Karagin
01/21/03 04:31 PM
68.21.149.51
|
How many of you feel that the minimum on the IS LRMs is something that should have gone away or at the least been cut down to three hexes given all of the increase in weapons technology that has happen since 3050?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nightward
01/21/03 06:14 PM
202.138.16.127
|
They're fine as is. LRMs are supposed to be for long-range fire. For everything else, we have MRMs and SRMs.
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.
|
Cray
01/21/03 06:26 PM
65.32.253.120
|
Reduction in minimum range is overdue, more than a decade overdue. The Inner Sphere has been copying so many other Clan ideas that a reduced minimum LRM is only logical.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
NathanKell
01/21/03 11:15 PM
67.86.63.119
|
Along with the ER Medium and Small, the other LB-Xs, UACs, Streaks...you'd think minimum-less LRMs would be far higher on the priority list...
-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 |
Vapor
01/22/03 03:18 AM
202.128.73.183
|
Since the minimum range for IS LRM's was hardware related, it never bothered me. The minimum range represents the distance the missiles have to travel after being launched before they can acquire a target lock.
Granted, with the amount of Clan tech that the IS has had available to study recently, they should have solved the problem by now. If I understand it correctly (I'm not saying I'm right), Clan LRM's are based on a bore-sight lock, whereas the IS LRM's use a missile-based lock. Basically that means that Clan LRM's are locked on target before they leave the launcher, while the IS LRM's don't acquire the target until after they leave the launcher. Yes, I agree that they should have reduced, or even eliminated, the minimum range for IS LRM's. However, I don't really believe it is necessary because of what Nightward mentioned. If I need a missile to use within the LRM's minimum range, I'll use SRM's or MRM's.
Therefore, as far as BT history goes, yes, the minimum range should have been reduced or eliminated by now. As far as practicality goes, it shouldn't be necessary.
"For those about to rock, we salute you." - AC DC
"The evil that can come, from the heart of a man, must be answered in kind 'till it disappears, and we're safe." - Kansas
|
Cray
01/22/03 06:59 AM
65.32.253.120
|
In reply to:
The minimum range represents the distance the missiles have to travel after being launched before they can acquire a target lock.
The "hot loading" option for LRMs in MaxTech or the Tactical Handbook (the ability to reduce LRM minimum at the expense of risking ammo explosions) suggest it's a matter of safety fusing more than target locks. The missile warheads simply haven't armed in their minimum range.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Bob_Richter
01/22/03 09:51 AM
4.35.174.250
|
ERs Medium and Small were just a logical progression, like the all-size Ultras, LBs, and large Streak racks.
Not really a persuit of a Clan idea.
Long-range Pulse Lasers have yet to materialize outside of level 3. If fact, the only uniquely Clan idea that's really been copied was the Targeting Computer, and even that badly.
-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
01/22/03 09:53 AM
4.35.174.250
|
...were a typo on the original weapons table, unfortunately perpetuated even into this day. Clan LRMs should have a minimum range, even as IS ones do. The ONLY improvement Clan LRMs were supposed to have offered was reduced mass and crit space.
-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
01/22/03 10:01 AM
68.21.149.243
|
Prove what you say...seeing how TPTB never changed it...so please prove it.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
BA_Evans
01/22/03 10:27 AM
65.194.182.3
|
If the reason for the IS LRM's poor performance is an issue of safety locking, shouldn't the LRM's have reduced damage inside the minimum instead of reduced chances to hit?
The LRM's would still hit you, they just wouldn't explode.
|
Countergod
01/22/03 12:00 PM
160.39.139.144
|
I personally dont think that the ER lasers in Btech are very useful, I rarely use them, as it only give a +1 range to each range bracket. If I have a mech that already has enough heatsinks for it (like the 3 ML Fireball) I will use it because it is nice to have the extra range, but I dont use them too much.
As for the LRM's the Clans have had 300 years to improve thier LRM's, thought I think that they should still have a minimum range, just a shorter one. As for the IS LRM's I dont see why you need to remove them, as you have sooooo many weapons for short range, ie UAC-20, RAC-5, LB-20AC, the classic ML, MPL (esp with targeting computer). When I build or look at a FASA/WizKids Mech with LRM's, I go with how much damage vs heat you can do without LRM's then maxamize it, thus there is no reason to fire LRM's anyways 
***Chemistry is like art. One wrong move can really ruin your day!***
To: All other empire leaders
From: Maj. NevLord Madman (Mad Man's Marauders [STB] )
Subject: Hi Neveron
Date Sent: 7/12/3222 12:50:00 AM
May i just point out u all suck 
Maj. NevLord Madman |
Bob_Richter
01/22/03 12:30 PM
4.35.174.250
|
Very simple.
Got an original 3050 TRO?
Find anything OTHER than the table that says LRM minimum ranges have been removed. The entry on Clan LRMs and SRMs is actually the same one that details other standard weapon types. All it says is that they're half the mass in addition to taking one less critical.
-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
01/22/03 12:33 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>As for the LRM's the Clans have had 300 years to improve thier LRM's,<<<
And yet, aside of the mysteriously removed minimum range, they have not. Strange, eh?
Clan LRMs are the same size as their IS counterparts, even if the LAUNCHERS are half as heavy. Does putting these ubermissiles in my Archer remove its minimum range?
>>>
I personally dont think that the ER lasers in Btech are very useful,<<<
Play me MegaMek sometimes and I'll show you otherwise. 
Range is one of the most important weapon characteristics...
-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
01/22/03 12:36 PM
68.21.149.202
|
WRONG, TR3050 copyright 1990 NON-REVISED addtion on page 226 it lists ALL of the Clan weapons and it states clearly that the LRMs DOES NOT have minimums.
So I am sorry Bob but you are 100% WRONG on this one.
Do have a nice day.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
01/22/03 12:37 PM
68.21.149.202
|
In reply to:
Bob wrote:
Clan LRMs are the same size as their IS counterparts, even if the LAUNCHERS are half as heavy. Does putting these ubermissiles in my Archer remove its minimum range?
Actually it does, seeing how from as far backs TR3050 NON-Revised the Clan LRMs NEVER had a minimum range.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
01/22/03 12:47 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>page 226 it lists ALL of the Clan weapons and it states clearly that the LRMs DOES NOT have minimums.<<<
I wouldn't know.
My TRO 3050 hasn't had a page 226 for about a decade.
Somebody check that for me?
>>>So I am sorry Bob but you are 100% WRONG on this one.<<<
I dunno. I think I'd rather wait for some confirmation.
Could somebody scan page 226 and send it to me? (I think that counts as Fair Use, especially given that I've owned the manual since 1991...)
-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
01/22/03 12:52 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>Actually it does, seeing how from as far backs TR3050 NON-Revised the Clan LRMs NEVER had a minimum range. <<<
Okay, Karagin...
First, that wasn't even what we were talking about.
Second, stop repeating yourself, it's extremely annoying.
Third, yes, I know it's in the damned unrevised first printing. My contention was that it was an error THERE, one nobody ever bothered to correct. Just like they "lost" the Standard ACs and Lasers because they weren't on the Sacred Table.
Fourth, actually, the answer to my question is "no." Clan LRMs can't be fired from Inner Sphere launchers (which is silly) and even if they could, LRMs don't have variable stats based on ammunition (which is silly.) Inner Sphere LRM *LAUNCHERS* have a minimum range.
-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
01/22/03 12:55 PM
68.21.149.202
|
Seeing how you can slap on Clan systems to IS mechs...plenty of those kinds of refits in the Twycross scenario pack...the point still stands.
And there was NO error since NONE of the erratas for TR3050 EVER listed the Clan LRMs has having any kind of minimum range.
So the point is vaild and on what you are talking about.
Have a nice day.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cadet
01/22/03 01:07 PM
206.102.34.143
|
If the TRO:3050 was a typo, why wasn't it every corrected in subsequent printings, or in any of the rulebooks that have been printed since then? Just because the fluff doesn't mention Clan LRMs losing the minimums doesn't mean it wasn't intentional on the part of the designers.
Do I think the minimums should be lowered. Absolutely. I don't buy the "It would unbalance the game" or the "Bills won't do it because the arms race is over" arguments either. It wouldn't be the first time a rule has been revised or a weapon stat changed. Remember TRO:2750? Gauss Rifles used to have ten shots per ton of ammo.
They could change it right now.
Does not play well with others.
|
Cadet
01/22/03 01:26 PM
206.102.34.143
|
I'm not following your reasoning about why the Targeting Computer is a bad idea.
I think the only bad thing about the targeting computer is that it can be linked to pulse lasers. This isn't such a bad flaw for IS pulse lasers but are horribly unbalancing in favor of Clan units.
Does not play well with others.
|
Cadet
01/22/03 01:53 PM
206.102.34.143
|
I think part of the problem is that we're really talking about two different definitions of the Clans. We have the current definition all about honor bidding using better 'Mechs even in their second line units AND we have an undefined vague idea about the Clans from 1990.
That same TRO:3050 that says the Clans have lighter standard autocannons and lasers as well as improved LRM launchers also ignores Clan organization and honor rules. It mentions bidding but never explains how to do it. In time FASA began to define the Clans, and they evolved into the Clans we know today.
As far as certain weapons listed, I think it was just FASA realizing that having stardard weapons for the Clans was just pointless. Why have a standard AC when I can get an LB-X for the exact same weight and size? Why get a standard Large laser when I can get an ERML to do the same job and for lighter and less heat? I think they made the right decision to simply ignore those weapons when it came time to come up with a Master List for the BattleTech Compendium.
I think you can make the case for Clan launchers being better than their IS counterparts and that is why there is no minimum. I think you can make a case for Clan missiles being better than their IS counterparts and that is why there is no minimum. I think you can make a case for lawn gnomes using pixie dust and that is why there is no minimum. But I don't think we can really go off the fluff text from an ill-defined version of the Clans to support the version we have today, and that includes weapon states. Bottom line is Clan weapons are just that much better and it is because the game designers said so. I don't believe it was an accident or a typo.
Does not play well with others.
|
Bob_Richter
01/22/03 02:29 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>If the TRO:3050 was a typo, why wasn't it every corrected in subsequent printings, or in any of the rulebooks that have been printed since then? <<<
By then, it was so deeply entrenched...
...and IIRC (I probably don't,) the dev team that published TRO:3050 didn't make it to the second printing.
>>>Just because the fluff doesn't mention Clan LRMs losing the minimums doesn't mean it wasn't intentional on the part of the designers.<<<
Nope.
But I don't think it was, any more than was depriving the Clans of standard lasers, PPCs, or ACs.
Even if it was, it was still stupid.
>>>Do I think the minimums should be lowered. Absolutely. <<<
Why?
I think the min range for Clan LRMs should be RAISED to 6, to comply with the crude, unguided rockets they are identical to.
-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
01/22/03 02:30 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>I'm not following your reasoning about why the Targeting Computer is a bad idea. <<<
Didn't say it was.
>>> This isn't such a bad flaw for IS pulse lasers but are horribly unbalancing in favor of Clan units. <<<
The real flaw is the insane, disgusting ranges of Clan Pulse Lasers....
-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
01/22/03 02:31 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>plenty of those kinds of refits in the Twycross scenario pack...<<<
...ALL of which are now illegal...
>>>And there was NO error since NONE of the erratas for TR3050 EVER listed the Clan LRMs has having any kind of minimum range.<<<
Nor did any of them mention the removal of the Clans' standard energy weapons and ACs...
-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.
:)
|
Cadet
01/22/03 02:34 PM
206.102.34.143
|
Well you did say it was a bad idea:
"If fact, the only uniquely Clan idea that's really been copied was the Targeting Computer, and even that badly. "
Does not play well with others.
|
Bob_Richter
01/22/03 02:37 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>I think part of the problem is that we're really talking about two different definitions of the Clans.<<<
Not really.
I'm aware of all the definitions you are...
>>>That same TRO:3050 that says the Clans have lighter standard autocannons and lasers as well as improved LRM launchers<<<
Actually, they were only smaller, IIRC, -1 crit, no change in tonnage. Made them odd.
>>>As far as certain weapons listed, I think it was just FASA realizing that having stardard weapons for the Clans was just pointless.<<<
The same consideration never stopped them from continuing to list the pointless old standard AC/10 on the Inner Sphere charts...
>>>I think they made the right decision to simply ignore those weapons when it came time to come up with a Master List for the BattleTech Compendium.<<<
I disagree. That decision made a number of Canon Battlemech designs illegal and deprived us forever of the concept of what a Clan Second-Line Battlemech should look like.
-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
01/22/03 02:37 PM
68.21.150.199
|
Wrong again bucko...Randal said they were illegal for Tournement play BUT they are legal mechs as far as the storyline goes. Nice try and you can ask him if you don't believe me.
See if they are illegal as you claim, which is wrong, then groups like the Hounds and Dragoons are illegal if their use of retro-fitted machines and given how that is not the case, it is YOU who are again wrong on this.
As for the standard weapons, I agree with Cadet's nicely written reply to you. Why use them when there are better things to chose from? And by that as Cadet said why would the Clans use a medium laser when their ER medium does the same thing for better damage and range for the same amount of weigth.
So to sum up, the LRMs have NEVER had minimums because they are made better, and there was NEVER a typo or mistake on this.
Have a nice day and do check with Randal on refitted IS mechs for the Clans, illegal for tournments but NOT illegal for standard game play, I am sure he will give you the straight answer on this...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
01/22/03 02:38 PM
4.35.174.250
|
Someone needs to take a class in sentence-structure analysis.
I said that the Targeting Computer was an uniquely Clan idea,
that it was the only such idea copied by the Inner Sphere,
and that it had been copied badly.
I never said it was a bad idea, you just misread my sentence.
-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
01/22/03 02:40 PM
68.21.150.199
|
In reply to:
Bob said:The same consideration never stopped them from continuing to list the pointless old standard AC/10 on the Inner Sphere charts...
Did you miss the idea that the IS is playing catch up and that while Group A has the cool new toys in the IS, Group D may not? Thus the standard weapons will always be around since they are cheap and give small groups like merc supply of weapons that they can afford as well as their use would be wide spread in places like the Periphery and other low tech areas...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cadet
01/22/03 02:43 PM
206.102.34.143
|
I don't think they were that deeply entrenched though. The BattleTech Compendium came out only a few months later and it could have been changed then if it was a typo. It was no different than the Gauss Rifle change between TRO:2750 and 3050. A year apart, but the change was needed and that was that.
I don't think it was stupid to deprive the Clans of standard AC/lasers/PPCs. What was the point of them? They would have been lighter than the IC weapons, but no different in wieght than the Clan weapons. Why would I put a 6 ton PPC on my mech, when I could put a 6 ton ERPPC?
I'd be Ok with giving Clan LRMs a minimum the same as IS LRMs, but if that isn't going to happen, then the IS minimums should be dropped to 3.
Does not play well with others.
|
Bob_Richter
01/22/03 02:43 PM
4.35.174.250
|
They're Level 3, which means you can't use them unless the other guy lets you. Whatever. That reads as "illegal" to me, but maybe I should say "Optional" instead. Would that make you happier?
>>>then groups like the Hounds and Dragoons are illegal if their use of retro-fitted machines <<<
They are, in level 2 play, unless it's a specific unit ability (I think one of the Ryuken Regiments gets an exception on this rule...maybe all of them. Too long since I read the FM. Even then, it's an OPTIONAL level 2 rule...)
>>>Why use them when there are better things to chose from? <<<
'Cause they're cheaper?
I dunno, why do folks use Inner Sphere AC/5s or AC/10s to this very day?
>>>So to sum up, the LRMs have NEVER had minimums because they are made better, and there was NEVER a typo or mistake on this.<<<
I disagree. I believe that the minimum range was inexplicably omitted from the table and then never corrected.
Prove me wrong. You've yet to do so.
And Inner Sphere launchers STILL can't use Clan LRMs. You can ask Randall about that.
-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.
:)
|
Cadet
01/22/03 02:45 PM
206.102.34.143
|
Drop the condescending tone, kid.
Does not play well with others.
|
Bob_Richter
01/22/03 02:46 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>Why would I put a 6 ton PPC on my mech, when I could put a 6 ton ERPPC? <<<
Cost. Heat. Freebirths don't Deserve Cool Weapons. Whatever reason.
-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
01/22/03 02:46 PM
4.35.174.250
|
Eh, you first, kid.
-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
01/22/03 02:49 PM
68.21.149.206
|
I did prove you wrong, sited the page from the TR3050 and as pointed out there never was an errata to change that so you have been proven WRONG, live with it.
The mechs are NOT illegal just because you feel they should be. Sorry but it's like me finding the whole WoB Jihad storyline to be a load crap and should be dropped, don't see it happening...
IS mechs can use CLAN Launchers and ammo...hence again they would NOT have a minimum range so the Archer with the uberClan missiles would have no minimum range.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
01/22/03 02:51 PM
68.21.149.206
|
Face it Bob, you are wrong on the minimum range part and it's been proven to you repeatedly.
As Cadet pointed out if the need for the minimum range was omitted by mistake they would have corrected it either in the Compedium or via FASA's all time favorite errata sheets and guess what it never happen.
So how about excepting that you are wrong and move on...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cadet
01/22/03 02:54 PM
206.102.34.143
|
Even better, what would the point be in having a weapon that is less bulky and swtill the same weight. There is a reason that only standard autocannons now have speciallized munitions. They had become obsolete when any autocannon could also be a LB-X.
What canon Battlemechs became illegal?
And your definition of a Clan Second Line mech should and should not be is not what is at issue. FASA said Clan secondline have Clan technology. Why manufacture more Star League designs when you have improved weapons. They were an intermediate stage between the regular 'Mech and the Clan Omni. They should be better than the obsolete Star League 'mechs. You put them in front line units, develop Omnis, and move the improved mechs to the rear and scrap the obsolete mechs.
Does not play well with others.
|
Karagin
01/22/03 02:56 PM
68.21.149.206
|
In reply to:
Bob wrote: That decision made a number of Canon Battlemech designs illegal
What mechs? Again you are misinformed, no mechs have been declared illegal. The only change was a rule that stated that mixed tech units, which are what a lot of the second line Clan mechs were at first, not counting the IIC mechs, can not be used in offical tournement play. That has been stated repeatedly by Randal.
So please show me an errata sheet that gives a list of any mech that is now illegal to use in BT...hell even LAMs are still allowed if the players so choose to use them.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
01/22/03 02:58 PM
68.21.149.206
|
Very logical and very true...same thing happens in mordern militaries...that is why most nations reserve units have second line or older equipment...oh wait I am trying to apply logic and reason to Battletech...bad Karagin Bad karagin...   
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
01/22/03 03:10 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>Face it Bob, you are wrong on the minimum range part and it's been proven to you repeatedly.<<<
Maybe and no.
Maybe I am wrong, and you've not proven it.
In any case, I am done arguing until I have a copy of page 226.
-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
01/22/03 03:11 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>I did prove you wrong, sited the page from the TR3050 and as pointed out there never was an errata to change that so you have been proven WRONG, live with it.<<<
No, I have not, certainly not by you.
In any case, I don't even care.
>>>The mechs are NOT illegal just because you feel they should be.<<<
And that is not what I said.
>>>IS mechs can use CLAN Launchers and ammo...<<<
This is not even the point we were discussing.
I tire of you, Karagin. This discussion is over.
-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.
:)
|
Cadet
01/22/03 03:13 PM
206.102.34.143
|
Even then you could just claim "typo". There is a reason it wasn't "corrected" in BattleTech Compendium, BattleTech Compendium: The Rules of War, CityTech 2, BMR, Maximum Tech, BMR-R, Max Tech-R, or BattleTech 5th Ed.
I don't think you having a scan of that page is going to help.
Does not play well with others.
|
Karagin
01/22/03 03:13 PM
68.21.149.206
|
Sorry Bob, I proved it, Cadet proved it and every RULE book since TR3050 came out has proven you wrong.
Live with or not, but it's clear as day you are wrong on this issue.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
01/22/03 03:14 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>FASA said Clan secondline have Clan technology. <<<
FASA says a lot of things that don't make sense.
Clan secondline 'Mechs should be old castoffs, not the incredibly powerful beasts they are. They're actually supposed to be at a DISadvantage to front-line Omnis...
>>>What canon Battlemechs became illegal?<<<
Excuse me, OPTIONAL...
...I mean the various Inner Sphere Refits from the Twycross Scenario Pack, particularly.
>>>Even better, what would the point be in having a weapon that is less bulky and swtill the same weight.<<<
Eh. Why WOULDN'T you use the less bulky weapon of the same mass?
-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
01/22/03 03:15 PM
68.21.149.206
|
Sorry chum, but I did prove you wrong as do the rules of BT...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
01/22/03 03:17 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>There is a reason it wasn't "corrected" in BattleTech Compendium, BattleTech Compendium: The Rules of War, CityTech 2, BMR, Maximum Tech, BMR-R, Max Tech-R, or BattleTech 5th Ed.<<<
I agree. We simply differ on what that reason IS.
FASA often made mistakes that were never corrected, whether in reprintings or in errata.
>>>I don't think you having a scan of that page is going to help. <<<
You could just tell me which page it is. It's the weapon table, right? The one I threw out at the beginning of this discussion?
I didn't expect a straight answer from Karagin, so I didn't ask him, I just asked for a scan, which was not forthcoming.
If it IS the table, I rest my case and we can agree to disagree. If it's the fluff, I stand corrected and we can all go home.
So, which is it, out of curiosity?
-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
01/22/03 03:18 PM
68.21.149.206
|
Once again Bob, the mechs are used by groups like the Dragoons and the Hounds as well as some of the Clans, the only thing that changed was their use in Tournement play...
So they are a part of the canon story and a part of the game, they just have limits on their use in offical tournement play just as some Level 2 items did at one time or another and rumor has it that the new tournament rules will allow ALL level 2 items to be used...but that is a rumor.
So once again you are not correct on the issue of mixed tech mechs.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
01/22/03 03:20 PM
68.21.149.206
|
What mistake Bob? There is no mistake if they never changed the minimums on the Clan launchers...if they had then yes TR3050 would be a typo, but seeing how they have not changed things to this day on the Clan Launchers proves that there never was a typo or mistake in regards to their lack of minimums.
Why can't you understand this?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cadet
01/22/03 03:27 PM
206.102.34.143
|
But they corrected misprintings in rules, or at least offered up erratta, because these were important things. They never did that for this. So it was intentionally intended to have no range.
As far as fluff, it never expressly stated that only the launcher was improved over time. It isn't a great leap in faith to think that munitions were improved as well. And like I pointed out earlier, the fluff in TRO:3050 was really a very early version of the Clans that left out a lot of what was needed to use them "correctly."
Ultimately it doesn;t matter what logic they came to to improve the Clan LRM. It just is. Trying to explain it away as a fluke is clearly wrong since it never was corrected. Trying to explain it away as a flaw n the fluff is wrong because so much of the fluff is contradictory to rules. In this case maybe moreso, because it was such an early draft of the Clans and their technology.
Does not play well with others.
|
Karagin
01/22/03 03:47 PM
68.21.149.206
|
Is tied...with half for and half against...this should be an interesting poll once more folks start to vote on the issue.
It will interesting to see where the majority of the posters here at Sarna stand on this idea. 
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cadet
01/22/03 03:54 PM
206.102.34.143
|
Yeah FASA said a lot of stuff that was stupid, but not here.
I want the best stuff in my front line units. I develop newer more powerful weapons. They are in my frontline units. So all my frontline units have Clan ERPPCs, while all my secondlind and garrison units have Star League PPCs and ERPPCs. Eventually I'm going to have holes to fill in those secondline units, due to parts wearing out, battle loses, accidents, maintainece issues, and what not. At the same time I start to develop Omni Mechs. So I start putting the Omnis in my frontline and moving the Improved Mechs to fill those holes in my Secondline units. We do it today in the real world. Those old Star LEague Mechs would be phased out over time in place of what were once cutting edge Clan Mechs, who in turn were replaced with Omnis.
Now those secondline Mechs are at a huge disadvantage to OmniMechs. They lack the flexibility of the OmniMech. Remember these are machines that are used in battle after battle, campaign after campaign. We might not see it in a single game of BT, but take a Trinary of Secondline Clan Mechs and a Trinary of Omnis and put them in the exact same series of missions. That Hunchback IIC you used in a city today isn't going to be very good out in the plains tomorrow. But you can reconfigure that Mad Cat for whatever you need. Put a couple of UAC/20s today, a couple of GRs tomorrow.
>>Eh. Why WOULDN'T you use the less bulky weapon of the same mass?<<
Why would I when I could have a weapon that is less bulky, wieghs less, has better range? You take that Clan AC-10 with one less crit clot. I'll take the Clan LB-10X that weighs less and has better range and can fire cluster rounds.
There is a reason FASA had to give those special munitions to standard AC weapons for the IS. There was no reason at all for players to use them with every type being available in UAC and LB-X. Even dropping a crit wouldn't be that much of an incentive.
Does not play well with others.
|
Nightward
01/22/03 05:29 PM
210.50.57.96
|
Karagin, Bob already caved on this one. Calm down, eh?
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.
|
Karagin
01/22/03 05:40 PM
68.21.149.206
|
I didn't know they said Eh is Aussieland...I thought that was only a Canadian thing....:D
I am calm...I am cool...it's all good. 
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
01/22/03 06:24 PM
65.32.253.120
|
In reply to:
Remember TRO:2750? Gauss Rifles used to have ten shots per ton of ammo.
Wow, that is in my first printing copy of TR:2750. I never noticed that.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Bob_Richter
01/22/03 06:25 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>Not in my first printing copy of TR:2750.<<<
You mean it was "corrected" to 10 later on and then changed back? Amusing.
-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.
:)
|
Cray
01/22/03 06:31 PM
65.32.253.120
|
In reply to:
You mean it was "corrected" to 10 later on and then changed back?
Whatever are you talking about, Bob, and why did you misquote me like that?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Cadet
01/22/03 10:49 PM
206.102.33.148
|
Every copy of TRO:2750 I have ever seen has had 10 shots per ton of Gauss Rifle ammo.
Does not play well with others.
|
Countergod
01/22/03 10:49 PM
160.39.139.144
|
In reply to:
Play me MegaMek sometimes and I'll show you otherwise
Would love to, save that I cant get megamek to work on my computer for some reason
***Chemistry is like art. One wrong move can really ruin your day!***
To: All other empire leaders
From: Maj. NevLord Madman (Mad Man's Marauders [STB] )
Subject: Hi Neveron
Date Sent: 7/12/3222 12:50:00 AM
May i just point out u all suck
Maj. NevLord Madman |
Countergod
01/22/03 10:52 PM
160.39.139.144
|
err clan Uac's and LB-X's are the same weight, but the LB-10X gives off less heat, a definite adantage 
***Chemistry is like art. One wrong move can really ruin your day!***
To: All other empire leaders
From: Maj. NevLord Madman (Mad Man's Marauders [STB] )
Subject: Hi Neveron
Date Sent: 7/12/3222 12:50:00 AM
May i just point out u all suck
Maj. NevLord Madman |
Countergod
01/22/03 10:54 PM
160.39.139.144
|
But battletech DOES have a certain logic to it, just not much
***Chemistry is like art. One wrong move can really ruin your day!***
To: All other empire leaders
From: Maj. NevLord Madman (Mad Man's Marauders [STB] )
Subject: Hi Neveron
Date Sent: 7/12/3222 12:50:00 AM
May i just point out u all suck
Maj. NevLord Madman |
Countergod
01/22/03 10:57 PM
160.39.139.144
|
Look will you two just shutup about that, you have made more than half of the posts in this thread a gigantic arguement edging on breaking cannon rule #3 of the discussion board and frankly, I am tired of having to read it  (when I click to read respones to my posts, I have a 56K connection so Its stuck on my screen for almost a minute)
***Chemistry is like art. One wrong move can really ruin your day!***
To: All other empire leaders
From: Maj. NevLord Madman (Mad Man's Marauders [STB] )
Subject: Hi Neveron
Date Sent: 7/12/3222 12:50:00 AM
May i just point out u all suck
Maj. NevLord Madman |
Karagin
01/22/03 11:14 PM
68.21.150.192
|
You know...you are right it did go from a simple stating that two statements made by Bob were incorrect to him getting upset.
I am sorry that happen, I am sorry that I pointed out he was wrong. I am sorry that you have a slow 56k modem, the same speed as my own connection, and I am sorry that there folks in this world that can't get along with each other.
But I can't fix any of that and so we are where we are and while I do agree this did get heated, it was very tame in all essence. I simplily pointed out that Bob was inncorrect and he saw fit to argue about it.
So again I am sorry that you wasted your time read all of the posts after seeing that Bob and I were as you said almost coming to breaking rule 3, for that I am truely sorry and will try not to let that happen again. And I am sorry that I am even replying to this in this manner but I find it funny how once again I get told that we (bob and myself) need to stop arguing.
So let me point out something, TELL HIM DIRECTELY, tell me only get's the point across to me and the manner you have chosen to do this really doesn't make it a very good once since as has been stated by Bob in the past he will not stop acting like he does. So if I can offer some advice to you, please TELL HIM not me that he needs to stop agruing with everyone who happens to disagree with him or finds his information to be incorrect or way off target. Please tell him direcetly so as there can be no misunderstanding as to what you mean.
Thanks you though for sharing your concern and desire for all of us to get along and be rational folks talking about Battletech.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
01/22/03 11:16 PM
68.21.150.192
|
Same weight less crits and less and they have dual purpose ammo, one shot can be cluster the other a slug thus they have several advantages over the standard AC for the Clans.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nightward
01/22/03 11:38 PM
210.50.63.144
|
We don't put "eh" on the end of all our sentances. I could have said "huh?", but it was an extra letter
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.
|
BA_Evans
01/23/03 10:02 AM
65.194.182.3
|
That is the same decision Inner Sphere mech designers have to make with the 7 ton PPC and the 7 ton ER PPC, the 5 ton Large Laser and the 5 ton ER Large Laser, the 1 ton Medium Laser and the 1 ton ER Medium Laser.
The extra heat build up from the ER weapons isn't always desireable.
|
BA_Evans
01/23/03 10:20 AM
65.194.182.3
|
Hear, Hear, I second that motion.
|
Karagin
01/23/03 11:20 AM
68.21.149.251
|
The I suggest you read my reply to Countergod, becasue telling me that things need to change is only dealing with HALF of the problem.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Warner_Doles
01/23/03 05:45 PM
209.107.201.212
|
The question or challenge was made about the Clans and minimum ranges to be proved if possible.
"...seeing how TPTB never changed it...so please prove it.'
So I asked Randall one question about the Inner Sphere minimum range to see if we could change it and he gives me this:
W Doles: Here's a question: How come in all the technical upgrades and changes have the LRMS (Inner Sphere) minimum ranges not been lowered or removed AFTER obtaining the Clan versions? At least change it to a minimum of 3.. on any Level 2 machine. Surely that will not unbalance them?
Randall: Because the removal of the minimum ranges for the Clans was an error plain and simply; they were not suppose to not have minimums.
W Doles: oh it was? haha
W Doles: Can I quote you on that?
Randall: I don't care.
Randall: Regardless, we have established an aesthetic that the Clans have far superior weapons, but the IS has superior selection-munitions, different variants on a weapon and so forth. Hence the answer to 'balance' IS LRMs was not a better weapon, but munitions.
So Bob is correct.
If you chose to doubt me and want to verify this you can contact the BattleTech Line Director at precentor_martial@classicbattletech.com.
As always, enjoy!
|
Karagin
01/23/03 06:27 PM
68.21.149.48
|
I am going by the published material, and if IT was a mistake as has been stated here FASA had more then enough time to correct it via the errata sheets OR in the Compendium.
So based on the ORIGINAL and CURRENT rules of the game, they NEVER had a minimum.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
01/23/03 06:37 PM
65.32.253.120
|
In reply to:
So based on the ORIGINAL and CURRENT rules of the game, they NEVER had a minimum.
Why so nasty? You asked for proof, you got it.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Warner_Doles
01/23/03 07:40 PM
209.107.201.212
|
That is a pretty rude nasty there Eric. Nice, thank you. I guess "Speak to each other in a civil manner. (Rule)" means nothing? Anyway...
In reply to:
I am going by the published material, and if IT was a mistake as has been stated here FASA had more then enough time to correct it via the errata sheets OR in the Compendium.
So based on the ORIGINAL and CURRENT rules of the game, they NEVER had a minimum.
Be that as it may, you asked for proof. I gave it to you from the BattleTech Line Director and then you call him a liar. Nice.
Bob, Eric is not man enough to admit he was wrong. You were right. BTW Bob, I have second and third printing revised of TRO 3050 (1990) which both and they say the same thing as Eric's supposed un-revised edition.
Good catch Bob.
|
NathanKell
01/23/03 09:18 PM
67.86.63.119
|
Well I'll be darned.
That's very interesting information, and I thank you for setting us straight!
-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 |
Karagin
01/23/03 09:29 PM
68.21.149.34
|
Excuse me? You tell me that Randal says now that the lack mins on the Clan LRMs was an error, YET, never once did FASA change it...Sorry but that is like locking the barn door after the horse have run off and saying it never happen.
So again, the RULES have ALWAYS stated that they have NOT had minimums thus Bob saying there was error when FASA had more then enough time between TR3050 coming out and the printing of the first Compendium to correct this supposed error, tells me that they were NOT meant to have minimums.
But I can see that you won't see it has it and will find away to make it out that I am out to get you or what ever.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
01/23/03 09:32 PM
68.21.149.34
|
Not nasty or mean, pointing out that the facts state for themselves that the Clan LRMs have never had a minimum range if it was that they should have had one, then there was ample time for FASA to fix the suppose error between the time TR3050 came out and the printing of the Compendium.
As others have pointed out the Gauss Rifle got changed from 10 shots to 8 with in the scope of it's debut to the change, so if the lack minimums was an issue, they had time to fix it before it became hard set in stone.
So there was no attack or any of the such. I was pointing out that the original and current rules don't support the claim of an error.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Chas
01/23/03 10:00 PM
208.178.23.170
|
Karagin,
You asked for proof that the lack of a minimum on Clan LRMs was a typo. Warner provided it. Right from the Line Developer's mouth/keyboard/what-have-you.
It doesn't matter if it wasn't errata'ed, etc. By the time FASA would have gotten around to fixing it, the market was already well flooded with erroneous material, and the lack of minimum was firmly entrenched.
You didn't ask why they didn't correct it. You merely asked someone to prove that it was originally a mistake (even though it has now become canonical).
That has been done.
So please stop attacking people who provide you with the data you asked for because they didn't provide you with data you didn't ask for.
To everyone else: The munchkin in me is perfectly fine with min-less CLRMs. It makes whupping up on you ugly spheroids that much more fun..... At least for me.....
---
"High necked fashions just became the IN thing here on Tharkad."
-- Morgan Kell
-- Grave Covenant
|
Karagin
01/23/03 10:04 PM
68.21.149.34
|
First Chas, there was no attack. I am sorry that Warner sees an attack from anyone who disagrees with him. So there was no attack just an over active imagination by one poster.
Second, I stand by the call of it's a little late for TPTB to claim it was an error when there has been more then enough time to fix, given that they changed the ammo for Gauss rifle from 10 to 8.
So the point still stands that for the last 12 years the Clans have had NO mimimun on their LRMs, I doubt that was mistake.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Paul
01/23/03 10:23 PM
68.33.41.106
|
In reply to:
Second, I stand by the call of it's a little late for TPTB to claim it was an error when there has been more then enough time to fix, given that they changed the ammo for Gauss rifle from 10 to 8.
So the point still stands that for the last 12 years the Clans have had NO mimimun on their LRMs, I doubt that was mistake.
Randall flat out tells you it's a mistake, and that's not enough? =)
It doesn't matter that they had the oppertunity to fix it. Nor that they didn't. It matters that it originally was a mistake, and they left it be. Randall said so, plain and simple. Why do you refuse to accept this?
Paul
|
Karagin
01/23/03 10:29 PM
68.21.149.225
|
I am not refusing to except it, I am pointing out that calling it a mistake now is like when a former LD said the older material is to full of mistakes to be worried about...it falls under the idea that if it was indeed a mistake then it should have been fixed.
Randal didn't tell me squat about this, I didn't see him post and say anything about this.
The point is they (FASA) had time to fix it and they left it, thus there was no mistake. Which brings us back to the point of should the IS LRMs lose or reduce the minimums to bring them on par or close to par as their Clan counterparts.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Paul
01/23/03 10:36 PM
68.33.41.106
|
In reply to:
Randal didn't tell me squat about this, I didn't see him post and say anything about this.
?
Oh, you doubt that Warner quoted him truthfully? Well, I can't change your beliefs.
In reply to:
it falls under the idea that if it was indeed a mistake then it should have been fixed.
In reply to:
The point is they (FASA) had time to fix it and they left it, thus there was no mistake.
Coulda shoulda woulda.
Just because it's not fixed doesn't mean it's not a mistake. To assume such is illogical, but I trust that you're actually very happy with any product Microsoft makes, any government in the world, and the current world peace.
They had time to fix it. They didn't. Oh well.
As for new IS LRM's, sure, I could see how a special ammo type could have less minimum range. Then again, one could argue that the source of the lack of minimums is the launcher, not the missiles. If I would drop it, I'd drop it to 3 myself. Maybe 4.
Paul
|
Karagin
01/23/03 10:39 PM
68.21.149.225
|
I don't doubt Warner talked to him, I just don't see him (Randal) posting and thus it's not offical.
They didn't fix it, because those who where running things didn't see a need to...thus no mistake and saying so now is saying that everyone back then was wrong.
As for your comment about MS and the rest...bait someone else.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Paul
01/23/03 10:40 PM
68.33.41.106
|
Nah, no batiting.
I just think your logic is completely flawed, but I'm happy to leave you with your opinion.
Sorry if my posts caused you any amount of aggrevation.
Paul
|
Karagin
01/23/03 10:42 PM
68.21.149.225
|
Just as flawed as those who think anyone who disagree with them is attacking them...
No aggervation was incurred...just a point proven once again.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cadet
01/23/03 11:10 PM
206.102.32.40
|
It doesn't matter if it wasn't errata'ed, etc. By the time FASA would have gotten around to fixing it, the market was already well flooded with erroneous material, and the lack of minimum was firmly entrenched.
I'd buy the first printing was a typo IF it was changed in subsequent printings, but to say it was firmly entrenched doesn't make sense since it could easily have been changed in the BattleTech Compendium, the same way Gauss Rifle rounds were lowered from 10 to 8.
FASA has changed rules, it has changed rulings in the past. To say that they wouldn't couldn't do that when a first print was incorrect doesn't make sense. There wasn't that much on the market at the time.
Does not play well with others.
|
Vapor
01/24/03 03:05 AM
202.128.69.122
|
The way I always understood it (though I have been known to be wrong on occasion ) was that it was the delayed target-lock that created the minimum range. I do agree, though, that if it were the delayed warhead arming that created the minimum range, that there should be reduced damage dealt to the target, not a higher to-hit number.
"For those about to rock, we salute you." - AC DC
"The evil that can come, from the heart of a man, must be answered in kind 'till it disappears, and we're safe." - Kansas
|
Nightmare
01/24/03 03:32 AM
80.222.92.246
|
Who knows when they noticed the error? A mistake left uncorrected is still a mistake to me, even if someone starts calling it a 'unique feature' later on.
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.
|
Cadet
01/24/03 04:59 AM
206.102.35.37
|
Right, but if it was a mistake, it could have been corrected by FASA/FP at anytime. It could have made it into one of the many, many errata sheets we've had over the years, or into one of the rulebooks. To say "Well it's an error, but we didn't want to correct it because people already had the book" is just a cheap cop out.
Does not play well with others.
|
BigCol
01/24/03 05:17 AM
203.51.211.200
|
I think this whole things shows that FASA could of had better Proof-Readers at the time of publishing the 3050.
But hey, things slip trough the system sometimes.
I don't want the world...
I just want your half...
Ana Ng - They Might be Giants
|
Nightward
01/24/03 05:22 AM
210.50.58.175
|
Yeah, but what are you going to do about it? I don't know if you played Diablo II, but changing the LRM rule now would be like changing the way Concentration and Spiritual Hammer worked. It wasn't supposed to be like that, got put in by mistake, and then some took advantage of it.
As with D2, if they did cange it now, the vast majority of players wouldn't care, but the munchkins and vocal minority would be heard screaming on Strana Mechty. It just ain't worth it.
As an aside, I have a copy of the BMR, (Unrevised) which lists Jump Laser and SRM Troops as having 3 Jump MP. What if *THAT* mistake had been perpetuated?
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.
|
Nightward
01/24/03 05:26 AM
210.50.58.175
|
So go to CBT and ask him there. As things are, it doesn't matter. The rules are the rules. Just give it a rest, huh? The rulings have been made and given, and we've been given insights from the people who were there.
Things are what they are.
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.
|
Cadet
01/24/03 06:33 AM
206.102.33.5
|
People can scream all they want, but it isn't that big of a deal for them to have an updated rule book with correct stats and rulings. And if stuff changes between editions, then it changes. I'm just saying it is a total cop out for them to claim it couldn't be fixed after the fact.
Does not play well with others.
|
Greyslayer
01/24/03 09:10 AM
216.14.192.226
|
If that wasn't fixed then dare say about 50% of your armies will consist of jump SRM infantry with infernos instead of the standard one or two platoons you usually field .
So essentially the argument is over how lazy fasa/FP have been regarding the minimum ranges of Clan LRMs or if in fact they were truly lazy in fixing them up to start with?
Seeing as how the clan mechs were extensively tested prior to release (as was seen with the original clan mechs being weakened alot from their original incarnations) one would think something like this would've been picked up early there. Not only though does the weapons stats reside on the weapons table in the construction area of a rulebook though but on each mech.... so essentially to me this would say, was the error after they had decided on the original mechs or before? It would be no good changing the balance of mechs only to stuff up the stats for the weapons.
Greyslayer
|
BA_Evans
01/24/03 09:53 AM
65.194.182.3
|
When you use Clan LRM's, do you use them in their long range support role or do you prefer to use them up close?
I have only piloted one Clan Machine, the MadCat Primary (battlefield salvage). I actually preferred using the LRM's up close because of their low heat output compared to their high damage potential. Much better than using the ER Large Lasers up close.
|
Apoc
01/26/03 03:51 AM
67.224.53.69
|
BattleTech Tatical Handbook, pg 48...Level Three Rule, Hotloading LRMS
The minimum range of LRMs under standard rules reflects the time required for the missles' internal guidance system to lock onto their targets and for their explosive pyalods to arm. Hot-loading rules enable a player to arm the warheads of LRMs before the missiles are fired, and so hot-loaded LRMs have no minimum range modifer.
However, hot-loaded LRMs usually are not as accurate as standard LRMs. When resolving damage from a flight of hot-loaded LRMs, the attacking player rolls 3D6. Use the two lowest results to determine the hits on the standard Missile Hits Table....
Simply put, Inner Sphere LRMs hotloaded are armed in the tubes(having the chance to explode if the launcher is hit), have no minimum and are slightly inaccurate. The Clan being more technologicly advanced, have inproved on this system. LRMs are armed right after leaving the tubes(no exploding possible) without the inaccuracy problem.
That's the only way I can think of it. I honestly think the Clan LRM's should of have a reduced minimum of 3 or 4 instead of none.
|
Vapor
01/26/03 05:11 AM
202.128.69.122
|
I disagree with your statement. In order for a missile to be considered "hot-loaded," it would have to be armed before it went into the ammo-bin. Clan missiles do not have any danger of exploding inside the launcher if the launcher is hit, so they can't be hot-loaded.
I prefer to think that the Clans use something similar to a bore-sight lock on their missiles, ie. when a flight of missiles is launched, just prior to the missiles leaving the racks, the launcher provides the target-lock to the missiles so they already have a lock when they leave the launcher. And it would be a relatively simple matter to set the missiles to arm the moment they clear the launcher, thus eliminating the minimum range. Why IS technicians haven't copied this yet, I have no clue. IS missiles should have a reduced minimum range, by now.
"For those about to rock, we salute you." - AC DC
"The evil that can come, from the heart of a man, must be answered in kind 'till it disappears, and we're safe." - Kansas
|
Cray
01/26/03 07:45 PM
65.32.253.120
|
In reply to:
In order for a missile to be considered "hot-loaded," it would have to be armed before it went into the ammo-bin. Clan missiles do not have any danger of exploding inside the launcher if the launcher is hit, so they can't be hot-loaded.
Yeah, maybe they arm themselves when they move into the missile tube instead of when they're loaded into the ammo bin.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Warner_Doles
01/26/03 08:41 PM
209.107.201.212
|
- Yeah, maybe they arm themselves when they move into the missile tube instead of when they're loaded into the ammo bin.'
Actually Mike this would be an electrical and / or electronic safety interlock that has to be over-ridden by the MechWarrior. They remove the arming limitation interlock by over-ridding it at the Fire Control. It couldn't be a mechanical safety interlock because you'd have to remove each and everyone while in the ammo bin. I do not think anyone would want to be marching around, not counting combat, with an ammo bin of hot ordnance reading to detonate.
An example is like our Mk 48 Torpedo and the Mk 48 ADCAP we use in the Submarine Fleet. The weapons have minimum range to arm. That's purely for safety of ship. It’s the same here for the LRMs. They have the minimum range to arm for safety of the ‘Mech. I know it would suck to have a full flight of LRMs do a come back on you right after firing because their gyros were bad or they had some really bad targeting data and you were selected as the target instead of firing platform!
|
Vapor
01/27/03 03:43 AM
202.128.73.148
|
In reply to:
Yeah, maybe they arm themselves when they move into the missile tube instead of when they're loaded into the ammo bin.
Actually, Maximum Tech specifically states that the missiles have to be armed before they are loaded in the ammo-bins (for 'Mechs). You have to specify whether or not the missiles are hot-loaded before the beginning of the scenario, and then you can't change that option after the scenario starts.
Vehicles are the exception to this because they have a crew member(s) who load the missiles into the racks, and they can arm the missiles before loading them into the racks. So with vehicles you can switch between hot-loaded and standard LRM's, or vice versa, at the end of a turn.
There isn't really any greater amount of danger in having hot-loaded LRM's in the ammo-bins of a 'Mech, simply because a hit to the ammo-bin is going to blow up any missiles in there, regardless of whether or not they are hot-loaded. The danger comes into play if the launcher gets hit. In that case, any hot-loaded missiles in the launcher blow up, destroying the launcher and dealing the regular amount of damage for exploded munitions to the launcher's location.
"For those about to rock, we salute you." - AC DC
"The evil that can come, from the heart of a man, must be answered in kind 'till it disappears, and we're safe." - Kansas
|
Bob_Richter
01/27/03 11:01 AM
4.35.174.250
|
-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
01/27/03 11:07 AM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>Bob, Eric is not man enough to admit he was wrong.<<<
Eh. What else is new?
I, on the other hand, was attempting to argue an unpopular point without evidence. Not very smart of me, eh?
Thanks for the save.
-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
01/27/03 11:08 AM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>The munchkin in me is perfectly fine with min-less CLRMs. It makes whupping up on you ugly spheroids that much more fun..... At least for me..... <<<
Have to agree there.
-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
01/27/03 11:19 AM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>I honestly think the Clan LRM's should of have a reduced minimum of 3 or 4 instead of none. <<<
I think they should have the full minimum range of 6. Clan LRMs are spiffy enough just being half the mass.
-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.
:)
|
SinOriginal
01/28/03 03:46 AM
158.222.228.186
|
I see why one would think the IS min range should be dropped, but its not like the game is unbalanced because of it. And remember you can always use your own level 3 rules. Also I see the IS working on all these new ammo types I'm sure research has been done into new LRMs but i doubt they would be in widespred testing, i think hands are full with new autocannons, lasers and MRMs. Still ppl bring up good points about how technology would be improving. But by the same token why hasn't the overall range of LRMs been increased, hmmm? Or the damage per missile. Why improve the current system? Why not create a new and more powerful one?
Oh and one last theory... it might be cost ineffective to rework the LRMs to not have a min range... but reworking them to have a shorter min and increasing the cost might be a plausible change to the game.
|
Greyslayer
01/28/03 06:46 PM
63.12.145.119
|
The game was not really designed for 'progression'. Weapon systems remain the same or they create new ones with different names. The IS could create LRMs with no or changed minimum ranges but going on their convention it would not be a standard LRM launcher but a new launcher (example ILRM Launcher I = Improved), the stats may be different for such things as weight, criticals and even how much ammo is available to the new weapon systems though essentially the weapon does a similar job (a example would be medium lasers and er medium lasers, they could not simple say that medium lasers naturally progressed). If they say did a 'time-line' jump then yes the Standard LRM launcher in a future time could be one without a minimum range or a Medium Laser with the basic stats similar to that of a ER Medium Laser, but because it is a progressive time-line it wouldn't work.
Greyslayer
|
TJHairball
02/06/03 06:52 PM
152.10.182.229
|
Yah. Clan LRMs having NO min range when IS LRMs and even clan ACs do is a bit cheesy.
|
Karagin
01/17/07 12:28 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Sorry the poll is old but we can still talking about this...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
sdog
01/21/07 01:37 PM
139.174.165.124
|
what was the result of the poll?
I realised soon that the fun part of playing a military game is that we have lots of lifes and in the end knowone dies, ...
- Skaven, ArmA modding community
|
Karagin
01/21/07 05:47 PM
70.123.166.36
|
It tied out.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Askhati
02/22/07 04:16 AM
155.232.128.10
|
The lack of a minimum range on the Clan LRM means that most people (and I speak under correction) will favour the LRM over the SRM (when building Clan) for the simple reason that the LRM has a much better range than the SRM, and no minimum range penalty to give the SRM a competitive edge.
Evolve or DIE!
|
Toontje
02/22/07 07:19 AM
131.155.85.19
|
ATM even better in that regard..
Rather to blow up, then.
|
NewPharoah_Max
02/23/07 03:09 PM
207.160.205.13
|
Quote:
The game was not really designed for 'progression'.
Total Warfare book p. 11 says "dynamic universe with progressing story lines".
Greetings to you too.
|
Karagin
02/23/07 11:27 PM
70.123.166.36
|
Progressing story line doesn't mean the tech changes or makes sense, it means it has an interesting and detailed universe that changes and keeps folks interested with it's rich background etc...
Also it's good to see that you have the new rule book, so you can see that LAMs are dead as far as normal play is concered. Good luck getting Randal to change that.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Toontje
02/24/07 02:33 PM
84.31.236.100
|
I think in upcoming 3039 it is shown nicely with the HK missiles; A small chance, then another change that nullifies the previous change. (as from the preview)
Thus all statistics remain the same. The universe may change, tech may even change, but the net effect on the battlefield is negligable.
Also, do not forget the production standpoint; produce well standardised equipment, or experiment on your own, with a risk of losing 20-30% of your market share due to incompatibility. And with the vastness of the IS, the momentum of set standards is huge.
Rather to blow up, then.
|
Sasuga
11/21/16 12:32 PM
99.108.227.57
|
The IS LRM Minimum is not a matter of technology. The IS LRM Minimum is a matter of mentality. The clanners are not concerned about being shot in the back by an ally, while the IS is.
The IS do have better trained pilots at the time of the invasion, that was a major part of how they halted the clan invasion in the first place... But not all IS pilots are as well trained as those experts who brought the clans to a stand-still. Those experts were brought together for that purpose (well, there was some luck involved too, initially... the grand story is a bit more, but keeping this simple.)
The outer planets did not have as well trained pilots, and the IS is always bringing in new pilots to replace old ones. The clan assumes every pilot has been put through years and years of training, which they have since birth, and thus knows how to use their weapons properly. (Really, the clan pilots should be better trained, but the game usually gives IS better pilots to balance out for the tech. - You could argue the clan became dependent on their tech, or whatever. Also, the clan mentality was to fight in small groups or even solo pilots vs. small groups or solo pilots in an open field. Sort of like the British vs. the Americans in the revolutionary war. Anyway....)
So, the IS doesn't want the LRMs to blow up on allies, so they set a minimum range into them. It actually requires a little bit more technology to put that distance tracker inside the rockets then it does for clanners who don't use it.
I seem to recall there being advanced rules somewhere for "Hot-Firing" LRMs, even as IS. I would think you'd have to modify the ammo before battle (in the Battletech Universe anyway. In Real life, Mechs would likely carry few missiles instead of bunches, and the missiles would be super accurate like Javalins and probably take most Mechs out in one hit, or two.)
|
Cray
11/22/16 06:19 PM
72.189.109.30
|
Quote:
Sasuga writes:
The IS LRM Minimum is not a matter of technology. The IS LRM Minimum is a matter of mentality. The clanners are not concerned about being shot in the back by an ally, while the IS is.
It is a matter of technology. The Inner Sphere struggled to reduce the minimum range of LRMs with the Enhanced LRM, which only could drop the minimum range to 3 with "more sophisticated arming mechanisms to improve its targeting and tracking in close combat." --see p. 326 Tactical Operations.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
ghostrider
11/23/16 01:16 AM
66.74.61.223
|
This goes back to the question of whether innersphere and clan munitions can be used in the others weapons. I have not seen where they say definitively either is correct. This may have been addressed, and I forgot it, but there is issues with how things work in the game because of it.
In the novels, video games, and adventure packs, they have raids on enemy depots. If the tech is different, then why bother trying to take much from the depot? Just destroy it.
The lrms is a good example of this.
The clan launchers are half the weight due to advance construction and materials in them, yet they use the same sized munitions, otherwise the shots per ton would be different. It is suggested that they have used IS munitions in them without any modification needed. So is it the launcher that does this, or did they leave a gaping hole in the rules?
Had the same questions about cannon ammo. The clans go further, yet they supposedly use the same munitions as the IS. The IS raided the munitions of the clans but without the clan weapons, the shots didn't go as far? I will grant some leeway with targeting factors, but the munitions determine range, not the firing unit. The one exception is the gauss line of weapons, as the magnetic coils provide the power to send the shot out, not the propellant used by cannon shells.
As for the accuracy issue, we had a talk about that. Basically, if the game used real life munitions, there would be no need for mechs, as they would not survived landing on a planet for long. Every gun that could reach them would destroy them and the drop ship before they even debarked.
Best guess is they basically made bottle rockets to save on costs. Same with the rest of the weapons. But that was in another thread.
So how much damage does an explosive tipped arrow do to mech armor?
|
Drasnighta
11/23/16 01:39 PM
79.141.163.14
|
In one of the RPGs, I saw it fell an AS7-D......
Of course, it was one of those situations where the percentile said it did 1 point of BT Scale damage... Then proceeded to Roll a Hit Location of 2... 12 for Criticals, and blow out 3 Engines....
But, Y.know.
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
|