general weapons discussions

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
ghostrider
03/31/16 11:56 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I have said multiple times, the last rule books I got were from the clan era.
But I guess the issues that were there from the beginning are no longer there.
Oh wait. It seems those issues are there, even with some rule changes.

But yet that can't be right.

Now as for suggesting I buy the new rules. Feel free to purchase them as economy math has my purchases on hold.
Mainly money in does not meet or exceed money out at this time.
And when it changes, I still don't think I will be getting the newer rules as they will change them in 6 months, or change the whole rpg in that time. The constant money drains for little new material has burned me on buying the newer material.
I've said that before as well.

Since everything has changed that means there is nothing I can or have contributed matters. So make sure you find the ignore function, as I will still put in comments as I see might help, though they will probably upset someone.
Akalabeth
04/01/16 12:43 AM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You've admitted that you haven't bought any rulebooks since 1999, 17 years ago, When Mechwarrior 3e was published.
So the statement "constant money drains for little new material" doesn't really seem to have relevance.

Regardless, no one is suggesting that you don't contribute. However, when you contribute to a thread while being willfully ignorant of how things are working it's frankly hard to take your contribution as meaningful.

Case in point:
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
As I am too lazy to look up the stats for mortars, and don't have the books, I would think an existing system could work for what he wants done . . . Not knowing the weight of the weapon itself makes it hard to suggest alternate weapons that would work with it.



Furthermore, I think it's rather flippant to suggest someone gift you the rulebooks when you can't be bothered to look up free information.

I don't think your comments upset anyone, but I don't think they contribute much either. Ultimately this forum is meant to be a discussion of the game and all it entails and that discussion is based on the premise that its contributors have a contemporary understanding of the rules. All too often I find that replies to your comments are not discussing rules or material within the game, but rather explaining it. Explaining rules and information which you yourself haven't demonstrated any desire to find out for yourself. And if an individual isn't spending their own time, energy or money finding answers to their questions when many of those answers are readily available at the barest of minimums, then what value is there in trying to teach them?
ghostrider
04/01/16 02:24 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Did I miss a few posts where others have said some of the new materials that came out offered little in the way of new materials? That is not the case all the time, but at that time, it seemed very relevant. Not everyone makes 40,000 plus a year.

And you suggest I ask for rules all of the time, and suggest I buy the new books, yet think it is flippant of me to say I can't afford them at this time. Yet you don't see the issue with that? Best reread that as I said feel free to do so, not asking please buy them. Though I did miss the part where I asked to have you send it to me. Guess that should be said now.

Now as for replies to my comments asking about rule changes. First off, being willfully ignorant asking for updates on things I can't find in the wiki when I do search it sounds a little pointed. The example of the mortars is more asking to post the weights of such things in the stats listing, as the megamek program does not list those stats. Also when you suggest a chopper unit, that normally means rotor above the main body. Now without the stats, I pointed out I could not make an alternate suggestion.
Some things have come up with new ideas that requires a little more back ground. If you are not asking questions, then I will.

Now could you explain how asking for clarification of the rules is not discussing them? I looked up several rules in the wiki and only got the books they are in, not the actual rules. Might be I am not using the search function correctly.

Now explain barest of minimums. That sounds like you are suggestion my financial obligations of paying mortgage, electric and such should take a back seat to a 'cheap' book. And saying there is no value of trying to teach anyone about them? That sounds like you don't care that others do not know everything there is to know about the site or the game. Someone new comes on with a classic battle tech book not knowing it is dated compared to what is out there, and you suggest with this statement they shouldn't be here?

I have not seen some much explaining the rules on it's own, except when I ask if it has changed.

And last. Is it not better to have the rules put up so all can see it, incase others do not have access to them? Guess not. Try typing in strafe in the wiki search and see if it gives you the rules for a strafe. Maybe it will actually put up the rules for you. It didn't for me.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/01/16 11:35 AM
70.122.160.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I don't own the latest books and I don't have to much of a problem of learning the newest rules. Its not like the rules change all that much. That's why I feel no need to go out and buy the latest copies of the most resent printing of the game rules.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Akalabeth
04/01/16 08:44 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

And last. Is it not better to have the rules put up so all can see it, incase others do not have access to them? Guess not. Try typing in strafe in the wiki search and see if it gives you the rules for a strafe. Maybe it will actually put up the rules for you. It didn't for me.



If you choose not to buy the rules based on something that happened 17 years ago that's fine. All I'm saying is that if you're someone who likes to regularly discuss the game in all its details, or discussing the implication of certain rules, then having a contemporary understanding of at least the core game would help you make informed contributions to the discussions. And the quickest and most complete way to obtain that understanding is by reading the rules themselves, and failing that, searching the wiki for what information is available on devices such as Mech Mortars (which by the way, pre-date Mechwarrior 3e having first been printed in the Tactical Handbook (1994), or failing that Maxtech in 1997).
Karagin
04/01/16 10:54 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So discussing the game in detail means you should have the books? That is odd because the level of detail covers a lot of things.

I have played BT with folks who are still using the Rules of Warfare as their rule set. Others who allow all things from the Tactical Handbook, but won't allow anything from MaxTech. All groups play differently, and as it has been said around here no one plays the game wrong just different.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
04/01/16 11:59 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ok. So they changed strafing and some infantry damage. Except for some of the new items, what else has changed?
Last book I bought was the 3067 tro as well as the record sheets. Seeing some of the things it had, it seemed the game has gone backwards with tech that was supposed to be leading edge for the time. Rocket launchers is NOT a step forward.

I have not seen the newer books since then, as I have not found a good hobby store that carried anything other then gurps or some games like that. Kind of difficult to get the books when the hobby stores tended to not have them. And that was before I got into the internet, as the games I was playing on the pc was keeping me occupied.

The first I heard of some of the newer things coming out were from items I was told was non canon. That seems to have been the wrong information, but at the time, I had the rule set that was fine and fun to play with. I still used advanced dungeons and dragons rules as the newer ones didn't appeal to me.

But back to the 'core' rules. Not sure if you know this, but having the new rules does not make someone have a contemporary understanding of the game like someone that has played if for over 30 years. I may not know the latest out, but I do know alot of the game by playing it. I did not play the battle droids version of it, so I don't know much about it.

So the mech mortar is nothing more then a new name for mortars and as the wiki doesn't seem to have the rules for using them, finding out how to use them would mean ASKING someone. I find it unusual to see a weapon that is fired like artillery would be used in the fluid battlefields against mechs. But direct fire would probably change that.
And I find it a cheap get around for the ams system. The ams would engage lrms fired indirectly, but not the mortar?
Or did that get changed in the 16 plus years?

lets move this part of the discussion to off topic.


Edited by ghostrider (04/02/16 01:13 AM)
Akalabeth
04/02/16 03:48 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

So discussing the game in detail means you should have the books?



No. Discussing anything means you should probably know SOMETHING about what you're discussing. And you know something about what is being discussed by owning those books or at least having read a friend's copy.
Karagin
04/02/16 04:39 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Sounds like Ghostrider does a pretty good job of knowing what he is talking about and adjusts things as it goes along. And given that many own the books and have no clue as to what is going on means that you can still talk about the universe, the rules, the mechs etc...

See, I find out that my father, before he passed away, liked Shadowrun novels, but could careless about the game, you see I started to talk about the universe and game with him and he was like uhmm don't care about the game, the novels are enough for me. Did that stop us from talking about it? No, it actually got me to go back and re-read the novels again. Point being that you can talk about things without owning all the books. And again playing the game doesn't require you having the newest rule set at all. And if you, Akalabeth, find it hard to answer his questions or are tired of them, then ignore the questions and only comment on the other stuff, that would be simple and easy right? Then again do what you want which is another option as well.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akalabeth
04/02/16 04:15 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yeah, I get it Karagin. You like to be the contrarian. Bravo.

Anyway no use helping those who aren't willing to help themselves. If a person isn't intending to ever upgrade their ruleset, don't really see the value in explaining it to them. Because even explained piecemeal, a person will never be able to learn & memorize the rules as they are.
ghostrider
04/02/16 08:40 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So you are trying to get this particular thread shut down for some reason, with statements that seem to mean no one learns anything, they just need to keep the books around to look up information.

Does your games make one move. Look up the rules. Make another move. Look up the rules?
This is starting to look like you believe (at least for myself) no one can learn anything from having it explained to them, without having the source material sitting next to them.

I understand the beginning of this whole thing started from a little side joke. Then the response must have struck a nerve.

Not having the new rules, and being un able to learn, would mean infantry doesn't take one point of damage from most weapons except mgs/flamers and from the looks of it plasma cannons. Since I don't have the books and am not able to retain information given to me, I guess that means that is impossible.

I would also take it, you would never allow a new player into your group, as they don't know everything at that point.
As Karagin suggested, it is time to let this go.

I guess that means I don't know math, science and other such stuff as the only books I have about alot of that is from the mid 80's when I got out of high school.
And with your reference, you seem to imply all on the boards have this same issue. Unless you have the newest math book then you can't remember 2+2=4.
And yes, there are some that have long proofs to suggest they don't. That is the exception as the school answer remains what most grade on.
ghostrider
04/02/16 10:40 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
now aside from the other discussion, I have noticed the plasma cannon entry on the wiki does not state weither the cannon ignites hexes nor does it say if it is like an inferno and destroys vehicles that miss their rolls.

Also I didn't see any additional information if it takes a critical hit. If the ammunition takes a hit, does it do normal damage plus heat damage?
Nor is there anything about if it adds to the piloting role for 20+ points of damage, but specifically states it does NOT have much kinetic impact.
So with the exception of the loss of armor, being hit with an ac 10 and a plasma shot, you would not have the 20+ addition to the role?


Thought after posting original questions.
With the lack of kinetic force, does that mean it would not work in space battles?
I didn't say any limitations to it in the wiki.


Edited by ghostrider (04/02/16 10:48 PM)
Akalabeth
04/02/16 10:52 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Am I questioning a person's intelligence when I say that I doubt they can remember 250 pages worth of rules?
A person who reads the rules cover to cover five times over won't memorize everything. A rulebook that large is kept on-hand during gameplay as a reference. Our group has 4 people who have been playing for decades and with some rules like buildings and other seldom-used rules it's normal that the rulebook is referenced at least once or more a play session. Add in Tactical Operations and the number of rules blossoms from 250 to about 550 pages.

A person who learns the information piecemeal, in a hundred different conversations will never understand the new rulebook. Ever. The only way they possibly could is if they copied each thing they learned and basically re-created the rulebook piecemeal over years and years and even then they wouldn't have the rules word for word as most people who told them would put it into their own words, invariably sometimes inaccurately.

So it's pointless. Absolutely pointless.

If you want to know about Plasma cannons. BUY THE BOOK. And read it for yourself. And then come back here and discuss it.
ghostrider
04/02/16 11:39 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Last time on the book argument.
First off. Why would you need to remember 250 to 550 pages of a rule book? Most of it is the same stuff that was in the last 2 books. So only having to remember the new stuff is needed.

Second. Your assumption of seldom used rules such as buildings only comes from the narrow game play your group seems to do. Placing the overpowered units on the field to create a grand melee for the clans is fine for you and your group. You accused others of forcing their views on what was labeled as power gamers, is the same thing you are ORDERING on others.

I looked up plasma cannon on the wiki. Are you saying it is not accurate for the entry?
Is it not the canon entry from the books, while avoiding copyright issues?

You have berated others for the very actions you are doing yourself. I understand the developers need to make money. If it is so pointless to inform others about the game, then I would suggest you stop trying to. This board is to find out information about the game and share ideas. I don't remember seeing anything about having to own a single book to be on the site, nor has there been anything saying you can not ask questions about things you don't have the information for.

Or did I miss something about why the board is here?
Akalabeth
04/03/16 01:19 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

I understand the developers need to make money. If it is so pointless to inform others about the game, then I would suggest you stop trying to.



You understand that the developers need to make money yet you're not prepared to spend any. You stated that even if you had money you wouldn't buy the new rulebooks.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:

And when it changes, I still don't think I will be getting the newer rules as they will change them in 6 months, or change the whole rpg in that time . . . I've said that before as well.




As I said. It's pointless to help people who have no intention of helping themselves.
If someone is a prospective player and wants to learn about the game, then nearly any player would give them a helping hand with a confusion or what book to buy or how to best spend their money. But if someone says he has no interest in buying the books but wants to know every detail then few people will continue to provide answers but if someone wants to tell you about strafing, plasma cannons, HAGs, MRMs, Rocket Launchers, Mechanical Jump Boosters, Jungle, Lava, Low Gravity, Improve Heavy Lasers, Quad Vees, Land-Air Mechs etcetera then they can go ahead.
FrabbyModerator
04/03/16 10:39 AM
87.164.133.203

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Moderator warning: This thread is skirting the line of personal attacks. Calm down everyone. Discuss rules, facts or opinions, but not people.
ghostrider
04/03/16 12:17 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
This is why I tried to move the discussion to another thread. There are questions in here, I still would like to hear from others on their take on things.

Like the questions about the plasma cannon. I would have thought the game information would be under the heading, but it is possible those questions were not answered. Other questions are still looking for answers. With some, I hope the developers decide to get answers to, or maybe prompt some more ideas.

Might be a false hope, but oh well.
ghostrider
04/14/16 01:11 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Are they ever going to upgrade machineguns with ultra or rotary models?
It seems unusual that even half ton of mg ammo would never get used in combat, unless you have an mg machine with massed mgs.
Even a quarter ton of ammo seems excessive for most machines.

Maybe a rapid firing shotgun might burn thru ammo a little faster.
Or use it for ams systems.
Drasnighta
04/14/16 01:20 PM
198.53.98.65

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
A couple of times, there were optional rules presented for modified Machine Guns to fire multiple D6 shots instead of the standard 1 bullet... But it burned up 3x (?) the Ammunition, and did Shots-as-Heat at the same time...
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
ghostrider
04/14/16 03:24 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Maybe new mgs with ammo variants, like phosphorous shots doing more damage against unarmored infantry.
Or larger calibur rounds. Possibly explosive or higher grain packed for some extra range. Make the gun specific to the alternate rounds, and lower the actual number per ton.

If people think it might increase the power of it too much, you could cause some heat from using them.

Still. The light mg and heavy mgs are a start for doing something with it, but I think it could go further then that.
ghostrider
04/21/16 12:35 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The discussion of munitions cost came up in a conversation, and lead to a simple question.
Wouldn't a planetary leader worth his weight do what ever is needed to make munitions for the weapons his forces use?

The cost for those munitions would drop dramatically, as well as avoid relying on dropship deliveries.
Even anyone that is a successful merc tends to invest in a munitions factory.
Even something as simple as using the repairbays/workshops to make it when not being used otherwise should be the rule.
Yes, I understand getting some of the supplies is not as easy as that, but it does not make sense to not try.
ghostrider
04/21/16 12:10 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Another thought on the prices of ballistic weapons.
Why is it, the cost of energy weapons is lower then something that can be made in more locations and faster then the high tech, hard to make energy weapons?

The large laser is 100k, while an ac 10 is 200k. Not sure if anyone else has gotten this impression, but I believe the game implies planetary defenses would use more ballistic weapons, with lrms mixed in, then energy weapons. Yet I see more units, and no, towers do not show up in the designs, that use energy weapons as ballistics are so heavy and run out of ammo. The group I play with tends to use energy weapons in their towers.
Then the cost of ammo. They are too expensive to buy over lasers and cost so much to restock the ammo.

The main munitions weapons I do see alot are missiles. Lrms and srms. I can understand the fancy variants being higher cost, but the basic 2,5,10, 20 models of cannons and ammo seem high. The cost of ammo seems to be about right though to try and get more cannons in use, might need a small tweak down.

We know the developers will not drop the weights for them. Or increase the amount of shots per ton. But the price is something that could be altered to encourage their use. Granted not many bother with the prices when designing their units, and even if they do, energy weapons whip ballistics across the battle field.

An additional thought. The use of energy weapons in towers also tends to have fusion engines instead of ICEs in use. This also seems to go against the idea of fusion engines are supposed to be in limited supply.
Akalabeth
04/21/16 10:53 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If you want lasers to be more expensive, require them to be imported on-world and impose a premium which inflates their cost. Or conversely, apply a cost reduction for locally-produced weaponry. If maintenance need be imported, its cost can be inflated as well.

A large laser further doesn't simply cost 100K. There is also the cost of heat sinks and power amplifiers, or alternatively, the price of a fusion engine.

Tonnage-wise, a large Laser with appropriate heat sinks and power amps is 13.5 tons compared to 13 tons for an AC/10 with a ton of ammunition.
ghostrider
04/22/16 01:07 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
With the use of more and more fusion engines in everything, the heat sinks isn't much of an issue.
But when it comes down to it, more people would use the laser since it doesn't run out of shots. So when you have an 11 to roll, as long as you don't have the heat, the laser will fire constantly, while the canon will hold fire or run out of ammunition without doing to much on the average rolls.

And with anything other the vehicles and towers, the ac needs to add in sinks as well. So the 13 tons now because 16 tons.
This does not count the fusion engines sinks, so unless other weapons are present, this does stay at 13 tons.

I wasn't trying to increase the laser costs, but decrease the ac's cost. All of the normal ac's, not the gauss or ultra/lbx cannons . They are still new enough that normal shops should not be pumping them out.
Akalabeth
04/22/16 02:28 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Large Lasers pre-date the Autocannon/10's introduction by 30 years.
Both weaponry are Tech Rating C

If the Autocannon costs more than a Large Laser, it is likely because it weighs 12 tons compared to the Laser's 5.
It's only 200% the cost while being 240% the weight.

Put another way
The Autocannon/10 costs 16,666 c-bills per ton
The Large Laser costs 20,000 c-bills per ton

So in terms of material costs, the Autocannon already IS cheaper.
ghostrider
04/22/16 10:29 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
For some reason, I would figure different size cannons would predate lasers.
If they have any basis in history, we have most of those cannons today.

The cost per ton is part of the issue, but the lack of manufacturers that can build lasers with the demand as well as the limited resources that are used in them should mean the cannons are cheaper the lasers. The cannons have some specs that mean skills to make, but they can be made anywhere, verse lasers having to have a higher tech base and even more skills to make it.
The large laser/ac 10 comparison is just an example. The ac 5 would have have been around longer then lasers in the game, though in the history both came out in the same boxed set. 125k for the 5.
Mech armor is 10k per ton for normal armor. That is highly specialized manufacturing using as they describe it monoflilament diamonds. This makes you wonder why hardened steel cost so much more.

With the newer weapons out, the er large laser finally compares to the normal ac 10. All the rest are still under it. The sheer numbers of cannons in the system should suggest they be cheaper, yet still aren't. The newer cannons go thru the roof in prices.
Given a little training and some equipment, any gunsmith could build a cannon. Not fun or easy, but they could. That can not be said for lasers. They require alot more specialize equipment and training as well as items you could not get on the market. Even the casings would be made of the high end metals.
But this is not trying to get energy weapons costing more.
Akalabeth
04/22/16 02:03 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
What limited manufacturers?

Look at how many people build the AC/5
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon/5

Look at how many people build the medium laser
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Medium_Laser

Lost count but what, 70+? Compared to 9 for the AC/5?


Howabout the Large Laser?
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Large_Laser

21 manufacturers.

AC/10?
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon/10

13 manufacturers.


You're basing your understanding of the game on your pre-conceptions, not on information within the game itself. Lasers are high-tech to you today, ballistic guns are not, therefore battletech lasers must be higher tech than battletech ballistics. This is not really the case.

Battletech is pretty much a science-fantasy game with a bit of techno gargon thrown on top to make things sound believable but it's a game first before a simulation. I don't think it was ever intended to be fleshed out as big as it has been over the years and those initial ideas are now so laden with history that I don't think they can be moved or shifted. TPTB have demonstrated a willingness to adjust the rules, but not to adjust the units themselves. There's very little within the game that actually makes a lot of sense.

You really ought to take a look at a game like Heavy Gear. It's a universe which endorses many of your ideas about what battletech should be. Gears are more realistic than mechs, Lasers are high tech and rare, vehicle cost is based on availability, main battle tanks are extremely potent, machines have more real-world sort of loadouts, etcetera. The only thing really suspect is their Land battleships, but that just has the cool factor.

DavidG
04/23/16 08:18 PM
96.28.54.229

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Well, here is a design from WWII for a German Land Cruiser. Check out how large it was to be. It was to mount twin 11" guns in a turret. This is the same as the German Battle cruisers and Pocket Battleships, but with only 2 guns instead of 3. The Germans were actually considering building this. Attachment (178 downloads)
Akalabeth
04/23/16 09:19 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Well the heavy gear landships are more like wet navy ships than super heavy tanks.

Instead of a tank mounting guns from the Gneissau class, it would just be the actual gneissau class.

Here's some rabid fan's re-creation of one such landship:
http://www.starshipmodeler.org/gallery6/se_vig.htm


Never the less, yeah some of these german super projects are pretty cool. Though I'm sure this tank would got taken apart by Typhoons or the yank equivalent.

ghostrider
05/15/16 04:39 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The idea came up while thinking about streaks and how they work.
Shouldn't the streaks hit the same location on a unit?
Ie all hit the left arm or right leg.
As they lock onto the unit, I would think it is that specific part of the unit as well.
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
Extra information
2 registered and 30 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is enabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 48353


Contact Admins Sarna.net