Bob_Richter
10/21/01 03:33 PM
134.121.149.97
|
...has anyone else ever noticed THESE problems with the vehicle rules:
1) Suspension Factors are nuts. A 5 ton wheeled vehicle goes 4/6 WITHOUT AN ENGINE! (nevermind that I have to put one in there. You get my point.) Hovers, hydrofoils, and VTOLs are worse, of course.
2) AC/20s (10 crits in a 'Mech) take up the same space as AC/2s (1 crit in a 'Mech), even though they are of very different sizes
3) No armor limit, with Battletech's superefficient (about 4x real-world armor efficiency, by a calculation my brother made long ago) armor making tanks nearly indestructible. VTOL is the exception to this rule, though not really a meaningful one (how many rotor hits do YOU get in the average day?)
4) Missiles don't cause heat, and don't take up extra mass for heat sinks, making them the ultimate vehicle weapon. (high fp/mass ratio, no mucking about with fusion engines, power converters, or heat sinks.)
?
No wonder vehicles are more than a match for 'Mechs! A missile-armed hovercraft can be far speedier, have far greater firepower, and still COST LESS than a 'Mech of equivalent mass, all while not overheating.
Anyone want to create rules to help with these problems and relegate these vehicular upstarts to their proper place under the heels of Battlemechs?!
-Bob Richter
A dead primate is nobody's ancestor.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
10/21/01 03:55 PM
134.121.149.97
|
As it turns out, I'm going to answer my own challenge.
>>>1) Suspension Factors are nuts. A 5 ton wheeled vehicle goes 4/6 WITHOUT AN ENGINE! (nevermind that I have to put one in there. You
get my point.) Hovers, hydrofoils, and VTOLs are worse, of course.<<<
Answer: If we keep suspension factors, make them multiplication-based rather than addition-based. For instance, we give wheeled vehicles an SF of 1.2, reflecting the advantage of their lightweight mobility system in relatively flat, open terrain. That means that the engine rating is multiplied by 1.2 for purposes of determining flank and cruise speeds. This means that a 10-rating engine on a 2-ton civillian groundcar (these used to be legal, I don't know if they are anymore. In any case, they should be.) generates 6/9 movement rather than 15/23, but that a 270-rated engine in an 80-ton wheeled tank generates 4/6. (this actually makes the heavier vehicles more efficient than they were previously, but what the heck.)
>>>2) AC/20s (10 crits in a 'Mech) take up the same space as AC/2s (1 crit in a 'Mech), even though they are of very different sizes<<<
Answer: Build a crit layout for vehicles similar to that for 'Mechs.
Mine (tentative) is as follows:
Turret: (optional)
1- Turret Actuator
2- Turret Gunner
3-12 free for equipment
Front/Sides/Rear:
1-12 free for equipment (kind of like a side torso. Consider putting XL crits in Sides.)
Body:
1-3 Engine
4-6 Crew Compartment
7-9 Engine
10-12 Free for equipment
>>>3) No armor limit, with Battletech's superefficient (about 4x real-world armor efficiency, by a calculation my brother made long ago) armor
making tanks nearly indestructible. VTOL is the exception to this rule, though not really a meaningful one (how many rotor hits do YOU get
in the average day?)<<<
Add in an armor limit for vehicles. I like 5% of tonnage (in points) per location (in other words, 2x the IS value.), but you may feel this makes vehicles unnecessarily fragile. 5x IS value might be recommended in this case, as it will put a turreted tank fairly close to a 'Mech's armor value.
>>>4) Missiles don't cause heat, and don't take up extra mass for heat sinks, making them the ultimate vehicle weapon. (high fp/mass ratio, no
mucking about with fusion engines, power converters, or heat sinks.)<<<
Answer: Require heat sinks for missiles and autocannons as for energy weapons, or construct a vehicle heat scale similar to the one for 'Mechs (but with a far steeper curve, of course) and remove HS requirements.
I would also suggest allowing vehicles to use DHS and Endo Steel (and including HS with ICE engines. ICE has enough penalties as is). They'll have to make the crit requirements as stated above, so these should remain unpopular in all but the lightest of vehicles.
The only problem with these rules is that they make a great number of existing vehicles (FI: SRM Carrier, Demolisher) illegal. Oh well.
-Bob Richter
A dead primate is nobody's ancestor.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Black_Phoenix
10/21/01 03:57 PM
207.252.105.83
|
Suspension Factors: Reduce the factor by half (round down). This makes it harder get a fast vehicle.
Critical Slots: For every 3-5 crits. (or fraction thereof) the weapon takes up an extra slot in the vehicle.
Armor: Light- No limit, Medium- 3/4 mass, Heavy- 1/2 mass, Assault- 1/4 mass.
Missile Heat: Missiles create half normal heat unless an extra half ton (per 5 LRM and MRM, or 2 SRM tubes) and an extra component slot (fixed) is spent on venting equipment. The same should be true for ballistic weapons (not including the GR) but the venting equipment is only a half ton and on comp. slot for each ballistic weapon.
These are only designed to give other people a place to start and need to be adjusted. If someone wishes to use this as a base point and then modify it, feel free. I will only add suggestions from this point forward. Enjoy.
*There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved by a suitable application of Diplomacy, Compromise, and High Explosives or Tactical Nuclear Strikes.*
History is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.
-Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz
|
Bob_Richter
10/21/01 04:23 PM
134.121.149.97
|
Note: I am keeping the standard "special" hits for mobility and the like, which is why they're not included on this table.
Note on the "Body" Location. This location doesn't have any internal structure or armor, so it gets nuked the second a F/R/L/B location goes boom. Crits transfer in, though.
I'd probably give this sucker some internal structure and armor, and use it like a center torso. Perhaps give it "top" and "bottom" armor. The top armor would absorb strikes from overhead, while the bottom armor would take mine damage. Damage would transfer from outer locations directly to the IS.
-Bob Richter
A dead primate is nobody's ancestor.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
10/22/01 12:24 AM
134.121.149.97
|
They're far easier to manufacture, and (as I said) they have their own operational/battlefield specialties. Vehicles are NOT supposed to be as good as 'Mechs in a stand-up fight. If they were, why would anyone use 'Mechs?
Under FASA rules, vehicles are BETTER than 'Mechs. (no headshot vulnerability, massive speed advantage, massive advantages in armor and firepower.) To illustrate this point, I will challenge ANYONE to a battle where I will use ONLY conventional vehicles(naturally, of my own design, since FASA makes rather poor vehicles, as a general rule) and the other team can use any non-aerospace forces they desire to try to make their point. These rules just try to bring them down a little more toward where they belong-- underfoot.
-Bob Richter
A dead primate is nobody's ancestor.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Cypher41
10/22/01 03:49 AM
198.81.17.44
|
And yet one hit by an inferno round will destroy due to lack of hit sinks to dissipate the heat.
Galaxy Commander Barak Marghar
Clan Burrock
Delta Galaxy
Mech: Summoner D
|
Black_Phoenix
10/22/01 07:35 AM
207.252.105.68
|
>>And yet one hit by an inferno round will destroy due to lack of hit sinks to dissipate the heat.>>
That rule is kind of dumb. Most vehicles have more then enough HS to disipate that heat. I think that the roll should only apply if the vehicle doesn't have enough heat sinks or if it has fired any energy weapons in the same turn that the inferno is burning.
*There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved by a suitable application of Diplomacy, Compromise, and High Explosives or Tactical Nuclear Strikes.*
History is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.
-Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz
|
Bob_Richter
10/22/01 01:42 PM
134.121.16.146
|
heat sinks do jack against infernos...or they would in real life.
ANYTHING (that is, among armored vehicles) can survive an inferno, if anything can.
-Bob Richter
A dead primate is nobody's ancestor.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
10/22/01 01:43 PM
134.121.16.146
|
try "can" or "might"
Those are the FASA rules. The Inferno vulnerability is, however, stupid, and I don't have to let my opponents use Infernos if I don't feel like it. They're an optional rule.
-Bob Richter
A dead primate is nobody's ancestor.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Greyslayer
10/22/01 02:00 PM
137.172.211.9
|
Think of it as a trade-off for not paying heatsinks for ammo weapons (due to their open design ... which they take to represent allowing fire to effect the unit better than a mech unit).
As a game mechanic it isn't that bad, if you try to compare it to realife then don't even try ... I've fought bushfires in an APC and know that you practically have to roast the damn thing over a fire for awhile before it goes 'pop' ;).
Greyslayer
|
Bob_Richter
10/22/01 05:24 PM
134.121.149.97
|
am I arguing a side?
I didn't think I was.
My point was simply that heat sinks should have nothing at all to do with inferno survival, and if a 'Mech can survive one, a tank shouldn't have any problems.
-Bob Richter
A dead primate is nobody's ancestor.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
10/23/01 12:48 AM
134.121.149.97
|
no killing.
And, yeah...that would be great....if the inferno were an infantry-only weapon.
-Bob Richter
A dead primate is nobody's ancestor.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Korbel
10/23/01 01:02 PM
206.152.237.32
|
I agree SOMEwhat...
I remember a game where my friend and I were going to do a Naval battle... rule was 300 Tons... he made 3 war ships...
I made 150 2-ton hydrofoils each with 1 small laser... I put them in groups of ten for play purposes... the Hydrofoils were crazy fast.. like 17 cruising... I called them Jet-ski's with guns.. hehe I slaughtered him... he only took out 20... and that was from artillery fire... but he could never hit with standard guns.. We used Max tech to hit mods so it was even funner for me... hmm... your ship moves 2... I move 24...
take 30 to aft section... hehe
|
Nightward
10/24/01 12:29 AM
132.234.250.13
|
Infernos *RULE*! Yeah!
*Attempts to clam down*
Ngggggggg.....Gimme the Infernos! *MUST HAVE INFERNOS*
Tanks do tend to be a tad vulnerable to Infernos...but, have you ever fought a Demolisher? At Scott's 3025 tournament a few years back, I faced off against 'Ferret' who had 2 Partisans and a Demolisher. The Demolisher did tis job on my Shadow Hawk, which Infernoed it in its death throes. *POP* goes the evil, 100-ton tank. The following turn, my Wolverine managed to 'Immobilize' the two Partisans....Total victory!
On the other hand, few people are dumb enought o load Infernos in anything larger than a 2-Pack. It more or less destroys a half-useful weapon. If you have multple weapons and ammo though-a la: the Javelin, carrying 1 ton of Inferno ammo is always an option....
"The man who opens his mouth in the presence of a woman does so only to change feet"
-Me.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
NathanKell
10/24/01 08:58 PM
24.44.236.103
|
1: Suspension Factors
Yep, nuts. I draw your attention to exhibit B: the VTOLs. Crazily enough, they have a larger SF than hovercraft. But they're out of Ground Effect. Nuts, as you say.
The problem with using a divisor instead of an SF (which really should be called S. Subtraction, since the divisor would be the actor...) is that it royally screws up the idea of a [FASA] SF, which is to provide a minimum speed. Using your 1.2 divisor idea (i.e., rating is .83x normal for wheeled vehicles), a (hypothetical) 100 ton tank would only need a 335 engine to go 4/6. If you also use multipliers for hovercraft then it gets really crazy. It's like this: average GEV speed is 9/14 in BT (for the IS). So here's a table of Engine Ratings, listing original (SF used) rating, a divisor of 1.8, and a divisor of 2.1
10 Tonner
ER-SF..ER/1.8..ER/2.1
50.......50......43
50 Tonner
ER-SF..ER/1.8..ER/2.1
215.....250......215
But if you drop the speed required to the minimum (5/8) then the chart looks like this:
10 Tonner
ER-SF..ER/1.8..ER/2.1
10.......30......25
50 Tonner
ER-SF..ER/1.8..ER/2.1
15......140.....120
And if you up the speed to the maximum (12, though you could go higher for the 10t GEV) then it looks like this:
10 Tonner
ER-SF..ER/1.8..ER/2.1
80.......70......60
50 Tonner
ER-SF..ER/1.8..ER/2.1
365.....335.....290
And, for kicks: up the speed to 20/30 (which you can, in a 10t GEV)
10 Tonner
ER-SF..ER/1.8..ER/2.1
160......115.....100
Conclusion:
Because SFs act as more of a minimum-speed rule than a lighter-engine rule, using multipliers (or divisors) changes the basic structure of the rule. Not that that's a bad thing per se.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
NathanKell
10/24/01 09:07 PM
24.44.236.103
|
3: Armor
First, I believe you mean tonnage/5, not tonnage x .05 (5%), as you mention 2x IS.
The question is, however, how much armor can a certain internal structure support? Mechs have a terrible surface area/mass ratio compared to tanks, so it would make sense for tanks to be able to mount far more armor per location. How much I can't say, as I'm no engineer, but we know that so many tons of IS in a mech will support so much armor. Cray, materials engineer that he is, might be able to solve this, I can only guess.
My guess is, since the IS can support that many tons of weapons and equipment, that a practical limit would be no more than half a tank's tonnage in armor (ie, 5x the weight of the IS). FF armor should increase the pointage, as it should for mechs as well (if the limit is weight). If the limit for mechs isn't weight, of course, this could be all nuts.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
NathanKell
10/24/01 09:16 PM
24.44.236.103
|
In reply to:
Anyone want to create rules to help with these problems and relegate these vehicular upstarts to their proper place under the heels of Battlemechs?!
Anyone want to help me create rules help with these problems and relegate these humanoid upstarts to their proper place as bulls-eyes? 
Actually, I'm quite serious. I'm working on some rules and would appreciate the help.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
NathanKell
10/24/01 09:37 PM
24.44.236.103
|
2: Criticals
Critical slots are a hold-over from mechs and ought to be used in vehicles only as a means to determine what is damaged on a critical hit. If I want to bolt on 20 medium lasers (Ontos II, anyone?) I should be able to if I have enough tonnage. What is crazy (you're right about this) is that every piece of equipment takes up the same space. I propose the following: ten "base" critical slots, and two per five tons of weight. And heat sinks take up half their normal number of criticals (round up after allocating them all, i.e. 3 IS DHS take up 5 crits). Add on to this the required equipment: eg, the engine takes up eight crits, motive system takes more; crew space, sensors, computers, etc. as well. So maybe 25 or so base (to leave the 10 free).
IMO, there should be a similar (weight-limited) system for mechs, like the one in MaxTech.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
NathanKell
10/24/01 09:54 PM
24.44.236.103
|
NB: I'm not used to threaded BBs, so these replies go helter-skelter.
4: Missiles
And, by extension, ballistic weapons, because they don't need heat sinks either. First of all, this only holds true if you use single heat sinks--with DHS medium lasers are as good as SRMs and much better than LRMs (though shorter-ranged). Even with SHS, medium lasers are better than non-artemis LRMs. And, of course, they don't need ammo. Here's my proposal: missiles suffer a 1-bracket reduction in range (i.e. -1/-2/-3 to the ranges, twice that for LRMs) if they cause no heat--because, if they cause no heat that means the gasses exhaust without a backplate (and thus don't heat up the vehicle). If you want the extra range, you get 1/2 normal heat (round up after adding it all up, i.e. 3 SRM-4 generate 5 heat). Ballistic weapons, because they're so bad already, don't generate heat.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
NathanKell
10/24/01 10:02 PM
24.44.236.103
|
First of all, why on Earth (or New Avalon or Tharkad...) should vehicle engines need extra shielding? Or than as a fudge to make them inferior, of course. I mean, mechs have such complicated internal motive systems, far less internal space (so bulky but light shielding is impossible) and their engines mass less!? Vehicles have more internal space (and can therefore utilize bulky, light shielding) but it somehow masses more.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Bob_Richter
10/25/01 12:24 AM
134.121.16.67
|
>>>First, I believe you mean tonnage/5, not tonnage x .05 (5%), as you mention 2x IS.<<<
I meant 20% of tonnage. Somehow when I multiplied 10 by 2 I got 5. Go figure. That's why I'm not a math major...:)
-Bob Richter
A dead primate is nobody's ancestor.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
10/25/01 12:32 AM
134.121.16.67
|
(What about Luthien, Atreus, Sian, Strana Mechty....etc.?)
You take away the 'Mech's Gyro, I'll take away the vehicle's engine shielding, and we'll deal. (in the lower engine ratings, the gyro will often mass as much or more, as will the cockpit in lighter 'Mechs. Now that's what's REALLY not fair. A real world tank needs roughly a 2 ton allowance per crewman.)
Actually, though 'Mechs may have less internal space, it's organized in a method that's far superior to protect the crew from the deadly radiation that fusion reactors supposedly do not produce. :) (The pilot's much further from the engine than in a fusion tank.)
While we're at it: on ICE engines: They mass TWICE as much as fusion engines? (huh?!) and they don't use fuel? (HUH?!)
Vehicle motive systems are far more complicated than 'Mech motive systems. The mere fact that 'Mechs happen to be bipedal does not change this fact (and not all 'Mechs are, I remind you. I have a Scorpion pilot in my unit...and little survives an assault from that maniac.)
-Bob Richter
A dead primate is nobody's ancestor.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
10/25/01 12:34 AM
134.121.16.67
|
>>>If I want to bolt on 20 medium lasers (Ontos II, anyone?) I should be able to if I have enough tonnage<<<
And this differs from a 'Mech....how?
But I'm not here to change the rules for 'Mechs. I'm here to put vehicles back in their proper place.
-Bob Richter
A dead primate is nobody's ancestor.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
10/25/01 12:41 AM
134.121.16.67
|
>>>And, by extension, ballistic weapons, because they don't need heat sinks either. <<<
Nope. Ballistic weapons (as a general rule) don't really need heatsinks. They're as worthless on tanks as they are on 'Mechs. No. Excuse me. MORE worthless. They occasionally have SOME value on a 'Mech that's running short of crits for heat sinks.
>>>First of all, this only holds true if you use single heat sinks--with DHS medium lasers are as good as SRMs and much better than LRMs (though shorter-ranged). <<<
Eh? Wrong, actually. DHSs still take up vast numbers of critical slots (assuming we're putting these on vehicles, you know....to balance DHS and XL engines?), and an SRM4 can consistently deliver better than a Medium laser. (10xML=10tons+15DHS=5tons total 15tons avg damg 50 (Allowing for Fusion engine, which most vehicles don't have. Also allowing for DHS, which vehicles aren't allowed. )7xSRM4=14 tons. 1 ton ammo=1 ton total: 15 tons. Avg damage: 42 Now, take out the fusion engine or add more MLs. See how you do.)
-Bob Richter
A dead primate is nobody's ancestor.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
NathanKell
10/25/01 12:59 AM
24.44.236.103
|
That's with barely 3 turns of ammo. I was calculating based on 15.
Anyway, I have to go to bed. I'll bite back tomorrow...er, today
-NathanKell
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter, 10 Aug. 1787
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
GiovanniBlasini
10/25/01 01:04 PM
24.30.133.103
|
I don't think the tank IS destroyed - I think the crew is reduced to crispy critters. Face it - on a Battlemech, your 3-ton cockpit module or 2-ton small cockpit module can be broken down as follows:
1st ton: command/control computers, wiring to actuators/weapons, targeting system, communications.
2nd ton: primary life support for the pilot, command console, ejector seat
3rd ton: secondary life support for pilot/primary life support for passenger (not present in small cockpit)
According to the original Mechwarrior, a standard cockpit module can support two people for one week. Tanks just don't compare in Battletech - a 100 ton tank spends 5 tons for command/control, crew stations, etc for, what, 5-7 people? It's just not the same level of protection.
That said, tanks that have the heat sinks open each turn should, I think, have a chance to keep the crew from cooking inside their vehicles. This is more or less represented under the inferno rules on pages 141-142 of the Revised Master Rules.
Tanks, for all their toughness in Real Life (tm), have some issues. Let's take what is arguably the toughest tank in existence right now: the M1A2 Abrams. Did you know the turret isn't secured? Flip or roll an M1, and the turret can fall out. This happened to at least one unit I know of in Bosnia, where an idiotic driver rolled the tank, and the turret literally fell out. Not sure how my friend got the pics out of Bosnia, but they were funny. To my knowledge, the crew was beaten up a bit, but not killed.
This friend of mine, who was a gunner on an M1A2 (and a loader/driver on an M60 before that), joked around a lot about his tank, about how the tank will survive nearly anything - they'll just need to periodically replace the crew, like after a sabot hit to the turret, where the crew, and everything not secured inside the turret, is sucked out the small exit hole on the back of the turret. But the tank would be OK! It might be necessary to hose down the inside, but the tank would be OK! Hell, it might still even have its engine running after that.
Brigadier General Giovanni Blasini
CO: 201st Terran Light Brigade, SLDF
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Cabhammer
10/26/01 09:51 AM
63.70.146.74
|
I disagree on point three, simpy because EVERY hit against a vehicle, whether it penetrates to structure or not has a chance for a critical hit. Get a crew hit or a turret lock on some vehicles and you can kill them fast. Even losing an MP can be devastating...
Vehicles are good when they are supported by mech forces. Most opponents will concentrate on killing the mechs and the vehicles will be left alone to put in their hits.
But when I see a 5/8 SRM Carrier, you can bet that I get to 10 hexes and blast it with PPCs whenever I can...
-Cab
|
NathanKell
10/26/01 03:57 PM
24.44.236.103
|
Height above terrain is a disadvantage: I can see you. If I can see you, I can (and will) shoot you. And what part will I shoot? The highest part--the head!
-NathanKell
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter, 10 Aug. 1787
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
SoyBigHead
10/26/01 04:22 PM
24.7.190.124
|
actualy...thats not true... tactically, its usually the people who hold the high ground that win the battles. Look back at the American Civil War. The Federals held the high ground at Gettysburg, and they turned back the Rebs during Pickett's Charge. On the other hand, the Confederates held Marye's Heights in Fredericksburg, which is how they drove Burnsides army back the first time, and the only reason the federals took them the next time, is because they had the sheer manpower advantage. It is a tactical advantage because the high ground lets you see more of the opposing forces and exactly where you need to attack them. It is the ideal ground for artillery and the seige weapons, as they can rain death and destruction down on exactly the location that it is needed in. And as for your suggestions that you will hit the higher mech in the head, well the reverse is true. You will have a hard time hitting in the head, but the enemy will easily have a opportunity for a head shot because he is shooting down at you, and to hit anything else on you, the shot has to first bypass your head (another way of stating this is, your head is the first thing a shot hits from above). Also, the higher forces can spot your forces easier and from farther away, giving them ample time to react to any sort of attack you attempt to launch.
"no one, ever has the time, to listen to me, see right thru me, this is getting hard to face no one ever sees me fall, and no one cares at all, this will only make you strong" River City High, "No One Cares"
"There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
-Mark Twain
|
BA_Evans
10/26/01 05:33 PM
63.97.240.1
|
You are confusing high terrain and tall targets. Being on high terrain is definately an advantage.
Why do tank manufacturers strive to make tanks as short as is practical? So they are smaller targets and harder to spot. A 30' tall tank/mech would be very easy to spot and hard to hide. The mech would be spotted much easier and early in the battle and thus would present himself as a target for a much longer period of time. Being a big target is a disadvantage.
BA Evans
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 52 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: 134133
|
|
|
|
|
|
|