Battle Value 3.0

Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
Akalabeth
05/22/16 05:31 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Whatever happened to Battle Value 3.0?
It's fairly apparent that BV 2.0 is completely borked.

As an easy example,

One can create a 5/8 60 ton mech with a Gauss Rifle (16 rounds), STD engine and Max Armour for 1506 BV

One can also create a 5/8 30 ton mech with a Gauss Rifle (16 rounds), STD Engine and ZERO armour for 699 BV


Two of the 30 tonners are 1400, almost the same as the 60 ton mech. Face them against each other and they'll have double the firepower of the 60 tonner but will need to hit the same place twice to breach armour. Meanwhile, the 60 tonner will crippled or destroy the 30 tonners when hitting any location except the arm&side opposite the Gauss Rifle (27% chance). Which means there's a 73% chance the 30 tonner will be legged, destroyed or weaponless after a single hit.

Battle Value as it stands doesn't value durability high enough as demonstrated by this 5 minute example. Something that I'm surprised they didn't catch prior to publishing the system.


In our campaign, the battle value of clan machines means that lights and mediums are often facing inner sphere heavies. But time and time again, the clan machines are simply unable to compete with the IS if those machines are well armoured.
TigerShark
05/23/16 09:09 PM
104.49.175.97

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
This thread will be followed by the usual bull about "it's the best we've got." In reality, BV has very little bearing on the real value of units on a board. It's a psychological seditive. Gets people to feel better about their odds before the game's outset. Beyond that, any other system could replace it and the games would be just about as balanced.
Retry
05/24/16 12:18 AM
68.103.19.152

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Now, I don't care for BV any more than the next guy, but who in their right mind would create an armorless combat mech?
ghostrider
05/24/16 12:53 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I agree that bv needs work. An ac 20 is an awesome weapon if you get in range and have ammo. A single ton is not really represented in the whole workings of bv. Yes it drops, but for something like a hunchback IIc, you have no range after you use the whole 2 tons.
Granted to be more accurate with bv, you would need several entries, which isn't really feasible.
What good is a tank on a forested moon? Couldn't move into it at all so attacking something without a road is beyond hopeless. In the same environment, non clan lrms are pretty worthless as direct fire as well. The ac 20 gains power. Medium range would be the longest ranges to even try to fire. And that would mean a few open spaces.

And asking about who would create what is a slippery slope. I agree to use one is not smart, but the example was meant for a comparison.
And if you are running a campaign, it is possible to have a unit with armor missing from interrupted repairs. A few scenarios in the packs have actually done that. Not a fully stripped unit, but missing arm armor or torso armor. The urbanmech comes to mind with me. Some love the mech, but the speed for a light is beyond too slow.

It also seems to break down with skill sets. There is only so much damage you can do with a mech with an ml and 2 mgs. And you are still at the mercy of the number of missiles that hit using lrms/srms. You could hit with all 10 srm packs on an srm carrier and roll nothing but 1 or 2 missiles. Where a rookie could get lucky, and hit with a pair of srms, and hit with all 6.
Akalabeth
05/24/16 01:27 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Retry writes:

Now, I don't care for BV any more than the next guy, but who in their right mind would create an armorless combat mech?



I dunno dude, the Locust 1M only has 1 ton of armour. 1 point of armour on the legs and arm isn't strictly "armourless" but it might as well be. So the answer would be the Free Worlds League.

The Nexus and Fire Moth/Dasher similarly only have 2 tons of armour, albeit ferro fiborous.

Either way the example was only to illustrate a point.


Quote:
ghostrider writes:

What good is a tank on a forested moon? Couldn't move into it at all so attacking something without a road is beyond hopeless. In the same environment, non clan lrms are pretty worthless as direct fire as well. The ac 20 gains power. Medium range would be the longest ranges to even try to fire. And that would mean a few open spaces.



Questions of terrain don't matter in a point value system. Terrain and other scenario conditions if anything should modify the forces being taken but not how much those forces cost. Maybe a disadvantaged force gets more points for example.

Similarly, range factors into weapon cost. Both the Medium Laser and Light PPC do 5 damage but the LPPC is more BV.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
It also seems to break down with skill sets. There is only so much damage you can do with a mech with an ml and 2 mgs. And you are still at the mercy of the number of missiles that hit using lrms/srms. You could hit with all 10 srm packs on an srm carrier and roll nothing but 1 or 2 missiles. Where a rookie could get lucky, and hit with a pair of srms, and hit with all 6.



Random chance works out over time and outlier examples don't factor in.
TigerShark
05/27/16 12:51 PM
12.130.166.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
More ridiculous examples can be created. For example, you could slap three Gauss rifles on a 'Mech and make its BV skyrocket. Know what you forgot? Ammo. You could have 0 shots of ammo to feed those guns and they will STILL be the same BV. There are fixes I've proposed in other forums, but that should be relatively simple to do. They've just never done it: in 20+ years.
TigerShark
05/27/16 01:23 PM
12.130.166.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In reality, a lot of the issue is how adjustments blindly affect the full BV of the unit, when they should only affect the Offensive or Defensive Battle Ratings.

Instead of having one BV for the unit, it should be split:

Offensive BV
Defensive BV
Total

When you have something like a Gunnery increase, it should affect only that which is affected by a Gunnery increase; namely, weapons. At current, the Physicals are being calculated in the OV, when they should simply be a factor in DBV, since it's just the flat weight of the unit and not its physical damage being accounted for. Then you change the Pilot Skill Chart to accommodate the change. :

Quote:

Toyama TYM-1A
Current BV: 1714

OV: 904
DV: 814
BV: 1718




Adding a level of gunnery (+40%, as an example of the increase) would affect only its OV. Adding a level of piloting (+20%) would affect its DV. NOTE (This revised BV calc includes a reduction in piloting cost, assuming a base +10% current instead of +15%. When doubling the modifier, it then becomes +20% instead of +30%)

So a 3/4 would be...

Quote:

OV: 1265
DV: 976
BV: 2214 (New)
BV: 2365 (Current)




So how does this benefit us? A 'Mech with no/few weapons would have a very low OV, such as the CGR-1A1. Their Gunnery increases would affect them far less than their Piloting increases. The slow, weapons-based units (Annihilator) will have their DVs become miniscule, affecting them less when they acquire Piloting levels, since it will be used MUCH less than their Gunnery. (How often does an ANH-1X get into kicking range?)


Edited by TigerShark (05/27/16 01:27 PM)
Akalabeth
05/27/16 02:21 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I don't think physicals are as important as stability.
A mech which falls after taking 20 damage has a few important changes:
1. Takes damage from the fall
2. Has up to a -17% gunnery shift next turn, since they're spending movement to get up which doesn't benefit them defensively.
3. Cannot jump in the next turn

Physicals of course can be useful but it's just another way to deal damage, like another weapon, whereas failing a piloting skill roll and falling affects the entire mech. Then of course you need another PSR to stand.

The need for good piloting is exacerbated as the mech takes damage as well to its gyro or leg actuators, especially for jumping mechs. Though this is a rarer consideration.
ghostrider
05/27/16 05:17 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Mechs fall for other reasons then just taking damage.
Rough terrain.
Being pushed or charged.
Being kicked.
Gyro damage.
Leg damage.
the 20 points is just one of the things most people deal with piloting rolls.
And for some mechs, physicals is their main thing. Without it, they waste alot of tonnage for nothing.
Bv should encompass all aspects.

As tiger suggested, not having any ammo doesn't change the bv of a unit that uses it.
And as for most that have found fast movement means less getting hit, isn't really shown in the bv.
Also, more then a few units don't show up properly because of over heating issues.
Bv uses heat dissipation as the base, yet things like the rifleman can be dangerous with an alpha, yet worthless when they finally shut down.

And as I said, terrain can make or break a unit. What good is an urbanmech in an open level field? Target practice for most.
Some maps are almost impossible to traverse without jets. Yet the bv of an annihilator remains the same. As well as an archer, or longbow.
The example of the lance of centurions verses the manticores is a good example of this. The one map shown to argue about hovers is a very good example. Tracked and wheeled vehicles with lrms are at a severe disadvantage against jumpers there. It you can avoid the long range fire, demolishers would be a better choice.
And suggesting that isn't the case, then stop picking units for the battle and randomly roll what you use.
Instead of the lams, spiders, and assassins, use the annihilator, or behemoth tank in the next break out scenario. Take 10 rounds to get across one board. And that is without trying to hide in cover.
KamikazeJohnson
05/27/16 09:23 PM
72.143.233.56

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Constructing fringe cases and saying "A is clearly superior to B" says very little about the value of the system as a whole.

In the original case, sure, the 60-tonner will PROBABLY win (although it will face a MINIMUM of 3 Gauss Rifle shots, which is very capable of delivering crippling damage on a 60-tonner. OTOH, which will do better against a 'Mech carrying an AC/20? Now the 2 Gauss Rifles, and the 2 separate units for tactical manoevering, have a much better chance of ending fight before the AC/20 'Mech can close.

Fact is, I could design a set of 4 'Mechs, all with the same BV, where A beats B, B beats C, C beats D, and D beats A, and all of those fights are embarrassingly easy victories. And that also says nothing of how much assistance they will be in a Lance with other 'Mechs.

Any BV system will be a average of all applicable factors, with an assortment of loopholes that can be exploited by someone determined to do so.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Akalabeth
05/27/16 09:50 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Sure it does. It demonstrates an obvious flaw.

My example is very controlled.
You have three mechs with the same engine type, the same speed and the same weapon. The only difference is the durability. One is a fully armoured 60 ton mech. The other two, unarmoured 30 ton mechs.

The only variable is the durability and that it's two against one.

You can say that the lighter mechs COULD win, but odds say they'll lose almost every time. Play the game out thousands of times and the 60 tonner will emerge victorious the majority of the time.

Assuming 15 armour on the front of the 60 tonner's CT, the enemy will need to hit it 3 times to destroy the mech outright. The odds of them hitting the CT three times on three shots is 0.7%. Basically they would need to hope for a lucky headshot in order to win.

Playing two Gauss rifles against an AC/20 is self-defeating because your test introduces another variable. And expanding the scope of the argument beyond all limitations is equally pointless.
ghostrider
05/27/16 11:37 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Fringe cases and normal cases. I have yet seen running games that use the same maps to come out even close to being the same. The simple move of going around a mountain has stopped the rain of long range death on several units, which allowed them to get in range of their own weapons. Using woods does a lot to help as well.
And I am not talking about the lucky hits. Normal average rolls.
Even something as simple as coming in the opposite end of the map had changed what happened.

That is not saying random rolls haven't destroyed some of the curve, but that is looked at as well. No real scientific ways can be done with any method rolling dice, but using an average is where it is at.
Without a spotter, idf doesn't happen with lrm units. Behind a mountain makes them vulnerable to other units closing in.
Granted this is a simplified way of figuring it out. It may have worked for the older units, but so much has changed and there are some things that don't fit in with this very well.

Using mgs covers the short range even though the only go 3 range. The lrms short range is 7. That alone skewers the results alot. Firing at 3 range with non clan launchers is difficult at best. This is where the abstract concepts like this break down.
The quick combat of battles in space show this as well.
Akalabeth
05/28/16 01:09 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Point systems aren't about imagining a scenario, they're about imagining EVERY scenario.
Talking about specifics with regards to maps or starting positions is consequently irrelevant because there are too many variables to account for.
TigerShark
05/31/16 02:51 PM
12.130.166.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I've always been a supporter of OPTIONAL (saying this in BIG, BOLD letters before people get crazy) terrain modifiers.

EXAMPLE:

Code:

ARC-2R

City: +
Plains:
Mountain/Hill:
Woods: -


In this case, the ARC-2R would get a 10% 'penalty' added to its BV for Cities, due to the indirect fire capability. It would get 10% subtracted in woods, due to its limited LOS. Just an example, but this little chart could be added to a unit's TRO and applied during the game at both players' discretion.

Another case would be the Septicemia B, which is a jump/pulse nightmare:

Code:

Septicemia B

City: +
Plains:
Mountain/Hill: +
Woods: +


In all terrain except Plains, the unit gains 10%. In flat terrain, it nets a +0%.
ghostrider
05/31/16 05:55 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It's going to sound picky, but plains should be open terrain.
There are plains that have woods and other obstacles that could limit ranges.
But the set up does help factor in things that should not be ignore, but are.
Akalabeth
06/01/16 02:21 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

It's going to sound picky



This should be your forum signature



All Battletech maps, even plains have some terrain features. So "Plains" is appropriate.
No one plays on a blank map sheet except for those that are extremely boring.
ghostrider
06/01/16 05:01 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
First, lets deal with the constant personal digs.
I find it odd that your insistence that you know the rules in and out, yet still resort to purposefully misleading people to try and make it sound like you were the one to write them yet suggest others, don't know anything about the game. You having all the new books and studied them, you still have shown a lack of understanding them.

Now. Not using an open flat terrain explains why you lack some experiences with the game, and why some flaws in it are not noticed by you.But that is actually expected.
No terrain means your jumpers are likely to be hit with long range weapons before you can jump behind the units.
There is no challenge to the game when the only tactic you have is hiding in terrain and jumping behind the units you are fighting. It also explains why the concept of power gaming isn't something you can understand.
I would bet you tried it once against a unit of tanks and got whooped.

But I can see why it would be boring. The averages to hit each other are closer then being able to sit in heavy forest and avoid them even firing at you, while you have only 8's to hit.

You have the right to disagree. Leave the person digs out of the conversation. I have tried to, but I am slipping even more.
Akalabeth
06/01/16 07:37 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply

Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Now. Not using an open flat terrain explains why you lack some experiences with the game, and why some flaws in it are not noticed by you.But that is actually expected.
No terrain means your jumpers are likely to be hit with long range weapons before you can jump behind the units.
There is no challenge to the game when the only tactic you have is hiding in terrain and jumping behind the units you are fighting. It also explains why the concept of power gaming isn't something you can understand.
I would bet you tried it once against a unit of tanks and got whooped.

But I can see why it would be boring. The averages to hit each other are closer then being able to sit in heavy forest and avoid them even firing at you, while you have only 8's to hit.



Playing on a featureless map is both A) Unrealistic and B) Restricting because it removes some of the core aspects of a ground combat game. This isn't outer-space, with the odd pebble floating around here and there, this is planetary combat where adjusting your battle plan to suit the terrain is par for the course. A game without terrain may as well be played on a line, not a 2D playing field, because at that point the only thing that matters is range.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
You have the right to disagree. Leave the person digs out of the conversation. I have tried to, but I am slipping even more.



If you want less personal digs, then broaden the scope of your discourse beyond the narrow focus of "finding fault with X". Very few, if any, of your posts actually celebrate any part of the game. When TigerShark shares with you a system that addresses some of your very complaints, what do you do? Complain and criticize it. This isn't the exception for you, it's par for the course. Want to surprise people? Talk about the things you actually enjoy about the game.
ghostrider
06/01/16 09:55 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Restricting as it removes the core aspects of ground combat? What game are you playing?
The core aspect of the game in not mountain fighting every battle. Not every planet has forests covering everything that isn't city. Try fighting in the corm fields of nebraska. Or maybe follow some of the battles of the bulge in the world wars. Not exactly flat, but for a 12 to 18 meter tall unit, there isn't really much cover.

But then that would mean assault mechs would actually be the masters of the field with the firepower they carry, not the streak and pulse units that seem to popular with the overpowered units.

And speaking of the game. It is battletech, not battlemech. Some people do enjoy playing vehicles, and even infantry. It seems you should be playing robotech as it is bascially only robots fighting. This game is based on combat, and alot seem to think that means mechs are the ONLY thing to use.
If this was true, why bother with vehicles, fighters, and such. Even infantry would be useless in the game you are looking to play, other then easy targets.

And you still need to understand what is written. It seems assumption is the best you got.
I agree bv as well as other things have issues.
So how, it is suggested I said the whole system needs to be throw out. The idea this system covers all scenarios if far from the truth. It is a down and dirty quick fix to figuring out what is supposed to be equal forces. The idea range is all powerful, yet as you yourself have suggested, there is not a single canon map that would allow an even a gauss rifle shot to hit everywhere on the board. The hilly canyon map is about the only one I have seen that would have some chance of hitting alot on the map without cover. Try traveling some time. Alot of freeway passes are long obstruction free areas with high walls.
The fights that seem to be emphasized seems to be guerilla fighting maps. Not real battle fields.
And you want real. Few forest I know of that a mech could move thru and not be snapping trees down as it move thru it. You would create a fire lane for anyone following or getting behind your unit. And speed would be alot slower as you were trying to force your way thru it on land.
Akalabeth
06/01/16 10:05 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Corn field Nebraska:
Notice the TREES



Battle of the Bulge:
Notice the TREES and Hills



Seeing a pattern yet?


There are comparatively few environments where there is no cover, and if a mech is short ranged against a long-range opponent then why would it engage in a battle with no cover? It would simply not get into range in the first place and fight somewhere else unless the objective is in the middle of that flat terrain. Or it would load up on smoke round LRMs and create heavy-woods equivalent cover while it closes with the enemy.

But few battles would actually have short-ranged units charging at long-range units with zero intervening cover so the battle simply wouldn't take place.

The closest equivalent would be the desert warfare in Libya during WW2, but there it was long-range gun vs long-range gun.
ghostrider
06/02/16 02:24 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Oh no! Those completely covered areas of heavy forest are just beyond belief.

Now on the same note, where are the soldiers? Are they hiding in the woods? And how about the full beach? Oh. yeah. Like the one map, you show the one place in miles that actually has anything approaching the cover of a mech. Knowing plants on the beach, I suspect the second picture is on a high outcropping of land, and those bushes are probably the height of a person, not a mech. NO BONUS for cover. Though it would slow movement some.

Vehicles would gain some camoflague, but not mechs. You are trying to pick and choose things, the corn fields in before harvest would provide camoflague for vehicles and not mechs for the entire field, not just the wind break. And to be considered forest or woods, they have to be 30 meters in diameter. Buy the rules, that you have studied and memorized so much.
But keep trying. You might actually come up with something that does show your side.

and if a mech is short ranged against a long-range opponent then why would it engage in a battle with no cover?
That statement shows just how little you know of actual military battles. You don't get to pick and chose your weapons or terrain to fight in. You use what you are given and make the best of it. I don't see howitzers and such in the second picture. Just riflemen. Did they tell their commanders to kiss their butts and not go into battle?
I don't even see mortars among them.
The environment forces decisions, and you think it does not matter what you do. You are to defend the target, or attack it. You do not say, I am not going to fight in the open fields where it is at. I am going to hide in the mountains. Guess who lost the encounter and is likely to be court martialed for failure to follow orders.
But then sticking with what is tried and true is the easiest thing to play. Using things outside your comfort zone is too scary to deal with, so nothing will be played in that environment.
Akalabeth
06/02/16 02:41 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Oh no! Those completely covered areas of heavy forest are just beyond belief.



Quote:
ghostrider writes:

It's going to sound picky, but plains should be open terrain.
There are plains that have woods and other obstacles that could limit ranges.



Point is that even what you believe to be are "open areas" have cover. Nearly all terrain has SOME cover of some description. So TigerShark's "plains" description is appropriate as the default, sparse-cover, battletech game map.


Quote:
ghostrider writes:

You don't get to pick and chose your weapons or terrain to fight in.



Armies absolutely do choose what terrain to fight in. Even when attacking a target, they choose what terrain to approach from, and choose when to attack, as in when they have the appropriate assets like armour or artillery or air support at their disposal.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
But then sticking with what is tried and true is the easiest thing to play. Using things outside your comfort zone is too scary to deal with, so nothing will be played in that environment.



Says the guy who plays with Battletech Master Rules.
Hahahahaha. You're a riot.
ghostrider
06/02/16 05:02 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I guess it never occurred to you that most of the rules you play with came from master rules and before hand. With some exceptions and some new rules, it is the same thing you play with now.

And plains can have forests, as well as other cover throughout their areas.
I will give you this. Rough terrain was one I overlooked when thinking about it. Affects movement but doesn't block shots for any but maybe infantry.

And I believe you need to actually reread and study history. During wolrd war 1 and 2, germany had to attack france from the east. There was NO changing that fact. They had to attack russia from the west. Same deal.
The artificial environment the game promotes keeps you from actually seeing things. You suggested reality and logic are not supported by the game yet use that as a defense about using an open flat map.
And again. they have the appropriate assets like armour or artillery or air support at their disposal. How many times does a unit have everything they need at their fingertips?
I guess the group you play with does not actually deal with the only thing you can use is what you have now. No changing units with the next scenario. No bringing in or changing out units as needed.
Omnis came about since armies could not afford to have dozens of units sitting around incase you needed it for the next mission. Changing out arms to fit was alot easier, then having 4 mechs doing nothing. But then that is something that seems to be lacking. Consistency of play.

Best reread that about plains. No where in the name or description does Tiger say it was sparse covered. Again, you are inserting things into sentences that aren't there.
And that is where it seems to be the problem. As with the original ecm, I was shown that is how it was. But that was someone's copy at the time. I think the rewrote it to prevent some things from happening. As with most of the new rules, skimming over them does lead to issues when they get change.

Now one more realistic thing for you. Why would they station units in areas they are not effective? When assaulting a forested area with plenty of hiding spots, you love to see lrm carriers as the ranges tend to be less then 5 hexes to fire in. Guess you never worried about the enemy not using the right equipment. Kinda makes scoring kills difficult when they use short range streaks at that range instead of innersphere lrms. Victory is all that matters. Not the challenge. Sad.
Akalabeth
06/02/16 05:31 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

I guess it never occurred to you that most of the rules you play with came from master rules and before hand. With some exceptions and some new rules, it is the same thing you play with now.



Guy who hasn't read a book tries to argue that the book is no different than another book.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
And I believe you need to actually reread and study history. During wolrd war 1 and 2, germany had to attack france from the east. There was NO changing that fact.



I guess you missed the history lesson where the teacher told everyone that Germany attacked France from the NORTH, through Belgium and AROUND the eastern-facing Maginot line.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Best reread that about plains. No where in the name or description does Tiger say it was sparse covered. Again, you are inserting things into sentences that aren't there.




Yeah, I'm inserting things, It's called Common Sense.
And common sense combined with the topographical definition, existing battletech playing fields and Tigershark's listed alternatives says that it's relatively flat, sparse-cover terrain.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Victory is all that matters. Not the challenge. Sad.



As it happens dude, I've never said how I like to play nor described any of my games. So if you want to accuse someone of "inserting things" into a sentence, maybe you shouldn't create a bunch of baseless fantasies on how the person you're talking to plays in order to try and damage their credibility. Fact of the matter is, you're completely clueless as to what my play style is and even if you weren't, it's irrelevant to the discussion because discussing the merits of a system is completely separate from how you play the game.

Though in your case, if you're advocating for vehicles with lighter ICE engines and cheaper costs and you really prefer vehicles over mechs then maybe you can't separate your view of the game from how you play it, and you want to shape the game to conform to YOUR play style. That's assuming that, you know, you actually still play the game and don't only "discuss" it.
ghostrider
06/02/16 08:36 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The germans came from the east. They hit the lines from a flanking direction, but still continued to push west to take the country, not just a single battle. They didn't drop off troops on the atlantic coast and push inland. Had Belgium actually been active in their defense of their country, Germany would not have had an option. But I can see where only one force is on a planet in the game and only in one location would make you think that is true for all things.

Now. Inserting what you think is common sense, is putting words in other people's mouths. Which has been an issue with the inability to read rules. I assume Tiger was suggesting the plains in his example were not the heavily covers ones, but saying the are shows the only thing you are concerned with is arguing and condoning anyone that doesn't see you as the lord of the rules.
And remember. Common sense doesn't work with the game rules, or have you changed your stance on that one as well?

You have described a few of your battles, and the constant arguing of what shouldn't happen or what is, shows that. Your changing units out for each scenario is shown in several posts. You have stated this in a few like not using certain mechs in break thru that you used in another scenario. Your description of units shows more of the death match style of play, as nothing you have stated indicates you have ever retreated from a combat. No matter what you want to call it, fight until dead is a death match without the arena.

I have advocated a few things. Mainly to stop hearing logic argued for what others don't want, but they use those same arguments to promote what they do. Did I agree heat should be built up in all units from ballistic weapons? Did I say vehicles should require heat sinks unless all units don't build heat? Oh yeah. Selective memory loss. As you suggested in a prior post, you didn't play the game before they filled some of the holes in the game. And I have not played it as long as those that did when it was battle droids.

And reread what I said about the rules in the books. Oh wait. You have shown you don't understand them as well as you think you do, and just insert what you want where you want it.
TigerShark
06/02/16 08:58 PM
12.130.166.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So.. Back to the discussion..!
CrayModerator
06/02/16 09:04 PM
67.8.237.126

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

First, lets deal with the constant personal digs.



How about let's not. The point at which conversation involves "you," "your," and terms that make it personal - don't.

Seriously, folks. This inability of both parties to keep any discussion on an impersonal basis is going to lead to some cool-down bans soon.
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.
Akalabeth
06/02/16 09:08 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

The germans came from the east. They hit the lines from a flanking direction,



Yeah, that flanking direction, it's called NORTH.

Similarly when the allies (UK&USA), which are located west of Germany, approached Germany by fighting through Italy, they were approaching from the SOUTH, not attacking from the west.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Your description of units shows more of the death match style of play, as nothing you have stated indicates you have ever retreated from a combat. No matter what you want to call it, fight until dead is a death match without the arena.




We use Forced Withdrawal rules. Units retreat or shutdown all the time.
All our missions are objective-based and include some victory conditions which are not about destroying the enemy.
We've used all types of units, played in all types of terrain and weather conditions with all types of objectives.
We've played probably 250+, in-person, 6-7 hour games in the last 6 or so years.

An absence of information isn't a justification to assume things to fit an argument.
ghostrider
06/04/16 12:57 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Again, information was left out in the counter statements.
In wwII, Germany attacked west and southwest to pin the french on the Maginot lines to pin the french into place, while it invaded the neutral countries of the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium. Then they used 2 of the neutral countries to strike the flanking maneuver. Without the forces keeping the french on the Marginot lines, this would not have been as successful. It did not help them, they thought the attack from parts of Belgium could not happen due to terrain and such. This was after the allies declared war on them.
And that isn't including the forces Germany had in other countries is was allied with for the push.

And somehow the information that the allies were hitting Germany in the west, to make it sound like the only battles raging during the counter attack was thru italy. The U.S. hit Normandy beach to begin the counter invasion, and had it not been for freeing france and hitting the germans from that direction, it would have allowed the germans to concentrate on their allies defenses.

Now. This differs from the game, as invading a planet that has ONE government running the military, and shifting forces around to prevent strikes from different directions seems to be missing in alot of the campaigns. The unit can not attack a target and defend their base, with the same forces during the same time period. Trying to hit the enemy from the opposite side of your landing zone would entail attacks from the planets defenders, and yes, there is a limit to how many they have. But since the game does not deal with strategy as much as the tactical parts of war, this point gets overlooked. Do not think it is how it is done in real life. And the game should have more to deal with it.

Germany is a little more north then I thought it was, but they still had to go west to invade France. They had to travel southwest to continue to invade it.
But I do see why people forget you need other diversionary forces to make advances during a battle. The game only deals with on spot at a time. Battleforce did try to show that, but I have not met many that actually use that game to do much with.
Akalabeth
06/04/16 04:22 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Again, information was left out in the counter statements.

Germany is a little more north then I thought it was, but they still had to go west to invade France. They had to travel southwest to continue to invade it.
But I do see why people forget you need other diversionary forces to make advances during a battle. The game only deals with on spot at a time. Battleforce did try to show that, but I have not met many that actually use that game to do much with.



It doesn't matter how much spin you try to add. Add a whole novel if you want. At the end of the day Belgium is NORTH of France, and the main german invasion of France was from Belgium, in the North.

The basis of this discussion is your belief that a battletech army is forced to fight in certain terrain, because Germany was likewise forced to fight a certain way yet both your example and history prove you're wrong.

Armies chose what terrain to fight in, particularly on the attack when assaulting an area with multiple avenue of approach.

And if an army is forced to fight in disadvantageous terrain, like Infantry needing to defend a plain, then they MODIFY the terrain by creating fox holes and trenches and other fortifications. They're not FORCED to fight with no cover, they can CHOOSE to create cover.

In Battletech, you keep saying that BV is broken because what if an Archer is on a heavy woods map. Well in the real world, most gamers would agree upon the terrain being used either before or after their selection of forces. No gamer is going to take a force onto terrain that poses a crippling disadvantage for him and an advantage for his opponent. These sorts of considerations don't factor into a valuation system because common sense says that the players should work it out for themselves.

Tigersharks' modification scheme is exactly that, his group of players trying to work things out for themselves by taking different units on different types of terrain and modifying them to suit. These calculations however are problematic because they then require a second set of modifiers. Currently we have one value. If you want, you can split the Offensive Value out. Then you have two values. Then you can add Tiger Sharks' system in there and then you have 6 values.

But the problem is at that point, most gamers are going to check out. Because building an army just became a task in and of itself, adding to the set-up type and extending what is already a comparatively slow-playing game.
ghostrider
06/04/16 08:11 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
And yet the border with Germany, where the initial attacks came from is east. The fact the successful push can from the north. Without the forces pinning the defenders to their eastern border, and their allies that helped push into france didn't come thru Belgium, came in from the east. NOT the west or some other almost impossible direction.

Now. Did France choose to fight in the terrain on their northern borders? No.
Did germany decide it wanted to fight Russia in the winter? No.
Might want to reread about italy. Only the leaders were supportive of the germans. That is why the southern push towards germany was more successful then from france and belgium. But that did not mean that was because it was the only attack.

Attack midway from the plains. I dare you to. There is no other way to do it then sea and possible air drops. Submarines can not crawl out of the ocean, so you have some room for mechs. Try taking Kansas by going thru austrialia. Hit russia from brazil. No see or air, but land forces like non hover tanks. I want to see that.

Well then, I guess you have not played the game as it was meant to be played. Try the scenario pacts. More then a few are set up so your forces are at a disadvantage. Or actually pick a unit and run it thru ALL your battles. This picking and choosing based on terrain is not how real life goes.
Until you actually run the SAME units thru multiple battles and terrain, like a merc unit that has no back up mechs, don't even bother telling others they are playing wrong. Tailoring your unts to fit a fight is unrealistic. You can send in some that match your terrain, but that is not the case alot of the time.
Point in case. Poland sent cavalry against german tanks. Why?
THEY HAD NO CHOICE. It was what they had.
ghostrider
06/04/16 08:19 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The statement you give about choosing your troops and terrain to fight in reminds me of the joke.

A person is walking home at night and sees someone searching for something under a lit street lamp.
"Can I help you with something?" He asks.
The person responds by saying he lost some money.
So the person asks if he knows where abouts he lost it.
And the guy replies, "In the dark alley over there."
So the first guys asks, "Why are you looking here?"
So the second guys says, "Because the light it better here."


You have to attack where the target is. It is that simple.
Akalabeth
06/05/16 12:44 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Tailoring your unts to fit a fight is unrealistic.



Gee Hurricanes don't work in the desert. The sand screws them up. Maybe we should tailor the plane to filter out the sand?

Gee X destroyer isn't suited to fighting in the atlantic. Maybe on the next class we should increase the forecastle to lessen the impact of waves.

Gee the Germans have a lot of heavy tanks. Maybe we should create bigger guns to pierce their armour.

Gee crossing this river will leave us sitting ducks. Maybe we should smoke their position or attack at night.

Gee the Inner Sphere likes to drag out our campaigns. Maybe we, as Clan Wolf, should use energy weapons or bring more ammunition so we're successful on Tukayyid while everyone else is not.

Just give it up dude, you don't know what you're talking about. When a soldier's life is on the line, you can be damn sure they're going to choose what's best for their survival. They're going to choose the best units they have, the best position to attack from, the best circumstances to attack from, EVERYTHING.

Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Point in case. Poland sent cavalry against german tanks. Why?
THEY HAD NO CHOICE. It was what they had.



WRONG AND WRONG by the way.

They had Tankettes. Which they didn't use in the attack.
And they sent Cavalry against Infantry. Not tanks. They were counter-attacked by german vehicles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_at_Krojanty
ghostrider
06/05/16 10:30 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Wait. Didn't elementals come about to try and cover all aspects of combat, so they don't need 20 different suits?

How many mechs fit in a union dropship?

Gee, the unit sent into combat, doesn't have anti tank weapons. I guess they disobey orders and leave the battlefield.
It is obvious, understanding only generals get any choice of what to use, and where. And even then, that depends on the enemy. The average soldier is given gear and told to do the job. They are not handed the button for a nuke. They are not consulted if the swamp will bog down tanks.

The pacific campaign in world war 2 is a great example of this. None of the allies wanted to fight on the islands under those conditions.
It is obvious, you think soldiers have a choice in orders. Maybe you should talk to people that have been overrun like people living under the IS or boko haram Maybe visit somalia and a few others where pirates and gangs rule.
But I will suggest this. Stop saying soldiers have a choice on where they fight, because the options are fight where you are told, weither you have what you want or not, OR be courtmarialed and risk being shot.

And while your at it, talk to the soldiers in Afganistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. Ask them how much choice they have.
Akalabeth
06/05/16 03:57 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Not sure if you're aware of this, but in battletech you don't play a soldier. You play a commander. Often you play a mercenary commander who doesn't follow orders and just does a job to get paid and is more concerned with his own skin than the needs of his employer.

So equating Battletech to a GI Private is a false equivalency.

Anyway it's fairly apparent you're just grasping at straws at this point. And given how blatantly you misrepresented the details of the Polish cavalry charge, all of your real-world examples are now suspect. And I don't really feel like spending 5 seconds on google to prove 'em wrong.

So have fun dude
ghostrider
06/05/16 06:07 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Gee. How many hurricanes does Norway, or Finland have?
Gee. Adapting to tactics and tailoring units to fights on the fly are 2 different things.
But has you have warships with transporters in space that instantaneously send you what ever you want, I can see why there is no reason you can't change equipment in the middle of a battle.
Most, if not all units have things like supplies. And no army has enough to pull a dozen new tanks out of it just because they are now going into a river.
And if your orders are to assault the town across the river immediately, that is what you do. But obviously doing what you were told is not a strong suit for you.

And it seems you are used to playing the leader of a unit, not just a pilot in it, because that is what a majority of mech warriors are. Simple soldiers operating the equipment. The people playing with you allow you to disobey orders and still be hired for more jobs is unrealistic. And for almost all of the rest of the players in battle tech, they would tell you this as well.
The leader you describe is a thug or pirate. Your unit would be destroyed or atleast have bounties on their heads after a few times you did this.


And not all information on the net is correct or complete. The polish knew the germans had armored vehicles in the area. They had orders to stop the convoy at all costs. They actually followed their orders. Why? That is what soldiers do.
Those that run away without orders or ignore orders to begin with are shot as cowards. No choice.

It seems all your play is limited to just the game on hand, not a real campaign where you get orders and have limited resources. The fact you think disobeying orders is something most units do. It is sad.
Retry
06/05/16 08:37 PM
68.103.19.152

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Gee. How many hurricanes does Norway, or Finland have?


Finland had ~10 during the war, but I don't see how that's relevant since neither country is a desert.

Quote:
Gee. Adapting to tactics and tailoring units to fights on the fly are 2 different things.


Only the smoke thing revolves exclusively on tactics (assuming they had smoke in the first place.), the rest were tailoring of equipment.

Quote:
But has you have warships with transporters in space that instantaneously send you what ever you want, I can see why there is no reason you can't change equipment in the middle of a battle.



You usually can't literally switch out equipment in the middle of a battle. However, reserves and reinforcements are a thing.

Quote:
Most, if not all units have things like supplies. And no army has enough to pull a dozen new tanks out of it just because they are now going into a river.



The U.S. currently have hundreds of spare M1 Abrams collecting dust thanks to Congress.

Nearly enough T-34s and T-34 based SPGs were produced to place have one on every square mile of Germany, if not for most of them being destroyed during WWII.

Quote:
And if your orders are to assault the town across the river immediately, that is what you do. But obviously doing what you were told is not a strong suit for you.



And you do. Unless you can't. If said town turns out to be guarded by a tank or ten, no one will blame your rifle platoon for failing or even evading conflict altogether.

If an army as you say doesn't have enough reserves to pull out "a dozen new tanks", then why in the hell would they waste what they DO have on a folly?

Quote:
They actually followed their orders. Why? That is what soldiers do.
Those that run away without orders or ignore orders to begin with are shot as cowards. No choice.




Wow, really? I hope you genuinely don't feel that way.

Even the Russians dropped the kill-the-runners part of the "Not One Step Back" order 227 within a year. It turns out that unconditionally killing your own men for walking in an unapproved direction is bad for morale.

Quote:
It seems all your play is limited to just the game on hand, not a real campaign where you get orders and have limited resources. The fact you think disobeying orders is something most units do. It is sad.



Keep in mind that there's a difference between
"I'm not going to follow orders because I don't feel like it."
and
"I'm not going to follow orders because there's a god damn tank in the way!"

The latter is just not going to happen either IRL or in-game sans a drafted militia unit. The former is extremely common, particularly in a lopsided battle, because being inflicted upon with pointless casualties is not a good thing.

COs and NCOs receive orders from the higher-ups, as the Generals are primarily acting in a strategic position. They have full discretion on how to carry them out. Soldiers under their command also have a form of discression, such as the "can't, there's a tank in the way" deal. In which case the NCO or CO has to phone in, "Hey, there's wrench in the plan and we need it dealt with soon". In which case the higher up can dispatch something on the strategic scale to the position for use at the tactical scale, such as an air strike.

Or, if he can't find a way to deal with it, he can scrap his current plan and find another strategy to achieve his goals.

OR, he could ignore the plight and tell his underlings to take it anyways, resulting in either the very reasonable disobeying of orders or the senseless and unproductive death of the rifle platoon, which leaves him right where he started minus one rifle platoon. But if he's lucky, he might become famous for the folly and the butt of many a political cartoonist for years to come, so I suppose that's one thing he could have going for him.

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

What's this about anyways?

Ah, BV 3.0

I really like the Offensive/Defensive BV idea. Certainly gets rid of the strange issue of the skyrocketing BV of a fisticuff 'Mech whose pilot happens to be a better shot with the nonexistent guns.


Edited by Retry (06/05/16 08:47 PM)
ghostrider
06/05/16 10:52 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The issue with the hurricanes was trying to show not every army has every piece of equipment known to mankind. The U.S., Russia, and maybe a few others do, but most don't.

Adapting tactics is using what you got to deal with your situation. Tailoring units means an artic fighting unit will not have shorts and suntan lotion. And this goes towards changing units in the middle of a campaign, as it was suggested.

The number of vehicles was trying to suggest them being in the U.S. means they can not be deployed in Iraq in an hour. Campaigns do not change out the assault mech used to attack a city, when the next scenario is a break out. Continuity is the issue here.

Sending in troops when you can't support them has been done quite often in wars. Most of the time they are diversionary forces. And I agree it is stupid, but more then a few dictators continue this process. Especially when the loyalty of the unit is in question.
How many troops were sent to slow the allies when germany realized it lost world war II? And that goes for Russia at the beginning of the war.

Ignoring orders has fine lines to them. I can't get in the city because there is a tank in the way, and the response comes back to 'use the anti tank weapons you got, now get to it' does come up. Also a single tank can not guard an entire city. Spreading out and finding cover would be the logical response to that. And since the army in question has everything known to man with each platoon, smoke grenades to cover the advance would be another way to continue the mission. But from the sounds of the scenario, they just didn't want to get their feet wet. Let's face it. Spec ops do this crap all the time.

Now remember this statement.
Often you play a mercenary commander who doesn't follow orders and just does a job to get paid and is more concerned with his own skin than the needs of his employer.
This sounds too much like, I might get my units dirty, so I won't do it. Give me my money and a new mission.

And you are right. This has drifted a long ways from needing to update bv. Sad thing is when it was suggested to change plains to open terrain, someone didn't like that idea. As plains are not always small patches of cover. Some are completely covered with trees and such. Forest are on mountains, but they are still mountains, not forest.
Akalabeth
06/06/16 03:21 AM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

And you are right. This has drifted a long ways from needing to update bv. Sad thing is when it was suggested to change plains to open terrain, someone didn't like that idea. As plains are not always small patches of cover. Some are completely covered with trees and such. Forest are on mountains, but they are still mountains, not forest.



So if by your logic a flat area fully covered in trees is called a plain.
And if a hilly or mountainous area fully covered in trees is called hills or mountains.
Then what is a forest? Because evidently it neither exists in flat or in hilly areas which rules out pretty much every type of terrain on the planet.
ghostrider
06/06/16 11:54 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Forest is land cover, not terrain.

Just like snow is not terrain. It is land cover.

Granted both can cause issues when trying to move thru them.

Otherwise things like cities would have to be considered terrain. As they can even be on lakes.

This also applies to woods, though most consider them one and the same as forests.
Jungles are another type of land cover as well.
Akalabeth
06/06/16 02:21 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Forest is land cover, not terrain.

Just like snow is not terrain. It is land cover.

Granted both can cause issues when trying to move thru them.

Otherwise things like cities would have to be considered terrain. As they can even be on lakes.

This also applies to woods, though most consider them one and the same as forests.
Jungles are another type of land cover as well.



Cities ARE considered terrain.

US Military acronym:
Quote:
MOUT - military operations in urban terrain; military operations on urbanized terrain



The US Military and NATO include all man-made and natural features in their study of terrain with respect to military operations:

Quote:
terrain analysis �The collection, analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of geographic information on the natural and man-made features of the terrain, combined with other relevant factors, to predict the effect of the terrain on military operations. (JP 2-03)



http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf

Battletech is a MILITARY game. Not a GEOLOGY game. Why in heck would you be trying to use geology terms in a combat-orientated boardgame.

Battletech: 31st Century Geology!
ghostrider
06/06/16 03:15 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
And according to that same military, everyone not in the military is considered collateral damage.
Along those same thought lines, anyone not a personal friend of the government is considered expendable.

For someone that believes they don't have to fulfill contracts, knowing military lingo seems amazing. And disobeying orders means you get paid and more work. And while here, how many people are in command of armies? Not every tank driver is in command. Not every captain or major is in command. They receive and follow orders. So before arguing military language get the basic facts straight.


And as for being a military game, it falls far short in real world issues. Nothing hits reliably outside of 2 kilometers?
I know few thought drones would become such a big part of the real world, but to take out an objective, instead of sending billions of dollars in military hardware, a simple 5 million dollar missile would do the job. But wait, there's more.
Remote sensors would be placed across all avenues to attack a base, and automatic fire would happen. Any area that needs to be guarded would NEVER have forests of terrain that could aid the attacker in any way.
Trenchs and ramparts would help defenders, and provide NO protection from the defenders once the invaders got that far. Mines would not be optional, but done and over with. Only fresh dirt would be new ones replacing the ones that blew up last attack.
It would be easier to hot drop on the target, then get thru defensive rings. Artillery would not be optional for the defenders, and they would have ALL potential hiding points mined if they left anything to run to.
And this crap about not making warships? Costs too high?
Build them without jump drives. System defense ships. Give the enemy NO change to land. Oh that's right. That defeats the purpose of using the expensive mechs to perform attacks. Hmmm. So much for a military game.
ghostrider
06/06/16 03:22 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Second. Not everyone playing is military or ex military. Trying to sound like it, doesn't mean someone is in it.
And since you brought it up, why isn't it listed in the terrains in all books, not just military?
This would also include terrain types for the game.

And for someone that says playing on a flat open terrain is stupid, I guess knowing geography is something anyone in command knows. So keep searching the internet for words even some military personnel doesn't know exists.

Which comes to another point. Learn the correct terminology. Geology is the study of minerals and rocks. Geography deals with surface features. Sheesh.
Akalabeth
06/06/16 03:22 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

So much for a military game.



Then go play ASL. Spare us all your bitching and your constant tirade of off-topic irrelevance.
No one cares.
Akalabeth
06/06/16 03:27 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Which comes to another point. Learn the correct terminology. Geology is the study of minerals and rocks. Geography deals with surface features. Sheesh.



The Land Cover Institute is a body of the United States Geological Survey
http://landcover.usgs.gov/whatislci.php

Did you think that erosion from deforestation wasn't a geological consideration?
ghostrider
06/06/16 03:54 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
And are we dealing with ground erosion in the game?
We are dealing with mountains, hills, valleys, rivers, trees and such. Except for special circumstances, you do not bring down the mountain side. You can burn down woods. But that deals with geography.
Spin it all you want, geology is not the combat part of the game.
This sounds like a tv tech can fix a nuclear reactor. It deals with electronics and some monitors, but that does not mean you can wire in the control rods or fix the main cables running out of it.
Another example would be saying all succulents are cacti, but that's wrong. All cacti are succulents, but there are other types as well.

Geography isn't concerned about erosion or sink holes until they open up, or move the edge of the water.
Knowing what is there, and knowing what terrain it is, can be related, but not the same.

But keep trying. I would suggest toning it back to a conversation, not an attempt to make others look stupid. It opens up holes to be shown there is alot ot be learned before saying others are wrong.
Akalabeth
06/06/16 04:28 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You're frankly dishonest and discussing in bad faith. When something you've said has been proven wrong, you consistently launch yourself on some absurd tangent.

Flagged and reported.
CrayModerator
06/06/16 05:32 PM
72.189.109.30

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Akalabeth writes:

Not sure if you're aware of this, but in battletech you don't play a soldier. You play a commander.



No...very often player characters are individual soldiers. If you're playing the board game without the roleplaying aspect, then you're not a commander or any other fictional player character, you're just a player.
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 | >> (show all)
Extra information
2 registered and 26 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: 19039


Contact Admins Sarna.net