Jumping and piloting rolls

Pages: 1
ghostrider
12/30/16 03:46 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The question came up and it would be interesting to see what the opinions are.

How different would the game be if a piloting roll was required anytime you used jump jets?


I would think it would stop alot of mechs from using them constantly in game, and change the focus back to heavy and assault mechs Granted speed would still be a good defense.
Forcing someone to consider if a jump into flank or rear of an opposing mech is worth the risk would change alot of battle outcomes.

Any thoughts on this?
KamikazeJohnson
12/30/16 10:16 PM
72.143.223.107

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Would depend on the modifier. Straight up piloting roll would limit use with a 5 or even a 4 pilot somewhat, while a roll at -1 would be a lot less risky. I would expect a high-tech piece of equipment like a 'Mech would be equipped to basically land itself, but battlefield conditions like uneven terrain, poor visibility, hasty manoevering, and pilots pushing the limits of the jump range could definitely make for a tricky landing.

I would definitely favour a piloting roll for landing in Rough, Rubble, or Woods hexes.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
12/31/16 03:09 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The question came about when the discussion came around to how a mech with the jets in the back, could fly it's full movement forward in a straight line, yet turn it's torso to fire on a unit. It would change the direction of the thrust while in mid air. And a full turn around before landing would be even worse.
Even a slight jump, like a whole 30 meters would or should have some effects like this, but I do agree there would be more leeway shorter jumps, then say the 240 meter jumps.
And one with jets in the leg taking a leg hit without the 20 point threshold also came up. Just armor damage, not internal. It was thought of just to throw the mech off balance from the sudden shift of the leg jet(s).

I remember seeing a statement that a mech has the aerodynamics of a brick flying thru the air.

The main way I know of a mech landing itself normally means plowing into the ground, but that is debatable for some.

The pushing the limits of the jump range is hard to really say, as some mechs have a range of 2 while others alot more. Good extreme examples. The urbanmech and the spider. Same in flight time.
Which also brings up the point of when a unit actually fires. After it lands or in flight. I could see losing control firing the ac 10 or the 20 on the variants of the urbanmech in flight. Spin it around like a top.
I want to say when it lands, but that destroys the time a laser can focus on a target.
That is another subject.

Posted this before another thought came up so wanted to add it.
Turning in air to land should theoretically reduce the range of the jump as well, with a full 180 killing alot of it.


Edited by ghostrider (12/31/16 03:11 AM)
CrayModerator
12/31/16 11:27 AM
67.8.226.169

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

The question came about when the discussion came around to how a mech with the jets in the back, could fly it's full movement forward in a straight line, yet turn it's torso to fire on a unit. It would change the direction of the thrust while in mid air.



Hence thrust vectoring.

The jump jets also don't necessarily fire continuously. They could fire for launch, in-flight maneuver, and landing, giving periods where they aren't firing and thus a torso twist wouldn't necessarily throw off the flight.

If you want to consider off-center, back-mounted jump jets, look at the shuttle after SRB separation. The 100-ton orbiter's three main engines are on the bottom, off to the side, and are considerably offset compared to the a 700-ton fuel tank on its belly. After SRB separation, the shuttle can also continue flight in a controlled fashion even while losing one or two engines.

Quote:
The main way I know of a mech landing itself normally means plowing into the ground, but that is debatable for some.



It's a controlled burn at landing. Per the rules, a 'Mech with even 1 jumping MP can safely fall any distance because of that soft landing.

Quote:
Turning in air to land should theoretically reduce the range of the jump as well, with a full 180 killing alot of it.



Rotational movement requires very little thrust compared to translation. American manned spacecraft - notably Gemini, Apollo, and the shuttle - have always been snappy, pilot-friendly vehicles despite fairly small reaction control motors. (The Soyuz pretty much had to reduce its RCS motors to "hamsters in wheels" to be so notoriously sluggish.) A 180-degree twist is something that could be accomplished easily during the landing burn with a little engine vectoring.
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.
ghostrider
12/31/16 01:04 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
They seemed to have left the vector thrust out of any descriptions about jump jets. Granted at the time the game was made, that was not the big thing it is today.
The impression I got from jets was a constant thrust for alot of the flight with enough reserve for a soft landing at the end. And as I said before, the 10 second round makes this seem more imperative.

As for the landing comment, that was a small joke with KJ's mech's should land on it's own. If they did have the system set up for that, then a piloting roll for almost any reason, like a hot drop, should not exist. The gyro/inner ear set up is supposed to be why there is an issue with things like that.

The comment about turning 180 on the landing does show the question on if a piloting roll should be needed for jumps. But the question was how different would the game by if there was one required for a normal jump?
KamikazeJohnson
12/31/16 02:19 PM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Cray writes:

Rotational movement requires very little thrust compared to translation. American manned spacecraft - notably Gemini, Apollo, and the shuttle - have always been snappy, pilot-friendly vehicles despite fairly small reaction control motors. (The Soyuz pretty much had to reduce its RCS motors to "hamsters in wheels" to be so notoriously sluggish.) A 180-degree twist is something that could be accomplished easily during the landing burn with a little engine vectoring.



Rotational movement could also be achieved using the 'Mech's gyro, making a facing change with no net angular motion. In fact, since the Gyro will be spinning to keep the 'Mech balancec in flight, the jets would need to compensate for that rotation already.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
FrabbyModerator
12/31/16 02:49 PM
80.187.101.130

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Isn't the Spider fluffed to be notably capable of in-flight maneuvering while jumping, suggesting other 'Mechs aren't?
ghostrider
01/01/17 12:47 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Actually, the spider does have the line 'The jump jet system was designed to make standard leaps as well as to vary the leap by pivoting the jets in flight.'

3055 tro has the goshawk mech in it. It is the book that suggests when a mech jumps, it is largely an act of brute force over aerodynamics as most mechs have all the aerodynamic stability of a brick.
The goshawk attempts to rectify this situation with stabilizing wings.
This is the baffles on the arms, not the newer partial wings.

As for the space capsules, is that in atmosphere or in space?
The lack of wind resistance changes how easily a puff of compressed air can turn a unit.
And the turn isn't the issue, but when having to compensate for the jets being used for things like stability in flight changes the momentum of the unit.

I am not saying it can't be done, but if a mech walking needs a piloting roll for simply walking in rough, I doubt it would be easy to control in the air with any movement other then a straight line with no limbs being moved except to keep the mech stable.
And the landing would be even more difficult if anything is out of whack.
ghostrider
01/22/17 12:49 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Isn't there anyone else wanting to sound off on this?

From the sounds of it, there are some on the board that play almost exclusively jumping mechs. I would think they would want to weigh in on this.
And this is not asking for the developers to change the rules to do so.
Akalabeth
01/22/17 05:48 PM
75.155.167.106

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Piloting rolls should be required for rough terrain, the advantage of jumping into heavy woods is a little too much.
Piloting rolls all the time? Heck no, that would lead to mechs falling and knocking themselves unconscious all the time.

Friend of mine would also prefer that jump jets had fuel, or perhaps operated like MASC where their distance decreases each consecutive turn of use until the reserves can refill.
ghostrider
01/23/17 12:06 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The idea of limited fuel is one that might be a good idea.
The video games have a recharge time on them.

Not sure if this would be considered getting off the topic, though it does deal with jets and jumping.

Both rolls and limited air time would change the game a bit.
MJB
01/23/17 01:21 PM
107.199.74.86

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The game balance price is already paid by tonnage, critical slots, heat, and the to-hit modifier.

IMO, no further adjustments are necessary.
ghostrider
01/23/17 01:44 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
This thread is more to find out how different the game would be. With that said, I think there is more then needs to be said about this issue.

The ability to jump into forests, or even over a hill to avoid being shot at, especially when overheated is a benefit far beyond the penalties you have listed.
Jumping behind someone in the middle of a forest also shows the penalties as weak.
Crits only become an issue in those units with alot of equpiment.
The to hit modifier gives the jumping unit more of an advantage, even though they do not zigzag in flight, and trying to aim while if flight is less then it should be.

I do understand this is only opinion on this subject.
I do feel jets are a little too much for too little.
It is something that keeps alot light mechs alive, there is no doubt about that.
Now with the inclusion of improved jets, and partial wings, it has a little more advantages then I believe it should be.
But then this is only my opinion.

Which does bring up the question about overheating mechs. Since the leg actuators slow down when getting up on the scale, wouldn't that mean the jets should be slow and awkward for controlling the jump?
Akalabeth
01/23/17 03:43 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
The game balance price is already paid by tonnage, critical slots, heat, and the to-hit modifier.

IMO, no further adjustments are necessary.



The game isn't balanced along any of those aspects though, it's balanced along Battle Value. And Jump Jets have traditionally been known to screw up Battle Value calculations. I believe in the last iteration, they were over-valued and artificially inflated BV costs.

Let me ask,
What's more value? A 50 ton mech going 5/8/5?
Or a 50 ton mech going 6/9/0?

The former costs an additional 2.5 tons for 15 tons total (12.5 + 2.5)
The latter costs 19 tons.

The problem with jump jets is that they ignore aspects some of the cons of the game. Moving into heavy woods running for example, has the benefit of higher Defensive mod but takes more movement. With jump jets, they get the pro and ignore the con. This is in addition to the standard ability for jump jets to move X number of hexes in any direction, regardless of heat, and face any direction.

Now jump jets have inherent pros and cons. They can't be used while prone, they cost heat = movement. They can move X hexes and face any direction. Their movement isn't governed by heat. And they also require a piloting roll with actuator or hip damage.

The balance problem though is that arguably, jump jets are more effective in dense wooded terrain or river terrain, than they are in clear terrain. This means that when you balance them, you either need to value them to their advantage, in which case they're over-valued in clear to terrain, or you value them in the default terrain, which is typically clear and they get a greater advantage in dense terrain. Or you point somewhere in the middle and they're under or over valued in the extremes.

If Jump jets however had cons which mitigated their advantage in dense terrain, like piloting rolls, then one could point-value them more accurately. Maybe light woods & rough would have a piloting roll with a -1, heavy woods and rubble would have a straight piloting roll.
ghostrider
05/05/17 01:07 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
As the board is a little slow, I thought some further debate on this might spice things up.
And yes, I know thinking is not one of my better suits.

I do like akal's response, but there is more areas where jets have major advantages with little penalties.
Walkers can not climb more then 2 levels at a time. Scenarios using deep rivers that have basically cliffs come to mind. Also, assaulting a base on top of a cliff means they are at a huge advantage.

In the open. Yeah. They are not as great, unless you have a move crit like foot or leg acuator. Yet as it has been pointed out more then a few times, how many battles are fought in wide open terrain? To my knowledge all the store bought maps have terrain as well as trees and such on them.

With a locust mech running, you move what? 6 hexes max in light woods and barely 4 in heavy? Not a good thing, and almost impossible to do if you are on the heat scale much.
Yes, the standard locust isn't one to heat up.
And with this, crossing any large body of water shows an advantage of the jets.

Now again I ask. How different would the game be if you did use a piloting roll each time you used the jets?
wolf_lord_30
05/05/17 09:35 AM
74.214.54.153

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I would hate to have to roll each time I jumped. Having the optional rule of landing in heavy terrain is bad enough, but the benefits often outweigh the consequence. If you have to roll each time you use it though, it becomes more of a push your luck style movement over tactical.

Let's say I have a SHD-2H, I go 5/8/3. If I jump for a +1, plus the jumping +1 and I get a +3 to hit in return, I will not use it except when I need to get over some nasty terrain or jump down into some heavy woods. But I will not risk it the same if by jumping down into open terrain is going to possibly hurt me more. I'm already suffering on the to hit side of things.
Another thing to think of, is that Jump Jets are a little harder to use than regular movement. You have to jump in the straightest line. Which means, if there is something in your way, i.e. elevation too high for your movement, you can't jump around it, you have to go in a different direction. So while allowing you to move over difficult terrain, in a sense, it's less maneuverable than a running fast 'Mech.

Spinning around in any direction is a benefit that shouldn't be messed with either. The force of the jump jets propelled you forward. Now all you can do is add more fuel to it to go higher, go a little further, or rotate. Trying to move 70 tons of metal in a different direction once its got momentum is really not going to happen.

And finally, I'm an in game jumper. I usually try to take at least one Grasshopper, Axman, Hatchetman, Phoenix Hawk, or Javelin per game. As long as it doesn't clash with the time frame or unit I'm using. Jumping around creating a hard to hit target while other 'Mechs move in a dish out damage is a decent tactic. But it's not as much fun as the fear the opponent feels when the jumpers get close. Will I DFA or not? Will I jump behind their Atlas and kick them down with a Javelin? Will I just jump away and leave a couple of their 'Mechs wondering where the target went? All good questions, and ones I like to be the only one holding the answer to.

If I have to roll each time I jump, this takes away my tactical advantage of having them, making them much less scary and not worth the same to me. I'm already sacrificing accuracy, heat and if jumping into open terrain, I'm not always making myself a less viable target
ghostrider
05/05/17 04:51 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So the thought I was having that it would basically limit jet use to desperation moves, or a gamble to get the perfect shot isn't that far off.
It would pull the game more towards tactics that don't involve jumping all over the place.
It might shift the game towards the heavier mechs.

The harder to use then normal movement really doesn't seem to reflect the ability to hit others. A jump is +2, while a run is +2. Depending on the unit, the jump is the better form of movement especially in difficult terrain. A highlander would be a good example in heavy woods.. Even just rubble.

It was discussed earlier in this thread, as well as another one about maneuvering in mid flight. You gain the biggest bonus to not being hit with distance moved, but you can circle around in a large loop and land where you starting from.
And using a jenner, it probably would be easier to run the mech around a mountain top them to jump over it if there is 4 level difference. This would depend on how large the area you have to go around, as well as other factors like woods, or even changes in altitude.

So would it be that the limits would shift more to firepower and better use of terrain over the bouncing around the field?
I think it does, but wondering if others agree to it.
And no, this is not trolling to get into an argument. It is interesting to see different styles and see how much different the game would be with a single difference in there.
ghostrider
05/07/17 11:42 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Had a conversation last night about this.
Most people talk about weapons being something that overpowers in some areas, lrms and medium lasers being favorites, yet it seems this topic gets missed.

As a few say, they use jumpers when ever they can. The bonus they give for not only jumping but the movement they go on most is far better then many walkers could match, and still have some good firepower. Also most terrain and ground cover does not stop them or really even slow them down.

Heat does not affect this movement either as discussed before.
The down size is weight. They take up the same crits for a half ton jet on up to a 2 ton jet.

This seems to be one of those issues people don't like to admit is unbalanced. It came as a shock to finally realize why this was odd. It is an old time thing that I could not figure out.

Any admissions or comments?
TigerShark
05/09/17 02:11 PM
12.130.166.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If it's not accounted for in Battle Value, it breaks the Battle Value system. Jumpers are over-BV'ed as it is. Their movement modifier penalty is counted twice in the BV calculations, making a 5/8/5 much more expensive than a straight 5/8. Adding a PSR to their jump makes them worth even less.

Try playing a force of Light 'Mechs against Heavies/Assaults. Especially in 3067+ when all of the Clan Pulse a 3-gunnery pilots are running wild. You'll quickly figure out that "jumping into woods" isn't as broken as you'd think.
wolf_lord_30
06/10/17 12:36 AM
74.214.54.153

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Even 3050 tech, my Koshis were jumping into woods to draw fire and were still getting hit regularly by the Wolverine's large pulse laser. And those guys can't take large pulse laser hits.
Pages: 1
Extra information
1 registered and 183 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: 10322


Contact Admins Sarna.net