general information

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)
Karagin
04/23/16 04:13 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
For a while the speeds were what the author/designer wanted or felt met the designs role, and yes there were oddities in the ORIGINAL TRO3026. Then the Powers that Be felt the need to fix the errors and oddities and thus things changed. So you know have the hovercraft with the max settings for speed, in other words, if the math says it will go 8/12 then it is going to have that for cruise and flank speeds, thus the hovers are all similar in that regard, and they all have the glaring weakness of the airbag that gets blown up easily given the to hit table and how it works.

NONE of the Battletech hover craft are like those seen in the HAMMER SLAMMERS novels, no ducted fans in an armored nacell raising the vehicle of the ground, instead what we see is the common air-cushion or air bag style. The bags do have an armored skirt but it's not like they gain anything from it, since the hovercraft's armor total armor factor includes this. So really hovercraft are great for hit and run, but not suited for actual head on combat. No woods, no rough terrain, easily immobilized once it takes a side hit, main benefits are able to cross water of any type, and their speed.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
04/23/16 04:28 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Also what we need to keep in mind is that many of us have different takes on how things work in the game, even with the official descriptions and such, many will still draw different conclusions about how things work. Which is fine, and at the same time many want to adjust things to fit how they see these things work.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
04/23/16 11:37 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Have to look up to see if any hovers do the 5/8 move.
Your own example of the condor/vedette comparison shows why the high lift factor for hovers is not a good thing.
Both have 6 tons of armor, while the original condor has 3 mls over the vedette and its cruise is the vedettes flank speed.
More weapons with same armor package. Even with the crit situation with hovers, the vedette shows the issues with the high lift factors.

As for the question of what is considered a slab of armor.
Everyone is different. I don't have an issue with a hover having 10 tons of armor on it. It could carry 20 for all I care. It could carry almost no armor and have a pair of gauss rifles on it.
Without the lift factor, the unit would require a much heavier engine, meaning this sort of set up would be less likely. Hovers need the speed. No damage means more likely to survive to use ammo reserves.
This limits the hovers to a more supportive hit and run role. I like a nice hover that can slow down enemy units and take them out if they are the only thing in the field. Doesn't mean I think they should regularly destroy assault battalions with a meer lance of them.

Now when did the stop hovers from going through rough?
Master rules saying only wood are forbidden terrain.
Akalabeth
04/23/16 05:02 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So your problem with hovercraft is that essentially you think they're too good. But if the hovercraft fit the designer's vision, then it's not really a problem in the design, it's just that you don't like the choices the designers made.

Battletech is a game where units are given a particular feel to how they operate. Doing away with the lift factor helps erode difference between different vehicle types. Take that away and you don't get specialized hovercraft as you presume, rather you get homogeneous vehicles where the difference between tracked and hover vehicles is less meaningful.

If you want hovercraft to be lightly-armoured, fast skirmishers how would you achieve that?
ghostrider
04/23/16 07:20 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think all vehicles are biased against. I think there is a problem with the rules for design. But that isn't the question at heart in this particular concept. I want to know if they had considered other options before deciding to keep the high lift factor.

I would like to know how reducing or even removing the lift factor from hovers would erode the differences?
As your example showed, the hover is over powered compared to a tracked unit. Reduce the lift factor would require a larger engine to be used to keep up the speed.
If the designer decided to leave the small engine/low speed, then it is the same thing as the 101 ton+ units. Slow moving target on something that loses movement with almost each hit. And this was done when 3 hit locations front/rear were movement hits, and 4 locations on the side were. The choice between speed and weapons/armor would have to be decided on.
The lift factor made that choice obsolete.

And I find it odd that someone that thinks vehicles are too powerful as is, has an issue with making one type have to decide if weapons/armor is worth the slower speed.

I am not the one that wanted hovers to be the fast skirmishers. But that is the most likely role for them.
The conclusion of low/no lift factor means more weight to engine to keep it fast. How this does NOT lower the armor/weapons loads, I would love to hear.
Akalabeth
04/23/16 07:36 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Here's a hovertank with the lift factors removed:

Code:

BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
VALIDATED

Type/Model: Vedette Medium Hover Tank
Tech: Inner Sphere / 3025
Config: Hover Vehicle
Rules: Level 1, Standard design

Mass: 50 tons
Power Plant: 250 Locom-Pack InterComBust I.C.E.
Cruise Speed: 54.0 km/h
Maximum Speed: 86.4 km/h
Armor Type: ProtecTech 6 Standard
Armament:
1 Armstrong J11 Autocannon/5
1 Scatter Gun Light Machine Gun
Manufacturer: New Earth Trading Company
Location: New Earth
Communications System: ComStar Rover
Targeting & Tracking System: ComStar Test-2

--------------------------------------------------------

Type/Model: Vedette Medium Hover Tank
Mass: 50 tons

Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 25 pts Standard 0 5.00
Engine: 250 I.C.E. 0 25.00
Cruise MP: 5
Flank MP: 8
Heat Sinks: 0 Single 0 .00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 2.50
Crew: 4 Members 0 .00
Turret Equipment: 0 1.00
Armor Factor: 96 pts Standard 0 6.00

Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 5 20
Left / Right Sides: 5 18/18
Rear: 5 20
Turret: 5 20

Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Autocannon/5 Turret 0 20 2 9.00
1 Machine Gun Front 0 100 2 1.00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 0 4 49.50
Items & Tons Left: 11 .50


Does this hovertank design look familiar?
If the lift factor is removed, what reason do I have to make it fast? A hovertank design becomes indistinguishable from a tracked tank design except in what terrain or damage affects it.
ghostrider
04/23/16 09:49 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Never heard of a vedette hover tank.
Putting hover in the name does not make it so.
Main reason it looks like that is no lift system. Oops.

Now what does this show us?
That hovers are not balanced with the rest of the vehicles. They pack more firepower and armor then a tracked unit of the same size. Maybe they should have less firepower and armor as the hover should remove alot of this from being in there.
Do I like that idea? No.

With this done, the idea of heavy hovercraft diminishes. The larger the vehicles, the heavier the engine needed.
To make it faster, you need to use lighter weapons and armor.
The makes it very distinguished from other vehicles.
It says hover craft are not a mbt. They should not carry the firepower of a tracked unit. Now imagine the condor with a fusion engine. That gives you almost enough weight for another ac 5, as 9 heat sinks are dropped with the fusion engine installed.
You answered the argument you had. The hover suspension factor allows the hover to move faster with more weapons and armor then the same weight tracked vehicle.

I will throw you a bone though. Engine size would limit speeds as the heavier engines would force lower speeds on lighter units. That is one thing that is an issue.
Akalabeth
04/23/16 10:41 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Create a design that demonstrates what you envision using the rules you feel should apply. Put your theory to practice.
ghostrider
04/24/16 12:31 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I will admit, after looking at the 2 tanks side by side, I wonder if they might have gone heavier with the engine.
They should have caught the suspension factor was too high when fusion engines were used.

I don't think they realized just how bad it would get, though they made both the tanks in question in the same book. And sadly, 30% of the hovers weight is engine/lift. So the other 70% still blows away a tracked vehicle.

I do see no suspension factor would be hard to deal with in the heavier engines.
Without lowering engine weight for the larger engines a little, or banning fusion engines from hovers, lowering the suspension factor a bit would be one option.
Raising the engine percentage would be another.
Maybe be lowering the overall top weight of hovers might do the trick.
A combination of things might have worked as well. Something simple like suggesting the hovers have added movement due to no friction with the ground. No contact, so moves easier. Could give a bonus of like 2 mp or so.

Look at the issue with the saladin and the hetzer. With 5 less tons, the saladin is superior to the hetzer hands down.
This alone would suggest the hover craft would be the better mbt. Faster, more heavily armed and armored. Sounds like the suspension factor didn't work as they had envisioned.

But this still doesn't answer the original question. Did they look at other options before settling with this one?
ghostrider
04/24/16 01:00 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
As a side note, the condor and vedette in city tech does NOT match the ones in the 3026 tro.
The condor lacks the ac 5 and had 2 flamers and 8.5 tons of armor, while the armor for the vedette was completely wrong.
In city tech, all turrets were in full ton increments as well.
Akalabeth
04/24/16 01:20 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Saladins die in one hit. I don't consider that superior myself.

Quote:

A combination of things might have worked as well. Something simple like suggesting the hovers have added movement due to no friction with the ground. No contact, so moves easier. Could give a bonus of like 2 mp or so.



This is just suspension factor in another form, except uniformly applied against all vehicles regardless of base speed. Shouldn't a 10/15 hovercraft benefit more than a 5/8 hovercraft?

So what hovercraft do you find problematic? What lance of hovercraft can defeat an assault battalion? In what games were those vehicles a problem?
ghostrider
04/24/16 12:29 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Shouldn't a 10/15 hovercraft benefit more than a 5/8 hovercraft?
Benefit how? It's already faster.
By the entire set up with the game, faster means less armor and weapons, and even weight. Played right and no (un)lucky rolls, the 10/15 should survive longer from just not being hit.
So clarify this a little more.

The statement of saladins die in one hit tells me you don't use weapons at medium lasers and less in damage..
Where the side armor is thin, it still has double the speed of the hetzer. With another 5 tons to use, it may actually have armor close to the hetzer. And wheeled vehicles have more restrictions on where they can go.

The incremental weight increases for the lighter engines are extremely small compared to the larger engines. From 10 rated engines to the 300, there a whole 18.5 ton difference. From 300 to 400 there is 33.5 tons. The is not including the ICEs. No normal vehicle can carry an ICE 400. 105 tons for it.
Lighter hovers can gain more speed then heavier ones from this fact alone. Yet the table for suspension factor helps the larger ones move at a speed that does not fit with the rest of vehicle movement profiles.
The suggestion of 2 mp was an alternative that is not giving a massive bonus for nothing.

I think all hovercraft have an advantage of movement without paying for it.
The example of the lance of hover craft should be reread.
Doesn't mean I think they should regularly destroy assault battalions with a meer lance of them.
Somewhere in this statement, the misread part states I have seen a lance of hovers beating an assault battalion without any sort of no fluke rolls.
This is not how that statement reads.
Akalabeth
04/24/16 03:39 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Again, what's a specific hovercraft you have a problem with?
ghostrider
04/24/16 06:38 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
As you have not answered the question if the developers looked at other ways of dealing with hovers, I will have to say your answer is you have no idea.

Now as for a specific hovercraft, the entire idea that the any hover can move faster, while carrying more armor and weapons then a tracked unit of the same weight is a big far fetched. As pointed out, they were not designed to be mbts but some how are more powerful then those units.
So there isn't a repeat of that question. ALL HOVER CRAFT have this issue.
Vtols have a 10 rating higher for their engines then the same weight hover. Most of those have assistance in flying where the hover isn't as aerodynamic.

If I remember the comparison of a lance of centurions verse manitcore tanks, being the same bv yet the manticores have 10 tons of weapons more as well as range, yet you could make a hover manticore with even more speed and stuff, and that isn't an issue, then something is wrong with the perception of the game.
Now I see why there was no issues with vehicle crits. Facing an 8/12 hover that has the same firepower as a heavy mech would cause me to think they needed the crits to make killing them possible.
Maybe a 50 ton hover with lpls and tcs might be the key to showing the edge the hovers have. Tracked and wheel vehicles wouldn't stand a chance with averages. I doubt alot of mechs will either, barring the move crits.
As the emphasis on game balance has been the argument for most against most changes, this seems to be one that has been overlooked.
Akalabeth
04/25/16 12:45 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
If I remember the comparison of a lance of centurions verse manitcore tanks, being the same bv yet the manticores have 10 tons of weapons more as well as range, yet you could make a hover manticore with even more speed and stuff, and that isn't an issue, then something is wrong with the perception of the game.



What, you mean this Manticore Hover Tank?

Code:
          BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
VALIDATED

Type/Model: Manticore Heavy Hover Tank
Tech: Inner Sphere / 3060
Config: Hovercraft
Rules: Level 1, Standard design

Mass: 50 tons
Power Plant: 165 VOX Fusion
Cruise Speed: 86.4 km/h
Maximum Speed: 129.6 km/h
Armor Type: Standard
Armament:
1 PPC
1 LRM 10
1 SRM 6
1 Medium Laser
Manufacturer: (Unknown)
Location: (Unknown)
Communications System: (Unknown)
Targeting & Tracking System: (Unknown)

--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Manticore Heavy Hover Tank
Mass: 50 tons

Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 25 pts Standard 0 5.00
Engine: 165 Fusion 0 6.67
Shielding & Transmission Equipment: 0 3.33
Cruise MP: 8
Flank MP: 12
Heat Sinks: 13 Single 0 3.00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 2.50
Crew: 4 Members 0 .00
Lift Equipment: 0 5.00
Turret Equipment: 0 1.00
Armor Factor: 176 pts Standard 0 11.00

Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 5 42
Left / Right Sides: 5 33/33
Rear: 5 26
Turret: 5 42

Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 PPC Turret 10 1 7.00
1 LRM 10 Turret 4 12 1 6.00
1 SRM 6 Turret 0 15 2 4.00
1 Medium Laser Front 3 1 1.00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 13 4 56.00
Items & Tons Left: 11 -6.00

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 2,386,000 C-Bills
Battle Value 2: 1,060 (old BV = 703)
Cost per BV: 2,250.94


It's 6 tons overweight. Illegal. Try to put in an XL or a Light Fusion in there and you'll get the same result because guess what, the minimum engine weight requires that it mount less armour and weapons.

You need to test your theories by putting them into practice instead of just relying on assumptions. One can't replicate a manticore on a hovercraft frame.

Is the Condor better than the Vedette? Sure. But the Vedette is also very inefficient. A 250 ICE engine weighs a lot. The engine weighs HALF its weight.

What about a Hetzer? Can't replicate that either. A 40 ton hovercraft with the same armour, armament and ammo as a Hetzer comes up 2 tons short because again it's required to have a certain size engine which demands that it moves 7/11. Speed restricts its ability in other areas. Does it get a speed boost? sure.

What about the Scorpion?
Try to create a Hovertank @ 25 tons with an ICE with the Scorpion's armament and armour. You come up 1.5 tons short.

Hovertanks don't do the same thing but better. But they move faster and have less armour and weapons as proven by the above.
ghostrider
04/25/16 12:34 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Are you using an export program?
If so, which program did you use?

So the weapons package of a tank 10 tons heavier isn't working in it. Drop the ml and extra sinks, as well as 2 tons of armor, and you still have a powerful tank. Not exact, but close enough.
And the unit moves double the speed of the heavier tank. I don't know about others, but in most battles, this would be the better unit. The speed alone would say that.

And I still say hovers have the advantage over other units with the speed.
It is funny that something that requires 30% of its weight to movement is so close to heavier vehicles in armor and weight. Yet tends to have a cruise faster then most flank speeds sometimes doubled.

Looks like the hunters weapon package fits in the saladin frame just fine. And with the extra speed makes it that much more dangerous. And that is bumping the armor up to the same level as the hunter.
The only minor issue is the flame throwers heat. Change out to mg and 1/2 ton ammo, and your fine. Or move to fusion engine. And still your cruise speed is equal to the flank speed of the hunter.
Akalabeth
04/25/16 02:22 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I'm exporting with HMV.

So you want to put an LRM-20 on a Saladin and rush towards the enemy at 12 hexes per turn? Okay dude.

Anyway, point is your claim that you can put an MBT's armament on a hovercraft and have a superior machine is quite simply false. If you're removing 6 tons of armour and armament you don't have the same tank at all.

Also you've consistently presented a tracked tank's speed and a hover tank's speed as being equal. This is not the case at all. Terrain restrictions aside, Hover Tanks are subject to sideslipping at flank speeds which in tight terrain can mean instant death if it sideslips into a forested area or mountain. This is particularly important for tanks like the Saladin with no turret. The only dependable speed for a hovertank is its cruising speed.

For a hovertank speed is not only life but it's risk as well. Unless the only manoeuvring you're doing is to rush at the enemy and turn in the last hex. But if you want to actually move after that turn, good luck.
ghostrider
04/25/16 07:00 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Isn't that what hit and run is? Rush up, fire and flee for a short while?
Rinse and repeat.

The chance to sideslip into forbidden terrain is a risk but not that great of one. If you are not smart enough to avoid dangerous terrain by a decent margin, they maybe hovers aren't something to use.
With the cruise speed, it still runs or tops flank speed for the tracked unit.

Now you would not love to run up into medium/short range with an lrm 20, and get back out to avoid return fire? The lack of turret is a small issue, but that was comparing same tonnage units. You could go with more appropriate weapons or just circle at distance and pepper the target. Hell, just backing up at a speed of 8 is enough for most units. +1 to hit the enemy and +4 to be hit. That alone would make it worth it.
And if you wanted to, you could use the 20 pack in a saracen or scimitar. The brothers/sisters of the saladin. Granted, to keep full armor you would have to drop the useless flamer. Or switch to fusion.
Now with your argument of not having the weapons in a turret, what good with the ml on the manticore hover be? Done right the srm pack is a waste. Stay at medium range for lrms/ppc and go at it. Circle the enemy or do the strafes. I would think between the 2 tanks, the hover would win without the ml and with less armor. But terrain would be a factor in it.


Looks like HMV might have an issue with figuring out things right. The manticore has 15 tons of weapons in a single ton turret. It should be 1.5 tons. With the vedette one, there was not lift system at all.
Not sure if typos or an actual issue with program.
Akalabeth
04/25/16 07:28 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
8 movement isn't a +4

Any single hit on a hovercraft has a 30% chance of reducing its movement by at least 1MP. This will also increase it's driver skill by +2 (as all motive hits do). Turning at flank will quickly become very difficult assuming that the hovercraft isn't immobilized outright.

Whereas a tracked tank will have movement for longer and has the benefit of being able to carry more weapons and armour.
Karagin
04/25/16 07:50 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
ALL vehicles suffer a movement reduction given how the to hit table is stacked against them, so hover craft are not alone in that regard.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
04/25/16 09:36 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Hovers are more screwed then other vehicles with movement crits. An extra spot on the table more.

I misread the table. the +4 is for 10 or high movement. So maxed out works. Got it mixed up with jumping spiders.

Now here's a question. Why would you turn at flank speed?
Strafe, get away, slow down and turn around.
Ok. So one hit makes the hover 7/11. Your tracked unit goes to 4/6 if it was 5/8. Who is more likely to be hit the next round?
And lets see. I can get in range, fire, and get out alot easier then you can. And done right, by keeping course, back out. Hell the movement at cruise is tracked flank speed so there is another penalty to hit.
And you want to do the crit thing, In a hover, even if both turrets are locked, I can maneuver around your tank and blast you were you can't fire at.

But with any hit, engine destruction is possible.
And now you know why I have stated crits for vehicles is bs.
With them, armor isn't as big a factor as they are with mechs. Important, yes, but not getting hit is more important.
And with one the minimum weight as well as the lift equipment, the battle is more weighted to the hovers side.
Akalabeth
04/25/16 09:53 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

ALL vehicles suffer a movement reduction given how the to hit table is stacked against them, so hover craft are not alone in that regard.



Tracked vehicles only have a 15% chance of an MP reduction from motive hits and generally don't care about driver hits. Some people even cheese out and get drivers with skill 7

Wheeled Vehicles have a 26% chance and Hover Vehicles 30% chance.

So Tracked vehicles are half as likely to lose movement than a hover vehicle.
Further Tracked vehicles will only be immobilized from the front 1% of the time from any one hit whereas hover vehicles, will be immobilized 10% of the time. That's a very big difference.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Now here's a question. Why would you turn at flank speed?



You know a lot of maps with 10-12 hexes of clear straight terrain in a row?

Take a look at this map. Imagine you're an 8/12 hovertank on the field and facing an opponent. Now move flank speed, then next turn, move flank speed again, and again after that, try to do it while only turning on the start or end of a turn and while maintaining the +4 modifier for 10 hexes of movement



The only place there's really room to manoeuvre is on the left side. You can try to do circles around the lake but at some point you're going to be doing a mid-turn move.

Now try to run circles around you opponent on this map:

Karagin
04/26/16 12:41 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Akalbeth has it ever accrued to you that you could be less condescending in your replies back to folks? Noticing that not matter what is said you act as if you are the only one who understands the rules or the mechanics of the game and nothing anyone else, wait I take that back, nothing anyone who disagrees with you says you then take it as a challenge to educate all of us on the game, now this is just an observation based the last few replies made by you and are my own view on that matter.

Now my point, in case you missed it, which clearly you did, was simple, ALL vehicles suffer movement related restrictions based on how skewed the to hit chart is for vehicles, that is a fact, not an argument or anything else, so what again are you trying to prove or disprove about this?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
04/26/16 01:43 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If the hit location table is the same one that has been in use since city tech, how is it tracked vehicles have less chance of a move crit then a wheeled unit? They have the same numbers for the damage location. I do know the hover has one more spot on tables.
And since this issue started with the old rule set, there is NO difference in full disabled hits from a front shot, and with that, you can not hit the sides. That has changed, but this issue was from the start of vehicles, not just popped up.

With the maps, I can get some that have the open fields. Your tracked unit has so much more difficulty moving thru those areas on both maps, but the second would kill it.

And how about this. Use a full set of maps you would playing a game. A single map sheet is arena style play.

If you play with a single map set, I can understand why there is issues with game styles others use.

The only issue with those maps is you do lose some speed. But last I knew, vehicles can climb and descend hills that are 1 elevation different.
The only issue I can see is a lack of turret, but then no one says you have to make a run ever other round.

The second map set is a jumpers paradise. It shows alot about play style. With that map in effect, I can see why having sensors and the ability to for units to go dark is scary. Nothing like having your back to an srm carrier or demolisher.
And I see why you want the vehicle crits to remain high. The range of fire is so limited it only makes sense to use the short range heavy hitters. The ones with armor factors almost better then mechs. Without the crits, player run units would die alot more.

What started this round was the question of if the developers had looked at other options for hovers then the overpowering suspension factors they went with.
Akalabeth
04/26/16 04:24 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

Now my point, in case you missed it, which clearly you did, was simple, ALL vehicles suffer movement related restrictions based on how skewed the to hit chart is for vehicles, that is a fact, not an argument or anything else, so what again are you trying to prove or disprove about this?



The context of this discussion is that I'm calling into question ghostrider's continual complaints against the 'unfair advantages' (paraphrasing) that he believes hovercraft receive in comparison to tracked vehicles. In my post immediately preceding yours, I was drawing attention to the fact that hover vehicles are more susceptible to motive damage. Your statement that "all vehicles suffer" is from my point of view an attempt to minimize and dismiss that distinction. I replied to you with raw numbers to illustrate that the distinction exists and is worthwhile discussing.

If that's not the intent of your post then feel free to correct me.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:

If the hit location table is the same one that has been in use since city tech, how is it tracked vehicles have less chance of a move crit then a wheeled unit?



As far as I know it's not the same. In Total Warfare . . .

Vehicles suffer potential motive hits on 3,4,5, or 9. 36% chance

MP is lost on a 2d6 roll of 8 or above
Motive hits against hovercraft get +3 to their roll

Thus a tracked vehicle suffers MP loss on 8 or above (41.6% x 36% = 15 percent)
And a hover vehicle suffers MP loss on a 5 or above (5 + 3 for hovers = 8). (83% x 36% = 30 percent)

41.6% is the odds of a 8 or more roll. 36% chance is the odds of getting a motive hit result
83% chance is the odds of 5 or more
Karagin
04/26/16 06:28 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Okay let me try again, do vehicles suffer a higher chance of mobility loss vs mechs? The answer is YES.

Now does the to hit table make this more then likely for vehicles, using the to hit table for them, YES.

So if ALL but the VTOL, which have their rotor hits as their biggest issues, suffer from same over all issues then breaking t down as you are is not disproving Ghostrider and actually showing one of the largest errors and issues with vehicles in the game.

So again the statement I made is still true, wheel, tracked and hovers all suffer mobility hits that cripple them and thus render any speed advantage they have void.

Doesn't matter which rule set or era you are playing, all the charts still have the same issue, side hits and lower rolls cripple vehicles with ease.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
04/26/16 12:27 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Looks like understand what is written is being an issue here.
I didn't ask why hovers had a better chance at have move crit against them, I asked, how Wheeled vehicles weren't equaled to tracked vehicles in the percentage.
How is tracked 15% while wheeled is 26% if they have the same numbers for movement crits?

Remember Karagin. The argument for lowering the chance for crits was debated. This is what led to the argument of the new rules, which dropped the crits some, but nothing like a mechs idea. But this is a recap of another argument.
Back to this concept.

As for the original question that was morphed into this, the answer is no. They do not know why the developers stuck with the high suspension factor.

But being as you (karagin) do use hmv, could you run the numbers for the scorpion and manticore hovers. I would like to know if the missing information is from hmv or someone just didn't transfer them correctly. If it is an issue with hmv, then you can relay that to the developer of that program.
Karagin
04/26/16 05:42 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Code:
          BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
VALIDATED

Type/Model: Manticore Heavy Tank
Tech: Inner Sphere / 3025
Config: Hovercraft
Rules: Level 1-FA, Standard design

Mass: 50 tons
Power Plant: 10 Pitban Fusion
Cruise Speed: 43.2 km/h
Maximum Speed: 64.8 km/h
Armor Type: ArcShield Maxi II Standard
Armament:
1 Parti-Kill Heavy Cannon PPC
1 LRM 5
1 SRM 6
1 Machine Gun
Manufacturer: TechniCorp
Location: (Unknown)
Communications System: O/P R Janxiir
Targeting & Tracking System: TargiTrack 717

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
==Overview:==
The Manticore is one of the best-designed and powerful tanks ever
created. The vehicle is most commonly seen among the forces of Houses Steiner
and Kurita, though the tank also sees service among the armies of the other
three Houses.
Although the Manticore mounts a variety of weapons and is heavily armored
for a vehicle of its weight, it is not equipped to deal with super-heavy
vehicles such as the Demolisher or the Behemoth. The tank was simply not
designed to be a stand-up fighter.


==Capabilities:==
Mounting a large variety of weapon systems, the Manticore is capable of
handling almost any combat situation. Because it is so useful, the Manticore
is one of the few fusion-powered vehicles whose power plant has not been
appropriated to supply 'Mech forces.
The tank's main weapon is the Parti-Kill PPC. Unlike other particle
cannons, the Parti-Kill does not use an energy collection capacitor or similar
chamber. Instead, it uses a series of magnetic collection bottles that gather
their energy straight from the fusion reactor. These energies are then
channeled through a larger magnetic bottle and released from the cannon. This
fires an energy "shell" that loses cohesion and disintegrates at 540 meters.
The Parti-Kill's bolts are unstable at ranges under 90 meters.
The Manticore's next main weapon is its SureShot Mk VI SRM rack. The
weapon is mounted on top of the main turret, just above and behind the
particle cannon. It is mounted on vertical and horizontal swivel mounts,
giving the pack a full 120-degree arc of fire independent of the turret.
The Manticore is capable of indirect fire with its Far Fire Medium
Missile Rack. Like most long-range missile units, the Manticore's missiles are
patched through a complex series of fire-control systems that can track
targets over any type terrain. The TargiTrack 717 Targeting System gives the
tank the ability to combine its fire simultaneously with other missile units
to maximize the effectiveness of a missile strike against a particular
target.


==Battle History:==
The Manticore has proven itself to be a tough fighting vehicle, even
against superior odds. On one of the many battles for the planet Morningside,
a unit of invading Kurita BattleMechs was intercepted by a small Steiner
Manticore force. The Steiner troops knew the surrounding terrain better than
the invading forces, but the Kurita unit was better equipped.
The battle started out as a meeting engagement between the two sides. The
Manticores fired on the 'Mechs with their PPCs and long-range missiles.
Momentarily shaken, the Kurita forces staged a withdrawal. Moments later,
however, the Kurita'Mechs had regrouped and turned back to fight the tanks.
Three Steiner 'Mechs and over ten tanks were destroyed in this first
engagement.
Both sides staged a momentary retreat, and then moved back into fighting
positions. This time the Steiner defense forces were more wary of the Kurita
'Mechs, and used their long-range missiles for indirect fire instead of trying
to move in close for an attack with the shorter-range weapons. Most of this
fire was concentrated on the Kurita long-range firepower 'Mechs, such as
Archers and Trebuchets. At the end of this second engagement, the Kurita
forces had lost six 'Mechs and the Steiner forces had lost only five
Manticores.
Seeing that they could no longer rely on long-range firepower, the Kurita
forces moved in as quickly as possible and attacked the Steiner Manticores.
This was the most effective tactic against the defending units because it
prevented them from bringing the power of their main gun to bear on the close
targets. Although eight 'Mechs were destroyed, the Steiner forces lost over 20
tanks.
Luckily for the remaining Manticore units, the Kurita commander
considered his losses were too high to continue the fight, even though he had
severely crippled the Steiner defenders. The Kuritans pulled back and left the
planet.


--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Manticore Heavy Tank
Mass: 50 tons
Construction Options: Fractional Accounting

Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 25 pts Standard 0 5.00
Engine: 10 Fusion 0 6.67
Shielding & Transmission Equipment: 0 3.33
Cruise MP: 4
Flank MP: 6
Heat Sinks: 10 Single 0 .00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 2.50
Crew: 4 Members 0 .00
Lift Equipment: 0 5.00
Turret Equipment: 0 1.20
Armor Factor: 176 pts Standard 0 11.00

Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 5 42
Left / Right Sides: 5 33/33
Rear: 5 26
Turret: 5 42

Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 PPC Turret 10 1 7.00
1 LRM 5 Turret 0 24 2 3.00
1 SRM 6 Turret 0 15 2 4.00
1 Machine Gun Front 0 100 2 1.00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 10 7 49.70
Items & Tons Left: 8 .30

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 1,393,667 C-Bills
Battle Value 2: 763 (old BV = 470)
Cost per BV: 1,826.56
Weapon Value: 623 / 623 (Ratio = .82 / .82)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 16; MRDmg = 10; LRDmg = 4
BattleForce2: MP: 4H, Armor/Structure: 0 / 7
Damage PB/M/L: 2/2/1, Overheat: 0
Class: GM; Point Value: 8


ONLY changes was to make it legal and adjust the weapons, CORE weapons of the tank are still there, and there is left over tonnage, nothing else changed.

Code:
           BattleTech Vehicle Technical Readout
VALIDATED

Type/Model: Vedetta Medium Tank
Tech: Inner Sphere / 3025
Config: Hovercraft
Rules: Level 1-FA, Standard design

Mass: 50 tons
Power Plant: 15 Locom-Pack InterComBust I.C.E.
Cruise Speed: 54.0 km/h
Maximum Speed: 86.4 km/h
Armor Type: ProtecTech 6 Standard
Armament:
1 Armstrong J11 Autocannon/5
1 Scatter Gun Light Machine Gun
Manufacturer: New Earth Trading Company
Location: New Earth
Communications System: ComStar Rover
Targeting & Tracking System: ComStar Test-2

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
==Overview:==
The Vedette is one of the only vehicles produced by the New Earth Trading
Company. During the time that New Earth was researching robotics, another
section of the company started producing military vehicles. The Vedette was
the first and most popular of these vehicles.
The Vedette is a standard unit of "measure" among military crews. For
example, most vehicle crewmen will ask of a new tank, "How many Vedettes do
you figure that thing is equal to?" The Vedette has become a standard because
it is a simple but effective vehicle. Mounting only one main weapon and one
secondary weapon, the Vedette is considered to be a "typical" tank.


==Capabilities:==
Unlike many modern military vehicles, the Vedette mounts only one main
weapon. This does not make it a less effective vehicle than a newer tank, but
does reduce its ability to deal with a wide variety of targets. By contrast,
the very popular Manticore tank has a weapon for every combat range, which
makes it able to effectively engage targets anywhere on the battlefield.
The tank's main weapon is the Armstrong J11 AutoCannon (identical to the
one mounted on the Shadow Hawk). The New Earth Trading Corporation chose this
weapon because it is the most weight-efficient, has excellent long-range
capability, and is easy to replace. The designers did try other weapons such
as lasers and PPCs, but these did not fit well on the Vedette's chassis and
required heat sinks and power amplifiers, which the tank's size could not
carry.
The ScatterGun is a small-caliber machine gun mounted in the bow of the
tank in a mini-ball turret, giving the driver an excellent arc of fire. The
ScatterGun fires shells at very high velocity, which compensates for its small
caliber.
The Vedette's main selling point is its speed, which is fast even for a
medium tank. Most tank manufacturers ignore high speed for vehicles over 35
tons, because 150+ rated engines are very inefficient. The Vedette can use its
speed to great effect by moving into optimum autocannon range, opening fire,
and then retreating as fast as possible to another fire position. Most modern
tanks, especially medium to heavy, do not use mobility as their main defense.
They rely on heavy armor and firepower to win the battle.
The Vedette's communication and tracking systems are ComStar originals.
These were developed especially for the New Earth Trading Corporation in
return for certain favors, such as food and supplies. Unlike normal ComStar
equipment, these two systems have repair and service manuals available.


==Battle History:==
One of the battles that has earned 'Mechs their reputations as lords of
the battlefield occurred at the Battle of Merak in Marik space. There was a
civil war going on at the time, and several companies of vehicles squared off
against an equal number of 'Mechs. There were more Vedettes than any other
vehicle, and there were more 50 ton 'Mechs than any other type. Strictly on a
tonnage basis, the battle was even.
The two sides moved into position inside one of Merak's major cities, but
fighting did not break out until both sides had surrounded several units of
the other's forces Again, the battle was even.
Combat was heavy, and both sides were taking heavy casualties. With
superior maneuverability and firepower on the side of the 'Mechs, they
eventually began to overcome the vehicle-equipped forces. Once the 'Mech
forces had numerical superiority over the ground units, the balance of power
quickly shifted and the 'Mechs totally succeeded in destroying every tank
around.


--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Vedetta Medium Tank
Mass: 50 tons
Construction Options: Fractional Accounting

Equipment: Items Mass
Int. Struct.: 25 pts Standard 0 5.00
Engine: 15 I.C.E. 0 10.00
Cruise MP: 5
Flank MP: 8
Heat Sinks: 0 Single 0 .00
Cockpit & Controls: 0 2.50
Crew: 4 Members 0 .00
Lift Equipment: 0 5.00
Turret Equipment: 0 .80
Armor Factor: 96 pts Standard 0 6.00

Internal Armor
Structure Value
Front: 5 20
Left / Right Sides: 5 18/18
Rear: 5 20
Turret: 5 20

Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Items Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Autocannon/5 Turret 0 20 2 9.00
1 Machine Gun Front 0 100 2 1.00
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 0 4 39.30
Items & Tons Left: 11 10.70

Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 773,000 C-Bills
Battle Value 2: 403 (old BV = 200)
Cost per BV: 1,918.11
Weapon Value: 96 / 96 (Ratio = .24 / .24)
Damage Factors: SRDmg = 5; MRDmg = 3; LRDmg = 1
BattleForce2: MP: 5H, Armor/Structure: 0 / 4
Damage PB/M/L: 1/1/1, Overheat: 0
Class: GM; Point Value: 4


THIS one has almost 11 tons left to play with so I could see an upgrade in the AC or more speed if that is what you like for this one.

So there are the stats for both ran through HMV and given that, one needed weapons adjustments to be legal under the rules, so by doing so and pick the Manticore was a bad call since the tank as a tracked vehicle was already 10 tons heavier then a combat hover is allowed and since the topic at hand doesn't include the support vehicle rules...well yeah yall need to pick better apples and oranges to compare.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
04/26/16 09:05 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So the export program doesn't have any issues.

So the manticore using the suspension factor used loses the front ml and 3 extra sinks, as well as down grades the lrm 10 to a 5, with an mg added.
I was off a little with suggesting the manticore could be made into a hover as is. Ok. I will accept that.
I would have dropped the srm down some to keep the lrms at size, but this does show how over balanced the suspension factor is. A tank 10 tons heavier almost fits in the 50 ton hover frame.
And the 165 fusion engine would still work as it is 6 tons for engine, 3 for shielding, making it 8/12.
Not exact but definitely nothing to scoff about.

The vedette, well, I do admit I hated that tank for being crappy, but this shows just how screwed up this is.
The speed of the manticores hover drops dramatically, yet still fits the 20% rule.
How did this stop a nasty tank from being made?
And this shows fusion engines in hovers do not help stop this.

I do wonder if hmv should do something to tell the user that a larger engine will work in the given hover. You may want to pass that along so the developer can look into it.
CrayModerator
04/27/16 05:31 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
This might sound like an odd reason to close a thread, but this one is getting a bit big to skim through - Sarna's threaded view breaks down over 100 posts. For me. Chalk it up to lazy mod syndrome.

Anyway, feel free to carry on the conversation in a new thread.
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.
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)
Extra information
1 registered and 27 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: 71008


Contact Admins Sarna.net