'Mechs are harder to knock over.
Laser damage doesn't count toward the Threshold at all. PPCs count half. Autocannons and MGs count normally, missiles count double (do to the explosive force).
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
ghostrider
01/16/17 04:14 PM
66.74.61.223
|
That is why I asked about the idea of why a light mech didn't have more issues then a an assault mech losing less armor. 20 points can wipe out the armor and torso for almost all, if not all 20-25 ton mechs.
But it is good to know it has been done.
Honestly a single ml hit is enough to cause a balance issue with a light mech, especially with some that have 2 arm armor points and 2 internal. That removes that limb without any issues.
Now one clarification to the threshold. Is the gauss weapons added in there, or are they counted as autocannons for the threshold?
I ask as they use kinetic force to do damage more then the ac's do.
|
KamikazeJohnson
01/22/17 09:55 PM
72.143.218.75
|
FINALLY finished the Record Sheets. If I EVER say I'm thinking about overhauling the sheets, resulting in a near-complete redo, please slap me around a bit with a large trout.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
KamikazeJohnson
01/26/17 01:40 PM
142.160.216.118
|
One of my biggest concerns with my new system is whether or not my weapon tweaks resulted in better balance than the original, or if I just simply created a new set of unbalanced weapon stats. With the original system, it's relatively simple to compare weapons, since the damage is consistent (Cluster Table weapons use a simple Average Damage calculation), so you simply have to account for Tonnage, Heat (simply add Heat Sink Equivalence to Tonnage), and Range to get a pretty good evaluation.
My system is trickier. Autocannons receive a -1 targeting bonus, and Missiles are even more complicated: since the Cluster Roll is incorporated into the To-Hit Roll, the weapon system's Average Damage is dependent on the To-Hit Number.
To help settle the issue, I pulled out my dear, dear friend Excel to assist me with an incredibly cumbersome calculation to work out the Average Damage for each weapon at every possibly To-Hit Number. The table isn't complete yet, but the results so far are encouraging...SRMs compare very well to Energy and Ballistic weapons; Range and Ammo Dependence are still difficult to quantify, but the three types appear to be quite well balanced in terms of damage. Haven't tackled the LRM table yet, so we'll see if my "loading turn" balanced them properly, or if the Cluster Table needs adjusting.
Two things that are standing out: 1) Medium Lasers are no longer the standard "most efficient" weapon...the size, damage, heat, and range still make it a good "default" weapon, but there's much more incentive to back up your primary weapons with non-ML choices. And 2) Large Lasers, even with Heat reduced to 7, may end up being the "New Autocannon", since the boosted SRM 4 neatly equals it at a To-Hit of 9, and the SRM 6 deals considerably more damage, leaving the LL with only a small range advantage, and of course the Big Crunch effect vs Scatter Damage.
Overall, however, the results are encouraging. Bot looking forward to the LRM calculation though *shudder*
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
KamikazeJohnson
08/02/17 08:56 PM
72.143.223.166
|
BATTLETECH: Reboot
Hey folks! Been far too long since my last update, but I still rattle this project around in my brain from time to time.
I was reviewing my 3025 designs recently, and got thinking about LRMs again...specifically about how there's very little difference between, for example, 1 LRM 20 vs 2 LRM 10...basically, if you want an LRM 20, just install 2 LRM 10 and always fire them together. I previously considered making the larger racks somewhat more efficient, but the tonnage didn't eem to work out right.
Current idea:
1) Scrap all the LRMs except for the LRM 5
2) Rename it simply "LRM"
3) Require at least one "LRM Fire Control" (1 ton/1 crit) on any unit mounting 1 or more LRMs.
4) All LRMs fired in a turn using a single Fire Control fire as a unit (4 LRMs = LRM 20) with a single Hit Roll and must be fired at a single target.
5) Additional FCs allow the unit to split fire without incurring Secondary Target penalties.
6) Possibly impose a limit to the number of LRMs that may be fired by a single FC (probably 6), or require them all to be in the same location as the FC.
7) Possibly allow each FC to be used only every 2nd turn (forcing the Archer, for example, to mount 2 of them)
Thoughts?
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
ghostrider
08/02/17 11:18 PM
66.74.61.223
|
I would suggest limiting them to one section if you are going to do this. IE all of them in the right arm.
Otherwise you run into someone saying the different locations would not allow all the packs to fire off, such as a flanking target on the right, which the left torso could not fire at.
Not sure if you would allow them to be split if there is a second FC as I am going to assume they are all tuned to one frequency to follow, making the tracking systems in the missiles confused if more then one FC is in use. Too technical maybe, but it is out there. I kind of like the fcs feel to them, so if you do allow different locations, then each should require their own fc.
Also, you may have to redo the number of missiles that hit table.
And the thought of dealing with the heat issues popped into my mind. lrm 5 are 2 heat. 10 is 4, while the 15 is 5 with the 20 at 6 heat. 4 normal packs will run 8 heat.
The tonnage is odd. Would it be better to add half ton per launcher?
Such as not needing it if only one launcher, but 2 would bring the total to 2.5 tons, while a 3rd would be 4 tons. That would make the 4 spot at 5.5 tons. Still off in the more weight direction, but have the fc takes only one crit?
I do like the idea of not having to have different ammo containers, as we discussed with the using just 5 packs and marking them off the 120 missiles. So 24 slots of 5 missiles per shot.
Now are you going to allow some additional missiles per ton, or cut it down a little?
And I would suggest a full ton of ammo for special munitions, and all launchers fired that turn use it, so you don't have to keep a running total of each 5 pack, which might be done anyways.
Now for an added bonus.
Are you going to do this with srms and mrms?
|
KamikazeJohnson
08/03/17 11:45 AM
142.160.216.118
|
Quote:
I would suggest limiting them to one section if you are going to do this. IE all of them in the right arm.
Otherwise you run into someone saying the different locations would not allow all the packs to fire off, such as a flanking target on the right, which the left torso could not fire at.
I was thinking about that...especially with Firing Arcs being more of a factor under my rules; it wouldn't necessarily be more "realistic" that way, but it would definitely be much easier than doing a Firing Arc check to make sure you can actually fire them all.
Quote:
Also, you may have to redo the number of missiles that hit table.
I already created a new table; remember that under these rules there is no separate roll for the number of missiles. So if you fire 5 LRMs at a To-Hit number of 6, you roll once, say, get a 9, so you check the Cluster Table on the "25" column at "+3", and the result is 21 missiles hit.
Quote:
And the thought of dealing with the heat issues popped into my mind. lrm 5 are 2 heat. 10 is 4, while the 15 is 5 with the 20 at 6 heat. 4 normal packs will run 8 heat.
The tonnage is odd. Would it be better to add half ton per launcher?
Such as not needing it if only one launcher, but 2 would bring the total to 2.5 tons, while a 3rd would be 4 tons. That would make the 4 spot at 5.5 tons. Still off in the more weight direction, but have the fc takes only one crit?
I previously modified both the Tonnage and Heat values for the LRMs, completely removing the variable efficiency; so 4 x LRM 5 = 2 x LRM 10 = 1 x LRM 20 in both Mass and Heat.
Quote:
I do like the idea of not having to have different ammo containers, as we discussed with the using just 5 packs and marking them off the 120 missiles. So 24 slots of 5 missiles per shot.
Now are you going to allow some additional missiles per ton, or cut it down a little?
And I would suggest a full ton of ammo for special munitions, and all launchers fired that turn use it, so you don't have to keep a running total of each 5 pack, which might be done anyways.
I increased LRM Ammo to 150 Missiles/Ton, all LRMs can share a single bin. Ammo can be assigned in 0.5-ton or 1-ton bins to allow greater flexibility with specialty ammo. I would definitely insist on all LRMs fired through a single FC should use the same ammo bin.
Quote:
Now for an added bonus.
Are you going to do this with srms and mrms?
Not planning to do it with SRMs...they got a huge power boost under my rules, I don't think they need added flexibility. Plus I like having the different types of missiles work differently. I'll decide with MRMs when I start building in more advanced tech.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
AmaroqStarwind
04/03/18 03:57 PM
99.203.27.104
|
I'm not sure that I like the idea of energy weapons running on a battery that can explode. I do have a separate idea, though, that could probably be good.
How about having separate Critical Slots for the Rear Torso?
This would mean that certain components like the Gyro and Engine would be split between the Front and Rear Torsos, and XL Engines would occupy four locations, Front (Center), Left, Right and Rear (Center). It would also make some components harder to hit, but still be vulnerable from all sides, and it would allow for additional room to mount stuff in the mech, because you're now thinking in Three Dimensions instead of Two. It would also mean that some components could only be mounted in the front (and sides), while others could only be mounted in the rear (and sides). Examples for front-only items include front-facing weapons and Torso Cockpits, while examples for read-only items include rear-facing weapons and Jump Jets.
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus
The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable. |
AmaroqStarwind
04/04/18 04:13 AM
99.203.26.189
|
Like, seriously... With what has been done to energy weapons with some of these modifications, they may as well be removed from the game entirely. Chemical Lasers and Vehicular Flamers for everyone!
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus
The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable. |
ghostrider
04/05/18 12:52 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Much like the over use of quirks, lasers in the game are overbalanced. Don't explode. Fires if you got power. No ammunition. In mechs they can overheat the unit and still work. Light weight with decent range.
This idea came about as the 2d6 ran into problems as some shots run into the 12+ range to begin with. And some of them should not be limited as the rules say. It is not something that will replace the battle tech rules, but something KJ started playing around with.
I guess it has some merit since he is still working on it after a few months.. Maybe years. Not sure at this point, and not gonna check. Maybe next post.
|
AmaroqStarwind
04/07/18 02:53 AM
99.203.27.127
|
I have actually been looking to experiment with alternative systems for BattleTech myself... 1d20, 2d8, 2d10, and so on.
So far, I think the optimal approach wouldn't be 2d8, like what KJ is working with, but 3d6 instead.
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus
The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable. |
AmaroqStarwind
04/08/18 05:30 AM
99.203.26.50
|
Oh, if it hasn't been suggested already... Could we perhaps use Fractional Accounting standard?
The more complicated math would only be present during Construction, so it shouldn't impact actual Gameplay too severely (at least in terms of pacing, it might have a small impact on balance).
If we can't have full fractional accounting (aka 1-kilogram rounding), then merely having Quarter-Ton rounding again would suffice. (I also don't like the idea of Gyros using Full-Ton Rounding.)
Also, for all of the example designs/scenarios, you should also explain and demonstrate some of the different design philosophies, such as Armor-focused designs versus Firepower-focused or Agility-focused designs, or Bracket Fire designs/tactics versus Alpha Strike designs/tactics.
Also, while Mechs are freaking awesome and are the main focus of BattleTech in its current form, the BattleTech universe is a lot bigger than just Mechs, and I really wish that more emphasis was placed on Combined Arms, keeping Ground Vehicles, Air Vehicles, Mechs, Infantry and Powered Armor balanced but distinct.
The idea that BattleMechs should be the Be All End All Curbstomp just doesn't sit right with me, and it actually irks me a lot with how the threat levels of other combat units constantly gets downplayed, especially in the videogames; even in Classic BattleTech, Infantry can be very dangerous to not just one, but to several BattleMechs in the right circumtances... but games like MechWarrior, MechCommander and MechAssault portray infantry like moronic suicide squads shooting you with cotton candy and kitten farts.
A few more victims of the "Mechs are the best at everything, and all other combat units don't even deserve to exist" philosophy... Land Air Mechs, Submarines/Aircraft Carriers, VTOLs, Tanks, Powered Armor, etc... and even Airships*!
*IIRC, airships do exist somewhere in BattleTech, but I am only aware of this because it was mentioned by other people on a few occasions. I've never actually seen any for myself at the time of this writing.
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus
The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable. |
ghostrider
04/08/18 07:31 PM
66.74.61.223
|
Changes in the rules changed the game alot.
The issue with lams is the same one about alot of the original designs and pictures. They had a major lawsuit that ended the developers from using the pictures. The unseen mechs.
I agree that vehicles are very important to the game, but as I was told a few times, this is not world of tanks. It is fighting mechs with mechs. No one wants to fight a tank that is far superior to them mech, even though the original tag line for mechs was mobility. Not fire power. Not armor.
This very reason was said to be why vehicle can't use alot of items that mechs can, and there is no over heating the vehicles.
If you can come up with a system using 3d6, then do so. The 2d8 seems to be working well enough from what has been said about it.
And the infantry in the mechcommander games are armored. And I agree. They charge at you, when that is the worse thing they could do. But their sensor thing is something that makes them almost impossible to locate doing it the board game way. Most likes and only certain other mechs have the sensors.
|
AmaroqStarwind
04/09/18 12:03 PM
99.203.155.94
|
Well, specifically in the case of LAMs, I'm specifically referring to the arbitrary restrictions that were placed on them in Interstellar Operations and onwards, which were added seemingly to discourage their use rather than for any real balancing function (at least as far as I can tell).
As for the Unseen Controversy, we likely shouldn't have to worry about it for much longer seeing as Harmony Gold is but one hex away from biting the gauss slug.
- - - - -
So, I would like to propose some revised construction rules for Gyros really quick, nothing too major... reason number one being that Gyro calculations suck in their current state, and reason number two being that once you start getting into things like Interface Cockpits which remove the Gyro from the equation entirely, they start to become increasingly overpowered with higher rating engines.
My first proposed change for Gyro calculations is for special types such as the Compact, Heavy Duty or Extra-Light Gyros, rather than performing the calculations as normal and then multiplying the final weight of the Gyro, the engine rating should be multiplied first and then the Gyro calculation can proceed as normal. For example, an Extra-Light Gyro for a 360 Engine would have the same weight as a Standard Gyro for a 180 Engine. On the other end of the scale, A Compact Gyro for a 60-rated engine would have the same weight as a Standard Gyro for a 90-rated engine, or as a Heavy-Duty Gyro for a 45-rated engine.
The second proposed change for Gyro calculations is to use Quarter-Ton rounding, as opposed to Half-Ton rounding. This is a much simpler, and much smaller, change, but it can have a very big impact.
Third and final proposed change for Gyros is to treat them sort of like Jump Jets, with increasing size per weight class; for mechs in the 20-to-55 ton range, they would occupy Two Critical Spaces, while for mechs in the 60-to-80 and 85-to-100 ranges, they would occupy Three and Four Critical Spaces respectively. This only applies to Standard and Heavy-Duty Gyros however, with Compact Gyros taking up half as much space (rounded up) and Extralight Gyros taking up 33% more space (rounded up). All Gyros except for Heavy Duty Gyros would explicitly be forbidden from becoming Armored Components, preventing the "Armored Compact Gyros" exploit that I recently discovered, and simultaneously preventing the unfortunate "Armored Extralight Gyro" boondoggle.
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus
The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable. |
KamikazeJohnson
04/25/20 06:16 PM
72.143.236.176
|
Hey folks, miss me?
Just reviving this old thread since I'm planning on spending some Isolation time with my kids shaking some of the wrinkles out of my modified system. I might start a new thread on it once I get my rules sheet revised and filled out a bit.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Karagin
04/25/20 08:09 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Quote:
Hey folks, miss me?
Just reviving this old thread since I'm planning on spending some Isolation time with my kids shaking some of the wrinkles out of my modified system. I might start a new thread on it once I get my rules sheet revised and filled out a bit.
AWESOME!
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
04/26/20 03:04 AM
66.74.60.165
|
Wow. That was one long sleep time. Hope the roots growing over you didn't cause to much trouble getting up.
Good to see you are still alive.
It will be nice to see something with the system.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 68 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: 81356
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
