Just thinking of a possible house rule

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
09/15/14 03:59 PM
208.54.40.243

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Missiles do not use modified to hit numbers for range but instead you modify the roll on the number of missile hit chart.

Short range +2
Medium range no mod
Long range -2
Extreme range -6

This is like a shot gun that its not hard to hit at long range but good luck doing any real damage.
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!!!
ghostrider
09/15/14 05:04 PM
67.49.101.109

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Interesting take on it.
I always hated the crap of the missiles that hit tables. The scatter is too much at times.
I do like the idea more should hit when they are closer, since they should not be so spread out when first launched.

The large drop off after it leaves long range is very appropriate, though people will say its bad enough to hit, why hurt the successful shots.
I would say because the missiles should be out of fuel at that point. Or something like it.

Would you extend this table into the cluster rounds on the lbx cannons?
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
09/15/14 06:58 PM
208.54.40.164

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Would you extend this table into the cluster rounds on the lbx cannons?



Yes. Anything that uses the missile table. But I am not sure if I would keep the -1 to hit VTOLs. I don't want the LBX to become to powerful against VTOLs.

The Thunderbolt would use the normal attack rules as would anything else that dose not use the missile hit table
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!!!
ghostrider
02/27/15 04:54 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
guess talking about some of the things in another thread would be better put here. I will start doing that if anyone responds to the post about vehicle movement hits in the lateral design thread.
ghostrider
02/27/15 05:08 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Guess I shouldn't be so lazy.

First idea was making it so cannons had enough ammo of one type per critical spot reserved to help with their limitations and put them back on par with energy weapons. Might need a few rules to avoid someone using things like ac 20's every round.

Someone suggested putting a limit on how often energy weapons could fire. It makes some sense since you hear of ppc loads in novels and as supply depot spoils, but nothing is said elsewhere.

A limit to fusion fuel for anything that uses that engine type. Maybe cause a possible power outage like a heat shutdown rolls after every 20 turns. Yes, games don't normally last that long, but it would force units to solve their conflicts sooner. Each 20 turns or so would increase the roll to avoid it just like the heat scale so eventually it would shut down.
This would also add to raid objectives, since it would become something both sides needs, and not all planets make it.

Hovercraft move damage. Every time the skirt takes a hit, the pilot must make a drive skill roll to avoid losing control of the hover craft. You could also have an uncontrolled turn changing the facing of the vehicle on a second failed roll.
Other ground units moving at flank speed could be forced to make a roll as well if they suffer a movement crit.
Possible effect could range from crew shaken, lose a turn, to normal damage including the vehicle ending up on their roofs.
This would make the drive skills worth a damn.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/27/15 10:41 PM
172.56.15.236

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Having energy weapons having to recharge for a turn after being fired would really bring them down from being the ultimate weapon in the game. Of course to get around that is to have far more energy weapons than you have heat sinks for and fire only half of the energy weapons each turn.
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!!!
ghostrider
02/27/15 11:09 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Where that is probably true, it would mean less weapons being fired at once, since they would need double the weight in energy weapons. That should limit the number of heatsinks and other items on a mech.
But I do like the idea. Granted, you could just over load with energy weapons knowing the next round you would be cooling further, since you couldn't fire anything.

I didn't think about this line of thinking when reposting the limit n energy weapons firing.
I was thinking more along the lines of so many shots like ammunition in cannons and such.

Another idea might be risking a weapons melt down as the heat of the mech rises. Saying things like connections and even power cables overheat and melt. Possible power core flaws show up, such as cracking the focusing lens as you run the cold coolant around it.

Suggestions would be interesting.
Retry
02/27/15 11:56 PM
76.7.225.145

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
What happens on a modified roll of less than 2 for these missiles?
ghostrider
02/28/15 01:57 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
This is an older thread that was revived for suggesting some more house rules, or at least see if they don't bite the big one.

But to venture a guess, but from what I can figure, you would use the 2 column. You have rolled to hit, this would just be to see how many hit. But donkey would have to answer this.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/28/15 07:10 AM
172.56.16.137

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Retry writes:

What happens on a modified roll of less than 2 for these missiles?



Good question

The 2 missile column anything that comes up as a negative number you missed even though you rolled a hit.
The 4, 5, and 6 missile column one missile hit.
The 10 column you would continue on the 2 column.
The 15 column you would continue on the 4 column.
The 20 column would continue on the 5 column.

Rules for Anti Missile System would be changed to follow the new rules except for missiles that rolled on the 5 column where all missiles where destroyed before hitting the target.

This applies for all standard LRM, SRM, and MRMs I don't know the rules for all of the newer missile systems of how they work on the missile chart.
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!!!
ghostrider
02/28/15 02:21 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
for streaks you need to see if they hit to begin with. If it doesn't lock, they don't fire. That would mean ams wouldn't function.
And I see why they are not subject to this concept. But that is specific rules.
ghostrider
03/04/15 05:06 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Maybe I'm thinking about autocannons the wrong way. Maybe increasing the damage or range on it might be the way to go.

It might be worth using an ac 5 if it did like 7 or 10 points of damage, or went out to lrm ranges. Just as an example.

Another idea might be to increase the force of them, such as causing a piloting roll or adding say +1 or +2 to one, when hit by any of them, since they would strike with kinetic force instead of just burning off armor. More concentrated then lrms.

The thought came up in the cannon thread, but this is more of a idea search then discussing the use of them over other weapons.
wolf_lord_30
03/04/15 05:19 PM
166.216.165.93

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Not a bad idea since the cannons weigh a bit and take up quite a few criticals. You would have to be careful though, our some people will quickly complain about them.
I like the idea of knocking down mechs easier.
Maybe all autocannons have a chance to knock down a mech, regardless of damage taken. If you take 20+ damage in addition to being hit with an autocannon, there is a +1 modifier. Very similar to what you said ghostrider.
I could see this s being a little too mean though. I happen to fall enough on 4s and 5s.
ghostrider
03/04/15 09:31 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If they complain about the cannons, then next time they should use them themselves.
But yeah, it would take some work to make it so they are back to being useful without being over powered.
Also, you wouldn't have to deal with the cannons as long as energy weapons so that kinda balances out.

And I share you luck with rolls at times. Need 5's to hit, and only hit one out of 6 shots..
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/05/15 01:54 AM
172.56.22.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I would do a house rule that ACs automatically cause a piloting roll and the bigger the cannon the bigger the modifier. Each 5 points of damage after the first 5 points adds a +1 mod. One hit from a AC-2 has a -1 mod.

Missiles have to do 20+ points no modifiers added for higher damage.

Energy weapons cause no piloting roll, the amount of damage is irrelevant there is no chance of causing a mech to fall.
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!!!
wolf_lord_30
03/05/15 02:19 AM
166.137.244.52

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I would think that much energy zapping the mech and blasting away armor would still cause a mech to topple over. Definitely not as much as ballistics though.
ghostrider
03/05/15 05:06 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
that is why the 20 point rule would be in effect, though I do wonder why they didn't go with 16 originally.
That would be a ton of armor being dropped.

Don't have anyone in the area I live in that plays, but if you do try this out, let us know the outcome.
I can understand energy weapons needing to focus on a specific point, so they have effective ranges. It may be short, but a simple bounce would avoid that focus.

I can also see where shells do not need to hit the same exact spot to do their damage. If you read the novels, they almost always say the shells walk across the mechs body part.
Justifying a little extra range is easy when you look at it that way.
As someone said. All misses shots magically disappear at the end of their range.
With the speed of the shells, there effective range doesn't match properly.

It is my understanding the explosives on the shells does the damage, not the kinetic force like a gauss rifle.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/05/15 08:03 AM
172.56.21.208

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
wolf_lord_30 writes:

I would think that much energy zapping the mech and blasting away armor would still cause a mech to topple over. Definitely not as much as ballistics though.



How so? What would happen that would cause a mech to lose its balance by being hit by basically light? All that is happening is the armor is melting off the mech. Its not being hit with any kinetic energy that would cause it to all of a suddenly to lose its balance.
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!!!
wolf_lord_30
03/05/15 08:37 AM
166.137.244.52

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I'm not sure. My science fiction physics is a bit rusty. But you are being hit and losing armor, maybe that would help cause it. Aren't ppcs like lightning? And lightning still hits with force. If it's not like lightning, I wonder what game I'm thinking of. Maybe 40k. Anyways, I would think that being as big and concentrated as the lasers are, they would still hit with some sort of force. Plus when you see the artwork, lasers still cause explosions, because it's no fun to draw armor melting off. We all want to see massive damage. Damage and explosions cause falling. At least for simplicity's sake.
ghostrider
03/05/15 11:50 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You would have a shift of weight depending on how much armor was being lost.
And if you ever seen the original battle star galactica when they used laser cannons, the shots actually exploded when they reached a certain point. Not realistic, but good special effects.

I would think ppcs send out what looks to be lightning, but is actually more of a beam. Otherwise, it would be affected by things like weather. Granted, I am not sure about things like x-rays or microwaves if they push with any real force, but that is the type of energy output of the ppcs. Now this is a guess on my part, so feel free to show me I'm wrong.
Now a plasma rifle would be a different story. But most plasma explanations say it sends out a jet of ionized gas. So that is what I am basing that off of.
ghostrider
03/05/15 08:27 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Just a couple random question popped into my head.
Why does the cannons heat up so quickly with the larger cannons?
I understand the larger ones creating a little more heat then the smaller ones, but why would it jump from 3 heat for the 10, to 7 heat for the 20?
And with the design of the cannon, wouldn't it kick most of the heat out of the barrel with the projectile?
Hell, the fluff on the original demolisher stated just that. It was designed to force the left over gas out of the barrel when fired.
The machine gun would heat up faster then a cannon, since they would be firing more shots faster.
Or did I miss something?
ghostrider
03/05/15 10:16 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
had a few more thoughts come up.
Why can't the clans have come up with a lighter cannon design like they did with missile launchers? Maybe use that as the next improvements.
Since the gauss rifle came out, it basically destroyed all other cannons. Might be heavy, but produces 1 heat for 15 points of damage at ranges further then almost everything else. Why bother with the ac 20 or even the 10, when you can fit a gauss? That goes for alot of other weapons as well. No spread like an lrm 20, plus possibly not hitting with half of them.

Another thought is the medium laser. The benefits definitely outweigh any side effects.
And with the er version, it has become too powerful for the weight and heat.
Maybe it should be bumped up to 5 or so heat with adding a ton extra. Half the weight of a large laser with the same heat to damage output for the standard 3025 model.
Increase the heat for the er to equalize it with the rest of the weapons.
I know this idea won't go over well.
Akalabeth
03/05/15 11:17 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Double the damage. Double the heat.
wolf_lord_30
03/05/15 11:50 PM
166.137.244.52

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The funny thing about the medium laser is that it was stated in the books as being a workhorse of the inner sphere, but not good enough to be a main weapon. That is what their idea behind it was anyway. I don't know if it quite hit that role as they intended it to. It may have surpassed its fluff origins.
Retry
03/06/15 01:14 AM
76.7.225.145

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

You would have a shift of weight depending on how much armor was being lost.
And if you ever seen the original battle star galactica when they used laser cannons, the shots actually exploded when they reached a certain point. Not realistic, but good special effects.

I would think ppcs send out what looks to be lightning, but is actually more of a beam. Otherwise, it would be affected by things like weather. Granted, I am not sure about things like x-rays or microwaves if they push with any real force, but that is the type of energy output of the ppcs. Now this is a guess on my part, so feel free to show me I'm wrong.
Now a plasma rifle would be a different story. But most plasma explanations say it sends out a jet of ionized gas. So that is what I am basing that off of.



Yes, there would be some shift of CoG due to armor loss. There'd also be a theoretical shift in CoG while ammo gets consumed, though. Autocannons and Gauss Rifles also cause a CoG shift due to armor loss on impact, but they have an additional high kinetic-energy effect that lasers lack.

PPCs might do something similar, but I know nothing about the physics of a particle projection cannon.

BT plasma uses, IIRC, superheated plastic to inflict kinetic or heat damage, both in the case of the Rifle. There's probably a significant kinetic component considering the Rifle deals as much damage as an AC/10 at the same ranges with the same ammunition endurance, while having heat inflicting effects and being a BA and PBI murdering machine, AND a vee-wrecker, while being lighter and more compact than an AC/10. Only real disadvantage is it's higher heat, generating as much as a PPC, but you can plan a design for that.

One Medium Laser can't really be a primary weapon unless you're a Savannah Master or something to that effect. A battery of medium lasers sure can though. (Unless you're an assault mech that moves like 3/5, in which case you should probably have a PPC or something as well.)
ghostrider
03/06/15 03:04 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Depending on the mech, the loss of a ton of armor is 5% of the mechs total weight. That would be significant, which makes me wonder if it might be an idea to penalize a lighter mech that loses a ton or more in one round.
Also the loss of that much weight would affect the pilot for a short period so the piloting roll is a good idea for the 20 plus damage in a round.

And strangely enough, that logic asks if mechs should not be forced to make a pilot roll when they get hit in the legs by a ballistic weapon, as the force would cause it to shift from the hit. I would say larger then an ac 2 single shot. This would be more pronounced during a run.

Yes. Speed of the game suffers with more little rules being put in, but having some logic makes it more realistic.

And a side note. There are several 3025 mechs that used a medium laser as their primary weapon. The stinger and locust come to mind. The wasp has the srm 2 as well.
Retry
03/06/15 05:02 AM
76.7.225.145

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
There's an alternative rule that modifies a mech's PSR based on it's weight class.

I think it's +1/0/-1/-2 for light/medium/heavy/assault classes.

Stingers and Locusts fall under the "savannah master" category, where they don't actually have a payload for anything anywhere close to heavy.
wolf_lord_30
03/06/15 08:51 AM
166.137.244.52

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I personally didn't like the alternative rule. Some of these light mechs have so little armor, they don't need the extra disadvantage of falling over easier. It felt as if it gave an unfair advantage to the heavier, and more armored, mechs.
As for realism in the game, it is hard to add elements to a game and keep it playable, fun, and not bogged down with special rules. Battletech already plays at a slower pace than a lot of games, some people don't like that and won't play it because of how long it can take. Adding more special rules for the sake of realism will just end up taking longer and maybe push some other people away. I understand why you would want to in a sense, but to me,I like a game to still be a game.
Let me give an example.
I have played some flight simulator board games, Birds of Prey and Flight Leader. Birds of Prey was a true simulator: airspeed, throttle settings, drag,lift, finding angle to target, angle off nose, angle off canopy, visual sighting and radar settings. Not to mention the movement was in 3d on a 2d board, the pieces showed you relatively where you were,but your true position was on your plotting chart. And you could cause damage to your fighter if you performed maneuvers that exceeded your jets intended performance and cause your pilot to black out.
Flight Leader on the other hand just had a HUD record sheet, simplified rules for maneuvering and spotting enemy fighters. It still had altitude, but it was simplified, and it still accounted for drag, but it was done for you in a chart.
So birds of prey was an actual flight simulator on paper, whereas flight leader was the strategy and tactics of flight, not so much the realism. Still a good game, but it only took a few minutes to finish up a turn for a squadron. Birds of prey took around 20 to 30 minutes to finish one turn, and that was if you only had one fighter each.
This is kind of an extreme example of realism, but all I am trying to really say is while realism can be good, it will slow the game down a lot.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/06/15 11:30 AM
172.56.7.233

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That is why they are house rules. Your willing to give up speed of play for more realism but its not rules that are forced onto people
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!!!
wolf_lord_30
03/06/15 11:34 AM
166.137.244.52

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Very true
ghostrider
03/06/15 12:35 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Well had a thought and instead of weight of mech, use the actual speed of it, since a slow moving mech is easier to control then a fast one.
Could also extend this to vehicles and definitely jumping and flying units, thought aerofighters have their own. I was thinking of lams.
though the psr penalties retry has seems solid.

Not sure if I mentioned it, but this could be applied to hover craft requiring a drive roll when the air skirt is hit. Anything from missing the next turn trying to recover on up to complete rolling of the hovercraft into a crash.

And as donkey said, it is house rules. Suggestions to try and make the game fun while trying to bring some things back into line.
Choose what sounds good, and even change it to fit better.
I don't think any of us are developers for the game. Non of this is official or cannon.
But who knows. Maybe they might get wind of some of it and think about it.
wolf_lord_30
03/11/15 09:36 AM
166.137.244.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Here is a house rule that was brought on by misreading the rules many years ago. Unless it was this was in the second edition rules, can anyone look that up for me?

Hatchet and club attacks use the punch hit location.
ghostrider
03/11/15 01:36 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I believe hatchets were not available in the original boxed set. But clubs were.
Interestingly it is missing from the original citytech. I can not find my original boxed set rule book at this time. Someone else might be able to check it out.

You use the kick location if the puncher is a level lower then the punchee.
Just as a kick uses the punch table if the kicker is a level above the kickee.
Pg 34 of the compendium
pg 44 of the master rules

and from what it looks like, they pulled the damage location table done by infantry when above or below a mech in a building.
wolf_lord_30
03/11/15 01:52 PM
166.137.244.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You're right hatchets, weren't in the original set. I was looking at the 4th edition rules and they had the rules for hatchets. I naively thought that since the rules were there for 4th edition, they would be there for the 2nd edition.
Anyways, like I said for the house rule, we always used the punch hit location for clubs and hatchets. We treated them basically like bigger punches. Very nasty way of smashing in someone's head. Maybe too mean, but it was fun bringing Berserkers and Axmen to the fight.
ghostrider
03/11/15 09:47 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
A lot has changed. Some of it isn't funny at all. Others of it you wondered how they were printed.

For some reason, I always went with the club locations when using hatchets, ie the punch table. It just seemed like the description of mechs made it sound like limited range of movement, so basically you got to a certain point and the limits of movement were reached. Suddenly.
Since a club could extend the reach of a mech, it makes sense they could hit legs of another on level ground. Never thought about it until you said something.
I was thinking of suggesting that a physical weapon equipped unit be allowed an extra hex for a swing, but they are not the reach giving. 30 meters is just too much. But maybe an extra arc hex for hand held ones. You can twist the hand to use the shaft to extend the blade some more. Maybe have a penalty like breaking the actuator one an extremely bad or good roll.
Not a great suggestion, but a little something.
Akalabeth
03/11/15 10:58 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In the miniature rules, physical attacks have a 1" range but physical weapon attacks have a 2" range. Not sure if that's a house rule we use or in the rules themselves but think its the latter.
ghostrider
03/11/15 11:44 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I starting thinking of allowing it to rear in the rear arc with the wrist turn. Maybe lessen the damage as well as the possibility of blowing the hand actuator, but that is just a glimmer of a thought.

While talking about physical attacks with a weapon, do you stick with just one? or allow multiple shots, maybe base it on piloting skill roll?
Say something like (current skill)*3 rounded down to the next number. Or only letting it swing twice if you have a piloting skill of 0-3? One attack per target, must have multiple targets to attempt. Maybe use the ultra shots to see if you get a second chance?
Yes this is potentially unbalancing and dangerous when using units that use hatchets and such.
This would be for non clan warriors only, since they normally don't use hatchets and such, and would be highly dishonorable for them to consider it.
Could potentially say the swing is just continued from the first strike into a second unit.
Retry
03/11/15 11:48 PM
76.7.225.145

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Standard variety autocannons, which are fluffed as firing numerous shots at their opponents even in their larger varieties, do not do multiple to-hit rolls. I wouldn't believe that melee weapons would work differently.
ghostrider
03/12/15 01:34 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I believe there is one novel with Kai Liao on twicross using a hacthet man that gave the impression he was doing just that guarding the pass so the raiders were safe from the falcons. It is an impression.

And I was not suggesting hitting the same target but another one in range, like chaining together a martial arts attack. Also, if you really think about it, why would you be limited to one attack punching anyways? If mech movements are really that slow, then they should not be kings of the battlefields.
Some run over 100 kph. Yet they arms don't move that fast? Wouldn't they fall down the moment something happened like a wind shift? Only turning on pavement or special conditions affect them moving that fast, but yet the same conditions affect the one that tops out at 34 kph. Why does this sound screwed up?
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/12/15 02:47 PM
172.56.10.145

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
By the published rules you can do two punching attacks, one hatchet attack, or one kick.
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!!!
ghostrider
03/12/15 07:10 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
that is why it is here and not under canon rules

I understand why they limited the number of attacks for the hatchet and kicks.
Then again the original rules had nothing about a crawling mech but they used that in a scenario pack.
Same thing with firing off jets when not standing properly, but that we battle technology, not more canon material.

The lack of 2 attacks with a hatchet was done to prevent the dual hatchet wielding mechs from becoming an annoyance, but they didn't put as much thought into the pulse/targeting computer dilemma. Or a few other things.
ghostrider
03/31/15 03:01 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The stealth armor came up yet again.

I was thinking maybe in a very limited form, of allowing the light bending paint to perform something similar to this ability.
Maybe at a high cost, if you use costs in the game, of allowing it a benefit of adding a +1 penelty to the enemy to hit the unit at long range. Or maybe having that at medium range, and +2 for long. Input would be nice on this.

I am not seeing how just changing the formula of armor would make it harder to hit while still being as useful as normal armor. Yes it doesn't provide as much protection, but it isn't that much worse.
wolf_lord_30
05/29/15 11:15 AM
166.137.90.63

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
After seeing a couple posts of KJ's and others responding to his in d8 battletech, I thought of a possible house rule. Actually more like a change of pace. This actually first came up in my gaming group alot how to change initiative around to make the game flow faster.

Let me state right now, I like how battletech plays already and I'm not a huge fan of trying to change it. And I was influenced by the board game Doom. So somebody should try this out instead of me and tell me how it works.

Okay, so when you when initiative, you actually move first. You can shoot anywhere along your path at anytime. So a BattleMaster starts adjacent to a Dragon. He declared he is walking (for attacker firing penalty) and shots fired mgs and srm6 at point blank. Then he moves backwards 3 hexes and shoots his PPC. This is where record keeping becomes very important though.

If a mech had NOT moved this turn, you use their last turn's previous movement modifiers for the attacker to shoot at them. If they have moved already, use this turn's movement modifiers.

Physical attacks are also resolved during the mech's movement phase. Effectively,a turn is just each mech taking a complete turn in one step instead of having separate phases.

This is supposed to give battletech a more fluid feel and you can move to get out of LOS while blasting away with your own guns. I'm bout sure how this would really play and might change the game too much.
ghostrider
05/29/15 01:58 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It seems to be a good start, but there are some clarifications needed.
First thought is if the battlemaster blows off the dragons ac arm. Does that mean it can not use that cannon in that turn if it did not already go?
Same with ammunition explosions. You set it off next to the mech, since vehicle explosions do nothing to surrounding units, means you are caught in that explosion?
Which also asks, if you fall, and don't have the movement left to stand, that would mean you finish the turn on the ground?
Or even the unit that was attacked. I would assume they would have to get up before anything else.

But firing first before the others and having the effect go now instead of end of round does make it better to move first instead of waiting for the enemy to move so you can get an advantage on it.

As for being able to blast away then hide. Remember. The enemy can do the same. Though this does allow you to pop up, fire and get back into cover. It would add some excitement into the game.
wolf_lord_30
05/29/15 02:27 PM
166.137.90.63

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Since things move at a different pace, I would say the dragon is short on his ac if he gets fired on first. With ammo explosions, you're just out of luck. it sets it off right then and there. So if the mech hasn't moved, he's gone.

Movement is the same. If you don't have enough to stand, you don't have enough to stand. Just like it is with the regular rules.
ghostrider
05/29/15 03:54 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Had a follow up thought on this.
maybe add in the ability to delay your move if you have the initiative.
This would allow you to preempt someone else that is hiding behind a building, so when they step out, you could fire on them without their cover bonus. Limit it to like the first couple of units based on the size of the combatants.
Maybe even limit it to once a combat, or every so many rounds.
wolf_lord_30
05/29/15 04:24 PM
166.137.90.63

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Like overwatch? It's a good idea to me.
ghostrider
05/29/15 06:47 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I didn't know anyone else would know that term. Xcom or even ufo;enemy unknown for the old commadore system. But I guess that fits some. I was thinking a little more specific, like one unit you are watching, not just anything that moves.
But that works.

That is really going to make a few people mad. Think they will run behind a unit only to find they fall just as they move out.


Edited by ghostrider (05/30/15 10:28 AM)
ghostrider
09/04/15 11:31 AM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Conversation in another thread talking about bracket fire and why people don't do that.
The idea of using a ppc at range 3 because of damage verse using mls came to mind, and the idea of a single hex, going to 4 would mean the ppc is far better then the ml since it is in short while the ml is in medium.

This is kind of stupid if you think about it. The medium lasers were supposed to be the weapons to use once getting in close like that, but the shear fact the numbers show otherwise. Most would fire both if they were not redlined to start the round.

Maybe the range catagories might need tweaking. Say change short range to a range of 5, medium to 10, with long being 15, and maybe adding extreme to anything beyond 20.
So a medium laser would have a max range of 9, but their longest bracket is medium range. Yes, it would make some weapons worse, such as the gauss and erl weapons, and improve others like the flamer and mg, since their max would be considered short.
It is a thought. Input would be nice.

Even if it is to curse me out for a stupid idea like this
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
09/05/15 07:03 AM
71.170.162.49

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Even if it is to curse me out for a stupid idea like this



Well considering (A) curse words are blocked by software and (B) personal attacks will get one banded, I don't see that happening.

Quote:
Conversation in another thread talking about bracket fire and why people don't do that.
The idea of using a ppc at range 3 because of damage verse using mls came to mind, and the idea of a single hex, going to 4 would mean the ppc is far better then the ml since it is in short while the ml is in medium.

This is kind of stupid if you think about it. The medium lasers were supposed to be the weapons to use once getting in close like that, but the shear fact the numbers show otherwise. Most would fire both if they were not redlined to start the round.

Maybe the range catagories might need tweaking. Say change short range to a range of 5, medium to 10, with long being 15, and maybe adding extreme to anything beyond 20.
So a medium laser would have a max range of 9, but their longest bracket is medium range. Yes, it would make some weapons worse, such as the gauss and erl weapons, and improve others like the flamer and mg, since their max would be considered short.
It is a thought. Input would be nice.



I happen to agree with you but its not happening at least for the board and roll playing game. As for computer games that might be standard because its most likely easier to program the game that way.
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!!!
ghostrider
09/09/15 06:12 PM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I would still like input with the range change concept, but another thought came to mind.
Jump jets.
The entire concept of them and how they are used, really makes me wonder if they could be used as often as you want. The jump packs for landing non jet mechs have fuel reserves, but yet normal mech jets don't have any such limit.
In a vacuum they are supposed to use small amounts of mercury, if I recall. And in normal environments, they supposedly use super heated air passed over the reactor, yet it heats up the mech to use them, not cools it down.
And yet there is no maximum to using them.
Something for nothing comes to mind here.
I would suggest limiting the amount of times they can be used like fuel in a fighter. That would change alot of how they are used.
ghostrider
12/04/15 02:15 AM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The idea of changing the size of map hexes came up in the design of a weapon.
I don't think the map hex size should be change so much as the actual distances of the weapons ranges needs to be seriously looked at.
Yes I know that would destroy most physical mechs from being a large factor in the game, such as the axeman or hatchetman.

But with the speeds of the projectiles and frankly the power of lasers and such, ranges of under 1 kilometer are redaculous to the extreme. Even the weapons of wwI had better ranges and hitting abilities then alot of the weapons in the game.
And that doesn't even begin to question why the weapons firing in space using the same ammo moves that much faster since the range on world is soo much closer.

Is there a need to actually change the ranges to make it more realistic?
Of would it be that difficult to play if a laser has horizon as the limits of it?
We discussed a little about dropping the weights of cannons and such to help make them more worthy on the battle field as ammo dependent weapons are horrible in most cases, but a few are used such as gauss and lrms.
ghostrider
03/03/16 12:02 AM
98.150.102.177

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I know some won't like this, but balance may be what is keeping the game back in some respects. Maybe it is time to allow things to move beyond the medium ranges of 6 to 16 hexes. Maybe 16 hexes should be short range. Yes, it will make physical attacks obsolete, but it would open up alot more reality into the game. Extending the range then can hit at, does not mean they hit better.
Thinking about it, almost all weapons are less then a kilometer, and that is a little over half a mile. So a gauss slug would not be effective past a half mile?
The tank cannons today shoot further, and they are supposed to be the equivalent of the ac5/ac10?
75 mm bore was supposed to be equal to one of those, though I would have to look up which one.
Akalabeth
03/03/16 10:46 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think you're playing the wrong game if you're looking for realism.

Balance IS keeping the game back in the sense that all new technologies are created to be roughly balanced with 3050 tech. New weapons have trade offs that prevent them being much more effective than their predecessors. It's not really a philosophy I agree with because I feel it creates a stagnant universe, but it seems to be working for most Battletech players
ghostrider
04/02/16 11:25 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The idea of using endosteel and double heat sinks was going thru my mind, and a possible solution came to mind.

Would it be worth using both in vehicles if the reduced the amount of weapons and such a vehicle could carry?
The extra space taken by them could cover this reduction if pressed.

Such as 2 double heat sinks would reduce the equipment carried by 1.
The endosteel I don't have any suggestions to how much it would reduce things, but then only the larger units would suffer from it, and benefit from it at the same time.
Akalabeth
04/03/16 05:00 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Even a 35 ton vehicle can carry 12 items. Having endo&dhs cost items wouldn't be much of a restriction at all.

A 50 ton clan-hover tank with 2 turret mounted ER PPCs, moving 8/12 with 10.5 tons of armour (40/34/20/40turret) would under your suggestion still have 5-6 unused spaces if it had 15 DHS & a fusion engine.
Karagin
04/03/16 05:36 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Question becomes would the DHS on a vehicle be able to be stuffed into the engine i.e. like on a mech where after the first 10 DHS that come with the engine, see that is the flaw in FASA/WK/CGL's argument against vehicles have these since vehicles use the same types of fusion engines that mechs do, are the other ones going to show up as per the normal rules for fusion engines and heat sinks, be them double or single? Or is there something else at work here?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
04/04/16 12:36 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I don't see an issue with the engine hiding the sinks up to the limit. This would apply to extra or ICE units. But that would be up to the people playing.

As for the people defending the inability of vehicles using them, ask them how a half ton engine supplies 10 tons of heat sinks free. I suspect a ban from the board as they will hate to answer that. The smaller engines don't hide the criticals so that is another hole in the argument.

As for using them, it was something that came to me as I was doing things. They want to limit them, it's there game. I figured it might give some here an idea to use them with some limits.

And now that does bring up another question. If an engine can only hide x amount of heat sinks, does that mean double sinks would cause it to hide less?
Ie clan half, while IS 1/3rd?

Or is my math off with space taken in the engine compartment?

Honestly, I don't see why double sinks wouldn't work in a vehicle, if they are all hidden by the engine. I don't agree with it, but I could see issues with those outside the engine set up. They have always suggested fusion engine being salvaged from vehicles. So that kind of makes it sound like it is the same thing.


Edited by ghostrider (04/04/16 12:43 AM)
Akalabeth
04/04/16 02:26 AM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So when are you guys going to start arguing that vehicles should need heatsinks for ballistic & missile weaponry?
I mean fair's fair right. If vehicles should get double heat sinks, because logic, then logic also dictates that their non-energy weapons should generate their regular heat.

Furthermore when are vehicles going to start paying for crew? I mean a battlemech pays 3 tons to have one guy. But a 100 ton assault tank pays 5 tons to have 7 crew? That doesn't make a lick of sense.

Also shouldn't conventional vehicles need to track fuel? If a conventional fighter has to pay tonnage for fuel, then shouldn't an ICE-powered vehicle do the same?
ghostrider
04/04/16 03:51 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I want to say it was suggested that those weapons heat up tanks, and I will add it should put it back on an even footing.
Those weapons should heat up tanks or not heat mechs. That is where alot of the issues with this started.

But then it looks like they thought tanks would be munitions dependent as the original release had fusion engines in mechs almost exclusively. It is the fact lasers seem to be the most efficient weapon out there, as you run out of ammo and the things the use it are heavier then needed.

As for the crew quarters. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is the same as ship crew quarters. They are sealed environments. A tank pays to have it sealed up for hazardous environments, where the mech doesn't. I can be dropped or work under water without having to be sealed like a vehicle does. Also, I would think part of the cockpit in a mech has to deal with the way things move including the neural helm computer.

I know there is somewhere on the board, but I can't find it now, someone did say they put a fuel limit on vehicles. I want to say 1000 divided by engine size determined that. I think the example was a 250 rated engie ran 4 turns on a ton of fuel, but not sure. Not sure if that was a house rule, or something else. But there should be a fuel tank added with ICE, including industrial mechs.
Karagin
04/04/16 06:12 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Why would they need heat sinks for Ballistic or Missiles weapons? The idea here is that the vehicles are already in the hole, since they have some how managed to miss out on Endo Steel and DHS to start with, now the balance issue would be that if the vehicle is using DHS then they would lost critical slots, which would be a good balance, again this wouldn't be the best solution but it is better then the non-answer you get from the PTB.

And the idea that the IC engines in Battletech are TWICE the weight of the Fusion and the answer is here is a fuel cell and some other possible engine types and well these work better with our Support Vehicle Rules but well if you want them in combat vehicles well...sorry but come on let's get real. The same amount of effort that goes into mechs would be applied to vehicles as a whole since they are cheaper to make or should be. But some how that is not the case in Battletech.

My group decided to test things, so we picked four vehicles from canon setting, and revamped them with Endo and DHS, no other changes, same to hit table, which is another area that keeps vehicles as well it's a total joke, and with that still in play kept things very balanced. Lance on Lance was the setting and things ended with three dead vehicles, gee imagine that, and two dead mechs. The lone vehicle that lived, the Sherck, only did so because it stayed at range and fired at what it could hit and only that. So really nothing changed, but again some how the balance of the game is upset and folks who know or are TPTB get all upset and angry when this topic comes up. Can't wait for the counters from them as normally comes when this topic pops up...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
04/04/16 12:08 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I want to say the open frame work of vehicles is why they allowed the no heat, and it would seem that is why they are so vulnerable to crits.

I think the idea of using munition weapons died out no only because of limited munitions/weight, but the cost concept of reloads has also affected players choice, since most players seem to be mercs, or run a business themselves. Yet most don't seem to really deal with costs, as they are able to come up with new units and produce them without the long and expensive design process. And yes, I know that is too much of a long and boring thing to roll play. If you had access to free munitions, would you use them more?
Or stick with energy weapons?

I asked before if the limited supplies of ammo is one reason people don't use those as much. Missiles, especially lrms seem to be used the most for vehicles. Gauss rifles come in second for weapons that aren't anti infantry.

But back to the dhs and such. I would say vehicles would be on par with mechs when they can kick and punch as well as do the rest. The only physical attack I can see is a charge, or ram to make sure we are on the same page. Optional rules might be needed to enhance damage to a vehicle that was sent flying thru the air from a mechs kick. A new critical might be enabled, like flipped on top/side. Even a mech attack that allows them to flip the tank.

Vehicles are still not the cheap source they should be. I really think the construction prices needs to drop. Granted more real world applications coming in, but a car is cheaper whole then it is to buy the parts separate. And for the down sides of it, the ice should be much cheaper to encourage more use of it. Without a fusion engine, most energy tanks would be less common.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 01:11 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yeah that's what I thought. You just want to buff vehicles. Remove their disadvantages while keeping their advantages. It's not about what's logical.

If you want powerful vehicles, it's probably better to play a game which doesn't centre on Battlemechs. TPB are never going to bring vehicles up to the level of battlemechs because the majority of players don't want that. That's just the nature of playing a game which revolves around Giant Robots.

Or if you don't want to play anything else then take advantage of some of the optional rules in Tactical Operations which remove vehicle disadvantages. Or just house rule whatever into the game.


Vehicle already make battlemechs obsolete. You can buy a lance of Demolishers for every one Atlas.
Want to make vehicles worthwhile? Then play by c-bills, not tonnage. If you buy&limit forces by c-bills then battlemechs are instant fodder in 90% of situations because they'll be outnumbered big time.

Stormcrow 14.7 million
Condor 1.27 million

Buy 11 Condors for one Stormcrow. Outnumber the mech in BV 7000 to 2000

Or buy a scorpion. 327K cbills.
Get 44 Scorpion Light Tanks for every Stormcrow. 13,400 Battle Value compared to 2000 for the Stormcrow.

And ghostrider wants ICE engines to be cheaper.






ghostrider
04/04/16 05:45 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If they hadn't done things that might be considered dumb, like allowing you to drop from orbit, then it I would agree they are powerful now.

Now. You are comparing a clan omni to the condor. I would assume that is the original 3026 tro condor. Might as well suggest warships obsolete as well. They can wipe out regiments of them quickly in space and on the ground.
It is fine to use the mechs as the main punch. And with basic economics that you just mentioned, how many vehicles do you have in support of the mechs you run?
How many vehicles does your group fight?
That is other then the grand blood melee arena combats that seems to be the front runner.
The areanas are the ONLY place you would face mechs like most in the game want. Atttacking a planet, or even the defense of one is one of economics and best of what you can get.

As with every group, you will take what you want to use, and ignore the rest. To be honest, mechs were not that god like when the game came out. Only real advantage they had was being able to move into all terrains, and physical attacks.
The suspension factor is something that may have allowed the mechs to be better at this. Removed from vehicles, or give the mechs a little more speed would help push this back into the better unit. Same with the heat issues with munition weapons.
I would also think mechs should hit better since their elevated platform would give them a better view and fire lanes then something crawling on the ground. Well bipeds anyways. The pilot bonus for quads helps them.

Maybe the issue is the higher tech in itself. Now that once ample armor is crap. The game seems to have shifted from playing it to pure numbers. I can hit you 60% of the time and will kill you after 3 hits. You can hit me 35% of the time and will need 10 shots to penetrate my armor.

The end result still goes back to the group playing. You will NOT use the rules you don't like if others in the group agree to it. TPB have backed themselves into a corner, and nerfing other units is their answer. Maybe the basic ideas of some of the game need to be changed.

Want to buff vehicles?
I want them to be less of targets then they are.
Want to play a game that lasts more then 3 turns unless you move 20?
Stop using the higher tech, and maybe move into using something other then arenas. Some new map sets or maybe home made with more features in might be the idea.
If you can't stand older tech, then maybe use house rules to buff the armor of those same units. Ie, maybe go 3 times the internal structure on the mechs, instead of 2. Oh wait. That means dropping sinks and weapons to do so. How about moving away from reality and actually making mechs have some huge advantages like a fantasy game is suppose you have.
It does seem to fit the idea you project for the game.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 06:03 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The basic ideas of the game will never be changed, to do so would be suicide.

And I use vehicles all the time. But we use Tac Ops rules to make them less vulnerable. Remove motive hits from 5 & 9, ignore direction-modifiers to motives, and randomnly allocate crits if the facing side doesn't have an item.

As OpFor in a clan campaign, I will sometimes have 20 or so vehicles & infantry versus 6-7 clan omnis. Depends what force I'm fielding. But we go by BV not c-bills. I field what forces fit historically.
ghostrider
04/04/16 06:30 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So the vehicles have become unkillable monsters because 2 extra crit slots were taken out, and if the section doesn't have an item in it, they don't reroll the issue.

Ok. So critical hits not transferring from the side of the tank to the front, rear, possibly turret is a horrible thing. The fact those hits are automatic hits, unlike mech criticals is not important. The fact you kill the crew on 3 of those criticals does not over balance them away from vehicles. The fact that only a turret section gone is the only way a tank is not killed when losing a section does not help destroy tanks quicker then mech means nothing just seems odd.

And honestly bv the way battleforce figured it out, was not correct. It was set up for ease to resolve large battles, but with ammo limitations and such, as well as a few other issues I have long since forgot as I don't use that anymore, a demolisher without ammo, is still usable, while in a battle the only real damage it could do once it ran out of ammo is a charge. The ac 20 itself was not as threatening as the range of it made it horrible, though in a played out battle, could destroy a light mech without much issue. The original charger was over rated at range since it was that abstract for damage. Once in short range it became a real threat, but the range of the hexes in battleforce did not corrispond the battle tech. The fact you fit 4 mech in one hex is enough to show that.
BV is not the best measuring stick for balancing units, but until they come up with a better way, we are stuck using it. As for battle force 2, that may have fixed these issues, but I gave up on it from the first one.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 06:42 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Uh, Tanks which lose their turret are dead dude. The only difference is that they can be repaired.

Further the crew killed critical is largely irrelevant. 90% of tanks which get knocked out by criticals will get knocked out because they lose their engine on the side critical chart (or ammunition if its ICE). And crits aren't automatic either. Crtis at just 6+ instead of 8+.

ghostrider
04/04/16 07:06 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Interesting. Most of the games I have played, lose of engine has not been as prevalent as crews dieing. Might be the lack of showing side armor to a unit, or the fact they tend to die before units get into that arc. The fuel and ammo hits are the next largest issues.
This is one time I will admit the newer rules changed the survivability of tanks.
It is still an auto crit. No needing to roll a 8+ like mechs do.
The loss of turret, I will admit that was a house rule we used for years, and have not relooked it up. We found it was too much, as the turret didn't contain the drive system.

So that means all lost locations kill a vehicle. That alone makes it highly more susceptible to losing it.
A mech and lose an arm and a leg and still be working.
I do admit, they need to limit armor on tanks like they do mechs. That might be a balance to their 'advantage'.

So the critical issue I concede has allowed crews to survive longer.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 07:10 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It's not an "auto-crit" if you don't automatically receive a crit.
ghostrider
04/04/16 07:22 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
With the new tables, they did add in that layer. Granted 6 verses 8, but it does give you some hope to survive.
Does it change the fact vehicles are still more screwed up then they should be?
In my opinion, no.

Now wanting to have it transfer to another location if all the criticals are gone in that one does sound like keeping up with mechs. But honestly, if the location is destroyed, why bother? The unit is dead.
I do think you should be able to fix a unit that wasn't destroyed in an explosion, such as just losing all internals.
ghostrider
04/04/16 07:25 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
To avoid tacking on other issues for the one answer, I will post another issue in a separate post.

The number of hit locations for a vehicle is 1, possibly 2 from a single angle.
Mechs have from 5 to 8, making it more likely a vehicle will die faster. All damage goes to few locations.
So I understand why they allowed more armor on the tank, but frankly some are too much. So it may not be the crits that should be harsh, but the amount of armor that should have been the weakness.
Again, my opinion.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 07:30 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
We transfer crits when it doesn't have a corresponding item. Not when the side has been destroyed. This prevents 2nd side crits defaulting to engine hits.

If you're not getting side criticals, you're not fighting vehicles correctly. But then again if you're using BMR the rules are completely different so whatever.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 07:32 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Vehicles have THREE to FOUR locations from a single angle.
Again, your lack of knowledge regarding the current ruleset is a problem in the discussion.
ghostrider
04/04/16 07:40 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
One engine critical destroys a vehicle. I believe that has not changed.

And if you are not getting side criticals you are not playing tanks correctly?
How can that statement be made without palming our head?
Maybe vehicles are not the skates for mechs in combat to other people. Played correctly, you try to avoid letting mechs on your flanks, but then I can see where that might not be played properly, since it would mean the mechs are the focus for the enemies fire, not the tanks.

I would think an lrm carrier should not be in the position to ram a mech.
Side shots do happen. I do hope you don't think the dramatic tank rolling up and moving the turret to the side is the way tanks are supposed to be played. That would make me question if the basic concept of the game is in question. All unis should be played as they are to survived the battle. Only things like mg tanks and flamers should be in a position to constantly be hit in the side.
The demolisher example is a good one. If it comes out shooting, I don't think exposing the side would be the best way to play it. Yes, more units means more chances, but we play tanks as mobile weapons platforms, not pill boxed unless they are hunkered down.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 07:45 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
"fighting vehicles" not "playing vehicles".

Engine crits don't destroy a vehicle. They immobilize it. Lock the Turret. And prevent Energy Weapons from firing.
That's the fourth rule you've got wrong at this point.

Tell me this, why do you suppose that I say most tanks should be taken out by engine crits from the side? What are the mechanics that create that?
ghostrider
04/04/16 09:32 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
They have the armor that faces the other unit, and a possible turret. You hit front side or left/right side. So some how, your single unit can hit more then one direction at a time? What rule set is being used?

Actually the engine crits does destroy some vehicles vtols, aircraft, and hover craft on the water are 3 instances where engine destruction results in vehicle destroyed. I don't deal with sea vessels or subs, so not sure if they are the same. Also, anyone that plays a tank crew would not abandon the unit that can't move, does not play intelligently. So I will say that is a assumption on my part. Now if they changed the engine hit from explosion to just loss of power, then that is a nice ploy to show what has changed. The wiki is not coming up with the critical results from such damage.

"fighting vehicles" not "playing vehicles".
That statement tells me vehicles are nothing more then targets in your game, and reaffirms the idea the entire game concept is not used in yout group. If the group does not play them smartly, you should not take that as EVERYONE does so. I would supposed they are nothing more then distractions and extra kills in the meanwhile. Having a tank that actually runs around the back side of a unit that runs up to them might be a valid tactic, but vehicles seem to be pill boxes for your group.
Or is that what is the problem? The idea a vehicle is nothing only to have it destroy an overpowered mech with a single hit to the back side, since it was not only allowed to get behind, but actually walked past because it was nothing seems like it may be a contributing factor.

Getting rules wrong seems to be another order to buy the newest books. I still have not seen anywhere in any book that says this set of rules is the only one to play by. But keep trying.
ghostrider
04/04/16 09:35 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
And now this thread it deteriorating.

It seems you have a problem with vehicles being challenging. That's fine. Trying to suggest they are overpowered now, yet suggesting the mechs with pulse/comp isn't sounds off.

As for the dhs/endo issue, some feedback about taking up space to balance it would be nice.
I thought 1 space for 2 dhs, but that might be harsh, or not enough.
Well that isn't hidden by a fusion engine.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 09:48 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
What rule set is being used? The current one.

I'm not telling you to buy the rulebook. I'm illustrating the fact that it's impossible to discuss the idea of "improving vehicle rules" when you don't understand what the vehicle rules are. If you want to improve or specifically discuss BMR you should probably state that in the thread. If you want to improve "Battletech" you should probably realize that Battletech is now Total Warfare.

Quote:
"fighting vehicles" not "playing vehicles".
That statement tells me vehicles are nothing more then targets in your game, and reaffirms the idea the entire game concept is not used in yout group. If the group does not play them smartly, you should not take that as EVERYONE does so.



No, that statement should tell you that we play Total Warfare. For example you still haven't told me how the most likely mission kill critical for a tank is an engine hit from the side, and I suspect you didn't give an answer because you simply don't know it. Because knowing the answer requires knowledge of the current vehicle rules.

Quote:

That's fine. Trying to suggest they are overpowered now, yet suggesting the mechs with pulse/comp isn't sounds off.



Never said either one of those things actually. But that's par for the course.
ghostrider
04/04/16 10:01 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You are more likely to roll an 11 then a 12, which the new rules give as the only real instant kill gives. The rest have been dialed back to weapons destroy, crew stunned and cargo/infantry killed.

Now explain how you have 4 hit locations when firing into a vehicle from the front. You hit front armor or possibly turret. Now it's been a while since I got out of school but math says with a turret, the limit is 2.
Did I miss something?
Akalabeth
04/04/16 10:13 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Total Warfare has new vehicle hit charts. You can hit more than the turret or the facing side.

And yes, your answer for the engine hits is wrong.

First the side facing is two hexsides, not one like the front/rear
Side Hit Tables charts allow critical chances on location 8, not just on a 2
Criticals like Engines or Crew Stunned are only hit once. If the crit has been hit it already it moves up the chart until it finds one not hit (assuming they roll at least a 6 to get a crit)
Most vehicles don't have cargo or side weapons.
This means any two criticals from the side, will often result in first crew stunned, then second engine hit. Or if the first crit roll is 9+, then engine hit right from the start.

So yeah, you missed something.
ghostrider
04/04/16 10:30 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
For example you still haven't told me how the most likely mission kill critical for a tank is an engine hit from the side.
You explained that yourself with the last post. Crew stunned is not end of mission kill. Engine hit would normally remove the unit from play. Fusion engine goes boom, while ICE has fuel cell go boom. Or the little markings on the chart don't count?
Then again, the wiki one might be out of date.

And I did miss the lunacy of the new locations table. I would love to hear how they could suggest you can hit the side armor while standing in from to the vehicle. With this new rule set, it appears they are trying to kill of vehicles out of the game. I can see maybe a third spot, depending on direction of incoming fire. But the other side would be like hitting the rear armor on a mech facing you.

As for crits, the crew stunned should be something that can be hit more then once, but not in the same round.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 10:35 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
How can you hit the side while standing at the front? Well, they probably assume that the Battletech world is 3-dimensional not orthographic.

TigerShark
04/05/16 12:23 PM
12.130.166.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

For example you still haven't told me how the most likely mission kill critical for a tank is an engine hit from the side.
You explained that yourself with the last post. Crew stunned is not end of mission kill. Engine hit would normally remove the unit from play. Fusion engine goes boom, while ICE has fuel cell go boom. Or the little markings on the chart don't count?
Then again, the wiki one might be out of date.

And I did miss the lunacy of the new locations table. I would love to hear how they could suggest you can hit the side armor while standing in from to the vehicle. With this new rule set, it appears they are trying to kill of vehicles out of the game. I can see maybe a third spot, depending on direction of incoming fire. But the other side would be like hitting the rear armor on a mech facing you.

As for crits, the crew stunned should be something that can be hit more then once, but not in the same round.



"Front" doesn't mean that you're perfectly lined up with the vehicle. BattleTech abstracts the angles a bit because there is constant movement by combat units. Even those 'standing still' in a hex are not REALLY standing still. Vehicles are turning on an axis, 'Mechs are making minute shifts in either direction, infantry are scrambling about into- and out-of-cover, etc.
ghostrider
04/05/16 03:09 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
As I said, I could see a third angle on it. Take a rectangular eraser and set in on the table. You could hit a side moving from straight in front of it, but not both sides.
And since the game does not really deal with top/bottom on units, I have ignored them. Not sure if that is what is being added in, but clarifying it might help get on the same page.


And the front concept is an issue with units in the same hex. Common sense says direction of travel when entered should determine facing and damage. Quick down and dirty rules has all units front at each other. This means if 3 units attack one, and all came from different directions, or flank the one unit, all damage is applied to front armor.
Akalabeth
04/05/16 03:47 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Shoot a moving target in the process of turning and you can very much see both sides during the turn
Karagin
04/05/16 05:41 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The whole top/bottom thing has always been the one area that the Battletech vehicles apart from other games, to include Battletech's sister game at FASA (at one time) Renegade Legion and how they handled the combat damage for the vehicles in that game, where Grav Tanks were the mechs and the lonely ground vehicles, well they had a lot of the same issues at the ground vehicles in Battletech, and even those had top and bottom armor. So why did they leave that out of the BT vehicle setup?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
04/05/16 06:46 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Fusion engine goes boom



Fusion engines don't go boom. See BattleTech 2nd edition, 3rd edition, 4th edition, MechWarrior: Companion, and Tech Manual for the fluff explanation.

Per the current vehicular critical hit results, p195 Total Warfare:

Engine Hit: The vehicle�s engine is severely damaged. The
vehicle may not move or change facing for the remainder of
the game and is considered an immobile target. However, its
electronics still function; any Direct-Fire Energy and Pulse
Weapons no longer work; also treat as a turret lock.


Similarly, IC engines don't explode but their fuel tanks do. A fusion-powered vehicle that takes a fuel tank hit treats it as an engine hit: no boom.

Quote:
And I did miss the lunacy of the new locations table. I would love to hear how they could suggest you can hit the side armor while standing in from to the vehicle.



Because you and your target will rarely be arranged directly face on. The broad range of perspectives covered by firing arcs necessarily expose some of other faces of a vehicle or 'Mech - note even in the original BT, an attack on the left side of a 'Mech can hit the right side.

The vehicle hit location tables of Total Warfare make sure that if you're facing the front of a vehicle, then the majority of your shots will hit the front or turret. If you're facing the side, the majority will hit the side or turret, with a chance of hitting the front.

After all, the following image of an Abrams would be considered to be facing the front arc of tank. Note the tank's left side is exposed to a badly-aimed shot. Most will hit the front, but not all.
http://www.hobbylinc.com/gr/tam/tam35269.jpg

Quote:
With this new rule set, it appears they are trying to kill of vehicles out of the game.



The information presented to you on teh interwebs might give that impression, but Total Warfare significantly toughened up vehicles just as it extended the life of infantry. One of the important features was the reduction in insta-kill attacks, like Infernos. Infernos no longer wreck vehicles on a roll of 8+ when they hit but instead count as modest SRMs with a chance for a crit. Dangerous, but a light 'Mech with an SRM 2 is no longer a weapon of mass vehicle destruction.
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
04/07/16 12:37 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The ammo/plant hit critical is what threw me off. Plant makes it sound like the power plant. To my knowledge that is the engine.
That has changed now.

As for the dual side possible damage when in front of the tank, for example sound off.
If I hit with a streak 2 pack, the way it sounds is I can hit the left side of the tank with one missile and the right side of the tank with the second missile. Maybe the idea that front armor covers the front, including in front of drive train, weapons and such might be why I thought you would not be able to hit more then front armor.
I do find it interesting that they would add in something like hitting a different location for more realism, but leave out things that would close up more holes.
I did notice there is no heat sink hit critical for vehicles. Now why would they leave that out? It is a very important aspect if the units uses energy weapons. It would be an easy way to shut down main energy weapons on ICE's and even fusion engines that don't hide all the sinks. Maybe put it under the cargo/infantry position. That would help those that consider vehicles overly dangerous.

I did say I could see the third side as you move off to one side, but that seems to have been ignored. I do not see being able to hit the other side of the tank, but then I may be settling for the idea of stop and go motion, verses the fluid motion of what a battle would be.
ghostrider
04/08/16 11:37 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Since engines of the same size are supposed to put out the same power, changing the minimum engine weight in a hover, to an actual engine rating might be a quick way around the issue of fusion, light and xl engines used in hovers.

Haven't really looked into a quick and dirty was to do this, though maybe figuring out the ice one can do that rated engine in the rest would be best.

Not sure where the wiki got the upgraded condor and the kanga-x from, but both tanks use the fusion versions of the engine. Would like to know if the source is canon or not.
If it is canon, then the people violated their own rules to put them out.

As was discussed, it seems odd to suggest the weight, and not power output dictate the minimum engine required. Yes they can up with the quick and easy rules years ago, but this should have been given some thought when xl engines came out. Even trying to use a normal fusion engine ran into issues. Going up to the next engine that fit went from from too light, to won't fit. So some home made designs didn't get used until we did a house rule. On such issue was a half ton to light, and the next engine that could be used was so heavy, nothing else would fit on the vehicle.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/08/16 03:00 PM
70.122.160.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It all comes down to how one wished to interpretate the 20% rule.

My interpretation of the rule is that that applies to ICE engines. As long as you go with an engine that is equal or greater to the ICE rating your good the actual weight in not relevant.
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!!!
Karagin
04/08/16 09:54 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yet Donkey you can't apply that to the crew and such on warships. Okay fair enough. Then again I am still looking for the magical advantage vehicles seem to have that many here keep claiming and how they could destroy the mechs dominance over the game if changes had that give them the same access to technology as mechs have. Won't aerospace fighters be a big challenge to the mechs then?

I seem to recall the game having a combined arms idea at one point, must have been back in the day when things were less critical and such.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/08/16 10:45 PM
70.122.160.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I am interpenetrating rules that exist in a different way than others do I am not out right braking them and creating my own rules to replace them.

I have also stopped posting designs that have my different interpenetration of the rules when one signal person namely Prince_of_Darkness objected at what I was doing. Though PoD has not been active here for three and a half years I have no intention to post another hover craft that has my different interpenetration of the rules do to the objection that he had put forth.
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!!!
ghostrider
04/09/16 11:40 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I agree with the concept of using a fusion engine rated with the ICE weight requirements. Not canon, but then not everything is correct with canon ideas. The newer rules seem to show more holes opening up, that were minor when the game started.

The combined arms seemed to be pushed when the successor states were not 'able' to create a new mech regiment every month, and cover combat losses for 3 more from each state in that same time.

The idea for the non canon design thread was to try and lessen the issues with the canon concepts, and allow some new ideas into the forums.

And to address the issues of aerospace fighters, they did threaten mechs. The strafing run was nerfed to avoid a single fighter from being able to destroy a company or more of units. Haven't tried the new rules with them, but I do agree the old ones were a little too much.
I believe this is why they have kept fighters from being exploited, because as a few have suggested, the game would not work if you can't reach the surface of the planet for attacks. The sds system would be the best thing for all to have, but would not allow new forces onto a world with one of them in working order. Focus would change from pure damage combat to spec ops and such.

I do agree with trying to keep an open mind, but I failed there for a while. Power gaming units got under my skin, and I allowed myself to try to shut them down. As long as it says in the beginning of the stats, it is not canon or has some alternative take on it, it should be handled as such, without much bias. It will get some, as all designs do, but with a reasonable explanation, it should pass.
And yes, reasonable comes down to point of view, so there will be issues with that interpretation.
Akalabeth
04/09/16 04:01 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Retry writes:

There's an alternative rule that modifies a mech's PSR based on it's weight class.

I think it's +1/0/-1/-2 for light/medium/heavy/assault classes.



Quote:
wolf_lord_30 writes:

I personally didn't like the alternative rule. Some of these light mechs have so little armor, they don't need the extra disadvantage of falling over easier. It felt as if it gave an unfair advantage to the heavier, and more armored, mechs.



That's because the rule is pretty dumb. I think a better, albeit more complicated rule, would be to simply change the physical threshold for damage taken. Maybe a light mech needs a PSR on 15 damage, not 20, a heavy on 25 and an assault on 30.

That way, it's harder to knock an assault down but not because the pilot is suddenly of elite rating. But if you're facing an assault mech, or two of them are dueling, it's not far fetched for them to be throwing 30 damage into each other anyway.
ghostrider
04/09/16 06:20 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
With the idea that the foot pads of a heavier unit is larger then a smaller one, and the actuators would be stronger, I could see the thresh hold of damage being changed. A ton of armor loss for a light is alot more pronounced then an assault unit.
Now there are instances, like running, that a heavier unit might be caught on the wrong foot being put aside at this moment, it does make more sense a meer ton off an assault mech might not be noticed, but for a light mech, where maybe 6 to 7 tons is maxed armor for the 35 ton unit, while 19 tons for an assault max is a huge difference.

Even being hit with something like a gauss slug or ac 20 would almost be assured of taking out a light mech, an assault is more likely to just shrug it off.
Speed of the unit, including jumping would make a big difference as well. I do agree lighter units suffer more, while heavier units are not as bad, but this does make sense.

Now before people get in an uproar, this is house rules conversation, and not canon.
Though if the tpb do decide on something like this, I would suspect it would be optional or advanced rules, not something in the core game.
Akirapryde2006
04/11/16 12:18 AM
108.9.214.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:

I am interpenetrating rules that exist in a different way than others do I am not out right braking them and creating my own rules to replace them.




Others being the majority of community which plays this game?

I guess your right. Forming your own interpenetration of the rules is different from ignoring a rule while trying to find a better way to execute the spirit of that rule which makes zero sense are two different things.

Oh wait, generating your own interpenetration of the rules is cheating as well by your own previous admission. Don't worry we wont hold it against you, Donkey cause its another "Highass" Double Standard.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/11/16 01:51 AM
70.122.160.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:

I am interpenetrating rules that exist in a different way than others do I am not out right braking them and creating my own rules to replace them.




Others being the majority of community which plays this game?

I guess your right. Forming your own interpenetration of the rules is different from ignoring a rule while trying to find a better way to execute the spirit of that rule which makes zero sense are two different things.

Oh wait, generating your own interpenetration of the rules is cheating as well by your own previous admission. Don't worry we wont hold it against you, Donkey cause its another "Highass" Double Standard.



It really does helps your argument a lot when you take things out of continence like just out right ignoring more than half of my post. Namely the following..

"I have also stopped posting designs that have my different interpenetration of the rules when one signal person namely Prince_of_Darkness objected at what I was doing. Though PoD has not been active here for three and a half years I have no intention to post another hover craft that has my different interpenetration of the rules do to the objection that he had put forth."

It would go even farther if you edit what I say too.
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!!!
Akirapryde2006
04/11/16 02:35 AM
108.9.214.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:

Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:

I am interpenetrating rules that exist in a different way than others do I am not out right braking them and creating my own rules to replace them.




Others being the majority of community which plays this game?

I guess your right. Forming your own interpenetration of the rules is different from ignoring a rule while trying to find a better way to execute the spirit of that rule which makes zero sense are two different things.

Oh wait, generating your own interpenetration of the rules is cheating as well by your own previous admission. Don't worry we wont hold it against you, Donkey cause its another "Highass" Double Standard.



It really does helps your argument a lot when you take things out of continence like just out right ignoring more than half of my post. Namely the following..

"I have also stopped posting designs that have my different interpenetration of the rules when one signal person namely Prince_of_Darkness objected at what I was doing. Though PoD has not been active here for three and a half years I have no intention to post another hover craft that has my different interpenetration of the rules do to the objection that he had put forth."

It would go even farther if you edit what I say too.



Kind of like the same thing you did to me? What's good for the goose right?

I have no argument to make nor defend. Merely pointing out your double standard and allowing others come to their own conclusions.

Though I am not sure what you mean by continence in your statement.
(Continence: 1: self-restraint or abstinence, especially in regard to sexual activity; temperance; moderation.
2. Physiology. the ability to voluntarily control urinary and fecal discharge.)

Um maybe you meant context? Or am I taking that out of context? Or am I ignoring something else?
ghostrider
04/11/16 12:46 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Honestly, it sounds like what I did for a while. Forgetting that opinions here can be barbed if you don't think about it from the other side.
Done it myself.

Might be a good time to ask the admins and nic if things the do not conform to the rules is allowed.
With or without disclaimer.
I would think with a disclaimer there isn't any issues, (selfish push for new area) this could remove alot of issues with an area devoted to new ideas and non canon designs.
The wiki isn't completely free of non canon cheats, as the kanga-x and the upgraded condor have fusion engines which violates canon rules for weight are present. I am sure there are others, and this is not a dig for those that keep the wiki clean. It is simple statement of fact.
ghostrider
04/18/16 08:55 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Would it be worth coming up with a movement for mechs that followed the mechwarrior editions idea of the evasion run?
Most would consider it a dodge, but frankly, a mech does have superior movement capablilities, and this would help enhance that.
Vehicles would not be able to really use it unless they turn harshly, which would cause issues. Mech can turn their torsos as well as take odd steps to throw off tracking.

It is a thought to increase the mechs movement abilities.
There are things you can do, like aiming penalty while doing so, or maybe a piloting roll needed to avoid falling during a maneuver.
If you want to go further for down sides, any internal damage to legs or leg actuators might allow for legs to snap.
I thought +1 to be hit, but +2 might work for a successful evade.
Not sure about return fire, but it's a thought.
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | >> (show all)
Extra information
0 registered and 52 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

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

Topic views: 31623


Contact Admins Sarna.net