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
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 60 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 134158
|
|
|
|
|
|
|