ghostrider
02/10/14 11:27 PM
24.30.128.72
|
I am making this thread so we can talk about weapons and issues dealing with other threads to avoid threadjacking them anymore. Doubt it will do much to stop it, but it's worth a try.
|
ghostrider
02/16/14 03:20 PM
24.30.128.72
|
this would be a good area to start the infantry supporting mechs or the other way around arguement. or clans ideas on fighting or anything else of that nature. either that or nic needs to rename designs to designs and arguements about the uses of anything in there.
|
Karagin
02/16/14 03:34 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Discussions will swing in all directions in the topics, no telling where they will go and until they do it is hard to say hey only this or that can be talked about in the design threads.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
02/16/14 05:26 PM
24.30.128.72
|
that is why I put this one up. So there is no threadjacking. Talk about your cats funny faces without going off topic here. or maybe I should have called it no thread jacking possible, all topics covered? 
|
Karagin
02/16/14 07:47 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Thread jacking happens whether or not it was point or purpose. The point I am going for is that many of the side convos that happen are going to happen for one reason or another and to those talking about them they are important or have become important.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
02/24/14 08:30 PM
24.30.128.72
|
KF cores don't work very well in a gravity field. In fact, the jump automatically fails. See DropShips & JumpShips (pub. 1988) or Strategic Operations p. 86-88.
This was in another thread, but I would like to know more about some issues with it, and not want to threadjack.
With this statement, this would mean that there are no pirate points inside a system.
There have been numerous times that forces used a pirate point close to a planet that was used in raids. I believe the kell hounds used it in the original scenario pack to jump to harrows sun to rescue prince Ian davion.
Damn. Im gonna have to pull the books out of storage, since I believe in the wolfs dragoons they used a pirate point to hit the capellans in one of their strikes.
I think they used an in system pirate point to hit the mac during the invasion of sarna. I believe that is in the 4th succession war books. Not the novels, but the actual book that explains the war and has a few scenarios in it.
|
Karagin
02/24/14 09:37 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Pirate points have long been part of the BT norm...as for the rules changing the fiction well that is a bit harder to go with, but if the PTB want to do so they will.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
02/25/14 12:05 AM
24.30.128.72
|
I am under the impression that alot of the battle tech history comes from the staff actually fighting some of the battles wiether during beta testing or other times. I would like to have some of the impossible for players to do things to be eliminated from the game.
Seeing some information on the partial wings is annoying.
The extra movement for a mech flying in the air, makes it harder to hit then a strafing aerof fighter? How does that work?
The aerofighter moves a full maps worth for a single thrust point. How can a mech moving less then that be harder to hit? Yeah, I understand striaght lines being a possible solution, but based on speed, this should not be possible.
|
Cray
02/25/14 06:54 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
Quote:
KF cores don't work very well in a gravity field. In fact, the jump automatically fails. See DropShips & JumpShips (pub. 1988) or Strategic Operations p. 86-88.
This was in another thread, but I would like to know more about some issues with it, and not want to threadjack.
With this statement, this would mean that there are no pirate points inside a system.
Good catch, but not correct. The pirate points inside a system are near to Lagrange-1 points, where the gravity of two bodies sufficiently cancel each other to create a small, valid jump point.
I say pirate points are "near" L1 jump points because true Lagrange points are creations of centripetal force and gravity. Only a place near the L1 point actually sees gravity cancelled by two bodies when you deduct centripetal force. Meanwhile, L2 through L5 add up gravity in the same or non-canceling directions and are only stable for orbits because of centripetal force. Hyperspace fields ignore centripetal force, and L2 and L5 don't have any purely gravity-cancelled spots nearby, so they don't have valid jump points.
Transient points, meanwhile, are pirate points where a third (or more) bodies occasionally raise the gravity of a pirate point to the level where it isn't a valid jump point anymore. For example, Ganymede and Jupiter might form a valid jump point near the Jovian-Ganymede L1 point, but when Europa or Callisto blunder past the gravity levels would raise too high to be a jump point.
See Explorer Corps, AT2R, and most recently Strategic Operations p. 86, 88, 133-135 for discussions on finding pirate points as related to Lagrange points.
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.
Edited by Cray (02/25/14 07:06 PM)
|
Cray
02/25/14 06:57 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
Pirate points have long been part of the BT norm...as for the rules changing the fiction well that is a bit harder to go with, but if the PTB want to do so they will.
Nope, pirate points didn't go away and their description hasn't changed since FASA. FASA's Explorer Corps introduced the notion that they were at Lagrange points, which fits DropShips & JumpShip's description of jump points as being regions with sufficiently low gravity for hyperspace fields to form correctly. AT2R and Strategic Operations stuck very carefully by those descriptions of jump points (and pirate points).
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
03/02/14 11:39 PM
24.30.128.72
|
still didn't get an answer about when they change damage to infantry.
When did they change weapon damage to them to one point for any weapon besides mgs/flamers??
|
Karagin
03/02/14 11:44 PM
70.118.139.48
|
When the need CORE rule books came out.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
03/02/14 11:46 PM
24.30.128.72
|
is that new core rule books?
Is that the last set to come out?
|
Karagin
03/02/14 11:49 PM
70.118.139.48
|
The CORE books are series of rule books that is trying to put every rule for BT in to these books to prevent things like additions rules from popping up (for the most part) in other sourcebooks etc...last count was at 5.
As far as I know this is the ONLY rule set that is out with the normal errata changes to fix things etc...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
03/03/14 06:21 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
When did they change weapon damage to them to one point for any weapon besides mgs/flamers??
Its not 1 point per weapon. It depends on the weapon, as listed in Total Warfare p. 216, "Non-Infantry Weapon Damage Against Infantry Table."
Direct fire (ballistic or energy) does damage / 10, rounded up.
Cluster-firing ballistic weapons do (damage /10), rounded up, +1.
Cluster (missile) does damage/5, rounded up.
Area effect does Damage / 0.5, rounded up (i.e., doubled).
Burst fire and heat effect weapons are handled separately.
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
03/03/14 07:27 PM
66.27.181.33
|
so an ac 10 does 1 point while a 20 does 2?
To me the old way that a weapon does its normal damage to unarmored infantry on a successful hit makes more sense.
This new formula doesn't seem to make sense.
|
Retry
03/03/14 07:51 PM
67.239.109.174
|
The old way?
When AC/2s, the massively overtonnaged machineguns, killed a handful out of time, while the AC/20, the new low RoF essentially main gun, kills infantry in droves?
Let's not forget how the old system made the Machine Gun one of the worst infantry killers in the game.
Edited by Retry (03/03/14 07:53 PM)
|
ghostrider
03/03/14 08:25 PM
66.27.181.33
|
not really. It still did the 2d6. It just wasn't a ranged weapon.
And remember, that was on a successful hit. Just hitting the hex didn't do it for anything but artillery.
Since the introduction of the ultras, it has become more difficult to survive as an assault infantry. Same with the newer energy weapons.
The return of armored infantry would push that back the other way. Not talking elemental armor here, which really pushed back the damage infantry can take.
Armored infantry could cut the casualties down, but it does mean spending money and resources to do so. Even the battle armor has went that direction.
Does the definition of an autocannon still say it fires a burst of rounds at a target?
Would sweeping a laser across an infantry pack mean the beam meant to destory hardened steel would not cut through a person with ease?
It is very stupid to say that is no longer does the same thing it did because we need infantry to live longer to make money off the novels, that aren't canon, but yet we get royalties from it?
|
ghostrider
03/03/14 08:30 PM
66.27.181.33
|
thinking about it, they could have kept the damage, but just made hitting infantry that much harder.
|
Retry
03/03/14 08:35 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Same goes to you, a successful hit. Even the lowly AC/20 didn't have to be nearly point blank to hit an infantry platoon. The MG is only accurate at range 1 and rapidly deteriorates from there so it still sucked. While everything from the ML to the LL to the... well, everything outperformed a MG at anti-infantry.
The definition of an autocannon still says it fires bursts of rounds. But the bigger autocannons fire less rounds, the smaller ones fire more, in general. So how would it make sense for the larger autocannons to deal more damage to infantry.
One does not simply multi-hit infantry with a laser. Mechwarrior:Living Legends is a FPS/sim that shows that well. Though the targets are BA, it's difficult to hit not just a jumpjetting BA, but even a running/walking one, and standing ones take a couple seconds to focus your crosshairs over it because it is SMALL!
|
ghostrider
03/03/14 09:45 PM
66.27.181.33
|
mg has a short range of 2.. in real life, yeah the it isn't as accurate at 60 meters as it is at 30...
Now. Do ac rounds have explosive tips causing them to go boom?
I would think more explosives in the larger rounds. More shrapnel spread.
Why do you need to do much focusing of a laser on something as soft as a person? I can see burning steel at 4000 degrees plus. You can boil human much faster. And the beam for even a small laser is not as small as a laser pointer.
Now without official ruling, I would think it was as large as your forearm is around.
Does the mechwarrior living legend show how you can miss a 30 foot unit standing 30 meters away from you? I wont even bother asking if its canon.
A simple sweep of the laser across the fleshy targets should be enough to wipe them out.
Really. How long do you have to hold a laser pistol or rifle on a person to kill them?
A small vehicle laser is much more intense.
|
ghostrider
03/03/14 09:58 PM
66.27.181.33
|
Did they change the rules of having only 2 friendly units in a single zone unless in buildings?
|
KamikazeJohnson
03/03/14 10:01 PM
50.72.218.68
|
Quote:
Did they change the rules of having only 2 friendly units in a single zone unless in buildings?
I believe that is the same: up to 2 units per side, no more than 1 can be a 'Mech
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
ghostrider
03/03/14 10:20 PM
66.27.181.33
|
was thinking more along platoons of infantry.
I know the mech thing has exceptions, but that isnt important. Just wondering about a regiment of infantry.
|
KamikazeJohnson
03/03/14 10:24 PM
50.72.218.68
|
Quote:
was thinking more along platoons of infantry.
I know the mech thing has exceptions, but that isnt important. Just wondering about a regiment of infantry.
Rule still holds...2 platoons per side.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
ghostrider
03/03/14 10:26 PM
66.27.181.33
|
thanks for the info. It solves an issue that has been bugging me since I seen a scenario about it.
|
ghostrider
03/04/14 06:40 AM
66.27.181.33
|
Damn answer has now brought up another question about infantry and limits.
Did they change the way infantry is structured?
a squad of 7 infantry is supposed to be the equivalent of a vehicle or mech in the structure of a unit. But damage from infantry is set up from a platoon standpoint, ie equal to a lance.
Would this not violate the 2 unit stacking rule, since a platoon is equal to 4 squads?
|
Cray
03/04/14 06:50 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
so an ac 10 does 1 point while a 20 does 2?
To me the old way that a weapon does its normal damage to unarmored infantry on a successful hit makes more sense.
This new formula doesn't seem to make sense.
BattleTech infantry units aren't a little cluster of dudes standing shield-to-shield like Roman infantry or shoulder-to-shoulder like continental-style musketeers. They're soldiers who have about 1100 to 1200 years of warfare with machine guns and artillery. So, they spread out across the entirety of a hex 100 feet across and covering a quarter acre.
Autocannons, meanwhile, mostly fire inert, hyper-velocity penetrators that don't make huge blasts. Weapons like the MechBuster's AC/20 only fire 4 or 5 depleted uranium darts.
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
03/04/14 07:03 PM
66.27.181.33
|
I understand that with the gauss rifle slug. A single non explosive piece of metal.
Now I don't know if its hollywood, but most of the time I see soldiers doing anything they are within 10 meters or so, if that far. I would also expect them to be semi close, otherwise you start running into the not concentrated enough to damage something.
And when you start talking about platoons of 28 men to companies, this means more compact or they are way over a single hex.
As I said, changing the rules now, would mean the entire history of warfare would be different then it is. A lance of mechs would not be able to clear a town of infantry without destroying it under these rules. That changes the outcome of sooo many campaigns.
I would like to know if they consider a platoon of infantry one unit, or is it 4 squads in it.
|
Cray
03/04/14 07:12 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
I understand that with the gauss rifle slug. A single non explosive piece of metal.
Now I don't know if its hollywood, but most of the time I see soldiers doing anything they are within 10 meters or so, if that far.
Its Hollywood. In BT, the rules (p. 215 TW) explicitly state, "Unlike other units, conventional infantry are spread across a hex, with each man finding maximum protection using the terrain. This means that damage from a single weapon does not magically transfer from one trooper to the next; that is, the infantry unit does not simply take damage equal to the weapon’s damage value."
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
03/04/14 07:29 PM
66.27.181.33
|
Do they still take double damage in the open?
And why would cluster rounds do double the weapon size of damage, when is it scattered shots in a confined area. An lb10x cluster shot would not cover the entire hex. Even if fired at extreme range is shouldn't.
And if it does, why shoot the infantry when the hex is easier to hit.
|
Retry
03/04/14 07:34 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Yep, infantry take double damage in the open.
The third question seems foolish. Shooting the ground doesn't do you much good.
|
ghostrider
03/04/14 07:38 PM
66.27.181.33
|
You are looking for the spread for cluster shots. I don't see why you would need to target the infantry when the shot spreads out. Bound to hit more infantry more often then if you target just them.
|
ghostrider
03/04/14 07:40 PM
66.27.181.33
|
thinking about it an lb5x could almost wipe out an infantry platoon with one shot in open terrain with a cluster shot?
that is just plain stupid.
|
Retry
03/04/14 07:46 PM
67.239.109.174
|
It doesn't work that way.
The LB-X autocannons are like shotguns. Have you ever used a shotgun? If so, you'd know you still have to "point" the gun at your target to hit it, it's not a spray-and-pray type of deal. The spread only makes it a bit easier to get at least a partial hit.
|
ghostrider
03/04/14 07:50 PM
66.27.181.33
|
the cluster shot does double damage against infantry. if they are in the hex, the should take damage from the shrapnel as it hits the entire hex.
And with infantry taking double damage in the open, and lbx shot should be doing 4 times the damage.
It almost sounds like the game is pusing the lbx cannon. What other weapons does crits like it, as well as makes it easier to hit.
Its highly effective against air craft and infantry.
I really hate this garbage about them.
|
Retry
03/04/14 07:59 PM
67.239.109.174
|
It's not an explosion, the shrapnel would be insignificant.
|
ghostrider
03/04/14 08:08 PM
66.27.181.33
|
a normal ac shell would not affect more then one infantry, but an cluster munition does. Cray put up the damage done to infantry and it shows that to be fact. Now why would heated shrapnel not kill people, but an explosion does, or atleast for one person it does.
The exlosion should send shrapnel around the area, and with the larger cannons, should be more and further.
The LB-X autocannons are like shotguns. Have you ever used a shotgun? If so, you'd know you still have to "point" the gun at your target to hit it, it's not a spray-and-pray type of deal. The spread only makes it a bit easier to get at least a partial hit.
You have argued against your self with this one. Point to the enemy and the spread helps you hit. Yet this is not spray and pray?
Pointing to the hex the infantry is in, is targetting. You may not say i'm hitting joe the law carrier, but you are saying you are after his platoon. For that, the maximum spread would more likely hit several targets then having it hit only a 5 foot radius.
Not explosion when it hits, so this is not the same as a normal shot.
Your shotgun example is a good reason why the effect is over played. It should not be able to hit the head and feet of a mech 30 meters away. Otherwise, it would not go as far or hit as much as long range.
|
Retry
03/04/14 08:11 PM
67.239.109.174
|
You've never used a shotgun before, have you.
I'll let cray chime in for the rest.
|
Retry
03/04/14 08:14 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Pointing at your target wouldn't be spray and pray. But pointing at the hex containing the infantry hoping you hit something would be.
|
ghostrider
03/04/14 08:25 PM
66.27.181.33
|
got a 12 gauge shot gun in the house. It isn't hollywood where the shots arc in air, like the gyro shots for the acs in the game do. You need a closer aim the most people would think, but it is why people use shotguns for hunting birds. You don't have to be exact like a pistol or a normal rifle.
And artillery doesn't target the unit but the hex. It is designed to explode and send shrapnel everywhere.
Cluster rounds are less explosive but follow the same concept.
|
ghostrider
03/04/14 08:26 PM
66.27.181.33
|
and by using your thought, cluster rounds should be ineffective against armored targets, like tanks and mechs.
|
Retry
03/04/14 08:30 PM
67.239.109.174
|
They should be less effective against tanks. Except perhaps motive systems. But they even crit tanks to death well, which annoys me.
You have one in the house, but do you use it?
|
ghostrider
03/04/14 08:40 PM
66.27.181.33
|
a 12 gauge shot gun? yes. I own one. yes I have fired it.
No I do not have to be as accurate as I do my 44.
Depending on the choke, depends on how much scatter you get from the shot.
It does NOT mean I could hit every corner of a side of a barn while being 10 feet from it.
With that being said, the shot does not tend to go as far as a shot from a rifle.
This logic would say the lbx should not have the range it does.
|
Retry
03/04/14 08:45 PM
67.239.109.174
|
The LB-X can also use normal ammo. It isn't excluded to cluster munition.
|
ghostrider
03/04/14 08:46 PM
66.27.181.33
|
You are correct.
I needed to say the cluster rounds should not have the range that is does.
Nor should the cluster shot have the penetration power.
|
Retry
03/04/14 08:52 PM
67.239.109.174
|
No weapons have penetration power. They hit as hard as they can to take out the ablative armor.
|
ghostrider
03/04/14 08:54 PM
66.27.181.33
|
They never went into that in the game. A gauss slug and ac 20 have more penetration power then an ac2. They did not want to slow down the game by using more charts to deal with it.
Lasers more so. Since all the damage is supposed to be a confined area compare to the cannons.
|
ghostrider
03/04/14 09:26 PM
66.27.181.33
|
ok. so any answers on if a squad of infantry is a unit counted towards stacking or is it just platoons and higher?
|
Retry
03/04/14 09:29 PM
67.239.109.174
|
I think it does.
|
KamikazeJohnson
03/04/14 09:38 PM
50.72.218.68
|
Quote:
thinking about it an lb5x could almost wipe out an infantry platoon with one shot in open terrain with a cluster shot?
that is just plain stupid.
Unless I'm missing something, LB-X autocannon are only slightly more effective than lasers. According to Total Warfare p.216, Cluster (ballistic) deals weapon dmg/10 + 1.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
ghostrider
03/04/14 09:44 PM
66.27.181.33
|
ok. I think I misread that.
I was thinking cluster rounds are area of effect.
I read the whole thing and didn't process it.
Now I need information weither squads are units or if the platoon starts them for infantry.
|
KamikazeJohnson
03/04/14 09:49 PM
50.72.218.68
|
Quote:
ok. I think I misread that.
I was thinking cluster rounds are area of effect.
I read the whole thing and didn't process it.
Now I need information weither squads are units or if the platoon starts them for infantry.
In Total Warfare, a Platoon is the standard Infantry unit. The Infantry sectionsays they can be broken down as far as squads, but says no more on the subject.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
ghostrider
03/04/14 09:55 PM
66.27.181.33
|
was wondering if they could only have 2 squads in a zone, for number of unit limit. Was gonna start asking why damage was platoon based if they couldn't all fit.
|
KamikazeJohnson
03/04/14 10:04 PM
50.72.218.68
|
Quote:
was wondering if they could only have 2 squads in a zone, for number of unit limit. Was gonna start asking why damage was platoon based if they couldn't all fit.
Three squads probably cannot share a hex, but two platoons can. Same as 2 full platoons can share a hex, but three platoons each reduced to 1 trooper can't. Probably all the space taken up by the unit commander's swollon head.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
ghostrider
03/04/14 10:09 PM
66.27.181.33
|
there are 4 squads in a platoon.
So if there were 3 platoons that were reduced to 3 squads, they could not fit in a zone, without combining into one or 2 platoons?
|
KamikazeJohnson
03/04/14 10:21 PM
50.72.218.68
|
Quote:
there are 4 squads in a platoon.
So if there were 3 platoons that were reduced to 3 squads, they could not fit in a zone, without combining into one or 2 platoons?
As I said, TW says nothing in regards to squad organization...a platoon is considered 28 troopers, not a collection of squads.
I don't know if maybe Tac Ops allows you to split platoons or re-form platoons.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Retry
03/04/14 10:24 PM
67.239.109.174
|
Squads provide a small 1 to-hit penalty due to them being even further spread out than platoons.
Otherwise, that's about it.
|
ghostrider
03/04/14 11:14 PM
66.27.181.33
|
the old organization charts had a 7 man squad set up to be equal to a mech/vehicle.
4 of them made a lance or platoon for infantry.
3 lances/platoons a company.
since a vehicle is a single unit, I was thinking a squad would be a single unit as well.
I guess this will have to wait for an answer from the higher ups.
Maybe I can keep feeding them the questions for the next core book.
|
Karagin
03/04/14 11:44 PM
70.118.139.48
|
So do any of you use swords or the claws?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
03/04/14 11:48 PM
66.27.181.33
|
axes, but only on canon mechs. I don't play solaris. The battles I have played were always more then one person, and more then one unit per side.
|
Karagin
03/04/14 11:59 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Never gotten much use out of the axes, hatches etc...every now and then but they don't seem worth the weight etc...then again as I said before kicking seems to be better.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
03/05/14 05:54 PM
71.47.122.85
|
Quote:
Do they still take double damage in the open?
Yes.
Quote:
And why would cluster rounds do double the weapon size of damage, when is it scattered shots in a confined area.
It is a confined area, but a larger area than APDSFSDU darts. And cluster pellets are explicitly explosive.
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
03/06/14 03:03 PM
66.27.181.33
|
Quote:
Cray writes:
It is a confined area, but a larger area than APDSFSDU darts. And cluster pellets are explicitly explosive.
Is this the rounds used for cluster shot from the lbx cannons?
If so, when did they make them explosive?
|
ghostrider
03/21/14 12:51 AM
66.27.181.1
|
had another thought on weapons and infantry damage.
why would an a-pod on a mech do alot of damage to infantry in a hex if they are not swarming the mech?
Is this not the same as using fragmentation ammo?
|
Retry
03/21/14 05:15 PM
76.7.236.208
|
I thought you could only activate A-Pods before infantry tries to swarm.
Not that 1D6 is a lot anyways.
|
ghostrider
03/21/14 06:00 PM
66.27.181.1
|
I was thinking someone would try to walk into a zone with infantry and set it off. Or try to. Hell, a single person could take the hit for the team to do so.
But it had popped into my head, and thought an answer would be nice.
|
ghostrider
11/24/15 03:06 AM
98.150.102.177
|
Revived this thread since something new came up, and this is probably a better thread then the design thread.
Cray brought up the point that a weapon used in space battles have an extremely fast speed of munitions in order to be useful in space battles.
With that being said, it makes you wonder how the same lrm/srm ammo is used in both space and land battles, has such an horrendous range in a gravity atmosphere. The sheer speeds would mean they would be at the 630 meters (for lrms) before anyone realized they had fired.
I have not seen anywhere the launchers or ammunition is any different for the standard launchers. This is could be extended to ac's as well.
Which brings up another question/point.
How can the ams do anything with missiles going that speed? By the time it even registered, the missiles should be way past the unit with the ams.
There would be no time to choose to engage or not.
And before you say it, I understand friction of the atmosphere would slow them down some, but this would be a little much.
|
ghostrider
03/24/16 12:38 PM
66.74.61.223
|
had the question come up.
Does the targeting comp work with cluster rounds on an lbx cannon?
If so, why?
Doesn't that mean missiles would work with it, as you are firing projectiles that spread out as they splinter into the cluster shot?
Are missiles that wild when fired? They have streak technology which means they can be controlled in flight as well as the fcs equipment.
I know the missiles have their own enchancements, but this is more for the lbx shots.
This combination is more to see if they can come even close to the pulse/comp pairing.
|
Karagin
03/24/16 05:45 PM
61.40.222.5
|
If I recall correctly, the targeting computer doesn't work with the cluster rounds for the LBX, unless they changed it with in the Core Rule books and I missed it, will need to double check.
The comparison I have seen given to BT missiles is saying they are effective as Congrave's missiles during the Napoleon Wars, take what you want from that. And this came from one of the authors' in an article they wrote about improving weapons for magazine called Far and Away. Good article too, called Hi-Tech Battletech.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
03/24/16 07:30 PM
66.74.61.223
|
So the 'missiles' used in battle tech are semi guided rockets? As they are limited to point and shoot as opposed to tracking a target like missiles do?
But I guess definitions would destroy the basis for missiles and mrm/rockets.
I was just trying to figure out why pulse lasers were so accurate and can use the tc.
It looks like the specifically made this loop hole. Nothing else comes close then.
And the thought of the gyroscopic ammo for cannons should not use the tc bonus either. Or do they?
|
Karagin
03/24/16 08:40 PM
61.40.222.5
|
You can do the indirect fire, how it's handled well that is not the best way of doing it IN MY OPINION...they are written up as being semi guided but the way they are treated in the game they are more or less direct fire needing line of site and not on the same level as some the smart missiles we have as in the real world.
The pulse lasers maybe more accurate due to how they fire, there is a pause between each burst, now this could be applied to the ACs as well and would make the Ultra versions interesting.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
03/24/16 11:37 PM
66.74.61.223
|
As the original pulse set up stated, they use a servo motor that adjusted the aiming of the entire laser while it pulsed. That is what was supposed to give it the better accuracy. Yet wouldn't the 2 systems conflict with each other? The tc and the pulse..
The idea of ultras being able to use the tc for both shots was the basis for one of the questions I had asked earlier. The fact that is was supposed to keep the shots on target like a pulse laser was the basis, but the more violent kickback of the cannon does bring into question if it could or not.
It is unusual for the developers to allow such a powerful change to come up and continue like the pulse, especially with the tc added to it.
If the cluster shot can not be used with the tc, or even improve the number of munitions that hit, wouldn't this be considered something that unbalances the weapons?
Anyways, the thought came up and I wanted some input on the idea.
|
ghostrider
03/29/16 08:11 PM
66.74.61.223
|
How does a pulse laser perform a strafe?
It is my understanding that the bursts are fine tuned to hit a target, yet a strafe means multiple targets with the laser moving quickly over the battle field.
Would that not overwhelm the system doing the fine targeting?
If not, would that mean the targeting systems should be able to handle multiple or even better focus on a single target?
And this should shut down the focusing time needed to do damage that was suggested on why ranges are so short. You can target dozens, maybe even a hundred targets with a single strafe. There is NO WAY you can keep the laser focused on them all to damage them all.
And PPCs are even worse.
Edited by ghostrider (03/29/16 08:11 PM)
|
Karagin
03/29/16 08:38 PM
61.40.222.5
|
How do lasers strafe?
Look at ground attack footage from WW2 and the more current stuff, for examples of how a strafing attack happens.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Akirapryde2006
03/29/16 09:02 PM
208.54.70.237
|
If you think about it, it is not hard to picture about.
The normal laser would rack targets with a single beam of energy during a straff. Everything in the path of the fighter would be hit by the beam.
A pulse laser would work under a similar principle. However instead of a solid single beam, there would be a rapid fire set of beams, like a machine gun.
|
ghostrider
03/30/16 01:49 AM
66.74.61.223
|
I understand the principle. but the way damage from them is described, you need a few seconds of focus time on target to do the full damage.
This came up in a discussion about sweeping a laser across the field to kill infantry. It was suggested that an unarmored infatnry man would not be vaporized or hurt badly having a mech calibur laser sweep across them as it requires time to burn them. This would be even more true with armored infantry and moreso with vehicles and mechs.
That is just not possible in a strafe.
The only difference in the laser fire is the beam lasts the entire length of the run, and the airflow over the sinks prevent heat build up beyond a normal shot from it.
This makes it sound like you do not need even a second of focus on armor to damage it.
The speed of the fighter combined with the amount of targets just doesn't add up. I know it doesn't damage all targets, but you could hit more then a dozen in less then 200 meters. 3 hexes wide with multiple units in a hex.
Speaking of which, to infantry take damage under the new rules or the old ones for a strafe?
Ie, they only take 1 point of damage for normal lasers, instead of full damage the laser normally does?
|
TigerShark
03/30/16 07:28 PM
12.130.166.32
|
Strafing, FYI, is an extremely over-powered ability. Not so much in 3050+ Inner Sphere, but in Intro Tech and Clan games, that +4 is mitigated by 3 pilots and pulse (Clan) and sluggish movement (Intro Tech).
A fighter with, say, (4) Medium Pulse Lasers (IS) could attack two hexes of vehicles with 2 vees/hex (4 units). That's a potential for (6 + 6 + 6 + 6) * 4 = 96 damage. This is NOT factored into a unit's BV. At all.
It really should be 1/2 damage, or double heat for each weapon fired. I really suggest that as a permanent change, after play-testing this quite a bit.
Edited by TigerShark (03/30/16 07:31 PM)
|
ghostrider
03/31/16 12:13 AM
66.74.61.223
|
They reduced the width of the strafe?
I thought it was 3 hexes wide, not 2.
And they do the whole board for length, unless they changed that as well.
But I was suggesting the strafe could not do the damage to all units it 'hits', as there is not enough time to focus the beam on any one target.
I didn't really consider the potential damage it does when it hits multiple targets.
Interesting to finally see just how overpowered it can be.
And again the pulse laser shows just how overpowered it is with the -2 to hit. Even with a tc, nothing comes close to it.
I guess it really gets worse the more units that are hit by a strafe.
|
Drasnighta
03/31/16 12:30 AM
198.53.98.65
|
I'm left wondering...
What happened to the days where a Strafing Run was 1 Hex Wide and 5 Consecutive Hexes in a straight line, stopped only by a "shadow" zone of elevation changes?
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
|
ghostrider
03/31/16 01:32 AM
66.74.61.223
|
The original aerotech book has the 3 hex wide, full map strafes list.
It also had a scenario set out that both sides start with 250 heat sinks to make a force to play with.
The situation you describe, I have not heard of, so I would venture the guesses of they were house rules, another game, or maybe the earlier version of battle tech, battle droids I believe.
Scary to think some of the books I have are 30 years old. Not in the best of shape, but still usable. Hell, the D&D books I got are older then that.
Damn I feel old.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/31/16 01:53 AM
70.122.160.150
|
The only rules on strafing that I had ever known was one hex wide and five hexes long.
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!!!
|
TigerShark
03/31/16 03:34 AM
104.49.175.97
|
Quote:
Drasnighta writes:
I'm left wondering...
What happened to the days where a Strafing Run was 1 Hex Wide and 5 Consecutive Hexes in a straight line, stopped only by a "shadow" zone of elevation changes?
That didn't change. I'm only giving a scenario where there are two hexes which have any units out of that 5-hex line. I could have said "1 mech in every hex of a 5-hex line", I guess.
|
ghostrider
03/31/16 12:37 PM
66.74.61.223
|
page 21 of the original aerotech book states
"When a fighter ends its turn on a battlefield hex, he may announce a strafing attack during the combat phase. This is the only attack he may make during the turn. After all ground forces have completed their movement, the fighter chooses a three-hex-wide row of hexes as his strafe row. This set of hexrows must run parrallel to the fighters direction of atmospheric flight."
The diagram provide with the entry, which I can't put up as I have no scanner working at this time to copy it, shows the examples of a strafing run and it uses a battle tech board all the way across in a straight line as the strafing area. It does say all targets, enemy and friendly, are targets.
Now this may have been changed in other books, which I do not own. If you could tell me which books, as the wiki seems to avoid putting up rules of the game, unless I have typed in something wrong. Strafing, strafing rules, even trying to get rules from battlespace and even aerotech fails to show the rules.
|
TigerShark
03/31/16 03:50 PM
104.49.175.97
|
Total Warfare has been the standard for over a decade. ;-) Gotta upgrade.
|
Akalabeth
03/31/16 04:22 PM
64.251.81.66
|
ghost,
It's honestly baffling that you participate so heavily in the discussions and yet at the same time have such an out-dated understanding of the game. Even when discussing designs featuring new technology, you go at great lengths to deliver a lengthy post while being unabashedly "too lazy" to look up and understand the new equipment on the design despite the relevant information being available on sarna. Aerotech 1 is 30 years old. At best the strafing rules have been different for the last 12 years, maybe even before that if the change pre-date Aerotech 2. The Aerotech 1 rules are so old that most players no longer know how they differ.
Total Warfare is only 15 bucks on RPGNow. Go buy it
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/24642/Batt...cturers_id=2216
|
ghostrider
03/31/16 07:33 PM
66.74.61.223
|
that book came out after mechwarrior 3 rpg book.
That is why I never bought it. Once the 3rd edition said the 4th edition soon to be out would negate all the 3rd edition rules, I stopped buy the rule books for the game.
It made it sound like money grabs and that told me the game was headed for problems in the future. It was also AFTER the clans came out.
The compendium said the same thing aerotech one did, though master rules doesn't have the information for aerotech in it. I thought it would have been in battlespace.
So they changed another major component, like they did infantry damage.
The explains why a few things seem screwed up.
But you are close. Total warfare came out in 2006, so only ten years. Close enough.
|
Karagin
03/31/16 07:51 PM
61.40.222.5
|
The old rules work and while not perfect they are still able to allow the game to be run. For laughs and grins my group ran a game using the old BATTLEDROID rules and the 2nd Edition Rules. It was a good fun return to the basics and we had a blast. I say use which ever rule set works for your group.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Akalabeth
03/31/16 08:02 PM
64.251.81.66
|
As I already said above, I'm fairly sure the new strafing rules were in Aerotech 2 which came out in 2004.
12 years. Not 10.
|
Drasnighta
03/31/16 08:36 PM
198.53.98.65
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
I say use which ever rule set works for your group.
I do to.
But that being said, its hard to have a sane, rational discussion in regards to rules when people are not even on the same page...
... or book.
... Or Edition...
... Or Era of Publication....
I think that's the hardest part about it - and not to anyone in particular - Its just that if there *is* going to be a discussion, that variable has to be part of the discussion, or at least defined... "From the perspective of", for example...
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
|
ghostrider
03/31/16 11:56 PM
66.74.61.223
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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.
|
Frabby
04/03/16 10:39 AM
87.164.133.203
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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 (182 downloads)
|
Akalabeth
04/23/16 09:19 PM
108.180.183.124
|
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
|
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.
|
Akalabeth
05/16/16 01:14 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Nope.
In the real world, weapon advances don't go from "inaccurate" to "pin point precision" in one iteration. Even accounting for Artemis IV and Improved SRMs, the jump from "some of them hit" to "all of them hit the same location" is unreasonable.
|
ghostrider
05/17/16 03:25 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Odd thought came up.
How do non vehicle flamers work?
The new theory of fusion plasma cools as soon as it is removed from the magnetic bottle that holds it. This is how they explain fusion engines do not explode anymore.
How would you be able to throw the discharge at another unit if it cools that quickly?
|
Karagin
05/17/16 10:08 AM
61.40.222.5
|
I disagree, weapons tech advances faster when there is a need, look at the airplane, went from a barley flying motor powered glider to jet technology in 30 years. From single shot rifles to magazine feed ones that could do both single shot to full auto in roughly the same amount of time, and we have gone from a few hit to all hit in the last 20 years. So really real life offers far more then BT allows for, prime example, the PTB claim a cupola, which is part of the turret, weighs 1 ton ( if I recall correctly, not at my computer right this minute to check the books,) and yet in real life the item is not even close to that weight, but yet as we once called FASAonmics calls for it to be that way. Battletech has another flaw, look at the AC ranges, the smaller gun aka the AC2 has the longest range, but yet in real life that is not the case, weapon systems that would be lumped into the same category as the AC2 have far less range then the ones that would be lumped in the same category as the AC10 or AC20. So really it is the game's demand for balance and play ability on a scale of the table top vs the front yard that limits things. And having something hit is a matter of aim and getting the first shot off. Something game fails to take into account as well.
Flamers pull their payload from the fusion reactor of the mech or vehicle since you can mount both the ammo feed flamers as well as normal flamers on both mechs and vehicles. As for the ones troops carry, very similar to flamethrowers of WW1 and WW2 era.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/17/16 10:47 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Supposedly, we currently have icbms that can hit a dime on a pitchers mound 1000 miles away, if you believe the propaganda.
And I did not say improved or artemis systems, I said streaks. The ones that all hit if it locks, with the exception of ecm. The idea of a spread across the unit makes you wonder how some don't miss.
The broad chest area of an assault verses the smaller area of a light mech is a difference. With the speeds some of the lights go at, hitting will all missiles across the entire mech starts making me ask why don't any miss?
Not sure the targeting mechanism, but if they use visual identifying, it the black and blue painting on the arm, it would figure they would all target that.
But you are correct in that weapons tend to have accuracy problems for a few models. Star League had them over 300 years ago, and the clans only 'lost' them during their civil war and rebuild. And the current era is over 100 years in the future with that. They have streak lrms now.
The vehicle flamers use chemicals to burn.
The fusion flamer pulls it from the engine. Yet they say the fusion material cools rapidly if not in the magnetic bottle, in the engine definition. This is supposed to keep the engines from exploding.
This very definition would negate using the material in the fusion reactor as a weapon. It should cool to a point of non use before it even leaves the flamer nozzle.
|
Akalabeth
05/17/16 02:27 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Battletech has lots of flaws. Who cares? You either like the game or you don't. There are more realistic games on the market if it doesn't meet your standards. I don't see the value in complaining about one thing after another ad naseum until the end of time, never satisfied, always searching for something to find fault with. At some point most players would either accept the game, as it is, or find a new one.
And the main point I was making is that going to Streaks from SRMs+Artemis, where Streaks suddenly hit with all and all hit the same location is an unrealistic iteration (evolutionary step). If you want to say "Hey Streaks are cool, but I have an idea for a NEW weapon more advanced than Streaks where the SRMs all hit the same location" then it's another story. Want to make up new advanced weapons which ADD to the game? Knock yourself out, go nuts.
And by the way, Streaks don't care about ECM. At least not standard models.
|
ghostrider
05/17/16 02:40 PM
66.74.61.223
|
I guess they changed that one as well. Used to be all ecm stopped the streak ability. You could still fire it normally, but to hit and number of missiles needed to be rolled. Hell when both came out the standard guardian was the ONLY ecm out.
Asking about things to get answers is what the whole idea of a forums is about, isn't it?
Also, it might help get ideas to anyone that works with the game to fill in loop holes and maybe come up with some ideas for modifying weapons for the next series of rules.
And I said it before. Using facts and such to say something can't be done, while ignoring those facts to allow the same thing for another concept is crap. But I can see where closing some of these issues will prevent further abuse of them.
Not sure if others have thought of issues like this. I would like to know if others ran into these issues while playing or not. As well as just thinking about it.
Added:
I guess enough people complained about things to get them changed like this, as well as infantry damage and other things. They have changed alot of things to make any history of it obsolete.
Edited by ghostrider (05/17/16 02:45 PM)
|
Akalabeth
05/17/16 03:31 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I guess they changed that one as well. Used to be all ecm stopped the streak ability.
That has never been true as far as I know.
You want to dig out your 2750 TRO and quote the relevant portion?
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I would like to know if others ran into these issues while playing or not.
Believing that Streak Launchers should behave in a manner counter to the rules is not an "issue" with the game, it's simply your opinion.
The only "issue" that anyone is going to run into while playing the game is when the ESTABLISHED mechanics of the game create gameplay problems. Like Pulse Lasers and Targeting computers being too powerful. Which has been resolved. Or the issue your group felt the LAM rules were not clear, which has also been resolved.
But many issues you have are not with the game, but with the background material. But guess what, it's fiction. The authors wrote it how they want and discussing the merits of the fiction is like discussing the nature of Tolkein's elves. If you don't like how Tolkein represents elves, then don't read Lord of the Rings. Similarly if you don't like how Streaks work then create a new weapon. Don't like how Fusion Engines get free heat sinks then create your own units that don't get free heat sinks. But finding fault and asking for explanation on one thing after another is just kinda monotonous because at the end of the day the answer to 90% of your questions is "It's that way because it is".
|
Cray
05/17/16 06:18 PM
72.189.109.30
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Odd thought came up.
How do non vehicle flamers work?
The new theory of fusion plasma cools as soon as it is removed from the magnetic bottle that holds it. This is how they explain fusion engines do not explode anymore.
That's not what I meant in Tech Manual. I indicated that the plasma in the reactor cools *below fusing temperatures* when it hits the massive reactor walls or is quenched by a lot of air rushing into the reactor, so (to address some fans' theories) you cannot have a nuclear fusion explosion.
You can have other spectacular fireworks when a fusion engine gets punctured. The plasma is still very hot, hot enough to wreck the interior of the engine and (in the case of flamers) damage armor. But the difference between 100,000C plasma torches and 100,000,000C fusing plasmas is a lack of nuclear reactions.
There are limits to energy flamers, though. Their plasma jets are quickly quenched in air, hence the 3-hex range. To get more range and more damage you need more mass for the plasma, which is why plasma rifles and plasma cannons use "ammo" (big slugs of polymers that are zapped by lasers to form plasma jets with ranges of up to 18 hexes.)
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.
Edited by Cray (05/17/16 06:19 PM)
|
Karagin
05/17/16 08:21 PM
61.40.222.5
|
Who's complaining? Wait no one is, funny how we are talking about Ghostriders questions and such and some how that involves complaining, guess I was off world and missed the memo on that part. And BT can have realism and still be fun, guess that depends on the maturity of your group and how they want to play, so mileage will vary from group to group.
Yet Cray, both type of flamers have the same range so both have the same burn rate limits.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
05/17/16 08:36 PM
61.40.222.5
|
Now here is a question, would flamers be useful on aerospace units?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
05/17/16 08:51 PM
68.103.19.152
|
That would probably depend upon how many space whales you want to barbecue.
|
Karagin
05/17/16 11:50 PM
61.40.222.5
|
Quote:
Retry writes:
That would probably depend upon how many space whales you want to barbecue.
Stop bring Star Wars and Star Trek creatures into the game. Wait, I think their idea of Ion Engines would be cool for the game...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/18/16 12:51 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Ok. That cleared up the flamer question. Wish they would have done that during the original release of the game. Lost alot of characters to fusion explosions.
Again, you suggest one statement covers everything, akabaleth. First off, your interpretation of the rules does not make it so. A lam in flight mode can not fly backwards or turn without piloting rolls if they don't move the amount of required spaces. Launching and landing are part of flight mode. Landing facing the direction you came from violates that rule. ESTABLISHED RULES. Just because almost everyone has ignored that, doesn't mean it is isn't against the rules.
Now maybe rereading that question might make you realize, I asked if streaks shouldn't hit the same spot. NOT IT MUST. Nothing in that suggested it was wrong. Now I would suggest you follow your own advise and read and study the questions before assuming things, like you said about the rules.
I do find the heated responses kind of funny, as this game was changed from it's original form. I mean it is not battledriods. Guess they didn't like most of what was happening and changed the whole premise. Could have been the lawsuits. Could also have been things weren't working out right. So far there is only one person that seems to have issues with the questions. I know most have been quiet on any of this questions. As with mech designs, questions on how things are working and if they need a change is part of the whole thing. As much as you have the right to dislike what is here, I have the right to ask things.
And as for space whales, they used to have them in D&D in their spell jammers set.
As for if Flamers would be useful, I would think the cold in space would make them extremely limited in range if they could even do any damage outside of the fighters projectors.
I would think the fighters exhaust would be more effective as a flamer set up.
Edited by ghostrider (05/18/16 12:53 PM)
|
ghostrider
05/18/16 01:11 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Have to look for the other books. I want to say it was in the 3050 part that was removed in newer additions, but can't say for sure.
But while on the subject of streaks, should they be allowed to use a c3 network to lock?
The system itself has it's own system to lock and guide the missiles, would that extend to the c3 network?
I would think not.
|
Karagin
05/18/16 05:51 AM
61.40.222.5
|
Yes they removed the weapons tech and other things about the Clans from the later version of TRO3050. Which has lead to folks getting upset over things. Like Clans using lighter weight and size IS weapons as stated in the ORIGINAL TRO3050. IF I recall correctly that lead to a very heated debate around here at one point.
Then again they also changed that Gauss Rifle and it's ammo as well as vehicles at one point could not use XL engines then they could, so yes things change, some for the better others not so much.
I believe Streaks can work with the C3 system, but I would need to look things over again to be 100% on that. Now I will say that I have played in groups who allow different things to happen and for different takes on the rules. For example my group was treating the AMS as you marked on slot of ammo every time you fired it, just like every other weapon system, it worked for us, but we all knew that if we played with other groups we would follow the rules as written. Group play is fun and fine with it's own rules and such, but keep in mind not all play the same way and yes we all wish folks would agree with our own ways of playing but that's not going to happen either.
Now does having TAG and a C3 Network allow you to spot better for units that can use the TAG or is it not worried about? That has always been an interesting sundry for many folks.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/18/16 01:09 PM
66.74.61.223
|
Ok. The post isn't here, so I guess I need to try this again.
The ams was changed from the original release as well. You rolled 1d6 to determine the missiles destroyed then (1d6)x2 for ammo usage. So it was possible to use 12 shots of ammunition for 1 missile. Run out of ammo quickly as well.
I know under the description of the c3, that is also functions as a tag unit. What it does not say is if it has to be part of the c3 network or can be outside of it. So the question of the tag/c3 does seem to be a hole in the rules.
Since the c3 network helps target things in the network, it might help the tag lock on, but this could go either way. I can see where it might have to be it's own separate targeting system.
And as a secondary question, can a c3 by used to help target other c3s and still work as a tag unit in the same round?
And a side note. If streaks can use c3 systems to lock, use streak lrms with a lam doing the targeting. Almost guarantee you can not take it down before the other 11 units with hordes of streak lrms takes down units. Each unit can target a different unit with the streaks. So you can spread the damage around some.
|
Cray
05/18/16 06:05 PM
72.189.109.30
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Ok. That cleared up the flamer question. Wish they would have done that during the original release of the game. Lost alot of characters to fusion explosions.
The original game - at least BT 2nd (1985), 3rd, and 4th editions - emphasized in their sidebar fluff text that fusion engines do not explode. It was novel authors (notably Michael Stackpole) that introduced the exploding fusion engine to BT.
Because of the popularity of "the Stackpole," Maximum Technology introduced a purely optional rule that allowed fusion engines, assuming players wanted to use it in their game. The same rule is maintained as a non-tournament optional rule in Tactical Operations. Standard rules have never included exploding fusion engines, then or now.
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.
|
Karagin
05/18/16 07:45 PM
61.40.222.5
|
To bad many confuse optional with normal rules and will argue that the optional rule is indeed a standard rule.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/18/16 09:12 PM
66.74.61.223
|
Guess they missed that in the mechwarrior video games as well. Hell the mercenaries as well as mech commander had mechs blowing up like crazy. I remember the opening sequence of one where an atlas blows up taking a timberwolf/madcat with it.
Do you happen to know what page that was on?
It may have been something we glossed over reading the rules. Then again, I don't think we thought they changed that. So many characters would have lived.
More then a few schrek tank crews died from this. Oh well.
2nd edition? Is that the boxed set or mechwarrior 2 books?
|
ghostrider
05/19/16 12:30 PM
66.74.61.223
|
Is the silver bullet gauss rifle, hell even all gauss rifles supposed to be the 'replacements' for ac?
For almost no heat, with a ton more, 5 less damage, but 2 to 2 1/2 times the range.
Not worried about ammo explosions, only 20 points if the weapon gets hit. That is only one shot with the ac 20.
This does not really fit with the unlikely concept of keeping weapons balanced with the rest of the game. There should be weapons no one wants to be without, but can't be used in some units. Granted the heavy gauss can be said about light mechs. Too much weight to be used by them.
I think the developers need to come out with more designs that push the range issue. Otherwise, this is a little much. Maybe extended range ac's far a little more weight at first, then come down and phase out the old cannons.
|
Akalabeth
05/21/16 08:37 PM
108.180.183.124
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
Who's complaining? Wait no one is, funny how we are talking about Ghostriders questions and such and some how that involves complaining, guess I was off world and missed the memo on that part.
Complaining:
1. to express dissatisfaction
Quote:
Ghostrider writes:
I would like to have some of the impossible for players to do things to be eliminated from the game.
Seeing some information on the partial wings is annoying.
Quote:
Ghostrider writes:
Would sweeping a laser across an infantry pack mean the beam meant to destory hardened steel would not cut through a person with ease?
It is very stupid to say that is no longer does the same thing it did because we need infantry to live longer
Quote:
Ghostrider writes:
It almost sounds like the game is pusing the lbx cannon. What other weapons does crits like it, as well as makes it easier to hit.
Its highly effective against air craft and infantry.
I really hate this garbage about them.
And this is only the first few points.
It's fairly apparent that Ghostrider is dissatisfied with nearly every aspect of the rules. The latest in a long list of "Things that are wrong" or things that need to be explained is now Gauss rifles.
|
ghostrider
05/21/16 10:53 PM
66.74.61.223
|
Actually that door swings both ways. I have asked why some things have not followed the same logic they put forth to promote other ideas. And it seems someone is trying to complain as those questions meant to get some ideas flowing, but failed.
They don't like some of the ideas of the game being questioned.
I half think they know someone personally that worked on the game and taking it personally.
It may well be no one has asked these questions while discussing issue. And yes. I will say it now. I was not there. I know a few here worked on, or talk with those that worked on, these very issues.
As you suggested about reading and studying things. I asked if they were supposed to replace the ac?
They do not fit the real balance of the game with ballistic weapons, as range and damage are opposite of each other for the acs. They need to add in more weapons that do this, or the gauss rifle ends up looking like a miracle weapon in the field of ballistic weapons.
Now unless you just like arguing, how is that needing to be explained?
OR are you asking for me to explain why I think this is the case?
If so, just ask.
|
ghostrider
05/22/16 02:13 AM
66.74.61.223
|
In city tech, page 20 under critical hits, center torso, engine, it states that the third hits destroys the engine, destroying the mech.
It does not say blows up, but the implication there suggest so. Removed mech from play would have been better, and that is probably where, as well as a few adventure pacts suggest only the mechs legs remain after an engine explodes is where this came from. Might have been stackpole writing for the novels before I realize it.
I will admit I probably overlooked the other books saying it didn't happen, though it is just as likely only the newer copies have that in there.
So I admit it is probably just putting in my interpretation in there instead of just having it shut down. Granted with the new rules, hindsight is better now then it was back in the 80's when the book came out.
|
Karagin
05/22/16 02:19 AM
61.40.222.5
|
Again no one is complaining, we are talking about the rules, and how things could be different, and how weapons and other stuff could be different, now the complaining comes in when folks get irritated when they feel they have answered Ghostriders' questions and he still has more, so maybe a bit of looking at it before comment or accusing him of not getting something would be more helpful.
So Akalabeth if you are so dissatisfied with Ghostrider's questions then why do you keep answering them or offering YOUR opinions and thoughts or take on the rules? I mean it sounds more like you are complaining about Ghostrider then offering new ideas to allow his questions to be answered.
Actually Ghostrider folks for get that this media of communication cuts out body language and tone and leaves only the written words and thus allows folks to take things how ever they want good or bad. SO many get upset when they should not and others miss the meaning of things since their is no actual human interaction going beyond reading text on a screen.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
05/22/16 02:20 AM
61.40.222.5
|
The rules did seam a lot simpler in the early days and folks wanted more realism etc...well that is what we got over the years and now we have 5 core rule books and growing. Not sure that was such a great idea really.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Akalabeth
05/22/16 06:56 AM
108.180.183.124
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
So Akalabeth if you are so dissatisfied with Ghostrider's questions then why do you keep answering them or offering YOUR opinions and thoughts or take on the rules? I mean it sounds more like you are complaining about Ghostrider then offering new ideas to allow his questions to be answered.
Because some days I'm generous enough and naive enough to think throwing him a bone will satisfy him, but fact is in the very next post he'll just complain about something else. Half of the time he'll complain about rules he's never read. Other times, with the Gauss RIfle, he'll demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of how the game actually works. Such as saying that a 20-point ammo explosion is no big deal, when an exploding Gauss Rifle will in fact cripple or destroy many of the Inner Sphere mechs it's mounted on. Or mistakenly believing that ECM affects Streak missiles, when it never has since its very inception.
If you're going to call into question how a system works, at least do your research and read up on the device prior to posting. A person has an unspoken obligation to at least do their due diligence in researching the topic before posting questions about it if they're going to be asking other people to do the same thing on their behalf.
|
Karagin
05/22/16 07:20 AM
61.40.222.5
|
Do you realize that folks interpret the rules differently then others? For example, was at a local convention in Grand Rapids, MI. Simple game of each player running two mechs, go smash through the other team get the objective item and get off the board.
Now there were two guys who seemed to know the rules and things were going great until they tried to fire their ACs multiple times in the same turn, when asked, they noted that the sheet listed the AC in the arm several times thus did they not have several of them to fire, needless to say that upset a lot of folks, but the difference was we didn't get mad and stay mad or throw them out, we explained things, handed them the rule book, and continued with the game. And the two learned something and ended up gain a better understanding of the game. Now following your logic they were not following the rules and thus not worthy of the time the GM took to explain things and let them learn.
Clearly Ghostrider has not been playing the game itself for a long time and clearly he has not use or had to experience the weapons and such he has questions about, now would it not be the better course of action to explain things, answer the questions and allow the debate to happen verses getting upset and attacking him?
Have you not had folks who are learning to play ask question or had someone who is only familiar with the BT universe and games from only playing the computer or Xbox games? Another case of two DIFFERENT versions of the game if there ever was one. And can you really claim to 100% on top of every rule with out the need to look up something?
I learned the game when it was called BATTLEDROIDS and made a ton mistakes in learning said game, even after getting the 2nd Ed, and learning the changes there were still things that didn't always make sense. Yet those playing the game with me helped figure it out and as I met other who played I further learned more about the game. Clearly you have no intention of cutting him any slack and based off your comments you wonder why I question your input on this topic. But at the same time maybe he is learning something or maybe not.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/22/16 01:00 PM
66.74.61.223
|
Have you even had an ac 20 ammo be hit long before you could fire a shot off?
Or worse, most 20's normally have more then one ton of ammo. Chain reactions? Lose the entire mech in one hit.
20 points for the capacitor in a gauss rifle is nothing compared to the 100 points for a single ton ac ammo.
But I guess if you don't have perspective of things, it must seem like the concerns aren't based in reality.
The streaks may have been someone else telling me that was true. Kind of like someone saying they solved the lam issue of landing any direction as they use the jet rules, yet the very person that wrote the quickstart rules say they used the wige rules. Which does NOT allow you to do so. I am not omitting information to make it sound like my way is the correct way. I do admit there are times when I am wrong. And with that saying to look up infantry weight, then the next statement saying there is no where in the rules they have that information only adds to this.
I don't mind people showing me when I am wrong, but condescending comments as well as the facts being WRONG when used to show me this being, causes alot of issues. The misreading of statements seems to be one of the base issues with this.
Half the time the rules still have holes in them, while the other half have fixed them. Or attempted to.
And it doesn't help when you play the 'official' video games and you can fire the acs until they run out of ammo before the lasers recharge for the first time. So as much as I chuckled at the example of the people not realizing it was one unit taking multiple slots, I can see that being something that people might think if they are just playing the game. Buy the already made mech sheets and go from there.
And the idea of the gauss rifle had more to do with the unbalancing of the game for power, weight and range then the explosion. A charged ppc doesn't explode when hit. None of the energy weapons do. If you actually read the whole statement, you would see I had asked if they planned to add in more ballistic weapons to push the range issue.
Now adding to that, this makes the gauss rifle look like a magic weapon that doesn't follow there own guidelines.
One more thing. It has been said that this is also done to get some thoughts on the matter. I can not be the only person to ever wonder why things can't be done with one thing but can with another.
Throwing me a bone. Try to make sure your information is correct. I know some of what I have thought was accurate may be at fault. I need to find the other books.
Not everyone believes the sky is blue because water is. I do know that is wrong. Both are clear.
|
Cray
05/22/16 05:16 PM
72.189.109.30
|
Since this thread seems to be going off topic to discuss poster behavior instead, I'm going to lock it down while everyone chills a bit.
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.
|