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
|
Bob_Richter
10/26/01 07:02 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>point one...they ain't less protected if they're in a well designed vehicle....<<<
Like a 'Mech, for instance.
>>>Try using lego tehcnic or erector to make a mech...then try a
vehicle...vehicle you can basically bolt the engine shaft to the wheel...<<<
military wheeled vehicles are not lego toys, nor are they go-carts. They have a complicated drive system, not to mention the suspension system, steering, and a host of other problems.
tracks are more complex, all other motive systems (including legs) less so.
>>>and the fact that there is STILL actuators in the knee in addition?<<<
Notice that the shoulder and hip joints are the only ones named explicitly on the critical chart. There are no actuators in the knees or ankles, for that matter. The myomer muscles ARE the actuators.
There are some 50 or so parts in a typical 'Mech's motive system, arranged into a simple system of muscle and lever. There are more than that in the motive system of a civillian street-car, and the arrangement is necessarily far more complex.
A tank is worse.
>>>Basically, there are four reasons to build a mech-its the best all terrain vehicle in terms of terrain it can handle (slow doing that though), physical intimidation, height above terrain (although a vehicle COULD do that...), and Coolness.<<<
1) Terrain handling: There's no reason a 'Mech should be slow compared to a vehicle. Its motive system has all the power of the lesser vehicles.
2) Intimidation: For certain, this is an asset of 'Mechs, and it is indeed a powerful one.
3) Height above terrain: This is both a blessing and a curse. The curse tends to balance the blessing, but both can be removed, because a 'Mech's height is easily variable. (as a function of its normal motive system.)
-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
10/26/01 07:06 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>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.<<<
True, to a certain extent. But it is also true for 'Mechs, if to a lesser extent. A vehicle may have twice the chance of taking a critical hit, and its critical hits may be more devastating generally (most of them put it out of the action), but at least it lacks the head vulnerability.
>>>Vehicles are good when they are supported by mech forces.<<<
Vehicles are good when they operate alone. They are SUPERIOR to 'Mech forces. Again, I will prove this to you if you want.
>>>Most opponents will concentrate on killing the mechs and the vehicles will be left alone to put in
their hits.<<<
If this is true, most opponents are painfully stupid. Vehicles are generally both more vulnerable and more powerful.
-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
10/26/01 10:00 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>whats so complex about a gearbox <<<
Lots and lots of moving parts, and a nonlinear arrangement.
>>>If its so simple, why don't we see mechs walking around?<<<
The thing is that it's not a COMPLICATED system, merely a difficult one to implement. There is a difference.
And we do see things with very similar motive systems walking around all over the place: humans.
(and/or any of a variety of quadrupeds or birds, depending on the 'Mech.)
>>>even fasa cutaways show stuff labled *Actuator* in the knee...look in MW 2nd.<<<
You bastard! You just had to remind me, ONCE AGAIN, that my sourcebooks are 120 miles away. rub it in why don't you?
:)
Seriously, though, it doesn't matter what they labeled it. The knee is a JOINT, not an actuator.
>>>Mech'd be slow because YES its got the power, but it has to move more for each movement<<<
But each movement is corespondingly more effective. Unless you've gone into some kind of idiotic march-step.
>>>which is easier-picking up a box, or using a dolly on it?<<<
That comparison makes no sense at all. The reason why dollys are easier than picking stuff up and moving it is because:
1) Leverage, Leverage, Leverage.
2) You can move something with a dolly while keeping it much closer to the ground.
Were the object to be transported light enough to lift easily, the dolly would actually be an inconvenience.
>>>which goes faster...a biker or a marathon runner?<<<
the biker has the assistence of an added force-multiplying machine. Better to ask whether a marathon runner or a man in a wheel chair moves faster.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
10/31/01 01:05 AM
63.173.170.74
|
What are you smoking? And which rule set are you looking at?
Vehicles better then mechs in Standard Battletech...right sure, as soon as there is a blue moon or hell freazes over.
Did you not notice the To Hit Table in the BMR-R for vehicles? Did you not notice the lack of extra areas to take damage on a vehicle, unlike a mech that at least 12 areas PLUS the better internal structure.
Did you not notice that half the rolls on the Vehicle hit table are killing rolls to the vehicle?
VEHICLES SUCK AS WRITTEN or did you not see this? Funny thing is the amount of weapons able to be mounted on a vehicle are limted much more then they are on mechs or did you forget they have to pay weight for the %&$^#(#&$)&$& turret to carry the weapons in it?
Did you not notice the lack of Anti-personell weapons for the commander of the vehicle to use? Did you not notice the lack of smoke dischargers, or any of the other equipment that is STANDARD on military vehicles even to day?
Get real, vehicles are beaten every time by mechs in Battletech and as you keep tell me (along with some others around here and elsewhere) this is how it is ment to be.
So take your own advice and live with it or go play another game.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
10/31/01 01:06 AM
134.121.16.133
|
>>>So the eficiency factors is in favor of vehicles.<<<
So you say. Care to prove it?
Even then, wheels and tracks are greatly inhibited on uneven surfaces. (while legs are not so terribly discommoded.)
Feel like betting on an even surface?
>>>Shielding for fusion engines favors vehicels over mechs again, for reasons pointed out by others earlier - efficient shielding is a function of space and mass - and with mech you have important limits of balance (reactor is high up) and limited available space (you want to use as little as possible because of armor protection).<<<
The first has no real effect (having a heavy chest is not a real problem, as long as the mass is correctly placed over the legs.) The second is also true for vehicles.
>>>As for complexity of vehicle's movement system, hey, if myomer muscles work in mechs, you can just as well use them to move wheels in tanks. :)<<<
While that's true, the mechanism to do so is still significantly more complex.
-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
10/31/01 01:26 AM
134.121.16.133
|
>>>What are you smoking?<<<
Second-hand cigarette fumes. You?
:)
>>>And which rule set are you looking at?<<<
BMR.
>>>Vehicles better then mechs in Standard Battletech...right sure, as soon as there is a blue moon or hell freazes over.
<<<
Blue moons aren't really that uncommon. They occur every time there is a full moon twice in one month. What's really interesting is when you get two blue moons in one year. I've seen that too. And I ain't that old.
(and since you used OR, I don't have to deal with the other comment. Just ask a logic professor)
So, technically, your statement was correct. Vehicles ARE more powerful than 'Mechs. :)
>>>Did you not notice the lack of extra areas to take damage on a vehicle, unlike a mech that at least 12 areas PLUS the better internal structure.<<<
Hm. This actually acts to the vehicles' advantage. A series of shots that could potentially cripple a Battlemech (for instance, the series of Large Laser and PPC hits that destroyed my Enforcer by following one another into the left torso) will simply bounce off the vehicle's thicker armor plating.
>>>Did you not notice that half the rolls on the Vehicle hit table are killing rolls to the vehicle?<<<
So who says vehicles have to be hit? At least there's no instant-death headshots on a vehicle (only precisely twice as many critical chances....and most CT crits on 'Mechs are pretty nearly lethal.)
>>>VEHICLES SUCK AS WRITTEN <<<
I invite you to prove that, by way of the challenge I have provided.
>>>Funny thing is the amount of weapons able to be mounted on a vehicle are limted much more then they are on mechs<<<
Not so. Vehicles just have to use bigger guns to keep it even.
Excuse me. Missiles.
>>>did you forget they have to pay weight for the %&$^#(#&$)&$& turret to carry the weapons in it?<<<
So who needs a turret?
>>>Did you not notice the lack of Anti-personell weapons for the commander of the vehicle to use? <<<
Machine guns clearly are not good enough for your taste. Or napalm missiles? Or Flamers?
Anti-personnel. Yup. We got dat.
>>>Did you not notice the lack of smoke dischargers, or any of the other equipment that is STANDARD on military vehicles even to day?<<<
'Mechs don't have those either. If you want to add 'em in as level 3 equipment, go ahead, but this is hardly a reason to say that vehicles aren't as good as 'Mechs.
>>>Get real, vehicles are beaten every time by mechs in Battletech <<<
Again, I invite you to prove it, and to tell it to the (dead) Mechwarriors that have run afoul of my SRM Carriers.
>>>as you keep tell me (along with some others around here and elsewhere) this is how it is ment to be.<<<
It is. That's why it needs to be fixed.
>>>So take your own advice and live with it or go play another game.<<<
This is my advice?
Odd, that I don't ever recall having said this or anything like it.
All I have done is told you that you can't change the level 2 rules. :)
-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
10/31/01 03:16 PM
134.121.16.133
|
>>>re: efficiency - it has already been pointed out that a person on the bycicle can outdistance the one on foot, in a same amount of time, using more or less the same amount of energy<<<
This proves only that the bicycle, which uses a variable gearing system to multiply the force provided by the legs, is an efficient machine, not that its wheels are inherently better than legs.
It does bring up the advantages of wheels over legs:
1) The ability to coast.
2) The ability to make efficient use of more power.
However, wheels also bring numerous disadvantages
1) The difficulty of controlling speed. Wheels PREFER to coast, and it's a real trouble to slow them up once they're already moving. This leads ALL wheeled vehicles (even rollerblades) to have a system of brakes which is not necessary in a legged system (which can not coast)
2) A difficulty moving on extreme grades. Going up, a bicycle is actually far LESS efficient than its rider. The tendency to coast again, but this time directed opposite of travel.
3) A difficulty with rough terrain. Bumps shake, rattle, and roll a wheeled vehicle without good suspension, and even a vehicle WITH good suspension can't handle really big bumps at high speeds (re: speed bumps)
4) the ability to get stuck. Legs can get bogged down in muck, yes, but when was the last time you saw a human actually STUCK in anything short of quicksand (wheels can get stuck in sand that is merely loose)? A legged apparatus can apply power more efficiently to free itself, or can move more efficiently THROUGH muck. The classic example of this is men getting out and pushing to free a car that has lost traction in sand.
So, there you have it.
While wheels will have a higher average speed on relatively smooth terrain (due to their ability to coast), rough or uneven terrain gives them trouble. They also have difficulty stopping or changing direction, making them actually less maneuverable
>>>But looking at the actual system needs for a walking machine, they are still of order of complexity higher then those for a wheeled one <<<
how so?
>>>These have to be formed in certain topological shapes that are almost invariably really bulky - much less of a problem on a vehicle (which you can always make longer, wider, etc. without much effect on handling or balance) then on two-legged walking machine.<<<
There is no difficulty making a two-legged walking machine longer/wider. As long as you keep the balance point where it belongs it's No Big Deal.
>>>Myomer tanks: for any given joint on a mech's body, you need at least three degrees of freedom, in order to simulate walking through use of myomers (it is different if you have smaller engines in joints). For a tank to use myomers to turn it's drive wheels, you need only sprockets with one degree on freedom - now tell me, which is easier to make, maintain? Which is less complex?
<<<
I do not understand the term "degree of freedom", but based on context I will assume it refers to the ability to move in two opposing directions. i.e. a device with one degree of freedom must be able to move forward and backward, while a device with two can also move left and right, and a device with three can also move up and down. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The knees need no greater freedom than wheels. Even on a human, they are unidirectional joints. Oh, they CAN move side to side, but that usually involves tearing and/or breaking something. The ankle can also be a unidirectional joint, even though it is not for a human. The hip, then, is the most complicated joint. Even then, the human hip is only bilaterally mobile. It can move forward and back, and it has the capability of limited rotation.
The bipedal motive system is, therefore, NOT more complicated than that of an eight-wheeled vehicle.
(and it actually lacks many of the complexities thereof. Steering and breaking systems, the gearbox, etc.)
To drive a wheeled vehicle with a myomer muscle would require some kind of way to transfer contracting motion to rotary motion. I imagine this would not be too hard, but it would add another level of complexity to an already complex motive system.
>>>If one had myomers to do the dirty work of changing electrical into kinetic energy, and at the same time transfering it directly into the movement of the tank, we have much more efficient tanks than we could have today...<<<
Actually, a standard electrical motor would really be better.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
10/31/01 06:22 PM
63.173.170.84
|
Good point...vehicles should be the equal of mechs, but as written in the rules they are like the red head stepchild...
Bills would be the wrong person to yell at...for that one would have to back to Jordan and company and that as we know is a lost cause, example Click-Tech.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
10/31/01 07:22 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>Vehicles can not torso twist. wow.<<<
nor do they need to.
>>>Why don't you just drop Randal M. Bills a line (or whoever did the rules for Btech) and ask him why
he designed such a crappy game. It would solve all of your problems like why a PPC is better than an AC/5, why LAM rules where unbalanced, etc, etc.<<<
Randall is only slightly more associated with the design of Battletech than I myself am.
The fundamental foundation of Battletech is sound...and a whole lot of fun. I love the game....I just happen to think it could use some tweaking here and there.
-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
10/31/01 07:23 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>Good point...vehicles should be the equal of mechs, but as written in the rules they are like the red head stepchild...<<<
Wrong and Wrong.
>>>Bills would be the wrong person to yell at...<<<
Correct.
>>>for that one would have to back to Jordan and company and that as we know is a lost cause, example
Click-Tech.<<<
How can you know that the Battletech CMG will be a bad thing?
-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
10/31/01 08:00 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>If there is the same amount of energy expended, and you travel longer distance, then it IS more efficient. Energy expenditure (eg "work") can be, and has
been measured. Although different mucle groups are used for cycling (then for walking) the total energy expenditure is more or less the same. This is under
definition of efficiency as energy expended/valuable work done.<<<
Right, but this proves only that a bicycle pedaled by a man is more efficient than a man, not that the wheel is more efficient than the leg. The reason for the increase in efficiency (or so it is my contention) is a system of gears that reduces torque for speed (thus the reason bicycles have such a hellish time pulling things or climbing hills)
>>>Complexity of walking machines: again, most cogent answer was already mentioned: we have had wheeled and tracked machines for 90+ years, and we still
don't have walking ones. Why?<<<
Actually we do. Sometimes they come in happy meals.
But, actually, the best reason for this is that we lack myomers.
>>>1) get LEGO mindstorms set and try to build a tank and a mech - should show you relative complexity of each design in a rather graphic way. <<<
If mindstorms had Myomers, I would have no problem at all constructing a functional quadrupedal walker. I cannot, on the other hand, construct a tank.
>>>Have you ever heard of moment of inertia? There IS a significant difference in the way a tall top heavy
object behaves compared to tall top heavy with wide mass distribution.<<<
Yep. Heard of it. Still doesn't make it any harder to make a wide-bodied 'Mech than to make a wide-bodied tank. It just requires that the engineer have some idea what in the bloody .... he's doing.
>>>hips have 3 DoF, ankles have 3
too, and knees have 2.<<<
Hips do. I recounted after I posted that. Ankles do, but don't need to (they're really maladapted wrists, and the extra degrees of freedom simply impart greater facility in damaging the ankle and knee.) Knees do not. They only go forward and back...or you hurt them. Ask any sports trainer. (I've heard the word "explode" used to apply to knees that have tried to go other directions.)
And, honestly, human legs are not the most efficient ones. They're maladapted arms. Try racing a bicycle against a horse.
>>>Depends on relative efficiency of myomers (how much el.energy they turn into elastic energy), complexity of electrical motors and myomers, and their respective mass/power ratios. Since mechs in btech use myomers rather then elctromotors, it stands to reason that myomers ARE more efficient in
abovementioned categories. <<<
Actually, it doesn't. Myomers may be simpler than electric motors (by a bare fraction), but the motion they produce (contraction) is more suited to their use in 'Mechs, while the motion produced by electric motors (tortion) is more suited to their use in electric tanks.
To use myomers in a tank, you'd actually need to set them up to pedal a flywheel....which (incidentally) is more complicated and less efficient than an electric motor.
Since myomers react differently to different voltages, they can rapidly and accurately move limbs, unlike an electric motor.
-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
10/31/01 08:11 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>1) Vehicle attrition is very very fast (compared to the one of mechs), as reflected in their hit location tables.<<<
The speed of vehicle attrition is inversely proportional to the speed of the vehicles themselves. Many hovercraft and VTOLs are actually NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO HIT while carrying such devastatingly effective firepower that to ignore them would be suicide.
TANKS, as in actual treaded vehicles, do have many disadvantages, but also have their niches (see LRM/SRM Carrier)
Wheeled vehicles are the terror of the city streets.
>>>except perhaps the extra shielding needed for fusion engines, which is bullshit if you ask me.<<<
agreed.
>>>But, if you do want to give more realism to the whole concept, and are unwilling to change vehicle hit location tables, then the simplest solution is to transfer the mech creation system directly to the vehicle, with crit spaces etc,make ICE engines the same weight as fusion ones. If you are really nasty,
you can make them lighter (which is true of RW ice engines) but make them allocate tonnage for fuel (Aerospace way). :)<<<
Um. Yeah. I was talking about something like this. (see my earlier posts in this thread.)
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/01/01 04:50 PM
63.173.170.82
|
I forgot Bob, your word is law you know all about vehicles and such...Wake up and grow up.
You have the wrong ideas. Vehciles SHOULD be equal to mechs or better SINCE the tech to build them would and should have advanced faster then mech techology if common sense was being used, but since we are stuck with FASA thinking then the opposite is true, BUT allow the vehicles to get better DOESN'T change the game.
The new version of BT is not a game, BUT a cash cow, and it will end up hurting the game and in the end like all of the other quick cash toys endup something that is remember but not played anymore.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/01/01 04:53 PM
63.173.170.82
|
WHAT Crock of crap are you reading?
Where is all this coming from? The vehicles don't pay heat for some weapons, ok...yet they have to add HS for EVERY engery weapon they use...the To hit table kills them in a couple of turns fast then mechs die...PLUS fire kills them easier then anything else in the game...
So please tell what load of BS are you getting your info from cause I have YET to see vehicles master Mechs when using the STANDARD RULES.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/01/01 06:03 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>I forgot Bob, your word is law you know all about vehicles and such...Wake up and grow up.<<<
Right back at ya, big guy.
Could we try to keep this discussion friendly? I don't really want it devolving into a flame war....you know...with stuff like this in every post.
PLEASE?
PRETTY PLEASE?
I mean. I really don't like being insulted, and the moderators have a tendency to start getting annoyed when this sort of thing happens too much...and threads get locked down or deleted, and I kind of like this thread.
So...one more time, could you please TRY to be civil?
Thanks so very very much.
>>>You have the wrong ideas. Vehciles SHOULD be equal to mechs or better SINCE the tech to build them would and should have advanced faster then mech techology if common sense was being used, but since we are stuck with FASA thinking then the opposite is true, BUT allow the vehicles to get better DOESN'T change the game.<<<
The 'Mech should be the King of the Battlefield in Battletech. This is what we have always been told. This is part of the flavour of the game. Kind of like entire planets being defended by a four-man armored cavalry team, empires containing hundreds of planets that can't even raise an army of thousands, the whole thing about using a two-legged robotic walker as the primary unit of the armored cavalry....
...I mean....if you want to do something different with your games, go ahead....but kindly stop raining on my parade.
I do, however, maintain my stance on the present superiority of vehicles in Battletech. If you wish to prove me wrong, I have provided an open challenge as an opportunity to do so.
>>>The new version of BT is not a game, BUT a cash cow, and it will end up hurting the game and in the end like all of the other quick cash toys endup something that is remember but not played anymore.<<<
1) You don't know this
2) You can't know this
3) This is largely nonsense.
OF COURSE it will be a game (MageKnight is a game, and a fine one too. Have you played it? I'm betting not.) That it's designed in a format well-designed for making money doesn't bother me at all. COMPANIES HAVE TO MAKE MONEY, KARAGIN! But I anticipate that this new Battletech game will be fun and engaging, and I ask you to at least reserve your judgement until it EXISTS (as I did for MW4, MC2, and Mechwarrior Turd Edition)
-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
11/01/01 06:16 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>WHAT Crock of crap are you reading? <<<
Right now, your post. :)
Please, please, please....try to be civil. I really don't like trading insults. It might even get me banned.
You wouldn't want that....
would you?
Civility. Please.
>>>Where is all this coming from? The vehicles don't pay heat for some weapons, ok...yet they have to add HS for EVERY engery weapon they use...<<<
So....don't use energy weapons. While you're at it...don't use ballistic weapons (actually, the machine gun is acceptable, as is the GR for the IS) on either 'Mechs OR tanks.
Missile weapons are more powerful anyway, when you don't have to pay for heat.
After all. A 'Mech mounting 3 ER PPCs is going to be running under a terrific heat burden, even with all the heat sinks it can mount. A ground vehicle can mount 3 LRM-20s for better average firepower, less total tonnage (with all the extra DHS that Awesome is packing!), and no overheat worries.
>>>the To hit table kills them in a couple of turns fast then mechs die...<<<
I think you meant hit location table, since there are no major to-hit differences between tanks and 'Mechs.
Even then, that's debatable...especially when you consider that many vehicle types go MUCH FASTER than 'Mechs and that critical hits are actually quite rare....armor penetrating salvos (such as the one that destroyed by Enforcer) are actually nonexistent. Vehicles gain a lot of benefit from their hit-location chart.
>>>PLUS fire kills them easier then anything else in the game...<<<
Heh. I think infantry actually dies faster.
Guess what, though? FIRE IS AN OPTIONAL RULE. That means that if one of the players (me, for instance) doesn't want to use it (and I don't), you don't get to kill my tanks that way.
Also, fire has very limited applications in clear or water terrain and/or in the air. I also don't have to let you use infernos. Getting my drift here?
>>>So please tell what load of BS are you getting your info from <<<
Again with the insults, my friend? This is NOT healthy.
>>>cause I have YET to see vehicles master Mechs when using the STANDARD RULES.<<<
I assume, then that you've never seen a Loki DISINTEGRATED by a point-blank salvo from an SRM Carrier.
I have. Maybe you don't use vehicles enough....or you don't use them right.
None of my concern. If you want to prove me wrong, accept my challenge, or my brother's (the challenge is the same, except that HE might even let you use the fire rules.)
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/01/01 07:03 PM
63.173.170.75
|
You won't listen to me or anyone else who points out to you that vehicles SUCK in Battletech.
Right or wrong, they are given over as something akin to armor plated tricycles fighting tanks.
You are one of the first ones to damn anyone who want to improve them, yet you are the first to [censored] about their supposed strength that when compared to all the negaitives against don't mean squat.
You don't want a flame war, yet YOU won't see any other view on this. Why?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/01/01 07:05 PM
63.173.170.75
|
36 hits to kill a vehicle??!?!? Now I know you are on crack...
I can see that between you and Bob it is very clear that you can't grasp the fact that vehicles are poorly shown and portrayed in the game...
Oh well it's been fun....
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/01/01 07:31 PM
63.173.170.75
|
I would be civil Bob if you would try and see other folks take on this and stop claiming vehicles are more powerful then mechs...can you do that?
Guess not...go buy a BMR-R and read the rules again...and while you are at it read the rules on fire vs vehicles and take a really GOOD look at the Vehicle to hit table and all the oh so nice mobility damages that can happen and the other nasty things that DON'T happen to mechs UNTIL you punch into their insides and don't for get the famous Snake Eyes roll...
But alas you won't listen to anyone and have made up your mind that vehicles are better then mechs when the reverse is true but we can all see you won't see anyone else's view on this...
So I guess that is that....
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/01/01 08:00 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>You won't listen to me or anyone else who points out to you that vehicles SUCK in Battletech.<<<
Not unless you're willing to prove it.
Just making assertions and expecting me to accept them on blind faith is not a good way to win an argument.
Nor is insulting myself or my brother.
>>>Right or wrong, they are given over as something akin to armor plated tricycles fighting tanks. <<<
I don't see it. They're faster. They carry more armor. How is this represented?
>>>You are one of the first ones to damn anyone who want to improve them,<<<
Not actually. I'm all for fixing the idiocies about vehicles....but some of the idiocies about vehicles are what make them more powerful than 'Mechs, and most attempts to put vehicles on par with 'Mechs just end up making them vastly more powerful. I'm also devoted to the idea that vehicles should be no match for a 'Mech. It's a vital part of the flavour of the universe.
>>>yet you are the first to [censored] about their supposed strength that when
compared to all the negaitives against don't mean squat.<<<
Actually, their strengths are greater than their weaknesses, which I have offered to prove to you.
>>>You don't want a flame war,<<<
Exactly. So please cut the insults.
>>> yet YOU won't see any other view on this. Why? <<<
Like this.
-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
11/01/01 08:22 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>stop claiming vehicles are more powerful then mechs...can you do that?<<<
No, Karagin. This claim is vital to my argument and HAS YET TO BE REFUTED.
Just be civil, and we can have a nice, civilized discussion.
If you want to prove your point over mine, I would suggest you accept my challenge.
Yelling at me and threatening me don't help anything, my friend. I believe what I believe, and I am listening, but you have made no compelling argument and a great number of insults.
>>>go buy a BMR-R and read the rules again...<<<
Care to spot me $25?
I UNDERSTAND the rules, Karagin. It is BASED on these rules that I make my assertion.
>>>and while you are at it read the rules on fire vs vehicles<<<
(optional rules)
A vehicle doesn't have to drive through a fire. Most vehicles are actually immune to (non-inferno) fire simply by their terrain restrictions.
(fires can only be started in forests. Only tracked vehicles can go there.)
>>>and take a really GOOD look at the Vehicle to
hit table and all the oh so nice mobility damages that can happen<<<
Sure. Mobility hits. Fairly uncommon except for vehicles that are ALREADY hard to hit because of their requisite speed (hovercraft.)
>>>and the other nasty things that DON'T happen to mechs UNTIL you punch into their insides
and don't for get the famous Snake Eyes roll...<<<
Not too many. jammed turrets. mobility hits.
And never forget: Vehicles don't have heads!
>>>But alas you won't listen to anyone<<<
Of course I will. It's easier to listen when I'm not being insulted.
>>>have made up your mind that vehicles are better then mechs<<<
Well....they are. Let me prove it to you. Accept my challenge.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/01/01 09:30 PM
63.173.170.224
|
Bob, if you would look at the rules like I have been asking you and note the things that are stacked against them as I have listed out for you, then you would see what I am telling you is fact.
So they care more armor, what good is it when a single roll can cut the blasted tank's movement in half from the start? And on top of that what good is all the armor when an Inferno round can kill the tank dead faster then anything shy of heat shot with a Gauss can a mech?
You won't listen Bob and seeing that I am done...go on believeing vehicles are better if that is your delusion then so be it.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/01/01 09:32 PM
63.173.170.224
|
Bob, if you would look at the rules like I have been asking you and note the things that are stacked against them as I have listed out for you, then you would see what I am telling you is fact.
So they care more armor, what good is it when a single roll can cut the blasted tank's movement in half from the start? And on top of that what good is all the armor when an Inferno round can kill the tank dead faster then anything shy of heat shot with a Gauss can a mech?
You won't listen Bob and seeing that I am done...go on believeing vehicles are better if that is your delusion then so be it. Your challenge to do what let you wipe out a bunch of vehicles with mechs? What is that going to prove? That I am right and you are so far off base that it's not funny any more?
Okay sure, Bob...send me the needed stuff to do this, I am willing to bet the game will be over in 5 turns...hell I'll you pick both sides...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/01/01 09:59 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>Bob, if you would look at the rules like I have been asking you<<<
My rulebook is 120 miles away.
>>>and note the things that are stacked against them as I have listed out for you<<<
There are some disadvantages, yes, but I have explained to you why they're not as significant as you're pretending.
>>>an Inferno round can kill the tank dead faster then anything shy of heat shot with a Gauss can a mech?<<<
There's a reason why infernos are an optional rule and why I WILL NOT ALLOW them in my challenge.
Even then, it's not always possible to hit a vehicle with an inferno. What if my hyperfast LRM VTOL hangs out at a range of 14 pelting you with LRMS? How are you going to inferno me there?
Tactics, Karagin, it's all about TACTICS!
>>>You won't listen Bob and seeing that I am done...<<<
I am listening, I just disagree. Is that allowed Oh Great Sire?
>>>Your challenge to do what let you
wipe out a bunch of vehicles with mechs?<<<
No, to let YOU *TRY* to wipe out a bunch of MY vehicles with 'Mechs.
There is a difference.
>>>What is that going to prove? That I am right and you are so far off base that it's not funny any more?<<<
It might prove this, if your victory were sufficiently resounding. Yes. It would prove that. That would be the point.
On the other hand, if I won, it would certainly prove my point, no?
>>>I am willing to bet the game will be over in 5 turns...<<<
How much?
>>>hell I'll you pick both sides...<<<
Such a generous offer.
Okay. You get 1 (one) LCT-1V Locust. I get four Savannah Masters.
Oh. But wait. That's not fair. Those are 3026 vehicles against a 3025 'Mech. Hm. How to rectify this problem...hrm....Well, I suppose I could let you have an LCT-3M Locust. That would serve your purposes better, I imagine?
Er. Maybe you'd better pick the 'Mechs. I can't ensure that my biases won't get the better of me.
>>>Okay sure, Bob...send me the needed stuff to do this<<<
Go to www.openrpg.com. Download and install OpenRPG.
Um. Do you have ICQ? My # is 40066987. Otherwise, you can e-maul me at mighty1@neonshadow.net to try to set up a game time, okay?
-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
11/01/01 10:01 PM
134.121.149.97
|
Stop repeating yourself.
1) I am listening
2) The disadvantages against vehicles can be minimized and their advantages maximized through proper design and tactics. That done, vehicles ARE more powerful than 'Mechs.
3) My BMR is 120 miles away.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/01/01 10:47 PM
63.173.170.153
|
1) No you are not listening.
2) That can be done to mechs and I don't hear you complaing about them. So please try a new arguement.
3) You should have it with you...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/01/01 10:51 PM
63.173.170.153
|
Wow Bob, tactics...gee the answer for mechs to waste even more vehicles...wow...
The vehicles AS written in Battletech ARE NOT a threat to the mechs. Can you understand that?
There is no difference the vehicles will end up dead and the mech walks away...
My ICQ is 132967752.
Why not doing thing the fun way...lance on lance or are you afraid that the mechs will win?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 02:02 AM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>The vehicles AS written in Battletech ARE NOT a threat to the mechs.<<<
Tell that to a certain dead Executioner pilot.
>>>Why not doing thing the fun way...lance on lance or are you afraid that the mechs will win?<<<
Done. Give me your 'Mech lance, and I will have a vehicle lance to beat it.
-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
11/02/01 02:07 AM
134.121.149.97
|
1) Yes I am. I have read and understood every word you have typed. How can you claim I do not listen when I am refuting your claims. Rather it is you who are not listening, since you keep bringing up claims I have already refuted.
2) No, it can't. Even if it could, it would be a moot point. 'Mechs are supposed to be better than vehicles.
3) Says you. But I don't. It's at home. I'm not.
-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.
:)
|
Acolyte
11/02/01 07:02 AM
64.180.214.26
|
I have a couple of suggestions. You can do some good things with universally applied changes to the to-hit rules.
First - base to attacker's movement modifier on walking/cruise speed.
standing still: negative 1
walk/cruise: 0
run/flank: 1
Jumped: 2
Second, change the range rules to be a 1 per range increase.
short: 0
med: 1
Long: 2
You may want to add some ranges.
This does some frightening things to the lethality of combat, but the main thing it does is reduce the advantages for high speed targets. They rarely have the armor to sustain the increased number of hits.
The suspention factors should be changed to a percentage, rather than a fixed number (round up to the nearest 5 on the engine chart). Say..... 90% for wheeled, 50% for VTOL's and hover, 100% for tracked. So an engine rating of 200 becomes 180, 100, and 200 respectivly. This nullifies the biggest mistake of the suspention factors - very small vehicles have a disproportionate speed. The percentage could also be factored in with the weight of the engine, rather than the rating (round up to the nearest half ton). The implication is that the same performance can be generated by smaller engines if the mode of transport is more efficient.
The Armor rules in general have to be changed. If you look at the 3026 TRO, there are only a few vehicles that break the 5x internal rule. Almost all of these are below 20 tons. In general, 'Mechs can have roughly two tons of armor for every ton of standard internal. This rule is rarely broken outside the below 20 ton range. This allows you to impose a restriction on your home grown designs while still using the vehicles out of the TRO's.
All in all, if you decide to change any rules, change only a few at a time. Then change a few more if you need to. Also, changing the game rules rather than the construction rules allows you to use the TRO's without modification. Just some suggestions from someone who has never found a rule set that he doesn't tamper with. 
In reality, I find that vehicles are not more powerful than 'Mechs. But, if the game doesn't suit YOUR sensabilities, change YOUR game. If anyone doesn't like this, point out how much you spent on the game. This alone give you the right to do whatever you want to it. That is if you don't care about tournaments, of course.
Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 07:26 AM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>In reality, I find that vehicles are not more powerful than 'Mechs.<<<
But infernos and stupid construction restrictions should not be the reason for this in my mind...even if vehicles were NOT superior to 'Mechs. (they are, unless everybody's packing infernos.)
>>>Second, change the range rules to be a 1 per range increase.
short: 0
med: 1
Long: 2
You may want to add some ranges.<<<
This is done in Fantech, a project of Lev's and mine to modify the Battletech rules to suit our strange sensibilities. We have nine range categories, so it goes from +0 to +8. Munchboy has the potential to be VERY lethal in these rules.
>>>The percentage could also be factored in with the weight of the engine, rather
than the rating <<<
Genius.
Sheer Genius.
-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.
:)
|
Acolyte
11/02/01 08:58 AM
64.180.214.26
|
FanTech? OOoooo can I play? Sounds fun!
Seriously though.... in my game there are 12 ranges, from +0 to +11. Also, the hexes are 50 meters. An LRM has a max range of just over 4 km.
Also, armor is worked differently. I believe I posted the variant in "designs" a while ago. It was shot down quite soundly, but they work much more realistically. Battles are much shorter due to the extra nastyness. And 'Mechs. They can survive the loss of a location, and most criticals do not knock the unit out of action. Vehicles are universaly at a disadvantage because of this. Criticals are much more common, as is internal damage.
Also, AC's become nasty when you add armor peircing sabots and fragmentary anti-infantry, as well as standard ammo which is O.K. at both. The amount of ammo per ton is expanded to allow for diferrent ammo types in the same 'Mech. The missile systems are also significanly upgraded and versitile.
The infanty is devided into squads and given some teeth. They won't last long against any kind of armor (let alone a 'Mech), but they can do some serious damage if you aren't careful (or from ambush). I've frankensteined the BattleTroops squads into the BattleTech rules.
As I said, I have never met a rules system I haven't modified.
Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
|
Karagin
11/02/01 11:01 AM
63.173.170.8
|
1) You have not refuted anything. You keep repeating that IN YOUR OPINION vehicles are better the mechs...prove this please or shut up.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/02/01 11:02 AM
63.173.170.8
|
I ICQ you it...should be a short battle...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/02/01 11:05 AM
63.173.170.8
|
You are leaving out one thing and it is important...vehicles take most of their damage to one loction when they get hit bases on the arc, where as a mech as it spread out everytime.
So you calulations are way off...try again.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Korbel
11/02/01 03:47 PM
172.146.67.234
|
First> Mechs don't have suspension factors... Vehicles can quite EASILY max out the to hit roll
Two> vehicles don't have a Heat table... Fire away with all 5 ER PPC's and again next turn.. not worrying about shutdown, ammo explosions, or even IR signature...
Three> Turrents can go 360 degrees... Torso's can't (though Mechanically they should be able to.)
four> If you ever have a game by tonnage... Take all 5 ton or less hovercraft or hydrofoils. with a game capped at 400 tons.. you'd have atleast 80 craft all able to go atleast 20 hexes per turn... each with a Med Laser. easily able to get behind ALL the mechs your opponent fields.. a win in 10 turns or less... even with green drivers
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 03:52 PM
134.121.149.97
|
meaningless nonsense.
His calculations are EXACTLY CORRECT.
You see, hit location DOES NOT MATTER, and critical hits are 1 in 18. 1 in 36 of a fatal critical hit. Critical hits from internal structure breaches are rare and basically meaningless (if this happens, the tank is already dead.)
Again, concentrated armor is an ADVANTAGE. I've seen many a 'Mech die from a series of hits that would hardly have phased a well-armored tank.
-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
11/02/01 03:59 PM
134.121.149.97
|
You have done nothing but repeat your opinion. I have countered your points.
Vehicles are faster than 'Mechs, and can be really hard to hit.
Critical hits are not as common as you think. (unless you brought a crit-finder along just for tank-killing, which is actually a good idea, but which is not always done or possible)
(these counter your contention that a vehicle's hit location chart make it dead before it begins to fight.)
Vehicles' heavily concentrated armor is an advantage.
(this countering your inane concept that it is somehow disadvantageous to have more armor in front of a weapon hit)
Infernos are an optional rule (as is fire), and only treaded vehicles can otherwise be affected by fire.
(countering your contention that a 'Mech can always win by mounting infernos or starting fires.)
Do you have other contention?
As to your invitation to prove it, I am planning to do exactly that.
-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
11/02/01 04:01 PM
134.121.149.97
|
That depends on how I decide to work it.
Hm. SRMs or LRMs. SRMs would be a short battle. LRMs would be a long one....
...more deliberation is necessary. Do I want a short fight or a long one? Either way, I will win, but victory seems more assured if I'm never even shot at.
:)
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:02 PM
63.23.175.251
|
Let's see vehicles have to have enough heat sinks to fire all those ER PPCs...so there is a good chunk of weight tied up in heat sinks and that is with a fusion engine, don't see mechs needing this.
How can having a suspension factor max out the to hit roll? You lost me there...
Wow! Turrets can rotate...cool...they can also get locked in place on a single roll of an elven and that is WITHOUT doing anyting internal to the vehicle...don't see the mechs having this problem...
Numbers will always win....as the Russians.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:05 PM
63.23.175.251
|
Hit locations matter Bob...it is you and your brother that are tossing out meaningless drivel...
Having less areas to spread the damage out means that one location will take the brunt of the damage and fail faster. One would think you could see this but I guess not.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 04:08 PM
134.121.149.97
|
Uh. Nonsense.
For every shot, the vehicle's chance of being destroyed is 1/36.
For every sufficiently powerful shot, the 'Mech's chance of being destroyed is 1/36.
Now, this does make vehicles more vulnerable to crit-finding weapons, but in a duel of Gauss Rifles, the odds are even.
Um. Well. Not exactly. You see, the 'Mech also has a 1/36 chance of being critted in a vital location which can either really mess him up or kill him.
Concentrated armor is an ADVANTAGE!
Cripes! Why is this concept hard to understand?
110 points of armor / 11 locations == roughly 10 points per location! (a Gauss Rifle can breach this 'Mech)
110 points of armor / 5 locations == roughly 55 points per location! (a Gauss Rifle cannot breach this tank)
And, um...vehicles CAN turn...you know that, right?
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:10 PM
63.23.175.251
|
You have not proven that vehicles are better then mechs, you keep leaving out the to hit table of where and what damage does to them (vehicles), you will not listen when I and other point out that the lack of loctions when compared to a mech means one area takes the full brunt of damage thus leading to the death of the vechicle faster then it would a mech.
You don't see to understand that the rules favor the mechs way more then do the vehicles, you also fail to note that the critial hit table on vehicles has far more drastic results then anything on the mechs.
So Bob all you have done is state that you think vehicles are better but the facts don't back this up. Try again.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 04:10 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>
Having less areas to spread the damage out means that one location will take the brunt of the damage and fail faster. <<<
But has nothing to do with criticals.
'Sides, it's not true.
It will take the brunt of the damage, but the difference is that it CAN. Vehicles have no less armor than 'Mechs (except by design.) It's just not spread as thin. One would think you could see this but I guess not.
The vehicle HitLoc table ALSO means that if one of my sides is really battered, I can just show you another one and have NO FEAR WHATSOEVER of you hitting the damaged side.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:11 PM
63.23.175.251
|
If you say so Bob, if you say so...you know all there is to knwo about war and tactics...this I forgot.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:13 PM
63.23.175.251
|
You have not proven that vehicles are better then mechs, you keep leaving out the to hit table of where and what damage does to them (vehicles), you will not listen when I and other point out that the lack of loctions when compared to a mech means one area takes the full brunt of damage thus leading to the death of the vechicle faster then it would a mech.
You don't see to understand that the rules favor the mechs way more then do the vehicles, you also fail to note that the critial hit table on vehicles has far more drastic results then anything on the mechs. Things like loss of mobility, locked turret, etc...all with out scoring any internal hits...
So Bob all you have done is state that you think vehicles are better but the facts don't back this up. Try again.
Cause all you are doing is showing a lack of understanding the rules here Bob.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 04:14 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>How can having a suspension factor max out the to hit roll? You lost me there...<<<
Speed. As I pointed out, a 5 ton wheeled vehicle goes 4/6 WITHOUT AN ENGINE.
How hard do you think it is to get it up to 7/11? 10/15?
Hovercraft and VTOLs are worse.
>>>Wow! Turrets can rotate...cool...they can also get locked in place on a single roll of an elven and that is WITHOUT doing anyting internal to the
vehicle...don't see the mechs having this problem...<<<
It's also exactly the same chance as critting the thing. 1 in 18. Not going to happen very often, even if you ARE using LB-X clusters to the exclusion of all else. A locked turret isn't really a big deal either, just a nuisance.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:16 PM
63.23.175.251
|
Once again Bob you show that you have no idea of what you are tossing out.
Locations matter as does the idea that once the internal sturcture of a vehicle is hit it dies...the loss of a loction doesn't kill a mech out right, UNLESS some thing drastic happens, but for the most part the mech can lose and arm or a torso and still be there to fight it out, but if a vehicle loses a location it's dead...so yes Bob it does matter.You have not proven that vehicles are better then mechs, you keep leaving out the to hit table of where and what damage does to them (vehicles), you will not listen when I and other point out that the lack of loctions when compared to a mech means one area takes the full brunt of damage thus leading to the death of the vechicle faster then it would a mech.
You don't see to understand that the rules favor the mechs way more then do the vehicles, you also fail to note that the critial hit table on vehicles has far more drastic results then anything on the mechs. Things like loss of mobility, locked turret, etc...all with out scoring any internal hits...
So Bob all you have done is state that you think vehicles are better but the facts don't back this up. Try again.
Cause all you are doing is showing a lack of understanding the rules here Bob.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 04:16 PM
134.121.149.97
|
No. But I do know a good bit about Battletech, which is NOT war and bears only a vague resemblance to tactics.
However, DO NOT ACCEPT ME ON AUTHORITY!
I am not an authority, nor do I ever accept them myself. I'm on ICQ now. Give me your 'Mech force, and let's get this show on the road!
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:17 PM
63.23.175.251
|
If you say so...your math is way off, yet you keep at it...how nice...You have not proven that vehicles are better then mechs, you keep leaving out the to hit table of where and what damage does to them (vehicles), you will not listen when I and other point out that the lack of loctions when compared to a mech means one area takes the full brunt of damage thus leading to the death of the vechicle faster then it would a mech.
You don't see to understand that the rules favor the mechs way more then do the vehicles, you also fail to note that the critial hit table on vehicles has far more drastic results then anything on the mechs. Things like loss of mobility, locked turret, etc...all with out scoring any internal hits...
So Bob all you have done is state that you think vehicles are better but the facts don't back this up. Try again.
Cause all you are doing is showing a lack of understanding the rules here Bob.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:20 PM
63.23.175.251
|
First I am not on my computer...Let's start on Monday that way we have a week to play if it takes that long...but I can give you my force right now, Highlander, S-hawk, Falcon, Panther.
Battletech is a simulation of war, and while not perfect it does show some things pretty close. You are failing to grasp things is showing that you have not understood any of the books you have read on tactics etc...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 04:21 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>You have not proven that vehicles are better then mechs, <<<
I intend to do this with our battles. I only counter your points. You only repeat yourself.
Ad nauseum. When are we going to shut up and stop wasting Nic's server space?
I'm for now.
>>>you keep leaving out the to hit table of where and what damage does to them (vehicles),<<<
No I don't. Vehicles concentrated armor compensates them bloody well for their lack of locations. A 'Mech missing a location is either dead, the next best thing to dead, or has only been shot in the arm. So a vehicle's dead! Guess what. It takes more to do it.
>>>thus leading to the death of the vechicle faster then it would a mech.<<<
You've said this. It makes no sense and you cannot prove it.
Vehicles have NO ARMOR RESTRICTIONS. Has this missed you somehow? A tank's location is ALWAYS harder to breach than a 'Mech's (except by design.)
>>>You don't see to understand that the rules favor the mechs way more then do the vehicles,<<<
You have not shown this.
>>>you also fail to note that the critial hit table on vehicles has far
more drastic results then anything on the mechs. Things like loss of mobility, locked turret, etc...all with out scoring any internal hits...<<<
A 'Mech can lose mobility with a hit series that wouldn't phase a tank (ref: the last Locust I piloted.) thin armor does that to you.
-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
11/02/01 04:23 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>Locations matter <<<
Not to critical hits, except to say that a tank will take less.
>>>you keep leaving out the to hit table of where and what damage
does to them (vehicles)<<<
No I don't, and you're repeating yourself.
You're discounting the advantages of concentrated armor.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:24 PM
63.23.175.251
|
You have not countered anything Bob, you have stated why you don' like things, thus you end up repeating your self time and time again.
Your examples are not the norm and thus fall in the area of maybes and what ifs...the norm tells us that vehicles as written are not the god like machines you claim they are. So how about you stop repeating your opinions and get on with the facts of the matter, YOU don't like vehicles in the game.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 04:24 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>your math is way off<<<
How do you figure?
For the rest...stop repeating yourself, Karagin, and just give me that list of humanoids I'm going to kill.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:26 PM
63.23.175.251
|
Bob they matter and no I am not forgetting vehciles have lots of armor...you are forgeting that they have less areas to spread the damage out and avoid taking hits that will kill them like mechs do.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:29 PM
63.23.175.251
|
It's off because you are leaving out the idea that the damage ends up hitting a limted area, 4 to 5 loctions, compared to 12 on a mech, actually 24 since the mech can take internal hits and still be alive.
And I gave you the list below...so how about you stop trying to play medicnce man and give me the list of trash cans you are going to use...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 04:30 PM
134.121.149.97
|
Battletech is a war game, not a simulation. Real-world tactics have little application in Battletech. Some of them can be modified to be effective, but there are more effective ones inherent to the system itself.
Warfare in the 31st century is as different from warfare in the 21st Century as warfare in the 21st Century is from warfare in the 11th Century. Different tools, different tactics....unless you think a cavalry charge makes good sense in a war that uses automatic rifles?
Perfect. I have your lance. Um. I need actual model numbers for those 'Mechs, though.
(note that to prove my point, I may have to use customs.)
-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
11/02/01 04:32 PM
134.121.149.97
|
I like vehicles. They're great. They kill 'Mechs like gangbusters.
THAT's what I don't like.
Every point of mine is a counter (if not a refutation) for a point of yours, but I will stop repeating myself.
Try countering MY points, and we could have an actual debate.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:32 PM
63.23.175.251
|
No custom units straight books or are you afraid you will lose fast that way?
Battletech like any war game, is a simulation Bob, are you sure you are uptodate on things?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:33 PM
63.23.175.251
|
I have countered your pionts and you keep repeating your line of thinking as if it is fact, which it is not.
So give me your lovely set of four trash cans and on Monday let's see what happens.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 04:41 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>you are forgeting that they have less areas to spread the damage out and avoid
taking hits that will kill them like mechs do.<<<
spreading out hits is a bad thing to count on (re: my Enforcer.) As it stands, vehicles don't need to.
If a vehicle with 60 points of armor on each side and the turret takes a hit from four Gauss Rifles, chances are it survived.
If a 'Mech with 300 points of total armor takes four Gauss Rifle hits, there's a very good chance it was critted in one or more location(s). Another barrage complicates the problem. A third practically guarantees it. To take a fourth would be suicide. (of every six hits, one hits the CT (on the average). out of 18, that's three. A 100 ton 'Mech can usually take that, but can it take more?)
The tank can just turn 90 degrees, rotate its turret, and fight on.
In other words, the tank can make all of its armor work for it, while the 'Mech simply cannot.
And let's not forget that I'm not just talking about TANKS here. I'm talking about VEHICLES. VTOLs will almost never TAKE that series of hits I just described.
-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
11/02/01 04:44 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>I have countered your pionts and you keep repeating your line of thinking as if it is fact, which it is not. <<<
You have repeated your nonsense ad nauseum, without even letting my (completely valid) points sink in.
How do you counter the concept that concentrated armor offers an advantage over armor spread thin? I have heard nothing of it.
That a fast-moving vehicle with the arsenal of a 'Mech has a better chance of both survival and of killing the enemy?
Again, I have heard nothing of it.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:46 PM
63.23.175.251
|
Now you limit to one type of vehicle...wow...to bad that can't be done to mechs, you know like quads being better the bipeds or three legged mechs being better the bipeds or LAMs being the best of the best....
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:48 PM
63.23.175.251
|
And once again you repeat your self and you talk about it being nauseating...
The main point is Bob as written vehicles are not what they should be and yet you keep claiming they are better then mechs...I really must get some of the meds you are on...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 04:48 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>No custom units straight books or are you afraid you will lose fast that way?<<<
Book vehicles are poorly designed. You will meet my conditions for the challenge, or are you afraid that custom vehicles will easily defeat your 'Mechs?
I have stock options, I would just prefer to show you how vehicle design SHOULD be done while simultaneously trashing your tin men.
Model numbers, please.
>>>Battletech like any war game, is a simulation Bob<<<
No it's not. It's a game. It doesn't even come within shouting distance of reality.
>>>are you sure you are uptodate on things?<<<
as up to date as is possible for a civillian with no security clearance. You've undoubtedly seen the 21st Century's super-armored walking tanks that can destroy any non-walking tank without thinking. Yes, this real world experience would no doubt lead you to believe that such was posible in Battletch.
:)
I hope I just made my point. If I didn't, you need to seek psychiatric assistence, and fast!
-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
11/02/01 04:50 PM
134.121.149.97
|
Karagin, this discussion is over.
Please stop insulting me. It really doesn't reflect well on you.
-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
11/02/01 04:52 PM
134.121.149.97
|
There is a hierarchy.
Bipeds are better than quads. (in Battletech. The reverse would be true in real life.)
LAMs are better than bipeds.
Omnimechs are better than non-Omni 'Mechs....though not significantly so.
Tracked vehicles are the bottom of the totem poll when it comes to vehicles....but they can still do quite a bit of damage.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:54 PM
63.23.175.251
|
NO CUSTOMS for the simple fact Bob that to prove your point we should use controlled items hence the BOOK mechs and vehicles. That way neither of us can cry about it later since we both are getting preset items and no one can say the other cheated etc...
Are you afraid to do this with out your tweaked toys? A good warrior or as you claim in all your bravado, taction should be able to use the book units and still when.
My models are the standard one from the given TMs with no changes or tweaking...so either you use standard units or admitted you are in the wrong and we can all go on to new things...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 04:54 PM
134.121.149.97
|
No...that doesn't throw my math off.
'Mechs only have eleven locations, but that is enough to dillute their armor painfully.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:55 PM
63.23.175.251
|
It does throw your math off. But I am forgetting you are set on this and nothing anyone says will change that.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:56 PM
63.23.175.251
|
Tanks on the bottom? Now I know you are on crack...give it up Bob...give it up.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 04:56 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>Bob can't wade his way through basic probability theory<<<
Only if basic probability theory is misapplied (as it was here.)
>>>2) in order to dissaprove his thesis, do we need to dissaprove all of the above points, or is just one enough?<<<
Two should be sufficient, since you can't disprove the third.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:57 PM
63.23.175.251
|
It's over cause you won't admit you are wrong and if I am insulting you then I am sorry.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/02/01 04:59 PM
63.23.175.251
|
Misapplied by you Bob.
And disproving one tosses a monkey wrench in all that you are claiming...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 05:01 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>NO CUSTOMS for the simple fact Bob that to prove your point we should use controlled items hence the BOOK mechs and vehicles. That way neither of us
can cry about it later since we both are getting preset items and no one can say the other cheated etc...<<<
MY point was that a properly designed vehicle properly employed was more than a match for a 'Mech. Limiting me to book designs removes my first premise, making your proof to the contrary meaningless, even if it does occur. By removing the ability for me to use customs, you only strengthen my position.
So let me use customs, unless you're afraid?
>>>Are you afraid to do this with out your tweaked toys?<<<
Nope.
>>>My models are the standard one from the given TMs with no changes or tweaking...<<<
All of those 'Mechs appear in at least two separate techincal readouts in different models. It is vital that I know which ones. (so that I can choose appropriate counters.)
Level 1 or Level 2, at least.
(throw me a bone here!)
-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
11/02/01 05:02 PM
134.121.149.97
|
I'm not wrong.
You're not sorry.
You know DAMNED WELL you're insulting me.
I'll still fight you, though, the conversation was just a dead-end street.
-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
11/02/01 05:04 PM
134.121.149.97
|
They share all of the disadvantages of vehicles with only two out of the three advantages. That puts them on the bottom, wouldn't you say?
Once again, you have insulted me.
I do not now, nor have I ever made use of any illegal or mind-altering substance. I pride myself on this fact, and would take deep offense at your remark.
Save that only a fool takes offense from a fool.
-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
11/02/01 05:06 PM
134.121.149.97
|
Which one would that be?
The....um....armor one?
Nope. A fast-moving vehicle doesn't need to allow itself to be hit.
Oh yeah...the FIREPOWER one?
Nope. Once again, even were the firepower not greater (it is), it would still be sufficient
The speed one?
Well....you can't disprove that. Don't even try.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 05:07 PM
63.23.175.251
|
No Bob your point was vehicles, all of them, are a major threat to mechs, so using BOOK vehicles would mean your point vaild if you win, but since you can't do that then your whole arguement is proven false since you instist on custom vehicles.
I don't care if you don't like the book vehicles, use them or admit your arugement is based on your bais against vehicles cause you don't like the rules...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 05:10 PM
134.121.149.97
|
Shut up.
Or at least stop posting a form letter.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 05:10 PM
63.23.175.251
|
And you have not been insulting? Right I forgot you don't understand off color comments as sarcasm and such...right will file that in the circular file box.
What two disadvantages? They don't have a supesion factor so they are doing ok there, and let's see NO vehicle but a boat or hovercraft can enter water, so tell me Bob what else is going against them?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/02/01 05:11 PM
63.23.175.251
|
Please stop insulting me.
And please take your own advice.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 05:11 PM
134.121.149.97
|
amount of armor on a single location...unless the weapon being used is a good crit-finder...in which case the vehicle's vulnerability to criticals is determined by the HLT and its critical table, and is noticeably high for vehicles.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 05:13 PM
63.23.175.251
|
If you say so Bob. If you say so.
No customs then we can do this, if you want customs then find someone else to battle.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/02/01 05:15 PM
63.23.175.251
|
Then in that case SRMs and Cluster Shot will rip your vehicle to scrap.
The loction and lack of them plays a big role Bob. Something you keep forgetting.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 05:16 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>And you have not been insulting? <<<
I turned your own insults back on you.
Save one. I have called you a fool, but I do not consider this an insult. It is merely my honest opinion of you.
>>>What two disadvantages?<<<
One disadvantage to other vehicles. Lack of suspension factor.
>>>They don't have a supesion factor so they are doing ok there,<<<
you consider this a GOOD thing?
>>>and let's see NO vehicle but a boat or hovercraft can enter water,
so tell me Bob what else is going against them?<<<
VTOLs don't have to.
Nothing else needs to go against them. They have ALL THE DISADVANTAGES OF OTHER VEHICLES with only the lesser two advantages. Makes them low man on the totem poll, no matter how fried your math SPU 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
11/02/01 05:17 PM
134.121.149.97
|
YOU want to prove your point.
You can't do that against book vehicles.
I'll use them, but you can gain nothing through the battle.
Level 1 or level 2?
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 05:20 PM
63.23.175.251
|
Calling me a fool shows that you are not fully insupport of your own arguement to not warrant calling others names when they point out your flaws and such.
And I list the areas I think you are incorrect in, and you launch of a tirad of insults and nonsense.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 05:20 PM
134.121.149.97
|
Karagin, I have done discussing this with you.
There is only battle.
-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
11/02/01 05:21 PM
134.121.149.97
|
No, calling you a fool justifies my not taking offense at your slander.
You are a fortunate fool, fool.
:)
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 05:23 PM
63.23.175.251
|
Bob are you taking a Physic's class? All experiments have an active and controlled part...here we are doing the controlled to see if your theory is true IN ALL cases.
Your points are that ALL vehicles are better then mechs and mine are that vehicles suck as written when compared to mechs.
Level 2 is fine since that is standard tournement legal Battletech and I wouldn't want you crying foul over some lack of having an out or something similar.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 05:23 PM
134.121.149.97
|
"Shut up" is not an insult, it is a command.
And you WERE using a form letter.
We are now off-topic, and I am in the process of shutting up if you will merely stop badgering.
-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
11/02/01 05:25 PM
134.121.149.97
|
Don't try to tell me what my point was.
I KNOW what my bloody point was.
Are you saying you have no quarrel with my point as stated (rather than as percieved by you?)
If that's so, I have no quarrel with you.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 05:25 PM
63.23.175.251
|
Sure what ever Bob, you were repeating your self and yet you won't even admit that.
And Bob, I don't take orders from you so please stop thinking you can give them. And your last line could be taken as a threat to my person...so maybe you should stop and consider what you are typing in the future...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/02/01 05:26 PM
63.23.175.251
|
I have a problem with your idea of vehicles being better then mechs, when the rules DON'T support that. Does this help?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 05:27 PM
134.121.149.97
|
I've taken physics. And biology. And chemisty.
Control has nothing to do with the point at hand. We are establishing the normal state of affairs, not modifying it.
Furthermore, we are not making an experiment, we are having a contest. You cannot disprove my thesis without trying against BOTH hypotheses, can you not see this?
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 05:28 PM
63.23.175.251
|
Nope this is not over. The battle will prove things. May I suggest you spend the weekend getting to know your book vehicles, which you need to post so I can see what you are going to use, really well so that you can't use the crutch of I have not used that before etc...as your way out of admitting your idea and theory is flawed.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/02/01 05:30 PM
63.23.175.251
|
Your point was all vehicles are better then mechs for the reason you posted, and so with that in mind your theory should be vaild all the time if it correct, and if it is then BOOK units will do nicely and fairly.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 05:30 PM
134.121.149.97
|
My point is not that. My point is that a properly designed and implemented vehicle force can consistently defeat a given force of 'Mechs, given the present rules.
Do you quarrel with this point?
Yes or no?
I will quarrel with the point you're quarreling with.
"even though the rules support it" introduces a contradiction, making it logically false.
Surely you don't think I'm fool enough to present an absurdity as my thesis?
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 05:32 PM
63.23.175.251
|
You are saying that vehicle not a force of vehicles are the equal of mechs as you listed the reason...can you please stop trying to add to things and stick to your original point?
And yes Bob, based on what I know of you, you would use the rules allow it if it means you win...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/02/01 05:33 PM
63.23.175.251
|
The only fool here is you Bob....and you are still slandering me by doing so...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 05:39 PM
134.121.149.97
|
Damn it, I KNOW WHAT MY OWN DAMNED POINT WAS.
Stop putting words in my mouth. It's a really annoying habit.
Answer my question. My point, as stated....do you quarrel with it?
>>>Your point was all vehicles are better then mechs for the reason you posted,<<<
This would be as MIND-NUMBINGLY IDIOTIC as claiming that any 'Mech was as good as any other. Both 'Mechs and vehicles can be poorly designed, and this decreases their efficiency. A Pike (a notoriously bad vehicle) would be easily defeated by a Masakari, true?
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 05:40 PM
63.23.175.251
|
I agree. But since he wants to here are the mechs I took all standard mechs straight from the TROs. No changes:
Highlander
S-hawk
Panther
Falcon
Now one would think that Bob's comment that vehicles can beat mechs would apply even to book units, but he wants to use custom home units...talk about stacking the deck...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/02/01 05:44 PM
63.23.175.251
|
Yes I am against it because the rules as written don't back up your points.
Nothing you said gives vehicles any advantages over mechs in the long run since they are hurt severly by the to hit table and the fact that the damage is all applied to one area each and every time the vehicle is hit. Then add in the other facts like a lose of a location means the vehicle is dead hurts them as does the internal crits which for the most part takes them out of the fight for any number of reasons.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 05:50 PM
134.121.149.97
|
Good. Then to prove your point, you have to fight against my customs, do you not see this?
This is because of my claim that FASA vehicles are NOT well designed.
-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
11/02/01 05:51 PM
134.121.149.97
|
Slander revolves only around a point that can be proved and is detrimental to one's reputation.
You cannot disprove my claim that you are a fool, and it is my right to believe so.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 05:53 PM
63.23.175.251
|
You are nuts...your point is that this applies to all vehicles vs mechs, either go with the Book units fighting each other or post a new arguement on the idea that the vehicles can be imporved or some thing...cause you are blowing a lot of smoke here...
If you want a custom fight then I get custom mechs...or is that not fair?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/02/01 05:54 PM
63.23.175.251
|
And your threats can be taken as more then just words do remember that...
And can you prove I am a fool or are you presitting that your opinon is fact again?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 05:56 PM
134.121.149.97
|
Again, Karagin, I have stated my thesis. Will you dispute with me what that statement was?
I will state it for you again, in the simplest form I can imagine.
Given that a vehicle is properly designed, and given that it is used with appropriate skill, it can consistently defeat a 'Mech of equal tonnage.
I ask you again, do you quarrel with this thesis? If not, we have no argument and this whole thing was a simple misunderstanding.
Positing an absurdity does not give me an advantage in an argument, unless my opponent accepts it as true, at which point I can prove anything.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 05:59 PM
63.23.175.251
|
YES I quarrel with it because the vehicle construction rules leave out things that should be common on vehicles and the rules dealing with damage to the vehicles favor the mechs.
Can you prove that this wrong?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 05:59 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>You are nuts...<<<
Only if you're a fool...and ad hominem will not help you here.
>>>your point is that this applies to all vehicles vs mechs<<<
How many times do I have to clarify this before you understand?
NO IT DOESN'T!
>>>If you want a custom fight then I get custom mechs...or is that not fair?<<<
Go for it. Give me your designs.
This is certainly included in my point. (a given force of 'Mechs need not be book 'Mechs)
-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
11/02/01 06:00 PM
134.121.149.97
|
I have not threatened you.
I have NEVER threatened ANYONE on these forums.
Kindly cease your slander.
No, my opinion is not fact, but I have a right to it. I consider you a fool. Fair?
I mean...after all...you consider me deranged or something.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/02/01 06:02 PM
63.23.175.251
|
IF a mech force doesn't need to be Book mechs to prove your point then way are so against using the book vehicles? Your point should be valid on all counts with a given vehicle force...
I can email you the stats on Sunday evening...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/02/01 06:03 PM
63.23.175.251
|
Bulllshit Bob your line about premeantly shutting me up is a threat, but coming from a know nut case I quess we can make some adjustments.
As soon as you drop the slander your self son.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/02/01 06:06 PM
134.121.149.97
|
no, the vehicle force needs to be properly designed to satisfy my first proposition.
It is my contention that book vehicles are not.
-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
11/02/01 06:08 PM
134.121.149.97
|
I never said anything about "shutting you up", permanently or otherwise.
I merely told you to shut up. Totally different thing.
>>>As soon as you drop the slander your self son.<<<
I have not slandered you, only given you my honest opinion of you.
-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
11/02/01 06:11 PM
134.121.149.97
|
I can prove that it does not detract significantly from my point. Thus the battle. With customs.
-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
11/02/01 06:14 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>Now one would think that Bob's comment that vehicles can beat mechs would apply even to book units<<<
I can beat you with stock vehicles.
However, if you beat me, you do not prove YOUR point (more correctly, you do not disprove mine through exclusion), thus I would suggest you make an allowance for BOTH of my premises.
>>>talk about stacking the deck...<<<
That's precisely the idea, old chap.
The point is to prove that I *CAN* stack the deck.
-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
11/03/01 10:27 AM
206.152.237.34
|
Ok... take a tank and a mech... both with say 10 tons of armor a targeting computer and a Guass rifle... tank has a turrent to it has 2 tons of Armor in each location PLUS a few internals...
The mech... can divide that up... but regarless It only has 9 points armor in head with 3 internals...
Fire a Guass at Each one... both hit... Hitting the Mechs Left leg... and it hits the tanks right side... Tank moves to protect that side... Mech can't protect ANY side except front and back torso's... Next hit... Tank get's struck in fornt side no biggy... Mech loses It's leg... Down he goes....
Ooops lucky shot on each... Turrent locked facing left... wow... now it can strafe fire rather effectively
Ooops there goes the Mech's head Flying into the Wild blue yonder
|
Acolyte
11/03/01 11:08 AM
64.180.211.233
|
O.K. try mounting a Guass Rifle and an SRM6 on each and see who wins. Also, try factoring the mobility of each unit.
No 'Mech worth it's salt has only one weapon. The fact that they have a heat chart is of great advantage as it allows the mounting of more weapon than the heat sinks would allow. this allows volleying fire and the mounting of weapons for different range brackets without having to mount heat sinks for weapons that don't get used half the time.
The consentrated armor of a vehicle is both an advantage and a disadvantage, depending on several factors. Heavy weapons tend to knock out 'Mechs, while a plethera of light weapons tend to knock out tanks. I won't even bring luck into it. The multiple hit locations that a 'Mech has tends to distribute damage around the armor. The 'Mech also has the ability to loose a location and keep going. This will kill any vehicle.
Just my two cents.
Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for.
Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
|
Korbel
11/03/01 11:26 AM
206.152.237.34
|
I was simply demenstrating why I feel the To-Hit table for Vehicles is a PLUS for vehicles as opposed to mechs which is the other guys arguement...
I almost always fight with a support lance on vehicles... Their mobility and ease of defending damaged locations is a major plus to me... and oooh how I love my 2 ton Hydro foils.. hehe..
My Btech stuff is in storage... and someone post what the largest half ton and full ton engines are please?(thier ratings)
|
Acolyte
11/03/01 11:45 AM
64.180.211.233
|
You have pointed out the main problem with the construction rule - the disproportionate speed given to very light vehicles. If there are any changes to the construction rules, it should be here.
IMnsHO, vehicles under 5 tons should have a different system for building them.
The hit loction table has proven to be nasty in most battles. I can't count the number of times that a vehicle has lost all mobility and wound up being a sitting duck. This gets more nasty when the turrent locks. This is usually surrender time.
Which brings me to my next point. When you turn the vehicle, you expose the very same turret to damage. The turret goes, the vehicle goes. If you don't have a turret, you have to expose the same side (usually the front) to damage in order to inflict any.
There are changes that should be made. I won't dispute the fact that minimaxers can make some really kick-ass vehicles but the same is true of virtually every rules system.
In my experiance, I've never seen vehicles to be supperior to 'Mechs. They have been a threat. They have been nasty. They have taken down 'Mechs on rare occations. They have never ruled the field exept in conflict with infantry.
Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for.
Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
|
Acolyte
11/03/01 12:03 PM
64.180.211.233
|
Give each side a tonnage. Give each side a maximum number of units. Use level 2 rules. People can use either standard or custom. Nobody knows what the opposition is until the battle. This prevents the making of 'Mechs or vehicles designed to kill specific 'Mechs or vehicles.
Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for.
Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
|
Korbel
11/03/01 12:04 PM
206.152.237.34
|
If you do want to do straight book vehicles I have a few for you...
GOB-33E Goblin Medium Tank
Type: Track
Tonnage: 45
Crew: 3
Turret: Yes
Armor: 8 tons
Cruising Speed: 4 MP
Top Speed: 6 MP
Armor
(F) Front 30
(L) Left 24
(R) Right 24
(B) Back 20
(T) Turret 30
Weapons
Name Loc Damage Min Range Range (S / M / L) Ammo
Large Laser T 8 - 5 / 10 / 15 -
Machine Gun F 2* - 1 / 2 / 3 100
HRR-A Harrasser Missile Platform
Type: Hover
Tonnage: 25
Crew: 3
Turret: Yes
Armor: 2 tons
Cruising Speed: 10 MP
Top Speed: 15 MP
Armor
(F) Front 7
(L) Left 6
(R) Right 6
(B) Back 7
(T) Turret 6
Weapons
Code Name Loc Damage Min Range Range (S / M / L) Ammo
SRM-6 Short Range Missiles (6) T 2 - 12* - 3 / 6 / 9 15
SRM-6 Short Range Missiles (6) T 2 - 12* - 3 / 6 / 9 15
JED-LAS J. Edgar Light Hover Tank
Type: Hover
Tonnage: 25
Crew: 3
Turret: Yes
Armor: 7.5 tons
Cruising Speed: 11 MP
Top Speed: 17 MP
Armor
(F) Front 34
(L) Left 22
(R) Right 22
(B) Back 16
(T) Turret 26
Weapons
Code Name Loc Damage Min Range Range (S / M / L) Ammo
ML Medium Laser T 5 - 3 / 6 / 9 -
ML Medium Laser T 5 - 3 / 6 / 9 -
ML Medium Laser T 5 - 3 / 6 / 9 -
TX-LRM LRM Carrier
Type: Track
Tonnage: 60
Crew: 2
Turret: No
Armor: 3 tons
Cruising Speed: 3 MP
Top Speed: 5 MP
Armor
(F) Front 12
(L) Left 12
(R) Right 12
(B) Back 12
Weapons
Code Name Loc Damage Min Range Range (S / M / L) Ammo
LRM-20 Long Range Missiles (20) F 1 - 20* 6 7 / 14 / 21 8
LRM-20 Long Range Missiles (20) F 1 - 20* 6 7 / 14 / 21 8
LRM-20 Long Range Missiles (20) F 1 - 20* 6 7 / 14 / 21 8
TX-SRM SRM Carrier
Type: Track
Tonnage: 60
Crew: 2
Turret: No
Armor: 3 tons
Cruising Speed: 3 MP
Top Speed: 5 MP
Armor
(F) Front 12
(L) Left 12
(R) Right 12
(B) Back 12
Weapons
Code Name Loc Damage Min Range Range (S / M / L) Ammo
SRM-6 Short Range Missiles (6) F 2 - 12* - 3 / 6 / 9 5
SRM-6 Short Range Missiles (6) F 2 - 12* - 3 / 6 / 9 5
SRM-6 Short Range Missiles (6) F 2 - 12* - 3 / 6 / 9 5
SRM-6 Short Range Missiles (6) F 2 - 12* - 3 / 6 / 9 5
SRM-6 Short Range Missiles (6) F 2 - 12* - 3 / 6 / 9 5
SRM-6 Short Range Missiles (6) F 2 - 12* - 3 / 6 / 9 5
SRM-6 Short Range Missiles (6) F 2 - 12* - 3 / 6 / 9 5
SRM-6 Short Range Missiles (6) F 2 - 12* - 3 / 6 / 9 5
SRM-6 Short Range Missiles (6) F 2 - 12* - 3 / 6 / 9 5
SRM-6 Short Range Missiles (6) F 2 - 12* - 3 / 6 / 9 5
ONT-00 Ontos Assault Tank
Type: Track
Tonnage: 95
Crew: 3
Turret: Yes
Armor: 8.5 tons
Cruising Speed: 3 MP
Top Speed: 5 MP
Armor
(F) Front 30
(L) Left 25
(R) Right 25
(B) Back 26
(T) Turret 30
Weapons
Code Name Loc Damage Min Range Range (S / M / L) Ammo
ML Medium Laser T 5 - 3 / 6 / 9 -
ML Medium Laser T 5 - 3 / 6 / 9 -
ML Medium Laser T 5 - 3 / 6 / 9 -
ML Medium Laser T 5 - 3 / 6 / 9 -
ML Medium Laser T 5 - 3 / 6 / 9 -
ML Medium Laser T 5 - 3 / 6 / 9 -
ML Medium Laser T 5 - 3 / 6 / 9 -
ML Medium Laser T 5 - 3 / 6 / 9 -
LRM-5 Long Range Missiles (5) T 1 - 5* 6 7 / 14 / 21 12
LRM-5 Long Range Missiles (5) T 1 - 5* 6 7 / 14 / 21 12
SCH-1A Schrek Assault Tank
Type: Track
Tonnage: 80
Crew: 2
Turret: Yes
Armor: 7.5 tons
Cruising Speed: 3 MP
Top Speed: 5 MP
Armor
(F) Front 25
(L) Left 22
(R) Right 22
(B) Back 21
(T) Turret 30
Weapons
Code Name Loc Damage Min Range Range (S / M / L) Ammo
PPC Particle Projection Cannon T 10 3 6 / 12 / 18 -
PPC Particle Projection Cannon T 10 3 6 / 12 / 18 -
PPC Particle Projection Cannon T 10 3 6 / 12 / 18 -
|
Karagin
11/03/01 05:05 PM
63.23.175.89
|
If you say so Bob...but why point out something to you that tosses your whole theory out the window when you CAN'T take it from the book....
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/03/01 05:07 PM
63.23.175.89
|
Change your story or what not...you are the same one who had to use a Mechwarrior in the battle with Justin to live when the game was Battletech not Mechwarrior, so why doesn't this surprise me...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/03/01 05:10 PM
63.23.175.89
|
Trust me he wants custom then I can do that to the point of munchy that folks will wonder what is going on...
Four LB-X 10s on a mech should be enough...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/03/01 05:14 PM
63.23.175.89
|
Jesus H Christ...talk about changing your tune and such...what is going to be Bob, stock or custom?
You are against custom cause you claim it don't prove your point, but you claim your point applies to all things vehicle killing mechs so can you make up your mind...
You want to use your munckin toys fine...I can do the same and then what? Your point will be prove wrong and we are back to the being with the rules still not fixed and vehicles still at the bottom of the ladder...
Oh wait I forgot you still believe that vehicles are better cause they can mount tons of armor, have speed and are cheaper...but you will NOT look at all the disadvantages that goes with them...
No problem...send me your custom toys and I will be very happy to blast them to pieces...since you are afarid to face book mechs using book vehicles...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/03/01 05:17 PM
63.23.175.89
|
Oh, so your theory on works IF you build the vehicles...nice....glad to see that you have limits on this, and it only applies to your stuff. To bad you didn't state that from the start with your first post...
The book units are built using the rules as written, so they are as fair as one gets with out using HOME RULES, so Bob, what is going to be FASA rules or your rules?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/03/01 05:36 PM
63.23.175.89
|
Wrong...he claims that ALL vehicles are better then mechs, from his main post that is the message, now as I and others have pointed out the problems he changes his line of thinking to keep his head above the water...
If Bob's idea is true then he or anyone should be able to take the book mechs and vehicles and have a battle and the vehicles should win given the things Bob claims are advantages over the mechs.
I and others find that his thinking is flawed because he leaves out the main areas that nail vehicles and turns them into rubble.
But it is good to see you defending him since he is your brother. But since he is in this let him fight his own battle...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
DireWolf
11/04/01 10:07 AM
213.8.223.46
|
...Fantech Battlemech and Vehicle rulesets. Just send an E-mail and tell me you want 'em.
If you kick Bob hard enough, he might be convinced to finish the infantry rules, as well as remaking the Aerotech/Battlespace rules, since these are his babies.
The rules come in DOC and XLS formats (Text and Weapon Tables) and are zipped. Not a big file.
I can attach some of the 'Mech/Vehicle Directories I got. I have redesigned MANY units for Fantech, by using an Excel spreadsheet I made (Its included with the rules). I have the 3025 'Mechs, 3026 and 3058 vehicles and the Clan Omnis and Secondline 'Mechs. I lack the time, and quite frankly, the will, to finish all the remaining TROs. If Fantech rules will catch on when we're done with them (Bob: HINT !!), I might do it. Until then, if you wanna play it, you'll have to re-design the units you're gonna be using.
Note: The XLS design libraries are HUGE. Even when zipped. IIRC, all of the designs I have would amount to a 10 Mb ZIP file. Very uncool if you have a 56k modem, like myself.
In general. We changed ranges, added an Armor Penetration (AP) value to weapons, changed the way some things work (Most notably, Pulse Lasers, which now are energy LB-X ACs, really) and completely redesigned the vehicle rules to include a critical space table, percentage lift/suspension factors and a composite MP calculation for VTOLs and Hovercraft.
Well, just drop me a line, and I'll send it over.
-Private LeV "Dire Wolf" Arris, IDF.
"Fight hard for what you believe in. Because if you do not, you will wake up one day and realize that there is nothing left for you to believe."
-Lt. Lev (Res. Inf.) "Dire Wolf" Arris, IDF.
"What is it like fighting the Wolf ? Imagine a lightning with legs, an earthquake with arms, a catastrophe with genius or just pure hell on wheels".
|
Karagin
11/04/01 11:03 AM
63.23.175.57
|
And he left out on thing in there that must be taken into account the lack of locations to place armor to insure the damage is spread out...think about that...
His idea is that forgetting all the rules that hurt vehicles he claims that they can take mechs down since they only pay heat for engery weapons and can mount missiles better then mechs, there is nothing about the lack of a lighter internal stucture or the rest of the stuff mechs can mount to allow them to carry more and I note that he says nothing about Clan vehicles at all....
Then he changes his postion to only complain about tanks being the bain of the subject...it would be nice if he would stay on topic....
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NathanKell
11/04/01 01:57 PM
24.44.236.103
|
I'm very interested in seeing these rules...and I'm on cable, so don't worry about my end.
-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 |
Bob_Richter
11/04/01 08:09 PM
134.121.149.97
|
And you're the one who:
1) has lied about having a PhD
2) can't even remember whom it was I was fighting
-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
11/04/01 08:10 PM
134.121.149.97
|
It's called an "Annihilator", and it's stock.
-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
11/04/01 08:16 PM
134.121.149.97
|
No, we fought only elite front-line units, not outcast dezgra units with their entire Clan trying to annihilate them. :)
-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
11/04/01 08:22 PM
134.121.149.97
|
The idea was to get a feel for which tech level he was using.
This is kind of important. If I go in tech 2 against tech 1, I get called for it. If I go in tech 1 vs tech 2, I'm at a disadvantage.
:)
>>>I can take down twice the number of
vehicles as mechs I'm using<<<
You can take down twice the number of mechs as 'Mechs you're using.
>>>Using half of the mechs with clan large pulses <<<
Were we using ClanTech? I didn't think that was Karagin's intention.
>>>the other half with lots of
srm-2's on fast movers with Infernos...<<<
I have stated that the inferno rules are 1) Optional and 2) Monstrously flawed.
We will, therefore, not be using them.
-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
11/04/01 09:38 PM
134.121.149.97
|
Ooh...Then I'll use sealed vehicles in a vacuum! (breach rolls really bring 'Mechs and vehicles a lot closer to even with LB-X flying.) Or. Yeah. Subs loaded with torpedos in an entirely underwater environment (infernos can't even be LAUNCHED there.)
Or at high-gravity so the 'Mechs will be largely immobilized! And on PAVEMENT, so we get a +1 speed bonus, regardless of gravity.
Point here is: the optional rules can severely change things, and most of them are quite badly written.
Many of them (including fires and infernos) are banned in MechForce tournament play.
Why should they, then, be forced on me?
:)
OTOH, if we use full rules, that means I can use a combination of ultra-heavy ARROW IV naval vessels and ultra-light TAG VTOLs... (we haven't agreed to a tonnage limit...just lance on lance. Honestly, this concerns me. I mean...Naval vessels have a lot of very real advantages over 'Mechs just from sheer tonnage.)
(I'm assuming we're not using Artillery, another potent optional rule. Take note that I usually roll head-shots with homing Arrow rounds. I don't know why.)
>>>now...with Epona's....hehehe Clan tech sure
makes vehicles a lot closer to even their clan rivals in firepower....4 clan mpulses to the rear will hurt ANYONE<<<
Ever tried remaking the SRM/LRM Carriers with ClanTech? I only THOUGHT those things were scary BEFORE...:)
>>>No clan-tech?<<<
Eh, again, I think we'd have to agree on Clan or IS, because IS tech would be naturally overmatched by ClanTech.
I do believe Karagin's planning to use IS Tech. He'd better correct me if I'm wrong too.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/04/01 10:26 PM
63.173.170.219
|
I told you what tech I was using...and you wanted customs...
As for the rest we will see...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/04/01 10:29 PM
63.173.170.219
|
Don't worry Bob, FASA tech (level two IS tech) will be beating you silly, and if you want to toss things out cause you are worried iit will prove your theory wrong then that's cool, since it shows your's is not the finial answer as I stated...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/04/01 10:31 PM
63.173.170.219
|
Oh there are other 4 LBX bangers out there...as you will find out and no not all of them are 100 tons...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Acolyte
11/04/01 10:56 PM
64.180.196.92
|
Would you like to compare notes? Maybe we can work out a feasable system out of all this.
Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for.
Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
|
Karagin
11/05/01 08:25 AM
63.173.170.188
|
Come now, Bob claims the vehicles are better then mechs, so like mechs they shouldn't fear fire...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/05/01 08:29 AM
63.173.170.188
|
Maybe you missed something here...the vehicles have limited spots to take damage, that means the same spot or location will be hit more often thus ensuring it will be penatrated faster then the armor on a mech that has 11 plus internal, locations to allow the damage to be spread out more.
But since you and Bob can't or won't see this and look at the correct way, as a big disadvantage then what game are you two playing? CAV? Dirtside II? Cause it's not Battletech.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
DireWolf
11/05/01 09:11 AM
213.8.222.35
|
What's your E-Mail ?
Doesn't show an address in your profile.
-Private LeV "Dire Wolf" Arris, IDF.
"Fight hard for what you believe in. Because if you do not, you will wake up one day and realize that there is nothing left for you to believe."
-Lt. Lev (Res. Inf.) "Dire Wolf" Arris, IDF.
"What is it like fighting the Wolf ? Imagine a lightning with legs, an earthquake with arms, a catastrophe with genius or just pure hell on wheels".
|
Bob_Richter
11/05/01 04:55 PM
134.121.16.64
|
Uh. Actually, you said which 'MECHS you were using.
Notably, both tech 1 and tech 2 variants exist of ALL of those 'Mechs, so how could I possibly know which tech you wanted?
Customs are still limited by tech level, sir.
-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
11/05/01 04:59 PM
134.121.16.64
|
Like submarines, then, 'Mechs shouldn't fear water. :)
How about we run one battle, a "Control", where there's no fire OR water, then we run fights with first fire and then water, and I'll show you that a 'Mech can get just as badly out of its element.
:)
-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
11/05/01 05:01 PM
134.121.16.64
|
Even better. That means they are slower and/or their armor is thinner.
What tonnage are you thinking, Karagin?
'Cause otherwise I'm going to have real trouble with this. If you've decided to field a Lance of assault 'Mechs, and I go with a lance of heavyweight hovercraft, that clearly isn't going to disprove my point (the equal tonnage proposition is nullified)
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/05/01 06:11 PM
63.173.170.46
|
No kidding and like I said FASA tech will wipe your little munchkin force out...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/05/01 06:14 PM
63.173.170.46
|
Can you make up your mind???
One mintue you don't want fire, now you do...are you sure you even know what you are doing?
How about getting the vehicles done up and sent to me so I can see what I am facing and you can get my mechs and then we can get this over with and you can learn that you have no clue as is normal but you don't understand that tell it's beat down your throat.
So less talk and more on to getting this over with...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
11/05/01 06:16 PM
63.173.170.46
|
You are forgetting that with the way the damage is given to a vehicle via it's arcs the same location stand to take mulitple hits and fail much faster then a mech armor break down do to the fact that the mech can take the internal hits and still be there in the game...CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT???
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
11/05/01 06:17 PM
137.172.211.9
|
Did I say infernoes .... nope. A tank entering a burning hex must roll 8+ or be destroyed no inferno needed ... oh and a M113A1 was hardly air-tight either ;).
Greyslayer
|
Karagin
11/05/01 06:22 PM
63.173.170.46
|
Wow you are using hovers...why doesn't that surprise me...oh wait I forgot you are making this up as you go so I guess in the end you will still find away to claim you won no matter the out come of the fight...
HELLO...your theory is that vehicles can run rings around mechs cause according to you they have more advantages then mechs, so the vehicle type shouldn't matter, but you instist on hovercrafts...maybe I should go with LAMs all armed with LBX weapons...that should really be a nice game...
Let me spell this out so you can really understand it, send me your vehicles, and I will send you the mechs. That way niether of us can spend all day figuring out the weakness of the other's units...
Any questions???
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/05/01 09:15 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>Any questions???<<<
What tonnage are you using?
What tech are you using?
Answer these questions, and I will have vehicles to you within 24 hours.
I am NOT making ANYTHING up as I go along. Tonnage was part of my thesis as stated.
And it is also my contention that a properly designed vehicles cannot used tracked mobility.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/06/01 12:05 AM
63.173.170.214
|
Yes you are making things up as you go along...the over all theory keeps changing and then you limit it to only certain vehicles being bad etc...
I am using four mechs, ranging from 40 to 75 tons, Tech 2 does that help?
Or did you forget this was lance on lance...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/06/01 12:09 AM
134.121.149.97
|
okay...which means your tonnage is anywhere from 160 to 300.
Tell me, Karagin, do you have trouble adding?
An exact number would not be impossible.
And, no, I haven't changed anything. Anyone with elementary training in logic should be able to recognize that the conditions I have requested are only those necessary for you to DISPROVE MY POINT.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/06/01 12:45 AM
63.173.170.214
|
240 tons...you figure out what each mech weighs based on that.
You keep wanting thing YOUR way, there is no randomness if you want to pick both the units and the terrain...as said on ICQ if you want that kind of fight flip over a map and test it your self, cause you are not proving anything of your point by trying to pick the terrain you want...that is why I listed a set of maps that hurts BOTH of us and gives us BOTH something to use...and yet you don't like that...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/06/01 01:39 PM
134.121.16.65
|
Um. Okay. Looks like I'll have to spot you 40 tons. No problem.
Actually, to prove my point, its best that randomness be eliminated as it will MUDDY THE RESULTS OF THE TEST.
But I will get some terrain drawn up by a third party.
Hey Lev, you up for this?
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/06/01 03:33 PM
63.173.170.151
|
Randominess doesn't muddy the waters...you want all the events to favor your side, sorry nope.
You picked the forces, I picked the terrain, live with it and let's get this over with.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
11/06/01 03:43 PM
134.121.149.97
|
>>>Randominess doesn't muddy the waters...<<<
Yes it does, unless a great number of tests are used to sift out its effects.
>>>you want all the events to favor your side, sorry nope. <<<
Yes, because I want you to have the BEST POSSIBLE CHANCE of disproving me. Think, Karagin, if I have everything go my way, and I still lose, wouldn't that put me in an entirely untenable position? I'd HAVE to admit I was wrong, wouldn't I?
And, well, heck...It's not like I'm saying "My dice always roll 12s, and yours always roll 2s"
So the randomness is still there, just not the extremely restrictive terrain to limit the combat to close range.
>>>You picked the forces, I picked the terrain, live with it and let's get this over with.<<<
I picked HALF the forces (you picked the other half), it's only fair that a third party should design the terrain, besides, we CAN'T use the terrain you want....unless you want to copy it onto OpenRPG.
-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.
:)
|
Karagin
11/06/01 03:47 PM
63.173.170.151
|
Either the random events stay or no game...random means anything can happen and it allows for either of us to win...
Deal with it or don't. I have everything I need to prove you wrong...you have to PROVE your theory, all I have to do is show you the know results of mechs fighting vehicles...that is it...so the ball is in your court not mine.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NathanKell
01/01/02 11:57 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Ah, but that's the ticket!
You mean a *unit* of given weight, rather than a *force* of given weight...
-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
01/02/02 02:34 PM
4.35.174.250
|
I would challenge this assertion.
It's just as easy to mess with a 'Mech's movement, and the vehicle will almost always be faster (or far better armed.)
-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.
:)
|
Nightmare
01/03/02 12:42 AM
194.251.240.105
|
Vehicles are forbidden to enter woods though. Plant more
trees on every planet known to man! You`ll soon get rid of
those pesky tanks :)
Advice for Evil Overlords:
My legions of terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
|
Bob_Richter
01/03/02 01:06 AM
4.35.174.250
|
Not all vehicles. Tanks may enter light woods. Woods can also be cleared.
-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.
:)
|
Nightmare
01/04/02 12:44 AM
194.251.240.107
|
I stand corrected :)
Advice for Evil Overlords:
My legions of terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
|
Korbel
01/05/02 08:56 AM
206.152.237.32
|
Gotta love that SRM carrier loaded up with infernos igniting those forests where the mechs are hiding.
oh... is there an inferno version of Artillery?... Ignites radius of 2-4 would REALLY be great... How much heat is accumulated for passing through a fire hex?
|
Nightmare
01/05/02 10:47 AM
194.251.240.107
|
There should be a Inferno Arrow IV missile available
to someone, perhaps the Capellans?
Advice for Evil Overlords:
My legions of terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
|
TheFerryman
02/06/18 06:17 PM
99.241.241.210
|
I call shenanigans. A 2 ton hydrofoil with an 15/23 movement and a small laser? Using what rule sets?
Engine: (tonnage x move speed) - suspension factor = (2 x 15) - 60 = -30, so there is a math error right there. The smallest engine is a 10 rating and weighing in at a hefty .50 tons for the XL version, so using the smallest and engine available your speed would be (2 x ?) - 60 = 10 or a speed of 35/51...
Lets also postulate you have a house rule where you can allocate in .25 ton lots, instead of .5 ton lots - a common enough house rule. Standard rules specifically dictate that Lift Equip, C&C, IS, ect are rounded up to the nearest 0.5 tons - I too use the 0.25 ton house rule.
Engine: 0.5 tons - 10 XL
Engine Shielding: 0.25 tons
Lift Equipment: 0.5 tons or 0.25 tons
Cockpit & Control: 0.5 tons or 0.25 tons
Internal Structure: 0.5 tons or 0.25 tons
Weapons: 0.5 tons - small laser
Power Amplifiers: .1 tons (the only item that states you can allocate in 0.1 ton lots)
Without adding *any* armor, you are already at 2.85 tons or 2.1 tons with the house rule. Either way, already *over weight*.
You have a total of 5 free heat sinks, which is good. 1 in the engine and 4 in the body. A 10 rated engine can hold 1 internally, and a 2 ton has a max of 5 spaces (1 for the laser and 4 for free heat sinks)
Still *over weight and ZERO armor*...
Also, even if you could somehow make it a legit build, your friend could have owned you if his 3 x 100 tonners were subs - lrm and srm torpedo launchers, stealth armor, and electronics.
|
Cray
02/06/18 06:45 PM
97.101.136.19
|
Quote:
I call shenanigans. A 2 ton hydrofoil with an 15/23 movement and a small laser? Using what rule sets?
Psst. This thread is 17 years old. Meant in good humor:
If you want, I'm actually acquainted with the thread's originator on Facebook and CBT.com and can nudge them to come back and look, but I don't know about most of the participants.
Incidentally:
Quote:
Lets also postulate you have a house rule where you can allocate in .25 ton lots, instead of .5 ton lots - a common enough house rule. Standard rules specifically dictate that Lift Equip, C&C, IS, ect are rounded up to the nearest 0.5 tons - I too use the 0.25 ton house rule.
In ye olden days, vehicle rules didn't round, or rounded to the tenth of a ton - I ferget which, it's been a while. A 2-ton vehicle could thus look like:
0.2 tons internal structure
0.2 tons hydrofoil bits
0.1 tons controls (adds up nicely to 0.5 tons so far)
0.75 tons minimum standard fusion engine (0.5 tons + 50% shielding)
0.25 tons armor: 1pt front/sides/back
0.5 tons small laser
I think you're correct about the speed, I don't see a way to get it as low as 15/23 for a 2-ton hydrofoil.
You can also see the lack of rounding in things like the original 21-ton Warrior VTOL. Somewhere around the publication of BattleTech Master Rules, Revised, the rounding changed to the current state.
Edited by Cray (02/06/18 06:51 PM)
|
Karagin
02/07/18 12:29 AM
72.176.187.91
|
We are still here...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ATN082268
02/07/18 09:03 AM
69.128.58.222
|
This thread is almost old enough to vote...
|